Post-Gaddafi Libya in ruins
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/special-report-we-all-thought-libya-had-moved-on--it-has-but-into-lawlessness-and-ruin-8797041.html
The central government of Libya can't take order due to once anti-Gaddafi militias rebelling. Militias are firing on crowds, have taken over the oil-fields of Cyrenaica (where most of Libya's oil comes from, which it is completely dependent upon for it's Libya government, which is highly composed of figures from the Muslim Brotherhood, is soon economy) and a tribal battle is raging 15 miles away from the the Libyan parliament. The to go broke without it's oil profits and powerless to stop the rampant rebellion across the country.
Are Gaddafi and Assad animals? Yes, there is no debate about that. However, these dictators at the very least managed to keep control for most of their years in office and maintain a steady oil market. Although the rebels in each of these country's appear to be desperate freedom fighters, I would challenge that assertion. There is no guarantee that the situation will improve with new extremest in office rather than the old dictators.
For this reason, I've changed my viewpoint about intervention in Syria. If our allies Turkey and Israel are directly threatened by chemical weapons at some point in time, then we should defiantly take action. However, at this point I see no immediate advantage to indirectly aiding the rebels. The broad and mighty force of the U.S military should refrain from dropping air-born freedom across Syria, for now at least.
Any thoughts or ideas?
The central government of Libya can't take order due to once anti-Gaddafi militias rebelling. Militias are firing on crowds, have taken over the oil-fields of Cyrenaica (where most of Libya's oil comes from, which it is completely dependent upon for it's Libya government, which is highly composed of figures from the Muslim Brotherhood, is soon economy) and a tribal battle is raging 15 miles away from the the Libyan parliament. The to go broke without it's oil profits and powerless to stop the rampant rebellion across the country.
Are Gaddafi and Assad animals? Yes, there is no debate about that. However, these dictators at the very least managed to keep control for most of their years in office and maintain a steady oil market. Although the rebels in each of these country's appear to be desperate freedom fighters, I would challenge that assertion. There is no guarantee that the situation will improve with new extremest in office rather than the old dictators.
For this reason, I've changed my viewpoint about intervention in Syria. If our allies Turkey and Israel are directly threatened by chemical weapons at some point in time, then we should defiantly take action. However, at this point I see no immediate advantage to indirectly aiding the rebels. The broad and mighty force of the U.S military should refrain from dropping air-born freedom across Syria, for now at least.
Any thoughts or ideas?
The central government of Libya can't take order due to once anti-Gaddafi militias rebelling. Militias are firing on crowds, have taken over the oil-fields of Cyrenaica (where most of Libya's oil comes from, which it is completely dependent upon for it's Libya government, which is highly composed of figures from the Muslim Brotherhood, is soon economy) and a tribal battle is raging 15 miles away from the the Libyan parliament. The to go broke without it's oil profits and powerless to stop the rampant rebellion across the country.
Religion in a nutshell
Religion in a nutshell
I get your point, but I wouldn't take it that far.
Not all religion is counter-productive. Where I'm from the happiest, most successful and least violent people tend to be religious. Although I have my criticisms of their faith, I can't deny their peace of mind.
That's an observation coming from someone who isn't religious.
Not all religion is counter-productive. Where I'm from the happiest, most successful and least violent people tend to be religious. Although I have my criticisms of their faith, I can't deny their peace of mind.
That's an observation coming from someone who isn't religious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
I don't get your point. Nations as a whole can be violent regardless of their religion or lack of it. Stalin and Hitler were both non-religious (Hitler being a Deist and Stalin an atheist, the latter killing far more of his own people).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
I don't get your point. Nations as a whole can be violent regardless of their religion or lack of it. Stalin and Hitler were both non-religious (Hitler being a Deist and Stalin an atheist, the latter killing far more of his own people).
Godwin's Law nullified as Rainmaker as a valid point. You may resume your debate.
Just read about Godwin's law/lol.
It wouldn't apply here since we're talking about extremist violence, correct?
BUT ANYWAYS, what do you guise think of the tizzy in Libya?
It wouldn't apply here since we're talking about extremist violence, correct?
BUT ANYWAYS, what do you guise think of the tizzy in Libya?
Hitler was catholic.
Stalin grew up as orthodox until he found communism
Stalin grew up as orthodox until he found communism
Again, neither were religious. Hitler believed in god but didn't embrace the code of any religion (a.k.a, a deist).
As for Stalin, many people are raised on a religion. That doesn't mean that they embraced it. Again, he was an atheist during his reign.
It doesn't matter what people call themselves. Look at their actions and judge them off of that. Even if Hitler claimed to be a christian until the end, that doesn't mean he was.
As for Stalin, many people are raised on a religion. That doesn't mean that they embraced it. Again, he was an atheist during his reign.
It doesn't matter what people call themselves. Look at their actions and judge them off of that. Even if Hitler claimed to be a christian until the end, that doesn't mean he was.
Again, neither were religious. Hitler believed in god but didn't embrace the code of any religion (a.k.a, a deist).
No im pretty sure he was religous as was Bin laden,Gadafi,Mugabe,Idi Amin,Henry VIII,Ivan the terrible,Vlad the Impaler,Atilla the Hun,Obama,
Mussolini was non-religous i think
Atleast 95% of tyrants are religous.
No im pretty sure he was religous as was Bin laden,Gadafi,Mugabe,Idi Amin,Henry VIII,Ivan the terrible,Vlad the Impaler,Atilla the Hun,Obama,
Mussolini was non-religous i think
Atleast 95% of tyrants are religous.
I'm not sure tyrant is the right word. I'm not really sure what the correct word would be when lumping that collection of people together.
When it comes to religion, it doesn't matter if it has any bearing in the conversation at all. Pred will simple neener neener until someone shuts him up. Most likely Scratcher.
loled at lumping in obama with Vlady boy.
People do realize he's a troll by now, right?
at least he can make me laugh.
People do realize he's a troll by now, right?
at least he can make me laugh.
You still think we haven't realized he's a troll.
That makes you more of a troll than Punisher.
That makes you more of a troll than Punisher.
Well, he hasn't been banned from making stupid threads yet.
Well, he hasn't been banned from making stupid threads yet.
God! You just really don't get it, do you?
God! You just really don't get it, do you?
I can't hear you over my worlds most powerful economy.
I shall explain it in simple terms. The only people who can ban don't care, the people who do care are either staff members without banning privileges, or normal members. Stop complaining about Pred, stop insinuating that we're too stupid to comprehend that Pred's a troll, and realize that we're trying to make the best out of a less than desirable situation. A lot of us don't like Pred, and a lot of us can't tolerate his stupidity at times.
Most of us wants him banned, but the admins can't do it.
I didn't know that nor was I trying to be condescending. I just remember at one point not long ago certain members were defending him, which blew my mind.
Because at that point in time, he was actually being genuine and having a semi-decent discussion. (Either that, or someone was really laying it on thick and trying to start a flame war.)
I just remember at one point not long ago certain members were defending him, which blew my mind.
That might have been me. What I see from him, he's mostly posting sensible messages nowadays, which are mostly on-topic. In this thread for example, he's taking a pretty extreme stance, but not worse than you often do yourself. (or than I do!) And he certainly presents it in a proper way (without swearing or insulting people).
What was pointed out, however, is that many of his posts get deleted as well. That isn't a very good sign, obviously.
That might have been me. What I see from him, he's mostly posting sensible messages nowadays, which are mostly on-topic. In this thread for example, he's taking a pretty extreme stance, but not worse than you often do yourself. (or than I do!) And he certainly presents it in a proper way (without swearing or insulting people).
What was pointed out, however, is that many of his posts get deleted as well. That isn't a very good sign, obviously.
So im a troll for speaking the truth about religion?
Its the Dark Ages all over again.
Its the Dark Ages all over again.
"Its the Dark Ages all over again."
You mean, when religions went round killing all the non-believers?
You mean, when religions went round killing all the non-believers?
You mean, when religions went round killing all the non-believers?
And killing people within their own faiths and other faiths.
And killing people within their own faiths and other faiths.
