Libya - the truth - Page 3

he was never really a friend...we tried to kill him in the 80s and fucked it up...it was more a treat each other kindly since we have what each other want...like we do with saudi arabia.

On August 24 2011 20:44 YoMeR wrote: I mean comon. guy with the biggest dick is obv gonna be bashing down on other countries with smaller dicks. but the way the "evidence" was presented in OP is just slightly worse than ramming my head into a concrete wall at full speed.

So what you're saying... is if we were countries I'd bash down on you?

On August 24 2011 19:50 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On August 24 2011 17:52 Spitfiree wrote: I didnt bother watching any of this, but it was about time someone forced Khadaffi to withdraw from the leadership and have to say that anyone thinking otherwise is either a sociopath or a moron This is the same argument used against Hussein. Yes the guy was a crazy dictator, but its still not excuse to invade a country, and its also ridiculously naive to think that is the motivation. Nobody is missing Hussein, its just that we dont want an imperialist war mongering country taking control over resources by overthrowing governments at will, is that so hard to understand?

The current situation in Libya is much different than the one in Iraq you do realize that right ?

The same argument in two completely different scenarios dont lead to the same result

i never said iraq and lybia were identical at ANY point did i?, obviously one was a full blown invasion and slaughter of innocents for economical gain, the other is indirect support to put a more fitting regime in the country.

Both are common practices, the second one much more common, simply indirectly support a movement if it suits your particular interests.

Anyone who believes this is for the freedom of people is a gullible idiot, anyone who think that exchanging a direct violent tyranny for a remote white collar one is something we should support is also an idiot.

To put it in other terms, third world countries with resources are forced hookers and big powerful countries are pimps, Lybia is currently a hooker with a violent pimp that smacks her face and takes her money (Khadaffi), so a more powerful pimp (USA) realizes its very profitable to pimp Lybia, so he beats the shit out of the old pimp and now they take posession of Lybia, Lybia will still forced into prostitution, however she wont be smacked in the face as often and she will wear prettier dresses... yeah, awesome change lets support it!.

On August 24 2011 20:44 palak wrote: Iraq and libya r completely different scenarios. Iraq was a full invasion against a country. Libya is a bombing campaign in support of one side of a civil war. Also iraq our pres tried to claim it wad due to wmd or greater good. Obama at least said libya is being acted on "to protect our interests"

oh thats awesome... so Obama actually admits that he will meddle with countries sovereignty and overthrow governments if it suits his interests... what a nice guy, that totally changes everything -_-

^that is just how the world works...more powerful ppl/countries/corporations take advantage of less powerful ppl/countries/corporations in order to get more money/resources

anyone who think that exchanging a direct violent tyranny for a remote white collar one is something we should support is also an idiot.

so you believe that Khadaffi was the less evil in this case?
or do you expect the country to be freed, the people to take the command and everyone to live happily ever after wtf? of course that this wont happen and you've stated that in your post

it might be fucked up but 2nd scenario is far better tbh

Id much rather have some powerful nation take control over Libya rather than have a fanatic like Khadaffi who is completely unpredictable on many levels lead one of Africa's more advanced countries. That doesnt mean I support such scenario - it means i prefer it over the worse one


and idd as palak said that is how the world works... its fucked up and its true that if everyone thinks like that ,then everyone has already given up and our society will stay so fucked up forever but those r the pure facts in our reality

On August 24 2011 22:02 palak wrote: ^that is just how the world works...more powerful ppl/countries/corporations take advantage of less powerful ppl/countries/corporations in order to get more money/resources

I am pretty aware how the world works, more than anybody in this thread, it doesnt mean i have to conform to that.

There are a lot of ugly truths in our world, people in power will abuse it, most people are cowards and willfully ignorant etc, does that mean i have to support it?, do i have to support corrupt power or fight against it?, do i have to support fearful apathy in the people or fight against it?

i try to be the best person i can, dont you?

OPs post is one of the worst bullshit crap stuff i have ever read/ watched

Baal To put it in other terms, third world countries with resources are forced hookers and big powerful countries are pimps, Lybia is currently a hooker with a violent pimp that smacks her face and takes her money (Khadaffi), so a more powerful pimp (USA) realizes its very profitable to pimp Lybia, so he beats the shit out of the old pimp and now they take posession of Lybia, Lybia will still forced into prostitution, however she wont be smacked in the face as often and she will wear prettier dresses... yeah, awesome change lets support it!.

Thats it in a Nutshell

baal for president

On August 24 2011 22:26 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + anyone who think that exchanging a direct violent tyranny for a remote white collar one is something we should support is also an idiot. so you believe that Khadaffi was the less evil in this case? or do you expect the country to be freed, the people to take the command and everyone to live happily ever after wtf? of course that this wont happen and you've stated that in your post it might be fucked up but 2nd scenario is far better tbh Id much rather have some powerful nation take control over Libya rather than have a fanatic like Khadaffi who is completely unpredictable on many levels lead one of Africa's more advanced countries. That doesnt mean I support such scenario - it means i prefer it over the worse one and idd as palak said that is how the world works... its fucked up and its true that if everyone thinks like that ,then everyone has already given up and our society will stay so fucked up forever but those r the pure facts in our reality

Actually trying to quantify the damage is hard, i mean Kadaffi sure is more hurtful in this moment but longterm a puppet government might be more detrimental, but that is actually meaningless as i dont follow a Machiavellian morality.

When faced against two evils i dont pick the lesser one, i simply do what i believe is right.

First of all actually almost every 3rd world country has an awful government, because they have awful socities and governments are just reflection of society, but also each country is sovereign and they have to overcome their own faults in order to evolve as a society, changing their government won do anything if their society is the same, there simply will be just another superpower drinking their milkshake.

Actually it looks like you are the ones who dont accept how the world works, you cant accept the fact that these are the leaders this society produces and therefore deserves, when this kind of leader doesnt fit its society, the people will take over as it has happened for millenniums now, you are in such conflict with this fact that you will support thieves and corruption in order to change this governments, and in the end, it wont change anything

that I am pretty aware how the world works, more than anybody in this thread,

that's not true

do i have to support corrupt power or fight against it?, do i have to support fearful apathy in the people or fight against it?

taking every thread opportunity possible to derail and espouse your viewpoints is not fighting against anything...it's the same as the rambling people on the street preaching about demons taking over the world, everyone who doesn't already agree w/ the rambling preacher just ignores them and considers them a paranoid idiot...ur not spreading or converting anyone to anything or actually advancing any cause b/c everyone has already heard all the crap 100x times, by now either they agree w/ u or they don't

funny post considering two a couple of posts above yours lol.

anyway its not like im posting in the alien thread about this, it the fucking lybian revolution supported by the untied states thread... i think this is the place to post about that, moron.

First of all actually almost every 3rd world country has an awful government, because they have awful socities and governments are just reflection of society, but also each country is sovereign and they have to overcome their own faults in order to evolve as a society, changing their government won do anything if their society is the same, there simply will be just another superpower drinking their milkshake.

U do realize that the American revolution was financed completely by the french and was only successful due to their finances, otherwise britain would have absolutely raped the colonial armies. Mexican revolution was financed by america, Russian revolution started by germany, etc. It's not like a powerful country went in and just uprooted a peaceful gov't, the society was already having a revolution, other countries just helped it along since it suits our interests in many ways. Just like france helped the american revolution along since it was in their best interest.

On August 24 2011 23:15 Baal wrote: funny post considering two a couple of posts above yours lol. anyway its not like im posting in the alien thread about this, it the fucking lybian revolution supported by the untied states thread... i think this is the place to post about that, moron.

u, like the rambling preacher, always have a small group of the same supporters in every thread

thread op was about a conspiracy saying gov'ts staged pictures and videos of the revolution and that the gov'ts did it for oil.
1. Conspiracy about staging revolution videos on a sound stage is retarded
2. Of course one of the reasons for the aiding of rebels was oil, the gov'ts came out and said that immediately.
Everyone except d_smart agrees on the above 2 pts and d_smart is dumber then a fuckin rock
/thread

going into the same discussions as a bajillion other threads about "evil imperialistic gov'ts" is just going to completely derail

disagree palak, how can you say talking about evil imperialistic govt is derailing the thread. this is what is happening in libya atm. OP might came in here with wrong info, i haven't read or watch his post but his main point is that nato wasn't in libya to help the cizitens. They have ulterior motives, Baal is just pointing this out info out. Baal knows his shit is all i can say.

Lol @ people not having time to watch 10 min video but having the time to comment on and on again. You are the definition of IGNORANT. It's not so hard - Media says A is going on in Libya. An interviewing crew goes to Libya and films every bit of the fucking town showing it's nothing like A. They talk to numerous people who are in the centre of the battle and know what's going on. Hospital staff too. But wait... I see - it is a video compression, the people are actually pixels... nothing to see here, guys. Move along. Officer Palak Barbreidy has it all under control. It's just the way the world is. Turn the TV on and get the fuck out of my room.



Kucinich, who in March suggested President Barack Obama’s authorizing of airstrikes on Libya were “an impeachable offense” and sponsored a July measure to defund the military effort there, criticized what he called an evolving rationale for the NATO offensive.
The seven-term Cleveland congressman released his statement just as forces loyal to Qadhafi appeared to have abandoned their defense of his heavily fortified Tripoli compound. It was not clear where Qadhafi is, though a Russian chess official said he spoke with the dictator and reported he remains in the capital.
“The reasons for the U.S./NATO intervention in Libya keep changing,” he said. “First, it was about the potential for a massacre in Benghazi. When the massacre did not materialize and once the war against Libya was under way, the reasons for intervention changed.”
And Kucinich questioned the motivation behind U.S. intervention in Libya.
“Was the United States, through participation in the overthrow of the regime, furthering the aims of international oil corporations in pursuit of control over one of the world’s largest oil resources?” he asked. “Did the United States at the inception of the war against Libya align itself with elements of Al Qaeda, while elsewhere continuing to use the threat of Al Qaeda as a reason for U.S. military intervention, presence and occupation?”

On August 24 2011 14:47 D_smart_S wrote: Okay, Abuser. USA+Britain+other western governments want oil. They build a model in a different place than Libya that is an exact copy of the Green Square in Tripoli and they send the media as actors and they shoot just like in Hollywood. They now try to build momentum and destroy things so that they clear the path for the rebels and just make things like in Iraq. So they shoot the movie and we do what we do best - trust the good ol' telly. The Trojan Horse in our homes. We are the audience. If that sounds humourous to someone than how do you explain the absence of a huge sign on the wall? Video compression is laughable, you have a great shot at the wall both on the pic and in the video. And also all the testaments of hospital staff and people in the centre of Libya. Just watch the Serbian interviewer, it's around 10 mins but he goes to lots of places interviewing many people and films that nothing is like what is portrayed in the mainstream media. Al Jazeera and CNN said there were shootings in the hospital between rebels and Quaddafi forces and there weren't. Other places that were reported in the MSM to be destroyed were fine.Everyone that spoke had a story of someone hit by a NATO plane or being shot at. In this set, people outside Libya would have difficulty knowing what's going on. We can only rely on the media and so they exploit us with some Hollywood stuff. Otherwise, the sign would be there for us to see... You can watch in youtube how some idiot soldiers kill civilians for fun in Iraq, that would give you perspective on how kinky and fucked up things are.

rofl...

Yeah, they built a replica model of a town square and hired actors to pretend to be rebels in order to destroy their enemies morale. But, video compression - That's just laughable.

If you want to know what happened to the disappearing sign on the wall, I can help find it - Just put the youtube video to full screen and SQUINT because it's right fucking there.

+ Show Spoiler +

Great picture, Ray Charles, now I hope more people look into it. Compare it with http://www.flickr.com/photos/glkri/2260592906/lightbox/ . It is the sign above the smaller arc on the left. Very well carved and distinguished! Does ANYONE else on this site think they are not the same? The difference is HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE!

On August 25 2011 03:14 D_smart_S wrote: Great picture, Ray Charles, now I hope more people look into it. Compare it with http://www.flickr.com/photos/glkri/2260592906/lightbox/ . It is the sign above the smaller arc on the left. Very well carved and distinguished! Does ANYONE else on this site think they are not the same? The difference is HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE!

Funny, it went from being "missing" to being "different." Personally I don't even know how it's possible to watch the video and not see it in the first place. I suppose the eyes see what the mind knows. I'm not sure who could help you more, a psychologist or an optometrist.