Libya and Gaddafi

Gaddafi is just… unbelievable. He supported the Soviet Union, and called acts of murder “heroic”.  He planned murders against innocent people who were passing Libya during their pilgrimage to Mecca (fortunately, this was stopped), and his diplomats shot 11 people, along with one British woman, which in turn cut off relations with the U.K for over ten years. Over all, Gaddafi was just an “irresponsible” leader, who labeled Libya with an infamous reputation.

Now, after years of wrong decisions made, the citizens and people of Libya are speaking, and having a voice in things once and for all. Rebel clans have broken out all around the country, and chaos has risen. Is this the “new beginning” for all Libyans? Or will it be the tragic end of the country altogether?

At the current moment, there has been an article on CNN (click here) stating that the rebels have supposedly surrounded Gaddafi, and therefore the civil war may finally come to an end. While Gaddafi is contemplating his last attack, his son, Saadi has requested a cease-fire in the country.

Countless countries around the world hold their breaths as they cautiously keep track of the situation of Libya.

Hopefully, peace will soon be restored.




2 responses to “Libya and Gaddafi

  1. Some holes to poke with this:

    1. Supporting the USSR does not necessarily condemn a world leader, even one of an authoritarian regime, and is therefore not a subject of criticism unto itself. It’s like calling all of Nazi Germany bad, or all of Castro’s Cuba bad, simply because you disagree with the ideology. You’re criticizing Gaddafi by comparing him to an entire nation, and that sort of comparison doesn’t quite work because Gaddafi is an individual person. A comparison with, say, Hitler or Stalin is understandable, but there were plenty of communists who genuinely believed in their rather naive but in the end well-intentioned ideology, many of which were from the Soviet Union. If you’re using the Soviet Union as a whole reason for criticism, not only is that blatant historical inaccuracy, its generic prejudice that quite honestly can’t be taken seriously.

    2. The killing of the British woman was indeed regrettable, but the cut in Libya-UK relations as a consequence is entirely superficial. I’m sure you’re aware that Britain’s slow reaction to getting their nationals out of Libya was due to the fact that Cameron wanted oil and had a profitable oil arrangement with Gaddafi in the first place. The killing of one woman may have enraged English people, but it won’t have mattered to Downing Street for more than a mention. The oil, in this case, has far higher value to Britain’s current administration (one of inconsistency and idiocy, I add) than the life of that one woman.

    The main point I had to pick was no. 1. Kindly try not to engage in such categoric prejudice in future.

    Cheers 🙂

  2. I hope that’s to Suh, not me, cuz she wrote it… and great that ur checking out my blog ‘hollystar’… *cough* still think its a ‘weird’ name *cough*

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s