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.

 

Libya to give weapons to one million people: report

page: 9
23
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Area51NightStandx
 


Well, try harder then! Or that depends on your definition of "non violent". Now, in most of the videos from Feb there are crowds of unarmed people being fired upon with live ammunition. It matters not if they are aggitated, running around or throwing stones, you DO NOT FIRE LIVE AMMO at them. Or do you think that is acceptable behaviour?

EDIT: Here are just three I randomly selected. Each shows crowds of unarmed people running from people shooting at them.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...
edit on 21/3/11 by stumason because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I want to see a video of something that is going to make me think "Wow, despite all the problems we already have, we must go to war to stop this"

Not an article written by Joe somebody, CNN, Foxnews, or whoever. I want to see it.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Area51NightStandx
 


Another "I hate the MSM" chap then?

The video's above are from Al Jazeera, I believe. Will they do, or have the NWO got their fingers in that pie too?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


I watched all three videos. The first two only show the aftermath with the exception of a 5 second video of somebody not in uniform with a handgun. So because it doesn't show what happened before that, i can only take it as propaganda.

The third video is pretty interesting though. But after you hear shots, it shows absolutly nobody shot. So I am going to guess that those are warning shots. Trained military snipers wouldn't miss all of those shots I heard in it.

I really am trying to see things from a different point of view, but I am just not seeing the evidence. Also, walk outside of your house, start throwing rocks at a police officer and see what he does to you.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Area51NightStandx
 


To be fair, the only way you are going to get the full picture is to get yourself over there. We can't trust the MSM as they are manipulated by TPTB.

Don't believe me? Well how many media outlets reported on Prince Harry's presence in Afghanistan? If a news blackout can be brought about by this, then the government could enforce one on anything they feel threatens national security. Or spin a line if they felt it was in the country's interest.

There are rumours and I don't know how true this is, that Al-Jazeera is owned by western media outlets.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Area51NightStandx
I watched all three videos. The first two only show the aftermath with the exception of a 5 second video of somebody not in uniform with a handgun. So because it doesn't show what happened before that, i can only take it as propaganda.


On the links I provided to begin with, there are pages and pages of video's, many of which show the "shot people" you seem so keen to see. It is obvious you are choosing not to look at them as it doesn't jive with your opinion.

It is pretty hard to find a video that show "end to end", but you know how it is with camera phones and the like. You don't walk around filming constantly, do you? Something kicks off and you think "Ooh, I better get this on Video". Granted, things can be taken out of context but in this case, all the video's are matching what is being reported elsewhere by the MSM and eyewitness reports.


Originally posted by Area51NightStandx
The third video is pretty interesting though. But after you hear shots, it shows absolutly nobody shot. So I am going to guess that those are warning shots. Trained military snipers wouldn't miss all of those shots I heard in it.


Again, there are plenty of pics of people lying shot in the street if you want them.

Here is one with a dead/dying guy, if thats what you want.


Originally posted by Area51NightStandx
I really am trying to see things from a different point of view, but I am just not seeing the evidence. Also, walk outside of your house, start throwing rocks at a police officer and see what he does to you.


I would be arrested, not shot. What a silly argument to make. These people are rioting because they are being oppressed. Are you seriously suggesting they should all join hands and sing kumbaya in front of the Libyan security forces?

Ok fella...



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Cobaltic1978
 


Your right, nobody can really know without being there. But with today's technology, (camera phones, internet, youtube, ect..) it shouldn't be too hard to find a video of something that is so evil that we must go to war. And I dont mean a short clip with somebody telling his side of the story. I want to see the entire event go down.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Area51NightStandx
 



Well, you're not going to ever see that about anything really. Even the Japan Tsunami video's only show parts of the story because people are not walking around filming every damned minute!

But, by taken ALL of the videos into account and looking at a bigger picture, there is a trend that in Libya, protesting for basic human rights gets a bullet in the face.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


When TSHTF, every crowd has at least a few people pulling out their phones. It only takes about a minute of video to see that something is seriosuly evil.
And just because I saw a 3 second clip of somebody shot, doesn't mean i know how he died. For all we know, he has a gun and was shooting at law enforcement. Switching between two different videos, one of protestors, then the other of somebody dead, looks alot like propaganda.

All I am trying to say is I want to see something that merits going to war.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
If you find a video of a peaceful protestor, not attacking anybody in anyway, being shot. If you do, I will absolutly see things your way.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Area51NightStandx
If you find a video of a peaceful protestor, not attacking anybody in anyway, being shot. If you do, I will absolutly see things your way.


How about this video?



Unfortuantely not footage of Libyan protestors, but protestors in Bahrain. Of course there is no oil there, so their plight gets ignored. Shame on the wetsern world, shame on the Libyan attack supporter's for not championing the same action in Bahrain or Yemeni.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Cobaltic1978
 


Star
I agree with you there



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Area51NightStandx
 


You know what, I can show you video after video of unarmed people being shot at, and I have provided you with the means to look at those videos yourself. You seem totally at ease with shooting unarmed people though. it seems to me is what you're after is a crowd of people standing and waiting to be shot at.

The reality is, if the Security services turn up to your march (first protest), funeral (after the first protesters were killed) or just after friday prayers (about a week into the unrest) and you know what they are capable of, you either run or riot. Either way, this is no reason for the security services to open up on you with live ammo.

I am really at a loss to understand your position. You seem to advocate the shooting of unarmed people for having the audacity to protest.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
Unfortuantely not footage of Libyan protestors, but protestors in Bahrain. Of course there is no oil there, so their plight gets ignored. Shame on the wetsern world, shame on the Libyan attack supporter's for not championing the same action in Bahrain or Yemeni.


Right, the Bahrain question. let me put that into perspective for you.

The revolts in Bahrain and Yemen are Shia revolts against a Sunni elite most likely sponsored, or at the least egged on, by Iran.

Saudi Arabia will not tolerate the al-Khalifa's to fall in Bahrain as it would also agitate their own oppressed Shia minority.

Any successful shia uprising in Bahrain or Yemen would likely lead to a pro-Iranian Government being installed and in the case of Bahrian, that would not only give them land either side of the Straights of Hormuz, but also influence over the Home of the US 5th Fleet, which would be unacceptable.

Add into all this that Saudi has the West by the gonads (Oil) and we can do nothing about it. Whereas we can actually do something about Libya and it is in the EU's backyard. The EU do not want a failed state on it's southern border which already is a launch pad for illegal immigration and is a security risk.

That's geo-politics for you.

I hope people read this because I have said it many times on ATS the past couple of days and people still ask "What about Bahrian?".



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
I hope people read this because I have said it many times on ATS the past couple of days and people still ask "What about Bahrian?".


The reason people ask that is because they are trying to point out the fallacy in the cover story that the U.S. is in this only because we're protecting protesters. You know, there are actually people out there that actually believe that cover story!


Your analysis was spot on.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I guess right after we get through saving the people from Qaddafi, we'll head straight on over to Iran and save all their people too, right? And I'm thinking all those poor smoes in Venezuela need saving next.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Okay, so it is about politics and NOT human rights.

You have been saying all along that the poor civilians in Libya deserve the protection of the west as it was the autorities that started the situation with the arrest of a human rights lawyer.

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't add up. Regardless who is protesting and whatever their political beliefs, they DO NOT deserve to be shot or beaten. Just because they are a minority, it doesn't make them a target.

Is this what the English Democrats stand for? I'm only asking because the literature I have read regarding this party does not pertain to things like this and I was considering voting for them in the next election. If they do stand for this, then people should know.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
reply to post by stumason
 


Okay, so it is about politics and NOT human rights.


As you are quoting my answer to Bahrain, then yes, politics is why we haven't stuck our nose in there. I am sure they would like too, but that would just get us into a whole mess with people who can do us some quite serious harm.


Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
You have been saying all along that the poor civilians in Libya deserve the protection of the west as it was the autorities that started the situation with the arrest of a human rights lawyer.


Yep....


Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
I'm sorry, but it just doesn't add up. Regardless who is protesting and whatever their political beliefs, they DO NOT deserve to be shot or beaten. Just because they are a minority, it doesn't make them a target.


Er, yeah? Isn't that what I have been saying. The people who were being shot at wholesale for having the audacity to demand some basic rights we take for granted are now, finally, getting some back up from us in the "free" west.

The Bahrain thing is simply something we cannot deal with. I totally agree that the Shia majority, not minority, should have more rights, I was merely illustrating why our Governments are not getting involved. And you can bet your bottom dollar that Iran is going to get the maximum it can out of the Shia revolts, which plays into our Governments strategic thinking.

As it stands, Yemen looks like it has sorted itself out, or at least is getting better and it has to be seen in context to Libya, were thousands have died, compared to the dozens in in either Yemen or Bahrain.


Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
Is this what the English Democrats stand for? I'm only asking because the literature I have read regarding this party does not pertain to things like this and I was considering voting for them in the next election. If they do stand for this, then people should know.


Again, I really don't know what it is you think I am advocating. My post you are replying to is an explanation as to why we are not getting involved in Bahrain or Yemen, it wasn't my personal opinion. It's geo-politcal fact, how our Governments are thinking.

If you want my thoughts then I would totally advocate our intervention in any Human rights abuses the world over, be it oil rich Libya or dirt-poor Zimbabwe, but that is taking a naive view of how the world works. The realist in me realises that, at the end of the day, we have to pick our fights, even at the danger of appearing hypocritical.

It sucks, but thats the way it is.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Who can do us serious harm? Iran? When was the last time Iran did anyone any harm?

So you agree with the action in Libya, because it fits with your ideal. Whilst we can leave the rest of the middle east to rot, because the west's puppets are already in control there.

It's honourable to save some people if they fit your political thinking, but go against it and sorry you are left to rot!!

Well I do not agree that it should be that way, the poor Zimbabweans were left to rot, because U.S didn't see any point in getting involved. Sorry no natural resources, no capitalist opportunities no vasts amounts to be screwed out of the country,no help from us then. Ergo U.K follows suit.

You're right it sucks and maybe I am naive, but when Russia/China realise that NATO is at full stretch who is going to protect the countries NATO was set up to protect?



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
Who can do us serious harm? Iran? When was the last time Iran did anyone any harm?


Again, this is a terribly naive viewpoint to have. If Iran gets a foothold into Bahrain, that gives them control over the Straights of Hormuz. You know what that means, don't you?


Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
So you agree with the action in Libya, because it fits with your ideal. Whilst we can leave the rest of the middle east to rot, because the west's puppets are already in control there.


You are going out of you're way to twist my words. I said very clearly, if it was up to me I would support interventions in all countries that abuse Human Rights. You seem to be confusing the way Governments think and act to the way I, a person, thinks and acts.

Again, I was merely stating the facts as to why we haven't gone into Bahrain. Your line of thinking here is that if I said "Hitler hates Jews", then I must to hate Jews too because I stated the fact.Should I now have a disclaimer when answering a question?


Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
It's honourable to save some people if they fit your political thinking, but go against it and sorry you are left to rot!!


It's not the people who "fit your political thinking", but the geo-political reality of the situation. We can intervene in Libya (and to be fair, the situation in Libya is 1000 times worse than Bahrain), we cannot, due to geo-poltical reasons, intervene elsewhere.


Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
Well I do not agree that it should be that way, the poor Zimbabweans were left to rot, because U.S didn't see any point in getting involved.


Indeed, no it shouldn't, but this is what happens when you have a multi-polar world. We simply just can't go round intervening ebcause at some point, we're going to get "intervened" on back.



new topics




 
23
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join