EPT31 aug 2011
Mahdi gives some insight into his last few days in Libya (Independed Journalist who was in Libya)
Libyan Uprising - Page 152
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. | ||
|
Saji
Netherlands262 Posts
31 aug 2011 Mahdi gives some insight into his last few days in Libya (Independed Journalist who was in Libya) | ||
|
GeyzeR
250 Posts
On September 01 2011 17:19 sunprince wrote: You're lying. It's not a major newspaper at all; all major Ivory Coast newspapers can be found in this list here. Furthermore, this website was only created in April, and it's commenters are overwhelmingly Gaddafi supporters (if they're not sockpuppets). It's most likely just another part of Gaddafi's propaganda machine. On top of that, the story is also ridiculous. There is no such Canadian warship named the "Charlestown"; the closest would be the HMCS Charlottetown, which left Libya a week ago. If three NATO helicopters were actually shot down it would be all over the news the way it always is when one is shot down. The source claims Serge Djibre is a special correspondent of "Voice of Abidjan", my mistake. Still cannot find neither Serge Djibre not "Voice of Abidjan". All these news reports is time consuming with crosschecking, I skipped the check this time. It is easy with western media, they all say the same. Could be really fake. I will check and update on this. I already have seen fake proGaddafi news, mostly old video, presented as new, but filtered them out. | ||
|
Saji
Netherlands262 Posts
Published: 01 September, 2011 A contact group comprising 60 countries, aka “Friends of Libya”, is meeting on Thursday in Paris to discuss the future of the country post-Gaddafi. Envoys from Russia and China – the critics of the NATO campaign – will also attend the conference. France and Britain, the hosts of the conference, are expected to attempt to deliver a message to the international community that NATO’s costly military intervention in Libya was a success and will guarantee a smooth transition of power while avoiding the mistakes of Iraq. “The objective is to turn the page and get behind the new authority," Reuters quoted a French government source as saying. “[Iraq] was a successful military operation, but a failed political transition. We have to learn from that… We have to stand alongside the National Transitional Council, but not impose anything on them." The conference agenda is likely to include the discussion of possible loans to Libya’s new governing authority in order to help finance rebuilding of the country’s infrastructure. Several nations have already asked the UN Sanctions Committee to release billions of dollars of Libyan assets frozen by sanctions http://rt.com/news/conference-future-libya-russia-609/ RT claims that that a deal has reported that France will get a third of Libya's entire oil reserve (so do different sources) Times of Malta France has secured a deal with Libya's rebel interim rulers to exploit a third of the country's oil reserves, the daily Liberation reported today, citing a letter to the emir of Qatar. Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said he "had no knowledge" of a "formal accord" but it was "logical" that countries like France which helped the National Transitional Council take power should take part in reconstruction. Liberation said a letter from the NTC dated April 3 informed the emir, another major backer of the revolt, of a deal "to assign 35 percent of crude oil to France in exchange for its total and permanent support of our Council." The report was an embarrassment for France as it prepared to host later on Thursday a meeting of world leaders and senior officials dubbed "friends of Libya" to win recognition for the NTC and its interim rule in Libya. On August 29, the Italian oil giant ENI signed its own deal with the NTC to restart its oil production in Libya and restart a major gas pipeline running from the Libyan oil fields under the Mediterranean to Italy. http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110901/world/france-strikes-oil-deal-with-new-libyan-regime.382852 sources reporting the same http://www.businesslive.co.za/africa/africa_markets/2011/09/01/france-strikes-oil-deal-with-new-libyan-regime http://www.thelocal.fr/1029/20110901/ http://en.rian.ru/world/20110901/166352196.html Info about Libya Oils reserve http://www.businessinsider.com/libya-oil-exports-2011-2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Libya http://www.oilandgaslibya.com/ http://sepmstrata.org/Libya-Hassan/Petroleum-History-Libya.html Libya is considered a highly attractive oil area due to its low cost of oil production (as low as $1 per barrel at some fields) | ||
|
Xe(-_-)Ro
Canada69 Posts
| ||
|
Saji
Netherlands262 Posts
CNN's Nic Robertson reports on a group of African migrants in Libya who are accused of being Gadhafi loyalists. http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2011/08/31/robertson.libya.african.jails.cnn | ||
|
Reedjr
United States228 Posts
On September 01 2011 16:48 GeyzeR wrote: Guys, we have too much debate over sources etc and this ruins the topic. The debate will never end because you say "Give me the confirmation from X that X is guilty". Simple logic suggests that it may be difficult. Instead I object the statement: "Only X can be legit source of information". For me a newspaper from Ivory Coast is also a source. There is a world outside of the West, you know. We have debate on the sources because you and Saji asked us to. And we have found that they're basically complete BS. When one is in a debate, the quality of the information is what matters, not the quantity, and I could get subject matter of better quality out of my toilet. Oh, Saji, since you love Wikipedia as a source so much: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaddafi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Libyan_civil_war#Massacres Your homeboy doesn't look so good in those. But those are the bad kind of Wikipedia articles and the ones you're using are the good ones, right? Edit: typo. | ||
|
Saji
Netherlands262 Posts
On September 02 2011 00:03 Reedjr wrote: We have debate on the sources because you and Saji asked us to. And we have found that they're basically complete BS. When one is in a debate, the quality of the information is what matters, not the quantity, and I could get subject matter of better quality out of my toilet. Oh, Saji, since you love Wikipedia as a source so much: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaddafi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Libyan_civil_war#Massacres Your homeboy doesn't look so good in those. But those are the bad kind of Wikipedia articles and the ones you're using are the good ones, right? Edit: typo. Reedjr why dont you go find a post of mine were i`m saying gadaffi is good that, gadaffi has done nothing wrong do it i dare you? Cause if your trying to discredit me like this i can go on and on and on about USA history and hold you accountable for it (which you arent). why don't you put more effort in discrediting me why dont you go and discreditc the article and news I post. Otherwise don't go on an try to attack me on personal level thats just low and nothing intellectual about it cause werent you the one that said "You're not engaging in an actual intellectual discussion." Peace | ||
|
Reedjr
United States228 Posts
On September 02 2011 00:40 Saji wrote: why don't you put more effort in discrediting me why dont you go and discreditc the article and news I post. I have discredited several of your sources, and you ignore it. What else can I do to prove you're trolling? You chose to not have an intellectual discussion by ignoring all critiques of your sources. I tried, and you're not interested. Before we can move on, you need to address my critiques, not ignore them. Otherwise, I may as well be trying to prove that we aren't powered by tiny gnomes inside of us. | ||
|
Saji
Netherlands262 Posts
On September 02 2011 01:15 Reedjr wrote: I have discredited several of your sources, and you ignore it. What else can I do to prove you're trolling? You chose to not have an intellectual discussion by ignoring all critiques of your sources. I tried, and you're not interested. Before we can move on, you need to address my critiques, not ignore them. Otherwise, I may as well be trying to prove that we aren't powered by tiny gnomes inside of us. Right so your points of critics are: (1) transparency of donations and the (2) age/history of a site (am i missing another one?) Explain how do those point mentioned by you discredit the information posted on the source i posted? Because i fail to see how those points mentioned by you question the validity (i.e. is the false or not) of the information posted on it. Care to explain why those point you mentioned are important in discrediting the source i.e. the information posted on it? (to show if the information posted on the source is false or not) I think if we can establish what is a credible source we can move this discussion instead of constantly bickering with each other. how does that sound? | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On September 02 2011 02:01 Saji wrote: Right so your points of critics are: (1) transparency of donations and the (2) age/history of a site (am i missing another one?) Explain how do those point mentioned by you discredit the information posted on the source i posted? Because i fail to see how those points mentioned by you question the validity (i.e. is the false or not) of the information posted on it. Care to explain why those point you mentioned are important in discrediting the source i.e. the information posted on it? (to show if the information posted on the source is false or not) I think if we can establish what is a credible source we can move this discussion instead of constantly bickering with each other. how does that sound? A source that was nonexistent three months ago can hardly be considered credible. Sure, it might be true for all we know, but credible? | ||
|
Saji
Netherlands262 Posts
On September 02 2011 02:17 FabledIntegral wrote: A source that was nonexistent three months ago can hardly be considered credible. Sure, it might be true for all we know, but credible? So even if it might be true its still not credible? Can we establish what credible means then cause apparently we have different opinion of what when something is credible (credibility) | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On September 01 2011 20:39 Xe(-_-)Ro wrote: Why is this thread not being moderated this garbage has gone on long enough, seriously. Seriously. I used to come to this thread for news about the Libyan Uprising, and now half of it is just BS from RT and other "alternate news"/conspiracy sites/propaganda posted by Geyzer and Saji. On September 02 2011 02:28 Saji wrote: So even if it might be true its still not credible? Can we establish what credible means then cause apparently we have different opinion of what when something is credible (credibility) If you have problems with understanding what a credible source is, please limit yourself to articles which appear on Google news and are grouped with a thousand or more of the same article from different sources. | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On September 02 2011 02:28 Saji wrote: So even if it might be true its still not credible? Can we establish what credible means then cause apparently we have different opinion of what when something is credible (credibility) Just because something might be true does not mean it should be trusted. I could make up a whole bunch of lies about something, some of which will end up being true just due to the sheer volume of lies, but that doesn't make all my lies true. Neither would my lies be true if I sprinkled in some truth in between my lies (no matter if I take them from my own or external sources). A credible source is a source which is unlikely to be incorrect, and one that corrects its mistakes should it notice it has made one. | ||
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On September 02 2011 02:28 Saji wrote: So even if it might be true its still not credible? Can we establish what credible means then cause apparently we have different opinion of what when something is credible (credibility) Being credible and being truthful are two different things. Credibility is being trustworthy to be truthful/factually correct. When you don't know if something is true or not, you rely on credibility to determine if you believe it or not. For example, as an inexperienced engineer, I could say something 100% factually correct and not be believed due to my credibility. At the same time, my boss could say something 100% wrong and be believed without question. | ||
|
ImFromPortugal
Portugal1368 Posts
Reuters reported the Libya's Muammar Gaddafi called on his supporters to set Libya alight, vowed that his backers would not give up and said those against him were divided, news channels reported. "Let there be a long fight and let Libya be engulfed in flames," Gaddafi was quoted as saying in a message. Brief headlines outlining the message were first carried by Al Arabiya television. It said it was citing a message to be broadcast by the Syrian-owned al-Rai channel, which later issued similar headlines. Al-Rai said a voice message would follow. "We will not give up. We are not women. We will continue fighting," Gaddafi was quoted as saying in a headline carried by al-Rai channel. http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/libya-sep-1-2011-1737 Go Ghaddafi \o | ||
|
GeyzeR
250 Posts
On September 01 2011 18:42 GeyzeR wrote: The source claims Serge Djibre is a special correspondent of "Voice of Abidjan", my mistake. Still cannot find neither Serge Djibre not "Voice of Abidjan". All these news reports is time consuming with crosschecking, I skipped the check this time. It is easy with western media, they all say the same. Could be really fake. I will check and update on this. I already have seen fake proGaddafi news, mostly old video, presented as new, but filtered them out. It was a fake news, at least with many unconfirmed claims. There are quite a number of them, fake proGaddafi news, right after the battle for Tripoli started. I wonder why and who generates them... I have a busy period now and stop following Libya deeply. The west has already won and Libyans have already lost no matter how it will continue. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
The report was an embarrassment for France as it prepared to host later on Thursday a meeting of world leaders and senior officials dubbed "friends of Libya" to win recognition for the NTC and its interim rule in Libya. I can tell the Times of Malta is biased because how is the report "embarrassing" unless you have a political reason to find it embarrassing? | ||
|
Reedjr
United States228 Posts
On September 02 2011 02:28 Saji wrote: So even if it might be true its still not credible? Can we establish what credible means then cause apparently we have different opinion of what when something is credible (credibility) First off, those sites I listed do not contain any of the documented and verified human rights abuses that can be seen in Amnesty International (perhaps the most well-respected human rights organization on the planet), and I do not see those claims verified anywhere else. If these sites were unbiased and truly concerned with human rights, they would present possible human rights violations from both sides. This is why it is necessary to see where the funding is coming from. A .org should be a charitable organization, yet no charity claims to support or fund it. Instead, they have a very direct and clear agenda (to fuel dissent/doubt with Western involvement and the validity of the rebellion). Being incredibly biased towards one side of a hot-button issue is a clear sign that something should not be taken at face value. Time is a component of credibility. I could make a site right now, post a bunch of links and make up a bunch of stories, and you would be right to call BS on all of it. The onus is on the new organization to demonstrate that its content is true. I'm former MN Governor Jesse "The Body" Ventura, after all. I mean, I've had this profile since April, so that should be more than enough time to believe everything I claim is true, right? | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On September 02 2011 02:28 Saji wrote: So even if it might be true its still not credible? Can we establish what credible means then cause apparently we have different opinion of what when something is credible (credibility) I'm saying that there's no way to verify if the claims the sources are making are true. They might be credible, and they might be telling the truth, but there's no way to verify. Which is why you need credible sources to verify. I'm not going to trust anything the National Inquirer or Globe says, even if 70% of what they say is true. Because it's not a credible source. | ||
|
Aurocaido
Canada288 Posts
| ||
| ||
