Libyan War : Political and strategic aspects

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 21 Oct 2011 22:05

Ramana garu: Do you think a more virulent strain of Islam will march through those areas again? I hear Islamists are gaining traction in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya - all three places where we saw 'Arab Spring'. So dictators are thrown out.....and the vacuum gives rise to fanaticism.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Oct 2011 22:10

We don't know and can't rule out anything. Note the slogans shouted after the killings.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 21 Oct 2011 22:39

habal wrote
then there is the axim of those who live by the sword, die by the sword which applies to Qaddafi. But this axim of natural justice rings hollow because anglo-saxon actors and perpetrators aren't being put to the sword. So this isn't justice in natural course but fake and manufactured justice. In fact massive injustice given propaganda cover. So far there was a balance of evil in the two Abrahamic forces. One controlled oil and global wealth and another controlled just oil. Now the ones controlling just oil are being wiped out which will leave us with just the bigger evil to contend with. Now that is some major relief.

the collapse of so many dictators in such a short space of time is extremely significant in that these dictators though brutal and malevolent oversaw a certain balance of power in their region. Now that they are out of the picture, the region will come under control of a different set of actors. Freedom of speech with replace freedom of livelihood. True justice will begin once these well-fed Benghazi rebels start feeling the globalist pinch and suffer 18 hr power cuts with no food around.

Actually I have never referred to "natural justice" for Q. All along my contention was that, whatever maltreatment he is meted out is justified from my views because he showed that he was willing to play the independence-for-Kashmir Islamist card. One group of robbers and looters and arsonists turn upon an ex-fellow-con - who cares whether natural justice was done or not - if that ex-fellow-con had cleverly boasted about my corner yard being up for negotiation for possession by his fellow sewer rats squeaking the same ideology.

As for the concerns of many here about the potential increasingly "islamist" turn of Libya after Q's execution, let us try to answer the following questions and issues:

(1) If the likes of Q, or Mubarak, were so effective against "Islamism" why were they unable to uproot the roots of Islamism even with such absolute powers? Or were they sincere at all in trying to uproot Islamism? Is it possible that their own desires to retain Islamism as a tool kept the mullahcracy alive and so much alive and kicking that as soon as the armed/weapons balance was destroyed, "Islamism" began to take ocver!

(2) So these societies have remained virulently "Islamist", isnt it? that the mere removal from armed power of single individuals in a whole state turns the society inevitably towards "Islamism"?

My projection a long time ago was that - this particular uprising will clear the way for a more Islamist regime. It is crucial that here mullahs participate directly in government so that they also get stamped by the inevitable corruption that participation in national govs require in many modern states. But the crucial reason why Islamist should be allowed to come to power, will mullah participation - is to disillusion the commons from their slavish bootlicking of the mullahcracy.

This is the phase that Iran had graduated into already through the Khomeini uprising.
Only after that phase is over, will the subsequent generation be ready to shed off the Islamist state itself.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 21 Oct 2011 22:45

Bji: What you are saying is Mullahs were conveniently hiding behind a few dictators and tyrants for so many decades now. With the removal of that shield, Mullahs come face to face with people. For any lack of growth or progress, Mullahs will be directly held accountable? In a way Mullahs could place the bogeyman of West in front too.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 21 Oct 2011 22:52

brihaspati wrote:But the crucial reason why Islamist should be allowed to come to power, will mullah participation - is to disillusion the commons from their slavish bootlicking of the mullahcracy.

This is the phase that Iran had graduated into already through the Khomeini uprising. Only after that phase is over, will the subsequent generation be ready to shed off the Islamist state itself.

