erm. Egypt?
Also, please go ahead and read what I have written in previous posts. No need to just put a post forward to increase your post count
So.. you are in favor of Gaddafi's oppressive rule? I cannot remember a single revolution that was successful without the use of violence.
erm. Egypt?
Also, please go ahead and read what I have written in previous posts. No need to just put a post forward to increase your post count
Supplying weapons is neither proof that these people are thugs, nor is it proof that the rebellion was not genuine.
Then you probably should educate yourself on his regime and its policy towards Libyans, both at home and abroad. The US's support of Libya is something along the lines of their support for Pakistan -- the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Gaddafi was not a popular figure in Western circles.
I have no "perception of behavior." My opinion on the rebellion is that it was genuine. Once NATO saw that momentum of the Arab Spring could potentially carry this rebellion all the way to Tripoli, they pounced on the opportunity to back the rebels. Gaddafi has been an unpopular figure in the West, mostly for his ties to terrorism, but also because of his brutal regime. NATO took the rebellion as an opportunity to displace him and install another democratic government. Whether that last bit comes to fruition remains to be seen.
Your failure here is to provide one iota of evidence that these men are "thugs." You cannot even define what you mean by the word, though you can tell me specifically what it doesn't mean. I don't see any evidence that the men who started this rebellion were hired by NATO and you have yet to provide this information.
Says the guy copy / pasting the same answer.
No. It was a post whose purpose was to show my contempt for the Islamic world and its inability to do pretty much anything genuinely worthwhile on the world stage.
No, just general BS provided, no factual basis for the conclusion.
Yes, NATO got involved when Gaddafi started using his military to put down the protesters.
You seem to have a difficult time understanding that someone is going to be in control of that country. Gaddafi is out, some other group is in. Hopefully, it will be the people who get to decide, but that remains to be seen. The NTC removed the tyrant and now controls the the assets. Are you really that naive about the realities of the world?
You've constructed a dialog and narrative that has little factual basis beyond the point that NATO was clearly interested in toppling Gaddafi's regime. Those so-called thugs have gone to great lengths to prevent reprisals against Gaddafi loyalists and have fought a fairly clean campaign against Gaddafi's military. There aren't many reports of looting, rape, or pillaging from the rebel side.
More than 30 men believed to be fighters loyal to Moammar Gadhafi have been found killed at a military encampment in central Tripoli and at least two were bound with plastic handcuffs, indicating they had been executed.
Elsewhere in the city, a British medical worker said a hospital had received the bodies of 17 civilians believed to have been executed in recent days by government forces.
"Yesterday a truck arrived at the hospital with 17 dead bodies," Kirsty Campbell of the International Medical Corps told Reuters at Mitiga hospital.
"These guys were rounded up 10 days ago. They were found in Bab al-Aziziya when the guys (rebel fighters) went in. These guys were shot in an execution there," she said.
The wounds were not battlefield injuries, she said.
U.N. human rights spokesman Rupert Colville said the allegations of summary executions were alarming.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44270675/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/#.TlanBF3GAoM
This isn't the 1st of such reports either. A few days ago someone posted a link to an article mentioning villages of tribal members known/thought to be supportive of Khaddafi had been looted and destroyed. The people were all missing, no one knows what became of them.
Fern
Agreed. I can see three possible scenarios here. First, Obama and NATO discover evidence that Gaddafi is not living up to his Bush conversion and is indeed still sponsoring terrorism. Second, NATO's European members decide that other Gaddafi activities tip the balance from tolerable to intolerable. Third, Obama and/or NATO decided that the rebels were likely going to succeed and thus we might as well be on the winning team. Any of those and perhaps a dozen others might be the reason we jumped in - most likely it was some combination of things. Bush-bashing aside, Presidents usually see numerous reasons pro and con on any particular proposal, and have to decide whether the former beats the latter based on whose projections they most trust. They are not cape-wearing cartoon villeins out to kill people to enrich their friends or allies, nor do they make these decisions lightly.Supplying weapons is neither proof that these people are thugs, nor is it proof that the rebellion was not genuine.
Then you probably should educate yourself on his regime and its policy towards Libyans, both at home and abroad. The US's support of Libya is something along the lines of their support for Pakistan -- the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Gaddafi was not a popular figure in Western circles.
I have no "perception of behavior." My opinion on the rebellion is that it was genuine. Once NATO saw that momentum of the Arab Spring could potentially carry this rebellion all the way to Tripoli, they pounced on the opportunity to back the rebels. Gaddafi has been an unpopular figure in the West, mostly for his ties to terrorism, but also because of his brutal regime. NATO took the rebellion as an opportunity to displace him and install another democratic government. Whether that last bit comes to fruition remains to be seen.
Your failure here is to provide one iota of evidence that these men are "thugs." You cannot even define what you mean by the word, though you can tell me specifically what it doesn't mean. I don't see any evidence that the men who started this rebellion were hired by NATO and you have yet to provide this information.
Reported.
Your hatred for Islam and the Muslims is apparent and you go on to show how proud you are of it. You are an Islamophobe.
It is sad that the moderators on this forum have a similar view point. Any such hatred displayed towards any other community or people gets outright bans.
It makes all of the sense in the world for the CIA to be playing a big role in pushing who rules Libya, and that the money goes into the 'right' friendly hands.
But what's actually happening is a mystery about that at this time. We just don't know who's doing what as far as I know.
Hopefully good journalists like Jeremy Scahill will find some info. Unfortunately, 5% of the American people seem like they'd bother to read it.
If he's an islamophobe you are a scared of/hate the west and westerners. This thread is an example of it. You don't want your Muslim lands messed with by outsiders even though you are probably happy when tens of millions of Muslims live in the West.
Huh? Many of the moderators bent over backwards to defend and protect you and make you feel better. You aren't going to be happy until people aren't allowed to criticize Islam.
erm. Egypt?
Also, please go ahead and read what I have written in previous posts. No need to just put a post forward to increase your post count
That is what I gathered from reading your previous posts. Most of your posts do not add anything really.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14610722
A bunch of thugs armed by the weapons of France, Italy and Britain, has now "liberated" and "freed" Libya, and are paving the way to a "democratic" government.
Who chose the NTC as representatives of Libya? I dont remember any elections. But all the Libyan assets "frozen" are going to be handed to them? So they can give it back to France, UK and other NATO countries because they backed the "revolt"?
idiots screamed "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!" when Iraq was about to go down and that had pretty much nothing to do with oil, yet they stayed quiet this time around when it was blatantly obvious this was about oil. French were scared their oil supply from Libya would be disrupted over the rebellion so they wanted Sarkozy's buddy gone so they could establish control and take the resources they need.
lols and we helped them. fucking pathetic, keep voting in those D's folks because they're o so much different than the Rs.
btw again lols for me agreeing with routan here.
God forbid we ever benefit from helping brown people achieve freedom
You are the biggest moron i know. I am an American. I live here, pay tax and contribute to the uplift of the American way of life. I AM a Western.
However, that does not mean I cannot see blatant exploitation with blood of many innocents spilt so that a few in power can line their pockets. That is clearly not the ideals I learned of America.
Bullshit to your last statement. Heck, even a Jew recognizes the Islamophobia and hatred of Islam and Muslims in this forum.
Citizenship or residency is not enough to make you culturally western, which you are not.
Not many people think that he moderation here is perfect, but your complaints are ridiculous and especially obnoxious considering in your first posts on this forum moderators were prostrating before you trying to make you feel safe. What will make you happy? People are allowed to say they don't like Islam. Do you want them to be punished for not liking Islam or criticizing Islam?
Reported.
Your hatred for Islam and the Muslims is apparent and you go on to show how proud you are of it. You are an Islamophobe.
It is sad that the moderators on this forum have a similar view point. Any such hatred displayed towards any other community or people gets outright bans.
It's when certain lines of decorum are crossed.
There's plenty of others I would rather have spent our money helping than the Islamists in Libya. Like our tiny cousin Liberia who is in a ton of shit. But that wouldn't work with your world view because I of course have to be a racist if I see things differently than you do. You're such a tool, I've posted countless articles proving my points on the Libya conflict and you just tell me I'm wrong and refute nothing. Pathetic.
You keep changing your tune. First you Gaddafi might have used his military might against civilians. Now you are saying Gaddafi did start using his military to put down the protestors. Get your facts straights before saying anything anymore. Idiot.