The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
Gadaffi captured & killed by the imperialist-backed forces https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7417 |
Page 1 of 3 |
Author: | Lex Luthor [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:47 am ] |
Post subject: | Gadaffi captured & killed by the imperialist-backed forces |
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/ ... FK20111020 Quote: (Reuters) - Deposed Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was captured and wounded near his hometown of Sirte at dawn on Thursday as he tried to flee in a convoy which NATO warplanes attacked, National Transitional Council official Abdel Majid said on Thursday. The senior NTC military official told Reuters by telephone that the head of Gaddafi's armed forces Abu Bakr Younus Jabr had been killed during the capture of the Libyan ex-leader. (reporting by Samia Nakhoul; editing by David Stamp) Wow I didn't expect this to happen so soon. This just came out so there aren't more details yet. Updated: The information at the link changed. He is now reported dead. |
Author: | Lex Luthor [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:54 am ] |
Post subject: | |
NSFW, don't look if you are about to eat lunch: Spoiler: |
Author: | Hannibal [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:59 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Phew finally stability will return to the middle east. |
Author: | Lex Luthor [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 10:00 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Hannibal wrote: Phew finally stability will return to the middle east. I doubt it, when unemployment gets worse they have nothing to do except cause trouble. |
Author: | Micheal [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 10:02 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Same problem in Libya as everywhere else that went through Arab spring summer fall. We got rid of the bad guys, yay, what do we do now? Followed by choruses of "ooh, I know, I'll lead!" |
Author: | Lex Luthor [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 10:07 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Gadaffi actually maintained lots of stability in the region until we wanted to spread 'freedom', in fact he even spread oil wealth around to the underprivileged. Whoever/whatever replaces him will probably not be better. I don't think it's so bad that he wanted to wipe out rebels who took over cities and stole weapons. edit: typo |
Author: | Hannibal [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 10:10 am ] |
Post subject: | |
I feel that under the guise of freedom we are actually trying to destabilize oil regions so the UN will have to go in and "help" the area (and keep the oil fixed to the dollar) |
Author: | Lex Luthor [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 10:54 am ] |
Post subject: | |
I think Obama should get another Nobel Peace Prize for this. Another dictator down, how many to go? |
Author: | Jeryn [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:37 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I know this is only sort of obliquely related, but I'd love to see mammoth domestic spending to transition the country to one that could function wholly without foreign oil (if such a thing is even possible). Seriously, to hell with countries like Libya. To hell with countries with dictators like Gadhafi, and to hell with countries who capture people like Gadhafi alive and then allow them to be beaten to death by a mob. Way to look exactly like the person you ousted, guys. |
Author: | Talya [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:45 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Jeryn wrote: I know this is only sort of obliquely related, but I'd love to see mammoth domestic spending to transition the country to one that could function wholly without foreign oil (if such a thing is even possible). Depends how strictly you define foreign. The USA cannot come close to meeting its own oil requirements. Canada could supply them with ease, however, if they ramped up production on the tar sands. 98% of our energy exports already go to the USA. |
Author: | Hopwin [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:46 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Talya wrote: Jeryn wrote: I know this is only sort of obliquely related, but I'd love to see mammoth domestic spending to transition the country to one that could function wholly without foreign oil (if such a thing is even possible). Depends how strictly you define foreign. The USA cannot come close to meeting its own oil requirements. Canada could supply them with ease, however, if they ramped up production on the tar sands. 98% of our energy exports already go to the USA. Wait, Canada is NOT a state already? I am sure Congress has simply overlooked this formality and it will be addressed in the next class. |
Author: | Lex Luthor [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:48 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Any alien looking down at Earth from space would conclude that Canada is part of the U.S. |
Author: | Jeryn [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:54 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Talya wrote: Depends how strictly you define foreign. The USA cannot come close to meeting its own oil requirements. Canada could supply them with ease, however, if they ramped up production on the tar sands. 98% of our energy exports already go to the USA. I'd be fine with dependence on Canada for oil. Canada is a fine and sane place, some little eccentricities like the Bloc Québécois and the Newfies notwithstanding. I'm just a cantankerous old man today and thinking I'd rather see us give out 300 million bicycles and get off our fat butts and ride more if it meant we could cut ties with just one barbarous backwater.
|
Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:21 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Talya wrote: Jeryn wrote: I know this is only sort of obliquely related, but I'd love to see mammoth domestic spending to transition the country to one that could function wholly without foreign oil (if such a thing is even possible). Depends how strictly you define foreign. The USA cannot come close to meeting its own oil requirements. Canada could supply them with ease, however, if they ramped up production on the tar sands. 98% of our energy exports already go to the USA. Quote: How much oil Does the U.S.Have in the ground?" Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, "more Than all the Middle East put together."
Monday, January 17, 2011 7:25 The corporations and special interest groups have control of America and they are squeezing the very life out of this country. The middle class does not stand a chance in this country. About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil and One of the Forbes Bros. Was the guest. The host said to Forbes, "I am going to Ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer; how much oil Does the U.S. Have in the ground?" Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, "more Than all the Middle East put together." Please read below. The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only Scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a Revised report (hadn't been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in This area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota , western South Dakota , and extreme eastern Montana ....... Check THIS out: <oilshalegas.com/bakkenshale.html> oilshalegas.com/bakkenshale.html <bakkenshale.net/bakkenshalemap.html> bakkenshale.net/bakkenshalemap.html The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay, and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign Oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion Barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable... At $107 a barrel, We're looking at a resource base worth more than $5..3 trillion. "When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see Their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.." says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst. "This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found In the past 56 years," reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a Formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' It stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and Into Canada .. For years, U. S. Oil exploration has been considered a dead End. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells Decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up The Bakken's massive reserves.... And we now have access of up to 500 Billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels Will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL! That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years Straight. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one Should - because it's from 2006! U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006 Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the Largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION Barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In Three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this Motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling? They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, Than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates: - 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia - 18-times as much oil as Iraq - 21-times as much oil as Kuwait - 22-times as much oil as Iran - 500-times as much oil as Yemen - and it's all right here in the Western United States . HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the Environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America Become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of People dictate our lives and our economy.....WHY? James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in This very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION Barrels untapped. That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in The world today, reports The Denver Post. Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this find? Think Again! It's all about the competitive marketplace, - it has to. Think OPEC just Might be funding the environmentalists? Got your attention yet? Now, while you're thinking about it, do this: Pass this along. If you don't take a little time to do this, then you Should stifle yourself the next time you complain about gas prices - by Doing NOTHING, you forfeit your right to complain. -------- Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you Sent this to every one in your address book. By the way...this is all true. Check it out at the link below!!! GOOGLE it, or follow this link. It will blow your mind. www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911 <www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911> < <www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911> www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911< <www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911> www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911> |
Author: | Killuas [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:35 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Gadaffi captured & killed by the imperialist-backed forc |
While not completely false not really all accurate either. http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/bakken.asp |
Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:00 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Gadaffi captured & killed by the imperialist-backed forc |
Killuas wrote: While not completely false not really all accurate either. http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/bakken.asp Thanks. Googled "how much oil does the US have?" Anyway, still a lot of oil. |
Author: | Buliwyf [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:28 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Gadaffi captured & killed by the imperialist-backed forc |
So we used a drone on a convoy, which allowed Gaddafi to be captured and killed. I guess executing former leaders without a trial is now the modus operandi of our allies in Libya. That's just great. |
Author: | Rynar [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:36 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
You have to love that Ghaddfi was captured with bullet wounds to his legs, was put him in an ambulance to get him to a secure facility to treat him, yet when he got the the hospital, he had "succumbed to his wounds", one of them being a gunshot to the head. |
Author: | TheRiov [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:54 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Gadaffi captured & killed by the imperialist-backed forc |
Buliwyf wrote: So we used a drone on a convoy, which allowed Gaddafi to be captured and killed. I guess executing former leaders without a trial is now the modus operandi of our allies in Libya. That's just great. from the link, it was at least (?) the french who made this airstrike |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:06 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Gadaffi captured & killed by the imperialist-backed forc |
Buliwyf wrote: So we used a drone on a convoy, which allowed Gaddafi to be captured and killed. I guess executing former leaders without a trial is now the modus operandi of our allies in Libya. That's just great. He's not an American citizen, and we didn't execute him, nor even make the airstrike, so it's hardly problematic. Even if he had gotten blown up by a U.S. drone, that's not "executing" him or even "assassinating" him. We were engaged in armed hostilities with him, and as the other side's commander, he was a valid target.. just like Admiral Yamamoto was a legitimate target. |
Author: | Micheal [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:20 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Found hiding in a sewer pipe. While I'm not condoning his execution, I'm not surprised he was killed by his own people. In a crowd like that the odds of having many still angry family member of victims of his are pretty high. I have to wonder if anyone captured his last words, and if they were as defiant of reality as usual. |
Author: | Buliwyf [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:30 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Gadaffi captured & killed by the imperialist-backed forc |
Hmmm, I missed where we declared war on Libya. (which is the only way the Yamamoto example works). I liken the situation more to England coming in on the side of the Confederacy. We are England, and the rebels are the Southern Confederates. That would be closer to a proper replica of the situation, IMO. Not that I like Gadaffi at all, but our involvement in what was essentially an internal matter is problematic to me. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:41 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Gadaffi captured & killed by the imperialist-backed forc |
Buliwyf wrote: Hmmm, I missed where we declared war on Libya. (which is the only way the Yamamoto example works). I liken the situation more to England coming in on the side of the Confederacy. We are England, and the rebels are the Southern Confederates. That would be closer to a proper replica of the situation, IMO. Not that I like Gadaffi at all, but our involvement in what was essentially an internal matter is problematic to me. We don't need to have declared war. If Russia or China were to stage a nuclear attack on us, are we supposed to declare war in the 30 minutes or so before their warheads arrive, to avoid it being an "assassination" or whatever when we retaliate? If you're not in favor of us intervening, fine, I wasn't either, but we don't need to declare war to do that sort of thing. In fact, the question of declaring war is immaterial; whether we should declare war before doing so in no way changes the fact that this was a military conflict with an external enemy, and criminal justice protections do not apply. |
Author: | Buliwyf [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:48 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Gadaffi captured & killed by the imperialist-backed forc |
I understand your point, but the fact remains that there were no warheads coming to the U.S. from Libya, it was an internal matter, and in my opinion we should have let them settle it internally without our involvement. I also do not argue that "we" should give him a trial, he should have been tried in Libya, had the rebels won without our aid. I suspect the people we allied ourselves with may turn out as bad as Gadaffi was. Time will tell. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:56 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Gadaffi captured & killed by the imperialist-backed forc |
Buliwyf wrote: I understand your point, but the fact remains that there were no warheads coming to the U.S. from Libya, it was an internal matter, and in my opinion we should have let them settle it internally without our involvement. I'm not disagreeing that we should have let them handle it. I'm pointing out that, whether we should have or not, we (or rather, France) did not "execute" him, and wouldn't have even if he had actually been killed by the airstrike. While "execution" can have a more general meaning than simply judicial execution, it generally applies to killing someone you have at your mercy, not an active opponent (by which I mean one that has not surrendered and is not incapacitated) Quote: I also do not argue that "we" should give him a trial, he should have been tried in Libya, had the rebels won without our aid. I suspect the people we allied ourselves with may turn out as bad as Gadaffi was. Time will tell. I don't disagree, but mainly because I don't really care what the rebels chose to do. As for them being "just as bad", I doubt whoever replaces him will be foolish enough to repeat his pattern of sponsoring terrorism, and generally antagnoizing the rest of the world so, that's the Libyan's problem. They almost certainly will be more favorable for everyone else. |
Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |