The Associated Press coldly announced the massacre of a group of Black people who were settled in a camp in front of the Libyan official residence. Dozens of dead bodies were found, hands tied behind their backs. The American news agency pointed out that these people were not combatants. Michel Collon and the delegation who went to Libya in July had met these men who loved Libya.
Michel Collon : « I have met these people while on mission in Tripoli. I talked with some of them. Contrary to what the media and the rebels proclaimed, they were in no way « mercenaries ». Some were black skinned Libyans - as a matter of fact, a major part of the population in Libya is composed of Black African people - the others were civilians who came from sub-Saharan African countries and who had been living in Libya for a long time. They all supported Gaddafi for the very reason that he opposed racism and treated Arabs and Africans as equals. Unlike the « rebels » of Benghazi, who are well-known for their anti-Black racism and who made themselves guilty of dreadful and systematic atrocities from the very first days of the war. What is paradoxical is that NATO says it wants to bring democracy but allies itself with a Libyan branch of Al Qaeda and with a group of KKK-like racists ! »
All the team of Investig’Action is deeply distressed by this sad news.
Mohamed Hassan, an observer of Africa, with an African leader. Read his interview about the mission in Tripoli.
Tony Busselen, a journalist for the weekly newspaper Solidaire, took part in the mission a few weeks ago :
« Our photos show that these people were unarmed civilians, there were even many women and children. I talked with them, they joined forces against the war and did not understand what Europe wanted. [...] It is really barbarous to murder unarmed people, hands tied behind their backs, they were simply people, workers who came spontaneously to defend their new homeland. This is truly terrifying and I saw photographs showing the same deeds committed in Benghazi by the « rebels » who are clearly using terror. So, when I see people in Tripoli « applauding » the rebels, I believe that they are simply terrorized. NATO is bringing dread.
Gaddafi killed unarmed civilians too. Where is your sympathy and outrage for them?
The latter is a 107 page document about the situation from perhaps the most respected and credible human rights organization on the planet. Pages 13-69 document confirmed human rights abuses by Gaddafi's forces. Pages 70-78 contain confirmed human rights abuses from the rebels.
Nobody wants innocent people to be killed, injured, or held captive. What the rebels have done to black Libyans is a travesty, and those involved will pay for those crimes. But it is wholly disingenuous to claim that the rebels are committing more human rights violations than Gaddafi's forces have, or that the numbers are even close to equal. And this report doesn't take into account the 40 years of human rights violations that were committed under Gaddafi's rule.
Also, notice how in the links I post from, there is a lot less editorial and loaded language (like the AP "coldly" announcing something or the last quote about people in Tripoli applauding the rebels because "I believe that they are simply terrorized"). That's because it's from a source that doesn't insult your intelligence and lets facts speak for themselves instead of presenting an ambiguous situation and telling you what to think.
On September 16 2011 05:17 Reedjr wrote: document about the situation from perhaps the most respected and credible human rights organization on the planet.
Isn't the same organization that "had a role propagating disinformation in a press release before the 1991 Gulf War, in which it claimed that Iraqi soldiers were responsible for the deaths of "scores of civilians, including newborn babies, who died as a direct result of their forced removal from life-support machines."It later transpired that this claim was a propaganda hoax"?
People, you never learn from history.
The only country I know the west invasion helped is Afghanistan. In 2000 evil Taliban declared growing poppies is un-Islamic. But it was almost only way to make for living for people. Then a successful anti-terrorist operation, Taliban is gone, heroine production raised 30 fold, 2 millions afghans have a job, elected a president, everybody happy in the new democratic Afghanistan.
Democratic Iraq is doing much worse. Several hundreds thousandths killed, Bush lied, sorry, it was a mistake, but Hussein was a terrible dictator, so anyway not that bad. Iraqi are still waiting when they get the level of life at least that of under Hussein rule. Now they have problems even with electricity.
And now Libya. Any forecast?
the 40 years of human rights violations that were committed under Gaddafi's rule.
Only someone who discovered Libya just in February can buy it. All Africa wanted the life Libyans had. There are still a lot of pre-revolution information in internet about life in Libya.
For example: South Libyan blacks were second-class people under king Idris rule. In Gaddafi's Libya they become equal. Now the rebels are putting them back into second-class people. I fight it reasonable that some of them want to fight the rebels.
On September 16 2011 05:17 Reedjr wrote: document about the situation from perhaps the most respected and credible human rights organization on the planet.
Isn't the same organization that "had a role propagating disinformation in a press release before the 1991 Gulf War, in which it claimed that Iraqi soldiers were responsible for the deaths of "scores of civilians, including newborn babies, who died as a direct result of their forced removal from life-support machines."It later transpired that this claim was a propaganda hoax"?
People, you never learn from history.
The only country I know the west invasion helped is Afghanistan. In 2000 evil Taliban declared growing poppies is un-Islamic. But it was almost only way to make for living for people. Then a successful anti-terrorist operation, Taliban is gone, heroine production raised 30 fold, 2 millions afghans have a job, elected a president, everybody happy in the new democratic Afghanistan.
Democratic Iraq is doing much worse. Several hundreds thousandths killed, Bush lied, sorry, it was a mistake, but Hussein was a terrible dictator, so anyway not that bad. Iraqi are still waiting when they get the level of life at least that of under Hussein rule. Now they have problems even with electricity.
the 40 years of human rights violations that were committed under Gaddafi's rule.
Only someone who discovered Libya just in February can buy it. All Africa wanted the life Libyans had. There are still a lot of pre-revolution information in internet about life in Libya.
For example: South Libyan blacks were second-class people under king Idris rule. In Gaddafi's Libya they become equal. Now the rebels are putting them back into second-class people. I fight it reasonable that some of them want to fight the rebels.
When you quote something, you need a source. That way it doesn't look like you pulled it directly from your butt.
Gaddafi stated explicitly in 1982 that "It is the Libyan people's responsibility to liquidate such scums who are distorting Libya's image abroad." Libyan agents have assassinated dissidents in the United States, Europe, and the Middle East. As of 2004 Libya still provided bounties on critics, including $1 million for one journalist.
People who formed a political party were executed, and talking about politics with foreigners was punishable by up to 3 years in jail.
Libya's society became increasingly Islamic during Gaddafi's rule. His "purification laws" were put into effect in 1994, punishing theft by the amputation of limbs, and fornication and adultery by flogging.
I can't believe that in the process of wanting to buy the western shit to make yourself think better of your life (freedom, care for others, democracy) you're actually supporting a bunch of murderers, because that's what these rebels seem to be with all these reports of killing blacks.
On September 16 2011 05:17 Reedjr wrote: document about the situation from perhaps the most respected and credible human rights organization on the planet.
Isn't the same organization that "had a role propagating disinformation in a press release before the 1991 Gulf War, in which it claimed that Iraqi soldiers were responsible for the deaths of "scores of civilians, including newborn babies, who died as a direct result of their forced removal from life-support machines."It later transpired that this claim was a propaganda hoax"?
People, you never learn from history.
The only country I know the west invasion helped is Afghanistan. In 2000 evil Taliban declared growing poppies is un-Islamic. But it was almost only way to make for living for people. Then a successful anti-terrorist operation, Taliban is gone, heroine production raised 30 fold, 2 millions afghans have a job, elected a president, everybody happy in the new democratic Afghanistan.
Democratic Iraq is doing much worse. Several hundreds thousandths killed, Bush lied, sorry, it was a mistake, but Hussein was a terrible dictator, so anyway not that bad. Iraqi are still waiting when they get the level of life at least that of under Hussein rule. Now they have problems even with electricity.
And now Libya. Any forecast?
the 40 years of human rights violations that were committed under Gaddafi's rule.
