Is Qadaffi definitely gone? What happens if he hides out somewhere (he used to have a bunch of camps out in the Libyan desert) and waits until the moderates and the Islamists have their inevitable falling out (not to mention the tribal rivalries)? If the rebels don't make sure Qadaffi and his sons are gone gone (preferably suffering from 7.42 mm headaches), I could see a second round of civil war with three or four factions involved including Qadaffi's.
It looks like right now all the rebels are still one as they search for Gaddafi and his sons. Apparently there is a lucrative bounty out on their heads as well.
It'd be nice to see the monarchy restored. A strong leader, already has a history with Libya and is still well thought of by most. Alongside a well written constitution that balance's democratic and tribal concerns and Libya could emerge from this stable and free (and rich).
The one organized political group, the muslim brotherhood islamofascists, might take over - in which case we'll hear from obama's flacks and the lib media that it really wasn't obama who "won the war".
The IB has vary little to do with this rebellion. And even if they did, so what? Islamists that have done nothing to the west or Gadhafi, an Islamists who's been a royal pain in the ass for the past 42 years? That's something I don't get from you and your ilk, you complain that we're helping Islamists (despite the fact that they've expressed pro-West and democratic sentiments the whole war) and thus we should be helping Gadhafi (not only an Islamists himself but also a socialist
). Seriously, do you actually think your positions thru 1st or just regurgitate what ever Fox tells you to say/think? I'm thinking the latter.False, they were deeply involved, and in fact have been fighting him for years in Libya when nobody else was.
That's false - Gaddafi could best be described as an arab nationalist, not an islamist.
My "ilk"???
you complain that we're helping Islamists (despite the fact that they've expressed pro-West and democratic sentiments the whole war) and thus we should be helping Gadhafi (not only an Islamists himself but also a socialist
To clear things up for you: like most wide-spread popular revolts, the Libyan rising is composed of disparate groups uniting against the dictator. What happens in the aftermath of such revolts is that the most organized subgroup frequently takes over. Examples: the 1917 russian revolution co-opted by the communists, or the 1980s nicaraguan revolt against samoza, taken over by the sandinistas. Here's an example of the influence of the ialmofascists on the transitional council:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...ing-moment-Islamic-extremists-prayed-for.html
Seriously, what do you want to do - debate, or insult? I'm real good at insulting, but prefer to debate.
Last edited:
Find your own damn link and read up - I'm not in business to tutor the ignorati.
I know what islamism is and don't require your attempted explanation.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ilk
So you think the thrust of my question was about the definition? Boy, that was stupid.
Ah, geeeee....... lemme think........ Gaddafy gave up nukes and swore off financing external terrorism, but the islamofascists haven't - is that good enough?
You can refute what it said?
Geez, most obamabots go at least THREE or so posts before they wave the white flag. (snicker). Learn to use the quote function, ok?
Last edited:
Find your own damn link and read up - I'm not in business to tutor the ignorati.
You made the claim, it's on you to back it up.
I know what islamism is and don't require your attempted explanation.
And yet your claims are false.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ilk
So you think the thrust of my question was about the definition? Boy, that was stupid.
You're the 1 who implied I was using the word wrong. You seem to have trouble owning up hen you screw-up.
Ah, geeeee....... lemme think........ Gaddafy gave up nukes and swore off financing external terrorism, but the islamofascists haven't - is that good enough?
Ya and he still tried to wipe out a city of millions just because they were peacefully protesting him.. Such a nice guy.
You can refute what it said?
It's a tabloid. By definition you can't trust anything in it. I'm sure you can find a better (read real) source if it's true.
Geez, most obamabots go at least THREE or so posts before they wave the white flag. (snicker). Learn to use the quote function, ok?
So because I'm calling you out I'm giving up? That's actually the opposite of giving up.
You need to set back and cool off before you blow an artery or something.So because I'm calling you out I'm giving up? That's actually the opposite of giving up.
"Calling someone out" is 1) demanding someone do your googling for you 2) ignoring what I said was the difference bewteen Gaddafy and the IFs, and 3) casting doubt on the validity of information because of the format of the medium it appeared in???
If that's "calling out", it would be amusing to see what "running away" is.
"Calling someone out" is 1) demanding someone do your googling for you 2) ignoring what I said was the difference bewteen Gaddafy and the IFs, and 3) casting doubt on the validity of information because of the format of the medium it appeared in???
If that's "calling out", it would be amusing to see what "running away" is.
I'm not asking you to do any 'Googleing' for me, I'm asking you to back up your claim, your 'difference' is based on a willfully incorrect understanding of Islamism is and yes, I don't take a tabloid seriously.
Are you going to actually debate or just play games?
Neither here nor there.
And I told you that I'm out of the tutoring business - do the 5 seconds of googling yourself.
You'r confused - you said will the IFs be any worse than Gaddafy, and I explained why, and you ducked it.
An unrefuted asertions stands - apparently you are unable to refute their assertions. Also, what you're saying is "reporting isn't accurate based on the page size of the periodical it comes in." Does the wrong font cast doubt too?
You've weaved and ducked debate so much in just a few threads, you're making me seasick.
Neither here nor there.
Then why did you bring it up?
And I told you that I'm out of the tutoring business - do the 5 seconds of googling yourself.
I'm not baking up your claims for you, that's on you.
You'r confused - you said will the IFs be any worse than Gaddafy, and I explained why, and you ducked it.
Then if someone like Pat Roberson ran for president wold you be calling for a brutal dictator to keep him out of the WH?
An unrefuted asertions stands - apparently you are unable to refute their assertions. Also, what you're saying is "reporting isn't accurate based on the page size of the periodical it comes in." Does the wrong font cast doubt too?
All I'm asking you to do is provide an actual source. I'll even let you use Fox.
You've weaved and ducked debate so much in just a few threads, you're making me seasick.
No, I'm just asking you to be honest. stop with the talking points and bring up something of substance and we'll talk.
I'm asking you for sources. Links. Logical arguments. The opposite of what you're doing. Stop dodging.
You got the logical arguments, and can do your own 20 seconds of googling. OK - now repeat your crap over again.
I'm so glad that they did on their own..well little help from Nato. This way they don't think of western imperialism. It's going to be tough as for who ever is going to run the government. If they become a tin horn dictator I think they will riot and take over until they find a happy medium...that's going to be Democracy.
Similar threads
