The Real Reason for NATO Attacking Libya ?

davoxx

shadowninty wrote: »

After reading the first page of the first link, it really came to the fore how wrong you and your crowd are. Good God man, your man sounds (Euroland) sounds exactly like you. And he was wrong. So bloody wrong.

euroland is not my man, he's my dawg mo'fo, an he'll pop a cap in yer ass!!

how was he wrong, please explain exactly in you next post ...
and then explain exactly how i was wrong .. so bloody wrong ...

i hope you read the whole thread and not just the first page ...

shadowninty wrote: »

This quote from Mike65 really struck a chord with me;

it's a good quote to be honest, not a good argument or even a valid point, but it is a good quote for showing how people who can't reply to a point raised, instead try to change the topic, had it mentioned nazis, it would have been an excellent quote ..

shadowninty wrote: »

Somes it all up for you and your like

do you think you find a single post in all those threads that you clearly read in order to sum up me "and my like" so succinctly to remotely justify this absurd and bloody offensive claim? you know, facts and all that

shadowninty wrote: »

Johnny and the like shouldn't bother even bother arguing with ye. Its no use. You can't accept anything that doesn't agree with your agenda. You can't change with the facts.

i agree with you on your conclusion, though the reason is different.
while you think i can't accept anything that does not agree with my agenda (which is for all girls to wear miniskirts and tube tops) i can and do, just that johnny has not provide any compelling evidence or even provided a good argument, this is evidenced by the fact that he failed to produce anything to back up his claim of the activist's report being a bad reporter ...

also thanks for being a mind reader and knowing my agenda when i have not published it yet ..

maybe you should consider that johnny can not accept anything that doesn't agree with his agenda?

shadowninty wrote: »

You can't change with the facts.

no one can, you can choose to ignore it or you may fail to understand it ... but nobody can change it ...

Jonny7

davoxx wrote: »

did you not read what i posted earlier?

Why would she make such an odd uninformed statement.

How has NATO defied the UN in Israel? likewise with Iraq?

If you don't know, just say you don't know what she's on about, don't try to dodge the question.

here is a link you can dismiss as activist rubbish ...
http://hamiltoncoalitiontostopthewar.ca/Articles/Libyarticles.html

If she's an activist, openly and firmly against the US/NATO and Israel, how can she be an objective reporter?

She arrived in an airport with the girlfriend of a wanted man, Gaddafi's son. Was she researching something? are they friends that just hang out?

If I was in a news organisation I wouldn't hire Bill O Reilly, Thierry Meyysons, or this hack Lizzie Phelan because they are clearly extremely biased people who are clearly not interested in objectivity.

She works for the Russian state run TV outlet Russia Today, which is self-proclaimed "alternative" news regularly uses specifically biased reporters to present heavily polarised reports to an audience who are largely suspicious of the West.

like i asked before, a link regarding nato withdrawing their forces would be nice ...

Why do you need a link when you "already" know this?

Jonny7

Here we go again

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWDo0eUVf-Y

If it bores you, skip to 3:25

Apparently NATO is bogged down in Iraq?

And NATO is currently bogged down in Libya?

The interviewer says they tried to pass a UN no-fly law against Syria?

Daithi 1

Hey big man, instead of picking on girlies, why dont you go and report from a warzone and show us all what a big man you really are.

Lizzie has bigger nutz that yourself.

Jonny7

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Hey big man, instead of picking on girlies, why dont you go and report from a warzone and show us all what a big man you really are.

Lizzie has bigger nutz that yourself.

Nope I'm far too chicken for that!

Have I hammered home the point yet or shall we start taking bets whether she has appeared on Iranian state TV too?

Daithi 1

Jonny7 wrote: »

Nope I'm far too chicken for that!

Have I hammered home the point yet or shall we start taking bets whether she has appeared on Iranian state TV too?

I figured.

You don't have a point.

Goodnight.

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Why would she make such an odd uninformed statement.

which statement? you quoted me, not her ...

Jonny7 wrote: »

How has NATO defied the UN in Israel? likewise with Iraq?

If you don't know, just say you don't know what she's on about, don't try to dodge the question.

ah that's what you meant, if you had a point to raise, you need to make it clearer rather than trying to attack me.
if you had said that you were questioning her statement regarding israel or iraq, i would have answered that specific question rather that your dismissal of her entire report as nonsense. i thought you were changing the question, when you just did not ask it clearly ...

so now to be clear, you have dropped the anywhere else as that is covered by libya and we both agree on that.
you are questioning israel and iraq ...

re israel:
i'm not sure exactly what she is referencing in her comments there, i'm not sure of the exact context.
i imagine it has to do with bombing ... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/15/israel-shells-un-headquar_n_158078.html
or http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/05/31/871525/-Israels-attack-tests-NATO-Doctrine-Update-x3-NATO-agrees

or maybe she just means that the selective use of a un mandate ... don't see nato jumping in on israel ...

re iraq:
i'm guessing this has to do with nato members illegally starting a war on iraq, with nato entering iraq in 2004?
or maybe that nato was meant to show it's integrity and make a comment regarding the illegal war?
or maybe they should have punished their members that started an illegal war ...
maybe it is the fact that they are in an illegally occupied country?

maybe she means that if nato are acting as the un's enforcer they should have stopped the illegal invasion .. i'm not sure

you'll have to ask her exactly what she meant, i mean she could have more information that both of us considering she does actually research and report on the ground ..

re libya again:
http://www.americanpendulum.com/2011/04/u-s-and-nato-bomb-disabled-childrens-school/
http://www.ugandacorrespondent.com/articles/2011/08/libya-nato%E2%80%99s-war-lies-worse-than-iraq-war-lies/

so
re israel, not 100% nonsense
re iraq, unknown
re lybia, 100% true

total is greater than 33% non nonsense ....

i have shown that is it not "absolute nonsense" like you claimed, ergo your assessment was incorrect.

Jonny7 wrote: »

If she's an activist, openly and firmly against the US/NATO and Israel, how can she be an objective reporter?

the same way one can be against violence and still be a good unbiased judge?
i guess you can't get that us is a country that started an illegal war, nato their puppet, israel an illegal terrorist state with nukes ...
i don't know how that hurts her credibility, if anything it shows that she is objective ...

but i guess this just shows that your whole point is invalid, and how you are against anyone who thinks that the usa/nato or israel is bad .. how can anyone consider your statements as being objective?

Jonny7 wrote: »

She arrived in an airport with the girlfriend of a wanted man, Gaddafi's son. Was she researching something? are they friends that just hang out?

link please, and Gaddafi's son, a wanted man ... wanted by who?
george bush, tony blair are wanted men two ...

Jonny7 wrote: »

If I was in a news organisation I wouldn't hire Bill O Reilly, Thierry Meyysons, or this hack Lizzie Phelan because they are clearly extremely biased people who are clearly not interested in objectivity.

ok, that's you ... i'd personally listen to what they have to say, and then decide if they are making sense ...

Jonny7 wrote: »

She works for the Russian state run TV outlet Russia Today, which is self-proclaimed "alternative" news regularly uses specifically biased reporters to present heavily polarised reports to an audience who are largely suspicious of the West.

see aren't you just a biased activist yourself jumping on threads to back the usa/nato up trying to dismiss anything that shows their crimes?
"anyone who worked for russia must be wrong" is your entire argument against her report it seems .. and you've only presented one point of her report that you have a fault with, i must say you are clearly showing your prejudice ...

Jonny7 wrote: »

Why do you need a link when you "already" know this?

because you can't provide one? if you don't know, just say you don't know if they've withdrawn or not, don't try to dodge the question.

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Here we go again

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWDo0eUVf-Y

If it bores you, skip to 3:25

Apparently NATO is bogged down in Iraq?

And NATO is currently bogged down in Libya?

The interviewer says they tried to pass a UN no-fly law against Syria?

when was this recording made?

has nato left iraq?
has nato left libya? (i know the un told them to leave, but have they left yet?) maybe without the un telling them to leave they would have been there for ages ... or as long as it takes to run the wells dry?

are you done trying to discredit her? it looks like you are grasping at straws here ...

is this what you are on about regarding syria - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/30/nato-syria-no-fly-zone

Jonny7

Why do you continue to defend this person you've probably never ever heard of before and know little or nothing about?

Someone with an agenda to present a situation in a way of their choosing, that happens to be compatible with your beliefs.

I've just found videos of her on PressTV slating NATO and the West again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFHpPjrmmeA

On the day Tripoli was being taken herself and Libyan state TV news presenters are reporting the exact same nonsense.

Here's the video of her arriving back in Malta with Talitha von Zon, Mutassim Gaddafis (now ex) girlfriend
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED7cyuVdACM

So on top of everything she has close relations with the Gaddafi family?


Hey I'm just putting this info out there, some people on here believe wild conspiracy theories with much less proof. She's a brave girl, she's got strong opinions, she's a decent looker, and she has a bright future in front of her working for RT, PressTV and maybe soon Syrian state TV

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Why do you continue to defend this person you've probably never ever heard of before and know little or nothing about?

because i'm unbiased and willing to listen to what she reports and how she reports it before assigning credibility or lack thereof to her report ...

i'd reply to the other points, but they are not relevant in showing that her report was nonsense ...

so why do you try so hard to discredit her based on flimsy excuses and deciding that because she is an activist she must be biased and then trying to pick holes in what she said?

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Hey I'm just putting this info out there, some people on here believe wild conspiracy theories with much less proof.

me too jonny, me too. there are some people on here that believe wild official stories, and defend them when they are shown to be wrong, always defending these ridiculous stories, with no proof/supporting evidence and which even defy the laws of physics ...

Daithi 1

Jonny7 wrote: »

Why do you continue to defend this person you've probably never ever heard of before and know little or nothing about?

You did the same thing. You posted many links from reporters who are not "independent", who are more likely to be biased.
These articles that you posted contained the same comments as the video I originally posted, such as..

snipers on the roof

it was celebratory gunfire

unable to determine the nature of the conflict, whether it was part of the rebel advance or had another cause

The video of Lizzie I posted was earlier in the day, rebels had not taken over green square until later in the evening/night.

So she wasn't "caught" doing anything.

While discussing building 7 and how the BBC reported it's collapse prior to it collapsing, you and many others said it was probably "due to all the confusion", that day.
But you wont entertain the same hypothesis in this scenario as it doesn't fit into your agenda now eah ?

davoxx

http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/libya/libya-changing-regime.htm

some well made points imho ...

The view that a massacre was imminent in Benghazi is based on a speech made by Qadhafi on 17 March 2011, in which he threatened "no mercy" for his enemies.

He did say: "We will have no mercy on them". But by "them" he clearly meant armed rebels, who stand and fight, not all the city’s inhabitants.

Jeboa Safari

davoxx wrote: »

i know you don't think that they are fictitious, but have you ever seen any evidence of this? if you have please supply a link or tell me where you saw it ..

regarding russia, i guess because they never thought that nato would force regime change so openly? i don't know the answer ...



some times it seems like it ... something to back it up would be great ..


it explains the oil situation ... i thought you knew about the lucrative deals ...

Look in this thread, or the other threads. Or google.
And it doesn't explain the oil situation.

davoxx

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Look in this thread, or the other threads. Or google.
And it doesn't explain the oil situation.

i did, i found nothing, hence i asked specifically for it. if you found it, you should just post it.

and regarding the oil situation, i'm not sure what you are looking for ... i thought that showing that libya nationalising the oil and ensuring that the government retained ownership the oil is worse for oil companies than it was or it will be now thanks to nato ...

Jonny7

Daithi 1 wrote: »

You did the same thing. You posted many links from reporters who are not "independent", who are more likely to be biased.
These articles that you posted contained the same comments as the video I originally posted, such as..

Fair enough, but you've got to show me when I do it, and give good reason.

While discussing building 7 and how the BBC reported it's collapse prior to it collapsing, you and many others said it was probably "due to all the confusion", that day.
But you wont entertain the same hypothesis in this scenario as it doesn't fit into your agenda now eah ?

Think about what you are implying..

a) The insiders who planned 911 to blow up two of their own buildings with airliners and kill thousands of their own countrymen, a monumental plan that in no way could be leaked to a single soul - decided to somehow "share" this information with a media group from another country (the BBC) - who "leak" it just before it happens.

or

b) the BBC made a mistake

If you are the type of person that believes a), fine, fair enough, but you're not going to be the type of person I can convince with logic and substantiated facts.

Daithi 1

Jonny7 wrote: »

Fair enough, but you've got to show me when I do it, and give good reason.




Think about what you are implying..

a) The insiders who planned 911 to blow up two of their own buildings with airliners and kill thousands of their own countrymen, a monumental plan that in no way could be leaked to a single soul - decided to somehow "share" this information with a media group from another country (the BBC) - who "leak" it just before it happens.

or

b) the BBC made a mistake

If you are the type of person that believes a), fine, fair enough, but you're not going to be the type of person I can convince with logic and substantiated facts.

My second point was...

If the can be so much confusion on 911, couldn't there have been as much confusion in Green Square ?

You jumped straight into attacking Lizzie for the same (possible) mistakes as the woman who reported that building 7 had fallen, when it hadn't.

But you defended the 911 reporter.

Jonny7

Daithi 1 wrote: »

My second point was...

If the can be so much confusion on 911, couldn't there have been as much confusion in Green Square ?

Mistaken again or just lying?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3LU3fR5PKk

She's not the only reporter that did this, there were several from Voltaire net who were pulling the same ****.

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Mistaken again or just lying?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3LU3fR5PKk

She's not the only reporter that did this, there were several from Voltaire net who were pulling the same ****.

i don't know why you think the other sources are correct ...
in fact i don't see any sources that contradict her report ... the sky news was taken later

http://www.globalpost.com/photo-galleries/planet-pic/5673627/photos-libyans-celebrate-rebels-take-tripoli

it was the partial fall of Tripoli ....

Jonny7

Yup "independent" alright.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qMZjMtsTWA

Jeboa Safari

davoxx wrote: »

i did, i found nothing, hence i asked specifically for it. if you found it, you should just post it.

and regarding the oil situation, i'm not sure what you are looking for ... i thought that showing that libya nationalising the oil and ensuring that the government retained ownership the oil is worse for oil companies than it was or it will be now thanks to nato ...

So why didn't they overthrow Gadaffi 40 years ago?

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yup "independent" alright.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qMZjMtsTWA

maybe she was interviewing them?
but at least you've dropped the her report is 'all nonsense' ...

funny how journalist happen to be around famous people ... they all must be friends ...

davoxx

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

So why didn't they overthrow Gadaffi 40 years ago?

what has that got to do with my post ...

davoxx wrote: »

i did, i found nothing, hence i asked specifically for it. if you found it, you should just post it.

and regarding the oil situation, i'm not sure what you are looking for ... i thought that showing that libya nationalising the oil and ensuring that the government retained ownership the oil is worse for oil companies than it was or it will be now thanks to nato ...

from wiki:

• In 1969, the British Special Air Service (S.A.S.) was contacted by the Libyan Royal Family and planned an assassination attempt to restore the Libyan monarchy. The plan was dubbed the "Hilton Assignment", named after a Libyan jail. The plan was to release 150 political prisoners from a jail in Tripoli as a catalyst for a general uprising. The prisoners would be recruited for a coup attempt, and the British agents would leave them to take over the nation. The plan was called off at a late stage by the British Secret Intelligence Service because the United States government decided that Gaddafi was anti-Marxist and therefore acceptable.[306][307]

• In 1976, Tunisia's state television reported that Gaddafi had been fired at by a lone assailant. None of the shots hit him.[308]

• In 1981, French president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing plotted an assassination attempt with Egypt. His administration spoke with the Reagan administration for approval, but the United States did not support the measure. The plot was abandoned after Giscard's term in office.[309][310]

• In 1986, the United States bombed Libya, including Gaddafi's family compound in the vast Bab al-Azizia Barracks in southern Tripoli. The U.S. Government consistently said that the bombings were "surgical strikes" and were not intended to kill Gaddafi. However, Oliver North did devise a plot at the time to lure Gaddafi into his compound using Terry Waite. The plot violated US law, which prohibited assassinations, and was never put into action.[311] On 15 April, Gaddafi and his family had fled his compound in the Bab al-Azizia Barracks moments before it was bombed. He received a phone call the night of 15 April, warning him about an attack. The origin of the phone call remains under speculation, but Maltese Prime Minister Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici and Italian politician Bettino Craxi have been primary suspects.

• In 1993, over 2,000 Libyan soldiers plotted to assassinate Gaddafi.[312] The soldiers were members of the Warfalla tribe, which rebelled because it was not well-represented in the upper ranks of the Libyan Army. The coup attempt was crushed by the Libyan Air Force, which was entirely made of members of the Qadhadhfa tribe, which Gaddafi belongs to. The tribal tensions that resulted with the Warfalla and the Magariha caused Gaddafi to place his second-in-command, Abdessalam Jalloud, a Magariha, under house arrest, and led to oppression of the Warfalla.[313] The rebellion was largest in the city of Misrata. Libyan media did not cover any reports on the rebellion, but European diplomats saw large numbers of wounded and casualties in the hospitals.[314]

• In February 1996, Islamic extremists attacked Gaddafi's motorcade near the city of Sirte.[315] Allegedly, Britain's Secret Intelligence Service was involved, which was denied by future foreign secretary Robin Cook. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office later stated: "We have never denied that we knew of plots against Gaddafi."[316] In August 1998, former British MI5 officer David Shayler renewed his attacks on the secret services, claiming that MI6 had invested £100,000 in a plot to assassinate Gaddafi.[317]

• In June 1998, Islamic militants opened fire on Gaddafi's motorcade near the town of Dirnah. One of his Amazonian Guards sacrificed herself to save his life. He was injured in the elbow according to witnesses.[318]

it would be nice if some basic research was done on a topic before people jumped ... would same me time and further the discussion quicker ...

Daithi 1

Jonny7 wrote: »

Mistaken again or just lying?.

Neither. She was telling the truth.

Jonny7

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Neither. She was telling the truth.

So Al Jazeera and others really did fake the footage?

and which footage might that be Daithi?

Daithi 1

I seen it, i think, with the yellow cranes ? . Was supposed to be a recreated scene in quatar ?

Jonny7

Oh you know it, care to show me?

Daithi 1

Something like this is what I came across yesterday..



http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=11e_1313999698

Jonny7

This is the "faked" footage she is talking about, I posted it earlier by the way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wbb3xPkgr8

Daithi 1

Jonny7 wrote: »

This is the "faked" footage she is talking about, I posted it earlier by the way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wbb3xPkgr8

And I explained that that footage is null and void, you agreed.

Al Jazeera has been compromised by the CIA.