binka
!!!!!!!!!
does this mean 40 years from now we can expect the establishment to wheel out elder statesman hague to justify the bombing of denmark?
its something to look forward to i suppose
Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement
- Thread starter ernestolynch
- Start date
does this mean 40 years from now we can expect the establishment to wheel out elder statesman hague to justify the bombing of denmark?
its something to look forward to i suppose
Thank you for finally bowing to my pressure and changing the pro-NATO thread title which CwispMagnet put on the thread.
likesfish
You can't park here sir
actually ours were brought to be operated off ships and have more powerful motors and other stuff that make them better just not twice as good.
and earnst. If the 80s revival band ever go up against an apache they will die because unless you do something moronic like the long range daylight raid the yanks tried. they are very hard to kill.
use an apache properly and they are fucking terrifying the Russian hind was bad news apaches smaller smarter weapons faster more manvourable and can shoot and hit you from a distance day or night.
if your sitting in a pick up truck with a machine gun or Russia's latest man portable missile system your basically fucked as it will see you first and kill you while your figuring if thats a helicopter in the distance.
and earnst. If the 80s revival band ever go up against an apache they will die because unless you do something moronic like the long range daylight raid the yanks tried. they are very hard to kill.
use an apache properly and they are fucking terrifying the Russian hind was bad news apaches smaller smarter weapons faster more manvourable and can shoot and hit you from a distance day or night.
if your sitting in a pick up truck with a machine gun or Russia's latest man portable missile system your basically fucked as it will see you first and kill you while your figuring if thats a helicopter in the distance.
I'd always thought that behind your incoherence you actually had something to say.
When are you going to say it?
Peter Dow
Standard Bearer
Libyan state TV enemy propaganda still broadcasting
On the 24th April there was a strike against TV studios.
NATO also needs to take out the broadcasting equipment such as the ground transmitters and aerials and they need to stop any satellite broadcasts if they have not already done so.
When in 2007, Nilesat and Arabsat were broadcasting Al-Zawraa pro-terror-in-Iraq TV, I produced a video highlighting the perverse situation of the USA, then of course under the Bush administration, aiding Egypt with $1 billion plus a year.
It is bad enough when the oil-rich Arab kingdoms buy Arabsat satellites from western TV satellite companies so they can provide a platform for the West’s enemies to spread their anti-Western propaganda.
It just seems so much worse when poor Egypt does the same while receiving the USA’s aid money.
Although the Arab League did ask Arabsat to stop broadcasting Liyban state TV, there are so many satellites up there and such a large capacity for channels that I think that when the West gets sufficiently angry about one satellite channel, the enemy just switch the enemy channel to using another satellite, perhaps rebrand the channel under another name, make superficial changes to appease the Western intelligence agencies who then assume they have won a victory, lose interest and concentration, and meanwhile pro-terror enemy propaganda broadcasting continues and never at any point in time is the West achieving a responsible control of these Egyptian and Arab satellites because the management of the satellites is in unreliable hands of regimes who have a status quo to defend and western influence to fight against in case real democratic revolutions oust their boss dictators or kings.
Al Zawraa was stopped in 2007 by jamming but this was a very flagrant pro-terrorist channel which could not be overlooked even by the most negligent of Western military intelligence agencies.
I can't speak Arabic but English-language TV such as the BBC does report that other Arabic satellite channels are including and promoting pro-terrorist views into news and comment programming.
Although enemy propaganda broadcasting continues it does not seem to be generating enough focused anger in the West to lead to a strong enough demand to get all offending Arabic channels taken off the air and the satellite management into responsible hands.
I would say the response of the West and NATO has been inadequate, insufficiently robust, lame and pathetic.
In terms of winning the war against Gaddafi, and the wider global war on terror, I think a solution to the enemy satellite propaganda problem could be NATO seizing control of Arab / Egyptian satellites or if that is not possible perhaps knocking those satellites out of operation altogether, perhaps putting those satellite managers on the FBI’s most-wanted list, getting Interpol arrest warrants for them, whisking them off to Guantanamo, whatever.
Confronting and dealing with the enemy-controlled satellite TV problem I feel would be much more of a “silver bullet” to winning the global war on terror than taking out Bin Laden, welcome though that was.
Is President Obama getting the intelligence advice he needs?
Didn’t I hear Obama say something in a speech about “satellite TV helping the Arab-spring revolutions”? It is not that simple Mr President.
Satellites like guns are weapons of war and they are neither intrinsically good nor bad – it depends on who is controlling them and on whose side they are on.
It may be that in order to placate western impatience with the pace of Arab democratisation, to lull President Obama and his advisors into a belief that Arab satellite broadcasting could and should be left alone in Arab regime hands, last year a certain relaxing of control of satellite TV output was allowed by Arab regime military and intelligence advisors to allow some criticism of dictators, to organise protest demonstrations, to prompt the Arab spring and to accept the sacrifice of a couple of aging dictators?
Perhaps some Arab regimes have given a little to avoid losing everything which is what might happen if NATO seizes control over all Arabic language satellite broadcasting.
NATO intelligence agencies do need to focus on the Arabic satellite control problem and we need a robust longer-lasting solution than simply a temporary jamming of certain satellite channels at certain times which is too little and too late to confront and defeat Arabic enemy propaganda.
If destroying enemy satellites is the last resort then better that than losing any war. We simply cannot afford to put the profits of western satellite companies before the interests of winning our wars.
The west built those satellites, we put them into orbit, we handed them over to our enemies and now we are paying the price for handing the enemy a weapon they are using against us.
I hope NATO acts decisively and soon.
Gaddafi's propaganda machine is part of his war effort against us and we need to shut it up. So that is why it is has been (unsuccessfully) targeted by NATO.BBC said:
On the 24th April there was a strike against TV studios.
and they got hit again a few days ago.
Now Gaddafi's broadcasters can easily make a propaganda TV or radio programme in a secret bunker. So striking the peace-time TV broadcasting studios is not enough.
NATO also needs to take out the broadcasting equipment such as the ground transmitters and aerials and they need to stop any satellite broadcasts if they have not already done so.
When in 2007, Nilesat and Arabsat were broadcasting Al-Zawraa pro-terror-in-Iraq TV, I produced a video highlighting the perverse situation of the USA, then of course under the Bush administration, aiding Egypt with $1 billion plus a year.
It is bad enough when the oil-rich Arab kingdoms buy Arabsat satellites from western TV satellite companies so they can provide a platform for the West’s enemies to spread their anti-Western propaganda.
It just seems so much worse when poor Egypt does the same while receiving the USA’s aid money.
Although the Arab League did ask Arabsat to stop broadcasting Liyban state TV, there are so many satellites up there and such a large capacity for channels that I think that when the West gets sufficiently angry about one satellite channel, the enemy just switch the enemy channel to using another satellite, perhaps rebrand the channel under another name, make superficial changes to appease the Western intelligence agencies who then assume they have won a victory, lose interest and concentration, and meanwhile pro-terror enemy propaganda broadcasting continues and never at any point in time is the West achieving a responsible control of these Egyptian and Arab satellites because the management of the satellites is in unreliable hands of regimes who have a status quo to defend and western influence to fight against in case real democratic revolutions oust their boss dictators or kings.
Al Zawraa was stopped in 2007 by jamming but this was a very flagrant pro-terrorist channel which could not be overlooked even by the most negligent of Western military intelligence agencies.
I can't speak Arabic but English-language TV such as the BBC does report that other Arabic satellite channels are including and promoting pro-terrorist views into news and comment programming.
Although enemy propaganda broadcasting continues it does not seem to be generating enough focused anger in the West to lead to a strong enough demand to get all offending Arabic channels taken off the air and the satellite management into responsible hands.
I would say the response of the West and NATO has been inadequate, insufficiently robust, lame and pathetic.
In terms of winning the war against Gaddafi, and the wider global war on terror, I think a solution to the enemy satellite propaganda problem could be NATO seizing control of Arab / Egyptian satellites or if that is not possible perhaps knocking those satellites out of operation altogether, perhaps putting those satellite managers on the FBI’s most-wanted list, getting Interpol arrest warrants for them, whisking them off to Guantanamo, whatever.
Confronting and dealing with the enemy-controlled satellite TV problem I feel would be much more of a “silver bullet” to winning the global war on terror than taking out Bin Laden, welcome though that was.
Is President Obama getting the intelligence advice he needs?
Didn’t I hear Obama say something in a speech about “satellite TV helping the Arab-spring revolutions”? It is not that simple Mr President.
Satellites like guns are weapons of war and they are neither intrinsically good nor bad – it depends on who is controlling them and on whose side they are on.
