|
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. |
On May 03 2011 04:47 HellRoxYa wrote:
Did you just equate the freezing of funds with theft?
Actually I did. They took the money that does not belong to them. They use the money now. They promise to give the money back to... whom? People of Libya? The money is already people's of Libya money. To the "rebels" after they have won? But the "rebels" are not "people of Libya". It is too obvious now after 2, 5 months.
And you cannot give the money to people, you give it to some authorities. We cannot know how they are going to use the money. But certainly they are not going to support socialism of Gaddafi. Liberal "Democracy" means very reach local elite and a good share of money to the world corporations.
Imagine the "rebels" do not win. And they will not unless NATO puts "boots on the ground".
What will happen to the money, will it be handled back to Libya? They will not give the money back.
So now you just name the leader of the country a dictator and can freeze all its money?? Add "he is killing own people" to make it look fair.
What was the legal background for the decision?
|
On May 03 2011 05:30 Petruccio wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 04:47 HellRoxYa wrote:
Did you just equate the freezing of funds with theft? Actually I did. They took the money that does not belong to them. They use the money now. They promise to give the money back to... whom? People of Libya? The money is already people's of Libya money. To the "rebels" after they have won? But the "rebels" are not "people of Libya". It is too obvious now after 2, 5 months. And you cannot give the money to people, you give it to some authorities. We cannot know how they are going to use the money. But certainly they are not going to support socialism of Gaddafi. Liberal "Democracy" means very reach local elite and a good share of money to the world corporations. Imagine the "rebels" do not win. And they will not unless NATO puts "boots on the ground". What will happen to the money, will it be handled back to Libya? They will not give the money back. So now you just name the leader of the country a dictator and can freeze all its money?? Add "he is killing own people" to make it look fair. What was the legal background for the decision?
Isn't this post encouraging flaming?
You are assuming things without facts. You can do research to back up your points but this is just plain trolling.
Once they have stabilized they will give it to appropriate authorities. These are extreme measures for extreme situations.
|
Why on earth are we involved in this?
We just look like bullies who cause trouble. Gaddafi may be "bad", but dont we look just as bad, getting involved in an internal matter of country.
Sovereignty?
We should stop interfering and GTFO.
|
I would not call the wish to gain control over the country as extreme situation...
I cannot give you the facts about the future: if, how much, to whom the West will give the money back and what will happen to the money then. Today the fact is that the money is illegally taken.
The main question remains: what if NATO fails in Libya? Libyans may join army to help fighting with the "rebels", for example. Where the money will go?
|
On May 03 2011 05:46 Eppa! wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 05:30 Petruccio wrote:On May 03 2011 04:47 HellRoxYa wrote:
Did you just equate the freezing of funds with theft? Actually I did. They took the money that does not belong to them. They use the money now. They promise to give the money back to... whom? People of Libya? The money is already people's of Libya money. To the "rebels" after they have won? But the "rebels" are not "people of Libya". It is too obvious now after 2, 5 months. And you cannot give the money to people, you give it to some authorities. We cannot know how they are going to use the money. But certainly they are not going to support socialism of Gaddafi. Liberal "Democracy" means very reach local elite and a good share of money to the world corporations. Imagine the "rebels" do not win. And they will not unless NATO puts "boots on the ground". What will happen to the money, will it be handled back to Libya? They will not give the money back. So now you just name the leader of the country a dictator and can freeze all its money?? Add "he is killing own people" to make it look fair. What was the legal background for the decision? Isn't this post encouraging flaming? You are assuming things without facts. You can do research to back up your points but this is just plain trolling. Once they have stabilized they will give it to appropriate authorities. These are extreme measures for extreme situations.
You can't argue with him he dismisses al jazeera as a news source because it is funded by Qatar but believes russia today is the only credible news source ( which is funded by the russian government ). He's a big part of the reason why I stopped updating on Lybia I am just tired of reading his conspiracy theories and what not over and over again.
well since I am posting anyway I'll post some updates in a spoiler:
+ Show Spoiler +10:16am
Forces loyal to Gaddafi launched a new armoured incursion into the besieged rebel city Misrata on Monday after overnight clashes killed at least six people, the rebels said.
"Gaddafi's tanks are attempting to enter the city through Al-Ghiran," a southwestern suburb near the airport of Libya's third largest city, a rebel official said.
At least four or five tanks, which had been concealed at the government-held airport to avoid NATO air attacks, were engaged in the offensive, another rebel official said.
AFP correspondents in the Mediterranean port city heard heavy tank fire from 6 am (0400 GMT), answered by heavy machinegun fire from the rebels. "We have counted six dead and several dozen wounded," a medical official told AFP at around 9:30 am (0730 GMT) after the overnight clashes.
2:21pm
NATO launched airstrikes overnight on positions held by Libyan government forces near the rebel-held town of Zintan and destroyed at least 10 tanks and vehicles, a rebel spokesman said on Monday.
"NATO struck last night in an eastern area of the town. We counted 12 missiles that landed there. A total of 10-12 tanks and vehicles were destroyed," the spokesman, called Abdulrahman, told Reuters by telephone from Zintan.
3:30pm
Large Libyan crowd including two of Muammar Gaddafi's sons bury the Libyan leader's youngest son, Saif al-Arab, who was killed along with three of Gaddafi's grandchildren as a result of a NATO airstrike on Saturday night.
7:53pm
Reuters report that NATO minesweepers searched the approaches of Misurata harbour on Monday for a drifting mine that has blocked aid supplies to the besieged Libyan city and halted evacuation of foreigners and wounded Libyans.
|
On May 03 2011 05:46 Eppa! wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 05:30 Petruccio wrote:On May 03 2011 04:47 HellRoxYa wrote:
Did you just equate the freezing of funds with theft? Actually I did. They took the money that does not belong to them. They use the money now. They promise to give the money back to... whom? People of Libya? The money is already people's of Libya money. To the "rebels" after they have won? But the "rebels" are not "people of Libya". It is too obvious now after 2, 5 months. And you cannot give the money to people, you give it to some authorities. We cannot know how they are going to use the money. But certainly they are not going to support socialism of Gaddafi. Liberal "Democracy" means very reach local elite and a good share of money to the world corporations. Imagine the "rebels" do not win. And they will not unless NATO puts "boots on the ground". What will happen to the money, will it be handled back to Libya? They will not give the money back. So now you just name the leader of the country a dictator and can freeze all its money?? Add "he is killing own people" to make it look fair. What was the legal background for the decision? Isn't this post encouraging flaming? You are assuming things without facts. You can do research to back up your points but this is just plain trolling. Once they have stabilized they will give it to appropriate authorities. These are extreme measures for extreme situations.
This isnt trolling.
Sorry to spoil your viewpoint, but it is quite clear that any foreign assets Libya has will not be given back to it while Gaddafi is their leader. Gaddafi wont loose unless they kill him because too many of his own country support him. They cant kill him because it is an international crime.
The support the rebels get is not "free". These assets will be used to pay back the support they have given. Anyhow, Libya loses these assets.
It is arguably stealing.
|
On April 17 2011 05:58 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2011 04:42 Petruccio wrote:On April 17 2011 01:47 HellRoxYa wrote:
Now they're looking for reasons to put boots on the ground? What else can they do to in order to win? The main rebel military force is radical islamists, who gained their experience in Afghanistan and Iraq. 1 But they are few and even now, when the West started to give them weapons via Qatar, still cannot win. UN Security Council Resolutions 1973 does not allow nor ground operation neither defines Gaddafi future. So UK/US/France need a new resolution, that specifies that Gaddafi regime must be stopped. The bloodier Gaddafi becomes, the better! I guess this time Russia will apply veto for such resolution. I guess the BRICK states decided to slow down UK/US influence on the region with their "revolutions". But, after all, it is just trying to be nice, UK/US/France can start the intervention without any resolution, like it was with Iraq.2 They are the strongest force in the world, they can do whatever they want. They already told that their final goal is to remove Gaddafi from power. 1. Says you. They don't want to put radical islamists in power, so why would they supply them with arms? Even better, why would they intervene at all if Gaddafi was winning against forces the west would like to see repressed? Please, for the love of god, realize that this makes no sense. 2. Why are you clumping up the US with the UK and France? They're not one nation. The US were the ones who invaded and waged war in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Other nations only joined in to help stabilize the situation, meaning when the damage was already done they figured it'd be good if they could help out. Whether what they're doing is good or not is another question. Even now with the situation in Libya the nations have acted very differently, France being eager to get started for example, much more so than all the other nations involved. Break your tunnelvision.
Factual correction. The UK willingly went into Afghanistan and Iraq with America (they did not follow). Going to Iraq was very controversial as our government essentially did this based on one persons lie (WMDs lol). Even with this, millions of people marched on London in an anti-war demo.
Why on Earth does the UK government follow the US like this? economics probably
|
On May 03 2011 05:53 UberThing wrote:
Why on earth are we involved in this?
We are protecting the best business in the world: we print colored paper and they give us oil and goods for it.
The problem is that the green paper is loosing its appeal. Some oil countries want to receive something else then green paper in exchange for their oil. Saddam started to sell it for Euro, so USD value dropped and we had to stop him. Iran is selling its oil for their local currency and we are looking for the ways how to stop it too. Gaddafi wanted to introduce golden dinar and sell the oil for it. If they can get the oil without green paper, they do not need it so much.
We need to "reboot" the system. To forget about falling USD and introduce a new world currency that we still be able to print. The only way to reboot it is a war. We need to help radical Islam to gain power in these countries and the war will come. Or we need a big war versus terrorism. If the terrorists nuke a small western city, we can do whatever we want to protect the world. The terrorists promised to use a nuclear bomb in case if Bin Laden was killed. So we just killed Bin Laden and expecting for revenge now. We will be able then to bring all our forces to any country of our choice where the terrorists may be present.
|
I do agree that Libya (and Egypt and Tunisia) will need some solid lawyers to get the frozen assets back. Who knows what they'll become.
In both cases, the money is pretty much lost for the Libyan people, whether it's in Ghadaffi's or western virtual pockets.
And no, there are no plans for a world currency. Currencies are struggling to reach the top spot and no one is interested in having one international currency (just like no one is interested in having a world government).
|
On May 03 2011 05:58 UberThing wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 05:46 Eppa! wrote:On May 03 2011 05:30 Petruccio wrote:On May 03 2011 04:47 HellRoxYa wrote:
Did you just equate the freezing of funds with theft? Actually I did. They took the money that does not belong to them. They use the money now. They promise to give the money back to... whom? People of Libya? The money is already people's of Libya money. To the "rebels" after they have won? But the "rebels" are not "people of Libya". It is too obvious now after 2, 5 months. And you cannot give the money to people, you give it to some authorities. We cannot know how they are going to use the money. But certainly they are not going to support socialism of Gaddafi. Liberal "Democracy" means very reach local elite and a good share of money to the world corporations. Imagine the "rebels" do not win. And they will not unless NATO puts "boots on the ground". What will happen to the money, will it be handled back to Libya? They will not give the money back. So now you just name the leader of the country a dictator and can freeze all its money?? Add "he is killing own people" to make it look fair. What was the legal background for the decision? Isn't this post encouraging flaming? You are assuming things without facts. You can do research to back up your points but this is just plain trolling. Once they have stabilized they will give it to appropriate authorities. These are extreme measures for extreme situations. This isnt trolling. Sorry to spoil your viewpoint, but it is quite clear that any foreign assets Libya has will not be given back to it while Gaddafi is their leader. Gaddafi wont loose unless they kill him because too many of his own country support him. They cant kill him because it is an international crime. The support the rebels get is not "free". These assets will be used to pay back the support they have given. Anyhow, Libya loses these assets. It is arguably stealing.
That's not the argument that needed factual backup (although it's far from a given), the argument that needs factual backup is the one where they will steal the money either way. Freezing assets is not stealing. Petruccio is great at these things though, pulling unreliable "sources" and extrapolating bullshit theories out of them. Feel free to look through the last 20 or 30 pages of this thread if you'd like to see what I'm talking about.
On May 03 2011 06:32 Petruccio wrote:We are protecting the best business in the world: we print colored paper and they give us oil and goods for it. The problem is that the green paper is loosing its appeal. Some oil countries want to receive something else then green paper in exchange for their oil. Saddam started to sell it for Euro, so USD value dropped and we had to stop him. Iran is selling its oil for their local currency and we are looking for the ways how to stop it too. Gaddafi wanted to introduce golden dinar and sell the oil for it. If they can get the oil without green paper, they do not need it so much. We need to "reboot" the system. To forget about falling USD and introduce a new world currency that we still be able to print. The only way to reboot it is a war. We need to help radical Islam to gain power in these countries and the war will come. Or we need a big war versus terrorism. If the terrorists nuke a small western city, we can do whatever we want to protect the world. The terrorists promised to use a nuclear bomb in case if Bin Laden was killed. So we just killed Bin Laden and expecting for revenge now. We will be able then to bring all our forces to any country of our choice where the terrorists may be present.
Yes Petruccio, the whole world is indeed a conspiracy. Bin Laden was only killed just now because they want a nuke to go off somewhere (I bet that, if a nuke does go off somewhere, you'll tell me that it was planned to happen just there too, for whatever reasons you can come up with at the spot) so that they (the west I assume?) can wreak even more havoc, of which they cannot afford. It all makes perfect sense, even more than usual. Thank you for making me see the light.
|
On May 03 2011 06:40 Kukaracha wrote:
And no, there are no plans for a world currency. Currencies are struggling to reach the top spot and no one is interested in having one international currency (just like no one is interested in having a world government).
I doubt that anyone may say now what are the plans.
We have the world currency now, USD, and USA, or to be more precise, Federal Reserve System, which is as federal as Federal Express, benefit from this fact a lot.
The one who can issue one international currency is interested a lot in it. He just need to "convince" the others to accept it.
|
On May 03 2011 06:49 HellRoxYa wrote:
Yes Petruccio, the whole world is indeed a conspiracy. Bin Laden was only killed just now because they want a nuke to go off somewhere
It is just a guess, of course, we cannot know for sure. They could get "killed Bin Laden" out of the pocket anytime, I am just guessing why now. Maybe because the "radical Islam" plan is not working as supposed... They stuck in Libya, and Syria is already well informed about how these "uprisings" start and takes preventive measures.
But we know for sure how the world economic works. We can see that petrodollar is getting weaker and weaker. The USA risks default. What is your plan to save USD? To let USA debt grow to infinity and keep printing dollars to pay for interests on assets?
USD pyramid is over. A war is much needed...
User was warned for this post
|
Again, brutal lie from the western media:
"On Sunday, Gaddafi said on state TV that the war between Italy and Libya has opened. "My friend Silvio Berlusconi committed a crime by permitting the Italian bombings. This is an attempt for a new Italian colonialism," Gaddafi said. "War must now move to Italian territory - that is what Libyans want, and I cannot oppose them," the Libyan leader added."
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/90047063?Gaddafi's threats of war prompt Italy to tighten nationwide security
Gaddafi did not say that! There is no such words
"War must now move to Italian territory - that is what Libyans want, and I cannot oppose them" in the Russian translation.
I am afraid they are still looking for an excuse to put NATO troops on the Libyan soil. They desperately need a terrorist act from Gaddafi. And this lie maybe intended to prepare the western audience to the planned(by secret service or "allied" al Qaeda) terror in Italy 
|
How are you so sure that your source is correct and the other one isn't? It's not that I really care about which one is right, it's just that you believe whatever source tells you what you want to hear (usually the staterun Russian one as of late as their anti-western propaganda falls in line with your conspiracy theory reasoning quite well, apparently).
Also, did you ever stop to think that maybe Russia Today didn't include the whole quote? It's hardly unthinkable, nor is it necessairly wrong.
|
HellRoxYa,
There is a discussion in the Russian community about this lie.
English translation came first.
West takes part in the war and Russia does not. We can see western propaganda all along the war, so many lies already! Libya uprising all over the country, army does not shoot on the civilians, Gaddafi has bought black mercenaries to kill his people. Gaddafi fled to Venezuela! Gaddafi bombs Tripoli! Now we all know that all this information was lie.
The correct Russian translation does not come from government media. The government media simply translated the English news.
If I have to pick, I pick an independent source, not the one that constantly lying and directly involved in the conflict.
And you information about Russian anti-western propaganda is outdated. The west is not an enemy anymore. Most of the media just repeat what you hear on your western media. But some give different information. Anyway, I do not see that someone controls all Russian media on this topic.
But most Russians think that the western media lies and NATO is there for oil. I've got an impression that only about 10% of Russians think that NATO is "protecting civilians". It is hard to find a comment that justifies NATO actions...
|
Italy vs Libya.
There's a battle of the cowards. Italy has been a military joke for 500 years now. Libya is full of untrained and poorly trained mercenaries. This is the very definition of an international slap fight.
|
On May 03 2011 05:58 UberThing wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 05:46 Eppa! wrote:On May 03 2011 05:30 Petruccio wrote:On May 03 2011 04:47 HellRoxYa wrote:
Did you just equate the freezing of funds with theft? Actually I did. They took the money that does not belong to them. They use the money now. They promise to give the money back to... whom? People of Libya? The money is already people's of Libya money. To the "rebels" after they have won? But the "rebels" are not "people of Libya". It is too obvious now after 2, 5 months. And you cannot give the money to people, you give it to some authorities. We cannot know how they are going to use the money. But certainly they are not going to support socialism of Gaddafi. Liberal "Democracy" means very reach local elite and a good share of money to the world corporations. Imagine the "rebels" do not win. And they will not unless NATO puts "boots on the ground". What will happen to the money, will it be handled back to Libya? They will not give the money back. So now you just name the leader of the country a dictator and can freeze all its money?? Add "he is killing own people" to make it look fair. What was the legal background for the decision? Isn't this post encouraging flaming? You are assuming things without facts. You can do research to back up your points but this is just plain trolling. Once they have stabilized they will give it to appropriate authorities. These are extreme measures for extreme situations. This isnt trolling. Sorry to spoil your viewpoint, but it is quite clear that any foreign assets Libya has will not be given back to it while Gaddafi is their leader. Gaddafi wont loose unless they kill him because too many of his own country support him. They cant kill him because it is an international crime. The support the rebels get is not "free". These assets will be used to pay back the support they have given. Anyhow, Libya loses these assets. It is arguably stealing.
Do you have a source for this? any of it?
|
On May 03 2011 18:43 Eppa! wrote:
Do you have a source for this? any of it?
When they say Gaddafi's mercenaries kill civilians, you do not care about the sources. Even when now we know it was a lie, al Jazeera and western media are still reliable sources.
When it comes to an obvious fact that the West blocks Libyan money to limit Gaddafi with fighting back, you are asking for the sources. Try to imagine that the funds are not blocked, is that even possible?
I wonder why after so many lies, in general, not only on Libya, most of you still trust to what "good" media says?
I am quite sure that back in 2003 pre Iraq invasion time if I say that Iraq does not have WMD and Saddam has no connection with al Qaeda, even more, he is an enemy to radical Muslims, all these is just an excuse to gain the control over the country and its oil, I would be accused in conspiracy theories and banned.
|
No, actually, the majority of the western media (especially in Europe) pointed out the fact that there were no proofs of any reason to attack Iraq. If you remember correctly, France, veto'd it...
We do care about sources, and this is why we try to gather information from international sources. The "west' is not some small island on the pacific ocean. Russia, however, is a country. I would say that listening to "western" media is at least listening to more diverse information by definition.
And as the Russian agenda, I already pointed out the fact that the main Russian press agencies are officially owned by the governement, also giving an example of your favourite media RussiaToday bashing the fact the West was not intervening, saying that Ghadaffi had killed THOUSANDS of civilians in air strikes. They somehow started saying the exact opposite when the UN decided to intervene...
I'm sorry but Russian freedom of speech and press are a joke. Russia was the USSR just a bit more than 20 years ago. Someone said earlier "grats on jumping on the bandwagon saying that Russia is bad", not saying that Russia is bad, but that Russian media are pure jokes.
Perestroika and glasnost had started not too long ago when the Wall fell. But Russian medias have a long way to go in gaining credibility in the eyes of the educated public.
|
On May 03 2011 19:28 Petruccio wrote:When they say Gaddafi's mercenaries kill civilians, you do not care about the sources. Even when now we know it was a lie, al Jazeera and western media are still reliable sources. When it comes to an obvious fact that the West blocks Libyan money to limit Gaddafi with fighting back, you are asking for the sources. Try to imagine that the funds are not blocked, is that even possible?
Who's the we you're referring to here?
And if no sources are reliable, then I guess I should stop listening to what's happening around the world completely.
Lastly, at least I am not arguing that the funds weren't frozen. But that's also all that's happened. Whatever else you say is imaginary fairytales that you perpetuate as facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
