• 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

Sherman123 said:
No it wasn't. It was several thousand demonstrators who were brought out by fear, inducement, and ethnic affinity.
Click to expand...

That is not only a display of incredible 'unlearnedness' :0) .. you didn't read the comments, didn't even think to google it.

Green Square: Exposing the Mainstream Media in Libya

The mainstream media has been hiding the facts and the realities on the ground in Libya. The Libyan people have been gathering in massive rallies across Libya. These rallies demonstrate the widespread support of the Libyan people for Colonel Qaddafi and their opposition of the Libyan people to NATO and the Benghazi-based Transitional Council.
Green Square: Exposing the Mainstream Media in Libya

Libya: 1.7 Million People March Demanding End to NATO Bombing
Libya: 1.7 Million People March Demanding End to NATO Bombing

The Real Libya Before Rothschild’s New Army-NATO: See What Americans Are Missing – See What NATO Is Destroying / The truth about Libya under Qaddafi – NATO Ushers In The Death Of Democracy In Libya

On July 1, 2011: 1.7 Million people in Tripoli Libya gathered in Green Square to protest the NATO bombing. That’s 95% of the city population. One Third (1/3) of the entire population of Libya.
The Real Libya Before Rothschild’s New Army-NATO: See What Americans Are Missing – See What NATO Is Destroying / The truth about Libya under Qaddafi – NATO Ushers In The Death Of Democracy In Libya

I keep telling you that you don't know what you're talking about.
 
Sherman123 said:
I'm well educated, however I suspect you are less than well informed on the subject. I'm also fascinated by your logic: Free education & Healthcare = Dictatorship is acceptable? Using that metric I assume you have no qualms whatsoever with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The delivery of services to a people does not change the character of the government. Which in this case was a kleptocratic dictatorship centered around a personality cult.

I think you need to change your tag. You clearly aren't a socialist.
Click to expand...

You're still talking, but you aren't demonstrating any of that so-called 'well educated.' I've put plenty of evidence on the table .. but you keep talking about me. That is decidedly unintelligent.

Care to address the evidence?
 
Sherman123 said:
So? This isn't an election or popularity contest Mr. Sovereignty. Each country gets to make its own determination in this regard, and thankfully most of the countries of quality and the bulk of the regionally relevant countries made the right choice. The UNSC resolution is legally irrelevant because it wasn't necessary for military action to take place.
Click to expand...

Easy for you to say. The countries that are irrelevant must of course be the countries that oppose the action. Isn't that always the way this game is played? You're young I recall and haven't seen enough of it, but of older Americans, I just wonder when they are going to tire of being lied into wars that have as their basis a completely different agenda then the spoken? Trumped up allegations of rape and torture to gin up public support for another war of aggression.


Human rights organisations have cast doubt on claims of mass rape and other abuses perpetrated by forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, which have been widely used to justify Nato’s war in Libya.

Nato leaders, opposition groups and the media have produced a stream of stories since the start of the insurrection on 15 February, claiming the Gaddafi regime has ordered mass rapes, used foreign mercenaries and employed helicopters against civilian protesters.

An investigation by Amnesty International has failed to find evidence for these human rights violations and in many cases has discredited or cast doubt on them. It also found indications that on several occasions the rebels in Benghazi appeared to have knowingly made false claims or manufactured evidence.


http://vivalibya.wordpress.com/2011...tional-no-evidence-of-rape-by-gaddafi-forces/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...fi-ordered-rape-as-weapon-of-war-2302037.html
 
Sherman123 said:
There was no need for the resolution in the first place. All of the countries involved had the right to intervene on behalf of the new government formed in Benghazi. The UNSC resolution provided the political cover and pretext for the NATO resolution that followed.
Click to expand...

Man, have you no understanding of international law, and what UN membership even means. Your pro-war mentality is hawkish to the point you want to use our military anywhere the president says we need to, and without question. You need to start paying closer attention. Presidents, for a very long time have used deceit, intrigue, and every manner of false flag events, lies and accusations, whatever has been necessary to gain public support for war that has little to do with human rights and much to do with corporatism. You must always look beyond the smoke to find what's really at the heart of US military campaigns, stop being naive.
 
BlackAsCoal said:
BINGO

That, and the country was not devastated and destroyed before Cowboy Obama came to town.

What we did in Libya is a crime against humanity.
Click to expand...

Correct, and neither Doctors Without Borders, or Amnesty International found evidence of widespread rape, torture and killing as reported by Obama. They said often the claims were outright discredited. This is why I can't understand how people fail to see the connection made by Russia who saw clearly that the allegations were false, they had been monitoring events on the ground via satellite and said they too saw no evidence of the claims. They also pointed out that we were targeting structures with high levels of civilians in or nearby, and, that instead of just protecting a no fly zone, the coalition was targeting the Gaddafi government. And this leads directly to the reason that Russia and China vetoed all attempts by the US to secure a resolution to use force in Syria, the US can't be trusted!!
 
Sherman123 said:
Of course we created contingencies and plans for possible scenarios and eventualities. It would be irresponsible not to. The Libyan resistance movement however came about independent of foreign intervention, that it was supported by the West (among others) is laudable. I'm not surprised however that your sympathies seem to be more with the deposed dictator than the people who deposed him.
Click to expand...

Cheap ****ing shot! My sympathies are with the civilians that coalition forces killed, the civilians that live who will not be beneficiaries of Libyans oil, and, international law, that gets US respect only when our government wishes to impose it on others!
 
Sherman123 said:
It was devastated and destroyed by the monstrous campaign to suppress the democratic resistance movement, not by NATO bombardment. What happened to international brotherhood and solidarity? Some socialist you are.
Click to expand...

You have zero evidence of that. And amnesty international, which has more objectivity than you, found no evidence of your claim of "a monstrous campaign to suppress"
 
BlackAsCoal said:
The so-called rebels were Al Queda ..many of whom had admittedly killed US Forces in Iraq. They made Benghazi home .. and that is who Gaddafi was fighting.

Obama and Al Queda destroyed Libya .. a once prosperous nation .. where Libyan citizens got more from their government then you get from yours.
Click to expand...

Yep! Obama has been teaming up with al Qaeda elsewhere s in the region, too!
 
Sherman123 said:
The rebels were demonstratively not al-Qaeda. Only certain factions and militias were Islamists, even today they are not a majority and though they have caused deep grief for the new Libyan republic they have been unable to overthrow the state or remove its democratic foundation. The workers and people of Libya deserved better than a plutocratic dictatorship and have taken a step forward despite the problems they now face. Again you don't sound like much of a socialist you seem to be missing the international brotherhood part. Socialism means more than criticizing the alleged machinery of US Imperialism.
Click to expand...

Completely false. I see the propaganda worked on you.
 
Montecresto said:
You have zero evidence of that. And amnesty international, which has more objectivity than you, found no evidence of your claim of "a monstrous campaign to suppress"
Click to expand...

What? No they didn't. Amnesty International had long been a leading critic of the Gaddafi regime. It's findings in individual investigations are not indicative of its position on the general outlook.
 
Sherman123 said:
Not really. You needn't be so quick to accept the propaganda of a mega-maniacal dictator.
Click to expand...

Gaddafi isn't the one that was reporting on the event. There's was nothing to hear or believe from him on that.
 
Montecresto said:
Cheap ****ing shot! My sympathies are with the civilians that coalition forces killed, the civilians that live who will not be beneficiaries of Libyans oil, and, international law, that gets US respect only when our government wishes to impose it on others!
Click to expand...

NATO killed an estimated 40 civilians, Gaddafi killed thousands upon thousands. More than 700 were killed in Misrata alone when Gaddafi sent his troops to bombard and besiege the city in the months before the NATO intervention.
 
Montecresto said:
Man, have you no understanding of international law, and what UN membership even means. Your pro-war mentality is hawkish to the point you want to use our military anywhere the president says we need to, and without question. You need to start paying closer attention. Presidents, for a very long time have used deceit, intrigue, and every manner of false flag events, lies and accusations, whatever has been necessary to gain public support for war that has little to do with human rights and much to do with corporatism. You must always look beyond the smoke to find what's really at the heart of US military campaigns, stop being naive.
Click to expand...

I have an ample understanding of international law, I just don't hold it at a sacred alter of esteem. It is a tool to be used to produce norms that constrain autocrats and illiberal regimes and a cudgel that can suppress them.
 
Sherman123 said:
What? No they didn't. Amnesty International had long been a leading critic of the Gaddafi regime. It's findings in individual investigations are not indicative of its position on the general outlook.
Click to expand...

As we've seen all too often in the past, but some people NEVER learn, is the specific charges, at the time, being used to force a no fly zone, hadn't the merit as I presented in an earlier post.
 
Sherman123 said:
I have an ample understanding of international law, I just don't hold it at a sacred alter of esteem. It is a tool to be used to produce norms that constrain autocrats and illiberal regimes and a cudgel that can suppress them.
Click to expand...

