Libya - the truth

When you lie, sometimes you get caught. But when the lie is too big, you are bound to make mistakes. As you know NATO attacked Libya and is supporting the rebels in order to save the people from the brutal Qaddafi. Okay, that is the official story. Funny fact is that Libya, accidentially have humongous reserves of oil and water and other stuff. Just like Afghanistan and Iraq. The mainstream media in Middle East, Al Jazeera, is like CNN+Fox. The story unfolds as following: Al Jazeera air this live report:

Go to 1:20. Then compare the square you see with pictures of the same square (a very famous one there):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/glkri/2260592906/lightbox/


As you can see there is some graphical sign in the wall of one of the arcs but it is missing on the Al Jazeera Green Square footage. Also some other things seem different. Pretty fucking strange, right? Here is a blog that puts things in perspective and explain what and how this is done:
http://metrogael.blogspot.com/2011/08/from-makers-of-gaddafi-is-killing-his.html

And if you are still trying to figure out who is who and what is going on, this clip will put you on tracks:

From 1:50 on - a Serbian journalistic crew is invited by Libya to show what's going on to the world. It shows how civilians are fighting for their lives being bombarded by NATO planes, without any opposition, just plain aggression. Lots of schools, libraries and other institutions where innocent people have gathered are being attacked! The whole Libyan nation are eyewitnesses to this brutality, many people interviewed, lots of good finds by the crew. You should definitely watch it!


And this is a message of Libyan girl to the Western Governments who are controlling NATO troops and the attack:


Tell me what you think, LPers.

Thing is though, I don't know anyone in Libya so I just really don't care.

US gon' A.

why am i not surprised about any of this

On August 24 2011 11:11 taco wrote: Thing is though, I don't know anyone in Libya so I just really don't care. US gon' A.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL.

as standard as it gets.. with internet and all this debunking going on nowadays i think the point is very near when governments are going to be honest about their motivations; i mean, who would judge a dying country that needs some oil and is honest about it?

libya has oil? holy shit, i thought the states and rest of the world were waging war to try to legitimitely be nice world-citizens. same as in iraq and afghanistan.

this makes a lot more sense. thanks for the professional detective work, wouldn't have figured it out any other way.

95% can't figure it out. Go figure...

he was being sarcastic

yea, he says that everything is so evident and i say that it's not evident for 95% of people. I got the sarcasm but you didn't get my getting of the sarcasm it seems .

On August 24 2011 11:13 brambolius wrote: why am i not surprised about any of this

why are you instantly accepting any of this as true?

there is no one Reason. There is no one Truth. There is no one Plan. Its Reasons, Truths and Plans.

LOL @ 2nd video.

you actually think a bunch of serbs saying, "NATO is bombing everyone" is proof that NATO is bombing everyone? LOLOL

I still support America

On August 24 2011 11:52 nolan wrote: Show nested quote + On August 24 2011 11:13 brambolius wrote: why am i not surprised about any of this why are you instantly accepting any of this as true?

1. i didn't.

2. this isn't the first fishy shit concerning the libiasouthern africa shore situation, just one of the more blatant ones.

cliffs?

On August 24 2011 12:52 dogmeat wrote: cliffs?

Serbs: "NATO is bombing everything"

Proof: Serbs: "NATO is bombing everything"

Did you read the 2nd comment on the blog you linked ? Do you realize that there are more than 1 million people in Tripoli that can confirm what occurred eg rebels (NCT) took the city and Qaddafis bunker ? Do you really think a glinch on a video is worth more than all Libyan citizens and journalists from many different countries over there ?
About the video, you can actually see the square you are talking about, 1:24. Do you know what is a video (or image) compression ? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_compression) that you loose quality in the image. And it kinda blur some details (due to the fact you don't code the colour of each pixel at a time but a zone for a period), and that square would be the perfect example of the quality you loose.

I read briefly what was in the blog. While he tries to develop his theory with some journalists supposedly present overthere he talked about Thierry Meyssan (that he doesn't even spell correctly), and I can speak about as he is french. This guy has wrote two books on the theory of 9/11 being an inside job what you would consider as a proof of him being a good journalist but what I see as an evidence that he is more likely to go with conspiracionists theories.. So this guy claimed he saw there some days ago a pro Qaddafi demonstration of 1,7 milion people in Tripoli in a city of 1,6 milion people and a country of 6 milion people. Very likely. He did not provide any photo (haven't seen one in his blog) of him being there, and of this demonstration neither. But he claims that he is threatened to death which prevents him from going out the hotel. solid arguments.

But writing this enters perfectly in the game of the conspiracionist while there is an easier way (the same they use) not to prove but to insist on an idea : the unlikelihood of a scenario. Your main pieces of evidence are that on a condensed video a square on a wall is missing and that some people over there are claiming without any evidence that it is a hoax.
While on the other hand, to trust in this theory would mean that we are part of a theory involving thousands of people in another country, studios realizing a movie (who are good enough to make everything look exactly as in Tripoli but not a square on a wall...). That millions of people there are not able to provide a better evidence of this.

I mean for every theory like this one, I find quite astonishing that people are more inclined to believe in something which is way more implausible than what is given by the media of different countries.

As lots of people like TED, here is a presentation by Michael Shermer (director of the skeptical society) that speaks about some believes that people like to fall in (the same than with conspiracy theories).
http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shermer_on_believing_strange_things.html

Everyone can feel the right to search for information and have to do from different sources. To have some is a right that we deserve, and people fought for this. When you consider that all the journalists present there are lying, it's an insult to all the ones who died while trying to take the info and bring it in difficult zones and times.

sorry for the approximative english and for the pathos part at the end.

I am Serb and I survived bombarding in 1999.
most of things your televisions emited were LOL

and yes a ton of civilian buildings were hit... hospitals, televisions, houses...

one of them

building of Radio television of Serbia ... 16 workers dead

Civilians getting hit by bombs is a sick super monstrous standard practice of war.

We even bomb our selves in war all the time.

I'm not sure what you're trying to insinuate here? Can you explain exactly you think the US is doing? Try not to write a huge fucking book, because I won't read that shit. Just some bullet style points.

ITT:
TC doesn't know what NATO does.

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.

Also, really important - just try to see what Libyan people have uploaded on youtube. If you are living in a nightmare that they are you would be desperate for help so just check out several videos, they all say the same.

im just going to assume you meant libya and not some magical place called lybia that ive never heard of - fixed title.

This is up there with the dumbest fucking conspiracy theories ive ever heard. Just below the "alien fetus" but slightly more retarded then the moon landing conspiracy.

Moon landing conspiracy is 100 times more legit than this horse shit.

good to see some critical thinking and explanation.

Rebels claimed they had Gaddafi's son imprisoned...

Then said son pops up and holds a press conference - making it evident the rebels never actually had him...


Sounds legit...

This is fishy as hell - there's no denying it...

Conspiracy nerds are gonna make and stretch truths and eventually be right but you wont know when because they are bad at their jobs

On August 24 2011 15:49 D_smart_S wrote: good to see some critical thinking and explanation.

After having tried to explain to u y its fucking impossible for a human to gve birth to an alien hybrid i give up ever trying to explain to u y all these dumb fuck conspiracy theories r not true.

On August 24 2011 16:44 palak wrote: Show nested quote + On August 24 2011 15:49 D_smart_S wrote: good to see some critical thinking and explanation. After having tried to explain to u y its fucking impossible for a human to gve birth to an alien hybrid i give up ever trying to explain to u y all these dumb fuck conspiracy theories r not true.

It's not actually impossible it's just fucking retarded.

OP deserves a ban for 2 digit IQ

On August 24 2011 17:08 waga wrote: OP deserves a ban for 2 digit IQ

first digit is a 0, right ?

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

I am not surprised you were the person to make this topic.

On August 24 2011 11:36 devon06atX wrote: libya has oil? holy shit, i thought the states and rest of the world were waging war to try to legitimitely be nice world-citizens. same as in iraq and afghanistan. this makes a lot more sense. thanks for the professional detective work, wouldn't have figured it out any other way.

you realize a big part of the world population doesnt believe the united states invaded iraq for the oil right?

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?

I was going through OP and i was like hrmm.. interesting but extremely far fetched... then I saw who posted it and went LOLLLL

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.

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"

I think the outcome is actually the important thing of this. While I don't doubt NATO was interested in securing oil reserves, if it results in the ditching of a dictator and securing a semi peaceful gobernment (democracy is just pushing it imo) I don't see anything wrong in it. Also it seems this proves that it is way more EV+ to support the side that u want to win by giving them weapons/bombing other side than actually sending your own troops.

Wont even bother reading what this guy posted, he is retarded.

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?

From what I've gathered

The vast majority of people in Libya revolted... unlike that of iraq. It was clear they all wanted a change.

The US wasn't the first ones involved. A bunch of UN countries got involved way before the US.

The US isn't even the most involved currently.

Khadaffi was the US's bitch. He pretty much did whatever we wanted and was considered a friend to the US.

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.

Ah, the internet, lovely lol

you really need to stop reading conspiracy theory sites constantly d_smart_s


try reading an actual, respectable book. it might help with your clarity of writing and logic skills.

On August 25 2011 00:58 lostaccount wrote: 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.

It's derailing b/c we have an "american empire" thread and have had talks about imperialistic countries multiple times, going over it again w/ no one providing any new sources or ideas is useless. They didn't have ulterior motives, at least not Obama since he said in his first speech that it was "But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act" aka oil and an excuse to remove someone we don't really like. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june11/obamaspeech_03-28.html ..our motives were simple...human rights violations occurring, we didn't like qaddafi much, they have tons of oil that we want to make sure we have access to..

so you acknowledge that USA is there for oil? That means you acknowledge that Obama and all other pedos who took decisions should be put on trial for crimes against humanity? Palak, you sound like someone who is perfectly fine with the concept that if you need something you should kill innocent people and take what you need. It's like American Government has the right to do what they want cause we've adapted to all the wars and invasions and if USA has no oil Americans will die SO it's fine if we bomb innocent people in Libya. It's just the way the world is and we shouldn't bother. People that think that way are a shame for humanity. I would love to see some of you getting ass raped and living in fear if a bomb will fall on your head or if you are gonna be shot at while walking in the streets. You, Americans should be the ones to start the revolution against this imperialism. Just go and put an end to the FED and other bullshit and millions of people will be saved. But it's not as fun as X-box. America is still asleep... If your government doesn't care about human life in Libya, what makes you think they give a fuck about your life?

The mission is aid in removing qaddafi. The reason for acting to help the ppl in libya and not the ppl in sudan, ivory coast, rwanda, syria, etc is b/c libya has oil and was already in a revolution. Also ppl need to quit acting like this was America's idea in the first place. France was the main nation wanting to remove qaddafi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France%E2%80%93Libya_relations ). America was the 24th country to recognize the libyan rebels as the legitimate gov't ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_..._of_the_National_Transitional_Council ) yet you arn't blaming france, germany, qatar, italy, spain, UAE, panama, latvia, bulgaria, etc for the backing of the rebels even though all those countries backed them before America did.

On August 25 2011 10:06 palak wrote: human rights violations occurring, we didn't like qaddafi much, they have tons of oil that we want to make sure we have access to..

I think u screwed up the order there though

^prob ya ... our spread sheet for what to do basically goes like this
Do they pose a threat to us or allies Y/N
Yes-Are human rights violations occurring Y/N No-leave them alone
Yes-is the country in a major revolt Y/N No-leave them alone
Yes-maybe intervene but at this pt but also.
do they have resources we want Y/N No-leave them alone
Yes-intervene and aid favorable side No-are they of strategic importance Y/N
Yes-possibly intervene No-Leave them alone

If oil was our main concern then we would have gone into Iran and Venezuela long ago. We did topple the Iranian gov't in the 50s due to solely (from what i know of) oil concerns. But then again we have gone into Korea and Vietnam for long periods of time for reasons other then oil. (although some sites claim vietnam was for oil, which isn't true at all.)


@d_smart, bulgaria supported and has troops in Afghanistan and had troops in Iraq as well as having supported the libyan rebels almost a full month before America did. If your going to say America is evil then by the same logic your gov't is evil too since they support the US in every invasion...how about you fix your own shitty fucking gov't first and then you can get on some high horse and bitch at Americans, until then, stfu.
+ Show Spoiler +

On August 25 2011 10:21 D_smart_S wrote: so you acknowledge that USA is there for oil? That means you acknowledge that Obama and all other pedos who took decisions should be put on trial for crimes against humanity?

Nope, that's not what would or should happen even if Obama and the "other Pedos" carved it themselves in stone as fact.

On August 25 2011 10:41 palak wrote: The mission is aid in removing qaddafi. The reason for acting to help the ppl in libya and not the ppl in sudan, ivory coast, rwanda, syria, etc is b/c libya has oil and was already in a revolution.

Let me clarify you something - the people in Libya were living a damn good life before NATO came bombing their houses. Quaddafi as crazy as he looks and acts, does a good job giving a good standard of living to the Libyan people. But suddenly, the big countries with their Agenda of invading and replacing governments with people of their own, came up with the plan to develop armies of rebels and then pretend to be only helping their efforts. Otherwise, it would look like USA are in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya fighting reckless wars. It would be too obvious, so they changed tactics to make it look like you are helping the people who rebel. No, you are helping the rebels that you put as rebels and now all Libyans suffer! They lived a good life, now their life sucks. How can you say you are there to help the people of Libya, just hear them - they are ALL 100% (not 99.9) against USA and NATO.

And yeah Bulgaria is helping the big powers kill people. We are a small, poor country and if we don't lick asses we will end up like North Korea. If we say "fuck USA, we will be peaceful" we will suddenly become an evil country preparing mass destruction weapons with our dirt reserves and gipsy scientists and will be attacked. We don't take desicions, we just follow orders.

well, D_smart, the thing is, you can't blame these things on the USA and be done with it.

All of our "western countries" are pretty much involved when u look at the big picture.

yes. Mostly GB and USA. But I can't think of a name to group them so I say USA as being most evident. USA is everywhere knowadays ya kno...

^not a single fact posted in that first paragraph is true. Ur a fuckin moron and i give up trying to actually show things to u w/ evidence since its obvious u r to fuckin dumb to understand anything. As for the 2nd paragraph,
"following orders for self preservation" is no excuse to commit what u believe to be morally incorrect actions or criminal acts.

Seriously how much retarded shit can somebody post b4 they r banned?

palak i swear man you are some US gov shill

So much impotent rage in this thread. Thank you baal and smart for giving us the groundbreaking revelation that powerful nations act in their best interests. Please report back if you find any other fascinating truths to reveal

wait what

did you just call obama a pedo lol

throughout the 2000s we destabilized unfavorable regimes in the soviet block etc. using NGOs look up the "color revolutions". tunisia etc.

obviously we (western empire) have some hand in destablizing the middle east as well more so than is apparent on the surface. We are also battling all over africa (africom) versus china to secure interests there (china offers better deals than chevron so the military needs to step in and do work).

obvious media battles vs china too pointing out all China's awful "human rights violations" when our closest ally Israel is obviously the worst offender in that regard.


all of this done under the guise of fighting terrorism of course (that the west propagated in the first place dividing up the middle east into oil regions in the early 1900s. Oil powers literally created the borders we see on the map today.)

On August 24 2011 22:43 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + 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

i lol'ed

i love my signature

I find it quite naive that there are still people who think the USA is actually battling agaisnt China for anything ... resources/ any kind of influence - that battle has been lost long long time ago

@trax d_smart is not just insinuating that we helped instigate the revolutions or planted seeds of a revolution, which we may (probably direct or indirect) have done. I have no problems with someone saying that. What he is saying is that we filmed actors acting as rebels and showed that on tv instead of showing actual rebels, also that Gaddafi provided libyans w/ a good life. That is what I'm so pissed off about. Gaddafi/Qaddafi, however you want to spell it, was/is in fact a tyrant who horded wealth while allowing a large amount of his country to live in poverty. The actors part is just laughably false.

as for the rest of ur post i wrote out an explination then accidently erased it and am to lazy to rewrite it so i'll sum up and call it good. US involvement in colour revolutions has little tangible evidence from what I could find besides milosevic. There is little evidence we did that much in the middle east besides teaching ppl via universities and albert einstein institute about revolutions and how to use social media during them. Teaching ppl about revolutions or how to do them and actually inciting them are completely different. There is little/no tangible proof of the usa inciting anything in the middle east or colour, but we very well may have had some influence in that.

China stuff=derail..could care less about the africa thing, media part isn't really true imo (just depends on media sources which are all easily accessible).

Of course more countries drew territory lines w/ resources in mind, everyone knows the west deciding country boarders of it's colonies based off of resources, no one is disagreeing w/ that.

Don't feed the troll omg ...

On August 25 2011 15:27 Spitfiree wrote: I find it quite naive that there are still people who think the USA is actually battling agaisnt China for anything ... resources/ any kind of influence - that battle has been lost long long time ago

Everyone said the same thing about Japan in the 1980's. Then Japan stagnated in the 90's while the US economy boomed. The fact is no one knows what will happen. China has plenty of problems that they will have to overcome, and in fact are already losing their edge in manufacturing.

Not to mention the fact that it will be decades before they can challenge the US navy. As long as the US navy is invincible the US will wield considerable influence all over the world.

This guy shows a video clip from BBC news that shows people in Tripoli, Libya. The narrator says that we are watching footage from Green Square, the one from those strange pics in my first post. You can see that it says Tripoli Live. The thing is... all the people are waving flags of India. I'm shitting you not.

I just once again have to state my appreciation for palak's posts. in all politics/history/world threads on this site, there is one person who cites sources for his posts and who posts consistently, non-insane, great posts, and that poster is palak. thank you palak, please continue, because it's usually quite disheartening to read these threads prior to your posts showing up. you singlehandedly increase my belief in mankind - thank you.

On August 30 2011 14:58 Liquid`Drone wrote: I just once again have to state my appreciation for palak's posts. in all politics/history/world threads on this site, there is one person who cites sources for his posts and who posts consistently, non-insane, great posts, and that poster is palak. thank you palak, please continue, because it's usually quite disheartening to read these threads prior to your posts showing up. you singlehandedly increase my belief in mankind - thank you.

2nd

thank you palak, i appreciate your posts...the vast majority of other posters in this thread tilt me to no end

Agreeing with the 3 above.

On August 30 2011 14:15 D_smart_S wrote: This guy shows a video clip from BBC news that shows people in Tripoli, Libya. The narrator says that we are watching footage from Green Square, the one from those strange pics in my first post. You can see that it says Tripoli Live. The thing is... all the people are waving flags of India. I'm shitting you not.

This is the dumbest argument i've heard in a long time. Just because 1 + 1 doesn't equal 4 does not mean 1 + 1 equals 3.



OMG did you guys here about Wisconsin?! Turns out this footage was inserted because the media was covering up the US government's slaughtering of Wisconsin citizens during that time. True story.

OMG. 5 people post and nobody has watched the clip :D :D :D. Or 5 people post who think Libyans wave Indian flags instead of Libyan. This is just the video taken from BBC.


Can you all just stop pretending you don't see it? I mean you are like the little kids who hide their heads under the pilow thinking nobody sees them. What is so dificult to understand, this is not some fake video, it's BBC lying obviously. Are you blind..?

I didn't watch the first video because if you link a 7 minute video of some guy talking, I know that it will frustrate me to no end and it will be stupid. I did however watch the video you just linked in your previous post.

this whole argument you are presenting (I assume you're saying that "bbc deliberately lied about the revolutions happening and deliberately tried to pass off a group of indians as a group of libyians, hoping nobody would notice and knowing that the sheeple wouldn't be smart enough to catch on. haha!) is ridiculous and it's ridiculous in the same way all conspiracies are.

essentially, here you assume that this news organization (bbc) is nearly omnipotent in their ability to distort reality. you and a few select others have managed to figure it out, but everyone else are just stupid ostriches hiding their heads in the sand. Now, the first inconsistency appears already here : the bbc is competent enough to stage fake demonstrations, but they are not competent enough to realize the difference between an indian and a libyian flag?? It's like, yes, that's an indian flag, and hey, apparently, those guys aren't libyian. we can all see that. but other than draw this whole otherworldly conclusion that the bbc deliberately tried to pass off an indian gathering of people as libyian demonstrators, which is what you are doing, we simply think "hm, I guess some guy responsible for providing the video link made a mistake and accidentially showed a video of some indians which was supposed to be footage associated with the next segment of their news story instead of showing the video of the libyian group". Because actually, these kinds of accidents happen every now and then in all news networks - it can be something as small as some guy typing "12" instead of "21" and not double-checking.

in fact, looking at the video in the previous post of yours, it looks like the newscaster is surprised; he can see that something is off about the video, just not enough to immediately be able to draw attention towards it.

and I mean, what the hell. they staged the libyian uprising, we already know that you thought that. did the bbc stage the revolutions in egypt and tunisia as well? These contributed to triggering the libyian uprising - but that seems awfully timely. did the bbc know that uprisings in tunisia and egypt and much of the arab world would happen ahead of time so they had time to prepare with their own footage of libyian uprisings? is this why they chose to use an indian congregation for footage at first- to buy themselves time to stage some more convincing footage? how about what's happening in syria right now, is that also orchestrated by some world puppet-masters?

the same thing (major inconsistencies within a way of perceiving the world) also applies to the main, stupid, conspiracy theory out there - 911. once you believe that 9/11 was an inside job and that al queda was dictated by americans - what do you think about the attacks on the london subway and the madrid bombings? both orchestrated by al queda - and one of them actually caused one of the american allies to leave. were those also inside jobs just to convince the world what the terrorists are capable of?

the really sad thing is, it's not difficult to be critical towards how the world operates without actually leaving reality. To look at the situation in libya /north africa/arab countries in general; you could have written a post about how "the western world operates based on immoral principles of greed and imperialism - and this opinion is solidified by how the west intervenes in libya but not in syria, even though it's hard to distinguish the amounts of physical suffering the civilian populations are experiencing. Clearly, oil must be part of the equation - and you can see this in iraq as well!". you could write posts about american politics about how "lobbyists have too much power and the electoral college dictates that usa will have a two-party state, meaning that actual change is hard if not impossible to attain politically as change will have to emerge from one of the two powerhouses and main benefactors of the current electoral system". you could write about how the desire to regulate food prices in europe have caused starvation of millions of africans because we deliberately destroyed food. or you could argue the other point of view - that the poverty of africa is caused by western aid allowing them to not be self-sustainable. or you could write about the decadence of western lifestyle and how we are in fact only able to sustain our material wealth and leisure through massive exploitation of people living in development countries.

Essentially, there are hundreds, if not thousands of real, massive problems of enormous magnitude that deserve our attention. but instead, you make up fairy-tale problems to feed your ego through convincing yourself that you are brilliant enough to understand something everyone else isn't able to "get". It's honestly so stupid that I end up abandoning my theory of "don't insult someone you're arguing with - he will only remember the insult and ignore everything else", because I think you are beyond redemption. in fact, I think you are very pleased with your own ability to figure out how the world really works, and that you feel even more brilliant because such a small amount of other people have managed to figure it out.

*I am not supporting Dsmart's OP here*



911 has been discussed ad naseum in this forum and this is the first time you mention the madrid/london attacks, if you were remotely interested in the truth instead of looking for a justification your narrow minded beliefs you would have asked that before.

Its actually a very dumb point, first of all nobody intelligent is claiming to have all the pieces of the puzzle together (duh), we simply state that the New York attack was clearly a demolition job, the causes and people in involved in it are speculations based on motives.

The fact that evidence strongly supports a demolition doesnt mean that we magically know what happened in london/spain, or it doesnt mean that there are no terrorist in the world or that every terrorist attack is staged does it?

As Carlin says, Eri you have been simply indoctrinated into that knee-jerk response to conspiracy theories just like people were against communism in decades ago, because i guess its very irrational to think that powerful people can plot something in secrecy for personal gain, yeah that never happens ludicrous tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorysts!

And its hypocritical to tell him he is focusing on trivial silly theories when i can say the same exact thing about what you think its important when they are just the simple results and natural byproducts of the state.

On August 30 2011 14:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:+ Show Spoiler + I just once again have to state my appreciation for palak's posts. in all politics/history/world threads on this site, there is one person who cites sources for his posts and who posts consistently, non-insane, great posts, and that poster is palak. thank you palak, please continue, because it's usually quite disheartening to read these threads prior to your posts showing up. you singlehandedly increase my belief in mankind - thank you.+ Show Spoiler +

On August 30 2011 15:08 SakiSaki wrote:+ Show Spoiler + Show nested quote + On August 30 2011 14:58 Liquid`Drone wrote: I just once again have to state my appreciation for palak's posts. in all politics/history/world threads on this site, there is one person who cites sources for his posts and who posts consistently, non-insane, great posts, and that poster is palak. thank you palak, please continue, because it's usually quite disheartening to read these threads prior to your posts showing up. you singlehandedly increase my belief in mankind - thank you. 2nd

On August 30 2011 15:15 chris wrote:[spoiler] thank you palak, i appreciate your posts...the vast majority of other posters in this thread tilt me to no end

On August 30 2011 15:15 Graisseux wrote:[spoiler]Agreeing with the 3 above.

tyty

As for d_smarts bbc vid, it's likely they meant to be showing the Anna Hazare speech from the 24th.

When asked the bbc promptly issued an apology

Dear Mr Watson, Thanks for contacting us regarding ‘Breakfast’ broadcast on 24 August on BBC One. We understand you were concerned that incorrect footage was shown during a report on the latest developments from Tripoli, and that images from India were broadcast instead. We forwarded your complaint to ‘Breakfast’ Editors who explained in response that they realised within moments that they were showing the wrong footage and quickly took it down. They also apologised immediately and pointed to how the problem was caused by confusion over a “feed” coming in to television centre from the international agencies. We apologise for any concern this may have caused and we’d like to assure you that your feedback has been registered on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that’s made available to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, programme makers, channel controllers and other senior managers. The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content. Thanks again for taking the time to contact us. Finally, I have attached an invitation from the Head of BBC Audience Services, asking you to participate in our customer survey. We would welcome your views on our service. Kind Regards Robert Regan BBC Complaints www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

http://civoc.com/m/news/view/BBC-apologizes-over-wrong-footage

BBC has made similar errors in the past.

The BBC had to apologise today for showing footage from a Nazi rally during the German occupation of the Channel Islands - instead of the weather forecast. A human error meant the wrong footage was uploaded on to the BBC's South West region website which includes the Channel Islands. Web users globally would have been able to spot the error which was quickly changed by BBC staff. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...s-weather-forecast.html#ixzz1WYVjNtFw

For people wondering who Anna Hazare is (I didn't know who he was til this)

Kisan Baburao Hazare pronunciation (help·info) (Marathi: किसन बाबुराव हजारे, Kisan Bāburāv Hajārē ?) (born 15 June 1937), popularly known as Anna Hazare pronunciation (help·info) (Marathi: अण्णा हजारे, Aṇṇā Hajārē ?) is an Indian social activist, military and prominent leader in the 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement, using nonviolent methods following the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi.[1][2] Hazare also contributed to the development and structuring of Ralegan Siddhi, a village in Parner taluka of Ahmednagar district, Maharashtra, India. He was awarded the Padma Bhushan—the third-highest civilian award—by the Government of India in 1992 for his efforts in establishing this village as a model for others.[3] Anna Hazare started an indefinite hunger strike on 5 April 2011 to exert pressure on the Indian government to enact a strigent anti-corruption law as envisaged in the Jan Lokpal Bill, for the institution of an ombudsman with the power to deal with corruption in public places. The fast led to nation-wide protests in support of Hazare. The fast ended on 9 April 2011, a day after the government accepted Hazare's demands. The government issued a gazette notification on the formation of a joint committee, consisting of government and civil society representatives, to draft the legislation.[4][5] Anna has been ranked as the most influential person in Mumbai by a national daily newspaper.[6] He has faced criticism for his authoritarian views on justice, including death as punishment for corrupt public officials and his alleged support for forced vasectomies as a method of family planning.[7][8] ... In 1991 Hazare launched the Bhrashtachar Virodhi Jan Aandolan (BVJA) (People's Movement against Corruption), a popular movement to fight against corruption[39] in Ralegaon Siddhi. In the same year he protested against the collusion between 40 forest officials and timber merchants. This protest resulted in the transfer and suspension of these officials.[40] In May 1997 Hazare protested against alleged malpractices in the purchase of powerlooms by the Vasantrao Naik Bhathya Vimukt Jhtra Governor P. C. Alexander.[41] On 4 November 1997 Gholap filed a defamation suit against Hazare for accusing him of corruption. He was arrested in April 1998 and was released on a personal bond of 5,000 (US$110).[42] On 9 September 1998 Hazare was imprisoned in the Yerawada Jail to serve a three-month sentence mandated by the Mumbai Metropolitan Court.[14][43] The sentencing came as a huge shock at that time to all social activists. Leaders of all political parties except the BJP and the Shiv Sena came in support of him.[44][45] Later, due to public protests, the Government of Maharashtra ordered his release from the jail. After release, Hazare wrote a letter to then chief minister Manohar Joshi demanding Gholap's removal for his role in alleged malpractices in the Awami Merchant Bank.[46] Gholap resigned from the cabinet on 27 April 1999.[47] In 2003 corruption charges were raised by Hazare against four NCP ministers of the Congress-NCP government.[48] He started his fast unto death on 9 August 2003. He ended his fast on 17 August 2003 after then chief minister Sushil Kumar Shinde formed a one-man commission headed by the retired justice P. B. Sawant to probe his charges.[49] The P. B. Sawant commission report, submitted on 23 February 2005, indicted Sureshdada Jain, Nawab Malik, and Padmasinh Patil. The report exonerated Vijaykumar Gavit. Suresh Jain and Nawab Malik resigned from the cabinet in March 2005.[50] Three trusts headed by Anna Hazare were also indicted in the P. B. Sawant commission report. 220,000 (US$4,910) spent by the Hind Swaraj Trust for Anna Hazare's birthday celebrations was concluded by the commission as illegal and amounting to a corrupt practice,[51][52] though Abhay Firodia, an industrialist subsequently donated 248,000 (US$5,530) to the trust for that purpose.[53] The setting apart of 11 acres of its land by the trust in favour of the Zilla Parishad without obtaining permission from the charity commissioner was concluded as a case of maladministration. The commission also concluded that the maintenance of accounts of the Bhrashtachar Virodhi Janandolan Trust after 10 November 2001 had not been according to the rules and 46,374 (US$1,030) spent by the Sant Yadavbaba Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Trust for renovating a temple was in contravention to its object of imparting secular education.[51][52] Right to Information movement In the early 2000s Hazare led a movement in Maharashtra state which forced the state government to pass a stronger Maharashtra Right to Information Act. This Act was later considered as the base document for the Right to Information Act 2005 (RTI), enacted by the Union Government. It also ensured that the President of India assented to this new Act.[54] Law professor Alasdair Scott Roberts said: The state of Maharashtra – home to one of the world's largest cities, Mumbai, adopted a Right to Information Act in 2003, prodded by the hunger strike of prominent activist, Anna Hazare. ("All corruption can end only if there is freedom of information," said Hazare, who resumed his strike in February 2004 to push for better enforcement of the Act).[55] On 20 July 2006 the Union Cabinet amended the Right to Information Act 2005 to exclude the file noting by the government officials from its purview. Hazare began his fast unto death on 9 August 2006 in Alandi against the proposed amendment. He ended his fast on 19 August 2006, after the government agreed to change its earlier decision.[56] ... On 20 August 2011 thousands came to the Ramlila Maidan in New Delhi[117] to show their support for Hazare, while "his advisers made televison appearances to rally public support and defend themselves against criticism that their protest campaign and refusal to compromise is undermining India's parliamentary process."118] The National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) condemned Hazare's deadline for passing the bill as undermining democracy, which operates by "holding wide-ranging consultations and discussions, allowing for dissent and evolving a consensus. ...He [Hazare] has the right to protest and dissent. But nobody can claim it as an absolute right and deny the right of dissent to others."119] The Congress party confirmed that Maharashtra Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Umesh Chandra Sarangi (who has a history of mediating between Hazare and government officials) was meeting with the social activist again "to find points of consensus and defuse the situation".[120] On 21 August 2011 "tens of thousands" came to Ramlila Maidan to support Hazare as he sat on an elevated platform.[121] It was reported that Hazare at that point had "lost more than seven pounds since beginning his fast", despite this he stated "'I will not withdraw my hunger strike until the Jan Lokpal bill is passed in the Parliament. I can die but I will not bend.'"121] On 28 August 2011, after the Indian Government had passed the resolution for the Lokpal Bill unanimously, Anna Hazare ended his fast at 10:20:03 Hours IST on Sunday. He was admitted to Medanta Medicity, Gurgaon for post-fast care.[122] He had lost 7.5 kg[122] and was very dehydrated after the 288 hour long fast.[123] 36 doctors are tending to him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Hazare

In baal's defense if I was surrounded by mexicans all the time I would think I was a genius too

User was temp-banned for this post.

On August 30 2011 18:21 MJD wrote: In baal's defense if I was surrounded by mexicans all the time I would think I was a genius too

Big words from somebody who lives in a country where only 39% believes in evolution, so if you are going to make that joke, make sure you are not a citizen of the country that is the worldwide epitome of bigotry and ignorance.

and wow Palak just raped D_smart with no lube

On August 30 2011 18:21 MJD wrote: In baal's defense if I was surrounded by mexicans all the time I would think I was a genius too User was temp-banned for this post.

2 week ban

baal: STFU about 9/11. 95% of the scientific world is against what you believe. I love how you "simply" (your words) state your opinion as if it is objective fact when mere 95% of what you are talking about is total bullshit. You'd be delusional to not believe everything you state is an overwhelming underdog on being correct. So seriously, shut the fuck up you fucking faggot. This is a thread about a conspiracy about libya. Stop derailing every thread out there on why you're correct on 9/11. Douchebag. Bring it up in another thread or shut the fuck up, cunt.
Seriously, I don't care if i get warned or banned for stating that.

On August 30 2011 18:21 MJD wrote: In baal's defense if I was surrounded by mexicans all the time I would think I was a genius too User was temp-banned for this post.

how is this ban worthy? that is fucking funny as hell. Not true, but fucking funny.

On August 30 2011 18:52 Zep wrote: baal: STFU about 9/11. 95% of the scientific world is against what you believe. I love how you "simply" (your words) state your opinion as if it is objective fact when mere 95% of what you are talking about is total bullshit. You'd be delusional to not believe everything you state is an overwhelming underdog on being correct. So seriously, shut the fuck up you fucking faggot. This is a thread about a conspiracy about libya. Stop derailing every thread out there on why you're correct on 9/11. Douchebag. Bring it up in another thread or shut the fuck up, cunt. Seriously, I don't care if i get warned or banned for stating that.

I brought it up, not him.

On August 30 2011 18:59 Zep wrote: Show nested quote + On August 30 2011 18:21 MJD wrote: In baal's defense if I was surrounded by mexicans all the time I would think I was a genius too User was temp-banned for this post. how is this ban worthy? that is fucking funny as hell. Not true, but fucking funny.

I didn't think it was a very good joke, but being temp banned for it is ridiculous. Making fun of baal being mexican is an LP trademark. Everyone does it. It's all in good fun.

Been a lot of nazi modding on LP recently. I know meats the shit and it's only a temp ban... but just stating because I don't like the general theme of recent nazi mod behavior.

On August 30 2011 19:10 Liquid`Drone wrote: Show nested quote + On August 30 2011 18:52 Zep wrote: baal: STFU about 9/11. 95% of the scientific world is against what you believe. I love how you "simply" (your words) state your opinion as if it is objective fact when mere 95% of what you are talking about is total bullshit. You'd be delusional to not believe everything you state is an overwhelming underdog on being correct. So seriously, shut the fuck up you fucking faggot. This is a thread about a conspiracy about libya. Stop derailing every thread out there on why you're correct on 9/11. Douchebag. Bring it up in another thread or shut the fuck up, cunt. Seriously, I don't care if i get warned or banned for stating that. I brought it up, not him.

Exactly... i didnt bring it up.

Normally i dignify even the most idiotic of posts with a response but yours is just too much, randomly making up statistics and yelling insults and the cherry on the the top i dont care if i get banned oh you rebel you!

So next time you feel like raging go punch a wall or something because you are only making a pathetic spectacle out of your ignorance.

2 questions, both semi derail...

baal-can u name a person who u respect intellectually who believes the 9/11 conspiracy theory? cuz ppl who i'm fairly certain u respect, i.e. hitchens and chomsky both don't. (hitchens actually says the iraq invasion was a good idea)

mods-at what pt do u ban d_smart for saying dumb shit? I mean mjd gets banned w/o warning for a racist joke but d_smart doesn't get anything for saying/preaching some of the most ignorant stupid shit ever. Seems weird.

edit: both of these r derails, i don't wanna discuss the first topic really, its just a question that i've been wondering.

Damn it. My bad. Turns out i just really wanna fight baal. Somebody put up the tickets and give us 2 months of training. Should be LP gold.

Let's summarise:
1. BBC shows a video clip of Green Square, Tripoli with lots of people - all waving Indian Flags.
2. Al Jazeera shows a video clip of Green Square, Tripoli where the sign on the wall is very different from the original one.
3. A Serbian Crew goes to places that are reported to be battlefields ( f.x. the hospital) and they are perfectly peaceful.
4. Rebels officially state the capturing of Qaddafi's son. However, to prove them wrong he pops out in the centre of Tripoli among a huge crowd of Libyans and evidently being free. Rebels later state they have no idea how he excaped from them.
5. Qaddafi is reported dead at least once. He is still alive.

Just brief explainations for all 5 points I stated please. If you think one of them is not true, just tell me I would give you several mainstream articles/news footage for each.
For the fun of it I will try to explain them putting myself in your wool.

Palak - would you please summarise the explainations for all of these points to clear things out.
1 - BBC put the wrong footage. And they have done it several other times which only shows how unprofessional they are, not that they are lying.
2 - All pictures you can find on the square in the internet are actually fake and Al Jazeera are showing the true Green Square, which explains the different sign.
3 - The Serbian Crew was invited by Qaddafi who has built a model of the whole town with hospitals and buildings (not just 1 square) and have bought bombed cars and actors to fool the masses watching TV. Strangely enough, the footage has not been shown on TV so all the million dollars go to waste and no one is fooled.
4 - Qaddafi's son is a big fan of Rambo and has trained for years with Al Qaeda so when they capture him he surrounds all by himself an army of 100 sodliers and kills them leaving no witnesses. Later fellow rebels find the massacre and report that Qaddafi's son has escaped and no one is alive to tell the story how it happened.
5 - Qaddafi is actually Jesus so he ressurects and every time he is killed, he comes back from the dead.

I gave my best being in your wool, now tell me what are your explainations, palak.

Joe Rogan son

On August 30 2011 20:56 palak wrote: 2 questions, both semi derail... baal-can u name a person who u respect intellectually who believes the 9/11 conspiracy theory? cuz ppl who i'm fairly certain u respect, i.e. hitchens and chomsky both don't. (hitchens actually says the iraq invasion was a good idea) mods-at what pt do u ban d_smart for saying dumb shit? I mean mjd gets banned w/o warning for a racist joke but d_smart doesn't get anything for saying/preaching some of the most ignorant stupid shit ever. Seems weird. edit: both of these r derails, i don't wanna discuss the first topic really, its just a question that i've been wondering.

Hah funny that you mention those two, while i like Hitchens way to attack religion (in a much more abrasive way than Dawkins) i think he is a fool in other scenarios, same as Chomsky.

Its quite common that strong anti-religious people are strong advocators of the state (i guess they substitute their need for control in that area).

Who do i admire intellectually, (i wouldnt use admire) but id have to say, Bill Hicks, Stephan Molyneux, George Carlin, Doug Stanhope, Joe Rogan (this is obviously excluding ancestral philosophers)

As you can see especially from Stanhope, Carlin and Rogan, these guy are not geniuses, but i dont think this "knowledge" is really hard to conclude its just simply to overcome indoctrination.

For example, you dont need to be a genius to realize christianity is absolutely retarded and false, yet somebody centuries ago figures out calculus yet he believes in the flood, a total brillian genius in one thing, yet he fails to realize one of the most obvious truths in his face (his religion being false), I think this is exactly what happens with the state, you dont need to be brilliant to see this obvious truth, its simply that people are indoctrinated to not truly analyze it critically, you were born into it just like religion, and your reaction to the concept of anarchy is the same as the reaction of atheism to christian, is a knee-jerk reaction, thats why the word anarchy is just as loaded as the world blasphemy.

I dont care what you say, you have never ever thought critically about the state and a stateless society, in the same way i am 100% certain a religous person has never thought critically about his beliefs... why? because they still believe.

^so judging by that and ur "i know more about how the world works then anyone in this thread"...u pretty obv consider urself the most intelligent (maybe enlightened would be a better word) person on this thread....how about out of ppl u know personally where would u rank ur intelligence/enlightenment? How about out of ppl you've read, listened to, etc, just ppl in the world where would u rank urself?


As for d_smart i'll get to his post tonight when i have some free time.

On August 31 2011 08:18 Baalim wrote: I dont care what you say, you have never ever thought critically about the state and a stateless society, in the same way i am 100% certain a religous person has never thought critically about his beliefs... why? because they still believe.

Whats the diference? you belive in something highly utopic. Puts in you in the same boat as religious people, trying to convince others of the way things should be done,based on your belifs. Your sckepticism is a result of your belifs really, and not a result of critical thinking... why? because you still belive.

On August 31 2011 10:24 palak wrote: ^so judging by that and ur "i know more about how the world works then anyone in this thread"...u pretty obv consider urself the most intelligent (maybe enlightened would be a better word) person on this thread....how about out of ppl u know personally where would u rank ur intelligence/enlightenment? How about out of ppl you've read, listened to, etc, just ppl in the world where would u rank urself? As for d_smart i'll get to his post tonight when i have some free time.

So instead of trying to see what im saying, you focus on me, trying to measure my ego, its a shame you cant see past your indoctrination, but ill humor your questions.

Well do you believe you are more intelligent or enlightened than Plato, Copernicus, Descartes or Newton? I suppose not, yet those geniuses still believed in irrational concepts of their religions, its hard to understand how can someone so intelligent can believe such things, and its simply that their own psyches protected that zone from their critical thinking.

So I said i had more idea about how the world works than anybody else in this thread, the same way I would say I have more idea about life and death than anybody if i were in a religious forum discussing the afterlife, that does not imply i believe i have the highest IQ in the religious forum or here.

But on your questions about how i rank myself in intellect, i consider myself very intelligent, about people i know personally well i dont consider many people i know very intelligent, there are probably more intelligent people in this forum than the ones i know personally.

People ive read well, i think Stefan is brilliant and far better than me at explaining his ideas, he is probably more read than me, and how i would rake myself world wise well, given tests results, and particular experiences in my life i am confident i am in the top 1 percentile, which in world population in the billions is far from impressive.

On August 31 2011 10:50 Baalim wrote: Well do you believe you are more intelligent or enlightened than Plato, Copernicus, Descartes or Newton? I suppose not, yet those geniuses still believed in irrational concepts of their religions, its hard to understand how can someone so intelligent can believe such things, and its simply that their own psyches protected that zone from their critical thinking.

You don't consider the fact that it is way easier to contest what is in the Bible (or any other religious facts) with the knowledge we have nowadays than for Plato, Newton. If you had Newton's knowledge, would you prove rationnaly "such things" are wrong ?
And without considering the time you belong to, your ideas depend on your readings, on people you interact with, you don't build them alone.

So Mr. Devil. What do you think happens when you die? Do you go in nothingness. Do you believe we have souls. I want to hear the most enlightened one .

Baal is nothing more than religious zealot in regards to 9/11. It seriously cracks me up that less than 2% of the entire world's entire population of architects and engineers have signed the Investigate 9/11 petition and yet he thinks he is 100% correct in thinking it was a demolition. More specifically, he's bragged and used it in his arguments about it in other threads how there are 1500 people in his profession that he never graduated from that say the same bullshit as him. I'd love to know the actual % of architects/engineers who believe what he does, but there's never been a study or poll to find that out and i'm not sure if you could actually scientifically calculate all the variables that come into a loaded poll question like that. But nonetheless, given the data that we have, the chances of baal being correct is more than likely less than 10% and yet he laughs and calls 60% of Americans idiots for not believing in evolution.

So my question to you is, Are you so delusional that even if you are correct, you really don't realize what the actual odds of being correct are?

Oh and by the way, the reason why i said I didn't care if i got banned for stating how pathetic i thought your argument was, was because MDJ got a two week ban for making fun of you for being mexican, and i assumed i would easily get the same thing for calling you a cunt. I wasn't doing it to be hardcore. You're attempt at mocking me was about as dumb and illogical as D_Smarts argument that the bbc video meant it was a cover up for what was really going on in Libya...See! it all connects.

There are odds only from the perspective of the unenlightened one. The truth is one.

There is a syndrome, i dont remember the name, but im pretty sure baal suffers from this. What it does, its like block you to accept and perceive your own mistakes, then you argue everybodies opinion saying that you know more, that you are more intelligent and etc, everybody is wrong except you. Its not ego or narcisism, it has some strange name, kinda the Stockholm syndrome and things like that.

On August 31 2011 08:18 Baalim wrote: Hah funny that you mention those two, while i like Hitchens way to attack religion (in a much more abrasive way than Dawkins) i think he is a fool in other scenarios, same as Chomsky.

What do you say to his points that there are 4 ways for a state to lose it sovereignty and Iraq
was in violation of every one?

They were in violation The Genocide Convention, massacring thousands in Kurdistan slaying entire villages and were planing more of the sort.

Harboring and enabling dangerous international terrorists/terrorist organizations, they as an example supported Abu Nidal, who operated out of an Iraqi government office, all the while being on every most wanted list in the world. Abu Mussab al Zarqawi, Al Quaedas second in command lived for years in Baghdad on Saddams invitation etc e. - t. - c.

Waging war or initiating aggressive military action against neighbouring states or by occupying their land,
their (shit bad) invasion into Iran (lol at uniting an republic of chaos to a single cause by the way, idiots)
aaand let's mention their own oil-seeking invasion and occupation/attempted theft of Kuwait

Re-peat-ed violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, abducting and torturing nuclear physicists like Khidhir Hamza and Mahdi Obeidi in order to gain materials for the cause of gaining WMDs and the revealed Iraqi State documents regarding his plan of acquiring and/or making of WMDs as well as using chemical weaponry on Kurds.

If there is ANYTHING Baal(im), ANYTHING in this universe that can justify the loss of a nation state's sovereignty, what is it and why are none of those valid reasons?

Argue with the methods of the US, argue with the given reasons, argue with the continued occupation,
but do not sit there and act like the US invaded some nice little nation state.

On August 31 2011 13:44 D_smart_S wrote: There are odds only from the perspective of the unenlightened one. The truth is one.

So 90+% of the GRADUATED architects and engineers in the world are unenlighted? That's a pretty stupid statement about science my friend. And you do realize that your entire argument may have credibility if the mainstream media was the only voice we had for reasoning. But with technology like facebook and twitter and a lack of evidence from those sources of anything you claim, it's impossible to take your argument seriously. Or are you going to claim that the US government controls all that media as well?
Seriously mods, how do you ban someone for making a joke about mexicans, yet you let continuous shit like this slide? unbelievable. This is so much more offensive and provocative than a fucking joke.

On August 31 2011 11:49 kingpowa wrote: Show nested quote + On August 31 2011 10:50 Baalim wrote: Well do you believe you are more intelligent or enlightened than Plato, Copernicus, Descartes or Newton? I suppose not, yet those geniuses still believed in irrational concepts of their religions, its hard to understand how can someone so intelligent can believe such things, and its simply that their own psyches protected that zone from their critical thinking. You don't consider the fact that it is way easier to contest what is in the Bible (or any other religious facts) with the knowledge we have nowadays than for Plato, Newton. If you had Newton's knowledge, would you prove rationnaly "such things" are wrong ? And without considering the time you belong to, your ideas depend on your readings, on people you interact with, you don't build them alone.

Our current knowledge? i really didnt base my refusal of religion based on evolution or explanations of the universe, it was pretty much based on common sense for example:

- The idea of free will cannot exist when theres an omniscient being
- There cant be an all-loving god and all-powerful and there be suffering in this world (and eternal punishments)
- The bible is absurd, contradictory and there isnt the silghtest shred of evidence that what it says its true.

I do believe the indoctrination in their times were stronger, so it does give them more of an "excuse", but it shows you that even absolute geniuses are unable to discard ideas that should be thrown out with less than 10 minutes of critical thinking.

So basically, yes they had it "harder" to get over religion, yet what im saying is still true, its not necessary about sheer intelligence, people can easily shield certain beliefs from their own rationality.

On August 31 2011 13:14 D_smart_S wrote: So Mr. Devil. What do you think happens when you die? Do you go in nothingness. Do you believe we have souls. I want to hear the most enlightened one .

Well what logic and evidence tell us, and so far its that our bodies rot and our consciousness disappears.

On August 31 2011 14:40 taco wrote: Show nested quote + On August 31 2011 08:18 Baalim wrote: Hah funny that you mention those two, while i like Hitchens way to attack religion (in a much more abrasive way than Dawkins) i think he is a fool in other scenarios, same as Chomsky. What do you say to his points that there are 4 ways for a state to lose it sovereignty and Iraq was in violation of every one? They were in violation The Genocide Convention, massacring thousands in Kurdistan slaying entire villages and were planing more of the sort. Harboring and enabling dangerous international terrorists/terrorist organizations, they as an example supported Abu Nidal, who operated out of an Iraqi government office, all the while being on every most wanted list in the world. Abu Mussab al Zarqawi, Al Quaedas second in command lived for years in Baghdad on Saddams invitation etc e. - t. - c. Waging war or initiating aggressive military action against neighbouring states or by occupying their land, their (shit bad) invasion into Iran (lol at uniting an republic of chaos to a single cause by the way, idiots) aaand let's mention their own oil-seeking invasion and occupation/attempted theft of Kuwait Re-peat-ed violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, abducting and torturing nuclear physicists like Khidhir Hamza and Mahdi Obeidi in order to gain materials for the cause of gaining WMDs and the revealed Iraqi State documents regarding his plan of acquiring and/or making of WMDs as well as using chemical weaponry on Kurds. If there is ANYTHING Baal(im), ANYTHING in this universe that can justify the loss of a nation state's sovereignty, what is it and why are none of those valid reasons? Argue with the methods of the US, argue with the given reasons, argue with the continued occupation, but do not sit there and act like the US invaded some nice little nation state.

so under those checkponts... lets compare the united states:

*Genocide convention: USA is arguably the most genocidal state in the entire world
*Harboring terrorist organizations: The CIA has conducted more coup detats than any other organization on the world and its definitelly larger and more powerful than any other.
*Waging war or occupying countries: Afghanistan, Iraq possibly Iran in a future, need i say more?
*Violations of nuclear threaty: USA is has the 2nd biggest nuclear armament in the world


Also, NorthKorea has violated those far worse than Iraq, also A LOT of countries have, yet they dont get invaded unless therse something to gain from it.

You should rename those as USABLE EXCUSES to get into a country and steal its resources.

Also those invations for countries that are going wild are decided by the United Nations, not by a random country with lots of weapons and ambitions

On August 31 2011 14:35 c4rnage wrote: There is a syndrome, i dont remember the name, but im pretty sure baal suffers from this. What it does, its like block you to accept and perceive your own mistakes, then you argue everybodies opinion saying that you know more, that you are more intelligent and etc, everybody is wrong except you. Its not ego or narcisism, it has some strange name, kinda the Stockholm syndrome and things like that.

baal is definitely bi-polar or has some other mental condition. No healthy, logical and reasonable person would be so confidentially delusional to the point that he is.
And personally I think I should be at least warned for even suggesting such a thing without being in a position to do so, but somebody needs to say it.

So according to both of you geniuses i have a disease that causes extreme mood swings and also a sindrome of being attached to an abusive captor... or "things like that" cool story bro LOL

Morons GTFO out of this thread and let Palak post.

On August 31 2011 15:35 Baalim wrote: So according to both of you geniuses i have a disease that causes extreme mood swings and also a sindrome of being attached to an abusive captor... or "things like that" cool story bro LOL Morons GTFO out of this thread and let Palak post.

hey we have the exact same disease.

*On original Topic*

http://english.aljazeera.net//indepth/features/2011/08/2011831151258728747.html


US officials were secretly Aiding Gaddaffi...

Oh noes... how can that be, your government never lies to you! haha

D_Smart_S considers you a genus Baal, "need i say more?"

On August 31 2011 15:35 Baalim wrote: So according to both of you geniuses i have a disease that causes extreme mood swings and also a sindrome of being attached to an abusive captor... or "things like that" cool story bro LOL Morons GTFO out of this thread and let Palak post.

Baal 100% knowing the symptoms and causes of bi-polarism just like he knows everything about every other subject. Cool story bro.

I remember when baal was 100% convinced that Phil Hellmuth was super using on UB. LOL. He's so delusional he can't even fathom being delusional.

On August 31 2011 15:43 Zep wrote: Show nested quote + On August 31 2011 15:35 Baalim wrote: So according to both of you geniuses i have a disease that causes extreme mood swings and also a sindrome of being attached to an abusive captor... or "things like that" cool story bro LOL Morons GTFO out of this thread and let Palak post. Baal 100% knowing the symptoms and causes of bi-polarism just like he knows everything about every other subject. Cool story bro.

i think most people are familiar with the bipolar disorder, you seem to be the exception tho

i was not suggesting that you are bi-polar, neither that you have stockholm lol, the stockholm part was referring for that kind of disseases that affect your social/psychological behaivour and that it has an uncommon name, but of course you have to argue that im wrong and understand things to your own benefit

On August 31 2011 01:17 D_smart_S wrote: Let's summarise: 1. BBC shows a video clip of Green Square, Tripoli with lots of people - all waving Indian Flags. 2. Al Jazeera shows a video clip of Green Square, Tripoli where the sign on the wall is very different from the original one. 3. A Serbian Crew goes to places that are reported to be battlefields ( f.x. the hospital) and they are perfectly peaceful. 4. Rebels officially state the capturing of Qaddafi's son. However, to prove them wrong he pops out in the centre of Tripoli among a huge crowd of Libyans and evidently being free. Rebels later state they have no idea how he excaped from them. 5. Qaddafi is reported dead at least once. He is still alive. .

1. BBC is run by humans, they make mistakes. There was a live speech by a famous indian they were live recording at the time, the streams got mixed up. No ones perfect.
2. It's not different at all. Its a bit hazy to see because of the poor quality of the taping and youtube video. + Show Spoiler +

Notice the shape is directly above the small arch, just like it is in all the normal photos. The arrow in the OP you post claiming that the shape is missing is pointing at the far corner of the building, a place where the shape has never ever been.

3. The video you posted has journalists in Zliten, a city which was pro gadaffi at the time they were visiting.

During the 2011 Libyan Civil War, Zliten has been contested between forces loyal to Gaddafi, and opposition fighters who have been trying to seize the strategically located city to allow them to advance to the capital Tripoli. In mid-June 2011, the Zliten uprising by rebel fighters against the military garrison in the city was crushed.[9] The town was on the front line by July as rebels from Misrata continued their attempts to take control of the town from the loyalists based there during the Battle of the Misrata frontline.[10] In mid-July 2011, Zliten was the site of a massive pro-Gadaffi rally when thousands of Gadaffi supporters gathered on the main square in the city to show their support to the Libyan leader.[11][12] On 5 August, the Libyan government claimed that NATO airstrikes killed 85 people, including 33 childen, 32 women and 20 men, attacking a children's Hospital near Zliten. [13] Reporters were shown 30 bodies in a local morgue, including two children. Officials claimed that the rest of the bodies were taken to other hospitals, but this could not be independently confirmed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zliten#Zliten_in_the_Libyan_Civil_War

There was never any fighting at the Zliten hospital. The hospital in which fighting occured was in Misrata and Zawiya.

ZAWIYA, Libya - The day Libyan rebels advanced into the strategic city of Zawiya, Moammar Gadhafi's forces clamped down on the local hospital. They forced doctors to perform hours of consecutive surgeries, put snipers on the roof and an anti-aircraft gun near the entrance, two doctors who managed to escape said Tuesday.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/libyan-regime-forces-occupy-hospital-in-fight-over-strategic-city-doctors-say.html

[5:30 p.m. Wednesday ET, 11:30 p.m. in Libya] Tanks belonging to Gadhafi's forces shelled the main hospital of rebel-held Misrata this afternoon, a witness told CNN. The push began at 8 p.m. (2 p.m. ET), when "heavy tanks for Gadhafi troops start attacking the hospital - the bombs falling here 20 meters (66 feet) around us," said one person inside the hospital. He said two deaths had occurred "around the hospital." At one point, shelling occurred without respite for 40 minutes, he said. "Now, fortunately, no more shelling, but the situation is so serious that all the teams here - the doctors, the patients - are paralyzed, scared." He called for international intervention to protect the civilians inside the institution. "Nobody can work here," he said. All the doctors here are completely paralyzed." Ambulances were not able to leave the hospital, which had lost its electricity and was running on generator power, he said.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/23/libya-live-blog-explosions-anti-aircraft-fire-erupt-in-tripoli/

4. Rebels lie or were misinformed/jumped to conclusion. Which son are you talking about btw b/c if it's Khamis then it's too easy. Since it was an airstrike it's hard to tell who actually dies and rumors go all over the place.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/29/us-libya-khamis-idUSTRE77S18M20110829

The reported death of Khamis Gaddafi, the youngest son of the fugitive Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, is nothing more than "a rumour", Nato said. "There [are] a lot of allegations and rumours about what could have happened to him and to be frank we don't know," Nato military spokesman Roland Lavoie told reporters in Naples.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/africa/2011/08/31/muammar-gaddafi-s-son-not-dead

5. Source saying gaddafi was cited as dead w/ actual article? I have never seen such a claim.

On August 31 2011 10:50 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On August 31 2011 10:24 palak wrote: ^so judging by that and ur "i know more about how the world works then anyone in this thread"...u pretty obv consider urself the most intelligent (maybe enlightened would be a better word) person on this thread....how about out of ppl u know personally where would u rank ur intelligence/enlightenment? How about out of ppl you've read, listened to, etc, just ppl in the world where would u rank urself? As for d_smart i'll get to his post tonight when i have some free time. So instead of trying to see what im saying, you focus on me, trying to measure my ego, its a shame you cant see past your indoctrination, but ill humor your questions. Well do you believe you are more intelligent or enlightened than Plato, Copernicus, Descartes or Newton? I suppose not, yet those geniuses still believed in irrational concepts of their religions, its hard to understand how can someone so intelligent can believe such things, and its simply that their own psyches protected that zone from their critical thinking. So I said i had more idea about how the world works than anybody else in this thread, the same way I would say I have more idea about life and death than anybody if i were in a religious forum discussing the afterlife, that does not imply i believe i have the highest IQ in the religious forum or here. But on your questions about how i rank myself in intellect, i consider myself very intelligent, about people i know personally well i dont consider many people i know very intelligent, there are probably more intelligent people in this forum than the ones i know personally. People ive read well, i think Stefan is brilliant and far better than me at explaining his ideas, he is probably more read than me, and how i would rake myself world wise well, given tests results, and particular experiences in my life i am confident i am in the top 1 percentile, which in world population in the billions is far from impressive.

I ignored your talk of me being indoctrinated b/c we will just go in circles. I'll say I'm not indoctrinated, you'll say I am, it's not going to go anywhere. Plus that should prob be in the anarchy thread or something. As for intelligence, get some smart irl friends. I'm pretty sure ur views of things will change very quickly if u did.

Our current knowledge? i really didnt base my refusal of religion based on evolution or explanations of the universe, it was pretty much based on common sense for example: - The idea of free will cannot exist when theres an omniscient being - There cant be an all-loving god and all-powerful and there be suffering in this world (and eternal punishments) - The bible is absurd, contradictory and there isnt the silghtest shred of evidence that what it says its true. I do believe the indoctrination in their times were stronger, so it does give them more of an "excuse", but it shows you that even absolute geniuses are unable to discard ideas that should be thrown out with less than 10 minutes of critical thinking. So basically, yes they had it "harder" to get over religion, yet what im saying is still true, its not necessary about sheer intelligence, people can easily shield certain beliefs from their own rationality.

I'm sure you know all of those questions have been discussed in detail by many church philosophers. Also if you were living in say Newtons time then there would be no evidence to think the bibles version of history was wrong either. Also it's a super convienent view to think that instead of it being possible that ur logic is flawed. You instead decide that everyone who disagrees with you on the issues of religion/gov't/states are just indoctrinated.

On August 31 2011 15:24 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On August 31 2011 14:40 taco wrote:   On August 31 2011 08:18 Baalim wrote: Hah funny that you mention those two, while i like Hitchens way to attack religion (in a much more abrasive way than Dawkins) i think he is a fool in other scenarios, same as Chomsky. What do you say to his points that there are 4 ways for a state to lose it sovereignty and Iraq was in violation of every one? They were in violation The Genocide Convention, massacring thousands in Kurdistan slaying entire villages and were planing more of the sort. Harboring and enabling dangerous international terrorists/terrorist organizations, they as an example supported Abu Nidal, who operated out of an Iraqi government office, all the while being on every most wanted list in the world. Abu Mussab al Zarqawi, Al Quaedas second in command lived for years in Baghdad on Saddams invitation etc e. - t. - c. Waging war or initiating aggressive military action against neighbouring states or by occupying their land, their (shit bad) invasion into Iran (lol at uniting an republic of chaos to a single cause by the way, idiots) aaand let's mention their own oil-seeking invasion and occupation/attempted theft of Kuwait Re-peat-ed violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, abducting and torturing nuclear physicists like Khidhir Hamza and Mahdi Obeidi in order to gain materials for the cause of gaining WMDs and the revealed Iraqi State documents regarding his plan of acquiring and/or making of WMDs as well as using chemical weaponry on Kurds. If there is ANYTHING Baal(im), ANYTHING in this universe that can justify the loss of a nation state's sovereignty, what is it and why are none of those valid reasons? Argue with the methods of the US, argue with the given reasons, argue with the continued occupation, but do not sit there and act like the US invaded some nice little nation state. so under those checkponts... lets compare the united states: *Genocide convention: USA is arguably the most genocidal state in the entire world *Harboring terrorist organizations: The CIA has conducted more coup detats than any other organization on the world and its definitelly larger and more powerful than any other. *Waging war or occupying countries: Afghanistan, Iraq possibly Iran in a future, need i say more? *Violations of nuclear threaty: USA is has the 2nd biggest nuclear armament in the world Also, NorthKorea has violated those far worse than Iraq, also A LOT of countries have, yet they dont get invaded unless therse something to gain from it. You should rename those as USABLE EXCUSES to get into a country and steal its resources. Also those invations for countries that are going wild are decided by the United Nations, not by a random country with lots of weapons and ambitions

1-Name USA genocides, don't just state something w/o saying at least a few of what you perceive to be genocides.
2-"more coup detats than any other organization"...maybe, near impossible to prove. Def is most powerful, def does things which are immoral.
3. Against "neighboring states"...none of the countries are anywhere near us. However Iraqs invasion is no where near justified and was one of the dumbest moves in world politics in the last few decades. Afghanistan can be argued. We will never invade Iran.
4. Nuclear treaties are non proliferation, we have been decreasing our arsenals for decades. Also under the non proliferation treaty we are allowed to maintain an arsenal.

The United States is one of the five "nuclear weapons states" permitted to maintain a nuclear arsenal under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it was an original signatory on 1 July 1968 (ratified 5 March 1970).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_States#Proliferation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_...iferation_Treaty#Treaty_.22pillars.22

North Korea has nuclear bombs which are capable of reaching Seoul and Tokyo. They also have China as an ally. As long as they have either nukes or China as an ally North Korea will never be invaded no matter how bad they violate human rights.

Anyway that's enough of the derail off of libya. I had just been curious about that.

On August 31 2011 15:37 Baalim wrote: *On original Topic* http://english.aljazeera.net//indepth/features/2011/08/2011831151258728747.html US officials were secretly Aiding Gaddaffi... Oh noes... how can that be, your government never lies to you! haha

The US person over there is not involved in the current government. His trip was personal, he's slimy, not surprised he was involved w/ bush.

The Kucinich allegation is hazy.

Overall the article isn't actual proof of anything, at least not as written. Uses words like "appears to be", "allege".

That aside there are better instances of the gov't doing dumb things. Like currently funding the Taliban

The Associated Press reported this month that U.S. military authorities in Kabul believe $360 million has ended up in the hands of the Taliban, criminals and power brokers with ties to both. The military said only a small percentage of the $360 million has been garnered by the Taliban and insurgent groups. Most of the money was lost to profiteering, bribery and extortion by criminals and power brokers.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/a...ocId=0869f6ec89ac4d379ceca8b6855e0084

Well i mentioned your indoctrination because if somebody appealed to something like that in what i think its true i would seriously revise it (believe it or not) i thought you might honestly do it, guess not.

Yes i am very familiar with theologist responses to those questions, they are ludicrous and absolutely irrational and have never got a remotely satisfying answer, Do you seriously believe that today scientists are atheists only because we have more historical knowledge? or it might be because the concepts of the christian god is ludicrous.

And absolutely, anyone who believes in christianity is indoctrinated and not thinking critically, simply believing in something out o faith refusing evidence is irrational.

People who have a more broad concept of god at least have some kind of flawed critical thinking but its still acceptable, just as i can discuss theoretical upsides and downsides between a good democracy and a anarchy, however somebody who defends actions of the current governments and is ok with the status quo to me is just like an indoctrinated christian incapable of critical thinking.

1.- Genocide of the Arabs, and yeah its pushing it a little bit, but how many Arabs have the US killed and how many Kurds did Hussein killed?

2.- Yes its hard to prove the CIA was behind it since they are poweful and their operations depend on being in secrecy, it would still be ridiculously naive to assume otherwise

3.- True, not neighboring countries... but really does it make a difference? the US is currrently ocupying two countries and fighting illegal wars.

4.- Yes the US isnt breaking the treaty, but how stupid it is to demand a country to not build nuclear weapons when you hold enough nuclear armament to destroy the entire planet.... it is absurd.


But most importantly, you and i both know that the united states didnt invade the countries based on that, they are simply excuses used to pursue economical goals, i mean simply in africa you see genocide and human rights violations everywhere but you dont see the US invading them unless there is something to gain, to you it seems natural for a country to do this, and i dont know i would call it natural, but i would say its indeed the standard practice, what shocks me is that instead of fighting it, you are ok with it, i simply find find it appalling that you turn a blind eye to slaughters just so you can fill up your SUV cheaply and call it natural

On August 31 2011 22:24 palak wrote: Show nested quote + On August 31 2011 15:37 Baalim wrote: *On original Topic* http://english.aljazeera.net//indepth/features/2011/08/2011831151258728747.html US officials were secretly Aiding Gaddaffi... Oh noes... how can that be, your government never lies to you! haha The US person over there is not involved in the current government. His trip was personal, he's slimy, not surprised he was involved w/ bush. The Kucinich allegation is hazy. Overall the article isn't actual proof of anything, at least not as written. Uses words like "appears to be", "allege". That aside there are better instances of the gov't doing dumb things. Like currently funding the Taliban   The Associated Press reported this month that U.S. military authorities in Kabul believe $360 million has ended up in the hands of the Taliban, criminals and power brokers with ties to both. The military said only a small percentage of the $360 million has been garnered by the Taliban and insurgent groups. Most of the money was lost to profiteering, bribery and extortion by criminals and power brokers. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/a...ocId=0869f6ec89ac4d379ceca8b6855e0084

yeah i noticed after watching it that it wasnt a current official, it was a former but i didnt bother editing.

Its amazing to me how you are so aware how immoral your government is yet you refuse to even consider other very obvious truths about it.