It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Libya warplanes bombing Tripoli: resident

page: 14
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:52 AM
reply to post by inkyminds

I dont know who you are but how did Americans get to be Americans? But to answer your question, Looks like the better side of Socialism to me but hey its just me the moment

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:09 AM

Originally posted by insite
I don't know about anyone else, but this seems suspicious to me. Call me a nay-sayer, but I'm gonna roll with Fidel Castro on this one and say that this is a great pretext for a NATO invasion to secure oil for the West.

See what I mean? The accusations have ALREADY started, and we've not done a damned thing towards an "invasion"!

Decisions, decisions... I don't know whether to pop some popcorn and just sit back and watch, or say to hell with it and just go fishing.

Either way, Libya is screwed if they expect any help from ME!

Keep that in mind when it come to YOUR door. Yer on yer own. I've had enough of folks whining against my "warlike nature".

Develop your own, or succumb.

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:12 AM

Originally posted by NuclearPaul

Originally posted by Soshh
As well as targeting protesters, pilots were ordered to attack military facilities.

That's a good sign.

If they were ordered to do that, I'd say almost the majority of the military are likely to defect. The fact he has ordered military personnel to be executed for not firing on their people supports this also.

Gaddafi is scared. Hope the people get rid of him like their neighbours did their leaders.

Yeah, he's scared spitless. Watch how his eyes dart around during that "interview" in his car, where he says he's not scared and going to stay whatever comes. His eyes are darting around like he's seeing demons approach from all angles.

Scared crapless, no matter what he says.

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:17 AM

Originally posted by ickylevel
You wanna know the real difference ? Gaddafi is supported by the west. Like Moubarak was (I like how they defended him on fox news), like ben ali was...
The US have been creating and supporting dictatures for a while now, and they only intervene when someone disobeys.

Yeah, right.

"Supported by the west".


I guess you've forgotten the Gulf of Sidra "war games", where Khadaffi only took second place. Splash two!

I guess you've forgotten the cruise missiles down the chimney trick.

I reckon there's a LOT about that loving relationship you've forgotten.

"Supported by the west"?

I hope like hell they never support ME, then!

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:23 AM

Originally posted by BRITWARRIOR
Reports out of all MSM is this was artillery fire

Its really kicking off in Libya right now over 300 dead from the massacre/genocide against its own people

I would have a different stand as we all did with Tunisia Egypt & Bahrain for them to take there own freedom and democracy but after watch all this and the crys for help i would agree the UN now needs to act with force and help them secure there freedom rights and democracy this is just beyond words of what i'm seeing and hearing here

Yeah, and right after that, the UN can invade Britain and get rid of those pesky royals. I mean, a monarchy in the modern word?

See what doors you open when you start asking folks to interfere in the internal affairs of others? Eventually, the crosshairs roll around to your OWN head.

The UN is chartered to resolve disputes between nations, not internal to them. It's got no dog in this fight unless Libya is dumb enough to declare war on Malta.

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:25 AM

Originally posted by inkyminds
I'd be interested to know who sold him those planes.

US, or Russia?

France. They're Mirages.

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:30 AM

Originally posted by InsaneInsurgent11
There should be an organization of international revolutionaries, not westerners only, but people from all over the world. They would go and help people in countries all over the world fight against their evil dictators and oppressive regimes, but only with the locals' permission, so it wouldn't be an invasion or unjust intervention or anything like that. They would be a lot quicker, more flexible, and less bureaucratic than the UN, which is often useless because it has to consider a lot of things before it jumps in and it takes forever for them to meet, because they are not really expecting a big situation all the time. Whether or not to get involved would be determined not by a vote, but by a set of criteria like "Do the people there need and want us there," "Is it realistic," etcetera. Then the organization would throw a committee of volunteers together and they would go do it. Not everyone in the group would have to help with every situation, but if a large enough group wanted to go, and if the situation met the criteria, then they could use some of the organization's funding for it. Everything they did would be under local jurisdiction, so they weren't forcing their ideas on a population that didn't want them. They would just be there to help people were not strong enough or experienced enough to do it on their own and clearly wanted help.

We used to have that. It was called the Soviet KGB and the US CIA. Didn't work out all that well in the final analysis. Now they get the blame for all the worlds ills, so why start it up again?

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:37 AM

Originally posted by inkyminds
reply to post by mikeybiznaz

you have to be kidding me.

You're PROMOTING neo-con efforts?

Exactly. That's precisely why I'm all for sitting it out. Damned grouchy-assed, meddlesome "neocons" getting all up in other folks' business.

Let 'em fight their own damned wars.

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 07:23 AM
The way Gaddafi talks about "Zionists" and the "NWO" Im pretty sure he's an ATSer.

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:26 AM
reply to post by nenothtu

there's doers and there's talkers.....rave on Cat spit.....someone will bury ya
rant rant rant,,,,all you are doing is rant.....get ready, jackwagon,its coming to a town near you..go ahead, stock up on your blue and white envelopes of popcorn....they only work with eletricity thow....

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:20 AM

Originally posted by mikeybiznaz
reply to post by nenothtu

there's doers and there's talkers.....rave on Cat spit.....someone will bury ya
rant rant rant,,,,all you are doing is rant.....get ready, jackwagon,its coming to a town near you..go ahead, stock up on your blue and white envelopes of popcorn....they only work with eletricity thow....

Someone will bury us all, Cat Spit. No one lives forever.

I pop my popcorn old school - oil, heat, kernels. Don't need any little blue bags or a microwave.

Heck, I even know how to build a fire to pop it with. Imagine that!

I ain't scared of Egyptians, Libyans, or this "NWO" ,

and I ain't fighting any more of their damned old wars FOR them, either, just so they can sit on their asses and crow or whine about it as the notion strikes 'em.

That include THIS war they're pushing for.

If you're on about my gigging of "neocons", then yup, I hate 'em with a passion. they took over what was once upon a time a respectable Republican party, I quit the Republicans several year ago over that particular hostile takeover.

Here's another clue: not everyone in that alleged list of neocons actually WAS a neocon. I'll leave it to the rest to sort out the good from the bad, and figure out how to tell who from who.

In case you missed it, that post was a parody", or "satire" against folks trying to over-generalize and blame all the world's ills on one particular "hated" segment of mankind, thereby trying to absolve themselves of their OWN complicity.

Yeah, blame it on the "other guy", that's the ticket!

Some of these folks agitate for a war surprisingly easily, send you/us/them off to fight it, then demonize the same folks they send to fight for 'em, since they think their OWN hands are clean - after all, THEY didn't do any of the fighting, how abhorrent! - and they'll claim they were ALWAYS against it - after they were for it.

I've washed my hands of the lot of those types. They can agitate elsewhere, get another bunch of suckers. Here's a novel idea: if they want a war so friggin' bad, how about THEY go fight it their own lilly white selves?

Either way, they need not look to me or my house to fight it for 'em any more, after the way they've (mis)behaved towards the vets.

Scream away, but do yer own fighting from here on out. I don't much care if it's "neocons" or otherwise doing the screaming. I've already decided who and what I'll still fight for, and this - or them - ain't it.

Care for some popcorn?

edit on 2011/2/23 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:35 AM
Well said.....hey neno.....since these brits want to make libya a democracy....we should all get rid of the monarchy in britain.

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:49 AM
reply to post by LoverBoy

I still believe that a democracy will NEVER work for very long in any of the arab cultures. They're not suited for it, and they know that themselves. I firmly believe that they don't WANT a democracy, either, but they'll say any foreign word they can that they think will bring help to 'em.

Before the democracy brigades come charging in, I don't believe a straight democracy would work here in the US, either.

I'm not "for" a straight democracy, I'd fight against it tooth and nail if they ever tried to implement it here. I'm REALLY not for trying to impose "democracy" on those overseas who want no part of it. Spreading "your own" form or concept of government is not what war is about - that's what diplomats are for. Trying to spread a favored form of government to those who wanted no part of it is what got us into that whole Cold War mess. "They" wanted to spread their form of government everywhere, "we" wanted to spread our form everywhere, and folks in the middle - in the battlegrounds - weren't really consulted in the matter by either side.

When it come to democracy in the middle east, just sit back and watch how it shakes out. Write it down now, though, so you remember, just who was claiming they wanted a "democracy", and see what they really end up with.

Maybe it's a matter of semantics - maybe folks over there just don't define "democracy" the same way folks here do. Either way, watch and learn.

edit on 2011/2/23 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:28 PM
reply to post by Novatrino

well if your that mad hop on a plane to Libya and go dismember him your self i think its clear the us is staying out of this china as another poster pointed out isnt gonan step up to the super power plate and the UN....ha we will hear from them in 2-3 weeks and they MIGHT do something if it goes on for over a year but i mean there are dictators all over the world killing there own people and the U.N hasent stopped them in the past so it seems that if any ones gonna get gadaffi(sp?) its gonna be his own people or well you if u hop on that plane

not saying whats happening is right im just calling it how i see it were tired of being blamed for being world police gave china the option to step up to the plate and try to be super power like they want to and they dont do anything but pull there own people out(that in and of its own is a sign to me that this aint going down well and that its gonna get alot worse b4 it gets better i mean have they ever pulled all there people out of a warzone like this b4? i honestly dont know and am curious) so i dont think this tragedy is over by a long shot....sadly

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:04 PM
15 posts now on this page 5 posters I have 3 of the posts 3 others have posted once

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:43 PM
reply to post by mikeybiznaz

Is that supposed to mean anything? If we get 20 posts will a magical unicorn come save the libyans?

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 05:28 PM
reply to post by nenothtu

I did not mean anything like the KGB or the CIA. I meant people who came ONLY when the locals asked them to and operated completely independently of any government. It would be closer to the UN, but not anything like that either... The CIA works against the people instead of with them, and are only there to create "democracy" whether the people want it or not and to eradicate their own enemies. I don't even see the resemblance between the CIA and my proposal. And the KGB??? What do Russian secret police have to do with anything?

I do not believe in governments messing with each other's business. I'm not a Neocon. I'm a Libertarian. But I think that when people are in desperate situations within their own countries and they want help and ask for it, it would be selfish of people not to go help them. Its not the government's place to help them, because that's not what the government was made for. It would be purely a volunteer thing. Also, when governments go and intervene in other countries, messy political situations are created. Independent international organizations are a different story though. This has never been tried before, on a large scale.

We're all human. It doesn't matter what country they're in. If they're trying to fight for their freedom, and have made the decision to do so independently, but they're failing and want relief and hope...then why would it be unethical for volunteers for from around the world to come and help them? The reason organizations who help people in other countries have a negative connotation is because usually its a foreign government doing it for their own agenda and without consent, when the people don't even want or understand democracy. And they usually end up oppressing people and killing civilians. That is bad, I agree.

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 07:05 PM
reply to post by InsaneInsurgent11

But that is the thing, this isn't candy land, not everyone is going to want us coming to their country, that opens up alot of issues. If we sent volunteers from this country to help the citizens, it would likely result in casualties to some of those volunteers. Especially in a violent situation such as this. If casualties happened, you would see retaliation. Now, if we sent armed men, that would be no different then sending mercenaries or military....another big...problem.

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 07:33 PM
reply to post by InsaneInsurgent11

The KGB is as relevant as the CIA, since Boris was right out there too, doing the same things. Yes, they both "helped" insurgents who were agitating for their own ideas of "freedom", and yes, they were pursuing their own national policies in doing so. This is why so many brushfire proxy wars popped up in places where the insurgents would have otherwise been powerless, with no support and no war materiel. How do you thing the AK got to be such a widespread weapon?

What you are postulating, a roving band of militarists who involve themselves in the conflicts of others, absent any sort of vested interest in the area, is illegal under the Geneva Conventions, 4th Protocol I believe. They are neither nationals of any party to the conflict, nor members of a military party to the conflict. They would likely be legally classed as "mercenaries" or "unlawful combatants", or possibly "espionage agents" (although that last is less likely if they are at least uniformed) and subject to summary battlefield execution if captured. Not necessarily a bad thing (it sort of makes one fight all the harder NOT to be captured), they should at least be aware of the legalities before going in.

Another consideration is that enterprises such as that would have to be paid for by someone. In the absence of pay for these soldiers (you specified "volunteers") there would still be arms, equipment, uniforms, food, and transportation to consider, and those expenses would skyrocket for a force large enough to accomplish the task - not to mention that the same things, minus international transportation, would need to be supplied the insurgents as well. Likewise, they would need to be provided the same basic things for training time, not just active conflict. A ragtag band that has not trained together generally fares considerably less than dismally against a more organized force, such as the targeted government military, that HAS trained together.

Governments generally have the deepest coffers, but they are ruled out in the basic premise. I can't think of any corporations generous enough to dole out that much money just to promote self-determination (I don't say "freedom" because some folks just don't want what I would consider "freedom").

So who foots the bill?

Additionally, with a force of this nature which would necessarily be non-aligned with any particular ideology, one has to consider just how much of the population has to be dissatisfied before the group will swing into action and answer the pleas for help. 5%? 10%? 51%? What of the other part of the population that isn't all that heated up about it? What about the ones actively opposed to the notion?

Most "revolutions" are carried out when dissatisfaction of the violent variety reaches about 10% or so. I believe that the American Revolution was carried out with 3-6% active participation, and 20-40% popular support. There will be a lot of people who will be just as happy to NOT see the intervention, and they'll have to be dealt with in some way.

edit on 2011/2/23 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 05:28 AM
Libya: warplanes bomb rebels in show of air power

Col Muammar Gaddafi’s warplanes have carried our bombing raids on rebel-held eastern Libya, demonstrating that the dictator retains some air power.

Despite the defections of several of his fighter pilots, at least one target – an ammunition depot that has fallen into opposition hands – was attacked near the town of Adjabiya, 100 miles south of Benghazi, Libya’s second city and headquarters of the insurrection.

There were contradictory reports of what actually happened. Residents claimed the depot was struck by fixed-wing fighter jets, saying they heard a number of explosions coming from the Haniya military compound. An army officer confirmed the reports.

Revolutionary officials said the attack was carried out by two helicopters, whose pilots deliberately fired at open ground near the camp and then defected.

Ol'Gaddafi would stop at nothing to maintain his faltering grip on Libya; the burgeoning Libyan resistance is threatening to topple his 42 years of autocratic rule.

new topics

top topics

<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in