Libya too?!

[Commissar]

@Siam_Sam

BBC is reporting the US will now use armed drones against the Libyan forces. Good-oh!

Why do you celebrate this horrific development? These machines have recently seen a lot of use in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and hundreds of innocent civilians have paid for it with life and limb. What makes you think that Libya will be different?

@straight_man

Sidenote: your use of nonneutral terms like “warmongering” and “traitors” (and yes, they have amoral definitions — but you clearly aren’t interested in those) merits the summary of “evil”. If you want to reject moralism, then don’t be moralistic! It’s not hard, really.

Ha. You presume to tell me what I mean with my own statements? How very arrogant.

No, thank you. When I use the word “traitor,” I refer to exactly that: one who betrays. There is no hidden moralistic meaning, not necessarily an indication of my own support or lack thereof. To wit: I consider the Libyan rebels traitors to the Libyan government, and I also condemn them. I also consider the double-agent that recently suicide-bombed a number of elite CIA agents in Afghanistan a traitor to the nation’s puppet regime, but I do not condemn him. So, no, not a term that I use with any moralistic intent.

@Mijin

It’s not really a theory though, it’s just a bunch of ad-hoc rationalizations to fit an existing ideology.

Commissar: “It’s because you hate muslims”
Everyone else: “Well, what about the times we’ve aided muslims?”
Commissar: “In those cases it was because they were ex-colonies they wanted to re-conquer”
Everyone else: “What about situations like Kosovo?”
Commissar: “Well that was just picking on their neighbours”

This is not a theory, and you haven’t offered any facts to support your accusations.

One can phrase any theory in such a way as to make it sound ridiculous. Other than that, I’m not sure what you’re complaining about. Yes, it’s a theory with three independent prongs. Does that offend you? It’s a complex world, and I’m afraid that complex theories are needed to explain it. The West does not only ever go to war for one reason and one reason only. Also, as I just said, my theory derives its proof from the very wars that it so handily explains, just as the theory of evolution is supported by the very organisms that exhibit evolution in the field. This is how theories work, so I am not sure what more you could possibly want of me.

@ElvisL1ves

OK, anyway, you like self-determination. Great, so do most of us. Now, isn’t that exactly what we see in Libya today? An attempt by its people to throw off a dictator and implement the government desired by its people? Or is “self determination” in your parlance make a nation synonymous with whoever the current oppressive warlord is there?

I draw your attention to the “self” portion of “self-determination.” Please note that the term is, in fact, “self-determination,” and not “determination-by-Christendom’s-guns-and-bombs.” I am perfectly happy with Libya sorting out its issues on its own. If that means that the rebels independently string the Colonel up, I’ll be disappointed, but I will accept it as an expression of popular will. However, if these rebels are unable to win on their own strength, then they do not deserve to have a victory handed to them on a silver platter. SELF-determination.

[Commissar]

FinnAgain -

I continue to stand by my past and present statements, and maintain that they form a perfectly-consistent unified whole. You would be far more effective were you brave enough to engage me in direct debate, rather than quoting me and tasking hypothetical third-party “readers” with deciphering your alleged point.

On that topic, I note that you persist in quoting me, yet directing your replies to the aforementioned third-party “readers.” This has become neither cuter nor cleverer since the last time that I called you out on it. Would you mind explaining your approach?

[Mijin]

@Commissar

Also, as I just said, my theory derives its proof from the very wars that it so handily explains, just as the theory of evolution is supported by the very organisms that exhibit evolution in the field.

You cannot use as proof the very phenomena your hypotheses were meant to explain. Otherwise every hypothesis is “proved”: “The reason dogs bark is to communicate with the spirit world. As proof I offer the fact that dogs bark”.

Of course the difference between the dog bark hypothesis and yours, is that your hypotheses make intuitive sense to Commissar.
And that’s it. As you’ve offered no evidence to support your hypotheses, or indeed, no thought process that led you to formulate them, they’re groundless.

