You will be able to see the real recent rebels, not the staged nice looking you usually see on TV, normal Tripoli life (before the invasion of course), ruined by NATO school and houses, killed by bombs people including children (attention, graphic images!), very angry at NATO Libyans...
Try to match it with your understanding that 90% of Libyans support NATO rebels, and minor civil casualties are just a collateral damage when bombing military objects (like school, houses...) on the way to democracy (or sharia law, as it turned out, or who knows what will happen). And maybe at least a tiny spark of doubt will arise in your mind, if we, the West, are doing the right thing.
What the fuck is this. If 90% of the Libyan people support the NATO intervention then you still have to account for the other 10%, don't you? Besides, noone's expecting people to be happy about having their shit bombed, although I do recall that one guy who got hit by NATO bombs somewhere earlier in this thread and forgave them and was still happy that they were helping. Takes a strong mind for that.
And with that out of the way, how do you even know NATO did that? All I see is a broken building and a lot of distressed people and dead bodies. I'm not saying NATO didn't do it, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if it really is the case, but you should confirm that before claiming it as fact.
Lastly,
on the way to democracy (or sharia law, as it turned out, or who knows what will happen)
Who knows what will happen...? Well apparently you since you just claimed that it turned out to be Sharia law. Even if it does turn out that way, who are you to say that they can't have that as their legal system? This is just retarded.
Thank you for the videos though. They're interesting, although there's nothing new in them.
What the fuck is this. If 90% of the Libyan people support the NATO intervention then you still have to account for the other 10%, don't you?
If you count proGaddafi cities, Tripoli, Sirte, Beni Walid etc. they will make 33% of Libyan population. Not everybody supports Gaddafi in Tripoli of course, but same valid for rebels and Benghazi. I've hear from a person living in Libya that most of the population simply do not care, they just want good life for themselves and that's it. But NATO bombing turned them from neutral to antiNATO.
Besides, noone's expecting people to be happy about having their shit bombed, although I do recall that one guy who got hit by NATO bombs somewhere earlier in this thread and forgave them and was still happy that they were helping. Takes a strong mind for that.
I can imagine a freak happy for bombing his own people for a goal he thinks is important, but many Libyans hate NATO now.
And with that out of the way, how do you even know NATO did that? All I see is a broken building and a lot of distressed people and dead bodies. I'm not saying NATO didn't do it, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if it really is the case, but you should confirm that before claiming it as fact.
Normally my mind is open to any kind of conspiracy, but this one is to much. Libyan army just do not have audience to set up that. Easy to find out, no good reason to do so. Who else, aliens?
Lastly,
on the way to democracy (or sharia law, as it turned out, or who knows what will happen)
Who knows what will happen...? Well apparently you since you just claimed that it turned out to be Sharia law. Even if it does turn out that way, who are you to say that they can't have that as their legal system? This is just retarded.
That's my point. Rebels fighting for democracy is bullshit. Some fight for Sharia law, some for bigger share is oil money, some romantics indeed for democracy. All together - ruined calm developing prosperous country. The country needed some changes, but not in that bloody way. Evolutionary. It is not clear now how much more time the war will go on, when it come back to the same level as before, if ever. I guess it would be even faster and better to wait till Gaddafi dies naturally.
Oh no! It cannot be. I thought the Jihadists are going to dissolve right after the revolution is over. I thought Gaddafi lied about "Al Qaeda is behind the rebellion".
Seeing how as early as March it was known in American media that LIFG and AQIM members were notable in the leadership, this comes as no surprise. Not so much AQ as LIFG. There are differences, though not overly prominent, but they are different groups. AQIM is quite small. However, LIFG is extremely prominent in Libya, especially in the east, which is why it came as no surprise that is where the revolution sprang when you have that sort of ideological backing.
To say the least, yes, they want vengeance and reprisals. The Libyan government has been fighting against them since at least the 1990s. They also have wanted to establish Islamism for decades. This comes as no surprise.
1. The point wasn't that everyone is happy with NATO, the point was that you said this was proof that not 90% of the population were happy with NATO. It isn't. Now I don't really care if it's a 55% support or a 90% support, the point here is that you will obviously be able to find people who are dissatisfied with the NATO intervention. The fact that the majority of the people whose voices are heard seem to be approving rather than disapproving gives at least me the impression that things are progressing well, though.
2. Now while you counter with something completely irrelevant to what I was talking about you have a logical flaw in the actual counter aswell. While the towns are (or have been) held by Gaddafi it does not mean the majority of the population therein actually support Gaddafi, only that the military has had a stranglehold on the cities.
3. There's no conspiracy. They've been shelling cities left and right. It's funny, though, that you claim that they (Gaddafi forces) don't have access to heavy military hardware. If it's easy to find out who is responsible then why don't you go ahead and do so, so it's confirmed and not just serious bullshitting on your part? I can find a LOT of footage of bombs, bodies and killings. Now, if I'm an idiot I can disregard where it's actually from and just post it and claim this that and the other and when people start questioning the legitimacy of my claims on what is going on in the videos I'll just go "It'd be easy to find out but you should just trust me. If it's not what I say it must be aliens, right?". Redicolous.
4. First of all you have nothing that backs up your claims in any significant way (the vast majority seem to be fighting against Gaddafi and presumeably although not explicitly for some form of democracy). Secondly, if the Libyans want to ruin their country (if that's the way you want to look at it) it's their right to do so. I'm not really sure where you're going with this at all. In fact I'm positive you don't either, especially since you end on an unrelated note.
On September 06 2011 10:40 HellRoxYa wrote: (@GeyzeR)
1. The point wasn't that everyone is happy with NATO, the point was that you said this was proof that not 90% of the population were happy with NATO. It isn't. Now I don't really care if it's a 55% support or a 90% support, the point here is that you will obviously be able to find people who are dissatisfied with the NATO intervention. The fact that the majority of the people whose voices are heard seem to be approving rather than disapproving gives at least me the impression that things are progressing well, though.
2. Now while you counter with something completely irrelevant to what I was talking about you have a logical flaw in the actual counter aswell. While the towns are (or have been) held by Gaddafi it does not mean the majority of the population therein actually support Gaddafi, only that the military has had a stranglehold on the cities.
3. There's no conspiracy. They've been shelling cities left and right. It's funny, though, that you claim that they (Gaddafi forces) don't have access to heavy military hardware. If it's easy to find out who is responsible then why don't you go ahead and do so, so it's confirmed and not just serious bullshitting on your part? I can find a LOT of footage of bombs, bodies and killings. Now, if I'm an idiot I can disregard where it's actually from and just post it and claim this that and the other and when people start questioning the legitimacy of my claims on what is going on in the videos I'll just go "It'd be easy to find out but you should just trust me. If it's not what I say it must be aliens, right?". Redicolous.
4. First of all you have nothing that backs up your claims in any significant way (the vast majority seem to be fighting against Gaddafi and presumeably although not explicitly for some form of democracy). Secondly, if the Libyans want to ruin their country (if that's the way you want to look at it) it's their right to do so. I'm not really sure where you're going with this at all. In fact I'm positive you don't either, especially since you end on an unrelated note.
So on what grounds can you back your claims?
Because the way you speak (type) you seem pretty sure about yourself so you should undoubtedly have enough proof right? care to share your wisdom mate ?
The fact that the majority of the people whose voices are heard seem to be approving rather than disapproving gives at least me the impression that things are progressing well, though.
Source? has there been polls? how can you know what evidence is there to come up with this opinion?
2. Now while you counter with something completely irrelevant to what I was talking about you have a logical flaw in the actual counter aswell. While the towns are (or have been) held by Gaddafi it does not mean the majority of the population therein actually support Gaddafi, only that the military has had a stranglehold on the cities.
What evidence indicate that the military has a stranglehold on the cities?
There's no conspiracy. They've been shelling cities left and right. It's funny, though, that you claim that they (Gaddafi forces) don't have access to heavy military hardware. If it's easy to find out who is responsible then why don't you go ahead and do so, so it's confirmed and not just serious bullshitting on your part? I can find a LOT of footage of bombs, bodies and killings. Now, if I'm an idiot I can disregard where it's actually from and just post it and claim this that and the other and when people start questioning the legitimacy of my claims on what is going on in the videos I'll just go "It'd be easy to find out but you should just trust me. If it's not what I say it must be aliens, right?". Redicolous.
Here you dismiss all the information about the killing and bombing. I wonder how you do that, how can you dismiss them so easily if you can't even show why the information is garbage. If its so obvious you should obviously be able to debunk the credibility of it with facts right? where are those facts?
4 First of all you have nothing that backs up your claims in any significant way (the vast majority seem to be fighting against Gaddafi and presumeably although not explicitly for some form of democracy). Secondly, if the Libyans want to ruin their country (if that's the way you want to look at it) it's their right to do so. I'm not really sure where you're going with this at all. In fact I'm positive you don't either, especially since you end on an unrelated note.
So Geyezer has to back up claims but you can make claims without backing it up. Seems a weird position to have dont you think so.
And if the Libyans want to ruin their country (which of course no sane Libyan wants) why did we go and protect them? It makes no sense, Why is it oke now for them to ruin their country but when Gadaffi allegidly was doing it(pre interventionist ara), it was a bad thing. By that logic you shouldn't even be defending what is happening.
Your full of bullshit man come up with facts. You also completely ignore the fact that these so called rebels are killing black immigrants and black Libyans on pure racial racial grounds because there are strong Al Qaede elements are within the Ranks.