Only someone who discovered Libya just in February can buy it. All Africa wanted the life Libyans had. There are still a lot of pre-revolution information in internet about life in Libya.
For example: South Libyan blacks were second-class people under king Idris rule. In Gaddafi's Libya they become equal. Now the rebels are putting them back into second-class people. I fight it reasonable that some of them want to fight the rebels.
When you quote something, you need a source. That way it doesn't look like you pulled it directly from your butt.
Gaddafi stated explicitly in 1982 that "It is the Libyan people's responsibility to liquidate such scums who are distorting Libya's image abroad." Libyan agents have assassinated dissidents in the United States, Europe, and the Middle East. As of 2004 Libya still provided bounties on critics, including $1 million for one journalist.
Libya's society became increasingly Islamic during Gaddafi's rule. His "purification laws" were put into effect in 1994, punishing theft by the amputation of limbs, and fornication and adultery by flogging.
On September 16 2011 16:33 Pika Chu wrote: I can't believe that in the process of wanting to buy the western shit to make yourself think better of your life (freedom, care for others, democracy) you're actually supporting a bunch of murderers, because that's what these rebels seem to be with all these reports of killing blacks.
Gaddafi was also a murderer. Welcome to the real world.
It really amazes me how someone could think that any of those sides have clean hands.
Btw, that report of black people killed could be compared to the dozens of calcinated bodies found in the hangar of some army barracks a few weeks ago. Pro-Gaddafi soldiers were retreating, and didn't have the time to execute their prisoners or take them to their new meeting point, so apparently one day they opened the main door, threw a bunch of grenades inside and shot those who rushed outside. However, some survived that chaos.
Crusaders used to rape and slaughter innocent villagers in the name of God. US Marines hunted people for sport in Afghanistan. During the war of independence in Algeria, the Algerians had a special idea: they would create a "river of blood" between the French and the Algerians, by carrying out random massacres amongst the French civilian population, knowing that innocent locals would be slaughtered by the French army in retaliation.
On September 16 2011 08:17 Reedjr wrote: When you quote something, you need a source. That way it doesn't look like you pulled it directly from your butt.
If I write something obviously untrue, a refutation will come together with appeal to ban me. So I am usually careful. I am lazy sometimes to find all links, normally if you google the phrase, can find it easily.
On September 16 2011 19:42 Kukaracha wrote: Gaddafi was also a murderer. Welcome to the real world.
No doubt he was. Libya is full of different tribes, races, tuareg people, islamists. He used force to unite them all under one country. I guess there is no way to rule a country in Africa and avoid being a murderer. The fact that NATO kills civilians makes NATO countries leaders murderers too.
Btw, that report of black people killed could be compared to the dozens of calcinated bodies found in the hangar of some army barracks a few weeks ago. Pro-Gaddafi soldiers were retreating, and didn't have the time to execute their prisoners or take them to their new meeting point, so apparently one day they opened the main door, threw a bunch of grenades inside and shot those who rushed outside. However, some survived that chaos.
I remember this story. It was easy to understand that the guy who "survived" and told the story is lying. The wound he showed is old, and there is no way out and survive if "they opened the main door, threw a bunch of grenades inside and shot those who rushed outside". Actually he could not give a good explanation how he did. "jumped over the wall". Which wall?? Some of sculls were damaged like were shot by a bullet, i.e. executed.
Also it was not hard to notice that in the other story, the corpses in the hospital, people were executed, including some doctors.
Again, welcome to war; war in general.
That's why war must be avoided even at cost of some people lives.
Many People in Tripoli still want Gaddafi and fear the Armed Rebels (September 15, 2011)
In this report by Maria Finoshina we can hear several people in Tripoli talking about the Rebels. They are fearful of them, because if they are critical of them, they risk getting killed.
Someone says: "The Rebels only represent themselves. They rule because the people fear them. We are not allowed to speak our minds"
It seems that many people in Tripoli in their heart still want Gaddafi back and these armed gangs out, but they don't want more violence, and they are fearful. These Rebels are armed and have the support of the military coup organisation called NATO.
How long can such a situation exist? How long can the Rebels subdue the people of Tripoli? How long before new demonstrations appear against the rule of these Rebels that were definitely not invited by the people of Tripoli, who only gained control because of the merciless bombing of the defenses of the Libyans?
Rebel forces in Libya claim they are advancing in Colonel Gaddafi's home town of Sirte - one of the last loyalist bastions. Several thousand opposition fighters, backed by tanks and heavy weapons, have reportedly launched an offensive on the city. Russia says it's time to lift the UN-imposed no fly-zone in Libya, which was introduced to save civilians. Anti-war activists, though, maintain that NATO's role has nothing to do with any humanitarian mission
It's a shame that Russia Today has such obvious bias against anything the west would consider good so to be able to try and reduce the power sphere of western countries (and defend their own lack of support for the NTC) they have to paint it black.
I'm all for objective news but there is no such things, one must simply find as many sources as there are and try to overcome ones own prejudice and perhaps question ones own ideas of what is right and wrong.
None of you people seem to do this, ofcourse there are people who try, but this topic is a festering wound of conspiracy and drama discussions
Hey look a thread about war / politics. Hey look, another thread where people argue about the credibility of sources.
So tired of someone posting a topic and then everyone whipping out their e-peen measuring sticks and trying to be more correct and informed than the other guy.
On September 17 2011 01:06 GeyzeR wrote: That's why war must be avoided even at cost of some people lives.
Haha, French leaders thought the same thing in 1939.
Then why did the French declare war on Germany if they didn't want war? (and why didn't they also declare war on USSR for attacking Poland? lol)
Well, I think it's a bit self-explanatory. Oh the nightmare it was for France and Britain when Bismarck united the German kingdoms. Thanks to Central defeat in WW1, the Allied powers were able to oppress Germany and threw it into deep economic depression and disorder. Then came a revitalizing power with the Nazis, and of course, the nightmare of German unity and power returned, so it was convenient to get the chance to declare war on Germany. Of course, thankfully, the Soviet Union existed, or else WW2 would have been the most one-sided major war in history, and Germany was conquered once again and thrown into subservience to foreign powers for better or worse :S.
Brief history of Germany in the past 150 years. Meanwhile, France is the ass of all war jokes in the US because the German military juggernaut conquered them quite easily in WW2. (
On September 17 2011 06:55 Saji wrote: Funny how CNN doesn`t put this on the headlines, see views hits
Some old vids i found at CNN which wasn't covered yet:
On September 17 2011 01:06 GeyzeR wrote: That's why war must be avoided even at cost of some people lives.
Haha, French leaders thought the same thing in 1939.
Then why did the French declare war on Germany if they didn't want war? (and why didn't they also declare war on USSR for attacking Poland? lol)
France didn't move a finger until the Germans crossed the Ardennes. We barely raised our voice when the region of Rhenany was remilitarized, we let Hitler absorb Austria with the weak claim that there was a German minority there (but Austria did welcome him, the Anschluss in 1938 was quite peaceful), and let Tchecoslovakia go (letting Hitler take control of the powerful Skoda industry), despite all the treaties that were made.
France did declare war against Poland but never entered German territory. Poland was thrown to the wolves with no mercy whatsoever, and in fact the German's fast progression through that country was the result of the Polish strategy: pulling back and harassing the German lines, keeping the forces intact, waiting for their Allies' help. But help never came and when they realized that France nor Britain would rescue them, they had already lost half of their territory (and no, the polish cavalry didn't suicide itself on tanks, they were attacking infantry groups and had not seen that they were supported by panzers).
From 1939 to 1940, France was in what we called the "drôle de guerre" (funny war), since that "war" consisted of massing troops in the Maginot line and preparing a possible counterratack in Belgium if the Germans were to cross there. The French army remained immobile a whole year.
Daladier had resigned from his post and Reynaud took charge. Both knew that war was inevitable but Chamberlain and the majority of the Parliament wanted peace at all costs. However, Reynaud didn't have Daladier's energy and eventually resigned himself. We know the rest of the story, Pétain, Vichy, the Shoah, Katyn, etc.
And comparing France and Germany's armies, Germany definitely had the upper hand: even though GB and France had the most numerous arsenal, Germany had the most efficient one. F.e, German panzers were very mobile while French panzers were mostly used as infantry support and relied on oil trucks to work. But if France had listened to De Gaulle and other dynamic leaders from the beginning, things would've been different. The humiliation that France endured was, in fact, mostly a military one, thus the constant mockery.
I'm quite off topic but if you want more info about this, a French specialists lives in my city, Denis Peschansky, check him out. I have some books here too that could help.
On September 17 2011 07:04 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On September 17 2011 03:51 Kukaracha wrote:
On September 17 2011 01:06 GeyzeR wrote: That's why war must be avoided even at cost of some people lives.
Haha, French leaders thought the same thing in 1939.
Then why did the French declare war on Germany if they didn't want war? (and why didn't they also declare war on USSR for attacking Poland? lol)
France didn't move a finger until the Germans crossed the Ardennes. We barely raised our voice when the region of Rhenany was remilitarized, we let Hitler absorb Austria with the weak claim that there was a German minority there (but Austria did welcome him, the Anschluss in 1938 was quite peaceful), and let Tchecoslovakia go (letting Hitler take control of the powerful Skoda industry), despite all the treaties that were made.
France did declare war against Poland but never entered German territory. Poland was thrown to the wolves with no mercy whatsoever, and in fact the German's fast progression through that country was the result of the Polish strategy: pulling back and harassing the German lines, keeping the forces intact, waiting for their Allies' help. But help never came and when they realized that France nor Britain would rescue them, they had already lost half of their territory (and no, the polish cavalry didn't suicide itself on tanks, they were attacking infantry groups and had not seen that they were supported by panzers).
From 1939 to 1940, France was in what we called the "drôle de guerre" (funny war), since that "war" consisted of massing troops in the Maginot line and preparing a possible counterratack in Belgium if the Germans were to cross there. The French army remained immobile a whole year.
Daladier had resigned from his post and Reynaud took charge. Both knew that war was inevitable but Chamberlain and the majority of the Parliament wanted peace at all costs. However, Reynaud didn't have Daladier's energy and eventually resigned himself. We know the rest of the story, Pétain, Vichy, the Shoah, Katyn, etc.
And comparing France and Germany's armies, Germany definitely had the upper hand: even though GB and France had the most numerous arsenal, Germany had the most efficient one. F.e, German panzers were very mobile while French panzers were mostly used as infantry support and relied on oil trucks to work. But if France had listened to De Gaulle and other dynamic leaders from the beginning, things would've been different. The humiliation that France endured was, in fact, mostly a military one, thus the constant mockery.
I'm quite off topic but if you want more info about this, a French specialists lives in my city, Denis Peschansky, check him out. I have some books here too that could help.
I'd just like to add two things: First of all the Anschluss was only peaceful because the Austrian government reluctantly agreed after they realized they could pose no real military oppisition. There was some real political support but it wasn't actually in the majority. Secondly, both France and the UK wanted to avoid another world war at all costs. Chamberlain even travelled by plane (even though he was scared shitless of flying) to meet with Hitler prior to the invasion of Poland to discuss Hitlers advancement of the German military and Germanys territorial gains. He left with a promise from Hitler that he's "done" and would stop with his aggressive foreign policy, a promise which he relayed back on the ground in the UK. When Poland was invaded both France and the UK had to face the inevitable but all the hesitation and attempts to avoid war had left the both of them somewhat illprepared. (Building up for war can and often is seen as an aggressive action and would have made it more likely that they'd cause one through their own actions). Great post none the less, even if it wasn't explicitly Libya related.
EPT
(
