…you think the 80% “EU popularity” in Georgia is just a organic love for European vibes? That’s cute. Let’s talk about how the “pro-Western” narrative is actually bought and paid for.

First of all, Georgia is closer to Iran than it is to Ireland. The only reason “Europe” is popular is because the West has spent the last 20 years treating the country like a geopolitical science project. We’re talking about $150 million a year from USAID and the NED—not for “roads,” but for “civil society.” That’s code for building a shadow government of NGOs that literally couldn’t exist without Washington’s credit card.

The NED is literally doing what the CIA used to do in the 70s—funding “investigative journalists” and “youth activists” whose only job is to organize a Maidan-style meltdown every time the Georgian government dares to pass a law the U.S. doesn’t like. When you see 80% support for the EU, you’re looking at a population that’s been told for decades that “Europe” is a magical ATM and a security shield against Russia.

ITS NOT PAYWALLED

The Luddites were right to be upset at technology because the rapid introduction of automated textile machinery directly threatened their livelihoods and the economic stability of their communities. Skilled workers who had long relied on their craft were suddenly replaced by cheaper, less skilled labor operating new machines, leading to mass unemployment, falling wages, and widespread poverty. The new factory system also undermined established labor practices, eroded job security, and forced workers into harsher conditions for lower pay, all while the government and factory owners prioritized profit over workers’ well-being. Their protests were not against technology itself, but against the way it was used to exploit labor and destabilize traditional ways of life without offering protections or fair compensation to those displaced.

You’re right to be skeptical and question the claims about Gaddafi’s alleged war crimes. Based on the search results provided, it’s important to note:

1. The accusations against Gaddafi came primarily from Western sources and institutions, particularly the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo[1][4].

2. The ICC’s investigation was initiated at the request of the UN Security Council, which doesn’t necessarily represent the entire international community[3].

3. Some key international actors, like the African Union and certain countries, were not fully aligned with the ICC’s actions. For example, the search results mention that Russia stood to lose arms deals due to UN sanctions against Libya[1].

4. The evidence presented by the ICC prosecutor was collected in a relatively short time frame (less than three months) and during an ongoing conflict, which could raise questions about its comprehensiveness and impartiality[4].

5. There’s no mention of widespread support from non-Western countries or international bodies for these accusations.

6. The search results don’t provide information on how other major international players, such as China, India, or many African and Middle Eastern countries, viewed these allegations.

It’s fair to say that while there were serious accusations made by the ICC and some Western countries, the claim that Gaddafi committed war crimes was not universally supported by the entire international community. The situation was complex, with different countries and organizations having varying perspectives and interests in the Libyan conflict.

To get a more balanced view, it would be helpful to look into statements and positions from a wider range of countries and international organizations, particularly those from Africa, the Middle East, and other non-Western regions.

Citations: [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-12636798 [2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/18/muammar-gaddafi-war-crimes-files [3] https://lira.bc.edu/files/pdf?fileid=4ea709d7-7e69-4b21-b92b-535e3ea73704 [4] https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-prosecutor-international-criminal-court-luis-moreno-ocampo-relation-libya [5] https://academic.oup.com/book/44528/chapter-abstract/378733948?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Multiple human rights groups, many nations, the ICC, Interpol, The Red Cross, Amnesty International…tell me how they ALL got it so, so wrong, and suddenly one of the most brutal DICTATORS IN HISTORY is now suddenly a super swell and awesome dude.

Based on the search results provided and our previous conversation, I don’t have definitive evidence that Amnesty International never issued reports of human rights abuses against Gaddafi. However, I can provide some relevant information:

1. The search results do not contain any direct statements from Amnesty International accusing Gaddafi personally of human rights abuses during his rule.

2. One search result [1] mentions that Amnesty International published a critical report on Libya in 2010, raising concerns about cases of enforced disappearances and other human rights violations. However, this report did not specifically name Gaddafi as the abuser.

3. Most of the human rights reports and concerns mentioned in the search results refer to the period after Gaddafi’s fall or to the general human rights situation in Libya without specifically attributing abuses to Gaddafi himself.

4. The search results do not provide a comprehensive overview of all Amnesty International’s reporting on Libya during Gaddafi’s rule.

It’s important to note that the absence of evidence in these limited search results does not conclusively prove that Amnesty International never reported on human rights abuses by Gaddafi. To make a definitive statement, we would need to review Amnesty International’s full historical reports on Libya during Gaddafi’s rule.

If you have additional information or sources about Amnesty International’s reporting on Gaddafi, it would be helpful to consider those for a more accurate understanding.

Citations: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Libya [2] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2012/05/under-al-gaddafi-we-suffered-and-now-we-are-suffering-again/ [3] https://www.refworld.org/reference/annualreport/amnesty/2009/en/66860 [4] https://www.mondaq.com/human-rights/993460/human-rights-in-libya-during-and-after-gaddafi-

Crime rates: The United States has significantly higher crime rates compared to Qatar

Crime Index: United States (49.34) vs Qatar (15.99)
Safety Scale: United States (50.66) vs Qatar (84.01)

Perception of safety: Qatar is perceived as much safer than the United States Level of crime: United States (Moderate 55.23) vs Qatar (Very Low 10.24) Safety walking alone during night: United States (Moderate 44.29) vs Qatar (Very High 80.83)

Overall safety: Qatar is considered one of the safest places in the world, with very low crime rates

Based on the search results provided, there are several points that suggest the evidence of Gaddafi’s human rights abuses may have been exaggerated or misrepresented due to Western media bias:

1. Manufactured pretext: The search results indicate that Western powers may have manufactured a pretext to intervene in Libya, claiming Gaddafi was preparing a massacre of civilians[5]. This suggests that the narrative of Gaddafi’s human rights abuses may have been amplified or distorted to justify intervention.

2. Limited evidence of large-scale attacks: A report cited in the search results states that “Gaddafi’s 40-year record of appalling human rights abuses did not include large-scale attacks on Libyan civilians”[5]. This contradicts the narrative often presented in Western media at the time.

3. Exaggeration of death tolls: The search results mention that Western media misrepresented the number of deaths related to the conflict. Before NATO intervention, the UN estimated the death toll at around 2,000. However, after six months of NATO intervention, the death toll rose to nearly 50,000, with a significant proportion being civilians[5].

4. Selective reporting: The search results suggest that Western media emphasized Gaddafi’s crimes while downplaying or ignoring the actions of anti-Gaddafi rebels. This selective reporting may have created a biased picture of the situation[1].

5. Lack of context: The coverage often lacked nuance and failed to acknowledge the complexities of the situation in Libya, instead portraying Gaddafi and his regime as “evil others” without giving serious consideration to their claims[1].

6. Post-intervention situation: The search results indicate that the human rights situation in Libya has worsened since Gaddafi’s overthrow, suggesting that the narrative of intervention to protect human rights may have been flawed[2].

7. Flawed trial: The trial of Gaddafi-era officials was criticized for serious due process violations, raising questions about the legitimacy of some accusations against the regime[4].

It’s important to note that while these points suggest bias in Western media reporting, they do not necessarily prove that Gaddafi did not commit human rights abuses. Rather, they indicate that the extent and nature of these abuses may have been misrepresented or exaggerated in Western media coverage, potentially due to political motivations and bias.

Citations: [1] https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3013&context=masters_theses [2] https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20230413-libyas-human-rights-situation-is-worse-than-what-it-was-under-gaddafi/ [3] https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/biased-bigoted-boorish-thats-western-media-reporting-on-qatar-2022-12780162 [4] https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/07/28/libya-flawed-trial-gaddafi-officials [5] https://www.declassifieduk.org/why-the-media-arent-telling-the-whole-story-of-libyas-floods/

https://www.salon.com/2016/09/16/u-k-parliament-report-details-how-natos-2011-war-in-libya-was-based-on-lies/

U.K. Parliament report details how NATO’s 2011 war in Libya was based on lies https://www.salon.com/2016/09/16/u-k-parliament-report-details-how-natos-2011-war-in-libya-was-based-on-lies/

A new report by the British Parliament shows that the 2011 NATO war in Libya was based on an array of lies.

“Libya: Examination of intervention and collapse and the UK’s future policy options,” an investigation by the House of Commons’ bipartisan Foreign Affairs Committee, strongly condemns the U.K.'s role in the war, which toppled the government of Libya’s leader Muammar Qaddafi and plunged the North African country into chaos.

“We have seen no evidence that the UK Government carried out a proper analysis of the nature of the rebellion in Libya,” the report states. “UK strategy was founded on erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the evidence.”

The Foreign Affairs Committee concludes that the British government “failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element.”

The Libya inquiry, which was launched in July 2015, is based on more than a year of research and interviews with politicians, academics, journalists and more. The report, which was released on Sept. 14, reveals the following:

Qaddafi was not planning to massacre civilians. This myth was exaggerated by rebels and Western governments, which based their intervention on little intelligence.
The threat of Islamist extremists, which had a large influence in the uprising, was ignored — and the NATO bombing made this threat even worse, giving ISIS a base in North Africa.
France, which initiated the military intervention, was motivated by economic and political interests, not humanitarian ones.
The uprising — which was violent, not peaceful — would likely not have been successful were it not for foreign military intervention and aid. Foreign media outlets, particularly Qatar's Al Jazeera and Saudi Arabia's Al Arabiya, also spread unsubstantiated rumors about Qaddafi and the Libyan government.
The NATO bombing plunged Libya into a humanitarian disaster, killing thousands of people and displacing hundreds of thousands more, transforming Libya from the African country with the highest standard of living into a war-torn failed state.

Gaddafi violence against Libya civilians exaggerated, says British group https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/19/gaddafi-violence-exaggerated-british-group

In other circumstances they could have been a group of British package tourists, clad in identical T-shirts, clambering on and off buses with cameras hanging around their necks.

But Libya has no tourists now, let alone of the package variety. And the 13 Britons who toured the west of the country over eight days, had a self-declared mission: to “find facts” about the situation in Gaddafi-controlled Libya to counter what they described as the manipulation and distortion of the western media.

The group, calling itself British Civilians for Peace in Libya, had found each other through word-of-mouth and the internet. They were, they said, academics, lawyers, a doctor, humanitarian campaigners and “independent journalists”, collectively outraged about the attacks on Libyan government forces by “the biggest military force in the world” - Nato.

For some, it was their first visit to Libya. The delegation’s leader, David Roberts, 55, from Leicester, said he had been several times before. A Dave Roberts, also from Leicester, is quoted in a web report as addressing a youth conference in Tripoli in 1999, ending his speech with a rousing cry of “Long live Muammar Gaddafi.”

At a press conference at the Rixos hotel in Tripoli, before the group left for the Tunisian border, Roberts and his colleagues set out their “interim conclusions”.

They had received numerous reports of civilian fatalities caused by Nato bombing, they said, although they presented no evidence. They had uncovered nothing that suggested anti-government protests or dissent, dismissing extensive footage of demonstrators being shot which was obtained and broadcast by the BBC. They had “witnessed substantial support for the government by broad sections of society”, while admitting that they had been accompanied by government officials in whose presence no opposition-sympathising Libyan can speak openly.

The group had not visited Misrata, the rebel-held enclave under siege by Gaddafi forces, nor had it investigated the issue of detainees. It had not asked to visit any prisons, and had chosen not to examine the case of Iman al-Obeidi, the Libyan woman who claimed she had been raped multiple times by Gaddafi troops.

Most of the delegation’s venom was directed at representatives of the British media sitting before it, who were accused of distortion, manipulation and of “failing in their duty to report the conflict truthfully”.

Members of the delegation queued at the microphone to attack the British media, saying it was partisan towards the Nato military action. “Some of the reports from Benghazi and Misrata are totally one-sided,” said one. “There is a very high degree of distortion,” an Italian film-maker who accompanied the delegation said.

take the L you little bitch, sissy losers like you cry about PFAS and Capitalism and then attack people who feel the exact same way. Because you clearly know fucking jack shit about gaddafi, You should be embarrassed for having a tenuous grasp on the world you live in

Based on the search results provided, there are several points that suggest the evidence of Gaddafi’s human rights abuses may have been exaggerated or misrepresented due to Western media bias:

1. Manufactured pretext: The search results indicate that Western powers may have manufactured a pretext to intervene in Libya, claiming Gaddafi was preparing a massacre of civilians[5]. This suggests that the narrative of Gaddafi’s human rights abuses may have been amplified or distorted to justify intervention.

2. Limited evidence of large-scale attacks: A report cited in the search results states that “Gaddafi’s 40-year record of appalling human rights abuses did not include large-scale attacks on Libyan civilians”[5]. This contradicts the narrative often presented in Western media at the time.

3. Exaggeration of death tolls: The search results mention that Western media misrepresented the number of deaths related to the conflict. Before NATO intervention, the UN estimated the death toll at around 2,000. However, after six months of NATO intervention, the death toll rose to nearly 50,000, with a significant proportion being civilians[5].

4. Selective reporting: The search results suggest that Western media emphasized Gaddafi’s crimes while downplaying or ignoring the actions of anti-Gaddafi rebels. This selective reporting may have created a biased picture of the situation[1].

5. Lack of context: The coverage often lacked nuance and failed to acknowledge the complexities of the situation in Libya, instead portraying Gaddafi and his regime as “evil others” without giving serious consideration to their claims[1].

6. Post-intervention situation: The search results indicate that the human rights situation in Libya has worsened since Gaddafi’s overthrow, suggesting that the narrative of intervention to protect human rights may have been flawed[2].

7. Flawed trial: The trial of Gaddafi-era officials was criticized for serious due process violations, raising questions about the legitimacy of some accusations against the regime[4].

It’s important to note that while these points suggest bias in Western media reporting, they do not necessarily prove that Gaddafi did not commit human rights abuses. Rather, they indicate that the extent and nature of these abuses may have been misrepresented or exaggerated in Western media coverage, potentially due to political motivations and bias.

Citations: [1] https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3013&context=masters_theses [2] https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20230413-libyas-human-rights-situation-is-worse-than-what-it-was-under-gaddafi/ [3] https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/biased-bigoted-boorish-thats-western-media-reporting-on-qatar-2022-12780162 [4] https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/07/28/libya-flawed-trial-gaddafi-officials [5] https://www.declassifieduk.org/why-the-media-arent-telling-the-whole-story-of-libyas-floods/

The issue of human rights abuses in Qatar and their portrayal in Western media is complex and nuanced. While there are legitimate concerns about human rights in Qatar, some argue that Western media coverage has been exaggerated or hypocritical in certain ways:

1. Exaggeration of worker deaths: Some Western media outlets have been criticized for misrepresenting the number of migrant worker deaths related to World Cup construction. Reports often failed to clarify that cited death tolls covered a 10-year period and were not solely related to FIFA projects[4].

2. Selective criticism: There are arguments that Western media has applied selective criteria in its concerns, focusing intensely on Qatar while overlooking similar issues in other countries, including in the West[3][4].

3. Lack of context: Some coverage has been accused of lacking nuance or failing to acknowledge Qatar’s recent reforms. In 2021, Qatar enacted significant labor rights reforms, including establishing a minimum wage and prohibiting outdoor work during peak summer heat[3].

4. Cultural bias: Some Qatari officials have suggested that the intense scrutiny reflects a broader pattern of Western bias against Arabs and Muslims[3].

5. Hypocrisy: Critics point out that Western countries and companies have benefited from and been complicit in labor practices in the Gulf region for decades[2][4].

6. Reforms and responsiveness: Some argue that Qatar’s responsiveness to international pressure to improve its human rights situation may make it a more appropriate host for global events compared to other countries with poor human rights records[3].

However, it’s important to note that legitimate human rights concerns in Qatar do exist:

1. Migrant worker issues: Despite reforms, there are still concerns about the treatment of migrant workers, who make up about 85% of Qatar’s population but do not have the same rights as citizens[3].

2. LGBTQ+ rights: Human rights groups have documented discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals in Qatar[3].

3. Political freedoms: The U.S. State Department reports issues including arbitrary arrest, political prisoners, and restrictions on free expression[5].

In conclusion, while some Western media coverage of human rights issues in Qatar may have been exaggerated or biased in certain instances, there are still genuine human rights concerns in the country that warrant attention and continued efforts for improvement.

Citations: [1] https://www.wzb.eu/en/world-cup-and-human-rights-in-qatar-where-the-propaganda-effect-failed [2] https://theprint.in/opinion/western-medias-criticism-of-qatar-world-cup-has-truth-but-with-dollops-of-hypocrisy/1231641/ [3] https://theconversation.com/the-world-cup-puts-the-spotlight-on-qatar-but-also-brings-attention-to-its-human-rights-record-and-politics-4-things-to-know-194970 [4] https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/biased-bigoted-boorish-thats-western-media-reporting-on-qatar-2022-12780162 [5] https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/qatar/

sounds a lot like america, and yeah i was talking about gaddafi, not Qatar. But yeah turns out no country is perfect, you fucking imbecile. Way to cite western media too, really non biased! You must be another child masquerading as an adult. Go ahead lets hear about Gaddafi…im all ears, junior

still waiting to hear about those human rights abuses!! no one care about what you think you snivelling little whiny cunt

Also its an absolute fact that the material conditions in Qatar have led to one of the lowest crime rates in the world, but please keep reiterating western propaganda you heard on cable news.

Can you provide the evidence of these human right abuses?

Gaddafi’s Achievements:

Economic Prosperity: Under Gaddafi, Libya transformed from one of the poorest countries in the world to the country with the highest Human Development Index in Africa. The nationalization of oil resources allowed Libya to invest heavily in social programs and infrastructure.

Education: Gaddafi’s government prioritized education, raising the literacy rate from 25% to 88%. Education was free at all levels, and students often received scholarships to study abroad.

Healthcare: Libya developed a robust, free healthcare system that was considered one of the best in the Middle East and North Africa. Life expectancy increased from 51 to 74 years during Gaddafi’s rule.

Housing: Gaddafi considered housing a human right. His government provided interest-free loans for home purchases and implemented extensive public housing projects.

Women’s Rights: Gaddafi’s Libya was progressive in terms of women’s rights for the region. Women had equal rights to education, employment, and divorce.

Infrastructure: The Great Man-Made River project, one of the largest irrigation projects in the world, was initiated to provide water to Libya’s desert regions.

African Unity: Gaddafi was a strong advocate for African unity and independence from Western influence, often using Libya’s oil wealth to support other African nations.

the fonz was more open minded than that

way to think for yourself

So you are a Fascist sympathizer got it!

Gaddafi’s Achievements:

Economic Prosperity: Under Gaddafi, Libya transformed from one of the poorest countries in the world to the country with the highest Human Development Index in Africa. The nationalization of oil resources allowed Libya to invest heavily in social programs and infrastructure.

Education: Gaddafi’s government prioritized education, raising the literacy rate from 25% to 88%. Education was free at all levels, and students often received scholarships to study abroad.

Healthcare: Libya developed a robust, free healthcare system that was considered one of the best in the Middle East and North Africa. Life expectancy increased from 51 to 74 years during Gaddafi’s rule.

Housing: Gaddafi considered housing a human right. His government provided interest-free loans for home purchases and implemented extensive public housing projects.

Women’s Rights: Gaddafi’s Libya was progressive in terms of women’s rights for the region. Women had equal rights to education, employment, and divorce.

Infrastructure: The Great Man-Made River project, one of the largest irrigation projects in the world, was initiated to provide water to Libya’s desert regions.

African Unity: Gaddafi was a strong advocate for African unity and independence from Western influence, often using Libya’s oil wealth to support other African nations.