The Libya Deception

uprising2

Ok, France, United Kingdom and USA are presently in the midst of bombing Libya, supposedly because Muammar Gaddafi is an evil dictator who kills his own people and need's to be stopped.
That's fair enough, he was having no mercy on anybody who opposed his elite regime, he's got blood on his hands, so his faith isn't my concern, live by the sword, die by the sword.

Now I'm willing to bet these airstrikes will have plenty of "collateral damage", I've half read a report of civilians going to govt buildings as human shields, which is believable as many would be loyal to Gaddafi through tribal roots. LINK

Why is one oppressor allowed do as they wish, while another is attacked for basically doing the same thing, I don't see any tomahawks heading towards Bahrain.

I believe Gaddafi has been hoodwinked into a feeling of false security, he was all buddy-buddy with Blair, making secret deals, life was looking better for the Gaddafi clan, or so they thought.

Lockerbie bomber 'set free for oil'
The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.
Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.
The correspondence makes it plain that the key decision to include Megrahi in a deal with Libya to allow prisoners to return home was,in fact, taken in London for British national interests.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6814939.ece

Secret letters reveal Labour’s Libyan deal
Sources in the UK and Tripoli said last week that those wider interests included BP’s hoped-for share of Libya’s untapped oil and gas reserves. The decision to include Megrahi in the prisoner transfer arrangement was seen by Libyan officials as paving the way for his release — and BP’s much-coveted deal was finally ratified.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6814974.ece



The day that LSE sold its soul to Libya: BP chief makes oil deal with Gaddafi... and drags prestigious university into disrepute
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363222/The-day-LSE-sold-soul-Libya-BP-chief-makes-oil-deal-Gaddafi--drags-prestigious-university-disrepute.html#ixzz1H65IXjar


The Gaddafi's were doing just great while they were being cleverly lured into deals and making generous donations, it was win,win, they were back on the main stage and were no longer the bad guys.

USA praised Sarkozy's Oil deal with Libya

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Woffbw0ZSA4

French president Nicolas Sarkozy welcomes Libyan leader Colonel Moammar Gadhafi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpOrd03HKAY

Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi and Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWgW34BS6Gg

BP got Libyan oil deal for the Lockerbie Pan Am Flight 103 bomber's release

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWZBwypVeec

After the deals are signed and the ink barely dry on the contracts, the rug is pulled from beneath the Gaddafi's and they're up sh1t creek.
BP can't be accused of stealing Libyan oil as it was a legal agreement that BP insists is still valid.

BP: Libya National Oil Corporation Contract Still Valid
LONDON (Alex Lawler/Reuters) - BP Plc said on Thursday it saw its contract with Libya's National Oil Corporation as still valid.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/17/bp-libya-noc-oil-contract_n_837329.html

I believe that Gaddafi was softened up, "his" oil was sighted and deals were done, all very legal, now his partners will remove him and nobody can accuse anybody of stealing any oil coz it was all above board before Gaddafi start killing his people, and the saviours of the people will make sure that the next regime installed to run Libya better do as it's told and must be greatful to the "Liberators", "We Love Obomber" T-shirts are being printed in backalley sweatshops as tomahawk missiles paid for by the hard working people of USA, UK and France fly overhead.

It's a double whammy for the saviours, they get the oil for free, they sell their weapons to themselves and deliver them with taxpayers money, get to put bases in Libya, a Libyan civil war breaks out, both sides need weapons it's win,win,win, the oil is money in the bank for the future, a little nestegg.

Some say that Libya's oil is insignificant....

Libya’s petroleum reserves, which were estimated to be about

29.5 billion barrels.
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/country/2001/lymyb01.pdf

OPEC member Libya is the world's 17th-largest oil producer, third-largest producer in
Africa and holds the continent's largest crude oil reserves. It normally pumps around 1.6
million bpd, 85 percent of which is exported to Europe.
http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFLDE72G14Z20110317

In ever decreasing circles, theres a point you hit and go no further, it's the end, in this case the end of oil that has the power hungry wolves ready to pounce on "friend" or foe.

