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.

 

Lawsuit filed vs NATO regarding Libya bombing.

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to post by edog11
 


So you are demanding MORE boots on the ground than the current intelligence agencies and the actual people fighting? Like who? US troops? The UK?

Also, companies like Halliburton and BP are currently LOSING money due to the conflict there. It would have suited their bottom line to allow Gadaffi to deal with this himself quickly and brutally, without outside intervention.


This was a mere gamble, Qaddafi was laying forward a lot of ideas for the Government of Libya to follow, these ideas would have caused much more losses to BP and other Western giants. This war was suppose to be quick, the media fueled it, but failed because of the will of the Libyan people.

What they don't show you on MSM:


The will of the Libyan people is strong, they will fight NATO, and protect their revolutionary leader, they will die for Qaddafi, they will die for their way of life, and their unique governing system.

This is the reality, the war was suppose to be quick, but failed because of the Libyan people. The NATO extension (AKA rebels) hold no support in Libya, UNHCR reports that these thugs were financed, trained and organized by CIA for a long time, to cause a regime change in Libya. They are basically the puppets of US/NATO, they are commanded by NATO, they use NATO air force and Navy, connect the dots. Don't pretend this is about saving civilian lives because you are making me cry.




posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by confreak


What they don't show you on MSM:


The will of the Libyan people is strong, they will fight NATO, and protect their revolutionary leader, they will die for Qaddafi, they will die for their way of life, and their unique governing system.


Wow, you sound like you are quoting Gadaffi.

That's an interesting video from intifada-palestine.com. I'd be interested in knowing how I am supposed to know WHEN that was filmed, WHAT they are saying, and WHY they are actually assembled.
Again, I am in no way defending this NATO action. That is your straw man, employed to avoid my multiple requests for sources for your bold claims about Gadaffi, which you have yet to provide even once.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


I'm promoting the following:
Either get some goddamn special forces there and use them for what they are meant to do + decrease areal assault.
Or
Stop the goddamn bombing altogether and GTFO!

I'm for the second option myself since I know the true, unjust reasons behind this war.

Also: F*CK those illegal merc companies. I hope they all go bankrupt.


IT--
edit on 28-7-2011 by edog11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by edog11
 


But where do these 'special forces' come from, you propose?



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


Navy Seals perhaps LOL.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by confreak
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 



I bet you can't even deny that Western Representative Democracy in essence is a dictatorship, the difference, you choose the dictator for a period of time.


So you admit then that Gadaffi is a dictator, then.

I have to assume you are serious. But I will ask you whether you are serious or do you have a serious processing problems?



Source?




Jamahiriya (Arabic: جماهيرية‎ jamāhīriyyah) is an Arabic term generally translated as "state of the masses". It is intended to be a generic term comparable to the term People's Republic, describing the form of statehood of Libya under Gaddafi from 1977.

The term does not occur in this sense in Muammar al-Gaddafi's Green Book of 1975. The nisba-adjective Arabic: جماهيرية‎ ("mass-, "of the masses") occurs only in the third part, published in 1981, in the phrase إن الحركات التاريخية هي الحركات الجماهيرية , translated in the English edition as "Historic movements are mass movements".

In the official political philosophy of Libya, this system is unique to the country, although it is the materialization of the Third International Theory, proposed by Gaddafi to be applied to the entire Third World. The term in practice has only been applied to the Libyan state, of which Gaddafi is the Caid (translated Leader; strict transliteration Qāʾid). Although Gaddafi no longer holds public office or title, he is accorded the honorifics "Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" or "Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution" in government statements and the official press.[1]

The Libyan government states that Libya is a direct democracy without any political parties, governed by its populace through local popular councils and communes (named Basic People's Congresses). Official rhetoric disdains the idea of a nation state, tribal bonds remaining primary even within the ranks of the military of Libya.[2]


Plaque denoting the "Peoples' Bureau" (Embassy) of "Socialist People's Libyan Arab Great Jamahiriya" in Prague

The word jamāhīriyyah was derived from jumhūriyyah, which is the usual Arabic translation of "republic". It was coined by changing the component jumhūr — "public" — to its plural form, jamāhīr — "the masses". Thus, it is similar to the term People's Republic. It is often left untranslated in English, with Libya's long-form name thus rendered as Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

en.wikipedia.org...



I'm not sure how you get me questioning your unsubstantiated claims as support for NATO, but that seems to be a familiar theme on ATS these days.

IF you want me to 'learn about Libya', then how about supplying some of the sources for these various claims you are making?

I told you about the system in my own words, that's how discussions are made, how about download a copy of the Green Book and read it. I'm one of those people who believe sources should be provided when necessary, not one of those people who just go, copy and paste material from other websites and expect the opposition to debate the claims of the website rather than debate me. It is absurd how lazy people are becoming, I have seen discussions where literally both sides copy and paste material from other websites and act like they are intellectuals having a proper discussion, debate.

But I understand that at this moment when clear propaganda war fare against Libya is being played out, it would be a little harder to extract the truth from the sea of war propaganda lies, but at least give it a try.



I know you watched the video with your eyes closed, but this video is not intended to you, rather to others who are actually interested in denying ignorance.

This is my last post to you, from what I read in the other thread...
edit on 29-7-2011 by confreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by confreak
 


I see people constantly using the term war. This is not a requirement for a use of force, and the constitution states as much. All it says is Congress is reserved the authority to declare war. That article does not state how a war is to be declared, nor does it specify the language that is used.

As an example:
Iraq
Afghanistan

People have claimed war was never declared so the actions taken by the US is illegal.

Congress passed 2 resolutions
The first authorized the use of military force in the "war on terror".
They also authorized the use of military force for Iraq,


As to the rest what exactly do you and the others want?
You and several others try to claim the moral high ground by taking exceptions when a civilian is killed by NATO / US forces.

Is there any particular reason you and the others ignore the killing of civilians when there is no US / NATO involvement?

The difference you are looking for is when NATO attacks something, it is taken into account the location of the target, with munitions being selected more maximum effect while trying to limit the effects to civilians. Being government forces were order to strafe and open fire on their own people during protests tells us they dont take collateral damage into account at all.

You guys remind me of the French noble who is woken up in the middle of the night to sounds outside. When he opens the window to look he sees his people, en masse, heading in one direction. The noble gets dressed and states I must follow my people so I can lead.

Translation -
Pick a side please.

You either want military intervention when only humanitarian issues are present or you dont.
You either want all government to show respect to their citizens, or you dont.
You either condemn the killing of people across the globe to all nations or you dont.

We genuinely try to do the right thing and live up to our responsibilities in the world. We are not perfect, which means we are going to make mistakes and get it wrong.

The way I see it, we are at least making an effort to do right, whereas other countries who are condmening us arent doing anything constructive to resolve the issue.

food for thought.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


US Army Green Berets? Rangers? KCT? SAS? SBS? FSK? BBE? SFG? FSLK200? KSK? Why does it matter where they come from?
The point is inserting enough well trained operators, let them do their job and avoid the damn unnecessary bloodshed- That's what they are for.


IT--
edit on 29-7-2011 by edog11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by edog11
 


No you can't just eliminate the leader because someone else is going to take his place instead. You have to remove him and his whole party.




top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join