In Memory of the late Col. Muammar Gaddafi - What History Books will NEVER tell your kids about

page: 17
205
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
So we go into libya to enforce a no-fly zone by sending cruise missiles to destroy the civilian's water, infrastructure, and place a central bank because it gives libyans freedom and democracy. remember, our freedom and democracy is a congress with an approval rate of 13%, we're bankrupt and so poor that we have to buy groceries on credit, over 1/3 of our population is dependent on government hand-outs, and government is the biggest employer(so much for private business and commerce!). Some freedom we're giving them!




posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss
If he was so good why did his people fight him?

Just asking... I dont know


Second. The uprising against Ghadaffi gained a lot of momentum and support. Many opressive regimes bribed their people one way or the other, in order to be tolerated. At some point the abuse is not worth the money anymore and being handed pennies (in this case a lot of pennies) while the leader flaunts massive wealth does not make you feel so grateful anymore.

NOW that in the end for the Lybian people Ghadaffi might have STILL been a better deal, than what will follow, might also be true, but remains yet to be seen. but its a fact, many Lbyians were more than unhappy with Ghadaffi.
edit on 24-10-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by shell69
The question that anyone with even minimum intelligence cannot help asking is the following: Are countries like France, England, the USA, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Poland who defend their right to bomb Libya on the strength of their self proclaimed democratic status really democratic? If yes, are they more democratic than Gaddafi’s Libya? The answer in fact is a resounding NO, for the plain and simple reason that democracy doesn’t exist. This isn’t a personal opinion, but a quote from someone whose native town Geneva, hosts the bulk of UN institutions. The quote is from Jean Jacques Rousseau, born in Geneva in 1712 and who writes in chapter four of the third book of the famous ‘Social Contract’ that ‘there never was a true democracy and there never will be.’


You have to stop here ... you're just confusing things.

First thing you have to ask yourself, is MURDERING someone, something that you can vote on? Is the life of someone, whatever you consider that man, woman, child or other to be ... something that you can just go to a vote bar and say "He doesn't deserve to live", and if the majority wants him dead ... let's go kill him?

This isn't an issue of democracy ... it's a question of morals. Do you have the right, to force your standards on others? Do you have the right to murder?

The answer is simply NO.

The social contract, you are referring to and are complicating. Is a contract between me and you, and everyone else ... that says, I won't kill you, eat you, hunt you or steal your goods ... if you respectfully, return the same favour. So, in fact this social contract says I won't kill you, and you won't kill me ... now if I go ahead and kill you, this social contract is supposedly "void" and war is the result. In the case of the western world, our social contract IS VOID, a long time ago. WE, the people, are divided into several groups. Groups of those who have, and those who have not. And those who have not, are being brutally handled by those who have ... having "investigations", having "arrests", having "marks on their forhead", without work or means of employments. We don't have a social contract ... it's void, but WE are without leaders. And it's the fact that we have no leaders, that makes us live in a NON DEMOCRACY, because we cannot call out a war, because our contract is voided. We cannot voice greavances against those who have. This is the factor that is needed for a democracy, because a democracy means that every person has a spokesman and means of making their voice heard, listened to and acted upon.

A republic on the other, guarantees only the survival of the strongest. The biggest group ... you have only the choice between joining the strong, or perish.

For a brief time in history, the western world was a democracy ... because you had the east and the west. Each side, representing different peoples, and between them every person as such could voice grievances on the other and call out the war, if needed.

The end of the soviet Union, also marked the end of our western democracy. It was the balance between the two super powers, and the fact that they opposed each other, that made life in the western world so great.

Are "morals" simply a social contract? perhaps basically, but it isn't all that simple non the less.

The majority is almost ALWAYS wrong. The majority was wrong in voting GWB into office. They were obviously wrong, when they went up and applauded Ghaddafi, and what makes you think they are right, when they stop applauding him and kill him in a most defial, ugly and dispicable manner, imaginable? The people that did that, are monsters, literally speaking ... without moral sense, and are closer to being animals than human beings. You think their thoughts count? NO, they don't. As animals, they act on instinct and needs, not on a logical thought process ...

What concerns democracy, people always confuse democracy with a republic. China is a republic, so was the Soviet Union, and so is the United States and France. What IS the basic difference between the two?

