TRoaches
-
Posts
466 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by TRoaches
-
-
The technocratic dictatorship is what comes to my mind any time I hear dire warnings about "overpopulation" or positive mentions of "population control". I consider it propaganda meant to acclimate us to our own planned obsolescence. There have always been members of the elite class who consider the rest of us a necessary burden (unwashed masses, mouths to feed, etc), and automation would remove the necessity of the existence of lower classes to produce food and infrastructure.
Put yourself in the shoes of a patriarch of one of the world's truly elite groups. I don't mean people that are simply "wealthy" but the people who control wealth itself, such as the old royal families and their more modern cousins in the international banks. Like any other patriarch you probably think and plan for your faction's future. Where most normal people would be concerned about their progeny's survival and prosperity you have no need to be concerned about this. Their prosperity is already a sure thing. Instead you have the luxury of truly looking ahead to the destiny of humanity itself and what role your faction will play in that destiny.
Now, if you are a good-natured, humble, and altruistic person then you would not consider those of the lower classes (and remember, EVERY class is lower than yours) to be an expendable waste of resources. However, there is a good chance that a person who was born into that level of power is NOT altruistic, humble, or good-natured. If they are none of these things they may consider the vast majority of the world's population to be unnecessary and wasteful, and their plans would be for their eventual extermination.From their perspective it would perhaps be viewed as a necessary evil to bring about world peace. Most wars are fought over resources, so eliminating the need for vast amounts of those resources would eliminate much of the war on the planet. Also, the environment would no longer be damaged by human sprawl.
The flaw in this philosophy is that much or most of humanity's technological and cultural progress has been the result of efforts by people who were born into those lower classes, and many of their innovations were inspired by the struggles they were affected by within their families and communities. You could create a technocracy that awards scientists and thinkers with high status, but I imagine the rate at which new scientists, thinkers, and innovators are produced would surely decrease if the working class was eliminated. Even if there were no extermination or eugenics scenario that occurred, and the earlier mentioned elite class truly are altruistic and allow everyone to just live happy in a work and strife-free utopia, I think the same stagnation would occur with regard to scientific and cultural innovation. Competition for survival and denial of bliss are not an entirely bad things because they motivate people to innovate.
-
@Morrowvvind: I don't think anyone would be opposed to a utopia without work, but the premise seems to rest on the unrealistic assumption that the bounty produced by automation would be shared freely with the population for the benefit of all. Technology has already made it possible to feed, clothe, and house every human on the planet. It has not happened yet because of a lack of empathy, not a lack of necessary technology.
-
What I am most curious about with this story is what the process is like to bring the private companies on board. None of this would be possible without access to the communications companies that the monitoring is being done via. I figure that there are two possible ways that this access can be achieved: either with the cooperation of the private company or covertly by inserting an agent as an employee. I would guess that the majority is done through cooperation because it is more reliable than using an agent who could be fired at any time, thus ending the connection.
So the next question is why do the companies cooperate? It could be because the NSA asked really nicely, but I imagine that there must be some greater incentive. They could offer money, or some sort of protection or immunity promise. Given the nature of the NSA it would probably be easy to dig up some dirt on any of these companies and leverage it against them. It could be a high-ranking official at the company who practices some sort of social deviance i.e. drug use, adultery, pedophilia, etc. Or it could be a questionable business practice, like money laundering or sheltering. In either case the NSA could offer a deal: Allow us to plug this dongle into your system and we will not let our friends at the FBI know about what you are doing.
Whatever the reason for the cooperation I fault the companies that are participating more than I do the NSA. With any government bureaucracy it is nearly impossible to narrow the blame for any given policy or action down to a single person or small group. This program was not the brainchild of a single person or administration. It is the cumulative result of many years worth of policies and programs that could probably be traced all the way back to WWII. WIth a private company, however, it is easy to find the right person or people to blame. They sit in the boardroom, or at the heads of the departments involved.
I think throwing our rage at the NSA is a big waste of time. They do not concern themselves with public opinion of what they do. The private companies, however, are extremely concerned with the public's opinion of them. If people let it be known that they do not approve of their information being passed wholesale to the NSA it would possibly be more effective at slowing it down and in bringing light to the situation.
-
Different government exist, and have existed, for a variety of reasons. Not all governments have recognized natural rights or built their legal system around the concept, and many governments that currently recognize natural rights did not always do so. For much of history in much of the world, including some current governments, the natural rights of an individual have not always been recognized or even considered by governments. A person was considered to be some form of a "subject" to the autocracy or oligarchy, and they existed only because the authority allowed them to. Over time the idea of natural rights became more acceptable to various governments, either by their own will or by the force of uprisings among their subjects, and this lead to changes such as those instituted by the Magna Carta and other similar legal revisions.
The term "human rights" is really just a modernized rephrasing of "natural rights", and perhaps one that most of us are more familiar with than "natural rights". There are plenty of examples to be found around the world of governments that violate their citizens human, or natural, rights while simultaneously codifying their legal rights. According to the theory of natural law those people do still possess their natural rights, but they cannot exercise them because of their oppressive governments. Those governments are considered to be in violation of the natural law.
Consider a person who is living under a government that is a human rights nightmare somewhere in the world. We could use North Korea as an example, where people have very little choice about how they live their lives and are provided only the most basic living accommodations. There are two ways that you could describe that scenario:
1) The government granted them the right to work, the right to food rations sufficient to prevent starvation, the right to a sufficiently comfortable home, the right to access the literature and culture that has been approved by the monitoring authorities, and the right to travel within designated and approved locations within their country.
2) The government has denied them the right to work where they choose, to be self employed, or to not work at all; denied them the right to eat whatever they can afford, grow, or otherwise procure; denied them the right to possess whatever property they can purchase, inherent, claim, or otherwise procure; denied them the right to express themselves and to witness the expression of others; and denied them the right to travel outside of their borders or to emigrate from their society.
The difference between those two schools of thought is subtle but significant, like a glass half-full/half-empty sort of paradigm. The first choice is based on the idea that government grants rights to its citizens. The second choice is based on the theory of natural law and natural rights. There is nothing illegal about what the government is doing, but its legal government violates the the natural law and the natural rights of its citizens, which are inherent to their humanity and exist independent from the legal system.
The question philosophical question "do humans have natural rights?" has been debated for a long time, and it does not have an inherently right or wrong answer. It is a matter of philosophical opinion, not a logical or factual premise. Interestingly, it is debatable whether any particular right is a natural one or not. The gun question is a perfect example: One could make a very good argument that the right to arms is not a natural right, and another could make a very good argument that it is a natural right. Another good example would be legal executions. My personal opinion is that legal executions violate the natural rights of the condemned, but there are many intelligent people who would disagree with my opinion about that as well.
-
I should have known better than to try to insert a joke about "the rules of the internet" into that post.
The point was that you had resorted to a grammatical critique (and an erroneous one at that, a beautiful example of Muphry's Law), which indicates that you had perhaps given up on trying to make any sort of meaningful or coherent point.
-
Then you agree, the right to bare arms was never an unalienable right
I do not agree.
Also you should note that "inalienable" and "unalienable" are different ...
Wow, we're going to have a grammar critique now? I think that means that, according to the rules of the internet, I really have officially won the debate. Here we go.....
You should note that the definitions that you posted are nearly identical, aside from one being a single word definition and the other being a definition of a two word phrase that includes an alternate Anglicized spelling of the first word. One word uses the latin negative prefix "in-". The other uses an english negative prefix "un-". The founders used the Anglicized version in the Declaration of Independence because that was the more common spelling among English speaking literates at the time. The Latin prefixed version is more commonly used today.
-
Correct, but the purpose of law is to protect those basic natural rights and the rights derived from them. Legal rights are derived from natural rights, which we inherently possess but may be unable to protect without the aid of a government. When the law codifies a legal right it is not granting us something that did not exist before, rather it is attempting to offer protection against infringement of our rights to ensure that we continue to possess what we already had.
Also, it is worth noting that you by using the two phrases interchangeably you seem to indicate that "god-given" and "inalienable" are synonymous terms. This is exactly what I said earlier in response to your earlier false assertion that politicians who use the phrase "god-given" are invoking a religious justification for their policies.
-
How about a named politician? Here's a good example:
"It is always such an honor for us to spend this holiday with members of our military and your extraordinary families. All of you represent what is best in America. You serve under our proud flag. You and your families sacrifice more than most of us can ever know -- all in defense of those God-given rights that were first put to paper 236 years ago: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." -- President Barack Obama
It seems that the president agrees that our rights are not granted by the government, but are inherently granted to us by virtue of our existence.
-
but invoke religious beliefs will be the downfall for any party when trying to win national elections...
