Originally posted by inimalist
so when Ghaddafi tortures and murders people, its a crime against humanity, when the rebels do it, it is excuseable because living under a murderous regieme makes them beyond moral reproach?
The rebels should be on the moral high ground, because if they try to stoop to Guaddafi's level all that will happen is that they'll lose international support and get beaten by Guaddafi because he's got more experience being a war criminal.
all this revolution fiasco is bullshit.
Its a plot to take control of Libya's oil by the western oligarchs. WAKE UP. Same thing for Egypt. No freedom, Military regime until they put another of their puppets in place. Why? Because neither Mubarak nor Gaddafi wanted to play the Globalists game any longer. Understand
Originally posted by inimalistof course they did, a pro-palestinian leader echoing the likely majoritarian feelings of the egyptian arab population on the subject would not sit well with them
what evidence is there that either Mubarak or ghaddafi wanted to stop playing by global rules? ghaddafi had made huge progress in improving relations with American politicians in recent years.EDIT: israel wanted Mubarak to stay in power
NATO turned what was a low level conflict into an all out civil war.
The rebels now refuse a ceasefire - and why shouldn't they? They have Western droids fighting for them. And Gaddafi just digs his heels in.
What could have been solved by negotiation has now become all or nothing.
Policing the world...
I really do not agree with that. The rebels had made it clear from the very beginning that they wanted Ghadaffi out of power, and nothing else would satisfy them. It wasn't until after Ghadaffi made it clear, again from the very beginning, that he had absolutely no intention of giving up power, and began fire bombing his own people, that NATO stepped in. There never was any room for negotiation, as both parties were giving ultimatums.
I do however agree that this whole charade is pointless. Regardless of the Libyan people's wants, once Ghadaffi said "**** you" to the UN and started killing his own people we should have just air dropped some black ops mother****ers into his palace and blown his head off right then and there. NATO's pussy footing is causing more harm then help.
EDIT- A general question for you guys: Am I the only one who's become a little underwhelmed by the recent events in the Middle East? I don't know if I was just swept up by all the hype, but I was kind of thinking that all these extreme protests was going to culminate in some severe changes that would ripple through the ME, but... they really haven't. The rebels have zero chance of beating Ghadaffi without help from the West, and just about every other protest is being reigned in by crushing amounts of military might. There's been a few success stories, like Tunisia, but all in all the whole situation feels very anti-climactic.
I am not convinced at all with the whole ''rebel'' thing - any group that lays land mines for whatever reason has lost any credibility in my eyes.
And any super power that's trying to ''defend the poor Libyan people'' by using depleted uranium all over their country doesn't do anything for the ''righteousness'' argument, either. In fact, it makes it invalid.
Libya agreed to he African Union ceasefire - The deal would have seen an immediate ceasefire, negotiations on democratic reforms and a suspension of NATO air strikes.
And the rebels refused. They refused because they like having a massive army behind them.
Rebels are terrorists. If I were an American and made a massive 'rebel' group calling for Obama's removal or nothing else will satisfy us, then had Russia and China go like ''Yes, Obama is making everyone's life miserable, support the rebels!'', I can bet USA would use all the force it has to destroy my little terrorist playgroup.
Originally posted by lil bitchinessHow is any of that the West's fault, though? It sounds to me like the Rebels have just gotten greedy.
I am not convinced at all with the whole ''rebel'' thing - any group that lays land mines for whatever reason has lost any credibility in my eyes.
And any super power that's trying to ''defend the poor Libyan people'' by using depleted uranium all over their country doesn't do anything for ''righteousness'' argument. In fact, it makes it invalid.Libya agreed to he African Union ceasefire - The deal would have seen an immediate ceasefire, negotiations on democratic reforms and a suspension of NATO air strikes.
And the rebels refused. They refused because they like having a massive army behind them.
Rebels are terrorists. If I were an American and made a massive 'rebel' group calling for Obama's removal or nothing else will satisfy us, I can bet USA would use all the force it has to destroy my little terrorist playgroup.
Furthermore, how does that tie into what we were discussing above? Do you think that if the Rebellion had simply gotten pimp smacked by Ghadaffi, the two parties would have entered negotiations? From how I see it, the reason why Ghadaffi and the AU are agreeing to negotiations at all, is because they realize that ultimately Ghadaffi has no chance of walking out of this alive if the West amps up the pressure. That circumstance would not exist if NATO had never stepped in.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
How is any of that the West's fault, though? It sounds to me like the Rebels have just gotten greedy.Furthermore, how does that tie into what we were discussing above? Do you think that if the Rebellion had simply gotten pimp smacked by Ghadaffi, the two parties would have entered negotiations? From how I see it, the reason why Ghadaffi and the AU are agreeing to negotiations at all, is because they realize that ultimately Ghadaffi has no chance of walking out of this alive if the West amps up the pressure. That circumstance would not exist if NATO had never stepped in.
Gadaffi wouldn't have pimped slapped the rebels then negotiated - he would have rooted out the terrorists and that would have been the end of it.
Why in the hell would Gadaffi negotiate with a terrorists?
And no, has it crossed your mind that perhaps African Union doesn't want another bloody war on its territory? What about the fact that perhaps Ghaddafi doesn't want any more fighting, or depleted uranium or land mines, or child soldiers or West meddling in his shit any more?
It is West's fault, because the rotten America has an interest and that old whore Europe that likes to think it's still relevant, when it isn't has something to gain too.
Selective ''helping'' isn't helping at all. Why doesn't someone do something about Sudan?! Because noone really cares and nothing stands to be gained.
I can't believe people still fall of this ''human rights'' bullshit. How many times must people be lied to before they go ''wait a minute, something isn't right here''...
Okay, I see. The root of the problem is that you've never agreed with the whole Libyan Rebel thing to begin with, at least once it became an armed conflict. You view the rebels as a terrorist group, not the people riding up against a tyrannical oppressive government, and NATO supporting said people. At least that's the impression that I'm getting from your post. if that's the case, all I've really gotta say is that I don't think Ghadaffi is exactly on a moral pedestal either, so I'm not really sure why it matters which side is "more good". They're all a bunch of bastards. In regards to this line here,
I can't believe people still fall of this ''human rights'' bullshit. How many times must people be lied to before they go ''wait a minute, something isn't right here''...
Well, this is what I said back on page 10:
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
It doesn't. I could care less if Libyans are being killed, to be honest. People die every day, all day, across the world. There's no stopping that. Thing with Libya is that I believe that the US has something to gain by intervening in the conflict. Killing a tyrant in the process is just icing on the cake.
So I've already beaten you you to the punch in regards to the damn that opportunistic America point. 😛
Of course, we botched the situation just like we botch every one of these world police situations...
Originally posted by lil bitchinessThe low level conflict you're talking about was soldiers slaughtering the peasants that dared to rebel. Also I'm glad that there was a civil war here in America. Because of it I can feel proud to be an American. So what if dictators dig their heels in? Do you expect them to just walk away? Negotiations? With people who are just like if not worse than the tyrants who oppressed people in this country? You know that's not realistic.
NATO turned what was a low level conflict into an all out civil war.
The rebels now refuse a ceasefire - and why shouldn't they? They have Western droids fighting for them. And Gaddafi just digs his heels in.
What could have been solved by negotiation has now become all or nothing.Policing the world...
As far as policing your world goes... Everybody has a responsibility to protect the weak when they are under attack. That is something that MOST American citizens would agree with if asked. American citizens are America. That's perhaps why it seems as if the United States is always intervening. I'm aware that politicians can have ulterior motives. The will of America's and any other truly democratic countries' people, will be manifested.
Originally posted by Lord Lucienyeah this is gonna drag on forever without a decapitating strike. the rebels arent ready for prolongued ground warfare yet. it will take a while before they get their shit together to face the loyalists forces head on
I love how, despite our overwhelming firepower and air dominance, Gaddafi's forces still encircle Misrata.
Originally posted by lil bitchinessgadaffi continued to bomb the rebels immediately after claiming he accepted a truce
I am not convinced at all with the whole ''rebel'' thing - any group that lays land mines for whatever reason has lost any credibility in my eyes.
