I have read some of the posts on these thread including that of the OP and I now understand that Africa may never develop if majority think this way.

First, the people of any country decide their own destiny and not the West unlike some people think. The Libya's have fought for 8 months, now they have a chance at true nation building, so we should congratulate them. I bet that can never happen in Nigeria.

People talk about Ghadafi doing good things in Libya, but Libya produces almost as much as Nigeria's oil production with only 5% of Nigeria's population. In theory, their living standards should be 20 times higher

I just cant understand how people can openly support a tyrant who ruled for 42 years and no one could challenge him. No political parties, no freedom of speech and killed thousands of his own people and we have people on Nairaland saying he did well. I bet they would probably do the same if they were president.

I hope Syria, Yemen and Zimbabwe have the courage to do the same.

For sure, Libyans will live to regret this FOREVER!!!. I think they all clamour for democracy and now i think they are getting it. fine, 90% of the countries where democracy is being practised are not enjoying what libyans are enjoying. Well i will welcome libyans to the real era of TYRANNY. THEY HAVE CALLED FOR IT AND THEY HAVE FOUND IT.

The summary execution makes those who carried it out no better than Gadaffi himself !!! Works out well for all the western politicians who have been todying up to Gadaffi until recently ? Wait to see how long it will be till the vultures are in squabling over the Lybian assets. Oil was always the goal and the prize in this situation !!

@Nashville

I have read some of the posts on these thread including that of the OP and I now understand that Africa may never develop if majority think this way.

First,  the people of any country decide their own destiny and not the West unlike some people think. The Libya's have fought for 8 months, now they have a chance at true nation building, so we should congratulate them. I bet that can never happen in Nigeria.

First of all, the so called "people" who decided their "destiny" are a rag tag bunch of disgruntled elements who are only interested in establishing an autocratic Islamic state and fundamental extreme ideals. Foreign nationals (especially Nigerians) are being slaughtered like rams even as i'm typing this on a daily basis while the west turns a blind eye. These "freedom fighters" are even paid to commit these dastardly acts. Wanna guess where the money is coming from?

People talk about Ghadafi doing good things in Libya, but Libya produces almost as much as Nigeria's oil production with only 5% of Nigeria's population. In theory, their living standards should be 20 times higher

Libya's economy was definitely more than 20 times higher and their standard of living was way way way above that of UK and US citizens. How many Libyan citizens have you seen searching for "greener pasture" in the west?

I just cant understand how people can openly support a tyrant who ruled for 42 years and no one could challenge him. No political parties, no freedom of speech and killed thousands of his own people and we have people on Nairaland saying he did well. I bet they would probably do the same if they were president.

Democracy is a product of the west. If it works for them, fine but what right do they (or you) have to determine the fate of others? China practices communism NOT democracy and today. . .they have one of the strongest economies to the extent America was owing them over $10trillion in debt in 2008 when Obama became president (i wonder how much the US owes now. . .lol). The ideals,fundamentals,way of life,mentality and religion of these countries is not the same as the west.

I hope Syria, Yemen and Zimbabwe have the courage to do the same.

And why is that? Because you want them to become puppet nations of the US? With this kind of mentality, it's no surprise why Africa remains retrogressive. Nigeria has been practicing "democracy" since May 1999. Why are we today? Huh?

Get real abeg!

Libya's economy was definitely more than 20 times higher and their standard of living was way way way above that of UK and US citizens. How many Libyan citizens have you seen searching for "greener pasture" in the west?

@Harakiri- You've finally outdone yourself this time, How can you say the standard of living in Libya is better than US or UK? Have you been to the US or Libya? You continue to make useless claims, I don't know what's wrong with you, it's one thing to hate the western ideologies and it's another thing to make statements that are completely false. Please if you can't cite credible source to bolster your points, then just keep shut!

Nashville:

I have read some of the posts on these thread including that of the OP and I now understand that Africa may never develop if majority think this way.

