Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Lessons from Libya: How Not to Intervene

Options
12467…11

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Sigh...

    This discussion is about Western interventions in such places, giving Libya as an example.

    So consider you're the guy who gets to decide if we intervene militarily. Analysis at the time pointed to two likely scenarios:

    We don't intervene. Gaddafi almost certainly crushes the revolt. Up to 10,000 est. are murdered in reprisals in Misrata and a further 30,000 est. imprisoned. Gaddafi remains in power.

    We intervene. Our intervention tips the scales and the revolt succeeds in toppling Gaddafi. 25,000 (actual) killed in the conflict and a further sizeable number of former loyalists, or people unlucky enough to be pinned as such, imprisoned. However, the conditions for democracy are not in place; deep tribal divisions, numerous uncontrolled armed militias, religious fundamentalists in the background and an interim government of limited authority to take over mean that any transition is pretty much doomed.

    What is, and was, predicted to follow was a fractured society, with a barely functioning government that eventually breaks down into anarchy. Further casualties, up to 500,000 est. over the next five years.

    To top it all off, the most likely conclusion is another autocrat (and/or Islamic fundamentalist group) taking over after a bloody and prolonged campaign. Full circle.

    That democracy was highly unlikely to succeed given the circumstances was already well established. That Gaddafi could ride it out if we didn't intervene was also well understood.

    So, you tell me; which path would you pick? There's going to be blood on your hands either way, so which would you prefer? Where does your path paved with good intentions lead? If you think that the alternative to dictatorship is always preferable, is it not a good idea to have an idea first of what that alternative is going to be? Because it might turn out that it won't be preferable after all or may even just be another dictatorship.

    And if the penny doesn't drop at this stage, I give up.

    Great, so you think they'd be better off under a dictatorship. Thanks


  • Options
    #93
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    AlekSmart wrote: »
    Actually,given it's geography and cultural mix,I'm begging to differ on that...I believe praise is due for managing to keep Libyan citizens some of the healthiest,best educated and self-reliant in the region.

    Complete nonsense. Avoiding famine is nothing to be proud of in this day and age. The key word here is region. Even with oil wealth they struggled with that. No need to defend a despot


  • Options
    #94
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    czx wrote: »
    Glad we have someone as grounded as you to set us straight.

    I don't know where you're pulling this middle-class Westerner thing from. Bordering on soapbox territory.
    Am I wrong that you're a middle-class, Westerner?

    And given your insistence that other nations people think 'just like us' despite people who've actually lived in these nations pointing out that they don't actually think 'just like us', not lead one to conclude that you're also ignorant of the reality of these nations?

    Tell us, how much do you actually know that leads you to be able to know how they're 'just like us'? How 'grounded' are you?
    czx wrote: »
    Great, so you think they'd be better off under a dictatorship. Thanks
    Thanks for the soapboxing. Care to respond to the question I posed now? What would you choose?


  • Options
    #95
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    czx wrote: »
    Complete nonsense. Avoiding famine is nothing to be proud of in this day and age. The key word here is region. Even with oil wealth they struggled with that. No need to defend a despot

    Yep,the region is indeed a "Key" word in it all.

    Gadaffi is dead and requires no defence from anybody.

    I consider his achievments as Libyan Leader/Dictator/Despot or whatever,at least equal his failings.

    I cannot see many other individuals who would have carried it off over such a long timeframe,and with such a broad positive effect on the living standards of Libyans,compared with the rest of "that region",even allowing for massacres,pogroms,and assorted other abuses allowed for under the "history rewritten by the victor" principle.

    As it currently stands in todays Libya,the ever increasing splinter groups of tribal and religious factions are now rapidly regressing to their deeply held historical roots,with terms such as Turkmen and Ottomen now once again coming into popular usage after almost a century's absence.

    Is this what the majority of ordinary Libyans wished to see as the outcome of their supposedly "Popular" revolution ?

    Since the killing of Gadaffi and the departure of the Western Media from the scene,our brief Western span of attention has been moved elsewhere,so whatever happens in Libya does'nt really concerns US any longer,sure did'nt we help them get rid of Gadaffi...what more do they want.....? :confused:


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Options
    #96
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Am I wrong that you're a middle-class, Westerner?

