Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

The Libyan War
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 78, 79, 80 ... 87, 88, 89 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

wintermute

Joined: 01 Oct 2007

Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:29 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote:

leicsmac wrote:

Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote:

^ You call the highest standard of living in Africa "not working"? Shocked

But let's give that to you for the sake of argument. Outsiders still have no right to bring their aggression into the country.

And when the Gaddafi regime brought aggression into another country by bombing an airliner and shooting a female police officer from within an embassy? I suppose it's possible that he or the leading members of his regime didn't know about either incident before it happened, but that's hardly likely, is it?

No, it's not justification for NATO forces to stomp in, grab him and his buddies and throw them from the highest point of his palace...which is why NATO waited until the citizens were ready to start their own war before acting. If they hadn't acted...the result would likely have been a massacre by the Gaddafi regime - all caught on camera. Then NATO would have been pummeled for doing nothing. Lose-lose situation.

Hardly likely? Tons of doubt have been cast upon the the conviction of Megrahi in the Lockerbie case, and there is a lot of evidence to suggest it was a false flag operation. And just where is your evidence for a massacre by the Gaddafi regime? This is all just your own (and admittedly many others') paranoid fantasy.

I already posted the link (twice) to several killing sites that were until recently held by Gaddafi's men.

Here's another link to a massacre

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/muammar-gaddafis-son-khamis-reportedly-visited-prisoners-hours-before-they-were-massacred/story-e6frg6so-1226124330907

But I suppose you know more than the actual eyewitnesses Rolling Eyes

Between seven to ten men survived...and funnily enough for liars (which you apparently think they are) they seem to be telling pretty much the same story.

Quit trolling. You jump in here and make personal attacks (calling us paranoid) yet offer NOTHING to support YOUR point of view. We on the other hand offer links to actual news stories by eyewitnesses who were actually there.

The context of the massacre discussion was justification for intervention and the risk of a massacre happening due to inaction. The links you posted aren't relevant in that context, since both sides have been summarily executing people in isolated incidents after the intervention had commenced, and for most of those sites, the killers are unknown as yet.

OTOH's article summarizes the situation well:

Quote:

Gaddafi dealt with many revolts over the years. He invariably quashed them by force and usually executed the ringleaders. The NTC and other rebel leaders had good reason to fear that once Benghazi had fallen to government troops they would be rounded up and made to pay the price. So it was natural that they should try to convince the �international community� that it was not only their lives that were at stake, but those of thousands of ordinary civilians. But in retaking the towns that the uprising had briefly wrested from the government�s control, Gaddafi�s forces had committed no massacres at all; the fighting had been bitter and bloody, but there had been nothing remotely resembling the slaughter at Srebrenica, let alone in Rwanda. The only known massacre carried out during Gaddafi�s rule was the killing of some 1200 Islamist prisoners at Abu Salim prison in 1996. This was a very dark affair, and whether or not Gaddafi ordered it, it is fair to hold him responsible for it. It was therefore reasonable to be concerned about what the regime might do and how its forces would behave in Benghazi once they had retaken it, and to deter Gaddafi from ordering or allowing any excesses. But that is not what was decided. What was decided was to declare Gaddafi guilty in advance of a massacre of defenceless civilians and instigate the process of destroying his regime and him (and his family) by way of punishment of a crime he was yet to commit, and actually unlikely to commit, and to persist with this process despite his repeated offers to suspend military action.

leicsmac

Joined: 07 Jul 2010

Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:04 pm Post subject:

Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote:

leicsmac wrote:

Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote:

^ You call the highest standard of living in Africa "not working"? Shocked

But let's give that to you for the sake of argument. Outsiders still have no right to bring their aggression into the country.

Lockerbie has it's own well of pet conspiracy theories, just like any other big terrorist event. Do you believe they are ALL false flags?

All I'm saying is IF the Libyans were responsible, then Gaddafi would LIKELY have known.

And what about the shooting of Yvonne Fletcher from inside the Libyan embassy in London?

As for the potential massacre...I said a massacre was LIKELY, not CERTAIN as you seem to think I wrote. Because NATO chose to go in, it never happened. That doesn't change the likelihood that it could have happened.

Answer me this: what if NATO had done nothing...and one month later reports come in of thousands of people dead as Gaddafi sends in his military. Like Syria right now, but on a much bigger scale. What would your response be?

