• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gaddafi's useful idiots.

Skeptic said:
If moral spotlessness were a requirement for a just war, the South in the USA would still be selling slaves because the North, too, had "racial disparities"; and the Nazis would still be ruling Europe because the USA and the UK, too, had "restrictions on labor organizations".

But there is simply no comparing the imperfections of the free democracies to the Libyan open-air insane asylum-cum-jail-cum-torture chamber Quadaffi made it.
Click to expand...

NWO Sentryman said:
RE: Gazpacho:

:wwt, are you SERIOUSLY comparing the faults (Issues with the Criminal Justice System frex) of the US to the Charnel house that is Libya?

And I don't recall prisoners being slaughtered en masse in the US for the lulz the way Gadaffi did in Libya.
Click to expand...
This is what I want to know, too.

Gazpacho, are you saying it's necessary to have a moral reason?

Or are you saying it's necessary to have the moral high ground?

Which is it? And why?
 
Moral reason and moral high ground are both off the menu when wars are launched on false pretenses (e.g the attack on Libya).
 
Do you deny that Gaddafi's forces were carrying out massacres of demonstrators?
 
NWO Sentryman said:
RE: Gazpacho:

:wwt, are you SERIOUSLY comparing the faults (Issues with the Criminal Justice System frex) of the US to the Charnel house that is Libya?
Click to expand...

Hyperbole much?

And I don't recall prisoners being slaughtered en masse in the US for the lulz the way Gadaffi did in Libya
Click to expand...

You refer to the singular prison uprising in Tripoli (Abu Salim was it?) Wasn't the death toll there reported as 1,200 in a one-sided slaughter? I've heard that was based on the count of one guy, he said from counting the number of lunch trays he was responsible for - it dropped to like 25% after, he says. Other evidence suggests the number was more like 120. I hear there was a riot involved, where many prison guards were killed before a single prisoner was. It happened in 1996, the same time as an assassination attempt on Gaddafi by, more or less, al Qaeda and MI6. And an uprising in Benghazi, put down violently.

Plus, it was fifteen years ago and a lot has changed there since then. Better examples?

Virus said:
Do you deny that Gaddafi's forces were carrying out massacres of demonstrators?
Click to expand...

Does it matter if I do? In fact, the evidence I'm seeing suggests most or all of the violence was two-sided and occurred as "demonstrators" tried to storm police stations, army bases, and the like. They were always armed, first with household stuff, quickly in spots graduating to fully pro gear gotten through defections or succesful weapons raids. People died on both sides.

ETA: And remember, it's all but proven that these 21 government soldiers were captured in the fighting and later executed by rebels, their corpses cursed in the morning. Yet "Libyan rights groups" swore Gaddafi killed these heroes because they refused the specific order to shoot protesters. The world believed it.

Consider a video from Tripoli, and PLEASE don't get hung up on the source, consider what's said and SHOWN, if you consider anything. It explains with some evidence how this happened country-wide in a co-ordinated effort. And consider the attack on the "Katiba" barracks in Benghazi (different name given there - Obama Barrack, but pronounced like the president's name?). Starting 8:34 - for days they renewed attacks on the compound, whatever you call it, Feb 17, 18, 19, and 20. By the 20th, they had used heavy tractors, small bombs, dynamite, and a tank or APC to breach the walls. And a suicide bomber with a very powerful car bomb (verified elsewhere) plus tanks and artillery firing on it, says that video anyway (9:25 - shows the weapons in situ).

And here are peaceful protesters at the gate of another barrack in Benghazi, firing in with a machine gun. Later, an ambulance drives out and they celebrate. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a charnel house, but it was ugly days, and Libya's still getting bombed over how "we understood it to be."

What of that do you deny? Would you be the first to show me video or photographic proof that someone just protesting, not fighting, was shot by government forces, once? More than once? The months just before this had told them protest equals successful regime change, and it seems they just flipped the equation backwards. Regime change by any and all means is then protest, and even defensive fire will be on "protesters."
 
Last edited:
Also, newsflash: Amnesty International become Gaddafi's latest useful idiots.

Nato leaders, opposition groups and the media have produced a stream of stories since the start of the insurrection on 15 February, claiming the Gaddafi regime has ordered mass rapes, used foreign mercenaries and employed helicopters against civilian protesters.

An investigation by Amnesty International has failed to find evidence for these human rights violations and in many cases has discredited or cast doubt on them.
Click to expand...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...fi-ordered-rape-as-weapon-of-war-2302037.html

And the baby snipers slur we've already slayed here. ... it's getting thin, NATO disinfo supporters.
 
 
I'd like to preface this post by saying the following.

1. I do not like the attitude the US regularly shows whereby they sanction and attack nations that they do not like, whether this dislike is built on actual reasonable grounds or just electing someone they weren't fans of.

2. I am left wing. Very left wing. I oppose violence as much as it is realistic to do so, and I freely criticise anyone I think needs criticising. This includes nations such as Israel and the US, as well as scum-sucking groups like say, Hamas or pro-fascist groups.

3. Virus has, as usual, done himself and those who are mostly (or entirely) in agreement with him on this issue a great disservice.

4. I am generally in support of NATO but will criticise them when they overstep the mark or lie about something to make themselves look better. That being said:

Caustic Logic said:
Also, newsflash: Amnesty International become Gaddafi's latest useful idiots.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...fi-ordered-rape-as-weapon-of-war-2302037.html

And the baby snipers slur we've already slayed here. ... it's getting thin, NATO disinfo supporters.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't trust an Amnesty International investigation to show that the Sun was hot.

They're not exactly an entirely credible organisation, preferring to put the world's thickest blinders on when dealing with some individuals.
 
Last edited:
Caustic Logic said:
What of that do you deny? Would you be the first to show me video or photographic proof that someone just protesting, not fighting, was shot by government forces, once? More than once? The months just before this had told them protest equals successful regime change, and it seems they just flipped the equation backwards. Regime change by any and all means is then protest, and even defensive fire will be on "protesters."
Click to expand...

If you cannot find decent new cast to watch it is not our fault. Just keep on believing all your woo nonsense.

Tell me again how you judge someones nationality from a picture?
 
MarkCorrigan said:
I'd like to preface this post by saying the following.

1. I do not like the attitude the US regularly shows whereby they sanction and attack nations that they do not like, whether this dislike is built on actual reasonable grounds or just electing someone they weren't fans of.

2. I am left wing. Very left wing. I oppose violence as much as it is realistic to do so, and I freely criticise anyone I think needs criticising. This includes nations such as Israel and the US, as well as scum-sucking groups like say, Hamas or pro-fascist groups.

3. Virus has, as usual, done himself and those who are mostly (or entirely) in agreement with him on this issue a great disservice.

4. I am generally in support of NATO but will criticise them when they overstep the mark or lie about something to make themselves look better. That being said:



I wouldn't trust an Amnesty International investigation to show that the Sun was hot.

They're not exactly an entirely credible organisation, preferring to put the world's thickest blinders on when dealing with some individuals.
Click to expand...


What do you mean by:

1) "Very left wing."

2) "scum-sucking"

?
 
JihadJane said:
What do you mean by:

1) "Very left wing."

2) "scum-sucking"

?
Click to expand...

I'm economically socialist, socially very liberal. I believe that government regulation is needed in industry (particularly with regard to high risk business) and I'm a big believer in the value of the public sector. I believe that front-line public sector workers (teachers, nurses, waste disposal workers etc.) are more deserving of support than private sector workers in terms of things like pensions, and I'm fuly behind single payer UHC in every nation where it would be the best system, and other forms of UHC in nations that might differ.

I'm a big supporter of high taxes for those who can afford it, and I consider the attempts to abolish taxes such as inheritance tax to be underhanded and shameful. I think that the current scope of nationalised industry in the UK is far too little, and I often find myself fully supporting more left wing governments or political people. I have more in common with the Democrats in the US than the republicans, but most of them would be too far to the right for me if they were UK politicians. During the last presidential election I took a quiz (about 150 questions I think it was) to tell me which of all the candidates running at the very beginning of the primaries I was closest to in policy, and I got Mike Gravel.

I'm a democratic socialist, tempered by some realism and a healthy distaste for most groups who claim to stand up for human rights but actually ignore gross offences because the people they want to attack are on the end of them (groups that supported say, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam or those who support Hezbollah). My personal favourite politician of the last 25 years, if not last 50 would be Mikhail Gorbachev.

I am not, however, a Communist, either literal or Stalinist/Leninist/Trotskyite/Maoist or any other flavour you can think of. It's not a viable system.

When I say scumsucking, I mean vile degenerate groups who have no wish for peaceful diplomacy and instead seek genocide and violent retribution for any and all crimes both real and imagined. Frequently they also claim to champion the rights or welfare of a particular group of people, while actually abusing, maltreating and generally using them like a five dollar hooker. Any group that claims to want to protect civilians but fires mortars out of schools or hospitals say, or who routinely divert money meant for aid to buy munitions or line the pockets of Warlords and corrupt politicians. Hamas, for example. For non Islamic groups, I'd also take the aforementioned (and now thankfully defunct) Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam or the IRA.

To intercept a possible question, no I do not consider Israel to be among the groups I loathe so much. Do they do bad things? Yep. Do Israeli soldiers kill civilians? Yep. Is it sometimes avoidable? Almost certainly. Do they have outlined in their articles of war, constitution or other binding documents, or have they ever shown an inclination or appetite for genocide?

No. They haven't. Israel could probably have butchered virtually all of the Palestinians living within Gaza given the high tech weapons, large army (for the size of the nation) and exceptional efficiency, but they haven't. The military actions of Israel have time and time again showed a very very low level of collateral damage when compared with recent wars, and while I don't agree with all the sanctions they impose upon Gaza and the West Bank, they are hardly callous tyrants.

One major, MAJOR problem I have with Israel is the constant illegal building of settlements in non-Israeli land. These should stop immediately, and the Settlements already built should be demolished once the settlers have been found locations to relocate to. However since the PA might actually be economically linked to settlement building (and many settlements are built by arab contractors) I don't think that will end any time soon.

That answer your questions?
 
funk de fino said:
If you cannot find decent new cast to watch it is not our fault. Just keep on believing all your woo nonsense.
Click to expand...

A new cast to watch? What is this to you, a sitcom? Where's your hangup here, Mr. trust the news as it shown and call all other information they cut out "woo nonsense"?

Tell me again how you judge someones nationality from a picture?
Click to expand...

Well, if you see a black man and he's not a friend or a known rebel supporter, he's clearly one of African mercenaries you heard about in the twiter rumors and deserving of lynching, fire, or dismemberment. That's how your heroes do it, Mr. harp on and on about one probably bad, imaginative, maybe guess, that I made a couple months ago.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
I'm economically socialist, socially very liberal. I believe that government regulation is needed in industry (particularly with regard to high risk business) and I'm a big believer in the value of the public sector. I believe that front-line public sector workers (teachers, nurses, waste disposal workers etc.) are more deserving of support than private sector workers in terms of things like pensions, and I'm fuly behind single payer UHC in every nation where it would be the best system, and other forms of UHC in nations that might differ.

I'm a big supporter of high taxes for those who can afford it, and I consider the attempts to abolish taxes such as inheritance tax to be underhanded and shameful. I think that the current scope of nationalised industry in the UK is far too little, and I often find myself fully supporting more left wing governments or political people. I have more in common with the Democrats in the US than the republicans, but most of them would be too far to the right for me if they were UK politicians. During the last presidential election I took a quiz (about 150 questions I think it was) to tell me which of all the candidates running at the very beginning of the primaries I was closest to in policy, and I got Mike Gravel.

I'm a democratic socialist, tempered by some realism and a healthy distaste for most groups who claim to stand up for human rights but actually ignore gross offences because the people they want to attack are on the end of them (groups that supported say, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam or those who support Hezbollah). My personal favourite politician of the last 25 years, if not last 50 would be Mikhail Gorbachev.

I wouldn't call that very left wing. Sounds pretty middle of the road.

I am not, however, a Communist, either literal or Stalinist/Leninist/Trotskyite/Maoist or any other flavour you can think of. It's not a viable system.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call that very left wing. Sounds pretty middle of the road.

When I say scumsucking, I mean vile degenerate groups who have no wish for peaceful diplomacy and instead seek genocide and violent retribution for any and all crimes both real and imagined. Frequently they also claim to champion the rights or welfare of a particular group of people, while actually abusing, maltreating and generally using them like a five dollar hooker. Any group that claims to want to protect civilians but fires mortars out of schools or hospitals say, or who routinely divert money meant for aid to buy munitions or line the pockets of Warlords and corrupt politicians. Hamas, for example. For non Islamic groups, I'd also take the aforementioned (and now thankfully defunct) Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam or the IRA.

To intercept a possible question, no I do not consider Israel to be among the groups I loathe so much. Do they do bad things? Yep. Do Israeli soldiers kill civilians? Yep. Is it sometimes avoidable? Almost certainly. Do they have outlined in their articles of war, constitution or other binding documents, or have they ever shown an inclination or appetite for genocide?

No. They haven't. Israel could probably have butchered virtually all of the Palestinians living within Gaza given the high tech weapons, large army (for the size of the nation) and exceptional efficiency, but they haven't. The military actions of Israel have time and time again showed a very very low level of collateral damage when compared with recent wars, and while I don't agree with all the sanctions they impose upon Gaza and the West Bank, they are hardly callous tyrants.

One major, MAJOR problem I have with Israel is the constant illegal building of settlements in non-Israeli land. These should stop immediately, and the Settlements already built should be demolished once the settlers have been found locations to relocate to. However since the PA might actually be economically linked to settlement building (and many settlements are built by arab contractors) I don't think that will end any time soon.

That answer your questions?
Click to expand...

I don't share your apparent preoccupation with Israel but virtually all governments pretend to protect the people while, in reality, they are protecting their own class interests and sponsors.

I still have no image of what "scumsucking" means. From where is this word derived? Who are the scum?
 
JihadJane said:
I wouldn't call that very left wing. Sounds pretty middle of the road.
Click to expand...
What would you call left wing then?

I'm considered to be pretty left wing in the UK (supporting actual Socialist parties rather than lunatics who say they are Socialist) and thus for the US, I'm exceptionally left wing.

I'm old Labour. Old old Labour. Atlee-was-the-best-Prime-Minister-ever old Labour. If that's not pretty damn left wing I'd like to know what is. Pro-tip though, any political party or organisation with "workers" or "socialist" in the name is normally Communist. Communism is...ridiculously naive to say the least.

JihadJane said:
I don't share your apparent preoccupation with Israel
Click to expand...
A leftover from university. I did my International Relations dissertation on the Middle East.
JihadJane said:
but virtually all governments pretend to protect the people while, in reality, they are protecting their own class interests and sponsors.
Click to expand...
On some level, certainly, but I don't see the US or UK governments doing what Hamas does on a regular basis. The fact that they have the gall to claim that Israel are attacking civilians when they themselves intentionally abuse them (while claiming to represent them) is disgusting. Similarly, most "people's" governments the world over are horrific dictatorships or other tyrannical regimes that abuse their own people without a qualm or care in the world while pumping hideously inaccurate and paranoid propaganda into their homes daily.

Incidentally, if you're about to accuse the governments of most liberal democracies of doing the exact same thing, I have no idea how to respond to such slack-jawed idiocy. For anyone to claim that the government of the US, no matter how far it pushes the envelope is even in the same league as say, Burma or Iran shows a distinct lack of any perspective or grasp on reality. It's the retreat of the paranoid, the insane and the truly stupid. Just saying.
JihadJane said:
I still have no image of what "scumsucking" means. From where is this word derived? Who are the scum?
Click to expand...
You've never heard the term scum-sucking (yes, forgot the hyphen) before? I'm curious as to where you're from, because I thought it was a fairly common slang term in a number of Western countries.
 
Caustic Logic said:
A new cast to watch? What is this to you, a sitcom? Where's your hangup here, Mr. trust the news as it shown and call all other information they cut out "woo nonsense"?
Click to expand...

Seems you saw nothing on the news at all in the early days. Just went to a few woo sites after the fact.

Well, if you see a black man and he's not a friend or a known rebel supporter, he's clearly one of African mercenaries you heard about in the twiter rumors and deserving of lynching, fire, or dismemberment. That's how your heroes do it, Mr. harp on and on about one probably bad, imaginative, maybe guess, that I made a couple months ago.
Click to expand...

I have no heroes in the news media and do not use twitter. You were not mentioning the black men were you? "Probably bad" is an understatement. It is why no-one takes your stuff seriously.
 
Virus said:
When you use airstrikes and artillery to put down protests you bring it on yourself. Instead of doing that, he shouldn't have done it.
Click to expand...

But...but...but tyrants are SOVEREIGN! They seized power fair and square! They're supposed to be allowed to do whatever they want. Don't you understand? It's the status quo. Evils of the past and present must forever be propagated, in the interest of Simian Consistency.
 
Toontown said:
But...but...but tyrants are SOVEREIGN! They seized power fair and square! They're supposed to be allowed to do whatever they want. Don't you understand? It's the status quo. Evils of the past and present must forever be propagated, in the interest of Simian Consistency.
Click to expand...

There´s plenty of tyrannical regimes around. I don´t see the US attacking Burma or North Korea.
 
Johny2x4 said:
There´s plenty of tyrannical regimes around. I don´t see the US attacking Burma or North Korea.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of stupid arguments around. Your childlike belief in the infinite nature of U.S. power, combined with an equally bizarre belief in the equivalency of all superficially similar sets of circumstances, has apparently re-spawned that threadbare fallacy you present, for the zillionth time.

If you ever get a clue about reality, let me know. In the meantime, I would prefer that you spare me the incomprehensible details of your thought processes.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom