Libyan Air-force ordered to bomb protesters

[Spokesperson 0]

should not be trying to prevent the mass-murdering of thousands

If that is the real concern here, why murder people in Afghanistan on a daily basis? The liberals in the west have killed millions of people in their wars for superiority and natural resources.

... where a rebellion takes place the rebels have no rights or duties

in international law. A third State might recognize that a rebellion exists,

but under traditional international law a rebellion within the borders of

a sovereign State is the exclusive concern

of that State. Rebels may be punished under municipal law and there is no

obligation to treat them as prisoners of war … Because rebels have no legal

rights, and may not legitimately be assisted by outside powers, traditional

international law clearly favours the established government in the case of

rebellion, regardless of the cause for which the rebels are fighting.

(International Law and the Use of Force by National Liberation Movements,

1990)

and you base that on?

People on the ground (europeans) have denied air attacks on civilians. And that was long before RT made their investigation. You can't accuse people of things there is no proof for and base a murderous invasion on it.

[jw custom 56]

People on the ground (europeans) have denied air attacks on civilians. And that was long before RT made their investigation. You can't accuse people of things there is no proof for and base a murderous invasion on it.

Ohhhh okay..... lmfao :p

[Zipper5 74]

People on the ground (europeans) have denied air attacks on civilians. And that was long before RT made their investigation.

So has Gadhafi, and yet there are many other testimonies stating otherwise. In fact, a simple Google search reveals more testimonies proving that attacks on civilians are taking place than those saying they aren't.

I guess the common thought here is that if anyone in the west says something's happening, it's a lie, and if anyone outside of the west is saying something's happening, it's gotta be factual. :)

[Spokesperson 0]

That doesn't matter. Media and the rebels are known to lie. Afterall it's a war and they are on one side, not both.

If there is no proof there is no reason to believe it. It was just a construction to allow for an invasion.

Some people also mix AA guns with aircraft guns. AA guns might have been used (as per neutral witnesses).

[jw custom 56]

That doesn't matter.

Of course not :j:

[celery 8]

That doesn't matter. Media and the rebels are known to lie. Afterall it's a war and they are on one side, not both.

If there is no proof there is no reason to believe it. It was just a construction to allow for an invasion.

Some people also mix AA guns with aircraft guns. AA guns might have been used (as per neutral witnesses).

If everyone lies, why are you so hell-bent on always believing the anti-west side? It's clear that you've chosen to hate everything the west represents, but what facts do you base your sentiments on and how are those facts not the same or worse for whatever non-west society you hold as ideal?

Edited March 20, 2011 by Celery

[jakerod 254]

Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.

Alright since you shot down the other ones: What about the American Revolution? Should we have just stuck with the devil we knew who at that time was the King? I'd like to point out that we were the rebels there and that it was arguably the intervention of a foreign power against our enemy that allowed our own nation to be formed.

In regards to the media, you simply can't tell who is telling the truth. Maybe CNN is or maybe RT is. You don't know. You have to go with the ones that you trust. The only way you will ever know for certain is if you were there and even then the civilians you see getting killed in an air strike could've been the pilots own initiative or an accident.

I believe what historical actions tell me. The western governments and those governments who support them are acting in what they believe to be their own best interest. I highly doubt we are doing it because we are trying to be the knights in shining armor and save the lives of civilians. If that were the case the U.N. would've made a bigger stand in Rwanda. Unfortunately for them though they didn't have anything we wanted. Libya does. The silver lining here is that supposedly Ghadafi is killing his own people and that by us intervening for our own gain we may save some of their lives. This isn't the way I want the world to work. I would much rather us be the knights in shining armor saving the lives of people because its the right thing to do. Sadly, it doesn't work that way right now.

EDIT: @ Spokesperson- why did you post the "(International Law and the Use of Force by National Liberation Movements,1990)"? We're not trying to help the rebels. We're trying to stop Ghadafi. Turns out though that the rebels just have a similar aim.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Jakerod

[Tonci87 163]

I prefer a good Mix of Euronews, some German News Channels and croatian media to get informed.

@ Big Mac, I´reall want to see how you want to counter Jakerods argument

[Big Mac 19]

Alright since you shot down the other ones: What about the American Revolution? Should we have just stuck with the devil we knew who at that time was the King? I'd like to point out that we were the rebels there and that it was arguably the intervention of a foreign power against our enemy that allowed our own nation to be formed.

The difference there is we were actively seeking countries like France and Spain to come to our aid and the only reason they came to our aid was because they had something to gain and that support was minor at best. It consisted of muskets that did not work, an Admiral who was afraid to commit his forces to battle and a few thousand troops at the very last battle. We have nothing to gain by helping to either oust Gadhafi or keep him in power.

[jakerod 254]

The difference there is we were actively seeking countries like France and Spain to come to our aid and the only reason they came to our aid was because they had something to gain and that support was minor at best. It consisted of muskets that did not work, an Admiral who was afraid to commit his forces to battle and a few thousand troops at the very last battle. We have nothing to gain by helping to either oust Gadhafi or keep him in power.

Oil deals in the future government.

[jw custom 56]

The difference there is we were actively seeking countries like France and Spain to come to our aid...

So your saying only works on Lybia and whenever it fits you?

[Spokesperson 0]

Of course not :j:

So now you showed that you support it no matter the arguments against. It's like discussing with a religious person.

If everyone lies, why are you so hell-bent on always believing the anti-west side? It's clear that you've chosen to hate everything the west represents, but what facts do you base your sentiments on and how are those facts not the same or worse for whatever non-west society you hold as ideal?

Not "if", they do. Don't you remember that they said that that plane that was shot down over Benghazi was Gaddafis initially? Apparently the rebels are breaking the no fly zone, still their airfields, their tanks and their AA installations don't get bombed. This is not a humanitarian mission, it's a mission to oust a legitimate government.

I know the government side lies too, but the important thing is that it's their country. West has no right to invade rob and mass murder people like they do in every corner of the world.

We're not trying to help the rebels. We're trying to stop Ghadafi. Turns out though that the rebels just have a similar aim.

Oh yes, of course. You twist the words. Pears become apples, but they are still fruits. No matter how you turn it around, the rebels are supplied with guns, training and planes. That's help no matter what you choose to call it. Turns out you're just another religious person.

[Zipper5 74]

West has no right to invade rob and mass murder people like they do in every corner of the world.

It's not like the east is absolved of such things either, my friend. You sound like you're living in the USSR in the 1940s and 50s, with those evil capitalist pigs being the root of all the worlds evils, and that communism is the answer all the worlds problems. Funny thing is on the other side of the pond, the same claims were made in reverse. ;)

This is not a humanitarian mission, it's a mission to oust a legitimate government.

Oust a legitimate government that even former allies of are starting to call illegitimate.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Zipper5

[jw custom 56]

So now you showed that you support it no matter the arguments against. It's like discussing with a religious person.

Yes, if you and Gadaffi says so then it must be true :j:

[concurssi 11]

It's like discussing with a religious person.

...

Turns out you're just another religious person.

The same could be said for you.

[binkster 0]

Spokesperson why are you so biased against the west? Ok even if western governments are in Libyia for other reasons besides being a "Knight and shinning Armor"..... I bet the people are still happy somone is helping. Its hard to think that oil has anything to do with it since they export very little. Does Libyia export something like 2% of the worlds oil exports?

Governments shouldnt invade other countries but like I said ask the people in Lybia. They are very helpless and I saw someone on the news begging for a no fly-zone like several weeks ago.

[Big Mac 19]

Oil deals in the future government.

How do you know the future government will be anymore cooperative than this one?

---------- Post added at 12:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 PM ----------

So your saying only works on Lybia and whenever it fits you?

JW you're still not making any sense...

[jakerod 254]

So now you showed that you support it no matter the arguments against. It's like discussing with a religious person.

Not "if", they do. Don't you remember that they said that that plane that was shot down over Benghazi was Gaddafis initially? Apparently the rebels are breaking the no fly zone, still their airfields, their tanks and their AA installations don't get bombed. This is not a humanitarian mission, it's a mission to oust a legitimate government.

I know the government side lies too, but the important thing is that it's their country. West has no right to invade rob and mass murder people like they do in every corner of the world.

Oh yes, of course. You twist the words. Pears become apples, but they are still fruits. No matter how you turn it around, the rebels are supplied with guns, training and planes. That's help no matter what you choose to call it. Turns out you're just another religious person.

Your attitude suggests that you only pay attention to things that support your claim. Not to mention the fact that you haven't backed any of your claims in this entire thread, as far as I have read anyway.

The plane that was shot down was a rebel mig-23 but I don't believe that the no-fly zone was active at that time or at least being enforced. The government of Libya is the one that is deliberately targeting civilians, not the rebels. That Mig was shot down over its own city. I highly doubt it was attacking civilians in friendly territory. It doesn't exactly gain support for their cause.

Ghadafi has no right to rob and mass murder people in his corner of the world.

I have yet to see any reports of the west supplying the rebels. Can you point me to your source on that? That Mig-23 they had was captured at a Libyan airbase. Most of their weapons appear to be of Libyan/Russian origin as well. I had yet to see rebels carrying around G-36s and using F-22s. I do realize that it is possible that we supplied them with Ak's and Zu's but I haven't seen a report of this. Can you show me?

How am I acting like a religious person? Is it because I have demonstrated the ability to look at this situation from an objective view point and even supported some of your claims regarding media earlier? I'm confused here, please enlighten me.

How do you know the future government will be anymore cooperative than this one?

You make deals before hand as best you can. You point out the fact that you helped them take out their former enemy and that you may be willing to do it again for the next government. Or in your terms, the devil that may be willing to help you, is better than the one who won't. Oh, I would also like to point out that the rebels are actively seeking help from countries like France and maybe Spain but if no one else; France, Britain, US, Qatar, and some others. Also, that French blockade in the American Revolution didn't do jack-shit right? It didn't prevent our enemy from escaping or being resupplied or reinforced... oh, wait, yes it did. Also, see Celery's post below.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Jakerod

[jw custom 56]

@Big Mac

I'm referring to your "saying" that: you know what you got but you don't know what you get.

I'm asking if it's only valid when it comes to the Lybia discussion and whenever it fits you?

[celery 8]

The difference there is we were actively seeking countries like France and Spain to come to our aid and the only reason they came to our aid was because they had something to gain and that support was minor at best. It consisted of muskets that did not work, an Admiral who was afraid to commit his forces to battle and a few thousand troops at the very last battle. We have nothing to gain by helping to either oust Gadhafi or keep him in power.

The opposition hasn't called for help? Oh yes they have.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/libyan-rebels-call-for-foreign-military-help-20110302-1bevo.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/libyan-rebels-why-wont-the-world-help-us-2237608.html

As for the French in the revolutionary war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War

France "only" kept much of the otherwise unchallenged British navy at bay and bound British forces elsewhere. Very much comparable to crippling the heavy hitters of the pro-Gaddafi forces.

[binkster 0]

The opposition hasn't called for help? Oh yes they have.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/libyan-rebels-call-for-foreign-military-help-20110302-1bevo.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/libyan-rebels-why-wont-the-world-help-us-2237608.html

As for the French in the revolutionary war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War

France "only" kept much of the otherwise unchallenged British navy at bay and bound British forces elsewhere. Very much comparable to crippling the heavy hitters of the pro-Gaddafi forces.

+1 for this post... Couldnt put it better

[Big Mac 19]

The opposition hasn't called for help? Oh yes they have.

And why should we help them? What does the US get out of helping them? What makes you think they aren't anything more than a bunch of religious zealots sugar coated with men who preach freedom, but have no power within the rebel leadership? The French never got anything for helping us and even to this day we still hate (more like a love/hate thing.) the French.

France "only" kept much of the otherwise unchallenged British navy at bay and bound British forces elsewhere. Very much comparable to crippling the heavy hitters of the pro-Gaddafi forces.

Oh Really? I clearly remember Admiral Rochambeau being so overly cautious he was accused of being a coward by the Americans who did 99% of the fighting during the revolution and it was only until Yorktown when he was being put under so much pressure by the Americans that he finally committed his armada to the fight. If you really want to stop a genocide there in Libya then disarm both the pro-Gadhafi forces and the anti-Gadhafi forces because I promise you if either side wins the victor is going to slaughter the loser. Edited March 20, 2011 by Big Mac

[Tonci87 163]

And why should we help them? What does the US get out of helping them? What makes you think they aren't anything more than a bunch of religious zealots sugar coated with men who preach freedom, but have no power within the rebel leadership? The French never got anything for helping us and even to this day we still hate (more like a love/hate thing.) the French.

May I link you to my previous post?

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1878273&postcount=198

Besides that, you got the statue of Liberty from France, what else do you want?

Oh Really? I clearly remember Admiral Rochambeau being so overly cautious he was accused of being a coward by the Americans who did 99% of the fighting during the revolution and it was only until Yorktown when he was being put under so much pressure by the Americans that he finally committed his armada to the fight. If you really want to stop a genocide there in Libya then disarm both the pro-Gadhafi forces and the anti-Gadhafi forces because I promise you if either side wins the victor is going to slaughter the loser.

The Americans have a very long tradition of calling the French cowards. Don´t forget that the Americans are (or were) of English origin, so they literally were born to call the French cowards.

[jakerod 254]

And why should we help them? What does the US get out of helping them?

As previously stated, oil. Other options include: ally, airbase, and we look good in the eyes of all of those states that just overthrew their governments because we helped out their neighbors and potentially helped bring more stability to the region by removing some guy who has previously and presently presented himself to be a nuisance to the international and local community.

[Tonci87 163]

^This. Face it Big mac, sometimes you just HAVE to kick someones ass