MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 8 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 10 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 weeks ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
Hits of the Day
After we deposed Gaddafi, Libyan rebels murdered blacks
By HSG on Sat, 05/07/2016 - 2:53pm |Tuesday 30 August 2011 12.10 EDT
"This is a bad time to be a black man in Libya," reported Alex Thomson on Channel 4 News on Sunday. Elsewhere, Kim Sengupta reported for the Independent on the 30 bodies lying decomposing in Tripoli. The majority of them, allegedly mercenaries for Muammar Gaddafi, were black. They had been killed at a makeshift hospital, some on stretchers, some in an ambulance. "Libyan people don't like people with dark skins," a militiaman explained in reference to the arrests of black men.
URL:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/30/libya-spectacular-revolution-disgraced-racism
- Add new comment
- 16224 reads
Comments
Don't understand - this is 5 years old and well-known. Including some black guestworkers fleeing from Libya to Europe last year.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 11:33am
I wasn't aware of it. Since you were, perhaps you can explain your full-throated endorsement of the woman who pressured the Obama administration to depose Gaddafi thereby leading to 1) many lynchings and 2) murders of dozens if not hundreds or more black people in Libya by the racist rebels whom Clinton supported.
You are also I assume aware, as I was not until recently, of the attacks against woman and girls in Libya in the wake of Clinton's successful push to overthrow Gaddafi.
by HSG on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 12:17pm
In your game of gotcha, you seem never to acknowlege that people in office have to make unpalatable decisions and events are frequently messy.
In 1945, Czechs killed hundreds of thousands of Czechs of German origin and stole most of their land and belongings. Should the allies not have freed Czechoslovakia from Nazi occupation?
Qaddafi threatened to go door to door wiping out protesters and rebels. It might have been bombast, it might have been true. Having been a politically engaged First Lady during Rwanda and Srebrenica, Hillary likely erred on the side of civilians this time. She met with protesters (I believe you read that WaPo article) and coming out with assurances that the protesters had good intentions and were able to form a sane government, she worked on a unified response with UK., France and Italy. While regime change didn't seem to the overt goal, it's hard to do an overflight zone protecting civilians without altering the actual fighting.
That a prowestern liberal government didn't emerge is well documented. The extent of revenge against black guest workers was likely not foreseen, but the anti-feminist movements by the prevailing Islamic government could easily be predicted should an Islamic govt take power.
Aside from my "fullthroated endorsement" I was full-throated against regime change at the time, since I didnt see a productive sustainable moral precedent, and I thought it overshadowed the peaceful means of Arab Spring uprisings elsewhere. Think I wrote a blog on it, will look.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 12:43pm
In your ceaseless defense of the indefensible - voting for war with Iraq, "free trade" deals, mass incarceration, etc. - you refuse to acknowledge half-measures were possible in Libya. Gaddafi's advance on Benghazi could have been stopped without the subsequent US-led NATO bombings that led to Gaddafi's overthrow and the atrocities outlined.
You write: "Hillary likely erred on the side of civilians this time." Really, did she err on the side of civilians when she supported the Patriot Act, voted for war with Iraq, said torture could be justified in some circumstances, backed a military coup in Honduras, helped stop a $5/day minimum wage in Haiti called for a no-fly zone over Syria, put on ice for 18 months negotiations with Iran, asked whether we are ready to take our relationship with Israel "to the next level"?
Look, she's horrible. The only argument in her favor is Donald Trump. So make that argument. We can still work together if Clinton supporters will simply acknowledge the absolutely ugly truth about her. Then we can turn to both defeating Trump and mitigating the neo-con neo-liberal excesses to which Clinton will be prone when/if she becomes President
by HSG on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 1:03pm
Look, she's horrible. The only argument in her favor is Donald Trump.
What then was the only argument in her favor in the democratic primary? Bernie Sanders? How exactly do you explain how she won by a much greater margin than Obama won against her? She tied Obama in the 08 popular vote and crushed Sanders in both the popular vote and pledged delegates.
The only argument in her favor was Bernie Sanders?
The only way we can work together is if we hate Hillary as much as you do? We don't. There must be some reason she crushed Sanders and fought Obama to a draw. Maybe you should make some effort to understand that.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 3:59pm
Hilary is a Progressive
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-progressive_us_572cc...
The only thing Sanders supporters can do I'd demonize her. The more I see of Sanders supporters yelling at Clinton supporters and shutting down a Clinton speech, the less I like them. When I see Bernie supporting this nonsense, the less I like him.
