Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

The Real Reason for NATO Attacking Libya ?

1111214161725

Comments

  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


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

    It''s called not being biased, not having one rule for one and one for another.

    So you do think "we" have the right to murder and torture without due process? That the Geneva Conventions are just worthless pieces of paper?

    Yet you don't think that "civilised" states arming their enemies of enemies or proxies should be dragged through the street and murdered?

    How do you expect the cycle of violence to end without real justice?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,712 ✭✭✭roundymac


    It''s called not being biased, not having one rule for one and one for another.

    So you do think "we" have the right to murder and torture without due process? That the Geneva Conventions are just worthless pieces of paper?

    Yet you don't think that "civilised" states arming their enemies of enemies or proxies should be dragged through the street and murdered?

    How do you expect the cycle of violence to end without real justice?
    He was killed by his own people, real justice there would not have been, because as long as he was alive he would have attracted every radical/fundementist to Lybia and then we would have had another Iraq. However unpleasent you might have found it, it was the best way forward for Lybia. These are the facts of life and will always be that way. If NATO had not got involved this would still be going on, it's your anti American views which are clouding your vision. We never hear a word from you people when Gadaffi and co are murdering their own people but the minute the west(NATO) does anything , it's "oh NATO are murdering civilians".


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    roundymac wrote: »
    He was killed by his own people,
    So? So was JFK. Are you saying it's okay for people to kill execute their leaders without any due process?
    roundymac wrote: »
    real justice there would not have been,
    Then what was the point of Nuremberg? Of the Geneva Conventions? Of Milosevic's trial? Of Saddam's trial? ...of any trial!?
    roundymac wrote: »
    because as long as he was alive he would have attracted every radical/fundementist to Lybia and then we would have had another Iraq.
    This is nonsense. Utter nonsense. He was fighting Jihadi's FFS! He was the first ever world leader to put out arrest warrants for Al Qaeda members. The British even conspired with Al Qaeda in the 90's to have him assasinated.

    Your conflating Arabs with Muslim fundamentalism when Gadaffi and the Jamariya aren't Muslim fundamentalists. It's extemely judgemental and lazy.

    How you can talk of killing Gadaffi as preventing another Iraq is beyond me. Killing Gadaffi terminates the single issue that unites the anti-Gadaffi forces. Unless you think human rights lawyers are suddenly going to establish a government with Islamic terrorists?
    roundymac wrote: »
    However unpleasent you might have found it, it was the best way forward for Lybia. These are the facts of life and will always be that way. If NATO had not got involved this would still be going on, it's your anti American views which are clouding your vision. We never hear a word from you people when Gadaffi and co are murdering their own people but the minute the west(NATO) does anything , it's "oh NATO are murdering civilians".

    What are you talking about? Of course if Gadaffi or anyone else is killing innocent civilians it's absolutely wrong. Civilians are still being killed btw. They are rounding up and killing black immigrant labourers for being mercenaries for example.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,712 ✭✭✭roundymac


    Live by the sword, die by the sword.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    roundymac wrote: »
    Live by the sword, die by the sword.

    It's simplistic ideas like this that lead to civil war and "another Iraq". The Rebels are "living by the sword" by carrying out extra-judicial killings. NATO are "living by the sword" by bombing his compound and killing his grandchildren.

    By your logic is would now be okay for a Gadaffi loyalist to kill Sarkozy's new born child or to murder Obama's children.

    Are you in favour of international law being applied to ALL situations or NONE? There is no grey area or it becomes worthless.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,654 ✭✭✭shadowninty


    I think its sad that he was killed and now there will be no trial. There should be an investigation - but I´m not so sure about punishing the perpatrator(s)
    Mind you, I think him being out of the picture will lead to the people of Libya being better off, but thats just my opinion


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    studiorat wrote: »
    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.
    what specific facts are out of context and how are they not facts?

    studiorat wrote: »
    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.
    huh? what are you talking about here?
    let's break it down so:
    what are we talking about here?
    we are talking about:
    studiorat wrote: »
    What part did the US have in founding Idris' kingdom?
    the fact that France and Italy were controlling "responsible" for different areas has NOTHING to do with who founded the Idris kingdom.
    can you see that?
    can you see how you are twisting it to unrelated topics to fit your incorrect view?

    i must say that you are extremely biased as you think i am being prejudice based on pure nonsense ...
    studiorat wrote: »
    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?
    wow what a vague answer ... but sure it shows you did some research or some sorts, congrats.
    i think.

    can you elaborate on who the wars were with? what were the consequences?
    but i suppose before we off on a tangent, what is the relevance here?
    are you trying to excuse the puppet monarch because of previous wars?
    are trying to say that the puppet monarch was the original monarch before they were invaded?

    do you have a point?
    studiorat wrote: »
    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.
    it does not such thing.

    you really do like twisting things don't you.
    the article states for the whole duration.
    you talk about the first few years as though that explains it.
    please you can do better with your biased argumentative views.

    was idris completely void of blame for the entire period prior to the coup? was he really that incompetent?

    summary, it is in context, it is you trying to take it out of context as the article was talking about his entire tenure while you wanted to talk about the first year in power, well done for showing how biased my source was.
    studiorat wrote: »
    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.
    that was not evidence ...
    i know the oil was discovered before the coup, thanks for agreeing and not claiming it was out of context.

    what was the question that you avoided?
    here it is:
    studiorat wrote: »
    Things did pick up when they discovered the oil and set up Libya's petroleum laws.
    to which i replied:
    davoxx wrote: »
    really? before or after the bloodless coup?
    no doubt you will have evidence to back this up.
    then somehow your reply was:
    studiorat wrote: »
    The oil was discovered before the coup.

    seems to me that someone is dodging the question here, and taking in out of context ...

    but maybe the question was confusing, so i'll phrase it differently:
    when did things get better, after the coup or before?

    studiorat wrote: »
    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.
    as seen throughout this reply, you like taking things out of context to give them a different meaning to support your wrong biased views.
    this does bother me.
    you seem to love doing this and either do it on purpose or just can not follow the argument.
    studiorat wrote: »
    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.
    you already said this ... i only said it once in my original quote, so why did you feel the need to repeat it?
    if this was an error, okay
    i already corrected it above.
    studiorat wrote: »

    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?

    dplicated as above ... okay i thinking that this was just copy and paste error ...


    studiorat wrote: »
    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.

    well imagination is not going to cut it. are you saying you don't know and are making a biased guess?
    maybe the other possible answers are:
    maybe it was time to get updates, laws get updated as required?
    maybe he had plans to unite africa with the new laws?
    maybe he wanted to sell the oil for gold, which america can not just print more of?

    there are loads of better more logical reasons than your biased "oh look at crazy Gadaffi, what every will he do now" answers?

    can you not see that the moment someone makes any type of argument you have to label them as biased, because they do not believe the same nonsense i do ...

    studiorat wrote: »
    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.

    oh propaganda ... never ever seen that before anywhere else, must only be those damn commies doing that ...

    please you can do better.
    did you email them? or are you just going to make biased assumptions?

    if you have a problem with the article, say and show where the issuses are and we can discuss them like intelligent people, rather than calling it rubbish.

    as for the record my cosy little image, was that relevant to the argument, or more about trying to write me personally off as a biased wacko?

    if you can't handle the facts, don't post on the thread ...

    studiorat wrote: »
    davoxx wrote: »

    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.
    are you arguing semantics?
    from wiki:


    In the 1970s Libya initiated a socialist style nationalization program under which the government either nationalized oil companies or became a participant in their concessions, production and transportation facilities.[6] As part of this program, NOC signed production-sharing agreements with Occidental Petroleum, Sincat (Italy), and formed a joint drilling company with Saipem (an Eni subsidiary). The was accompanied by nationalization of ConocoPhillips's Umm Farud field in 1970, British Petroleum's Sarir field in 1971 and Amoco's Sahabir field in 1976.


    the key here is "As part of this program", so for you to argue out of context that it was a lie, is well ... do i need to say it?

    studiorat wrote: »
    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.
    or they could have just kept out of it, like they do for non oil rich countries ... who's biased now?

    don't know why you think Gadaffi should have stepped down when the mandate of the people was for him to stay.
    studiorat wrote: »
    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.
    that is a very personal attack, rather than proving my points and facts wrong, you try to discredit me.

    studiorat wrote: »
    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:
    ah :pac:, it means you have nothing to base your statement ...


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    roundymac wrote: »
    Live by the sword, die by the sword.
    live by the pretzel die by the pretzel ...

    do you have any evidence to him living by the sword? i mean it was a bloodless coup that he used to take control and improve the country ...


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    roundymac wrote: »
    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.
    well you'd be wrong.

    and can you please provide some evidence of these 40 years of suffering that everyone seemed to ignore while trying to buy oil from him?

    even some evidence of him shooting his people down like dogs would be nice ...

    i keep hearing you attacking my view, but you are not backing up your view...


    ps: anyone shooting dogs is just as bad in my opinion ... not to sure what kind of person would advocate shooting dogs in the street ... :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,654 ✭✭✭shadowninty


    davoxx wrote: »
    live by the pretzel die by the pretzel ...

    do you have any evidence to him living by the sword? i mean it was a bloodless coup that he used to take control and improve the country ...

    He had a reputation of using violence to achieve his aims


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    davoxx wrote: »
    live by the pretzel die by the pretzel ...

    do you have any evidence to him living by the sword? i mean it was a bloodless coup that he used to take control and improve the country ...

    He had a reputation of using violence to achieve his aims

    to be fair that is not evidence ...

    and reputations that are pushed by propaganda is really worthless ... did tony the lair bliar himself not meet with the man?

    see if anyone here can actually provide any evidence, then i'll re-evaluate my opinion, but i've been waiting since nato invaded ...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    It's simplistic ideas like this that lead to civil war and "another Iraq". The Rebels are "living by the sword" by carrying out extra-judicial killings. NATO are "living by the sword" by bombing his compound and killing his grandchildren.

    By your logic is would now be okay for a Gadaffi loyalist to kill Sarkozy's new born child or to murder Obama's children.

    Are you in favour of international law being applied to ALL situations or NONE? There is no grey area or it becomes worthless.

    I'm still waiting for Kissingers arrest and trial for Cambodia..


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    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 :D

    That's incorrect you posted from a "source"

    That source's videos were mostly anti-US and anti-Israel.

    5 minutes is all you need to check the titles, check the author, google the links.

    I am guessing it was that garbage "The Real News".


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    That's incorrect you posted from a "source"

    That source's videos were mostly anti-US and anti-Israel.

    5 minutes is all you need to check the titles, check the author, google the links.

    I am guessing it was that garbage "The Real News".

    so are you saying that it is not what he writes that you have a problem with.

    if he was "pro us" and "pro israel", like bbc, sky news, telegraph but still said the same thing, would you believe it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,712 ✭✭✭roundymac


    davoxx wrote: »
    live by the pretzel die by the pretzel ...

    do you have any evidence to him living by the sword? i mean it was a bloodless coup that he used to take control and improve the country ...

    How about Lockerbie, or does that count in your world.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,654 ✭✭✭shadowninty


    I wouldnt say the BBC was pro-US or Israel, though that argument could be made for Sky or the Telegraph
    Given the bad things Israel does, negative reporting on Israel is seen as anti-Israel - however reporting the facts on the ground is not being pro or anti something, skewing them is.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    ed2hands wrote: »
    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.

    Fair enough Ed, I'm not saying there isn't some truth, and even facts in those pieces, but its the wider picture, the narrative, and some of these "investigative journalists" (like Meyysons) clearly have their own agenda which is a little bit naughty to be honest considering "objectivity" is supposedly the cornerstone of their profession.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    roundymac wrote: »
    How about Lockerbie, or does that count in your world.

    wasn't that were witnesses were paid millions for their statements?

    You should have gone with the murder of policewoman Yvonne Fletcher, which proceeded the bombing of Tripoli.

    But............
    The official inquest concluded that WPC Fletcher was killed by someone firing a 9mm calibre automatic weapon from a lower floor in the Libyan embassy. But this verdict has been disputed by a number of experts, including the British Army's senior ballistics officer Lieutenant Colonel George Styles and Home Office pathologist Hugh Thomas. On 24 June 1997, Tam Dalyell MP questioned Prime Minister Tony Blair about the death of Yvonne Fletcher. Dalyell made particular reference to a Channel 4 documentary about the murder: [24]
    With the agreement of Queenie Fletcher, her mother, I raised with the Home Office the three remarkable programmes that were made by Fulcrum, and their producer, Richard Bellfield, called Murder In St. James's.[25] Television speculation is one thing, but this was rather more than that, because on film was George Styles, the senior ballistics officer in the British Army, who said that, as a ballistics expert, he believed that the WPC could not have been killed from the second floor of the Libyan embassy, as was suggested. Also on film was my friend, Hugh Thomas, who talked about the angles at which bullets could enter bodies, and the position of those bodies. Hugh Thomas was, for years, the consultant surgeon of the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast, and I suspect he knows more about bullets entering bodies than anybody else in Britain. Above that was Professor Bernard Knight, who, on and off, has been the Home Office pathologist for 25 years. When Bernard Knight gives evidence on film that the official explanation could not be, it is time for an investigation.[26]
    A major issue is the discrepancy in the bullet trajectory noted by the pathologist who examined the body of Yvonne Fletcher. Dr. Ian West wrote in his initial post mortem report she was shot from the upper floors of an adjacent building because "the angle of wound was between 60 and 70 degrees". However at the official inquest Dr. West stated her wounds were "entirely consistent with a shot fired from the first floor window of the Embassy, an angle of 15 degrees."



  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    roundymac wrote: »
    How about Lockerbie, or does that count in your world.
    what did he do in Lockerbie?

    i'm asking about him killing his own people and this is what is replied?

    are we going down the whole 911 route of blaming a person, killing them, and then presenting it as fact?

    I put it to you that <insert person who died recently> actually organised <insert event that you are blaming Gaddafi for in here>. see, <insert person who died recently> can not defend him/herself, and now that <insert person who died recently> is dead, no need for a trial or what not ...


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    I wouldnt say the BBC was pro-US or Israel, though that argument could be made for Sky or the Telegraph
    Given the bad things Israel does, negative reporting on Israel is seen as anti-Israel - however reporting the facts on the ground is not being pro or anti something, skewing them is.

    of course you won't admit that, that would hurt their credibility when people trot them out as being unbiased.

    and why is it that you have to say 'negative reporting', is it not just reporting on what israel does? are they lying?

    so when you report the facts, if the country is usa/israel, it becomes 'negative'? please i think you've just proved my point ...


    though i am still waiting for evidence of the murdered man's guilt ...


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Fair enough Ed, I'm not saying there isn't some truth, and even facts in those pieces, but its the wider picture, the narrative, and some of these "investigative journalists" (like Meyysons) clearly have their own agenda which is a little bit naughty to be honest considering "objectivity" is supposedly the cornerstone of their profession.
    so if you are not against the facts, what are you against?

    and lets be honest almost all news stations have their agenda ... have you already forgotten the whole wmd being claimed by how many stations?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,654 ✭✭✭shadowninty


    davoxx wrote: »
    of course you won't admit that, that would hurt their credibility when people trot them out as being unbiased.

    and why is it that you have to say 'negative reporting', is it not just reporting on what israel does? are they lying?

    so when you report the facts, if the country is usa/israel, it becomes 'negative'? please i think you've just proved my point ...


    though i am still waiting for evidence of the murdered man's guilt ...
    When I say negative, I mean reporting on the bad things Israel does.
    I'm hardly pro Isreal, I'd have them out of most of Palestine if I could


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    When I say negative, I mean reporting on the bad things Israel does.
    yeah i understand, but my point is that it is only reporting. negative implies that what they are reporting is being twisted with and added message.

    facts are facts, and accusing someone of shooting down his own people without any evidence, when in all intents and purposes he has been helping the people, is biased reporting.
    I'm hardly pro Isreal, I'd have them out of most of Palestine if I could
    i'm sorry if you thought i was labelling you as such.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    davoxx wrote: »
    so if you are not against the facts, what are you against?

    and lets be honest almost all news stations have their agenda ... have you already forgotten the whole wmd being claimed by how many stations?

    With a sense of dread I reply..

    The "whole wmd" was claimed by the Bush administration - the media simply reported it.

    Much of said media then heavily debated and discussed whether what the administrations (US and UK) were saying was in fact gross exaggeration or lies (you can exclude Fox news and The Sun from that list though)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    With a sense of dread I reply..

    The "whole wmd" was claimed by the Bush administration - the media simply reported it.

    Much of said media then heavily debated and discussed whether what the administrations (US and UK) were saying was in fact gross exaggeration or lies (you can exclude Fox news and The Sun from that list though)
    did they do it objectivity?

    my recollection was that this claim was presented as fact, as in "iraq has wmd" instead of "bush claims that iraq has wmd" ...

    and i do not recall the debate over whether the wmd claim was exaggerated or not, till after the invasion was completed ...

    so i am still confused by:
    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Fair enough Ed, I'm not saying there isn't some truth, and even facts in those pieces, but its the wider picture, the narrative, and some of these "investigative journalists" (like Meyysons) clearly have their own agenda which is a little bit naughty to be honest considering "objectivity" is supposedly the cornerstone of their profession.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    davoxx wrote: »
    did they do it objectivity?

    my recollection was that this claim was presented as fact, as in "iraq has wmd" instead of "bush claims that iraq has wmd" ...

    and i do not recall the debate over whether the wmd claim was exaggerated or not, till after the invasion was completed ...

    so i am still confused by:

    Hmmm...

    It was on every night, Question Time, News Night, Channel 4, Jon Snow, Rageh Omaar, Paxman, etc, etc even David Attenborough took part in televised debate, it was analysed to death in almost every respectable newspaper. During the debates here on the boards, the "right" who supported the war repeatedly claimed that most media was "left-leaning" and "anti-American". You do realise up to 1 million marched against the war in London, 3 million in Rome, 100,000 marched in Dublin.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Hmmm...

    It was on every night, Question Time, News Night, Channel 4, Jon Snow, Rageh Omaar, Paxman, etc, etc even David Attenborough took part in televised debate, it was analysed to death in almost every respectable newspaper. During the debates here on the boards, the "right" who supported the war repeatedly claimed that most media was "left-leaning" and "anti-American". You do realise up to 1 million marched against the war in London, 3 million in Rome, 100,000 marched in Dublin.
    before the invasion? or after iraq fell and wmd was not found?
    there is a huge difference ...

    but now the second point, did the news sources that you are now dismissing do it differently?


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    This film by John Pilger actually covers a lot of what you are discussing. Dan Rather even says at one point that the war could have been averted if journalists had being doing their job. Another thing I remember from it was that an AP reporter had gone to Iraq in 2003 and visited every single place that was named by the Bush administration as WMD suspicious sites. He found that every single place had been sealed since 1991. He filed his report and it was sent out to every single news outlet and not a single one picked it up.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    davoxx wrote: »
    before the invasion? or after iraq fell and wmd was not found?
    there is a huge difference ...

    but now the second point, did the news sources that you are now dismissing do it differently?

    Debate and marches took place before action.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War

    Globalresearch is not a "news" site, it doesn't report the news. Its blog, editorial and opinion, no secret its heavily against US foreign policy which is its main focus.

    It would be akin to myself posting articles from a Conservative right-wing blog site with opinion/blog from Coulter, etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    davoxx wrote: »
    before the invasion? or after iraq fell and wmd was not found?
    there is a huge difference ...

    but now the second point, did the news sources that you are now dismissing do it differently?

    From what I remember the media here was generally against the war before it started, there were even articles about how it was only for oil in some of the main papers


Advertisement