• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Egyptian embassy staff "seized" in Libya

BlackAsCoal said:
Without question he has .. and will continue to do so. Obama conducts the Bush foreign policy on steroids. America is now considered the most dangerous nation on the planet .. under the Nobel Peace prize Winner for .. :0) Peace.

What a joke that would be if it wasn't for the horrors of Obama's draconian policies that have absolutely failed.

Had it not been for Putin, Obama was preparing to use his Al Wueda posse to destroy Syria just as he did Libya.
Click to expand...

I mean that is so obvious!
 
Montecresto said:
I mean that is so obvious!
Click to expand...

Obama’s Move to Arm Al Qaeda in Syria

On Monday, twelve years and five days after al Qaeda precipitated the worst domestic attack in modern history, President Obama waived two sections of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), allowing him to provide military assistance to “vetted” rebel grips in Syria. Though the AECA was designed to prevent arming terrorists, Obama announced that he had the authority to ”waive the prohibitions in sections 40 and 40(a) of the AECA related to such a transaction.”

Section 40, “Transactions With Countries Supporting Acts of International Terrorism,” and Section 40(a), “Prohibited Transactions by the United States Government,” ban sending munitions to any nation described in Section 40 (d), “Countries Covered by Prohibition:” ”The prohibitions contained in this section apply with respect to a country if the Secretary of State determines that the government of that country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.” Section 40(g), “Waiver,” grants the president the power to waive these provisions if he determines “the transaction is essential to the national security interest of the United States.” The same section requires the president to give Congress the name of any country involved in the proposed transaction, the identity of any recipient of the items to be provided pursuant to the proposed transaction, and the anticipated use of those items” at least 15 days before the transaction takes place.

more
Obama’s Move to Arm Al Qaeda in Syria | FrontPage Magazine
 
BlackAsCoal said:
Obama’s Move to Arm Al Qaeda in Syria

On Monday, twelve years and five days after al Qaeda precipitated the worst domestic attack in modern history, President Obama waived two sections of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), allowing him to provide military assistance to “vetted” rebel grips in Syria. Though the AECA was designed to prevent arming terrorists, Obama announced that he had the authority to ”waive the prohibitions in sections 40 and 40(a) of the AECA related to such a transaction.”

Section 40, “Transactions With Countries Supporting Acts of International Terrorism,” and Section 40(a), “Prohibited Transactions by the United States Government,” ban sending munitions to any nation described in Section 40 (d), “Countries Covered by Prohibition:” ”The prohibitions contained in this section apply with respect to a country if the Secretary of State determines that the government of that country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.” Section 40(g), “Waiver,” grants the president the power to waive these provisions if he determines “the transaction is essential to the national security interest of the United States.” The same section requires the president to give Congress the name of any country involved in the proposed transaction, the identity of any recipient of the items to be provided pursuant to the proposed transaction, and the anticipated use of those items” at least 15 days before the transaction takes place.

more
Obama’s Move to Arm Al Qaeda in Syria | FrontPage Magazine
Click to expand...

I see! I suppose this is some of that new found power of his pen and phone to by-pass congress. I'm telling ya, the whole "war on terror" bull**** is just sick, a travesty that America is not going to get away with.
 
BlackAsCoal said:
Obama’s Move to Arm Al Qaeda in Syria

On Monday, twelve years and five days after al Qaeda precipitated the worst domestic attack in modern history, President Obama waived two sections of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), allowing him to provide military assistance to “vetted” rebel grips in Syria. Though the AECA was designed to prevent arming terrorists, Obama announced that he had the authority to ”waive the prohibitions in sections 40 and 40(a) of the AECA related to such a transaction.”

Section 40, “Transactions With Countries Supporting Acts of International Terrorism,” and Section 40(a), “Prohibited Transactions by the United States Government,” ban sending munitions to any nation described in Section 40 (d), “Countries Covered by Prohibition:” ”The prohibitions contained in this section apply with respect to a country if the Secretary of State determines that the government of that country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.” Section 40(g), “Waiver,” grants the president the power to waive these provisions if he determines “the transaction is essential to the national security interest of the United States.” The same section requires the president to give Congress the name of any country involved in the proposed transaction, the identity of any recipient of the items to be provided pursuant to the proposed transaction, and the anticipated use of those items” at least 15 days before the transaction takes place.

more
Obama’s Move to Arm Al Qaeda in Syria | FrontPage Magazine
Click to expand...

you're quoting front page magazine, a publication I'm sure montecristo and yourself would easily recognize the faults with if we were discussing any other subject. And while I question the rational of supporting the Libyan opposition, the idea of citing popularity figures for Gaddafi in territory he held is rather mung headed given his style of rule. The same with citing his popularity among african leaders. Being that he was known as a revolutionary force and supporter, much like Castro (who mandela also supported). And such popularity doesn't translate to the idea that he was a just leader of his people.

And while he did take an iron hand approach to addressing jihadists within his country, he did the same to any opposition force, be it socialist, democratic, or anarchist. He was a violent dictator, no questions about it. And that hardly changes due to the fact that he spent some of the oil wealth, that he used to fuel an insanely extravagant lifestyle and considered little more than his own personal piggy bank, to deliver health care to his preferred populations
 
BlackAsCoal said:
If what you suggest was even remotely true, why would the Libyan people overwhelmingly support Gaddafi against the Al Queda 'rebels?'

Are you aware the the UN was about to bestow an award for human rights on Gaddafi?

Are you aware that Libyan women had more freedom then Arab/Muslim women throughout the Arab world?

Are you aware that Libyans got more from their government then you get from yours?

Did you know that Mandela and African leaders throughout the continent adored Gaddafi .. and do you know why?

Do you have cradle-to-grave free healthcare and education?
Click to expand...

Gaddafi said:
I am an international leader, the dean of the Arab rulers, the king of kings of Africa and the imam of Muslims, and my international status does not allow me to descend to a lower level.
Click to expand...
Gaddafi said:
Lincoln was a man who created himself from nothing without any help from outside or other people. I followed his struggles. I see certain similarities between him and me.
Click to expand...
Gaddafi said:
I am not going to leave this land. I will die as a martyr at the end. I shall remain, defiant. Muammar is Leader of the Revolution until the end of time.
Click to expand...
Gaddafi said:
I am a Bedouin warrior who brought glory to Libya and will die a martyr.
Click to expand...
Muammar Gaddafi - Wikiquote
Do these look like statements that a mentally healthy person would make, let alone a leader of a "free" country? Gaddafi was a bat**** crazy narcissist, infatuated with himself till the very end, very much like Hitler. His delusions led him to believe he was a leader in an Islamic revolution against the evil West (sound familiar?), and so he supported international terrorism and even blew up a plane over Scotland. He was a sick creep, and a self-admitted enemy of the US, and so we had the right to do whatever we wanted to him - including supporting a transitional council that is now taking its turn in fighting al-Qaeda.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
you're quoting front page magazine, a publication I'm sure montecristo and yourself would easily recognize the faults with if we were discussing any other subject. And while I question the rational of supporting the Libyan opposition, the idea of citing popularity figures for Gaddafi in territory he held is rather mung headed given his style of rule. The same with citing his popularity among african leaders. Being that he was known as a revolutionary force and supporter, much like Castro (who mandela also supported). And such popularity doesn't translate to the idea that he was a just leader of his people.

And while he did take an iron hand approach to addressing jihadists within his country, he did the same to any opposition force, be it socialist, democratic, or anarchist. He was a violent dictator, no questions about it. And that hardly changes due to the fact that he spent some of the oil wealth, that he used to fuel an insanely extravagant lifestyle and considered little more than his own personal piggy bank, to deliver health care to his preferred populations
Click to expand...

Maybe you think only the Queen of England has support worth mentioning, but I don't. He was supported overwhelmingly by Libyan citizens, but you think that doesn't count.

He was supported bt African leaders as seen as one of their own .. but you think that doesn't count.

You think because you've been convinced that he was a 'violent leader' that qualifies him for regime change .. but I don't.

Maybe you should just post the things that you think are important .. more important than Libyan citizens .. and I'll post all the things I think important, including the wishes of the Libyan people.

And by the way, a violent leader is the one who destroys a once prosperous nation based on lies and deception. Let me guess, you didn't know that.

Today, Libya has been destroyed by Obama and his Al Queda posse. Surely you must see that as a good thing.

Front Page Magazine .. are you of the opinion that only Front Page tells of Obama's unquestioned relationship with Al Queda .. or his attempt to use Al Queda against the Syrian people?
 
Last edited:
MadLib said:
Muammar Gaddafi - Wikiquote
Do these look like statements that a mentally healthy person would make, let alone a leader of a "free" country? Gaddafi was a bat**** crazy narcissist, infatuated with himself till the very end, very much like Hitler. His delusions led him to believe he was a leader in an Islamic revolution against the evil West (sound familiar?), and so he supported international terrorism and even blew up a plane over Scotland. He was a sick creep, and a self-admitted enemy of the US, and so we had the right to do whatever we wanted to him - including supporting a transitional council that is now taking its turn in fighting al-Qaeda.
Click to expand...

In other words, you have no answers for the questions I asked.
 
BlackAsCoal said:
Maybe you think only the Queen of England has support worth mentioning, but I don't. He was supported overwhelmingly by Libyan citizens, but you think that doesn't count.
Click to expand...

No, I'm pointing out that your evidence of this support is highly suspect. There is a difference there

He was supported bt African leaders as seen as one of their own .. but you think that doesn't count.
Click to expand...

As I just explained, being supported by other leaders does not make him a just ruler of his people and country

You think because you've been convinced that he was a 'violent leader' that qualifies him for regime change .. but I don't.
Click to expand...

Hey, Genius, I wrote in the reply you just quoted that "I question the rational of supporting the Libyan opposition". What I don't do is go through mental gymnastics to deny the fact that he was a violent dictator, like you

Maybe you should just post the things that you think are important .. more important than Libyan citizens .. and I'll post all the things I think important, including the wishes of the Libyan people.
Click to expand...

Again, the issue is those opinions are rather suspect. It's like citing polling provided by the kim regime in NK. Naturally haven't the threat of force over hanging any vocal opposition and an inability to audit the findings, makes accuracy a very real concern

And by the way, a violent leader is the one who destroys a once prosperous nation based on lies and deception. Let me guess, you didn't know that.
Click to expand...

Your comparing remarks I made about how Qaddafi treats and views his own citizens to the impact of foreign policy we are actively questioning the merits of. It's obviously a false equivocation.

Today, Libya has been destroyed by Obama and his Al Queda posse. Surely you must see that as a good thing.
Click to expand...

I think the impact of nato was largely negligible, the opposition was obviously a mixed bag, since hardliners are not currently in power, and your excusing and dismissing the impact Qaddafi loyalist forces had
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
No, I'm pointing out that your evidence of this support is highly suspect. There is a difference there
Click to expand...

There is not only strong and GLARING evidence of Gaddafi's support from the Libyan people, there are also ample reasons WHY they supported him .. reasons that those who oppose him and support the destruction of Libya run away from. I've yet to hear a sane and logical challenge to that evidence .. including from you.

As I just explained, being supported by other leaders does not make him a just ruler of his people and country
Click to expand...

I never said that it did .. but there is plenty on the table that defines him as a just leader that you don't want to talk about.

Hey, Genius, I wrote in the reply you just quoted that "I question the rational of supporting the Libyan opposition". What I don't do is go through mental gymnastics to deny the fact that he was a violent dictator, like you
Click to expand...

What you don't want to do and haven't done yet, is to talk about how Gaddafi changed his country from being among the poorest in the world to having a high standard of living, nor do you want to talk about the obvious benefits he provided to his people.

Again, the issue is those opinions are rather suspect. It's like citing polling provided by the kim regime in NK. Naturally haven't the threat of force over hanging any vocal opposition and an inability to audit the findings, makes accuracy a very real concern
Click to expand...

:0) The only thing 'suspect' is you thinking your biased opinion counts more than the Libyan people .. but then again, you would, wouldn't you.

Perhaps you missed this part .. LIBYA IS NOW DESTROYED AND IN RUINS, THANKS TO OBAMA AND HIS TERRORISTS BAND OF MURDERERS. Maybe you'd like to point out how much better Libyans are today then before the cowboy came riding into town. Would you like to do that?

No?

No surprises there.

Your comparing remarks I made about how Qaddafi treats and views his own citizens to the impact of foreign policy we are actively questioning the merits of. It's obviously a false equivocation.
Click to expand...

I'm comparing the destruction of Libya to the destruction of Iraq. I'm saying that there is little difference. With all due respect, you don't appear to have enough information to assess the foreign policy that you're attempting to.

I think the impact of nato was largely negligible, the opposition was obviously a mixed bag, since hardliners are not currently in power, and your excusing and dismissing the impact Qaddafi loyalist forces had
Click to expand...

You make my above point about your lack of information .. Mr. Genius. Gaddafi would have easily defeated the terrorists without NATO and the cowboy .. which is why they stepped in.

.. sigline
 
Last edited:
BlackAsCoal said:
There is not only strong and GLARING evidence of Gaddafi's support from the Libyan people, there are also ample reasons WHY they supported him ..
Click to expand...

Then inform on what your claim for support is based on: for some reason I am assuming that it's based on something that wasn't independently verifiable.

reasons that those who oppose him and support the destruction of Libya run away from. I've yet to hear a sane and logical challenge to that evidence .. including from you.
Click to expand...

I'm sure we can find positive benefits to every state ruler, regardless of how much of an authoriterian asshole they are. So i'm really lost on why you would even assume such proves anything

I never said that it did .. but there is plenty on the table that defines him as a just leader that you don't want to talk about.
Click to expand...

lol, then what were you trying to imply by citing it?


What you don't want to do and haven't done yet, is to talk about how Gaddafi changed his country from being among the poorest in the world to having a high standard of living, nor do you want to talk about the obvious benefits he provided to his people.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of those things, but I am also aware of his various human rights abuses and behavior indicative of a dictator who views his country and it's wealth as his personal play thing.

Perhaps you missed this part .. LIBYA IS NOW DESTROYED AND IN RUINS, THANKS TO OBAMA AND HIS TERRORISTS BAND OF MURDERERS.
Click to expand...

No, it was something I directly addressed, just like your claim for popular support


You make my above point about your lack of information .. Mr. Genius. Gaddafi would have easily defeated the terrorists without NATO and the cowboy .. which is why they stepped in.
Click to expand...

There was plenty of collateral damage before any foreign support was given. Though i do agree that it would have ended much sooner and with the rebels losing. Though I doubt nato not supporting them would have amounted to the various other interested parties not stepping in on their own.


I'm comparing the destruction of Libya to the destruction of Iraq. I'm saying that there is little difference. With all due respect, you don't appear to have enough information to assess the foreign policy that you're attempting to.
Click to expand...

that doesn't even make sense as a reply
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Then inform on what your claim for support is based on: for some reason I am assuming that it's based on something that wasn't independently verifiable.
Click to expand...

I've already CLEARLY stated it several times .. but you can keep pretending that you didn't see it. :0) But the reason that you don't know it is because you're ignorant of all things Libya. I posted a video of some of it .. but again, you can pretend you don't see it.

Ever heard of the Great Man-Made River and what it does for people throughout the region? Of course not.

I don't see the need for us to continue this conversation. :0) I'm good with whatever you choose to believe .. and run away from.
 
BlackAsCoal said:
I've already CLEARLY stated it several times .. but you can keep pretending that you didn't see it.
Click to expand...

Ok, so your only evidence of this support is the rally held in Qaddafi controlled territory and where no one knows how it was organized and where people were not free to talk to the individuals involved? Given the man's history of using force on his own people and constructing a beneficial image with propoghanda, i hope you can understand why people are skeptical of it as proof of anything

Ever heard of the Great Man-Made River and what it does for people throughout the region? Of course not.
Click to expand...

from above: "I'm sure we can find positive benefits to every state ruler, regardless of how much of an authoriterian asshole they are. So i'm really lost on why you would even assume such proves anything"

I don't see the need for us to continue this conversation. :0) I'm good with whatever you choose to believe.
Click to expand...

being that you would simply ignore my replies, I'm not sure it was ever a "conversation" ...
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Ok, so your only evidence of this support is the rally held in Qaddafi controlled territory and where no one knows how it was organized and where people were not free to talk to the individuals involved? Given the man's history of using force on his own people and constructing a beneficial image with propoghanda, i hope you can understand why people are skeptical of it as proof of anything
Click to expand...

Pick out all the things in this video that weren't true ..



Can you see it now?

from above: "I'm sure we can find positive benefits to every state ruler, regardless of how much of an authoriterian asshole they are. So i'm really lost on why you would even assume such proves anything"
Click to expand...

:0) Then just ignore anything you don't want to see. Exponential benefits to his people .. don't prove anything to you.

Incredible

being that you would simply ignore my replies, I'm not sure it was ever a "conversation" ...
Click to expand...

It never was a conversation. You've ignored everything you don't want to see .. and your responses were far from a conversation.

Do you have free healthcare and education cradle-to-grave? Of course not.

I'll say again, I'm real comfortable with you believing anything you want .. just as Bush supporters did. No difference.
 
BlackAsCoal said:
Pick out all the things in this video that weren't true ..
Click to expand...

1) I skimmed the first 4 minutes of the video an nowhere does it address the issue you were responding to.

2) It also laughingly claims that all western state banks are owned by the Rothschild family (3:13) ...


Then just ignore anything you don't want to see. Exponential benefits to his people .. don't prove anything to you.
Click to expand...

Yes, they do not establish your claims of popular support. What don't you get about that?


It never was a conversation. You've ignored everything you don't want to see .. and your responses were far from a conversation.

Do you have free healthcare and education cradle-to-grave? Of course not.

I'll say again, I'm real comfortable with you believing anything you want .. just as Bush supporters did. No difference.
Click to expand...

I actually keep addressing everything you post. You on the other hand simply ignore what I write and basically repeat yourself
 
lol, that video basically claims the libyan civil war as a jewish banking plot.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
1) I skimmed the first 4 minutes of the video an nowhere does it address the issue you were responding to.
Click to expand...

You asked me to point out some of the many reasons why Libyans supported Gaddafi .. I posted them .. you ran away claiming they don't show why Libyans supported Gaddafi .. which of course is ridiculous and silly. :0)

AND, still waiting for you to point out how the Libyan people are now better off with their country destroyed by the US. Tough question maybe? :0)

Tell you what .. don't bother.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
lol, that video basically claims the libyan civil war as a jewish banking plot.
Click to expand...

.. and of course you missed all the benefits to the Libyan people brought about by Gaddafi .. none of which you had the ability to address. :0)

Libya had NO NATIONAL DEBT .. and no Rothschild bank.

Now they have both.

Good job America .. otherwise known as the most dangerous nation on the planet.
 
BlackAsCoal said:
You asked me to point out some of the many reasons why Libyans supported Gaddafi .. I posted them .. you ran away claiming they don't show why Libyans supported Gaddafi .. which of course is ridiculous and silly. :0)
Click to expand...

1) No, I asked you to validate the claim that he enjoys popular support

2) It's a literal propaganda piece claiming the war was orchestrated by Jewish banking interests

AND, still waiting for you to point out how the Libyan people are now better off with their country destroyed by the US. Tough question maybe? :0)
Click to expand...

1) Again, Nato operations were rather limited 2) Sure, no Gaddafi. Though i question the rationale for aiding the rebels I can still recognize the guy was an egotistical authoritarian and dictator
 
BlackAsCoal said:
Libya had NO NATIONAL DEBT .. and no Rothschild bank.

Now they have both.
Click to expand...

So you buy into the whole jewish banking angle from the video? Out of curiosity can you document the whole rothchild connection?
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
1) No, I asked you to validate the claim that he enjoys popular support

2) It's a literal propaganda piece claiming the war was orchestrated by Jewish banking interests



1) Again, Nato operations were rather limited 2) Sure, no Gaddafi. Though i question the rationale for aiding the rebels I can still recognize the guy was an egotistical authoritarian and dictator
Click to expand...

I assume that you aren't dumb .. so I can attribute your inability to address the benefits to the Libyan people as you don't really give a damn about the Libyan people .. only the propaganda that you've been feed.

Libya is destroyed .. but you keep on ignoring that.

... so easy.
 
BlackAsCoal said:
I assume that you aren't dumb .. so I can attribute your inability to address the benefits to the Libyan people as you don't really give a damn about the Libyan people .. only the propaganda that you've been feed.

Libya is destroyed .. but you keep on ignoring that.

... so easy.
Click to expand...

posted previously: I'm sure we can find positive benefits to every state ruler, regardless of how much of an authoriterian asshole they are. So i'm really lost on why you would even assume such proves anything

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ssy-staff-seized-libya-14.html#post1062858269

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ssy-staff-seized-libya-14.html#post1062858421
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
posted previously: I'm sure we can find positive benefits to every state ruler, regardless of how much of an authoriterian asshole they are. So i'm really lost on why you would even assume such proves anything

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ssy-staff-seized-libya-14.html#post1062858269

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ssy-staff-seized-libya-14.html#post1062858421
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no question that you're lost on a lot of things standing right in your face .. like our cozy relationship with Al Queda .. like the absolute LIE told by Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, and Obama that was used to destroy Libya.

One more time .. I'm good with anything you choose to believe. :0)
 
BlackAsCoal said:
I have absolutely no question that you're lost on a lot of things standing right in your face .. like our cozy relationship with Al Queda .. like the absolute LIE told by Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, and Obama that was used to destroy Libya.

One more time .. I'm good with anything you choose to believe. :0)
Click to expand...

Ok, so you can't actually substantiate that Qaddafi had popular support? Can you atleast explain the Rothchild connection to the Libyan civil war and state bank?
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Ok, so you can't actually substantiate that Qaddafi had popular support? Can you atleast explain the Rothchild connection to the Libyan civil war and state bank?
Click to expand...

I've already substantiated that Gaddafi had popular support. Just because you're blind means absolutely nothing.

The largest demonstration in the world supporting Gaddafi means nothing to the blind.

"Since Nato started bombing, Gaddafi support and approval ratings have actually soared to about 85 per cent. Of the 2,335 tribes in Libya, over 2,000 are still pledging their allegiance to the embattled president." He adds: "At present, the people still blame Nato - not Gaddafi - for the [fuel and electricity] shortages."
http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/3...estimate-libyan-support-gaddafi#ixzz2rqmNf5JR

If your allegations were true ... why would Obama have to create lies and deceptions to destroy Libya?

Susan Rice’s Viagra Hoax: The New Incubator Babies
Susan Rice’s Viagra Hoax: The New Incubator Babies « Antiwar.com Blog

Our UN Ambassador's Shocking False Rape Claim
http://www.cotwa.info/2012/12/our-un-ambassadors-shocking-false-rape.html

Feel free to pretend you don't see that. :0)
 
BlackAsCoal said:
If your allegations were true ... why would Obama have to create lies and deceptions to destroy Libya?
Click to expand...

what would that have to do with popular support for Qaddafi in Libya?


"Since Nato started bombing, Gaddafi support and approval ratings have actually soared to about 85 per cent. Of the 2,335 tribes in Libya, over 2,000 are still pledging their allegiance to the embattled president." He adds: "At present, the people still blame Nato - not Gaddafi - for the [fuel and electricity] shortages.'
Click to expand...

1)Your link wasn't working: Don

2) It's talking about tripoli and western Libya

3) i can quote a whole bunch of reporters who disagreed

4) It would be nice to know what he is basing those numbers on
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom