On March 29 2011 19:18 mdb wrote: I`ve said maybe 10 times in this thread, that I`ve been in Libya. I`ve been in Bengazi and Adjadabia mostly, but I`ve spent some time in Tripoli too. For the 5-6 months I`ve been there and Libya is not police state lol. Just a normal country.
And the people in Libya had different opinion about Kadafi. Some liked him very much, some didnt care, some hated him. Just like any goverment in the world.
Who can I trust? My own experience or what western media says? What is your opinion about that?
Your anecdotal evidence is outweighed by plenty of human rights reports I'm sure we can Google if you'd like, and by the government's actions since this uprising started. Especially when it was just protesting, not rebellion.
My opinion is that for some weird reason you think your personal experience for 5-6 months in a country no matter how places you've been there makes you an expert when events far stronger than any argument I could make have shown that what you're saying was right for what you saw but wrong in general.
On March 29 2011 19:18 mdb wrote: I`ve said maybe 10 times in this thread, that I`ve been in Libya. I`ve been in Bengazi and Adjadabia mostly, but I`ve spent some time in Tripoli too. For the 5-6 months I`ve been there and Libya is not police state lol. Just a normal country.
And the people in Libya had different opinion about Kadafi. Some liked him very much, some didnt care, some hated him. Just like any goverment in the world.
Who can I trust? My own experience or what western media says? What is your opinion about that?
Your anecdotal evidence is outweighed by plenty of human rights reports I'm sure we can Google if you'd like, and by the government's actions since this uprising started. Especially when it was just protesting, not rebellion.
My opinion is that for some weird reason you think your personal experience for 5-6 months in a country no matter how places you've been there makes you an expert when events far stronger than any argument I could make have shown that what you're saying was right for what you saw but wrong in general.
If you're so worried about "human rights reports that we can Google" why don't you ask why nobody cares about the ongoing massacres in the Ivory Coast, Sudan, Tunisia, and elsewhere. Why so focused on Libya? Spreading democracy of course!!! Because what better way to encourage a "democratic" (aka puppet) gov't than support a resistance and force it down said country's throat, meanwhile keeping the propaganda ...oops, i meant main stream media... rolling across the globe.
This is the same formula the Western empire has used for decades, and it's always really about the resources and military (or other hidded) strategy, NEVER about helping people. That's just there to help you and I justify being the police of the world, disregarding anybody's (namely the invaded) opinion on the matter.
On March 29 2011 19:18 mdb wrote: I`ve said maybe 10 times in this thread, that I`ve been in Libya. I`ve been in Bengazi and Adjadabia mostly, but I`ve spent some time in Tripoli too. For the 5-6 months I`ve been there and Libya is not police state lol. Just a normal country.
And the people in Libya had different opinion about Kadafi. Some liked him very much, some didnt care, some hated him. Just like any goverment in the world.
Who can I trust? My own experience or what western media says? What is your opinion about that?
Your anecdotal evidence is outweighed by plenty of human rights reports I'm sure we can Google if you'd like, and by the government's actions since this uprising started. Especially when it was just protesting, not rebellion.
My opinion is that for some weird reason you think your personal experience for 5-6 months in a country no matter how places you've been there makes you an expert when events far stronger than any argument I could make have shown that what you're saying was right for what you saw but wrong in general.
Yes, my 5-6 months stay there + 10 years of my grandparents being doctors there + 6 years my aunt and uncle being engineers there. Deal with this simple fact - you are brainwashed by your media and goverment, its as simple as that.
On March 29 2011 03:00 mdb wrote: Dont know, man. Imagine what it would be if all the oil companies around the world have had invested 1/10th of the money they make back to their respective economy. Imagine if Shell was investing their profits back in NL`s economy. Wouldnt you have higher standard of living?
Shell is a private company and their intentions are to make profit. Profits always get reinvested into the economy for further growth of their company plus some of it goes to the shareholders.
A better comparison would be the gas the Netherlands has which gets exported. The profits go to the government which does get reinvested in all kind of things.
And I don't get why people think Al Jazeera is western media. Al Jazeera has been bombed twice by the US if anything they would be biased AGAINST the US for that. It's by far the least biased news source we got ( every news source is biased ).
anyway latest news:
Troops loyal to longtime Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi have shelled pro-democracy forces heading west on the main coastal highway, pushing them out of Bin Jawad, a small town around 150 kilometres east of Sirte, Gaddafi's hometown
Misurata is atleast partly in Gadaffi hands again journalists have been allowed into the city untill about 5 km out of the center. Rebel forces are probably still there.
Hoy thurr, being all mighty and all-knowing with such a weak argument is not very serious my good sir, not at all. I'll find a random Libyan dude who says otherwise and, oh god! I've got an argument that's even better, because the guy's Libyan! Oh god great debates coming, I wish Socrates and Callicles were here.
And to the previous poster, please keep the NWO bullcrap out of this. Or yet better, learn how western medias work! (Although I thought the basics of this were thaught in highschool... well not everywhere I guess).
Also, bonus: to all of those wo want to illuminate the lost souls of this thread, we know. We know it's not motivated by sheer kindness. Please realize you are not the only one with a brain, and move on, to other much more interesting and complex aspects of the problem!
to all of those who want to illuminate the lost souls of this thread, we know. We know it's not motivated by sheer kindness. Please realize you are not the only one with a brain, and move on, to other much more interesting and complex aspects of the problem!
Sounds to me like you're the one who wants to "illuminate" this thread, l.o.l. What exactly was the point of your post btw? Telling everyone to "move on to much more interesting and complex aspects of the problem." Care to "illuminate" us on these aspects so we may, in fact, begin "moving on?"
On March 29 2011 19:18 mdb wrote: I`ve said maybe 10 times in this thread, that I`ve been in Libya. I`ve been in Bengazi and Adjadabia mostly, but I`ve spent some time in Tripoli too. For the 5-6 months I`ve been there and Libya is not police state lol. Just a normal country.
And the people in Libya had different opinion about Kadafi. Some liked him very much, some didnt care, some hated him. Just like any goverment in the world.
Who can I trust? My own experience or what western media says? What is your opinion about that?
Your anecdotal evidence is outweighed by plenty of human rights reports I'm sure we can Google if you'd like, and by the government's actions since this uprising started. Especially when it was just protesting, not rebellion.
My opinion is that for some weird reason you think your personal experience for 5-6 months in a country no matter how places you've been there makes you an expert when events far stronger than any argument I could make have shown that what you're saying was right for what you saw but wrong in general.
I prefer his anecdotal evidence to be honest.
Compile a list of human rights abuses in America and people like you would think it was a police state as well.
Libya had the highest standard of living of all North African countries, it wasn't exactly dystopian.
This is the same formula the Western empire has used for decades, and it's always really about the resources and military (or other hidded) strategy, NEVER about helping people. That's just there to help you and I justify being the police of the world, disregarding anybody's (namely the invaded) opinion on the matter
I really wish there was something like "The western empire". Sounds cool and we could just start invading whatever we like and actually add it to our country.
Just like how the US took all the oil out of Iraq and made it a puppet state. Ooh hang on, the oil is all there and the Iraq government is closer to Iran then it ever was before...
The terms good and evil and "helping people" are far to simplistic and childish to adress global politics. If you state that the US isn't helping people then you create the illusion that there is a side that does do so.
The reality is that the US is about as nice a super power as you can expect. They influence nations but that is what one does whilst being a super power. There is hardly any foul play and certainly no global conspiracy to invade the middle-east.
The US atleast takes care of it's own people and doesn't atack them. You might not realize this but that makes them an exception compared to most nations in this world.
The US doesn't help people? Ooh, does the Taliban help people?
Can we just get rid of all the oversimplistic black/white worldviews? The reality is far more complex. It seems like people want to understand global politics but not put in the effort to study it, resulting in them making up childish words like good and evil or making up conspiracy theories wich boil down massive and complex situations to simple to understand phrases.
The reality is that the US is about as nice a super power as you can expect. They influence nations but that is what one does whilst being a super power. There is hardly any foul play and certainly no global conspiracy to invade the middle-east.
I think you are underestimating the callousness and recklessness with which the US engages in foreign policy.
The US is a very nice place domestically, but it has little regard for human life and interests outside of its borders.
There were justified humanitarian reasons for toppling Saddam Hussein, but the US chose to invade at a very curious time. Almost decade had past after the Gulf War, and with the bulk of Saddam's crimes against his having occurred before that point.
The Bush administration were opportunists. While the American public was scared of Arabs and the Middle East, they were sold the Iraq invasion under the false pretense of 'weapons of mass destruction'. I don't think for one second that the administration cared about the veracity of WMD claims what with the secretary of defense seemingly satisfied with 'unknown unknowns' rather than hard proof.
Iraq has have enormous strategic value for the US. It has the second largest oil reserves in the world and is wedged between Iran and Saudi Arabia. It would be completely naive to neglect the significance of established a military foothold there.
The US is not an evil country, but it is far from nice. It is merely self-interested while claiming otherwise.
On March 29 2011 03:00 mdb wrote: Dont know, man. Imagine what it would be if all the oil companies around the world have had invested 1/10th of the money they make back to their respective economy. Imagine if Shell was investing their profits back in NL`s economy. Wouldnt you have higher standard of living?
Shell is a private company and their intentions are to make profit. Profits always get reinvested into the economy for further growth of their company plus some of it goes to the shareholders.
A better comparison would be the gas the Netherlands has which gets exported. The profits go to the government which does get reinvested in all kind of things.
So if instead of Kadafi the Libyan oil was drilled from some private company, then there would be no problems?. Do you think that Kadafi has more money than Shells board of directors or any other private oil company? Do you think if the oil in Libya was owned by some private company they`ll invest the money back to Libya to provide better living conditions?
If you think so, then I understand why you support what is happening now. But I dont think this is the case.
On March 29 2011 03:00 mdb wrote: Dont know, man. Imagine what it would be if all the oil companies around the world have had invested 1/10th of the money they make back to their respective economy. Imagine if Shell was investing their profits back in NL`s economy. Wouldnt you have higher standard of living?
Shell is a private company and their intentions are to make profit. Profits always get reinvested into the economy for further growth of their company plus some of it goes to the shareholders.
A better comparison would be the gas the Netherlands has which gets exported. The profits go to the government which does get reinvested in all kind of things.
So if instead of Kadafi the Libyan oil was drilled from some private company, then there would be no problems?. Do you think that Kadafi has more money than Shells board of directors or any other private oil company? Do you think if the oil in Libya was owned by some private company they`ll invest the money back to Libya to provide better living conditions?
If you think so, then I understand why you support what is happening now. But I dont think this is the case.
I've never said any of that I only said that your comparison by taking Shell and Lybian oil is wrong I also gave you a better comparison.
"A better comparison would be the gas the Netherlands has which gets exported. The profits go to the government which does get reinvested in all kind of things."
Governmental profit in NL goes back to the population while a big part of the oil profit from Lybia goes into Gadaffi's pocket that was my point nothing more nothing less.
More updates:
4:03pm
Al Jazeera's Hoda Abdel-Hamid reports from Ras Lanuf that the news from Bin Jawad is that the city has fallen to pro-Gaddafi forces, and opposition fighters are now retreating to Ras Lanuf.
She also says that the opposition's military commanders are complaining that their fighters "do not want to be" disciplined or act in a structured way.
Furthermore, the rebels' supply lines are stretched.
4:07pm
The Libyan rebel council says that the United States has appointed an official envoy to the National Council in Benghazi. More details on this as and when they become available.
4:10pm
Tim Friend, Al Jazeera's correspondent in London, reports that the international leaders at the summit are far from united, as there remain unanswered questions regarding how far the NATO-controlled military intervention is to go. Friend also referred to apparent contradictions within the US administration itself - Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN says she could not rule out arming the opposition, while NATO has been stressing that it is "impartial" in the conflict.
"WASHINGTON, March 29 (Reuters) - Intelligence on the rebel forces battling Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has shown "flickers" of al Qaeda or Hezbollah presence, but there is still no detailed picture of the emerging Libyan opposition, NATO's top operations commander said on Tuesday."
Something Kadafi was saying from the begging, that the rebels are supported by Al Qaeda.
That Al Qaeda are feeding the young kids with hallucinogens / that's why the citizen are raging?
And btw, wouldn't you be rather surprised if they didn't find anyone with any Hezbollah/Al Qaeda amid the situation? Considering Libya's relation with the west/etc etc?
"WASHINGTON, March 29 (Reuters) - Intelligence on the rebel forces battling Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has shown "flickers" of al Qaeda or Hezbollah presence, but there is still no detailed picture of the emerging Libyan opposition, NATO's top operations commander said on Tuesday."
Something Kadafi was saying from the begging, that the rebels are supported by Al Qaeda.
Didn't the US also support Mao Zedong and Saddam? And I doubt they will side with Al Qauda or Hezbollah since they asked the West for help and have seen the west as their allies since the start.
On March 30 2011 03:04 blomsterjohn wrote: So you equate that with what Gaddafi said?
That Al Qaeda are feeding the young kids with hallucinogens / that's why the citizen are raging?
And btw, wouldn't you be rather surprised if they didn't find anyone with any Hezbollah/Al Qaeda amid the situation? Considering Libya's relation with the west/etc etc?
Yes, I would equate that. Why not? Kadafi said that the rebels are supported by Al Qaeda and the NATO operations commander is saying the same.
Yeah, I guess is normal terrorists groups to be involved. Libya is the perfect country for terrorist operations in Europe. It is very close, 90% of it is desert, which is perfect for terrorist training camps, it is is Islamic country and the step to Islamic extremism is very small. All Al Qaeda needs is Kadafi to be removed. Isnt this worrying you?
On March 30 2011 03:04 blomsterjohn wrote: So you equate that with what Gaddafi said?
That Al Qaeda are feeding the young kids with hallucinogens / that's why the citizen are raging?
And btw, wouldn't you be rather surprised if they didn't find anyone with any Hezbollah/Al Qaeda amid the situation? Considering Libya's relation with the west/etc etc?
Yes, I would equate that. Why not? Kadafi said that the rebels are supported by Al Qaeda and the NATO operations commander is saying the same.
No, they're not saying the same thing. You extrapolate waaay too much out of such a statement. Furthermore they are oppurtunists, even if they are involved now (notice how it was speculation and not confirmation, hence the if) nothing is to say they were so from the start. It's a great place to recruit new "freedom fighters" and drafting them into their general operation.
On March 30 2011 03:04 blomsterjohn wrote: So you equate that with what Gaddafi said?
That Al Qaeda are feeding the young kids with hallucinogens / that's why the citizen are raging?
And btw, wouldn't you be rather surprised if they didn't find anyone with any Hezbollah/Al Qaeda amid the situation? Considering Libya's relation with the west/etc etc?
Yes, I would equate that. Why not? Kadafi said that the rebels are supported by Al Qaeda and the NATO operations commander is saying the same.
No, they're not saying the same thing. You extrapolate waaay too much out of such a statement. Furthermore they are oppurtunists, even if they are involved now (notice how it was speculation and not confirmation, hence the if) nothing is to say they were so from the start. It's a great place to recruit new "freedom fighters" and drafting them into their general operation.
Yeah, I guess you are right. I went over the top with the comparison, but you have to agree that if such high ranked NATO official is saying something like that, there has to be some evidence for this. And yes, an Islamic country in the state of civil war is perfect breeding ground for future terrorists. I cant see how supporting the rebels will help coping with this eventual problem.
EPT
