The Real Reason for NATO Attacking Libya ?

studiorat · 02-06-2011 10:24AM

Talk E wrote: »

Studio reckons it's for humanitarian reasons. :pac:

I guess you're just happy to be eh?

studiorat · 02-06-2011 11:07AM

ed2hands wrote: »

Well, what i find sickening is that NATO is yet again in motion. The dogs on the street know both sides are using missiles, so why sling out things like "Oh, well Pilger didn't mention that".:) Just doesn't stand up to me. The piece is an overview, not wikipedia a la Jonny7:).

Dog's on the street? Didn't someone here suggest that if it was a real rebellion it would have happened in Tripoli or something?

It seems to me like there's plenty who don't have a clue what's going on.

ed2hands · 02-06-2011 11:54AM

studiorat wrote: »

What are you talking about? It's NATO and Russia now is it? Listen, the two biggest oil companies there are Italian and Spanish; foreign companies in the first place. Rising oil prices are a threat to economic recovery in the US, UK etc. rising oil prices which can be blamed on the civil conflict in Libya. Now, if you consider the quickest way to restore order to the oil markets would simply been to have let Gadaffi crush the rebels, which he would have done before the UN intervention. Why didn't they just do that?

Grabbing what? You make it out like there's no foreign companies in Libya at all. After Bush lifted the sanctions foreign investment came flooding into the country. The 'grabbing' happened years ago.

Practically the whole continent want Gadaffi out, even friggin' Hezbollah want him gone, he's too unstable for the whole area, he's jumped allegiances repeatedly over last 40 years. Not to mention that he's no stranger to installing the odd puppet government around Africa himself. That IMO is the real reason.

What the hell is the Washington consensus? Dude, so far all you've come up with is vague cliche, it's quite boring at this stage. Do you have any actual opinion on this subject ? any facts? your own analysis of the matter? Because it seems to me you don't understand what's going on at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus :rolleyes:

Sorry if i bored you studiorat. I did give you my ACTUAL opinion. Now you seem to have an impressive grasp of the subject without doubt, but regardless of your obvious knowledge of it, it's amusing to me how you think that some of us don't understand whats going on. Another lazy criticism. My analysis is stated above albeit briefly. I could mention the "vague cliche" of 20 years of NATO bombings and bloodshed in Iraq for instance but you'll probably call me a left-wing pinko or something similar.
The real and only reason for for the intervention is that NATO want him out, mainly for the reasons i stated above IMO. They saw their opportunity and are taking it. They don't give a stuff about regional sentiment, never have and never will. It's strategic influence they're interested in. They admit it when you look in the right places... http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24018

studiorat · 02-06-2011 12:41PM

ed2hands wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus :rolleyes:

I never knew there was a official name for it. Though it seems it's out of date as of 2010 with the introduction of the Seoul Development Consensus.

ed2hands wrote: »

Sorry if i bored you studiorat. I did give you my ACTUAL opinion. Now you seem to have an impressive grasp of the subject without doubt, but regardless of your obvious knowledge of it, it's amusing to me how you think that some of us don't understand whats going on. Another lazy criticism. My analysis is stated above albeit briefly. I could mention the "vague cliche" of 20 years of NATO bombings and bloodshed in Iraq for instance but you'll probably call me a left-wing pinko or something similar.

The real and only reason for for the intervention is that NATO want him out, mainly for the reasons i stated above IMO. They saw their opportunity and are taking it. They don't give a stuff about regional sentiment, never have and never will.

What? that he's an enemy of Western interests. Is that it?
Would you like to elaborate in the discussion a little more.

So far we've had John Pilgre is great.
There's many reasons for NATO's intervention.
And Gadaffi's an enemy of western interests.

The fact of the matter is that it would have been more in NATO's interests to preserve the status quo.

Oh and a little polemic about Iraq thrown in for good measure. No, I don't think you are left wing in the slightest, what have you said to suggest that?

ed2hands · 02-06-2011 01:13PM

studiorat wrote: »

I never knew there was a official name for it. Though it seems it's out of date as of 2010 with the introduction of the Seoul Development Consensus.

What? that he's an enemy of Western interests. Is that it?
Would you like to elaborate in the discussion a little more.

So far we've had John Pilgre is great.
There's many reasons for NATO's intervention.
And Gadaffi's an enemy of western interests.

The fact of the matter is that it would have been more in NATO's interests to preserve the status quo.

Oh and a little polemic about Iraq thrown in for good measure. No, I don't think you are left wing in the slightest, what have you said to suggest that?

I don't think so, especially not when he started to hint about nationalising the oil, and creating currency. They want him gone and quickly.

studiorat · 02-06-2011 01:38PM

ed2hands wrote: »

I don't think so, especially not when he started to hint about nationalising the oil, and creating currency. They want him gone and quickly.

What do you think the National Oil Corporation is? :rolleyes:
Gadaffi nationalized the Oil companies in the 1970, that's one of the reasons the coup that brought him to power happened in the first place.

The currency think is a myth anyway, there's a single african currency on the way either way.
What do you think would happen if he was asked to pay for his imports in gold? He'd be snookered from day one.

So just out of interest who do you think the National Transitional Council are ?

ed2hands · 02-06-2011 01:53PM

studiorat wrote: »

What do you think the National Oil Corporation is? :rolleyes:
Gadaffi nationalized the Oil companies in the 1970, that's one of the reasons the coup that brought him to power happened in the first place.

The currency think is a myth anyway, there's a single african currency on the way either way.
What do you think would happen if he was asked to pay for his imports in gold? He'd be snookered from day one.

So just out of interest who do you think the National Transitional Council are ?

I read this and presumed it was accurate:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/01/21/businessproind-us-libya-gaddafi-oil-idUKTRE50K61F20090121

careca11 · 02-06-2011 02:12PM

for sure there is a lot more going on in libya than meets the eye , anyone thinking otherwise is very niave
a bit like the US going into iraq for WMD and saddam

I would reckon oil is at the forefront , considering France import 100% of its oil from ....................Yep Libya

if the conflict is simply to oust tyranny , then shouldn't NATO/US be invading Syria (gove troops murdering incident civilians), yemen, Burma , North Korea etc etc etc etc etc

studiorat · 02-06-2011 03:27PM

100% of France's oil from Libya? Jesus, do you just make this up off the top of your head...

According to Oil and Gas Journal (OGJ), France had 159 million barrels of proven oil reserves in January 2006. Including refinery gain, the country produced 73,500 barrels per day (bbl/d) of oil in 2005. Despite the lack of significant domestic production, France is the tenth-largest consumer of oil in the world, consuming 1.97 million bbl/d in 2005. To meet this demand, France had net crude oil imports of 1.89 million bbl/d in 2005, the largest sources of these imports being Norway, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the United Kingdom

.

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_profile_of_France#gen1

Reuters : France, which imports about 15 percent of its crude oil needs from Libya, will quickly have to start using its strategic stocks if supply from the country is stopped, the president of the French oil industry union said.

25% of all of Irelands Oil comes from Libya. In fact of all of the countries in Europe it's actually Ireland who's most dependent on Libyas oil.

85% of all Libyas oil goes to Europe. Italy taking most of it...

I don't think people understand the gravity of the situation in Libya. Syria or Yemen isn't even in the ball-park if you compare the atrocity. One town in Libya, who's name escapes me right now: Hold marches and demonstrations, burn the police HQ and security services HQ. The next evening Gadaffi sends the Military in who seal off the town, the locals confront the soldiers, one soldier is killed before the soldiers down their arms and walk away. That evening the town is bombarded by over 100 missiles, we are talking about randomly bombing the whole town! We're talking a whole different level of crazy here.

ed2hands · 02-06-2011 09:21PM

studiorat wrote: »

100% of France's oil from Libya? Jesus, do you just make this up off the top of your head...

.

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_profile_of_France#gen1

25% of all of Irelands Oil comes from Libya. In fact of all of the countries in Europe it's actually Ireland who's most dependent on Libyas oil.

85% of all Libyas oil goes to Europe. Italy taking most of it...

I don't think people understand the gravity of the situation in Libya. Syria or Yemen isn't even in the ball-park if you compare the atrocity. One town in Libya, who's name escapes me right now: Hold marches and demonstrations, burn the police HQ and security services HQ. The next evening Gadaffi sends the Military in who seal off the town, the locals confront the soldiers, one soldier is killed before the soldiers down their arms and walk away. That evening the town is bombarded by over 100 missiles, we are talking about randomly bombing the whole town! We're talking a whole different level of crazy here.

I commend you for your info above; and am sure you have a genuine compassion for those people.
You post that paragraph above though, but dismiss any mention of Iraq in relation to this as polemic?

So you think the whole intervention is for humanitarian reasons only?

In that case, i would then have to go with one of the other posters and deduce that you are truly naive if you think that. But i don't believe you're naive. I suspect you agree with some of what you're dismissing here, but you don't strike me as the type of guy who would admit it, judging by your arrogant and cocksure posts above

. I mean, you keep saying we don't understand the whole situation. Give me a break.:D
Just because you're apparently knowledgeable about Libya doesn't give you the right to pontificate like a school teacher to a class of 10 year olds. You seem to like to pidgeonhole everyone and everything and use bull**** rhetoric and innuendo to either dismiss or completely ignore some of arguments and article posted. Thats all i have to say on the matter. No offence intended;). Just my two cents. In saying that what you have to say is sometimes interesting, so will be eagerly awaiting your next installment of bile...

studiorat · 02-06-2011 10:54PM

In the case of this discussion, I think dragging Iraq into the frame is un-necessary and purely for effect.

Professor Juan Cole provides a straight short list of why the Libyan conflict is not the same as Iraq. http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html

I'll list some of them :

The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not.

The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.

There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.

No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.

There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.

Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.

I would have some issue with the accuracy of the second point in terms of actual numbers but I think the thrust of the point remains valid.

I think you (pl) are trying to over simplify the situation by stating that the conflict is a reaction to a hypothetical new currency or a rush to steal oil or even a prevention of other countries such as Russia or China having an interest in the country.

Regarding NATO's intervention on 'humanitarian grounds', I think again the naivety is the in narrowness of the scope in which the term is used. I suspect the NATO intervention, in addition to being humanitarian, includes an element of containment, a policy which the US and NATO has tried to maintain since the early days of the cold war. It's the strategy of using military, economic and diplomatic means enhance security and peace. Whether this is the right approach or not I suspect is what this discussion is centered around, perhaps someone would like to suggest an alternative strategy.

This policy, particularly in this case I suspect is more apt in than the policy adapted by China for instance. Where the US and to a certain extent it's allies trade and invest with countries who they share political likenesses with*; investing in some while sanctioning others. China will happily trade and invest with any country, regardless of the behavior of it's regime. Obviously this raises issues about self determination etc. but given the fact that China happily exchanges arms for oil with every oil production nation on the continent regardless of it's human rights record.** I think the approach of the US/NATO is the lesser of two evils in this case. (Bearing in mind the contradiction of China's occupation in Tibet being, according to them, on 'humanitarian grounds', as was Russia's intervention in Afganistan back in the day.)

Finally, I take issue with the factual accuracy of the "anti-US" argument as it is presented here. Every single article posted in the thread, including the Global Research article has inaccuracies which are used as leverage for their argument. I have attempted to address every argument, if you would like to point out any missed I'd be grateful.

*obvious exceptions being Saudi Arabia etc.

** China - Arms for Oil

jackiebaron · 03-06-2011 02:33PM

What I'd love to know is why are the so-called Libyan rebels seeking the support of Israel?

http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/156505/20110602/why-are-the-libyan-rebels-seeking-israel-s-support.htm

studiorat · 03-06-2011 03:05PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

What I'd love to know is why are the so-called Libyan rebels seeking the support of Israel?

http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/156505/20110602/why-are-the-libyan-rebels-seeking-israel-s-support.htm

By support you mean diplomatic ties? There's no mention of any kind of support in the article you've cited. Have you some other evidence of support?

Besides, why shouldn't they have diplomatic relations, it would be a good thing for both Libya and Israel. I mean it's not like Libya has diplomatic ties with the majority of countries it trades with anyway. Libyan's neighbors do as well, Egypt has diplomatic relations with Israel so does Chad. In fact the majority of countries in the region have some sort of trade with and recognize Israel.

When you say so-called rebels I take it you'd rather see Gadaffi stay in power then?
Do you not think they have a right do demand democratic election of their leaders?

careca11 · 03-06-2011 03:33PM

studiorat wrote: »

100% of France's oil from Libya? Jesus, do you just make this up off the top of your head...

.

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_profile_of_France#gen1

25% of all of Irelands Oil comes from Libya. In fact of all of the countries in Europe it's actually Ireland who's most dependent on Libyas oil.

85% of all Libyas oil goes to Europe. Italy taking most of it...

I don't think people understand the gravity of the situation in Libya. Syria or Yemen isn't even in the ball-park if you compare the atrocity. One town in Libya, who's name escapes me right now: Hold marches and demonstrations, burn the police HQ and security services HQ. The next evening Gadaffi sends the Military in who seal off the town, the locals confront the soldiers, one soldier is killed before the soldiers down their arms and walk away. That evening the town is bombarded by over 100 missiles, we are talking about randomly bombing the whole town! We're talking a whole different level of crazy here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Cambridge9/gingrich-sarkozy-lead-on-_n_837605_81269619.html

jackiebaron · 03-06-2011 03:50PM

studiorat wrote: »

By support you mean diplomatic ties? There's no mention of any kind of support in the article you've cited. Have you some other evidence of support?

Besides, why shouldn't they have diplomatic relations, it would be a good thing for both Libya and Israel. I mean it's not like Libya has diplomatic ties with the majority of countries it trades with anyway. Libyan's neighbors do as well, Egypt has diplomatic relations with Israel so does Chad. In fact the majority of countries in the region have some sort of trade with and recognize Israel.

When you say so-called rebels I take it you'd rather see Gadaffi stay in power then?
Do you not think they have a right do demand democratic election of their leaders?

Take it whatever way you want, pal! Don't play "black or white" games with me. If I criticize the British Army for slaughtering 14 people on Bloody Sunday are you going to throw the "I suppose you want the IRA to rule the world!!" horsecrap in my face?

ed2hands · 04-06-2011 12:34AM

studiorat wrote: »

In the case of this discussion, I think dragging Iraq into the frame is un-necessary and purely for effect.

Professor Juan Cole provides a straight short list of why the Libyan conflict is not the same as Iraq. http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html

I'll list some of them :

I would have some issue with the accuracy of the second point in terms of actual numbers but I think the thrust of the point remains valid.

I think you (pl) are trying to over simplify the situation by stating that the conflict is a reaction to a hypothetical new currency or a rush to steal oil or even a prevention of other countries such as Russia or China having an interest in the country.

Regarding NATO's intervention on 'humanitarian grounds', I think again the naivety is the in narrowness of the scope in which the term is used. I suspect the NATO intervention, in addition to being humanitarian, includes an element of containment, a policy which the US and NATO has tried to maintain since the early days of the cold war. It's the strategy of using military, economic and diplomatic means enhance security and peace. Whether this is the right approach or not I suspect is what this discussion is centered around, perhaps someone would like to suggest an alternative strategy.

This policy, particularly in this case I suspect is more apt in than the policy adapted by China for instance. Where the US and to a certain extent it's allies trade and invest with countries who they share political likenesses with*; investing in some while sanctioning others. China will happily trade and invest with any country, regardless of the behavior of it's regime. Obviously this raises issues about self determination etc. but given the fact that China happily exchanges arms for oil with every oil production nation on the continent regardless of it's human rights record.** I think the approach of the US/NATO is the lesser of two evils in this case. (Bearing in mind the contradiction of China's occupation in Tibet being, according to them, on 'humanitarian grounds', as was Russia's intervention in Afganistan back in the day.)

Finally, I take issue with the factual accuracy of the "anti-US" argument as it is presented here. Every single article posted in the thread, including the Global Research article has inaccuracies which are used as leverage for their argument. I have attempted to address every argument, if you would like to point out any missed I'd be grateful.

*obvious exceptions being Saudi Arabia etc.

** China - Arms for Oil

Interesting link there on the dissimilarities of Iraq and Libya. I won't bore you with the similarities. I think "dragging" Iraq into this discussion is very valid actually, seeing as we're discussing NATO and it's wars. I mentioned it briefly to make a point.

As for the first bit i highlighted up above.

Dear oh dear. Hilarious. It sounds like a quote from a Council on Foreign Relations policy document or PNAC or something. An element of containment? Thats a new one.

On to the next paragraph. China i agree is a factor in Libya, as i believe US want them the **** out of Africa full stop; starting with Libya. You make some interesting points in between some in Dick Cheney-style doublespeak:
"Where the US and to a certain extent it's allies trade and invest with countries who they share political likenesses with*; investing in some while sanctioning others." (not how i would put it..)
Comparing US/China policy is interesting but pointless. They're both as bad as each other, and the "lesser of 2 evils" point you make i find confusing.

From where i'm standing, it's a civil war; one of many around the world past and present. So why were NATO chomping at the bit to enter this one? The reasons for me are as clear as the nose on my face. Oil. Money. Control.
Mainstream media were very quick to demonise Gadaffi and ignore rebel atrocities at the start of this, echoing as they always do US/UK political sentiment. That was a sign for many commentators that intervention was imminent.
Now you said somewhere above that you think it wasn't in Americas interest to oust the regime, rather let him crush the rebels, your reason being rising oil prices as a result of the conflict would slow economic recovery. Doesn't hold up for me. You also said "whats there to grab, it's been grabbed already". Whats there to grab? How about the NOC? Yes there are foreign companies drilling as you said. The big prize is the oil itself. They want to grab it with both hands (privatise it). And it's not like they have "**** all oil" as you said, it's 2% (or 3 or 4 depending on where you read it) which is double what the US have. Anglo-American oil corporations will make a killing from this mark my words. Will any of future oil profits be invested in Libya or African projects? I doubt it.

wingsof daun · 04-06-2011 02:48AM

studiorat wrote: »

Grabbing what? You make it out like there's no foreign companies in Libya at all. After Bush lifted the sanctions foreign investment came flooding into the country. The 'grabbing' happened years ago.

Practically the whole continent want Gadaffi out, even friggin' Hezbollah want him gone, he's too unstable for the whole area, he's jumped allegiances repeatedly over last 40 years. Not to mention that he's no stranger to installing the odd puppet government around Africa himself. That IMO is the real reason.

Gaddafi was the man that brought stability to Lybia for the past 40 years. Gaddafi has been a real leader in Lybia. The tribes are like gypsies, I guarantee you if Gaddafi is ousted fighting will never end between the different sects and tribes. Western countries have no right to call for his removal from power, or to drop bombs on his people. Just because they can get away with it they will do it. It is as bad as that. America is now fighting wars on three fronts - Iraq, Afghanistan and Lybia. America cannot afford this anymore, yet the mindless senseless wars continue. When Gaddafi is removed, we can be sure another puppet government will be installed there by the American's, one that serves their interests in the region, and not the people of Lybia. A life isn't worth a grain of salt these days...."if we can gain from your suffering, your bloodshed, your death then so be it" seems to be their motto.

Talk E · 04-06-2011 05:53PM

Where is the great NATO humanitarian intervention here ?

((Graphic warning))

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ef8_1307101220 :mad:

ed2hands · 04-06-2011 07:37PM

Talk E wrote: »

Where is the great NATO humanitarian intervention here ?

((Graphic warning))

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ef8_1307101220 :mad:

And studiorat suspects past and present NATO/US policy has "an element of containment"?
Pass me the sick bucket...

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html

studiorat · 07-06-2011 02:12PM

wingsof daun wrote: »

Gaddafi was the man that brought stability to Lybia for the past 40 years....

Stability? Have a look at these link and tell me if you think that's stability?

http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2006/06/28/libya-june-1996-killings-abu-salim-prison

The death sentence for opposing the government, is really your definition of stability?

Talk E wrote: »

Where is the great NATO humanitarian intervention here ?

((Graphic warning))

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ef8_1307101220 :mad:

Good man Talkie, that's Syria in case you didn't notice. So your point is what? NATO is bombing Syria?

Any sign of your Golden Dinars yet?

ed2hands wrote: »

And studiorat suspects past and present NATO/US policy has "an element of containment"?
Pass me the sick bucket...

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html

You quote Osama Bin Laden's favorite author? :pac: No wonder you need a sick bucket. Blums arguments have been trawled out here and rebuffed already, nothing new same old speculation, that link is very short on fact but high on opinion and conjecture. I would have thought you'd have noticed that.

You should post the similarities between Iraq and Libya though, I'd be interested to read them.

ed2hands · 07-06-2011 03:29PM

:)Well studiorat, as the great Lebowski once said,
"Thats just, like, your opinion dude"

You can go ahead and reference some of these inaccuracies or any others in my links in light of your containment theory if you feel the need. But all i see TBH now and before is overt and covert ops, regime change, disaster capitalism. Maybe we should agree to disagree for the moment on past policy as it's getting away from the OP.
Back to Libya, I have to say that i've learned a good deal about it from the threads on the politics forum; even Jonny7 makes some good points there:).
I've even learned a bit from you believe it or not! (Not that it changes my views one iota) But please no more history revision. I'd rather pass a kidney stone than read any more of that drivel:rolleyes:

studiorat · 07-06-2011 04:09PM

Dude, from that last link you posted.

The CIA orchestrated a wide-ranging campaign of sabotage, terrorism, dirty tricks, and psychological warfare against East Germany. This was one of the factors which led to the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961.

Like wtf is that meant to mean? Like not a mention of Stalin, the Berlin Airlift. Talk about selective, biased or what?

Anyway, you're right back on topic :
Seems the Libyan "government" are using children hurt in accidents as statistics in their propaganda war.

The government says that 700 civilians have died in bombing raids, but have offered little evidence to support the claim. The majority of the airstrikes in Tripoli appear to have been so precise that life in the city has carried on largely as normal, with people out on the streets well into the night, when most of the bombing takes place.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/06/libyan-regime-fails-fool-media

studiorat · 07-06-2011 04:15PM

careca11 wrote: »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Cambridge9/gingrich-sarkozy-lead-on-_n_837605_81269619.html

ha,ha ha!!!

Come on for god's sake, that's the comments section in an internet article. That's as bad as quoting from here. :rolleyes:

jackiebaron wrote: »

Take it whatever way you want, pal! Don't play "black or white" games with me. If I criticize the British Army for slaughtering 14 people on Bloody Sunday are you going to throw the "I suppose you want the IRA to rule the world!!" horsecrap in my face?

Well what did you mean by "so called rebels" then?

ed2hands · 07-06-2011 05:27PM

studiorat wrote: »

Dude, from that last link you posted.

Like wtf is that meant to mean? Like not a mention of Stalin, the Berlin Airlift. Talk about selective, biased or what?

Anyway, you're right back on topic :
Seems the Libyan "government" are using children hurt in accidents as statistics in their propaganda war.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/06/libyan-regime-fails-fool-media

It means what it says i presume. The link is selective because of it's bound by it's heading. It's a list, not a potted history.

The guardian article, some would say rings true, but wouldn't like to comment on it at the moment off the bat. There's been plenty of disinfo on both sides i gather. The "planned genocide"? Gadaffis offer to negotiate. Were these issues reported factually? I don't think so from what i hear.
As i said, i found the politics thread very enlightening. It's all going off over there, so we can at this stage only hope these "precision bombings" are different to Afghanistan and Iraq.

The ICC have their work cut out for them again thats for sure, not that it has a good track record of being a proper organisation as everyone knows. Will they prosecute or even investigate the extra-judicial killing of Gadaffis son and 3 grandkids for instance? And will NATO, govt and rebels actions be brought to account on an equal footing? Your thoughts on would be interesting to me as i'm not well up on what constitutes a war crime and what doesn't. Neither is Obama apparently. His peace prize seems a tad ironic now doesn't it considering he is effectively at war in 4 countries simultaneously. There's no point in getting any reliable info from most western news source on this matter or from the nobel laureate himself. I can always tell when he's lying. His lips are moving...

ed2hands · 11-06-2011 12:11AM

Jonny7 wrote: »

Look at the absolute drivel being posted above (from brown_bomber.. what does that tell you?

There are already large threads on the politics boards about Libya, you'd be banned for trolling that type of junk was posted

If you want to go off topic and split hairs, then if you actually read my post you'll see that I spread my news
I don't watch BBC on its own that might be biased, I clearly state that I watch from as many sources as possible
Try to read my post next time

I really believe some people in here need to start getting their news from sources other than angry conspiracy sites. It would also help if they had any interest/knowledge in the subject they were discussing, rather than just trawling the internet and cherrypicking anything that supports their sometimes pre-determined opinion on anything US/UK/Israel related

Read the absolute sheer and utter drivel that brown_bomber has just posted

Heres a line I just made up.. I could write crap like this with random facts, some half-truths, glued together with utter drivel and barely concealed bias and it would be lapped up.. (exaggerated for your benefit)

"as I clutched my bleeding baby I could see the grinning faces of the NATO pilots as they trained their uranium depleted rounds on us once more.. the same rounds that were used by the Americans in 2004 in Fallujah in the hideous lie that was Iraq.. blah.. blah"

jaysus lads

Might be?:pac:

Just reread this:).This post is one of the most pompous pieces of drivel i have read in a long time. And then you have the gall to call McKinneys piece that word? :pac::pac: Just MHO.

BBC? Don't make me laugh. You might as well go straight to Mark Regev and ask him directly. O dear..

Jonny7 · 14-06-2011 02:15PM

ed2hands wrote: »

Might be?:pac:

Just reread this:).This post is one of the most pompous pieces of drivel i have read in a long time. And then you have the gall to call McKinneys piece that word? :pac::pac: Just MHO.

BBC? Don't make me laugh. You might as well go straight to Mark Regev and ask him directly. O dear..

I suggested I use many news sources, I cited BBC news as one of them, Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya would be another, Euronews, Reuters, the Guardian, I even check Fox News from time to time, etc.

What the heck is wrong with that?

If someone has decided that India is pure evil, and can never do anything but evil, and they subsequently trawl the internet for blogs and pieces and editorials that only malign India - then its fairly obvious

ed2hands · 14-06-2011 02:41PM

Fair enough. Just so long as you have your "this is spinned bull****" glasses on when in my example for instance, Regev or whoever gets prime right of reply to some topics which are being broadcast to the many millions of viewers expecting an unbiased appraisal. I mean you can't give out about RT in one breath and deny that most MM is subversive a lot of the time.

Jonny7 · 14-06-2011 04:11PM

ed2hands wrote: »

Fair enough. Just so long as you have your "this is spinned bull****" glasses on when in my example for instance, Regev or whoever gets prime right of reply to some topics which are being broadcast to the many millions of viewers expecting an unbiased appraisal. I mean you can't give out about RT in one breath and deny that most MM is subversive a lot of the time.

I'm a skeptical of the media as I am certain posters here.

However, as viciously right wing and biased a media outlet like Fox news are, they have ten times the credibility of an outlet along the lines of e.g. Syrian state TV. Some posters here cannot distinguish this ... at all.

If something happens in India, people generally don't really have any pre-determined bias and tend to actually look at it with this thing called.. objectivity.

However if something happens related to the US/UK/Israel/NATO, wow.. then, because of 911 and Iraq, Bush, the Neocons, related documentaries, the CIA, the Cold War, etc there is bound to be a large amount of pre-determined bias, an absolute mountain of it actually. Pol Pot may have been the head of a brutal leadership, that doesn't mean every subsequent leadership of Vietnam can be tarred with the same brush.. forever.

Anyway.. unless Gaddafi is on TV slitting the throats of children and puppies, then really and truly there is going to be much of an objective debate about it in here or all places now is there

ed2hands · 15-06-2011 01:33AM

Jonny7 wrote: »

I'm a skeptical of the media as I am certain posters here.

However, as viciously right wing and biased a media outlet like Fox news are, they have ten times the credibility of an outlet along the lines of e.g. Syrian state TV. Some posters here cannot distinguish this ... at all.

If something happens in India, people generally don't really have any pre-determined bias and tend to actually look at it with this thing called.. objectivity.

However if something happens related to the US/UK/Israel/NATO, wow.. then, because of 911 and Iraq, Bush, the Neocons, related documentaries, the CIA, the Cold War, etc there is bound to be a large amount of pre-determined bias, an absolute mountain of it actually. Pol Pot may have been the head of a brutal leadership, that doesn't mean every subsequent leadership of Vietnam can be tarred with the same brush.. forever.

Anyway.. unless Gaddafi is on TV slitting the throats of children and puppies, then really and truly there is going to be much of an objective debate about it in here or all places now is there

The bit highlighted. Not to nitpick for the sake of it, and you made some good points on politics thread, but the pre-determined bias is based on cold hard facts. US/UK/Isreal/Nato are still more or less the same under Obama/Cameron/Netanyahu etc as under Bush and co. So the bias or pre-determined opinion is valid as such.
In your analagy of Pol Pot and subsequent leadership of Vietnam (though i think you mean Cambodia), it's different because that subsequent leadership didn't continue in the same vein. Hope that makes sense.

Brown Bomber · 15-06-2011 01:41AM

Jonny7 wrote: »

they have ten times the credibility of an outlet along the lines of e.g. Syrian state TV.

Do you speak Arabic?

The Real Reason for NATO Attacking Libya ?

Comments