Clooney protest
http://abcnews.go.com/US/bernie-sanders-supporters-demonstrate-george-cl...
Shutting down Clinton speech at SUNY
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-quick-cuts/watch/sanders-supporters-interrupt...
Harassing superdelegates
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/clinton-backers-feel-the-bern-of-ang...
Interupting a speech in Monterey Park
http://thedailybanter.com/2016/05/bernie-sanders-supporters-stopped-a-hi...
Bernie encouraging the protests
http://thedailybanter.com/2016/05/bernie-sanders-says-its-absolutely-app...
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 5:30pm
Hal, so now you're trying to leverage your potential support for HRC in the general against our acknowledging the "ugly truth about her"? Is this what happens when the Left gets so extreme that it becomes authoritarian?
A lot of us have said we would support Sanders if he is nominated. And none of us have tried to exact pledges. So why are you doing it?
by Oxy Mora on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 10:44pm
I'm not trying to exact any pledges from anybody. I said I will vote for Clinton in the general election assuming, which I do, she is the Democratic nominee.
Because I want the probable next President to forswear the destructive neo-lib economic and neo-con foreign policies she has pursued in the past, I have chosen to write about aspects of Hillary Clinton's record that I find extraordinarily troubling. Don't you find them troubling? If not, why not?
by HSG on Mon, 05/09/2016 - 8:48am
What you said is "that we can work together if "you" acknowledge the ugly truth about her."
by Oxy Mora on Mon, 05/09/2016 - 8:55am
Found it, Wrote a later blog referencing my 2011 comments.
Humorously, I also found my 4-year-old praise of progressives pressuring the White House, including Bernie "Saunders".
Note: Hal hysteria acknowledged. No further comment aside from statement by head of Human Rights Watch DC as linked in the critiquing article.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 1:29pm
I don't think there is an equivalence between overthrowing Qaddafi and stopping the Nazis. Europe was better off for the defeat of Hitler, Libya is probably worse off the overthrow of Qaddafi. Also, Qaddafi wasn't invading other countries; we were the ones intervening in Libya's internal affairs
The death toll in the ethnic cleansing of Sudeten Germans probably wasn't in the hundreds of thousands. In 1996, a German-Czech commission put it at a maximum of thirty thousand.xpelledgermans.org/sudetengermans.htm
by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Mon, 05/09/2016 - 4:27pm
Missing the forest for the trees. Czechs expelled 2.5 million Germans, Ukrainians and Poles and Russians etc did the same. Deaths were likely 1.4 million or more. (estimates are debated, records were not kept, but certainly many more killed than black Africans by Libyans). Should we not have defeated the Germans because reprisals took place and should have been expected?
In Rwanda, Hutus massacred 600,000 Tutsis. Was this just an internal affair, with no right for anyone to intervene? Did Milosevic have the right to kill how many thousand Muslims at Srebrenice because they were Yugoslavia's problem, not Europe's? Is domestic abuse an issue between a man and his wife, no police involvement justified?
I said all along we were better off with Qaddafi, but when he threatens to wipe out Benghazi and looks like he'll do it, I cant blame leaders for assuming he might well do it. I've been to Cambodia, I've been to several concentration camps and sat in boxcars,, I went to Sarajevo just after the war ended, I've been to Horseshoe Bend Alabama, I've been to parts of the Sudetenland. As Monty Python cheekily said, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition. Trying to balance sovereignty vs atrocity is difficult. And Hillary certainly wasnt President during Libya, though she had a voice, just as she wasnt President for Rwanda, Kosovo, Haiti, Sudan and Bosnia, though she had a voice. It's easy to criticize everything when you dont have decisions to make y ourself.
We seem to have handled Syria badly, but the Assads have been rather brutal to their people for decades, including murder and torture. While we might be better off with Assad, it's a pretty cruel and uncaring assessment however we slice it. A vote for Assad? A vote for ISIS? A vote for Putin? A vote for Erdogan fighting Kurds? A vote for murderous Kurds? So many assholes, yet sometimes something has to be done without knowing exactly what.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 05/09/2016 - 5:17pm
I think I answered the first point already. We should have defeated the Germans because the postwar world--ethnic cleansing of Germans and all--was better than a world ruled by Hitler would have been. Things don't seem to be better in Libya.
Your second paragraph touches on what I'm trying to say. Libya wasn't Rwanda. Interventing when you have a genocide with hundreds of thousands being massacred is very different from intervening in a standard civil war where you have maybe a couple thousand killed on both sides. I doubt our motive in Libya was humanitarian anyway. An e-mail from Blumenthal to Clinton said that the French, at least, were motivated by the usual considerations of strategic and economic interests.
Wife beating is a matter for the police, but domestic law enforcement isn't much like states waging war. The wisdom of Uncle Sam being global policeman in the first place is one of the things I'm wondering about.
by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Mon, 05/09/2016 - 6:09pm
Hal, I suppose if Hillary had convinced the UN Security Council, NATO, France, Britain, and Obama that none should do anything to protect Libyan civilians from imminent slaughter in 2011, and let Muammar Gaddafi kill as many Libyans as he deemed necessary to stay in power, you would be dancing in the streets in admiration of her principles.
Or, if Hillary pushed Obama for a US invasion and occupation of Libya as she, unlike all the parties above, knew that Libyans could not run their own country, or stop killing each other, without guns pointed at them by western armies, you would also be gugu gaga over her, and be supporting the US staying there forever.
by NCD on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 12:46pm
C'mon NCD. Does it always have to be about me and my alleged hypocrisy and double standards? Can't you simply call the turd sandwich that is Hillary Clinton's record a turd sandwich?
The disastrous results of the war on Iraq which Clinton supported should have told her not to kill Gaddafi. Moreover, as noted above, half or quarter-measures like stopping the advance on Benghazi without months of bombing, were absolutely possible. In any event, while Gaddafi's advance on Benghazi did seem scary at the time, it was almost certainly overblown by the media:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/04/07/was-there-going-to-be-a-benghazi-mas...
by HSG on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 1:08pm
If Hillary had advocated that the US not get involved and Qadafi had massacred civilians the Hillary haters would blame her, say she has blood on her hands, say she only stayed out because she planned to run for president, and she doesn't care about the poor Libyan civilians, she only cares about herself and her ambition.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 6:47pm
Well, duh. As I said elsewhere, she also did not attract Qaddafi like Condaleeza did, so it, as is everything else:
HILLARY'S FAULT!
by CVille Dem on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 7:16pm
TRIPOLI Feb 9, 2011 - Senator Sanders has condemned NATO, the UN Security Council, Britain, France and US talk of protecting civilians in their uprising against the 40 years of tyrannical rule by Moammar Gadaffi.
Progressive radio host Hal Ginsberg said "At most, it won't be tens of thousands of them killed. Maybe just 10 or 20 thousand, who knows and who cares. I'm OK with supporting Gaddaffi"
Senator Sanders criticized Secretary of State Clinton, saying "Freedom loving people would send arms to Gaddaffi so he can end the trouble quickly, we should also help him with intelligence. With the USA behind him, the people will give up and face the music faster. We should veto the UN Security Council resolution now."
Progressives across the nation have signed a petition to the UN supporting Colonel Gaddaffi as "The best and only hope and sole type of government that would ever work for Libya".
by NCD on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 7:59pm
Hal, I would like to back up here. Is this true? "tens of thousands of them killed. Maybe jsut 10 or 20 thousand, who knows and who cares...."
That kind of negates everything else you've said about Libya, no?
Why does Sanders condemn NATO, the UN Security Council, Britain, France and the US talk of protecting civilians? I don't remember who said it, but it was recent: It is as though you don't realize, acknowledge, or even seem to have any awareness of the fact that many decisions are difficult; some are no-win, and many are just the best we can do.
If you are in a black and white world, as Bernie is, the yes/no answers seem easy, but the world is full of nuances, and, and our President often says, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." If you don't understand that, you are in the same mind-set as the Tea-Partiers.
I disagree that making deals is like making sausage. Rather, it is like life. We try to teach our children to play well with others; sharing toys, and taking turns. That isn't the same as succumbing to a bully...it is the way to get along in the world. Demonizing those who disagree with you is not a winning strategy.
I could go on, but I am getting tired on this Mother's Day. I am so happy that I have taught my 3 children to disagree without being disagreeable, and also not to disagree when it really doesn't matter. Wow. I am one lucky mother!!!!!!
by CVille Dem on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 8:38pm
NCD just made that quote up. I never said anything like that CVille. Regarding your contention that I don't recognize the decisions that Clinton and other leaders are faced with are difficult, I reject that. I absolutely think they're difficult. But we are deciding who should be President. We have to judge the candidates on their decisions.
Clinton has made so many very bad ones. Basically, she lurched from failure to disaster throughout her term as Secretary of State. Plus, the mistakes and failures didn't result from idealism but rather an adherence to a cynical Kissingeresque realpolitik. In fact, she has acted in exactly the way you criticize me of acting. She has bullied countries and people around the world.
Consider the coup she backed in Honduras. Her fight against raising the minimum wage in Haiti. Her pressure on Obama and NATO to take out Gaddafi. Her tight embrace of Netanyahu. All of these bespeak a belief in asserting American economic and military power freely and loosely without regard to the harm it may cause to civilians or the justness of the cause.
If you think I'm being disagreeable, please identify how. I will strive to do better.
Happy Mother's Day!
by HSG on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 8:52pm
I thought you said you would vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. I also thought you said she WILL be the nominee. But here you say:
You go on to list things that you disagree about her decisions and more.
Bernie has lost. You acknowledge that. You have said over and over that you will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. Hillary, regardless of the silly arithmatic that you propose, will win the nomination.
So, stop with the venom against Hillary. It is a done deal.
If you have evidence to the contrary, please let me know. And also, if there is no chance, please explain why you and others continue to put out anti-Hillary crap (while saying you will vote for her against Trump).
by CVille Dem on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 9:30pm
CVille - I said I will vote for her in the general election. That has not changed. That doesn't mean she hasn't made many many harmful decisions or that I'm going to pretend she didn't. Look, my guy lost but maybe just maybe Clinton and her supporters will recognize how imperfect a warrior she is for the causes about which they care. If this happens, then perhaps she will truly move to and stay on the side of the people.
I have not proposed any "silly arithmetic". I must say I'm a little surprised by the vehemence of this post. You rightly decried bullying in the comment to which I responded which you are replying to. I pointed out that Clinton repeatedly adopted a bully's tactics. Yet you ignore this point altogether. Are you really that upset about bullying or is it that you don't like hearing she is a bully?
by HSG on Mon, 05/09/2016 - 8:27am
"I pointed out that Clinton repeatedly adopted a bully's tactics." - Hal, go join Trump. Friends like these, enemies are redundant. You're more use to us as Donald's cheerleader. Whatever this perfect world you think exists, well, dream on. Sorry you feel bullied by
somethat woman - must be humiliating. Donald I'm sure will be kinder and gentler.by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 05/09/2016 - 8:45am
Hal's link from Kuperman (in April 2011 after NATO intervention) said "the claim that the United States had to act to prevent Libyan tyrant Muammar al-Qaddafi from slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Benghazi does not stand up to even casual scrutiny."
I repeat "tens of thousands" slaughtered was mentioned by Kuperman, from U of Texas.
They didn't say 'ten thousand' or twenty thousand.
'Tens of thousands does not stand scrutiny' was the quote.
According to Kuperman, and Chapman, of the Chicago Tribune.
As Kuperman. Chapman and apparently Hal (?) thought only large multiples of 'ten thousand' (3, 4...8,10 ?) dead were of significance.
by NCD on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 10:20pm
You made up an alleged quote from me. You also falsely claim I don't care about a few thousand dead. I care very much about the slaughter going on in Libya today. Moreover, I have argued here stopping Gaddafi from taking control of Benghazi in March 2011 was a worthy goal and I defend Obama's and Clinton's decision to do just that.
I condemn their decision - which Clinton pushed - to spend the next 7 months bombing Gaddafi's forces in order to kill him. Do you think that was a good idea?
Regarding your holier-than-thou attitude, how do you feel about the mayhem that has remained horrific in Libya since we killed Gaddafi.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/libya/obamas-libya-debacle
One other thing, you misstated (dishonestly?) Kuperman's quote in USA Today. Kuperman did not say that it was okay for Gaddafi to kill thousands of people or that only the slaughter of 10s of thousands matter. His point was that those promoting a war were falsely claiming that Gaddafi would massacre tens or hundreds of thousands of East Libyans not that he would kill up to 10,000 or that such a massacre would be acceptable.
by HSG on Mon, 05/09/2016 - 8:41am
If Hillary had said the U.S. should not get involved I would not have blamed her; I would have applauded her.
