What U Won't Hear In Mainstream Western News(Whats Really Goin On Libya)

LONDON!
LONDON! Members Posts: 679 ✭✭✭
edited July 2011 in The Social Lounge
this is what the evil devil phony's running the system are really doing in libya, sarkozy treats muslim brothers and sisters in france like third class citizens, cameron dosen't give two flying ? about the poor in england, he took my little nieces ema(a grant to help kids to buy tools for college whop are coming from deprived backgrounds) away and is socially cleansing off uni's over here and other ? , obama spends billions, trillions on imperialist wars abroad that only benefit him and his evil circle of devils but can't spend a couple of millions on fixing up inner city schools in the USA, but would rather spend more money on building prisons, that says it all, you see what i'm saying, so it justs cracks me up(if it wern't a sick in the head pyschotic fruitcake joke) that heads would believe these evil piece of ? would give two flying ? about muslim brothers and sisters a billion miles away in libya, you get what i'm saying, this is what is really going on, this ? is about oil and the system 100% controlling it under there terms as usual, they have murdered and assassinated gaddafi's innocent family members for no reason and are targeting gaddafi for assasination because he stood up to these punk devils for so long and are murdering civillians for collective punishment in the libyan capital tripoli

from www.globalresearch.ca by the great and revolutionary cynthia mckinney

'NATO bombs civilians!': Report from Tripoli
by grtv
As NATO attacks continue in Libya, former US congresswoman and presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney went to the country on a non-governmental fact-finding mission to see what exactly is going on in the war-torn country.

Cynthia McKinney believes the bombardments of Libyan cities and other measures taken by NATO, causing civilian casualties, represent the idea of “collective punishment”.

“NATO is preventing shipments of fuel, food and medicine to come in. There have been efforts to get medicine into the country that have been denied by NATO. It is impossible to go on any street and miss the huge queues – sometimes three or four deep – that go on and on, as they queue up to get gasoline from the service station,” McKinney says.

McKinney also told RT how universities and other civilian facilities are being bombed by NATO troops.

“I don’t know why NATO is choosing these targets, but these are civilian targets. Whenever you target a civilian population, you’re committing a crime,” she added.

Comments

  • LONDON!
    LONDON! Members Posts: 679 ✭✭✭
    edited June 2011
    the colonialists are back, ? the system

    from www.globalresearch

    African Leaders Demand Halt to NATO Bombing Campaign in Libya






    Global Research, June 15, 2011
    Bloomberg News

    Email this article to a friend
    Print this article

    0
    digg

    137
    Share


    African leaders today demanded an immediate end to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's bombing campaign in Libya and called for the African Union and United Nations to take the lead in reaching a political solution.

    "We have not voted for a substitute for bombing of one group by the other," South Africa's Foreign Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane told reporters in New York, referring to the UN resolution authorizing military action against Libya leader Muammar Qaddafi's regime, which her government supported. "All forms of military intervention and bombing must stop now."

    Nkoana-Mashabane and ministers of Mali, Mauritania, Uganda and the Republic of Congo, which formed the AU's Ad Hoc Committee on Libya, expressed their concern about the NATO bombing campaign to the UN Security Council. Adoption of a draft statement demanding a "complete end to violence and all attacks against and abuses of civilians" was blocked by the U.S. and other Western nations.

    "This was a meeting for expressions of frustration," said Ambassador Nestor Osorio of Colombia, a Security Council member. Ambassador Jose Moraes Cabral of Portugal, also a council member, said Uganda's Foreign Minister Ruhakana Rugunda suggested the NATO intervention amounted to "going back to colonialism" in Africa.

    Call from Russia, China

    The meeting in New York followed a statement today by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a security alliance led by China and Russia and including the former Soviet states of Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan [and Kazakhstan], urging an end to the NATO campaign. "Domestic conflicts and crises have to be regulated exclusively by peaceful means, through political dialogue," the group said in Astana, Kazakhstan, where it is holding a summit.

    South Africa's President Jacob Zuma was more direct yesterday in Cape Town, saying the UN resolution authorizing military action was "being abused for regime change, political assassinations and foreign military occupation."

    [Mauritania's Foreign Minister Hamady Ould] Hamady called for an "immediate humanitarian pause" in the fighting and expressed the AU's "surprise and disappointment at the attempts to marginalize the continent in the management of the Libyan conflict."

    Britain's Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant said a precondition of a halt to the NATO bombing was a cessation of attacks on civilians by the Qaddafi regime.

    "The ball is in Qaddafi's court," Lyall Grant said.

    --Editors: Steven Komarow, Terry Atlas
  • politicalthug202
    politicalthug202 Members Posts: 3,098 ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2011
    kadaffi start shooting first the west forgave Qaddafi for locker-bee
    and let him back in. if he just would not have start shooting,he wouldnt be in this perdicament.
  • Elzo69Renaissance
    Elzo69Renaissance Members Posts: 50,708 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2011
    kadaffi start shooting first the west forgave Qaddafi for locker-bee
    and let him back in. if he just would not have start shooting,he wouldnt be in this perdicament.
    read more son......................
  • Bully_Pulpit
    Bully_Pulpit Members Posts: 5,501 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2011
    Good drop, its absolutely disgusting that the sweat off our back fuels this ?
  • LONDON!
    LONDON! Members Posts: 679 ✭✭✭
    edited June 2011
    kadaffi start shooting first the west forgave Qaddafi for locker-bee
    and let him back in. if he just would not have start shooting,he wouldnt be in this perdicament.

    1.those were misinformation, propaganda and false allegations about gaddafi commiting war crimes against his own people, nuthin has been proven

    2.gaddafi wasn't behind lockerbie, it was the iranian goverment through a syrian/palestinan/lebanese based terrorist organization for revenge for the US military shooting down a innocent iranian civillian aircraft wit civillian passegers on it, the cover up was the terrorist used a loop hole the US goverment department called the DIA created in letting controlled shipments of drugs into the US from the middle east through western airports and planes

    3.gaddafi is in this predicament because he shut out US oil companies out of oil contracts last year, this was just a beef between gaddafi and political factions linked wit terrorists that the system jumped on to steal and control libya's oil on there terms plus revenge for gaddafi backing revolutionary resistance movements against the system like the sandinista's, farc and the ira for example, like back in the day
  • LONDON!
    LONDON! Members Posts: 679 ✭✭✭
    edited June 2011
    just to show heads some of the disinformation that was put out there at the beginning of this conflict, the usual divide & rule tactics the system has used for century's like they did in iraq for example

    from orientalreview.org

    Gaddafi’s African “Mercenary” Story is a Disinformation Ploy by the CIA
    Mon, Apr 4, 2011 By Wayne Madsen (USA)


