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 ?

1…5681011…25

Comments

  • #212
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    jackiebaron wrote: »

    I would, however, like to know the whereabouts of the 15,000 civilian bodies that the western media have recently claimed have been discovered having been allegedly killed by Gadaffi's forces.

    What western media? Show us the story...


  • #213
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    jackiebaron wrote: »
    They've been doing the majority of the bombing it's just that they're using the NATO umbrella to cloak the whole crime in ambiguity.


    Show us where they have been doing the majority of the bombing.

    US withdrew it's forces in April from direct action. Britain, France, Belgium, Canada, Norway, Denmark and Italy are doing the bombing.

    We know your opinion Jackie, proof we want proof.


  • #214
    jackiebaron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    NATO/US's ineptitude continues. The one thing that can be relied upon:

    On Sunday 7/10/11 France seemingly allied itself with Russia and China in calling on NATO to immediately stop its counterproductive and counterintuitive bombing, as more countries witness public demonstrations against NATO’s actions in Libya. French Defense Minister Gerard Longuet said in Paris that it was time for Qaddafi loyalists, which France acknowledges have been rapidly increasing in number, and Libyan rebels “to sit around a table to reach a political compromise” because, he said, “there was no solution with force.”
    NATO and the Obama administration can have no part of a dialogue because they will be the major losers if peace comes to Libya without Qadaffi leaving power.
    No sooner had the French Defense Minister spoken on, reflecting also the views of the British and Italian military, than the US State Department issued a statement insisting that “the United States will continue efforts as part of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) coalition to enforce a U.N. Security Council-authorized no-fly zone in Libya designed to protect civilians under threat of attack, the State Department said. The spokesman did not mention that the no-fly zone was achieved back in March in 48 hours and that no Libya aircraft have flown since. Mission accomplished 100 days ago.
    Hilary Clinton repeated her earlier words, “Our efforts in Libya will take time, but let there be no mistake that the political, military, and economic pressure on Qaddafi continues to grow. The allies will continue to increase pressure until the Libyan people are safe, their humanitarian needs met, and a transition of power is fully under way.”
    And so it goes. On 9 July 2011, NATO claimed its aircraft carried out another “precision strike on a pro-Qaddafi missile firing position near Tawurgha, south of Misrata. According to its media office, “NATO intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance were conducted over a period of time to ascertain the military use of the site. It was confirmed as being used to launch indiscriminate attacks on Libyan civilians in the area and a staging area by pro-Qaddafi villagers, including planning attacks on rebel’s forces near the port and city of Misrata.” The next morning, 7/10/11, local inhabitants denied that the farm had any military activity on the property and an examination of the farm buildings failed to discovery any.
    NATO is getting hammered by critics, including during its press conferences, especially by reporters from such groups as Jane’s Defense Weekly who know a thing or two about weapons and war. Last week Jane’s ridiculed the NATO commander who claimed that seeing satellite dishes on roofs were evidence of a particular site being a “Command and Control Center.” Jane’s found that assertion silly.
    Congressional sources have been demanding answers from NATO, including the following incidences of civilian deaths caused by NATO’s bombs and rockets (70% of which are US supplied raising serious legal and political questions under the 1976 US Arms Export Control Act) and which were forwarded by a Congressional NATO liaison staffer for comment. The exact cases sent to NATO from the US Congressional included the following with a demand for an explanation:
    1. On May 13, 2011, a peace delegation of Muslim religious leaders having arrived in Brega to seek dialogue with fellow Sheiks from the east of Libya was bombed at 1 a.m. in their guesthouse by two US MK 82 bombs. Eleven of the Sheiks were killed instantly and 14 were seriously injured. NATO claimed the building housed a “Command and Control Center.” All witnesses and the hotel owner have vehemently denied this claim.
    2. During the early morning of June 20, 2011, 8 US missiles and bombs supplied to NATO targeted the home of Khaled Al-Hamedi and his parents and family. Fifteen family members and friends were killed including Khaled’s pregnant wife, his sister and three of his children. NATO said it bombed the home because it was a military installation. Witnesses, neighbors and independent observers deny there was ever any military installation or troop presence on the property.
    3. In late June, 2011 on the main road west of Tripoli a public bus with 12 passengers was hit by a TOW missile killing all the passengers. NATO claimed that public buses are being used to transport military personnel. Foreign observers, including this one, unanimously aver that they have not seen military personnel in Tripoli, including tanks, APC’s or even military equipment.
    4. On June 6, 2011, at 2:30 a.m. the central administrative complex of the Higher Committee for Children in central Tripoli, two blocks from this observer’s hotel, was bombed with a total of 12 bombs/rockets. The complex housed the National Downs Syndrome center including its records and vital statistics office, the Crippled Women’s Foundation, the Crippled Children Center, and the National Diabetic Research Center.
    5. On June 16, 2011 at 5 a.m. NATO bombed a private hotel in central Tripoli, killing three people and destroying a restaurant and Shisha smoking bar.
    NATO responses was to thank the Congressional office for the “interesting” information and then to explain, as NATO has been doing ad nausea recently, that, “By using civilian sites for military purposes, the Qadhafi regime has once again shows complete disregard for the welfare of Libyan civilians.
    ”NATO’s response continued, “Clearly, the main issue for NATO are allegations of civilian casualties, but it’s important that we put those allegations in context of the NATO mission. Each and every civilian death is a tragedy. Obviously, more than we would like to see, sometimes, due to a technical failure, one of our weapons does not strike the intended military target. We deeply regret these tragic accidents and we always convey NATO condolences to the families of all those who may have been involved.”
    NATO’S response continued: “When NATO believes we have caused civilian casualties we will say so and we will do it as swiftly as we can establish the facts. If you look at our track record after nearly 15,000 sorties and nearly 5,000 strike sorties you can see we have taken utmost care to avoid civilian casualties and will continue to do so. Finally let me assure your Office that our mission fully complies with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 and our mandate remains to use all necessary means to prevent attacks and the threat of attack against civilians and civilian populated areas.
    As international pressure builds on the White House to call off the NATO bombing campaign, several proposals are being discussed within the African Union, the Russian and Chinese Embassy’s, and even between the “NATO rebels” and representatives of the Libya government in Tripoli.
    One possible scenario might be for Libya to offer Obama and NATO a fig leaf which would include Colonel Qadaffi “retiring to his tent to write and reflect” while dialogue takes places among the Libyan people, including the tribes and 600 plus Peoples Congresses which of course should have been allowed to take place as Congressman Dennis Kucinich and others insisted back in February, 2011 before NATO invaded.


  • #215
    jackiebaron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    Hilary Clinton repeated her earlier words, “Our efforts in Libya will take time, but let there be no mistake that the political, military, and economic pressure on Qaddafi continues to grow. The allies will continue to increase pressure until the Libyan people are safe, their humanitarian needs met, and a transition of power is fully under way.”




    Doesn't this skank just make you want to puke!


  • #216
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Easier to read here : http://www.counterpunch.org/lamb07112011.html

    No sign Jackies Western Media reporting the 15,000 bodies though?

    The libyan student's comments summed it up nicely :
    You already had all our oil you wanted at a bargain prices; we stupidly put our sovereign funds in US banks and we did not even bother Israel much.

    Still no "real reason" though, no magic dinar etc...

    Funny thing is that in this news article : http://thedailynewsegypt.com/global-views/lebanons-new-zero-sum-government.html dated 11/7/2011 it says Mr Lamb is in Lebanon!! Strange, no? He seemed to be on Press TV almost daily a while back as well as RT. He hasn't at any stage contradicted the allegations of Gadaffi using force on civillians in Libya, although it has been mentioned to him.

    Reading through Veterans Today and other media, I had to take to the typewriter and address the likes of former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and my colleague Franklin Lamb, a man who I much admire and respect for his many years of advocacy of Palestinian rights in Lebanon. They are, I am sad to say, taking up the cause of Gaddafi in his fight against his own people. It is worth remembering that the first thing Gaddafi did was enlist Israel to recruit African mercenaries to shoot and kill his own people.

    Libya and hypocrisy of the “left”


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    jackiebaron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    studiorat wrote: »
    Easier to read here : http://www.counterpunch.org/lamb07112011.html

    No sign Jackies Western Media reporting the 15,000 bodies though?

    The libyan student's comments summed it up nicely :

    Still no "real reason" though, no magic dinar etc...

    Funny thing is that in this news article : http://thedailynewsegypt.com/global-views/lebanons-new-zero-sum-government.html dated 11/7/2011 it says Mr Lamb is in Lebanon!! Strange, no? He seemed to be on Press TV almost daily a while back as well as RT. He hasn't at any stage contradicted the allegations of Gadaffi using force on civillians in Libya, although it has been mentioned to him.




    Libya and hypocrisy of the “left”

    Your point is.....?


  • #218
    jackiebaron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    studiorat wrote: »
    Easier to read here : http://www.counterpunch.org/lamb07112011.html

    No sign Jackies Western Media reporting the 15,000 bodies though?

    The libyan student's comments summed it up nicely :

    Still no "real reason" though, no magic dinar etc...

    Funny thing is that in this news article : http://thedailynewsegypt.com/global-views/lebanons-new-zero-sum-government.html dated 11/7/2011 it says Mr Lamb is in Lebanon!! Strange, no? He seemed to be on Press TV almost daily a while back as well as RT. He hasn't at any stage contradicted the allegations of Gadaffi using force on civillians in Libya, although it has been mentioned to him.




    Libya and hypocrisy of the “left”

    Reuters reported (via the UN) that up to 15,000 had been killed:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/09/us-libya-un-deaths-idUSTRE7584UY20110609

    I never said that the western media had reported 15,000 bodies. I said they reported that Gadaffi's men had killed 15,000 civilians and I said "well where are the bodies?"

    Let's get out facts straight now studiorat. You're the one whose always demanding proof yet when someone reports that Gadaffi is slaughtering civilians wholsesale you don't seem in the slightest bit interested in proof. You just accept it. You demand proof to refute your side of the argument yet you don't seem to care about proof that would corroborate your side of the argument.
    And you have the audacity to use the word "hypocrisy".


  • #219
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    jackiebaron wrote: »
    Your point is.....?
    Discussion Jackie the point is discussion...

    For starters you haven't told us where you read about the Western Media and the 15,000 bodies...

    The article you cut and pasted into the thread with no commentary apart from "you want to puke" was easier to read on the CP link. So you want to puke, what's the point in telling everybody that? your point is?:rolleyes:

    The author of said article is a pundit who's wheeled out by RT and Press TV when they need consensus to their narrative in an american accent.

    Still no reason for the OP.

    Perhaps you'd like to read Sami Jadallah's article then you might get the point...


  • #220
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    jackiebaron wrote: »
    I never said that the western media had reported 15,000 bodies. I said they reported that Gadaffi's men had killed 15,000 civilians and I said "well where are the bodies?"


    The story doesn't match up. I told you about the 10,000 to 15,000 reported by the HRC days ago.

    The bodies, stories about the bodies...

    jackiebaron wrote: »
    Tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to rescind.....in fact I'm going to backpedal, completely, all my insinuations and allegations.

    So I am now wholeheartedly sorry for any input I have mistakenly had, heretofore.

    I would, however, like to know the whereabouts of the 15,000 civilian bodies that the western media have recently claimed have been discovered having been allegedly killed by Gadaffi's forces.

    The important word here is DISCOVERED...

    In your own words Jackie.

    WRONG LIES!!!


    jackiebaron wrote: »
    Let's get out facts straight now studiorat. You're the one whose always demanding proof yet when someone reports that Gadaffi is slaughtering civilians wholsesale you don't seem in the slightest bit interested in proof. You just accept it. You demand proof to refute your side of the argument yet you don't seem to care about proof that would corroborate your side of the argument.
    And you have the audacity to use the word "hypocrisy".

    From the same source as you've used yourself...
    Feb 22 (Reuters) - African mercenaries are being used by Libya to crush protests, prompting some army troops to switch sides to the opposition, Libya's ambassador to India, who resigned in the wake of the crackdown, said on Tuesday.

    "They are from Africa, and speak French and other languages," Ali al-Essawi told Reuters in an interview, adding that he was receiving information from sources within the OPEC-member country.

    Essawi, who has left the embassy since he resigned on Monday to protest the violent crackdown and is now staying at a hotel in New Delhi, said he had been told there had been army defections.

    "They (troops) are Libyans and they cannot see foreigners killing Libyans so they moved beside the people," Essawi said, looking nervous and agitated.


  • #221
    jackiebaron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    Never ceases to amaze me how some people always swallow (time after time) the "official" reason for hostilities. This reason is always given to pacify the plebs and they never disappoint.

    Gadaffi's crime was (like Chavez in Venezuela) was to take back control of Libya's land and oil from the fat slobs in palaces who stole it and give the wealth of his nation to the people of Libya so that they all share it. He is also the only nation in Africa not to sign onto the US's Africom mission which is the blue-print for the US to plunder and slaughter the continent in the 21st century the way the UK did in the 19th and 20th centuries.

    For this he has to go and the people of Libya must be made beggars once again while the oil and water goes back into the pockets of those who deserve it, i.e. Shell, ConocoPhillips, BP, Total, etc.

    Funny but I wonder what will happen to the terrorists who are fighting Gadaffi. Will they be given big cash payments when all this ends? And the Muslim Brotherhood who turned Egypt into "Burma in the Desert", will they be greased as well?


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    Joshua Jones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 246 ✭✭Joshua Jones


    jackiebaron wrote: »
    Never ceases to amaze me how some people always swallow (time after time) the "official" reason for hostilities. This reason is always given to pacify the plebs and they never disappoint.

    Gadaffi's crime was (like Chavez in Venezuela) was to take back control of Libya's land and oil from the fat slobs in palaces who stole it and give the wealth of his nation to the people of Libya so that they all share it. He is also the only nation in Africa not to sign onto the US's Africom mission which is the blue-print for the US to plunder and slaughter the continent in the 21st century the way the UK did in the 19th and 20th centuries.

    For this he has to go and the people of Libya must be made beggars once again while the oil and water goes back into the pockets of those who deserve it, i.e. Shell, ConocoPhillips, BP, Total, etc.

    Funny but I wonder what will happen to the terrorists who are fighting Gadaffi. Will they be given big cash payments when all this ends? And the Muslim Brotherhood who turned Egypt into "Burma in the Desert", will they be greased as well?

    I know what you mean?.

    Like if someone you knew stole 20 euro off you and when you confronted them about it they denied it but later you found proof that they did it, would you let this person have access to your money again? Of course not.

    The same with politicians for me. They lie and get caught in a lie but people still swallow the same spin doctored bull. Once a government/politician lies they should be removed from office right away ala Bush and WMD.

    On another point, the whole idea of classified documents, especially in a country like ours doesnt make sense to me. Surely the government work for us (lol) so how can our employees keep secrets from their bosses. Anything that is classified is because someone would be in a lot of trouble if it ever came to light. There should be no secret meetings allowed to take place when peoples lives are involved like the recent secret IMF deals. That sort of thing should be streamed live imo.


  • #223
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Why people here can't discuss any one subject without getting into a big rant about how evil America/Israel/the West are, is beyond me.

    Even the Russians recognise the rebel Transitional National Council and have admitted they want rid of Gaddafi


  • #224
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Why people here can't discuss any one subject without getting into a big rant about how evil America/Israel/the West are, is beyond me.

    Yes Jonny, but when we're talking about a rapacious invasion by America/the West as this is, then it sort of IS the subject.
    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Even the Russians recognise the rebel Transitional National Council and have admitted they want rid of Gaddafi

    Thats admittedly a complex one or maybe it isn't to some. For the moment though, would be interested to know why you think they recognised the NTC.

    Studiorat said above there's still no evidence that this is about oil, geo-political control, etc with the inevitable disaster capitalism to follow. Don't know what to say to that at this stage. I disagree. The info and links on this thread spell it out in great detail.
    Anyways here's a recent commentary by Alexander Cockburn thats interesting. A summary of the war so far. Will print out just some below as it's long.



    "After three and a half months of bombing and arms supply to various rebel factions, NATO's failure in its efforts to promote "regime change" in Libya is now glaring.
    Obviously NATO's commanders are still hoping that a lucky bomb may kill Gaddafi, but to date the staying power has been with the Libyan leader, whereas it is the relevant NATO powers who are fighting among themselves.
    The reports from Istanbul of the deliberations of NATO’s Contact Group have a surreal quality, as Secretary of State Clinton and British foreign minister Hague gravely re-emphasize their commitment to regime change and the strengthening of ties to the Transitional Council in Benghazi, while the humiliation of the entire NATO expedition is entering the history books as an advertisement of the dangers of political fantasy in the service of “humanitarian interventionism”, appalling intelligence work, illusions about bombing and air power, and some of the worst press coverage in living memory.

    Take British prime minister David Cameron. He can thank Rupert Murdoch, even the wretched Andy Coulson for one ironic blessing. His appalling misjudgment and obstinacy in hiring former News of the world editor Coulson has so dominated British headlines these past days that an equally staggering misjudgment in the international theater is escaping well-merited ridicule and rebuke.

    Cameron, like Sarkozy, Clinton and Obama presumably had intelligence assessments of the situation in Libya. Did any of them say that Gaddafi might be a tougher nut to crack than the presidents of Tunisia or Egypt, might even command some popular support in Tripoli and western Libya, historically at odds with Benghazi and the eastern region? If they did, did they pay any attention?
    The Western press, along with al-Jazeera, was no help. The early charges of Gaddafi committing “genocide” against his own people or ordering mass rapes were based on unverified rumor or propaganda bulletins from Benghazi and have now been decisively discredited by reputable organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Any pretensions the International Criminal Court might have had to judicial impartiality has been undermined by the ICC’s role as NATO’s creature, rushing out indictments of Gaddafi and his closest associates whenever NATO’s propaganda agenda has demanded it.
    The journalists in Benghazi became cheerleaders for what was from the start plainly a disorganized rabble of disparate factions. The journalists in Tripoli were reluctant to file copy which might be deemed by their editors as “soft” on Gaddafi, a devil figure in the West for most of his four decades in power. America’s progressives exulted that at last they had on their hands a “just war” and could cheer on NATO’s bombardiers with a clear conscience and entertain fantasies about the revolutionary purity of the rebels.

    All history shows that the dropping of thousands of bombs and missiles, with whatever supposed standards of “pin point accuracy”, never elicits the enthusiastic support of civilians on the receiving end, even if a certificate of humanitarian assistance and merciful intent is stamped on every projectile. Recent pro-government rallies in Tripoli have been vast. Libya has a population of about six million, with four million in Tripoli. Gaddafi barrels around the city in an open jeep. Large amounts of AK-47s have been distributed to civilian defense committees. Were they all compelled to demonstrate by Gaddafi’s enforcers? It seems unlikely.

    This last week the western press excitedly relayed the news that a handful of prisoners were denouncing Gaddafi. Well, if you were a prisoner with rebel guns pointed at your head, would you proclaim your fidelity to the prime target of their fury, or murmur that you had been dragooned into unwilling service? Isn’t this an item from Journalism 101. Are they “black mercenaries” or Libyans from the south who happen to be black and members of Gaddafi’s militias?

    Another pointer to NATO’s misjudgments has been the heavy-handed dismissal of charges from African, Russian and even leaders of NATO countries such as Germany that the mandates of two UN security council resolutions passed in February and then March 17 – protection of civilian populations – were being brazenly distorted in favor of efforts to kill Gaddafi and install the ramshackle “provisional government” in Benghazi – a shady bunch from the getgo.

    The NATO coalition is now falling apart, though disclosure of this development has been muted to non-existent in the US press. French defense minister Gerard Longuet gave an interview at the end of last week to a French tv station saying that military action against Libya has failed , and it is time for diplomacy: “We must now sit around a table. We will stop bombing as soon as the Libyans start talking to one another and the military on both sides go back to their bases.’ Longuet suggested that Gaddafi might be able to remain in Libya, ‘in another room of the palace, with another title’.”
    http://counterpunch.org/


  • #225
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    ed2hands wrote: »
    Yes Jonny, but when we're talking about a rapacious invasion by America/the West as this is, then it sort of IS the subject.

    You are calling it a rapacious invasion, based on what? how did you come to that conclusion?
    Thats admittedly a complex one or maybe it isn't to some. For the moment though, would be interested to know why you think they recognised the NTC.

    Well the Russians do more business than almost anyone with the Libyans so the current conflict is hurting them, but they obviously think Gaddafi isn't going to last that much longer.
    Studiorat said above there's still no evidence that this is about oil, geo-political control, etc with the inevitable disaster capitalism to follow. Don't know what to say to that at this stage. I disagree. The info and links on this thread spell it out in great detail.

    A lot of them come from quite biased and dubious sources. If you want information on Israel, then don't get it from www.freerepublic.com, because its a very pro-Israel biased site. Its basic common sense.
    Anyways here's a recent commentary by Alexander Cockburn thats interesting. A summary of the war so far. Will print out just some below as it's long.

    And then you just do the ctrl-c, ctrl-v thing.

    Its someone elses opinion?


  • #226
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    You are calling it a rapacious invasion, based on what? how did you come to that conclusion?

    Based on reading many many articles, commentaries and reports, looking at the facts and listening to other peoples views.


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Well the Russians do more business than almost anyone with the Libyans so the current conflict is hurting them, but they obviously think Gaddafi isn't going to last that much longer.

    That may be correct. Just can't understand why you used the statement
    "Even the Russians recognise the rebel Transitional National Council and have admitted they want rid of Gaddafi"

    to sort of counter the claim that the war is not about what Jackiebaron for instance believes it to be waged for.
    Jonny7 wrote: »
    A lot of them come from quite biased and dubious sources.

    A cop out pure and simple.
    Jonny7 wrote: »
    And then you just do the ctrl-c, ctrl-v thing.

    Its someone elses opinion?

    Frankly thought it was a great article. Feel free to post something from one of your "unbiased" sources if you want. I personally don't mind if you do or if you think you read some piece that absolutely nails it and want to share it.


  • #227
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    ed2hands wrote: »
    Based on reading many many articles, commentaries and reports, looking at the facts and listening to other peoples views.

    Generated by initial objective interest?

    There was no support of Gaddafi, until the day the UN got involved.. then there was a sudden and dramatic shift in many "opinions", suddenly protesters were getting called 'terrorists".. I believe you did so yourself in an earlier post? (apologies if I am wrong)

    If the US got involved in Syria, I am very sure many here would be suddenly calling the protesters "armed terrorist groups", "al qaeda" and other such nonsense.
    That may be correct. Just can't understand why you used the statement
    "Even the Russians recognise the rebel Transitional National Council and have admitted they want rid of Gaddafi"

    to sort of counter the claim that the war is not about what Jackiebaron for instance believes it to be waged for.

    The Russians are seen as a strong counterpoint and very critical of US/Western foreign policy, in comparison, Jackie's views are so off the scale I can't even class them.

    A cop out pure and simple.

    I can agree with you on that, consistently copying and pasting large walls of text - other people's opinions - is a bit of a cop out.
    Frankly thought it was a great article. Feel free to post something from one of your "unbiased" sources if you want. I personally don't mind if you do or if you think you read some piece that absolutely nails it and want to share it.

    Thats not a debate or a discussion.


  • #228
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    There was no support of Gaddafi, until the day the UN got involved.. then there was a sudden and dramatic shift in many "opinions", suddenly protesters were getting called 'terrorists".. I believe you did so yourself in an earlier post? (apologies if I am wrong)

    Apology accepted.


  • #229
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    There was no support of Gaddafi, until the day the UN got involved.. then there was a sudden and dramatic shift in many "opinions", suddenly protesters were getting called 'terrorists".. (apologies if I am wrong) .
    You are, very much so.
    Jonny7 wrote: »
    If the US got involved in Syria, I am very sure many here would be suddenly calling the protesters "armed terrorist groups", "al qaeda" and other such nonsense. .

    Your assumptions are lazy and ignorant. You assume that other peoples positions are based on anti-US sentiment and not anti-war and anti-imperialist or more accurately pro-justice, freedom and human rights.


  • #230
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Brown Bomber wrote: »

    Your assumptions are lazy and ignorant. You assume that other peoples positions are based on anti-US sentiment and not anti-war and anti-imperialist or more accurately pro-justice, freedom and human rights.

    From what I have read you seem to have little or no knowledge or interest in the Libyan situation, nor do you seem to have your own informed opinion on it.

    However what you do seem to have in abundance is a reason to use it as a tool to malign the US/West.

    I am noticing that in a lot of threads on the CT forums as a whole, it seems that people jump to conclusion incredibly quickly on anything, and those conclusions are based more on their own bias than any effort in really informing themselves of both sides.

    I know its CTs and we can't take it too serious, but come on, you must admit that is kinda lazy.

    Its like a strong yearning or weakness to want to believe in a fantastical complex conspiracy rather than what otherwise is probably a not-so-interesting truth - in almost everything (US/Israel related generally)

    This probably deserves its own post, but I will be attacked by all sides, with everyone "thanking" each other for scoring points heh.


  • #231
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    .I am noticing that in a lot of threads on the CT forums as a whole, it seems that people jump to conclusion incredibly quickly on anything, and those conclusions are based more on their own bias than any effort in really informing themselves of both sides.

    I presume you mean the people that put forth these theories as opposed to those who refute them.
    That's too much of a generalistaion for me and a bit of a cheap shot at "CTers" once again. Sure, it happens in life and on forums. There are also those who have actually more or less formed their opinions on a particular issue before coming on and reading/commenting (on boards here lets say). Are these people "closed-minded" just because they don't automatically change these opinions based on what someone else posted here or based on asking them some questions or whatever or based on them not being "able" to answer these questions or based on them being somehow cognitively impaired? No i would say. It's good to hear both sides and keep an open mind though no doubts. By the way you fling out that bias thing like a weapon and it's a huge cop out.

    Jonny7 wrote: »
    I know its CTs and we can't take it too serious, but come on, you must admit that is kinda lazy.

    O dear:). Whats lazy is lumping everyone in to the same boat.
    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Its like a strong yearning or weakness to want to believe in a fantastical complex conspiracy rather than what otherwise is probably a not-so-interesting truth - in almost everything (US/Israel related generally)

    O do go on! (pulls up a seat):)
    Jonny7 wrote: »
    This probably deserves its own post, but I will be attacked by all sides, with everyone "thanking" each other for scoring points heh.

    Coz we're the "knitting circle":pac:
    Liked that one by the way;)


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    brimal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,222 ✭✭✭brimal


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    This probably deserves its own post, but I will be attacked by all sides, with everyone "thanking" each other for scoring points heh.

    Don't worry about it, it's known the CT forum has a rather aggressive clique that love nothing but to jump down peoples throats and hi-five each other as they do it.

    It's why alot of people lurk here, but don't bother contributing.


  • #233
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    I just think that I challenge someone's opinion here at my peril.

    Dig a little deeper and you find it just turns out to be someone else's opinion, cut and paste from somewhere.

    It gets a little old when someone who gets all their information from one very dubious source tells you to "wake up" to the "truth".

    "Anyone who knows how difficult it is to keep a secret among three men - particularly if they are married - knows how absurd is the idea of a worldwide secret conspiracy consciously controlling all mankind by its financial power; in real, clear analysis."


  • #234
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    From what I have read you seem to have little or no knowledge or interest in the Libyan situation, nor do you seem to have your own informed opinion on it.

    However what you do seem to have in abundance is a reason to use it as a tool to malign the US/West.

    I am noticing that in a lot of threads on the CT forums as a whole, it seems that people jump to conclusion incredibly quickly on anything, and those conclusions are based more on their own bias than any effort in really informing themselves of both sides.

    I know its CTs and we can't take it too serious, but come on, you must admit that is kinda lazy.

    Its like a strong yearning or weakness to want to believe in a fantastical complex conspiracy rather than what otherwise is probably a not-so-interesting truth - in almost everything (US/Israel related generally)

    This probably deserves its own post, but I will be attacked by all sides, with everyone "thanking" each other for scoring points heh.

    You've totally ignored the point that I've made while was responding to you. How do you expect to find any reasonable discussion here or any middle ground when you can't get past your own pretensions?

    I have nothing against the US/West. Why would I? Think! I live freely and happily live here. Do I object to innocent people being bombed in their homes as they sleep? Naturally. Do I object to The West supporting these valiant freedom fighters?

    Mod Note: Not even close to being acceptable

    To conflate this natural objection with anti-US emotion is utter naivety. I've known that the Western sponsored "rebels" were linked to terrorists since the outbreak.

    You know how...? Because I looked into it.

    You know why...? Because it's straight out of the CIA/Mossad playbook.

    How did I obtain this information...? The alternative media which you turn your nose up at.

    Do you need to rationalise opinions of others when they differ from yours? It's been incessant - "Well Russia Today would say that because they hate the West"..."You would say that because your anti-US"..."Well what can I expect? This is CT after all" etc etc. Your not taking onboard anything that is contrary to your own Captain America morally shakey viewpoint; in fact you are outright dismissive and it is to your own detriment if you don't listen.


  • #235
    jackiebaron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    I just think that I challenge someone's opinion here at my peril.

    Dig a little deeper and you find it just turns out to be someone else's opinion, cut and paste from somewhere.

    It gets a little old when someone who gets all their information from one very dubious source tells you to "wake up" to the "truth".

    "Anyone who knows how difficult it is to keep a secret among three men - particularly if they are married - knows how absurd is the idea of a worldwide secret conspiracy consciously controlling all mankind by its financial power; in real, clear analysis."

    Jonny, it's even easier to smear a source as being something..especially "dubious".
    The onus would be upon you to expose lies and NOT deliver an opinion about the so-called source. That there would do wonders for your angle and credibility. I could very easily squawk "the woman on the corner is nuts" after she claims to have witnessed a murder. See where I'm coming from?


  • #236
    wildswan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 80 ✭✭wildswan


    Regardless what conspiricy theories people come up with, the fact is Ghadaffi went so far overboard in gunning down peaceful protesters that doing nothing was not an option. It needs to be remembered that it was Ghadaffi's brutality that started the bloodshed in the first place. Before that the demonstrations were PEACEFUL, and stayed that way until he called in the mercenaries.

    Even China and Russia didn't veto the UN resolution, though I suspect more out of embarrasment than anything else.

    The UN were reluctant to intervene, but had to act when it appeared there was some sort of large scale massacre on the cards, when the rebels were forced back to Benghazi.

    I would love those against the UN action to please justify how letting this happen could be tolerated?


  • #237
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    wildswan wrote: »
    Regardless what conspiricy theories people come up with, the fact is Ghadaffi went so far overboard in gunning down peaceful protesters that doing nothing was not an option. It needs to be remembered that it was Ghadaffi's brutality that started the bloodshed in the first place. Before that the demonstrations were PEACEFUL, and stayed that way until he called in the mercenaries.

    Even China and Russia didn't veto the UN resolution, though I suspect more out of embarrasment than anything else.

    The UN were reluctant to intervene, but had to act when it appeared there was some sort of large scale massacre on the cards, when the rebels were forced back to Benghazi.

    I would love those against the UN action to please justify how letting this happen could be tolerated?

    I'd love you to tell me how the Israeli atrocities against Palestine and Palestinians are and will be tolerated.


  • #238
    Hoffmans
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,069 ✭✭✭Hoffmans


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Possibly kicked off by 40 years of internal security forces doing what they please with anyone at any time

    And possibly exacerbated when said government started firing anti-aircraft guns at them when they protested

    The leader of a country talking about going house to house to "cleanse" the cockroaches - and using mercenaries to do it? - a bit extreme

    Japan, US, Italy, etc already have oil contracts in the country

    And please do not post "Russia Today" videos - they put Fox News to shame
    so who gave you the mandate to tell anyone what to post ....


  • #239
    wildswan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 80 ✭✭wildswan


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I'd love you to tell me how the Israeli atrocities against Palestine and Palestinians are and will be tolerated.

    I'm a strong supporter of the Palestinian cause, and have attended protests to that effect. I wish the Yanks would cut off the funding for the Israeli army, but we both know why this won't happen.

    Care to answer my earlier question directly?


  • #240
    jackiebaron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    wildswan wrote: »
    Regardless what conspiricy theories people come up with, the fact is Ghadaffi went so far overboard in gunning down peaceful protesters that doing nothing was not an option. It needs to be remembered that it was Ghadaffi's brutality that started the bloodshed in the first place. Before that the demonstrations were PEACEFUL, and stayed that way until he called in the mercenaries.

    Even China and Russia didn't veto the UN resolution, though I suspect more out of embarrasment than anything else.

    The UN were reluctant to intervene, but had to act when it appeared there was some sort of large scale massacre on the cards, when the rebels were forced back to Benghazi.

    I would love those against the UN action to please justify how letting this happen could be tolerated?

    You are doing NOTHING but speculating. You have no idea as to why China and Russia abstained. In case you're not au fait with the farce that is the UN Security Council I would inform you that abstentions are in essence vetoes.......but those who abstain don't want the flak of blocking something like an invasion or a genocide that will be perpetrated by other means. In essence a veto delays savagery. An abstention gets it over with.

    BUT, you can wrap yourself in every knot you want but I challenge you to illustrate to me or anyone how this attack on Libya is legal. Now you can sputter on about hypothetical, would-be killings or possible civilian targets. You can blab on all you want about how the "world would be better off without Gadaffi". But no matter how you slice and dice it you can't make this attack on Libya legal. You can't and that is a fact.

    So, make excuses, or dream up scenaria that comfort you but this is still a war crime.

    If the best you can do is whinge about civilian deaths and/or Gadaffi's forces killing people then why aren't you demanding US F-15s bomb the fück out of Bahrain? Thousands have died there at the hands of a 60 year old dictatorship in the last few weeks. In fact Saudi tanks did a "Tianenmen Square" on them. I suppose Bahrain being the home of the US 6th Fleet had nothing to do with it....right?


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    wildswan wrote: »
    I'm a strong supporter of the Palestinian cause, and have attended protests to that effect. I wish the Yanks would cut off the funding for the Israeli army, but we both know why this won't happen.
    Exactly! it is being tolerated on the international level. Surely we shouldn't be indifferent to inequity & double-standards?

    wildswan wrote: »
    Care to answer my earlier question directly?
    I'd really like to. I can't give a satisfactory answer. I'm not convinced that the situation was exactly as it was made out in Libya at any stage. There is much conflicting information and propoganda and fabricated news from both sides.

    I would say this. I have no dog in the fight. I am not against a military intervention as a last resort in principle. A number of factors come into play - will of the people, personal safety, humanitarian and human rights issues and so on. I would try to let my moral compass guide me. I am no Socialist or no particular fan of Gadaffi though my understanding is that life wasn't particuraly unbearable under his rule for most.


Advertisement