Proof, Gaddafi is the tyrant we've been told he is!

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by USAisdevil
 


Why are you sticking up for this guy again.......I just dont get it. Lets just ignore the facts everybody!!! And focus on how corrupt our country is! I know our country is filled with corruption and probably did exagerate some points on Gaddafi, but even without that, he wasn't a cool dude.

And maybe some people were happy with him, cause they dont know of a better way to live. Ever thought about that buddy???
Think about North Korea and their restrictions from the outside world. If you live in oppression long enough, you begin to think its normal. Just look at America! We act like the corruption and oppresssion on us is normal now days! THINK.




posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by JunoTheGreat
 


I don't recall any ATS member claiming Ghaddafi was a cool dude; but compare him to Bush Jnr and Obama's whack jobs in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.....approx 2 1/2 million have been killed by our military and that does'nt include the loss of life among the US/Coalition Forces; compare those numbers to loss of life by Ghaddafi's secret service and military throughout his 43 year rein.....makes Ghaddafi look like an angel.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by JunoTheGreat
reply to post by Hellas
 


LOL, thats not what the rebels said. The people obviously hated his azz, but eyewitness accounts aren't enough for you huh?


These so called "rebels" were probably backed by the former tribes that ruled Libya before Gaddafi liberated the people and brought literacy to 80% when previously it was only 1%, while abolishing Sharia Law to give unprecedented freedom to women,women which btw he had lots of as bodyguards and never complained about him.

Both of which they hated his guts for,orchestrated these uprisings through propaganda and brainwashing of 2 million people with the help of CIA and NATO.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Thank God there is no tyrant ruling with an iron fist in America. What would all the murderous, child-molesting, drug-using, corporate-greedy Americans do then? I do not think I could handle living in a country without people such as that. Jackass.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by JunoTheGreat
reply to post by UnlimitedSky
 


Why are people even joining the conversation, IF THEY DIDNT WATCH THE VIDEO.


Because they were attracted by the title in your thread and then discover that it is a vid only without explenation.

Everybody in the world does not have streaming data, or uncapped internet access.
If I watch videos my internet prepaid data bundle will be used up in a day or two and with current finances the way they are, I will sit high and dry without ATS (and no internet) for the rest of the month.

Access is expensive in Africa. (to me anyway)



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptChaos
Ghaddafi had like ninety five percent approval rating from Libyans. Hmmm. More than DOUBLE that of our own president.


What a coincidence, Kim Jong Il shares a similar popularity with the DPRK demographic as well.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by JunoTheGreat
 


Sure you hate women? you love sharia law? north korea is anytime better than sharia law...you want jihad and islamic caliphate? you support Al qaeda terrorists?
en.wikipedia.org...

He freed women from that sharia freaks... But you hate women and want to put them in burqas, al qaeda lover.

Ghaddafi is million times better than sharia law .Even North Korea is better than sharia law.

Go to Saudi Arabia and beat and rape your wife and daughter.Then go suicide bomb and get 72 virgins in paradise


Sharia law freak...



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by JunoTheGreat
 



Your still missing the point DUDE! haha

A generation from now, this is what he will be remembered for:


I watched the video.

He was a 40+ year tenured military dictator… of course he wasn't a nice guy, I'm not saying he was, but he sure wasn't the Saddam, Mugabe, or Hitler the MSM made him out to be. He did a lot of awful things to crush the opposition, yes, but he did a lot of good things for his people as Libyans were pretty well off compared to most other Africans.

However, our leaders were fine with all the inhumane things he did for those 40 years, but what they didn't like was his recent plan to introduce the "Gold Dinar" to all of Africa.

www.goldstockbull.com...

And the reason he will only be remembered for the things you and the video just listed a generation from now is because THE VICTORS WRITE THE HISTORY BOOKS.

I do think Libya has a better chance to prosper with him gone.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hellas
The people of Libya were happy with him and he did good!

And that is all the we need to know. Basta!


How do you know Libyans were 'happy'? You're just saying that because you want to believe it. You seem to think that anyone who's an enemy of the West is a friend of La Resistance. Wrong in so many ways.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by USAisdevil
reply to post by JunoTheGreat
 


Sure you hate women? you love sharia law? north korea is anytime better than sharia law...you want jihad and islamic caliphate? you support Al qaeda terrorists?
en.wikipedia.org...

He freed women from that sharia freaks... But you hate women and want to put them in burqas, al qaeda lover.

Ghaddafi is million times better than sharia law .Even North Korea is better than sharia law.

Go to Saudi Arabia and beat and rape your wife and daughter.Then go suicide bomb and get 72 virgins in paradise


Sharia law freak...



Well, that's a screed of ignorant, prejudiced insults. Just because you can think of some things that might be con ceivably nastier than Gadaffi doesn't make him a nice man. Nor does making the trains run on time make a democracy. Votes, and rights of free expression make democracy. Neither of which were given to Libyans until they took them for themselves.
edit on 6-11-2011 by FlyingSpaghettiMonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Oracle

Originally posted by JunoTheGreat
reply to post by Hellas
 


LOL, thats not what the rebels said. The people obviously hated his azz, but eyewitness accounts aren't enough for you huh?


These so called "rebels" were probably backed by the former tribes that ruled Libya before Gaddafi liberated the people and brought literacy to 80% when previously it was only 1%, while abolishing Sharia Law to give unprecedented freedom to women,women which btw he had lots of as bodyguards and never complained about him.

Both of which they hated his guts for,orchestrated these uprisings through propaganda and brainwashing of 2 million people with the help of CIA and NATO.


Yeah, they can have all that, so long as they don't ask to have even the tiniest say in deciding their own affairs. A real bargain with the Devil.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by JunoTheGreat
 


I don't recall any ATS member claiming Ghaddafi was a cool dude;



Do a bit more searching of threads - you'll find them.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by JunoTheGreat
 


No taxes, free healthcare, free education, having a home a human right and no national debt. The man was loved bymuch of Africa. The only thing missing from the above is a Rockefeller central banking system and there in you have the missing piece of the puzzle.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


Rockefeller or Rothschilds? Or are they one in the same now?



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyingSpaghettiMonster
 





Votes, and rights of free expression make democracy. Neither of which were given to Libyans until they took them for themselves.


Foreign rebels supported by NATO took over not the libyan people. And ghaddafi though not a saint,but was much better than the sharia freaks and al qaeda which the west brought to power in libya

and what you define as democracy is not democracy at all, but a sham.True democracy is where people decide everything through referendums whether economic,political and military.West is more dictatorial than that Buffoon Ghaddafi.
edit on 7-11-2011 by ludwigvonmises003 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by FlyingSpaghettiMonster
 





Votes, and rights of free expression make democracy. Neither of which were given to Libyans until they took them for themselves.


Foreign rebels supported by NATO took over not the libyan people. And ghaddafi though not a saint,but was much better than the sharia freaks and al qaeda which the west brought to power in libya

and what you define as democracy is not democracy at all, but a sham.True democracy is where people decide everything through referendums whether economic,political and military.West is more dictatorial than that Buffoon Ghaddafi.
edit on 7-11-2011 by ludwigvonmises003 because: (no reason given)


The Libyan people pleaded with NATO to support them. as they were struggling to fight. Gadaffi started this mess by making his forces open fire on unarmed civilians in demonstrations. And while we're on the subject of 'foreign rebels', what do you call the mercenaries that Gadaffi employed to shoot civilian demonstrators?

It's true, things could go wrong for Libya now. But that's their choice. It's not justifiable to support dictatorship purely because something worse might possibly replace it. And just because our own governments aren't whiter than white doesn't make them equivalent to the likes of Gadaffi.

Your personal formula for democracy isn't shared by many, and even if it were, it would have to be chosen by the Libyans. That's chosen, not imposed by you or anyone, including another unelected, autocratic leader like Gadaffi.
edit on 7-11-2011 by FlyingSpaghettiMonster because: (more)
edit on 7-11-2011 by FlyingSpaghettiMonster because: spell
edit on 7-11-2011 by FlyingSpaghettiMonster because: stuff



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyingSpaghettiMonster
 


libyan people did not plead to NATO.Al Qaeda in Libya did. And this was preplanned as Ghadaffi tried to rid himself of central banker influence by means of gold dinar.Please don't spew that BS coming from the corporate media.They are a bunch of lies. Check alternative media sources like globalresearch or voltairenetwork .

www.voltairenet.org...

NATO informants were corporate journalists in Libya.So like they are working with the govt that was supporting al qaeda, so like how can NATO corporate propaganda be taken as fact.
edit on 7-11-2011 by ludwigvonmises003 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   
Oh my God what a lot of nonsense... I have heard so much propaganda over the issue of Gaddafi that my eyes are starting to hurt. Seriously people, do your research!

But I am reminded constantly: 'What about the thousands he massacred in the Abu Salim prison? Here is proof: www.dailymail.co.uk...

right?'

