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.

 

Libya: enough is enough

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
parliamentarian & journalist Nazir Ahmed has posted an article in the Guardian newspaper in the UK, the Guardian newspaper is a national newspaper here in the UK for those that don't know it, fairly well respected (It published the Wikileaks here in the UK) although its leanings are definitely liberal

Guardian Link

He makes some very valid points such as:


Parts of the British media have already mischaracterised my visit to Libya as a "peace mission to Gaddafi". This is untrue. It has now been two months, and 6,000 Nato air attacks, since UN security council resolution 1973. I visited western Libya to see what was happening on the ground and I intend to visit eastern Libya in due course.


Many people assumed because he is Asian and horror of horrors a Muslim, means he is against Britain and for Muslims, which is complete right wing clap trap of course


While one could understand the push for a security council "no-fly" resolution, to term the way in which the resolution has been stretched "mission creep" understates the pace at which Britain is racing to full-scale war. "Mission creep" is shorthand for an escalation in the number of dead civilians. For all the haste we have seen on Libya, we see no such urgency, for example, in the case of Syria, Yemen or Bahrain. It appears to many observers that Libya is being singled out for political rather than human rights reasons.


I think everyone realizes that the mission in Libya has has stretch far beyond the mandate of the UN, with the military now saying they want to increase the hostilities it will only get worse


We are now being told by General Sir David Richards, the head of the armed forces, that the UK must further "up the ante" by systematically destroying more civilian infrastructure in Libya in support of the rebels about which we know little.


Notice how they are stating we need to destroy more civilian facilities to protect civilians.. DUH

He also questions the "precision" bombing


As for the alleged surgical precision of Nato bombing, a Nato bomb exploded 400 metres away from me during my visit. It was dropped on a parliamentary complex I had visited four hours earlier. Other Nato bombs had destroyed a lamppost on a pavement adjacent to the parliamentary office. They were hardly "command and control" centres.


It is really a huge folly to be involved in military action in the ME


What also concerns me is the message that the Libyan – and also the Egyptian – situation has sent out about western foreign policy. Several years of painstaking diplomacy brought Libya back into the community of nations: this effort was thrown away in 48 hours. What conclusions are to be drawn about British and western foreign policy by developing and emergent countries?


The article is a good read, and with the major lack of interest that is now apparent on our actions in Libya by the majority of the MSM it is nice to see the article published

So thoughts people?




posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
I'm not getting the point of your post.

Are you trying to imply that we should not be involved there or that we should become more involved?



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


I assume he is saying let's not invade another country, and let's not prolong a civil war by taking sides, (correct me if I'm wrong, cause this is just an assumption).



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
The UN screwed up big time with this one. By all accounts, Syria is a larger humanitarian crisis, but yet the UN does nothing, as usual. They have such a glorious record concerning human rights don't they? Remember all the good they did in Rwanda and Darfur? You don't? Neither do I.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by PrinceDreamer
 


I didnt need him to tell me that Libya was being singled out for economic and political reasons. Its been obvious to me from the start that this whole thing has been a fraud on the people of the "Allied" nations perpetrated by politically well connected economic interests.

I have never for a moment believed that this was "humanitarian" in nature, and I have been incredibly frustrated with how easily people accepted that it was.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   


For all the haste we have seen on Libya, we see no such urgency, for example, in the case of Syria, Yemen or Bahrain. It appears to many observers that Libya is being singled out for political rather than human rights reasons.


For me this is the big problem.
We're ignoring several other countries where the crackdown has been just as severe. In Bahrain people were being chased down & shot in the streets, for Pete's sake!



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I have no problem being there for economic reasons as that's something we should do but yes I agree that they should at least be honest about it and not say it's for humanitarian reasons.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
We are not there for humanitarian reasons, anyone who believes this is just plain dumb ! we are there to replace Gaddaffi with a puppet that will bow down to western oppressors.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
The UN screwed up big time with this one. By all accounts, Syria is a larger humanitarian crisis, but yet the UN does nothing, as usual. They have such a glorious record concerning human rights don't they? Remember all the good they did in Rwanda and Darfur? You don't? Neither do I.


So why do people not realize that "humanitarian" is the label they slap on "furthering the economic interests of the wealthy and powerful"? It is how the wealthy and powerful economic players get you to fight and pay for the battles only they benefit from.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
I have no problem being there for economic reasons as that's something we should do but yes I agree that they should at least be honest about it and not say it's for humanitarian reasons.


No its not. Let me point out the major flaw in that logic. You should be there for economic interests only if YOU benefit economically.

Being there for economic reasons makes absolutely no sense if your life, and your tax dollars are being spent to make someone else benefit economically. "The US" is not the beneficiary of these action. SOME FEW people in the US are, and so are SOME FEW people in other nations. The people of the "allied" nations are paying to fight the battles of some few and not only do they not get a cut of the action, they pick up the whole tab.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by PrinceDreamer
 


I didnt need him to tell me that Libya was being singled out for economic and political reasons. Its been obvious to me from the start that this whole thing has been a fraud on the people of the "Allied" nations perpetrated by politically well connected economic interests.

I have never for a moment believed that this was "humanitarian" in nature, and I have been incredibly frustrated with how easily people accepted that it was.



Neither did I, I was just please to see a member of the house of lords saying it out loud in a MSM publication

The war in Libya is disgusting (as is Iraq and Afghanistan) ordinary people dying so some fat twat sorry fat cat can make even more obscene amounts of money.

I think teh majority of people in ATS feel the same and not blinkered by the MSM approach, had the west stayed out of this the matter would of been resolved in a week or so, no were dragged into another useless war that will end up with troops on the ground and more and more innocent civilians killed or displaced, it is sickening



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
This whole libya farce has been one big lie,from the start,they always intented to kill gaddafi,and his family,and close supporters,right from the start,they said for gaddafi to leave the country,but also issued a warrant for his arrest,so really,it wasn't much of a choice..

I mean,put yourself in his position, you have 2 choices.

1/Stay and fight on knowing you have the majority of your country behide you.
(the rebels barely make up 10% of the population )

2/Leave the country in exile as a criminal,to always be hunted down,for alleged crimes laid against you.

Lets not forget,gaddafi,said quite clearly many times,if it's democracy the wests wants,then to give him 6 mts,and he would hold elections,under the watchful eyes of the UN and NATO...
(it was turn down,because they knew he would get the majority vote)

Most of us here at ATS,are well informed,and know this is a MI6 and the french DCRI and the CIA created uprising.


I believe this was the moment they decided to kill him and all his family.



also remember how they got a no fly zone,because they said gaddafi was using fighter jets to bomb civilians,when later it turn out to be untrue,and infact,he was going to great lengths to not target civilians..


and anyone who can be bothered,only has to google libyan economy and standard of living,and you can't help but think,what the hell are the rebels uprising for....they have a better standard of living then most of us.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join