Libya: five years on from the death of Gaddafi

[Krataiboy]

On 21/10/2016 at 1:18 PM, Morch said:

 

Globalresearch can hardly be called a reliable source, same goes for claiming that the author (Michel Chossudovsky) is objective.

 

 

I didn't claim MC was objective. No human can be. The objectivity I referred to are the facts and figures quoted in the article, which (as I am sure you have already discovered) can be validated elsewhere and which provide a much-needed antidote to the distorted portrayal of Gaddafi's Libya painted by the mass media.

 

Can you produce any evidence to back up your opinion that Globalresearch is an unreliable source, or is this yet another instance - all too common on ThaiVisa - of rubbishing the messenger because of the message?

 

 

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

 

I didn't claim MC was objective. No human can be. The objectivity I referred to are the facts and figures quoted in the article, which (as I am sure you have already discovered) can be validated elsewhere and which provide a much-needed antidote to the distorted portrayal of Gaddafi's Libya painted by the mass media.

 

Can you produce any evidence to back up your opinion that Globalresearch is an unreliable source, or is this yet another instance - all too common on ThaiVisa - of rubbishing the messenger because of the message?

 

 

 

Globalresearch is rife with "articles" proclaiming various conspiracy theories. Some touching on racist notions. Its unreliability can be be further asserted, by noting that it rarely (if ever) publishes corrections when "articles" are found to be incorrect, and by the constant bias (with regard to standing issues) openly exhibited. It is anything but objective or reliable.

 

As for treating the linked article (and the figures included) as an accurate description of reality - again, look up older topics on this forum, plenty of reference as to how these figures actually translated under Gaddafi's rule.

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, Krataiboy said:

 

I didn't claim MC was objective. No human can be. The objectivity I referred to are the facts and figures quoted in the article, which (as I am sure you have already discovered) can be validated elsewhere and which provide a much-needed antidote to the distorted portrayal of Gaddafi's Libya painted by the mass media.

 

Can you produce any evidence to back up your opinion that Globalresearch is an unreliable source, or is this yet another instance - all too common on ThaiVisa - of rubbishing the messenger because of the message?

 

 

From that article. Pure conspiracy theory,  and not true.

 

Quote

The objective of the NATO bombings from the outset was to destroy the country’s standard of living, its health infrastructure, its schools and hospitals, its water distribution system.

 

This review puts it best. Great site for those who want to read anti West news. Click bait for some.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch

 

Quote

 

Globalresearch is an anti-"Western" website that can't distinguish between serious analysis and discreditable junk -- and so publishes both. It's basically the moonbat equivalent to Infowars or WND.

 

While some of GlobalResearch's articles discuss legitimate humanitarian concerns, its view of science, economics, and geopolitics is conspiracist -- if something goes wrong, the Jews West didit! The site has long been a crank magnet: If you disagree with "Western" sources on 9/11, or HAARP, or vaccines, or H1N1, or climate change, or anything published by the "mainstream" media, then GlobalResearch is guaranteed to have a page you will love.