The Libya Deception

davoxx

gizmo wrote: »

No, I'm saying the British Royal Family do not cultivate a cult of personality, which they don't. Neither does Obama actually which leads me to believe you simply don't know what one is.


Since when was what a reason for invading a country? I pointed to Gadaffi's use of "him" as an example of a leader who does not have the best interests of his people at heart which, after over 42 years in power is now blindingly obvious.


But that is what they are doing, right now in fact as NATO take the lead in the current campaign. And why does the removal of Gadaffi have to be mutually exclusive to protecting civilians? He's already shown he presents a clear and present danger to anyone who opposes him, civilian or otherwise, and I'd imagine that's why there is such a strong push to get rid of him once and for all.


Do you know what OPEC is? You realise Libya is a member and this organisation and that they, as an organisation, set the price of oil?


It is? Proof please?

you know what .. i'll follow your lead here so .. please post the proof to all your claims ...

cheap oil - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8407274.stm

davoxx

Overheal wrote: »

Don't twist my words around like that again, please. You are basically implying that the only reason there is military action in Libya is because they are weak; and has nothing to do at all with there being a humanitarian precedent, which is BS. You're arguing the sandwich came before the bread.

i'm not implying anything .. i'm stating that the the only two reasons are easy and oil, which can be condensed to oil.

you're statement verified that ... china which is not easy but has oil and was abusing people is not being invaded/attacked.

humanitarian means nothing here, lets be honest.

Jeboa Safari

Attacking China is a ridiculous strawman, attacking China would result in a nuclear holocaust.

davoxx

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Attacking China is a ridiculous strawman, attacking China would result in a nuclear holocaust.

it's not a strawman - it validates the point that this is about oil - well easy oil.
since attacking china for oil while claiming humanitarian reasons is not an easy win.

i think that validates my point.

option 1 has oil and is weak, but we claim is killing innocent people
option 2 has oil and is strong, but we claim is killing innocent people

since we attack only option one, and as you put it attacking option 2 is ridiculous, we can conclude that the reason is easy oil.

Jeboa Safari

Except they had easy oil under Gadaffi

Yitzhak Rabin

davoxx wrote: »

... Prove Me Wrong

Thats not how debate works. If someone makes a claim, you can ask them to back it up, that is not unreasonable.

However, you can't ask someone to prove you wrong. Its impossible. See Russell Teapot to see what I mean.

davoxx

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Except they had easy oil under Gadaffi

that is subjective - maybe it was not easy enough for them.
it will be cheaper oil once a new puppet government is put in place.
also we don't know whether he was going to raise prices, sell less oil to usa/uk/france ...
so i don't think we can class that as easy oil

Jeboa Safari

How do you know it will be cheaper? Oil prices shot up after the Iraq war, and China has been a big beneficiary of Iraqi oil. They had a stable secure supply from Gadaffi before the war.

davoxx

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

How do you know it will be cheaper? Oil prices shot up after the Iraq war, and China has been a big beneficiary of Iraqi oil. They had a stable secure supply from Gadaffi before the war.

because the companies pay less for it as they no longer had to go through the iraq government (saddam) for it. prices to the public went up, no argument there. but cheap oil does not mean for the person buying it.

saddam was meant to be switching the price to euro from dollars if memory serves correct.

humanji

davoxx wrote: »

it's not a strawman - it validates the point that this is about oil - well easy oil.
since attacking china for oil while claiming humanitarian reasons is not an easy win.

i think that validates my point.

option 1 has oil and is weak, but we claim is killing innocent people
option 2 has oil and is strong, but we claim is killing innocent people

since we attack only option one, and as you put it attacking option 2 is ridiculous, we can conclude that the reason is easy oil.

But that's an assumption. Libya also has sand, therefore it's an invasion to get sand. Libya has a warmer climate, therefore it's an invasion to get a proper tan.

