Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

A perfect example of why Gadaffi has to go! Gadaffi Minders Snatch 'Rape Victim'

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 61,219 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Biggins wrote: »
    ...But its not just one man, its a clearly oppressive system that has many times lied to the extent of blowing airline planes out of the air, that willingly hand over weapons of death to others, that allows and probably expands the disgusting system of female repressions, torturing and rapes and many more other possible terrible crimes against humanity.

    I get your point about intrusive other nations just jumping in - but I would also argue that its would be just as big a moral crime to stand by the side a road and just watch such things happen, without at least trying to do something.

    Right now, anything that can be done, is better than nothing at all!
    And up to now, that's what the dying victims have gotten.
    At least now there is SOME small chance of things improving - where there was certainly PREVIOUSLY, no chance at all.

    But where does it end? EVERY TIME NOW A BUNCH OF REBELS WANTS RID OF A LEADER, DOES THE WEST GO IN AND BOMB AND KILL?

    Sorry for caps, too lazy to fix them now.

    Gadaffif has been there for years and years and nothing. Now, a group want rid of him, folks are fighting on the streets, people are dying and the big western chiefs just come in and launch attack after attack after attack?

    Seriously, I think anyone who believes this is about human rights for Libyans
    is a little naive. This is just target practice and bombing for the sake of bombing. All them missiles just lying there, sure we gotta get in some practice. It's a disgrace.

    And, does anyone seriously believe that RIDDING the nation of one man is going to solve the problems. You say it's not just one man. Ok, but rid it of many men, it still is doing nothing but damage. Plenty more Gaddafis out there. The west going to get them all, and in doing so, also kill thousands of others?

    Look at Saddam. The got rid of him, and that damn country is in a whole lot more trouble than when he was there. That is the point. Killings after killings after killing. It's a damn hole.


  • Options
    #63
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    walshb wrote: »
    But where does it end? EVERY TME NOW A BUNCH OF REBELS WANTS RID OF A LEADER, DOES THE WEST GO IN AND BOMB AND KILL?

    Sorry for caps, too lazy to fix them now.

    Gadaffif has been there for years and years and nothing. Now, a group want rid of him, folks are fighting on the streets, people are dying and the big western chiefs just come in and launch attack after attack after attack?

    Seriously, I think anyone who believes this is about human rights for Libyans
    is a little naive. This is just target practice and bombing for the sake of bombing. All them missiles just lying there, sure we gotta get in some practice. It's a disgraces.

    And, does anyone seriously believe that RIDDING the nation of one man is going to solve the problems. You say it's not just one man. Ok, but rid it of many men, it still is doing nothing but damage. Plenty more Gaddafis out there. the west going to get the all, and in doing so, also kill thousands of others?

    Look at Saddam. The got rid of him, and that damn country is in a whole lot more trouble than when he was there. That is the point. Killings after killings after killing. It's a damn hole.
    You wouldn't be saying any of this if you had watched his speeches. The man is openly saying that he will "cleanse" Libya of its "rats" and "bacteria". Saddam, as bad as he was, never openly said that he would kill his own citizens.


  • Options
    #64
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    walshb wrote: »
    But where does it end? EVERY TME NOW A BUNCH OF REBELS WANTS RID OF A LEADER, DOES THE WEST GO IN AND BOMB AND KILL?

    Sorry for caps, too lazy to fix them now.

    Gadaffif has been there for years and years and nothing. Now, a group want rid of him, folks are fighting on the streets, people ae dying and the big western chiefs just come in and launch attack after attack after attack?

    Seriously, I think anyone who believs this is about human rights for Libyans
    is a little naive. This is just target practice and bombing for the sake of bombing. All them missiles just lying there, sure we gotta get in some practice. It's a disgraces.

    And, does anyone seriously believe that RIDDING the nation of one man is going to solve the problems. You say it's not just one man. Ok, but rid it of many men, it still is doing nothing but damage. Plenty more Gaddafis out there. the west going to get the all, and in doing so, also kill thousands of others?

    Look at Saddam. The got rid of him, and that damn country is in a whole lot more trouble than when he was there. That is the point. Killings after killings after kilings. It's a damn hole.

    The whole set-up is a god-damn mess and to a certain extent the West is responsible for bringing about the creation and allowed existence of the monster called Gadaffi and his system of government (and subsequent abuses).

    However in this case - which possibly helps show the consistent ongoing crimes against humanity to the people on the ground, his own counties people - maybe, just maybe they might actually like some sort of help coming in from outside to help turn the tide of oppression.
    Lets at least now that that door has been opened, given them a chance to say so.
    By the actions of this woman alone - they are certainly jumping at the chance!

    Where there was little or no free speech AT ALL, at least now there is some - even if the thugs of Gadaffi are still trying to snuff it and the speakers out!


  • Options
    #65
    LondonIrish90
    Closed Accounts Posts: 882 ✭✭✭LondonIrish90


    walshb wrote: »
    This is a Libyan issue. There are atrocities happening every day all over the world.
    Should that give foreign countries the right to bomb and kill?
    What is so just and fair and right about the U.S and its allies dropping
    millions of dollars worth of missiles onto this country and killing countless
    human beings?

    Did the West give a **** about Gadaffi and Libya last year, the year before and countless other years?

    So, why now? The bombing and killing by allied forces is creating generations of turmoil and unrest. It may look like it's solving something in the short term, but it will cause so much trouble down the road, and will spread throughout the middle east. It's a band aid, that is all. Leave them people alone; let them people decide their fate. Bombing and killing and terrorising a country to rid it of ONE man is insane....

    I completely disagree with your argument.

    I would feel sick if this sort of thing was happening and the UK wasn't playing a very proactive part in protecting the Libyan people who havent had a chance to decide how their country is run for 40 years. These people who want nothing more than a fair, democratic country would be overrun and slaughtered if the UN wasn't involved. Would be ashamed of my country if we were watching this barbarism occuring on the news and were not doing what we could to prevent it.

    If you knew the bloke next door was beating the living daylights out of his children each day would you leave him to it because it was none of your business? Or would you, as I suspect, call in the authorities in an attempt to help those defenceless people?


  • Options
    #66
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,182 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Biggins wrote: »
    Hopefully it will lend/reinforce support from the Arab countries as to getting finally rid of this one evil man - and his thugs.

    That video footage certainly will be shown around the world.
    I hope it helps to save her life.

    Yeah the fact that a woman was raped should really galvanise support for toppling Gadaffi in the Arab world.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    I see on CBS news that they (Gadaffi's mob) are trying to spin it that she was drunk now!
    This is coming from the same few people that have previously stated that "a ceasefire has been ordered" - that their armies have taken towns when they haven't and are not killing innocent women and children, when they have.

    She certainly didn't seem drunk to me! As for "mentally challenged" as they are claiming she was, well if I had been raped once never mind possibly 15 times, I think I wouldn't be exactly of sound mind either!


  • Options
    #68
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Yeah the fact that a woman was raped should really galvanise support for toppling Gadaffi in the Arab world.

    You mean also the Arab nations that although are not too happy with some aspects of the current now NATO campaign, are still willing to have their name associated with the amalgamated actions against Gadaffi?

    O' yes, you must mean those ones too.

    Arab countries might have their problems - we are no saints either by the way (childs rights, fathers rights... he who casts the first stone...) but a lot of them know when they must finally step up, stand shoulder to shoulder with others and at least try and do something, anything.


  • Options
    #69
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,182 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    sollar wrote: »
    Best thing now is just to blow up any house they think he is in and hope to kill him and his sons.

    And that would fulfill the UN mandate of protecting civilians how?

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Options
    #70
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    And that would fulfill the UN mandate of protecting civilians how?
    The general accepted rational is that if he is gone, he can't be no longer issuing orders for towns to be attacked, people to be grabbed and vanish (like that would ever happen!), that his mercenaries that have been hired from outside his own country, paid with money that has been shipped in, might through a loss in the chains of command, decent into chaos and thus more lives be saved as they become also disillusioned, starved of correct militaristic orders and weaponry.

    ...And thats only to begin with.


  • Options
    #71
    NeedaNewName
    Closed Accounts Posts: 409 ✭✭NeedaNewName


    This whole Libya thing is really setting the standards for modern propaganda warfare.

    Good example...

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/mashable/20110317/tc_mashable/us_military_developing_false_online_personalities_to_counter_enemy_propaganda


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    NeedaNewName wrote: »
    This whole Libya thing is really setting the standards for modern propaganda warfare.

    Good example...

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/mashable/20110317/tc_mashable/us_military_developing_false_online_personalities_to_counter_enemy_propaganda

    Interesting but don't see how that is relevant to the current topic, in fairness.
    Certainly another aspect to be aware of though, so cheers for that item.


  • Options
    #73
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,182 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Biggins wrote: »
    You mean also the Arab nations that although are not too happy with some aspects of the current now NATO campaign, are still willing to have their name associated with the amalgamated actions against Gadaffi?

    O' yes, you must mean those ones too.

    Arab countries might have their problems - we are no saints either by the way (childs rights, fathers rights... he who casts the first stone...) but a lot of them know when they must finally step up, stand shoulder to shoulder with others and at least try and do something, anything.

    I mean the Arab countries whose elected leaders are supporting the assualt on Libya. Can you name any?

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Options
    #74
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    I mean the Arab countries whose elected leaders are supporting the assualt on Libya. Can you name any?
    You mean like the ones that lead the League of Arab States, the same ones that demanded on the 12th of March that the United Nations Security Council establish a no-fly zone and safe areas for civilians.

    Those ones?

    Some might not like certain aspect of the whole operation - but they are still there standing shoulder to shoulder allowing the current action to continue.
    ...Unless you know different from the rest of us all!


  • Options
    #75
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,182 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Biggins wrote: »
    The general accepted rational is that if he is gone, he can't be no longer issuing orders for towns to be attacked, people to be grabbed and vanish (like that would ever happen!), that his mercenaries that have been hired from outside his own country, paid with money that has been shipped in, might through a loss in the chains of command, decent into chaos and thus more lives be saved as they become also disillusioned, starved of correct militaristic orders and weaponry.

    ...And thats only to begin with.

    Are you aware that the Libyan rebels include Al Queda fighters?

    So Libya would be better served by a Taliban style style regime under Sharia law where the rape victim in the opening post would be stoned to death for being raped?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Options
    #76
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,182 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Biggins wrote: »
    You mean like the ones that lead the League of Arab States, the same ones that demanded on the 12th of March that the United Nations Security Council establish a no-fly zone and safe areas for civilians.

    Those ones?

    I asked if you could name any Arab countries whose ELECTED leaders support the assault on Gadaffi. Apart from Hamas in the Palestinian authority there aren't any. So a bunch of despots, dictators and absolute monarchs with deplorable human rights records support the removal of another dictator with a deplorable human rights record.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Options
    #77
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Are you aware that the Libyan rebels include Al Queda fighters?

    So Libya would be better served by a Taliban style style regime under Sharia law where the rape victim in the opening post would be stoned to death for being raped?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

    Yes, I, myself am aware of it.

    On that point alone, let me make an analogy.
    If Ireland was (for some daft reason) invaded tomorrow, I would expect eventually some republican wing members to be joining in.
    Just because a number join in, does that mean they are automatically taking over and/or running things or do we have each the capability to see that they are fighting for an equal belief while also maybe trying to gain something too.
    And what about afterwards? Would we be able to see that they want something for their efforts, would we be able to differentiate between showing our grateful thanks to them for efforts made and just giving them the reins of power? Would the political and strategic brains of the world be able to also see that they are maybe trying to win a small advantage for themselves and at the same time, make plans that made sure they didn't just over run the rest of the population and their rights too?

    O' wow, there is Taliban too fighting against Gadaffi,
    Right, just because they are there too, let the people hand the country over to them for we must think, they are just that ALL crazy to want that to happen anyway?

    We can and should allow for individuals religious faiths - even if with good reason, we dislike their faith.
    Thats don't mean we automatically have to capitulate to them in every way just because they exist too!


  • Options
    #78
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    I asked if you could name any Arab countries whose ELECTED leaders support the assault on Gadaffi. Apart from Hamas in the Palestinian authority there aren't any. So a bunch of despots, dictators and absolute monarchs with deplorable human rights records support the removal of another dictator with a deplorable human rights record.

    I see now the point you trying to make here and its a valid one to a degree.
    However for the most part - and please note this - those other countries are trying at least for the most part, tying to do things as peacefully as possible within certain time frames, within abilities of possible transfer intermixed with social change in life styles, ethnic classes and dividing cultures within any one border.
    Those countries are not sending out any tanks and planes to bomb its own citizens in their homes, their streets and even in their hospitals.

    A number of the countries you mention, do have poor records as regards human rights but that at least have their doors open and are still listening to the rest of the world when it says to them than change must be brought about if they too are to progress along side with more stable countries - both in economic terms and the higher values of decency.

    Gadaffi has now closed every door to the world in bringing about progressive change by peace.
    His method now is only by gun and bomb from the ground and air and as he does so, his outcome if he further gained it would not certainly be a good one.


  • Options
    #79
    argosy2006
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,210 ✭✭✭argosy2006


    One under cover sniper could take out Graffiti, He was walking around in public places not so long ago, Would be lot cheaper just to have him shot,
    And to do it without anyone knowing who did it,


  • Options
    #80
    Cybertron85
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Cybertron85


    I don't believe this yarn for one second. Noone could independently verify this story she was coming out with.

    How did she get away, did she evade her 15 captors, or did they just decide to release her so she can go tell the press?!

    Doesn't add up, she's talking out of her hole.


  • Options
    #81
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,182 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Biggins wrote: »
    Yes, I, myself am aware of it.

    On that point alone, let me make an analogy.
    If Ireland was (for some daft reason) invaded tomorrow, I would expect eventually some republican wing members to be joining in.
    Just because a number join in, does that mean they are automatically taking over and/or running things or do we have each the capability to see that they are fighting for an equal belief while also maybe trying to gain something too.
    And what about afterwards? Would we be able to see that they want something for their efforts, would we be able to differentiate between showing our grateful thanks to them for efforts made and just giving them the reins of power? Would the political and strategic brains of the world be able to also see that they are maybe trying to win a small advantage for themselves and at the same time, make plans that made sure they didn't just over run the rest of the population and their rights too?

    I don't accept your analogy. For one thing the rebels by all accounts are inexperienced civilians with no leadership structure. It is logical to assume that Al Queda fighters with military experience in both Afghanistan and Iraq will assume leadership roles among the rebels.

    Also your analogy would be more accurate re Libya if you described republican republican rebles seeking to overthrow the Irish state rather than fighting to defend it.
    O' wow, there is Taliban too fighting against Gadaffi,
    Right, just because they are there too, let the people hand the country over to them?

    Many differing strands of opinion combined to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan also armed by the west and supported by Arab nations). The Taliban triumphed.
    We can and should allow for individuals religious faiths - even if with good reason, we dislike their faith.
    Thats don't mean we automatically have to capitulate to them in every way just because they exist too![/

    This is not an argument it is just wishy washy drivel.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 61,219 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    LondonIrish90 wrote: »
    I completely disagree with your argument.

    I would feel sick if this sort of thing was happening and the UK wasn't playing a very proactive part in protecting the Libyan people who havent had a chance to decide how their country is run for 40 years. These people who want nothing more than a fair, democratic country would be overrun and slaughtered if the UN wasn't involved. Would be ashamed of my country if we were watching this barbarism occuring on the news and were not doing what we could to prevent it.

    If you knew the bloke next door was beating the living daylights out of his children each day would you leave him to it because it was none of your business? Or would you, as I suspect, call in the authorities in an attempt to help those defenceless people?

    And dropping hundreds of missiles and killing god knows how many people will solve the problem?

    And, who says that those opposing Gadaffi are all right, fair, just and decent?

    I never said do nothing. But blowing the county to pieces and killing people is not the solution. It may topple Gadaffi, but by god it will have a lasting affect on stability in that area. Nothing, absolutely nothing that the U.S. and the allies have done in other countries has ever solved problems. It's simply compounded them, and it will be no different in Libya.

    So, you think the authorities, the chiefs and the police here are the U.S and its bombs and missiles?

    Funny, I don't remember the U.S an its allies bombing the North when catholics were being oppressed day in and day out.. All of a sudden they want to help the poor Libyan people? Yeah right!

    I just cannot see how people are fooled into believeing that the likes of the U.K government, who oppressed so so many
    people for so so so long all over the world, really give two ****s about Libya and its people.

    And, that is not an anti U.K point. It's a fact of life, a truth. I have nothing against
    any person from the U.K. They are our neighbours, but I am not going to be fooled
    into believeing that they and the allies are doing this because they care deeply about
    the lives of people from a country so far away. They didn't care very much for the lives
    of people only across the water from them for bloody years.


  • Options
    #83
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    ...This is not an argument it is just wishy washy drivel.

    Well I have wandered off track so am just deciding to let you think what you want.
    I suspect in your thinking and reason, your in a minority in this case.

    As for my drivel, it might be right, it might be wrong but its peaceful drivel and its the right thing to do as far as I can see.

    To summarise, just because some Taliban are part of the rebels, that don't make it an automatic fact that the rest of the Arab countries are just going to allow them to walk into the offices of government power.
    (Please show me one country where the Taliban are officially in power as a government - elected or not!)


  • Options
    #84
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    argosy2006 wrote: »
    One under cover sniper could take out Graffiti, He was walking around in public places not so long ago, Would be lot cheaper just to have him shot,
    And to do it without anyone knowing who did it,
    This isn't Call of Duty. He's better protected than you might think.


  • Options
    #85
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    walshb wrote: »
    And dropping hundreds of missiles and killing god knows how many people will solve the problem?

    And, who says that those opposing Gadaffi are all right, fair, just and decent?

    I never said do nothing. But bowing the counrty to pieces and killing people is not the solution. It may topple Gadaffi, but by god it will have a lasting affect on stability in that area. Nothing, absolutely nothing that the U.S. and the allies have done in other countries has ever solved problems. It's simply compounded them, and it will be no different in Libya.

    So, you think the authorities, the chiefs and the police here are the U.S and its bombs and missiles?

    Funny, I don't remember the U.S an its allies bombing the North when catholics were being oppressed day in and day out.. All of a sudden they want to help the poor Libyan people? Yeah right!

    A number of points there have validity.

    I (and many I assume) suspect that some nations have their own quiet secondary agenda. We might get a glimpse of what that might be at some later stage.

    In the meantime I'm honestly just glad to see the that doors of possible more progressive change has been prised open for a while.
    As we have seen in others countries already this last few months, once that door is opened - its damn hard for oppressors to shut it again.


  • Options
    #86
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,182 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Biggins wrote: »
    I see now the point you trying to make here and its a valid one to a degree.
    However for the most part - and please note this - those other countries are trying at least for the most part, tying to do things as peacefully as possible within certain time frames, within abilities of possible transfer intermixed with social change in life styles, ethnic classes and dividing cultures within any one border.


    Are you for real?
    Those countries are not sending out many tanks and planes to bomb its own citizens in their homes, their streets and even n their hospitals.

    So who decides how many tanks or how many civilian deaths are acceptable?
    A number of the countries you mention, do have poor records as regards human rights but that at least have their doors open and are still listening to the rest of the world when it says to them than change must be brought about if they too are to progress along side with more stable countries - both in economic terms and the higher values of decency.

    Gadaffi has now closed every door to the world in bringing about progressive change by peace.
    His method now is only by gun and bomb from the ground and air and as he does so, his outcome if he further gained it would not certainly be a good one.
    I think the western powers closed doors of negotiation with Gadaffi prematurely. He was given 48 hours to restore power and water supplies to rebel held areas, something that took the might of the US army engineering Corps and thousands of private contractors years to do in Iraq.
    Look at the timeline to war in Libya. Feb 15th protests begin, March 19th bombs start dropping on Libya.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Options
    #87
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 61,219 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Biggins wrote: »
    A number of points there have validity.

    I (and many I assume) suspect that some nations have their own quiet secondary agenda. We might get a glimpse of what that might be at some later stage.

    In the meantime I'm honestly just glad to see the that doors of possible more progressive change has been prised open for a while.
    As we have seen in others countries already this last few months, once that door is opened - its damn hard for oppressors to shut it again.

    Biggins, Iraq had the doors open, and holy god, that poor country has been decimated and destroyed. Yes, Saddam is gone, but look at the damage getting rid of him has cost.

    Afghanistan? That country was bad, but it's worse now, and getting worser' by the day.

    They went in there, according to themselves, to topple Saddam and his regime. What did they achieve? ****ing misery. Life after life after life, and still ongoing.

    Does anyone seriously believe that Iraq is safer and more stable today than 20 years ago? Than ten years ago? No way. I never would have holidayed there, but if I had to at any point, it would be before Saddam was taken out.


  • Options
    #88
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,182 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Biggins wrote: »
    (Please show me one country where the Taliban are officially in power as a government - elected or not!)

    I can no more give you an example of a country where the Taliban are currently in power than you can of a democratically elected Arab head of state.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Options
    #89
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    safesurfer wrote:
    I see now the point you trying to make here and its a valid one to a degree.
    Are you for real?
    No, this is an automatic Kray typing system!
    What do you think!

    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    ...So who decides how many tanks or how many civilian deaths are acceptable?
    MANY should have been ANY - that was a typo error on my part and corrected.

    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    I think the western powers closed doors of negotiation with Gadaffi prematurely. He was given 48 hours to restore power and water supplies to rebel held areas, something that took the might of the US army engineering Corps and thousands of private contractors years to do in Iraq.
    Look at the timeline to war in Libya. Feb 15th protests begin, March 19th bombs start dropping on Libya.

    Are you for real this time?

    Have you actually lived through the previous 30+ years of antics with him when he has repeatedly again and again stated one thing, did another, using years of stall tactics and then doing the exact opposite to what he's said publicly - then to stall again... lied massively to public camera and to political stages - and went on killing?

    The man cannot be trusted as far as he could by chucked be a midget!
    The latest example being about ceasefires, not killing his own people, and so on are cases in point.
    Just how far should the rest of the world capitulate to his never decreasing lies and crap?
    Sooner or later even the most stupid of world leaders and people have to say one thing - and that is "STOP!"

    I'm willing to go an extra length, to give Gadaffi extra rope - but just enough to hang himself!


  • Options
    #90
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    walshb wrote: »
    Biggins, Iraq had the doors open, and holy god, that poor country has been decimated and destroyed. Yes, Saddam is gone, but look at the damage getting rid of him has cost.

    Afghanistan? That country was bad, but it's worse now, and getting worser' by the day.

    They went in there, according to themselves, to topple Saddam and his regime. What did they achieve? ****ing misery. Life after life after life, and still ongoing.

    Does anyone seriously believe that Iraq is safer and more stable today than 20 years ago? Than ten years ago? No way. I never would have holidayed there, but if I had to at any point, it would be before Saddam was taken out.

    You are right in what you say. You won't find be disagreeing with many of the above points.
    I would say however (and I suspect you might agree) that the FUBAR situations were brought about by those coming in from outside and possible because of their own agendas being a primary aspect.

    While sadly many examples as you have outlined are bad (to say the least), I take small comfort myself that at least there is still now (even with the state of the situation in each today) that there is still some openings being allowed to happen more so than before pre-invasion.
    Cold comfort but like you first join the army (those in the army/navy, etc will know what I'm on about hopefully, if not the rest...), sometimes there is breakdown before re-unity into a hopefully better eventual unified better form of cohesion.
    Working through the rubble of previous foundations, it is sometimes possible to eventually bring about a workable decent government.
    Many world country histories have shown that to be true.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Gerry Asstrix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭Gerry Asstrix


    Sad how many of you lap up whatever the media throw at you,'Ghadaffi bombs own people', 'Ghadaffi thugs rape women'

    Open your eyes, this is all propaganda controlled and being created by US and Brit intelligence to sway the meek minded against Ghadaffi and nearly all those in the Middle East and North Africa

    Fact remains Ghadaffi has been running with his government one of the most secular, progressive and independent nations in the noramlly backward Arab world.

    Yes there are problems, but we have had problems, we had a former minister and serving TD give two fingers to the Irish people during the week and continues to work as a public representative who'll settle on a nice pension.
    Should the US invade Ireland now?
    By some of you logic that would be the case.

    Every country has problems but most havent got tons of oil to exploit

    The big gripe the Western globalist world has with Libya and most Arab and North African nations is OIL

    And this whole 'revolution' that is spreading across the middle east and north africa is all engineered by US and Brit Army spooks
    And is geared to overthrow the current regimes with puppet US ones

    Dont buy the hype

    Let Ireland not pander to the Brits and Yanks,lets support Ghadaffi and Libya from occupation forces

    Afterall Ireland is still occupied by over 7000 British troops in the North of our country and Ghadaffi once sent over thousands of arms to help us push these invaders off our island

    Time to return the favour


Advertisement
Advertisement