"Why I prefer Gaddafi!"

"I saw the TV pictures from Libya and heard many news about violent clashes, killed and wounded. Foreign television (ours not have major problems) are competing in the savagery of the regime and reports on Gaddafi's profile or his family, suggesting that the winds of change came in Libya and that this dictator will be taken down in a later for people who want democracy. But among all these enthusiastic and disgusted, I confess that I feel a little uncomfortable. I seem to overlook something very important.Too few are those who look carefully and try to understand, before they throw in one direction or another. Sure, it's easy to point fingers on Gaddafi only is a leader who has led Libya since 42 years. Instead, it is more difficult to weigh what might happen if he disappears, and the power is taken by others with a more radical political agenda. Libya is an oil exporter, and the wave of riots in the Arab world is likely to bring to power Islamic forces, so it is not without interest who comes out victorious in the battles for Tripoli.Any analysis of the current situation must begin with a series of questions relating to the Libyan people and its desires. Is there such a people, beyond the amount tribes who take their age between Libyan state borders? Most likely not. Loyalties to family, clan and tribe (in that order) are the only ones that matter in Libyan society. Then what the crowd wants, without chip? A better life? Libyans are doing better than many in Africa or the Arab world. Sure, living poorly compared with Europeans, but in Africa or the Arab world are very good (Morocco, Algeria and Egypt are far from standards of living in Libya). Maybe he wants freedom? To Gaddafi, certainly yes, but freedom has it celaşi Libyan understand it is us? A choice of truly free, there is a representative parliament, rule of law to protect minorities from the majority of violent impulses, equal rights for women and men, a state that does not degenerate into Islam? Why not ask these questions before you take on his opponents face with Gaddafi and pray for their victory? Perhaps because their response is too politically incorrect to be liked.It is true that Gaddafi was a Muslim leader who did not hesitate to adopt an Islamist rhetoric, once, even supported terrorist actions, the most famous of them being the collapse of the Lockerbie plane English. But what is overlooked is that it did not for reasons Qur'an, but socialist, anti-colonialist. Gaddafi one be a man of many crimes on his conscience, but an old Arab revolutionary, was not and is not an Islamist, and spoke of revolution in his last speech is not an invention but a reality.In 1969, the then king of Libya, Idris is considered too weak, corrupt and pro-Western to be allowed to lead the country, was taken down by a coup led by army. Immediately after seizing the reins of power, the Revolutionary Command Council military power of the new order said the Libyan revolutionary action was "unity, freedom and socialism." You read that right, socialism among the objectives of the Revolution of 1969. Few know, but Gaddafi is a genuine Arab national socialist revolutionary. When talking about martyrdom, it does as a worthy descendant of tribal culture in Libya and the higher principles of socialism advocate armed, not in the Mujahedin who is preparing to die in battle with the infidels. In fact, with all green flag and anthem Allah Akbar, Libya is a socialist Jamahiriya popular, not an emirate. In the past, back when our parents were young, the Libyan leader has tried to create faithful to the ideals of pan-Arab era, a nationalist federation that brings together several Arab countries, a national-socialist federation, not an Islamic caliphate.All these are important, as important as the origin of the Libyan uprising (Benghazi, Libya's an Islamic citadel, known as Anti-Libyan city of the Islamic Group, founded in 1995 with the aim of getting out on Gaddafi), Emirate of Barqa proclamation, aliens attacking or taking them as hostages (Caution! were attacked by Muslims in Bangladesh and, bitter working on money for nothing at all stations on the Libyans did not want, you know what awaits the spades in the hands of white Christians "people" unleashed). Those who oppose today's Muammar al-Gaddafi are not conducive to Western-style democracy, but another part of the Arab armed gang, an even more dangerous than the one led by Colonel Libya - the Islamists.Back to what I wrote above and say that there is irrelevant if the country is ruled by Islamic or national-socialist type of Gaddafi. Finally, Gaddafi has shown he can be persuaded, even by force, to stop mad (Libyan nuclear program was abandoned in 2003). But he is a socialist, not a Mujahedin who wants to sacrifice in fighting the Crusaders .* imagine someone that Islamists (holy warriors, who yearn for Muslim heaven where they were told that they will keep the endless sex orgies with 72 virgins ) will be as easily impressed? I hope that it would be tragic.I conclude this short series of observations, saying that as far as I am concerned, I prefer Muammar al-Gaddafi, however much he would revolt in the Arab world inconştienţii inciting the revolution. For a while, I learned that good intentions in politics are not even worth a damn, and how Libyan political scene offers the luxury of not choose well, you not only have to choose between bad, hoping it ends soon with as few casualties and victory can be convinced, not those whose ultimate goal is accession to the heavenly kingdom mujahedin.* Moreover, it is undeniable that, over time, Gaddafi was able to keep the Islamists at bay. If necessary, he massacred, as did Abu Salim Prison. It is not accidental that the Egyptian Islamist Qaradawi, who is in full swing post-Mubarak Egypt politically, issued a fatwa that called for his death, all Islamists will blood. "
Article taken from înliniedreaptă for which thanks.
Personal Comments:
1) observe the principle of Divide et Impera used as in Iraq.
2) is defeated on acum.Însă Gaddafi bloodbath will continue.
3) Companies such primitive tribes in Libya need DEMOCRACY but not a dictatorship.
4) The main objective is not contează.Admir PETROLUL.Restul intelligence of Americans 30 years and now supported him renounce it as a cloth case folosită.Amintesc the Georgian president who established the U.S. by "orange revolution" in 2004, when he woke up with Russian troops in the presidential palace found the same thing: Americans have done that ... it's raining.