Gaddafi's "The Green Book"

A solid book on understanding the mindset and political ideology of former Libyan leader Gaddafi. It was definitely understandable, however there were several typos, and it was obviously a translated text. Interestingly, Gaddafi himself did not implement his own ideas and just became another corrupt dictator. This book shows that he was once an idealist who was generally trying to make the world a better place. It is definitely highly subjective, as it places a large emphasis on tradition and religion to govern society. The ideas definitely would not be accepted in a liberal Western democratic society. The book also advocates the idea of direct rule by the people through committees.

Gaddafi's ideas are utopian, appear to come more from Bedouin culture than from Islam, and strongly rejecting both communism and western politics and culture.He believes in a socialism driving by common people and not government organized or enforced.Though a Muslim, he does not promote Islam, except in a statement that a nation should have a single religion. He promotes natural culture, and Islam claims to be the natural religion.Many ideals are proclaimed, including rights of minorities, natural rights of women and children, including the need for children to be with their mothers. That contrasts with the Islamic standard that Fathers have total right and control.He assumes that in time people will choose this utopia, and so makes no proposal for enforcing it.There is no impetus for putting this utopia into place by force, but lacks a clear statement condemning force.I chose this book because I am trying, as a Christian and political conservative, to understand Muslim Thinking. This book is an example of Muslim thinking, but far from and much in contrast to much of Mid-East ideology.It seems great foolishness for Western nations to deal with Mid-East threats while making little effort to understand how leaders and people in these nations think about life and social and political issues. The result is bad actions that backfire and increase the problems.Great leaders in Islam who had the good of the people in mind rather than ideologies of self-promotion and stolen riches include Ataturk, Mossadech, Sadat, and Gaddafi. The later three were killed for their goodness.Gaddafi had his bad years, but had been turning Westward. He discarded Libya's nuclear program. The Green Book shows thinking that could only be repulsive to Islamists. The resulted in a rebel movement in Libya, which was foolishly supported by the American government.To support a rebel movement in Muslim countries can only result in prolonging the conflict and causing great suffering and killing. Even the worst of dictators serve the country better by quickly putting down rebellions rather than making the country into a Syria.So, the U.S. killed Gaddafi, killed the best peace movement in Africa and the Mid-East, promoting the "Arabic Spring" and conflict and destruction that can only ultimately benefit the Muslim Brotherhood, as they take advantage of the chaos.Is the Obama administration the best friend the Muslim Brotherhood ever had? Deliberately or foolishly?They killed Gaddafi. Possibly the worst crime of the century.

Essential reading for any politically minded person -- especially revolutionaries or other types who suspect something is not quite right with the current state of the States. Very easy to read. Every chapter is essentially a 1-5 page essay that rings of common sense.

Just started really heavy info, gives a better understanding of what and how things came about.

It would have you believe this is a textured and decently bound book. However the texture is printed on and it's a very average bound book. Great text. Glad it's being sold here. Crumby that the cover makes it look better than it is.

Good

This work caught my eye because of how elusive Ghadaffi is as a character. He seemed to me to be a strange blend of pan-Arabism (later pan-Africanism), socialism, authoritarianism, eccentricity, and more. When you read this work, you find in the first part (part 1) a very promising project of a large, coalitional politics that seeks direct democratic control through a people-wide government in order to eliminate some of the problematic parts of democracy (the first chapter or two highlight thus last point rather effectively and convincingly). However, after about the first two-three chapter, and certainly by the end of the first part of the book, it devolves into strangely contradictory ideas about culture, tolerance, governance, retaliation, etc, leaving me confused as to how Ghaddafi could’ve thought this worth to publish.I give it three stars hesitantly; if it was just the first part of the book, I’d give it four, maybe five stars, but this book is a two-star book at best with the rest chunked in there, and the extra star in my review is simply because Ghaddafi is a significant figure that would should be at least minutely read in in order to not repeat some of his mistakes. Give it a read because it’s cheap and short—I’m a slow reader, but I read it over three days, 1 part per day, and it was very manageable—but don’t expect to suddenly become a Ghaddafi apologist.

Inshallah the western dogs and international gangsters will pay for what has been done