Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

The Real Reason for NATO Attacking Libya ?

145791025

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    studiorat wrote: »
    So why are the Arab League and the UN supporting imperialism.

    The Arab league were rightly horrified by the initial violence. As we all were, Arabs and the rest of us alike. I think both organisations have been duped by propaganda and misinformation into believing that some sort of genocide was about to happen, and as a result, were pressurised into their current position.
    Let's be clear. He never said anything of the sort. He threatened the insurrectors and no-one else, as you do in a civil war. His language and rhetoric is well known for many years as being like this.

    How did the no-fly-zone morph into bombing suburban Tripoli?

    Gadaffi's attempts at a peaceful conclusion have been given virtually zero credence or time.
    He is disliked by many Arabs for good reason. The US/Nato are DESPISED by the same people of course for very good reason so it's complex to say the least. You have a very good handle on all this i know so it's confusing to me why you're arguing this case for this sort of intervention so vehemently.
    studiorat wrote: »
    Why did China and Russia not veto the UN resolutions if it's imperialism?

    More subjective analysis on my behalf now, but China and Russia had no choice but to sit on their hands as their "credibility" in the eyes of the watching world (yea i know, it's preposterous, China? what credibility?) was at stake. Any veto would have been seen as going against the world zeitgeist at the time. Sometimes you have to let it roll and they did just that. At least Russia is now rightly vocally questioning all this.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 32 Ronaldo*


    Perhaps he's just a bit of dictator and does not like interference..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    ed2hands wrote: »
    Let's be clear. He never said anything of the sort. He threatened the insurrectors and no-one else, as you do in a civil war. His language and rhetoric is well known for many years as being like this.

    And the actions as well. Protestors have been shot on numerous occasions, it isn't a precedent.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    Gadaffi's attempts at a peaceful conclusion have been given virtually zero credence or time.

    They declared a ceasefire and then drove tanks into Benghazi!!!
    ed2hands wrote: »
    ...it's confusing to me why you're arguing this case for this sort of intervention so vehemently.

    I'm arguing the case that the intervention is not of any of the reasons suggested this far. Including oil, Magic Dinars, nationalization of Oil Companies etc.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    The oil argument doesn't make sense when the oil was freely flowing under Gadaffi

    The oil was freely flowing but it wasn't under Western control. Gadaffi has the final say where the revenues go......much like that other "bogeyman" Chavez who flogs his oil to the US (even donates some of it) yet takes the proceeds and spends it on his people instead of sitting in an ivory tower while Chevron pays him handsomely to keep his gob shut. How dastardly of him. How DARE he!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    The oil was freely flowing but it wasn't under Western control. Gadaffi has the final say where the revenues go......much like that other "bogeyman" Chavez who flogs his oil to the US (even donates some of it) yet takes the proceeds and spends it on his people instead of sitting in an ivory tower while Chevron pays him handsomely to keep his gob shut. How dastardly of him. How DARE he!


    F#ckin oath. Listen to this man.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    studiorat wrote: »
    A certain amount of hypocrisy perhaps. But it was the Arab league who first decided to declare a no fly zone, not NATO. Then backed by the UN, not NATO.
    NATO were the last to decide to intervene.

    So if what you suggest has any truth in it, why are the Arab League and the UN supporting imperialism? Why did China and Russia not veto the UN resolutions if it's imperialism?

    Look at what it's costing China, you think they will take a hit like that for an imperialist land grab?

    You say the US controls NATO foreign policy. Then how come the Iraq war nearly split NATO up? Freedom Fries anyone?

    FYI, the MAJORITY of the ARAB LEAGUE states OPPOSED the No Fly Zone. In fact I believe only 9 came out in favour. The rest either abstained (knowing that rejection would cause them further misery down the line at the hands of NATO or they never bothered to show up and vote). So for you to say that it was sanctioned by the Arab League is a farce.

    Not only that....but you seem to be under the illusion that this UN sanctioned "no-fly-zone" actually legalised ATTACKS on Libya....it didn't. Now you'll probably bandy about the cheap Washington term like "use all necessary measures" to ensure civilian safety which has ZERO credibility. Might as well say "we can use all necessary measures to keep ourselves safe" ...... which effectively could involve torching an orphanage because you're cold.

    I don't know why you play so fast and loose with the law. Maybe you'll start a campaign to have international law overhauled so that you can interpret it any way you want. But until then, don't pretend to respect it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    The oil was freely flowing but it wasn't under Western control.

    What do you mean by Oil under Western control? OPEC determines the prices and quotas.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    studiorat wrote: »
    A certain amount of hypocrisy perhaps. But it was the Arab league who first decided to declare a no fly zone, not NATO. Then backed by the UN, not NATO.
    NATO were the last to decide to intervene.

    So if what you suggest has any truth in it, why are the Arab League and the UN supporting imperialism? Why did China and Russia not veto the UN resolutions if it's imperialism?

    Look at what it's costing China, you think they will take a hit like that for an imperialist land grab?

    You say the US controls NATO foreign policy. Then how come the Iraq war nearly split NATO up? Freedom Fries anyone?

    WRONG. LIES!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    studiorat wrote: »
    And the actions as well. Protestors have been shot on numerous occasions, it isn't a precedent.



    They declared a ceasefire and then drove tanks into Benghazi!!!



    I'm arguing the case that the intervention is not of any of the reasons suggested this far. Including oil, Magic Dinars, nationalization of Oil Companies etc.

    But it is to squander billions on killing people you purport to want to save! Right? It is to topple a wicked dictator that could have been offed by a few trigger-men....maybe the same mythical bunch who whacked Bin Laden? If a mentally-challenged Nigerian can get on a plane from Africa to Amsterdam to Chicago with a bomb in his fücking boxers shorts then I would imagine that a HALF TRILLION dollar budget should be able to get a sniper close enough to Gadaffi to clip him without the need for F-16s dumping payloads on Tripoli marketplaces. Get real!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    studiorat wrote: »
    What do you mean by Oil under Western control? OPEC determines the prices and quotas.

    Oh for FÜCK'S SAKE!!!!,

    Has it ever occurred to you that the OPEC cartel has been in the crosshairs of Washington since the 1970's oil "crisis". Why isn't Norway or Brazil in OPEC? In fact why isn't Canada in OPEC? Aren't they the biggest single suppliers of oil to the US.

    Take a look at the list of OPEC countries. You have one or two African banana states and then 3 or 4 who don't want to be slaves to Washington, i.e. Libya, Iraq, Iran, VENEZUELA......and you can't see a pattern....and the rest are DICTATORSHIPS!

    Well spotted, Sparky.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Oh for FÜCK'S SAKE!!!!,
    WRONG. LIES!

    You might need to take a few deep breaths there and chill out a bit Jackie, you'll do yourself a mischief. I reckon you are making this stuff up due to your pre decision on the issues. it's been pretty obvious from the outset really. Fantasy :rolleyes:
    Canada and Norway not being in OPEC is irrelevant and simply distraction.

    Your point on why NATO don't just assassinate Gadaffi; also irrelevant. It simply supports the notion that ground troops are not on an option. Although I wonder if the underground in Tripoli have considered it, probably not an option since he's probably hiding out in a bloody hospital or something.

    The Arab league called for the no fly zone on the 12 March. Lebanon asked some days later. The UN approved it on the 17th. Your suggestion for the abstentions is also based in la la land.

    Ceasefire called on the 18th although artillery shelling on Misrata and Ajdabiya continued, and government soldiers continued approaching Benghazi.

    There have been repeated occasions of peaceful demonstrations being fired upon in Libya. And yet you are still determined to twist the story to fit into your anti-US moral crusade regardless of the actual facts.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    studiorat wrote: »
    You might need to take a few deep breaths there and chill out a bit Jackie, you'll do yourself a mischief. I reckon you are making this stuff up due to your pre decision on the issues. it's been pretty obvious from the outset really. Fantasy :rolleyes:
    Canada and Norway not being in OPEC is irrelevant and simply distraction.

    Your point on why NATO don't just assassinate Gadaffi; also irrelevant. It simply supports the notion that ground troops are not on an option. Although I wonder if the underground in Tripoli have considered it, probably not an option since he's probably hiding out in a bloody hospital or something.

    The Arab league called for the no fly zone on the 12 March. Lebanon asked some days later. The UN approved it on the 17th. Your suggestion for the abstentions is also based in la la land.

    Ceasefire called on the 18th although artillery shelling on Misrata and Ajdabiya continued, and government soldiers continued approaching Benghazi.

    There have been repeated occasions of peaceful demonstrations being fired upon in Libya. And yet you are still determined to twist the story to fit into your anti-US moral crusade regardless of the actual facts.


    OK.....let's try to simplify this. You're expressing your outrage at Gadaffi's alleged massacre of innocent Libyans and how this justifies a Nato led war on the country. Tell me this.....the Bahrain authorities massacred hundreds of protesters and Saudi tanks were moved in to the country to crush those demonstrations. Where's your outrage at that and why wasn't Bahrain attacked by Nato? And don't tell me some infantile crap like it was too out of the way. It's the home of the US 6th fleet FFS. I wonder if that had anything to do with quelling the uprising.....you know....if the government was toppled the 6th fleet might have been asked to kindly piss off elsewhere..


    ....and stop throwing in that retarded "anti-US" jibe that people like you always like to bandy about. It's as brainless as Dubya's cretinous "You're either with us or you're with the terr'ists" brainfart.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    The oil argument doesn't make sense when the oil was freely flowing under Gadaffi

    "What interests are at stake emerged from an article in the Wall Street Journal, the influential business and finance daily newspaper (“For West's Oil Firms, No Love Lost in Libya”). After the lifting of sanctions in 2003, Western oil companies flocked to Libya with high expectations; they have been disappointed by the results. The Libyan government, under a system known as EPSA-4, granted operating licenses to foreign companies that left the Libyan state company (National Oil Corporation of Libya, NOC) with the highest percentage of the extracted oil: given the strong competition, it came to about 90 percent. "The EPSA-4 contracts contained the toughest terms in the world," says Bob Fryklund, former presi-dent of the U.S.-based ConocoPhillips in Libya. (WSJ)

    It is apparent, then, the reason why -- with an operation decided not in Bengazi, but in Washington, London and Paris -- the National Transitional Council has created the "Libyan Oil Company.” This is an empty shell, much like one of those companies that are ready key in hand for investors in tax havens. It is intended to replace Libya’s National Oil Company (NOC) when the "willing" have taken control of oil fields. Its task will be to grant licenses on terms highly favorable to U.S., British and French companies. On the other hand, it would prefer to make suffer the companies that before the war were the main producers of oil in Libya: first of all the Italian firm ENI, which in 2007 paid a billion dollars to obtain concessions until 2042, and Germany's Wintershall, which came in second place. It would make Chinese and Russian companies suffer even more, those to which on March 14 Gaddafi promised he would transfer the oil concessions held by European and U.S. companies. The plans of the "willing" also include the privatization of state-owned company, which would be imposed by the International Monetary Fund in return for “aid” to rebuild the in-dustries and infrastructure destroyed by the bombing the same "willing" countries carried out.

    It is also clear why the "Central Bank of Libya," was created in Benghazi at the same time: it’s another empty shell but its important future task will be to formally manage the Libyan sovereign funds -- over $150 billion that the Libyan state had invested abroad -- once they are "unfrozen" by the United States and the major European powers. The British banking giant HSBC demonstrated who will effectively manage them. HSBC is the main “custodian bank” of the Libyan investment “frozen” in Britain (around 25 billion Euro): a team of senior officials from HSBC is already at work in Bengazi to launch the new "Central Bank of Libya." It will be easy for HSBC and other large investment banks to orient Libyan in-vestment according to their own strategies.
    One of their goals is to sink the African Union’s financial institutions, whose birth was made possible largely by Libyan investment. These include the African Investment Bank, based in Tripoli, Libya; the African Central Bank, based in Abuja, Nigeria; the African Monetary Fund, based in Yaoundé, Cameroon. The latter, with a programmed capital of more than 40 billion dollars, could supplant the International Monetary Fund in Africa. Up to now the IMF has dominated the African economy, paving the way for U.S. and Euro-pean multinationals and investment banks. By attacking Libya, the "willing" are trying to sink the bodies that could one day make the financial independence of Africa possible."

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24567


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    studiorat wrote: »
    You might need to take a few deep breaths there and chill out a bit Jackie, you'll do yourself a mischief. I reckon you are making this stuff up due to your pre decision on the issues. it's been pretty obvious from the outset really. Fantasy :rolleyes:
    Canada and Norway not being in OPEC is irrelevant and simply distraction.

    Your point on why NATO don't just assassinate Gadaffi; also irrelevant. It simply supports the notion that ground troops are not on an option. Although I wonder if the underground in Tripoli have considered it, probably not an option since he's probably hiding out in a bloody hospital or something.

    The Arab league called for the no fly zone on the 12 March. Lebanon asked some days later. The UN approved it on the 17th. Your suggestion for the abstentions is also based in la la land.

    Ceasefire called on the 18th although artillery shelling on Misrata and Ajdabiya continued, and government soldiers continued approaching Benghazi.

    There have been repeated occasions of peaceful demonstrations being fired upon in Libya. And yet you are still determined to twist the story to fit into your anti-US moral crusade regardless of the actual facts.

    So now it's no longer a humanitarian mission but one to protect some vague "national security interest". Such bullsh!t:

    http://whowhatwhy.com/2011/06/29/libya-update-featuring-media-and-congress-as-daffy-duck/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    So Studiorat, read ed's piece there and continue to bleat on like a simpleton about Libya being attacked to protect the lives of a few peasants who don't matter a tinker's piss to the mega-banks and oil corporations of the West.

    Your naivete and gullibility regarding this is almost as embarrassing as your "studious analysis" of the cause of the financial crisis. :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    I have nothing but skepticism about anything that the US/NATO barfs out...but listen to the shït that this mallrat ("castrations, like, hello! Gross, like beheadings are so, like, whatever!).

    Let's see that evidence. I've watched murders and maimings....I've got the stomach to view what you're talking about Lindauer. It's probably starting to affect me and even depress me and chill my blood but I have a spine that tells me I'd rather be disturbed by the truth than hide from it. So let's see that footage of beheadings and rapes and maiming that you say you have footage of. Prove it.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28440.htm


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    I have nothing but skepticism about anything that the US/NATO barfs out...but listen to the shït that this mallrat ("castrations, like, hello! Gross, like beheadings are so, like, whatever!).

    Let's see that evidence. I've watched murders and maimings....I've got the stomach to view what you're talking about Lindauer. It's probably starting to affect me and even depress me and chill my blood but I have a spine that tells me I'd rather be disturbed by the truth than hide from it. So let's see that footage of beheadings and rapes and maiming that you say you have footage of. Prove it.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28440.htm

    Ahh good old Information clearing house again? :rolleyes:

    For those who don't know, that website is -

    "One person's effort to correct the distorted perceptions provided by commercial media"

    One person's effort

    "This web site grew out of my personal frustration and anger at the failure of traditional commercial media to inform the American public, especially as it relates to US foreign policy"

    Anywho, back to Libya..

    There were reports of soldiers burnt and shot for not following orders in Libya, one poster didn't believe it and duly asked for evidence of it, to which I complied by posting links to videos of the burnt soldiers and the shot soldiers...

    ... obviously the footage "wasn't enough" for said poster.

    Its a conflict zone, in a dictatorship, with tight controls, with no net, it can be extremely difficult to get or find footage, especially by a feared military (or paramilitary) who distinctly do not like being filmed at all -
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/09/bbc-staff-arrest-torture-libya

    Ironically the same people who demand video footage or solid "proof" often fail to need any when it concerns their accusations against the US or NATO.

    And to top everything off, these people are standing on their internet pedestals preaching that others need to "wake up".

    Hmmm :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    Go on outa that Jonny7; are you still turning your nose up at any non-mainstream sources? Staff numbers are not an issue for me. As the site itself says "News you won't find on CNN or Fox"

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/ is a great source for me anyways.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


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

    :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    studiorat wrote: »
    :D

    Ah i see the Nato twins are back for a bit of banter to cover up the drubbing you got. Well the "knitting circle" as Jonny calls us have no problem with that.
    :)

    I could drag up some of your remarks again studio but i wont just at the moment.:)
    Some of them would make Dick Cheney blush.


    Are you both still set in your ways after all the good info Jackie gave you?

    Or are ye still cheering them on, like a couple of middle-aged women at a Take That concert?

    :)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    ed2hands wrote: »
    Go on outa that Jonny7; are you still turning your nose up at any non-mainstream sources? Staff numbers are not an issue for me. As the site itself says "News you won't find on CNN or Fox"

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/ is a great source for me anyways.

    What if the guy who runs that site woke up tomorrow and decided he didn't like Russia..?

    I mean imagine logging on tomorrow and its full of articles only maligning Russia..


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    ed2hands wrote: »
    Ah i see the Nato twins are back for a bit of banter to cover up the drubbing you got. Well the "knitting circle" as Jonny calls us have no problem with that.
    :)

    I could drag up some of your remarks again studio but i wont just at the moment.:)
    Some of them would make Dick Cheney blush.


    Are you both still set in your ways after all the good info Jackie gave you?

    Or are ye still cheering them on, like a couple of middle-aged women at a Take That concert?

    :)

    I just don't understand where the debate is though. Why does everyone here just accept things without analysing them?

    Brain not comprehend :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    I just don't understand where the debate is though. Why does everyone here just accept things without analysing them?

    Brain not comprehend :)

    True, we've had the "with us or against us" Bushisms that Ed has even started with, and all of the usual moral self importance.

    But as yet not had a an actual "real reason" that holds water.

    meanwhile
    http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/libya-renewed-rocket-attacks-target-civilians-misratah-2011-06-24


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    I just don't understand where the debate is though. Why does everyone here just accept things without analysing them?

    Brain not comprehend :)

    Back to a bit of analysis would be great. A bit of banter is all well and good, and was by the way started by both of you first:o. No offence meant; it's emotive alright so ferocious argument suits it sometimes. Ye know yer stuff on it and am taking in your good points.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    What if the guy who runs that site woke up tomorrow and decided he didn't like Russia..?

    I mean imagine logging on tomorrow and its full of articles only maligning Russia..

    The guy who runs the site doesn't write the articles. The articles are selected from multiple international nedia outlets. Sh!t I've even seen the odd article from CNN.com on there. So smear the site all you want. It's a shabby and immature tactic that people use when they can't refute the articles.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Plenty of attempts were made to refute Jackies articles, however as soon as some one does refute the a point the subject is changed again...
    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 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
    .

    ^^^
    The article linked has noting to do with the points made regarding Iraq and the AU, though it does point to banks scrambling to do business with Libya after the sanctions were lifted. However, the crux of the reply was :
    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.
    No further discussion on the points Jackie made were brought up by him after Johnny's reply, although the points it made were covered elsewhere in the thread by Johnny and others. The points were refuted, they were simply ignored.

    Regarding the link, although it had very little to do with Iraq or the AU, it would interest me to know why such a US-centered article suggests the intervention in Libya is mainly concerned with US imperialism, yet the US is actually taking a back seat role compared to the UK and France.

    In fact the next point Jackie made was...
    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?
    So although Jackies point was refuted many times he choose to ignore those refutations and again with the ctrl > c carry on. So what kind of a refutation does Jackie expect if he makes two points and links to another point and then dodges the discussion?

