The Situation in the middle east, but beyond (May be controversial)

[jeza 5416]

thought I would try to expand the view on the Libya conflict, but much more than that.

escaltingFrom what I have been watching on the BBC/Fox/sky/Al-jazeera, ect the situation within the area is increasing at a rapid pace. However, my point of view is as followed:

As posted above the current situation within Libya needs addressing, by the africanleague of nations, or NATO and beyond. However looking at it from what the leaders from NATO are saying about humanitarian and so on, surely states within Africa do need this kind of help as well. The DC of Congo according to sources may has as much as 5.4 Million people have killed within a decade, I have also read from this that , it may be half than that. But the be that as it may..Those horrific statistics, cannot lie about such situations within the African continent, such horrific arrtosties happen on a daily bases within there, and yet a small force of troops UN & brits included within seria Leon are deployed there.

Please do not get me wrong I am no war monger by any means, however my point is if such a force in action, surely it interms of humanitarian aid would be best suited being deployed in force within the African continent as it may be helping to a larger in extent on that front, that Libya, or any other middle east county, as I said do not get me wrong, the people there DO need serious assistance, by the west or by 'forces' or diplomacy within the area, but just from my objective point of view looking from the past decade, there MAYBE another area, I.E. Africa which may need this humanitarian assistance for a lot longer than say Libya and Bahrain and Syria. Wondering the thoughts from the community.

Kind Regards Jeza

Edited April 23, 2011 by Jeza

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Libya is in North Africa. ;)

Humanitarian aid is counter-intuitive and destructive, you expect to feed them for another 50 years?

What have they done to depose the dictators of their homelands?

Perhaps, they don't have enough information to operate on to make a decision against tribalism?

Do we bear responsibility of providing them satellite Internet connectivity to increase the chance of the above happening?

Do they even have the concept of the following:

jqxENMKaeCU

?

You could live in the wild and not see the forest for the trees.

You're naive. ;)

[jeza 5416]

Naive , I believe I maybe, but helping our fellow humanbeings, I believe that whatever your standing that should be the role of the planet. :) just my view to be dissected as you will.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Well then, devise a plan how to subvert & coerce the tribal nations of Africa into a single Union based on trade. ;)

Fundamental transformation, not hamburgers in a cardboard box.

P.S. Incidentally, there's a discussion going on in Fukushima thread that is in line with this topic in more ways than you think.

Edited April 23, 2011 by Iroquois Pliskin

[jeza 5416]

Indeed , & by no means do i even try to contimplate such a resolution on my behalf lol :) . However, putting it in a blunt way, why our the western resources in the current climate being dictated towards the middle-east when looking at it, the African continent could really do with '1st' world countries resources for the past few decades up to now and no doubt beyond?.

Oh and yes, I did see the ties in the Fukushima as well, hoping maybe this would drag the debate in another direction/climate.

Regards Jeza

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Because... you need to be a bit wiser to understand what happens at 25+ degrees N or South latitudes - they had no need for the raw resources; why do you think some people entertain(-ed) the notion, that Africa begins South of the Pyrenees. ;)

[max power 21]

A friend of mine was just interviewed on this subject.

http://wikisecures.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10:interviewfoor&catid=13:interviews&Itemid=12

[Opticalsnare 12]

You give them money they just spend it on useless crap like buying weapons or drugs to kill those who oppose them cause when they get a weapon they have da power. When the rest of the world sends them money it just gets stolen by those who have formed armed gangs who take take take.

You setup a goverment with law and order and either that government becomes corrupt power crazy genocidal madmen or the people dont like law and order and end up starting civil wars.

You teach them how to farm and become self independent they get bored and insted just end up stealing and killing what whatever they can off the next bloke or vice versa or the 2nd happens and they get killed anyway.

If you send troops there, which we have done before so many times in history to try and setup governments or put in place some kind of system its almost always ended up becoming a bloodbath or going completly wrong. This overtime in the past history has taught many foreign countries to simply not borther and say whats the point in wasting money or lives on something that in the end will most likly wont work and insted just cause more death.

Some african countries are slowly making progress but to what extent? Some places which im referring to btw are just runned by corrupt governments armed gangs killing eachother off and nobody gives a shit about them.

Edited April 24, 2011 by Opticalsnare

[Hans Ludwig 0]

We shouldn't look at the North African countries in the same manner we view the rest of the continent. Not only are North Africans a different race, but North Africans are far more advanced and built pyramids, while those living in the rest of the continent still live in grass huts and are extremely backwards. That's the way it has been for thousands of years.

[Dosenmais 10]

okay,... why is ghaddafi now the new bad guy on the television screen, but noone is talking about saudi arabia? the badest regime down there?

Seriosly, these princes and corrupt kings finance mosque building all over europe. There are completly criminal but the US Gov. still protects them. I don't care about a little group of medieval psychos like these al quaida myth, but i care about big business criminals that getting weapons and money from the criminals in western big business.

[Daniel 0]

okay,... why is ghaddafi now the new bad guy on the television screen, but noone is talking about saudi arabia? the badest regime down there?

Perhaps because countries like Libya and Syria are stealing the limelight by actively killing their own people in front of the world press. There have been no brutal put-downs in Saudi, unlike in neighboring countries (at least not recently).

See what you make of this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12482311

Edited April 25, 2011 by Daniel

[Dosenmais 10]

actively killing their own people in front of the world press

Well, which government does this also? The Chinese do this too, but they are the biggest creditor of the US Dollar. And the Saudis torture for fun.

Heck yeah, even european countrys kill there own people during demonstrations. But they don't beat them do death infront of the others, they beat them and later they die in the hospital.

[Big Mac 19]

Personally I believe the west has enough on it's plate in regards to the middle east (not to mention the world) that we as a whole need to mind our own and not try to police the entire region.

[Zipper5 74]

And then you'd have complaints that America isn't being the regional police.

[Big Mac 19]

And then you'd have complaints that America isn't being the regional police.

Not from me.

[sabre4809 0]

The amount of uninformed shit being spewed on the 1st page of this thread is incredible.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

okay,... why is ghaddafi now the new bad guy on the television screen, but noone is talking about saudi arabia? the badest regime down there?

Need to know basis:

If you have to ask, you don't need to know.

[jeza 5416]

And then you'd have complaints that America isn't being the regional police.

Would not have any here either, if action is to take place, think it should be on a united front. However this united front seems like having a growing amount of things to deal with in the current climate.

[maturin 12]

Well, which government does this also? The Chinese do this too, but they are the biggest creditor of the US Dollar. And the Saudis torture for fun.

Heck yeah, even european countrys kill there own people during demonstrations. But they don't beat them do death infront of the others, they beat them and later they die in the hospital.

Tianamen Square was twenty years ago. There haven't been any flagrant outbreaks of state violence, barring Tibet, which we can't do anything about. So it gets handed off to George Clooney.

[max power 21]

Like LTC Foor said in that interview, 'we can throw the word democracy all we want'. Democracies in that part of the world are rare and/or temporary. LTC Foor brings the example of Gaza, where they had a vote, elected Hamas, and now there's going to be no more elections there anymore. So, when NATO or whoever unites arms and decides to 'sweep clear' the governments we don't approve of, are we supposed to stay there and force them to have moral, responsible democracies in spite of what they might want? I any democracy or other government formed without the will of the populace will be ousted in short order. What LTC Foor suggested that is more beneficial to the United States in particular is a stable regime, rather than a democracy that's constantly in danger.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Tianamen Square was twenty years ago. There haven't been any flagrant outbreaks of state violence, barring Tibet, which we can't do anything about. So it gets handed off to George Clooney.

Pretty much, except for state-authorised organ harvesting - nothing unusual.

[Dosenmais 10]

CNN is reporting that an NATO Airstrike killed Gaddafis Son Saif al-Arab and probably two of this grand children. Maybee this is a cover story because some people run off.

Meanwhile Gaddafis forces arrange Weapons and basic training to civilians. Looks like hes building some kind of Volkssturm for the final stand.

There haven't been any flagrant outbreaks of state violence, barring Tibet, which we can't do anything about.

Forgett this Tibet Bullcrap. They just support this "free Tibet" stuff in the western world for some occult reasons. Before the Chinese "invaded" Tibet, it was an feudalic shithole and a Hell of a Place.

But there are enough other examples. There are a lot of peasant riots on the countryside where peasants attack the communist goons with tools. And the CIA is instigate the Uyghurs to rebel.

Need to know basis:

This was a rhetorical question.

I know that the saudi Wahhabites are the actual pet child of the globalist gangsters, because they can use these people as mercs and mischief-maker in other countrys. But they double cross the arabs by inflation the dollar, the arabs invested in the dollar.

Edited May 1, 2011 by Dosenmais

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

Forgett this Tibet Bullcrap. They just support this "free Tibet" stuff in the western world for some occult reasons.

Seriously... What the flying fuck are you talking about?

[Dosenmais 10]

Seriously... What the flying fuck are you talking about?

Heinrich Harrer?

1938 sendet Heinrich Himmler an expedition to Tibet, their Mission was a mix of race research and occult nazi stuff. And everybody knows, that the nazis and especialy SS Head Himmer were obsessed with occult witchcraft stuff. And this is still very strong in the higher classes of our society. Yeah, sounds strange, but most newspappers still publish horoscope at least once in a month.

And ofcourse they can use this feudalistic monk, which cult is similar to the sun worshipping cults all over the planet(Aztecs, Germanic Tribes, modern freemaisonry, old Egypt), as an agitator against China.

Dalai Lama is an modern sun priest, and he has still many influence on the peasant slaves in tibet and some usefull idiots in the western world.

I would advise you a book about that stuff, but its written in german and i didn't find a book like this in english.

[maturin 12]

Ooh, Russia Today. Hold on, let me go see what Glenn Beck has to say about it!