Gaddafi will CRUSH the rebels and give NATO a big headache! HAHA!!!
Scroll to see replies
I have to say I am somewhat concerned by the pick 'n' mix nature of NATO's targets vis-a-vis rogue states.
It's quite obvious that Libya just didn't have the defence capabilities to withstand NATO militarily, whereas the far more dangerous nations like Syria and Iran do have the capacity to make life difficult.
I'm also concerned that whilst Gaddafi was a rather unpleasant character, he was somewhat of a bulwark against militant Islam (even though he engaged in some Islamist terror of his own)
I just hope that Libya does not come under the control of some Islamic nutters, as seems to slowly be happening in Egypt.
It's quite obvious that Libya just didn't have the defence capabilities to withstand NATO militarily, whereas the far more dangerous nations like Syria and Iran do have the capacity to make life difficult.
I'm also concerned that whilst Gaddafi was a rather unpleasant character, he was somewhat of a bulwark against militant Islam (even though he engaged in some Islamist terror of his own)
I just hope that Libya does not come under the control of some Islamic nutters, as seems to slowly be happening in Egypt.
Original post by mistermojo
You realise that man ordered the rape of thousands of women in a bid to instill fear into his population?
And where did you read that? The Daily Mail?
And Saudi Arabia continuously suppresses Homosexuality and women while NATO still funds them because they want some of that oil.
Go figure.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by mistermojo
You realise that man ordered the rape of thousands of women in a bid to instill fear into his population?
Dubious claim I am afraid, the Viagra claim was also false. The UN found limited evidence of rape and it was in fact causing fear throughout the population but instances of it actually happen number in the hundreds and were not believed to be state sanctioned
Original post by Steevee
I don;t like football, but the other 3 are damn fine.
And no my dear, when many studies back each other up we have what is called a reliable figure. When some butthurt Muslims on the internet pulls a figure out of their ass, we have what is know as bulls***. Before we were there you had instead genocidal dictators and theocratic authoritarian regimes. The deaths caused by the Islamic fighters are not our fault, we don;t make them suicide bomb crowded markets, we don;t make them plant IED's next to schools, that's their doing. If you want someone to blame for all your brother Muslims' deaths, then look no futher than those Muslims. Yes Muslims, not Imperialist Western forces, but Muslims are to blame.
And no my dear, when many studies back each other up we have what is called a reliable figure. When some butthurt Muslims on the internet pulls a figure out of their ass, we have what is know as bulls***. Before we were there you had instead genocidal dictators and theocratic authoritarian regimes. The deaths caused by the Islamic fighters are not our fault, we don;t make them suicide bomb crowded markets, we don;t make them plant IED's next to schools, that's their doing. If you want someone to blame for all your brother Muslims' deaths, then look no futher than those Muslims. Yes Muslims, not Imperialist Western forces, but Muslims are to blame.
Yeah, they're more important than the lives of the Iraqi women and children!
A reliable figure that comes from countries who are directly involved in the war, who actually started the wars!
When a muslim tells the truth, I can't accept it because I've got too much bacon in my mouth, so instead I just call it bull****!
Before we were there, we put a dictator in power after the first gulf war, because we knew we were more than likely to go back, so thats why we put a prick in power so that we we would get backing from our deluded and brainwashed public.
We put our basis near schools and mosques, we get our soldiers to shield themselves in the public so if anyone wants to fight back, they'll kill some of their own countrymen/women.
Yes, because there were so many bombs going off and firefights in Iraq before the invasion, lets put our head in the sand, grab a bacon sarnie and pretend its not our fault, when we can point our grubby finger at someone else! We control the media, so we control what people know (what they think), so if thats what we want (why wouldn't it be), thats what we'll do! Long live the deaths of innocent people, long live the theft of other nations wealth, long live western imperialism!
Original post by Chindits
I have to say I am somewhat concerned by the pick 'n' mix nature of NATO's targets vis-a-vis rogue states.
It's quite obvious that Libya just didn't have the defence capabilities to withstand NATO militarily, whereas the far more dangerous nations like Syria and Iran do have the capacity to make life difficult.
I'm also concerned that whilst Gaddafi was a rather unpleasant character, he was somewhat of a bulwark against militant Islam (even though he engaged in some Islamist terror of his own)
I just hope that Libya does not come under the control of some Islamic nutters, as seems to slowly be happening in Egypt.
It's quite obvious that Libya just didn't have the defence capabilities to withstand NATO militarily, whereas the far more dangerous nations like Syria and Iran do have the capacity to make life difficult.
I'm also concerned that whilst Gaddafi was a rather unpleasant character, he was somewhat of a bulwark against militant Islam (even though he engaged in some Islamist terror of his own)
I just hope that Libya does not come under the control of some Islamic nutters, as seems to slowly be happening in Egypt.
Under the rebels, Libya will be 100% under Sharia law than it was under Gaddafi.
http://www.scpr.org/programs/patt-morrison/2011/08/23/20400/nato-libya
Go figure.
We never invaded Pakistan. The Bin Laden assassination was a necessary breach of an untrustworthy ally's territory but not an invasion.
Afghanistan was done for our own national security. Nobody has ever pretended otherwise. It was completely out of self interest, and I have zero problems with that.
Iraq was a clusterf***. There's no denying it. We went in mostly out of panic thanks to Saddam's total lack of co-operation with the UN sanctioned evaluations, and yes, there were very likely economic agendas being pushed by people in the Whitehouse. But speaking like everything the West has ever done these past few decades is pure evil really pisses me off, especially when it comes from people who're totally uninformed. Get a clue, or don't say anything.
Afghanistan was done for our own national security. Nobody has ever pretended otherwise. It was completely out of self interest, and I have zero problems with that.
Iraq was a clusterf***. There's no denying it. We went in mostly out of panic thanks to Saddam's total lack of co-operation with the UN sanctioned evaluations, and yes, there were very likely economic agendas being pushed by people in the Whitehouse. But speaking like everything the West has ever done these past few decades is pure evil really pisses me off, especially when it comes from people who're totally uninformed. Get a clue, or don't say anything.
Original post by slavetosociety
http://rt.com/news/gaddafi-guerrilla-tripoli-strategy-093/
Once Gaddafi massacres the rebels, that'll teach NATO and the UN not to interfere in other countries businesses. It'll give NATO a big headache as then they'll resort to a full scale military invasion of Libya dubbed as a "humanitarian intervention", JUST LIKE IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN.
And guess what? You, the tax payer will be paying for it.
The Libyan People still support Gaddafi, not these terrorists who side with Al Qaeda, The CIA, MI6 and other criminals who label themselves as "rebels".
The "Rebels" are as comparable as to the BNP and the EDL in the UK since they're just fringe extremist political parties which have minimal support from the general population.
Its Funny how countries like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain make protests punishable by death or prosecution and NATO and the UN is not jumping for "humanitarian intervention and installation of democracy" in those countries.
Once Gaddafi massacres the rebels, that'll teach NATO and the UN not to interfere in other countries businesses. It'll give NATO a big headache as then they'll resort to a full scale military invasion of Libya dubbed as a "humanitarian intervention", JUST LIKE IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN.
And guess what? You, the tax payer will be paying for it.
The Libyan People still support Gaddafi, not these terrorists who side with Al Qaeda, The CIA, MI6 and other criminals who label themselves as "rebels".
The "Rebels" are as comparable as to the BNP and the EDL in the UK since they're just fringe extremist political parties which have minimal support from the general population.
Its Funny how countries like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain make protests punishable by death or prosecution and NATO and the UN is not jumping for "humanitarian intervention and installation of democracy" in those countries.
