Son of Gaddafi:

Sayf al-Islam Gaddafi has appeared on Libyan TV and accused people outside Libya of provoking violence, adding that the reported numbers of deaths in anti-government protests were "imaginary".

He said this area of the world was "going through an earthquake" and people were trying to copy what was going on in Egypt.

He claimed "a few people have died" in clashes where "the aim was to be violent against the police" and he said the army was not trained to deal with riots.

(From BBC News)

---

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.

"Scores killed in Benghazi"

---

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.

Qaddafi has ruled for four decades, all on Anti-Americanism. Hopefully, the hate for America would have turned into love for America now. Perhaps that's the reason Obama is preparing for "a million acts of kindness" to the people of Libya, again saving "them" from their own people.

I see, if the US and her agents interfere into Libyas matter it would simply be a repetition of Iraq war. And if provide the rebillions weapons through S. Arabia, would be a repetition of post Afghan war.

Neither America nor the voters of America ever learnt a lesson from history, did they?

---

*It's wonderful to know that all languages are Greek if not understood.*

Libya is the richest country of Africa with "Compared to its neighbors, a low level of both absolute and relative poverty", according to Wiki. World Bank defines Libyan economy as 'Upper Middle Income'. Though Libya has problems with agriculture and water due to its climate and soil condition, the Great Manmade River project is expected to make things better. Literacy rate in Libya is 82%, something India only dreams of.

Of course, this is not to say Libya is free of problems. 82% literacy means 18% are still illiterate, and Gaddafi is still an *sshole. But since he nationalized "foreign oil and commercial interests" as wiki puts it, he p*ssed off a few countries, including the US and Britain. From guardian.co.uk, "British intelligence paid large sums of money to an al-Qaeda cell in Libya in a doomed attempt to assassinate Colonel Gadaffi in 1996 and thwarted early attempts to bring Osama bin Laden to justice", according to " journalist Guillaume Dasquié and Jean-Charles Brisard, an adviser to French President Jacques Chirac". From wiki, "On 14 April 1986, the United States carried out Operation El Dorado Canyon against Gaddafi and members of his regime. Air defenses, three army bases, and two airfields in Tripoli and Benghazi were bombed. The surgical strikes failed to kill Gaddafi but he lost a few dozen military officers." The operation El Dorado was supposedly a retaliatory operation to Libya's alleged involvement in a terrorist attack in a Berlin discotheque 10 days before operation El Dorado was launched. It was, however, never proved that Libyan government was behind the attack.

Besides, Gaddafi is not the Libyan prime minister. Baghdadi Mahmudi is, who's promoting privatisation and foreign investment in Libya. Why isn't Mahmudi targetted?

Yes, I would like to see Gaddafi go, but I wouldn't like the huge oil reserve of Libya falling into the wrong hands. Given the undemocratic and sinister ways of some countries, I very strongly fear that the power switch wouldn't be in the interest of the Libyan people.

---

In this world there is no literate population that is poor and no illiterate population that is other than poor. - J.K.Galbraith

Do you think Gaddafi cares about the interests of the Libyan people? Most of the 'wealth' of that nation is under the control - and in the bank accounts - of this boil on the butt of humanity.

---

Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself. Leo Tolstoy

Much as I am not fond of the CIA, it is not operating Al-Qaeda.

The U.S. government has taken no action, not to protect Mr. Mubarak, a putative ally nor to remove Mr. Gaddafi. Response has been limited to asking governments to listen to their citizens.

British Intelligence belongs to the U.K. and is quite separate from the U.S. The events are 15 - 20 years old.



Jeech and abcxyz:

I do not understand what you think about the current protests. One sentence, you seem to say evil powers are trying to thwart the protesters; the next you seem to say the powers that be should be left in power because . . . well, I cannot figure out why: Perhaps because the evil you know is better than the evil you don't (for the protesters) and you have decided you know better than the citizens of Libya what should be done.

Who do you feel should prevail and why:

1.) In Libya?

2.) What about the other states with protests: Tunisia? Egypt? Bahrain?

What should other countries be doing:

1.) Iran?

2.) Saudi Arabia?

3.) China?

4.) United States?

5.) Pakistan?

6.) Tunisia? Egypt? Bahrain?

So why didn't you link us any?

---

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.

There is no source that is credible, there can only be statements, theories, evidence etc. that can be credible. And whether something is credible or not, can be judged only after reading or analyzing it. One should not be so cynical about the source. Read what is there, irrespective of the source - disliking or disagreeing is up to the individual. But rubbishing something without even reading it or citing reason - well, I don't see the virtue in that.

Besides, why be so discriminating against one source and not the other, more common, run-of-the-mill one, that of the Corporatist or elitist media? Is it because we have become habituated in believing whatever is fed to us?

I think the problem is that people decide upon a source as "credible" and then start believing anything that pours in from that source. Instead, it is perhaps a better idea to not trust any source at all but try to cross-check and verify and judge for ourselves the exact matter coming from the source, every single time, without exception.

I am not claiming that. I am just saying that it is a possibility. Either way, you haven't mentioned any reason for not considering it credible. So it wasn't very illogical to assume that you might not have read it, because you might have disliked the source as it might have been in your "black list" for some particular reason.
If you have read it, great, but you didn't share why didn't think the material or evidence was credible.

To not give a reason for rubbishing something is like declaring you are the authority and your word is final! We can always agree to disagree after discussing the credibility (or lack of it).

Besides, I wasn't even referring to you. My previous reply was directed more at the person who posted after you, who said "Well, I do have a conception of how credible it would be" which clearly indicated that the comment was made without reading the material.

I was just joking about how the phrase "as credible as is conceivable" could be taken a couple different ways, like saying a performance was unforgettable. I'm not arguing that the U.S. has been well-intentioned, greedy, blundering, adroit, cynical, and admirable at different times.

---

This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force. --Dorothy Parker

I can recognise a propaganda site when I see one.

---

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.

Let's call it simply "alternative media".

---

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.

The main opposition group in Libya, the NFSL or the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, is Western backed and funded. The other group in the opposition consists of those who want neither Gaddafi nor any Western "help", as also some other rebel faction groups who have always been there. US has all the reasons not to like Gaddafi - the US access to the enormous quantity of oil in Libya has been limited ever since Gaddafi took over.

The Western media is spreading the lie that the "people of Libya" who want "democracy" are the ones calling for a no-fly zone and Western intervention....this lie is being spread by US and the western media by clubbing the protests in Egypt together with the "protests" in Libya...the one in Egypt was spontaneous...here, it was largely pre-planned by the "outside influences"...yes there are some who are spontaneously protesting against Gaddafi but none of the REAL pro-democracy people are asking for outside interference...

It is actually the West (including CIA) -backed opposition NFSL that is "asking" for it - meaning it is well within the US administration's plans to deliberately launch an attack in Libya, but not for any "humanitarian" reasons, but only to get control of the oil reserves in the country.

The poppy was grown in that region long before CIA involvement there. That the drug trade prospered then, and still prospers now is a travesty. But you insinuate that this is WHY we got involved. The effect in accelerating the fall of the Soviets was the goal, and it was good.

In what way has the Pakistani government been a stooge of the CIA? If anything, Pakistan, and it's actions show the limits of US/Western power. You ascribe impossibly God-like powers to the CIA and the USA. Check Pakistan's actions over the years, much of which are at best irresponsible, and at worst, anathema to the security intrests of the west.

---

"Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless, and do no wrong". (Knight's Oath, Kingdom of Heaven)

1. That would be a little odd, and clearly, that is not the case. Some statements from the rebels clearly mention the government. Media choose to highlight the part about Gaddafi, as if he's the only one rebels are against.
2. The wrong hands = the corporates, the United States government and anyone else who want to exploit the oil resources
3. Not 'undemocratic and sinister countries', it's 'undemocratic and sinister ways of some countries', two of them being the United States and Britain. At least in my part of the world, covert attempt to assasinate a foreign leader with the help of a terrorist organization and bombing a country in an attempt to kill someone based on flimsy evidence gathered within at most 10 days are viewed as, at best, undemocratic, and at worst, sinister.
4. What decision? I said it's what I "fear". The Libyan people should decide their fate, and I don't think(again, it's what I think, or rather I don't think, not what I do or don't decide) the above mentioned 'wrong hands' will let them do that.

5.Who do you feel should prevail and why:
1. whoever's DEMOCRATICALLY elected by the people of the country.
2. same.
6.What should other countries be doing:

Depends on what the people of Libya wants. Apparently, they do not want foreign intervention. Abdul Hafiz Ghogha, a Libyan human rights lawyer and the spokesperson for the National Transitional Council in Benghazi, said in clear words that the Council does not seek foreign intervention.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/2011227175955221853.html
His is probably not the only opinion, but it seems to be one held by most (naturally, after having seen the fate of foreign intervention in Iraq).



Not true. The Obama administration says they're ready to offer any type of assistance to Libyans seeking to oust Moammar Gadhafi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Sunday, adding a warning to other African nations not to let mercenaries go to the aid of the longtime dictator. ...
"Libyan pilots aren't going to fly if there is a no-fly zone and we could get air assets there to ensure it," McCain said. But he added, "I'm not ready to use ground forces or further intervention than that."
He said the U.S. should "recognize some provisional government that they are trying to set already up in the eastern part of Libya, help them with material assistance, make sure that every one of the mercenaries know that any acts they commit they will find themselves in front a war crimes tribunal. Get tough."
Lieberman spoke in similar terms, urging "tangible support, (a) no-fly zone, recognition of the revolutionary government, the citizens' government and support for them with both humanitarian assistance and I would provide them with arms."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110228/ap_on_re_us/us_us_libya

"The United States is moving naval and air forces in the region" to "prepare the full range of options" in the confrontation with Libya: Pentagon spokesperson Col. Dave Lapan of the Marines made this announcement yesterday, March 1. He then said that "It was President Obama who asked the military to prepare for these options," because the situation in Libya is getting worse. The military then began "the planning and preparation" phase for an intervention in Libya. Pentagon planners are working on several specific plans, depending on how the “repositioning of forces” begins so as to have maximum flexibility to implement any option.

http://www.iacenter.org/nafricamideast/operation-libya030311//

---

In this world there is no literate population that is poor and no illiterate population that is other than poor. - J.K.Galbraith

---

In this world there is no literate population that is poor and no illiterate population that is other than poor. - J.K.Galbraith

It is hard to imagine how one, especially being a critic of the phony Iraq war, could have missed the many references in different forms being made in all kinds of media for the "last 8 years" about the US designs on Iraq's oil. And considering it is known that the war was based on a big, fat lie that Saddam had WMD, one should naturally have been inclined to wonder what the real reason for going to the Iraq war was. And then, even a cursory search on the internet should have shown many results regarding the "indefensible", good enough to at least create a significant doubt, if not more. Here are a few examples:

The Iraq Debacle

Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil

OIL AND THE IRAQ WAR

Pedro,

You have hit on it. A nation teetering on the brink of economic default the way the USA is would not be the natural outcome if imperialism and profiting on the oil wealth of others were our goal. And yet, we are dangerously in debt, and as I and you have pointed out, have not profited in oil wealth by occupying Iraq.

To this day, I'm not entirely sure of why we invaded Iraq. Only the previous administration and intelligence officials can properly answer that.

First, it was due to phoney claims of WMD and support of Al Queda. Then it was later transformed into a war of liberation and democracy. My honest opinion is that it was due to

1. The Bush Doctrine (if we so much as think you may in the future be a threat, we take you out).

2. That Neo-Conservative drivel about "draining the swamp" to win the war on terror.

I did check the links posted above and I see nothing to change my viewpoint. If, in a broad sense, the goal was "regional stability" or any of those other buzzwords that mean the safeguarding of the world's economy, then sure, the free flow of oil would be a concern...but that is the world's economy, China, India, Japan, and the West...not some hegemonic interests of the USA. We are going broke (and bleeding) being the worlds policeman.

The goals and strategies may be inept and even ruinous....but, far from being nefarious, keeping the world from economic chaos might elicit a thank you, rather than paranoia.

---

"Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless, and do no wrong". (Knight's Oath, Kingdom of Heaven)