It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Families' outrage at Libya war graves desecration

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Dabrazzo

Read the links you yourself provided - it's all there. I shouldn't have to hold your hand.

And the common definition of an "invasion" is the use of an Army to take and hold territory. Air assaults have never been called "an invasion" - you're really stretching the meaning of the word to try and fit your ill-conceived position. Using your definition, the UK was "invaded" by the Germans in WW2.........
edit on 11/1/15 by stumason because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason

No...im using exactly what the word means in its most literal sense.

Heres a link you might enjoy.

Humanitarian War in Libya : There is no evidence

You are also im sure well aware of who it was NATO was actualy supporting in this civil war yes?
edit on 11-1-2015 by Dabrazzo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dabrazzo
No...im using exactly what the word means in its most literal sense.


No, in it's "most literal sense" it means the "entering of an armed force into another territory, usually by an army". Like I said, no one ever has described aerial attacks as an "invasion".

Using your definition, you must therefore describe the Blitz as an "invasion" - if you do not, then you are being selective in your usage of the word and therefore disingenuous because you're trying to prove some point.


originally posted by: Dabrazzo
You are also im sure well aware of who it was NATO was actualy supporting in this civil war yes?


Ah, I have a feeling that now you're going to go on and claim that (like people do for Syria) that all the rebels were Islamists - a black and white assessment that does not stand up to scrutiny.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   
I find it sad that any group can't have respect for the dead. Protesting at a funeral is just as low.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason




it means the "entering of an armed force into another territory, usually by an army"


Invasion


Definition of invasion in English: noun 1 An instance of invading a country or region with an armed force


Invade


verb enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it


Armed Forces


The armed forces of a country are its government-sponsored defence, fighting forces, and organizations. They exist to further the foreign and domestic policies of their governing body.


Semantics aside, any thoughts on the link I provided?

Humanitarian War in Libya : There is no evidence


One of the main sources for the claim that Gaddafi was killing his own people is the Libyan League for Human Rights, an organisation linked to the International Federation of Human Rights (the FIDH). On the 21st of February 2011, the General-Secretary of the LLHR, Dr. Sliman Bouchuiguir, initiated a petition in collaboration with the organisation UN Watch and the National Endowment for Democracy. This petition was signed by more than 70 NGO


Should also be stated the National Endowment for Democracy was literally established as a front for the CIA.
edit on 11-1-2015 by Dabrazzo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Dabrazzo

Funny, you are the only person in the entire world who I have heard use the word "invasion" to describe air strikes.

Again, I will point out that if that is the way you use the word, then you should also describe the German bombing of the UK as an "invasion" - Yes or No?

You have dodged this point because it points out the sheer lunacy of your bending of the English language to try and fit you pathetic point. It isn't "semantics" in the slightest, you've been caught in a lie and are now trying to back peddle out of it.

It's also a bit odd that you insist that NATO air strikes constitute and invasion, but I have just read in this thread you arguing the toss about the Soviet invasion of Germany - namely that it wasn't an invasion. You really are a confused individually or, more likely, someone who has an agenda and will twist the facts to try and prove it.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason

Ah right so no thoughts on the actual link I posted, got u sussed pal, cheers cheers.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Dabrazzo

You don't get to play that game, buster. You've been dodging my questions all the while. It's obvious you're talking utter bollocks and can't get out of it.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason

Stop being so condescending.



again, from the likes of you who seem to flip-flop to whatever the opposite view is


Yes, God forbid there may be an opposite view! There's no flip-flopping involved.




I see the world for what it is and deal with it


You mean passively accepting it and just shrugging your shoulders? And that is what you are doing.




instead of through rose-tinted glasses wishing for some Utopia like you do


HAHAHAHAHA! How original...

I mean what a truly horrendous idea that would be! Best to just keep things as they are and "deal with it." Don't trouble yourself with thinking outside the box.



Oh, give over with your feigned indignation.


There's nothing feigned about it. I have morals and principles - clearly you have none. Some people have to die while others get to live just because that's the way it is. I mean you're obviously comfortable in accepting the sheer hypocrisy of western nations and you make bizarre justifications for it. Yes you'll say the world doesn't work like that and it's not all black and white etc. Okay that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm kind of just going off on an emotionally charged rant here but whatever...




All I see of you is criticism which is totally reliant on hindsight - you rarely, if ever, offer an alternative solution.



What your basing that on, other than this post, is beyond me. There's no hindsight involved. I was saying these things at the time. I have no doubt that you would scornfully dismiss any alternative solution as being woefully naive and based upon a utopia.


I completely understand your post. But it's the huge gulf between the West's stated values and their selective actions in defending them which frustrates me.

Anyway, I'm in danger of derailing this thread. Putting aside the rights and wrongs of NATO's attack on Libya aside and the subsequent fallout from that, I can say that the desecration of those graves was a sad act of a minority of lunatics. As this occurred 2 years ago, I wonder if the damage has been repaired? Highly unlikely, and I can't find any info.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Telos


…grave desecration of fallen british soldiers in Libya.

The UK helped decimate their entire country…


?????? During WW2? Eh? Nope.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

During the destruction of Libya recently is what I meant.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join