Death for Gaddafi, Kisses for Karimov

cyberhog

Obama has recently decided that it's time to waive human rights restrictions on military aid to the dictatorship in Uzbekistan even though a new report from Human Rights Watch finds that torture remains widespread and systematic. The reason Obama is cosying up to the Uzbek dictator is because the US needs a reliable land route to supply their adventure in Afghanistan now that U.S.-Pakistani relations are on the rocks.

So for those of you who think the US is truly concerned about human rights abuses in countries run by dictators you are sadly mistaken. The truth is, it doesn't matter to the US if you are brutal dictator with a penchant for torture and massacre as long as you have something the Americans want and are willing to play ball then you can literally boil people alive and the US will still be your friend.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/uzbek-rights-violations-worsening-group-says/2011/12/12/gIQAvnuIqO_blog.html

meglome

Did the US kill Gaddafi?

I'm trying to understand the link between Death for Gaddafi and Kisses for Karimov

AlekSmart

One will struggle to find Uncle Sam's fingerprints on the Gadaffi coroner's report,however I think it's safe enough to say that the same Uncle (and Aunty) Sam were lurking somewhere closeby....

Auntie Hilary would appear to give off that vibe anyway....

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20123348-503544.html

meglome

AlekSmart wrote: »

One will struggle to find Uncle Sam's fingerprints on the Gadaffi coroner's report,however I think it's safe enough to say that the same Uncle (and Aunty) Sam were lurking somewhere closeby....

Auntie Hilary would appear to give off that vibe anyway....

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20123348-503544.html

So they didn't kill Gadaffi, which means there is no link.

cyberhog

meglome wrote: »

Did the US kill Gaddafi?

The CIA had a hand in his death.

it was reportedly a Hellfire missile fired by a Predator drone plane controlled by the CIA - in conjunction with an attack by a French fighter jet - that destroyed the convoy of cars Gaddafi and his entourage used to try to escape the siege of Sirte, driving him into the famous drainage pipe and into the hands of his tormentors and executioners.

meglome wrote: »

I'm trying to understand the link between Death for Gaddafi and Kisses for Karimov

The US has long history of double standards in its dealings with dictatorships. We are now on the Uzbek-Obama edition.

....

The dichotomous US approaches to Gaddafi and Karimov - kill one, pay millions to the other - were pointed out in an eerily-prescient Uznews.net piece published on February 22, 2011, at the commencement of the NATO air campaign in Libya.

"The regime of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya is using the whole power of its armed forces, including artillery, air forces and foreign mercenaries, to crush the ongoing protests in the country; Uzbek President Islam Karimov used similar tactics in Andijan in 2005," reported Uznews. "The developments in Libya are reminiscent of the government crushing of a rally in Andijan on 13 May 2005. Gaddafi, like Islam Karimov, is not allowing foreign journalists into the country, blocking the internet and telecommunications and calling protesters 'terrorists'. He appeared on national television yesterday and called foreign news channels 'dogs'. Like Karimov, he is not considering negotiations as an option and is not willing to fulfill even parts of demands of protesters; he is offering a bloodbath instead … Like in Libya now, according to Uzbek opposition leaders, Uzbek authorities also hired foreign mercenaries: one of them was Tajik Colonel Makhmud Khudoyberganov, who was living in Uzbekistan after a failed coup d’état in Tajikistan in 1998."

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/10/2011102775111437925.html

Ellis Dee

What the OP fails to understand is that there are two kinds of obnoxious, cruel tinpot dictators - those who do what the U卐A wants and those who don't.;)

The former are good, the latter bad. How hard is that to understand?:):)

meglome

cyberhog wrote: »

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/10/2011102775111437925.html

I hate to be a broken record here but they didn't kill him.

Ellis Dee wrote: »

What the OP fails to understand is that there are two kinds of obnoxious, cruel tinpot dictators - those who do what the U卐A wants and those who don't.;)

The former are good, the latter bad. How hard is that to understand?:):)

I get that many countries have 'friends' or often it's just their enemy's enemy rather than a friend. Since the US didn't kill Gadaffi the title doesn't make sense. Also I understand that some people and media have a side, a side which they stick to no matter what. When most of us know there is plenty of blame to go around.

Chuck Stone

Ah shure what's new?








Grave for Gadaffi; Kisses for Kirmov would have sounded better.

Jaafa

Actually, it was the french who bombed his convoy, allowing the 'rebels' to get at him, as he tried to flee.

MungBean

meglome wrote: »

I hate to be a broken record here but they didn't kill him.

Perhaps if you point out where the OP said "They killed him" your argument might gain some ground.

They aided in the events that led to his death, including interfering in a civil war and providing military support for those who killed him.

They did all that apparently to "protect civilians" from a brutal dictator. But the OP is arguing that their dealings with Karimov show that its not concern for foreign citizens that powers the US foreign policy.

Jonny7

I think the OP is a little confused.

For instance, Russia "supports" Syria, South Korea "supports" North Korea, and of course US and UK "supported" Gaddafi prior to the recent conflict. I'm not a fan of appeasement but I understand that sometimes, esp. in the case of SKorea and NKorea, diplomatic links, business, etc has to be done, relatively speaking.

However I believe the point here is condemnation. There's simply not enough of it from official sources, the US, the UN, EU, etc.

Yes there have been some efforts made, but the Uzbek president is practically as bad as Mugabe and we rarely hear about it.

gizmo555

Jonny7 wrote: »

. . . the Uzbek president is practically as bad as Mugabe and we rarely hear about it.

He's probably worse, if anything.

The government of Uzbekistan under the regime of Islam Karimov have boiled a number of political dissidents. The [former] British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, explains in his memoir "Murder in Samarkand" that he obtained photos of the corpse of Muzafar Avazov and sent them to a forensic pathologist in Britain, who concluded that the visible injuries were consistent with a living person having been immersed in boiling water.

Bottle_of_Smoke

meglome wrote: »

I hate to be a broken record here but they didn't kill him.



I get that many countries have 'friends' or often it's just their enemy's enemy rather than a friend. Since the US didn't kill Gadaffi the title doesn't make sense. Also I understand that some people and media have a side, a side which they stick to no matter what. When most of us know there is plenty of blame to go around.

Will you grow up like. Without NATO involvement Gaddafi would still be alive and in control. They assisted because they wanted rid of him.

I don't see the need for such pedantry about the title, its perfectly clear what the thread is about.

AlekSmart

meglome wrote: »

I hate to be a broken record here but they didn't kill him.

I get that many countries have 'friends' or often it's just their enemy's enemy rather than a friend. Since the US didn't kill Gadaffi the title doesn't make sense. Also I understand that some people and media have a side, a side which they stick to no matter what. When most of us know there is plenty of blame to go around.

The most apposite quote for me in that article is the sting in the tail...

During Hillary's trip to Tashkent last week, she defended the US policy of engagement. "I can assure you that we have raised all of the human rights issues in Uzbekistan and elsewhere," she said in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, another country with a poor human rights record. "But we have also learned over the years that after a while, after you've made your strong objections, if you have no contact, you have no influence."

Hillary didn't say why contact and influence were good for Karimov's Uzbekistan, but not Gaddafi's Libya.

Simplistic I'm sure many will chorus,but nonetheless relevant ?

meglome

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Will you grow up like. Without NATO involvement Gaddafi would still be alive and in control. They assisted because they wanted rid of him.

Sure that might well be, I have no idea who you're arguing with though as I didn't say otherwise.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I don't see the need for such pedantry about the title, its perfectly clear what the thread is about.

The OP got the title from Aljazeera here

The dichotomous US approaches to Gaddafi and Karimov - kill one, pay millions to the other...

The thing is the US didn't kill Gadaffi, his own people killed him and no amount of revisionism or spin will change that.

As I said above many countries have 'friends' that are not particularly great. The US isn't unique in this. I don't have to like it but that's the way it is. The OP and Aljazeera tend to have a view that US=bad, when it's not that simple. Many countries are capable of doing bad things at different times or associating with bad people when they think it's in their national interest. What I'm taking issue with is if the US or Israel can be shoehorned into some responsibility then the usual suspects will go off on one.

cyberhog

Jaafa wrote: »

Actually, it was the french who bombed his convoy, allowing the 'rebels' to get at him, as he tried to flee.

Let's give credit where credit is due. The convoy was initially attacked by a US drone.

Col Muammar Gaddafi’s convoy was bombed by an American Predator drone and then attacked by French jets before the deposed dictator was killed by rebel fighters, defence sources disclosed.

...

