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

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
This is NATOs baby, namely France.

Its anyone who participates in its baby. "France made me do it" isnt a good enough excuse when America has a long history of telling France to stuff it. We got so butt hurt at them a decade ago we renamed our "freedom fries" and now we are powerless to stand against their steely will?

Ooookay.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
The Iraq and Afghan wars were lead by the US, in direct opposition to UN rulings (well, Iraq).

A legitimate point.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
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.

And I would say dont lets ignore that this is NOT "apples and oranges" completely. We are still killing people who did nothing to us. And likely for the same reason. To liberate resources from a nations people into the hands of multinational economic interests. Its more like comparing a crab apple to an eating apple than it is to "apples and oranges." It differs in a few significant points, but not enough to make it an entirely separate species.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

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?

We should have never did any deals with Paksitan and went gung ho guns blazin after Bin Laden and left when we killed Him or captured Him.

Coulda woulda shoulda does not mean much now.
I honesntly think this will evolve into world war 3. along with the massive debt crisis that is a world wide problem.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
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.

No, he is offering us reasoning promoted by the media as if they could indeed be fact.

Sure, you can call him on anything you want. That wouldn't necessarily make you more right if you were calling him disinformation agent. This was my point.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
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.

He wasn't making an argument, he was stating an OPINION. An opinion, by virtue of it's definition, CANNOT be flawed. The results of action taken based upon an opinion can be, but the opinion itself cannot be.

And yes, you SHOULD attempt to derive some intent on the MEANING of the post before attacking a messenger of their own feelings, and that does not take any special psychic powers to do. Simply the ability to know that words have many meanings.

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

I sure do....considering all we have here (lacking face to face or physical contact) are the written words. Words cause wars, and a gross misunderstanding of them keep the wars fueled.

Originally posted by Fiberx
The Washington Post report quotes Libyian officials as saying Gaddhafi was talking to his son and playing with the children at the time of the blast, but was unharmed.


How many of you have been in sight of even a 500 lb. bomb?

Something is fishy imo.

Yeah im not buying it. The blast pressure alone would make one bleed out of your ears for days. If he was there he is either dead or badly wounded.

Originally posted by Canadianpride420
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

They hate his guts for giving them free education and paying for them to study over seas, free health care, no taxes on food, subsidized housing, interest free housing loans, hes turning the desert into a fertile farmland and giving farmers land..WHO in their right mind would hate that...OH, maybe the terrorists he has been fighting in libya for for over two decabes..I admire your work on other threads vitchillo but I'm 100% against your views on this one

By the way if a libyan needs surgery overseas...the libyan government pays for it!

edit on 30-4-2011 by Canadianpride420 because: (no reason given)

It’s truly amazing that this was started over a handful of Rebels. There must be an ulterior motive behind this one. No threat of Nukes, and we were worried Gaddafi quit using it. NATO can’t play global dictator. It may sound weird coming from a Republican but that’s the way I see it.

I also thought the comment about Bush was very funny.

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

So you think the West should be interfering in Syria as well?

Originally posted by Sky watcher

Originally posted by Fiberx
The Washington Post report quotes Libyian officials as saying Gaddhafi was talking to his son and playing with the children at the time of the blast, but was unharmed.


How many of you have been in sight of even a 500 lb. bomb?

Something is fishy imo.

Yeah im not buying it. The blast pressure alone would make one bleed out of your ears for days. If he was there he is either dead or badly wounded.

That blast pressure would kill you alone..

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

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

So you think the West should be interfering in Syria as well?

No...none of it makes any sense.like a jumbled mess.

Originally posted by Sky watcher

Originally posted by Fiberx
The Washington Post report quotes Libyian officials as saying Gaddhafi was talking to his son and playing with the children at the time of the blast, but was unharmed.


How many of you have been in sight of even a 500 lb. bomb?

Something is fishy imo.

Yeah im not buying it. The blast pressure alone would make one bleed out of your ears for days. If he was there he is either dead or badly wounded.

Well, has anyone either confirmed these alleged deaths or confirmed that Gadaffi is still alive?

Since NATO is a terrorist organization [secretly the perpetrator of 9/11 and worse] and is now seen as being the cause of the conflict in Libya, doing everything it can to murder the Libyan head of state, regardless of the harm being done to civilians in the process as it does so, therefore I do suggest to all that it is necessary that Russia and or China be allowed to police the Mediterranean such that NATO will no longer be able to fly hostile missions that are clearly a violation of the no fly zone. Indeed the day is quickly apon us where in Russia and China will have clear United Nations authorization to attack NATO bases and assets with impunity.

AVE RAEGINA CAELINA LA DEUS NOSTRA CAELI LA VERA DEUS

I think pressure will mount if Syria conflict turns into 1000's of mass murdering deaths going on.Then the U.S. and Nato will have no choice.So this thing is extremely dangerous.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
This is NATOs baby, namely France.

Its anyone who participates in its baby. "France made me do it" isnt a good enough excuse when America has a long history of telling France to stuff it. We got so butt hurt at them a decade ago we renamed our "freedom fries" and now we are powerless to stand against their steely will?

Where did you get 'France made me do it' from my post?

I was merely clarifying for the person who was implying this was another US-led action, which it isn't. Americans LOVE to think everything going on in the world is about them. It isn't.
There are FAR more major players in this than the US. To imply otherwise is plain inaccurate.

So US led NATO really are baby killers.
I was wondering if it was true or not, looks like it was.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
So US led NATO really are baby killers.
I was wondering if it was true or not, looks like it was.

US-led?

By what standard?

Was it a US missile? a French one?

You seem to have access to inside info. Care to share?

The fact is the United States bombed Libya to get Nato forces in there...PERIOD...Politcal they claim it is not U.S. lead.Fact is the U.S. in reailty started the bombing campaign.

reply to post by alphabetaone


Start a thread called the "Pastamancer defense thread" and perhaps we will argue it further there.
We are just running this topic off course at this point.

He WAS making an argument by definition,

en.wikipedia.org...

An argument in logic is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion.

And he was hardly in the middle of the road.

Originally posted by Pastamancer

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.

You are entitled to YOUR opinion, however, and it is duly noted. I just disagree.


Edit;

To clarify;

Opinion, "I think Gaddafi sucks"

Argument; "Gaddafi sucks and here is why."

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

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.

A free market means anyone can sell anything they want at any price they want and does not disclude corporatism. In fact corporatism is what makes capitalism strong and is the main branch of capitalist progression.

Free trade also means corporations can trade goods and services overseas with little or no tarriffs. Pretty much what is happening now throughout the world? Merchandise "made in china" by american firms at a slight to moderate discount of what they would be selling if made in america. Most of the savings from cheap labor is pocketted by the firms and we think they are doing us favors by giving us choice. Of course we benefit somewhat as consumers but the firm exists to maximise profit-to be able to give shareholders dividents and perhaps stock splits. Who holds the majority of stock per company--the wealthy of course, so it stands to reason they benefit the most from greed driven "success".

Meanwhile it prevents asian governments from raising the minimum wage laws because "companies know best" and workers should earn their pay the hard way. Unions are "despicable" because they hamper profit and treat workers with dignity/respect.

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.

Free market capitalism inevitably leads to private monopolies in each given business sector. Microsoft for computer operating systems, cisco for networking, general motors for cars(now public), boeing for airplanes, coca cola for soft drinks, budweiser for beers, IBM for mainframes, etc

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.

With all due respect I don't think we should use hitler's hate rhetoric to group all socialist dictatorships as evil, nationalistic eugenicist oriented regimes. Mussolini for example did not kill jews, gypsies and communists. Yes socialism can be right wing communism but what conservatives ignore is that it is usually middle road politics.

To become communist normally you have to go through socialism, although communism does not have to be the end goal. I would be happy with western european socialism of the middle 20th century. And nationalism is not necessary with socialism, its just an added "ingredient" much like imperialistic france and imperialistic britain of the 16th through early 20th century.

Why was monarchy imperialism acceptable but not *national socialism* or *imperialistic communism*? I think we have been brainwashed first by Kings and Queens and then by the corporate elite to accept right wing imperialism and reject left wing imperialism. One is "good" while the other is "bad"..............

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
So US led NATO really are baby killers.
I was wondering if it was true or not, looks like it was.

Yep, we eat baby seals too. Lock up your wives and daughters.

reply to post by Vitchilo


one nut job gone many to go when they are all gone i will breath better and dance on my head