I'm going to go find a bunch of pictures on the internet, and put them into a video, and post them onto youtube, and use RT news also and then say that NATO did all those killings. You really wanna jump onto the well i have pictures /smiles I smart -_- How can you go off saying that all those people in those photos, or RT news is all NATO? (I really hope that you are trolling)....
Also I'm not blaming China or Russia, but I do believe they should lets say "STFU" because they vetoed the resolution that they knew damn well what they voting for. They love to do this "Things go bad, NATO is evil" "Things go good, (nothing) they don't say anything". Also China, and Russia love to not do anything even if mass murder is going on in a country close to them, they don't care all they want is the money which they invested in that country for what ever reasons to make even more money, and also I wouldn't want either of those countries help another country in the first place considering if you look at what Russia did when they invaded Georgia. Oh wait people for about Georgia which happened in the 2000s.
You are missing the point it seems you can't look past nationalism, Shame .
dictatorships are a reflection of their people, ie look at egypt currently. Hell even during celebrations after whoever stepped down they mob raped that 60 minutes reporter when the lights went out
These countries have severe social problems, and taking out their dictators isn't going to make those countries suddenly a better place
On August 24 2011 10:00 askTeivospy wrote: dictatorships are a reflection of their people, ie look at egypt currently. Hell even during celebrations after whoever stepped down they mob raped that 60 minutes reporter when the lights went out
These countries have severe social problems, and taking out their dictators isn't going to make those countries suddenly a better place
Indeed, rather it's the start of the process to make it a better place.
On August 24 2011 10:00 askTeivospy wrote: dictatorships are a reflection of their people, ie look at egypt currently. Hell even during celebrations after whoever stepped down they mob raped that 60 minutes reporter when the lights went out
These countries have severe social problems, and taking out their dictators isn't going to make those countries suddenly a better place
I guess having Cameron as a prime minster did the same thing.
You really believe people under a dictator deserve to live under a dictator because they are? A dictator is extremely unhealthy for a society. That has it's effect. And that's exactly why they need to go. Especially when the people say they want western democracy.
Zia ul Haq was the islamist dictator of Pakistan who got so much money from Reagan to help fight the Russians in Afghanistan and who brainwashed entire generations by creating all those madrassas because before Zia, there were barely any.
On August 24 2011 09:45 GeyzeR wrote: A question to people who support NATO actions. What may be the motivation for me, Saji, many others not linked people around the globe for not approving these actions? Are we mad? Paid by Gaddafi? Communists? Just plain stupid?
You're conspiracy theorists, just like the ones who think 9/11 was an inside job and that every single foreign policy move by Western powers is motivated by imperialism. You're also the type of people that because you're aware (like the rest of us) that the media can be very biased will take any other shoddy source that goes against the mainstream.
On August 24 2011 09:41 Hekisui wrote: You are beyond reason. The day the mercenaries appeared on the streets there were pictures.
Also, your post is filled with lies. But that's not strange considering your delusions and sources. Libya standards were bad considering it's oil riches. Gaddafi is a typical dictator that dismantled the social structure of the country and to some extent he had to micromanage everything.
Also your 6 months argument shows great ignorance. You know Libya's military history? No. In this huge country that is 99% desert, citizens defeated well trained and well armed Gaddafi militia in 6 months. This is actually pretty impressive considering they were fighting against a strong 42 year old regime and for a long time it wasn't sure if it was going to succeed. You know, dictatorial regimes have their ways to stay in power. It isn't pretty and using violence against citizens is a method with a a proven track record.
As for mass murders, I don't really know what you talk about. Gaddafi did use artillery and planes against cities. He even admitted this himself and said it was justified because the Americans did the same in Iraq so it was ok.
The one thing you can say is western politicians said it would be a massacre if Gaddafi got in Bengazi. We can't know what would have happened. Certainly he would have crushed it violently. Gaddafi has no moral constrains. This is what the past 42 years show. In the past dictators have killed thousands of citizens in rebellious towns.It might have happened. .
You like dictators. I don't. Fine. But remember that if you are so delusional that you support dictators, you are way too far out to ever recognize and then criticism western imperialism.
1. Why would he need the mercenaries at all? He has "well trained and well armed Gaddafi militia". Where are they now? Where these photos? What we have is the video and photo of tortured and killed black people, Libyans, in the eastern Libya.
2. Bad Libyan standards is a myth. It has the highest nominal pr capita GDP in Africa. And it has well developed social structure with free medicine, education etc. Now, when the western companies will get the bigger share in the oil money, they start to live better?
