Today, Ghadaffi - Tomorrow, You?

Moammar Ghadaffi after his violent death.

Most of the accessible mainstream media agrees:

In Lybia, an evil dictator, who was maybe worse than Hitler and who slowly murdered his own people, has been toppled. NATO "helped" the Lybian "rebels" doing so to the sound of applause of the "Lybian people".

Opposition against this depiction of the events which have transpired during the past months was largely relegated to obscure places on the internet (which, I assume, makes my own blog "obscure" as well).

The truth is, as always, a wee bit more morally ambiguous.
NATO attacked without just cause a sovereign nation which had neither attacked nor threatened a NATO member, killed or at least caused the death of thousands of innocents and tacictly approved of the torture and killing of the Lybian head of state (Ghadaffi). NATO has guaranteed the rise to power in Lybia of the very same breed of people it claims to combat in Afghanistan: in one of the formerly most modern nations on the African continent (and one that, at least for the past 10 years, has done its best to tow a friendly line w/regards to the West) radical islamic Shariah will now become the law of the land. And the other members of what the retarded members of the Western media like to call the "Arab Spring" - Tunisia, Egypt - have moved strongly towards islamic orders during the past months.

But why should we care? It's just some loser country in Africa that has been bombed, right? What do we have to do with that?

Well, aside from the fact that it happened in our name? Yes, Lybia wasn't a nation I would have liked to live in, lets be clear on that fact. It was a dictatorship run by a nutjob. But half the nations on this Earth qualify to be in that category. Lybia, however, is above all a piece of evidence.

• Lybia proves that all the hollow phrases about human rights and human dignity does not serve to protect peoples, but rather as an one-fits-all reason to attack and possibly occupy sovereign nations.
• Lybia proves that regardless of the ascent of "new media" and its increasing reach, the dominance of a small group of people over established media conglomerates is nearly total. While some may have presented criticism over various points of the whole mission, there was no (Western) mass media which to my knowledge criticised the mission on principle.Whenever there is no tangible opposition on a topic (be that, just to pick some examples, Climate Change, Gender Mainstreaming or one-sided campaigns against certain political POVs), we as concerned citizens of our respective nations, regardless of creed, ethnicity and political leanings, should be alarmed.
• Lybia also proves that a large number of our politicians do not act in our respective nations' best interests, let alone are interested in what we want. It also proves that large parts of our leaderships obviously seem to believe that we are stupid enough to mistake a brutal tribal conflict where NATO in effect helped bomb an islamist regime into power with "liberation". As long as it's called that way, no deed done appears to be an evil one.
• On a different note, Lybia also seems to prove that the desire of creating an independent and autarkic nation against the powers of "globalization" can have lethal consequences. It underlines the volatility of supposedly set-in-stone realities by condensing it to the simple formula: "Friend Yesterday, Enemy Today". Lybia ended its WMD programs in 2003 and put its support for radical islam on the backburner from then on. NATO repaid Lybia's good behavior with, well, bombing radical islamists into power.

Lybia's fate sets a dangerous precedent for the future. Going by the paperthin reasons brought forward for the invervention, basically every country on Earth could soon find itself in danger. We should be careful in who we trust. And, w/regards to all the sudden and unconditional support for the Arab Spring and the Lybian intervention (and soon, Syria), we need to ask the one, ugly question: Cui bono?

originally written by Kairos @ Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit

translation and changes where opinions diverge on points: S.P. Breit

The author of this blog is not responsible for the opinions held by third parties. Linking to a blog does not automatically entail an endorsement of all that is published there.