@brianluce
I suggest you to spend slightly more time on topic :-)

>Of course, if you want to stay in power, you have to keep large segments of the population happy -- typically the military and police are well taken care of among others

And this is just lie.

@Vitaliy

And this is just lie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This is not a lie. I have lived for many years in SE Asia. And in those countries, large segments of the population support the crooked political leadership for the simple reason that they're well fed and have motorbike to ride around on. I have observed these things first hand, not from watching videos from left wing Italian journalists and reading conspiracy blogs.

And the USA's interest in the middle east are security for Israel and viable oil supply. Two goals that are often at odds with one another. Either way, Unstable governments don't support those objectives. We don't really care much about spreading democracy. That's a canard.

"Arab Spring" is a load of crap. It's more like "Islamic Spring." They are morphing from semi secular dictatorships to some form of Islamic Pseudo Democracy dictatorship with one party will rule, kinda like Iran or Malaysia. It's almost like 1979 Iran all over again. That's my take anyway.

@GOODEMPIRE
I can't understand why on Earth if somewhere there is someone you don't like (especially if this "dictator" is sitting on top of oil deposits that you desperately need) you can have a self-acclaimed right to intervene, bomb, kill, privatize somebody's property and justify that by some crappy words about democracy?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Democracy? Who cares about that! We're looking for them WMD's!!!!

What? No WMD's? Okay, it's for democracy then!

@brianluce

GOODEMPIRE has good point.
Many think that it will continue forever and ever. But it won't :-(

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said Friday that ousted Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi was loved by his people and that the rebellion that toppled him was not a popular uprising.

"This wasn't a popular uprising," like in other north African countries "where the wind of freedom begins to blow," he told young supporters of his People of Freedom party gathered in Rome.

"Powerful men decided to give life to a new era by putting out Qaddafi," he said.

"This wasn't a popular uprising because Qaddafi was loved by his people, as I was able to see when I went to Libya."

Italy is Libya's former colonial ruler and enjoyed close economic and diplomatic ties with the Qaddafi regime prior to the conflict before joining international efforts against the leader.

He told party supporters that strengthening the country's position in Libya was "important for oil and gas supplies."

@brianluce


Once we decide something is true (for whatever reason), we often
make up new reasons for believing it. Consider, for example, a study
that I ran some years ago. Half my subjects read a report of a study
that showed that good firefighting was correlated with high scores on
a measure of risk-taking ability; the other half of the subjects read the
opposite: they were told of a study that showed that good firefighting
was negatively correlated with risk-taking ability, that is, that risk takers
made poor firefighters. Each group was then further subdivided.
Some people were asked to reflect on what they read, writing down
reasons for why the study they read about might have gotten the results
it did; others were simply kept busy with a series of difficult geometrical
puzzles like those found on an IQ test.
Then, as social psychologists so often do, I pulled the rug out
from under my subjects: "Headline, this news just in — the study you
read about in the first part of the experiment was a fraud. The scientists
who allegedly studied firefighting actually made their data up!
What I'd like to know is what you really think — is firefighting really
correlated with risk taking?"
Even after I told people that the original study was complete
rubbish, people in the subgroups who got a chance to reflect (and
create their own explanations) continued to believe whatever they
had initially read. In short, if you give someone half a chance to make
up their own reasons to believe something, they'll take you up on the
opportunity and start to believe it — even if their original evidence is
thoroughly discredited. Rational man, if he (or she) existed, would
only believe what is true, invariably moving from true premises to
true conclusions. Irrational man, kluged product of evolution that he
(or she) is, frequently moves in the opposite direction, starting with a
conclusion and seeking reasons to believe it.



From The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind by Gary Marcus

>How do I know which is right and wrong? I heard someone say once that you can pick any opinion you like, and if you look hard enough you will always be able find people on the internet supporting it.

Do not turn deaths on other people into joke, ok?
And use your mind, please.

>about echo chamber

I don't give a fuck about it.

>Your recent posts on Libya have made me start to question much of the information I see in mainstream media.

In is interesting why you did not start to question it much much earlier.

>In my head I have very serious questions about how we can trust the validity of our information sources.

I suggest you to make some research on this :-)

>Which was my point about the Echo Chamber. My preformed views cause me to select and listen to the facts which support my own views? Particularly when these same views are flooded throughout.

Really, Sam, I do not know how this is related to this topic.
Try to read and watch something, at least.
It is not philosophical dispute.

>but eventually felt that they had to in order to prevent Gaddafi committing atrocities

I can answer something hard to it, but won't.
All I can say that your goverment are criminals.

>Your first reply to me sounded hostile, like I'd offended you. Is it true? Or is it just difference in our use of language? Sometimes these things are hard to tell when communication is just text.

You did not offend me, you just wrote inappropriate things.
I think it is not our different use of language, but different understanding about things that are approptiate.

@Vitaliy
If that passage means I'm trusting propagandistic media reports that are not accurate with regards to the situation in Libya, how do you know you're not guilty of the same thing? The news links you posted aren't particularly impressive -- yet you seem to believe every word. Aren't you also potentially guilty of the same mistake? Or do you have other sources? You've supported your claims with media reports so far.
Also, I'm not sure about what's going on in Libya, however it mirrors the situations in Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, UAE, Jordan, ISRAEL, Saudi Arabia (before the Royal Family started writing checks) and arguably the UK. Some sort of social pathology seems to be moving across the region if not the planet. If you're arguing that the west's lust for oil is behind it all, I'll say it's conspiratorial and not credible because of the scope of these protests which span multiple nations. And as I've already argued, keeping foolish egotistical dictators like Ghaddafi in power isn't good for democracy but it is good for stability. The region is unstable right now because of the turmoil and that alone poses a threat to oil supplies which again cuts against the conspiracy theories.
Generally though, I don't know enough about the situation to be sure one way or the other, you may turn out to be 100% right in your assessment. Time will tell.

@brianluce And as I've already argued, keeping foolish egotistical dictators like Ghaddafi in power isn't good for democracy but it is good for stability.

Let us all take care about democracy in our own backyard. Because if you ever try to fix my democracy (I particularly mean Russia, but China is somewhere near too) be prepared that we come and finally fix yours.