First,  the people of any country decide their own destiny and not the West unlike some people think. The Libya's have fought for 8 months, now they have a chance at true nation building, so we should congratulate them. I bet that can never happen in Nigeria.

People talk about Ghadafi doing good things in Libya, but Libya produces almost as much as Nigeria's oil production with only 5% of Nigeria's population. In theory, their living standards should be 20 times higher

I just cant understand how people can openly support a tyrant who ruled for 42 years and no one could challenge him. No political parties, no freedom of speech and killed thousands of his own people and we have people on Nairaland saying he did well. I bet they would probably do the same if they were president.

I hope Syria, Yemen and Zimbabwe have the courage to do the same.

You dey mind the loonies we get here. 8 Solid months of bloodshed and death  . . . these people endured so they could be free of the man. 8 Solid months of which those of us with short attention spans found grueling keeping up with. 8 months . . . NO BREAK, and some screwball who has probably fought a single fight in his/her life or even take a stand for anything in their wee lives; people who have never been to libya or known what it means to claim to have lived UNDER Ghadaffi, decides to pass judgement on these people on behalf of the dead tyrant. Some Africans are truly cursed, or someone has dipped a dirty spoon in their brains for fun. ROFL

harakiri:

@Nashville

First of all, the so called "people" who decided their "destiny" are a rag tag bunch of disgruntled elements who are only interested in establishing an autocratic Islamic state and fundamental extreme ideals. Foreign nationals (especially Nigerians) are being slaughtered like rams even as i'm typing this on a daily basis while the west turns a blind eye. These "freedom fighters" are even paid to commit these dastardly acts. Wanna guess where the money is coming from?


Libya's economy was definitely more than 20 times higher and their standard of living was way way way above that of UK and US citizens. How many Libyan citizens have you seen searching for "greener pasture" in the west?

Democracy is a product of the west. If it works for them, fine but what right do they (or you) have to determine the fate of others? China practices communism NOT democracy and today. . .they have one of the strongest economies to the extent America was owing them over $10trillion in debt in 2008 when Obama became president (i wonder how much the US owes now. . .lol). The ideals,fundamentals,way of life,mentality and religion of these countries is not the same as the west.

And why is that? Because you want them to become puppet nations of the US? With this kind of mentality, it's no surprise why Africa remains retrogressive. Nigeria has been practicing "democracy" since May 1999. Why are we today? Huh?

Get real abeg!

Harakiri, I will address all your points

1. The people you talk about are not a rag-tag bunch. They are the people of Libya that have defied Gadhafi's guns and tanks, risking their lives for a casue they believe in. I read in the dailies a medical student at the university College London who left London to go back home to fight. They are not a trained army, but the voice of the people has prevailed.

2. As abbey621 said, I do not know how you can say the standard of living in Libya is better than UK or US. What measure are you using? GDP per capita? Please enlighten us as we would like to know.

3. Democracy may be a product of the West but Gadhafi alone should not decide the fate of 6.5million people. Absolute power should not be concentrated in one individual for 42 years. Democracy or no democracy, tyranny is wrong!

4. No nation is a puppet of another. Nigeria is a slave of a small clique of NIGERIANS in government and not a slave of the West. Get that right, we own our destiny!

Quote from: moHot on Yesterday at 07:48:37 PM

thanks for your comment , but i appreciate people who contribute intelligently to a post without been insultive, so sad its so hard to find on nairaland.


How was he insultive He spoke the truth, and gave the best response and you are Barking,  Well am been insultive now, cuz i want you to know wot an insult is,  You babes need to learn d meaning of insults. Nonsense!!!

There is actually no english word as insultive,  Its insulting or been rude!!! Thanks

What have you gain on the insult now? Life can truely bea better place if we respect our self.

See how they disgraced the poor man.

Why
people are celebrating the demise of Col.
Moammar Ghadafi, I choose to be sober
because another African country has just
fallen into the hands of the imperialist! He
, might hv gone. But he fought imperialism
even to his last second on earth. The
imperialist have seen free oil to exploit. They
could hide under the clog of democracy to
extend capitalism reign of loot to where it
was vehemently resisted. I weep for Africa!

well said my sister, those rebels like foolish children do not understand what ghadaffi was fighting for, but they will come to regret their action and wish they can rewind time. even in england the queen which is a powerful figure in their politics has been there longer than ghadaffi and when she dies she'll hand over to her son or daughter. what we africans should have is just COMMON SENSE what makes us think that these westerners want our prosperity, we should understand that these people cant leave their homes to come to another mans land and fight (risking their lives). just to help them prosper. Ghadaffi unlike many cowardly african leaders was one of the few brave men that stood up to them and he fought to the death. RIP GHADAFFI

Libya is done.

I SUGGEST YOU ALL WATCH "ENDGAME" BY ALEX JONES, IT CAN BE SEEN ONLINE

In Rwanda u blame them for not intervening, now they intervene in Libya to prevent another genocide, u blame them for intervening,
Let me ask you a simple question- is there any singular good in the US foreign policy? , dont bother answering cos we already know wat ur answer will b. You may not know it but at the point you started buying into these ridiculous conspiracy theories u started losing the capacity to see things objectively. I do not support the US on all its foreign policies but trying to justify the authoritarian and dictatorial rule of Gadafi shows that you are either grossly deluded or totally blinded by ridiculous imperialist conspiracy propaganda used by ex treemists in radicalising the empty minded and uninformed.

In Rwanda u blame them for not intervening, now they intervene in Libya to prevent another genocide, u blame them for intervening,

They intervened against a pretend genocide they cooked up, when there was no evidence a genocide would take place,

but a genocide did however occur, against ghaddafi supporters who were all treated like soldiers, and against black Libyans and black africans who were scapegoated as being the only reason ghaddafi was clinging to power. Who spread those lies? Qatar based Al-Jazeera, saudi based Al-Arabiya, and U.S British media.

Were any of these countries involved in the war? Did any of these countries have things to gain? Nope. of course not.

Muammar Gaddafi that killed,cause dead of innocent lives even to his dead.should not be thought of as hero,and any one who support family leadership where there is suppose to be democratic is gaddafic in nature.Dictator have it bad this year
for those that compare the current nigeria democratic leadership as abacha leprosy govt,they should not forget the fasholas,the oshomole,the akpabio of this country.rip gaddafic as you have done to others

must the whole world be democratic, whats the essence of their democracy they preach when they force it on nations, they did it to iraq, they did it to afghanistan. Assuming they practised another form of leadership that will be exactly what the west will be imposing on nations, and we stupid Africans the lowest on the food chain who have entirely lost our roots, origin and culture will be brain washed into accepting. i dont think there is anyone on nairaland for instance who can completely speak their language without adding a part of english. i wish i was chinese.

but a genocide did however occur, against ghaddafi supporters who were all treated like soldiers, and against black Libyans and black africans who were scapegoated as being the only reason ghaddafi was clinging to power. Who spread those lies? Qatar based Al-Jazeera, saudi based Al-Arabiya, and U.S British media.

Were any of these countries involved in the war? Did any of these countries have things to gain? Nope. of course not.

Tell me who is NATO? besides the US has already calculated what they spent in libya and it's over 2 billion dollars. guess who's gonna foot the bill.

After what recently happened in Libya, one is apt to wonder what democracy really stands for. If democracy is the keyword used to justify the destruction of human lives and property, then God help us all!

Yes, the NATO-aided NTC rebels have apparently managed to do away with Muammar Gaddafi, and Ghana, among other African countries has, after a little hesitation, decided to do obeisance to the western powers by recognizing these anti-Gaddafi miscreants. The question now remains: does a post-Gaddafi Libya hope to become a land of milk and honey? Believe me, that would be a very tall order because actually, whether you like Gaddafi or not, Libya, by all appreciable standards, had the highest standard of living in Africa, under Gaddafi. If western-style democracy was a yardstick for determining developmental success, Ghana, Nigeria and other countries in Africa would not be in their present predicaments. Let's take a look at some of the comforts and benefits Libyans enjoyed under Gaddafi and draw our own conclusions.

