The Real Reason for NATO Attacking Libya ?

Di0genes

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:

You're confused then.

In Sept 2002, Spiked Magazine coined the phrase "Dodgy Dossier" For the British Intelligence Document that laid out the case for Saddam's WMD program.

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DA63.htm

weisses

What's the link with Libya ???

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

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.

i know people protested before hand, i know a lot of people then changed sides once wmd was not found.

the question was did the news sites that you believe are valid sources debate the wmd claim, or did they follow blindly? i think that answer is that the followed blindly and when it became obvious that there were now wmd, they changed tact.

regarding globalresearch not being a news site, does that take away from the facts it contains?


==================

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

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

no they were not, the media was generally for it, with the major stations giving credibility to the whole wmd rather than questioning it.

=====================

Di0genes wrote: »

You're confused then.

In Sept 2002, Spiked Magazine coined the phrase "Dodgy Dossier" For the British Intelligence Document that laid out the case for Saddam's WMD program.

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DA63.htm

not really, so a blog site and not a news site as Jonny7would say, coined the phrase ...

the major news sites did not till after the invasion when they flip flopped.

=====================

weisses wrote: »

What's the link with Libya ???

the link is that there is no evidence of gaddafi being the monster that 'everyone' claims he was ... while there is evidence that the reasons that he was removed was due only to cash.

but that any evidence against him is reliable and anything that defends him is obviously anti-american and anti-israeli rubbish.

i'm just trying to break down this fundamental denial of facts

yeah but it is off topic ..

Jeboa Safari

davoxx wrote: »

no they were not, the media was generally for it, with the major stations giving credibility to the whole wmd rather than questioning it.

Not what I remember, we for some reason even sent out a delegation which included Michael D Higgins for some fact finding mission, and they came back against the war, as well as the media reporting that the majority of Irish people were against the war, and there are a few Irish Times articles saying the war was for oil.

Jonny7

davoxx wrote: »

i know people protested before hand, i know a lot of people then changed sides once wmd was not found.

the question was did the news sites that you believe are valid sources debate the wmd claim, or did they follow blindly? i think that answer is that the followed blindly and when it became obvious that there were now wmd, they changed tact.

False.

It was debated heavily across the board before the invasion took place.

I am basing my assertion on what actually happened, you are basing yours on complete speculation.

If you don't believe me feel free to email the concerned media outlets and ask them yourself.

no they were not, the media was generally for it, with the major stations giving credibility to the whole wmd rather than questioning it.

You are continuing an argument with complete and utterly false information

not really, so a blog site and not a news site as Jonny7would say, coined the phrase ...

the major news sites did not till after the invasion when they flip flopped.

and again.

the link is that there is no evidence of gaddafi being the monster that 'everyone' claims he was ... while there is evidence that the reasons that he was removed was due only to cash.

False.

Five minute research.
Human rights watch - archive Libya (abuses, torture, etc)
http://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/libya

Al Jazeera report on torture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ0KQABYXgE

From Palestinian doctor (and Bulgarian nurses) in 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnExymuOF4k

Abu Salem prison
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0b4_1314271754
http://www.vancouversun.com/Horrors+...942/story.html

BBC crew beaten
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksvWj6UJYxg

(extremely graphic) After anti-aircraft guns had been fired on protesters in Feb
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=721_1298715445

Mass graves
http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaN...7LK4I020111020
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...n-Tripoli.html
http://video.dailytelegraph.com.au/2...ya-mass-graves

Again feel free to write to Human Rights Watch or Amnesty international.

but that any evidence against him is reliable and anything that defends him is obviously anti-american and anti-israeli rubbish.

i'm just trying to break down this fundamental denial of facts

yeah but it is off topic ..

Apologists or revisionism of dictatorships should be completely independent of your feelings on US foreign policy. Its clear they aren't.

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

i know people protested before hand, i know a lot of people then changed sides once wmd was not found.

the question was did the news sites that you believe are valid sources debate the wmd claim, or did they follow blindly? i think that answer is that the followed blindly and when it became obvious that there were now wmd, they changed tact.

False.

you have evidence of this being false?

Jonny7 wrote: »

It was debated heavily across the board before the invasion took place.

I am basing my assertion on what actually happened, you are basing yours on complete speculation.

i'm sure you think so now, but i do not remember any news site pushing that.

a few links of the bbc/sky news questioning the wmd claim would show my memory is wrong ... until then how can you claim that your assumption was fact?