    And given your insistence that other nations people think 'just like us' despite people who've actually lived in these nations pointing out that they don't actually think 'just like us', not lead one to conclude that you're also ignorant of the reality of these nations?

    Tell us, how much do you actually know that leads you to be able to know how they're 'just like us'? How 'grounded' are you?

    Thanks for the soapboxing. Care to respond to the question I posed now? What would you choose?


    Yes, you are wrong.

    Everyone wants peace and freedom. You don't seem able to refute this. They are just like us.

    I would choose to get rid of the dictator, everytime.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    AlekSmart wrote: »

    I consider his achievments as Libyan Leader/Dictator/Despot or whatever,at least equal his failings.

    I cannot see many other individuals who would have carried it off over such a long timeframe,and with such a broad positive effect on the living standards of Libyans,compared with the rest of "that region",even allowing for massacres,pogroms,and assorted other abuses allowed for under the "history rewritten by the victor" principle.

    At least you're open about your admiration


  • Options
    #98
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,584 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    In a nutshell this supposed tyrant/demon/animal gave Libya some stability. Functioning stability, and a level of normalcy that seems distant today. Was the country perfect? No. It was a dictatorship, and that will lead many to want change, but democracy so far hasn't brought positive change. Maybe in 10-15 years? And, will this functioning democracy mean peace and stability? Democracy does not guarantee that. No two democracies are identical.


  • Options
    #99
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    walshb wrote: »
    No two democracies are identical.

    All dictatorships are the same though. No choice.

    Gaddafi's regime clearly wasn't stable enough to avoid a rebellion


  • Options
    #100
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,584 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    czx wrote: »
    All dictatorships are the same though. No choice.

    Gaddafi's regime clearly wasn't stable enough to avoid a rebellion

    No, they are not all the same. Some dictatorships result in a lot more misery than others. A lot more fighting and killing and poverty.

    And the rebellion clearly wasn't stable or strong enough to overthrow him without the intervention of war mongers!

    Edit: Yes, dictatorships the same as regards choice of rulers!


  • Options
    #101
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    czx wrote: »
    All dictatorships are the same though. No choice.

    Gaddafi's regime clearly wasn't stable enough to avoid a rebellion

    Hmmm, 40+ years would equate to at least some level of stability in my book,but perhaps it would take 1,000 year rules to satisfy some ?

    The Gadaffi regime did have several "heaves" against it over the decades,and overcame/suppressed these with varying levels of effectiveness...clearly these rebellions were never popular enough to gain wideapread support.

    The problem appears to be the pre-requisite to portray Gadaffi personally as the crazed loon,and his regime as totally vicious and unpopular,all of which are certainly easily achieved when viewed through the Western 3D spectacles.

    Quixotic is indeed an appropriate term to describe Gadaffi's time in power....http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-12532929


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    walshb wrote: »
    No, they are not all the same. Some dictatorships result in a lot more misery than others. A lot more fighting and killing and poverty.

    And the rebellion clearly wasn't stable or strong enough to overthrow him without the intervention of war mongers!

    Edit: Yes, dictatorships the same as regards choice of rulers!


    Power crazed egoists ruling for decades whilst living incredibly lavish lifestyles


  • Options
    #103
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    AlekSmart wrote: »
    Hmmm, 40+ years would equate to at least some level of stability in my book,but perhaps it would take 1,000 year rules to satisfy some ?

    The Gadaffi regime did have several "heaves" against it over the decades,and overcame/suppressed these with varying levels of effectiveness...clearly these rebellions were never popular enough to gain wideapread support.

    The problem appears to be the pre-requisite to portray Gadaffi personally as the crazed loon,and his regime as totally vicious and unpopular,all of which are certainly easily achieved when viewed through the Western 3D spectacles.

    Quixotic is indeed an appropriate term to describe Gadaffi's time in power....http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-12532929

    Suppressing heaves is generally indicative of inherent instability.

    40 years of an entire country under the sway of 1 man is enough


  • Options
    #104
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    czx wrote: »
    Power crazed egoists ruling for decades whilst living incredibly lavish lifestyles

    Whilst Gadaffi lived a lavish lifestyle sure enough,it was somewhat less than incredible.

    Comparable,I would sugggest,with our own CJ Haughey's in many ways.

    Find me a modern "Democratic" Society where significantly important people do not live to "differing" standards than the great-unwashed they purport to represent ?

