PDA

View Full Version : Mustafa Abdul-Jalil New Leader of Libya Declars Sharia Law In Effect



Conley
10-23-2011, 07:23 PM
The transitional government leader Mustafa Abdul-Jalil set out a vision for the post-Gadhafi future with an Islamist tint, saying that Islamic Sharia law would be the "basic source" of legislation in the country and that existing laws that contradict the teachings of Islam would be nullified. In a gesture that showed his own piety, he urged Libyans not to express their joy by firing in the air, but rather to chant "Allahu Akbar," or God is Great. He then stepped aside and knelt to offer a brief prayer of thanks.

http://news.yahoo.com/libyas-transitional-leader-declares-liberation-155513082.html

Good thing the West gave this guy the keys to the kingdom. ::) Whoops!

Mister D
10-23-2011, 07:53 PM
My only concern with that is the potential for Libya to become a haven for terrorists. Beyond that, let the Libyans decide how they'll live and how they'll be governed.

Mister D
10-23-2011, 07:54 PM
I support interference only in so far as we have an oil interest. I do not support any modernist/globalist project.

jgreer
10-23-2011, 08:13 PM
My only concern with that is the potential for Libya to become a haven for terrorists. Beyond that, let the Libyans decide how they'll live and how they'll be governed.


I wish George W. Bush had that same philosophy with Iraq.

Mister D
10-23-2011, 08:15 PM
My only concern with that is the potential for Libya to become a haven for terrorists. Beyond that, let the Libyans decide how they'll live and how they'll be governed.


I wish George W. Bush had that same philosophy with Iraq.


So do I.

Conley
10-23-2011, 08:19 PM
My only concern with that is the potential for Libya to become a haven for terrorists. Beyond that, let the Libyans decide how they'll live and how they'll be governed.


That's true but if we're going to go so far as to assist in the revolution I'd like us to appoint or have some say in the installation of a pro-Western leader.

Before any of this went down I was of the opinion Libya was irrelevant and really I'm still of that opinion. If any of these scumbags house terrorists then I am all for us ignoring their borders and going after them like we did in Pakistan. Better that the regimes not let them in in the first place but I think the world is on notice now that we'll go where ever we want to hunt these guys down.

Mister D
10-23-2011, 08:47 PM
My only concern with that is the potential for Libya to become a haven for terrorists. Beyond that, let the Libyans decide how they'll live and how they'll be governed.


That's true but if we're going to go so far as to assist in the revolution I'd like us to appoint or have some say in the installation of a pro-Western leader.

Before any of this went down I was of the opinion Libya was irrelevant and really I'm still of that opinion. If any of these scumbags house terrorists then I am all for us ignoring their borders and going after them like we did in Pakistan. Better that the regimes not let them in in the first place but I think the world is on notice now that we'll go where ever we want to hunt these guys down.


What's funny is that both the Bush and the Obama administrations embrace this globalist mindset. Libya, IMO, is just a blatant example of it. With Iraq at least people could point to economic motives (oil) but in Libya what interest is there other than a desire to remake the world in our image? As you said, it's irrelevant.

Conley
10-23-2011, 08:51 PM
Right...there was zero justification for Libya.

Now that Iraq is winding down it also seems as though the U.S. won't really see much of a benefit in terms of oil or military bases. Whether or not one agrees with the ethically I don't see much of a strategic advantage or any gains from our perspective from this tremendous undertaking. It seems to me more evidence of such short sighted policy. The guys who pushed for this like Rumsfeld are long gone by the time the chickens come home to roost.

Mister D
10-23-2011, 08:58 PM
Right...there was zero justification for Libya.

Now that Iraq is winding down it also seems as though the U.S. won't really see much of a benefit in terms of oil or military bases. Whether or not one agrees with the ethically I don't see much of a strategic advantage or any gains from our perspective from this tremendous undertaking. It seems to me more evidence of such short sighted policy. The guys who pushed for this like Rumsfeld are long gone by the time the chickens come home to roost.


Honestly, I think the neocons may have been thinking long term or at least the more intelligent ones were. Oil was a major factor in Iraq but the goal was to make the entire region friendlier to us. It wasn't a matter of Halliburton contracts or any of this conspiracy stuff but to make this oil producing region friendlier to the US. A democracy in Iraq could conceivably go a long way toward accomplishing that goal.

Conley
10-23-2011, 09:12 PM
Right...there was zero justification for Libya.

Now that Iraq is winding down it also seems as though the U.S. won't really see much of a benefit in terms of oil or military bases. Whether or not one agrees with the ethically I don't see much of a strategic advantage or any gains from our perspective from this tremendous undertaking. It seems to me more evidence of such short sighted policy. The guys who pushed for this like Rumsfeld are long gone by the time the chickens come home to roost.


Honestly, I think the neocons may have been thinking long term or at least the more intelligent ones were. Oil was a major factor in Iraq but the goal was to make the entire region friendlier to us. It wasn't a matter of Halliburton contracts or any of this conspiracy stuff but to make this oil producing region friendlier to the US. A democracy in Iraq could conceivably go a long way toward accomplishing that goal.


I don't think they were thinking long term so much as thinking the operations in Iraq would be a quick and clean undertaking. Obviously once it lasted past Bush's presidency it was going to be out of their hands unless they got another president elected.

I do remember Wolfowitz I think it was saying the oil would pay for the war. Honestly I had and still don't have a problem with the U.S. having access to their oil. I'm not saying we should outright take it but to liberate the country and then just walk away seems pointless to me. I know many neocons thought they would be 'greeted as liberators' but to me that is just naive. They knew the U.S. people wouldn't stand for casualties and as such we bombed the crap out of them. The loss of civilian life certainly turned many against us even as we tried to avoid it. There's no such thing as a clean war even if Gulf War 1 seemed to suggest it was a possibility. Just my long rambling thoughts. ;D

MMC
10-24-2011, 12:25 AM
Now look at the overall picture of the ME. We have surrounded Iran. Even the Neo-Cons weren't for jumping into Libya at the start. Which we spent over a Billion dollars. Think the French or the Brits Spent anything close.

So the French and the Sunni got to conduct a war with the supplies and resoureces of the US. All because they could not do so on their own.

Does this surprise me with this Rebel leader who Helped Gadhafi take power. Now turns against Gadhafi. Now will impose Sharia Law as part of their ruling the Country. I am sure those into Western Culture will not like that. Also, again with the Sharia Law. Who do they think their foolin. Sharia Law was round Long before Islam was ever thought of. Or even a Twinkling in Mohammed's eye. So each and every time one of those Muslims start talking that bullshit. Thats when they need to get slapped upside their head with some cold hard facts. Then look them right in the eye and tell them Lie to me once again and watch what happens.

See thats the thing if the Sunni wont give respect. Then we should have NP telling them we will take it.

The only good thing is that if this becomes a major screw up. All get to blame the French. Then hopefully the world will wake up and finally say. Your Fault, time to pay the piper!

Mister D
10-24-2011, 10:46 AM
I'm into Western culture and I couldn't care less about Libya. Shoving Americanized garbage down everyone's throat is something we've been guilty of for decades. Not that the world doesn't lap it up like a dog...

MMC
10-24-2011, 08:19 PM
This guy coming out and declaring the new government will be theocratic and under Sharia Law doesnt look to good now does it? Plus now Clinton stated over the weekend that it was Obama who put together the Coalition to oust Gadhafi.

Conley
10-24-2011, 08:23 PM
This guy coming out and declaring the new government will be theocratic and under Sharia Law doesnt look to good now does it? Plus now Clinton stated over the weekend that it was Obama who put together the Coalition to oust Gadhafi.


http://blackwaterdog.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/homer-simpson-doh.gif?w=290

Scaybeez
10-26-2011, 12:05 AM
It seemed pretty apparent from the start that the aftermath of the Arab Spring would not be secular. Religion and politics are heavily mixed in the region and Islamic groups were all too often the only ones carrying on a longstanding, effective resistance to the regimes that have fallen. They're well organized and they have credibility amongst the populace. It makes sense that they'd be making some gains right now.

However, does the fact that they're making gains or that Islam will likely play an important role in the new Libyan government necessarily mean we fucked up? I don't think so. We should clearly pay attention to this, but we shouldn't overreact to it.

MMC
10-26-2011, 12:32 AM
Yeah.....we shouldnt overreact. Like we did. Now giving the Sunni All of OPEC, does indeed require us to clearly pay attention.

Scaybeez
10-26-2011, 01:11 AM
Did we overreact? A wave of change was going to sweep North Africa and the Middle East eventually - whether in 2011 or a few years down the road. We could have sat on the sidelines, making nice with Gadhafi and ignoring the pleas of the Libyan protesters/rebels, but that would simply have postponed the inevitable (and also allowed hostile regimes like Iran to set the tone of all discussions on the subject).

Personally, I think it was much wiser to get our hands a little dirty, foster some goodwill, and help create the potential for a freer Middle East.

