On August 24 2011 09:48 BlackAut wrote: u surprised that the damn al quida is an american creation (back then gainst the russians) k go check it out, if i lie don t troll me then plx :3
That's a terrible lack of understanding. I feel compelled to explain a bit of the history behind this statement. Allow me:.............
Thus spawned to global terror threat, Al Qaeda.
That's all for now. The rest has been/is unfolding today.
Im afraid this is a totally flawed history of what actually occurred. Voluminous analysis does not necessary mean sounder
No. It's an entirely accurate account of history. I know that the CIA provided funding to Zia ul Haq before the Soviet invasion. No where have I stated otherwise. Indeed, part of the reason the Soviets invaded was due to the growing Islamist insurgency, propped up by Pakistan, which received funding from the US. Thats only part of it though. Your own analysis fails to include deep seeded ethnic and interparty tensions, including among the Parcham and Khalq communist ruling parties. You need to get your conclusions straight. What I said was that Al Qaeda flourished as a result of support and subsequent ignoring of the Mujahedin. You didn't miss that, did you? Go back and read it. The CIA never directly established Al Qaeda - what are you talking about?
I can't believe you just had the audacity to pronounce that the entire account I gave was totally flawed when you pointed out absolutely no flaws. Ridiculous.
On August 25 2011 02:34 zalz wrote: (Mercenaries? Do you even fucking know what that word means...a CIA agent or an SAS agent is not a mercenary)
A mercenary is someone who works for a private military company (PMC). And they are in Libya.
How many special agents do you need to coordinate the rebels? What are the estimates for the rebel force? Khamis brigade is about 3500-4000 soldiers now.
French Foreign Legion fights. Are you sure it is not there? What kind of French special forces do you thinks are there?
On August 25 2011 02:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Earlier today. As the Journalists in Rixos are free now.
Interesting, so that's where they all went. You'd think being on top of a roof filming Gadaffi forces is quite dangerous, but seeing as they didn't even get spotted I wonder if there are any rebel snipers positioned around the roofs to combat the Gadaffi snipers in the forests. I feel like if the rebels start taking ground, the Gadaffi fighters might threaten the journalists held up in the hotel as a last resort.
I also wonder if the rebels have use of motors themselves, or if they're going to depend on NATO airstrikes to rid the forests of snipers. Otherwise it might take quite a while for them to finally control Tripoli, cause snipers with good cover can hold out tons of ground troops. Then there's the decision of actually using airstrikes on the forest, destroying what looks like a very pretty area.
A mercenary is someone who works for a private military company (PMC). And they are in Libya.
Even if that was the correct way to define the word mercenary (and it's not incase you are stupid enough to think it is) you would still be wrong because there are no PMC employees deployed in Libya.
In the real world you have to provide evidence for the shit you come up with whilst bored or the stuff you pull out of RT or the north-korean news agency. All you got is a big clutter of conspiracy bullshit websites that quote each other endlessly, creating one giant loop of links that will take years to unravel.
It's the equivalent of wrapping a hundred wires together and asking someone to tell you how long the green wire is. It's gonna take him more then an hour to unravel the mess and discover there ain't no green wire. But rather then saying sorry for making that shit up you hand them a thousand wires bundled up in one giant mess and tell them to find the red wire.
You just keep passing on so much false bullshit information that nobody in his right mind can shift through it all and even if they bother with it, you just either come up with new bullshit info for wich there is no hard proof or you link to some website wich did the bullshit creating.
How many special agents do you need to coordinate the rebels? What are the estimates for the rebel force? Khamis brigade is about 3500-4000 soldiers now.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Absolutely no clue. You are just pulling numbers out of your ass.
You don't even understand what evidence means. You don't even require evidence to believe something. The only requirement is that it suits your worldview. Start producing evidence rather then more idiotic links about how there are airborne regiments landing in Tripoli but they all have fucking invisible cloaks on so they can't be caught on camera.
French Foreign Legion fights. Are you sure it is not there? What kind of French special forces do you thinks are there?
