Libya

Diskusjon om politiske temaer fra det internasjonale nyhetsbildet.

Libya

Innlegg QIQrrr 31 Okt 2010, 19:24

Gaddafi har av en eller annen merkelig grunn fått det for seg at europeerne kan styre vannstanden i afrikanske innsjøer:

    Reuters, October 31, 2010: Europe will be confronted with 30 million Africans trying to reach its shores unless it acts to stop climate change from depleting a lake on which they depend, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi said on Sunday - Europe must save shrinking African lake - Gaddafi
Børge Svanstrøm Amundsen

"Atlas was permitted the opinion that he was at liberty, if he wished, to drop the Earth and creep away; but this opinion was all that he was permitted" - Franz Kafka
Brukerens avatar
QIQrrr
 
Innlegg: 4439
Registrert: 20 Mai 2004, 23:33

Re: Libya

Innlegg QIQrrr 01 Des 2010, 02:06

The Telegraph, November 30, 2010: During an EU-Africa summit, that ended on Tuesday in Tripoli, the Libyan leader described European's economic relationship with the African continent as a "failure". Unless "Christian, white" countries gave him extra funding, Gaddafi predicted that Europe would be flooded with illegal immigrants leaving impoverished Africa. "We should stop this illegal immigration. If we don't, Europe will become black, it will be overcome by people with different religions, it will change," he said - Gaddafi demands £4 billion from EU or Europe will turn 'black'
Børge Svanstrøm Amundsen

"Atlas was permitted the opinion that he was at liberty, if he wished, to drop the Earth and creep away; but this opinion was all that he was permitted" - Franz Kafka
Brukerens avatar
QIQrrr
 
Innlegg: 4439
Registrert: 20 Mai 2004, 23:33

Re: Libya

Innlegg QIQrrr 18 Feb 2011, 18:51

The Telegraph, February 18, 2011: Protesters in Libya have torn down a monument representing Col Muammar Gaddafi's green book, a summary of his political ideology. This amateur footage purportedly shows protesters in the city of Tobruk knocking over a statue of the "Green Book" on Thursday. Muammar Gaddafi has ruled Libya for more than 40 years according to socialist principles set out in his "Green Book," which bans top-down government sets out how the country should be run by committees of citizens. Opponents of Gaddafi say they want political freedoms, respect for human rights and an end to corruption - Libyan protesters destroy Gaddafi monument

Børge Svanstrøm Amundsen

"Atlas was permitted the opinion that he was at liberty, if he wished, to drop the Earth and creep away; but this opinion was all that he was permitted" - Franz Kafka
Brukerens avatar
QIQrrr
 
Innlegg: 4439
Registrert: 20 Mai 2004, 23:33

Re: Libya

Innlegg QIQrrr 23 Feb 2011, 02:15

Yahoo! News, February 22, 2011: The bloody upheaval in Libya is creating an uncomfortable challenge for Moammar Gadhafi's leftist Latin American allies, with some keeping their distance and others rushing to the defense of a leader they have long embraced as a fellow fighter against U.S. influence in the world. Former Cuban leader Fidel Castro said Tuesday that the unrest may be a pretext for a NATO invasion of Libya, while Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega offered support for Gadhafi, saying he had telephoned to express solidarity. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, on the other hand, has stayed mute. Bolivia came closest to criticizing the government in Tripoli, issuing a statement expressing concern over "the regrettable loss of many lives" and urging both sides to find a peaceful solution. Latin America's leftist leaders have found common cause with Gadhafi over his opposition to U.S. foreign policy and sympathized with his revolutionary rhetoric. Gadhafi has responded over the years by awarding the Moammar Gadhafi International Human Rights Prize to Castro, Ortega, Chavez and Evo Morales of Bolivia - Gadhafi's LatAm allies show solidarity, caution
Børge Svanstrøm Amundsen

"Atlas was permitted the opinion that he was at liberty, if he wished, to drop the Earth and creep away; but this opinion was all that he was permitted" - Franz Kafka
Brukerens avatar
QIQrrr
 
Innlegg: 4439
Registrert: 20 Mai 2004, 23:33

Re: Libya

Innlegg QIQrrr 20 Mar 2011, 21:55

The Wall Street Journal, March 20, 2011: The Libyan revolution that began as a spontaneous uprising a month ago is posing crucial questions for the U.S. and allies: Who, if anyone, is in charge, and what does the disparate rebel coalition want to achieve beyond ousting Col. Moammar Gadhafi - Libya Uprising Raises Crucial Questions on Rebels
Børge Svanstrøm Amundsen

"Atlas was permitted the opinion that he was at liberty, if he wished, to drop the Earth and creep away; but this opinion was all that he was permitted" - Franz Kafka
Brukerens avatar
QIQrrr
 
Innlegg: 4439
Registrert: 20 Mai 2004, 23:33

Re: Libya

Innlegg QIQrrr 22 Mar 2011, 18:53

Fra en annen tråd:

Mats H skrev:
Rounin skrev:Hva om det viser seg at både det amerikanske og det libyske folk ønsker at USA skal intervenere i Libya på rent solidarisk grunnlag, og at det også finnes tilstrekkelig med militært personell som ønsker å delta i operasjonen? Da kan jeg ikke se hvis interesse det skulle tjene å la være. Ikke-intervensjonisme for sin egen skyld kan umulig ha noe for seg, dersom den ikke begrunnes med noe annet.

Dette er den siste spørreundersøkelsen jeg har funnet om emnet: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/17/fox-news-poll-voters-dont-want-military-sent-libya/

Ifølge denne undersøkelsen, med en feilmargin på 3%, er 65% av amerikanerne mot militær innblanding i Libya, 9% er usikre og 25% er for.

Ferske tall:

    Rasmussen Reports, March 22, 2011: With the U.S. military now actively involved in Libya, voters are more supportive of an American role in the Libyan crisis but also are more critical of President Obama’s handling of the situation. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey – taken over the last two nights – finds that 34% of Likely U.S. Voters now think the United States should get more directly involved in the Libyan crisis, up 12 points from 22% two weeks ago. 48% say the United States should leave the situation alone, down from 63% in the previous survey. 18% are not sure which course is best - 34% Now Support U.S. Involvement in Libya
Børge Svanstrøm Amundsen

"Atlas was permitted the opinion that he was at liberty, if he wished, to drop the Earth and creep away; but this opinion was all that he was permitted" - Franz Kafka
Brukerens avatar
QIQrrr
 
Innlegg: 4439
Registrert: 20 Mai 2004, 23:33

Re: Libya

Innlegg Panther 31 Mar 2011, 15:10

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/war-peace/6347-at-war-with-america-obama-s-altruistic-war-fighting-philosophy.html

At War...with America: Obama's Altruistic War Fighting Philosophy
31 March 2011 Edward Cline

America has no moral responsibility to provide the Libyan people with anything, least of all help in overthrowing their tyrant. Which is why Obama is eager to do so.

Bilde
Official White House Photo

Humanitarians are famously but deceptively indiscriminate in their generosity and with the dispensing of largesse, whether the latter comes from their own wealth or from extorted taxpayer revenue. As long as the object of their charity is “in need” or “needy,” it matters not to the humanitarian. His measure of “need” is both the “virtue” of poverty, and a poverty of virtue.

President Barack Obama on Monday evening, March 28, 2011, demonstrated, in his speech on why he ordered military operations against Libya, that he is a humanitarian of the lowest order. He is willing to be completely selfless at the expense of this country’s blood and treasure to “save the Libyan people” and prevent the images of “mass graves” appearing before him on his teleprompter. That is, he is a vessel of humanitarian instincts brimming to overflow with a selflessness eager and willing to sacrifice things that are not his to sacrifice. Humanitarians are, at root, nihilists, destroyers of values in pursuit of “saving” non-values. Obama competes with swine in that he will eat anything as long as it is “in need” requires “sacrifice,” that altruist touchstone of moral purity. Here are pertinent excerpts from his address:

Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That’s what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks.

What interests, what values are at stake? No answer. What responsibility? No answer.

For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant -– Muammar Qaddafi. He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world –- including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents.

Yes, Gaddafi is a tyrant, but then so are the rulers of China, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf sheikdoms, Tunisia, the Sudan, et al., and too likely Egypt when the Muslim Brotherhood consolidates its power. And it is interesting that Obama omitted mention of Lockerbie and Pan Am Flight 103, for which Gaddafi was the button-pusher.


We have no responsibility to provide the Libyan people with anything, least of all help in overthrowing their tyrant. And about that $33 billion in Libyan assets: It does not belong to the Libyan people; it belongs to us because it represents wealth extorted from the West, especially from the U.S. in the form of oil prices on oil produced from expropriated oil wells and fields. That $33 billion should be applied to Obama’s rising government debt, and be returned to American taxpayers by declaring an income tax holiday for the next three years.

Two of the best critiques to date of Obama’s Libyan intervention are Richard Salsman’s March 23rd Forbes article, “Libya Exposes Obama as Our Latest Neocon President,” which presents the moral case against Obama, and Daniel Greenfield’s March 29th “The Known Unknowns of Libya” on Sultan Knish, which spotlights the utter recklessness of Obama’s irrational, illogical, and perilous actions regarding Libya.


Yes, they are fellow Muslims hankering after a chance to impose their own notion of proper Islamic governance on Libya, and who are no less barbaric than Gaddafi.

But if Obama was too afraid that there might someday emerge pictures of mass graves, why then did he oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein? Mass graves in Iraq are not hypothetical. And photos of them are available. Yet Obama who campaigned on his opposition to a war in which there were mass graves and in which every option had been exhausted after a decade-- now leaps into a war to avoid the possibility that he might ever have to look at photos of mass graves.

This isn't about Obama being too queasy to look at mass graves. If that were the case we would be invading North Korea, Sudan and the cartel run parts of Mexico. Gaddafi is not doing anything that half the Middle East isn't doing, and unlike our close ally Turkey, he's doing it without employing chemical weapons. We aren't in Libya because it's an extraordinary human rights situation, but because our decision making process has become a thorough and complete mess.


A noted philosopher, Ayn Rand, once offered this rule-of-thumb for those faced with incomprehensible irrationality: “Don’t bother to examine a folly. Ask only what it accomplishes.”

And what else is Obama accomplishing but the steady and inevitable destruction of this country?

It is time that Americans grasp that every action Barack Obama has taken since moving into the White House has been an episode of a war waged against this country, from ObamaCare to “green energy” to his appetite for government debt. His Libyan adventure is simply another demonstration of his war-fighting philosophy. This is not hard to grasp or concede. Obama’s actions speak louder than his words. Examine the evidence.
Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Panther
 
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog

Re: Libya

Innlegg QIQrrr 05 Apr 2011, 02:11

Human Events, April 4, 2011: What do Muammar Gaddafi, Adolph Hitler, and Fidel Castro have in common? They all seized power as Socialists and led political parties embracing that label. Strange that one political movement could attract so many thugs, madmen, and murderers. Stranger still, once a Socialist reveals himself as a thug, madmen, or murderer—or all three in Gaddafi’s case—Western scribes and talking heads stop referring to him as a Socialist - Muammar Gaddafi, Socialist
Børge Svanstrøm Amundsen

"Atlas was permitted the opinion that he was at liberty, if he wished, to drop the Earth and creep away; but this opinion was all that he was permitted" - Franz Kafka
Brukerens avatar
QIQrrr
 
Innlegg: 4439
Registrert: 20 Mai 2004, 23:33

Re: Libya

Innlegg QIQrrr 02 Jul 2011, 20:45

The Telegraph, July 1, 2011: The Sudanese army has seized a town in southern Libya that is the gateway to oilfields crucial to rebel hopes of establishing financial independence. Officials overseeing the no-fly zone enforced by Nato over Libya said the Sudanese move north of border had not encountered resistance from troops loyal to Col Muammar Gaddafi - Sudanese army seizes southern Libyan town

Børge Svanstrøm Amundsen

"Atlas was permitted the opinion that he was at liberty, if he wished, to drop the Earth and creep away; but this opinion was all that he was permitted" - Franz Kafka
Brukerens avatar
QIQrrr
 
Innlegg: 4439
Registrert: 20 Mai 2004, 23:33

Re: Libya

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 20 Jul 2011, 18:06

Victor Davis Hanson om krigen i Libya

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... vis-hanson

War in Libya: Dumb and Dumber
The only thing worse than starting a stupid war is losing it.

Almost daily over the last four months we were told that Moammar Qaddafi was about ready to throw in the towel and give up.

Libya, after all, is not a distant Afghanistan or Iraq with a population of some 30 million. Yet this tiny police state of less than 7 million people, conveniently located on the Mediterranean Sea opposite nearby Europe, continues to thwart the three great powers of the NATO alliance and thousands of “Arab Spring” rebels.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ADVERTISEMENT


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In March, President Obama ordered the use of American bombers and cruise missiles to join with the French and British to finish off the tottering Qaddafi regime. Obama was apparently stung by liberal criticism that the U.S. had done little to help the rebels in their weeks-long effort to remove Qaddafi — after only belatedly supporting the successful revolutionaries in Tunisia and Egypt.
Four months ago, intervention seemed to the Obama administration to be a quick, painless way of ridding the world of a longstanding international menace while gaining praise for helping “democratic” reformers. Oil, of course, is always a subtext in any Middle Eastern war.

But almost immediately contradictions arose. Sometimes we ordered Qaddafi to leave; at other times we insisted we were only helping the rebels. Bombs seemed to be aimed at the Qaddafi family, even as we denied that such targeted killing was the goal — and were reminded that U.S. law forbids the assassination of foreign leaders.

The rebels were variously described as would-be democratic reformers, inept amateurs, hard-core Islamists, and mixtures of all three. Months later, no one seems to have the answer, though many of the insurgents share a deep-seated racial and religious hatred of Qaddafi’s African mercenaries. Who knows whether post-Qaddafi Libya will become an Islamic republic, a Somalia-like mess, another Arab dictatorship, or a Turkish-style democracy?

The more NATO forces destroyed Qaddafi’s tanks, artillery, planes, and boats, the more the unhinged dictator seemed to cling to power. Western leaders had forgotten that Qaddafi lost a war with Egypt in 1977, lost a war with Chad in 1987, and came out on the losing end of Ronald Reagan’s bombing campaign in 1986 — and yet clung to power and remains the planet’s longest-ruling dictator. Terror, oil, cash reserves, and a loyal mercenary army are a potent combination.

The Obama administration asked for legal authorization from the Arab League — the majority of whose member states are not democratic — and from the U.N., but to this day strangely has not requested authorization from Congress. As Obama sought legitimacy from international organizations, he failed to note that no U.N. or Arab League resolution actually had allowed him to conduct a full-scale air war against Qaddafi’s ruling clique. The Chinese and Russians are both happy to keep pointing that out.

Both conservatives and liberals were flabbergasted by the sudden preemptive war. Conservatives who supported the messy efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq were reluctant to champion a third one in Libya without congressional authority and with no clearly stated mission or methodology. When we entered an on-again/off-again cycle of operations, Republicans charged that a weakened, fiscally insolvent America was sort of “leading from behind.”

Liberals were appalled that the president, who, as a senator, had always praised the War Powers Act, was now ordering his legal team to find ingenious ways of bypassing it. If this was to be a multilateral, un-Bush war, why then did it split NATO apart? Roughly half the members declined to participate. Both Germany and Italy soon openly opposed the effort. And now the instigator, France, seems to want to bail out.

The Left had also decried Western attacks on oil-exporting Muslim countries, but now liberal-in-chief Barack Obama was engaging in just such an attack. Indeed, the anti-war president who had promised to end the Bush Mideast wars had suddenly expanded them into a third theater. The more the war dragged on, the more the Arab world was torn between hating Qaddafi and hating Obama’s bombs.

The odious Qaddafi has been an international pariah for most of his tenure — funding terrorists, killing Americans, and murdering dissidents. But even as the first bombs were dropped, he was a monster in the midst of rehab. In late 2010 his jet-setting family was being courted by Western intellectuals, reestablishing diplomatic relations with the United States, offering oil concessions to the West, and being praised as a partner in the war against radical Islamic terrorism.

Then, with a snap of the fingers, in early 2011 Qaddafi was suddenly reinvented as a Saddam Hussein–like ogre and dodging Western cruise missiles and bombs targeting his person.

What is next?

The general consensus, from both Left and Right, is that we should finish the misadventure as quickly as possible. Apparently, the only thing worse than starting a stupid, unnecessary war against a madman is losing it.
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7867
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: Libya

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 20 Jul 2011, 18:06

Victor Davis Hanson om krigen i Libya

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... vis-hanson

War in Libya: Dumb and Dumber
The only thing worse than starting a stupid war is losing it.

Almost daily over the last four months we were told that Moammar Qaddafi was about ready to throw in the towel and give up.

Libya, after all, is not a distant Afghanistan or Iraq with a population of some 30 million. Yet this tiny police state of less than 7 million people, conveniently located on the Mediterranean Sea opposite nearby Europe, continues to thwart the three great powers of the NATO alliance and thousands of “Arab Spring” rebels.

In March, President Obama ordered the use of American bombers and cruise missiles to join with the French and British to finish off the tottering Qaddafi regime. Obama was apparently stung by liberal criticism that the U.S. had done little to help the rebels in their weeks-long effort to remove Qaddafi — after only belatedly supporting the successful revolutionaries in Tunisia and Egypt.
Four months ago, intervention seemed to the Obama administration to be a quick, painless way of ridding the world of a longstanding international menace while gaining praise for helping “democratic” reformers. Oil, of course, is always a subtext in any Middle Eastern war.

But almost immediately contradictions arose. Sometimes we ordered Qaddafi to leave; at other times we insisted we were only helping the rebels. Bombs seemed to be aimed at the Qaddafi family, even as we denied that such targeted killing was the goal — and were reminded that U.S. law forbids the assassination of foreign leaders.

The rebels were variously described as would-be democratic reformers, inept amateurs, hard-core Islamists, and mixtures of all three. Months later, no one seems to have the answer, though many of the insurgents share a deep-seated racial and religious hatred of Qaddafi’s African mercenaries. Who knows whether post-Qaddafi Libya will become an Islamic republic, a Somalia-like mess, another Arab dictatorship, or a Turkish-style democracy?

The more NATO forces destroyed Qaddafi’s tanks, artillery, planes, and boats, the more the unhinged dictator seemed to cling to power. Western leaders had forgotten that Qaddafi lost a war with Egypt in 1977, lost a war with Chad in 1987, and came out on the losing end of Ronald Reagan’s bombing campaign in 1986 — and yet clung to power and remains the planet’s longest-ruling dictator. Terror, oil, cash reserves, and a loyal mercenary army are a potent combination.

The Obama administration asked for legal authorization from the Arab League — the majority of whose member states are not democratic — and from the U.N., but to this day strangely has not requested authorization from Congress. As Obama sought legitimacy from international organizations, he failed to note that no U.N. or Arab League resolution actually had allowed him to conduct a full-scale air war against Qaddafi’s ruling clique. The Chinese and Russians are both happy to keep pointing that out.

Both conservatives and liberals were flabbergasted by the sudden preemptive war. Conservatives who supported the messy efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq were reluctant to champion a third one in Libya without congressional authority and with no clearly stated mission or methodology. When we entered an on-again/off-again cycle of operations, Republicans charged that a weakened, fiscally insolvent America was sort of “leading from behind.”

Liberals were appalled that the president, who, as a senator, had always praised the War Powers Act, was now ordering his legal team to find ingenious ways of bypassing it. If this was to be a multilateral, un-Bush war, why then did it split NATO apart? Roughly half the members declined to participate. Both Germany and Italy soon openly opposed the effort. And now the instigator, France, seems to want to bail out.

The Left had also decried Western attacks on oil-exporting Muslim countries, but now liberal-in-chief Barack Obama was engaging in just such an attack. Indeed, the anti-war president who had promised to end the Bush Mideast wars had suddenly expanded them into a third theater. The more the war dragged on, the more the Arab world was torn between hating Qaddafi and hating Obama’s bombs.

The odious Qaddafi has been an international pariah for most of his tenure — funding terrorists, killing Americans, and murdering dissidents. But even as the first bombs were dropped, he was a monster in the midst of rehab. In late 2010 his jet-setting family was being courted by Western intellectuals, reestablishing diplomatic relations with the United States, offering oil concessions to the West, and being praised as a partner in the war against radical Islamic terrorism.

Then, with a snap of the fingers, in early 2011 Qaddafi was suddenly reinvented as a Saddam Hussein–like ogre and dodging Western cruise missiles and bombs targeting his person.

What is next?

The general consensus, from both Left and Right, is that we should finish the misadventure as quickly as possible. Apparently, the only thing worse than starting a stupid, unnecessary war against a madman is losing it.
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7867
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Why Mob Rule Can Be Just as Bad as Qaddafi

Innlegg Panther 26 Okt 2011, 13:31

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/africa/6635-why-mob-rule-can-be-just-as-bad-as-qaddafi.html

23 October 2011 Michael Hurd

Qaddafi is gone and Libyans celebrate. Good for them. But if they replace Qaddafi with the dictatorship of majority rule, they’ll be no better off than they started. It might even get worse. Will a dictatorship of Muslim clerics actually be an improvement, even if it's democratically elected?

Bilde
Cartoon: John Cox

There are two types of dictatorship. One is rule by a dictator; the other is rule by one’s fellow man.

The death of Libya’s Qaddafi is a reminder of the first. Qaddafi, like so many other one-man dictators, ruled his people with an iron fist.

It’s widely known and widely accepted that dictatorships exist, and that they’re very bad things.

Less well understood or acknowledged is the dictatorship people impose on one another. It’s universally assumed that the alternative to dictatorship is democracy. But in the end, is democracy any different?

It’s a shocking question to some, but it must be asked.

What is democracy? Democracy refers to majority vote, and majority rule.

Without the concept of individual rights, democracy is meaningless and worthless. Life under a pure democracy can be just as much hell as life under a one-man dictatorship.

What’s common to both democratic dictatorship and one-man dictatorship is the absence of individual rights. Individual rights refer to the principle that nobody has a right to initiate physical force against any other individual. Neither the rule of a Qaddafi nor the rule of a 55 percent (or 82 percent) majority justifies initiating force against any individual, in any way and for any reason.
Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Panther
 
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog

Re: Libya

Innlegg QIQrrr 16 Jan 2012, 20:17

Reuters, January 15, 2012: Twenty-four hours after Libya's police force opened its doors for the thousands of militia members to join its ranks, only 100 had signed up, signaling the long road the government faces to bring the unruly militias to heel. The militias, which fought to unseat former leader Muammar Gaddafi, are now the biggest threat to stability in Libya, clashing regularly with each other in violent turf wars and undermining the authority of the country's new rulers. The interim government, the National Transitional Council (NTC), wants to amalgamate the militias into the police force and army. The NTC's chief said this month that if they do not comply, the country risks being dragged into a civil war - Slow start for Libya drive to disband militias
Børge Svanstrøm Amundsen

"Atlas was permitted the opinion that he was at liberty, if he wished, to drop the Earth and creep away; but this opinion was all that he was permitted" - Franz Kafka
Brukerens avatar
QIQrrr
 
Innlegg: 4439
Registrert: 20 Mai 2004, 23:33

Re: Libya

Innlegg BHS 04 Des 2013, 19:09

Sharia blir stadig mer populært. Libya innfører sharialovgivning:

http://www.dagbladet.no/2013/12/04/nyhe ... /30668290/

Dagbladet skrev:Libyas nasjonalråd har vedtatt å la sharialovgivning være grunn for landets lovverk og rettssystem. Sharia-lovene vil gjelde for alle statlige institusjoner, og straffelover og finanslover. Islamske lover er kilden til all lovgiving i Libya, sa nasjonalrådet i en kunngjøring etter å ha stemt over forslaget onsdag. Alle statlige institusjoner må forholde seg til dette, heter det videre. Det umiddelbare omfanget av lovendringen er ennå ikke avklart, men en spesialkomité skal gjennomgå hele lovverket for å forsikre seg om at det er i tråd med sharia.

Ja, når legitimitet er basert på flertallets vilje, blir det jo "legitimt" å innføre den barbariske Sharia-lovgivningen. Dette viser hvor absurd det er å definere legitimitet ut fra flertallets ønsker.
BHS
 
Innlegg: 582
Registrert: 09 Mar 2004, 07:59

Re: Libya

Innlegg Ultima_Thule 08 Des 2013, 18:42

BHS skrev:Sharia blir stadig mer populært. Libya innfører sharialovgivning:

http://www.dagbladet.no/2013/12/04/nyhe ... /30668290/

Dagbladet skrev:Libyas nasjonalråd har vedtatt å la sharialovgivning være grunn for landets lovverk og rettssystem. Sharia-lovene vil gjelde for alle statlige institusjoner, og straffelover og finanslover. Islamske lover er kilden til all lovgiving i Libya, sa nasjonalrådet i en kunngjøring etter å ha stemt over forslaget onsdag. Alle statlige institusjoner må forholde seg til dette, heter det videre. Det umiddelbare omfanget av lovendringen er ennå ikke avklart, men en spesialkomité skal gjennomgå hele lovverket for å forsikre seg om at det er i tråd med sharia.

Ja, når legitimitet er basert på flertallets vilje, blir det jo "legitimt" å innføre den barbariske Sharia-lovgivningen. Dette viser hvor absurd det er å definere legitimitet ut fra flertallets ønsker.

Ikke-muslimer og ikke-arabere frykter denne utviklingen:
LIBYA: PARLAMENTET STEMTE FOR ANVENDELSEN AV SHARIA-LOVENE … HVA SKAL SKJE MED AMAZIGH FOLKET?

Libyske parlamentet, etter en avstemning, sa onsdag ettermiddag at det har til hensikt å ta som kilde Sharia for lover, institusjoner og fremtidens grunnloven. Islamistiske strømninger er spesielt motstander mot det Amazigh faktum, hva blir stillingen og fremtiden for imazighene i en stat dominert av islamister og sharia ?

spørsmålet blir enda mer akutt at det er nå klart at de vestlige demokratier faktisk støtter islamister og til og med de salafistene, slik tilfellet er i Azawad der islamistene ble rehabilitert av Frankrike gjennom nylig valgt som stammer fra de islamistiske gruppene Ansar Dine og Mujao eller i Syria hvor det er enda mer opplagt med logistisk støtte gitt til Salafister «opprøret».

Det er 24 desember at valget må holdes for å peke ut de seksti medlemmer av komiteen som skal ha ansvaret for å utforme fremtidens libyske Grunnloven . Men det valget blir boikottet av de libyske Imazighene ( Tuareg, Nefussa , Zuwara , Nalut , Yefren , At Willul , etc. ) og Toubou på grunn av underrepresentasjon av imazighene og Toubou med valgloven påtvingte av den libyske Generelt kongressen som gir en prognose på seks seter for imazighene på 60 av den konstituerende forsamling . Denne loven ble kategorisk avvist av imazighene og ledet sivil ulydighet med hjelp også av Toubou. Dette var en stor politisk handling helt ignorert av vestlige medier . Den internasjonale pressen har resignert seg til å nevne imazighenes handlinger kun da de blokkerte olje-og gass anlegger som satt i vanskligheter økonomiske interesser. (her er artikkel om den handlingen )

http://kabylia.wordpress.com/2013/12/05/libya-parlamentet-stemte-for-anvendelsen-av-sharia-lovene-hva-skal-skje-med-amazigh-folket/
Ultima_Thule
 
Innlegg: 168
Registrert: 16 Jan 2010, 09:15


Gå til Utenrikspolitikk

Hvem er i forumet

Brukere som leser i dette forumet: Ingen registrerte brukere og 4 gjester

cron