    Oddly enough,I don't subscribe to any unquestioning admiration of Gadaffi,or his regime,BUT neither will I weigh in behind the U.N/NATO alternative which has been largely imposed upon whats left of Libyan society after the NATO Military accomplished their missions.


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Options
    #105
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    AlekSmart wrote: »
    Whilst Gadaffi lived a lavish lifestyle sure enough,it was somewhat less than incredible.

    Comparable,I would sugggest,with our own CJ Haughey's in many ways.

    Find me a modern "Democratic" Society where significantly important people do not live to "differing" standards than the great-unwashed they purport to represent ?

    Oddly enough,I don't subscribe to any unquestioning admiration of Gadaffi,or his regime,BUT neither will I weigh in behind the U.N/NATO alternative which has been largely imposed upon whats left of Libyan society after the NATO Military accomplished their missions.

    It was most certainly incredible.

    CJ Haughey was many things but he wasn't an unelected dictator for 40 years.

    Oddly enough? Why? Do you usually offer unwavering support to dictatorship? Or was Gaddafi a bit too crazy for you?


  • Options
    #106
    FURET
    Closed Accounts Posts: 685 ✭✭✭FURET


    czx wrote: »

    Everyone wants peace and freedom.
    Whatever about peace, when you say "freedom" I bet you have the rights of the individual in mind.

    Guess what. In many non-western societies, people do not value or want western-style freedom for the individual. This is because they value tradition and community more and see individualism as destructive and selfish.
    They are fully aware of the western paradigm and reject it as selfish. Vast numbers of Indians and assorted Arabs (for example) feel this way. They regard the trumpeting of the rights of the individual as anti-communitarian and selfish.

    Honor killings, grown Indians having to ask parental permission to do anything of consequence, religious law, FGM, the unempowerment of women, marrying cousins, intertwined family finances - these are all symptomatic of the communitarian way of perceiving society. It is a sociological paradigm that is as valid as the western paradigm of individual liberty, but it is a different paradigm, and those who hold it are psychologically different to the average westerner across a range of attitudes.

    A democracy of individualists will give rise to a government system that sees individual rights as paramount. A society of communitarians won't.


  • Options
    #107
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    czx wrote: »
    Yes, you are wrong.
    About what? That you're a middle-class Westerner? That you have little or no knowledge of the places we're discussing? Something else?

    Bit of a vague denial there. Go on; tell us you're working class - I can do with the laugh.
    Everyone wants peace and freedom. You don't seem able to refute this. They are just like us.
    I never said that other people don't want peace and freedom. I've not refuted it because they naturally want both. Thing is you often can't have both - so what do you choose when you can only have one?
    I would choose to get rid of the dictator, everytime.
    So you'd see an extra few hundred thousand innocents perish, to see another dictator eventually take over, just to remove his predecessor? Good thing the choice is not up to you then.
    czx wrote: »
    All dictatorships are the same though. No choice
    So Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge was the same as Gadaffi's Libya? LOL.


  • Options
    #108
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    FURET wrote: »
    Guess what. In many non-western societies, people do not value or want western-style freedom for the individual. This is because they value tradition and community more and see individualism as destructive and selfish.
    The thing I have found bizarre in this discussion is that some cannot get their heads around that their own value systems are not the only ones in existence or with popular support.

    Suggest that an Arab, or Indian, or Chinese, or sub-Saharan African, or whomever believes in or values different things and you'll get an incredulous stare as a response. You'll even get tabled racist, as I have been, for suggesting that other nations may not see things 'just like us'.

    With that kind of blind arrogance, it's hardly surprising we seem to make things worse nine times out of ten when we intervene.


  • Options
    #109
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    FURET wrote: »
    Guess what. In many non-western societies, people do not value or want western-style freedom for the individual. This is because they value tradition and community more and see individualism as destructive and selfish.
    They are fully aware of the western paradigm and reject it as selfish. Vast numbers of Indians and assorted Arabs (for example) feel this way. They regard the trumpeting of the rights of the individual as anti-communitarian and selfish.

    Honor killings, grown Indians having to ask parental permission to do anything of consequence, religious law, FGM, the unempowerment of women, marrying cousins, intertwined family finances - these are all symptomatic of the communitarian way of perceiving society. It is a sociological paradigm that is as valid as the western paradigm of individual liberty, but it is a different paradigm, and those who hold it are psychologically different to the average westerner across a range of attitudes.

    They reject the western paradigm or the dictator does? Funny how they would see democracy as selfish when many dictators live incredibly lavish lifestyles at their expense.

    Value tradition? A horrible excuse for some awful practises. This 'paradigm' is in no way valid. Moral relativism


  • Options
    #110
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    About what? That you're a middle-class Westerner? That you have little or no knowledge of the places we're discussing? Something else?

    Bit of a vague denial there. Go on; tell us you're working class - I can do with the laugh.

    I never said that other people don't want peace and freedom. I've not refuted it because they naturally want both. Thing is you often can't have both - so what do you choose when you can only have one?

    So you'd see an extra few hundred thousand innocents perish, to see another dictator eventually take over, just to remove his predecessor? Good thing the choice is not up to you then.

    So Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge was the same as Gadaffi's Libya? LOL.

    I don't see why it matters but I'm not middle class. Maybe your view of me would change if I was?

    You often can have both. Surprisingly most countries that do get to choose their leaders.

    You seem very sure of the future!


  • Options
    #111
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    The thing I have found bizarre in this discussion is that some cannot get their heads around that their own value systems are not the only ones in existence or with popular support.

    Suggest that an Arab, or Indian, or Chinese, or sub-Saharan African, or whomever believes in or values different things and you'll get an incredulous stare as a response. You'll even get tabled racist, as I have been, for suggesting that other nations may not see things 'just like us'.

    With that kind of blind arrogance, it's hardly surprising we seem to make things worse nine times out of ten when we intervene.

    I'm fully aware of other value systems. However claiming that systems based on archaic traditions that bring misery to people are valid is ridiculous.

    What I can't get my head around is how dictatorships are explained away by claiming the people want to be ruled by someone they didn't get the choose.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    czx wrote: »
    I'm fully aware of other value systems. However claiming that systems based on archaic traditions that bring misery to people are valid is ridiculous.

    Crikey,this takes us mightly close to Missionaries doing the work of God in darkest Africa....

    These "archaic traditions" you see as bringing misery to peoples lives also in many cases provide the bedrock upon which those societies function.

    Are you suggesting that we (Western Individualists) should seek to strike at such "archaic traditions" wherever we come across them in order to "Free" people who are ignorant of our mores,and quite content with that ignorance ?

    Gadaffi the elder's greatest miscalculation was to hang on to the reins for too long.....He prevaricated over the issue of succession,keeping the two sibling contenders,Mutassim and Saif-al-Islam in the wings,watching each other.

    There is little doubt in my mind,but Saif-al Islam was (perhaps still is) a good bet to succeed as Libyan leader,however it also appears that Mutassim (a rather more sulphurous individual) was tending to sway the Da's thinking in the mid 2000's.

    Interestingly enough,after a brief initial hoo-hah regarding Gadaffi's fantabulous personal wealth,we have had almost no further news on where it is/was,or whether it ever existed at all...?

    Obviously Gadaffi did'nt draw the Libyan equivalent of our minimum wage,but suggestions of his amassing incredible wealth whilst his people starved ain't the case either

    Anyway,stability in the country is restored,the petrodollar still rules,and they'll not be launching any oul communications satellites anytime soon,so all is good...yes ??


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Options
    #113
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    czx wrote: »
    They reject the western paradigm or the dictator does?
    Oh, so really they want to have Western values, but it's the dictators who are forcing them otherwise... now I've heard everything.
    czx wrote: »
    I don't see why it matters but I'm not middle class. Maybe your view of me would change if I was?
    You're middle class. Maybe your ancestors were not, but you are. Welcome to the post-WWII West.

    If you prefer to see yourself as something else, that's your business.
    You often can have both. Surprisingly most countries that do get to choose their leaders.
    It's arguable that most countries do. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, out of 167 countries, 51 (37.1% of the World population) are classified as operating under 'authoritarian regimes'. Include the 'hybrid regimes' where there is some freedom, but you still don't get to choose your leaders, and that number becomes 88 (51.5% of the World population) - a majority in both terms of countries and population.

    In fact, only 25 countries, out of that 167, and representing only 11.3% of the World population are classified as 'fully democratic'. Most other indexes on this topic correlate that the vast majority of the world is in at best deeply flawed democracies.

