UN-NATO attack on Libya

[dogsbody70]

our uk govt. and nato have made things in libya much worse--but not prepared to go in and help those poor people who are being killed or injured.

i am ashamed of what uk and nato have done--------

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by dogsbody70

our uk govt. and nato have made things in libya much worse--but not prepared to go in and help those poor people who are being killed or injured.

i am ashamed of what uk and nato have done--------

lol! Don't be ashamed of THIS one... at least not yet.

The people in Libya WANT outside help.

If you want to be ashamed of something be ashamed of Iraq and Afghanistan.

[dogsbody70]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

lol! Don't be ashamed of THIS one... at least not yet.

The people in Libya WANT outside help.

If you want to be ashamed of something be ashamed of Iraq and Afghanistan.

the point is that practical help is needed in hospitals etc. our prime minister says we will not have ground forces there--so nothing to stop the current killing of citizens, including helpless children.
nato should be helping those who are being shot in the latest areas--by gadaffi's men.


we should not start what we cannot finish. if we get aid into these stricken places--then we should.

[TalnSG]

Originally Posted by Kozyra

What do you mean ? ? Yes I want to consider the words of the man whose picture I am using , where is the problem with his words ?
And there is nothing in my religion called " war in the name of the Islam " , Islam says that all people have the freedom to choose their religion , I don't want to start a religion talk , that's not allowed in this site , but read about Islam from the correct sources .
So please let's stop talking about these things , and let's focus on Libya _ the subject of this thread _

[/quote]

You need to read more carefully and consider statements without the emotional bias. I did not say that any religion supported violence or even persuasion of people to their faith. I have read and studied the Qur'an, not just excerpts on the internet, so there is no need to preach.

I said that MEN have used it as an excuse and continue to do so. In the case of my first quote, Malcolm X called for his followers to treat those who attacked him with the same methods, which were violent. So as a respected leader of Islam, even he condoned violence to secure his rights.

[Kozyra]

Originally Posted by TalnSG

You need to read more carefully and consider statements without the emotional bias. I did not say that any religion supported violence or even persuasion of people to their faith. I have read and studied the Qur'an, not just excerpts on the internet, so there is no need to preach.

I said that MEN have used it as an excuse and continue to do so. In the case of my first quote, Malcolm X called for his followers to treat those who attacked him with the same methods, which were violent. So as a respected leader of Islam, even he condoned violence to secure his rights.

Frankly, I do not know a lot about Malcolm X, but I heard that he called for peace, and he was murdered in the end.
I'm sorry I have understood your words incorrectly.

[Kozyra]

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

Wich really leaves us the problem of the Devil we know in Gaddafi and the Devil we don't in the rebels.

I think that the devil is Gaddafi, his speech was very aggressive, and Gaddafi has killed about 10000 of his people , he must leave.

[Ryzorian]

I understand that part Kozyra, but in Gadaffi we have a person who we understand from a motivational stand point. We know what he wants and why. This other group, faction based though it maybe, is a question mark. I don't want to end up with a worse group than Gadaffi was.

Egypt allready has the Military forming an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood, so as it stands, there probably isn't much hope for democractic reforms in Egypt. Least as the West understands them, it's leaning to Theocractic at the moment.

[TalnSG]

Originally Posted by Kozyra

Frankly, I do not know a lot about Malcolm X, but I heard that he called for peace, and he was murdered in the end.
I'm sorry I have understood your words incorrectly.

We all misunderstand people at times.
I think you should study Malcolm X more thoroughly before using him as your avatar. Even some Americans who remember him for his demand for equality and his open opposition to the government of the time which resulted in martrydom, don't necessarily think of him as calling for peace. I am certain it was something he wanted, but he was very clear that it was not to be achieved by accepting what was happening around him.

[Kozyra]

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

I understand that part Kozyra, but in Gadaffi we have a person who we understand from a motivational stand point. We know what he wants and why. This other group, faction based though it maybe, is a question mark. I don't want to end up with a worse group than Gadaffi was.

Egypt allready has the Military forming an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood, so as it stands, there probably isn't much hope for democractic reforms in Egypt. Least as the West understands them, it's leaning to Theocractic at the moment.

I think that after the departure of Gaddafi , there will be free and fair elections, achieved international legitimacy, but at the same time I believe that peace will not happen in Egypt and Libya, and now my country Syria exposed some problems, I believe that there are some people who do not like to see the Arab world live in peace and democracy, and there are some secret groups want to see the Arab world in chaos and constant conflict between the people and governments, in order to achieve their objectives.
I also believe that democracy will return to the Arab world When they Arise one country as they had in the past.

Originally Posted by TalnSG

We all misunderstand people at times.
I think you should study Malcolm X more thoroughly before using him as your avatar. Even some Americans who remember him for his demand for equality and his open opposition to the government of the time which resulted in martrydom, don't necessarily think of him as calling for peace. I am certain it was something he wanted, but he was very clear that it was not to be achieved by accepting what was happening around him.

But I don't see a problem in what Malcolm X said , I believe that " the resistance is a natural right for all oppressed , and the world won't live in peace as long as there are oppressors , oppressor doesn't understand the language of dialogue, but oppressor maybe understands the language of force, so we must use force in order to achieve peace "
And I think that Malcolm X believed in the same rule.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by dogsbody70

the point is that practical help is needed in hospitals etc. our prime minister says we will not have ground forces there--so nothing to stop the current killing of citizens, including helpless children.
nato should be helping those who are being shot in the latest areas--by gadaffi's men.


we should not start what we cannot finish. if we get aid into these stricken places--then we should.

That may be so.. but NATO, the UK and US in particular are so stretched thin right now that they can't afford ANOTHER land war.

Just imagine if Blair and Bush hadn't invaded Iraq? I'm sure the wave of revolution would have reached Iraq too and Saddam would have been toppled without the mess of the last 10 years.

The West would also be in a position to do more having not committed so much to the liberation of one country.

Anyway.. my point is that it is a pity that more can't be done... but what they're doing now is better than nothing.