Attacks in Paris

dj- I am so glad to have you back- and I totally understand why you felt it was best to stay away.

POGS Gaddafi may well have been a very dangerous man to get on the wrong side of, but that surely applies to most of the rulers and dictators in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia also rules by fear, torture and brutal force -as has been witnessed in Yemen - and many experts also believe it is responsible for supporting ISIS. Yet our approach to their beheadings, floggings, stonings, etc., is to "continue to engage in dialogue".

An article in Global Research written by Garikai Chengu, a research scholar at Harvard University, made some points that we don't often hear about:

In 1967 when Colonel Gaddafi took power from King Idris, Libya was one of the poorest nations in Africa. By the time Gaddafi was assassinated, Libya was Africa's wealthiest nation. It had the highest GDP and life expectancy on the continent and fewer people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands.

Women in Gaddafi’s Libya had the right to education, hold jobs, divorce, hold property and have an income. The United Nations Human Rights Council praised Gaddafi for his promotion of women’s rights.

Libya is now a failed state and its economy is in a shambles. There are two opposing governments, one composed of Islamist-allied militias and the other of mostly anti-Islamist politicians.

I think the same points can be made about Saddam Hussein. 3 years after he became president, Iraq was awarded the UNESCO prize for eradicating illiteracy. He introduced free education for all and improved the infrastructure and healthcare.

It has been said on threads regarding the recent atrocities that there is no point raking this up because "that was then, this is now". But these attacks on Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan which are estimated to have cost 500,000 lives in Iraq alone must surely have caused hatred and anger and contributed to the rise of fundamentalism. France and the US are now reported to be bombing Raffaq which some commentators say has a population of around 500,000 people. I doubt they are all terrorists.

Thanks durhamjen for the link to the Pilger article. I don't suppose those who complain about links will bother to read it, but I think they would find the historical perspective throws light on what is happening today.

It's good that a heavyweight like John Pilger is weighing in at the time the government is about to state its case for military action and I am surprised the John Prescott article hasn't had a higher profile.

Question Time could be interesting tonight -

Conservative Business Minister Anna Soubry, Shadow Home Secretary Andy Burnham, former editor of Le Monde Natalie Nougayrede, Daily Mail columnist Max Hastings and Al Jazeera broadcaster Mehdi Hasan join David Dimbleby for a debate in London.

I'll watch that with interest Wilma

Hello DJ was going to pm you today to see if you were OK!

Pilger and his historical perspective is someone I always turn to he is the absolute best.
So right about Pol Pot how could I have forgotten that!

I am not an a absolute pacifist, although I have flirted with it in the past, but I have never been able to get through the Nazi problem. What I am though is violence when absolutely all else has failed, and even then I would see it as failure.

When in my teens I liked to think I was a pacifist, but have discovered since pacifism is just an illusion.

The problem with pacifism is that it's an illusion indulged in by people whose own safety is protected by non-pacifists, and that non-violence has probably caused more loss of life and suffering than it has prevented, and the record of pacifists in supporting brutal, corrupt and repressive regimes throughout history.

anya that is too simplistic a description of pacifism. To say that pacifism has caused more suffering is beyond reason.

Pacifists sell arms?

Ghandi caused more loss of life in India that the British army?

It just seems a luxury in today's world - to be a pacifist. I suppose it's always been the same. Very sad.

That is what I think of pacifism as well, that a person can feel self righteous, virtuous ( smug?) in never condoning violence, knowing that the non pacifists will sort it out one way or the other, so that death never comes knocking at their own door.

Oh for goodness sake as I am going to reiterate yet again I am not a pacifist but none of you have read anything about pacifist history to talk the way you are.

I am sure the pacifists who went onto the front line in the two world wars unarmed but carrying stretchers felt very smug and self righteous

Pity some don't bother to read in depth on pacifism but do a quick google instead

Was Ghandi self righteous and smug ?

This is the sort of thing I didnt want about pacifism - any insults.

Can I ask, whitewave and Anniebach, why you havent to date, put more information about the subject on the thread I did start about the subject asking for just that? To properly inform the likes of myself, and those younger, who do not know all the information?

I've just seen a post on facebook saying, 'War = Old people sending young people away to die. Surely we can do better?'

Yet when you ask pacifists what they would do to make things better they just say, 'I don't have an answer'

None of us have a bloody answer. If we did we wouldn't be reading about thousands of people being massacred by IS.

And it's the OLD people who accept that because they've been there before.

Well said Merlot.

I seem to remember a tv programme ages ago about how the US starts wars in order to maintain a fear level in the US population to keep them in line. Give them something to focus on and unite against. And distract from internal problems. The U.K. was also on the list of governments using this tactic. The logic was quite scary in the way it made sense. Does anyone else remember it?

If Syria is a 'planned war' as Mr Pilger implies I think they may have misjudged and it's got out of hand.

Because soon you are more than capable of finding out this information yourself , if not than you are in no position to criticize

I am in the middle of a course about WW1 casualties. There were at the absolute minimum 16 million deaths -we have yet to look at the injured. What did this war solve? - bugger all. We were at it again within 20 years having successfully ensured through our punitive actions, a vicious fascist regime flourished in Germany. Does that ring any bells?
That is why many people are saying think, think and think again what we are doing. Use some intelligence and reason, gungho tactics will solve nothing.

soon, please stop using the I am too young to understand . I am sorry , not being unkind but I think people in their fifties know as much about pacifism as people in their twenties or nineties

Two close friends - 55 and 46 - would be horrified if anyone thought they knew nothing about WW1, WW2, pacifism, suffragism and many other significant episodes in recent history.
No-one in that age group should use the excuse that 'it wasn't on the school curriculum'.
You've had decades to continue your own education and FIND OUT,

The Quaker movement is an interesting example of refusal to join in wars. Not sure if they still keep to that. Soon you would be interested in them.
We had Quaker friends when we lived in Hull. James Reckitt a famous Quaker set up business there and was a great philanthropist.

Yes Quakers are still pacifists. Nice lot I always think

Whitewave, WW1 was the war to end all wars and it was going to last less than six months , 16 million deaths and five years of fighting and we still want war.