    Maybe you should check your facts first before making such claims in future.
    You seem very sure of the future!
    The future is actually very predictable much of the time if you're willing to look at the facts objectively.
    czx wrote: »
    I'm fully aware of other value systems. However claiming that systems based on archaic traditions that bring misery to people are valid is ridiculous.
    Sure, but if you actually read what I've written, I've never said that. Please try to understand what I'm actually saying - or at least read it.

    I've made no moral judgement on any value system, be it Western or otherwise. I've simply pointed out that there are other value systems and to presume that people will think and behave 'just like us' is, for lack of a better word, dumb.

    This is why intervention will so often fail to make any difference in the long run; it's based upon the false premise, that once we help a people unshackle themselves from an autocrat they will naturally behave as we would, install a Western-style democracy and live happily ever after.

    When instead they end up electing the Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas, presuming they get as far as even an election, we're somehow perplexed at how once given the choice they go off and don't behave like us and end up back at square one in our 'morally superior' eyes. Go figure.
    What I can't get my head around is how dictatorships are explained away by claiming the people want to be ruled by someone they didn't get the choose.
    No, you can't get your head around it. Have you considered that the flaw is with you?


  • Options
    #114
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,584 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Looks to be a very interesting documentary on Gadaffi on BBC4 tonight at 2205 hrs. Storyville: Life of Mad Dog!


  • Options
    #115
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    walshb wrote: »
    Looks to be a very interesting documentary on Gadaffi on BBC4 tonight at 2205 hrs. Storyville: Life of Mad Dog!

    Some of it's available online also...some long-forgotten names also emerging on it....

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1naqx9_storyville-2013-2014-mad-dog-17-gaddafi-s-secret-world-part-1_creation


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Options
    #116
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Oh, so really they want to have Western values, but it's the dictators who are forcing them otherwise... now I've heard everything.

    You're middle class. Maybe your ancestors were not, but you are. Welcome to the post-WWII West.

    If you prefer to see yourself as something else, that's your business.

    It's arguable that most countries do. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, out of 167 countries, 51 (37.1% of the World population) are classified as operating under 'authoritarian regimes'. Include the 'hybrid regimes' where there is some freedom, but you still don't get to choose your leaders, and that number becomes 88 (51.5% of the World population) - a majority in both terms of countries and population.

    In fact, only 25 countries, out of that 167, and representing only 11.3% of the World population are classified as 'fully democratic'. Most other indexes on this topic correlate that the vast majority of the world is in at best deeply flawed democracies.

    Maybe you should check your facts first before making such claims in future.

    The future is actually very predictable much of the time if you're willing to look at the facts objectively.

    Sure, but if you actually read what I've written, I've never said that. Please try to understand what I'm actually saying - or at least read it.

    I've made no moral judgement on any value system, be it Western or otherwise. I've simply pointed out that there are other value systems and to presume that people will think and behave 'just like us' is, for lack of a better word, dumb.

    This is why intervention will so often fail to make any difference in the long run; it's based upon the false premise, that once we help a people unshackle themselves from an autocrat they will naturally behave as we would, install a Western-style democracy and live happily ever after.

    When instead they end up electing the Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas, presuming they get as far as even an election, we're somehow perplexed at how once given the choice they go off and don't behave like us and end up back at square one in our 'morally superior' eyes. Go figure.

    No, you can't get your head around it. Have you considered that the flaw is with you?


    I'm not middle class! You know nothing about me or my ancestors. You seem desperate to assign me to a box, just like you do for the Arab world.

    Most of your ensuing rant is based on misquoting what I have said and your opinion of the future.


  • Options
    #117
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    AlekSmart wrote: »
    Crikey,this takes us mightly close to Missionaries doing the work of God in darkest Africa....

    These "archaic traditions" you see as bringing misery to peoples lives also in many cases provide the bedrock upon which those societies function.

    Are you suggesting that we (Western Individualists) should seek to strike at such "archaic traditions" wherever we come across them in order to "Free" people who are ignorant of our mores,and quite content with that ignorance ?

    I really don't know how the persecution of homosexuals or FGM can form the bedrock of anything other than stone-age thinking. There's no excuse for these acts.


  • Options
    #118
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    czx wrote: »
    I'm not middle class! You know nothing about me or my ancestors. You seem desperate to assign me to a box, just like you do for the Arab world.
    If the box fits... but seriously, the middle class was more about your attitude to the subject, that without knowing much about another culture you'd rather act first and consider the consequences later, especially as you don't have to suffer any of them from your comfortable Western home.

    As to whether you are or not, I simply pointed out that historically the middle class has essentially swallowed up all but the tiniest fraction of our population as a result of wealth redistribution and improving economic conditions since the end of World War II. 99% of the time if someone considers them upper or working class nowadays it's little more than an affectation.

    But if it upsets you so much, to be considered so, I apologise and withdraw the accusation, without prejudice, and in the interests of civil discourse.

    As for assigning the Arabs to a box, you're actually the only one who's done that. For example, first you claim:
    czx wrote: »
    They are human just like us, therefore they desire the same things as us.
    And later you change your mind and finally admit:
    czx wrote: »
    I'm fully aware of other value systems.
    So which is it? Do they desire the same things as us or do their differing value system mean they don't? You seem rather confused on this point.
    Most of your ensuing rant is based on misquoting what I have said and your opinion of the future.
    Oh, that's a bit desperate. How did I misquote "surprisingly most countries that do get to choose their leaders", which turned out to be a highly questionable claim on your part, if not just simply false?

    I'm afraid that only one of us is ranting at this stage and it's not the one who's actually taking the time to read and respond to points made instead of ignoring the entire post they've just block quoted.
    czx wrote: »
    I really don't know how the persecution of homosexuals or FGM can form the bedrock of anything other than stone-age thinking. There's no excuse for these acts.
    You know, there's probably an imam somewhere asking the same question about our tolerance for sexual promiscuity, usury and individualism.

    Maybe down deep, in a perverse way, you are right and we do all think alike - at least in terms of only seeing things in black and white with absolute certainty, regardless of the facts, as you and Hmmm have demonstrated.

    And please don't turn round and interpret this answer as some form of support for FGM or whatever; it's not. I've had enough of your strawmen at this stage.


  • Options
    #119
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    If the box fits... but seriously, the middle class was more about your attitude to the subject, that without knowing much about another culture you'd rather act first and consider the consequences later, especially as you don't have to suffer any of them from your comfortable Western home.

    As to whether you are or not, I simply pointed out that historically the middle class has essentially swallowed up all but the tiniest fraction of our population as a result of wealth redistribution and improving economic conditions since the end of World War II. 99% of the time if someone considers them upper or working class nowadays it's little more than an affectation.

    But if it upsets you so much, to be considered so, I apologise and withdraw the accusation, without prejudice, and in the interests of civil discourse.

    As for assigning the Arabs to a box, you're actually the only one who's done that. For example, first you claim:

    And later you change your mind and finally admit:

    So which is it? Do they desire the same things as us or do their differing value system mean they don't? You seem rather confused on this point.

    Oh, that's a bit desperate. How did I misquote "surprisingly most countries that do get to choose their leaders", which turned out to be a highly questionable claim on your part, if not just simply false?

    I'm afraid that only one of us is ranting at this stage and it's not the one who's actually taking the time to read and respond to points made instead of ignoring the entire post they've just block quoted.

    You know, there's probably an imam somewhere asking the same question about our tolerance for sexual promiscuity, usury and individualism.

    Maybe down deep, in a perverse way, you are right and we do all think alike - at least in terms of only seeing things in black and white with absolute certainty, regardless of the facts, as you and Hmmm have demonstrated.

    And please don't turn round and interpret this answer as some form of support for FGM or whatever; it's not. I've had enough of your strawmen at this stage.
    Of course you have!


  • Options
    #120
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    czx wrote: »
    Of course you have!
    Couldn't think of anything more constructive to say after getting home from a night on the town?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    With Libya's situation s remaining hughly unstable it is interesting to see the emergence of some Irish "Green Army" members at the top of the new ruling order.

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/dublin-dad-elected-as-mayor-of-tripoli-in-libya-30492455.html

    At least some of the scale of the political confusion and mayhem imposed upon Libya by the U.N.NATO intervention of 2011 can be gleaned from this single article...

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/08/08/uk-libya-security-idUKKBN0G815820140808

    To me,the articles simply underline the accuracy of the Thread Title....


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



Advertisement