Post-revolutionary Libya continues to be poster child for stability

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

In that the eastern third of the country is unilaterally declaring autonomy.

[Lief 🗽]

You're right, we should have let Gaddaffi literally drop bombs on his people because they were peacefully protesting. Sure, tens of thousands of civilians would have been slaughtered, but at least things would be stable.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

You're right, we should have let Gaddaffi literally drop bombs on his people because they were peacefully protesting. Sure, tens of thousands of civilians would have been slaughtered, but at least things would be stable.

Thousands of people are being slaughtered now in Al-Qaeda's takeover of the country, hence ruining NATO's attempt to establish an oil puppet in the region. Everybody loses except the fundies.

[Sol]

Actually, federalism would be quite a good thing for Libya, as Cyrenaica and Tripolitania don't historically have much in common.

[Zioneer]

You're right, we should have let Gaddaffi literally drop bombs on his people because they were peacefully protesting. Sure, tens of thousands of civilians would have been slaughtered, but at least things would be stable.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You're right, we should have let Gaddaffi literally drop bombs on his people because they were peacefully protesting. Sure, tens of thousands of civilians would have been slaughtered, but at least things would be stable.

[opebo]

You're right, we should have let Gaddaffi literally drop bombs on his people because they were peacefully protesting. Sure, tens of thousands of civilians would have been slaughtered, but at least things would be stable.

Come on, 'peacefully protesting'?  Sounds dubious to me.  Seems like I recall a civil war.

[Zioneer]

You're right, we should have let Gaddaffi literally drop bombs on his people because they were peacefully protesting. Sure, tens of thousands of civilians would have been slaughtered, but at least things would be stable.

Come on, 'peacefully protesting'?  Sounds dubious to me.  Seems like I recall a civil war.

It began as peaceful protest. The reason why it escalated was because Gaddafi slaughtered his own people.

[opebo]

It began as peaceful protest. The reason why it escalated was because Gaddafi slaughtered his own people.

Oh really?  I'm skeptical.  Anyway what else could he do with a load of Islamists?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It began as peaceful protest. The reason why it escalated was because Gaddafi slaughtered his own people.

Oh really?  I'm skeptical.  Anyway what else could he do with a load of Islamists?

Decide to not start killing them out of hand without provocation? (Also: Only some of the protesters were Islamists.)

Anyway, like Sol said, Cyrenaican autonomy is hardly an automatically bad thing.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

It began as peaceful protest. The reason why it escalated was because Gaddafi slaughtered his own people.

Oh really?  I'm skeptical.  Anyway what else could he do with a load of Islamists?

Decide to not start killing them out of hand without provocation? (Also: Only some of the protesters were Islamists.)

Anyway, like Sol said, Cyrenaican autonomy is hardly an automatically bad thing.

Debatable given the values dissonance between even Muslim-majority states that aren't "Islamist" and non-Islamic states. Why are there more Islamic countries where women are mandated to cover their entire bodies and hold the status of property than where homosexual acts are legal, and why don't "moderate" Muslims take any vocal stand against this?

[Famous Mortimer]

It began as peaceful protest. The reason why it escalated was because Gaddafi slaughtered his own people.

Oh really?  I'm skeptical.  Anyway what else could he do with a load of Islamists?

Yes, really.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It began as peaceful protest. The reason why it escalated was because Gaddafi slaughtered his own people.

Oh really?  I'm skeptical.  Anyway what else could he do with a load of Islamists?

Decide to not start killing them out of hand without provocation? (Also: Only some of the protesters were Islamists.)

Anyway, like Sol said, Cyrenaican autonomy is hardly an automatically bad thing.

Debatable given the values dissonance between even Muslim-majority states that aren't "Islamist" and non-Islamic states. Why are there more Islamic countries where women are mandated to cover their entire bodies and hold the status of property than where homosexual acts are legal, and why don't "moderate" Muslims take any vocal stand against this?

Oh, are you shifting from a Noam Chomsky act to a Sam Harris one, now?

