The Real Reason for NATO Attacking Libya ?

digme

Jonny7 wrote: »

You forgot to add ".. according to Libyan state TV", over in Syria, Assad calls the protesters "terrorist groups", in Egypt Mubarak called it a zionist-Western plot (amongst many things).

One poster actually tried to put forward this "theory" on the politics forum but wouldn't give a shred of credible evidence, eventually he was just kicked for trolling.

Its just a line from Libyan state TV, who also claimed that the protesters were under the influence of hallucinatory drugs, or which 37 billion were ceased in one of the ports.

NATO's top operations commander, Admiral James Stavridis, said in Washington on Tuesday that intelligence on the rebels had shown "flickers" of al Qaeda or Hezbollah presence but there was still no detailed picture of the emerging opposition.

........

ed2hands

Jonny7 wrote: »

You forgot to add ".. according to Libyan state TV", over in Syria, Assad calls the protesters "terrorist groups", in Egypt Mubarak called it a zionist-Western plot (amongst many things).

One poster actually tried to put forward this "theory" on the politics forum but wouldn't give a shred of credible evidence, eventually he was just kicked for trolling.

Its just a line from Libyan state TV, who also claimed that the protesters were under the influence of hallucinatory drugs, or which 37 billion were ceased in one of the ports.

Jonny7 your instant dismissal of anything except your precious "credible sources" is frankly laughable.
You are obviously trying to associate sources like RT etc with Syrian and Libyan state TV as a means of denigrating all opinions on here except what comes out of your "non-biased" mind. At least you attempted to break down Pilgers article a bit compared to some other lazy criticisms. Your opinions though (pro-NATO, in favour of regime change in Libya) stink of the BBC/Fox standpoint you are so desperately trying to distance yourself from.

You dress yourself up as seeing everything from a more "credible" angle than other posters here, but you are just as biased as anyone from where i'm standing.

And you keep referring to your high-and-mighty politics forum, insinuating that your discussions there are with more reasonable-thinking people or something. Well, the last time i looked Cyberhog is calling you out on a few things there too, including your ridiculous comparison of Gadaffi with Hitler. So when you keep going about credibility and bias, it doesn't fit with your own viewpoint to say the least.

Jonny7

ed2hands wrote: »

Jonny7 your instant dismissal of anything except your precious "credible sources" is frankly laughable.
You are obviously trying to associate sources like RT etc with Syrian and Libyan state TV as a means of denigrating all opinions on here except what comes out of your "non-biased" mind. At least you attempted to break down Pilgers article a bit compared to some other lazy criticisms. Your opinions though (pro-NATO, in favour of regime change in Libya) stink of the BBC/Fox standpoint you are so desperately trying to distance yourself from.

You dress yourself up as seeing everything from a more "credible" angle than other posters here, but you are just as biased as anyone from where i'm standing.

And you keep referring to your high-and-mighty politics forum, insinuating that your discussions there are with more reasonable-thinking people or something. Well, the last time i looked Cyberhog is calling you out on a few things there too, including your ridiculous comparison of Gadaffi with Hitler. So when you keep going about credibility and bias, it doesn't fit with your own viewpoint to say the least.

Strange viewpoint

Whats the point of getting in depth in any debate here when certain posters will just attack you?, when certain posters won't debate the actual subject at hand?, they'll just post gigantic long cut and paste articles from god knows where, when they are clearly angry with whatever country, e.g. Israel, and to top it when they don't fundamentally understand the use of credible evidence.

Its like being attacked by a swarm of angry bees! easy there fellas - you need some counterpoints in your lives, instead of sitting here like a knitting circle all agreeing with each other - I feel like I am poking a stick in a hornets nest..

Anyway.. lets analyse this..

NATO's top operations commander, Admiral James Stavridis, said in Washington on Tuesday that intelligence on the rebels had shown "flickers" of al Qaeda or Hezbollah presence but there was still no detailed picture of the emerging opposition.

Is this the same NATO commander who thought the rebels had no tanks after I'd seen them driving tanks on TV? NATO are bureaucratic morons in my mind. However since I am strongly for intervention in Libya, certain posters seem, or would like to think I am very "pro-NATO".

A decent number of "insurgents" killed or captured in Iraq came from Libya, specially a certain region, a certain town - Darnah. When reporters traveled there earlier in the conflict, they didn't really hide this fact - I mean these people aren't exactly sympathetic to the West or the US, they'll go and fight the crusaders - but on the other hand they aren't technically Al Qaeda either because they themselves claim they don't subscribe to that philosophy.

Actually here is a good report
http://gregoryfegel.sulekha.com/blog/post/2011/03/cia-s-strategy-of-tension-libyan-rebels-linked-to.htm

The problem is that one poster took this and Libyan state TV's to the extreme claiming that the entire protests were somehow organised by Al Qaeda and that Al Qaeda had jets and yadda yadda. I presume that since I am on the CT board we are going to quickly head in that direction.. please tell me I'm wrong

Is this the Hitler comparison you were referring to?

It doesn't matter if the nazis have the concentration camps set up, nor if they are full of Jews, nor if the gas chambers are built and operational, nor if Hitler himself says he's going to use them, these people are so "skeptical" they want to see videos of the Jews actually being gassed before they deem is necessary to intervene (to protect the people.. who are already dead)

More an analogy on intervention I would think

Jackie Brown - ctrl-c, ctrl-v .. activate!

digme

The same terrorists who killed US, NATO Troops in Iraq are rebels because the CNN anchor told you?
They're al-Qaeda when it suits people.And for you to support the Libyan invasion is beyond comprehension.

Jonny7

digme wrote: »

The same terrorists who killed US, NATO Troops in Iraq are rebels because the CNN anchor told you?
They're al-Qaeda when it suits people.And for you to support the Libyan invasion is beyond comprehension.

Where did I mention a CNN anchor? strange presumption.

Many local and foreign fighters went to Iraq to specifically fight US/coalition soldiers - initially, around 2003 to roughly 2005/06 it was mainly guerrilla style warfare, as you'll remember there were a lot of military casualties.

However as it dragged on, targeting of civilians, beheadings, etc became a lot more common as more extreme elements filled the void. It became even nastier during the sectarian strife between Sunni and Shiite (which was also fermented by outside forces).. eventually many Sunni groups became so incensed they joined forces with the US to actually root out Al Qaeda in those areas.

The "rebels" in Libya are made up of literally - a mix of everybody, ex military who defected, all professions, civilians, and inevitably some extremist elements.

However Gaddafi is claiming that the rebels are purely Al Qaeda, which is completely wrong

There's plenty of videos of the rebels, its not hard to see for yourself
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCyRBUAEneM

Plenty of non-Western media sites back this up repeatedly.

Yup, I strongly support intervention in Libya, and also in Ivory coast (where Gbagbo was threatening a return to hideous civil war because he refused to ceed power)

I did not support intervention in Afghanistan (revenge mission) or Iraq (strategy, resource war), nor would I support intervention in Syria or Yemen, nor obviously Iran.

I would much prefer if the US/UK/France were not involved in any intervention as they often have ulterior motives

jackiebaron

The attack on Libya is no different to the attack on Iraq. It about resources and nothing more. Mind you I have also maintained that another reason was to sweep Gadaffi out of the way of the African Union (which would then be used as a continent-wide tool to plunder every country there. I would have posted this article but it's rather long so I'll just leave the link:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28365.htm

Jonny7

jackiebaron wrote: »

The attack on Libya is no different to the attack on Iraq. It about resources and nothing more. Mind you I have also maintained that another reason was to sweep Gadaffi out of the way of the African Union (which would then be used as a continent-wide tool to plunder every country there. I would have posted this article but it's rather long so I'll just leave the link:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28365.htm

The attack on Libya is quite different in many respects than the attack on Iraq.

It was passed and sanctioned by the UN (like the Ivory coast)
It wasn't preemptive it was reactive
It wasn't unilateral
It wasn't based on one or more fundamental lies
US companies, as far as I know, didn't win a single oil contract with Iraq after
US companies already had contracts with Libya, as well as Italy, France, etc
Action in Iraq was hugely unpopular with massive protests taking place all over the world
Theres just too many differences really

Personally, I feel that certain people are much more outraged and frustrated by US hypocrisy than by dictators oppressing, torturing and murdering their own people.

ed2hands

Jonny7 wrote: »

The attack on Libya is quite different in many respects than the attack on Iraq.

It was passed and sanctioned by the UN (like the Ivory coast)
It wasn't preemptive it was reactive
It wasn't unilateral
It wasn't based on one or more fundamental lies
US companies, as far as I know, didn't win a single oil contract with Iraq after
US companies already had contracts with Libya, as well as Italy, France, etc
Action in Iraq was hugely unpopular with massive protests taking place all over the world
Theres just too many differences really

Personally, I feel that certain people are much more outraged and frustrated by US hypocrisy than by dictators oppressing, torturing and murdering their own people.

Too many differences? Would disagree there. Too many similarities for me.

They're bombing (with possible ground troops to come) a country with the express purpose of regime change with questionable UN backing. (Did UN sanction a direct attempt to kill Gadaffi? Or bomb suburban Tripoli?)

Intervention was based on Gaddafi's famous "cockroaches" speech and trumped up to infer it meant he was about to commit genocide, which is complete bull****. So based on a lie/exagerration more or less IMO.

Anglo American oil companies stand to make billions in future if regime is changed and US get their required goal of an administration that does what it's told.

Their geo-political strategy of control of politics, wealth and resources (including Libya's lucrative water aquafer project) in the region is enhanced and strengthened, allowing corporate profits to flow more freely.

After the dust settles, the National Oil Corporation will be privatised, health and education etc reduced, and the country's assets stripped or sold to the some of the greedy bastards that made a killing in Iraq. It's called disaster capitalism. Bomb the **** out of a country and then make a fortune in contracts to re-build it.

Action in Libya is already very unpopular, just like Iraq.

Jonny7

ed2hands wrote: »

Too many differences? Would disagree there. Too many similarities for me.

They're bombing (with possible ground troops to come) a country with the express purpose of regime change with questionable UN backing. (Did UN sanction a direct attempt to kill Gadaffi? Or bomb suburban Tripoli?)

The UN sanctioned use of force to protect civilians.. how do antiaircraft batteries directly threaten civilians? they don't, yet they have to be taken out. Thats fair enough.

Attacking one of Gaddafi's compounds is in the eyes of a military nerd is good for psychological pressure to force him to go, but its too risky, looks too much like a decap strike even if its a "command and control" structure. This has been raised many times in TV debates, remains a questionable issue. The mandate is to protect the civilians, the "general will" amongst most world leaders is to pressure Gaddafi out of power. Its looking more and more like a stalemate, few predicted he would be this stubborn.

Intervention was based on Gaddafi's famous "cockroaches" speech and trumped up to infer it meant he was about to commit genocide, which is complete bull****. So based on a lie/exagerration more or less IMO.

Intervention was based on Gaddafi's actions against his own people as well as his threats. When Mubarak ordered the military to shoot on his own people, they didn't comply, those who didn't comply with Gaddafi were shot or burnt. The damage Gaddafi was doing to his own countrymen was absolutely horrific.

Anglo American oil companies stand to make billions in future if regime is changed and US get their required goal of an administration that does what it's told.

Like I said about Iraq and they didn't.

Their geo-political strategy of control of politics, wealth and resources (including Libya's lucrative water aquafer project) in the region is enhanced and strengthened, allowing corporate profits to flow more freely.

This is just pure speculation. Its like saying they went into Ivory coast to do "more" chocolate business, that they were already doing? makes no sense in the real world.

After the dust settles, the National Oil Corporation will be privatised, health and education etc reduced, and the country's assets stripped or sold to the some of the greedy bastards that made a killing in Iraq. It's called disaster capitalism. Bomb the **** out of a country and then make a fortune in contracts to re-build it.

I have no disagreement that that happened in Iraq. I am saying Libya is different, I see no one saying the same thing about Ivory coast.

Action in Libya is already very unpopular, just like Iraq.

Are you kidding me? over a million people marched through London, nearly 100k in Ireland I believe, marches all over the world took place before Iraq..

So far the only protests I've seen about Libya were the foreign Libyans protesting FOR action outside their embassies.

ed2hands

Michel Collon’s 5 Principles of War Propaganda:

1. Obscure one’s economic interests
2. Appear humanitarian in work and motivations
3. Obscure history
4. Demonise the enemy
5. Monopolise the flow of information

jackiebaron

Jonny7 wrote: »

The attack on Libya is quite different in many respects than the attack on Iraq.

It was passed and sanctioned by the UN (like the Ivory coast)
It wasn't preemptive it was reactive
It wasn't unilateral
It wasn't based on one or more fundamental lies
US companies, as far as I know, didn't win a single oil contract with Iraq after
US companies already had contracts with Libya, as well as Italy, France, etc
Action in Iraq was hugely unpopular with massive protests taking place all over the world
Theres just too many differences really

Personally, I feel that certain people are much more outraged and frustrated by US hypocrisy than by dictators oppressing, torturing and murdering their own people.

Jonny....you can scribble what you want. The attack on Libya is illegal and nothing you can say will rectify that. Now you can spit out excuses and wrap rationalisations around whatever you think you must in order to fight your corner but the fact remains that the military attack on Libya is in contravention to the statutes of the UN Charter that has been heretofore signed by every single government who's dropping bombs on a sovereign state.

Now if you want to go ahead and say some crap like "Yeah, well this is different" or "These are exigent circumstances", then go ahead.

Jonny7

jackiebaron wrote: »

Jonny....you can scribble what you want. The attack on Libya is illegal and nothing you can say will rectify that. Now you can spit out excuses and wrap rationalisations around whatever you think you must in order to fight your corner but the fact remains that the military attack on Libya is in contravention to the statutes of the UN Charter that has been heretofore signed by every single government who's dropping bombs on a sovereign state.

Now if you want to go ahead and say some crap like "Yeah, well this is different" or "These are exigent circumstances", then go ahead.

Is there something in the statutes of the UN charter that doesn't allow them to sanction the use of force?

WakeUp

Jonny7 wrote: »

Is there something in the statutes of the UN charter that doesn't allow them to sanction the use of force?

They sanction the use of force when it suits certain countries within the UN - to sanction the use of force. I fail to see what part of this you dont understand. Countries have self-interests. They go to the UN to get their military action "Ok'd". The UN backs it and off they go. Is quite simple really. They can have all the rules,regulations and statues they want but when you break down it boils down to the selfish self interests of certain countries and nothing to do with protecting people or champion human rights.

Jonny7

the military attack on Libya is in contravention to the statutes of the UN Charter that has been heretofore signed by every single government who's dropping bombs on a sovereign state

Wakeup, I am just trying to know what part it contravenes, a legal loophole or something?

studiorat

jackiebaron wrote: »

How come there was no dissent in the capital, Tripoli?
When uprisings are actually authentic they usually manifest themselves in the capital.

jackiebaron wrote: »

Now if you want to go ahead and say some crap like "Yeah, well this is different" or "These are exigent circumstances", then go ahead.

It seems that Jackie and others are unwilling to take each situation on it's own particular circumstances; to use a pluralistic approach. We've seen that although not knowing the particular ins and outs of the situation (s)he seems to take it as a opportunity to use the senario to bash America regardless of their adversary. For example to the extent that the "opponents" are willing to attempt to disregard the Libyan government firing on it's own people in Tripoli, in order to fabricate a case for their argument.

Typical of the mindset that : "My enemies enemy is my friend" regardless of what is actually happening and who one ends up seeming to support by conforming to this mindset. Basically, forming an opinion on personal bias before any analysis has taken place.

WakeUp

Jonny7 wrote: »

Wakeup, I am just trying to know what part it contravenes, a legal loophole or something?

Fair enough:)

Jonny7

studiorat wrote: »

It seems that Jackie and others are unwilling to take each situation on it's own particular circumstances; to use a pluralistic approach. We've seen that although not knowing the particular ins and outs of the situation (s)he seems to take it as a opportunity to use the senario to bash America regardless of their adversary. For example to the extent that the "opponents" are willing to attempt to disregard the Libyan government firing on it's own people in Tripoli, in order to fabricate a case for their argument.

Typical of the mindset that : "My enemies enemy is my friend" regardless of what is actually happening and who one ends up seeming to support by conforming to this mindset. Basically, forming an opinion on personal bias before any analysis has taken place.

I don't like the selective post-distortion of facts. In the case of Libya, Gaddafi was having his own people killed, yet when the UN/US got involved, some people decide that fact doesn't suit their argument so they just change it or flat out deny it.

The alternative is that the US government is somehow paying Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, etc to, I dunno, dig up corpses, cover them in blood, put them on the streets of Tripoli, fabricate live reports, and so on and so forth

jackiebaron

Jonny7 wrote: »

I don't like the selective post-distortion of facts. In the case of Libya, Gaddafi was having his own people killed, yet when the UN/US got involved, some people decide that fact doesn't suit their argument so they just change it or flat out deny it.

The alternative is that the US government is somehow paying Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, etc to, I dunno, dig up corpses, cover them in blood, put them on the streets of Tripoli, fabricate live reports, and so on and so forth

You say that Gadaffi was massacring his own people. That just doesn't wash. It's a complete fabrication. Essentially when rumours abound in the Western media about atrrocities committed (by someone the West wants to topple), I just don't believe them for a second. And as regards the US.....well I just don't believe a single word that comes out of their mouths.

Those Libyan Atrocities: Do They Really Stand Up?

By Patrick Cockburn

June 20, 2011 "The Independent" -- In war, accounts of atrocities need to be treated with scepticism. Surveying a battlefield where he had once fought, the great Confederate general Stonewall Jackson turned to an aide and asked: "Did you ever think, sir, what an opportunity a battlefield affords liars?"
He meant that in war people, motivated by fear, self-interest or a simple desire to make sense of a confusing and terrifying situation, make things up. And in the midst of a fast-moving conflict it is more than usually difficult to prove them wrong.
In the first Gulf conflict of 1990-91 two notorious pieces of propaganda and disinformation greatly helped to rally support for the war by seeming to demonstrate the savagery and duplicity of the Iraqi government. The first was the appearance of a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl before a US congressional committee to testify how, as a volunteer hospital nurse, she had seen Iraqi soldiers tip babies out of incubators and leave them to die on the floor. Her account was greeted with outrage until some time later, it was revealed that the girl was the well-coached daughter of Kuwait's ambassador in Washington who had never left the US during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. [CounterPunch coeditor Alexander Cockburn was the first to question the incubator story, because of obvious fabrications about the hospital and conduct of the supposed massacre. Editors.]
The second story took place a few months later, during the bombing and missile strikes on Baghdad. CNN's Peter Arnett reported that the US had destroyed a baby milk factory on the western outskirts of Baghdad, while the Pentagon furiously maintained the facility was making biological weapons. I visited the ruins of the plant on the same day as Arnett and I remember reading through letters about the baby milk business I found in smashed up desks in the factory office. Many were about abortive efforts to save the factory from bankruptcy, convincing evidence that the Iraqi authorities could scarcely have concocted overnight.
Governments have not become any more truthful in the 20 years between the war in Iraq in 1991 and in Libya in 2011. The story that most compellingly illustrates the evil nature of Muammar Gaddafi today is the allegation that he ordered his troops to rape women who oppose him and his acquisition of Viagra-type medicines to encourage them to do so. This tale had been around for some time, but gained credibility when the International Criminal Court's prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, said he had evidence that the Libyan leader had personally ordered mass rape. This week the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said she was "deeply concerned" by reports Gaddafi's troops were engaged in widespread rape as a weapon of war.
No doubt individual rapes have occurred. Most famously, Iman al-Obeidi burst into a foreign journalists' hotel in Tripoli on 26 March and gave a credible account of how she had been raped by pro-Gaddafi security men, before she was hustled away. But, despite the ICC allegations, so far Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have not found evidence of such mass government-ordered rape despite extensive investigations. Diana Eltahawy, Amnesty International's Libya expert, told me that Amnesty researchers in Libya had found no evidence of such a policy.
Could women be keeping quiet about what had happened to them for reasons of shame or fear of being killed to preserve "family honour"? Ms Eltahawy says: "We spoke to women, without anybody else there, all across Libya, including Misrata and on the Tunisia-Libya border. None of them knew of anybody who had been raped. We also spoke to many doctors and psychologists with the same result." Liesel Gerntholtz, head of women's rights at Human Rights Watch, which has also been investigating the charges of mass rape, says: "We have not been able to find evidence. We have not been able to verify it." She emphasized that her group's researches were ongoing.
The one substantive piece of evidence for mass rape came last month in the form of a survey by Dr Seham Sergewa, a child psychologist who had been working with children traumatized by the fighting. She distributed 70,000 questionnaires to Libyans in refugee camps and received 59,000 responses.
She says: "We found 10,000 people with PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder], 4,000 children suffering psychological problems and 259 raped women." They said they had been raped by Gaddafi's militiamen, sometimes in front of their families. Dr Sergewa says she interviewed 140 women who had been raped. But, says Ms Eltahawy, when asked if Amnesty International could meet any of them, Dr Sergewa said "she had lost touch with them and she was the only one who said she was directly in touch with victims". Given Amnest Inernational’s declaration that it had been unable to find evidence of mass rapes, it seems the organization does not regard Dr Sergewa’s researches as reliable.
Some captured pro-Gaddafi soldiers, claiming they knew about the rapes as an official policy, have appeared on TV. But Amnesty found that when an Arabic-speaking investigator visited detention facilities without an official minder in the room they did not repeat the allegation.
As in Iraq, journalists have been over-credulous and Western governments self-serving in pumping out atrocity stories about the Libyan government regardless of whether or not there is any evidence for them. Another story from Libya, universally believed by the rebels, is that many of the fighters in the pro-Gaddafi units are mercenaries from central or west Africa. Ms Eltahawy says Amnesty has found no evidence for this. The only massacre by the Gaddafi regime, involving hundreds of victims, which is so far well-attested is the killings at Abu Salim prison in Tripoli in 1996, when up to 1,200 prisoners died, according to a credible witness who survived.
Battlefronts are always awash with rumours of impending massacre or rape which spread rapidly among terrified people who may be the intended victims. Understandably enough, they do not want to wait around to find out how true these stories are. I was in Ajdabiyah, a front-line town an hour and a half's drive south of Benghazi, earlier this year when I saw car loads of panic-stricken refugees fleeing up the road. They had just heard an entirely untrue report via al-Jazeera Arabic that pro-Gaddafi forces had broken through.
Likewise al-Jazeera was producing uncorroborated reports of hospitals being attacked, blood banks destroyed, women raped and the injured executed.
The verification of atrocities matters so much because if people are to try to have them stopped they must be sure that what they are told is true and not propaganda. One toxic impact of the anti-German lies told by First World War propagandists was that when, 20 years later, the Nazis did embark on mass slaughter, the evidence of their crimes was at first treated with extreme scepticism.

ed2hands

Jonny7 wrote: »

I don't like the selective post-distortion of facts. In the case of Libya, Gaddafi was having his own people killed, yet when the UN/US got involved, some people decide that fact doesn't suit their argument so they just change it or flat out deny it.

The alternative is that the US government is somehow paying Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, etc to, I dunno, dig up corpses, cover them in blood, put them on the streets of Tripoli, fabricate live reports, and so on and so forth

In fairness Jonny, none of us dispute the fact that Gadaffi is killing or that some sort of action (other than bombing) was necessary; at least i don't. It's one thing to say that but it's completely another that it was, in many peoples eyes (and this is of course subjective analysis), exaggerated to imply he was about to commit genocide. I take studiorats point fully in that the intervention and it's reasons should be taken on it's own merits. It's also valid though to reference NATO's appaling past record in relation to interventions/invasions. I'm not a Gaddafi apologist, but am still against the intervention in it's current form.

Jonny7

ed2hands wrote: »

In fairness Jonny, none of us dispute the fact that Gadaffi is killing or that some sort of action (other than bombing) was necessary; at least i don't. It's one thing to say that but it's completely another that it was, in many peoples eyes (and this is of course subjective analysis), exaggerated to imply he was about to commit genocide. I take studiorats point fully in that the intervention and it's reasons should be taken on it's own merits. It's also valid though to reference NATO's appaling past record in relation to interventions/invasions. I'm not a Gaddafi apologist, but am still against the intervention in it's current form.

The guy above is almost completely and utterly denying it.

studiorat

Jonny7 wrote: »

The guy above is almost completely and utterly denying it.

ctrl > c
ctrl > v

"my enemies enemy is my friend"

ctrl > c
ctrl > v

"my enemies enemy is my friend"

ad nauseum...

ed2hands

studiorat wrote: »

ctrl > c
ctrl > v

"my enemies enemy is my friend"

ctrl > c
ctrl > v

"my enemies enemy is my friend"

ad nauseum...

As nauseum? Nah. Spot on. Jackie speaks very eloquently IMO when he wants to. As you can when you're not spouting awful muck.

jackiebaron

ed2hands wrote: »

In fairness Jonny, none of us dispute the fact that Gadaffi is killing or that some sort of action (other than bombing) was necessary; at least i don't. It's one thing to say that but it's completely another that it was, in many peoples eyes (and this is of course subjective analysis), exaggerated to imply he was about to commit genocide. I take studiorats point fully in that the intervention and it's reasons should be taken on it's own merits. It's also valid though to reference NATO's appaling past record in relation to interventions/invasions. I'm not a Gaddafi apologist, but am still against the intervention in it's current form.

Actually, ed2, I dispute the "fact" that Gadaffi is bombing. In fact, I dispute it most vehemently.....and I'm not going to come out and say that "I'm not a Gadaffi apologist or sympathiser"...... I don't believe that Gadaffi is slaughtering his countrymen any more than I believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. Provide me with hard evidence of these "massacres" and I might listen but until then it's just bullshït.

jackiebaron

studiorat wrote: »

ctrl > c
ctrl > v

"my enemies enemy is my friend"

ctrl > c
ctrl > v

"my enemies enemy is my friend"

ad nauseum...

What's that supposed to mean?

"ad nauseum"......are you the only person being sickened? Because it would appear that such verbiage is only vomited when an argument doesn't go your way.

jackiebaron

Jonny7 wrote: »

The guy above is almost completely and utterly denying it.

Denying what? I haven't "denied" a thing. What I have done, however, is actually DOUBT.

You know 'doubt'.....that little freedom you were born with and will die with? I don't believe....BELIEVE .... the story I'm told about Libya.

Now....you...being in the know, should have no problem convincing me. If my "doubt" is so unfounded to the point of insanity, then you should find it quite easy to convince me......no?

Let's hear your convincing argument.

ed2hands

Yup. Was wrong to imply there was govt ariel bombing if i said that somewhere in the thread. Meant to say ground ordinance. Possibly it came up after the Pilger article you put up. The no-fly-zone was good insurance though IMO and of course peace talks were sneered at by the good people in Washington (and Lockheed Martin etc etc)

That no-fly-zone seems a distant memory now doesn't it? The whole genocide spin was a stitch-up obviously.

jackiebaron

ed2hands wrote: »

Yup. Was wrong to imply there was govt ariel bombing if i said that somewhere in the thread. Meant to say ground ordinance. Possibly it came up after the Pilger article you put up. The no-fly-zone was good insurance though IMO and of course peace talks were sneered at by the good people in Washinton (and Lockeed Martin etc etc)

That no-fly-zone seems a distant memory now doesn't it? The whole genocide spin was a stitch-up obviously.

The likes of studiorat and jonny have never been to Iraq or Libya or Gaza or Afghanistan and they've NEVER actually spoken to a man or a woman there. They've never even contemplated such a thing. They've never even considered a woman in Egypt or Iran or Syria tearing up with joy as she looks at a gurgling little baby and all she wants to do is shag her man and have another....much the same as women in the "west" do.
It doesn't cross their minds that this woman (or man...or baby) might just wish to live in safety for the rest of their lives.....even if that means in a one room box in Tehran or Kabul or Cairo.

People like studiorat would scoff at their suffering and their miserable deaths purely to put forward an imbecilic argument and would never have the onions to question why a few simple people got blown to atoms by a fücking US drone.

Little nobodys get blasted to mincemeat everyday by US assholes but if you mention it you get some crap like "well if it wasn't for the Americans you'd be speaking German right now!" or some other highly intelligent comment

And that's called "patriotism".

jackiebaron

Ah yeah...sure, feckit
Sure, we'll stop ye gettin raped by killing ye?
deal?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28380.htm

studiorat

Awful woman for the conclusions Jackie. The point is there's people dying on both sides of the fence. But because you're so caught up with your "moral outrage" at everything the US or NATO do, you don't notice, you only question one side.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/04/15/libya-cluster-munitions-strike-misrata

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/04/17/libya-indiscriminate-attacks-kill-civilians

jackiebaron wrote: »

It doesn't cross their minds that this woman (or man...or baby) might just wish to live in safety for the rest of their lives.....even if that means in a one room box in Tehran or Kabul or Cairo.

This moral superiority is laughable now, the people you are talking about don't live in mud huts Jackie. You're starting to sound like a victorian missionary at this stage.

Jonny7

jackiebaron wrote: »

Ah yeah...sure, feckit
Sure, we'll stop ye gettin raped by killing ye?
deal?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28380.htm

Why do you only seem to get your information from that one source?

Every single story/article/editorial on the front page is vehemently anti-US (actually there's one about Iceland)

Do you think that site is biased at all?