Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(16,423 posts)
Fri May 13, 2016, 01:24 PM May 2016

Surprise! I found even more facts about Libya under Gaddafi that you probably did not know about !


As months passed, Gaddafi, caught up in his apocalyptic visions of revolutionary pan-Arabism and Islam locked in mortal struggle with what he termed the encircling, demonic forces of reaction, imperialism, and Zionism, increasingly devoted attention to international rather than internal affairs.


All legislative and executive authority was vested in the GPC. This body, however, delegated most of its important authority to its general secretary and General Secretariat and to the General People's Committee. Gaddafi, as general secretary of the GPC, remained the primary decision maker, just as he had been when chairman of the RCC.


Beginning in 1977, "revolutionary committees" were organized and assigned the task of "absolute revolutionary supervision of people's power"; that is, they were to guide the people's committees, "raise the general level of political consciousness and devotion to revolutionary ideals". In reality, the revolutionary committees were used to survey the population and repress any political opposition to Gaddafi's autocratic rule. Reportedly 10% to 20% of Libyans worked in surveillance for these committees, a proportion of informants on par with Ba'athist Iraq or North Korea.[25]

Filled with politically astute zealots, the ubiquitous revolutionary committees in 1979 assumed control of BPC elections. Although they were not official government organs, the revolutionary committees became another mainstay of the domestic political scene. As with the people's committees and other administrative innovations since the revolution, the revolutionary committees fit the pattern of imposing a new element on the existing subnational system of government rather than eliminating or consolidating already existing structures. By the late 1970s, the result was an unnecessarily complex system of overlapping jurisdictions in which cooperation and coordination among different elements were compromised by ill-defined authority and responsibility.


However, the measures created resentment and opposition among the newly dispossessed. The latter joined those already alienated, some of whom had begun to leave the country. By 1982, perhaps 50,000 to 100,000 Libyans had gone abroad; because many of the emigrants were among the enterprising and better educated Libyans, they represented a significant loss of managerial and technical expertise.


In 1972, Gaddafi created the Islamic Legion as a tool to unify and Arabize the region. The priority of the Legion was first Chad, and then Sudan. In Darfur, a western province of Sudan, Gaddafi supported the creation of the Arab Gathering (Tajammu al-Arabi), which according to Gérard Prunier was "a militantly racist and pan-Arabist organization which stressed the 'Arab' character of the province."[32] The two organizations shared members and a source of support, and the distinction between them is often ambiguous.

This Islamic Legion was mostly composed of immigrants from poorer Sahelian countries,[33] but also, according to a source, thousands of Pakistanis who had been recruited in 1981 with the false promise of civilian jobs once in Libya.[34] Generally speaking, the Legion's members were immigrants who had gone to Libya with no thought of fighting wars, and had been provided with inadequate military training and had sparse commitment. A French journalist, speaking of the Legion's forces in Chad, observed that they were "foreigners, Arabs or Africans, mercenaries in spite of themselves, wretches who had come to Libya hoping for a civilian job, but found themselves signed up more or less by force to go and fight in an unknown desert."[33]


However, Gaddafi focused on demanding Pakistan's Prime Minister sell him a nuclear weapon, which surprised many of the Prime Minister's delegation members and journalists.[39] When Prime minister Sharif refused Gaddafi's demand, Gaddafi disrespected him, calling him a "Corrupt politician", a term which insulted and surprised Sharif.[39] The Prime minister cancelled the talks, returned to Pakistan and expelled the Libyan Ambassador from Pakistan.[39]

Thailand reported its citizens had helped build storage facilities for nerve gas.[40] Germany sentenced a businessman, Jurgen Hippenstiel-Imhausen, to five years in prison for involvement in Libyan chemical weapons.[37][41] Inspectors from the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) verified in 2004 that Libya owned a stockpile of 23 metric tons of mustard gas and more than 1,300 metric tons of precursor chemicals.[42]


On 5 April 1986, Libyan agents bombed "La Belle" nightclub in West Berlin, killing three and injuring 229. Gaddafi's plan was intercepted by several national intelligence agencies and more detailed information was retrieved four years later from Stasi archives. The Libyan agents who had carried out the operation, from the Libyan embassy in East Germany, were prosecuted by the reunited Germany in the 1990s.[43]

In response to the discotheque bombing, joint US Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps air-strikes took place against Libya on 15 April 1986 and code-named Operation El Dorado Canyon and known as the 1986 bombing of Libya. Air defenses, three army bases, and two airfields in Tripoli and Benghazi were bombed. The surgical strikes failed to kill Gaddafi but he lost a few dozen military officers. Gaddafi spread propaganda how it had killed his "adopted daughter" and how victims had been all "civilians". Despite the variations of the stories, the campaign was successful, and a large proportion of the Western press reported the government's stories as facts.[44]

Following the 1986 bombing of Libya, Gaddafi intensified his support for anti-American government organizations. He financed Jeff Forts Al-Rukn faction of the Chicago Black P. Stones gang, in their emergence as an indigenous anti-American armed revolutionary movement.[45] Al-Rukn members were arrested in 1986 for preparing strikes on behalf of Libya, including blowing up US government buildings and bringing down an airplane; the Al-Rukn defendants were convicted in 1987 of "offering to commit bombings and assassinations on US soil for Libyan payment."[45] In 1986, Libyan state television announced that Libya was training suicide squads to attack American and European interests. He began financing the IRA again in 1986, to retaliate against the British for harboring American fighter planes.[46]


Gaddafi was a close supporter of Ugandan President Idi Amin.[48]


Gaddafi was a strong supporter of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe.[57]


Gaddafi trained and supported Liberian warlord-president Charles Taylor, who was indicted by the Special Court for Sierra Leone for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the conflict in Sierra Leone.[59] Foday Sankoh, the founder of Revolutionary United Front, was also Gaddafi's graduate. According to Douglas Farah, "The amputation of the arms and legs of men, women, and children as part of a scorched-earth campaign was designed to take over the region's rich diamond fields and was backed by Gaddafi, who routinely reviewed their progress and supplied weapons".[58]


On 11 June 1972, Gaddafi announced that any Arab wishing to volunteer for Palestinian terrorist groups "can register his name at any Libyan embassy will be given adequate training for combat". He also promised financial support for attacks.[68] On 7 October 1972, Gaddafi praised the Lod Airport massacre, executed by the communist Japanese Red Army, and demanded Palestinian terrorist groups to carry out similar attacks.[68]


Reportedly, Gaddafi was a major financier of the "Black September Movement" which perpetrated the Munich massacre at the 1972 Summer Olympics.[2]


Islamist terrorist group Abu Sayyaf has also been suspected of receiving Libyan funding.[74]


In April 1984, Libyan refugees in London protested against execution of two dissidents. Communications intercepted by MI5 show that Tripoli ordered its diplomats to direct violence against the demonstrators. Libyan diplomats shot at 11 people and killed British policewoman Yvonne Fletcher. The incident led to the breaking off of diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Libya for over a decade.[78]

After December 1985 Rome and Vienna airport attacks, which killed 19 and wounded around 140, Gaddafi indicated that he would continue to support the Red Army Faction, the Red Brigades, and the Irish Republican Army as long as European countries support anti-Gaddafi Libyans.[79] The Foreign Minister of Libya also called the massacres "heroic acts".[80]

In 1986, Libyan state television announced that Libya was training suicide squads to attack American and European interests.[81]


In 1994, the General People's Congress approved the introduction of "purification laws" to be put into effect, punishing theft by the amputation of limbs, and fornication and adultery by flogging.[88] Under the Libyan constitution, homosexual relations are punishable by up to five years in jail.[89]


Throughout his long rule, Gaddafi had to defend his position against opposition and coup attempts, emerging both from the military and from the general population. He reacted to these threats on one hand by maintaining a careful balance of power between the forces in the country, and by brutal repression on the other. Gaddafi successfully balanced the various tribes of Libya one against the other by distributing his favours.