    Experts on Africa who have traveled extensively in Libya contend that the stories emanating from the Western media that portray Libya’s leader, Muammar Gaddafi, as engaging the services of black mercenaries from Sahara and sub-Sahara Africa is a disinformation ploy by the CIA to stoke racist fervor among Libyans rebelling against Gaddafi.
    After Western news sources “reported” that Gaddafi had hired black African mercenaries to fight against Libyan rebels, thousand of black African workers in Libya were set upon by angry mobs who believed the Western propaganda that the black workers were fighting for Gaddafi.
    The role of President Obama in stoking a CIA-engineered racist response by Libyan rebels has not been lost on a number of African-Americans. One leading African-American activist in Washington, DC wrote in an email: “Not demanding the accountability of a black president will garner us the same things as not holding a white President accountable – nothing.”
    Western news organization reported that Libyan rebels were “hunting down” black African mercenaries but many of these were merely workers who came to Libya from their economically-depressed nations to seek employment in mainly the Libyan oil services, agricultural, and construction sectors. Ironically, a number of the Africans targeted by angry mobs spurred on by CIA and other Western intelligence planted news stories are from Kenya, the land that Obama claims as his paternal ancestral home.
    Other Africans, stranded in Libya and subjected to the racial onslaught of Libyan Arabs, hailed from South Sudan, Uganda, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Somalia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Lesotho, Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Nigeria. A million and a half black African guest workers were in Libya at the outbreak of the fighting between Gaddafi and rebel forces. Only a few of the Africans were evacuated with many being forced to hide in their homes and flee without the support of their governments to squalid refugee camps in Egypt, Tunisia, and Sudan. Even dark-skinned non-African workers from Bangladesh could not escape the wrath of the Libyan rebels.
    Other Africans, notably those from Niger, Mali, Gabon, and Chad, recalled how Gaddafi funded development projects in their nations and they responded by travelling to Libya as volunteers to support Gaddafi. However, these volunteers were branded as mercenaries by the Western media and their intelligence agency overseers. Algeria rejected charges that its nationals were being sent to Libya to fight as mercenaries for Gaddafi.
    London’s Sunday Mirror ran a dubious story on March 27 that Gaddafi’s son, Seif al-Islam Gaddafi, had fled to Zimbabwe where he was trying to enlist an African army to assist his father’s forces. The report stated that Zimbabwe’s aging dictator, Robert Mugabe, was prepared to send Zimbabwean army troops to Libya to fight alongside Gaddafi’s army.
    The CIA’s propaganda war against black Africans in Libya was not limited to the editorial offices and television news bureaus of Washington, London, Paris, and New York. A Liberian presidential candidate, T. Q. Harris, blamed Gaddafi for the forced conscription of young men and boys into his army. The statement was picked up by Liberia’s longtime CIA-influenced newspapers.
    On March 16, The Guardian of the UK printed a clarification of a previous report that intimated that Gaddafi had recruited mercenaries from the Zaghawa tribe living in Darfur and Chad. The Guardian wrote that there was “no evidence that members of the Zaghawa are involved in the present conflict.”
    Not only were workers from Chad, Ethiopia, and Somalia hunted down by Libyan rebels and hanged from lamp posts and hacked to death with axes and machetes, but black Libyans, mostly from the southern province of Fezzan, received the same treatment. The neo-conservatives in the Washington and New York media centers ignored the plight of the black workers and continued to echo the charge that any blacks in Libya were Gaddafi mercenaries. The fact that many of the black Africans massacred by the Libyan rebels had Libyan worker documentation was lost on the Western media.
    The New York Times, in a March 16 article titled “Libyan Oil Buys Loyal African Allies for Qaddafi,” wrote that Gaddafi recruiters were enlisting “about 200” young men in Mali to fight in Libya. The Times repeated the CIA-engineered disinformation story that 3,000 to 4,000 mercenaries had been recruited by Gaddafi’s government from Mali, Darfur, and Niger at a salary of $1000 per day. However, in a March 11 story in the Times, it was reported that U.S. intelligence officials were unable to confirm the report that between 4,000 and 5,000 mercenaries from Niger, Mali, and Darfur’s Justice and Equality Movement had been hired by Gaddafi for $1000 a day. In an era of information warfare, even he CIA cannot keep its planted news stories straight.
    The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, in a March 17 statement on the UN Security Council’s adoption of the resolution creating a no-fly zone over Libya stated that one of the reasons was to prevent planes carrying “mercenaries” into Libya to support Gaddafi.
    It has also been reported that Saudi Wahabi-linked groups among the rebels, including the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, have specifically targeted and executed Christian black African workers as “infidels” who support Gaddafi.
    Adding to the psychological warfare operations that trumpeted the presence of “African mercenaries” among the Gaddafi forces was a “made-in-Israel” report that Gaddafi, with the support of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu,Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and Aman intelligence chief Aviv Kokhavi had arranged, through the Israeli security firm Global CST, the secret transport of 50,000 African mercenaries into Libya. Gaddafi was said to have paid Israel $5 billion to the Israelis for the mercenaries. The report of an Israeli connection to blacks in Libya fueled the anger of radical Islamists among the Libyan rebels who were convinced that Gaddafi not only had a secret deal with Israel but that he was a “crypto Jew” because his grandmother was Jewish. The charge was broadcast on Israeli national television by a Libyan Jewish woman who claimed she was related to Gaddafi. Other Zionist-influenced media sources reported that Gaddafi was relying on Serbian, Ukrainian, and Syrian pilots and a group of fierce Tuareg tribal warriors recruited from across the Saharan Desert.
    The Washington Times, a right-wing fringe newspaper owned by self-proclaimed Korean “Messiah” Sun Myung Moon, ran an op-ed on March 21 by Prince Mohamed Hilal al Senussi, a member of the former Libyan royal family Gaddafiousted in a 1969 coup. Senussi likened the Libyan rebels to members of the Republican “Tea Party” in the United States and he repeated the charge that Qaddafi was using black African mercenaries: “In Baida, over 100 perished in the hands of Gaddafi-employed African mercenaries from Chad, Niger and Mali, prompting local police forces and members of the army to break ranks from the regime to protect their unarmed countrymen.”
    The connivance of Western intelligence agencies, in concert with Israeli elements and Western corporate media, laid the groundwork for the massacre of black Libyans and blacks from other parts of Africa, has enraged African-Americans who previously supported Obama in his political campaigns in Illinois and nationally.Obama, America’s first African-American president, now has the distinction of being the only American president to launch a ? war on an African nation. In the eyes of many African-American political activists, Obama has revealed himself to be as much a tool of the CIA, Wall Street, the oil companies as past white American presidents.
  • Olorun22
    Olorun22 Members Posts: 5,696 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2011
    ? Qaddafi! it you want to know what I feel about it
  • LONDON!
    LONDON! Members Posts: 679 ✭✭✭
    edited June 2011
    some more humanatarian concept from the imperialist evil system's point of view