The difference is simple, the United States as a whole, is a nation of different States. Each state "supposedly" can have a different system, and as such the US is a collection of "different" states. The European Union is "striving" to become this ... but this is only the surface, and does not represent the inner workings of either of these areas.

A DEMOCRACY IS A COLLECTION OF DIFFERENT STATES, PEOPLES THAT BETWEEN THEM HAVE A SOCIAL CONTRACT AND MEANS OF COMMON GOVERNING, WHERE EACH CAN REPRESENT GREAVANCES ON THE OTHER.

Does a Democracy guaranty peace? HELL NO, quite the opposite. The idea of a Democracy comes from ancient Hellas, where we are constantly trying to return to. The time where human evolution exploded the most ... for a short time, Europe was equivalent. Where the constant bickering between the European states, made Europe advance enormously mentally and socially. It grew up, from the previous dark ages, of being collection of Republics, whith kings and queens.

IT'S THE STRIVING AND CONSTANT COMPETITION BETWEEN PARTIES, THE CONSTANT FIGHTING AND WAR, that make people evolve.

The greeks thought that having one king, was good for business. It resulted in the creation of empires, that resulted in almost two thousand years of dark ages.

A democracy is where you allow people to have different ideologies, and be different. To have a different form of a government, and a different form of belief. That you deal with them, whatever you think of their culture, on the basis of the need of communication between you.

The actions being done under NATO and The US of A, are therefore not in the spirit of democracy. They are in the spirit of Rome ... to create an empire. And will eventually destroy the "advancing" mentality, and bring forth more and more "believers" and "followers" of absolute truths.
edit on 24-10-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-10-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-10-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


The actions being done under NATO and The US of A, are therefore not in the spirit of democracy. They are in the spirit of Rome ... to create an empire. And will eventually destroy the "advancing" mentality, and bring forth more and more "believers" and "followers" of absolute truths.


Actually it's not all that complex, or ROME-antic...

It's just MUCH easier for a president to score political points through foreign policy victories, than to try to fix the domestic economic, debt and government issues.

It's always been that way, to some degree or another for nearly every modern president we've had.

Gaddafi would have likely fought and lost to rebels eventually, and that would have been with the rebels receiving U.S. and NATO help, or with China's help.

Obama had be be on the right side of that one.

What happens next OR NOT, in Syria and Iran will be much more important, in regard to potential world war, and what could likely lead to the complete economic collapse of the USA... Depending on decisions the president makes as these issues become unavoidable.

Stay tuned!

I would like to also offer ATS congratulations for becoming a genuine hub for the propagation of propaganda.

Awe inspiring, informative and incredibly useful.






posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Soon we'll install a new leader there. Then we'll have to get rid of the Castro brothers and we'll be in control again somewhat. Watch for it its gonna come sooner or later.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


First of all, when you quote someone, wait I can only speak for myself... when you quote me on here, please do not edit my original post when doing so...thank you

The only personal comment I made in the post you referenced you excluded when you quoted me and that was "I found a very interesting point in your link, thanks for posting!" What followed after that was a quote from the link that I provided...please reread my original post, thanks again.

Secondly MY point, and the point I believe the person you quoted ( Jean Jacques Rousseau ) was attempting to make is in agreement with you.

I agree that the actions being done under NATO are not in the spirit of democracy... as you state:
"The actions being done under NATO and The US of A, are therefore not in the spirit of democracy. They are in the spirit of Rome ... to create an empire. And will eventually destroy the "advancing" mentality, and bring forth more and more "believers" and "followers" of absolute truths. "

You tell me that the First thing you have to ask yourself, is MURDERING someone, something that you can vote on? Is the life of someone, whatever you consider that man, woman, child or other to be ... something that you can just go to a vote bar and say "He doesn't deserve to live", and if the majority wants him dead ... let's go kill him?

I am contributing to this thread because I do not believe Ghadaffi should have been treated this way, and I question the motives behind those that did it. I never suggested that myself or anyone for that matter could vote on whether or not to kill someone, I would in fact recommend bringing someone to trial that has been accused of committing a crime. I do not make the laws but if the law was a death sentence for the crime they committed and they were found guilty, then I would have to say at that point they would be sentenced to death. So in fact I suppose a jury does actually vote on whether or not we kill someone, but anyway I just thought I'd try to clear that up because it really seemed to me somehow or another you were confused by my post.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by xavi1000
 


thanks,
my computer died 3 weeks ago, and have only just replaced it
that stuff is on a text file i haven't found yet

lol i'm being quoted :blush:



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 





First of all, to slaughter someone IS EVIL.


And sometimes, justified.




Saying that EVIL is killing EVIL ... doesn't make any sense.


I didn't say that. I said the people shot him in the knees and let him bleed out like the pig he was. Evil, yes. But well done.




It is a senseless notion, and illogical. It's like a thief, calling someone a thief.


That's not senseless nor illogical. A thief, being a thief, would know what a thief is all the more. In fact, it's actually called hypocracy. And there's nothing wrong with a little hypocritical talk if you admit you are at fault, but your words are not.

If Hitler screamed out that Stalin was a dictator. He would not be wrong. He would not be illogical. He would not be senseless. He would, in fact, be a hypocrite, but speaking truth none the less.




You can drop this "evil" crap now


I won't. Gadaf was evil.




it's a load of bull, that is all it is. I don't really care what Ghaddafi did, nor do I care, where he did it or how. I'm not Lybian, he's not my issue ... nor is he YOURS.


Incorrect. He is my issue. I choose to make it my issue. I can choose to make whatever I wish my issue. And if you don't care what he did, then quite frankly, gtfo of the conversation that you ave no idea what you're talking about, mods forgive me.




OUR issue, is OUR OWN people. It's America and Europe that is doing EVIL. This is the MATTER, YOU AND I, must address. We use weapons of mass destruction, which in and by itself makes us EVIL. We use depleted uranium, and leave radiation behind, causing radiation sickness and mass deaths amongst the nations we fight. THIS MAKES US EVEN MORE EVIL; THAN GADDAFFi.


It is impossible to be more or less evil than anyone. The child who punches a boy in the face for his lunch money is equally evil as the man who slaughters millions for his own gain. They are nothing more than different levels of the same equally evil act. Evil is evil. The only difference is, by recognizing war, in and of itself, is evil, I a not bound by any rules of morality, care, nor mercy in war. War should be the final solution to any problem. But once war is agreed to be the only solution, it doesn't matter how many die, how they die, other consequences of the way they died. The goal of war is genocide. And I don't give it a second thought. Had I been charged with the war in Iraq, not only would I have used depleted uranium many times more than what we did, but I would also use low-yield nuclear bombs on Saddam's military bases, I would also have fire-bombed his oil sites. I would also have used biological and chemical warfare against all his supporters, until the last one of his supporters dies, every man woman and child.

You see, I would not have gone to war with Iraq, if I were in charge, because I recognize just war war is. Carnage. And you don't have rules in war, nor respect for life, nor care. In war, you commit genocide for justice. Justice, if you think about it, is the benefiting of the community by your own sacrifice. Injustice, likewise, is hurting the community for your own gains. So to addendum to the above, I would not take any oil. I would not place any military bases on Iraq. Honesty, I would do the above, and then prop up a government and let them handle themselves. There are two sides to this fact of war and peace.


The above is Evil. There is no doubt about it. It's just I'm not afraid to do evil in an factually evil action, that being war. In war, there are no good guys and bad guys. Just the side who will built tanks after the war is won, and the side that will build schools after the war is won.




That is ALL YOU AND I, need to address ... and the fact that you and I, are support Saudi Arabi, the most violent and dictatorial regeme, in the entire world. WHAT WE DO, is what YOU AND I, need to address.


I just addressed that. I'd burn Saudi Arabia down to, and nuke Mecca. And I'd nuke Jerusalem for good measure. I'd unleash a scorched earth policy the day after 9/11 until the Muslim people themselves threw out their dictators, threw out their osamas and Sadmans. I'd scorch the Muslim world with fire until they themselves considered it their responsibility to sacrifice to me every evil man woman and child in their midst. Whoever was left after this fact, when I declared justice served and the evils of the world purged from that region, well whoever is left can do with that wasteland of Jerusalem to Mecca as they please.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
If Libya was so great and people were so happy then why didn't he allow opposition political parties or elections?



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALF88

Originally posted by mayabong
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 


Was healthcare not free?
Was gas not cheap?
Did libya have the highest standard of living in africa?

You can't just call propaganda with nothing to back it up. We're all trying to learn here.



Without singling out Fractured.Facade, this is the main problem. People calling out Gaddafi for things they have no proof of. How many times did members of this board call him a dictator, a murderer, killer ... and when you ask them to show you proof for their accusations they tell you to look for yourself.


Well why don't you? Afraid of being proven wrong? Try looking at Index on Censorship and Amnesty International for details about the true nature of the Gadaffi regime. Just for starters.

I've been watching since Gadaffi's death at the self-styled 'free thinkers' on ATS abandoning one orthodoxy for another. I've seen the usual join the dots of disparate facts to create a justification for believing in some kind of conspiracy rationale for the Libyan revolution, rather than the apparent events - that a people took the initiative demonstrated by other rebellions in Arabic countries, and set out to overthrow an unelected (remember?) dictator. Deny ignorance doesn't mean 'deny everything'. Sometimes things are as they seem. Freedom demonstrations began in Libya and Gadaffi cracked down hard, his forces beating and killing many, in an attempt to thwart the same kind of thing as happened in Egypt (remember that?) But soon the resistance to this repression became a full blown armed uprising.

Just because Gadaffi was an enemy of Western democracies doesn't make him a hero or even a good leader. It certainly doesn't negate the things he's done to his own people.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by plnelson
If Libya was so great and people were so happy then why didn't he allow opposition political parties or elections?

and libians are happy now that they get to elect who they want, right?
just like we do in our modern democracy where votes matter and they're not just an illusion for fools who belive in a perfect world
i'm preety sure the images with gadaffi being killed were broadcasted in order to make libians fear even more the new regime which by the way announced that the body of gadaffi would never be shown again in public, i wonder why ?
maybe because people would attend his funeral ?
maybe because people would bring their respects to a person that actually cared for his country and the fate of africa?
oh yeah he was crazy , crazy for having good intentions in a starvig world
edit on 24-10-2011 by mab22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Evolutionsend
 


Just like it was proven that America was funding and hiring militia men, those men that strung him up could have been those same guys that were killing everyone all alone. It was only a few men out of a whole country that did this to him. It could have been anyone. Now I don't know if Quadaffi was a monster or not, but there was a quote from the movie 'Swordfish' that I apply to everything that is told to me by any government, the quote goes as follows...."What the eyes see and the ears hear.....the mind believes." The American government is well adept in the old magicians tricks of misdirection and creating an illusion in the mind so as to get the target to believe something.....when in all actuality, something entirely different is going on. He may have been a monster, maybe not, but I will say that I was TOLD (heard) from the government and the media that he was......I have SEEN the guy on TV as they said this and having to take their word because I don't speak Libyan Arabic or Berber or any other semetic language, so I had no other choice but to just buy what I was told. I did for awhile until I remembered the quote. I was then reminded that I should not believe anything I was told by the American government unless I take Reagan's quote into consideration as well, "doveryai, no proveryai" which is translated from Russian to English as "Trust but verify". Meaning,.....hear what you're told and consider it, but don't blindly believe it until it is verified. Now really, after all of these generations and years and all the lies that America has been caught in time and time again.....many of them the same lies over and over and over, I promise you I will not be one of the stupid sheep that keep falling for this crap simply because America tells me how great my home is and how much better that I am than everyone else. Yeah, it's just like anyone else that tells you something about yourself that is great, you WANT to believe it. You will pound your chest in anger at anyone else (or country) that tells you different, even in the face of testimony. Me, no country owns me, nor a person and my allegiance is to Jesus, the one true GOD of creation and my family. Your country sucks and so does mine. There is no good government because they are all in on this together in collusion to enslave the rest of us. They bicker about this and that, as countries, but in general they all lie to their people and are working in tandem to kill us all as quick as they can without our knowing it as a blatant fact. They do it just slow enough that it cannot be called 'world-wide genocide'.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   
PS. Love all of your posts. My Dad did business in that country and called him, the man who lived in a tent, which he actually did in the early days. This MAN because he was a man with ideals for his country, brought a country from poverty to #55 or so in world ratings of a country, basically free infrastructure, ie,#1 water, we all need that, electricity, free education, when you get married a grant, when you bought a car gov't paid half and so on. I know the person that started this thread has already said these things. But? and I ask you this? In what other country in the world do even these items get paid for? now the people of Libya co-orced have lost all of those benefits, for what? and how many have died, for what? Think people think? They had it all. We don't have anything like what he had done for his people. Perhaps he did do some bad things, but he had a dream for his people his whole country and manifested it for them and was on a path to manifest that same dream for the rest of Africa. But OH no! that is not allowed by Nato and the PTB. I cry for you, You were a wonderful human being!!!
edit on 24-10-2011 by voodmon because: misspelled a word



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyingSpaghettiMonster
Just because Gadaffi was an enemy of Western democracies doesn't make him a hero or even a good leader. It certainly doesn't negate the things he's done to his own people.


Prove it! Don't talk, prove it! The pro Gaddafi arguments where listed in all threads regarding Libya including sources.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   
It should come as no surprise that the United States is positioning itself both East and West of Iran....it is simply easier to win a war if you attack an enemy on two fronts simultaneously. Libya just happens to be on the West side and it is sad that Gaddhafi, a man who was doing good in his part of the world, had to die so that the zionists and the Americans could set up a future battle to go in their favour.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALF88

Originally posted by FlyingSpaghettiMonster
Just because Gadaffi was an enemy of Western democracies doesn't make him a hero or even a good leader. It certainly doesn't negate the things he's done to his own people.


Prove it! Don't talk, prove it! The pro Gaddafi arguments where listed in all threads regarding Libya including sources.



You keep repeating prove it...prove it...prove it....

Sound familiar?.

edit on 25-10-2011 by Asktheanimals because: Offensive remark removed



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 07:52 AM
link   
You cannot judge people or they leaders we are all different every nation has own habits no one can globalize habits,each nation has he's one features,Gaddafi was a good person according to his nation standard,but he has a glitch,Oil,and oil kills...according to international standards..so RIP Gaddafi,because they didn't know what they have done,in a couple of years they will cry after Gaddafi as Irakys cry for now Saddam Hussein,for libians the hell just begun!!!



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Please do your homework guys, It is all there for you to see.

The UN backed the independence of Libya with a hereditary monarch put in place BEFORE oil was discovered.
Then oil. The rulers took the dosh.
Gaddaffi led a BLOODLESS COUP - where he sent the King into exile (no, he didn't beat and murder him)
Then he set up the Jam whatever it is called - i.e. ground level democracy - power of the people - not elected politicians to 'interpret' what the people want (LOOK IT UP - it is a fact)
Then he bowed out politically.
Do your homework, don't just beleive the bull# spouted by the MSM
It is incredibly worrying what has and is happening.
The BBC show pretend footage live from green square, because if they showed the real footage you would have seen 1.7 MILLION out on the street supporting him.
Look at the propaganda - the camera angles, the HUGE crowds of 67 people
please people , look for the truth, dont just accept the spoon feeding.
rant off



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Maybeboo
 


he set up the jamahiriya, socialism mashed up with one of the most moderate examples of islam. he gave priority to the social aspects of the country, i.e. education, health, welfare etc. he kept a firm stance to the west.

i remember him holding a summit in his tent amidst the desert back in 1995 with one of the ex turkish pm's, the late necmeddin erbakan, a pro arab, fierce islamist, who, back then while in power, was talking about a sharia revolution in turkey, questioning whether it should be done with or without blood, go figure.

well, this erbakan sat next to gaddafi in the tent. gaddafi gave him a tongue lash, insulting past governments for their pro-us and israel approach (he was daaam right)

gaddafi dragged him over the coals whilst he said that kurds were mistreated in tr (he was daaam right)

gaddafi was no terrorist, but he stood in the western elite's way. libya had a top quality social infrastructure, quite an eu stayla one. i doubt the country will keep going this way now that sharia has been announced. sad.
edit on 25-10-2011 by jamsession because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr.Jcury
 


glad to see someone who hasn't been compromised and has a real live view of the world.......it's too late to bring the last generation up to speed.....they've already been raised and exposed to the NWO from birth!






new topics

top topics



 
205
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join