Libyan Revolution Helmet Cam

[b101_uk 10]

@b101_uk:

You come across as extremely naive. You say that speech and the press are both "too free," the implication being that etc etc etc etc

I think you are the naïve one as you have failed to understand what I said

My answer was posed as a question

“Is this the same “free press†that there is all the currant argument that they are “much too free†and overstepping the bounds?â€

i.e. Phone hacking and the bounds between something that is not in the public interest vs. something that is, “in the public interest†is not a byword for printing the extremely trivial/tacky reporting just to make money and fill out copy space, on the other hand e.g. MP’s expenses is “in the public interestâ€, likewise the press should not have near cart blanch to print made up lies and fabrication because they know it is incredibly costly and complex for individuals to sue for deformation. ;)

[st_dux 26]

... likewise the press should not have near cart blanch to print made up lies and fabrication because they know it is incredibly costly and complex for individuals to sue for deformation.

Who decides what is a "made up lie" and what isn't? I would much rather leave that distinction up to the marketplace of ideas rather than some government bureaucracy. The potential for incompetency and corruption is far greater when government (i.e., coercion) is involved.

[Minutemen 10]

Clearly, the people of Libya didn't think it was legit.

How to define "the people"? Do you know why in modern english it is the speech from People, and not folks anymore? Because People realised that speaking collectively as "the english folk said" and such things is bull.

And what is with the people which are still fighting the looting NATO Rebells? Are they not lybians anymore? Things aren't just black and white.

Blatant imperialism, interfering in civil wars, financing violent opposition groups to undermine legit governments, handing out weapons to combatants, performing coup d'etat's, while calling it protecting civilians.

This is exactly what the Soviet Union did in Vietnam, Czechia, Hungary and many african countrys. Handing out Weapons, coup d'etats and engagement "to help". So just STFU.

PS anyone see Cameron and Sarkozy having a walkabout and meeting people in Tripoli/Benghazi yesterday?

Do you know how many love letters Adolf Hitler got every day? How many people cheered him? Yeah, Ghaddafi is a bad madman, but these two Mothers are even worst. And their Nations have WMD.

If you really do live in the UK could you please answer the following:

Do you like the right to vote?

Do you like freedom of speech?

Do you like human rights?

Do you like a free press?

Do you like an independent judicial system with police oversight?

You know that UK is a monarchistic Policestate with total Gunban and Aristocrats in all leading positions, right?

That's just how much protection he needed from his own people.

Do you know how many CCTV Cameras there are in London? Whats wrong with your mind? Are you that retarded or just double minded? :rolleyes:

Know what? I don't care anymore. Screw ghaddafi, screw the Al Quaida Rebels, screw the cheering Public, screw Sarkozy, screw the UK, screw all of that.

[st_dux 26]

How to define "the people"? Do you know why in modern english it is the speech from People, and not folks anymore? Because People realised that speaking collectively as "the english folk said" and such things is bull.

And what is with the people which are still fighting the looting NATO Rebells? Are they not lybians anymore? Things aren't just black and white.

All I mean by "the people" is that there was enough of a resistance movement to result in violent action. If everyone was happy with dictator Gaddafi, a rebellion wouldn't have occurred.

As for the looting rebels/things aren't black and white comment, I agree: Things are never black and white, and this certainly isn't a case of "Good vs. Evil" (nothing in reality is). Some of the rebels will abuse their power initially as this is the nature of war; victors expect spoils. None of this changes the fact that Gaddafi was a tyrant, and I doubt that Libya would have been better off with him in the long run.

[PELHAM 10]

@ B101_uk sounds like you don't like the many freedoms in the UK? Should you ever wish to claim asylum in Iran, Syria or North Korea to escape these horrible liberal living conditions that oppress you, PM me. I will buy you the plane ticket and throw in free air luxury side accommodation and a limo to the airport.

Before you go, look at the many stories of people who chose to turn their backs on Western Europe and America and went to live behind the iron curtain. It's interesting to see how quickly the idea turned sour and they begged to come home. Even a committed communist like Oswald didn't last long.

For your next holiday, I recommend a trip to one of the pariah states so you can see exactly what it's like. I know Zimbabwe the best. Travel to the south of the country and watch people sit down and die at the side of the road because they have nothing to eat, simply because they don't think the way they are supposed to. Ask around and they will show you where they have been tortured and point out missing items that have been cut off. It's character building stuff.

---------- Post added at 09:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:34 PM ----------

You know that UK is a monarchistic Policestate with total Gunban and Aristocrats in all leading positions, right?

No, I live here, it's news to me. Actually, none of that is accurate or true.

Do you know how many CCTV Cameras there are in London? Whats wrong with your mind? Are you that retarded or just double minded? :rolleyes:

Yes but they aren't looking out for people voting against the government or monitoring what they say. The only reason we have them is because we are so liberal we don't lock up criminals forever or execute them. The cameras deter crime and of course there is the terrorist issue.

Know what? I don't care anymore. Screw ghaddafi, screw the Al Quaida Rebels, screw the cheering Public, screw Sarkozy, screw the UK, screw all of that.

:rolleyes:

Edited September 16, 2011 by PELHAM

[Minutemen 10]

Even a committed communist like Oswald didn't last long.

Oswald hung around among people which were closely connected with the Anti-Communist League of the Caribbean like David Ferrie. Oswald was an a agent provocateur, a patsy.

Yes but they aren't looking out for people voting against the government or monitoring what they say. The only reason we have them is because we are so liberal we don't lock up criminals forever or execute them. The cameras deter crime and of course there is the terrorist issue.

No they aren't looking for that, they looking for... for terrorists. And ofcourse we let criminals rant on the society while taking their right to selfdefence because we are so liberal. You must be so damn lucky in your dreamworld. You are exactly that kind of person which Eric Arthur Blair described in 1984 as people which could "double think". Just the smart were able to lie to them self so persuasive, they will believe it. Look at that:

Actually, none of that is accurate or true.

Bagdad Bobs speaking.

You wanna cheearing these gangsters? They are the same kind of human garbage as ghaddafi, at least maybee even worse. At it looks like they are.

Damn, i hate this hypocrisy!!

[PELHAM 10]

UN General Assembly votes 114 - 17 to give NTC Libyan UN seat

The UN General Assembly voted Friday to give Libya's seat in the world body to the National Transitional Council which led the rebellion that ousted Muammar Qaddafi.

The vote means that a senior council official will be able to join world leaders and speak for Libya at next week's ministerial session of the General Assembly and also participate in meetings.

The resolution was approved by a vote of 114-17 with 15 abstentions, revealing divisions in Africa and Latin America over who should represent Libya.

The General Assembly's credentials committee had unanimously recommended that the former rebels be seated. It's chairman, Panama's UN Ambassador Pablo Antonio Thalassinos, said Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, who heads the National Transitional Council, had sent a letter seeking to take over Libya's seat.

The committee's recommendation faced opposition from a left-leaning Latin America trade group ALBA whose members include Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba among others.

Southern Africa's main regional bloc also opposed giving the NTC credentials immediately, but it failed to win support to defer a vote.

@ Minutemen

Your replies are factually inaccurate so I will not respond further until you read up on the subjects and can give a rational response.

e.g. you can read about Oswald's defection to the USSR here, it lasted 18 months. He returned to the US with a Russian wife, Marina.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald#Defection_to_the_Soviet_Union

The man in your top photo meeting Gadaffi is Tony Blair by the way not David Cameron. Tony Blair is not an aristocrat as you seem to suggest. Tony Blair has to meet people like Gadaffi as part of his role as Middle East envoy for the United Nations, European Union, United States, and Russia, he had several meetings with Gadaffi as a UN envoy. That particular meeting pictured was TB meeting Gadaffi during his African farewell tour in 2007 after he had announced his resignation. Meetings as PM were mainly to remove Libya's WMD program, bring to justice the Pan Am 103 bomber and in return try to normalise Libyan international relations. That all came to a halt in 2009 during Gadaffi's rambling address at the UN where he 'hijacked' the podium for 90 mins and threw the UN charter on the floor.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/23/muammar-gaddafi-general-assembly-speech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuEuWb14gbQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvOo5LK22sg

The man in the next photo is Sarkozy meeting Gadaffi in 2007. The two countries signed an agreement about cooperation on a military-industrial partnership, in addition to a number of other deals on cultural, economic and scientific cooperation. The French president called his visit to Tripoli, the first of a European leader since the release of the Bulgarian medics, a "political trip" to help Libya reintegrate into the international community after decades of isolation. France played an important role in securing the release of the six medics, which paved the way for Sarkozy's visit. PS I don't know why you call him a Bagdad Bob? France had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq and Sarkozy was not PM then?

Edited September 17, 2011 by PELHAM

[Minutemen 10]

@ Minutemen

Your replies are factually inaccurate so I will not respond further until you read up on the subjects and can give a rational response.

e.g. you can read about Oswald's defection to the USSR here, it lasted 18 months. He returned to the US with a Russian wife, Marina.

I know goddamit! This guy was double or even triple agent. He hung around in Banisters office. But thats another story.

That all came to a halt in 2009 during Gadaffi's rambling address at the UN where he 'hijacked' the podium for 90 mins and threw the UN charter on the floor.

I would do the same and you too if you would read that thing.

PS I don't know why you call him a Bagdad Bob?

Bagdad Bob was the Nickname for the iraqi informationminister which claimed that they strike the allied forces back while you could hear the bombs exploding behinde him. Its a term for somebody which still talks Propaganda Bullshit even everybody knows already its a fraud.

But i decided to don't waste my time anymore on this.

[Locksley 10]

Damm shame that dude got banned here for just stating the truth.

And it does have to be said, Gadaffi is a great guy. This anti-gadaffi stuff has to be the greatest blatant and audacious propoganda stunt so far this century.

Next on the kill list will be Hugo Chavez/venezuela and no doubt the mass media will manage to convince the world he too is an evil dictator that needs to be foribly removed.

People never learn and are going to find themselves living in an Orwellian nightmare soon enough.

[PELHAM 10]

Lol laughable nonsense guys. Scroll up 2 posts and see how many countries and organisations agree with me. That's 114 nations of the UN General Assembly or 72% voted against Gadaffi on Friday.

All the Gadaffi state sponsored terrorism, attacks on neighbouring countries, and 35 years of international trouble causing are historical fact. Everyone knows it and that's why the only countries that vote for him are old corrupt friends, old communist allies and dictators just like himself.

If it's propaganda prove it wrong. 72% of the UN General Assembly don't think so.

PS there are people living in an Orwellian nightmare, it's called Syria, Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, Burma and Zimbabwe and around 26 others. Also Dictatorships are often characterised by some or all of the following traits: suspension of elections and of civil liberties; proclamation of a state of emergency; rule by decree; repression of political opponents without abiding by rule of law procedures; these include single-party state, and cult of personality. Does this sound like anyone we know?

Edited September 18, 2011 by PELHAM

[b101_uk 10]

Lol laughable nonsense guys. Scroll up 2 posts and see how many countries and organisations agree with me. That's 114 nations of the UN General Assembly or 72% voted against Gadaffi on Friday.

All the Gadaffi state sponsored terrorism, attacks on neighbouring countries, and 35 years of international trouble causing are historical fact. Everyone knows it and that's why the only countries that vote for him are old corrupt friends, old communist allies and dictators just like himself.

If it's propaganda prove it wrong. 72% of the UN General Assembly don't think so.

There are 192 member country’s in the UN, there are 196 undisputed “country’s†in the world, if you include “disputed†territory’s the number is in excess >250 country’s.

Thus it was not 72% of the UN it was ~59% based on 114 being for and the remainder out of 192 total being opposed, no doubt you are aware that not even dignifying the vote by giving it your presence is a snub to its validly and should not be ignored (much like recalling your ambassador or diplomatic envoi in protest at somthing) or the possibility to call for a vote at short notice while you have the most likely people present to vote for something.

I am sure being the well travelled person you claim you must know many country’s whos constitutions require a specific high turnout for any vote to even be considered valid, other specify a value of much higher than 50% of the vote to be considered passed as they require e.g. a clear 3/5 or 2/3 majority.

;)

[Tonci87 163]

This post wasn't your smartest one...

[PELHAM 10]

This post wasn't your smartest one...

It certainly wasn't lol you see he has not bothered to look at the policies or previous voting record of the absent UN Members. To assume that those who did not vote are in some way supporting Gadaffi is ridiculous - here's the proof. He also does not know that there are in fact 193 members of the UN since South Sudan was added this year.

The UN Gen Assembly requires a 2/3 majority to pass a resolution.

Out of 192 members:

114 voted against Gadaffi

17 for

15 abstentions

46 absent

Being absent from a vote is not necessarily a snub and counting those votes as negative shows you have no understanding of democracy and what you did above is akin to stuffing a ballot box to get your own way. A common tactic used by dictators.

UN Members are absent for many different reasons and it's actually very common for 1/4 or more of them not to show up.