Jonny7 wrote: »

If you don't believe me feel free to email the concerned media outlets and ask them yourself.

no i believe it, i believe that they flip flopped after the war, you don't seem to, so you should email them and ask them, then you can show your findings ...

Jonny7 wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

no they were not, the media was generally for it, with the major stations giving credibility to the whole wmd rather than questioning it.

You are continuing an argument with complete and utterly false information

you have evidence of this being false?

Jonny7 wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

not really, so a blog site and not a news site as Jonny7would say, coined the phrase ...

the major news sites did not till after the invasion when they flip flopped.

and again.

and again you have evidence of this being false?

Jonny7 wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

the link is that there is no evidence of gaddafi being the monster that 'everyone' claims he was ... while there is evidence that the reasons that he was removed was due only to cash.

False.

Five minute research.
Human rights watch - archive Libya (abuses, torture, etc)
http://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/libya

Al Jazeera report on torture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ0KQABYXgE

From Palestinian doctor (and Bulgarian nurses) in 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnExymuOF4k

Abu Salem prison
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0b4_1314271754
http://www.vancouversun.com/Horrors+...942/story.html

BBC crew beaten
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksvWj6UJYxg

(extremely graphic) After anti-aircraft guns had been fired on protesters in Feb
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=721_1298715445

Mass graves
http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaN...7LK4I020111020
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...n-Tripoli.html
http://video.dailytelegraph.com.au/2...ya-mass-graves

(the mass grave links do not work)

i'll have a look at these videos before coming back to you.
but evidence i was looking for was more of videos of the sites of mass murder ... not witness who are bought ...

Jonny7 wrote: »

Again feel free to write to Human Rights Watch or Amnesty international.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/09/03/cia-mi6-helped-gaddafi-persecute-dissidents-human-rights-watch/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14774533

you missed that one since it is obviously anti american and anti irsrael (as for some reason they are the same) ...

but it seems strange that the evidence they have is from the cia/mi6 ... nah they would not lie, or would they ...

"The documents, found by Human Rights Watch workers, have not been seen by the BBC or independently verified."

sounds like facts and evidence and stuff ...


also you missed this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/amnesty-questions-claim-that-gaddafi-ordered-rape-as-weapon-of-war-2302037.html

could it be that people are lying? only anti-american and anti-israeli would think that and ask for evidence ...

this is why one should not do a 5 min research but a couple of months of research into following how stories are propagated and then when proved true or false how this is handled ..

Jonny7 wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

but that any evidence against him is reliable and anything that defends him is obviously anti-american and anti-israeli rubbish.

i'm just trying to break down this fundamental denial of facts

yeah but it is off topic ..

Apologists or revisionism of dictatorships should be completely independent of your feelings on US foreign policy. Its clear they aren't.

if you say so ...
and i'm sure though you are independent ...

Jonny7

davoxx wrote: »

you have evidence of this being false?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2803171.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2711965.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2710225.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2711253.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2710181.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2709233.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2706475.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2711623.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/dec/31/iraq.politics?INTCMP=SRCH

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/05/iraq?INTCMP=SRCH

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/07/iraq.foreignpolicy?INTCMP=SRCH

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/08/nuclear.uk?INTCMP=SRCH

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/08/iraq.unitednations?INTCMP=SRCH

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/jan/09/september11.politics?INTCMP=SRCH

Need to be emailed for 2003 footage/programme listings-
Prime Ministers Questions, Channel 4 news (also debate and docu such as dispatches), ITV, BBC (newsnight, and specials), RTE (inc. Late Late show debate), American TV - NBC, ABC, etc

I was also abroad at the time listened to a lot of French News - TF1, Le Soir, and English papers - The Guardian, The Telegraph. Irish - The Irish times, Indo, etc.

Took part in marches myself on the continent, threw eggs at the American embassy, all that.

davoxx

thanks for getting back to me on this.

- = biased
+ = fair
(in my eyes)

first batch:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2803171.stm
- a news summary of other countries news -0

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2711965.stm
- a news summary of other countries news -0

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2710225.stm
- did not see the documentary but

Is war inevitable?
Would war make Britain a more dangerous place?
What would replace the present regime in Iraq

as opposed to why is there a war, do they have weapons, are they a threat ...

that seems biased to me -1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2711253.stm
- seems to show skepticism
"However, the surprising mood of scepticism evident in the committee room was an indication that President Bush and Mr Powell still have work to do if they are to gain bipartisan support for their Iraq policy."

why is it "surprising"? do they feel that there should not have been any?

that seems biased to me, but only in its summary -0.5

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2710181.stm
- has some on mention oil and israel ... must be anti israeli

but seems to present what was said fairly +1
wait a sec it in africa news ... i'll leave the +1 but it explains why they did not mention it on tv.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2709233.stm
- facts stated +1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2706475.stm
- nothing on weapons and why people are split -1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2711623.stm
- not related - nothing on why blair and bush want the war - 0 (tempted to give it -1 for failing to mention it)

bbc total = -0.5 unbiased

but then these links:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2708023.stm -1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2705089.stm +1

... so i'm stumped

but can you forgive me?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/03/bbcs_iraq_coverage_biased_or_balanced.html
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/4488095/BBCs_shameful_antiIraq_bias/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/mar/31/broadcasting.Iraqandthemedia
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2003/jul/04/comment

seems like i'm not the only one ...



and now onto the next batch:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/dec/31/iraq.politics?INTCMP=SRCH
- seems to me they are making a case for it -1

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/05/iraq?INTCMP=SRCH
- seems to be fairly
"Nuclear weapons sites that the British and the Americans claimed as late as last September had been reactivated have been revealed as rusting, disabled shambles. It may be that Iraq has squirrelled away its most portable weapons and components. But as one inspector complained to the LA Times last week, they had found 'zilch'."
why was the "squirreled away" mentioned? to cast doubt on not finding anything? -1

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/07/iraq.foreignpolicy?INTCMP=SRCH
- a report on the anti war movement, no mention of oil/weapons -0

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/08/nuclear.uk?INTCMP=SRCH
- does suggest it is pretense, but it's a long article +1

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/08/iraq.unitednations?INTCMP=SRCH
- says dossier claims cannot not be verified +1

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/jan/09/september11.politics?INTCMP=SRCH
- the closing seems not to be on blair +.5

guardian total = 0.5 not as unbiased as i thought they should be.

also:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/feb/13/iraq.world?INTCMP=SRCH
- no mention of previous dossier being full of crap

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/05/iraq.usa1?INTCMP=SRCH
- no criticising of his claims ....

but yeah i generally agree with you that the guardian is a reputable news source.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Need to be emailed for 2003 footage/programme listings-
Prime Ministers Questions, Channel 4 news (also debate and docu such as dispatches), ITV, BBC (newsnight, and specials), RTE (inc. Late Late show debate), American TV - NBC, ABC, etc

I was also abroad at the time listened to a lot of French News - TF1, Le Soir, and English papers - The Guardian, The Telegraph. Irish - The Irish times, Indo, etc.

Took part in marches myself on the continent, threw eggs at the American embassy, all that.

i'm not talking about french news - that might have been against the war, i'd imagine it was, but i can't comment other than the few tv5 news shows i saw.

back on topic:

and i'm glad you took part on the march .. but i find it strange that now you think gaddafi should have been removed.

can you find any mention of the atrocities that gaddafi is alleged to have committed on the guardian?

Jonny7

davoxx wrote: »

can you find any mention of the atrocities that gaddafi is alleged to have committed on the guardian?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/18/gaddafi-misrata-war-crime-documents?INTCMP=SRCH
Gaddafi files show evidence of murderous intent
The Observer has gained exclusive access to thousands of documents which show how the Libyan leader gave orders for the torture, arrest and bombardment of his own people

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/03/gaddafi-crimes-against-humanity-hague?INTCMP=SRCH
Muammar Gaddafi and sons face Libya atrocities investigation
International criminal court in The Hague warns there will be 'no impunity' over killings by either the regime or its opponents

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/sep/18/nohopeforchange?INTCMP=SRCH
Geldof, meet the real Gaddafi
The Libyan regime has never apologised to its own people for past atrocities, and the leader's heir won't change that

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/20/colonel-muammar-gaddafi?INTCMP=SRCH
Colonel Muammar Gaddafi obituary
Narcissistic leader of Libya since 1969 who backed terrorism round the world and became US public enemy number one

You'll like this one..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/21/gaddafi-lockerbie-terrorism-international-law?INTCMP=SRCH
Gaddafi getting away with murder
Gaddafi's arrival in New York pours shame on the UN and Obama. There is one way to put it right

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/23/gaddafi-lockerbie-bombing-minister-libya?INTCMP=SRCH
Gaddafi ordered Lockerbie bombing – ex-minister
Recently resigned justice minister tells Swedish paper Libyan leader was personally responsible for downing of Pan Am 103

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/16/gaddafis-war-crimes-suspects?INTCMP=SRCH
Gaddafis named as international criminal court suspects
Chief prosecutor requests crimes against humanity arrest warrants for Libyan leader, son Saif al-Islam and intelligence chief Abdullah Senussi



Finally something like this are from the live feeds at the start of any major situation e.g. Libya, Egypt. Other news sources will be quoted, it's live and fast reporting so there are sometimes discrepancies, etc but good for building a picture of the situation.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/feb/23/libya-gaddafi-live-blog?INTCMP=SRCH
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/feb/26/libya-protests-middle-east-gaddafi?INTCMP=SRCH

Likewise sourcing across bigger outlets, Reuters, AP, France24, BBC, Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, even Euronews (whom will have many more reporters physically on the scene) is a good idea to get the picture.

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/18/gaddafi-misrata-war-crime-documents?INTCMP=SRCH
Gaddafi files show evidence of murderous intent
The Observer has gained exclusive access to thousands of documents which show how the Libyan leader gave orders for the torture, arrest and bombardment of his own people

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/03/gaddafi-crimes-against-humanity-hague?INTCMP=SRCH
Muammar Gaddafi and sons face Libya atrocities investigation
International criminal court in The Hague warns there will be 'no impunity' over killings by either the regime or its opponents

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/sep/18/nohopeforchange?INTCMP=SRCH
Geldof, meet the real Gaddafi
The Libyan regime has never apologised to its own people for past atrocities, and the leader's heir won't change that

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/20/colonel-muammar-gaddafi?INTCMP=SRCH
Colonel Muammar Gaddafi obituary
Narcissistic leader of Libya since 1969 who backed terrorism round the world and became US public enemy number one

You'll like this one..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/21/gaddafi-lockerbie-terrorism-international-law?INTCMP=SRCH
Gaddafi getting away with murder
Gaddafi's arrival in New York pours shame on the UN and Obama. There is one way to put it right

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/23/gaddafi-lockerbie-bombing-minister-libya?INTCMP=SRCH
Gaddafi ordered Lockerbie bombing – ex-minister
Recently resigned justice minister tells Swedish paper Libyan leader was personally responsible for downing of Pan Am 103

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/16/gaddafis-war-crimes-suspects?INTCMP=SRCH
Gaddafis named as international criminal court suspects
Chief prosecutor requests crimes against humanity arrest warrants for Libyan leader, son Saif al-Islam and intelligence chief Abdullah Senussi



Finally something like this are from the live feeds at the start of any major situation e.g. Libya, Egypt. Other news sources will be quoted, it's live and fast reporting so there are sometimes discrepancies, etc but good for building a picture of the situation.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/feb/23/libya-gaddafi-live-blog?INTCMP=SRCH

Likewise sourcing across bigger outlets, Reuters, AP, France24, BBC, Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, even Euronews (whom will have many more reporters physically on the scene) is a good idea to get the picture.

and after reading all that you can't find anything questionable?

Jonny7

davoxx wrote: »

and after reading all that you can't find anything questionable?

You just asked me for some links specifically from the Guardian.. did you bother to read any of them?

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

You just asked me for some links specifically from the Guardian.. did you bother to read any of them?

i did, i actually read most of them before, i just wanted to establish how you graded the reliability of them and the facts contained with reference to evidence of gaddafi crimes

Jonny7

davoxx wrote: »

i did, i actually read most of them before, i just wanted to establish how you graded the reliability of them and the facts contained with reference to evidence of gaddafi crimes

You read those articles.. when?

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

You read those articles.. when?

why do you sound so surprised?
i read them over the last few months - they are old articles.
did you read them all? and after reading all that you can't find anything questionable?

Jonny7

davoxx wrote: »

why do you sound so surprised?
i read them over the last few months - they are old articles.
did you read them all? and after reading all that you can't find anything questionable?

Really? you read articles from 2007 and 2009 over the last few months?

Out of hundreds of articles I pulled from the archives, you happened to read these particular ones?

Yeah I do find something very questionable - you.

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Really? you read articles from 2007 and 2009 over the last few months?

Out of hundreds of articles I pulled from the archives, you happened to read these particular ones?

