• Gaddafi disguises helicopters with red cross to drop mines in Misrata port
    124 replies, posted
I hope the west does what Reagan did, bomb the compound with the intent of killing him, but then take it further and don't stop until he is dead.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];29699084']I hope the west does what Reagan did, bomb the compound with the intent of killing him, but then take it further and don't stop until he is dead.[/QUOTE] You are aware that at the moment he probably has more public support in Libya than the rebels do? In part due to the NATO fuckups but still... Likewise currently the red cross issue is unproven and could easily be rebel propaganda as well. That's the issue with wars, civil wars even more. Both sides massively vilify the other, often without proof.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;29700858]You are aware that at the moment he probably has more public support in Libya than the rebels do? In part due to the NATO fuckups but still... Likewise currently the red cross issue is unproven and could easily be rebel propaganda as well. That's the issue with wars, civil wars even more. Both sides massively vilify the other, often without proof.[/QUOTE]We have no accurate way of telling exactly what percentage of the Libyan population supports him, not least due to the crackdown on dissent.
[QUOTE=kaven;29697662]So you think we don't have any right to stop someone from committing war crimes?[/QUOTE] Here's another thing I have a problem with: what war crimes? Libya is really not anyone's business - their laws are their own, and we have no right to impede their sovereignty. Don't even bother referencing the UN either, because they're a tried and proven fustercluck over and over (how many wars have they actually stopped? how many countries receiving aid have actually climbed out of their turd pit?). The UN is not law, and never should be, not with that kind of track record. In short, people who don't even adhere to our values are not committing crimes that can be legitimately confronted. You can't arrest some guy in India for breaking Chinese law outside that country's jurisdiction, and vice versa. Unless you're implying Libya is a part of someone else, the entire cause is null and void. And, again, we don't even know if this whole incident actually happened like they said it did. Where's the photos of these faux Red Cross choppers? [QUOTE=Sgt Doom;29698454]So gunning down peaceful protesters with AA cannons is okay? This didn't start as an armed rebellion until Gaddafi started slaughtering peaceful protesters.[/QUOTE] Interesting fact: Anti-aircraft cannons aren't really meant to shoot at infantry (or in this case, unmounted people in general). They're certainly not all over most cities. Who said that's what happened? Our government? Give me a break. Furthermore, if enforcing a rebellion against Gaddhafi is okay, why aren't we in Bahrain right now? Oh, that's right, Bahrain doesn't have any oil to steal. [QUOTE=CabooseRvB;29698685]Misinformed conclusion about the American revolution[/QUOTE] The only reason they did that was because they stood to gain from Britain's decline, being at odds with them quite a bit. Teaming up with dissidents in another country like right now just screams "They've got something we want but can't have, help us get it." I guess it's a coincidence and conspiracy fodder to note that we haven't made a habit of invading countries without notable resources? [QUOTE]The UN Resolution has been advocating the protection of civilians by Gaddafi ever since they have been bombing protesters which is, from what I recall a big no-no. Unless, by your standards Jenkem you would bomb a rally against abortion legislation a 'justifiable act' that would help protect the country. This rebellion goes against everything that Al Qaeda practically stands for, there has been so much anti-totalitarian fervor in Eastern Libya, why would Al Qaeda want to topple a leader that has been harboring them and supporting their terror attacks in the past few decades?[/QUOTE] There's Al-Qaeda fighters in the ranks of the rebels. You gotta ask why that is. The "UN resolution" has no business superseding another country's sovereignty. While shooting up protesters isn't a good thing, it's their problem to deal with - not ours. My guess is that Gaddhafi is taking the protesters as a threat, and by taking this into a military situation have escalated the problem. With a dictator that's just north of a basket case, you can't just march around like that and expect there to not be trouble. Now there's the whole west after this guy, which is pushing the situation farther and farther from a peaceful resolution. If I remember right, the original movement opposed Gaddhafi even remaining in office; that's a threat. The west is enforcing it. Why do you think this is happening now? As far as he's concerned, he's defending himself. [QUOTE]Irrelevant commentary about race[/QUOTE] This has nothing to do with anything. Might as well say using holograms/inflatable vehicles is wrong, too, because it's deceptive. I'm looking at this from a tactical standpoint, not a bleeding heart crusade. [QUOTE]Wikipedia[/QUOTE] You cited Wikipedia. I'm done talking to you.
sneaky sneaky
Edit: Double post
[QUOTE=Jenkem;29702544]Here's another thing I have a problem with: what war crimes? Libya is really not anyone's business - their laws are their own, and we have no right to impede their sovereignty. Don't even bother referencing the UN either, because they're a tried and proven fustercluck over and over (how many wars have they actually stopped? how many countries receiving aid have actually climbed out of their turd pit?). The UN is not law, and never should be, not with that kind of track record. In short, people who don't even adhere to our values are not committing crimes that can be legitimately confronted. You can't arrest some guy in India for breaking Chinese law outside that country's jurisdiction, and vice versa. Unless you're implying Libya is a part of someone else, the entire cause is null and void. And, again, we don't even know if this whole incident actually happened like they said it did. Where's the photos of these faux Red Cross choppers? Missed a few posts, replying to them...[/QUOTE] You missed when his troops raped a fuckload of women, and when he ordered his troops to shoot random civilians that were peacefully protesting, or when he put his tanks in heavily populated areas just so NATO couldn't bomb them. Gee.. I don't know, I don't think thats war crimes...you're probably right.
[QUOTE=Jenkem;29702544] Furthermore, if enforcing a rebellion against Gaddhafi is okay, why aren't we in Bahrain right now? Oh, that's right, Bahrain doesn't have any oil to steal.[/QUOTE] The U.S. threw troops into Afghanistan, and Iraq, the protection of international interests was usually the product when they overthrew both of the ruling regimes in the countries. [QUOTE=Jenkem;29702544]The only reason they did that was because they stood to gain from Britain's decline, being at odds with them quite a bit. Teaming up with dissidents in another country like right now just screams "They've got something we want but can't have, help us get it." I guess it's a coincidence and conspiracy fodder to note that we haven't made a habit of invading countries without notable resources?[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_war[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_grenada[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war[/url] By 'we' I'm assume you meant the United States. And if so, 'we' had a number of interventions in where resources was not on top of the agenda. [QUOTE=Jenkem;29702544]There's Al-Qaeda fighters in the ranks of the rebels. You gotta ask why that is.[/quote] I'm already asking you why are they toppling one of their best terrorist sponsors? [QUOTE=Jenkem;29702544]The "UN resolution" has no business superseding another country's sovereignty. While shooting up protesters isn't a good thing, [b]it's their problem to deal with - not ours.[/b] My guess is that Gaddhafi is taking the protesters as a threat, and by taking this into a military situation have escalated the problem. [b]With a dictator that's just north of a basket case, you can't just march around like that and expect there to not be trouble.[/b] Now there's the whole west after this guy, which is pushing the situation farther and farther from a peaceful resolution. If I remember right, the original movement opposed Gaddhafi even remaining in office; that's a threat. The west is enforcing it. Why do you think this is happening now? As far as he's concerned, he's defending himself.[/QUOTE] So you advocate that oppressed civilians just shut up and take the abuse like a masochist? [QUOTE=Jenkem;29702544]This has nothing to do with anything. Might as well say using holograms/inflatable vehicles is wrong, too, because it's deceptive. I'm looking at this from a tactical standpoint, not a bleeding heart crusade.[/QUOTE] You've been toting around the fact that recent military actions are immensely hypocritical. This is not new. [QUOTE=Jenkem;29702544] You cited Wikipedia. I'm done talking to you.[/QUOTE] I've only done so to site the list of terrorist attacks Gaddafi personally funded. There's really no point to link an archived 1970's article about it anyways.
[QUOTE=kaven;29703052]You missed when his troops raped a fuckload of women, and when he ordered his troops to shoot random civilians that were peacefully protesting, or when he put his tanks in heavily populated areas just so NATO couldn't bomb them. Gee.. I don't know, I don't think thats war crimes...you're probably right.[/QUOTE] Rape isn't a war crime if the command structure didn't authorize and approve of them doing so (if there's proof they did, not some easily distorted US/NATO intel, then correct me here); also, again, what war crimes when they don't even adhere to our standard? What about those "kill squads" in Afghanistan that shot civilians? Is the US itself guilty of war crimes now? Maybe, but our presence there is supported (as opposed to Gaddhafi's cause which we've gotten ourselves into opposing), so nobody seems to care or point fingers. If a million protesters stormed D.C. and refused to leave until the President and congress walked out, do you think there wouldn't be some kind of response? Gaddhafi won't leave office willfully, meaning they'd have to take him by force to get their way, possibly killing him in the process; the bombings were a stern warning, since he's got nothing to lose at that point anyway. The situation was forcibly escalated, and now we have this mess. Justified? I'm not certain, but the ongoing situation is being helped by the west. Also, hiding in populated areas isn't a war crime. Might as well ask them to stand in the open and be shot. In war, whether it's a good cause or not, you use whatever tactics you can to take on the enemy. Gaddhafi's men are simply playing on our soft panda vision of how to fight war.
[QUOTE=Jenkem;29703411] Also, hiding in populated areas isn't a war crime. Might as well ask them to stand in the open and be shot. In war, whether it's a good cause or not, you use whatever tactics you can to take the enemy. Gaddhafi's men are simply playing on our soft panda vision of how to fight war.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but some nations can be a little humane when fighting and would not stoop down to their levels no matter how beneficial it may be. NATO is not willing to be a butcher to kill the butcher.
[QUOTE=Jenkem;29702544]Interesting fact: Anti-aircraft cannons aren't really meant to shoot at infantry (or in this case, unmounted people in general). They're certainly not all over most cities. Who said that's what happened? Our government? Give me a break. Furthermore, if enforcing a rebellion against Gaddhafi is okay, why aren't we in Bahrain right now? Oh, that's right, Bahrain doesn't have any oil to steal.[/QUOTE]Christ, you really are thick. It was widely reported by news agencies all over the world that AA guns, most likely ZPUs, were used against people. A ZPU is basically just 4 machine guns strapped together with a swivel mount, anyway; not that hard to point at people. It could also have been a ZU-32-2, which is a 2-barrelled, 23mm type. Either one is capable of at least -5 degrees elevation, or pointing downwards, essentially. "They're not all over most cities"? Had it ever occurred to you they could be [i]moved?[/i] Wow! In any case, it certainly wasn't the US government that broke the story to the world. The reason we are intervening in Libya, is because there was an opportunity. The rebels held out long enough for international intervention to take effect; they pose a credible resistance to the Gaddafi regime. Saudi and UAE troops have already entered Bahrain to quell the protests, there's nothing we can do there that'd help without resorting to a full ground invasion. In Syria, the protests are being crushed far too quick; again, the only resort would be a ground invasion.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;29703643]Christ, you really are thick. It was widely reported by news agencies all over the world that AA guns, most likely ZPUs, were used against people. A ZPU is basically just 4 machine guns strapped together with a swivel mount, anyway; not that hard to point at people. It could also have been a ZU-32-2, which is a 2-barrelled, 23mm type. In any case, it certainly wasn't the US government that broke the story to the world. The reason we are intervening in Libya, is because there was an opportunity. The rebels held out long enough for international intervention to take effect; they pose a credible resistance to the Gaddafi regime. Saudi and UAE troops have already entered Bahrain to quell the protests, there's nothing we can do there that'd help without resorting to a full ground invasion. In Syria, the rebellion has been crushed far too quick; again, the only resort would be a ground invasion.[/QUOTE] Jenkem is Glaber's alt. It's already mentally conditioned to him that any action UN, or NATO does is the action of the U.S.
Fuck you, Gaddafi. [editline]8th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Jenkem;29702544]Here's another thing I have a problem with: what war crimes? Libya is really not anyone's business - their laws are their own, and we have no right to impede their sovereignty. Don't even bother referencing the UN either, because they're a tried and proven fustercluck over and over (how many wars have they actually stopped? how many countries receiving aid have actually climbed out of their turd pit?). The UN is not law, and never should be, not with that kind of track record. In short, people who don't even adhere to our values are not committing crimes that can be legitimately confronted. You can't arrest some guy in India for breaking Chinese law outside that country's jurisdiction, and vice versa. Unless you're implying Libya is a part of someone else, the entire cause is null and void. And, again, we don't even know if this whole incident actually happened like they said it did. Where's the photos of these faux Red Cross choppers? Interesting fact: Anti-aircraft cannons aren't really meant to shoot at infantry (or in this case, unmounted people in general). They're certainly not all over most cities. Who said that's what happened? Our government? Give me a break. Furthermore, if enforcing a rebellion against Gaddhafi is okay, why aren't we in Bahrain right now? Oh, that's right, Bahrain doesn't have any oil to steal. The only reason they did that was because they stood to gain from Britain's decline, being at odds with them quite a bit. Teaming up with dissidents in another country like right now just screams "They've got something we want but can't have, help us get it." I guess it's a coincidence and conspiracy fodder to note that we haven't made a habit of invading countries without notable resources? There's Al-Qaeda fighters in the ranks of the rebels. You gotta ask why that is. The "UN resolution" has no business superseding another country's sovereignty. While shooting up protesters isn't a good thing, it's their problem to deal with - not ours. My guess is that Gaddhafi is taking the protesters as a threat, and by taking this into a military situation have escalated the problem. With a dictator that's just north of a basket case, you can't just march around like that and expect there to not be trouble. Now there's the whole west after this guy, which is pushing the situation farther and farther from a peaceful resolution. If I remember right, the original movement opposed Gaddhafi even remaining in office; that's a threat. The west is enforcing it. Why do you think this is happening now? As far as he's concerned, he's defending himself. This has nothing to do with anything. Might as well say using holograms/inflatable vehicles is wrong, too, because it's deceptive. I'm looking at this from a tactical standpoint, not a bleeding heart crusade. You cited Wikipedia. I'm done talking to you.[/QUOTE] :frog:
[QUOTE=Jenkem;29703411]Rape isn't a war crime if the command structure didn't authorize and approve of them doing so (if there's proof they did, not some easily distorted US/NATO intel, then correct me here); also, again, what war crimes when they don't even adhere to our standard? What about those "kill squads" in Afghanistan that shot civilians? Is the US itself guilty of war crimes now? Maybe, but our presence there is supported (as opposed to Gaddhafi's cause which we've gotten ourselves into opposing), so nobody seems to care or point fingers. If a million protesters stormed D.C. and refused to leave until the President and congress walked out, do you think there wouldn't be some kind of response? Gaddhafi won't leave office willfully, meaning they'd have to take him by force to get their way, possibly killing him in the process; the bombings were a stern warning, since he's got nothing to lose at that point anyway. The situation was forcibly escalated, and now we have this mess. Justified? I'm not certain, but the ongoing situation is being helped by the west. Also, hiding in populated areas isn't a war crime. Might as well ask them to stand in the open and be shot. In war, whether it's a good cause or not, you use whatever tactics you can to take on the enemy. Gaddhafi's men are simply playing on our soft panda vision of how to fight war.[/QUOTE] Gaddafi supporter here.
These responses are so ignorant it isn't even funny. Like most people, you're jerking what I say way out of context, beating on pointless things, and demonstrating you have no ability to think outside of the information directly presented to you by the media. Not going to keep this up, it's a waste of time. [QUOTE=Maximo13;29704119]Gaddafi supporter here.[/QUOTE] I didn't necessarily say I supported Gaddhafi. In this situation, though, I think he's been made out to be more of a villain than he really is just to gain tactical support for another conflict with under-the-table implications. The last time we removed a dictator (Saddam Hussein) it caused problems; who keeps Iran in check now, guys? Getting rid of Gaddhafi at this time is a stupid idea (not to mention having rammifications like the above example), and a transition should've been orchestrated immediately following the old fart's death to avoid some of the hostility problems.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;29703682]Jenkem is Glaber's alt. It's already mentally conditioned to him that any action UN, or NATO does is the action of the U.S.[/QUOTE] I thought his arguments and some of the wording he is using was familiar. [editline]8th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Sgt Doom;29703643] In any case, it certainly wasn't the US government that broke the story to the world. [/QUOTE] Al Jazeera broke it, I think there's videos of the alleged attacks on the internet. It happened during the last week or so of the Egyptian uprising, along with him using mortars on protesters. Way before any armed uprising began, he wasn't quelling an uprising at that point he was attacking protesters with heavy weaponry.
[QUOTE=Jenkem;29704270]These responses are so ignorant it isn't even funny. Like most people, you're jerking what I say way out of context, beating on pointless things, and demonstrating you have no ability to think outside of the information directly presented to you by the media. Not going to keep this up, it's a waste of time. I didn't necessarily say I supported Gaddhafi. In this situation, though, I think he's been made out to be more of a villain than he really is just to gain tactical support for another conflict with under-the-table implications. The last time we removed a dictator (Saddam Hussein) it caused problems; who keeps Iran in check now, guys? Getting rid of Gaddhafi at this time is a stupid idea (not to mention having rammifications like the above example), and a transition should've been orchestrated immediately following the old fart's death to avoid some of the hostility problems.[/QUOTE] Media provides information, what other credible outlets are out there that does not involve journalists on the field, or having commie editors? I think it's safe to say that Al Jazeera and BBC are credible. Wait, since when did Iran become such a credible threat? Saddam was the one who instigated the conflict.
