Thread: What Has Been Happening in Libya?

I have been watching the TV news channel “Russia Today” and have been following their coverage of the current situation in Libya as it unfolds. Precisely what some of their correspondents have been saying about the situation I have found slightly surprising.

Instead of avoiding a humanitarian crisis, the NATO action in Libya appears to be actually to be causing one. Correspondents report of ‘empty’ cities where inhabitants have fled on mass taking all of their belongings with them. Many have fled to the border with Tunisia where many problems have been caused by the migrations and where there have even been reports of gunfire.

Further an Italian speaking eye witness reported seeing NATO bombing of hospitals, schools and civilian homes almost on a daily basis. This was not accidental bombing the witness claimed but a sustained policy to cause panic in the cities.

There has also been some debate as to how stable a new rebel led government in Libya will be. Apparently there is no guarantee there won’t be a civil war between the rival factions of the rebel groups and further some of the rebel factions are even given over to ‘al-Qaeda’ type extremism.

Apparently most of Libya’s natural oil resources have already been divided up on paper, the majority going to European corporations. The end result is that the average tax payer will foot the bill of the war effort while the corporations will reap the economic rewards of all the spoils. A rather cushy deal indeed!

Is this being reported on any other stations, or just the Russian station? And how old is the news yu are talking about?

Apparently most of Libya’s natural oil resources have already been divided up on paper, the majority going to European corporations.

Keep in mind that Russian corporations had extensive hydrocarbon investments in Qaddafi's Libya. Russia did not support the rebels and stands to lose favor with whatever new regime emerges. Russian corporations will likely be less favored than corporations based in NATO countries for future contracts. RT, as a mouthpiece for the Russian government, is going to spin this to look as if it is western connivance, rather than Russia's tacit backing of Qaddafi that is to blame for its loss.

As for the bombing of hospitals, I have seen reliable reports of one case where a hospital was accidentally hit. Any claim that "This was not accidental bombing...but a sustained policy to cause panic in the cities" requires more than a report in the conspiracy theory laden RT to gain credibility.

As far as the stability of any emerging regime, or its legitimacy, or Islamic extremist involvement in it, or the potential for tribal conflict or civil war, these concerns have been repeatedly reported on numerous news media. It's not exactly a new revelation.

Originally Posted by galexander

Further an Italian speaking eye witness reported seeing NATO bombing of hospitals, schools and civilian homes almost on a daily basis. This was not accidental bombing the witness claimed but a sustained policy to cause panic in the cities.

What a way to win hearts and minds! As a military strategy the bombing of hospitals, schools and homes must be on a par with shooting down one's own planes.
There are dangers associated with involvement in Libya, but I approve of the NATO action and others have the right to disagree. I do not believe, for a second, that there has been a consistent policy to attack hospitals etc.
Who is this "Italian" witness and why is he/she the only individual to have mentioned this policy?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Is this being reported on any other stations, or just the Russian station? And how old is the news yu are talking about?

The news is current and up to date virtually hour by hour.

Not all of these issues are discussed in much detail on the regular stations however I don't watch them all.

I often get the impression that the regular news is 'sanitized' somewhat as it often sounds hollow and less than genuine. For example 'stock phrases' are often used which sound military in origin when situations like Libya are discussed.

Regular stations are reporting the aid packages at the moment to bring clean water and sanitation to the cities of Libya. If the supply of clean water is a problem then this could indicate the extent of the damage done by the NATO bombing campaign. The BBC news showed images today of a large bombed out market place. For something like this to be hit says something about the 'precision' bombing being used by NATO.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

Apparently most of Libya’s natural oil resources have already been divided up on paper, the majority going to European corporations.

Keep in mind that Russian corporations had extensive hydrocarbon investments in Qaddafi's Libya. Russia did not support the rebels and stands to lose favor with whatever new regime emerges. Russian corporations will likely be less favored than corporations based in NATO countries for future contracts. RT, as a mouthpiece for the Russian government, is going to spin this to look as if it is western connivance, rather than Russia's tacit backing of Qaddafi that is to blame for its loss.

As for the bombing of hospitals, I have seen reliable reports of one case where a hospital was accidentally hit. Any claim that "This was not accidental bombing...but a sustained policy to cause panic in the cities" requires more than a report in the conspiracy theory laden RT to gain credibility.

As far as the stability of any emerging regime, or its legitimacy, or Islamic extremist involvement in it, or the potential for tribal conflict or civil war, these concerns have been repeatedly reported on numerous news media. It's not exactly a new revelation.

Many countries have investments in Libya. Gaddafi made a state visit to its trading partner Italy in 2009 and now Libya's ally has turned against it.

As for RT being a mouthpiece of the Russian government, that's not really the truth at all. Many English speaking persons are invited to talk on the channel such as a previous editor of the Sun newspaper who gave a brilliant account of Blair's phoney 'War on Terror'. A number of the newsreaders are familiar faces such as Rory Suchet, the son of the UK newsreader John Suchet and Bill Dodd a TV presenter with ITV.

I've not heard of any conspiracy theories being promoted on the channel when I have been watching.

Originally Posted by Halliday

Originally Posted by galexander

Further an Italian speaking eye witness reported seeing NATO bombing of hospitals, schools and civilian homes almost on a daily basis. This was not accidental bombing the witness claimed but a sustained policy to cause panic in the cities.

What a way to win hearts and minds! As a military strategy the bombing of hospitals, schools and homes must be on a par with shooting down one's own planes.
There are dangers associated with involvement in Libya, but I approve of the NATO action and others have the right to disagree. I do not believe, for a second, that there has been a consistent policy to attack hospitals etc.
Who is this "Italian" witness and why is he/she the only individual to have mentioned this policy?

But do you approve of the one-sided, sanitized news coverage?

You say you 'do not believe, for a second, that there has been a consistent policy to attack hospitals', but how could you possibly know this yourself personally?

I never said the Italian witness was the only witness to speak out on RT. You are putting words into my mouth.

Originally Posted by galexander

But do you approve of the one-sided, sanitized news coverage?

You say you 'do not believe, for a second, that there has been a consistent policy to attack hospitals', but how could you possibly know this yourself personally?

I never said the Italian witness was the only witness to speak out on RT. You are putting words into my mouth.

I don't believe TV/Radio coverage can ever be totally accurate or tell the "whole" story, but I do trust the Western media far more than anything coming out of (ex KGB) Putin's Russia- a state with a long history of authoritarianism, under the Czars, and totalitarianism under the CPSU.
If there was a policy to attack hospitals etc. I do not accept the Western media, the BBC, ITVetc. in Britain, would be able or willing to censor this information.
On your comment "I never said the Italian witness was the only witness to speak out on RT". I have been watching a number of different TV channels, and listening to radio broadcasts. I have never heard anyone else mention such a policy.

Originally Posted by Halliday

Originally Posted by galexander

But do you approve of the one-sided, sanitized news coverage?

You say you 'do not believe, for a second, that there has been a consistent policy to attack hospitals', but how could you possibly know this yourself personally?

I never said the Italian witness was the only witness to speak out on RT. You are putting words into my mouth.

I don't believe TV/Radio coverage can ever be totally accurate or tell the "whole" story, but I do trust the Western media far more than anything coming out of (ex KGB) Putin's Russia- a state with a long history of authoritarianism, under the Czars, and totalitarianism under the CPSU.
If there was a policy to attack hospitals etc. I do not accept the Western media, the BBC, ITVetc. in Britain, would be able or willing to censor this information.
On your comment "I never said the Italian witness was the only witness to speak out on RT". I have been watching a number of different TV channels, and listening to radio broadcasts. I have never heard anyone else mention such a policy.

You are suggesting that RT is simply broadcasting lies but this can't be true because the channel interviews independent experts from all over the world. These authorities can include politicians from the Arab world, Western journalists and newspaper editors, etc, etc.

Ask yourself how precision bombing can hit a single hospital? What was based near this hospital?

Check out the following story from RT which claims that an al-Qaeda man is technically in control of Libya:

Escobar: Al-Qaeda asset is military commander of Tripoli — RT

So what you are saying is that he entirety of the news media outside of your Russian source is coluding in a massive conspiracy to disseminate false information to the worlds population.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

So what you are saying is that he entirety of the news media outside of your Russian source is colluding in a massive conspiracy to disseminate false information to the worlds population.

