Libyan Rebels Round Up Blacks, Put Them In Prison Camps

reply to post by Aeons

Right on. 110% correct. All these revolutions in the Middle East are more about creating a Pan-Arab Islamic state than they are about "democracy". Tunisia, Egypt, Libya - one big Islamic fundamentalist state thanks to the stupidity of NATO and Obama. Brilliant job!

reply to post by ChrisF231


To be honest... It all seems far too convenient to be caused by a mere lack of competence on the part of Obama. The actions of Obama regarding the initial operation against Libya and the U.N.'s exceptional treatment of Libya pique my curiosity.

I can't help but shake the feeling that certain interests are aligned with those of the Muslim Brotherhood and saw an opportunity in the events unfolding in Libya... and took it.

Of course, corporations and other interests not involved in the initial decision are trying to project how this change of leadership in Libya could benefit them and work toward their goals... but I get the sense they are just along for the ride on this.

In this case I would imagine Obama is like Bush at the beginning. Completely bunkered from the whole story, being presented bits and pieces that make the decisions he's okaying seem obviously sane.

Bush was like this for quite some time. Took him quite a while before he seemed to start to realize how bunkered in he was, and that he was being hand fed a sub-set of information.

Secondly - Obama and the USA are NOT leading this mission. Canada and the European Union are.

Which still leaves me with a bit ol' Hey Harper? Did you NOT review the whole theater? I know that foreign policy isn't your strong suit, but this level of insanity astounds me. You don't strike me as a guy that with a little thought would have been a cheerleader for giving Al-Qaeda a petroleum and resource rich base. Did you get bamboozled by the French President or something? You've got friends like Levant, and you didn't consider the whole idea of giving Al-Qaeda their own capital to take over Africa?

Shake your fracking head.

You want a "legacy?" History won't remember you as the PM who lowered GST. It certainly will remember you as the PM who help set up the new Islamic Caliphate.

So why isn't NATO intervening to stop this? Am I mistaken, or didn't they go in there for 'humanitarian assistance' - and didn't Cameron just say a couple of days ago that NATO would remain there 'to protect civilians'.

So, now we have so-called rebels, behaving like out of control psychopaths with gund, under the leadership of a known Al Qaeda operative, not just imprisoning black people but also murdering them - and all this COURTESY OF OBAMA.

What more evidence is needed that this was NEVER, EVER about humanitarian issues?

If we lived in a democracy, we would have the means to stop this. But we don't. All this talk of democracy is propaganda and lies. The fact is the government is a bunch of totally out of control criminals and there is no constitutional means to stop it - because it's a dictatorship.

reply to post by wcitizen


We don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic with democratically elected representatives. There's a considerable difference.

The problem is too many people have themselves deluded into thinking they are the majority, or that they have the right to tell another person what to do. Citizens in Missouri, for example, have no business getting upset over laws in California, provided they are allowed under the U.S. Constitution.

As for whether or not there is Constitutional recourse - this really depends upon how many people are willing to sit down and figure things out. If too many people have no faith that the system will work - then it will not. At which point - the only outcome is for us to have our own wars in the streets with various agendas vying for control and running rampant.

I'm resolved to either. If we're going to shoot at each other, By God, I'm going to make the most of the excitement. If we are going to sit down and say "yeah... we need to make this crap work..." then I'm all for that, too; it's a much cleaner alternative. Sure - I can go without showers for weeks on end like any other boyscout - but the pretty-boy in me likes showers too much, serving as an effective counter to my inherently militant deposition.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by wcitizen

 

We don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic with democratically elected representatives. There's a considerable difference.

The problem is too many people have themselves deluded into thinking they are the majority, or that they have the right to tell another person what to do. Citizens in Missouri, for example, have no business getting upset over laws in California, provided they are allowed under the U.S. Constitution.

As for whether or not there is Constitutional recourse - this really depends upon how many people are willing to sit down and figure things out. If too many people have no faith that the system will work - then it will not. At which point - the only outcome is for us to have our own wars in the streets with various agendas vying for control and running rampant.

I'm resolved to either. If we're going to shoot at each other, By God, I'm going to make the most of the excitement. If we are going to sit down and say "yeah... we need to make this crap work..." then I'm all for that, too; it's a much cleaner alternative. Sure - I can go without showers for weeks on end like any other boyscout - but the pretty-boy in me likes showers too much, serving as an effective counter to my inherently militant deposition.

I beg to disagree. That's just the spin that you are told. You have a choice between illuminati selected candidates, makes no difference who wins, they will all follow the same agenda.

If it's a democratically elected republic, how come the people haven't been able to stop all the corruption? After all, a republic is goverened by the law. If it's a republic, how come the people have been saddled with the debts of the private banksters? Were you consulted about whether you agreed to take responsibility for the banksters' debts? If it's a republic, how come pretty much everyone knows that the CIA carries out illegal assassinations, but doesn't stop those crimes? If it's a republic, how come the government doesn't respect the law?

I could ask similar questions for the next 12 hours.

Originally posted by masqua
Gee... I wonder why the focus on foreign fighters?

Old news:

The Khamis Brigade, named after Gaddafi's youngest son, was reported to be flying in additional mercenaries from African countries as recently as Wednesday, according to Omar Khattaly, a co-founder of the Libyan Working Group, an exile human rights group with offices in Atlanta and Europe. Some of the mercenaries were landing at what used to be the U.S. Wheelus Air Base, near Tripoli.

Identity cards from Guinea, Niger, Chad, Mauritania and Sudan were reportedly found on individuals wearing Libyan uniforms and killed in the eastern city of Benghazi and other locations.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Mercenaries. No patriotism to Libya, just guns for hire.

And, according to some, incorrect news. Nothing like the MSM propaganda to get the facts.

reply to post by wcitizen

I beg to disagree.

All the good it will do. I'm of my opinion for a reason.

That's just the spin that you are told.

I appreciate the insult to my analytical ability.

You have a choice between illuminati selected candidates, makes no difference who wins, they will all follow the same agenda.

Right. How vindicating it must be to believe in an omnipresent, amorphous, malevolent organization.

If it's a democratically elected republic, how come the people haven't been able to stop all the corruption?

Because only about 30% turn up to vote. Of them, only 15-20% are intellectually valid. The rest are fodder; capable of being trained, but never really capable of understanding.

A person can often be smart when you take the time to talk to them... but when you look at people - most act incredibly stupid. That is why we have a republic, to begin with - aside from the impracticality of placing every issue up for popular vote.

After all, a republic is goverened by the law. If it's a republic, how come the people have been saddled with the debts of the private banksters?

Because there are no private banks in America that do business with the Federal Reserve. The laws were written that way with the formation of the Federal Reserve and the FDIC along with the elimination of silver-backs and the like.

Remember where I said people act stupid? This is a prime example. You know just enough to think you're being smart, but are really just playing right into another puppeteer.

Were you consulted about whether you agreed to take responsibility for the banksters' debts?

That's not how a republic works. A constitutional republic must go to the populace, directly, to change the Constitution and to enact certain types of legislation (established within the Constitution). In years prior to my own, the people thought it would be a great idea to bestow upon our representatives the power to make such broad-sweeping decisions regarding our national currency. As such, it was our responsibility to consider this when choosing our representatives, among other issues.

If it's a republic, how come pretty much everyone knows that the CIA carries out illegal assassinations, but doesn't stop those crimes?

This is like saying "Everyone knows Elvis is still alive." 'Everyone' is aware of the debate over the issue - not everyone is resolved to a conclusion.

In either case - the CIA is something of an "enemy to keep closer." Prior to the collapse of the USSR - the CIA was very active within Congress and other branches/tiers of government. While often portrayed as an agent of the police state in today's misguided anarchism - the CIA effectively acted as a counter to many forms of corruption within our government by discovering (and in a number of cases) exposing, directly or indirectly, that corruption.

This is a large reason why the CIA was financially decapitated by politicians following the collapse of the USSR. The politicians tolerated the CIA because it was part of necessary defensive spending. When it was no longer so easy to support its continued existence - the politicians took retribution for decades of having to look over their shoulders.

If it's a republic, how come the government doesn't respect the law?

Because people have allowed, for many different reasons, the government to interpret law and to make/change additional laws.

We should -not- be tolerating 2,000 page bills being passed into law. If it's longer than 5.. maybe 10 pages, it should be automatically vetoed. No one has time for that crap - not even the legislators who drafted -parts- of the bill and stitched it together. States should have immediately launched a convention to amend the Constitution to prevent that nonsense the moment it started happening.

I could ask similar questions for the next 12 hours.

There are plenty of problems with the way things are going. For example - recipients of "income securities" and "supplements" should not be allowed to vote. Period. It's a conflict of interest that gives people the power to vote themselves a pay-check (through their representatives, or directly for some laws governing such).

But we permit such an obviously corrupt situation and declare it a right.

We take elections and turn them into competitions where the winner "takes all" and the 'loser' simply has to endure a lack of representation. A completely fallacious and destructive concept that corrupts the very concept of representation.

I can go on and on.

However - the moment you cede defeat, all hope for the system to be recovered is lost. Nor can it ever be reborn from the ashes of war by those with such a misguided perspective.