The Real Reason for NATO Attacking Libya ?

davoxx

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

They had legitimate reasons to attack several times after Libyan supported bombings, and the US was always stronger than Libya, doesn't seem to make sense to have a 'war' under false pretenses like you suggest.

oh yeah legitimate reasons, like iraq?
how can you say that the libyan supported bombings?
some sources and facts would be nice ...

are you then going to say that saddam supported 911? i remember how that ended ..

funnily enough, the usa has supported a lot worse, and this was verified ... you know like attempts on gaddfi?

your false sense of justice is totally misplaced here, so i'd stop with the "legitimate" reasons rubbish ...

and just because the us is stronger, does not mean that they do not prefer an easy fight ... the lost vietnam, despite dropping more bombs there than in ww2 ...

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Any sources for the Libyan assets being stolen?

http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=628290
funny how drug dealers and mafia accounts are not frozen ...

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Strings getting tangled is the weakest argument I've heard yet.

weakest does not mean not true, but yeah, oil is the strongest one so far ...
but your reply is not even an argument, you are just commenting on my one being weak ...

so are you still denying that oil was the reason? i've already shown you the reason, though you chose to ignore it ...

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 ..

since you've asked for links from me, can you now present some of your own? and don't give me the google answer ...

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=628290
funny how drug dealers and mafia accounts are not frozen ...
.

Could you find a unbiased independent source to support this claim

The Mathaba News Agency (al-Mathaba, meaning "The Center"), also called the Anti-Imperialism Center (AIC), is an alternative news agency created by the regime of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 1982 to further world-revolutionary and anti-imperialist goals.[1] It has organized a number of conferences in Tripoli, attended by leftist or anti-Western leaders including Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe's ZANU-PF, Daniel Ortega of the FSLN in Nicaragua, Raul Reyes of Colombia's FARC, and Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil.[1]

It is affiliated with the International Green Charter Movement (IGCM),[2] based on Gaddafi's Green Book and the political philosophy it espouses, known as Jamahiriya. It also hosts a forum[3] and a private microblogging service.[4] Mathaba refers to itself as "the first stateless news organization in history" with the stated goal of offering readers "a better understanding of public issues and positive development".[5]

ed2hands

Jonny7 wrote: »

Attack Libya before the protests took place? that doesn't work, that's like Iraq. You need a reasonexcuse/incident/false flag to intervene somewhere, a very strong reasonexcuse/incident/false flag.

FYP

Example:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_%28ACR-1%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

Could you find a unbiased independent source to support this claim

what is your point?
are you contesting the facts contained within the article?

are you saying that funds were not frozen?

davoxx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Britain and Libya had a rather "cosy" relationship right up until the protests.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/19/britain-alliance-libya-gaddafi-crackdown

and then they back stabbed him ... funny what money can do to men of honour ...

but lets be honest, britain would support anyone for money ... and then back stab them for more ...

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

what is your point?
are you contesting the facts contained within the article?

are you saying that funds were not frozen?

I'm saying that I'd prefer a more credible source for these "facts".

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

I'm saying that I'd prefer a more credible source for these "facts".

they seem credible enough to me ...

if you think the 'facts' are wrong, say so ...
if you have 'facts' that counter these, show them ...
if you think this source has provided bad 'facts' before, so this ...

otherwise i can't see the problem ...

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

they seem credible enough to me ...

if you think the 'facts' are wrong, say so ...

So you can't provide a source for these claims that isn't clearly pro Gadaffi?


Okay.

if you have 'facts' that counter these, show them ...
if you think this source has provided bad 'facts' before, so this ...

otherwise i can't see the problem ...

I'm asking for alternative independent source before I call these claims facts.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

So you can't provide a source for these claims that isn't clearly pro Gadaffi?

so you can't find a fault with this other than you think that the source is pro gadaffi ...

OK

so you have nothing to say that they misreported anything?

OK

Di0genes wrote: »

I'm asking for alternative independent source before I call these claims facts.

i know what you are asking for, but that is not my job ...

if you have a problem with the facts i've presented, other than 'i don't like the guy who said it', then you need to state your case ...

otherwise, like i said before, i can't see a problem.

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

so you can't find a fault with this other than you think that the source is pro gadaffi ...

I don't think the source is Pro Gaddaffi the agency was set up by Gaddafi. It is pro Gaddaffi thats a fact/

OK

so you have nothing to say that they misreported anything?

OK

Other than the fact that they mis reported events recently.

1)On 16 August 2011, three months after rebels had defeated Gaddafi forces in Misrata, the news agency reported that "Misrata has been liberated by loyalist volunteers of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and the Libyan Defence Forces.
http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=628042

On 13 October 2011, Mathaba reported that 80% of both Tripoli and Benghazi were controlled by Gaddafi loyalists, as well as 90-100% of the southern portion of the country
http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=628951

It has misrepresented, and mis reported news in the recent past, so therefore I view the claims made by the organisation with suspicion and ask for further verification.

i know what you are asking for, but that is not my job ...

I'm really glad you're not getting paid for this.

if you have a problem with the facts i've presented, other than 'i don't like the guy who said it', then you need to state your case ...

I dispute that they are facts, I think they're claims from a "news organisation" that has made false statements in recent history.

otherwise, like i said before, i can't see a problem.

I imagine you can't.

Jonny7

ed2hands wrote: »

FYP

Example:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_%28ACR-1%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine

So because something has happened in the past, it proves it must always be that way in the future with an unrelated/unconnected event? very strange mentality.

I presume that's what you are trying to do?

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

so you can't find a fault with this other than you think that the source is pro gadaffi ...

I don't think the source is Pro Gaddaffi the agency was set up by Gaddafi. It is pro Gaddaffi thats a fact/

actually you do. it was set up by the former libyan government, not by gaddafi himself, hence it is still running ...
what you said is the same as claiming that the bbc is pure biased rubbish as it was created by the British General Post Office (GPO), therefore the queen created it ...

so you can clearly see my concern for your claims ...

Di0genes wrote: »

OK

so you have nothing to say that they misreported anything?

OK

Other than the fact that they mis reported events recently.

1)On 16 August 2011, three months after rebels had defeated Gaddafi forces in Misrata, the news agency reported that "Misrata has been liberated by loyalist volunteers of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and the Libyan Defence Forces.
http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=628042

On 13 October 2011, Mathaba reported that 80% of both Tripoli and Benghazi were controlled by Gaddafi loyalists, as well as 90-100% of the southern portion of the country
http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=628951

misreports? where are your contradictory facts that show that these were misreports?

you now need to show facts for 16/08/11 and 13/10/11 ... from a non biased source nonetheless ...

Di0genes wrote: »

It has misrepresented, and mis reported news in the recent past, so therefore I view the claims made by the organisation with suspicion and ask for further verification.

now before you jump off here, you've stated two cases, provided nothing to back them up though, and are now generalising?

before any further verification will be provided, you'll need to provide further verification or your claims ...
and remember your sources will need to have provided 100% correct information 100% of the time to be able to counter my source ...

i look forward to your sources ...

Di0genes wrote: »

i know what you are asking for, but that is not my job ...

I'm really glad you're not getting paid for this.

you should be, you'd never be able to pay for it ... grinds are 60 euro per hour ...

Di0genes wrote: »

if you have a problem with the facts i've presented, other than 'i don't like the guy who said it', then you need to state your case ...

I dispute that they are facts, I think they're claims from a "news organisation" that has made false statements in recent history.

so you are claiming that since they've made false statements (which you have not backed up and are as of yet still unfounded) therefore all other statements can not be determined as correct without independent verification ...

you do know this is going to destroy most of your other arguments in the future? you've effectively admitted that the official 911 can not be believed ....

ref: di0-01

Di0genes wrote: »

otherwise, like i said before, i can't see a problem.

I imagine you can't.

that's the funny thing about imagination, it's not based in reality ...

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

actually you do. it was set up by the former libyan government, not by gaddafi himself, hence it is still running ...


what you said is the same as claiming that the bbc is pure biased rubbish as it was created by the British General Post Office (GPO), therefore the queen created it ...

The queen is not the dictator of England. Gaddafi was the absolute ruler of Libya.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/libya/mathaba.htm

so you can clearly see my concern for your claims ...

Yeah the fact that you cant see the difference between a dictator and constitutional monarch is worrying.

misreports? where are your contradictory facts that show that these were misreports?

you now need to show facts for 16/08/11 and 13/10/11 ... from a non biased source nonetheless ...

Really?

You're asking me to prove that pro Gaddaffi forces didn't retake Misrata and that in October of this year pro Gaddaffi forces control most of Tripoli?

now before you jump off here, you've states two cases, provided nothing to back them up though, and are now generalising?

before any further verification will be provided, you'll need to provide further verification or your claims ...
and remember your sources will need to have provided 100% correct information 100% of the time to be able to counter my source ...

i look forward to your sources ...

Wait so let me get this clear I have to jump through all these hoops for you, but you can't be bothered to do so for me?



you should be, you'd never be able to pay for it ... grinds are 60 euro per hour ...

so you are claiming that since they've made false statements (which you have not backed up and are as of yet still unfounded) therefore all other statements can not be determined as correct without independent verification ...

you do know this is going to destroy most of your other arguments in the future? you've effectively admitted that the official 911 can not be believed ....

Excuse me? What twisted logic are you attempting to use now?

ref: di0-01

Why was this in white?

that's the funny thing about imagination, it's not based in reality ...

Actually it often is.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

The queen is not the dictator of England. Gaddafi was the absolute ruler of Libya.

did i say that she was in that post?

the fact that you misread what i posted is very worrying to me ...

while i can see what you are trying to say, that no one voted for the queen, that loyalty is sworn to the queen does make her a dictator ... that is not what i said.

Gaddafi seized power in a bloodless military coup in 1969 and served as the country's head of state until 1977, when he stepped down from his official executive role as Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council of Libya, and claimed subsequently to be merely a symbolic figurehead

is there any point in continuing this debate?
you've failed to show how the link i provided was misreporting facts ...
you now attempt to fudge the matter ...

the white text is so i can search for this post easier in the future ...

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

more goalpost shifting.

So you've no evidence to support your claim except for a pro Gadaffi propaganda site?

Very good carry on.....

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

The queen is not the dictator of England. Gaddafi was the absolute ruler of Libya.

well if all depends on how ones defines dictator ....

Di0genes wrote: »

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/libya/mathaba.htm

ok ... dunno if that is a biased source or not ...

Di0genes wrote: »

Yeah the fact that you cant see the difference between a dictator and constitutional monarch is worrying.

gaddafi is not actually a king, he was just called the king of kings ...

Di0genes wrote: »

Really?

really!

Di0genes wrote: »

You're asking me to prove that pro Gaddaffi forces didn't retake Misrata and that in October of this year pro Gaddaffi forces control most of Tripoli?

yes.

Di0genes wrote: »

Wait so let me get this clear I have to jump through all these hoops for you, but you can't be bothered to do so for me?

well, that's not correct. you've an issue with my claim, so you need to show that your issue is valid.
like when i have an issue with any of your claims, i show how it is invalid ...

Di0genes wrote: »

you should be, you'd never be able to pay for it ... grinds are 60 euro per hour ...

i said that ...

Di0genes wrote: »

Excuse me? What twisted logic are you attempting to use now?

yours. it is hard to use your logic, because it does not make sense ..

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

So you've no evidence to support your claim except for a pro Gadaffi propaganda site?

Very good carry on.....

and, you've no evidence to show that it is a propaganda site as you've incorrectly assumed ... no surprise there so ..

excellent, you can now leave the argument as you can not provide anything to back up your nonsense ...

davoxx

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/20/news/economy/Libyan_assets/index.htm
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/article/2011/08/20110826123212nehpets0.5804407.html#axzz1fg8WZxQs
http://theintelhub.com/2011/08/15/dutch-government-gives-e-1000000-00-stolen-libyan-money-to-world-health-organization/
http://www.xfmnewscenter.com/news/news.php?cat=International&title=NATO+Countries+use+Stolen+Money+to+Treat+their+Rebel+Victims
http://truthfrequencynews.com/?p=10656

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

more goalpost shifting.

So you've no evidence to support your claim except for a pro Gadaffi propaganda site?

Very good carry on.....

apparently i already said it, but here it is again ...

Di0genes wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

more goalpost shifting.
very good carry on.....

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/20/news/economy/Libyan_assets/index.htm

Thats not money being stolen from Libya.

Libya set to get back $37 billion from U.S.

http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/article/2011/08/20110826123212nehpets0.5804407.html#axzz1fg8WZxQs

And again

Libya Receiving $1.5 Billion in Financial Assets Frozen in U.S.

http://theintelhub.com/2011/08/15/dutch-government-gives-e-1000000-00-stolen-libyan-money-to-world-health-organization/

The Dutch government has given € 1,000,000.00 ($ 1,425,000.00) in frozen Libyan assets belonging to Gaddafi and Libya to the World Health Organisation (WHO) to “grant humanitarian aid” to the rebels in Benghazi and other rebel occupied areas in Libya.

Gaddaffi's enormous wealth going to the WHO and humanitarian aid in Libya?

Thats not stealing Libya's wealth its giving it back to Libya's people.

and, you've no evidence to show that it is a propaganda site as you've incorrectly assumed ... no surprise there so ..

I suspect you'd view Comical Ali or Lord Haw Haw as "not propaganda" either.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

<stuff>

where are your links? still no facts?

and i presumed you knew what theft is, but i guess not ...

you know what, don't bother replying ... you've failed every-time to provide anything to back any of your silly claims ...

i'm sure your next post will not have anything to back it up ...

strange why you even bother posting at all here ...

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

where are your links? still no facts?

and i presumed you knew what theft is, but i guess not ...

you know what, don't bother replying ... you've failed every-time to provide anything to back any of your silly claims ...

i'm sure your next post will not have anything to back it up ...

strange why you even bother posting at all here ...

You're asking me to prove that as of Mid October Tripoli isn't 80% controlled by pro Gadaffi forces?

Or that 3 months after it taken by rebels that it wasn't retaken by Gadaffi?


Meanwhile you say http://www.mathaba.net/

propaganda site as you've incorrectly assumed ..

When it's affiliated with the IGCM dedicated to spreading the word of the little green book of Gadaffi personal philosophy a book Libyan children were ordered to read for 2 hours a day during Gadaffis regime?

And you're saying its not a propaganda site?

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

You're asking me to prove that as of Mid October Tripoli isn't 80% controlled by pro Gadaffi forces?

Or that 3 months after it taken by rebels that it wasn't retaken by Gadaffi?

well if you can't back it up, then why would you say it?
seriously, why say it? why challenge it if you can't back up your counter claim?

Di0genes wrote: »

Meanwhile you say http://www.mathaba.net/

i sure did, it was correct, you were wrong ... we can go over it again ...
maybe we should?

us froze assets that did not belong to them, they then redistributed this assets.
regardless of how biased you are, this is theft.

secondly, because you failed to even read what i linked, i'll state it: only 37 billion of an estimated 150 billion is being released to the puppet government ...

Di0genes wrote: »

When it's affiliated with the IGCM dedicated to spreading the word of the little green book of Gadaffi personal philosophy a book Libyan children were ordered to read for 2 hours a day during Gadaffis regime?

And you're saying its not a propaganda site?

wtf are saying now?
focus on what was asked and what you failed to show, you keep changing the subject once you get caught out ...

first it was that my link was propaganda because it was a libyan government set up organisation, when i showed you that the bbc was a similar organization, you claim that the queen and gaddafi are different ... while this is true, gaddafi has higher popularity among his own people , it is not relevant ...

can you now stop wasting my time or back up the nonsense that you've said ...

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

well if you can't back it up, then why would you say it?
seriously, why say it? why challenge it if you can't back up your counter claim?

Because if you're lecturing me on events in Libya and are seriously suggesting I need to demonstrate that Tripoli was in rebel control in October?

i sure did, it was correct, you were wrong ... we can go over it again ...
maybe we should?

Okay you think Mathaba isn't a propaganda website fine.

You are however wrong?

us froze assets that did not belong to them, they then redistributed this assets.
regardless of how biased you are, this is theft.

And did the assets belong to gadaffi?

secondly, because you failed to even read what i linked, i'll state it: only 37 billion of an estimated 150 billion is being released to the government so far ...

Fixed that for you.

wtf are saying now?
focus on what was asked and what you failed to show, you keep changing the subject once you get caught out ...

Really where have I changed the subject? Mathabas is a Gaddaffi propaganda site.

first it was that my link was propaganda because it was a libyan government set up organisation, when i showed you that the bbc was a similar organization,

No you tried to show you failed. A abject abysmal failure. if you don't understand the difference between the BBC and mathaba thats really your own rather serious problem.

you claim that the queen and gaddafi are different ... while this is true, gaddafi has higher popularity among his own people , it is not relevant ...

can you now stop wasting my time or back up the nonsense that you've said ...

Right, because the Queen was overthrown and killed in a popular uprising.

Epic fail.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

well if you can't back it up, then why would you say it?
seriously, why say it? why challenge it if you can't back up your counter claim?

Because if you're lecturing me on events in Libya and are seriously suggesting I need to demonstrate that Tripoli was in rebel control in October?

that is because you have no idea what you are talking about, you've proven this by failing to provide anything to back up your claims ...

and you consistently dodge this ...

Di0genes wrote: »

i sure did, it was correct, you were wrong ... we can go over it again ...
maybe we should?

Okay you think Mathaba isn't a propaganda website fine.

and you think it is, though you can't prove it ... OK
and even though i showed you the error in your logic, you are unable to comprehend it ... OK

Di0genes wrote: »

You are however wrong?

what are you on about now? are you moving the goalposts again?

Di0genes wrote: »

us froze assets that did not belong to them, they then redistributed this assets.
regardless of how biased you are, this is theft.

And did the assets belong to gadaffi?

did they belong to the americans? no, then it's theft.
do you know who they belonged to? was it the americans?

Di0genes wrote: »

secondly, because you failed to even read what i linked, i'll state it: only 37 billion of an estimated 150 billion is being released to the government so far ...

Fixed that for you.

ah so far, well that changes it completely .. now they are just 'borrowing' it ...
when are they going to release the rest of it? how much interest are they trying to generate from these funds?

so much for your "fixed it for me" ...

Di0genes wrote: »

wtf are saying now?
focus on what was asked and what you failed to show, you keep changing the subject once you get caught out ...

Really where have I changed the subject? Mathabas is a Gaddaffi propaganda site.

oh coz you said it ... that's all the proof i need ... it would be nice if you backed it up as you have been wrong before, so i'll hold off till a more respected poster comments on this ...

Di0genes wrote: »

first it was that my link was propaganda because it was a libyan government set up organisation, when i showed you that the bbc was a similar organization,

No you tried to show you failed. A abject abysmal failure. if you don't understand the difference between the BBC and mathaba thats really your own rather serious problem.

awhhh, can't handle your own logic?
i failed at trying to educate you, though i doubt anyone is able to do that ...

my problem is you spewing unfounded nonsense ... and you do spew some serious nonsense ...

Di0genes wrote: »

you claim that the queen and gaddafi are different ... while this is true, gaddafi has higher popularity among his own people , it is not relevant ...

can you now stop wasting my time or back up the nonsense that you've said ...

Di0genes wrote: »

Right, because the Queen was overthrown and killed in a popular uprising.

ahh yeah the popular rising ... i never knew nato was in the popular camp of libya ... you really have zero clue about what you are talking about ...

Di0genes wrote: »

Epic fail.

i agree, your childish attempt to try debate me is sad and pathetic ...

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

that is because you have no idea what you are talking about, you've proven this by failing to provide anything to back up your claims ...

and you consistently dodge this ...

You need links to have it proven to you that 80% of Tripoli wasn't in loyalist Gaddaffi hands in mid october and you have the audacity to suggest I don't know what I'm talking about?

and you think it is, though you can't prove it ... OK

And I have. Next you'll be demanding proof the that official website of http://www.korea-dpr.com/ isn't propaganda.

and even though i showed you the error in your logic, you are unable to comprehend it ... OK

Thats your opinion you are however wrong.

what are you on about now? are you moving the goalposts again?

You are wrong when you say http://www.mathaba.net/ isn't a propaganda site. Theres no ambiguity here.

did they belong to the americans? no, then it's theft.

No its not theft. Its now in the hands of the Libyan people.

next you'll be calling Robin Hood a common criminal because he stole the tax money from the sheriff of Nottingham.

do you know who they belonged to? was it the americans?



ah so far, well that changes it completely .. now they are just 'borrowing' it ...
when are they going to release the rest of it? how much interest are they trying to generate from these funds?

Thats rampant speculation. You cited Matahas as proof money was being stolen from Libya when in fact you yourself demonstrated that the money was actually given to the people of Libya.


so much for your "fixed it for me" ...

oh coz you said it ... that's all the proof i need ... it would be nice if you backed it up as you have been wrong before, so i'll hold off till a more respected poster comments on this ...

I have matahas has made straight out lies in the reporting of the conflict, and promotes the personal philosophy of Gadaffi.

I'm not sure what else you need in terms of proof that it's a pro Gadaffi propaganda site.

I suspect you googled the first result you could find to "support" your claim, and didn't research what a horrendously biased and dishonest site you were getting your claims from (I won't sully the words facts here)

awhhh, can't handle your own logic?
i failed at trying to educate you, though i doubt anyone is able to do that ...

No you're just really bad at this If you don't understand the difference between the BBC and Mathabas its really not my job to educate you. Simply because they were both started by governments does not mean that they're comparable organisation.

my problem is you spewing unfounded nonsense ... and you do spew some serious nonsense ...

Please cite specific examples.

ahh yeah the popular rising ... i never knew nato was in the popular camp of libya ... you really have zero clue about what you are talking about ...

Yes because there are hundreds and thousands of NATO troops in Libya.

Bless.

i agree, your childish attempt to try debate me is sad and pathetic ...

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

<non backed drivel>

bless, you tried the most,
in disputing my logical post,
you've failed to backup your claim,
to ridicule my points, was lame,
all t'was needed a backed up post ...

i've entertained you for long enough now i think ... come back when you find something to back up your nonsense, i've provided mine, i still await yours ...

ps: don't use robin hood to make a point as

he was not real ...

Jeboa Safari

davoxx wrote: »

oh yeah legitimate reasons, like iraq?
how can you say that the libyan supported bombings?
some sources and facts would be nice ...

are you then going to say that saddam supported 911? i remember how that ended ..

funnily enough, the usa has supported a lot worse, and this was verified ... you know like attempts on gaddfi?

your false sense of justice is totally misplaced here, so i'd stop with the "legitimate" reasons rubbish ...

and just because the us is stronger, does not mean that they do not prefer an easy fight ... the lost vietnam, despite dropping more bombs there than in ww2 ...


http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=628290
funny how drug dealers and mafia accounts are not frozen ...


weakest does not mean not true, but yeah, oil is the strongest one so far ...
but your reply is not even an argument, you are just commenting on my one being weak ...

so are you still denying that oil was the reason? i've already shown you the reason, though you chose to ignore it ...


since you've asked for links from me, can you now present some of your own? and don't give me the google answer ...

Deliberately misrepresenting what I said, I actually don't know how any straight thinking person could come to the conclusions you've just drawn and miss the point by such a wide mark.

Its a weak and stupid argument, and you're really clutching at straws to justify your belief that the US controls the UN

The 'source' you gave is a Gaddafi propaganda piece. Look at any major media reports from the time, its not that hard.

Jeboa Safari

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Cheers Ed, I'll give it a look. Y'know what else is interesting to look at? This thread, it's been ongoing since close to the beginning of this tragic mess. You can see how people buy the media/politicians lies hook line and sinker and defend them to the hilt.

:rolleyes:
You know what else is interesting, when it looked like Gaddafi was doing deals with the west, the cters were against him. You yourself authored a threadcalling him a freemason and saying he was sending a false flag aid ship to Gaza, another thread cites him pushing for the United States of Africa as part of the nwo plan. Yet plans for a united African currency are grounds for invasion according to the op here. Same on other ct sites, goes from villain to hero as soon as the west is against him.

studiorat

davoxx wrote: »

and, you've no evidence to show that it is a propaganda site as you've incorrectly assumed ... no surprise there so ..

excellent, you can now leave the argument as you can not provide anything to back up your nonsense ...

dude, Mathaba.net has been Gadaffi's personal fanclub since it was founded by Adam King aka Louis Szondy. It hosts Gadaffi's Green book on the site ffs, though you probably know that already.

Prior to mathaba.net, Szondy was also responsible for establishing the International Green Charter. In other words, Szondy was once an advocate on behalf of the ideas contained in “Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution” / “Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Arab Libyan Popular and Socialist Jamahirya” Muammar al-Gaddafi’s 1975 magnum opus the three-volume Green Book. In fact, Szondy remains a fan; as recently as June 2007, he describes the contents of the Book as constituting “the scientific and natural historical principles of the Third Universal Theory, the truth” (‘Founder of Green Charter International Calls For Serious Study of The Green Book’, mathaba.net, June 2007).