Busted!! fake news on libya- movie sets, fake videos and pics, death threats to journalists

reply to post by wcitizen


wctizen, look at al jazeera's background and lighting in video .. the lighting and brightness on the sides and sky and background . there is great inconsistency in the video and the background is clearcut fake .

in the video below an alleged african man details why the western MSM could possibly be trying to distort the african public's feelings on ghadaffi and, possibly, why we would be lied to regarding the conflicts in libya. he says ghadaffi financed africa's mobile/internet infrastructure, among other things, which could be worth trillions over the long haul.

i have posted this before but i do not endorse this man's opinion. i am thankful for the perspective and, with the discrepancies in what we are told by the MSM i am glad to hear what sounds like an african person's opinion.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by CasiusIgnoranze

 

But it's not. Because they don't have much oil, and they won'y gain nor lose any of it as a result of this event. Gadaf sold it for his money. And who ever gets in charge will sell it all the same.

John Perkins used to be an Economic Hit Man for the Corporations. Here is his analysis of why they are attacking Libya:

www.johnperkins.org...

Libya: It’s Not About Oil, It’s About Currency and Loans

By John Perkins

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- World Bank President Robert Zoellick Thursday said he hopes the institution will have a role rebuilding Libya as it emerges from current unrest.

Zoellick at a panel discussion noted the bank’s early role in the reconstruction of France, Japan and other nations after World War II.

“Reconstruction now means (Ivory Coast), it means southern Sudan, it means Liberia, it means Sri Lanka, I hope it will mean Libya,” Zoellick said.

If you haven't seen his video, it's worth watching:

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by martinkb
OK - I don't get it. Why would they do that? There really isn't any good reason.

There is a lot of criticism of this war in UK. Persuading the public that the Libyans are happy to be bombed and invaded is necessary to reduce support for the critics and to get the public to believe in it. They have to hide the fact that this is an illegal war and there is mass murder of civilians going on.

And thus why you are one of my favorite posters on ATS wcitizen. I am always pleasantly surprised and enthusiastic about your point of view and your ability to wade through the bull and cut to the chase.

I thank you for what you are doing sir, and I admit you make my life a lot easier. Having folks like you in the trenches every day keeps the front in this information war alive.

And we are winning big time, since the truth speaks for itself and eventually people will have to come to terms with their own destiny sooner or later.

I can rest easy at night when I know that there are spirits out there with the willpower to stay on course and speak out in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. I know that we are surmounting them however.

Rock on brotha!

Originally posted by USAisdevil
reply to post by wcitizen

 

wctizen, look at al jazeera's background and lighting in video .. the lighting and brightness on the sides and sky and background . there is great inconsistency in the video and the background is clearcut fake .

Thanks USAisdevil, I agree with you. I spent ages looking at this before posting it and I do believe it's fake.

reply to post by CasiusIgnoranze


This is not related to what I just said. I said that the output will not change under leadership. So the amount of oil is irrelevant if that's the reason for intervention. Furthermore, one can see that Africa has other proven reserves, and if we truly desired it for the oil, Iran has nearly 3x the amount of proven reserves and 3x the amount of Casus belli. IE, if we aren't in Iran yet, then there is no logical reason to be in Libya for oil.

Originally posted by USAisdevil
reply to post by wcitizen

 

wctizen, look at al jazeera's background and lighting in video .. the lighting and brightness on the sides and sky and background . there is great inconsistency in the video and the background is clearcut fake .

Come on, put some effort into it. Saying that the footage looks faked doesn't make it so, you have to prove it. Try and find a better quality video of the actual Al Jazeera news footage that I provided on page 6 for example.

reply to post by wcitizen


The honest truth is I am not against this military-economic policy. Wherever we have done it, things are better in general. While I do not like the fact that a million Iraqis died for it, now many more live are free. Now Top Gear can go and have drag races in the Kurd region, and Iraq has not only a more powerful military than Iran, but a method to ensure we don't have to get involved in Iran.

Fact is that things are better as a result. But mind you the context in which I am speaking of this "better". Before the US, the Europeans controlled the region. And before the Euros, it was the ottomans. And before, the Byzantiums. And before, the Romans, and before, the Greeks, so on and so forth. The region has never known independence. And yet the US desires to let them be independent, in exchange for some oil and friends. How can I say that is wrong in the context of the last +2000 years of regional history?

Al Jazeera is a TPTB mouthpiece actually.

Al Jazeera wiki

is an independent broadcaster owned by the state of Qatar through the Qatar Media Corporation and headquartered in Doha, Qatar. Initially launched as an Arabic news and current affairs satellite TV channel, Al Jazeera has since expanded into a network with several outlets, including the Internet and specialty TV channels in multiple languages. Al Jazeera is accessible in several world regions.

It's an "Independent" broadcaster, even though it's OWNED by the STATE?? Lmao, Double-speak to the max.

Aljazeera Satellite Channel was launched on 1 November 1996 following the closure of the BBC's Arabic language television station, a joint venture with a Qatar Media Corporation company. It had fallen apart after a year and a half when the Saudi government attempted to kill a documentary on executions under sharia law.[2] The Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa, provided a loan of QAR 500 million ($137 million) to sustain Aljazeera through its first five years, as Hugh Miles detailed in his book Aljazeera The Inside Story of the Arab News Channel That Is Challenging the West. Shares were held by private investors as well as the Qatar government.

And look please. Look at it closely , don't bother reading in between these lines just read the lines.

Much of the staff came from the 250 journalists displaced by the closure of BBC Arabic.

Can anyone say globalist agenda? Can anyone say wolf in sheep's clothing?

If you already don't trust FOX, CNN, NBC, BBC, CBS, ABC, than you better wake up and smell the propaganda and realize that the other state owned media corporations, such as Al Jazeera, Russia Today, and Xinhua are also spinning the truth for their own financial or strategic agendas.

Also consider the fact that through organizations like the AP, many of these other organizations simply repeat the lies told from the top anyways. I wouldn't call any of them "Independent".

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by wcitizen

 

The honest truth is I am not against this military-economic policy. Wherever we have done it, things are better in general. While I do not like the fact that a million Iraqis died for it, now many more live are free. Now Top Gear can go and have drag races in the Kurd region, and Iraq has not only a more powerful military than Iran, but a method to ensure we don't have to get involved in Iran.

Fact is that things are better as a result. But mind you the context in which I am speaking of this "better". Before the US, the Europeans controlled the region. And before the Euros, it was the ottomans. And before, the Byzantiums. And before, the Romans, and before, the Greeks, so on and so forth. The region has never known independence. And yet the US desires to let them be independent, in exchange for some oil and friends. How can I say that is wrong in the context of the last +2000 years of regional history?

edit on 26-8-2011 by Gorman91 because: le spelling

edit on 26-8-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

I respect your different opinion but have to disagree with pretty much everything you say.

reply to post by Gorman91

But it's not. [color=limegreen]Because they don't have much oil, and they won'y gain nor lose any of it as a result of this event. Gadaf sold it for his money. And who ever gets in charge will sell it all the same.

[color=limegreen]Because they don't have much oil,

BaaHaaHaa.

Oil reserves in Libya are the largest in Africa and the ninth largest in the world with 41.5 billion barrels (6.60×109 m3) as of 2007. Oil production was 1.8 million barrels per day (290×103 m3/d) as of 2006

They have enough for the oil companies to continue exploitations.

Tons of money to be distributed within TPTB stockholders.

Libya's other resources are and will continue to be exploited also.

reply to post by Gorman91


Yes, but under the new puppet rebel regime, NATO will probably demand cheaper oil deals in return for their involvement with the rebels. You can't expect the Rebels getting something for nothing lol.

Iran would prove a very difficult adversary should NATO be foolish enough to wage war on them. China and Russia might take it as the last straw if Iran is targetted and since North Korea already has nukes, things could get really ugly.

reply to post by wcitizen


No problem. I disagree with what I say. It's fascism. but it's better than African Anarchy. The first sin was laid when men from afar came to steal. Another sin was when they left to leave it in ruin from what they did. And now yet another sin has been committed, in hopes that we prevent more. Empire. And if that's what it takes to prevent anarchy as they slowly become free, then that's what it takes. It's better than letting another post-colonial Africa happen.

Again, context. It's all wrong. But for the results, more right than not doing anything.

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by USAisdevil
reply to post by wcitizen

 

wctizen, look at al jazeera's background and lighting in video .. the lighting and brightness on the sides and sky and background . there is great inconsistency in the video and the background is clearcut fake .

Thanks USAisdevil, I agree with you. I spent ages looking at this before posting it and I do believe it's fake.

edit on 26-8-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

Yet you didn't even get the location of the supposed fake news report right. Green Square is called as-Sāḥah al-Khaḍrā’ not Bab Al’ Azizia. Bab Al’ Azizia is Gadaffis military compound in the southern suburbs.

reply to post by cripmeister


the burden of proof is on you ,not me . I am still waiting for proof that al jazeera propaganda vid background is not fake.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by CasiusIgnoranze

 

This is not related to what I just said. I said that the output will not change under leadership. So the amount of oil is irrelevant if that's the reason for intervention. Furthermore, one can see that Africa has other proven reserves, and if we truly desired it for the oil, Iran has nearly 3x the amount of proven reserves and 3x the amount of Casus belli. IE, if we aren't in Iran yet, then there is no logical reason to be in Libya for oil.

edit on 26-8-2011 by Gorman91 because: le spelling

Its really about regime change. They dont want Gaddafi in power. They dont want anyone they cant control in power in the Middle East,Africa,or the rest of the World.

reply to post by sonnny1


Again, why is that wrong? So far they've removed people with huge egos and problems with their own people. I'm surprised we've been so slow with Syria. Iran and other nations haven't really slaughtered their own people yet, and have perfectly legit democracies, so we don't get involved. Hell, if you want my religious mind to speak, I'd say God is certainly working to keep Iran free, and I can see why.

reply to post by xuenchen


Did you miss where I said Iran has near 3x the amount of oil and 3x the Casus belli ?

reply to post by CasiusIgnoranze


Not really. The Libyan rebels have the power of the entire Arab nation behind them. If we demanded them and they said no, we would be looking at regional revolution sweeping across every nation we are in in that region. Furthermore, any nation that has to photoshop their own missiles and planes is not a threat. Russia and China are too busy managing their own people to get involved.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Again, why is that wrong? So far they've removed people with huge egos and problems with their own people. I'm surprised we've been so slow with Syria. Iran and other nations haven't really slaughtered their own people yet, and have perfectly legit democracies, so we don't get involved. Hell, if you want my religious mind to speak, I'd say God is certainly working to keep Iran free, and I can see why.

Like Ron Paul says...........Its none of our business. I agree with that statement also.