Well the massacre at Abu Salim was/is actually fake.

The story was first concocted by the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL) which (as has been admitted) was created by the CIA and Mossad in 1981, the NFSL was part of a plan to destabilise Libya using a ‘fifth column’ of fighters and insurgents (this is not speculation, this is admitted fact). The story was then passed on to Human Rights Watch which was duped into pushing the story into the media. Interestingly, Human Rights Watch admits that 'none of the claims made by their witness can be independently verified.' On top of this, their witness states on record that he did not witness even one single prisoner being shot dead in this supposed massacre.

www.hrw.org...

This tells you a lot about the credibility of Human Rights Watch.

The massacre at Abu Salim prison is absolutely, unequivocally an out-and-out lie; 1,200 bodies have not been found. Not a single body has been found. In fact, no excavation has been performed, and no more than ‘several bone fragments’ have been discovered, according to the NTC. And of those bone fragments, CNN later reported "medics with CNN staffers on the scene said the bones did not appear to be human."

edition.cnn.com...

Yet the Abu Salim massacre is exactly the kind of propaganda that helped sell the NATO backed civil war in Libya.

Another propaganda piece in the Libyan conflict has been the claim that Libya was using 'black' mercenaries from Africa to do its dirty work (in other words to carry out killings). The 'rebels' quickly produced a few of these 'black mercenaries' as proof to the world. Wow, all very convincing stuff except that it was all lies. When Human Rights Watch later sent Peter Bouckaert to speak with black people arrested by the 'rebels' as mercenaries and investigated the claim, he found no evidence for the allegationl. Instead he found that all 156 people captured by the 'rebels' and presented to him as black mercenaries, were in fact regular Libyan soldiers coming from the south of Libya, where most people are black.

www.rnw.nl...

In the cities of Benghazi, Ajdabiya, Al Beida, Derna and Tobruk, – justifying it’s actions with the false black mercenary allegation – lynch mobs began hunting black people, arresting, mistreating and killing black people with knives. Many of these killings were filmed using mobile phones and uploaded to social media. Here is such a video

[WARNING! GRAPHIC VIDEO. DO NOT WATCH IF IT MAY UPSET]:

youtu.be...

Here is another video, this one shows a worker (the rebels admitted that he was a worker after they killed him) coming home from work.

[WARNING! GRAPHIC VIDEO. DO NOT WATCH IF IT MAY UPSET]

youtu.be...

And here is another video.

[WARNING! GRAPHIC VIDEO. DO NOT WATCH IF IT MAY UPSET]:

youtu.be...

The victim was not a mercenary, he was a Libyan citizen Hisham Mansour, a worker who happened to be black.

Early in the conflict we were told that Gaddafi's security forces were killing innocent protesters. Was this true? The BBC and Fox (of course) ran stories about protesters being killed but it failed to give a clear picture. For a more accurate picture we have to turn to France24 news:

www.france24.com...

Firstly, contradicting the BBC and Fox, nobody was killed and of the 38 injured (please read paragraph 4 in that link): 'The Benghazi-based, privately-owned Quryna newspaper, quoted Abdelkrim Gubaili, the director of a local hospital, as saying 38 people were injured in the clashes, most of them security officials." That's right, most of the injured were security officials.
edit on 7-11-2011 by sapatos because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   
A video also appeared of Gaddafi security forces allegedly executed by Gaddafi loyalists for not firing on protesters. This, the media claimed, was yet more proof of the brutality of Gaddafi. I am not going to post the video because it is simply too disgusting for me to post here but it shows 18 Gaddafi troops with their hands tied behind their backs with their heads blown off. The video was shot by the rebels who claimed that 'they found the bodies'. This is a lie.

Another video soon came to light (but not reported on the BBC, Fox or the rest of the popular media) showing the same 'rebels' with the Gaddafi security officers very much alive. Again, I am not going to post the video because it is too disgusting but I have taken a screenshot from the video to prove my point



In one part of the video, after the men have been shot, one of the soldiers is clearly still alive and a woman drops water into his mouth




So who shot these people? Were they really shot by Gaddafi loyalists for not firing on protesters? Or was this story just more propaganda? What is a lot more obvious is that the 'rebels' shot them.

