NATO only got involved in Libya after the civil war was in full swing and Gaddafi's regime had been commiting crimes against humanity vs the civilian population where people were showing support for not his regime.

And NATO only went in with the authorization of the UN Security Council, and the left when the Security Council told them to (against the wishes of the newly formed government after the death of Gaddafi)

[–] Alsephina@lemmy.ml 21 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

NATO only got involved in Libya after the civil war was in full swing

"The country was already in a terrible state after we funded countless insurgencies in it since forcing them to give up self-defence programs. We just went in and finished the job."

Libya had gone from one of the poorest countries in the world to having the highest human development index of any country in Africa by 2010 under the Socialist government, and became a powerful anti-capitalist force in Africa. The US and UK forced Libya to give up their nuclear weapons program in 2003 and used the resulting lack of a deterrent to fund insugencies in the country, then used that as a casus belli to invade and destroy it in 2011.

Come on, we've seen this play out time and time again with the US and its allies (or the Imperial core in general). Be it the wars in Vietnam, Cuba, Afganistan or the countless coup's against leftist governments in Africa and Latin America. Every single time saying that their governments are bad or something as an excuse to invade and destroy a threat to imperialism, as if them waging wars and killing people on the other side of the world is supposed to improve something.

We're literally watching this happen in Palestine right now with the US-backed "israel" forcing Palestinians to use armed resistance against their oppressors, then using that as a casus belli by calling it "terrorism" to invade and commit the ongoing genocide.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe -3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Bro, Gaddafi literally had rape rooms in his palace.

[–] Alsephina@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Source: Imperial core propaganda

Even in an alternate timeline where that's not just war propaganda, does this in any way justify fucking invading and destroying a country on another continent?

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe -4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Uh huh.

Hey, who killed Gaddafi?

Was it an invading army?

How many NATO boots were on the ground?

Sure seems like a guy who was just building a socialist utopia, no notes, would have to do something pretty wild to prompt all the people getting free college educations and all basic needs guaranteed to try and kill him.

If you want to argue that he was better than the alternative, knock yourself out, but pretending decades of women lied about their victimization is fucking disgusting.

You don't need to lie about his crimes to point out NATO interventionism was purely self interested, that they didn't give a shit about his personal evils compared to his anti-imperialism and that his removal has been a disaster for the Libyan people, but you also don't need to pretend that his personal crimes are balanced out by his socialist reforms either.

[–] Alsephina@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

would have to do something pretty wild to prompt all the people getting free college educations and all basic needs guaranteed to try and kill him.

Almost like it was instigated by US/UK interference after forcing them to give up their nuclear deterrence, as they have done and continue to do to Socialist and leftist governments in Latin America and Africa to justify invasion and intervention. This is nothing new.

Feel free to cite a source with evidence for those claims about Gaddafi btw. Afaik there are none aside from anonymous sources with no evidence, which is the most common way the US and its allies make propaganda.

Your reply was to my comment pointing out that the destabilization and then the invasion of Libya by NATO was wholly unjustified, as all imperial core invasions are. If you agree with that what are you even trying to argue about?

[–] Salph@infosec.pub 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Don't bother lol. These dogs of the empire will believe whatever bullshit their governments tell them to try justifying their imperialism, no evidence needed. Be it WMDs or whatever.

The idiot below actually believes the "mass rape" shit their government mouthpieces told them that their own media have debunked.

Also, "immediately" they say lmao when it took the combined strength of the US and UK 8 years to destabilize. And they only could because Libya gave up their nuclear deterrent.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe -2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Yeah, bro, I'm sure the dictator with a cadre of all female bodyguards chosen for their looks (who there are individual testimonies of rape from) was on the up and up on consent.

Can't imagine why a Muslim nation that's barely done with a civil war with mass rape used as a tool by all sides isn't teeming with women and men that trust the West to protect them if they testify publicly, even if it they didn't consider it shameful to spreak of it at all.

But, hey, you're right, a socialist utopia's greatest weakness will always be some shitposting foreign spies. Just collapses public support immediately.

Can't possibly be all the rape and execution of dissidents.