The Real Reason for NATO Attacking Libya ?

Jonny7

Daithi 1 wrote: »

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

Ahh home-made Youtube documentaries

Sheer nonsense. Gotta love the Jamahiriya system - power to people (with no elections and one man in power for 42 years.. quite the system)

Daithi 1

shadowninty wrote: »

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?

See my last post.

studiorat

so it goes...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2011/oct/20/syria-libya-middle-east-unrest-live

Jonny7

Conspiracy theories about this that also "happen" to malign the West in 3.. 2.. 1..

The Outside Agency

Jonny7 wrote:

Conspiracy theories about this that also "happen" to malign the West in 3.. 2.. 1..

It makes me curious to see people like you in CT forums since you don't appear to cynical about anything.

Isn't it only "crazy" people who post on here?

Jonny7

nivekd wrote: »

It makes me curious to see people like you in CT forums since you don't appear to cynical about anything.

Isn't it only "crazy" people who post on here?

I thought I was cynical enough about some of the crazy theories.

ed2hands

Jonny7 wrote: »

Conspiracy theories about this that also "happen" to malign the West in 3.. 2.. 1..

meh

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Ahh home-made Youtube documentaries

Sheer nonsense. Gotta love the Jamahiriya system - power to people (with no elections and one man in power for 42 years.. quite the system)

is that what they have in england with the queen?

The Libyan monarchy of King Idris, which was based in Benghazi, was installed by the United States and Britain in the 1950’s to oversee their economic and military interests in North Africa.

Libya in 1952, under the leadership of King Idris, had among the lowest standard of living in the world. The Idris monarchy was overthrown in a bloodless revolution led by Muammar al-Gaddafi in 1969.

This led to the American Wheelus Air Base (The largest American base outside of the US at that time) being dismantled and the American and British armed forces stationed in Libya evacuating.

The western oil companies were then nationalised.


http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26246

facts ...

The recolonisation of libya is complete..

studiorat

davoxx wrote: »

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26246

facts ...

you forgot to give the primary source...

Global Research, August 28, 2011
Globalciviliansforpeace.com

Facts? all from one article?
:rolleyes:



What part did the US have in founding Idris' kingdom?



If in 1952 Libya was in such a bad state why was that? Since Idris was only just in power? Fact is when he took over there wasn't even a Libyan doctor in the country. Basically it's because the Ottoman empire and Italy left the place in a heap.

Things did pick up when they discovered the oil and set up Libya's petroleum laws. Why were those laws still in place up until about 10 years ago?



Why is the fact that the US base was designated to close by 1970 anyway not included in your "facts"?



And most importantly... What Western oil companies were nationalized under Gadaffi? I thought the whole NATO debacle was about Gadaffi wanting to nationalize oil companies. Seems as though he did it 40 years ago!!! :eek::eek:



A little less of the confirmation bias davox and a little more actual research might make your post a bit less regurgitated cr@p.

davoxx

studiorat wrote: »

Facts? all from one article?

is that impossible? :pac:
are you saying that no article can contain only facts?
i'm sure it made sense when you typed it, but i do not understand your issue with facts contained within a single article?

studiorat wrote: »

What part did the US have in founding Idris' kingdom?

an equal share with the united kingdom, so i'd say 50% of it.

studiorat wrote: »

If in 1952 Libya was in such a bad state why was that?

if you did your research rather than forcing me to do it for you, you would know.

studiorat wrote: »

Since Idris was only just in power?

Fact is when he took over there wasn't even a Libyan doctor in the country.

well that would explain the first few years ...

studiorat wrote: »

Basically it's because the Ottoman empire and Italy left the place in a heap.

ok

studiorat wrote: »

Things did pick up when they discovered the oil and set up Libya's petroleum laws.

really? before or after the bloodless coup?
no doubt you will have evidence to back this up.

studiorat wrote: »

Why were those laws still in place up until about 10 years ago?

no idea, threat of war? sanctions?
okay i bite, what's the answer so?

studiorat wrote: »

Why is the fact that the US base was designated to close by 1970 anyway not included in your "facts"?

i have no idea, you should email them, then email the whitehouse and ask for copies of osama's death certificate ...
but sure it was going to close then, it was after the uprising, but when was that decision made i'll need proof please ...
and lets not forget that america never ever lie about matters relating to warmongering ...

studiorat wrote: »

And most importantly... What Western oil companies were nationalized under Gadaffi? I thought the whole NATO debacle was about Gadaffi wanting to nationalize oil companies. Seems as though he did it 40 years ago!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Oil_Corporation
http://uicifd.blogspot.com/2009/01/libyan-leader-gaddafi-threatens-to.html

and are you saying that nato was wrong here some how? i only ask as you use "debacle" ...

studiorat wrote: »

A little less of the confirmation bias davox and a little more actual research might make your post a bit less regurgitated cr@p.

i'm not biased, i just happen to understand facts, can think for myself and am not easy to brainwash.
on your side though, i can't say the same, and i really did wish that you would research what i posted rather than immediately replying with a personal attack and calling my post cr<at sign>p. but that is exactly what those who can't think for themselves do i suppose ...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=24479&context=va

Jonny7

davoxx wrote: »

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26246

facts ...

Globalresearch. Their front page.


Michel Chossudovsky in Halifax: The Truth about Libya and NATO's "Humanitarian" Road Map

Global Crisis: Towards a World War Three Scenario

The End of History: Now that the CIA’s proxy army has murdered Gadhafi, what next for Libya?

Do You Believe al-Qaeda’s Claim Gaddafi is Dead?

Wall Street and Student Debt Foregiveness

Project Censored 2012: The Sourcebook for the Media Revolution

Obama, The Son of Africa, Claims a Continent’s Crown Jewels

America's Descent to Depravity

VIDEO: Serb Protesters in Kosovo Face Off with Armed NATO Forces


The articles, blogs and opinion are vehemently anti-US/Israeli. I wouldn't touch it nor Fox News with a bargepole.

studiorat

davoxx wrote: »

is that impossible? :pac:
are you saying that no article can contain only facts?
i'm sure it made sense when you typed it, but i do not understand your issue with facts contained within a single article?

The "facts" are out of context, so clearly the article is biased. Doesn't seem to bother you though.

davoxx wrote: »

an equal share with the united kingdom, so i'd say 50% of it.

That would be impossible since France and Italy were also responsible for two of the other areas. Fact is the UK was responsible for only Cyrenaica after the War. Already we see you are bending the truth to fit your prejudice.

davoxx wrote: »

if you did your research rather than forcing me to do it for you, you would know.

I've done my research, I do know. A mixture of wars, pogroms and general corruption leading right up to the end of WW2.

What did you think is was? Or did you think at all?

davoxx wrote: »

well that would explain the first few years ...

Indeed it does, unlike the article you cut and pasted. Which infers that it was due to Idris. Again presenting the facts out of context.

davoxx wrote: »

really? before or after the bloodless coup?
no doubt you will have evidence to back this up.

The oil was discovered before the coup.

davoxx wrote: »

is that impossible? :pac:
are you saying that no article can contain only facts?
i'm sure it made sense when you typed it, but i do not understand your issue with facts contained within a single article?

The "facts" are out of context, so clearly the article is biased. Doesn't seem to bother you though.

davoxx wrote: »

an equal share with the united kingdom, so i'd say 50% of it.

That would be impossible since France and Italy were also responsible for two of the other areas. Fact is the UK was responsible for only Cyrenaica after the War. Already we see you are bending the truth to fit your prejudice.

davoxx wrote: »

if you did your research rather than forcing me to do it for you, you would know.

I've done my research, I do know. A mixture of wars, pogroms and general corruption leading right up to the end of WW2.

What did you think is was? Or did you think at all?

davoxx wrote: »

no idea, threat of war? sanctions?
okay i bite, what's the answer so?

Long after the sanctions. I'd imagine the idea was one of Gadaffi's economic whims. It seemed to work so well for the first half of his reign.

davoxx wrote: »

i have no idea, you should email them, then email the whitehouse and ask for copies of osama's death certificate ...

I'll tell you why, again it because the rubbish article you regurgitated was propaganda and it's author left out so much important detail. Again it doesn't seem to bother you because it fit's in to your cosy little image.

davoxx wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Oil_Corporation
http://uicifd.blogspot.com/2009/01/libyan-leader-gaddafi-threatens-to.html

I see the two links you provided makes a lie out of your previous post. NOC held production sharing agreements which they later sold back to the Internationals. As much as you'd like to believe it, that is not the same thing as :

The western oil companies were then nationalised.

davoxx wrote: »

and are you saying that nato was wrong here some how? i only ask as you use "debacle" ...

I think NATO could have done a better job of it for sure, and Gadaffi should have stepped down rather than continue with the hyperbole.

davoxx wrote: »

i'm not biased, i just happen to understand facts, can think for myself and am not easy to brainwash.

Looks to me like you have been already and don't know it.

davoxx wrote: »

on your side though, i can't say the same, and i really did wish that you would research what i posted rather than immediately replying with a personal attack and calling my post cr<at sign>p. but that is exactly what those who can't think for themselves do i suppose ...

Your post was crap, FACT! :pac::pac::pac:

ed2hands

Jonny7 wrote: »

Globalresearch. Their front page.


Michel Chossudovsky in Halifax: The Truth about Libya and NATO's "Humanitarian" Road Map

Global Crisis: Towards a World War Three Scenario

The End of History: Now that the CIA’s proxy army has murdered Gadhafi, what next for Libya?

Do You Believe al-Qaeda’s Claim Gaddafi is Dead?

Wall Street and Student Debt Foregiveness

Project Censored 2012: The Sourcebook for the Media Revolution

Obama, The Son of Africa, Claims a Continent’s Crown Jewels

America's Descent to Depravity

VIDEO: Serb Protesters in Kosovo Face Off with Armed NATO Forces


The articles, blogs and opinion are vehemently anti-US/Israeli. I wouldn't touch it nor Fox News with a bargepole.

Any chance you'll ever stop whinging about the source being "non-biased" and actually not try to derail the thread with pointless bull****e?

Please?:)

shadowninty

ed2hands wrote: »

Any chance you'll ever stop whinging about the source being "non-biased" and actually not try to derail the thread with pointless bull****e?

Please?:)

He was merely pointing out that the source is a crazy orientated site, srong with pointing that out?

Jonny7

ed2hands wrote: »

Any chance you'll ever stop whinging about the source being "non-biased" and actually not try to derail the thread with pointless bull****e?

Please?:)

Because Ed, the source matters.

Walter Fauntroy can sit down and give an interview to the Afro of how he saw French and Danish troops beheading civilians in Iraq and most CT sites will run the story without any fact-checking or substantiation (google it right now)

Russian propaganda, Iranian propaganda, twisted opinion pieces, blogs, false stories - all accepted on an epidemic scale on these amateur CT sites - which people confuse as "real" news (mainly because they try to pose as such)

Mainstream newspapers and media have rightly been accused of being left or right leaning and even capable of the odd lie - but certainly not even remotely close to these "real news" sites.

If you disagree with that, then please go to the Guardian or Telegraph and point me out the false stories in the last week.

I'm interested in the truth, not in cherry-picking events, coincidences and stories to use as ammunition in an obvious agenda against a certain country or organisation.

TLDR; more than a few people in here openly (and badly hide) their hate for the US and Israeli administrations and seek to read only news that validates their opinion rather than actually finding out the real truth. I've been there myself, its horse****.

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Globalresearch. Their front page.


Michel Chossudovsky in Halifax: The Truth about Libya and NATO's "Humanitarian" Road Map

Global Crisis: Towards a World War Three Scenario

The End of History: Now that the CIA’s proxy army has murdered Gadhafi, what next for Libya?

Do You Believe al-Qaeda’s Claim Gaddafi is Dead?

Wall Street and Student Debt Foregiveness

Project Censored 2012: The Sourcebook for the Media Revolution

Obama, The Son of Africa, Claims a Continent’s Crown Jewels

America's Descent to Depravity

VIDEO: Serb Protesters in Kosovo Face Off with Armed NATO Forces


The articles, blogs and opinion are vehemently anti-US/Israeli. I wouldn't touch it nor Fox News with a bargepole.

so are you disputing the facts contained?
are they anti usa only because they raise valid point instead of ignoring them?

i did give wiki links, are they also biased?

also what made you think they were anti-israeli?

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Because Ed, the source matters.

Walter Fauntroy can sit down and give an interview to the Afro of how he saw French and Danish troops beheading civilians in Iraq and most CT sites will run the story without any fact-checking or substantiation (google it right now)

Russian propaganda, Iranian propaganda, twisted opinion pieces, blogs, false stories - all accepted on an epidemic scale on these amateur CT sites - which people confuse as "real" news (mainly because they try to pose as such)

Mainstream newspapers and media have rightly been accused of being left or right leaning and even capable of the odd lie - but certainly not even remotely close to these "real news" sites.

If you disagree with that, then please go to the Guardian or Telegraph and point me out the false stories in the last week.

I'm interested in the truth, not in cherry-picking events, coincidences and stories to use as ammunition in an obvious agenda against a certain country or organisation.

TLDR; more than a few people in here openly (and badly hide) their hate for the US and Israeli administrations and seek to read only news that validates their opinion rather than actually finding out the real truth. I've been there myself, its horse****.

i think you need to point out false stories on the source that you dismissed as propaganda ... otherwise it just seems like you are biased and choose to ignore facts when convenient by following NCT sites as fact ...

ed2hands

Jonny7 wrote: »

Because Ed, the source matters.

Walter Fauntroy can sit down and give an interview to the Afro of how he saw French and Danish troops beheading civilians in Iraq and most CT sites will run the story without any fact-checking or substantiation (google it right now)

Russian propaganda, Iranian propaganda, twisted opinion pieces, blogs, false stories - all accepted on an epidemic scale on these amateur CT sites - which people confuse as "real" news (mainly because they try to pose as such)

Mainstream newspapers and media have rightly been accused of being left or right leaning and even capable of the odd lie - but certainly not even remotely close to these "real news" sites.

If you disagree with that, then please go to the Guardian or Telegraph and point me out the false stories in the last week.

I'm interested in the truth, not in cherry-picking events, coincidences and stories to use as ammunition in an obvious agenda against a certain country or organisation.

TLDR; more than a few people in here openly (and badly hide) their hate for the US and Israeli administrations and seek to read only news that validates their opinion rather than actually finding out the real truth. I've been there myself, its horse****.

I take it that's a no then.:)

You're interested in the truth. No problem with that. We all are.
You're making out that some here are not and rather a fuelled by hatred. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but i think you're confusing mainstream newspaper media with alternative media and expecting them to be cut from the same cloth. They're not.
You're confusing some posters posts in the same manner.
Global Research doesn't claim to be fair and balanced; it does what it does.

Brown Bomber

davoxx wrote: »

i think you need to point out false stories on the source that you dismissed as propaganda ... otherwise it just seems like you are biased and choose to ignore facts when convenient by following NCT sites as fact ...

He won't. I posted a video about something, can't remember what that was uploaded by an independent news outlet that has a youtube channel with thousands of videos. Our Jonny here responded within less than 10 mins of my post and had somehow watched all these thousands of videos and could write them off as anti-Israel/US

Brown Bomber

Want to see the face of evil? Pause at 1 second. The cackling psychopath is overcome with elation over murder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D0LEW6vGF8

You came, you saw...you fell over.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MpocZt6hrk

roundymac

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Want to see the face of evil? Pause at 1 second. The cackling psychopath is overcome with elation over murder.

So was I, the bastard got it easy in the end, how many people died in this country(Ireland) alone from the guns etc that he supplied to the various terror groups. Good riddence to **** I say.

davoxx

roundymac wrote: »

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Want to see the face of evil? Pause at 1 second. The cackling psychopath is overcome with elation over murder.

So was I, the bastard got it easy in the end, how many people died in this country(Ireland) alone from the guns etc that he supplied to the various terror groups. Good riddence to **** I say.

guns don't kill people, people kill people.

roundymac

davoxx wrote: »

guns don't kill people, people kill people.

And Gadaffi certainly knew how to do that.

davoxx

roundymac wrote: »

And Gadaffi certainly knew how to do that.

yeah he could figure out the old point and shoot ... but he was not the only one to be fair ...

also i think you'll find it is impossible for him to shot in libya and hit ireland ...

what has this all got to do with the reason nato attacked libya?

roundymac

As per usual with your views it's all about your perfect little world, what about his people that had to endure 40 years of suffering under, never knowing what the next knock on the door will bring. When his people protested he shot them down like dogs in the streets.
What will your view be if NATO starts to aid the Syrian people in their fight against Assad? Will that be murder as well, I call it justice.

shadowninty

I doubt anyone will help those in Syria - not without good reason mind

Brown Bomber

roundymac wrote: »

So was I, the bastard got it easy in the end, how many people died in this country(Ireland) alone from the guns etc that he supplied to the various terror groups. Good riddence to **** I say.

Assuming your unhypocritical it is then fair to conclude that you are a) in favour of extra-judicial executions without due process (when it suits you) b) Anti-the Geneva Conventions and (when it suits you) c) In favour of lynchings of the British officials behind the FRU which killed people "in this country". In favour of the lynchings of Israeli officials who armed the Kurds who kill Turks. In favour of the lynchings of US officials who armed Central & South American death squads?

Brown Bomber

davoxx wrote: »

what has this all got to do with the reason nato attacked libya?

They didn't attack Libya; they protected civilians

roundymac

When people like Gadaffi don't observe these rules then I can't see why people get upset when it happens to him.