I`m starting to think your a Fanatic NATO propagandist. According to your sentiment, everything NATO and the NTC do is for the greater good, nothing they do can be wrong(ignoring the fact that 50k people are killed by know).
"Free Tripoli" - just don't mention the corpses 05.09.2011
By Lizzie Phelan
The war on Libya has not only been a war that has vindicated NATO's claim to the most powerful military force on earth, capable of imposing its will through sheer aggression wherever it sees fit, but it has also been a war that has reasserted the western mainstream media's power to not just fabricate events but to create.
The first media victory was when it got away with claiming that Gaddafi's government was attacking it's own citizens in Tripoli from the air, a claim which formed part of the pretext for NATO's intervention and also served to create panic and anger amongst the city's residents. No one was held to account when later Russian intelligence satellites and visits from independent observers to the areas alleged to have been targeted, revealed no evidence that such attacks had taken place.
1. It is hard to say what percentage support Gaddafi and what percentage is against. The claim that "majority" or "90%" has no ground at all. What we can say for sure: some support, some does not, there is a civil war in the country and NATO took side and this is illegal. Very few believe now in February western propaganda "people of Libya vs dictator Gaddafi", that train is gone and blitzkrieg plan has failed.
2. There are town held by the rebels. We saw the videos what they do with people who support Gaddafi so no wonder no one is waiving green flag there.. Rebels do not represent people of Libya, what can make you think so? We can say for sure that part of them represent radical islamists groups, part of them western interests in oil and part of them believe in better feature for democratic Libya.
3. The conspiracy is claiming that the building on the video were destroyed by Libyan army heavy weapons and later presented as result of NATO bombardment. I believe the idea is too absurd. NATO bombed civil targets.
4. "the vast majority seem to be fighting against Gaddafi" - how did you come to that conclusion?? Again, if NATO rebels want to ruin the country, it does not mean that Libyans want to. My point is - let the Libyans decide what they want.
Do you like to learn history? There were meany events, wars and coups, organized by CIA and supported by western media propaganda. Would be really nice if you show your knowledge and list some of examples. And it was never in interests of people of the country under attack. It is not a conspiracy, it is a historical fact. It does not prove of course that Libya is the case, but at least suggests to keep your mind open.
I guess the most common position of Libyans is: "Hanna said that after Libya's revolution began in February the family had privately discussed the war: "We agreed that we simply wanted a normal life." "
Of course it cannot be an article that just informs of Nato killing a Libyan family so they add: "The Nato campaign was right. There may have been mistakes. But Nato saved us from Gaddafi's army. He would have killed many people." Gaddafi's army killing civilians in Tripoli?? And by the way civilians of Tripoli are armed now, Gaddafi distributed the weapons to population.
The fact that the majority of the people whose voices are heard seem to be approving rather than disapproving gives at least me the impression that things are progressing well, though.
Source? has there been polls? how can you know what evidence is there to come up with this opinion?
No, there hasn’t. Not that I’m aware of anyway. My opinion is based on the news reporting that has been coming out of Libya since the rebellion started. That’s right, it’s my opinion. That’s why I use words like “seem” and “gives me the impression”.
2. Now while you counter with something completely irrelevant to what I was talking about you have a logical flaw in the actual counter aswell. While the towns are (or have been) held by Gaddafi it does not mean the majority of the population therein actually support Gaddafi, only that the military has had a stranglehold on the cities.
What evidence indicate that the military has a stranglehold on the cities?
Oh, I don’t know, the fact that they support Gaddafi and there’s been military stationed there? The strong resilience each of the mentioned cities have shown to rebel aggression? It’s the more likely option, rather than there being citywide support from everyone. With that said I’m not really claiming anything, I’m saying you can’t make the claim that the majority of the cities populations support Gaddafi just because they are seen as pro-Gaddafi cities. There is absolutely at least some support, though, even outside of those who directly gained from him.
There's no conspiracy. They've been shelling cities left and right. It's funny, though, that you claim that they (Gaddafi forces) don't have access to heavy military hardware. If it's easy to find out who is responsible then why don't you go ahead and do so, so it's confirmed and not just serious bullshitting on your part? I can find a LOT of footage of bombs, bodies and killings. Now, if I'm an idiot I can disregard where it's actually from and just post it and claim this that and the other and when people start questioning the legitimacy of my claims on what is going on in the videos I'll just go "It'd be easy to find out but you should just trust me. If it's not what I say it must be aliens, right?". Redicolous.
Here you dismiss all the information about the killing and bombing. I wonder how you do that, how can you dismiss them so easily if you can't even show why the information is garbage. If its so obvious you should obviously be able to debunk the credibility of it with facts right? where are those facts?
