Books on Global Conflict, War, Foreign Policy, Military Strategy, Military Equipment

Categorized | 24/7 ALERTS!, Uncategorized

Protesters Fight On and Gaddafi Vows to ‘Fight On’

Protesters tore up and burned the Green Book that Muammar Gaddafi used to threaten protester with death, but Gaddafi vowed to ‘fight on’.

Libya witnessed another day of chaos on Wednesday, as a defiant Muammar Gaddafi refused to step down in the face of widespread protests, calling instead for his supporters to “cleanse” the country “house by house”.

Calling those who stand against him “rats” and “mercenaries”, he said during a televised address on Tuesday that he would fight to the last, and that he would rather die “a martyr” than quit office.

On Wednesday, Franco Frattini, the Italian foreign minister, said that reports of 1,000 people being killed in a violent anti-government crackdown on protests that has raged since February 17th were “credible”.

Al Jazeera’s Lawrence Lee reports.

2 Responses to “Protesters Fight On and Gaddafi Vows to ‘Fight On’”

  1. No it is not imperative that the nations and peoples of the world speak with one voice. By the time this occurs just like in Rwanda it will be too late.

    It is imperative Nations stop speaking and start doing by sending military and humanitarian support to areas currently under the control of the Libyan opposition.

    Shove your pieces of white paper.

  2. In making sure revolution does not lead as it can to worse outcomes for citizens the next step a new constitution who better than Plato to advise?

    Plato’s advice still stands – change the text of the Gods

    – dedicated to a generation of Twitters.

    Allah does not deliver Pizza – never has never will.

    Or in other words

    Building a Society template which enables maximum relative independence rather than crushing it.



    There is no Natural justice or Gods justice only Human justice. It’s the human who defines templates of justice by which societies decide between good and evil and thereby determine whether their societies approach heaven or hell on earth for resident citizens.

    For in deciding what is good and evil humans determine the nature of their interaction institution, group and citizen.

    Perfection is not in the nature of humans and therefore the nature of the interaction needs to be subject to continual review and renewal to make sure inequities which inevitably arise are assuaged.


    There is no such thing as Freedom only the relative independence Nature and fellow Humans provide.

    As with infinity you can only ever approach Freedom but never achieve it. Freedom is total independence from the bounds of both Nature and Human spheres.

    The notion of Freedom was invented to deceive humans into believing whatever template for society was in the offering it would indeed free them from the chains of dependence either in the physical or spiritual realm. What is in reality being offered are harder and less forgiving chains against reason and choice.

    Therefore there should be no text religious or secular which is not subject to the test of enabling the relative independence of other. Text which fails this test should be rightly censured and removed as a basis for forming new citizens.


    It is only in seeking to enable the maximum relative independence of others that we can achieve our own maximum relative independence.

    The maximum relative independence a human being in the spiritual sphere can achieve is where a humans own perception of their worth is more than the same humans perceived sum of what other humans determine their worth to be.

    The maximum relative independence a human being in the physical sphere can achieve is where a human’s leisure time is more than the time taken to obtain the necessities of life.


    As Plato pointed out some years ago there are two critical aspects of creating a society one is the Societies text excludes evil and promotes good and two the qualities of the Guardians or Teachers who guide each new generation to enable them to become reflective of good rather than evil.

    The nature of the citizen indeed reflects the nature of the State. As does the State to the citizen.


    As food is fuel for our bodies text is fuel for our thoughts, ideas, motivation and actions. It is therefore important there is a recognition text creates good and creates evil in a real sense.

    Nothing is benign. It is therefore important to censure text which debases other and promote text which enables citizen’s relative independence.

    No text can be excused for debasing other if a harmonious society is to be achieved. Freedom of Religion must therefore be done away with and religious texts subject to the same rules of justice applicable to secular texts for both were written by humans for humans.

    The corner stone of a society’s template is a human ethical textual construct. As steel is used for building bridges text is used to build societies. As the strength of a bridge lies in the quality of its components and design so to the strength of a society resides in the quality of its foundation ethics and design of its institutions based on those ethics.

    It is the above notions upon which a greater number of fellow earth citizens can achieve their potential by creating textual constructs of justice which enable access to not only the necessities of life but the opportunity to approach Freedom an not be forever chained to subservient texts.


    Please note we are all teachers and we are all pupils from birth till death.

    There are two types of teachers the enabler of independence and the creator of ineptitude.

    It is important for society if it wants to achieve its full potential it identifies and rewards the former and censures the later for if society is to enable the best for its citizens it is only, as Plato has advised, by weeding out the evil and promoting the good that individual citizens and society as a whole can realise their full potential.

    You simply recognise the enabler of independence because they preface their dialog with ‘Yes’ where as the creator of ineptitude can be recognised because they preface their dialog with ‘No’.

    The enabler of independence will not control but encourage in complete contrast to the creator of ineptitude.

    The creator of ineptitude creates ineptitude by humiliating and undermining the confidence of the pupil at every turn.

    The creator of ineptitude can be recognised also in that any tool, service, or good offered is either to shoddy for use or too good for the task at hand.

    The creator of ineptitude when confronted with the obviousness of their own ineptitude will class such ineptitude as normative practice. Failure is success as long as it is their own failure and not that of others.

    The creator of ineptitude never apologise.

    The creators of ineptitude always prematurely insist on taking over a task of another even before it is begun with a pre-emptive demand which in reality can never be met. Once it dawns on the creator of ineptitude they are in error they carry on the task as if their error did not exist and ineptly performs the very task the pupil would invariably have performed with the required aptitude and result. The creator of ineptitude will perform the task as if a great burden has fallen upon their shoulders as a result of the clear ineptitude of the pupil.

    A sure sign of a creator of ineptitude is even the most menial tasks are not to be the province of the pupil nor do they believe it is worth the trouble in instructing the pupil as they view them as inept the degree to which this is the case epitomises the state of the disease.

    Creators of ineptitude suffer from a fatal disease called insipid singularity. This is the most destructive aspect of the creator of ineptitude. A creator of ineptitude deems only one of the many facets of any human construct be it music, science, art, food, breakfast cereal, dogma, sauce, hobbies, religion, spanner, toothbrush, as valid all other facets or variations are not worthy of consideration and must be condemned.

    Creators of ineptitude can also be identified by asking ‘Where did they go on their last holiday?’ Creators of ineptitude will reply they went to places and events they wanted to go to with little or no recognition of the desires of the rest of the family. The later fact they will underline with some satisfaction.

    A creator of ineptitude has the propensity to provide minimal cursory verbal or textual examples of any action and then when by chance, only because of the absence of the creator of ineptitude, the pupil is required to perform such a task the pupil inevitably displays ineptitude for want of practice and proper instruction reinforcing the erroneous perception it is the pupil not the creator of ineptitude who is in truth inept.

    Other indicators a human is a creator of ineptitude:

    If you sincerely believe if you never saw the human again it was in fact too soon.

    If a human convinces you without even trying there is a point to the existence of hell even if you did not believe it was possible before.


    So for the new and better society it is important for the framers of the constitution to delete any evil text and promote the good and draw up a list of all the enablers of independence ‘Yes’ and all the creators of ineptitude ‘No’ be they Fathers, Mothers, Husbands, Wives, Teachers, Barristers, Mulars, Priests, Policemen, Political Parties, Politicians, Bakers, Mechanics, Soldiers, Candlestick makers, etc and keep the ‘Yes’ and banish the ‘No’s.

    Or at the very least make a community list for easy reference to be used to identify and publically censure creators of ineptitude – though not public stoning as a censure, not just because it is barbaric and promoted by troglodytes, but because creators of ineptitude would strongly object the stoning was not being done efficiently enough and proceed to stone themselves ineffectually, as is their way, making a complete farce of the judicial proceedings.

    The worst manifestations of such evil character should not be banished but employed by force of association in an isolated small space, possibly a boat, for a suitable length of time to serve as a clear sign post to humanity ‘DANGER DO NOT IMMITATE FOR THE SAKE OF THE HEALTH AND HAPPINESS OF THOSE DEAR TO YOU’.

    The framers of the constitution should immediately enable the teaching of text which creates enablers of independence and publically rewards them.

    In doing the above Society will prosper and the potential for citizens to achieve maximum relative independence will be substantially enhanced.


    There are important points also to consider when creating a durable equitable template for a Society.

    There are many safe paths at the bottom of the mountain but very few safe paths at the top. In choosing any path at the bottom of a mountain do so only in the full knowledge of which is the safest path at the top.

    Fear dissipates with familiarity just so long as the experience continues to be positive otherwise contempt accompanies fear which if unchecked turns to violence.

    Faith provides secular and religious certainty the greater the certainty the greater the danger to humanity. Certainty remains the prerogative of Gods (assuming they exist) not Humanity. Assume the existence of institutional hypocrisy and develop mechanisms to search them out and remove them. No institutional structure or text is to be sacrosanct and above regular review and change. At least every ten years.

    The degree of violence used to create any entity invariably creates an entity of equal or increased violence to maintain it for the template of transition and nature of its beginning recognises its own vulnerability and as it succeeded in violence, violence becomes the norm. Unless this is recognised and textual blockers are specifically put in place to ameliorate this violence reoccurring little if anything has in essence been achieved.

    Happy Societal Templating !