47 replies to this topic

[Corp]

Coffey, on 15 January 2013 - 10:34 PM, said:

Well there is videos of him clearly being driven around in a jeep with him hanging out the sunroof dancing and waving with everyone in the street joining in. I don't see Obama doing that, he drives around in an insanely protected limo which even has a special nickname.

Why was he never assassinated?

Oh and now he's dead Al Qaeda runs Libya.

*sigh* Al Qaeda does not run Libya. They had a free election where extremists parties were banned and several Islamic militia have peacefully disbanded. These are not the actions of a country run by an extreme Islamic organization. If you didn't like the intervention, fine, but making false claims does nothing to help your argument.

[Coffey]

Corp, on 18 January 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:

*sigh* Al Qaeda does not run Libya. They had a free election where extremists parties were banned and several Islamic militia have peacefully disbanded. These are not the actions of a country run by an extreme Islamic organization. If you didn't like the intervention, fine, but making false claims does nothing to help your argument.

http://www.telegraph...courthouse.html

Edited by Coffey, 18 January 2013 - 05:13 PM.

[Corp]

Yes I know all about the courthouse deal, a single event that happened over a year ago. So unless Al Qaeda has decided to believe in secular government, free elections, and disarming Islamic militia they're not running the country.

[MichaelW]

BlackRedLittleDevil, on 18 January 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

LOL.  Prosperous OK, not sure about democracy.

Most of these people wouldn't know a fair election if it happened in their local neighbour (which, ironically enough, it does).

the L, on 14 January 2013 - 11:40 PM, said:

http://www.informati...rticle33613.htm

Contrary to popular belief, Libya , which western media described as “Gaddafi’s military dictatorship” was in actual fact one of the world’s most democratic States.

That you, Metsada? That crazy Turkish guy living in the Netherlands who openly advocated jihad?

[MichaelW]

OverSword, on 15 January 2013 - 10:32 PM, said:

The real reason the western powers (and make no mistake, it was the western powers) orchestratedGaddafi's overthrow was because he was starting an African Union without borrowing from western banks.  He was in the process along with some other N. African leaders of starting an African Union bank based on the Gold Standard, arranging free trade agreements and basically going to cut out the non-African powers, forcing them for the first time to deal with countries in Africa as equals.  The PTB would not have it.

Research it and discover the truth or put your head back in the sand and watch some more TV.

That has been proven to complete false but it's not really surprising that you consider it to be true. I mean, who else would consider Ghaddafi to be a "good guy"?

Oh, and FYI, the African Union already exists as a political force. They even said they'd pledge troops to help Mali defeat the Islamists but as usual, the AU couldn't get it's **** together and France had to step in and solve problems.

Honestly, why should I do any research when I already know the facts? You tell me.

[MichaelW]

Coffey, on 15 January 2013 - 10:34 PM, said:

Why was he never assassinated?

Because his supporters would have torn the person whoever did it to shreds?

Quote

Further proven by the fact a Rothschild central bank was put in place the moment Al Qaeda had taken over power of Libya.

How much marijuana do you have to smoke to think that the Rothschilds and Al Qaeda are jointly ruling Libya?

[MichaelW]

Corp, on 18 January 2013 - 05:28 PM, said:

Yes I know all about the courthouse deal, a single event that happened over a year ago. So unless Al Qaeda has decided to believe in secular government, free elections, and disarming Islamic militia they're not running the country.

Coffey doesn't compute logic, otherwise he wouldn't claim Ghaddafi exposed the Illuminati and that the Rothschilds and Al Qaeda are ruling Libya.

Next thing you'll know he'll claim Obama is some sort of lizardman.

[Coffey]

MichaelW, on 21 January 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

Because his supporters would have torn the person whoever did it to shreds?

How much marijuana do you have to smoke to think that the Rothschilds and Al Qaeda are jointly ruling Libya?

His country was his supporters, I have proven Libya has an Al Qaeda flag above the courthouse. Where is your evidence they do not control Libya?

It is a fact there was a Rothschild central bank put in place after Gaddafi was taken out. So 2 proven facts and you can't prove those are not true.

Don't do any drugs. Not even pharmaceutical. But again you make up your own little conspiracy thing to rule out a real one. Never said they jointly ruled Libya. Nobody did. That is twisting what was said to make it seem silly. Youa re good at that though, twisting facts to devalue people.

I said Al Qaeda was the "rebels" in Libya (fact) which where supported by the west with funding and air support (fact) and when they had overthrown Gaddafi a central banking system owned by the Rothschild was put in place. (FACT again)

All those things are facts, whether you like them or not. They can be checked up and are not hidden form the public.