But B ji, is it really working in Iran? In Iran the power is being cornered more and more by conservatives, relatively liberal voices are being completely sidelined. Apparent US reverses and withdrawal from the area and geostrategic gains for Iran have helped the mullacracy justify their rule, which is based on the sole objective of defending against US interference and domination of their nation and its resources. Add to that the piskology of "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't", and the populations of these areas could tolerate mullacracy indefinitely for national pride against US-Israeli domination. It seems to be working for Iran so far, what gives you hope it won't work in these other areas?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Oct 2011 22:57

Bji, Another way of saying it is finally the mullahs are becoming the Sultans ie governers. So what happens to Zawabit? Will it give way to Shariat forever? Isnt this like it was in Muhammad's time?

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 21 Oct 2011 23:03

the "cornering" by Conservatives will have repercussions too. if the conservatives and Islamists end up screwing the country, their power will only be temporary, isn't it?

as for "national pride", trust me sir, if Iran reclaims pre-Islamic mantle, they won't have any problem with "pride". you are subtly equating anti-Islamism with Anti-Americanism. stance against America has nothing to do with Islamism. this is a common belief which is used to construct any anti-Westernism as purely religious hatred. what about national interests? this is clever social engineering.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 21 Oct 2011 23:17

devesh wrote:the "cornering" by Conservatives will have repercussions too. if the conservatives and Islamists end up screwing the country, their power will only be temporary, isn't it?

Yes, the question is whether that is happening. With the kind of oil money they have, even moderate "development" in the face of the hyped up US-"Zionist" threat is good enough. Populism backed by repressive machinery and rhetoric against an external enemy apparently is enough to hold the system together. This is the "cyst" that Islamism grows from, and into which it retreats when suppressed. At best it has been driven down into covert hostility (taqqiya). Not even apathy.

devesh wrote:as for "national pride", trust me sir, if Iran reclaims pre-Islamic mantle, they won't have any problem with "pride". you are subtly equating anti-Islamism with Anti-Americanism. stance against America has nothing to do with Islamism. this is a common belief which is used to construct any anti-Westernism as purely religious hatred. what about national interests? this is clever social engineering.

Clever it certainly is. Question is, what's the way around it? It cannot be a passive strategy of waiting for the mullacracy to screw things up themselves. Rather, there has to be an intelligent and deep "seeding" of new ideas with the potential to blow up the cyst from within. The Shah discredited himself and other "pre-Islamic" cultural tendencies by being seen as an American puppet. Even though there was development under his rule, in such honor-based societies being seen as a puppet of America overruled other things.

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 21 Oct 2011 23:18

ramana wrote:
SwamyG wrote:Ramana garu: Do you think a more virulent strain of Islam will march through those areas again? I hear Islamists are gaining traction in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya - all three places where we saw 'Arab Spring'. So dictators are thrown out.....and the vacuum gives rise to fanaticism.
We don't know and can't rule out anything. Note the slogans shouted after the killings.

I for one have no doubt that Islamists shall be wielding the greatest power in the immediate future and in the rest of the 21st century in these arab states.

Building from Edward luttwak's interview, the arab societies have not yet arrived at a "Post-Muslim" state of polity ... a state which the ordinary Iranians are just beginning to arrive at , after their Islamic revolution of the 70's. Infact i feel their pre-muslim Persian legacy is responsible for a relatively quick arrival (took 40 Years) of such a state (and it would have been quicker if not for the radicalization from the Iran-Iraq war) .

In comparison, the arabs whose past civilizational glory is inseparably entwined with Islamic ideology may be expected to be thralled by the expected Islamic revolution for another 100 years or more before they are disillusioned with it - which would be their point of arrival to a Post-muslim polity.

In the mean time like a |xsinx| graph, each iteration of power transfer in the arab states will be more radical and more Islamic till a condition of Islamic revolution holds sway.

brihaspati wrote: My projection a long time ago was that - this particular uprising will clear the way for a more Islamist regime. It is crucial that here mullahs participate directly in government so that they also get stamped by the inevitable corruption that participation in national govs require in many modern states. But the crucial reason why Islamist should be allowed to come to power, will mullah participation - is to disillusion the commons from their slavish bootlicking of the mullahcracy.

This is the phase that Iran had graduated into already through the Khomeini uprising.
Only after that phase is over, will the subsequent generation be ready to shed off the Islamist state itself.

Exactly! , Bji.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Oct 2011 23:40

France says next one is Syria. Looks like they are getting ready for another fall.
Meanwhile Bloomberg has this article by Reul Gerecht

Next Arab Domino is Algeria

Only thingis Algerian are not really Arabs. Would have been ocrrect to say North African

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 21 Oct 2011 23:41

Next will be Syria. It has reached an advanced stage. Just waiting for Turkish intel to strike the deal with the colnols and its over. Another issue is picking the right person.

The Charles De Gaulle is just waiting to see the next action.

-------------------
Its the islamists vs the secularists in Libya. Each is trying to out maneuver the other. Belhaj is tight with the MB and Qatar is backing him. West got pissed off and are gonna warn Sheikh Hamad. Funny thing is Sheikh Hamad is doing most of the controlling directly via the Mukabarat.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Oct 2011 01:30

SwamyG wrote:Bji: What you are saying is Mullahs were conveniently hiding behind a few dictators and tyrants for so many decades now. With the removal of that shield, Mullahs come face to face with people. For any lack of growth or progress, Mullahs will be directly held accountable? In a way Mullahs could place the bogeyman of West in front too.

True! But the west is not easily going to walk up the trap of "west" obstructing development. Moreover, even if the mullahs place the bogeyman of west - there are inevitable and unavoidable internal domestic issues, not necessarily of economic or financial or material development aspect only - where the mullah in gov will have to take sides, utter theological nonsense in support of blatant injustice or sheer stupidity and greed. The long term prospects of a directly theologian run Islamic regime is bleak. They inevitably give rise to implacable Islamist factions within themselves fighting like street dogs in a very public fight over the b****. This weakened the Talebs, and is eating away silently at the insides of the Khomeini regime.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Oct 2011 01:42

Carl wrote:
brihaspati wrote:But the crucial reason why Islamist should be allowed to come to power, will mullah participation - is to disillusion the commons from their slavish bootlicking of the mullahcracy.

This is the phase that Iran had graduated into already through the Khomeini uprising. Only after that phase is over, will the subsequent generation be ready to shed off the Islamist state itself.
But B ji, is it really working in Iran? In Iran the power is being cornered more and more by conservatives, relatively liberal voices are being completely sidelined. Apparent US reverses and withdrawal from the area and geostrategic gains for Iran have helped the mullacracy justify their rule, which is based on the sole objective of defending against US interference and domination of their nation and its resources. Add to that the piskology of "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't", and the populations of these areas could tolerate mullacracy indefinitely for national pride against US-Israeli domination. It seems to be working for Iran so far, what gives you hope it won't work in these other areas?

It is not really working for Iran. Sometimes we take the relatively medium term apparent stability of regimes to infer that the seismic pressures are not building up beneath their feet. Its ironically a very close parallel to what happens before earthquakes. The rocks get steadily deformed at the micro-crystalline level, but don't reach overt breaking point and are not really visible unless one knows how and where to look.

In authoritarian or dictatorial or totalitarian regimes, the rashtra clamps down so hard on natural popular dissent, that the growing pressure of dissent and detachment from the regime is not apparent on the surface for a long time. When the system finally cracks its like an earthquake or nuke going off and shocks us all. The 30 year rule appears to work for Iran too. Iran is into a 30 year cycle which will see delegitimization of the imamate as a pivot of politics and state. it is about the generation that was born post 79, and the generation that is born post 2009.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 22 Oct 2011 01:46

Another barren country ruled by warlord types. The Red Sea Piracy will soon have their counterparts, the Mediterranean pirates.

Those making Capesize ships would be poised with their pencils over the old order book.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Oct 2011 01:49

ramana wrote:Bji, Another way of saying it is finally the mullahs are becoming the Sultans ie governers. So what happens to Zawabit? Will it give way to Shariat forever? Isnt this like it was in Muhammad's time?

