It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NATO missiles hit Gaddafi's complex (May 12, 2011)

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 




Here is my research that I carried out during the same timelines because I actually do important research projects on stuff like this. Your research?


My research? a lot more than your obviously! Ever really stop to think why? Re read your articles and look to see why he is a target! The clue is ....... I'm sure you will find it eventually without any of ATS holding your hand!




posted on May, 14 2011 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by phatpackage
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 




Here is my research that I carried out during the same timelines because I actually do important research projects on stuff like this. Your research?


My research? a lot more than your obviously! Ever really stop to think why? Re read your articles and look to see why he is a target! The clue is ....... I'm sure you will find it eventually without any of ATS holding your hand!


Nobody is holding my hand, thank you very much.

Maybe if you put the pieces together, you might be able to understand that this is part of the globalist agenda. Gaddafi supported a stronger African Union, which would mean a major loss for the cheap mode of production for the West (otherwise known as Africa). If Africa became more self-sufficient, then it would inspire other exploited regions like South America and Southeast Asia to do the same.

The US, working with globalist institutions, has ensured that Gaddafi and Libya would be set back decades. They bombed Libyan political and economic infrastructure from the beginning and have always tried to assassinate Gaddafi himself.

The rebels even set up their own central banks early on with the endorsement of the world bank and internation monetary fund. What this means is that if the rebels gain control of Libya, they will borrow a lot of money from the WB and IMF, making Libya into yet another slave labour country where despots own most of the wealth, the country is fully indebted to globalist institutions, and the people work slave labour in horrible conditions. Same thing has been carried out in many other countries, Indonesia being a good example.

Are these the same conclusions that you have come up with? Or do you just follow status quo and see Gaddafi as the evil man who must die so you can live?



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 




Seriously, you don't see a problem with the US going into Pakistan unannounced and assassinating people?


To get Bin Laden, Not one iota! Other people might be different but Bin laden & Gaddafi? No problem whatsoever!
edit on 14-5-2011 by phatpackage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 




Or do you just follow status quo and see Gaddafi as the evil man who must die so you can live?


As you are the Original Poster I will answer your question. No! He must be removed for his actions! Removed yes, dead or alive who cares!



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Then by your logic, the American military brass, political leadership and economic elite should also be wiped out because they are all murderous tyrants.


I'm glad my logic was clearly displayed and you were able to reach the correct conclusion.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Fact is few to no people support you. Gadafi will be dead soon, and no one will care. You will I'm sure. Just add it to your list of research of assassinations.

Point is, most people simply don't care about your opinion. And saying it over and over again will not convince most otherwise.

Personally, I don't believe in war crimes nor laws of war. When a war happened, you kill. You pretty much circle a location on a map and firebomb it into nothingness. Civilians are just people in the way. They know the cost of living near that place. I care about civilians until war occurs. Then they're just assets in the way of a goal. Call me a tyrant. It's why war sucks.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by PETROLCOIN

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
now nobody seems to care if the West assassinates Gaddafi?


I wanted them to kill Gaddafi before the announcement of bin Laden's postdated death. But that's just me.

I say fire away.


Why?

What did Gaddafi ever do to you? What did Gaddafi ever do to any country involved in the coalition against him?


Well now, both the UK and USA have legitimate reasons for having a bone to pick with this evil man. Think Lockerbie and think of Yvonne Fletcher who was killed by some thug within the Lybian Embassay in London and justice has never been found for her killing. Gaddafi has hands dripping in blood already. Now he is up to his neck in blood by killing his own people.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Wirral Bagpuss
 


Let's not forget the fact that he backed PIRA.


Links between the IRA and Libya can be traced back to 1972 when the country's leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi first praised the group as allies in a struggle against Western imperialism.

Gaddafi later helped provide the IRA with the weaponry they needed to wage an armed campaign which lasted more than 30 years and claimed more than 1,000 lives.

It is not known when the first arms shipments began, but the relationship became public knowledge in March 1973 when the Irish Navy boarded a ship called the Claudia, off the coast of County Waterford. They found five tonnes of weaponry supplied by the Libyan government. Veteran IRA man Joe Cahill was also on board.


Libya's 30-year link to the IRA



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by PETROLCOIN
 


how did you know that? from the western media?




posted on May, 14 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
This topic is moot, anyway. After next week, Obama won't be allowed to attack without approval from congress.


My gran used to have a saying about closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, really doesn't help much.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
EDIT: Oh, one more thing:
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.


Gaddafi has that one covered....


2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.


Gaddafi has that one covered too...



3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.


Hell, it's a Trifecta !!!

edit on 14-5-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)




So do the coalition forces, if its good for the goose its good for the gander.
Have we covered all three of those as well ?



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


And they still claiming that Gaddafi is not the target,...???...what a joke .



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Nato warship been hit!!!
more to come..

www.reuters.com...



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by HAMO2011
Nato warship been hit!!!
more to come..

www.reuters.com...


According to the report, the NATO official said; "..there are no NATO ships close enough to the coast that could be hit by shots fired by pro-Gaddafi forces".

I wonder if this implies the NATO ship was hit by anti-Gaddafi forces or some other faction/s?



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by teapot
 


It implies that the NATO leadership are willing to make nonsense statements.

"We say they don't have the capability, so THEY must be lying". That's what I get out of the story. The story itself, especially the NATO comments, are extremely vague. The best way to deny something, is to deny it as vaguely (without description) as possible so no one can tear apart your response.

Any articles covering the original Libyan claim to attacking the NATO ship? I bet it has more details than NATO's denial.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join