Was I ever suggesting a politician who invoke religious beliefs won't ever win an election? no! :rolleyes:
I'll just leave these here, because they sort of speak for themselves....
sure the constitution recognizes and protects natural rights, But only the government grants you right to begin with...
I provided a link so that you could learn the difference between natural and legal rights, but I can see that you did not bother to read up on it before replying.
A natural right is one that exists outside or without the authority of a government. Natural rights are believed to exist regardless of what jurisdiction one is in, or in the lack of any legal authority at all. If all governments were abolished tomorrow the concept of natural rights would still exist, but the only protection that one would have against a violation of their natural rights would be their own persuasion or use of force. It is more of a philosophical concept than a legal one, but it is the basis of much of our legal system and many others around the world. A legal right is one that is codified and upheld by the government. A natural right can be codified as protected under law, but it does not require a law to exist.
For example, if slavery is legal in a society then a slave is legal property and has no legal right to liberty. Any attempt by a third party to liberate that slave is, according to the law, a violation of the legal property rights of the slave's owner. The claim of a natural right to liberty was a central theme in abolitionist theory. It was cited by the movement in legal arguments against the slavery laws on the basis that they violated natural rights, and that these natural rights are of a higher order and supercede the legal property rights of the slave owners.
-
You seem to be ingnoring the point that the GOP's platform mentions God 12 times in their rhetoric. You chellenged me to cite a transcript of the content to back my claim...
I did not ignore it. I explained it. You ignored my explanation.
Your claim was that the letter had a "strong political message" that was associated with right-wing politics. I challenged you to demonstrate a correlation between the letter's content and the right-wing platform. You failed to do this, because no member of any party has ever advocated what the letter advocates.
They are free to do so... but invoke religious beliefs will be the downfall for any party when trying to win national elections... invoke religious beliefs only alienates everyone else who doesn't share the same beliefs....If an openly religious person is elected to any office it is because they attracted the most voters, not because they alienated them. Keith Ellison won his last election in a landslide, despite his "alienating" religious beliefs.
If you think rights are not given by the government you are only fooling yourself....
The wording of the constitution makes it very clear that it is not granting any rights. It recognizes and protects natural rights by limiting the government's power to infringe upon them. It makes heavy use of words like "shall not be infringed" and "shall make no law". It does not tell you what you can do. Rather, it tells the government what it cannot do.
-
"You will have to kill me and my family before you get my guns. Anyone wants to come to my house will get shot in the face. The right to bear arms is my constitutional, God-given right and I will exercise that right till the day I die. What's in this letter is nothing compared to what I've got planned for you."
No political party or politician in recent history has advocated shooting a politician, law enforcement officer, or any other civil citizen in the face. Describing this as being even remotely similar to "right-wing rhetoric" is offensive. Shooting people in the face is not a political statement. It is the complete opposite of political discourse. The fact that you read those words and think "Republican" says much about your closed-minded and dogmatic approach to political thought.
I you are even slightly familiar with the Republican platform They've crafted a political rhetoric to take their political agenda and force-feed it to American claiming God-given rights rather than rights granted by the government.
We already went over the fact that in the our legal system the government does not grant the citizens rights. The citizens are understood to inherently possess their rights, and the government is limited by its own laws in to the extent to which it may infringe upon them. Describing them as "god-given" is not a religious statement as much as a turn of phrase that means "inherent from birth". Even if the use of the word god in this context is a reference to religion there is no reason that an elected official or party cannot invoke their religious beliefs as a basis or justification for their agenda. They are free to do so as a part of their protected right to expression.
ETA:
That is your opinion.If "LaPierre does not invoke hatred" is only my opinion then, logically speaking, your statement that LaPierre DOES invoke hatred is also just an opinion.
-
1. Heroic, considering the monster that he is antagonizing, the fact that he is not hiding behind anonymity, and the privileged and lucrative position that he gave up in the process. I had initially glanced over the story of the leak and did not pay much attention to it because I assumed it was done anonymously, as these things usually are, and because the claims being made were the type that seemed obvious to anyone who has been paying attention yet frustratingly unverifiable without a solid source. This interview with Snowden made be really admire him. He elaborates on just how cushy his position was, and even goes into the fact that the information that he released was worth a fortune on the black market. He chose to share it for free, and at great risk to himself. He briefly touches on the possibility of being "rendered" by the CIA, or retaliation being brought against him via their third party partners in organized crime. It is rather chilling to hear him say "that's a fear I'll live under for the rest of my life, however long that happens to be".
2. The surveillance itself isn't necessarily a bad thing and is a inevitable side effect of living in a technological society. The fact is that all of the information that the NSA is gathering through this program is stuff that people are willingly putting out there to be collected. The alternative is to live off the grid without a bank account, credit cards, the internet, etc. It may be a crummy choice, but it is still a choice. Data mining is something that private businesses have been doing for years as well, just not on the same scale as the NSA. They are basically a data mining company with unlimited access and a near-unlimited budget. The scary part of what Snowden is exposing is not that the program exists, but that it is set up in such a way that it can be so easily abused without oversight.
3. This is one of those issues that serves to illustrate the absurdity of the one dimensional left v right paradigm of political thought. The two major parties are always in agreeance when it comes to the really important stuff and put on a big theatrical presentation of disagreeing about more petty issues.
5. They advocate it because their business model relies on it. We could choose not to use their services. I have never understood why people who are concerned to any extent about privacy choose to use things like Facebook. Cell phones are an inherent invasion of privacy. There was recently some outcry about a court ruling that one does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy while using a cell phone. I agreed with the ruling, because I can't imagine why one would have a reasonable expectation of privacy while operating a radio transmitter that is being bounced through a privately owned relay service.
-
perhaps I wouldn't even have even suggested right-wing rhetoric had a part in the discussion if there wasn't strong political message in the ricin letters to begin with....
Have you read the letters? Can you cite a transcript of their content that backs your claim? If not, and you are making assumptions about their content and basing your rhetoric on those assumptions, then you are again guilty of spreading the same type of false rhetoric that you claim to oppose.
Just look at the things LaPierre says about Obama alone.... Calling Obama a "big fat Liar", Claming there is some sort of "conspiracy" where as Obama going to "take" away peoples guns.... Using the Presidents "children" in ads that show off his own "hypocrisy" about Obama needing Armed guards in the 1st place, etc....
None of these claims or methods are invocations of hatred, and the statistics that you cite are not indications of hatred. Even if Obama IS hated by a full 50% of the public or more it would not be unusual.
-
Colourwheel, you have used the word "hate" to describe opposing political opinion more times in this thread than I care to count. Regardless of what you think of LaPierre he has never encouraged hatred towards anyone. If I am wrong then please cite a single example of LaPierre or any gun lobbyist or other prominent gun-rights figure encouraging hatred against any of the ricin targets.
If you cannot show an example of this then you are guilty, once again, of spreading one of those "false narratives" that you are so afraid of.
-
Wouldn't you say it would be safe to assume she might not have targeted specifically people and groups surounding the gun control debate if she didn't think people would think of it as a legitimate threat?
Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned there about the danger posed by demonizing those who hold opposing political opinions, and persecuting them based on that perceived threat despite a lack of evidence to support it. If the FBI operated under the same prejudices that you do the investigation would have been focused finding a link to the NRA. Thankfully, professional investigators try to avoid making assumptions and focus instead on the available data.
Public perception of a threat does not mean that the threat is real.
-
@Lisnpuppy: The survey does not make any claims about any bills. It says that the president has supported gun registries and purchase tracking, but makes no statements about his currently stated position or agenda. There are no false claims made in the survey. If someone is mislead by the survey it is because they are not thinking critically about what they are reading. That is their problem, not the NRA's.
By itself it is irrelevent... you seem to be missing the bigger picture citing the "article" not the "survey" itself. The alone survey wasn't so much a lie. IT was just grossly missleading.....
You seem to be missing the point that, when challenged to cite a lie told by the NRA, you instead cited a verifiable statement of fact made by the NRA which was presented by you as a lie. If anything, that seems much more misleading than anything that the survey contained.
New members and sell more guns. That could be his motive too... You have stated before in this thread earlier he really represents "gun manufacturers" instead of gun owners
I said no such thing, though for what its worth I would not disagree with that statement either.
You can argue all you want about this.... But Did I ever suggest anywhere in this entire thread that Obama hasn't lied?
No, but you did claim that his rhetoric does not spread fear and hate. I was only pointing out that his rhetoric has spread plenty of both to areas around the world. For incomprehensible reasons the very same liberals who were so critical of Bush's military aggression (and rightly so) have been silent with regards to Obama's escalation of that aggression.
Just because you don't like what a President is doing while they are in power does not make them a liar that is trying to strike fear and hate into the public mind.... What would really be the purpose of doing that, especially when they are already holding power?
Politicians have always utilized public fear as a method of distraction so that they can push the unsavory parts of their policy with less scrutiny. It is one of the oldest and most widely utilized political manipulations used throughout history.
The gun issue is a perfect example: Even though gun violence has decreased in the US it is at the forefront of the public policy agenda. It has received more press coverage than perhaps any other topic. Meanwhile, the President has escalated our foreign military imperialism and interventionism, assisted in the toppling of a few governments, set a precedent of using drone strikes to assassinate US citizens without due process, and members of his administration have been implicated in using the IRS as a tool to target political opposition groups as well as selling weapons to mexican drug cartels. He is looking more and more like an extra-corrupt reincarnation of Reagan.
-
Troached the survey question in itself alone is kind of irrelevant, beside the fact it is "misleading"...
Why did you cite something that is irrelevent?
What Lapierre is doing whether or not you think it's a lie is dangerous when the sole purpose is to misslead the public with fear and hate "speculating" peoples guns are going to be taking away Just to get new members and sell more guns....
You claim that this is the sole purpose of his rhetoric, so what is his motivation? What does LaPierre have to gain from spreading fear and hate?
Sure, Obama might have not have lead up to his promiss trying to get the troops back but it is hardly rhetoric to spread fear and hate into the minds of the public...
I would argue that Obama's campaign lies, and his election based on those lies, has spread as much or more fear and hate among the public than anything LaPierre could ever say. Does the Iraqi public count as a part of the public? Do you think that the increased casualties in Iraq due to Obama's lies have perhaps spread some fear and hate? Don't you think drone strikes around the region that kill civilians are a cause of fear and hate? Do you think nothing of the Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, and others who have been killed because Obama lied when he claimed to be opposed to militarism and in fact has behaved quite militantly?
Compared to gun violence in the US, which has actually decreased in the last decade, I think our increased military aggression is a much bigger problem, and it was enabled through a "false narrative" that the president used to get elected. That aggression has spread much fear and hate into the minds of the public, if you consider the public to include people who are not Americans.
-
This is the precise wording of the survey question that you are alleging is a lie:
President Obama has supported a national gun registration system allowing federal government officals to keep track of all your firearm purchases. Do you oppose national gun registration?Notice that it does not say "Obama currently supports", but rather "Obama has supported". It is a past tense reference to what he has supported in the past. When he was a legislator his stated position was in favor of banning all semi-auto guns, banning all handguns, and tracking all gun purchases at the state level via mandatory registration.
Given that the sharing of information between state and federal agencies was one of the big reasons behind the creation of the patriot act it stands to reason that any law enforcement or security information gathered by individual states constitutes a federal database once it is aggregated by the DHS. The line between state level and federal level has been nearly non-existent since 2001 at least with regard to law enforcement.
When he ran for president he adopted a more moderate position on gun control but the language of the survey question is not restricted to his current position or the position he has held while president. Therefore, it is not a lie.
-
I did read the bill, but the wording of the bill is almost irrelevant. The precedent is for the government to ignore its own laws with regard to privacy. They can put whatever they want in the gun registration law, but it will be superseded by the patriot act.
Is it against the law to tap a phone without a warrant? Does it still happen? The problem with the gun registration requirement is that it creates a potential for abuse, and where there is potential for abuse there is an almost certainty that the potential will be utilized.
-
That article focuses on the NRA's assertion that the President supports a national gun registry, and calls this a lie based on the fact that he does not say he would like to create a registry. Once again, it is a purely semantical difference.
Obama does not use the phrase "gun registry". His position is that the purchase of a gun should require a background check. Let's say that a law is passed making these proposed background checks a requirement to legally purchase a gun. Do you believe that, following the proposed background check, the information gathered during the check would be discarded? If that information is retained, as it certainly would be, that IS a gun registry. There is no difference.
To argue that a required federal background check does not produce a gun registry is like saying that the requirement to obtain a driver's license to legally drive does not produce a driver registry. A registry, as it is being used here, is nothing more than a list of people who have been processed under the proposed law.
What is the difference between a federal gun registry and the information that would be collected during a federal gun purchase background check? Are they not the same thing?
I realize that the existing laws prohibit such information from being retained, but the existing law is not the issue. It is about proposed law, and speculation about the possibilities of what direction such law could point us toward. Also, the federal government has a nice track record of ignoring their own laws with regards to privacy, such as the whole wiretapping issue during the Bush administration. The law says that the feds need a warrant to tap a phone, but it is now known that they monitor every phone call without a warrant. They do this under the authority granted by the patriot act, which legally supersedes nearly any other law in the nation. There is no reason to assume that such an abuse would not occur with the background check data as well.
-
since all miss-information about gun control legislation point back to the him and the NRA.
I disagree that they are spreading misinformation. You have yet to demonstrate that any of their claims are incorrect or misinformative. You simply do not agree with them. That does not make them liars. Your political perspective is very self-centered. You seem unwilling to acknowledge even the possibility that their opinions hold any validity by consistently referring to them as misinformation.
Please cite a single example of the NRA lying about anything. Remember, a prediction or speculation is not a lie. Please provide an example of something that the NRA stated as fact but can be unambiguously and objectively proven false.
In contrast, it is quite easy to find examples of lies that the President has told.
-
You said that LaPierre should be held accountable for "false rhetoric" that you incorrectly linked to the ricin letters. You repeated this many times.
-
I thought I was being sufficiently thick with the sarcasm when I said that we must hold others accountable for her actions. You ARE the one who has been pushing that idea.
It is interesting that you no longer feel this is necessary now that you are the one who, according to your own standard of responsibility in public political speech, is refusing to do what you consider to be the responsible thing and retract your earlier slanderous statements about LaPierre. Your position was that LaPierre's statements are fostering violence, and this has been proven to be a false narrative. If you were willing to apply that same standard to yourself then you should retract that slanderous false narrative. It is, according to your rhetoric, the responsible thing to do. You seem unwilling to do this. Why do you hold others to a standard that you are not willing to hold yourself to?
-
Then why even bring it up? :rolleyes:
I did not bring it up. You did, by starting a thread based on the false narrative that rhetoric oppositional to gun control policy was somehow responsible for the ricin letters. You also claimed that spreading rhetoric based on a false narrative could create such a level fear and paranoia that it should not be considered a protected form of free speech, akin to falsely shouting fire in a theater. Now that your narrative has been proven to be false do you should, according to your own standard of responsible speech, feel some responsibility to set the record straight and clarify that LaPierre's opinion is not a danger to society as you earlier claimed it to be. You should also condemn anyone else in the media who falsely blamed the attacks on LaPierre. Like you said, it is the responsible thing to do. According to your own standard you must be held accountable for your political speech. Remember all of that talk about slander? It has been proven that you have been slandering LaPierre to quite an extent by falsely claiming that the letters were related to his speech.
Again, I don't think you should have to say or do anything. I am just applying your own standard of responsibility to your political expression.
Syria
in Debates
Posted
The "Arab Spring" phenomenon has never been the spontaneous grassroots movement that the media portrays it to be. In each nation it is set in motion or aided by American and European intelligence agencies. The goal is to destabilize the society, foster civil wars, label the situation a humanitarian crisis to justify military intervention, and eventually install a puppet government that will sell off the country's resources at wholesale prices. It has already happened exactly this way too many times for any reasonable person to consider it a coincidence. It doesn't matter who wins the civil war because they will either be in our pocket or will be replaced. If al-Assad retains power it will be through enough bloodshed that he will be labeled a chemical weapon wielding tyrant and be toppled through military intervention. If the Al-Qaeda rebels win then the justification for intervention will simply be "remember 9/11!!!!" and they will be replaced through military intervention. Either way Syria becomes Iraq 2.0 with US and UK troops occupying it for the next few decades. Syria is not particularly rich in natural resources compared to its neighbors, but its location is itself a resource that makes it an important piece in the strategy of global power resource wars.
What burns my ass about the narrative of "That tyrant attacked those poor innocent freedom fighters we must give them aid!" is the thought that armed rebels should not be subjected to such treatment. If the police stopped a pickup truck with 10 guys carrying rifles and rocket launchers riding in the back heading into Washington D.C. they would not be referred to as "protesters", and they would most likely be killed for their attempted insurrection. When Libya was going through its engineered destabilization the media narrative actually referred to armed rebels as "protesters", as in "Gaddafi deployed helicopter gunships against protesters!". I don't doubt that some civilian protesters were caught in the crossfire and collateral damage, but I do doubt that the military was wasting such resources on people who were chanting and holding signs while a sophisticated militia that had been armed and trained by our notorious intelligence agencies was banging down the palace doors. These were not some poor rednecks with shotguns. In the early days of the conflict someone posted a video of a Libyan fighter jet being shot down by a rebel SAM. That requires a fairly sophisticated weapon, and the list of entities who had the motive and ability to supply such a weapon and necessary training is a very short one, with the US and UK right at the top.