Why, after all these years of being called the Libyan "leader", is Gaddafi still only a Colonel?

Dont they have any Generals he could demote or kill, so he could become a General?

Or he could call himself "el Supremo" or something like that....

He never took any title. That was part of his "man of the people" schtick.

It was intended as a sort of nod to Bedouin culture.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

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.

Indeed you are. You're also allowed to pick your nose and wipe it on someone's shirt and guffaw in glee. It doesn't mean it's a good idea. You presented no facts of your own. You said the same thing in different words over and over and all of it was questioning the media.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

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

I see, you're one of those people who uses three words said off-handedly to take a neutral stance as I don't know the full facts and will not make a judgement on the matter to make an assumption on my character and launch an ad hominem on me. Clever. Would have worked if I had never read a book in my life.

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.

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.

Wait.. let me get this straight. You want to say you're taking a neutral tone and you're not psychic and you're holding me to a higher standard when you took three words, assumed you had the flow of my mind pretty well pegged, went on into a spiel about how everything in the media is a lie, used no citations to cover yourself and ended the whole thing with a pithy attempt at sarcasm to prove your point? I pray to god your higher standard never makes it into the rules of debate.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

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.

Oh.. how foolish of me. All this time you're truly a humanitarian that wants to stop those evil murderers on their couch watching TV with their families before dinner from wiping out the entire human race. I'm so sorry I ever questioned you.. wait.. one second.. how.. exactly did these people kill someone? I thought voting was fixed? I thought we were all slaves? .. You really should.. think about what you're saying. I don't believe the entire story of the media and you decided to launch head on into a particularly aggressive line of active denial of anything I said.. for.. what? You think I'm going to kill someone over it? Did you read anything I said? I abhor death.

Is that your REAL reason then? You thought my opinion would cause someone to die? Logic has to come into play here somewhere. If your reason was that media is dangerous and you're trying to pull the wool off the eyes of the masses then why do it that way? Why assume that everyone that quotes something from any news outlet needs the Van Helsing touch? Back, foul imperious lies, back from this thrall you have enslaved!

Some of you think I'm condescending but isn't that even worse? You assume that you know the person, you assume that they're not intelligent enough to see through the mess on their own, you assume you know how well they're able to rationalize, you assume YOU hold the higher standard.. and then to save them from all that.. you make the reply you did? Call me crazy but that doesn't add up. I don't think you really have figured out the reasons you hang out here and do these things.

I know why I'm saying this now. I know why I responded to you pretty aggressively last time. I hate death. I hate killing in any way. I like to protect people, even if they don't deserve it. I believe in the freedom of knowledge, that those who truly seek to learn should be given what they seek freely in the hopes that the world becomes a little wiser, a little kinder.. one person at a time. What I'm saying now? I hope it helps you. I hope you sit back and really think about your motivations for launching into a post like that and wonder if it's truly in the best interests of spreading knowledge. You can't rip the wool off anyone's eyes. You have to tell them where it is and tell them why it would be best if they took it off. Flies, honey and vinegar. I hope you come out better for this.. maybe that's arrogant of me. But even though I don't like you, I hope you find a better way to approach this. For yourself and for others.

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

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

What he's talking about is what he said. Sometimes you have to read what people have said a couple times before you can reply with a cool head. I didn't do that last time. He's right. I should have.

Neither did you. If you had, you wouldn't have inferred that "I don't care" meant that I was a hypocrite. He caught onto what I was saying. I don't consider it part of evidence until I can gather more about it. I didn't catch onto some of the things you said, but honestly.. knee-jerk reaction begets knee-jerk reaction. We're both guilty of it and I'm sorry.. and.. honestly? Alphabetaone is probably wiser than both of us put together. I've learned something from him already. I'm not saying that because he said I deserved more credit than what I was getting.

I'm saying that he humbled me a bit. And I hoped he would have humbled you. Not many people do that to me. It means I've learned something important.. and that I've been on the wrong path for a while. Maybe you should think more about his words.

Originally posted by Konah

I'm glad you are buying all the media hype about this man and think it's okay to murder his grandchildren. You should go educate yourself on what he does and has done for his people, who the rebels are and what they've done, and how the vast majority of the Libyan people support their leader.

Amazing that ATS members overwhelmingly support your POV, but then again ATS is one of the biggest bastions of conspiratorial simplemindedness in the world (although there are many intelligent posters as well).