And any super power that's trying to ''defend the poor Libyan people'' by using depleted uranium all over their country doesn't do anything for the ''righteousness'' argument, either. In fact, it makes it invalid.Libya agreed to he African Union ceasefire - The deal would have seen an immediate ceasefire, negotiations on democratic reforms and a suspension of NATO air strikes.
And the rebels refused. They refused because they like having a massive army behind them.
Rebels are terrorists. If I were an American and made a massive 'rebel' group calling for Obama's removal or nothing else will satisfy us, then had Russia and China go like ''Yes, Obama is making everyone's life miserable, support the rebels!'', I can bet USA would use all the force it has to destroy my little terrorist playgroup.
lol at this terrorist label. even though there is no consensus whatsoever on the definition of the term and no internationally accepted legal meaning either - as most nations on earth would be deemed guilty of having practiced state terrorism - almost every single definiton of terrorism includes targeting a group not related to a political/military conflict as means of forcing one of the involved groups to behave a certain way. the classical example would be targeting civilians to intimidate the public and force the state's hand on some contended issue.
there is no such pattern of behavior among the insurgent. in fact, only the regime itself can be accused of state terrorism for its indiscriminate targeting of civilians in an obvious intimidation atempt, the rebels' behavior fits definitions of conventional warfare. labeling all maner of political violence as terrorism is absurd.
Originally posted by 753
gadaffi continued to bomb the rebels immediately after claiming he accepted a trucelol at this terrorist label. even though there is no consensus whatsoever on the definition of the term and no internationally accepted legal meaning either - as most nations on earth would be deemed guilty of having practiced state terrorism - almost every single definiton of terrorism includes targeting a group not related to a political/military conflict as means of forcing one of the involved groups to behave a certain way. the classical example would be targeting civilians to intimidate the public and force the state's hand on some contended issue.
there is no such pattern of behavior among the insurgent. in fact, only the regime itself can be accused of state terrorism for its indiscriminate targeting of civilians in an obvious intimidation atempt, the rebels' behavior fits definitions of conventional warfare. labeling all maner of political violence as terrorism is absurd.
Ridiculous. Noone seems to have any problems labelling Al Quaida a terrorist organisation, do they?
Rebels ARE terrorists on Libyan soil - whether you agree with Ghaddafi or not is irrelevant, they're still terrorists and they're behaving like ones.
Tell me, what would America do if such organisation in opposition to Obama or whoever is to come forth and starts causing trouble for American government?
Would they be rebels or terrorists? They'd be terrorists and US would dispose of them like used tissue - like any other normal nation on the planet would.
The problem is that West believes itself to be on some imaginary pedestal of righteousness, while all those ''inferior'' nations need directions and explanations as to what is REALLY going on on their soil.
It sickens me. It also sickens me that noone bothers to think for themselves, to critically evaluate situations and look at them from different perspectives. Instead, the only source of 'objectivity' to some people is a news channel infested with droids who didn't know what Libya was 3 months ago and have now miraculously turned into experts on situation in Libya.
I don't believe anything American or European news outlets have to say in terms of reporting conflicts they have interest in (which makes all of them - those in which they have no interest in, they don't report at all), as much as I don't believe in what Chinese news outlets are going on about day and night.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Okay, I see. The root of the problem is that you've never agreed with the whole Libyan Rebel thing to begin with, at least once it became an armed conflict. You view the rebels as a terrorist group, not the people riding up against a tyrannical oppressive government, and NATO supporting said people. At least that's the impression that I'm getting from your post. if that's the case, all I've really gotta say is that I don't think Ghadaffi is exactly on a moral pedestal either, so I'm not really sure why it matters which side is "more good". They're all a bunch of bastards. In regards to this line here,Well, this is what I said back on page 10:
So I've already beaten you you to the punch in regards to the damn that opportunistic America point. 😛
Of course, we botched the situation just like we botch every one of these world police situations...
At least you're honest about lack of caring - many people think the same thing as you, I suspect.
I respect your honesty.