P.K. Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I don't know if it is too late. Personally, I think it isn't and may well give a mighty boost to morale and the resurgence of the uprising. Part of the no-fly zone incorporates taking out command and control, and it doesn't take much to work out who might become a target as part of that type of operation. Suddenly getting the 'whole world' backing them via the UN - gives a lot more hope to the 'rebels'. If gadaffi says he is going to target civil airliners, then that makes him a legitimate target straightaway in my book. I think it's laughable! The rebels are hemmed in. So what are the UN going to do about it? Short of assaulting a country's armed forces within their own international borders there's nothing they can do. So the rebels are now the UN's problem and not that fruitcake Gaddafi's. Oh yes, they've really thought this one through... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Mr Obama said Col Gaddafi's troops must pull back from rebel-held towns including Benghazi, and the authorities must allow in humanitarian aid. "If he does not comply, the international community will impose consequences," said Mr Obama. "The resolution will be enforced by military action." LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanxfella Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 If gadaffi says he is going to target civil airliners, then that makes him a legitimate target straightaway in my book. Well after Lockerbie he has form there. The guy is a fruit loop and the SAS should have huing him out to dry years ago for the outrages he has caused on British soil. He'll be just one more rich, dead loony by the end of the month. Its a shame that we have to do deals with pieces of shit like this just to fill our tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 One alternative and probably bonkers perspective which is at least worth considering is that the twitter - facebook - al jazera revolutions are very much to do with the "alliance for youth" movements which have been set up by the US State Dept in conjunction with Facebook (which is part owned by a CIA subsidiary). Google that for how some people see things. Some say that this is all about oil and that Libya has huge undeveloped reserves but was previously growing ever closer to China and Russia. The argument would then be that by stepping in to support democracy the 'west' can then ultimately win favour, contracts , etc. Al Jazera is weird. The Arabic version is like a sort of mirror image of Fox News. But the English version is awfully respectable. Everyone seems to be Oxbridge and ex BBC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 One alternative and probably bonkers perspective which is at least worth considering is that the twitter - facebook - al jazera revolutions are very much to do with the "alliance for youth" movements which have been set up by the US State Dept in conjunction with Facebook (which is part owned by a CIA subsidiary). Google that for how some people see things. Wow. Did you know they didn't land on the moon either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 well i don't know Slim. Seriously. Did you see the article on The Guardian yesterday about how the US has been manipulating sock puppets in the social media ? If we had posted that last week it would have seemed bonkers. But the article was written by Jeff Jarvis who we obviously respect and trust. And have you Googled the funding of Facebook ? As someone educated by former post modernist I don't believe in anything. It's all the same to me. But can see why people are skeptical. Ps - Google the "alliance for youth movements" which have been so much a part of Egypt, Libya Sudan etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I'm not 'googling' anything, don't you know about Tynwald's shares in Google? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 It's all the same to me. But can see why people are skeptical. Right. So you're not actually agreeing with these theories you've posted, you're just asking questions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I do see where you are coming from Slim. But did you read the Jeff Jarvis article at The Guardian ? It wasn't exactly extreme or fantastic and he has a solid track record previously. These are increasingly mainstream POVs - roughly equivalent to where climate change would have been say 20 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Is it this one Pongo - it says its been edited to remove "references to Facebook and Twitter, introduced during the editing process" sounds like an editor got abit ahead of himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 I do see where you are coming from Slim. But did you read the Jeff Jarvis article at The Guardian ? It wasn't exactly extreme or fantastic and he has a solid track record previously. These are increasingly mainstream POVs - roughly equivalent to where climate change would have been say 20 years ago. No, I read the Guardian daily and didn't see anything that suggested there's a connection between middle east revolutionary movements, alliance for youth, twitter and a CIA owned facebook. Can you link me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 wikipedia Slim. Ignore the Glen Beck reference if you want. All of that besides, the thing here as that the west has encouraged a revolution in Libya which has not gone to plan and has now turned into a military action. Is there any reason to not assume that this is ultimately about oil and influence ? Do you really believe that the social media and popular movements are not manipulated for the purpose of external agitation ? And I am not saying that we are not also very likely the good guys. The west may well be right to be trying to use popular movements and the social media to these ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 No fly zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Where are the UN resolutions to protect civilians in Bahrain? - Cory Doctrorow Slate's Tom Scocca reminds us that the west's willingness to rescue pro-democracy protesters from brutal, murderous middle-eastern despots is highly selective. If you're rebelling against a dictator who's been a thorn in America's side, you get airstrikes and UN resolutions; if you're rebelling against tyrants who are forthcoming with their oil or ports, you're lucky if the Secretary of State will bestir herself for a round of finger-wagging as your comrades are coldly murdered in the streets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 wikipedia Slim. That's quite a long way from the conspiracy stuff you originally posted. All of that besides, the thing here as that the west has encouraged a revolution in Libya which has not gone to plan and has now turned into a military action. Is there any reason to not assume that this is ultimately about oil and influence ? Shouldn't democratic nations encourage free speech? The US Govt should be encouraging organisations like this, I'd be more critical of them if they didn't. Supporting a popular uprising through these avenues seems like a better plan than selling guns to rebels. I don't make the classical conspiracy nut jump of faith that you've made. If this was simply about maintaining a secure oil supply, it'd certainly be better to maintain a stable status quo. Do you really believe that the social media and popular movements are not manipulated for the purpose of external agitation ? And I am not saying that we are not also very likely the good guys. The west may well be right to be trying to use popular movements and the social media to these ends. I'm not sure I'd say manipulated exactly. Supported perhaps. It's the leaps of faith that I object to Pongo, filling in the blanks and chucking in little conspiracy nuggets as you go. I know you're not saying these things, you're just asking questions..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.