So all in all I'm saying that this mission has nothing whatsoever to do with humanitarian concern, it was just another grab.

Here's a clip of Gaddafi telling the saudi puppet king who IS king of kings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTltNNT9Fzs

Brothers.........departed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIYI2nL4UdQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe7Gf1H0hmg

phosphate

Gaddafi was well liked by all the EU leaders....



UK's Tony Blair



France's Sarkozy



Italy's Berlusconi...

All very respectable people I think you'll agree.
Libya has reserves of approx. 47 billion barrels of oil as seen below.



Libya is by far the biggest exporter and as you can see below, many nations in EU are dependent upon those exports.



Italy in particular depend much on gas pipeline.



But despite all this, clearly the west care very much about the people of libya... :pac:

Mahatma coat

I dunno lads, I think it might be a clever back door to ataccking Iran

Iranian Protests a few years ago, some people activley called for an intervention then, however very little support could be raised for an intervention in a soverign state

Libya may prove to be the catalyst, once they have a "Just War'' that they can sell the american public all they need to do is stir up some trouble in Iran again, generate the appropriate media circus, and this time the template is in place for an act of Agression.

Iran wont Roll over, but the Media hype will have the mahority baying for someones Blood.

gizmo

uprising2 wrote: »

Ok, France, United Kingdom and USA are presently in the midst of bombing Libya, supposedly because Muammar Gaddafi is an evil dictator who kills his own people and need's to be stopped.
That's fair enough, he was having no mercy on anybody who opposed his elite regime, he's got blood on his hands, so his faith isn't my concern, live by the sword, die by the sword.

Did you really need to add supposedly in there? Hasn't it been proven at this stage what he is and what he is capable of?

uprising2 wrote: »

Why is one oppressor allowed do as they wish, while another is attacked for basically doing the same thing, I don't see any tomahawks heading towards Bahrain.

Because the opposition in Libya has called for this intervention. If you remember at the beginning of the protest there were banners saying no to foreign intervention, the rebels then succeeded in taking much of the eastern territories but then Gaddafi's troops managed to push them back. Now with his troops at the gates of Benghazi, the opposition called for foreign help which has now come.

As for attacking targets in Bahrain, well apart from such intervention not requested by the opposition forces in the country, there has also not been an open admission by the authorities that they are about to wage war on their own people - unlike the situation in Libya.

As for the rest, well let me ask a simple question, if Gaddafi had acquiesced to the demands of the protesters, either stepping down or opening a dialog with them earlier (remember, he's been in power for 42 years) and subsequently NOT called on them to be slaughtered by their fellow countrymen, do you think coalition forces would currently be launching missiles into the country?

Dave!

phosphate wrote: »

Gaddafi was well liked by all the EU leaders....

...

But despite all this, clearly the west care very much about the people of libya... :pac:

So, given that Gaddafi has good ties to Europe, and has been selling us oil for so long, and is relied upon by so many countries... why is it in Europe's interest to overthrow him? Surely all that stuff you posted is an argument against intervention? European leaders are jeopardising the oil supply and helping to overthrow a friendly trade partner, replacing him with an unknown, and who knows how stable, group of rebels. How does that help their cause, if their cause is oil? There's already heaps of oil European oil companies in Libya.

Di0genes

All of this is very interesting. But Gaddaffi wasn't shelling and murdering his own people when these deals were being struck.

Engaging your military at a civilian uprising is going to change your attitude to a dictator fairly sharpish.

e2e

What's the difference between Gaddaffi and those who rule Britain, the US and France?

Dave!

He slaughters his own people?

Di0genes

e2e wrote: »

What's the difference between Gaddaffi and those who rule Britain, the US and France?

Gaddaffi has a elite bodyguard unit man up entirely of good looking women?



Or Cameron and Obama don't dress like Elizabeth Taylor at Halloween?




Or oohhhh I know. Three of them are elected democratic leaders, and Gadaffi is a president for life who still calls himself "Colonel"......

e2e

namloc1980 wrote: »

Yes Yes. I know the circumstances of the "Highway of Death". I wonder did the Iraqi Government and troops consult the Laws of War before they invaded a neighbouring sovereign nation? Your post smacks of bias and double standards. The poor Iraqis were victims of big bad America yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah. Never mind that the Iraqis were the aggressors in this conflict.

Whom has Libya invaded?
Who has attacked sovereign nation this time?

phosphate

namloc1980 wrote: »

Yes Yes. I know the circumstances of the "Highway of Death". I wonder did the Iraqi Government and troops consult the Laws of War before they invaded a neighbouring sovereign nation? Your post smacks of bias and double standards. The poor Iraqis were victims of big bad America yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah. Never mind that the Iraqis were the aggressors in this conflict.

Absolutely...and never mind that the US helped Saddam Hussein get into power...and never mind the US sold chemical and biological weapons to Saddam.

How could those clean living, peace loving men in the US know Saddam would use the weapons on his people?

How could those clean living, peace loving men in the UK know Gaddafi would use the weapons on his people?

Nobody could know that!! could they?? hell naw

phosphate

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I dunno lads, I think it might be a clever back door to ataccking Iran

Iranian Protests a few years ago, some people activley called for an intervention then, however very little support could be raised for an intervention in a soverign state

Libya may prove to be the catalyst, once they have a "Just War'' that they can sell the american public all they need to do is stir up some trouble in Iran again, generate the appropriate media circus, and this time the template is in place for an act of Agression.

Iran wont Roll over, but the Media hype will have the mahority baying for someones Blood.

I think only the uneducated american public or just the insane would support attacking Iran for the same reasons.

In my opinion, oil/gas is the primary reason for invading just as it was for attacking Iraq in the past and in future, Iran.

All these countries that the west claim to be helping just happen to have most of the worlds oil...pretty obvious.

Dave!

phosphate wrote: »

I think only the uneducated american public or just the insane would support attacking Iran for the same reasons.

In my opinion, oil/gas is the primary reason for invading just as it was for attacking Iraq in the past and in future, Iran.

All these countries that the west claim to be helping just happen to have most of the worlds oil...pretty obvious.

See my post above:

Dave! wrote: »

So, given that Gaddafi has good ties to Europe, and has been selling us oil for so long, and is relied upon by so many countries... why is it in Europe's interest to overthrow him? Surely all that stuff you posted is an argument against intervention? European leaders are jeopardising the oil supply and helping to overthrow a friendly trade partner, replacing him with an unknown, and who knows how stable, group of rebels. How does that help their cause, if their cause is oil? There's already heaps of oil European oil companies in Libya.

If it's about oil, then why aren't they supporting Gadaffi? You said yourself that he's been selling them oil, and he's been pally with all of the European leaders over the years. So if Europe would just stay out of it, then Gadaffi would kill his people and restore order, and pretty soon restore the oil supply and we can all go back to normal. If everyone was benefiting from the status quo, then what's the point in overthrowing the regime?

nullzero

Quite a few CT researchers have said for some time that the NWO is going to find a way to ignite a major conflict in the Middle east region, leading to a third world war.

I find the name of the US military's operation in the Lybian No fly zone interesting from this point of view; Operation Odyssey Dawn.

I'm not saying that this is the beginning of world war 3, I'm merely stating that if you cared to take similar view points to those of the CT researchers who are convinced such a conflict will occur you could say that this operation is the dawn of a long military involvment in the region.

Either that or it's just a terrible name for a peace keeping operation.

phosphate

I don't believe EU leaders care who's in charge or what happens to the people in that region providing there's stability to conduct business.

EU have invested billions of dollars in the energy sector there and the possibility of civil war breaking out would be catastrophic to the economies of EU countries ...something had to be done.

Helping oust Gaddafi could actually benefit EU countries greatly.
Gaddafi nationalised the oil sector decades ago so that most profits from oil and gas would go to the country instead of the foreign investors.

For example, depending on agreement, companies would pay up to 85% of total revenues in taxes. The OPEC formula is usually 50-50 principal like most countries today but Libya had it's own taxation laws.

Taxation was never Gaddafi's idea, it is the ultra conservative elite who run Libya behind closed doors who benefit most.

After 40 years, BP only returned late last year investing $900 million to explore areas of Libya for oil.



