The Real Reason for NATO Attacking Libya ?

jackiebaron

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You've totally ignored the point that I've made while was responding to you. How do you expect to find any reasonable discussion here or any middle ground when you can't get past your own pretensions?

I have nothing against the US/West. Why would I? Think! I live freely and happily live here. Do I object to innocent people being bombed in their homes as they sleep? Naturally. Do I object to The West supporting these valiant freedom fighters?

Mod Note: Not even close to being acceptable

To conflate this natural objection with anti-US emotion is utter naivety. I've known that the Western sponsored "rebels" were linked to terrorists since the outbreak.

You know how...? Because I looked into it.

You know why...? Because it's straight out of the CIA/Mossad playbook.

How did I obtain this information...? The alternative media which you turn your nose up at.

Do you need to rationalise opinions of others when they differ from yours? It's been incessant - "Well Russia Today would say that because they hate the West"..."You would say that because your anti-US"..."Well what can I expect? This is CT after all" etc etc. Your not taking onboard anything that is contrary to your own Captain America morally shakey viewpoint; in fact you are outright dismissive and it is to your own detriment if you don't listen.

Virginia (Langley) based, weren't most of these "rebels"....well about 30% of them.

studiorat

jackiebaron wrote: »

Gadaffi's crime was (like Chavez in Venezuela) was to take back control of Libya's land and oil from the fat slobs in palaces who stole it and give the wealth of his nation to the people of Libya so that they all share it.

Haaaaa!!!! Give it back to the nation. You're funny Jackie really.

Chavez is a democratically elected president. Gadaffi is not, he's been in power longer than their Monarchy ever was, the same monarchy that built the country in the first place. 40 years in power and a 15 year prison term for insulting the Colonel but hey! he's against the the US so it makes it OK. They are nothing alike...

Meanwhile, no sign of Jackies 15,000 bodies reported by the "Western Media".

wildswan

jackiebaron wrote: »

the farce that is the UN Security Council I would inform you that abstentions are in essence vetoes......

It is what it is. Calling it a farce is a bit silly. I'm pointing out that they could have stopped the resolution from being adopted. Sorry an abstention is certainly not a veto.

So, make excuses, or dream up scenaria that comfort you but this is still a war crime.

Not on NATO's part. Ghadaffi has had a hard time showing off the how many civilians have been killed by the air strikes, while his own forces have continued to shower towns indiscriminately with katoosha rockets. I have seen some credible evidence of the rebels commiting some war crimes, albeit on a fairly small scale. Ghadaffi had to bring in sub-saharan mercenaries to inflict the kind of madness he was into.

then why aren't you demanding US F-15s bomb the fück out of Bahrain?

I wish they would do something about Bahrain, Saudi, Iran etc etc. I'm sick of seeing them treat women like animals. Unfortunately there are limits to the power western countries have.

Also Libyans ASKED for help. They were cheering in Benghazi when the resolution was passed. It was release from a DEATH SENTENCE for them. Look at the videos yourself. BTW why not just stick to discussing Libya?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am not against a military intervention as a last resort in principle. A number of factors come into play - will of the people, personal safety, humanitarian and human rights issues and so on. I would try to let my moral compass guide me. I am no Socialist or no particular fan of Gadaffi though my understanding is that life wasn't particuraly unbearable under his rule for most.

Good points. I guess in this case I did see it as a last resort. I think peaceful protest is the best way forward in most cases. Very rarely tho loons like Ghadaffi and Assad just start mowing people down with machine guns in plain sight.

T2daK

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You've totally ignored the point that I've made while was responding to you. How do you expect to find any reasonable discussion here or any middle ground when you can't get past your own pretensions?

I have nothing against the US/West. Why would I? Think! I live freely and happily live here. Do I object to innocent people being bombed in their homes as they sleep? Naturally. Do I object to The West supporting these valiant freedom fighters?

Mod Note: Not even close to being acceptable

To conflate this natural objection with anti-US emotion is utter naivety. I've known that the Western sponsored "rebels" were linked to terrorists since the outbreak.

You know how...? Because I looked into it.

You know why...? Because it's straight out of the CIA/Mossad playbook.

