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

The Real Reason for NATO Attacking Libya ?

1246725

Comments

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


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    However, as viciously right wing and biased a media outlet like Fox news are, they have ten times the credibility of an outlet along the lines of e.g. Syrian state TV. Some posters here cannot distinguish this ... at all.

    QED


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


    :confused:
    Do you speak Arabic?

    No

    Do you have an opinion of your own on Libya? I'm not having a go, but without cutting and pasting something someone else says, just try to write something you think about the topic on hand.. it is a "forum" after all.

    I'll even start a discussion point for you, Libyan state TV claims that hundreds of civilians have been killed by NATO strikes. Do you think this figure is accurate?


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


    ed2hands wrote: »
    The bit highlighted. Not to nitpick for the sake of it, and you made some good points on politics thread, but the pre-determined bias is based on cold hard facts. US/UK/Isreal/Nato are still more or less the same under Obama/Cameron/Netanyahu etc as under Bush and co. So the bias or pre-determined opinion is valid as such.
    In your analagy of Pol Pot and subsequent leadership of Vietnam (though i think you mean Cambodia), it's different because that subsequent leadership didn't continue in the same vein. Hope that makes sense.

    There should prob be a separate post on this, but anyway.

    Everyone is biased to some extent. But bias is based on knowledge. That knowledge has to be credible. Thats a fundamental of critical thinking. So it follows if someone posts something from RT then there's something lacking there.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    No
    As I suspected.
    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Do you have an opinion of your own on Libya? I'm not having a go, but without cutting and pasting something someone else says, just try to write something you think about the topic on hand.. it is a "forum" after all.
    Tis' Jonny a forum, your right and what's happened is that you've made a claim, specifically this.

    However, as viciously right wing and biased a media outlet like Fox news are, they have ten times the credibility of an outlet along the lines of e.g. Syrian state TV. Some posters here cannot distinguish this ... at all.


    Now I've never seen Syrian state TV. Your statement gives the impression that you have. In fact not just seen it but analysed it in some detail.

    So to clarify I asked you this,
    Do you speak Arabic?
    Due to the fact that Syrian state TV is broadcast in Arabic.

    You answered no and now I don't understand how you could make such an authorative and final claim on Syrian state TV and it's credibilty when you have never seen it, or on the off chance that you have you didn't understand a word.

    It's like writing a book review without ever reading the book in question.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    There should prob be a separate post on this, but anyway.

    Everyone is biased to some extent. But bias is based on knowledge. That knowledge has to be credible. Thats a fundamental of critical thinking. So it follows if someone posts something from RT then there's something lacking there.


    You're right thats for another post. But just on RT, it is a credible source for me on many of these issues, bias aside. It's type of reports and guests will not be seen on Western media as you know. Talkback is a good show. Whats the point of watching CNN or BBC to get a critical or different angle about NATO, US or whatever?
    It also goes that if one wants to get a decent report on Chechnya say, then RT would not be where you would start.


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


    Jisr al-Shughour - Syria.

    State media reports 80 killed in the towns military headquarters.

    Witnesses say deaths happened when the military fire fired on it's own soldiers who refused to shoot unarmed civilians.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/truth-about-massacre-stays-buried-as-fight-for-border-town-goes-on-2297073.html


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


    Due to the fact that Syrian state TV is broadcast in Arabic.

    Can't tell if you are being serious on this or not, but here goes

    I don't live in France, I don't speak French, yet how do I know so much about Sarkowzy is saying?

    Come to think of it, how do people here have an opinion on Chavez since he doesn't speak English very much..

    I don't live in Libya, nor do I speak Arabic, but I know plenty about Libyan state TV, how is that possible?

    Do I need to "explain" this more :)


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


    ed2hands wrote: »
    You're right thats for another post. But just on RT, it is a credible source for me on many of these issues, bias aside. It's type of reports and guests will not be seen on Western media as you know. Talkback is a good show. Whats the point of watching CNN or BBC to get a critical or different angle about NATO, US or whatever?
    It also goes that if one wants to get a decent report on Chechnya say, then RT would not be where you would start.

    Go into youtube and type in "Russia Today", look at the first few pages. Do the same with PressTV.

    Honestly its like saying I watch Fox News to get a "critical angle" on Russia, terrorism and the Middle East.

    Al Jazeera were actually bombed by the Americans.. twice.. and had some of their reporters killed, they aren't exactly "pro-Western"

    Yet if you look up AlJazeera on youtube, they don't resemble RT or PressTV at all, in fact their stories are much like Euronews, or the Guardian, or other mainstream outlets. Ironically they're much closer to the BBC than RT.

    Its no big secret that RT were set up as a "soft counter" to Western influence, they have very little credibility in fairness.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,764 ✭✭✭DeadParrot


    Russia Today are as credible as Fox News.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,189 ✭✭✭drdeadlift


    DeadParrot wrote: »
    Russia Today are as credible as Fox News.

    I dont know much about russia today,are they solely internet based?


  • Advertisement
  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    I don't live in France, I don't speak French, yet how do I know so much about Sarkowzy is saying?
    English language news.
    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Come to think of it, how do people here have an opinion on Chavez since he doesn't speak English very much.
    English language news.
    Jonny7 wrote: »
    I don't live in Libya, nor do I speak Arabic, but I know plenty about Libyan state TV, how is that possible?
    I have no idea. That's what I'd asked you.
    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Do I need to "explain" this more :)
    Yes please. Especially the part about how you know FOX is 10 times more credible than Syrian state TV when you've never actually seen it or know how to speak Arabisk.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    drdeadlift wrote: »
    I dont know much about russia today,are they solely internet based?
    They are on the Satellite Channels in Sweden that's as much as I know.

    edit: In the UK and Ireland, the channel is available on the Sky platform's channel 512, including in the Freesat from Sky package. It is also available in the UK 24 hours per day on Digital Terrestrial platform Freeview channel 85.


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


    Yes please. Especially the part about how you know FOX is 10 times more credible than Syrian state TV when you've never actually seen it or know how to speak Arabisk.

    Thats my point.. English language news..

    How do you know about Chavez if you don't speak Spanish?

    How do I know about Syrian state TV if I don't speak Syrian?

    Its quite honestly one of the most stupid assumptions I've seen on here .. well ever

    Controlled State TV will just offer the government line, there's none of the normal restraints. Some are more extreme than others. I don't really have to honestly go into this do I?


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


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    No

    Do you have an opinion of your own on Libya? I'm not having a go, but without cutting and pasting something someone else says, just try to write something you think about the topic on hand.. it is a "forum" after all.

    I'll even start a discussion point for you, Libyan state TV claims that hundreds of civilians have been killed by NATO strikes. Do you think this figure is accurate?

    I'd put it at thousands.


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


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Thats my point.. English language news..

    How do you know about Chavez if you don't speak Spanish?

    How do I know about Syrian state TV if I don't speak Syrian?

    Its quite honestly one of the most stupid assumptions I've seen on here .. well ever

    Controlled State TV will just offer the government line, there's none of the normal restraints. Some are more extreme than others. I don't really have to honestly go into this do I?


    WTF? Syrian????
    You now sound as credible as that American general who called Iranians and Afghans "Arabs".

    :pac:


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


    Anyway...speaking of Syria here's a good Asia Times article that highlights the game of chess between the US and Russia over the Med. The conversion of Libya into a pro-US puppet state is no doubt part of the plan. I can foresee a massive US naval base in Tripoli if the NATO scumbags succeed in toppling Gadaffi and installing some French-educated Arab stooge.


    More to Syria Than Meets the Eye -- Major Power Battle Between Kremlin and US Underway, And the Stakes Are High

    With Saudi, Israeli and Turkish interests aligning against it, the Kremlin seems in deep water -- could it lose its last naval base in the Mediterranean?

    By M.K. Bhadrakumar

    June 15, 2011 "
    Asia Times" -- Seldom it is that the Russian Foreign Ministry chooses a Sunday to issue a formal statement. Evidently, something of extreme gravity arose for Moscow to speak out urgently. The provocation was the appearance of a United States guided missile cruiser in the Black Sea for naval exercises with Ukraine. The USS Monterrey cruiser equipped with the AEGIS air defense system is taking part in joint Ukrainian-US exercises, Sea Breeze 2011.

    There is nothing extraordinary about a US-Ukraine naval exercise. Last year, too, an exercise took place. But, as Moscow posed, "While leaving aside the unsettled issue of a possible European missile shield architecture, Russia would like to know, in compliance with the Russia-NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] Lisbon summit decisions, what 'aggravation' the US command meant by moving the basic strike unit of the regional missile defense grouping being formed by NATO in the region, from the Mediterranean to the East?"

    The Foreign Ministry statement then went on to give its own explanation that the Monterrey was sent to European waters as part of the US administration's phased adaptive approach to building the European segment of the global missile shield. The program's first stage envisages the deployment of a group of US warships in the Adriatic, Aegean and Mediterranean Seas to protect South Europe from possible missile strikes. The role of the US warship's missiles in the Sea Breeze 2011 anti-piracy exercises is also unclear, the statement said.

