Rebels are evil!

[thewiseguy]

Well, they must be if we are helping them out. By default whoever we go to war with must not be a bad guy. Ghaddafi may have been a bad dude but now he is alright. A secular who is fighting Al Qaeda just like us.

and about those thousands of people killed in Libya...so what? At least the women there are not forced to wear Hijabs. You figure what is more important. :shrug:

In fact after reading DU today I do not know why we are even striking Libya or why people are protesting. Must be people on drugs or something.

[Romulox]

1. Perhaps we are just not wise enough to chose who lives and who dies?

I have yet to be convinced that "death from above!" was the missing piece in resolving the situation in Libya.

"and about those thousands of people killed in Libya"

We've bombed them, just like you wanted. Now what? :shrug:

[Bluerthanblue]

3. aren't we in effect choosing who lives and who dies when we refuse to

help people who have been targeted by Gaddafi?

Inaction is action.

[Romulox]

5. No. Because if we are, then why no war in Darfur? Or Somalia? Bahrain? Saudi?

There is no logical and no moral answer to my question, because there is no logical or moral principle involved in deciding when and upon whom we go to war. We pick and chose, and then window dress our self-interest with flimsy human rights pretenses. All while turning a blind eye to similar abuses in neighboring countries.

[Bluerthanblue]

7. who is to say that we AREN'T saying yes to the murders

of thousands of people in the countries you cite- by our inaction, and our quiet acquiescence?

Upwards of a million people died as a result of genocide in Rwanda while the world watched, and pretended not to see, or excused what happened by calling it "ancient tribal strife". It was WELL within our power to do something to stop that- but we wouldn't even jam the radio transmissions which the Hutu were using to coordinate the genocide.

"Never Again". does that not apply to all people, or just some?

Can we say we don't have blood on our hands as a result of turning a blind eye to the murders of people we watch being killed and refuse to help?

I can't. I really wish I could, but I can't.

[Romulox]

10. We have neither the power nor the wisdom to intervene in every human conflict.

It's insane hubris to suggest otherwise. Not the least of which becuase we are already losing two concurrent so-called "humanitarian" wars in which WE have killed far more innocents than the "bad guys" ever had time to.

"'Never Again'. does that not apply to all people, or just some?"

Maudlin schlock. Do civilians die better when they die at our hands?

"I can't. I really wish I could, but I can't."

Nor can you articulate any logical or moral argument for why we aren't therefore scrambling the jets to all four corners of the globe. There are tyrants everywhere, after all, and bombs left yet unexploded. It is our moral imperative, therefore, under your creed, for us to kill as many so-called "tyrants" as we physically are able. Correct? Or is there some limiting factor?

[Bluerthanblue]

12. jamming a radio signal would hardly be the equillivent of "killing

tyrants".

If it helps you to sleep at night, to tell yourself that there was nothing you could do- good for you.

But when you try and claim that taking any action which would likely involve the loss of life is wanting to "kill all the tyrants" or that because "we can't save them all" we shouldn't even attempt to save anyone you ARE making a choice.

The war in Afghanistan was done under the "right to individual and collective self-defense"- NOT as a humanitarian effort.

The war in Iraq was undertaken to supress a security threat- (lies under the guise of self-protection) No where was it stated that the war was a "humanitarian" effort- none of the "coalition" partners, nor by the US. Go read UN resolution 1441 and show me where any claim is made that the war was for "humanitarian reasons"

Your bolded statement is wrong. We are fighting two wars, but to label them as "humanitarian" is not only foolish it's not true.

"maudlin schlock" don't try saying that to Elie Wiesel.

I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.

There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.
Elie Wiesel

[Romulox]

19. How about launching a hundred odd cruise missiles? You know, what *actually* happened?

:hi:

[joshcryer]

15. That is no excuse for inaction.

[Romulox]

18. Then what is YOUR excuse for not shouldering a rifle? Innocents are suffering RIGHT NOW!~!!!!

WHAT IS YOUR EXCUSE FOR INACTION? :silly:

[Hugabear]

2. Pardon me if some of us want to closely examine just who we're getting in bed with

Nobody's saying that the rebels in Libya are "evil". Some of us just want to examine who we're siding with. Is that really a bad thing? Or should we just shut the fuck up and accept them without question?

After all, over the past few decades, we have a history of siding with one group just to find out they're not quite the nice folks we thought they were.

[Bluerthanblue]

4. don't believe anyone is saying shut the fuck up- or

that there is a problem with wanting to 'examine' people you are being asked to help-

I do have a problem with jumping to quick conclusions based on our own personal prejudices.

[Hugabear]

6. It's not all "quick conclusions based on personal prejudices"

Some people have done a little digging:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=735699&mesg_id=735799

[Bluerthanblue]

9. I've read that thread and

others, and to be quite honest it was that thread I was thinking of in particular when I replied as I did.

The "digging" is fine, and admirable, but the conclusion that has been pre-maturely made isn't fair, or reliable imo. An opinion is being given as if it were based on facts, not observations. That isn't any more reliable that simply believing that because someone tweets something its true.

[joshcryer]

14. That is really just a unsupported smear more than anything else. It keeps coming up.

[joshcryer]

16. I think most people "questioning" who the rebels are in one of three camps:

1. People who don't actually care who the rebels are, and just want to spread FUD about who they are.
2. People who have heavy confirmation bias and find any negative information about them to be representative of them as a whole.
3. People who read a variety of sources for information in order to have a more sensible position.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JoseGaspar]

11. Terrible, isn't it?

You just want to believe in the fundamental goodness of your government and your culture...

...like any other good citizen of Stuttgart or Frankfurt.

[joshcryer]

13. Gaddafi a goddamn secularist, haha.

Jesus fucking Christ.

[howard112211]

17. Strawman.