[POLL] NATO/UN's Action justified to Kill Gaddafi's Son? Watch

Poll: Was NATO's action justified?
Yes! of course! (31)
31.96%
No! Obviously not! (47)
48.45%
I have no opinion of this. (9)
9.28%
Maybe? (10)
10.31%
Kenocide
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#41
Report 7 years ago
#41
I'd be interested to see a poll on this: Do you consider Gaddafi's son a civilian? And if not, what about his grandchildren?
0
reply
Brandmon
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#42
Report 7 years ago
#42
(Original post by ak137)
Libya: Supported by USA and other countries for 40 years, why not take him down earlier if they were so concerned about human life.
This has to stand out as one of your finest examples. Tell that to Ronald Reagan :lol:


So first you argue that the Imperalists of Amerika are attacked every country, while now you are arguing that they support every country. Keep some consistency? That would help with trying to understand the mess you are trying to put to the table.

Now go do your homework while I continue my discussion with a more intelligent being. Thanks

(Original post by viksta1000)
Yes there is! ....the reason you haven't heard about them is explained in the link http://www.allvoices.com/contributed...and-censorship
I know a friend that lives in Saudi Arabia and he confirmed that there is dissent but not at the scale as in Libya or Egypt or even Yemen. It mostly has to do with the fact that the situation is not as bad a Libya's. A similar situation in Bahrain I believe. But I will further elaborate later in my post why democracy is not what is being demanded.

(Original post by viksta1000)
No. They were not 'lead' Afghanistan had nothing to do with anything whatsoever, they unfortunately just happened to be the location where the Taliban happened to hide.... perhaps due to its remote geography :confused:
Clearly you were not following the news in the late 1990s or you are simply too young to remember. In any case, I am certain that this will answer your doubts.


(Original post by viksta1000)
Oh really, is that all? So Mugabe and Kim Jong must be a saints compared to hussain in the sense that they never attracted US intervention?.....it was oil!
If it was the oil, why did the US economy crash a few years later. I would have though that if they had stole the oil, the prices would get lower and the economy improved.

Also much could be said about your disregard of human lives by the way you simply reply to "thousands killed" with "is that all?". I guess its a clue on why you are against bombing another fellow murderer in the first place. :rolleyes:

(Original post by viksta1000)
ah right, so that must be it :confused:, Saudi leaders just 'exercise' the death penalty...does that still not involve killing civilians just as the leaders above? Atleast the other allowed news groups in jounalists into their country, Saudi Arabia have arrested and beaten journalists that have entered and even banned protests.

I thought a democracy is the reason why NATO is in Libya in the first place, so why is Saudi Arabia any different?
How is the death penalty different, if not worse than life imprisonment? The law could easily imprison for life someone to shut him up instead of killing him. The innocent rarely receive the death sentence anyway. Deliberate bombing with Jet Fighters built to fight wars is simply inexcusable.

Also you seem to think that the primary motivator is democracy: it ain't. The prime motivator is change. In all cases of major unrest, the people demanded the head of state to step down as he is the primary reason for the corruption and stagnated situation for their country. Only after he steps down can fresh blood take over the country and the country given a bright future. Increased representation (what you call democracy) is then only natural to ensure this process proceeds in a stable way.

The difference between Saudi Arabia and Libya is that while Saudi Arabia took active measures in response to answer the people's unrest early, the Libyan government simply used army equipment on its own people. It is no wonder that now Libya is divided in two and I am glad that the rest of the world is supporting the just one.
0
reply
ak137
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#43
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#43
(Original post by Brandmon)
This has to stand out as one of your finest examples. Tell that to Ronald Reagan :lol:


So first you argue that the Imperalists of Amerika are attacked every country, while now you are arguing that they support every country. Keep some consistency? That would help with trying to understand the mess you are trying to put to the table.

Now go do your homework while I continue my discussion with a more intelligent being. Thanks
Reagan attacked Libya in retaliation of the 'Lockerbie bombing', not to save the millions of Libyan civilians he was slaughtering.

No, you are misunderstanding me and twisting my argument. Let me put it to you in layman's terms. the imperialist and colnelial interest of America has supported Gaddafi, Saddam (Iran-Iraq war), Bin Laden (fighting of communism), (to name a few) etc

Then what do they do? Throw their puppet away once the strings get loose. Ie: dehumanise them by calling them terrorists and invade their country until there no is oil left.
0
reply
Brandmon
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#44
Report 7 years ago
#44
(Original post by ak137)
Reagan attacked Libya in retaliation of the 'Lockerbie bombing', not to save the millions of Libyan civilians he was slaughtering.

No, you are misunderstanding me and twisting my argument. Let me put it to you in layman's terms. the imperialist and colnelial interest of America has supported Gaddafi, Saddam (Iran-Iraq war), Bin Laden (fighting of communism), (to name a few) etc

Then what do they do? Throw their puppet away once the strings get loose. Ie: dehumanise them by calling them terrorists and invade their country until there no is oil left.
The only support I'd confirm with is that of Saddam. Else the US didn't ever support Gaddafi and the CIA actually didn't support Bin Laden directly but rather other entities with the Mujahadeen, such as the Northern Alliance, which would later support the US in its 2001 campaign.

And that etc is at two things:

i) Right wing dictators, which is fortunately by now a thing of the past and quickly declining

ii) Us (Yeah, tell them to go away! Who needs them!)

Also LOL there, at your assuming there was oil in Afghanistan.

And I'm sorry that I am proving your arguments wrong, but it is certainly not twisting your arguments. The quotes are proof enough to the others about what you said :rolleyes:
0
reply
Golly-Gosh
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#45
Report 7 years ago
#45
the UN/NATO are just as bad as Gadaffi and all the other dictators. playing with innocent people's lives.
0
reply
ak137
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#46
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#46
(Original post by Brandmon)
The only support I'd confirm with is that of Saddam. Else the US didn't ever support Gaddafi and the CIA actually didn't support Bin Laden directly but rather other entities with the Mujahadeen, such as the Northern Alliance, which would later support the US in its 2001 campaign.

And that etc is at two things:

i) Right wing dictators, which is fortunately by now a thing of the past and quickly declining

ii) Us (Yeah, tell them to go away! Who needs them!)

Also LOL there, at your assuming there was oil in Afghanistan.

And I'm sorry that I am proving your arguments wrong, but it is certainly not twisting your arguments. The quotes are proof enough to the others about what you said :rolleyes:
Once again you have avoided my main points. Osama bin laden was supported military against the communist threat in afghanistan by the US, no one asked the US to get involved.

Also, America and its Allies have invaded Afghanistan and stole its natural resources FOUR times in the last millenium.

Please, open your mind, think about those innocent children being killed by the British soldiers and from their you will see the same face in the mirror.
0
reply
Peachykeen09
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#47
Report 7 years ago
#47
not only did NATO do that but they also bombed a school for disabled children. why?
0
reply
Maker
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#48
Report 7 years ago
#48
(Original post by ak137)
Brainwashed by BBC and Sky News eh?

You know of any wars that dosen't involve people being killed?

(Original post by ak137)


NATO has no right whatsoever to interfere with foreign entities, let alone exercise military operations.

Lets say this: next time theres a election in britain (in 2015 i think?) we'll ask the civilians of the countries we have invaded on the opinion on our candidates. What..? no..? you saying thats not a good idea? Well what right do we have to DICTATE what state they should live in!

(sorry, last bit wasnt aimed at you directly)
You seem to be under the impression that countries "own" the people living in them and can do with them as the please such as kill and torture them at will. NATO is doing what civilised countries should do, protect those who can't protect themselves wherever they are.

If the British government somehow started killing its own citizens without due process, I hope NATO bombs the government and its power structures.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (535)
37.84%
No - but I will (110)
7.78%
No - I don't want to (96)
6.79%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (673)
47.6%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed