Does anyone have any evidence of Gadaffi's brutality?

jackiebaron

Now that another head of state who wouldn't play ball with the oil companies of Europe and America is dead and the reason for his death is that he was a tyrannt, can anyone provide any evidence of the masses that he is alleged to have slaughtered or the people he is supposed to have killed or suppressed or terrorised?

Someone on these boards once claimed that Gadaffi had his men sling infants into industrial shredders. Again ZERO evidence. Why would any man do such a thing? It was claimed that Iraqi soldiers dumped babies out of incubators...a claim made by a woman who was not even in Kuwait when she said she saw such evils.

It has been claimed that Gadaffi supplied his troops with viagara so that they would rape more effectively and more widespread. Whoever plants such despicable propaganda ought to know that a man doesn't need an enhancement in order to conduct an act of barbaric violence. You don't need an erection in order to act like a savage. But don't let that simple fact get in the way of a good smear campaign.

Now that Gadaffi has been gotten rid of and Libya's treasure are back up for American, British, French and Italian plunder, expect to hear this same broken record from Somalia.

Next stop, Uganda. Kill 'em all and grab that wealth.

Victor

Why is this in US Politics?

jackiebaron wrote: »

Now that another head of state who wouldn't play ball with the oil companies of Europe and America is dead

But he was playing ball with the oil companies.

and the reason for his death is that he was a tyrannt,

Well, specifically that he sparked a civil war by ordering the security forces to kill civilians.

can anyone provide any evidence of the masses that he is alleged to have slaughtered or the people he is supposed to have killed or suppressed or terrorised?

There was a mass grave dug up last week.

Someone on these boards once claimed that Gadaffi had his men sling infants into industrial shredders. Again ZERO evidence. Why would any man do such a thing?

Leading question?

It was claimed that Iraqi soldiers dumped babies out of incubators...a claim made by a woman who was not even in Kuwait when she said she saw such evils.

Off topic?

It has been claimed that Gadaffi supplied his troops with viagara so that they would rape more effectively and more widespread.

Who claimed?

Whoever plants such despicable propaganda ought to know that a man doesn't need an enhancement in order to conduct an act of barbaric violence.

Well, at what level does one want the barbaric violence?

Now that Gadaffi has been gotten rid of and Libya's treasure are back up for American, British, French and Italian plunder, expect to hear this same broken record from Somalia.

Next stop, Uganda. Kill 'em all and grab that wealth.

Leading statements?

hangon

Victor wrote: »

Why is this in US Politics?[

Hi Victor why would a mod ask this.does it never happen in forums you mod?
why not be helpful to the OP and direct them in the right direction?

But he was playing ball with the oil companies.

President J Carter called him an Animal.Reagan called him a mad dog.during Bush jnr's and T Blairs time he was welcomed back because he paid money out for Lockerbie's victims and denounced WMD's
C Rice went to visit him in 2009 despite the fact that his disregard for human rights was well known.

Well, specifically that he sparked a civil war by ordering hte security forces to kill civilians.

almost a civil war you mean?,NATO took a side.

Tony EH

jackiebaron wrote: »

Now that another head of state who wouldn't play ball with the oil companies of Europe and America is dead and the reason for his death is that he was a tyrannt, can anyone provide any evidence of the masses that he is alleged to have slaughtered or the people he is supposed to have killed or suppressed or terrorised?

Someone on these boards once claimed that Gadaffi had his men sling infants into industrial shredders. Again ZERO evidence. Why would any man do such a thing? It was claimed that Iraqi soldiers dumped babies out of incubators...a claim made by a woman who was not even in Kuwait when she said she saw such evils.

It has been claimed that Gadaffi supplied his troops with viagara so that they would rape more effectively and more widespread. Whoever plants such despicable propaganda ought to know that a man doesn't need an enhancement in order to conduct an act of barbaric violence. You don't need an erection in order to act like a savage. But don't let that simple fact get in the way of a good smear campaign.

Now that Gadaffi has been gotten rid of and Libya's treasure are back up for American, British, French and Italian plunder, expect to hear this same broken record from Somalia.

Next stop, Uganda. Kill 'em all and grab that wealth.

You don't need proof, you just need allegation. Now that the man's been murdered, there's even less onus on the mudslingers to back up their claims.

Make no mistake, this is how "tyrants" will be dealt with in the future, by and large. A lesson was learnt from Hussains's kangaroo court. The same error won't made again.

No trial for Bin Laden.

No trial for Gaddafi.

No proof needed.

And when the current leader of these so called "rebels", Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi (complete with admitted links to Al Qaeda) doesn't want to play ball any more, he'll be dealt with in similar fashion.

Victor

hangon wrote: »

almost a civil war you mean?,NATO took a side.

Not quite. It started as a civil war and certain NATO members intervened, using NATO structures. I don't think NATO itself has taken a position.

who the fug

Here is a Link to the Human Rights report from Ammesty International in 1991 , please start there and work forward to 2011.

Batsy

The Left Wingers on here are obviously a little bit upset over the ousting and killing of a brutal murderous dictator. I have a feeling it might take them a long while to get over it and, until they do, internet discussion forums are going to be awash with threads in which they whinge and cry into their falafel that "It was for OIL!"; that "Cameron and Sarkozy are evil, white, Christian, male, heterosexual, anti-Islamic, anti-brutal dictatorship, murderous, imperialist scumbags!"; and that "Gaddafi was a caring, kind, benevolent ruler, who never killed any innocent civilians and that it is the evil baby-eaters of the West who are brainwashing us into believing that Gaddafi was a murderous thug and that all the footage of celebrations of Gaddafi's death throughout Libya is nothing more than CGI special effects created by the Israelis".

But until the Left get over the death of their beloved brutal dictator let's let them post their vile rubbish on internet discussion forums but just IGNORE them. Don't even reply to them. They'll get bored eventually and go and take part in a violent demonstration somewhere against Father 4 Justice, involving car burning and the throwing of bricks through shop windows.

Jonny7

Human rights watch - archive Libya (abuses, torture, etc)
http://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/libya

Al Jazeera report on torture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ0KQABYXgE

From Palestinian doctor (and Bulgarian nurses) in 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnExymuOF4k

Abu Salem prison
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0b4_1314271754
http://www.vancouversun.com/Horrors+from+Libya+torture+prison/5327942/story.html

BBC crew beaten
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksvWj6UJYxg

(extremely graphic) After anti-aircraft guns had been fired on protesters in Feb
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=721_1298715445

Mass graves
http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFL5E7LK4I020111020
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8787727/Libya-mass-grave-found-in-Tripoli.html
http://video.dailytelegraph.com.au/2149176087/Hundreds-of-bodies-in-Libya-mass-graves

MysticalRain

Batsy wrote: »

The Left Wingers on here are obviously a little bit upset over the ousting and killing of a brutal murderous dictator. I have a feeling it might take them a long while to get over it and, until they do, internet discussion forums are going to be awash with threads in which they whinge and cry into their falafel that "It was for OIL!"; that "Cameron and Sarkozy are evil, white, Christian, male, heterosexual, anti-Islamic, anti-brutal dictatorship, murderous, imperialist scumbags!"; and that "Gaddafi was a caring, kind, benevolent ruler, who never killed any innocent civilians and that it is the evil baby-eaters of the West who are brainwashing us into believing that Gaddafi was a murderous thug and that all the footage of celebrations of Gaddafi's death throughout Libya is nothing more than CGI special effects created by the Israelis".

But until the Left get over the death of their beloved brutal dictator let's let them post their vile rubbish on internet discussion forums but just IGNORE them. Don't even reply to them. They'll get bored eventually and go and take part in a violent demonstration somewhere against Father 4 Justice, involving car burning and the throwing of bricks through shop windows.

To be fair, it's probably the far left rather than the entire political left we're talking about here - a lot of people on the left did actually support the Libyan people's revolution against Gaddafi. Of course threads like this one are a perfect example of why the far left are not taken seriously these days.

Jonny7

Tony EH wrote: »

You don't need proof, you just need allegation. Now that the man's been murdered, there's even less onus on the mudslingers to back up their claims.

Make no mistake, this is how "tyrants" will be dealt with in the future, by and large. A lesson was learnt from Hussains's kangaroo court. The same error won't made again.

No trial for Bin Laden.

No trial for Gaddafi.

No proof needed.

And when the current leader of these so called "rebels", Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi (complete with admitted links to Al Qaeda) doesn't want to play ball any more, he'll be dealt with in similar fashion.

Recent and ongoing trials - Mubarak (Egypt) Charles Taylor (Sierra Leone), Radovan Karadzic (Serbia), Mladic (Serbia), Gbagbo (Ivory coast) Under arrest, Ben Ali (Tunisia) tried and sentenced in absentia

AlekSmart

Jonny7 wrote: »

Human rights watch - archive Libya (abuses, torture, etc)

Al Jazeera report on torture


From Palestinian doctor (and Bulgarian nurses) in 2009


Abu Salem prison


BBC crew beaten


(extremely graphic) After anti-aircraft guns had been fired on protesters in Feb


Mass graves


An interesting and comprehensive list sure enough,but not quite the comprehensive evidence that the OP seeks to explain Col Gadaffi's elevation to super sadist that so mamy in the U.N./NATO alliance need so badly to justify their pursuit and involvement in his eventual summary execution.(oops sorry...accidental death in crossfire..my apologies)

The single most quantifiable incident remains the Abu Salim masacre of 1996 where there was undeniably a great loss of life.

However,it's not quite as cut and dried as many would like to view it as it occured during a highly volatile and violent period of revolt against Gadaffi by Islamicists,which he suppressed with extreme force.

But,with the,by now,somewhat traditional Gadaffi ability to throw a wobbly we read in 2009 of this.....

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/09/06/uk-libya-massacre-idUKTRE5850PJ20090906

Judge Khadhar said he held many documents about the incident, in which he said up to 1,200 people died, including more than 200 guards, at the prison run by the country's internal security agency.

Then we read of the Gadaffi family contribution....

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, who has played an important role in ending Libya's international isolation, said last year disproportionate force was used at Abu Salim and mistakes were made in the handling of the case.

He said the killings took place amid confrontation between the government and rebels from the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, an Islamist militant group.

The group first announced its existence in 1995, vowing to overthrow Gaddafi and launching a violent campaign. There have been no reports of any attacks for several years.

It's equally noteworthy that one of those who now occupies a pivotal role in the "new" Libya is one of the then leaders of the LIFG,Abdel Hakim al Hassidi who had a familiarity with Abu Salim.....

http://subversify.com/2011/09/09/libya-examplifies-everything-wrong-with-the-war-on-terror/

According to Belhadj, he was tortured during the seven years he spent in Tripoli’s Abu Selim prison, where he went “three years without a shower and one without seeing the sun.” [source] Then, after he’d allegedly “moderated” himself, he was released from prison last year, at the instance of, of all people, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi (the Monster Number Two, if you haven’t forgotten). This made Belhadj so grateful that he spoke on an unreleased Al Jazeera interview in March thanking Saif Gaddafi – the same man he was trying his hardest to hunt down and kill when Tripoli fell. (Don’t expect Al Jazeera to be too eager to publicise that film just yet; that channel has sold out long ago to Qatar, the same Qatar which provided most of the rebels’ new weaponry.)

When the uprising (I won’t call it a rebellion or revolution, because those are emotionally charged words) against Gaddafi began, Belhadj jumped on the bandwagon, with his own ex-LIFG fighters (now called the Islamic Movement of Change) and other jihadists. Soon enough, he launched his own little coup d’état, having the only secular military leader the rebels had – Abdel-Fattah Younis – murdered, leaving him the only possible choice as military commander of the rebels. And that’s his position today.

I suppose,being largely westerners,we are guided by our own mores in relation to our understanding of terms like democracy,freedom or tolerance.

It can often be quite a jarring experience when we first encounter societies which have far differeent understandings of such concepts,if understood at all.

Col Gadaffi's execution was sanctioned by the legitimacy of U.N. resolution 1973 and it's unquestioning acceptance that Gadaffi was about to carry-out a mass extermination of innocent non-combatants in Benghazi......this in spite of the rather specific and traditionally bloodthirsty threats against rebels and their supporters....it suited "us" to accept an invented threat to non-combatants and to declare Gadaffi a legitimate target as a result.

I rather think that the digging of mass graves in Libya has not ended with the death of Col.Gadaffi and in fact is only beginning.

who the fug

AlekSmart wrote: »

Jonny7 wrote: »

Human rights watch - archive Libya (abuses, torture, etc)

Al Jazeera report on torture


From Palestinian doctor (and Bulgarian nurses) in 2009


Abu Salem prison


BBC crew beaten


(extremely graphic) After anti-aircraft guns had been fired on protesters in Feb


Mass graves


An interesting and comprehensive list sure enough,but not quite the comprehensive evidence that the OP seeks to explain Col Gadaffi's elevation to super sadist that so mamy in the U.N./NATO alliance need so badly to justify their pursuit and involvement in his eventual summary execution.(oops sorry...accidental death in crossfire..my apologies)

The single most quantifiable incident remains the Abu Salim masacre of 1996 where there was undeniably a great loss of life.

However,it's not quite as cut and dried as many would like to view it as it occured during a highly volatile and violent period of revolt against Gadaffi by Islamicists,which he suppressed with extreme force.

But,with the,by now,somewhat traditional Gadaffi ability to throw a wobbly we read in 2009 of this.....

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/09/06/uk-libya-massacre-idUKTRE5850PJ20090906



Then we read of the Gadaffi family contribution....



It's equally noteworthy that one of those who now occupies a pivotal role in the "new" Libya is one of the then leaders of the LIFG,Abdel Hakim al Hassidi who had a familiarity with Abu Salim.....

http://subversify.com/2011/09/09/libya-examplifies-everything-wrong-with-the-war-on-terror/



I suppose,being largely westerners,we are guided by our own mores in relation to our understanding of terms like democracy,freedom or tolerance.

It can often be quite a jarring experience when we first encounter societies which have far differeent understandings of such concepts,if understood at all.

Col Gadaffi's execution was sanctioned by the legitimacy of U.N. resolution 1973 and it's unquestioning acceptance that Gadaffi was about to carry-out a mass extermination of innocent non-combatants in Benghazi......this in spite of the rather specific and traditionally bloodthirsty threats against rebels and their supporters....it suited "us" to accept an invented threat to non-combatants and to declare Gadaffi a legitimate target as a result.

I rather think that the digging of mass graves in Libya has not ended with the death of Col.Gadaffi and in fact is only beginning.

to mis quote liam the bard, are they not human. do they not bleed like us etc etc

Give them a chance

TOMASJ

Jonny7 wrote: »

Human rights watch - archive Libya (abuses, torture, etc)
http://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/libya

Al Jazeera report on torture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ0KQABYXgE

From Palestinian doctor (and Bulgarian nurses) in 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnExymuOF4k

Abu Salem prison
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0b4_1314271754
http://www.vancouversun.com/Horrors+from+Libya+torture+prison/5327942/story.html

BBC crew beaten
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksvWj6UJYxg

(extremely graphic) After anti-aircraft guns had been fired on protesters in Feb
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=721_1298715445

Mass graves
http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFL5E7LK4I020111020
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8787727/Libya-mass-grave-found-in-Tripoli.html
http://video.dailytelegraph.com.au/2149176087/Hundreds-of-bodies-in-Libya-mass-graves

Watched and read all of these links, to be honest I dont know a lot about Gadaffi and Lybia,

but I was expecting to see and read something more convincing about the so called "mad dog"

all the crimes above attributed to him, pail into insignificance compared to the killings carried out by the US, UK, French, ect leaders over the last few years in Arab countries, included what was meated out to him yesterday,

Victor

Don’t expect Al Jazeera to be too eager to publicise that film just yet; that channel has sold out long ago to Qatar, the same Qatar which provided most of the rebels’ new weaponry.

