Dictators

I don't see a point in comparing Gadaffi to other Arabic dictators. I think I made that clear. A murderer is a murderer, no matter if he is Arabic, Congolese, Korean or German.

To Wasted: Plato said so. I don't think so.
Every dictature is bound to end with the people calling for their freedom. Even if it takes a thousand years or more. At some point, freedom always wins over slavery, even if it was slavery in a golden cage.
 
OK, thanks!  That was my thinking, that a dictatorship, by nature, was a poor way to run a country.  In my head, a dictatorship and a tyranny are both one and the same (I'm sure there is a difference)... it seems that a government that has some sort of representation by the people must be better. (granted, I will be baised here)

I can understand wanting to see the 'positive' in any negative situation, but at some point, I would think that a 'bad person' shouldn't be given any kudos for anything.  Otherwise, we could do all the bad shit we want and then just buy a lot of laptops for the families of the people we fucked over and it'd be ok.   I can see the point, that he may be better than almost all of the other leaders of that area, but it's hard for me, personally, to see any of them in a good light.
 
Wasted CLV said:
In my head, a dictatorship and a tyranny are both one and the same (I'm sure there is a difference)...
Click to expand...

By our definition of the word "tyranny", I agree. Many dictatorships have tried very hard to have a pretty face, but in the end, it was always the same.
 
Wasted CLV said:
Now, my curiousity came in the form of 'why is any dictator ok?'... coming from the western world, a dictator, by nature (to my thinking) is a bad thing.  So, having a good one of the bad guys still doesn't make any sense to me.  I am actually wondering, not towards Gadaffi, does anyone think that a dictatorship can be run in a good fashion?
Click to expand...

Doesn't dictatorship pretty much by definition restrict personal freedoms, be they freedom of speech, travel, religion, or whatever?  And isn't that inherently a bad thing?
 
Sorry Perun, I am going to compare.

Somehow I have worse thoughts about Iran's human rights, especially when we look at the last decade or so (or even more?). Perhaps I am terribly wrong, and ignorant of Gaddafi's deeds in the last years, who knows.

But is the following really so much worse than all those death sentences in Iran and their views on the Western world?

wiki:
...In August 2003, two years after Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi's conviction, Libya wrote to the United Nations formally accepting 'responsibility for the actions of its officials' in respect of the Lockerbie bombing and agreed to pay compensation of up to $2.7 billion – or up to $10 million each – to the families of the 270 victims. The same month, Britain and Bulgaria co-sponsored a U.N. resolution which removed the suspended sanctions. (Bulgaria's involvement in tabling this motion led to suggestions that there was a link with the HIV trial in Libya in which 5 Bulgarian nurses, working at a Benghazi hospital, were accused of infecting 426 Libyan children with HIV.) Forty per cent of the compensation was then paid to each family, and a further 40% followed once U.S. sanctions were removed. Because the U.S. refused to take Libya off its list of state sponsors of terrorism, Libya retained the last 20% ($540 million) of the $2.7 billion compensation package. In October 2008 Libya paid $1.5 billion into a fund which will be used to compensate relatives of the

-Lockerbie bombing victims with the remaining 20%;
-American victims of the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing;
-American victims of the 1989 UTA Flight 772 bombing; and,
-Libyan victims of the 1986 US bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi.

As a result, President Bush has signed an executive order restoring the Libyan government's immunity from terror-related lawsuits and dismissing all of the pending compensation cases in the US, the White House said....


+

...Gaddafi also appeared to be attempting to improve his image in the West. Two years prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Libya pledged its commitment to fighting Al-Qaeda and offered to open up its weapons programme to international inspection. The Clinton administration did not pursue the offer at the time since Libya's weapons program was not then regarded as a threat, and the matter of handing over the Lockerbie bombing suspects took priority. Following the attacks of September 11, Gaddafi made one of the first, and firmest, denunciations of the Al-Qaeda bombers by any Muslim leader......
 
"Islamic" was never part of the discussion. The word used was always "Arabic". Had we been talking about "Islamic" countries, the scope would have been widened to countries like Turkey, Senegal or Kyrgyzstan. That would have made the notion that Gadaffi is the best of those leaders even more ludicrous and absolutely impossible to hold. That's also why I believe that no5 deliberately used the word "Arabic" and not "Islamic".
 
Well, I'll let you get away with it because I go to bed.

One day we'll do Islamic countries. Including Iran. We'll see how fine Libya will score then.
 
But that really isn't what we are talking about here.

And that is also why I think it is pointless to compare. It doesn't make a difference. A murderous regime remains a murderous regime, and that doesn't change with the ethnicity, religion or language of the people.

It's just that some people like certain countries better than others and try to make it look good. So they try to relate its crimes to other selected countries. Of course Libya looks better if compared to Iraq or Syria. But it looks like a pile of shit if compared to The Netherlands or Canada.

By the way, did I ever imply any support for Iran's government? Rather the opposite, I'd say.
 
In addition, Iran is a theocracy, not really a dictatorship - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an elected leader, who holds the balance of power, but the Ayatollah holds the overarching post of leader.  So, while the Ayatollah can be dictatorial, the President determines much of the day-to-day tyranny of the country.
 
But that's not the point.

We aren't talking about Iran.

We aren't talking about Ayatollahs.

We aren't talking about Islam.

We are talking about Gadaffi.


We are judging Gadaffi.

To judge Gadaffi, it is pointless to compare him to somebody else.

Gadaffi is responsible for torture and murder.

That is what we are judging here.

We are not judging the torture and murder others have committed.

And for that matter, it is pointless to say that others have tortured and killed more people.

What we are doing right now is judging Gadaffi.

There may be other people out there who are worse, but Gadaffi remains a bad man.

That, and only that is what we are saying here.
 
