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

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

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.

Isn't that what disinfo agents get paid to do? I read his patronising post and felt kinda hopeless inside as "what can I possibly tell him to change his mind?" Probably nothing....as I said before socialism and communism is the big bad bogeymann.

For some people, corporate oppression is infinitely better than state "oppression". And then he goes on to talk about "distractions" with pretty women in pretty gowns as though that is bad...I guess its bad in a religious fundamentalist state such as america. LMAO! Dude Pastamancer...THE NEWS ARE THE DISTRACTION...get it???????

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I think you guys are not giving Pastamancer some of the credit he deserves.

He's simply taking a middle of the road approach to a subject that has no real conclusion. Long-winded, perhaps, but I don't view any of what he has said as being overly compassionate about the media, nor making an attempt at disinformation.

You have to read the content of what people have posted many times for possible contextual anomalies....the way YOU understood it versus the way it was intended.

Maybe THIS, is part of the actual problem....knee-jerk reaction vs. an attempt at understanding?

Nah.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

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.

Not really. Free market capitalism would not allow players in the market to dictate the rules of the game. Its explicitly prohibited in a real "free market." Nothing that is happening economically is the result of a "free market." Its the result of what happens when people who dont understand Smith set up what they think is a free market and forget to make sure the players of the game cant make the rules.

You are buying into "double speak." And I dont blame you. Not everyone reads Smith. But what they are calling "free market capitalism" is not. Its not. Its "corporatism." Just relabeled.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
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.

No, Fascism is not "socialist" according to the sources I am seeing. Nationalist seems more to the point, but apparently the strict interpretation requires an old nation, with genetic homogeneity, or the willingness to create it by expelling or killing the "other" ethnic groups. Nobody really needs that, I dont think. I certainly would never support it in America.

en.wikipedia.org...

Fascism (play /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical, authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2] Fascists advocate the creation of a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through indoctrination, physical education, and family policy including eugenics.[3] Fascists seek to purge forces and ideas deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration and produce their nation's rebirth based on commitment to the national community based on organic unity where individuals are bound together by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and "blood".[4] Fascists believe that a nation requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.[5] Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition to the state.[6]

Although I will withdraw the term, because on doing much reading, there are simply too many people using it in too many ways at this point, and it has basically become a curse word, something to call people you do not like. And, obviously, because in America the "of blood" clause cannot possible hold.

In my case, I meant it in the sense that while we have the illusion of democracy, we actually have a few financial interests controlling the state and dictating its actions, while stomping out (or refusing to air) any dissenting voices. Including images of protests by Americans. I withdraw it, however, to avoid having to address the several various interpretations of it. Its not enough to qualify, however, and I withdraw it.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
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.....

I watch the tea party from the beginning and initially, it made some sense. But like you, I rejected it for many of the same reasons you did, and because it has slowly morphed into the new name for "Republican." They are just trying to rebrand themselves to distance themselves from their measure of responsibility for the mess we are in. And co-opting the Tea Party was their good idea on how to do that.

Well who did not see this coming....cough cough..Obama admin..This is gonna be World War 3

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
They are just trying to rebrand themselves to distance themselves from their measure of responsibility for the mess we are in. And co-opting the Tea Party was their good idea on how to do that.

It was more than a good idea, it was a FANTASTIC idea, as, it seems to have worked unfortunately.

Ah well, less up and coming terrorists....it's all good with me.
Of course at some point Obama will have to answer for his war crimes.......not.
Funny, Obama continues to do the same things President Bush and other Republicans did and he's some how the good guy. Ah well, Mr. Peace Prize stirkes again.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Can we cease with the constant dismissal of opinions we don't like as being from 'disinfo agents'?

It's smacks of desperation, and looks as if those engaging in the debate can't address the facts of the matter.

IF you truly think someone is a 'disinfo agent', then why even engage with them? It would seem like engaging is the best way to spread 'disinfo'

Trump has the best word for Obama admin and our international policies and intelligence..incompetent

Originally posted by alphabetaone

He's simply taking a middle of the road approach to a subject that has no real conclusion. Long-winded, perhaps, but I don't view any of what he has said as being overly compassionate about the media, nor making an attempt at disinformation.

Im not calling him a disinfo agent. But he IS offering us in his reasoning stories promoted by the media as if they are indeed facts.

Im allowed to call him on it.

Originally posted by alphabetaone
You have to read the content of what people have posted many times for possible contextual anomalies....the way YOU understood it versus the way it was intended.

I do see, and did point out that he is calling for one thing, while doing the thing he was decrying himself.

Im not attacking him personally. Im saying his argument is flawed. Maybe I "should" (according to you) ignore those flaws and try to derive intent, but Im not psychic. And much grief comes from assuming you can read the other persons mind. If your argument is that we should take no sides, dont take sides making the argument.

It may not be "nice" in the common sense of the word to call people to a higher standard, but oh well. Its not a personal attack. Its justified as I pointed out, and he can take it and make better arguments, or ignore it, or leave feeling misunderstood, whatever.

I bear him/her no ill will. But at the same time people are dying because of other people taking at face value media claims. Something we have seen several times in the past, and in the past, these claims have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be false. And yet many of us are criticized for calling into serious question the veracity of suspiciously similar claims now.

Originally posted by alphabetaone
Maybe THIS, is part of the actual problem....knee-jerk reaction vs. an attempt at understanding?

