Libya`s ``Government`` in Disarray After Largest Party Quits ``Congress``

If you have a problem with Darla, you're talking to the wrong person to talk about it with.

Your comments are almost childish. Gaddafi didn't have the opportunity????

He's been in power for 40 years. What the hell do you mean that he didn't have the opportunity?

Most importantly, fuck the colonialist UK contribution, fuck the UK. They are like our puppy dog that the US trains to do our bidding whenever and wherever we tell it to.

You're real anxious to see American troops committed to needless wars for profit .. while we lead our puppy nation of England and it's sorry-ass contingent into battles like the destruction of Iraq.

What? You can talk shit about other nations, but oh the outrage when I talk about England?

I suggested to you that there was nothing to gain for either of us with this conversation.

I hate colonialism and the needless for-profit destruction of human life and societies.

I don't know how much more clear or plain I can say that to you.

I was totally and implacably against the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and 100% for the war in Afghanistan. For you to characterise it as a colonial war is laughable and shows that your whole language is imbued with the vocabulary of agitprop student politics. You sound like a US version of Mugabe whilst trying to justify laying waste to the one of the most fertile countries in Africa and blaming it on colonialism.

Was the war against Serbia a colonial war? There the West was saving Muslims from attack, how does fit into your world view?
 
I was totally and implacably against the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and 100% for the war in Afghanistan. For you to characterise it as a colonial war is laughable and shows that your whole language is imbued with the vocabulary of agitprop student politics. You sound like a US version of Mugabe whilst trying to justify laying waste to the one of the most fertile countries in Africa and blaming it on colonialism.

Was the war against Serbia a colonial war? There the West was saving Muslims from attack, how does fit into your world view?

Why in the fuck do you keep posting to me?

Your thoughts are like that of a teenager with a new video game.

Your world view is mindless.
 
Why in the fuck do you keep posting to me?

Your thoughts are like that of a teenager with a new video game.

Your world view is mindless.

Why do you keep replying then? I have a deep aversion to people trying to apply anachronistic dogma in an attempt to analyse world events. That goes equally with left and right interpretations of history. I have latterly discovered that the world is far more complex than can be readily explained by simple minded analysis that owes much to the failed and discredited theories of yesteryear.
 
Last edited:
Exactly! They make Al Queda out to be some huge multi-national, world-encompassing organization when it's been shown such is not the case. They used the same bullshit with Saddam and Iraq saying Saddam was in league with Al Queda. Slap the designation "Al Queda" on any group or person and anything goes.

Unfortunately, some people never smarten up regardless of the facts presented.

What excuse did 'they'(Clinton) use to bomb and kill Yugoslavians and to destroy their bridges and roads...before we knew of AQ.
 
Blackascoal rants and raves.....

NATO's invasion and destruction of peaceful Libya was a crime against humanity and there is no end in sight of the ensuing calamity.

Just another of Obama's needless wars for profit.

Now he's off to Mali to destroy yet another African nation.

Al Queda is anything we want to call Al Queda. Anybody on the opposite side of profit is Al Queda.

Al Queda is the excuse to invade small countries and mass-murder its citizens.

Al Queda is the excuse for France and the West to attack Mali.

BAC goes off the deep end and tinfoil, Rana, and Apple join him like lemmings....
 
Why in the fuck do you keep posting to me?

Your thoughts are like that of a teenager with a new video game.

Your world view is mindless.


but your world view is so distorted as to be undefinable and unrefuteable in a short post....warped so badly by propaganda and mis-understood quotes that you can spin
nonsense...... from whatever source you find to give your world view some sort of feeble support in your mind.....
you need to chill a little bro.
 
BAC goes off the deep end and tinfoil, Rana, and Apple join him like lemmings....

Yet you are clearly unable to address any of that.

Libya threatened no nation on earth .. now it is destroyed .. by NATO.

The scramble is on for control of Libyan sweet crude.