Gadaffi is a murderer and a torturer, and nothing he has done in his reign can change that.
 
Exactly. And nobody else who has killed more people can change that either.
 
Wasted CLV said:
my curiousity came in the form of 'why is any dictator ok?'... coming from the western world, a dictator, by nature (to my thinking) is a bad thing.  So, having a good one of the bad guys still doesn't make any sense to me.  I am actually wondering, not towards Gadaffi, does anyone think that a dictatorship can be run in a good fashion?
Click to expand...

I personally like Castro and Cuba. Most of it's poverty is due to the U.S embargo, not the "failure" of it's system. and even then a 99% literacy rate and some of the best doctors in the world say a lot. Not to mention when it partisipates in the Olympics it is always in the Top 15 rubbing shoulders with "powers."
 
I'm not letting this discussion go that easy. Who do we have here, a German, a Canadian, a Dutchman and an American. Good. How many millions of people died so you could have your profound "freedom" societies that you have today?

Saying that Gadaffi is a mass murderer because his regime killed people is highly hypocritical.

Besides, i'm not going to be lectured by former colonialists. Your people enslaved and tourtered and now they're lecturing the world about freedom and justice? Blah.

I'm not attacking anyone here. Just try to see the other point of view. I'm not defending Gadaffi either. Every murder should be trialed. However, i don't think that he's an evil dictator and West is all flowers, i think that both of 'em suck, ergo, 90% of the planet just plain old sucks.
 
The discussion isn't about what our culture has done, Zare.  It's about what the man himself is responsible for.  Yes, the English from whom I draw my descent killed millions; the Canadians from whom I draw my descent imprisoned and brainwashed and abused tens of thousands.  But I, myself, have killed no one.  If we wanted to discuss what the Arabic culture has done, that would be a whole different discussion with a different scope.

The West's freedom-based societies are indeed purchased with the blood of many - both rebels, oppressors, and the innocent.  Nobody here is going to deny that.  The point is that we've been doing our best to give up on that culture - and the natural replacement of our leadership over time allows us to take people we think have done wrong, and move them away from the headlines: ie, Bush.  Bush only got 2 terms and couldn't have won a 3rd because people were tired of what he was doing.

He, too, has killed thousands of innocent people and probably should stand trial, just as Gadaffi should.  But the discussion is about Gadaffi - he came to power violently, and he still holds onto it...violently, when needed.  I'm not saying the things some Libyans have got under his reign was bad, but simply that he himself is bad.  I would argue that even if overthrowing a corrupt government isn't necessarily evil, replacing it with a dictatorship certainly is.
 
Zare said:
Besides, i'm not going to be lectured by former colonialists. Your people enslaved and tourtered and now they're lecturing the world about freedom and justice? Blah.
Click to expand...

I have never colonialised, tortured or enslaved anybody.
 
Perun said:
But that's not the point.

We aren't talking about Iran.

We aren't talking about Ayatollahs.

We aren't talking about Islam.

We are talking about Gadaffi.


We are judging Gadaffi.

To judge Gadaffi, it is pointless to compare him to somebody else.

Gadaffi is responsible for torture and murder.

That is what we are judging here.

We are not judging the torture and murder others have committed.

And for that matter, it is pointless to say that others have tortured and killed more people.

What we are doing right now is judging Gadaffi.

There may be other people out there who are worse, but Gadaffi remains a bad man.

That, and only that is what we are saying here.
Click to expand...

You and LC. Others try to talk about other people/countries as well. And some of them see progress with Lybia. Change. Optimism. That's relevant and very on topic.
 
Alright.

I just re-read this thread, and I'm going over it again step-by-step.

The premise: no5 says that Gadaffi is a good man. He takes care of his people and is a good leader.

LC and I challenge that by stating the facts that Gadaffi tortured and killed people. By these facts, we permit ourselves the judgement that Gadaffi is a bad man and put it up for challenge.

However, instead of challenging that argument, no5 sets up the first straw man by asking us to find someone better in the Arabic world. Zare comes in and sets up the next straw man by stating that Clinton -probably as an archetype of western leaders- isn't better than Gadaffi.

However, the original argument, that Gadaffi tortured and killed and is therefore a bad man remains unharmed.

Instead of challenging LC's, Foro's and my points, no5 maintains his straw man, that you need to compare, and says that unless you challenge his straw man, he quits the discussion. However, the original argument, that Gadaffi tortured and killed and is therefore a bad man remains unharmed.

LC and I try to point out that he is using a straw man argument, and that our original point remains unharmed. no5 ignores that.

no5 then goes on to describe the good deeds that Gadaffi has done. The third straw man. However, the original argument, that Gadaffi tortured and killed and is therefore a bad man remains unharmed.

Although LC and to an extent I try to bring the discussion back to the point, and although LC asks no5 to give up his straw man and challenge the original point we have made, it starts getting personal. However, the original argument, that Gadaffi tortured and killed and is therefore a bad man remains unharmed.

LC and I again describe in detail what our original argument was. And that it remained unharmed. However, instead of challenging it or appreciating it, the fight against straw men continues. And for some odd reason, Foro picks it up, without provocation and without proving anything. However, the original argument, that Gadaffi tortured and killed and is therefore a bad man remains unharmed.

And then Zare jumps in and sets up the fourth straw man, basically a continuation of the second one, that we are not entitled to discuss this, because we are from the west. However, the original argument, that Gadaffi tortured and killed and is therefore a bad man remains unharmed.

And then Foro suddenly claims that the discussion has been something else all the time.


LC and I made one argument at the beginning of this discussion, and that remained unchallenged and unharmed. Instead, people started fighting straw men for their own convenience. I'm tired of this, and I'm not going to continue this, unless people renounce their straw men and challenge the original point, or openly state that they in fact want to talk about something else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top