Slashdot Mirror
Internet Restored In Tripoli As Rebels Take Control
angry tapir writes "Internet connectivity was restored in Tripoli late Sunday local time, as rebel forces took control of many parts of the capital city of Libya. A new mobile network set up by the rebels in the east of Libya in April, called Libyana Al Hurra, and a similar network in Misrata, will soon also be linked to the Libyana Mobile Phone network in Tripoli, said Ousama Abushagur, a Libyan telecommunications engineer in the U.A.E, who led the team that set up Libyana Al Hurra."
You should read the FA. For now, it is restored, as in "available where it was not until recently".
I know I shouldn't be so cynical but I have to ask who is the new dictator? It seems like every time I read about some rebel group over throwing some government things really never get better. It's just a new dictator in place of the old. Maybe I'm wrong and Lybian's will get a government that is fair and some what workable but I'm not going to put money on it.
I would assume that there is no way to currently pick who is "with or against" the rebels too easily once you take the folks who appeared on the TV either for or against the rebel cause.
I am much more worried about all the tales of atrocities that will now no doubt come to surface as lines of communication are given back to the population.
Not worried that it is getting out, but more of what has been done no doubt.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Not about the retun of internet services, but about the entire affair of their dictator and the uprising against him.
Up until now our reports are essentially the press releases of the rebel faction and quadaffi's, respectively.
Unrestricted internet access would grant a wealth of on the street reports on civilian sentiment about these events.
Why not?
Internationally, the "old regime" has little support. And our news took care that no reports from them would be taken at face value. If anything, it would create an air of "look, they still think they can fool us".
And I doubt that the internet is the communication means of choice for Lybia. It would probably be the only country I'd know of where you use the internet and not TV to reach the masses.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Do you imagine that, even if so motivated, they could have gotten ideological censorship up and running so quickly?
Long-run, the ISP and the censor have the upper hand, because they touch every packet; but it takes time, money, and expertise to get to the point where you can go from shoving packets down the line as fast as you can and start burning system resources on the task of making service work in some ideologically convenient way...
(More broadly, given that the Libyan government spent some decades showing no intention of going anywhere, and maintaining a fairly tight grip, there is probably a very long list of people whose now-inconvenient history of cooperation with the outgoing regime in no secret at all. If the new chaps are still unsatisfied after they've worked through that backlog, the actual witch-hunting might begin; but there are still loads of active armed remnants and former public officials to deal with first...)
I think rebel forces finally taking the capital qualifies as "...stuff that matters". Do we really need to search for a tech angle just to talk about it on Slashdot?
As for the rebels, I have been impressed with how they have persisted despite awful organization and very weak help from the West. I am happy to see them finally prevail.
its a little different when you aren't invaded by a superpower who has decided "its time for democracy". but make the choice and act upon it out of mutual benefit to the society that is planning on the change.
Achmed will be able to make his 7pm WoW raid on Ragnaros in the Firelands.
The dubious rebel claims have been inflated in the past, it's great they are controlling the infrastructure that exists but it could easily be fleeting. Gaddafi's son Khamis and a group of 10,000 well-trained troops happened to "just disappear" when the rebels got to Tripoli. I have a sneaking suspicion a terrible brand of urban warfare emerges before the internet is anywhere near reliable. Still, the article doesn't mention that the site for Libyan Telecom and Technology posted a congratulations message so - for the time being - it was restored on a national level.
Bashar al Assad is thanking Allah that there's no oil under his country.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
...combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Internationally, the "old regime" has little support.
The "old regime" had lots of support until few months ago.
But Gadaffi was a tough guy to deal with, so oil and infrastructure companies will have much easier time by simply putting their cronies into new 'democratic' government.
I mean, I've lived in 2 such countries, I still find it amusing to see how ignorant westerners are about these issues - they still believe it's somehow all done because of people and their freedom. Hahaha.
Sure, without an external power to bribe, cajole, or merely annoy, you have even less incentive to cooperate with everyone else.
At least now they can Facebook.
If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
You might want to mumble vaguely about presidential term limits, checks and balances, etc, depending on what you guys find valuable. Best of luck, hope you don't find yourself under a new brutal dictator next year.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
it's good
These rebel forces decide they don't like America, and then use the training and weaponry we provided against ourselves.
I congratulate our brothers and sisters in Libya and wonder, what will be said when it happens here? Will they be called terrorists, or freedom fighters? Will our government do as old MoMo tried and do some mass slaughter to try to hang onto power, or will they slink away with their ill gotten gains like Mubarak did?
Don't say it could never happen here because I didn't think we'd be seeing tent cities and families living in cars like something out of the third world either. The bag of tricks at the Fed is completely empty now and congress can't keep up spending forever without our rating plunging further, and the teabaggers frankly can't stand anything given to the poor so they'll cockblock any aid packages anyway.
So I'd say its coming, probably in less than a decade. When the kids my oldest goes to school with at the local college are openly wondering if the shit will hit the fan before they even graduate? BAD sign. When the REAL numbers have one in three unemployed and their bullshit numbers have one in 6? BAD sign. When the government has blocked ALL COL adjustments while having the brass balls to say "there is no inflation" while they give THEMSELVES COL adjustments? Bad sign. I give us another decade tops. Then we'll either collapse or the government will try to take Poland for the resources (read South America) because one way to deal with massive unemployment is to have them build tanks or get killed at the front. Either way it ain't gonna be pretty folks.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
But Gadaffi was a tough guy to deal with, so oil and infrastructure companies will have much easier time by simply putting their cronies into new 'democratic' government.