How did I obtain this information...? The alternative media which you turn your nose up at.

Do you need to rationalise opinions of others when they differ from yours? It's been incessant - "Well Russia Today would say that because they hate the West"..."You would say that because your anti-US"..."Well what can I expect? This is CT after all" etc etc. Your not taking onboard anything that is contrary to your own Captain America morally shakey viewpoint; in fact you are outright dismissive and it is to your own detriment if you don't listen.

WHY THE HELL ARE U PUTTING UP VIDEOS OF PEOPLE BEING BEHEADED AND TORTURED U SICK ****ER

frackingishell

i think the videos were put up to make the point that the so called 'rebels' aren't just lowly huddled masses yearning to breathe free. And you saw the title of the videos- you didnt have to look at them. You've no grounds for complaint, so i think you need to relax.

On another note- a very rousing and well written article ( i beleive anyway) on media in Libya. Picked i tup on the 'stop the aggression in libya' facebook page

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/26-07-2011/118593-libya_media_war-0/

EDIT- its a bloody disgrace that this has been relegated to being int he conspiracy threory section.

SO now, offering up other views other than those fed to us by the mainstream media makes us conspiracy theorists. Thats a joke- and indicative of how much we've all been brainwashed already. Its quite sad actually.

studiorat

There's one less video on that site now, since someone pointed put that it was actually Afganistan they were looking at in the video.

In the one with the child, the two men are Algerian doctors. Again, since so many want it to be torture it never crossed their mind that they are actually treating the child.

Brown Bomber

T2daK wrote: »

WHY THE HELL ARE U PUTTING UP VIDEOS OF PEOPLE BEING BEHEADED AND TORTURED U SICK ****ER

1. I assume you can read or you wouldn't be here. The a) Warning and b) titles of the videos should leave you in doubt as to the content. I didn't trick you into viewing them or force you too.

2. Do you assume that I enjoy watching footage like this? Naturally I find them as horrifying and disturbing as the next man.

3. It wasn't me who was doing beheading/torturing yet I am the focus of your ire. The natural, non-brainwashed response is to have feelings of outrage towards the beheaders/torturers aka (non Jihadi :rolleyes:) "Libyan Freedom Fighters". You haven't done this. This I expect is where your cognitive dissonance kicked in because it doesn't fit in with the media spun black-and-white fairytale of Gadaffi-bad, NATO-good.

You should reflect on this...

And then reflect on how many wars are based on lies reinforced by the lying media...Perhaps if you were ever on the recieving end of one these imperialist wars based on lies and had to bury your child you would see things differently?

4. It is your own democratic obligation to become aware of the full facts of a situation. Would you prefer to be molly-coddled?

studiorat

While others according to Libyan commentators are reportedly images from Iraq.

It's such a pity the poster didn't make any attempt authenticate the videos before posting them with the same vigor as they would if the videos didn't suit their agenda.

I'm sure if I was to post allegations of Palestinians torturing and murdering civilians they would be a little less likely to be so accepting of the documents as fact. Yet when we are shown atrocities from Iraq and mis-informed they lap it up like puppies.

Tell these bozos it's alternative news and they will believe anything.

frackingishell

Studiorat. I've read alot of your posts on this thread- and they're full of dismissive 'lol's', and in general, you seem hell bent on backing up mainstream media. While this is your prerogative, i have to wonder where your motivation comes from.

Secondly, not once have you acknowledged the FACTS of the OP (something i was aware of long before i read this thread).

Ghaddafi stepped on all the western power hubs in the course of his rule, and in general, it benefitted his people. You seem to want none of that.

The guy has also called for fair internationally monitored elections, and NATO said no.

You can continue to argue your 'cause' all you want (what is it now, 17 pages???), and defend skynews et al. but you come across as if you're on the payroll of NATO or something. You need to relax a bit, realise that both sides are now putting out some erroneous stuff, and make your mind up.

The one damning part of all this NATO aggression to me is that Libya is one of only five nations on earth with control over it's own money supply. Every other nation on the planet is run by private banking, all those central banks -the fed, bank of england, etc. are ALL privately run banks by the people running this world. Ghaddafi's plans theoretically could have threatened their very existence. I would welcome their existence coming crashing to an end-look at the state of the world today, the crises in markets, the debt crises around the world.

Do you know that the money America eventually borrows (when they finally get around to agreeing on a budget), will not be from their own Federal reserve- because they gave up control of their federal reserve in 1913- the last great industrialised nation to do so. So instead of borrowing from their own coffers, they're borrowing from a private interest charging bank- the international system that is screwing over the regular joe both in Ireland, and in the USA (they've had many bailouts).
This basically means that had america kept control of it's own money supply, they wouldnt have to pay huge interest on loans they need. Instead taxes could go towards better roads, schools, police forces etc.BUT, unfortunately the us taxpayer is paying for the created money that is going to these controlling international banks. Have a read of
this for reference http://www.afn.org/~govern/battle.html -i don't have all the same views of this guy- but it's a useful summary of what happened in the first/second paragraph.

So all im saying is- if you DONT work for some pro-western think tank...have a think about the supply of money, and those that control it, and WHY those money suppliers might want Libya under their yoke....then it'll only be North Korea and they'll have complete world domination,and this planet destroying consumerist cycle will continue (as it looks like it will do anyway).

Remember though , the only thing that perpetuates this system is the creation of more debt to pay the loans. You're seeing this in Ireland right now. Ask yourself, where does the interest money that we as taxpayers are paying for the bailout of BANKS go?(the same banks that are part of the same system that controls world money supply). That interest is coming out of OUR pockets and going into theirs(never mind the principal of the loan!). So we've borrowed bailout money, to cover banks, that were charging us interest, and we're paying interest on that....who does that money go to? Do you think the IMF bank account is made up of lumps of cash put there by France, Germany, the US etc.?? Think again my friend. Yep- you guessed it- the ONE private international banking system that can back up every loan they give because they own everything. That money doesn't leave the account- it isn't printed- It is merely a number on a computer and a balance sheet. BUT , the interest- that's a different matter- that's real money from our pockets...slowly being funnelled into theirs. So they play everyone off against themselves, and then 'loan' money out as collateral, and the interest they charge makes them richer- and they get the benefit of the worlds resources. They'd played both sides against each other in World war II aswell, and in wars over the past 300 years. IT'S ALL ONE BIG BANK, ONE SYSTEM, ONE GOAL.

They created a system that has led to many collapses in many countries, and we're all paying them for creating that system. By them, i mean the international banks that ARE IN CONTROL AND RUNNING THINGS. Follow that trail for yourself and see where it leads you.

Anyway, im veering off a bit, but it's for a relative reason- the people in charge don't want a man issuing interest free loans in his country, among the myriad of other things that ghaddafi has been doing (good and bad) that the money behind western powers don't like.

Imagine Ghaddafi created a truly functioning country with no interest on loans, free healthcare etc?/ Then the world would want it- and their schemes would be under threat.

You can call this whatever you want...i call it fact. I've a masters in Finance, These are my conclusions.

studiorat

frackingishell wrote: »

Studiorat. I've read alot of your posts on this thread- and they're full of dismissive 'lol's', and in general, you seem hell bent on backing up mainstream media. While this is your prerogative, i have to wonder where your motivation comes from.

Motivated by the dis-information in the OP and further lies like Jackie Barons claim that "Western Media" are reporting 15,000 bodies etc. Do you know why Algerian doctors are "torturing" a child with a pole for instance? Are you 100% sure in your mind that those images weren't shot in Pakistan for instance?

frackingishell wrote: »

Secondly, not once have you acknowledged the FACTS of the OP (something i was aware of long before i read this thread).

The facts as you put them are grossly distorted.

frackingishell wrote: »

Ghaddafi stepped on all the western power hubs in the course of his rule, and in general, it benefitted his people. You seem to want none of that.

The guy has also called for fair internationally monitored elections, and NATO said no.

Nato didn't say anything, the opposition said no. More distortion.

frackingishell wrote: »

You can continue to argue your 'cause' all you want (what is it now, 17 pages???), and defend skynews et al. but you come across as if you're on the payroll of NATO or something. You need to relax a bit, realise that both sides are now putting out some erroneous stuff, and make your mind up.

Unlike you, I don't have a cause. I have looked at both sides in detail. You seem pretty willing to dismiss your "main stream" media and give us the old 'wake up' message. You won't be able to find me defending Sky news anywhere.

As I said weeks ago, it's debatable whether NATO have over stepped the mark in their mission, particularly by this stage. However that's not the what the OP is about and as yet we still have not had a valid "real reason" for the OP.

frackingishell

I do agree with you studiorat, that there's some distortion here and there, on both sides.

I'm not gonna get bogged down discussing the merits of the various videos released-we'd both be wasting our time there i think.

The opposition did say no, but would have said yes undoubtedly, had NATO not been giving them military backup.

And ok, it's debatable whether NATO overstepped the mark, but their motivations are clear, as i've outlined above, i think money-supply is a huge part of it, and the oil of course. They didnt go after Saddam for his WMD, they went after him for his oil, his control over the money supply, and the fact he was going to price oil in Euros. They don't care about the Libyan people- i think you can admit that.

While you may or may not agree with the OP's reasons, i suggest you look past them for a moment, as i think the real issue here is why NATO and the western establishment is interested in Libya. I've given my thoughts above in general.

If we can focus on this, i feel there'll be a point to all these discussions. For me, there is no doubt that Ghaddaffi has done great things for his people, and has put alot of the oil money into their hands. I choose to ignore (for now) the secret police allegations etc., only the fact that he has allowed his people to NOT be enslaved by modern money lending- as we are are in the west. The irrigation projects, the health care etc. Plus he had the plan for the african oil dollar based on gold reserves- a massive blow to the fiat fractional banking system that is ruining the earth as far as im concerned.

Studio rat- there's a movement developing in america recently- under various names- like empire state rebellion. These are americans who realise that their country is under the yoke of international bankers. It's growing, there's truth there. Have alook at this vid for instance- big facebook group too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D6neBzTnOQ

So if you look at this from a macro point of view, there are HUGE VALID reasons for the western establishment behind the various thrones to want Ghaddaffi out.

And i genuinely apologise for saying you defend sky news mate.

Penn

Brown Bomber banned for 1 month for the videos he posted.

While we allow graphic images (within reason) to be posted so long as they are linked with a clear warning as to their content, videos like that are NOT acceptable. If you have any doubts as to whether or not what you're posting is acceptable, PM a mod. Please report this type of content in the future, regardless of whether the poster says it's alright to post it or not.

studiorat

Ok, supposing it is an international banking conspiracy, for want of a better description. Despite the fact that Western banks already own large chunks of Libyan banks in some cases actually run them. And the Libyan Dinar already being pegged at a fixed exchange rate with the Dollar. And despite the continuing opening of Libyan banks to outside, pushed forward by Gadaffi's son no less.

Why have the US not taken a more aggressive role?

Why did Germany oppose the actions to the extent of pulling equipment including warships out of the Med? Indeed why does the current intervention seem to be pulling NATO apart. Surely Germany would be a big player financially speaking.

Again if it is a banking conspiracy why didn't Russia or China veto the Mandate? Are we to believe they tacitly support this?

Where does the NTC the figure in all of this?

frackingishell

hi studiorat.

i honestly dont know the answer to your questions. All i know is that western governments dont care about democracy or the libyan people in libya. They care about oil, they care about resources, they want better access. They want the money Ghaddaffi gives to his own people, and they want the policy of interest free loans to end before the world realises there is another, better way.

And the US is acting- through it's proxy allies France and GB.

All i can say on Russia and China is this- it's nto the cold war anymore, and theyre as wrapped up in the global banking heist as everyone else. And, If libya was opened up, theyd be fighting for contracts with everyone else.

And they might run libyan banks, but control of the money supply is firmly in Ghaddafi's hands. Im not trying to sound condescending, but try to understand 'control of the money supply'. (maybe you do, in which case fair enough) I find it hard enough to understand and ive been studying it for years.

Jonny7

frackingishell wrote: »

i think the videos were put up to make the point that the so called 'rebels' aren't just lowly huddled masses yearning to breathe free. And you saw the title of the videos- you didnt have to look at them. You've no grounds for complaint, so i think you need to relax.

On another note- a very rousing and well written article ( i beleive anyway) on media in Libya. Picked i tup on the 'stop the aggression in libya' facebook page

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/26-07-2011/118593-libya_media_war-0/

EDIT- its a bloody disgrace that this has been relegated to being int he conspiracy threory section.

SO now, offering up other views other than those fed to us by the mainstream media makes us conspiracy theorists. Thats a joke- and indicative of how much we've all been brainwashed already. Its quite sad actually.

This is how the article starts..

"It started with Georgia, it ended with Libya. NATO has lost the capacity to whitewash its evil schemes by manipulating the truth"

And other articles on that page include..

Gaddafi Will Fight To the End
Israel and USA are killing Iranian Scientists
NATO is fully aware of Russia's military weakness
Germany to be conquered by Islam
Religious war in the Balkans was orchestrated by USA and NATO
India and USA to protect Vietnam from China


Note the "tone", careful with sources and their credibility.

frackingishell

i dont really care what else is on the page. I only reference the article for the purpose of this discussion, which i thought was well written and rousing, as i said. The guy is obviously passionate, and i admire that- too often passion is frowned on in this country particulary, and elsewhere

Many things are well written and rousing that i both agree with and disagree with.

And FWIW, i do believe this NATO action in libya is sort of evil as the title said. The quest to control the world's resources and money supply,and enslave an ignorant world population via usury for the ends of only the people at the topis about as evil as it gets in my book.

studiorat

frackingishell wrote: »

hi studiorat.

All i know is that western governments dont care about democracy or the libyan people in libya.

Opinion, possibly correct to a certain extent. But he's certainly not the benevolent leader you make him out to be.

How many wars has Gadaffi started in Africa? He's invaded Chad 3 or 4 times. Facilitating Idi Amin, Mugabe, Bokassa. Gadaffi is perfectly capable of stepping in and out of various countries in Africa as his will takes him supporting some governments as they fight revolution and supporting anti-government factions in others. For example look at how he secured a 99 year lease to mine minerals in the Central Africian Republic after propping up another tin-pot dictatorship there. Look at his actions in Sierra Leone where he decided to punish the government there by siding with the West.

Gadaffi is equally as imperialist as you tell us "the West" is but again because you are so dead set on being anti-globalization or whatever you want to call it you can't see him for what he really is.

frackingishell wrote: »

They care about oil, they care about resources, they want better access. They want the money Ghaddaffi gives to his own people, and they want the policy of interest free loans to end before the world realises there is another, better way.

While Libya is one of the better off countries in Africa it's hardly surprising. They have oil by the bucket load, they couldn't but be wealthy. But anyone could have done it, an quite a few could have done it quite a lot better and given the population a say in the running of the country too. In fact if there was no oil in Libya Gadaffi would have been pout of power a long time ago, and not had the opportunity to groom his family for political power.

Unemployment is about 13.5%, for a small country with it's own oil that's not all that great. One of the reasons there were so many people protesting IMO.
They have virtually no other industry to speak of, why is that?
Nearly all of the oil is extracted and in particular refined by foreign companies. Gadaffi hasn't improved anything there.
The majority of Doctors in the country are foreign born and most wealthy Libyans travel abroad for medical procedures.

Any yet because he's a figure representing, I dunno, the underdog fighting against "Western Imperialisam" or some rubbish he gets support regardless of his past crimes which you are either ignoring or don't know about.

frackingishell

i don't see any of it as rubbish.

and i did say above that i'm choosing to put aside his secret police and other dodgy **** aside for the moment to look at the overall view on the whole thing.

Aside from all the wars you say he's been a part of, he helped Mandela alot, and has brokered many peace deals at the same time.

And alot of the wars you say he was involved in were reported on by the western media. So i'd have to discount a chunk of what was said as likely exaggerated.

As i said before though, im not denying he's done some bad.

Also, im not going to debate his merits vs Nato using his unemployment rate. There's a global recession on. And in Ireland we arent far off that rate and we're part of the Euro. So that all irrelevant, stop complicating things.

Jonny7

frackingishell wrote: »

i dont really care what else is on the page. I only reference the article for the purpose of this discussion, which i thought was well written and rousing, as i said. The guy is obviously passionate, and i admire that- too often passion is frowned on in this country particulary, and elsewhere

Many things are well written and rousing that i both agree with and disagree with.

So you aren't objective and facts don't count?

frackingishell

Jonny7 wrote: »

So you aren't objective and facts don't count?

Of course facts count. But in this conflict there is disinformation from both sides. And jonny, i would have thought that the point is i AM objective. I'm willing to appreciate a well written and rousing article despite the sensational stuff around it. It's like a flower, that grew out of a pot of dirt. (to paraphrase Lisa Simpson's fantasy British royal boyfriend)

studiorat

frackingishell wrote: »

i don't see any of it as rubbish.

and i did say above that i'm choosing to put aside his secret police and other dodgy **** aside for the moment to look at the overall view on the whole thing.

Aside from all the wars you say he's been a part of, he helped Mandela alot, and has brokered many peace deals at the same time.

What peace deals? Why do you think he funded the ANC? Black Africans are second class citizens under his regime. He openly admitted supported the IRA simply to stick it to the British, the Red Army, the list goes on and on. He supported international revolution period, irrespective of what they stood for as long as they were a thorn in the side of the US and it's allies. There was no great altruistic reason, it was self serving.

frackingishell wrote: »

And alot of the wars you say he was involved in were reported on by the western media. So i'd have to discount a chunk of what was said as likely exaggerated.

As i said before though, im not denying he's done some bad.

He stuck his oar into Chad, Sierra Leone, Niger, Uganda, Sudan, D.R. Congo, Liberia. Please feel free to point out any exaggeration, even without that's a hell of a list don't you think? Especially when you remember Libya has a population of 5.5 million, who do you think payed for those little trips and the training of the armies there then? I'd hazard a guess but per capita I'd say he's up there with the US or any or your imperialist powers for poking his nose in to other countries.

frackingishell wrote: »

Also, im not going to debate his merits vs Nato using his unemployment rate. There's a global recession on. And in Ireland we arent far off that rate and we're part of the Euro. So that all irrelevant, stop complicating things.

But Libya according to yourself is not part of the international banking structures, they don't owe money to IMF etc. If we were to heed the OP which you seem to support it would seem Libya are beyond this system.

I think Fracking, if you want to discover a real reason perhaps you'll need to look outside of your financial expertise. And consider the political background, it may come as a surprise to you, but although in this country it might seem like it the world doesn't revolve around banks.

frackingishell

Studiorat- the world does revolve around finance& banking- the sooner you realise it the better.

i dont think his good or bad deeds are relevant to why NATO and the western government puppets want him out,because they dont care about the african people either way.

In response to that though, I think everything he ever did was to hit back at western establishments that wanted him OUT so they could take advantage of the country's resources. They continually tried to undermine him for the past 30 years or so. This was not out of love and pity on the oppressed people of Africa. He helped Mandela, and he helped his own people and those are facts. Neither you nor I know anything about those murky wars in Africa- but its as likely as he was trying to oppose British and French influence as he was trying to extend his own. Either is possible- WE DONT KNOW.

I'm not going to sit here and debate what war he's supposed to have been involved in because

• A)- youre only getting your info from western sources and you don't know the full story
• b) the brits and the french and the yanks have been in FAR more filthy little wars than him- so i dont know where you get off calling Ghaddafi out on it.and
• C)its irrelevant to why western banking power circles (the people who own everything and want access to his oil) have cameron and that bitch sarkozy arming the rebels now.

I think you need to realise you've been brainwashed pal. Not once did you mention all the filthy little wars of the allies. Gimme a break.

studiorat

frackingishell wrote: »

Studiorat- the world does revolve around finance& banking- the sooner you realise it the better.

Better for you or for me? How does religious fundamentalism fit in with finance and banking then? Nationalism? Ethnic cleansing and genocide?

frackingishell wrote: »

i dont think his good or bad deeds are relevant to why NATO and the western government puppets want him out,because they dont care about the african people either way.

That's the flaw in your argument. You try to tell us that he has done wonderful things for his country when in fact if he was a more credible leader he would have much more support right across the region. He knocked back both Egypt and the Palestinians, he in fact expelled 30,000 Palestinian refugees much to the consternation of the entire Middle East. Algeria keep him at arms length because he's so unpredictable. If he had any credibility or support in the region he wouldn't be in the situation he is now.

frackingishell wrote: »

In response to that though, I think everything he ever did was to hit back at western establishments that wanted him OUT so they could take advantage of the country's resources. They continually tried to undermine him for the past 30 years or so.

Cobblers, first he tried to become a major player in a pan Arab unity process, six times he's attempted to form a federation. His merger with Tunisia lasted for two days!!! Most in the region resented his role as self appointed Arab philosopher. So then he turned his eyes to the rest of Africa, one change of image later and he's self appointed African saviour and like I pointed out already has financed wars up and down the continent.

Countries in NATO already have their hands on Libyan oil why would they de-stabilise the situation more. Furthermore what are Canada doing there? They sell more Oil to the US that anyone.

frackingishell wrote: »

This was not out of love and pity on the oppressed people of Africa. He helped Mandela, and he helped his own people and those are facts. Neither you nor I know anything about those murky wars in Africa- but its as likely as he was trying to oppose British and French influence as he was trying to extend his own. Either is possible- WE DONT KNOW.

Armed the ANC, Gadaffi was probably still in school when Mandela was put in prison.

You certainly don't know anything that's pretty clear. He was opposing any influence that got in the way of his own. He happily bought arms of the French and declared good economic relations with the up till 1979. Only when
the French were selling arms to Egypt and Israel did they loose favor with him.

Opposing British and French influence sounds like some kind of freedom fighter, it was imperialism on his behalf pure and simple. First Arab "unity" and when they wouldn't have a bar or it, African "unity". Including the 99 year lease on the C.A.R.'s diamond and mineral deposits, for crushing a revolution. All this has helped his destroy his own country.

frackingishell wrote: »

I'm not going to sit here and debate what war he's supposed to have been involved in because


[*]A)- youre only getting your info from western sources and you don't know the full story

Thats another incorrect assumption, my sources are wide and varied. Yet you seem to think that a 3 times Eurovision Song Contest entrant from Leeds is some how, what? More reliable? Less Western perhaps?

frackingishell wrote: »

[*]b) the brits and the french and the yanks have been in FAR more filthy little wars than him- so i dont know where you get off calling Ghaddafi out on it.

That's because you think hes been a great leader for the Libyan people when in fact he's imprisoned them in a pariah state for a generation.

frackingishell wrote: »

C)its irrelevant to why western banking power circles (the people who own everything and want access to his oil) have cameron and that bitch sarkozy arming the rebels now.

I think you need to realise you've been brainwashed pal. Not once did you mention all the filthy little wars of the allies. Gimme a break.

Norway's filthy little wars? Canada's? Why are they involved, have they forgotten they are much bigger oil exporters than Libya?

I was wondering how long it would be before the wake up merchant cliches would come out. You disappoint me, I thought you were smarter than that. Seems I was wrong, pity you aren't going to stick around. Bye:pac:

frackingishell

I feel sorry for you, for so many reasons.

T2daK

who gives a ****

frackingishell

not you by the looks of things

studiorat

frackingishell wrote: »

I feel sorry for you, for so many reasons.

I'm not the one who found Mr. Eurovision's article ahem, rousing.:eek:

frackingishell

decent video from 'stop agression in libya now, we demand it' on facebook. I like the bit about the wing of the pentagon devoted to 'perception management'.

Studiorat, you don't need to watch it if you don't want to- you've enough on your plate as it is mate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEB1oevaaAY

Jonny7

frackingishell wrote: »

decent video from 'stop agression in libya now, we demand it' on facebook. I like the bit about the wing of the pentagon devoted to 'perception management'.