    from www.globalresearch.ca


    Breaking News: PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE: NATO Bombed Libya's Nasser University
    Campus B of Al Fatah

    by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya






    Global Research, June 12, 2011

    Email this article to a friend
    Print this article

    0
    digg

    1736
    Share


    The NATO war against Libya is not a humanitarian endeavour. It is a blatant war of aggression and a violation of international law.

    War crimes are being committed by NATO.

    Hospitals and universities have been bombed. Civilian infrastructure has been brutally destroyed.

    Recently Tripoli's Nasser University (Campus B of Al Fatah University) was bombed. University staff were injured and killed. There is no justification for this.

    What NATO is doing is taking advantage of internal divisions to destroy Libya as a country.

    The unspoken objective is to destroy Libya's economy and to prevent it from developing as a nation-state. This is why schools and universities, hospitals, shipyards, factories, not to mention residential areas, have been the target of NATO bombings.

    Readers are informed in advance that the photographic evidence that follows is graphic and disturbing.

    These photographs were taken by Mohammed Al-Alam, a student at Nasser University. The photographs were directly forwarded to Global Research.


    Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, June 12, 2011


    Photographs: NATO bombings of Nasser Campus B, Al Fateh University, Tripoli. Copyright Global Research 2011

    click on this link for more graphic photos, warning though, theirs pictures of dead brothers and sisters in there too

    http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25221
  • LONDON!
    LONDON! Members Posts: 679 ✭✭✭
    edited June 2011
    more evidence nato and the system are illegally trying to assassinate and murder a sovreign leader of another country for no other reason than to steal libya's oil

    from www.dailymail.co.uk

    Nato is trying to ? Gaddafi, admits top U.S. commander
    By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
    Last updated at 10:57 AM on 27th June 2011

    Comments (35)
    Add to My Stories
    Share
    Nato forces are trying to ? Colonel Gaddafi, the top U.S. commander in the Libyan conflict has admitted.
    Admiral Samuel Locklear told senior American politicians air strikes were designed to ? the Libyan leader, despite White House reassurances that this was not the aim.
    Such a goal would not be authorised by the UN mandate for the attacks.


    Admission: Admiral Samuel Locklear, right, has said that Nato are using air strikes to target Gaddafi - despite White House reassurances they were not
    Admiral Locklear is the most senior figure to claim Gaddafi is a target.
    Critics said the admission was further evidence of ‘mission creep’ and that Nato was breaking the rules of engagement.
    Yesterday marked the 100th day since military action against the Libyan regime began. Eighteen nations including Britain, France and the U.S. have launched hundreds of air strikes in Libya to help rebels to overthrow Gaddafi.
    Mike Turner, a member of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, revealed that Admiral Locklear had told him removal of the dictator was on the table.
    He said: ‘The UN authorisation had three components – blockade, no-fly zone and civil protection.
    ‘Admiral Locklear explained that the scope of civil protection was being interpreted to permit the removal of the chain of command of Gaddafi’s military, which includes Gaddafi.
    ‘He said that is the mission as Nato has defined. I believed we were targeting Gaddafi, but that confirmed it.
    ‘The scope that Nato is pursuing is beyond what is contemplated in civil protection, so they’re exceeding the mission.’
    He added that Admiral Locklear, who heads the Allied Joint Force Command in Italy, had said publicly that a small force might have to go in on the ground to retain order if the rebels won.

    Target: Nato sorties have already attacked the compound of Gaddafi , such as these which struck during a raid in March
    The revelation comes amid reports that Gaddafi is already considering leaving Libya for fear of his own safety.
    His compound in the capital, Tripoli, has repeatedly been bombed and his son Saif and three of his grandchildren have been killed in air strikes.
    Last week it emerged that the cost of the conflict to Britain had reached £260million, despite initial predictions that the bill would be ‘tens of millions’.
    Defence Secretary Liam Fox said yesterday Britain had the ‘moral and political resolve’ to finish the job.
    In the latest fighting, rebels in western Libya said they had advanced and were battling Gaddafi’s forces in Bir al-Ghanam, 50 miles south of the capital.


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008495/Nato-trying-? -Gaddafi-admits-U-S-commander.html#ixzz1QVBbLWwa
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    edited June 2011
    LONDON! wrote: »
    2.gaddafi wasn't behind lockerbie ...
    3. ... plus revenge for gaddafi backing revolutionary resistance movements against the system like the sandinista's, farc and the ira for example, like back in the day
    of course it's illogical that Qaddafi was behind Lockerbie, i mean, it's not like he supported a bunch of terrorist groups ... oh, wait, you pointed out that he did. huh.
  • LONDON!
    LONDON! Members Posts: 679 ✭✭✭
    edited June 2011
    janklow wrote: »
    of course it's illogical that Qaddafi was behind Lockerbie, i mean, it's not like he supported a bunch of terrorist groups ... oh, wait, you pointed out that he did. huh.

    one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter as they say, i'd put sandinista's in the latter bracket and a lot of heads would put farc and the ira in that bracket too, there beef was wit there local goverments wit armed resistance and diplomatic means aswell

    the iranian goverment got a syrian/palestinan/lebanese based terrorist group too carry out lockerbie because the US military shot down a civillian iranian airliner, killing all the passengers

    the cover up was that the US goverment D.I.A department used to let controlled drug shipments in from the middle east into the US and the terrorist exploited that loophole to get the bombs on board
  • And Step
    And Step Members Posts: 3,726 ✭✭✭
    edited June 2011
    LONDON! wrote: »
    one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter as they say, i'd put sandinista's in the latter bracket and a lot of heads would put farc and the ira in that bracket too, there beef was wit there local goverments wit armed resistance and diplomatic means aswell

    the iranian goverment got a syrian/palestinan/lebanese based terrorist group too carry out lockerbie because the US military shot down a civillian iranian airliner, killing all the passengers

    the cover up was that the US goverment D.I.A department used to let controlled drug shipments in from the middle east into the US and the terrorist exploited that loophole to get the bombs on board

    I remember when that went down, they were initially saying it was the Syrians. Then as a pretext to bomb Libya, they shifted the blame to Qadaffi.

    I also remember when Assad the former President of Syria met with President Clinton and Clinton asked him to crackdown on terrorist and Assad sonned him and ask him to give a definition of what a terrorist is and Clinton couldn't respond because what he perceived as a terrorist could have been laid at the foot of the US.
  • LONDON!
    LONDON! Members Posts: 679 ✭✭✭
    edited June 2011
    And Step wrote: »
    I remember when that went down, they were initially saying it was the Syrians. Then as a pretext to bomb Libya, they shifted the blame to Qadaffi.

    I also remember when Assad the former President of Syria met with President Clinton and Clinton asked him to crackdown on terrorist and Assad sonned him and ask him to give a definition of what a terrorist is and Clinton couldn't respond because what he perceived as a terrorist could have been laid at the foot of the US.

    ..................exactly
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    edited June 2011
    LONDON! wrote: »
    one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter as they say, i'd put sandinista's in the latter bracket and a lot of heads would put farc and the ira in that bracket too, there beef was wit there local goverments wit armed resistance and diplomatic means aswell
    "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is a fantastic argument, but given that you're talking about Libya providing these groups with material to freedom fight no matter WHAT you call them, it's hardly a stretch to say Libya might be inclined to blow up a plane for some reason.
    LONDON! wrote: »
    the iranian goverment got a syrian/palestinan/lebanese based terrorist group too carry out lockerbie because the US military shot down a civillian iranian airliner, killing all the passengers ... the cover up was that the US goverment D.I.A department used to let controlled drug shipments in from the middle east into the US and the terrorist exploited that loophole to get the bombs on board
    yeah, i read that nonsense the first time, but all it said to me was, "i'd guess we'd better work the DIA acronym into some theories because it's not as well known.
    And Step wrote: »
    I also remember when Assad the former President of Syria met with President Clinton and Clinton asked him to crackdown on terrorist and Assad sonned him and ask him to give a definition of what a terrorist is and Clinton couldn't respond because what he perceived as a terrorist could have been laid at the foot of the US.
    if we're talking about the elder Assad, i'm not sure he of events like those at Hama is really ever in possession of the moral high ground
  • LONDON!
    LONDON! Members Posts: 679 ✭✭✭
    edited July 2011
    janklow wrote: »
    "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is a fantastic argument, but given that you're talking about Libya providing these groups with material to freedom fight no matter WHAT you call them, it's hardly a stretch to say Libya might be inclined to blow up a plane for some reason.

    yeah, i read that nonsense the first time, but all it said to me was, "i'd guess we'd better work the DIA acronym into some theories because it's not as well known.

    if we're talking about the elder Assad, i'm not sure he of events like those at Hama is really ever in possession of the moral high ground

    if you have famo or family worldwide, or have basic knowledge of certain ? for whatever reason, you would know that the CIA are at the top of the drug chain and control it, so i don't think the DIA letting in controlled drug shipments into the states and the CIA covering this up isn't too much of a stretch of an imagination
  • And Step
    And Step Members Posts: 3,726 ✭✭✭
    edited July 2011
    janklow wrote: »
    if we're talking about the elder Assad, i'm not sure he of events like those at Hama is really ever in possession of the moral high ground

    I think you missed the point. Assad was asking for a definition and Clinton could not give one because what they would have given would have indicted the US, globally.

    Hama was an armed rebellion. Every country on the face of the Earth would probably have done the same thing. Do you think the US would have allowed armed rebellion against the government? Do we have to bring up Ruby Ridge, Waco, Trail of Tears, Move Bombing in Philadelphia, Tusla Bombing of the Black community, etc, or the direct order by Clinton to bomb the ppharmaceutical plant in the Sudan that killed many?

    Are you telling me that one incident in 1982 compares with any of that. I bet if you put Assad record against Clinton's administration, Clinton would come up short like Monica.
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    edited July 2011
    LONDON! wrote: »
    if you have famo or family worldwide, or have basic knowledge of certain ? for whatever reason, you would know that the CIA are at the top of the drug chain and control it, so i don't think the DIA letting in controlled drug shipments into the states and the CIA covering this up isn't too much of a stretch of an imagination
    i do have family worldwide, but i also don't believe in crazy CIA conspiracies that dudes write about on the internet because it makes them feel better about random events occurring in the world
    And Step wrote: »
    I think you missed the point. Assad was asking for a definition and Clinton could not give one because what they would have given would have indicted the US, globally.
    didn't miss the point, i just don't know where Assad gets off "indicting" anybody
    And Step wrote: »
    Hama was an armed rebellion. Every country on the face of the Earth would probably have done the same thing. Do you think the US would have allowed armed rebellion against the government? Do we have to bring up Ruby Ridge, Waco, Trail of Tears, Move Bombing in Philadelphia, Tusla Bombing of the Black community, etc, or the direct order by Clinton to bomb the ppharmaceutical plant in the Sudan that killed many?
    well, why you would bring up the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan as an example of a domestic armed rebellion boggles my mind. nor would, in fact, most anything else you've named. so what's the point?

    the point regarding Hama may be, however, that whatever insurgency Assad was attempting to address did not call for killing tens of thousands of civilians, right?
    And Step wrote: »
    Are you telling me that one incident in 1982 compares with any of that. I bet if you put Assad record against Clinton's administration, Clinton would come up short like Monica.
    you're telling me Ruby Ridge was worse than Hama? Waco was? really? the MOVE bombing doesn't compare, the Sudan thing you mentioned was, again, not domestic and Tulsa was worse than the rest listed previously but still not in the same league. which leaves on the Trail of Tears. and since that didn't happen under Clinton, so far i think he looks better than Assad
    Given that you scoffed at Libya providing those groups with warfares or materials-
    thanks for proving that you are not capable of understanding my posts
  • And Step
    And Step Members Posts: 3,726 ✭✭✭
    edited July 2011
    janklow wrote: »
    didn't miss the point, i just don't know where Assad gets off "indicting" anybody

