DEBUNK THIS - There WERE NO human rights abuses in Libya according to UN Human Rights report

Originally posted by Essan
What about the human rights of those aboard Pan-Am Flight 103? Were they not abused

This is an example of illegitimate rhetoric.

Yes, and there were two perpetrators accused of the crime. These two fled to Lybia, and Gaddafi took them in ... because they were muslim, and because according to them, western society would not give them a neutral hearing.

Lybia didn't perform these crimes ...

But Britain murdered one of Gaddafis children in an Air attempt to kill the two lybians who were accused. But britain never accepted a third party "arab" involvement, in any trial over these acts. Nor did they ever present evidence of their guilt. Just as 9/11.

reply to post by Gorman91


Nothing changed. It's not like he all of a sudden became a tyrant again. This has all been engineered.

reply to post by Atzil321


The fact that Kaddafi’s forces are easily beaten may be proof that he didn’t have any police state, and these so-called freedom fighters have abused their privileges by being coaxed to overthrow a regime that wasn’t as bad as they say.

reply to post by LightAssassin


Well we did actually start recording such things...that's a big important part of...recording human rights abuses.

And most of his violence against his own people didn't begin until they rebelled. He had an ego.

reply to post by inforeal


This "revolution" really took Gaddafi by surprise. But then again, he was betrayed by all those NATO countries who shook hands with him, made deals with him, and basically used him.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d6c045b4d149.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by CasiusIgnoranze


That’s right. And the truth of the matter is that the NATO countries always get those that at any time have stood up to them and fought them, as in the past Khadafy was fighting and defying them until he turned around a few years ago and decided to get along with the West.

But the West never forgot or forgave Khadafy for his past defiance and this “Arab Spring” was a perfect time for them to let loose all the black op agents and create this phony insurrection that because of NATO’S air power seems to be working.

Originally posted by Gorman91

And most of his violence against his own people didn't begin until they rebelled. He had an ego.

The problem with you Gorman91, is that you don't think beyond your nose.

It all started right there, and do I have to quote the words ... "he who benefits ...". The rebels benefit from it, therefore you must look carefully at the possibility that they performed it. This has all the symptoms of a very well known false flag scenario we are talking about. Nothing that is unknown to man.

And the fact, that it all started there, makes it even more suspect.

Problem with you Gorman91, is that you are far too gullible. The criminal mind, Gorman91, does not see this as their act. Those who perform a false flag operation, are criminally insane and they see it as Mr. Saddam actually did it. And their enemies are all enlarged in their minds, they are all reincarnation of Adolf Hitler. The famous movie rhetoric "see what you made me do" is a cliché. Such false flag operations, iff we are talking about false flag operations, which Wikileaks has given us more than enough information to suspect. Then they have this mindset ... it's Gaddaffi who did it. Because he didn't step down. It's all his fault ... all the victims, are of his creation ... even though it was the American Ranger who pulled the trigger.

That is how the mind of the criminally insane works ... we are to blame, for them shooting us. we are the ones who did it to ourselves. In their minds, we don't have the right to object. The criminally insane, do not see the wrong in what they do ... it's all societies fault. Your fault, or my fault ... they did, what they had to do. And your objection, or counter activity, is what forced them to do what they did. So, you made them do it. Your actions, was the order that created their act ... this is the criminally insane.

reply to post by bjarneorn


Well sorry, nothing you said makes me honestly think the rebels are that bad.

I saw a reporter going by the crowds of looters and people and she had no religious clothing on, and no rebel really gave a poo. This leads me to think they are modern people. I don't really recall seeing Gadafi with many religiously dressed women, and I wouldn't be surprised if I did see it, but I haven't. As such, this seems like a modern people fighting against a modern enemy.

Nothing you said really makes me view the rebels as bad. Hell maybe Gadaf wasn't all that bad. But he was insane, and he did start shooting at his own people once they protested. That makes him bad.


I never much understood what a false flag is exactly, so be my gust and explain it. What I do see is a united front against a dictator. And I really don't care who funds it, the people did it.

Originally posted by bigwig22

Originally posted by Amaterasu

If My spouse abused someOne...would You blame Me?

Just sayin' that just because a spouse behaves poorly One cannot conclude that this behavior extends to the One being examined. If the abuse occurred, Gaddafi may not even have KNOWN about it. We cannot assume that because One is abusive it follows that the spouse is, too.

I agree with you on that point.

It's even not HIS wife, it's his SON's wife. Taht makes it even harder to understand..

For the rest, i really don't know what to think anymore..

Peace out

Ah. If it was his SON's wife... Heh. No way in hell We can plant the problem in Gaddafi's personal court. Geez.

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by Essan
What about the human rights of those aboard Pan-Am Flight 103? Were they not abused

Lybia didn't perform these crimes ...

Just like Libya had nothing to do with the murder of PC Fletcher ...

And neither Gaddafi nor anyone connected with the Libya government ever sold the IRA weapons or bombs with which to kill and maim women and children in Britain ..... (and, for that matter, I'm sure the Americans never gave the IRA the money in the first place, either)



Not that I'm attempting to justify our recent actions in Libya, just pointing out that Gaddafi and his cohorts were not the innocent, misunderstood, philanthropists that some seem to be trying to imply.

The one thing you can say about Gaddafi though is that after 9/11 he saw the writing on the wall, so he suddenly went very quiet. And for a time at least he really thought he'd gotten away with it.

Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by wcitizen

 

I think its more abuse of nature. It doesn't directly affect Americans until it reaches land. Until then its the oceans problem. If you change Human Rights to Environmental Rights I second that motion. But I am here in Australia, and I am posting EVERYTHING controversial and factual from here onto Facebook so my personal friends can see and read this. This is about all I can do.

I am also calling for a Boycott of BP. Telling everyone at work and on Facebook too. Telling them to pass it on. I don't care how uncomfortable it makes me or others feel talking about it. This is a world for my nearly 4 children. I need to do everything I can. It's falling down around us at a terrible pace and everyone is too distracted.

edit on 31-8-2011 by LightAssassin because: too

Have you read about what's happening to the people in the Gulf? It's horrendous.

Originally posted by Gorman91

Nothing you said really makes me view the rebels as bad. Hell maybe Gadaf wasn't all that bad. But he was insane, and he did start shooting at his own people once they protested. That makes him bad.

Well, I haven't seen any information that leads me to believe that he actually ordered his men to shoot the crowd. Maybe he did, but nothing you say makes me believe that, that is the case.

I never much understood what a false flag is exactly, so be my gust and explain it. What I do see is a united front against a dictator. And I really don't care who funds it, the people did it.

I'll quote wikipedia for you ...

False flag (aka Black Flag) operations are covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities.[citation needed] The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and can be used in peace-time.

It's what CIA does all the time. The CIA, and other agencies like the CIA, recruit insurgents. Let me define the name for you ...

An insurgency is an armed rebellion against a constituted authority (for example, an authority recognized as such by the United Nations) when those taking part in the rebellion are not recognized as belligerents.

... the insurgents, then dress themselves up in the colors of the "authorized government", or even infiltrate the recognised authorities forces. And then perform acts, under that flag, that is seen as the authorities performing these acts. A case in fact, is the kroatian "black squad" during the yugoslavia incident.

Perhaps a more historic "false flag" that you are knowledgable about ...

Operation Himmler (less often known as Operation Konserve or Operation Canned Goods) was a Nazi Germany false flag project to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, which was subsequently used by Nazi propaganda to justify the invasion of Poland. Operation Himmler was arguably the first act of the Second World War in Europe.

Just, so that you understand, that operations like these are common and always used in warfare. In this case, the Germans benefitet from it, and needed it. Today, the rebels benefit from it and needed it ...

You always have to look at, who benefits from an act ... not just by what you want to believe. We all want to believe the world is a good place ... it isn't.

Wasn't Libya heading up the UN Human Rights Council?

I'll wait for that one to sink in.

Go here...
en.wikipedia.org...

Scroll down to Libyan civil war...

Anti-government protests began in Libya on 15 February 2011. By 18 February, the opposition controlled most of Benghazi, the country's second-largest city. The government dispatched elite troops and mercenaries in an attempt to recapture it, but they were repelled. By 20 February, protests had spread to the capital Tripoli, leading to a television address by Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, who warned the protestors that their country could descend into civil war. The rising death toll, which currently numbers in the thousands, was drawing international condemnation, resulting in the resignation of several Libyan diplomats and their call for the regime's dismantlement.

Read that carefully. That's the reason this happened, at least in (significant) part.

In 2005, the UN passed a resolution named Responsibility to Protect. What is it?

Here:
en.wikipedia.org...

I believe ti's the third principle that's important when considering the libyan war:

3. Principle Three focuses on the responsibility of international community to take timely and decisive action to prevent and halt mass atrocities when a State is manifestly failing to protect its populations.

As I stated up above, they already knew that the death toll was in the thousands. They also knew that Gaddafi had called for the extermination of the rebels. This, I believe, is what qualified as the mass atrocity.

But, you may argue, wasn't Gaddafi simply protecting his country from a rebel force that was inciting violence and instability? (you could even pull out the CIA theory) Not really. It started out as a simple protest. But when Gaddafi's forces started to fire on them, they (not long after) responded by firing back. This was when the whole thing exploded and Gaddafi lost his grip.

But it's not just simply that Gaddafi wrongly responded by firing on the protesters and calling them rebels too quickly and too strongly. When you look at Gaddafi's history, it paints a very bleak picture of the man. He does not respect the rights of people. He has incited terrorism across the world. We know all this as it's common knowledge. You can look it up yourself. When the international community weighed his history and his current actions, with their responsibilities, especially in light of RtoP, I think it was at that point that they realized Gaddafi does not deserve benefit of the doubt. Thus, principle (3) in RtoP took effect.

You can read a bit more about it here:
en.wikipedia.org...

Specifically, scroll down to Massacres. This is really what started all this mess.

And France, not the US, was the first to respond:
en.wikipedia.org...

On March 10, 2011, France was the first country in the world to recognise the National Transitional Council as the legitimate government of Libya, in the context of the 2011 Libyan Civil War against Muammar Gaddafi.[4] French Rafale and Mirage 2000 fighter planes also conducted the first military strikes against Gaddafi's forces by the Western nations and the United Nations - from 1645 onwards on March 19, 2011 approximately 20 such French warplanes destroyed Libyan tanks and armored vehicles.[5] [6] Some reports state that these French air strikes began even before the end of the emergency meetings in Paris between the leaders of the Western nations and therefore were not coordinated with the air strikes of other nations, causing some friction among the allies.

It's not the human rights abuses that might or might not have happened up until january 2011 that matter. Although that's not to say that what happened before January 2011 is of no consequence - tha'ts just not true. Mainly, it's what happened when the Arab Spring spread to Libya and devolved into hundreds of protesters being killed and the international community, starting with france, responding in kind. Keep in mind that the rebels didn't really start to organize until hundreds of protesters had been killed already. Gaddafi did not act peacefully towards the protests. This is hte source of the changing tide that now hunts Gaddafi.

And, you know, not all rebels are unrecognizable:
seattletimes.nwsource.com ...

PS: I believe many here have good intentions and are being honest. But I do not think we have the necessary information to make judgments about this matter. My opinion is as good as anybody else's. Regrettably, hindsight, for us anyway, -IS- 20/20. We're effectively blind as bats.

Originally posted by Essan

Just like Libya had nothing to do with the murder of PC Fletcher ...

PC Fletcher

Now, you should never bring up old ghosts. Because there are always people like me, who remember these things. Let quote something for you from wikipedia.

But on 24 February 2004, the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 reported that the new Libyan prime minister, Shukri Ghanem, had claimed his country was not responsible for Fletcher's murder (nor for the Lockerbie bombing). Ghanem said that Libya had made the admission and paid compensation in order to bring "peace" and an end to international sanctions.[14] Gaddafi was said to have later retracted Ghanem's claims.

And here is something you should have read ...

When Bernard Knight gives evidence on film that the official explanation could not be, it is time for an investigation.

And here is the last part ...

A major issue is the discrepancy in the bullet trajectory noted by the pathologist who examined the body of Yvonne Fletcher. Dr. Ian West wrote in his initial post mortem report she was shot from the upper floors of an adjacent building because "the angle of wound was between 60 and 70 degrees". However at the official inquest Dr. West stated her wounds were "entirely consistent with a shot fired from the first floor window of the Embassy, an angle of 15 degrees."

All this can be read on wikipedia ... Murder of PC Fletcher

Originally posted by jonnywhite
Go here...
en.wikipedia.org...

Scroll down to Libyan civil war...

Anti-government protests began in Libya on 15 February 2011. By 18 February, the opposition controlled most of Benghazi, the country's second-largest city. The government dispatched elite troops and mercenaries in an attempt to recapture it, but they were repelled. ...

Read that carefully. That's the reason this happened, at least in (significant) part.

I think you missed this part, when you read it. In 3 days, the rebels "repell" forces ... that is not a peaceful demonstration. This is an armed to the teeth force, that is ready to take on the government ...

In 2005, the UN passed a resolution named Responsibility to Protect. What is it?

Protect who ? How does mirage planes, bombing tanks help to protect the people? Since they are bombing the "legitimate" government, they are prolonging the war, not cutting it short. And in prolonging the war, they are also sure to increase the casualties.

reply to post by Gorman91


the so called revolt started in Benghazi and the speed at which so called protesters seized munition depots , they were not protesters,it clearly indicated that they had special training and intel .......

reply to post by jonnywhite


.wikipedia.org sigh they are sure credible like the MSM

reply to post by jonnywhite


A star for you my good man. Precise and to the point and in my opinion worthy of an ATS Applause. Excellent

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by Essan
What about the human rights of those aboard Pan-Am Flight 103? Were they not abused

This is an example of illegitimate rhetoric.

Yes, and there were two perpetrators accused of the crime. These two fled to Lybia, and Gaddafi took them in ... because they were muslim, and because according to them, western society would not give them a neutral hearing.

Lybia didn't perform these crimes ...

But Britain murdered one of Gaddafis children in an Air attempt to kill the two lybians who were accused. But britain never accepted a third party "arab" involvement, in any trial over these acts. Nor did they ever present evidence of their guilt. Just as 9/11.

Agreed. And the REAL reason the falsely accused perpetrator was released was because he had launched an appeal and evidence which would expose the US and Scottish DOJ's would have been revealed. They couldn't allow that to happen, so they found an excuse to release him...

Ghadaffi paid the damages to the families of the victims in order to get the sanctions lifted from his country.