lol, wiki has his deathdate up as today.
they've apparently captured his son
I still don't know why we did this.
Barry always wanted to wage a war since he was a lad?
Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2011-08-21 15:17:48)
LET'S GET THIS SHIT STARTED
>Ghaddafi
>Ghaddafi
Oh wait, he was on our side.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14774533
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14774533
Yay...US and UK spy agencies built close ties with their Libyan counterparts during the so-called War on Terror, according to documents discovered at the office of Col Gaddafi's former spy chief.
The papers suggest the CIA abducted several suspected militants from 2002 to 2004 and handed them to Tripoli.
The UK's MI6 also apparently gave the Gaddafi regime details of dissidents.
...
The BBC's Kevin Connolly in Tripoli says the documents illuminate a short period when the Libyan intelligence agency was a trusted and valued ally of both MI6 and the CIA, with the tone of exchanges between agents breezy and bordering on the chummy.
Human Rights Watch accused the CIA of condoning torture.
"It wasn't just abducting suspected Islamic militants and handing them over to the Libyan intelligence. The CIA also sent the questions they wanted Libyan intelligence to ask and, from the files, it's very clear they were present in some of the interrogations themselves," said Peter Bouckaert of HRW.
The papers outline the rendition of several suspects, including one that Human Rights Watch has identified as Abdel Hakim Belhaj, known in the documents as Abdullah al-Sadiq, who is now the military commander of the anti-Gaddafi forces in Tripoli.
The Americans snatched him in South East Asia before flying him to Tripoli in 2004, the documents claim.
Fuck Israel
Everybody knew that.
Next they'll come out saying that the US supported Saddam prior to the Gulf War!
Shocking information.
Shocking information.
Geopolitical alliances are always shifting. That's not shocking at all. I even hear the US befriended those British chaps.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Here's a thought.Macbeth wrote:
I still don't know why we did this.
British businesses are scrambling to return to Libya in anticipation of the end to the country's civil war, but they are concerned that European and North American rivals are already stealing a march as a new race to turn a profit out of the war-torn nation begins.
Business leaders with previous experience of making deals in Libya have told The Independent that plans are in hand to send a trade mission to Benghazi to meet leaders of the Transitional National Council (TNC).
Lord Trefgarne, a Conservative peer and chair of the Libyan British Business Council, said he hoped to be able to lead a group to the country "by late September, early October". He said: "Any mission would be done in consultation with the TNC and would only be made if adequate security protections were in place. I believe we should be trying to make sure we can get whatever business we can."
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Which is just a way of saying we'll deal with anyone, however low they are.Kmar wrote:
Geopolitical alliances are always shifting. That's not shocking at all. I even hear the US befriended those British chaps.
Fuck Israel
Welcome to the real world. Glad you finally made it.Dilbert_X wrote:
Which is just a way of saying we'll deal with anyone, however low they are.Kmar wrote:
Geopolitical alliances are always shifting. That's not shocking at all. I even hear the US befriended those British chaps.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Shirley, you don't think we just used the rebellion as an excuse to destroy their country in order to get better economic deals than we were already getting from OG?Kmar wrote:
Here's a thought.Macbeth wrote:
I still don't know why we did this.British businesses are scrambling to return to Libya in anticipation of the end to the country's civil war, but they are concerned that European and North American rivals are already stealing a march as a new race to turn a profit out of the war-torn nation begins.
Business leaders with previous experience of making deals in Libya have told The Independent that plans are in hand to send a trade mission to Benghazi to meet leaders of the Transitional National Council (TNC).
Lord Trefgarne, a Conservative peer and chair of the Libyan British Business Council, said he hoped to be able to lead a group to the country "by late September, early October". He said: "Any mission would be done in consultation with the TNC and would only be made if adequate security protections were in place. I believe we should be trying to make sure we can get whatever business we can."
That's extremely pessimistic...
Ty wrote:
Interesting that the US House of Reps has voted against letting the Pentagon supply arms and training to Libyan rebels. Seems lessons have been learned from all the times this ended up biting the US in the arse, notably with Saddam and Osama. Well done.
They seem to greatly prefer the AK.Shahter wrote:
there are so many ways for usa to get weapons supplied to the rebels without direct pentagon involvement that there's really no need to bother.
That's a golden marketing opportunity for Russia.
Or China, or India...
I'm with Ty on this one.
Perhaps there is a glimmer of hope.
Perhaps the US House of Representatives has learned from the last 50 years of US involvement in the Middle East, and decided to not give a crapton of weapons to a potentially hostile nation.
Then again, maybe we're too busy giving guns and money to the Paki ISI & Afghani WTF, and can't be bothered with arming the New Lybia.
Kmar wrote:
Geopolitical alliances are always shifting. That's not shocking at all. I even hear the US befriended those British chaps.
Hell, we even sell weapons & aircraft to a former English penal colony, on an island in the southern hemisphere.Dilbert_X wrote:
Which is just a way of saying we'll deal with anyone, however low they are.
"Surely you can't be serious"Macbeth wrote:
Shirley, you don't think we just used the rebellion as an excuse to destroy their country in order to get better economic deals than we were already getting from OG?
That's extremely pessimistic...
Hell, we even worked with those lowly Commies.rdx-fx wrote:
Kmar wrote:
Geopolitical alliances are always shifting. That's not shocking at all. I even hear the US befriended those British chaps.Hell, we even sell weapons & aircraft to a former English penal colony, on an island in the southern hemisphere.Dilbert_X wrote:
Which is just a way of saying we'll deal with anyone, however low they are.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
It doesn't have to be that way, and as you're beginning to notice - it usually blows up in your face.Kmar wrote:
Welcome to the real world. Glad you finally made it.Dilbert_X wrote:
Which is just a way of saying we'll deal with anyone, however low they are.Kmar wrote:
Geopolitical alliances are always shifting. That's not shocking at all. I even hear the US befriended those British chaps.
Fuck Israel
Tu Stultus Es
you say it like there's an actual need to be marketing AK.rdx-fx wrote:
Ty wrote:
Interesting that the US House of Reps has voted against letting the Pentagon supply arms and training to Libyan rebels. Seems lessons have been learned from all the times this ended up biting the US in the arse, notably with Saddam and Osama. Well done.They seem to greatly prefer the AK.Shahter wrote:
there are so many ways for usa to get weapons supplied to the rebels without direct pentagon involvement that there's really no need to bother.
That's a golden marketing opportunity for Russia.
Or China, or India...
also, if the goal is for rebels to be supplied with weapons who the fuck cares what weapons that would be? it's not like usa was going to get anything out of an arms deal that small - might as well pay somebody else to supply the AK's.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Have you guys seen the Libya rebels use anything other than captured government weapons (in terms of expensive machinery)? They did not need sophisticated anti-air weapons because we supplied them with an Air Force.Shahter wrote:
you say it like there's an actual need to be marketing AK.rdx-fx wrote:
Ty wrote:
Interesting that the US House of Reps has voted against letting the Pentagon supply arms and training to Libyan rebels. Seems lessons have been learned from all the times this ended up biting the US in the arse, notably with Saddam and Osama. Well done.They seem to greatly prefer the AK.Shahter wrote:
there are so many ways for usa to get weapons supplied to the rebels without direct pentagon involvement that there's really no need to bother.
That's a golden marketing opportunity for Russia.
Or China, or India...
also, if the goal is for rebels to be supplied with weapons who the fuck cares what weapons that would be? it's not like usa was going to get anything out of an arms deal that small - might as well pay somebody else to supply the AK's.
I remember reading something about them receiving boots and helmets and radios but as far as weapons, the war seemed to take care of itself. You know, with half the Army defecting and all.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/the-home … s-20110615
Last edited by Spearhead (2012-01-12 22:29:50)
Calling all naysayers here!
And in related news...
Cinnabon is first U.S. franchise in Libya
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/01/smallbu … /index.htm
"We quickly halted everything because the revolution happened," said Shattuck. "Fortunately we were able to secure the location and it made it without serious damage."
CIA helped cinnabon "secure the location"
Imagine that, regime change with zero Americans dead and an actual semi-functioning government that nevertheless is presiding over lawlessness and anarchy. Methinks the neocons are butthurt. Crazy radical muslims and their hate for democracy and shit. Thanks obummer.wikipedia wrote:
Libyan 2012 election
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Gen … tion,_2012
Further changes were later made, changing the ratio to 120 constituency seats and 80 list seats, reportedly in an attempt to reduce the Muslim Brotherhood's influence in the new parliament.
Libya's National Transitional Council transfers power to the democratically elected General National Congress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_National_Congress
According to BBC News, the transfer was "the first peaceful transition of power in Libya's modern history"
And in related news...
Cinnabon is first U.S. franchise in Libya
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/01/smallbu … /index.htm
"We quickly halted everything because the revolution happened," said Shattuck. "Fortunately we were able to secure the location and it made it without serious damage."
CIA helped cinnabon "secure the location"
Last edited by Spearhead (2012-08-09 13:23:53)
Thanks for the illegal war? Ok.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Illegal war lol
Last edited by Macbeth (2012-08-09 13:25:39)
There's such a thing as an illegal war?
The President can't spend more than sixty days in a combat zone without a formal declaration of war from Congress, or Congress' approval of such a police action. Yes, it was illegal.
I'm glad that you feel that we can run around the planet dropping bombs on people willy nilly as long as no Americans come home in body bags though. The thousands of people we killed in Libya surely don't matter because the ends justify the means amirite?
I'm glad that you feel that we can run around the planet dropping bombs on people willy nilly as long as no Americans come home in body bags though. The thousands of people we killed in Libya surely don't matter because the ends justify the means amirite?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Law added in the 70s to fuck Nixon. Has been ignored by every president sinceJay wrote:
The President can't spend more than sixty days in a combat zone without a formal declaration of war from Congress, or Congress' approval of such a police action. Yes, it was illegal.