When Gaddafi took over, Libyans had an average annual income of about $60. His government brought Libya from poverty and debt to prosperity and debt-free status education from the kindergarten stage through college was free. Health care was free as well. Under Gaddafi's oil-revenue-sharing program, each Libyan had $500 (five hundred US dollars) deposited into his or her bank account each month. After marriage, each couple was given as much as $60,000 (sixty thousand US dollars) to spend. Libya gave free land and seeds to anyone who wanted to take up farming as an occupation.

Water and electricity were free in Libya. Petrol/fuel was sold at 75 cents a gallon under Gaddafi. There was virtually no homelessness as everyone was given a home. Undernourishment in Libya under Gaddafi was as low as 2% - a figure lower than that of the world center of "democracy," the USA. For any medical care or health treatments that were unavailable in Libya, the Libyan citizen's full expenses for travel, treatment and accommodation to wherever was required for treatment were borne by the Libyan government. Before Gaddafi, literacy in Libya was only 10%. Under Gaddafi's leadership, literacy has risen to over 80%. Unlike some Arab states, women in Libya under Gaddafi had equal rights; not only as a philosophy, but in practice.

Libyans had a direct participatory democracy based on people's conferences. The Gaddafi regime invested billions to bring fresh water from southern Libya's desert to coastal areas like Tripoli and Benghazi. This man-made river is a worldwide acclaimed achievement that stands as a testimony to Gaddafi's huge contribution to the economic development of Libya. Folks, note that this project which cost Libya about $35 billion (US dollars) was exclusively financed by Libya's Central Bank without borrowing a cent from abroad.

So, if these eye-popping achievements are not enough, then what exactly is the NATO agenda? What are they bringing to Libya that is better than what Gaddafi achieved? I sympathize with Libyans - and why not? In the name of western-style "democracy," a hitherto affluent African nation has decided to take a dangerous u-turn and thus join the large group of third world countries in Africa.

The western propaganda machine is so deadly that they pick and choose what to report to the outside world with regards to the situation in Libya. Whatever event goes against their interests and machinations is not reported. How can NATO bomb roads, ports, buildings and oil fields' equipment and yet claim to be assisting in a just cause? It's about democracy, they contend; and some of us have ignorantly bought into that nonsense! If this maze of confusion and corruption in Ghana is what democracy is about, I'd rather take a Gaddafi-type system any day. Ultimately, life is about the search for the best means of achieving improved and quality lifestyles. Did Gaddafi fail Libyans in that regard?

For NATO, it's been a job "well executed." They have managed once again to bring a strong and thriving economy to its knees. Even as these ignorant rebels chant and wave flags, they are yet to come to grips with reality; they do not realize that they are now in the full clutches of the west - they have now become YES-MEN; and would listen to and obey their NATO masters. As Ghanaians and Africans, we must honestly ask ourselves whether our so-called leaders have what it takes to stand up to the west when it comes to issues that are not in our interest. The usual "Uncle Tom" attitude exhibited by our leaders does not bode well for the African continent. What is the essence of the AU if our leaders cannot take an emphatic stand and come to the aid of one of their own in times of need? A bunch of "Uncle Toms," that's what they are!

Ghanaian and African leaders had better wake up and get their act together! If the Libyan situation has not served as an eye-opener to our recalcitrant and NATO-serving leaders, I don't know what will. God bless mother Ghana!

@putter and @logic101 I agree with you guys. Democracy, or as Fela said "Democrazy," is not for everyone. Each country has to figure out what works best for its people. Besides, African rulers rule for life. Did we forget our history? The kings ruled for life and the role was passed down to their children. And when Ghaddaffi rules for 42 years or so, I say, that is how African rule works. He mirrors the olden days. And as long as his people chose him, na wetin do you?

AWW, am appaled/surprised or whatever english at many comments, for some comments i will just ignore,

For those of us that have been have been able to prove that africans are not dumb ass afterall; i say kudos to us all
you know maybe someone should tell us why the Queen of england is still there oh this is her 1st year on the throne
,anyone who is against the US policy is tagged a terrorist has anyone really sat down to ask why this is so??Troy Davis was accused of killing one white man and he faced the hangman for it, how many blacks have been killed by whites though prosecuted but what was the end result of it ?? i wish we will stop allowing what was fed to us by the media becloud our sense of reasoninig?let us
THINK!
THINK!
THINK!!!

Tunmi:

@putter and @logic101 I agree with you guys. Democracy, or as Fela said "Democrazy," is not for everyone. Each country has to figure out what works best for its people. Besides, African rulers rule for life. Did we forget our history? The kings ruled for life and the role was passed down to their children. And when Ghaddaffi rules for 42 years or so, I say, that is how African rule works. He mirrors the olden days. And as long as his people chose him, na wetin do you?

while i agree with the poster of this thread i totally disagree with this comment and i am posting a retort due to the fact that people from all over frequent this forum and it won't do for them to think most of us nigerians or africans have this view of our leaders.

democracy has never been practised in its real sense of "GOVERNMENT FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE" what has been practised all over the so called democratised countries have been a corrupt form of democracy.in fact africans have been the fore runner of real unadulterated democracy before the westerners introduced their versions to us
an example of a real democracy is the old oyo empire, the alaafin of oyo was chosen by those who represent the empire i.e the oho mess (the chiefs who represent e.g the hunters/bodyguards(security),the head of the ogboni(trad worshippers,the version of religion) the iyaloja representing the women/traders,the otun representing the commercial aspect /traders similar to the iyalode's role e.t.c

they will short list the names of the contenders and then by lots chose who they reckon will be the best candidate,even though the king seems to be the over lord,there are a system of checks and balances and if they have to depose the king there is a system whereby he has to open the lid of a calabash and dies instantly.
this is just a shortened version but the point of my pre amble is that true democracy involves the will of the people and their representatives working on consonance and if for any reason they want another leader a system is in place to depose/remove such leaders to pave way for another one also there are checks and balances.

ghadaffi even though he had some sterling qualities,made the same mistake sadam hussein made by pushing his luck too far and not quitting while the ovation was loudest,times have changed and he should have realised that rather than holding on to a system of governance that has been phased out a long time ago

democracy has never been practised in its real sense of "GOVERNMENT FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE" what has been practised all over the so called democratised countries have been a corrupt form of democracy

While this is true, it is also true that democracy is the most unstable form of govt there is. It is most effective in a homogenous environment. If one looks at the history of the U.S, one can see that things were kept homogenous by determining who could and couldnt vote, white land owners over the age of 21. That was it. They did not want other groups voting because it would not only complicate the process, but make it harder to maintain the status quo.

Democracy is not effective and does not promote change or reform, which is something less developed countries desperately need. The western judicial system is fair in principle, but in most cases easily exploited due to corruption.

With the exception of the united states, the countries that have produced the most in the world have all been monarchies or empires. This only ended when the nobility(rich people) got tired of dealing with kings and their erratic business policies, that is the root of democracy in WESTERN Europe and America. Forget what ancient greece was doing.

BlackLibya:

While this is true, it is also true that democracy is the most unstable form of govt there is. It is most effective in a homogenous environment. If one looks at the history of the U.S, one can see that things were kept homogenous by determining who could and couldnt vote, white land owners over the age of 21. That was it. They did not want other groups voting because it would not only complicate the process, but make it harder to maintain the status quo.

exactly,you have actually made the point, the point here is that it is a corrupt form of democracy as the real ideals and tenets of democracy according to the aristotles and other political thinkers is a system of governance which is meant to represent the wills and views of the majority. excluding any demographic has automatically turned it into an undemocratic arrangement

BlackLibya:

Democracy is not effective and does not promote change or reform, which is something less developed countries desperately need. The western judicial system is fair in principle, but in most cases easily exploited due to corruption.

i will disagree with you on this,even though i am not a fan of democracy as such compared to communism which is my own ideal system of governance all things being equal but you will find out that in a 100% democratic situation things tend to run smoothly as there are checks and balances on the leadership. the whole idea about governance is to maintain a balance as a nation or state or nation state consists of individuals with different religions,class,upbringing,finances e.t.c how do you control a non democratic or a leader with absolute power? remember the ageless quote that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
i want a right where i can freely vote a leader out in concert with like minds,even in the western democracies you have mentioned they do not practise a real unadulterated democracy
case in point the united kingdom is and has always being ruled by the big three pushing out the smaller parties even the first past the post is one of the most undemocratic voting system you can think of .dont even start me on the united states

BlackLibya:

With the exception of the united states, the countries that have produced the most in the world have all been monarchies or empires. This only ended when the nobility(rich people) got tired of dealing with kings and their erratic business policies, that is the root of democracy in WESTERN Europe and America. Forget what ancient greece was doing.

yes but would you agree with the methods being used by most of those empires?
this is why i gave the example of the old oyo empire,while we see it as a monarchy but they actually practised a democratic form of governance because the king does not hold absolute unchecked power.he could be deposed by being pressured/forced by the chiefs representing the people to commit suicide, the chiefs in turn are the first recipient to be shown the displeasure of the populace if the empire is not being run properly.
if you look at the south eastern part,and their republican ideals they even have a more stricter form of checks and balances on their successive igwes,
for me i believe africa unknowingly started the democratic system of governance,the west modernised it in corncert with the greek ideals

exactly,you have actually made the point, the point here is that it is a corrupt form of democracy as the real ideals and tenets of democracy according to the aristotles and other political thinkers is a system of governance which is meant to represent the wills and views of the majority. excluding any demographic has automatically turned it into an undemocratic arrangement

One does not need philosophers and such to make and propose ideas. The African forms of govt were usually sufficient, and the African democracies were far superior than anything in the West. The problem with the European as opposed to African democracy, is that the European democracy is based on the individual. The democracy is setup to protect the minority at the cost of disrupting the majority. The legislative process itself is filled with so many checks and balances, that the only way to overcome them is with corruption. In the African democracy, if the group does not benefit, it does not go, because chiefs were truly accountable to their villages, by more than just being elected or not as you mentioned, lets not forget the religious element.

i will disagree with you on this,even though i am not a fan of democracy as such compared to communism which is my own ideal system of governance all things being equal but you will find out that in a 100% democratic situation things tend to run smoothly as there are checks and balances on the leadership. [i]the whole idea about governance is to maintain a balance as a nation or state or nation state consists of individuals with different religions,class,upbringing,finances [/i]e.t.c how do you control a non democratic or a leader with absolute power? remember the ageless quote that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

That is the concept of an empire or federation dear sir. A nation, is one people, one religion, etc, and etc. In the European democracy, it is conditioned around the system of capitalism, which causes the aggregation of capital. Aggregation of one resource by one group causes imbalance, since capital and not barter is the means of all transactions in this system, aggregators of capital have undue influence over the paralyzed democratic system. This gives them absolute power.

Communism is a centralized govt. Centralized govts cannot effectively distribute resources equally, because the nature of centralization requires hoarding of resources at one point. This creates imbalance, and leads to corruption.

yes but would you agree with the methods being used by most of those empires?
this is why i gave the example of the old oyo empire,while we see it as a monarchy but they actually practised a democratic form of governance because the king does not hold absolute unchecked power.he could be deposed by being pressured/forced by the chiefs representing the people to commit suicide, the chiefs in turn are the first recipient to be shown the displeasure of the populace if the empire is not being run properly.
if you look at the south eastern part,and their republican ideals they even have a more stricter form of checks and balances on their successive igwes,
for me i believe africa unknowingly started the democratic system of governance,the west modernised it in corncert with the greek ideals

agreed, except i dont think the west modernized it, they merely imposed their own system.

Tunmi:

@putter and @logic101 I agree with you guys. Democracy, or as Fela said "Democrazy," is not for everyone. Each country has to figure out what works best for its people. Besides, African rulers rule for life. Did we forget our history? The kings ruled for life and the role was passed down to their children. And when Ghaddaffi rules for 42 years or so, I say, that is how African rule works. He mirrors the olden days. And as long as his people chose him, na wetin do you?

But the People of Libya chose in February to Protest and since then fought for to get DEMOCRACY. Are you suggesting that because their forefathers probably never practiced it before them, Democracy should NEVER be an option they are able to choose for themselves??

Are we saying that because our forefathers never really covered their unclothedness, and probably had bad oral hygiene, we should hence choose to continue in that path because of our past CULTURE? ROFLMAO!!

But the People of Libya chose in February to Protest and since then fought for to get DEMOCRACY. Are you suggesting that because their forefathers probably never practiced it before them, Democracy should NEVER be an option they are able to choose for themselves??

when did they say they were protesting for democracy? When it started they were protesting the arrest of a particular individual. Not for democracy. It didnt come about for democracy until Belhaj and his crew decided they were gonna go get weapons, and start attacking govt buildings and police.

Once the west got a hold of a decent enough "story" they made it about democracy. Sharia law and the democracy the West talks about in Libya do not go hand in hand. Sharia law always leads to a theocracy, which is not a democracy, examples can be seen in northern nigeria.

Again . . . . .

Tunmi:

@putter and @logic101 I agree with you guys. Democracy, or as Fela said "Democrazy," is not for everyone. Each country has to figure out what works best for its people. Besides, African rulers rule for life. Did we forget our history? The kings ruled for life and the role was passed down to their children. And when Ghaddaffi rules for 42 years or so, I say, that is how African rule works. He mirrors the olden days. And as long as his people chose him, na wetin do you?

But the People of Libya chose in February to Protest and since then fought for to get DEMOCRACY. Are you suggesting that because their forefathers probably never practiced it before them, Democracy should NEVER be an option they are able to choose for themselves??

Are we saying that because our forefathers never really covered their unclothedness, and probably had bad oral hygiene, we should hence choose to continue in that path because of our past CULTURE? ROFLMAO!!

^^^^

I saw what u said, but if u read the old reports, which i linked to you in the previous article here.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-786201.64.html

I even went so far as to address all the claims you made there, and show you video and photographic evidence.

yeah, I know you think your posts make a lot of sense but they really don't. You are free to assume what you want of my view of your posts, but allow the lady respond to the questions posed her rather than you throwing in your ramblings as if they somehow render the question irrelevant.

Any-who.  . . . .

Tunmi:

@putter and @logic101 I agree with you guys. Democracy, or as Fela said "Democrazy," is not for everyone. Each country has to figure out what works best for its people. Besides, African rulers rule for life. Did we forget our history? The kings ruled for life and the role was passed down to their children. And when Ghaddaffi rules for 42 years or so, I say, that is how African rule works. He mirrors the olden days. And as long as his people chose him, na wetin do you?

But the People of Libya chose in February to Protest and since then fought for to get DEMOCRACY. Are you suggesting that because their forefathers probably never practiced it before them, Democracy should NEVER be an option they are able to choose for themselves??

Are we saying that because our forefathers never really covered their unclothedness, and probably had bad oral hygiene, we should hence choose to continue in that path because of our past CULTURE? ROFLMAO!!

Kobojunkie:

Again .  . . . .


But the People of Libya chose in February to Protest and since then fought for to get DEMOCRACY. Are you suggesting that because their forefathers probably never practiced it before them, Democracy should NEVER be an option they are able to choose for themselves??

Are we saying that because our forefathers never really covered their unclothedness, and probably had bad oral hygiene, we should hence choose to continue in that path because of our past CULTURE? ROFLMAO!!

BlackLibya:

when did they say they were protesting for democracy? When it started they were protesting the arrest of a particular individual. Not for democracy. It didnt come about for democracy until Belhaj and his crew decided they were gonna go get weapons, and start attacking govt buildings and police.

Once the west got a hold of a decent enough "story" they made it about democracy. Sharia law and the democracy the West talks about in Libya do not go hand in hand. Sharia law always leads to a theocracy, which is not a democracy, examples can be seen in northern nigeria.

BlackLibya addressed the issue of what the fight was about when it began. And the assumption of unclothedness and bad oral hygiene, don't make such accusations without proof to back it up. It reduces the discussion to an amateur level.
Besides, one who chooses to ignore the past will definitely repeat it.

Tunmi:

BlackLibya addressed the issue of what the fight was about when it began. And the assumption of unclothedness and bad oral hygiene, don't make such accusations without proof to back it up. It reduces the discussion to an amateur level.
Besides, one who chooses to ignore the past will definitely repeat it.

First of all, I didn't ask any questions of what the fight was about. Any person who followed the protests and civil war that ensued in Libya should know by now that Libyas demanded democracy, and that is what really what this is about. So, someone trying to create silly twists that are unrelated to this is of no relevance to this.

Back to my question to you, you claim democracy is NOT FOR ALL. I ask you, since the Libyan people, whose ancestors never really practised democracy, choose democracy today as they claimed, why should they be DENIED this? Who gets to DENY any group a right to DEMOCRACY -- the right to decide who gets to rule over them and for how long? Essentially, If the people want it . . . Why do you suggest they be denied it?

There is nothing amateur about mentioning that our ancestors also had bad oral hygiene and many of them walked around Unclad. We still have tribes to this day who walk around Unclad, well some actually put a cloth around their shoulders now. But the point is many things we openly accept and incorporate into our daily lives today where never considered or applied by our ancestors, should we also deny ourselves these ideas, comforts, etc. as a result?

Warning  - Any of you ADD/ADHD youths out there, unable to comprehend what is really being asked, but decide anyway to post garbage in response here , will be ignored!

BlackLibya addressed the issue of what the fight was about when it began. And the assumption of unclothedness and bad oral hygiene, don't make such accusations without proof to back it up. It reduces the discussion to an amateur level.
Besides, one who chooses to ignore the past will definitely repeat it.

Thank you Tummy. Perhaps you would like to see my post in the forum I linked? Unlike what Kobojunkie says, it is a point by point refutation of everything she claimed. It is not a ramble, but each point that I made is backed up with evidence and reports.

Kobojunkie apparently refuses to believe that the protesters were violent and had turned into a pogrom before they started being shot at. In fact, as I point out, the unwillingness to shoot is what caused the situation to get out of hand.

What part of the states u in?

BlackLibya:

Thank you Tummy. Perhaps you would like to see my post in the forum I linked? Unlike what Kobojunkie says, it is a point by point refutation of everything she claimed. It is not a ramble, but each point that I made is backed up with evidence and reports.

Kobojunkie apparently refuses to believe that the protesters were violent and had turned into a pogrom before they started being shot at. In fact, as I point out, the unwillingness to shoot is what caused the situation to get out of hand.

What part of the states u in?

Kobo sees it as a fight for democracy. I know and you know and some others know it did not start out as that. When we pointed out her fallacy, she gave the "I didn't ask for that" bit. She can stick to her principles, and I'll stick to mine. Whoever has the time can peruse through these forums and make their own decisions as to whatever. 

The protests in Tunisia and Egypt had a lot of people assuming Libya would go the same way. And honestly, the "fight for democracy" has always been the best excuse to invade a nation. Iraq, check. Afghanistan, check.

I read your replies and I will take the time to watch those videos and possibly download them before they go off YouTube. Thank you for that. I'm in Maryland, where are you?