Israel & Saudi Arabia are Sisters!

Linquist, I love all your posts, but in this post you write that Gaddafi’s “lust for power took over his ideology a long time ago. This is what made him bomb and? slaughter his own people to secure power.”

Whoa! Any proof of this “slaughtering”?

Your claim sounds like a line from the U.S. plutocracy, which –- to secure power --  sacrificed 116,700 of their own people in World War One, 416,000 in World War Two, 39,300 in Korea, 58,000 in Vietnam, 4,478 in Iraq (so far), 1,811 in Afghanistan (so far) – and those are only American deaths.

By the way, there were six assassination attempts on Gaddafi by US / Israeli  / British-backed terrorists, plus several assassination attempts by U.S. fighter jets, plus one by Israeli jets. It is any wonder that Gaddafi sought to punish those responsible?

Let’s not automatically swallow imperialist propaganda regarding Gaddafi. If he was so bloodthirsty, then why did he make sure that all Libyans had free health care, free education, a monthly stipend from the sharing of oil revenue, etc etc etc?

And if you want to see slaughter, here’s a little illustration by Sullivan of WUFYS…

http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/video/sullivan/how-nato-and-their-rebel-allies-defend-civilians

Do you really think Gaddafi ever did anything like this? To children?

Come on now.

There is a school of thought that the House of Saud are of Jewish origin. The claim is that the House of Saud are the descendants of a Jewish cereal merchant called Mordakhai Bin Ibrahmin Bin Moshe, and that one of his sons called al-Maqaran (an arabised version of the Jewish root Mackren) had a son called Mohammad, then another son called Saud, which became the name of the present day Saudi Dynasty.

Similarly, the al-Wahab movement also finds its origins in Judaism. Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab was a descendant of a family of Donmeh Jews from Turkey. The Donmeh in turn were descendants of followers of the Shabbetai Zevi, who apparently converted to Islam in 1666. Zevi's followers imitated his conversion to Islam, but are also believed to have secretly adhered to their Kabbalistic doctrines.

With regard to al-Qaddafi, I'm skeptical about the claims made against him. I worked in Benghazi for some time and found people to be far happier with their lot in life than they were in most nations in Europe or North America. I don't doubt that he was a dictator, but as dictators go, he appeared to be about as benign as they come.

Gaddafi is called a dictator.

A dictator is someone who assumes sole and absolute power, but without hereditary ascension such as an absolute monarch.

Did Gaddafi have sole and absolute power? I say he didn’t, but I won’t delve into my lengthy reasons here. Certainly he was Libya’s main representative to world for 42 years. Now the bankers will rule for eternity.

Here in the USA, Wall Street and corporate oligarchs are absolutist dictators ruling from behind the scenes. Regardless of who they install in the White House, the oligarchy becomes more brutal and tyrannical with each passing year, causing more wars and deeper poverty. The masses rationalize their increasing slavery by saying, “At least we don’t have slave masters, and we don’t have a dictator.” The masses are all the more imprisoned because they refuse to acknowledge their prison.

The important question is the standard of living among the masses. I would welcome a “dictator” like Gaddafi if he radically improved life for the masses. Certainly he is no worse than Bush or Obama or anyone else the plutocracy installs.

Ultimately it does not matter what system of government we have. What matters is the kind of people who are in charge. If they are evil, then the masses will suffer, whether we speak of a dictator, a king, an oligarchy, a ruling party, or whatever.   

Moreover, when an oligarchy rules for decades, and a “dictator” seeks to undo the damage, the corrections (usually) cannot be accomplished in four years or six years --although Hitler did it in five years (1933-38), raising Germany from Europe’s poorest nation to its richest, while the rest of the world remained locked in a Depression.  

Mexico has a one-term limit for presidents. Most European nations have no term limits for national leaders. Neither arrangement makes any difference. Europe is in trouble, and Mexico remains impoverished.

So the term “dictator” means nothing to me.

Gaddafi is called a dictator.

A dictator is someone who assumes sole and absolute power, but without hereditary ascension such as an absolute monarch.

I don't make the distinction between monarchs and those who hold absolute power without hereditary ascension, even though "conventional wisdom" would tell me otherwise.

Did Gaddafi have sole and absolute power?

I don't know, to be quite honest. My gut feeling is that he didn't have sole and absolute power in the way that, say, the House of Saud do. However, he was unelected and remained so for decades. In that sense, I would consider him a dictator. 

Here in the USA, Wall Street and corporate oligarchs are absolutist dictators ruling from behind the scenes. Regardless of who they install in the White House, the oligarchy becomes more brutal and tyrannical with each passing year, causing more wars and deeper poverty. The masses rationalize their increasing slavery by saying, “At least we don’t have slave masters, and we don’t have a dictator.” The masses are all the more imprisoned because they refuse to acknowledge their prison.

There I wouldn't disagree with you at all. In many ways, this hidden dictatorship is far more dangerous, insidious and deadly than the more "conventional" concept of a dictatorship

Ultimately it does not matter what system of government we have. What matters is the kind of people who are in charge.

I would partially agree with you on that. To me, the system of government is important but of secondary importance to the qualities of those leading it.

Mexico has a one-term limit for presidents. Most European nations have no term limits for national leaders.

Almost every European country has term limits for their presidents, ranging from two four-year terms to unlimited non-consecutive one-year terms (in the case of San Marino and Switzerland). 

Neither arrangement makes any difference. Europe is in trouble, and Mexico remains impoverished.

In Europe, term limits are on a post that in many cases is nothing more than that of a mere figurehead. The exceptions in Europe would be France (semi-presidential governmental system) and Belarus (presidential governmental system, like that of Mexico and US). 

So the term “dictator” means nothing to me.

Well, there we will have to differ, I'm sorry to say. Not that it matters, anway, as this discussion has arisen out of a tiny and not particularly important part of previous comment.

"Almost every European country has term limits for their presidents, ranging from two four-year terms to unlimited non-consecutive one-year terms (in the case of San Marino and Switzerland)."

Every European nation except England has term limits of some kind for president. (Incidentally the San Marino term limit is non-consecutive six-month terms, not one-year terms.)

The word I used was "national leaders," which in parliamentary European nations usually (but not always) means prime minister, who retains power as long as he or she can hold a coalition government together. Alec Douglas-Home was British prime minister for only 363 days, but Thatcher was prime minister for eleven years.

I stand by my original assertion.