The Real Reason for NATO Attacking Libya ?

Jonny7

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Radio interview on IRRB French service of Thierry Meyssan who was one of the Journalists in TRIPOLI during the night of the fall of Tripoli.
He describes the events that he witnessed and gives us a perspective that completely contradicts what we have been hearing on mainstream media.

Iranian state propaganda radio.

http://english.irib.ir/

What is it with conspiracy theorists and Iran lately :rolleyes:

WakeUp

Jonny7 wrote: »

What is it with conspiracy theorists and Iran lately :rolleyes:

What is it with people like yourself labeling anyone who doesnt agree with you or decides to question the official version of events a conspiracy theorist?:rolleyes: So the people who questioned the WMD lies in Iraq and were in time proven right were they conspiracy theorists to right??? Or do you just bounce the term around when it suits you? So question what is being broadcast 24/7 by state controlled media and you are a conspiracy theorist? When did the world end up like this that if you dont believe what you are being told by state run media or dare to question it you become a conspiracy theorist. When did we start living under a facist dictatorship I must have missed that. Whatever happened to looking at all sides of the story/situation and coming to a decision based on that instead of the bias one sided reporting of the curent events in Libya. People who label other people that dont agree with them or who question what they are being told a "conspiracy theorist" are fairly pathetic in my humble opinion and if you ever needed any reminding of the fallacy of doing such a thing think back to all the people who were slated mocked and ridiculed for pointing out the lies and bs in the run up to the invasion of Iraq and labeled "conspiracy theorists" but who in turn were fcking spot on and right all along.

Jonny7

We're in a conspiracy theory forum, is to be expected.

There have just been a spate of Iranian/Russian videos posted from CTers lately on this and other forums. Completely cynical of US propaganda, completely gullible with Iranian propaganda - I don't get it.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

We're in a conspiracy theory forum, is to be expected.

There have just been a spate of Iranian/Russian videos posted from CTers lately on this and other forums. Completely cynical of US propaganda, completely gullible with Iranian propaganda - I don't get it.

Are you suggesting that Meyssan is working as part of an Iranian propoganda campaign? If not, do you actually have a point?

Do you have an answer as to why he wouldn't be interviewed as a witness in a non "propoganda" medium?

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Are you suggesting that Meyssan is working as part of an Iranian propoganda campaign? If not, do you actually have a point?

Do you have an answer as to why he wouldn't be interviewed as a witness in a non "propoganda" medium?

He is used by Iranian and Russian TV because of his strong anti-Western views.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

He is used by Iranian and Russian TV because of his strong anti-Western views.

Thanks for sharing your conspiracy theory! Didn't take you for a "CTer".

Also, you didn't answer any of the questions I asked you.

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Thanks for sharing your conspiracy theory! Didn't take you for a "CTer".

Also, you didn't answer any of the questions I asked you.

I am suggesting that T Meyssen can be relied on to deliver very anti-Western views, therefore is often interviewed (used) by various propaganda sites to lend credibility to their own anti-Western agenda.

If you are trying to nitpick, just go to youtube and look him up yourself, his views are more than clear.

hooradiation

WakeUp wrote: »

The two facedness of that comment is astounding.

If you'd like to demonstrate why you think it's two-faced then by all means, feel free.
Until then I'm going to take it as short hand for "opinion i don't care for" as opposed to an actual criticism.

WakeUp wrote: »

The UN/NATO/US only care about their "rebel" buddies and civilians and if they wanted too could try save the population of Sirte who at this moment in time and in the future are under attack.

And conversely, the remaining Gadaffi loyalists in sirte could also save the population by surrendering.

If the only criteria for what is deemed to be acceptable actions are the ones that we imagine will directly lead to the prevention of civilian deaths then we could with equal validity lay all the blame at Gadaffis feet for responding to pro-democracy protests with force.

WakeUp wrote: »

The majority of NATO defenders are hypocrits its so god damn obvious it would be funny if it wasnt so serious.

That's nice to know - but i fail to see the relevance to this.
Unless you're trying to use weasel words to infer that I am a hypocrite, in which case you'd be better off just coming out and saying it.

WakeUp wrote: »

For a start you can speak for yourself there but dont be speaking for me thank you very much,

I will continue to speak for you if you insist on trying to claim the moral highground by insisting you care about these people you've never met.
Interestingly, when a similar situation was actually happening in Misrata for over seventy days this thread was remarkably devoid of such concerns for the citizens of that city.

WakeUp wrote: »

It is a cop out and its two faced. Like I said the majority of the NATO defenders are hypocrits, in my opinion.

And once again, relevance?

studiorat

Jonny7 wrote: »

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d22_1314916981

someone on another forum posting this of an Irish fella fighting down in Libya, no point being made here, just a good insight

See also Mahadi al Harati, turned up on board the Rachael Corrie last year. Currently commander of the Tripoli brigade. Obviously after oil...

