Libyan teen tries to take own life to escape NATO bombs

What makes RT more reliable than wester media? Please someone answer this question for me.

It is quite puzzling at most!

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant

As for Russia's intervention in Georgia, that was a just war. Georgia invaded South Ossetia, which was regarded as a break away province with a high Russian population. Subsequently fighting broke out and reports of civillians being massacared by the Georgian military was realeased. These may have been intentional or collateral damage. Consequently Russia quickly mobilized, fought back the Georgian military, they could have gone all the way and occupied Tiblisi, but possibly fear of American intervention stopped them from doing so. One could say war was forced on to Georgia (they wanted to maintain control of the break away province which was South Ossetia) but one could defientely concur that Russia was provoked and forced to intervene.

edit on 12-6-2011 by SpeachM1litant because: (no reason given)

Moving off topic this but it is related in that the original posting and your above defense of Russian actions makes you sound like a spokesperson for the Russian military propaganda machine, as is that RT website. A nice little rounded package of misinformation.

Originally posted by David291
What makes RT more reliable than wester media? Please someone answer this question for me.

It is quite puzzling at most!

I can answer that : It's because all western media, especially the BBC, are puppets to the TPTB/NWO that runs all western politics, military and business. The RT is one of the few free news outlets and as such can be trusted to be 100% accurate and free from propaganda.

I do not believe a word of that but some people do. The BBC is an interesting one that the brainwashed pick on since it is always upsets governments OF ALL COLOURS! who accuse it of bias. The BBC is NOT funded by government, political parties or big business but by every person in the UK who owns a TV.

Originally posted by malcr

Originally posted by David291
What makes RT more reliable than wester media? Please someone answer this question for me.

It is quite puzzling at most!

I can answer that : It's because all western media, especially the BBC, are puppets to the TPTB/NWO that runs all western politics, military and business. The RT is one of the few free news outlets and as such can be trusted to be 100% accurate and free from propaganda.

that is ofcourse asumming TPTB/NWO have not got their hands in the east but really? they haven't? must be a joke if some people believe they arent...

Everything about the Libyan war is complete BS. There never was a revolution and it's been pointed out many a time, Gaddafi maybe a dictator, but he's no where near as bad as the MSN would have us believe and is still supported by the majority of Libyan citizens.

NATO's "Alternate Universe" in Libya
www.strategic-culture.org...

When it comes to western propaganda, one thing is for sure. You'll never get the truth, only BS dressed up as the truth, but people in the west don't half love the taste. They just can't get enough of it. Nato and the MSN should be selling candy bars.

There's a lot of people in this world who are completely devoid of compassion for their fellow human beings, most of them think they are above the law, but there is one law they are not above and that is the law of karma. What goes around comes around.

The only people who support this war, or any other NATO wars are homicidal maniacs who will go to any lengths to justify their irrational mental attitude. They'll even do anything to defend their impudent leaders. Why? It's because they can relate to them, because just like their leaders; their morals, ethics and real sense of honour reside in the gutter. Like attracts like.

Yet again! while innocent men, women and children die, you're illustrious leaders, politicians and businessman are having their global Bilderberg shindig. While people are dying, they are plotting the next war & economic meltdown, while drinking the finest wines, champagne and eating the finest foods. The entertainment will be the usual derogatory, vile and disgusting. Male prostitutes have already been seen sneaking in through the back door. I can only imagine what other kinds of filth goes on behind these closed doors. But these are the people you look up to. They are your role models.

Anyone who defends the actions of these people are no better than they are, so please don't talk to me about intelligence, morality, ethics or honor, for you people don't have any, but you'll no doubt like to delude yourselves that you do. But then delusions of grandeur seems to run rampant throughout this entire world. I'm still waiting for the human race to wake up.

Anyone who follows & supports these people, seriously needs to question their own sanity.

www.sovereignindependent.com...

www.sovereignindependent.com...

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by StevenDye

 

It is a reason to end a war. A war should only be fought if their is just cause and America has no just cause entering the Libyan theatre. the U.S is neither helping Libya nor it's own American citizens. Isn't the role of government to serve the people?

Whilst I still disagree the previous reasons were indeed not a reason to end a war, the reason provided above IS.(In part)

I DO believe it is a just war to remove Ghadaffi, however as you then state the U.S. is not helping libya, and that is a reason to end the war. If you cannot fight succesfully in a war then why continue to make things worse?

Although before that becomes a valid reason at entering a war America should ensure it has given absolutely everything it can to the Libyan conflict, if it can still not make a difference and is merely creating a stalemate where more civillians are dieing than were before...hen it becomes a reason to end the war.

If America is unable (not deems unreasonable) but unable to provide any more support, then they have a reason to leave.

Originally posted by David291
What makes RT more reliable than wester media? Please someone answer this question for me.

It is quite puzzling at most!

Well, clearly because it is reporting news that props up their argument about how wonderful Gaddaffi is and how terrible terrible terrible the USA is.

I'm thinking maybe they should move to Russia?

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
As for Russia's intervention in Georgia, that was a just war. Georgia invaded South Ossetia, which was regarded as a break away province with a high Russian population. Subsequently fighting broke out and reports of civillians being massacared by the Georgian military was realeased. These may have been intentional or collateral damage. Consequently Russia quickly mobilized, fought back the Georgian military, they could have gone all the way and occupied Tiblisi, but possibly fear of American intervention stopped them from doing so. One could say war was forced on to Georgia (they wanted to maintain control of the break away province which was South Ossetia) but one could defientely concur that Russia was provoked and forced to intervene.

edit on 12-6-2011 by SpeachM1litant because: (no reason given)

Oh, got to love the irony in this statement, not to mention the blatant hypocrisy!

Let me see..

Rebels, mainly in the east of Libya and of a different tribal affiliation to Gaddafi and chums, rise up afetr years of oppression and wish to determine their own future. Gaddafi responds with extreme violence, Wests teps in to "protect civilians" (seize the opportunity to overthrow Gaddafi)..

Queue all you lot speaking of the evils of NATO and the West...

Georgia, facing a sifgnificant territorial loss to rebels with Russian affiliation, intervenes for whatever reason they stated at the time. Russia, in order to "protect civilians" (seize opportunity to grab some land) intervenes and gives the smack down on Georgia for daring to try to control it's internationally recognised territory.

Queue you lot for saying Russia is great for doing so and only did so with the best interests of the ethnic Russians in the region.

The two situations are close to enough to draw a paralell, yet you treat one as if it is an evil colonialist attempt to seize oil and other as some sort of benevolent intervention to save women and babies.

Biased much? At least I can see both for what they were. The West wants rid of Gaddafi and this is a golden chance. Russia wanted to end this Georgia border issue and grab some valuable territory it perceives as "lost" after the Soviet era.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


I find it quite amusing how they say a russian news source is more reliable when infact they are most probably just as bad as each other.

Originally posted by David291
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

I find it quite amusing how they say a russian news source is more reliable when infact they are most probably just as bad as each other.

If you choose to generalize that Russian MSM is the same as Western MSM without actually studying the differences between the two, then why do you even bother commenting on it? Sounds like a bunch of anti-Russian bias in this thread, IMO.

Seriously, I posted the question earlier: If RT isn't a reliable source, then what is? Because I would really like to know what you naysayers think is reliable source material (especially since you guys don't seem to provide any, instead focusing to attack sources that you disagree with).

reply to post by stumason


Oh don't get me wrong, I am all for the East of Libya secceding from the West. I have no doubt in my mind that the majority of Eastern Libya wants such an idea to become a reality. Libya is a tribal society and I believe by reverting to more natural borders- instead of those drawn by Britain and France- their may be more stability in Northern Africa and the Middle East. What I oppose is regime change forced on Western Libya and Libya as a whole. It is an un-natural occurance, when outside intervention brings forth regime change and it would do little to maintain stability in this region. I also believe (and we can clearly see) that the West and the Western tribes affiliated and associated with Gaddafi want him to remain as their figurehead/leader. The truth is that Gaddafi has diverted much of Eastern Libya's oil profits to the West and therefor he has mismanaged the economy. He has failed to create employment and has not industrialized Libya's economy- this tends to be the case in oil rich states.

The question of Georgia takes an entirely different context. South Ossetia bordered Russia and they had a legitamate greviance in protecting ethnic Russians whereas NATO does not. The war with Georgia was definetely politically motivated but none the less it was forced upon the Russians, whereas the war with Libya is politically motivated but it is not necassary nor forced upon NATO.