The Predator drone, flown out of Sicily and controlled via satellite from a base outside Las Vegas, struck the convoy with a number of Hellfire anti-tank missiles. Moments later French jets, most likely Rafales, swept in, targeting the vehicles with 500lb Paveway bombs or highly accurate £600,000 AASM munitions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8839964/Col-Gaddafi-killed-convoy-bombed-by-drone-flown-by-pilot-in-Las-Vegas.html

So while meglome will insist the US had nothing to do with Gaddafi's demise it's very clear to an honest observer that American assets started the countdown to the final hours of Gaddafi’s life.

meglome

cyberhog wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8839964/Col-Gaddafi-killed-convoy-bombed-by-drone-flown-by-pilot-in-Las-Vegas.html

So while meglome will insist the US had nothing to do with Gaddafi's demise it's very clear to an honest observer that American assets started the countdown to the final hours of Gaddafi’s life.

Will you point out where I said the US had nothing to do with Gaddafi's demise? Of course that's fine word play above, you should be proud. Let's look at it this way... someone's car was hit by an American car, then hit worse by a French car... going on foot after the crashes he was eaten by a Libyan bear. You're contention is that the first crash killed him, when no amount of word play will make that true.

MungBean

meglome wrote: »

Will you point out where I said the US had nothing to do with Gaddafi's demise? Of course that's fine word play above, you should be proud. Let's look at it this way... someone's car was hit by an American car, then hit worse by a French car... going on foot after the crashes he was eaten by a Libyan bear. You're contention is that the first crash killed him, when no amount of word play will make that true.

Your going in circles. Your entire argument is based on you repeatedly stating that the OP says the US killed Gaddafi when they did no such thing.

You wont argue they had nothing to do with it, because you know they did.

So whats your point other than being pedantic about the use of the words "Death for" and the way it can be interpreted ?

Will you point out where I said the US had nothing to do with Gaddafi's demise?

Either start arguing that the US were not involved in any way so cannot bear any responsibility or concede the fact they were involved in the death and do bear some responsibility. Theres no middle ground, either they were involved or they were not. Nobody is trying to shoehorn them into taking responsibility, they did that themselves by backing their preferred side in a civil war in another nation, providing them with arms and in the "demise" of Gaddafi attacked and disabled his convoy putting him a position to be shot and killed by the rebels they backed.

Whether it was orchestrated with the intention of killing him doesnt matter. Gaddafi died and the US had a hand in that death.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Meg - it was pretty clear to me what was meant by the title.

The US intervened which led to Gaddafi's downfall and they claimed it was because he was a tyrant to his people.

Whereas now they're being nice to a guy who is clearly a million times worse than Gaddafi in that regard.

I am well aware it was Libyans who physically murdered Gaddafi.

Jonny7

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

The US intervened which led to Gaddafi's downfall and they claimed it was because he was a tyrant to his people.

The US and NATO intervened because of a UN mandate. Which was up to the member states to veto if they saw fit. The Arab league also supported action.

Gaddafi was killing his own people and threatening to kill many more. Subsequent use of mercenaries and grad launchers on the populace wasn't exactly an empty threat. There's been a certain amount of attempted revisionism concerning this subject already on the boards.

Whereas now they're being nice to a guy who is clearly a million times worse than Gaddafi in that regard.

Strange exaggerated statement.

AlekSmart

Jonny7 wrote: »

The US and NATO intervened because of a UN mandate. Which was up to the member states to veto if they saw fit. The Arab league also supported action.

Gaddafi was killing his own people and threatening to kill many more. Subsequent use of mercenaries and grad launchers on the populace wasn't exactly an empty threat. There's been a certain amount of attempted revisionism concerning this subject already on the boards.

Strange exaggerated statement.

It's interesting to note the numbers of people who have suddenly developed a Jesuitical ability to mentally reserve their positions regarding Libya vis a vis Syria.

Gadaffi's bloodcurdling threrats were very specifically directed at the Rebel Factions and their supporters which were then deploying against the Government.

He most assuredly was'nt threatening his own considerable support base around the country...You were either for him or against him..if you were in the second group,then he was,for sure,threatening serious reporcussions on you.

Even now,in retrospect,we have no supporting evidence that Libyan Government forces carried out large scale attacks on Civilians in those early weeks....Rebel forces and strongholds,yes...indiscriminate attacks..not quite.

As for the Karimov-Gadaffi comparison,I'm of the opinion it's a reasonably accurate one,and one which I suspect could include Mr Al-Assad too.

meglome

MungBean wrote: »

Your going in circles. Your entire argument is based on you repeatedly stating that the OP says the US killed Gaddafi when they did no such thing.

You wont argue they had nothing to do with it, because you know they did.

So whats your point other than being pedantic about the use of the words "Death for" and the way it can be interpreted ?

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Meg - it was pretty clear to me what was meant by the title.

