Libya 16

104 posts / 0 new
Last post
WilderMore

Erik Redburn wrote:

 

Oh that's right, you're just trolling here.

 

 

Nope, sorry. If I was I'm sure the fine moderators would have said something. See, the article I quoted had the term "looted" in it already; I couldn't very well mofify it because that would be wrong. However, I don't as a rule call people taking necessities during a crisis "looters". That's also wrong.

 

And yes, read the blog. Maysie was fired from rabble.ca for complaining about systemic racism at rabble.ca. Ironic.

Erik Redburn

That is bad news.   Sigh.   I guess there's not much point in pursuing it here now.

Erik Redburn

WilderMore wrote:

Erik Redburn wrote:

 

Oh that's right, you're just trolling here.

 

 

Nope, sorry. If I was I'm sure the fine moderators would have said something. See, the article I quoted had the term "looted" in it already; I couldn't very well mofify it because that would be wrong. However, I don't as a rule call people taking necessities during a crisis "looters". That's also wrong.

 

And yes, read the blog. Maysie was fired from rabble.ca for complaining about systemic racism at rabble.ca. Ironic.

 

I just read it.  I can't say much here going by how careful she was, except that I've learned to trust her judgement over her many years of  service here.

You I already have pegged.   If you post something like that yourself don't try to turn it around on others who just happen to borrow from it.  

But then I know youre just mentioining to stir more shit up, not because you care about racism or Libyans but because you despise anyone to your left.  We're what you can only pretend to be.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

 

Eriik just because someone disagrees with you here doesn't mean they are trolling... not everyone here is as left as you are. You are starting to sound as bad as the "ban people" guys. If you don't like someone that much because of their political views ignore them.

 

No one has ever changed anybody's mind here as far as I've seen; get over it.

 

Price on Gaddafi's head as fighting goes on

 

Quote:

Libya's new masters offered a million-dollar bounty for the fugitive Muammar Gaddafi, after he urged his men to fight on in battles across parts of the capital.

A day after rebel forces overran his Tripoli headquarters and trashed symbols of his 42-year rule, scattered pockets of loyalist diehards kept the irregular fighters at bay as they hunted Gaddafi and his sons. Rebels also reported fighting deep in the desert and a standoff round Gaddafi's tribal home town.

 

 

 

Also the journalists trapped in that one hotel (forget teh name) are free to leave now. That would include the ones from RT.

WilderMore

Erik Redburn wrote:

 

You I already have pegged.

But then I know youre just mentioining to stir more shit up, not because you care about racism or Libyans but because you despise anyone to your left.  We're what you can only pretend to be.

 

Again, how wrong you are. It's sad to see such an angry person. You must be very lonely.

Erik Redburn

Excuse me, I've seen enough of WilderMore's contributions already to know hes just another lefthating conServative.    Best tool I find is to watch someone's overall posting history and pattern, same goes for the so-caled news.  Occasionally I'm pleasantly surprised; rarely am I disappointed.  In thse two's cases you can see where their heads are at within a single thread.  

They're too contemptuous to even hide their contradictions or bother to defend their actual beliefs.  That's onething I've learned to hate, ad I make no apoligies for,  those who give a damn about nothing but their own ids and egos.

Erik Redburn

WilderMore wrote:

Erik Redburn wrote:

 

You I already have pegged.

But then I know youre just mentioining to stir more shit up, not because you care about racism or Libyans but because you despise anyone to your left.  We're what you can only pretend to be.

 

Again, how wrong you are. It's sad to see such an angry person. You must be very lonely.

 

I only get angry for reason.   One thing that still gets to me is people who demand to be taken seriously but can't even bother addressing the others arguments or views.  Its not that hard, unless they're full of it to begin with.   That's another tool I use to brush away troll bait and get on with more serious subjects.   

 

I'll check later and see if May has anything more to add about this.  There's someone I'll miss.

contrarianna

Erik Redburn wrote:

Excuse me, I've seen enough of WilderMore's contributions already to know hes just another lefthating conServative.    Best tool I find is to watch someone's overall posting history and pattern, same goes for the so-caled news.  Occasionally I'm pleasantly surprised; rarely am I disappointed.  In thse two's cases you can see where their heads are at within a single thread.  

They're too contemptuous to even hide their contradictions or bother to defend their actual beliefs.  That's onething I've learned to hate, ad I make no apoligies for,  those who give a damn about nothing but their own ids and egos.

You got this one right, Erik.

The faux concern is transparent to anyone bored enough to view his posting history.

WilderMore

contrarianna wrote:

You got this one right, Erik.

The faux concern is transparent to anyone bored enough to view his posting history.

 

No, he got it wrong, as do you my friend. I've never voted conservative, but then again I've never voted NDP. I was Liberal, but in the last 2 elections I voted Green.

Fidel

WilderMore wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Not just Gadaffi lost but the people, too. Why don't you move to Iraq and tell us how prosperous the people are there now as a direct result of the illegal military attacks on that country since 2003 and with al-CIA'duh's help since then? 

And I came back for a visit and mostly because this site is NDP-friendly and left wing progressive in general. I think it is you who might be out of your element here. Anymore personal attacks or questions dumb or otherwise, Wilder?

And while you're at it, check babble rules discouraging  off-topic thread-Qaeda posted against fellow babblers. 

 

Funny how you never spoke up for the Libyan people when Khadafi was cleansing them from Misrata and Benghazi. I would have thought that supporting the Libyan freedom fighters, basically Cuban in their outlook to removing a brutal dictator, would be a progressive thing. Apparantly it's not, because uhhh, why? And again, typical how you insert Iraq into a thread about Libya; off-topic and what-not, eh?

 

And apparently you missed the news about [url=http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/03/plaanned-regime-change-in-libya_28... of Benghazians[/url] at increasing numbers of checkpoints. What kind of freedom fighters are suspicious of and threaten ordinary Libyans? Is it a case of:  "This is what you'll get when we're in charge, so get used to it"?

And what kind of freedom fighters in Africa [url=http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/african-migrants-targeted-libya... black African workers[/url] with violence and murder? They were protected and had rights under the Gadaffi regime. And now they live in fear of violence and of being murdered by your fake freedom fighters and militant radical pals funded, armed, trained and supported by NATO terrorists. And you call yourself an anti-racist? Puh! I think youre just a bullhorn for ultra racist NATO extremists and their al-Qa'eda friendlies. Charade you are.

WilderMore

Fidel wrote:

WilderMore wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Not just Gadaffi lost but the people, too. Why don't you move to Iraq and tell us how prosperous the people are there now as a direct result of the illegal military attacks on that country since 2003 and with al-CIA'duh's help since then? 

And I came back for a visit and mostly because this site is NDP-friendly and left wing progressive in general. I think it is you who might be out of your element here. Anymore personal attacks or questions dumb or otherwise, Wilder?

And while you're at it, check babble rules discouraging  off-topic thread-Qaeda posted against fellow babblers. 

 

Funny how you never spoke up for the Libyan people when Khadafi was cleansing them from Misrata and Benghazi. I would have thought that supporting the Libyan freedom fighters, basically Cuban in their outlook to removing a brutal dictator, would be a progressive thing. Apparantly it's not, because uhhh, why? And again, typical how you insert Iraq into a thread about Libya; off-topic and what-not, eh?

 

And apparently you missed the news about [url=http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/03/plaanned-regime-change-in-libya_28... of Benghazians[/url] at increasing numbers of checkpoints. What kind of freedom fighters are suspicious of and threaten ordinary Libyans? Is it a case of:  "This is what you'll get when we're in charge, so get used to it"?

And what kind of freedom fighters in Africa [url=http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/african-migrants-targeted-libya... black African workers[/url] with violence and murder? They were protected and had rights under the Gadaffi regime. And now they live in fear of violence and of being murdered by your fake freedom fighters and militant radical pals funded, armed, trained and supported by NATO terrorists. And you call yourself an anti-racist? Puh! I think youre just a bullhorn for ultra racist NATO extremists and their al-Qa'eda friendlies. Charade you are.

 

Again, you sound like a very angry person. It will eat you up inside. As Jack Layton wrote, "love is better than hate".

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Hi Wildermore. Stop baiting other babblers. And let's us get this thread back on topic. Thanks.