Perhaps it is. If you call questioning someones actual words knee jerk reactionism. I dont.

Originally posted by Realtruth
Divide and conquer.

The "Fat Cats" sit back and watch grunts do their bidding, making profits and keep the world in chaotic fear.

If I had one wish for humanity, it would be that everyone had the wisdom and intuition to see they are being played.

Sure pick a side.

Guess who funds both of them?

And guess who suffers the most?

edit on 30-4-2011 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)

Ah, you mean the Cabal. They are the wealthy families in the West that have gained their wealth by tearing apart third world countries during the Colonial and Imperialist era.

They are going to fall eventually. If you deal in death, your ultimate payment will be in death. They will find out eventually when a capable madman fills one of the vacant spots of power in the middle east.

I have a feeling Gadaffi will be removed from power, another will take his place or in another middle eastern country, and this person will have revenge in mind.

I have the same wish, friend. But events will sort themselves out.

What the NATO forces either did was really stupid (they thought only Gadaffi was there) or despicable (they knew children were in there).

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Ah well, less up and coming terrorists....it's all good with me.
Of course at some point Obama will have to answer for his war crimes.......not.
Funny, Obama continues to do the same things President Bush and other Republicans did and he's some how the good guy. Ah well, Mr. Peace Prize stirkes again.

I'm no fan of this 'action' in Libya, but I don't think one can compare the actions of the previous administration to this one, beyond any vague way. It's apples and oranges, and the differences are significant.

For one, this is, by no measure, a US-led war. This is NATOs baby, namely France. The Iraq and Afghan wars were lead by the US, in direct opposition to UN rulings (well, Iraq).

And dont get it twisted, that is not a defense of Obama or this action in Libya. I'm just pointing out it's laz and inaccurate to conflate Iraq and Libya.

Originally posted by Jobeycool
Trump has the best word for Obama admin and our international policies and intelligence..incompetent

We're not discussing the Obama administration or Trump here.

Perhaps you should try another thread where it is applicable.

Why does Gaddafi have his family nearby him when he knows NATO is coming for his head? If I was Gaddafi when the SHTF the first thing I would have done is separate myself as far as possible from my loved ones.

Hundreds and billions of various currencies spent throughout NATO on advanced military technology throughout several nations, and Gaddafi is somehow still alive after being struck directly? End this or leave NATO, specifically the US because I don't have any more money to spend on drone fuel and hellfire missiles.

Originally posted by Jobeycool
Trump has the best word for Obama admin and our international policies and intelligence..incompetent

And Donald Trump became and expert on Foreign Policy.... when?

He's a reality teevee star and a corrupted, bankrupted 'businessman'. I have n interest in his analysis of foreign affairs.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Ah well, less up and coming terrorists....it's all good with me.
Of course at some point Obama will have to answer for his war crimes.......not.
Funny, Obama continues to do the same things President Bush and other Republicans did and he's some how the good guy. Ah well, Mr. Peace Prize stirkes again.

I'm no fan of this 'action' in Libya, but I don't think one can compare the actions of the previous administration to this one, beyond any vague way. It's apples and oranges, and the differences are significant.

For one, this is, by no measure, a US-led war. This is NATOs baby, namely France. The Iraq and Afghan wars were lead by the US, in direct opposition to UN rulings (well, Iraq).

And dont get it twisted, that is not a defense of Obama or this action in Libya. I'm just pointing out it's laz and inaccurate to conflate Iraq and Libya.

This is no different whatsoever of what we have been doing since 9/11 at all in any way.Under Bush admin.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by Jobeycool
Trump has the best word for Obama admin and our international policies and intelligence..incompetent

And Donald Trump became and expert on Foreign Policy.... when?

He's a reality teevee star and a corrupted, bankrupted 'businessman'. I have n interest in his analysis of foreign affairs.

This is the proboem man..No such thing as experts in wars.There is only people who win or lose them.

reply to post by Itop1


Ive heard this story before... with Saddam Hussein

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!

That's certainly an opinion trumpeted often on the interwebs without any real conclusive evidence.

ME? I'm still investigating and learning as actual EVIDENCE surfaces.

Originally posted by Jobeycool

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Ah well, less up and coming terrorists....it's all good with me.
Of course at some point Obama will have to answer for his war crimes.......not.
Funny, Obama continues to do the same things President Bush and other Republicans did and he's some how the good guy. Ah well, Mr. Peace Prize stirkes again.

I'm no fan of this 'action' in Libya, but I don't think one can compare the actions of the previous administration to this one, beyond any vague way. It's apples and oranges, and the differences are significant.

For one, this is, by no measure, a US-led war. This is NATOs baby, namely France. The Iraq and Afghan wars were lead by the US, in direct opposition to UN rulings (well, Iraq).

And dont get it twisted, that is not a defense of Obama or this action in Libya. I'm just pointing out it's laz and inaccurate to conflate Iraq and Libya.

This is no different whatsoever of what we have been doing since 9/11 at all in any way.Under Bush admin.

No difference? Perhaps from a certain standpoint. But when one looks at the actual specifics, one can see many. many, many differences. I listed several in my above response.

What do you see as the conclusive similarities?

Can anyone sit here and honestly say what is the diffrence between what Syria is doing and what Qaddafi is doing.