Intervention in Libya: Human Rights War or Resource Grab?

The recent attack on Libya by the US, UK and France surprised nearly everyone with the speed with which it was authorized and executed. Although hard data on what’s actually going on is scarce, what is clear is that after non-violent protests in Tripoli were met with the murder of a large number of protesters, an armed rebellion began which includes some members of the Libyan armed forces, who are primarily located in the eastern part of the country. The Libyan army and air force responded fiercely, and within the last week, began to rout the rebels in town after town, finally approaching the city of Benghazi, which as of this writing, is still in rebel hands.

Although the UN authorization is based on the premise that civilians are under attack, clearly, the rebels are armed and an armed conflict is underway. The Libyan government has the right, as a sovereign nation, to put down the armed rebellion, even if it did not have the right to kill the innocent protesters.1

It’s actions should be guided by the principle of proportionality. That is, efforts must be made to minimize the harm to innocent people, or collateral damage, as it is known in the West. The Libyan opposition are classified as rebels. They cannot be not considered insurgents, due to short length of time they have been in conflict, their lack of control over significant territory, and other factors, such as a lack of military structure, uniforms, and so forth. As such – and whatever one may think of the justness of their cause – they have no special legal status and may be treated by the Libyan government as criminals.

Unlike the invasion of Iraq, this military operation was approved by the UN Security Council, which may, under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, authorize the use of force when it finds, under Article 39 of the Charter, the existence of a threat to peace, a breach of the peace or an act of aggression that puts the lives of people at risk. The UN’s enforcement powers, under either Chapter 7, or Articles 42 et seq, were meant only as extrema ratio – that is, as a last resort. The so-called “ethic of responsibility,” in other words, is that the remedy should be no worse than the evil, as wars quite often are.2

The new age we appear to be in, of liberal wars in pursuit of a humanitarian agenda, has created wars of choice rather than wars of necessity.3 The basis for such interventions has been, more often than not, sheer power rather than law, and the results are often not good. They are a return to the medieval concept of a bellum justum (morally justified war), which was replaced by the concept of the bellum legale (legal war) long ago.4 It is just the kind of thing the UN was designed to prevent. As Vladimir Putin recently observed, the concept of a “just war” can easily take on the aspect of a crusade, and in the case of Iraq, a rather disingenuous one.5 It is almost beyond argument that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was an illegal war of aggression, in that legal grounds for the attack, such as self-defense or Security Council authorization, did not exist. The “coalition,” then, can at least be given credit for playing by the rules this time in Libya. The actions taken by the US and its coalition have been, at least up to this point, legal.

It’s important to note, though, how limited the mandate of the UN Security Council is. It is to ensure peace, not to pass judgments on governments or to replace bad governments with better ones. The UN’s mission is not to spread democracy. According to the UN Charter, its role is “the maintenance of international peace and security, and to that end, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of peace, and to bring about, by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of peace …” Article 39 of the Charter states that its purpose is not to maintain or restore law, but merely to maintain and restore peace.6

So, when US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says that “the first and overwhelmingly urgent action is to end the violence,” but that “a final result of any negotiations would have to be the decision by Colonel Gaddafi to leave,” it should be clear this exceeds the UN’s authorization to end the conflict, and is in pursuit America’s own objective of eliminating an old adversary.

This is, of course, to take America’s motives at face value. It must be said that most of the Libyan population lives in the western part of the country, and most of the oil is in the east. Oil and gas account for 97 percent of Libya’s export earnings and 90 percent of government revenue, according to the International Monetary Fund. American and British media are already referring to eastern Libya as “disputed territory.” However, there is no legal dispute over this territory, and no legal argument for the partition of the Libyan people from their oil. The UN’s mandate is to prevent “violations of the territorial integrity of states,” not to facilitate them. The partition of Libya would create yet another place in the world destined for permanent war.

What else is wrong with this picture? Well, the coalition are backing a very weak side in a civil war. How can this possibly be an act of pacifism? The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that “Egypt’s military has begun shipping arms over the border to Libyan rebels with Washington’s knowledge.” Quoting U.S. and Libyan rebel officials, the newspaper said the shipments were mostly of small arms such as assault rifles and ammunition.

