The Student Room Group

Libya, another Iraq another lie

Scroll to see replies

Reply 180
Avatar for Aj12
Aj12
18
Original post by robin22391
you have not even watched it have you, you dont watch rt.

i watch all the news channels including presstv, aside from fox.

it just so happens that that man in thevideo gets it spot on, the bbc, sky etc are the ones who are doing the bad reporting. they enjoy whipping it up, they did it with blair and brown, they do it with palestine and now libya.


Think I will get my News from other sources rather than channels backed by the Russian government that has been accused of spouting pro Kremlin propaganda or Press TV backed by the Iranian government.
This is nothing like Iraq. There is support from within the country for foreign intervention, which there never was in Iraq. It's also legal for a change.

The important thing is how far Britain, US, France etc. are planning on taking the military action. As long as clear limits are set, and they don't end up with a permanent foot in the door, they can't be condemned for this yet.
(edited 13 years ago)
It seems to me that america especially do not want to take out Qaddafi, because they wish to weaken libya. They want it to be divided between east and west. I mean, you'd be a fool to believe this was due to human rights? Where were they a few weeks ago? Where have they been for the past 40 years of his oppressive regime? Want to know where? Trading the dictator weapons. Tony Blair , George Bush, and Hillary clinton continually surport middle eastern dictators.
Original post by milesofsea
This is nothing like Iraq. There is support from within the country for foreign intervention, which there never was in Iraq. It's also legal for a change.

The important thing is how far Britain, US, France etc. are planning on taking the military action. As long as clear limits are set, and they don't end up with a permanent foot in the door, they can't be condemned for this yet.


Fair enough, but the revolutionists cannot beat gaddafi and it will end up being a state divided between east and west, which is what America wants: to weaken middle eastern countries.
Original post by Aj12
Think I will get my News from other sources rather than channels backed by the Russian government that has been accused of spouting pro Kremlin propaganda or Press TV backed by the Iranian government.


That made me laugh.

What about Sky , backed by the Israeli Zionist lobby? Same to BBC to a fair extent?
Original post by Aj12
Think I will get my News from other sources rather than channels backed by the Russian government that has been accused of spouting pro Kremlin propaganda or Press TV backed by the Iranian government.


I don't want to drag this thread off topic, so will meet your arguments in a different thread that is more suitible
Original post by T.I.
This is nothing like Iraq.

People need to stop looking for reasons to moan.

At end of the day, the vast magority of the Libyan people would be happy if 200 civlilans died over night if they killed Gadaffi.

Then this could be over, much quicker.


Vast majority huh, you must know a lot of people living in Libya right? And this all ends when Gaddafi goes? Don't kid yourself, the justification shown to you by the UK of saving a majority of Libyans and removing a tyrannical dictator are simply justifications for the the current warfare. They wouldn't dare to mention what would happen next, lest the people of this country being able to think for themselves and realise this isn't going to pan out all fine and dandy, pretty much like every other situation when an Imperialistic power invades and destroys another country. Gaddafi goes, do we give the rebels power? How do we know the rebels are in majority? It could well be there are more Gaddaffi supporters. A civil war could break out, and then what? Fat load of good a 'no fly zone' will do then. Truth be told the imperialistic powers care very little as to what happens to the people of the nation, else they would have been dying to implement their lovely little no fly zones in places like Palestine two years ago when 1600 people were killed. They have their own objectives to achieve, one that will warrant the investment of arms they are putting in to destroying the Libyan army strength, and if that's achieved they care as to very little else. I would speculate heavily that is oil, and whether they wish to keep Gaddafi in charge or support one of their own back candidates in taking power in Libya through 'democratic' measures, is a moot point. As some guy once said, we learn from history that we learn very little from history. Same situation happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, the imperials went in happy, sprang out democracy and new leaders, yet the countries are still hell holes. Destroying a countries army power does not make the country better, in fact having that security can be a factor of development for the country.

Key questions to consider:
- How many rebels are there actually? I have seen no images of vast collections of people protesting, just a few jumped on top of cars/tanks with guns.
- How many Gadaffi supporters are there? They exist, but are given very little air time.
- How many actual casualties are there?
- The rebels are armed, and as such armed uprisings should merit a resistance from the powers in charge, regardless of how moronic they may be. Akin to armed protestors wanting to overthrow the UK's powers, the army would be spraying bullets quicker than you can say libya.
- What are the motivies of intervention? Why were all the large powers so eager to go in to intervene? Why do they care so little as to the violence occuring in Bahrain currently, and pay little attention to the killings of its own people inflicted by the Saudi Arabian monarchs? Why if we don't want to see people dying, why are we not dying to pay 3m a day for more radical measures to prevent the people of Africa from desolate poverty, and more seriously starvation? Some aid here and there, yet we know little of what actually happens to that money.
Original post by JonathanNorth
No mandate? The UN voted in Resolution 1973, so there is a mandate by the international community to respond.

Aside from stopping a genocide to where a leader of a country has stated that he would go house to house to kill people against his regime, and we are trying to stop it, where is there no moral justification?


Care to back up your genocide claims? How many people have died thus far? Does the Libyan army have the capacity to kill every person in Libya? Heck their air capacity got taken out in seconds, some power they have.

Also, love how the house to house thing is quoted to death by every one who believes that Gaddafi is the big bad wolf and the Imperialistic powers are the saviours, much akin to the endlessly quoted line attributed to Ahmedinjad of wiping the jews of the face of the planet. Oh look Israel still stands. And will not be going anyway any time soon, especially at the hands of Iran.

And think beyond what BBC has told you thus far. Get rid of Gaddafi leads to what? Civil war? Stability like democracy has brought Afghanistan and Iraq? Libya should try for democracy, and use peaceful protesters. In drowning down the garbage provided by mainstream news stations of the heinous creature that Gadaffi is, coincidently that picture only painted the past few weeks, we often forget the rebels turned violent too and so the situation is not as simple as the army going around killing harmless protesters.
Reply 188
Avatar for T.I.
T.I.
Original post by AndroidLight
Vast majority huh, you must know a lot of people living in Libya right? And this all ends when Gaddafi goes? Don't kid yourself, the justification shown to you by the UK of saving a majority of Libyans and removing a tyrannical dictator are simply justifications for the the current warfare. They wouldn't dare to mention what would happen next, lest the people of this country being able to think for themselves and realise this isn't going to pan out all fine and dandy, pretty much like every other situation when an Imperialistic power invades and destroys another country. Gaddafi goes, do we give the rebels power? How do we know the rebels are in majority? It could well be there are more Gaddaffi supporters. A civil war could break out, and then what? Fat load of good a 'no fly zone' will do then. Truth be told the imperialistic powers care very little as to what happens to the people of the nation, else they would have been dying to implement their lovely little no fly zones in places like Palestine two years ago when 1600 people were killed. They have their own objectives to achieve, one that will warrant the investment of arms they are putting in to destroying the Libyan army strength, and if that's achieved they care as to very little else. I would speculate heavily that is oil, and whether they wish to keep Gaddafi in charge or support one of their own back candidates in taking power in Libya through 'democratic' measures, is a moot point. As some guy once said, we learn from history that we learn very little from history. Same situation happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, the imperials went in happy, sprang out democracy and new leaders, yet the countries are still hell holes. Destroying a countries army power does not make the country better, in fact having that security can be a factor of development for the country.

Key questions to consider:
- How many rebels are there actually? I have seen no images of vast collections of people protesting, just a few jumped on top of cars/tanks with guns.
- How many Gadaffi supporters are there? They exist, but are given very little air time.
- How many actual casualties are there?
- The rebels are armed, and as such armed uprisings should merit a resistance from the powers in charge, regardless of how moronic they may be. Akin to armed protestors wanting to overthrow the UK's powers, the army would be spraying bullets quicker than you can say libya.
- What are the motivies of intervention? Why were all the large powers so eager to go in to intervene? Why do they care so little as to the violence occuring in Bahrain currently, and pay little attention to the killings of its own people inflicted by the Saudi Arabian monarchs? Why if we don't want to see people dying, why are we not dying to pay 3m a day for more radical measures to prevent the people of Africa from desolate poverty, and more seriously starvation? Some aid here and there, yet we know little of what actually happens to that money.



You sir, are an idiot.

That is all.

I shall not reply to any reply.

I refuse to talk to anyone who fails to read what i put properly.
Ok great, as you where then.
Reply 190
Avatar for freddy2222
freddy2222
OP
13
Original post by Aj12
Think I will get my News from other sources rather than channels backed by the Russian government that has been accused of spouting pro Kremlin propaganda or Press TV backed by the Iranian government.


and you dont think bbc sky fox etc etc etc all spout pro something news.

bbc are pro palestine.
sky are pro israel.

and thats just one thing they are pro.

if you watch fox you can see one extreme of the lies which news channels spout.

by watching rt and bbc and aljazeera and presstv, it is possible to get a bigger picture.

it just so happens that no matter what you think of rt news, the man they were interviewing was RIGHT he had my point of view on the subject of their reporting on libya, spot on. someone else thought about the information they were seeing, and thought not to take it for granted.
Reply 191
Avatar for Aj12
Aj12
18
Original post by robin22391
and you dont think bbc sky fox etc etc etc all spout pro something news.

bbc are pro palestine.
sky are pro israel.

and thats just one thing they are pro.

if you watch fox you can see one extreme of the lies which news channels spout.

by watching rt and bbc and aljazeera and presstv, it is possible to get a bigger picture.

it just so happens that no matter what you think of rt news, the man they were interviewing was RIGHT he had my point of view on the subject of their reporting on libya, spot on. someone else thought about the information they were seeing, and thought not to take it for granted.


From what I have seen of sky they are not at all pro Israel. Nor is the BBC really pro Palestine.

Fox is bias as hell which is why I avoid it. The BBC Al Jazeera will be far less bias than RT. A news channel that has also been accused of giving air to wild conspiracy theories.
Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links . So Gaddafi wasn't completely wrong when he said it was Al-Qaeda. Also, the center of the rebellion (North East) was once the world leader in recruiting suicide bombers. Obviously this doesn't justify his actions and I agree with the intervention but what's next for Libya if the "rebels" win out and are widely recognized as the new government? :confused:
(edited 13 years ago)
Reply 193
Avatar for Aj12
Aj12
18
Original post by thisisnew
Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links . So Gaddafi wasn't completely wrong when he said it was Al-Qaeda. Also, the center of the rebellion (North East) was once the world leader in recruiting suicide bombers. Obviously this doesn't justify his actions and I agree with the intervention but what's next for Libya if the "rebels" win out and are widely recognized as the new government? :confused:


This could damage Al Qaeda's propaganda. The West helping Muslims liberate themselves from an Infidel (Gadaffi). If we are lucky anyway.
Original post by Aj12

Original post by Aj12
This could damage Al Qaeda's propaganda. The West helping Muslims liberate themselves from an Infidel (Gadaffi). If we are lucky anyway.


Al Qaeda always show interest in a Muslim country when there's a battle going on there meaning they'll often encourage people to fight there on their behalf. Their presence in Libya and in the revolutions striking the region so far have been extremely limited or overshadowed by the sheer numbers of normal citizens involved in the uprising. Gaddafi has been incredibly unpopular in the region anyway so if/when he topples Al Qaeda will be completely drowned out by the millions of people who will be incredibly active in the rebuilding process. As long as there's free and fair elections I don't see the issue, hopefully the UN or EU will make provisions to ensure this happens. The EU being involved may be unpopular because of colonial history but there's a good chance France, Britain, Italy come out of this looking very good in Libya if they avoid a lot of civilian casualties and provide considerable assistance in the revolution. Just because a rebel commander has links to Al Qaeda it doesn't mean the whole rebellion is spoilt, he also disagrees with terrorism so is supportive of certain members of Al Qaeda rather than the institution itself. Rebel groups in the Middle East often have links to terrorism because that's where coups/regime change is plotted but we're looking at a very different situation if the entire population is behind such a move, it dilutes too much of the power so they lose practically all influence.
Original post by CombineHarvester
Just because a rebel commander has links to Al Qaeda


You make it sound like it's just one person. Did you read the other article?
Original post by thisisnew

Original post by thisisnew
You make it sound like it's just one person. Did you read the other article?


Yes, and? 112 is not a big number at all and of those 51 wanted to be suicide bombers. The relationship between LIFG and Al Qaeda is also grossly misinterpreted in that article and has little relevance in the nationwide uprising in Libya which involves millions of people. Currently the rebel leadership is a mixed bunch, many of the LIFGs involved in the militant aspect of the uprising are doing it because they hate Gaddafi (in fact the name of their organisation is anti-Gaddafi) rather than having any long term political credibility. Let's not forget they safely returned the SAS/MI6 officers who came armed into the rebel camp and have been keeping foreign journalists safe from gunfire/explosions. In any case, holding the revolution of millions of people to ransom because a few dozen people went to Iraq and apparently wanted to blow themselves up is ludicrous. This isn't a LIFG revolution by any means, it is a nationwide and possibly even a worldwide one.
Original post by CombineHarvester
Yes, and? 112 is not a big number at all and of those 51 wanted to be suicide bombers. The relationship between LIFG and Al Qaeda is also grossly misinterpreted in that article and has little relevance in the nationwide uprising in Libya which involves millions of people. Currently the rebel leadership is a mixed bunch, many of the LIFGs involved in the militant aspect of the uprising are doing it because they hate Gaddafi (in fact the name of their organisation is anti-Gaddafi) rather than having any long term political credibility. Let's not forget they safely returned the SAS/MI6 officers who came armed into the rebel camp and have been keeping foreign journalists safe from gunfire/explosions. In any case, holding the revolution of millions of people to ransom because a few dozen people went to Iraq and apparently wanted to blow themselves up is ludicrous. This isn't a LIFG revolution by any means, it is a nationwide and possibly even a worldwide one.


Stop trying to downplay it. 112 isn't a big number compared to what exactly? When viewed in context it's extremely alarming and what's more worrying is the fact that it's all concentrated around Benghazi etc, the core of the rebellion. Why on earth would they harm the SAS fighters? That would seriously jeopardize the help they're receiving from the West.

110 LIFG members were released prior to the revolution who were being held for trying to overthrow Gaddafi in the 90's in the hopes of creating an Islamic state. LIFG has announced its support for AQ and eventually became AQIM which lead to the surge of terrorists entering Iraq. The connection is pretty obvious. Even LIFG itself wants to turn Libya into an Islamic state as it views the current regime as corrupt and "anti-Muslim".

Considering the evidence provided in the article one must question the general attitude in the north/east of Libya. Obviously there are plenty of civilians protesting who simply want Gaddafi out but to deny the involvement of radicals is pretty stupid.

The point is that any long running instability caused by the revolution could make way for extremism. I mean assuming the rebels march on to victory what next? Do you believe they're going to turn on the LIFG/AQ members that have supported them in their rebellion, who share their hate for Gaddafi or do you think they'll "embrace" them?

Here's an interesting leaked cable on extremism in the east of Libya:
http://213.251.145.96/cable/2008/02/08TRIPOLI120.html

I think this is a good summary:

As former CIA operations officer Brian Fairchild writes, amid "the apparent absence of any plan for post-Gaddafi governance, an ignorance of Libya's tribal nature and our poor record of dealing with tribes, American government documents conclusively establish that the epicentre of the revolt is rife with anti-American and pro-jihad sentiment, and with al-Qaeda's explicit support for the revolt, it is appropriate to ask our policy makers how American military intervention in support of this revolt in any way serves vital US strategic interests".

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/76789,news-comment,news-politics,alexander-cockburn-libya-rebels-gaddafi-could-be-right-about-al-qaeda
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by thisisnew

Original post by thisisnew
Stop trying to downplay it. 112 isn't a big number compared to what exactly?


6.5m people.

When viewed in context it's extremely alarming and what's more worrying is the fact that it's all concentrated around Benghazi etc, the core of the rebellion.


Et Cetera doesn't make sense in that context, Benghazi provided 21 fighters and it's the second largest city in Libya. It's historically been home to quiet opposition to Gaddafi by its inhabitants and this sentiment has attracted militant recruiters but as previously mentioned only 21 people actually joined.

Why on earth would they harm the SAS fighters? That would seriously jeopardize the help they're receiving from the West.

110 LIFG members were released prior to the revolution who were being held for trying to overthrow Gaddafi in the 90's in the hopes of creating an Islamic state. LIFG has announced its support for AQ and eventually became AQIM which lead to the surge of terrorists entering Iraq. The connection is pretty obvious. Even LIFG itself wants to turn Libya into an Islamic state as it views the current regime as corrupt and "anti-Muslim".


Source? LIFG only has 100 members in total. If any of them were caught by Gaddafi they wouldn't be alive, he would notoriously kill and torture those who opposed him by simply speaking out against him (just take a look at the scores of missing persons from previous protests) so it's inconceivable that he'd let members of LIFG go who'd actively seek to destroy his regime. Remember, under Gaddafi anyone who opposed him was a terrorist and sent to prison. In 2008, according to Gaddafi's mouthpiece the "reformed members" of the group were released but there were hundreds still left in prison. Odd when you consider the LIFG is simply not that big, it's clear they were simply people who opposed Gaddafi but had "reformed" as a result of their experiences in prison - something very common under his regime.

Considering the evidence provided in the article one must question the general attitude in the north/east of Libya. Obviously there are plenty of civilians protesting who simply want Gaddafi out but to deny the involvement of radicals is pretty stupid.


No-one's denying the involvement of radicals? I even said they were involved but play an extremely minor role in the current revolution, previously they played a bigger part but that's because everyone in Libya was too scared to oppose Gaddafi so they made up a bigger proportion of those actively working against his regime.

The point is that any long running instability caused by the revolution could make way for extremism. I mean assuming the rebels march on to victory what next? Do you believe they're going to turn on the LIFG/AQ members that have supported them in their rebellion, who share their hate for Gaddafi or do you think they'll "embrace" them?


What? This revolution isn't about LIFG, it's about freedom and democracy, unless you've been under a rock the past few months you'll know that this has been the case for hundreds of millions of people in the Arab world, in Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, Yemen etc. The LIFG don't own/start this revolution, it's been sparked by the other countries in the region - namely Tunisia and Egypt.

Here's an interesting leaked cable on extremism in the east of Libya:
http://213.251.145.96/cable/2008/02/08TRIPOLI120.html

I think this is a good summary:


Clearly this is someone who doesn't want to repeat the mistakes of Afghanistan but this argument only works if the resistance was coming from a few tribal areas in isolation rather than the whole country and in fact international region. To say that a few tribes would be able to seize control of the revolution and the country is severely underestimating the magnitude of this uprising. There'd have to be a huge number of said militants/tribal members in order to do such a thing, we're talking a significant portion of the overall population such as in Afghanistan. This is simply not the case in Libya.
Regardless of their motives, their actions are saving the lives of innocent people.

You have to agree they are really trying their best not to screw this one up after all the bad press from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Seriously anything they could come up with would be infinitely better than the evil, appalling, terrible and disgusting gaddafi regime - 42 years without progressing the country one bit! Only leaving it to decay with collapsed health and education systems... The fascist Nazi Italian colonisers developed the country better than gaddafi rule...

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you