The Libyan war: Unconstitutional and illegitimate

Originally posted by Topato
reply to post by NewEmpire816

 

How is it not a war? The U.S. and France are bombing Gadhafi forces from the air? You think innocents won't die in the crossfire?

THIS IS MASS MURDER.

In other news, here's Ron

The age old moral question
You see a man in a schoolyard with a sword hacking away a ton of kids...you got a shotgun. do you take the shot, knowing there may be a kid that also gets hit, but you save most of the kids, or do you not take the shot because it may hit a kid, and let the man rampage and kill tons of kids...

Moral high ground is easy when you wait for someone else to do something, then condemn it no matter what choice it taken.

Gaddaffi was and is killing people for wanting to simply speak their mind...he has been killing men, women, and children in order to stroke his rather fragile ego...he is the killer in the schoolyard...

Being in charge means making tough choices and knowing no matter what you choose, you will be condemned for it...so, you make the choice that allows you personally to sleep better at night, and to hell with the peanut gallery.
the majority (70%) of people agree with his decision...of the rest, much of that are people whom are not satisfied with how little and late it is, how france seems to be taking the lead, etc..the others want less, and the "outcasts" want nothing done...

So, I don't think Obama gives a rats arse about the ones demanding he shouldn't take the shot..I think most people understand the shot must be taken, even if a kid also bites it in the meantime...

of course, there are alot of schoolyards, and alot of murderous lunatics with swords in them... we don't have enough bullets for em all...so the only question is...why this schoolyard..why this lunatic when there are soo many others.

reply to post by SaturnFX


There are many dictators killing many people in many countries around the world. Yemen and Darfur to name a couple.
Why don't we go in there and stop THOSE evil leaders? Exactly what you said at the end there.

Oil perhaps, or should I say, lack of it, in those other countries.


"Oil reserves in Libya are the largest in Africa and the ninth largest in the world with 41.5 billion barrels (6.60×10^9 m3) as of 2007. Oil production was 1.8 million barrels per day (290×10^3 m3/d) as of 2006, giving Libya 63 years of reserves at current production rates if no new reserves were to be found. Libya is considered a highly attractive oil area due to its low cost of oil production (as low as $1 per barrel at some fields), and proximity to European markets."

- en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


At the beginning of all of this, I was sort of for "helping out".

Strictly taking out air assets and AAA if it was encountered. The "rebels" didnt want us in ANY way putting boots on the ground.

Later, I began to hear rumors of the rebels being helped by (or were) some al queda-esque bunch.

I began to seriously question my quasi-support at this point.

You have the "legit" folk that want a more "human" government being AGAIN coopted by radicals and marxists. This time without all of the signage....at least we didnt see any this time as in cairo.

All of this aside. Lets say the congress gave the messiah the "go ahead". Humanitarian reasons.

I'm all on for that But.

Why not Darfour? Why not Saudi?

Why not Mexico where the people are being terrorized on BOTH sides of OUR border. THAT IS A DIRECT THREAT!

I was listening to Rusty Humphrey before going to bed last night. He had a very good sub in. Cant remember the gentlemans name but he was on the ball! He brought up this new thing (to me) called R2P

RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT

www.responsibilitytoprotect.org...

He has some women (about time we had some equal op evil! ) National Security Council staffer Samantha Power, was a big mover for this crap.

www.npr.org...

The international intervention in Libya is a test of a principle known as the "responsibility to protect" — and it has thrown the spotlight on several women in the Obama administration who are proponents of this idea that U.N. member states should step in when civilians are at risk.

The women are now being dubbed "Obama's Female Hawks" by The New Republic and "America's Foreign Policy Valkyries" by The National Interest.

They include National Security Council staffer Samantha Power, who wrote an influential book on preventing genocide; U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, whose views were shaped by U.S. inaction in Rwanda; and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who along with Rice played a critical role in winning U.N. authorization of using "all means necessary" to protect civilians in Libya.

But former Obama administration official Anne-Marie Slaughter says that "this idea of the women going to war is wildly overplayed."

"On the one hand, you get the women in the administration criticized because they focus on development issues and empowering women and humanitarian issues, and the next minute they are being stylized as Amazons — that's ridiculous," says Slaughter, who ran Clinton's policy planning office at the State Department until recently.

Clinton initially took a cautious line on military intervention, turning only after she was assured that Arab states supported it and would play a role. Slaughter, now back at Princeton University, says the end result of the Washington policy debate fell right into line with the Obama doctrine, which she sums up as "with power comes responsibility."


A Guide To Protests In Middle East, North Africa"We want an international order that everybody enforces, and the president himself has led that vision of the world," Slaughter says, adding, "In a world with multiple powers and more problems than any nation can deal with, we need lots of nations taking responsibility to enforce the international order."

NOW we can see whats up and who is really behind this crap. Rwanda is just the "oh this is why". Why not Darfour et al? Oh, yeah. Christians. oops.

Connected are these goofy assed trips to India and Brazil to help bring US jobs. Horsecrap. We're gonna outsource jobs to these folks!

Redistribution of wealth is connected with this R2P.

There is one helluva chess game going on about us. Ist all upside down, backwards, and inside out though.

I was just reading the account of the rescue of the pilots. Glad they're safe but it wasnt all skittles and beer.

On approach, the chopper was rushed by locals glad to have them. The crew (not knowing their intent) lit up a few. Damn shame.

Right reasons or wrong, civ casualties will be incurred during military actions. Nature of the beast. Juxtapose this to if it happened under Bush. These troops would be spread all over the news as butchers and "how dare" the president do such an "unwarranted" military attack in the first place.

Nope. None of that.

The messiah walks on water. He is even so much the "narcissists narcissist" that he went to Rio to see his own statue on the hill. He even had the "holy family" photographed at night before it for good measure.

.....all while rome burns.

reply to post by felonius


Great post my friend.

Speaking of Obama, Castro made some rare public comments today stating he stepped down as the Communist Party Boss in Cuba five years ago and he really holds no office within the nation anymore.

He said that Obama had assailed him in his speach to Latin Leaders but got icey silence instead of thunderous applause when he did.

You don't need to actually look further than South Central LA or the ghettos of many of our big cities to find people living in abject fear of violence.

We devote a lot of resources to propping up systems and laws that don't work, not just here but elsewhere, while really ignoring our own problems and sweeping them under the carpet.

About the only time any of us imagine our system works as advertised is when we are advertising it through a lets bomb out an existing regime and tell ourselves how much better off they would be if they could be just like us.

Us on Welfare and Chronic Unemployment, Us with the highest per capita prison population in the world, Us with a record defecit and international loans that we can't pay back that would make a third world debtor nation blush, Us with millions of people who can't even afford or obtain adequate health care, Us where half of our children are pregnant and the other half have Attention Defecit Disorder and are on prescription drugs.

When are we going to stop lying to ourselves that life is so wonderful hear by insisting that everyone else the world over would be better off by being like us, while lying through our teeth in the same breadth about what us really is.

A rusting shadow of a nation with very few prospects for the future, a dissapearing middle class, and a entrenched two party political system corrupted for the better part of a century or more by special and corporate interests.

What I want to know is when the heck is someone going to resuce us, from us!

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by felonius

 

What I want to know is when the heck is someone going to resuce us, from us!

I'm working on this to do our part.

My wonderful wife and I are raising an amazing daughter for the future.

She is young but...

Strong in mind and spirit, freedom loving but not a hedonist, spiritual but not a zealot, self aware but not a narcissist.

She will call BS faster than anything.

And she whips my ass at backgammon!

Shes 12 and the light of our lives.

I suspect there are 100s if not 1000s of hourly unconstitutional and illegitimate actions taken by the govt, various govts and "authorities" et al..who enforce unconstitutional and illegitimate laws.

Unfortunately proving it isn't as easy as taking the Fed govt / dear party leaders to Judge Judy.. it's a sad reality that those who are supposed to abide by the laws & constitution, also get to interpret what it means much of the time.

Every now and then some lawyer who has been fighting muli-year uphill battles of BS bureaucracy proves something unconstitutional.. but it never stops "the man" from doing what "the man" wants to do.. if the man wants to go to war, he can by-pass constitutional and legitimate with a letter signed by UN foreigners... suckers lap up the fake legitimacy of it all every time.

reply to post by felonius


I worry about the future we are creating for our children. We as a species and a society have a remarkable way of passing the buck off to the next generation for the Hamburger we had today.

I just became a Grandfather today for the first time at the ripe old age of 47.

I do sincerely wish she was entering a better world with better prospects.

Individually life is still very much what you make out of it, collectively there are fewer and fewer quality indgedients in the cupboard to bake that cake with.

Change through War and Violence is really not the answer. The money we spend on weapons could buy a lot of brighter and better opportunity for people instead of snuffing out all opportunity in a very indiscriminate poorly managed process for far too many people who are just like you and I, wanting to raise a family, work hard to provide something for them and enjoy a happy, secure and quality life.

We have made ourselves less secure through this violent process, and our world is now one rife with fear as we eye one another everyone with suspicion unable to even board a plane to see my grandchild for the first time with out being x-rayed and frisked and treated like a common criminal.

It's not for our freedoms that some the world over despise our government and nation, but for how we exercise it in a violent dictatorial and arrogant process that creates far too many widows and orphans.

I hope the children of tomorrow have better luck at getting their acts together than we have my friend.

This has all really got to change.

reply to post by felonius


Good points and I see the direction you have taken, with a heavy dose of marxism and some Soros shinanigans coded in too. Problem is the dots seem to all flow in the right direction but they don't connect.
That all could have made an entire chalkboard episode on Beck's show.

The press and the leaders did a halfhearted job bringing the public up to speed.
People cannot comprehend what battalions of 155mm mobile Howitzers can do vs guys many kilometers away only armed with AK 47's in a city with hundreds of thousands of women children and old people.
People's blind hatred for america will never let them see what Kaddafi was about to do and in fact had already begun to do at Benghazi. Those Howitzers can lob shells all day as fast as they can truck shells in to their crews. They are intended to kill civillians when aimed at a populated city that way.

This created a moment of decision, go in or genocide. The ball was rolling around in the UN court and across the airwaves about involvement. I don't recall that sort of movement to ever go into Saudi or Rawanda or other places.
Here doing nothing really could be equated with transfering the blame, an equal share for all.

We went in, did the right thing, now a constant reassessment can take place to modify involvement as the situation demands. The only constraint at more involvement is no occupation but there is no constraint on the other direction of less involvement.

I as well worry about our future children, my 4 year old will have no idea of the carnage we will cause. I also feel that we do have to fight for freedom and it comes with nasty job. We as Americans- our forefathers fought our way through the same thing that they are going through.We accomplished this many years ago and have now started to fine tune it. Freedom does come with a price that's for sure..... and what there younger generation is seeking. Now here is the difference... we fought this war hundreds of years ago when we had musket that would fire 1 round every 2 minutes and had to work for it. What they are stuck in is the technology of modern day weapons that can kill even the largest of armies with 1 missile. There is no winning for these people only mass suicide. We are helping them achieve something that they would never be able to do with just a few AK-47s.

We will still be the bad guy at the end of the day no matter what we take part in. That's how it always has been and I don't understand why we have started to let it get to us. We have the option to go out and make something of ourselves everyday, we are given the choice on how we want to live our lives with no one to blame but yourself for not giving it a shot. opportunity is there! We fought for it and now ..so are they!

We blame our government for everything that goes on and we totally miss the big picture. We as Americans voted on the president, We voted on the congress, We voted on the senators.... We represent ourselves! Even though you may not have voted for that person the majority of the votes wins.....meaning We saw it in our best interest that by the greater number of votes win. We look at our government for hand outs every day instead of going and getting it yourself, we have thousands on welfare and unemployment but yet we blame our government for not providing jobs? When did our government say it was solely there responsibility to provide jobs....maybe for military and post office but that's it. We have voted this president in and now we are going to try to impeach him for what? This has not even became a war and were hashing out on someone that we voted in to run the country for us. We are more worried about why we can't get a budget in place b/c of the democrats. and republicans toying with a budget like two kids fighting over a Happy Meal toy. We need to back freedom at whatever cost,..... but we also need to look a little harder into who we want to represent Us at elections. We may add another trillion dollars to the deficit but what price would you put on your freedom? As far as the getting out of this deficit we are in and the on-going recession it is solely up to us to get the right people in to get us out the mess that We have created. Like someone else wrote earlier "who is going to save us from us" nobody! but us and our Freedom.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by snapperski

 

Sadly confused leaders, just lead to confused followers, and tragically as long as the majority remain unconvinced about what is really right and what is really wrong, the Corporate Government will do what ever it wants in the vacuum to keep securing resources and racking up the nations debt, further gaining what it wants in the process, and further increasing the obligations of the people to the process through the debt they create.

Some reports have Egyptian special forces arming and leading the rebels, is this what led to Mubarak getting in the way, a refusal to play ball.

Other reports have Libya sitting on top of the largest deposits of fresh ground water in the region that has a great value in an arid part of the world, and perhaps an even greater value as radiation begins to circle the earth from a disaster now almost completely ignored in Japan that is being overshadowed by another telivized round of Shock and Awe in Libya.

We know next to nothing about the 'rebels' that are fighting Gadaffi and what their idealogy is or long range plans for that nation should they succeed in becoming the next Western Backed Puppet Regime in the region.

Considering who we have gotten in bed with an Iraq and Afghanistan chances are we aren't talking about a very wholesome group of people.

We are being lied too, and as we are now involved in a handful of conflicts throughout that region of the world I think it's time for the American people to realize we have an addiction to war and violence, nurtured and grown through our medias and entertainment that really is not making the world a peaceful democratic place, but a violent one full of puppet regimes that we create, for populations that do nothing but resent us for the death and carnage we visit on them and the corrupt political processes we impose on them.

Americans need to come to terms with that our real enemies are in Washington the board rooms of the Oil companies, banks and military industrial manufacturers, and that we are being taxed, and led to violent ruin by them.

ITS THE WATER!

this alone plus the fact that Libya's oil infrastructure needs rebuilding are the two main reasons for this military action!

The Libyan water project needs more attention because the international agriculture cartel is probably involved !!

www.goumbook.com...

powerpointparadise.com...


and maybe Nigeria comes into play?

e360.yale.edu...


I think everybody here needs to "re-assess" the "rebels" and "protesters" in Libya and ALL other countries having "political trouble" .... it seemed a little to "easy" for some recent regimes to fall down!

A closer look at all these "Leaders" is also in order ... some of their "backgrounds" are very thin at best!

WHO are we dealing with anyway ????

I was watching the carnage on the news at a mates the other night, well dressed healthy people running around streets which could have been in any South European city, parked cars, malls and well stocked shops, I said and he agreed that "Within three years that place will look like Somalia".

I agree it's all about the water and of course removing the heads of the Arabs for when the move is made against Iran and yet more crap gets heaped on Gaza, nothing like wrecking the leadership of your opposition before going to war.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Here is a recent article describing in a little more detail than most about what is Really going on in North Africa at the moment . England and France are getting the U.N. to do their bidding in Securing their Oil Imports from Libya regardless of who happens to Rule that Country from now on .



The Libyan war: Unconstitutional and illegitimate

By Michael Lind


The Anglo-French-American attack in North Africa is opposed by
countries representing 40 percent of the human race

Salon, March 21, 2011

www.salon.com...

There is no doubt that U.S. participation in the Anglo-French-American attack on Libya is completely unconstitutional. As Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, before becoming president Barack Obama, a graduate of Harvard Law School and a former law professor, accurately described the limits of a president’s authority to initiate a war in cases where the U.S. has neither been attacked nor is in imminent danger of attack:


The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.

The civil war in Libya is a perfect case of "a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." While the president is limited by the Constitution to repelling or forestalling attack, Congress can declare war for a variety of purposes beyond simple defense. But as a member of the United Nations, the U.S. must abide by the provisions of the U.N. Charter.

The provisions of the Charter are ambiguous, but the soundest interpretation is that under Article 51 countries can wage wars of national or regional self-defense without the approval of the U.N. Security Council. However, under Article 42, Security Council approval is necessary for wars undertaken for other, non-defensive purposes.

It is not clear whether there are limits on what kinds of military actions, in addition to wars of self-defense, that the Security Council can authorize, to deal with a "threat to peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression," as described in Article 39. The Security Council was designed to act as a great power concert capable of intervening to nip international crises in the bud. Whether one thinks it is prudent or not, intervention in the Libyan civil war, in order to avert, say, floods of refugees spilling over the borders or washing up on the shores of southern Europe, would seem to be the sort of thing the Security Council has the power to authorize.

However, while the Security Council can authorize member states to undertake a war for purposes other than national or regional self-defense, it cannot order any country to do so. The U.S. agreed to participate in the United Nations only because the U.N. charter makes it clear that each member state has the right to decide, on the basis of its internal constitutional processes, whether to take part in an enforcement action authorized by the Security Council.

In other words, there are two distinct systems of authorization, one international and one national. Under international law, the U.S. lacks the authority to engage in wars unrelated to its own defense or that of its allies. Security Council action might lift that legal restraint. But once the Security Council has acted, Congress must still authorize the military action by formal voting, not by mere "consultation" with the president.

The U.S. stayed out of the League of Nations after World War I in part because critics argued that it transferred the power to send the U.S. to war from Congress to an international body. Critics of U.S. participation in the United Nations after World War II similarly argued that the result would be presidential wars authorized by the U.N. but not by Congress.

By taking part in a war unrelated to American defense on the basis of a U.N. Security Council resolution, without asking the House and the Senate for a joint resolution as the basis of his authority, President Obama has validated the fears of the critics that U.S. participation in the United Nations would informally amend the Constitution, by transferring authority to initiate all kinds of wars from Congress to the president. The argument that Congress, merely by funding the military, approves of wars initiated without congressional authorization, cannot be taken seriously.

This is not the first unconstitutional war in American history. Truman’s Korean war and Clinton’s Kosovo war and his invasion of Haiti were all waged without congressional authorization (the Vietnam War was authorized by the Southeast Asia Resolution or "Gulf of Tonkin" Resolution). In contrast, Ronald Reagan obtained a congressional joint resolution authorizing his brief intervention in Lebanon (September 29, 1983), George Herbert Walker won a congressional joint resolution in favor of the Gulf War on January 12, 1991, while his son George W. Bush similarly obtained congressional authorization for the Afghan War (September 14, 2001) and the Iraq War (October 16, 2002). Unconstitutional wars waged without authorization by Congress and justified in the name of this or that international diplomatic body -- the UN, the Organization of American States, or in the case of the Libyan war the Arab League -- seem to be a specialty of "internationalist" Democratic presidents like Truman, Clinton and Obama.

In the case of the Libyan war, the presidential power grab is even more blatant, because weak, poor countries on the Security Council have acted as ventriloquists’ puppets for the U.S., Britain and France.

When the U.N. was being designed during World War II, Franklin Roosevelt initially wanted membership in the Security Council to be limited to three or four great powers, like the U.S., Britain, the Soviet Union and nationalist China. Unfortunately, in its final form, the authority of the great powers in the Security Council was diluted by rotating membership for various lesser powers. In addition to the five permanent members of the Security Council -- the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China -- there are, at any given time, ten temporary members. Only a permanent member can veto a U.N. Security Council resolution, but the temporary members are permitted to vote as equals of the permanent members.

Why this matters is evident from the pattern of the U.N. Security Council vote that authorized the no-fly zones in Libya. At present the U.N. Security Council is made up of the five permanent members plus ten other countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Colombia, Germany, India, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, South Africa.

Of the members of the Security Council other than the permanent five, only Germany and possibly India and Brazil can be described as actual or potential great powers. Several of today’s temporary U.N. Security Council members are hardly countries at all. Lebanon’s government controls only part of its territory. Gabon is a statelet with a mere 1.6 million people, smaller than many American cities.

In the vote to authorize war against Libya, the U.S., Britain and France were joined by Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal and South Africa. Abstaining from the vote were five countries: Brazil, Russia, India, China and Germany.

What do the five countries that registered their opposition to the Libyan war have in common? They make up most of the great powers of the early twenty-first century. A few years back, Goldman Sachs identified the so-called "BRIC’s" -- Brazil, Russia, India and China -- as the most important emerging countries in the world. The opponents of the Libyan war on the Security Council are the BRIC’s plus Germany, the most populous and richest country in Europe.

Including the United States, the Security Council nations that voted for the no-fly zone resolution have a combined population of a little more than 700 million people and a combined GDP, in terms of purchasing power parity, of roughly $20 trillion. The Security Council countries that showed their disapproval of the Libyan war by abstaining from the vote have a combined population of about 3 billion people and a GDP of around $21 trillion.

If the U.S. is factored out, the disproportion between the pro-war and anti-war camps on the Security Council is even more striking. The countries that abstained from the vote account for more than 40 percent of the human race. The countries that joined the U.S. in voting to authorize attacks on Libya, including Britain and France, have a combined population that adds up to a little more than 5 percent of the human race.

The truth is that the U.S. is joined in its war on Libya by only two second-rank great powers, Britain and France, which between them carved up North Africa and the Middle East a century ago, slaughtering and torturing many Arabs in the process. Every other major power on earth (with the exception of Japan, which is not on the Council and has been quiet) opposed the Anglo-French-American attack in North Africa, registering that opposition by abstentions rather than "no" votes in the Security Council.

Originally posted by II HAL II
Ok.. show me where these civilian 50 casualties are confirmed then? as I haven't been able to find this.

That'd be the 50 casualties I heard about on the radio the other day? It's true, even if you don't want to believe it...
Vicky

reply to post by Vicky32


It was confirmed yesterday when the American Helicopter 'resueing' one of the pilots from a crashed F-15 landed that they opened fire on a group of unarmed civilians who 'rushed' the helicopter.

Funny how quickly rescueing rebels from Gaddafi can so quickly turn into rescueing Americans from anyone.

reply to post by xuenchen


another reason for "military action"

could be that some weapons need to be "used up"....

do any weapons systems have "expiration dates" ?

like missiles, bombs, ammo, etc.

the Military-Industrial complex may be "re-arming" with "fresh" supplies !!

I cant believe that there are people that actually support attacking the Libyan Govt while fighting a Civil War.
It doesnt matter what Kadaffi has been "accused" of doing, this is a Libyan matter, nothing else.
Like i said before, if civilians were hurt/killed in the crossfire, that doesnt make him a criminal, if you go by most world leaders standards, that just makes them collateral damage.
Isnt that what its called when the US bombs a "legitimate" target and innocent people get killed?

And the UK? give me a break, they were just chomping at the bit for a reason to take this guy out, ever since they made the deal to release the Pan Am bomber patsy.

If ANYONE thinks that this, soon to be invasion, has anything to do with "protecting civilians" then they have no business on a conspiracy forum.. Fox News, CNN, MSNBC forum is just a click away.

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by II HAL II
Ok.. show me where these civilian 50 casualties are confirmed then? as I haven't been able to find this.

That'd be the 50 casualties I heard about on the radio the other day? It's true, even if you don't want to believe it...
Vicky

It's true is it? because you heard it on the radio? lol

"It was confirmed yesterday"... problem with maths Protoplasmic, 6=50? Events have moved on from when I made that statement in rubuttal to another post... anyway twist it how you want.

I have no doubt there will be 50 civilian casualties by the end of this, but as I keep asking what's the alternative then?

I would rather see some action taken to stop a city being destroyed, that was surrounded by tanks, missiles, mortars etc. and filled with women and children than just reading about mass graves at some point in the future.

There's a lot of people jumping on their high horse and soap box about this and in some points I agree, but your alternative of doing nothing would have been much worse.

A no-fly zone seems to me to be the best answer, if it turns into anything more than that, I will jump on your side fast, no-fly zones have been done many times before without mass casualties and invasions. If this is about the west getting oil and water from Libya, then of course this is wrong... but this isn't even close to happening so why assume this is what it's all about.... if it does happen I will jump on your side fast.

BUT because none of this is happening as I type, I'm not on your side, thinking you have the moral high ground when what you are proposing is that Benghazi, which has a population of about 750,000, is left to be destroyed is.... well.... forget it.

I'm a conspiracy thoery nut too... I just happen to think this one is different and I'm giving it a chance to be what it says on the tin.... a no-fly zone, nothing more.

I disagree. Its 100% legitimate because the vote was unanimous "no fly zone-protect libyan civillians/rebels"

Saying anything else would be a lie and I hate lies.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
reply to post by GovtFlu

 

Explain where the burnt out hulks of armor and artillery and many kilometers of burnt out wreckage came from outside of Benghazi after the French attack jets attacked?
Did TPTB sneak in with thousands of chinooks overnight and place them there under the cover of darkness? I suppose they doctored up Misrata, Ajdibaya, Sert etc with hollywood props to satisfy your outlandish conspiracy?

This is the funniest conspiracy of them all. Nothing ever happened unless you were there, lol sounds like you just jumped in from the moon hoax debate.

I'll type slower...

Unless YOU were there, in Libya.. an eye witness.. YOU cannot be 100% certain. Does that mean "nothing ever happens"?.. maybe to you..

I have no doubts something is happening, I just don't trust known liars to tell me the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I'd like to see dozens of separate named independent verifiable sources.. which shouldn't bee too tough with a so called massacre and whatnot going on, eh?

reply to post by TinfoilTP


"People's blind hatred for america will never let them see what Kaddafi was about to do and in fact had already begun to do at Benghazi. "

1930s German national socialists, aka nazis, used the very same "denounce pacifists as unpatriotic" thing.. try a new cliche that isn't so WWII ago..

Hermann Goering said it best: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism,..."