I would say that just about sums it up!

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

So what you are saying is that he entirety of the news media outside of your Russian source is coluding in a massive conspiracy to disseminate false information to the worlds population.

Again you use the word 'conspiracy' and it is a word you have been conditioned to repeat.

All I am suggesting is that when it comes to reporting acts of war overseas the reporting is not always entirely genuine. Mistakes have apparently been learnt from Vietnam where honest reporting by the media can alter the course of an on-going war.

What we get therefore is a one-sided, sanitized version of events in situations such as Libya.

And my word, does it sound like it!

All I am suggesting is that when it comes to reporting acts of war overseas the reporting is not always entirely genuine. Mistakes have apparently been learnt from Vietnam where honest reporting by the media can alter the course of an on-going war.

True, but then there's the internet...a lot of this stuff is next to impossible to totally lock out with people uploading things.

You are suggesting that RT is simply broadcasting lies but this can't be true because the channel interviews independent experts from all over the world. These authorities can include politicians from the Arab world, Western journalists and newspaper editors, etc, etc.

They just select experts who will slant properly, then all is well.
I live in the US but like the BBC and the independent, also Al-jazeera. Al jazeera in particular is impressing me; they anger everyone , which means they are probably operating as proper journalists.

Every country presents stuff in their own style and cultural context, so it's always best to have such cross-cultural input.

Edited to add...
I found this vid...it does appear that Nato hit a hospital? But I'm having technical trouble loading the sound ATM.

Perhaps there was a mistargeting...But it seems a clinic and government food warehouse has been hit.
http://www.trendchatter.com/2011/08/...hospital-food/
Also in passing the reporter mentions a school and mosque were also struck.

Originally Posted by random

All I am suggesting is that when it comes to reporting acts of war overseas the reporting is not always entirely genuine. Mistakes have apparently been learnt from Vietnam where honest reporting by the media can alter the course of an on-going war.

True, but then there's the internet...a lot of this stuff is next to impossible to totally lock out with people uploading things.

You are suggesting that RT is simply broadcasting lies but this can't be true because the channel interviews independent experts from all over the world. These authorities can include politicians from the Arab world, Western journalists and newspaper editors, etc, etc.

They just select experts who will slant properly, then all is well.
I live in the US but like the BBC and the independent, also Al-jazeera. Al jazeera in particular is impressing me; they anger everyone , which means they are probably operating as proper journalists.

Every country presents stuff in their own style and cultural context, so it's always best to have such cross-cultural input.

Edited to add...
I found this vid...it does appear that Nato hit a hospital? But I'm having technical trouble loading the sound ATM.

Perhaps there was a mistargeting...But it seems a clinic and government food warehouse has been hit.
Breaking News Video: libya NEWS CNN: nato Bombing Hospital &Food. | TrendChatter.com Hot Trend Breaking News Videos
Also in passing the reporter mentions a school and mosque were also struck.

You say the powers that be would never be able to block genuine opinion from the internet, but what am I doing now...................

Although there are undoubtedly many sites on the internet that broadcast information the powers that be would rather keep quiet about, many of these sites are probably well down on the rankings on search terms. Indeed this could even be a covert way used by governments of suppressing stories they don't approve of.

Putting a controversial site on the internet is one thing but what is the point hardly anyone looks at it?

The main thing that concerns governments more than anything else is that their voice is the loudest and is heard the most.

Here's what the Columbia Journalism Review has to say about RT:

Russia Today was conceived as a soft-power tool to improve Russia’s image abroad, to counter the anti-Russian bias the Kremlin saw in the Western media. Since its founding in 2005, however, the broadcast outlet has become better known as an extension of former President Vladimir Putin’s confrontational foreign policy. Too often the channel was provocative just for the sake of being provocative. It featured fringe-dwelling “experts,” like the Russian historian who predicted the imminent dissolution of the United States; broadcast bombastic speeches by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez; aired ads conflating Barack Obama with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; and ran out-of-nowhere reports on the homeless in America. Often, it seemed that Russia Today was just a way to stick it to the U.S. from behind the façade of legitimate newsgathering.

What Is Russia Today? : CJR

galexander- mobile devices linked to twitter, blogs, facebook, myspace, etc.... prevent the type of massive coverup yuo are suggesting.

AND as you dont even know me please refrain from suggesting "conditioning" as you do not know enough about me to make any sort of judgement like that.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

galexander- mobile devices linked to twitter, blogs, facebook, myspace, etc.... prevent the type of massive coverup yuo are suggesting.

AND as you dont even know me please refrain from suggesting "conditioning" as you do not know enough about me to make any sort of judgement like that.

I am not familiar with the technology you are referring to or precisely how it works.

If I use the term 'conditioning' please don't take it too personally, I was merely presenting an argument. Sometimes during these debates I have to take a few knocks myself.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

Here's what the Columbia Journalism Review has to say about RT:

Russia Today was conceived as a soft-power tool to improve Russia’s image abroad, to counter the anti-Russian bias the Kremlin saw in the Western media. Since its founding in 2005, however, the broadcast outlet has become better known as an extension of former President Vladimir Putin’s confrontational foreign policy. Too often the channel was provocative just for the sake of being provocative. It featured fringe-dwelling “experts,” like the Russian historian who predicted the imminent dissolution of the United States; broadcast bombastic speeches by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez; aired ads conflating Barack Obama with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; and ran out-of-nowhere reports on the homeless in America. Often, it seemed that Russia Today was just a way to stick it to the U.S. from behind the façade of legitimate newsgathering.

What Is Russia Today? : CJR

That RT has been described as simply a tool of Vladimir Putin is just a perception. It doesn't mean that it necessarily is. The news source you are quoting may be opinionated itself.

I don't mean to apologise for any misreporting but don't forget some of the news reports originating from the West concerning Russia can at times be slightly one-sided.

If an historian was predicting the dissolution of the US then I am sure RT was merely reporting the story in good faith and did not necessarily agree with all the opinions of the historian in question. Presumably what RT found interesting was that an historian actually thought this and was prepared to discuss the subject on TV.

So RT broadcast bombastic speeches from Hugo Chavez. It doesn't mean that RT therefore agrees with every single word of those speeches like the gospels.

And anyway why would anyone want to criticize the US from behind 'the facade of legitimate new gathering' unless they disagreed with what the US was doing and saying anway?

The whole tone of your quote from the Columbia Journalism Review is loaded with opinion and insinuation itself when you look at it a little more critically.

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

galexander- mobile devices linked to twitter, blogs, facebook, myspace, etc.... prevent the type of massive coverup yuo are suggesting.

AND as you dont even know me please refrain from suggesting "conditioning" as you do not know enough about me to make any sort of judgement like that.

I am not familiar with the technology you are referring to or precisely how it works.

If I use the term 'conditioning' please don't take it too personally, I was merely presenting an argument. Sometimes during these debates I have to take a few knocks myself.

Somehow I doubt this to be honest. If you are truly unfamiliar with this, then you have been living a very sheltered life for the past decade and not payed attention to tech developments with the internet, websites, and mobile tech, eg phones.

And no that is not presenting an argument that is an ad homonym attack on the poster that does nothing to further the discussion.

I had an opportunity to watch RT last winter during my month in Thailand. I was beyond a doubt the worst reporting and most biased set of news I'd ever watched--including that of very polarized broadcast such as Fox News and MSNBC, which looks very mild by comparison. At that time they were advertising the show "American atrocities of Vietnam," a show completely without historical context, such as the unpopularity and pressure to court marshal offenders from the American population or official policies against the very crimes being put forth as standard operating procedures. Another show was about Western environmental damage. Of course there wasn't a single show about similar (or worse) events in Russia. I was probably indistinguishable from the types of programing routinely down during the 1970 to vilify everything Western while celebrating everything in the USRR. I normally welcome and actively seek out different perspectives, often getting news from BBC and Al Jazeera (better than most US sources for the Middle East news), both of which come across as far better and objective than any of the programing I watched on RT.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

I had an opportunity to watch RT last winter during my month in Thailand. I was beyond a doubt the worst reporting and most biased set of news I'd ever watched--including that of very polarized broadcast such as Fox News and MSNBC, which looks very mild by comparison. At that time they were advertising the show "American atrocities of Vietnam," a show completely without historical context, such as the unpopularity and pressure to court marshal offenders from the American population or official policies against the very crimes being put forth as standard operating procedures. Another show was about Western environmental damage. Of course there wasn't a single show about similar (or worse) events in Russia. I was probably indistinguishable from the types of programing routinely down during the 1970 to vilify everything Western while celebrating everything in the USRR. I normally welcome and actively seek out different perspectives, often getting news from BBC and Al Jazeera (better than most US sources for the Middle East news), both of which come across as far better and objective than any of the programing I watched on RT.

Well how are you such an expert that you know, for a fact, that the reporting on RT was inaccurate or wrong?

How am I meant to take your words for it?

Are you sure you are not suffering from the prejudice that all news reports originating from Russia must be treated with suspicion?

Well how are you such an expert that you know, for a fact, that the reporting on RT was inaccurate or wrong?

I'm not suggesting either.
I am asserting like most propaganda there's a lots of selective information of facts which on a whole, gives a very inaccurate impression. For example if your only programming about the Vietnam war is about the atrocities American Soldiers and Marines committed there you're getting a very one sided view of things. There's no mention of the enormous American-sponsored humanitarian missions at the same time, no mention of the formal prohibitions against those atrocities or pursuit of justice against those who committed them, no mention of the follow-on actions such as training all officers about post-traumatic stress, mental resilience and toxic leadership that's been incorporated since. (heck I could write pages and pages about those atrocities). The depictions of environmental damage are much the same without context laws at the time, understanding of effects or changes that happened as a result. Like most officers, I know about information operations, RT is a classic text-book example of using some of those tactics.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Well how are you such an expert that you know, for a fact, that the reporting on RT was inaccurate or wrong?

I'm not suggesting either.
I am asserting like most propaganda there's a lots of selective information of facts which on a whole, gives a very inaccurate impression. For example if your only programming about the Vietnam war is about the atrocities American Soldiers and Marines committed there you're getting a very one sided view of things. There's no mention of the enormous American-sponsored humanitarian missions at the same time, no mention of the formal prohibitions against those atrocities or pursuit of justice against those who committed them, no mention of the follow-on actions such as training all officers about post-traumatic stress, mental resilience and toxic leadership that's been incorporated since. (heck I could write pages and pages about those atrocities). The depictions of environmental damage are much the same without context laws at the time, understanding of effects or changes that happened as a result. Like most officers, I know about information operations, RT is a classic text-book example of using some of those tactics.

The problem is you have not watched anything like enough of RT to form a definite unbiased opinion about the channel.

RT interviews people from a whole array of differing backgrounds and does not necessarily share any of the opinions of the persons they are interviewing. They are simply allowing them to voice their opinion.

The other day, for example, they interviewed a British MP in London about the UN resolutions in Libya. They also interview American citizens such as during their recent coverage of the poor economic situation in Detroit.

RT is not telling these people what to say, they are all voicing their own opinions.

The fact that you say RT must be biased, is, I claim, not an entirely unbiased opinion in itself.

Originally Posted by galexander

They also interview American citizens such as during their recent coverage of the poor economic situation in Detroit.

I'm sure they also interviewed Russian citizens about the situation in Grozny. You know, fair and balanced reporting.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

Originally Posted by galexander

They also interview American citizens such as during their recent coverage of the poor economic situation in Detroit.

I'm sure they also interviewed Russian citizens about the situation in Grozny. You know, fair and balanced reporting.

Even though I haven't actually seen this on RT, I'm sure they probably have. The channel does present some quite critical views on its country of origin.

Returning to the subject of Libya, do you not get just the vaguest of feelings that the reporting of events leans ever so slightly to one side of the balance?

Do you get the impression that the media may have sided with the rebels and in this respect are not entirely neutral at all? Atrocities committed by the rebels barely gets a mention compared with allegations of human rights abuses among Gaddafi supporters. Presumably dwelling on any atrocities carried out by the rebels might be considered as being unduly sympathetic to Gaddafi and his supporters and so the press 'politely' ignore this. Also the allegation that the rebel military leader may be an al-Qaeda man is simply passed off as "rumours he may be 'Islamist' ".

Are you really that naive as to believe there are no biases within our own media at all?

The thing is, as already stated the amount of unrelated media outlets plus the social media side of things at this point balance the amount of bias out.

Originally Posted by galexander

Are you really that naive as to believe there are no biases within our own media at all?

Nice strawman there, galexander, not to mention ad hominem and simple cheap shot. No one, least of all me, has suggested any such thing.

Look, is it possible NATO hit the wrong targets by accident?
Ockam's razor... incorrect targeting.

I do remember reading that al'Qaeda operatives were fighting on the side of the rebellion in Libya...this does not mean they are running things...OTOH, they are some of the few trained soldiers on the rebellion's side...

Originally Posted by galexander

Returning to the subject of Libya, do you not get just the vaguest of feelings that the reporting of events leans ever so slightly to one side of the balance?

Do you get the impression that the media may have sided with the rebels and in this respect are not entirely neutral at all? Atrocities committed by the rebels barely gets a mention compared with allegations of human rights abuses among Gaddafi supporters. Presumably dwelling on any atrocities carried out by the rebels might be considered as being unduly sympathetic to Gaddafi and his supporters and so the press 'politely' ignore this. Also the allegation that the rebel military leader may be an al-Qaeda man is simply passed off as "rumours he may be 'Islamist' ".

Are you really that naive as to believe there are no biases within our own media at all?

The media is biased toward trying to report something interesting enough that people will trouble themselves to read it. Gaddafi and his guys hurting civilians would be nothing new. However, if NATO did it.......now that's a whole other story. The mere curiosity will convince people to set down their coffee mug, walk over the news vendor and buy a copy, just to see if there's any real merit to the allegation.

It's the downside of having a press system that is financially motivated. Sometimes bullocks sells better than real news.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

The thing is, as already stated the amount of unrelated media outlets plus the social media side of things at this point balance the amount of bias out.

An apologist's answer par excellence!

Originally Posted by random

Look, is it possible NATO hit the wrong targets by accident?
Ockam's razor... incorrect targeting.

I do remember reading that al'Qaeda operatives were fighting on the side of the rebellion in Libya...this does not mean they are running things...OTOH, they are some of the few trained soldiers on the rebellion's side...

But can't you see the phenomenal irony of trying to topple Gaddafi only to have al-Qaeda operatives fill his shoes?

My, oh my!

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by galexander

Returning to the subject of Libya, do you not get just the vaguest of feelings that the reporting of events leans ever so slightly to one side of the balance?

Do you get the impression that the media may have sided with the rebels and in this respect are not entirely neutral at all? Atrocities committed by the rebels barely gets a mention compared with allegations of human rights abuses among Gaddafi supporters. Presumably dwelling on any atrocities carried out by the rebels might be considered as being unduly sympathetic to Gaddafi and his supporters and so the press 'politely' ignore this. Also the allegation that the rebel military leader may be an al-Qaeda man is simply passed off as "rumours he may be 'Islamist' ".

Are you really that naive as to believe there are no biases within our own media at all?

The media is biased toward trying to report something interesting enough that people will trouble themselves to read it. Gaddafi and his guys hurting civilians would be nothing new. However, if NATO did it.......now that's a whole other story. The mere curiosity will convince people to set down their coffee mug, walk over the news vendor and buy a copy, just to see if there's any real merit to the allegation.

It's the downside of having a press system that is financially motivated. Sometimes bullocks sells better than real news.

Again another apologist's argument I feel.

But wouldn't you rather hear or read about the whole story rather than all this posturing and prancing around? I know I would.

so when will you admit that you are just a troll? How about trying to actually address my comment rather then just dismissing it and evading.

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

The thing is, as already stated the amount of unrelated media outlets plus the social media side of things at this point balance the amount of bias out.

An apologist's answer par excellence!

I have to at least agree, that opposed bias doesn't result in balance. That's "two wrongs makes a right" type thinking. All you really get is just more confused.

I'm not sure it's exactly an "apologist" concept, though.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

so when will you admit that you are just a troll? How about trying to actually address my comment rather then just dismissing it and evading.

kojax has fully answered this point for me.

But changing the subject slightly now, although many would brand such thinking as conspiracy theory, I think the media can very much create a false consensus of opinion. The media, and especially television, is an extremely powerful tool for influencing public opinion. I'm sure the vast majority of the public simply repeat, either consciously or subconsciously, opinions that they are continually spoon-fed by the media.

But this isn't just a paranoid theory, there are various institutes out there who have made studies of the very same thing and know exactly how far they can push things.

I watch the news from time to time but different people from around the world have different ideas but we don't know them as we would like to. So libya is a battlefield from one point of but we get pictures and reports from areas of Libya so even our bradcasters can't relay as much information as we would like to know. i guess with the resrictions of commuinication such as broadband and the need to relay that information as quick as we can other international news readers could find information that we have not got. Libya is for me a none educational event in the way that if i were to relay information from a fast information hub would that information be correct and understood as i wanted it to be. I think it's about time and events like Libya are one of those events that has to take time it's a difficult problem after many years of rule from a dicator that ruled that part of the world. In my eyes and YES, I have learnt from an experience that if i look to hard into something the news and information i looked upon to understand is something that I understood to some extent but didn;t enjoy. It wasn't bad, not at all more about a message that to have been held back myself in some areas of my travel I understood that if i were to try and understand to much i would be going against my own beliefs not to delve to much into other countries past, future but remain more in the presesnt, then I would not be thinking to much about what I can do to improve the situation, it really isnt my job to feel like that but that's my sprirt of mind.

Originally Posted by Jona

I watch the news from time to time but different people from around the world have different ideas but we don't know them as we would like to. So libya is a battlefield from one point of but we get pictures and reports from areas of Libya so even our bradcasters can't relay as much information as we would like to know. i guess with the resrictions of commuinication such as broadband and the need to relay that information as quick as we can other international news readers could find information that we have not got. Libya is for me a none educational event in the way that if i were to relay information from a fast information hub would that information be correct and understood as i wanted it to be. I think it's about time and events like Libya are one of those events that has to take time it's a difficult problem after many years of rule from a dicator that ruled that part of the world. In my eyes and YES, I have learnt from an experience that if i look to hard into something the news and information i looked upon to understand is something that I understood to some extent but didn;t enjoy. It wasn't bad, not at all more about a message that to have been held back myself in some areas of my travel I understood that if i were to try and understand to much i would be going against my own beliefs not to delve to much into other countries past, future but remain more in the presesnt, then I would not be thinking to much about what I can do to improve the situation, it really isnt my job to feel like that but that's my sprirt of mind.

I think it is grossly hypocritical to ignore so many other regimes across the globe who are known to commit human rights violations when it is obvious that the regime in question is on friendly terms with many Western powers.

Instead when the victims of these human rights violations fight back they are branded as 'terrorists'.

I agree with some of that: However if you exmaple my human rights have been breached and i felt upset that my rights for honesty and progression in this world was encrouched then should i express anger and watch what i had learnt become successful for others.

I feel proud about what I have in this life >>>> I have worked hard for the truth and to help others only to have it thrown at me to watch myself beg for money to allow the progression of my life and the lonliness that they inflicted on me be lost for ever?

Originally Posted by Jona

I agree with some of that: However if you exmaple my human rights have been breached and i felt upset that my rights for honesty and progression in this world was encrouched then should i express anger and watch what i had learnt become successful for others.

I feel proud about what I have in this life >>>> I have worked hard for the truth and to help others only to have it thrown at me to watch myself beg for money to allow the progression of my life and the lonliness that they inflicted on me be lost for ever?

At the end of the day the world is run by a millionaire's club and they don't really care about the poor people.

I was watching a programme called "Cross Talk" earlier on today broadcast on Russia Today and the panel of experts was of the opinion that if the US taxed the super rich and their various interests, several trillion dollars could be raised in ten years which would easily cover the economic deficit. Instead the already suffering middle classes are taxed.

What's wrong with this? Is politics such a grubby game that politicians are simply lining their own pockets?

In that case if all the world's money was already burnt then the burners would already be controlling where and when the money could be spent. On the rebound on this i doubt this, no country would so silly to have an economy copied but there are people on this planet whom are aware that this evil on this planet that cause addiction and control. Hence no, job, no children and a vacany family. This is because money does not control me it feeds me with the need for food but even then if I dies from starvation would I be happy

So if a trillion dollars was raised then where would this money be utilised and why? Some people lead a healthy, controlled life with beautiful families, they in my eyes are protected for the future. Money should not be a part of our children at an early age and should not be taught at school. I feel like a child, new and away from thr troubles of collateral damage such as money.

Maybe we want millionaires running the world. Clearly they're good with money, or they wouldn't stay wealthy. The trouble is some of them get that way through politics instead of hard work or other productivity. Or, in some cases, by corruption.

Things would be simpler if there were no nukes in play. Then a place like Libya would be somebody's vassal state. They kind of are anyway, but in a non-nuclear world it would be a formally stated relationship. Less duplicity. Better government, albeit government by "outsiders" of course.

Originally Posted by kojax

Maybe we want millionaires running the world. Clearly they're good with money, or they wouldn't stay wealthy. The trouble is some of them get that way through politics instead of hard work or other productivity. Or, in some cases, by corruption.

Things would be simpler if there were no nukes in play. Then a place like Libya would be somebody's vassal state. They kind of are anyway, but in a non-nuclear world it would be a formally stated relationship. Less duplicity. Better government, albeit government by "outsiders" of course.

It depends what you mean by millionaires being 'good with money'. Just because they are good with money does not necessarily mean therefore that it is good for everyone.

But the point you miss by several miles, though this isn't immediately obvious, is that the world isn't meant to be run by millionaires at all. It's meant to be run by democracies; you know, when people vote and stuff.............

However I still enjoyed the naivety of your New Right philosophy.

You mean that people who are bad with money should run everything? What do you think that would do to the world's economy? Given a choice, people would vote to pay no taxes whatsoever, and get all kinds of great services. Sometimes instead they vote for they themselves not to pay (have only the rich do the paying), or passing the tax burden on to their children.

Do you think the majority should be allowed to simply pilfer a privileged minority by virtue of their superior numbers? What if some among that privileged minority actually earned their wealth? What if they put in hours an ordinary individual would not be willing to put in? Maybe they went to college and avoided all the frat parties, missing out on massive amounts of fun their peers got to enjoy by studying easy degrees? Certainly there are other wealthy people who got that way by being born to parents who already had it. But isn't that what bigotry is all about? Lumping people into groups, and then making assumptions about them as individuals based on the worst members of that group?

Originally Posted by galexander

The problem is you have not watched anything like enough of RT to form a definite unbiased opinion about the channel.

~I watch RT quite often. I thoroughly enjoy it. I watch it for the same reason I watch programs by fundamentalist Christian preachers when I am in the US: it is such a delight to watch professionally constructed manipulative devices blatantly applied. RT does a great job of misleading the gullible, so I am surprised you have been taken in by them.

Oh, wait a moment. It's you. Perhaps not such a surprise after all - you seem to be ready to believe that anything that is contrary to accepted wisdom must absolutely be true.

Originally Posted by kojax

You mean that people who are bad with money should run everything? What do you think that would do to the world's economy? Given a choice, people would vote to pay no taxes whatsoever, and get all kinds of great services. Sometimes instead they vote for they themselves not to pay (have only the rich do the paying), or passing the tax burden on to their children.

Do you think the majority should be allowed to simply pilfer a privileged minority by virtue of their superior numbers? What if some among that privileged minority actually earned their wealth? What if they put in hours an ordinary individual would not be willing to put in? Maybe they went to college and avoided all the frat parties, missing out on massive amounts of fun their peers got to enjoy by studying easy degrees? Certainly there are other wealthy people who got that way by being born to parents who already had it. But isn't that what bigotry is all about? Lumping people into groups, and then making assumptions about them as individuals based on the worst members of that group?

It all depends what you mean by being 'good' with money? Just because the word 'good' was used doesn't necessarily mean therefore that it really was good. I hate to get too Aristotelian here.

The rest of what you said was unashamedly elitist. With an elitist society and an elitist education system, the common man will remain common and that, after all, is the likely aim of the same elite. The whole thing is self-perpetuating.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by galexander

The problem is you have not watched anything like enough of RT to form a definite unbiased opinion about the channel.

~I watch RT quite often. I thoroughly enjoy it. I watch it for the same reason I watch programs by fundamentalist Christian preachers when I am in the US: it is such a delight to watch professionally constructed manipulative devices blatantly applied. RT does a great job of misleading the gullible, so I am surprised you have been taken in by them.

Oh, wait a moment. It's you. Perhaps not such a surprise after all - you seem to be ready to believe that anything that is contrary to accepted wisdom must absolutely be true.

Absolutely untrue. I am not gullible and I have not been taken in by anything RT says.

On the contrary.

Every time RT suggests the UN might be biased I cheer with sheer delight! Every time an economics expert suggests the stock market is ripping off I smile with complete rapture!

Some of us are just loving this! We want to hear more!

And please don't forget Ophiolite that many of the experts who are being brave enough to speak their minds about what they believe in are British born and of British blood.

The next time you watch RT keep your eyes and ears open and you might learn something.

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by kojax

You mean that people who are bad with money should run everything? What do you think that would do to the world's economy? Given a choice, people would vote to pay no taxes whatsoever, and get all kinds of great services. Sometimes instead they vote for they themselves not to pay (have only the rich do the paying), or passing the tax burden on to their children.

Do you think the majority should be allowed to simply pilfer a privileged minority by virtue of their superior numbers? What if some among that privileged minority actually earned their wealth? What if they put in hours an ordinary individual would not be willing to put in? Maybe they went to college and avoided all the frat parties, missing out on massive amounts of fun their peers got to enjoy by studying easy degrees? Certainly there are other wealthy people who got that way by being born to parents who already had it. But isn't that what bigotry is all about? Lumping people into groups, and then making assumptions about them as individuals based on the worst members of that group?

It all depends what you mean by being 'good' with money? Just because the word 'good' was used doesn't necessarily mean therefore that it really was good. I hate to get too Aristotelian here.

Try replacing the word "good" with "efficient". The alternative, "bad", could be replaced with "inefficient". And, we'll operate under the assumption that the efficient use of money usually runs parallel with the efficient use of resources, though not necessarily always the efficient use of environmental resources.

The rest of what you said was unashamedly elitist. With an elitist society and an elitist education system, the common man will remain common and that, after all, is the likely aim of the same elite. The whole thing is self-perpetuating.

You mean they'll never develop a work ethic? Poor them.

The flip side is that sometimes a privileged group restructures a system so that the only thing it values is seed money, and labor is simply unrewarded, even educated labor. There are places where people with engineering degrees drive taxis or work in the tourism and hospitality industries, because they can barely get paying jobs doing what they learned to do, and that's where all the money is. Then the whole economy slows down. Then there's nothing more to pilfer, and the investors (people with all that seed money) have to invest it elsewhere anyway.

I understand both sides of the problem. I just resent the idea that fairness is some button you can push by empowering poor people. They're just as likely to act like greedy children as the rich ones are, and if their bad decisions ruin the economy, the rich will ultimately regain control of everything again anyway, except their powers will be more unmitigated than they ever were before.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by kojax

You mean that people who are bad with money should run everything? What do you think that would do to the world's economy? Given a choice, people would vote to pay no taxes whatsoever, and get all kinds of great services. Sometimes instead they vote for they themselves not to pay (have only the rich do the paying), or passing the tax burden on to their children.

Do you think the majority should be allowed to simply pilfer a privileged minority by virtue of their superior numbers? What if some among that privileged minority actually earned their wealth? What if they put in hours an ordinary individual would not be willing to put in? Maybe they went to college and avoided all the frat parties, missing out on massive amounts of fun their peers got to enjoy by studying easy degrees? Certainly there are other wealthy people who got that way by being born to parents who already had it. But isn't that what bigotry is all about? Lumping people into groups, and then making assumptions about them as individuals based on the worst members of that group?

It all depends what you mean by being 'good' with money? Just because the word 'good' was used doesn't necessarily mean therefore that it really was good. I hate to get too Aristotelian here.

Try replacing the word "good" with "efficient". The alternative, "bad", could be replaced with "inefficient". And, we'll operate under the assumption that the efficient use of money usually runs parallel with the efficient use of resources, though not necessarily always the efficient use of environmental resources.

The rest of what you said was unashamedly elitist. With an elitist society and an elitist education system, the common man will remain common and that, after all, is the likely aim of the same elite. The whole thing is self-perpetuating.

You mean they'll never develop a work ethic? Poor them.

The flip side is that sometimes a privileged group restructures a system so that the only thing it values is seed money, and labor is simply unrewarded, even educated labor. There are places where people with engineering degrees drive taxis or work in the tourism and hospitality industries, because they can barely get paying jobs doing what they learned to do, and that's where all the money is. Then the whole economy slows down. Then there's nothing more to pilfer, and the investors (people with all that seed money) have to invest it elsewhere anyway.

I understand both sides of the problem. I just resent the idea that fairness is some button you can push by empowering poor people. They're just as likely to act like greedy children as the rich ones are, and if their bad decisions ruin the economy, the rich will ultimately regain control of everything again anyway, except their powers will be more unmitigated than they ever were before.

Actually you said the following:

Do you think the majority should be allowed to simply pilfer a privileged minority by virtue of their superior numbers?

Rather it's the other way round. Tell me how can a single tycoon make so many billions, or even trillions, without pilfering the majority at all? Presumably he made all his money by his own individual effort with no outside help at all?

Apparently in the US two thirds of the entire national income is earned by the top 1%. And how much tax do they pay? Very little. And look at the national debt in the US.

It doesn't take an economics expert to tell you what the problem is.

Further 49% of wage earners in the US don't pay any tax at all because they are on a low income.

The economic situation in the US is becoming a joke with a monumental divide between the rich and the poor. No wonder FEMA has made so many preparations for potential social unrest.

Originally Posted by galexander

Actually you said the following:

Do you think the majority should be allowed to simply pilfer a privileged minority by virtue of their superior numbers?

Rather it's the other way round. Tell me how can a single tycoon make so many billions, or even trillions, without pilfering the majority at all? Presumably he made all his money by his own individual effort with no outside help at all?

If you look at Bill Gates, it's because he saved industries a lot of billions, and only kept a small cut of that for himself. It's just that the magnitude of the savings was so large that his little slice of the pie ended up being a lot of money in total.

Some others make billions because they manage very large business empires and do a good job of it. They make their money from the sheer scale of the work they're doing.

The more sinister ones make their money off of real estate, or by market manipulations such as mergers, or by dealing with OPEC (which is a huge international collusion racket, for want of a more polite descriptor).

Apparently in the US two thirds of the entire national income is earned by the top 1%. And how much tax do they pay? Very little. And look at the national debt in the US.

It doesn't take an economics expert to tell you what the problem is.

Further 49% of wage earners in the US don't pay any tax at all because they are on a low income.

The economic situation in the US is becoming a joke with a monumental divide between the rich and the poor. No wonder FEMA has made so many preparations for potential social unrest.

What I've seen in college is a big divide between smart and dumb. The dumb kids study fields that don't require a lot of IQ, and then go on to look for a job doing social work or some other not-very-economically-valuable direction. The small minority of smart kids study out degrees in engineering, business or some other technical field, and then go on to start large scale business operations, or work for them at an upper management level. Especially engineering schools have had a huge problem with under enrollment, even though alumni from those schools regularly make huge donations to improve the schools' facilities. It was funny looking the small class sizes in the engineering school of OSU, which has the nicest building on the whole campus right now.

Basically the increasingly small percentage of Americans with the skills necessary to keep our industries afloat are getting more and more of the money while the rest of us lay around belly aching about how entitled we feel, and how "those smart people" should be doing a better job of feeding us.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by galexander

Actually you said the following:

Do you think the majority should be allowed to simply pilfer a privileged minority by virtue of their superior numbers?

Rather it's the other way round. Tell me how can a single tycoon make so many billions, or even trillions, without pilfering the majority at all? Presumably he made all his money by his own individual effort with no outside help at all?

If you look at Bill Gates, it's because he saved industries a lot of billions, and only kept a small cut of that for himself. It's just that the magnitude of the savings was so large that his little slice of the pie ended up being a lot of money in total.

Some others make billions because they manage very large business empires and do a good job of it. They make their money from the sheer scale of the work they're doing.

The more sinister ones make their money off of real estate, or by market manipulations such as mergers, or by dealing with OPEC (which is a huge international collusion racket, for want of a more polite descriptor).

Apparently in the US two thirds of the entire national income is earned by the top 1%. And how much tax do they pay? Very little. And look at the national debt in the US.

It doesn't take an economics expert to tell you what the problem is.

Further 49% of wage earners in the US don't pay any tax at all because they are on a low income.

The economic situation in the US is becoming a joke with a monumental divide between the rich and the poor. No wonder FEMA has made so many preparations for potential social unrest.

What I've seen in college is a big divide between smart and dumb. The dumb kids study fields that don't require a lot of IQ, and then go on to look for a job doing social work or some other not-very-economically-valuable direction. The small minority of smart kids study out degrees in engineering, business or some other technical field, and then go on to start large scale business operations, or work for them at an upper management level. Especially engineering schools have had a huge problem with under enrollment, even though alumni from those schools regularly make huge donations to improve the schools' facilities. It was funny looking the small class sizes in the engineering school of OSU, which has the nicest building on the whole campus right now.

Basically the increasingly small percentage of Americans with the skills necessary to keep our industries afloat are getting more and more of the money while the rest of us lay around belly aching about how entitled we feel, and how "those smart people" should be doing a better job of feeding us.

But don't you think the richer people should be paying a higher rate of tax rather than less than the less well off as is currently the case? It just makes economic sense.

To polarize the social situation between the clever and the 'dumb' is just a product of elitism of which there is so much in the US at the moment.

I mean are policemen dumb? If your house caught fire and the fire brigade turned up at the wrong address then I suppose they would have been dumb but these people are actually risking their lives putting fires out.

I can't really believe some of the stuff you are saying.

Originally Posted by galexander

But don't you think the richer people should be paying a higher rate of tax rather than less than the less well off as is currently the case? It just makes economic sense.

If you make the tax code simple, rich people will not be able to manipulate it with their accountants as easily. Ultimately they'll end up paying more taxes.

To polarize the social situation between the clever and the 'dumb' is just a product of elitism of which there is so much in the US at the moment.

I mean are policemen dumb? If your house caught fire and the fire brigade turned up at the wrong address then I suppose they would have been dumb but these people are actually risking their lives putting fires out.

I can't really believe some of the stuff you are saying.

You're just moving the middle. Compared to Bill Gates or the guys at Google, nearly every policeman on earth is "dumb". Compared to the average, probably most police officers have above average intelligence. It's a job that applies a level of filtering to ensure that.

Most of the ultra rich are either extremely intelligent people or the children of extremely intelligent people. Unfortunately IQ is known to regress toward the average in one's descendants, so hereditary wealth sometimes leads to some real idiots getting to make important decisions.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by galexander

But don't you think the richer people should be paying a higher rate of tax rather than less than the less well off as is currently the case? It just makes economic sense.

If you make the tax code simple, rich people will not be able to manipulate it with their accountants as easily. Ultimately they'll end up paying more taxes.

How about changing the law regarding off-shore banking which is just one huge tax avoidance scheme?

When politicians talk about wealthy people taking their wealth 'overseas' to avoid higher taxes, it is actually these off-shore tax havens they are referring to.

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by galexander

But don't you think the richer people should be paying a higher rate of tax rather than less than the less well off as is currently the case? It just makes economic sense.

If you make the tax code simple, rich people will not be able to manipulate it with their accountants as easily. Ultimately they'll end up paying more taxes.

How about changing the law regarding off-shore banking which is just one huge tax avoidance scheme?

When politicians talk about wealthy people taking their wealth 'overseas' to avoid higher taxes, it is actually these off-shore tax havens they are referring to.

Just adding to the above, with all the tax increases which have affected the poor the most, in addition to the spending cuts in the UK which are also affecting the poor the most, why should the poor pay every single penny of the tax they are due while the wealthy are doing their very best to avoid paying it?

The wealthy already have enough money in the bank. They aren't struggling to get by, they aren't forced to work extra hours. The money the wealthy save on tax is being paid for by the poor people of society.

It's a disgraceful situation and what are the politician's doing about it? Nothing.

Off-shore banking is fine by just about every political party that there is.

That's a pretty constructive solution, actually. It's better than just hiking the tax rate for wealthy people when you know they're not going to pay it anyway. Tax increases for the wealthy only ends up hurting the honest ones who aren't busy trying to hide all their assets, and the professionals, such as doctors, who earned their salaries by attending many long years of schooling.

If you want to adjust things more favorably for the common man, then you should focus on closing the loopholes, and watching carefully what happens in the back rooms. Once people are wealthy enough to be powerful, they can make all kinds of alliances with law makers to get to the front of the line.

The group that gets targeted for tax hikes are usually the ones who are wealthy enough to be comfortable, but not wealthy enough to be powerful. Your average doctor, dentist, or engineer doesn't have enough political juice to make or break a senator. They probably aren't members of that infamous "top 1%" either.

They do, however, make excellent scapegoats.

Returning to the original theme of this thread, I was watching BBC News coverage the other day of the rebels in Libya moving on Gaddafi's home town and they were firing artillery shells from a location in the desert.

I couldn't help wondering where exactly these shells were landing? Could they be absolutely certain they weren't landing in civilian areas?

Eye witnesses in Tripoli speak of much destruction and there is much evidence of bombed out buildings. One Libyan eye witness interviewed on RT claimed that 'they' (the rebels) had destroyed everything and asked if it was really worth it?

This very much underlined the point for me that the mainstream news coverage on Libya is hugely one-sided in that they speak of NATO 'precision bombing' and then show Libyan rebels celebrating and showing victory 'V' signs but you don't really hear anything about the destruction caused to the Libyan infrastructure or civilian casualties.

I think we really have to ask whether the NATO action was humanitarian after all.

This whole thing doesn't make sense. Libya had a "HIGH" HDI rating. The rebels are "conservative muslims" wanting proper Sharia law enforced rather than a secular government. The rebels pillaged towns as they went, and NATO bombed the 8th wonder, and the facory that makes the pipes to repair it.

I ask you all to consider something. We were told we are going in to save lives. however, this would have been over before it ever started without NATOs involvement, or our initial 112 cruise missiles.

If Libya is the line in the sand we draw to take down dictators, then when do we take down the hundred or so worse than Gaddafi?

I have a very solid belief that when the new government is formed, the new face of power will be far worse than Gaddafi, who mellowed over the years.

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

This whole thing doesn't make sense. Libya had a "HIGH" HDI rating. The rebels are "conservative muslims" wanting proper Sharia law enforced rather than a secular government. The rebels pillaged towns as they went, and NATO bombed the 8th wonder, and the facory that makes the pipes to repair it.

I ask you all to consider something. We were told we are going in to save lives. however, this would have been over before it ever started without NATOs involvement, or our initial 112 cruise missiles.

If Libya is the line in the sand we draw to take down dictators, then when do we take down the hundred or so worse than Gaddafi?

I have a very solid belief that when the new government is formed, the new face of power will be far worse than Gaddafi, who mellowed over the years.

Absolutely. In the years prior to the Libyan war the Western powers had all been doing deals with Gaddafi.

Prime Minister Tony Blair visited Gaddafi and agreed to train Libyan special forces:

Libya: Tony Blair agreed to train Gaddafi’s special forces in 'deal in the desert’ - Telegraph

The UK government has completely turned against someone they have now branded an inhumane dictator. This is hypocracy at its very worse.



blair_1833408c.jpg

Adding to the above, the extent of the deal agreed between Blair and Gaddafi is quite surprising. I quote:

Under the terms of the deal, Britain was committed to “exchanges of information and views on defence structures, military and security organisations; exchanges of visits by experts and exchange of printed materials in the field of military education and science; exchanges of information on current and developing military concepts, principles and best practice, and the conduct of joint exercises’’.

The two countries also agreed to co-operate in “training in operational planning processes, staff training, and command and control; training of personnel in peace support operations; training co-operation relating to software, communications security, technology and the function of equipment and systems; exchanges of information and experience in the laws of armed conflict; and the acquisition of equipment and defence systems’’. In the Commons, David Cameron criticised the last government’s approach to Libya.

The following 3 minute news report from RT sums up precisely what has been going on in Libya. It also mentions that French lawyers plan to sue Nicolas Sarkozy for crimes against humanity:


Trial of Destruction: Sarkozy sued for Libya crimes - YouTube

Just a further note, according to current estimates the war in Libya has cost some 30,000 lives to date.

Libya: Estimated 30,000 Died In War; 4,000 Still Missing

stop bumping your thread

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

stop bumping your thread

I'm not bumping my thread, I'm merely giving an update on the news in Libya.

Some people do actually take an interest in the subject you know.

and that's what the news outlets are for

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

and that's what the news outlets are for

And this forum.

except that its only been you talking on this thread for half a month now.

[QUOTE=galexander;283840]

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Prime Minister Tony Blair visited Gaddafi and agreed to train Libyan special forces:

The UK government has completely turned against someone they have now branded an inhumane dictator. This is hypocracy at its very worse.

In case you hadn't noticed Blair was part of a Labour government, the present government is a Conservative-Liberal coalition. What is hypocritical about two different governments following different policies?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

except that its only been you talking on this thread for half a month now.

Wrong.

A number of persons have been involved in this discussion.

[QUOTE=Ophiolite;285617]

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Prime Minister Tony Blair visited Gaddafi and agreed to train Libyan special forces:

The UK government has completely turned against someone they have now branded an inhumane dictator. This is hypocracy at its very worse.

In case you hadn't noticed Blair was part of a Labour government, the present government is a Conservative-Liberal coalition. What is hypocritical about two different governments following different policies?

Except it wasn't just Blair.

It was Sarkozy, it was Berlusconi, it was a whole team of advisers.

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

except that its only been you talking on this thread for half a month now.

Wrong.

A number of persons have been involved in this discussion.

And that is exactly why I specified "the last half month" which is the time period elapsed since someone other then you had commented on the thread.

Totally messed up series of quotes and attributions. May revisit later.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Totally messed up series of quotes and attributions. May revisit later.

I think it's more likely that it's Libya that has been totally messed up and that you are too much of a conservative hanger-on to admit to it.

I don't think I need to know a whole lot more about Mr. Gaddafi than this:

Gaddafi’s female bodyguards say they were raped, abused by the Libyan leader - BlogPost - The Washington Post

There's really no hope for cultures or governments that mistreat their women. It's a sign that militarism has taken over and the only thing people value is military might, not virtue or accomplishment. Such a culture can never move forward because all of its most capable people are busy fighting instead of building or educating.

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Totally messed up series of quotes and attributions. May revisit later.

I think it's more likely that it's Libya that has been totally messed up and that you are too much of a conservative hanger-on to admit to it.

glexander I was addressing a single specific point you had made. It happens that this was typical of the warped and inaccurate statements that characterise your posts, but that is another matter.

You made this statement:

The UK government has completely turned against someone they have now branded an inhumane dictator. This is hypocracy at its very worse.

I pointed out the folloiwng:

In case you hadn't noticed Blair was part of a Labour government, the present government is a Conservative-Liberal coalition. What is hypocritical about two different governments following different policies?

What was your response? This complete red herring:

Except it wasn't just Blair.
It was Sarkozy, it was Berlusconi, it was a whole team of advisers.

Sarkozy and Berlusconi, as you well know, are not part of and have never been part of, any UK government. Your assertion was that the UK government was guilty of hypocrisy by reversing their policy on Libya. That was a nonsensical statement. A labour government pursued one policy. A new conservative government pursued another policy. There is absolutely nothing hypocritical about that. Do you maintain that there is and if so, on what basis.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Totally messed up series of quotes and attributions. May revisit later.

I think it's more likely that it's Libya that has been totally messed up and that you are too much of a conservative hanger-on to admit to it.

glexander I was addressing a single specific point you had made. It happens that this was typical of the warped and inaccurate statements that characterise your posts, but that is another matter.

You made this statement:

The UK government has completely turned against someone they have now branded an inhumane dictator. This is hypocracy at its very worse.

I pointed out the folloiwng:

In case you hadn't noticed Blair was part of a Labour government, the present government is a Conservative-Liberal coalition. What is hypocritical about two different governments following different policies?

What was your response? This complete red herring:

Except it wasn't just Blair.
It was Sarkozy, it was Berlusconi, it was a whole team of advisers.

Sarkozy and Berlusconi, as you well know, are not part of and have never been part of, any UK government. Your assertion was that the UK government was guilty of hypocrisy by reversing their policy on Libya. That was a nonsensical statement. A labour government pursued one policy. A new conservative government pursued another policy. There is absolutely nothing hypocritical about that. Do you maintain that there is and if so, on what basis.

My apologies Ophiolite, I didn't realise you were as hairsplitting as that.

Of course Sarkozy and Berlusconi are not British as you rightly point out.

However my point still stands, it wasn't just the LABOUR party that was to blame in the case of their policy on Libya, which was the rather feeble point you were attempting to make, but there were other examples in Europe as well.

Happy now?

Originally Posted by kojax

I don't think I need to know a whole lot more about Mr. Gaddafi than this:

Gaddafi’s female bodyguards say they were raped, abused by the Libyan leader - BlogPost - The Washington Post

There's really no hope for cultures or governments that mistreat their women. It's a sign that militarism has taken over and the only thing people value is military might, not virtue or accomplishment. Such a culture can never move forward because all of its most capable people are busy fighting instead of building or educating.

I can't really comment on this issue as I can neither confirm nor refute it. But someone in Gaddafi's position would easily have had enough wealth to have bought willing women into Libya from all over the world. Why carry out such a depraved and obnoxious act as the rape of a woman?

But it appears UN 'peacekeepers' are not immune from such allegations themselves:

The U.N. Sex Scandal | The Weekly Standard

Reports are emerging from Libya of rebels torturing detainees, including the administering of beatings and electric shocks:

Libyan rebels accused of torture - UPI.com

Originally Posted by galexander

[My apologies Ophiolite, I didn't realise you were as hairsplitting as that.

Of course Sarkozy and Berlusconi are not British as you rightly point out.

However my point still stands, it wasn't just the LABOUR party that was to blame in the case of their policy on Libya, which was the rather feeble point you were attempting to make, but there were other examples in Europe as well.

Happy now?

Not happy at all. You are attempting to avoid admitting that your statement was purest nonsense. You declared that the actions of the UK government were hypocritical. You made no mention, at that point, of Europe. I have demonstrated that the UK government was not hypocritical in any way. You have still avoided admitting that your original point was bunkum. You continue to try to deflect the issue.

If your original point had been that various European governments had taken questionable actions in relation to Libya I might well have agreed with you. You did not do that. You made a clear focused statement that the UK government had been hypocritical in relation to their actions on Libya. You demonstrated this with an example that was completely incorrect. That is the issue here. No amount of armwaving and bluster on your part will change that. If you do wish discussion to focus on what you consider important, then stop making nonsensical statements that are so easily shown to be nonsensical. Of course, this would require the application of intelligence and reasoning, so I won't hold my breath.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by galexander

[My apologies Ophiolite, I didn't realise you were as hairsplitting as that.

Of course Sarkozy and Berlusconi are not British as you rightly point out.

However my point still stands, it wasn't just the LABOUR party that was to blame in the case of their policy on Libya, which was the rather feeble point you were attempting to make, but there were other examples in Europe as well.

Happy now?

Not happy at all. You are attempting to avoid admitting that your statement was purest nonsense. You declared that the actions of the UK government were hypocritical. You made no mention, at that point, of Europe. I have demonstrated that the UK government was not hypocritical in any way. You have still avoided admitting that your original point was bunkum. You continue to try to deflect the issue.

If your original point had been that various European governments had taken questionable actions in relation to Libya I might well have agreed with you. You did not do that. You made a clear focused statement that the UK government had been hypocritical in relation to their actions on Libya. You demonstrated this with an example that was completely incorrect. That is the issue here. No amount of armwaving and bluster on your part will change that. If you do wish discussion to focus on what you consider important, then stop making nonsensical statements that are so easily shown to be nonsensical. Of course, this would require the application of intelligence and reasoning, so I won't hold my breath.

And are you absolutely certain you are not just behaving like a Troll?

Originally Posted by galexander

And are you absolutely certain you are not just behaving like a Troll?

If there is a troll here it is you. You are the one making unsubstantiated statements, which are central to your argument. Then, when those statements are shown to be flawed, false, etc, you try to divert attention away from the statements. So, you are either a troll, or someone lacking any moral integrity. I not sure which it is. Of course, you might just be of low intelligence. I concede that is possible. It would explain the consistent lack of rational thought in post after post and thread after thread.

What you don't recognise is that when an individual's behaviour (yours) corrupts a debate then that behaviour becomes a bona fide part of the debate.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by galexander

And are you absolutely certain you are not just behaving like a Troll?

If there is a troll here it is you. You are the one making unsubstantiated statements, which are central to your argument. Then, when those statements are shown to be flawed, false, etc, you try to divert attention away from the statements. So, you are either a troll, or someone lacking any moral integrity. I not sure which it is. Of course, you might just be of low intelligence. I concede that is possible. It would explain the consistent lack of rational thought in post after post and thread after thread.

What you don't recognise is that when an individual's behaviour (yours) corrupts a debate then that behaviour becomes a bona fide part of the debate.

Troll.












Urban Dictionary: "Trolling is the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet, generally on message boards."

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by galexander

Except it wasn't just Blair.
It was Sarkozy, it was Berlusconi, it was a whole team of advisers.

Sarkozy and Berlusconi, as you well know, are not part of and have never been part of, any UK government. Your assertion was that the UK government was guilty of hypocrisy by reversing their policy on Libya. That was a nonsensical statement. A labour government pursued one policy. A new conservative government pursued another policy. There is absolutely nothing hypocritical about that. Do you maintain that there is and if so, on what basis.

If The UK wishes to take the attitude that each new government is a diplomatic clean slate, then every country that has ever signed a treaty with them might want to rethink honoring their end. Ultimately it is hypocrisy because the UK is a democracy. In theory, the people of the UK dealt with Gadhaffi if the government of the UK dealt with Gadhaffi, and the people of the UK are attacking him now if the government is attacking him now. Even if they are two different governments, they are supposedly under the democratic control of the same population, and I don't see the UK changing its population anytime soon.

Kojax,
galexander's claim was that UK government was guilty of hypocrisy, not the UK people. The government changed. You are correct that other nations might think twice about reaching agreements with a country that did U-turns in its foregin policy, but if those governments were different governments they could not reasonably accuse them of hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Kojax,
galexander's claim was that UK government was guilty of hypocrisy, not the UK people. The government changed. You are correct that other nations might think twice about reaching agreements with a country that did U-turns in its foregin policy, but if those governments were different governments they could not reasonably accuse them of hypocrisy.

Interesting, but you miss one simple point.

All politicians are hypocrites anyway.

Originally Posted by galexander

Interesting, but you miss one simple point.

All politicians are hypocrites anyway.

That is a totally separate point from the one that you made that I have demonstrated to be wrong. You continuously try to deviate attention away from that simple fact. Your wriggling is becoming tiresome.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by galexander

Interesting, but you miss one simple point.

All politicians are hypocrites anyway.

That is a totally separate point from the one that you made that I have demonstrated to be wrong. You continuously try to deviate attention away from that simple fact. Your wriggling is becoming tiresome.

Pedant.











Pedant Definition: "a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details"

Originally Posted by galexander

Pedant.
Pedant Definition: "a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details"

Please select the response you are most comfortable with from those presented below.
1. Rather a pedant than a peasant.
2. Demonstrating that you are a lying son of a bitch is not a a minor issue.
3. Exposing deceit in the posts of another in hardly a minor detail.
4. What is it that makes you think you are entilted to break the rules.

Ophiolite, it is galexanders normal modus operandi, remember he is the one that mechanical weathering was not how sand was created, and the HIV/AID were bollocks.

Yes. I do understand that. I just want to ensure that any casual reader of the thread also understands the inherent dishonesty of the man. Too many posters on forums such as this are allowed to get away with speaking nonsense, which they later either deny, or ignore and continue on to more of the same. I find such behaviour reprehensible and indicative of a serious character defect. I deciced to take a stand in this particular instance. I don't expect my observations to change galexander's behaviour - though they might. I do hope that they enable lurkers to acquire skills in weasel identification.

Originally Posted by galexander

All politicians are hypocrites anyway.

How very true and what an original statement!
As well as saying they are "hypocrites" you could also have added that all politicians are
a) the same
b)liars
c)only in it for the money.
I have to say I am not all that cynical about politicians and I certainly don't believe they are any "worse" than many of those members, of the media and general public, who criticise them so readily.
After reading a number of your posts I can see you are someone who possesses intelligence, integrity, and possibly compassion.
Why don't you go into politics, sort out these nasty hypocrites, and solve some of our economic problems at the same time!
I could see you as the new Chief Secretary!

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Ophiolite, it is galexanders normal modus operandi, remember he is the one that mechanical weathering was not how sand was created, and the HIV/AID were bollocks.

More like it is your modus operandi to support a fellow Troll!

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Yes. I do understand that. I just want to ensure that any casual reader of the thread also understands the inherent dishonesty of the man. Too many posters on forums such as this are allowed to get away with speaking nonsense, which they later either deny, or ignore and continue on to more of the same. I find such behaviour reprehensible and indicative of a serious character defect. I deciced to take a stand in this particular instance. I don't expect my observations to change galexander's behaviour - though they might. I do hope that they enable lurkers to acquire skills in weasel identification.

Again you are behaving like a Troll and disrupting the natural flow of this thread with your silly, hair splitting arguments.

Originally Posted by Halliday

Originally Posted by galexander

All politicians are hypocrites anyway.

How very true and what an original statement!
As well as saying they are "hypocrites" you could also have added that all politicians are
a) the same
b)liars
c)only in it for the money.
I have to say I am not all that cynical about politicians and I certainly don't believe they are any "worse" than many of those members, of the media and general public, who criticise them so readily.
After reading a number of your posts I can see you are someone who possesses intelligence, integrity, and possibly compassion.
Why don't you go into politics, sort out these nasty hypocrites, and solve some of our economic problems at the same time!
I could see you as the new Chief Secretary!

Thanks for the compliment but I fear I am outnumbered somewhat.

Originally Posted by galexander

Thanks for the compliment but I fear I am outnumbered somewhat.

Apparently you are as unfamiliar with irony as you are with good sense.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by galexander

Thanks for the compliment but I fear I am outnumbered somewhat.

Apparently you are as unfamiliar with irony as you are with good sense.

What is more important to you? Discussing Libya or criticizing me?

I strongly detect it's the latter.

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by galexander

Thanks for the compliment but I fear I am outnumbered somewhat.

Apparently you are as unfamiliar with irony as you are with good sense.

What is more important to you? Discussing Libya or criticizing me?

I strongly detect it's the latter.

Well spotted. Of course my primary aim here is to criticise you. In this thread and others you have demonstrated a deep inability for logical thinking, a tendency to distort facts, an unwillingness to concede when you are wrong, etc. These characteristics render any discussion you participate in of minimal value. If you do not wish to be criticised for these character failings then stop indulging in them.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by galexander

Thanks for the compliment but I fear I am outnumbered somewhat.

Apparently you are as unfamiliar with irony as you are with good sense.

What is more important to you? Discussing Libya or criticizing me?

I strongly detect it's the latter.

Well spotted. Of course my primary aim here is to criticise you. In this thread and others you have demonstrated a deep inability for logical thinking, a tendency to distort facts, an unwillingness to concede when you are wrong, etc. These characteristics render any discussion you participate in of minimal value. If you do not wish to be criticised for these character failings then stop indulging in them.

Note to Moderators: Ophiolite is clearly exhibiting stalking behaviour. He insists on disrupting the discussion and throwing personal criticism at myself. This surely has to be an unacceptable situation.

Do we still have a trash can ?

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

Do we still have a trash can ?

The true aim of Ophiolite, Paleoichneum is now revealed..........

Note to Moderators: I claim this is a deliberate ploy to have this thread sabotaged.

Thanks for your unbiased input Ronald Reagan.

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

Do we still have a trash can ?

The true aim of Ophiolite, Paleoichneum is now revealed..........

Note to Moderators: I claim this is a deliberate ploy to have this thread sabotaged.

Thanks for your unbiased input Ronald Reagan.

Threads do have a habit of wandering, but IMO this one has gone off scale. Your paranoia has been noted.