How did Colonel Gaddafi get away with such evil for so long?

christiefan915 said:
No, you're saying that. I was against the Libya attack just as I was about Iraq.
Click to expand...

no.....you're saying that......we were in favor of going into Iraq because Saddam had attacked Kuwait and they were our allies........you're saying you believe
Gaddafi was horrible, but you were against acting against him....in other words, you didn't give a fuck until now that he was horrible......so, what's different now......oh, yeah......Hillary is running for president now.....before she was just the secretary of state.......
 
christiefan915 said:
Gosh, you think we should just attack countries who have something we want, as in might makes right?
Click to expand...

obviously I think our course of action should be dictated by what is in our best interests.......that doesn't necessarily mean that what Obama and Hillary did WAS in our best interests.......only that it should have been.....saying that right dictates action is far different than saying might makes right......of course I don't expect a liberal to understand that, since they have so little experience with "right"......
 
christiefan915 said:
From an article dated June 2011.

"Thousands of documents that reveal in chilling detail orders from Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's senior generals to bombard and starve the people of Misrata have been gathered by war crimes investigators and are being kept at a secret location at the besieged Libyan port.
Click to expand...

did the article mention the dates that these actions occurred?......
 
Celticguy said:
I wonder why you lefties throw various forms of retarded around. Glass houses miss.
Click to expand...

The pretense that name calling, insult, or defamation is just a"you guys" thing is silly. There are simply certain posters on both sides who are childish, and they are typically the ones without a solid argument. Referring to homosexuals as "homos" may be intended to be derisive, but it's hardly the bottom of the barrel around this joint.
 
anatta said:
The New York Times published two lengthy pieces this week detailing Hillary Clinton’s role in the 2011 NATO bombing of Libya. Both are important documents, and provide much insight into how, as secretary of state for the Obama administration, Clinton played a uniquely hands-on role in the war.

Sec. Clinton pressured a wary President Obama to join France and the U.K. in the war, the Times reported. Vice President Biden, National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, among others, opposed the war effort. Numerous government officials recalled that her hawkish enthusiasm was decisive in the “51-49 decision.”

The Times spoke of “Clinton’s deep belief in America’s power to do good in the world,” but did not stress that this belief is rooted in an aggressive militarism. It did quote French President Sarkozy, who fondly remembered how the secretary of state “was tough, she was bullish,” but the Times’ reporting understated Clinton’s belligerence.

At 13,000 words in length combined, the articles are important contributions to the historical record. Yet although they are critical of Clinton and her leadership in the conflict, they fail to acknowledge the crimes of U.S.-backed rebel groups, and ultimately underestimate just how disastrous the war was, just how hawkish Hillary is and just how significant this will be for the future of the United States — not to mention the future of Libya and its suffering people.

The U.S. president does not have as much control over economic and social issues as many pundits, analysts and even voters often insist. One must not forget that the head of state does not control the Congress or the judiciary. But the president does have enormous power when it comes to international affairs, diplomacy and war. This makes foreign policy one of the most crucial issues in any presidential campaign.

Clinton’s leadership in the catastrophic war in Libya should ergo constantly be at the forefront of any discussion of the presidential primary.

Throughout the campaign, Clinton has tried to have her cake and eat it too. She has flaunted her leadership in the war as a sign of her supposed foreign policy experience, yet, at the same moment, strived to distance herself from the disastrous results of said war.

Today, Libya is in ruins. The seven months of NATO bombing effectively destroyed the government and left behind a political vacuum. Much of this has been filled by extremist groups.........Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, looking back, the facts show that she did not just push for and lead the war in Libya; she even went out of her way to derail diplomacy
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/02/eve...illary_clinton_led_nato_bombing_of_libya_was/
(Salon) 3/16
Click to expand...

No one cares fuckhead.
 
J Craft said:
The pretense that name calling, insult, or defamation is just a"you guys" thing is silly. There are simply certain posters on both sides who are childish, and they are typically the ones without a solid argument. Referring to homosexuals as "homos" may be intended to be derisive, but it's hardly the bottom of the barrel around this joint.
Click to expand...

Then leave maggot.
 
anatta said:
Toward the end of this eloquent memoir, Hisham Matar quotes these words, spoken by Odysseus’ son Telemachus in “The Odyssey”:



I wish at least I had some happy man
as father, growing old in his own house —
but unknown death and silence are the fate
of him…


Mr. Matar has spent his entire adult life grappling with that same sense of loss and uncertainty about the fate of his missing father. Jaballa Matar was a leading Libyan dissident who was kidnapped in 1990 by agents working for Muammar el-Qaddafi, that country’s dictator, and sent to the notorious Abu Salim prison in Tripoli. Friends and political supporters risked their lives to smuggle out the occasional letter from him, but after a couple of years, those letters stopped.

The younger Mr. Matar did not know whether his father died in a 1996 prison massacre that took the lives of some 1,200 people; whether he was tortured or beaten to death in some grim interrogation room; or whether, miraculously, he had managed to escape or survive. After Qaddafi was toppled in 2011, Mr. Matar, who had been living abroad in exile, traveled back to his family’s homeland to try to find out what happened. This is the story he tells in “The Return.”

Mr. Matar is the author of two critically acclaimed novels, “In the Country of Men” and “Anatomy of a Disappearance,” which also deal with loss and separation and the shadow of a powerful activist father. Here, in “The Return,” he writes with both a novelist’s eye for physical and emotional detail, and a reporter’s tactile sense of place and time. The prose is precise, economical, chiseled; the narrative elliptical, almost musical, cutting back and forth in time between the near present, Mr. Matar’s childhood memories of growing up in Libya, and pieced-together accounts of his father’s work as an opposition leader and his imprisonment.

“The Return” is, at once, a suspenseful detective story about a writer investigating his father’s fate at the hands of a brutal dictatorship, and a son’s efforts to come to terms with his father’s ghost, who has haunted more than half his life by his absence. It’s the story of Mr. Matar’s complicated feelings about his adult life in London: both “the guilt of having lived a free life” and his attempts to use that freedom to petition various governments and human rights organizations for information about his father and imprisoned relatives. And it’s a story about exile, about how Mr. Matar; his brother, Ziad; and their mother strove to create new lives for themselves abroad — they fled Libya in 1979 — and about Mr. Matar’s struggles to “live away from places and people I love.” “Joseph Brodsky was right,” he writes. “So were Nabokov and Conrad. They were artists who never returned. Each had tried, in his own way, to cure himself of his country. What you have left behind has dissolved. Return and you will face the absence or the defacement of what you treasured.”

This is just one of the emotions Mr. Matar experiences during a return trip to Libya in 2012. There, he talks with relatives and his father’s friends, many of whom spent years in prison, where they were tortured and starved of hope and sunlight. He hears about the elaborate methods prisoners used to survive and communicate in prison, and he is given hints of what his father must have endured in Abu Salim. He wonders how his father was changed by his imprisonment, and how he might have been altered or reduced.

The stories he recounts are harrowing. His uncle Hmad, an aspiring playwright, and cousin Ali, an economics student, ended up spending two decades in Qaddafi’s prisons. His uncle Mahmoud maintained his love of literature during his 21 years in Abu Salim by jotting poems on both sides of a thin pillowcase that he sewed into the waistband of his underwear for safekeeping. His cousin Izzo, who had been studying to become a civil engineer, was killed by a sniper during the Libyan revolution, and Izzo’s older brother, Hamed, was wounded but insisted on returning to the front.

Mr. Matar’s visit to Libya in early 2012 occurred during “a precious window” of time when justice and democracy and the rule of law seemed within reach. But things swiftly unraveled as rivalries between heavily armed militias escalated, and the Islamic State gained a foothold in the chaos.

“The dead would mount,” Mr. Matar writes. “Universities and schools would close. Hospitals would become only partially operative. The situation would get so grim that the unimaginable would happen: People would come to long for the days of Qaddafi.”


Mr. Matar’s account of the suffering in Libya — under Qaddafi, and now, in the violent aftermath of the revolution — reads like a microcosm of what the Middle East has experienced as the democratic hopes fostered by the Arab Spring have crashed and burned in one country after another. At the same time, “The Return” stands as a haunting memoir about one family, and one son’s Telemachus-like search for his father.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/b...edCoverage&region=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article
Click to expand...

Reminds me of how 16 year old American citizen Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki was murdered by a US fired drone.
He went looking for his missing father who was also an American citizen and also killed by a drone.
 
christiefan915 said:
No, you're saying that. I was against the Libya attack just as I was about Iraq. It's just ironic how cons could make a case for one but not the other when both guys were evil dictators.
Click to expand...

It's not ironic. It has to do with perceived national interest. The U.S. had a policy of supporting regime change in Iraq prior to Bush taking office. You can disagree about us going into Iraq but while Saddam and Gaddafi were both evil they weren't running the same kind of country. So it is very possible to support one and not the other and be consistent.
 
Battle of Misrata was along offensive -counteroffensive. I had forgotten just how vicious it was by all.
Qaddafi uses"mortar, artillery, tank, and RPG fire and Grad missiles" .
the rebels were way out gunned -but they had NATO,RPG's, anti-tank and effective snipers..

Rebels killed migrant workers, and there are (disputed)reports Qaddafi used cluster bombs in a very limited fashion.
Good Wiki link
 
Rune said:
Reminds me of how 16 year old American citizen Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki was murdered by a US fired drone.
He went looking for his missing father who was also an American citizen and also killed by a drone
Click to expand...
Gibbs and Obama are full of it on that.
The kid was just a kid, not a jihadist like his father..that was gruesome, yes.
 
anatta said:
Battle of Misrata was along offensive -counteroffensive. I had forgotten just how vicious it was by all.
Qaddafi uses"mortar, artillery, tank, and RPG fire and Grad missiles" .
the rebels were way out gunned -but they had NATO,RPG's, anti-tank and effective snipers..

Rebels killed migrant workers, and there are (disputed)reports Qaddafi used cluster bombs in a very limited fashion.
Good Wiki link
Click to expand...

You were telling how benign he was before!!

Sent from my LENOVO Lenovo K50-t5 Using Ez Forum for Android
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top