LOOKS LIKE ITS A WRAP FOR GHADAFFI (Tripoli falling, Qadaffi fleeing w/ sons?)
Options
Comments
-
i have always gotten the impression that Farrakhan is not a great supporter of variation in leadership
good thing Italy invaded Libya! wait...
also, what kind of invasion has no ground troops? meh
A sea and air invasion. Even though NATO countries did no invade Libya by land it is clear that their objective is regime change instead of humanitarian aid, which is illegal. They have deviated from resolution 1973 on many occasions without anyone crying foul. I'm sure these tactic will come to bite us in the butt in the near future. This conflict is an example of what Robert Gates said when he spoke of "wars of opportunity." I just hope this ends soon because things will turn real sour if it turns into militia vs militia fighting.
That RT video is contradicting itself. It can't be a trap by the regime and NATO full scale bombing at the same time. There is no mistake that Western media is pushing the propaganda campaign for the rebels hard but RT is looking real desperate right now. It's so hard to find balanced report without the obvious spin. -
This whole post is full of ? , sit down brother your mind has clearly been decimated by the propaganda you see in the media.
What ? is that? -
It's gonna be a long and costly war for sure, the rebels are STILL fighting Gaddafi's forces as we speak....in Tripoli, the city that they supposedly "captured", lol.......let's not even mention the fact most of the country is still in Gaddafi's hands, including Gaddafi's hometown.
Even worst, there are videos online of rebels killing civilians in the streets, yet NATO said they were there to protect civilians, lol.....welcome to Iraq part 2 ya'll -
U.S. news stations broadcasting fake youtube videos about Libya? The Libyan government blocked youtube in October of 2010.
-
^^ Sad and pathetic war America has gotten itself involved in again. This war is clearly to get Libya's oil and prevent Libya from building up its currency. Why aren't we protecting civilians from the brutal war in the Sudan? No oil there, of course, how could I have possibly forgotten.
Shame on the USA and NATO for this stupid as ? war, playing world's policeman is played the ? out. ? American govt. -
yes, this is much more logical than "the people of Libyan don't care for the nepotistic dictator that's ruled them for decades"A NATO ship docked near Tripoli unloaded heavy weapons and disembarked Al Qaeda jihadi forces, supervised by NATO officers.
i think this comes down to specific what NATO does (whether or not they want regime change). but the fact is, Gaddafi is not a sympathetic figure and thus people are unlikely to cry over it unless they have a clear interest in it (see also: Chavez).A sea and air invasion. Even though NATO countries did no invade Libya by land it is clear that their objective is regime change instead of humanitarian aid, which is illegal. They have deviated from resolution 1973 on many occasions without anyone crying foul.
how much of Tripoli does Gaddafi control?kingblaze84 wrote: »It's gonna be a long and costly war for sure, the rebels are STILL fighting Gaddafi's forces as we speak....in Tripoli, the city that they supposedly "captured"-
beyond the hometown part, this is untruekingblaze84 wrote: »lol.......let's not even mention the fact most of the country is still in Gaddafi's hands, including Gaddafi's hometown. -
yes, this is much more logical than "the people of Libyan don't care for the nepotistic dictator that's ruled them for decades"
i think this comes down to specific what NATO does (whether or not they want regime change). but the fact is, Gaddafi is not a sympathetic figure and thus people are unlikely to cry over it unless they have a clear interest in it (see also: Chavez).
how much of Tripoli does Gaddafi control?
beyond the hometown part, this is untrue
Prove most of Libya is under rebel control. I've heard news reports on the radio that rebels don't even control 40% of the nation, and they still havent taken Tripoli completely. As far as your denial that Al-Qaeda isn't being helped by NATO, look at this........
Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links
Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html
In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya".
Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader".
His revelations came even as Idriss Deby Itno, Chad's president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, "including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries".
Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against "the foreign invasion" in Afghanistan, before being "captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan". He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008.
US and British government sources said Mr al-Hasidi was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or LIFG, which killed dozens of Libyan troops in guerrilla attacks around Derna and Benghazi in 1995 and 1996.
----Do you support Al-Qaeda Janklow?
I know Swiffness does, since he created this thread all gung ? over Gadafi losing power. Swiffness supports Al-Qaeda, lol, I never thought I'd see the day. -
LMAO at Obama killing Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan and giving them one billion dollars to fight Gadafi. America and NATO are so desperate for oil these days they're willing to work with Al-Qaeda. Does anyone else see the irony in this?
Who else in this thread support Al-Qaeda? We already know Swiff does, anyone else? -
yes, this is much more logical than "the people of Libyan don't care for the nepotistic dictator that's ruled them for decades"
i think this comes down to specific what NATO does (whether or not they want regime change). but the fact is, Gaddafi is not a sympathetic figure and thus people are unlikely to cry over it unless they have a clear interest in it (see also: Chavez).
Well it isn't about Gaddaffi but the precedent that is being set. NATO is suppose to be a neutral body. They came in to prevent a humanitarian crisis not to instigate a war. Their actions make it hard to believe that this is all about humanitarian aid. Regardless of the propaganda being pushed by both sides you cannot deny that NATO went above and beyond the intentionally vague guidelines of resolution 1973. Waging a ground war against a government from the the air is very dangerous. What happens when the rebels attack civilians? Do you start bombing the rebels too? -
Hilarious video that puts egg all over the faces of America and NATO.....here is footage of Libyan rebels freeing Al-Qaeda members and supporters from Libyan jails
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUeNBy3FjRM
Congratulations NATO, you're officially on the side of Al-Qaeda now. I guess we should give billions of dollars to the Taliban in Afghanistan too.
OOPS I forgot, we're paying them already to not attack our convoys. Haha so funny -
Great Video commentary on the situation in Libya.
-
There are only at most a few thousand al qaeda in the world, and everyone and they mama is linked to al qaeda in some tangential way. Calling them al qaeda forces is propaganda.
There are heavy propaganda wars going on all and all, with RT leading the charge on one narrative and the NYTimes leading the other. Most interesting thing about the coverage is that RT is making a lot of noise, like for real challenging the mainstream narrative at least seems that way to a nonTV having observer like myself. RT is always promoting some conspiracy theory or another but that doesn't mean their coverage is no good, personally I think a lot of the coverage on both sides has been dishonest.
NATO made a decision to take tripoli and to make it happen fast and bust heads, in the process ? has gotten brolic, but libya is in a full scale civil war at this point, and what is happening now was totally predictable as soon as 1973 passed, and all the countries that signed off on this (which would be pretty much the entire int'l community) knew it was gonna happen like this, makes all the ? and moaning by russia seem pretty disingenuous to me. -
let me respond to this by saying that you have made NO effort to prove your claims about Gaddafi controlling the majority of Libya, whereas every reputable news organization will say otherwise. take a gander at any of them, or show me something supporting this "Gaddafi still rules" claim.kingblaze84 wrote: »Prove most of Libya is under rebel control. I've heard news reports on the radio that rebels don't even control 40% of the nation, and they still havent taken Tripoli completely. As far as your denial that Al-Qaeda isn't being helped by NATO, look at this........
okay, let's see what we're comparing here:kingblaze84 wrote: »As far as your denial that Al-Qaeda isn't being helped by NATO, look at this........
Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links
--toomy says "A NATO ship docked near Tripoli unloaded heavy weapons and disembarked Al Qaeda jihadi forces, supervised by NATO officers"
--janklow says "this is ? "
and your position is that i'm denying something factual he said because there are Libyans with connections to the LIFG? get the ? out of here with that absurd leap of logic. did you actually read what HE or i posted?
this ridiculous question is just another way of admitted you're embarrassed that your position on Libya can be summed up as "i'm sorry people made Gaddafi's dictatorship end." but this is what happens when you insist on taking the "anything America does is 100% EVIL" positionkingblaze84 wrote: »Do you support Al-Qaeda Janklow?
the catch is that you can always describe attacks on Gaddafi forces as necessary to defend civilians. forget arguing from a position of "we all know what the West/NATO/whoever" REALLY wants; what's NATO doing that CANNOT be described as done to protect civilians from Gaddafi's forces?Well it isn't about Gaddaffi but the precedent that is being set. NATO is suppose to be a neutral body. They came in to prevent a humanitarian crisis not to instigate a war. Their actions make it hard to believe that this is all about humanitarian aid.
see that "intentionally vague" thing there? yeah...Regardless of the propaganda being pushed by both sides you cannot deny that NATO went above and beyond the intentionally vague guidelines of resolution 1973. -
let me respond to this by saying that you have made NO effort to prove your claims about Gaddafi controlling the majority of Libya, whereas every reputable news organization will say otherwise. take a gander at any of them, or show me something supporting this "Gaddafi still rules" claim.
okay, let's see what we're comparing here:
--toomy says "A NATO ship docked near Tripoli unloaded heavy weapons and disembarked Al Qaeda jihadi forces, supervised by NATO officers"
--janklow says "this is ? "
and your position is that i'm denying something factual he said because there are Libyans with connections to the LIFG? get the ? out of here with that absurd leap of logic. did you actually read what HE or i posted?
this ridiculous question is just another way of admitted you're embarrassed that your position on Libya can be summed up as "i'm sorry people made Gaddafi's dictatorship end." but this is what happens when you insist on taking the "anything America does is 100% EVIL" position
the catch is that you can always describe attacks on Gaddafi forces as necessary to defend civilians. forget arguing from a position of "we all know what the West/NATO/whoever" REALLY wants; what's NATO doing that CANNOT be described as done to protect civilians from Gaddafi's forces?
see that "intentionally vague" thing there? yeah...
hahaha, i remember last year when Kingblaze spit summin about America being good but losing its way and i gleefully reminded him of some of America's past crimes and his response was literally "Wow, I guess America's always been evil after all.
"
i was like "??? Really? Just like that?!?"
prolly already posted but ? IT
-
-
"? the rebels, let Gaddafi beat them?"
because here is LITERALLY the argument you would be making right now if that happened: "see, America can get involved when they want to steal IRAQ'S OIL or AFGHANISTAN'S ... POMEGRANATES, but when they have a chance to do an unselfish thing, they let Gaddafi win. WHY DOESN'T AMERICA CARE ABOUT LIYBA?!"
i mean really tho Chomsky would be saying they did it to protect Gadaffi's BP Oil contract -
bornnraisedoffCMR wrote: »Syria next, then Iran.
Ridiculous. You're smarter than this.one_manshow wrote: »They don't want it with Iran and there is evidence to show this....Ahmadinejad will go down Scarface style if they go in there. There might be a Black Hawk Down pt 2 if they decide to in there.
Nobody wants to INVADE Iran (3x the size of Iraq, 2x the pop., mountainous) so PLEASE STOP SAYING THAT because it sounds stupid. They (NeoCons & Foolish Likudniks) want to BOMB Iran, because they think that can stop them from building a nuke - which of course it can't and it'd be this giant, ? up, F6 ? tornado if Israel were to even attempt it.
I once skimmed through a book written by 2 Fox News military hawk ? where they said "WE SHOULD INVADE NORTH KOREA....but we CAN'T invade Iran." Seriously.
Obama ain't gonna let Israel attack Iran for the following reasons: #1 It won't work (this is why Bush said no to Israel in '08), #2 It'll ? off the Iranian people (while providing the IRG a great opportunity for Gestapo Long Knives action) #3 the backlash would be HUUUUUUGE @ both home n abroad, #4 Oil price would ? bricks and that's assuming Iran doesn't turn the Persian Gulf into a warzone in retaliation. -
Jonas.dini wrote: »There are only at most a few thousand al qaeda in the world, and everyone and they mama is linked to al qaeda in some tangential way. Calling them al qaeda forces is propaganda.
There are heavy propaganda wars going on all and all, with RT leading the charge on one narrative and the NYTimes leading the other. Most interesting thing about the coverage is that RT is making a lot of noise, like for real challenging the mainstream narrative at least seems that way to a nonTV having observer like myself. RT is always promoting some conspiracy theory or another but that doesn't mean their coverage is no good, personally I think a lot of the coverage on both sides has been dishonest.
NATO made a decision to take tripoli and to make it happen fast and bust heads, in the process ? has gotten brolic, but libya is in a full scale civil war at this point, and what is happening now was totally predictable as soon as 1973 passed, and all the countries that signed off on this (which would be pretty much the entire int'l community) knew it was gonna happen like this, makes all the ? and moaning by russia seem pretty disingenuous to me.
Everybody and their mama is linked to Al-Qaeda? I'm not linked to Al-qaeda, but many of the Libyan rebel forces are. Did you see the links I showed earlier in the thread? Rebel commanders have admitted their Al-Qaeda links and there is footage of Libyan rebels FREEING Al-Qaeda members from jail cells.
Are these the people to whom you wish to place your faith in? -
kingblaze84 wrote: »Everybody and their mama is linked to Al-Qaeda? I'm not linked to Al-qaeda, but many of the Libyan rebel forces are. Did you see the links I showed earlier in the thread? Rebel commanders have admitted their Al-Qaeda links and there is footage of Libyan rebels FREEING Al-Qaeda members from jail cells.
Are these the people to whom you wish to place your faith in?
CIA has links to al qaeda too, via the mujahadeen and lord even knows who else, if NATO forces were dropping off CIA agents off the coast would you be like: "NATO released al qaeda forces off the coast"?
What people?
EDIT: oh u mean the rebels? Maybe u have me confused because I don't c/s every conspiracy theory surrounding the war, but I've never been in favor of this intervention/incursion -
reputable news organization
On the IC? Bloodlines.com is reputable to a lot of the posters on this site... and I just made that website up (altho I'm sure such a site does exist) -
Look at what these Rebels are doing to Black Libyans. They're no better than the KKK.
-
Look at what these Rebels are doing to Black Libyans. They're no better than the KKK.
At least part of the reason for this is that Gaddafi was shipping in African militants to ? down on his own citizens, created a backlash against all the blacks in Libya -
Jonas.dini wrote: »CIA has links to al qaeda too, via the mujahadeen and lord even knows who else, if NATO forces were dropping off CIA agents off the coast would you be like: "NATO released al qaeda forces off the coast"?
What people?
EDIT: oh u mean the rebels? Maybe u have me confused because I don't c/s every conspiracy theory surrounding the war, but I've never been in favor of this intervention/incursion
CIA definitely has links to Al-Qaeda, we funded the mujaheddin in the 80s, and many of their members eventually became Al-Qaeda. One is better off trust a serial killer than the CIA, the CIA supports its economic interests, not freedom as the gullible might believe.
I did believe you supported this intervention before, I take back anything I said that suggested you did. Regardless, the Libyan rebels have solid Al-Qaeda links and I believe it's only a matter of time before they turn against us, as Pakistanis and Afghans have already. Many Iraqis hate Americans too, but not as much as Pakistanis and Afghans.
Butting in the business of the Middle East only makes things worst for America in the long run. -
Jonas.dini wrote: »At least part of the reason for this is that Gaddafi was shipping in African militants to ? down on his own citizens, created a backlash against all the blacks in Libya
according to cynthia Mckinnley in this video that's not true. She says that 50% of Libyans look like her.
-
according to cynthia Mckinnley in this video that's not true. She says that 50% of Libyans look like her.
Well I don't know what exactly she said, but there are lots of black libyans, that doesn't change the fact that Gaddafi brought in black african militants from outside libya which created a backlash against black libyans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3LPyZhvGNg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h8h-C5dLHM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-4TI0lY-1g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdC9bCHfYEo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWRnv45L5ig
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1lqhqGdeJw