Originally posted by wcitizen
Just look how easy it is to fake news footage....

YouTube Link

Did you notice that in the first clip, the crowd were not Libyans, but Indians waving Indian flags?

Far fetched, our MSM wouldn't do that, right?

That's exactly what the BBC did, AND claimed it was 'live from Tripoli'.

In the comment under the video, the guy who made this explains how he swapped video clips, sounds, etc to create fake news.

Understand everyone, Hollywood, Psyops and the MSM are ALL ONE. The news we receive is barely more real than a Hollywood movie.

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 CasiusIgnoranze
MODs please do not delete this thread as I believe this report hasn't been introduced to ATS until now.

So I found this damning piece of evidence (dated 4th January 2011) from the UN Human Rights website which clearly shows undeniable proof that there was absolutely NO EVIDENCE of serious Human Right's abuses as accused by NATO and UN presently.
Libya Human Rights Report by UN - 4th January 2011

UN Human Rights Reports Homepage

Whats more, SEVERAL countries even praised Libya's excellent Human rights Track Record, and now they are all on NATO's side to topple Gaddafi! Hypocrisy or what?! Ofcourse, the USA, UK, France and Israel remained very criticising, but that was expected.

30. Qatar praised the legal framework for the protection of human rights and freedoms, including, inter alia, its criminal code and criminal procedure law, which provided legal guarantees for the implementation of those rights.

37. Saudi Arabia commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s achievements in its
constitutional, legislative and institutional frameworks, which showed the importance that
the country attached to human rights

63. Australia welcomed the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s progress in human rights and its
willingness to facilitate visits by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, which
demonstrated the country’s commitment to engaging with the international community on
human rights.

64. Canada welcomed improvements made by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in its respect
for human rights.

77. The United Arab Emirates admired the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s ratification of the
majority of the human rights treaties.

It sounds like Western countries were trying to force Libya into becoming a country it couldn't obviously become because of the fact the people in Libya follow Islamic values and not Western values. Whats more, the New Rebel NTC government intend too fully enforce Sharia Law in Libya...Go Figure...

Also, contradictory to popular belief and the Rebels finding extreme satisfaction burning it - Gaddafi's Green book is hardly extremist and against Human rights. Read it and judge for yourself. Gaddafi's Green Book

What the rebels are doing to Gaddafi's book can be easily compared to what the Catholic Church did to "free thinking" books hundreds of years ago.

This is I hope, enough evidence (rather than just YouTube videos) to prove that the war and intervention in Libya is based on LIES and exploitation of African Resources. If you want to stop what our Governments are doing now in Libya, I suggest WE PROTEST against this injustice before its too late.

In no way I'm saying Gaddafi was a saint. Every leader has opposition in his country but in this case NATO took advantage of the small opposition there was and turned it around against Gaddafi through lies and deceit.

And to all the sceptics who are still on the bandwagon that the Libyan War is justified to remove an "evil dictator" "oppressing" his people - DEBUNK THIS. Thats right, you can't.

edit on 30-8-2011 by CasiusIgnoranze because: .

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
I only recently started paying attention to the conflict in Libya. I actually believed what they were telling me on TV. It seemed obvious to me Gaddafi was indeed some sort of evil dictator. Therefore I didn't see any real conspiracy, it made sense that the Rebels would want to end the current regime. It took this video and this thread to make me question the mainstream projection of the conflict.

Recent news has reported that "The charred remains of about 53 people were found in a warehouse in Tripoli, apparently opponents of Gaddafi who were executed, Britain's Sky News reported on Saturday", and they sling it all over the mainstream news; yet they ignore all the evidence for war crimes committed by Rebel forces. They completely ignore the fact both sides are taking losses.

NATO are bringing death and destruction to a prosperous and peacefull country, they are actively participing in the destruction of an established Government and the reasons for doing so are clearly sinister. Why should NATO get to decide such things? Is it not up to the people of Libya to oppose the regime if they believe it is out of control?

1.7 million people assembled in Green Square, Tripoli to show defiance against the NATO bombings of Libya. That is 95% of Tripoli's population, or around 1/3 of the entire population of Libya. If the Rebels truly wanted the best for their country, why would they set up a central bank controlled by the Rothchilds when their old one issues debt free currency?!?

In 1951 Libya was the poorest country in the world. Before this conflict started they enjoyed the highest standard of living in Africa, ahead of Russia, Brazil and Saudi Arabia. They have free high quality healthcare and homes are considered a Human right. Newly married couples get $50,000 for a new house. All loans have 0% intrest by law. Let me conclude with an excerpt from Gaddafi's Green Book:

NEED

The freedom of a human being is lacking if his or her needs are controlled by others, for
need may lead to the enslavement of one person by another. Furthermore, exploitation is
caused by need. Need is an intrinsic problem and conflict is initiated by the control of
one's needs by another.

HOUSING

Housing is an essential need for both the individual and the family and should not be
owned by others. Living in another's house, whether paying rent or not, compromises
freedom. Attempts made by various countries to solve the housing problem did not
provide a definite solution because such attempts did not target the ultimate solution - the
necessity that people own their dwellings - but rather offered the reduction, increase, or
standardization of rent, whether it went to privately or publicly-owned enterprise. In a
socialist society, no one, including society itself, has the right to control people's needs.
No one has the right to acquire a house additional to his or her own dwelling and that of
his or her heirs for the purpose of renting it because this additional house is, in fact, a
need of someone else. Acquiring it for such a purpose is the beginning of controlling the
needs of others, and "in need freedom is latent".

INCOME

Income is an imperative need for man. In a socialist society, it should not be in the form of
wages from any source or charity from any one. In this society, there are no wage-earners,
but only partners. One's income is a private matter and should either be managed privately
to meet one's needs or be a share from a production process of which one is an essential
component. It should not be a wage in return for production.

MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION

Transportation is also a necessity both to the individual and to the family. It should not be
owned by others. In a socialist society, no person or authority has the right to own a
means of transportation for the purpose of renting it, for this also means controlling the
needs of others.

LAND

Land is the private property of none. Rather, everyone has the right to beneficially utilize it
by working, farming or pasturing as long as he and his heirs live on it - to satisfy their
needs, but without employing others with or without a wage. If lands were privately owned,
only the living would have a share in it