Gaddafi Son Unhurt After Shooutout, Rebel Leaders Says

[Steely Dan]

Whichever way you stack it we have military pygmies fighting a war by proxy based on excuses rather than reasons.

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/a-lovely-little-nato-intervention/

[zydeco]

The "peaceful protestors" started out throwing rocks and capturing and hanging policmen.

Yeah, yeah and NATO was secretly "acting as their airforce" three months before they got UN approval and the protesters were really SAS and Navy Seals.

[Ulysses G.]

Thanks for the RT video. It proves my point.

Various media figures and NGOs have criticized RT for its support of the Russian government, Soviet nostalgia, advancing conspiracy theories, offering a platform to commentators from the extreme-left and radical Islamism. RT acknowledges some of the criticisms, justifying them as an "alternative to mainstream media."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)[18

Edited August 24, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Credo]

Most countries Foreign Policy is based on self-interest. That is usually publicly stated. In the case of Libya, it is in the interest of Europe to have a relatively stable country so close to its shores. When refugee numbers run into the many thousands, it's too late to intervene.

As for the oil conspiracy, it's basically a non-starter. Most oil is bought and sold on the international market at the international price. Exporting countries have little control over where the oil will end up. If Libya, for example, decides not to sell to Europe, who will sell to? North Korea? Burma--oh wait, they have oil/gas?

The supply routes of oil may change, but the only control the country ultimately has is to simply not sell it.

[Scott]

Several off-topic posts have been deleted. Please stick to the topic.

Posts concerning the credibility of news sources may be relevant, please tie them into the OP rather than drift off topic entirely.

[chooka]

Gaddafi's days were probably numbered as soon as he was persuaded to give up his nuclear weapons program.

Then why did no one bother him until his own people rose up and he started to slaughter them?

His own people rose up and he started to slaughter them? The people who rose up were armed rebels instigated and armed by the West. Like it or not Gaddafi was the legitimate leader of a sovereign country. What was he expected to do when armed insurgents, who were a rag tag bunch of Al Qaida and various other Islamic militants were trying to take over the country. This is a Western backed regime change, pure and simple. You are clearly capable of believing six impossible things before breakfast.

So are you saying that the west is backing Al Qaida in Libya whilst fighting them in Afganistan?

[Exsexyman]

Gaddafi's days were probably numbered as soon as he was persuaded to give up his nuclear weapons program.

Then why did no one bother him until his own people rose up and he started to slaughter them?

His own people rose up and he started to slaughter them? The people who rose up were armed rebels instigated and armed by the West. Like it or not Gaddafi was the legitimate leader of a sovereign country. What was he expected to do when armed insurgents, who were a rag tag bunch of Al Qaida and various other Islamic militants were trying to take over the country. This is a Western backed regime change, pure and simple. You are clearly capable of believing six impossible things before breakfast.

So are you saying that the west is backing Al Qaida in Libya whilst fighting them in Afganistan?

That's about the size of it , yes they are. One of the top rebel commanders is a senior Al Qaida fighter who was imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay for four years.

[Steely Dan]

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2011/08/were-cheering-on-a-football-crowd-with-ak-47s-who-could-be-worse-than-gaddafi.html

The moment has come to admit that I loathe the Arab Spring and almost everything about it.

It looks to me pretty much like a football crowd armed with AK-47s and bazookas, with the added ingredient of Islamic militancy. Why am I expected to like it?

For we are all supposed to approve of it. Every media outlet, every politician, every church pulpit, treats it as an unmixed Good Thing.

I love the naive and mendacious coverage we are getting from the BBC and CNN at the moment, still they sold us Obama so what could go wrong?

[cmsally]

Rather sobering to look at the rebels member history:

http://tarpley.net/2011/08/27/al-qaeda-commander-of-natos-bloody-reign-of-terror-in-tripoli-is-the-monster-abdel-hakim-belhadj/

[Naam]

Have you ever heard of the Arab Spring? It was not instigated by the West. The silly conspiracy theories get old after awhile.

by now everybody knows that the "arab spring" was instigated by a tribe of Papua New Guinea Headhunters with the backing of the Vatican.

[Exsexyman]

Have you ever heard of the Arab Spring? It was not instigated by the West. The silly conspiracy theories get old after awhile.

by now everybody knows that the "arab spring" was instigated by a tribe of Papua New Guinea Headhunters with the backing of the Vatican.

Sadly you are just exposing yourself as a fool. But of course it gives the rest of us a laugh. Well done. Take more water with it! And as for Ulysses G, the Israeli government expressed concern this week that weapons from libya are making there way to the Gaza Strip via the tunnels from Egypt. I look forward to your posts expressing your outrage and crocodile tears when the blowback starts. The West has unleashed a monster in Libya. There are estimated to be two and a half weapons for every man, women and child in Libya. Children were killed yesterday when the " rebels' were firing in the air shouting "Allah Akhbar". But hey, Al Qaida are our friends now. What a balls up.

[Ulysses G.]

And as for Ulysses G, the Israeli government expressed concern this week that weapons from libya are making there way to the Gaza Strip via the tunnels from Egypt.

If you bothered to read the posts on Libya in this forum, you would know that I am very much against the war that isn't a war in Libya. However, that does not mean that I am going to ignore the usual uninformed conspiracy theories posted as facts by the same old suspects.

[Scott]

One unnecessarily inflammatory post has been removed. Please stay on topic.

[Credo]

I find it difficult to believe that people really believe the Arab Spring was instigated by the West. Why on earth would anyone want more instability in an already unstable world? Why start in Tunisia? Certainly for the West, Mubarak staying in power in Egypt was better than what may follow--especially for Israel and by proxy the US. Libya was plodding along toward civil war quite well with no Western action. Wanting to stir up crap in Bahrain? Jordan? I doubt it.

Giving help to Libya is nothing more than wanting a little bit friendly enemy on the horizon because I doubt they will be true friends.

[flying]

I find it difficult to believe that people really believe the Arab Spring was instigated by the West. Why on earth would anyone want more instability in an already unstable world?

That is a very long story that goes back a long way.

While it may not have been started with the goal in mind being instability it was started long ago & has become just that...Instability

You would have to go back to 1953 with things like the overthrow of Prime Minister Muhammad Mossadegh in Iran in 1953

American & British intelligence collaborated on the overthrow of Mossadegh's popularly elected government,

replacing him with the shah.

We know how that worked out.

Years later a revolutionary Iranian govt took American citizens hostage & held them for 444 day.

Things only continued downhill from there & basically they are all caused by our (USA's) involvement where we do not belong.

Same goes for Saddam. We used him all through the 80's & the policy makers were more than happy to do so.

Yet later for reasons most choose to ignore like thumbing his nose at selling oil in USD he was no longer deemed useful. Things were claimed …..WMD's, his wickedness etc...

Yet again this is rather sudden no? So off he had to go. Yet this danger to the US who had not attacked the US …ever…had to go even though folks in our own govt like Condoleeza Rice, & Colin Powell said time & again ..Saddmam was effectively contained & no threat to the US.

That Saddam Husseign missed every single US plane for 12 years as thousands of sorties were being flown indicates the utter weakness of this enemy. No air Force, No Navy, No antiaircraft weapons…

Threat??? What threat??? They insult the intelligence of the American people to say so.

Another useful friend of the US at the time Osama Bin Laden even offered to lead an army to defend Saudi Arabia against Saddam if need be….Later in Afghanistan when the Russian were there we used that same friend…Eventually we know what became of him too.

The list & the story goes on & on. At this point I am not even sure if it is the US government per se' to blame or the CIA acting on their own & later justifying it & bending the US government to its will.

At the end of the day if one reads back with an open mind many will see that the main problems we have today is the fact that we have placed ourselves or puppet regimes where we do not belong.

This whole thing in Libya will just be another in a list. We will install & police the new friends & later probably find a reason for their removal.

Libya is a bigger story & involves France & the protection of their oil business interests more than most realize.

But……….

All the while Rome burns. We should go back to what our forefathers described & that is to lead by example.

Not to go abroad in search of monsters. Lead by example!

We can barely run our own country …obviously…Look at the state we are in today.

Best we clean our own house before trying to clean others

Edited September 2, 2011 by flying

[Credo]

So prior to 1776 this region was stable? There were no problems?

Saddam is a little off-topic to the whole discussion. That was primarily a Bush-Cheny fiasco; most of the people that supported the fiasco were neither for it or convinced of the (mis)information being disseminated. They simply wanted to keep their jobs.

The Middle East has been contentious long before any US involvement. I doubt that Libya will be either better or worse off with NATO's involvement. The only difference is the amount of time it would take. The only benefit is that rebels will owe a debt of gratitude to those that helped them. Whether they will pay it back or not remains to be seen.

[flying]

Saddam is a little off-topic to the whole discussion.

The only benefit is that rebels will owe a debt of gratitude to those that helped them. Whether they will pay it back or not remains to be seen.

Actually it is very much on topic as your statement to which I replied was about instability in the ME

Saddam was just another entry into the long list

As for gratitude/friends/debts of gratitude or otherwise again that is what my post was describing.

They are useful friends as long as they move when the strings are tugged.

If not then........

Edited September 2, 2011 by flying

[Pakboong]

I find it difficult to believe that people really believe the Arab Spring was instigated by the West. Why on earth would anyone want more instability in an already unstable world?

That is a very long story that goes back a long way.

While it may not have been started with the goal in mind being instability it was started long ago & has become just that...Instability

You would have to go back to 1953 with things like the overthrow of Prime Minister Muhammad Mossadegh in Iran in 1953

American & British intelligence collaborated on the overthrow of Mossadegh's popularly elected government,

replacing him with the shah.

We know how that worked out.

Years later a revolutionary Iranian govt took American citizens hostage & held them for 444 day.

Things only continued downhill from there & basically they are all caused by our (USA's) involvement where we do not belong.

Same goes for Saddam. We used him all through the 80's & the policy makers were more than happy to do so.

Yet later for reasons most choose to ignore like thumbing his nose at selling oil in USD he was no longer deemed useful. Things were claimed …..WMD's, his wickedness etc...

Yet again this is rather sudden no? So off he had to go. Yet this danger to the US who had not attacked the US …ever…had to go even though folks in our own govt like Condoleeza Rice, & Colin Powell said time & again ..Saddmam was effectively contained & no threat to the US.

That Saddam Husseign missed every single US plane for 12 years as thousands of sorties were being flown indicates the utter weakness of this enemy. No air Force, No Navy, No antiaircraft weapons…

Threat??? What threat??? They insult the intelligence of the American people to say so.

Another useful friend of the US at the time Osama Bin Laden even offered to lead an army to defend Saudi Arabia against Saddam if need be….Later in Afghanistan when the Russian were there we used that same friend…Eventually we know what became of him too.

The list & the story goes on & on. At this point I am not even sure if it is the US government per se' to blame or the CIA acting on their own & later justifying it & bending the US government to its will.

At the end of the day if one reads back with an open mind many will see that the main problems we have today is the fact that we have placed ourselves or puppet regimes where we do not belong.

This whole thing in Libya will just be another in a list. We will install & police the new friends & later probably find a reason for their removal.

Libya is a bigger story & involves France & the protection of their oil business interests more than most realize.

But……….

All the while Rome burns. We should go back to what our forefathers described & that is to lead by example.

Not to go abroad in search of monsters. Lead by example!

We can barely run our own country …obviously…Look at the state we are in today.

Best we clean our own house before trying to clean others

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_247.shtml

[flying]

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_247.shtml

Interesting site but what is your intention?

[Steely Dan]

I find it difficult to believe that people really believe the Arab Spring was instigated by the West. Why on earth would anyone want more instability in an already unstable world? Why start in Tunisia? Certainly for the West, Mubarak staying in power in Egypt was better than what may follow--especially for Israel and by proxy the US. Libya was plodding along toward civil war quite well with no Western action. Wanting to stir up crap in Bahrain? Jordan? I doubt it.

Giving help to Libya is nothing more than wanting a little bit friendly enemy on the horizon because I doubt they will be true friends.

Without reaching for conspiracy theories I suspect there are two enormous policy errors in the west which have had very large negative effects. First economics, the neo-keynesian economics pursued by the Obama administration has used inflation as a tool to gradually default on it's debts. This has led to a spiral of competitive currency devaluation forced by Countries trying to save their export markets. The resulting inflation has hit the living standards most in Countries where food and fuel already take up higher percentages of income leading to unrest everywhere. What manifested itself as riots in Greece led to calls for regime change in Countries with Arab dictatorships, so there is an indirect link with western policy.

Then we have Obama fresh from the hubris of his nobel peace prize misunderstanding the true nature of Islam by thinking militants can be coaxed into being more moderate. The blowback the U.S got from arming the Taliban to fight the Russians should have been warning enough of this folly.

So we have the tragi-comic farce of the lib-left press applauding the Arab spring which is Obama and the E.U's favoured narrative.

P.S To briefly put on my tinfoil hat I find it difficult to believe any U.S leader could be so misinformed hence the suspicion he is indeed batting for the other team.

[Pakboong]

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_247.shtml

Interesting site but what is your intention?

Merely a response to why Sadaam did not respond with his air force. I assumed you were aware and that your question was rhetorical. His high tech air fighter capabilty was buried. Strange for a guy whose life and country were at stake.

[flying]

Interesting site but what is your intention?

Merely a response to why Sadaam did not respond with his air force. I assumed you were aware and that your question was rhetorical. His high tech air fighter capabilty was buried. Strange for a guy whose life and country were at stake.

No my question was not rhetorical but my question was in regards to the non-threat he posed to the USA

That he or even Gaddafi have planes does not mean an air force threat to the USA.

As I said on my previous post ...

folks in our own govt like Condoleeza Rice, & Colin Powell said time & again ..Saddam was effectively contained & no threat to the US.

Basically a notion that even the link you posted supports...

The former Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussayin, ordered this in attempt to save the IrAF from fighting a war the flow of which it could by no means even influence. The Iraqis knew, namely, that they could not defend against an US invasion, and were instead preparing for fighting a guerrilla war already since 2001. Consequently, the IrAF aircraft were to be either burried or dissassembled and concealed in order to make them useless to the enemy

Edited September 2, 2011 by flying

[koheesti]

Was Saddam a direct threat to the USA?

9/11 changed the way threats were preceived. Before 9/11, Saddam was seen as only a regional military threat to his neighbors. Islamic Terrorism was also a regional threat. Less than a month before the 2000 US Presidential Election, al Qaeda blew a hole in the side of the USS Cole of the coast of Yemen. Still, it wasn't an issue in the election because it was something that happened on the other side of the world.

9/11 brought the threat to the military and economic centers of the USA. While Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11, sadly for him Iraq now because a threat outside the region. There's an old Arab saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Secular Iraq and al Qaeda may not have seen eye-to-eye on many things but they were in total agreement in their hate of the USA. Imagine what al Qaeda could do if sponsored by a state like Iraq? Consider that less than a year before the war started in 2003 there were serious moves to drop sanctions against Iraq (France, Russia, Germany at the center) and the threat was growing even more.

Saddam should have taken his family and a few billion $$ and gone into exile in Saudi Arabia as was offered. If he could get a 2nd chance I bet he would choose differently. Gaddafi should also take the money and run. But these meglomaniacs can't read the writing on the wall no matter how big the letters or how close they are to it. So they get overthrown and get killed. No great loss to the world or their own people.

[SAffer]

It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings and according to some posters, her song is 'I will Oil Wells Love You.'

Yeah, and that's why the worst dictator of the lot: Mugabe doesn't draw NATO attention. No oil in Zim is there?

[Ulysses G.]

Same goes for Saddam. We used him all through the 80's & the policy makers were more than happy to do so.

Yet later for reasons most choose to ignore like thumbing his nose at selling oil in USD he was no longer deemed useful. Things were claimed …..WMD's, his wickedness etc...

Yet again this is rather sudden no? So off he had to go.

Nothing to do with invading Kuwait and putting a hit out on a U.S President then?

[Pakboong]

Was Saddam a direct threat to the USA?

9/11 changed the way threats were preceived. Before 9/11, Saddam was seen as only a regional military threat to his neighbors. Islamic Terrorism was also a regional threat. Less than a month before the 2000 US Presidential Election, al Qaeda blew a hole in the side of the USS Cole of the coast of Yemen. Still, it wasn't an issue in the election because it was something that happened on the other side of the world.

9/11 brought the threat to the military and economic centers of the USA. While Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11, sadly for him Iraq now because a threat outside the region. There's an old Arab saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Secular Iraq and al Qaeda may not have seen eye-to-eye on many things but they were in total agreement in their hate of the USA. Imagine what al Qaeda could do if sponsored by a state like Iraq? Consider that less than a year before the war started in 2003 there were serious moves to drop sanctions against Iraq (France, Russia, Germany at the center) and the threat was growing even more.

Saddam should have taken his family and a few billion $$ and gone into exile in Saudi Arabia as was offered. If he could get a 2nd chance I bet he would choose differently. Gaddafi should also take the money and run. But these meglomaniacs can't read the writing on the wall no matter how big the letters or how close they are to it. So they get overthrown and get killed. No great loss to the world or their own people.

Pla

I guess plan B was to sit in a spider hole for 6 months with $750,000 worth of sequentially numbered US 100 dollar bills which could have only come directly from one of the Federal Reserve Banks?

[flying]

Nothing to do with invading Kuwait and putting a hit out on a U.S President then?

Surely does involve Kuwait

Perhaps look at the reason for that too.

Look up slant drilling & where the machinery Kuwait used came from

But also look at where Saddam got the military might to invade.

His military build up was a product of the CIA's help to build hm up in 1980 to invade Iran

Not unlike what we have seen since with OBL & now we witness in progress? yet again in Libya

We give arms to do our bidding & later try to retrieve them one bullet at a time

As for claims of putting hits on presidents/generals & a few others.....Lets not even throw rocks while living in glass houses.

At the end of the day the topic is about Libya & similar unrest through out the ME

If one wants it to end ...then the beginnings have to be examined for what they were. Learned from & not repeated

No matter how it has been spun the end result is not what was hoped for....for anyone...world wide

Edited September 2, 2011 by flying

[Ulysses G.]

Nothing to do with invading Kuwait and putting a hit out on a U.S President then?

Surely does involve Kuwait

Perhaps look at the reason for that too.

OIL.

[flying]

Nothing to do with invading Kuwait and putting a hit out on a U.S President then?

Surely does involve Kuwait

Perhaps look at the reason for that too.

OIL.

Correct AFAIK

As is often the reason

[chuckd]

But also look at where Saddam got the military might to invade.

His military build up was a product of the CIA's help to build hm up in 1980 to invade Iran

Not unlike what we have seen since with OBL & now we witness in progress? yet again in Libya

We give arms to do our bidding & later try to retrieve them one bullet at a time.

I hate to bust your bubble but Saddam's army was driving Chinese and Soviet provided tanks and APCs. They had no military equipment provided by the CIA or US governments. Perhaps you could provide a link to refute my response?

Also, do you have anything to offer about the US providing weapons to the Libyan rebels? I haven't seen anything about that on the Drudge Reports.