You've decided what the conclusion is and are fitting the evidence to it, instead of the other way around.

davoxx

humanji wrote: »

But that's an assumption. Libya also has sand, therefore it's an invasion to get sand. Libya has a warmer climate, therefore it's an invasion to get a proper tan.

You've decided what the conclusion is and are fitting the evidence to it, instead of the other way around.

i don't follow you there ... if sand was worth alot of money, it would be about sand.
i don't think either of my options were anything but assumptions.
but libya does have oil and is weak.

if because libya had sand and another country also had sand, but they still went to libya, i think sand is not the issue. i think that is very fair statement. so we can rule out humanitarian issue. as humanitarian is the same as sand (i'm having a deja vu here for some reason)

true i have reached a conclusion, but even undecided is a conclusion. so everyone has a concluded their stance.
but i am not fitting evidence to it, i did not make up that they have oil and are the weakest country with the highest amount of oil ... that is fact.

davoxx

evidence:
country 1 has oil and is weak, but we claim is killing innocent people
country 2 has oil and is strong, but we claim is killing innocent people
country 3 has no oil and is weak, but we claim is killing innocent people

country 1 is attacked.

conclusion:
country 1 was attacked because of oil related to the fact that they are weak and are not able to defend themselves.

is that a valid statement contained in itself?

gizmo

davoxx wrote: »

i don't follow you there ... if sand was worth alot of money, it would be about sand.
i don't think either of my options were anything but assumptions.
but libya does have oil and is weak.

if because libya had sand and another country also had sand, but they still went to libya, i think sand is not the issue. i think that is very fair statement. so we can rule out humanitarian issue. as humanitarian is the same as sand (i'm having a deja vu here for some reason)

true i have reached a conclusion, but even undecided is a conclusion. so everyone has a concluded their stance.
but i am not fitting evidence to it, i did not make up that they have oil and are the weakest country with the highest amount of oil ... that is fact.

Their oil reserves are not particularly high, as was quoted in the figures earlier in the thread the Libyan reserves are paltry compared to other Gulf States. Not only that, but they are sold mainly to European countries, not the US.

You also haven't shown any proof outside of your own opinion that prices are lower for companies in the countries the US has gone into.

Not only that, but no one has answered the question which has been put forth multiple times of what they expected coalition forces to do once Gadaffi had surrounded Benghazi and threatened to slaughtered anyone who opposed him.

humanji

No it's not a valid statement. It's assuming that it's about oil. It could beabout a billion different things. You want it to be about oil and money, so that's the conclusion you assume must eb the right one.

Country 1 is killing it's own people and country 2 and 3 are allies of the US. There's another reason right there, for example. It doesn't mean it's the correct one, but it's a possibility has nothing to with oil.

davoxx

humanji wrote: »

No it's not a valid statement. It's assuming that it's about oil. It could beabout a billion different things. You want it to be about oil and money, so that's the conclusion you assume must eb the right one.

Country 1 is killing it's own people and country 2 and 3 are allies of the US. There's another reason right there, for example. It doesn't mean it's the correct one, but it's a possibility has nothing to with oil.

i think you'll find there is a possibility of anything happening for any reason.

it is a valid statement by itself. i don't want it to be about oil, but it happens to be about oil. you want to deny that it is about oil fair play, can't argue there. the facts would suggest otherwise, but anyone can just deny them.

the reality of the situation is that unless we have the guys who started the war admit what it was about and we have access to all evidence, we'll never be able to prove one way of the other according to you. and i'm guessing even if we did, people will dispute the evidence, and failing all that we can always go down the road of nonsense "the originals are not the orginals, it's possible that they were altered"

regarding your

humanji wrote: »

Country 1 is killing it's own people and country 2 and 3 are allies of the US.

that would be okay if that was your assumption that the reason country 1 was invaded only because it was killing people and country 2 and 3 were not.
as that is clearly not correct to the factual current situation, your assumption from that that libya was invaded for the killing of it's own people would be 100% incorrect.

humanji

davoxx wrote: »

i think you'll find there is a possibility of anything happening for any reason.

