On April 14 2011 08:31 Aurocaido wrote: It seems the rebels have rejected the African Union's roadmap to peace. Citing that it did not involve the removal of Gaddafi from power and his family leaving the country.
What was all that shit you were saying about that not being a rebel demand Kukaracha? Who is paying you?
We were talking about a possible ceasefire.
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
Please get your frigging facts straight and don't try to play smart, thanks.
Petruccio... now I am quite amazed by your intervention, really. Such incredible display of ignorance is quite something to watch!
I mean, you trust Ukrainian and Russian media, fine, fine... That was the frigging USSR 30 years ago. Stasi, NKVD, Kolkoz, Goulags, I mean, COME ON. Poutine was the president. Ex-KGB agent. COME ON. I really don't want to bash your country but you leave us no choice. A president which gets support by doing videos where he haunts tigers and teach judo. A country that has not know freedom of speech since... OH WAIT FOREVER, since it went from the TSAR to STALIN. A country RAPED by the nomenklatura mafia when the Berlin wall fell. Just raped. How many millionaires were created that day! How beautiful this free land
Dear GOD how can even a russian trust Russia.
Think about the MURDER of Stanislav Markelov when he was trying to shed lights on the events of Tchetchenia. Boris Eltsine. The common krycha. The MURDER of Sergei Magnitsky.
Russia, oh, Russia, land of freedom! (then torture and death)
Anyway, to be as gullible as to believe a few people easily control millions without making any mistakes and without anything going through their intelligence services is quite astonishing in itself. It is clear that government decisions are linked to powerful commercial and financial groups such as the military-industrial complex in this case, but it is simple-minded to forget that these groups themselves are bee hives where everyone casts the responsability on their neighbour.
And by the way, I speak fluent french, english, spanish and german so I think I have access to way more sources than you - latin America, for example.
And also, look at this - this is beautiful:
This is awesome. No western intervention, RussiaToday says "OMG hundreds dead, aircraft shooting on people (never verified)! The western is not doing anything while rebels are being murdered!"
And then the west intervenes, and RussiaToday changes the EXACT opposite. This is hilarious.
On April 15 2011 01:29 Petruccio wrote: Maybe it is just because he is a crazy man? If he was crazy, even his sons would remove him form power.
Because the post above me addressed all your factual errors and general illogic I'll just go ahead with this little gem. Did you not see his speeches? Saif makes a lot of sense and deals very well with foreign media trying to keep up a good image (the kind of image you're buying 100%) but Gaddafi? (Just dawned on me that they're both "Gaddafis", Saif is his son, the dictator is Muammar)
Now there's different kinds of crazy. I don't think he's the type of crazy to be admitted to a mental institution, but he shouldn't be in the ruling position he's in.
Kukaracha, you make me laugh you are explaining me about Russian media. Thank you very much, now I know! All what you replied has nothing to do with what I said. I did not say that I got information from russian media.At the beginning of the conflict Russian/Ukr media told the same thing as Western. I guess they had same sources. But Russia and Ukraine are not involved in the conflict and nobody control information it over this point. Later some media started to give a different from western point of view. Some still just translate western news. Just look at RT. The video you pasted dated 22 February. At that time even me thought that Gaddafi is bloody dictator, torturing his people. There are many popular bloggers in the russian infosfera who give their point of view, nobody controls them. Russian people do not always express official Russian position. And the can do it even on matter where russian interests are directly involved, at least in internet. But fortunately I do not need any media to get an idea. There are Ukrainian doctors there, they make call home, they write on the boards. The are the most reliable source of information. They are already there and nobody paid them for information. When I start getting some news from them, starting with "Do not worry, we are fine, do not trust western media, they lie", then I started to do research. And now I know who is Gaddafi, what he wants, how was the life in Libya and how it is all started. From the first hands. Kukaracha, from your response I can see your inability for fair debate. You do not address my statements, instead giving some random strange information about Russia. You are not looking for truth. If you are unavailable to beat the facts, you are trying to attack credibility of the opponent or his sources. If you continue like this, I will not respond to your messages. Better give us some points of view of the countries of Latin America.
On April 15 2011 06:19 Petruccio wrote: Kukaracha, you make me laugh you are explaining me about Russian media. Thank you very much, now I know! All what you replied has nothing to do with what I said. I did not say that I got information from russian media.At the beginning of the conflict Russian/Ukr media told the same thing as Western. I guess they had same sources. But Russia and Ukraine are not involved in the conflict and nobody control information it over this point. Later some media started to give a different from western point of view. Some still just translate western news. Just look at RT. The video you pasted dated 22 February. At that time even me thought that Gaddafi is bloody dictator, torturing his people. There are many popular bloggers in the russian infosfera who give their point of view, nobody controls them. Russian people do not always express official Russian position. And the can do it even on matter where russian interests are directly involved, at least in internet. But fortunately I do not need any media to get an idea. There are Ukrainian doctors there, they make call home, they write on the boards. The are the most reliable source of information. They are already there and nobody paid them for information. When I start getting some news from them, starting with "Do not worry, we are fine, do not trust western media, they lie", then I started to do research. And now I know who is Gaddafi, what he wants, how was the life in Libya and how it is all started. From the first hands. Kukaracha, from your response I can see your inability for fair debate. You do not address my statements, instead giving some random strange information about Russia. You are not looking for truth. If you are unavailable to beat the facts, you are trying to attack credibility of the opponent or his sources. If you continue like this, I will not respond to your messages. Better give us some points of view of the countries of Latin America.
The whole point about what he said is that the Russian government controls their media. That's why their reporting changed, because their objectives changed.
He's not unable to "beat facts", he's trying to tell you they're not facts, in fact, he's trying to tell you that most of what Russia Today's doing is straight off propaganda. They are not some sort of fair-minded reportingangency.
Lastly, you claim personal sources, I claim bullshit. You've shown multiple times in this thread how gullible you are. As soon as someone writes something (anything) they automatically gain credibility with you. The only way they lose it is if you don't agree with them. You don't give two shits if it's accurate or not, you just care if it's supporting your biased point of view or not. That's why you pull random "I've heard from people"-statements and links to blogs and obvious biased websites like that Ugandan article which didn't even have an author. If you were the one who brought up 9/11 earlier then that's even more proof for what I'm saying in this paragraph. People being able to write well does not equal people being right, nor does questioning everything make the guy doing questioning right in his assumptions.
It's easy to form whatever view of the world you want if you just close your eyes to everything contradicting it, and gladly accept anything supporting it. No matter who wrote it, on what basis or why.
Note: I only covered articles and writing now. How you refute first hand reporting by people on the scene (from many different agencies, both in Tunisia, Egypt and now in Libya) I do not know.
HellRoxYa , that is exactly what I said. You are attacking credibility, not statements. Can you sometimes forget about the source and try to think about the information? If western(Qatar) media is the only source of truth that must be taken for granted, then I find it difficult to continue the discussion.
Nobody understand in Russia now what are objectives of Russian government in this conflict. Many believe they must be more active in preventing the war going on, but Russia remains neutral. It is possible to find all the possible points of view in the Russian media on Libya. Sure Russian government controls their media. But it looks like they do not control this topic. You with Kukaracha are talking about the matter you do not understand. If you say, Russian media may lie, I agree. If you say Russian media always lie biased, I disagree. I already posted a link to RT video where 3 different point of view were represented by 3 different people. This is who media should work I believe. Give me all the possible information and I decide for myself.
What is wrong with Ukrainian doctors as the source of information? I gave the link, go on with translation if you do not believe me.
9/11 is a huge topic(off topic). I mentioned it as an example that you cannot always trust western media and the cover up may be huge. It is 10 years passed and we have a ton of information now. And about 1 year ago finally we know some important details. And it was not "inside job", US government was really attacked, and the towers were destroyed not by planes, but using nuclear demolition scheme, that was there since ever. It explains everything, for example why ground zero workers are dying of cancer now. Maybe it sounds crazy, but Google "nuclear demolition" and "9/11 cancers" if you really want to know what happened and please do not attack me on this without any research.
The media is not independent, it cannot be.
I do not back up Uganda article, I just wanted to show yet another point of view, maybe biased.
My dear opponents, again and again you are attacking credibility of me and sources, telling bullshit about things you do not know and do not understand, I mean Russian media. Please object the information and presented facts.
On April 15 2011 08:46 Petruccio wrote: HellRoxYa , that is exactly what I said. You are attacking credibility, not statements. Can you sometimes forget about the source and try to think about the information? If western(Qatar) media is the only source of truth that must be taken for granted, then I find it difficult to continue the discussion.
My dear opponents, again and again you are attacking credibility of me and sources, telling bullshit about things you do not know and do not understand, I mean Russian media. Please object the information and presented facts.
We are objecting the information. We're telling you it can't be trusted. And we're not just saying that out of the blue, we're trying to tell you exactly why it can't be trusted. There's no point in discussing information when it's obviously propaganda and/or disinformation. You should probably take a class in both debate and source critisism.
On April 14 2011 18:20 HellRoxYa wrote: I'm sorry, could you explain why it's in americas interest to create heavyhanded muslim regimes?
So that america has a ready supply of oil. The regimes can be bribed with american aid and weapons into allowing american or american friendly oil companies into their country.
Democracy would allow a government to arise which has the own countries best interests at heart, and would want to keep the oil in their country and not allow in US companies.
Case in point, Overthrow of the leader of iran in 1953
On April 15 2011 09:39 oldgregg wrote: HellRoxYa - It seems you have an agenda to push, you are constantly refuting peoples arguments just for the sake of it.
Id like to see your response to my rebuttal to you on the previous page
On April 14 2011 18:20 HellRoxYa wrote: I'm sorry, could you explain why it's in americas interest to create heavyhanded muslim regimes?
So that america has a ready supply of oil. The regimes can be bribed with american aid and weapons into allowing american or american friendly oil companies into their country.
Democracy would allow a government to arise which has the own countries best interests at heart, and would want to keep the oil in their country and not allow in US companies.
Case in point, Overthrow of the leader of iran in 1953
There's merit to what you said - however - a strong religious dictatorship doesn't seem very favorable to, say, a regular dictatorship. Especially not with the terror-aspects of everything. Actually there's even one more problem here: Libya wouldn't keep any oil. They're as far as I know still selling oil the best they can even while waging war. Guess who they're selling to. Sitting on oil wouldn't do anyone any good. They wouldn't get money that they need and the US and the rest of the western world wouldn't get the oil they need.
Either way I wasn't looking for someone to explain or present something reasonable, I was looking for Petruccio to expand his ideas. They're kind of wonky and I find them amusing.
Yea im not sure about why an Islamic dictatorship would be preferable (who was claiming that?), but it certainly wouldn't be unwanted, I mean look at Saudi Arabia, that's a strictly Islamic regime thats supported by the US, and it spawned al Qaeda. The US just wants friendly dictators/democracys/any regime to keep selling them oil.
And yea I agree that Libya cant just sit on its oil, it obviously produces way more than it consumes, the question is, who is it going to sell to, the US or China?
China has a big vested interest in Libya as well. The whole thing IS about oil, if it was about humanitarian intervention then why not intervene in Bahrain, Yemen, Tunisia, any of the other Arab countries.
Pretty interesting article about the role of China in the whole Libya thing
On April 15 2011 10:51 oldgregg wrote: China has a big vested interest in Libya as well. The whole thing IS about oil, if it was about humanitarian intervention then why not intervene in Bahrain, Yemen, Tunisia, any of the other Arab countries.
First of all, interesting points. Wasn't aware China was competing, don't have time to read the article right now though.
Anyway, Libya is a special case. Like Tunisia and Egypt it's been recieving a large amount of media attention. Unlike Bahrain, Tunisia, Yemen and "any other arab country" there's a war and a clear divide between two sides. And since citizens of western countries would like to see the people liberate themselves there's been some pressure on them (the governments) to act, much more so than in the other countries cases. Furtermore, as it has two very clear sides, it's actually feasible to intervene. Whether there's ulterior motives or not doesn't change these two facts. Earlier in this thread people have been trying to compare the situation to Iraq, but it's just not realistic to do so in any way. It's not focused on liberating the people (that's their own job), it's not focused on oil (that sorts itself out, although I'm sure its in everyone's interest to minimize losses of oil infrastructure and keeping the oil flowing throughout) but it is focusing on enabling the people to do so. While I'm rambling I'd like to bring up a very interesting point that Petruccio touched earlier; The fact that the west can't really back out without Gaddafi being gone because of anticipated retaliation from him. This is a very serious issue and one that could in a worst case scenario actually lead to boots on the ground. It's not about to happen in any foreseeable future but it might become inevitable eventually. Check back in a few months.
Not yet. But they cannot permit Gaddafi to win. So they have no choice but "boots on the ground". EU prepares military-humanitarian mission in Libya http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/libya-conflict.9hm/ I am waiting for "WMD discovered" or "Gaddafi terrorism in one of European country". But maybe just adding the wold "humanitarian" is enough to start the invasion. We already got used to "tomahawks to protect people", "no fly zone" means air strikes on Libyan forces and Tripoli.
Laughable, you are. Do you honestly think anyone even takes into serious consideration the thought of embarking upon another potential military debacle (re: Iraq misadventure)? Gates himself has said that the day boots hit the ground in Libya is the day he quits. It's utter madness. The US cannot afford to waste any further geopolitical capital. Obama's explicitly stated posture change pits the US in a position of withdrawal from the neo-conservative push to dominate through military force.
By the way, yes, tomahawks were used to defend people, transitively. You idiots don't seem to understand that in order to repel an armored assault (as was the primary nature of that of Qaddafi about 3-4 weeks ago) you must have air dominance. You can't just send a few multiple-million dollar aircraft into a zone in which these pieces of beauty can sizzle up in a flash. You've got to remove all anti-aircraft infrastructure first, or your mission will fail and everybody will lose.
I would like to recommend to read an author of some books about politics and history. You will get a much clearer view on what is going on in the world. You cannot understand the processes in a country like Libya without understanding a bigger picture. Just in case you are interested in the politics. http://nstarikov.ru/en/
What I want to say is that May, 9th has long ceased to be a holiday in Europe. All they do now is judge guerrillas and war veterans and honour SS soldiers: we still try to argue that, although we’ve almost got used to it. Each Victory Day is marked with a growing number of accusations of the Soviet soldiers in all kinds of atrocities whereas the appraisal of their merits is getting scarce. Take Finland for instance, where a photo-exhibition took place in 2006, showing frightful photos of “civilians, killed by soviet guerrillas in 1941-1944”. The number of victims is estimated as 190 people. The fact that the Finnish army annihilated as many as 4 thousand soviet civilians in the same period of time was of course not mentioned. One German journalist pointed out during our conversation, “If we sum up all numbers from foreign publications it will turn out that your soldiers killed every German three times and then raped everyone of them as much”. But did the allies kill civilians? This question is usually a taboo. Silence is the most one can expect as an answer. Even the Anglo-American bombing raid on Dresden on February 13, 1945 (when 25 thousand people died) is now put in question. Ted R. Bromund, a Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation in US, claims that the USSR (!) was behind this campaign, which, and not the Germans defeat at Stalingrad, is acknowledged by a historian Ivans to be vital to the defeat of the Nazis and the victory of the West in 1945. Well, one can only call for a doctor to bring these fellows back to senses.
I wanted to adress a few funny point this "author" makes (I advise you to read the basic of real historians like Michelet or Peschansky who have a lifetime of work behind them and don't "blog" like that conspirationnist clown (because that guy isn't an historian, he's just showing Russia as a white knight in every single post he makes, he doesn't even try to steer towards a small objectivity)).
- [All Europe does] "is judge guerrillas and war veterans and honour SS soldiers" : WHAT? Please explain this Petruccio, I've been through Europe since I've been 6 years old and... well... that sounded very strange (like saying the holocaust didn't happen).
- "is marked with a growing number of accusations of the Soviet soldiers in all kinds of atrocities whereas the appraisal of their merits is getting scarce" I remember learning about resistance in Stalingrad in high school. Soviet soldiers of the time are refferred as "friends". So, again, false. Period.
- "But did the allies kill civilians? This question is usually a taboo." Again, we learned about Dresden, executions and hate-motivated actions during allied progression. We were also told how soviet civilians had suffered and were shown incredible numbers - the highest casualties if I remember correctly, around 20 millions (civilians I think). So, again, wrong. Period.
And it's actually the first time I hear such senseless and foolish history theories - Dresden, done by the USSR? Really? Being more important than Stalingrad? What is hilarious is that this is the SAME kind of bullshit you are telling yourself: snipers shooting protesters being western forces (really? Hundreds of elite-trained troops unnoticed? A hundred-man strong commando of men who are ghosts, as in they have no life and will never let anything get to any media in the world? No family, no relatives, to which they would tell such stories? Organizations of THOUSANDS where NO ONE ever makes a mistake, or intends to?), NWO, yadayada.
Back on point, what I was adressing were your sources because YES sources are important. Like the author you're quoting: he's swimming in a sea of shit! Every history theory he mentions is a conspiracy theory! Like RussiaToday you like so much and who says HUNDREDS died the 22th of february - my sources never went as far as say that HUNDREDS died in those attacks because it was too confused and big to make sense. RussiaToday criticizing western non-intervention then going the other way round!
You take the fact that they invited different analysts with different points of view as an exception, but guess what? Most serious newsgroups do this! Le Monde did it, Al-Jazeera does every day! You say Russian bloggers are free, but then so are all bloggers in the world. However, seeing that Russia did a huge hacking attack on Georgia not long ago (I might have the country wrong), we could assume that they're quite heavy on "internet warfare".
And last but not least:
Petruccio April 14 2011 07:02. There were about 3000 Ukrainian medics working in Libya
There were about 6000 doctors in Libya. You're basically saying half of them were Ukrainian.
Good job at losing all credibility. Also, how come other people - who have family in Libya, or other doctors in or from Libya, are saying the contrary? Why should we listen the Ukrainian ones? Because they're an imaginary 3000...?
Way to go Kukaracha making a fool of yourself jumping on the old band wagon: Russia is bad, russia is USSR, see what crimes they did in the past, russia's media is censored, you have no freedom in russia therefore nothing Russia says or does can be taken into account because they are bad.
Kukaracha, I see no reason nd no fun to discuss Russia and USSR with you. I know what is bad and what is good in Russian and was in USSR much better then you.
News agencies do not always "produce" news, they take it from other news agencies. And it as the case with RussiaToday on 22th of February.
Petruccio April 14 2011 07:02. There were about 3000 Ukrainian medics working in Libya
There were about 6000 doctors in Libya. You're basically saying half of them were Ukrainian.
Do you understand the difference between a medic and a doctor? All doctors are medics but not all medics are doctors. There are many Ukrainian nurses in Libya, they are medics too. I guess you understand the difference and just intentionally lie to attack my credibility.
A Libyan government spokesman rejected the allegation. While US, UK and France are desperately looking for reason to place "boots on the ground", cluster bombs is the last thing Kaddafi would want to do. Do you think they all are stupid there in Tripoli?? What side "needs" cluster bombing now? Just think.
A Libyan government spokesman rejected the allegation. While US, UK and France are desperately looking for reason to place "boots on the ground", cluster bombs is the last thing Kaddafi would want to do. Do you think they all are stupid there in Tripoli?? What side "needs" cluster bombing now? Just think
you can't really 'reject' after people show the bombs on video ...
Gaddafi did not manage to prove (and he has a full media at his disposal) one single civilian victim of nato bombardment. Maybe it is because nato is targeting military assets while Gaddafi in indiscrimately bombarding Misrata.
A Libyan government spokesman rejected the allegation. While US, UK and France are desperately looking for reason to place "boots on the ground", cluster bombs is the last thing Kaddafi would want to do. Do you think they all are stupid there in Tripoli?? What side "needs" cluster bombing now? Just think.
Now they're looking for reasons to put boots on the ground?
you can't really 'reject' after people show the bombs on video ...
Gaddafi did not manage to prove (and he has a full media at his disposal) one single civilian victim of nato bombardment. Maybe it is because nato is targeting military assets while Gaddafi in indiscrimately bombarding Misrata.
EPT