Conley
10-26-2011, 08:23 AM
Did we overreact? A wave of change was going to sweep North Africa and the Middle East eventually - whether in 2011 or a few years down the road. We could have sat on the sidelines, making nice with Gadhafi and ignoring the pleas of the Libyan protesters/rebels, but that would simply have postponed the inevitable (and also allowed hostile regimes like Iran to set the tone of all discussions on the subject).

Personally, I think it was much wiser to get our hands a little dirty, foster some goodwill, and help create the potential for a freer Middle East.


Good points all, but I think it comes back to the problem that a 'freer Middle East' isn't necessarily in the best interests of the United States. A lot of people over there hate our guts, and many of them have good reason to do so. It's a balancing act but for me freedom (which I would ask you to further define in this context) doesn't seem like enough to me. Also, did we really foster goodwill? Seems like everyone is either asking us to intervene or complaining that we have our nose in other people's business. It's a no-win situation.

Mister D
10-26-2011, 08:44 AM
I think Conley is right. We should be acting with an eye on our concrete interests rather than something as nebulous as "goodwill". Getting involved (still unwise, IMHO) and choosing a side whose actual intentions were and remain unknown are two very different things.

jgreer
10-26-2011, 10:26 AM
It depends where your priorities are as an American. Personally I would rather see more freedom across that planet than a drop in oil prices. Really I think some people need to take a step back and realize that improving our living standards isn't worth hurting people in other countries. Think globally not just with your wallet.

Mister D
10-26-2011, 11:37 AM
It depends where your priorities are as an American. Personally I would rather see more freedom across that planet than a drop in oil prices. Really I think some people need to take a step back and realize that improving our living standards isn't worth hurting people in other countries. Think globally not just with your wallet.


Interfering in another nation's civil war without any clear idea of what our interest might be is not one of my priorities. Glad ot now it's one of yours. What a difference a President makes!

Pendragon
10-26-2011, 11:45 AM
Relieving human suffering is one of our interests. George W. Bush said as much during his administration just as those that came before and those that will come after. Every American president wishes to leave the planet in a better state than when he took office.

Conley
10-26-2011, 11:51 AM
Relieving human suffering is one of our interests. George W. Bush said as much during his administration just as those that came before and those that will come after. Every American president wishes to leave the planet in a better state than when he took office.


At what cost though? Should American lives be lost? Should we spend trillions on a civil war? You have to be reasonable and recognize American resources are already stretched. On the heels of Iraq and Afghanistan jumping into a military conflict with such a limited understanding of it seems even more reckless.

Mister D
10-26-2011, 12:57 PM
Relieving human suffering is one of our interests. George W. Bush said as much during his administration just as those that came before and those that will come after. Every American president wishes to leave the planet in a better state than when he took office.


well then we best get busy! :D

Mister D
10-26-2011, 12:58 PM
Relieving human suffering is one of our interests. George W. Bush said as much during his administration just as those that came before and those that will come after. Every American president wishes to leave the planet in a better state than when he took office.


At what cost though? Should American lives be lost? Should we spend trillions on a civil war? You have to be reasonable and recognize American resources are already stretched. On the heels of Iraq and Afghanistan jumping into a military conflict with such a limited understanding of it seems even more reckless.


How do we determine which shit hole needs to be addressed first? ??? We've got a lot of owrk to do regardless of where we start.

Conley
10-26-2011, 01:00 PM
Relieving human suffering is one of our interests. George W. Bush said as much during his administration just as those that came before and those that will come after. Every American president wishes to leave the planet in a better state than when he took office.


At what cost though? Should American lives be lost? Should we spend trillions on a civil war? You have to be reasonable and recognize American resources are already stretched. On the heels of Iraq and Afghanistan jumping into a military conflict with such a limited understanding of it seems even more reckless.


How do we determine which shit hole needs to be addressed first? ??? We've got a lot of owrk to do regardless of where we start.


We could work on problems here at home first also. There's still work to be done here in the U.S.

Mister D
10-26-2011, 01:03 PM
Relieving human suffering is one of our interests. George W. Bush said as much during his administration just as those that came before and those that will come after. Every American president wishes to leave the planet in a better state than when he took office.


At what cost though? Should American lives be lost? Should we spend trillions on a civil war? You have to be reasonable and recognize American resources are already stretched. On the heels of Iraq and Afghanistan jumping into a military conflict with such a limited understanding of it seems even more reckless.


How do we determine which shit hole needs to be addressed first? ??? We've got a lot of owrk to do regardless of where we start.


We could work on problems here at home first also. There's still work to be done here in the U.S.


It's amazing what a difference a President makes. :o Now the liberals tell us we should be stomping around the world telling everyone how to live. Incredible.

MMC
10-26-2011, 04:16 PM
It depends where your priorities are as an American. Personally I would rather see more freedom across that planet than a drop in oil prices. Really I think some people need to take a step back and realize that improving our living standards isn't worth hurting people in other countries. Think globally not just with your wallet.


I am sure all the Women of Libya right about now give two shits about American Priorties. Think they will have Freedom under Sharia Law? Such a Noble thought. Freedom across the Planet.

Yet think globally. What a joke. How about thinking with some reality. You have an entire planet with Countries who are given their freedom to choose their path. Yet half would choose a path that takes the rights of women and children away from them. That takes the right to choose that freedom.

Mister D
10-26-2011, 05:19 PM
Agreed, MMC.

Now the liberals are hawks. Incredible.

MMC
10-26-2011, 05:40 PM
Agreed, MMC.

Now the liberals are hawks. Incredible.


http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1311314289533&id=ad2aed16c559b6d728052050c2841544&url=http%3a%2f%2ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2f3041%2f 2964127836_7ddaefbae4_z.jpg

Neo-Cons/Neo Libs.....there is no difference!!!!!

Mister D
10-26-2011, 05:41 PM
Agreed, MMC.

Now the liberals are hawks. Incredible.


http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1311314289533&id=ad2aed16c559b6d728052050c2841544&url=http%3a%2f%2ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2f3041%2f 2964127836_7ddaefbae4_z.jpg

Neo-Cons/Neo Libs.....there is no difference!!!!!


It really is incredible and I'm just talking about the rank and file. Not pols. Some of the same guys who were blasting the "war for oil" are now championing bombs over Libya. It's incredible.

Scaybeez
10-26-2011, 08:42 PM
Good points all, but I think it comes back to the problem that a 'freer Middle East' isn't necessarily in the best interests of the United States. A lot of people over there hate our guts, and many of them have good reason to do so. It's a balancing act but for me freedom (which I would ask you to further define in this context) doesn't seem like enough to me. Also, did we really foster goodwill? Seems like everyone is either asking us to intervene or complaining that we have our nose in other people's business. It's a no-win situation.


Specifically with regard to Libya, the freedom I was referring to is the freedom of the Libyan people to decide what form of government they wish to have and who will lead that government. In theory, this would result protections for the right to assembly and freedom of speech, as those were two of the main gripes Libyans had with Gadhafi's regime.

I would argue that, if our 'best interests' are harmed by a people being more free, perhaps it's our interests that we ought to be taking a good hard look at.

And finally, has it harmed out image? I guess I disagree. It's been China, Russia, and Iran coming out swinging in defense of unpopular regimes. It's quite a thing to see images of THEIR flags being burned in the streets of Arab cities rather than ours (at least in my book).

Conley
10-26-2011, 08:51 PM
Good points all, but I think it comes back to the problem that a 'freer Middle East' isn't necessarily in the best interests of the United States. A lot of people over there hate our guts, and many of them have good reason to do so. It's a balancing act but for me freedom (which I would ask you to further define in this context) doesn't seem like enough to me. Also, did we really foster goodwill? Seems like everyone is either asking us to intervene or complaining that we have our nose in other people's business. It's a no-win situation.


Specifically with regard to Libya, the freedom I was referring to is the freedom of the Libyan people to decide what form of government they wish to have and who will lead that government. In theory, this would result protections for the right to assembly and freedom of speech, as those were two of the main gripes Libyans had with Gadhafi's regime.

I would argue that, if our 'best interests' are harmed by a people being more free, perhaps it's our interests that we ought to be taking a good hard look at.

And finally, has it harmed out image? I guess I disagree. It's been China, Russia, and Iran coming out swinging in defense of unpopular regimes. It's quite a thing to see images of THEIR flags being burned in the streets of Arab cities rather than ours (at least in my book).


I don't think it has harmed our image. Really I don't know that our image could be any worse in the Middle East, and while I understand why that is I'm not sure that the effort to reverse that would be worth it or if it is even possible. Beyond the admittedly "bad things" we have done, many of the leaders in the Middle East blame the U.S. for everything wrong in their societies. We're a convenient scapegoat to keep the populace from blaming their own leaders. I haven't seen any Russian or Chinese flags being burned, much less Iranian but if that is happening I'm not sure that's a good thing. We need China and Russia to keep order IMO because the idea of a militarized, chaotic, and nuclear capable splintered Middle East is basically a doomsday scenario.

As for the right to assemble and freedom of speech, will that be possible under Sharia law? Is Egypt better off being ruled by the military instead of Mubarak? I ask these questions because war in general and the Libyan revolution specifically seems like such a roll of the dice.

Mister D
10-26-2011, 08:54 PM
Good points all, but I think it comes back to the problem that a 'freer Middle East' isn't necessarily in the best interests of the United States. A lot of people over there hate our guts, and many of them have good reason to do so. It's a balancing act but for me freedom (which I would ask you to further define in this context) doesn't seem like enough to me. Also, did we really foster goodwill? Seems like everyone is either asking us to intervene or complaining that we have our nose in other people's business. It's a no-win situation.


Specifically with regard to Libya, the freedom I was referring to is the freedom of the Libyan people to decide what form of government they wish to have and who will lead that government. In theory, this would result protections for the right to assembly and freedom of speech, as those were two of the main gripes Libyans had with Gadhafi's regime.

I would argue that, if our 'best interests' are harmed by a people being more free, perhaps it's our interests that we ought to be taking a good hard look at.

And finally, has it harmed out image? I guess I disagree. It's been China, Russia, and Iran coming out swinging in defense of unpopular regimes. It's quite a thing to see images of THEIR flags being burned in the streets of Arab cities rather than ours (at least in my book).


With regard to our image, I doubt it will be impacted to a significant degree. One thing I've always said that we need to take a "good hard look at" our intense national desire to be liked. That should not be the focus of a foreign policy.

Conley
10-26-2011, 08:57 PM
Good points all, but I think it comes back to the problem that a 'freer Middle East' isn't necessarily in the best interests of the United States. A lot of people over there hate our guts, and many of them have good reason to do so. It's a balancing act but for me freedom (which I would ask you to further define in this context) doesn't seem like enough to me. Also, did we really foster goodwill? Seems like everyone is either asking us to intervene or complaining that we have our nose in other people's business. It's a no-win situation.


I would argue that, if our 'best interests' are harmed by a people being more free, perhaps it's our interests that we ought to be taking a good hard look at.



I definitely agree this is a problem and IMO a result of a lack of foreign policy. As D has pointed out in prior discussions, we don't even have a "policy", it's just a cluster.

Scaybeez
10-26-2011, 08:58 PM
I am sure all the Women of Libya right about now give two shits about American Priorties. Think they will have Freedom under Sharia Law? Such a Noble thought. Freedom across the Planet.

Yet think globally. What a joke. How about thinking with some reality. You have an entire planet with Countries who are given their freedom to choose their path. Yet half would choose a path that takes the rights of women and children away from them. That takes the right to choose that freedom.


It's a little too early to say what, exactly, Libya, Tunisia, or Egypt will look like down the road. However, with that said, everyone knew going into this that we wouldn't 100% love all of the results. The kicker is, we don't have to.

Conley
10-26-2011, 09:00 PM
I am sure all the Women of Libya right about now give two shits about American Priorties. Think they will have Freedom under Sharia Law? Such a Noble thought. Freedom across the Planet.

Yet think globally. What a joke. How about thinking with some reality. You have an entire planet with Countries who are given their freedom to choose their path. Yet half would choose a path that takes the rights of women and children away from them. That takes the right to choose that freedom.


It's a little too early to say what, exactly, Libya, Tunisia, or Egypt will look like down the road. However, with that said, everyone knew going into this that we wouldn't 100% love all of the results. The kicker is, we don't have to.


I agree we don't know what it will look like, but wasn't it a roll of the dice and at a time when we can ill afford it? After the terrible cost of Iraq and Afghanistan as well.

Mister D
10-26-2011, 09:02 PM
Good points all, but I think it comes back to the problem that a 'freer Middle East' isn't necessarily in the best interests of the United States. A lot of people over there hate our guts, and many of them have good reason to do so. It's a balancing act but for me freedom (which I would ask you to further define in this context) doesn't seem like enough to me. Also, did we really foster goodwill? Seems like everyone is either asking us to intervene or complaining that we have our nose in other people's business. It's a no-win situation.


Specifically with regard to Libya, the freedom I was referring to is the freedom of the Libyan people to decide what form of government they wish to have and who will lead that government. In theory, this would result protections for the right to assembly and freedom of speech, as those were two of the main gripes Libyans had with Gadhafi's regime.

I would argue that, if our 'best interests' are harmed by a people being more free, perhaps it's our interests that we ought to be taking a good hard look at.

And finally, has it harmed out image? I guess I disagree. It's been China, Russia, and Iran coming out swinging in defense of unpopular regimes. It's quite a thing to see images of THEIR flags being burned in the streets of Arab cities rather than ours (at least in my book).


I don't think it has harmed our image. Really I don't know that our image could be any worse in the Middle East, and while I understand why that is I'm not sure that the effort to reverse that would be worth it or if it is even possible. Beyond the admittedly "bad things" we have done, many of the leaders in the Middle East blame the U.S. for everything wrong in their societies. We're a convenient scapegoat to keep the populace from blaming their own leaders. I haven't seen any Russian or Chinese flags being burned, much less Iranian but if that is happening I'm not sure that's a good thing. We need China and Russia to keep order IMO because the idea of a militarized, chaotic, and nuclear capable splintered Middle East is basically a doomsday scenario.

As for the right to assemble and freedom of speech, will that be possible under Sharia law? Is Egypt better off being ruled by the military instead of Mubarak? I ask these questions because war in general and the Libyan revolution specifically seems like such a roll of the dice.


A roll of the dice is exactly what it is. This administration appears to have gone into this with exactly the same presuppositions that informed the Bush administration. That is, they project their decidedly western modernist outlook onto the hopes and dreams of the entire human race. Do Libyans desire to live like us? Egyptians? Why do we assume these things?

Scaybeez
10-26-2011, 09:26 PM
I don't think it has harmed our image. Really I don't know that our image could be any worse in the Middle East, and while I understand why that is I'm not sure that the effort to reverse that would be worth it or if it is even possible. Beyond the admittedly "bad things" we have done, many of the leaders in the Middle East blame the U.S. for everything wrong in their societies. We're a convenient scapegoat to keep the populace from blaming their own leaders. I haven't seen any Russian or Chinese flags being burned, much less Iranian but if that is happening I'm not sure that's a good thing. We need China and Russia to keep order IMO because the idea of a militarized, chaotic, and nuclear capable splintered Middle East is basically a doomsday scenario.

As for the right to assemble and freedom of speech, will that be possible under Sharia law? Is Egypt better off being ruled by the military instead of Mubarak? I ask these questions because war in general and the Libyan revolution specifically seems like such a roll of the dice.


I agree that the U.S. has traditionally made a wonderful scapegoat for Middle Eastern leaders and, to some degree, that will always be the case. World powers are easy to blame. With that said, however, I'm personally fine with Russia and China being on the receiving end of some of these protests. Their hands aren't exactly clean - and the wiser the people of the region are to that, the better.

Also, admittedly, I'm not expert on Sharia law. What I do know is that, as far as Libya is concerned, all that's been stated is that Islam will provide a loose basis for the structure of their society. To me, that doesn't spell a Taliban style scenario. In fact, it leaves quite a bit of wiggle room for what's to follow.

Honestly, at this point, it's hard for me to judge Egypt, at least until the parliamentary elections are held. Clearly, there are some things unfolding that are pretty ugly (the oppression of the Coptics, for instance) but this sort of instability isn't uncommon in the aftermath of a dictatorship. And you're right, these things are a huge roll of the dice. Which provides a lot of opportunities for things to turn out bad, but also a lot of opportunities for things to turn out better. At the end of the day, though, these were revolts that were a long time coming and I think most in the West knew that.

MMC
10-26-2011, 11:23 PM
Good points all, but I think it comes back to the problem that a 'freer Middle East' isn't necessarily in the best interests of the United States. A lot of people over there hate our guts, and many of them have good reason to do so. It's a balancing act but for me freedom (which I would ask you to further define in this context) doesn't seem like enough to me. Also, did we really foster goodwill? Seems like everyone is either asking us to intervene or complaining that we have our nose in other people's business. It's a no-win situation.


Specifically with regard to Libya, the freedom I was referring to is the freedom of the Libyan people to decide what form of government they wish to have and who will lead that government. In theory, this would result protections for the right to assembly and freedom of speech, as those were two of the main gripes Libyans had with Gadhafi's regime.

I would argue that, if our 'best interests' are harmed by a people being more free, perhaps it's our interests that we ought to be taking a good hard look at.

And finally, has it harmed out image? I guess I disagree. It's been China, Russia, and Iran coming out swinging in defense of unpopular regimes. It's quite a thing to see images of THEIR flags being burned in the streets of Arab cities rather than ours (at least in my book).


I don't think it has harmed our image. Really I don't know that our image could be any worse in the Middle East, and while I understand why that is I'm not sure that the effort to reverse that would be worth it or if it is even possible. Beyond the admittedly "bad things" we have done, many of the leaders in the Middle East blame the U.S. for everything wrong in their societies. We're a convenient scapegoat to keep the populace from blaming their own leaders. I haven't seen any Russian or Chinese flags being burned, much less Iranian but if that is happening I'm not sure that's a good thing. We need China and Russia to keep order IMO because the idea of a militarized, chaotic, and nuclear capable splintered Middle East is basically a doomsday scenario.

As for the right to assemble and freedom of speech, will that be possible under Sharia law? Is Egypt better off being ruled by the military instead of Mubarak? I ask these questions because war in general and the Libyan revolution specifically seems like such a roll of the dice.


No it wouldnt. Not for all.

MMC
10-26-2011, 11:32 PM
I don't think it has harmed our image. Really I don't know that our image could be any worse in the Middle East, and while I understand why that is I'm not sure that the effort to reverse that would be worth it or if it is even possible. Beyond the admittedly "bad things" we have done, many of the leaders in the Middle East blame the U.S. for everything wrong in their societies. We're a convenient scapegoat to keep the populace from blaming their own leaders. I haven't seen any Russian or Chinese flags being burned, much less Iranian but if that is happening I'm not sure that's a good thing. We need China and Russia to keep order IMO because the idea of a militarized, chaotic, and nuclear capable splintered Middle East is basically a doomsday scenario.

As for the right to assemble and freedom of speech, will that be possible under Sharia law? Is Egypt better off being ruled by the military instead of Mubarak? I ask these questions because war in general and the Libyan revolution specifically seems like such a roll of the dice.


I agree that the U.S. has traditionally made a wonderful scapegoat for Middle Eastern leaders and, to some degree, that will always be the case. World powers are easy to blame. With that said, however, I'm personally fine with Russia and China being on the receiving end of some of these protests. Their hands aren't exactly clean - and the wiser the people of the region are to that, the better.

Also, admittedly, I'm not expert on Sharia law. What I do know is that, as far as Libya is concerned, all that's been stated is that Islam will provide a loose basis for the structure of their society. To me, that doesn't spell a Taliban style scenario. In fact, it leaves quite a bit of wiggle room for what's to follow.

Honestly, at this point, it's hard for me to judge Egypt, at least until the parliamentary elections are held. Clearly, there are some things unfolding that are pretty ugly (the oppression of the Coptics, for instance) but this sort of instability isn't uncommon in the aftermath of a dictatorship. And you're right, these things are a huge roll of the dice. Which provides a lot of opportunities for things to turn out bad, but also a lot of opportunities for things to turn out better. At the end of the day, though, these were revolts that were a long time coming and I think most in the West knew that.


The announcement that Islamic sharia law will be the basis of legislation in newly liberated Libya has raised concerns, especially among women, despite Islamists insisting moderation will prevail.

"Any law that violates sharia is null and void legally," he said, citing as an example the law on marriage passed during the slain dictator's 42-year tenure that imposed restrictions on polygamy, which is permitted in Islam.

"The law of divorce and marriage... This law is contrary to sharia and it is stopped," Abdel Jalil said.

"It's shocking and insulting to state, after thousands of Libyans have paid for freedom with their lives, that the priority of the new leadership is to allow men to marry in secret," said Rim, 40, a Libyan feminist who requested anonymity.

"We did not slay Goliath so that we now live under the Inquisition," she told AFP.....snip~

Let me be clear about one thing. There is no moderation in and under Sharia Law!!!!!

Conley
10-26-2011, 11:43 PM
I wonder how long Jalil will stay in power and if he really has the clout to call the shots. It doesn't sound like the war is over but it is hard to get a sense of what is going on over there.

MMC
10-27-2011, 12:21 AM
I wonder how long Jalil will stay in power and if he really has the clout to call the shots. It doesn't sound like the war is over but it is hard to get a sense of what is going on over there.


So we are to listen to Jalil. Who makes calls immediately for Sharia Law as if he is the Leader of the Country. If this was all about Democracy then this TNC would not be allowing him to call the shots as he sees fit. They would be focusing on stabalizing the Country. Setting up an actual government.

http://news.yahoo.com/sharia-law-declaration-raises-concerns-libya-174347939.html

His comments have provoked criticism and calls for restraint both in Libya and in Europe, amid fears that the Arab Spring may give rise to a potentially intolerant Islamist resurgence.

Many Libyans awaiting Sunday's historic speech expressed surprise at the decision by the National Transitional Council leader to mention the role of sharia law in the new country before addressing such important issues as security and education.

In his speech, Abdel Jalil also announced the introduction of Islamic banking in Libya in keeping with sharia which prohibits the earning of interest, or riba in Arabic, that is considered a form of usury.

Adelrahman al-Shatr, one of the founders of the centre-right Party of National Solidarity, launched just last week, said it was premature for the NTC leader to speak about the policies of the new state.

"It is a subject that should be discussed with the different political groups and with the Libyan people.

"By abolishing the marriage law, women lose the right to keep the family home if they divorce. It is a disaster for Libyan women."

Western leaders also responded swiftly to Abdel Jalil's comments, with EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton saying on Monday Libya's introduction of sharia law must respect human rights and democratic principles.

Abdel Jalil, a respected former justice minister of Kadhafi who distanced himself from the old regime, is seen as a pious man and a Sufi follower of Islam who is at odds with extremism.....snip~

Yes I am sure he is at odds with it and what his own ambitions are. The twice defector aka traitor who has managed to keep his life by hiding out with Western man. Employing all those Western Tactics, engaging in Western Mans Mindset. Enjoying western mans vices. Living the Western mans life. Now he is willing to give it all up For Sharia Law.

Conley
10-27-2011, 12:56 PM
This is a great discussion, BTW. Thanks to all who have participated.

MMC
10-27-2011, 01:03 PM
This is a great discussion, BTW. Thanks to all who have participated.


http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1355317777532&id=9af93703eaa551b11ac1ab5f54c4715e&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.dreamstime.com%2ftake-a-bow-thumb13026234.jpg

http://politirant.com/Smileys/oldrant/blahblah.gif

Scaybeez
10-27-2011, 08:21 PM
So we are to listen to Jalil. Who makes calls immediately for Sharia Law as if he is the Leader of the Country. If this was all about Democracy then this TNC would not be allowing him to call the shots as he sees fit. They would be focusing on stabalizing the Country. Setting up an actual government.


I think there's a misunderstanding here, where people are assuming that this is some decree that he issued ordering Sharia law to be implemented. From my understanding, it was simply a comment made in his speech about Libya's liberation - a comment I'm sure he felt was completely uncontroversial. After all, Libya is a very religious country and it almost goes without saying that Islam would be the basis for any future government.

That isn't anything new, by the way. The Libyan people have already been living under interpretations of Sharia law for a long time now (hence the reason you can't legally buy alcohol within the country, among other restrictions).

Conley
10-27-2011, 08:33 PM
Part of me feels like with all Jalil's exposure and indulgence of Western culture would make him recognize that is the culture to embrace. However a lot of these dictators end up saying do as I say, not as I do. I agree that it is too early to make any definite proclamations about what Libya will look like a few years down the road but the initial results are certainly concerning to me. Of course now that we have seen how even with huge investments of life, time, and money in Afghanistan and Pakistan our influence can't necessarily turn the will of the locals in power. It will be what it will be regardless of our interference and perhaps that is the lesson to be learned here -- leave them to their own determination.

MMC
10-27-2011, 11:54 PM
So we are to listen to Jalil. Who makes calls immediately for Sharia Law as if he is the Leader of the Country. If this was all about Democracy then this TNC would not be allowing him to call the shots as he sees fit. They would be focusing on stabalizing the Country. Setting up an actual government.


I think there's a misunderstanding here, where people are assuming that this is some decree that he issued ordering Sharia law to be implemented. From my understanding, it was simply a comment made in his speech about Libya's liberation - a comment I'm sure he felt was completely uncontroversial. After all, Libya is a very religious country and it almost goes without saying that Islam would be the basis for any future government.

That isn't anything new, by the way. The Libyan people have already been living under interpretations of Sharia law for a long time now (hence the reason you can't legally buy alcohol within the country, among other restrictions).


There is no misunderstanding.Well except for the fact of marriage and that women will have to give up their property now if divorced. Immediately implemnting that part of Sharia Law. As well As the to their banking industry.

Again Libya is a gateway between East and West. It has been so since the 60's. Plus Jalil knows this as back then he decided to turn triator with the Senoussi Dynasty and help Gadhafi come to power. Women have been able to wear pants for years. Women have been able to get educated. Others were given rights that became citizens of Libya. Oh and of Course Gadhafi was not racist agaisnt what he termed his black brothers. Unlike the Rebels themselves.

Already Amnesty International is going after the Rebels for the mistreatment of blacks that they were locking up and calling them all Mercs. Seems all isnt that winter wonderland all was expecting. Especially the French and the Sunni. Didnt take the Rebels long to include black women as Mercenaries. Then abducting them off the street and from their homes. Sharia Law.....Fuck Sharia Law!!!!! Nothing but a lost cause! From the beginning!