They why must you assume, without facts, that only one specific possibility must be true?

it is a valid statement by itself. i don't want it to be about oil, but it happens to be about oil.

How do you know? There's no facts to back that up. Only assumptions based on gut feelings.

you want to deny that it is about oil fair play, can't argue there. the facts would suggest otherwise, but anyone can just deny them.

Again, I'm not denying it's about oil. I'm saying there simply is no reason to assume it must be. Gather evidence and see what conclusion they form. Don't take a conclusion and gather only evidence that confirms it.

the reality of the situation is that unless we have the guys who started the war admit what it was about and we have access to all evidence, we'll never be able to prove one way of the other according to you.

Isn't it a civil war? Nato didn't start it.

and i'm guessing even if we did, people will dispute the evidence, and failing all that we can always go down the road of nonsense "the originals are not the orginals, it's possible that they were altered"

People will always dispute the evidence, but you generally need evidence before you can get that far.

regarding your

that would be okay if that was your assumption that the reason country 1 was invaded only because it was killing people and country 2 and 3 were not.
as that is clearly not correct to the factual current situation, your assumption from that that libya was invaded for the killing of it's own people would be 100% incorrect.

Do you honestly not understand the point of not fitting evidence to a conclusion?

davoxx

humanji wrote: »

They why must you assume, without facts, that only one specific possibility must be true?

because it is the most likely. and there are facts.

but the point you missed there was that regardless of fact 'anything' is possible, not probable, but possible.
i think this defines the difference in our methods of reaching a conclusion.
all the evidence points against the conclusion and you'll argue it's possible.
all evidence points towards it and you'll agree against it as it is still a possibility.

humanji wrote: »

There's no facts to back that up.

there are plenty of facts which include assumptions about these facts.
lets see where is the oil? that's a fact
strength of army? that's a fact
is there sand there? that's a fact, irrelevant, so it becomes noise
did japan win the superbowl? there's a fact, also irrelevant.

you just chose to ignore facts. i can't make you see them, i can show you, up to you to understand them.

humanji wrote: »

I'm saying there simply is no reason to assume it must be. Gather evidence and see what conclusion they form. Don't take a conclusion and gather only evidence that confirms it.

i did, i looked at the facts, and they point to the only reasonable conclusion. evidence will only support or refute a conclusion, otherwise it is just noise. therefore there is reason to assume that it is the correct conclusion.

humanji wrote: »

People will always dispute the evidence, but you generally need evidence before you can get that far.

then there is no point to this thread or any thread. any proof can be argued with "there is a possibility that the atoms jumped and you got that invalid reading, so there the world is flat"

humanji wrote: »

Do you honestly not understand the point of not fitting evidence to a conclusion?

no i understand it, i don't understand how you think i'm doing it. it seems to be a case of just saying it rather that proving it.

i still remember conversations about iraq with people saying there were WMD and the war had nothing to do with oil ... i remember how that played out.
it seems some people will argue that it was about WMD, that was their official line, and the fact that non were found, that documents were doctored does not mean it was about oil.
technically that is true

but technically if the un announced that the reason for invading was that octimus prime told them to, then technically that is the reason, even though we know octimus prime does not exist.

we should just close this thread, we know why the war is happening, they told us.

davoxx

humanji wrote: »

It could beabout a billion different things.

i'll just summarise here. true it "could be" about a billion different things, but it is not.

similarly oil could be used to make houses turn yellow, but it is not.
or
similarly oil could be milked from an animal, but it is not.

humanji

davoxx wrote: »

because it is the most likely. and there are facts.

It's not the most likely reason, in fairness. And there are facts to back up a wide variety of conclusions, but little in proof.

but the point you missed there was that regardless of fact 'anything' is possible, not probable, but possible.

This is the point you're failing to understand. It is possible it's about oil. You have claimed it is about oil. See the difference? One is stated as a possibility. The other stated as fact. You assume it's about oil and refuse to accept any other outcome. I on the other hand am not jumping to a conclusion as there's little evidence to support any definite conclusion.

i think this defines the difference in our methods of reaching a conclusion.
all the evidence points against the conclusion and you'll argue it's possible.
all evidence points towards it and you'll agree against it as it is still a possibility.