Under Article 53(1) of the Charter, the UN Security Council can utilize regional organizations for enforcement action under its authority or authorize them to take action. Likewise, the Security Council may authorize individual Member States to resort to armed force. However, Egypt has no such authorization. Under traditional principles of international law, while aid to an incumbent government does not fall under the scope of international legal norms prohibiting intervention, aid to rebels certainly does.

Military intervention of one state in the affairs of another state, even on humanitarian grounds, is directly opposed to the territorial integrity of states. For example, in the case of Pakistan, Indian intervention resulted in the secession of East Pakistan/Bengal, and the permanent impairment of the territorial integrity of the Pakistani state. In the cases of Cambodia and Uganda, interventions resulted in the violent overthrow of the governments of those countries. The idea that a government can be so bad that foreign intervention is justified, and forcible overthrow is legitimate, is extremely dangerous, and would make the existence of various governments around the world dependent on the judgement of their adversaries.

What is in doubt at this time in history is whether the world will over time assume a more humane character or will be characterized by militarism, neoliberal globalization, and imperial forms of coercive control. Such a view of foreign policy, based on ethical principles, depends upon the realist / Machiavellian consensus being discredited as a basis for the conduct of international relations. The crisis in Libya is just the latest test.

  1. Richard Falk, “Perspectives on Global Justice,” in Between Cosmopolitan Ideals and State Sovereignty, Ronald Tinnevelt et al. eds., (Palgrave 2006); Fernando Teson, The Moral Basis of Humanitarian Intervention, in Between Cosmopolitan Ideals and State Sovereignty. []
  2. See Force and Legitimacy in World Politics, David Armstrong, ed. (Cambridge Univ Press 2005). []
  3. Menno T. Kamminga, Inter-State Accountability for Violations of Human Rights (Univ of Pennsylvania Press, 1992). []
  4. See Mohammad Taghi Karoubi, Just or Unjust War (Ashgate Publishing Co., 2004). []
  5. Tarcisio Gazzini, The Changing Rules on the use of force in international law (Manchester Univ Press, 2005). []
  6. UN General Assembly Declaration on Friendly Relations 2625 (XXV) of 1970, adopted unanimously. (“No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State.”); GA Res. 45/150 (1990) (on non intervention). []

Paul Wolf is a human rights lawyer currently living in Apartado, Colombia. He has appeared as a legal expert in various Iranian media, including Press TV, Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), and Hamshahri. Read other articles by Paul.

29 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. 3bancan said on March 23rd, 2011 at 8:56am #

    International law has been written by the Euro-American imperialists for other countries to abide, they themselves are above that law: it’s their POWER and imperialist ruthless genocidal barbaritywhich makes and interprets law at will…

  2. MichaelKenny said on March 23rd, 2011 at 8:59am #

    “The partition of Libya would create yet another place in the world destined for permanent war.” I think that’s right but I don’t think the latest US fiasco has anything to do with oil. For Europe, it’s about stemming the flow of illegal immigrants from further south, who transit through Morocco, Tunisia and Libya. For the US, it’s about Israel (surprise, surprise!). Almost the last thing Israel needs is another fiasco which discredits still further its American bully and, worse yet, is on its very doorstep. That’s why Obama initially held back. But I said almost! Once Obama said that Gadaffi had to go, failure to attack would have created a Georgia-type situation, showing the US unwilling to attack an Arab country, a disaster for Israel. For the Israelis, an attack thus became the lesser evil and their American propaganda machine changed sides. But, of course, if things go badly wrong, and they will if the thing doesn’t end quickly, the whole thing will blow up in the Israelis’ faces. It will be fun to watch them all squirming!

  3. Ismail Zayid said on March 23rd, 2011 at 11:37am #

    This assault on Libya carries the hallmarks of a colonial excercise, including control of the oil, as well as the continuing campaign to control the Middle East, deemed as one of the most strategic areas in the world. The claim, that it was to protect civilians and secure peace, is a charade and a blatant example of hypocrisy. Why was this concern, for the lives of civilians, not apparent to deal with other conflicts in Africa or to stop the Israeli assault on Gaza?

    Though the authorisation by the Security Council gives it a formal legitimization, it, however, confirms the unbalanced role of the Council, dominated by the US and those states that have the veto power. This unfair excercise of veto power, should be a strong call for revision of the UN Charter and the power granted to those states that have the veto power.

  4. jayn0t said on March 23rd, 2011 at 1:13pm #

    Perhaps that’s why the moderators are getting rid of comments – it must be depressing to read tirades like this latest one from ‘shabnam’. Does he really think that people born in a particular country are responsible for the crimes of its rulers, including those which were committed before they were born? The ‘grabbing resources’ argument simply does not explain what Western countries do. Why don’t they grab more resources? What resources are they grabbing in Afghanistan? What resources does the USA grab by giving Israel eight million dollars a day? Instead of moralistic, resentful tirades against Brits and others fortunate enough to have been born into successful cultures, ‘shabnam’ should try to formulate his hypotheses coherently and attempt to falsify them with facts.

  5. 3bancan said on March 23rd, 2011 at 1:33pm #

    “Instead of moralistic, resentful tirades against Brits and others fortunate enough to have been born into successful cultures, ‘shabnam’ should try to formulate his hypotheses coherently and attempt to falsify them with facts” says one who was probably “fortunate enough to have been born into” a “successful culture”, ie in a rapacious genocidal culture of “successful Übermenschen”…

  6. jayn0t said on March 23rd, 2011 at 2:51pm #

    To some of the commentators on this site, I’d recommend George Orwell’s ‘Politics and the English Language’, which criticises the hackneyed rhetoric common on the left. Yes, ‘3bancan’, I was born into one of the successful cultures I referred to in my previous comment. Brilliant detective work! But it’s no longer ‘genocidal’. That’s what needs explaining, and is why the left is so poor at opposing Zionism – it cannot distinguish between cultures which have successfully abandoned apartheid and the one which hasn’t.

  7. 3bancan said on March 23rd, 2011 at 3:14pm #

    “I was born into one of the successful (sic!!!) cultures I referred to in my previous comment”

    No comment needed…

  8. shabnam said on March 23rd, 2011 at 5:05pm #

    {and is why the left is so poor at opposing Zionism – it cannot distinguish between cultures which have successfully abandoned apartheid and the one which hasn’t. }

    I don’t want to adapt your culture ‘judeofascism’ and will not get involved with one who shows sign of his culture when he touches the keyboard. Why haven’t you abandoned apartheid in your country?

    Perhaps, if you were coming from a country where British, as occupying imperial force let more than 8 million Iranians die out of hunger during the WWI, because they collected most of the crops grown in the country to feed their own army, then you agree that Kenny’s comment is arrogant which tries to hide the dirty hand of the occupying forces.

    Iranian people have not received any compensation from British, but the ‘chosen people’ have expanded their ‘holocaust’ industry many folds.

    Is immigration the reason behind intervention? then why don’t you invade Mexico?

    The Western countries are dying to get hold of the educated force in the Islamic countries, that’s why they destabilize and strangulate their economy through illegal sanctions and threat of military action to force these educated people to leave their countries and work for them to make more destructive bombs and kill the rest.

    The Western countries pay millions to attract skilled workers of these countries and there is an intense competition among these states. Thus, the criminal states not only invade to grab our resources but also steal our HUMAN CAPITAL to build their economy at the expense of other people. Why don’t you ask Kenny to include documentation for his unsubstantiated claim?

    Perhaps, if you were coming from a country where British as imperial power who used their agents in the government to receive oil concession for 61 years where Iranians received less than 10 percent of the , then you would have not written your nonsense.

    Perhaps, if you were coming from a country where Iranian people demanded for a better share of the oil profit from British through their Prime Minister, Mosaddeq, a democrat, then Britain and US government toppled our PM by a coup where killed many people and installed YOUR puppet, the Shah, a DICTATOR, for another 25 years.

    Perhaps, if you were coming from a country where British, US, Canadian government, French government, German gov are trying to strangulate Iranian economy through many sanctions with the cooperation of Russia and China and foment a ‘color revolution’ in Iran using Iranian agents living in these countries, then you would have not shown your ziofascist culture , writing many racist lines and identifying yourself as ‘coming from a successful culture’ which does not impresses anyone but a fool like you.

  9. jayn0t said on March 23rd, 2011 at 5:28pm #

    Shabnam – it was you who started arguing based on people’s alleged national origin, blatantly claiming that all British people responsible for the crimes of their rulers, even those committed before they were born. In other words, you argue for collective responsibility among a whole ethnic group – what could be more ‘racist’ than that? I wrote ‘successful’ in order to be provocative, not to ‘impress’ anyone; it’s technically true; I didn’t say the ways in which European countries became successful were moral. I didn’t ‘install’ the Shah of Iran. Unlike the Western liberals who gave in to anti-imperialist emotional blackmail, I didn’t support the monster who succeeded him either: surely you can’t blame that on the British, the Germans and the ‘ziofascists’.

  10. 3bancan said on March 23rd, 2011 at 6:04pm #

    jayn0t said on March 23rd, 2011 at 5:28pm #

    jaynot comes here every now and then to preach how the “Left” is incapable of fighting zionism – but he never explains exactly why and how it should do it. He’s only given some strange hints that seem – at least in my reading – to stress Christian values vis-a-vis Jewish ones.
    But the recent comments of his show not only that he has serious problems in text reading and undestanding but also a natural disposition to produce typical zionazi blather like “”Shabnam – it was you who started arguing based on people’s alleged national origin, blatantly claiming that all (sic!!!) British people responsible for the crimes of their rulers, even those committed before they were born”…

  11. hayate said on March 23rd, 2011 at 10:10pm #

    A 3 way war between 3bancan, jayn0t & shabnam…I suggest handbags at 10 paces to start, perhaps switching to nail biting as the range closes.

    ;D

  12. hayate said on March 23rd, 2011 at 10:12pm #

    “Although hard data on what’s actually going on is scarce, what is clear is that after non-violent protests in Tripoli were met with the murder of a large number of protesters”

    Is that fact? Or zionist media “fact”?

  13. Luis Cayetano said on March 24th, 2011 at 3:40am #

    The problem with all too many on the Left is that they think anti-imperialism boils down to shouting the loudest in favour of the leader who ”stands up” to imperialism most bombastically, as though fundamental class questions can be reduced to seeing who has the biggest cojones in the face of an American aerial attack. This, of course, is regardless of his internal record, his actions against leftists, and his collaboration with imperialism when it suited him. These people are too short-sighted and/or stupid to see that ”supporting” the target who is currently on the empire’s hit list doesn’t increase one’s progressive credentials one iota, nor does being the leader being the target increase his. They’re too imbecilic to see that there isn’t even a dichotomy at play. One can have solidarity with the people inside the country fighting for leftist goals, while also supporting another leftist goal: opposing imperial aggression.

    Why is that hard to understand? In spite of its corruption, stupidity, cynicism, grand-standing and cowardice, the Left is still humanit’y best shot, because the alternative is consistently corrupt, stupid, cynical, and cowardly. At least the Left has some people who don’t exhibit these qualities, and that’s better than having none.

  14. Luis Cayetano said on March 24th, 2011 at 3:43am #

    ”He’s only given some strange hints that seem – at least in my reading – to stress Christian values vis-a-vis Jewish ones.”

    3bancan, could you please cover your mouth when you speak? The drool is sputtering everywhere.

  15. mary said on March 24th, 2011 at 5:26am #

    from medialens

    Proof Libyan Invasion was Planned 10 Years in Advance –
    Posted by moneylender on March 24, 2011, 11:19 am

    This is from a Leader of a political Party in Canada

    The following video is eye popping and mind boggling . . . use the pause button and take a good look at the medals. If you know anything at all about the nexus between the Illuminati and numerology, this video will prove the point . . .

    Tuesday, March 22, 2011

    U.S. General Wesley Clark – proof Libyan Invasion was Planned 10 Years in Advance – Minerva Roman goddess of war

    The video: { http://mikephilbin.blogspot.com/2011/03/us-general-wesley-clark-proof-libyan.html}

    U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.), explains that the Bush Administration planned to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran.”

    The de-militarisation of Libya via the UN and the 2003 Iraq invasion both began on March 19th as with many other military conflicts.

    The Roman Goddess of War “MINERVA” has her birthday on March 19th … quite a revelation.

    What is left unsaid in the above article and video is the following, from Wikipedia: {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March}

    “The name of March comes from ancient Rome, when March was the first month of the year and named Martius after Mars, the Roman god of war. In Rome, where the climate is Mediterranean, March was the first month of spring, a logical point for the beginning of the year as well as the start of the military campaign season.”

    Daneen
    Researcher, Author and Founder
    {http://www.StopTheNorthAmericanUnion.com}

  16. mary said on March 24th, 2011 at 5:28am #

    Mr Wolf writes ‘The new age we appear to be in, of liberal wars in pursuit of a humanitarian agenda, has created wars of choice rather than wars of necessity.’

    I have never heard of a ‘liberal war’.

  17. mary said on March 24th, 2011 at 5:30am #

    And this one has no humanitarian agenda. It is purely about the acquisition of resources.

  18. 3bancan said on March 24th, 2011 at 5:39am #

    hayate said on March 23rd, 2011 at 10:10pm #

    There’s no “3 way war” here, I agree in most things with shabnam. I suppose shabnam’s comment was a reaction to MichaelKenny’s comment. If my memory serves me right MK said he was Irish, so in this respect shabnam is wrong. But she is totally right to call him what he is: a consummate zionazi racist liar of a special bizarre kind. I didn’t read his comment (I stopped reading his comments quite a few weeks ago – just as I stopped reading comments by some other commenters, like Don Hawkins, bozh, Jonas Rand, the zionazi prolific verbal diarrhea producer and ADL “argument” man LC and some more), but the vast majority of his comments that I read were just brainless blather – and I can hardly believe that he has changed his style since then.
    Btw, shabnam’s comment was deleted. In other words, using MK’s habitual mantra, “Israel has shot itself in the foot again”…

  19. brianct said on March 24th, 2011 at 7:27am #

    did u know?

    ‘The Arab League has been consistently embarrassed by Qaddafi’s outspoken criticism of their double standards and hypocrisy with regard to Palestine, Iraq and a host of other issues, they are terrified by Qaddafi’s revolutionary Islam, and are contemptuous of Black Africa and Qaddafi’s attempts to bring about African-Arab unity.

    Recently, when Qaddafi urged Libyans to intermarry with Africans, following the example of Prophet Muhammad himself, who encouraged intermarriage between races, Libyan and Arab contempt for Black Africans re-surfaced. Extremely few fair skinned Arabs would sanction the marriage of their daughters to a Black African. Rarely do fair skinned Libyans marry Black Libyans. Their disdain for Black people runs deep.’
    http://www.just-international.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4363:coalition-of-crusaders-join-with-al-qaeda-to-oust-qaddafi-and-roll-back-libyan-revolution&catid=45:recent-articles&Itemid=123

  20. jayn0t said on March 24th, 2011 at 7:43am #

    It’s unfortunate that the moderators deleted Shabnam’s original post, since it clearly stated that all British people are responsible for the crimes of all British rulers at all times. ‘3bancan’ perhaps missed it, hence his dismissal of my accurate response to Shabnam. I didn’t complain about it being ‘racist’ to be p.c., just to point out one of the flaws in traditional anti-imperialism. I do accept his point that I haven’t explained how exactly one can argue against Zionism in the USA, and Hayate is dead right about handbags.

  21. 3bancan said on March 24th, 2011 at 7:49am #

    jayn0t said on March 24th, 2011 at 7:43am #

    “all British people are responsible for the crimes of all British rulers at all times” is a superb example of zionazi speak. As I said before, jaynot has serious problems in text reading and understanding but also a natural disposition to produce typical zionazi blather…

  22. jayn0t said on March 24th, 2011 at 6:35pm #

    “jaynot has serious problems in text reading” – well it’s difficult for ‘3bancan’ to prove that, since Shabnam’s original post was deleted. In a nutshell, I argue that the most important form of racial oppression by Western countries is the oppression of the Palestinians. Contrary to what the anti-imperialist left tell us, most Western countries have had some success in overcoming their racist past. Britain, Germany and the USA are NOT ‘genocidal’. Israel is. Anti-imperialism amalgamates Zionism and the history of Western countries. Palestine solidarity is all about breaking that link.

    I don’t say I support US patriotism, conservatism and Christianity. I merely ask if these values would do more, or less, harm to the Palestinians if they were consistently followed. The very question exposes the Zionists in the American left.

    Shabnam defends a particularly crude form of anti-Western resentment, even more hateful than the attitude of the US left. This is not going to help the Palestinians.

  23. shabnam said on March 24th, 2011 at 7:55pm #

    {Britain, Germany and the USA are NOT ‘genocidal’.}

    How many more people do you want US or Britain to kill before you consider them as ‘genocidal?

    US killed more than 3 million in Vietnam
    US killed more than a million Korean
    US killed more than 200,000 Iraqis in the first Persian Gulf War
    US killed 650,000 people, many younger than 5 years, by imposing illegal sanction before the invasion.
    US killed thousands of Pakistanis
    US killed a million of Afghanis
    US killed 1.5 million Iraqis since 9/11
    US killed …….

    {http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html}

  24. brianct said on March 24th, 2011 at 8:58pm #

    Diana Johnstones latest piece on Libya:

    FYI for those who think Gadaffi is a brutal despot:
    Last year, incidentally, former British MP George Galloway recounted how, in contrast to the Egyptian government’s obstruction of aid to Gaza, his aid caravan had had its humanitarian cargo doubled during a stopover in Libya. Qaddafi long ago turned his back on the Arab world, considering its leaders hopeless, and turned to Africa http://www.counterpunch.org/johnstone03242011.htm

  25. shabnam said on March 24th, 2011 at 9:37pm #

    Obama, African First President, was selected as ‘president’ by the zionofascists, Rothschild and his extension George Soros to kill Africans and grab their resources, starting with Libya.

    America’s First Black President Invades Africa
    by Don DeBar

    {http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23887}

    “Ignoring the call of the African Union – the regional organization having jurisdiction which counts every African nation save Morocco among its members – and channeling the political ghost of George W. Bush on the eighth anniversary of the “Shock and Awe” attack on Iraq, “America’s First Black President” ordered the launch of some 110 Tomahawk missiles on Libya Saturday, killing an unknown number of Africans for oil.”

    {http://www.puppet99.com/?p=126}

    At home, Obama has introduced new interrogation rules that allow investigators to keep terrorism suspects in detention for an extended time without informing them of their Miranda rights.

  26. shabnam said on March 24th, 2011 at 9:40pm #

    Obama, African First President

    shout be Obama, First Black President, sorry

  27. Luis Cayetano said on March 25th, 2011 at 7:56am #

    ”Qaddafi long ago turned his back on the Arab world, considering its leaders hopeless, and turned to Africa”

    Did turning towards Africa entail support for Ben Ali, whom he sided with against the protesters there (interestingly, the French offered police assistance to the Ben Ali regime. The French are now assuming an important role in the bombing of Libya)? ‘Revolutionary Islam”? Well, only if you lack of properly functioning brain. And that’s just his foreign policy, never mind his internal policies, which largely boil down to ensuring that his sons remain in control of key positions of the military/security forces and commerce. Libya is a monarchy, plain and simple, just like the other so-called ”republics” in the region. The truth is that this man has far more in common with his dictator counterparts in the Middle East than he does with the people of Africa.

  28. shabnam said on March 25th, 2011 at 3:07pm #

    {The French are now assuming an important role in the bombing of Libya)? ‘Revolutionary Islam”? Well, only if you lack of properly functioning brain.}

    You who admire a Islamophobe and racist like Richard Dawkins, a MI6 agent, have no right to judge anyone especially Gaddafi, an independent leader, not like Arab puppet head of states whom you put in power to lick your behind.
    Your dark history shows that you kill and steal to develop your country at the expense of others. Gaddafi does not have a position to be viewed as a ‘dictator’. You should go after the war criminlas, black and white, who have killed millions of our people and continue to do so with your $$$$$ to build more destructive weapon of mass destruction to kill us with the help of human capital that you steal from the Islamic world.

    Why Castro is not a dictator and Gaddafi is? You have no credibility.

  29. Paul Wolf said on March 25th, 2011 at 7:42pm #

    Thanks for reposting my article. I only want to add a note that the footnotes are just to books I referred to to write the article, and I did not keep track of which idea came from which book. There were no footnote numbers placed within the text in the original. The ideas and the sources don’t match up the way it is formatted here. No big deal, though, thanks for publishing.