Another video (also not reported on the BBC, Fox and the rest of the crap which passes itself off as media) shows the executed Gaddafi soldiers not only very much alive but hostages to the rebels. Again I am not going to post the video but just screenshots. Here a soldier (later murdered) can be seen with one of the rebel captors behind him. A woman is heard calming him down and her hand is briefly seen on his shoulder (her voice is the same as the woman seen dropping water into the soldier's mouth):



This is a night-time scene but their execution video was in daylight so this suggests the rebels had them captive at least overnight. Here is an image of another soldier (also later murdered) with a rebel (his face covered with a scarf):




This last image shows the same woman arguing with the same captive, her hand is seen briefly here:



The voice of this same woman can be heard in these videos and in the the video showing a woman dropping water into the soldiers mouth. It is the same woman.

But what did the media tell us happened? It gave us propaganda by claiming that Gaddafi security forces killed the soldiers for refusing to fire on protesters. I guess they are using the same propaganda writers for Syria:

www.guardian.co.uk...

hahahahahahahahahaha
edit on 7-11-2011 by sapatos because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   
More lies! BBC and Al Jazeera reported on February 22 that Gaddafi troops had been conducting airstrikes on its own people in Tripoli. Yet Russian military had been monitoring Tripoli and Benghazi airspace via satellites and claim that there were never any airstrikes [source: rt.com...]

Interestingly on the same day William Hague stated that Britain had launched an air operation over Libya to rescue stranded foreigners. Now hang on a minute. Regular airliners were used to evacuate people while Libyan air force planes were allegedly attacking their own people. A foreign power sends in regular airliners (and illegally traspasses over Libyan soil) to get its people out while the Libyan government is allegedly also in the air attacking its own people. It's a joke beyond belief (source: www.channel4.com...)

The day before Israeli President Shimon Perez had anounced that there "will be a Libya without Gaddafi", he should know (source: www.haaretz.com...)

On February 26 the UN passed it's resolution 1970 which effectively cut off all supplies to Libya. One of its justifications for the resolution was that, "During the 2011 uprising, Gaddafi’s loyalist forces carried out aerial bombings in Tripoli over civilian protesters, which drew widespread condemnation." (source: en.wikipedia.org...). In other words part of its justification for imposing resolution 1970 was based on lies!

On the same day that the resolution was passed, Obama demanded that Gaddafi immediately flee Libya, forgetting of course that he has no legitimacy to make such a demand (source: english.aljazeera.net...)

Two days later on February 28, Hilary Clinton offered "any kind of assistance" to the rebels. She repeatedly justified her offer based on the Libyan air attacks on their own people (which never happened) (source: www.news.com.au...). In a US DoD news briefing US defense secretary Robert Gates said, when questioned if he has any evidence or independent confirmation, and if so, to what extent, that the Libyan government actually has fired on his own people from the air, that he has seen the press reports, but he has no confirmation of that. Admiral Michael Mullen added that the US DoD has seen no confirmation for this allegation whatsoever. (source: www.defense.gov...)

The rebels then got into full swing conquering the oil refinery of Ras Lanuf (source: www.realclearworld.com...) and then the oil towns of Brega and Ras Lanuf (interesting first targets, got to secure that oil first). At the same time a British SAS/MI6 special forces team was captured by rebels in eastern Libya. The British commando team was secretly flown in the night by helicopter into remote sparsely populated lands dozens of kilometers away from Benghazi. The British commando team was armed with guns and had explosives as well as false passports from various nations with them. After British defense secretary Liam Fox publicly confirmed, that the captured commando team was indeed British, and stated they were just junior diplomats 'looking for a hotel' to find for a senior diplomat yet to follow, the commando team was released. (source: www.dailymail.co.uk...)

The rebels dubbing themselves 'revolutionaries' moved from Ras Lanuf further to conquer western Libya. When they were a few dozen kilometers into their journey, residents of the hamlet of Ben Jawad opened fire on the 'rebels' and with the help of the Libyan army they pushed them back to the oil town of Ras Lanuf. One of the rebels complained to the media that the residents of Ben Jawad were guilty of treachery yet we know that the residents of Ben Jawad had told reporters that the 'rebels' were raping women. CNN reporter Ben Wedemann said he left Ras Lanuf, not least because many of the so-called 'rebels' had smoked hashish and there were 'stoned adolescents armed to the teeth stumbling around the halls at night'. (sources: en.wikipedia.org... , edition.cnn.com...)

Residents of Ben Jawad, together with military forces, had by the 30th of March pushed the rebels back and it was becoming clear that the rebels were beginning to lose. So President Obama declared on March 31 that he had authorised covert assistance to the rebels (source: unity.lv...)

The rest is history...





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join