Topic: Western nutjobs destroyed Libya - another of their wrecks. Here are the results - page 2. (Read 9715 times)
January 21, 2016, 10:39:07 AM
Destroy is easy, rebuild not at all...
January 21, 2016, 10:32:03 AM
No he's greatest sin was probably to plan and conduct the genocide of some of the tribes he was supposed to lead.
I'm just answering the guy saying that "he was a great man" cause no he was not a great man! He was an horrible dictator. But not more horrible than most of middle East and African dictator I agree.
And Saddam had no nuke at all. Only the USA pretended he had nuke. The most dangerous thing he had were ak 47.
I'm just answering the guy saying that "he was a great man" cause no he was not a great man! He was an horrible dictator. But not more horrible than most of middle East and African dictator I agree.
And Saddam had no nuke at all. Only the USA pretended he had nuke. The most dangerous thing he had were ak 47.
AFAIK the west was OK with that allegedly planned genocide. Turning to a gold-bug and promoting that idea between other oil producers was what blown the fuse
.Well, it appears being "the strong man of whatevershithole" or "the horrible whatevershitholian dictator" entirely depends on given bloke's allegiance to certain powers.
It's different, you're talking about he perception of Western countries, which, I agree, totally depends on what you have to offer them.
I'm talking on a more objective point of view, he was not "a great man".
January 21, 2016, 08:36:20 AM
Yes, and concerns about "killing his own people" "self-determination" "the next hitler" and other favorite advertising slogans of the money/war industry never seem to apply to our scumbags.
January 21, 2016, 08:10:23 AM
No he's greatest sin was probably to plan and conduct the genocide of some of the tribes he was supposed to lead.
I'm just answering the guy saying that "he was a great man" cause no he was not a great man! He was an horrible dictator. But not more horrible than most of middle East and African dictator I agree.
And Saddam had no nuke at all. Only the USA pretended he had nuke. The most dangerous thing he had were ak 47.
I'm just answering the guy saying that "he was a great man" cause no he was not a great man! He was an horrible dictator. But not more horrible than most of middle East and African dictator I agree.
And Saddam had no nuke at all. Only the USA pretended he had nuke. The most dangerous thing he had were ak 47.
AFAIK the west was OK with that allegedly planned genocide. Turning to a gold-bug and promoting that idea between other oil producers was what blown the fuse
.Well, it appears being "the strong man of whatevershithole" or "the horrible whatevershitholian dictator" entirely depends on given bloke's allegiance to certain powers.
January 21, 2016, 06:00:52 AM
"""Let's review. Afghanistan, after the longest military campaign in US history, is being handed back to the Taliban. Iraq no longer exists as a sovereign nation, but has fractured into three pieces, one of them controlled by radical Islamists. Egypt has been democratically reformed into a military dictatorship. Libya is a defunct state in the middle of a civil war. The Ukraine will soon be in a similar state; it has been reduced to pauper status in record time—less than a year. A recent government overthrow has caused Yemen to stop being US-friendly. Closer to home, things are going so well in the US-dominated Central American countries of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador that they have produced a flood of refugees, all trying to get into the US in the hopes of finding any sort of sanctuary.
Looking at this broad landscape of failure, there are two ways to interpret it. One is that the US officialdom is the most incompetent one imaginable, and can't ever get anything right. But another is that they do not succeed for a distinctly different reason: they don't succeed because results don't matter. You see, if failure were a problem, then there would be some sort of pressure coming from somewhere or other within the establishment, and that pressure to succeed might sporadically give rise to improved performance, leading to at least a few instances of success. But if in fact failure is no problem at all, and if instead there was some sort of pressure to fail, then we would see exactly what we do see."""
--- D. Orlov
Looking at this broad landscape of failure, there are two ways to interpret it. One is that the US officialdom is the most incompetent one imaginable, and can't ever get anything right. But another is that they do not succeed for a distinctly different reason: they don't succeed because results don't matter. You see, if failure were a problem, then there would be some sort of pressure coming from somewhere or other within the establishment, and that pressure to succeed might sporadically give rise to improved performance, leading to at least a few instances of success. But if in fact failure is no problem at all, and if instead there was some sort of pressure to fail, then we would see exactly what we do see."""
--- D. Orlov
Well, coming into a country killing the population (cause they're was no real "official army" so US soldiers had no choice but to fight back against a militia hiding around the population), stealing primary resources and committing true atrocities and depravation doesn't help to stabilize a country...
January 21, 2016, 05:58:42 AM
"""Let's review. Afghanistan, after the longest military campaign in US history, is being handed back to the Taliban. Iraq no longer exists as a sovereign nation, but has fractured into three pieces, one of them controlled by radical Islamists. Egypt has been democratically reformed into a military dictatorship. Libya is a defunct state in the middle of a civil war. The Ukraine will soon be in a similar state; it has been reduced to pauper status in record time—less than a year. A recent government overthrow has caused Yemen to stop being US-friendly. Closer to home, things are going so well in the US-dominated Central American countries of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador that they have produced a flood of refugees, all trying to get into the US in the hopes of finding any sort of sanctuary.
Looking at this broad landscape of failure, there are two ways to interpret it. One is that the US officialdom is the most incompetent one imaginable, and can't ever get anything right. But another is that they do not succeed for a distinctly different reason: they don't succeed because results don't matter. You see, if failure were a problem, then there would be some sort of pressure coming from somewhere or other within the establishment, and that pressure to succeed might sporadically give rise to improved performance, leading to at least a few instances of success. But if in fact failure is no problem at all, and if instead there was some sort of pressure to fail, then we would see exactly what we do see."""
--- D. Orlov
Looking at this broad landscape of failure, there are two ways to interpret it. One is that the US officialdom is the most incompetent one imaginable, and can't ever get anything right. But another is that they do not succeed for a distinctly different reason: they don't succeed because results don't matter. You see, if failure were a problem, then there would be some sort of pressure coming from somewhere or other within the establishment, and that pressure to succeed might sporadically give rise to improved performance, leading to at least a few instances of success. But if in fact failure is no problem at all, and if instead there was some sort of pressure to fail, then we would see exactly what we do see."""
--- D. Orlov
January 21, 2016, 05:37:07 AM
Dude... He was an horrible dictator that stole its people until he became one of the richest man in the world. He used torture on anyone he didn't like, murdered entire families for not being of the "right tribe" and killed anyone trying to say it was not right.
Yes he managed to keep Libya under control. Yes he brought some better health care to SOME of his citizens (cause if you were not from the right tribe you could just die in the street). Yes it was probably stupid to go bomb the country like that.
But no he was not a great man you dumbass asshole...
Yes he managed to keep Libya under control. Yes he brought some better health care to SOME of his citizens (cause if you were not from the right tribe you could just die in the street). Yes it was probably stupid to go bomb the country like that.
But no he was not a great man you dumbass asshole...
Sure mate. ...he also took candy from children and enjoyed kicking puppies. Saddam had piles of nukes, Assad gassed his own people, muslim immigrants in Europe are all very useful intellectuals and they have nothing to do with terrorism. Are you really believe everything what you've heard on the telly? Of course he wasn't a saint, actually quite far from that, but he was also far from the picture what the western media invented about him. His greatest sin was an initiative about gold currency and moving oil trade from USD to gold as well. That changed him from a more or less accepted bloke with funny clothes to the second most evil villain after Hitler
.No he's greatest sin was probably to plan and conduct the genocide of some of the tribes he was supposed to lead.
I'm just answering the guy saying that "he was a great man" cause no he was not a great man! He was an horrible dictator. But not more horrible than most of middle East and African dictator I agree.
And Saddam had no nuke at all. Only the USA pretended he had nuke. The most dangerous thing he had were ak 47.
January 21, 2016, 05:30:43 AM
Dude... He was an horrible dictator that stole its people until he became one of the richest man in the world. He used torture on anyone he didn't like, murdered entire families for not being of the "right tribe" and killed anyone trying to say it was not right.
Yes he managed to keep Libya under control. Yes he brought some better health care to SOME of his citizens (cause if you were not from the right tribe you could just die in the street). Yes it was probably stupid to go bomb the country like that.
But no he was not a great man you dumbass asshole...
Yes he managed to keep Libya under control. Yes he brought some better health care to SOME of his citizens (cause if you were not from the right tribe you could just die in the street). Yes it was probably stupid to go bomb the country like that.
But no he was not a great man you dumbass asshole...
Sure mate. ...he also took candy from children and enjoyed kicking puppies. Saddam had piles of nukes, Assad gassed his own people, muslim immigrants in Europe are all very useful intellectuals and they have nothing to do with terrorism. Are you really believe everything what you've heard on the telly? Of course he wasn't a saint, actually quite far from that, but he was also far from the picture what the western media invented about him. His greatest sin was an initiative about gold currency and moving oil trade from USD to gold as well. That changed him from a more or less accepted bloke with funny clothes to the second most evil villain after Hitler
. January 21, 2016, 04:57:03 AM
muammar gaddafi was a great man who modernised libya and even managed to civilise the black savages somewhat which the arabs couldnt after 1000 years. you could say this refugee invasion europe is currently suffering is its penalty for murdering him.
Dude... He was an horrible dictator that stole its people until he became one of the richest man in the world. He used torture on anyone he didn't like, murdered entire families for not being of the "right tribe" and killed anyone trying to say it was not right.
Yes he managed to keep Libya under control. Yes he brought some better health care to SOME of his citizens (cause if you were not from the right tribe you could just die in the street). Yes it was probably stupid to go bomb the country like that.
But no he was not a great man you dumbass asshole...
January 20, 2016, 09:36:21 PM
Libya’s New Government Unveiled, Stuck in Tunisia
Libya Dawn Militia Won't Let 'Unity Government' Back
by Jason Ditz, January 19, 2016
Libya’s new “unity” Prime Minister Fayez Siraj today unveiled his new unity cabinet at a high-profile UN-backed ceremony in Tunis, the capital city of neighboring Tunisia. The hope was that this unified government would gain some control over the country.
Things aren’t looking good on day one, however, as the “unity government” quickly became a government-in-exile, when they tried to return to Libya and were stopped at the border by the Libyan Dawn militia, who are not going to let them back in.
The cabinet isn’t government of anything without approval from the parliament, which is based in Tobruk, and their inability to even get back into Libya has already lead to two members of the nation’s “presidential council” tendering their resignation just hours after their appointment.
The UN pushed the two parliaments, one based in Tobruk and one in Tripoli, to come to some sort of unity agreement, but neither side appeared particularly on board with the plan, meaning ultimately they have created a government on paper with no more power than any of the other Libyan governments around at any given time.
http://news.antiwar.com/2016/01/19/libyas-new-government-unveiled-stuck-in-tunisia/
Libya Dawn Militia Won't Let 'Unity Government' Back
by Jason Ditz, January 19, 2016
Libya’s new “unity” Prime Minister Fayez Siraj today unveiled his new unity cabinet at a high-profile UN-backed ceremony in Tunis, the capital city of neighboring Tunisia. The hope was that this unified government would gain some control over the country.
Things aren’t looking good on day one, however, as the “unity government” quickly became a government-in-exile, when they tried to return to Libya and were stopped at the border by the Libyan Dawn militia, who are not going to let them back in.
The cabinet isn’t government of anything without approval from the parliament, which is based in Tobruk, and their inability to even get back into Libya has already lead to two members of the nation’s “presidential council” tendering their resignation just hours after their appointment.
The UN pushed the two parliaments, one based in Tobruk and one in Tripoli, to come to some sort of unity agreement, but neither side appeared particularly on board with the plan, meaning ultimately they have created a government on paper with no more power than any of the other Libyan governments around at any given time.
http://news.antiwar.com/2016/01/19/libyas-new-government-unveiled-stuck-in-tunisia/
January 11, 2016, 06:44:43 AM
Nothing new under the sun...
In the "City of God," St. Augustine tells the story of a pirate captured by Alexander the Great. The Emperor angrily demanded of him, "How dare you molest the seas?" To which the pirate replied, "How dare you molest the whole world? Because I do it with a small boat, I am called a pirate and a thief. You, with a great navy, molest the world and are called an emperor." St. Augustine thought the pirate's answer was "elegant and excellent."
The quote is from Noam Chomsky's Pirates and Emperors
In the "City of God," St. Augustine tells the story of a pirate captured by Alexander the Great. The Emperor angrily demanded of him, "How dare you molest the seas?" To which the pirate replied, "How dare you molest the whole world? Because I do it with a small boat, I am called a pirate and a thief. You, with a great navy, molest the world and are called an emperor." St. Augustine thought the pirate's answer was "elegant and excellent."
The quote is from Noam Chomsky's Pirates and Emperors
January 11, 2016, 04:07:55 AM
But historians of the 2011 NATO war in Libya will be sure to notice a few of the truly explosive confirmations contained in the new emails: admissions of rebel war crimes, special ops trainers inside Libya from nearly the start of protests, Al Qaeda embedded in the U.S. backed opposition, Western nations jockeying for access to Libyan oil, the nefarious origins of the absurd Viagra mass rape claim, and concern over Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves threatening European currency....
Hillary Emails Reveal True Motive for Libya Intervention
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/
Hillary Emails Reveal True Motive for Libya Intervention
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/
January 05, 2016, 12:16:29 AM
ISIS Attacks Oil Port in Libya’s Sidra
12 Reported Killed in Fighting Over Terminal
by Jason Ditz, January 04, 2016
At least 12 people were reported killed and a 420,000 barrel oil tank is ablaze tonight after ISIS forces moved against the oil port in the Libyan coastal city of Sidra, attacking guards at the outskirts of the facility.
ISIS has been expanding from the city of Sirte toward the facilities at Ras Lanauf and Sidra, aiming to expand not just their territory but their control over Libyan oil wealth. In years past, Libya was a major source of oil to Europe, but wars since the NATO-imposed regime change have left those shipments intermittent, at best.
The Libyan parliament at Tobruk downplayed today’s strike, saying they’d mustered Air Force resources to resist the ISIS attack and had “repelled” them from the area. ISIS has insisted the fighting continues against the “enemies of God.”
At least 12 ISIS vehicles were involved in the initial attack, and a suicide bomber hit the checkpoint leading to the port. Fighting escalated around the port entrance. It’s unclear how the oil tank caught fire, but it was near the clashes.
http://news.antiwar.com/2016/01/04/isis-attacks-oil-port-in-libyas-sidra/
12 Reported Killed in Fighting Over Terminal
by Jason Ditz, January 04, 2016
At least 12 people were reported killed and a 420,000 barrel oil tank is ablaze tonight after ISIS forces moved against the oil port in the Libyan coastal city of Sidra, attacking guards at the outskirts of the facility.
ISIS has been expanding from the city of Sirte toward the facilities at Ras Lanauf and Sidra, aiming to expand not just their territory but their control over Libyan oil wealth. In years past, Libya was a major source of oil to Europe, but wars since the NATO-imposed regime change have left those shipments intermittent, at best.
The Libyan parliament at Tobruk downplayed today’s strike, saying they’d mustered Air Force resources to resist the ISIS attack and had “repelled” them from the area. ISIS has insisted the fighting continues against the “enemies of God.”
At least 12 ISIS vehicles were involved in the initial attack, and a suicide bomber hit the checkpoint leading to the port. Fighting escalated around the port entrance. It’s unclear how the oil tank caught fire, but it was near the clashes.
http://news.antiwar.com/2016/01/04/isis-attacks-oil-port-in-libyas-sidra/
December 27, 2015, 12:32:38 AM
Je Ne Regrette ISIS: Cameron Stands By Failed Libya Intervention
by BREITBART LONDON26 Dec 2015
Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron has doubled down on his decision to use British military assets to intervene, alongside France, in Libya in 2011.
