Obama named ‘The First ? President’ on Newsweek magazine cover; creates controversy
Options
Comments
-
Lol at the brother sister argument. Interesting, but wouldnt that be a death sentence for their future kids?
-
Lol obama pulls numbers dropped after this ? ass ? the ? is done.
-
He is trying to win back the support of Hollywood. They were against him back then and now he is in good terms with them.
-
Oh man in the future they gon see that ? and get there hit confused.
-
Cabana_Da_Don wrote: »Oh man in the future they gon see that ? and get there hit confused.
And you know what? If people considered Clinton the "first black president" and just 2 presidential administrations later, we actually have a black president, we gonna have an openly ? president in just 2 more administrations from Obama. Its gonna happen, as much as I don't condone homosexuality. ? folk are people too, just that they already run ? in the media nowadays. -
Its politics and he said the right thing though he will have no hand in makingit legal.
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »Regardless, most Black people in America are not religious at all
Say what? Are you sure you're black lol? Church means SO MUCH MORE to African-American culture than it does to white American culture. Everything from Civil Rights Movement to Modern American Music was birthed in them pews.
And ? , there's GOTTA be more black muslims than arab muslims in America by now....kingblaze84 wrote: »As far as Libya is concerned, it was still a very stupid decision for Obama
yea no it wasn't, sorry but Farrakhan and NBPP was wrong on this onekingblaze84 wrote: »It was a waste of money
From the sources I've seen, it cost about 1 billion. 1. One. ONE. AND CHANGE. TOTAL.
? PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE. You know damn well 1 billion to the U.S Gov't is like a McChicken to Warren Buffet lol.kingblaze84 wrote: »and it strengthened Al Qaeda
I still can't believe you don't get why Qqqqqadaffy was spitting that "all these people I'm killing are Al Qaeda! Honest!" line.
Like, you. Of all people.
sigh
HE THOUGHT IF HE'D JUST CALL ALL HIS VICTIMS AL QAEDA, THE U.S WOULD CO-SIGN AND LEAVE HIM ALONE.....? prolly woulda worked with Bush lol.
but whatever. Fact is, Egypt's revolution strengthened Al Qaeda too. Egypt is the ideological motherland of Al Qaeda's Qutbist brand of Islamist Extremism. Nasser, Sadat, and Mubarek all bent over backwards to oppress Al Qaeda's predecessors and sympathizers. That's like 60 years of beef we're talking. They had beef w/ Egypt's gov't LONG before they had beef with America. Now, unlike Libya I might add, Egypt is getting ready to hand the car keys over to the Muslim Brotherhood. So logically, I suppose Obama should've ordered airstrikes against Tahrir Square lol. -
Swiffness! wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »Regardless, most Black people in America are not religious at all
Say what? Are you sure you're black lol? Church means SO MUCH MORE to African-American culture than it does to white American culture. Everything from Civil Rights Movement to Modern American Music was birthed in them pews.
And ? , there's GOTTA be more black muslims than arab muslims in America by now....kingblaze84 wrote: »As far as Libya is concerned, it was still a very stupid decision for Obama
yea no it wasn't, sorry but Farrakhan and NBPP was wrong on this onekingblaze84 wrote: »It was a waste of money
From the sources I've seen, it cost about 1 billion. 1. One. ONE. AND CHANGE. TOTAL.
? PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE. You know damn well 1 billion to the U.S Gov't is like a McChicken to Warren Buffet lol.kingblaze84 wrote: »and it strengthened Al Qaeda
I still can't believe you don't get why Qqqqqadaffy was spitting that "all these people I'm killing are Al Qaeda! Honest!" line.
Like, you. Of all people.
sigh
HE THOUGHT IF HE'D JUST CALL ALL HIS VICTIMS AL QAEDA, THE U.S WOULD CO-SIGN AND LEAVE HIM ALONE.....? prolly woulda worked with Bush lol.
but whatever. Fact is, Egypt's revolution strengthened Al Qaeda too. Egypt is the ideological motherland of Al Qaeda's Qutbist brand of Islamist Extremism. Nasser, Sadat, and Mubarek all bent over backwards to oppress Al Qaeda's predecessors and sympathizers. That's like 60 years of beef we're talking. They had beef w/ Egypt's gov't LONG before they had beef with America. Now, unlike Libya I might add, Egypt is getting ready to hand the car keys over to the Muslim Brotherhood. So logically, I suppose Obama should've ordered airstrikes against Tahrir Square lol.
HA, first of all, only 22% of Blacks in this country go to church OR religious services regularly, that's not exactly very religious. And you really believe church means that much to the avg Black person in America? LMAO come on man, the out of wedlock birth rate in the Black community is through the roof. Since when do most Black people give a ? about religious teachings for the most part? Seriously think about what you're saying bruh. The Amish are a truly religious community but Blacks are not. That's not to say church has no meaning in the Black community, but for most, church is a waste of time and has little influence. I would know, I LIVE IN A BLACK NEIGHBORHOOD and I'm Black as well.
As far as Libya is concerned, it still was a waste of money because states like Michigan and Ohio couldv'e used that money to bail out cities and social programs. Many of Libya's freedom fighters have Al-Qaeda links, and this is a fact, do you want me to put up the links for you? Some of the freedom fighters have said themselves they fought against Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan LMAO, come on man. Gaddafi was taken out so European nations could keep the oil that Gaddafi wanted to keep to his people and sell throughout Africa with gold currency, something European companies did not take very well.
As far as Egypt, it was left alone simply because Egypt's former president was so unpopular his people took him down on their own. I seriously can't believe you still think taking Gaddafi out was a good idea, it didn't exactly help America's image throughout the Muslim world. If anything, it proved just how imperialistic America still is, something Al-Qaeda tells its followers all the time. Nice job Obama, good work proving Al-Qaeda right lol.......and he wonders why we're still stuck in Afghanistan...... -
Lol obama pulls numbers dropped after this ? ass ? the ? is done.
Really? I thought Obama's poll numbers improved after he became the first ? president. -
You're right Samkaveli..........
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57434153-503544/poll-romney-has-slight-edge-over-obama/
(CBS News) Presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has a slight edge over President Obama in the race for the White House in the latest CBS News/New York Times poll.
According to the survey, conducted May 11-13, 46 percent of registered voters say they would vote for Romney, while 43 percent say they would opt for Mr. Obama. Romney's slight advantage remains within the poll's margin of error, which is plus or minus four percentage points.
Last month, a CBS News/New York Times poll showed Mr. Obama and Romney locked in a dead heat, with both earning 46 percent support among registered voters. Polls conducted in February and March showed Mr. Obama with an advantage over Romney, while a January poll showed Romney edging out Mr. Obama 47 percent to 45 percent. Another January poll showed the two tied.
Neither candidate, however, has had more than a six-point lead over the other since CBS News/New York Times began conducting head-to-head in polls this January.
Despite recent controversies surrounding issues like same-sex marriage, which Mr. Obama came out in support of last week, the poll indicates that the economy remains the most important issue to voters in the presidential election. -
as it should be...kingblaze84 wrote: »You're right Samkaveli..........
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57434153-503544/poll-romney-has-slight-edge-over-obama/
(CBS News) Presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has a slight edge over President Obama in the race for the White House in the latest CBS News/New York Times poll.
According to the survey, conducted May 11-13, 46 percent of registered voters say they would vote for Romney, while 43 percent say they would opt for Mr. Obama. Romney's slight advantage remains within the poll's margin of error, which is plus or minus four percentage points.
Last month, a CBS News/New York Times poll showed Mr. Obama and Romney locked in a dead heat, with both earning 46 percent support among registered voters. Polls conducted in February and March showed Mr. Obama with an advantage over Romney, while a January poll showed Romney edging out Mr. Obama 47 percent to 45 percent. Another January poll showed the two tied.
Neither candidate, however, has had more than a six-point lead over the other since CBS News/New York Times began conducting head-to-head in polls this January.
Despite recent controversies surrounding issues like same-sex marriage, which Mr. Obama came out in support of last week, the poll indicates that the economy remains the most important issue to voters in the presidential election.
-
Cabana_Da_Don wrote: »Oh man in the future they gon see that ? and get there ? confused.
And you know what? If people considered Clinton the "first black president" and just 2 presidential administrations later, we actually have a black president, we gonna have an openly ? president in just 2 more administrations from Obama. Its gonna happen, as much as I don't condone homosexuality. ? folk are people too, just that they already run ? in the media nowadays.
I think you are right b.I salute you. -
on the other hand, many of these same Libyans have said themselves that they have renounced their former positions and disassociated with al-Qaeda, so how much of this is just picking the quotes that support your argument?kingblaze84 wrote: »Many of Libya's freedom fighters have Al-Qaeda links, and this is a fact, do you want me to put up the links for you? Some of the freedom fighters have said themselves they fought against Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan LMAO, come on man.
...and apparently all those thousands of Libyans were in on this? i mean, i understand you're running with some ? GOLD conspiracy at this point, but what's the explanation behind the anti-Gaddafi sentiment from actual Libyans?kingblaze84 wrote: »Gaddafi was taken out so European nations could keep the oil that Gaddafi wanted to keep to his people and sell throughout Africa with gold currency, something European companies did not take very well.
you say this as if you can explain how removing Gaddafi HURT America's image in the Muslim world.kingblaze84 wrote: »I seriously can't believe you still think taking Gaddafi out was a good idea, it didn't exactly help America's image throughout the Muslim world. -
on the other hand, many of these same Libyans have said themselves that they have renounced their former positions and disassociated with al-Qaeda, so how much of this is just picking the quotes that support your argument?kingblaze84 wrote: »Many of Libya's freedom fighters have Al-Qaeda links, and this is a fact, do you want me to put up the links for you? Some of the freedom fighters have said themselves they fought against Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan LMAO, come on man.
...and apparently all those thousands of Libyans were in on this? i mean, i understand you're running with some ? GOLD conspiracy at this point, but what's the explanation behind the anti-Gaddafi sentiment from actual Libyans?kingblaze84 wrote: »Gaddafi was taken out so European nations could keep the oil that Gaddafi wanted to keep to his people and sell throughout Africa with gold currency, something European companies did not take very well.
you say this as if you can explain how removing Gaddafi HURT America's image in the Muslim world.kingblaze84 wrote: »I seriously can't believe you still think taking Gaddafi out was a good idea, it didn't exactly help America's image throughout the Muslim world.
Gaddafi mistreated many of his people, I agree and that's why so many were willing to see him fall. And that's fine, but the reality is America wasted it's time fighting there because AGAIN, America is bankrupt AND the war did not help us in the long run. I'm sure American oil companies loved the war, and even more, European ones,
How did it hurt America's image? I just said so already, it made America AGAIN look like an imperial power, which we are. This image hurts America all over the Middle East minus some places obviously. But for the most part, the Middle East lost even more respect for America after the idiotic Libyan war. Al Qaeda is now stengthened there, if you don't believe me, do the research yourself and come back to me. -
So Jay-Z supports Obama still, how do you feel about this guys?
-
So Jay-Z supports Obama still, how do you feel about this guys?
A little disappointed but hey it's his opinion. I understand why someone would support Obama over Romney but for a man who dissed Bush, I don't see how he can support Obama again. Bush and Obama are not very different from each other, both are warmongers and both love inflation and bankrupting the country. Jay-Z is the best rapper alive in my opinion (2nd best all time behind 2pac) so I'll cut him some slack. -
so you acknowledge that Libyans want to see Gaddafi go because he mistreated them... yet you are unwilling to acknowledge there's any way it helps the US to have assisted with that on the grounds of money money money. i am sure, however, that if the US position was, "can't help you, Libyans, we have to save our money for ourselves," it would not give off an imperial impression.kingblaze84 wrote: »Gaddafi mistreated many of his people, I agree and that's why so many were willing to see him fall. And that's fine, but the reality is America wasted it's time fighting there because AGAIN, America is bankrupt AND the war did not help us in the long run.
i'm sure all oil companies from all over the world liked it. i don't think there's some kind of Western monopoly on selling oil.kingblaze84 wrote: »I'm sure American oil companies loved the war, and even more, European ones-
...to have removed the dictator the Libyans were mistreated by without pumping a pile of ground troops into the country and thus turning the nation over to said mistreated people. huh.kingblaze84 wrote: »How did it hurt America's image? I just said so already, it made America AGAIN look like an imperial power, which we are.
i get that you're taking an isolationist position that demands we spend minimal money overseas. and that's fine, but you should argue it on its merits instead of always making this generic "everything America does EVER makes America look worse to EVERYONE" argument.
see the first part of my last post that you kind of sort of glossed over.kingblaze84 wrote: »Al Qaeda is now stengthened there-
by the way, this quote translates to "i cannot defend my own argument, and am lazy, please do it for me." for future reference, you may assume i have researched the topic and FOR SOME REASON still manage to disagree with you. if you can't defend your argument, fine. if you don't want to, fine. but let's admit those things.kingblaze84 wrote: »-if you don't believe me, do the research yourself and come back to me. -
so you acknowledge that Libyans want to see Gaddafi go because he mistreated them... yet you are unwilling to acknowledge there's any way it helps the US to have assisted with that on the grounds of money money money. i am sure, however, that if the US position was, "can't help you, Libyans, we have to save our money for ourselves," it would not give off an imperial impression.kingblaze84 wrote: »Gaddafi mistreated many of his people, I agree and that's why so many were willing to see him fall. And that's fine, but the reality is America wasted it's time fighting there because AGAIN, America is bankrupt AND the war did not help us in the long run.
i'm sure all oil companies from all over the world liked it. i don't think there's some kind of Western monopoly on selling oil.kingblaze84 wrote: »I'm sure American oil companies loved the war, and even more, European ones-
...to have removed the dictator the Libyans were mistreated by without pumping a pile of ground troops into the country and thus turning the nation over to said mistreated people. huh.kingblaze84 wrote: »How did it hurt America's image? I just said so already, it made America AGAIN look like an imperial power, which we are.
i get that you're taking an isolationist position that demands we spend minimal money overseas. and that's fine, but you should argue it on its merits instead of always making this generic "everything America does EVER makes America look worse to EVERYONE" argument.
see the first part of my last post that you kind of sort of glossed over.kingblaze84 wrote: »Al Qaeda is now stengthened there-
by the way, this quote translates to "i cannot defend my own argument, and am lazy, please do it for me." for future reference, you may assume i have researched the topic and FOR SOME REASON still manage to disagree with you. if you can't defend your argument, fine. if you don't want to, fine. but let's admit those things.kingblaze84 wrote: »-if you don't believe me, do the research yourself and come back to me.
America helping the Libyan rebels DID NOT help America's image in the Middle East overall. Our image is in tatters in the Muslim world already, the Libyan war made things worse. Do you have any idea how often Obama effigies are burned in the Middle East LOL??? All the time.....America's approval rating in the Middle East as we speak is in the low 30s percentage wise, probably lower. I am sure many of the Libyan people appreciated America's help getting rid of Gaddafi, but it didn't do NOTHING long term wise for America's image. It only reinforced America's rightly deserved reputation of a ? empire that loves to bomb, maim, and ? people for financial gain of itself or its allies. The war, for the most part, benefited oil companies in Europe and to a degree, America. I am glad that you admit if America turned down help for the rebels, it wouldn't give off an imperial position.....a shame we have one already, so the Libyan war only reinforced that image. Genius move Obama, genius lol........
As far as Al-Qaeda being stronger in Libya now, you obviously haven't done the research you have pretended to do. Here is a link......why don't you read it?
http://theintelhub.com/2012/02/13/echoes-of-libya-al-qaeda-backs-syrian-rebels-arab-league-vows-increased-support-for-uprising/
The West, especially the United States, has been taking a prominent role in supporting the Syrian opposition for months now – even going as far as to pump propaganda into the country in order to foment unrest – something which has lead Syria to (rightly, I might add) complain about America’s role in the uprising.
Obviously this was exactly the same in the case of Libya where one of the most prominent rebel groups was the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). The LIFG is not only a terrorist organization listed by the United States Department of State, but also implicated by a 2007 West Point Combating Terrorism Center report.
The West Point Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) report found that the most fighters per capita among those who traveled to Iraq to fight American troops were from eastern Libya, specifically the cities of Benghazi and Darnah.
These cities became the breeding ground for the Libyan uprising and at one point in last October, there was an al Qaeda flag flying over the courthouse in Benghazi.
In Libya it was even reported in the establishment news that the rebels not only had ties to terrorist groups like al Qaeda but indeed al Qaeda itself was actually sending fighters directly into the country to help topple Gaddafi.
---You make this too easy for me Janklow. If you support Al-Qaeda and want them strengthened worldwide, why don't you just say so.
-
To the various supporters of Al-Qaeda on this thread, this link is for you......Libya has become your promise land after Gaddafi was toppled.......
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/18/libya-the-new-al-qaeda-stronghold/
According to Western counter-terrorism officials, al-Qaeda terrorists have established a 200-strong fighting force near the Egyptian border in eastern Libya. The creation of the al-Qaeda unit comes at the same time as the Libyan interim government is threatened by a growing internecine conflict among Libya’s myriad group of armed rebel militias.
The al-Qaeda terrorists, who had arrived in Libya in early 2011 at the time Muammar Gadhafi’s regime was rapidly ceding ground to Libyan rebels, were reportedly sent to Libya on personal orders from al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri.
The jihadists are purportedly led by a veteran al-Qaeda fighter known simply as “AA,” a terrorist insurgent who began his terror career fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan before coming to Britain to recruit Muslims for al-Qaeda.
In 2005 “AA” had been detained by British authorities as a suspect in the July 2005 London subway bombing that killed 52 people and wounded more than 700, although he was never charged in that attack. By 2009 “AA” had left Britain to fight coalition forces on the Afghan-Pakistan border.
The efforts by al-Qaeda operatives to recruit Libyans to the jihadist cause were most recently seen in a December 2011 video the terror group posted on jihadist websites that exhorted Libyans to either “choose a secular regime that pleases the greedy crocodiles of the West…or you take a strong position and establish the religion of Allah.”
Of course, al-Qaeda doesn’t require many jihadist pep talks to convince Libyans to flock to its Islamist banner given that eastern Libya — which was described by the US State Department in 2008 as a “wellspring of Libyan foreign fighters” — has produced and exported a significant crop of al-Qaeda fighters over the years.
Most of these insurgents have been members of the al-Qaeda affiliate, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). Founded in 1995 to wage jihad against the regime of then Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi, the LIFG officially joined Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network in 2007.
Not too surprisingly then, many Libyans with al-Qaeda ties continue to pepper the leading ranks of Libya’s interim government, the ruling National Transitional Council (NTC). The most notable al-Qaeda alum serving in the NTC is Abd al-Hakim Belhadj, head of the powerful Tripoli Military Council and former emir of the LIFG.
--Hey Swiffness and Janklow, you sure this whole topple Gaddafi thing was a good idea? ROFL......American foreign policy is a joke among jokes at this point. America isn't even a great country anymore, it's a shell of its former self that's covered in blood and stupidity. -
except that this entire argument is based on you saying "it makes the US look imperial." despite the fact that it's the US NOT siding with the dictator who even you admit abused his people.kingblaze84 wrote: »America helping the Libyan rebels DID NOT help America's image in the Middle East overall. Our image is in tatters in the Muslim world already, the Libyan war made things worse.
actually, i doubt YOU have any idea how often Obama effigies are burned in the Middle East; this sounds like a thing you made up for this post. would you like to show me an example of it?kingblaze84 wrote: »Do you have any idea how often Obama effigies are burned in the Middle East LOL???
i don't think you even know what the term "long-term" means; it's clearly not years and years since the removal of Gaddafi.kingblaze84 wrote: »I am sure many of the Libyan people appreciated America's help getting rid of Gaddafi, but it didn't do NOTHING long term wise for America's image.
so you acknowledge Gaddafi abused the populace of Libya AND that Libyans appreciate the help in getting rid of him ... and yet you refuse you acknowledge the fact that such actions would seem to indicate motivation aside from "killing people for financial gain."kingblaze84 wrote: »It only reinforced America's rightly deserved reputation of a ? empire that loves to bomb, maim, and ? people for financial gain of itself or its allies.
let's also note that half the time you argue that the Libyan assistance bankrupted America. so which are you even arguing: it was all for the financial gain of America, or that it only cost the US money?
and the Libyans. but frankly, you clearly could care less about them.kingblaze84 wrote: »The war, for the most part, benefited oil companies in Europe and to a degree, America.
i'm embarrassed for you that you either didn't catch the sarcasm or are pretending not to have caught it. either way, read the post again.kingblaze84 wrote: »I am glad that you admit if America turned down help for the rebels, it wouldn't give off an imperial position...
what i'd like you to do is actually read my posts before you start with the "do some research" nonsense. let's take the LIFG, okay? now, what did i say regarding them that you skipped over...kingblaze84 wrote: »As far as Al-Qaeda being stronger in Libya now, you obviously haven't done the research you have pretended to do. Here is a link......why don't you read it?
"on the other hand, many of these same Libyans have said themselves that they have renounced their former positions and disassociated with al-Qaeda, so how much of this is just picking the quotes that support your argument?"
but why would i say this in the face of your article? well, possibly because you have LIFG guys saying things like:Contrary to several U.S. government reports, Libyan rebel ambassador to the U.S., Ali Aujali, told ABC News that the LIFG was never connected to al Qaeda and did not carry out terrorist operations. ... Still, other U.S. government documents describe the al Qaeda alliance announcement as a point of fracture within LIFG as many of their fighters were strictly anti-Gadhafi and did not view themselves as part of al Qaeda's global jihad against the West.
For his part, Belhaj waited in jail until 2009 when he and hundreds of other LIFG fighters were freed after negotiations with Gadhafi's son Saif al-Islam Gadhafi. As part of the deal to earn their freedom, Belhaj and other leaders penned a lengthy treatise denouncing political violence and terrorism, including al Qaeda.
An LIFG contingent in Britain went further, claiming the alliance with al Qaeda was a "personal decision [by one LIFG commander] that is at variance with the basic status of the group... The group is not, has never been, and never will be linked to the al Qaeda organization."
i don't dispute that there are going to be jihadists SOMEWHERE in Libyan because, despite your attitude, i am actually still trying to debate the topic like an adult. but what you're doing is picking and choosing quotes that make the LIFG look like a massive al-Qaeda partner and then extending this to claim some massive jihadist movement unleashed by the imperial crime of helping to depose a dictator, while ignoring anything that disagrees with your position and relying on calling people who disagree with you al-Qaeda supporters. whatever, get your "USA = EVIL" posts out of your system for the day and i'll try to understand that you don't want to do more than rant in that vein. -
I CAN SEE HOW IT CAN BE CONTROVERSIAL
-
except that this entire argument is based on you saying "it makes the US look imperial." despite the fact that it's the US NOT siding with the dictator who even you admit abused his people.kingblaze84 wrote: »America helping the Libyan rebels DID NOT help America's image in the Middle East overall. Our image is in tatters in the Muslim world already, the Libyan war made things worse.
actually, i doubt YOU have any idea how often Obama effigies are burned in the Middle East; this sounds like a thing you made up for this post. would you like to show me an example of it?kingblaze84 wrote: »Do you have any idea how often Obama effigies are burned in the Middle East LOL???
i don't think you even know what the term "long-term" means; it's clearly not years and years since the removal of Gaddafi.kingblaze84 wrote: »I am sure many of the Libyan people appreciated America's help getting rid of Gaddafi, but it didn't do NOTHING long term wise for America's image.
so you acknowledge Gaddafi abused the populace of Libya AND that Libyans appreciate the help in getting rid of him ... and yet you refuse you acknowledge the fact that such actions would seem to indicate motivation aside from "killing people for financial gain."kingblaze84 wrote: »It only reinforced America's rightly deserved reputation of a ? empire that loves to bomb, maim, and ? people for financial gain of itself or its allies.
let's also note that half the time you argue that the Libyan assistance bankrupted America. so which are you even arguing: it was all for the financial gain of America, or that it only cost the US money?
and the Libyans. but frankly, you clearly could care less about them.kingblaze84 wrote: »The war, for the most part, benefited oil companies in Europe and to a degree, America.
i'm embarrassed for you that you either didn't catch the sarcasm or are pretending not to have caught it. either way, read the post again.kingblaze84 wrote: »I am glad that you admit if America turned down help for the rebels, it wouldn't give off an imperial position...
what i'd like you to do is actually read my posts before you start with the "do some research" nonsense. let's take the LIFG, okay? now, what did i say regarding them that you skipped over...kingblaze84 wrote: »As far as Al-Qaeda being stronger in Libya now, you obviously haven't done the research you have pretended to do. Here is a link......why don't you read it?
"on the other hand, many of these same Libyans have said themselves that they have renounced their former positions and disassociated with al-Qaeda, so how much of this is just picking the quotes that support your argument?"
but why would i say this in the face of your article? well, possibly because you have LIFG guys saying things like:Contrary to several U.S. government reports, Libyan rebel ambassador to the U.S., Ali Aujali, told ABC News that the LIFG was never connected to al Qaeda and did not carry out terrorist operations. ... Still, other U.S. government documents describe the al Qaeda alliance announcement as a point of fracture within LIFG as many of their fighters were strictly anti-Gadhafi and did not view themselves as part of al Qaeda's global jihad against the West.
For his part, Belhaj waited in jail until 2009 when he and hundreds of other LIFG fighters were freed after negotiations with Gadhafi's son Saif al-Islam Gadhafi. As part of the deal to earn their freedom, Belhaj and other leaders penned a lengthy treatise denouncing political violence and terrorism, including al Qaeda.
An LIFG contingent in Britain went further, claiming the alliance with al Qaeda was a "personal decision [by one LIFG commander] that is at variance with the basic status of the group... The group is not, has never been, and never will be linked to the al Qaeda organization."
i don't dispute that there are going to be jihadists SOMEWHERE in Libyan because, despite your attitude, i am actually still trying to debate the topic like an adult. but what you're doing is picking and choosing quotes that make the LIFG look like a massive al-Qaeda partner and then extending this to claim some massive jihadist movement unleashed by the imperial crime of helping to depose a dictator, while ignoring anything that disagrees with your position and relying on calling people who disagree with you al-Qaeda supporters. whatever, get your "USA = EVIL" posts out of your system for the day and i'll try to understand that you don't want to do more than rant in that vein.
Listen man, I just brought up two links that shows how Libya has become an Al-Qaeda stronghold since Gaddafi's fall, I'll bring up a 3rd link if you want me to. Your link showing how a few have renounced their "former" Al-Qaeda allies doesn't mean anything, OF COURSE some rebels are going to say that, they want western money to continue funding them. The Libyan rebels have many good people in their ranks I'm sure, and that's good but again, America should have let the rebels fight on their own. ESPECIALLY when so many of them have Al-Qaeda links.
And as far as the Libyan people, at risk of sounding like a broken record, I am SURE Gaddfi mistreated many of them, I GET IT. But it doesn't change my belief that America had no business getting involved, considering America's DESERVED reputation for a love of bloodshed for financial gain. America needs to mind its own ? business for awhile, considering we are losing in Afghanistan (the Taliban control most of the country LMAO) and our pathetic, costly war in Iraq. One billion dollars, the cost of the Libyan war (according to the liars in the federal govt), should have been used to bail out cities who truly need the help.
America is 16 trillion in debt, it's time to take care of home instead of bombing and air raiding hotspots all across the globe and instead use that money to build infrastructure in American cities. American infrastructure was graded a D according to an NGO report just this year, home needs some taking care of now. -
you brought up two links that say a) there might be some al-Qaeda types in Libya (which, given the size and population of the country, is really saying nothing) and b) things that are mysteriously clipped to only give this one perspective you agree with. the point that i am making is that you're overstating what the articles say AND ignoring what you don't agree with, and posting another identical article won't address that.kingblaze84 wrote: »Listen man, I just brought up two links that shows how Libya has become an Al-Qaeda stronghold since Gaddafi's fall, I'll bring up a 3rd link if you want me to.
...which is exactly my point. the articles are as well-sourced and supported as yours, but you don't agree with them, so you ascribe them less credit because... wait, it's because you don't agree with them. this is not a real argument.kingblaze84 wrote: »Your link showing how a few have renounced their "former" Al-Qaeda allies doesn't mean anything, OF COURSE some rebels are going to say that, they want western money to continue funding them.
"so many of them" is a number that's either exaggerated by your claim or one you're not trying to give at all. and if the rebels could not fight and win on their own, what happens to those "many good people them."kingblaze84 wrote: »The Libyan rebels have many good people in their ranks I'm sure, and that's good but again, America should have let the rebels fight on their own. ESPECIALLY when so many of them have Al-Qaeda links.
again, let's review what you're saying here:kingblaze84 wrote: »And as far as the Libyan people, at risk of sounding like a broken record, I am SURE Gaddfi mistreated many of them, I GET IT. But it doesn't change my belief that America had no business getting involved, considering America's DESERVED reputation for a love of bloodshed for financial gain. America needs to mind its own ? business for awhile, considering we are losing in Afghanistan (the Taliban control most of the country LMAO) and our pathetic, costly war in Iraq. One billion dollars, the cost of the Libyan war (according to the liars in the federal govt), should have been used to bail out cities who truly need the help.
-America ONLY got involved to make a profit;
-America is further bankrupted by the Libyan conflict.
WHICH OF THESE ARE YOU ARGUING
and that's why i've said that if this is your argument, cool, but make it your argument instead of all the other jazz.kingblaze84 wrote: »America is 16 trillion in debt, it's time to take care of home instead of bombing and air raiding hotspots all across the globe and instead use that money to build infrastructure in American cities. American infrastructure was graded a D according to an NGO report just this year, home needs some taking care of now.