There is so much wrong with your post that it's difficult to know where to begin. Your voice is that of a legion of Youtube commenters and conspiracy theorists the world over.

Anyone who offers any words of support for Gaddafi is clearly very ignorant not only in regard to Libyan history, but world history as well. Gaddafi is as true a dictator as there ever was. A man who exploited his country's resources to become one of the richest and most powerful men in the world. A man who brutally suppressed free speech against him for generations and who ruled Libya with an iron fist, bestowing great benefits amongst his tribe the Gaddafa and family members. His sons routinely partied in foreign countries as socialites with the rich and famous as people struggled to survive and make ends meet.

I am glad his son is dead. I am glad his grandchildren are dead. This man has personally ordered the deaths of tens of thousands at least with no remorse whatsoever. He is insanely manipulative and incessantly delusional and would rather see the world around him burn before he gives up power. He has also freely sponsored serious terrorist attacks against other countries.

Anyone who has done any research on current events knows why he is in this predicament. As more peaceful revolutions in the Middle East carried on, Gaddafi crushed his people with an iron fist. But people continued to protest peacefully, it was only after so many were killed and the government started to split did protestors take arms up against their unjust ruler.

If American citizens were killed en masse protesting against their government, would you stand idly by and accept it? When Americans took up arms against that injustice would you say the government is right to murder them because they are no longer "citizens" but rather "revolutionaries?" So incredibly naive your viewpoint is that it truly troubles me.

Granted Libya was a more modern country and controlled (free of Muslim extremists as well) thanks to Gaddafi, but a dictator does maintain great order. We didn't decide to depose him after we wanted their oil or anything, hell, we had a great deal with Gaddafi with heads of state visiting him and investing billions in Libya's economy.

We took up arms against him after the Arab League begged us, after human rights organizations begged us, after the United Nations begged us, and after many Libyans begged us...Gaddafi's ruthless crackdown was unprecedented in this Arab Spring and our reaction was morally a justifiable decision.

Why not Syria? Why not Bahrain? Well simply put we cannot intervene everywhere for many resources, so we need to choose wisely. With all the attention on Libya and everyone calling for us to help, it made sense for it to be Libya. Cries of hypocrisy are illogical due to circumstances, resources, and logistics.

Also your vast generalization of the rebels is juvenile. The "rebels" are people who decided they had enough. They are not all Muslim extremists. A good portion are middle class business owners and professionals, oppressed people of Cyraenica, exiled Libyans, relatives of those killed and oppressed by Gaddafi, etc.

The fact that you support Gaddafi in a way is sickening of how far some conspiracy theorists will go to hate on the West despite all logical evidence. I despise America's injustices as much as the next person. The Drug War is a violation of rights that has no logical basis, the invasion of Iraq was entirely unfounded, many social institutions in the country are broken and corrupt...but I try to be unbiased and acknowledge when we do the right thing, and I think we did it. Sure it might be a long battle, but humanitarian intervention should be an aim of the modern world. To think that we are there causing massive instability and criticism for their paltry oil (which we were already getting before...duh) is cynical and illogical.

And your comment that the vast majority of Libyans support Gaddafi is laughable. Gaddafi clearly has outsmarted a few members here. Libya is tribal-based and many in Gaddafi's tribe have a lot to lose if Gaddafi falls, the same with his family. Sirte, Sabha, and other cities have strong ties to Gaddafi due to his enrichment and benefits for them. But even within Tripolitania there is widespread disdain for him. Look at Misurata, Libya's third largest city. Look at the Berber regions southwest of Tripoli that despise him. Look at pretty much all of eastern Libya and Cyrenaica, including Libya's second largest city of Benghazi.

Gaddafi has people left fighting for him because many are fearful of either the instability no Gaddafi will bring (or for their lives if they disagree) or because they benefit from their support of him. Additionally Gaddafi has played up anti-colonialist sentiments, faked murder scenes, and spread massive propaganda as to who the rebels are in order to secure himself as the defender of Libya and painting a picture of the 1980s bombing of Tripoli and prior to that the Italian occupation. He even pays people for show demonstrations in support of him.

The fact that you think otherwise proves how effective Gaddafi is on those simpleminded ideologies of cynicism and conspiracism.

Shame on you and shame on ATS and the human race that such statements not only gain traction but are widely endorsed by the community as truth when the reality belies that generalization almost perfectly.

Am I the only one who thinks Saif nor the children were actually killed?

I mean, what evidence is there? The Libyan Gov's word?