Studiorat, you don't need to watch it if you don't want to- you've enough on your plate as it is mate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEB1oevaaAY

You haven't addresssed any of the facts he made earlier.

Your retort was "I feel sorry for you, for so many reasons."

I could have told you what comes next - the generic patronising (ironically Fox news style) evil society scare video or the long pasted editorial of someone else's opinion maligning US/UK/Israel

For people who try to seek out the truth, CTer's certainly seem to do a lot of very slippery fact dodging and name-calling whilst preaching to others to "wake up". But hey its all just a bit of fun isn't it

frackingishell

Number Jonny7, you're making an awful lot of assumptions.

I'm not fact dodging- i just dont have the time nor inclination to read that large pile of garbage, from someone who is obviously set in their ways and fundamentally brainwashed by western media sources.

There's an art to making a point, he could have at least tried to be succinct.

Alot of his so called facts are from western media sources, who no doubt were influenced by what they heard from any leaders who've ever been opposed to Ghaddafi.

I have repeatedly acknowledged that there are bad on both sides, but he's has dodged many many facts i've put out there.

And stop putting words in my mouth, i never said a thing about Israel.

You lot like to lump together independant thinkers as having a collection of viewpoints (usually all those viewpoints are all the opposite things that you lot like banging on about, so you've something to harp on about).When In fact, you should ask yourself "why am I , Jonny7, talking rubbish?";

your final paragraphs are just one large pile of horsesh**;

I could have told you what comes next - the generic patronising (ironically Fox news style) evil society scare video or the long pasted editorial of someone else's opinion maligning US/UK/Israel

For people who try to seek out the truth, CTer's certainly seem to do a lot of very slippery fact dodging and name-calling whilst preaching to others to "wake up". But hey its all just a bit of fun isn't it

1)I didnt copy and paste anything, and 2) i didnt try to scare anyone. I merely gave alternate viewpoints of my own and linked a few vids. If you're scared, you must run up huge electricity bills with your nightlight on every night.

3)I didn't do any slippery fact dodging' as you put it. I answered alot of his tirade in previous posts. 4) I didnt name call ( i genuinely feel sorry for the guy, and his NATO apologist stance). 5)And i never really was asking people to 'wake up' ( your favourite phrase it seems). Telling people to Wake up? What utter tosh. All we're doing is giving our take on things. This obsession you and himself have with shouting down people, and then ascribing this moniker of 'wake up people' to them is laughable, and pathetic, and it fails in it's attempt to patronise on here anyway.

You need to wake up in general, and realise you have a huge problem with the very concept, of the possibility that there is anything other than what you have been led to believe in this world. It stinks of fear that you're afraid your world will come crashing around your ears if the things you've long held as fact could be possibly fabricated. It's a self re-enforcing vicious cycle. It stinks of low intellect too- the fact you can't even contend with the idea that you've been lied to. And you justify your stuck in the mud stance by associating all sorts of untrue sh*t with other people's points, like you did above, in an attempt to blur the individual points many of us are making. It's not working!As you can see above!

You're like degenerate gamblers chasing losses, instead of sitting back and assessing and allowing for the fact that maybe just maybe there are alterior motives at work. You act like you know, but you can't possibly know any of the sources you quote from weren't influenced. You're both arguing for the sake of it because you're bored, and you think you're very smart, and you look down your nose at those people in society that choose to question the story they're fed. You're really quite cowardly- there's no easier position to argue from and try to make people look stupid from that the one you're 'arguing' from- the position of the majority. That's why i feel sorry for you both.

And then you need to realise none of us will ever never know either way. So get off your f**king horses and stop sitting there in your hollow smugness. It's irritating to say the least, and all you're doing by quoting your 'facts' is persuading yourselves.

And that's really all i have to say on the matter i think. Ghaddafi has what the west wants, and has thumbed his nose up at them too many times for this to not be backed by an agenda. It was the same with Saddam. We all know the west is not interested in human rights or the freedom of the libyan people, or any other 'oppressed nation'.

So good luck with your perfect fantasy world lads, and your desperate need to justify NATO's actions (christ knows why the hell you feel you have to)...

( and i'm aware i haven't been succint here, but the long post was necessary at this point).