And what does this have to do with sprouts, do they taste differently in Libiya? (how the ... does one spell the name of that country)
Simple. When you eat too much processed news and concocted "stories" (like these being told about the Libya) you stop thinking independently and your brains turn into the sprouts ;)
There was NOT MUCH of a "revolution" until NATO intervened. And yet he resisted such a force for many months with the "army" that was half-made of tribal militia.
The uprising began in Benghazi and was followed by major protests in other Libyan cities. Gaddafi sent the army in because he knew perfectly well that if he sat back he'd be overthrown by his own people within days (indeed for a short while people actually thought this might happen). When the rebels entered major cities, with the exception of Sirte, they encountered little to no resistance from the local people but significant numbers turned-out to support them. It's also worth noting that numerous officials from the gaddafi regime as well as military figures defected to the rebel side, many citing orders to kill civilians as their reason. This was before the NATO intervention when the chances of victory for the rebels looked slim. By contrast, even when the war reached an apparent stalemate in March there were no defections from the rebels to the Gaddafi side.
During the revolution and after Gaddafi's overthrow Libyans around the world celebrated. There is no evidence whatsoever that Gaddafi's government was popular with Libyans and significant evidence to the contrary. The rebel leaders estimated Gaddafi's support in the country as less than 10%, the amount of resistance they've encountered when a city is actually liberated speaks volumes. Even Sirte had civilians fleeing the city before the assault and stopping to give their support to the rebels.
a western journalist testifies the support of lybian people to gaddafi and western media manipulations.
Cool so we'll believe her ? I can understand why people dont believe everything they read in the papers/Fox news/BBC etc, but on the other hand you cant believe everything you hear from 'the other side' of the fence.
Just checking that website empirestrikesblack.com, does it have the usual 9/11 conspiracy section ? Check ! What a surprise !
Just best to remember that the above is the official conspiracy theory....
It also does not stand up to critical logic and research...
Don't take my word for it of course... Why not ask Paul Craig Roberts who is the father of Reagonomics and has also cast dispertions on the Official conspiracy theory. You can hardly dismiss his research as a tin foil hatwearing oddball now, can you?
Why not type 'WTC7 collapse' into you tube.
You remember WTC7 don't you? Not hit by any plane, just a few small fires and some damage from some falling debris and yet comes down freefall in 7 seconds in its own footprint. Heck, you can even see the explosive charges going off bottom to top....
By the way, I was no fan of Gaddafi, he was a thug plain and simple.
Mind you, I am no fan of Cameron et al either...
But are you honestly honestly saying the US were behind it ? In this day and age it would be impossible to cover something like that up.
And how about Al Quaeda ? It would be the best news for them to come out with 'we didnt do it, your government was behind it.....' but nope. Again in this day and age IF they were saying 'honestly we didnt do it....' that news item would come out on one of the networks.
Perhaps these conspiracies have always been around, eg World War II i would hate to hear some of the 'conspiracy theories' about that. But now with the internet its just much easier for people to group together to come out with the conspiracy stuff.
For the US to be behind 9/11 and get that plan to go right from start to finish i just find a miracle.
But again why believe 'Paul Craig Roberts' and dismiss other people or top scientists etc who say 'no honestly there were no explosives'. Why believe just him ? I cant believe every other scientist is 'brain washed' or behind part of the cover up.
And how do you know Gaddaffi was a 'thug plain and simple' ? Only what the 'evil western media' told you !
Cool so we'll believe her ? I can understand why people dont believe everything they read in the papers/Fox news/BBC etc, but on the other hand you cant believe everything you hear from 'the other side' of the fence.
Just checking that website empirestrikesblack.com, does it have the usual 9/11 conspiracy section ? Check ! What a surprise !
you are right: it would have been less believable without a 9/11 conspiracy section.
people who acritically believe the official version are in fact quite gullible by definition. they are the one-sided conspiracy theorists: apparently institutions are magically immune from them somehow - conspiracies cannot grow inside of them, they (the institutions) can only be subjected to them. but you have to believe in something, i suppose.
anyway, i haven't studied the lybia case yet - so i haven't definitely make up my mind about it. but surely this kind of witnesses will help.
surely it's more credible a free-lance journalist than somebody who works for some big media corporation (i don't know what she is).
p.s. by the way there are hundreds of scientists who think that 9/11 wasn't possible as described by the official version.
surely it's more credible a free-lance journalist that somebody who works for some big media corporation (i don't know what she is).
.
I would think that makes her LESS credible, as an independent her purpose is to sell her story.....that means she would be more open to 'adding fluff' to sell it.
it's more credible because you don't have people above you to tell you what you should report in spite of what you really see/know/think, and because, anyway, there are news that the big media circuit doesn't want to hear - and this is one of them, so what do you want to sell?
there is a big editorial (editorial?) pressure, and a big selection of news - media are big lens with which they magnify what they want to be spread, and they marginalize - if not ridicule - what they don't want that people hear.
i love how conspiracy theorists claim to be unpartial. even when demolition experts (people who blow up buildings for a living) say how secretly planting demolition charges in an occupied building with not one person noticing what they are up to would be next to impossible. of course the CIA have some secret agents who could quite easily do this.
it's more credible because you don't have people above you to tell you what you should report in spite of what you really saw, and because, anyway, there are news that the big media circuit doesn't want to hear - and this is one of them, so what do you want to sell?
So the independent is MORE likely to make a story up the media likes...to SELL it to them. That's the independents bread and butter....hence NO credibility. If they told the 'truth' using your logic they would never sell a story and be out of business as an independent reporter.
The uprising began in Benghazi and was followed by major protests in other Libyan cities.
No. It has begun days before 17feb with surprisingly well coordinated (usually nighttime) attacks on the police stations all around Libya. The "protests" never played a major role in the uprising.
...that if he sat back he'd be overthrown by his own people within days (indeed for a short while people actually thought this might happen)
Hmmm, let me think... so in 1992 Bush sent the troops to LA because he feared he'd be overthrown? And without british army in Ulster the IRA could take London? Or the troops were used there simply because the police wasn't able to keep order without the extra weapons and numbers? Same happened in Libya after the rebels seized vast amounts of weapons and the police was disorganised after Younis defection.
It's also worth noting that numerous officials from the gaddafi regime as well as military figures defected to the rebel side...
...so they suddenly became true democrats and good guys? It is funny how two major figures who defected to the rebel side happened to be former Minister of Justice and former Interior Minister (while others mostly remained loyal to Gaddafi or at least never wanted to join the rebels). Hmmm, does that mean that the only good things about the "Gaddafi regime" in the recent years were the Police and the Courts, with its chiefs promoting human rights and liberal values, while other things like Education and Healthcare were used as oppression tools? Yep, Gaddafi was a great original among them dictators :lol:
The rebel leaders estimated Gaddafi's support in the country as less than 10%, the amount of resistance they've encountered when a city is actually liberated speaks volumes
What actually speaks volumes is what happened in Tawergha, Qawalesh and other places where the townsfolk packed and fled before the "lberators" had the chance to "liberate" them. What actually speaks volumes is the picture of Sirte resembling ruins of Stalingrad in 1943. What actually speaks volumes is that these rebel leaders weren't able to settle in Tripoli for many days after the "liberation"... looks like 10% was too much for them :rolleyes:
Even Sirte had civilians fleeing the city before the assault and stopping to give their support to the rebels
Sirte was bombed for several months before the assault. And then shelled indiscriminately for many days. So i doubt there was enough "support" for the rebel gangs.
And before you answer something, please watch this vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smB9gMEPNwc
Pay special attention to the headlines and the corresponding dates.
Because now it seems you don't get even basic facts about this war.
But are you honestly honestly saying the US were behind it ? In this day and age it would be impossible to cover something like that up.
And how about Al Quaeda ? It would be the best news for them to come out with 'we didnt do it, your government was behind it.....' but nope. Again in this day and age IF they were saying 'honestly we didnt do it....' that news item would come out on one of the networks.
Perhaps these conspiracies have always been around, eg World War II i would hate to hear some of the 'conspiracy theories' about that. But now with the internet its just much easier for people to group together to come out with the conspiracy stuff.
For the US to be behind 9/11 and get that plan to go right from start to finish i just find a miracle.
But again why believe 'Paul Craig Roberts' and dismiss other people or top scientists etc who say 'no honestly there were no explosives'. Why believe just him ? I cant believe every other scientist is 'brain washed' or behind part of the cover up.
And how do you know Gaddaffi was a 'thug plain and simple' ? Only what the 'evil western media' told you !
What I was saying is that the official version is simply a conspiracy theory.
Even the Co Chairs (Kean and Hamilton) argued in their book Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission, that the commission had been set up to fail.
Try researching an outfit called the IntelCenter who release so called authentic videos from Al Qaeda. Find out who they are linked to...
Ever heard of disinformation? Trick popular with intelligence agencies down the centuries.
Don't merely believe Paul Craig Roberts (who was a top government insider), try researching other scientists NOT on the government payroll who hold dissenting views. (Hint: Why were traces of Nano thermate found in the rubble? Why was the evidence of a crime scene (metal and other debris) spirited away to China for disposal before any forensic analysis was completed?)
I know Gadaffi was a thug plain and simple because I actually lived in the Middle East for a while. I know these countries in that neck of the woods quite well.
Mind you, I don't pretend to know everything... Perhaps you have evidence to the contrary?
"deep analysys of all the peculiarities f what happened, mile!".
and debatable argument.
yeah deep analysis, and when that analysis supposts in being a terrorist attack its completely ignored by the conspiracy people in favour of some 'look at me' expert who has been out of work the past 20 years and even though claims to be impartial, is probably gettting a sizable payout. most conpiracy sites, have a little icon on the page, a little icon that links to the book/DVD they are trying to sell.
What I was saying is that the official version is simply a conspiracy theory.
Even the Co Chairs (Kean and Hamilton) argued in their book Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission, that the commission had been set up to fail.
Try researching an outfit called the IntelCenter who release so called authentic videos from Al Qaeda. Find out who they are linked to...
Ever heard of disinformation? Trick popular with intelligence agencies down the centuries.
Don't merely believe Paul Craig Roberts (who was a top government insider), try researching other scientists NOT on the government payroll who hold dissenting views. (Hint: Why were traces of Nano thermate found in the rubble? Why was the evidence of a crime scene (metal and other debris) spirited away to China for disposal before any forensic analysis was completed?)
I know Gadaffi was a thug plain and simple because I actually lived in the Middle East for a while. I know these countries in that neck of the woods quite well.
Mind you, I don't pretend to know everything... Perhaps you have evidence to the contrary?
It's always amusing when someone makes unverified statements and then asks the other side for evidence...
So the independent is MORE likely to make a story up the media likes...to SELL it to them. That's the independents bread and butter....hence NO credibility. If they told the 'truth' using your logic they would never sell a story and be out of business as an independent reporter.
..it's pretty basic logic.
it's pretty basically against reality. there are lots of indipendent journalists that write about "unpleasant news" for the system, and still they're working - only they cannot work for the major circuits. if the wanted to make career or sell more they'd stick to what big media with big money want to hear.
although we might say that there's a market for "unpleasant news". but, still, that's no proof that these journalists have no credibility:
especially because, in the long term, their versions tend to be confirmed, while big media's versions tend to be dismissed.
and because you surely run more risks being a journalist that doesn't stick to the script, and that probe what you should not: you can even get killed.
while the distortions that big media constantly do of what's happening are often proved - distortions because of orders from above, or because they simply accept certain kind of informations and spread them.
so it's quite a mystery why should a big media's journalist be, in general, more credible - they, by the way, are paid too: to write and say what the others want'em to write and say.
Comments
You do miss the part where other natives of his country were killed by foreign forces for trying to protect him.
Simple. When you eat too much processed news and concocted "stories" (like these being told about the Libya) you stop thinking independently and your brains turn into the sprouts ;)
The uprising began in Benghazi and was followed by major protests in other Libyan cities. Gaddafi sent the army in because he knew perfectly well that if he sat back he'd be overthrown by his own people within days (indeed for a short while people actually thought this might happen). When the rebels entered major cities, with the exception of Sirte, they encountered little to no resistance from the local people but significant numbers turned-out to support them. It's also worth noting that numerous officials from the gaddafi regime as well as military figures defected to the rebel side, many citing orders to kill civilians as their reason. This was before the NATO intervention when the chances of victory for the rebels looked slim. By contrast, even when the war reached an apparent stalemate in March there were no defections from the rebels to the Gaddafi side.
During the revolution and after Gaddafi's overthrow Libyans around the world celebrated. There is no evidence whatsoever that Gaddafi's government was popular with Libyans and significant evidence to the contrary. The rebel leaders estimated Gaddafi's support in the country as less than 10%, the amount of resistance they've encountered when a city is actually liberated speaks volumes. Even Sirte had civilians fleeing the city before the assault and stopping to give their support to the rebels.
http://youtu.be/8tYH1inpLkM
Yup, it's the thread that just keeps on giving. :smile:
The magic of WoS!
You write your letters on Izal? :p
When in the bath, about 4-6 hours after consumption.
Very good! :D
Man, he should have claimed that ball before Caniggia in the semi and you know it!
https://discordapp.com/invite/cZt59EQ
anyway, it seems that gaddafi was sodomized by the rebels with a knife.
pretty disgusting.
a western journalist testifies the support of lybian people to gaddafi and western media manipulations.
Cool so we'll believe her ? I can understand why people dont believe everything they read in the papers/Fox news/BBC etc, but on the other hand you cant believe everything you hear from 'the other side' of the fence.
Just checking that website empirestrikesblack.com, does it have the usual 9/11 conspiracy section ? Check ! What a surprise !
Sorry PSJ, I don't quite get what you are saying...
Here is one site with the 'usual 9/11 conspiracy section': http://www.9-11commission.gov/
Just best to remember that the above is the official conspiracy theory....
It also does not stand up to critical logic and research...
Don't take my word for it of course... Why not ask Paul Craig Roberts who is the father of Reagonomics and has also cast dispertions on the Official conspiracy theory. You can hardly dismiss his research as a tin foil hatwearing oddball now, can you?
Why not type 'WTC7 collapse' into you tube.
You remember WTC7 don't you? Not hit by any plane, just a few small fires and some damage from some falling debris and yet comes down freefall in 7 seconds in its own footprint. Heck, you can even see the explosive charges going off bottom to top....
By the way, I was no fan of Gaddafi, he was a thug plain and simple.
Mind you, I am no fan of Cameron et al either...
And how about Al Quaeda ? It would be the best news for them to come out with 'we didnt do it, your government was behind it.....' but nope. Again in this day and age IF they were saying 'honestly we didnt do it....' that news item would come out on one of the networks.
Perhaps these conspiracies have always been around, eg World War II i would hate to hear some of the 'conspiracy theories' about that. But now with the internet its just much easier for people to group together to come out with the conspiracy stuff.
For the US to be behind 9/11 and get that plan to go right from start to finish i just find a miracle.
But again why believe 'Paul Craig Roberts' and dismiss other people or top scientists etc who say 'no honestly there were no explosives'. Why believe just him ? I cant believe every other scientist is 'brain washed' or behind part of the cover up.
And how do you know Gaddaffi was a 'thug plain and simple' ? Only what the 'evil western media' told you !
you are right: it would have been less believable without a 9/11 conspiracy section.
people who acritically believe the official version are in fact quite gullible by definition. they are the one-sided conspiracy theorists: apparently institutions are magically immune from them somehow - conspiracies cannot grow inside of them, they (the institutions) can only be subjected to them. but you have to believe in something, i suppose.
anyway, i haven't studied the lybia case yet - so i haven't definitely make up my mind about it. but surely this kind of witnesses will help.
surely it's more credible a free-lance journalist than somebody who works for some big media corporation (i don't know what she is).
p.s. by the way there are hundreds of scientists who think that 9/11 wasn't possible as described by the official version.
I would think that makes her LESS credible, as an independent her purpose is to sell her story.....that means she would be more open to 'adding fluff' to sell it.
there is a big editorial (editorial?) pressure, and a big selection of news - media are big lens with which they magnify what they want to be spread, and they marginalize - if not ridicule - what they don't want that people hear.
i mean, duh. :D
So the independent is MORE likely to make a story up the media likes...to SELL it to them. That's the independents bread and butter....hence NO credibility. If they told the 'truth' using your logic they would never sell a story and be out of business as an independent reporter.
..it's pretty basic logic.
Sorry, i don't believe you can read Gaddafis mind :D
Hmmm, let me think... so in 1992 Bush sent the troops to LA because he feared he'd be overthrown? And without british army in Ulster the IRA could take London? Or the troops were used there simply because the police wasn't able to keep order without the extra weapons and numbers? Same happened in Libya after the rebels seized vast amounts of weapons and the police was disorganised after Younis defection.
Thats because they left as quickly as they have entered :p
That depends on what you're calling "significant"
...so they suddenly became true democrats and good guys? It is funny how two major figures who defected to the rebel side happened to be former Minister of Justice and former Interior Minister (while others mostly remained loyal to Gaddafi or at least never wanted to join the rebels). Hmmm, does that mean that the only good things about the "Gaddafi regime" in the recent years were the Police and the Courts, with its chiefs promoting human rights and liberal values, while other things like Education and Healthcare were used as oppression tools? Yep, Gaddafi was a great original among them dictators :lol:
And what you did expect them to say? That's the thing that rebels and especially the western reporters wanted to hear.
Didn't you just said that "for a short while people actually thought this might happen"? :rolleyes:
That's because they were waiting for the UN decision.
SOME Libyans celebrated. And some were way to busy running for their lives.
What, are you blind or just never heard of youtube? :o
What actually speaks volumes is what happened in Tawergha, Qawalesh and other places where the townsfolk packed and fled before the "lberators" had the chance to "liberate" them. What actually speaks volumes is the picture of Sirte resembling ruins of Stalingrad in 1943. What actually speaks volumes is that these rebel leaders weren't able to settle in Tripoli for many days after the "liberation"... looks like 10% was too much for them :rolleyes:
Sirte was bombed for several months before the assault. And then shelled indiscriminately for many days. So i doubt there was enough "support" for the rebel gangs.
And before you answer something, please watch this vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smB9gMEPNwc
Pay special attention to the headlines and the corresponding dates.
Because now it seems you don't get even basic facts about this war.
and debatable argument, which has already been answered by the "9/11 fruitcakes".
now i talk like zagreb.
so i'm gonna stop before being involved again in these matters.
anyway, i will post pieces of news, if i stumble on them.
edit: look at tvzombie's post! the length alone makes me anguished! and i'm probably more on his side than on zagreb's!
What I was saying is that the official version is simply a conspiracy theory.
Even the Co Chairs (Kean and Hamilton) argued in their book Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission, that the commission had been set up to fail.
Try researching an outfit called the IntelCenter who release so called authentic videos from Al Qaeda. Find out who they are linked to...
Ever heard of disinformation? Trick popular with intelligence agencies down the centuries.
Don't merely believe Paul Craig Roberts (who was a top government insider), try researching other scientists NOT on the government payroll who hold dissenting views. (Hint: Why were traces of Nano thermate found in the rubble? Why was the evidence of a crime scene (metal and other debris) spirited away to China for disposal before any forensic analysis was completed?)
I know Gadaffi was a thug plain and simple because I actually lived in the Middle East for a while. I know these countries in that neck of the woods quite well.
Mind you, I don't pretend to know everything... Perhaps you have evidence to the contrary?
yeah deep analysis, and when that analysis supposts in being a terrorist attack its completely ignored by the conspiracy people in favour of some 'look at me' expert who has been out of work the past 20 years and even though claims to be impartial, is probably gettting a sizable payout. most conpiracy sites, have a little icon on the page, a little icon that links to the book/DVD they are trying to sell.
It's always amusing when someone makes unverified statements and then asks the other side for evidence...
it's pretty basically against reality. there are lots of indipendent journalists that write about "unpleasant news" for the system, and still they're working - only they cannot work for the major circuits. if the wanted to make career or sell more they'd stick to what big media with big money want to hear.
although we might say that there's a market for "unpleasant news". but, still, that's no proof that these journalists have no credibility:
especially because, in the long term, their versions tend to be confirmed, while big media's versions tend to be dismissed.
and because you surely run more risks being a journalist that doesn't stick to the script, and that probe what you should not: you can even get killed.
while the distortions that big media constantly do of what's happening are often proved - distortions because of orders from above, or because they simply accept certain kind of informations and spread them.
so it's quite a mystery why should a big media's journalist be, in general, more credible - they, by the way, are paid too: to write and say what the others want'em to write and say.
No Beanz, I am saying it is time to do your own research and not sit on your backside accepting everything the Media says.