IRAQ, Afghanistan and Libya all had central banks owned by the Rothschild put in place after we gained control. That is a fact and is not a conspiracy theory you can even check it yourself.


You mind adding facts or a proper opinion that is constructive tot he discussion please? Cause frankly what you posted was pointless.

MichaelW, on 21 January 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

Coffey doesn't compute logic, otherwise he wouldn't claim Ghaddafi exposed the Illuminati and that the Rothschilds and Al Qaeda are ruling Libya.

Next thing you'll know he'll claim Obama is some sort of lizardman.

Oh I've caught you out on this before, you brandish all conspiracy's as the same in an attempt to make the person look like a conspiracy nut. Told you last time I don't believe in lizard men etc. So well done, seems I remember facts better than you. So how can your opinion be of value when you can't even remember that?


Yeah I don't compute logic which is why I excel at maths and physics....

Edited by Coffey, 21 January 2013 - 12:07 PM.

[The New Richard Nixon]

I dont see any AL Q running Libya, it's more like Gaddafi' militia who are running around, apart from that incident in Benghazi. There has been incidents with the militia and not AL Q.

[Corp]

Coffey, on 21 January 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

His country was his supporters, I have proven Libya has an Al Qaeda flag above the courthouse. Where is your evidence they do not control Libya?

Yes you've proven that an Al Qadea flag flew over a courthouse once, a fact no one denies. What you've failed to do is prove that Al Qaeda is currently running Libya.

[Coffey]

Corp, on 21 January 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:

Yes you've proven that an Al Qadea flag flew over a courthouse once, a fact no one denies. What you've failed to do is prove that Al Qaeda is currently running Libya.

Here:

Quote

The revolutionary militias contend they are Libya's heroes - the ones who drove Qaddafi from power and who now keep security in the streets at a time when the police and military are all but nonexistent. They insist they will not give up their weapons to a government that is too weak, too corrupt and, they fear, too willing to let elements of the old dictatorship back into positions of power.

Source: http://www.thenation...-who-runs-libya


So if the militia put the flag there and the militia where seen with Al Qaeda flags...

[Corp]

The article you provided stated that the militias were fighting each other, ie not a united front. There was also no mention of which militia had al Qaeda connections, how many did, what influence they have, what numbers they have, what territory they control, etc etc. You are still left with only a single event.

To counter there's the fact that extremist political parties, which al Qaeda would fall under, have been banned. There's the election where the hardcore Islamic parties, which al Qaeda would work with, lost to the more moderate parties. And you have Islamic militias being disarmed by protesters, which I doubt al Qaeda would be happy about.

The evidence that al Qaeda is not running Libya is far stronger than the evidence that they are.

[MichaelW]

Coffey, on 21 January 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

His country was his supporters.

Then if the whole country was his supporters, why did they rebel against him? Why did an angry mob drag him out of the whole he was hiding in and kill him if the whole country supported him as you so apparently and confidently claim?

Quote

I have proven Libya has an Al Qaeda flag above the courthouse. Where is your evidence they do not control Libya?

Erm, the recently elected government? They are not Al Qaeda and because one sympathiser hangs a flag on a court house doesn't mean that the whole country is under the control of Al Qaeda.

Quote

It is a fact there was a Rothschild central bank put in place after Gaddafi was taken out. So 2 proven facts and you can't prove those are not true.

You haven't proven that Al Qaeda controls Libya (an associated flag doesn't mean complete control of the country Coffey. Everyone with intelligence knows this) and you repeatedly claim the involvement of the Rothschilds without a single source to back it up.

As far as I am concerned, and anyone else familiar with the workings of internet debates, these are not facts but claims. And simply saying "that isn't true" or "that has been proven false" is sufficient enough to disprove such hilariously incorrect claims that you have presented me with.

The burden of proof is on you. Show me evidence that the government of Libya is controlled by Al Qaeda and not a pro-West moderately Islamist party. Go on.  

Quote

But again you make up your own little conspiracy thing to rule out a real one.

If I was making conspiracy theories, I'd try and make one that was much more interesting and little known amongst people than what is currently considered as fact by the vast majority of educated people.

I'm not the one making up conspiracies, although I find the notion hilarious, coming from someone who's first words were "Al Qaeda" and "Rothschilds".

Quote

That is twisting what was said to make it seem silly.

Your claims are already silly enough to not be taken seriously by most intelligent people. I don't need to do anything to make it seem less plausible.

Quote

Youa re good at that though, twisting facts to devalue people.

Devalue people? You're perfectly capable of doing that yourself Coffey. I'm merely stating what everyone else knows.

Quote

I said Al Qaeda was the "rebels" in Libya (fact).

Al Qaeda supported the rebels. Fact. Al Qaeda sympathisers were also present inside the rebels. Fact. They were not the rebels. Fact.

