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.

 

UN, Libya reach deal on providing humanitarian aid

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by yourmaker
this whole thing was ment to bring the UN into libya, set up another shop, all the while trying to assassinate gaddafi and incite hatred among the population for US biddings. I really do hate the US lol


I sense another CIA coup, Iran style.




posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by tokyodynamiteLibya even said they are still going to keep shelling the city. Now we are also putting more UN soldiers in danger.


Hold on cowboy

it said

"However, the Libyan authorities have not guaranteed a halt of hostilities during such a mission"

Does Gaddffi not have the right to take back some of the land taken by the rebels or should he lay down and let them come and kill him.

Gaddffi also agreed to a africian peace deal but the CIA/Mossad backed rebels turned it down so who is the agreessor again.

The UN is a frigging joke and they are all on the pay roll of the zionists and this is why they have done SFA when it comes to israile, it's nukes, steeling land and the gaza strip.

Puppets are being removed and I hope people at home look around and see the puppets we have here and take heed from seeing it is possible to remove this cancer.

"I just hope Gaddhafi steps down as soon as possible to prevent any more casualties."

So do you think that giving weapons to people we were calling terrorists just a few months back is going to save live or is it a case of adding balance to the internal conflict so no one can win and more lives are lost.

Look i'm 100% behind having democracy, kicking the puppets out and i agree gaddaffi was a puppet but this particular uprising has been enginnered by Mossad/CIA and it's not a case of 90% plus of the people wanting him out no more than they try to say it is with castro who has a lot of suport from a good percentage of the people.

Less than 40% of people in the USA suport Obama so should we interfere to remove him ? I say no and it's the same with gadaffi.

Was the media in the USA trying to give you a balanced view and not the usual BS Propaganda then you would have seen the pro gaddfffi protest in London and around the world and know about the Africian peace deal so correct me if i'm wrong but did you see any of this in the news lets alone during prime time viewing.

Do you not ask why you see next to nothing about Saudia troops invading next door to to quell protetors wanting democracy ?

My guess is a big no because the zionist have an agendar and own the MSM so dig a bit deeper like i have and i'm sure you will change your attitude on this one.

Remember your 3 'R's

Recession, Repression, Revolution


edit on 18-4-2011 by Master_007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by tokyodynamite

Originally posted by yourmaker
this whole thing was ment to bring the UN into libya, set up another shop, all the while trying to assassinate gaddafi and incite hatred among the population for US biddings. I really do hate the US lol


I sense another CIA coup, Iran style.


Perhaps Jackals at work for the better part of the of the year > .....putting it lightly ?



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Decoy
This whole thing?, perhaps a part of this whole thing. The other part, promoting NWO that the first part of this whole thing may not have had the air to breathe?

Dunno, but thoughts wander deep in all this present world of # in areas such as Libya. I can't stand the thought of Canada being brought-in, it'll endanger freedoms and respect we have for all Countries. But, the UN Sec Coun passing the resolution, it's right that Canada provide on this occasion.

Decoy


This isn't a peacekeeping mission, dude. We don't do those anymore because our coalition involvement costs too much.

This is a coalition mission, now put into NATOs hands just for the sake of sounding legitimate. By the way, isn't NATO a defensive alliance where its only military acts should be against a force that has attacked a member country? The only force in Libya that has engaged NATO before happens to be the terrorists/rebels that we are now supporting.




top topics
 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join