The intervention toppled the regime of Muammar Gaddafi, leading to the death of the one-time fair-weather friend of the United Kingdom and United States.
Arguably however, the intervention also gave way to the takeover of Libya by Islamic State terrorists, and prompted major, trans-Atlantic incidents such as the Benghazi scandal, and contributed to Europe’s migrant crisis.
But Mr. Cameron appears to have no regrets about his major role in sparking these crises. In an interview with the Spectator magazine’s Christmas edition, he claimed: “I would say that Libya is better off without Gaddafi. What we were doing was preventing a mass genocide.”
And despite taking to the streets of Benghazi to celebrate in September 2011, Mr. Cameron now claims: “It takes time. There just aren’t any easy answers with any of these things. Whether you are looking at Libya or Syria or Iraq or Nigeria or Somalia, you have to try and build governance and government.”
He was asked: “Knowing what you know now, would you have gone ahead with the Libyan operation?” to which he replied, “Yes because Gaddafi was going to massacre his own people.”
The Spectator noted:
Libya has been in the news again over Christmas: the UN Security Council has endorsed a new government but as Peter Oborne found out when he visited Benghazi, the city that David Cameron addressed after his 2011 bombing campaign (video above), there isn’t much government to speak of. The World Food Programme says that 2.4m Libyans will need humanitarian assistance; the country’s population is 6.2m. Its economy shrank by 25pc last year alone and private enterprise is collapsing: the state now employs 80pc of Libyans. At the height of the 2011 uprising there were about 17,000 militiamen: today they number in the hundreds of thousands and they’re tearing Libya apart.
His comments haven’t been received well by readers of the magazine, traditionally a Conservative Party supporting audience.
One Facebook user responded: “Self- justification. Ask Blair and Bush whether it was right to invade Iraq and Afghanistan and you know what the answer is going to be”, while another added: “Cameron, Blair…both unprincipled, treacherous cowards.”
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/12/26/je-ne-regrette-isis-cameron-stands-by-failed-libya-intervention/
by BREITBART LONDON26 Dec 2015
Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron has doubled down on his decision to use British military assets to intervene, alongside France, in Libya in 2011.
The intervention toppled the regime of Muammar Gaddafi, leading to the death of the one-time fair-weather friend of the United Kingdom and United States.
Arguably however, the intervention also gave way to the takeover of Libya by Islamic State terrorists, and prompted major, trans-Atlantic incidents such as the Benghazi scandal, and contributed to Europe’s migrant crisis.
But Mr. Cameron appears to have no regrets about his major role in sparking these crises. In an interview with the Spectator magazine’s Christmas edition, he claimed: “I would say that Libya is better off without Gaddafi. What we were doing was preventing a mass genocide.”
And despite taking to the streets of Benghazi to celebrate in September 2011, Mr. Cameron now claims: “It takes time. There just aren’t any easy answers with any of these things. Whether you are looking at Libya or Syria or Iraq or Nigeria or Somalia, you have to try and build governance and government.”
He was asked: “Knowing what you know now, would you have gone ahead with the Libyan operation?” to which he replied, “Yes because Gaddafi was going to massacre his own people.”
The Spectator noted:
Libya has been in the news again over Christmas: the UN Security Council has endorsed a new government but as Peter Oborne found out when he visited Benghazi, the city that David Cameron addressed after his 2011 bombing campaign (video above), there isn’t much government to speak of. The World Food Programme says that 2.4m Libyans will need humanitarian assistance; the country’s population is 6.2m. Its economy shrank by 25pc last year alone and private enterprise is collapsing: the state now employs 80pc of Libyans. At the height of the 2011 uprising there were about 17,000 militiamen: today they number in the hundreds of thousands and they’re tearing Libya apart.
His comments haven’t been received well by readers of the magazine, traditionally a Conservative Party supporting audience.
One Facebook user responded: “Self- justification. Ask Blair and Bush whether it was right to invade Iraq and Afghanistan and you know what the answer is going to be”, while another added: “Cameron, Blair…both unprincipled, treacherous cowards.”
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/12/26/je-ne-regrette-isis-cameron-stands-by-failed-libya-intervention/
December 19, 2015, 01:02:39 PM
Europe and Turkey closed airspace for Russian Long-Range Aviation planes carrying out airstrikes on Daesh positions in Syria, forcing Russian pilots to reroute, Deputy Commander Maj. Gen. Anatoly Konovalov said Saturday.
How long these European idiots are going to lick the boots of the Turks? The Americans are just sitting back and enjoying the drama, as the European farmers are accumulating tens of billions of Euros worth of debt due to the Russian embargo. And at the same time, the EU is wasting its funds on Turkey, rather than compensating these farmers.
December 19, 2015, 10:35:59 AM
See what I mean? It isn´t an opinion, it´s an argument. Here is yet another FACT that further supports that argument....
Europe and Turkey closed airspace for Russian Long-Range Aviation planes carrying out airstrikes on Daesh positions in Syria, forcing Russian pilots to reroute, Deputy Commander Maj. Gen. Anatoly Konovalov said Saturday.
MOSCOW (Sputnik) — According to Konovalov, Russian pilots had to leave for Syria from Russia’s northernmost Olenegorsk military airport in order to bypass Europe and then cross the Mediterranean Sea toward Syria.
Europe and Turkey closed airspace for Russian Long-Range Aviation planes carrying out airstrikes on Daesh positions in Syria, forcing Russian pilots to reroute, Deputy Commander Maj. Gen. Anatoly Konovalov said Saturday.
MOSCOW (Sputnik) — According to Konovalov, Russian pilots had to leave for Syria from Russia’s northernmost Olenegorsk military airport in order to bypass Europe and then cross the Mediterranean Sea toward Syria.
December 19, 2015, 09:59:39 AM
Well, if Lybia can be stabilized and come under control of some people that can be dealt with in a civilized manner it can´t hurt to have friends there. I think the Russians will put out some feelers, maybe send some advisers, special forces that sort of thing.
That depends. I don't know whether these people can be trusted or not. Also, I don't want the Russian tax payers to foot the bill. The Libyans (or the NATO countries such as Italy and Germany, which caused this situation) should take care of all the expenses. After all, they are one of the top crude oil and natural gas producers in North Africa.
NATO has no accountability or responsibility at all. It´s clearly policy from the member states and until that changes if ever, well those who have ethics and morals and are ready to shoulder responsibility even on behalf of others must step in.
December 19, 2015, 09:49:08 AM
Well, if Lybia can be stabilized and come under control of some people that can be dealt with in a civilized manner it can´t hurt to have friends there. I think the Russians will put out some feelers, maybe send some advisers, special forces that sort of thing.
That depends. I don't know whether these people can be trusted or not. Also, I don't want the Russian tax payers to foot the bill. The Libyans (or the NATO countries such as Italy and Germany, which caused this situation) should take care of all the expenses. After all, they are one of the top crude oil and natural gas producers in North Africa.
December 19, 2015, 09:42:13 AM
^^^The Russians are unlikely to attack the ISIS in Libya. They intervened in Syria, only after Bashar al Assad requested for assistance. Also, Syria is a strategic location in the Middle East, and the city of Tartus is having a Russian naval base. On the other hand, Libya is having Zero strategic importance. Why should Putin waste his money and equipment there?
Well, if Lybia can be stabilized and come under control of some people that can be dealt with in a civilized manner it can´t hurt to have friends there. I think the Russians will put out some feelers, maybe send some advisers, special forces that sort of thing.
December 19, 2015, 09:35:00 AM
^^^The Russians are unlikely to attack the ISIS in Libya. They intervened in Syria, only after Bashar al Assad requested for assistance. Also, Syria is a strategic location in the Middle East, and the city of Tartus is having a Russian naval base. On the other hand, Libya is having Zero strategic importance. Why should Putin waste his money and equipment there?
Jump to: