Since Domino/Notes was one of the first enterprise apps supporting strong encryption --except for pre-2000 export restrictions, I wonder what internal email systems are the most frequently compromised when we see these leaks.
Wow, when you count 123456 too, it is a big chunk of the office. Not to mention the others that had 12345 as part of their password.
I wonder if this is an IT policy gone bad. Perhaps the guy who set it up used 12345 as the default and, of course, nobody ever changed it.
I learned a long time ago to use a somewhat complex password when setting up new accounts, because otherwise 3 years later, they will be using the insecure temp password you gave them.
I'm looking at some of the images in that slideshow in the middle of the article. It's showing rebels with rocket launchers and AK-47s. Then it's also showing destroyed armoured vehicles that I can only imagine belonged to the government. I'm not denying that Syrian government is being very brutal in how it's dealing with protests... but if the "Occupy" protests here in Canada and in the States took up heavy arms, I would not be surprised at all if the government's response was very swift and deadly.
I mean either scenario is possible but yeah I don't know for sure.
I'm not sure how to think about the legitimacy of the Syrian government though. Is any government legitimate? I know a lot of people don't like Stephen Harper or Obama, but they deal with it until the next election. Presumably the Syrian government was elected at some point too so they must have some kind of support in the country. Indiscriminately killing peaceful protesters would certainly destroy that legitimacy, but the images I mentioned make me wonder if the army's response is totally unwarranted.
It doesn't take long to look up that the Syrian government was formed as a result of a coup decades ago, especially if you're going to make a comment about it.
EDIT: Actually I think there is a good point in your post, but I still think that familiarising yourself with the history of the country is necessary to understand where they are now.
I knew about the coup and I realize how ridiculous and meaningless a 1-party regime can seem (I've lived under one myself) but that doesn't exclude elections and political process from taking place. I did actually look up "Elections in Syria" on Google and read through the Wikipedia entry here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Syria and also this article came up where the opposition was apparently boycotting the elections (which is understandable if you think the system is corrupt and don't want to participate in the farce - hey it's how I feel about the Canadian elections sometimes but I still go) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16135298
Also when I lived under said 1-party regime I have never seen people more politically and socially engaged - and not just in a rebellious way. I live in Canada now and most people are totally indifferent as to what happens in their own community, let alone further afield.
I hope no one is reading my posts thinking "This guy is defending Hitler! Stone him!" For all I know Syria could be far worse then anything I've ever experienced. And in the end we kicked out our president too! (Although no bazookas or AK-47s were involved) So this could just be a natural progression of any authoritative regime.
Also when I lived under said 1-party regime I have never seen people more politically and socially engaged - and not just in a rebellious way. I live in Canada now and most people are totally indifferent as to what happens in their own community, let alone further afield.
I hope no one is reading my posts thinking "This guy is defending Hitler! Stone him!" For all I know Syria could be far worse then anything I've ever experienced. And in the end we kicked out our president too! (Although no bazookas or AK-47s were involved) So this could just be a natural progression of any authoritative regime.
Okay, I just don't get the reference. From your name, I'm guessing you originally come from ex-Yugoslavia, just like me. Now, the only time I remember the country was truly under 1-party regime was when the Communist Party was in power. However, that didn't end in "kicking out our president". If you're referring to Slobodan Milošević, by that time Yugoslavia (or what was left of it) had multiple parties. True, Slobodan seized the power, but there were other parties opposing him. And the only reason why "no bazookas or AK-47s were involved" was because things didn't have the chance to get there, because the army decided not to support him any more.
The whole point -- and I'm not the first one to point this out in this thread -- is that resistance to dictatorship (or any deprivation of liberty) gradually evolves from peaceful protests to violence.
Under Milosevic there were opposition parties but they had no real chance of assuming power in elections (whether because of election fraud, or because Milosevic had real support, or a little bit of both). All official media channels were controlled by the government and the only choices for opposition at that time had was to either get in bed with the Milosevic and reap some benefits or to organize rallies and protests. Protests were largely peaceful and lasted a long time. The main surge of protests that resulted in Milosevic's downfall was in the fall of 2000 but I can assure you we were in the streets for YEARS leading up to that. It wasn't swift by any means.
That's precisely the point I was making. Resistance starts with peaceful protests and gets gradually more violent. The "main surge of protests" you're talking about was a lot less peaceful than the initial peaceful protests. It never got to the point of armed resistance, for two reasons: 1) Milošević didn't go around killing ordinary people indiscriminately and 2) the army decided to withdraw its support when he ordered them to disperse the protesters.
What do you think would have happened if general populace started getting slaughtered left and right? Sure, the vast majority of the people would've shut up and bent down their heads, because shutting the hell up is a lot better than having your kids shot or growing up as orphans. But some sort of armed resistance would have surely sprung into existence.
I don't want to be unfair or rude here, but to me it seems that you are either deliberately ignoring what people are trying to say in this thread or you're having reading comprehension problems. It has been pointed out several times that things in Syria started out as protests and turned into armed resistance due to use of lethal force to suppress protests. By now it should be clear what we're all trying to say. Using Milošević and his regime as a counter-argument doesn't hold up, precisely because Milošević's dictatorship was quite "benign" compared to extremes such as Syria.
I am not arguing against anyone's opinion and concede that in Syria it is perhaps too late for "peaceful protests".
But as an outsider I have to rely on "unconfirmed reports", "third party accounts" and "anonymous youtube videos". Watch any newsreel and this is exactly how every report from Syria is prefaced. I'm just trying to remain objective.
Maybe my paranoia has reached unhealthy levels as result of propaganda in my own life but I don't think it's unreasonable to consider exactly how the conflict escalated to this point.
It's a little scary how people are quick to turn on you unless you blindly buy into unconfirmed reports of government snipers indiscriminately taking out civilians. Taking part in this kind of group think puts you on a fast moving train towards a single resolution... when in fact there might be 2 or 3 forks in the road that might result in less collateral damage.
And finally to re-iterate.. I am not arguing that Assad is not a bastard who ordered the troops to shoot on civilians: so far he seems to most definitely be that kind of bastard. I'd just like to retain my ability to keep an open mind and consider all sides of the story. Ok now downvote away.
Now, that I can completely understand and agree with. This is precisely the source of... frustration, to use a mild term, a great part of the world feels towards USA and, to a lesser degree, NATO.
From what I've seen over the years, it's incredibly easy to get people convinced that "we need to send our troops to fight for democracy and freedom". Yes, the world has been peaceful compared to the World War 2, but instead of a great world-wide war, we've been having lots of small wars all over the place. The important thing is that it's "far from home", so everyone can feel both safe and righteous.
And when it turns out that things weren't really the way media reported them, people can have a round of "boo, shame on you government" and cheerfully move on to the next target.
You call it "paranoia", I call it "a healthy dose of skepticism based on empirical evidence", but I've been told it's merely "bitterness" :-P
That you assumed Assad was elected reveals a gross lack of knowledge of the situation. Everyone remotely familiar with the region knows exactly what the deal is with Syria.
Either you are a sock puppet or live under a rock. The syrian regime was installed in a coup and passed down to Bashar al-Assad by his father. Additionally it is well documented that Assad regime attacked its own citizens from the very beginning of the protests in syria.
I obviously didn't post to get the upvotes and was sort of expecting an unpopular interpretation of events to get some down-votes. But I wasn't expecting anyone to create a new account just so they could tell me I live under a rock and call me a "sock puppet?" (huh?)
I do watch the news on a regular basis have a general understanding of the narrative in Syria. I realize the nature of the regime and I never suggested that Assad was elected - but merely that political elections did take place in Syria. I was merely offering a possible viewpoint but thank you for coming out and contributing to the discussion.
I'm sorry I can't find the source now as I heard this on the radio a few days ago, but there was a recent independent poll where over 50% of the polled Syrian citizens were in favour of Assad remaining in power.
In fact the poll was specific enough to indicate that this did not mean that these people were strong Assad supporters. But that they merely feared the instability that would arise if Assad the the government surrounding him was dismantled.
Clearly he's not the most popular guy in school and his methods of staying in power are very manipulative and unfair, but any support he might have is real.
And if we're counting years-in-power, the Queen just celebrated her 60th jubilee yesterday. Is her power legitimate? How popular is she in the commonwealth?
