SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Wizard Joined: Jun 12 2009 Posts: 4209

I can see why you're in politics.

Joined: Aug 28 2011 Posts: 537

Fighter_McWarrior wrote:

As of February 23 Al Jazeera reported as many as 2,000 civilian deaths at the hands of security forces.

Okay. I have searched for "death", "2,000", "thousand" and not finding this. It only mentions hundreds of deaths. Where in this link are you finding as many as 2,000 civilian deaths? I have searched for this and nothing pops up.

Finally found it. Apparently Al Jeezera can't write 2,000 but "2, 000".

AlJeezera wrote:

10.38pm: More than 2, 000 people have been killed in Benghazi alone over the past few days, a French doctor told Le Point Magazine.

Unnamed person as source. Not credible.

Fighter_McWarrior wrote:

The 6,000 number may have been an exaggeration by LLHR

Is it or not? It is an exaggeration from "hundreds" or this mythical "2, 000" to go to "6,000". All of this is unfounded. LLHR and all the other phonies love to play innocent disguising a lie as an "exaggeration" or a "mistake" with language.

Quote:

it hardly means that the regime was innocent of the charges laid at its feet.

It's the difference between a bloodbath (which the media made it out to be) versus small losses to the population.

Quote:

Here Voltairenet has made the illogical conclusion that because LLHR had claimed incorrect facts and figures, everything said a bout Gadaffi was untrue.

You are assuming this. Voltaire has simply written that this "may or may not be exaggerated" claim that "6,000" people were dying according to the LLHR is unfounded; it is a lie used as "evidence" to justify an attack against the country. That's the entire point of the article. It's not trying to make Gadaffi out to be a "hero" as you wrote in your first response in this thread to me

Quote:

Independent sources from NGOs to new organizations all had different figures, but they all had figures just the same. To throw out the entire case based on one group's false reports is nonsense.

Work cited please. There is no poisoning the well going on here. Also, just because there is a discrepancy between sources does not mean that we can just legitimize outliars (the 6,000 number) cited in the Voltaire article.

Quote:

The article also claims that attacks on civilians by pro government forces couldn't be verified, but as I pointed out above, there's an exhausted archive of articles doing precisely that form Human Rights Watch and several other organizations. The entire Al Jazeera liveblog was dedicated to reporting all incidents of violence against civilians.

Work cited and quotation from Voltaire article needed.

Quote:

With that in mind, it should make perfect sense that he LLHR and Transition Council formed to remove Gadaffi from power share members and connections. That's not the evidence of some grand conspiracy, as the article alleges, but rather proof that Libyans had old objections to Gadaffi that came to a head with the crackdowns.

Who are these "connections"? Who are they funded by? I will have to find the articles but the US was funding the "freedom fighters" (mostly mercenaries) in Libya and there has been a clear "conspiracy"/path of who the West wants to take out.

Robert Wenzel wrote:

I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising. This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences.

source: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/03/libyan-rebels-form-central-bank.html

Ellen Brown wrote:

U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.). In it he says that about 10 days after September 11, 2001, he was told by a general that the decision had been made to go to war with Iraq. Clark was surprised and asked why. "I don't know!" was the response. "I guess they don't know what else to do!" Later, the same general said they planned to take out seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.

source: http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/blog/crimes-zion/libya-all-about-oil-or-all-about-central-banking

Afghanistan and Iraq were first. Libya is on this list. Then Syria. The next actor is Iran.

Quote:

Dr. Mahmoud Jibril is a Libyan regime figure brought into Libyan government circles by Saif Al-Islam Qaddafi. He would undemocratically be given the position of Transitional Council prime minister. His involvement with the LLHR raises some real questions about the organization.

The economist Ali Tarhouni on the other hand would become the minister for oil and finance for the Transitional Council. Tarhouni is Washington’s man in Libya. He was groomed in the United States and was present at all the major meetings about plans for regime change in Libya. As Minister of Oil and Finance the first acts he did were privatize and virtually handover Libya’s energy resources and economy to the foreign corporations and governments of the NATO-led coalition against Libya.

The General-Secretary of the LLHR, Sliman Bouchuiguir, has even privately admitted that many influential members of the Transitional Council are his friends. A real question of interests arises. Yet, the secret relationship between the LLHR and the Transitional Council is far more than a question of conflict of interest. It is a question of justice and manipulation.

Fighter_McWarrior wrote:

This section asserts fowl play because members of the Transitional Council took important positions in the transitional government. To this I reply: obviously. The people who take out a regime have a responsibility to move the nation's government forward. All of the positions mentioned above needed to exist in order to stabilize the country as it transitioned to democracy, and there's no reason whatsoever to take offense at the people who ovethrew the old regime filling them. By all rights, they should be. They changed the regime, they over see the transition. That seems simple enough, and I'm not sure exactly why this article objects to it.

The point is that they are puppets for the United States. The United States does not care about democracy (see: Mubarak in Egypt and the pussyfooting on whether to support him during the uprising, Saddam Hussein shaking hands with Bush, people put into Iraq, US, France, etc. hugging up your "tyrant" Gadaffi).

Quote:

Who is Sliman Bouchuiguir?

All I can definitively prove or disprove is that the man in question is that during the war, he was the Transitional Council's representative to Bern in Switzerland, but has since resigned from the post. Whatever beliefs he may or may not have had when he wrote the book in 1979, or whatever ideological connections he has seem fairly irrelevant to the movement as a whole, given his relatively unimportant position in it.

Sounds like he is an insider and understands how the system works. Has more sway than a fucking unnamed French doctor throwing out numbers in Libya. I'm going to have to look him up myself and see if I can access him on Questia. Let's not badmouth a man we don't know about.

Quote:

This is a classic tactic of wingnuts trying to make a political point: take one figure within a movement/political party, find a shady connection to ideologue and use that connection to ascribe an ideology to the movement as a whole. It's a way of discrediting a movement by prescribing fake ideas to it instead of addressing the concerns of their real ones. The Republicans tried to the same thing to Obama in 2008 by claiming that because Bill Ayers served on an education panel with Obama at one point, Obama must support terrorists because of Ayers connection to the Weather Underground.

Irrelevant political rambling.

Quote:

The logic was as shaky then as it is in this article, which is trying to assert that because Bouchuiguir's former academic adviser Bernard Reich had the idea of suppressing the Middle East as an economic power through the perpetuation of conflict there (which he may or may not have even believed) that whole movement is just a ploy to do exactly that. It's a gross illogical fallacy.

Gonna have to look over this. It's funny how the language changes from calling things "exaggerations" to "gross illogical fallacy" instead of perhaps the words "a stretch".

Quote:

The next section of the article details future US plans to invade Africa. All I'll say in response to it is that is that it's patently ridiculous. The US has never given a shit about Africa. If we ever invade Africa, I will boil down every pair of shoes I own and eat them on Youtube.

We're colonizing Africa. Not planning some Normandy style invasion of it. Foreign aid is an illusion which you can read about in Confessions of an Economic Hitman.

Suggested reading: http://www.voltairenet.org/Washington-is-conquering-Africa

Joined: May 22 2008 Location: Goshen, VA Posts: 6544

Drew Linky wrote:

Listen, would both of you be quiet for a few minutes?

This thread is about a US ambassador being killed. Your getting into an argument with each other is petty, in light of what's literally just happened today.

Don't tell people what to do when you yourself have nothing to add. Everything Fighter is saying and does say is legitimate and his posts actually have substance. Hush.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Sep 12 2012 09:17 pm

Wow, Vert, you are soooooooooooo out there it's not even funny anymore. I mean, he's got tons and tons of evidence, and you throw a [citation needed] at all of them, despite the fact he DOES cite and does a very good job of presenting his case. You sound like a defense attorney whose client is 105% fucking guilty who has nothing to do but attack credibility in a desperate attempt to poke some reasonable doubt in. You just sound like you're full of hot air.

Posted: Sep 12 2012 09:46 pm

Another thread that has spiraled out of hand. General Discussion is getting interesting lately.

I'm definitely siding with Fighter on this. He's got the sources and they seem a lot more credible than the one Vert is desperately trying to defend while he spouts off conspiracy theories and other bullshit.

Posted: Sep 12 2012 10:16 pm

Let's see, a guy who gets his "info" from websites that talk out of their asses, and another who has a career in politics... Gee, who am I gonna believe?

Seriously Vert, go sit in a corner and let the adults talk.

Posted: Sep 12 2012 11:21 pm

Quote:

Unnamed person as source. Not credible.

Because your source provided so many. I trust the reporters on the ground more than the insane conspiracy theorists in that wingnut site you posted.

Quote:

Is it or not? It is an exaggeration from "hundreds" or this mythical "2, 000" to go to "6,000". All of this is unfounded. LLHR and all the other phonies love to play innocent disguising a lie as an "exaggeration" or a "mistake" with language.

That was my language. Am I a phonie? In any case, you still don't seem to have much to say about the thousands of deaths catalogued by the groups that the essay conveniently ignores.

Quote:

It's the difference between a bloodbath (which the media made it out to be) versus small losses to the population.

You're right, Vert. They were only killing 2 to 300 people a weekend. That's totally not a big deal.

You're a heartless fuck.

Quote:

You are assuming this. Voltaire has simply written that this "may or may not be exaggerated" claim that "6,000" people were dying according to the LLHR is unfounded; it is a lie used as "evidence" to justify an attack against the country. That's the entire point of the article. It's not trying to make Gadaffi out to be a "hero" as you wrote in your first response in this thread to me

My issue isn't with the article calling out LLHR on blowing up their numbers. It's they that disregard literally dozens of sources that claim horrific numbers themselves. The article makes the case that one organization blowing up its numbers renders the entire case void, which is patent nonsense.

As to the hero thing, the article I responded to didn't say anything like that, but this seemed to:

Quote:

Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi overthrew the repressive Libyan monarchy of King Idris in 1969, nationalised the oil and banking industry and with the profits oversaw Africa’s first communication satellite in 2007, free health care and education for the Libyan people. He was working towards the unification of Africa to create a single African trading bloc and a single African currency based on gold and dinar, along with a united African military force.

Sounds an awful lot like hero worship to me. It's also all garbage, but if I start posting articles disputing all that I'll just be "talking about whatever I like", won't I?

Quote:

Work cited and quotation from Voltaire article needed.

Look, Vert, I know you're in the habit of posting every goddamn sentance of ever article that you find amusing, but I'm not. It's clearly there in the article just sentances below my last quote from it. Look it up yourself. It's your article. As for my own work, just read through the Al Jazeera blog. Every day starting about late February they have information on attacks reported to them. If you're that interested in teh topic, do some homework for yourself, and start by researching some objective sources.

Quote:

I will have to find the articles but the US was funding the "freedom fighters" (mostly mercenaries) in Libya and there has been a clear "conspiracy"/path of who the West wants to take out.

If the US really wanted to take Gadaffi out, they could have plotted within the military like they did in 1959 Iran, or 1958 Guatemala. They don't need to wait for a popular uprising. They could have just sponsored a coup.

But there was a popular uprising. The US just helped it along.

Quote:

source: http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/blog/crimes-zion/libya-all-about-oil-or-all-about-central-banking

Afghanistan and Iraq were first. Libya is on this list. Then Syria. The next actor is Iran.

I'm glad that wakeupfromyourslumber knows the intimate conversations between high ranking government officials. By the way, that site name sounds totally legit. I'm glad they know things that the rest of the political universe doesn't. I'm sure that the voices in their heads are extremely informative.

Quote:

The point is that they are puppets for the United States. The United States does not care about democracy (see: Mubarak in Egypt and the pussyfooting on whether to support him during the uprising, Saddam Hussein shaking hands with Bush, people put into Iraq, US, France, etc. hugging up your "tyrant" Gadaffi).

That doesn't prove that they are puppets of the US. Just that they had an active role in the revolution and took an active role in the government it created. Again, a lot of supposition.

Quote:

Sounds like he is an insider and understands how the system works. Has more sway than a fucking unnamed French doctor throwing out numbers in Libya. I'm going to have to look him up myself and see if I can access him on Questia. Let's not badmouth a man we don't know about.

That unnamed doctor was treating patients and telling the news about it. And he probably didn't give his name so that he wouldn't get shot. I think his testimony speaks a lot more loudly than some idiot at voltairenet who just assumes that because one minor figure in the council knew a guy who had an idea, the entire council shares it.

Quote:

Irrelevant political rambling.

Not a bit. It's your blind acceptance of that kind of idiot thinking that makes you so oblivious to the truth you pretend to seek.

Quote:

Gonna have to look over this. It's funny how the language changes from calling things "exaggerations" to "gross illogical fallacy" instead of perhaps the words "a stretch".

Semantics. You've barely addressed a single point I've made, and conveniently ignored all of my sources, my quoting of Libyan law on the matter and the words of the tyrant you're defending. And you accuse me of being intellectually lazy. Hilarious.

Quote:

We're colonizing Africa. Not planning some Normandy style invasion of it. Foreign aid is an illusion which you can read about in Confessions of an Economic Hitman.

Again: if we had wanted to do that, we could have a long time ago.

Quote:

Suggested reading: http://www.voltairenet.org/Washington-is-conquering-Africa

I'll skip that for now, I think. I've got a Fareed Zakharia book that's much more grounded in reality, and sane. I reccomend you read some non-biased material outside of your bubble.

Posted: Sep 13 2012 01:13 am

UsaSatsui wrote:

Wow, Vert, you are soooooooooooo out there it's not even funny anymore. I mean, he's got tons and tons of evidence, and you throw a [citation needed] at all of them, despite the fact he DOES cite and does a very good job of presenting his case. You sound like a defense attorney whose client is 105% fucking guilty who has nothing to do but attack credibility in a desperate attempt to poke some reasonable doubt in. You just sound like you're full of hot air.

This, pretty much. I've read everything that Fighter has posted and forced myself through Vert's posts, and while I don't have much to contribute that already hasn't been said,

Vert1 wrote:

The debate will become untenable if we don't quote parts we disagree with in long articles and just write out whatever we feel like.

The thread will become unreadable if your posts consist of less than 5% original thought and 95% quote from other sources.

Wizard Joined: Jun 12 2009 Posts: 4209

We've pretty much established he's a troll at this point anyway, so I'm not sure it even matters.

Wait, I mean... -hush-

Posted: Sep 13 2012 02:01 am

Something tells me wakeupfromyourslumber likes to throw around the term "sheeple" a lot.

Posted: Sep 13 2012 05:50 am

is this the movie that caused the whole thing? http://x.co/njhM

i cant tell if thats the actual movie or if its a spoof or something.

Joined: Sep 05 2012 Posts: 81

I don't have too much to add here, but felt like saying at least this:

When these radical Muslims react with violence because of something a westerner has done that offends their culture, western society should turn right back around and react in violence for the ridiculous shit they do that is offensive to western society, such as treating women like shit and being oppressive pieces of shit.

I am so sick of hearing about violence spurred on by alleged offenses when those same people are offensive in their pitiful existence.

Posted: Sep 13 2012 10:29 am

Quote:

When these radical Muslims react with violence because of something a westerner has done that offends their culture, western society should turn right back around and react in violence for the ridiculous shit they do that is offensive to western society, such as treating women like shit and being oppressive pieces of shit.

Well, the initial protests were because of the movie, but the actual attack was carried out by an insurgent group that's been acting violently in Libya for a while now. I have no doubt that they used the chaos of the protest to carry out the attack, but to say that it happened because of the movie is a bit misleading. In Egypt the movie was protested too, and nobody was hurt there. What happened in Libya was something else.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Sep 13 2012 11:05 am

Zinja wrote:

I don't have too much to add here, but felt like saying at least this:

When these radical Muslims react with violence because of something a westerner has done that offends their culture, western society should turn right back around and react in violence for the ridiculous shit they do that is offensive to western society, such as treating women like shit and being oppressive pieces of shit.

I am so sick of hearing about violence spurred on by alleged offenses when those same people are offensive in their pitiful existence.

I know it's cliche hippie bullshit, but an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. And in our case, that blindness is probably caused by very big flashes of light.

Really, judging all Muslims by the way some insurgents act is like judging all Christians by the way WBC acts. Islam at the core is a very tolerant and peaceful religion. It's that some people pervert the scriptures to justify violence. Kind of like Christianity about 600-700 years ago.

2011 SNES Champ Joined: Dec 04 2006 Posts: 1929

Also, Islam is predominant mostly in poor countries, while Christianity is in rich countries. It's far easier to manipulate people that have a harsh life and don't feel like they have much to lose.

Posted: Sep 13 2012 12:41 pm

Poor and politically unstable. South American nations like Mexico, Colombia and Venezuela all have major terrorist problems as well, despite being predominately Catholic. It's the political and economic situations that fuel terrorism, not the religious ones.

Joined: Apr 09 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3112

I just saw someone on Fox News describe Obama's handling of this as:

"Jimmy Carter on steroids."

Nobody called him on it or asked what the hell he was talking about or gently slid sharp office supplies away from his desk.

Fuck you. Fuck you, you cock-sucking shit-head. The only way this doesn't seem completely evil and disgusting is if you have some kind of special new retardation. Why do you get to be on TV as part of a discussion on world affairs? People died in this, and this is what you felt you needed to tell the world?

Tonight, I will pray to Allah and God and Zoroaster to make the sun fucking explode.

Posted: Sep 13 2012 03:00 pm

This apology nonsense has always been that, right from the start. The Obama Administration has bagged dozens of Al Qaeda leaders, carried out systematic assassinations of terrorists, used deadly force in something like six different countries, taken out Gadaffi and Osama Bin Laden all while maintaining a high troop presence in Afghanistan. Their policy of force is more aggressive and broader reaching that Bush's ever was, and the damage they've done to Al Qaeda really speaks to that. This is NOT an apologist administration. That line never had any meaning in the first place, and it's especially stupid now.

The statement that came out of Cairo's embassy didn't cross Obama's desk and was released to simmer down a mob. I have complete faith that the ambassador there was concerned with the safety of his staff when he made the statement, and he had every right to be. It's easy for Romney to talk tough when he's safe in America, but he wasn't the one facing a mob of angry protesters, and I think it's offensive that he would criticize the decisions of people who were. It's no less ignorant than those liberal hippie doushebags who criticized Iraqi veterans for their methods and blame everything they did on Bush.

Wizard Joined: Jun 12 2009 Posts: 4209

Greg the White wrote:

Tonight, I will pray to Allah and God and Zoroaster to make the sun fucking explode.

Posted: Sep 13 2012 03:43 pm

I figured out this whole conspiracy. Obama didn't like the looks of the jobs report that came out after the DNC. He knew he had to create some jobs fast so he orchestrated this whole mob thing in Libya. Now we have four new job openings. If this is Obama's idea of creating jobs, he is a very sick man.

Joined: Apr 09 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3112

I almost never want to talk about the typical vacuous, vapid electoral crap, but the fact that Romney couldn't even wait for the bodies to cool before he had to take up his opposite view for the sake of his election just makes me hate the mincing scumbag even more. I don't even see a person when I see this guy anymore. It's just somebody with the most clear form of blind ambition I've ever seen. I just see this guy who wants power and money and praise without understanding or caring about the ramifications of his actions.

I just want to dismantle the CIA so they can't overthrow countries for British oil companies, or send Black Ops to blow up schools to kill one harmless jackass. I want to just send foreign aid to help innocents who are harmed by natural disaster/conflict/etc.. I want to let these people just stew in their own shit and figure their own problems out without us fidgeting and sticking our fingers into their affairs.

I want people to become intellectually uncomfortable, to leave their bubbles of sycophants and empowering, single-sentence shibboleths that they chant in lieu of having any sort of independent, critical thought on matters. We have such potential in this new world of communication, technology, education, social structure, and processes of sharing and referencing ideas to share with each other, but the thought process of the average jack-off hasn't progressed beyond the Middle Ages.

Joined: Oct 19 2009 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 1479

Fighter, can I just say that your decision to broadcast via avatar that your love for Django Reinhardt encompasses also Neutral Milk Hotel makes me think just as highly of you as the people who have been high-fiving you in this thread for shutting down Vert1.

Posted: Sep 13 2012 03:57 pm

Quote:

I want people to become intellectually uncomfortable, to leave their bubbles of sycophants and empowering, single-sentence shibboleths that they chant in lieu of having any sort of independent, critical thought on matters. We have such potential in this new world of communication, technology, education, social structure, and processes of sharing and referencing ideas to share with each other, but the thought process of the average jack-off hasn't progressed beyond the Middle Ages.

The downswing of the age of information is that any fucking moron with a wi-fi connection can grab a microphone, take the stage and get a lot of attention. Every now and then I like to troll places like hyper liberal, conservative or Ron Paul sites and just fuck with everyone by arguing with their circle jerk. It's kind of awesome just how many people aren't even used to having their ideas challenged.

As for the CIA, I like them a hell of a lot better when they're researching geopolitical trends and targeting specific individuals. It's when they start playing Captain America and trying to take down governments that I really have an issue with them.

And Romney...well...Romney certainly seems to have stepped in it. Overall, I think he's a nice guy with some real assholes for advisers.

Quote:

Fighter, can I just say that your decision to broadcast via avatar that your love for Django Reinhardt encompasses also Neutral Milk Hotel makes me think just as highly of you as the people who have been high-fiving you in this thread for shutting down Vert1.

Thank you. I like a lot of different kinds of music, and I like switching my avie up every now and then.

Joined: Sep 05 2012 Posts: 81

UsaSatsui wrote:

Zinja wrote:

I don't have too much to add here, but felt like saying at least this:

When these radical Muslims react with violence because of something a westerner has done that offends their culture, western society should turn right back around and react in violence for the ridiculous shit they do that is offensive to western society, such as treating women like shit and being oppressive pieces of shit.

I am so sick of hearing about violence spurred on by alleged offenses when those same people are offensive in their pitiful existence.

I know it's cliche hippie bullshit, but an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. And in our case, that blindness is probably caused by very big flashes of light.

Really, judging all Muslims by the way some insurgents act is like judging all Christians by the way WBC acts. Islam at the core is a very tolerant and peaceful religion. It's that some people pervert the scriptures to justify violence. Kind of like Christianity about 600-700 years ago.

I would like to point out here that I am a Muslim man, and I am in no way lumping all Muslims into one category with my previous statement. I should also clarify my problem lies with the radicals. Those people who have a so-called strict interpretation of the Quran. They should not be allowed to perpetrate acts of violence without being responded to in kind, and they should absolutely not be allowed to run any governments. Imagine if the WBC or some of those radical fundamentalist Christian or even Jewish sects had carried out attacks or taken control of any government. We shouldn't play nice with bigots, ever. Period.

Also,

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

Fighter_McWarrior wrote:

And Romney...well...Romney certainly seems to have stepped in it.

The headlines by the media now seem to be "Romney and Obama trade attacks over Libya" instead of how the media originally negatively portrayed Romney for trying to capitalize on the administration's gaffe in their initial response to all the attacks in recent days. So, it doesn't seem like he's stepped in it. Dailykos.com is pushing it hard, though, spinning it as a demonstration that he cannot lead. We'll see how it plays out. The headlines were certainly more hostile yesterday. David Gregory's tweet about it was particularly harsh. He sounded like an MSNBC commentator, heh.