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.
DEBUNK THIS - There WERE NO human rights abuses in Libya according to UN Human Rights report
page: 4share:
Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by CasiusIgnoranze
I'll admit there is the possibility of what you suggest - but what IF her story was correct? What IF she was actually tortured by Gaddafi's sons' wife? Imagine being her, and other people who have never even been to Libya start parroting on about how she is lying and how the MSM is using her? How would you feel in her position?
IF her story were correct, is that a reason to bomb and kill tens of thousands of innocent Libyan civilians, including young women just like her, and innocent children? Where is the logic in that? There is a bloodbath going on in Libya, and it is NATO doing the majority of the killing. They are targeting schools, hospitals, water supply, civilian homes and killing thousands and thousands of innocents. Can't you see that is NOT humanitarian assistance.
IF her story was correct, is that a reason to invade her country?
IF her story were correct, how does that justify NATO deliberate destruction of water supply, hospitals, schools, infrastructure and mass murder of innocent civilians JUST LIKE HER.
There are estimates that initially the rebels were about 10'000 out of a population of 5 million.
The NATO story just does not, absolutely does not add up to anyone who analyses it with a grain common sense.
1. They falsely accused Ghadaffi of bombing his own citizens.
2. In order to 'help the Libyan' people they go in and bomb innocent civilians on a massive scale, hundreds of times worse than what they were (falsely) accusing Ghadaffi of doing. Thousands are being killed daily. Last Saturday, 1300 civilians were killed and 5000 were injured...that's in one day alone.a.
The NATO/Al Qaeda 'rebels' are also now carrying out genocide against Africans in Libya.
The MSM stir up people's emotions through fake news. You have to step back and apply common sense and logic.
Now, IF this is a hoax story - WHAT are the implications of that?
edit on 30-8-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-8-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason
given)
edit on 30-8-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-8-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason
given)
edit on 30-8-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-8-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason
given)
reply to post by CasiusIgnoranze
What gives them the right to send SAS to hunt him personally down and assassinate him? Thats whats happening and he does not deserve it. These evil pricks cannot handle seeing someone show what can be done by sharing wealth. They are afraid of the wave of hope and love that would sweep over Africa, completely stabilising it. All the poor Oil companies would lose their riches. Let's be honest here. It's in the interests of Oil companies to pay one evil corrupt dictator millions rather than a whole nation billions.
What gives them the right to send SAS to hunt him personally down and assassinate him? Thats whats happening and he does not deserve it. These evil pricks cannot handle seeing someone show what can be done by sharing wealth. They are afraid of the wave of hope and love that would sweep over Africa, completely stabilising it. All the poor Oil companies would lose their riches. Let's be honest here. It's in the interests of Oil companies to pay one evil corrupt dictator millions rather than a whole nation billions.
reply to post by LightAssassin
I know...
The only way we can stop this injustice is by arranging mass protests before its too late. But knowing the new series of X factor is on now, the prospect of a Revolution is close to Zero.
I know...
The only way we can stop this injustice is by arranging mass protests before its too late. But knowing the new series of X factor is on now, the prospect of a Revolution is close to Zero.
reply to post by Atzil321
The average civilian is terrified of the rebels who are heavily armed. If you were there would you fight the rebels if you didn't believe in their cause? Would you risk the rape and murder of your family? I think not
The average civilian is terrified of the rebels who are heavily armed. If you were there would you fight the rebels if you didn't believe in their cause? Would you risk the rape and murder of your family? I think not
edit on 02/02/1987 by clintdelicious because: (no reason given)
I for one look forward to the slaughter of the scumbag gahdaffi family
Theirs, and US provided weapons and ammo killed some of my mates un Northern Ireland, and nearly myself a few times.
Screw them!
Im sure a lot of people in Northern Ireland cant wait to see these scum swing too!
Viva la revolution!
Theirs, and US provided weapons and ammo killed some of my mates un Northern Ireland, and nearly myself a few times.
Screw them!
Im sure a lot of people in Northern Ireland cant wait to see these scum swing too!
Viva la revolution!
reply to post by wcitizen
I wasn't talking about whether or not Libya deserved to get bombed, I was discussing the fact that it has been claimed no human rights abuses took place and the evidence for and against. The reaction to this, the NATO bombings, was not part of what I was talking of.
I wasn't talking about whether or not Libya deserved to get bombed, I was discussing the fact that it has been claimed no human rights abuses took place and the evidence for and against. The reaction to this, the NATO bombings, was not part of what I was talking of.
I'm betting that the "truth" portion of the three sides to every adage lies much closer to the Qaddaffi side than it does the western MSM. The MSM
and government here have lost all credibility with me. They have cried wolf far too many times for me to believe anything they say any more.
Do I believe Qaddaffi did nothing? Probably not, but I'd bet most of what has been said negatively about him is untrue. Even if so, it's still NOT the job of the U.S. to fix Libya.There is no justifiable reason for us to be doing this.
Fix Libya, ha ha. Seems they had things going pretty well and didn't need any fixing.
Do I believe Qaddaffi did nothing? Probably not, but I'd bet most of what has been said negatively about him is untrue. Even if so, it's still NOT the job of the U.S. to fix Libya.There is no justifiable reason for us to be doing this.
Fix Libya, ha ha. Seems they had things going pretty well and didn't need any fixing.
Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by wcitizen
I wasn't talking about whether or not Libya deserved to get bombed, I was discussing the fact that it has been claimed no human rights abuses took place and the evidence for and against. The reaction to this, the NATO bombings, was not part of what I was talking of.
I was replying to your question "What IF the girl's story is true?
I have never said there were no HR abuses in Libya....I have yet to see one country in the world where there are not rampant HR abuses, and I include in that US, UK, Europe and your own homeland, Australia. Their record is also pretty abysmal. There's even a file in UK which has had a D-Notice slapped on it, which means for reasons of 'national security' it can't be accessed for 70 years minimum. Why? Because it contains evidence of involvement in paedophilia by top politicians in Blair's government.
What I am saying that horrendous HR abuse stories were concocted, exaggerated and faked to raise public outrage to justify their war, which had as intent to raise Libya to the ground and murder its civilians into submission. They know exactly how to manipulate the emotional response of the public, they know to demonize someone, stir up hatred and outrage to get people to accept a war they otherwise would absolutely not accept.
This is not mere speculation, LOOK at how many times it has happened before.
And, has it occurred to you that the girl in that picture might now be dead - killed by NATO bombs?
What is wrong with some people?
Gadaffi was no super benevolent leader but he had long ceased being the despotic tyrant from hell.
Libyans enjoyed a relatively high standard of living and fairly liberal domestic conditions when compared with similair countries.
Relations with 'The West' were improving with many 'Western' companies investing in both the Libyan oil industry and it's internal infrastructure.
'The West' had no need at all to instigate this uprising and it came at a most inopportune time.
NATO countries have previously pledged to uphold UN resolutions etc and the US / UK etc had also stated their support for popular uprisings.
Libyan political / tribal and religious opponents of Gadaffi, inspired by the 'Arab Spring' formed an uneasy alliance and rose up against Gadaffi.
Other Arab countries sought UN support for the rebels.
Once given then the US / UK etc were forced to make some effort to provide public support for the rebels.
Due to the cold, hard realities of the world they were then also forced to try to protect their investments in Libya, why on earth wouldn't they?
If the NATO countries had taken no supportive action of the rebels then the self same people who are criticising them for their involvement would have been criticising them for their non-involvement, for allowing Gadaffi to defeat the rebels and for supporting a non-democratic, puppet dictator.
The cold reality is that NATO had no real option but to take the course of action it did and was very much in a no win situation.
In light of the revelations about the make up and nature of the rebel alliance one suspects that both the Libyan people and 'The West' will rue the day they supported the rebels.
Sometimes 'the devill you know' is by far the preferred option.
I just wonder why some people are so insistant that all that occurs and transpires is the result of US / UK interfering, especially when history shows us they aren't that good at it really, and seek to blame them for all of the worlds ill's?
Gadaffi was no super benevolent leader but he had long ceased being the despotic tyrant from hell.
Libyans enjoyed a relatively high standard of living and fairly liberal domestic conditions when compared with similair countries.
Relations with 'The West' were improving with many 'Western' companies investing in both the Libyan oil industry and it's internal infrastructure.
'The West' had no need at all to instigate this uprising and it came at a most inopportune time.
NATO countries have previously pledged to uphold UN resolutions etc and the US / UK etc had also stated their support for popular uprisings.
Libyan political / tribal and religious opponents of Gadaffi, inspired by the 'Arab Spring' formed an uneasy alliance and rose up against Gadaffi.
Other Arab countries sought UN support for the rebels.
Once given then the US / UK etc were forced to make some effort to provide public support for the rebels.
Due to the cold, hard realities of the world they were then also forced to try to protect their investments in Libya, why on earth wouldn't they?
If the NATO countries had taken no supportive action of the rebels then the self same people who are criticising them for their involvement would have been criticising them for their non-involvement, for allowing Gadaffi to defeat the rebels and for supporting a non-democratic, puppet dictator.
The cold reality is that NATO had no real option but to take the course of action it did and was very much in a no win situation.
In light of the revelations about the make up and nature of the rebel alliance one suspects that both the Libyan people and 'The West' will rue the day they supported the rebels.
Sometimes 'the devill you know' is by far the preferred option.
I just wonder why some people are so insistant that all that occurs and transpires is the result of US / UK interfering, especially when history shows us they aren't that good at it really, and seek to blame them for all of the worlds ill's?
I've just come acress this very interesting interview with Max Keiser from June.
As well as the Libyan oil, the Libyan 140 tons of gold (desperately useful to banksters and Feds with their backs against the wall) and Libya's progress in helping create a united, prosperous Africa - AND the fact that he wasn't under IMF control, this is incredible news.
He wanted to take out the criminal banksters who looted his sovreign fund, the same ones who are holding the world hostage.
Not only that, but imagine the EVIDENCE he had against them, and he couldn't be bought or intimidated into silence.
Wow.
edit on 30-8-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)
As well as the Libyan oil, the Libyan 140 tons of gold (desperately useful to banksters and Feds with their backs against the wall) and Libya's progress in helping create a united, prosperous Africa - AND the fact that he wasn't under IMF control, this is incredible news.
He wanted to take out the criminal banksters who looted his sovreign fund, the same ones who are holding the world hostage.
Not only that, but imagine the EVIDENCE he had against them, and he couldn't be bought or intimidated into silence.
Wow.
edit on 30-8-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-8-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)
edit
on 30-8-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by wcitizen
And, has it occurred to you that the girl in that picture might now be dead - killed by NATO bombs?
I really hope not. Regardless of who did it to her and whether or not she is being forced to lie, she is an innocent victim.
You do know that there are many ways she could be killed in Libya? NATO bombs aren't the only things flying around and exploding there. She might have been killed by a Gaddafi supporters mortar shell for all we know.
reply to post by Freeborn
I think you're missing the point. I hope this explains why NATO had to interfere in Libya.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I think you're missing the point. I hope this explains why NATO had to interfere in Libya.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Originally posted by Kryties
Originally posted by CasiusIgnoranze
reply to post by Kryties
Even after all the lies the mainstream media has reported, you still believe them?
Most likely, the Rebels poured boiling water on her head and she is now being paraded by the Mainstream Media because naturally the majority of people will buy this BS of a story.
They interviewed her mate. These words came out of her own mouth, not anybody elses.
I also watched a story about a few hundred civillians being locked in a barn or something, and Gaddafhi's forces said they were going to let everyone out. They opened the door, and tossed grenades inside and opened fire. (I don't know how this one dude survived without a scratch to tell the story..)
The truth is, even if the rebels were doing evil things -which nobody knows if they are because nobody is in Libya- the MSM would not report it.
What really gets me is this is almost the exact same thing they tried to do in venezuela, to no success, and people just forget about it. If Vennisuela was bad enough to try and overthrow Chavez, why did we give up and move on to the weaker countries?
reply to post by theshepherd2
You would be referring to this:
www.smh.com.au...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3da703ecb94f.jpg[/atsimg]
You would be referring to this:
www.smh.com.au...
Revealed: dictator's chamber of horror
TRIPOLI: As Libya's capital struggles with critical shortages of water, electricity, food and fuel, evidence of another mass killing has emerged, with the discovery of the charred remains of up to 50 burnt bodies in a warehouse linked to Muammar Gaddafi's feared 32nd brigade.
They appeared to have been blown up by hand grenades and set on fire.
Residents have suggested the victims were prisoners taken by loyalists and then killed as the soldiers were forced to retreat.
Read more: www.smh.com.au...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3da703ecb94f.jpg[/atsimg]
Originally posted by Kryties
Yes, of course we do. I just think that perhaps people could wait for more evidence before jumping to rash conclusions like that woman having been burnt by the CIA, or the Rebels or something and then threatened into lying about who did it to her. What if she is telling the truth? Does this not deny her of her right for justice against those who actually perpetrated the crime?edit on 30/8/2011 by Kryties because: (no reason given)
I didn't say her story wasn't true - but I did say it might well not be true, because it has very similar characteristics to false stories put out, even by Presidents, in the past.
And in any case, what justice is she getting now? Her country is being raised to the ground and her people massacred....do you think that's what she would have wanted? Do you think she sees that as 'justice'?
Is she even alive now or has she been killed by a NATO bomb?
Meanwhile, what about those in Gitmo? What about their human rights? What about those assassinated by the CIA and other government agents? Where's their justice?
The hypocrisy and lies stink..and people go on believing it.
edit on 30-8-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-8-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason
given)
edit on 30-8-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)
None of this matters. They found pics of condorwomanleeza in his "lair"
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
reply to post by CasiusIgnoranze
Gadaffi's anti-European / West stance had long since mellowed and he was developing close links with several European countries who had also started investing money into Libyan ventures and economy.
If Gadaffi had defeated the rebels and NATO had supported the rebels then those investments would be threatened.
If the rebels succeeded without 'Western' support then again the investments would be threatened.
Different countries took different approaches.
The US had actually taken a bit of a back seat role in Libyan operations, some would say good old fashioned American fence sitting; close enough to provide evidence of support should the rebels win but also not at the forefront should Gadaffi prevail.
Germany and some other NATO nations outright opposed intervention and refused to supply manpower whereas France, UK and Italy took leading roles.
Nothing in this whole sordid affair is black and white.
There have been several reports of the rebels conducting atrocities against civilian populations.
British armed forces threatened to take action against any rebels carrying out such actions.
In my most humble opinion I believe that events forced 'The West' to get involved in a situation and on a side that they had very little desire to be involved in or with.
Unfortunately as usual it is the normal 'man in the street' who suffers most.
But laying the blame solely at NATO / The West's door is so wide of the mark and highly inaccurate.
Gadaffi's anti-European / West stance had long since mellowed and he was developing close links with several European countries who had also started investing money into Libyan ventures and economy.
If Gadaffi had defeated the rebels and NATO had supported the rebels then those investments would be threatened.
If the rebels succeeded without 'Western' support then again the investments would be threatened.
Different countries took different approaches.
The US had actually taken a bit of a back seat role in Libyan operations, some would say good old fashioned American fence sitting; close enough to provide evidence of support should the rebels win but also not at the forefront should Gadaffi prevail.
Germany and some other NATO nations outright opposed intervention and refused to supply manpower whereas France, UK and Italy took leading roles.
Nothing in this whole sordid affair is black and white.
There have been several reports of the rebels conducting atrocities against civilian populations.
British armed forces threatened to take action against any rebels carrying out such actions.
In my most humble opinion I believe that events forced 'The West' to get involved in a situation and on a side that they had very little desire to be involved in or with.
Unfortunately as usual it is the normal 'man in the street' who suffers most.
But laying the blame solely at NATO / The West's door is so wide of the mark and highly inaccurate.
edit on 30/8/11 by Freeborn because: Too
many l's
Originally posted by theshepherd2
Originally posted by Kryties
Originally posted by CasiusIgnoranze
reply to post by Kryties
Even after all the lies the mainstream media has reported, you still believe them?
Most likely, the Rebels poured boiling water on her head and she is now being paraded by the Mainstream Media because naturally the majority of people will buy this BS of a story.
They interviewed her mate. These words came out of her own mouth, not anybody elses.
I also watched a story about a few hundred civillians being locked in a barn or something, and Gaddafhi's forces said they were going to let everyone out. They opened the door, and tossed grenades inside and opened fire. (I don't know how this one dude survived without a scratch to tell the story..)
The truth is, even if the rebels were doing evil things -which nobody knows if they are because nobody is in Libya- the MSM would not report it.
What really gets me is this is almost the exact same thing they tried to do in venezuela, to no success, and people just forget about it. If Vennisuela was bad enough to try and overthrow Chavez, why did we give up and move on to the weaker countries?
Yes, the exact same thing they did and still are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, and pretty much every other war they'vve waged in the last 50 years.
It's the SAME MO.
Originally posted by Kryties
Originally posted by wcitizen
And, has it occurred to you that the girl in that picture might now be dead - killed by NATO bombs?
I really hope not. Regardless of who did it to her and whether or not she is being forced to lie, she is an innocent victim.
You do know that there are many ways she could be killed in Libya? NATO bombs aren't the only things flying around and exploding there. She might have been killed by a Gaddafi supporters mortar shell for all we know.
Sure, she could also die being knocked over by a car. HOWEVER, thousands are being killed each day by NATO bombs - if you're going to be killed in Libya today, statistically the most probable reason would be that you would be killed by a NATO bomb.
In any case, you're splitting hairs, you know exactly what I'm getting at.
reply to post by Kryties
Bloody hell, this is just sickening. But since this the Mainstream Media "perspective" of events, I am sceptical about Gaddafi's forces being specifically involved in this atrocity.
These Rebel troops are being trained by Al Qaeda militia for crying out loud...
Bloody hell, this is just sickening. But since this the Mainstream Media "perspective" of events, I am sceptical about Gaddafi's forces being specifically involved in this atrocity.
These Rebel troops are being trained by Al Qaeda militia for crying out loud...