You've said elsewhere that you live in Canada. Then you should know that this is far from an apples-to-apples comparison. The Queen has little real power in Canada. Where I happen to live (Québec), she is quite unpopular, but at the same time, she is not the head of government, merely the head of state. The distinction is vital, and is why people rightly focus on the Prime Minister and the Parliament when talking about policy and governance in this country.
> ...a recent independent poll where over 50% of the polled Syrian citizens were in favour of Assad remaining in power.
My dear friend... When you're living in a country that the leaders use frickin' TANKS to kill the opposition, if someone called you at home and asked you whether you're in favor of the government, unless you're a very brave man who is ready for the consequences, you say 'Yes sir, I am' - not because you like the ruling regime, but you think that this might be a trap set by the government to catch more rebels.
I think you've had the luxury of living in a free country and can't imagine the fear that people feel under totalitarian regimes.
Please, understand the fact that things are different in free countries that what they are in Syria, North Korea and Iran (where I live). You can start by reading '1984', by George Orwell to get a feeling of how dictatorships work.
Did you know that Saddam Hussein received[1] a %99.96 approval in a referendum held in 1995?! That means only 3600 Iraqis did not approve of him! I think that gives you a better idea about how 'polls' work in other countries :-)
I doubt that even Steve Jobs (who turned Apple from a $1B company to a $400B one) would've received a 99.96% approval from Apple board...
You definitely have a point there. I haven't had to protest, fight with riot police, bang on pots and pans, walk for miles squeezed between 500,000 other protesters for over a decade now so I have become rather sheltered and philosophical here in Canada.
Sometimes nothing quite works like the sheer force of people united with a single cause and a thirst for freedom of mind and body. I hope for nothing but the best for your nation as well as Syria in the future. I have a lot of Persian friends here and I know how fun/awesome they are and how depressing it would be if they had to hold their true opinions secret.
I need to stop posting here or I will be down-voted into oblivion lol but just wanted to let you know that I hope we can all party someday in your city or mine without fear of anyone. Cheers.
We're not talking about a movie with an open ending, we're talking about something that has been happening for the past 11 months right in front of our eyes (maybe not literally, but there is at least a couple million YouTube videos about it).
When you're talking about current events, don't assume. Do some research and then post a comment. He has killed 6000 Syrian to date, it's not like they were in a school fight and we can l forget about it in a week or two.
Gaddafi spent the last 10 years working with the UN and the US, disarming his country, going on camera shaking hands and smiling with US, French and Italian delegates, ambassadors, and presidents.
Then he became a "despot" overnight that has been torturing and murdering everyone for the last 40 years...
First a group of people attacked a military base / weapons cache and were met with deadly force (what the news reported as something else), and then a sworn enemy of Gaddafi reported that Gaddafi was bombing more innocent and unarmed people. That was all we needed to hear!
The whole thing was a setup, and well prepared.
Now Libya is a torn country where murder, rape, torture, and general human suffering are the norms.
Do you really think Syria is going to be the different one? The one where we come in and fix things properly.
If you want something another country has, or want to prevent or destabilize an alliance, just go in and stir things up a bit. That country will split up into factions, one fighting another, and you get whatever you want on the cheap.
yep... And it was I (with the help of NATO of course) who bombed Libyan cities. Poor Muammar, just like Caesar, he was surrounded by bad friends who killed him at the end... :(
Some one's sworn enemy reporting something about him does not make their point invalid; Just like Gizmodo reporting bad stuff about iPhone 4's antenna doesn't mean iPhone 4's antenna design is flawless.
By the way, it was the first time I've heard that Gaddafi was a sworn enemy of Arabs! Last time I heard, he was The King of Arabs. Maybe you meant Saudis, but even then you would've been wrong.
He called himself 'The Arab King' and 'King of Kings'...
They were not the best allies - but allies nonetheless; by no means were they sworn enemies. As an example, currently France and UK are not in good political terms, but they are not considered enemies, rather allies with different interests.
"Gaddafi spent the last 10 years working with the UN and the US"
Yeah, and before those 10 years of rapprochement, Gaddafi was a pariah on the world stage for 30 years, to the West and Arab countries, who allowed terrorists to train on his soil. He is one of the worlds most succesful despots, and one of the least benevolent; he amassed massive fortunes over 40 years of reign, and his people barely benefited from the riches spewing from Libya's earth.
The 10 years of relatively good relations, that was the exception, in 40 years of standing alone being a tyrant no-one cared to much to dislodge until now. Italy was already a partner in its oil-extraction business. Despite the obvious incentives, this really was a case of a long-standing bad guy finally going too far, declaring open war on his own people, threatening to slaughter thousands (literally threatening this). The existence of an organized and geographically defendable opposition, a coastline favouring easy carrier access, and diplomatic support from the Arab league in favour of military intervention, the case for a military reaction was easy to make.
If you're worried about intervention in Syria, I doubt it is being considered so easily. Syria is a far, far more complicated problem, both militarily and politically. Syria has been involved in nearly every major event in the area in the last 60 years.
And really, I'm not sure what your point is in defending an obvious selfish lunatic tyrant.
You're notions that it was some type of a hell hole, are misplaced to the wrong pivotal point in its history.
It's all been the same formula...
1. Arm a number of "protestors".
2. Get said protestors to attack military and gov personnel and vehicles with ak47s and rocket launchers.
3. Let them go back into their homes.
4. Claim response is unprovoked mass slaughter of innocent lives.
5. Get video showing innocents caught in the cross fire.
6. Start calling the leadership despots and monsters.
7. Claim that our side is now the majority of the populace.
8. Fight the evil!
9. Divvy up the tasty pie.
You're either willfully ignorant, or not looking back far enough. I think it's option 1. (You also speak as if foreign ground troops landed in Libya, which they did not.) But here's a taste anyways:
So you're using the past, and not the reformed Gaddafi, as an excuse for causing more mayhem and deaths than the evil Gaddafi could have imagined in his wettest dreams?
> (You also speak as if foreign ground troops landed in Libya, which they did not.)
Sorry, not interested in defending against made up conversations.
> But here's a taste anyways:
Most of that is debatable, but if it is true, then: 1) that's way in the past and 2) that sounds like pretty much the norm for that region and time and 3) not even close to what the US has been involved in / has caused.
From your link and section:
> From 1977 onward, per capita income in the country rose to more than US $11,000, the fifth-highest in Africa, while the Human Development Index became the highest in Africa and greater than that of Saudi Arabia. This was achieved without borrowing any foreign loans, keeping Libya debt-free. In addition, the country's literacy rate rose from 10% to 90%, life expectancy rose from 57 to 77 years, equal rights were established for women and black people, employment opportunities were established for migrant workers, and welfare systems were introduced that allowed access to free education, free healthcare, and financial assistance for housing. The Great Manmade River was also built to allow free access to fresh water across large parts of the country. In addition, financial support was provided for university scholarships and employment programs.
> You're either willfully ignorant
Some would claim that the ignorant one is the one who thinks Libya is now in a better position, or the one who can't see pass what is spoon fed to him.
You are defending Gaddafi. A dictator who has ruled for 40 years, and threatened to slaughter thousands (recently) when his rule was threatened. That behaviour is not indicative of any kind of major shift from his earlier self. I guess you think Gaddafi bombing his own people would have been preferable?
That the country was rich because of oil is not very comforting given the ruthlessness of the man at the top. Can you imagine that a people might not want to be ruled by such a man? A man that would bomb them to hold on to power indefinitely?
And do you really think that the only possibilities here are dictatorial rule by a power-hungry asshole vs negligent puppet kingdom?
This is not a defense of interventionism. It is amazement at your defense of a tyrant.
The protests started a loooong time ago, and were peaceful. Right from the beginning, the government would use thugs and snipers to kill protesters. The armed resistance is a relatively recent development, and is formed from army units that defected when the army was being told increasingly to fire on unarmed civilians. This is how dictatorial regimes fall (assuming the resistance carries on to succeed, which is by no means assured).
Remember that this is a regime that razed an entire town to the ground to suppress the last major resistance (Hama, 1982). This is a dictatorship, passed down from father to son, result of a military coup in the 60's, and one of the most brutal, ruthlessly oppressive regimes in the region. You can imagine some people might take issue with that, forcefully.
Finally! And I thought intelligence services would never grab that opportunity to paint their activities on Anonymous. Got to give them kudos for coming up with that password thingy as the "convincer".
You don't get points in intel by giving information away. This is the critical juncture of a realignment in a critical region of the world. Not a made for tv movie. I suspect no one is playing fast and loose with this particular situation.
I dont get it, they say hundreds of emails and they only link 2? I would like to view some more, most news sites link back to Haaretz which again only 2 documents
54 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 120 ms ] thread* http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/images/galery/assad/mail2.pd...
* http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/images/galery/assad/mail1.pd...
They were addressing the common concerns Americans have on Syrian situation and answers to those.
Of course, they can also be prevented by people just deleting their email after they're read it, instead of compulsively hoarding it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K95SXe3pZoY
I wonder if this is an IT policy gone bad. Perhaps the guy who set it up used 12345 as the default and, of course, nobody ever changed it.
I learned a long time ago to use a somewhat complex password when setting up new accounts, because otherwise 3 years later, they will be using the insecure temp password you gave them.
I'm not sure how to think about the legitimacy of the Syrian government though. Is any government legitimate? I know a lot of people don't like Stephen Harper or Obama, but they deal with it until the next election. Presumably the Syrian government was elected at some point too so they must have some kind of support in the country. Indiscriminately killing peaceful protesters would certainly destroy that legitimacy, but the images I mentioned make me wonder if the army's response is totally unwarranted.
EDIT: Actually I think there is a good point in your post, but I still think that familiarising yourself with the history of the country is necessary to understand where they are now.
Also when I lived under said 1-party regime I have never seen people more politically and socially engaged - and not just in a rebellious way. I live in Canada now and most people are totally indifferent as to what happens in their own community, let alone further afield.
I hope no one is reading my posts thinking "This guy is defending Hitler! Stone him!" For all I know Syria could be far worse then anything I've ever experienced. And in the end we kicked out our president too! (Although no bazookas or AK-47s were involved) So this could just be a natural progression of any authoritative regime.
I hope no one is reading my posts thinking "This guy is defending Hitler! Stone him!" For all I know Syria could be far worse then anything I've ever experienced. And in the end we kicked out our president too! (Although no bazookas or AK-47s were involved) So this could just be a natural progression of any authoritative regime.
Okay, I just don't get the reference. From your name, I'm guessing you originally come from ex-Yugoslavia, just like me. Now, the only time I remember the country was truly under 1-party regime was when the Communist Party was in power. However, that didn't end in "kicking out our president". If you're referring to Slobodan Milošević, by that time Yugoslavia (or what was left of it) had multiple parties. True, Slobodan seized the power, but there were other parties opposing him. And the only reason why "no bazookas or AK-47s were involved" was because things didn't have the chance to get there, because the army decided not to support him any more.
The whole point -- and I'm not the first one to point this out in this thread -- is that resistance to dictatorship (or any deprivation of liberty) gradually evolves from peaceful protests to violence.
What do you think would have happened if general populace started getting slaughtered left and right? Sure, the vast majority of the people would've shut up and bent down their heads, because shutting the hell up is a lot better than having your kids shot or growing up as orphans. But some sort of armed resistance would have surely sprung into existence.
I don't want to be unfair or rude here, but to me it seems that you are either deliberately ignoring what people are trying to say in this thread or you're having reading comprehension problems. It has been pointed out several times that things in Syria started out as protests and turned into armed resistance due to use of lethal force to suppress protests. By now it should be clear what we're all trying to say. Using Milošević and his regime as a counter-argument doesn't hold up, precisely because Milošević's dictatorship was quite "benign" compared to extremes such as Syria.
But as an outsider I have to rely on "unconfirmed reports", "third party accounts" and "anonymous youtube videos". Watch any newsreel and this is exactly how every report from Syria is prefaced. I'm just trying to remain objective.
Maybe my paranoia has reached unhealthy levels as result of propaganda in my own life but I don't think it's unreasonable to consider exactly how the conflict escalated to this point.
It's a little scary how people are quick to turn on you unless you blindly buy into unconfirmed reports of government snipers indiscriminately taking out civilians. Taking part in this kind of group think puts you on a fast moving train towards a single resolution... when in fact there might be 2 or 3 forks in the road that might result in less collateral damage.
And finally to re-iterate.. I am not arguing that Assad is not a bastard who ordered the troops to shoot on civilians: so far he seems to most definitely be that kind of bastard. I'd just like to retain my ability to keep an open mind and consider all sides of the story. Ok now downvote away.
From what I've seen over the years, it's incredibly easy to get people convinced that "we need to send our troops to fight for democracy and freedom". Yes, the world has been peaceful compared to the World War 2, but instead of a great world-wide war, we've been having lots of small wars all over the place. The important thing is that it's "far from home", so everyone can feel both safe and righteous.
And when it turns out that things weren't really the way media reported them, people can have a round of "boo, shame on you government" and cheerfully move on to the next target.
You call it "paranoia", I call it "a healthy dose of skepticism based on empirical evidence", but I've been told it's merely "bitterness" :-P
I do watch the news on a regular basis have a general understanding of the narrative in Syria. I realize the nature of the regime and I never suggested that Assad was elected - but merely that political elections did take place in Syria. I was merely offering a possible viewpoint but thank you for coming out and contributing to the discussion.
In fact the poll was specific enough to indicate that this did not mean that these people were strong Assad supporters. But that they merely feared the instability that would arise if Assad the the government surrounding him was dismantled.
Clearly he's not the most popular guy in school and his methods of staying in power are very manipulative and unfair, but any support he might have is real.
And if we're counting years-in-power, the Queen just celebrated her 60th jubilee yesterday. Is her power legitimate? How popular is she in the commonwealth?
My dear friend... When you're living in a country that the leaders use frickin' TANKS to kill the opposition, if someone called you at home and asked you whether you're in favor of the government, unless you're a very brave man who is ready for the consequences, you say 'Yes sir, I am' - not because you like the ruling regime, but you think that this might be a trap set by the government to catch more rebels.
I think you've had the luxury of living in a free country and can't imagine the fear that people feel under totalitarian regimes.
Please, understand the fact that things are different in free countries that what they are in Syria, North Korea and Iran (where I live). You can start by reading '1984', by George Orwell to get a feeling of how dictatorships work.
Did you know that Saddam Hussein received[1] a %99.96 approval in a referendum held in 1995?! That means only 3600 Iraqis did not approve of him! I think that gives you a better idea about how 'polls' work in other countries :-)
I doubt that even Steve Jobs (who turned Apple from a $1B company to a $400B one) would've received a 99.96% approval from Apple board...
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/16/world/threats-responses-su...
Sometimes nothing quite works like the sheer force of people united with a single cause and a thirst for freedom of mind and body. I hope for nothing but the best for your nation as well as Syria in the future. I have a lot of Persian friends here and I know how fun/awesome they are and how depressing it would be if they had to hold their true opinions secret.
I need to stop posting here or I will be down-voted into oblivion lol but just wanted to let you know that I hope we can all party someday in your city or mine without fear of anyone. Cheers.
We're not talking about a movie with an open ending, we're talking about something that has been happening for the past 11 months right in front of our eyes (maybe not literally, but there is at least a couple million YouTube videos about it).
When you're talking about current events, don't assume. Do some research and then post a comment. He has killed 6000 Syrian to date, it's not like they were in a school fight and we can l forget about it in a week or two.
Gaddafi spent the last 10 years working with the UN and the US, disarming his country, going on camera shaking hands and smiling with US, French and Italian delegates, ambassadors, and presidents.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=856HOHH5UJE
Then he became a "despot" overnight that has been torturing and murdering everyone for the last 40 years...
First a group of people attacked a military base / weapons cache and were met with deadly force (what the news reported as something else), and then a sworn enemy of Gaddafi reported that Gaddafi was bombing more innocent and unarmed people. That was all we needed to hear!
The whole thing was a setup, and well prepared.
Now Libya is a torn country where murder, rape, torture, and general human suffering are the norms.
Do you really think Syria is going to be the different one? The one where we come in and fix things properly.
If you want something another country has, or want to prevent or destabilize an alliance, just go in and stir things up a bit. That country will split up into factions, one fighting another, and you get whatever you want on the cheap.
http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/08/bombing-his-own-p...
Some one's sworn enemy reporting something about him does not make their point invalid; Just like Gizmodo reporting bad stuff about iPhone 4's antenna doesn't mean iPhone 4's antenna design is flawless.
By the way, it was the first time I've heard that Gaddafi was a sworn enemy of Arabs! Last time I heard, he was The King of Arabs. Maybe you meant Saudis, but even then you would've been wrong.
They were not the best allies - but allies nonetheless; by no means were they sworn enemies. As an example, currently France and UK are not in good political terms, but they are not considered enemies, rather allies with different interests.
Yeah, and before those 10 years of rapprochement, Gaddafi was a pariah on the world stage for 30 years, to the West and Arab countries, who allowed terrorists to train on his soil. He is one of the worlds most succesful despots, and one of the least benevolent; he amassed massive fortunes over 40 years of reign, and his people barely benefited from the riches spewing from Libya's earth.
The 10 years of relatively good relations, that was the exception, in 40 years of standing alone being a tyrant no-one cared to much to dislodge until now. Italy was already a partner in its oil-extraction business. Despite the obvious incentives, this really was a case of a long-standing bad guy finally going too far, declaring open war on his own people, threatening to slaughter thousands (literally threatening this). The existence of an organized and geographically defendable opposition, a coastline favouring easy carrier access, and diplomatic support from the Arab league in favour of military intervention, the case for a military reaction was easy to make.
If you're worried about intervention in Syria, I doubt it is being considered so easily. Syria is a far, far more complicated problem, both militarily and politically. Syria has been involved in nearly every major event in the area in the last 60 years.
And really, I'm not sure what your point is in defending an obvious selfish lunatic tyrant.
Before this intervention, Libya was considered to be the Switzerland of the African Continent (relatively speaking of course).
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26686
You're notions that it was some type of a hell hole, are misplaced to the wrong pivotal point in its history.
It's all been the same formula...
1. Arm a number of "protestors". 2. Get said protestors to attack military and gov personnel and vehicles with ak47s and rocket launchers. 3. Let them go back into their homes. 4. Claim response is unprovoked mass slaughter of innocent lives. 5. Get video showing innocents caught in the cross fire. 6. Start calling the leadership despots and monsters. 7. Claim that our side is now the majority of the populace. 8. Fight the evil! 9. Divvy up the tasty pie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#Libya_under_Muammar_Gadda...
So you're using the past, and not the reformed Gaddafi, as an excuse for causing more mayhem and deaths than the evil Gaddafi could have imagined in his wettest dreams?
> (You also speak as if foreign ground troops landed in Libya, which they did not.)
Sorry, not interested in defending against made up conversations.
> But here's a taste anyways:
Most of that is debatable, but if it is true, then: 1) that's way in the past and 2) that sounds like pretty much the norm for that region and time and 3) not even close to what the US has been involved in / has caused.
From your link and section:
> From 1977 onward, per capita income in the country rose to more than US $11,000, the fifth-highest in Africa, while the Human Development Index became the highest in Africa and greater than that of Saudi Arabia. This was achieved without borrowing any foreign loans, keeping Libya debt-free. In addition, the country's literacy rate rose from 10% to 90%, life expectancy rose from 57 to 77 years, equal rights were established for women and black people, employment opportunities were established for migrant workers, and welfare systems were introduced that allowed access to free education, free healthcare, and financial assistance for housing. The Great Manmade River was also built to allow free access to fresh water across large parts of the country. In addition, financial support was provided for university scholarships and employment programs.
> You're either willfully ignorant
Some would claim that the ignorant one is the one who thinks Libya is now in a better position, or the one who can't see pass what is spoon fed to him.
That the country was rich because of oil is not very comforting given the ruthlessness of the man at the top. Can you imagine that a people might not want to be ruled by such a man? A man that would bomb them to hold on to power indefinitely?
And do you really think that the only possibilities here are dictatorial rule by a power-hungry asshole vs negligent puppet kingdom?
This is not a defense of interventionism. It is amazement at your defense of a tyrant.
Remember that this is a regime that razed an entire town to the ground to suppress the last major resistance (Hama, 1982). This is a dictatorship, passed down from father to son, result of a military coup in the 60's, and one of the most brutal, ruthlessly oppressive regimes in the region. You can imagine some people might take issue with that, forcefully.
Highly likely it was actually Anon that did this.