The Real Reason for NATO Attacking Libya ?

jackiebaron · 22-06-2011 01:51PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

Why do you only seem to get your information from that one source?

Every single story/article/editorial on the front page is vehemently anti-US (actually there's one about Iceland)

Do you think that site is biased at all?

It's not a source, it's a portal. They carry articles from all major newspapers and magazines, NYT, WSJ, Time, Guardian, Independent, SMH, Pak-Tribune, Asia Times, Reuters, IPS, Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, etc., etc.

Just because an article is critical of the US doesn't make it "biased". If I'm critical of the actions of say Tiger Woods, or John Edwards or Ryan Giggs....(not that I give a toss about philanderers) are you going to call me biased?

What a stupid term. It's now been relegated down to the same gutter as the term "conspiracy theory". Any explanation of events that is at odds with the government's version is now painted as a "conspiracy theory". People don't even wish to examine all possible explanations. They just vomit out "CT" in a spineless attempt at ridicule.

When did people become so scared to think for themselves?

And what's this "one size fits all" 'anti-US' label that you puke out?
It's incredible how brainwashed people can be. WTF exactly IS "anti-US"

If I criticize The Soviet Union for it's treatment of Poland over the last 70 years are you going to whine that I am "anti-Russia" the same way you piss and moan about "anti-US"?

What makes them so damn special that they should be shielded from criticism for their actions?
Blair lied to the British people about Iraq and a bunch of other stuff. I don't hear you screeching "anti-UK" when anyone points this out.

Seems that the only slogans you can barf out are "anti-US" or "anti-Semite" when someone criticizes American or Israeli policy.
Someone write an article about human rights abuses in Tibet...does that make them "anti-China"? Get a fcuking grip, man!

studiorat · 22-06-2011 02:06PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

It's not a source, it's a portal. They carry articles from all major newspapers and magazines, NYT, WSJ, Time, Guardian, Independent, SMH, Pak-Tribune, Asia Times, Reuters, IPS, Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, etc., etc.

It's not a portal. :rolleyes:

It's edited news content from one person along with all of their pre-convictions, there is no they.

Information Clearing house is:

One person's effort to correct the distorted perceptions provided by commercial media.

A private individual living and working in Southern California.

From the site it states:

This website does not suggest that it contains the "truth". The truth is a combination of all information and all facts relating to a topic. It is therefore unachievable (in my opinion) for anyone to say "I know the truth."

I hope he's more unbiased than you are Jackie

I think you not knowing what the site is, is proof if anything that you don't bother to check the story out, only that if it suits your bias you'll believe it un-questioningly.
And then it becomes:
> Ctrl C
> Ctrl V

"my enemies...."

Jonny7 · 22-06-2011 03:17PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

It's not a source, it's a portal. They carry articles from all major newspapers and magazines, NYT, WSJ, Time, Guardian, Independent, SMH, Pak-Tribune, Asia Times, Reuters, IPS, Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, etc., etc.

Just because an article is critical of the US doesn't make it "biased". If I'm critical of the actions of say Tiger Woods, or John Edwards or Ryan Giggs....(not that I give a toss about philanderers) are you going to call me biased?

What a stupid term. It's now been relegated down to the same gutter as the term "conspiracy theory". Any explanation of events that is at odds with the government's version is now painted as a "conspiracy theory". People don't even wish to examine all possible explanations. They just vomit out "CT" in a spineless attempt at ridicule.

When did people become so scared to think for themselves?

And what's this "one size fits all" 'anti-US' label that you puke out?
It's incredible how brainwashed people can be. WTF exactly IS "anti-US"

If I criticize The Soviet Union for it's treatment of Poland over the last 70 years are you going to whine that I am "anti-Russia" the same way you piss and moan about "anti-US"?

What makes them so damn special that they should be shielded from criticism for their actions?
Blair lied to the British people about Iraq and a bunch of other stuff. I don't hear you screeching "anti-UK" when anyone points this out.

Seems that the only slogans you can barf out are "anti-US" or "anti-Semite" when someone criticizes American or Israeli policy.
Someone write an article about human rights abuses in Tibet...does that make them "anti-China"? Get a fcuking grip, man!

I just said the site was vehemently anti-US - as in almost everything on the front page is critical of the US.

Whomever is selecting the articles/editorials etc seems to have one country in mind : the US, and one point in choosing the articles : to show them in bad light

Doesn't seem like a very objective place to get information from now does it.

fontanalis · 22-06-2011 06:55PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

I just said the site was vehemently anti-US - as in almost everything on the front page is critical of the US.

Whomever is selecting the articles/editorials etc seems to have one country in mind : the US, and one point in choosing the articles : to show them in bad light

Doesn't seem like a very objective place to get information from now does it.

Don't waste your time, jackie thinks it's a US pastors fault that a bunch of savages killed UN workers in Afghanistan.

jackiebaron · 23-06-2011 02:34AM

Jonny7 wrote: »

I just said the site was vehemently anti-US - as in almost everything on the front page is critical of the US.

Whomever is selecting the articles/editorials etc seems to have one country in mind : the US, and one point in choosing the articles : to show them in bad light

Doesn't seem like a very objective place to get information from now does it.

Wait a minute.......

Studiorat pointed out that the content was "maybe/maybe Not" the truth....and for that he/she must be commended.

You, however, complain that articles published therein show the US "in a bad light".
Well what light is a good light given, shall we say, something as simple as attacking countries.

If a guy walks along the street and beats the fück out of someone and cuts that person up and then toddles off and someone reports this act of savagery...are you going to accuse them of "painting a poor picture" of the thug?

You mention that whoever selects the articles seems to have just one country in mind. To that I would counter: can you name any other country on Planet Earth that has been at war with someone CONSISTENTLY for the last 70 years? The US has been killing someone or other since the end of WW2.....so don't you think that they are the first in line to be criticised when it comes to this stuff?

jackiebaron · 23-06-2011 02:35AM

fontanalis wrote: »

Don't waste your time, jackie thinks it's a US pastors fault that a bunch of savages killed UN workers in Afghanistan.

No, I don't.

Jonny7 · 23-06-2011 03:10AM

jackiebaron wrote: »

Wait a minute.......

Studiorat pointed out that the content was "maybe/maybe Not" the truth....and for that he/she must be commended.

You, however, complain that articles published therein show the US "in a bad light".
Well what light is a good light given, shall we say, something as simple as attacking countries.

If a guy walks along the street and beats the fück out of someone and cuts that person up and then toddles off and someone reports this act of savagery...are you going to accuse them of "painting a poor picture" of the thug?

You mention that whoever selects the articles seems to have just one country in mind. To that I would counter: can you name any other country on Planet Earth that has been at war with someone CONSISTENTLY for the last 70 years? The US has been killing someone or other since the end of WW2.....so don't you think that they are the first in line to be criticised when it comes to this stuff?

Its a site that links articles/editorials, chosen by one person, that only malign the West, specifically the US.

and in its "defense"... you actually end up attacking the US.

What if you wake up tomorrow, and the only links it contained were those maligning China... would you still reference the site? or would you think it was suddenly rubbish?

My guess is the latter

jackiebaron · 26-06-2011 08:43PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

Its a site that links articles/editorials, chosen by one person, that only malign the West, specifically the US.

and in its "defense"... you actually end up attacking the US.

What if you wake up tomorrow, and the only links it contained were those maligning China... would you still reference the site? or would you think it was suddenly rubbish?

My guess is the latter

You're entitled to your "guess"

I'm going to give you this link. A link that was posted on ICH. It posits that 50% of the WORLD'S refugees are running from American wars, and that is according to the UNHCR. Now, I find that a shocking and disgusting revelation. You however may choose to doubt the source(s). I won't be so glib as to "guess" the latter:

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/06/24/253135/half-of-worlds-refugees-are-running-from-u-s-wars/

jackiebaron · 26-06-2011 09:02PM

Just to get back to the crux of this thread...

Can anyone, ANYONE, provide the legality of the US/NATO attack on Libya? I don't want to hear anecdotal crap about phoney rapes and how Gadaffi is a "bad guy" and various other shït.

How was this attack legal?

Now, according to Yahoo News (don't know how credible that is) Nato killed 19 Libyan civvies last monday:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

Again, this was posted on ICH. It's not an ICH article. And NATO "can't comment" on the slaughter. How fücking often do we hear that from these dildoes? They can't even ensure that their "surgical strikes" hit the correct country as we've evidenced from NATO bombs landing in Bulgaria during the goddamn Balkans campaign....they also blew the Chinese Embassy to powder. So do you honestly think these assholes are certain that their smart bombs don't blow kids to bloody rags on a daily basis??

Jonny7 · 26-06-2011 09:11PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

You're entitled to your "guess"

I'm going to give you this link. A link that was posted on ICH. It posits that 50% of the WORLD'S refugees are running from American wars, and that is according to the UNHCR. Now, I find that a shocking and disgusting revelation. You however may choose to doubt the source(s). I won't be so glib as to "guess" the latter:

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/06/24/253135/half-of-worlds-refugees-are-running-from-u-s-wars/

You wouldn't happen to be a red-blooded patriotic American by any chance would you?

Jonny7 · 26-06-2011 09:23PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

Just to get back to the crux of this thread...

Can anyone, ANYONE, provide the legality of the US/NATO attack on Libya? I don't want to hear anecdotal crap about phoney rapes and how Gadaffi is a "bad guy" and various other shït.

How was this attack legal?

Now, according to Yahoo News (don't know how credible that is) Nato killed 19 Libyan civvies last monday:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

Again, this was posted on ICH. It's not an ICH article. And NATO "can't comment" on the slaughter. How fücking often do we hear that from these dildoes? They can't even ensure that their "surgical strikes" hit the correct country as we've evidenced from NATO bombs landing in Bulgaria during the goddamn Balkans campaign....they also blew the Chinese Embassy to powder. So do you honestly think these assholes are certain that their smart bombs don't blow kids to bloody rags on a daily basis??

This isn't the only NATO strike to kill civilians. There have been at least two others in the last few months, in fairness they've all been front page news and very widely reported.

Unfortunately any loss of life is a tragedy.

jackiebaron · 26-06-2011 09:29PM

And it's hysterical to watch the NATO gob****es snap at each other like 10-year-olds, haha:

http://www.nation.co.ke/News/world/France+to+pull+out+troops+from+Kabul+/-/1068/1188656/-/1325sp2z/-/index.html

Afghanistan.............lost! Libya.......massive mistake.
So the Brits fled Iraq two years ago, now the French are running from Kabul.....love it! And what's that wonderful little crap they puke out when they lower the flag and the lads with AK47s wave them goodbye? Oh yeah..."we've completed our mission and conducted ourselves with honour and left this place a better place".....then they dash to the choppers and get the fück out, haha. ****!

jackiebaron · 26-06-2011 09:33PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

You wouldn't happen to be a red-blooded patriotic American by any chance would you?

Patriotism, Jonny, is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

jackiebaron · 26-06-2011 09:42PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

This isn't the only NATO strike to kill civilians. There have been at least two others in the last few months, in fairness they've all been front page news and very widely reported.

Unfortunately any loss of life is a tragedy.

Wishing away the consequences of a NATO military action doesn't make it alright. In fact, expressing outrage at the civilian casualties at the hand of that entity by which you attempt to justify your intervention is, quite frankly, an abomination.

NATO assaulted Libya.....and THAT is not only a tragedy but a war crime.

Jeboa Safari · 26-06-2011 10:07PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

NATO assaulted Libya.....and THAT is not only a tragedy but a war crime.

Its been sanctioned by the UN. Gadaffi has been attacking and killing his own citizens. He's sponsored terrorism against the west, including the Lockerbie bombing that killed 243 innocent civilians. He supplied the IRA with weapons. Its a pity the UN resolution is so soft and they can't just go after him and take him out without having to pussyfoot around.

Jonny7 · 26-06-2011 10:23PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

Wishing away the consequences of a NATO military action doesn't make it alright. In fact, expressing outrage at the civilian casualties at the hand of that entity by which you attempt to justify your intervention is, quite frankly, an abomination.

NATO assaulted Libya.....and THAT is not only a tragedy but a war crime.

Well, Gaddafi's forces started killing protesters, strange how no one was disputing this before the UN resolution.

Is there ever a chance you'll calm down a bit and maybe view NATO, US, etc a bit more objectively. Honestly you'd scare the Taliban.

jackiebaron · 27-06-2011 12:24PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

Well, Gaddafi's forces started killing protesters, strange how no one was disputing this before the UN resolution.

Is there ever a chance you'll calm down a bit and maybe view NATO, US, etc a bit more objectively. Honestly you'd scare the Taliban.

You say that Gadaffi was killing protestors. Where is the proof of this? And even if he was killing protestors, that doesn't provide a legal framework for attacking Libya. What about the slaughter of protesters in Bahrain? No NATO raids there. Why?? Because NATO, US etc., SUPPORTS that dictatorship.
When Mubarak's men were killing protestors there wasn't a word out of NATO/US....again because they supported Mubarak and are now quietly getting onside with the military junta that's replaced him

Jonny7 · 27-06-2011 01:02PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

You say that Gadaffi was killing protestors. Where is the proof of this? And even if he was killing protestors, that doesn't provide a legal framework for attacking Libya. What about the slaughter of protesters in Bahrain? No NATO raids there. Why?? Because NATO, US etc., SUPPORTS that dictatorship.
When Mubarak's men were killing protestors there wasn't a word out of NATO/US....again because they supported Mubarak and are now quietly getting onside with the military junta that's replaced him

These two highlighted parts don't make sense and it appears you are just guessing at the situation

The UN were in Ivory coast the same time, they cannot intervene in every situation.

I just feel there is little or no point in debating with someone if they aren't open to debate in the first place.

studiorat · 27-06-2011 03:21PM

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/16/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110516

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/18/gaddafi-misrata-war-crime-documents

http://www.icc-cpi.int/menus/icc/situations%20and%20cases/situations/icc0111/

Resolution 1970 : http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Situations+and+Cases/Situations/ pdf stating the legal framework :

Welcoming the condemnation by the Arab League, the African Union, and the
Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference of the serious
violations of human rights and international humanitarian law that are being
committed in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,

jackiebaron · 27-06-2011 09:17PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

These two highlighted parts don't make sense and it appears you are just guessing at the situation

The UN were in Ivory coast the same time, they cannot intervene in every situation.

I just feel there is little or no point in debating with someone if they aren't open to debate in the first place.

Ah...the usual canard of "we can't put out every fire". .... bollocks.

Long before any of this Arab Spring caper kicked off (when they seem so equipped to intervene NOW) Saudi Arabia was stoning people to death for adultery, Uzbekistan's charming lads were boiling political rivals to death or raping them with broken bottles. These scumholes are US puppets so they get a pass on torture and slaughter. NATO could have been effecting its much vaunted "regime change" and "saving civvies" years ago in these places....why not?

NATO intervenes to save a few hundred Libyans yet leaves a few hundred thousand Rwandans, or Timorese or Liberians to face the gun or the machete.
Don't insult my intelligence.
If Nato and the US are so concerned with the safety, dignity and human rights of others, then answer me one very simple question. Why do they turn a blind eye to Israeli theft of Palestinian land and homes? Not only that but why, when these actions are clearly "ILLEGALISED" under UN resolutions,....resolutions by the same body that you claim LEGALISE attacks on Libya, you have nothing to say about it?

You can't have it both ways.

jackiebaron · 27-06-2011 09:31PM

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Its been sanctioned by the UN. Gadaffi has been attacking and killing his own citizens. He's sponsored terrorism against the west, including the Lockerbie bombing that killed 243 innocent civilians. He supplied the IRA with weapons. Its a pity the UN resolution is so soft and they can't just go after him and take him out without having to pussyfoot around.

Jeboa, first off, Libya had nothing to do with the Lockerbie bombing. Secondly, as far as I know he supplied weapons to the IRA......so did NORAID and many groups in the US....in fact Congressman Peter King was an active donor to the "cause". I don't see any RAF Harrier Jump Jets slamming exocets into apartment blocks in Boston or New York.

And what's this "take him out" nomenclature? Are you all of a sudden in a Bruce Willis movie?

studiorat · 27-06-2011 10:49PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

Jeboa, first off, Libya had nothing to do with the Lockerbie bombing.

Not according to Libya's former justice minister.

I suppose you think Libya had nothing to do with the Berlin Bombings either? :rolleyes:

jackiebaron · 28-06-2011 12:03PM

studiorat wrote: »

Not according to Libya's former justice minister.

I suppose you think Libya had nothing to do with the Berlin Bombings either? :rolleyes:

The Lockerbie bombing was blamed on Libya because Gadaffi sided with Saddam in the first Gulf War. The West wanted to make an example out of him and also send a message to others that if they don't play ball they'll get stitched up. Setups like this are commonplace in the great game that is geopolitics. Clinton wanted to bring Gadaffi in from the cold so the whole Lockerbie bombing sham was continued. They hung the patsy bomber out to dry, paid over some blood money and kissed and made up. You think the Justice Minister under orders from Gadaffi is going to blow open the whole charade?

You've still got politicians blabbing the farce about Bin Laden being killed lately even though they know it's bollocks as he was reported dead in their own news back in 2001:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html

But that's another story.

Jeboa Safari · 28-06-2011 12:04PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

Jeboa, first off, Libya had nothing to do with the Lockerbie bombing. Secondly, as far as I know he supplied weapons to the IRA......so did NORAID and many groups in the US....in fact Congressman Peter King was an active donor to the "cause". I don't see any RAF Harrier Jump Jets slamming exocets into apartment blocks in Boston or New York.

And what's this "take him out" nomenclature? Are you all of a sudden in a Bruce Willis movie?

Have you looked at this situation at all, or looked up anything of Libya's history? You've post nothing but rubbish on the thread, looks like you see the US's name mentioned and you're too completely blinded by your prejudices to look at the situation objectively.

jackiebaron · 28-06-2011 12:17PM

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Have you looked at this situation at all, or looked up anything of Libya's history? You've post nothing but rubbish on the thread, looks like you see the US's name mentioned and you're too completely blinded by your prejudices to look at the situation objectively.

I am looking at the situation objectively. I'm railing against the hypocrisy and double standards of the whole thing. It appears that you see the US's name and automatically your eyes glaze over and you say "they can do no wrong" and when they're exposed for criminality you wrap yourself in rationalizations such as "hey, sh!t happens" or "well they're not the worst" or some other weak rubbish.

You bleat about human rights and other crap. The US and NATO aren't bombing Libya to protect civilians and they never have done. But people like you always seem to fall for this ruse. Jesus, you're like a battered housewife constantly letting her tormentor back into the house for "one last chance". I'd imagine if Obama and Cameron showed you "photos" of WMD labs in the Sahara you'd probably swallow that hook, line and sinker AGAIN.

The CIA trains death squads in Colombia and Guatemala and Honduras and East Timor and you're going to believe that the Pentagon then deploys troops to prevent civilians deaths??? Your naivete is flabbergasting to say the least.

studiorat · 28-06-2011 07:04PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

I am looking at the situation objectively. I'm railing against the hypocrisy and double standards of the whole thing. It appears that you see the US's name and automatically your eyes glaze over and you say "they can do no wrong" and when they're exposed for criminality you wrap yourself in rationalizations such as "hey, sh!t happens" or "well they're not the worst" or some other weak rubbish.

Where you see the US' name and automatically your eyes light up as you start wrap your self up in the generalizations such as "American are evil scumbags" of course they did it.

jackiebaron wrote: »

The Lockerbie bombing was blamed on Libya because Gadaffi sided with Saddam in the first Gulf War.

And as soon as Iraq was attacked Gadaffi sent his son to declare and then dismantle the whole of Libyas clandestine weapons!!
You really are making this up as you go along aren't you?

Libya supported Iran in the Iran/Iraq war, why the switch to Iraq?

Do you think Libya had nothing to do with the Berlin Bombing?

ed2hands · 28-06-2011 09:08PM

studiorat wrote: »

Do you think Libya had nothing to do with the Berlin Bombing?

C'mon studio. Can you not see the complete and utter hypocracy of US/Nato actions and the REAL reasons for Nato intervention in Libya? It's Imperialism pure and simple. Humanitarianism is just a lame excuse.

The military-industrial complex is firmly in control of US and therefore NATO foriegn policy for it's own ends. It's blatently obvious. These characters in control don't give a rats arse about democracy or freedom. They just want to be seen to be.

Why was peace not given a chance?

Hypocracy. It's about Oil during Peak Oil for me anyway, and am waiting to be convinced otherwise. Join us studio. You know it's the truth.

Jeboa Safari · 28-06-2011 09:21PM

ed2hands wrote: »

C'mon studio. Can you not see the complete and utter hypocracy of US/Nato actions and the REAL reasons for Nato intervention in Libya? It's Imperialism pure and simple. Humanitarianism is just a lame excuse.

The military-industrial complex is firmly in control of US and therefore NATO foriegn policy for it's own ends. It's blatently obvious. These characters in control don't give a rats arse about democracy or freedom. They just want to be seen to be.

Why was peace not given a chance?

Hypocracy. It's about Oil during Peak Oil for me anyway, and am waiting to be convinced otherwise. Join us studio. You know it's the truth.

The oil argument doesn't make sense when the oil was freely flowing under Gadaffi

ed2hands · 28-06-2011 09:30PM

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

The oil argument doesn't make sense when the oil was freely flowing under Gadaffi

A lot of the oil was flowing to Gadaffi/Libyan people through the NOC. The desire and one of the probable outcomes of regime change is that it will be privatised, controlled and owned.

Yes Gadaffi instituted some aspects of the Washington Consensus, but not enough for their liking by a long shot. They want the whole nine yards, with the added bonus of rooting out a dissenting voice against the West and it's policies.

studiorat · 28-06-2011 10:24PM

ed2hands wrote: »

C'mon studio. Can you not see the complete and utter hypocracy of US/Nato actions and the REAL reasons for Nato intervention in Libya? It's Imperialism pure and simple. Humanitarianism is just a lame excuse.

A certain amount of hypocrisy perhaps. But it was the Arab league who first decided to declare a no fly zone, not NATO. Then backed by the UN, not NATO.
NATO were the last to decide to intervene.

So if what you suggest has any truth in it, why are the Arab League and the UN supporting imperialism? Why did China and Russia not veto the UN resolutions if it's imperialism?

Look at what it's costing China, you think they will take a hit like that for an imperialist land grab?

You say the US controls NATO foreign policy. Then how come the Iraq war nearly split NATO up? Freedom Fries anyone?

The Real Reason for NATO Attacking Libya ?

Comments