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.

 

Ground troops likely to follow attack helicopters into Libyan fray

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Libya is a nation of 6 Million Libyans


Exactly. He can't even summon more than a handful of Brigades of foreign troops to fight for him.


Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Fearful of NATO, Libyans dont want to die by NATO fascist hands.


Say's you. Source?


Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Yes its for why you think Qatar recognized the rebels so quickly? because of the interest deals they had, just like your britian,french,italy, america.


Because most of the Arab leaders despise Gaddafi and will take any opportunity to get rid of him. It was the Arab League that pressured the West to act, remember?


Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
And also why you think the rebels installed a Rothschild central bank so fast in east Libya during still uncertain finical crisis we are all in, when the dollar falls and which it will the banks will be worthless.


Source?



Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Thats what the Western Mainstream news said during the revolutions in eupore it later turned out to be false, these aren't libyans but terrorists.


Eupore? I have no idea what you're on about.

Oh, how come you can post youtube vids as evidence and expect me to believe them, when I do the same you discredit them as fakes?



Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links



Rebel commander Al Qeade links

Wow...

25 whole men that fought in Iraq? That's me sold then, the entire rebel Army must all be "terrorists" then.
.




posted on May, 25 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by here4awhile
those rebels over there are NOT the good guys I can tell you that much...I'm willing to bet many of them hold extremist beliefs


That's what Moamar Gadaffi says.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


its no wonder you British supported the Kosovo Liberation Army a Kosovar Albanian terrorist organization which later got removed from the terrorist group list.


www.globalresearch.ca...


The east Libyans fighters aren't rebels you believe that because the mainstream news tells you about it, just like the bin laden raid story you believe that was real to right?






Because most of the Arab leaders despise Gaddafi and will take any opportunity to get rid of him. It was the Arab League that pressured the West to act, remember?


you saw all that on the news and believe its real because the media can be trusted?






Eupore? I have no idea what you're on about. Oh, how come you can post youtube vids as evidence and expect me to believe them, when I do the same you discredit them as fakes?



Yes the euporean revolutions in the 90s, what good have they brought? nothing but misery.




Oh, how come you can post youtube vids as evidence and expect me to believe them, when I do the same you discredit them as fakes?


Ah then you would please show where is the proof that saddam had ties with bin laden then, seeing how everything you take that from the mainstream.


These uprisings in the middle east are manufactured

Remember This General?





Amy Goodman on March 2, 2007, U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.), explains that the Bush Administration planned to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran (2007 upto 2012)


and look whats happening in Sryia, Libya now and today, just like what Wesley Clark explained in the video.


Since you believe everything you hear in the mainstream, you also believe believe that bin laden died in the raid and that it was?




edit on 25-5-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-5-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Thanks for the laughs Stumason. You're a bankster shill!! I hope they are compensating you for turning your back on humanity!!!

Regardless of what he may or may not have been, the simple fact is that Gaddafi was a run-of-the-mill dictator whose tyrannical ways - much like Sadaam - were perfectly tolerable until he did something to threaten the established power structure that allowed him to come into power in the first place.

In case you didn't know, Libya had one of the last remaining state-owned banks in the world. And also in case you didn't know, Libya was in the process of creating a gold-backed Dinar, which it wanted to spread throughout Africa and use for trade in the region, including oil, which Libya produces a lot of. This, of course, was blasphemy to TPTB, and not surprisingly they acted very quickly put a stop to it.

Like the Egyptian "rebels", the Libyan "rebels" were both funded and trained by the United States of America. It's a plan that has been in the works since the 1990's. TPTB are now in a race to take over the Middle East before the ponzi collapses in the West. All of the "evidence" giving credence to invasion or war is completely bogus.

On behalf of humanity I would like to wish you the best in your future dealings with bankster scum, Stumason! Cheers!



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 



John MCcain In Libya With The Rebels.
One more thing John McCain is breaking american laws as a statesman/senator by going into libya showing support to these terrorists by doing this sort of action he currently knows more then you or the public in the west.


But of course by going over there that means he knows this is a coup and that he may know alot then the mainstream news which you are believing everything that is true when the media lies, but dont expect John McCain to tell you those secrets.


John McCain hasn't done anything to fix his state, but he is a war monger supported by lobbyists and oil companies.


If the rebels are really what the media claims they are why did the Brave SAS officers risk there lives and job to leak out on whats really going and happening in libya Afghanistan?

SAS Leak





The unprecedented arrests came as members of the SAS and SBS were deployed in Libya in preparation for airstrikes and to liaise with rebels and identify stranded British oil workers for rescue.






The investigation is focused primarily on information relating to the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. But it is also looking at secret information the men had access to about Libya and other countries where Special Forces have been operating.