It is absolutely not debatable that there is a difference between political movements that happen in Muslim countries involving people with Muslim religious and cultural values and the specific set of movements called 'Islamism', even if people sitting in the Northeastern United States gazing eastward across the sea are likely to find both at least somewhat objectionable. It is also absolutely not debatable that the crowds of demonstrators on whom Gaddafi visited unprovoked violence included elements of both, as does Libyan society as a whole.

[bedstuy]

It began as peaceful protest. The reason why it escalated was because Gaddafi slaughtered his own people.

Oh really?  I'm skeptical.  Anyway what else could he do with a load of Islamists?

Decide to not start killing them out of hand without provocation? (Also: Only some of the protesters were Islamists.)

Anyway, like Sol said, Cyrenaican autonomy is hardly an automatically bad thing.

Debatable given the values dissonance between even Muslim-majority states that aren't "Islamist" and non-Islamic states. Why are there more Islamic countries where women are mandated to cover their entire bodies and hold the status of property than where homosexual acts are legal, and why don't "moderate" Muslims take any vocal stand against this?

Oh, are you shifting from a Noam Chomsky act to a Sam Harris one, now?

It is absolutely not debatable that there is a difference between political movements that happen in Muslim countries involving people with Muslim religious and cultural values and the specific set of movements called 'Islamism', even if people sitting in the Northeastern United States gazing eastward across the sea are likely to find both at least somewhat objectionable. It is also absolutely not debatable that the crowds of demonstrators on whom Gaddafi visited unprovoked violence included elements of both, as does Libyan society as a whole.

Yeah.  Snowstalker's first impulse is correct here, as far as being a modern leftist.  You do want to blame the US for the situation in Libya.  The US is always wrong in that worldview therefore everything that happens in Libya is our fault.  Where you go wrong is in blaming or mentioning "islamist" factions.  If you want to be a proper leftist, you can blame the following things: the US, White people, colonialism, capitalism, Israel, Men, Western civilization in general.  Step up your game.     

[Nhoj]

It began as peaceful protest. The reason why it escalated was because Gaddafi slaughtered his own people.

Oh really?  I'm skeptical.  Anyway what else could he do with a load of Islamists?

Decide to not start killing them out of hand without provocation? (Also: Only some of the protesters were Islamists.)

Anyway, like Sol said, Cyrenaican autonomy is hardly an automatically bad thing.

Debatable given the values dissonance between even Muslim-majority states that aren't "Islamist" and non-Islamic states. Why are there more Islamic countries where women are mandated to cover their entire bodies and hold the status of property than where homosexual acts are legal, and why don't "moderate" Muslims take any vocal stand against this?

Oh, are you shifting from a Noam Chomsky act to a Sam Harris one, now?

It is absolutely not debatable that there is a difference between political movements that happen in Muslim countries involving people with Muslim religious and cultural values and the specific set of movements called 'Islamism', even if people sitting in the Northeastern United States gazing eastward across the sea are likely to find both at least somewhat objectionable. It is also absolutely not debatable that the crowds of demonstrators on whom Gaddafi visited unprovoked violence included elements of both, as does Libyan society as a whole.

Also the man himself was at times a islamist of sorts.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

It began as peaceful protest. The reason why it escalated was because Gaddafi slaughtered his own people.

Oh really?  I'm skeptical.  Anyway what else could he do with a load of Islamists?

Decide to not start killing them out of hand without provocation? (Also: Only some of the protesters were Islamists.)

Anyway, like Sol said, Cyrenaican autonomy is hardly an automatically bad thing.

Debatable given the values dissonance between even Muslim-majority states that aren't "Islamist" and non-Islamic states. Why are there more Islamic countries where women are mandated to cover their entire bodies and hold the status of property than where homosexual acts are legal, and why don't "moderate" Muslims take any vocal stand against this?

Oh, are you shifting from a Noam Chomsky act to a Sam Harris one, now?

It is absolutely not debatable that there is a difference between political movements that happen in Muslim countries involving people with Muslim religious and cultural values and the specific set of movements called 'Islamism', even if people sitting in the Northeastern United States gazing eastward across the sea are likely to find both at least somewhat objectionable. It is also absolutely not debatable that the crowds of demonstrators on whom Gaddafi visited unprovoked violence included elements of both, as does Libyan society as a whole.