I am well aware it was Libyans who physically murdered Gaddafi.

The OP himself stated where he got the piece from... Aljazeera.

The dichotomous US approaches to Gaddafi and Karimov - kill one, pay millions to the other - were pointed out in an eerily-prescient Uznews.net piece published on February 22, 2011, at the commencement of the NATO air campaign in Libya.

The thing is it's not prescient is it, his own people killed him. Yes they were helped by the Americans, French, Danish, British and some Arab states. He was enemy No.1 to the US for years and they didn't manage to kill him.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

The US intervened which led to Gaddafi's downfall and they claimed it was because he was a tyrant to his people.

Whereas now they're being nice to a guy who is clearly a million times worse than Gaddafi in that regard.

So are you saying that Gadaffi wasn't a tyrant? His own people seemed pretty happy to see him dead. Was Saddam Hussein a poor misunderstood fella too?

How do you decide that Karimov is a million times worse than Gadaffi?

I suppose I am being pedantic but I'm a bit sick of hearing how bad the US or Israel is as if they are only only places on earth that do anything bad to anyone. Doesn't matter what the story is as long as you can shoehorn in US or Israeli involvement.

cyberhog

@Meglome Obama is cosying up to one of the world's most infamous torturers and you're whining about people criticising the US? You need to get your head out of your …ummm, sorry… you need to start thinking objectively instead of spamming the thread with your knee jerk cliches'.

Bottle_of_Smoke

meglome wrote: »

The OP himself stated where he got the piece from... Aljazeera.



The thing is it's not prescient is it, his own people killed him. Yes they were helped by the Americans, French, Danish, British and some Arab states. He was enemy No.1 to the US for years and they didn't manage to kill him.

Thing's are often put that way in headlines and people don't get pedantic about it.

Like the american's didn't literally kill him they're also not literally putting the money in Karimov's personal bank account. Yet you didn't complain about that part of the of the headline

So are you saying that Gadaffi wasn't a tyrant? His own people seemed pretty happy to see him dead. Was Saddam Hussein a poor misunderstood fella too?

Relatively speaking not at all. Libya was miles ahead of other Arab and African nations for literacy/education and standard of living. Compare how he re-distributed the wealth of the nation to that of another oil rich african country like nigeria.

I don't think we'll know what Libyans really thought about Gaddafi. One things for sure the green resistance lasted quite a while for a nation dealing with nato missile assaults.

The media were caught out showing clips of indian crowds which were supposedly people celebrating the libyan rebels. Gaddafi's statements were misinterpreted to look like he wanted to kill civillians. Then there were the ridiculous stories of Gaddafi ordering truckloads of viagra so his soldiers could rape people as a weapon. The whole thing stunk to high heavens. Western powers (using that term intentionally - it wasn't just america) wanted rid and that was that.

The rebels themselves seemed like vicious lunatics given the massacres carried out.

I think this a decent balanced take on him. He says Gaddafi should have stood down early but gives a fair appraisal I think.

http://thebrokenelbow.com/2011/10/21/so-farewell-muammar-al-gaddafi/

Jonny7

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Relatively speaking not at all. Libya was miles ahead of other Arab and African nations for literacy/education and standard of living. Compare how he re-distributed the wealth of the nation to that of another oil rich african country like nigeria.

A relatively good education system does not excuse four decades of an oppression, disappearances, torture, imprisonments and extreme violence against protests.

I don't think we'll know what Libyans really thought about Gaddafi.

It's very clear what they think about him, now that they actually have the freedom to say it and express it.

One things for sure the green resistance lasted quite a while for a nation dealing with nato missile assaults.

No, Gaddafi lasted because he had a very strong internal security apparatus, control of state media, heavily armed paramilitary units, tanks, grad launchers, even mercenaries. NATO could only do so much from the air. The rebels were a ragtag bunch of ex or defected military, blue-collar, white-collar, students, even extremists, etc mainly untrained and uncoordinated, lacking skills and equipment, often losing fights with the much better trained Gaddafi forces.

The media were caught out showing clips of indian crowds which were supposedly people celebrating the libyan rebels.

One channel, BBC morning TV, showed Indian protests instead of anti-Gaddafi protests by mistake (both happening at the same time, similar flags)

Gaddafi's statements were misinterpreted to look like he wanted to kill civillians.

I can link them for you, correctly translated by Arab media.

Then there were the ridiculous stories of Gaddafi ordering truckloads of viagra so his soldiers could rape people as a weapon.

Rape is a weapon that has often been used in conflict esp. in Africa. This story was based on claims from rebels and the ICC. Again, it was a claim, like the fact that Saif was captured the first night the rebels took Tripoli, which later turned out to be false.

Likewise the media in general also reported the stories being broadcast by Libya's state controlled TV station for the purpose of objectivity (even though they were often false or exaggerated stories)

The whole thing stunk to high heavens. Western powers (using that term intentionally - it wasn't just america) wanted rid and that was that.

I am not sure what stunk, Gaddafi mobilised his army to fight his own people because he didn't want to leave power.

The UN, Arab League and most of the known world condemned the worsening situation and called on Gaddafi to leave.

The rebels themselves seemed like vicious lunatics given the massacres carried out.

If you are going to take massacres into account, take them all into account please, selective outrage is not a good trait.

I think this a decent balanced take on him. He says Gaddafi should have stood down early but gives a fair appraisal I think.

http://thebrokenelbow.com/2011/10/21/so-farewell-muammar-al-gaddafi/

No idea who is he but he doesn't do himself any favors calling someone a "dumb-ass idiot" on the front page of his blog.

meglome

cyberhog wrote: »

@Meglome Obama is cosying up to one of the world's most infamous torturers and you're whining about people criticising the US? You need to get your head out of your …ummm, sorry… you need to start thinking objectively instead of spamming the thread with your knee jerk cliches'.

I'm complaining that people are so caught up in their hatred of the US that they will try any angle to blame them for almost anything.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Thing's are often put that way in headlines and people don't get pedantic about it.

Like the american's didn't literally kill him they're also not literally putting the money in Karimov's personal bank account. Yet you didn't complain about that part of the of the headline

The problem I have is there are literally millions of stories out there about how bad the Americans and the Israelis are. Some are indeed completely true but they are lost in a sea of exaggeration, bull and conspiracy theories. What this does is completely dilute the message that some of the things they are actually doing are really unacceptable.

You get many people who will argue, for example, that Iran=good, US=bad or Gadaffi=Good, Obama=Bad. When clearly some of those statements are true some of the time but they are far from true all of the time. Iran and Gadaffi are/were well capable of doing bad things. I would argue that this attitude of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' is exactly what you are criticising the US for on many occasions. I mean basically supporting dictators just because they happened to be attacked by a country you don't like is some serious selective outrage.


Other than that Jonny7 said pretty much what I was going to say so no point repeating it.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Jonny7 wrote: »

A relatively good education system does not excuse four decades of an oppression, disappearances, torture, imprisonments and extreme violence against protests.

And health, and standard of living. this is africa like. though most of the above are carried out by western governments when faced with threats. All of them except disappearances have happened in recent history in Northern Ireland

It's very clear what they think about him, now that they actually have the freedom to say it and express it.

Give it a few years and after the NTC give their oil to privatised firms and the country's in debt (was zero under gaddafi) we'll see what they think then. Anyway this is all getting off topic. Even if Gaddafi was equally as bad as Karimov(clearly not though) the US need to admit hypocrisy of their actions on it.

No, Gaddafi lasted because he had a very strong internal security apparatus, control of state media, heavily armed paramilitary units, tanks, grad launchers, even mercenaries. NATO could only do so much from the air. The rebels were a ragtag bunch of ex or defected military, blue-collar, white-collar, students, even extremists, etc mainly untrained and uncoordinated, lacking skills and equipment, often losing fights with the much better trained Gaddafi forces.



One channel, BBC morning TV, showed Indian protests instead of anti-Gaddafi protests by mistake (both happening at the same time, similar flags)



I can link them for you, correctly translated by Arab media.



Rape is a weapon that has often been used in conflict esp. in Africa. This story was based on claims from rebels and the ICC. Again, it was a claim, like the fact that Saif was captured the first night the rebels took Tripoli, which later turned out to be false.

Likewise the media in general also reported the stories being broadcast by Libya's state controlled TV station for the purpose of objectivity (even though they were often false or exaggerated stories)

The stories were reported very differently. The media for example were also using the pre-gaddafi flag long before even western nations recognised the rebels as the legitimate government. Its clear what side they were on from the start. Amnesty international said this, see quote below

I read the Gaddafi quotes too, seems to me he was talking about the rebels but it was made out to be all civillians.

I am not sure what stunk, Gaddafi mobilised his army to fight his own people because he didn't want to leave power.

The UN, Arab League and most of the known world condemned the worsening situation and called on Gaddafi to leave.

If you are going to take massacres into account, take them all into account please, selective outrage is not a good trait.

The ones by the rebels seem to have been a lot worse. Its not surprising they went for citizens as like you said they weren't professional.

In June 2011, an investigation carried out by Amnesty International found that many of the allegations against Gaddafi and the Libyan state turned out to either be false or lack any credible evidence, noting that rebels appeared to have knowingly made false claims or manufactured evidence. According to the Amnesty investigation, the number of casualties was heavily exaggerated, some of the protesters may have been armed, "there is no proof of mass killing of civilians on the scale of Syria or Yemen," there is no evidence that aircraft or heavy anti-aircraft machine guns were used against crowds, and there is no evidence of African mercenaries being used, which it described as a "myth" that led to lynchings and executions of black people by rebel forces. It criticized the "Western media coverage" which "has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events, portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful and repeatedly suggesting that the regime's security forces were unaccountably massacring unarmed demonstrators who presented no security

No idea who is he but he doesn't do himself any favors calling someone a "dumb-ass idiot" on the front page of his blog.

He was outraged because he just found out through released files he was being called pro-PIRA by diplomats in the 80s. If someone thought that about Ed Moloney then the term "dumb-ass idiot" couldn't be more appropriate. But hey, I guesss ad hominem attacks are less hassle than dealing with the points he made.

He's won Irish journalist of the year before and a documentary he made last year won the best TV documentary in the IFTAs. He's also actually lived in Libya. He's in general considered one of the top writers on Northern Ireland with huge credibility

cyberhog

meglome wrote: »

I'm complaining that people are so caught up in their hatred of the US that they will try any angle to blame them for almost anything.

Well you've picked the wrong topic to whine in because the US richly deserves to be criticised for kissing up to the tyrant of a country whose human rights record continues to worsen.

meglome

cyberhog wrote: »

Well you've picked the wrong topic to whine in because the US richly deserves to be criticised for kissing up to the tyrant of a country whose human rights record continues to worsen.

And I fully agree the US should be criticised for cosying up to Karimov. But you couldn't help yourself in trying to make the broader point about Gadaffi too. The problem with the point was it didn't work, the article you used didn't work.

cyberhog

meglome wrote: »

And I fully agree the US should be criticised for cosying up to Karimov. But you couldn't help yourself in trying to make the broader point about Gadaffi too. The problem with the point was it didn't work, the article you used didn't work.

Your intellectual dishonesty is not even surprising me any more. The aljazeera article makes a perfectly valid point about the hypocrisy that is involved in the Obama administration's approach to human rights violators. You have chosen to ignore the most salient point of the article and construct and attack a straw man instead.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:

...

5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.


3 Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.



This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


In our case the OP presents position X: Uzbekistan is in many ways just like Gaddafi's Libya, however, while Obama had made it possible for rebels to capture and kill one brutal dictator he wants to make life easier for another by waiving restrictions on military aid.

meglome ignores these key points of X and presents his oversimplified position Y : Did the US kill Gaddafi?

meglome then refutes Y and concludes position X is false. :rolleyes:

meglome just take a minute to read the replies in this thread and you will see that people are not buying your straw man argument.

Killer Pigeon

Freedom™

AlekSmart

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Freedom™

For whom...From what..?... In general,like World Peace,it's a sound principle and worth thanking the post for.

RichieC

cyberhog wrote: »

meglome wrote: »

And I fully agree the US should be criticised for cosying up to Karimov. But you couldn't help yourself in trying to make the broader point about Gadaffi too. The problem with the point was it didn't work, the article you used didn't work.

Your intellectual dishonesty is not even surprising me any more. The aljazeera article makes a perfectly valid point about the hypocrisy that is involved in the Obama administration's approach to human rights violators. You have chosen to ignore the most salient point of the article and construct and attack a straw man instead.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:

...

5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.


3 Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.



This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


In our case the OP presents position X: Uzbekistan is in many ways just like Gaddafi's Libya, however, while Obama had made it possible for rebels to capture and kill one brutal dictator he wants to make life easier for another by waiving restrictions on military aid.

meglome ignores these key points of X and presents his oversimplified position Y : Did the US kill Gaddafi?

meglome then refutes Y and concludes position X is false. :rolleyes:

meglome just take a minute to read the replies in this thread and you will see that people are not buying your straw man argument.

People would much rather this thread focused on posters anti american stances than address the topic.

Its the same every forum im on.

Thread about israel will focus on posters percieved bias rather than actually discussing the topic. Same for america. Its a tactic that works because generally those posters being attacked tend to take the bate.