The term "Green Terror" is used to describe campaigns of violence and intimidation against opponents of Gaddafi, particularly in reference to wave of oppression during Libya's cultural revolution, or to the wave of highly publicized hangings of regime opponents that began with the Execution of Al-Sadek Hamed Al-Shuwehdy.

Dissent was illegal under Law 75 of 1973.[25] Reportedly 10 to 20 percent of Libyans worked in surveillance for Gaddafi's Revolutionary Committees[citation needed], a proportion of informants on par with Saddam Hussein's Iraq or Kim Jong Il's North Korea. The surveillance took place in government, in factories, and in the education sector.[25]


According to the 2009 Freedom of the Press Index, Libya is the most censored country in the Middle East and North Africa.[93]


Gaddafi employed his network of diplomats and recruits to assassinate dozens of his critics around the world. Amnesty International listed at least twenty-five assassinations between 1980 and 1987.[25][83]

Gaddafi's agents were active in the U.K., where many Libyans had sought asylum. After Libyan diplomats shot at 15 anti-Gaddafi protesters from inside the Libyan embassy's first floor and killed a British policewoman, the U.K. broke off relations with Gaddafi's government as a result of the incident.

Even the U.S. could not protect dissidents from Libya. In 1980, a Libyan agent attempted to assassinate dissident Faisal Zagallai, a doctoral student at the University of Colorado at Boulder. The bullets left Zagallai partially blinded.[95] A defector was kidnapped and executed in 1990 just before he was about to receive U.S. citizenship.[25]

Gaddafi asserted in June 1984 that killings could be carried out even when the dissidents were on pilgrimage in the holy city of Mecca. In August 1984, one Libyan plot was thwarted in Mecca.[47]

As of 2004, Libya still provided bounties for heads of critics, including 1 million dollars for Ashur Shamis, a Libyan-British journalist.[96]
46 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Surprise! I found even more facts about Libya under Gaddafi that you probably did not know about ! (Original Post) DetlefK May 2016 OP
Silence! Quick, somebody call Catherina, wherever she is! Tommy_Carcetti May 2016 #1
Are you saying Ghaddafi wasn't a great guy? Redwoods Red May 2016 #2
He was a racist, a brutal tyrant and a supporter of international terrorism and assassinations. DetlefK May 2016 #3
So you're saying Reagan was justified in his attacks? egalitegirl May 2016 #5
Yes. How about you? Do you wish Gaddafi was still in power? Yes or No? DetlefK May 2016 #6
Not my country. How about you? Are you happy to see Libya in pieces? Redwoods Red May 2016 #8
Quid pro quo: I answer your question, you answer mine. I go first. DetlefK May 2016 #15
So you use RW talking points egalitegirl May 2016 #20
Post removed Post removed May 2016 #23
You won't hear anything back. This is the same poster COLGATE4 May 2016 #29
I would've preferred we don't engage in forcing regime change Matrosov May 2016 #19
There was a revolution. He threatened to slaughter an entire city. Zynx May 2016 #36
And we took him our exactly as PNAC planned. WDIM May 2016 #4
Do you wish Gaddafi was still in power? Yes or No? How about the Taliban and Saddam Hussein? DetlefK May 2016 #7
Are you cheerleading Bush's imperial wars now? Redwoods Red May 2016 #9
Are you f**king seriously saying that dictatorship is better than democracy??? DetlefK May 2016 #12
Libya is a failed state, not even close to a functioning democracy cali May 2016 #14
If Gaddafi were still in power, there wouldn't even be the OPPORTUNITY for democracy. DetlefK May 2016 #16
Omg. Never mind cali May 2016 #18
You are clueless about the truth egalitegirl May 2016 #22
I don't give a flying fuck about "truth". I only care about verifiable facts. DetlefK May 2016 #24
No you sure as Fuck don't. You wallow in subjective "truth" cali May 2016 #30
Al Qaeda was active in 1998 in the embassy bombings egalitegirl May 2016 #33
I am against all forms of tyranny WDIM May 2016 #35
The most recent cite is 1987 - 29 years ago arendt May 2016 #10
Yeah. Unlike that other OP that praised Gaddafi's regime as paradise on Earth. DetlefK May 2016 #13
Deflection. I don't even know what you are referring to. arendt May 2016 #17
Oh, come on!!! You are also into conspiracy-theories? DetlefK May 2016 #28
You get to decide what is important? arendt May 2016 #31
One of the more interesting stories is Libya financing an African telecom satellite. Jesus Malverde May 2016 #34
I was the poster of that other OP that turned into a honey trap of sorts for folks like you. PufPuf23 May 2016 #40
Post removed Post removed May 2016 #39
Off topic. Irrelevant. Hypothetical hitjob. arendt May 2016 #41
Using your standard on your own argument isn't "off-topic," but such tactics probably work on Reddit IamMab May 2016 #42
Vague (non-existent) counter-"argument". you got nothing. arendt May 2016 #43
Aaaand now you're just projecting your own issues at me. No thanks! nt IamMab May 2016 #44
Wordgames. No engagement. Reduced to yelling "projection". Goodbye. arendt May 2016 #45
"No engangement" From the person replying entirely through titles. ROFL #moreprojection IamMab May 2016 #46
You really need to read a little deeper than Wikipedia cali May 2016 #11
I have a serious question. Zynx May 2016 #38
kick for truth Blue_Tires May 2016 #21
K&R mcar May 2016 #25
KNR joeybee12 May 2016 #26
An affinity for 'strict father' authoritarianism - it's not just for conservatives anymore. pampango May 2016 #27
Never has been. Igel May 2016 #32
Stop bringing this up. runaway hero May 2016 #37

Redwoods Red

(137 posts)
2. Are you saying Ghaddafi wasn't a great guy?
Fri May 13, 2016, 01:34 PM
May 2016

That still doesn't justify what we did in Libya, with Hillary leading the charge.

The place now has no effective government and is an ISIS sanctuary. Progress.


(16,423 posts)
3. He was a racist, a brutal tyrant and a supporter of international terrorism and assassinations.
Fri May 13, 2016, 01:37 PM
May 2016

But you prefer obviously that he would have stayed in power.



(362 posts)
5. So you're saying Reagan was justified in his attacks?
Fri May 13, 2016, 01:46 PM
May 2016

Do I read this right? You think that Ronald Reagan was right in trying to kill Gadhafi with his bombs?


Redwoods Red

(137 posts)
8. Not my country. How about you? Are you happy to see Libya in pieces?
Fri May 13, 2016, 02:17 PM
May 2016

Full of Islamist militias and ISIS strongholds?


(16,423 posts)
15. Quid pro quo: I answer your question, you answer mine. I go first.
Fri May 13, 2016, 02:54 PM
May 2016

I am not happy with the way Libya is now. But I think that the libyan people deserve at least the chance to govern their own country. This was not possible as long as Gaddafi was in charge.

Your turn:
Do you think that the international community should have abstained from the libyan civil war and allow Gaddafi to kill the rebels and stay in power?
Yes or No?



(362 posts)
20. So you use RW talking points
Fri May 13, 2016, 04:14 PM
May 2016

The truth is that the genocide was committed by NATO forces under Hillary just because Gadhafi would not share his oil profits with American corporations. Reagan's attack was the same. You have fallen for propaganda intended for the low information voters.

Response to egalitegirl (Reply #20)


(14,732 posts)
29. You won't hear anything back. This is the same poster
Sat May 14, 2016, 10:39 AM
May 2016

who told me that a liberal arts degree is obtained using the same books as High School.



