The Singapore Forum

Again I agree. Yeah I as T2k said the US is in a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. The should of said no or yes to involvement at the outset when the first reports of airstrikes on civilians came out (and revolution was close) and stayed the course and not decide much later to change their minds.

Yes, it's more than a no-fly zone now. Now it's "we're protecting civilians"...which was used as the reason to waste a column of gov't tanks, APC's and soft-skinned vehicles heading towards Benghazi. So, we're essentially on the side of the rebels now, I guess? And they are...who? Probably a bunch of islamic nutjobs.

Whoever wins will sell us oil. Why do we care who wins?

I was reading an article dated last Wednesday that talked about how all the European diplomats were frustrated with Hilary Clinton on the subject of Libya because whenever they tried to get her to come on board with a no fly zone etc, she would repeatedly answer 'There are difficulties' and then refuse to elaborate. It seems it took the direct threat from Gaddafi of going house-to-house to execute rebels in Benghazi to do the trick. But, the US is damned if we do and damned if we don't, that's for sure.

The outcome of this ought to be interesting though. As I recall, when the US bombed his HQ back in 1986, he retreated and basically STFU for something like 25 years. I can't see that anyone involved in this current effort has the stomach to leave him in power, but time will tell, won't it?

Edit: Found the article, see Here

So my theory was kinda right. The US were saying one thing but doing another, by why?

The alternet (alternate news network) was saying that Israel was paying and supplying mercenaries to Giddaffi, now normally I would say whatever however I did discover that Saif_al-Islam_Gaddafi (Gaddafi spokesperson son) was very close to Israel and was infact dating a popular israeli actress. Heck it's even on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saif_al-Islam_Gaddafi

So the theory goes that Gaddafi's son asks help from Israel. Israel agrees and supplies mercenaries (at large profit) and demands the US stall so they can regain the country so quietly they do. British and French go WTF? and start getting suspicious and start getting annoyed. The US starts getting figity that news is going to get out so they set a deadline (remember the 48hrs speech from Gaddaffi's son) well that passed and the US was forced to come to the table with Britain and France at the UN but convinced them to do nothing if a ceasefire in libya holds. Well Gaddafi agrees to a ceasefire, but ignores it, so the US was forced (to save face) bomb the crap out of libya. This is the only theory that seems to fit.

I was wondering if you can copyright a conspiracy theory?

you're actually serious?

so those african mercenaries shooting civilians a couple weeks ago were actually Jewish?

Morrolan wrote:you're actually serious?

The theory yeah kinda out there crazy but it's the only thing that can explain it.

Tas wrote:so those african mercenaries shooting civilians a couple weeks ago were actually Jewish?

No. Israel doesn't use it's own. They are sub-sahara mercenaries. (ok it's from Iran)

Israeli arms distribution company Global CST has reportedly, under the authorization of Tel Aviv, provided Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi with African mercenaries to clamp down on anti-government protesters.
Egyptian sources have revealed that the Israeli company has so far provided Gaddafi's regime with 50,000 African mercenaries to attack the civilian anti-government protesters in Libya.

http://previous.presstv.ir/detail.aspx? ... =351020506

wow found this! Maybe my conspiracy might be plausable...

African mercenaries hired by the Gaddafi regime to kill Libyan protesters would be immune from prosecution for war crimes due to a clause in this weekend's UN resolution that was demanded by the United States.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... rimes.html

So in one post you suggest I shouldn't believe what is written in the Telegraph, and then you quote the Telegraph suggesting it is one of your best sources to back your crackpot theory.

Hypocrisy of the highest degree!

Fat Bob wrote:So in one post you suggest I shouldn't believe what is written in the Telegraph, and then you quote the Telegraph suggesting it is one of your best sources to back your crackpot theory.

I never said don't read the telegraph, it's actually quite a good paper, just don't let it be the only thing you read.

Back to the topic... Libya..

A stalemate appears to be emerging in Libya between rebels and forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, a top U.S. general told Congress on Thursday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/ ... 3420110407

Its a stalemate cause the US is making it a stalemate by bombing the advancing rebels. WTF is going on?

Am I the only one thinking "why the hell are US/UK/France/Nato getting involved?" Didn't some of us jump up and down saying that the invasion of Iraq was illegal? How is the bombing of Libya any different?

The Sepos are prone to friendly fire. Always the same.

Fat Bob wrote:Am I the only one thinking "why the hell are US/UK/France/Nato getting involved?" Didn't some of us jump up and down saying that the invasion of Iraq was illegal? How is the bombing of Libya any different?.

UN resolution with more real evidence. just wish Germany doesn't chicken out every time