Of course you believed that Al Queda was in Iraq .. which kinda' disqualifies you from serious conversations about war.

It doesn't matter what you believe brother. You have that right to believe whatever you want .. but given that you post to yourself about your thoughts about me is rather telling. :0)

Is that YOU talking about lemings????

:0)

sure
 
but your world view is so distorted as to be undefinable and unrefuteable in a short post....warped so badly by propaganda and mis-understood quotes that you can spin
nonsense...... from whatever source you find to give your world view some sort of feeble support in your mind.....
you need to chill a little bro.

That's interesting.

TOTALLY stupid and completely worthless .. but interesting.

NO .. I don't need to chill .. you need to figure out how to actually address the issues instead of emoting about me. :0) If I was posting things you agree with, you'd have no problem.

Is it like against the rules to post what I think regardless of whether you like it or not?

I support everything I say .. everything. That's your problem.

Whether you agree with it or not is never the point.
 
Creating our own endless list of enemies. "when will we ever learn, when we we ever learn, where have all the flowers gone?

The Malians and the West Africans have welcomed the French in with open arms, they saw what happened when the Islamists attempted to gain power in Algeria in the '90s. That civil war cost upwards of 200,000 lives and ten years of fighting before that ran its course. I get the distinct feeling that this is a war that is virtually unknown to most Americans, but most definitely not to the French people. As much as they are welcoming the French the Malians don't want West African states to get involved militarily as they are well known for being more interested in looting and raping than actually fighting.

When I have asked people here about the impending arrival of West African troops, facial expressions have switched from welcoming smiles to snarls and pouts. "Comedians," one Malian told me. "They are just coming into the country to rob and vandalise us, then they will leave us again no better off."

The front page of Malian newspaper 26 Mars yesterday said it all. It simply read "Vive La France!" It would have been an utterly unimaginable headline when Nicolas Sarkozy – who once provoked an entire continent when he said that "the tragedy of Africa is that the African has never really entered into history"– was at the helm. But this week, in Mali and elsewhere in west Africa, France adulation is standard fare.

It all began last Friday, when Operation Serval was launched. French fighter jets entered Malian airspace and started pounding al-Qaida-linked rebels, who control the north of the country. Contrary to what the sudden flood of misinformed tweets tried to suggest, this was not another Afghanistan: the Malian government had been pleading for foreign assistance to regain control of its territory for months. Plans for an African-led military intervention – approved by the UN security council last month – were going nowhere.
As Jeune Afrique reported in depth, the sudden decision by France to intervene was met with one gigantic bienvenue!. Although a few sensible Malians pointed out that it was western powers who created this mess in the first place by failing to prevent thousands of Gaddafi-armed Tuaregs crossing into the desert from Libya, most were just happy to see something happen. One newspaper editor I spoke to in Bamako was furious at the French, but not because they are bombing his country – only because it took them so long to begin with.
The Malian press was almost unanimously singing from the same hymnsheet. For Le Republicain, the French president had become "Hollande le Malien". Online paper Journal du Mali celebrated "the outstretched hand of France in our country." Even Burkinabe Le Pays, despite stating in an editorial that it found the inability of Mali to defend its own territory "humiliating", grudgingly accepted that without French intervention, the crisis could not be contained.
Here on the ground, French flags are flying in small provincial towns – something I have never seen before. In the capital, people are organising a collection for the French helicopter pilot who was killed in action (there are, it has to be said, similar feelings of affection for wounded Malian soldiers). One blogger in Bamako pointed out that last weekend, over 1,000 people showed up at a health centre to donate blood to the armed forces, despite the fact that the national blood bank apparently could accommodate just 113 donors per day.
There are however some major exceptions to this wave of support. Algeria – which many in Mali blame for facilitating, fuelling and funding the rebels in the first place – is not a huge fan of the French military action. Conspiracy theories about Algeria's interests in the Sahara are circulating, some of which seem a little far-fetched, until a remarkable op-ed in today's New York Times by a former US ambassador to Mali suggested – no doubt unintentionally – that there is a hidden agenda involving American and French support for some kind of Algerian occupation of the desert.
Grumbles about Algeria are common in Mali these days. But how can we explain this almost unchallenged adoration of France?
For one thing, there is a credible theory that the French defence ministry has imposed a media blackout on reporting Operation Serval, preventing less savoury details from being reported. Since I've been in Mali, many humanitarian workers active in the north have told me that they are concerned about civilian casualties, which they believe far outnumber both official estimates, and would put a dampener on things, to put it mildly, if released.
There is another, equally depressing side to the joyous greeting Malians have offered the French. When I have asked people here about the impending arrival of west African troops, facial expressions have switched from welcoming smiles to snarls and pouts. "Comedians," one Malian told me. "They are just coming into the country to rob and vandalise us, then they will leave us again no better off."
It's as if I went to bed one night in a place where pan-African regional pride still existed, and woke up in another where the former colonial master is king. And that is much, much less welcome.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/16/malians-welcome-french-intervention?INTCMP=SRCH

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_Civil_War
 
Last edited:
A few simple words, Blackascoal, Your an idiot.

Saying Qaddafi was peaceful is like saying the NRA is against the 2nd amendment.

As for the Mali situation and you claiming that the US uses AQ as an excuse to go in and attack, Well from what I have read every where they have not said they are AQ but that they have link's with them as do many terrorist organisations. Add to that that the civil population in northern Mali is looking forward to be freed from this AQ affiliate just goes to show that this battle is one of the decent ones.

You also stated that Qaddafi didn't lay siege to any cities, What about Misrata? Did they not have there land access cut off and Libyan naval vessels out along the coast? If that isn't a siege then bugger me, The Aussies that fought at Tobruk in WWII weren't under siege at all. Shit better re write the history books. the fact is Qaddafi bought on his own up rising when he chose to support one group in Libya yet to give a much moire limited aid to those around Benghazi where much of the oil wealth came from.

The intervention only came when the siuation had escalated to an all out civil war where civilian lives were at risk, Qaddafi had lost majority support so trying to support him would have been the stupidist move. You sir are just another internet troll that thinks all dictator's are peaceful and that any and every battle the US and West get's into is evil, Fuck I guess us Aussies are guilty of war crimes going into East Timor.
 
A few simple words, Blackascoal, Your an idiot.

Saying Qaddafi was peaceful is like saying the NRA is against the 2nd amendment.

As for the Mali situation and you claiming that the US uses AQ as an excuse to go in and attack, Well from what I have read every where they have not said they are AQ but that they have link's with them as do many terrorist organisations. Add to that that the civil population in northern Mali is looking forward to be freed from this AQ affiliate just goes to show that this battle is one of the decent ones.

You also stated that Qaddafi didn't lay siege to any cities, What about Misrata? Did they not have there land access cut off and Libyan naval vessels out along the coast? If that isn't a siege then bugger me, The Aussies that fought at Tobruk in WWII weren't under siege at all. Shit better re write the history books. the fact is Qaddafi bought on his own up rising when he chose to support one group in Libya yet to give a much moire limited aid to those around Benghazi where much of the oil wealth came from.

The intervention only came when the siuation had escalated to an all out civil war where civilian lives were at risk, Qaddafi had lost majority support so trying to support him would have been the stupidist move. You sir are just another internet troll that thinks all dictator's are peaceful and that any and every battle the US and West get's into is evil, Fuck I guess us Aussies are guilty of war crimes going into East Timor.

He would have been against intervention in East Timor, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone or Ruanda to name just a few. He probably still thinks that Mugabe is a freedom fighter!!
 
He would have been against intervention in East Timor, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone or Ruanda to name just a few. He probably still thinks that Mugabe is a freedom fighter!!

Oh dont leave out Koney, I mean what so bad about him fighting for the Christians? A few massacred kids here or there no reason to send over US military support to hunt him down... I mean he such a peaceful guy.
 
A few simple words, Blackascoal, Your an idiot.

Saying Qaddafi was peaceful is like saying the NRA is against the 2nd amendment.

As for the Mali situation and you claiming that the US uses AQ as an excuse to go in and attack, Well from what I have read every where they have not said they are AQ but that they have link's with them as do many terrorist organisations. Add to that that the civil population in northern Mali is looking forward to be freed from this AQ affiliate just goes to show that this battle is one of the decent ones.

You also stated that Qaddafi didn't lay siege to any cities, What about Misrata? Did they not have there land access cut off and Libyan naval vessels out along the coast? If that isn't a siege then bugger me, The Aussies that fought at Tobruk in WWII weren't under siege at all. Shit better re write the history books. the fact is Qaddafi bought on his own up rising when he chose to support one group in Libya yet to give a much moire limited aid to those around Benghazi where much of the oil wealth came from.

The intervention only came when the siuation had escalated to an all out civil war where civilian lives were at risk, Qaddafi had lost majority support so trying to support him would have been the stupidist move. You sir are just another internet troll that thinks all dictator's are peaceful and that any and every battle the US and West get's into is evil, Fuck I guess us Aussies are guilty of war crimes going into East Timor.

Jesus.

I just posted in a thread about trying a new approach to being attacked. :0(

Prior to my new approach, I would have said that you're the idiot. Now I'll just say that you're seriously misinformed. SERIOUSLY.

My comment was about Gaddafi attacking Libyan cities before the invasion. He was supported by the majority of his people because he supported them. There is glaring evidence of that truth in two videos that you should feel free to discredit .. or, to ignore .. just as you've done.

Gaddafi's attack on Sirte was an attack on the forces that was trying to overthrow him while destroying his country.

Who did this?

libyan-city-of-syrte-destroyed-by-nato-and-us-backed-rebels-in-2011.jpg


Answer: The Libyan city of Sirte, once home to stellar universities and hospitals, destroyed in 2011 by NATO and US-backed rebels

Do you understand the concept of "civil war?" If so, it is not evident in your post.

Benghazi was the world's hot bed for terrorism. Many of the so-called "rebels" were from Benghazi were not only aligned with Al Queda, but also admitted that they had killed US forces in Iraq. Guess you didn't know that, huh?

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links
Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

Gaddafi was COOPERATING with the US and NATO on the war on terror. What .. didn't know that either?

Why Gaddafi's Now a Good Guy
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1194766,00.html

Before the invasion, Gaddafi was about to recieve an award from the UN for HUMAN RIGHTS. Let me guess .. you didn't know.

Smoking Gun: Gaddafi Was To Receive U.N. Human Rights Award

Before NATO and the U.S. started bombing Libya, the United Nations was preparing to bestow an award on Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, and the Libyan Jamahiriya, for its achievements in the area of human rights. That’s right–the same man, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, that NATO and the United States have been telling us for months is a “brutal dictator,” was set to be given an award for his human rights record in Libya.
http://libyanfreepress.wordpress.co...addafi-was-to-receive-u-n-human-rights-award/

Libyan women enjoyed more freedom than ANYWHERE else in the Arab world.

Libyan Woman Have Vast Rights & Freedoms Under Gadaffi
http://abundanthope.net/pages/Polit...Have-Vast-Rights-Freedoms-Under-Gadaffi.shtml

Now that Gaddafi's gone, they face Sharia Law under the puppets of NATO and Obama.

Now the rebels impose Sharia law as Islamic rules become 'basic source' of Libyan legislation
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-based-Islamic-Sharia-law.html#ixzz2IFHjuLyy

Given that you know so little about Libya .. and given your abrasive manner .. I see no point in any discussion of Mali, which I'm sure will carry your same lack of knowledge about Libya.

A few simple words for you .. go post someone else.
 
Libyan Woman Have Vast Rights & Freedoms Under Gadaffi
http://abundanthope.net/pages/Polit...Have-Vast-Rights-Freedoms-Under-Gadaffi.shtml

Now that Gaddafi's gone, they face Sharia Law under the puppets of NATO and Obama.

Now the rebels impose Sharia law as Islamic rules become 'basic source' of Libyan legislation
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-based-Islamic-Sharia-law.html#ixzz2IFHjuLyy

Given that you know so little about Libya .. and given your abrasive manner .. I see no point in any discussion of Mali, which I'm sure will carry your same lack of knowledge about Libya.

A few simple words for you .. go post someone else.

Oh yes, the UN humanitarian award which they "postponed" when even the most craven on that committee could not vote for it.

The report, of course, was written before the massive public protests against the Gadhafi regime broke out, and likewise before the regime started massacring protesters in the thousands nationwide.

http://news.antiwar.com/2011/03/03/un-postpones-praising-gadhafis-human-rights-record/

Here is the real kicker, Libya was appointed as the head of the committee in 2003.

Libya has been elected chairman of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, despite opposition from the United States. In a secret ballot, Libyan Ambassador Najat Al-Hajjaji was backed by 33 members, with three countries voting against and 17 members abstaining.
Human rights groups have been protesting at Libya assuming the chairmanship.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2672029.stm

 
Last edited:
Oh yes, the UN humanitarian award which they "postponed" when even the most craven on that committee could not vote for it.

http://news.antiwar.com/2011/03/03/un-postpones-praising-gadhafis-human-rights-record/

Here is the real kicker, Libya was appointed as the head of the committee in 2003.

The most craven .. :palm:

Denmark, China, Italy, The Netherlands, Mauritania, Slovenia, Nicaragua, The Russian Federation, Spain, Indonesia, Sweden, Norway, Ecuador, Hungary, South Africa, The Phillippines, Maldives, Chile, Singapore, Germany, Australia, Kazakhstan, Latvia .. all voted FOR the award.

Then there is this ..

"A United Nations panel has adopted a report praising Qaddafi-era Libya for its human rights record, a year after the report was sidelined amid international objection.

The report initially came before the U.N. Human Rights Council in the middle of the uprising against the Muammar Qaddafi regime. At the time, the U.N. had just voted to suspend Libya from the rights council — under pressure to maintain a consistent message toward Libya, the council later postponed consideration of the report.

NOTE: No, here is the real kicker ..

But the Human Rights Council on Wednesday returned to the document — and approved it."
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/03/14/u-n-adopts-human-rights-report-that-praises-gadhafi/

Any idea where that pressure came from?

It is seriously unnecessary for you and I to discuss anything about war at anytime.

I'm not interested in colonialist thought.
 
If you have a problem with Darla, you're talking to the wrong person to talk about it with.

Your comments are almost childish. Gaddafi didn't have the opportunity????

He's been in power for 40 years. What the hell do you mean that he didn't have the opportunity?

Most importantly, fuck the colonialist UK contribution, fuck the UK. They are like our puppy dog that the US trains to do our bidding whenever and wherever we tell it to.

You're real anxious to see American troops committed to needless wars for profit .. while we lead our puppy nation of England and it's sorry-ass contingent into battles like the destruction of Iraq.

What? You can talk shit about other nations, but oh the outrage when I talk about England?

I suggested to you that there was nothing to gain for either of us with this conversation.

I hate colonialism and the needless for-profit destruction of human life and societies.

I don't know how much more clear or plain I can say that to you.

:loveu:

:)
 
Wow I missed most of this thread, I had only seen the first couple of posts - these are the kinds of threads I wish we had more of. I like to read about things I don't know much about, and not ranting and raving about guns!
 
Back
Top