Hey Kukaracha if you go by your logic, how do you analyse the situation in which the rebels could only advance thanks to NATO bombardment and not thanks to their allegedly majority support of the people? (if the rebels did have such large support the army couldn't have done anything see Tunesia and Egypts).
Furthermore the people that died under military shooting in the beginning were people that attacked the barracks and police officers. (see http://globalciviliansforpeace.com/videos/ for evidence were the people died)
Also do you ignore or are you unaware of the mass protesting against NATO before July? isn't that at least an indication that the image portrait of the support of the rebels is to say the least overestimated.
Also i would like to ask you this why aren`t there any black Libyans on the rebel side or do you think that in Libya only exist out of arab ethnicity? (the rebels call every black person a mercenary even the immigrants, there is enough evidence to back this.)
My main point being is this whole uprising is a set up and nothing natural and therefore the Libyan people will suffer even more and we will get another Iraq (and over 2 years people will say oh they fooled us again...). Furthermore it will endanger Europe because Al Qaeda will surely make use of the chaos (rebels are already using child`s as warriors)
And if this was truly an uprising of freedom and democracy then black Libyans should have played a more pivotal role in the uprising but instead they are being hunted down by the rebels and labeled as mercenaries (The MSN has framed the black Libyans and the African Immigrants as mercenaries, how absurd is this).
On September 12 2011 01:06 Saji wrote: Hey Kukaracha if you go by your logic, how do you analyse the situation in which the rebels could only advance thanks to NATO bombardment and not thanks to their allegedly majority support of the people? (if the rebels did have such large support the army couldn't have done anything see Tunesia and Egypts).
Furthermore the people that died under military shooting in the beginning were people that attacked the barracks and police officers. (see http://globalciviliansforpeace.com/videos/ for evidence were the people died)
Also do you ignore or are you unaware of the mass protesting against NATO before July? isn't that at least an indication that the image portrait of the support of the rebels is to say the least overestimated.
Also i would like to ask you this why aren`t there any black Libyans on the rebel side or do you think that in Libya only exist out of arab ethnicity? (the rebels call every black person a mercenary even the immigrants, there is enough evidence to back this.)
My main point being is this whole uprising is a set up and nothing natural and therefore the Libyan people will suffer even more and we will get another Iraq (and over 2 years people will say oh they fooled us again...). Furthermore it will endanger Europe because Al Qaeda will surely make use of the chaos (rebels are already using child`s as warriors)
And if this was truly an uprising of freedom and democracy then black Libyans should have played a more pivotal role in the uprising but instead they are being hunted down by the rebels and labeled as mercenaries (The MSN has framed the black Libyans and the African Immigrants as mercenaries, how absurd is this).
Stop using terribly designed websites made in April of this year as legitimate sources.
Stop posting from Global Civilians for Peace and Human Rights Investigations. These are bogus sites that I debunked pages ago. They are only a few months old and contain absolutely no information that can be verified by more credible human rights organizations such as Amnesty International.
On September 11 2011 16:14 Saji wrote: CNN REPORTS THAT THERE ARE MORE JOURNALISTS THAN NATO MILITIA
This proves the suspicion, that this war is mostly fought from the air and through propaganda. NATO militiamen have no support therefore can't survive even a day without NATO operations, or the propaganda machine which is painting them in good light.
Fighters frustrated as Gadhafi loyalists resist assault on Bani Walid September 10, 2011
And at times, the journalists have outnumbered them, with as many as 150 -- probably the biggest media throng seen here -- gathered with the fighters outside Bani Walid earlier Saturday.
Sometimes the anti-Gadhafi fighters' frustration breaks out in heated exchanges with the journalists, as they try to tell them what they can and can't film, their relations with the media a barometer of how well the battle is going
Not to mention you're using corporate western media as a source of information...by your own admission, western media can't be trusted. How can this? It is far more likely CNN would report something like that in order to get NATO governments to fund more private military firms and send more western-built guns into the Libyan rebels' hands, right?
Can i ask you how old are you? Do you remember how it went with the Iraq war (the media coverage i mean by that)? To refresh you memory you should watch (I truly hope you take the time to watch it) a documentary by John Pilger called The War You Don't See Preview: http://widgets.distrify.com/widget.html#261 (I think you have enough inet skills to get this documentary)
There he explains with evidence how the media does this and how the media contradicts itself (the contradiction is the proof that they have been bullshitting! I don't want to explain since you will mostly not accept my explanation as you will see me my opinion as not credible.
Also look up Ray McGovern (EX CIA agent) who talks about Media this guy is much more credible than my opinion! (Gore Vidal's History of The National Security State)
On September 12 2011 01:24 Saji wrote: I don't want to explain since you will mostly not accept my explanation as you will see me my opinion as not credible.
You're not credible because you keep posting the same BS over and over again (like the sites Elegy and I called out) and only respond to our critiques of those sites by posting from them more.
On September 12 2011 01:06 Saji wrote: Hey Kukaracha if you go by your logic, how do you analyse the situation in which the rebels could only advance thanks to NATO bombardment and not thanks to their allegedly majority support of the people? (if the rebels did have such large support the army couldn't have done anything see Tunesia and Egypts).
I'm sure I posted this already, but what I believe is that the rebels had the youth's support and are by definition people of Libya. I don't think the majority supported them, in fact I think the majority only wanted peace, and to stay out of trouble.
Now, I did see the "massive protests" against NATO in Tripoli, Gaddafi told us about it and we saw footage of a hundred people waving green flags. But then again, Gaddafi said that the rebels are young bloodthirsty junkies on LSD paid by the USA to murder the Libyan people.
LSD soldiers, now that was a nice one from the Green leader.
On September 11 2011 12:07 Aurocaido wrote: Prove that Gaddafi used foreign mercenaries against his own people? As of yet I have not seen one bit of substantiated proof that Gaddafi in fact hired mercenaries and used them against peaceful protesters.
All I have seen are random videos where gunshots are heard and people are running around. In no video do you actually see any gunmen, its not actually even substantiated that there are in fact anti-Gaddafi protesters in the videos.
Please someone show me SUBSTANTIATED evidence that this took place, I cannot find it.
* Repeated reports of foreign fighters attacking protesters
* UN working group says their use looks increasingly likely
* Evidence points to fighters from west, central Africa
By Peter Apps, Political Risk Correspondent
LONDON, Feb 24 (Reuters) - Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, the loyalty of his armed forces proving decidedly unreliable, appears to have turned to mercenaries from elsewhere in Africa to support his bloody crackdown.
Witnesses and rights groups have told Reuters and other media repeatedly of foreigners brought in to fight, perhaps veterans of wars and insurgencies elsewhere in Africa -- often from countries with which Gaddafi has built strong links.
A lawyer in Benghazi said on Wednesday a security committee formed by civilians there had arrested 36 mercenaries from Chad, Niger and Sudan hired by Gaddafi's elite Praetorian Guard.
But if you choose to remain skeptic over such elements, I would need to ask you: are there any women in Libya? I haven't seen anyone since the conflict started. I also never saw a video that clearly showed that Gaddafi is in Libya, it actually looked a bit like England at some point. Amrite?
The use of mercenaries was a common topic since the 17th of february and wasn't disproved like Gaddafi's supposed airstrikes against the protesters were. It's also not surprising since the countries south of Libya have been full of mercenaries since the Toyota war. That and the bloodthirsty speeches Gaddafi gave make this piece of information quite possibly true.
I will agree though that it is unlikely that he used mercenaries against the peaceful protests. My point though is that as long as you have the army and at least half of the population to back you up, even a drawn out rebellion shouldn't require the use of foreign mercenaries and should end quite quickly, UNLESS part of the army is necessary to secure the whole territory because the lack of popular support makes it unstable... the rebels' use of mercenaries seems more logical since they had no army to speak of in the first place, and probably received some sort of funding by the NATO.
how do you know they are mercenaries and not black Libyans?.. there is a region in Libyan where live mostly black Libyan Arabs, will they also be called mercenaries and killed?
On September 12 2011 01:06 Saji wrote: Hey Kukaracha if you go by your logic, how do you analyse the situation in which the rebels could only advance thanks to NATO bombardment and not thanks to their allegedly majority support of the people? (if the rebels did have such large support the army couldn't have done anything see Tunesia and Egypts).
I'm sure I posted this already, but what I believe is that the rebels had the youth's support and are by definition people of Libya. I don't think the majority supported them, in fact I think the majority only wanted peace, and to stay out of trouble.
Now, I did see the "massive protests" against NATO in Tripoli, Gaddafi told us about it and we saw footage of a hundred people waving green flags. But then again, Gaddafi said that the rebels are young bloodthirsty junkies on LSD paid by the USA to murder the Libyan people.
LSD soldiers, now that was a nice one from the Green leader.
Ghaddafi also said the rebels were Alqaeda, was he wrong ?^^
On September 12 2011 02:59 ImFromPortugal wrote: how do you know they are mercenaries and not black Libyans?.. there is a region in Libyan where live mostly black Libyan Arabs, will they also be called mercenaries and killed?
Sure, you could think that the people in the video were forced to act that way for the camera. But the reports from Reuters (a serious direct source by the way, with people on the field) and many others still stand.
And yes, they are being called mercenaries and they are being killed right now, as I said previously the introduction of mercenaries in the conflict led to many hate crimes towards civilian black people.
On September 12 2011 01:06 Saji wrote: Hey Kukaracha if you go by your logic, how do you analyse the situation in which the rebels could only advance thanks to NATO bombardment and not thanks to their allegedly majority support of the people? (if the rebels did have such large support the army couldn't have done anything see Tunesia and Egypts).
I'm sure I posted this already, but what I believe is that the rebels had the youth's support and are by definition people of Libya. I don't think the majority supported them, in fact I think the majority only wanted peace, and to stay out of trouble.
Now, I did see the "massive protests" against NATO in Tripoli, Gaddafi told us about it and we saw footage of a hundred people waving green flags. But then again, Gaddafi said that the rebels are young bloodthirsty junkies on LSD paid by the USA to murder the Libyan people.
LSD soldiers, now that was a nice one from the Green leader.
Ghaddafi also said the rebels were Alqaeda, was he wrong ?^^
There are Al Qaida elements within the rebel establishment, an estalishment which is both vast and disorganized. "The rebels" are not Al Qaida however. That said, your point stands, he was "right" about Al Qaida being at least remotely involved. This does not mean he is correct on every point, or even all that accurate when it comes to Al Qaida since it was a popular uprising.
On September 11 2011 12:07 Aurocaido wrote: Prove that Gaddafi used foreign mercenaries against his own people? As of yet I have not seen one bit of substantiated proof that Gaddafi in fact hired mercenaries and used them against peaceful protesters.
All I have seen are random videos where gunshots are heard and people are running around. In no video do you actually see any gunmen, its not actually even substantiated that there are in fact anti-Gaddafi protesters in the videos.
Please someone show me SUBSTANTIATED evidence that this took place, I cannot find it.
* Repeated reports of foreign fighters attacking protesters
* UN working group says their use looks increasingly likely
* Evidence points to fighters from west, central Africa
By Peter Apps, Political Risk Correspondent
LONDON, Feb 24 (Reuters) - Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, the loyalty of his armed forces proving decidedly unreliable, appears to have turned to mercenaries from elsewhere in Africa to support his bloody crackdown.
Witnesses and rights groups have told Reuters and other media repeatedly of foreigners brought in to fight, perhaps veterans of wars and insurgencies elsewhere in Africa -- often from countries with which Gaddafi has built strong links.
A lawyer in Benghazi said on Wednesday a security committee formed by civilians there had arrested 36 mercenaries from Chad, Niger and Sudan hired by Gaddafi's elite Praetorian Guard.
But if you choose to remain skeptic over such elements, I would need to ask you: are there any women in Libya? I haven't seen anyone since the conflict started. I also never saw a video that clearly showed that Gaddafi is in Libya, it actually looked a bit like England at some point. Amrite?
The use of mercenaries was a common topic since the 17th of february and wasn't disproved like Gaddafi's supposed airstrikes against the protesters were. It's also not surprising since the countries south of Libya have been full of mercenaries since the Toyota war. That and the bloodthirsty speeches Gaddafi gave make this piece of information quite possibly true.
I will agree though that it is unlikely that he used mercenaries against the peaceful protests. My point though is that as long as you have the army and at least half of the population to back you up, even a drawn out rebellion shouldn't require the use of foreign mercenaries and should end quite quickly, UNLESS part of the army is necessary to secure the whole territory because the lack of popular support makes it unstable... the rebels' use of mercenaries seems more logical since they had no army to speak of in the first place, and probably received some sort of funding by the NATO.
The only thing that video shows is a dead black soldier. It provides no other information. Is the soldier classified as a mercenary simply because he is black? Are there no black people in Libya? If there are is it not a safe assumption that maybe a couple of them are in the Libyan Army? There is no substantiated proof in that video at all.
As for the article, one of the three pages it contained was devoted to describing the very same airstrikes you just said were disproved. It spoke of airmen who had been sent out into the desert rather than bomb civilians.
Since the article describes the airstrikes as being fact, I can only assume that the rest of it is unsubstantiated propoganda intended to turn public opinion against the Jamahiriya Government as well.
I remain sceptical of the Gaddafi mercenary claims.
Edit: Also do you remember a few months back when Benghazi was surrounded and the insurgency was about to be crushed? The civil war would have been over months ago saving the lives of tens of thousands of Libyans; then NATO got involved and completely overstepped the boundaries outlined by the UN resolution.
The fact that the rebellion would have been so short lived I think speaks to the amount of popular support Gaddafi had and subsequently how little the rebels did. Better weapons and equipment? Does not matter if ninety percent of the population is against the regime.
On September 11 2011 12:07 Aurocaido wrote: Prove that Gaddafi used foreign mercenaries against his own people? As of yet I have not seen one bit of substantiated proof that Gaddafi in fact hired mercenaries and used them against peaceful protesters.
All I have seen are random videos where gunshots are heard and people are running around. In no video do you actually see any gunmen, its not actually even substantiated that there are in fact anti-Gaddafi protesters in the videos.
Please someone show me SUBSTANTIATED evidence that this took place, I cannot find it.
* Repeated reports of foreign fighters attacking protesters
* UN working group says their use looks increasingly likely
* Evidence points to fighters from west, central Africa
By Peter Apps, Political Risk Correspondent
LONDON, Feb 24 (Reuters) - Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, the loyalty of his armed forces proving decidedly unreliable, appears to have turned to mercenaries from elsewhere in Africa to support his bloody crackdown.
Witnesses and rights groups have told Reuters and other media repeatedly of foreigners brought in to fight, perhaps veterans of wars and insurgencies elsewhere in Africa -- often from countries with which Gaddafi has built strong links.
A lawyer in Benghazi said on Wednesday a security committee formed by civilians there had arrested 36 mercenaries from Chad, Niger and Sudan hired by Gaddafi's elite Praetorian Guard.
But if you choose to remain skeptic over such elements, I would need to ask you: are there any women in Libya? I haven't seen anyone since the conflict started. I also never saw a video that clearly showed that Gaddafi is in Libya, it actually looked a bit like England at some point. Amrite?
The use of mercenaries was a common topic since the 17th of february and wasn't disproved like Gaddafi's supposed airstrikes against the protesters were. It's also not surprising since the countries south of Libya have been full of mercenaries since the Toyota war. That and the bloodthirsty speeches Gaddafi gave make this piece of information quite possibly true.
I will agree though that it is unlikely that he used mercenaries against the peaceful protests. My point though is that as long as you have the army and at least half of the population to back you up, even a drawn out rebellion shouldn't require the use of foreign mercenaries and should end quite quickly, UNLESS part of the army is necessary to secure the whole territory because the lack of popular support makes it unstable... the rebels' use of mercenaries seems more logical since they had no army to speak of in the first place, and probably received some sort of funding by the NATO.
The only thing that video shows is a dead black soldier. It provides no other information. Is the soldier classified as a mercenary simply because he is black? Are there no black people in Libya? If there are is it not a safe assumption that maybe a couple of them are in the Libyan Army? There is no substantiated proof in that video at all.
As for the article, one of the three pages it contained was devoted to describing the very same airstrikes you just said were disproved. It spoke of airmen who had been sent out into the desert rather than bomb civilians.
Since the article describes the airstrikes as being fact, I can only assume that the rest of it is unsubstantiated propoganda intended to turn public opinion against the Jamahiriya Government as well.
I remain sceptical of the Gaddafi mercenary claims.
Edit: Also do you remember a few months back when Benghazi was surrounded and the insurgency was about to be crushed? The civil war would have been over months ago saving the lives of tens of thousands of Libyans; then NATO got involved and completely overstepped the boundaries outlined by the UN resolution.
The fact that the rebellion would have been so short lived I think speaks to the amount of popular support Gaddafi had and subsequently how little the rebels did. Better weapons and equipment? Does not matter if ninety percent of the population is against the regime.
What NATO did (and what the UN did) was completely in line with the UN charter.
The problem with claiming that the UN Charter was somehow violated is that the UN needs to agree with you.
Lol that link was cute but it has nothing to do with the current UN resolution for Libya and how NATO is conducting it.
Edit: Oh and its not the charter I and many others think was violated. Its the resolution that was passed that gave NATO the right to put up a no-fly zone. Don't criticize when you don't know what you are criticizing.
Berlusconi says he is against the NATO intervention.
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi hasn't been the victim of a popular uprising. That is the conviction of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who has been a friend of Gaddafi till Italy became one of the leading countries behind NATO's war against Libya in March.
"This has nothing to do with a popular uprising. The Libyan people love Gaddafi, as I was able to see when I went to Libya", Berlusconi said on Friday during a party meeting in Rome.
He said he suspects there was a plot against Gaddafi.
"Powerful people decided to give life to a new era by trying to oust Gaddafi," Berlusconi said, according to Italian news agency ANSA.
In July Berlusconi already said he was against NATO intervention in Libya but "had to go along with it", therewith exposing the fragility of the alliance trying to murder Gaddafi.
He added: "What choice did I have considering America's pressure, President Georgio Napolitano's stance, and the Parliament's decision?"
Meanwhile these Italian people protested against NATO's war on Libya and its current relentless terror bombing during a strike for better work conditions in Rome on September 6, saying: "There is a silent massacre going on in Libya!" and "Don't let Sirte, Bani Walid and Sebha become the new Fallujah or the new Guernica"
Holy taking things out of context, Batman! In your first video he does say that most people supported Gaddafi... In Tripoli? It's a little hard to make out exactly what he's saying, but it's not like he's saying most Libyans in general supported Gaddafi or anything like that. It's quite clear he's talking about a specific location. I've listened to it a dozen times, but I cannot quite figure out specifically where he's talking about, the words are too mumbled.
The second video denotes a fighter pilot who has refused to bomb because it might injure civilians.
And getting into the part you always ignore, Mox news (the source for your second video) is a one-man Youtube operation that has apparently been on the verge of being shut down for awhile. Oh, and it openly admits it is unfair and biased right on its front page. Quite the credible source you have there.
And for Kukaracha and Aurocaido, where was the news about the Libyan fighter pilots defecting after being ordered to bomb civilians debunked? I was looking around for that info and wasn't able to find anything other than the initial news of their defection. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I would like a link or two of evidence.
EPT