    The guy who runs the site doesn't write the articles. The articles are selected from multiple international nedia outlets. Sh!t I've even seen the odd article from CNN.com on there. So smear the site all you want. It's a shabby and immature tactic that people use when they can't refute the articles.

    The odd article from CNN suggests that the author really is picking and choosing stories to to promote an agenda. Again using particular news sites only when the story makes the point they are trying to re-enforce. However because of certain posters prejudice they either fail to see or refuse to acknowledge the fact.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    studiorat wrote: »
    Plenty of attempts were made to refute Jackies articles, however as soon as some one does refute the a point the subject is changed again...





    ^^^
    The article linked has noting to do with the points made regarding Iraq and the AU, though it does point to banks scrambling to do business with Libya after the sanctions were lifted. However, the crux of the reply was :
    No further discussion on the points Jackie made were brought up by him after Johnny's reply, although the points it made were covered elsewhere in the thread by Johnny and others. The points were refuted, they were simply ignored.

    Regarding the link, although it had very little to do with Iraq or the AU, it would interest me to know why such a US-centered article suggests the intervention in Libya is mainly concerned with US imperialism, yet the US is actually taking a back seat role compared to the UK and France.

    In fact the next point Jackie made was...

    So although Jackies point was refuted many times he choose to ignore those refutations and again with the ctrl > c carry on. So what kind of a refutation does Jackie expect if he makes two points and links to another point and then dodges the discussion?




    The odd article from CNN suggests that the author really is picking and choosing stories to to promote an agenda. Again using particular news sites only when the story makes the point they are trying to re-enforce. However because of certain posters prejudice they either fail to see or refuse to acknowledge the fact.


    Tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to rescind.....in fact I'm going to backpedal, completely, all my insinuations and allegations.

    So I am now wholeheartedly sorry for any input I have mistakenly had, heretofore.

    I would, however, like to know the whereabouts of the 15,000 civilian bodies that the western media have recently claimed have been discovered having been allegedly killed by Gadaffi's forces.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    Isn't killing kids a little bit "taboo". Correct me if I'm wrong and don't get the new way of slaughter:


    http://www.voltairenet.org/The-Sorman-massacre


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Is everything you read from one man news networks?
    Anyway...

    I would, however, like to know the whereabouts of the 15,000 civilian bodies that the western media have recently claimed have been discovered having been allegedly killed by Gadaffi's forces.
    Changing the subject again?

    According to the HRC between 10,000 and 15,000 people have been killed on both sides. I can't find a reliable source that states 15,000 civilians killed. Where are you getting this from? What "western media" are you talking about?

    Also maybe you would like to suggest why the US has been taking a back seat since the beginning if it really is about US imperialism?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    studiorat wrote: »
    Is everything you read from one man news networks?
    Anyway...

    Changing the subject again?

    According to the HRC between 10,000 and 15,000 people have been killed on both sides. I can't find a reliable source that states 15,000 civilians killed. Where are you getting this from? What "western media" are you talking about?

    Also maybe you would like to suggest why the US has been taking a back seat since the beginning if it really is about US imperialism?

    The US hasn't been taking a back seat. They've been doing the majority of the bombing it's just that they're using the NATO umbrella to cloak the whole crime in ambiguity. The bottom line is that these attacks are illegal. You can rant all you want about a UN resolution but I don't know of any resolution that gave the green light for war against Libya. Again if you want to start splitting hairs and saying this isn't a war well that dog doesn't hunt. Attacking a sovereign nation is an act of aggression and that is a violation of international law, international humanitarian law and US law (in the case of the US). It's a war crime..plain and simple. You can argue till you are blue in the face that Gadaffi is/was conducting a genocide against his people (which I sincerely doubt) but that still doesn't legalise a war of aggressoin against a sovereign nation.

    They have also attempted to assassinate Gadaffi (another crime) but only managed to blow on of his children and 3 of his grandchildren to pieces.


Advertisement