It may be that in order to placate western impatience with the pace of Arab democratisation, to lull President Obama and his advisors into a belief that Arab satellite broadcasting could and should be left alone in Arab regime hands, last year a certain relaxing of control of satellite TV output was allowed by Arab regime military and intelligence advisors to allow some criticism of dictators, to organise protest demonstrations, to prompt the Arab spring and to accept the sacrifice of a couple of aging dictators?
Perhaps some Arab regimes have given a little to avoid losing everything which is what might happen if NATO seizes control over all Arabic language satellite broadcasting.
NATO intelligence agencies do need to focus on the Arabic satellite control problem and we need a robust longer-lasting solution than simply a temporary jamming of certain satellite channels at certain times which is too little and too late to confront and defeat Arabic enemy propaganda.
If destroying enemy satellites is the last resort then better that than losing any war. We simply cannot afford to put the profits of western satellite companies before the interests of winning our wars.
The west built those satellites, we put them into orbit, we handed them over to our enemies and now we are paying the price for handing the enemy a weapon they are using against us.
I hope NATO acts decisively and soon.
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
do you work in satellites? 
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
I see the press are pushing the reports about Gadaffi troops rapign women and being given Viagra to help them do it....
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
The press are taking their lead from the ICC. The ICC making taking the political initiative and influencing the international agenda?
"Apparently, [Gaddafi] decided to punish, using rape": No actual evidence just an "apparently". From a very senior legally qualified and hugely experienced prosecutor? An 'apparently' and no evidence . . .
Legally and politically it's way, way beyond the mandate of the ICC as I understand it.
"Apparently, [Gaddafi] decided to punish, using rape": No actual evidence just an "apparently". From a very senior legally qualified and hugely experienced prosecutor? An 'apparently' and no evidence . . .
Legally and politically it's way, way beyond the mandate of the ICC as I understand it.
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
It will be a surprise though if shit like this doesn't happen though Will it not?
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
Has Gadaffi any proven antecedents in this area, or is it another 'cluster bombs' moment?
Divisive Cotton and the pbmen "tweeted" about that ages ago.
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
remember he wasnt shelling or bombarding protestors or funerals either . He did not blow the shit out of entire swathes of tripoli as was claimed . There was no genocide , no mercenary legions . Now its industrial amounts of viagra...for fucks sake .
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
if what didnt happen ?
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
I'm just asking a question: is there relevant antecedence, what is the evidence - because 'apparently' isn't terribly helpful in itself.
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
i know , i was only emphasising the antecedence of previous made up hysteria to justify this aggression against libya .
elbows
Well-Known Member
I suspect the reasons are some of the following:
To ensure continued access to oil for europe.
To get rid of a partner who had an 'unreliable track record' who some now in power may have felt unhappy about having brought in from the cold some years back.
Due to lack of close & powerful allies, nuclear weapons etc, its one of the relatively few countries left that is easy to make war with.
USA not publicly showing a large appetite for this conflict, but at same time its clear they have not forgotten Lockerbie.
One of the few countries thats been throwing its sovereign wealth around by investing abroad that we could possibly make war with without very large international implications.
Add in the fact that Libya is one of the few countries affected by the arab spring where our governments actually have the opportunity to be seen by some as being 'on the right side' of the uprisings, the possibility that Sarkozy and/or Cameron fancied a little war for their own domestic political reasons, and thought it would be well easy to win, and its not hard to see how things came to this.
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
The oil was happily being extracted without a problem.Unfortunatly the locals decided to have a civil war because some of them evidently don't know whats good for them.
Nasser-Hitler
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
Kissinger
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Hmmm
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Hmmm indeed. I smell an engineered hysterical panic here. Perhaps to justify ground troops?
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
Well special forces are already there of course the British don't comment on them.The French just admitted it with a shrug.We couldn't commit the sort of ground force that would be needed without a major effort.Even if Cameron wanted to.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Possible. However given that one thing we have learnt from Libya in 2011 is that both sides would be strong favourites to win an international bullshitting olympics, it could just be the usual crap, so I will have to wait and see.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Lovely moment on Question Time last night when Germaine Greer expressed her doubts over whether the net amount of rape would be significantly changed by whether the troops on the ground were ours or Gaddafi's.
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
Time they shipped her back home.
Robot Rapists powered with Viagra.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
