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

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.

Yes, antiwar.com is well known for its colonialist views.

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.

UN Watch had this to say:

U.N. Watch, a United Nations watchdog group which had called on the council to stop the report, likewise greeted the decision – though Director Hillel Neuer said the council should nix the report altogether.

He said its main effect was to "bolster Qaddafi's oppressive regime, demoralize his victims, and harm the reputation of the U.N. The review should be completely redone, and the truth told about Qaddafi's crimes."
The review commended Libya for improving educational opportunities, for making human rights a "priority" and for bettering its "constitutional" framework. Several countries, including Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia but also Canada, gave Libya positive marks for the legal protections afforded to its citizens.

Sudan's delegation praised Libya for improving education conditions. North Korea noted Libya's progress "in the field of economic and social rights." Saudi Arabia praised Libya for improvements in "constitutional, legislative and institutional frameworks, which showed the importance that the country attached to human rights." These are all countries that are famed worldwide for their respect for human rights!!


 
Last edited:
Yes, antiwar.com is well known for its colonialist views.



UN Watch had this to say:



Sudan's delegation praised Libya for improving education conditions. North Korea noted Libya's progress "in the field of economic and social rights." Saudi Arabia praised Libya for improvements in "constitutional, legislative and institutional frameworks, which showed the importance that the country attached to human rights." These are all countries that are famed worldwide for their respect for human rights!!



Just watching Kofi Annan being interviewed on the BBC. He is saying that the international community should do all that they can to support the Malians and prevent an Islamist takeover there. Apparently he is a closet colonialist as well!!
 
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.

Not Americas problem.

For the record I have, and always will, support the Arab Spring.
 
Not Americas problem.

For the record I have, and always will, support the Arab Spring.

If it's not America's problem then they should remove them selves from the UN permanent security council, Fact is if the US want's to be on the security council for the UN they have an obligation to aid those around the world that can't defend them selves, As such Koney is your problem.
 
You want to make Gaddafi out to be such a top bloke? All right let's talk about him for a bit.

How about the Embassy shootings in the UK? or that any political parties were illegal in Libya? Or that he offered training and financial assistance to those fighting Israel? Or that he supported 'rebels/terrorists' in Sub-Sahara Africa which I find interesting as you complain about Nato/US supporting the Libyan rebel's yet Gaddafi has done the same thing.. Or is it two different set's of rules.. Gaddafi support's rebels, He a peaceful man, NATO supports rebels and there evil fuckers.. Yea you may want to re think your logic.

Matter of fact is, His own military was starting to desert after Gaddafi ordered them to attack civilian positions, Does that sound like a peaceful man? You claim he had so many million's of supporter's, What about the even greater number that marched through Tripoli protesting against him, The opposition far out numbered any of his supporter's.

Gaddafi and the Libyan economy, Yea he built a river, Then what else.. Oh that's right he skimmed money off the Libyan economy to the tune of BILLION's..

And what about Idi Amin? Gaddafi was a very close supporter of Amin and he was known for massive Human rights violations.. Seam's to me that this oh so great and peaceful man was a Big supporter of known and proven evil bastard's, Unless child killing, rape, decapitation etc isn't evil at all? In which case Gaddafi and all his mate's are totally peaceful and sane.

All t hat happened is after decades of being a monster he started to turn his way's around after realizing he could not hold power against the people, But in any case his turn around came too late.

Btw, Am I to assume your argument that Gaddafi nebver laid any seiges has been ceded to me after I mentioned Misrata?

And also, Your grammar could use some work
A few simple words for you .. go post someone else.
that makes no bloody sense, I believe you meant 'go post some where else?'
 
If it's not America's problem then they should remove them selves from the UN permanent security council, Fact is if the US want's to be on the security council for the UN they have an obligation to aid those around the world that can't defend them selves, As such Koney is your problem.

Oh I'm all for pulling out of the UN. Fuck em.
 
You want to make Gaddafi out to be such a top bloke? All right let's talk about him for a bit.

How about the Embassy shootings in the UK? or that any political parties were illegal in Libya? Or that he offered training and financial assistance to those fighting Israel? Or that he supported 'rebels/terrorists' in Sub-Sahara Africa which I find interesting as you complain about Nato/US supporting the Libyan rebel's yet Gaddafi has done the same thing.. Or is it two different set's of rules.. Gaddafi support's rebels, He a peaceful man, NATO supports rebels and there evil fuckers.. Yea you may want to re think your logic.

Matter of fact is, His own military was starting to desert after Gaddafi ordered them to attack civilian positions, Does that sound like a peaceful man? You claim he had so many million's of supporter's, What about the even greater number that marched through Tripoli protesting against him, The opposition far out numbered any of his supporter's.

Gaddafi and the Libyan economy, Yea he built a river, Then what else.. Oh that's right he skimmed money off the Libyan economy to the tune of BILLION's..

And what about Idi Amin? Gaddafi was a very close supporter of Amin and he was known for massive Human rights violations.. Seam's to me that this oh so great and peaceful man was a Big supporter of known and proven evil bastard's, Unless child killing, rape, decapitation etc isn't evil at all? In which case Gaddafi and all his mate's are totally peaceful and sane.

All t hat happened is after decades of being a monster he started to turn his way's around after realizing he could not hold power against the people, But in any case his turn around came too late.

Btw, Am I to assume your argument that Gaddafi nebver laid any seiges has been ceded to me after I mentioned Misrata?

And also, Your grammar could use some work that makes no bloody sense, I believe you meant 'go post some where else?'

Here is a tip for you - first person who mentions an obvious typo lost the argument.
 
If it's not America's problem then they should remove them selves from the UN permanent security council, Fact is if the US want's to be on the security council for the UN they have an obligation to aid those around the world that can't defend them selves, As such Koney is your problem.

LOL You warmongers always go back to the old "we have to destroy the village in order to save the village". It's really quite an interesting glimpse into the warmongering mind as they fight battles all over the world...from their living rooms.
 
Here is a tip for you - first person who mentions an obvious typo lost the argument.

So ignore that all my argument's counter his, Me pointing out a typo automatically makes my point's void and Gaddafi back to being completely innocent? That is just stupid.
 
LOL You warmongers always go back to the old "we have to destroy the village in order to save the village". It's really quite an interesting glimpse into the warmongering mind as they fight battles all over the world...from their living rooms.

What makes you think I'm a warmonger? And did I state anything about destroying everything? No I did not, You Miss are putting word's in my mouth and assuming fact's that you have no idea about. Fact is if I was a warmonger I wouldn't have pissed off the 'gun nuts' on here with my view's that 'assault weapons' should not be in the hand's of civilians. And in my post that you quoted, Where exactly does it say destroy? I can not see where but then again my vision isn't 20/20 so if you can point it out Ill cede this argument to you =). If I'm seeing my post correctly I stated clearly 'to aid those around the world that can't defend them selves', In that statement there is no requirement to go all out warfare, Aid can come in many form's be it intelligence, Acting as the middle man or humanitarian support so please think about your reply before you come back making your self look even less educated.

Cheers, Von_noobie. Have a nice day =)
 
You want to make Gaddafi out to be such a top bloke? All right let's talk about him for a bit.

How about the Embassy shootings in the UK? or that any political parties were illegal in Libya? Or that he offered training and financial assistance to those fighting Israel? Or that he supported 'rebels/terrorists' in Sub-Sahara Africa which I find interesting as you complain about Nato/US supporting the Libyan rebel's yet Gaddafi has done the same thing.. Or is it two different set's of rules.. Gaddafi support's rebels, He a peaceful man, NATO supports rebels and there evil fuckers.. Yea you may want to re think your logic.

Matter of fact is, His own military was starting to desert after Gaddafi ordered them to attack civilian positions, Does that sound like a peaceful man? You claim he had so many million's of supporter's, What about the even greater number that marched through Tripoli protesting against him, The opposition far out numbered any of his supporter's.

Gaddafi and the Libyan economy, Yea he built a river, Then what else.. Oh that's right he skimmed money off the Libyan economy to the tune of BILLION's..

