Libyan Air-force ordered to bomb protesters

[Big Mac 19]

Russia Today - news *you* want to hear. :rolleyes:

I don't see you putting up anything debunking the story they ran or the story The Telegraph released about AQ and former Iraq War insurgents fighting for the rebels in Libya. The rebel commander himself is a friend of AQ and we're helping him when if we're going to help anyone it should be Gadaffi. It amazes me how blind to reality most of you are..

Even though the LIFG is not part of the al-Qaeda organisation, the United States military's West Point academy has said the two share an "increasingly co-operative relationship". In 2007, documents captured by allied forces from the town of Sinjar, showed LIFG emmbers made up the second-largest cohort of foreign fighters in Iraq, after Saudi Arabia.

Earlier this month, al-Qaeda issued a call for supporters to back the Libyan rebellion, which it said would lead to the imposition of "the stage of Islam" in the country.

All of you who praised these rebels as freedom fighters fighting for freedom and democracy need to seriously wake up and smell the coffee. Edited March 27, 2011 by Big Mac

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

No... What amazes ME is how blind YOU are. The U.S. used to be a friend of AQ as well. We gave the Mujaheddin stingers and weapons, we trained them, and IIRC, we used Bin Laden as an asset. (Or the CIA did anyways)

[soul_assassin 1745]

Russia Today - news *you* want to hear. :rolleyes:

I suppose u watch alot of russian news? dont be so ignorant. Just because it does not conform to usa rumor spreading techniques, doesnt mean its wrong.

I respect the russian military for coming out and saying that. All they did say is that there IS NO PROOF right now to say that tere were definitely strikes.

1st thing, dont you think its a little strange that the whole thing about protesters being bombed by airplanes died down a little suddenly? If a bomb was dropped into a crowd of protesters I would expect there to be potentially hundreds of deaths per bomb, yet the day after the bombing the news agencies we'rent even talking about it. All the reports are based on mysterious phone calls made by supposed doctors from hospitals in the area who insist on remaining anonymous. Hmm me thinks anyone could have called, even someone who would risk telling a lie for a revolution maybe? It just seems to me that 99% of people swallow anything cnn throws at you. A little flashback to WMD's me thinks. None demands proof anymore, and when someone comes and says "hey wait a minute, there seem to be a distinct lack of proof, and even some proof to the contrary" they instantly get whacked for being insensitive.

Trust nothing, question everything. Thats what you have a brain for.

And don't get me wrong. There is plenty of proof that Gadaffi is a major cock and should stand in front of a war crimes tribunal in The Hague. Thats not what I'm arguing against.

[Big Mac 19]

No... What amazes ME is how blind YOU are.

How blind I am? Have you read the article?

The U.S. used to be a friend of AQ as well.

Wrong, that's been dis-proven time and again.

We gave the Mujaheddin stingers and weapons, we trained them

There's a big difference between the Afghan Mujaheddin and the Arab Mujaheddin. The difference is we supported the afghans and the Arabs supported themselves or were supported by counties like Saudi Arabia or the UAE. Also the Arabs did very little fighting unlike the Afghans.

we used Bin Laden as an asset. (Or the CIA did anyways)

Wrong again. The CIA station chief there at the time (Milton Bearden) admitted to having met Bin Laden once and was so wary of him and his group he decided to steer clear of them and in the end they had not use for him because the had Afghan warlords by the dozen lined up ready to do the CIA's bidding.

I like ya Darkhorse, but you need research a whole lot more before you make outlandish claims that have been debunked so many times it's not even funny.

Edited March 27, 2011 by Big Mac

[*LK1* 10]

So if you have a protest that automatically equates it to a "pro-democracy" protest?

of course it's an excuse to justify the military campaign. why they dont start to bomb saudi arabia for example?cuz of course they are allied with the western world and also an economic partner.

so pretty much another campaign for oil and geo-politic.

until now there are no evidence of civilians (insurgents maybe..:rolleyes:)

being bombed from gheddafi just for fun, cuz he really love to bomb civilians and to give at the western world a reason to attack him.

it's full of network from asia,russia ecc. which they say there are no evidence about an indiscriminate attack on the population.

just the western media are saying the contrare.

here an example:

m9mS2J3GFfM

ilHsmea4P5E

[Minutemen 10]

Russia Today - news *you* want to hear. :rolleyes:

Its because you can screw the news the belligerent countrys give you.

And the russians had some true points in this debate. They were right about the fact, that this is another illegal war.

The CIA station chief there at the time (Milton Bearden) admitted to having met Bin Laden once and was so wary of him and his group he decided to steer clear of them and in the end they had not use for him because the had Afghan warlords by the dozen lined up ready to do the CIA's bidding.

Not use for him?! What do you thinking? That Bin Laden can be replaced with some filthy warlord?

There are two big families in saudi-arabia. The Sauds and the Bin Ladins. Don't tell me they "had no use for him". They used him against the russians and against the serbs. Hes one of there mightiest tools for destabilization.

Edited March 27, 2011 by Minutemen

[Big Mac 19]

Not use for him?! What do you thinking? That Bin Laden can be replaced with some filthy warlord?

There are two big families in saudi-arabia. The Sauds and the Bin Ladins. Don't tell me they "had no use for him". They used him against the russians and against the serbs. Hes one of there mightiest tools for destabilization.

What are you smoking?

According to Milton Bearden the CIA did not recruit Arabs because there were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight. The Arab Afghan were not only superfluous but "disruptive," angering local Afghan with their more-Muslim-than-thou attitude.

Thats from the CIA Station Chief at the time.

The story about bin Laden and the CIA — that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden — is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.

Thats from Peter Bergen the CNN journalist who interviewed Bin Laden. Edited March 27, 2011 by Big Mac

[NoRailgunner 0]

Be careful with media news and "infotainment" and think about: Who says what in which channel to whom with what effect? ;)

[Spokesperson 0]

Could we rename the topic's name maybee? Because it came out that "Libyan Air-force ordered to bomb protesters" was a lie and the heading is missguiding.

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links

Nice !

The world is full of idiots.

[Wolfrug 0]

And the russians had some true points in this debate. They were right about the fact, that this is another illegal war.

Just had to chime in here: Russia had a chance to use its veto power in the UN to prevent the current bombings and so forth from taking place, but instead chose to vote blank. Iraq and Afghanistan were 'illegal wars' in the sense they were not UN mandated. This 'war' is, however.

You can always argue semantics and claim that any instance of one or several sovereign countries interfering with another makes it 'illegal', but in that case there's no such thing as a 'legal war' either (as it would be 'illegal' to invade in the first place, amirite?) - which in turn makes the phrase 'illegal' war equally nonsensical.

So if you're going to throw around a word like 'illegal war', then you need some kind of backing. My backing for the legality of the war is that it is indeed UN sanctioned - it can't really get any more international than that. So, what's your reasoning?

Regards,

Wolfrug

[STALKERGB 6]

At Wolfrug, pretty good points there.

The thing with News Providers such as RT is that they do happen to have quite a lot of nutters on. So regardless of whether something they broadcast is completely true it's validity can get diluted by the slightly stranger stories that they have on that have messed around with their reputation.

I'm surprised Al Jazz haven't carried the Al Qaeda story (or maybe I missed it).

[Zipper5 74]

Iraq and Afghanistan were 'illegal wars' in the sense they were not UN mandated. This 'war' is, however.

The ISAF was established by the UN Security Council in 2001 to secure Kabul and surrounding areas, of which control was handed over to NATO in 2003. Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, was/is not an 'illegal war'. ;)

[celery 8]

Its because you can screw the news the belligerent countrys give you.

Yes. And in the process, RT becomes an extremely unreliable source for anything at all because it has to show the west in a bad light in all things at any cost. In the Korean artillery thing RT reported it like North was only defending itself from the infinite aggression of the South.

And the russians had some true points in this debate. They were right about the fact, that this is another illegal war.

By stating that a war can be illegal, you accept the fact that such things are governed by laws. The UN is the law in that respect, and the UN has given mandate for virtually every means to stop Gaddafi except a land occupation.

[Minutemen 10]

I'm surprised Al Jazz haven't carried the Al Qaeda story (or maybe I missed it).

Al Jazeera is british intelligence. So they have to follow the anglo view in this conflict. And the british financed and trained both partys.

First they build up an enemy, than they destroy them and get the loot. In this case... well... In this case its oil that isn't under the full controll of OPEC and the Anglo-American oil cartel. Sounds familiar.

Yeah, i know, sounds like gaddafi when somebodys says that Al Jazeera is british intelligence, but like this Rebels Al Quaida thing, hes right about that. Everyone that ever read T. E. Lawrence ( Lawrence of Arabia) knows that everything there is createt or backed up by the british. The Saudis were a few men on camels and the british now use them as there operation arm. Same thing with the arab league. A bunch of brutal dictators and corrupt kings backed up by other corrupt people in the western world. We could bring all of these fucks down without firing a single shoot.

[Big Mac 19]

Al Jazeera is british intelligence. So they have to follow the anglo view in this conflict. And the british financed and trained both partys.

First they build up an enemy, than they destroy them and get the loot. In this case... well... In this case its oil that isn't under the full controll of OPEC and the Anglo-American oil cartel. Sounds familiar.

Yeah, i know, sounds like gaddafi when somebodys says that Al Jazeera is british intelligence, but like this Rebels Al Quaida thing, hes right about that. Everyone that ever read T. E. Lawrence ( Lawrence of Arabia) knows that everything there is createt or backed up by the british. The Saudis were a few men on camels and the british now use them as there operation arm. Same thing with the arab league. A bunch of brutal dictators and corrupt kings backed up by other corrupt people in the western world. We could bring all of these fucks down without firing a single shoot.

Do you have any proof to back up your outlandish claims? All I see is you stringing two articles and the background of T.E. Lawrence together to form a VERY thin theory that actually sounds more idiotic than plausible.

[Zipper5 74]

Al Jazeera is british intelligence. So they have to follow the anglo view in this conflict. And the british financed and trained both partys.

Take your head out of your ass. I live in the country that Al Jazeera was both created and is run from - Qatar, and I have been here for over 11 years now. Hell, my friend's Dad works there. I never thought I would have to say this in my life, but Al Jazeera are about as far from "British intelligence" as you can get.

Stop spreading your ridiculous conspiracy theories. That stuff should be isolated to the many websites devoted to it, which will be revealed if you perform a quick Google search.

[STALKERGB 6]

Al Jazeera is british intelligence

Unless Qatar is a wing of British Intelligence too I find that hard to believe :) AJ is a very independent Middle Eastern News Broadcaster, the funding bares no relation to the news they put out. In fact the money they receive from the Qatar Government (around $780 million IIRC) is designed to help them report the news as it is, rather than for profit.

From my experience with AJ staff they are very dedicated in trying to show "the average man's" view of events too, giving them quite a good sense of what is happening somewhere.

[froggyluv 2133]

Funny, here in there States, anybody who watches Al-Jazeera is a Islamist Fanatic sympathizer.

I wouldnt watch it because I dont want to be brainwashed into a Jihadist *sarcasm*

[Big Mac 19]

I wouldnt watch it because I dont want to be brainwashed into a Jihadist

I wouldn't watch it because I believe it's slanted just like most of the American networks..

[Zipper5 74]

I wouldn't watch it because I believe it's slanted just like most of the American networks..

Name me a news station or website in the world that isn't slanted one way or the other. You can't. They are all slanted, you just have to take what each says and evaluate the degree to which what's being said is slanted before drawing to your own conclusions. It's a part of life these days.

[Big Mac 19]

Name me a news station or website in the world that isn't slanted one way or the other. You can't. They are all slanted, you just have to take what each says and evaluate the degree to which what's being said is slanted before drawing to your own conclusions. It's a part of life these days.

Christian Science Monitor is fairly unbiased paper despite the name.

[froggyluv 2133]

Name me a news station or website in the world that isn't slanted one way or the other. You can't. They are all slanted, you just have to take what each says and evaluate the degree to which what's being said is slanted before drawing to your own conclusions. It's a part of life these days.

QFT.

Some are worse then others however. In the states, our big 3 our CNN, Fox, and MSNBC.

I would think its safe to say that the general opinion is that MSNBC is propogating a strong majority Leftist ideology/ Fox being the opposite with a strong Conservative (Right), and CNN tries to project themselves as Centrists but are often accused by both extremes as biased.

I understand that if I watch any of them, that it is likely (very in the case of Fox/MS) strongly slanted material -sometimes to the extreme ie...Obama = Hitler/Stalin/Antichrist rolled together.

[Spokesperson 0]

MSNBC, CNN and Fox are all extreme right-wing news sources.

[froggyluv 2133]

MSNBC, CNN and Fox are all extreme right-wing news sources.

Surely your view of extreme Right-Wing differs from mine and most Americans -care to elaborate or just enjoy throwing out blanket statements :p

[Spokesperson 0]

They all support the idea of exploitation of man by man, capitalism and imperialism.