Marco Rubio Doesn’t Understand The Difference Between Romania in 1989 and Libya in 2011

The extremely militant US Senator Marco Rubio has been widely criticised after he Tweeted photos of former Libyan revolutionary Muammar Gaddafi speaking to his supporters, alongside a photo of Gaddafi taken seconds before he was assassinated by terrorists. Rubio later Tweeted a photo of former Romanian leader Nicolae Ceaușescu speaking to his supporters, along with an image of Ceaușescu taken before he was executed by Romanian soldiers. Yet Rubio’s attempts to provoke reckless criminal activity against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, merely reveal how ignorant Rubio is when it comes to understanding the crucial differences between Libya in 2011 and Romania in 1989.

Since 1977, Gaddafi held no formal power in Libya but was widely regarded as the country’s permanent founding father. As such, Gaddafi continued to exercise a vast amount of political influence between 1977 and his assassination in 2011. In 2011, a NATO coalition of mainly French, British and American forces attacked Libya in an effort to violently overthrow Gaddafi’s Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and install a new regime.

The first part of NATO’s goal was a success insofar as NATO destroyed Libya, whilst NATO aerial cover helped to lead a group of terrorists directly to Gaddafi’s position in the revolutionary’s birthplace of Sirte. After being lead to Gaddafi by their NATO partners, the terrorists infamously posted a gruesome assassination video which showed Gaddafi covered in blood, before the bandits delivered a fatal series of gunshot wounds to the former Libyan leader. Since then, Libya has operated as a failed state in which no single government controls the country’s territory. The country is now also home to thousands of terrorists, including members of the notorious al-Qaeda and Daesh terror groups.

The events in Romania in 1989 were decidedly different. In 1989, Romania was neither under attack from a foreign military, nor were international terrorists operational in the country. Instead, elements of Romanian society had begun to turn against the man who led the country since 1965. As Ceaușescu was known for courting US and Yugoslavia (two Soviet rivals) whilst still maintaining membership in the pro-Soviet Warsaw Pact, by 1989, Ceaușescu had successfully alienated most of his former partners, whilst he also alienated a portion of his own public – some would argue, a majority of the Romanian public.

On 21 December, 1989, Ceaușescu delivered his final speech from a balcony overlooking Palace Square in Bucharest. During the speech, Ceaușescu was repeatedly booed from the crowd whilst at one point, gunshots could be heard as Ceaușescu attempted and largely failed to maintain the support of his audience. Ceaușescu abruptly ended his speech, entered the building and fled the capital.

Ceaușescu and his wife Elena were eventually captured by police before being tried before a makeshift “court”. After a brief trial, Ceaușescu and his wife were both executed by a military firing squad.

The key difference between the execution of Ceaușescu and the assassination of Gaddafi is that Ceaușescu’s execution was an entirely Romanian affair. By contrast, Gaddafi’s country was illegally invaded by NATO forces before openly NATO backed radical Daesh style terrorists murdered Gaddafi without even the semblance of a trial.

Thus goes a long why towards explaining why eight years after Gaddafi’s assassination, Libya remains a failed state, while Romania quickly normalised its internal situation in the 1990s and remains a stable country to this day.

Marco Rubio however appears not to understand the difference between these two very different events in recent history. When one further realises that Rubio’s intent behind his Tweets was to threaten the life of Venezuela’s sitting head of state, Rubio’s moronic Tweets take on a wholly new vulgarity.

Rubio appears to wish for either an internal blood-soaked coup against Maduro or otherwise, seeks US backed militants to violently assassinate him. Such provocations by a US Senator are clearly an incitement to criminality and should be universally condemned as such.

Comments are closed.