Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Real Reason for NATO Attacking Libya ?
Options
Comments
-
I've pretty much found the source of this, coupled with the other video
Since when do conspiracy theorists suddenly start lapping up state propaganda?
What's a conspiracy theorist?0 -
Weather you think the League is a sham or not is irrelevant. The point was made that the League supported the no fly zone. Obviously they weren't in full possession of all the facts as to what a no fly zone entailed. Now they are reconsidering their position.
I am dipping and diving a bit because I am unsure of some aspects and have stated that earlier. That should make you look better though right ?0 -
The following were all mentioned in the resolution no. 1973.
- League of Arab States
- African Union
- Organization of the Islamic Conference
There's no chance that they didn't know what the resolution entailed.
Out of the 15 members of the UN security council not one voted against the resolution, both Russia and China have the power of veto but they abstained. In fact Russia has vetoed more resolutions than the others put together, but didn't this time. I suspect it's because Russia and everyone else knew perfectly well that the no fly zone would escalate to it's present state. Their president said as much, and I also suspect they were hoping not to have to write off their "little investment" to supply arms and stage their naval base in Libya.0 -
Weather you think the League is a sham or not is irrelevant. The point was made that the League supported the no fly zone. Obviously they weren't in full possession of all the facts as to what a no fly zone entailed. Now they are reconsidering their position.
I am dipping and diving a bit because I am unsure of some aspects and have stated that earlier. That should make you look better though right ?
They are backtracking - they did it before, said the airstrikes were too strong, then backtracked on that and then after said they fully supported the coalition
and now Moussa is saying its too strong again, there are still so few civilian casualties, nothing has changed - as much as they can't stand Gaddafi they can't stand the "West' - They are being torn both ways.0 -
Brown Bomber wrote: »
You mean the first post or my post
Or am I the bad guy and he isn't?
If you spell something wrong in a thread or don't post your urls, they'll come get you.0 -
Advertisement
-
Brown Bomber wrote: »What's a conspiracy theorist?
I can base a definition on the ones I live with -
High on intelligence, low on critical thinking
Or I can just say low on common sense
Either way they don't believe a single politician in US/UK/Israel dies naturally of a heart attack, it always has a shadowy cause, somehow, they'll find it - oddly all other countries are exempt from that theory
So plagarism and the definition of a conspiracy theorist, any thoughts on Libya?0 -
Weather you think the League is a sham or not is irrelevant. The point was made that the League supported the no fly zone. Obviously they weren't in full possession of all the facts as to what a no fly zone entailed. Now they are reconsidering their position.
I am dipping and diving a bit because I am unsure of some aspects and have stated that earlier. That should make you look better though right ?
Brown fella missed one here.
Anyway...
Some eloquent facts that make a nonsense of the Original Post.
Libya only produces about 2% of the worlds oil, Saudi can easily make up the shortfall.
About 85% of Libya's oil is bought by Europe.
75% of Libya's petrol is imported because it doesn't have the refineries.
They couldn't decide to trade in gold because the just don't have the clout, it could all too easily backfire on them.
http://www.nationaljournal.com0 -
Welcome to the Violent World of Mr. Hopey Changey By John Pilger
May 26, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- -- When Britain lost control of Egypt in 1956, Prime Minister Anthony Eden said he wanted the nationalist president Gamal Abdel Nasser “destroyed … murdered … I don’t give a damn if there’s anarchy and chaos in Egypt”. Those insolent Arabs, Winston Churchill had urged in 1951, should be driven “into the gutter from which they should never have emerged”.
The language of colonialism may have been modified; the spirit and the hypocrisy are unchanged. A new imperial phase is unfolding in direct response to the Arab uprising that began in January and has shocked Washington and Europe, causing an Eden-style panic. The loss of the Egyptian tyrant Mubarak was grievous, though not irretrievable; an American-backed counter-revolution is under way as the military regime in Cairo is seduced with new bribes and power shifting from the street to political groups that did not initiate the revolution. The western aim, as ever, is to stop authentic democracy and reclaim control.
Libya is the immediate opportunity. The Nato attack on Libya, with the UN Security Council assigned to mandate a bogus “no fly zone” to “protect civilians”, is strikingly similar to the final destruction of Yugoslavia in 1999. There was no UN cover for the bombing of Serbia and the “rescue” of Kosovo, yet the propaganda echoes today. Like Slobodan Milosevic, Muammar Gaddafi is a “new Hitler”, plotting “genocide” against his people. There is no evidence of this, as there was no genocide in Kosovo. In Libya there is a tribal civil war; and the armed uprising against Gaddafi has long been appropriated by the Americans, French and British, their planes attacking residential Tripoli with uranium-tipped missiles and the submarine HMS Triumph firing Tomahawk missiles, a repeat of the “shock and awe” in Iraq that left thousands of civilians dead and maimed. As in Iraq, the victims, which include countless incinerated Libyan army conscripts, are media unpeople.
In the “rebel” east, the terrorising and killing of black African immigrants is not news. On 22 May, a rare piece in the Washington Post described the repression, lawlessness and death squads in the “liberated zones” just as visiting EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, declared she had found only “great aspirations” and “leadership qualities”. In demonstrating these qualities, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, the “rebel leader” and Gaddafi’s justice minister until February, pledged, “Our friends … will have the best opportunity in future contracts with Libya.” The east holds most of Libya’s oil, the greatest reserves in Africa. In March the rebels, with expert foreign guidance, “transferred” to Benghazi the Libyan Central Bank, a wholly owned state institution. This is unprecedented. Meanwhile, the US and the EU “froze” almost US$100 billion in Libyan funds, “the largest sum ever blocked”, according to official statements. It is the biggest bank robbery in history.
The French elite are enthusiastic robbers and bombers. Nicholas Sarkozy’s imperial design is for a French-dominated Mediterranean Union (UM), which would allow France to “return” to its former colonies in North Africa and profit from privileged investment and cheap labour. Gaddafi described the Sarkozy plan as “an insult” that was “taking us for fools”. The Merkel government in Berlin agreed, fearing its old foe would diminish Germany in the EU, and abstained in the Security Council vote on Libya.
Like the attack on Yugoslavia and the charade of Milosevic’s trial, the International Criminal Court is being used by the US, France and Britain to prosecute Gaddafi while his repeated offers of a ceasefire are ignored. Gaddafi is a Bad Arab. David Cameron’s government and its verbose top general want to eliminate this Bad Arab, like the Obama administration killed a famously Bad Arab in Pakistan recently. The crown prince of Bahrain, on the other hand, is a Good Arab. On 19 May, he was warmly welcomed to Britain by Cameron with a photo-call on the steps of 10 Downing Street. In March, the same crown prince slaughtered unarmed protestors and allowed Saudi forces to crush his country’s democracy movement. The Obama administration has rewarded Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive regimes on earth, with a $US60 billion arms deal, the biggest in US history. The Saudis have the most oil. They are the Best Arabs.
The assault on Libya, a crime under the Nuremberg standard, is Britain’s 46th military “intervention” in the Middle East since 1945. Like its imperial partners, Britain’s goal is to control Africa’s oil. Cameron is not Anthony Eden, but almost. Same school. Same values. In the media-pack, the words colonialism and imperialism are no longer used, so that the cynical and the credulous can celebrate state violence in its more palatable form.
And as “Mr. Hopey Changey” (the name that Ted Rall, the great American cartoonist, gives Barack Obama), is fawned upon by the British elite and launches another insufferable presidential campaign, the Anglo-American reign of terror proceeds in Afghanistan and elsewhere, with the murder of people by unmanned drones – a US/Israel innovation, embraced by Obama. For the record, on a scorecard of imposed misery, from secret trials and prisons and the hounding of whistleblowers and the criminalising of dissent to the incarceration and impoverishment of his own people, mostly black people, Obama is as bad as George W. Bush.
The Palestinians understand all this. As their young people courageously face the violence of Israel’s blood-racism, carrying the keys of their grandparents’ stolen homes, they are not even included in Mr. Hopey Changey’s list of peoples in the Middle East whose liberation is long overdue. What the oppressed need, he said on 19 May, is a dose of “America’s interests [that] are essential to them”. He insults us all.0 -
Any fool can cut and paste hyperbole from a website.
I wonder does Jackiebrown actually understand the article?
Care to give us your view of what you think is going or have you just been pilgered? :rolleyes:
Can anyone on this forum think for themselves anymore?0 -
jackiebaron wrote: »Welcome to the Violent World of Mr. Hopey Changey By John Pilger
May 26, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- -- When Britain lost control of Egypt in 1956, Prime Minister Anthony Eden said he wanted the nationalist president Gamal Abdel Nasser “destroyed … murdered … I don’t give a damn if there’s anarchy and chaos in Egypt”. Those insolent Arabs, Winston Churchill had urged in 1951, should be driven “into the gutter from which they should never have emerged”.
The language of colonialism may have been modified; the spirit and the hypocrisy are unchanged. A new imperial phase is unfolding in direct response to the Arab uprising that began in January and has shocked Washington and Europe, causing an Eden-style panic. The loss of the Egyptian tyrant Mubarak was grievous, though not irretrievable; an American-backed counter-revolution is under way as the military regime in Cairo is seduced with new bribes and power shifting from the street to political groups that did not initiate the revolution. The western aim, as ever, is to stop authentic democracy and reclaim control.
Libya is the immediate opportunity. The Nato attack on Libya, with the UN Security Council assigned to mandate a bogus “no fly zone” to “protect civilians”, is strikingly similar to the final destruction of Yugoslavia in 1999. There was no UN cover for the bombing of Serbia and the “rescue” of Kosovo, yet the propaganda echoes today. Like Slobodan Milosevic, Muammar Gaddafi is a “new Hitler”, plotting “genocide” against his people. There is no evidence of this, as there was no genocide in Kosovo. In Libya there is a tribal civil war; and the armed uprising against Gaddafi has long been appropriated by the Americans, French and British, their planes attacking residential Tripoli with uranium-tipped missiles and the submarine HMS Triumph firing Tomahawk missiles, a repeat of the “shock and awe” in Iraq that left thousands of civilians dead and maimed. As in Iraq, the victims, which include countless incinerated Libyan army conscripts, are media unpeople.