I'm not sure if "sold out" is accurate - Qatar always owned it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_Media_Corporation

Qatar Media Corporation is a Middle Eastern multimedia corporation based in and owned by[1] the state of Qatar and is the parent company of Al Jazeera and most of the domestic media of Qatar.

I've not heard of them receiveing any weaponry from Qatar - note their is an arms embargo.

archer22

Anybody think the savages we saw murdering an old man in a most brutal fashion can be given "freedom".These countries have iron fist dictators for a reason..its the only way their savage populations can be kept in check.This was not a freedom struggle but a power struggle between Libyas tribes...been going on forever..and will start again when the NTC falls apart.Gadaffi made one serious blunder..he became too soft.

RichieC

MysticalRain wrote: »

To be fair, it's probably the far left rather than the entire political left we're talking about here - a lot of people on the left did actually support the Libyan people's revolution against Gaddafi. Of course threads like this one are a perfect example of why the far left are not taken seriously these days.

Just like the far right, bunch of cranks running around with zero information and a huge gut feeling.

AlekSmart

archer22 wrote: »

Anybody think the savages we saw murdering an old man in a most brutal fashion can be given "freedom".These countries have iron fist dictators for a reason..its the only way their savage populations can be kept in check.This was not a freedom struggle but a power struggle between Libyas tribes...been going on forever..and will start again when the NTC falls apart.Gadaffi made one serious blunder..he became too soft.

Oddly enough Archer22,I believe Gadaffi was one of the more progressive "Brutal" "Cruel" "Mad Dog" dictators the world has seen in recent times.

Over his 40 year rule,his administrations could indeed have executed far more revolutionaries instead of imprisoning them and attempting to convert them to the Government line,as is evident with some of the "New-Improved" Revolutionary Leaders.

The main crime being attributed to Gadaffi seems to be the Abu-Salim prison massacre of 1996.

A nasty business without doubt,but not quite as clear a case of orchestrated mass-murder as required to support the case of Gadaffi pursuing a long or wide ranging campaign of systematic annihilation against the Libyan people...which accusation after all is what resolution 1973 was predicated upon.

Archer22,you won't get much support for your observations here,but there's more than a grain of truth about them,something probably best noted by T.E.Lawrence during his spell of duty for King and Country.....and that realization or appreciation of the essential cultural differences eventually cost him his life too,as the reality of the twain never meeting dawned upon his masters.

There's no easy answers ....and attempting to rewrite Gadaffi's legacy or to airbrush his contribution to the making of modern Libya is not the way to go...?

Jonny7

TOMASJ wrote: »

Watched and read all of these links, to be honest I dont know a lot about Gadaffi and Lybia,

but I was expecting to see and read something more convincing about the so called "mad dog"

all the crimes above attributed to him, pail into insignificance compared to the killings carried out by the US, UK, French, ect leaders over the last few years in Arab countries, included what was meated out to him yesterday,

Thats just a snippet, I did that myself, took about 5 minutes.

Lots of info on the net about it, use wikipedia, etc.

TOMASJ

Jonny7 wrote: »

Thats just a snippet, I did that myself, took about 5 minutes.

Lots of info on the net about it, use wikipedia, etc.

Have been reading wikipedia for about an hour now about Gadaffi,s crimes,

If the crimes attributed to Gadaffi warrant him being kicked to death in public by a baying mob of savages, and supported by quite a lot of European & American leaders,

Then I suppose its would be ok if something similar was to happen to one or two of the war criminals living in western countries. " Sarkozy, Cameron, Berlusconi, Obama," by "Rebels" from that country.

I am pie

Repeatedly calling democratically elected politicians 'war criminals' doesn't make it true. It's tiresome and adds nothing to this debate.

Now of course if you can provide information on those 'war crimes' any of your chosen gallery of fake pantomime villains have actually been convicted of, well that would be another matter all together.

Irishstabber

There seems to be an awful lot of "go with the flow" people on these politics boards.

The kind of people who watch Sky News, BBC, CNN and Fox for their daily dose of news. Then they go and believe everything that these so called unbiased news stations tell them.

Victor for example you always seem to provide first hand "facts" given by the news. For eg your post a few back about an arms embargo which I assume you meant would have prevented Qatar from supplying weapons?
For christs sake man what does that mean in a practical sense? If they wanted to supply weapons who would stop them?
If the IRA, ETA, PLO wants weapons they usually get em. Same principal.


Can anyone provide a definitive answer as to why I haven't seen any of the western stations reporting or editorialising the fact that before the reported protests in Libya at the beginning of the year Libya was the only country in Africa with a Human Development Index of over 0.75. On par with many Western Societies.

The amount of people living under the poverty line was less than Russia and some European Nations.
Education and healthcare was free.
The soaring food prices affecting neighbouring nations didn't affect Libyans at all due to food price caps in Libya and abolishment of taxes on food.

Just look at this professors summary of Libya's standard of living.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26686

Secondly, Libya's Central Bank was state owned, by the people, and did not borrow funds from the IMF or any other monetary institution.

Seemingly when the NTC was set up the had a shortage of cash, Most probably due to Libyas assets being frozen by the latest "coalition of the willing", so they set up a privately owned Central Bank which would borrow funds off the IMF etc to rebuild after the war.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/18/world/africa/libya-ntc-finances/index.html

Couple this with NATO's consistent bombing of essential infrastructure (creating the need to rebuild) this means that Libya will now have to borrow from international financiers indebting the nation which, under the previous regime, had no debt.

Libya actually invested in the development of its neighbors in Africa. Ask Nelson Mandela, we all know him yes? Good man?
Him and the tyrant were great friends.

Before anyone comments "CT forum" go and do some reading its all facts here no speculation.

The fact of the matter is, I'm not defending Quadaffi, what I am saying is that Libya was economically much better off under the Program for Govt that he ran than it will be in its future.

Colonialism in disguise if you will.

EDIT: HDI Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

SamHarris

Irishstabber wrote: »

There seems to be an awful lot of "go with the flow" people on these politics boards.

The kind of people who watch Sky News, BBC, CNN and Fox for their daily dose of news. Then they go and believe everything that these so called unbiased news stations tell them.

Victor for example you always seem to provide first hand "facts" given by the news. For eg your post a few back about an arms embargo which I assume you meant would have prevented Qatar from supplying weapons?
For christs sake man what does that mean in a practical sense? If they wanted to supply weapons who would stop them?
If the IRA, ETA, PLO wants weapons they usually get em. Same principal.


Can anyone provide a definitive answer as to why I haven't seen any of the western stations reporting or editorialising the fact that before the reported protests in Libya at the beginning of the year Libya was the only country in Africa with a Human Development Index of over 0.75. On par with many Western Societies.

The amount of people living under the poverty line was less than Russia and some European Nations.
Education and healthcare was free.
The soaring food prices affecting neighbouring nations didn't affect Libyans at all due to food price caps in Libya and abolishment of taxes on food.

Just look at this professors summary of Libya's standard of living.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26686

Secondly, Libya's Central Bank was state owned, by the people, and did not borrow funds from the IMF or any other monetary institution.

Seemingly when the NTC was set up the had a shortage of cash, Most probably due to Libyas assets being frozen by the latest "coalition of the willing", so they set up a privately owned Central Bank which would borrow funds off the IMF etc to rebuild after the war.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/18/world/africa/libya-ntc-finances/index.html

Couple this with NATO's consistent bombing of essential infrastructure (creating the need to rebuild) this means that Libya will now have to borrow from international financiers indebting the nation which, under the previous regime, had no debt.

Libya actually invested in the development of its neighbors in Africa. Ask Nelson Mandela, we all know him yes? Good man?
Him and the tyrant were great friends.

Before anyone comments "CT forum" go and do some reading its all facts here no speculation.

The fact of the matter is, I'm not defending Quadaffi, what I am saying is that Libya was economically much better off under the Program for Govt that he ran than it will be in its future.

Colonialism in disguise if you will.

EDIT: HDI Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

Let me guess your media outlets of choice, maybe Russia Today, Al Jazeera, the Guardian, Indy Media and Democracy now? The perception bias that goes on in this site is beyond belief - people convince themselves so quickly that they are themselves without axes to grind, even when it is abundantly clear to everyone else. Goes both ways, but I find the far left are much worse at it.

If you would please at least glance at your own scources, GlorbalReaserch.ca is well known to be a propoganda mouth piece, the fact that it agrees with you makes it no less twisted and policy driven than, say, fox or PlethiCrethi.

Not that it matters, as you ignore WHY NATO intervention became necassary (note : it was not because they were living to well). Equally you make the eroneous assumption so common from the anti -West brigade - if nothing was done by the West nnothing bad would have happened, all threats were merely a fabrication, Gadaffi was merely joking with his many threats. If that is your opinion, very well, but policy descision must be made on facts, such as the promise of slaughter and not wishful thinking.

I have the distinct feeling if Gadaffi was allowed to do what he willed with regard to Beghazi and eleswhere it would a familiar policital group blaming the West for allowing it to continue, they would point to the recent oil deals with British companies as evidicence of collusion with the regime (now forgotten, it does not fit their neat narative, therefore it must be ignored).

Perhaps the most annoying aspect of people constantly complaining about Western interference is they never take any sort of reponsilibty when no intervention leads to massive death and destruction, Iraq 1993 with the Kurds, Rawanda, Somalia according to goal. So convinved of their own moral superiority they do not even see the need to think their opinions through - that inaction in itself is an action in such sitatuations and that always being passive when great violence is threatened repeatedly from one party to another is not to be construed as always "The best move".

If someone cant see the problem with helping Libyan rebels because, say, the UK did not lynch Tony Blair, and that any form of military action carreid out by that party is morally bankrupt untill they do so then clearly you are a fanatic. Or an 17 year old. Neither of which I want to talk to about politics.

TOMASJ

I am pie wrote: »

Repeatedly calling democratically elected politicians 'war criminals' doesn't make it true. It's tiresome and adds nothing to this debate.

Are we to take from that, that democratically elected leaders are not capable of being war criminals,

what is tiresome is people who are blind to what has and is going on in countries that don't tow the line with western "democracy's,

"Benjamin Netanyahu" of Israel for instance, i suppose you think he is not a war criminal, after what that great democrat "GW Bush" let him get on with Gaza.

TOMASJ

SamHarris wrote: »

Let me guess your media outlets of choice, maybe Russia Today, Al Jazeera, the Guardian, Indy Media and Democracy now? The perception bias that goes on in this site is beyond belief - people convince themselves so quickly that they are themselves without axes to grind, even when it is abundantly clear to everyone else. Goes both ways, but I find the far left are much worse at it.

If you would please at least glance at your own scources, GlorbalReaserch.ca is well known to be a propoganda mouth piece, the fact that it agrees with you makes it no less twisted and policy driven than, say, fox or PlethiCrethi.

Not that it matters, as you ignore WHY NATO intervention became necassary (note : it was not because they were living to well). Equally you make the eroneous assumption so common from the anti -West brigade - if nothing was done by the West nnothing bad would have happened, all threats were merely a fabrication, Gadaffi was merely joking with his many threats. If that is your opinion, very well, but policy descision must be made on facts, such as the promise of slaughter and not wishful thinking.

I have the distinct feeling if Gadaffi was allowed to do what he willed with regard to Beghazi and eleswhere it would a familiar policital group blaming the West for allowing it to continue, they would point to the recent oil deals with British companies as evidicence of collusion with the regime (now forgotten, it does not fit their neat narative, therefore it must be ignored).

Perhaps the most annoying aspect of people constantly complaining about Western interference is they never take any sort of reponsilibty when no intervention leads to massive death and destruction, Iraq 1993 with the Kurds, Rawanda, Somalia according to goal. So convinved of their own moral superiority they do not even see the need to think their opinions through - that inaction in itself is an action in such sitatuations and that always being passive when great violence is threatened repeatedly from one party to another is not to be construed as always "The best move".

If someone cant see the problem with helping Libyan rebels because, say, the UK did not lynch Tony Blair, and that any form of military action carreid out by that party is morally bankrupt untill they do so then clearly you are a fanatic. Or an 17 year old. Neither of which I want to talk to about politics.

So do we take it that Gadaffi sealed his own fate, when he threatened to to slaughter the rebels in Misrata,

Do you also think when Goerge Bush threatened to bomb the people of Pakistan "back to the stone age" that, that was merely fabrication, or have I been using the wrong media outlets for my information.

AlekSmart

TOMASJ wrote: »

So do we take it that Gadaffi sealed his own fate, when he threatened to to slaughter the rebels in Misrata,

Do you also think when Goerge Bush threatened to bomb the people of Pakistan "back to the stone age" that, that was merely fabrication, or have I been using the wrong media outlets for my information.

The term's Shock and Awe and Rolling Thunder spring to mind when I see mention of George Bush and American military strategy.....oddly enough both are terms now largely judged to be failures in terms of acheiving and quantifiable objectives.

Mind you,I'm not buying totally into blaming the USA for Libya's new found freedom.....In this specific case I see Col Gadaffi's achievments in relation to giving Africa a far higher level of self-determination were suddenly very threatening indeed to a broadly based church of old style conservative western administrations....He had to go....End of.

imme

OP, are you ok.

Why are you quoting tittle tattle in your op. Is it not enough to ask your question, why was Gaddafi ousted and killed, mainly ousted by his own people, with targeted strikes from NATO that stopped Gaddfi's troops from targeting own civilians.
Gaddafi was a dictator who ruled for 42 years.

He helped out the IRA and ETA and the Red Brigades among others over the years.

Others have linked all sorts of abuses that he's been behind down the years.

More will be revealed with his downfall.

Jonny7

TOMASJ wrote: »

Have been reading wikipedia for about an hour now about Gadaffi,s crimes,

If the crimes attributed to Gadaffi warrant him being kicked to death in public by a baying mob of savages, and supported by quite a lot of European & American leaders,

Then I suppose its would be ok if something similar was to happen to one or two of the war criminals living in western countries. " Sarkozy, Cameron, Berlusconi, Obama," by "Rebels" from that country.

Then why did you omit the below facts in your hypothesis?

If Obama, Sarkozy or Cameron decided to stay in power for 4 decades without elections, use extreme violence against any protests, recruit mercenaries against the people then they could suffer the same fate as Gaddafi.

You are twisting events in Libya to attack the "West".

Jonny7

TOMASJ wrote: »

So do we take it that Gadaffi sealed his own fate, when he threatened to to slaughter the rebels in Misrata,

Do you also think when Goerge Bush threatened to bomb the people of Pakistan "back to the stone age" that, that was merely fabrication, or have I been using the wrong media outlets for my information.

Again, using completely different events in the wrong context to attack the "West".

AlekSmart

Irishstabber wrote: »

Can anyone provide a definitive answer as to why I haven't seen any of the western stations reporting or editorialising the fact that before the reported protests in Libya at the beginning of the year Libya was the only country in Africa with a Human Development Index of over 0.75. On par with many Western Societies.

The amount of people living under the poverty line was less than Russia and some European Nations.
Education and healthcare was free.
The soaring food prices affecting neighbouring nations didn't affect Libyans at all due to food price caps in Libya and abolishment of taxes on food.

Secondly, Libya's Central Bank was state owned, by the people, and did not borrow funds from the IMF or any other monetary institution.

Seemingly when the NTC was set up the had a shortage of cash, Most probably due to Libyas assets being frozen by the latest "coalition of the willing", so they set up a privately owned Central Bank which would borrow funds off the IMF etc to rebuild after the war.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/18/world/africa/libya-ntc-finances/index.html

Couple this with NATO's consistent bombing of essential infrastructure (creating the need to rebuild) this means that Libya will now have to borrow from international financiers indebting the nation which, under the previous regime, had no debt.

Libya actually invested in the development of its neighbors in Africa. Ask Nelson Mandela, we all know him yes? Good man?
Him and the tyrant were great friends.

The fact of the matter is, I'm not defending Quadaffi, what I am saying is that Libya was economically much better off under the Program for Govt that he ran than it will be in its future.

Colonialism in disguise if you will.

EDIT: HDI Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

Good post,Irishstabber.

I'm happy to see your qualifier re "Not Defending Gadaffi" as I too am in this position.

The Colonel now,has no need for our defence of him.

His time has come and gone.

However I'm not personally content to sit back and lap-up the flood of revelations regarding his brutality,madness,cruelty etc etc.

I prefer to look back over Libya`s post-colonial history,firstly taking good note of the high regard in which it's people were held by the very powers who have now actively aided in Gadaffi's execution.

I note the absence of evidence of any great Humanistic projects during the days of either British or Italian empire or indeed during the reign of King Idris himself.

Whether we like it or not Gadaffi's policies allowed,or even forced,modernity onto a country and its diverse feuding tribes for their own good,a fact which only becomes apparent as the generations pass in the infant mortality,generral health and education statistics.

However I fully accept that all of thse achievements will now be tactically downplayed,and even now a strong opinion base seeking the return of Libyan Monarchy is afoot.

I would suggest that Gadaffi and his somewhat single mindedness regarding where Libya and Africa stand in the world was of far greater benefit to many hundreds of thousands of Libyans over 4 decades than will ever now be admitted.

It's also interesting to read accounts from the Colonels surving aides in relation to how he was thinking in the final hours of his life.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/world/africa/in-his-last-days-qaddafi-wearied-of-fugitives-life.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=world

Its a somewhat pathos laden account for sure,but it also raises some questions as to how much influence Mutassim Gadaffi was exercising over his fathers thinking during the prolonged fall from grace.

Its also worth noting that Mutassim's death has perhaps far clearer indications of Murder surrounding it than that of his father....will this be investigated I wonder ?

Yet watching the man himself in this interview footage from August I am struck by his relative openness and his obvious belief that Libya would remain loyal......He was never going to run...and events now show that decision eventually cost him his own life.

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

I remain interested in Libya's role,under Gadaffi,in the RASCOM orginization as described in this article....

http://www.thelondoneveningpost.com/africa/the-lies-behind-the-wests-war-on-libya/

Allowing for and filtering out the non-factual opinions,it remains apparent that Gadaffi was spending big on technology which would esentially free Libya and the African world from a (paid-for) reliance on Western Technologies.

How and why Gadaffi managed to develop an interest in this type of progressive investment of his own country's wealth is another question altogether,but it rather puts our own little attempts at setting up a Digital Hub in Dublin in perspective.

It will doubtless suit so many individuals and regimes now to draw a line under Gadaffi,with the only wild card now remaining being Saif al-Islam,his son,who'se demise we can now expect as imminent....but there's always a slim chance of Gadaffi the younger managing to escape and perhaps attempt to set the record straight..????

Denerick

I suppose the Libyan people should be grateful that Gadaffi translated their immense oil wealth into reasonably adequate public health and sanitation systems.

Why can't anybody see it? Gadaffi was a gentleman and the rebels are neo colonialist stooges!

Now for my next essay; 'Pol Pot; murderous dictator or misunderstood lover of dogs?'

TOMASJ

Jonny7 wrote: »

Then why did you omit the below facts in your hypothesis?

If Obama, Sarkozy or Cameron decided to stay in power for 4 decades without elections, use extreme violence against any protests, recruit mercenaries against the people then they could suffer the same fate as Gaddafi.

You are twisting events in Libya to attack the "West".

You are missing the point completely,

point being the hypocrisy of the western leaders, and them that follow blindly,

if someone has ruled a middle eastern country with an iron fist for decades, it is ok to murder them,

Should the west now go for regime change in at least a dozen other countries in the middle east,

As a few Kings, and crown princes have being in charge of some of these countries and the are on a par if not worst than the boggy-men leaders. but wait,
the "west" has very profitable OIL contracts with these "good men"

most of those guy are no better than Gadaffi/Hussain or the latest "elected" bogyman leader in Iran

Jonny7

TOMASJ wrote: »

You are missing the point completely,

point being the hypocrisy of the western leaders, and them that follow blindly,

The first part I agree, Western (and world countries, lets not forget Russia, China, etc) exhibit sometimes extraordinary hypocrisy. Bush and Blair were prime examples of this.

I understand that South Korea will "do business" with the North Korean dictatorship in order to try to build some sort of bridge of diplomacy between the two, and so sometimes (some say rarely) the world does business with dictators, However.. there is the sinister hypocritical side such as revealed recently by HRW and also in the preceeding years of "collaberation" between governments/intelligence services and those of dictators in e.g. naming of dissidents, etc - that is nasty stuff. Quite rightly some headway is being made into this with a inquiry ordered by Cameron into illegal detention etc of one of the Libyan rebel leaders, however it cannot be excused.

if someone has ruled a middle eastern country with an iron fist for decades, it is ok to murder them,

Gaddafi had murdered and tortured a lot of innocent people, but I see more "concern" for Gaddafi's fate that theirs by certain posters. It was not okay to murder him, he should've stood trial, but I understand the vengence his people felt towards him especially after the type of rule he conducted over those people for 40-odd years.

There will never be any excuses for any leader/family killing their own people to stay in power. Whether it be the Saudi leadership, the Bahraini mock trials, or the wholesale slaughter in Syria.

Should the west now go for regime change in at least a dozen other countries in the middle east,

Its not as simple as that. Few bring up the Ivory coast earlier this year, whereby the French and UN ousted a man who was threatening a descent back into civil war, which, until now, has proved beneficial to the country. Alternatively no one wants another Iraq.

As a few Kings, and crown princes have being in charge of some of these countries and the are on a par if not worst than the boggy-men leaders. but wait the "west" very profitable OIL contracts with these "good men"

The US has profitable contracts with Ireland. Switzerland has profitable contracts with Japan. The first contracts to suffer when the Libyan uprising began were Western, Chinese and Russian contracts, yet no one vetoed the resolution.

most of those guy are no better than Gadaffi/Hussain or the latest "elected" bogyman leader in Iran

Untrue.

