Question For The Ghaddafi Haters
Options
Comments
-
Huruma wrote:Why should a Yoruba from Nigeria identify with an Igbo speaking Nigerian over another Yoruba from Benin? I understand why some Africans resent being lumped into the same category, since no one lumps Germans in with Italians or criticizes them for being 'tribalistic' when they don't identify as European first/foremost
Well it doesn't matter to me as I don't belong to any of those groups mentioned. But I would say it's more logical for a Yoruba from Nigeria to identify with an Igbo from Nigeria before there fellow ethnic group in another country because they are both citizens of the same country. But everyone is not a nationalist so I can understand if someone thinks otherwise.Huruma wrote:but identifying as 'Ghanaian' or 'Congolese' makes less sense than identifying with the region as a whole, in my opinion.
No it doesn't.
Here's the thing as far as racial identification I agree with you in that West Africans are genetically connected through the E1B1A paternal marker we share (common ancestor) so on a physical/biological level we are similar. BUT you have to take into consideration the independent nations histories. We are nation-states now and that is the primary identification.
I can't speak on Congo as I am not Congolese but in the case of Ghana, the various ethnic groups & tribes have had relations and intermingling with each other prior to the European coming onto the scene. Every ethnic group that is part of modern day Ghana chose to be a part of Ghana. That is why you don't see ethnic seccesionist movements or rebel groups claiming to be dissatisfied and wanting out like you see that in Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Sudan to name a few. -
Elzo69Reloaded wrote: »Actually Khaddafi taxed them 93% plus out of the 1.6 million a day oil barrels produced by Lybia... 1.1 million is produced by Lybia's national oil companies....thus meaning only 500k were claimed by outside companies...
Why are you responding to my post?
How does your post relate to the questions I asked? because you didn't answer my questions -
En-Fuego22 wrote: »Rasta will disagree. H.I.M Haliee Selassie!!!
Everything I typed was factual. -
and there you have it.
The united governments said he was a threat and unfit to lead his people, and like you, i can't see why they would lie or mislead us.
Plus the death and destruction he has brought his people from their homes, education, health care and civil rights. Even going so far as to manipulate his military into false wars that caused even more untold death,suffering and misery to innocent men,women and children
Bombing his country rentlessly is the not a just a option but a must.
It's not just the US government that said he was a threat to his people, the past few decades of media coverage, libyans forced into exile... there is overwhelming evidence for what Gaddafi has done. The issue of the rebels being helped to remove him is a seperate issue from the ? that Gaddafi is. Continue believing what you want to believe though. -
hefty-vulturestatus wrote: »It's not just the US government that said he was a threat to his people, the past few decades of media coverage, libyans forced into exile... there is overwhelming evidence for what Gaddafi has done. The issue of the rebels being helped to remove him is a seperate issue from the ? that Gaddafi is. Continue believing what you want to believe though.
that's right
Gaddafi was a ? and threat
No US president past or present not to mention other world leaders
would dare be associated with such ?
not even shake his hand with so much blood on it for his crimes. -
the thing is, since i actually DO read books on this topic, i have some idea of what i'm talking about. do you want to talk about the fact that the US funding of mujaheddin was channeled through the ISI, who did not fund Bin Laden as he didn't need it, given that his funding was raised through alternative methods? or about the fact that for as much as people like to quote it, there's no CIA connection or other US connection to "training" Bin Laden?JokerzWyld wrote: »Whatever you say. Read a book, or article-
maybe i should stop reading actual books about the topic or something, i guess
so what exactly are Roger & Me or Canadian Bacon supposed to have to do with this topic?JokerzWyld wrote: »-or watch some of Michael Moore's early films.
janklow is fueled by disdain and people's terrible, terrible internet argumentsSwiffness! wrote: »how do you do it janklow
your endurance is superhuman
also all the RACISM, or so the internet tells me
remember when every day someone was telling us the US was going to invade Iran by, i think, 2006? good timesSwiffness! wrote: »Matter of fact, whatever happened to your U.S invasion of Syria bruh? Last time I graced ya'll nigglets w/ my presence ya'll wouldn't shut the ? up about how the U.S invasion of Syria was imminent. Months later, I don't see "STOP THE US WAR IN SYRIA" on any left-wing sites. What happened? Ya'll had the whole world figured out so simple....."oh, the U.S said this country should stop slaughtering its ppl in their streets, therefore the U.S will invade them for oil like Iraq"......so simple. -
Why is Janklow still in denial about the CIA helping to fund the Mujaheddin, many of whom became Al-Qaeda, during the Afghanistan-Soviet War??
The CIA helped train future Al-Qaeda members through the ISI, who gladly accepted American dollars. Stop being in denial Janklow.......
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22082
In intelligence it’s not so much what you don’t know as what you won’t know.
Al Qaeda was initially formed in 1988, when the Soviet Union announced the humiliating withdrawal its forces from Afghanistan, whence it had invaded in 1979. The Saudi magnate, Osama bin Laden, and Abdullah Azzam, the charismatic Palestinian co-founder of Hamas, birthed al Qaeda from the Services Bureau (Mektab al-Khidmat) the pair had set up in the mid-1980s to promote the so-called “Arab Afghans”-- Muslims from around the world (but mostly from Arab nations) who flocked to Afghanistan to fight in the jihad.
Among Afghan tribal leaders, the closest ally of bin Laden and his burgeoning al Qaeda network was Gilbuddin Hekmatyar. This was of no small significance. Hekmatyar, an Islamic fundamentalist, was the most virulently anti-American of the Afghans and the one closest to the Pakistani Intelligence Service (ISI), which the CIA was using as its cut-out to support the mujahideen. He was also the top recipient of the CIA’s largesse, reeling in about 20% of the $3 billion-plus in funding and materiel the agency poured into the jihad. That support was matched dollar-for-dollar by our friends the Saudis, who dealt directly with the Arab Afghans and were bin Laden’s chief benefactor.
In short, the CIA helped create al Qaeda. It opened its checkbook but blindly relied on the ISI, which was (and is) rife with Sunni fundamentalist sympathizers. The agency’s effort, as AEI scholar Michael Ledeen has observed, lacked any “engagement and follow-through” with the jihadist networks being created -- taking no steps, even after the Soviets vacated, to dismantle them, ? them, “or at least remove the most dangerous weapons, like Stinger missiles.” -
because he read books fool!
you know,like the ones that told us Columbus discovered America!
Who also as we all read was a great hero
so what now, y'all gone deny THAT is fact also?!
smhkingblaze84 wrote: »Why is Janklow still in denial about the CIA helping to fund the Mujaheddin, many of whom became Al-Qaeda, during the Afghanistan-Soviet War??
The CIA helped train future Al-Qaeda members through the ISI, who gladly accepted American dollars. Stop being in denial Janklow.......
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22082
In intelligence it’s not so much what you don’t know as what you won’t know.
Al Qaeda was initially formed in 1988, when the Soviet Union announced the humiliating withdrawal its forces from Afghanistan, whence it had invaded in 1979. The Saudi magnate, Osama bin Laden, and Abdullah Azzam, the charismatic Palestinian co-founder of Hamas, birthed al Qaeda from the Services Bureau (Mektab al-Khidmat) the pair had set up in the mid-1980s to promote the so-called “Arab Afghans”-- Muslims from around the world (but mostly from Arab nations) who flocked to Afghanistan to fight in the jihad.
Among Afghan tribal leaders, the closest ally of bin Laden and his burgeoning al Qaeda network was Gilbuddin Hekmatyar. This was of no small significance. Hekmatyar, an Islamic fundamentalist, was the most virulently anti-American of the Afghans and the one closest to the Pakistani Intelligence Service (ISI), which the CIA was using as its cut-out to support the mujahideen. He was also the top recipient of the CIA’s largesse, reeling in about 20% of the $3 billion-plus in funding and materiel the agency poured into the jihad. That support was matched dollar-for-dollar by our friends the Saudis, who dealt directly with the Arab Afghans and were bin Laden’s chief benefactor.
In short, the CIA helped create al Qaeda. It opened its checkbook but blindly relied on the ISI, which was (and is) rife with Sunni fundamentalist sympathizers. The agency’s effort, as AEI scholar Michael Ledeen has observed, lacked any “engagement and follow-through” with the jihadist networks being created -- taking no steps, even after the Soviets vacated, to dismantle them, ? them, “or at least remove the most dangerous weapons, like Stinger missiles.” -
because janklow actually READS about this topic instead of just shouting "? Al-Qaeda?"kingblaze84 wrote: »Why is Janklow still in denial about the CIA helping to fund the Mujaheddin, many of whom became Al-Qaeda, during the Afghanistan-Soviet War??
but note this: you're being deceitful with your argument, since what he actually said was "The United States even trained and sold weapons to Osama Bin Laden." this is what i am replying to. so the first thing i have to ask you is "why can't kingblaze84 debate the topic honestly?"
now, let's move on to your topic.
start here. Bin Laden didn't need to be funded by the CIA, because he was doing his OWN fundraising in the Middle East. he wouldn't have wanted to have been funded by the CIA because it went against his even-then-espoused anti-Western position.kingblaze84 wrote: »The Saudi magnate, Osama bin Laden, and Abdullah Azzam, the charismatic Palestinian co-founder of Hamas, birthed al Qaeda from the Services Bureau (Mektab al-Khidmat) the pair had set up in the mid-1980s to promote the so-called “Arab Afghans”-- Muslims from around the world (but mostly from Arab nations) who flocked to Afghanistan to fight in the jihad.