The difference between our methods is that I'm waiting for evidence before claiming I know the truth.

there are plenty of facts which include assumptions about these facts.
lets see where is the oil? that's a fact
strength of army? that's a fact
is there sand there? that's a fact, irrelevant, so it becomes noise
did japan win the superbowl? there's a fact, also irrelevant.

you just chose to ignore facts. i can't make you see them, i can show you, up to you to understand them.

the people are being represssed and killed by a dictator and the moral thing to do would be to help them? that's a fact. Therefore, by your logic, it's a humanitarian mission. Now that's a fact. I can't make you see that. I can only show you. It's up to you to understand it.

i did, i looked at the facts, and they point to the only reasonable conclusion. evidence will only support or refute a conclusion, otherwise it is just noise. therefore there is reason to assume that it is the correct conclusion.

So you agree that you're just assuming you're correct? That's the point I'm making. You can't just claim that one conclusion must be the truth and dismiss all others because you want to.

then there is no point to this thread or any thread. any proof can be argued with "there is a possibility that the atoms jumped and you got that invalid reading, so there the world is flat"

no i understand it, i don't understand how you think i'm doing it. it seems to be a case of just saying it rather that proving it.

And again, there's a difference between offering an opinion and claiming something as the truth.

i still remember conversations about iraq with people saying there were WMD and the war had nothing to do with oil ... i remember how that played out.
it seems some people will argue that it was about WMD, that was their official line, and the fact that non were found, that documents were doctored does not mean it was about oil.
technically that is true

You do relise that Iraq actually had WMD's? They used them on Iran years before. I do believe Iraq was mainly about oil (also about gaining a foothold in the middleeast). But that's irrelevant to Libya.

but technically if the un announced that the reason for invading was that octimus prime told them to, then technically that is the reason, even though we know octimus prime does not exist.

That's just being silly. A country at civil war where the rebels ask the UN for help. That's the official story and the evidence currently fits it. For some reason, the fact that there's oil in Libya is enough for you to completely discount all evidence that goes against your thinking.

Keep an open mind and judge everything on it's own merits. Thinking with a preconcieved notion of who the enemy is, distorts your view.

davoxx wrote: »

i'll just summarise here. true it "could be" about a billion different things, but it is not.

similarly oil could be used to make houses turn yellow, but it is not.
or
similarly oil could be milked from an animal, but it is not.

And again, try and preface this with "I believe..." As at the moment, it's a theory. Nothing more.

uprising2

Humanji will you please watch this video from 1:34 and listen to what Wesley Clark says, I know he was talking about bush etc, but nothing has really changed, and as shown already Libyan oil is "sweet", easy and cheap to process.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX7hMj2NKTc

The attackers will install their new puppet regime in Libya and tell them, rather than ask them the price of the "sweet oil", the contracts may/will be rewritten not in Libya's favour.
"For the oil markets, what is important is not just the quantity of oil, but its quality. Libya produces a very light sweet oil. For engineers, that means specific gravity of 37 degrees and a 0.4% sulphur content. Saudi Arabia’s light oil has a specific gravity of 31 degrees and a 1.7% sulphur content. The two are not a one-for-one swap because the refining system is finely tuned."

Now the rebels, who the attackers were going to arm with weapons payed for by taxpayers may have "al qaeda" links, so maybe instead of arming the rebels they will send footsoldiers in and cause much more destruction and death than Gaddafi could ever have dreamed of, just look at the "freedom" in Iraq.

"In transferring command and control to Nato, the US is turning over the reins to an organisation dominated by the US itself, both militarily and politically. In essence, the US runs the show that is taking over running the show. "
THE FACTS: The US is, and always has been, the pre-eminent player in Nato. The United States supplies 22 per cent of NATO'S budget, almost as much as the next largest contributors – Britain and France – combined. A Canadian three-star general was selected to be in charge of all Nato operations in Libya. His boss, the commander of NATO'S Allied Joint Force Command Naples, is an American admiral, and the admiral's boss is the supreme allied Commander Europe, a post always held by an American
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8413347/How-Barack-Obamas-Libya-claims-fit-the-facts.html

davoxx

humanji wrote: »

It's not the most likely reason, in fairness. And there are facts to back up a wide variety of conclusions, but little in proof.

it is the most likely as there are facts avaible, in terms of proof, there is no concrete proof one way or another, and there never will be.

humanji wrote: »

This is the point you're failing to understand. It is possible it's about oil. You have claimed it is about oil.

based on the evidence i have.

humanji wrote: »

See the difference? One is stated as a possibility. The other stated as fact. You assume it's about oil and refuse to accept any other outcome. I on the other hand am not jumping to a conclusion as there's little evidence to support any definite conclusion.

yes based on the evidence that is treated as fact.
i refuse other outcomes as they are wrong and there are only broken logic behind them.
true your stance is that or should be nothing can be proved therefore everything is a possibility.
that is a true statement, but in terms of reality, we need to look at the most probabale, that is also a fact.

humanji wrote: »

The difference between our methods is that I'm waiting for evidence before claiming I know the truth.

you can never claim to know the truth. and sure you can wait, but that just means you have not figured out the answer so to speak.

humanji wrote: »

the people are being represssed and killed by a dictator and the moral thing to do would be to help them?

that is not a fact. that is theory by your logic and i agree that is not fact.

humanji wrote: »

that's a fact.

not a fact, even by your broken logic, not a fact.
do you see what you did here?? you used the assumption that 1 he is a dictator, 2 he is killing people, 3 and that the moral thing to do is help. those are 3 assumptions, NOT FACT.

humanji wrote: »

Therefore, by your logic, it's a humanitarian mission.

no by my logic it is not as there are other countries that fit that assumed profile and are not getting help.

humanji wrote: »

Now that's a fact. I can't make you see that. I can only show you. It's up to you to understand it.

once again not a fact, you need to be consistent in your argument. and i like the childish copy of my statement.
that is why you can't follow logic. you either go one extreme where everything is in dispute, or the other where you take half a theory and use that as proof.

humanji wrote: »

So you agree that you're just assuming you're correct? That's the point I'm making. You can't just claim that one conclusion must be the truth and dismiss all others because you want to.

of course i'm assuming i'm not wrong, hardly going to assume i'm wrong.
the point you're trying to make is that my process for coming to my assumption is wrong.
i can claim one conclusion as the truth in this case, i can't dismiss others because i want to, i dismiss them because there is no evidence to back them.

humanji wrote: »

And again, there's a difference between offering an opinion and claiming something as the truth.

not true, as you should know what ever anyone offers as a truth is only their opinion. it may turn out to be right or wrong.
we claim it is the truth based of our understand of the overall thought process

is seems as a last attempt are you arguing against the whole human perception of reality.

humanji wrote: »

You do relise that Iraq actually had WMD's? They used them on Iran years before. I do believe Iraq was mainly about oil (also about gaining a foothold in the middleeast).

it depends on how you define WMD. and yes they had them in the past, but NO they did not have them at the time of the war. therefore your statement is misleading, and incorrect in the context of my statement.
i'm glad you believe it was mainly about oil. i know it was completely about oil.
i don't know when you got to your belief. i know when i came to mine.
that's the difference. you might need to see what happened in order to come up with an opinion of what happened.
i can derive what happened based on evidence, sometimes it is inconclusive, sometimes it is not. is there a possibility that i could be wrong? yes, there is, but there is a possibility that even after viewing the event your conclusion is wrong, but you can't really build your argument only on a possibility.

humanji wrote: »

But that's irrelevant to Libya.

no it is not. you are wrong here. it is relevant, the amount is debatable, but it is relevant.
both have oil, both have a reason that does not seem right, both looking for regime change ....
see very relevant

i'll do your part here to save time:

iraq is not libya so not relevant
saddam is not the same as gaddaffi so different
the war in iraq happened in the past so once again different
...
...

i'll argue that there are similarities.
your argument is basically that since they are different entities no comparison can be made.

humanji wrote: »

That's just being silly. A country at civil war where the rebels ask the UN for help. That's the official story and the evidence currently fits it.

silliness is subjective.
when was libya at civil war? it had terrorists? see how you are making up fact.
when did they ask the un for help?
that is the official story, the evidence does not support it, otherwise we would not be having a debate about it.
see what you did there, you took some evidence and purported it as all the evidence. your statement should have said some evidence currently fits it.

humanji wrote: »

For some reason, the fact that there's oil in Libya is enough for you to completely discount all evidence that goes against your thinking.

what evidence that goes against my conclusion?

humanji wrote: »

Keep an open mind and judge everything on it's own merits. Thinking with a preconcieved notion of who the enemy is, distorts your view.

i do have an open mind, i as a human will always have a biased view, as all anyone can see is their world through thier eyes.
but i have judged everything on it's own merits.
if you're not able to deduce anything fair enough, not all scientists were good, the good ones could figure out what was happening, the bad ones could only see what happened.

humanji wrote: »

And again, try and preface this with "I believe..." As at the moment, it's a theory. Nothing more.

i think you need to tell that every piece of purported fact needs to start with "i believe"
i would have thought it was implied, but i guess sometimes it just needs to be broken down.

to conclude everything can be interpreted as a theory, and it will always be a theory, so your point is moot.
fair enough, if all statements are prefixed by "i believe", i can't argue with you there. their your believes. they can still be wrong, but if you are going to argue that since everything is a possibility, there is not point in having a debate.

gizmo

So since we're talking about facts, or at least our interpretation of them, would anyone like to comment on the current situation facing Iman al-Obeidi?

It seems after first claiming she had been released back to her sister in Tripoli while suffering from a mental illness, then labelling her as a drunk, a prostitute and a thief, the government have announced she's now being sued for the claims she attempted to make to journalists before being tackled by government "minders".

humanji

uprising2 wrote: »

Humanji will you please watch this video from 1:34 and listen to what Wesley Clark says, I know he was talking about bush etc, but nothing has really changed, and as shown already Libyan oil is "sweet", easy and cheap to process.

uprising2 wrote: »

Humanji will you please watch this video from 1:34 and listen to what Wesley Clark says, I know he was talking about bush etc, but nothing has really changed, and as shown already Libyan oil is "sweet", easy and cheap to process

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that there can only be good intentions with the UN going into Libya. I'm just saying that Davoxx assumption without any proof that it can only be about oil is too much of a leap of faith.

davoxx wrote: »

it is the most likely as there are facts avaible, in terms of proof, there is no concrete proof one way or another, and there never will be.

Now this is the point I'm getting at. You admit that you can't know for certain. But then you claim to know for certain. You see, you don't. You're assuming what the reason for the war is and refuse to accept that you may be wrong. That's not to say you are wrong, it's simply illogical to assume a gut feeling is the truth.



based on the evidence i have.


yes based on the evidence that is treated as fact.
i refuse other outcomes as they are wrong and there are only broken logic behind them.
true your stance is that or should be nothing can be proved therefore everything is a possibility.
that is a true statement, but in terms of reality, we need to look at the most probabale, that is also a fact.


So answer me this simple question: Do you know for certain, ie 100% proof positive, that it's all about oil?

My point is that none of us do, and that it's too early to refuse to believe any alternative.

Now, rather than simply go line by line of your reply, I think it'll be a lot easier for people to read if I summarize. Basically you seem to misunderstand a few simple facts.

1) Ghaddafi really is a dictator. He's your standard, stereotypical dictator, helped to power by the US and then turned on them like so many others.

2) People in Libya are dying on Ghaddafi's orders.

3) There is currently a civil war going on in Libya. That's what this whole thread is about.

4) The most humane/moral thing to do would be to help stop the violence.

These are documented facts. Not assumptions. I've no idea how you can misinterpret them, to be honest.

From there we have the rebels requesting aid and the UN deciding to help. It could be for oil, it could be to save lives. We don't know for sure. That's where we stand now.

From here we move to assumptions. Now using the Iraq/Afghan invasions, it's possible that the US are at it again. Then again, using WW2, it could be to overthrow a dictator. So previous form doesn't really help us.

Working with the evidence we have at the moment, we're left with too little info to know for sure the full story. That's why I say that it's premature to discount all avenues of investigation.

uprising2

gizmo wrote: »

So since we're talking about facts, or at least our interpretation of them, would anyone like to comment on the current situation facing Iman al-Obeidi?

It seems after first claiming she had been released back to her sister in Tripoli while suffering from a mental illness, then labelling her as a drunk, a prostitute and a thief, the government have announced she's now being sued for the claims she attempted to make to journalists before being tackled by government "minders".

That woman was clearly upset, I don't think she suffered from any mental illness or was a drunk or whatever else they claim.
The "minders" were govt thugs, who would and do treat all Libyan's with the same standards.
I'm not a thug supporter, Gaddafi is/was an elite who saw himself way above his subjects, but the saviours US/UK/France are bigger thugs on the world stage and their motives are not humanitarian.
It could be comparable to INLA drug dealing gangs killing a drug dealer and telling the public its because he was a drug dealer, then fill the patch with a dealer selling INLA drugs.

gizmo

uprising2 wrote: »

That woman was clearly upset, I don't think she suffered from any mental illness or was a drunk or whatever else they claim.
The "minders" were govt thugs, who would and do treat all Libyan's with the same standards.
I'm not a thug supporter, Gaddafi is/was an elite who saw himself way above his subjects, but the saviours US/UK/France are bigger thugs on the world stage and their motives are not humanitarian.
It could be comparable to INLA drug dealing gangs killing a drug dealer and telling the public its because he was a drug dealer, then fill the patch with a dealer selling INLA drugs.

Well she's most certainly not any of those things, she's actually a lawyer working in Triploi but that didn't stop the government trying to smear her name.

Thanks for answering uprising but this most certainly leads to the next question which has been asked upteen times of others so far and which has still not been answered, would you have preferred the coalition forces to have done nothing to protect the civilians in Benghazi from Gadaffi's forces which had surrounded the city?

Note: I did read the analogy but I simply don't think it applies here.

bob50

I am looking to see if anyone has found an outlet that is reporting imapartial news from Libya

For the the life of me i cannot belive that the coalition air and sea atttacks are not hitting civillians and causing casualties. I am fed up listening to sky bbc etc reporting when libya media says cilivillans were killed or injured that these reports cant be verefied.

gizmo

bob50 wrote: »

I am looking to see if anyone has found an outlet that is reporting imapartial news from Libya

For the the life of me i cannot belive that the coalition air and sea atttacks are not hitting civillians and causing casualties. I am fed up listening to sky bbc etc reporting when libya media says cilivillans were killed or injured that these reports cant be verefied.

It's probably for the same reason you don't hear about coalition forces planning strikes in the other countries in the Gulf - at present most of Gadaffi's forces are outside the densely populated areas so strikes on them wouldn't necessarily result in civilian casualties. The number of military installations in the larger cities hit so far have also been pretty low so the chances of casualties there would also be lower.

If there were civilian casualties then you can bet they'd be plastered all over the state run TV stations.

Cartel Mike

Plus the US isn't Bush anymore.
Assuming that Obama and Bush are one in the same and reffering to both as 'America' is just assuming everything is exactly the same . Its not. One was a self centerd dangerous redkneck surrounded by paranoid moranic yes men, the other is a measured, self aware, left wing president who although dosn't have much substance behind him is at least aware of the legacy and stigma left behind by the former.

I think alot of people under estimate how exceptional Bush actually was in the dictatorship stakes and just assume that nothing has changed.
I don't think Obama really wants or needs to get too involved or top heavy here.
There are NO troops been sent in . NATO will wait until Ghadafi cuts some sort of flee deal which is inevitable in the next week or two lets face it.
Libya needs a democratic government , who other than NATO can can help achieve this anyway.
The oil will still belong and be distributed by Libya wont it?.
Why are we talking about oil again? Its Libya's oil , ive read here that they can increase output under the rebels .
If they can they can , is the rest of the world (myself included) supposed to resent or object somehow to this? whats the problem here?
This is about a country needing to move into the 21st century and not wanting to wait another 30-40yrs until the idiot in charge snuffs it. To say this is about America and oil is like saying the good friday agreement was about the Belfast bank robbery. Im not sure i get the point of this argument anymore.

uprising2

gizmo wrote: »

Well she's most certainly not any of those things, she's actually a lawyer working in Triploi but that didn't stop the government trying to smear her name.

Thanks for answering uprising but this most certainly leads to the next question which has been asked upteen times of others so far and which has still not been answered, would you have preferred the coalition forces to have done nothing to protect the civilians in Benghazi from Gadaffi's forces which had surrounded the city?

Note: I did read the analogy but I simply don't think it applies here.

Gizmo, If I thought it was to save the civilians I'd be behind it 100%, as I said in my first post I am no fan of Gaddafi because he "was" in the clique, now he's not, and I believe every human being on earth has the right to decide their own destiny and no power hungry tyrannical regime has any right to squash the will of the people.
But to be honest people are being slaughtered in a lot of places by a lot of regimes that are equally or even more brutal than Gaddafi's, but these regimes are either "friendly" with the USA (allowing exploitation of natural resources, etc), or military allies (allowing airspace or bases on their soil).

I still havent answered your question:

Ok, No I would not like to see the rebels/civilians or anybody else that maybe in the way killed by Gaddafi forces......BUT, I don't like how this "supposed" aim is achieved, by killing Gaddafi forces, civilians and anybody else in the way, which is whats happening. Same Same but different.
I'd like to see free and fair elections in Libya, with a leader that the majority support, an impartial man of the people, with the good of Libya and its people his main concern, Gaddafi is not that man.

If the US/UK/France and co were so worried about civilian casualties they would have at least tried to stop the slaughter in Gaza of civilians, put a no fly zone over Gaza, they were either mute or supporting Usrael.


Now what would never happen may possibly happen:
The top NATO military commander says Libya may need a foreign stabilization force if rebels supported by international airstrikes succeed in ousting the country's leader, Moammar Gadhafi. U.S. Navy Admiral James Stavridis made the comment in an appearance Tuesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Admiral Stavridis says there has been no discussion at NATO of sending ground forces to stabilize Libya, but he believes it may be necessary.
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/NATO-Commander-Says-Libya-May-Need-Foreign-Stabilization-Force-118864814.html

The rebels/civilians don't want foreign troops, remember the Iraqi's that were going to throw rose petal before the march of the "liberators" never really happened as expected by some.

This will be a smaller Iraq, and the longer it goes on the bigger the body count will be, the NATO forces will be killing civilians just like the Gaddafi's did, but probably to a larger extent, the the private security firms Blackwater or whatever name they go by now will be contracted in to "keep the peace"

Gizmo can you not see it for what it really is.

By next Purim, maybe Sudan will need some freedom, and the freedom spreaders will just have to cross a border to access freedom seeking people and oil.

I don't know if I have even answered your question, but I tried as best I could without contradicting myself.

old_aussie

gizmo wrote: »

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.

People in most middle east countries don't get what they want, they get what the regime dictates that they can have.

Middle eastern countries are too tribal to have true a democracy, it will always be that way till one tribe reigns supreme and the othe tribes are wiped out.

The west should just let the Libyan people settle the dispute.

Who ever wins, they'll still want to sell oil to support the new regime.