Border-Rat

Its just a chess game about the Chinese, and only the most stupid actually sit there and absorb the cartoon-esque pretext. Human rights? What a laugh. The NTC is now murdering and torturing blacks - not a peep from the anglosphere, only gloating on the BBC about Britains roles in rebuiding Libyan energy.

And, if that wasn't enough, there is the hilarious hypocrisy of Al-Qaeda affiliation within the NTC.

Libya has the largest oil reserve in Africa. Nuff said, that sentence alone will sort the the braindead from the people with common sense.

AlekSmart

Denerick wrote: »

I suppose the Libyan people should be grateful that Gadaffi translated their immense oil wealth into reasonably adequate public health and sanitation systems.

Why can't anybody see it? Gadaffi was a gentleman and the rebels are neo colonialist stooges!

Now for my next essay; 'Pol Pot; murderous dictator or misunderstood lover of dogs?'

Yes indeed Denerick,you may well be correct when you speak of the gratefullness of the "Libyan People".

I contend that Gadaffi's track record on how he spent "their" immense oil wealth actually bears up well to scrutiny,at least what scrutiny was possible before the re-writing begins.

I'm also suggesting that the provision of "reasonably adequate public health and sanitation systems" in the context of North Africa's natural environment is of itself deserving of a degree of gratitude....certainly his stewardship of a largely desolate,arid country allowed it to remain off the usual scales of human misery regularly emanating from that Continent.

In A country where some regions may not see any recordable rainfall for years and where temperatures of 30C + are commonplace,a dependable supply of fresh water asumes far greater significance than to us looking out on yet another rained off Sunday.

Of course Gadaffi did not achieve all of this on his own.....But he was the prime mover and provided the impetus for decades of self-sufficiency in a region not best known for that !!

The Pol-Pot analogy may well appear logical to those browsing the new Libyan comparisons,however they fall asunder when the statistics of Pol-Pot's rule are compared....Pol and Muammar are in totally different leagues...but I suppose it does keep the pot boiling....!!

Irishstabber

SamHarris wrote: »

Let me guess your media outlets of choice, maybe Russia Today, Al Jazeera, the Guardian, Indy Media and Democracy now? The perception bias that goes on in this site is beyond belief - people convince themselves so quickly that they are themselves without axes to grind, even when it is abundantly clear to everyone else. Goes both ways, but I find the far left are much worse at it.

If you would please at least glance at your own scources, GlorbalReaserch.ca is well known to be a propoganda mouth piece, the fact that it agrees with you makes it no less twisted and policy driven than, say, fox or PlethiCrethi.

Not that it matters, as you ignore WHY NATO intervention became necassary (note : it was not because they were living to well). Equally you make the eroneous assumption so common from the anti -West brigade - if nothing was done by the West nnothing bad would have happened, all threats were merely a fabrication, Gadaffi was merely joking with his many threats. If that is your opinion, very well, but policy descision must be made on facts, such as the promise of slaughter and not wishful thinking.

I have the distinct feeling if Gadaffi was allowed to do what he willed with regard to Beghazi and eleswhere it would a familiar policital group blaming the West for allowing it to continue, they would point to the recent oil deals with British companies as evidicence of collusion with the regime (now forgotten, it does not fit their neat narative, therefore it must be ignored).

Perhaps the most annoying aspect of people constantly complaining about Western interference is they never take any sort of reponsilibty when no intervention leads to massive death and destruction, Iraq 1993 with the Kurds, Rawanda, Somalia according to goal. So convinved of their own moral superiority they do not even see the need to think their opinions through - that inaction in itself is an action in such sitatuations and that always being passive when great violence is threatened repeatedly from one party to another is not to be construed as always "The best move".

If someone cant see the problem with helping Libyan rebels because, say, the UK did not lynch Tony Blair, and that any form of military action carreid out by that party is morally bankrupt untill they do so then clearly you are a fanatic. Or an 17 year old. Neither of which I want to talk to about politics.

As a matter of fact I tend to take information from all sides and make an informed judgement from those "facts". I use the internet to gather information I'd rather not be fed filtered information from Sky News or the BBC. Are you saying these channels aren't biased? If so you need to develop the virtue of critical thinking.

It doesn't matter that you say "globalresearch" is a biased site because the fact of the matter is the informatuion provided in that source is all correct.

You haven't answered my questions either, your simply avoiding the statements I made and ranting about people you call "anti west" but which in reality are just people who like to make their own decisions and not believe everything they're told.

Go back and read my post then answer the questions please. Can you provide sources to the information I described? Or give me a reason why they haven't been brought up or discussed on the MSM channels/ newspapers?

You talk about the rebels as if they are the saviours of the Libyan country. My friend what about their documented links to Al-Qaeda(which is a factually stated fake organization).

Al Qaeda have suddenly become the good people now? Whats that all about?
How about the the leader of the rebels? Not making any assumptions but as far as I know its been reported that he lived couple miles outside Langley for a good few years. Strange coincidence is all I'm saying.
Bit strange to stick a guy who hasn't lived in a country for a decent few years as the head of a rebel organisation trying to free said country?

I don't remember saying anything about lynching any western leaders? Where is that from. You sir must stick to the facts if you wish to have a respectable standing in this conversation. I'd tell you to cop on but that would be a little insulting. Oh wait I just did...:rolleyes:

Jonny7

Border-Rat wrote: »

The NTC is now murdering and torturing blacks - not a peep from the anglosphere, only gloating on the BBC about Britains roles in rebuiding Libyan energy.

BBC reporting violence against blacks in Libya
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/958211.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14965062
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15284264
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14966512

And, if that wasn't enough, there is the hilarious hypocrisy of Al-Qaeda affiliation within the NTC.

Again, well documented, as in Tunisia, Egypt, and across the region.

Perhaps you should read the news before spouting this.

AlekSmart

Border-Rat wrote: »

Libya has the largest oil reserve in Africa. Nuff said, that sentence alone will sort the the braindead from the people with common sense.

I can appreciate where Border-Rat is coming from,however I believe the West's movers and shakers have moved on quite a bit from regarding Oil as the main raison d'etre for overt or covert actions.

I believe Gadaffi was posessed of something which worried many of the Bilderbergers far more deeply.....real belief in his own visions,rather than surrounding himself with layers of advisers and assorted purveyors of stuff,Gadaffi was pursuing some policies which were WAAY outside what the other African rulers considered the norm.....Water and Irrigation policies covering a largely desertified country.....and more recently a desire to move,nay force,Africa away from dependence on Western provided facilities,such as communication.....

Gadaffi was no mere nut-job...no sir...and that is something which will only become apparent to many Libyans as they adjust to their new found status as citizens of a "Normal" democratic North-African country....I wish each and every one of them Luck in that transition.

Irishstabber

AlekSmart wrote: »

I can appreciate where Border-Rat is coming from,however I believe the West's movers and shakers have moved on quite a bit from regarding Oil as the main raison d'etre for overt or covert actions.

I believe Gadaffi was posessed of something which worried many of the Bilderbergers far more deeply.....real belief in his own visions,rather than surrounding himself with layers of advisers and assorted purveyors of stuff,Gadaffi was pursuing some policies which were WAAY outside what the other African rulers considered the norm.....Water and Irrigation policies covering a largely desertified country.....and more recently a desire to move,nay force,Africa away from dependence on Western provided facilities,such as communication.....

Gadaffi was no mere nut-job...no sir...and that is something which will only become apparent to many Libyans as they adjust to their new found status as citizens of a "Normal" democratic North-African country....I wish each and every one of them Luck in that transition.

Well said, clinically put!

Although I do believe Oil has a large part to play, business is too big and profitable.
Aside from the documented fact that the petrodollars usage for Libyan oil was under threat there would be a lot more oil contracts up for grabs to foreign companies if the state was ruled by a more "liberal" government.

Those reasons and the push for more interdependence within African Nations spells disaster for big business. Anyone who doesn't think so should do some research.

If African nations started working towards utilizing their natural resources for their people obviously foreign companies would lose out.

Jonny7

Irishstabber wrote: »

As a matter of fact I tend to take information from all sides and make an informed judgement from those "facts". I use the internet to gather information I'd rather not be fed filtered information from Sky News or the BBC. Are you saying these channels aren't biased? If so you need to develop the virtue of critical thinking.

Which sources do you use?

It doesn't matter that you say "globalresearch" is a biased site because the fact of the matter is the informatuion provided in that source is all correct.

Here are some facts about Libya
Gaddafi built a large water project benefiting his people
Black are being killed now
Some members of the NTC are known extremists or even (ex) Al Qaeda

Professors/"journalists"/etc take these facts, carefully omit others, and construct blogs/opinons/articles specifically designed to paint the US in a bad light.

Show me an article on Globalresearch about the US that doesn't do this, they are hard to find to say the least.

Calling a spade a spade its a knitting circle of people who are really pissed off US foreign policy, not a very objective way to get a view of the world

Likewise, there are conservative sites and media outlets (Fox to name the main offender)

You haven't answered my questions either, your simply avoiding the statements I made and ranting about people you call "anti west" but which in reality are just people who like to make their own decisions and not believe everything they're told.

Some will claim "Western media" is being controlled and biased and all that. Yet those same people (posters on here) will have no problem their news from English-speaking Russia and Iranian propaganda outlets.

Al Qaeda have suddenly become the good people now? Whats that all about?

If you are referring to the media then..

Where is this stated?

I firmly support the people of Egypt, and I believe the international community as a whole does, however some of those protesters are extremists and even linked with Al Qaeda - that does not mean that we collectively support Al Qaeda

Irishstabber

Jonny7 wrote: »

Which sources do you use?



Here are some facts about Libya
Gaddafi built a large water project benefiting his people
Black are being killed now
Some members of the NTC are known extremists or even (ex) Al Qaeda

Professors/"journalists"/etc take these facts, carefully omit others, and construct blogs/opinons/articles specifically designed to paint the US in a bad light.

Show me an article on Globalresearch about the US that doesn't do this, they are hard to find to say the least.

Calling a spade a spade its a knitting circle of people who are really pissed off US foreign policy, not a very objective way to get a view of the world

Likewise, there are conservative sites and media outlets (Fox to name the main offender)



Some will claim "Western media" is being controlled and biased and all that. Yet those same people (posters on here) will have no problem their news from English-speaking Russia and Iranian propaganda outlets.



If you are referring to the media then..

Where is this stated?

I firmly support the people of Egypt, and I believe the international community as a whole does, however some of those protesters are extremists and even linked with Al Qaeda - that does not mean that we collectively support Al Qaeda

Like I said I tend not to use one particular source. If you read a couple of different sources its easier to piece together the full picture rather than believing one with, as you say, omitted information (as we both know journalists and editors can also do this too).

The professor can omit what he wants your still not understanding my point. The Economical Facts on the page are correct. The Libyan economy was how I described it before the war. I don't know what could be omitted in this regard. I used that source for Economic facts nothing else.
I never mentioned that source in regard to the US did I?

I never said anything about Russia today or Al-Jezerra as being un-biased channels. You are avoiding my question still. I'm not one of those people who spout news from RT or Al-J.. So if you are replying to me directly please comment on my question and don't make a statement about some people who aren't me.

What I am referring to is the US and NATO support for the rebels who have links and support from so called Al-Qaeda which is a bit hypocritical since they allegedly masterminded the worst terrorist atrocity in recent history, on US soil.

Still nobody has commented directly on the facts that I provided I keep getting responses in the form of an attack because I am being perceived as an "anti-west" nut when I am actually just asking questions that need to be asked.
I am neither Left wing nor Right wing I just believe that transparency is the right way to go about things. Especially in the case of world affairs.

So would you like to answer or comment on my statements instead of trying to undermine my information?

Jonny7

Irishstabber wrote: »

Like I said I tend not to use one particular source. If you read a couple of different sources its easier to piece together the full picture rather than believing one with, as you say, omitted information (as we both know journalists and editors can also do this too).

The professor can omit what he wants your still not understanding my point. The Economical Facts on the page are correct. The Libyan economy was how I described it before the war. I don't know what could be omitted in this regard. I used that source for Economic facts nothing else.

I was discussing the source, not the economic facts. To answer your question, the facts themselves have only ever been used in argument that oppression cannot happen in a relatively healthy economy. Which is generally the purpose of producing them.

No one has produced "economic facts" about Saudi Arabia or Bahrain is this debate.

What I am referring to is the US and NATO support for the rebels who have links and support from so called Al-Qaeda which is a bit hypocritical since they allegedly masterminded the worst terrorist atrocity in recent history, on US soil.

They had the choice not to support the rebels. The UN, Arab League, etc obviously decided that the majority of the people rising up against Gaddafi weren't Al Qaeda, and decided they were worth helping.

I think the bigger hypocrisy lays with MI6 and CIA friendly dealings with Libyan internal security, rather than some protesters being part of terrorist or ex terrorist groups.

Still nobody has commented directly on the facts that I provided I keep getting responses in the form of an attack because I am being perceived as an "anti-west" nut when I am actually just asking questions that need to be asked.
I am neither Left wing nor Right wing I just believe that transparency is the right way to go about things. Especially in the case of world affairs.

Fair enough, there's been a lot of debate on this over the past year, often with the same issues being brought by the differing sides.

walshb

Tony EH wrote: »

You don't need proof, you just need allegation. Now that the man's been murdered, there's even less onus on the mudslingers to back up their claims.

Make no mistake, this is how "tyrants" will be dealt with in the future, by and large. A lesson was learnt from Hussains's kangaroo court. The same error won't made again.

No trial for Bin Laden.

No trial for Gaddafi.

No proof needed.

And when the current leader of these so called "rebels", Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi (complete with admitted links to Al Qaeda) doesn't want to play ball any more, he'll be dealt with in similar fashion.

Great post. I keep hearing how terrible the man was. I'd love some firm evidence of this. If he was so bad for so long, why did it take NATO and the West this long to do anything? Did the man do any good for Libya? By all accounts I have read, he seemed to do a hell of a lot of good for the country.

walshb

archer22 wrote: »

Anybody think the savages we saw murdering an old man in a most brutal fashion can be given "freedom".These countries have iron fist dictators for a reason..its the only way their savage populations can be kept in check.This was not a freedom struggle but a power struggle between Libyas tribes...been going on forever..and will start again when the NTC falls apart.Gadaffi made one serious blunder..he became too soft.

Finally some serious sense. Anyone thinking these savages who killed the man will now harmonise and save Libya and free it from tyranny or war or hostility, is so freaking off the mark.

TOMASJ

Quite rightly some headway is being made into this with a inquiry ordered by Cameron into illegal detention etc of one of the Libyan rebel leaders, however it cannot be excused.

Dont hold your breath for the conclusion of this Cameron inquiry, It will be wrapped in ribbons and bear nothing that will even resemble the truth just like all other inquires held concerning M15 ect,

Gaddafi had murdered and tortured a lot of innocent people, but I see more "concern" for Gaddafi's fate that theirs by certain posters. It was not okay to murder him, he should've stood trial, but I understand the vengence his people felt towards him especially after the type of rule he conducted over those people for 40-odd years.

I still have to be convinced of these murders he carried out over his period in power,
your previous links were not at all what I expected to read, I came here knowing nothing of what Gadaffi was claimed to have done, and still don't.