And what about Idi Amin? Gaddafi was a very close supporter of Amin and he was known for massive Human rights violations.. Seam's to me that this oh so great and peaceful man was a Big supporter of known and proven evil bastard's, Unless child killing, rape, decapitation etc isn't evil at all? In which case Gaddafi and all his mate's are totally peaceful and sane.

All t hat happened is after decades of being a monster he started to turn his way's around after realizing he could not hold power against the people, But in any case his turn around came too late.

Btw, Am I to assume your argument that Gaddafi nebver laid any seiges has been ceded to me after I mentioned Misrata?

And also, Your grammar could use some work that makes no bloody sense, I believe you meant 'go post some where else?'

:0)

My grammar?

Here's the first line of your post ..

"A few simple words, Blackascoal, Your an idiot." :whoa:

Spot anything?

How about 'you're' instead of instead of your ????

I saw that when I posted to you, .. didn't attack you or YOUR bad grammar. :0)

Additionally, what you call bad grammar was me simply leaving out the word "to." I'm usually working while I post, so pardon me if my post ain't (eb) perfect.

Let me reframe that for you .. Go post TO someone else.

Really, you should do that because your knowledge of Libya is just as laughable as I demonstrated it was in my first post to you.

If it's a pissing match that YOU'RE :0) looking for .. your brain ain't (eb) big enough sir.

Next time, if you are really looking for a discussion, try acting like a grown-up when you post .. and best check your own grammar before you accuse someone else of using it badly.

"top bloke" ???

Do I smell another colonialist Brit?
 
:0)

My grammar?

Here's the first line of your post ..

"A few simple words, Blackascoal, Your an idiot." :whoa:

Spot anything?

How about 'you're' instead of instead of your ????

I saw that when I posted to you, .. didn't attack you or YOUR bad grammar. :0)

Additionally, what you call bad grammar was me simply leaving out the word "to." I'm usually working while I post, so pardon me if my post ain't (eb) perfect.

Let me reframe that for you .. Go post TO someone else.

Really, you should do that because your knowledge of Libya is just as laughable as I demonstrated it was in my first post to you.

If it's a pissing match that YOU'RE :0) looking for .. your brain ain't (eb) big enough sir.

Next time, if you are really looking for a discussion, try acting like a grown-up when you post .. and best check your own grammar before you accuse someone else of using it badly.

"top bloke" ???

Do I smell another colonialist Brit?

Is Kofi Annan a colonialist? You disappoint me BAC as I thought that you were capable of higher intellectual considerations. Invoking colonialism as an argument is the sort of thing that despots like Mugabe resort to when he is attempting to appeal to fellow despots to support him.
 
Is Kofi Annan a colonialist? You disappoint me BAC as I thought that you were capable of higher intellectual considerations. Invoking colonialism as an argument is the sort of thing that despots like Mugabe resort to when he is attempting to appeal to fellow despots to support him.

Then we're even. YOU disappoint me. I thought you were smarter than this.

OH SURE .. colonialism is a myth .. never existed .. certainly not in Africa.

Wars for resources?

Never happened.

I put a plethora of information on the table .. you ignored every bit of it. I addressed your argument and countered it .. and your partner's argument.

You're not interested in debate .. you're looking for approval.

I can't help you.
 
Many US Officials Dispute Mali Militants Pose Any Threat
'Washington is concerned that greater US involvement could make Mali a magnet for would-be jihadis from elsewhere,' AP reports.

The US’s involvement in the French-led military offensive in Mali, however limited, is a pointless policy completely lacking a robust security justification, as Mali and its militants pose no threat.

According to The New York Times, “officials in Washington still have only an impressionistic understanding of the militant groups that have established a safe haven in Mali, and they are divided about whether some of these groups even pose a threat to the United States.”

In other words, the officials making policy in Washington have little to no idea of the underlying forces at work in Mali and many think the situation poses no threat to the US.

In addition, there is an obvious blowback factor here. The Times report adds that “a Western military intervention could transform militant groups that once had only a regional focus into avowed enemies of the United States — in other words, that the backlash might end up being worse than the original threat.”

“Washington,” the Associated Press reports, “is concerned that greater US involvement could make Mali a magnet for would-be jihadis from elsewhere.”

Indeed, immediately following the French-led military offensive in Mali, the Islamist militants suddenly became unified against foreign intervention. Those holding hostages in Algeria have said explicitly that it is a response to the Western intervention in Mali.

The Obama administration is aiding the French offensive in Mali to a considerable extent. However, officials have denied any plans to send in troops, while claiming they are still coming to a decision on whether or not to provide the French with intelligence support for their air assaults.
http://news.antiwar.com/2013/01/17/many-us-officials-dispute-mali-militants-pose-any-threat/
 
2013 and the New Scramble for Africa

France’s military aggression in Mali is only the latest expression of a renewed Scramble for Africa being undertaken by all of the continent’s former imperialist overlords. This involves not only those powers that directly ruled Africa from the late nineteenth century through to the 1960s, such as France and Britain, but above all the United States.

Paris has never fully abandoned its imperial designs on Africa, as its recent record in Rwanda and Libya demonstrates all too brutally. It still has 9,000 troops stationed in the Ivory Coast, Senegal, Gabon, Central African Republic, Chad and Djibouti. Its return to Mali is not about combating Al Qaeda and Islamist fundamentalism, but rather a means of staking its claim to the country’s uranium, gold and untapped oil deposits and those of the West African region and throughout a landmass recently proclaimed by President Francois Hollande as “the continent of the future.”

It is as yet unclear whether the US will go beyond providing aerial support to France in Mali. But if it does not, it is only because it does not want to help a rival predatory power. 2013 opens amid a whole number of military operations being waged by Washington in a continent upon which America now depends for fully a quarter of the oil and raw materials it consumes—including oil, gold, diamonds, copper, iron and big money crops such as cocoa.

Africa is in play as far as Washington and all other major powers are concerned. US aims in Africa centre on securing hegemony over the entire continent, a conflict in which its chief rival is now China.

China has surpassed the US as Africa’s largest trading partner with trade of US$90 billion in 2009, compared with $86 billion for the US and foreign direct investments of over $50 billion. Bilateral trade topped $160 billion in 2011 and is expected to reach $200 billion this year. In addition, China has proposed or committed about $101 billion to commercial projects in Africa since 2010, of which construction and natural resource deals total approximately $90 billion.

Unable to compete economically with Beijing, Washington is once again turning to militarism to secure its advantage. As Mali demonstrates, the ruinous war against Libya in 2011 should be seen as a pointer for the future.


So many of the region’s wars that have claimed the lives of millions are rooted in conflicts over strategic resources in which the rival imperialist powers invariably play their part more or less openly—in the Democratic Republic of Congo, North and South Sudan, the Central African Republic, Somalia, Mali itself—the list is long.

The US for its part is presently undertaking numerous military operations in Africa, including in the Somali Basin region, Cameroon, the Gulf of Guinea, Botswana, Senegal, South Africa, Morocco, Ghana, Tunisia, Nigeria and Liberia. It has funded and trained the troops for the African Union Mission protecting the Somali government, and its forces play the central role in patrolling the strategic waters off the Horn of Africa. In addition, AFRICOM’s director of public affairs, Colonel Tom Davis boasted, “We also conduct some type of military training or military-to-military engagement or activity with nearly every country on the African continent.”

This year the US is to station a brigade of at least 3,000 troops permanently in Africa. They will join at least 2,000 and possibly 5,000 already stationed there on a less formal and sometimes clandestine basis. America is scheduled to hold more than 100 military exercises in 35 countries. It will also begin to operate its own rapid reaction force, with US Africa Command (AFRICOM) head Gen. Carter Ham declaring that America would no longer rely on “a sharing arrangement with what’s called the Commander’s in-Extremis Force with European Command… now we have our own.”

“The absolute imperative for the United States military [is] to protect America, Americans, and American interests,” Ham proclaimed.

The number of troops is relatively small, but many are involved in the primary function of training and equipping African militaries to be used as proxy US forces. Indeed all of imperialism’s schemes for the plunder of Africa ultimately depend on the role played by the African bourgeoisie.

The governments and corporations based in Washington, Paris, London and Beijing rely upon the myriad corrupt local regimes and movements to man their predatory wars and to police the brutal exploitation of the workers and poor peasants.

Despite Africa’s recent economic growth, little if any benefit has flowed to the workers and poor. It remains a continent where 60 percent of its people live on less than $2 a day. The middle class is defined, without apparent irony, as having between $2 and $20 to spend a day and most of these in fact have only between $2 to $4. Meanwhile, African nations remain at the bottom of any measure of economic activity, with 34 of the 50 nations on the UN list of least developed countries, and at the top of any list measuring inequality and poverty.

Only the corrupt ruling elite has been enriched because it shares in the spoils that accrue primarily to the imperialist powers. Under such conditions, a social explosion is inevitable.

Any movement of the workers and oppressed masses must therefore inevitably be directed against a ruling class that function as the policemen of grotesque social inequality and the chief advocates of nationalism, ethnic, religious and tribal antagonisms that invariably end in fratricidal slaughter.

The strike wave that engulfed South Africa’s mines signals the necessary course future struggles must take. It targeted the African National Congress and the COSATU union federation as lackeys and enforcers for the mining corporations and was met with murderous repression.

As with nationalist regimes and movements across Africa and internationally, the contemporary role of the ANC testifies to the impossibility of opposing imperialist predations and defending a single social and democratic gain outside of an independent political struggle by the working class.

History has proven that the national bourgeoisie in the oppressed nations, tied as it is organically to capitalism, cannot be entrusted to wage the struggle for democracy and liberation from imperialist domination. Africa’s workers and youth must undertake to build their own revolutionary leadership to take power and unite the continent on the basis of socialism, placing the banks, major corporations, strategic extraction industries and the land under the democratic control of the workers and oppressed.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/2013-and-the-new-scramble-for-africa/5319347
 
Then we're even. YOU disappoint me. I thought you were smarter than this.

OH SURE .. colonialism is a myth .. never existed .. certainly not in Africa.

Wars for resources?

Never happened.

I put a plethora of information on the table .. you ignored every bit of it. I addressed your argument and countered it .. and your partner's argument.

You're not interested in debate .. you're looking for approval.

I can't help you.

Most of those sub-Saharan countries have tolerant Sufi Islam governments which have long been targeted by terrorists like Mokhtar Belmokhtar. He is an extremely nasty piece of work and should be hunted down and eliminated post haste. It is a war that has been a long time coming and there is no avoiding it, unless you want to see a repeat of '90s Algeria all over this region. You seem incapable of seeing this for what it is and prefer to fall back on sloganising and bombast. I notice that you have deliberately chosen to avoid addressing Kofi Annan's thoughts on the subject, no doubt because they are diametrically opposed to your own views. Here is an article from 2005 which really nails what is going on there.

http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regio...t-terrorism-in-the-sahel-fact-or-fiction.aspx
 
Last edited:
:0)

My grammar?

Here's the first line of your post ..

"A few simple words, Blackascoal, Your an idiot." :whoa:

Spot anything?

How about 'you're' instead of instead of your ????

I saw that when I posted to you, .. didn't attack you or YOUR bad grammar. :0)

Additionally, what you call bad grammar was me simply leaving out the word "to." I'm usually working while I post, so pardon me if my post ain't (eb) perfect.

Let me reframe that for you .. Go post TO someone else.

Really, you should do that because your knowledge of Libya is just as laughable as I demonstrated it was in my first post to you.

If it's a pissing match that YOU'RE :0) looking for .. your brain ain't (eb) big enough sir.

Next time, if you are really looking for a discussion, try acting like a grown-up when you post .. and best check your own grammar before you accuse someone else of using it badly.

"top bloke" ???

Do I smell another colonialist Brit?

Point taken, My apologies for any insult taken.

As for what I am, Im an Aussie and damn proud of it.

As for knowledge on Libya, I have merely stated proven fact's about Gaddafi and that there were sieges in the war (something you claimed Gaddafi never did) yet you have not even tried to discredit any of my point's, I'm assuming it is because you can not due to them actually being true. If you can prove that Gaddafi has never supported evil bastard's before then I'll cede the argument to you Sir, If not then just be a man and admit he is not as good and peaceful as you make out.
 
Back
Top