The reality in Libya. [Archive] - SpursTalk.com Forums

spurms

06-19-2011, 06:58 AM

lol "USA uncommitted".

There's no goddam "not a war" without US assets, war materiel and technical expertise.

Uncommitted don't mean they are not providing logistic support. NATO lost the war in Libya and Gates was crying like a little girl over how Europe should spend their money, but i admit without the USA providing logistics and their irrational ambition of trying to keep NATO relevant, they pushed to support these war efforts not in their economic interest at all. I agree having no ground troops do not mean it's not an act of war, NATO know full well the moment they send troops on the ground they will get fuck up the ass, 1.5 million in Tripoli and another 2 million more armed men outside Tripoli, is restless at having to watch their country bombed from the skies above and wanting to kill them on the ground. NATO dirty tactics as usual, try to stir up tribal violence or somehow bribe those tribes outside of Tripoli to revolt like their rebel puppets, another terrible gamble, another money down the drain it seems. America fuck yea :ihit

TDMVPDPOY

06-19-2011, 10:46 AM

lol france <<< dont expect much from these clowns

Wild Cobra

06-19-2011, 01:44 PM

It's 3 months later. How many did that initial 112 Cruise Missiles (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174977) become?

Wild Cobra

06-19-2011, 03:56 PM

Who are these rebels anyway?

Hear so little about who they actually are, and what they really wish to do.

Wild Cobra

06-19-2011, 04:20 PM

This is an interesting one. One reporter early in this video says that Russian satellited show no air-strike activity by Libya!

bi-EPgaIvMg

Wild Cobra

06-19-2011, 04:30 PM

This is interesting too:

Russian Says No Proof of Air Strikes in Libya… (http://windowstorussia.com/russian-says-no-proof-of-air-strikes-in-libya.html)

First paragraph:

Russia Today has released a video that we all know has the backing of the Kremlin. This video is making it clear that the Western propaganda about Air strikes on the Libyan people by Gaddafi just might be just that! Propaganda…

Wild Cobra

06-19-2011, 04:58 PM

Sky News interview:

Full Interview With Moussa Ibrahim (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/video/Video-Full-Interview-With-Moussa-Ibrahim/Video/201103415957856)

Cuckolded Sissy

06-19-2011, 06:53 PM

The Truth About Libya
By Stephen Goodson
4-1-11 Colonel Muammar Gadaffi is frequently referred to in the media as a "mad dictator" and "bloody tyrant", but do these allegations accord with the facts? Libya consists of over 15O tribes, with the two main groups, the Meghabra living in Tripolitania in the west and the Wafallah living in Cyrenaica in the east. Previous attempts to unite these tribes by the Turkish (1855-1911) and ltalian {1911-43) colonial rulers failed and the country was split in two for administrative purposes. Oil was discovered in Libya in 1959, but King ldris of the Senussi tribe allowed most of the oil profits to be siphoned into the coffers of the oil companies. The coup d'etat on 1 September 1969 led by Colonel Gadaffi had countrywide support. He subsequently married a woman from the royal Barqa tribe and adroitly unified the nation. By retaining Libya's oil wealth for the benefit of all its people, Gadaffi had created a socialist paradise. There is no unemployment, Libya has the highest GDP in .Africa, less than 5% of the population is classified as poor and it has fewer people living below the poverty datum line than for example in Holland. Life expectancy is 75 years and is the highest in Africa and I0% above the world average. With the exception of the nomadic Bedouin and Tuareg tribes, most Libyan families possess a house and a car. There is free health care and education and not surprisingly Libya has a literacy rate of 82%. Last year Gadaffi distributed $500 to each man, woman and child (population 6.5 million). Libya has a tolerable human rights record and stands at 61 on the International Incarceration Index, comparable with countries in central Europe (the lower the rating, the lower the standing - the USA occupies the no.1 spot!). There is hardly any crime and only rebels and traitors are dealt with harshly. Anyone who has read Gadaffi's little Green Book will realize that he is a thoughtful and enlightened leader. Libya has been accused of having committed numerous acts of terrorism in the past, but many of these have been perpetrated by foreign intelligence agencies as false flag operations - the Lockerbie bombing being a prime example. The CIA and MI6 and their frontmen have been stoking up dissent in the east of the country for almost 30 years. Libya produces exceptionally high quality light crude oil and its production cost of $1 a barrel, compared to the current price of $115, is the lowest in the world. Riba (usury) is not permitted. The Central bank of Libya is a wholly-owned by the Libyan Government and is run as a state bank, issuing all government loans free of interest. This is in contrast to the exploitative fractional reserve banking system of the West. The no-fly zone and the bombing of Libya have nothing to do with the protection of civilians. It is an act of war Luck_The_Fakers_ a blatant and crude attempt by the oil corporations and international bankers to steal the wealth of Libya.

Wild Cobra

06-19-2011, 07:03 PM

The Truth About Libya
By Stephen Goodson
4-1-11
I believe what the article says until it goes into the "False Flag" concept. There is no evidence at all. false fag style operation wasn't used. It is just limited to lies and deceit.

ChumpDumper

06-19-2011, 07:45 PM

Wild Cobra now believes everything any Russian says.

Wild Cobra

06-19-2011, 08:11 PM

Wild Cobra now believes everything any Russian says.
I knew something was fishy from day one. What the Russians say make sense. After all, there is no evidence. Only allegations of Gaddafi's alleged crimes.

ChumpDumper

06-19-2011, 08:12 PM

Now you believe Gaddafi is completely innocent.

Wild Cobra

06-20-2011, 12:34 PM

Now you believe Gaddafi is completely innocent.
I never believed he was guilty of anything other than trying to stop what could be anything from between armed thugs to insurrection. Our laws don't apply to a sovereign nation. He may be a dictator, but Libya fairs very well as nations with dictators go.

xeromass

06-20-2011, 12:42 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moussa_Ibrahim

Moussa Ibrahim (Arabic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language): موسى إبراهيم‎ ; romanized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Arabic) also as Mussa and Musa) is a Libyan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya) political figure, serving as Libyan Minister of Information and the official spokesman for Muammar Gaddafi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi) as at the end of March 2011. He came to general international attention during the 2011 Libyan civil war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Libyan_civil_war).

So you're taking Libyan counterpart of Baghdad Bob at his word?

ChumpDumper

06-20-2011, 12:45 PM

I can see how an authoritarian like WC would actively defend someone like Gaddafi.

ElNono

06-20-2011, 12:51 PM

Plus stating that you prefer the government not to spend money in such an war is a good enough reason on it's own.

CosmicCowboy

06-20-2011, 12:52 PM

Damn...I never realized Gaddafi was a fucking Saint. I have been SO brainwashed...:lmao

Wild Cobra

06-20-2011, 12:56 PM

Let me revise my statement to say I don't believe he is guilty of anything over the last several years he is being accused of. He has done some things we would consider outright evil in the past. Where's the evidence for the reasons we entered this conflict.

Do you know what this civil, war boils down to? I'm all but certain its about religion. You have two variations of Islam against each other. It would surprise me if the UN entering on the side of the rebels is about oil and trade.

I don't like Gaddafi. However, I prefer the devil we know, over an unknown who might be worse.

George Gervin's Afro

06-20-2011, 01:00 PM

I never believed he was guilty of anything other than trying to stop what could be anything from between armed thugs to insurrection. Our laws don't apply to a sovereign nation. He may be a dictator, but Libya fairs very well as nations with dictators go.

If you were only able to convince bush to not rush into Iraq..oh well

ChumpDumper

06-20-2011, 01:02 PM

Do you know what this civil, war boils down to? I'm all but certain its about religion. You have two variations of Islam against each other.Which variations?

I prefer the devilNo shit.

Wild Cobra

06-20-2011, 01:12 PM

If we are going to police the world from Sharia law, then why are we in so few countries?

We may not like how they do justice, but it's their way. Any desire to stop it means waging a war against religion. As long as they stay Gaddafi doesn't attack other nations, we should leave him alone.

ChumpDumper

06-20-2011, 01:13 PM

Which variations?

RandomGuy

06-20-2011, 01:20 PM

Do you know what this civil, war boils down to? I'm all but certain its about religion. You have two variations of Islam against each other.

h32TTmd7HjQ ?????

Do tell.

Which two variations would that be?

RandomGuy

06-20-2011, 01:25 PM

Don't anybody go all Admiral Akbar here. This looks to be good.

X9Svm8xc1z8

RandomGuy

06-20-2011, 05:41 PM

yoooo hooo?

is this thing on?

RandomGuy

06-22-2011, 10:43 AM

WC?

For someone who is "all but certain", your inability to name the two warring sects is beginning to look bad.

On the other hand, you could simply admit you were talking out your ass.

ChumpDumper

06-22-2011, 10:50 AM

You're just prejudiced against people who make shit up!

You big meanie!

SnakeBoy

06-22-2011, 03:47 PM

RandomGuy

06-22-2011, 04:47 PM

Anyone who has read Gadaffi's little Green Book will realize that he is a thoughtful and enlightened leader.

It is a rambling mess, poorly put together, and incoherent as to be virtually incomprehensible.

For those interested:
http://www.mathaba.net/gci/theory/gb.htm

Political theory by an uneducated crank, who lucked into power for a decade or two.

Heard about it on an NPR thing, and tried skimming it out of curiousity. Bleah.

RandomGuy

06-22-2011, 04:48 PM

RandomGuy

06-23-2011, 09:14 AM

Still no answer.

coyotes_geek

06-23-2011, 09:23 AM

Speaking of Libya, read that Obama is going to tap the strategic petroleum reserve, allegedly to compensate for lost Libyan oil production. A completely unnecessary and foolish move IMO.

Wild Cobra

06-23-2011, 09:32 AM

RandomGuy

06-23-2011, 10:09 AM

Absolutely foolish. There isn't enough to make more than a dent in price. Does anyone care for a few pennies at most per gallon?

...goes the argument against drilling in ANWAR.

And still not an answer to the question posed a few posts up. :lol

Wild Cobra

06-23-2011, 10:19 AM

...goes the argument against drilling in ANWAR.
Except that the reservoir is for a specific purpose, and a fixed amount based on what has aleady taken from the ground. ANWAR could easily be far more oil than we know, but we won't know how big it really is until we drill.

And still not an answer to the question posed a few posts up. :lol
I have learned there are certain topics that just bring on endless arguments. I know I would never be able to satisfy most here with any response in this region. At the same time, nobody agreeing with this action can show any evidence either, except what the rebels have said.

In the end, I will maintain that we will likely get worse than what we already have in Libya if the government changes hands.

Remember back to the late 70's when revolts changed the powers in both Iraq and Iran. Look what it produced.

If Gadhafi is replaced, I predict we will have bigger problems over there.

ChumpDumper

06-23-2011, 10:56 AM

I have learned there are certain topics that just bring on endless arguments. I know I would never be able to satisfy most here with any response in this region.So you just made up that shit about variations of Islam.

We understand.

Wild Cobra

06-23-2011, 11:29 AM

So you just made up that shit about variations of Islam.

We understand.
Not at all, but it's people like you I get tired of, and it isn't an important enough point to defend. We simply shouldn't be picking a side in this. If it were not for our actions, I solidly believe the casualties would have stopped.

ChumpDumper

06-23-2011, 11:34 AM

Not at all, but it's people like you I get tired of, and it isn't an important enough point to defend.You think it's the basis of the entire conflict in Libya.

lol not important

ChumpDumper

06-23-2011, 11:36 AM

If it were not for our actions, I solidly believe the casualties would have stopped.Wait, what actions?

You said there were no air strikes.

Wild Cobra

06-23-2011, 12:02 PM

Wait, what actions?

You said there were no air strikes.
I said that Gaddafi never attacked his people by air. That was one claim as to why the UN started this. Our interference took out Gaddafi's ability to suppress rebel action, and now there is a full scale civil war. How many will die before this is over.

Wild Cobra

06-23-2011, 12:03 PM

You think it's the basis of the entire conflict in Libya.

lol not important
I'm saying the basis that the UN is going on is a lie.

RandomGuy

06-23-2011, 12:15 PM

Except that the reservoir is for a specific purpose, and a fixed amount based on what has aleady taken from the ground. ANWAR could easily be far more oil than we know, but we won't know how big it really is until we drill.

I have learned there are certain topics that just bring on endless arguments. I know I would never be able to satisfy most here with any response in this region. At the same time, nobody agreeing with this action can show any evidence either, except what the rebels have said.

In the end, I will maintain that we will likely get worse than what we already have in Libya if the government changes hands.

Remember back to the late 70's when revolts changed the powers in both Iraq and Iran. Look what it produced.

If Gadhafi is replaced, I predict we will have bigger problems over there.

Translation:

"I am unwilling to admit I was talking out my ass. Can we please change the subject?"

Jeez, man, do you want me to show the particular religious make ups of the various regions in Libya showing you that they are all sunni?

Do I need to do that?

Making a mistake is one thing, not owning up to it, when it is so obvious is something else entirely.

ChumpDumper

06-23-2011, 12:16 PM

I said that Gaddafi never attacked his people by air. That was one claim as to why the UN started this. Our interference took out Gaddafi's ability to suppress rebel action, and now there is a full scale civil war. How many will die before this is over.I may have thought you actually cared about this kind of thing had you expressed any sort of similar reservation about Iraq.

You never did.

I'm saying the basis that the UN is going on is a lie.Right, you say it's about variations of Islam.

Explain.

Wild Cobra

06-23-2011, 12:16 PM

Translation:

"I am unwilling to admit I was talking out my ass. Can we please change the subject?"

Jeez, man, do you want me to show the particular religious make ups of the various regions in Libya showing you that they are all sunni?

Do I need to do that?

Making a mistake is one thing, not owning up to it, when it is so obvious is something else entirely.
Believe that if you want. Convenient excuse for you to ignore the other points I make, right?

ChumpDumper

06-23-2011, 12:17 PM

Believe that if you want. Convenient excuse for you to ignore the other points I make, right?You're ignoring your own point.

RandomGuy

06-23-2011, 12:20 PM

I said that Gaddafi never attacked his people by air. That was one claim as to why the UN started this. Our interference took out Gaddafi's ability to suppress rebel action, and now there is a full scale civil war. How many will die before this is over.

Actually air forces loyal to Ghaddafi did perform airstrikes to take out armories and weapons caches that might have been seized.

There were not many strikes by his air force, but there were indeed some.

"Gaddafi never attacked his people by air" is inaccurate.

There were apparently some attempts to ouright hit civilian targets, but the pilots tended to dump their bombloads in the desert or out right defect to Malta instead. There may have been one or two that actually carried out their orders to hit the civilians.

25nyHXH0CLc

Wild Cobra

06-23-2011, 12:22 PM

I may have thought you actually cared about this kind of thing had you expressed any sort of similar reservation about Iraq.

You never did.
There were airstrikes by Saddam, constantly. When we imposed a no fly zone, we didn't destroy his ability to launch an airstrike. There were also several resolutions in place that went unenforced for years.

Right, you say it's about variations of Islam.

Explain.
I'm not going to bother on that one. There are too few subjective examples and I know you will continue to do as you are now. You never let go. This will be comical to see you ask the same questions over and over.

There are more important reasons we shouldn't be there. I have pointed them out, yet no one can attack my stronger arguments. I understand that you know you can't win against the stronger ones. That's why you pick a weak one I used.

RandomGuy

06-23-2011, 12:26 PM

Except that the reservoir is for a specific purpose, and a fixed amount based on what has aleady taken from the ground. ANWAR could easily be far more oil than we know, but we won't know how big it really is until we drill.

Sure they know. They keep testing and finding less oil.

In 2010, the USGS revised an estimate of the oil in the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska (NPRA), concluding that it contained approximately "896 million barrels of conventional, undiscovered oil".[27] The NPRA is west of ANWR. The reason for the decrease is because of new exploratory drilling, which showed that many areas that were believed to hold oil actually hold natural gas.

Not enough to make a fart's worth of difference in the long run.

I'm not against drilling there per se. I think it is silly, and rather obvious that the people who stand to make the most money are the ones screaming the loudest about it. They are rather cynically manipulating the anti-environmentalist streak in conservative politics.

ChumpDumper

06-23-2011, 12:28 PM

There were airstrikes by Saddam, constantly. When we imposed a no fly zone, we didn't destroy his ability to launch an airstrike. There were also several resolutions in place that went unenforced for years.Yet, you didn't care one bit about the civilian deaths and displacements.

Not one bit.

You're a hypocrite, plain and simple.

I'm not going to bother on that one. There are too few subjective examples and I know you will continue to do as you are now. You never let go. This will be comical to see you ask the same questions over and over.It is more comical to watch you squirm and bitch when I do ask.

There are more important reasons we shouldn't be there. I have pointed them out, yet no one can attack my stronger arguments. I understand that you know you can't win against the stronger ones. That's why you pick a weak one I used.I understand that you just made this one up, and your refusal to admit that undermines any other point you might have.

Hell, I'm not even necessarily for this military action. I just know you have no integrity when arguing about it.

RandomGuy

06-23-2011, 12:32 PM

This will be comical to see you ask the same questions over and over.

Yes, yes it will.

The comedy will be watching you fail to answer a basic question about the core reason for the fighting.

RandomGuy

06-23-2011, 12:36 PM

Do you know what this civil, war boils down to? I'm all but certain its about religion. You have two variations of Islam against each other.

Hell, I'll even throw you a life line:

Are you trying to say this is a war between extremists and non-extremists?

It isn't even that. It is all tribal and ethnic power politics.

Wild Cobra

06-23-2011, 12:36 PM

Yes, yes it will.

The comedy will be watching you fail to answer a basic question about the core reason for the fighting.
Then focus on my better arguments first. Defeat them, and I will have nothing left, right?

Wild Cobra

06-23-2011, 12:37 PM

It isn't even that. It is all tribal and ethnic power politics.
Tribal carries heavy in religion.

Now I agree, Gaddafi was a racist. Probably still is.

ChumpDumper

06-23-2011, 12:39 PM

Tribal carries heavy in religion.You mean variations of religion.

Which ones?

Wild Cobra

06-23-2011, 12:42 PM

You mean variations of religion.

Which ones?
Where is the proof that Gaddafi did anything he is accused of to warrant us helping the rebels?

I told you. I will not worry about my weaker arguments as long as my better ones go unchallenged. Where is the evidence other than hearsay?

ChumpDumper

06-23-2011, 12:44 PM

RandomGuy

06-23-2011, 12:45 PM

You mean variations of religion.

Which ones?

Even when thrown a life line, he won't own up to it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Libya

Other than the overwhelming majority of Sunni Muslims, there are also small Christian communities, composed exclusively of foreigners.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ly.html
Religions:
Sunni Muslim 97%, other 3%

Not much variation there that I can determine.

RandomGuy

06-23-2011, 12:49 PM

Believe that if you want. Convenient excuse for you to ignore the other points I make, right?

Yes, I want to believe you were talking out your ass, mostly because it seems you are.

"its about variations in religion" --97% the same version of islam

"gaddafi never used air strikes agaisnt his people" --yes he did

What were your "stronger points" again?

If they are predicated on similar factually incorrect assumptions as your "weaker" points, then maybe they aren't as strong as you think they are.

ElNono

06-23-2011, 12:53 PM

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/popcorn_2.gif

RandomGuy

06-23-2011, 01:02 PM

Where is the proof that Gaddafi did anything he is accused of to warrant us helping the rebels?

I told you. I will not worry about my weaker arguments as long as my better ones go unchallenged. Where is the evidence other than hearsay?

Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi appeared on state television to dispel rumors that he had left the country, instead remaining defiant and calling foreign media outlets "dogs" as violence continued in Tripoli, Benghazi and throughout the country. There are estimates that several hundred have been killed in the clashes between protesters and security forces, although foreign journalists have largely had to rely on human rights groups and defectors for information from inside the North African country.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/02/libyan-government-cracks-down-on-protests-foreigners-evacuate.html

RAW FOOTAGE - Brave Protester in Libya shot dead by hired Libyan government forces. Feb17 Revolution
http://www.vimeo.com/20128658

Libyan protesters shot in Benghazi demonstrations
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8336395/Libyan-protesters-shot-in-Benghazi-demonstrations.html

Finally:

:lmao someone who thinks the worlds second most kooky dictator is credible when he denies using violence and torture.

Is that what you are trying to say? You think the evidence against him is manufactured?

Or you just haven't been paying attention, and think it must be all made up because the "liberal media" said so?

RandomGuy

06-23-2011, 01:08 PM

Hell youtube has more than enough cellphone footage to vouch for a fairly horrific level of violence:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=libya+protests&aq=f

While any one video is easy to dismiss as potentially faked, the colletive number of them, as well as the fact that they corroberate eyewitness accounts, says that there is a pretty good liklihood of some basic underlying truth.

Are the protestors and rebels motivated to exaggerate? Sure. I have no doubt that claims on both sides are exactly that.

Those videos and eyewitness accounts that we have tilt the balance to the side of the protestors, however, by any fair reading.

The *only* way you can claim that Ghaddafi didn't do the things we are bombing him for, is if you really assign credibility to his governments pronouncements.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=57&pictureid=323

Wild Cobra

06-23-2011, 01:16 PM

I will give you this, which I'll bet i am so far the only one to read here:

International Religious Freedom Report 2007; Lybia (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2007/90216.htm)

International Religious Freedom Report 2010; Lybia (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2010/148832.htm)

Pick and choose what you like. Here are a few tidbits from the 2007 report:

There were no reports of societal abuses or discrimination based on religious belief or practice.

Islam is the equivalent of a state religion and thoroughly integrated into everyday political and social life. As with all other aspects of individuals' lives, the Government closely monitors and regulates Islam to ensure religious life includes no political dimension. The Government strongly opposes religious extremism or militant Islam, which it views as a threat to the Qadhafi regime.

While the Government does not single out religious activity for special scrutiny, it actively monitors peaceful religious practice for evidence of political motivations or dimensions. So long as religious groups avoid political activity, they encounter little harassment.

The Government actively enforces a prohibition on efforts to proselytize Muslims.

There continued to be reports of armed clashes between security forces and Islamic groups that oppose the Government and advocate for the establishment of an Islamic government that would enforce a more conservative form of Islam.

There were no reports of societal abuse or discrimination based on religious belief or practice. While specific information about relations among religious groups in the country is limited, minority religious leaders expressed contentment with the level of religious freedom.
here are a few tidbits from the 2010 report:

There were no reports of societal abuses or discrimination based on religious affiliation, belief, or practice.

Following the reestablishment of diplomatic relations with the country, the U.S. government continued to normalize bilateral relations and foster a multifaceted relationship with the government, including discussion of religious freedom as part of its overall policy to promote human rights.

The government continued to ban the once powerful Sufi Sanusiyya order. The order played an important role in the country's pre-revolutionary history and is closely associated with the former monarchy.

In 2006 the U.S. government upgraded its diplomatic representation in the country from a liaison office to an embassy. In 2006 the secretary of state rescinded the country's designation as a state sponsor of international terrorism, and in January 2009 the United States and the country exchanged ambassadors for the first time in 36 years. The U.S. government discusses religious freedom with the government as part of its overall policy to promote human rights. The embassy maintained regular contact with various religious denominations in the country consistent with its efforts to promote human rights and religious freedom.

ChumpDumper

06-23-2011, 01:20 PM

Wild Cobra

06-23-2011, 01:21 PM

Random, anyone can put words and context to a scene lacking clear context.

Are you sure in your conviction that these protesters weren't armed rebels instead?

Wild Cobra

06-23-2011, 01:25 PM

So the conflict is based on minority religions whose members report being satisfied with the level of religious freedom with no reports of religious discrimination.

Great.

http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2011/03/19/plane_s640x445.jpg?eae60e205b3b3dc3c1cf5af96dea367 bbcb50bd7

lol no airstrikes
Warplane shot down in Libyan rebel town of Benghazi belonged to rebels, rebels admit (http://www.news.com.au/world/warplane-shot-down-in-libyan-rebel-town-of-benghazi-reports/story-e6frfkzi-1226024625139)

ChumpDumper

06-23-2011, 01:31 PM

Warplane shot down in Libyan rebel town of Benghazi belonged to rebels, rebels admit (http://www.news.com.au/world/warplane-shot-down-in-libyan-rebel-town-of-benghazi-reports/story-e6frfkzi-1226024625139)Thanks for the clarification. The Washington Times didn't make that correction. Go figure.

Wild Cobra

06-23-2011, 01:38 PM

Thanks for the clarification. The Washington Times didn't make that correction. Go figure.
I wonder how many more French built Mirage fighters the rebels have? How many of them are being mistaken for Qaddafi's forces?

LnGrrrR

06-23-2011, 01:39 PM

Wild Cobra

06-23-2011, 01:41 PM

A question: While 97% of Libyans may be Sunni, that doesn't mean they all follow the tenets of Sunni Islam the same way, right? I mean, a ton of people identify as "Christians" in America, but have wildly differing views on what that means. Even when you break it down into subcategories such as Evangelical, Protestant, etc etc, they still have different ideas about how that religion "works".
Religions freedom in Libya seems to go as far as being able to practice your beliefs, but not to influence others to. Especially minors from what I have gathered.

As for Sunni, Qaddafi has his own enforced interpretations about Sunni laws. If you notice, from one of the State Department links I furnished, he deals harshly with this wanting to impose a more severe form of Islam.

I ask this. Since the only ones Qaddafi imposes harsh sanctions or punishment on are armed rebels and a dangerous form of Islam, do we really want the rebels to win?

ChumpDumper

06-23-2011, 01:42 PM

I wonder how many more French built Mirage fighters the rebels have? How many of them are being mistaken for Qaddafi's forces?Who owns Russia Today, WC?

Winehole23

06-23-2011, 01:54 PM

Speaking of Libya, read that Obama is going to tap the strategic petroleum reserve, allegedly to compensate for lost Libyan oil production. A completely unnecessary and foolish move IMO.

The United States and its industrial allies in the International Energy Agency announced Wednesday that they would release 60 million barrels of crude oil from reserves over the next 30 days. The news immediately sent oil prices down about 5 percent.

The release would be the biggest ever coordinated from strategic reserves, and over the next month it would exceed the amount of oil lost on world markets since the fighting in Libya. Half of the release would come from U.S. reserves.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/us-allies-to-release-60m-barrels-from-oil-reserves/2011/06/23/AGhcVKhH_story.html

Wild Cobra

06-23-2011, 02:03 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/us-allies-to-release-60m-barrels-from-oil-reserves/2011/06/23/AGhcVKhH_story.html
Interesting how Supply and Demand can have such a dramatic effect on price with so little extra supply.

60 million of 726.5 million is about 8.26% of the reserves. What is that? about 2% of the daily world supply, but drops the price 5%?

ChumpDumper

06-23-2011, 02:07 PM

That's because it's not all about supply and demand, simpleton.

Wild Cobra

06-23-2011, 02:12 PM

That's because it's not all about supply and demand, simpleton.
Then it's unnatural outside of proper specualtion. If you are talking about speculators, they only have a limited impact they can control that isn't continuous. Prices based on real future speculation cannot be controlled by individuals. The release of 2 million barrels a day is ~2.35% of the daily word demand, and becomes part of the formula speculators will use in buying futures.

ElNono

06-23-2011, 02:17 PM

Prices based on real future speculation cannot be controlled by individuals.

That's not true. When companies sign long term supply contracts they're affecting future prices. When speculators bet against or for those contracts (aka futures), they also affect future prices.

Wild Cobra

06-23-2011, 02:24 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/us-allies-to-release-60m-barrels-from-oil-reserves/2011/06/23/AGhcVKhH_story.html
I see you dug back to post 40 to change the topic again. Does that mean you finally agree with me?

Winehole23

06-23-2011, 02:56 PM

Not at all. I just lit on a better tangent.

Wild Cobra

06-23-2011, 03:01 PM

Not at all. I just lit on a better tangent.
Doesn't it deserve it's own thread?

ChumpDumper

06-23-2011, 03:03 PM

Doesn't it deserve it's own thread?Authoritarian.

Wild Cobra

06-23-2011, 03:06 PM

Authoritarian.
A question is authoritarian?

Winehole23

06-23-2011, 03:06 PM

Doesn't it deserve it's own thread?It's germane. Turmoil in Libya is one of the stated rationales for tapping the strategic reserves.

Wild Cobra

06-23-2011, 03:07 PM

It's germane. Turmoil in Libya is one of the stated rationales for tapping the strategic reserves.
If we vetoed the action, we wouldn't be in that position now, would we?

ChumpDumper

06-23-2011, 03:07 PM

A question is authoritarian?Your forum cop mindset is tbh.

Winehole23

06-23-2011, 03:14 PM

If we vetoed the action, we wouldn't be in that position now, would we?True, but somewhat tautological. If the case had been different, things might have turned out differently.

Wild Cobra

06-23-2011, 03:21 PM

True, but somewhat tautological. If the case had been different, things might have turned out differently.
So tell me again, why did we approve the action?

Was it because of the false reports of him attacking civilians?

How does that compare with our 2010 State Department report on Libya dated 11/17/10?

Did it really change so much in such a short time?

RandomGuy

06-23-2011, 03:35 PM

Protests preceded the outright rebellion by several weeks, and I watched the videos of some of these well before the armed rebellion.

The potential for some of them to be inaccurate was also acknowledged. Any given one piece's accuracy or not matters much less than the rather large body of available material. The odds of ALL of it being bullshit are very remote, espeically when paired with eyewitness and other accounts that have come trickling out.

Most of the airbases are in the western part of the country near Tripoli. The "rebels" control no airforce of any measure, and certainly at the outset had fewer planes, and absolutely no motivation to destroy any caches of arms that they might potentially capture, nor fire on protests in the west that had largely ended by the time the armed rebellion took root.

Sufi muslims represent such a small part of the religious landscape that they are not mentioned in any description of religion in Libya. Sufis were commonly associated with other monarchies as well, being something of a mystic/esoteric/poetic offshoot that required a high degree of literacy to have been familiar with. I would be surprised if you could find more than a small enclave within Libya, and your given statement in no way indicated that they are present in large enough numbers to be a driving force in events in Libya. If you want to prove this point, you will need a lot more than a passing mention of a monarch 40+ years ago.

Your attempts to prevaricate and obfuscate on one or two data points does not outweigh the overall amount of evidence that contradicts your assertions.

A fair reading of the available evidence indicates that you were incorrect. Suck it up and move on.

Winehole23

06-23-2011, 03:41 PM

So tell me again, why did we approve the action?Beats me, honestly. Reps and Senators tend to follow the president more or less reflexively into war.

Was it because of the false reports of him attacking civilians?You can gloss Qaddafi's crackdown any way you want, but there was a crackdown. Are you disputing that?

RandomGuy

06-23-2011, 03:47 PM

So tell me again, why did we approve the action?

Was it because of the false reports of him attacking civilians?

How does that compare with our 2010 State Department report on Libya dated 11/17/10?

Did it really change so much in such a short time?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring

The Arab Spring (Arabic: الثورات العربية‎; literally the Arabic Rebellions or the Arab Revolutions) is a revolutionary wave of demonstrations and protests that has been taking place in the Arab world since 18 December 2010

The series of protests and demonstrations across the Middle East and North Africa has become known as the "Arab Spring",[28][29][30][31][32][33] and sometimes as the "Arab Spring and Winter"[34], "Arab Awakening"[35] or "Arab Uprisings"[36] even though not all participants in protests identify as Arab. It was sparked by the first protests that occurred in Tunisia on 18 December 2010 following Mohamed Bouazizi's self-immolation in protest of police corruption and ill treatment

The answer to your question, is yes. Yes, it has.

RandomGuy

06-23-2011, 03:57 PM

Beats me, honestly. Reps and Senators tend to follow the president more or less reflexively into war.
You can gloss Qaddafi's crackdown any way you want, but there was a crackdown. Are you disputing that?

It would seem he is.

For his position to be logical, he has to argue that Ghadaffi, with a very long history of brutality, well-documented for decades, suddenly developed a conscience and didn't actually open fire on unarmed protesters.

From what I have read here, the soucres seem to check out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Libyan_civil_war

Treatment of protests

During the protests, security forces repeatedly fired into demonstrations and funeral processions. As the protests progressed, the Libyan government employed snipers, artillery, helicopter gunships, warplanes, anti-aircraft weaponry, and warships against demonstrations and funeral processions.[141] Amnesty International reported that writers, intellectuals and other prominent opposition sympathizers disappeared during the early days of the conflict in cities controlled by Gaddafi, and that they may have been subjected to torture or execution.[142] Amnesty International also reported that security forces targeted paramedics helping injured protesters.[143] In multiple incidents, Gaddafi's forces were documented using ambulances in their attacks.[144][145] Injured demonstrators were sometimes denied access to hospitals and ambulance transport. The government also banned giving blood transfusions to people who had taken part in the demonstrations.[146] Members of Gaddafi's Revolutionary Committees stormed hospitals in Tripoli and removed the dead. Injured protesters were either summarily executed or had their oxygen masks, IV drips, and wires connected to the monitors removed, and were taken away. The dead and injured were piled into Toyota Land Cruisers and taken away, possibly for cremation.[147][148] Doctors were prevented from documenting the numbers of dead and wounded, but an orderly in a Tripoli hospital morgue estimated to the BBC that 600–700 protesters were killed in Green Square in Tripoli on 20 February. The orderly claimed that ambulances brought in three or four corpses at a time, and that after the ice lockers were filled to capacity, bodies were placed on stretchers or the floor, and that "it was in the same at the other hospitals".[147]

One or even ten accounts I could see as fabrications.

All of them? No. Given that the violence dovetails with past behavior of the regime?

Only an idiot would argue that.

Wild Cobra

06-23-2011, 04:04 PM

You can gloss Qaddafi's crackdown any way you want, but there was a crackdown. Are you disputing that?
Not at all. He has been cracking down on rebels for years. He does not tolerate those who want to enforce a more conservative Sharia Law than what he does.

Remember when I said this (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5258674&postcount=42):
There is no comparison between Libya and most other nations with bad dictators. Libya has the highest HDI (http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Table1_reprint.pdf) of all African nations and rates #53 world wide. Mexico rates #56, Brazil #73, China #89. ElNono's home of Argentina rates a little better at #46. I wonder how Libya's ratings will be after the ratings are compiled next time.

Saudi Arabia #55, Egypt #101, Iran #70, and Syria is #111.

#53 of 169 rated nations isn't shabby. He may be a bad dictator, but the people weren't as bad off as many other places. I find it unconscionable that our nation had a hand in this. Obama has brought shame upon us.

We have made possible a civil war. A war that would have never gone this far if we didn't take out the forces to keep the nation at peace. Obama and the UN potentially has the blood of 100's of thousands on his hands.
Now our State Department report on Human Rights shows Libya is a nation lacking in western values, but for those who obey the law, they have it better than most places in the world. Remember, we may not like how they do things, but it is a sovereign nation and should be respected as such. Consider this, from the 4/8/11 Human Rights report on Libya (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/nea/154467.htm):

Persons with Disabilities

The law provides for the rights of persons with physical, sensory, intellectual and mental disabilities and provides for monetary and other types of social assistance. A number of government-approved organizations cared for persons with disabilities and protected access to employment, education, health care, and other state services. Few public facilities had adequate access for persons with physical disabilities, and there was limited access to information or communications.

e. Acceptable Conditions of Work

The labor law defines the rights and duties of workers except for migrant workers and includes matters of compensation, pension rights, minimum rest periods, and working hours. Although some public sector categories, such as professors, have received pay increases in recent years, a freeze imposed more than a decade ago continued to depress earnings. The minimum wage was 250 dinars ($208) per month. The government paid an additional pension of 90 dinars ($75) for a single person, 130 dinars ($108) for a married couple, and 180 dinars ($150) for a family of more than two. Although there was no information available regarding whether the average wage was sufficient to provide a worker and family with a decent standard of living, the government heavily subsidized rent and utilities, and government workers received an additional 130 dinars ($108) per month for food staples during the year. Contracts, written in Arabic, exist for migrant workers and are the legal basis for granting visas for temporary workers. Contracts are only for legal immigrants and are a requirement for the hiring business to sponsor the worker; as a result, they are rare and generally only used if the business is closely monitored or regulated.

Now remember. This report makes statements based on our perspective and standards.

Wild Cobra

06-23-2011, 04:07 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring

The answer to your question, is yes. Yes, it has.
Sure, the uprising has. Not Qaddafi's actions.

Does that mean we are a nation of lemmings to the Arab Spring?

Wild Cobra

06-23-2011, 04:12 PM

It would seem he is.

For his position to be logical, he has to argue that Ghadaffi, with a very long history of brutality, well-documented for decades, suddenly developed a conscience and didn't actually open fire on unarmed protesters.

From what I have read here, the soucres seem to check out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Libyan_civil_war
Treatment of protests

During the protests, security forces repeatedly fired into demonstrations and funeral processions. As the protests progressed, the Libyan government employed snipers, artillery, helicopter gunships, warplanes, anti-aircraft weaponry, and warships against demonstrations and funeral processions.[141] Amnesty International reported that writers, intellectuals and other prominent opposition sympathizers disappeared during the early days of the conflict in cities controlled by Gaddafi, and that they may have been subjected to torture or execution.[142] Amnesty International also reported that security forces targeted paramedics helping injured protesters.[143] In multiple incidents, Gaddafi's forces were documented using ambulances in their attacks.[144][145] Injured demonstrators were sometimes denied access to hospitals and ambulance transport. The government also banned giving blood transfusions to people who had taken part in the demonstrations.[146] Members of Gaddafi's Revolutionary Committees stormed hospitals in Tripoli and removed the dead. Injured protesters were either summarily executed or had their oxygen masks, IV drips, and wires connected to the monitors removed, and were taken away. The dead and injured were piled into Toyota Land Cruisers and taken away, possibly for cremation.[147][148] Doctors were prevented from documenting the numbers of dead and wounded, but an orderly in a Tripoli hospital morgue estimated to the BBC that 600–700 protesters were killed in Green Square in Tripoli on 20 February. The orderly claimed that ambulances brought in three or four corpses at a time, and that after the ice lockers were filled to capacity, bodies were placed on stretchers or the floor, and that "it was in the same at the other hospitals".[147]

One or even ten accounts I could see as fabrications.

All of them? No. Given that the violence dovetails with past behavior of the regime?

Only an idiot would argue that.
Have you even followed the sources cited?

Why do the protesters have weapons, then claimed to be innocent protesters?

SnakeBoy

06-23-2011, 04:23 PM

Which two variations would that be?

I think it's them Terrorist Muslims vs them Muslim Bastards

Wild Cobra

06-23-2011, 04:25 PM

Follow the source links wiki has. You find allot of things that don't add up like this:

After some time, the same soldiers - described as "black Africans" - opened fire indiscriminately on anybody walking in the street.

With the open discrimination in Libya, would "black Africans" be part of his forces?

Wild Cobra

06-23-2011, 04:26 PM

I think it's them Terrorist Muslims vs them Muslim Bastards
I may not like the Muslim Bastards, but I most certainly don't want to see the Muslim Terrorists take over.

ChumpDumper

06-23-2011, 05:17 PM

Have you even followed the sources cited?Have you followed the money in the sources you cited?

ChumpDumper

06-23-2011, 05:18 PM

Why do the protesters have weapons, then claimed to be innocent protesters?now Guns = Guilt

You're a piece of work, WC.

Wild Cobra

06-23-2011, 07:57 PM

now Guns = Guilt

You're a piece of work, WC.
Armed protesters are not protesters. They are rebels, not innocent civilians.

Were they expecting to be left alone if armed? Tell me they weren't looking for what they got.

Wild Cobra

06-23-2011, 08:09 PM

Have you followed the money in the sources you cited?
I used the sourced cited in the wiki article that Random posted.

The wiki article cherry picks information, leaving out the the important truth.

ChumpDumper

06-23-2011, 08:29 PM

Armed protesters are not protesters. They are rebels, not innocent civilians.

Were they expecting to be left alone if armed? Tell me they weren't looking for what they got.This isn't the US.

I used the sourced cited in the wiki article that Random posted.

The wiki article cherry picks information, leaving out the the important truth.Did you follow the money for the sources you cited?

RandomGuy

06-24-2011, 06:49 AM

Interesting how Supply and Demand can have such a dramatic effect on price with so little extra supply.

60 million of 726.5 million is about 8.26% of the reserves. What is that? about 2% of the daily world supply, but drops the price 5%?

Aside from the speculative aspect, you have to remember that supply and demand lines are curves. Depending on what part of the curve you are at, shifting one or the other can have a varying effect.

IN this case though, I think it has more to do with expectations and a touch of speculation.

RandomGuy

06-24-2011, 06:51 AM

I used the sourced cited in the wiki article that Random posted.

The wiki article cherry picks information, leaving out the the important truth.

Ok. I'll bite, although I am seriously kind of astonished that you have attempted to bear this steaming turd of an assertion out.

What information did they leave out?

If they cherry picked, there should be an easy to find bunch of data that can be found that contradicts the "bloodthirsty, evil regime" idea.

Links?

RandomGuy

06-24-2011, 07:00 AM

Have you even followed the sources cited?

Why do the protesters have weapons, then claimed to be innocent protesters?

Yes, actually I read a good number of them.

Which ones stated that there were armed protesters?

RandomGuy

06-24-2011, 07:03 AM

Winehole23

06-24-2011, 11:39 AM

U.S. House Defeats Resolution Authorizing U.S. Military Mission in Libya

By James Rowley - Jun 24, 2011 11:17 AM CT Fri Jun 24 16:17:08 GMT 2011

The House voted against authorizing President Barack Obama (http://topics.bloomberg.com/barack-obama/) to continue providing U.S. air support to the allied bombardment against forces loyal to Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi (http://topics.bloomberg.com/muammar-qaddafi/).

On a 295-123 vote, the House defeated a Democratic- sponsored resolution (http://rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_1/Floor_Text/MAS_011_xml.pdf) that would have authorized U.S. military support for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization operation for up to a year. The House also plans to vote on separate legislation (http://rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_1/Floor_Text/XML_375_xml.pdf) to bar U.S. forces from combat in Libya (http://topics.bloomberg.com/libya/).

The resolution’s defeat reflected lawmakers’ questions about the outcome of the Libyan conflict and frustration with Obama’s assertion that he isn’t required to get congressional permission because U.S. forces are not involved in hostilities.

“We find ourselves past the three-month mark with no end in sight,” said California Republican Buck McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

After Obama gave “the flimsiest legal rationale” for the conflict, the House shouldn’t “cover his lapse with a blanket authorization,” McKeon said.

Democrats accused House Republican leaders, who forced the votes, of trying to embarrass Obama.

“Our commitments to NATO” to prevent a humanitarian crisis in Libya “are too important to be exploited for cynical political purposes,” said California Representative Howard Berman, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The discontent over Libya is not as widespread in the Senate. The resolution backing the mission was initially drafted by a bipartisan group of senators led by Democrat John Kerry (http://topics.bloomberg.com/john-kerry/) of Massachusetts (http://topics.bloomberg.com/massachusetts/) and Republican John McCain (http://topics.bloomberg.com/john-mccain/) of Arizona.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of which Kerry is chairman, is scheduled to debate the resolution next week, and leaders of both parties predict the full Senate will approve it.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-24/u-s-house-defeats-resolution-authorizing-u-s-military-mission-in-libya.html

Wild Cobra

06-24-2011, 12:43 PM

Yes, actually I read a good number of them.

Which ones stated that there were armed protesters?
Didn't you watch the attached videos?

Wild Cobra

06-24-2011, 12:48 PM

Ok. I'll bite, although I am seriously kind of astonished that you have attempted to bear this steaming turd of an assertion out.

What information did they leave out?
I gave a quote already. Isn't one example enough to show someone put the piece together with bias?

If they cherry picked, there should be an easy to find bunch of data that can be found that contradicts the "bloodthirsty, evil regime" idea.

Links?
I'm not going to go piece by piece. I already showed a handful of evidence that there is information out there contrary to what the media is telling us. If you are going to stand firm that the media is telling us the truth, why should I waste my time. You obvious aren't open minded or willing to seek it out yourself.

I have better things to do. As far as I care, I already proved my case.

RandomGuy

06-24-2011, 01:01 PM

I gave a quote already. Isn't one example enough to show someone put the piece together with bias?

I'm not going to go piece by piece. I already showed a handful of evidence that there is information out there contrary to what the media is telling us. If you are going to stand firm that the media is telling us the truth, why should I waste my time. You obvious aren't open minded or willing to seek it out yourself.

I have better things to do. As far as I care, I already proved my case.

Sure thing, mouse.

Those videos say what you think they do, the information hasn't been debunked to anybody with any common sense, and you can do a self-proclaimed victory lap because you are obviously too smart to fall for the "official" version, and I am too "closed minded" to accept the truth.

:lmao

Here is your Supid Hat, now go stand in the corner with the Truthtards, 'cause you just did the exact same stupid shit that they do.

When you get called on something, and say "I don't want to waste my time proving you wrong" it is a giant neon glowing sign that says "I know my shit is weak, so I will lamely attempt save face by claiming victory".

Sorry.

Bullshit has been called. Either you have some concrete examples that you can put out, or not.

Your assertions, your burden of proof, a burden that you have not come even close to meeting.

Don't lie to my face and say your dumb ass has come close, because we both know it hasn't.

RandomGuy

06-24-2011, 01:05 PM

Follow the source links wiki has. You find allot of things that don't add up like this:

With the open discrimination in Libya, would "black Africans" be part of his forces?

Mercenaries

Soon after Gaddafi's government started to use force against demonstrators, it became apparent that some Libyan military units refused to shoot protesters, and Gaddafi had hired foreign mercenaries to do the job. Gaddafi's ambassador to India Ali al-Essawi confirmed that the defections of military units had indeed led to such a decision

Sorry, yet another faulty assumption on your part.

RandomGuy

06-24-2011, 01:25 PM

I am rapidly losing my patience here.

The first hand accounts are pretty horrific, and tend to paint a picture of human rights abuses that should shock anybody's conscience.

WC, you might quibble over a few protests and whether some were armed, but what about the wounded piled into trucks and hauled off?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13785053

Haunting images

A few days later, soldiers came and took the dead and injured.

Foreign media found proof of the violent crackdown in the mortuaries of Benghazi They pulled off the patients' oxygen masks, yanked off the wires connected to their monitors, pulled out the drips and tubes, and took them away.

Some of them were sedated and were not conscious. Even the ones who were not did not have the chance to scream. The soldiers just piled them up with the dead in Toyota Land Cruisers and drove away.

None of the hospital staff dared speak out at all. What could we do? If I had done anything, I would have been piled up with the dead too.

We never found out what happened to the people taken by Col Gaddafi's forces. No-one had the courage to ask.

Libya protests: 140 'massacred' as Gaddafi sends in snipers to crush dissent
Women and children leapt from bridges to their deaths as they tried to escape a ruthless crackdown by Libyan forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

Snipers shot protesters, artillery and helicopter gunships were used against crowds of demonstrators, and thugs armed with hammers and swords attacked families in their homes as the Libyan regime sought to crush the uprising.

"Dozens were killed ... We are in the midst of a massacre here," a witness told Reuters. The man said he helped take victims to hospital in Benghazi.

Libyan Muslim leaders told security forces to stop killing civilians, responding to a spiralling death toll from unrest which threatens veteran leader Muammar Gaddafi's authority.

Mourners leaving a funeral for protesters in the eastern city of Benghazi came under fire, killing at least 15 people and wounding many more. A hospital official said one of those who died was apparently struck on the head by an anti-aircraft missile, and many had been shot in the head and chest

Snipers shooting people, mercenaries simply driving through areas and shooting anybody outside, the government disappearing people at the outset, who still have not been heard from, etc etc etc.

New credible information, and sometimes still difficult to verify, regarding the murders of soldiers refusing to follow orders, the assassination of the wounded in hospitals (at least 163 in Central Hospital and the Hospital of Tripoli SBIA), the use of weapons used in light of the critical state of the wounded arriving at the hospitals, orders directed at fighter pilots to carry out bombings, suggest that Gaddafi has effectively decided to implement a mass extermination of those participating in the protests and furthermore, the systematic repression of civilians. The intention announced by Gaddafi in a speech on Feb. 22, to eradicate the “rats” should be taken seriously.

FIDH is particularly concerned by the ability of murderous mercenaries whose services Gaddafi has sought, and whose number is estimated at 6000, of which 3000 are in Tripoli according to the Libyan League of Human Rights, an FIDH member. They seem to have received carte blanche to loot and kill, indiscriminately, all civilians. FIDH has called forcefully for the Presidents of States whose nationals are reportedly among the mercenaries, to take all necessary steps to attempt to neutralize them in accordance with their international obligations.

Dude, youtubes aside the massive amount of first-hand evidence is there.

Aid workers described horrific stories of widespread sexual abuse, including one incident in which a group of girls was abducted and held hostage for four days.
When they were finally released, they were too traumatised to speak.
Other children have described being forced to watch as their fathers were murdered and their mothers raped.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1380364/Libya-Gaddafis-troops-rape-children-young-eight.html#ixzz1QDeh0PTG

So is it all made up?

"Liberal media"?

"Bias" my ass.

MannyIsGod

06-24-2011, 01:27 PM

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-24/u-s-house-defeats-resolution-authorizing-u-s-military-mission-in-libya.html

They also voted down a resolution limiting actions to an actual non hostile nature. My rep voted to keep combing. Fucking jack ass.

MannyIsGod

06-24-2011, 01:28 PM

RG I can honestly say that regardless of the brutality of events we've done nothing but make it worse. Cut our losses, come home. Bombs from planes don't fill the world with rainbows.

Winehole23

06-24-2011, 01:32 PM

That it even came up for a vote is extraordinary, if also entirely proper.

MannyIsGod

06-24-2011, 01:34 PM

That it even came up for a vote is extraordinary, if also entirely proper.

Theres something extremely wrong when those statements are true at the same time. The US is never going to give up its military toy unless it has to. I'm so saddened by that.

RandomGuy

06-24-2011, 01:36 PM

Not at all. He has been cracking down on rebels for years. He does not tolerate those who want to enforce a more conservative Sharia Law than what he does.

Remember when I said this (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5258674&postcount=42):
Now our State Department report on Human Rights shows Libya is a nation lacking in western values, but for those who obey the law, they have it better than most places in the world. Remember, we may not like how they do things, but it is a sovereign nation and should be respected as such. Consider this, from the 4/8/11 Human Rights report on Libya (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/nea/154467.htm):

Now remember. This report makes statements based on our perspective and standards.

Trying to be an apologist for a dicatator, simply for no other reason than you think he was "fighting sharia law"?

He invoked islam to support his dictatorship for decades, and then dances to a slightly different tune that you like, and suddenly he is a paragon of decency and virtue? The height of credibility???

Seriously?

The media is "biased" and not to be trusted, but a dictator with a solid track record of lying, torture, and human rights abuses can be trusted when he says his motivation for this is to "fight sharia law" or "fighting terrorism"?

Talk about immoral. You really earned your "lying piece of shit" merit badge with this bit.

Wild Cobra

06-24-2011, 01:38 PM

My oh my....

Quoting the wiki article that deviates from what is said in the source:

In recent days there have been reports that the Libyan regime of Mu'ammar al-Qaddafi has resorted to the use of foreign mercenaries to slaughter unarmed civilians protesting over four decades of rule by Qaddafi and his family. The Libyan government has been clear from the start that protestors could expect a “violent” response from the regime (al-Zahf al-Akhdar [Tripoli], February 19). Mu’ammar Qaddafi’s son, Sa’if al-Islam al-Qaddafi, warned viewers of Libyan state TV: “We will fight to the last man and woman and bullet” (al-Sayda TV, February 20).

Khaled al-Ga’aeem, the under secretary of the Libyan Foreign Ministry, told al-Jazeera interviewers there was no truth to the reports of mercenaries: “I am ready - not only to resign from my post - but also set myself on fire in the Green Square - if it is confirmed that there were mercenaries from African states coming by planes” (al-Jazeera, February 22). However, citing his own reports from inside the country, the Libyan ambassador to India, Ali al-Essawi, has confirmed the use of African mercenaries and the defection of units of Libya’s military in response to their deployment (Reuters, February 22). In New York, defecting Libyan Deputy Ambassador Ibrahim Dabbashi called on “African nations” to stop sending mercenaries to defend the Qaddafi regime (New York Times, February 21).
No where does it confirm these troops were killing people or that the Libyan military refused orders to kill. Maybe the military was spread thin, so they hired their equivalent of Blackwater. I read it as the military refusing to work with the mercs!

What about the misreporting of the plane shot down?

What about the Russian reports of what their satellites were watching?

I only see hearsay that protesters were killed for no reason. I have seen videos of so-called protesters with weapons.

The State reports tells a story over time if you follow over the years that Libya is becoming a better place.

Even if we assume protesters were killed, again, this is a sovereign nation. Until he targets people outside his nation, who are we to police the world? They live in a very authoritarian culture, and they know the rules to live by and stay alive. Like I said early on, if we help go after Libya, who's next. There are several nations more worthy of our wrath than Libya.

We cannot attack other nations because their values aren't like ours.

I have to wonder. Do you support a one world government?

Winehole23

06-24-2011, 01:44 PM

ChumpDumper

06-24-2011, 01:47 PM

What about the misreporting of the plane shot down?The AP corrected itself. The conservative Washington Times did not.

What about the Russian reports of what their satellites were watching?Russia Today is funded by the Russian state. It, like you, has no integrity and you are a fool to blindly trust it.

EVAY

06-24-2011, 02:10 PM

Also, opportunistic. The war is unpopular here, it was not swift and decisive as promised but appears to have prolonged the civil war. Also, Obama is a Dem.

It was foolishly and hastily undertaken, and Obama brazenly ignored Congress in the process. If Obama had shown a little deference here the result might have been somewhat different.

This is apparently the key to this vote. Notably, there was also a vote to cut funding that was also defeated. So, the congress voted to say "You shouldn't be doing this", but "here's the money to keep doing it".

I remain convinced that this is Obama's response to Britain, France and Italy saying "You wanted our support in Iraq and Afghanistan...now we want your support here...or you never get ours again.

IMHO, Congress and the President are all posturing politically with respect to this thing. I don't think we can literally afford the expenditures, and I think Obama was flat wrong not to get congressional approval, but I understand the need to support our allies.

RandomGuy

06-24-2011, 02:29 PM

My oh my....

Quoting the wiki article that deviates from what is says is the source:

No where does it confirm these troops were killing people or that the Libyan military refused orders to kill. Maybe the military was spread thin, so they hired their equivalent of Blackwater. I read it as the military refusing to work with the mercs!

What about the misreporting of the plane shot down?

What about the Russian reports of what their satellites were watching?

I only see hearsay that protesters were killed for no reason. I have seen videos of so-called protesters with weapons.

The State reports tells a story over time if you follow over the years that Libya is becoming a better place.

Even if we assume protesters were killed, again, this is a sovereign nation. Until he targets people outside his nation, who are we to police the world? They live in a very authoritarian culture, and they know the rules to live by and stay alive. Like I said early on, if we help go after Libya, who's next. There are several nations more worthy of our wrath than Libya.

We cannot attack other nations because their values aren't like ours.

I have to wonder. Do you support a one world government?

130 Libyan Soldiers Executed: Disobeying Orders To Kill Protesters (http://ronabbass.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/130-libyan-soldiers-executed-disobey-orders-to-kill-protesters/)

Scores of Libyan soldiers have been executed for refusing to open fire on pro-democracy protesters, International Federation for Human Rights (IFHR) says.

An amateur video shows some of the 130 slain soldiers with their hands tied behind their backs. The mutinous soldiers were shot dead in al-Baida near the eastern city of Benghazi.

This comes amid more reports of defiance among army ranks and soldiers who have refused to obey orders by embattled Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi to shoot peaceful protesters.

The IFHR said the brutal crackdown on protesters in Libya is “crime against humanity has to be referred to the International Court of Justice,” dpa reported on Wednesday.

Medical sources told the rights group that they have seen scenes of carnage in Benghazi, where hospitals remain packed with dead bodies and people injured in attacks by Gaddafi loyalists.

The video at the link clearly shows uniformed military, bound, lying face down, shot in the back of the head.

Libyan officers defecting to [Tunisia] describe mutinous army and climate of fear (http://www.570news.com/news/world/article/245489--libyan-officers-defecting-to-libya-describe-mutinous-army-and-climate-of-fear)

TUNIS, Tunisia - Libyan army officers defecting to Tunisia described on Thursday a country ruled by fear in which many soldiers are trying to leave.

Dozens of members of the army have fled the country in recent weeks, officials say, including 19 officers that arrived on Thursday.

"We came here not to escape death but because of the massacre of the Libyan people. We refuse to kill the children of our country," an officer, who refused to give his name for fear of retribution, told The Associated Press.

More thinly veiled attempts to deflect the truth.

Why can't you just admit you were talking out your ass?

Winehole23

06-24-2011, 02:31 PM

So, the congress voted to say "You shouldn't be doing this", but "here's the money to keep doing it". Yep. Same old war party.

I remain convinced that this is Obama's response to Britain, France and Italy saying "You wanted our support in Iraq and Afghanistan...now we want your support here...or you never get ours again.Italy already begged off, I thought.

IMHO, Congress and the President are all posturing politically with respect to this thing.Yah. Big time. But the game is worth the candle, I think. Institutional prerogatives and courtesies are no joke.

I don't think we can literally afford the expenditures, and I think Obama was flat wrong not to get congressional approval, but I understand the need to support our allies.Some of our allies are starting to run out of materiel. They need to support us more, but it seems to be working out the other way around. We are supporting them more and more.

RandomGuy

06-24-2011, 02:36 PM

RG I can honestly say that regardless of the brutality of events we've done nothing but make it worse. Cut our losses, come home. Bombs from planes don't fill the world with rainbows.

I would not say that bombing campaigns make everything better.

I don't think what we have done has really made it worse. To sit by while this western supported dictator rolled up on protests and started going house to house arresting and "disappearing" and stopping that from happening is not, to me, "worse".

One thing this does do though, is that it puts the West against a rather despised dictator that we had supported. This particular episode has made some of the Al Qaeda assertions about us seem MUCH less credible to the "arab street".

That right there probably did more to combat the AQ ideology than we have done in a long time.

All this said, I still think Obama should have adhered to the War Powers act.

LnGrrrR

06-24-2011, 02:44 PM

Islam has a few minor distinctions, but remember it is a bit more less formal than Christianity in regards to denominations.

Uhm... that didn't help :lol

Did you mean to just write "a bit less"?

RandomGuy

06-24-2011, 02:45 PM

I have to wonder. Do you support a one world government?

Yes is the short answer, with a very big "but humanity is nowhere near ready for that yet."

Long, long after I am dead, I have little doubt that some loose confederation of post-nation-states will form a practical world consensus that could be conceptualized as a "world government" by people of today. I think that would probably be a good thing.

Sounds good in theory, but in practice, it is not currently doable.

Now answer my question. Why can't you admit you were talking out your ass?

RandomGuy

06-24-2011, 02:50 PM

Uhm... that didn't help :lol

Did you mean to just write "a bit less"?

Uh, yeah, you got it. Sorry, I re-word things a lot and backspace over stuff constantly, and that was one of those incomplete do-overs, heh.

Islam is much less centralized than Christianity, making WC's claim that the Libyan civil war is being driven by two different sects of Islam fighting each other more laughable.

RandomGuy

06-24-2011, 02:53 PM

Some of our allies are starting to run out of materiel. They need to support us more, but it seems to be working out the other way around. We are supporting them more and more.

Europe needs to be running this thing. It is their affair for the most part, not ours. I don't object to us helping, but we should not be doing much other than acting in a support role.

It pisses me off to no end that they are so fucking helpless that they cannot do it without us, though.

LnGrrrR

06-24-2011, 02:54 PM

Winehole23

06-24-2011, 03:19 PM

Wild Cobra

06-24-2011, 04:02 PM

CosmicCowboy

06-24-2011, 04:06 PM

I'd think so.

One would think the GOP would be wary of tying the hands of future chiefs in war, causing this one's to fail, or establishing any viable precedent for Congressional micromanagement of future wars.

I think it's just natural in the on-going power struggle between the Legislative and the Executive. The same guys will take hypocritical positions if the roles were reversed without flinching.

ChumpDumper

06-24-2011, 04:12 PM

Congress is pussing out in impressive fashion on this one. I think it's time to determine whether the War Powers Act is relevant once and for all.

ChumpDumper

06-24-2011, 04:14 PM

LnGrrrR

06-24-2011, 04:22 PM

What if this is a war of propaganda as well. Why don't I see US intelligence sources sharing collaborating evidence?

Do you think the evidence showing Gaddafi as someone who's killed innocents is all faked?

And does US intel often tell the public what they're doing?

now that this is an actual civil war, one would expect soldiers to be executed for not following orders. Still, how do we know that the reports of what those orders contain to be true?

Not following you.

I'm not convinced that reasons aren't being fabricated to support the rebels.

So, if you don't trust either side, why side against the rebels?

LnGrrrR

06-24-2011, 04:23 PM

Congress is pussing out in impressive fashion on this one. I think it's time to determine whether the War Powers Act is relevant once and for all.

Agreed. I expect Dems to be spineless. But the one time where Republicans could use all that bluster, and hit a Democratic president, they're afraid to because it might mean killing less turban-heads. :cry

RandomGuy

06-24-2011, 04:30 PM

What if this is a war of propaganda as well. Why don't I see US intelligence sources sharing collaborating evidence?

now that this is an actual civil war, one would expect soldiers to be executed for not following orders. Still, how do we know that the reports of what those orders contain to be true?

I'm not convinced that reasons aren't being fabricated to support the rebels.

No amount of evidence I could present you would convince you otherwise either.

Sounds exactly like the asshats who think the moon landings are faked, and uses the same methodology.

1. Theory proposed out of ignorance
2. Belief that those in charge are outright lying
3. Denial of any account that contradicts theory as being "biased"
4. Latching on to any shred of evidence that seems to support theory, no matter how weakly as proof positive
5. Dismisses any demands for better evidence, as a "waste of time"
6. Declares victory repeatedly
7. Changes subject from the assertions underlying the theory as quickly as possible once it becomes clear they are provably fucktarded.
8. Revisits debunked assertions, attempting to muddy waters, or simply repeats them.

boutons_deux

06-24-2011, 04:32 PM

Saxby Chambliss saying the Generals decide, not the CiC:

"“Well, shatever Gen. Petraeus says, that’s the direction in which we ought to go.”"

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/06/24/253458/chambliss-petraeus/

Of course, the Generals LOVE war and would go on forever, pocketing the battle premiums

Wild Cobra

06-24-2011, 05:32 PM

Do you think the evidence showing Gaddafi as someone who's killed innocents is all faked?
I don't know if it is. However, uncertain evidence is what is justifying the support of the rebels.

And does US intel often tell the public what they're doing?
No, but if they wanted support they would show something.

Not following you.
The allegation is that the solders were executed for not killing protesters. My point is during war, they could be executed for not following just about any order. The executions don't mean it was for the reasons stated.

So, if you don't trust either side, why side against the rebels?
Why side for the rebels?

We have seen Gaddafi come a long way to bettering things in Libya over the years. We recently established real relations and an embassy. our own state department outlines several things to suggest the rebels are worse than Gaddafi. Gaddafi is known for being brutal, but only against those who want a more conservative forms of Islam.

Read the reports over various years and see how Libya was improving. Why are we destroying a nation that could have positive changes with the right help. Gaddafi would have been able to suppress the rebels easily, until we destroyed his ability to do so. Now there are thousands of unnecessary deaths.

Look at the Human Development Index (http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Table1_reprint.pdf). They rate better than all other African Nations. They also rate better than Panama, Mexico, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Peru, Thailand, and so many other nations. They are rated "HIGH," and number 53 of 162 rated nations on this index.

How far will a civil war sink the livelihood of these people?

Read the 4/8/11 Human Rights report on Libya (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/nea/154467.htm) also.

Blake

06-24-2011, 06:05 PM

Why side for the rebels?

If you trust neither, then why would you take a side?

It's honestly ok to say you don't know shit and just sit this one out.

Wild Cobra

06-24-2011, 06:37 PM

If you trust neither, then why would you take a side?

It's honestly ok to say you don't know shit and just sit this one out.
I have answered that in previous posts.

1) He's the devil we know. His replacement could be worse.

2) What NATO, and our involvement did, was promote a rebellion to a civil war. Where maybe only hundreds of lives would have been lost, now we can bet on counting 5 or 6 digits. What would have been a few days maybe a few weeks, is now possible going to go on for years.

3) This was a sovereign nation that did not do harm outside it's border. I though we were suppose to respect other cultures and their laws. I guess you guys don't believe that way after all.

4) considering the impact of item 2, can anyone say with confidence that things will be better when the dust settles?

I could go on, but isn't that enough?

LnGrrrR

06-24-2011, 06:43 PM

Ok WC, if I'm following you correctly, here is the logic.

You're siding against the rebels, because even though there's a possibility that Gaddafi was a bit brutal towards his own citizens, it beats the civil unrest that would occur by unseating him, and you're not sure if the people who want to replace him would be better.

You also think that intervention in Iraq was justified (even though the chance for that same civil unrest existed) because you believe that Gaddafi was actually making progress in improving his country, whereas Saddam was not.

Assuming I'm right, the only problem I see is relative inconsistency. Iraq caused the same civil unrest, but you're ok with it there due to the reasons. Gaddafi might be a brutal dictator, but since he keeps it confined to his country, it's ok. Those ideas don't mesh well in my mind.

Wild Cobra

06-24-2011, 06:52 PM

Your simplification is roughly accurate. Remember, there were huge differences between the two dictators. Our relationship was getting worse with Saddam also, and better over time with Gaddafi.

Can anyone show me that these rebels are worth supporting?

Can anyone show that we were right to take out the advantage Gaddafi had, that now allows for a long term civil war? The real crime could be doing just that. If we are to take sides, then lets actually do it and make as short a war as possible out of it.

MannyIsGod

06-25-2011, 01:45 AM

I would not say that bombing campaigns make everything better.

I don't think what we have done has really made it worse. To sit by while this western supported dictator rolled up on protests and started going house to house arresting and "disappearing" and stopping that from happening is not, to me, "worse".

One thing this does do though, is that it puts the West against a rather despised dictator that we had supported. This particular episode has made some of the Al Qaeda assertions about us seem MUCH less credible to the "arab street".

That right there probably did more to combat the AQ ideology than we have done in a long time.

All this said, I still think Obama should have adhered to the War Powers act.

Um thats all great in a vaccum. What have we done in Syria? Yemen? Did we bomb Saudi Arabia when they went into Bahrain? All we've done is correctly promote the belief we're only in it for oil.

Wild Cobra

06-26-2011, 09:57 PM

Um thats all great in a vaccum. What have we done in Syria? Yemen? Did we bomb Saudi Arabia when they went into Bahrain? All we've done is correctly promote the belief we're only in it for oil.
Especially since Libya has so much.

Wild Cobra

06-26-2011, 10:05 PM

You're siding against the rebels, because even though there's a possibility that Gaddafi was a bit brutal towards his own citizens, it beats the civil unrest that would occur by unseating him, and you're not sure if the people who want to replace him would be better.

Do I need to remind you what happens most the time we have helped oust a dictator? That the replacement was worse...

Can anyone guarantee me that Libya will be better of with someone else at the helm? If not better, then what was paid for in blood?

LnGrrrR

06-27-2011, 02:08 AM

Do I need to remind you what happens most the time we have helped oust a dictator? That the replacement was worse...

Agreed, but the same holds true with removing Saddam, right? But you thought that it was worth it in that case.

Can anyone guarantee me that Libya will be better of with someone else at the helm? If not better, then what was paid for in blood?

Probably won't be better. Unless you believe in the whole "spreading democracy" thing.

Wild Cobra

06-27-2011, 10:19 AM

Agreed, but the same holds true with removing Saddam, right? But you thought that it was worth it in that case.
Not at all. Things were a whole lot better before Saddam took power. Iraqis my age and older remember that, and enough will attempt for a better society there that I think it's going to happen. Libya is different. Gaddafi took power 10 years before Saddam did and the nation was split then. It would take people in their mid 60's and older to remember a Libya before Gaddafi. He has made Libya a better place even though he is a dictator. Saddam made Iraq a worse place.

Probably won't be better. Unless you believe in the whole "spreading democracy" thing.
I believe it is possible for Iraq because of their past history and start of westernization before Saddam. I think it is next to impossible for Libya until the nation grows more in trade with other nations and is more open to tourism and other cultures.

We can't wave a magic wand and make entire cultures change. War is not the way to change society, except as a last resort.

RandomGuy

06-27-2011, 12:47 PM

I have answered that in previous posts.

1) He's the devil we know. His replacement could be worse.

2) What NATO, and our involvement did, was promote a rebellion to a civil war. Where maybe only hundreds of lives would have been lost, now we can bet on counting 5 or 6 digits. What would have been a few days maybe a few weeks, is now possible going to go on for years.

3) This was a sovereign nation that did not do harm outside it's border. I though we were suppose to respect other cultures and their laws. I guess you guys don't believe that way after all.

4) considering the impact of item 2, can anyone say with confidence that things will be better when the dust settles?

I could go on, but isn't that enough?

I suppose that depends on one's moral perspective.

If you see a neighbor beating his kids head against the pavement and you don't have the capability of calling the police, do you feel obliged to step in?

Or do you simply say "well, the kid might end up with someone just as bad or worse" and stand there?

To step in or not step in, as Manny noted, is a complicated calculus.

The French could have made a similar argument about helping the rebels in 1774-7

"We don't want to help them because it will make the fighting worse".

At some point, if people are willing to die for the rightfulness of their cause, and their cause is fighting against such obvious evil, what does it say about you when you just stand by?

We are constrained in both Yemen and Bahrain, but not so much in Libya, where we have a clearer hand, especially with the Europeans taking the lead insofar as a lot of actions and steps to support the rebels.

I don't think we can or should do everything, but that definitely is not a valid argument for never doing anything.

Wild Cobra

06-27-2011, 12:58 PM

I suppose that depends on one's moral perspective.

If you see a neighbor beating his kids head against the pavement and you don't have the capability of calling the police, do you feel obliged to step in?

And what does that solve, except for the moment?

Or do you simply say "well, the kid might end up with someone just as bad or worse" and stand there?

It's been known to happen.

To step in or not step in, as Manny noted, is a complicated calculus.

Agreed, but there are so many countries worse. For the reasons given to be the only ones... The line in the sane we would be drawing would have us attacking at least 1/3rd of the world. I say it's the wrong line to draw.

The French could have made a similar argument about helping the rebels in 1774-7

Different time and place. Different reasons.

"We don't want to help them because it will make the fighting worse".

At some point, if people are willing to die for the rightfulness of their cause, and their cause is fighting against such obvious evil, what does it say about you when you just stand by?

They believe it's righteous. Do you? The only internal political enemies our state mentions against Gaddafi, are "more conservative Muslims." You think Gaddafi is bad, just wait until they take charge.

We are constrained in both Yemen and Bahrain, but not so much in Libya, where we have a clearer hand, especially with the Europeans taking the lead insofar as a lot of actions and steps to support the rebels.

I would rather have a leader as a president, not a follower.

I don't think we can or should do everything, but that definitely is not a valid argument for never doing anything.

Well, I hope those of you who disagree with me are right. I do ever so much hope I'm wrong. I fear the future history will prove me right though.

Winehole23

06-27-2011, 01:38 PM

I think it's just natural in the on-going power struggle between the Legislative and the Executive. The same guys will take hypocritical positions if the roles were reversed without flinching.Mature political operators learn how to be pliable.

LnGrrrR

06-27-2011, 09:33 PM

He has made Libya a better place even though he is a dictator. Saddam made Iraq a worse place.

Agreed, but by removing Saddam, we've made an even worse place, where terrorism can take hold without a strong executive to take charge. Would you agree? Do you think Iraq is better, now, than it was while Saddam was in charge?

Wild Cobra

06-27-2011, 10:54 PM

Agreed, but by removing Saddam, we've made an even worse place, where terrorism can take hold without a strong executive to take charge. Would you agree? Do you think Iraq is better, now, than it was while Saddam was in charge?
I already said I think Iraq will become a better nation. Terrorists already had training grounds there. It's less likely they will now.

Vici

06-27-2011, 10:58 PM

I already said I think Iraq will become a better nation. Terrorists already had training grounds there. It's less likely they will now.

http://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000863

RandomGuy

06-28-2011, 01:40 PM

Terrorists already had training grounds [in Iraq under Saddam].

No, actually, they didn't, although it doesn't surprise me you got suckered by that lie, and continue to believe it.

Secular totalitarian police states don't allow religious fanatics to train on military tactics and weapons on their soil.

If you want to back up this claim you will have a hard row to hoe.

"The story of Saddam training foreign fighters to hijack airplanes was instrumental in building the case to invade Iraq," a detailed report in the March-April issue says. "But it turns out that the Iraqi general who told the story to the New York Times and 'Frontline' was a complete fake a low-ranking former soldier whom Ahmed Chalabi's aides had coached to deceive the media."

Sucker.

boutons_deux

06-28-2011, 03:46 PM

Pawlenty Explains How To Cook Up Vital National Interests After A War Has Started

In Libya, once the President of the United States says [Libyan president Muammar] Qaddafi must go, he has to go. You can’t let a third rate dictator thumb his nose at the President of the United States in the free world. Keeping him there indefinitely is not an option.

And now, some would argue whether we had a vital interests initially, we have one now, which is you can’t leave Qaddafi sitting there because if he were to survive and reestablish any capability at all, I would guess one of his main motivations is going to be retaliation and guess who it’s going to be against? And so Qaddafi must now go.

In other words, Pawlenty laid out two ways that a vital national security interest can be created out of thin air:

If the President says something must be done, and it does not get done, then getting it done becomes a vital national security interest because the President cannot be embarrassed in this way.
If the President attacks someone who is not a national security threat, then killing, capturing or removing that person from office becomes a vital national security interest because, like a bee hive you’ve swatted with a stick, that person might come after you for attacking them.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/06/28/256275/pawlenty-vital-interest-libya/

LnGrrrR

06-28-2011, 04:35 PM

I already said I think Iraq will become a better nation. Terrorists already had training grounds there. It's less likely they will now.

So you think it justifiable to incite a civil war/civil unrest and chaos in the short-term in Iraq, because you believe their chances of becoming a better nation afterwards are more likely than Libya becoming a better nation?

Wild Cobra

06-28-2011, 07:57 PM

So you think it justifiable to incite a civil war/civil unrest and chaos in the short-term in Iraq, because you believe their chances of becoming a better nation afterwards are more likely than Libya becoming a better nation?
My God.

You guys are amazing.

You are able to assume you can take one of a dozen reasons, nullify a single reason, and nullify the whole experience.

LnGrrrR...

That is only one of many variables considered.

How many are there in Libya?

Wild Cobra

06-28-2011, 08:05 PM

No, actually, they didn't, although it doesn't surprise me you got suckered by that lie, and continue to believe it.

Secular totalitarian police states don't allow religious fanatics to train on military tactics and weapons on their soil.

If you want to back up this claim you will have a hard row to hoe.

Sucker.
Random, ever consider your article is a lie?

Funny thing is that the man (forget his name) who was instrumental in convincing people to attack Gaddafi's leadership is the man who would most likely take his place! I do believe what Chalabi said. There was collaborating evidence. there isn't any collaborating evidence for the allegations against Gaddafi.

ChumpDumper

06-28-2011, 08:11 PM

Random, ever consider your article is a lie?WC, ever consider your article is a lie?

boutons_deux

06-30-2011, 01:36 PM

Since NATO ‘took over’ Libya operation, U.S. has flown 3,475 sorties

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/06/30/258606/since-nato-took-over-libya-operation-u-s-has-flown-3475-sorties/

Winehole23

06-30-2011, 01:42 PM

Kinetic action.

LnGrrrR

06-30-2011, 03:33 PM

Random, ever consider your article is a lie?

Solipsism thy name is WC.

Wild Cobra

07-03-2011, 12:03 AM

Back to the Human Growth Index (http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Tables_reprint.pdf). Libya has been doing well for Human development. Too good to justify these actions without some more serious reasons i would say.

Does anyone think it will retain it's rank at #53? Who thinks the revolution will provide a better quality of life there, and get a better rating?

I say the civil war will reduce the HGI for the nation for several years to come, and it might not ever recover.

ElNono

07-03-2011, 12:21 AM

Winehole23

07-03-2011, 01:32 AM

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/06/defense-africom-air-force-navy-flying-libya-missions-063011/

Wild Cobra

07-03-2011, 12:50 PM

They were #52 in '08, so they're already declining.

Please elaborate on your thoughts that a civil war would drop them in that cherry picked ranking, why would anyone care, and especially your contention that they might never recover...
You are wrong about them dropping. Are you being intellectually dishonest, or are you ignorant to the facts? Their index did not decrease from 2008 to 2010. Someone else simply gained more than they did, and inched past them.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/LibyaHDI.jpg (http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/LBY.html)

Yes, my contention is the civil war will reduce their HDI value. You can disagree with me all you want. We will see in the future.

Wild Cobra

07-03-2011, 12:59 PM

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/06/defense-africom-air-force-navy-flying-libya-missions-063011/

Didn't they tell us they were enforcing a no fly for Libyan aircraft? How is taking out air defense accomplishing that?

ElNono

07-03-2011, 01:06 PM

You are wrong about them dropping. Are you being intellectually dishonest, or are you ignorant to the facts? Their index did not decrease from 2008 to 2010. Someone else simply gained more than they did, and inched past them.

Yes, my contention is the civil war will reduce their HDI value. You can disagree with me all you want. We will see in the future.

The PDF document you posted earlier says they were ranked #52 in 2008. Cherry picking data is easy.

I asked you to elaborate on your contention, but I see you have no intentions in doing so. I'm not even disagreeing with you, I'm asking you to show the rationale by which you reached your conclusion.

lol intellectually dishonest

Wild Cobra

07-03-2011, 01:10 PM

The PDF document you posted earlier says they were ranked #52 in 2008. Cherry picking data is easy.

I asked you to elaborate on your contention, but I see you have no intentions in doing so. I'm not even disagreeing with you, I'm asking you to show the rationale by which you reached your conclusion.

lol intellectually dishonest
Yes, intellectual dishonesty. Their HDI value increased. Someone elses just increased more.

My rational has to do with all the war activity occurring. If you think it won't have a harsh effect on the daily lives of the people, as an average, then I'd like some of what ever you're smoking.

ElNono

07-03-2011, 01:14 PM

Yes, intellectual dishonesty. Their HDI value increased. Someone elses just increased more.

So they couldn't keep up and are declined in the cherry picked ranking.
Exactly what I said.

Were they ranked #52 in 2008, yes or no?

My rational has to do with all the war activity occurring. If you think it won't have a harsh effect on the daily lives of the people, as an average, then I'd like some of what ever you're smoking.

So your rationale isn't based on anything other than a gut feeling. Thought so.

Oh, Gee!!

07-03-2011, 01:37 PM

same coulda been said bout saddam

ElNono

07-03-2011, 01:43 PM

I'm sure the US will diligently look up the HGI index of a country before future military interventions, regardless whether the leader of the country is a ruthless dictator or not...

:jack

Wild Cobra

07-03-2011, 01:58 PM

So they couldn't keep up and are declined in the cherry picked ranking.
Exactly what I said.

LOL...

They increased the HDI value. Very simple. It was 0.726 in 2005, 0.749 2009, and 0.755 in 2010. Panama was 0.724, 0.751, and 0.755 during the same period. I didn't see where you got the 2008 numbers from. What did I miss?

Were they ranked #52 in 2008, yes or no?

I don't know. Again, where did you see that.

I was specifying their HDI rating. Not their position. It doesn't matter that someone outpaced them. The fact is their HDI index is increasing, not decreasing.

So your rationale isn't based on anything other than a gut feeling. Thought so.

WTF...

Yes, my gut feeling is that war harms an economy that it is fought in.

Do you disagree?

Wild Cobra

07-03-2011, 02:01 PM

same coulda been said bout saddam
I doubt it.

ChumpDumper

07-03-2011, 02:06 PM

Didn't they tell us they were enforcing a no fly for Libyan aircraft? How is taking out air defense accomplishing that?That's pretty much the first thing that is done in establishing and maintaining a no fly zone.

ElNono

07-03-2011, 05:29 PM

They increased the HDI value. Very simple. It was 0.726 in 2005, 0.749 2009, and 0.755 in 2010. Panama was 0.724, 0.751, and 0.755 during the same period. I didn't see where you got the 2008 numbers from. What did I miss?

You missed answering the question, which was pretty easy BTW, seeing you posted the information.

Were they ranked #52 in 2008 and #53 now?
Yes or No. Simple question, simple answer.

Yes, my gut feeling is that war harms an economy that it is fought in.

My gut feeling is that no serious nation makes military decisions on attacking a dictator based solely on HGI rankings.

boutons_deux

07-03-2011, 06:34 PM

The humanitarian disaster in East Africa is much worse than Khadafi slaughtering Libyans, but there's not much or any oil in East Africa.

HGI? GMAFB, it's all about corporate grabs for oil and gas, which also why UCA was silent as SA crushed the Bahraini protesters.

Winehole23

07-04-2011, 04:12 AM

Turkey has recognised the rebel Transitional National Council as the true representative of Libya's people.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said it was time for the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi to go.

Turkey has pledged a further $200m in aid for the rebels in addition to $100m announced last month.

In another development, the rebels have rejected an initiative by the African Union to sponsor talks between them and the government in Tripoli.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14009206

Winehole23

07-04-2011, 04:27 AM

Following Turkey's official recognition of the NTC 17 countries have so far recognised the Libyan Council as Libya’s sole and legitimate representative since the beginning of the conflict on February 15.

The others are: France (March 10), Qatar (March 28), Maldives (April 3), Italy (April 4), Kuwait (April 4), Gambia (April 22), United Kingdom (May 12), Jordan (May 24), Senegal (May 28), Malta (June 1), Spain (June 8, Australia (June 9), United States (June 9), UAE (June 12), Germany June 13, and Canada (June 14).
http://tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=1&i=6311

Winehole23

07-04-2011, 04:30 AM

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-bishop-20110703,0,287540.story

boutons_deux

07-04-2011, 09:18 AM

No surprise, a Catholic bishop supporting Kadafi because Kadafi let a little bit of Catholicism operate in Libya.

As we saw with the bishops-protected-for-decades priestly pedophilia crimes, the Catholic Church is nothing more than yet another corrupt, authoritarian political organization that places its own existence way above the rights and respect for (Catholic or any) individuals.

Wild Cobra

07-04-2011, 11:08 AM

You missed answering the question, which was pretty easy BTW, seeing you posted the information.

Were they ranked #52 in 2008 and #53 now?
Yes or No. Simple question, simple answer.
I missed seeing that. So what. It doesn't matter. Their rating continued to increase. I am not accepting your argument that they declined just because someone else took a spot higher than them. I don't grade on a bell curve. Never liked people who do.

My gut feeling is that no serious nation makes military decisions on attacking a dictator based solely on HGI rankings.
I agree, not solely on. However, my point of bringing this up is to show he is not a brutal dictator like he is being portrayed as. He is perhaps brutal to those undermining his government, but as I said, people in that culture know the laws and what happens if caught. I bring it up because I do not believe the basis of these attacks. Something else is going on.

I think the HGI index is real important to consider here. I think it should be obvious that if he was as bad as made out to be, that such a high rating would never exist.

Let me ask you this. Has NATO, the UN, or us ever attacked a nation in past history with a high HGI rating? Ever before?

I didn't look, but I'll bet the answer is NO!

I'll bet this is the first time in history.

ElNono

07-04-2011, 11:09 AM

I missed seeing that. :blah :blah :blah

You're still dodging the question.

I agree, not solely on.

Case closed.

Wild Cobra

07-04-2011, 11:25 AM

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-bishop-20110703,0,287540.story
Good article. Looks like the Bishop and I are on the same wavelength.

Wild Cobra

07-04-2011, 11:28 AM

You're still dodging the question.
Repeat the question.

Case closed.
Hardly. I think because other situations were different, they never considered this factor.

The life people live in Libya is contrary to the idea of him attacking civilians.

For those who like to talk about False Flag operations...

I say if innocent people were killed, someone else did it.

LnGrrrR

07-05-2011, 10:51 AM

Let me ask you this. Has NATO, the UN, or us ever attacked a nation in past history with a high HGI rating? Ever before?

I didn't look, but I'll bet the answer is NO!

I'll bet this is the first time in history.

So it's ok to attack a country and cause unrest if an HGI rating is low? :) :lol

Wild Cobra

07-05-2011, 07:05 PM

So it's ok to attack a country and cause unrest if an HGI rating is low? :) :lol
The point I'm trying to make is that is a nation has a rating of "HIGH" for an HGI like Libya does, then there needs to be an exceptionally good reason to take military action against them. I don't see that here.

boutons_deux

07-05-2011, 07:36 PM

"exceptionally good reason"

the dictator slaughtering protesters by 100s or 1000s?

or how about $Ts in oil and gas reserves? good enough?

Wild Cobra

07-05-2011, 07:43 PM

"exceptionally good reason"

the dictator slaughtering protesters by 100s or 1000s?

or how about $Ts in oil and gas reserves? good enough?
That's right.

Take away the guns from the rebels after they are shot, removing the evidence, and they get reported as innocent protesters.

The $trillions in oil might be good enough for you, but not me. Why not just take over an African nation that has big diamond mines instead?

coyotes_geek

07-06-2011, 10:56 AM

Sudanexe army seizes southern Libyan town (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8611199/Sudanese-army-seizes-southern-Libyan-town.html)

Wild Cobra

07-06-2011, 11:07 AM

A recent news article has accounts that Gaddafi's forces are attacking in response to rebel attacks. Just another account that he is not the aggressor in my view.

Libyan rebels push towards Tripoli on two fronts (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/06/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110706)

I will repeat this again. The rebels are more extreme worshipers of Islam. If they take over Libya, I am certain the nation will, become far worse than today, and could become a hotbed of terrorists.

A snippet from Fearing God, Not Gaddafi: Libya's New Mujahedin (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2057455-2,00.html):

Islamist extremism does, however, have roots in Libya. The town of Darnah, up the road going east from Benghazi, was the site of a failed Islamist uprising against Gaddafi in the 1990s. Later, it became known for the young men who left it to join the insurgency in Iraq. "If you asked any of the mujahedin from Libya in Iraq where they're from, they said Darnah," says Mohamed el-Tahawy, a banker who drove from the eastern city of Tobruk to join the battle in Ras Lanuf. He adds that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the fearsome leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq who was killed in 2006, once said, "I will go to Darnah to see what is this city that is sending so many."

For those of you who admire the Huff~n~Puff Post, Anti-American Extremists Among Libyan Rebels U.S. Has Vowed To Protect (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/extremists-among-libya-rebels_n_837894.html):

Abu-Bakr was one of hundreds of foreign fighters who flocked into the killing zones of Iraq to wage war against the “infidels." They came from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Oman, Algeria and other Islamic states. But on a per capita basis, no country sent more young fighters into Iraq to kill Americans than Libya -- and almost all of them came from eastern Libya, the center of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion that the United States and others now have vowed to protect, according to internal al Qaeda documents uncovered by U.S. intelligence.

Today, there is little doubt that eastern Libya, like other parts of the Arab world, is experiencing a genuine burst of anti-totalitarian fervor, expressed in demands for political freedom and economic reforms. But there also is a dark history to eastern Libya, which is the home of the Islamic Libyan Fighting Group, an anti-Gaddafi organization officially designated by the State Department as a terrorist organization.

Do we really want to support these rebels, who are extreme in their religion?

Indazone

07-08-2011, 02:03 AM

That's pretty much the first thing that is done in establishing and maintaining a no fly zone.

Yep, we did a bang up job of taking out their flying tanks.

Winehole23

07-16-2011, 01:30 PM

US formally recognizes the rebels:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/western-arab-leaders-meet-in-turkey-on-libyas-future/2011/07/15/gIQAZLbjFI_story.html?hpid=z4

Wild Cobra

07-16-2011, 02:09 PM

What is wrong with our State department. Not long after I said Hillary was doing a good job, she pulls this BS.

Or... Is Obama pulling the strings, and Libya is one of the 57 states he hasn't visited yet?

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/57states25pct.jpg (http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/57states.jpg)

boutons_deux

07-16-2011, 03:00 PM

Hilary is neo-con war-lover, oil/gascos will take good care of her.

Wild Cobra

07-16-2011, 11:23 PM

I started looking things up that i didn't before. Remeber the July 6 announcement that rebels have taken the village of Qawalish? What a joke. It's so small, and it took 6 hrs for the rebels to take it? I'll bet they were fighting the villagers as well!

I think Qawalish is the closest settlement to the NE of where Google Maps places it. If someone can show me for sure where it is, I would appreciate it.

In a news report (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html):

July 6 Rebels seized control of the village of Qawalish (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bi%E2%80%99r+Sha%C5%A3%C4%ABb+al+Qaw%C4%81l %C4%ABsh,+Al+Jabal+al+Gharbi,+Libya&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=31.845555,12.988307&spn=0.014236,0.015385&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=23.875,57.630033&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&geocode=FaX55AEd8JnFAA&t=h&z=16) in the mountains, extending their hold in western Libya and inching toward a supply route to the capital that they hope to sever.

July 12 Rebels in the mountains in Libya’s west looted and damaged four towns seized in June, part of a series of abuses and apparent reprisals against suspected loyalists that have chased residents of these towns away, Human Rights Watch said. In Paris, lawmakers reauthorized France’s participation in the NATO-led bombing campaign, while French officials said they were increasingly optimistic about the possibility of a negotiated end to the conflict.
Aren't these guys being supported because of Gaddhafi being abusive?

ElNono

07-17-2011, 12:33 AM

Aren't these guys being supported because of Gaddhafi being abusive?

Rebels being scumbags doesn't absolve Gaddhafi from being a POS murderer.

LnGrrrR

07-17-2011, 04:02 AM

I'm pretty sure US soldiers have done some shady shit overseas. Does that make US forces all bad?

Wild Cobra

07-17-2011, 10:41 AM

I'm pretty sure US soldiers have done some shady shit overseas. Does that make US forces all bad?
Some few have, but this is ridiculous.

Maybe if I didn't already believe the rebels were worse than Gaddafi, I could cut them some slack.

Winehole23

08-01-2011, 02:21 AM

Shocking, if true:

http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/23-07-2011/118577-nato_war_crimes-0/

boutons_deux

08-01-2011, 06:02 AM

yeah, Libya discovered this fossil aquifer under the Sahara a few years ago. They'll suck it dry like the US farmers are sucking dry the huge Ogallala fossil water, another lucky US natural resource right under the US breadbasket topsoil many feet thick (which has also been depleted and eroded). and then what for Libya? unsustainable.

Anyway, it's probably hard to verify whether Pravada is a truth teller due to verification of the water site being in a war zone.

Winehole23

08-01-2011, 08:56 AM

I couldn't find any corroborating reports last night.

ChumpDumper

08-01-2011, 11:08 AM

I liked the Eurovision songs that "reporter" wrote.

Winehole23

08-01-2011, 11:17 AM

That was pretty bizarre.

Wild Cobra

08-01-2011, 11:08 PM

The story could very well be true. after all, the NATO involvement is unscrupulous to begin with. What will they do for an Encore, and how far will Libya's HDI drop when this is over?

If there was a valid reason to aid the rebels, the HDI should go up when this is over. Not down, and I'll bet it will do down, and possible never regain their "high" HDI rating.

ChumpDumper

08-02-2011, 01:17 AM

Why does everyone believe everything Putin and Pravda says now?

Wild Cobra

08-02-2011, 02:18 AM

lTM1gLu4Vkc

Wild Cobra

08-02-2011, 02:19 AM

Nato attacks broadcasters in Libya:

NATO Targets State TV in Libya (http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2011/07/30/nato-targets-state-tv-in-libya/)

Winehole23

08-02-2011, 02:24 AM

If there was a valid reason to aid the rebels, the HDI should go up when this is over. Not down, and I'll bet it will do down, and possible never regain their "high" HDI rating.Ever the betting man. Does anyone ever take you up on the weird proposition bets you come up with?

Winehole23

08-02-2011, 02:26 AM

Btw, did you bet on days, not weeks?

Winehole23

08-02-2011, 02:27 AM

Why does everyone believe everything Putin and Pravda says now?I don't find it believable. I'm still kind of weirded out by it.

Wild Cobra

08-02-2011, 02:29 AM

Water Pipelines (http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/SUPPESBJ/)

If the accounts of NATO bombing this pipeline is real, then someone in NATO should be charged with war crimes.

ChumpDumper

08-02-2011, 02:33 AM

Why do you believe Pravda, WC?

Winehole23

08-02-2011, 02:40 AM

after all, the NATO involvement is unscrupulous to begin withI wouldn't put it quite that way. NATO involvement in Libya is essentially is the war effort of the USA. It has prolonged and worsened the humanitarian agony it meant to prevent, and we've ended by taking sides in a civil war, which we swore not to do at the beginning.

Wild Cobra

08-02-2011, 02:47 AM

Why do you believe Pravda, WC?
No without verifying, but I have said all along, something was wrong with this attack.

DNAcECXLuxw

ChumpDumper

08-02-2011, 02:49 AM

So you basically believe all state funded Russian media.

Wild Cobra

08-02-2011, 02:53 AM

I couldn't find any corroborating reports last night.
Rebels Say Qaddafi Must Face Trial as Airstrikes Hit Tripoli (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/07/22/rebels-say-qaddafi-must-face-trial-as-airstrikes-hit-tripoli/):

NATO planes struck a factory near the embattled oil city of Brega on Friday killing six guards, Libyan officials said.

The plant, located six miles south of the strategic oil installation, builds the huge pipes that carry water from underground aquifers deep in the south to the coast as part of the Great Man Made River irrigation project.

"Major parts of the plant have been damaged," said Abdel-Hakim el-Shwehdy, head of the company running the project. "There could be major setback for the future projects."

At least 70 percent of Libyans survive on the water carried through the pipes to the coast in the project, according to government figures.

"Most Libyans drink from the Great Manmade River, most Libyan land is farmed from the water, so any harm against this vital project is a harm aginst all Libyans," warned government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim. "We believe this a very dangerous development in NATO'S attacks."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/07/22/rebels-say-qaddafi-must-face-trial-as-airstrikes-hit-tripoli/#ixzz1Tr7zxGNB

Winehole23

08-02-2011, 02:53 AM

Long story short, we've got our dicks caught in another crack. Libya could be hella expensive.

Wild Cobra

08-02-2011, 02:57 AM

Long story short, we've got our dicks caught in another crack. Libya could be hella expensive.
Again, we should have never attacked a nation with a high HDI over disagreements with how the leader dealt with acts of treason.

If he is such a cruel leader, why does he care about the people?

Great Manmade River (8th wonder) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Manmade_River)

Wild Cobra

08-02-2011, 02:58 AM

So you basically believe all state funded Russian media.
Are you saying it's all verifiable?

ChumpDumper

08-02-2011, 02:59 AM

Are you saying it's all verifiable?Yes, your faith in Russian state media is verifiable.

Winehole23

08-02-2011, 03:00 AM

thanks for the link, WC.

Bombing a pipeline factory is a bit different than bombing the water plant, but I see how it could have a similar practical effect for some.

Wild Cobra

08-02-2011, 03:02 AM

thanks for the link. bombing a pipeline factory is a bit different than bombing the water plant, but I see how it could have a similar practical effect for some.
The pipeline was probably bombed also. The Russian link says the pipeline factory was bombed the day after the pipeline. Just because we haven't found news of it elsewhere doesn't mean it didn't happen. I have noticed that news of this region is very limited. It's as if those who translate to English are ashamed of what's happening.

Winehole23

08-02-2011, 03:11 AM

Again, we should have never attacked a nation with a high HDI over disagreements with how the leader dealt with acts of treason.Deference to sovereignty is passe, humanitarian intervention is in.

If he is such a cruel leader, why does he care about the people?Your song, not mine. Why does Qaddafi care about the people?

Wild Cobra

08-02-2011, 03:16 AM

Considering I see no truth in the stated nature of attacking Libya, I tend to believe it is possible because of their desire to trade with gold, and this (http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=245332):

The SECRET MOTIVE: why the UN declared war on Libya. DESTABILIZATION. They did NOT attack Gaddafi, They attacked Africa’s Fresh Water Supply.

"The West refuses to recognize that a small country, with a population no more than six million, can construct anything so large without borrowing a single cent from the international banks."

"The goal of the Libyan Arab people, embodied in the Great Man-Made River project, is to make Libya a source of agricultural abundance, capable of producing adequate food and water to supply its own needs and to share with neighboring countries. In short, the River is literally Libya’s 'meal ticket’ to self-sufficiency."

"The river is a new lesson and an example in the struggle to achieve self-sufficiency, food security and true independence. No nation that depends on a foreign country to feed its people can be free. The Great River is a triumph against thirst and hunger. It is a defeat against ignorance and backwardness. It reflects the determination of Libyans to resist colonial pressure, to acquire technology, to develop, to improve their lives, and to control their own destiny in accordance with their own free will."

Since when is a water pipes factory in al-Brega a legitimate target to impose a no-fly zone to protect civilians? Sine when is the water supply pipeline itself a legitimate target?

NATO MAKES THIS IN LIBYA !!!

this maybe as close as we ever to get the real reasons why Libya gets a NFZ that i doubt any other countries will have to put up with..all constructed without borrowing a cent..thats must really piss off the usury loving roths..now..if you have time..go and look where the attacks are taking place..and remember they hit a "southern" compound of gaddafis..why would he have a south compound in the desert?..maybe they were instead hitting the GMR stations?..food for thought methinks..

LSiKYBdrupY

Winehole23

08-02-2011, 03:27 AM

The pipeline was probably bombed also. The Russian link says the pipeline factory was bombed the day after the pipeline. Just because we haven't found news of it elsewhere doesn't mean it didn't happen.How open minded. I bet you would be great on a jury.

Wild Cobra

08-02-2011, 03:32 AM

How open minded. I bet you would be great on a jury.
I have been on a few juries over the years. That aside, why bomb the pipe factory unless you don't want the pipeline to be repaired?

Winehole23

08-02-2011, 03:59 AM

War sorts ill with humanitarian scruples. At some point it may be expeditious to weaken Qaddafi's base of support by depriving it of necessities like electricity and fresh water, as we did in Iraq and before that in Yugoslavia (i think -- memory gets a little sketchy here)

Wild Cobra

08-02-2011, 04:16 AM

Winehole23

08-02-2011, 04:25 AM

Yep, we shut off the water to the cities, then wage a war of propaganda saying Gaddafi did it.That's not the way we did it in Iraq or Yugoslavia. The normal procedure is to bomb the shit out of them.

RandomGuy

08-08-2011, 09:41 AM

Yep, we shut off the water to the cities, then wage a war of propaganda saying Gaddafi did it.

I understand.

You did notice that the Gaddafi government has turned to directly appealing to the religious fundamentalists, yes?

They have essentially pledged to turn the country into a straight up islamic republic should they win.

Wild Cobra

08-08-2011, 01:51 PM

You did notice that the Gaddafi government has turned to directly appealing to the religious fundamentalists, yes?

They have essentially pledged to turn the country into a straight up islamic republic should they win.
No, I didn't see that.

Link please.

Winehole23

08-08-2011, 08:18 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023900/Libya-Liam-Fox-directs-conflict-Spanish-hotel-taxpayers-expense.html

RandomGuy

08-09-2011, 09:54 AM

No, I didn't see that.

Link please.

Update:
It seems the offer was rejected by the islamists.

http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/192427/20110804/gadhafi-s-alliance-deal-rejected-by-islamists-as-they-prefer-the-rebels.htm

After months of blaming al-Qaeda style Islamists for the uprising that led to the implementation of a NATO-led operation in Libya, the Gadhafi regime it seems is ready for an image overhaul.

Sporting a new beard and fingering Islamic prayer beads while the timing of his interview with The New York Times coincided with the first few days after the start of Ramadan, the Muslim holy month, Saif al-Islam Gadhafi, Moammar Gadhafi's son and close confident warned that the regime was ready to launch a crusade on its opponents.

''We will have peace during Ramadan,'' 'The liberals will escape or be killed,'' The New York Times reported Saif al-Islam Gaddafi as saying. ''We will do it together,'' ''Libya will look like Saudi Arabia, like Iran. So what?'' the newspaper also quoted him as saying.

Saif Gadhafi's latest move has left more than one observer perplexed as threatening to form an alliance with Islamist is unlikely to impress neither the Libyans nor the few countries that called for a ceased fire from both the Gadhafi and the rebels forces. Saif's father and Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has in the past called for mass attacks on the rebel forces, but very few of them have materialised.

Saif also repeated the government's contention that Islamists were behind last week's killing of General Abdel Fatah Yunis, who was Moamer Kadhafi's right-hand man for decades prior to his defection earlier this year.

"They decided to get rid of those people -- the ex-military people like Abdel Fatah and the liberals -- to take control of the whole operation," Seif told the Times. "In other words, to take off the mask."

Could the idea of an Islamist-style revolution in the middle of Ramadan just turn out to be a PR stunt from the Gadhafi clan?

Gadhafi said he had talked to prominent figures from the Islamist movement and while, Ali Sallabi, a lead[er in the] Islamist movement acknowledged he had spoken to Saif he formally dismissed any suggestion of an alliance, saying instead that the Libyan Islamists supported rebel leaders' calls for a pluralistic democracy without the Gadhafis.