Lets have a look at at who wasn't present at the vote:

1) Libya

You cant count Libya as it was suspended from the UN GA until after the vote. -1

2) Non regional democracies. These have little or no connections with Libya and are distant geographically. Did they have any interest at all?:

Bhutan, Cambodia, Papua New Guinea, Kyrgyzstan.

3) Dictators club, 1 party states and those with histories of unfair elections and human rights abuses, lets call these snubs:

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Myanmar, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Belarus, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan.

4) States that have recognised the NTC or declared their support for NTC as the ligitimate government but did not attend the preceedings.

Albania, Nigeria, Rwanda, Niger, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Central African Republic, Ghana, Comoros, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Liberia, Seychelles, Marshall Islands. -14

5) States that do not recognise the NTC

Dominica, Eritrea

6) Pacific Island Nations - these have a history of limited attendance and usually only attend votes in which they have some interest. Most have not voted or made statements for years. Most have not updated their UN webpages for many years and some are blank. Do they have any interest?

Micronesia (Federated States of), Samoa, Palau, Solomon Islands, Nauru, Tonga, Tuvalu. -8

7) Members without permanent missions to the UN - they don't vote on anything:

Kiribati -1

8) Carribean States and South American states, may have chosen not to attend due to support of Gadaffi by neighbours.

Saint Kitts and Nevis, Bahamas, Barbados, Grenada, Haiti, Guyana.

9) African States, don't knows.

Burundi, Republic of Congo, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Somalia.

10)No recent history of participation, blank UN mission page.

Sao Tome and Principe. -1

So........I will graciously hand over all undecided, non participating nations to your side. Some of those have stated that they will recognise a Democratic Libyan Government after the elections, i.e. not Gadaffi. Lets see if you still win with those very generous allowances.

I will take the 14 members who have recognised the NTC, we will not include Libya as it was the subject of the vote.

193 - Libya = 192

46 - 14 = 32

17 + 15 + 32 = 64 (your total)

114 + 14 = 128 UN Members with clear evidence of support for the NTC.

As you can see, out of the 192 members of the UN that could possibly vote, there is still 2/3rds support for the NTC, probably more. That is enough to carry a vote under UN General Assembly rules.

Edited September 19, 2011 by PELHAM

[Tonci87 163]

This post was smart and full of proof.

[b101_uk 10]

It certainly wasn't lol you see he has not bothered to look at the policies or previous voting record of the absent UN Members. To assume that those who did not vote are in some way supporting Gadaffi is ridiculous - here's the proof. He also does not know that there are in fact 193 members of the UN since South Sudan was added this year.

The UN Gen Assembly requires a 2/3 majority to pass a resolution.

Out of 192 members:

114 voted against Gadaffi

17 for

15 abstentions

46 absent

Being absent from a vote is not necessarily a snub and counting those votes as negative shows you have no understanding of democracy and what you did above is akin to stuffing a ballot box to get your own way. A common tactic used by dictators.

UN Members are absent for many different reasons and it's actually very common for 1/4 or more of them not to show up.

Lets have a look at at who wasn't present at the vote:

1) Libya

You cant count Libya as it was suspended from the UN GA until after the vote. -1

2) Non regional democracies. These have little or no connections with Libya and are distant geographically. Did they have any interest at all?:

Bhutan, Cambodia, Papua New Guinea, Kyrgyzstan.

3) Dictators club, 1 party states and those with histories of unfair elections and human rights abuses, lets call these snubs:

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Myanmar, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Belarus, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan.

4) States that have recognised the NTC or declared their support for NTC as the ligitimate government but did not attend the preceedings.

Albania, Nigeria, Rwanda, Niger, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Central African Republic, Ghana, Comoros, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Liberia, Seychelles, Marshall Islands. -14

5) States that do not recognise the NTC

Dominica, Eritrea

6) Pacific Island Nations - these have a history of limited attendance and usually only attend votes in which they have some interest. Most have not voted or made statements for years. Most have not updated their UN webpages for many years and some are blank. Do they have any interest?

Micronesia (Federated States of), Samoa, Palau, Solomon Islands, Nauru, Tonga, Tuvalu. -8

7) Members without permanent missions to the UN - they don't vote on anything:

Kiribati -1

8) Carribean States and South American states, may have chosen not to attend due to support of Gadaffi by neighbours.

Saint Kitts and Nevis, Bahamas, Barbados, Grenada, Haiti, Guyana.

9) African States, don't knows.

Burundi, Republic of Congo, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Somalia.

10)No recent history of participation, blank UN mission page.

Sao Tome and Principe. -1

So........I will graciously hand over all undecided, non participating nations to your side. Some of those have stated that they will recognise a Democratic Libyan Government after the elections, i.e. not Gadaffi. Lets see if you still win with those very generous allowances.

I will take the 14 members who have recognised the NTC, we will not include Libya as it was the subject of the vote.

193 - Libya = 192

46 - 14 = 32

17 + 15 + 32 = 64 (your total)

114 + 14 = 128 UN Members with clear evidence of support for the NTC.

As you can see, out of the 192 members of the UN that could possibly vote, there is still 2/3rds support for the NTC, probably more. That is enough to carry a vote under UN General Assembly rules.

:rolleyes:

Lol you dictator-like ballot box stuffer.

Under many voting regulations used the world over of you will find abstentions & people who are registered to vote but don’t count agenised any proposal to/for change or they would have voted, this is the same system that is used by business to appoint board members of e.g. PLC’s, mutual’s and coop’s etc or if you like aspects of “justice†much like a jury where all must vote and in some cases a clear majority of 10:2 is needed, its funny how in the 21st century we can video link a court with a convict/witness elsewhere which on a world scale is quite small importance yet the UN somehow cannot get 192 representatives to vote on everything all the time even if it’s by proxy.

You also and I guess it’s your age seem to be confused between a country recognising the NTC but being absent from the vote as being in favour of Libya joining/regaining a seat which is a dictator like fallacy, e.g. Pakistan who is one of the 14 votes you were quick to claim is extremely active in the UN and has had many of its military working on UN peacekeeping missions, but they was absent yet seemingly that rises no alarm bells for you as to “why†they were absent if they support the NTC.

You also seem to forget that the NTC has been quite self-appointing and it already having wrangles with parts of the Libyan tribal system who are pushing for elections in order to form a government with authority of the people given the NTC is NOT formed from people all tribes, sects and has defiantly not been voted into place, the number of tribes & sects etc has already been touched upon in this thread by others.

You also don’t seem to recognise that many of the non-attendees from the less well-off nations get “aid†from primarily Western nations and like stocks, shares and commodity’s (which can go up and down in value) “aid†gets used as a leverage method to secure support, it is also used as a means of punishment in cutting some of it if you vote the wrong way to your benefactors preference as “aid†is seldom “unconditional†even if implied as such thus you “could†stay away at key times to avoid problems.

If we come to your creative accounting, you need the 114 + the “14†you used in you point #4 in order to reach the magic 2/3 majority of 192 (128) which BTW is somewhat short of the 72% you claimed on face value initially, true under UN General Assembly rules the vote as was was enough to carry the vote however when you delve into the whys & whats or the shortcomings of the UN voting system vs. fairer more decisive method it raises obvious questions, only getting ~59% of potential voters is somewhat different to 2/3 (66.66R%) or 72% dependent on what you view as a “majority†or “definitive†or any other superlative you may wish to use that amount to clear unbiased decision not influenced by the power or hold one nation may have over another that may influence outcome or incur “political†or “fiscal†penalty’s.

And you accuses me of being of having “no understanding of democracyâ€! :eek: lol

[st_dux 26]

Pelham, you are a welcome voice for a reason in an increasingly insane Off-Topic Forum. Keep up the good work.

b101_uk, what is your point? Regardless of how you choose to look at the numbers, the resolution passed, and it's quite clear that most of the world's leaders (i.e., greater than 50%) are happy to be rid of Gaddafi.

[PELHAM 10]

Pelham, you are a welcome voice for a reason in an increasingly insane Off-Topic Forum. Keep up the good work.

b101_uk, what is your point? Regardless of how you choose to look at the numbers, the resolution passed, and it's quite clear that most of the world's leaders (i.e., greater than 50%) are happy to be rid of Gaddafi.

His point is he didn't like the outcome of the vote so he wants to change the rules and the system until he gets the outcome he wants. Does this sound like anyone we know?

There are many leaders in the world who don't like elections and change the rules (constitutions) until they get the result they want including extending their terms of office indefinitely. You will find many of them on the No side in the above vote.

He was certain that all 46 members who were absent were showing support for Gadaffi even though many have recognised or shown support for the NTC as the legitimate Government. Why would they support one government and then decide that another should represent the country at the UN. It doesn't make logical sense, does it?

In a democratic vote the winner is always the majority. People in the minority often try to tinker with things and the most common is saying a vote isn't valid until you have a 'significant' majority. B101 is suggesting he will not accept anything less than an 83% majority (jury system 10:2) which is clearly ridiculous.

No doubt if we get 83% at some point he would suddenly require a 90% majority.

Edited September 19, 2011 by PELHAM

[spooky lynx 73]

Lol laughable nonsense guys. Scroll up 2 posts and see how many countries and organisations agree with me. That's 114 nations of the UN General Assembly or 72% voted against Gadaffi on Friday.

The same countries voted for so-called no-fly zone which soon transformed into just airstrikes at Quaddafi's army and air support of rebels with casualties among civilians.

All the Gadaffi state sponsored terrorism, attacks on neighbouring countries, and 35 years of international trouble causing are historical fact. Everyone knows it and that's why the only countries that vote for him are old corrupt friends, old communist allies and dictators just like himself.

The only trouble for those who created libyan NTC and helps it to get the power is that Quaddafi was rather independant from them. I can name at least dozen of another countries who support terrorism at the state level, who forbid any political opposition and freedoms but thet live this way and nobody tries to overthrow local authorities. But if such country has good relations with Russia and China but not with USA and EU - it is called terrorist state and bombed.:rolleyes: We've caught lots of mercenaries from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt during active fighting at Caucasus in early 2000s, we intercepted lots of money delivering roots from that states to terrorists in Caucasus. So should we bring them back to the Middleages using our long range aviation and cruise missiles?:rolleyes: And also civilian protests in Bahrain were smashed in the same way as in Syria and Libya. So bomb the Bahrain! Arrest its leaders or kill them, they're terrorists, aren't they, Pelham? We all should establish no-fly zone at Bahrain and destroy all its army!

If it's propaganda prove it wrong. 72% of the UN General Assembly don't think so.

Read about Munchen treaty of 1938;)

[Tonci87 163]

who forbid any political opposition and freedoms but thet live this way and nobody tries to overthrow local authorities.

Dude that sounds like Russia could be in this club too..

[st_dux 26]

I can name at least dozen of another countries who support terrorism at the state level, who forbid any political opposition and freedoms but thet live this way and nobody tries to overthrow local authorities.

If any of these countries had a rebellion currently going on, I don't doubt that NATO would offer support. For like the 500th time in this thread:The NATO action in Libya started in support of an already-ongoing domestic uprising. NATO did not spontaneously decide to start shit in Libya, so the argument that it is inconsistent for them not to spontaneously start shit elsewhere is void.

[PELHAM 10]

The same countries voted for so-called no-fly zone which soon transformed into just airstrikes at Quaddafi's army and air support of rebels with casualties among civilians.

Nonsense:

UN Resolution 1973 was voted on by the UN Security Council not the General Assembly.

Read UN resolution 1973 (particularly what it authorises) and then read the International Criminal Court Indictment for Gadaffi which lists crimes against humanity.

Then come back and we can have a reasoned debate based on facts not half truths.

[spooky lynx 73]

Dude that sounds like Russia could be in this club too..

Friendly speaking, we have at least the same amount of freedoms that europeans have, in some ways we have even more:o As we have a period of so-called "wild capitalism".

If any of these countries had a rebellion currently going on, I don't doubt that NATO would offer support. For like the 500th time in this thread:The NATO action in Libya started in support of an already-ongoing domestic uprising. NATO did not spontaneously decide to start shit in Libya, so the argument that it is inconsistent for them not to spontaneously start shit elsewhere is void.

Did NATO offer support to bahraini or yemeni protesters and rebels?;) Or had bahraini protesters been smashed by police, army (who used heavy armored units) and Saudis? I fully argee, NATO did not spontaneously decide to start shit in Libya, there's enough smart guys in Bruselles to make some plan at first and then start to organize and train that rebels.

Nonsense:

UN Resolution 1973 was voted on by the UN Security Council not the General Assembly.

Read UN resolution 1973 (particularly what it authorises) and then read the International Criminal Court Indictment for Gadaffi which lists crimes against humanity.

Then come back and we can have a reasoned debate based on facts not half truths.

Maybe I don't know something and we have two different UKs and Frances who belong to SC and GA... But I thought that France in SC and France in GA - that's the same country;) It doesn't matter much, what UN structure approved decision. For me it would be not so important, who gave the orded to start the war in 1941 - Hitler himself or Reichstag.

[PELHAM 10]

Maybe I don't know something and we have two different UKs and Frances who belong to SC and GA... But I thought that France in SC and France in GA - that's the same country;)

The countries on the SC might also be members of the GA but the phrase you used was "those same countries" referring to a post on the GA. You were incorrect, be a big man and deal with it.

I don't understand your references to Hitler please explain? I would love to know what possible comparison you could draw?

If it's about Gaddafi leaving hundreds of prisoners to suffocate in underground prisons and cargo containers in the sun or mass executions and burning of bodies. If it's also about a coalition of nations bringing about the end of 1 tyrant, well I would agree with you.

Why you pick on the UK and France I'm not sure? Do you not know that UN 1973 is being enforced by Air forces from many countries, NATO and Non NATO, Armed forces of the nations below are operating out of bases in 5 southern European nations:

United Arab Emirates

Qatar

Belgium

Canada

Denmark

France

Italy

Norway

Netherlands

Spain

Sweden

United States

France

United Kingdom

Latest Headlines:

Libyan Rebels capture southern city of Sabha

Libya’s provisional authorities captured the strategic Gaddafi stronghold on Wednesday, reporting they had taken hold of the remote southern oasis city of Sabha with little violence.

Fadi Fellani, a resident of the city, said almost all of Sabha, except for one neighbourhood controlled by Col Gaddafi’s tribe, favoured the uprising against the Gaddafi regime.

Gaddafi forces now remain in control of only two cities, Bani Walid and Sirte

Key:

Red - NTC controlled

Green - Gaddafi controlled

Edited September 23, 2011 by PELHAM

[spooky lynx 73]

The countries on the SC might also be members of the GA but the phrase you used was "those same countries" referring to a post on the GA. You were incorrect, be a big man and deal with it.

GA consists of those EU countries that provoked this war. That what I meant.

I don't understand your references to Hitler please explain? I would love to know what possible comparison you could draw?

If it's about Gaddafi leaving hundreds of prisoners to suffocate in underground prisons and cargo containers in the sun or mass executions and burning of bodies. If it's also about a coalition of nations bringing about the end of 1 tyrant, well I would agree with you.

Mkay, let me explain if you don't understand. For me and for Poles it doesn't really matters who ordered to start the war in 1939 and later in 1941 - Hitler himself or his headquadters. The fact is that Third Reich started WW2. So now for me it's not so important, which UN branch approved that "no-fly zone" resolution. The fact is that no-fly zone became just air support of the rebels. This is just what we did in 1979-1989, officially helped new revolutionary government, in fact fought with islamic opposition. NATO does just the same in Libya, the difference is that we helped government, NATO helps opposition. And the real reason doesn't includes tyrant or mass executions or underground prisons (all this is unproved till nowdays) - reason is to hold a country as a satellite. One of the main things NTC spoke about - all main economic contracts will be reviewed and resigned. Guess who's companies will get them;)

Why you pick on the UK and France I'm not sure? Do you not know that UN 1973 is being enforced by Air forces from many countries, NATO and Non NATO, Armed forces of the nations below are operating out of bases in 5 southern European nations:

United Arab Emirates

Qatar

Belgium

Canada

Denmark

France

Italy

Norway

Netherlands

Spain

Sweden

United States

France

United Kingdom

Simple - they are the main players in this game and they use the main force in this war. Other countries are there either just for the advertisement of the Gripens or for crowd effect (4 norwegian F-16s which were soon withdrawn as their maintance in this war is too expensive:rolleyes: oh yes oh yes I fully trust this).

[PELHAM 10]

@ Sppoky Lynx - you still have not read UN 1973 have you? It authorised a no fly zone AND whatever means necessary to prevent attacks on civilians by Gadaffi troops in response to crimes against humanity by Gadaffi. The items listed in the International Criminal Court document concerning the indictment against Gadaffi all occurred before UN 1973 came into existence.

This war started when 1/2 of Libya rebelled as part of the North African (Arab Spring) uprising. UN 1973 and the involvement of the security council came much later. The involvement of other countries was authorised by UN 1973.

Please read up on the subject and get your time lines sorted out. Most of what you say is factually incorrect. If you go back in this thread much of the info is listed in my posts.

Edited September 26, 2011 by PELHAM