or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Arab Spring (formerly "Youth Protests in Egypt - Internet Shut Down")
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Arab Spring (formerly "Youth Protests in Egypt - Internet Shut Down") - Page 5

post #201 of 351

No, as much as it sucks watching all this violence, it is not our business to intervene. Not unless called upon to do so by either the UN general assembly or an (even arguably) legitimate power from within Libya. There can be no shortcuts around international law.

post #202 of 351

"A mad wanker, shouting all the maddest bits of the internet aloud, forever."

 

Charlie Brooker on Gaddafi.

 

 

Stay until the end, it gets really really great.

post #203 of 351
Thread Starter 

I've noticed a new theme in the twitters I'm following out of Libya, which is that the Libyan people definitely don't want American boots on the ground and would be immediately suspicious.  But they're all but begging for a no fly zone. 

 

This is so hard to watch.  I know the people will prevail but the death toll is going to be brutal.

 

ps. I watched Green Zone over the weekend.  What a great movie. 

post #204 of 351


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post

Christ, it's so disheartening watching American news media and then tuning in BBC.

 


The US has a perfectly good media outlet (Democracy Now) which exceeds the BBC in every way.

 

 

post #205 of 351
Thread Starter 

Geoff, I agree about Democracy Now.  It's superior to every other US news program.

 

Meanwhile, things have gotten really bad in Bahrain.  Wireless networks and internet are spotty and people on twitter are saying the army is moving into Lulu square.  Some people are saying that the royal family has declared martial law. 

post #206 of 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post

Geoff, I agree about Democracy Now.  It's superior to every other US news program.

 

Meanwhile, things have gotten really bad in Bahrain.  Wireless networks and internet are spotty and people on twitter are saying the army is moving into Lulu square.  Some people are saying that the royal family has declared martial law. 



...and of course the Saudi forces arrived over the weekend. Protesters have been fired upon and there are reports of possibly hundreds dead.

post #207 of 351
Thread Starter 

Yeah, Saudi forces and state security forces.  They're saying it's a massacre.  This is horrible!

post #208 of 351

Just try to imagine Iran sending its army to another country where they proceed to attack and kill protesting civilians by the hundreds. Politicians, especially conservatives, in the US and the west in general would literally be foaming at the mouth with rage, beating their chests and tearing off their clothes. There would be calls to war 24/7.

 

Our political system's double standards and sociopathic cynicism put even Imperial Great Britain to shame.

post #209 of 351

True. We at least had good manners whilst slaughtering the savages.

post #210 of 351

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12781009

 

No Fly zone is a go, also includes targets that threaten civilians, so hopefully, good-bye Gaddafi ground forces.

post #211 of 351

Apparently NATO forces are mobilizing tommorow. There's even talk about ground forces going into Libya. China and Russia are protesting it too. Interesting.

post #212 of 351


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post

Apparently NATO forces are mobilizing tommorow. There's even talk about ground forces going into Libya. China and Russia are protesting it too. Interesting.



That would be because when rebels rise up in China and Russia they crush them with thier military, it's what most countries would do honestly. I mean, if the Tea Party rebelled in the United States with AK47's and fighter jets, don't you think we'd use the military against them? You think you could tell which house has a tea party rebel in it? Give me a break... we have no business in Libya.

 

post #213 of 351
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post

That would be because when rebels rise up in China and Russia they crush them with thier military, it's what most countries would do honestly. I mean, if the Tea Party rebelled in the United States with AK47's and fighter jets, don't you think we'd use the military against them? You think you could tell which house has a tea party rebel in it? Give me a break... we have no business in Libya.

 


 

So, you cheerleaded for the Iraq war the whole time and provided justifications for everything Bush/Cheney did over there but after the unarmed Libyan resistance gets crushed for three weeks and we provide them with air cover at their desperate request, that's a mistake?  I don't understand you, Snaieke. 

post #214 of 351

The difference is that commie pinko Obama and his socialist overlords in the UN are doing this, instead of Bush being a cowboy rockstar and going in and doing what needed to be done, the American way.

post #215 of 351



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post


 


 

So, you cheerleaded for the Iraq war the whole time and provided justifications for everything Bush/Cheney did over there but after the unarmed Libyan resistance gets crushed for three weeks and we provide them with air cover at their desperate request, that's a mistake?  I don't understand you, Snaieke. 


As usual, you confuse me with those you read online. I did not cheerlead anything. I disagreed with us preemptivly striking Iraq, I did agree that we should stay in there after we hosed the country and try to fix things.

 

Hey, if Libya was invading Egypt .. I'd be all for us keeping them in check. We're talking about rebels (people who are armed) trying to over throw a government. The UN mandate was to protect civilians. Now that is somewhat laughable since rebels AREN'T civilians and our bombings \ missle strikes will probably kill more civilians than Gaddalfi's forces would have in quelling the rebellion.

 

ETA

 

Keep in mind, the Right's argument is that Obama is ineffective and should have gotten involved sooner. You can sort of see where my opinion differs from the "Right".

post #216 of 351

Snaieke, I've been reading your bullshit for a while now and I'd like to tell you something. If this is an act then it's a very good one. I have to assume that some of the CHUD mods are in on it because otherwise, why wouldn't they ban your ass for the outright bullshit you've spewed on these boards.

 

However, there is also the possibility that you're like that How The World Works fuckface on YouTube and that you actually believe everything you say. If this is the case then you are an aytipical conservative; soulless, unfeeling, indifferent to the suffering of others. A sociopath who see's the world as dog-eat-dog and is incapable of having anything resembling an emotional connection with another human being. You are not the norm and if it was up to peopple like you, we'd be living back in the dark ages. But your worthless kind will not prevail and our world will become a better place for every child, woman and man because liberals and progressive will continue to work to make it so while you work to make it a graveyard. And you will die alone, unloved because who could care for such a monster as yourself.  

 

I feel sorry for you.

post #217 of 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke rebels AREN'T civilians


Oh, okay.

post #218 of 351
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post

As usual, you confuse me with those you read online. I did not cheerlead anything. I disagreed with us preemptivly striking Iraq, I did agree that we should stay in there after we hosed the country and try to fix things.

 

Hey, if Libya was invading Egypt .. I'd be all for us keeping them in check. We're talking about rebels (people who are armed) trying to over throw a government. The UN mandate was to protect civilians. Now that is somewhat laughable since rebels AREN'T civilians and our bombings \ missle strikes will probably kill more civilians than Gaddalfi's forces would have in quelling the rebellion.

 

ETA

 

Keep in mind, the Right's argument is that Obama is ineffective and should have gotten involved sooner. You can sort of see where my opinion differs from the "Right".


Yeah, but us staying in there trying to "fix" things after we hosed the country was us appointing L. Paul Bremer to divide up Iraq's resources among eager transnational corporations and f- the Iraqis.  Iraq was an occupation.  It's apples and oranges to what's happening in Libya, at least up till now.  The Libyan people attempted to rise up like their neighbors the Egyptians and were mercilessly and systematically slaughtered by a mercenary army hired by a bats---- crazy dictator.  I completely disagree that the rebels aren't civilians -- you should join twitter and follow some of the civilians and reporters on the ground who would emphatically tell you otherwise.  Everyone but Gadhafi and his cronies and hired hands welcome the NFZ.  This action is truly multi-lateral, unlike those "allies" pressured into joining Bush's imperialistic actions.  I think all of us should be vigilant about what happens if the NFZ is successful in giving the resistance a chance to unseat Gadhafi, but for now I think this is the right thing to do.

 

I'm not a war hawk by any means, and I appreciate that this President deliberated intensely, consulted with the UN, sent Hillary Clinton to speak with the Libyan opposition and really took his time making this grave decision to support a NFZ.  What were the Republicans in Congress doing when they should have been debating what to do and coming up with some kind of response?  Defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood. 

 

The thing about the idiotic criticism coming on Obama from the right (both that he's wrong and that he's right but waited too long) is that it seems to be the worst kind of armchair Monday morning quarterbacking.  These people are too busy with their culture wars to pay attention to what's actually happening in the world.  Some people (a lot, actually) on the left are criticizing him as well.  Just me personally, I support the NFZ but would not be happy if this began to in any way resemble the wholesale imperialistic occupation of Iraq, but I think the Libyan people have been very forceful about not wanting that.