(1,098 posts)
19. I would've preferred we don't engage in forcing regime change
Fri May 13, 2016, 03:22 PM
May 2016

Especially since we have a tendency to decide which tyrants get to stay and which ones get to go based on how useful they are to us.

For example, Saddam was the same tyrant in the 1980s as after the 1980s, but he was our good buddy for attacking Iran, and only became the enemy when he attacked Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia.


(21,328 posts)
36. There was a revolution. He threatened to slaughter an entire city.
Sun May 15, 2016, 10:48 AM
May 2016

Our involvement was comparatively minimal.


(1,662 posts)
4. And we took him our exactly as PNAC planned.
Fri May 13, 2016, 01:38 PM
May 2016

And it is yet another example of US intervention gone from bad to Worse.

Just like Vietnam
Just like Central and South America.
Just like Afghanistan
Just like Iraq

From bad to absolutely miserable.


Redwoods Red

(137 posts)
9. Are you cheerleading Bush's imperial wars now?
Fri May 13, 2016, 02:22 PM
May 2016

Hundreds of thousands of now dead Iraqis were much better off with Saddam in power.

There was no ISIS.

Face it, our mucking about in the Middle East has been a freaking disaster. Maybe we should take care of our own country. Or maybe you have someone else next up on your target list.


(16,423 posts)
12. Are you f**king seriously saying that dictatorship is better than democracy???
Fri May 13, 2016, 02:47 PM
May 2016

1. How many Iraqis are better off because they can say what they want and determine their future free from oppression? How many future generations of Iraqis will be better off compared to if Saddam were still in power?

2. Already forgot Al-Qaeda?

3. If you break it, walking away does not make it whole again.



(362 posts)
22. You are clueless about the truth
Fri May 13, 2016, 04:18 PM
May 2016

Many children and innocent people were killed by American bombs while Saddam Hussein escaped the bombs. He was caught much later and there was no need to carpet bomb innocent people. The dead people were not crying out for your "freedom." Definitely not for your style of "democracy" where you delete voters from the database.

500,000 children were killed in Iraq because of Hillary's husband and Madeleine Albright celebrated their deaths. Only a sick human being will not see this.

Al-Qaeda was not the creation of Saddam Hussein but the creation of Reagan and Hillary Clinton's staunch ally George HW Bush.


(16,423 posts)
24. I don't give a flying fuck about "truth". I only care about verifiable facts.
Sat May 14, 2016, 09:30 AM
May 2016

1. Do you want Iraq and Libya to return to Gaddafi- and Saddam-style dictatorships? Yes or No?

2. I will not defend the way GWB waged war on Iraq. However, I will defend that freedom is better than tyranny.

3. Just because the US is a fucked-up pseudo-democratic oligarchy, that doesn't mean other countries have similar problems with democracy. You US-Americans do that all the time: You project your prejudices and your stances and your problems on the rest of the world.
How do I know this?
Because you left-wing US-Americans use the same talking-points you use to rage against the political establishment of the US to rage against the EU, even though these are radically different entities.

4. Al-Qaeda was brought into this discussion because another poster said that GWB created ISIS. Yes he did. But even if the 2nd Gulf-war had not happened, Syria would have descended into civil war anyways, because THAT war was caused by global warming, droughts and fears of famine. So, even in that alternate scenario we would have a syrian civil war with islamic extremists: Al Qaeda.



(362 posts)
33. Al Qaeda was active in 1998 in the embassy bombings
Sat May 14, 2016, 02:57 PM
May 2016

How did GWB create Al Qaeda in the 1990s if he only became the President in 2001? Can you please explain? Or do you mean he created Al Qaeda when he was Governor of Texas?


(1,662 posts)
35. I am against all forms of tyranny
Sun May 15, 2016, 10:41 AM
May 2016

But it is up to the people of the country to determine their leaders.

There may be ways we can support movements of the people who are striving for democracy and freedom but our track record for intervening in foreign conflicts is very disastrous.

War equals Greed. Every war there is somebody making big money. The destabilized middle east and military interventions have been for greed and Libya was no different.

An unending war with no front. Bush made the list and the Axis of Evil is being removed. Yet what we are leaving in it's place is death destruction and radicalized militants fighting for control. Its easier to radicalize people when their world is destroyed. When their family is torn apart by bombs and fire and death. To those people it is the end of the world.

Do I want tyrants in power no I do not. The US itself has been drifting to tyranny of a hand full of oligarch. And this tyranny of the minority is destroying lives here at home. Our leaders take money from tyrants and hold them as close friends. The hypocrisy to say lets remove this brutal tyrant but protect this other one and then act like tyrants here at home but we are fighting for democracy and freedom while we destroy that in our own country. Its a lie. Its all been a lie. Removing Ghaddafi was for one reason greed. He threatened US hedgemony and the US petro-dollar.

War what is it good for absolutely nothing!


(5,078 posts)
10. The most recent cite is 1987 - 29 years ago
Fri May 13, 2016, 02:24 PM
May 2016

Things have changed a lot since then.

But don't let the passage of almost two generations get in the way of your painting a completely black - no white at all picture of a complex man in a complex country.


(16,423 posts)
13. Yeah. Unlike that other OP that praised Gaddafi's regime as paradise on Earth.
Fri May 13, 2016, 02:48 PM
May 2016

Where was the complexity in that OP?


(5,078 posts)
17. Deflection. I don't even know what you are referring to.
Fri May 13, 2016, 03:03 PM
May 2016

Stay with MY point.

Since around 2005, he destroyed his weapons of mass destruction facilities, helped the US in the fight on terror, and was accepted by the Bush admin, hardly the soft on terrorism bunch.

As for the country, it had the highest standard of living in Africa, before we bombed it into failed statehood. They constructed a massive water project that was on its way to making the desert bloom. We blew it to pieces - because Terrorism. He had accumulated gold to start an African currency (big mistake, crossing our banksters like that) - we stole it.

Why don't you talk about all the bad shit - on a nation-wrecking scale - that we have done to Libya in the last five years, as opposed to terrorist pinpricks (in the sense they had zero impact on the course of the world economy or the end of Communism) from thirty years ago?

The US supports all kinds of crappy dictators. Gaddafi was, by any standard, investing his country's oil wealth in things that were good for his country.

All you got is thirty year old stuff from before the end of the Cold War.


(16,423 posts)
28. Oh, come on!!! You are also into conspiracy-theories?
Sat May 14, 2016, 10:01 AM
May 2016

I made this OP ins response to another OP that praised Gaddafi's Libya as a socialist paradise on Earth. I should have included a link.

So, Gaddafi's Libya had a high standard of living. Yay! At the same time he oppressed his own people, he had dissidents and journalists killed, and in response to the Arab Spring, the libyan army attacked civilians.

And Gaddafi's efforts for an african currency went nowhere for a single, simple fact: He was an arab racist and he had worked for decades to build an political alliance of african, arab countries. Except that the non-arab african countries didn't trust him.
(What's with these conspiracy-theories that big banks are to blame for everything?)

And the international community didn't attack Gaddafi because of terrorism. They attacked after careful deliberation after Gaddafi's army started shooting at libyan civilians. Let's ask Youtube. For example:


(5,078 posts)
31. You get to decide what is important?
Sat May 14, 2016, 11:42 AM
May 2016
So, Gaddafi's Libya had a high standard of living. Yay!

He did a lot better for his people economically than all the murderous dictators and their Chicago Boy advisers whom we put in in South America and Central America. The people did better than the indentured (slave) laborers from Pakistan who are dying by the hundreds to build vanity projects in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, etc. But you get to decide which murderous dictator is a good guy. Right.

They attacked after careful deliberation after Gaddafi's army started shooting at libyan civilians

That happened after the CIA, according to leaked transcripts (a leak is not a conspiracy), armed and fomented the civil unrest. (Same M.O. as in Syria, as in Ukraine.) These are classic Color Revolution tactics - don't just have an obvious coup; wait for an event and piggyback your gangsters on top of it.

(What's with these conspiracy-theories that big banks are to blame for everything?)

Gee, the guy was trying to start a bank. I suppose you want me to investigate whether United Fruit was behind the failure of that project. Banks have an interest in banking. That's not CT.


You really should get out of the bubble that says anyone who disagrees with corporate conventional wisdom is a CTer. There are plenty of legitimate sources of non-corporate news. Just because TPTB constantly tries to "dirty up" the legitimate ones with the "kidnapped by aliens" crackpots does not make all alternative news CT.

Jesus Malverde

(10,274 posts)
34. One of the more interesting stories is Libya financing an African telecom satellite.
Sat May 14, 2016, 03:33 PM
May 2016

This one time investment, cost private european carriers who previously held the monopoly over the african continent communications $500 million on a year over year basis. It's understandable there are europeans upset at this chutzpa.

RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization)


(8,882 posts)
40. I was the poster of that other OP that turned into a honey trap of sorts for folks like you.
Sun May 15, 2016, 12:06 PM
May 2016

The thread was about the intervention and the damage caused by the intervention to the common people and nation of Libya.

The Libya (and Gadaffi to a lesser extent) post 2001 was a modernizing nation.

I never praised Gadaffi nor claimed Libya under Gadaffi was paradise on Earth.

Western nations provided arms and covert support to radical Islamic rebels and destabilized Libya.

We established a "no fly zone" for "humanitarian" reasons and bombed the hell out of Libya including civilian infrastructure, the bombing was way beyond "humanitarian" and was obviously to dispose of Gadaffi for regime change.

Good Democrats and long term DUers added much good background to that OP thread if one takes the time to read.

From the State Department website:

Speaking of the breadth of Gaddafi’s record, that ought to resist simplistic, revisionist reduction, some might care to note that even now, the U.S. State Department’s webpage on Libya still points to a Library of Congress Country Study on Libya that features some of the Gaddafi government’s many social welfare achievements over the years in the areas of medical care, public housing, and education. In addition, Libyans have the highest literacy rate in Africa (see UNDP, p. 171) and Libya is the only continental African nation to rank “high” in the UNDP’s Human Development Index. Even the BBC recognized these achievements:

“Women in Libya are free to work and to dress as they like, subject to family constraints. Life expectancy is in the seventies. And per capita income—while not as high as could be expected given Libya’s oil wealth and relatively small population of 6.5m—is estimated at $12,000 (£9,000), according to the World Bank. Illiteracy has been almost wiped out, as has homelessness—a chronic problem in the pre-Gaddafi era, where corrugated iron shacks dotted many urban centres around the country”.

I had deliberately avoided mentioning Hillary Clinton's role in Libya previously in that thread.

So here is another interesting link: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/

The New Year’s Eve release of over 3,000 new Hillary Clinton emails from the State Department has CNN abuzz over gossipy text messages, the “who gets to ride with Hillary” selection process set up by her staff, and how a “cute” Hillary photo fared on Facebook.

But historians of the 2011 NATO war in Libya will be sure to notice a few of the truly explosive confirmations contained in the new emails: admissions of rebel war crimes, special ops trainers inside Libya from nearly the start of protests, Al Qaeda embedded in the U.S. backed opposition, Western nations jockeying for access to Libyan oil, the nefarious origins of the absurd Viagra mass rape claim, and concern over Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves threatening European currency

Response to arendt (Reply #10)


(5,078 posts)
41. Off topic. Irrelevant. Hypothetical hitjob.
Sun May 15, 2016, 12:29 PM
May 2016

Thank dog this thread is over and it is too late for this kind of trolling.



(1,359 posts)
42. Using your standard on your own argument isn't "off-topic," but such tactics probably work on Reddit
Sun May 15, 2016, 12:37 PM
May 2016

Not so much on DU, though. Better luck next time.



(114,904 posts)
11. You really need to read a little deeper than Wikipedia
Fri May 13, 2016, 02:36 PM
May 2016

Let's stipulate that Gadaffi was a brutal dictator. But let's also stipulate that we are quite selective about which brutal dictators we depose and which we booster.

In any case, it was a tangled knot with many strands in 2011.

And Gaddafi was easier to deal with than ISIS.


Moreover, as Alan Kuperman of the University of Texas and Stephen Chapman of the Chicago Tribune have now shown, the claim that the United States had to act to prevent Libyan tyrant Muammar al-Qaddafi from slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Benghazi does not stand up to even casual scrutiny. Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not conduct deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent threats to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule, not at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would "stain the conscience of the world" (as Obama put it) was slight.





(21,328 posts)
38. I have a serious question.
Sun May 15, 2016, 10:51 AM
May 2016

If Gaddafi had retaken Benghazi and had massacred the revolutionaries and their supporters (even that article hints that those who opposed him were in fact going to be slaughtered), would you have cared?

This is a narrow question and I'm curious about the answer.


(24,692 posts)
27. An affinity for 'strict father' authoritarianism - it's not just for conservatives anymore.
Sat May 14, 2016, 09:50 AM
May 2016
In the strict father family, father knows best. He knows right from wrong and has the ultimate authority to make sure his children and his spouse do what he says, which is taken to be what is right. Many conservative spouses accept this worldview, uphold the father’s authority, and are strict in those realms of family life that they are in charge of. When his children disobey, it is his moral duty to punish them painfully enough so that, to avoid punishment, they will obey him (do what is right) and not just do what feels good.

The strict father logic extends further. The basic idea is that authority is justified by morality (the strict father version), and that, in a well-ordered world, there should be (and traditionally has been) a moral hierarchy in which those who have traditionally dominated should dominate. The hierarchy is: God above Man, Man above Nature, The Disciplined (Strong) above the Undisciplined (Weak), The Rich above the Poor, Employers above Employees, Adults above Children, Western culture above other cultures, Our Country above other countries. The hierarchy extends to: Men above women, Whites above Non-whites, Christians above non-Christians, Straights above Gays.

Pragmatic conservatives, on the other hand, may not have a religious orientation at all. Instead, they may care primarily about their own personal authority, not the authority of the church or Christ, or God. They want to be strict fathers in their own domains, with authority primarily over their own lives. Thus, a young, unmarried conservative — male or female —may want to have sex without worrying about marriage. They may need access to contraception, advice about sexually transmitted diseases, information about cervical cancer, and so on. And if a girl or woman becomes pregnant and there is no possibility or desire for marriage, abortion may be necessary. Trump is a pragmatic conservative, par excellence. And he knows that there are a lot of Republican voters who are like him in their pragmatism.

There are at least tens of millions of conservatives in America who share strict father morality and its moral hierarchy. Many of them are poor or middle class and many are white men who see themselves as superior to immigrants, non-whites, women, non-Christians, gays — and people who rely on public assistance. In other words, they are what liberals would call “bigots.”

For too many, Gaddafi was a 'strict father' who know best what is good for us and will punish us if we don't listen.


(35,402 posts)
32. Never has been.
Sat May 14, 2016, 12:17 PM
May 2016

We hate strict-father crap when we are the teens chafing under authority.

When we are in charge it isn't so clear. But many are tolerant. For a while. Then people need to get smart and conform.

I grew up hearing we couldn't legislate morality. Now what I see are lots of people mandating morality and assimilation to their morality.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Surprise! I found even mo...