by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Mon, 05/09/2016 - 6:12pm
That's unresponsive to my comment. To truly address it you would have to say:
If Hillary had said the U.S. should not get involved and Quadaffi massacred tens of thousands of civilians I would not have blamed her; I would have applauded her.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 05/09/2016 - 6:27pm
Part of the point, as Hal said, is that there was no reason to believe that tens of thousands of civilians were going to be massacred. That was boilerplate to justify an intervention that was really undertaken for geopolitical reasons, not humanitarian ones.
by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Mon, 05/09/2016 - 7:51pm
I call you a fanatic because you always criticize Hillary and fail to put things in context. There were anti-immigrant riots in 2000. Those riots were not the fault of Obama or Clinton. The riots were due to inherent racism in Libyan people.
The current rebels operate on the myth that African immigrant supporters of Gaddaffi slaughtered rebel troops.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/world/africa/05migrants.html?scp=1&sq=...
Your anti-Hillary bias blinds you to the fact that Gaddaffi scapegoated Sub-Saharan Africans and accused them of fostering bias. You pretend that Gaddafi was a safer option for blacks.
http://heindehaas.blogspot.com/2011/02/gaddafi-regime-fuels-racist-viole...
There is/ was no good option in Libya. Both sides are evil.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 2:10pm
Your claim: "I call you a fanatic because you always criticize Hillary[.]"
In fact, I have praised Clinton for her commonsense record on guns and criticized Bernie for taking the side of the gun lobby and in several other respects.
Your claim: You "fail to put things in context."
In fact, the racism of the rebels was one more reason Clinton should have been much more circumspect when she weighed various intervention options.
Your claim: "There is/was no good option in Libya. Both sides are evil."
Assuming the truth of this claim, shouldn't Clinton have erred on the side of caution and only urged the President to commit resources to stop potential atrocities like the feared massacres in east Libya which Foreign Policy claims would not have materialized in any event? In fact, Clinton pressured NATO to continue attacking Libya after Gaddafi NATO attacks forced government troops out in late March.
RMRD - you always defend Hillary and have been unable to find one word of praise for Senator Senators. I have defended her record on guns and also support her in the general election against Trump. I have criticized Sanders on several occasions. Who is the fanatic?
by HSG on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 2:28pm
Hal, you put Hillary as the cause of events that have been going on for decades. Haiti is a failed state. Libya is a racist basket case with no good options. All is Hillary's fault.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 2:36pm
Libya is also the amalgam of 2 cultures from earlier colonialism, along with was a coup-led military dictatorship with a bit of petrol-fed home & 3rd world populism, along with some curious revolution-mongering around the subcontinent. Qaddafi was largely our ally and subdued post-9/11, though certainly not a democrat nor into power sharing, and his blond Ukrainian "nurse" as revealed by Wikileaks was scndalous for conservative (though selective) Arab audiences. What should we expect?
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 3:28pm
Qaddafi was subdued during Dubya's regime because he had a HUGE man-crush on Condaleeza Rice.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/photos-indicate-qaddafi-di...
Once Bush left office he probably got back to business. Too bad he didn't have a crush on Hillary. One more thing she can be blamed for, huh?
by CVille Dem on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 4:45pm
RMRD - Do you believe Hillary Clinton bears any responsibility for either 1) the actions of her subordinates in Haiti that led to the recission of the $5/day minimum wage for textile workers or 2) the mayhem in Libya over the past 5 years that has followed the overthrow of Gaddafi?
by HSG on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 8:35pm
Hal, why don't you stop using Hillary as a shield and just admit that you hate Barack Obama? Just admit that you see a 74 year old guy who has done nothing in Congress, wanted a Primary challenge to Obama, and encourages his supporters to disrupt Hillary Clinton rallies, as the one who will correct what Obama failed to do?
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 9:46pm
What kind of an answer is that RMRD? Does Clinton bear any responsibility for what the State Department did in Haiti or the overthrow of Gaddafi and the subsequent humanitarian disaster in Libya? If you say she does not bear any responsibility, is that because you put all the blame on Obama?
Why are you so incapable of answering simple fair questions?
by HSG on Mon, 05/09/2016 - 8:44am
I give responses that are deserved. Hillary was Obama's SOS. Why don't you attack the real target?
There were no good options. If nothing was done, you would have criticized that decision as well. Obama made his own decision, he is not Hillary's puppet. There were no good options. Do I blame Hillary because there were racists? No. Do I blame Obama because there were racists? No, I gave you information noted that the racists were there before Obama and Hillary intervened. I gave you Gaddaffi's racist statements.
In your mind it is always Obama's and Hillary's fault. I use always because that is your default position. Your default position negates your statements of "praise".
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/09/2016 - 9:13am
RMRD - Clinton/Obama empowered the racists by deposing Gaddafi. There was a good option - stop the tyrant's troops outside of Benghazi but don't kill him. Why do you believe criticism of Obama is totally out-of-bounds. Is he some third rail? Are leaders ever responsible when their decisions/policies lead to bad outcomes or harm people? Can you identify any such decisions/policies of Obama or Clinton that lead to bad outcomes? If not, would you say your view is fanatical?
by HSG on Mon, 05/09/2016 - 9:08pm
Hal, the racists were already empowered
http://www.afrik-news.com/article18180.html
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/09/2016 - 11:22am
RMRD - the article you cite claims Gaddafi was a racist but does not cite to any specific racist acts by him. By contrast, the racist rebels who took power in Libya because the US and NATO overthrew Gaddafi due in large part to Hillary Clinton's pressure on both Obama and NATO did great harm to blacks.
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal...
By contrast,
https://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/09/23/blacks-in-libya-still-targeted-by...
by HSG on Mon, 05/09/2016 - 12:16pm
Regarding Gaddaffi's racism, I supplied you with a link earlier.
Regarding Obama as a third rail, when Sanders supporters claim that Bernie will be better than Obama and then want black votes for Sanders, it does become a third rail.
Edit to add:
Hillary and many of her supporters understand the " third rail". Many Bernie supporters are blind to the concept. Hillary gets an immediate advantage.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/09/2016 - 3:47pm
rmrd - your link claiming Gaddafi was racist provides no evidence for the claim nor does it identify racist actions by Gaddafi. Does Hillary Clinton deserve any blame for actions she and her subordinates took while she was Secretary of State? If the answer is no, then she doesn't deserve any credit for her time there either right?
by HSG on Mon, 05/09/2016 - 9:10pm
Hal I provided you with links. I don't care if you accept them.
Gaddaffi set up Africans as scapegoats.
Are you asking that if Hillary did nothing wrong, she could not have done anything right?
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/09/2016 - 9:17pm
You're saying she doesn't deserve any blame for what happened when she was Secretary of State right? Your argument is that whatever went wrong is really Obama's fault right? Well then you can't credit her when things went well, if anything did, right?
by HSG on Mon, 05/09/2016 - 10:01pm
Could you point out what you altered at 8:08?
I responded to your original post this morning. You appear to have altered the post
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/09/2016 - 9:21pm
Are you asking me? I have no idea what you are talking about. Nothing on this page was altered at 8:08.
by HSG on Mon, 05/09/2016 - 10:00pm
After 5 years since this article, how many black Africans were killed? 14,500 total deaths listed for all sides in the chaos of overthrow, including rebels, renegade Islamic militias and civilians - certainly blacks a tiny proportion. In this article 30 deaths mentioned. Was it a bigger problem? Compare 250,000+ deaths in Syria. And why does a crazed militia killing blacks apply to all Libyans? A lot of condemnation around pretty fluffy uncertain numbers. All leading to Hillary. The evil genius.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 4:54pm
Odd you're defending her since five years ago you correctly noted the aftermath of her decision to overthrow Gaddafi was unknown and might well be disastrous. Any reasons for that besides the fact that you backed her early and hard for President?
Odd too that you would refer to her as an "evil genius." If that is supposed to represent my view of Clinton it is very wrong indeed. I have noted that her many mistakes bespeak an intellectual lightweight. Her failure to pass the DC Bar - one of the easiest in the country - lends powerful support to the theory she's not particularly smart.
by HSG on Sun, 05/08/2016 - 8:43pm
[Comment removed - ToS warning]
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 05/09/2016 - 8:51am
PP - you insist on "in for a dime in for a dollar". In other words, in order to stop Gaddafi from the feared slaughter in Benghazi, we had to bomb him into submission. Obviously, as I have pointed out on several times, there was a third option. Stop the advance into Benghazi, drive whatever troops were already there out, but leave him in power in the rest of the country. You ignore this point, although I've made it several times. I'm guessing it's because to acknowledge it would require you to admit your candidate made an indefensible miscalculation or worse. AmIrite?
by HSG on Mon, 05/09/2016 - 9:14pm