Brown Bomber

studiorat wrote: »

See also Mahadi al Harati, turned up on board the Rachael Corrie last year. Currently commander of the Tripoli brigade.

Political activist is politically active. What's your point?

studiorat

Being commander in the Tripoli Brigade is sight more than just political don't you think?

Brown Bomber

studiorat wrote: »

Being commander in the Tripoli Brigade is sight more than just political don't you think?

What do you mean more than political?l and what was your original point?

studiorat

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What do you mean more than political?l and what was your original point?

No point, purely because it's interesting. Clearly he feels it necessary to step outside the political boundaries where Libya is concerned, and fair play to him. I seriously doubt political discussion would have got them very far against Gadaffi and his family, no?

WakeUp

If you'd like to demonstrate why you think it's two-faced then by all means, feel free.
Until then I'm going to take it as short hand for "opinion i don't care for" as opposed to an actual criticism.

I'll tell you why its two faced its two faced because one city gets a UN resolution protecting the civillians and their "right" to life and one city doesnt but hey the "UN cant save everyone"right??...

And conversely, the remaining Gadaffi loyalists in sirte could also save the population by surrendering.

The same could have been said for the "rebels" uprising in Benghazi - had they surrendered there would have been no need for a UN resolution but sure that doesnt suit does it. Of course it doesnt one rule for one set of civilians one rule for the other its so hypocritical its not even funny. A city under siege being pounded from the air where are the calls for a UN resolution protecting the civilians of this city. Oh yeah but its ok for the "rebels" to lay siege to a city I nearly forgot there for a second.

If the only criteria for what is deemed to be acceptable actions are the ones that we imagine will directly lead to the prevention of civilian deaths then we could with equal validity lay all the blame at Gadaffis feet for responding to pro-democracy protests with force.

But thats not the issue now is it. Again where is the UN resolution protecting the right to life for the civilians of Sirte?? Where is it??

hooradiation wrote: »

That's nice to know - but i fail to see the relevance to this.
Unless you're trying to use weasel words to infer that I am a hypocrite, in which case you'd be better off just coming out and saying it.

There is nothing weasel about my words at all, hypocrisy is clearly an issue in all of this whether or not you fall under that heading I'll leave that up to you. Defending a phony UN resolution to protect one section of civillians whilst turning a blind eye and dishing out lame excuses/justification for another set of civillians who are on the receiving end of the same thing certain people and NATO defenders are crying wolf over. Thats called hypocrisy.

I will continue to speak for you if you insist on trying to claim the moral highground by insisting you care about these people you've never met.
Interestingly, when a similar situation was actually happening in Misrata for over seventy days this thread was remarkably devoid of such concerns for the citizens of that city.

What do you mean you'll continue to speak for me stop speaking for me please you dont know me:D Are you a mind reader now? Im not trying to claim the high ground at all I dont have to even if I wanted to, Im just pointing out the obvious hypocrisy in the position of the NATO defenders well the majority of them anyways its blatantly obvious.

Jonny7

WakeUp wrote: »

What is it with people like yourself labeling anyone who doesnt agree with you or decides to question the official version of events a conspiracy theorist?:rolleyes:

I actually want to reply to some of this. People like myself? haven't you yourself used the label "NATO apologist"?

I believe in certain conspiracies, but am I a "conspiracy theorist"? unfortunately the term "conspiracy theorist" has become diluted by those who believe in lizard people running the earth, etc, which doesn't help its definition.

So the people who questioned the WMD lies in Iraq and were in time proven right were they conspiracy theorists to right???

Choosing one government or police lie that was proven to be a lie does not vindicate your line on "conspiracy theorists" in fairness. The phrase has to be taken as a whole.

Or do you just bounce the term around when it suits you?

I use the term as others do, look at the subjects on this forum up for debate.

So question what is being broadcast 24/7 by state controlled media and you are a conspiracy theorist?

Which media in particular? Some media is almost fully controlled by the state, e.g. Syrian state TV and IRIB (which you thanked another poster for linking in this thread)

When did the world end up like this that if you dont believe what you are being told by state run media or dare to question it you become a conspiracy theorist.

You are assuming that about me based on?

When did we start living under a facist dictatorship I must have missed that. Whatever happened to looking at all sides of the story/situation and coming to a decision based on that instead of the bias one sided reporting of the curent events in Libya.

Bias? thats up for debate. One-sided? no, much of what Libyan State TV has been claiming has been reported in mainstream media. Much of that has proven to be lies but was still reported to provide balance.

People who label other people that dont agree with them or who question what they are being told a "conspiracy theorist" are fairly pathetic in my humble opinion and if you ever needed any reminding of the fallacy of doing such a thing think back to all the people who were slated mocked and ridiculed for pointing out the lies and bs in the run up to the invasion of Iraq and labeled "conspiracy theorists" but who in turn were fcking spot on and right all along.

I was involved in the Iraq debate intensively, I don't remember many being labelled "conspiracy theorists" at the time, and I was against the invasion. I remember many being labelled "anti-American".

studiorat

WakeUp wrote: »

So question what is being broadcast 24/7 by state controlled media and you are a conspiracy theorist? When did the world end up like this that if you dont believe what you are being told by state run media or dare to question it you become a conspiracy theorist. When did we start living under a facist dictatorship I must have missed that. Whatever happened to looking at all sides of the story/situation and coming to a decision based on that instead of the bias one sided reporting of the curent events in Libya.

Just for the record, the Committee to Protect Journalists, in 2006 voted North Korea as the most censored state in the world. Libya was in the top 5 along with Syria and Burma. State run media was pretty much the norm until this year.

Would you call Libya a dictatorship Wakey?

Check out this television station : http://www.livestream.com/libya17feb
What do you think?

hooradiation

WakeUp wrote: »

I'll tell you why its two faced its two faced because one city gets a UN resolution protecting the civillians and their "right" to life and one city doesnt but hey the "UN cant save everyone"right??...

I am unaware of any one city being singled out with a UN resolution, maybe you'd like to point me in the direction of it.
Unless you're just using hyperbole to try and bolster your argument.

And it's still not two faced though, because you're making wild assumptions about what stances i had throughout this entire series of events.
If no UN resolution had been passed in relation to Libya then my response would be the same as it is now "Sucks to be them".
But a resolution was passed and we are in the situation we are currently in, simply because i understand the limitations and realities of what has happened doesn't make me two faced.

So please stop this "you're two faced" childishness. It's a waste of both our time.

WakeUp wrote: »

The same could have been said for the "rebels" uprising in Benghazi - had they surrendered there would have been no need for a UN resolution but sure that doesnt suit does it. Of course it doesnt one rule for one set of civilians one rule for the other its so hypocritical its not even funny. A city under siege being pounded from the air where are the calls for a UN resolution protecting the civilians of this city. Oh yeah but its ok for the "rebels" to lay siege to a city I nearly forgot there for a second.

Don't put the word rebels in quotes, it's cheap and hopefully beneath you.

And secondly, thats the whole point though isn't it- you can go back through the entire timeline of this event and go "if they just didn't do that then we wouldn't be here" and you might even be right.

But it's pointless, mindless daydreaming, gadaffi loyalists in Sirte should surrender begets NATO shouldn't have done anything begets gadaffi shouldn't be a tyrant begets etc etc etc.
It's pointless, achieves nothing and is little more than selectively picking singular events and using them to support whatever previous viewpoint you had.

WakeUp wrote: »

But thats not the issue now is it.

It is.

WakeUp wrote: »

Again where is the UN resolution protecting the right to life for the civilians of Sirte?? Where is it??

I have no idea, why are you asking me?

WakeUp wrote: »

There is nothing weasel about my words at all,

Yes, there is.
As you originally said "The majority of NATO defenders are hypocrits " the highlighted word there is the rub, weaseling around outright saying that you think that I or anyone else who's disagreeing with you, are hypocrits[sic] and simply implying it.
If you think I'm a hypocrite then just man up and say it. Stop dancing about.

WakeUp wrote: »

Im not trying to claim the high ground at all I dont have to even if I wanted to, Im just pointing out the obvious hypocrisy in the position of the NATO defenders well the majority of them anyways its blatantly obvious.

Of course your not, you're just lamenting what you imagine the fate of Sirte is. Won't someone think of the children.

Oddly, you never did find time in your reply to address where this passionate worrying about these people was when Misrata was actually being attacked.
But i can assume seeing as you'd never be a hypocrite yourself i can only imagine you were equally critical of Gaddafis regime during those seventy odd days.

WakeUp

studiorat wrote: »

Would you call Libya a dictatorship Wakey?

When you stop being an obnoxious little smart arse I'll think about replying to your questions.:)

WakeUp

hooradiation wrote: »

I am unaware of any one city being singled out with a UN resolution, maybe you'd like to point me in the direction of it.
Unless you're just using hyperbole to try and bolster your argument.

And it's still not two faced though, because you're making wild assumptions about what stances i had throughout this entire series of events.
If no UN resolution had been passed in relation to Libya then my response would be the same as it is now "Sucks to be them".
But a resolution was passed and we are in the situation we are currently in, simply because i understand the limitations and realities of what has happened doesn't make me two faced.

