Gaddafi

[Lord of Planar]

So you think the State Department bases its reports on hearsay and innuendo?

Joe Cahill is full of ****, according to you? Other IRA men who trained and went to Libya are full of ****?

If you were part of the top ten percent who were most dedicated to supporting Gaddafi's regime, you could have an ok life. But heaven forbid you defect or not support him, because you'd end up dead.

Veteran IRA gunrunner Joe Cahill tells his story - CSMonitor.com

BBC NEWS | UK | Northern Ireland | Libya's 30-year link to the IRA

Inside The Ira - Weapons & Technology | The Ira & Sinn Fein | FRONTLINE | PBS

Whoop-t-do...

Have verifiable facts?

How many times have places like the CIA been wrong about things?

I don't believe he mentions Qaddafi by name, and the facts I have seen are "from Libya."

I'm only pointing out that your facts, are only hearsay. You have no evidence to the contrary.

 

[dimensionallava]

True, but we're specifically talking about Gaddafi, not the militias.

were talking about the libyan people, theyre the ones who put him in power, people tend to forget that

but all those groups support different causes, and they are from all around the world asian black white arab hispanic who ever was standing up for civil rights when the american government was still deciding whether or not black people should be allowed to vote. i doubt that president milosevic, the japanese red army and the black panthers had anything in common you make it sound like they are apart of some grand plot centered in tripoli, as part some devious plot for word domination. Pure mccarthyism if you ask me. The only things those groups had in common was ending the imperialist colonialist regimes, not just the USA but all over the world

you have to be one hell of a far right extremist to use the fact that Qaddafi supported Nelson Mandela as proof that he was a terrorist of some kind

 

[Tigerace117]

Whoop-t-do...

Have verifiable facts?

How many times have places like the CIA been wrong about things?

I don't believe he mentions Qaddafi by name, and the facts I have seen are "from Libya."

I'm only pointing out that your facts, are only hearsay. You have no evidence to the contrary.

were talking about the libyan people, theyre the ones who put him in power, people tend to forget that

but all those groups support different causes, and they are from all around the world asian black white arab hispanic who ever was standing up for civil rights when the american government was still deciding whether or not black people should be allowed to vote. i doubt that president milosevic, the japanese red army and the black panthers had anything in common you make it sound like they are apart of some grand plot centered in tripoli, as part some devious plot for word domination. Pure mccarthyism if you ask me. The only things those groups had in common was ending the imperialist colonialist regimes, not just the USA but all over the world

you have to be one hell of a far right extremist to use the fact that Qaddafi supported Nelson Mandela as proof that he was a terrorist of some kind

Yeah, but do you know what the common denominator was?

They were all left wing radical groups. Every single one of them.

In regards to Cahill's account, dicatators simply don't let me people take arms out of their country without them knowing about it. It just doesn't work that way in a dicatatorship.

It's a funny joke that you see "coup" and think "the Libyan people put him in power". He proved he was willing to slaughter the Libyan people if they didn't do what he said, which is why they went along with him.

Once again----Japanese Red Army- far left. Black Panthers- far left. Slobo--- far left mixed with Serbian nationalism. PIRA---Irish nationalism and Catholicism mixed with some leftist elements. Action Directe, ETA, the Red Brigades?

All far left, with some nationalism thrown in there for good measure.

But don't worry he also supplied Islamists.

But yeah---I'm sure all those Puerto Rican tourists the Japanese Red Army killed at that one Israeli airport were secretly planning to restore Japanese to the feudal days or some bullcrap.

And the ANC only achieved their goals after they abandoned radicalism, which says something.....

 

[sKiTzo]

So the writers of those sources claim. Any real evidence? How often are people wrong?

Wikipedia is not a source used by people with integrity to attempt to prove anything. It is wrong too many times, and says whatever the public author claims. If you really wish to debate well, you will look at the source links Wiki uses, and use them

Seems to me you wouldn't question those sources if they said what you wanted them to say...

 

[dimensionallava]

Yeah, but do you know what the common denominator was?

They were all left wing radical groups. Every single one of them.

In regards to Cahill's account, dicatators simply don't let me people take arms out of their country without them knowing about it. It just doesn't work that way in a dicatatorship.

It's a funny joke that you see "coup" and think "the Libyan people put him in power". He proved he was willing to slaughter the Libyan people if they didn't do what he said, which is why they went along with him.

Once again----Japanese Red Army- far left. Black Panthers- far left. Slobo--- far left mixed with Serbian nationalism. PIRA---Irish nationalism and Catholicism mixed with some leftist elements. Action Directe, ETA, the Red Brigades?

All far left, with some nationalism thrown in there for good measure.

But don't worry he also supplied Islamists.

But yeah---I'm sure all those Puerto Rican tourists the Japanese Red Army killed at that one Israeli airport were secretly planning to restore Japanese to the feudal days or some bullcrap.

And the ANC only achieved their goals after they abandoned radicalism, which says something.....

so not only are you sticking with calling nelson mandela a terrorist, but you think anyone affiliated with him is guilty of supporting terrorism? do you think Martin Luther King jr was a terrorist leader as well?

 

[Tigerace117]

so not only are you sticking with calling nelson mandela a terrorist, but you think anyone affiliated with him is guilty of supporting terrorism? do you think Martin Luther King jr was a terrorist leader as well?

The ANC's military wing, the Umkhonto we Sizwe, conducted bombings and engaged South African government forces on numerous occasions. That's a fact.

If you supplied arms to those groups, then yes, you were supporting terrorism.

HOWEVER

To his credit, Mandela, once he got out of jail, negotiated in good faith with the government, which greatly eased the transition of power in South Africa. Had he acted like Gaddafi, there's no doubt South Africa would have gone down a much darker path.

As for MLK Jr, number one--- a dicatator allied with the Soviet Union never gave him arms, and number two---he never founded an organization which was setting off bombs like clockwork every week.

So no, to answer your question, MLK was not a terrorist.

 

[dimensionallava]

So no, to answer your question, MLK was not a terrorist.

okay what about george washington? was he a terrorist as well?

 

[Tigerace117]

okay what about george washington? was he a terrorist as well?

Not quite the same thing. For one thing, George Washington commanded an official military force which was involved in "European style" straight up fighting, not just hit and run guerilla warfare,magics was the vast majorities of the ANC's activity. The distinction is that between an army, which attempts to avoid hurting civillians whose main purpose is to engage the opposing army, and guerillas/francs-tireaurs, who fight without a uniform and technically under the Geneva Convention don't have to be treated as POWS.

The colonials didn't attack British civillians---they attacked British combatants in a mixture of the standard tactics of the time period.

 

[dimensionallava]

Not quite the same thing. For one thing, George Washington commanded an official military force which was involved in "European style" straight up fighting, not just hit and run guerilla warfare.

yeah thats not true.... if they had fought "European style straight up fighting" as you put it they would have lost, pretty much anyone will tell you that, also george washington was considered a terrorist to the british, and a guerilla fighter, rebelling against the exact same british government....

so explain to me why you think white americans can rebel against the british colonialists but black africans cannot?

 

[Tigerace117]

yeah thats not true.... if they had fought "European style straight up fighting" as you put it they would have lost, pretty much anyone will tell you that, also george washington was considered a terrorist to the british, and a guerilla fighter, rebelling against the exact same british government....

so explain to me why you think white americans can rebel against the british colonialists but black africans cannot?

Ah, but they did fight in standard European style, more than once, as the years went on.

The British didn't have the same definition of "terrorist" that we do today.

It's really simply. The ANC kills civillians doing about their day who weren't doing anything to hurt them by detonating bombs--- the Continental Army didn't.

 

[dimensionallava]

Ah, but they did fight in standard European style, more than once, as the years went on.

The British didn't have the same definition of "terrorist" that we do today.

It's really simply. The ANC kills civillians doing about their day who weren't doing anything to hurt them by detonating bombs--- the Continental Army didn't.

slave owning george washington never killed a civilian?..... were just in lala land at this point aren't we?

Are you trying to say black people were better off as slaves and had no right to rebel against the british, but washington did because he was white, and enslaving whites is wrong, but blacks have no such right.

 

[Tigerace117]

slave owning george washington never killed a civilian?..... were just in lala land at this point aren't we?

Are you trying to say black people were better off as slaves and had no right to rebel against the british, but washington did because he was white, and enslaving whites is wrong, but blacks have no such right.

Ah, and that fine establishment of the left wing, the card they always play when they know their actual case has no basis in fact, comes out: the race card.

First and foremost, there was no "slavery" of white people going on the 13 colonies. I don't know where the hell that came from.

I've read no accounts of Washington kills civillians. Did slaves die under his ownership? Probably; slavery wasn't exactly a career that you retired from; however, that's nothing extraordinary given that at that time slabery was still legal.

The ANC wasn't rebelling against the Brits either, btw. The South Africans were mostly Dutchmen who'd become part of the British Empire. South Africa had left the commonwealth in 1960.

Not sure what George Washington had to do with the fact that Gaddafi gave guns to every terrorist group under the sun, but whatever floats your boat.

 

[dimensionallava]

Ah, and that fine establishment of the left wing, the card they always play when they know their actual case has no basis in fact, comes out: the race card.

i know right??? why does everyone bring up race when talking about european colonialism in africa....race had nothing to do with it :roll:

 

[Tigerace117]

i know right??? why does everyone bring up race when talking about european colonialism in africa....race had nothing to do with it :roll:

Events separated by more than a hundred years and on two sepertate continents have nothing to do with each other.

And speaking of blatant aggression, Gaddafi's attempt to grab northern Chad is yet another case in point.

 

[Mr Person]

This isn't a current issue. I''m just wondering what your final take is on Gaddafi.

He was an evil mass murderer, so it's good that he's dead.

What's not so good is that we left shadowy rebel groups run off with lots of guns and cash, and that Libya is yet another now-broken ME country that apparently cannot function without a strongarm dictator.

But Gaddafi was evil, so **** him...

 

[sKiTzo]

He was an evil mass murderer, so it's good that he's dead.

What's not so good is that we left shadowy rebel groups run off with lots of guns and cash, and that Libya is yet another now-broken ME country that apparently cannot function without a strongarm dictator.

But Gaddafi was evil, so **** him...

If you spent just a few minutes to research the life of Gaddafi, you might be surprised at what you find. I'm not promoting anything other than the revelation that the mainstream media is a huge, huge, and EFFECTIVE tool of deception.

 

[sKiTzo]

If you spent just a few minutes to research the life of Gaddafi, you might be surprised at what you find. I'm not promoting anything other than the revelation that the mainstream media is a huge, huge, and EFFECTIVE tool of deception.

I couldn't find any evidence of him being an evil mass murderer. Everything I found clearly shows quite the oppossite. That's why I started this thread. The guy was a hero.

 

[Tigerace117]

I couldn't find any evidence of him being an evil mass murderer. Everything I found clearly shows quite the oppossite. That's why I started this thread. The guy was a hero.

Apparently you don't understand the concept of a Google search, then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

Muammar Qaddafi and Libya's Legacy of Terrorism | My Brother's Bomber | FRONTLINE | PBS

The Libyan Terrorist: Muammar Qaddafi | The Weekly Standard

The Muammar Gaddafi story - BBC News

http://abcnews.go.com/International/moammar-gadhafis-flamboyant-life-terror/story?id=14776766

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=305&no_cache=1

https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110323-libyas-terrorism-option

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-decline-of-state-sponsored-terrorism/257515/

 

[Gaztopian]

The mess in Libya doesn't change the fact that he was a deranged dictator, but unless the U.S had written consent from Libyans when it decided to overthrow him, its culpability in that mess remains unchanged.

 

[sKiTzo]

Apparently you don't understand the concept of a Google search, then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

Muammar Qaddafi and Libya's Legacy of Terrorism | My Brother's Bomber | FRONTLINE | PBS

The Libyan Terrorist: Muammar Qaddafi | The Weekly Standard

The Muammar Gaddafi story - BBC News

Moammar Gadhafi's Flamboyant Life of Terror - ABC News

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=305&no_cache=1

https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110323-libyas-terrorism-option

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-decline-of-state-sponsored-terrorism/257515/

If you understand the concept so well then why didn't you find this?

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/deception.html

Apparently, this ex-mossad agent found mossads operations to be so repulsively dirtbaggish that he wrote a book detailing how they tricked reagan into bombing libya for them. Gaddafi the "terrorist" was a mossad fabrication.

 

[Tigerace117]

If you understand the concept so well then why didn't you find this?

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/deception.html

Apparently, this ex-mossad agent found mossads operations to be so repulsively dirtbaggish that he wrote a book detailing how they tricked reagan into bombing libya for them. Gaddafi the "terrorist" was a mossad fabrication.

So your claiming he never ordered things like the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing?

And I'd be suspicious of taking the word of one guy as "what really happened" compared to the mountain of evidence which points the other way.

 

[sKiTzo]

So your claiming he never ordered things like the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing?

And I'd be suspicious of taking the word of one guy as "what really happened" compared to the mountain of evidence which points the other way.

"Mountain of evidence"?

From the FBI website:

Ultimately, forensic specialists from the FBI, the CIA, and elsewhere determined that one of the fragments found on the ground, no bigger than a thumbnail, came from the circuit board of a radio/cassette player. That tiny piece of evidence helped establish that the bomb had been placed inside that radio and tape deck in a piece of luggage. Another small fragment, found embedded in a piece of shirt, helped identify the type of timer.

This evidence led to two Libyan intelligence operatives. In November 1991, the U.S. and Scotland simultaneously indicted the pair for planting the bomb. On January 31, 2001, after years of working to extradite the men and bring the case to trial, Abdel Basset Ali Al-Megrahi was found guilty of the crime. The co-defendant was found not guilty and released.

And from the CIA's website:

The Scots photographed the circuit-board fragment and gave a photo to the FBI, who passed a copy to the CIA where a Directorate of Science & Technology (DS&T) electronics expert observed two things that reminded him of a device he had seen before—a timer from an earlier Libyan terrorist attack. Further analysis confirmed that the fragment exactly matched part of a timer circuit manufactured specifically for the Libyans. In the case of Pan Am 103, the CIA expert’s testimony on his identification of the circuit-board fragment was key evidence that led to the conviction of one of the two accused Libyan terrorists.

This Wiki goes into full details of the follies that include manufacturing of evidence and people who were offered money to say they found evidence they did not find:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103_bombing_investigation

Gaddafi compensated the families to move on and have sanctions lifted. I'm so tired of CIA/MOSSAD failed false flags that get by anyway. It appears their goal is to destabilize the otherwise fine world we live in. That's the scoundrel-like nature of the false flag. Of course they wanted to take out Gaddafi and Libya. They were setting an example of how a country could be.

 

[Tigerace117]

"Mountain of evidence"?

From the FBI website:

Ultimately, forensic specialists from the FBI, the CIA, and elsewhere determined that one of the fragments found on the ground, no bigger than a thumbnail, came from the circuit board of a radio/cassette player. That tiny piece of evidence helped establish that the bomb had been placed inside that radio and tape deck in a piece of luggage. Another small fragment, found embedded in a piece of shirt, helped identify the type of timer.

This evidence led to two Libyan intelligence operatives. In November 1991, the U.S. and Scotland simultaneously indicted the pair for planting the bomb. On January 31, 2001, after years of working to extradite the men and bring the case to trial, Abdel Basset Ali Al-Megrahi was found guilty of the crime. The co-defendant was found not guilty and released.

And from the CIA's website:

The Scots photographed the circuit-board fragment and gave a photo to the FBI, who passed a copy to the CIA where a Directorate of Science & Technology (DS&T) electronics expert observed two things that reminded him of a device he had seen before—a timer from an earlier Libyan terrorist attack. Further analysis confirmed that the fragment exactly matched part of a timer circuit manufactured specifically for the Libyans. In the case of Pan Am 103, the CIA expert’s testimony on his identification of the circuit-board fragment was key evidence that led to the conviction of one of the two accused Libyan terrorists.

This Wiki goes into full details of the follies that include manufacturing of evidence and people who were offered money to say they found evidence they did not find:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103_bombing_investigation

Gaddafi compensated the families to move on and have sanctions lifted. I'm so tired of CIA/MOSSAD failed false flags that get by anyway. It appears their goal is to destabilize the otherwise fine world we live in. That's the scoundrel-like nature of the false flag. Of course they wanted to take out Gaddafi and Libya. They were setting an example of how a country could be.

Wow. Just wow.

He even ****ing compensated the families of the victims and you still think it was a false flag.

Apparently, if your anti American you can blow up whatever--- and whomever---you want and people will just Blake it on the CIA or those sneaky Jews, or both at once.

Good to know:roll:

 

[oneworld2]

Not current. That dictator isn't even toast anymore. Good riddance, too. The Europeans made a mess of the aftermath and totally shunned responsibility though. So yes. It's good to knock off mass murderers, but the global community must then ensure security and guarantee protection of the populations durring an extended period.

Where do you start with so many examples of western apologetics ? John you should work for the BBC

1. " The Europeans made a mess of the aftermath "

Anyone heard this before ? Perhaps with Afghanistan , Iraq ?

What it presumes is that Europeans ( and Americans too ) have the right to attack people in other countries if they don't happen to like the leadership. Read don't have a high level of influence over them. The independent nationalist is always erksome to the self proclaimed rulers of the world. In no particular order Aristide ? Chavez? Nasser ? Mosedegh ? the list goes on and on.

And we are not criminal lunatics are we ? Just good old wholesome folks trying to do good in a bad bad world filled with crazies from the " otherside ".........well let's face it , that's where they all are for a great many people here in the humanitarian loving western world.

I wonder how a claim made by Saddam Hussein in the late eighties/early nineties along the lines of " well we made a bit of a mess of dealing with the Kurdish unrest at Halabja" would have been received in Western circles.....

They commit crimes, we make mistakes. Get used to it you'll hear it a lot if youre not already familiar with it.

So to explode myth number one................... there aren't any plans because our governments don't care about the people that live in these countries. They are just extremely useful idiots when it comes to manufacturing consent at home for crimes of aggression abroad

2."It's good to knock off mass murderers"

Do you mean like Bush or Blair ? I'll wager that both these characters have way more deaths on their hands than Gaddafi ever managed. Not even in the same league. Think premier league and none league.

Plus ,these incredibly fantastic westerners have firmly supported many a " mass murderer " of their own. Again, in no particular order Suhartu ? Pinochet ? The Shah ? Papa Doc Duvalier?..... again , the list goes on and on

What should " the Global Community " do about such obvious double standards John ?

Gaddafi was just one of a long list of leaders that have been ( illegally IMHO) attacked/ousted/murdered for the crime of not completely forgetting their peoples interests over their own self interest and the wishes of western corporations. As per usual they are demonized by the western media and leaderships whos much more heinous crimes are explained away under a deluge of deceit and self adulation. Much more sickening than the eccentricities of Mr Gaddafi imo

Why wasn't he allowed his day in court ?

For the same reason OBL wasn't, he could have most likely exposed a few western leaders/officials/military for the charletans/mass murderers/torturers they are

 

[Jack Hays]

This isn't a current issue. I''m just wondering what your final take is on Gaddafi.

He was a murdering monster whose death made the world a better place.