USA is not out. CIA is here to train and coordinate troops, I guess they are providing weapons too.
An about petrodollar warfare. You simply cannot argue these facts: 1. USA, or even better, FED, benefit a lot, huuuuge, from the fact USD s a world currency and you need it o get oil 2. Introducing strong gold backed currency may destroy the current financial system Sol it is just a coincidence, that Iraq was attacked when it started to sell its oil for euro, and EU was against it and Gaddafi attacked when he is pushing gold dinar for African and Arabic world, this time EU is with USA. Actually, if Gaddafi introduces gold dinar, they will start live better and we, the western world, will live worse. The rebels are fighting for our well-being. Sure we must assist them.
Do not trust in everything the western media so much. BBC reporter is 26 minutes ahead of the event. Even when she sees the building is still there, cannot help but read the script.
Also I suggest to watch 9/11 "no planes", but missiles theory. http://www.septemberclues.info/ There are so many evidences! Even if you do not believe, I suggest you watching, it is like a good detective movie
For example, a CGI plane went through the building
I really do not care about ban. I quitted playing Startcraft, it takes so much time of my life! I just watch some GSL... I agree my "media" post is not completely related to Libya, but we discuss the topic taking information from the media, not from the people we know in Libya. So you'd better know your sources. I saw a talk show on Ukrainian TV, and a woman who came recently from Tripoli called and told that she worked in a hospital and it was hit indirectly by a missile, causing destruction and fatalities among babies(it was part where women give birth). And I believe her more than all the western media altogether! Her call is not a "propaganda" lie, the show is local only for Ukrainians who does not watch western media and already think it is NATO aggression for oil. And actually nobody cares about Ukrainians opinion...
I have already done that Kukaracha, read previous posts of mine in the thread, i provided ideas and arguments for them which you couldn't refute and preferred to ignore them.
Western media is biased because they have an interest in the story. Taking Al Jazeera (for whom i have much respect) as unbiased when they are based in Quatar (who is actively implicated with jets and forces in the libyan conflict) but saying RT is biased because they are russian (who's interest may exist but is very small) is not so smart.
The anti-libyan coallition controls the communication, they can communicate through endless medias, lybia can only communicate through so few that it's insignificant. Basically you can get 99% of info from external media (outside libya).
For example, before we (romania) got involved (about a week ago) in this conflict by sending some frigates down the way our media was reporting quite neutral the conflict. After we got in, our media is so full of anti-libyan news that i'm puking the moment i read (title examples: whitness says lybian forces are raping women and shooting civilians on the streets, gadafi says to kill everyone in libya etc). You think media's not related to political interests?
Hey Petruccio, second time I'm going to say this; Take your truther BS out of this thread and let the people who report on Libya keep doing so. Thank you.
sorry Pika Chu, but it that a joke ? or diformed reality ?
Romanian news media (the rest just ignores Libya) is all controlled by opposition businessmen and use every opportunity to bash the government.
Did you just say you feel like puking because media tells the story of Iman Al-Obeidi ? ... wow
About the bombed maternity are you sure you (or your media) didn't get things wrong? Because i have not seen one mention of it BUT there is a report (in fact several, both aljazeera and cnn/bbc) of the bombed maternity in Misrata by Gaddafi forces.
Fron my point of view the fact that one side keeps journalists locked up in a hotel while the other one lets them report freely means quite a lot.
In fact many talk about the devastating western bombardments but so far I have only heard of confirmed civilian casulties in the last couple of days, all from ammunition cars/depots exploding unpredictably. The first report was 3-4 days ago about an injured woman, and that really was the FIRST time journalists were taken to a hospital with an injured civilian ...
On April 02 2011 20:42 Aurocaido wrote: Ironic because the Libyan government has made two previous offers of a ceasefire that the rebels rejected. Rebels claimed the offers were insincere and could not be trusted. How come the rebel rejections were given so little news coverage compared to Gadaffi's?
No, Gadaffi announced a 1 sided cease fire while shelling Misurata and making a march on Benghazi. So yes the offers were insincere and couldn't be trusted.
And they've both gotten media coverage so I am not sure what you're talking about.
And the rebels can be trusted? Furthermore, the terms demanded by the rebels are completely out of touch with their current situation. Gadaffi is winning and the rebels want Libyan forces to move out of every major city, including Tripoli, and are demanding the immediate resignation of Gadaffi.... really? There are also increasing concerns about the influence of the Al-Qaeda in opposition forces. + Show Spoiler +
“Quite alarming reports are coming, which say that al-Qaeda elements could very likely be present among the opposition forces,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters at a news conference. “This certainly alarms us.” Lavrov added that the “plague” in the form of al-Qaeda terrorism could “spread all over the region and not only there."