yes, and i have discussed this many, many times: the US directed funding to the ISI, which gave money to its favored people (Hekmatyar) and kept it from mujaheddin that we preferred (Massoud). the problem with your quote there is that it implies the ISI funded Hekmatyar AND the CIA funded Hekmatyar, when in fact the ISI funded him with US money because they wanted to maintain control over the money.kingblaze84 wrote: »Among Afghan tribal leaders, the closest ally of bin Laden and his burgeoning al Qaeda network was Gilbuddin Hekmatyar. This was of no small significance. Hekmatyar, an Islamic fundamentalist, was the most virulently anti-American of the Afghans and the one closest to the Pakistani Intelligence Service (ISI), which the CIA was using as its cut-out to support the mujahideen. He was also the top recipient of the CIA’s largesse, reeling in about 20% of the $3 billion-plus in funding and materiel the agency poured into the jihad.
in fact, i will go further: nothing i said there is something i have not said before. frankly, your "why is janklow" question is just false.
this cheerleading is cute, but you don't have to be mad about the fact that i am capable of reading a book.because he read books fool!
you know,like the ones that told us Columbus discovered America!
Who also as we all read was a great hero
so what now, y'all gone deny THAT is fact also?!
smh -
people need to cut that "good" and "evil " talk
Ghadafi comitted alot of crimes
he killed alot of his people ,he revenged his daughters death caused by american bombs and so on...
AND (not BUT)
he fought for Nelson mandela and gave him money for his presidency campaign
he tried to unify all the african states
he did alot of charity works (there´s even streets in different african countries named after him cuz he helped build mosques,schools etc
bad man is not a title u get ,life is not a hollywood flick .
The US started a war in irak ,caused hundred thousands of death (colateral damage),tortured there ,keeps people in guantanamo and refused to acknoledge a palestinian state @ the UN
Some may see them as a bad apple as well
By no means i excuse what G. did but finger pointing could be so easy today.People fight for their interest.its not a good vs evil thing
He deserved a big trial .When u ? a leader during a war ,most of the time the winner writes history and its not always accurate -
blackgotty wrote: »people need to cut that "good" and "evil " talk
Ghadafi comitted alot of crimes
he killed alot of his people ,he revenged his daughters death caused by american bombs and so on...
AND (not BUT)
he fought for Nelson mandela and gave him money for his presidency campaign
he tried to unify all the african states
he did alot of charity works (there´s even streets in different african countries named after him cuz he helped build mosques,schools etc
bad man is not a title u get ,life is not a hollywood flick .
The US started a war in irak ,caused hundred thousands of death (colateral damage),tortured there ,keeps people in guantanamo and refused to acknoledge a palestinian state @ the UN
Some may see them as a bad apple as well
By no means i excuse what G. did but finger pointing could be so easy today.People fight for their interest.its not a good vs evil thing
He deserved a big trial .When u ? a leader during a war ,most of the time the winner writes history and its not always accurate
There is no point in dumbin' it down for these posters most of em are sheeps who believe everything the media puts into their minds.
The facts are too much for these people to marinate to their temporal lobes the picture the media paints is all they know. -
blackgotty wrote: »people need to cut that "good" and "evil " talk
Ghadafi comitted alot of crimes
he killed alot of his people ,he revenged his daughters death caused by american bombs and so on...
AND (not BUT)
he fought for Nelson mandela and gave him money for his presidency campaign
he tried to unify all the african states
he did alot of charity works (there´s even streets in different african countries named after him cuz he helped build mosques,schools etc
bad man is not a title u get ,life is not a hollywood flick .
The US started a war in irak ,caused hundred thousands of death (colateral damage),tortured there ,keeps people in guantanamo and refused to acknoledge a palestinian state @ the UN
Some may see them as a bad apple as well
By no means i excuse what G. did but finger pointing could be so easy today.People fight for their interest.its not a good vs evil thing
He deserved a big trial .When u ? a leader during a war ,most of the time the winner writes history and its not always accurate
@ the bolded: I don't think it's realistic to think that Gaddafi could have helped achieve anything like a unified Africa any time soon. I'm sure plenty of Africans wouldn't want this anyway.
As for his "charity"... where do you think he got all this money? He ran his own country into the ground while making sure he and his supporters had money to do whatever they want. All that money was stolen from the Libyan people, so it doesn't matter that he gave money to charity, it wasn't rightfully his money in the first place.
I accept your point that people aren't purely good or evil. I'm sure Gaddafi was nice to his family and ? like that, but based on his actions if you can't call him evil then you can't really call anyone evil.
