And, lacking any evidence of any sort, your “argument” is just hand-waving and name calling.
Where are the politicians of the extreme Right who are calling for more intervention to suppress Islam? Where is any indication outside your imagination that there is any religious consideration by anyone involved on the part of NATO or the UN or the U.S.? It does not exist and you are simply grasping at weak straws. (Given the overwhelming lack of religious belief in Europe over the last 60 years, your claim seems to be based on a need to invent some reason, regardless of its separation from reality.)
Not to mention that the Arab League (itself rumored to have a few Muslims on it) pushed for our actions against Quadaffi and are one of the major reasons we initiated military force.
It is naive to expect politicians to publicly acknowledge their own extreme positions - especially when said positions involve slaughtering people for no good reason. It tends to make their populaces squeamish. For example, Hitler never actually called for the extermination of Jews in his public speeches. Does this fact mean that you will now become a Holocaust denier?
Circumstantial evidence is the name of the game here, and that we have in spades. For instance:
(1) The fact that the West has recently been obsessed with waging war against Muslim nations. While I understand that you prefer to ignore this fact, I would encourage you to face it head-on.
(2) The fact that Western governments, from France to the Netherlands, have been actively seeking to suppress their own Muslim minorities with such monstrous measures as bans on burqas and strict limitation on mosque building.
(3) The public humiliation of Muslims by prominent politicians calling for “conferences” to discuss the “problems” of Islam. Funnily enough, no such conferences have been called to discuss Christian, Jewish, or any other non-Muslim “problems.”
(4) The mass hysteria against Islam and a generally acceptable strain of popular Islamaphobia. Remember the hysterical outcry against the NYC proposed Muslim community center? Or all the anti-Muslim threads that keep popping up on these very boards? There’s one towards the top of Great Debates right now, if you’d care to check it out.
Of course, I expect none of this to convince you; your mind is made up, and you will never allow yourself to see this truth. You will wave all the evidence away and go on with your life, dreamily pretending that Christianity plays no role in your nation’s foreign policy. To each his own.
On the contrary, the most extreme politicians on th religious fringe tend to do that quite often. That they have not done that in this case speaks strongly to the lack of a religious motive.
Wrong, as usual.
Actually, there has been no such obsession. Nicaragua, El Salvador, Argentina, and Grenada are Christian, not Muslim. On the other hand, the West has failed to attack any other Muslim nations besides Afghanistan and Iraq. The attack on Afghanistan was supported by Muslim countries, (as was the first attack on Iraq), and Iraq only moved to the status of “Muslim” (from secular), after the second war.
You might have almost gotten away with this charade if it was not for the fact that the bans are overreactions to events within those countries and not attacks on Islam, itself, or on any aspect of Islam outside those countries.
You are just being silly, again.
Anti-Muslim hysteria–of which there is quite a bit–is not the same as pro-Christian or Christian inspired hysteria. The people who engage in that are simply reacting to a perceived “Muslim” threat, even when they are, themselves, non-believers of any sort. Your attempt to make that an issue of “Christians” attacking “Islam” shows that you are not paying attention.
I doubt that I could have summed up your approach to life any better, myself.
N.B.: The son killed is not Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the one who went to the London School of Economics and has been a prominent spokesman for his father since the rebellion started.
Oops! (For the grandchildren, not the bastard son.)
Well, the bottom line is still whatever happens is on Ka-Daffy’s head. BBC is saying Ka-Daffy was at the villa that was struck but escaped unharmed. Unfortunately.
Bolding mine. What a wonderfully self-serving and arbitrary stance. Let’s see if I have this straight:
When the Colonel’s forces slaughter innocent civilians, it’s the Colonel’s fault. When Western forces slaughter innocent civilians, it’s also the Colonel’s fault.
Fascinating. In other words, you don’t actually care whether or not innocents die; your only objection is if the killing is committed by an individual that you personally dislike.
As for the murder itself, I strongly condemn it. This act is clearly a war crime under international law and blatantly violates the relevant resolution. It is heartbreaking to see innocent civilians pay with their lives for the bloodthirsty Crusading mindset of the monstrous West.
Readers should be aware that Commissar has gone on record as saying that nobody has any right to claim that something is or is not a war crime if the relevant international tribunals have not already judged the issue. Obviously, yet another interesting bit of contradiction in his arguments. Quite aside from him being wrong here, readers should note that his standards are nonexistent and his rationalizations are used simply so that he can voice arguments which needle westerners.
See, for instance, “bloodthirsty Crusading mindset of the monstrous West”.
The damage to that villa seems extensive, and Ka-Daffy’s not surfaced yet. We only have the Libyan government’s word that the worthless shit escaped unharmed. Hmmm, I wonder …
Ain’t no oops about it. Not that anybody was actually targeting the children. But, the most state-of-the-art form of aerial bombardment is still imprecise – and indiscriminate. Ground troops can try to be careful about whom they do or do not shoot, but when you wage an air war, you accept the possibility that some of the bombs will kill innocents. You need to decide if that is acceptable collateral damage before you launch the planes. Presumably that decision was made at the highest levels.
BBC just said Britain is expelling the Libyan ambassador, after the British Embassy in Tripoli was ravaged by an angry mob there.
A BBC reporter at the villa that was bombed says that after viewing the damage, he can’t imagine how anyone could “walk away unscathed” like the Libyan government claims Ka-Daffy and his bitch did.