I mean, I've lived in 2 such countries, I still find it amusing to see how ignorant westerners are about these issues - they still believe it's somehow all done because of people and their freedom.
So the West gets its oil and Gaddafi gets booted? Sounds good ending to me unless you should ever have a better idea than just sneering at the low-grade hypocrisy.
The new guy will be 'our' guy and the people will be just as fucked as ever. Who the fuck cares? With the new guy they'll be able to use Bacefook, Witter and eBay. AWESOME! Triumph for...ah fuckit...
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Don't say it could never happen here because I didn't think we'd be seeing tent cities and families living in cars like something out of the third world either. The bag of tricks at the Fed is completely empty now and congress can't keep up spending forever without our rating plunging further
Hate to burst your bubble, but the poverty rate is quite low in our country, and the bar for poverty is quite a bit higher in this country the average income for the majority of the world. For example, Cuba's average income is about 8k a year, and our poverty line is about $16k per year.
Thats not to say things are perfect, but there are an incredible number of people who pay no rent or pay no taxes and whose lifestyles are partly or wholly paid for by the government.
I might remark that THAT is a problem when we have trouble reining in our spending.
and the teabaggers frankly can't stand anything given to the poor so they'll cockblock any aid packages anyway
Such displays of eloquence do wonders for your credibility and the power of your argument.
But I will note that giving poor people loads of guarenteed no-strings money has never worked, not here, not in somalia, not pretty much anywhere. If you incentivize not working, people will not work, or will find a way to exploit the situation.
If the new chaps are still unsatisfied after they've worked through that backlog, the actual witch-hunting might begin
The witch-hunting has been going on since the fighting broke out. Did you miss all the shootings / beheadings / burning alive videos by rebels on YouTube?
So the West gets its oil and Gaddafi gets booted?
The issue is not so much whether Gaddafi gets booted, but rather who comes in his place. Do you seriously believe that Libya will now become a secular democracy? What will happen to their quality of life (which was consistently highest on the continent)?
Contrary to popular opinion, people can get fucked just as well in a democracy. Even worse, an unstable democracy can easily give way to an even more brutal dictatorship - Nazis enjoyed broad electoral support, and Afghanis approved the constitution that contains clauses making Sharia above any other law of the land, and which are immutable and cannot be amended by the normal (or any other) process.
"Although Syria is not a major oil exporter by Middle Eastern standards, oil is a major pillar of the economy. According to the International Monetary Fund, oil sales for 2010 were projected to generate $3.2 billion for the Syrian government and account for 25.1% of the state's revenue. Syria is the only significant crude oil producing country in the Eastern Mediterranean region, which includes Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. According to the Oil and Gas Journal, Syria had 2.5 billion barrels of petroleum reserves as of January 1, 2010"
Syria has a fair amount of oil... enough to get its neighbors interested, at least...
The issue is not so much whether Gaddafi gets booted, but rather who comes in his place. Do you seriously believe that Libya will now become a secular democracy? What will happen to their quality of life (which was consistently highest on the continent)?
I don't care whether Libya becomes a democracy or not. I'm interested more in strengthening the precedent of knocking over dictators for any pretext whatsoever. The less secure that job becomes, the easier it'll be to transition these governments to more democratic ones.
Contrary to popular opinion, people can get fucked just as well in a democracy.
Then you should be able to come up with evidence to support your claim. Note that I read what you wrote first. Germany wasn't a democracy when Hitler began fucking people over and the end of that democracy was obvious for quite some time. As to Afghanistan, one shouldn't get hysterical just because they adopt elements of Sharia. While I consider the whole of Sharia unfit for a system of law and justice, it does have workable parts. Besides a wholesale adoption of Sharia isn't happening in Afghanistan.
And that brings me to the obvious point. Keep the democracy and the problems you claim democracies can lead to, don't happen.
Germany wasn't a democracy when Hitler began fucking people over
It was a democracy which brought him to power. Of course, the very first thing he did then was remove those same mechanisms to prevent any would-be contenders. Then comes the time for a fuck-up.
As to Afghanistan, one shouldn't get hysterical just because they adopt elements of Sharia. While I consider the whole of Sharia unfit for a system of law and justice, it does have workable parts.
I dunno, do you think the parts where conversion from Islam to another faith is punished by death are "workable"?
Besides a wholesale adoption of Sharia isn't happening in Afghanistan.
Their constitution literally says that the whole of Sharia is the supreme law ("In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam") above everything else, even the constitution. Their judges agree (which is why Abdul Rahman was sentenced to death for apostasy despite constitution providing for freedom of religion).
Despite the efforts of Gadhaffi to try to pit one tribe against another, this revolt still happened. There are no tribal lines in the rebellion. It's doctors, teachers, engineers, students, just a cross-section of society. Imagine that, people being sick of a murderous 40-year cleptocracy.
But no, those dumb towel-heads can't handle democracy, right? They need a brutal, oppressive strongman to keep their primitive rage in check, right?
I am a proud traitor to my species in alliance with my mother the Earth in opposition to those who would destroy her.
The electoral support of the Nazis was waning in 1933 and indeed they gained power by terrorizing the opposition. Hitler convinced Hindenburg to outlaw the communist party after blaming the Reichstag fire on them. Their deputies were subsequently arrested in mass. The conservatives somehow believed they could hold Hitler in check and abdicated their parliamentary responsibilities. Only the social democrats stood up to him to the bitter end.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
Germany wasn't a democracy when Hitler began fucking people over and the end of that democracy was obvious for quite some time.
Care to explain?
Free Manning, jail Obama.
In Libya, the most oil-rich country in Africa, one of the world's largest oil producers, has the highest GDP to population ratio in Africa, but little of the money actually makes it down to the general population. It's a cleptocracy.
Here, how about this. Picture we've got a bunch of people in other countries telling you, "Oh, Americans are too irresponsible or stupid to handle democracy. America should just have a strongman who brutalizes and robs from his people for decades." What would you think of a person who thought that of you?
I am a proud traitor to my species in alliance with my mother the Earth in opposition to those who would destroy her.
You realise that Gaddafi was there in the first place because it let the west get their oil? It turns out great when we do this, doesn't it.
Granted that the rebels already have embassies in a quite a few countries, and have consistently stated they are interested in democracy, I think there might just be a chance we'll see that. But again they rebels aren't one homogeneous group, civil war is certainly still a possibility.
Do you still take heed of what the usual media report? Tripoli is under government control. Do yourself a favor, stop listening to what CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera and the like say (not to mention the prostitution of The New York Times and practically of all the major newspapers, as far as literature is concerned, publishing Pentagon press releases). But neither do believe your eyes: what is shown isn't Tripoli, as far fetched as is may seem, this is shameless fakery from Qatari sets (google that, and ask yourself why on earth these so-called rebels only say â" as automata â" `Allah u-Akbar'? surely they won't exhibit a libyan accent or dialect). Moreover Saif al Islam and Mohammed Gaddafi were not under arrest (somehow Mohammed just `escaped', Saif appeared even on BBC) and Khamis is alive. How long this full fledged falsification will continue? Rebels are just decoys, what is happening is that German (Grenzschutzgruppe), French (GIGN), British (SAS) and likely U.S. special forces, private armies and légions étrangÃres with Al Qaeda factions are attacking mostly civilians: the 21 August's toll is, more than 1000 deaths, 5000 wounded. They are aided in their progress by NATO bombings of non-military assets. It is time overdue to begin boycotting these bottomless sinkholes and war criminals. Goebbels would not believe how far media lies have reached.
Care to explain?
The German military had started planning a new total war from the 20s. Read up on the history of Heinz Guderian. As a planner for the Weimar Republic military, developed a number of battle tactics for the German military (that is, blitzkreig and combined arms) that required vast numbers of troops (far more than the puny 100,000 that Germany was allowed to have by treaty) and used weapons and troops in ways that no potential enemy could do or was planning to do. Within ten years, Hitler was in charge building that very military, using those very tactics. The Junkers also threw their weight behind Hitler. Their antipathy towards the Weimar Republic was also well known.
It was not a matter of "if", but "who" and "when" for the dissolution of the Weimar Republic and its replacement by an authoritarian government. Hitler just happened to be the one who ended up on top.
Second, Hitler's abuses didn't really start until he had dissolved the Republic. That happened rather quickly once he became Chancellor.
So there you have it, powerful groups with interest in dissolving the Weimar Republic combined with plans, made years before, for what to do after that Republic was dissolved. Count also the two depressions, and you have obvious signs of the end of the Republic. And of course, the timeline of Hitler's rise to power shows that he acted cautiously until the debris of the Republic was swept away.
It was a democracy which brought him to power. Of course, the very first thing he did then was remove those same mechanisms to prevent any would-be contenders. Then comes the time for a fuck-up.
That is the point. They have to remove the trappings of democracy first.
I guess Afghanistan will have to pick up a new constitution down the road then. Still better than a non-democracy.
little of the money actually makes it down to the general population.
Admittedly a lot of it served to line up the pockets of Gaddafi's family, no doubt about that. But I wouldn't call the remainder little, by any measure. They really did have excellent healthcare and education.
Heck, remember that story about Libyan students in US in danger of being kicked out because Libyan government accounts were frozen, and it's what paid the tuition fees for all these guys (and also their living expenses)? How much does it cost to study in US for a foreigner, again? Especially ironic considering that those same students were mostly anti-Gaddafi - so you can't even call that corruption and be done with it.
Here, how about this. Picture we've got a bunch of people in other countries telling you, "Oh, Americans are too irresponsible or stupid to handle democracy. America should just have a strongman who brutalizes and robs from his people for decades." What would you think of a person who thought that of you?
I'm not an American to begin with.
Nonetheless, there is a crucial difference between your hypothetical scenario, and what's happening in Libya. The first one involves an already working democracy being replaced by a dictatorship. The second one involves a dictatorship being replaced by... who knows? but most likely scenario seems to be an "Islamic republic" along the lines of Iran (i.e. a theocracy).
I much prefer the US, true, but given the choice between Libya and Iran, I think I'd prefer to live in Libya.
If I was a Rebublicon, I'd say "You mean like Obama?"
If I was a Dumbocrat, I'd say "You mean like Bush?"
If I was from any other party it wouldn't matter, nobody would be listening anyway.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
So, you propose we actively keep the people of Libya living in misery ("The ideal situation here is for this civil war to last as long as it can, and not end, so that by the time it's done, there is nothing left in Libya that's of use to anyone... Only dog we have is the fight itself. Feed that dog.") because if they ever have any power, they'll turn it against us because they hate us. Now why would they ever have cause to be angry at us?
You really haven't thought your brilliant plan out, have you...
That is the point. They have to remove the trappings of democracy first.
Better yet, never even have them. You can always slap a sticker saying "democracy" on whatever turd there is. All that matters is that the big boys accept it at face value - the same thing can be officially recognized as a sham, as in China or Iran, and then pretended to be meaningful, as in Afghanistan.
I guess Afghanistan will have to pick up a new constitution down the road then. Still better than a non-democracy.
Personally - as an atheist - I'd much prefer a dictatorship that leaves my personal beliefs alone to a democracy that makes them a capital crime. I think I'm not alone in that.
Unstable democracies have a tendency to devolve into mob rules. And a mob can be much more brutal and bloodthirsty than your average dictator.
I find it charmingly naive of you to believe that the USA doesn't already have that. 43% of wealth in the USA is owned by 1% of the population. The bottom 80% of the population share only 7% of the country's money. How does that not sound like a cleptocracy where those at the top gain riches beyond measure while the vast majority of the people receive a tiny fraction of the wealth? Put a shiny democracy sticker on it and label it capitalism and suddenly it's okay for the rich to steal from the poor? I wish I lived in your dream world, I really do :-)
Are Afghans in the NATO-controlled ares free to do as they please?
No, they are living in a tyrannical regime controlled by a hostile invader and must act anonymously.
the teabaggers frankly can't stand anything given to the poor so they'll cockblock any aid packages anyway.
That's in the US. Helping American citizens to live better lives, which was the original job of the US government, is no longer a priority.
Libya is a different matter. The US will be right there, chequebook in hand. ready to help out with rebuilding the country. (Read, the cheque will go to Haliburton.) Providing of course that you accept the next puppet government, and don't mind things going back to the way they were with a new despot at the reigns.
War is big business, we can't have democracies all over the place.
It was a democracy which brought him to power. Of course, the very first thing he did then was remove those same mechanisms to prevent any would-be contenders. Then comes the time for a fuck-up.
That is the point. They have to remove the trappings of democracy first.
Like what is happening in the good ole U S of A? Read the history of the NAZI regime, then take a look at US history, and spend an afternoon watching a flock of sheep. Note the similarities.
I guess Afghanistan will have to pick up a new constitution down the road then. Still better than a non-democracy.
The middle east will continue to be ruled by tyrants installed by the US. These little hiccups are to be expected and dealt with.
If I was a Rebublicon, I'd say "You mean like Obama?"
If I was a Dumbocrat, I'd say "You mean like Bush?"
If I was from any other party it wouldn't matter, nobody would be listening anyway.
LOL! Right, there doesn't appear to be any difference between the two, except Obama is literate.
I agree entirely. Excellent points. Also, I would like to point out that Americans are still driving to the store to buy 1 or two items....so clearly they are not hurting that bad. Processed food costs more than staples, yet it still sells. Gas is considered expensive, even though Americans are still sitting in their work parking lots during break times with the car running (usually smoking while on their expensive cell phones, also expensive). Americans have no idea what true poverty even is. Heck, my family is well below what is considered poverty in our area.....and we actually feel like we are pretty well off. Go figure. Our kids could get free school lunch even, but we turn it down.
I disagree with this point however.
But I will note that giving poor people loads of guarenteed no-strings money has never worked, not here, not in somalia, not pretty much anywhere. If you incentivize not working, people will not work, or will find a way to exploit the situation.
It would seem that those who do not work are taking the path of least resistance. Crime seems to be that path when they are not paid to sit quietly.
Sure I have. All these democratic experiments in Islamic countries have only replaced dictatorships w/ regimes that back Islamic supremacists of one hue or another.
Of course, they aren't democratic experiments in anything other than name. The US, (actually the corporations that own the US) doesn't want democracy to exist in these places in anything other than name.
In Afghanistan, as someone else pointed out, their constitution specifically rules out Shariah-incompatible laws, with results like the Abdul Rahman case, as pointed out. Iraq, after getting 'democracy', now has a government that's a vassal of Iran, just like Syria is. There was an election in the Palestinian Authority, and the winner of that was Hamas.
That's right, it was Hamas, and that democratic result wasn't the one the US (read: the corporations) wanted, so they unleashed the terrorists, Israel.
In Egypt, the only organized opposition to Mubarak was the Muslim brotherhood, and once Egypt has regular elections, they are the ones most likely to come to power. Same deal in Syria. Saudi Arabia's is about as close to a kakistocracy as one can get, but if the Sauds are overthrown and they have elections, they too are more likely to elect an al Qaeda like party to power. Bahrein had been prevented from having its rebellion succeed, but had that happened, they too would have gone the way of Iraq.
I know the Muslims aren't Christians, but what is so wrong with them running their own country? They are Muslims after all.
There are problems with Islam, just as there are problems with Christianity. We'd be better off without both of them, but one is no better than the other. At the end of the day it doesn't matter who runs the country as long as the US gets the oil. That has been proven ad nauseum.
In the meantime, the governments that did/do exist there weren't much better - whether it's the Sauds, Mubarak, Assad, Gadaffi, et al, they were all happy to let Islamic fanaticism run rampant. Take Syria, for instance. During the US occupation, Syria was happy to let its restive Sunni majority, who they'd normally suppress, pour into Iraq's al Anbar province and join Iraq's al Qaeda and cause attacks on US troops, at the same time that they let Iran have a pipeline to Hizbullah to destabilize Lebanon and attack Israel (note that I don't care what the Judeophobic pro-Islamic pro-Nazi posters on /. think).
Of course you don't, it's glaringly obvious that you are in favour of Israeli and US terrorism. Basically the crusades and the inquisition rolled into one and backed with high tech weapons.
So obviously, Assad is no friend to the West. But if he gets overthown in this uprising, the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the parent organization of al Qaeda, would be its replacement. Think of it as the Syrian and Egyptian editions of Hamas (actually, vice versa - Hamas is the Pali edition of the Muslim Brotherhood).
So in all these Muslim countries, both the dictatorships that they do have, as well as the mass uprisings that would replace them, are all bad for the West. Using the term 'democratic' in an Islamic setting is a misnomer, since pluralism - particularly religious pluralism - is non-existent.
Democracy is not the plan, the US doesn't want a democracy, in the middle east, at home, anywhere.
In Egypt, things were always ugly for the Copts, and have only gotten worse. Maronites are fleeing from Lebanon while that country has gone from Sunni to Shia. In Iraq & Pakistan, Christians are @ the receiving end, and even in 'moderate' Malaysia, non-Muslims - Christians, Hindus and other Chinese - are witnessing more discrimination than ever before, and leaving Malaysia in droves. So it's not like one has to only use examples like Saudi Arabia and Somalia to demonstrate what's wrong with Islam.
That's why each election is a mini-revolution. Without a system of representation, you will eventually have one big revolution. Don't let a vast disconnect grow and fester within a nation.
Life is not for the lazy.
The majority of the country can get behind removing Gadhaffi, but when it comes to how to replace him you can certainly expect arguments and deals and infighting. Even in a democracy this is the case.
Then your case about their (possibly) not being ready for a democracy loses a lot of its strength, doesn't it? I mean, if arguments, deals and infighting happen in democracies, how can you argue they are not ready for democracy just because they will have arguments, deals and infighting after getting rid of Gadhaffi?
And I can't find where Rei has stated that harmony will continue. I only read his stating that the reaction has been tribe-agnostic, and ridiculing some concept of tribe as incompatible with democracy.
Bashar al Assad is thanking Allah that there's no oil under his country.
The people of Libya are fully responsible for this Revolution. It has absolutely nothing to do with oil, dickhead.
I think that is what "dickhead" is saying, coward.
Bashar al Assad is thanking Allah that there's no oil under his country.
I see what you did there, very clever and funny.
Well, except that part where the Syrian people are bleeding and dying for the same lack of intervention.
Oh, and except for the fact that 25% of Syria's revenues come from oil exports...
When do stupid, ignorant, and flat out false remarks about evil dictators murdering their people become funny?
I know folks who are well below the poverty line-- some of them well. They still have tv, and cell phones, and a house.
I also know a number of folks who so not work because of government handouts. I do not mean to comment on their specific situation-- it is possible they have a good reason; but the point is they will NEVER work so long as they do not have to, because every individual THINKS they have a good reason.
Most people in developing countries skipped landlines altogether and went straight to cell phones.
I'm hoping the same thing can happen with forms of government and they can bypass democracy altogether and find something better ;)
You honestly can't tell the difference between people getting your money because you bought a product from them and people getting your money because they have a gun to your head?
I am a proud traitor to my species in alliance with my mother the Earth in opposition to those who would destroy her.
So, are you ready to do your part? If you are, we will dispatch you a set of glasses. Please throw away the gum and procure a shotgun yourself, thank you.
Why throw away the gum?
"I came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum, and I enjoy multi-tasking!" *boom*
The enemies of Democracy are
What on Earth about this "seems to be an Islamic republic"? Have you not paid attention to a single thing stated by the TNC? Read any of their draft documents? They're pushing more liberal policies than we have here in the US.
The reason those students can't cover their rent, FYI, is because in this "wealthy" country, the average personal income is a mere $200 a month, and maintained that way by law #15. Programs like those to fund students overseas affect a tiny percentage of the population, and exist in order to bring educated talent back to the country (to run industry, etc).
I am a proud traitor to my species in alliance with my mother the Earth in opposition to those who would destroy her.
So what preparations are you making for the coming dystopian collapse?
What on Earth about this "seems to be an Islamic republic"? Have you not paid attention to a single thing stated by the TNC? Read any of their draft documents? They're pushing more liberal policies than we have here in the US.
I don't care about what they say, I care about what they do.
When Chechens fought and won their war of independence from Russia back in 1996, they also had a very liberal program on the paper. Their constitution was largely copied from European ones, and claimed to institute a secular democratic state. Of course, a year after they already had a "Ministry of Sharia Security", headed by a Salafi fanatic; and public executions on the streets.
Meanwhile, I've seen the videos on YouTube. Excuse me if I don't find rebels burning a man alive, tearing his charred heart out, and parading it around the streets of the city - to cheers of the mob - the pinnacle of "liberal policies".
Heck, for all it matters, TNC can consist of true bleeding heart liberals, and they claim to be the new government, but I have my doubts about whether they will remain one for long after the victory.
The reason those students can't cover their rent, FYI, is because in this "wealthy" country, the average personal income is a mere $200 a month, and maintained that way by law #15.
Personal income is relative. $200 is nothing in US, but then little in US is free.
FWIW, I'm not claiming that Libya was a first-world country under Gaddafi - most certainly not. This would be a pointless comparison, anyway. But relative to its neighbors - yes, it was much better.
I agree entirely, I know some as well. I just wanted to point out that crime may increase as a result.....so the true cost may also go up. Giving money out to bums keeps the money in this economy, at first anyway. There are other government programs which spend the money in far less economically beneficial ways. By my own logic however, the increase in crime would keep the prison and legal systems well funded, also spending money in this economy. I am just saying, it isn't as one sided as you propose.
I know folks who are well below the poverty line-- some of them well. They still have tv, and cell phones, and a house.
I also know a number of folks who so not work because of government handouts. I do not mean to comment on their specific situation-- it is possible they have a good reason; but the point is they will NEVER work so long as they do not have to, because every individual THINKS they have a good reason.
I'm not seeing any numbers here, and I've heard far too many made-up stories like this in the past. How do you know they're below the poverty line? TVs and cell phones can be had for very little money. I sold a TV that worked just fine last year on Craigslist for $20. Healthy food, reliable transportation, quality time to spend with your children, sufficient education to get a decent job, those things come at greater cost. You guys seem to generalize a lot. I've worked with homeless people and those who were just barely getting by. Aside from the mental issues being very common among those groups and their general inability to get any real health care, they aren't exactly living high on the hog at taxpayer expense. Their lives are not easy or comfortable. They live under constant stress and anxiety, and often fear. It ain't pretty. Right now we have 50% of the population sharing 2.5% of the wealth of the country. Saying that they shouldn't be getting any help from those that control the vast majority of the wealth is just rather despicable.
It was not a matter of "if", but "who" and "when" for the dissolution of the Weimar Republic and its replacement by an authoritarian government. Hitler just happened to be the one who ended up on top.
That is a far-fetched assertion. Just because there are elements plotting to overthrow a regime doesn't make said overthrow inevitable.
Second, Hitler's abuses didn't really start until he had dissolved the Republic. That happened rather quickly once he became Chancellor...
And of course, the timeline of Hitler's rise to power shows that he acted cautiously until the debris of the Republic was swept away.
History doesn't agree with you.
(1) Hitler putshed in Bavaria in 1923 and was convicted to 5 years in prison for it. (He was released after 9 months for "good behavior.") It was in prison where he wrote his seminal work in which he was pretty open about his hatred for any democratic regime and his plan to overthrow it using "democratic" means.
(2) The SA (the early paramilitary wing of the NSDAP) had clashed with the communists and social democrats since the 1920s. Nothing cautious about these street battles, either.
(3) The final nail in the coffin of the Weimar republic was the Enabling Act of 1933. By that time the communist opposition (who got 12% in the election before it) was outlawed and terrorized. The social democrats received a good beating as well.
(4) Before the "dissolution" of the Weimar republic (which legally never happened), the Prussian state government was overthrown and Prussia was directly administered by the Reich. That wasn't done by Hitler, but it played directly into his hands, because the Prussia would have been in a strong position to defy Hitler.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
"Saying that they shouldn't be getting any help from those that control the vast majority of the wealth is just rather despicable."
This is not really what the conversation was about; we were discussing how handouts may relate in some way to crime and increased unemployment. You are correct however, the wealth difference is despicable. While I agree with your sentiment, and agree that there are individual exceptions, I do not really think that healthy food, reliable transport, nor quality time with your kids have to be expensive. People use that excuse to eat junkfood, drive a car they cannot afford, and let someone else raise their kids. Laziness seems to be the problem for the majority (not all) of those struggling economically that I know well. The path of least resistance needs to be carefully mapped for a majority of the population "to succeed". The homeless you speak of are the very poor. The general poverty group is usually defined as the lowest 10 to 20 percent of the population here in the US. Few of those are homeless.
I know I shouldn't be so cynical but I have to ask who is the new dictator?
The Central Bankers.
Consider this:
1) 2010 - Gaddafi announces intent to peg oil to the 'gold dinar'.
2) Feb 29, 2011 - 'National Transitional Council' formed.
3) Mar 19, 2011 - NATO Operations Begin
3a) Mar 19, 2011 - National Transitional Council announces new Central Bank of Benghazi and New National Oil Company. Because what rebel forces really need is a new central bank.
4) Aug 19, 2011 - Operation Mermaid Dawn (Battle of Tripoli) begins. NATO troops remove 1.4 tons of gold from Tripoli.
All coincidental, right? The real reason to go into Libya is because Gaddafi shot up 'his' citizens, like in Sudan, like in Syria, like in Bhutan, like in ... well, the point is made.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
That is a far-fetched assertion. Just because there are elements plotting to overthrow a regime doesn't make said overthrow inevitable.
As it turned out, it was German military and industry, right there. They weren't just "elements". Second, Hitler did act cautiously. 1923 was not 1932. He learned and cleaned up his act.
The SA (the early paramilitary wing of the NSDAP) had clashed with the communists and social democrats since the 1920s. Nothing cautious about these street battles, either.
Teflon. Hitler wasn't involved in those clashes. His image stayed shiny.
(3) The final nail in the coffin of the Weimar republic was the Enabling Act of 1933. By that time the communist opposition (who got 12% in the election before it) was outlawed and terrorized. The social democrats received a good beating as well.
The real action didn't start till 1934. Stuff like Night of the Long Knives.
(4) Before the "dissolution" of the Weimar republic (which legally never happened), the Prussian state government was overthrown and Prussia was directly administered by the Reich. That wasn't done by Hitler, but it played directly into his hands, because the Prussia would have been in a strong position to defy Hitler.
Yep. Mighty convenient. You might want to look at who did that and how they dealt with Hitler afterwards. I actually see this as confirmation of my original claim. It's one thing to have a single politician knocking over the props, one by one. It's another when there's numerous politicians from different parties all chipping away at the edifice.
As final evidence, I want to point out the rapidity of the German military build up. For example, an invasion of France required that the Germans overtake the French military without giving the other European powers time to build up their own forces in response. I think the logistics behind this maneuver was more sophisticated than anything on the battlefield. Some of it was clearly the Nazi's doing such as using the SA as a pool to draw on when they jump started conscription and broke the Treaty of Versailles.
But I don't see that the Nazi's had the military logistics experience to design and build the new large German military. That I suspect started with the German military and perhaps sympathetic industrial leaders prior to Hitler's rise to power.
I guess to summarize my point of view coherently, history has the Nazis rising to power and consolidating that power internally by mid 1934 with the Night of the Long Knives. The Germans then had to build up their military fast enough that they could overtake the major military powers without triggering an arms race. That's roughly six years from 1934 to the invasion of France in 1940. I suppose it could be possible for the Nazi wonders to get manufacture of tanks, planes, and ships ready in that time frame, but at this point we're taking some Nazi propaganda on faith.
Reading history, it's pretty clear that a lot of people high up in the German leadership undermined the Weimar Republic, such as Hindenburg who made several moves over the years to undermine the legislative branch and allowed Hitler to consolidate power in 1933.
So here's my alternate proposal. Back at some point around 1928-1930, it was decided to remove the Weimar Republic, but there was two big problems. How to get to that point and who would be in charge. The military developed either on their own or in conjunction with industrialists plans for rebuilding German forces. Guderian's approach may not have been adopted at first, but he probably was influential in getting good tank and dive bomber designs, for example.
Meanwhile Hindenberg served as the final arbiter for who would rise to power. Several politicians vied for the honor, Hitler eventually joined that group, though he was not favored due to his politics, dislike by Hindenberg, and perhaps breeding. 1932
Most of what you say is true, especially that they were many and diverse elements who wanted to get rid of the republic. Von Papen (the guy who overthrew the Prussia government) is a good example, but he never wanted to see Hitler in power. And it is also true that the military build-up began before Hitler took power, the Luftwaffe is a good example. To say something good about Hindenburg though, AFAIK he always acted within the confines of the Weimar law.
Anyway, I still take issue with your view that history as it turned out was inevitable. If you want to take that view then the root causes lie much earlier. I'm thinking of the Faustian pact that Friedrich Ebert made in 1919 or 1920 with the right-wing military establishment to put down the general strike.
And then there's this:
(3) The final nail in the coffin of the Weimar republic was the Enabling Act of 1933. By that time the communist opposition (who got 12% in the election before it) was outlawed and terrorized. The social democrats received a good beating as well.
The real action didn't start till 1934.
Tell that to the communist and social democratic deputies who were brutalized in the run-up to the 1933 election. If you can read German, I suggest you read the speech by Otto Wels from the SPD before the passage of the Enabling Act. It was the last free speech in the Reichstag for a long time and it is very enlightening.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
People use that excuse to eat junkfood, drive a car they cannot afford, and let someone else raise their kids. Laziness seems to be the problem for the majority (not all) of those struggling economically that I know well. The path of least resistance needs to be carefully mapped for a majority of the population "to succeed". The homeless you speak of are the very poor.
I have no idea what you think of as poor people, but the poor people I know take the bus because they don't have cars. I happen to spend plenty of time at the grocery as well. I eat very healthy food, and I know quite well that fresh fruits, veggies, meats, etc., cost a lot more than box or frozen dinners and junk food. When you're poor and trying to feed your kids, you want to feed them healthy stuff, but more than anything you don't want them to be hungry. So you go with what you can afford that provides the most calories (which is generally what makes you feel full). Unfortunately, this is also likely to make them fat.
The general poverty group is usually defined as the lowest 10 to 20 percent of the population here in the US. Few of those are homeless.
10 to 20% is a hell of a lot of people, and somewhere around a million of them are homeless at any given time. Any way you slice it though, there's half the country with only a miniscule fraction of the wealth between them, and this is the very same half of the country that the conservative talking heads are always berating for not paying enough taxes! How are they supposed to pay more taxes when they only have 2.5% of the wealth? Blood from a stone?
You honestly can't tell the difference between people making money and getting free money? Like this? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-21/wall-street-aristocracy-got-1-2-trillion-in-fed-s-secret-loans.html. You're cute.
By a strange quirk of evolved usage, a 'witch hunt' is only a 'witch hunt' if there is substantial reason to believe that the witches you are hunting aren't actually witches. I'm assuming that, for the moment, there are still enough known regime enthusiasts available that they haven't started to descend into increasingly paranoid and erratic cullings...
Well, there were also numerous cases of persecution of black Libyans by the rebels, under the premise that they are "foreign mercenaries" or some other kind of fifth column. The refugee numbers speak for themselves there. I think that qualifies for a witch hunt in the strictest sense.
br>
"My family is eating stir-fried dandelions out of yards to keep from starving."
Some are lucky enough to find a palace an one of the numerous tent cities that have sprouted around major population centers.
When your time comes to lose your job, car and house will you still blame the poor for resorting to crime in order to feed themselves?
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
Of course, they aren't democratic experiments in anything other than name. The US, (actually the corporations that own the US) doesn't want democracy to exist in these places in anything other than name.
Ah, one more of those Leftist Jihadis that have been coming out of the woodwork since 9/11, having found an entity to succeed communism as the new enemy of the West - Islamic jihad.
That's right, it was Hamas, and that democratic result wasn't the one the US (read: the corporations) wanted, so they unleashed the terrorists, Israel.
Of course!!! Spoken like a true Nazi! Can't wait to have all those Jews eradicated!
I know the Muslims aren't Christians, but what is so wrong with them running their own country? They are Muslims after all.
Translation: they are savages who don't know how to peacefully co-exist with anyone else - Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus or even Atheists. So why not let them rape women belonging to these other groups, slit the throats of their men, kidnap their children and do whatever else they feel like.
There are problems with Islam, just as there are problems with Christianity. We'd be better off without both of them, but one is no better than the other. At the end of the day it doesn't matter who runs the country as long as the US gets the oil. That has been proven ad nauseum.
Whatever problems are there with Christianity, or any other religion, is internal - restricted to their own adherents. They don't bother about followers of other religions. That's different for Muslims - the Quran calls on them to fight infidels and not stop until Islamic law is supreme worldwide, and all non-Muslims are forced to brown-nose Muslims. In other words, when Muslims follow what the Quran teaches, non-Muslims get affected!
As far as oil goes, the US gets only a small percentage of it from the middle east - the bulk of it is from Canada, and some from Russia. Of course, it's irrelevant where the oil goes, because at the end of the day, if a country like, say, Belgium, cannot buy it from Libya, they'll buy it from Kuwait.
Of course you don't, it's glaringly obvious that you are in favour of Israeli and US terrorism. Basically the crusades and the inquisition rolled into one and backed with high tech weapons.
From a fanboi who is rooting for Mohammedan savages, who rape non-Muslim women, slit the throats of non-Muslims, claim non-Muslim bodies after they are dead in order to possess their property (something prevalent in Malaysia and now Pakistan), who teach their people that Jews are apes & rats while Christians are pigs and dogs, and one of whose countries (Pakistan) is already nuclear while another (Iran) is trying to be, this sure is priceless!
Democracy is not the plan, the US doesn't want a democracy, in the middle east, at home, anywhere.
It's not about what the US wants, and initially, the US was not involved in the events in Libya, until the Europeans, and some clueless Republicans called on Obama to pick the side of the rebels. Ultimately, it's about what the people of the countries involved themselves want. But while they want freedom, it's just for themselves, but not their fellow citizens unless it happens to be of their same sub-groups, clans, creeds and whatever. The average Muslim in Egypt who supports the Muslim brotherhood doesn't want Copts to live with the same freedoms and dignity that they want for themselves.
What wrong with Islam is that it is a religion. Religion/cult, the same thing.
Islam is more a cult - albeit a cult with a membership of 1.3 billion - more akin to the Branch Davidians, the Heavensgate, the Moonies, the Aum Shinko, the Communists, then it is to mainstream religions like Christianity, Buddhism, et al. What makes it more venal is that bloated membership of 1.3 billion.
I guess I do not understand how someone can starve in America. On my walk to work I can find enough change on the ground to buy a 2 pound container of dry goods at the local market. Heck, the number of fruit trees that people do not harvest from their yards indicates that food is still aplenty in the US. We are increasing our food exports to China afterall. Food is the one thing we have plenty of in the US.
Dandelion greens and other plants are always an option too.... based on your logic, things must be getting better. My parents and grandparents used to pick greens to stay alive, along with many extended family members. Not anymore. Now they garden them. The idea is the same however.
What percent of the population is living in these tent cities? You truly believe that this will happen to the entire middle class? Do you think then that 90% of the homes in this country will be empty? Really? Don't you think that maybe the home prices would drop....that supply-and-demand thing? Do you notice that prices are still dropping and home construction has stalled? It would seem to me, we have more than enough homes, which is why building more is not really what the market desires.
If people wouldn't buy a house and car they couldn't afford, they wouldn't lose them when times get tough. There are a few exceptions, but after the purchase price, you should just have the maintenance, utilities, and taxes. Americans do not buy a house they can easily afford, they buy one they can barely afford. Then they make payments on a car; a product that will eventually be worthless. Do we have problems with the wealth being sucked out of America? Yup. Does that mean you should be starving already in this country? Nope.
Also, I never said that I would blame the poor for anything. Please read again. I fully expect someone who is starving to steal if that means they can feed their family.
Little in Libya is free either. $200 is still poverty in Libya. Which is why as soon as people saw an opening, spontaneous revolts broke out in nearly every city in the country. Gadhaffi then crushed most of them, and would probably have driven over the remaining ones had NATO not stepped in.
As for the videos you refer to from (with the background of people shouting things like "la haram!" (It's forbidden!) and telling them to stop.... would you kindly explain to me how the Transitional National Council, which formed on Feb. 27th, ordered said events on the riots that overthrew Gadhaffi's control of Benghazi on Feb. 17th? Beyond that, if your main source of information is unconfirmed videos on YouTube, how do you reconcile that with the fact that Gadhaffi has been caught over and over and over again by reporters pumping out fake anti-rebel propaganda, from the planted bodies at the bombing sites to the "confiscated drugs" (from his bizarre claim that the rebels were just gangs hopped up on drugs) which were medicines his soldiers took from a local hospital? Do you really think that someone who's been caught practically every day doing stuff like that wouldn't set up YouTube videos?
I am a proud traitor to my species in alliance with my mother the Earth in opposition to those who would destroy her.
It sounds like we agree on everything, except what it means to be poor. Maybe it is because I grew up poor. You are correct about the wealth distribution.....but the poor here in the midwest have nothing but themself to blame. The could easily become middle class with a bit of effort. This brings us to your point......is it worth the effort to become middle class as the quality of life there is slowly sucked dry. I thought we were talking about those without even food however.
I would hope so... but it seems that democracy still is the least bad of all political systems.
Tell that to the communist and social democratic deputies who were brutalized in the run-up to the 1933 election.
Sure I will! Oh wait, they got shot, imprisoned, or fled the country in the years after 1933.