Yes, but how long did the "Imamate" actually survive in power? Since the Arab founders of Islam really had no long-established dynastic or aristocratic claims - all their political authority was derived from some degree of Imamism and connection by derivation to Muhammad. The Caliphate soon passed into dynastic palace politics, and the Arab power base crumbled within practically 100 years.

All subsequent Islamist regimes were based on individual military successes lasting mostly for one lifetime of one individual in providing loot and "wenching" (to borrow an old English usage) opportunities to a large number of vagabonds. As early as the mid 800's the Caliphate was tottering.

The pressures have to be mounted on the ideology to impossible stresses - no doubt about that. Sharia is not the future. But that future would be cleaner if we help it so.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 22 Oct 2011 01:59

brihaspati wrote:there are inevitable and unavoidable internal domestic issues, not necessarily of economic or financial or material development aspect only - where the mullah in gov will have to take sides, utter theological nonsense in support of blatant injustice or sheer stupidity and greed. The long term prospects of a directly theologian run Islamic regime is bleak. They inevitably give rise to implacable Islamist factions within themselves fighting like street dogs in a very public fight over the b00ty. This weakened the Talebs, and is eating away silently at the insides of the Khomeini regime.

That's true. Corruption scandals are now relatively common in Iran. But it seems that the Islamist faction under Khamenei is deflecting that onto Ahmadinezhad.

Here's the latest scandal:
Epic bank scandal investigation hits Ahmadinejad

The largest case of bank fraud in Iranian history is threatening to engulf President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after a parliamentary commission decided to investigate his office for possible connections to the crime, Iranian state media has reported.

To add insult to injury, Islamist hard-line legislators loyal to Iran's Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei, subsequently sent the commission a letter requesting specifically that Ahmadinejad be included in the investigation. They have since said they would not follow up on the letter out of respect for Khamenei.

It is one move of many by Islamists to link the president to the alleged embezzlement of 30 trillion Iranian rials -- more than $2.5 billion.

To frame the extent of allegations in U.S. terms: It would be akin to religious conservative legislators attempting to implicate a sitting American president in the infamous Madoff Ponzi scheme, in which disgraced financier Bernie Madoff cheated investors out of $50 billion.

Ahmadinejad has vehemently rejected accusations that anyone in his government is linked to what is currently the highest-profile crime in the country, according to the semi-official Mehr News Agency.

[...]

Two Iranian economists who spoke to CNN alluded to political opportunism in the accusations against the president and people close to him. But both believe politicians were involved, possibly even directly.

The size and nature of the fraud required "a trend inside the government to make this problem and this scandal," said Tehran economic analyst Saeed Laylaz.

A second economist points out that the main suspect in the case has ties to the Iranian president's chief adviser, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, who used his influence in a bank business deal for the accused man, Amir Mansoor Khosravi.

Khosravi had opened a private bank known as the Bank Arya. Getting a license is usually difficult, but Mashaei used his political pull to help pave the way, said economist Dr. Behrooz Hady Zonooz from Tehran...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Oct 2011 02:09

Its just that "Power corrupts and absolute power, corrupts absolutely "as Lord Acton said!

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 22 Oct 2011 05:39

On Qaddafi

First, I still worry about the other lessons that other leaders may draw from Qaddafi's fate. He agreed to give up all his WMD programs in 2003, ...

Second, helping overthrow Qaddafi may have signaled U.S. support for the "Arab spring," but our response to upheavals in Bahrain and elsewhere shows that our policy is far from consistent. ...

Third, the United States and NATO clearly exceeded the mandate provided by the U.N. Security Council,...

Fourth, Libya's political future remains highly uncertain. ...

Lastly, although the decision to intervene was suffused with liberal rhetoric and Qaddafi's death has been accompanied by a sober accounting of his many sins, the whole business confirms Thucydides' famous maxim (much loved by realists) that the "strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must." ....

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 22 Oct 2011 06:44

The human rights watchdog is on the scene calling for an investigation: Link

The UN human rights spokesman said: "The thousands of victims who suffered loss of lives, disappearances, torture and other serious human rights violations since the conflict occurred in February 2011 as well of those who suffered human rights violations throughout Gaddaf's long rule have the right to know the truth.

"And they have the right to see the culture of impunity brought to an end and to receive reparations," he added.

On a lighter note: Eighties sitcom showed Gaddafi meeting St Peter of Basilica.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 22 Oct 2011 11:41

He sure went through hell before he died, there are cut marks all over his body , clearly indicating people venting out their anger on him

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Oct 2011 12:32

Sources say that Gaddhafi's killing was ordered by western intel agencies who have spearheaded the overthrow of his regime with even active ground support in the form of mercenaries and SAS soldiers.This was because he would prove to be too embarrassing if ever put on trial as all the nefarious dirty deals he made with his western ex-pals would come to light shocking the globe.These secret deals are being continued thanks to his former cronies who are now key figures in the Libyan transitory regime,wh will be replaced by yet another wstern puppet at a later stage in a mock election,of the style which we are accustomed to,having seen many of them during the last century.The age of Imperialism is back...and with a bang too! Gen.Kill-any,are you listening?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 74250.html

Gaddafi's death breached the law, says Russia

World Reaction
By Shaun Walker in Moscow

Xcpt:

As politicians in Western capitals were taking quiet pleasure in the capture and killing of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi yesterday, opinions elsewhere were divided.

In Moscow, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that the Geneva Conventions had been breached with the killing of Colonel Gaddafi.

"We have to lean on facts and international laws," Mr Lavrov said. "They say that a captured participant of an armed conflict should be treated in a certain way. And in any case, a prisoner of war should not be killed."

Russia has been critical of Nato military action in Libya, saying that it has gone well beyond the stated mission of saving civilian life. The main concern for Moscow now is whether the new Libyan authorities will honour contracts signed by the Gaddafi regime. As well as the oil and arms trade, Russian Railways had secured a £2bn contract to construct a railway line between Sirte and Benghazi. Moscow recognised the National Transitional Council as the official government of Libya last month and said it expected all existing contracts to be honoured.

China, which like Russia abstained in the Security Council vote on whether to use force against Colonel Gaddafi's troops, was quicker yesterday to change its tune. Beijing initially refused to support the rebels and had been highly critical of the bombing campaign. But as realities on the ground altered, in recent weeks the Chinese government had started to engage with the rebel movement.

"A new page has been turned in the history of Libya," a foreign ministry spokeswoman, Jiang Yu, said yesterday. "We hope Libya will rapidly embark on an inclusive political process ... and allow the people to live in peace and happiness," she said.

A sign of the official policy change could be discerned in the language that Chinese state media used to refer to Colonel Gaddafi. Newspapers and agencies run by the state, which had previously referred to a "Middle East strongman", had yesterday made a small but significant change to their phrasing, calling him a "madman" instead.

Reaction from other enemies of the US was varied. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez described the dead dictator as a "martyr", while Iran's foreign ministry tried to banish any parallels between the Libyan revolution and anti-government protests at home. "Despots and oppressors throughout history have no fate other than destruction and death," a spokesman said. He called Colonel Gaddafi's killing a "great victory" but added that all foreign forces must now pull out of the country.

PS:In the full report,there is a reference to a tale by a Russian,who played chess with the departed dictator,who said he was not afraid of death as he would be "reincarnated"!

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 22 Oct 2011 13:24

Philip wrote:\

PS:In the full report,there is a reference to a tale by a Russian,who played chess with the departed dictator,who said he was not afraid of death as he would be "reincarnated"!

Is there a concept of reincarnation in Islam??

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Oct 2011 18:00

chaanakya wrote:
Philip wrote:\
PS:In the full report,there is a reference to a tale by a Russian,who played chess with the departed dictator,who said he was not afraid of death as he would be "reincarnated"!
Is there a concept of reincarnation in Islam??

On and off individual basis primarily, predominantly among subcontinental [and Gulf origin or Greek influenced during the Islamic exploration of "classical" philosophy by individual scholars] "sufi" sects. The four main Sunni substreams and most of Shia do not subscribe.

Mullahcracy everywhere condemns it. But there is growing evidence that secretly an increasing number of Muslims have begun to privately subscribe to the concept.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 22 Oct 2011 18:44

^^thanks B'ji

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 22 Oct 2011 18:45

New Videos Help Piece Together Qaddafis’ Last Minutes - http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/1 ... &seid=auto#

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 22 Oct 2011 18:51

how will the reincarnation concept change Islam, if it gains ground? can it make them less rabid?

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 22 Oct 2011 19:28

devesh wrote:how will the reincarnation concept change Islam, if it gains ground? can it make them less rabid?

it reduces the power of mullahcracy and thus will be opposed tooth and nail

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 22 Oct 2011 19:32

abhishek_sharma wrote:On Qaddafi

First, I still worry about the other lessons that other leaders may draw from Qaddafi's fate. He agreed to give up all his WMD programs in 2003, ...

One way to make sure that those lessons arent drawn is.......... making sure that one who has WMD also meets the same fate. and there are exactly two powers who dont have at some level official public blessing

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 23 Oct 2011 09:30

Seconds from death: A National Transitional Council fighter points a gun at Libya's former leader Muammar Gaddafi

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1bZosRhLG

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 23 Oct 2011 10:28

devesh wrote:how will the reincarnation concept change Islam, if it gains ground? can it make them less rabid?

May be make them more rabid!

Imagine the motivation and the opportunity to do the 72 virgin thingee again

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 23 Oct 2011 11:31

An African perspective -

Africa: Why the West Wants Gaddafi's Fall

Abba Mahmood

13 October 2011

By Jean-Paul Pougala

It was Gaddafi's Libya that offered all of Africa its first revolution in modern times - connecting the entire continent by telephone, television, radio broadcasting and several other technological applications such as telemedicine and distance teaching. And thanks to the WMAX radio bridge, a low-cost connection was made available across the continent, including in rural areas.

It began in 1992, when 45 African nations established RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization) so that Africa would have its own satellite and slash communication costs in the continent. This was a time when phone calls to and from Africa were the most expensive in the world because of the annual US$500 million fee pocketed by Europe for the use of its satellites like Intelsat for phone conversations, including those within the same country.

An African satellite only cost a onetime payment of US$400 million and the continent no longer had to pay a US$500 million annual lease. Which banker wouldn't finance such a project? But the problem remained - how can slaves, seeking to free themselves from their master's exploitation, ask the master's help to achieve that freedom? Not surprisingly, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the USA, Europe only made vague promises for 14 years. Gaddafi put an end to these futile pleas to the western 'benefactors' with their exorbitant interest rates. The Libyan guide put US$300 million on the table; the African Development Bank added US$50 million more and the West African Development Bank a further US$27 million - and that's how Africa got its first communications satellite on 26 December 2007. ...

This is how a symbolic gesture of a mere US$300 million changed the life of an entire continent. Gaddafi's Libya cost the West, not just depriving it of US$500 million per year but the billions of dollars in debt and interest that the initial loan would generate for years to come and in an exponential manner, thereby helping maintain an occult system in order to plunder the continent.

continued at http://allafrica.com/stories/printable/ ... 30958.html

Jeff Lira · Post by **Jeff Lira** » 23 Oct 2011 15:24

Gaddaffi wasn't that bad for some people. America had been in conflict with Libya even before. It's not fair that outside powers openly come together and support and raise the rebels and get the leader of a sovereign country killed. Even Egypt had the same story but at that time western powers didn't come for help because Egyptian leader was good to them. Similarly Bahrain has the dictator but US has no problem with him, because it hosts US navy's 5th fleet. This shows the hypocracy of US at one side it says it wants to eliminate dictatorship and promote democracy, but on the other side it is protecting dictatorship.

Russia is one of the major power which has given tough comments to west after this incident

“The faces of the leaders of ‘world democracies’ are so happy, as if they remembered how they hanged stray cats in basements in their childhoods,” Dmitry Rogozin wrote in his twitter status on Friday.

Russia's Reaction on Gaddaffi's Death, Remarks from US

Reading the article, Russia's anger and state can be felt, but still it is a question that if Russia was so against helping of rebellions by the western powers, then why it didn't use its veto power to prevent it from happening when it was being discussed in the UN. The author has also tried to explained here in the article below, but I still feel Russia could have used its power to stop this from happening.

Why Russia Didn't Use Veto for Libya?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 23 Oct 2011 16:55

It is interesting, that no other country feels so much the compulsion to act as global humanitarian conscience - and more importantly, in sympathy for other country's rulers or regime's interests - where that country or regime or ruler has spoken out against the "global humanitarian" country's own interests!

On an Indian interests forum, we should primarily be concerned over whether Qaddafi was good for India or not. The indirect benefits of Q's supposed resistance of western "aggression" has to be matched against his apparent dubious connections to that very same west. His sons get trained in western institutions with full support and protection from authorities - professional and state. His money works around in western financial channels.

His primary dangerous role for India shows up in his turn towards supporting Kashmiri separatist demands towards the latter years of his career. Many have tried to dilute the significance of his statements by presenting them as bravado/realpolitik/pretensions and not something serious. It reminds me of some Jaina literature that tries to portray Mahmud of Ghazni as ultimately condescending to Indian "spiritual" prowess - which I agree with the Thaparites as a kind of wishful self-delusion to tackle "trauma" [the only point where unknowingly the great leader of truthful historical reconstructions indirectly acknowledges the possibility of some "trauma" in non-Muslims at the hand sof always peacefully pastoralist Islamics].

But Q's statements on Kashmir clearly show an opportunist Islamist whose religion frees him of any guilt in opportunistically targeting non-Muslims to suit his personal political needs. His known penchant and capability to use his country's oil money to sponsor subversion and separatist movements in other countries - and his very connections to the west - could make him a most appropriate agent and conduit for subversion in J&K.

Before trying to do the humanitarian dance, and try to prove ourselves true-blue west-USA haters, let us coldly think of what the west could really mount against India using whom. If the dogs have been forced to tear the arteries of a fellow dog, all the more good riddance. Our need to prove ourselves enemies of the west - perhaps to gain some good image with Islamists - should not overshadow the realpolitik of how to deal with our enemies, western as well as non-western.

sumishi · Post by **sumishi** » 23 Oct 2011 18:06

^^
Brihaspati ji,
Would like your analysis on the following points:
(1) How does the act of destroying a nation state (citing the fraudulent reason of humanitarian aid, getting UN sanction, and far exceeding the mandate) on the one hand, and Q's anti-India pro-islamic stance on the other, measure up individually wrt India's interest?
(2) The rebels, aided by the West, by all indicators will be setting up a more hardline islamist regime (West's puppet). How does that change the scenario wrt India's interest?
Thanks!

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 23 Oct 2011 18:32

On a matter of principle, Gaddhafi was bad for the west, hence he was good for humanity.

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 23 Oct 2011 19:19

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... cials.html
Dailymail writes of the $42-billion Libyan oil reserve, and how British business hope to profit from it.
Gautam

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Oct 2011 19:37

Decades ago, as a schoolboy I was taught about kingdoms being attacked by neighbors and the ruling king deposed and killed. Somehow - at that young age it seemed to me that all this was in "centuries past" and that it does not happen any more. That of course is rubbish. The Middle east and the Mediterranean are Europe's pond and they are still doing gaandmasti in the area.

It is astounding how, in this sort of world Indians are given the sort of education where some poor (young?) soul has to ask on this forum "Does India not need permission from the UN or some such body to conduct a missile test over the Indian ocean?". Attach Iraq. Take out Saddam. Attack Libya, take out Gadhafi. These are the only norms of acceptable international behavior. Indians are walking around with eyes closed. We need to open them and see what the world is doing. Claw, grab and tear for your own benefit are the rules of survival. You don't do it. You don't survive.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 Oct 2011 02:15

sumishi wrote:^^
Brihaspati ji,
Would like your analysis on the following points:
(1) How does the act of destroying a nation state (citing the fraudulent reason of humanitarian aid, getting UN sanction, and far exceeding the mandate) on the one hand, and Q's anti-India pro-islamic stance on the other, measure up individually wrt India's interest?
(2) The rebels, aided by the West, by all indicators will be setting up a more hardline islamist regime (West's puppet). How does that change the scenario wrt India's interest?
Thanks!

The act of destroying my nation is a heinous crime. The act of destroying other nations at others hands or at my hands is conditionally a crime or a "natural" act depending on my convenience, and my interpretation of my nation's interests.

Do you see how you are applying abstract value judgments on whatever the combined anti-Q Libyans and Europeans are supposed to have done? the reason for "humanitarian aid" is "fraudulent" - which means you expect some kind of universal ethical rule that must be followed by all nations acting as independent agents. This is what I meant as becoming the conscience keeper of the world. Even if you want your particular version of consciecne keeping - you need muscle to enforce that.

All ethics are trash if you cannot enforce them and extract compliance. Moreover a lot of the "ethics" have evolved out of specific historical trajectories in which a complex web of group interests converged into certain rules as being beneficial for the dominant group. Ethics/laws/morality are all primarily devised for the benefit of the ruling regime or interests - even within a society. In the process a complicated power balance is reached by which some concessions are made by various groups to each other to reach a kind of majority [within the dominant circles - not aam] mutual acknowledgment as to ho w the game should eb played.

European "humanitarianism" developed only after the colonial gains were consolidated by a ruthless antithesis of exactly such humanitarianism and then institutions developed to enforce the new "ethics" so that others in the future will not copy the European methods and employ them bakc again on Europeans. Every "humanitarian/moral" progress is made uncannily after decimating some human subgroup. The redemption dramatics of repentant ex-sinners who destroyed humanity is a tactical ploy to prevent retaliation.

As for your second point, an individual dictatorial Islamist is far easier to manipulate by the West than a pack of Islamists factions with the mullahs leading the inner intestines. West has done this experiment many times, and failed miserably each time. This help by NATO was a last desperate attempt to retain some say within the dynamics of the Islamist spread in Saharana and sub-Saharan Africa. I have projected consistently that the initial "spring cleaning" will lead to power going over to the mullahs, and which I felt was a necessary step in the eventual delegitimization of the mullahs. Another generational cycle will have to experience what their preveious generation's dreams have fallen to at the hands of the mullahcracy, before things begin to finally sour for mulla-rule.

Do not draw in the example of AFPAK because these regions never had the chance to have alternative dreams - at least for centuries, and even in the modern period. Exposure to modernizing ideas however have been a constant theme in the North african coast. One can start exploring the roots of Algerian revolution [the anti-colonial one].

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 24 Oct 2011 04:30

Libya's transitional leader declares liberation

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.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 Oct 2011 05:15

congrez opinion makers like Digvijay Singh or the entire spectrum of Indian liberals, media moguls, and politicians should be glad with the more Islamist piety of new Libya, isn't it? More of Islam means more of peace and potential for future cultural enrichment of India, with India having one of the largest Islamic populations being cited as both the need for as well as justification for increasingly good and mutually dependent relations with the Islamic world! Indian opinion makers must feel glad with this turn of events in Libya? No?