Are you sure it's not there? How old are you? Have you never been properly tought logical reasoning? It doesn't work like that.
YOU make the claim that the french foreign legion is fighting in Libya. YOU have to produce the evidence. A link to some bullshit site funded by Gaddaffi doesn't equall evidence. Someone saying "there are martians in Washington" does not equall evidence.
If you want to prove there are french foreign legions fighting in Libya then produce hard evidence.
Audio tapes, phone calls, emails, pictures, videos, or maybe just a paycheck. Moving the world leaves a paper trail, if there really was an airborne regiment landing in Tripoli then there would be traces, hard evidence, that you can find. But all you got is some nobody claiming that it's happening without any shred of evidence.
You are mentally unable to filter information and are the victim to the whims of children that conjure up stories that would be outlandish in a James Bond movie. You never managed to learn to judge sources on their credibility and thus like a sponge you just absorb everything, unable to protect yourself from falsehoods.
If the Foreign Legion was in Libya someone would have spotted them. It's the Foreign Legion for crying out loud.
The only mention of Special forces was Germany sent to protect it's Diplomats in Tripoli at the start of the battle. Then there was the SAS unit guarding a junior Diplomat on his way to meet the NTC way back during the early days of the uprising, they were caught.
zalz, you are wrong "The Associated Press – May 13, 2011 BENGHAZI, Libya — The head and founder of a French military contracting company was killed in an accidental discharge of a weapon in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi as he was arguing about his team getting arrested"
What can stop NATO of bringing in trained soldiers, better with Arabic appearance, from Qatar or Jordan for example? I would say more, it is simply silly not to do so. It is easy to hide this fact. Even if some Qatari spotted - they are just consultants. If some people start to claim they fight - these are the crazy conspiracy theorists. Providing revels with weapons, money, air support, training, but not with soldiers?? Why?? "All the necessary measures, while excluding an occupation force". Call them advanced instructors on the battlefield. People are already OK with bombing Libyans to protect them, they will be OK with advanced instructors. It's just simple logic. I would use trained soldiers, just would not call them in this way.
Why the independent sources are less credible then the western, directly involved into the fight? Some of them, like Leonor, was never caught lying. Never. Why would western media NOT manipulate the public opinion? Maybe it has never happened in the past? You all claim that the only creditable source of the news is the media from one side involved. Even if it already was caught lying. The media from from the second side also the media of the countries not involved in the conflict, cannot be trusted. Am I the only one who find this not reasonable?
On August 25 2011 04:38 GeyzeR wrote: zalz, you are wrong "The Associated Press – May 13, 2011 BENGHAZI, Libya — The head and founder of a French military contracting company was killed in an accidental discharge of a weapon in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi as he was arguing about his team getting arrested"
A military contractor does not = a PMC in any way shape or form. It's like saying a cleaning company = a plumbing company.
What can stop NATO of bringing in trained soldiers, better with Arabic appearance, from Qatar or Jordan for example? I would say more, it is simply silly not to do so. It is easy to hide this fact. Even if some Qatari spotted - they are just consultants. If some people start to claim they fight - these are the crazy conspiracy theorists. Providing revels with weapons, money, air support, training, but not with soldiers?? Why?? "All the necessary measures, while excluding an occupation force". Call them advanced instructors on the battlefield. People are already OK with bombing Libyans to protect them, they will be OK with advanced instructors. It's just simple logic. I would use trained soldiers, just would not call them in this way.
You would do it, but we have allready concluded that you would also send CIA strategists and tacticians into the war for no logical reason.
NATO would not do this because:
1) It would be insanely easy to prove. This move would be leaked out due to the chain of command having atleast one person that would spill the beans on this or by the fact that the rebels themselves would spill the beans on this fact. The rebels are ordinary people, they wouldn't be able to keep a secret like that.
You need to understand that these perfect conspiraces from the movies don't actually exist in real life. There is always a paper trail and someone always talks when the conspiracy gets too big.