BP are probably the biggest investor but Perenco (France) are most likely also heavily invested there, as are China and Russia who surprisingly abstained from UN vote. (or maybe not so surprising)

It's likely that UK and other european countries would prefer a complete privatisation of the oil sector in Libya so that investment returns are more rewarding.

What a lot of people in the west don't want to accept or seem to understand is that our economies are totally dependent on energy from all these poorer countries around the world and when we don't have cheap energy, our economies and way of life quickly collapse.

Our entire wealth is the result of exploiting poorer countries in South America, Africa, Asia and the middle east.

I don't like it, but that's how it is.

gizmo

But Gadaffi's forces were at the outskirts of the rebel stronghold in Benghazi, all the EU forces would have had to do is sit back and let him bomb the **** out of the place and that would have been the end of the uprising. Instead they chose to go in, enforce the no-fly zone and, judging from coverage tonight, they're going for his balls. All of this will perpetuate the instability within the country which is in direct contradiction of your theory.

phosphate

But once Gaddafi is removed, what makes you believe people would still support him?

What makes you believe once he's gone there would be continued instability?

gizmo

phosphate wrote: »

But once Gaddafi is removed, what makes you believe people would still support him?

What makes you believe once he's gone there would be continued instability?

History. You're talking about a political vacuum in a country which has known nothing but his absolute rule for 42 years. The changeover will be long and arduous but if it is what the people want then they should have it.

Dave!

If the oil companies were happy enough to pay Gaddafi's high tax rate for "decades", and make hundreds of millions on the process, then why the sudden desire for a new regime? I'm sure they'd be willing to accept the taxes as the cost of having a stable, reliable, consistent supply of oil. Ousting Gaddafi and replacing him with a political system that the country hasn't known for decades, and with people who the EU countries know nothing about, is terribly risky from a business perspective. Plus their oil supply is currently being disrupted because of this shenanigans, and they're no doubt losing millions.

It would have been a better idea to just let Gaddafi crush the uprising, or even better, help him by secretly giving him more weapons. Job done, everyone can go back to making money.

Your theory proposes that everything is rosey for 40 years under the dictatorship, and he's chummy with European leaders, there's a load of trade going on, oil companies are making fortunes, and then all of a sudden everyone decides simultaneously that they're sick of paying high tax rates, let's get him out.


And BTW, in your mind, is one administration the same as the other? Obama/Democrats love oil just as much as Bush/Republicans, and are willing to go to war over it?

phosphate

Dave! wrote: »

If the oil companies were happy enough to pay Gaddafi's high tax rate for "decades", and make hundreds of millions on the process, then why the sudden desire for a new regime? I'm sure they'd be willing to accept the taxes as the cost of having a stable, reliable, consistent supply of oil.

Dave, you're making assumptions here.
Fact is, oil companies weren't really invested in Libya until very recently....

Ousting Gaddafi and replacing him with a political system that the country hasn't known for decades, and with people who the EU countries know nothing about, is terribly risky from a business perspective. Plus their oil supply is currently being disrupted because of this shenanigans, and they're no doubt losing millions.

EU officials have already met with rebel forces so I trust they've evaluated the outcome of an attack on Gaddafi.

It would have been a better idea to just let Gaddafi crush the uprising, or even better, help him by secretly giving him more weapons. Job done, everyone can go back to making money.

The rebels had weapons, they were a formidable force to reckon with, even with Gaddafi holding all the weapons EU sold him.

Your theory proposes that everything is rosey for 40 years under the dictatorship, and he's chummy with European leaders, there's a load of trade going on, oil companies are making fortunes, and then all of a sudden everyone decides simultaneously that they're sick of paying high tax rates, let's get him out.

I honestly don't know how you came to that conclusion but it seems like more assumptions similar to your first assumption that foreign oil companies were happy to invest for decades in the oil sector...that's simply not true.

And BTW, in your mind, is one administration the same as the other? Obama/Democrats love oil just as much as Bush/Republicans, and are willing to go to war over it?

Well, that's just the way things are, Dave.

