NATO Strikes libya water supply

NATO Strikes libya water supply

english.pravda.ru

July 22 2011. A date for humanity to remember. NATO hit the Libyan water supply pipeline. It will take months to repair. Then on Saturday they hit the pipeline factory producing pipes to repair it.

(visit the link for the full news article)

So I havent found anything on ATS About this. I just wanted to make sure this info got on the forum incase anyone still believed that we were the good guys.

I know this happened a few days ago, But I'm stunned on how few people know about this. surely the debt drama is covering for so many worse things that the elite are doing.

So I must wonder: is cutting off water to ~4.5 million innocent people considered evil? and if so, How can anyone have any hope that this world will improve?

english.pravda.ru
(visit the link for the full news article)

I don't think you looked actually:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Bilw85


NATO did the same brute Fascist actions in Serbia, The Rebels are terroists

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


So is Ghaddafi.

What's your point?

Sorry, dont know how I missed those threads.

reply to post by kro32


the terrorists in east libya stroke the first bullets, not Gaddafi.

The first signs of unrest in Libya erupted in the form of violent protests in mid-February. After seizing weapons and military equipment from Libyan soldiers, the protesters quickly became full-fledged rebels.


Normal protesters wont steal and seize weapons and military equipment from military forces would they?

edit on 27-7-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


That's funny acutally since Ghaddafi made it a crime to form political parties against him the year he came into power punishable by televised executions or public hangings. I'd say 30 years kinda trumps your february date.

reply to post by kro32

That's funny acutally since Ghaddafi made it a crime to form political parties against him the year he came into power punishable by televised executions or public hangings. I'd say 30 years kinda trumps your february date.

Isn't obama going to do the same now in america? to make a Super Congress?

Link1

televised executions or public hangings.

So? the British did public hangings aswell so whats your point? he was killing King Idrs man, King Idrs was a very pro Washington leader of libya only long Ghaddafi came into power, and those who were trying to remove Ghaddaif had the same polices as King Idrs.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


You said the rebels acted first and I proved you wrong so you interject Obama into your post? LOL

Do some research and gather some facts then come back to debate when your ready.

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

 

So is Ghaddafi.

What's your point?

How is Gaddafi a terrorist?

Do you even know what the pre-9/11 definition of terrorism is? It means violently attacking the people of a nation in order to force the government into action or some kind of change (so in other words, organized violence against a state and its people for political objectives).

So I ask again, how is Gaddafi a terrorist? Is he attacking his own country? I don't get it

Last time I checked, it's the rebels who have been conducting violent attacks on Gaddafi's government AND people. The few domestic rebels are already extremists and the foreign "rebels" range from anything between CIA-paid and trained mercinaries and Al Qaeda.

The rebels are the terrorists, and NATO is backing the terrorists. NATO also happens to be clearly terrorist in its actions of blatently bombing the water pipeline and pipeline manufacturing facilities. They did this on purpose in order to cut off water to the majority of Libyans. Why? Because doing so causes anarchy. In this case, most of Libya, which stands by Gaddafi, will be out in the streets in the desperate search for sustenence while the Western media will be claiming lies like "Gaddafi is starving his people" and whatever.

It's a similar shock and awe strategy as the one being carried out against North Korea. The US has laid out so many embargos, threats, propaganda and used the UN to carried out sanctions so that, in the end, North Korea is barely able to feed its own people. They have to feed their government and military first or else there wouldn't be ANY structure to the North Korean state, which is what the US wants (I don't think South Korea does so much, since at least they can sympathize with them).

And then what do we see in the media? Lies about how the North Korean government hog all of the food and starve their people. This wouldn't be happening without the overbearing fist of American foreign policy in the region, pushing proxy conflict with China and Russia with North Korea, and sadly her people, at being the apex of political fighting.

This is the same in Libya, for Gaddafi's Libya happens to really be the apex of a progressive Africa. However, this Africa does not wish to remain a cheap workforce for Western products and sustenence, so now we see the West bombing Libya.

And to bring it all back full circle, it's all about perception. There is no universal good or evil. You, as a Westerner, may see Ghaddafi as a terrorist, but I can guarentee you that he doesn't, nor does the majority of Libyans who want the west and their terrorist proxy "rebels" to piss off.

We just need to collectively agree to ignore this kro guy/gal and hopefully he/she/they will go away.

There is plenty of video and eyewitness testimony of Ghaddafi attacking the protesters in his country and he has a long history of this so yes he does fit the definition of a terrorist. That and he also has supported and agreed with other terrorist organizations in the past.

Once again this is just a matter of record and has been for a long time. He also doesn't have near the support of the people you claim he does as the people there have lived under his regime of terror for a long time and know the truth. Don't judge the nation by a few marches he put on in honor of himself. Saddam Hussein did the same thing you might recall but you don't notice the soldiers with weapons hanging around the outside of the rally's.

People finally rose up against Ghaddafi and he tried to strike them down but unfortunately NATO decided to take advantage of this for multiple reasons and gave their support to the rebels to get rid of him.

reply to post by Darce


Why ignore me? Apparantly you don't like opinions that are different than yours so chose to just ignore it?

Not very grown up of you now is it.

reply to post by kro32


Your posts are always so condescending, it really makes me wonder why you post here at all.

Are you on some personal mission to get us dullards to wisen up?

Why not communicate on a level of equality?

You remind me of the character Dwight from "The Office".

"FALSE"

It's a good trick to get condescending people to act more hospitable by ignoring them.

reply to post by Darce


I do communicate on a level of equality and that's why my posts may always sound stupid and condescending. I often have to respond to people saying stuff like "Just ignore him" instead of intellectual responses supported with factual evidence so your getting what you asked for.

I have presented my side of the argument here in a very reasonable way the same as the others in this thread have and it's a simple debate so unless you can contribute on our level perhaps you should pass on this thread.

Originally posted by kro32
There is plenty of video and eyewitness testimony of Ghaddafi attacking the protesters in his country and he has a long history of this so yes he does fit the definition of a terrorist. That and he also has supported and agreed with other terrorist organizations in the past.

Once again this is just a matter of record and has been for a long time. He also doesn't have near the support of the people you claim he does as the people there have lived under his regime of terror for a long time and know the truth. Don't judge the nation by a few marches he put on in honor of himself. Saddam Hussein did the same thing you might recall but you don't notice the soldiers with weapons hanging around the outside of the rally's.

People finally rose up against Ghaddafi and he tried to strike them down but unfortunately NATO decided to take advantage of this for multiple reasons and gave their support to the rebels to get rid of him.

And you still fail to grasp reality

You think Ghaddafi is a terrorist because his government apparently attacked protesters? Not only does this NOT fit the description of terrorism, but it also applies to any and all governments in the world.

By your definition of terrorist, I can even claim that the Canadian government and Harper himself as all being terrorists because of their blatent crackdowns on protesters (which there is plenty of video evidence of). This is ironic because the RCMP even claimed that the protesters were terrorists. SO EVERYBODY IS A TERRORIST, EH?

There is a line between radical politics and terrorism. You can't really call a government or its members terrorist because if they attack their own people then it is totalitarian despotism and if they attack another country's people, then it is an act of war.

You can certainly call individuals of government terrorists if they are directly involved in terrorism, like how CIA operatives funnel money, guns and bombs to radical groups who carry out terrorist attacks on non-alligned countries (like Iran or Venezuela); or if the operatives themselves are involved in terrorist activities like assassinating scientists. Assassination becomes terrorism when the target happens to be an integral part of the society, especially concerning government officials.

And you want to talk of terrorism? What of how the US and other NATO friends trying to kill Ghaddafi directly with airstrikes and cruise missiles, even though it has NOTHING to do with the No Fly Zone initiative? Killing Ghaddafi would result in the largest terrorist strike on Libya (equivalent to an outside force bombing Obama). Even in the persuit to kill him, he has been forced to spend his days out of the public view, reducing his capability to maintain his country's infrastructure.

I can not believe people are not in an uproar with NATO. I guess they are just enforcing a no-fly zone
I wonder how much money the U.S. has wasted in this kinetic debacle?

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


You are getting hung up on this word terrorism which if you read back through the posts I was simply responding to someone who called the rebels terrorists. You may use any word you like but the fact is that Ghaddafi has not been a kind leader in any sense of the word.

He has killed his own people, eliminated forcefully any political challenges to him, supported terrorism such as the plane bombing, and a portion of his population have risen against him. It would be foolish in my opinion for NATO not to try to capitalize on this situation.

Whoever they get to be their next leader will probably be alot kinder than Ghaddafi has been.

reply to post by kro32


Well my advice is to rise above it and keep defending your opinions, but at least entertain the idea that talking down to people who you disagree with will only force them to ignore you.

I can't get into a debate about who's the bigger terrorist, or why any of that even matters.