That may be how you wish to use and abuse international law, which is very pathetic. In essence, if international supports your agenda its relevant and if not, to hell with it. But there's a lot of people that don't feel that way about it.
 
Montecresto said:
Easy for you to say. The countries that are irrelevant must of course be the countries that oppose the action. Isn't that always the way this game is played? You're young I recall and haven't seen enough of it, but of older Americans, I just wonder when they are going to tire of being lied into wars that have as their basis a completely different agenda then the spoken? Trumped up allegations of rape and torture to gin up public support for another war of aggression.


Human rights organisations have cast doubt on claims of mass rape and other abuses perpetrated by forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, which have been widely used to justify Nato’s war in Libya.

Nato leaders, opposition groups and the media have produced a stream of stories since the start of the insurrection on 15 February, claiming the Gaddafi regime has ordered mass rapes, used foreign mercenaries and employed helicopters against civilian protesters.

An investigation by Amnesty International has failed to find evidence for these human rights violations and in many cases has discredited or cast doubt on them. It also found indications that on several occasions the rebels in Benghazi appeared to have knowingly made false claims or manufactured evidence.


Amnesty International: No Evidence Of Rape By Gaddafi Forces | Viva Libya !

Amnesty questions claim that Gaddafi ordered rape as weapon of war - Africa - World - The Independent
Click to expand...

No one claims Gaddafi used gunships, mercenaries, and military force against the opposition including demonstrators. No one claims Gaddafi had underground prisons and torture facilities. No one claims Gaddafi was a tyrant who ruled his country with an iron fist for 42 years. We know he did and was these things. Whether or not Amnesty International can verify that he specifically used rape as a weapon of war is not relevant to the wider point. This is the tactic people like yourself use, the general evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the prevailing narrative so you limit yourself to cherry picked examples to salve your conscience and position. No matter what though you are on the side of a dictator.
 
Montecresto said:
As we've seen all too often in the past, but some people NEVER learn, is the specific charges, at the time, being used to force a no fly zone, hadn't the merit as I presented in an earlier post.
Click to expand...

Yes they did. Gaddafi was bombarding cities and at the time was about to launch an assault on Benghazi.
 
Sherman123 said:
NATO killed an estimated 40 civilians, Gaddafi killed thousands upon thousands. More than 700 were killed in Misrata alone when Gaddafi sent his troops to bombard and besiege the city in the months before the NATO intervention.
Click to expand...

HRW reports twice that figure, with athe qualifier that not all victims have been accounted for.
 
Montecresto said:
That may be how you wish to use and abuse international law, which is very pathetic. In essence, if international supports your agenda its relevant and if not, to hell with it. But there's a lot of people that don't feel that way about it.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Up with democratic hegemony, down with dictatorship, and onwards with the new liberal world order. Democratic states can deal with each other on an equitable basis. Autocratic states have no rights except those which are expedient to this purpose. That others take international law seriously is important because of how it creates binding norms that both restrain and produce pretexts.
 
Sherman123 said:
NATO killed an estimated 40 civilians, Gaddafi killed thousands upon thousands. More than 700 were killed in Misrata alone when Gaddafi sent his troops to bombard and besiege the city in the months before the NATO intervention.
Click to expand...

But this is the propaganda that was reaching American ears.

“We have carried out this operation very carefully, without confirmed civilian casualties,” the secretary general of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said in November.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/w...ties-in-nato-war-in-libya.html?pagewanted=all
 
Montecresto said:
HRW reports twice that figure, with athe qualifier that not all victims have been accounted for.
Click to expand...

They report a documented total of 55. Maybe it is higher, maybe not I don't know. What I do know is that the figure is miniscule compared to those slain by the continuance of the civil war, and those killed by Gaddafi's suppression campaign. It is also indicative of the nature of the NATO campaign which did its utmost to avoid such casualties over it's nearly eight month duration.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/for-medi...strikes-must-be-properly-investigated-2012-03
 
Montecresto said:
But this is the propaganda that was reaching American ears.

“We have carried out this operation very carefully, without confirmed civilian casualties,” the secretary general of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said in November.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/w...ties-in-nato-war-in-libya.html?pagewanted=all
Click to expand...

No it isn't. NATO could not confirm civilian casualties, the low figures that we compiled came from the Vatican, Amnesty, and several media outlets. It doesn't mean that NATO confirmed them. Rasmussen is right the campaign was carried out with extreme care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom