The Real Reason for NATO Attacking Libya ?

Jonny7

frackingishell wrote: »

Number Jonny7, you're making an awful lot of assumptions.

I'm not fact dodging- i just dont have the time nor inclination to read that large pile of garbage, from someone who is obviously set in their ways and fundamentally brainwashed by western media sources.

There's an art to making a point, he could have at least tried to be succinct.

Alot of his so called facts are from western media sources, who no doubt were influenced by what they heard from any leaders who've ever been opposed to Ghaddafi.

I have repeatedly acknowledged that there are bad on both sides, but he's has dodged many many facts i've put out there.

And stop putting words in my mouth, i never said a thing about Israel.

You lot like to lump together independant thinkers as having a collection of viewpoints (usually all those viewpoints are all the opposite things that you lot like banging on about, so you've something to harp on about).When In fact, you should ask yourself 'why am I , Jonny7, talking sh***?;

your final paragraphs are just one large pile of horsesh**;

I could have told you what comes next - the generic patronising (ironically Fox news style) evil society scare video or the long pasted editorial of someone else's opinion maligning US/UK/Israel

For people who try to seek out the truth, CTer's certainly seem to do a lot of very slippery fact dodging and name-calling whilst preaching to others to "wake up". But hey its all just a bit of fun isn't it

I didnt copy and paste anything, and i didnt try to scare anyone. I merely gave alternate viewpoints of my own and linked a few vids. If you're scared, you must run up huge electricity bills with your nightlight on every night.

I didn't do any slippery fact dodging' as you put it. I answered alot of his tirade in previous posts. I didnt name call ( i genuinely feeel fsorry for the guy, and his NATO apologist stance). And i never really was asking people to 'wake up' ( your favourite phrase it seems). Wake up? What utter tosh. All we're doing is giving our take on things.

You need to wake up in general, and realise you have a huge problem with the very concept, of the possibility that there is anything other than what you have been led to believe in this world. It stinks of fear that you're afraid your world will come crashing around your ears if the things you've long held as fact could be possibly fabricated. It's a self re-inforcing vicious cycle. Youre like a degenerate gambler chasing losses, instead of sitting back and assessing and allowing for the fact that maybe jsut maybe there are alterior motives at work.

And then realising we'll probably never know either way. So get off your f**king horse.

Studiorat made many points and backed them up with well-known facts. If you can refute those facts please, by all means, go ahead.

However you turn around a rubbish the lot because it came from "Western media" - which is quite honestly breathtaking.

How can you lump together and slate media outlets as diverse as The Guardian, Al Jazeera, France24, etc and somehow dismiss what they are individually and independently reporting?

During the Iraq war, many times the war-hawks on the right dismissed the entire 'Western media" as liberal - funny how people on the fringe like to dismiss the mainstream when it doesn't suit their argument, yet turn around and quote it when it does.

Ironically you link a video from a very dubious source with no credibility, and an obvious agenda from the looks of all the other videos from that source.

Its just a weak standpoint in general.

frackingishell

There you go making assumptions again. Im not on the fringe- does it make it easier for you to believe you're part of some the centre mass or something? Why are you relegating me to the fringe because i wonder if maybe there's an agenda to get Ghaddafi out that goes beyond the rebels??. Are you that insecure?

I didn't lump together anything. I don't care what war-hawks said in the Iraq war- it's irrelevant. I never said anything about the media in the Iraq war- i said the west wanted their oil. Where did you get that i said anything about the media in the Iraq war from? (Despite the fact that many journalists have since come out from that war and stated they were used and didnt do their job properly- do some research on that for yourself). BUT I DIDNT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT ABOVE!

And i also linked a video that i found interesting to the topic, and an article that i felt was well written. Is that not allowed?

You see Jonny 7, you've gone on and continued to talk more absolute assumptive rubbish, putting words in people's mouths.

It's getting boring at this point Jonny. Correcting you is like having to clean up after a messy child with poor co-ordination eating it's spaghetti dinner, every two minutes. Put your bib on, knuckle down, and concentrate and what people have written. Good man.

Jonny7

frackingishell wrote: »

There you go making assumptions again. Im not on the fringe- does it make it easier for you to believe you're part of some the centre mass or something? Why are you relegating me to the fringe because i wonder if maybe there's an agenda to get Ghaddafi out that goes beyond the rebels??. Are you that insecure?

I didn't lump together anything. I don't care what war-hawks said in the Iraq war- it's irrelevant. I never said anything about the media in the Iraq war- i said the west wanted their oil. Where did you get that i said anything about the media in the Iraq war from? (Despite the fact that many journalists have since come out from that war and stated they were used and didnt do their job properly- do some research on that for yourself). BUT I DIDNT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT ABOVE!

And i also linked a video that i found interesting to the topic, and an article that i felt was well written. Is that not allowed?

You see Jonny 7, you've gone on and continued to talk more absolute assumptive rubbish, putting words in people's mouths.

It's getting boring at this point Jonny. Correcting you is like having to clean up after a messy child with poor co-ordination eating it's spaghetti dinner, every two minutes. Put your bib on, knuckle down, and concentrate and what people have written. Good man.

Your words not mine..

"i just dont have the time nor inclination to read that large pile of garbage, from someone who is obviously set in their ways and fundamentally brainwashed by western media sources."

Just a word of wisdom - if you are going to debate anything here in depth, you are probably going to have to use sources from "Western media" at some stage - trust me, I spent years debating against the Iraq war and "Western media", its very inevitable - ye be warned

jackiebaron

Four months now and no progress from a bunch of propped NATO stooges. Interesting words from a Libyan spokesman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fwQ_mt7vwQQ

Jonny7

jackiebaron wrote: »

Four months now and no progress from a bunch of propped NATO stooges. Interesting words from a Libyan spokesman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fwQ_mt7vwQQ

Other similar spokesmen

frackingishell

so, having done some extra curricular reading...some of the old stuff on Libya is quite interesting...

So, to get this straight...MI6,& the cia fund Bin ladin to kill Ghaddafi back in 2002? Then Ghaddafi issues an interpol arrest warrant for Bin ladin and others. Then Mi6 and the CIA bury the arrest warrant, and 5 months later two US embassies and 200 people are blown to pieces. HMM, yeah, nothing fishy about the current LIbyan issue at all...http://www.guardian.co.uk/poli​tics/2002/nov/10/uk.davidshayl​er

Jonny7

frackingishell wrote: »

so, having done some extra curricular reading...some of the old stuff on Libya is quite interesting...

So, to get this straight...MI6,& the cia fund Bin ladin to kill Ghaddafi back in 2002? Then Ghaddafi issues an interpol arrest warrant for Bin ladin and others. Then Mi6 and the CIA bury the arrest warrant, and 5 months later two US embassies and 200 people are blown to pieces. HMM, yeah, nothing fishy about the current LIbyan issue at all...http://www.guardian.co.uk/poli​tics/2002/nov/10/uk.davidshayl​er

You are quoting Western media sources and your summary of the article contains some errors.

The article doesn't allege MI6 or the CIA funded "Bin Laden". It alleges an Al Qaeda cell in Libya was funded by MI6.

There is no mention of the CIA being linked to the assassination plot.

The assassination attempt took place in 1996, not 2002.

---

I have no doubt certain elements within many governments/intelligence services of the world, not just US, UK, France, would love to see Gaddafi gone, he has a very long rap sheet and pissed off a lot of people (not just his own countrymen).

However there hasn't yet been any credible evidence that the "Arab Spring" is some kind of Western plot.

frackingishell

Jonny7 wrote: »

You are quoting Western media sources and your summary of the article contains some errors.

The article doesn't allege MI6 or the CIA funded "Bin Laden". It alleges an Al Qaeda cell in Libya was funded by MI6.

There is no mention of the CIA being linked to the assassination plot.

The assassination attempt took place in 1996, not 2002.

---

I have no doubt certain elements within many governments/intelligence services of the world, not just US, UK, France, would love to see Gaddafi gone, he has a very long rap sheet and pissed off a lot of people (not just his own countrymen).

However there hasn't yet been any credible evidence that the "Arab Spring" is some kind of Western plot.

Jonny, i knew you'd come back about the western media sources!!!:D I have my retort ready, just fresh out of the oven- when i mentioned western media sources before, i said people are brainwashed by them, and treat everything they say as gospel...mmm, smells good fresh doesnt it :-)

ANyway, joking aside, on your other points there, you've being very pedantic- you fund an IRA terror cell, you're funding the IRA- you fund Al Qaeda, youre knowingly funding all of them- you have no control over the destination of funds, and by extension it means Bin Ladin was funded.

Of course there's no mention of CIA, but are you implying the British intlligence doesn't have to inform them of everything they do? Especially when it came to Al Q? Imagine the yanks subsequently found out they had dealings with them and if the Brits didnt tell them the ****storm internally they'd have? Nah, don't be naiive man-they're deeply in each others pockets- the yanks know everything the brits do.

And lastly- sure lots of people dont like him-mainly because he didnt do things the way western govts wanted him to. (and thus by extension, the moneyed interests that have bought half of the politicians)
And i never said the arab spring was a product of western intervention, not once. ALl ive ever been alluding to is that NATO are now involved because Ghaddafi nationalised his oil, and has been doing stuff NOT in the playbook of NATO, capitalist Fractional reserve banking, oil controlled systems that we in the west are currently witnessing slowly destroying the world. And our country i might add.

Ghaddafi was lending his people money INTEREST FREE! THis is a small example of how his actions (especially if others around the world began to copy them) could the current worldwide system that is enslaving most of the world, and starving large sections of it, to the benefit of the wealthiest people on earth. Of course lots of people dont like him. BUt, lots of people do like him. And either way thats not the issue- the issue is WHY are NATO systematically going after the last countries in the world to have their own banking systems? (axis of evil, Iraq, afghanistan, now libya, etc.) Its no co-incidence my friend. No coincidence whatsoever. Nato, and the dark sith lords behind them, are salivating at the opportunity that the arab uprisings have afforded them. Iran will be next. Mark it man. Its global domination of private banking that theyre after as a side goal. The main goal is control of LIbyan oil- the banking thing is a direct side effect, and which the powers behind politicians in western countries will work hard to achieve. THis is NOT about the Libyan people's freedoms and rights.

Jonny, i dont want to sound like a broken record, but there's still loads of assumptions there in yoru reply mate- putting more things in my mouth that i just didnt say. Thanks for getting back to me though.

Jonny7

frackingishell wrote: »

Jonny, i knew you'd come back about the western media sources!!!:D I have my retort ready, just fresh out of the oven- when i mentioned western media sources before, i said people are brainwashed by them, and treat everything they say as gospel...mmm, smells good fresh doesnt it :-)

ANyway, joking aside, on your other points there, you've being very pedantic- you fund an IRA terror cell, you're funding the IRA- you fund Al Qaeda, youre knowingly funding all of them- you have no control over the destination of funds, and by extension it means Bin Ladin was funded.

Of course there's no mention of CIA, but are you implying the British intlligence doesn't have to inform them of everything they do? Especially when it came to Al Q? Imagine the yanks subsequently found out they had dealings with them and if the Brits didnt tell them the ****storm internally they'd have? Nah, don't be naiive man-they're deeply in each others pockets- the yanks know everything the brits do.

And lastly- sure lots of people dont like him-mainly because he didnt do things the way western govts wanted him to. (and thus by extension, the moneyed interests that have bought half of the politicians)
And i never said the arab spring was a product of western intervention, not once. ALl ive ever been alluding to is that NATO are now involved because Ghaddafi nationalised his oil, and has been doing stuff NOT in the playbook of NATO, capitalist Fractional reserve banking, oil controlled systems that we in the west are currently witnessing slowly destroying the world. And our country i might add.

Ghaddafi was lending his people money INTEREST FREE! THis is a small example of how his actions (especially if others around the world began to copy them) could the current worldwide system that is enslaving most of the world, and starving large sections of it, to the benefit of the wealthiest people on earth. Of course lots of people dont like him. BUt, lots of people do like him. And either way thats not the issue- the issue is WHY are NATO systematically going after the last countries in the world to have their own banking systems? (axis of evil, Iraq, afghanistan, now libya, etc.) Its no co-incidence my friend. No coincidence whatsoever. Nato, and the dark sith lords behind them, are salivating at the opportunity that the arab uprisings have afforded them. Iran will be next. Mark it man. Its global domination of private banking that theyre after as a side goal. The main goal is control of LIbyan oil- the banking thing is a direct side effect, and which the powers behind politicians in western countries will work hard to achieve. THis is NOT about the Libyan people's freedoms and rights.

Jonny, i dont want to sound like a broken record, but there's still loads of assumptions there in yoru reply mate- putting more things in my mouth that i just didnt say. Thanks for getting back to me though.

Without having to pick apart all of your opinions I've just bolded the parts I find hard to correlate to anything.

Major NATO action so far:

NATO intervened in Yugoslavia because genocide in the corners of "civilised Europe" reared its ugly head, not really to do with oil.

NATO took action in Afghanistan largely due to US pressure, combat terrorism, etc, not really to do with oil, as Afghanistan does not produce any oil nor does it have any proven oil reserves.

Libyan action was sanctioned by the UN to protect the civilians of Benghazi and elsehwere in Libya, with 2% of world oil output, most of which is already grabbed by the "West", doesn't really seem to be about oil.

Even Iraq you mention (that wasn't NATO by the way) the US won no oil contracts.

So far, NATO are not doing very well with this evil mastermind plan that you seem to think they are at.

sxt

Jonny7 wrote: »

Without having to pick apart all of your opinions I've just bolded the parts I find hard to correlate to anything.



Libyan action was sanctioned by the UN to protect the civilians of Benghazi and elsehwere in Libya, with 2% of world oil output, most of which is already grabbed by the "West", doesn't really seem to be about oil.

Even Iraq you mention (that wasn't NATO by the way) the US won no oil contracts.

.

Lets acknowledge that Western powers were quite happy to allow Gaddafi remain in power for 40 years without intervening , when there was an uprising , their forces were swift to jump on the band wagon and call "foul" and take action

I think there were quite a few countries that had civilian uprisings in that region and still are .

You are probably aware that there are alot of countries with alot of worse civilian abuses, but are not of interest of Western Governments and never will be


The reason The Americans decided to take Iraq down, with estimated civilian deaths of up to 1 million between 2003 and 2006, and 4-5 million refugees, was because Iraq was becoming a very influential player in The Middle East. THe Middle east has quite a bit of oil

That would not be in the Interest of the Americans because America did not control Sadaam at the time. Do you remember that guy in Egypt,Marbarak, he was a dictator sponsored By the U.SA for decades.


You might remember that the official narrative was that "Iraq had weapons of mass destruction". This statement was not accurate, and now Iraq is hell on earth

frackingishell

Sorry Jonny, you lost me at Yugoslavia. Lets agree to disagree, best of luck.

jackiebaron

Jonny7 wrote: »

Other similar spokesmen

Can't speak for Goebbels....In fact why do you even bring him up.....but "comical Ali's" words were rather prescient, wouldn't you say? I believe his exact words were "the invaders are and will burn in their tanks" ...and that was 8 years ago. Go to Walter Reed Hospital and see how many are hobbling around on artificial limbs or getting skin grafts from their family members.
As US troops were cluelessly stomping around the Hindu Kush and Tora Bora in 2002, the Pashtun basically said "we will bury their skulls in these mountains". And they have done. The US drops 100 million dollars to sling a bomb on a school or wedding party like the morons that they are. Pashto fighters expend 2 quid sniping a border guard or torching 20 oil tankers destined for US bases from the Khyber Pass.

It's laughable.

frackingishell

while agree with some of your sentiments Jackie, there's something everyone always forgets, and yet, it's hugely important.

THe poor american soldier is not the aggressor here. The aggressors are the people behind the political decisions. THe american spoildier is being f**ked in the ass by the overlords just as much as the rest of the world. IN fact, he's getting it harder than anyone else (exempting the people being killed aswell of course). THeir military is being manipulated and used as a tool for their ends. It's rarely been in the name of the people. It is used to get resources to keep the american people enslaved to oil. Just last week they were spending huge sums on trying to defeat Obama's plans for more efficient engines being law for us auto makers. This, is evil, im sorry. There are many mroe examples. IM not religious, but i believe in good and evil.

As long as there is greed, there will be war, and as long as the richest on this planet control private banking and seek to control, there will be more wars than necessary. Im a realist, i believe there will always be conflict. But the warsamerica gets itself involved in are as much to their detriment as to the people they wage war on on a macro level. The only fu*king ultimate scum of the earth evil devils incarnate that benefit, are the manipulators in control of the currency of greed-money.

jackiebaron

So, Jonny,

I would like to hear from you as to what the objective is here in Libya. I would like to know exactly what the "endgame" is. You have spoken of oppression and human rights violations and how NATO's actions are instrumental in stamping out such behaviour.

So in essence you are stating that Libya is being bombed (for months) by the French, the US, the British, the Italians, the Norwegians and many others to stop Gadaffi from killing his own people? People who apparently have been subject to his crushing "slaughter" since 1969? So Gadaffi has allegedly been whacking Joe Public for 40 odd years. Blair goes to suck him off in 2007. And you want us to believe that NATO gives a toss about Libyan civvies. Why doesn't NATO bomb the shït out of Saudi Arabia or Israel or Egypt?
How many opposition candidates did Mubarak sling into dungeons in 2008? Are you seriously going to try to play the horseshït "humanitarian intervention" card, lol.

Why, oh, why are Libyan nationals openly defiant of foreign attacks on their soil? Why are these useless "rebels" who make the drunken Bay of Pigs idiots look like the SAS holed up and not achieving a thing? Why do they have ZERO support? They are a joke and a complete and utter fabrication.
Sarkozy's little bullcrap escapade back into North Africa has blown up in his stupid face and you fell for the whole cretinous charade, hook, line and sinker. The people of Libya are young enough to remember Mussolini's attempts at killing them and their kids are old enough to remember his scummy grand-daughter's comments about them. The Libyans aren't going to be fooled by the Brits or the French or the Italians again....mark my words!

Jonny7

jackiebaron wrote: »

So, Jonny,

I would like to hear from you as to what the objective is here in Libya. I would like to know exactly what the "endgame" is.

To protect the civilians of Benghazi and elsewhere from attack by Gaddafi forces, successful? moderately, although Misrata and other towns are still being shelled.

The general end-game is obviously that Gaddafi can no longer hold onto power by using a military that isn't powerful enough to stop the rebels. This was expected after a few weeks, certainly not the months it is taking.

You have spoken of oppression and human rights violations and how NATO's actions are instrumental in stamping out such behaviour.
So in essence you are stating that Libya is being bombed (for months) by the French, the US, the British, the Italians, the Norwegians and many others to stop Gadaffi from killing his own people?

Gaddafi's forces are being bombed. There was a strike recently on the TV station that shows NATO are getting impatient, and want to curb Libyan propaganda which is obviously fuelling pro-Gaddafi sentiment

So Gadaffi has allegedly been whacking Joe Public for 40 odd years. Blair goes to suck him off in 2007.

Whacking? He's been imprisoning, torturing and disappearing opponents, opposition, members of other tribes and his own people. Blair and the "West" did deals with him in 2005 when Gaddafi stepped forward to declare he was abandoning his WMD projects. It was a clever move at a time when the US and UK were suffering badly in Iraq.

And you want us to believe that NATO gives a toss about Libyan civvies.

The United Nations voted to protect the Libyan civilians, NATO is there now to do that job, they certainly don't want to kill Libyan civilians, why would they? it would only worsen the situation.

Why doesn't NATO bomb the shït out of Saudi Arabia or Israel or Egypt?

Why don't they bomb North Korea? why didn't they just bomb Burma or Iran?

This is no real short answer for this. UN support is needed. The political, geographical, and many other factors have to be taken into account.

I am firmly against anything "pre-emptive" as it clearly doesn't work. The only exception would be something very extreme.

How many opposition candidates did Mubarak sling into dungeons in 2008? Are you seriously going to try to play the horseshït "humanitarian intervention" card, lol.

Mubarak obviously didn't have the same grip on the military as Gaddafi and Assad now have. Even though he ordered the military to fire on the protesters, they refused.

If Mubarak had had the loyalty and fear of the military then I have no doubt we would have seen the same images coming from Egypt as we have seen coming from Libya and now Syria

However no two situations are exactly the same due to geography, history, politics, armed forces, leadership, etc, etc, etc of said countries involved

Why, oh, why are Libyan nationals openly defiant of foreign attacks on their soil?

Because some genuinely love Gaddafi, most genuinely fear him and his internal security forces. In North Korea you have an entire nation either brainwashed or living in perpetual fear - its called a dictatorship. I am very much against government control, censorship, propaganda, state violence, etc.

Why are these useless "rebels" who make the drunken Bay of Pigs idiots look like the SAS holed up and not achieving a thing?

Gaddafi's forces have much more training, command and vastly bigger resources than the rebels. The rebels are mostly just made up of ordinary people, with some ex-military, deserters, even Islamic extremists.

Why do they have ZERO support? They are a joke and a complete and utter fabrication.

Thats your own opinion. You get your "news" from one source. I get my news from many varied sources, I try to be objective as possible. I was completely against Iraq however I am (still) in support of this action in Libya, and I firmly supported the UN action in Ivory coast, which has potential saved generations from another civil war.

Sarkozy's little bullcrap escapade back into North Africa has blown up in his stupid face and you fell for the whole cretinous charade, hook, line and sinker.

?

The people of Libya are young enough to remember Mussolini's attempts at killing them and their kids are old enough to remember his scummy grand-daughter's comments about them. The Libyans aren't going to be fooled by the Brits or the French or the Italians again....mark my words!

They are human beings who generally just want to be free and vote. They are being shot at if they try to protest this. I am on their side, not some family dynasty who can't let go of power.

jackiebaron

Jonny7 wrote: »

To protect the civilians of Benghazi and elsewhere from attack by Gaddafi forces, successful? moderately, although Misrata and other towns are still being shelled.

The general end-game is obviously that Gaddafi can no longer hold onto power by using a military that isn't powerful enough to stop the rebels. This was expected after a few weeks, certainly not the months it is taking.

That isn't an "endgame" and it isn't an objective. In fact it's not even believable. Step back in time and and apply these farcical parameters to your argument. If, prior to this bombardment of Libya, that the objective was to simply remove Gadaffi from power...then why the attack on his country? Why the precursor to invasion and occupation? Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein had plead via the Swiss Embassy to halt any invasion and to yield to any requirements (and that's a fact).

Why not just kill him with a bunch of trigger-men? Why all the ballyhoo about WMD and then switching it to "he gassed his own people" crap....and then we can't leave " 'coz there'll be a bloodbath"? And then "we're there to bring them peace or democracy or some such crap" ?

Prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, the ruling Taliban asked for evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in 9/11 and should it have been forthcoming, they would have surrendered him. It was never even broached or even contemplated. The US just invaded and pulverised a nation....essentially for fun.

Gaddafi's forces are being bombed. There was a strike recently on the TV station that shows NATO are getting impatient, and want to curb Libyan propaganda which is obviously fuelling pro-Gaddafi sentiment

Whacking? He's been imprisoning, torturing and disappearing opponents, opposition, members of other tribes and his own people. Blair and the "West" did deals with him in 2005 when Gaddafi stepped forward to declare he was abandoning his WMD projects. It was a clever move at a time when the US and UK were suffering badly in Iraq.

Would that be similar to Mubarak's "disappearing" and torturing people? Mubarak who the White House propped up for years and supplied. How about the thousands tortured and disappeared and murdered when the US toppled a democratically elected government in Chile on (wait for it) 9/11 and installed that thug Pinochet. 30,000 gone missing or dead. What about the US and the UK toppling the democratically elected government of Mossadegh and installing Shah Pahlavi in Iran in 1953 and clapping him on the back as he tortured and murdered for the next 26 years. No complaints there from NATO or washington....only bitching when the Iranians ran the bastard out of town and strung up his Savak death squads.

The United Nations voted to protect the Libyan civilians, NATO is there now to do that job, they certainly don't want to kill Libyan civilians, why would they? it would only worsen the situation.

It "would" ..... how the fück do you know. Later on in this diatribe you accuse me of opinion yet you are already sputtering about what "would" happen as if you have a crystal ball. I distinctly remember people like you emphatically stating that if Viet Nam wasn't bombed to powder and all it's people murdered to bloody rags right down to the toddlers then a domino effect in South East Asia would curse the planet and plunge us all into the depths of Soviet - style authoritarianism. Well.....guess-****ING-what!!

Why don't they bomb North Korea? why didn't they just bomb Burma or Iran?

This is no real short answer for this. UN support is needed. The political, geographical, and many other factors have to be taken into account.

Well...what factors have to be taken into account? If it's all about saving lives (as you say) then what other factors are there? If NATO can impose a no-fly-zone over Libya, then surely they can impose a no-fly-zone over Zimbabwe or Uzbeckistan (where human right violations and civilian safety is MUCH more in jeopardy than in Libya)

I am firmly against anything "pre-emptive" as it clearly doesn't work. The only exception would be something very extreme.

Preemptive is ILLEGAL. But if you're against it then why are you supporting it? It's preemeptive for me to kick the **** out of you because I "feel" that you might be thinking about buying a gun to use against me. It's ILLEGAL for me to burn your house down because I THINK that you're beating your kids. It may have some moral bearing but it's still illegal. And if the law states that I can't **** with you unless you **** with me then THAT'S the LAW. It's not down to personal interpretation. It was carved in 1949. You don't like that....then petition Geneva.

Mubarak obviously didn't have the same grip on the military as Gaddafi and Assad now have. Even though he ordered the military to fire on the protesters, they refused.

Mubarak controlled the Egyptian military for over 45 YEARS. Are you honestly going to bull**** me or anyone else and state that a corporal at the tender age of 18 or 19 is NOT going to have obedience to a man who ran the military for 20 YEARS prior to when that soldier was born....in fact ordered the military around when that recruit's mother was a toddler??? Are you ffff-ing serious?

If Mubarak had had the loyalty and fear of the military then I have no doubt we would have seen the same images coming from Egypt as we have seen coming from Libya and now Syria

Mubarak never had control of the military or the police or anyone else. He just had their fear and terror. Are you so blind that you can't see that the Egyptian army didn't slaughter the Tahrir Square uprising because they didn't know what to do. They didn't know if they butchered people whether the government would fall anyway and they would be hanged from trees like Nazis. They didn't know whether to hold back. They had no idea whether to come the heavy or throw off their helmets and join in. Now, it would appear, they have been thumped back into line and they are now busy killing citizens in Cairo once again.

Because some genuinely love Gaddafi, most genuinely fear him and his internal security forces. In North Korea you have an entire nation either brainwashed or living in perpetual fear - its called a dictatorship. I am very much against government control, censorship, propaganda, state violence, etc.

How do you know this? Or is it an assumption? I've NEVER been to Libya and I doubt very much that you have either. Yet I have spoken to Libyans who call him a dick the same way as you might call Bertie Aherne or David Cameron or Barack Obama .... a dick. Yet you feel that you know best for this country and this people.
You talk of state violence and how you are against it. Isn't attacking a country that hasn't threatened you "state violence" .... and don't PLEASE make excuses.
You talk of propaganda......wasn't the revolting hoax of Gadaffi supplying his troops with Viagra to rape people exposed as a moronic hoax and a parable of western propaganda? How do you feel about that? Are you not thumping down the doors of the agents of your Fourth Estate demanding why they allowed such lies to enter the public domain?
You want truth.....but you want to wish it away when it's inconvenient.

Gaddafi's forces have much more training, command and vastly bigger resources than the rebels. The rebels are mostly just made up of ordinary people, with some ex-military, deserters, even Islamic extremists.

And yet 8 SAS operatives were caught training them. They are being funded and are having arms dropped to them from NATO transporters and they managed to set up a new Libyan CENTRAL BANK in the East of the country. Nothing to do with unhinging the Libyan economy. Why would the establishment of a central bank have ANYTHING to do with ensuring that so-called beleagured Libyan citizens have a roof over their heads and aren't being attacked??

Thats your own opinion. You get your "news" from one source. I get my news from many varied sources, I try to be objective as possible. I was completely against Iraq however I am (still) in support of this action in Libya, and I firmly supported the UN action in Ivory coast, which has potential saved generations from another civil war.

No....I get my news from MANY sources....and that includes people who are THERE. You, my friend, get your news from one source and that one source is the filter that is inside your own head. If you don't like the facts, then deny them.

They are human beings who generally just want to be free and vote. They are being shot at if they try to protest this. I am on their side, not some family dynasty who can't let go of power.

Show me a man who still believes in freedom after his beautiful wife or daughter or son has been blown to pieces when he could have kissed that person for another 5000 days yesterday. You think he will think the same way you do?
Have you ever had your door kicked down and your 80 year-old grandmother dumped to the floor and beaten? Have you ever thanked the bombers overhead who could incinerate your entire family in a second EVERY NIGHT just so you could "vote".....when you could also vote in the past, just that the ***** who are drinking cans of Diet Coke in a control room in Florida and decide to blow your house to atoms for fun and only get a dishonourable discharge? And then when they shove a gun in your face because you go to complain that they slaughtered all your cows because they were drunk and you've lost your livelihood? You think that all the men who have been subjected to this are still sitting around saying "Can't wait for that freedom to come raining down on us" ... even though their daughters have been raped by occupation forces, their sons have been slain or dragged off to a Gitmo hellhole just for shouting at the prick who beat grandpa?
You ****ing BELIEVE that?

Penn

Calm it down jackiebaron

Jonny7

jackiebaron wrote: »

If, prior to this bombardment of Libya, that the objective was to simply remove Gadaffi from power...then why the attack on his country? Why the precursor to invasion and occupation?

Its a reaction by the UN to a serious situation. They reacted to Ivory coast in the same way, they are not invading and occupying that country, they have no wishes to do the same with Libya.

Why not just kill him with a bunch of trigger-men? Why all the ballyhoo about WMD and then switching it to "he gassed his own people" crap....and then we can't leave " 'coz there'll be a bloodbath"? And then "we're there to bring them peace or democracy or some such crap" ?

Are you talking about Iraq or Libya?

Prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, the ruling Taliban asked for evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in 9/11 and should it have been forthcoming, they would have surrendered him. It was never even broached or even contemplated. The US just invaded and pulverised a nation....essentially for fun.

I have my own views on Iraq and Afghanistan, they differ from my views on Libya, because they are different situations.

Would that be similar to Mubarak's "disappearing" and torturing people? Mubarak who the White House propped up for years and supplied. How about the thousands tortured and disappeared and murdered when the US toppled a democratically elected government in Chile on (wait for it) 9/11 and installed that thug Pinochet. 30,000 gone missing or dead. What about the US and the UK toppling the democratically elected government of Mossadegh and installing Shah Pahlavi in Iran in 1953 and clapping him on the back as he tortured and murdered for the next 26 years. No complaints there from NATO or washington....only bitching when the Iranians ran the bastard out of town and strung up his Savak death squads.

Chile, Pinochet, 911, Mossadegh, the Shah.. again, there's too much there. Foreign policy and Real Politik vary and change depending on administrations, officials, presidents, etc.

It "would" ..... how the fück do you know. Later on in this diatribe you accuse me of opinion yet you are already sputtering about what "would" happen as if you have a crystal ball. I distinctly remember people like you emphatically stating that if Viet Nam wasn't bombed to powder and all it's people murdered to bloody rags right down to the toddlers then a domino effect in South East Asia would curse the planet and plunge us all into the depths of Soviet - style authoritarianism. Well.....guess-****ING-what!!

No idea where you got that from but I don't have those views on Vietnam

Well...what factors have to be taken into account? If it's all about saving lives (as you say) then what other factors are there? If NATO can impose a no-fly-zone over Libya, then surely they can impose a no-fly-zone over Zimbabwe or Uzbeckistan (where human right violations and civilian safety is MUCH more in jeopardy than in Libya)

Well in Zimbabwe, Mugabe wasn't using tanks and grad launchers to oppress his own people, therefore a no-fly zone would be largely ineffective.

Preemptive is ILLEGAL. But if you're against it then why are you supporting it? It's preemeptive for me to kick the **** out of you because I "feel" that you might be thinking about buying a gun to use against me. It's ILLEGAL for me to burn your house down because I THINK that you're beating your kids. It may have some moral bearing but it's still illegal. And if the law states that I can't **** with you unless you **** with me then THAT'S the LAW. It's not down to personal interpretation. It was carved in 1949. You don't like that....then petition Geneva.

Gaddafi was killing his own people, no one forced him to. The UN, the Arab League, etc are responding.

Mubarak controlled the Egyptian military for over 45 YEARS. Are you honestly going to bull**** me or anyone else and state that a corporal at the tender age of 18 or 19 is NOT going to have obedience to a man who ran the military for 20 YEARS prior to when that soldier was born....in fact ordered the military around when that recruit's mother was a toddler??? Are you ffff-ing serious?

He obviously didn't have a very strong grip if they didn't follow his orders to fire on protesters. In Syria, Assad's brother is in charge of much of the military, and the troops are generally following orders, including shelling residential areas. In Libya, Gaddafi and sons have a similar grip on the military. There are many reports of terrible reprisals of those who have refused to follow orders, mass shootings, burnings, etc.

Mubarak never had control of the military or the police or anyone else. He just had their fear and terror. Are you so blind that you can't see that the Egyptian army didn't slaughter the Tahrir Square uprising because they didn't know what to do. They didn't know if they butchered people whether the government would fall anyway and they would be hanged from trees like Nazis. They didn't know whether to hold back. They had no idea whether to come the heavy or throw off their helmets and join in. Now, it would appear, they have been thumped back into line and they are now busy killing citizens in Cairo once again.

I am not sure whether this is just your opinion or? where did you get this from? source?

How do you know this? Or is it an assumption? I've NEVER been to Libya and I doubt very much that you have either. Yet I have spoken to Libyans who call him a dick the same way as you might call Bertie Aherne or David Cameron or Barack Obama .... a dick. Yet you feel that you know best for this country and this people.
You talk of state violence and how you are against it. Isn't attacking a country that hasn't threatened you "state violence" .... and don't PLEASE make excuses.
You talk of propaganda......wasn't the revolting hoax of Gadaffi supplying his troops with Viagra to rape people exposed as a moronic hoax and a parable of western propaganda? How do you feel about that? Are you not thumping down the doors of the agents of your Fourth Estate demanding why they allowed such lies to enter the public domain?
You want truth.....but you want to wish it away when it's inconvenient.

Just seems to be hypocritical to be so outraged and angry at the actions of the UN/NATO, yet seemingly not so bothered by the plight of the Libyan people at the hands of their own leader, in fact to the point of actually defending said leader.

And yet 8 SAS operatives were caught training them. They are being funded and are having arms dropped to them from NATO transporters and they managed to set up a new Libyan CENTRAL BANK in the East of the country. Nothing to do with unhinging the Libyan economy. Why would the establishment of a central bank have ANYTHING to do with ensuring that so-called beleagured Libyan citizens have a roof over their heads and aren't being attacked??

And the French airdropped weapons to the rebels in the west of the country. For me that is crossing a murky line.

However 30 countries have recognised the rebels, including Russia and China.

No....I get my news from MANY sources....and that includes people who are THERE. You, my friend, get your news from one source and that one source is the filter that is inside your own head. If you don't like the facts, then deny them.

I try to get my news from as many credible and trustworthy sources as possible, including Middle Eastern outlets like Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, left and right leaning.

In previous posts you only seemed to link from www.informationclearinghouse.info which is a site run by one person in California who only chooses specific stories, articles, editorials from around the world that malign the US, Israel, etc.

There's nothing objective about that in fairness.

Show me a man who still believes in freedom after his beautiful wife or daughter or son has been blown to pieces when he could have kissed that person for another 5000 days yesterday. You think he will think the same way you do?
Have you ever had your door kicked down and your 80 year-old grandmother dumped to the floor and beaten? Have you ever thanked the bombers overhead who could incinerate your entire family in a second EVERY NIGHT just so you could "vote".

What are you referring to?

I'm just trying to address your points here and they are becoming increasingly obtuse and abstract

Obelisk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxOY_Krk8l8

jackiebaron

Also the West/NATO are using Al-Qaeda operatives and terrorists to lead the charge against Gadaffi. Just like they tried to use that gangster Ahmed Chalabi to be their puppet in Iraq then turned to Ayad Allawi who routinely executed via neckshot Iraqi prisoners. They used the dithering Unocal employee Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan along with his murderous drug-lord half brother. May as well have put Scarface in charge. Now they're using some of the dregs of humanity again in their effort to occupy Libya.
And people like sturdiorat and Jonny7 STILL fall for this "humanitarian intervention" crap. It's flabbergasting!

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/africa-mainmenu-27/8795-al-qaeda-and-natos-islamic-extremists-taking-over-libya

frackingishell

if anyone wants to see jonny7's previous form, similar thread here;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=74111525&utm_source=notification&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=notify#post74111525

pretty much demonstrates what this thread demonstrates (if anyone actually is arsed reading his multiquote montages) that no matter what anyone says he'll cut them down with something irrelevant, and is likely not reading anything anyone is replying back to him- instead anticipating the reply and launching into more unadulterated rubbish.

Don't bother i say. Ignore it. I can't read it, it's pure, incessant, sh*te.

frackingishell

jackiebaron wrote: »

Also the West/NATO are using Al-Qaeda operatives and terrorists to lead the charge against Gadaffi. Just like they tried to use that gangster Ahmed Chalabi to be their puppet in Iraq then turned to Ayad Allawi who routinely executed via neckshot Iraqi prisoners. They used the dithering Unocal employee Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan along with his murderous drug-lord half brother. May as well have put Scarface in charge. Now they're using some of the dregs of humanity again in their effort to occupy Libya.
And people like sturdiorat and Jonny7 STILL fall for this "humanitarian intervention" crap. It's flabbergasting!

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/africa-mainmenu-27/8795-al-qaeda-and-natos-islamic-extremists-taking-over-libya

jackie, i really wouldn't bother mate, theyre likely in some sort of asylum (possibly running one....) see my last post on this thread.

Jonny7

frackingishell wrote: »

if anyone wants to see jonny7's previous form, similar thread here;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=74111525&utm_source=notification&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=notify#post74111525

pretty much demonstrates what this thread demonstrates (if anyone actually is arsed reading his multiquote montages) that no matter what anyone says he'll cut them down with something irrelevant, and is likely not reading anything anyone is replying back to him- instead anticipating the reply and launching into more unadulterated rubbish.

Don't bother i say. Ignore it. I can't read it, it's pure, incessant, sh*te.

Oi, leave it out. If you have a gripe with me, pm me or a mod, no need to go to other forums with your grievances.

jackiebaron

Jonny7 wrote: »

Oi, leave it out. If you have a gripe with me, pm me or a mod, no need to go to other forums with your grievances.

Why the hell should he PM you. You get on here spouting utter gibberish and your cheeky little sidekick studiorat call us all tin-foil heads for pointing out the obvious invasion and occupation of Libya for oil exploitation:

http://www.ogj.com/articles/2011/08/eni-libyas-national-transitional-council-sign-agreement.html

That declaration was penned on May 31.....that's THREE MONTHS ago. I notice they didn't see the need to wait until the farcical "humanitarian crisis", that you so pathetically put your weight behind, had been dealt with before they started carving up Libya's spoils.

To make it even more clear to you....foreign special forces were on the ground in Libya before the whole thing kicked off. Are you going to tell us that they were there with their crystal balls looking into the future and they foresaw that Gadaffi would some day soon start firing on civilians?

Give me a FCUKING break!

Jonny7

jackiebaron wrote: »

Why the hell should he PM you. You get on here spouting utter gibberish and your cheeky little sidekick studiorat call us all tin-foil heads for pointing out the obvious invasion and occupation of Libya for oil exploitation:

Relax, its a debate.

http://www.ogj.com/articles/2011/08/eni-libyas-national-transitional-council-sign-agreement.html

That declaration was penned on May 31.....that's THREE MONTHS ago. I notice they didn't see the need to wait until the farcical "humanitarian crisis", that you so pathetically put your weight behind, had been dealt with before they started carving up Libya's spoils.

No idea what your point is here, ENI is resuming operations in Libya - where it was operating before. About 60 or so countries now recognise the NTC as legitimate. I'd say it would be pretty hard to do these deals with Gaddafi at the moment as I am sure he is quite indisposed.

The agreement came as rebel-held Zawiya refinery near Tripoli, which has been shut down since the beginning of Libya's rebellion in February, will soon resume operations, aiming to ease fuel shortages.

To make it even more clear to you....foreign special forces were on the ground in Libya before the whole thing kicked off.

They were on the ground before Feb 20th?

WakeUp

I really find the defenders of NATO/US Imperialism to be quite amusing and in a lot of instances hypocrtical. Slating and mocking people for pointing out the falsehoods, lies and double standards whilst at the same time believing that sh1te themselves. Foreign policy is about self interest always has been always will I fail to see what isnt to understand about the reality of such policy. So the defenders of "intervention" are either willy choosing to ignore this fact or dont understand the workings of realpolitik. I think at this stage now they are just trying to make themselves believe that there is some noble humanitarian reason for another "intervention" as they have made their bed and like any argument after a side has been chosen they are defending their position to the hilt, blindly and ignorantly in my opinion. I could nearly accpet their position or point of view if they came out and said something like "well yeah there is something in it for us and thats why we got involved but hey thats the way of the world aint it" but no its all this we are doing it for the people the people deserve to be free we must spread freedom we must protect the people from the evil dictator (who we supported until it suited otherwise) ad fcking nausea. Libya is just another part of the jigsaw I wonder who will be next to receive the warm caring humanitarian touch of the NATO/US mayhem mongers.

Jonny7

WakeUp wrote: »

I really find the defenders of NATO/US Imperialism to be quite amusing and in a lot of instances hypocrtical. Slating and mocking people for pointing out the falsehoods, lies and double standards whilst at the same time believing that sh1te themselves. Foreign policy is about self interest always has been always will I fail to see what isnt to understand about the reality of such policy. So the defenders of "intervention" are either willy choosing to ignore this fact or dont understand the workings of realpolitik. I think at this stage now they are just trying to make themselves believe that there is some noble humanitarian reason for another "intervention" as they have made their bed and like any argument after a side has been chosen they are defending their position to the hilt, blindly and ignorantly in my opinion. I could nearly accpet their position or point of view if they came out and said something like "well yeah there is something in it for us and thats why we got involved but hey thats the way of the world aint it" but no its all this we are doing it for the people the people deserve to be free we must spread freedom we must protect the people from the evil dictator (who we supported until it suited otherwise) ad fcking nausea. Libya is just another part of the jigsaw I wonder who will be next to receive the warm caring humanitarian touch of the NATO/US mayhem mongers.

Its the hypocrisy of the West that can really enrage people. As we've seen from wikileaks. every country acts in relative self interest and engages in Real Politik - but its the spin and propaganda that is used to present (and hide) this information to the public that can often really piss people off, justifiably so in many cases.

I didn't support many past interventions (namely many Cold War situations/coups, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq) for various different reasons. However I strongly supported intervention in e.g. Yugoslavia, simply because many lives were saved and there is relative peace in the region at the moment.

Its pretty sickening how some countries have coddled and "supported" many dictators, junta's, cabal's around the world, but I do understand the need of some countries (e.g. S Korea) to do business with some dictators (e.g. N Korea) in order to try and build some bridges in order to find a diplomatic solution - its a bit of a tightrope between appeasement and genuine diplomacy.

The problem arises when a dictator (or junta, regime, etc) who has firm control of the military starts using unchecked violence and tools of oppression against their own people just to stay in power/quell protests/etc (e.g. Assad in Syria). Usually this type of leadership holds all the cards. What can be done? if the West intervene then, based on their past (e.g. Iraq, Somalia, East Timor, etc) they can rightfully be accused of being hypocrites.
Alternatively if the West ignore the situation (Rwanda) they get accused of being hyprocrites. Thirdly if they try diplomacy they get accused of appeasement.

Pretty tricky alright.

Personally though with Libya I think a no-fly zone was the best policy and I didn't mind who did it (could've been Sweden, Taiwan and Argentina intervening for all I cared). I think the Libyan people had bigger things to worry about than what oil companies would be getting contracts after they won their freedom.

jackiebaron

Also Jonny7, this current incarnation of trying to topple Gadaffi and occupy Libya began back in October 2010 so please don't insult us with your "protecting civilians" horse****.

You probably believed the pathetic crap that the media puked out about Gaddafi giving his troops Viagra to rape people. I bet you swallowed that nonsense without batting so much as an eyelid.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/russ-baker/38188/original-investigation-now-that-were-celebrating-qaddafis-end-can-we-get-a-little-truth

Jonny7

jackiebaron wrote: »

Also Jonny7, this current incarnation of trying to topple Gadaffi and occupy Libya began back in October 2010 so please don't insult us with your "protecting civilians" horse****.

You probably believed the pathetic crap that the media puked out about Gaddafi giving his troops Viagra to rape people. I bet you swallowed that nonsense without batting so much as an eyelid.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/russ-baker/38188/original-investigation-now-that-were-celebrating-qaddafis-end-can-we-get-a-little-truth

You didn't address my previous question or points

Namely when did special forces land in Libya?

What was your issue with Eni returning to Libya?

Rape is common in many conflicts (in Congo there are an average 45 rapes an hour). I didn't pay the story much attention to be honest, sources were mainly captured pro-Gaddafi troops I believe?

The link appears to just be to someone's blog.

jackiebaron

Jonny7 wrote: »

You didn't address my previous question or points

Namely when did special forces land in Libya?

What was your issue with Eni returning to Libya?

Rape is common in many conflicts (in Congo there are an average 45 rapes an hour). I didn't pay the story much attention to be honest, sources were mainly captured pro-Gaddafi troops I believe?

The link appears to just be to someone's blog.

You "believe"?

And what does your statment "Rape is common in many conflicts" have to do with anything? How does that irrelevant and trite comment have any bearing on the media insisting that Gaddafi was issuing viagra to his troops to go and rape people? Please can you give me the relevance.

Wakeup was right. All you do is throw back some completely irrelevant nonsense when presented with something that you can't explain.

It's akin to me falsely stating that Mr X was plying Mr Y with alcohol and cocaine so that he would go home and beat his wife and then you coming out with the infantile statement "Hey, domestic violence is a fact of life"

Such drivel!