And finally, with regards to the theory of evolution, the proof of the theory is not the same as the phenomenon it explains. The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life, and how it has changed through time. Its proof is things like the geologic column, the homology of features between species, genetic data etc.

[Mijin]

Commissar, to take the heat out of this discussion a little, let me put it this way:

If the reason we’re intervening in Libya is because of “Islamophobia”, I’d want to know about it. I’d be incensed, as would others.

But “Commissar thinks it’s so” isn’t an argument. Where’s the evidence? What has led you to conclude that this hypothesis is correct?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Commissar

I draw your attention to the “self” portion of “self-determination.”

And I draw yours to your refusal to say who this “self” constitutes, despite my offering a few suggestions.

I am perfectly happy with Libya sorting out its issues on its own. If that means that the rebels independently string the Colonel up, I’ll be disappointed, but I will accept it as an expression of popular will.

And just why would you be “disappointed”? :dubious::dubious::dubious:

Out with it, man. Why do you favor a continuation of a brutal military dictatorship, against the (Muslim !) people of that country? How is that consistent in any conceivable way with your claim that “Christendom” is at war *against *Islam? How is it that you in fact value supporting authoritarianism above religion itself, above the people’s will itself?

[FinnAgain]

@Mijin

But “Commissar thinks it’s so” isn’t an argument.

The problem is there isn’t one. At least, not a sound, valid argument. We’ve done this dance before, several times.

America/“The West” are badguys, and so that’s what will be argued. Tyrants, thugs, brutal and oppressive dictators are the goodguys, as long as they oppose The West, so that’s what will be argued. Logical consistency, factual accuracy and simple logical support are absent, because the only real metric is: the nations that people who are posting on this board belong to, they’re bad. Anybody who opposes them, they’re good. End of discussion.

[ElvisL1ves]

Something like the “Israel = good, questioning or criticizing the government of Israel = bad” sort of thing we so often see on this board, right?

[FinnAgain]

@ElvisL1ves

Something like the “Israel = good, questioning or criticizing the government of Israel = bad” sort of thing we so often see on this board, right?

If people are seeing something that doesn’t exist, they should probably cut down on the hallucinogenics.
Just saying.

[FinnAgain]

Oh, and:

@Commissar

I draw your attention to the “self” portion of “self-determination.” Please note that the term is, in fact, “self-determination,” and not “determination-by-Christendom’s-guns-and-bombs.”

Readers will note that the concept of self-determination has an actual definition, and rather obviously Commissar has invented his own definition in order to rationalize an anti-western argument. (As if, you can have a revolution, but unless you sew your own clothes and don’t import them, you’ve violated self-determination!) Commissar has, blatantly, mangled the actual definition of self-determination in a truly bizarre attempt to claim that if you don’t do everything all by yourself, it doesn’t count.

The basis for claims of self-determination in modern international law comes, in large part, from the UN Charter as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

[

The Purposes of the United Nations are:
[…]
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace

](http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml)

[

All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

](UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)

Readers will note that not only is the whole “you have to do everything yourself!” bit not in there, anywhere, as Commissar has made it up due to the use of the word “self” in the principle, but Quadaffi has been enlisting the aid of foreign mercenaries and he’s imported somewhere around a billion dollars worth of military hardware just from Europe since 2004. Rather obviously, apart from ignoring what self-determination actually means and playing wordgames about the use of the word ‘self’, we also see a rather obvious logical gap whereby only the people who don’t want to be brutalized by a tyrant are expected to fight on without external aid.

Curiouser and curiouser.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@FinnAgain

America/“The West” are badguys

Not only that, we are “The Great Satan”, so…how that jibes with an atheistic POV of a self-proclaimed Communist versus admiration for uber-religious countries in the Muslim world I have no idea. Neither does he I think, except that its just a good thing when proxy countries thumb their noses at “The West” no matter the cause, because even those hyper-religious and extremist countries are better than we are…and their citizens are better off, too.

[FinnAgain]

Yep. It’s like his list of reasons why he supports tyrants, almost none of which China or Libya actually met, but since they’re sufficiently middle-fingery to The Great Crusader West, they get support.

[Siam_Sam]

@Commissar

Why do you celebrate this horrific development? These machines have recently seen a lot of use in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and hundreds of innocent civilians have paid for it with life and limb. What makes you think that Libya will be different?

Good results already. One blew up something real good near Ka-Daffy’s place, apparently sending human shields gathered a few blocks away scattering in panic. Morons.

Plus if you personally are against the drones, that’s maybe a good sign for their use.

[Commissar]

@Mijin

You cannot use as proof the very phenomena your hypotheses were meant to explain. Otherwise every hypothesis is “proved”: “The reason dogs bark is to communicate with the spirit world. As proof I offer the fact that dogs bark”.

Of course the difference between the dog bark hypothesis and yours, is that your hypotheses make intuitive sense to Commissar.
And that’s it. As you’ve offered no evidence to support your hypotheses, or indeed, no thought process that led you to formulate them, they’re groundless.

And finally, with regards to the theory of evolution, the proof of the theory is not the same as the phenomenon it explains. The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life, and how it has changed through time. Its proof is things like the geologic column, the homology of features between species, genetic data etc.

I disagree with you; in situations such as this, our hands are tied. We must use the “very phenomena [our] hypotheses were meant to explain,” for there is nothing else that will prove or disprove the theory.

Once again, you can see this in the theory of evolution. Despite your protestations, you must admit that it is entirely circular. It exists to explain living organisms and species, and it draws its proof from observations of… living organisms and species! Frankly, where else will you get your proof from? You certainly won’t get very far by observing rocks and whatnot…

The same holds true here. My theory of Western aggression, by necessity, draws its evidence from specific instances of Western aggression. Once again, what alternative do we have? There is no other way to support theories of this complexity and scope, and I’m not willing to give up complex theorizing.

@ElvisL1ves

And just why would you be “disappointed”? :dubious::dubious::dubious:

Out with it, man. Why do you favor a continuation of a brutal military dictatorship, against the (Muslim !) people of that country? How is that consistent in any conceivable way with your claim that “Christendom” is at war *against *Islam? How is it that you in fact value supporting authoritarianism above religion itself, above the people’s will itself?

I’ve set forth my reasons for supporting the good Colonel in a recent thread, but to summarize:

(1) His pursuit of socialist economic development.
(2) Pan-Africanism and charitable investments in poor African states.
(3) Pan-Arabism.
(4) Standing up to the West and its imperialistic designs on the region.

@FoieGrasIsEvil

Not only that, we are “The Great Satan”, so…how that jibes with an atheistic POV of a self-proclaimed Communist versus admiration for uber-religious countries in the Muslim world I have no idea. Neither does he I think, except that its just a good thing when proxy countries thumb their noses at “The West” no matter the cause, because even those hyper-religious and extremist countries are better than we are…and their citizens are better off, too.

To a limited extent, you are correct. As things currently stand, the single greatest threat facing the human race is the warmongering of the militant West. Make no mistakes about it: given half a chance, the West would enslave all of humanity and force it to march to its own twisted drumbeat. If the West had its way, it would weaken us, and in the end it would kill us.

So yes, it is very important to have nations willing to stand up to the West. Such proud nations are the only thing standing between our human freedoms and a terrible subjugation by Christendom and its puppets. Yes, in some cases, I would side with a nation for no other reason than the fact that it is willing to heroically fight for the very future of the human race. That’s enough.

Also, I have long made my peace with theocracies, so it is not difficult at all for me to support glorious nations such as Iran.

[FinnAgain]

Ignoring the rest of the absurdities about the west enslaving everybody, the evils of “Christendom” and the glory of Islamic theocracy, but this off-topic nonsense deserves a quick mention.

@Commissar

Once again, you can see this in the theory of evolution. Despite your protestations, you must admit that it is entirely circular. It exists to explain living organisms and species, and it draws its proof from observations of… living organisms and species! Frankly, where else will you get your proof from?

Naturally, readers will note that Commissar has an absolute degree of ignorance about what evolution is and how it works, as well as the structural underpinnings of logical thought inherent in what makes a good argument and what constitutes circular reasoning.

On the logical side, much like “self-determination”, circular reasoning has an actual definition. It means using your conclusion as one of your premises, and thereby ‘proving’ your conclusion with an assumption. Looking at biological systems in order to gather facts about biological systems is not “circular reasoning”, it’s just more of Commissar’s wordgaming. Just like how looking at mathematics in order to analyze Number Theory is not “circular reasoning”.
On the factual side, evolution is supported by a wealth of factual evidence, ranging from endogenous retroviruses, molecular clocks, the fossil record, mitochondrial DNA, etc…

[ElvisL1ves]

@Commissar

My theory of Western aggression, by necessity, draws its evidence from specific instances of Western aggression.

But filters out any other evidence, most firmly that to the contrary, even if it comprises the bulk of the evidence, which it does. And the major items have been pointed out to you here, without making a dent. That isn’t even circular reasoning, it’s simple blatant dishonesty stemming from a firm ideologuism.

I’ve set forth my reasons for supporting the good Colonel in a recent thread, but to summarize:

(1) His pursuit of socialist economic development.
(2) Pan-Africanism and charitable investments in poor African states.
(3) Pan-Arabism.
(4) Standing up to the West and its imperialistic designs on the region.

The last of those is circular reasoning, of the kind you purport to disdain. The others have nothing to do with the “self-determination” you claim to hold as your highest principle here; in fact they are contrary to it. They also have nothing to do with Islam, which you purport is the reason for the “West’s” (more accurately, North’s) opposition to him and his regime. It’s no secret why you’ve dropped that, either.

You’re a very badly confused young fella. That’s the *best *that can be said for what you’ve offered us here.

[Tyrannosaur]

Heavy shelling of Misurata continues

Hundreds of Libyan are fleeing the besieged western city of Misurata, which has been battered by days of fighting between opposition and pro-government forces.

Reports say the surge in fighting has left at least 36 people dead and more than 100 others critically wounded, even though forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi, the long-serving Libyan ruler, appeared to have given up more ground inside Misurata.

Breaking News, World News and Video from Al Jazeera

[Marley23]

Tyrannosaur, you’re violating the SDMB’s copyright policy. Do not repost entire articles. Use one or two paragraphs and link to the rest.

[Siam_Sam]

BBC TV is reporting Nato aircraft have struck Ka-Daffy’s compound in Tripoli, completely destroying one building where he holds meetings and heavily damaging two others. Woo-Hoo! Go, Boys!

[ElvisL1ves]

What, you DON’T want Khadafy to be the “self” who “determines” Libya’s form of government?

[Commissar]

@ElvisL1ves

What, you DON’T want Khadafy to be the “self” who “determines” Libya’s form of government?

There’s no need to twist and misrepresent my position, especially given that it’s really not that hard to understand in the first place. Here, let’s try again:

“Self-determination” means the right of a people to decide, without foreign interference, questions relating to their further development as a people. With me so far?

Thus, Libyans are the only people that should be involved in determining Libya’s future. If different subsets of Libyans need to fight it out in order to see whose ideas have more support (and thus legitimacy), then that is how it must work. What we should not have, under any circumstances, is military intervention by foreign warmongerers. That is anathema to self-determination.

Now, let’s do a quick exercise to make sure you grasped this. Which of the following can properly participate in Libya’s process of self-determination?

(1) The Libyan people as a whole? Yes.
(2) Colonel Gadaffi? Yes, as part of the Libyan people.
(3) A random Libyan rebel? Yes, as part of the Libyan people.
(4) You and me? ** No.**
(5) The French? ** No.**
(6) The British? ** No.**
(7) The US military? Sweet Lenin, no.

Hopefully this is sufficiently clear now. Carry on.