Soldato
Which countries caused the civil war?
Migrants - Italy making a stand
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
Which countries caused the civil war?
Soldato
So no third parties paved the way nor backed the terrorists?
What I was getting at is the three nations that destroyed Libya have an interest in what's happening now. We need to figure what the interest is...
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,109
That involves making sure everyone (including UK citizens) in A&E have to prove they are eligible for free treatment. Something that causes uproar every time that's brought up, by a wide section of society, not just "the left" or "liberals".
We certainly didn't help matters, hence my point about our decisions coming back to bite us in the arse.
you asked which countries caused the civil war... the UK, US and France got involved after it was already underway... the cause was a mix of a popular uprising and a brutal crackdown of the uprising by the Gaddafi regime... the intervention came as their second city was under threat from Gaddafi's forces and western governments wanted to avert a potential massacre.
the UK, US and France didn't destroy Libya
Soldato
In Mark Curtis book he points and evidences the UK intelligence authorities have been backing anti-Gadaffi forces for years (Libyan Fighting Group (Salman Abedi nudge nudge wink wink)). French connection being: Sarkozy taking (according to his son and prosecutors) $25m. Then the Gadaffi promise to buy French warplanes which he reneged on. France were the first to actually bomb the country no? The US connection being Libya had been for years planning the infrastructure to only allow sale of Libyan oil in gold (making Libya a regional powerhouse given its gold reserves (where are they now?) and relatively small population. The US were also hell bent on getting Gadaffi out as Wikileaks emails show. Not to mention the "We came, we saw, he died, hahahahahahaha".
If there's one thing history should teach you, its that "popular uprisings" don't just happen like magic. The fighters were backed by the US/UK.
The western govts wanted to avert a potential massacre? By having their terrorists do the massacres? That goes back to several earlier posts of mine in other threads that:
US/UK: "What! Someone else is massacring civilians! Oh no they don't! That's our job!"
They didn't destroy it directly, but their actions precipitated all necessary circumstances to lead to that eventuality. A great pity we still have not learned from Iraq. Evidently, neither has the population here.
Yes western governments wanted to avert a potential massacre.
What does "magic" have to do with anything? This was part of the Arab spring and was a popular uprising.
While I don't subscribe to most of what Raoh is on about, he has a point about western interference with regards to the Arab spring. Many of the groups and leaders in the uprisings were trained and funded in part by the US. Not directly militarily or to push violence, but with the tools (and hope) to foment their own "peaceful" uprisings against their rulers.
For example - https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html
Funding and training was also given to many of those involved in the protests in Syria at the beginning of the civil war there, so it's reasonable to assume training may well have been given to some of those in Libya in the hope they used it against Gadaffi and his regime.
For example - https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html
Funding and training was also given to many of those involved in the protests in Syria at the beginning of the civil war there, so it's reasonable to assume training may well have been given to some of those in Libya in the hope they used it against Gadaffi and his regime.
Permabanned
The US has just pulled out of the United Nations Human Rights Council.
That should give them a freer hand dealing with their own migrant crisis, good move!
That should give them a freer hand dealing with their own migrant crisis, good move!
Last edited:
Soldato
Lol really they intervened, spent billions, endangered there soldiers lives to avert a massacre...
If you really believe that you need to go for a good long walk and apply some critical thinking.
Soldato
Perhaps you ought to stop believing that what's in the newspaper is the truth all the time.
Our government has no interest in the lives of random civilians of other nations. But it has every interest in toppling other nations leaders when they are harming our interests financially or politically.
Soldato
Yeah right, just swallow what they say to you and repeat it so it sounds right.
After all a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth.
Military force is a tool off the state and it is used not just for our defence but also for securing other interests you would have to be naive not to see this.
OK so forgetting the back and forth "no you're naive" etc.. what actual evidence do you have re: Libya to dispute the official narrative? Or indeed to support your claims that the West didn't care about the potential massacre of civilians in Benghazi?
Soldato
What evidence do you have that they intervened to prevent a massacre? Where were they when gaddafi was hurting his people for dozens of years?
Potential massacre? Come on dude, it was just an excuse to finish the regime off. The West had every interest of getting rid of gaddafi and installing a pro western leader.
No one lifted a finger in Afghanistan when the Russians left and mujahideen groups killed each other and civilians. When Saddam killed the Shias/Kurds.
It all happened after September 11, when these nations and there support for terrorists was seen as a reason to pacify them.
Aside from Benghazi being under threat and it literally being the reason given for the UN resolution in the first place? You're the one suggesting I'm naive and yet when prompted it seems you have nothing to back up your position.
https://www.un.org/press/en/2011/sc10200.doc.htm
UN said:
Funny that, there doesn't appear to be a pro-Western Leader - the country is a bit of a mess now really... Gaddafi had started making peace with the west before he decided massacring civilians was an appropriate response to protests/descent. I don't doubt that the West have found it useful to get rid of him in the end he is a dictator after all (you'll find if you look at the state department communications on Wikileaks for example that, for example, US diplomats in the region were doing pretty much what they purport to do publicly - promoting democracy, human rights etc..) but it certainly wasn't preferable for what actually happened to happen... Obama stalled when it came to intervening and it was only when it became critical that he decided to do so and that was heavily influenced by the threat of a massacre occurring in Benghazi.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,589
Well hello there, evidence you say!
Why not... the official House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report on Libya, Examination of intervention and collapse and the UK's future policy options!!
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmfaff/119/119.pdf
It's a long reading! But I will sum it up to you! There was no evidence that Mr Gaddafi was going to do anything and in-fact went out his way to avoid civilian casualties and the best part is that they found evidence that the rebels (terrorist scum) was lying out the ass to the west and the MSM was aiding that. (＠＾◡＾)
We went in there and ****** his entire country on the same lies we invaded Iraq and removed Saddam.
(* ^ ω ^)
Last edited:
"went out his way to avoid civilian casualties" bit dubious... but regardless what you've linked to seems to support what I've said re: the reasons for Western intervention
if you want to later claim that they were flawed or the risks were lower than anticipated retrospectively etc.. or that things should have been done differently/that a political solution should have been found after initial military action etc..etc.. then that is a different argument - it doesn't undermine the facts re: the motivation of Western Leaders at the time action was taken