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.

 

Gadafi wanted to withdraw from the public and political life,with the condition to stop NATO attack

page: 1
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Former Croatian president Stjepan Mesić and Gaddafi were good friends so i belive that Mesić knows what was happening in Libya after the start of rebellion. Also don't make a mistake, Croatia is part of NATO so we supported actions in Libya. Here we are talking about personal friendship of two leaders at the time. Today Mesić made announcement in which he claims that Gaddafi was ready to withdraw from public and political life, with only one condition - to stop NATO attacks.



Mesić said that he first-hand claims that Gaddafi was ready to completely withdraw from the public and political life, with a firm promise that there will be no obstacle for the introduction of a multiparty system and reforms, but on condition that NATO attacks stop. "I can also confirm that the government in Tripoli was trying to reach out to countries that have played a key role in organizing and conducting military operations in Libya through all available channels."


Unfortunately source is on Croatian language but Google translate does the work pretty good:
Direct link to source
Google translate of source

In short he also says that he is worried that NATO might have used UN as a cover to use many unlawful methods of warfare. On end he wishes all the best to Libyan people. Also its worth mentioning that he met with ambassadors of China, Russia and US to discuss about Libya.

More on Croatia-Libya relations HERE.

As we can hear MSM asking for Gaddafi to surrender all the time i wonder why it didn't happen? Maybe because if war ended peacefully there wouldn't be any need for NATO troops to stay in control of Libya (and oil)?
edit on 22/8/11 by dario86 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22/8/11 by dario86 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Arn't surrenders to be honoured under international law?

Sounds like he surrendered, and NATO ignored it.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
ya,",,,,,i'll stop,,i'll stop,,,"right.

Isn't that what yasser arrafat used to do?


,i'll stop,,i'll stop,boom,,,i'll stop,,i'll stop,i'll stop,,i'll stop,boom,,etc..,,
edit on 22-8-2011 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Ghaddafi killed people so he should die.

An eye for an eye.

Hell has a nice spot in the front row for you



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Lets kill him and throw him into the sea.
There are international courts that should deal with situations like this, not bombs and bullets.

Also I think death is easiest way out when you are guilty for many things.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by dario86
 


Just turn him over to the tribal leaders in Libya i'm sure they would like to ask him why he destroyed their way of life when he took power


I believe justice would be served



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Guess what....NATO destroyed their way of life and whole country when they took over.
So i see another rebellion in a few decades or earlier.
This time evil dictators will be western leaders that lead us too.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by dario86
reply to post by kro32
 


Guess what....NATO destroyed their way of life and whole country when they took over.
So i see another rebellion in a few decades or earlier.
This time evil dictators will be western leaders that lead us too.


Well we are here waiting if someone wants to come topple us

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
He can't surrender, the world leaders want his blood. This man has committed war crimes. Crimes against his own kin and people. He's a dead man walking and how many hours from now will it take? He knew this, months back. Every dictator cries when his hour is up. Leadership, kingship, politicians all know in this day and age that you cant hide, you cant fool and mostly the people are gaining power.
Revolution, uprising and people power maybe the next 10 years, 20 years in the making but it will happen, as it flows like a tide over the world..



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
Ghaddafi killed people so he should die.

An eye for an eye.

Hell has a nice spot in the front row for you


An eye for an eye, and the whole world goes blind....Ghandi

By the way, when he took over 41 years ago, his country was in the middle of a bloody civil war.....looks like that will be the result of this 'kinetic' NATO action will be.

Rainbows
Jane
edit on 22-8-2011 by angelchemuel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by angelchemuel
 


Exactly. I don't like people that look things just black and white. Things are rarely so simple.
Like i said on another thread today, neither is Gaddafi a total psychopath neither are rebels saints.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Well,as i said.
NATO=The worst terrorist organization in the world.

It's enough.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by angelchemuel
 


Ghandi was a pansy, he should take that quote and put it back in his purse next to his tampons.

If he was alive that is



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 



Ghaddafi killed people so he should die.

An eye for an eye.

Hell has a nice spot in the front row for you


Tut tut my friend. Violence begetting more violence will never solve the ills of the world. People - Governments and dictators - have been killing people for centuries. It is not right to continue the theme and yet expect the world to heal.

I have no idea as to whether he killed people or not, and you have provided no supporting information, but I would say that there does seem to be some evidence that he has also been a force for good in Libya. The most obvious achievement being the man made river yet 'NATO' has seen fit I believe to destroy this, thus inflicting hardship not on the man but on the very people who they purport to be supporting.

In your next post you state:


Just turn him over to the tribal leaders in Libya i'm sure they would like to ask him why he destroyed their way of life when he took power


Lamentably again you have not provided supporting evidence for the statement, nor do I know the affiliations of these tribal leaders, but one thing I do know is that is any such situation there are those for and those against and it is really not the business of outside agencies to make judgement.

If Gaddafi wanted to withdraw, and such an offer was made with conditions that NATO stopped, then this should have been considered. To fail to consider this is to promulgate the real reasons for wanting this attack.

As a matter of interest whilst investigating the amount of money spent by US bases in local economies I came across this (unsupported) statement.


In April, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez visited Venice(not far from Vicenza), where she told Italians that they would just have to accept the new base and that the United States needs it in order to more easily attack Africa.


Source

Bear in mind that this is well before things kicked off in Libya. Whilst it could be suggested that is also covers Sudan, Yemen etc, I believe it was Libya that was in mind.


Ghandi was a pansy, he should take that quote and put it back in his purse next to his tampons.


He had tampons? Pics or it didn't happen


edit on 22/8/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Well i've posted those sources so many times it's getting old now. Debunk it if you want and i'll capitulate however if you read some of my other threads you'll find the very well documented research.

Or if you doubt it, it will take you less than a few minutes to find it on your own.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
Ghaddafi killed people so he should die.

An eye for an eye.

Hell has a nice spot in the front row for you


If we use this standard on all world leaders we are going to have trouble finding people to run the show.




posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Naw we can run it.

Should help our unemployment problem greatly.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 



Well i've posted those sources so many times it's getting old now. Debunk it if you want and i'll capitulate however if you read some of my other threads you'll find the very well documented research.


Now I have to take issue with you over that. You made that same statement in another thread a few days ago and I took the time and trouble to go back through every one of your posts with the word 'Libya' referred to in the thread, and managed to find just ONE reference to Wikipedia, which is not in my opinion a reasonable source of reference for anything that is not factual.

Of course it is possible I missed something. Perhaps you could direct me to the links that you posted for this well documented research?



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
www.icrc.org...

Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden


(a) To employ poison or poisoned weapons;

> Depleted uranium would fall under this no? What about phospher?

(b) To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

> Innocent people raped, murdered etc in Iraq and more.

(c) To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

> Gadaffi just offered a surrender

(d) To declare that no quarter will be given;
(e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;

> Depleted uranium, phospher

(f) To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;

> Special forces would maybe breach this one

(g) To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

> Gold and oil theft necessary of war?

(h) To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war.



edit on 22-8-2011 by JennaDarling because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


I do not have them bookmarked but since you are putting me to the test and I respect your posts I will do the research again and post it here in this thread sometime today as I have to run for a time to go do an errand.




new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join