Well, Invictus - for me every sadistic thug deserves one thing for sure - a bullet in his (or her, as we have equality of rights nowadays) head. Nothing less, nothing more. Any additional, unnecessary atrocities lead us to become the monsters we were supposed to fight. Not to mention they are simply unsightly :) .

"So Putin33 supports Idi Amin. Not exactly surprising, but still a bit shocking."

When the hell did I say anything about Idi Amin? You do realize that Idi Amin was our boy before he wasn't, right? Obote (who killed more people than Amin, but that's neither here nor there) was nationalizing British corporate interests in the late 1960s, and Amin was known as very pro-British at the time. Amin's regime was immediately recognized by the western powers and quickly turned nationalized companies over to private hands.

Is there any limit to the words you keep putting in my mouth?

allowing training and arming of anti-Gaddafi 'rebels' while Gaddafi helped arm the IRA to fight against the British seems like at least both sides were playing by the same rules.

But no, i've no idea that this is how things work, mainly because people do not rise up unless they have a reason, even if you give them guns.

Previous efforts by the CIA lead to the Taliban's success against the Russians, and many many failures in other countries.

"Putin, I'd be more likely to believe you if your claims were supported with proper academic sources, not someone's blog. Or at least links to respected media sites."

What counts as 'respected media' to you?

They rise up because they want power, and they want to turn Libya into another jihadist caliphate just like the other Al Qaeda groups do. I know you want to say that armed insurrections only happen if there's a "reason". I guess all those people slaughtered by the Pinochet and Franco uprisings got what they deserved.

Generally, I'd say national news networks and most large media groups are respected. For example, NY times, BBC, Al Jazeera....

i never said that reasons were justified.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2011/09/alamin-belhaj-governing-libya

An interview with a member of the National Transitional Council explaining why Sharia law (which gives no rights to women and is a massive step backwards from the laws Muammar Qaddafi had in place.

He had Free Healthcare, Education and gave rights to women, 3 things absent in most regional countries and now is absent in yet another one...

Al Jazeera, the same media group that has been outted for changing their story on orders from the US government? The NY Times, the same newspaper that pushed us into the Iraq war with the bogus Ahmed Chalabi intel? Stories which the NY Times had publicly apologize for?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/2005/01/together_again.html

Or the BBC, the same media group that was the most strident supporter of intervention in Iraq of any western outlet, according to an *academic* study, allowing just 2% of its war coverage to anti-war views.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/jul/04/Iraqandthemedia.politicsandthemedia

Putin, some of us were supporters of the war in Iraq cause we were concerned about the WMD, however BBC and the like changed their views after determining that Iraq didn't have them...

I only said that these sources were, in general, respected media sites. The advantage of having multiple sources is that you have a way of sorting the wheat from the chaff. I'm really not the type to check myself but I'm sure that it would be possible to find flaws in the records of your sources, the slate and the guardian. I'm sure that almost every media source has had its own incidents of being the worst or the odd one out in some way at some point in time. It is thanks to the media that we know the media is flawed. Thanks to this self-supervision, we can find good, reliable media sources. Academic studies also have their own flaws (http://classic.the-scientist.com/news/display/58190/) but thanks to peer-review, these are generally worked out. So, while these sources are not perfect, they still have the means in place to generally report the truth as a collective, worldwide body.

Also, your original blog based source looks suspicious as a URL but when you follow through and see that it's actually from Aletho News, it's actually not as dubious as I originally expected.

"Yeah the "oppression" of free healthcare, education, and subsidized housing. The "oppression" of a secular constitution with female equality in a region completely hostile to such things. Gee, what wouldn't I give, especially if I was a destitute person living in a third world country, for such "oppression". "

Gaddafi was also wanted by the ICC for crimes against humanity. I'm not sure how you can gloss over that. He may have run things with a socialist leaning but that doesn't really excuse executing your political opponents, right?

I wouldn't consider executing political opponents to be a crim against humanity...

nope, i don't think anyone does.

Unless you consider everyone your political opponents and start mass purges including killing random people... *cough* Stalin *cough*

"Gaddafi was also wanted by the ICC for crimes against humanity. I'm not sure how you can gloss over that. He may have run things with a socialist leaning but that doesn't really excuse executing your political opponents, right?"

What 'crimes' would those be? The fabricated stories of soldiers being given Viagra and told to rape people? Or the fabricated stories of warplanes firing on protesters?

The ICC is a joke. Omar al Bashir should be given the Nobel Peace Prize. Instead the ICC has a warrant for his arrest, which has only prolonged the problems in Sudan. The ICC only issues warrants for leaders the West doesn't like. You don't see them issuing warrants for Museveni or Ouattara.

Your beloved rebels are the ones executing/lynching their political opponents. But naturally the running dogs of imperialism simply ignore that.

Considering I'm a supporter of a Palestinian country(which would be Muslimas well) ehat the fuck does it matter? I'd rather they have a Muslim country of free people *choosing* to follow their beliefs than be under the thumb and threat of death by hit squad from a paramilitary regime with no respect for life or freedom.

What Islamic republic has respect for life and freedom, again?