ETA: funny that some of the same people who don't believe the US government's claim about killing bin Laden buy the Libyan Gov's story word for word.

Originally posted by TrailGator
Why, after all these years of being called the Libyan "leader", is Gaddafi still only a Colonel?

Dont they have any Generals he could demote or kill, so he could become a General?

Or he could call himself "el Supremo" or something like that....

Yes I think he is now EX Supremo,,,

He’s a self proclaimed Colonel. Gaddafi went to College in Misrata and studied of history. Now he can’t even get back there with NATO bombs.

He hated Israel so much he joined the Libyan military academy at Benghazi in 1961. He was only a junior officer with a desire to overthrow the government and succeeded. I think he calls himself a colonel but isn’t officially one, let alone any decorated General.

He is a mass murderer, with some compassion for his devoted ones, being a socialist he gives them money rather than makes them work for it. There is a plan here I think to reward all children born with thousands. It’s called Muslim Demographics, without bloodshed. They can take over Europe and the US simply by multiplying with approximately 8 children each.

Originally posted by alphabetaone
.I need provide no proof

Yeah, who cares if there is no proof, as long as it fits into your own monologue.

The point is, those perpetuating this as fact are taking he Libyan govt at their word, while claiming their country's own media are all lies. Thats absurd.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds


Yeah, who cares if there is no proof, as long as it fits into your own monologue.

Are you listening though? I have no monologue, or agenda. Nor making any claim to the veracity of US or Foreign media....the truth of it wasn't up for grabs, hence no need to provide proof. If a somewhat reputable news outlet is reporting it, either here in the US or foreign, I will take them at their word until I can find proof otherwise. I could care less how others approach it or the absurdity of how THEY view it, I'm only concerned with how *I* view it.

If you think about it, the onus of providing proof is on you (if I cared enough about it) for showing something concrete that it DIDN'T occur as stated from a reputable source since you're the one challenging it.

Originally posted by alphabetaone


If you think about it, the onus of providing proof is on you (if I cared enough about it) for showing something concrete that it DIDN'T occur as stated from a reputable source since you're the one challenging it.

You might want to familiarize yourself with the concept of the 'burden of proof'. One can not prove a negative. It is up to those claiming something occurred to prove it. There is no evidence yet that this story is true. We have incocnlsuve photos and the word of a guy who says he was told it was Al Saif.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds


You might want to familiarize yourself with the concept of the 'burden of proof'. One can not prove a negative. It is up to those claiming something occurred to prove it. There is no evidence yet that this story is true. We have incocnlsuve photos and the word of a guy who says he was told it was Al Saif.

edit on 3-5-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)

No, you may want to familiarize yourself on what the concept of "true" is. The story is true by it's mere existence. It is a story, as reported by a reputable source, hence the story is true because it exists. Whether or not the FACTS contained in the story are true, is another topic altogether, and if you are challenging those facts contained within the story, and suggest we are all "tools" for simply relying on that said information contained within that story, then the burden of proof lies on you to detail why the facts contained within that story are baseless.

Nato says it was a "mistake" LOL... Just an accidental bomb hit this place.

Originally posted by alphabetaone

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds


You might want to familiarize yourself with the concept of the 'burden of proof'. One can not prove a negative. It is up to those claiming something occurred to prove it. There is no evidence yet that this story is true. We have incocnlsuve photos and the word of a guy who says he was told it was Al Saif.

edit on 3-5-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)

No, you may want to familiarize yourself on what the concept of "true" is. The story is true by it's mere existence.

Now there's an interesting statement. It's true because someone said so.

It is a story, as reported by a reputable source, hence the story is true because it exists

The Libyan Govt is a reputable source?

. Whether or not the FACTS contained in the story are true, is another topic altogether, and if you are challenging those facts contained within the story,

The ONLY thing that is fact is the Libyan government has shown us images of 'bodies' covered in cloth and told us the cause of death and identity. Everything else beyond that is not a fact. Not HOW the were killed (or if they are even real bodies) or who was killed.

then the burden of proof lies on you to detail why the facts contained within that story are baseless.

Which I have done, and just did above. There is no 'proof' as of yet. Just the word of the Libyan government.

You, though, have not supplied any actual evidence pointing to the information being reported by Lybia being true.

How about an identify able picture of the supposed victims? Can you provide that? How about a cause of death? How about ONE SHRED of evidence to support the claims of the Libyan government????

You have supplied none of this.