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.

 

Nato strike 'kills Saif al-Arab Gaddafi', Libya says

page: 17
51
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


In a way, the end result of the statement (irrespective of which definition you align yourself with or agree to) is that it is most likely a correct statement.

Can it be changed? Certainly, but will it? Highly unlikely.

"In nature there is no right or wrong, only consequences."

Do we decry every time a cat kills a bird? Or every time a bear kills a salmon? Or how about when a croc reins in a fawn?

There's no right or wrong to it, it just is. And I think the guy is saying that the human nature aspect disallows any change as much as it is desirable.




posted on May, 1 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone

There's no right or wrong to it, it just is. And I think the guy is saying that the human nature aspect disallows any change as much as it is desirable.


Well what a shame baboons can do what humans cannot.

www.nytimes.com...


Sometimes it takes the great Dustbuster of fate to clear the room of bullies and bad habits. Freak cyclones helped destroy Kublai Khan's brutal Mongolian empire, for example, while the Black Death of the 14th century capsized the medieval theocracy and gave the Renaissance a chance to shine.

Among a troop of savanna baboons in Kenya, a terrible outbreak of tuberculosis 20 years ago selectively killed off the biggest, nastiest and most despotic males, setting the stage for a social and behavioral transformation unlike any seen in this notoriously truculent primate.

In a study appearing today in the journal PloS Biology (online at www.plosbiology.org), researchers describe the drastic temperamental and tonal shift that occurred in a troop of 62 baboons when its most belligerent members vanished from the scene.


The idea that there is nothing we can do to make society LESS violent, and LESS nasty, and MORE enjoyable is not supported by reality.

Though I will agree that aiming for total non violence is reaching past the possible.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


TheMaverick had said we would have world peace when the US, UK and Zionists were wiped out.

I was pointing out there will never be peace. We could kill off humanity and there would still be violence. There are at least four other species on this planet that don't just kill each other, they hate each other, they hunt for the others dens and slaughter their young. Tigers and wolves in Asia have this dynamic and lions and hyenas in Africa.

We might be able to minimize some violence by humans for a generation, but as soon as the old generation are dead, the new generation doesn't value what the old did. This can be seen often in history. Then there are peace breakers, like famine, disease, natural disasters that can upset and destabilize any sort of system in place to minimize violence.

This makes peace very fragile and very temporary. Its something to be cherished as its so rare. Its something we should hope for and strive for, but we have to be realistic about it and recognize how tenous it is.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


And I agree with that.

Which is why I said if you are saying total non violence is not possible I agree with you. BUT if you are claiming that we cannot lower the levels and degree of violence in the world, I do not. We can. And we should. Even if only for selfish reasons, and not out of pure altruism.

We cant just curl up into fetal position and pretend there is nothing we can do to change things. And the baboon study gives you a pretty good idea what it would really take.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by CarlitosAmsel
 


Alright. I don't even know where to start in this mass of ad hominem slinging, logical fallacy dripping, paronoid conspiracy bordering on schizophernia mess and I honestly don't care if you choose to call me.. whatever name it is you entitle to the boogeyman you've constructed for yourselves. Let's start with ethics. Consequentialism for example. Simply put, do the ends justify the means?

Gadhaffi had a choice. Many choices. This never had to end in blood. This didn't start with an armed rebellion. It started with protests. Burn out of your mind the fact of who started the protests because if you don't start analyzing the facts rather than reacting to your previous preconceptions the walls of reality are pretty soon to fall apart around you.

Perhaps he was a good leader to his people. Good leaders are not always kind leaders. Some rule by fear, some rule by love. There's the leader a country needs and the leader a country wants. Seldom do they get both at the same time. What strikes me here is that he seems to have a callous disregard for human life. Simply shoving off absolutely everything the media or any other source says about what's happening on the ground as some cockamamie "Powers that be don't want you to know" is utter madness. If you're not on the ground in Libya, if you're going to be prepared to discuss the situation in a way that involves facts and not speculation and wild gibbering then you have to accept that someone other than you has seen these things and the information you get is either partially true, completely untrue or completely true.

In a majority of cases it swings towards partially true, due to the human nature of choosing our own ideals as the ones to present as fact. The skill comes is sloughing away viewpoint and opinion from cold hard facts. There were rebellions. There were killings. There continue to be killings. Heavy losses continue to be taken on both sides. Gadhaffi's son and grandson were not the first innocents to die in the war. Read about Misrata. Read about his retaliation. If he was truly that angry at NATO for killing his family then why is he bombing his own people indiscriminately in retaliation? Or is that a lie too?

I'm no judge of what kind of leader he is, but the fact that his enemies feel that they shouldn't be relishing the death of anyone, but they have to just to get their own mourning from the deaths he's extracted from them off their chests... that's a very human emotion. A visceral one when the walls of civilization are crumbling down around you. That's not faked. Years from now they'll look back at that night.. Al Qaeda or not.. and they'll be haunted by the fact they revelled in the deaths of children. Ask yourself what would cause someone to do that.

This isn't a simple story that any of you should be using to bat around your newest conspiracy theories and reinforcing paranoid boogeymen fears. The truth today? People died. A lot of people. Both sides. If Gadhaffi was serious about peace, he wouldn't have his men raise rebel flags to lure them into ambushes. If he was serious about peace, he wouldn't have declared several other cease fires just to throw his opposition and the world outside off to buy him more time to murder. Maybe NATO committed a war crime.

I don't care. I'm not a fan of any of them. Gadhaffi has. Ask the woman who was sodomized by his troops with a rifle while they blinded her with alcohol, took pictures and raped and tortured her for longer than she has a clear grasp of. Ask the woman who gave her the chance to escape knowing that they would continue on her until she was dead. Ask what that means to a Muslim woman who had everything to lose in her world by admitting it, risked death to burst into that lobby and probably IS dead right now.

Sometimes.. sometimes humanity makes me sick. And right now I'm not sure whether it's the rampant killing or the armchair quarterbacks of lalaland I'm seeing here that make me sicker. You people should be ashamed. I applaud those in this thread for whatever reason are reviled by these kind of deaths. There's nothing worth this cost. Certainly not clinging onto power fanaticly and certainly not oil or whatever is to begained by this.

Believe me.. don't believe me.. I could care less. Just for the love of god stop throwing darts at the big board of logic assuming you came up with the right conclusions and really sit down, think and listen. Observation does more to gather knowledge than anything else.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Oh I agree.

It is a shame.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
And the media also promotes the idea that Fascism is "free market capitalism." I DO wish they would awaken to the understanding that the media is controlled by the same economic forces waging war on the people of the world. But I dont fault them for it entirely.


Free market capitalism is what got us into this mess. Let multi-national companies dictate what needs to be done and government will bend over and backwards and say "yes sir" while sending young adults to do the dirty work overseas.

On the other hand fascism is a socialist dictatorship...precisely what both america and europe need! People think capitalism equates to freedom because they can drop a vote in the ballot box once every four years and somehow/miraculously the government "cares" about the voters...as though elections can't be rigged if need be.

Who pays for the election process and why does the first amendment in america include the freedom to financially support any candidate and/or party you wish with as much money as you wish? And to make matters worse the republicans removed all prior restrictions at the supreme court with a seemingly partisan vote pattern.


The illusion of freedom is powerful. And thats what we have, the illusion of a "free press." Its not the government restricting it for the most part. The reason it serves "government" influence is not that our politicians are ramming that dictate down the throats of an unwilling press. Its that both the media and the government are being paid for by the same people.


Obviously rich people and corporations run media and spin machine but 200 years after america became a free country you would think most people are starting to catch on? To be honest I initially fell for the tea party "change" rhetoric till I found out most of the members are ex-republicans and/or libertarians. Great lets make america borderline anarchist rather than fix any problems.....



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


TheMaverick had said we would have world peace when the US, UK and Zionists were wiped out.



you mis-quoted me....

i said we will only see peace when the zionist elites,who took over the US-UK governments,are removed from power.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Oh. I guess they used the same report format.

"..Saddam Hussein's son was killed.."

Let's see..take out the name, add Khadafi..done!



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


People are still people. It's nice and convenient to catagorize people into "One of us" and "One of them" but that kind of thinking leads to the crusades, witch trials, the inquisition, etc, etc.

You assume that everyone that isn't in the "one of us" camp has it out for you. That's bad. Bad for your mind, bad for your blood pressure. I'm not saying there aren't things in motion in the world. I'm not saying that bad things don't happen.. but come on. Saying the entire media machine is an organi grinder box for a man trying to distract you with his monkey to give him money? It just doesn't jive. Look at other state run televisions. They're more full of propaganda than the united states.

Here we're lucky if we can sit through 10 minutes of news without two minutes of annoying commercials. Why bother to report fluff articles? Why bother to hype the royal wedding.. you know what? I'm not a fan of topical crap like that but.. I was glad to see something on the news for once that wasn't impending doom ahead. You can call it distraction, smoke and mirrors if you want. This is distraction. Instead of me reading a book right now and enjoying the sun in my backyard I'm sitting here typing this to you hoping some of it helps someone.

Truth is, there is no truth. Not without ethics. Ethics itself is slippery enough. All we have is what defines us. Our memories, our beliefs and our lives. Truth is awfully subjective and everyone is someone else's enemy. If there's anything I can say out of this.. don't spend your life ruled by fear. Enjoy what you have. Enjoy the fact that you can come here, say this and have no fear of reprisal. Enjoy that you have nearly the sum total of mankind's knowledge at your fingertips right now.. and you choose to use that time squabbling over things that you may or may not be able to change.

Change what you can. Live by example. Help those who need it, help those who don't even deserve it. The change you're looking for? It doesn't start with shadow wars or info wars or wars of any kind. If I had to say anything, you should watch the movie "Pay it Forward". Kid had the right idea. Change starts with you. You can't control anyone else. Just you.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by TheMaverick
 


Even if the so called "Elites" were wiped out. It would not bring peace. It would bring chaos.

If the world was not ready to transition and the transition was not stable and orderly, we would have total chaos.

Humans by nature are creatures with hierarchies, dominated by alpha males. Most of the species are followers and not leaders. In order to have a stable transition, there would have to be new leaders. No leaders equal panic, hysteria, and confusion.

Then you end up with a new elite, which is what happens thoughout human history due to human nature and instinct.

If you really want to get rid of dominant alpha males, the very instincts and nature of the species has to be changed at the genetic level. The consequences of that could be far reaching, impacting our ability to survive or thrive.


edit on 1/5/11 by MikeboydUS because: instinct



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


Unfortunatly the vast majority of the species is blissfully unaware of their instincts and nature. We're getting there but it's taking too long and we're going the scenic route. It's nothing genetic though our hormonal disposition lends a huge hand there. It's something more subtle, the process of roughly 120,000 years of evolution into what we are now, societies built on the crumbling structure of those beneath. Hunter Gatherers make way for Animal Husbandry and Crop Planting, but still retain the roles of Hunter Gatherer and the gender archetypes. You can see echoes of how much and how little our species has changed if you dig into ancient history and archeology.

It's a little scary. We get visionaries from time to time and they're equally reviled and loved.. often by the same people. They're a lot less scary after they're dead, so once they can look back on them, most of them agree it was such a shame that they had to die and move along with business as usual.

In biology this term is called "loss of self" and any cell within the body that seems to be comprimised loses its marker that says it belongs within the body. Macrophages come and gobble it up and that's it. No more different cell. Better safe than sorry.

Unfortunatly humans work like this too. So do animals. I don't think we'll ever see the end of it fully. Fear of the dark, fear of outsiders.. They're primal fears and in some cases they're right to be afraid.. but nothing will change until that changes. If you find a way to do it, tell me. I'm still looking.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
And now the Libyan Ambassador in UK has been Expelled!

Expelled

He's been given 24 hours to leave UK coz the UK Embassy in Libya has been attacked!!!

What did they expect after killing Gadaffi's Son and trying to kill Gadaffi himself???


Did they expect calm and peace and roses and butterflies???

By the way, wasn't NATO suppose to bring calm??? I guess NATO just ain't what it used to be!



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


How about they throw Bush in with them next also, And Obama.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by faryjay
And now the Libyan Ambassador in UK has been Expelled!


You know what's funny about things like this?

Ambassadors are supposed to be stewards of good-will, most ESPECIALLY during times of conflict. So, obviously, it makes the most sense to expel them when things start to get a little nasty


I can't help but laugh sometimes.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone

Originally posted by faryjay
And now the Libyan Ambassador in UK has been Expelled!


You know what's funny about things like this?

Ambassadors are supposed to be stewards of good-will, most ESPECIALLY during times of conflict. So, obviously, it makes the most sense to expel them when things start to get a little nasty


I can't help but laugh sometimes.


Exactly, but I guess the Governments these days only know how to mess things up ... Without willing or even knowing how to amend them without bullets & bombs!



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by CarlitosAmsel

Your damn right! They are Al Qaeda fighters, brought in by the CIA, together with some some trained libyen chimps who stir up the masses. The people of Libya love Gadaffi, there is no doubt about it. The whole uprising is British, American and probably French orchestrated, with the ZIONIStS as invisible puppet masters in the background!


A caveat; Sarkozy being the lead protagonist amongst the NATO alliance may have been motivated by his Italian wife.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pastamancer

Gadhaffi had a choice. Many choices. This never had to end in blood.


And you know this how? Because the people who said this was not about Gaddafi and regime change who are bombing personal residences to kill him regardless of the fact that innocents could (and apparently did) die along with him?


Originally posted by Pastamancer
This didn't start with an armed rebellion. It started with protests. Burn out of your mind the fact of who started the protests because if you don't start analyzing the facts rather than reacting to your previous preconceptions the walls of reality are pretty soon to fall apart around you.


Again, and you know this how? Because the same media who claimed Saddam Hussein was hiding al-Queada terrorists and WMDs told you so? None of us know who fired the first shot.



Originally posted by Pastamancer
If you're not on the ground in Libya, if you're going to be prepared to discuss the situation in a way that involves facts and not speculation and wild gibbering then you have to accept that someone other than you has seen these things and the information you get is either partially true, completely untrue or completely true.


We have some facts. We have the UN figures on the quality of life of the Libyan people. Which contradicts what we are being told by the press about his "iron fisted rule" and his disregard for the Libyan people.



Originally posted by Pastamancer
If he was truly that angry at NATO for killing his family then why is he bombing his own people indiscriminately in retaliation? Or is that a lie too?


Do YOU know? It sure doesnt seem reasonable to believe that a leader whose majority population dont support him could possibly hold out this long against the majority of this own people being assisted by the west. Mubarak dropped like panties on prom night in the face of popular opposition.




Originally posted by Pastamancer
Ask yourself what would cause someone to do that.


Greed? Hunger for power? You are trying to compare sociopaths to "normal" humans. Do you honestly believe that all people feel the same way about things? Serial killers do not torture and kill because some action of the victim "drove them" to be inhuman. They are flawed humans already.



Originally posted by Pastamancer If Gadhaffi was serious about peace, he wouldn't have his men raise rebel flags to lure them into ambushes. If he was serious about peace, he wouldn't have declared several other cease fires just to throw his opposition and the world outside off to buy him more time to murder.


You know this how?




Originally posted by Pastamancer
Maybe NATO committed a war crime.


Maybe?



Originally posted by Pastamancer
I don't care.


The real point. You accuse others of exactly what you are doing. Having no concern for facts. And apparently, not even international law.




Originally posted by Pastamancer
Ask the woman who was sodomized by his troops with a rifle while they blinded her with alcohol, took pictures and raped and tortured her for longer than she has a clear grasp of.


You know this is true how? Because the same media that claimed Iraquis were dumping babies out of incubators and leaving them to die told you so?

en.wikipedia.org...


Nayirah (testimony) refers to the controversial testimony given before the non-governmental Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990, by a female who gave only her first name, Nayirah. In her emotional testimony, Nayirah stated that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers take babies out of incubators, take the incubators, and leave the babies to die. Though reporters did not have access to Kuwait at the time, her testimony was regarded as credible at the time and was widely publicized. It was cited numerous times by United States senators and the president in their rationale to back Kuwait in the Gulf War.

Her story was initially corroborated by Amnesty International and testimony from evacuees.

Following the liberation of Kuwait, reporters were given access to the country and found the story of stolen incubators unsubstantiated. However, they did find that a number of people died when nurses and doctors fled the country.

In 1992, it was revealed that Nayirah's last name was al-Ṣabaḥ Arabic: نيره الصباح‎) and that she was the daughter of the Saud bin Nasir Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government. Following this, al-Sabah's testimony has since largely come to be regarded as wartime propaganda.




Originally posted by Pastamancer
Ask the woman who gave her the chance to escape knowing that they would continue on her until she was dead. Ask what that means to a Muslim woman who had everything to lose in her world by admitting it, risked death to burst into that lobby and probably IS dead right now.


You mean this one? From the rebel stronghold? Who has no motive to lie?

www.cnn.com...


(CNN) -- Eman al-Obeidy, the woman who burst into a Tripoli hotel to tell journalists she was beaten and raped by forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi last month, is no longer in custody but says she still fears for her life.

..............................

Al-Obeidy said she is no longer in government custody and has spent time with her sister. But she said she cannot leave the house where she is staying as officials from the police or army will pursue her.

She said that when she tries to leave the house, officials chase her down and take her to a police station. But police don't know what to do with her since she is not charged with a crime, and she is released.


If she is dead right now, its because she is caught in the war SHE helped create. And for all you know, IF she is dead, the allies are the ones who dropped the bomb on her.


Originally posted by Pastamancer
Just for the love of god stop throwing darts at the big board of logic assuming you came up with the right conclusions and really sit down, think and listen. Observation does more to gather knowledge than anything else.


Sage advice, from someone whose idea of "really sitting down, thinking and listening" comes from someone who is repeating every media claim going.

Oh not all of them. You forgot the Viagra being handed out to troop so they can rape babies and kittens.


www.military.com...


April 29, 2011
Agence France-Presse

The United States on Thursday raised allegations that Moammar Gadhafi's regime gives Viagra to troops to carry out rapes as the U.N. Security Council wrangled over coalition attacks in Libya, diplomats said.

edit on 1-5-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: forgot a link



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Itop1
 


End of the justice of the world. If you are a leader of a country, beware, you and your children can be a target anytime if you do not follow the agenda of TPTB and apease them. I can guess how Kim Jong Il will feel relieved having nuclear weapons in hand.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by BattleFieldPredator
Reply to post by wonderworld
 


Take it from someone who has served at the sharp end of every conflict the UK has been involved with for the last 20 years and will again soon, that your fluffy world is never going to happen. I wish it would, but it wont as long as you idiots keep our own "despotic dynasties" in power. When you finally man up we will back you, but until then do not think you have no blood on your hands because your vote put me in theatre. Your x on the ballot pulled the trigger.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



And thus as you eloquently pointed out, is the futility of voting in a "fixed" system.

Perhaps you understand why I choose not to vote, as a silent protest, and also as acceptance that the same outcome is inevitable either way whether I vote or not...

My form of fighting against the system is through attrition. I basically don't buy much stuff. This starves the beast.



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join