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

page: 8
51
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by moonpie86
After the airstrike, apparently gunshots of celebration were let off. SICK!


those weren't gunshot of celebration... they were gunshots of resolve.




posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by wonderworld
reply to post by stumason
 


O.K simply remove the word agent after the disinfo part.


Disinfo implies I am deliberately supplying untrue or misleading information. Please point out where I have done this and, as I have had to provide "evidence" then I expect you to do so as well.


Originally posted by wonderworld
You did in fact pick apart at least 5 comments in one post, all with different views.


Well, don't make it so easy then! When you post blatantly untrue information, I WILL pick it apart. Expect it.


Originally posted by wonderworld
We are on to you.


Are you now? Bring it on, should be worth a laugh. I notice everyone dodges my comments about the Abu Salim prison massacre, ot the executions on State TV of dissidents, or his historic aiding of terrorists around the world. Nope, ignore all that, the West is evil, this is about Oil (despite Libya being a minor producer) and Gaddafi has the sun shining out of his arse.


Originally posted by wonderworld
1800's Geneva Convention,,,,, O.K whatever you say.


Yes, 1864 in fact. Go look it up, it is clear you haven't the foggiest what you're chatting about.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
I am against Gaddafi, and think it is dishonest to whitewash him as a saint while demonizing the west, but this is definitely tragic. No one on either side of the conflict deserves this. I guess things like this tend to happen in war, though (and to me, this Libya conflict isn't really anything less than a war by a different name). This certainly doesn't justify it at all, but I don't think this is the first time that noncombatants and children have been killed in a war. I hope that this war is over as soon as possible, to minimize casualties on all sides, but especially civilians.

Also, I'm fairly sure stumason isn't a disinfo agent. He's contributed a lot to ATS, and I for one respect him for it. Calling him a disinfo agent, even if you totally disagree with what he says, is just weaseling out of replying to his posts' content. We're here to discuss the matters at hand, not to accuse others of being paid shills

Also, don't you think if they were do employ disinfo, they would do it elsewhere where people are generally far less skeptical?
edit on 30/4/11 by HardbeatAcolyte because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


That's the thing, though. They arent interested in actual evidence. They just attack anyone who presents information that contradicts their pre-determined ideas as 'disinfo agents'. Generally, I think those sorts of accusations are actually projection.

Personally, I'm still up in the air about who and what to trust in this Libya situtation, so I appreciate the info you are posting. But some here have already stated they 'know they are right', so clearly they have no use for debate and only post here to affirm their admittedly pre-determined opinions.

And now that I have posted in support of you, I can be relegated to 'disinfo agent shill' so they can ignore me too.

Too bad out-of-hand dismissing someone as 'disinfo' isn't against the TandC. Actually, I thought it was, but no one seems to enforce it.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   
So, they just bomb anything, and who cares who else they kill. They are so clueless. They must never harm anyone, not even the bad guys if they are the bad guys, but when you kill children or any innocents there is a law of consequence. you dont just drop bombs in buildings, without caring. And you don't follow bad orders ever, not even once, no matter what they do about it. Ever. Dont go to war. But if you're there, dont follow any orders to harm anyone. PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD.

Its like being a distorted nightmare where no one has a clue, they behave insane and don't speak up.

SAY NO!



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by soleprobe
 


your pretty much sick minded defending NATO.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by HardbeatAcolyte
I am against Gaddafi, and think it is dishonest to whitewash him as a saint while demonizing the west, but this is definitely tragic. No one on either side of the conflict deserves this. I guess things like this tend to happen in war, though (and to me, this Libya conflict isn't really anything less than a war by a different name). This certainly doesn't justify it at all, but I don't think this is the first time that noncombatants and children have been killed in a war. I hope that this war is over as soon as possible, to minimize casualties on all sides, but especially civilians.


(emphasis mine)

First off, our government has made it clear that we aren't really at war - because otherwise they would need Congressional approval (our voice as the people) and, you know, follow the Constitution. Instead, we are there for "humanitarian" purposes; bombing, arming rebels, accidentally killing civilians, trying to assassinate a leader and killing his family.

Regarding that second part, while you are right, that doesn't lesson this at all. We are there, according to the media, because Ghaddafi allegedly attacked civilians... yet, so are we? There's also conflicting reports saying he specifically targeted rebels, which is his right as a leader, and minimal civilian deaths occurred.

In a country with a population of 6.4 million people, why should we support these rebels - with proven ties to terrorist groups we fought elsewhere - by arming them and murdering Ghaddafi? It's sickening and unconstitutional.

(this isn't directed at anyone in particular and was simply meant as a response)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by soleprobe
 


your pretty much sick minded defending NATO.


Nothing in that post could even begin to be read as a support of NATO.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by soleprobe
 


your pretty much sick minded defending NATO.

Others would say you're sick-minded supporting Gaddafi. I would disagree with them though. Why? Because casting value judgments against your rivals in order to discredit them is a bit of a cop-out

And I'm not exactly a NATO supporter by any means.
edit on 30/4/11 by HardbeatAcolyte because: elaboration



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by BattleFieldPredator
 





To be fair you sound as if you are in some laughingly important info war that "you must win!"


To be fair, I am.

why do you think the motto of this site is deny ignorance?



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
So if Gaddafi’s son Saif al-Arab joined the Rebels, why was he supposedly at Gaddafi’s compound?

Why was Gaddafi’s offer to negotiate ignored, his truce ignored? What is going on.

I knew they intended to kill Gaddafi but this seems to be a mysterious set of circumstances surrounding the deaths of his son and Grand-Children.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by AndrewSwann
I still dont see why NATO has the right to kill a world leader. Seems like someone would have to vote on this.


Yes... What is a North Atlantic Treaty Organization doing bombing countries and trying to assassinate leaders in the south Atlantic? Seems to be way outside of their original mandate.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by wonderworld
So if Gaddafi’s son Saif al-Arab joined the Rebels, why was he supposedly at Gaddafi’s compound?


I recall that was reported by some random blogs, but I never saw it reported by any major news sources.

Am I wrong?



I knew they intended to kill Gaddafi but this seems to be a mysterious set of circumstances surrounding the deaths of his son and Grand-Children.


mysterious how? I mean, if they were all in the same building, it seems pretty clear cut.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by soleprobe
 


your pretty much sick minded defending NATO.

I do believe according to reports they were Gaddaffi supporters firing those shots after the bombing ... I don't support or defend NATO



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Konah
First off, our government has made it clear that we aren't really at war - because otherwise they would need Congressional approval (our voice as the people) and, you know, follow the Constitution. Instead, we are there for "humanitarian" purposes; bombing, arming rebels, accidentally killing civilians, trying to assassinate a leader and killing his family.

You're right, I do think they're being dishonest. Protecting civilians may be one of their objectives, but I agree that there's probably more to it than that. It wouldn't be the first time the west has profited from overthrowing a foreign leader.


Originally posted by Konah
Regarding that second part, while you are right, that doesn't lesson this at all. We are there, according to the media, because Ghaddafi allegedly attacked civilians... yet, so are we? There's also conflicting reports saying he specifically targeted rebels, which is his right as a leader, and minimal civilian deaths occurred.

Well, it's been said that his forces have fired upon unarmed protesters, and I think I believe it. You're right, nothing lessens the fact that the west are accidentally killing civilians, but reports say that Gaddafi started this by deliberately killing civilians. If this is true, then I think he should be held accountable.


Originally posted by Konah
In a country with a population of 6.4 million people, why should we support these rebels - with proven ties to terrorist groups we fought elsewhere - by arming them and murdering Ghaddafi? It's sickening and unconstitutional.

Probably the same reason Afghan tribals were armed against the Soviets, 'an enemy of my enemy is a friend' and all that (Gaddafi wasn't exactly a friend of the west). It isn't really right, but it happens. Also, while a number of the rebels likely have Islamist ties, I seriously doubt that it's the majority. I think that the rebels are a group unified by their desire to overthrow Gaddafi, and that all of them have their own motives for fighting. I don't think they're all righteous freedom-fighters, but I still think I prefer them to Gaddafi.
edit on 30/4/11 by HardbeatAcolyte because: elaboration



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Itop1
 


I'm with ya! This is insane! If I were in his shoes I would definitely be heading myself towards making a statement in retaliation. At this point, what does he have to lose?? It's not about who's left as much as what's been taken. Family is forever... no getting around that.

Things may very well get ugly now due to the ignorance of TPTB against Libya. Truth...and I sure as hell don't blame the man for expressing a conscience.
edit on 4/30/2011 by forall2see because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by soleprobe

Originally posted by AndrewSwann
I still dont see why NATO has the right to kill a world leader. Seems like someone would have to vote on this.


Yes... What is a North Atlantic Treaty Organization doing bombing countries and trying to assassinate leaders in the south Atlantic? Seems to be way outside of their original mandate.


Libya is not in the South Atlantic.

It is in North Africa, off the coast of the Mediterranean sea.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by wonderworld
So if Gaddafi’s son Saif al-Arab joined the Rebels, why was he supposedly at Gaddafi’s compound?


Good question. It seems only a few outlets ever carried the story that he had defected and certainly there would not to be any mention in Western media, which is odd as it would be a big coup to get one of his sons to defect.


Originally posted by wonderworld
Why was Gaddafi’s offer to negotiate ignored, his truce ignored? What is going on.


I have already addressed this in this very thread. Do we need to go over it again? He has offered many truces and ceasefires while continuing his offensives and even after the supposed ceasefire begins, he is still shelling Misrata or advancing on Benghazi.

Nobody believes his calls for a ceasfire as he's done it so many times before already. And, to add icing to the cake, while he was calling for a ceasefire, his ministers went on record that the rebels in Misrata had "48hrs to lay down their arms" or "face total fire". Not very ceasefire-like, is it?


Originally posted by wonderworld
I knew they intended to kill Gaddafi but this seems to be a mysterious set of circumstances surrounding the deaths of his son and Grand-Children.


You knew? Pray tell. Besides, wherever Gaddafi is becomes a legitimate target by virtue of the fact it is the nexus of the C3 of the whole regime and is likely to be a key strategic target. It's akin to the German attempts to knock out the Cabinet War rooms. They weren't after Churchill directly, although I am sure they would love the bonus, but just trying to decapitate the beast.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
This is sad to hear. Anyone can look up statistics for Libya before all of this happened, and it really was not that bad of a country, and compared to the US, and considering a different culture, not really oppressive to its people at all. Newlyweds got over $50,000 automatically to buy a new home, several thousand for each child, no major taxes, etc.

I guess it would take killing a few Rothschilds before the people behind this got the point, that the Western involvement in Libya is simply murder.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
I recall that was reported by some random blogs, but I never saw it reported by any major news sources.

Am I wrong?


Iranian PressTV carried the story (and still do on their website)





top topics
 
51
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join