Yeah I do find something very questionable - you.

i'm talking about these, you know about gaddafis crimes and evidence relating to them?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75096147&postcount=430

only two of them are not in 2011, one is 2009, and the other 2007 (which i actually read before)

thanks for finding me questionable, and thanks for proving that you have not read them and that you just pulled them out because you thought the proved your case.

i thought you actually had read them and was basing your assumptions and decisions based on them, now i know you have not and just are using them because you think they back your case that gaddafi was guilty of these crimes ...

nevermind so ...

Jonny7

davoxx wrote: »

i'm talking about these, you know about gaddafis crimes and evidence relating to them?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75096147&postcount=430

only two of them are not in 2011, one is 2009, and the other 2007 (which i actually read before)

thanks for finding me questionable, and thanks for proving that you have not read them and that you just pulled them out because you thought the proved your case.

i thought you actually had read them and was basing your assumptions and decisions based on them, now i know you have not and just are using them because you think they back your case that gaddafi was guilty of these crimes ...

nevermind so ...

oh come on you chancer, 7 articles out of hundreds, probably thousands, going back as far as 2007..

Sure if we'd believe that, we'd believe Gaddafi was a saint

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

i
=====================


not really, so a blog site and not a news site as Jonny7would say, coined the phrase ...

the major news sites did not till after the invasion when they flip flopped.

=====================

Spiked may have coined the phrase "dodgy dossier" but it was picked up by several major news organisation.

Channel 4's report into the dodgy dossier and the flimsy intelligence for WMDs was first broadcast in February 2003, which would be before the invasion

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/downing%2Bst%2Bapologises%2Bfor%2Bdodgy%2Bdossier/257243.html

I look forward to you trying to explain how a channel 4 news program before the invasion challenging the governments claims about WMDs doesn't count.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

Spiked may have coined the phrase "dodgy dossier" but it was picked up by several major news organisation.

Channel 4's report into the dodgy dossier and the flimsy intelligence for WMDs was first broadcast in February 2003, which would be before the invasion

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/downing%2Bst%2Bapologises%2Bfor%2Bdodgy%2Bdossier/257243.html

I look forward to you trying to explain how a channel 4 news program before the invasion challenging the governments claims about WMDs doesn't count.

it does count, but is channel four considered a main news channel you?
channel four often air programmes that are objective and put the british government to shame.

i actually vaguely remember that programme ...

but back to the point:

http://www.channel4.com/news/libya-poised-to-announce-liberation

see no mention of fictional atrocities ... like a good unbiased news source ...

even this shows how much of a bad guy he just was:
http://www.channel4.com/news/gaddafi-from-pariah-to-ally-and-back-again

i look forward to you trying to explain how channel 4 news failed to show his clear misdeeds and oppression of his people ...

Penn

Calm it down, folks™





'Calm it down, folks'™ is a Registered Trademark of Penn and can only be used when people are making snide, bitchy and sarcastic comments to each other. All rights reserved. No animals were harmed in the making of this post but posters will be hit with a banhammer if they keep it up.

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

oh come on you chancer, 7 articles out of hundreds, probably thousands, going back as far as 2007..

Sure if we'd believe that, we'd believe Gaddafi was a saint

that's okay, all that matters is that you did not read them before making an informed argument regarding gaddafi's guilt of these alleged crimes.

we can't educate someone who already made their mind up can we?

and after all this talk about biasedness ...

Penn

davoxx wrote: »

that's okay, all that matters is that you did not read them before making an informed argument regarding gaddafi's guilt of these alleged crimes.

we can't educate someone who already made their mind up can we?

and after all this talk about biasedness ...

I'll give you a pass on that one since I assume you were writing it when I posted the warning, but ease off. No more passes.

Jonny7

davoxx wrote: »

can you find any mention of the atrocities that gaddafi is alleged to have committed on the guardian?

To which I provided you with articles with mention of or reference to the atrocities Gaddafi is alleged to have committed from the Guardian. It took me 30 or 40 minutes, its not easy going through archives.

Within 7 or 8 minutes you replied saying you'd already read them all in the last few months, including the ones from 2007 and 2009.

Before that you asked me

the question was did the news sites that you believe are valid sources debate the wmd claim, or did they follow blindly?

Again no easy task going back to 2003, but I gave you plenty of links, out of thousands of hits, about 56,000 (from google news) and 3500ish (out of the BBC itself).

Now you've been warned and temp banned on at least another forum and warned on this, but I thought you genuinely wanted some info, obviously you have some other irritating agenda.

SOrry mod I should prob just click the ignore button

If anyone genuinely wants info on Gaddafi, or the human rights violations in Libya over the past 40 odd years I'll get researching and throw up the links, or course if someone is just trolling me then bugger off

Penn

Jonny7 wrote: »

Now you've been warned and temp banned on at least another forum and warned on this, but I thought you genuinely wanted some info, obviously you have some other irritating agenda.

SOrry mod I should prob just click the ignore button

If anyone genuinely wants info on Gaddafi, or the human rights violations in Libya over the past 40 odd years I'll get researching and throw up the links, or course if someone is just trolling me then bugger off

Firstly, do not mention posters ban history from other forums. That's completely uncalled for. Secondly, do not imply that posters have an agenda or are trolling. Report any posts you feel need to be looked at. Thirdly, saying "Sorry mod" doesn't mean you can ignore what the mod just said. I'm giving you a short ban for ignoring mod warning.

roundymac

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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.

What witness's were paid? I could have also mentioned the Exsund (5 tons of arms) and the bombing of the Berlin disco, which led to the bombing of Tripoli in which Gadaffi's daughter was supposed to have died, this the same daughter who turned up as a doctor a couple of months ago.

roundymac

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?

So I take it that Al-Jeezera is your reliable news reporting station?

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

it does count, but is channel four considered a main news channel you?

Of course it is. It's a highly respected award winning news program.

channel four often air programmes that are objective and put the british government to shame.

i actually vaguely remember that programme ...

So admit now that you were wrong when you claimed

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

the major news sites did not till after the invasion when they flip flopped.

So you now admit a major news site covered the exaggeration of the case for WMD before the Iraq war?

but back to the point:

No lets stick to this point.

i look forward to you trying to explain how channel 4 news failed to show his clear misdeeds and oppression of his people ...

I think you might want to put down the goalposts. I was talking about your spurious claim that no mainstream media challenged the case for the Iraq war. Nothing else.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

Of course it is. It's a highly respected award winning news program.
So admit now that you were wrong when you claimed
So you now admit a major news site covered the exaggeration of the case for WMD before the Iraq war?

sorry diogenes, i'm not wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_news_channels
so while channel 4 might be a highly respected award winning news program, it it not counted as a mainstream news channel.

if you count it as major, i'm honestly happy for you, it is a better source than most others.

Di0genes wrote: »

No lets stick to this point.

well if you really want to stick to this point, maybe you should open a new thread, and we can debate it there.

Di0genes wrote: »

I think you might want to put down the goalposts. I was talking about your spurious claim that no mainstream media challenged the case for the Iraq war. Nothing else.

you've twisted what i've said.
i know you were talking about my factual claim that "the whole wmd being claimed by how many stations" is not equal to your spurious claim that i said "that no mainstream media challenged the case for the Iraq war".

even your first post was this: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75085085&postcount=422

like i said before, this was being used as a point in relation to gaddafi's supposed crimes against his own people, the whole reason nato invaded.

i'm sure you want to beat this wmd claim to death, but if you really want to pick at one point and argue it to death, even though it is not the critical point of this argument, i can oblige, just start a new thread ...

davoxx

roundymac wrote: »

So I take it that Al-Jeezera is your reliable news reporting station?

if you want to take it as fact, you can.
it does present facts with a different spin, i'm sure it is classified as anti-us because of this.

i really just follow facts that are backed up, and look at the choice of words used to present the news, that is all.

davoxx

roundymac wrote: »

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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.

What witness's were paid?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/02/lockerbie-documents-witness-megrahi

roundymac wrote: »

I could have also mentioned the Exsund (5 tons of arms) and the bombing of the Berlin disco

ahh so what you are saying is that nato invaded because of this? even though tripoli was bombed in payback?

we are looking for crimes against his own people ... usa/uk can hardly go around point fingers for murdering people in other countries now can they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Berlin_discotheque_bombing

also it shows that they did not prove that gaddafi had ordered it or even knew of it.
and he paid them compensation, if usa/uk did the same they would be more broke than they are now, not that they would ever do that ...

so do you agree that this is not a valid reason for nato "protecting" the civilians by forcefully overthrowing the government?

roundymac wrote: »

which led to the bombing of Tripoli in which Gadaffi's daughter was supposed to have died, this the same daughter who turned up as a doctor a couple of months ago.

and that bombing was justified?
are you sure it was the same daughter and not another one?