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:15 pm Post subject:

wintermute wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote:

leicsmac wrote:

Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote:

^ You call the highest standard of living in Africa "not working"? Shocked

But let's give that to you for the sake of argument. Outsiders still have no right to bring their aggression into the country.

Most of those sites had been and were controlled by Gaddafi loyalists when the killing started. And if they had no problem with a massacre after the intervention (when the possibility of retaliation at a later date was higher) it is unlikely they would have had any problem with a massacre before the intervention (when the possibility of retaliation was close to nil).

So the links I posted are quite relevant as they show that Gaddafi loyalists have no problem ordering or carrying out massacres even when they are on the verge of defeat. To suggest that massacres are unlikely when they are in power and unchallenged is literally mind-boggling.

But if you don't like that link fine...here's another one from February when Gaddafi was still firmly in power.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12517327

As we see no problem with carrying out massacres at all. Over 200 people dead.

So a massacre already happened

Game. Set. Match.

wintermute

Joined: 01 Oct 2007

Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:30 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Your entire argument rests on the assumption that the kind of 'massacres' in your links are equivalent to the kind of massacres that warrant immediate international intervention - Srebrenica and Rwanda are typically mentioned as examples. Are they the same, or is there another reason you feel those vague and rather mild claims justify invasion?

The counter argument would claim the numbers are different by orders of magnitude, and that there was nothing ethnic or arbitrary about the benghazi situation. It was an armed rebellion that threatened the regime; quality and quantitatively different from the kind of massacre your argument rests on. It's reasonable to for Ghaddafi to respond with force to that, and unreasonable for others to demand the kind of surgical military precision that the west itself is incabable of.

Rumors and hot air started the war, and still fuel the efforts to backwards-rationalize it. Your last link was from February, containing rumour and second hand information.

Game, set, match, indeed. In your mind!
Wink

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:44 pm Post subject:

wintermute wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Oh I see. Different by orders of magnitude. In other words, it's okay if only a few hundred people get killed? Interesting moral relativism to say the least. And no it was not an armed rebellion...Gadaffi's forces were firing on unarmed funeral marches. THAT was one of the causes of the rebellion to begin with.

See any weapons that the protestors are carrying in the two videos linked above? In the first one I see protestors marching and chanting, not looting, smashing or burning and certainly not carrying guns. In the second I see empty handed protestors fleeing while shots are being fired. Armed rebellion my foot. That came AFTER.

http://www.care2.com/causes/libyan-forces-fire-on-a-funeral-procession-video.html

No my link was from reputable sources such as the BBC and Human Rights Watch...Guess what? Most news BY DEFINITION is second hand at best or third hand.

Since my link rests on more reputable sources than the other side has provided (which included personal blogs...shows how desperate they are getting) it is indeed Game Set and Match...at least until you provide a source that is equally reputable. If you can't then it's over.

Butterfly

Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: Kuwait

Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:25 am Post subject:

leicsmac wrote:

Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote:

leicsmac wrote:

Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote:

^ You call the highest standard of living in Africa "not working"? Shocked

But let's give that to you for the sake of argument. Outsiders still have no right to bring their aggression into the country.

And UTA Flight 772, in 1989. Countless murders. His crimes are endless, we don't need to dig our heels in on Locherbie to prove Ghaddaffi a butcher.

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

But if you don't like that link fine...here's another one from February when Gaddafi was still firmly in power.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12517327

As we see no problem with carrying out massacres at all. Over 200 people dead.

So a massacre already happened

Game. Set. Match.

I admire your patience really, I've lost interest in trying to convince these people, who seem to be slowly deifying Muammer Ghaddaffi. That's just insane.

wintermute

Joined: 01 Oct 2007

Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:39 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

wintermute wrote:

Oh I see. Different by orders of magnitude. In other words, it's okay if only a few hundred people get killed? Interesting moral relativism to say the least.

We are not pondering life's great moral dilemmas like "Is it more wrong to kill a million people than a mere two hundred?"

Again, we are talking about massacres with respect to foreign interventions. Since an intervention costs money, lives and legal and political capital, we do need to account for numbers.

You avoided the question: in your opinion, what kind of incident warrants intervention, specifically?

Quote:

And no it was not an armed rebellion...Gadaffi's forces were firing on unarmed funeral marches. THAT was one of the causes of the rebellion to begin with.