Hmm your government hiding something that the British public shouldn't know.


And by the way stumason why was the war monger John McCain in egypt after the revolution along with Hillary? to show support you might say, but in reality that wasn't the reason they came in egypt for.
edit on 25-5-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by dontdrinkthewater
 


Ah, the old "TPTB planning to take over the world" excuse..

The problem with this thinking (and it seems to be thinking based solely on the last 10 years and not taking into account history) is that 50-60 years ago, the very nations you're claiming are trying to get control of the region, were in control of that region. If the plan was to take them over and steal their resources, why did we grant independance to them in the first place? Seems a bit silly, don't you think?

I suggest you come up with another conspiracy, because the one you're trying to peddle doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 





Ah, the old "TPTB planning to take over the world" excuse..

excuse? the TPTB are already taking over the world its no wonder you dont believe it






I suggest you come up with another conspiracy, because the one you're trying to peddle doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny.


It actually does stand up to logical scrutiny, your the only one having a hard time believing in thats the all.






The problem with this thinking (and it seems to be thinking based solely on the last 10 years and not taking into account history) is that 50-60 years ago, the very nations you're claiming are trying to get control of the region, were in control of that region. If the plan was to take them over and steal their resources, why did we grant independance to them in the first place? Seems a bit silly, don't you think?





why did we grant independance to them in the first place?


To control the mass under TPTB spread of influence, just wondering you know who are the Rothschild, david rockefellers? the Bilderberg Group?

The Bilderberg Group are not the only ones that control us and our mainstream news, but they are very powerful and have secretive meetings, they will be having another meeting in june.


Watch This Video of the Bilderberg Group to get you started

Jim Tucker I believe is his name is a respected journalist since 1975 has been exposing the Bilderberg Group, they held secret talks on kosovo even before the war started.

The Bliderberg Group

edit on 26-5-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Wake up

Wake Up

Wake Up

Seriously, wake up

Invade Libya?

Basically, just read the entire site and then come back and talk with me. It's not your fault that you haven't been awakened yet.


edit on 26-5-2011 by dontdrinkthewater because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter


Ah, the old "TPTB planning to take over the world" excuse..

excuse? the TPTB are already taking over the world its no wonder you dont believe it


So, you're not actually going to address the logical fallacy in the argument then? You're just going to quote my first line out of context and repeat what was already said?

If there was a conspiracy to take over the world, why then was it not done 60 years ago when most of the world was under the control of the very "european elites" that you claim are trying to take over the world?

They already did take over the world and then let it all go! If this "long term plan" that has "been in the works for decades" is actually real, then what was the purpose of the British, French and Dutch Empires, for example, dissolving and granting independance?

I doubt you'll actually address this problem with your theory though and merely keep parrotting the same bollocks.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by dontdrinkthewater
 


Ah, an unknown Blog.

That's it, my argument is soundly defeated by an obvious introduction of logical reasoning.

You haven't addressed my original point. The West had the world firmly under heel 60 years ago. Why let it go only to then try and take it all over again?

Those blogs are referring to the standard practices of nation states and it isn't shocking in the slightest that US groups, for example, have helped nuture these uprisings, in fact it should be expected that such groups would get some sort of outside help.

I am sure Russian intelligence groups are up to the same, and Chinese, and French, and British. It's the same old game that's been played out for years and it's called Geo-politics and is not a conspiracy.

However, it is a MASSIVE leap of faith to then claim it is some uber-conspiracy by a bunch of uber-rich banker types to take over the world. Why go through all this bother when they already had it?

Explain that, instead of the highly condescending "wake up - wake up" remarks. It speaks volumes that you cannot actually engage in debate using your own words and thoughts, merely parroting and linking to obscure blogs instead.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Stopping responding to the thread then since your not going to believe the Bilderberg Group, ATS is a site of alternavtive news, if you dont like whats on here go back and been a dam sheep and go been a good slave to system, otherwise let others wake up and see whose really running the show behind our backs.


If you dont like it here why are you on ATS? are you spreading English Democrats campaign? and also you know having a political site on below your signature counts as mass advertising.


The Bilderberg Group in ottawa 2010

So you dont believe TPTB are real eh? and why wont the mainstream news talk about The Bilderbergs Group? because the mainstream news are working for them. .
edit on 26-5-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-5-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Read through my posts if you're so concerned about my ability to form my own thoughts. Not a problem. It simply isn't worth my time to debate an issue like this with someone who obviously doesn't understand the issue being debated. Unknown blog? Hardly. Unkown to those stuck in the mainstream propaganda machine? Obviously.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by dontdrinkthewater
 

The problem with this thinking (and it seems to be thinking based solely on the last 10 years and not taking into account history) is that 50-60 years ago, the very nations you're claiming are trying to get control of the region, were in control of that region. If the plan was to take them over and steal their resources, why did we grant independance to them in the first place? Seems a bit silly, don't you think?


OK. It's 2011, so taking your loose 50-60 years ago timeframe, that puts us at 1951-1961. Seeing as how virtually all of Europe was destroyed by WWII, I don't really see how the "West" was in control of the Middle East. But I digress....

As a British citizen, I would think you are very familiar with the idea of neo-colonialism. The industrialized West exports our corporations to underdeveloped countries, extracts resources and low-wage workers, and in the process makes the underdeveloped nation dependent upon the imports of the developed nation. In 1951, the USA was still the number one producer of oil in the world, so the Middle East wasn't a huge priority. The oil embargo and shortage in the USA and elsewhere in the 1970's is what changed the landscape of geopolitics. US production was declining, peak oil was theorized, and the US realized that it would not be able to sustain its growth without cheap oil.

So, led by the Bush family, we started negotiating heavily with the Saudis, and likewise later funded "terrorists" like Sadaam and Bin Laden to help facilitate the removal of regimes that were not friendly to western corporate and banker interests. After the Cold War ended, the game changed - instead of funding and arming terrorist cells outright, the USA decided to fund rebellions as a means to overthrow uncooperative dictators like Gaddafi in a more politically correct manner.

The truly insidious and evil nature of this foreign policy is that seemingly neutral organizations operating for the benefit of humanity - like the Brookings Institution and Council on Foreign Relations - are the ones proposing research papers that offer these corporate-banker-backed "solutions" to increasing profits!



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 



Still not addressing my points I see and resorting to personal attacks in an effort to undermine my position. Good luck with that. It shows a lack of reasoning on your behalf, really.

I am well aware of the Bilderberg Group, but I think you give them far to much credit. It is not any secret that the rich and powerful will seek to take advantage of situations and maneuver themselves into more wealth and power, but to suggest they are homogonous group workign together, hell bent on world domination misses the crucial point that many members of this Group are from the old order that did have control over most of the world prior to the 1950's and subsequently gave it up.

Also, you fail to take into account other nations and groups. The Chinese are not privy to these meetings or plans, the Russians are certainly not part of the group, African despots and the like have their own schemes and those in Asia also. It is the same as it has always been, varous groups of different nations vying for power in a big global game of chess.

I think you'll find I am a damn site better schooled on world history going back several centuries than you give me credit for, which is how I have formed my own opinions and don't bang on like some sort of Alex Jones wannabe.

The Alex Jones sphere of thought takes a wholly American-centric view of geo-politics and fails, miserably, to take into account lots of other factions and nations with their own agenda's.

Oh, btw, just because I don't subscribe to your idea of some over-arching cabal of rich folks plotting and scheming, that doesn't mean I am sheep or that I swallow the MSM. I form my own opinions based upon observable evidence and there is simply bugger all evidence of some "NWO" plot. If there is a plot, it is a pretty cack one and poorly implemented, which is doomed to fail.

I also like to read about UFO's and Science topics too, not that is any of your concern why I am here and it is certainly not your place to tell me when and where I can post and what such posts should contain. I might suggest if you cannot take the heat of a critical debate, then it is you who should step off. You never bring anything of substance to these debates.

I asked a simple question as to why these "NWO" types didn't seize the world when it would have been so much easier, instead of 60 years later. You have failed, totally, to address that point.

And another thing, my sig has been up there for at least 3 years and has been seen by a great many mods, feel free to complain. It's never been an issue.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Fresh water in Libya + oil in Libya = the richest nation in all of Africa and the Middle East.

This is from the press core canada, and please read it before making any other ridiculous sheep like responses.


The uprisings are manufactured from the start, just like the euporean uprisings in the 90s its all about the resources.




Oh, btw, just because I don't subscribe to your idea of some over-arching cabal of rich folks plotting and scheming, that doesn't mean I am sheep or that I swallow the MSM. I form my own opinions based upon observable evidence and there is simply bugger all evidence of some "NWO" plot. If there is a plot, it is a pretty cack one and poorly implemented, which is doomed to fail.


if you dont like it why are you here?
or are you waiting for wikileaks, Mainstream to release all the information





I asked a simple question as to why these "NWO" types didn't seize the world when it would have been so much easier, instead of 60 years later. You have failed, totally, to address that point.


your asking why? sigh well sadly they did try with these NWO type to seize the world are you aware of the ottoman empire? Roman Empire? German Nazi Empire WII they have all failed to complete the objective to seize the world for the elites because they had no control over the people.


Here in canada our prime minster is pushing for a north american union which will be much like the south american union and the euporean union.

In 1970s and early 1980s people in eupore never believed that a euporean union would happen but it did happen and now Europeans are buying for it because of the supposed democratic revolutions which were manufactured agaisnt the superpower USSR, Russia.

The reason the elites wanted Yugoslavia dissolved is because of the euporean union of today.

You should see and read the book title The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski it tells you pretty much how the elites want to rule us.


edit on 26-5-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-5-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-5-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   
I think we can all agree that Gaddafi is a dictator and doesn't need to be leading any country. However, NATO and UN involvement in this skirmish has hardly anything to do with human rights violations by the Libyan. It's a cover. I'll even go so far as to say that the rebellion was sparked by foreign governments. No, this is about oil, plain and simple. Gaddafi was wanting to nationalize the oil industry in 2009.

Gaddafi says looking at oil firm nationalization


(Reuters) - Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi said on Wednesday his country and other oil exporters were looking into nationalizing foreign firms due to low oil prices and suggested Tripoli might not stick to OPEC production quotas.


Just take a gander at how that worked out for the Shah of Iran:

Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, Shah of Iran


The young prince came to power during World War II after an Anglo-Soviet invasion forced the abdication of his father Reza Shah. During his reign, the Iranian oil industry was nationalized under Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and Iran marked the anniversary of 2,500 years of continuous monarchy since the founding of the Persian Empire by Cyrus the Great.

The Shah's White Revolution, a series of economic and social reforms intended to transform Iran into a global power, succeeded in modernizing the nation, nationalizing many natural resources, and extending suffrage to women.

A secular Muslim himself, the Shah gradually lost support from the Shi'a clergy of Iran, particularly due to his strong policy of modernization, secularization, conflict with the traditional class of merchants known as bazaari, and recognition of Israel. Various additional controversial policies were enacted, including the banning of the communist Tudeh Party, and a general suppression of political dissent by Iran's intelligence agency, SAVAK. Amnesty International reported that in 1978 Iran had as many as 2,200 political prisoners.

Several other factors contributed to strong opposition to the Shah among certain groups within Iran, the most notable of which were the U.S. and U.K. backed coup d'état against Prime Minister Mosaddegh in 1953, clashes with Islamists, and increased communist activity. By 1979, political unrest had transformed into a revolution which, on 16 January, forced the Shah to leave Iran. Soon thereafter, the Iranian monarchy was formally abolished, and Iran was declared an Islamic republic.


In this war in Libya we obviously have a similar situation. Nationalized oil? Check. U.S. and U.K. backed coup d'etat? Check.

Seriously, it's practically smacking you in the face right now. We're talking about the oil interests of the U.S. and British Empires. What else are they going to do, change their spots?

How could I possibly think that it's not about human rights? Well, let's look at another African nation which as it turns out has no oil.


The history of Liberia is unique among African nations because of its relationship with the United States. It is one of only two countries in sub-Sahara Africa, along with Ethiopia, without roots in the European Scramble for Africa. It was founded and colonized by freed American slaves with the help of a private organization called the American Colonization Society in 1821–1822, on the premise that former American slaves would have greater freedom and equality there.

Slaves freed from slave ships were also sent there instead of being repatriated to their countries of origin. These colonists formed an elite group in Liberian society, and, in 1847, they founded the Republic of Liberia, establishing a government modeled on that of the United States, naming Monrovia, their capital city, after James Monroe, the fifth president of the United States and a prominent supporter of the colonization.

A military-led coup in 1980 overthrew then-president William R. Tolbert, which marked the beginning of a period of instability that eventually led to two civil wars that left hundreds of thousands of people dead and devastated the country's economy. Today, Liberia is recovering from the lingering effects of the civil war and related economic dislocation. Statistics indicate that about 85% of the population live on less than $1.25 a day.


The name Liberia denotes "liberty".


Why haven't we helped them? Well, the UN tried but their workers were too busy having sex with children to bother to help clean up sewage from streets or feed the hungry.

Q&A: Child abuse by aid agency staff


Is this the first time evidence of child abuse by aid agency workers has come to light?

No. For years, there have been anecdotal accounts of abuse. In 1995, UNHCR guidelines specifically acknowledged that international aid workers were implicated in sexual violence against refugees.

There followed a spate of abuse reports from organisations such as Human Rights Watch. In 2002, a joint report by the UNHCR and the charity Save the Children claimed child abuse was endemic in refugee camps, highlighting allegations against 67 workers and 42 agencies involving 40 victims. CNN also reported on the subject.

A 2006 Save the Children report said up to half of Liberian children were selling sex to wealthy men, among them UN peacekeepers and aid agency staff.


Just my two cents.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join