2) NATO would not do this because of the massive public backlash that this would occur. NATO hiring ordinary mercenaries? The entire leadership of NATO would be forced to resign on the spot if that leaked out.
3) You cannot move in a large number of mercenaries without anyone noticing, not the numbers you would need to fight a war.
4) NATO does not need to recruit mercenaries even if they were a pathetic institute that had to do so because they have the rebels. The rebels can fight their war, they only need the supplies and the training to match the Gaddaffi troops.
Why the independent sources are less credible then the western, directly involved into the fight? Some of them, like Leonor, was never caught lying. Never. Why would western media NOT manipulate the public opinion? Maybe it has never happened in the past?
News sources can be wrong, but that's not what you are suggesting. You are suggesting intentional large scale deceit.
As if the editor of the economist or the New York times and their ENTIRE staff is secretly working to print false stories. Not only do you suppose all the media are in on it, but not a single reporter has ever in his life felt even the slightest urge to tell a single soul that he and literally thousands of others are a part of a massive conspiracy to lie to the entire world.
I don't understand if your grasp of reality is truly lacking but can you not understand how utterly unbelievable this scenario is? Thousands upon thousands of journalists working together single-minded, not a single one of them ever breaks the scoop, not a single memo ever leaks about their new plan to lie to the world. Not a single email ends up in the wrong hands. Even wikileaks with it's 100k emails has never found a trace of this enormous conspiracy wich in scope would take up more resources then any company you can think of whilst at the same time not leaving a single paper trail.
Please tell me you understand how utterly unrealistic your scenario is, please tell me you can understand that.
Now why don't we trust independent sources? Because they refuse to allow themselves to be subjected to peer review. There is a scientific community wich tests the research that people do and by recognition of your peers your work is deemed as reliable or not reliable. If you do a lot of good research then you get a reputation as a good research. If all your work is flawed then it gets shot down.
There is also a journalist community that does the same. If the economist prints a flat out false report then their reputation would be shot to hell. They put their work out there for the reviews of their peers. Your independent sources don't, they hardly even reveal who they are.
The result is that they feel no need to keep strict to being truthfull. If they are very political they are even very likely to lie or twist the truth just to promote an ideology that they view as being so important that it trumps the truth. Anti-Americanism is one such philosophy that often warrants lying. People feel that America is evil but because it's actions aren't evil enough, they lie about the truth to make America sound as evil as they feel it should.
You can't help that you have fallen victim to these people. There are millions out there who lack the mental fortitude to sift through fact and fiction are many more whom simply accept everything as long as it fits their view. If they hate America then they will embrace all anti-American news, wether it be true or not.
Independent sources have no reputation at stake and are often highly political. The big names like the economist can be known to deliver true and indepth work and if it's not then you need only wait for the journalistic community to burn them to the ground. Without such a harsh community where lies are never tolerated, you grow people without journalistic integrity whom do poor research or simply fabricate what they want to see as news.
You all claim that the only creditable source of the news is the media from one side involved. Even if it already was caught lying. The media from from the second side also the media of the countries not involved in the conflict, cannot be trusted. Am I the only one who find this not reasonable?
You view the world too simplistic.
When you talk about China and it's journalists then you can indeed say that they are one and the same. But when you talk about America or Holland or any other western country then their journalists are not a part of that nation, they are not on their payroll, they can't be killed off like it's China.
Journalists in the west have a long set tradition of questioning government and even undermining it when they can.
A watergate scandal could only really happen in a western country. What happened to the people that revealed Watergate? What about the Vietnam papers? Where they executed? No, they lived on and died of old age. That is what western journalism is like. It's not a tool for the government, it's an indepent branch of the society that keeps the government in checks and works to reveal the truth.
zalz, too long post to answer point by point, but some I can: use Wikipedia, it is easy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_military_company "A private military company (PMC) or (Private Military or Security Companies) provide military and security services. These combatants are commonly known as mercenaries, though modern-day PMCs refer to their staff as security contractors, private military contractors" They were hired by rebels to guard Benghazi. It was an official story, you just missed it apparently. I do not understand why would armed rebels having also different kind of the western special forces want to hire a western mercenary... You see, even you missed it. Still "the entire leadership of NATO did not resign on the spot". OK, it is not NATO, it is rebels that hire. What does it change?
How do you think this kind of information is going to leak to the western world? Just through the network of "unreliable, conspiracy" media. It is funny that you think that media is just about the truth and there is no censoring at all. There are corrector, I o not know, some other people checking the material before it finishes in the news. Even if a journalist dare to tell something unwanted, he will ruin his life. And his story will not be covered by media of course. Still there are some examples of such journalist. But the waste majority accepts the rules. Journalism is called sometimes the second oldest profession in the world (a parallel with prostitution).
I'll give you some examples 1. The presenter Zahreddine Lina: Al-Jazeera has lost credibility http://www.sana.sy/fra/55/2011/07/12/357889.htm Worked many years in Al-Jazeera, now wrote a book about it. No doubt she has lost credibility as soon she says "Al-Jazeera has lost credibility" Of course her story can be found only on "conspiracy theorists" web sites, including the official sana.sy.
3. The infamous Charles Jaco Gulf War I report that CNN televised as "Live from Saudi Arabia", but after close analysis afterwards proved to be a pack of lies being televised from a studio right in the United States.
4. It does appear that manipulation of the truth when it comes to the media has for a long time been so bad, that it cost many honorable and honest reporters their careers. The best example of media manipulation as you will see comes in the following video that shows how FOX News manipulated an investigative report, and when the reporters complained, they were fired! Here is that infamous video:
There are more can be found and there are much more that cannot You just cannot blindly trust to any media, especially during the war, when media participating also in it.
5. Not exactly media, but still interesting. The infamous "Syrian gay girl" turned to be a 40 years old american. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/06/201161345554900720.html "Last Tuesday, someone claiming to be her cousin wrote on the website that Abdallah had been snatched off the street by three armed men and bundled into a car bearing a pro-government window sticker. The report caused a wave of alarm among her online followers. Supporters set up a "Free Amina Abdallah" group on the social networking site Facebook, attracting nearly 15,000 followers." One man managed to fool the people, what can we expect from the media agencies, that can alos produce fake video and audio....
On August 25 2011 02:34 zalz wrote: (Mercenaries? Do you even fucking know what that word means...a CIA agent or an SAS agent is not a mercenary)
A mercenary is someone who works for a private military company (PMC). And they are in Libya.
How many special agents do you need to coordinate the rebels? What are the estimates for the rebel force? Khamis brigade is about 3500-4000 soldiers now.
French Foreign Legion fights. Are you sure it is not there? What kind of French special forces do you thinks are there?
French Foreign Legion is not SF. They are just grunts and they are definitly not in Libya.
On August 25 2011 07:38 GeyzeR wrote: One man managed to fool the people, what can we expect from the media agencies, that can alos produce fake video and audio....
That's the whole goddamn point. It's easy for one man to fool a lot of people. It's not very easy for thousands of journalists, reporters, camera crews, SFX crews, sound crews to fool a lot of people... And keep quiet about it.
On August 25 2011 07:38 GeyzeR wrote: zalz, too long post to answer point by point, but some I can: use Wikipedia, it is easy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_military_company "A private military company (PMC) or (Private Military or Security Companies) provide military and security services. These combatants are commonly known as mercenaries, though modern-day PMCs refer to their staff as security contractors, private military contractors" They were hired by rebels to guard Benghazi. It was an official story, you just missed it apparently. I do not understand why would armed rebels having also different kind of the western special forces want to hire a western mercenary... You see, even you missed it. Still "the entire leadership of NATO did not resign on the spot". OK, it is not NATO, it is rebels that hire. What does it change?
Yeah i know what a PMC is, they problem is that you thought a military contractor is the same as a PMC.
A military contractor is just a company that aims to deliver it's services to the armed forces. When i say serves i can allready see you hard at work to twist it into providing combat forces but sadly for you that allready falls under the definition of PMC. When they talk about defense contractors they can talk about everything from producing weapons, developing new weapons or selling all the mobile toilets that an army needs.
It's just a company that has obtained a contract from the military to deliver a service. It's not a PMC in any way shape or form. If it's such a well known story then provide a reliable source for it. And i do hope it's not more french water engineers (whatever contract they had) being confused with mercenaries.
How do you think this kind of information is going to leak to the western world? Just through the network of "unreliable, conspiracy" media. It is funny that you think that media is just about the truth and there is no censoring at all. There are corrector, I o not know, some other people checking the material before it finishes in the news. Even if a journalist dare to tell something unwanted, he will ruin his life. And his story will not be covered by media of course. Still there are some examples of such journalist. But the waste majority accepts the rules. Journalism is called sometimes the second oldest profession in the world (a parallel with prostitution).
No because those unreliable conspiracy sources you use are more often then not individuals with absolutely not reach who couldn't launch an investigation into Libya if they wanted. They have neither the funds nor the personell. As a result they just make up the results of their research because they are so convinced that they allready know the truth or so political that they allready know what the truth must be.
Simple stories like the Watergate scandal allready completly refute your talk about censoring. It was utterly in the governments intrest to have that story die out. But that didn't happen, for the first time a president was forced to resign and the news was all over it. How many of those journalists got executed? Not a single one.
Journalism in the west does not exist by the grace of the government. The government is tied and bound and couldn't do anything about it if they wanted. But they aren't just bound by the rules, they simply don't want to atack journalists.
Even if a journalist dare to tell something unwanted, he will ruin his life. And his story will not be covered by media of course
Vietnam papers. You just say things but there is no basis in reality at all. If you just observe journalism you will realise there are thousands of big stories that the government might not have wanted to hear.
I'll give you some examples 1. The presenter Zahreddine Lina: Al-Jazeera has lost credibility http://www.sana.sy/fra/55/2011/07/12/357889.htm Worked many years in Al-Jazeera, now wrote a book about it. No doubt she has lost credibility as soon she says "Al-Jazeera has lost credibility" Of course her story can be found only on "conspiracy theorists" web sites, including the official sana.sy.
Nothing about her story indicates the existence of a worldwide organisition dedicated to depicting a complete fake reality. News sources and go sour, the point is that all your sources are allready sour but nobody bothers to point it out because they are insignificant and they rely on not being in the spotlight of real journalists. Look at news of the world, completely torn to the ground of their actions. That's a tabloid that got atacked so hard over an ethics violation. Standards are high in the journalistic community.
Again, not exatly indicative of a world wide conspiracy. Sure it's not proper journalism and it should be punished...wich is why it gets punished.
But one of those examples is even how a picture was made to be more anti-israel then before (the burning Quran). If anything that shows that indvidual journalists are likely to twist the truth to suit their needs. Anti-israel news like that would be impossible if this global conspiracy of western journalists existed.
But each example only shows that the journalist community is doing it's work. It's filtering out the fakers. It's like pointing at a police corps and saying they are corrupt for arresting a lot of corrupt officers. Whenever the problem is being fixed and adressed you ironically take it as proof.
3. The infamous Charles Jaco Gulf War I report that CNN televised as "Live from Saudi Arabia", but after close analysis afterwards proved to be a pack of lies being televised from a studio right in the United States. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTWY14eyMFg
CNN got a lot of shit for that and it was revealed by other journalists. The journalist community hard at work to get rid of the fakers.
4. It does appear that manipulation of the truth when it comes to the media has for a long time been so bad, that it cost many honorable and honest reporters their careers. The best example of media manipulation as you will see comes in the following video that shows how FOX News manipulated an investigative report, and when the reporters complained, they were fired! Here is that infamous video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trWcqxrQgcc
FOX has a horrible reputation for providing slanted news. They don't outright lie very often but they do twist things in such a way as to make it more favourable to their view.