See any weapons that the protestors are carrying in the two videos linked above? In the first one I see protestors marching and chanting, not looting, smashing or burning and certainly not carrying guns. In the second I see empty handed protestors fleeing while shots are being fired. Armed rebellion my foot. That came AFTER.

http://www.care2.com/causes/libyan-forces-fire-on-a-funeral-procession-video.html

No my link was from reputable sources such as the BBC and Human Rights Watch...Guess what? Most news BY DEFINITION is second hand at best or third hand.

Since my link rests on more reputable sources than the other side has provided (which included personal blogs...shows how desperate they are getting) it is indeed Game Set and Match...at least until you provide a source that is equally reputable. If you can't then it's over.

Can you provide a link which clears up the sequence of events at the very start of the benghazi incident? I only ask because you make a specific claim above: "That came after".

By the way, you do realise that the reliability of your reputable sources takes a sharp drop immediately prior to any war, these days? (Remember the incubator baby hoax?) You might want to keep that in mind, since most of your links are from february.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:57 pm Post subject:

wintermute wrote:

1. You avoided the question: in your opinion, what kind of incident warrants intervention, specifically?

2. Can you provide a link which clears up the sequence of events at the very start of the benghazi incident? I only ask because you make a specific claim above: "That came after".

3. By the way, you do realise that the reliability of your reputable sources takes a sharp drop immediately prior to any war, these days? (Remember the incubator baby hoax?) You might want to keep that in mind, since most of your links are from february.

(edited and numbered for clarity)

1. Well I'm not sure what my opinion on intervention has to do with anything...since I am not the one who ordered the intervention or had any power to do so or indeed had any influence whatsoever. But had I been in a position to do so, I would have had that thug taken out years ago.

2. There are plenty of links on Google which will give you what you want. But I'm not sure what source you will accept as apparently you don't like BBC or Human Rights Watch.

3. Actually only a couple of them are from February. I only posted those because prior to those you said "The links you posted aren't relevant in that context, since both sides have been summarily executing people in isolated incidents after the intervention had commenced.."
So I went back and found older links before the intervention which clearly showed Gaddafi involved in massacres.

As for the reputability of my sources can you find any links to which they reported this incubator baby story as fact? Not merely stating that other people said this, but repeating the allegations as fact?

Butterfly

Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: Kuwait

Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 8:57 pm Post subject:

There is a very comprehensive timeline on Wikipedia, of the events that led up to the intervention in Libya. Perfect for dealing with revisionists.

Quote:

Active resistance to the government began in Benghazi on 18 February, after three days of protests. Security forces had killed fourteen protesters the previous day, and a funeral procession for one of those killed passed the Katiba compound, where clashes erupted. Demonstrators threw rocks at security forces, who used live ammunition, killing twenty-four protesters. Two of the policemen who had participated in the clash were caught and hanged by protesters.

Protesters around the city and in nearby Bayda and Derna attacked and overwhelmed government forces, and some police and army units defected and joined the protesters. Security forces were overwhelmed and forced to withdraw. By the end of the day, the area was almost entirely in opposition hands, with the only place still housing a significant number of Gaddafi loyalists being the Katiba compound in Benghazi.

On 19 February, another funeral procession passed the Katiba compound, and were again fired on. By this time, the Libyan government airlifted 325 African mercenaries to Benghazi and other eastern towns, but were met with retaliatory attacks by opposition forces. Fifty mercenaries were killed by protesters in Bayda, with some being locked up in a police station which was then burned down, while fifteen were lynched in front of the Bayda courthouse. At least 236 others were captured alive. A captured mercenary told a British journalist that more than a hundred protesters were also killed. Meanwhile, opposition forces commandeered bulldozers and tried to breach the walls of the Katiba compound, but were met with withering fire. Protesters also used stones and crude bombs made of tin cans stuffed with gunpowder. As the fighting continued, a mob attacked an army base on the outskirts of Benghazi and disarmed the soldiers. Among the equipment confiscated was three small tanks, which were rammed into the compound. The fighting stopped on 20 February, and another thirty people had been killed during the previous twenty-four hours of fighting.