WilderMore

OK.

 

Back on topic. I think Gadhafi was a brutal dictator, and the world is better off without him.

Fidel

And, how do you feel about LIFG-al-Qa'eda's drive for an Islamic emirate in the Maghreb? Just so you know, the CIA's Qaeda proxies have  buried women alive for wearing nail polish in countries like Afghanistan. That's not freedom. And being forced to wear head-to-veils is oppressive even according to hundreds of millions of moderate Islamists around the world. Violent misogyny is not close to freedom or democracy.

Just trying to help you be a better advocate for freedom, and strengthen your resolve for anti-racism and women's rights.

And it's because I care for you as a person and would appreciate some acknowledgement of our points of view while youre on the attack in this thread. 

Fidel

WilderMore wrote:

OK.

 

Back on topic. I think Gadhafi was a brutal dictator, and the world is better off without him.

 

He did not matter to the rest of the world. I certainly wasn't bothered by any of his domestic policies for including women in communal decision making iows democracy. And I was not affected by Libya's highest human development index in all of Africa. I was not on the receiving end of emergency aid workers and medical expertise in the poorest African nations suffering under neocolonial rule.

~~ No country can donate or impose their brand of democracy on another. - Malalai Joya 

Because then it isn't democracy. Bombing and killing civilians and destroying vital infrastructure has not protected anyone in Libya. These fascists you support have lied to the world about right to protect in Libya. It's a terrible lie.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

[url=http://socialistworker.org/2011/08/23/who-really-won-in-libya]Who really won in Libya?[/url]

Quote:
Hatred of the dictatorship and a thirst for democracy and freedom drove the uprising against Qaddafi when it first arose in February, clearly inspired by the revolutions against tyrants in Tunisia to Libya's west, and Egypt to its east.

But the character of Libya's uprising has been twisted and transformed in the months since.

The rebel forces that took over Tripoli this week operated in collaboration with U.S.-led NATO military forces that have no interest at all in Libyans' desire for freedom. As Independent journalist Patrick Cockburn predicted some months ago, the fall of Tripoli and Qaddafi's regime will be "primarily won by NATO, and not popular revolution."

Last March, the United Nations sanctioned a U.S.-led air campaign in Libya, with the justification that this was the only way to stop Qaddafi's military from committing a massacre against the uprising. But the air war continued and escalated. Meanwhile, Western governments were reshaping the anti-Qaddafi opposition to fit their needs--like ensuring the flow of oil from Libya for one, and even more importantly, creating a reliably pro-Western barrier against the tide of revolution that has swept through the region.

To do this, the U.S. and its European allies backed the most conservative elements among those who claimed to lead the struggle against Qaddafi. A few were already on the CIA payroll--others were former officials of the Qaddafi regime who decided to switch sides.

The new government that will form in place of the Qaddafi regime will be led by these elements. It will be beholden to the U.S. and Europe for its existence--and pliable to their interests.

No one who cares about justice will shed a tear for Muammar el-Qaddafi. He was a tyrant, with the blood of many people on his hands. But no one who opposes imperialism and its crimes can celebrate Qaddafi's downfall in these circumstances.

[url=http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/08/2011823123039439122... Bennis: Too Soon to Declare Victory[/url]

Quote:
But the legitimacy of the TNC remains contested. It is a widely diverse, self-selected group already facing significant and sometimes lethal division within its ranks. It remains unclear how much popular support there was for the TNC's decision to ask for foreign military intervention. Even now, as Patrick Cockburn wrote in The Independent, the "Transitional National Council (TNC) in Benghazi is now recognized by more than 30 foreign governments, including the U.S. and Britain, as the government of Libya. But it is by no means clear that it is recognized as such by the rebel militiamen who are in the process of seizing the capital. The rebel fighters in Misrata, who fought so long to defend their city, say privately that they have no intention of obeying orders from the TNC." Certainly it is military and security exigencies that have resulted in Tripoli not being represented in the Council, but it also remains uncertain whether the TNC's leadership is recognized in the capital or not. It remains too soon to say whether the TNC will show itself willing to broaden out to embrace Libyans so far excluded.

The success of Libya's uprising will have a great deal to do with the willingness of its leadership to break its dependency on the United States and NATO. In what might or might not be a positive sign in that direction, TNC officials have said they intend to call for United Nations assistance in holding new elections within eight months of taking power. But more immediately, if the United States and European countries turn over the billions in frozen Libyan assets directly to the TNC, the question of the breadth of its representation and its legitimacy become even more crucial.

Will the TNC, eager to claim the billions of oil money being held by European and U.S. banks, demand that NATO and the United States pull back and allow Libya to sort out its own problems and develop its own trajectory for an independent future? During a Monday press conference, the president of the TNC, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, thanked the international community as a whole but singled out those countries that had been especially supportive of the TNC; the implication was unmistakable that those countries, presumably the United States, other NATO members, and Qatar (whose special forces had trained the TNC's "Tripoli Brigade") could expect closer ties and privileged access to Libyan resources in the future.

[url=http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/libya-after-gadaffi-statement-by-stop-th... the War Coalition (U.K.): Libya after Gadaffi[/url]

Quote:
The fall of the Gadaffi regime in Libya marks yet another turning point in what has been a truly remarkable year in the Middle East. The victory of the rebels, backed by Nato bombing in a six month campaign initiated by the British and French governments, also heralds the rehabilitation of a discredited doctrine -- that of 'humanitarian intervention' -- after the debacle of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The defeat of Gadaffi is now being used to justify military action on the grounds that it has helped the Arab revolutions. David Cameron declared outside Downing Street 22 August 2011, 'This has not been our revolution, but we can be proud that we have played our part.'

The hypocrisy of Cameron is staggering, given the role of British and other western governments in backing up dictators and despots in the region -- only halted in some places by the actions of the Arab people themselves.

The Nato intervention has not been for idealistic values. It has been about regime change, so that a leader more acceptable to western governments and business could replace Gadaffi. Right to the end, NATO was bent on a military victory and bringing the Transitional National Council (TNC) -- the Benghazi administration -- to power in Libya by force of arms. All proposals for talks to achieve a political solution – whether from within Libya or outside - have been brushed aside.

While many Libyans may welcome the outcome, and will be glad to see the back of Gadaffi, it has a number of negative aspects. From the international point of view, the most significant thing is that the government of another Arab state has been changed by external force applied by the big imperial powers. There is no real suggestion that the TNC could have come to power unaided. The NATO military intervention, stretching beyond breaking point the mandate given by the United Nations, has been decisive.

WilderMore

Fidel wrote:

WilderMore wrote:

OK.

 

Back on topic. I think Gadhafi was a brutal dictator, and the world is better off without him.

 

He did not matter to the rest of the world.

 

Lockerbie, Berlin, and Chad.

 

On 22 February 2011 during the Libyan protests, the ex Minister of Justice Mustafa Mohamed Abud Al Jeleil stated in an interview with the Swedish newspaper Expressen that Muammar al-Gaddafi had personally ordered the bombing.[45]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Berlin_discotheque_bombing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chadian%E2%80%93Libyan_conflict

Fidel

WilderMore wrote:

Fidel wrote:

WilderMore wrote:

OK.

Back on topic. I think Gadhafi was a brutal dictator, and the world is better off without him.

 

He did not matter to the rest of the world.

Lockerbie, Berlin, and Chad.

There is no proof for Lockerbie. It was a frame-up gladio style. And they extorted money from Gadaffi in return for lifting trade sanctions and taking Libya off their phony terrorist list. 

The real Lockerbie bomber is free as a bird and living in the U.S.A. with a bevvy of terrorists given sanctuary by the U.S. Government over the years.

Key Lockerbie Witness Admits Perjury

Lockerbie doubts

Let Sibel Edmonds Speak: The Real Culprits of 9/11

al-CIA'da prolly did Lockerbie.

WilderMore

Fidel wrote:

 

al-CIA'da prolly did Lockerbie.

 

Nope, it was Gadhafi. (Well, not personally; he did give the order though.)

Erik Redburn

WilderMore wrote:

contrarianna wrote:

You got this one right, Erik.

The faux concern is transparent to anyone bored enough to view his posting history.

 

No, he got it wrong, as do you my friend. I've never voted conservative, but then again I've never voted NDP. I was Liberal, but in the last 2 elections I voted Green.

 

I don't know if I believe that either, but even if you're an ex-Liberal so what?  The Liberals in case you haven't heard aren't exactly seen as beacons of change anymore, and you'd have to be about as neo as they come.  I gave Contrariana a hard time recently too, but she has shown some consistent interest in certain progressive causes here and she's capable of engaging with others directly.   You sir just...troll along.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Erik: knock it off. Speak to thread topic, or not at all, please.

Fidel

WilderMore wrote:

Fidel wrote:

 

al-CIA'da prolly did Lockerbie.

 

Nope, it was Gadhafi. (Well, not personally; he did give the order though.)

 

Baloney. You have no proof, and neither does the Gladio Gang even after spending dozens of millions more dollars on a Lockerbie investigation than they dared spend on finding out who did 9/11. They still don't know and don't want the rest of the world to find out, either.

Years after the US Army murdered Gadaffi's adopted daughter in a botched military raid to murder Gadaffi himelf, al-CIA'da tried unsuccessfully to murder Gadaffi in Libya  in the 1990s, just like they tried to murder Fidel more than 600 times in vein attempts to transform Cuba into a waypoint for running drugs to the mainland as they've been doing with their Haitian Military friends for years and years.

You are too kind to these NATO terrorists and their violent misogynist Qaeda friendlies. 

The USSA and its NATO pals have bombed and invaded dozens of countries since WW II. Which of them is more democratic for it today? 

A: None

Erik Redburn

Fidel wrote:

WilderMore wrote:

Fidel wrote:

 

al-CIA'da prolly did Lockerbie.

 

Nope, it was Gadhafi. (Well, not personally; he did give the order though.)

 

Baloney. You have no proof, and neither does the Gladio Gang even after spending dozens of millions more dollars on a Lockerbie investigation than they dared spend on finding out who did 9/11. They still don't know and don't want the rest of the world to find out, either.

....

 

Actually I've never seen or heard any real proof he was behind it either -nor any rational reason why he'd even do it, rogue wolf or not.  I did hear he made some vague statement admitting some vague responsibility for it, in exchange for the West backing off and opening a few doors.  That was when he was seen as acceptibly non-rabid.  (when he was being willing to do business with US petro-interests)  Then he decides not to do business after all, and he goes all the way to 'mad dog' status.  Neo-cons must assume that everyones memory is as malleable as theirs.

Frmrsldr

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

So basically Hoodset you're saying it's "anti-imperialism at any cost" not real support for Kaddafi here? Isn't that like cheering fire burning down an orphanage just because the USA is the fire chief?

No.

That would be an argument that Uncle Sam should be militarily intervening in Libya.

Neither Uncle Sam nor anyone else has the right to militarily intervene/interfere in Libya or anywhere else.

What goes on in Libya is no one's business but the Libyans.

Does anyone else have the right to militarily intervene/interfere in the U.S.A.?

No?

What I say makes sense, then.

Erik Redburn

Catchfire wrote:

Erik: knock it off. Speak to thread topic, or not at all, please.

 

Okay.  But he hasn't done much but game-play either -for quite sometime now- and if your'e not careful you could be completely overrun by neos.   I'll leave it at that.

Erik Redburn

Re Lockerbie again, I never saw any connection between the Sikh nationalists charged for it and Libya, nor any mutual interest.  Indira Ghandi's India wasn't seen as a reliable ally of the States either back then, but the Americans were abit more careful about attacking others directly after Viet Nam -outside of their Latin American 'backyard'.     The case against the official suspects pretty much unravelled too, but the media has never been in doubt of their guilt either.  Funny that. 

Frmrsldr

DaveW wrote:

... by March 19, the rebel capital Benghazi was being besieged, and a Ghaddaffi tank column was headed to the city; the rebels called for air support, France responded first, and the fall of Benghazi was averted;

that led to the UN cover for NATO "protection of civilians",...

Your chronology is wrong. The U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1973 (the "No-Fly Zone") drafted by Britain and France on March 19 then France, the U.S. and other NATO countries waged their War of Aggression on Libya.

DaveW wrote:

... that led to the UN cover for NATO "protection of civilians", which admittedly went over that line into protection of the rebel frontlines from artillery fire and heavy armour attacks...

In other words, our war on Libya quickly went from a war of defense to protect "civilians and civilian areas from attack" (UNSCR 1973 wording) to a war of offense or War of Aggression when not just the skies above Benghazi (mentioned by name in UNSCR 1973) and Tobruk (had Benghazi fallen to Gadhafi forces) but the whole of Libyan airspace became a "No-Fly Zone" and NATO and later U.S. ground attack aircraft and attack helicopters went on search and destroy missions for government forces' military targets of opportunity.

This is where we clearly violated UNSCR 1973. Notice it says "to protect civilian and civilian areas from attack." It does not mention any attackers by name. This means that if you attack civilians you are wrong. You are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

It says nothing about picking sides.

It says nothing about waging a War of Aggression.

It says nothing about regime change.

DaveW wrote:

the rebels wanted it, they got it -- best wishes to them in power in Tripoli, a true people-power revolt

What the rebels also got was death and injury from above by U.S. and NATO aircraft. The way the Fawning Corporate Media spun it was to interview "rebels" who in spite of this, clamored for more U.S./NATO bombing. So I guess in that sense, the rebels did get what they wanted.

DaveW wrote:

One thing is very clear: if Benghazi HAD fallen in March, the Ghaddaffi massacres of rebels there would have made Srebrenica look like child's play. It was right to support them.

Wrong.

The best we have to go by is a rambling, meandering speech where Gadhafi seems to sometime lose touch with reality.

Did he talk about murdering all those who rebelled against him?

Yes.

But in that same speech he also talked about forgiving the rebels if they laid down their arms. They would be allowed to return to their own homes. If they refused to lay down their arms they could flee to Tobruk and from there cross the border to Egypt.

By the West's (and Western media's) own account Gadhafi is a 'madman.'

How then, are you going to cherrypick from his speeches and say, "This is real. We can trust this. This is pure fantasy. We can discount this."?

If it was so certain that Gadhafi had murder/genocide/vengeance on his mind,

then why hasn't this happened since March 19?

He certainly had plenty of opportunity and if his grip on reality is that tenuous, then the fact that U.S./NATO forces are attempting to murder him and are (along with Libyan rebels) almost in complete control of Libya, would not have affected his sense of invulnerability nor the fact that he believes he's ultimately going to win. If he wanted to commit genocide this, then, would not have stopped him.

 

Frmrsldr

Hoodeet wrote:

... Do they [people] really believe that NATO has the humanitarian welfare of the Libyan people in mind when it sends out over 1700 bombing missions? 

[One of the world's most enduring perennial myths:]

War is not fought for humanitarian reasons.

 

 

 

 

Frmrsldr

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

I look at it as every situation is different no matter how similar they seem. I don't like to use one size fits all sentiments for all the worlds events; its way to complex for that.   

Libya is not Iraq is not Afghanistan is not Bahrain is not Yemen is not Syria and so on. I did not want the US to get involved in Libya, but I'm not running the country and it did... that don't mean I'd stop supporting the rebels when it happened; I'm still glad to see they are winning. I wish them the best (I'm not a pessimist like most of you here).

I say fuck all those dictators, "ours" and "yours".

The U.S.A.

My country right or wrong?

Frmrsldr

DaveW wrote:

the REBELS in March called for air support... without which they would have been crushed early on...

Please tell me by what right

or please point out what international laws allow the U.S. and E.U. to militarily intervene/interfere in other countries.

When UNSCR 1973 was drafted NOT A SINGLE Libyan asked/demanded that we wage a War of Aggression on them or militarily intervene in their and their nation's affairs.

Frmrsldr

DaveW wrote:

As a person who believes in democracy I think that citizens of a country should determine their future ... Yell

yeah, except for rebels in the east of Libya: screw 'em! 40 more years!

Whether they win or lose,

that should be left entirely up to them.

It is not up for us to decide/intervene in their affairs.

Frmrsldr

WilderMore wrote:

Back on topic. I think Gadhafi was a brutal dictator, and the world is better off without him.

The U.S. and NATO making the world a safe place for democracy.

Who asked or elected them

I wonder?

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Frmrsldr wrote:

The U.S.A.

My country right or wrong?

Yes it is...

NDPP

Terror in Tripoli  -  by Kim Sengupta in Abu Salim, Tripoli

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/terror-in-tripoli-as-loyalists-f...

"The rebels are attacking our homes. This should not be happening. The rebels are saying they are fighting government troops here, but all those getting hurt are ordinary people. There has also been looting by the rebels, they have gone in to houses to search for people and take away things. Why are they doing this..?'

In London there were reports that British SAS troops had been on the ground in Libya for several weeks helping to co-ordinate the assault on the capital. The Daily Telegraph reported defence sources confirming the soldiers from 22 SAS regiment had been ordered to stay on to help track Colonel Gaddafi down.

Mustafa Abdel Jabril, the head of the TNC authorised a bounty of two million Libyan dinars for anyone handing over Colonel Gaddafi 'dead or alive'. He also offered amnesty to any of his entourage who would 'kill or capture him'..."

Robert Fisk: History Repeats Itself, With Mistakes of Iraq Rehearsed Afresh

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-histo...

"the massive presence of Western diplomats, oil-mogul representatives, highly paid Western mercenaries and shady British and French servicemen - all pretending to be 'advisers' rather than participants - is the Benghazi Green Zone. There may (yet) be no walls around them but they are, in effect, governing Libya through various Libyan heroes and scallywags who have set themselves up as local political masters.

We can overlook the latters' murder of their own commanding officer - for some reason, no one mentions the name of Abdul Fatah Younes anymore, though he was liquidated in Benghazi only a month ago - but they can survive only by clinging to our Western umbilicals.."

Qatar Hopes For Return After Backing Libya Winners

http://arabnews.com/economy/article493221.ece

"Without their financial support, it would not have happened. The Qatari role was not only essential, it was the cornerstone of the whole effort.."

NDPP

Regime Change in Libya: 'Good for Business'

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26181

"It's there for the taking said Matthew Lynn on Marketwatch. It's a victory for modernisers, opening up a 'vast new market, and it is right on Europe's doorstep."

Toronto Star had an article on August 24, 'Canadian Firms Face New Reality in Libya', which for some reason I can't retrieve - worth a look if anyone can pull it down.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Frmrsldr wrote:

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

So basically Hoodset you're saying it's "anti-imperialism at any cost" not real support for Kaddafi here? Isn't that like cheering fire burning down an orphanage just because the USA is the fire chief?

No.

 

That would be an argument that Uncle Sam should be militarily intervening in Libya.

Neither Uncle Sam nor anyone else has the right to militarily intervene/interfere in Libya or anywhere else.

What goes on in Libya is no one's business but the Libyans.

 

Does anyone else have the right to militarily intervene/interfere in the U.S.A.?No?

 

 

What I say makes sense, then.

Not really, to be honest you've lost me. How would "anti-imperialism at any cost" be an argument that Uncle Sam should be militarily intervening in Libya? It don't support that at all thus I'm totally not getting your post.

Sorry man.

NDPP

Chavez Warns of Tragedy in Libya

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/195625.html

"The drama of Libya isn't ending with the fall of Gaddafi's government. It's beginning,' AP quoted Chavez as saying on Wednesday. he also condemned Western powers for the airstrikes NATO had conducted, adding that all 'the Yankee empire and European powers want is Libya's oil. They've destroyed a country and they continue destroying it. How many Libyan children have died?

and how will progressive Canadians hold their politicians and NATO's Canadian butcher-boy, Charles Bouchard accountable?

The Libyan Soldier: The True Heroes of NATO's War  -  by Glen Ford

http://williambowles.info/2011/08/24/the-libyan-soldier-the-true-heroes-...

"The story is not over - not by a long shot - but the saga of the Libyan resistance to the superpower might of the United States and its degenerate European [and Canadian] neocolonial allies will surely occupy a very special place in hstory..."

Frmrsldr

Frmrsldr wrote:

The U.S.A.

My country right or wrong?

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Yes it is...

Unlike you,

I don't support my country "Right or Wrong."

http://www.comehomeamerica.us/