So please stop this "you're two faced" childishness. It's a waste of both our time.



Don't put the word rebels in quotes, it's cheap and hopefully beneath you.

And secondly, thats the whole point though isn't it- you can go back through the entire timeline of this event and go "if they just didn't do that then we wouldn't be here" and you might even be right.

But it's pointless, mindless daydreaming, gadaffi loyalists in Sirte should surrender begets NATO shouldn't have done anything begets gadaffi shouldn't be a tyrant begets etc etc etc.
It's pointless, achieves nothing and is little more than selectively picking singular events and using them to support whatever previous viewpoint you had.





It is.



I have no idea, why are you asking me?



Yes, there is.
As you originally said "The majority of NATO defenders are hypocrits " the highlighted word there is the rub, weaseling around outright saying that you think that I or anyone else who's disagreeing with you, are hypocrits[sic] and simply implying it.
If you think I'm a hypocrite then just man up and say it. Stop dancing about.




Of course your not, you're just lamenting what you imagine the fate of Sirte is. Won't someone think of the children.

Oddly, you never did find time in your reply to address where this passionate worrying about these people was when Misrata was actually being attacked.
But i can assume seeing as you'd never be a hypocrite yourself i can only imagine you were equally critical of Gaddafis regime during those seventy odd days.

Hooradiation Im in work at the moment will reply to the above when I get in this evening..

WakeUp

Jonny7 wrote: »

I actually want to reply to some of this. People like myself? haven't you yourself used the label "NATO apologist"?

I believe in certain conspiracies, but am I a "conspiracy theorist"? unfortunately the term "conspiracy theorist" has become diluted by those who believe in lizard people running the earth, etc, which doesn't help its definition.



Choosing one government or police lie that was proven to be a lie does not vindicate your line on "conspiracy theorists" in fairness. The phrase has to be taken as a whole.



I use the term as others do, look at the subjects on this forum up for debate.



Which media in particular? Some media is almost fully controlled by the state, e.g. Syrian state TV and IRIB (which you thanked another poster for linking in this thread)



You are assuming that about me based on?



Bias? thats up for debate. One-sided? no, much of what Libyan State TV has been claiming has been reported in mainstream media. Much of that has proven to be lies but was still reported to provide balance.



I was involved in the Iraq debate intensively, I don't remember many being labelled "conspiracy theorists" at the time, and I was against the invasion. I remember many being labelled "anti-American".

Jonny Im in work will reply to this later on when I get in, looks like im going to be busy later on:D

studiorat

WakeUp wrote: »

When you stop being an obnoxious little smart arse I'll think about replying to your questions.:)

I thought you liked it when I called you that. Com'ere you...

hooradiation

WakeUp wrote: »

Hooradiation Im in work at the moment will reply to the above when I get in this evening..

No worries, take your time. Not all of us can skive like me

Jeboa Safari

There was an Irish-Libyan rebel fighter on the Late Late, with his wife and mother in law, should be up on the rte player later, about 20 minutes in

Daithi 1

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

There was an Irish-Libyan rebel fighter on the Late Late, with his wife and mother in law, should be up on the rte player later, about 20 minutes in

Rebel ? They said he was a FREEDOM FIGHTER !!

from rebel to anti gaddafi forces to freedom fighter.. hero next, no doubt. :pac:

Daithi 1

Interesting video.

Most people are against NATO yet I hear from the same people "but Gaddafi's a monster" "an evil dictator". So in the end, NATO has some support as they are ultimately seen as doing a service to Libyans. This is the biggest misconception! Gaddafi is NO dictator. Please watch and share this video. You can even copy it unto your channel. I just want the truth to spread before it's too late.

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

shadowninty

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Interesting video.
<YOUTUBE>

Do you believe this?
Interesting looking at the channel and fb page. Lots of bull****

Daithi 1

shadowninty wrote: »

Do you believe this?
Interesting looking at the channel and fb page. Lots of bull****

I know the information to be factual. The place where it's presented has no bearing on it.

shadowninty

Daithi 1 wrote: »

I know the information to be factual. The place where it's presented has no bearing on it.

So the people had a say in Libya´s international terrorism? Gaddadi´s life of luxury? Murdering of protesters?

Daithi 1

shadowninty wrote: »

So the people had a say in Libya´s international terrorism? Gaddadi´s life of luxury? Murdering of protesters?

Weve been over this in this thread and the other, sorry but I just cant repeat it all again so soon.

I will say, dont believe the propoganda.

shadowninty

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Weve been over this in this thread and the other, sorry but I just cant repeat it all again so soon.

I will say, dont believe the propoganda.

So his compound, private jets, lockerbie bombing, shooting protesters and those who tried to help were all done be the west without his knowledge as part of some vast conspiracy against him?