By 20 February, violent clashes also broke out in Misrata between government forces and demonstrators. A third funeral procession passed the compound, and under the cover of the funeral, a man named Mahdi Ziu sacrificed himself by blowing up his car loaded with propane tanks with makeshift explosives and destroying the compound's gates.[5] Opposition fighters resumed their assault, bolstered by reinforcements from Bayda and Derna. During the final assault, forty-two people were killed. Libyan Interior Minister Abdul Fatah Younis showed up with a special forces squad to relieve the compound, but Younis defected to the opposition and announced safe passage for loyalists out of the city. Gaddafi's troops retreated after executing 130 soldiers who had refused to fire on the rebels. On 23 February, after five days of fighting, rebels also drove out government forces from Misrata. The following day, Gaddafi loyalists attempted to retake Misrata Airport, but were driven back. Officers from a nearby Air Force Academy also mutinied and helped the opposition attack an adjacent military airbase, then disabled fighter jets at the base.

Demonstrators on an abandoned T-54/55 tank during a rally in Benghazi

By 23 February, headlines in online news services were reporting a range of themes underlining the precarious state of the regime � former justice minister Mustafa Abdul Jalil alleged that Gaddafi personally ordered the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, resignations and defections of close allies, the loss of Benghazi, the second largest city in Libya, reported to be "alive with celebration"[9] and other cities including Tobruk, Misrata, Bayda, Zawiya, Zuwara, Sabratha and Sorman falling with some reports that the government retained control of just a few pockets, mounting international isolation and pressure, and reports that Middle East media consider the end of his regime all but inevitable. By the end of February, Gaddafi's government had lost control of a significant part of Libya, including the major cities of Misrata and Benghazi, and the important harbors at Ra's Lanuf and Brega. On the same day, rebels in Derna killed 13 loyalists and lost two dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2011_Libyan_civil_war

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:18 pm Post subject:

Butterfly wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

I admire your patience really, I've lost interest in trying to convince these people, who seem to be slowly deifying Muammer Ghaddaffi. That's just insane.

You are dealing with people who don't give a crap about Libya, people who only care about a Chomkyesque narrative of: the US/West causes all the problems, and the origins of regional and local issues everywhere comes from evil imperialism. Only OTOH has provided a serious anti-interventionist position based on knowledge and understanding of Libya.

Those of us who support the intervention did so with suspicion and concern, but nevertheless did want to hear about the situation in Libya. I am very tired of American adventurism. But that doesn't mean we should surrender a cost-effective, humanitarian intervention to our political sentiments, when Western power can finally be applied to a positive (if understandably controversial) service.

Ineverlie&I'malwaysri

Joined: 09 Aug 2011

Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 8:16 am Post subject:

leicsmac wrote:

Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote:

leicsmac wrote:

Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote:

^ You call the highest standard of living in Africa "not working"? Shocked

But let's give that to you for the sake of argument. Outsiders still have no right to bring their aggression into the country.

Lockerbie has it's own well of pet conspiracy theories, just like any other big terrorist event. Do you believe they are ALL false flags?

You choose to ignore tons of facts if you call all the evidence against Megrahi's guilt a conspiracy theory. Or, British MPs, CIA and Mossad agents, the Chairman of Pan Am and others are all in on the CT:

bacasper wrote:

Megrahi is not only not guilty, there is NO evidence linking him to the crime.

Why was Pam Am 103 shot down? And why did Libya take the rap for it? According to MP for Lockerbie Tam Danyell is was a "business deal"; and he's spot on. In a tit-for-tat deal Libya claimed responsibility and had three UN sanctions against it removed.

The air embargo against Libya was crippling the economy and at the time there was a huge shortage of polio vaccinations. Anyone who traded with Libya would have had their assets frozen. Libya has the 6th largest reserve of "good" oil reserves, the king which meant it was very cheap to extract and process but lack of investment was crippling it's economy. After they took the rap and had the sanctions removes huge investment flooded in.

A company called "Interforce", which consists of ex-intelligence officers from the CIA, Mossad etc. released a report of their findings, and it'll blow you away:

It concluded that Eight CIA officers were on board that day who were involved in directing drug traffic involving one "Ghazer" (wrong spelling) who was a DEA officer. the DEA and the CIA had been using Pan Am flights for years to courier hard drugs, heroin, and narcotics which were distributed by the CIA across the US in Detroit, St. Louis, LA and New York.

The plane was blown up because the agents were coming back to the US to blow the cover on that operation, pissed off because they were told it would be escalated.

In Jan 1990 the Toronto Star had an article saying that Eight CIA operatives were on the flight led by Major General Charles Dennis Mckee.

A secret FBI field report revealed there was no suitcase originating in Malta where the accused Libyans allegedly travelled through. Instead it was a CIA front company (think Visor Consultants).

Chairman of Pam Am Thomas Planket was quoted as saying something along the lines of "I thought I was running a airline, not a drug running courier service". This was put forward by Congressman Thomas Trafficante.

Funds from the drug running service came to about $5 billion annually and was integrated with US banking system processed through Morgan Stanley and all the other major banks.

For the complete story with documentation, listen to program 030902 or 090825 at http://takingaimradio.com/shows/audio.html.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090830141217621

Quote:

�I�ll reveal true identity of bomber�

Megrahi is to point the finger
August 23,2009
By Ben Borland
Sunday Express

AN AMERICAN citizen is to be named by the Lockerbie bomber as the man who really carried out the terrorist attack on Pan Am Flight 103.

Megrahi's early release from prison on compassionate grounds.

Lawyers for the bomber were to argue that an "elusive" terrorist codenamed Abu Elias planted the bomb in December 1988, causing the deaths of 270 innocent people.

Megrahi is now expected to identify the man behind this alias.

The Scottish Sunday Express tracked this man down to his home in the US, and he strongly denied having anything to do with the atrocity.

However, we can reveal that he has connections to at least two international terrorists and a Palestinian terror group, as well as links to the US intelligence services.

The man, who works as a schools engineer for the US government, was to become the central figure in Megrahi's aborted appeal.

Quote:

As for the potential massacre...I said a massacre was LIKELY, not CERTAIN as you seem to think I wrote.

Exactly how do you quantify "likelihood of a massacre"?

Quote:

Because NATO chose to go in, it never happened.

You have no way of knowing that.

Quote:

That doesn't change the likelihood that it could have happened.

See above.

Quote:

Answer me this: what if NATO had done nothing...and one month later reports come in of thousands of people dead as Gaddafi sends in his military. Like Syria right now, but on a much bigger scale. What would your response be?

What if Qaddafi would have done nothing...and now months later thousands of people are dead as NATO sent in its military back-up. This is your response?
In any event, you reveal support for the George Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, as he exercised in Iraq, a doctrine I and most moral people with a conscience find despicable.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 4:48 pm Post subject:

Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote:

[What if Qaddafi would have done nothing...and now months later thousands of people are dead as NATO sent in its military back-up. This is your response?
In any event, you reveal support for the George Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, as he exercised in Iraq, a doctrine I and most moral people with a conscience find despicable.

Except that Qaddafi was NOT doing nothing...he was having his troops fire on protesters and when they retaliated he sent in mercenaries. As for the airplane bombing that has nothing to do with this thread.

Can you not respond to ONE thread without dragging in silly conspiracies? Keep those in the threads in which they belong.

Ineverlie&I'malwaysri

Joined: 09 Aug 2011

Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 7:53 am Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote:

If we're going to send in troops wherever governments have fired upon their own people, we'd be in even more countries than we already are. That is an absurd basis upon which to base foreign intervention.

And could you just for once allow me to post without having my fan/groupie/stalker constantly following me around posting behind everything I do while lacking the cojones to ever begin a thread of his own? And follow the ToS, too.

Captain Corea

Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul

Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 5:28 pm Post subject:

Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote:

What would be absurd is to try that in every country. But having it as a rationale is not that absurd, IMO. I understand the desire for intervention in such cases.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 5:55 pm Post subject:

Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote:

I've not posted behind everything you do. That is untrue. I'm simply asking you to keep conspiracies to those threads dedicated to them. Start one on the bombing if you wish...I promise not to post there. Finally a simple search of my posts will reveal numerous threads I have started.

So you are wrong on all accounts. Now if you are done with the off-topic nonsense let's get back to the Libyan war.

You claim

Quote:

"If we're going to send in troops wherever governments have fired upon their own people, we'd be in even more countries than we already are. That is an absurd basis upon which to base foreign intervention.

Except that I never said it was a basis upon which to base foreign intervention. YOU said "What if Qaddafi would have done nothing..." and I merely pointed out that we can not suppose this to be the case as in fact he was attempting to suppress the protests and quite bloodily as well. How you suddenly equate that to a claimed basis for foreign intervention is quite beyond me...and I suspect beyond most people here as well.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 78, 79, 80 ... 87, 88, 89 Next
Page 79 of 89

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe