We'll turn our guns on Libya rebels if they attack civilians, Nato threatens

"Freedom fighters" in Libya

VIDEO: Gaddafis Dead Or Alive Promise To Libya
you can view this video .
-------------------------------
Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi has vowed to remain in the country "dead or alive" in an audio message on state TV.

He called on his supporters to defy the continuing Nato air and missile strikes and gather at his compound in Tripoli.

The statement came hours after Nato carried out one of its heaviest daytime raids on the capital so far, with more than 20 air strikes by low-flying jets.

Originally posted by Freeborn
ffs, what is it with some people on here, maybe, just maybe, they just want to try to protect the ordinary, everyday man in the street who are increasingly being used and targetted by both sides.

Like people everywhere all the majority of Libyans want is to put a roof over their heads, have food on the table and have a little bit of time to spend with family and friends free from any sort of inteference or complications.

Don't be naive! You don't seriously think that the West spends billions on simply protecting the Libyan people, now do you? Italy announced today they want to donate 300 million in fuel and cash to the rebels. They would only spend this money, if there is something to gain. When thousands where killed in Darfur, there was no urgency to offer help at all. Thinking that the West actually cares about human rights. As long as our corporations can exploit another country's natural resources, yes, then we do.

Originally posted by Skerrako
reply to post by Paulioetc15

 

World war three is happening right now in front of us.

That is not fearmongering, it is the plain truth.

It's really a shame we allow our governments to do this over and over.

I for one am tired of the Problem-Reaction-Solution

edit on 8-6-2011 by Skerrako because: xtra

I have been saying Problem-Reaction-Solution to many things recently (check some of my posts)

Its nice to hear someone else talking about it

Thank you

Ghaddafi's children were civilians
Nato killed em
dead

Originally posted by Danbones
Ghaddafi's children were civilians
Nato killed em
dead

Ah, but you see those were "bad" civilians, not "good" civilians on the rebel side. You know, the ones all cheering as they watch another alleged Gadaffi soldier or immigrant strung up then having his head hacked off.

Seriously, the hypocrisy from our leaders lips knows no bounds. I also heard on the radio this morning they are pushing the "Gadaffi sending his troops out to mass rape the rebel's women and buying in container loads of Viagra" story....again.. Another unproven shock story for the masses, just like the Iraqis turfing babies out of incubators in Kuwait!

reply to post by Mdv2

Thinking that the West actually cares about human rights.

What about Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leonne, Congo, Ivory Coast, Lebanon, Northern Iraq (post GW1) etc?

All of these were or are significant and costly deployments for humanitarian reasons.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by Paulioetc15

 

Ahhh damn... we just turned this into an invasion.

anyone who fights back is considered enemy... just like Iraq.

It was an invasion from the start, imo, specifically from the point where 'air cover' involved bombing.

Don't get me wrong - I think the 'air cover' BS story was an act of war against Libya anyway. This is nothing less than an unprovoked war, just like the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and now, apparently, Yemen.

US Intensifying Secret Campaign -
www.legitgov.org... Secret-Campaign of Yemen-Airstrikes

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by Mdv2

 

Thinking that the West actually cares about human rights.

What about Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leonne, Congo, Ivory Coast, Lebanon, Northern Iraq (post GW1) etc?

All of these were or are significant and costly deployments for humanitarian reasons.

Have you asked the people in those countries whether they wanted US intervention, and whether believe the US intervention was 'humanitarian'?

Originally posted by Danbones
Ghaddafi's children were civilians
Nato killed em
dead

Cold blooded, pre-meditated murder, by Murder Inc.

Originally posted by Gregandgemma

Originally posted by Skerrako
reply to post by Paulioetc15

 

World war three is happening right now in front of us.

That is not fearmongering, it is the plain truth.

It's really a shame we allow our governments to do this over and over.

I for one am tired of the Problem-Reaction-Solution

edit on 8-6-2011 by Skerrako because: xtra

I have been saying Problem-Reaction-Solution to many things recently (check some of my posts)

Its nice to hear someone else talking about it

Thank you

Yes, they have to create the chaos in order to introduce the solution - which is that Murder Inc will be in charge of every country in the world.

Originally posted by xavi1000
"Freedom fighters" in Libya

edit on 9-6-2011 by xavi1000 because: (no reason given)

Yep, that really looks like freedom!!

reply to post by Mdv2


Both the UK and USA have had plenty of opportunities and reasons to invade Libya in the past and they haven't done so, some times with reasonable justification....what has suddenly changed?

Of course there maybe 'benefits' for getting involved and protecting the civilian population, but it MAY not be the primary reason.

I Sir am not 'naive', I am as aware as most on here of how the world works, but I am not blinded by political dogma and am aware that despite their many faults both the UK and USA do occassionally have humanitarian drivers and I firmly believe this world would be a far worse place without their presence on the world stage.

As has been noted, both countries do have a history of providing purely humanitarian aid....but it's not quite PC to mention that and it doesn't really fit in with certain agendas and bigotted viewpoints!

reply to post by wcitizen

Have you asked the people in those countries whether they wanted US intervention

Have you bothered to even look these up because of those only three involved any significant (if any) US contribution?

Anyway that wasn't my point, I was replying to the claim that the west does not intervene when they do not have something to gain. So what about Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leonne, Congo, Ivory Coast, Lebanon, Northern Iraq (post GW1) etc?

By the way you haven’t replied to my request for a credible source on the DU claim, or for that matter the claim you made in another thread about Operation Ore, and that was well over a week ago!

Forgot to add - You asked whether I had asked the people of these countries welcomed intervention, well I haven't personally of course (have you asked whether they preferred having their hands cut off?) but some people have; in fact Sierra Leone was so grateful that they named Blair a Chief;

www.guardian.co.uk...
www.dailymail.co.uk...

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by wcitizen

 

Have you asked the people in those countries whether they wanted US intervention

Have you bothered to even look these up because of those only three involved any significant (if any) US contribution?

Anyway that wasn't my point, I was replying to the claim that the west does not intervene when they do not have something to gain. So what about Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leonne, Congo, Ivory Coast, Lebanon, Northern Iraq (post GW1) etc?

By the way you haven’t replied to my request for a credible source on the DU claim, or for that matter the claim you made in another thread about Operation Ore, and that was well over a week ago!

Someone else posted some links to credible sources, so I considered the question was answered. I'm guessing you did see that but you seem to like arguing anyway.

Also, the information on Operation Ore was also posted by someone else. I considered your question answered on that point too.

I don't for one minute believe that the West has the slightest interest in humanitarian issues either in our own countries or somewhere else.

I actually don't like the tone or attitude you're using in your posts to me, btw, so won't be replying to you further.

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by Mdv2

 

Both the UK and USA have had plenty of opportunities and reasons to invade Libya in the past and they haven't done so, some times with reasonable justification....what has suddenly changed?

both the UK and USA do occassionally have humanitarian drivers and I firmly believe this world would be a far worse place without their presence on the world stage.

What has changed is that the Arab Spring provided a window of opportunity in Libya that the West has taken full advantage of. The US doesn't like that their puppet Mubarak was removed from power; for me reason to believe that the Arab Spring was not instigated by the CIA. However, Gadaffi is a man who hasn't done much harm lately but is no ally either. The moment to support civilians that had found the inspiration and courage to rise up against a tyrant they used to fear was the best possible moment for the West to deal with Gadaffi for once and for all.

Instead of dealing with the nuisance called Gadaffi, a pro-Western government will be installed and the big oil machine will be rolling in to steal oil worth billions of dollars. Yes, I say stealing, because that's what they effectively do. It's like buying gold for a quarter of its real value.

reply to post by wcitizen

Someone else posted some links to credible sources, so I considered the question was answered. I'm guessing you did see that but you seem to like arguing anyway.

No someone posted links to presstv, globalresearch.ca and rt.com, they are not credible sources and they do not present any evidence of DU use.

I was after something like Amnesty, the red cross, or something along those line not a well known propaganda mouthpiece or another conspiracy site.

Also, the information on Operation Ore was also posted by someone else.

No it wasn’t, now you’re just lying. Here’s the thread for anyone who wants to check

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't for one minute believe that the West has the slightest interest in humanitarian issues either in our own countries or somewhere else.

So then what about Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leonne, Congo, Ivory Coast, Lebanon, Northern Iraq (post GW1) etc?

This was the bulk of my post yet you have refused to address it. The claim was that the west does not commit resources without something to gain, so what about the examples I gave?

I actually don't like the tone or attitude you're using in your posts to me, btw, so won't be replying to you further.

Aww did I make your bottom lip wobble?

I don’t think I did, I think you just need an excuse to bail out; you’ve made your mind up and anyone that disagrees gets stuck on the ignore list. Truth? You can’t handle the truth!

PS – I bet you do reply.

reply to post by Mdv2

Instead of dealing with the nuisance called Gadaffi, a pro-Western government will be installed and the big oil machine will be rolling in to steal oil worth billions of dollars.

That would be the oil machine that was already there.

news.bbc.co.uk...
www.independent.co.uk...
www.upi.com...

Originally posted by Mike_A
That would be the oil machine that was already there.

news.bbc.co.uk...
www.independent.co.uk...
www.upi.com...

I am aware of that, but the West is going to pressure the new puppet regime into accepting deals that are a lot more beneficial than the deals made with Gadaffi. Freedom comes at a high price.

reply to post by Mdv2


That's just conjecture, where’s the evidence?

If the US and the west were trying to force countries to sign up to unfavourable oil contracts then they’re not doing a very good job. For example, Iraq certainly didn’t turn out this way;

www.time.com...

Edit – By the way you haven’t answered my point from earlier in the thread; if the west only acts when it has something to gain then what about Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leonne, Congo, Ivory Coast, Lebanon, Northern Iraq (post GW1) etc?

Seems to me like the UK and USA are in a no win situation.
Get criticised for not getting involved and get accused of propping up regimes or simply not caring and accussations of asset fuelled neo-colonialism if thy do.

Gadaffi had long ceased being the 'devil incarnate' and 'The West's' nemesis and his regime was / is far less repressive than many in the region.
That does not excuse some of his past actions but I doubt he was high up on the 'most wanted' list.
'The West' was doing quite good business out of Libya and I suspect they would have preferred to maintain the status quo.
Of course they are going to look after their own interests, who wouldn't?
But where's the harm if they help a few civilians along the way, especially as it seem's both Gadaffi and the rebels appear to be increasingly targetting them.

The UK and USA are no 'avenging angels' or 'knights on shining steeds' with purely altruistic intentions, but neither are they the evil, manipulative demons who are responsible for all the world's ill's that some would have us believe.
I suspect the truth maybe somewhere in between.