EPTLibyan Uprising - Page 99
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Off topic discussion and argumentative back and forth will not be tolerated. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
firelord1
Belarus8 Posts
I've read and heard about cases where the rebels were the aggressors. These people aren't holy individuals with halos above their heads. Replacing khadaffi might even make matters worse. His replacement can be a far worse leader than khadaffi now. In fact, destabilization of libya might cause it to become a terrorist harboring country. For the time being, I think the rebels should lay down their arms and khadaffi should pull back his armies and they should just get back to life as usual. The problem in this "happily ever after" ending is that khadaffi might take revenge. However, with some international pressure, he can be forced not to. With this no-fly zone. Nato needs to sit at the table with Khadaffi ( force him if necessary ) and then work out a compromise where he can stay in power but can't take revenge on the former rebels. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4355 Posts
On April 02 2011 11:54 Kukaracha wrote: Isolated events which show no systematic attitude whatsoever. The high civilians casualties weren't the main goal and weren't caused only by US army shootings (France, as you recall, did not participate in Iraq) but mostly by the widespread of violence and bombings in the area. In the other hand, repression of recent protests in the arabic world was meant to strike fear and thus leading to systematic brutality, violence and cruelty, following clear orders. Sources? Any report on the clashes in Bahrain, Libya, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia. Captured thugs in Egypt confessing being paid to increase the feeling of insecurity and danger among protesters, captured mercenaries (who, by the way, aren't likely to even have the discipline of Blackwater loonies). The way an interviewed woman was treated a few days ago is also very eloquent: telling foreign reporters that Ghadaffi's forces raped her at a checkpoint because of her origin (being from Benghazi), she was attacked on camera by men of the government, and taken away to an unkown place while journalists were being brutalized and threatened with a gun to get the footage back. She is probably dead or tortured by now (the video is on the last pages I think). I posted four seperate incidents , how many more articles do i need to post on allied abuses of civilians before it becomes more than an 'isolated incident' ? You realise one of the main recruiting grounds for these 'terrorists' are people whos family members or friends have been killed by air strikes or incompetant blackwater type goons right? Anyway sounds to me like you have been suckered in by western propaganda.One womans alleged rape does not make the case for another illegal war - in any case why is that atrocity (if true) any worse than what the US Army committed in the articles i posted. If you want a decent news source go check out russiatoday , that is my advice to you. | ||
|
Aurocaido
Canada288 Posts
Video | ||
|
Ganondorf
Italy600 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6248 Posts
On April 02 2011 19:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: I posted four seperate incidents , how many more articles do i need to post on allied abuses of civilians before it becomes more than an 'isolated incident' ? You realise one of the main recruiting grounds for these 'terrorists' are people whos family members or friends have been killed by air strikes or incompetant blackwater type goons right? Anyway sounds to me like you have been suckered in by western propaganda.One womans alleged rape does not make the case for another illegal war - in any case why is that atrocity (if true) any worse than what the US Army committed in the articles i posted. If you want a decent news source go check out russiatoday , that is my advice to you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pvtwQlSOAY yes he is obviously target of the Western propaganda while your news source is completly unbiased. It's funded by the Russian government that alone makes it very biased. updates: 'Libyan rebels killed in NATO air strike' NATO investigating reports that coalition jet struck pro-democracy forces in country's east, killing at least seven. and Gadaffi rejected the ceasefire offered by the rebels http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/04/2011428562838677.html | ||
|
Aurocaido
Canada288 Posts
| ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4355 Posts
On April 02 2011 20:33 RvB wrote: yes he is obviously target of the Western propaganda while your news source is completly unbiased. It's funded by the Russian government that alone makes it very biased. updates: 'Libyan rebels killed in NATO air strike' NATO investigating reports that coalition jet struck pro-democracy forces in country's east, killing at least seven. and Gadaffi rejected the ceasefire offered by the rebels http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/04/2011428562838677.html Puh-lease , it's far less biased than CNN or the BBC. Wasn't western media reporting a month or so ago that Gadaffi had fled to Venezuela? complete nonsense. What were the rebels demands for the cease fire? | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6248 Posts
On April 02 2011 20:42 Aurocaido wrote: Ironic because the Libyan government has made two previous offers of a ceasefire that the rebels rejected. Rebels claimed the offers were insincere and could not be trusted. How come the rebel rejections were given so little news coverage compared to Gadaffi's? No, Gadaffi announced a 1 sided cease fire while shelling Misurata and making a march on Benghazi. So yes the offers were insincere and couldn't be trusted. And they've both gotten media coverage so I am not sure what you're talking about. edit: demands: Abdul-Jalil said the rebels' condition for a ceasefire is "that the Gaddafi brigades and forces withdraw from inside and outside Libyan cities to give freedom to the Libyan people to choose and the world will see that they will choose freedom". That includes the cities Gadaffi recently took like Ras Lanuf. I am not sure but I think they also wanted Gadaffi and his family to leave. source: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/04/201141134110527219.html | ||
|
Aurocaido
Canada288 Posts
On April 02 2011 20:57 RvB wrote: No, Gadaffi announced a 1 sided cease fire while shelling Misurata and making a march on Benghazi. So yes the offers were insincere and couldn't be trusted. And they've both gotten media coverage so I am not sure what you're talking about. And the rebels can be trusted? Furthermore, the terms demanded by the rebels are completely out of touch with their current situation. Gadaffi is winning and the rebels want Libyan forces to move out of every major city, including Tripoli, and are demanding the immediate resignation of Gadaffi.... really? There are also increasing concerns about the influence of the Al-Qaeda in opposition forces. + Show Spoiler + “Quite alarming reports are coming, which say that al-Qaeda elements could very likely be present among the opposition forces,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters at a news conference. “This certainly alarms us.” Lavrov added that the “plague” in the form of al-Qaeda terrorism could “spread all over the region and not only there." | ||
|
mcbrite
Germany229 Posts
On April 02 2011 17:00 firelord1 wrote: There is much more to the story. I've read and heard about cases where the rebels were the aggressors. These people aren't holy individuals with halos above their heads. Replacing khadaffi might even make matters worse. His replacement can be a far worse leader than khadaffi now. In fact, destabilization of libya might cause it to become a terrorist harboring country. For the time being, I think the rebels should lay down their arms and khadaffi should pull back his armies and they should just get back to life as usual. The problem in this "happily ever after" ending is that khadaffi might take revenge. However, with some international pressure, he can be forced not to. With this no-fly zone. Nato needs to sit at the table with Khadaffi ( force him if necessary ) and then work out a compromise where he can stay in power but can't take revenge on the former rebels. How serious do you think people will take your "insights" if can't even spell the dude's name right? | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6248 Posts
On April 02 2011 21:15 Aurocaido wrote: And the rebels can be trusted? Furthermore, the terms demanded by the rebels are completely out of touch with their current situation. Gadaffi is winning and the rebels want Libyan forces to move out of every major city, including Tripoli, and are demanding the immediate resignation of Gadaffi.... really? There are also increasing concerns about the influence of the Al-Qaeda in opposition forces. + Show Spoiler + “Quite alarming reports are coming, which say that al-Qaeda elements could very likely be present among the opposition forces,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters at a news conference. “This certainly alarms us.” Lavrov added that the “plague” in the form of al-Qaeda terrorism could “spread all over the region and not only there." Al jazeera reporters can be trusted. They've been in Benghazi all the time even when all other reporters left the city because it was getting to dangerous. And they weren't asking the Lybian forces to leave every major city. They ask the Lybian forces to leave all cities that were initially in rebel hands and they ask for the right of peaceful protests in Gadaffi held cities. And I wasn't sure if they wanted him to leave I got no source to back it up so that was speculation. Also stop the fear mongering that Al-Qaeda is behind everything the only news we got on it are that the NATO general ( don't remember who ) said there were SIGNS that Al Qaeda might be involved with the rebels but I haven't seen any concrete evidence for it. Further more a bit of Al-Qaeda presence doesn't mean all rebels have the same thoughts as them and it certainly doesn't mean they side with Al-Qaeda. | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
You sound like a bunch of teenagers who feel like the only good way is going around "the mainstream", the mainstream being in this case 80% of the news sources (everything "western-biaised). Ok, now to clear things up: 1) Russia today is government-funded. It follows the russian government (quite corrupted to boot) policy and position. Saying that it's a trustable source is just... I don't know just plain crazy, to use nice words. To a certain extent, it would be like using a Chinese source of information. Unbiased, O rly? 2) All newspapers gather their international information from about a dozen Press Agencies, mainly those 3: Reuters (UK), Agence France Presse (FR), and Associated Press (US). UPI (US) has declined and the Russian RIA Novotski and TASS are... public domain! That's right, controlled by the government. (I don't know however to which extent this influences their work). Controlling what is said by those 3 sources would be an extremely difficult task since they're... international. It would basically be a world conspiracy only a nutjob can believe. Contesting the grat job ground reporters have been doing in the tradition of Robert Capa is a huge lack of respect. People like James Nachtwey were risking their lives on a daily basis just to bring to you photos that might make you believe what you're reading and make it a bit more real in your mind. Saying these people are risking their lives with a corrupted goal is just plain disrespectful. Some are also very strict on the neutrality of information - see Reuter's Trust Principles and a related example (refusing to use the word "terrorist"). And if you think that the propaganda comes from a coordinated manipulation of all western medias, well this would also imply a NWO-ish conspiracy since you need to control thousands of newspapers. You can argue that what they're showing is what the public wants, but I've seen debates about the UN intervention since the very beginning. My main source, Le Monde, has displayed experts' debates who were both against and for international support. Was it just another propaganda strategy? Now you just sound silly. 3) Al Jazeera has been very criticized, and again it's a HUGE lack of respect. In one of your videos of Americans attacks in Iraq, two Al-Jazeera members are shot down. This organization is the only one who had reporters non-stop in every conflict of every Arabic country since the beginning, in spite of violence, murders and threats against them (two were ambushed in Libya by Ghadaffi forces, I wonder why?). And again, they are not pro-west as the main goal of their creation was to give another point of view, creating an important and powerful news source so the middle-east could have a voice in the world. So far, their work has been brilliant. But go on, wacth that incredible "Russia Today", go on. They don't even have someone on the field though, and are taking orders from the Ministry of external affairs. Hum... But it's still weird enough that the one who is opposed to information is Ghadaffi, not the rebels. And no, no matter how many videos you show, it shows nothing about systematic orders and a strategic choice. If there are 300 000 men on the field, even a hundred videos don't say a thing. You pointed the difference yourself: such incidents were mafunctions and horrible mistakes. The actions of Ghadaffi's mercenaries were planned. And NO, the rebels didn't ask for anything but the withdrawal of Ghadaffi's forces from originally rebel-held cities and the right to peacefully protest. That was ALL. Get your facts straight for God's sake! And more on topic: why do people defect? Is the CIA involvment likely to change the tides...? | ||
|
Petruccio
90 Posts
Well, the "oil" reason is very popular theory and of course in post-Gaddafi Libya the oil contracts will be given back to western corporation, but this is not the main reason. There is something more that oil money, something from USA benefit a lot - US dollar as the world currency. To understand the connection, you have to read, learn and understand about the current world financial system with references to the war in Iraq. Follow the money! http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_warfare http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Iraq_dollar_vs_euro.html (more detailed) http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html (even more detailed) The official reasons to start the war in Iraq, as far as you know, have proven to be false. There was no WMD and also the link with al Qaeda was never proved. (You know that al Qaeda was supported by CIA in Afghanistan to help fight with soviets, don't you?). The real reasons: "The unprovoked "shock and awe" attack on Iraq was to serve several economic purposes: (1) Safeguard the U.S. economy by re-denominating Iraqi oil in U.S. dollars, instead of the euro, to try to lock the world back into dollar oil trading so the U.S. would remain the dominant world power-militarily and economically. (2) Send a clear message to other oil producers as to what will happen to them if they abandon the dollar matrix. (3) Place the second largest oil reserve under direct U.S. control. (4) Create a subject state where the U.S. can maintain a huge force to dominate the Middle East and its oil. (5) Create a severe setback to the European Union and its euro, the only trading block and currency strong enough to attack U.S. dominance of the world through trade. (6) Free its forces (ultimately) so that it can begin operations against those countries that are trying to disengage themselves from U.S. dollar imperialism-such as Venezuela, where the U.S. has supported the attempted overthrow of a democratic government by a junta more friendly to U. S. business/oil interests. EU was strongly against the invasion. EU would benefit a lot if the world start to trade oil in euros. And now we have Libya. "The main initiator of non-payment in dollars and euros is the Leader and Guide of the Revolution in Libya, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. He called on Arab and African world to adopt a single current - the gold dinar. " And sell oil for the gold dinar. http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2011/03/22/13882.shtml Sarkozy has accused Gaddafi that that is going «to bring down a world financial system». Gaddafi is the enemy of a human race because it has raised a hand on "sacred" - against hundreds cubic metre nothing of the provided paper named dollar. http://vikno.eu/eng/politics/politics/the-deacon-gold-dinar-and-west-aggression.html (soory, bad translation) The next country that needs democracy and protecting civilians is, of course, Iran. Why? They sell oil not for USD too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4355 Posts
On April 03 2011 07:42 Petruccio wrote: For those who understand that the reason of the NATO invasion is not "protecting civilians" i have something to say. If you still think that NATO is "protecting civilians" and at least not for regime change and gaining control over the country - you are hopeless, please do not respond. Well, the "oil" reason is very popular theory and of course in post-Gaddafi Libya the oil contracts will be given back to western corporation, but this is not the main reason. There is something more that oil money, something from USA benefit a lot - US dollar as the world currency. Yes , if you remember the invasion of Iraq happened a few weeks after Iraq announced it would soon accept Euros for payment for it's oil.After the illegal invasion of Iraq was 'successful' the US reverted Iraq to accepting only USD for oil. Another couple of reasons to add - the illegal invasion of Libya also serves as a diversion from the impending collapse of the global economy and also the ongoing nuclear disaster in Japan which has no end in sight.I just noticed the EPA raised 'safe levels' of radiation exposure - this means they can continue to peddle the 'Radiation readings are far below caution levels' line.Where is the MSM on this? http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2162 This follows Japan doing the same thing : http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/80010.html But it's ok , now that everyone is concentrating on Libya no-one will notice the massaging of those safe exposure numbers. | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
I don't know if you remember, but the crisis of Japan took every headline for more than a week when it occurred. While Ghadaffi was sprinting to Benghazi, a crucial moment. The events in Libya had been going since the 17h of February. And no, Japan hasn't been forgotten, proof: ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/mE7ro.jpg) (There is one extra "More Japan") The more you go on the less serious you sound. And about the petrodollar warfare, I invite you to take a look at the debate going on about the Wikipedia article, since this "hypothesis" is more of an obscure conspiracy theory which generates very few Google hits, mostly commercial links related to the author's book. Skepticism is advised until we have a word from more sources about this. | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
| ||
|
mdb
Bulgaria4059 Posts
| ||
|
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
| ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
I am sincere about my astonishment as how people would prefer to listen to an openly extremely biased media just because... they believe the rest of the world is spreading propaganda. It's the world upside down. Listen to North Korea too then, they have a different POV on most topics. And while I do partly agree with that last Russia Today video and I do agree that the UN isn't there to save lives, I do believe that it could possibly save lives in the short term. I'm just pissed at the incredible amount of nonsense in this thread, regardless of opinion. Mdb: Any of those countries would take the US' place as a world power if they could. The US have a lot of internal pressure, it's an opportunity for other world powers to step in. | ||
| ||
