Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robin22391)
    this is not an argument, i watched the news, flicking between bbc and russiatoday for about 3 hours and i am disgusted at the reporting of the bbc, at least the russians try to keep a non biased view
    The Russians try to keep a non biased view??? This statement just shows your lack of intelligence and knowledge. Russia's media system is heavily censored by the government, incredibly biased and nr 153 on the freedom of press index.

    Do some research first before spouting utter bs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom...ian_Federation


    the best source would be al jazeera, certainly not russia. how laughable.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yituool)
    Oh please enlighten me, what is the secret agenda this time?
    the agenda is not a secret, propaganda is another word for information, it is called strategy just like chess, if lying to the people is enough to take out an enemy then it will be so. just as they lied about iraq.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robin22391)
    im not a conspiracy theorist, what a ridiculous use of words btw. I am a truth'er, i believe in the truth. it angers me to see lies and i want evidence of things that are presented to me that may be false.

    i have never said that those pilots never had those orders, but they did not actually do it did they, and that they are all supposedly french....


    most of these bombings have not been verified and these media outlets stressed that.
    You're not a "truth'er", you're just some retard with a delusion of grandeur who is searching for conspiracies that don't exist
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Of course intervening in Libya serves an ulterior motive for the West because had it not, they would've intervened to stop this in Bahrain. Either way, Gaddafi is insane and he should've ended this along time ago. He could've kept his billions, didn't have a looming ICC warrant on his head and most of all spared Libyan lives.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Leonie01)
    The Russians try to keep a non biased view??? This statement just shows your lack of intelligence and knowledge. Russia's media system is heavily censored by the government, incredibly biased and nr 153 on the freedom of press index.

    Do some research first before spouting utter bs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom...ian_Federation


    the best source would be al jazeera, certainly not russia. how laughable.

    if you read my post originale you would see that i was referring to RT news, in particular their reporting over the last few days on libya. not the entirity of the russian media. i watched rt and they had views from both sides good journalism.
    the bbc had very bad journalism according to them spurious reports were facts.

    also consider that when saddam invaded kuwait, the pricess of kuwait who lived in washington appeared on the bbc acting pretending she was a kuwait nurse in kuwait , she lied by saying that iraq troops killed babies by smashing them off of walls.A complete LIE.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ts-reveal.html

    How come all of this weaponry was authorised to go to Gaddafi in 2009?

    Had we not worked out in the past 40 years what he was like? Did we think he was going to use this weaponry for peace-keeping missions?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2ndClass)
    Of course intervening in Libya serves an ulterior motive for the West because had it not, they would've intervened to stop this in Bahrain. Either way, Gaddafi is insane and he should've ended this along time ago. He could've kept his billions, didn't have a looming ICC warrant on his head and most of all spared Libyan lives.

    this is the answer i was looking for, spot on, i cant tell what is happening in libya but im sure it is worse elsewhere, and gaddafi is most likely a bad person who i would not want as the leader of my country. maybe libya should split.

    but i am certain that i do not like the people being lied to, no matter what strategic reason there is to kill libyans.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by don'tyouremember?)
    i don't believe it is our place to get involved. we've already made stupid decisions when it comes to Libya (Blair being a hypocrite...) so now we're surprised that they're going crazy with the **** that we sold them.
    we're all friendly when it benefits us and not when it doesn't. wading in and killing them won't help. it's not our place and we shouldn't be there.
    i will not support our evolvement in this because sometimes countries need to sort themselves out...

    people are being killed all over the world. we can't go in everywhere!!
    You do realize we've sat back for a while with the middle east/Arab states and tried to let them sort themselves out right? This rebellion recently in Tunisia, egypt etc didn't suddenly happen and it's been brewing for years and years and NEEDED to happen to let democracy take place. It involves letting the people in their own country take responsibility and control, sometimes a civil war however Gadaffi took one step out of line too many and it wouldn't be responsible of a large nation such as the UK, France etc who have the money, army to intervene.

    If the world had the attitude of 'let them sort themselves out' over wars, natural disasters etc when thousands are being innocently killed, children starving, economy's collapsing- id rather not live in that.

    Ofcourse we're friendly with countries for our benefit...they don't call it international RFLATIONS for a reason.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robin22391)
    if you read my post originale you would see that i was referring to RT news, in particular their reporting over the last few days on libya. not the entirity of the russian media. i watched rt and they had views from both sides good journalism.
    the bbc had very bad journalism according to them spurious reports were facts.

    also consider that when saddam invaded kuwait, the pricess of kuwait who lived in washington appeared on the bbc acting pretending she was a kuwait nurse in kuwait , she lied by saying that iraq troops killed babies by smashing them off of walls.A complete LIE.

    Well you said " the russians." But RT news is still far from unbiased, you really need to do your research, it is known for propaganda, false reporting and being influenced by the government. So your claims are hereby dismissed.

    I dont see how the bbc was responsible for someone else lying. It isnt unusual that people fool journalists and lie and has most certainly happened to every single news outlet. If a news outlet intentionally spreads false information that is a different issue.

    I dont watch BBC news and havent paid attention to their Libya reporting although i am pretty sure that it will be more truthful than that of RT, since they have higher standards and less regulations.

    As i said before though Al Jazeera is the best one though.

    Funny how you seem to focus on the lies by western governments but refuse to acknowledge the lies and delusions by the Gaddafi regimes, lying about cease fires, al qaida attacking his country and the rebels having had drugs in their drinks.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yituool)
    You're not a "truth'er", you're just some retard with a delusion of grandeur who is searching for conspiracies that don't exist

    you are a moron clearly, you have never met me and your impression of me is from my writings on tsr forums.

    by saying im a truther i am trying to give the clearest possible message without speaking to you face to face that i am looking for the truth in all things, that is why i am a scientist, i enjoy it.

    you will find that conspiracies do exist and im sure if you look up the definition of that word you will see that nato implementing its strategic aims is a conspiracy.

    if you honestly think nato would go to this trouble just for saving libyans you are seriously deluded.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I'm fed up with people saying that it is inconsistent to attack Gadaffi but not the other fascists in the East and therefore we shouldn't intervene. But this is absolute bull****. The inconsistency isn't an argument against intervening in Libya but for intervening in those other fascist states. Unfortunately The West is already overstretched and so we must pick our battles carefully.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ts-reveal.html

    How come all of this weaponry was authorised to go to Gaddafi in 2009?

    Had we not worked out in the past 40 years what he was like? Did we think he was going to use this weaponry for peace-keeping missions?
    Because in 1993 Gadaffi changed his approach to foreign affairs and became 'friendly' with western countries gradually, partly because 95% of their trade was petroleum. So naturally with this country being seen to take a new approach in the international community, arms trades naturally take place.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Leonie01)
    Well you said " the russians." But RT news is still far from unbiased, you really need to do your research, it is known for propaganda, false reporting and being influenced by the government. So your claims are hereby dismissed.

    I dont see how the bbc was responsible for someone else lying. It isnt unusual that people fool journalists and lie and has most certainly happened to every single news outlet. If a news outlet intentionally spreads false information that is a different issue.

    I dont watch BBC news and havent paid attention to their Libya reporting although i am pretty sure that it will be more truthful than that of RT, since they have higher standards and less regulations.

    As i said before though Al Jazeera is the best one though.

    Funny how you seem to focus on the lies by western governments but refuse to acknowledge the lies and delusions by the Gaddafi regimes, lying about cease fires, al qaida attacking his country and the rebels having had drugs in their drinks.
    well i focus on my own governments lies obviously, and its friends.

    i did watch al jazeera too and they did stress, unlike the bbc, that reports were unverified. however i watched rt and for those hours it was not being biased, for example it interviewed american scholars who said it was obviously them taking their opportunity to control libya, they also showed the other side and broadcast the reports that journalists were hearing on the ground, so dont dismiss their reporting so much, it was almost the same as everyone elses.

    they did say that the russian army could see no signs of bombing, which they should have been able to detect.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robin22391)
    .
    See the thing that really irritates me is not that you think you're right, there are lots of idiots out there, but that you are using this horrible situation in which millions are suffering to make yourself feel good by trying to look special and different to others.

    People are dying, you denying their suffering is insulting
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robin22391)
    Libya another country with oil.

    since when does a no-fly zone involve destroying tanks?

    where is the evidence of the apparent massacres of unarmed civilians, where are the videos of libyan bombs dropped from jets killing people, why did i only find out today than the rebels also have jets, where are all the pictures of the government jets,why is the news so biased, why did france recognise basically the libyan version of the ira as a government,where is all the journalistic evidence???.

    And why did the SAS land in a mi6 agents back garden in a helicopter dressed in black with a bag full of explosives and then claim that it was a diplomatic mission when they were captured?


    Also why all the focus on libya, what about all the other countries like bahrain and saudi arabia.

    This is clearly a plan to take out libya no matter the cost in lives, while they still can.


    Because the no fly zone is to protect civilians, destroying tanks does this. Idiot.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beepbeeprichie)
    I'm fed up with people saying that it is inconsistent to attack Gadaffi but not the other fascists in the East and therefore we shouldn't intervene. But this is absolute bull****. The inconsistency isn't an argument against intervening in Libya but for intervening in those other fascist states. Unfortunately The West is already overstretched and so we must pick our battles carefully.

    they dont intervene against them because they are allies, usa doesnt have bases in libya however.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    You're on a level with Gaddafi in the crazy stakes.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by T.I.)
    Because the no fly zone is to protect civilians, destroying tanks does this. Idiot.

    look you moron, "no-fly zone" means no flying. it does not mean killing libyans. in a civil war libya has every right to use tanks on rebels.

    who are we to decide that the rebels are in the right, and then bomb libyan tanks killing people.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robin22391)
    was that verified?

    i doubt they would get jets to fire on unarmed protestors, they can barely get a plane off the ground without it blowing up.

    gadaffi may be crazy and he may order terrible things but did the paratroopers not kill 14 brittish protestors in the 70s, i am complaining about the lies the governments like the uk and france usa etc spout just so they can invade places or change dictators.

    That same regiment is the same reason you even have freedom of speech, son. Show some ****ing respect. It was never proven either way who shot first.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robin22391)
    look you moron, "no-fly zone" means no flying. it does not mean killing libyans. in a civil war libya has every right to use tanks on rebels.

    who are we to decide that the rebels are in the right, and then bomb libyan tanks killing people.
    It's a fairly commonly accepted rule that tanks should not be used to kill civilians en masse.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.