Brendan, Yes, there is


Yes, there is evidence of a systematic attack against unarmed protestors

Yes, that is undisputed. You have no evidence of a systematic attack against a civilian population, though.

I simply can't understand why you not consider Gaddafi's own words and that actions of his troops as they prepared to enter Benghazzi.

But I do. He wants to commit crimes under any internal law. They are not crimes under international law, though.

This distinction enables all nations to rule their internal affairs. They have the right to establish their own order without having to ask other nations. As Kant put it, the intervention of a foreign power is a violation of a nation wrestling with an internal sickness, a scandal that endangers the autonomy of all nations. It’s a fundamental principle of international law.

The only limits are crimes against humanity, genocide, or an attack on other nations.  All international law bans strongly any intervention into an internal conflict on foreign territory. It’s not only in the UN Charter, it’s in the Geneva Conventions too. The hurdles to justify an intervention are high, and rightly so.

If you equal Gaddafi’s brutality against the Libyan opposition with the crimes against humanity that were the reason for this provision, you are either falling into a propaganda trap of contemporary warmongers or belittling the mass murders that were at  the root of this legislation.

The original aim of the UN was to prevent war, Brendan. This has been sacrificed and replaced by “nation-building”. The idea is that one system, the one of the US, which obviously they are happy with, makes all nations happy. All that is needed is the removal of the old regime by foreign forces and the implementation a new order without historical and cultural foundations. If the population doesn’t show any loyalty to this new state, the reason must be some inherent deficiency in this population. 

As a result of this repulsive ideology war has become an option again, and additionally peoples are robbed of their freedom from foreign domination.

If the aim of this resolution was the protection of civilians, it should protect civilians from both sides. You mentioned the harassment of blacks, because all blacks were suspected of being mercenaries: the resolution does not. The aim, openly stated by the foreign parties to this war, is to take sides in this conflict and to topple Gaddafi. It is an aim that I have sympathy for, but not by war (and even less by invasion and colonisation). It is entirely the Libyans’ right to do this, no-one else’s.

And my position is the position of valid international law, even if I am the only one here who values it. This war, which you support, will shift the limits farther into power-politics. You are butchering provisions that gave all of us the right to peace and freedom.



Chris and Mike,

Majorities in the oD forum will definitely not influence my conscience. I am indeed dogmatic in my views on lawfulness, peace, justice, and freedom, and definitely not ashamed of that. These values are under attack by the war you advocate.

Since your positions have been clear from older threads, your support for the Libyan war doesn’t surprise me, as I mentioned before.

I am only surprised at Brendan’s and BigC’s attitude.


  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <h2> <h3> <div> <span> <blockquote> <!--break--> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <hr> <br> <table> <td> <tr> <img> <map>
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.

More information about formatting options

Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.