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by stumason

 

I also believe (and we can clearly see) that the West and the Western tribes affiliated and associated with Gaddafi want him to remain as their figurehead/leader.

The tribes affiliated and associated with Gaddafi want him to remain as their leader? What a scoop! Who would have thought it?

Someone needs to tell G forces to stop decimating Western towns and cities with indirect fire, as they’re all loyalists apparently.

Originally posted by stumason
Hmm...

A piece carried on Russia Today (a country quite against action on a good customer of theirs) that cannot be verified independantly. Given we have stories like this "tall tale" coming out of Libya, where they seem to routinely make up BS (and bad BS at that, at least our Governments put some effort into their lies), I find this hard to believe...

Either that, or the girl was obviously somewhat "unhinged" anyway. Who would honestly try to commit suicide because of this activity? Silly girl..

edit on 10/6/11 by stumason because: (no reason given)

I agree with you. The reason these people, if it's even true and not Libyan government propaganda, are becoming "unhinged" is because airstrikes are scary, but what's scarier is when your government lies and brainwashes you into thinking that the "imperialist, AmeriKKKans and Europeans are trying to kill civilians for their oil and get rid of the Great Leader." Truth is remarkably few civilians have been killed in Tripoli given the intensity of airstrikes there. NATO weapons have been frighteningly accurate and intelligence on civilians surprisingly good.

So while it is possible a kid tried to kill herself because of the scare, the problem mainly comes from a lack of perspective of the situation as a whole due to Gaddafi propaganda and him basically running the state TV to display non-stop propaganda and to rally the populace to his defense.

If you watch some footage from dead Libyan soldiers (reportedly, but they seem real enough) you see they refer to rebels a lot as "rats" which is something Gaddafi hammered into Libyans' minds. In other words, many are so deluded due to the propaganda network that they actually think Libyan rebels are mainly Al Qaeda or hallucinogenic drug users. Given Libya was very well-off compared to the rest of Africa and the Middle East prior to the civil war and given the roots of the revolution, it's extremely hard to buy the fact that a majority are Al Qaeda. The Libyan populace is surprisingly well-educated and well-represented amongst professionals.

Now as an aside to anyone wanting to use RT (formerly known as Russia Today) for news, keep in mind they are almost exclusively a Kremlin propaganda outlet (state-run) dreamed up by the KSB and Putin's regime as a super-extreme Fox News-esque counter to CNN/Al Jazeera/etc. to broadcast extremely favorable Russian (government viewpoints, not the people's) slants to news and frequently diving into conspiracy theories and drivel.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by David291
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

I find it quite amusing how they say a russian news source is more reliable when infact they are most probably just as bad as each other.

If you choose to generalize that Russian MSM is the same as Western MSM without actually studying the differences between the two, then why do you even bother commenting on it? Sounds like a bunch of anti-Russian bias in this thread, IMO.

Seriously, I posted the question earlier: If RT isn't a reliable source, then what is? Because I would really like to know what you naysayers think is reliable source material (especially since you guys don't seem to provide any, instead focusing to attack sources that you disagree with).

As was said and can be gleaned from a variety of sources, Russia Today is not a news source.

They are a state-run propaganda outlet in a country that does not have freedom of press.

That is not an extreme stance in the slightest, that is general fact. They make Fox News (probably the most biased mainstream media outlet in the U.S.A.) look tame, because "at least" Fox News is based in a country that does allow freedom of press and are run by corporate interests (Murdoch and News Corp).

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Dot, dot and more dots.

I don't care if it's russian news or western news, what I was getting at is what makes them any better? They all have their own aims and goals...

both have committed acts of propganda just as much as the other nothing makes RT better than western media, nothing.

opinion ofc.Oh and I forgot to mention, I have nothing against the russians or any race of people. Just TPTB

Originally posted by David291
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

Dot, dot and more dots.

I don't care if it's russian news or western news, what I was getting at is what makes them any better? They all have their own aims and goals...

both have committed acts of propganda just as much as the other nothing makes RT better than western media, nothing.

opinion ofc.Oh and I forgot to mention, I have nothing against the russians or any race of people. Just TPTB

You're right. They have nothing that makes them better. They have a lot that makes them worse though. A LOT bolstered by the evidence of hundreds of sources and their founding history and owners.

reply to post by Soshh


Yep North Western Libya (the South West isn't very hospitable) is generally loyal to Gaddafi.: www.phibetaiota.net...
There are a small number of tribes in the West whereas there is a large coallition of tribes in the East that feel they have been cheated and I don't blame them. Most of Libya's oil is situated in the East yet Tripolitania tends to be the most modernized section of Libya. Unemployment in Libya was at 30%- largely due to the fact that Gaddafi failed to modernize the economy and that Libyans relied on large forces of imigrant workers (200,000 imigrant workers) in a country with only 6,000,000 people. This is due to the fact that Libyans refused the mundane jobs which Libya's economy did provide.

None-the-less, the North West is affiliated with Gadaffi, the East has rejected him and see's him as illegitimate and the South has also rejected Gadaffi. The South is the more radical Islamic section of Libya. Gadaffi brutally supressed protest there in the 90's and after the publication of Muhamaed was posted in a Danish newspaper.

The region is tribally devided. This is the mistake that foreigners make. They believe that everyone will be happy once Gadaffi is gone (just like with Saddam) and that peace and stability will reign with a pro-Western democracy. This just isn't true. For Libya such an establishment would be problematic and de-stabalizing. Former opposition and Gaddafi loyalists would not be represented in the new government. The region would still be divided and once Gaddafi is gone we would see a divided Libya, held together by a weak government. The country could possibly remain a failed state under the TNC or under a rebel leadership.

Although my views may seem more radical I believe they are more realistic. Libya needs to be divided into 2 or possibly 3 section (although 3 would be problematic for the West's war on terror). I would suggest dividing East and West. But more specifically North West and East, but not with straight or negotiated borders but rather along tribal divisions.



Libya could also be divided into North West, East and South. However a Southern government could prove to be the breeding ground for Islamic terrorism. Therefor it may require a strong regime to keep Islamism in check (the TNC would have to be ready to do this).

Westerners tend to look at Libya in their mind state of the State. The State is a relitavely new concept in Libya and the borders drawn up by the West were not well though out. To understand and solve the problem you must interperet it with a tribal mind set.

reply to post by Evanescence


The Iraqi populace was suprisingly well educated and so is the Saudi Arabian populace, yet both a breeding ground for radical Islam. It is not that Libyan Islamic sections in Libya are the major problem is it that infiltrators and fifth columns could prove to be desisive especially in Southern Libya- which isn't as modernized as the the rest of Libya. Many Libyans and especially Libyans in the south hold deeply traditional-religous and conservative views. Those in regions less modernized (i.e. the South) could prove to be breeding grounds for terrorism.

You have to stop over-simplyfing the problem and saying that the solution is that Gadaffi and his loyalists must go. If you do so you will only have one sour leader replaced with another who later turns sour. Guess what, in a democracy the Gaddafi loyalists views must be represented.

may there be peace, peace and peace....

kx

Originally posted by Evanescence
As was said and can be gleaned from a variety of sources, Russia Today is not a news source.

They are a state-run propaganda outlet in a country that does not have freedom of press.

That is not an extreme stance in the slightest, that is general fact. They make Fox News (probably the most biased mainstream media outlet in the U.S.A.) look tame, because "at least" Fox News is based in a country that does allow freedom of press and are run by corporate interests (Murdoch and News Corp).

RT is a news source.

They are not state-run.

Russia does allow freedom of the press.

I have observed the practices of CNN/FOX/CTV/RT and RT definitely has more factual reporting than the others. CNN and Fox News makes me cringe at how people can be so stupid to believe them. You want to talk about state-run propaganda outlets? Just look at the American news corporations (key word, corporations. They are at the top because they say what the US government wants them to say).

I don't know where you get your facts from, but RT reports have never really contradicted any facts that I've heard from more legitimate sources, especially information covered in my geopolitical studies. Perhaps you just don't agree with what they report.

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by Soshh

 

Yep North Western Libya (the South West isn't very hospitable) is generally loyal to Gaddafi.: www.phibetaiota.net...
There are a small number of tribes in the West whereas there is a large coallition of tribes in the East that feel they have been cheated and I don't blame them. Most of Libya's oil is situated in the East yet Tripolitania tends to be the most modernized section of Libya. Unemployment in Libya was at 30%- largely due to the fact that Gaddafi failed to modernize the economy and that Libyans relied on large forces of imigrant workers (200,000 imigrant workers) in a country with only 6,000,000 people. This is due to the fact that Libyans refused the mundane jobs which Libya's economy did provide.

None-the-less, the North West is affiliated with Gadaffi, the East has rejected him and see's him as illegitimate and the South has also rejected Gadaffi. The South is the more radical Islamic section of Libya. Gadaffi brutally supressed protest there in the 90's and after the publication of Muhamaed was posted in a Danish newspaper.

The region is tribally devided. This is the mistake that foreigners make. They believe that everyone will be happy once Gadaffi is gone (just like with Saddam) and that peace and stability will reign with a pro-Western democracy. This just isn't true. For Libya such an establishment would be problematic and de-stabalizing. Former opposition and Gaddafi loyalists would not be represented in the new government. The region would still be divided and once Gaddafi is gone we would see a divided Libya, held together by a weak government. The country could possibly remain a failed state under the TNC or under a rebel leadership.

Although my views may seem more radical I believe they are more realistic. Libya needs to be divided into 2 or possibly 3 section (although 3 would be problematic for the West's war on terror). I would suggest dividing East and West. But more specifically North West and East, but not with straight or negotiated borders but rather along tribal divisions.



Libya could also be divided into North West, East and South. However a Southern government could prove to be the breeding ground for Islamic terrorism. Therefor it may require a strong regime to keep Islamism in check (the TNC would have to be ready to do this).

Westerners tend to look at Libya in their mind state of the State. The State is a relitavely new concept in Libya and the borders drawn up by the West were not well though out. To understand and solve the problem you must interperet it with a tribal mind set.

A very nice post. Is Fezzan really a bastion of anti-Gaddafi sentiment though? I don't know much about southern Libya but I've always heard Sabha was very pro-Gaddafi largely due to the benefits he bestowed upon African immigrants to that area (some of whom supposedly are fighting for him now). Sirte is obviously very pro-Gaddafi it seems given that is his birthplace. As for the West it really depends. A lot of Western towns are in rebel hands and the Berbers harbor a deep hatred of Gaddafi.

As for Zlitan and Al Khums, I guess time will tell given the rebels are supposedly within 6 miles of Zlitan, where Gaddafi's son Khamis is supposedly commanding a large gathering of troops (along with in Brega where it is rumored Mutassim might be commanding - those two locations seem to be the most significant Gaddafi forces left in the country, maybe aside from Tripoli itself, though they might just withdraw the Zlitan and Az Zawiyah ones to Al Khums and Tripoli as the rebels assault them).

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by Evanescence

 

The Iraqi populace was suprisingly well educated and so is the Saudi Arabian populace, yet both a breeding ground for radical Islam. It is not that Libyan Islamic sections in Libya are the major problem is it that infiltrators and fifth columns could prove to be desisive especially in Southern Libya- which isn't as modernized as the the rest of Libya. Many Libyans and especially Libyans in the south hold deeply traditional-religous and conservative views. Those in regions less modernized (i.e. the South) could prove to be breeding grounds for terrorism.

You have to stop over-simplyfing the problem and saying that the solution is that Gadaffi and his loyalists must go. If you do so you will only have one sour leader replaced with another who later turns sour. Guess what, in a democracy the Gaddafi loyalists views must be represented.

edit on 14-6-2011 by SpeachM1litant because: (no reason given)

I am hardly oversimplifying the problem given so many here thing Arabic males = Islamic militants apparently. And Iraq was never that high on the HDI unlike Libya which supplanted only by Qatar, UAE, and Bahrain for human development. It's obvious there are "flickers" of Al Qaeda but to think that the majority want to somehow destroy the West and institute a theocracy is a very extreme viewpoint.

And this isn't a democracy, this is dictatorship that represses free speech with violence and rape. Whether rape is used to the extent some ICC people allege is up for debate but it's been happening. There are videos and reports about it galore. Comparing Gaddafi to some real president is oversimplifying.