On August 29 2011 03:55 piratekaybear wrote: Here is an interview by RT with an activist who was in Tripoli throughout the NATO war campaign.
Good that some media (RT alot lately) is actually deep-interviewing activists in Libya instead of cherry picking what suits their own narrative.
Prove she was in Tripoli at all.
Or should we just take the unbiased, neutral source that is RT as fact?
See how this works?
Anyone else think that her story's a bit odd? She's apparently an eye-witness, yet half-way through her "eye-witness" account, she starts talking about How Good Ghadaffi was, and How Bad The Rebels are, and then turns to speculating about NATO's goals. She also, incidentally doesn't say *where* in Libya she was.
On August 27 2011 14:51 Nightfall.589 wrote: Please show us a single video of the MILLION Ghadaffi supporters that apparently took to the streets.
I've seen youtube videos taken by a civilian, driving his car past loyalist APCs, jeeps, troops... Yet for some reason, nobody in that crowd of a million people had a cell phone.
Oh, right, your source is Prvada. Do they even have a correspondent in Libya? Does he have access to a camera? Or, perhaps, far more likely, they are just making shit up - as they have since the October revolution.
You want a video showing a million people loyal to Gadaffi?
Well that was easy.
Edit: too easy. Here's another million person rally. This time in Al Ajaylat, Libya.
And how do we know that these videos weren't filmed 5 years ago? Has a single source, besides the Lybian government provided evidence that these actually happened, this year? That all these people are out there of their own free will? Does Pravda have their own photographs of them? No? Didn't think so.
All that they show is... A rally. And a voiceover. Oh, and a lot of military hardware that's sitting around, doing fuck all, instead of, you know, fighting rebels. Which is what it has been doing for the past four months. Something doesn't add up.
If they like him so much, why didn't all these people fight for him? How is it that a bunch of rebels with looted weapons manage to defeat both his army, and his supporters? Are his supporters by any chance also followers of Ghandi?
Think I can re-upload and re-name this video, and claim that yesterday there is a million person pro-communist rally in Russia? (Do I get bonus points if someone believes that these people are out there on their own free will?)
Critical thinking - something that quite a few people need to apply to the mountains of conspiracy theories. Before they post them.
Edit: fixed spelling error
To be quite honest, I don't think you spent much time analyzing just what you are asking me to do in order for us to have a conversation about Libya. For instance, I am confused about what you could possibly be asking me to do with your link to the Russian May Day Rally.
To open your eyes, and apply the same level of critical thinking that you and your friends try to level against the Mainstream Media (As if it were a monolithic entity) to the bullshit spewed by Pravda. As a Russian, I'm pretty sure I can safely say that that newspaper is a government mouthpiece.
. And btw what does Pravda have to do so much about the million person rally which occurred 2 months ago?
Everything. They claim the rally occurred 2 months ago. There is a video of a rally, with a lot of people.
What that video is lacking, is any evidence that it actually occurred 2 months ago, instead of 2 years ago. Neither you, nor Pravda have contemplated that question - instead, you take Ghadaffi's word at face value.
If Pravda is a legitimate news organisation, they aren't doing their job. They provide no independent verification of the claims made by the regime. (And they actually are based in a country with a Vast 'Mainstream' Media Conspiracy. Journalists in Russia have a habit of turning up dead, when they don't sing the party line.)
That was one source, and as I have said in an earlier post you no doubt read, that this stuff (these pro-Gadaffi rallies) are all over youtube. You simply haven't searched to see them. I expect no less that you are that much more inclined to know absolutely nothing about any remote possibility that America might be lying to war us again; like it happened in Iraq, like it has happened continuously throughout American history?
And have you considered the remote possibility that remote possibility that Ghadaffi is lying to us? Especially when his life is on the line? Don't you think some independent verification of his claims should be made? (Instead of copy and pasting them, and posting them as news?)
Come on man, the big Iraq-War Lying scandal only happened less than ten years ago.
And the Bush administration caught a good amount of shit for it, both during, and after the invasion. Incidently, ridiculous conspiracy theories were not necessary to explain Iraq.
If all of those people were at the rally, then why aren't there a million people in the streets fighting the rebels in Tripoli right now? Think about what it takes for someone to take up arms and kill someone.
Not all that much, as it turns out,considering that the rebels are doing it pretty well.
Now task that to a civilian who can be speculated by the present evidence that at least a million civilians support Gadaffi by showing up to a rally - the kind of person who attended the million person rally was a civilian because Libya's military just isn't big or a primary focus of government expenditure; unlike in the NATO countries.
If he's such a pacifist, then why Ghadaffi was working on acquiring WMDs (He admitted to doing so, and destroyed his stockpiles, in the previous decade)?
Is that why in a country of six million people, he has a standing army of 50,000? That's one percent of the population - which is substantially more then that of most non-conscripting NATO countries.
Okay, add to the fact of the rather large population of civilians who attended the million person rally, all of the reports that black citizens of Libya and foreign blacks are being massacred, tortured, beheaded, and all sorts of f*ed up at the hands of the rebels.
I've no doubt that abuses happen. I've also no doubt that Ghadaffi's forces committed abuses. It's too early to tell what they were. The dust hasn't settled yet.
For all we know, the executed soldiers were executed by the loyalists, for refusing to fight. Or they may have been executed by rebels after surrendering. You must consider both possibilities, not one - and there's insufficient evidence to make that kind of call.
Again, show us solid evidence that supports your claim. Not hearsay. Not evidence that can be used to support either side of the story. Not isolated cases. Evidence of systematic ethnic cleansing. We're talking about mass grave type stuff, here.
Also, you asked how it could be that a rebel army that loots weapons can destroy the Libyan governments army? Well, they do have NATO bombing support, and Military weapons shipments from France and the USA so....tech advantage for sure. Pick between two armies: an American tech supplied army and a Libyan we-didn't-focus-on-our-military-because-we-don't-care-to-spend-as-much-as-you-guys-do-making-war tech supplied army - I'd pick the American every time.
The tech is not worth as much as you'd imagine, when you don't know how to use it. Air support is also near-useless during in-city fighting.
While we're on the subject, is Al Jezeera part of the Vast Western Media Conspiracy? Because they certainly don't share your views. Or do you define someone to belong to the "Vast Western Media Conspiracy," purely based on whether or not they parrot Ghadaffi?
Damn bro, get off Pravda's nutsack already! You're riding them harder than they're riding the western mainstream media! Pravda may be a mouthpiece of someone somewhere, but you're at the least admitting that other news sources are mouthpieces of someone else; ahem, all those western media reports you've been gagging on. I put as much faith in Pravda as I do any other media, which is to say I make up for the difference by taking as many varied sources as I can find and adding them together. In this mixture, the NATO narrative just doesn't add up. All the sources in this thread seem to say this much. Moreover you said of Pravda, "And they actually are based in a country with a Vast 'Mainstream' Media Conspiracy. Journalists in Russia have a habit of turning up dead, when they don't sing the party line." Yeah, in the west, if a journalist doesn't sing the party line they simply don't get the job or they're fired. The result is the same sans the dead man, but a mouthpiece is heard.
I'll assume both of us aren't in Libya right now, so any sort of arguments that we make for or against the actual happening of atrocities by either side must be answered by shortail findings we discover on the internet or otherwise. So I'm not required to have a genocidal list of all the mass graves the rebels may or may not have dug. The rebels aren't like that. They're a hodgepodge of tribes, al qaeda, corrupt politicians, and racist blood freaks who do as they want as they're willing to do it.
Besides, what do you want me to source about the rebel black massacres? They're finally getting all over the media. Just look outside your television box, and search some independent news sites already. Do us all in this thread that favor because its becoming more and more obvious to me that you haven't attempted to get the roundest of pictures about Libya nor her people. This requires that you at least attempt to view other sources outside of your particular sphere of mainstream media.
You earlier made note of the 50,000 figure of Libyan Army, but that has not much to do with dollars per soldier spent since if we made this calculation the American supplied army obviously has the advantage. Quality over quantity.
Yeah, Bush got a lot of shit for lying to take us into Iraq, but thats just simply not enough. When someone lies to take us to war they don't deserve jokes and some hazing, THEY DESERVE TO BE PUT IN JAIL. IMO Bush has gotten lucky so far that he was a criminal president of the most powerful nation on Earth. Otherwise he'd be like Mubarak or any other criminal leader alleged-Gadaffi or otherwise. Besides, the point of the earlier remark was that the whole media in the west was complicit in spreading the lie message of Bush which took us into one of longest and costliest wars in American history, and now the western media is doing us again.
No one is saying Gadaffi is a pacifist. He attempted to get WMD's but the other big dog nations like the USA and France, and a whole host of other countries have them; I guess Libya just isn't a big enough kid not to be bullied on the playground? Besides he fully cooperated with the UN by disarming the program. At least he follows the UN guidelines..unlike NATO/US. Jeez, how many times has NATO overstepped UN resolution 1973 already? I lost count..
I conclude this particular piece by heading back to your first remarks in your last post, that some treat the mainstream media as if its some sort of monolithic something or another..well I don't think thats true. There are really six big media corporations for the whole of western media at least as far as I know the US; http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4923173 - and also see http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main Generally one would say of this vertically structured media trend that it would be quite easy to adversely effect many people with a few ideas. How about we fight this and get the whole of world news? I've seen the CNN, the MSN, the BBC, the Guardian, the New York Times on Libya, and they have yet to cover the real roundness of the issues. Good for all those sites that actually question the NATO narrative, they get all the traffic from those people willing to see outside their own mainstream media sphere.
I am curios to understand why there are still people that support NATO actions and rebels...
1. Brainwashed and the ideas "western media lies, NATO is bad, Gaddafi is not that bad and has support" simply cannot fit their brains. Same as atheistic ideas will not fit into believer head.
2. Realize that NATO actions are good for West and support them no matter what.
3. It's their job because internet and forums is the only place for truth now so THEY have to hire people to gain some control and protect the media lies. Sounds crazy, but who knows...
Also I like the collection of Anti-NATO Rebel Alliance & Pro Government Demonstrations in Libya http://waterput.yolasite.com/english/nato-has-declared-war-on-millions-of-green-libyans Compare it with hundreds of rebels we could see... How someone having seen the video can still believe that there is no support of Gaddafi in the country. "These people were forced to come by bloody regime"... they are looking for any absurd reason, but not willing to accept the truth.
Ottawa man in Libya pleads for help Posted: Aug 23
An Ottawa man says Libyan rebels have threatened to kill him in a Tripoli, Libya hotel because of his anti-NATO reports.
Mahdi Nazemroaya, who calls himself an independent journalist, has been reporting on the events in Libya for various outlets including Al Jazeera and Russia Today.
The Iranian-Canadian has videos on Youtube from Tripoli that show him accuse the mainstream media of misinforming the world.
Nazemroaya has also put out reports believing Moammar Gadhafi's regime will defend the compound and it seems rebels have seen these reports and are now threatening him
.
Funny how they don't mention his name on the title
Nightfall.589, update yourself. It was already in the topic. It is official from the NATO side.
-------------------
11.000 islamists and prisoners released (they call them all political prisoners). Carnage and chaos now in Tripoli. The rebel are hunting for blacks and "wrong" Libyans.
GeyzeR do you just read news reports then presume that the exact opposite of what the reports say is what's actually happening? Seems that way to me...
People at my work were talking about Libya a lot today, some of them know people from the region and are muslims who follow events in the whole muslim world very closely and they seem to have legitimate reasons for supporting the rebels.
I just don't know what to say to people who genuinely believe that Gaddafi has any credibility whatsoever.
On August 29 2011 08:46 jello_biafra wrote: GeyzeR do you just read news reports then presume that the exact opposite of what the reports say is what's actually happening? Seems that way to me...
People at my work were talking about Libya a lot today, some of them know people from the region and are muslims who follow events in the whole muslim world very closely and they seem to have legitimate reasons for supporting the rebels.
I just don't know what to say to people who genuinely believe that Gaddafi has any credibility whatsoever.
na...he was just presenting some news and talking about the other event related to the attacks on black Lybians, and that probably it will be later blamed on Ghaddafi.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen "We have destroyed some 5,000 civilian targets with no loss"
he said military targets
this is the reason why no one wants to listen to people like you except other people like you, you are so transparently propagandistic and wedded to your philosophy that you'll say anything and use any source to push your view which is fueled by hatred.
you'll talk on and on and on about how people are being killed by the rebels you dont say anything about the people killed by qaddafi for 40 years
no one would be rebels if he hadnt bent the country over for 4 decades
you'll say we're handing the country over to alqaeda as if qaddafi wasnt an enemy too
e-warrior business must be getting lucrative these days if even moammar qaddafi has strident and dedicated propagandists for him
well that last sentence isnt serious you arent pro-qaddafi you're just radically anti-west
Anders Fogh Rasmussen "We have destroyed some 5,000 civilian targets with no loss"
he said military targets
this is the reason why no one wants to listen to people like you except other people like you, you are so transparently propagandistic and wedded to your philosophy that you'll say anything and use any source to push your view which is fueled by hatred.
you'll talk on and on and on about how people are being killed by the rebels you dont say anything about the people killed by qaddafi for 40 years
no one would be rebels if he hadnt bent the country over for 4 decades
you'll say we're handing the country over to alqaeda as if qaddafi wasnt an enemy too
e-warrior business must be getting lucrative these days if even moammar qaddafi has strident and dedicated propagandists for him
well that last sentence isnt serious you arent pro-qaddafi you're just radically anti-west
yap he said military targets.
anyway whats the problem of being anti-west imperialism?
Anders Fogh Rasmussen "We have destroyed some 5,000 civilian targets with no loss"
he said military targets
this is the reason why no one wants to listen to people like you except other people like you, you are so transparently propagandistic and wedded to your philosophy that you'll say anything and use any source to push your view which is fueled by hatred.
you'll talk on and on and on about how people are being killed by the rebels you dont say anything about the people killed by qaddafi for 40 years
no one would be rebels if he hadnt bent the country over for 4 decades
you'll say we're handing the country over to alqaeda as if qaddafi wasnt an enemy too
e-warrior business must be getting lucrative these days if even moammar qaddafi has strident and dedicated propagandists for him
well that last sentence isnt serious you arent pro-qaddafi you're just radically anti-west
the whole western TV/governments are transparently propagandistic. just saying man, just saying...
i mean seriously... it's true. we're being fed propaganda so heavily right now... it's so much worse than a dude in an internet forum... maybe you are focusing on the wrong people....
"Nous avons détruit quelque 5.000 cibles sans aucune perte civile"
your right he didn't say civil targets (i translate the article in google.
It should be then "We have destroyed some 5,000 targets with no civil loss"
Now note that he said "targets" that could mean either civil or military so he is being ambiguous.
Secondly he claims that the attacks of NATO produced ZERO civil victims. ZERO civilian casualties.
He is obviously lying, you can try and portrait me how ever you want but you can't deny that this man is blatantly lying.
I'll end with this.
GeyzeR
I am curios to understand why there are still people that support NATO actions and rebels...
1. Brainwashed and the ideas "western media lies, NATO is bad, Gaddafi is not that bad and has support" simply cannot fit their brains. Same as atheistic ideas will not fit into believer head.
2. Realize that NATO actions are good for West and support them no matter what.
3. It's their job because internet and forums is the only place for truth now so THEY have to hire people to gain some control and protect the media lies. Sounds crazy, but who knows...
Also I like the collection of Anti-NATO Rebel Alliance & Pro Government Demonstrations in Libya http://waterput.yolasite.com/english/nato-has-declared-war-on-millions-of-green-libyans Compare it with hundreds of rebels we could see... How someone having seen the video can still believe that there is no support of Gaddafi in the country. "These people were forced to come by bloody regime"... they are looking for any absurd reason, but not willing to accept the truth.
EPT