Essentially they are like your unreliable sources but they have standards. Fox can't outright lie but still promotes a certain viewpoint through clever delivery of the truth. Your unreliable sources however can easily lie and often do so. They are FOX news without the standards.
There are more can be found and there are much more that cannot You just cannot blindly trust to any media, especially during the war, when media participating also in it.
Nothing you provided has however proven the existance of a conspiracy so vast that it could explain how airborne regiments are landing in Tripoli without anyone noticing it. All it shows is that the journalist community actively filters it's members.
5. Not exactly media, but still interesting. The infamous "Syrian gay girl" turned to be a 40 years old american. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/06/201161345554900720.html "Last Tuesday, someone claiming to be her cousin wrote on the website that Abdallah had been snatched off the street by three armed men and bundled into a car bearing a pro-government window sticker. The report caused a wave of alarm among her online followers. Supporters set up a "Free Amina Abdallah" group on the social networking site Facebook, attracting nearly 15,000 followers." One man managed to fool the people, what can we expect from the media agencies, that can alos produce fake video and audio....
EXACTLY!
See that's the kind of outlandish thing that inviduals can do. What would happen to a person at the economist staff saying that he was gonna pretend to be a Syrian gay girl? First the entire staff would laugh and then they would all kick him onto the curb and make sure the only job he can get is internet blogger pretending the world is being run by a shadow government.
The individual goes unchecked but in big news corporations there are many checks and bounds where everyone makes sure the other guy isn't lying so in the end nobody is lying.
At times mistakes are made but such is the fate of all things human. Nothing however indicates the existence of a massive conspiracy wich refuses to report on the movement of entire armies or violations of UN resolutions.
Yes, it is very difficult not to go off topic in the topic of Libya, because we start to discuss it further, "why this and that", "who can be trusted" etc. Strangely people discussing al Qaeda and Iraq (I skipped all that as it is really not Libya relevant) in the topic were not warned. So sorry zalz, maybe you can go on on the "media" topic, but I will be definitely temp banned if continue.
My point was that there are mercenaries working for rebels. It is a well know fact accepted also by pro-rebels media. For example: "Mercenaries joining both sides in Libya conflict" http://feb17.info/news/mercenaries-joining-both-sides-in-libya-conflict/ The only difference that "good" mercenaries are called security contractors. I do not understand your point of denying that.
There is no big news update on Libya... I found that there is quite huge "conspiracy" french speaking community and websites. For example, from an independent investigator in Tripoli, yesterday morning:
Short summary: Road from Zawiah is not secured. In Tripoli, nobody in the streets, check points every 500 meters, not a sign of "rebels" victory, lot of fights and explosions. He tried to go to Bab Al Aziziya, Kadhafi's compound, supposed to be controlled by rebels, but couldn't because that's not true. He said : "I can affirm the city is absolutely not secured". And he finished with those words : "One thing for sure : Tripoli's battle is not finished".
The 1973 UN resolution does not justify the regime change and many western politics and NATO officials said that it is not the goal of the NATO involvement.
On August 25 2011 18:00 GeyzeR wrote: Yes, it is very difficult not to go off topic in the topic of Libya, because we start to discuss it further, "why this and that", "who can be trusted" etc. Strangely people discussing al Qaeda and Iraq (I skipped all that as it is really not Libya relevant) in the topic were not warned. So sorry zalz, maybe you can go on on the "media" topic, but I will be definitely temp banned if continue.
Euhm, you haven't brought anything substantial forward. You brought out a hand full of youtube links but when i shot them all down you suddenly wanna change the subject?
My point was that there are mercenaries working for rebels. It is a well know fact accepted also by pro-rebels media.
Your point is actually not valid as i demonstrated. There isn't a single reliable source showing the presence of mercenaries in Libya. Please stop repeating falsehoods. If you claim something that outlandish you need to provide good proof, but you haven't done that.
All that you managed to produce ended up showing that you don't understand what the word "military contractor" means. You still haven't offered your apologies for that btw. You just come out with something that wrong and you don't say "im sorry, that was my mistake"?
Again, only military contractors are mentioned. That's not the same as a mercenary in any way. Stop confusing those two terms i explained it to you allready.
There is no big news update on Libya... I found that there is quite huge "conspiracy" french speaking community and websites. For example, from an independent investigator in Tripoli, yesterday morning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NRjzyELkg8 Short summary: Road from Zawiah is not secured. In Tripoli, nobody in the streets, check points every 500 meters, not a sign of "rebels" victory, lot of fights and explosions. He tried to go to Bab Al Aziziya, Kadhafi's compound, supposed to be controlled by rebels, but couldn't because that's not true. He said : "I can affirm the city is absolutely not secured". And he finished with those words : "One thing for sure : Tripoli's battle is not finished".
An independent investigator, aka, someone that doesn't show his work process to anyone and acts entirely on his own whims and political agenda.
We allready discussed how journalists can run rampant without a proper group structure wich keeps itself free from coruption by having everyone check everyone.
This is getting repetitive. I keep shooting down your points and you either change the subject or you just ignore it all together and repeat it again as if you said something new.
On August 25 2011 19:38 zalz wrote: Again, only military contractors are mentioned. That's not the same as a mercenary in any way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary "A mercenary, also known as, Professional Soldier, Soldier of Fortune, Swashbuckler, Private Military Contractor"
You cannot be wrong. Please go and change that Wikipedia article!
On August 25 2011 19:38 zalz wrote: Again, only military contractors are mentioned. That's not the same as a mercenary in any way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary "A mercenary, also known as, Professional Soldier, Soldier of Fortune, Swashbuckler, Private Military Contractor"
You cannot be wrong. Please go and change that Wikipedia article!
Yes but were they talking about Private military contractors? Or were they talking about Military contractors?
Please stop being so dishonest. You know what they were talking about in the article. I don't understand this endless urge to re-write the truth just to make it suit your political view. If you find reality disagreeing with your political view then maybe you need to adapt your standpoint rather then intentionally ignore even the meaning of words.
On August 24 2011 22:13 Mykill wrote: well credit to what gaddafi has done to help his country but i'm not sure what exactly started the uprising. and credit to UN for helping out civilians however....
TBH this whole rebel thing is kind of bullshit because the rebels lost again and again until they got UN (reads the rest of the world) to support them. There were more loyalists than rebels but the rest of the world we decided we knew best and helped the rebels until the loyalists caved. it seems to me like from the start it was a large bully vs little guy situation.
This is kind of obvious bullshit. The whole area where they were fighting before NATO airforce intervened was obvious an area with almost no support for Gaddafi at all. It was amazing that a band of rag tag people that mostly never shot a gun pushed back tanks and artillery.
Yeah it obviously caved in when these Gaddafi forces got reenforced. Also, it's pretty certain that the Gaddafi forces did several tactical retreats that caused the rebels to overextend.
In Syria the civilians are losing completely to the military power of Assad. There must not be any opposition at all against Assad, otherwise how is this possible?
One guy with a gun can suppress thousands or maybe tens of thousands of civilians. Military crack downs work in suppressing the population. Bengazi and the area around it obviously has extremely little support for Gaddafi.
Also, considering there was basically no resistance the last several days in Tripoli, even in Tripoli they must have almost no support. NATO can't do anything in Tripoli. They couldn't even try to defend the Bab al-Azizia compound after they had 6 months to prepare. It's actually pretty amazing how little support there appears to be for Gaddafi even in Tripoli.
Question is how much support they still have in other places like Sirte and if the Gaddafi loyalists are going to start some guerrilla war/terrorism.
They fought back tanks and artillery because NATO called in a no fly zone. and starting bombing Gaddafi's troops
There is no support in Tripoli because like I said NATO has forced them to cave. There was large support from what I gathered from news sources a couple months back in Tripoli
EPT