    "We have to state that our concerns continue to be ignored and under the guise of talks on European missile shield cooperation, efforts are under way to build the missile shield configuration whose consequences are dangerous and about which we have numerously informed our US and NATO partners," the Russian statement added.

    The US claims that this is a routine naval exercise. On the other hand, Moscow asks: "If this is an ordinary visit, then it is unclear why a warship with this type of armament was chosen to move to this quite sensitive region."

    Without doubt, the US is stepping up pressure on Russia's Black Sea fleet. The US's provocation is taking place against the backdrop of the turmoil in Syria. Russia is stubbornly blocking US attempts to drum up a case for Libya-style intervention in Syria. Moscow understands that a major reason for the US to push for regime change in Syria is to get the Russian naval base in that country wound up.

    The Syrian base is the only toehold Russia has in the Mediterranean region. The Black Sea Fleet counts on the Syrian base for sustaining any effective Mediterranean presence by the Russian navy. With the establishment of US military bases in Romania and the appearance of the US warship in the Black Sea region, the arc of encirclement is tightening. It is a cat-and-mouse game, where the US is gaining the upper hand.

    Ostensibly, the regime headed by Bashar al-Assad is repressive since almost everyday reports are coming out that more bloodshed has taken place. But the Western reports are completely silent as to the assistance that the Syrian opposition is getting from outside. No one is interested in probing or questioning, for instance, the circumstances in which 120 Syrian security personnel could have been shot and killed in one "incident".

    The Western, Saudi, Israeli and Turkish involvement in Syria's unrest is almost crystal clear but that is beyond the zone of discussion when we speak of "Syria on the boil". In short, Russia has lost the information war over Syria. Henceforth, its dilemma will be that it will be seen as being obstructionist and illogical when a laudable democratization process is unfolding in Syria and the "Arab Spring" is straining to make an appearance.

    Moscow has made it clear that it will not brook a resolution at the United Nations Security Council over Syria, no matter its wording or contents. It also voted against the Western move at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week to open a Syria nuclear file - similar to the Iran file - at the UN Security Council.

    Moscow's dilemma is that it cannot openly explain its side of the US's geopolitical agenda toward Syria. Any such explanation will expose the hollowness of the US-Russia reset, which the Kremlin under President Dmitry Medvedev assiduously worked for. But Washington is not going to let Russia off the hook either. It is certain to tighten the noose around Assad's neck.

    Put simply, the US wants Russia to leave Syria alone for the West to tackle. But Russia knows what follows will be that the Russian naval base there would get shut down by a pro-Western successor regime in Damascus that succeeds Assad.

    The stakes are very high. Last year, the deputy head of Russian military intelligence was killed in mysterious circumstances while on an inspection tour of the naval base in Syria. His body was found floating on the Mediterranean off the Turkish coast. To be sure, many intelligence agencies are deeply embroiled in the Syrian broth.

    First and foremost, a regime change in Syria has become absolutely critical for breaking Israel's regional isolation. The US-Israeli hope is that the back of the Hezbollah can be broken only if the regime of Assad is overthrown in Damascus and the Syrian-Iranian alliance is ended. Again, a regime change in Syria will force the Hamas leadership to vacate Damascus. Hamas chief Khalid Meshaal has been living in Damascus under Assad's protection for several years.

    All in all, therefore, any movement on the Israel-Palestine peace process on Israeli terms will be possible only if the US and Israel crack the hard Syrian nut. Washington and Tel Aviv have been trying to persuade Russia to fall in line and accept "defeat" over Syria. But Moscow has stuck to its guns. And now by sending the warship to the Black Sea, US has signaled that it will make Russia pay a price for its obduracy and pretensions as a Mediterranean and Middle Eastern power.

    The parliamentary election result in Turkey ensuring another term for the ruling "Islamist" party AKP (Justice and Development Party) significantly strengthens the US position on Syria. Ankara has hardened its stance on Assad and has begun openly criticizing him. A more obtrusive Turkish role in destabilizing Assad and forcing a regime change in Damascus can now be expected in the coming weeks. Ironically, Turkey also controls the Bosphorous Straits.

    By improving ties with Turkey in the past decade, Moscow had been hoping that Ankara would gradually move toward an independent foreign policy. The Kremlin's expectation was that the two countries could get together and form a condominium over the Black Sea. But as events unfold, it is becoming clear that Ankara is reverting to its earlier priorities as a NATO country and US's pre-eminent partner in the region. Ankara cannot be faulted: it made a shrewd assessment and drew a balance sheet concluding that its interests are best served by identifying with the Western move to effect a regime change in Syria.

    Additionally, Ankara finds it profitable that it identifies with the Saudi approach to the upheaval in the Middle East. The wealth Arabs in the oil-rich countries of the Persian Gulf are willing to send their "green money" to Turkey. Ankara also shares Saudi misgivings about Iran's rise as regional power.

    In sum, the US is slowly but steadily getting the upper hand over its agenda of a regime change in Syria. Whether Moscow will buckle under this immense pressure and accept a rollback of its influence in Syria is the big question. Moscow has threatened to cooperate with Beijing and adopt a common stance over Syria. But Moscow's ability to counter the American juggernaut over Syria is weakening by the day.

    The course of events over Syria will certainly impact profoundly on the US-Russia reset. The Obama administration seems to have done its homework and concluded that it is worth taking that risk for the sake of ensuring Israel's security. The warship that sailed into the Black Sea carries a blunt message to Russia to accept that it is a mere pale shadow of the former Soviet Union.

    Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.



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


    WTF? Syrian????
    You now sound as credible as that American general who called Iranians and Afghans "Arabs".

    :pac:

    I've got to LOL.. this is a debate, not wordplay.. yet that's all you are doing,

    Well theres an actual opinion from you - you'd put the casualties from NATO strikes on Libya at thousands - where's your source on this? How have you come up with that figure?

    Just because you may think, or believe, or "suspect" the moon is made of cheese.. doesn't make it so. So if you want to engage in something called "debate" then unfortunately you need credible sources.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    I've got to LOL.. this is a debate, not wordplay.. yet that's all you are doing,

    Well theres an actual opinion from you - you'd put the casualties from NATO strikes on Libya at thousands - where's your source on this? How have you come up with that figure?

    Just because you may think, or believe, or "suspect" the moon is made of cheese.. doesn't make it so. So if you want to engage in something called "debate" then unfortunately you need credible sources.


    Are these the same credible sources that reported so accuratly on the Iraq invasion? The ones who put the death toll at around 100,000? The same ones who so dilligently reported on the effects of "precision bombing", cluster bombing and the use of depleted uranium?


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


    ed2hands wrote: »
    Are these the same credible sources that reported so accuratly on the Iraq invasion? The ones who put the death toll at around 100,000? The same ones who so dilligently reported on the effects of "precision bombing", cluster bombing and the use of depleted uranium?






    Libyan state TV is reporting hundreds of deaths from NATO bombs

    Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, ABC, BBC, the guardian, Indian news, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc are not reporting these hundreds of deaths.

    If someone is to suggest that all these Western, Middle Eastern, Asian, South American outlets are all controlled by one entity - then I can't engage in that kinda stuff

    You can of course say Fox is bias in one way, and theguardian in another, thats fine, but they are all unified on this issue, they are not reporting 100s and 100's of deaths from NATO bombs.

    Much less credible sites like RT and PressTV are trying to subtley "suggest" it.

    Fundamentally Libyan state TV are basically reporting something that nearly all other "more credible" outlets are not reporting

    To go to your Iraq analogy, Iraqi state TV was reporting that the Americans were not in Baghdad when almost every other outlet was reporting it and we were seeing pictures of American tanks actually inside Baghdad

    Therefore using "common sense" we can conclude that Iraqi state TV does not have much credibility

    Thats a concrete, proven example.

    But, if you are a patriotic angry biased Iraqi person who hates America, etc.. then you may choose ONLY that source, and choose
    to believe that source, as uncredible as it is. You can say look, there are no American tanks in Baghdad - here is the source.

    A source has to be "credible"

    Again - if you are going to say all world media is controlled or something then I can't get into that kinda stuff

    Then we have this guy in the thread, who seems to know little about the conflict, saying that thousands are dead...





    - on a side note, we are debating Libya here, I was firmly against the lie that was Iraq, literally must have a hundred or more posts about it, stay with Libya as much as we can

    - on a real side note I can't believe I have to ****ing describe this - its common sense really


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


    Anyway...speaking of Syria here's a good Asia Times article that highlights the game of chess between the US and Russia over the Med. The conversion of Libya into a pro-US puppet state is no doubt part of the plan. I can foresee a massive US naval base in Tripoli if the NATO scumbags succeed in toppling Gadaffi and installing some French-educated Arab stooge.

    NATO Scumbags? Dude... That's not very objective is it?

    Anyway, the same author stated in 2008 that Russia's two bases in the Black were sufficient for Russia to maintain a presence in the Med. Especially since The Montreal Convention which assures the free passage of Russian warships through the Bosphorous. In fact he plays down the importance of the Syrian base...
    Present The Syrian base is the only toehold Russia has in the Mediterranean region.
    2008Of course, without a Black Sea fleet, Russia would have
    ceased to be a naval power in the Mediterranean.
    2008The Middle East media recently suggested in the context of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to Moscow that Russia might contemplate shifting its Black Sea Fleet from Sevastopol to Syria. But this is an incorrect reading insofar as all that Russia needs is a supply and maintenance center for its warships, which operate missions in the Mediterranean.

    http://atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JH30Ag03.html

    I also find rather strange this statment from the present article :
    No one is interested in probing or questioning, for instance, the circumstances in which 120 Syrian security personnel could have been shot and killed in one "incident".

    Well we've had reports of it posted on this thread. Maybe he should look here...


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


    studiorat wrote: »
    NATO Scumbags? Dude... That's not very objective is it?

    Anyway, the same author stated in 2008 that Russia's two bases in the Black were sufficient for Russia to maintain a presence in the Med. Especially since The Montreal Convention which assures the free passage of Russian warships through the Bosphorous. In fact he plays down the importance of the Syrian base...







    http://atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JH30Ag03.html

    I also find rather strange this statment from the present article :

    Well we've had reports of it posted on this thread. Maybe he should look here...

    They are scumbags. They claim to be a military alliance to protect one another from the encroachment of the Soviet Union but now they are thugging for the White House in places thousands of miles from Europe, i.e. Afghanistan. And they are bombing Libyans in order to topple a leader so they can install a stooge to do their bidding. And they tell us they operate as a "defence alliance" and they say this with a straight face and expect us to believe and respect them?? If that's not scumbaggery I don't know what is.

    With Libya Obama started a war — or "kinetic military action" — without bothering to give Congress formal notification. The War Powers Resolution says a president may do something like that in exigent circumstances, but the action must be limited to 60 days. The administration has blithely let the deadline pass.

    Last week, Virginia Democratic Sen. James Webb asked: "Was our country under attack, or under the threat of imminent attack? Was a clearly vital national interest at stake? Were we invoking the inherent right of self-defense as outlined in the United Nations charter? Were we called upon by treaty commitments to come to the aid of an ally? Were we responding in kind to an attack on our forces elsewhere? … Were we rescuing Americans in distress? … No, we were not." The administration ignored Webb, too. Say what you will about the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq, at least he got congressional assent before launching it.

    And don't try and justify this by stating that Gadaffi is a tyrant who kills his people. That's not a good enough reason to attack a country and kills its people and it's not legal and never has been. So don't waste my time with that crap. Gadaffi could be eating newborns for breakfast and it still wouldn't justify bombing his country according to the UN Charter. But if you choose to ignore that then we can safely assume what camp you're in i.e. the "Let's make the laws and rules up as we go along" brigade.


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


    And don't try and justify this by stating that Gadaffi is a tyrant who kills his people. That's not a good enough reason to attack a country and kills its people and it's not legal and never has been. So don't waste my time with that crap. Gadaffi could be eating newborns for breakfast and it still wouldn't justify bombing his country according to the UN Charter. But if you choose to ignore that then we can safely assume what camp you're in i.e. the "Let's make the laws and rules up as we go along" brigade.

    I see you obviously are intent on polarizing the discussion and would rather change the topic away from the Asia times article. But you have not commented on what I said about the news article you posted and the contradictions in it

    So...
    The same author stated in 2008 that Russia's two bases in the Black sea were sufficient for Russia to maintain a presence in the Med. Especially since The Montreal Convention which assures the free passage of Russian warships through the Bosphorous. In fact he plays down the importance of the Syrian base.


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



    And don't try and justify this by stating that Gadaffi is a tyrant who kills his people. That's not a good enough reason to attack a country and kills its people and it's not legal and never has been. So don't waste my time with that crap. Gadaffi could be eating newborns for breakfast and it still wouldn't justify bombing his country according to the UN Charter. But if you choose to ignore that then we can safely assume what camp you're in i.e. the "Let's make the laws and rules up as we go along" brigade.

    The UN passed a resolution on Libya and the Ivory coast sanctioning the use of force. Russia and China could have vetoed but they didn't.

    How do you explain this?


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


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    The UN passed a resolution on Libya and the Ivory coast sanctioning the use of force. Russia and China could have vetoed but they didn't.

    How do you explain this?

    R1973 does NOT sanction the use of force. It vaguely states the use of all "necessary measures" ... a lame term to sugarcoat bombardment.

    Ask yourself this very simple question. If your UN resolution is so binding and sacrosanct then why bypass (or even ignore) the formality of seeking congressional approval for military involvement? If this UN resolution is/was so binding then why ignore the protocols enshrined in the US Constitition? Why not go to Congress and say "guys...we've got the green light! Sign on the dotted line!"

    For your information, a UN Resolution does NOT legalise war. And the sooner you wake up to that fact, the better.

    But you know something....Gadaffi's winning. He has done nothing wrong no moreso than that prick in Uzbeckistan (a US ally) who boils people to death and has poor f**kers raped with broken bottles.

    But allegedly Gadaffi's a tyrant so he must be ousted. GIVE ME FÜCKING PEACE!!

    Gadaffi didn't give fücking viagra to his men to rape the shït out of people and he's not doing other bogus dreadful crap that is reported. The West want Libya...plain and simple and Gadaffi isn't about to hand it over. And you can't come to terms with that. Gadaffi advocates a one-state solution in Israel and he also deems that Libyan oil wealth be first and foremost at the hands of his people (kinda like Chavez) ... but this is not sitting well with Chevron or BP or Shell or Total or Unocal or Exxon.

    You kiss the ass of Nato and the West because you think they are "good guys"....it's nauseating to listen to your one sided, blinkered bleatings and you vilify those on the other side because you haven't the moral fibre, political courage or strength of character to examine these issues without having your paw firmly planted in the camp that provides you with the most comfort.

    Have you ever once expressed a modicum of empathy? i.e. putting yourself in the shoes of someone else? Have you ever once considered that your angle may be skewed? Because I have. Don't you have the gumption to at least posit a question or do you simply think that it's your way...RIGHT...always has and always will be?

    You blab on about a UN Resolution....yet why was there a motion in the US House as the 60 day deadline approached? I would love to hear your excuse for that.

    These are the facts...and they are indisputable....Barack Obama has chosen to wage war on Libya with UN approval but WITHOUT Congressional authorisation. Not only is that ILLEGAL under international law but it is in blatant violation of Article 6 of the US Constitution


    ............and I challenge you to deny it!


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


    R1973 does NOT sanction the use of force. It vaguely states the use of all "necessary measures" ... a lame term to sugarcoat bombardment.

    Ask yourself this very simple question. If your UN resolution is so binding and sacrosanct then why bypass (or even ignore) the formality of seeking congressional approval for military involvement? If this UN resolution is/was so binding then why ignore the protocols enshrined in the US Constitition? Why not go to Congress and say "guys...we've got the green light! Sign on the dotted line!"

    For your information, a UN Resolution does NOT legalise war. And the sooner you wake up to that fact, the better.

    But you know something....Gadaffi's winning. He has done nothing wrong no moreso than that prick in Uzbeckistan (a US ally) who boils people to death and has poor f**kers raped with broken bottles.

    But allegedly Gadaffi's a tyrant so he must be ousted. GIVE ME FÜCKING PEACE!!

    Gadaffi didn't give fücking viagra to his men to rape the shït out of people and he's not doing other bogus dreadful crap that is reported. The West want Libya...plain and simple and Gadaffi isn't about to hand it over. And you can't come to terms with that. Gadaffi advocates a one-state solution in Israel and he also deems that Libyan oil wealth be first and foremost at the hands of his people (kinda like Chavez) ... but this is not sitting well with Chevron or BP or Shell or Total or Unocal or Exxon.

    You kiss the ass of Nato and the West because you think they are "good guys"....it's nauseating to listen to your one sided, blinkered bleatings and you vilify those on the other side because you haven't the moral fibre, political courage or strength of character to examine these issues without having your paw firmly planted in the camp that provides you with the most comfort.

    Have you ever once expressed a modicum of empathy? i.e. putting yourself in the shoes of someone else? Have you ever once considered that your angle may be skewed? Because I have. Don't you have the gumption to at least posit a question or do you simply think that it's your way...RIGHT...always has and always will be?

    You blab on about a UN Resolution....yet why was there a motion in the US House as the 60 day deadline approached? I would love to hear your excuse for that.

    These are the facts...and they are indisputable....Barack Obama has chosen to wage war on Libya with UN approval but WITHOUT Congressional authorisation. Not only is that ILLEGAL under international law but it is in blatant violation of Article 6 of the US Constitution


    ............and I challenge you to deny it!

    Well the resolution :

    authorises all necessary means to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas, except for a "foreign occupation force"

    That means if armored pro-Gaddafi forces are shelling Misrata, they can and will be stopped. It would be a pretty useless resolution if it didn't authorise force.

    You must admit there was some success in Ivory coast, Gbagbo was threatening the whole country with a return to civil war.
    Have you ever once expressed a modicum of empathy? i.e. putting yourself in the shoes of someone else? Have you ever once considered that your angle may be skewed? Because I have. Don't you have the gumption to at least posit a question or do you simply think that it's your way...RIGHT...always has and always will be?

    Yes genuine empathy for the Libyan people.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,584 ✭✭✭digme


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Well the resolution :
    Yes genuine empathy for the Libyan people.
    They could easily be called al-Qaeda by the press and what then, do you still feel empathy?


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


    digme wrote: »
    They could easily be called al-Qaeda by the press and what then, do you still feel empathy?

    Very strange statement. Why would the press just randomly "call" them Al Qaeda?

    Why would the press, e.g. two completely different media outlets, the BBC and Al Jazeera just "call" them Al Qaeda when they aren't. That would be pretty bad reporting don't you think.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,584 ✭✭✭digme


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Very strange statement. Why would the press just randomly "call" them Al Qaeda?

    Why would the press, e.g. two completely different media outlets, the BBC and Al Jazeera just "call" them Al Qaeda when they aren't. That would be pretty bad reporting don't you think.
    What do you mean randomly? Al-Qaeda are in the country and are fighting gaddaffi.


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


    digme wrote: »
    What do you mean randomly? Al-Qaeda are in the country and are fighting gaddaffi.

    You forgot to add ".. according to Libyan state TV", over in Syria, Assad calls the protesters "terrorist groups", in Egypt Mubarak called it a zionist-Western plot (amongst many things).

    One poster actually tried to put forward this "theory" on the politics forum but wouldn't give a shred of credible evidence, eventually he was just kicked for trolling.

    Its just a line from Libyan state TV, who also claimed that the protesters were under the influence of hallucinatory drugs, or which 37 billion were ceased in one of the ports.


  • Advertisement
  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    You forgot to add ".. according to Libyan state TV", over in Syria, Assad calls the protesters "terrorist groups", in Egypt Mubarak called it a zionist-Western plot (amongst many things).
    ...
    Investigation with Ilan Grapel, an Israeli accused of espionage, purportedly revealed that he had entered the country on 28 January, the Day of Anger, with a US passport and a tourist visa, and that Mossad had tasked him with collecting information about the Muslim Brotherhood, Coptic Christians, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces and the revolutionary youth.


    Grapel held the Egyptian flag during demonstrations and chanted with protesters so as to gain their confidence and obtain information from them. He also met with journalists and intellectuals at cafes in downtown Cairo.


    Investigators says that he went to the Virgin Mary church in Imbaba a day before sectarian violence took place there. He met with a number of Salafis in the area, who told him of what they were planning to do the next day in response to the disappearance of a Coptic girl after she converted to Islam.
    The next day, Grapel returned to the area and filmed the incidents.


    However, Grapel denied the charges. Saying that all the videos and information are available on the internet, he asserted that Israel did not need to send anyone for filming the incidents.


    Source: Al Masry Al Youm (English Edition)
    The investigation of Ilan Chaim Grapel / Grappelli, (אילן גרפל), an American-Israeli citizen being held in Egypt on espionage charges purportedly, revealed that he had entered the country on 28 January, the “Day of Anger”, with a US passport and a tourist visa and that mossad had tasked him with collecting information about the Muslim Brotherhood, Coptic Christians, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces and the revolutionary youth. Grapel then left Egypt and entered again on last February 11 2011 on a direct flight from Frankfurt, he then left Egypt on February 15 2011 and entered again on last May 10 2011 through the airport of Cairo, using US passport. He resided in a hotel in downtown Cairo.

    Investigators say that he went to the Virgin Mary church in Imbaba a day before the sectarian violence took place there. He met with a number of Salafis in the area, who told him what they were planning to do the next day in response to the disappearance of a Coptic girl after she converted to Islam.


    Grapel gave himself the alias “Illanhu Akbar” in Egypt. He speaks Arabic well and was able to establish friendly relations with a group of young Egyptians and Arabs. He took advantage of his mastery of the Arabic language to conceal his identity and access information about the revolution for the Israeli mossad, of which he had become a member since joining the Israel army.

    ilan-1.jpg Mossad agent Ilan Chaim Grapel while sleeping at Al-Azhar mosque
    It must be said that all Israelis who speaks Arabic are engaged by the Israeli intelligence services, Shabak, Shin Beit, Aman, or have served as interrogators, or at police or army units serving as occupational forces in the occupied territories and perpetrated war crimes in my homeland Palestine. Of all the israelis I have met, I do not know or remember that even one israeli had learned Arabic out of his own interest, for innocent reasons.

    ig2.JPG Ilan Chaim Grabel during a meeting with Islamic brothers at Al-Azhar.
    Grapel also gave a speech at the Al-Azhar mosque in Egypt, in which he demanded that the Egyptian worshipers should target the military and to resist against them at Al-Tahrir Square and generally incited the audience to engage in violence. He gave other “Islamic” speeches in the Hussein area and at Tahrir Square and in front of Maspero. He recorded the events, his speeches and the audience in video and he even managed to recruit some young people and convince them to attack the armed forces who were at al-Tahrir Square securing the demonstrators.

    ig3.JPG Ilan Chaim Grabel during a meeting with Jewish friends at a Synagogue.
    Source: Kawther Salam
    The Egyptian authorities and the state news agency revealed on Sunday June 12 2011 that they have arrested Ilan Chaim Grappelli/Grapel, (אילן גרפל ), known in Israel as Ilan Goren (אילן גורן), an American-Israeli Mossad agent, a war criminal who participated in the atrocities of the Lebanon “second war” in 2006, and a former paratrooper soldier who had infiltrated the Egyptian revolutionists and was causing trouble, spying on the military and the revolutionaries, photographing people and reporting to the Mossad, distributing money to some Egyptians and recruiting them in order to cause chaos, to steal and to sabotage public infrastructure in the country.


    Grappelli had also been organizing a series of protest movements and preparing them to disobey orders of the military authorities after the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak.


    According to Egyptian authorities, judge Hesham Badawi of the supreme state security prosecution ordered the detention of the israeli spy for 15 days for pending investigations into his alleged spying on Egypt with the aim of sabotaging and harming its economic and political interests. The israeli mossad spy was arrested at a famous hotel in Cairo with a laptop and three mobile phones.

    According to the Egyptian intelligence services, Grappelli, the Mossad officer appeared in Egypt shortly before the start of the January 25 uprising, he entered the country with forged Visa and he was among the first elements that existed in Tahrir Square, and he was photographed and his movements followed closely after he had raised suspicions. He visited several regions in Egypt, including North of Sinai, He monitored gas pipelines, the relationship between the Egyptians and the Palestinians. The spy introduced himself to the resistance at Al-Tahrir Square as a “foreign correspondent” supposedly covering the anti-government protests in Cairo. The movements and phone calls of the spy were monitored and filmed in Egypt before his arrest.

    Several images of the spy were released by the Egyptian authorities, showing that he had appeared in various places throughout Egypt. In some images is seen raising signs among the demonstrators, in another one he appears at the jewish synagogue, and in others he is seen around areas affected by violence and troubles.

    ig5.JPG


    ig6.JPG


    The Egyptian intelligence service was able to track the messages and contacts of the mossad agent with the Israeli government and to some western countries and the USA. The monitoring process confirmed the suspicions about the seditious role which the spy and his backers played in creating chaos in Egypt in an attempt at pre-empting the revolution of the twenty-fifth of January, by way of fomenting sectarian violence between the Egyptians.


    Information gathered by the Egyptian intelligence service confirmed that the Israeli spy belonged to the Israeli military and that he had been injured during the Lebanon war of 2006.

    ig7.JPG


    ig8.JPG


    According to intelligence sources, Goren/Grapel/Grappelli had participated in the perpetration heinous massacres, war crimes against Lebanese villagers in southern Lebanon. They also published some of his pictures with military uniform during the second Lebanon war.


    The Mossad spy admitted that he was assigned to a variety of roles in Egypt in order to generate trouble and that he had paid money to some elements in Egypt so that they would assist him in the implementation of the plan, which was about causing strife and chaos in the country and repeating rumors that would prevent the stabilization of the situation in Egypt. He also admitted that he had paid some elements for the dissemination of rumors and for exploding the pipeline which provides Israel and Jordan with gas.

    ig9.JPG


    Egyptian sources pointed out that the confessions of the this Mossad operative will reveal amazing facts about some of the horrible incidents which took place during the last months, especially during the outbreak of the people’s 'revolution' and 'liberation' of Egypt.


    It should be noted that previously, three alleged Mossad espionage cells were dismantled in Lebanon and Syria and that Israel has a history of implanting Mossad cells all over western and Arab countries and that there are no doubts that it is behind many horrible crimes such as assassinations of politicians, theft, smuggling of drugs, jewelry, diamonds, weapons, organ trafficking etc., all perpetrated for the advantage of Israel and other Zionist interests. Simply said, Israel is a big threat for security of all people and countries of the world.


    The US State Department issued a statement on Sunday reacting to Grapelli’s detention, saying that their Embassy in Cairo “is providing Grapel with the necessary help which provided to all US citizens arrested overseas”. The statement pointed that consular officers visited Gabrel and that the embassy will be in contact with the Egyptian authorities to ensure that he is “being treated fairly under local law”.

    ig10.JPG


    ig11.JPG



    Source: Kawther Salam


Advertisement