"Freedom" and your perceived notion of democracy come at the expense of people in other countries...nothing is free.

namloc1980

e2e wrote: »

Whom has Libya invaded?
Who has attacked sovereign nation this time?

I was referring to Iraq, try to keep up.

phosphate wrote: »

Absolutely...and never mind that the US helped Saddam Hussein get into power...and never mind the US sold chemical and biological weapons to Saddam.

How could those clean living, peace loving men in the US know Saddam would use the weapons on his people?

How could those clean living, peace loving men in the UK know Gaddafi would use the weapons on his people?

Nobody could know that!! could they?? hell naw

Wow, it must be great living in such a black-and-white, simplified little world.

nullzero wrote: »

Either that or it's just a terrible name for a peace keeping operation.

It's not a peace-keeping mission.

uprising2 wrote: »

Go back and check, make sure you got all the facts right.......
Have a read of this as a refresher, do you know about or just ignore the diagonal drilling Kuwait had done, stealing Iraqi oil?

So alleged stealing of oil is enough for you to green-light Iraq to occupy, annex and pillage a country. Wow, interesting to see so many posters supporting unelected "Presidents for life" who murder their own people.

Jeboa Safari

nullzero wrote: »

Quite a few CT researchers have said for some time that the NWO is going to find a way to ignite a major conflict in the Middle east region, leading to a third world war.

I find the name of the US military's operation in the Lybian No fly zone interesting from this point of view; Operation Odyssey Dawn.

I'm not saying that this is the beginning of world war 3, I'm merely stating that if you cared to take similar view points to those of the CT researchers who are convinced such a conflict will occur you could say that this operation is the dawn of a long military involvment in the region.

Either that or it's just a terrible name for a peace keeping operation.

So they're going to ignite a conflict in the ME by imposing a no fly zone over Libya that is backed and was called for by the Arab League?
Also, its been said before, but if this was about oil, they would have supported Gadaffi, who was happily selling it to the west, in fact oil deals had only recently been signed with some of the major oil companies.

Brown Bomber

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

So they're going to ignite a conflict in the ME by imposing a no fly zone over Libya that is backed and was called for by the Arab League?
Also, its been said before, but if this was about oil, they would have supported Gadaffi, who was happily selling it to the west, in fact oil deals had only recently been signed with some of the major oil companies.

You'll find all your answers here http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23605

Unless you think it's another "humanitarian war"

phosphate

namloc1980 wrote: »

Wow, it must be great living in such a black-and-white, simplified little world.

But I thought it was a fantastic observation.

It's not a peace-keeping mission.

No, it's a humanitarian rescue mission.

The EU need to rescue Libyans from the clutches of evil dictator, Gaddafi...who they just happened to sell $1 billion of weapons to...

King Mob wrote:

Now you see because you guys are prone to taking quotes out of context and twisting them for your own ends, And because I'm not sure if you're being deliberately facetious, I must be clear.
I was being sarcastic, my real stance is the exact opposite.
If you actually think the post I made was making sense, it proves my point.

You think you are... Great, I am Greater.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Now you see because you guys

Your taking the piss here.

The chap disagrees with you on a single topic, no more and he becomes one of "them"

King Mob wrote: »

are prone to taking quotes out of context and twisting them for your own ends

So phosphate in his combined total of 30 posts is likely in your opinion to take quotes out of context based solely on his membership (given by you) of some imaginary group and twist these same quotes for some again imaginary sinister ends (of the same non-existent group) ?

"Cter" logic there.

You guys = conspiracy theorists in general, not just phosphate. Taking comments out of context is a common feature in nearly all threads around here.

Your own ends = supporting your viewpoint, not some shadowy goal.

But thanks for demonstrating the exact thing I was referring to.

Jeboa Safari

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You'll find all your answers here http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23605

Unless you think it's another "humanitarian war"

I didn't find any answers there, and it doesn't disprove what I said at all. It talks about it being a part of Americas plan to get rid of China from the region, yet China could have vetoed the UN resolution. It talks about it being a US plan to weaken links in the area to France, yet France was one of the first countries out of the blocks pushing for action. Western companies already had oil deals with Gadaffis regime who was happy to export to the west, there was even controversy about whether oil deals were given in return for Britain releasing the Lockerbie bomber. If it was about oil, why put that at risk? It would be easier to back Gadaffi and let him put down the revolt like the Saudis

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

You guys = conspiracy theorists in general, not just phosphate. Taking comments out of context is a common feature in nearly all threads around here.

Your own ends = supporting your viewpoint, not some shadowy goal.

But thanks for demonstrating the exact thing I was referring to.

How is phosphate a conspiracy theorist?

phosphate

King Mob wrote: »

You guys = conspiracy theorists in general, not just phosphate. Taking comments out of context is a common feature in nearly all threads around here.

Your own ends = supporting your viewpoint, not some shadowy goal.

But thanks for demonstrating the exact thing I was referring to.

I'm totally confused now!

phosphate

phosphate wrote: »

I'm totally confused now!

Brown Bomber was taking my post out of it's context and twisting it to pretend it said something it didn't. I was correcting him and pointing out the irony that he was doing exactly the thing I was talking about..

sherdydan

I dont understand why people are calling this a civilian uprising, the moment you put down your plackard and pick up a kalashnikov youve become a militia

HavingCrack

sherdydan wrote: »

I dont understand why people are calling this a civilian uprising, the moment you put down your plackard and pick up a kalashnikov youve become a militia

It's because any attempt to protest peacefully in Libya ends in massacre and bloodshed. If a leader doesn't give a **** about hsi itnernational reputation, non violence only has so much effectiveness against violence. Unfortunately the civilian protests morphed into armed insurrection as a direct result of Gadaffis actions. If you stand there getting shot at for peaceful protests, what other option do you have but firing back?

humanji

Ok folks, two points:

Firstly, there was a bit of bickering on the thread and thankfully has calmed down. Please keep it this way.

Secondly, I've edited out all the graphic images. If you want to link to them, that's ok. Just mark the link as being graphic. It's not exactly something someone should stubble upon accidentally when they open a thread.

Penn

Stay on topic and calm it down. This thread is about Libya. Fair enough, it coincides with some old Jewish festival. But if that's the only reason why this current discussion is happening, drop it.

Mahatma coat

Libya hands out free guns
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/libya-hands-out-1m-weapons-to-citizens/story-e6frfkui-1226025072991


Still hot and heavy in Yemen
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/tanks-in-yemeni-capital-as-generals-defect/story-e6frfku0-1226025710595


Syria is hotting up
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/thousands-march-in-syrian-protest-town/story-e6frfku0-1226025737343

Some Pro Gadaffi sentiment in egypy
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/cairo-pro-gaddafi-protesters-mob-un-chief/story-e6frfku0-1226025685646

Baihran Is settling down a bit they claim
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/bahrain-king-says-foreign-plot-foiled/story-e6frfku0-1226025606905

and to top it off a CT Twist to the whole thing
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/ham-operator-reveals-us-psyops-broadcast/story-e6frfku0-1226025610252

some links from one news site today

So if the US and UN etc are willing to intervene to install a government they want to be in (which isn't exactly true), then how come they didn't intervene to keep a government they want?

In Eygpt they were pretty comfortable with Mubarak seeing as how he was honouring a peace agreement with Israel. But now that he's out of power there's a very good chance that the Muslim Brotherhood are going to get into power, that is if the military actually holds elections. The Muslim Brotherhood have stated that they would either not honour that agreement or only do so if "Israel make serious moves towards peace."
Now given that most CTers here probably believe that Israel isn't actually interested in peace, either way Egypt is likely going to be less friendly with Israel.

So why would the US or the UN allow this to happen to their evil puppet masters?

phosphate

King Mob, Hillary Clinton visited Egypt and pledged financial aid.

Using $60 million should buy a lot of politicians there...
It's referred to as an "enterprise fund" lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJLZzEKTRM

This is when 45 million US citizens are on food stamps.. but of course, why should anyone doubt the sincerity of Ms Clinton and the "enterprise fund" ?

phosphate

phosphate wrote: »

King Mob, Hillary Clinton visited Egypt and pledged financial aid.

Using $60 million should buy a lot of politicians there...
It's referred to as an "enterprise fund" lol


This is when 45 million US citizens are on food stamps.. but of course, why should anyone doubt the sincerity of Ms Clinton and the "enterprise fund" ?

Ah of course, plug any hole with a conspiracy.

Can you point to any evidence that any of this money is being used to buy off any politicans?
Can you point to a single politician in Egypt who has changed his policy on Israel/the west because of any connection to this fund?

Or are you just assuming that it is being used this way because it conveniently explains away a gap in the conspiracy theory?

But then that still leads to another problem. When would they bother with this payment in the first place? They already had people in power that are doing what they want, and you seem to think that this payment is a dead give away.

phosphate

King Mob wrote:

Ah of course, plug any hole with a conspiracy.

What's the conspiracy?

Can you point to any evidence that any of this money is being used to buy off any politicans?
Can you point to a single politician in Egypt who has changed his policy on Israel/the west because of any connection to this fund?

Let's wait and see, shall we?

Or are you just assuming that it is being used this way because it conveniently explains away a gap in the conspiracy theory?

Still don't know what the conspiracy is...

Obviously you don't believe Hillary Clinton should be looking to invest US tax dollars on US soil...funny that.

I would have thought the top priority of US politicians was to fix the economic problems in their country first before tending to others...lol

I like you, King Mob.

phosphate

phosphate wrote: »

What's the conspiracy?

That the US is using fund from this to bribe politicians to change their policies.

phosphate wrote: »

Let's wait and see, shall we?

So then no, you can't point to examples of either and thus have no evidence for your claim and are only assuming it's true because it is convenient for your theory.

phosphate wrote: »

Obviously you don't believe Hillary Clinton should be looking to invest US tax dollars on US soil...funny that.

I would have thought the top priority of US politicians was to fix the economic problems in their country first before tending to others...lol

I like you, King Mob.

And back to making sweeping generalised and untrue judgements about what I believe.
Great, we were skating dangerously close to actual discussion for a second.

phosphate

King Mob wrote: »

That the US is using fund from this to bribe politicians to change their policies.

Yes, of course that's what the money is for..that's my assumption and I believe in it. You're entitled to believe what you want and I will respect that. Please respect or learn to appreciate my view.

So then no, you can't point to examples of either and thus have no evidence for your claim and are only assuming it's true because it is convenient for your theory.

No, not yet. I expect we'll hear about it in the future assuming some Egyptian power brokers accept the money, good enough? it'll have to be.

Again, this is my belief because I've studied US foreign policy in South America, Africa, Asia and middle east and ..my belief is entirely reasonable based on historical FACTS, not assumptions.

And back to making sweeping generalised and untrue judgements about what I believe.
Great, we were skating dangerously close to actual discussion for a second.

I genuinely believe we're having an intriguing debate on this important historical event and I am attempting to clarify for the benefit of myself just what exactly you believe because I feel your comments are quite ambiguous.

Look at from my perspective.

I'm an observer of the financial problems in the US and when I see the US government spending billions of dollars..tax payer dollars causing mayhem in middle eastern countries, I really don't buy the premise it's all for freedom and democracy.

The explanation just stinks and you along with others think i'm coming to some irrational conclusion about just what exactly the US government are trying to achieve.

If you really study and I mean spend hours and hours analysing the economic situation in the US currently, you would be baffled at why the US government would prioritise the economic interests of some arabs 10,000 miles away....really, what is the objective here?

45 million americans on food stamps, a country in the grip of a depression with high unemployment... where are the priorities of US politicians like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama? overseas, that's where.

So Excuse me for being cynical... :rolleyes:

phosphate

phosphate wrote: »

Yes, of course that's what the money is for..that's my assumption and I believe in it. You're entitled to believe what you want and I will respect that. Please respect or learn to appreciate my view.

No, not yet. I expect we'll hear about it in the future assuming some Egyptian power brokers accept the money, good enough? it'll have to be.

Again, this is my belief because I've studied US foreign policy in South America, Africa, Asia and middle east and ..my belief is entirely reasonable based on historical FACTS, not assumptions.