 

post #219 of 351

I'm very much OK with this. And this is such a different case from Iraq that anyone, on the left or the right, that tries to use it as a way to score points deserves zero consideration. Zero. Other than the fact that both Libya and Iraq are muslim countries that have oil there is nothing at all in common between these two cases.

post #220 of 351

Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post

... but after the unarmed Libyan resistance gets crushed for three weeks and we provide them with air cover at their desperate request, that's a mistake?  I don't understand you, Snaieke. 


The rebels are armed, as a matter of fact some of them have heavy weapons, even tanks (I think I read somewhere that they also have access to some aircraft.

 

What Snaieke selectively "forgets" is that not too long ago there were repports that Gaddafi was importing mercenaries to attack civilian protesters (not armed "rebels" at the time). I guess Snaieke already forgot about the pilots who chose to defect because they were ordered to bomb protesters! The whole thing was escalated by Gaddafi by being so heavy handed against his own population. Now they're in full blown war mode, but what we're trying to prevent is him basically massacring whole towns because they are filled with the opposition.

post #221 of 351


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post Now they're in full blown war mode, but what we're trying to prevent is him basically massacring whole towns because they are filled with the opposition.



What we're there to protect is French and British investments in the country, which are vast.  Also protect French and British politicians popularity, which has only been going up from this.  And to fullfill the Israeli agenda of making sure a friendly regime is in any potentially hostile country.  And oil.  No one cares about the Libyan people one bit, sure as hell not the west.

 

These are all the usual reasons for war in the Middle East.  Oil, Israel, and opportunity to make money for MNCs and Defence.  Everything else is background noise.


Edited by Nabster - 3/21/11 at 4:56pm
post #222 of 351
Oh, right, oil. That old bullshit argument. We are firing missiles for the oil.

If oil and our existing investments are the only things Cameron and co are interested in then they would want to keep the staus quo, with Gadaffi in power.
There is not a conspiracy behind every decision.
post #223 of 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluelouboyle View Post

Oh, right, oil. That old bullshit argument. We are firing missiles for the oil.

 

Can you really prove that the US missiles aren't equipped with oil sucking warheads?

post #224 of 351


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluelouboyle View Post

Oh, right, oil. That old bullshit argument. We are firing missiles for the oil.

If oil and our existing investments are the only things Cameron and co are interested in then they would want to keep the staus quo, with Gadaffi in power.
There is not a conspiracy behind every decision.

 

Wow, you have idea what you are talking about at all. 

 

Its more than oil.  But Libya is the main piece in Britains long term energy plan, there is NO DOUBT about this.  Society of Generale just bought a string of banks in Libya, and paid four times the value for one.  Small example.

 

After Cameron sent a team of special forces to help protestors when it seemed like Anti Gaddafi forces would win, do you think Gaddafi would still honor contracts that began with over a billion dollars of investments by British companies???????

 

 

Quote:

UK investment in energy heats up after thaw in relationship with Libya

 

British business has been making steady inroads into Libya ever since Tony Blair began a diplomatic thaw five years ago, but investment in the energy industry is now poised to escalate sharply if promising oil and gas projects begin to pay off.

 

BP has started a major oil exploration venture and is carrying out seismic tests to assess whether it can begin to move to more aggressive development of its fields. The company has already put out to tender the contracts for well construction and could begin drilling within the next year.

 

"Our initial investment in the joint venture is $900m (£545m) but if we find oil investment could rise to $20bn over the next two decades," a spokesman said.

The friendly business relations are a far cry from when BP and Royal Dutch Shell were thrown out of the country when Libya nationalised overseas oil assets in 1974.

But both companies signed new deals with Libyan partners in 2007 and 2004 to coincide with visits to the country by former prime minister Blair. BG Group, the gas producer, has also been active in Libya since 2005.

Libya is estimated to be the most oil rich country in Africa with around 44bn barrels of oil reserves. And crucially, for British companies, oil analysts believe that most of the country's energy assets are under-explored.

 

They believe that the country could ultimately become even more important as a gas supplier to Britain. Libya's Greenstream underwater natural gas pipeline came online in October 2004 and transports natural gas from Melitah, on the Libyan coast, to Sicily where the natural gas flows to the Italian mainland, and then onwards to the rest of Europe. The pipeline is run in partnership with Eni, the Italian energy company which has close ties with Libya. Libyan gas could help fill the UK's long term gas shortfall and simultaneously make Britain less reliant on Russian gas supplies.

 

 

And its not a conspiracy, its pretty god damned blatant.  The corporate interests have never been hidden.  David Patreus actually said when the Iraq War began, when the streets were filled with gangs killing and looting the country, that cost over $12 billion to the country, and while there was no police or government or rule of law, he actually said, the number one priority is setting up private corporations and denationalising companies, he said they have to make the Iraqi people forget about state owned companies.  It has never been a secret why these wars are fought.

 

There's a string of credible experts saying the same thing, but your comprehensive idiot-proof argument contradicts this, obviously.   

 

And Bluelouboyle, virtually everything you write is just wrong.

 


Edited by Nabster - 3/22/11 at 2:02am
post #225 of 351



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post




Yeah, but us staying in there trying to "fix" things after we hosed the country was us appointing L. Paul Bremer to divide up Iraq's resources among eager transnational corporations and f- the Iraqis.  Iraq was an occupation.  It's apples and oranges to what's happening in Libya, at least up till now.  The Libyan people attempted to rise up like their neighbors the Egyptians and were mercilessly and systematically slaughtered by a mercenary army hired by a bats---- crazy dictator.  I completely disagree that the rebels aren't civilians -- you should join twitter and follow some of the civilians and reporters on the ground who would emphatically tell you otherwise.  Everyone but Gadhafi and his cronies and hired hands welcome the NFZ.  This action is truly multi-lateral, unlike those "allies" pressured into joining Bush's imperialistic actions.  I think all of us should be vigilant about what happens if the NFZ is successful in giving the resistance a chance to unseat Gadhafi, but for now I think this is the right thing to do.

 

I'm not a war hawk by any means, and I appreciate that this President deliberated intensely, consulted with the UN, sent Hillary Clinton to speak with the Libyan opposition and really took his time making this grave decision to support a NFZ.  What were the Republicans in Congress doing when they should have been debating what to do and coming up with some kind of response?  Defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood. 

 

The thing about the idiotic criticism coming on Obama from the right (both that he's wrong and that he's right but waited too long) is that it seems to be the worst kind of armchair Monday morning quarterbacking.  These people are too busy with their culture wars to pay attention to what's actually happening in the world.  Some people (a lot, actually) on the left are criticizing him as well.  Just me personally, I support the NFZ but would not be happy if this began to in any way resemble the wholesale imperialistic occupation of Iraq, but I think the Libyan people have been very forceful about not wanting that.

 


You can disagree all you want that the rebels are civilians but the mission commander of this opperation countless other officials say that they are not aiding the opposition forces (aka rebels) only innocent civilians. Once you've taken up arms against your country you are a rebel, now you can justify their cause all you want but that doesn't change the fact this is a civil war inside of a country. They have stressed that if the opposition forces move on Qaddalfi forces they will not give them aid.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/21/libya-usa-mission-idUSWAT01499520110321

 

 

Quote:
U.S. and coalition military forces enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya are there to protect civilians and not to provide close-air support for opposition forces fighting Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, the head of U.S. Africa Command said on Monday
 

 

 

 

Would you like to see the photos of rebels with guns to unarmed pro-Qaddalfi supporters heads threatening to execute them? They were teenagers by the way, the supporters. This was from weeks ago. That's the thing with civil wars, there are horrible actions on both sides and we really should have no part in it but we do now and there is no clear end date for our involvement. I just read a story that Qaddalfi has enough money to hire mercenaries for years if necessary.

 

I'm all for helping the helpless but I don't think either side in this is innocent and since the opposition is so disorganized and not working with each other, who would step up and fill the leadership role? would it result in more civil war if they don't all agree? This is a situation that has endless questions with no good answers.

 

 

 

post #226 of 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluelouboyle View Post

Oh, right, oil. That old bullshit argument. We are firing missiles for the oil.

If oil and our existing investments are the only things Cameron and co are interested in then they would want to keep the staus quo, with Gadaffi in power.
There is not a conspiracy behind every decision.


No, but there's also a ton o oppressive regimes all around the world that don't have the polical cache of a free Libya to make going after them so attractive. I'm okay with what's going on here, but we're a small step away from going too far and w eneed to make sure we remain in the role of backup rather than main aggressors.

 

EDIT: The very public spat over here between MPs and the military over whether we have the legal right to assassinate Gaddafi is what I'm talking about. This shouldn't even be up for debate at this point, and the fact that Cameron wants to make  it clear that Gaddafi is fair game speaks ill of his motives.

 


Edited by Andrew Merriweather - 3/22/11 at 3:09am
post #227 of 351

Of course, we could also go with the Secret Service's plan of replacing Gaddafi with Edward James Olmos:

 

gadaffi_1264786a.jpg

post #228 of 351

I tend to support military action in very few circumstances (to be fair, when I do I'm more of a carpet bomber/all out war kinda guy, so naturally I don't take these things lightly).  This Salon article sums up things pretty well:

 

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/18/libya

 

Whether people are considered rebels or civilians isn't at the top of the list of things we should be talking about right now.

post #229 of 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post

Would you like to see the photos of rebels with guns to unarmed pro-Qaddalfi supporters heads threatening to execute them? They were teenagers by the way, the supporters. This was from weeks ago. That's the thing with civil wars, there are horrible actions on both sides and we really should have no part in it but we do now and there is no clear end date for our involvement. I just read a story that Qaddalfi has enough money to hire mercenaries for years if necessary.

 


You know what, can you provide a link to the article? Because I remember seeing a similar photo, and it was rebels that detained a Gadaffi child fighter, which you know there are countless reports of Gaddafi recruiting children to fight for him.

 

I'm not trying to make the rebels sound like angels, but your "horrible actions on both sides" line of thinking here is pretty irresponsible, specially when you gloss over the horrible crime of recruiting children for your army!!!

post #230 of 351

Snaieke just gets scummier and scummier.

post #231 of 351


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post


 Once you've taken up arms against your country you are a rebel, now you can justify their cause all you want but that doesn't change the fact this is a civil war inside of a country. They have stressed that if the opposition forces move on Qaddalfi forces they will not give them aid.

 

 


Taken up arms against your country? I don't think revolutions work the way you think they do. They didn't join some foreign invading army, they're trying to depose "their" government. 

 

 

post #232 of 351
Thread Starter 

I have just as many mixed feelings about this as anybody else.  I don't think bombing should be taken lightly, obviously.  Not that my opinion matters, but this seems like a situation that if we didn't act, we'd have a whole generation's worth of Libyan civilian blood on our hands.  And Snaieke, for all the pictures you could find I could find many more showing Gadhafi's atrocities.

 

And Andrew, at least your government debated this action.  If I were a Republican, I would be pretty f***ing pissed off at my representatives in the House who had emergencies[1] and other business[2] occupying them when they should have been holding hearings on Libya.  Ever since Reagan and Granada, the constitutional process for declaring war has been FUBAR.  But even given that, if there were grownups in Congress, Obama would have both supporters and detractors, but at least there would be some acknowledgment of what's going on in Libya. 

 

[1] Cutting $5 million in spending on NPR and equally inconsequential amount on Planned Parenthood.

[2] Partying with lobbyists at fundraisers and vacationing.

post #233 of 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post

I have just as many mixed feelings about this as anybody else.  I don't think bombing should be taken lightly, obviously.  Not that my opinion matters, but this seems like a situation that if we didn't act, we'd have a whole generation's worth of Libyan civilian blood on our hands.  And Snaieke, for all the pictures you could find I could find many more showing Gadhafi's atrocities.

 

And Andrew, at least your government debated this action.  If I were a Republican, I would be pretty f***ing pissed off at my representatives in the House who had emergencies[1] and other business[2] occupying them when they should have been holding hearings on Libya.  Ever since Reagan and Granada, the constitutional process for declaring war has been FUBAR.  But even given that, if there were grownups in Congress, Obama would have both supporters and detractors, but at least there would be some acknowledgment of what's going on in Libya. 

 

[1] Cutting $5 million in spending on NPR and equally inconsequential amount on Planned Parenthood.

[2] Partying with lobbyists at fundraisers and vacationing.



The blood would be on Gaddafi's hands, not ours.  Sitting back and minding our own business isnt necessarily a bad thing.  It's not like Iraq post Gulf War I where we suggested to the rebellion we would be there to support their endeavors. 

post #234 of 351
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
The blood would be on Gaddafi's hands, not ours.  Sitting back and minding our own business isnt necessarily a bad thing.  It's not like Iraq post Gulf War I where we suggested to the rebellion we would be there to support their endeavors. 

 

The "rebellion" was one a-hole in exile who fed the neocons whatever they wanted to hear to give them the impetus to conquer Iraq and divide it  up amongst their rich friends.  I understand the "sitting back and minding your own business" philosophy and that's fine.  But when Gadhafi says he's going to go door to door and slaughter everyone, people who don't share your philosophy feel the urgent necessity not to let that kind of wholesale slaughter happen.  That's a philosophical divergence that goes back as long as human beings have been on this earth. 

 

But again, congress was asleep at the switch.  The House GOP was too busy with other "emergencies" to even hold hearings.  At least Obama is paying attention to what's happening in the world and not swatting at imaginary bugs coming in through the air conditioner (to borrow from Bill Maher).

 

post #235 of 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post


You know what, can you provide a link to the article? Because I remember seeing a similar photo, and it was rebels that detained a Gadaffi child fighter, which you know there are countless reports of Gaddafi recruiting children to fight for him.

 

I'm not trying to make the rebels sound like angels, but your "horrible actions on both sides" line of thinking here is pretty irresponsible, specially when you gloss over the horrible crime of recruiting children for your army!!!



There are countless photos of children \ teenagers with weapons joining the opposition forces.

 

Here's a link, this isn't the one I read but after searching for an hour this is the one that will do.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/held-and-interrogated-do-these-men-look-like-gadhafis-mercenaries/article1933373/?from=1933381

 

got02libya1230981cl8.jpg

 

That was from back in February. There were several from the other day that showed rebels aiming ak47's at unarmed civilians questioning their loyalty.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think Qaddalfi is a worthless piece of shit that should die, preferably of untreated syphilis but that doesn't mean I think we should be in the middle of this.

 

post #236 of 351
Thread Starter 

Snaieke, I agree that the whole thing is a nightmare, but we're involved already.  George W. Bush "normalized" relations with Gadhafi for his oil millionaire friends and that maniac was able to weapon up and replenish his cash reserves to pay for mercenaries.  We're already in it. 

post #237 of 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post



 

But when Gadhafi says he's going to go door to door and slaughter everyone, people who don't share your philosophy feel the urgent necessity not to let that kind of wholesale slaughter happen.  That's a philosophical divergence that goes back as long as human beings have been on this earth. 

 

 

 

I understand and, to a certain extent, agree.  I just think military intervention needs to go from "answer to everything" to "last resort (after voting citizens authorize it)." 
 

 

post #238 of 351
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post


I understand and, to a certain extent, agree.  I just think military intervention needs to go from "answer to everything" to "last resort (after voting citizens authorize it)." 


I agree with that, but our geopolitical entanglements are so out of control that I wish the public had some say in that as well. 

 

post #239 of 351
Nabster, I'll answer your points when I have more time. (posting on my phone).

Here is an eye-witness report of civilian slaughter.

http://m.sky.com/skynews/article/15958004
post #240 of 351

Seriously, for fucks sake...

 

 

 

 
Quote:

US troops opened fire on Libyan villagers in an operation to rescue two jet fighter crew after their warplane crashed in the east of the country, according to a British report.

Channel 4 News is reporting at least six villagers were injured when US Marines came in with "all guns blazing" to extract the pilots. The Telegraph website is also reporting six locals "were believed to have been shot by a US helicopter during his rescue".

The Telegraph also says one of the downed crew was recued by troops on an Osprey "transformer" aircraft, which can turn from a plane into a helicopter.

The Osprey, The Telegraph says, is one of the American air force's newest acquisitions and has rotor blades that can swivel to allow it to fly like a helicopter or a conventional fixed-wing aircraft.

United States Africa Command has confirmed a US F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jet crashed in Libya and the two crew members were rescued.

But a US spokesman "100%" denied any civilians were injured by US weapons fire in the rescue operation.

Reporter Lindsey Hilsum, at the scene of the crash, said the US helicopter came in and opened fire on Monday night, local time, as villagers were handing over one of the downed pilots to local rebel forces.

A man described as a military policeman, Omar Sayd, told the reporter: "We are disturbed about the shooting because if they had given us a chance we would have handed over both pilots."

In Benghazi, Hilsum interviewed one of the injured villagers, who was in a hospital bed. Local people had been giving a "party" for the crew when they were fired on.

 

How many civilians can NATO slaughter I wonder in order to save them? Seriously, who the fuck is in charge of shit like this??? It makes me utterly fucking sick.

post #241 of 351

You said they were grabbing and pointing guns at pro Gadaffi protesters. That is the same picture I saw, it is disputed if this kid was or not a Gadaffi figther (I think he wasn't), but the people in that village thought he was. I'm not saying what they did was something that would be acceptable here in the US, but it is not what you originally described.

 

More on that account here;

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/why-black-africans-are-paying-the-price-for-the-real-or-perceived-use-of-mercenaries-in-libya/article1933381/?service=mobile

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post


There are countless photos of children \ teenagers with weapons joining the opposition forces.


Let's remember what you said originally, you said that "rebels" were grabbing protesters and pointing guns at them.

 

SNAIEKE: "Would you like to see the photos of rebels with guns to unarmed pro-Qaddalfi supporters heads threatening to execute them? They were teenagers by the way, the supporters."

 

Where are the pictures of rebels pointing guns at pro-Qaddafi supporters?

post #242 of 351
Raindog, it was obviously a screw up but the US soldiers didn't slaughter the villagers. They obviously thought they were Gadaffi's fighters and were desperate to avoid a Black Hawk Down scenario.

Anyway, it's too early to know exactly what happened.
post #243 of 351

So hang on, while "it's too early to know exactly what happened", you appareently know enough to know "they obviously thought they were Gadaffi's fighters and were desperate to avoid a Black Hawk Down scenario"?

 

Right-o Norman Schwarzkopf 

post #244 of 351

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post

So hang on, while "it's too early to know exactly what happened", you appareently know enough to know "they obviously thought they were Gadaffi's fighters and were desperate to avoid a Black Hawk Down scenario"?

 

Right-o Norman Schwarzkopf 


You think it is not reasonable to assume they confused these people for Gadaffi fighters? Geez guy, c'mon.

 

This is a screw up, but I find it pretty incredible that you can't fathom how this confusion could reasonably happen under these circumstances. I mean, maybe you are a special ops guy and can school us in the proper procedure for this type of rescue of a downed pilot in enemy territory of course.

post #245 of 351

...and maybe, considering the US militaries track record of the last decade or more I'm not quite as willing to bend over backwards blindly giving them the benefit of the doubt you and Ole Blue are ElCap. Forgive my skeptisism won't you.

post #246 of 351

I think skepticism is good.  The army has fucked up and then lied about this shit plenty of times in the past, but then again, civilians have often been confused too.  Here's an interesting article on what happened: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/23/world/africa/23plane.html?_r=1

post #247 of 351
Thread Starter 

It's horrible if true.  The military is denying it.  I think Gadhafi's track record with propaganda definitely begs some doubts. 

 

Here's a story on that:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/23/3170974.htm

 

Here's an interview with a man who witnessed the rescue of the missing pilot:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8399763/Libya-interview-with-man-who-helped-rescue-US-jet-pilot.html

post #248 of 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post

It's horrible if true.  The military is denying it.  I think Gadhafi's track record with propaganda definitely begs some doubts. 

 


It's a quandary when you have a despot who just makes shit up vs. a military that won't divulge shit.

 

post #249 of 351

I didn't realize that the claims of civilians being shot came from Gaddafi...  even if I don't trust our military, I'll take their word over his.  I just watched a video of him telling his supporters that there have been protests around the world in his support (including in the US).

post #250 of 351
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Arab Spring (formerly "Youth Protests in Egypt - Internet Shut Down")