[QUOTE=Jenkem;29704270]These responses are so ignorant it isn't even funny. Like most people, you're jerking what I say way out of context, beating on pointless things, and demonstrating you have no ability to think outside of the information directly presented to you by the media. Not going to keep this up, it's a waste of time. I didn't necessarily say I supported Gaddhafi. In this situation, though, I think he's been made out to be more of a villain than he really is just to gain tactical support for another conflict with under-the-table implications. The last time we removed a dictator (Saddam Hussein) it caused problems; who keeps Iran in check now, guys? Getting rid of Gaddhafi at this time is a stupid idea (not to mention having rammifications like the above example), and a transition should've been orchestrated immediately following the old fart's death to avoid some of the hostility problems.[/QUOTE] I'm kind of interjecting here, but you seem to be of the mindset that every foreign intervention by the UN/US/NATO was just a ploy for resources, and that's just not true, especially considering [B]WE WERE ALREADY BUYING OIL FROM LIBYA.[/B]
He's already saying that a nation's people should just shut up and deal with oppression.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29704714]I'm kind of interjecting here, but you seem to be of the mindset that every foreign intervention by the UN/US/NATO was just a ploy for resources, and that's just not true, especially considering [B]WE WERE ALREADY BUYING OIL FROM LIBYA.[/B][/QUOTE] Someone who understands this key detail. If this goes tits up there will be less oil for the West. If they wanted oil the west would have supported Gaddafi in getting of a terrible uprising, not supporting the rebels. The West is using this as an excuse to get rid someone they have had to pretend to like for many years.
[QUOTE=Jsm;29704808]The West is using this as an excuse to get rid someone they have had to pretend to like for many years.[/QUOTE] That cause is a bit of a deceitful one, considering they acted like they were allies, but I'd much rather this be the "bad" reason than "herp dee derp we just going in for the oil!!"
Jenkem's posts are so brain damaging he should be charged with assault.
He's going to claim he's the only sane mind in a flock of sheep.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;29704685]Wait, since when did Iran become such a credible threat? Saddam was the one who instigated the conflict.[/QUOTE] Which conflict? Iran-Iraq War or the US Invasion of Iraq? (Which is totally unrelated to the former)
[QUOTE=Tac Error;29705136]Which conflict? Iran-Iraq War or the US Invasion of Iraq? (Which is totally unrelated to the former)[/QUOTE] The Iran-Iraq
War...war never changes.
It actually IS a clever tactic
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;29709036]It actually IS a clever tactic[/QUOTE] In the smaller context of the Libyan war, maybe. With the world as open as it is now, anyone who employs those kind of tactics anywhere has a death wish.
[QUOTE=Jsm;29688124]Isn't falsely using protected symbols quite a serious war crime?[/QUOTE] It goes along the lines of a soldier dressing up as another soldier in wartime. Eg Battle of Bulge during WW2 german soldiers (also known as Operation Grief) would dress up as an American soldier and infiltrated the Ameircan lines, soldiers caught went aganist the laws of warfare and were executed. So yes it is a very serious war crime, it's even worse disguising as the Red Cross.
[QUOTE=Jenkem;29704270]These responses are so ignorant it isn't even funny. Like most people, you're jerking what I say way out of context, beating on pointless things, and demonstrating you have no ability to think outside of the information directly presented to you by the media. Not going to keep this up, it's a waste of time.[/QUOTE]You said: "Interesting fact: Anti-aircraft cannons aren't really meant to shoot at infantry (or in this case, unmounted people in general)." I showed you that they are, in fact, capable of shooting ground targets. They've been able to do that since the Second World War, for fuck's sake. The iconic 88 FlaK spent most of it's life as an AA gun before some Nazi bloke popped a tank with it and figured "Hey, this works pretty awesome for AT too!" "They're certainly not all over most cities." I pointed out that they are, in fact, mobile. "Who said that's what happened? Our government? Give me a break." I pointed out that it was not the US government that said that, and another clarified that it was Al-Jazeera that broke the story; hardly a friend of the US government. "Furthermore, if enforcing a rebellion against Gaddhafi is okay, why aren't we in Bahrain right now? Oh, that's right, Bahrain doesn't have any oil to steal." And this I explained as to why. This isn't "nitpicking", this is exposing massive fucking gaping holes in your argument.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.