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

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

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?

I don't know this, I'm using commonly available knowledge. If you're privy to some information that the rest of us aren't, other than your paranoid distrust of anything that comes out of anyone you might possibly think gets paid money to do something called reporting,,, then please. Show us. Show us your facts. Because all I see now is wild imaginings and utter disregard for human life, simply to be used as chat fodder for more conspiracy theory.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

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.

See above. By the way. The media was reporting that because of Rocco Martino. I suggest you get your facts to go with your conspiracy theories or you'll look like an utter fool. The Italian Government warned the US that it could have been fake, but that was flubbed AGAIN by someone within our own government who was overeager and wanted to be in a pay grade higher than he was. You should look into more recent "media" if you're not completely convinced... you seem to know an awful lot about what the media says for someone who snaps at anyone who references it. One would think you might be doing it to look for an excuse to be "the truly informed one".

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

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.

I'm sorry but I highly doubt the people in the tribal regions which is the majority of Libya had the quality of life you're talking about. Not all of Libya is settled like an eastern civilization. A lot of them don't prefer to live that way. Besides, if you're so distrustful of the U.N. and Media and the Powers that Be, why believe that report at all? Unless it just gives you more fuel to hate them. In that case, isn't that a little bit hypocritical?

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
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.

I've seen the psychological game you're playing right now and it's pedantic. "Oh, but are you SURE you know the truth? Really? Are you ABSOLUTELY sure you know the truth." If you insist you have all this evidence how things are REALLY in Libya, then where did you get it? Why not present some along with a credible source? Mubarak dropped panties and ran because he didn't have his military on his side. They were shaking hands with the protesters and the protesters were shouting "The Egyptian people and the military, we are one!" The police didn't feel that way.. the police aren't as heavily armed as the military. The police aren't faring so well right now that the Egyptian people have won the rebellion.

Libya is a different story but not completely. Small clusters of their military broke off to join the rebellion. That doesn't sound like something you would do if you believed you weren't doing something that was just morally wrong to you. Small arms and riot gear is a far cry from artillery, aircraft, APCs and assault rifles. Those.. those are things you use to kill people. That's what's being done. You do the math.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

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.

Since you didn't bother to give a well thought out answer to this one neither will I. I'll just ask if you think they're the only example in those forces... and what kind of punishment do you think they got?

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

You know this how?

The aliens told me. They abducted me to their mothership and told me their master plan to ruin everyone and everything by replacing all the filling in twinkies with mind control drugs.

No, seriously. How much longer do you expect me to give a straight answer to that question. You should vary up your shtick, it's getting old and stale.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Maybe?

Yes, maybe. Like the same maybe that MAYBE Gaddhafi has committed war crimes. I'm not omnipotent. I don't know who's done what and neither does the committee that will investigate this bombing. There's things called investigation, evidence, testimony and trials. Maybe you've heard of them? I doubt you'd believe in them, you seem to like to base your facts on unfounded speculation and that doesn't fall into this category.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

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

You don't get to call me a hypocrite and say I don't care about life until you get to know me and how much I go out of my way to protect people that don't deserve this kind of crap from getting hurt. I don't have a high opinion of you at all honestly but to insinuate something about that from someone you barely know to further your argument is sick and manipulative and it won't go unanswered.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
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.

Yes. That propaganda. That woman. Guess what? I'm human. With empathy. You don't seem to be. The reason this propaganda works is because no moral and compassionate person would immediately insinuate that a woman lied about being raped and tortured. If you can outright dismiss that, you are one sick son of a.. You know what? I don't like you at all anymore. You should really at least assume it's true for the sake of the woman than assume it's false for the sake of your paranoia. If you find out it's false later, you can divert your anger from the attackers to the liars.. but you are really one sociopathic ass.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

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.

A REALLY sick, REALLY sociopathic, REALLY paranoid ass. You accuse a woman who accused Gaddhafi's soldiers of raping her of helping to create a war? People like you should be locked up.

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.

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

I try. At least I don't come out of it sounding like a raving sociopath, just another unwashed sheep. If this is what passes for conversation around here I think I'll stick to other boards. Some of you people are absolutely certifiable.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

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

I'm only justifying this with an answer because you are one screwy fruitcake. You just quoted the media you've said all along was lying. You not once have quoted your own sources that somehow give you omnipotent truth. What you're doing through this whole thread is an informal logical fallacy called "Moving the Goalposts". You really should look into it, maybe it would give you a more credible way to try to attack people and sit in smug judgement of others for your insurmountable knowledge of what is and isn't truth without showing any evidence of your own.

Me? I don't claim I know the truth. I just hate to see this many lives destroyed. I don't like men who go to any means to get what they want. I don't like consequentialism and I don't like you. Enjoy your day, jerk.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


You think I'm blind? I know how the federal reserve keeps us enslaved. I know how the international banks profit coming and going off wars. I know the media is a distraction and I know that this internet you're sitting in front of right now is too. I don't watch TV, I haven't for years. I read. It's harder to lie to a literate man, that's why it wasn't in fashion for about a thousand years. It's harder to lie when you can't use body language and polite cheerful smiles and speech class voices to cover it up and zip it along.

What can you say to change my mind? I know money is evil. I wish we weren't saddled with having to grind ourselves to the bone and take jobs that age a young man twice the years that he's worked there.

But you know what? I still hold to my principles. I still believe that death is wrong no matter what side you're on.
I don't think we should have killed Osama bin Laden. I don't care if he was the leader of a terrorist organization or a CIA shill as you term it. I don't CARE. He was a living human being with a family and years of knowledge, love AND hatred in his heart. 24 hours ago he was alive and now he's dead. This isn't ok. None of this is. We shouldn't be treating each other like this and we god damn well should not be paranoid over who's telling the truth about it. Accept that it isn't ok, live your own ideals and instead of arguing if the man behind the curtain is evil or good, just walk out of the god damn room, leave Oz in the dust and go back to Kansas.

These people don't have any more power over you than you give them. I can't think of the last time I really cared about anything Obama said. I can't think of the last time I actually thought my vote mattered. When was the last honest time that aside from reading the news and screaming that the sky is falling that any of these boogeymen shambled into your life and really put the hurt on you?

Call me a disinfo agent, I don't care. I think most of you are utterly insane anyhow. You have a choice to walk ahead with your life, your future, your family.. happy. An example. Show people what it's like to live without fear. Show them what it's like to carve your own path in the world unhindered by the machinations of those who would enslave you. Slavery is a hard thing to accomplish when you don't have shackles on the person. You can be in a prison cell in isolation for 10 years and if it doesn't touch your mind, you're still a free man.

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.

reply to post by Evanescence


Woa, hold on there.....before you get too crazy about it all, I think the support was in decrying the murdering of the GRANDCHILDREN, not of outright support FOR Ghaddafi....

Don't confuse the 2 please. For my own part, I never have and never will support Moammar. But the killing of the kids is a travesty, absolutely.

reply to post by Evanescence


I've.. got to agree with the above... I just chewed someone out over this very thing and I get where you're coming from, but your heart has launched into full gear and your head isn't keeping up. You're right to feel fury over the deaths, you're right to feel bitter and angry and sad that this man has hurt others so.. but the killing of children.. the killing of ANYONE is totally against your moral statement in the first place. If it's not ok for him to do it to others, if you wish death upon him for his actions, then killing his family should also be offensive to your morality. I'm pretty sure his grandchildren aren't to blame for his actions. The man isn't an old man, they can't be more than teenagers.

Please, think about what you're saying. You have to draw a line, a calm division between retribution and hate. You shouldn't hate the man so much that you wish his family dead.. I've had some people do horrible things to me and I've never wished harm on their family as a result. That kind of thinking is dark.. insidious. It'll claw away at your emotions and barriers until it's ok to do the things that you wanted retribution for in the first place..

After the killing of his children there was rejoicing on the streets of Libya.. and a warning. To paraphrase.. "I know we should not be rejoicing the death of children.. but by God, I wish him the sorrow and loss he has inflicted on so many of us."

Think of that.. and the damage that does in the long term.. the haunting memories of cheering and firing rifles in the air over the death of children. These men.. they know it's wrong.. I don't harbor ill will for their celebration.. but I worry for their hearts and minds. They've been through so much, I don't want to see them lose themselves to this war.

I don't want to see you lose yourself to it either.. be in peace, friend.

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 wonderworld

Originally posted by moonpie86
Im not sure if this link has been posted already. For those who are asking if this really happened. Look at some more facts. Earlier that day Gaddafi said he was ready for negotiations if NATO would stop the planes.

TRUCE OFFER

*sighs*

After the airstrike, apparently gunshots of celebration were let off. SICK!

Oh my God, are you serious? Gaddafi was ready for negotiations and a truce and his family is dead the same day. If true this would be against the Geneva Convention and be a severe war crime. I need to check on this further. Youre right, sick! Then to celebrate the deaths of those children..................I'm speechless.

"Moamar Gaddafi said he was ready for negotiations but refused to step down"


Gaddafi must go.

Originally posted by alphabetaone
reply to post by Evanescence

 

Woa, hold on there.....before you get too crazy about it all, I think the support was in decrying the murdering of the GRANDCHILDREN, not of outright support FOR Ghaddafi....

Don't confuse the 2 please. For my own part, I never have and never will support Moammar. But the killing of the kids is a travesty, absolutely.

And what evidence is there of the two dead children?

Gadaffi's word?

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


I'm not fighting the battle on whether or not the media is lying, you want to fight it, fight it elsewhere.

I'm simply stating the fight ideologically....I need provide no proof

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.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


hey Illusions - I realized later that this is something I should have commented on:

My strong and certain feeling that this uprising is a group who historically has disliked Gaddafi (and who have likely real grievances with him) who are being pushed and manipulated into furthering a goal for the western economic interests. I dont think the people pushing them care about them, or the rest of the Libyan people. I dont think they care about America either.

This is one good example of how the world - the real world - exists. We all tend to look for an explanation for what goes on around us. We look for an explanation - not many.

Reality often comes in a mix so complex it can't be pulled apart and analyzed quite as easily as we'd all like - so we see the pieces of the puzzle that we recognize and put them together as best we can. We just don't each of us place the same level of importance on the same pieces at the same time or in the same way. And we can all be at the mercy of a certain amount of built in pareidolia (a word I have to look up each and every time) It seems to be inescapable for we humans - we're constantly looking for meaning - in everything. And we find it whether it's there or not - sometimes.

If it weren't for pareidolia ATS might not exist at all :-)

But this is the problem - often enough we see the pieces, and we're right. Objectivity is an elusive thing - we each come to trust our own intuition - our ability to determine fact from fiction. We each believe we know something.

You aren't entirely right about this - and you aren't entirely wrong. Neither am I. It's exactly why it's so valuable and necessary for people to come together and present their take on things - isn't it?

I'm not telling you anything you don't already know - clearly

I only bring it up now because I reread what you said above and I realized it for what it is. We might not agree on the details - but there are several stories in this situation happening at the same time.

I could be wrong. But I doubt it.

In all honesty, I hope you are right. But I doubt it.

Let's just say - I would prefer to be right about this - my version is less troubling than yours. It's still ugly - but, there you go. What I prefer doesn't enter in to it, and two truths can coexist within the same situation. More than two - obviously.

As I said - I wasn't really interested in arguing about theory - I was only interested in how a person develops that theory. It will be very interesting to see how this one plays out. Let's hope it's only interesting.

My simple and optimistic wish is for a tired an battered Libya to come out of this a free nation. We can always dream.

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.