There will never be any excuses for any leader/family killing their own people to stay in power. Whether it be the Saudi leadership, the Bahraini mock trials, or the wholesale slaughter in Syria.

But there will be excuses, on how the West deals with despots regimes that spend loads of money on weapons from the US,UK etc,

eg, Saudi Kings buy lots of arms from the west, near $60 billion for a country with a population of 12 million, not a chance of any shock & Awe there

Border-Rat

Jonny7 wrote: »

BBC reporting violence against blacks in Libya
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/958211.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14965062
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15284264
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14966512

None of these reports are pominent or reach the average person. They do make sure however that a bogeyman story from Gaddafi's regime is hammered home. The reason for bombing Libya, that is; the cartoon reason for simpletons, is to allegedly defend civilians. As if that wasn't an oxymoron in itself, the NTC is guilty of the same actions yet receive assistance.

Not to mention NATO's alleged love of Democracy (Chuckle). They've bombed Libya under the pretext of installing Democracy, and the first major action of the new regime was to flaunt basic justice and international law. Yes, this hypocrisy is easy to spot. But it isn't highlighted on Anglo-America media.

Again, well documented, as in Tunisia, Egypt, and across the region.

Perhaps you should read the news before spouting this.

What does 'well-documented' mean? Does 'well-documented' mean that taxpayers in the West know that bombs are being dropped in one Country under the pretext of fighting Al-Qaeda, then in another Country being dropped to assist Al-Qaeda?

No, that isn't 'well-documented' at all, if well-documented means being dissected by an impartial press.

You're either a shill or someone who really has been caught up in authoritarian kleptocracy. Are you a true believer, mate? Think we're all leading the world here in the West? We're despised because of anglo-zionism.

Jonny7

Border-Rat wrote: »

None of these reports are pominent or reach the average person.

Oh for God's sake, its in the news go read about it.

Not to mention NATO's alleged love of Democracy (Chuckle). They've bombed Libya under the pretext of installing Democracy, and the first major action of the new regime was to flaunt basic justice and international law. Yes, this hypocrisy is easy to spot. But it isn't highlighted on Anglo-America media.

Under the resolution to protect civilians from Gaddafi's forces. There's no denying mission-creep took place.

Libya doesn't have a "regime" or "government" yet. They are yet to vote.

Tunisia has taken 9 months to reach the voting stage and they had it easy, their leader fled, he didn't let the country descend into blood-shed, chaos and civil-war just to grip onto power. I expect it might be much longer for Libya to ready itself for elections.

You're either a shill or someone who really has been caught up in authoritarian kleptocracy. Are you a true believer, mate? Think we're all leading the world here in the West? We're despised because of anglo-zionism.

No idea what you're going on about here.

AlekSmart

Jonny7 wrote: »

No idea what you're going on about here.

Theres no denying Mission Creep took place

Snap......:cool:

HavingCrack

Border-Rat wrote: »

Libya has the largest oil reserve in Africa. Nuff said, that sentence alone will sort the the braindead from the people with common sense.

No it doesn't. Gadaffi's regime had begun co-operating with western oil companeis again in recent years after decades of isolation, there was no need to fight a war to get oil that he was willingly selling.

There's no doubt that there are varying geo-political reasons behind the intervention of some NATO members in Libya but for once I doubt oil is one of them.

Einhard

HavingCrack wrote: »

No it doesn't. Gadaffi's regime had begun co-operating with western oil companeis again in recent years after decades of isolation, there was no need to fight a war to get oil that he was willingly selling.

There's no doubt that there are varying geo-political reasons behind the intervention of some NATO members in Libya but for once I doubt oil is one of them.

Shhhhh you! We're supposed to forget that Gadaffi was actively involved in opening his country to international commercial interests in the past decade. We're to keep mum about that fact that the West and other were doing very nice out of this interaction. Because, that being the indisputable case, the notion that the West would invade in order to secure rights which they had already gained, is obviously delusional. So keep schtum friend and revel in the delusion!

TOMASJ

Einhard wrote: »

Shhhhh you! We're supposed to forget that Gadaffi was actively involved in opening his country to international commercial interests in the past decade. We're to keep mum about that fact that the West and other were doing very nice out of this interaction. Because, that being the indisputable case, the notion that the West would invade in order to secure rights which they had already gained, is obviously delusional. So keep schtum friend and revel in the delusion!

Greed is a wonderful thing, yes the western oil companies had contracts in Libia but there cut wasn't big enough, Only about 11% hardly worth it after they paid [SIZE=-1]$133m on signing, and a minimum of $300m on exploration[/SIZE], a change of leader will sort that all out,

When can we expect a UN 1973 type resolution to protect the civilians, of - Syrian, Yeman, - to name a few, when will Jets and drones backup the rebels in these countries,
or are their reserves just not worth it.

AlekSmart

TOMASJ wrote: »

Greed is a wonderful thing, yes the western oil companies had contracts in Libia but there cut wasn't big enough, Only about 11% hardly worth it after they paid [SIZE=-1]$133m on signing, and a minimum of $300m on exploration[/SIZE], a change of leader will sort that all out,

When can we expect a UN 1973 type resolution to protect the civilians, of - Syrian, Yeman, - to name a few, when will Jets and drones backup the rebels in these countries,
or are their reserves just not worth it.

I'm of the belief that we've moved on a tad from the "Old" presumption that Western interests had to all about crude oil supplies.

I believe the Western Economies have already taken the basic steps necessary to deal with declining crude supplies,the most important of which is to maintain a high degree of concern amongst their own populace.

What many of those "Illuminati" failed to appreciate however,was Muammar Gadaffi's rather tiresome ability to manufacture his own political box out of nothing,before promptly heading off into the Sahara and thinking waaay outside of that box.

That constant and ever changing mental agility repeatedly put it right up to the Big-Boys and defied all their attempts to assimilate or appropriate.

Yes he was of questionable stability,yes he was unpredictable in extremis,but I firmly believe this man Gadaffi was no Mad-Dog.....no simple Cruel Tyrant...or all of the multitude of other derogatory descriptions heaped on him over 40 years of ruling Libya and managing to end up with a huge sparsely populated desertified country at number 99 in this list....

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2079rank.html?countryName=Libya&countryCode=ly&regionCode=afr&rank=99#ly

99 Libya $ 6,386,000,000 31 December 2010 est

...whilst other paragons of freedom displayed slightly lesser acumen....

1 United States $ 13,980,000,000,000 30 June 2010

3 United Kingdom $ 8,981,000,000,000 30 June 2010

And just to fulfill morbid fiscal curiosity.....

7 Ireland $ 2,253,000,000,000 30 September 2010

However all that aside,my own reasoning about why Gadaffi rather suddenly merited U.N.1973 centres on his significant progress in drawing the African continent away from the ever present crutch of Western Support....

Nowhere was this becoming more apparent than in the Telecommunications sector.

The 2007 launch of RASCOM's (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization) African satellite was almost immediately going to cost European service providers some €500 million per anum in lost fees and royalties.

Although these T's & C's were spread over the entire African continent,the total represented quite a wedge of cash-flow into many's a Rotschilds branch....

Gadaffi's decision to commit some $300 Million of Libyas own funds when,not surprisingly,the "usual" funding sources proved less than accomodating was I feel one of the red-flag markers which eventually had to be called in if our continuing dominance over the Dark Continent is to be maintained....

I must reiterate here,that I sek not to defend Gadaffi in totality,but I refuse to quietly sit over my pint nodding sagely at an ever increasing stream of negativity concerning his rule,which if true,would have seen Tripoli being just a collection of mud-huts and modern Libya yet another Famine blighted,poverty ridden African country...would that have satisfied us I wonder....









.