3. Fighting isolated in the world. With total air dominance of the enemy. And, as you say having the population against you. How that even possible??
4. "Gaddafi did use artillery and planes against cities. He even admitted this himself and said it was justified because the Americans did the same in Iraq so it was ok." He told just that he send the planes to bomb the ammunition warehouses. Tripoli was never bombed! No reason at all to bomb his supporters. Reported many times bu Al Jazeera!
I thought once it was already concluded that it is a civil war ongoing, kind of Tripolitania vs Cyrenaica. Now we are back to 90% population vs Gaddafi... boring...
Maybe you heard that Libya was not dictatorship, but Jamahiriya, translated as "state of the masses". It is a kind of direct democracy.Ans the surprise is that it really was like that! It was not just the name. There were already elections! Each tribe had its representatives. It was a well balanced system. Already democratic.
In 5 years from now on Libyans are going to be wishing they could go back to the days of Gaddafi. I just wonder when we Americans are going to open our eyes and see through the veil of our countries foreign policy.If you actually think NATO's whole operation in Libya was about 'saving the people' you need a reality check.
On August 24 2011 10:30 Arkan wrote: In 5 years from now on Libyans are going to be wishing they could go back to the days of Gaddafi. I just wonder when we Americans are going to open our eyes and see through the veil of our countries foreign policy.If you actually think NATO's whole operation in Libya was about 'saving the people' you need a reality check.
What was it about?
Please don't give a typical "look it up yourself, you'll see..." response.
On August 24 2011 09:41 Hekisui wrote: You are beyond reason. The day the mercenaries appeared on the streets there were pictures.
Also, your post is filled with lies. But that's not strange considering your delusions and sources. Libya standards were bad considering it's oil riches. Gaddafi is a typical dictator that dismantled the social structure of the country and to some extent he had to micromanage everything.
Also your 6 months argument shows great ignorance. You know Libya's military history? No. In this huge country that is 99% desert, citizens defeated well trained and well armed Gaddafi militia in 6 months. This is actually pretty impressive considering they were fighting against a strong 42 year old regime and for a long time it wasn't sure if it was going to succeed. You know, dictatorial regimes have their ways to stay in power. It isn't pretty and using violence against citizens is a method with a a proven track record.
As for mass murders, I don't really know what you talk about. Gaddafi did use artillery and planes against cities. He even admitted this himself and said it was justified because the Americans did the same in Iraq so it was ok.
The one thing you can say is western politicians said it would be a massacre if Gaddafi got in Bengazi. We can't know what would have happened. Certainly he would have crushed it violently. Gaddafi has no moral constrains. This is what the past 42 years show. In the past dictators have killed thousands of citizens in rebellious towns.It might have happened. .
You like dictators. I don't. Fine. But remember that if you are so delusional that you support dictators, you are way too far out to ever recognize and then criticism western imperialism.
1. Why would he need the mercenaries at all? He has "well trained and well armed Gaddafi militia". Where are they now? Where these photos? What we have is the video and photo of tortured and killed black people, Libyans, in the eastern Libya.
2. Bad Libyan standards is a myth. It has the highest nominal pr capita GDP in Africa. And it has well developed social structure with free medicine, education etc. Now, when the western companies will get the bigger share in the oil money, they start to live better?
3. Fighting isolated in the world. With total air dominance of the enemy. And, as you say having the population against you. How that even possible??
4. "Gaddafi did use artillery and planes against cities. He even admitted this himself and said it was justified because the Americans did the same in Iraq so it was ok." He told just that he send the planes to bomb the ammunition warehouses. Tripoli was never bombed! No reason at all to bomb his supporters. Reported many times bu Al Jazeera!
I thought once it was already concluded that it is a civil war ongoing, kind of Tripolitania vs Cyrenaica. Now we are back to 90% population vs Gaddafi... boring...
Maybe you heard that Libya was not dictatorship, but Jamahiriya, translated as "state of the masses". It is a kind of direct democracy.Ans the surprise is that it really was like that! It was not just the name. There were already elections! Each tribe had its representatives. It was a well balanced system. Already democratic.
Next you'll be saying Russia is a prime example of democratic government!
On August 24 2011 10:29 GeyzeR wrote: 1. Why would he need the mercenaries at all? He has "well trained and well armed Gaddafi militia". Where are they now? Where these photos? What we have is the video and photo of tortured and killed black people, Libyans, in the eastern Libya.
Foreign mercenaries are used because they are more reliable than an army. The army's function is to protect the people/the borders against outside threats. Many Libyans won't shoot other Libyans for the sake of a dictator. Picture: http://file.vustv.com/DlwIR_H3igikw.jpg video:
(movie is comment 'genocide' but obv that's not it but when Mercenaries kill people in your town indiscriminately, I can't blame them calling it that. Others are of dead ones. Surely you are lying that you think there are no pictures. There are many reports but not so many pictures. But the pictures suggest all the reports are correct. You apparently don't buy this which is called a conspiracy theory. Using mercenaries is nothing new. It has been done since warfare was invented. Mercenaries are different in motivation from normal soldiers. Know your imperialism.
You may think that this is all cooked up by Imperialist media like Al Jazeera, but the people in Libya apparently believed it and many African workers had to go in hiding. Not to mention the evidence of captured black people who sometimes denied being mercenaries and sometimes admitted to being hired to shoot people but never having done so.
Also, the ICC is a legal body and evidence is what matters there. They apparently have evidence for the viagra accounts. Now I don't believe everything that Hague says, to put it mildly, but the ICC is on an entirely different level. They need evidence and they think they have it. That is about as convincing as something in such a war can get.
2. Bad Libyan standards is a myth. It has the highest nominal pr capita GDP in Africa. And it has well developed social structure with free medicine, education etc. Now, when the western companies will get the bigger share in the oil money, they start to live better?
GDP says little looked at by itself. Egypts GDP role all the while when the normal people suffered. Also, comparing with sub Saharan countries is false. Also false is to compare Libya with some of it's neighbors because they don't have oil. Gaddafi had way more money to spend. There was some effect, but not anywhere as big as you make it out to be.
3. Fighting isolated in the world. With total air dominance of the enemy. And, as you say having the population against you. How that even possible??
Looks like something you will never understand
. 4. "Gaddafi did use artillery and planes against cities. He even admitted this himself and said it was justified because the Americans did the same in Iraq so it was ok." He told just that he send the planes to bomb the ammunition warehouses. Tripoli was never bombed! No reason at all to bomb his supporters. Reported many times bu Al Jazeera!
So? He can bomb others cities than Tripoli because the people there don't support him? It's Gaddafi's word against yours. You claim it's a translation argument or will you concede the point?
I thought once it was already concluded that it is a civil war ongoing, kind of Tripolitania vs Cyrenaica. Now we are back to 90% population vs Gaddafi... boring...
There has been very very little sign of this. I took speculation about this quite serious and this can still emerge. But we have not seen this so far at all. Also, we know for a fact Tripoli people rose up before the rebels arrived. Apparently this line was a myth.
Maybe you heard that Libya was not dictatorship, but Jamahiriya, translated as "state of the masses". It is a kind of direct democracy.Ans the surprise is that it really was like that! It was not just the name. There were already elections! Each tribe had its representatives. It was a well balanced system. Already democratic.
You know the difference between what something is and how it is called? You are extremely delusional for sure. I guess Miniluv really was all about love. And maybe N Korea can rename itself.
His whole Jamahiriya stuff is complete bullshit and mainly 'divide and conquer'. And I make fair judgments because I agree with many things he said during his speech for the UN. But his Green Book and Jamahiriya are pure idiocy and I can't believe you would even stick a finger out for this.
Consider changing your views 180 degrees please. You are wrong so you can be immoral. Being wrong is bad. But being immoral is way worse. Don't be either of them.
On August 24 2011 10:30 Arkan wrote: In 5 years from now on Libyans are going to be wishing they could go back to the days of Gaddafi. I just wonder when we Americans are going to open our eyes and see through the veil of our countries foreign policy.If you actually think NATO's whole operation in Libya was about 'saving the people' you need a reality check.
I think conspiracy theorists like yourself are the ones in need of a reality check.
On August 24 2011 09:41 Hekisui wrote: You are beyond reason. The day the mercenaries appeared on the streets there were pictures.
Also, your post is filled with lies. But that's not strange considering your delusions and sources. Libya standards were bad considering it's oil riches. Gaddafi is a typical dictator that dismantled the social structure of the country and to some extent he had to micromanage everything.
Also your 6 months argument shows great ignorance. You know Libya's military history? No. In this huge country that is 99% desert, citizens defeated well trained and well armed Gaddafi militia in 6 months. This is actually pretty impressive considering they were fighting against a strong 42 year old regime and for a long time it wasn't sure if it was going to succeed. You know, dictatorial regimes have their ways to stay in power. It isn't pretty and using violence against citizens is a method with a a proven track record.
As for mass murders, I don't really know what you talk about. Gaddafi did use artillery and planes against cities. He even admitted this himself and said it was justified because the Americans did the same in Iraq so it was ok.
The one thing you can say is western politicians said it would be a massacre if Gaddafi got in Bengazi. We can't know what would have happened. Certainly he would have crushed it violently. Gaddafi has no moral constrains. This is what the past 42 years show. In the past dictators have killed thousands of citizens in rebellious towns.It might have happened. .
You like dictators. I don't. Fine. But remember that if you are so delusional that you support dictators, you are way too far out to ever recognize and then criticism western imperialism.
1. Why would he need the mercenaries at all? He has "well trained and well armed Gaddafi militia". Where are they now? Where these photos? What we have is the video and photo of tortured and killed black people, Libyans, in the eastern Libya.
2. Bad Libyan standards is a myth. It has the highest nominal pr capita GDP in Africa. And it has well developed social structure with free medicine, education etc. Now, when the western companies will get the bigger share in the oil money, they start to live better?
3. Fighting isolated in the world. With total air dominance of the enemy. And, as you say having the population against you. How that even possible??
4. "Gaddafi did use artillery and planes against cities. He even admitted this himself and said it was justified because the Americans did the same in Iraq so it was ok." He told just that he send the planes to bomb the ammunition warehouses. Tripoli was never bombed! No reason at all to bomb his supporters. Reported many times bu Al Jazeera!
I thought once it was already concluded that it is a civil war ongoing, kind of Tripolitania vs Cyrenaica. Now we are back to 90% population vs Gaddafi... boring...
Maybe you heard that Libya was not dictatorship, but Jamahiriya, translated as "state of the masses". It is a kind of direct democracy.Ans the surprise is that it really was like that! It was not just the name. There were already elections! Each tribe had its representatives. It was a well balanced system. Already democratic.
Firstly, the websites you quote of RT and mathaba are laughable. RT is a russian newspaper, and is strongly pro-russian government. Mathaba is a forum for supporters of the Green Book/Gaddafi rule. Even if western media is biased, using these two has absolutely zero credibility. Try again.
1. There have been pictures and videos of captured foreign mercenaries and their IDs and passports. If you cannot believe these pictures, so be it.
2. Look at Benghazi, and compare it with Tripoli, or Sirte, Gaddafi;s hometown. Google Benghazi Soccer team. Benghazi has suffered immensely due to unequal distribution of income, and wealth has been lavished on Tripoli and Sirte, and Sirte doesnt even have a reason for it i.e. port/mineral wealth. Benghazi was punished when soccer fans booed the match rigging by Gaddaffi's son's personal soccer club - the Benghazi soccer club was razed to the ground, the club disbanded, the soccer players imprisoned/killed, and the city as a whole ignored.
3. That is why they lost Tripoli so fast, and not the long drawn out bloody struggle as per Misurata.
4.Tripoli may never have been bombed, but benghazi definitely was. You never use tanks to put down a peaceful protest.. if you can agree to this, I think we can concur that you are insane.
On August 24 2011 10:00 askTeivospy wrote: dictatorships are a reflection of their people, ie look at egypt currently. Hell even during celebrations after whoever stepped down they mob raped that 60 minutes reporter when the lights went out
These countries have severe social problems, and taking out their dictators isn't going to make those countries suddenly a better place
Well, primarily, I suggest speaking in a grammatically correct fashion. It would be 'whomever' not 'whoever'. I think that your analogy regarding Egypt is fair in principle but not in practice. You are making gross assumptions about the mindset of an entire population without any first hand knowledge. I will admit I am also lacking in significant firsthand knowledge of the WHOLE populace, but I have traveled there three times for about two weeks a piece, and I also have a multitude of friends who have large sections of their families in Egypt while they themselves live in America (my first home).
I do think that 'these countries' (and I am making a big assumption that you mean Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia) do have social problems. These social problems are more a result of the societal disparities in wealth, which I think it is fair to say are in large part due to a totalitarian system of governance. I think that deposing these leaders (of the aforementioned countries) could potentially bring better systems of governance, less disparity, and prosperity. This will not happen overnight, but I would caution you severely against judging any group of people without knowing anything personally about them.
On August 24 2011 10:30 Arkan wrote: In 5 years from now on Libyans are going to be wishing they could go back to the days of Gaddafi. I just wonder when we Americans are going to open our eyes and see through the veil of our countries foreign policy.If you actually think NATO's whole operation in Libya was about 'saving the people' you need a reality check.
I think conspiracy theorists like yourself are the ones in need of a reality check.
This is definitely true. Conspiracy theorists frequently breed fear into situations that don't need it. If you think something is fishy about a countries actions, find some proof, then talk about it. Don't cause a scare when no one needs it, (not that you could).
It's not about NATO intentions. It is about young western people who have all the resources available swallowing every bit of propaganda spewed out by the Gaddafi regime intended for old conservative status quo oriented people who have no media access but the state media and who aren't able to think critically and independently anyway and who are used to 42 years of Gaddafi dictatorship.
Now I would add 'above average education' too but since SC2 happened that's no longer the case.
Actually it's pretty amazing. Makes you wonder if Gaddafi also hires people to spew propaganda on the internet at random paces. If not I can't expect that even Gaddafi himself could imagine these kinds of people fall for this kind of propaganda aimed towards a completely different class of people.
NATO actions are obviously biased because that's what NATO is. They aren't going to bomb for democracy. But that doesn't fucking mean dictators is what we need and reality is actually completely different from what all media, besides some far out crackpot segment on RT and the Gaddafi regime blog, say it is.
On August 24 2011 10:30 Arkan wrote: In 5 years from now on Libyans are going to be wishing they could go back to the days of Gaddafi. I just wonder when we Americans are going to open our eyes and see through the veil of our countries foreign policy.If you actually think NATO's whole operation in Libya was about 'saving the people' you need a reality check.
I think conspiracy theorists like yourself are the ones in need of a reality check.
This is definitely true. Conspiracy theorists frequently breed fear into situations that don't need it. If you think something is fishy about a countries actions, find some proof, then talk about it. Don't cause a scare when no one needs it, (not that you could).
He does have a point though. I live in a rather Muslim populated suburb and nearly all of the Iraqis that I know agree that compared to the country that Iraq is now the one under Saddam Hussein was way way way better. Standard of living was actually pretty good and the trade of a relatively safe and stable nation for "freedom" that is western corporations plundering their resources was in their opinion not really worth it.
On August 24 2011 10:27 FabledIntegral wrote: You're conspiracy theorists, just like the ones who think 9/11 was an inside job and that every single foreign policy move by Western powers is motivated by imperialism. You're also the type of people that because you're aware (like the rest of us) that the media can be very biased will take any other shoddy source that goes against the mainstream.
Some people are still able to think. They read, analyze, study, do some research, use own logic and judgment... Then they come to a certain conclusion.
Most people do not bother. They prefer to be with the masses. Easy and almost never losing strategy. It is called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformity I am interested in psychology now. "People frequently followed the majority judgment, even when the majority was wrong." I have found out that it is often does not matter how many and how good arguments you make. Most people do not use logic, they just use common beliefs and prefer to stay in the comfort zone of not having own opinion.
You mentioned 9/11 event and that you think it is not an inside job. I bet you did not collect and learn all the facts.You just were told that it is like that and you are OK with that until the majority of the people are OK with that. If we imagine for the moment, that somehow the public opinion has changed, you will follow no problem. Unlike you, I KNOW that it was not an inside job. But... there are many "buts" that I am not going to discuss here. Whatever the public thinks - I will not change my point of view.
I see no reason to reopen many argument that were close long time ago and quite obvious for now. I am just not having fun. I learn what was the life in Libya long time ago and there is not much interest left for me in the topic. I just may suggest to read that Green book. It is small and easy. You do not have to share its ideas, like you do not have to accept Islam after you have read Koran (which I also suggest). It just will give you better understanding...
There are plenty of people here who are ready to copypaste the world media news. These news are everywhere. I will add sometimes an alternative point of view, easily could be that I do not share it. I believe that a person must have all kind of different information and choose whatever suits his vision of the world. I like the freedom to know, to think, to choose.
The Libyans themselves started this civil war. Both sides decided to fight it out. NATO acted as an air force of one side. That's it. You can't even dream to compare this with Iraq.\
GeyzeR, everything you brought up has not only been false, but extremely embarrassing. I bet I could do a way way better job defending Gaddafi if I tried.
So then you decide to go on an off topic rant? Why still bother. No one will take you seriously. Also, I think you need to have a debate on morality with yourself. What you are doing is immoral.
Actually, considering you tell us to read the Green Book, which is an extremely strange thing to suggest, this is pretty fishy. No normal person would ever suggest this.
Is this a hoax? Does Gaddafi really pay you? You are a son of someone in the Gaddafi regime? This can't be for real.
Some people really needs to stop viewing the world in a simple black and white fashion. Not all countries that have their "evil" regimes toppled made a turn for the better. Whether Libya would emerge from this a better country or the next Congo is not all clear cut.
EPT
.
