I think it's them Terrorist Muslims vs them Muslim Bas s
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?After some time, the same soldiers - described as "black Africans" - opened fire indiscriminately on anybody walking in the street.
I may not like the Muslim Bas s, but I most certainly don't want to see the Muslim Terrorists take over.
Have you followed the money in the sources you cited?
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.
I used the sourced cited in the wiki article that Random posted.
The wiki article cherry picks information, leaving out the the important truth.
This isn't the US.
Did you follow the money for the sources you cited?
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.
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?
Yes, actually I read a good number of them.
Which ones stated that there were armed protesters?
Islam has a few minor distinctions, but remember it is a bit more less formal than Christianity in regards to denominations.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...-in-libya.htmlU.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 to continue providing U.S. air support to the allied bombardment against forces loyal to Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi.
On a 295-123 vote, the House defeated a Democratic- sponsored resolution 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 to bar U.S. forces from combat in 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 of Massachusetts and Republican 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.
Didn't you watch the attached videos?
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.
Here is your Supid Hat, now go stand in the corner with the Truth s, 'cause you just did the exact same stupid 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 is weak, so I will lamely attempt save face by claiming victory".
Sorry.
Bull 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.
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.
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
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 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.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
Dude, youtubes aside the massive amount of first-hand evidence is there.
So is it all made up?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/arti...#ixzz1QDeh0PTG
"Liberal media"?
"Bias" my ass.
They also voted down a resolution limiting actions to an actual non hostile nature. My rep voted to keep combing. ing jack ass.
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.
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.
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 " merit badge with this bit.
My oh my....
Quoting the wiki article that deviates from what is said in 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!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).
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?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 06-24-2011 at 03:58 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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