In the “rebel” east, the terrorising and killing of black African immigrants is not news. On 22 May, a rare piece in the Washington Post described the repression, lawlessness and death squads in the “liberated zones” just as visiting EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, declared she had found only “great aspirations” and “leadership qualities”. In demonstrating these qualities, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, the “rebel leader” and Gaddafi’s justice minister until February, pledged, “Our friends … will have the best opportunity in future contracts with Libya.” The east holds most of Libya’s oil, the greatest reserves in Africa. In March the rebels, with expert foreign guidance, “transferred” to Benghazi the Libyan Central Bank, a wholly owned state institution. This is unprecedented. Meanwhile, the US and the EU “froze” almost US$100 billion in Libyan funds, “the largest sum ever blocked”, according to official statements. It is the biggest bank robbery in history.
The French elite are enthusiastic robbers and bombers. Nicholas Sarkozy’s imperial design is for a French-dominated Mediterranean Union (UM), which would allow France to “return” to its former colonies in North Africa and profit from privileged investment and cheap labour. Gaddafi described the Sarkozy plan as “an insult” that was “taking us for fools”. The Merkel government in Berlin agreed, fearing its old foe would diminish Germany in the EU, and abstained in the Security Council vote on Libya.
Like the attack on Yugoslavia and the charade of Milosevic’s trial, the International Criminal Court is being used by the US, France and Britain to prosecute Gaddafi while his repeated offers of a ceasefire are ignored. Gaddafi is a Bad Arab. David Cameron’s government and its verbose top general want to eliminate this Bad Arab, like the Obama administration killed a famously Bad Arab in Pakistan recently. The crown prince of Bahrain, on the other hand, is a Good Arab. On 19 May, he was warmly welcomed to Britain by Cameron with a photo-call on the steps of 10 Downing Street. In March, the same crown prince slaughtered unarmed protestors and allowed Saudi forces to crush his country’s democracy movement. The Obama administration has rewarded Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive regimes on earth, with a $US60 billion arms deal, the biggest in US history. The Saudis have the most oil. They are the Best Arabs.
The assault on Libya, a crime under the Nuremberg standard, is Britain’s 46th military “intervention” in the Middle East since 1945. Like its imperial partners, Britain’s goal is to control Africa’s oil. Cameron is not Anthony Eden, but almost. Same school. Same values. In the media-pack, the words colonialism and imperialism are no longer used, so that the cynical and the credulous can celebrate state violence in its more palatable form.
And as “Mr. Hopey Changey” (the name that Ted Rall, the great American cartoonist, gives Barack Obama), is fawned upon by the British elite and launches another insufferable presidential campaign, the Anglo-American reign of terror proceeds in Afghanistan and elsewhere, with the murder of people by unmanned drones – a US/Israel innovation, embraced by Obama. For the record, on a scorecard of imposed misery, from secret trials and prisons and the hounding of whistleblowers and the criminalising of dissent to the incarceration and impoverishment of his own people, mostly black people, Obama is as bad as George W. Bush.
The Palestinians understand all this. As their young people courageously face the violence of Israel’s blood-racism, carrying the keys of their grandparents’ stolen homes, they are not even included in Mr. Hopey Changey’s list of peoples in the Middle East whose liberation is long overdue. What the oppressed need, he said on 19 May, is a dose of “America’s interests [that] are essential to them”. He insults us all.
Let me sum up what the above author believes
-There is an American-backed counter-revolution in Cairo
-The West is trying to stop democracy
- The UN mandate and NATO attack on Libya is bogus
- There was no genocide in Kosovo
- Claims that Gaddafi is being painted as a new Hitler and is being portrayed as commiting genocide against his own people
- There is some sort of plot concerning the Libyan "rebels" regarding oil
- The blockage of Gaddafi assets are "robbery"
- France wants to return to its colonies
- Writes a paragraph on bad arabs and good arabs
- Britain wants control of African oil and a return to colonialism
- Paragraph comparing Obama to Bush, all the same evils
- The good Palestinians and bad Israeli paragraph
Some of this stuff I agree with, other parts of it are borderline crazy. The piece taken as a whole is a biased, angry, selective rant.
If this guy wrote for a paper (impossible I know), it would be very interesting to see how many seconds it would take for his "view" of the world to change if they actually sent him to Tripoli or Misrata.0 -
Advertisement
-
I know. In one instance Gadaffi had 140 people killed by snipers for protesting. And some twits would rather believe it's a Zionist plot or some bollix.
Russia wiped out over 4 billion dollars (or something or others) in a deal to sell Libya arms, build a railway and stage a naval base there. So Putin and his comrades need Gadaffi there, otherwise that's 4 billion down the swanny. That's why they sat on their arse during the vote. Hence we're seeing RT doing their best to spread the word.
Libya is socialist only in name, Gadaffi has wasted billions of vanity projects so although the GDP looks healthy there's no distribution of wealth. Health care isn't all it's made out to be either to be with most who can afford it traveling abroad.
Thing is this has been coming for a long time. There's been dissent in Benghazi long before the Arab spring.
How come there was no dissent in the capital, Tripoli?
When uprisings are actually authentic they usually manifest themselves in the capital.0 -
No, I think it's one reason. Another is the uprising has already taken control of several costal cities and has forced many senior Libyan diplomats to defect overseas. The rebels include officers from the original coup which saw Gadaffi come to power as well as ministers from his own government.
Libya has the option to form a government through free elections, the anti-Gadaffi members are in a position to do that. As I've said already there has been unease with the situation for at least the last two years. This is not the case in Syria for example.
When you say Western Governments who exactly are you talking about?
The original no-fly zone was to protect civilians and was backed by the Arab League as well as the UN.
Why no intervention in Bahrain where protesters were crushed and tanks from the pro-US dictatorship of Saudi Arabia were moved across the border to quell any dissent? Why no "surgical" air strikes there? And don't give me this "NATO can only do so much" crap.0 -
jackiebaron wrote: »How come there was no dissent in the capital, Tripoli?
When uprisings are actually authentic they usually manifest themselves in the capital.
There was lots of dissent in Tripoli
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8338293/Libya-protests-focus-on-Tripoli-as-demonstrators-set-public-buildings-on-fire.htmlWhy no intervention in Bahrain where protesters were crushed and tanks from the pro-US dictatorship of Saudi Arabia were moved across the border to quell any dissent? Why no "surgical" air strikes there? And don't give me this "NATO can only do so much" crap
Because if there was, you'd say why is there no action in Syria? and if there was you'd say why no action in Yemen? and if there was, you'd say why all this action they are trying to take over the Middle East argle bargle!!
Cmon, use your noggin, if the situation had spiralled out of control in Egypt and the military had followed Mubarak's orders, then you'd be saying why are they in Egypt and not in Libya
Its very selective objectivity if you ask me 0 -
jackiebaron wrote: »Why no intervention in Bahrain where protesters were crushed and tanks from the pro-US dictatorship of Saudi Arabia were moved across the border to quell any dissent? Why no "surgical" air strikes there? And don't give me this "NATO can only do so much" crap.
Saudi's not a dictatorship. But to try and answer your inane question; possibly because the UK are training Saudi Troops, maybe because the UK and Bahrain are both constitutional monarchies, definitely because both Bahrain and Saudi have vastly bigger oil infrastructures than Libya. Also don't forget that the protests in Bahrain, despite being mercilessly crushed and not looking for a complete change of regime either.jackiebaron wrote: »How come there was no dissent in the capital, Tripoli?
When uprisings are actually authentic they usually manifest themselves in the capital.
Are you for real? That's one of the most stupid generalizations I've seen in a long time and really shows how little you know about what you are talking about.
What on earth gave you the impression there was no 'dissent' in Tripoli? WTF were they doing in Tripoli in Feburay? About 250 people shot dead, the Parliment set on fire. FFS :rolleyes:TRIPOLI Feb 21 (Reuters) - A government building in the Libyan capital is on fire, a Reuters reporter said on Monday.
"I can see the People's Hall is on fire, there are firefighters there trying to put it out," the reporter said....
So would you like to tell us what you think makes an "authentic":rolleyes: uprising? Don't tell me one that Jim Corr made up is it?0 -
Any fool can cut and paste hyperbole from a website.
I wonder does Jackiebrown actually understand the article?
Care to give us your view of what you think is going or have you just been pilgered? :rolleyes:
Can anyone on this forum think for themselves anymore?
Yea Studiorat and any fool can try to have some manners and show respect when disagreeing with a post. But you don't sometimes apparently.:)
By the way i find your use of the phrase "pilgered" odious. A lazy criticism of a great journalist. He rightly threatened court proceedings regarding it's use in print.0 -
Let me sum up what the above author believes
-There is an American-backed counter-revolution in Cairo
-The West is trying to stop democracy
- The UN mandate and NATO attack on Libya is bogus
- There was no genocide in Kosovo
- Claims that Gaddafi is being painted as a new Hitler and is being portrayed as commiting genocide against his own people
- There is some sort of plot concerning the Libyan "rebels" regarding oil
- The blockage of Gaddafi assets are "robbery"
- France wants to return to its colonies
- Writes a paragraph on bad arabs and good arabs
- Britain wants control of African oil and a return to colonialism
- Paragraph comparing Obama to Bush, all the same evils
- The good Palestinians and bad Israeli paragraph
Some of this stuff I agree with, other parts of it are borderline crazy. The piece taken as a whole is a biased, angry, selective rant.
If this guy wrote for a paper (impossible I know), it would be very interesting to see how many seconds it would take for his "view" of the world to change if they actually sent him to Tripoli or Misrata.
I'm curious to know which parts are "borderline crazy". This "guy" Pilger has written for many papers and been to countless warzones and his view of the world is arguably exactly the same as when he started his career. To suggest that he would change his views after a visit to Tripoli is a bit weak now in fairness...0 -
I'm curious to know which parts are "borderline crazy". This "guy" Pilger has written for many papers and been to countless warzones and his view of the world is arguably exactly the same as when he started his career. To suggest that he would change his views after a visit to Tripoli is a bit weak now in fairness...
He's well known, the man is on a mission, he's as biased a Glen Beck, I mean when he has started doing interviews with Russia Today then don't expect a single objective rational piece from the man. Show me one single event, or report, or situation that has ever happened that John Pilger hasn't used to malign the West - you'll be very hardpressed - he's very "focused" if you know what I mean, and has lost any/all objectivity, he's on par with a wingnut like O'Reilly
and trust me, if you're a reporter in Tripoli, life can be dangerous, I doubt these guys came back and wrote a big rant about imperialist USA
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12695077
I'd prefer to get my news from non-ranting obsessed biased reporters thank you, watch a bit of BBC, Al Jazeera, US news, Euronews, Al Arabiya, etc I find the laws of averages works best, wake up sheeple0 -
Yea Studiorat and any fool can try to have some manners and show respect when disagreeing with a post. But you don't sometimes apparently.:)
By the way i find your use of the phrase "pilgered" odious. A lazy criticism of a great journalist. He rightly threatened court proceedings regarding it's use in print.
I find it a very useful description of what he does. Well clearly no one has the right to contradict a journalist as well renowned as Pilger. :pac:
In the article posted, Pilger mentions Mustafa Abdul Jalil and says he was the justice minister until Feb, trying to tar him with the same brush, what he conveniently leaves out is that Jalil had taken a stand against the regime in 2009 and 2010 * regarding prisoners held illegally. He mentions missile attacks but neglects to tell us that both sides are launching missiles, that Gaddafi launched fighter and helicopter attacks on his people in his own capital city. Even by the standards on this forum for being selective with the truth Pilgers article is suprising.
Why do you un-questioningly hang on every word he says? I wonder what he makes of pro government forces laying landmines, he's probably quite happy to turn a blind eye to that, since it's not fascist lizard zionists laying them. His selective morality and his selective reporting is sickening IMO.0 -
I don't want to take away your right to criticise studiorat; ta for the info. Gonna digest what you both said and check it out but i don't really buy it from first impressions. He's wrong about some things, but as with most of the articles, books, docs and films he calls it pretty well IMO. You go to the responses section of his New Statesmen articles and you see all the same sort of vitriol for a man who has championed so many great causes and done some REAL reporting.0
-
If this guy wrote for a paper (impossible I know), it would be very interesting to see how many seconds it would take for his "view" of the world to change if they actually sent him to Tripoli or Misrata.
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]by Cynthia McKinney, in Tripoli[/FONT]
“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Inside the hotel, one Libyan woman carrying a baby came to me and asked me why are they doing this to us?” writes Cynthia McKinney as bombs rain down on Tripoli, capital of Libya.[/FONT]
“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]It is transparently clear now that NATO has exceeded its mandate, lied about its intentions, is guilty of extra-judicial killings--all in the name of "humanitarian intervention." If the humanitarian ruse is allowed against Libya, why not…anywhere? “People around the world need us to stand up and speak out for ourselves and them because Iran and Venezuela are also in the cross-hairs.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]NATO: A Feast of Blood[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]by Cynthia McKinney, in Tripoli[/FONT]“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The sky flashed red with explosions and more rockets from NATO jets cut through low cloud before exploding.”[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]While serving on the House International Relations Committee from 1993 to 2003, it became clear to me that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was an anachronism. Founded in 1945 at the end of World War II, NATO was created by the United States in response to the Soviet Union's survival as a Communist state. NATO was the U.S. insurance policy that capitalist ownership and domination of European, Asian, and African economies would continue. This also would ensure the survival of the then-extant global apartheid.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]NATO is a collective security pact wherein member states pledge that an attack upon one is an attack against all. Therefore, should the Soviet Union have attacked any European Member State, the United States military shield would be activated. The Soviet Response was the Warsaw Pact that maintained a "cordon sanitaire" around the Russian Heartland should NATO ever attack. Thus, the world was broken into blocs which gave rise to the "Cold War."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Avowed "Cold Warriors" of today still view the world in these terms and, unfortunately, cannot move past Communist China and an amputated Soviet Empire as enemy states of the U.S. whose moves anywhere on the planet are to be contested. The collapse of the Soviet Union provided an accelerated opportunity to exert U.S. hegemony in an area of previous Russian influence. Africa and the Eurasian landmass containing former Soviet satellite states and Afghanistan and Pakistan along with the many other "stans" of the region, have always factored prominently in the theories of "containment" or "rollback" guiding U.S. policy up to today. [/FONT]“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I immediately thought about the depleted uranium munitions reportedly being used here--along with white phosphorus.“[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]With that as background, last night's NATO rocket attack on Tripoli is inexplicable. A civilian metropolitan area of around 2 million people, Tripoli sustained 22 to 25 bombings last night (Monday), rattling and breaking windows and glass and shaking the foundation of my hotel. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I left my room at the Rexis Al Nasr Hotel and walked outside the hotel and I could smell the exploded bombs. There were local people everywhere milling with foreign journalists from around the world. As we stood there more bombs struck around the city. The sky flashed red with explosions and more rockets from NATO jets cut through low cloud before exploding.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I could taste the thick dust stirred up by the exploded bombs. I immediately thought about the depleted uranium munitions reportedly being used here--along with white phosphorus. If depleted uranium weapons were being used what affect on the local civilians?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Women carrying young children ran out of the hotel. Others ran to wash the dust from their eyes. With sirens blaring, emergency vehicles made their way to the scene of the attack. Car alarms, set off by the repeated blasts, could be heard underneath the defiant chants of the people. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Sporadic gunfire broke out and it seemed everywhere around me. Euronews showed video of nurses and doctors chanting even at the hospitals as they treated those injured from NATO's latest installation of shock and awe. Suddenly, the streets around my hotel became full of chanting people, car horns blowing, I could not tell how many were walking, how many were driving[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Inside the hotel, one Libyan woman carrying a baby came to me and asked me why are they doing this to us?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Whatever the military objectives of the attack (and I and many others question the military value of these attacks) the fact remains the air attack was launched a major city packed with hundreds of thousands of civilians.[/FONT]“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Car alarms, set off by the repeated blasts, could be heard underneath the defiant chants of the people.”[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I did wonder too if the any of the politicians who had authorized this air attack had themselves ever been on the receiving end of laser guided depleted uranium munitions. Had they ever seen the awful damage that these weapons do a city and its population? Perhaps if they had actually been in a city under air attack and felt the concussion from these bombs and saw the mayhem caused they just might not be so inclined to authorize an attack on a civilian population.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I am confident that NATO would not have been so reckless with human life if they had been called on to attack a major western city. Indeed, I am confident that they would not be called upon ever to attack a western city. NATO only attacks (as does the US and its allies) the poor and underprivileged of the 3rd world.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Only the day before, at a women's event in Tripoli, one woman came up to me with tears in her eyes: her mother is in Benghazi and she can't get back to see if her mother is OK or not. People from the east and west of the country lived with each other, loved each other, intermarried, and now, because of NATO's "humanitarian intervention," artificial divisions are becoming hardened. NATO's recruitment of allies in eastern Libya smacks of the same strain of cold warriorism that sought to assassinate Fidel Castro and overthrow the Cuban Revolution with "homegrown" Cubans willing to commit acts of terror against their former home country. More recently, Democratic Republic of Congo has been amputated de facto after Laurent Kabila refused a request from the Clinton Administration to formally shave off the eastern part of his country. Laurent Kabila personally recounted the meeting at which this request and refusal were delivered. This plan to balkanize and amputate an African country (as has been done in Sudan) did not work because Kabila said "no" while Congolese around the world organized to protect the "territorial integrity" of their country.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I was horrified to learn that NATO allies (the Rebels) in Libya have reportedly lynched, butchered and then their darker-skinned compatriots after U.S. press reports labeled Black Libyans as "Black mercenaries." Now, tell me this, pray tell. How are you going to take Blacks out of Africa? Press reports have suggested that Americans were "surprised" to see dark-skinned people in Africa. Now, what does that tell us about them?[/FONT]“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]What I experienced last night is no "humanitarian intervention."[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The sad fact, however, is that it is the Libyans themselves, who have been insulted, terrorized, lynched, and murdered as a result of the press reports that hyper-sensationalized this base ignorance. Who will be held accountable for the lives lost in the bloodletting frenzy unleashed as a result of these lies?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Which brings me back to the lady's question: why is this happening? Honestly, I could not give her the educated reasoned response that she was looking for. In my view the international public is struggling to answer "Why?".[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]What we do know, and what is quite clear, is this: what I experienced last night is no "humanitarian intervention." [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Many suspect it is about all the oil under Libya. Call me skeptical but I have to wonder why the combined armed sea, land and air forces of NATO and the US costing billions of dollars are being arraigned against a relatively small North African country and we're expected to believe its in the defense of democracy.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]What I have seen in long lines to get fuel is not "humanitarian intervention." Refusal to allow purchases of medicine for the hospitals is not "humanitarian intervention." What is most sad is that I cannot give a cogent explanation of why to people now terrified by NATO's bombs, but it is transparently clear now that NATO has exceeded its mandate, lied about its intentions, is guilty of extra-judicial killings--all in the name of "humanitarian intervention." Where is the Congress as the President exceeds his war-making authority? Where is the "Conscience of the Congress?"[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]For those of who disagree with Dick Cheney's warning to us to prepare for war for the next generation, please support any one who will stop this madness. Please organize and then vote for peace. People around the world need us to stand up and speak out for ourselves and them because Iran and Venezuela are also in the cross-hairs. Libyans don't need NATO helicopter gunships, smart bombs, cruise missiles, and depleted uranium to settle their differences. NATO's "humanitarian intervention" needs to be exposed for what it is with the bright, shining light of the truth.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]As dusk descends on Tripoli, let me prepare myself with the local civilian population for some more NATO humanitarianism.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Stop bombing Africa and the poor of the world![/FONT]
http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/nato-feast-blood0 -
Advertisement
-
He's well known, the man is on a mission, he's as biased a Glen Beck, I mean when he has started doing interviews with Russia Today then don't expect a single objective rational piece from the man. Show me one single event, or report, or situation that has ever happened that John Pilger hasn't used to malign the West - you'll be very hardpressed - he's very "focused" if you know what I mean, and has lost any/all objectivity, he's on par with a wingnut like O'Reilly
and trust me, if you're a reporter in Tripoli, life can be dangerous, I doubt these guys came back and wrote a big rant about imperialist USA
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12695077
I'd prefer to get my news from non-ranting obsessed biased reporters thank you, watch a bit of BBC, Al Jazeera, US news, Euronews, Al Arabiya, etc I find the laws of averages works best, wake up sheeple
I could do that but it's getting away from topic maybe. He's "focused" alright because that what he does. You still haven't outlined the parts when asked about the article, rather went on a rant yourself.
If you prefer to get news from "a bit of BBC" and you think thats unbiased?:pac:. You need to wake up yourself IMO0 -
I could do that but it's getting away from topic maybe. He's "focused" alright because that what he does. You still haven't outlined the parts when asked about the article, rather went on a rant yourself.
If you prefer to get news from "a bit of BBC" and you think thats unbiased?:pac:. You need to wake up yourself IMO
Look at the absolute drivel being posted above (from brown_bomber.. what does that tell you?
There are already large threads on the politics boards about Libya, you'd be banned for trolling that type of junk was posted
If you want to go off topic and split hairs, then if you actually read my post you'll see that I spread my news
I don't watch BBC on its own that might be biased, I clearly state that I watch from as many sources as possible
Try to read my post next time
I really believe some people in here need to start getting their news from sources other than angry conspiracy sites. It would also help if they had any interest/knowledge in the subject they were discussing, rather than just trawling the internet and cherrypicking anything that supports their sometimes pre-determined opinion on anything US/UK/Israel related
Read the absolute sheer and utter drivel that brown_bomber has just posted
Heres a line I just made up.. I could write crap like this with random facts, some half-truths, glued together with utter drivel and barely concealed bias and it would be lapped up.. (exaggerated for your benefit)
"as I clutched my bleeding baby I could see the grinning faces of the NATO pilots as they trained their uranium depleted rounds on us once more.. the same rounds that were used by the Americans in 2004 in Fallujah in the hideous lie that was Iraq.. blah.. blah"
jaysus lads0 -
Brown Bomber wrote: »[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]by Cynthia McKinney, in Tripoli[/FONT]
“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Inside the hotel, one Libyan woman carrying a baby came to me and asked me why are they doing this to us?” writes Cynthia McKinney as bombs rain down on Tripoli, capital of Libya.[/FONT]
Just posting polemic as usual, that cut and paste job has absolutely no substance. It's just a stream of cliche, cliche that she was happy enough to go on Libyan state television with. She's no stranger to Press TV either. I wonder is she on RT much?It is transparently clear now that NATO has exceeded its mandate, lied about its intentions, is guilty of extra-judicial killings--all in the name of "humanitarian intervention."
Overstepping their mandate is debatable but, does she clearly state what the NATO intentions are? She uses a sleight of hand there that Goebbels would have been proud of. Extra judicial killings? That's a serious charge why doesn't she elaborate on these issues. Rather we get the usual babies dripping in blood hyperbole that the Brown one seems to love so much.
Her simplistic division of cold war boundaries is a nonsense, see link below.
http://www.debka.com/article/20981/sources report word going round that President Barak Obama and President Dmitry Medvedev Friday, May 27, came to an reciprocal understanding on the sidelines of the G8 summit in Deauville about the fate of the Syrian and Libyan rulers.
Obama is reported to have promised Medvedev to let Assad finish off the uprising against him without too much pressure from the US and the West. In return, the Russian president undertook to help the US draw the Libyan war to a close by means of an effort to bring about Muammar Qaddafi's exit from power – in a word, the two big powers traded Qaddafi for Assad.0 -
Look at the absolute drivel being posted above (from brown_bomber.. what does that tell you?
That you prefer to rip off Wikipedia (of all places)?
This was what you had said --If this guy wrote for a paper (impossible I know), it would be very interesting to see how many seconds it would take for his "view" of the world to change if they actually sent him to Tripoli or Misrata.
Now let's ignore the fact that you quite clearly had no idea who John Pilger was at the time
If this guy wrote for a paper (impossible I know),
--->
He's well known, the man is on a mission, he's as biased a Glen Beck, I mean when he has started doing interviews with Russia Today then don't expect a single objective rational piece from the man. Show me one single event, or report, or situation that has ever happened that John Pilger hasn't used to malign the West - you'll be very hardpressed - he's very "focused" if you know what I mean, and has lost any/all objectivity, he's on par with a wingnut like O'Reilly
WTF...........?
And subsequently pretended that you did, your gripe was that Pilger wasn't in fact in Tripoli during the uprising/bombings. Yes? I posted you an article by someone who was actually there and you still whinge? Why exactly?0 -
Brown Bomber wrote: »That you prefer to rip off Wikipedia (of all places)?
This was what you had said --
Now let's ignore the fact that you quite clearly had no idea who John Pilger was at the time
If this guy wrote for a paper (impossible I know),
--->
He's well known, the man is on a mission, he's as biased a Glen Beck, I mean when he has started doing interviews with Russia Today then don't expect a single objective rational piece from the man. Show me one single event, or report, or situation that has ever happened that John Pilger hasn't used to malign the West - you'll be very hardpressed - he's very "focused" if you know what I mean, and has lost any/all objectivity, he's on par with a wingnut like O'Reilly
WTF...........?
And subsequently pretended that you did, your gripe was that Pilger wasn't in fact in Tripoli during the uprising/bombings. Yes? I posted you an article by someone who was actually there and you still whinge? Why exactly?
oh come on, you know exactly what I meant, he's as much a journalist as Bill O'Reilly is a "news reporter".
You seem to be much more concerned with trying to "catch me out" than actually debating the subject.
As the other poster asked do you have a single opinion on Libya, or are you just cut and pasting what other people are saying?0 -
I find it a very useful description of what he does. Well clearly no one has the right to contradict a journalist as well renowned as Pilger. :pac:
In the article posted, Pilger mentions Mustafa Abdul Jalil and says he was the justice minister until Feb, trying to tar him with the same brush, what he conveniently leaves out is that Jalil had taken a stand against the regime in 2009 and 2010 * regarding prisoners held illegally. He mentions missile attacks but neglects to tell us that both sides are launching missiles, that Gaddafi launched fighter and helicopter attacks on his people in his own capital city. Even by the standards on this forum for being selective with the truth Pilgers article is suprising.
Why do you un-questioningly hang on every word he says? I wonder what he makes of pro government forces laying landmines, he's probably quite happy to turn a blind eye to that, since it's not fascist lizard zionists laying them. His selective morality and his selective reporting is sickening IMO.
Well, what i find sickening is that NATO is yet again in motion. The dogs on the street know both sides are using missiles, so why sling out things like "Oh, well Pilger didn't mention that".:) Just doesn't stand up to me. The piece is an overview, not wikipedia a la Jonny7:).
I don't think he or anyone on here is suggesting that he was anything but a tyrant. No fly-zones are one thing. Whats happening is the selective mandated NATO bombing and killing. They've selected to intervene in Libya's war for many reasons, but the official one is for Joe Blogs is "He's killing his own people".0 -
I don't think he or anyone on here is suggesting that he was anything but a tyrant. No fly-zones are one thing. Whats happening is the selective mandated NATO bombing and killing. They've selected to intervene in Libya's war for many reasons, but the official one is for Joe Blogs is "He's killing his own people".
What reasons? That's what the discussion is about. May be you'd like to come up with one, because the alternative reasons suggested so far are nonsense. We've proved that already.
So tell us about the many reasons ed. There's ****all oil, there's ****all gold, dealing in different currency was never on the cards. We haven't had a credible alternative yet, what are the reasons you think?0 -
What reasons? That's what the discussion is about. May be you'd like to come up with one, because the alternative reasons suggested so far are nonsense. We've proved that already.
So tell us about the many reasons ed. There's ****all oil, there's ****all gold, dealing in different currency was never on the cards. We haven't had a credible alternative yet, what are the reasons you think?
What? There's plenty of both. 2% of worldwide oil is plenty, especially if you're trumping Russian interests to boot. And frozen assets worth many billions so plenty of loot. Thats 2 right there.
At the risk of sounding like a simpleton, it's clear they want Gadaffi out. He's an enemy of Western interests and therefore NATO; has been for a long time. It's a golden opportunity that they're grabbing with both hands. Imperialism. Disaster Capitalism. Call it what you will. The Washington consensus juggernaut has arrived in Africa. Bet they're so excited at the prospects, they're wetting themselves. But you know all this right?0 -
What reasons? That's what the discussion is about. May be you'd like to come up with one, because the alternative reasons suggested so far are nonsense. We've proved that already.
So tell us about the many reasons ed. There's ****all oil, there's ****all gold, dealing in different currency was never on the cards. We haven't had a credible alternative yet, what are the reasons you think?
Studio reckons it's for humanitarian reasons. :pac:0 -
Advertisement
-
What? There's plenty of both. 2% of worldwide oil is plenty, especially if you're trumping Russian interests to boot. And frozen assets worth many billions so plenty of loot. Thats 2 right there.
What are you talking about? It's NATO and Russia now is it? Listen, the two biggest oil companies there are Italian and Spanish; foreign companies in the first place. Rising oil prices are a threat to economic recovery in the US, UK etc. rising oil prices which can be blamed on the civil conflict in Libya. Now, if you consider the quickest way to restore order to the oil markets would simply been to have let Gadaffi crush the rebels, which he would have done before the UN intervention. Why didn't they just do that?At the risk of sounding like a simpleton, it's clear they want Gadaffi out. He's an enemy of Western interests and therefore NATO; has been for a long time. It's a golden opportunity that they're grabbing with both hands. Imperialism. Disaster Capitalism. Call it what you will.
Grabbing what? You make it out like there's no foreign companies in Libya at all. After Bush lifted the sanctions foreign investment came flooding into the country. The 'grabbing' happened years ago.
Practically the whole continent want Gadaffi out, even friggin' Hezbollah want him gone, he's too unstable for the whole area, he's jumped allegiances repeatedly over last 40 years. Not to mention that he's no stranger to installing the odd puppet government around Africa himself. That IMO is the real reason.The Washington consensus juggernaut has arrived in Africa. Bet they're so excited at the prospects, they're wetting themselves. But you know all this right?
What the hell is the Washington consensus? Dude, so far all you've come up with is vague cliche, it's quite boring at this stage. Do you have any actual opinion on this subject ? any facts? your own analysis of the matter? Because it seems to me you don't understand what's going on at all.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgdn0bNsMkQ
Advertisement