    You most definitely missed the point. Assad didn't "indict" anybody. Clinton posed the question and Assad responded, showing US hypocrisy.
    well, why you would bring up the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan as an example of a domestic armed rebellion boggles my mind. nor would, in fact, most anything else you've named. so what's the point

    Because innocent people were killed in an unprovoked attack by a man who purports to be the free leader of the world. Domestic or foreign it was wrong. Oh, I forgot they were black people so it didn't count. I didn't mention the tens of thousands of Iraqi's killed under his watch after he continued the bombing and killing that Daddy Bush started and the bombing of Afghanistan, or the shady bombing of the Serbs(I know it was NATO, but ? dat, NATO has always had an American head and deferred to the President, plus he fessed up to it)
    the point regarding Hama may be, however, that whatever insurgency Assad was attempting to address did not call for killing tens of thousands of civilians, right?[

    C'mon Jank. How come it's civilians when someone else does the killing, but when US forces do the killing they are rebels and insurgents. Most armed rebels were civilians and citizens Jank. What would you do if faced with that situation?
    you're telling me Ruby Ridge was worse than Hama? Waco was? really? the MOVE bombing doesn't compare, the Sudan thing you mentioned was, again, not domestic and Tulsa was worse than the rest listed previously but still not in the same league. which leaves on the Trail of Tears. and since that didn't happen under Clinton, so far i think he looks better than Assad

    I don't think I said that. The point was if you measured the Global and Domestic track records of any administrations they really have no moral ground to request anything from anybody as it relates to terrorism.
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    edited July 2011
    And Step wrote: »
    You most definitely missed the point. Assad didn't "indict" anybody. Clinton posed the question and Assad responded, showing US hypocrisy.
    let me point out here that you are the person who used the word "indicted," so this would not be the time to take issue with it. we're talking about the same "Assad calling out Clinton" concept here; my response, i suppose, can be boiled down to "where the ? does Assad get off?"
    And Step wrote: »
    Because innocent people were killed in an unprovoked attack by a man who purports to be the free leader of the world. Domestic or foreign it was wrong.
    well, for one thing, "unprovoked" seems to be the entire debate; for another, you compared it to an "armed rebellion" in which every country faced with a similar circumstance "would probably have done the same thing." the Sudan missile strike has NOTHING to do with any nation facing down a suspected "armed rebellion." so, again, what's the point?
    And Step wrote: »
    Oh, I forgot they were black people so it didn't count.
    honestly, if you're going to claim this is my position, then i might as well say "go ? yourself" and not bother to debate the topic with you further. let me know before i write another response, okay?
    And Step wrote: »
    I didn't mention the tens of thousands of Iraqi's killed under his watch after he continued the bombing and killing that Daddy Bush started and the bombing of Afghanistan, or the shady bombing of the Serbs(I know it was NATO, but ? dat, NATO has always had an American head and deferred to the President, plus he fessed up to it)
    probably because these were also not domestic incidents and that was the line we were going with?
    And Step wrote: »
    C'mon Jank. How come it's civilians when someone else does the killing, but when US forces do the killing they are rebels and insurgents.
    please give me an example of when i called the killing of civilians the killing of "rebels and insurgents"; otherwise, you're once again claiming my argument is something it's not for whatever reason.
    And Step wrote: »
    Most armed rebels were civilians and citizens Jank. What would you do if faced with that situation?
    well, i probably wouldn't run my country in the same way Assad did; further, i am not talking about the armed rebels when i say "civilians" above. yes, it is true that armed rebels are "civilians" in some sense; i don't recall anyone talking about "citizens."
    And Step wrote: »
    I don't think I said that. The point was if you measured the Global and Domestic track records of any administrations they really have no moral ground to request anything from anybody as it relates to terrorism.
    well, the quote was "I bet if you put Assad record against Clinton's administration, Clinton would come up short like Monica." up to this point, we have solely discussed a) Hama and b) that short list of random events, some of which happened during Clinton's administration. it certainly sounds a lot like you're inviting a direct comparison.
    words words words
    please don't start getting emotional because you're having a problem reading posts
  • Mr.Burns
    Mr.Burns Members Posts: 517
    edited July 2011
    En-Fuego22 wrote: »
    ? Qaddafi! it you want to know what I feel about it

    Same way we "? " Saddam right? We "? " the oil right out of Iraq now we want to "? " Libya. Stop fooling yourself with tails of patriotism and freedom fighters. The U.S. is the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in history.