That's the thing, you're assuming something without evidence. That isn't research and it's not study.
Why should I respect or even take seriously something you can't support with evidence?

And why would I accept something for which you've no evidence for as a viable explanation for a massive hole in your theory?

phosphate wrote: »

I genuinely believe we're having an intriguing debate on this important historical event and I am attempting to clarify for the benefit of myself just what exactly you believe because I feel your comments are quite ambiguous.

Yea that would be great and all if you weren't making assumptions about what I believe and making arguments from there.

phosphate wrote: »

45 million americans on food stamps, a country in the grip of a depression with high unemployment... where are the priorities of US politicians like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama? overseas, that's where.

So Excuse me for being cynical... :rolleyes:

Because Hillary Clinton's job is dealing with foreign powers and America doesn't exist in a vacuum?
You don't have a cynical view, you have a biased, over-simplistic view.

phosphate

King Mob wrote: »

That's the thing, you're assuming something without evidence. That isn't research and it's not study.
Why should I respect or even take seriously something you can't support with evidence?

And why would I accept something for which you've no evidence for as a viable explanation for a massive hole in your theory?

OMFG....lol

This is a conspiracy theory forum and you are not devils advocate.

I honestly don't care if you accept my theory or not....ffs

Yea that would be great and all if you weren't making assumptions about what I believe and making arguments from there.

HAHAHA...

Because Hillary Clinton's job is dealing with foreign powers and America doesn't exist in a vacuum?
You don't have a cynical view, you have a biased, over-simplistic view.

YES...hmmm, I agree. *nods head*

I have tried my best to engage with you in an informed discussion but you clearly have a lot of reading to do.

phosphate

phosphate wrote: »

OMFG....lol

This is a conspiracy theory forum and you are not devils advocate.

I honestly don't care if you accept my theory or not....ffs

Oh, so total fiction is acceptable in a discussion of "an important historical event" as you put it?

The reason I don't accept your theory is because, as you've demonstrated, it's biased, based on wild assumptions and lacking in any evidence as well as having massive logical holes.

phosphate wrote: »

I have tried my best to engage with you in an informed discussion but you clearly have a lot of reading to do.

You really haven't. It's not a discussion if you "honestly don't care if you accept my theory or not". It's you rehearsing opinions you don't want to critically examine.
And given how you don't understand what Hillary Clinton's job is I wouldn't call your opinion "informed" either.

phosphate

We could be talking about ANYTHING right now and you would use the exact same silly arguments against me...if some stranger just looked at your posts without looking at the thread title, they wouldn't know what you were discussing...

Absolute waste of time..i'm serious.

Maybe someone else can entertain you.

I give up for today!

nullzero

namloc1980 wrote: »

It's not a peace-keeping mission.

My sincerest apologies, I'm sure you got the gist of what I meant, if not I hope I haven't caused you any offence which might affect things between us in the future.

nullzero

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

So they're going to ignite a conflict in the ME by imposing a no fly zone over Libya that is backed and was called for by the Arab League?
Also, its been said before, but if this was about oil, they would have supported Gadaffi, who was happily selling it to the west, in fact oil deals had only recently been signed with some of the major oil companies.

I merely stated that you could look at things in such a way if you believed in certain other supporting ideas.

I never stated that what I wrote was the truth or that I believe it.

Aka Ishur

phosphate wrote: »

..you're making assumptions here.

i lol'd

phosphate

phosphate wrote: »

We could be talking about ANYTHING right now and you would use the exact same silly arguments against me...if some stranger just looked at your posts without looking at the thread title, they wouldn't know what you were discussing...

Absolute waste of time..i'm serious.

Maybe someone else can entertain you.

I give up for today!

Cause as we all know asking for supporting evidence is a very silly argument.

Penn

Some posts from last night have been deleted. Apologies if this disrupts the flow of conversation.

Brown Bomber

Barrington wrote: »

Some posts from last night have been deleted. Apologies if this disrupts the flow of conversation.

Nice one.

Now this thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056214518 is just dead links.

I went to time and effort to share that information and post those links.