Al jazeera reporters can be trusted. They've been in Benghazi all the time even when all other reporters left the city because it was getting to dangerous. And they weren't asking the Lybian forces to leave every major city. They ask the Lybian forces to leave all cities that were initially in rebel hands and they ask for the right of peaceful protests in Gadaffi held cities. And I wasn't sure if they wanted him to leave I got no source to back it up so that was speculation.
Also stop the fear mongering that Al-Qaeda is behind everything the only news we got on it are that the NATO general ( don't remember who ) said there were SIGNS that Al Qaeda might be involved with the rebels but I haven't seen any concrete evidence for it. Further more a bit of Al-Qaeda presence doesn't mean all rebels have the same thoughts as them and it certainly doesn't mean they side with Al-Qaeda.
So wait... stateing real concerns about the role of Al-Qaeda in the Libyan uprising is fear mongering, yet spewing bullshit about Gadaffi killing every civilain he comes across in order to gain support for an international coaltion to bomb Libya into ruins is not? WTF.
And yes, one of the rebel demands was the immediate resignation of Gadaffi. As for evidence, I have still yet to see any concrete evidence concerning the mass killing of civilians by Gadaffi. The only concrete evidence I have seen of government indiscriminantly killing civilians was in Yemen or Cote Di'voire. Where are the interventions there? News reports from Al Jazeera concerning Cote Di'voire have 800 bodies being discovered in one town alone after the fighting that took place there.
Do not for one second think this intervention is to protect civilians. The very idea of humanitarian war is, for lack of a better word, retarded. The intervention has been plagued by cute euphemisms from the beginning trying to hide what this really is. An act of aggression against a sovereign nation in order to further the agenda of the aggressors.
Also it seems that the CIA is secretly training the rebels to use high tech weaponry and an unknown outside source is supplying the rebels with those weapons.
So much for no boots on the ground. According to the UN resolution, it seems that CIA involvement is illegal.
On April 04 2011 03:55 Aurocaido wrote: And yes, one of the rebel demands was the immediate resignation of Gadaffi. As for evidence, I have still yet to see any concrete evidence concerning the mass killing of civilians by Gadaffi.
In this very thread there was linked terribly graphic images of victims having been cut in half by fighter bombs and high caliber military weapons when Ghadafi massacred demonstrations in tripoli.
Also there was images of Libyan conscripts having been burned alive after refusing to shoot on their own people.
Do you think those fighter jets defected to Malta just for fun?
sorry Pika Chu, but it that a joke ? or diformed reality ?
Romanian news media (the rest just ignores Libya) is all controlled by opposition businessmen and use every opportunity to bash the government.
Usually, but since you should be up to date, the opposition (crin/ponta) bashed the government when they didn't want to involve as they were calling for romanian involvement as NATO member. So that argument fades.
If on the off chance, journalists are able to slip away and get one or two precious quotes of dissent in the capital, they walk around with the sense of pride that comes with beating the system, and brag to their colleagues and competitors about their work.
Sometimes just being arrested feels like work has been done that day.
On April 03 2011 20:28 Kukaracha wrote: Now you're just being silly.
I don't know if you remember, but the crisis of Japan took every headline for more than a week when it occurred. While Ghadaffi was sprinting to Benghazi, a crucial moment. The events in Libya had been going since the 17h of February.
And no, Japan hasn't been forgotten, proof:
(There is one extra "More Japan")
The more you go on the less serious you sound. And about the petrodollar warfare, I invite you to take a look at the debate going on about the Wikipedia article, since this "hypothesis" is more of an obscure conspiracy theory which generates very few Google hits, mostly commercial links related to the author's book. Skepticism is advised until we have a word from more sources about this.
Lets not forget Iraq was also a phoney 'humanitarian' war hence the name 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'.How cities being levelled with depleted uranium means freedom i don't know. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/22/iraq-nuclear-contaminated-sites In 2004 Iraq had the highest mortality rate due to leukemia of any country , aren't humanitarian missions great?
As for Japan a couple of links on an obscure french website mean nothing to me.I have been hearing less and less about it , how about some actual reliable readings from close to the reactor ;i'm sure with all the drones they have around there now we should be able to have that.
[quoe]TRIPOLI, Libya — At least two sons of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi are proposing a resolution to the Libyan conflict that would entail pushing their father aside to make way for a transition to a constitutional democracy under the direction of his son Seif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, a diplomat and a Libyan official briefed on the plan said Sunday. [/quote]
@mstan, so what? We all know such things will happen. We all like to think of our soldiers as brave and honorable but they are not. In situations of chaos and war rapes and abuses are as common as a flu in winter.
I don't remember seeing anything I couldn't refute - maybe points I didn't want to adress because they seemed absurd.
On April 03 2011 23:23 Pika Chu wrote: Western media is biased because they have an interest in the story. Taking Al Jazeera (for whom i have much respect) as unbiased when they are based in Quatar (who is actively implicated with jets and forces in the libyan conflict) but saying RT is biased because they are russian (who's interest may exist but is very small) is not so smart.
Well every media has a certain bias. But Al-Jazeera played a great role in recent uprisings, and if the bonds between the Quatari leaders and the Arabic channel were as tight as you suggest, AJ would've never reported about the situation in the way they did. Now I do agree that they need a counterbalancing point of view since Quatar recognized the Rebel council and accepted oil contracts.
On April 03 2011 23:23 Pika Chu wrote: The anti-libyan coallition controls the communication, they can communicate through endless medias, lybia can only communicate through so few that it's insignificant. Basically you can get 99% of info from external media (outside libya).
Who is "anti-libya"? Rebels are "anti-libya"? Gaddafi represents the Libyan people even though he needed to use mercenaries to control the situation? Your wording is quite eloquent. And Gaddafi has plenty of journalists locked up in his hotels. The problem is that the official sources can't be trusted as they have blantatly lied before - "there are no protests, unrest is caused by drug addicts and Al Quaida members".
He railed against the rebels, threatening them with the death penalty and calling them "rats" and drug addicts. He hinted that he had not yet used the type of violence he could do, pointing to China's massacre in Tiananmen Square and the FBI's infamous siege in Waco. At times he would change tack and say he did not blame the young people for rebelling, saying they had been unduly influenced by their counterparts in Tunisia and Egypt.
On April 04 2011 03:55 Aurocaido wrote: And yes, one of the rebel demands was the immediate resignation of Gadaffi.
No. Earlier propositions of a way out of the conflict were the resignation of Gaddafi; however, this is about a possible ceasefire. "The head of the Benghazi-based Interim Governing Council, Mustafa Abd Jalil, following a meeting with the UN's special envoy to Libya, offered Gaddafi an immediate ceasefire if "the forces that are besieging the cities withdraw," and if "our brothers in the western cities have freedom of expression"." Source
On April 04 2011 03:55 Aurocaido wrote: So wait... stateing real concerns about the role of Al-Qaeda in the Libyan uprising is fear mongering, yet spewing bullshit about Gadaffi killing every civilain he comes across in order to gain support for an international coaltion to bomb Libya into ruins is not? WTF.
On April 04 2011 03:55 Aurocaido wrote: As for evidence, I have still yet to see any concrete evidence concerning the mass killing of civilians by Gadaffi.
Let's see. First, on the 19th of february, 2 days after protests became hostile: "• Libyan security forces killed 35 people in the eastern city of Benghazi last night, according to Human Rights Watch. This brings the death toll from three days of protests in the east of Libya to 84, according to the New York-based group. Eyewitness accounts given to news agencies suggest the total could be significantly higher. • Libya's main internet service provider, General Post and Telecommunications Company, has largely cut off access to the internet. Al-Jazeera says its Arabic news channel is being jammed on several frequencies." Source
Then: "10:46 pm Al Jazeera online producer Evan Hill reports that the Libyan government has allegedly threatened to withdraw scholarship funding from some of its citizens studying in the United States unless they attend pro-government rallies in Washington this weekend." Source
Just to keep it neutral (Pro and anti Gaddafi protests in London): "Ibrahim, a 39-year-old lecturer from Libya, told Al Jazeera that he was there to "protect" his country. "What's happened in Tunisia and Egypt is a different situation to Libya," he said. "Libya is a peaceful country and we are just living as one nation." Closeby, another group of protesters held placards reading "Get out." Abdulnasser Ashukr, from Beghazi, told Al Jazeera that he came to support people back Libya." Source
"Two Libyan Air Force Mirage jet fighters unexpectedly flew to Malta this afternoon with their pilots claiming they escaped to Malta after having been ordered to bomb protesters who have taken control of the second city of Benghazi. The pilots told the Maltese authorities that they left from a base near Tripoli. Their aircraft were armed with air to ground rockets. The pilots initially asked for emergency clearance to land and for refuelling. Upon landing they were questioned by the police and sought political asylum." Source
However... "U.S. says no evidence of Libya air attacks on protesters" Source
But if you want some RussiaToday info:
OMG hundreds dead! But wait... it's RussiaToday. These guys first made Gaddafi look like a diabolic murderer when the West failed to act, but as soon as the West intervened... Gaddafi was an angelic figure once more. And hundreds dead? Seriously? Come on.
"Selon plusieurs témoins, le régime de Kadhafi aurait armé les personnes le soutenant pour qu'ils s'en prennent aux manifestants qui contrôlent désormais la majeure partie du pays. Selon Al Jazira, Tripoli est la dernière grande ville contrôlée par le guide libyen. " Translation (26th of February): According to various witnesses, Gaddafi's regime has armed those supporting him to attack the protesters who control now most of the country. According to Al Jazeera, Tripoli is the last big city controled by the Libyan guide. Source
"16 February 2011 Amnesty International is calling on the Libyan government to end its clampdown on peaceful political activists after violence erupted at demonstrations in the city of Benghazi following the arrest of activists ahead of a protest planned for Thursday." Source
And now, to every claim that Libyans had no reason to protest in the first place since they had a "good life":
Source (Taken from Associated Press reporting, CIA World Factbook)
Go on, go tell DragoonPK they should STFU, they have such a good life after all!
Dude, read Dragoon's posts. It's an entirely different situation in Bahrain than Libya's. There's big gap between the shiites and the sunnis and that's where the conflict is, the sunni rule the country while the shiites are discriminated. Please, don't even think of making such compares before you have read a bit and have a slight understanding of where the "nucleus" of the conflict is generated.
On April 04 2011 23:36 Pika Chu wrote: Dude, read Dragoon's posts. It's an entirely different situation in Bahrain than Libya's. There's big gap between the shiites and the sunnis and that's where the conflict is, the sunni rule the country while the shiites are discriminated. Please, don't even think of making such compares before you have read a bit and have a slight understanding of where the "nucleus" of the conflict is generated.
Well the hatred pretty much goes both ways. Sunni's hate Shiites and vice versa.
Wichever side is in power there is going to take it out on the other side. The dangers of colective thinking that opens the door to deep seated hatred to exist.
Oh I understand this, but various posters also stated that the protests in Libya weren't merely motivated by poverty, and were STILL answered "but why are they protesting? Libya is rich!"
And you could still argue that Bahrein is so wealthy that even the Shias would benefit from it... I for one would never say such a bizarre thing, but this is what many posters here - including you, maybe - have been saying in the past pages about Libya. They're so rich, even if most of the profits go to Gaddafi's clan, the rest of the population must be happy about it!
But anyway, this wasn't the main point of my post.
Ps: If you actually read about the protests in Bahrein, they were originally directed towards the government (who indeeds treats Shias the way they treat dogs). The Bahraini leaders then worked towards making it a Shia/Sunni conflict, thus justifying their "defense" and gaining the support of the 20% of Sunnis of Bahrein.
Edit: but I do agree with Zalz, if the Shia win in a conflict the situation will probably just be turned upside down regarding the Sunni "superiority". This is, however, pure speculation.
On April 04 2011 23:36 Pika Chu wrote: Dude, read Dragoon's posts. It's an entirely different situation in Bahrain than Libya's. There's big gap between the shiites and the sunnis and that's where the conflict is, the sunni rule the country while the shiites are discriminated. Please, don't even think of making such compares before you have read a bit and have a slight understanding of where the "nucleus" of the conflict is generated.
Good thing he's been saying, the whole time, that they're not protesting against that per se. Also, if you're going to pull that card, you realize Gaddafis family and his tribe sits on most of the important public positions in Libya? In that respect it's not different at all.
If you actually read about the protests in Bahrein, they were originally directed towards the government (who indeeds treats Shias the way they treat dogs). The Bahraini leaders then worked towards making it a Shia/Sunni conflict, thus justifying their "defense" and gaining the support of the 20% of Sunnis of Bahrein.
Yes but unfortunately their strategy worked, at least that's how i see it (from second hand experience however, reading articles about it).
And regarding my arguments, you didn't refute them because you could not and because they have a rational based judgement unlike your emotional based judgement.
When Aurocaido asked for evidence, you quoted whan and New York-based group says. Ok, very reliable i must say, couldn't find a more unbiased source.
That argument with the economy still stands. There aren't revolutions when things are going well and people have a decent standard of living. The information you posted is very outdated and thus cannot allow any argument to be based on it.
Libya has improved a lot in the last decade, way more than Bahrain. For example, check your numbers (in the 2003 CIA factbook you posted) with the most recent statistic i've been able to find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate which is 2005. Check the trends. It's all about the trends, when the country is going good people are happy, when the country is going bad or stagnating the people are getting stressed, frustrated and angry (basic sociology studies). Just so as example, libyan's currency parity to the dollar is much stronger than bahrain's currency ( http://www.xe.com/currency/lyd-libyan-dinar vs http://www.xe.com/currency/bhd-bahraini-dinar ).
No HellRoxYa, if you read you understand that Gaddafi wanted to finish with the tribal system, and what he did was not to advantage his own tribe and punish the rest but treat them the same (of course i'm sure in reality his tribe still had advantages) and which he demonstrated by giving people from other tribes powerful positions. As you should know, there are some tribes which revolted against Gaddafi and declared him war, and the betrayals in power were from members of those tribes. So no in that aspect is still different although i can agree about the Gaddafi family, but let's remember... he is a dictator after all.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.realstreet.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/wtc7-bbc.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/Nose-Out.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/mE7ro.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/PrdAS.jpg)
