Why was Gaddafi "evil"?

[mammador]

Despite what the idiot journalists in the press say, why was Gaddafi "evil"? Who or what defines it? Isn't it an undefinable term?

So he "oppressed" his people, big deal. Since when are Arab values liberal values?

 

[Craig234]

Despite what the idiot journalists in the press say, why was Gaddafi "evil"? Who or what defines it? Isn't it an undefinable term?

So he "oppressed" his people, big deal. Since when are Arab values liberal values?

It's not undefinable, it's subjective. He ordered the killing of many innocent people, a phrase I hesitate to use as I'm against killing the rest pretty much too.

Oppression is bad, corruption is bad, cruelty is bad, lack of freedom and democracy is bad, he's said to have killed many, many people for keeping his power.

He partly 'turned over a new leaf' until he didn't.

 

[mammador]

To me, it's undefinable, since it can mean anything. And who says oppression is bad? Good and bad don't really exist as meaningful terms.

 

[Craig234]

To me, it's undefinable, since it can mean anything. And who says oppression is bad? Good and bad don't really exist as meaningful terms.

So, you're a nihilist.

I disagree. Doesn't leave much to discuss.

 

[mammador]

who defines them? they are completely relative.

 

[dawp]

Evil is totally subjective and dependent on your point of view. IMO there really is no good or evil, it's just how you choose to live your life.

You almost always paint your enemy as evil. it motivates your side.

 

[ericlp]

He is only 'Evil' when he is told to do something and he doesn't do it.

A country is only 'evil' if we ask it to do something and it's leaders say 'NO'. It has nothing to do with killing anyone or really how the country is run. If the country produces X number of barrels of oil or produces a lot of $$$ for wall street then they are not labeled as 'evil' ... but once they start to go against the grain of our wishes we will bring 'democracy' to your country... Oh and our religion too.

The only reason anyone is there is because of it's resources. Africa is WAY more 'evil' yet we aren't over there trying to kill anyone or change anyone. A poor country will never be 'evil' in America's eye unless there is something for us to gain or to prove other wise.

 

[Doppel]

who defines them? they are completely relative.

Craig just answered your thread when he accurately called you a nihilist. There is little else to say on the matter. I could poison your dog and you might say it's bad but who defines that? Maybe to me it's good. It's all relative, blah blah, emo nonsense.

All you need to know is that ultimately the people with the big weapons thought it was bad and so he lost.

 

[Veliko]

The only reason anyone is there is because of it's resources. Africa is WAY more 'evil' yet we aren't over there trying to kill anyone or change anyone. A poor country will never be 'evil' in America's eye unless there is something for us to gain or to prove other wise.

Libya is in Africa. The West already had Libya's resources.

 

[Albatross]

Text

Yes.

 

[sandorski]

He had improved from his worst days, but his people no longer wanted to tolerate him. So it was convenient to help them get rid of a Dictator that the US had preferred was gone decades ago.

 

[xj0hnx]

The only reason anyone is there is because of it's resources. Africa is WAY more 'evil' yet we aren't over there trying to kill anyone or change anyone. A poor country will never be 'evil' in America's eye unless there is something for us to gain or to prove other wise.

Africa may be a "poor country" but it has TONS of natural resources. Gold, diamonds, oil, gas, uranium, copper, iron, and on and on. There's a lot more to us not being involved in Africa than "they've got not resources to steal"

 

[Doppel]

Remember, Libya is just one country in the continent of Africa.

And yeah there are atrocities throughout the entire continent but many countries are such a mess there is no single target to take out.

 

[Schadenfroh]

In general, the international community does not care if you "just" slaughter your own people.

The international community typically starts caring if you start slaughtering the innocents of another country. Gaddafi would likely still be in power today (no NATO air support to the Rebel Alliance) if he had not pulled this stunt years ago:

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...-libyan-minister/story-e6frfku0-1226011070628

LIBYAN leader Muammar Gaddafi personally ordered the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988, a former Libyan justice minister claims.

 

[amdhunter]

Any Muslim country with large oil reserves is considered evil.

 

[Anarchist420]

I'd like to see (actually I wouldn't) what Obama would do if NH peaceablly tried to secede. I'm 100% sure that Obama would turn into Gadaffi in that scenario. After all, he murders/blows up innocent brown people in the middle east just like Gaddafi did to people (although not all of them were brown) when he blew up the Pan Am Flight 103. NATO forces murdered a lot of the rebels too. It may have been 3rd degree, but that doesn't excuse it IMO.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

He had improved from his worst days, but his people no longer wanted to tolerate him. So it was convenient to help them get rid of a Dictator that the US had preferred was gone decades ago.

Watch the embedded video and you'll see just how hated he was...

 

[SparkyJJO]

I'm just curious why certain people were for going after him, when the same people were against going after Saddam. There were a lot of similarities between the two, after all (killing and oppressing his own people).

By the way, good and evil are not truly relative. You're only fooling yourself if you believe such.

 

[Craig234]

I'm just curious why certain people were for going after him, when the same people were against going after Saddam. There were a lot of similarities between the two, after all (killing and oppressing his own people).

By the way, good and evil are not truly relative. You're only fooling yourself if you believe such.

That's a fair question. But I question whether you care or are just attacking pointlessly.

 

[SparkyJJO]

That's a fair question. But I question whether you care or are just attacking pointlessly.

No, it is something that has been nagging at me for a while. I do have my partisan suspicions, I'll admit that, but I do want to know if there was any other, better reason than just the dumb "party lines" and who was in office while going after Saddam vs Gaddafi (or however you spell his name, I've seen it a billion different ways).

It bugs me, so I want to know more

 

[mammador]

I'm just curious why certain people were for going after him, when the same people were against going after Saddam. There were a lot of similarities between the two, after all (killing and oppressing his own people).

By the way, good and evil are not truly relative. You're only fooling yourself if you believe such.

Why am I fooling myself? seeing one's favourite football team lose equates with a woman getting raped, in moral terms. Who is to say anything different?

 

[mammador]

Remember, Libya is just one country in the continent of Africa.

And yeah there are atrocities throughout the entire continent but many countries are such a mess there is no single target to take out.

The concept of "atrocity" doesn't exist.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Why am I fooling myself? seeing one's favourite football team lose equates with a woman getting raped, in moral terms. Who is to say anything different?

What the heck

 

[mammador]

If evil is subjective, then it's basic deductive logic.

 

[dawp]

No, it is something that has been nagging at me for a while. I do have my partisan suspicions, I'll admit that, but I do want to know if there was any other, better reason than just the dumb "party lines" and who was in office while going after Saddam vs Gaddafi (or however you spell his name, I've seen it a billion different ways).

It bugs me, so I want to know more

One big difference is that Libya state out as a revolt where as Iraq was an invasion. We did not have boot on the ground in Libya, just air support. All the ground fighting was done by the rebels. I think that is easier to stomach for the average person.