Yeah.  Snowstalker's first impulse is correct here, as far as being a modern leftist.  You do want to blame the US for the situation in Libya.  The US is always wrong in that worldview therefore everything that happens in Libya is our fault.  Where you go wrong is in blaming or mentioning "islamist" factions.  If you want to be a proper leftist, you can blame the following things: the US, White people, colonialism, capitalism, Israel, Men, Western civilization in general.  Step up your game.     

Leftism doesn't have to be anti-Western, anti-Israel, or pro-Islam at all. Again, how is support for Islamism remotely leftist? I'm not particularly a fan of Israel, but they're far more progressive than any of their neighbors.

[bedstuy]

It began as peaceful protest. The reason why it escalated was because Gaddafi slaughtered his own people.

Oh really?  I'm skeptical.  Anyway what else could he do with a load of Islamists?

Decide to not start killing them out of hand without provocation? (Also: Only some of the protesters were Islamists.)

Anyway, like Sol said, Cyrenaican autonomy is hardly an automatically bad thing.

Debatable given the values dissonance between even Muslim-majority states that aren't "Islamist" and non-Islamic states. Why are there more Islamic countries where women are mandated to cover their entire bodies and hold the status of property than where homosexual acts are legal, and why don't "moderate" Muslims take any vocal stand against this?

Oh, are you shifting from a Noam Chomsky act to a Sam Harris one, now?

It is absolutely not debatable that there is a difference between political movements that happen in Muslim countries involving people with Muslim religious and cultural values and the specific set of movements called 'Islamism', even if people sitting in the Northeastern United States gazing eastward across the sea are likely to find both at least somewhat objectionable. It is also absolutely not debatable that the crowds of demonstrators on whom Gaddafi visited unprovoked violence included elements of both, as does Libyan society as a whole.

Yeah.  Snowstalker's first impulse is correct here, as far as being a modern leftist.  You do want to blame the US for the situation in Libya.  The US is always wrong in that worldview therefore everything that happens in Libya is our fault.  Where you go wrong is in blaming or mentioning "islamist" factions.  If you want to be a proper leftist, you can blame the following things: the US, White people, colonialism, capitalism, Israel, Men, Western civilization in general.  Step up your game.     

Leftism doesn't have to be anti-Western, anti-Israel, or pro-Islam at all. Again, how is support for Islamism remotely leftist? I'm not particularly a fan of Israel, but they're far more progressive than any of their neighbors.

You don't support Islamism, you ignore it because it doesn't fit into a US centered critical studies view of the world. 

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I reject the idea that oppression or imperialism is limited to the west. There's a reason it's "Working men of all nations, unite!" How am I ignoring Islamism, anyway?

[bedstuy]

I reject the idea that oppression or imperialism is limited to the west. There's a reason it's "Working men of all nations, unite!" How am I ignoring Islamism, anyway?

I'm not saying you are or you should.  But, if you want to be a new left socialist type, you're supposed to ignore that sort of thing and only focus on how bad rich white people are.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I reject the idea that oppression or imperialism is limited to the west. There's a reason it's "Working men of all nations, unite!" How am I ignoring Islamism, anyway?

I'm not saying you are or you should.  But, if you want to be a new left socialist type, you're supposed to ignore that sort of thing and only focus on how bad rich white people are.

Nope, not new left.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Er, just for the record, I'm not exactly making the points that I am making out of any love for Islamism either.

[LastVoter]

You're right, we should have let Gaddaffi literally drop bombs on his people because they were peacefully protesting. Sure, tens of thousands of civilians would have been slaughtered, but at least things would be stable.

I think its pretty clear that things are heading into that direction anyway. Hopefully the western installed government is deposed and the striking workers can establish a new state.

[Lief 🗽]

The funny thing about this, with Snowstalker's "Marxist" persona, is that a desire for stability is basically the most stereotypically bourgeoise middle-class concern there is.

[Oakvale]

The funny thing about this, with Snowstalker's "Marxist" persona, is that a desire for stability is basically the most stereotypically bourgeoise middle-class concern there is.

I think he's apparently moved on from the teenaged Marxist thing to general Islamophobia and hatemongering as part of some bizarre move to the far right.

[Lief 🗽]

Well then he should change his signature to a more relevant political cartoon, like this one.