You're nearly as crazy as Gadaffi himself
Original post by King-Panther
Yeah, they're more important than the lives of the Iraqi women and children!
A reliable figure that comes from countries who are directly involved in the war, who actually started the wars!
When a muslim tells the truth, I can't accept it because I've got too much bacon in my mouth, so instead I just call it bull****!
Before we were there, we put a dictator in power after the first gulf war, because we knew we were more than likely to go back, so thats why we put a prick in power so that we we would get backing from our deluded and brainwashed public.
We put our basis near schools and mosques, we get our soldiers to shield themselves in the public so if anyone wants to fight back, they'll kill some of their own countrymen/women.
Yes, because there were so many bombs going off and firefights in Iraq before the invasion, lets put our head in the sand, grab a bacon sarnie and pretend its not our fault, when we can point our grubby finger at someone else! We control the media, so we control what people know (what they think), so if thats what we want (why wouldn't it be), thats what we'll do! Long live the deaths of innocent people, long live the theft of other nations wealth, long live western imperialism!
A reliable figure that comes from countries who are directly involved in the war, who actually started the wars!
When a muslim tells the truth, I can't accept it because I've got too much bacon in my mouth, so instead I just call it bull****!
Before we were there, we put a dictator in power after the first gulf war, because we knew we were more than likely to go back, so thats why we put a prick in power so that we we would get backing from our deluded and brainwashed public.
We put our basis near schools and mosques, we get our soldiers to shield themselves in the public so if anyone wants to fight back, they'll kill some of their own countrymen/women.
Yes, because there were so many bombs going off and firefights in Iraq before the invasion, lets put our head in the sand, grab a bacon sarnie and pretend its not our fault, when we can point our grubby finger at someone else! We control the media, so we control what people know (what they think), so if thats what we want (why wouldn't it be), thats what we'll do! Long live the deaths of innocent people, long live the theft of other nations wealth, long live western imperialism!
Ok then. I tell you what. Why don;t you provide some sources on your figure for the number of Iraqi's dead then? Go on, provide say, two that collate.
Because I can provide 5 that collate, some of which are from humanitarian charities. But hey, I guess they're part of the conspiracy right!
I tell you what, well you;re at it finding those studies, why don;t you take a little look at life in Iraq under Saddam. The genocide of Kurds, the chemical weapons used on his own people, the violent terror of the secret police, the state controlled television and radio and so on and so on. Clearly we're only their because we just love killing brown people right?
Original post by Steevee
Ok then. I tell you what. Why don;t you provide some sources on your figure for the number of Iraqi's dead then? Go on, provide say, two that collate.
Because I can provide 5 that collate, some of which are from humanitarian charities. But hey, I guess they're part of the conspiracy right!
I tell you what, well you;re at it finding those studies, why don;t you take a little look at life in Iraq under Saddam. The genocide of Kurds, the chemical weapons used on his own people, the violent terror of the secret police, the state controlled television and radio and so on and so on. Clearly we're only their because we just love killing brown people right?
Because I can provide 5 that collate, some of which are from humanitarian charities. But hey, I guess they're part of the conspiracy right!
I tell you what, well you;re at it finding those studies, why don;t you take a little look at life in Iraq under Saddam. The genocide of Kurds, the chemical weapons used on his own people, the violent terror of the secret police, the state controlled television and radio and so on and so on. Clearly we're only their because we just love killing brown people right?
That was not the West so its fine
Original post by slavetosociety
And also theres plenty of empirical evidence that over a million people died in Iraq if you wish to check your own mainstream news:
Naturally
Naturally
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000415
Check out the link. It's about civilian deaths caused and the perpetrators behind those deaths. Here's a nice quote for you, detailing the percentage of deaths caused by Unknown (not identifiable by Uniform, so most likely terrorists) and anti-coalition forces.
We analyzed the Iraq Body Count database of 92,614 Iraqi civilian direct deaths from armed violence occurring from March 20, 2003 through March 19, 2008, of which Unknown perpetrators caused 74% of deaths (n = 68,396), Coalition forces 12% (n = 11,516), and Anti-Coalition forces 11% (n = 9,954)
Unknown perpetrators targeting civilians caused 66.9% of all violent deaths of civilian men (n = 12,007/17,939), mostly in executions (32.2%, n = 5,768/17,939); 68.8% of all violent deaths of women (n = 1,363/1,981), mostly by gunfire (21.1%, n = 418/1,981); and 52.2% of all violent deaths of children (n = 1,120/2,146), again mostly by gunfire (9.8%, n = 211/2,146). Anti-Coalition forces caused 25.8% of violent deaths of civilian men (n = 4,629/17,939); 8.7% of violent deaths of women (n = 173/1,981); and 16.5% of violent deaths of children (n = 355/2,146), in all cases mostly by suicide bombing (7.9%, 4.0%, and 7.0%, respectively). More women and children were killed by Anti-Coalition suicide bombers in vehicles (n = 210) than on foot (n = 21).
And here's the co-alition forces tally.
Coalition forces caused 4.1% of violent deaths of civilian men (n = 741/17,939), mostly by gunfire (2.2%, n = 390/17,939); 15.0% of violent deaths of women (n = 297/1,981), mostly by air attacks without ground fire (9.7%, n = 193/1,981); and 21.8% of violent deaths of children (n = 467/2,146), again mostly by air attacks without ground fire (13.2%, n = 284/2,146).
Now i'm not saying that it's a great record. I'm not saying it's something we should be proud of. But the fact is that we're responsible for far less deaths within the country than terrorists aiming at their OWN PEOPLE.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Look at how many people were killed by the brutal IED devices that break every convention on land mines ever made in the world. Look at it. Are you proud of those people, "fighting the west"? I'm angry. I'm angry that armchair ****ing militants like you can come on a forum and quote bull**** statistics pulled off Islamist forums. You're not making a difference to this world, you're making and spreading ignorance and lies to people, exactly like the 'controlled media' you keep going on about.
You don't know the facts, stop playing a game. We're talking about people's lives here, every single person you quote to make some stupid point is a real person who's lost their lives.
War is pity. No war should ever have to exist. But because of evil people just like Colonel Qaddafi, they do. Supporting him is morally disgusting. All war is atrocity, but some war is born of necessity. If I was religious, I would pray for the rebels to have swift victory and a stable country, run on democratic values.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by rural_boy
This is the bloody point, no is there to invite help, because they are being ruled under dictators who won't allow anything to change, and you know people who don't want Western help? Yeah your always going to find this, but you will also find that the people you know are not representative of an entire population!
Killing their women & children? There will always be civilian casualties in any war, please note I am not saying this is acceptable at all, but I believe Saddam killed thousands of civilians when he decided to test nerve gas in a remote town.
AND the US & UN attempted to intervene in Somalia in the early 90's, but it didn't go down well, Somalia has no government and is arguably the most volatile country in the world. It would simply be far too dangerous to attempt any intervention in Somalia, the capital Mogadishu is occupied by Islam militants and the civilians who live there are starving and being murdered everyday..
Killing their women & children? There will always be civilian casualties in any war, please note I am not saying this is acceptable at all, but I believe Saddam killed thousands of civilians when he decided to test nerve gas in a remote town.
AND the US & UN attempted to intervene in Somalia in the early 90's, but it didn't go down well, Somalia has no government and is arguably the most volatile country in the world. It would simply be far too dangerous to attempt any intervention in Somalia, the capital Mogadishu is occupied by Islam militants and the civilians who live there are starving and being murdered everyday..
No, 99% of those nations do not want western forces in their countries, why would they want you there when all you do is kill their women and children and rob their wealth?
Yes, Saddam did kill civilians but he has always been a prick, the US knew he was a prick but still put him into power after the gulf war. How many people he killed is peanuts compared to how many have died in this latest war.
Yes, so why don't you try and help again? They clearly need your help but they have nothing that can be stolen, hence no help. How about Zimbabwe and the other countries that have no "democracy". So why not help them "world police"?
Original post by newbeatnik
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000415
Check out the link. It's about civilian deaths caused and the perpetrators behind those deaths. Here's a nice quote for you, detailing the percentage of deaths caused by Unknown (not identifiable by Uniform, so most likely terrorists) and anti-coalition forces.
And here's the co-alition forces tally.
Now i'm not saying that it's a great record. I'm not saying it's something we should be proud of. But the fact is that we're responsible for far less deaths within the country than terrorists aiming at their OWN PEOPLE.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Look at how many people were killed by the brutal IED devices that break every convention on land mines ever made in the world. Look at it. Are you proud of those people, "fighting the west"? I'm angry. I'm angry that armchair ****ing militants like you can come on a forum and quote bull**** statistics pulled off Islamist forums. You're not making a difference to this world, you're making and spreading ignorance and lies to people, exactly like the 'controlled media' you keep going on about.
You don't know the facts, stop playing a game. We're talking about people's lives here, every single person you quote to make some stupid point is a real person who's lost their lives.
War is pity. No war should ever have to exist. But because of evil people just like Colonel Qaddafi, they do. Supporting him is morally disgusting. All war is atrocity, but some war is born of necessity.
Check out the link. It's about civilian deaths caused and the perpetrators behind those deaths. Here's a nice quote for you, detailing the percentage of deaths caused by Unknown (not identifiable by Uniform, so most likely terrorists) and anti-coalition forces.
And here's the co-alition forces tally.
Now i'm not saying that it's a great record. I'm not saying it's something we should be proud of. But the fact is that we're responsible for far less deaths within the country than terrorists aiming at their OWN PEOPLE.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Look at how many people were killed by the brutal IED devices that break every convention on land mines ever made in the world. Look at it. Are you proud of those people, "fighting the west"? I'm angry. I'm angry that armchair ****ing militants like you can come on a forum and quote bull**** statistics pulled off Islamist forums. You're not making a difference to this world, you're making and spreading ignorance and lies to people, exactly like the 'controlled media' you keep going on about.
You don't know the facts, stop playing a game. We're talking about people's lives here, every single person you quote to make some stupid point is a real person who's lost their lives.
War is pity. No war should ever have to exist. But because of evil people just like Colonel Qaddafi, they do. Supporting him is morally disgusting. All war is atrocity, but some war is born of necessity.
Both government websites, hence "org", hence propaganda.
Original post by King-Panther
No, 99% of those nations do not want western forces in their countries, why would they want you there when all you do is kill their women and children and rob their wealth?
Yes, Saddam did kill civilians but he has always been a prick, the US knew he was a prick but still put him into power after the gulf war. How many people he killed is peanuts compared to how many have died in this latest war.
Yes, so why don't you try and help again? They clearly need your help but they have nothing that can be stolen, hence no help. How about Zimbabwe and the other countries that have no "democracy". So why not help them "world police"?
Yes, Saddam did kill civilians but he has always been a prick, the US knew he was a prick but still put him into power after the gulf war. How many people he killed is peanuts compared to how many have died in this latest war.
Yes, so why don't you try and help again? They clearly need your help but they have nothing that can be stolen, hence no help. How about Zimbabwe and the other countries that have no "democracy". So why not help them "world police"?
Loving the statistics, is it hard to pull them from thin air or is it a skill? Tell me this, if we invaded Iraq for wealth why did our oil imports go down and why did many US companies get banned from oil field auctions. I keep making this point yet no one can ever refute it.
No its not, Saddam deliberately murdered 1 million people not including Iraq-Iran war dead.
There is no rebellion in Zimbabwe and the West does not have the resources to do so. Oh and China and Russia will never support it. You know, the other two nations on the UN security council that can Veto any military action in these places
Original post by King-Panther
Both government websites, hence "org", hence propaganda.
Anyone can register a .org web address - it means .organisation. The first link is a peer-reviewed study with actual sample groups taken from empirical evidence. But, obviously, everything ever created in the west is 'biased' and everything you read on the internet off of some militant forum is factual.
Original post by Steevee
Ok then. I tell you what. Why don;t you provide some sources on your figure for the number of Iraqi's dead then? Go on, provide say, two that collate.
Because I can provide 5 that collate, some of which are from humanitarian charities. But hey, I guess they're part of the conspiracy right!
I tell you what, well you;re at it finding those studies, why don;t you take a little look at life in Iraq under Saddam. The genocide of Kurds, the chemical weapons used on his own people, the violent terror of the secret police, the state controlled television and radio and so on and so on. Clearly we're only their because we just love killing brown people right?
Because I can provide 5 that collate, some of which are from humanitarian charities. But hey, I guess they're part of the conspiracy right!
I tell you what, well you;re at it finding those studies, why don;t you take a little look at life in Iraq under Saddam. The genocide of Kurds, the chemical weapons used on his own people, the violent terror of the secret police, the state controlled television and radio and so on and so on. Clearly we're only their because we just love killing brown people right?
Like i said, my source is the people but I'll see what i can find.
A total of 1.5 million deaths according to the link below.
"Iraq Deaths
The number is shocking and sobering. It is at least 10 times greater than most estimates cited in the US media, yet it is based on a scientific study of violent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003".
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq
Iraq's Shocking Human Toll: About 1 Million Killed, 4.5 Million Displaced, 1-2 Million Widows, 5 Million Orphans
http://www.alternet.org/world/123818/
Over one million Iraqis have met violent deaths as a result of the 2003 invasion, according to a study conducted by the prestigious British polling group, Opinion Research Business (ORB)
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/1-over-one-million-iraqi-deaths-caused-by-us-occupation/
According to the above, its one million, but thats not the figure I know of. But its one million, so that makes it fine right? One million dead civilians, thats no problem as long as I get to eat my bacon sarnie!
I don't if you were paying attention (probably too busy eating bacon) but I mentioned in the last post that it was the US who put Saddam in power after the Gulf, they knew what he was like but they still put him in power, so those deaths are on your hands too!
Original post by slavetosociety
And where did you read that? The Daily Mail?
And Saudi Arabia continuously suppresses Homosexuality and women while NATO still funds them because they want some of that oil.
Go figure.
And Saudi Arabia continuously suppresses Homosexuality and women while NATO still funds them because they want some of that oil.
Go figure.
I don't condone what the Saudi government is doing, nor NATO's interference other than to protect civilians. Jus' sayin'. No need to generalise.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13705854
Original post by newbeatnik
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000415
You don't know the facts, stop playing a game. We're talking about people's lives here, every single person you quote to make some stupid point is a real person who's lost their lives.
War is pity. No war should ever have to exist. But because of evil people just like Colonel Qaddafi, they do. Supporting him is morally disgusting. All war is atrocity, but some war is born of necessity. If I was religious, I would pray for the rebels to have swift victory and a stable country, run on democratic values.
You don't know the facts, stop playing a game. We're talking about people's lives here, every single person you quote to make some stupid point is a real person who's lost their lives.
War is pity. No war should ever have to exist. But because of evil people just like Colonel Qaddafi, they do. Supporting him is morally disgusting. All war is atrocity, but some war is born of necessity. If I was religious, I would pray for the rebels to have swift victory and a stable country, run on democratic values.
Same as the coincidental death of Dr. David Kelly (the primary critic of the Iraq war) was deeply investigated into by "reliable and trustworthy organisations" and was dubbed as a "suicide" officially.
And for the record, your nice little rebels will NOT have a stable country with democratic values even if they win.
The rebels will most likely fight with themselves in another civil war for power. IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN and history shows that things ALWAYS turn out in this way once a leader of a country is abruptly toppled.
Original post by newbeatnik
Anyone can register a .org web address - it means .organisation. The first link is a peer-reviewed study with actual sample groups taken from empirical evidence. But, obviously, everything ever created in the west is 'biased' and everything you read on the internet off of some militant forum is factual.
O.k, org = my bad. No, i've spoken to Iraqis themselves but clearly most of what comes from western sources is going to be biased, you lot don't want to admit to how many people you have killed, you would rather eat your bacon, watch footy, drink a beer and fornicate instead of give a **** about those innocent monkeys (humans to me) you're killing in other countries.
(edited 12 years ago)
DEATHS IN IRAQ AND OTHER NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF WAR
http://johnpilger.com/articles/no-tears-no-remorse-for-the-fallen-of-iraq
OVER 1 MILLION KILLED
http://johnpilger.com/articles/no-tears-no-remorse-for-the-fallen-of-iraq
OVER 1 MILLION KILLED
Original post by slavetosociety
http://rt.com/news/gaddafi-guerrilla-tripoli-strategy-093/
Once Gaddafi massacres the rebels, that'll teach NATO and the UN not to interfere in other countries businesses. It'll give NATO a big headache as then they'll resort to a full scale military invasion of Libya dubbed as a "humanitarian intervention", JUST LIKE IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN.
And guess what? You, the tax payer will be paying for it.
The Libyan People still support Gaddafi, not these terrorists who side with Al Qaeda, The CIA, MI6 and other criminals who label themselves as "rebels".
The "Rebels" are as comparable as to the BNP and the EDL in the UK since they're just fringe extremist political parties which have minimal support from the general population.
Its Funny how countries like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain make protests punishable by death or prosecution and NATO and the UN is not jumping for "humanitarian intervention and installation of democracy" in those countries.
Oh and just to throw it out there, under the rebels, Libya will be 100% under Sharia law than it was under Gaddafi.
http://www.scpr.org/programs/patt-morrison/2011/08/23/20400/nato-libya
Once Gaddafi massacres the rebels, that'll teach NATO and the UN not to interfere in other countries businesses. It'll give NATO a big headache as then they'll resort to a full scale military invasion of Libya dubbed as a "humanitarian intervention", JUST LIKE IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN.
And guess what? You, the tax payer will be paying for it.
The Libyan People still support Gaddafi, not these terrorists who side with Al Qaeda, The CIA, MI6 and other criminals who label themselves as "rebels".
The "Rebels" are as comparable as to the BNP and the EDL in the UK since they're just fringe extremist political parties which have minimal support from the general population.
Its Funny how countries like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain make protests punishable by death or prosecution and NATO and the UN is not jumping for "humanitarian intervention and installation of democracy" in those countries.
Oh and just to throw it out there, under the rebels, Libya will be 100% under Sharia law than it was under Gaddafi.
http://www.scpr.org/programs/patt-morrison/2011/08/23/20400/nato-libya
Just from a military standpoint, they wont...
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Make it More Jewellery-ey !!
- Girls laughing at me
- Is the UK prepared for WW3?
- [Official Thread] Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Whey protein causing headaches
- Which 2024 election will be most significant for the world?
- How to see a pharmacist?
- Crush's mom making me feel worthless
- Is it weird that I have a crush on any boy any age
- How do I ace A Level Politics?
- Completely humiliated myself in front of my crush
- Interested In Playing Sport at University?
- Asking out a crush
- gyg - a love letter to my future self 💌
- Advice about getting over a crush?
- How long do crushes last?
- Movie stars of our generation
- Younger girl likes me and I'm leaving for university soon.
- Remembrance Day . . . remembering what?
- How is prom king and queen elected?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
