Then give me some substantiated evidence in support of it. Shouldn't be hard if it is out there. You want the BBC et al to report on something without evidence?
Why are you so closed minded about it?!
Libya is finished, what country will be next?
- Thread starter PsychoPigeon
- Start date
Then give me some substantiated evidence in support of it. Shouldn't be hard if it is out there. You want the BBC et al to report on something without evidence?
Why are you so closed minded about it?!
Recently an idiotic meme has been making the rounds on social media. It contains a list of 'facts' to support the view that life under Gaddafi was absolutely wonderful, and everyone was having a great time before his untimely demise. Some of the claims are very specific, so I looked them all up and debunked them.
Absolutely false.
There's no such thing as a Rothschild central bank. Libya has had a central bank since 1956.
Evidence please.
Oil prices have risen since Gaddafi fell. The three largest importers of Libyan oil are Italy, France, and China. None of them are buying it at 'insanely cheap prices.'
Absolutely false.
There's no such thing as a Rothschild central bank. Libya has had a central bank since 1956.
Evidence please.
Oil prices have risen since Gaddafi fell. The three largest importers of Libyan oil are Italy, France, and China. None of them are buying it at 'insanely cheap prices.'
Last edited:
In the words of Christopher Hitchens: 'What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.'
Having said that, it is a trivial matter to search the internet and debunk these ludicrous claims (Wikipedia is your friend) and you can find plenty of sites where Libyans have refuted them on the basis of personal experience.
Here's one example: http://www.allsiam.net/libya/
Wikipedia provides references, which is precisely what Tefal asked for.
Can you name six Wikipedia articles that are fatally flawed?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rticles-Wikipedia-contain-factual-errors.html
According to research as many as 6 in 10... Gee I wonder why Universities prohibit Wikipedia as a reputable source!
Have you ever actually checked wiki references?
The vast majority are broke, paywalled or a physical book.
The average person has no chance of verifying anything there
It’s the people that dismiss Wikipedia articles whilst simultaneously posting RT linksUsing a Daily Mail article to accuse another publication of factual errors is the funniest thing I'll read today
Wiki usually gives a good "base line" from which to work - the cited sources are generally less than useful - but taking what is on wiki and looking up a range of sources usually gives a good idea where the truth lies.
Using a Daily Mail article to accuse another publication of factual errors is the funniest thing I'll read today
Didn't read the link then. They reported on the findings of a research group. But of course you can always trust the BBC. Good little sheep still do
An article from 6 years ago, talking about a 'study' that was merely based on user experience and not on a careful scrutiny of Wikipedia's references. Fail.
They prohibit it because Wikipedia is not a formal publication, and most articles can be edited by non-experts. This does not mean it's useless as an everyday source of general information.
Evidence please. When did you find the time to check all of Wikipedia's references?
Assad is still in power because Western forces have made no attempt to remove him. If the West wanted him gone, they'd invade like they did in Iraq, and he'd be out within weeks.
Except it isn't because they don't exist, a “central bank” is by definition not a privately owned institution, but a governmental mandate. It’s the entity responsible for overseeing monetary policy, interest rates and currency supply for a nation.
Except it isn't, which makes sense as lowering the value of oil would be bad for oil producing nations like the USA. It's also not a given that the new government will sell the oil rights to a western country anyway (I.E the Iraq war just resulted in the oil rights being transferred from a Russian company to a Chinese one).
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 12,234
- Location
- UK
It's a tool for borrowing money from Rothschilds on the promise that it'll be paid back via taxation.
Technically speaking an "attempt" was made, however it was derailed when the UK parliament voted down the motion. With the loss of UK coalition support for the war Obama opted not to go it alone and backed down.
It always amuses me when people come out with nonsense like this XD
Why would a central bank (I.E Bank of England) borrow from the Rothschilds when they haven't been a major financial power in roughly a century? I don't deny that the lenders to governments/banks get rich from it but it's amusing that people seem so desperate to paint an old Jewish family as the villains of it all XD