Here you’re being stupid. It’s not up to me to prove that they’re not whatever GeyzeR says they are. The burden of proof is on him. I also think you’re having trouble understanding what I wrote, or at least it would seem so. I’m telling you that I can post videos of murdered people and claim they were murdered by Gaddafi (or rebels, my choice) and then just say what GeyzeR said when I challenged him to assert for sure that NATO actually did that. I mean who needs proof when you can just trust, right? Otherwise it must have been aliens.
4 First of all you have nothing that backs up your claims in any significant way (the vast majority seem to be fighting against Gaddafi and presumeably although not explicitly for some form of democracy). Secondly, if the Libyans want to ruin their country (if that's the way you want to look at it) it's their right to do so. I'm not really sure where you're going with this at all. In fact I'm positive you don't either, especially since you end on an unrelated note.
So Geyezer has to back up claims but you can make claims without backing it up. Seems a weird position to have dont you think so.
And if the Libyans want to ruin their country (which of course no sane Libyan wants) why did we go and protect them? It makes no sense, Why is it oke now for them to ruin their country but when Gadaffi allegidly was doing it(pre interventionist ara), it was a bad thing. By that logic you shouldn't even be defending what is happening.
Your full of bullshit man come up with facts. You also completely ignore the fact that these so called rebels are killing black immigrants and black Libyans on pure racial racial grounds because there are strong Al Qaede elements are within the Ranks.
I`m starting to think your a Fanatic NATO propagandist. According to your sentiment, everything NATO and the NTC do is for the greater good, nothing they do can be wrong(ignoring the fact that 50k people are killed by know).
It’s a fucking good thing I’m not really making any claims then, isn’t it?
It wasn’t okay for Gaddafi to do it because the Libyans said no, no more. It’s not his country, although you’re free to argue that it is if you really want to. I would however argue that it’s up to the Libyans to rule however they want to rule over themselves. It saddens me that you can’t see the difference. Two more things on this; I don’t think they’re ruining their country. I think what they’re doing is great. And we helped because they asked us to and because there was wide popular support at the time (my impression, don’t have any numbers on this so don’t quote me on it). There was at the very least a lot of criticism from the media against the Security Council for lingering with their decision with the obvious undertone of something having to be done.
I love how you think all rebels are killing blacks. Especially since you go on to say Al Qaida elements are within their ranks doing this. Way to discredit a whole country.
On September 06 2011 19:23 Saji wrote: "Free Tripoli" - just don't mention the corpses 05.09.2011
The war on Libya has not only been a war that has vindicated NATO's claim to the most powerful military force on earth, capable of imposing its will through sheer aggression wherever it sees fit, but it has also been a war that has reasserted the western mainstream media's power to not just fabricate events but to create.
The first media victory was when it got away with claiming that Gaddafi's government was attacking it's own citizens in Tripoli from the air, a claim which formed part of the pretext for NATO's intervention and also served to create panic and anger amongst the city's residents. No one was held to account when later Russian intelligence satellites and visits from independent observers to the areas alleged to have been targeted, revealed no evidence that such attacks had taken place.
“Opinion – Columnists”. That’s not a real source for claims such as that. They’re very severe, you know. It’s not true just because a random columnist says it is.
On September 06 2011 19:31 GeyzeR wrote: 2 HellRoxYa
1. It is hard to say what percentage support Gaddafi and what percentage is against. The claim that "majority" or "90%" has no ground at all. What we can say for sure: some support, some does not, there is a civil war in the country and NATO took side and this is illegal. Very few believe now in February western propaganda "people of Libya vs dictator Gaddafi", that train is gone and blitzkrieg plan has failed.
I’ll agree we can’t say for sure what level of support the rebellion ha. I will hold to my view that it’s the vast majority though. As for the latter part, if the “people of Libya” didn’t start the civil war then who did? Al Qaida again? Or the CIA maybe? Blowing more hot air?
On September 06 2011 19:31 GeyzeR wrote:2. There are town held by the rebels. We saw the videos what they do with people who support Gaddafi so no wonder no one is waiving green flag there.. Rebels do not represent people of Libya, what can make you think so? We can say for sure that part of them represent radical islamists groups, part of them western interests in oil and part of them believe in better feature for democratic Libya.
No we can’t say that any part of them are for western interests in oil. In fact I’m pretty sure we can say the exact opposite unless you’re making the claim that we have boots on the ground again. At least you realize that the people will conform to whoever is holding the city, be it the rebels or Gaddafi. That’s my entire point, that you can’t say they all or even a majority ever (willingly) supported Gaddafi.
On September 06 2011 19:31 GeyzeR wrote:3. The conspiracy is claiming that the building on the video were destroyed by Libyan army heavy weapons and later presented as result of NATO bombardment. I believe the idea is too absurd. NATO bombed civil targets.
Why would it be? NATO has indeed bombed civilian targets and they have admitted to it. That doesn’t mean that every ruined building has NATO to blame. That’s a giant leap you’re making there.
On September 06 2011 19:31 GeyzeR wrote:4. "the vast majority seem to be fighting against Gaddafi" - how did you come to that conclusion?? Again, if NATO rebels want to ruin the country, it does not mean that Libyans want to. My point is - let the Libyans decide what they want.
It’s not “NATO rebels”, it’s Libyan rebels. It would seem that the rebels are engaged in fighting Gaddafi and his forces. Not, say, oil refinery owners. At least you agree through your silence that Libya is free to be ruined by its inhabitants.
On September 06 2011 19:31 GeyzeR wrote:Do you like to learn history? There were meany events, wars and coups, organized by CIA and supported by western media propaganda. Would be really nice if you show your knowledge and list some of examples. And it was never in interests of people of the country under attack. It is not a conspiracy, it is a historical fact. It does not prove of course that Libya is the case, but at least suggests to keep your mind open.
Absolutely. There’s a lot speaking against this being the case with Libya, though. Things like Gaddafi willingly selling his oil and not causing any problems these days. Things like there being no evidence for this being the case what so ever. Things like those intelligence papers which surfaced recently which seem to tell the story of a close intelligence relationship with Libyan intelligence and MI6 and CIA.
I guess the most common position of Libyans is: "Hanna said that after Libya's revolution began in February the family had privately discussed the war: "We agreed that we simply wanted a normal life." "
Of course it cannot be an article that just informs of Nato killing a Libyan family so they add: "The Nato campaign was right. There may have been mistakes. But Nato saved us from Gaddafi's army. He would have killed many people." Gaddafi's army killing civilians in Tripoli?? And by the way civilians of Tripoli are armed now, Gaddafi distributed the weapons to population.
You really need to stop making it sound like NATO invaded Libya. The Libyans started their civil war and then normal life went out the window. I’m sorry that everyone can’t have a perfect life or live in peace when they want to but shit happens. It has nothing to do with NATO.
On September 06 2011 19:31 GeyzeR wrote: 3. The conspiracy is claiming that the building on the video were destroyed by Libyan army heavy weapons and later presented as result of NATO bombardment. I believe the idea is too absurd. NATO bombed civil targets.
4. "the vast majority seem to be fighting against Gaddafi" - how did you come to that conclusion?? Again, if NATO rebels want to ruin the country, it does not mean that Libyans want to. My point is - let the Libyans decide what they want.
Do you like to learn history? There were meany events, wars and coups, organized by CIA and supported by western media propaganda. Would be really nice if you show your knowledge and list some of examples. And it was never in interests of people of the country under attack. It is not a conspiracy, it is a historical fact. It does not prove of course that Libya is the case, but at least suggests to keep your mind open.
How is that absurd that a russian media - in Russia, the state is the direct owner of the news networks - would lie, just like western medias lied to make this look like the unconditional rise of the Libyan people against the evil dictator?
You're being skeptic, which is a good thing, the problem is that your view is too narrow to realize you're directing your doubts towards one direction only, missing the big picture. Everybody lies. What I see is a bombed building. It could be NATO. It could be the result of the intense bombing that Misrata endured during the city's siege. It could be many things. Anyone who entirely believes one side is a fool. I would suggest YOU to open your mind. You should realize that there is no "what Libyan wants" in the middle of the chaos a civil war represents. There is what he, she, them, they, us, I, you want. And everybody wants different things for different reasons. What I believe is that Ghadaffi lost due to the lack of support. Not because everyone is revolting - in fact, the rebels are mostly young people. But because his people didn't believe in him - and this doesn't mean they believe in the rebels neither.
Don't try to history lesson people by using examples that belong to the Cold War. Medias during the Cold War were highly controlled and repressed. McCartysm was rampant until late. And never underestimate the fact that information is a business. If you write about a rebel knight saving his people, you will sell. If you write a long essay about the geostrategical position of Libya and the growing social and demographic problems in Maghreb... you simply won't! Thus vulgarization and a simplistic view of the situation.
This is also because of people like you and me who wouldn't understand the deepest implications and stakes. Oh, and because journalists are people like you and me, too, and they often don't quite understand themselves.
My conclusion is that we simply know very little about the situation itself, and barely imagine all the causes and consequences surrounding such events. I will give you one thing: media coverage in general, whether it was pro or anti Gaddafi, has been particularly terrible in this case.
Dear British special forces back home. Losses recognized as "unacceptable" September 6, 2011, 18:12 Alexander Grigoriev
173 elite troops of the 22nd regiment of the British Special Air Service (SAS) will return home from Libya in the coming days. Losses incurred during the military campaign, the UK Defense Ministry declared inadmissible. On this "Argumentam.ru" said British military expert Peter Beynchli, citing sources at SAS.
According to him, "the official casualty figures were not disclosed. But, according to various sources, it is from 21 to 35 troops. "
The greatest loss, according to Beynchli, SAS has suffered during the assault on Tripoli and when the helicopter was shot down on the border of Libya and Algeria. Preparation and maintenance of one of the SWAT of the regiment, according to experts, it is worth 1 million pounds per year.
For Spanish speaking people An Interview with journalist Rolando Segura y Henry Pillajo from Telesur who were in Libya
They talk about the Misinformation Libya in general before and after the war, The bombing in general the effects on it psychological The attacking of non civilian targets, The mass protest vs NATO before Tripoli was attacked (its backed up with news footage of Telesur). Racial killing About the unverified evidence of Gadaffi bombing his own people * nice to know till the fall of the Government of Libya they kept paying their 16.000 students abroad and they kept paying the bills of people that were are in hospitals outside of Libya
Real chaos on cards for new Libya Published: 07 September, 2011, 10:12
The security chief of ousted Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has reportedly fled the country for neighboring Niger on Tuesday. With Gaddafi’s whereabouts still unknown and rebels controlling most of Libya, experts fear the real chaos is yet to come.
Mohamed Hassan is one of Africa's most experienced diplomats. Just back from the Libyan capital, Tripoli, he says NATO bombing has turned it into a ghost town. “There is no police, there is no administration, there are no schools,” he said.
Law and order has been replaced by a motley crew of rebels. Some fear that the various groups who have emerged might soon start fighting each other.
“Weapons stores have been raided, every man is armed with Kalashnikovs,” said North Africa expert Peter Piccinin. “If the tribes fight for their independence the country will enter a never-ending civil war with brutal urban guerilla warfare.”
Analysts argue that even rebel leaders do not know where their fighters are from.
On September 06 2011 22:22 Kukaracha wrote: It could be the result of the intense bombing that Misrata endured during the city's siege. It could be many things.
The was no fighting in the places in that videos. It could be NATO or Libyan army did it intentionally and blame NATO later. The latter is to absurd.
What I believe is that Ghadaffi lost due to the lack of support.
What do you want me to think of you after these words? Ghadaffi cannot win NATO. I believe that most population remained neutral.
Medias during the Cold War were highly controlled and repressed. McCartysm was rampant until late. And never underestimate the fact that information is a business.
What make you think that the situation has changed?
My conclusion is that we simply know very little about the situation itself, and barely imagine all the causes and consequences surrounding such events. I will give you one thing: media coverage in general, whether it was pro or anti Gaddafi, has been particularly terrible in this case.
Yes, the media coverage is terrible. I tried and find neutral people who lived in Libya, read blogs, twitter. I found a woman that I can trust, she is real and there is a chain of people I know and trust leading to her. I could not report what she says because she is reliable source only for me. What I learn from her: - most people are neutral and just want they normal life back - many people were not happy with Gaddafi, a lot of corruption. there were problems. - western media and al jazeera lie a lot - people neither support rebels because NTC consist of ex Gaddafi most corrupt politics. and they don't like eastern islasmits - tribes care only for themselves. they do not want to fight unless forced - people do not like NATO came and the more bombs dropped, the more hate NATO receive - non Libyan arabs fight for rebels too - pro Gaddafi strangers in internet often idealize him
Unfortunately she left Libya for safety reasons. At this moment it is very difficult to understand, western media does not cover. My vision is that there is chaos and violence. The rebels were cruel, killed a lot, stealing properties. NTC cannot control them. Less people remain neutral. Everybody armed. A war is ahead. If NATO does leave, the rebels will be destroyed. Everything depends on what West will decide now.
On September 06 2011 22:22 Kukaracha wrote: It could be the result of the intense bombing that Misrata endured during the city's siege. It could be many things.
The was no fighting in the places in that videos. It could be NATO or Libyan army did it intentionally and blame NATO later. The latter is to absurd.
Medias during the Cold War were highly controlled and repressed. McCartysm was rampant until late. And never underestimate the fact that information is a business.
What make you think that the situation has changed?
My conclusion is that we simply know very little about the situation itself, and barely imagine all the causes and consequences surrounding such events. I will give you one thing: media coverage in general, whether it was pro or anti Gaddafi, has been particularly terrible in this case.
Yes, the media coverage is terrible. I tried and find neutral people who lived in Libya, read blogs, twitter. I found a woman that I can trust, she is real and there is a chain of people I know and trust leading to her. I could not report what she says because she is reliable source only for me. What I learn from her: - most people are neutral and just want they normal life back - many people were not happy with Gaddafi, a lot of corruption. there were problems. - western media and al jazeera lie a lot - people neither support rebels because NTC consist of ex Gaddafi most corrupt politics. and they don't like eastern islasmits - tribes care only for themselves. they do not want to fight unless forced - people do not like NATO came and the more bombs dropped, the more hate NATO receive - non Libyan arabs fight for rebels too - pro Gaddafi strangers in internet often idealize him
Unfortunately she left Libya for safety reasons. At this moment it is very difficult to understand, western media does not cover. My vision is that there is chaos and violence. The rebels were cruel, killed a lot, stealing properties. NTC cannot control them. Less people remain neutral. Everybody armed. A war is ahead. If NATO does leave, the rebels will be destroyed. Everything depends on what West will decide now.
What you say might be true. But if you were in Paris the 14th september 1789 (2 month after french revolution), you would say exactly the same thing. Two years later you would have say "Ok, they will kill everybody, this country is fucked...and this Napoleon his worth than previous kings, he want's to invade europe lol !!"
200 years laters...the country is not so bad.
Why i speak about that? It's way to soon to say if bombing/uprising/end of Gaddafi was a good/bad idea. Let Lybians find their own way, see what they can do in few months and years, and maybe, you (and me) might have a little bit more objective point of view about that.
All I know that we don't know shit about libya. All the information you get is from gov. controled media so they can tell you whatever they want.
When this started I didn't even know about Kaddafi, all of the sudden the media tell you how evil this guy is and the NATO goes to libya to get his ass of his chair.
I read in various other sources that Kaddafi wasn't such a bad guy and the people living in Libya had a really decent life and had a vote on many things happening in their country. I didn't heard a single evil thing Kaddafi did to his peopel before this war, all they say that he's a dictator but that doesnt sound like a good reason to invade Libya. Balerus also has a dictator (and this one is one big motherf...) and noone does anything.
My final opinion on this is: America wants more oil, so they gonna drop Kaddafi, get some puppets to 'rule' in Libya and suck the country dry.
On September 06 2011 22:22 Kukaracha wrote: It could be the result of the intense bombing that Misrata endured during the city's siege. It could be many things.
The was no fighting in the places in that videos. It could be NATO or Libyan army did it intentionally and blame NATO later. The latter is to absurd.
What I believe is that Ghadaffi lost due to the lack of support.
What do you want me to think of you after these words? Ghadaffi cannot win NATO. I believe that most population remained neutral.
Medias during the Cold War were highly controlled and repressed. McCartysm was rampant until late. And never underestimate the fact that information is a business.
What make you think that the situation has changed?
My conclusion is that we simply know very little about the situation itself, and barely imagine all the causes and consequences surrounding such events. I will give you one thing: media coverage in general, whether it was pro or anti Gaddafi, has been particularly terrible in this case.
Yes, the media coverage is terrible. I tried and find neutral people who lived in Libya, read blogs, twitter. I found a woman that I can trust, she is real and there is a chain of people I know and trust leading to her. I could not report what she says because she is reliable source only for me. What I learn from her: - most people are neutral and just want they normal life back - many people were not happy with Gaddafi, a lot of corruption. there were problems. - western media and al jazeera lie a lot - people neither support rebels because NTC consist of ex Gaddafi most corrupt politics. and they don't like eastern islasmits - tribes care only for themselves. they do not want to fight unless forced - people do not like NATO came and the more bombs dropped, the more hate NATO receive - non Libyan arabs fight for rebels too - pro Gaddafi strangers in internet often idealize him
Unfortunately she left Libya for safety reasons. At this moment it is very difficult to understand, western media does not cover. My vision is that there is chaos and violence. The rebels were cruel, killed a lot, stealing properties. NTC cannot control them. Less people remain neutral. Everybody armed. A war is ahead. If NATO does leave, the rebels will be destroyed. Everything depends on what West will decide now.
What you say might be true. But if you were in Paris the 14th september 1789 (2 month after french revolution), you would say exactly the same thing. Two years later you would have say "Ok, they will kill everybody, this country is fucked...and this Napoleon his worth than previous kings, he want's to invade europe lol !!"
200 years laters...the country is not so bad.
Why i speak about that? It's way to soon to say if bombing/uprising/end of Gaddafi was a good/bad idea. Let Lybians find their own way, see what they can do in few months and years, and maybe, you (and me) might have a little bit more objective point of view about that.
I`m sorry you can`t compare the french revolution with this one.
Really if you want to look at history you should look at what has happened the last 100 years in Latin America, coup`s backed by Western forces have never brought anything good for the people.
The matter of the fact is there are muych more factors indicating this whole coup will go wrong for a long period.
For example The natural resource of the Libyan people will be sold at bottom prices to Europe and US. Then they will probably have to follow the IMF program ... the IMF program is only helpful to banksters (see history of Latin America specially Argentina).
The Libyan people will have to rebuild their entire infrastructure (here foreign contractors will come to suck up all the wealth of the Libyan people ,see Iraq).
Really the longer the Western world is involved in Libya the worse its going to be for them. And this is a historic fact.
What will happened to the Islam fundamentalist that Gadaffi was fighting?
There are much more factors which indicate that this will not be a happy end for the Libyan people. And if you believe everything will be oke your being quiet naive.
(rant) Ask the Guatamalians, Ask the Bolivians, Ask the Venezuelans, Ask the Ecuadorians, Ask the Nicaraguans people what the after math of western support coup`s means for the people, or better go educate yourself about it. Before coming to groundless naive Utopian predictions. (sorry for the rant)
On September 06 2011 22:22 Kukaracha wrote: It could be the result of the intense bombing that Misrata endured during the city's siege. It could be many things.
The was no fighting in the places in that videos. It could be NATO or Libyan army did it intentionally and blame NATO later. The latter is to absurd.
What I believe is that Ghadaffi lost due to the lack of support.
What do you want me to think of you after these words? Ghadaffi cannot win NATO. I believe that most population remained neutral.
Medias during the Cold War were highly controlled and repressed. McCartysm was rampant until late. And never underestimate the fact that information is a business.
What make you think that the situation has changed?
My conclusion is that we simply know very little about the situation itself, and barely imagine all the causes and consequences surrounding such events. I will give you one thing: media coverage in general, whether it was pro or anti Gaddafi, has been particularly terrible in this case.
Yes, the media coverage is terrible. I tried and find neutral people who lived in Libya, read blogs, twitter. I found a woman that I can trust, she is real and there is a chain of people I know and trust leading to her. I could not report what she says because she is reliable source only for me. What I learn from her: - most people are neutral and just want they normal life back - many people were not happy with Gaddafi, a lot of corruption. there were problems. - western media and al jazeera lie a lot - people neither support rebels because NTC consist of ex Gaddafi most corrupt politics. and they don't like eastern islasmits - tribes care only for themselves. they do not want to fight unless forced - people do not like NATO came and the more bombs dropped, the more hate NATO receive - non Libyan arabs fight for rebels too - pro Gaddafi strangers in internet often idealize him
Unfortunately she left Libya for safety reasons. At this moment it is very difficult to understand, western media does not cover. My vision is that there is chaos and violence. The rebels were cruel, killed a lot, stealing properties. NTC cannot control them. Less people remain neutral. Everybody armed. A war is ahead. If NATO does leave, the rebels will be destroyed. Everything depends on what West will decide now.
What you say might be true. But if you were in Paris the 14th september 1789 (2 month after french revolution), you would say exactly the same thing. Two years later you would have say "Ok, they will kill everybody, this country is fucked...and this Napoleon his worth than previous kings, he want's to invade europe lol !!"
200 years laters...the country is not so bad.
Why i speak about that? It's way to soon to say if bombing/uprising/end of Gaddafi was a good/bad idea. Let Lybians find their own way, see what they can do in few months and years, and maybe, you (and me) might have a little bit more objective point of view about that.
I`m sorry you can`t compare the french revolution with this one.
Really if you want to look at history you should look at what has happened the last 100 years in Latin America, coup`s backed by Western forces have never brought anything good for the people.
The matter of the fact is there are muych more factors indicating this whole coup will go wrong for a long period.
For example The natural resource of the Libyan people will be sold at bottom prices to Europe and US. Then they will probably have to follow the IMF program ... the IMF program is only helpful to banksters (see history of Latin America specially Argentina).
The Libyan people will have to rebuild their entire infrastructure (here foreign contractors will come to suck up all the wealth of the Libyan people ,see Iraq).
Really the longer the Western world is involved in Libya the worse its going to be for them. And this is a historic fact.
What will happened to the Islam fundamentalist that Gadaffi was fighting?
There are much more factors which indicate that this will not be a happy end for the Libyan people. And if you believe everything will be oke your being quiet naive.
(rant) Ask the Guatamalians, Ask the Bolivians, Ask the Venezuelans, Ask the Ecuadorians, Ask the Nicaraguans people what the after math of western support coup`s means for the people, or better go educate yourself about it. Before coming to groundless naive Utopian predictions. (sorry for the rant)
Libya has so much money they don't have to follow any IMF-program, which is for countries who cannot pay their debt. Indeed, the IMF was very happy with Gaddafi in charge: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/business/23views.html
Will women's rights be the same? This is up for Libyans to decide. If they do not get enough rights we can protest but ultimately we have to accept it.
What will happen to fundamentalists? They will hopefully be included into the political process. Totally suppressing fundamentalism is counter-productive in the long run.
And btw most of what was built under Gaddafi's rule was built by foreign contractors.
EPT
