…you think the 80% “EU popularity” in Georgia is just a organic love for European vibes? That’s cute. Let’s talk about how the “pro-Western” narrative is actually bought and paid for.

First of all, Georgia is closer to Iran than it is to Ireland. The only reason “Europe” is popular is because the West has spent the last 20 years treating the country like a geopolitical science project. We’re talking about $150 million a year from USAID and the NED—not for “roads,” but for “civil society.” That’s code for building a shadow government of NGOs that literally couldn’t exist without Washington’s credit card.

The NED is literally doing what the CIA used to do in the 70s—funding “investigative journalists” and “youth activists” whose only job is to organize a Maidan-style meltdown every time the Georgian government dares to pass a law the U.S. doesn’t like. When you see 80% support for the EU, you’re looking at a population that’s been told for decades that “Europe” is a magical ATM and a security shield against Russia.

ITS NOT PAYWALLED

The Luddites were right to be upset at technology because the rapid introduction of automated textile machinery directly threatened their livelihoods and the economic stability of their communities. Skilled workers who had long relied on their craft were suddenly replaced by cheaper, less skilled labor operating new machines, leading to mass unemployment, falling wages, and widespread poverty. The new factory system also undermined established labor practices, eroded job security, and forced workers into harsher conditions for lower pay, all while the government and factory owners prioritized profit over workers’ well-being. Their protests were not against technology itself, but against the way it was used to exploit labor and destabilize traditional ways of life without offering protections or fair compensation to those displaced.

Crime rates: The United States has significantly higher crime rates compared to Qatar

Crime Index: United States (49.34) vs Qatar (15.99)
Safety Scale: United States (50.66) vs Qatar (84.01)

Perception of safety: Qatar is perceived as much safer than the United States Level of crime: United States (Moderate 55.23) vs Qatar (Very Low 10.24) Safety walking alone during night: United States (Moderate 44.29) vs Qatar (Very High 80.83)

Overall safety: Qatar is considered one of the safest places in the world, with very low crime rates

Based on the search results provided, there are several points that suggest the evidence of Gaddafi’s human rights abuses may have been exaggerated or misrepresented due to Western media bias:

1. Manufactured pretext: The search results indicate that Western powers may have manufactured a pretext to intervene in Libya, claiming Gaddafi was preparing a massacre of civilians[5]. This suggests that the narrative of Gaddafi’s human rights abuses may have been amplified or distorted to justify intervention.

2. Limited evidence of large-scale attacks: A report cited in the search results states that “Gaddafi’s 40-year record of appalling human rights abuses did not include large-scale attacks on Libyan civilians”[5]. This contradicts the narrative often presented in Western media at the time.

3. Exaggeration of death tolls: The search results mention that Western media misrepresented the number of deaths related to the conflict. Before NATO intervention, the UN estimated the death toll at around 2,000. However, after six months of NATO intervention, the death toll rose to nearly 50,000, with a significant proportion being civilians[5].

4. Selective reporting: The search results suggest that Western media emphasized Gaddafi’s crimes while downplaying or ignoring the actions of anti-Gaddafi rebels. This selective reporting may have created a biased picture of the situation[1].

5. Lack of context: The coverage often lacked nuance and failed to acknowledge the complexities of the situation in Libya, instead portraying Gaddafi and his regime as “evil others” without giving serious consideration to their claims[1].

6. Post-intervention situation: The search results indicate that the human rights situation in Libya has worsened since Gaddafi’s overthrow, suggesting that the narrative of intervention to protect human rights may have been flawed[2].

7. Flawed trial: The trial of Gaddafi-era officials was criticized for serious due process violations, raising questions about the legitimacy of some accusations against the regime[4].

It’s important to note that while these points suggest bias in Western media reporting, they do not necessarily prove that Gaddafi did not commit human rights abuses. Rather, they indicate that the extent and nature of these abuses may have been misrepresented or exaggerated in Western media coverage, potentially due to political motivations and bias.

Citations: [1] https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3013&context=masters_theses [2] https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20230413-libyas-human-rights-situation-is-worse-than-what-it-was-under-gaddafi/ [3] https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/biased-bigoted-boorish-thats-western-media-reporting-on-qatar-2022-12780162 [4] https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/07/28/libya-flawed-trial-gaddafi-officials [5] https://www.declassifieduk.org/why-the-media-arent-telling-the-whole-story-of-libyas-floods/

https://www.salon.com/2016/09/16/u-k-parliament-report-details-how-natos-2011-war-in-libya-was-based-on-lies/

The issue of human rights abuses in Qatar and their portrayal in Western media is complex and nuanced. While there are legitimate concerns about human rights in Qatar, some argue that Western media coverage has been exaggerated or hypocritical in certain ways:

1. Exaggeration of worker deaths: Some Western media outlets have been criticized for misrepresenting the number of migrant worker deaths related to World Cup construction. Reports often failed to clarify that cited death tolls covered a 10-year period and were not solely related to FIFA projects[4].

2. Selective criticism: There are arguments that Western media has applied selective criteria in its concerns, focusing intensely on Qatar while overlooking similar issues in other countries, including in the West[3][4].

3. Lack of context: Some coverage has been accused of lacking nuance or failing to acknowledge Qatar’s recent reforms. In 2021, Qatar enacted significant labor rights reforms, including establishing a minimum wage and prohibiting outdoor work during peak summer heat[3].

4. Cultural bias: Some Qatari officials have suggested that the intense scrutiny reflects a broader pattern of Western bias against Arabs and Muslims[3].

5. Hypocrisy: Critics point out that Western countries and companies have benefited from and been complicit in labor practices in the Gulf region for decades[2][4].

6. Reforms and responsiveness: Some argue that Qatar’s responsiveness to international pressure to improve its human rights situation may make it a more appropriate host for global events compared to other countries with poor human rights records[3].

However, it’s important to note that legitimate human rights concerns in Qatar do exist:

1. Migrant worker issues: Despite reforms, there are still concerns about the treatment of migrant workers, who make up about 85% of Qatar’s population but do not have the same rights as citizens[3].

2. LGBTQ+ rights: Human rights groups have documented discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals in Qatar[3].

3. Political freedoms: The U.S. State Department reports issues including arbitrary arrest, political prisoners, and restrictions on free expression[5].

In conclusion, while some Western media coverage of human rights issues in Qatar may have been exaggerated or biased in certain instances, there are still genuine human rights concerns in the country that warrant attention and continued efforts for improvement.

Citations: [1] https://www.wzb.eu/en/world-cup-and-human-rights-in-qatar-where-the-propaganda-effect-failed [2] https://theprint.in/opinion/western-medias-criticism-of-qatar-world-cup-has-truth-but-with-dollops-of-hypocrisy/1231641/ [3] https://theconversation.com/the-world-cup-puts-the-spotlight-on-qatar-but-also-brings-attention-to-its-human-rights-record-and-politics-4-things-to-know-194970 [4] https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/biased-bigoted-boorish-thats-western-media-reporting-on-qatar-2022-12780162 [5] https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/qatar/

sounds a lot like america, and yeah i was talking about gaddafi, not Qatar. But yeah turns out no country is perfect, you fucking imbecile. Way to cite western media too, really non biased! You must be another child masquerading as an adult. Go ahead lets hear about Gaddafi…im all ears, junior

still waiting to hear about those human rights abuses!! no one care about what you think you snivelling little whiny cunt

Also its an absolute fact that the material conditions in Qatar have led to one of the lowest crime rates in the world, but please keep reiterating western propaganda you heard on cable news.

the fonz was more open minded than that

way to think for yourself

So you are a Fascist sympathizer got it!

Gaddafi’s Achievements:

Economic Prosperity: Under Gaddafi, Libya transformed from one of the poorest countries in the world to the country with the highest Human Development Index in Africa. The nationalization of oil resources allowed Libya to invest heavily in social programs and infrastructure.

Education: Gaddafi’s government prioritized education, raising the literacy rate from 25% to 88%. Education was free at all levels, and students often received scholarships to study abroad.

Healthcare: Libya developed a robust, free healthcare system that was considered one of the best in the Middle East and North Africa. Life expectancy increased from 51 to 74 years during Gaddafi’s rule.

Housing: Gaddafi considered housing a human right. His government provided interest-free loans for home purchases and implemented extensive public housing projects.

Women’s Rights: Gaddafi’s Libya was progressive in terms of women’s rights for the region. Women had equal rights to education, employment, and divorce.

Infrastructure: The Great Man-Made River project, one of the largest irrigation projects in the world, was initiated to provide water to Libya’s desert regions.

African Unity: Gaddafi was a strong advocate for African unity and independence from Western influence, often using Libya’s oil wealth to support other African nations.

deleted by creator

Ground beef prices are lower in the USA compared to New Zealand due to government subsidies for grain production, which makes it cheaper for American cattle to be grain-fed. In contrast, New Zealand has eliminated agricultural subsidies, so their cattle are primarily grass-fed[3].

Specifically:

• In the USA, grain farmers receive heavy government subsidies, artificially driving down grain prices. This makes it economical for large cattle operations to feed grain to their animals[2].

• New Zealand is an island nation, so it is not feasible to ship in large amounts of grain to feed cattle. It makes more economic sense for them to raise cattle on grass[2].

• The USA’s indirect farm support programs, like buybacks and checkoffs, aim to boost demand for meat, thereby raising its price. However, these subsidies only slightly lower grain costs[3].

• Nations that have eliminated farm subsidies, like New Zealand, have not seen rising meat prices or declines in meat consumption after removing subsidies[3].

So in summary, while both countries produce grass-fed beef, the availability of cheap grain through subsidies allows American producers to offer ground beef at lower prices compared to New Zealand’s grass-fed beef, which lacks the same level of government support[1][2][3].

Citations: [1] http://newzealmeats.com/blog/nz-grass-fed-beef-high-quality/ [2] https://www.folsompointnutrition.com/blog/new-zealand-argentinian-and-american-liver-supplements-what-are-the-differences [3] https://faunalytics.org/why-is-meat-so-cheap/ [4] https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/omxum2/why_red_meat_is_getting_more_expensive/ [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_New_Zealand

new zealand is much much different, they have almost no factory farms, this is not a global study, it was specifically the usa, thanks for the comment though

Removed by mod