Over-generalization and thin slice of the wedge fallacy, there Putin. Just because one doesn't exist that we know of doesn't mean one can't exist. And as far as I know, Iraq is still a nation of Islam and the ruling powers that are fulling taking over the reins are very much peacable people. Don't let your personal beliefs cloud your objectivity. K?

Er...what? Even the US government doesn't believe the new regime in Iraq is very nice with regard to human rights.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/09/international/middleeast/09abuse.html?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-war-logs-military-leaksex=1299560400&en=70 26db1515533b6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Funny how mainstream media is right when it suits one's purposes, but has a bias when it doesn't...

Oh, and even if Iraq and every other nation of Islamic background were of that nature, it is still an over generalization and a faulty assumption to assume no nation of Islam could ever have a positive human rights reputation.

Why would the US government exaggerate about the abuses of the government it spent billions to put into power?

Not of Islamic background, but explicitly Islamic republics. No Islamic republic can coexist with human rights. Secular Muslim majority governments can and have.

"Unless you consider everyone your political opponents and start mass purges including killing random people... *cough* Stalin *cough*"
+1 how does putin explain this?

"Your beloved rebels are the ones executing/lynching their political opponents. But naturally the running dogs of imperialism simply ignore that."
+1 putin

"Considering I'm a supporter of a Palestinian country(which would be Muslimas well) ehat the fuck does it matter? I'd rather they have a Muslim country of free people *choosing* to follow their beliefs than be under the thumb and threat of death by hit squad from a paramilitary regime with no respect for life or freedom."
The Taliban falls under the first situation, so should we pull out of afghanistan?

"Funny how mainstream media is right when it suits one's purposes, but has a bias when it doesn't..."
He wasn't referencing mainstream media being correct, he was saying the media doesn't like Iraqs current regime...

"no nation of Islam could ever have a positive human rights reputation."
Define Islam. Under sharia law women are slaves to their husbands/fathers. This is the laws that are defined in the Koran, Islams holy book. If they follow the Koran word for word they would be violating human rights...

Why would the... What? The first article says *n othing* about the government being responsible for the attrocities. The following quote from the first sentence makes it clear it is the sectarian militias that are the problem:
"often infiltrated and even dominated by members of sectarian militias, "

It then goes on to say:
""The vast majority of human rights abuses reportedly carried out by government agents were attributed to the police," the department said of the situation in Iraq"

Simple logic says the problem resides in the infiltration of the police by the sectarian militias who have their own ties to Islamic extremism. But what would I, a software engineer, know of logic. Right? And so... how is this the Islmaic *government's* human rights reputation?

Also, an article from 5 years ago about an annual report written and issued earlier that year? Could you not find a similar article on the 2010 or 2011 report? You are desperately grapsing at straws.

I couldn't get up the other article because of the URL having a corruption in it.

@Putin - the OP didn't say an Islamic republic. He said "another islamist country".

"Omar al Bashir should be given the Nobel Peace Prize."

Good grief, Putin33. Can you sink no lower? I can almost understand how you support any autocrat who spouts the correct lefty shibboleths, and even how you deny the Holodomor and Stalin's other crimes for ideological reasons, but the genocide in Darfur has been happening in the clear light of contemporary history. Bashir is a monster, and you're a pretty shitty person yourself for thinking anything else.

Unbelievable.

"Unbelievable."

Your credibility on anything related to human rights went out the window the minute you gave a round of applause for the brutal rape, torture, and murder of a head of state by African-hating jihadists. Actually, it went out the window long before then. Bashir stood by and did nothing as southern militia separated the most oil rich region of his country with no benefits whatsoever in return. The fact that he scrupulously kept things together since the 2005 peace accord and enabled the referendum to occur without interference despite all the provocations from the West & their militia friends, is a credit to his restraint. Darfur has not been called genocide by any knowledgeable observer. It is called such by the usual western NGOs who always clamor for military intervention in Africa. These NGOs are roundly condemned by actual NGOs working in Sudan. The war in Darfur (over water, between farmers and nomads) is over. Bashir has restored peace. He deserves credit for ending not one but two civil wars, one of which had engulfed Sudan since basically the time of independence. The entire AU disagrees with your opinion on this. This has been a systematic campaign of lies against Sudan which has been exposed over and over again. Where was this mythical 9 billion Bashir allegedly held in British banks? Oh right, that never happened. The west has been trying the best it can to topple a government that has done nothing but help us in the war on terror. It's a disgrace.

"Simple logic says the problem resides in the infiltration of the police by the sectarian militias who have their own ties to Islamic extremism. But what would I, a software engineer, know of logic. Right? And so... how is this the Islmaic *government's* human rights reputation?"

? So if Islamist militia basically control the police and engage in wanton human rights abuses, and the government knows about it and does nothing, that means its absolved of any responsibility? What?

"Could you not find a similar article on the 2010 or 2011 report? You are desperately grapsing at straws."

I also posted an article from 2010. It is you who is grasping for straws. When did this miraculous turn of events occur where you claim that the Iraqi government became peaceful and human rights respecting? Since we can't bring up the US governments own complaints about it, or a 2010 wikileak document about it, what can we bring up?

" the OP didn't say an Islamic republic. He said "another islamist country"."

A distinction without a difference. Islamism is the ideology of Islamic Republics.