Quote

All those things are facts, whether you like them or not.

Only one of them is fact. You can choose which.

Quote

They can be checked up and are not hidden form the public.

On various sites that also claim other conspiracy theories? No thanks. I'd rather take my information from sites that don't make **** up. Also, why should I check it? The burden of proof lies with you. You are the one that needs to prove yourself, not me.

Quote

You mind adding facts or a proper opinion that is constructive tot he discussion please?

Considering the rest of the discussion was basically a load of disproved or blatantly untrue conspiracy theories, my post is probably one of the most constructive posts thus far (aside from Corp of course).

Quote

Cause frankly what you posted was pointless.

Aww, is this an attempt to feed me my own medicine? Coffey, you shouldn't have. Although this is also a thinly veiled attempt at shutting down the discussion so we can only guess that such desperate measures are being employed to stop me from doing what school children could do with ease: disprove your argument.  

Quote

You brandish all conspiracy's as the same in an attempt to make the person look like a conspiracy nut.

Mate, you credit me with far too much than what I am capable of. I don't need to do anything to make you look like a conspiracy nut. You're perfectly capable of doing that yourself.

It's a shame the admins refuse to let me back in to the Middle Eastern forum though. That forum has truly lost its last bastion of common sense.

Quote

So well done, seems I remember facts better than you.

Facts? What facts? All I see is a bunch of blatantly untrue but nevertheless

Quote

So how can your opinion be of value when you can't even remember that?

Because that conversation was like the selection of "facts" in your argument. Non-existent.

Quote

Yeah I don't compute logic which is why I excel at maths and physics....

Unfortunately, social studies wasn't your strong point. Which is good for me because it means I am able to crush your argument with little effort.

Had to trim the quotes down because there was so much crap, I couldn't reply to it all!

[Coffey]

MichaelW, on 21 January 2013 - 11:35 PM, said:

Then if the whole country was his supporters, why did they rebel against him? Why did an angry mob drag him out of the whole he was hiding in and kill him if the whole country supported him as you so apparently and confidently claim?



Erm, the recently elected government? They are not Al Qaeda and because one sympathiser hangs a flag on a court house doesn't mean that the whole country is under the control of Al Qaeda.



You haven't proven that Al Qaeda controls Libya (an associated flag doesn't mean complete control of the country Coffey. Everyone with intelligence knows this) and you repeatedly claim the involvement of the Rothschilds without a single source to back it up.

As far as I am concerned, and anyone else familiar with the workings of internet debates, these are not facts but claims. And simply saying "that isn't true" or "that has been proven false" is sufficient enough to disprove such hilariously incorrect claims that you have presented me with.

The burden of proof is on you. Show me evidence that the government of Libya is controlled by Al Qaeda and not a pro-West moderately Islamist party. Go on.  



If I was making conspiracy theories, I'd try and make one that was much more interesting and little known amongst people than what is currently considered as fact by the vast majority of educated people.

I'm not the one making up conspiracies, although I find the notion hilarious, coming from someone who's first words were "Al Qaeda" and "Rothschilds".



Your claims are already silly enough to not be taken seriously by most intelligent people. I don't need to do anything to make it seem less plausible.



Devalue people? You're perfectly capable of doing that yourself Coffey. I'm merely stating what everyone else knows.



Al Qaeda supported the rebels. Fact. Al Qaeda sympathisers were also present inside the rebels. Fact. They were not the rebels. Fact.



Only one of them is fact. You can choose which.



On various sites that also claim other conspiracy theories? No thanks. I'd rather take my information from sites that don't make **** up. Also, why should I check it? The burden of proof lies with you. You are the one that needs to prove yourself, not me.



Considering the rest of the discussion was basically a load of disproved or blatantly untrue conspiracy theories, my post is probably one of the most constructive posts thus far (aside from Corp of course).



Aww, is this an attempt to feed me my own medicine? Coffey, you shouldn't have. Although this is also a thinly veiled attempt at shutting down the discussion so we can only guess that such desperate measures are being employed to stop me from doing what school children could do with ease: disprove your argument.  



Mate, you credit me with far too much than what I am capable of. I don't need to do anything to make you look like a conspiracy nut. You're perfectly capable of doing that yourself.

It's a shame the admins refuse to let me back in to the Middle Eastern forum though. That forum has truly lost its last bastion of common sense.



Facts? What facts? All I see is a bunch of blatantly untrue but nevertheless



Because that conversation was like the selection of "facts" in your argument. Non-existent.



Unfortunately, social studies wasn't your strong point. Which is good for me because it means I am able to crush your argument with little effort.

Had to trim the quotes down because there was so much crap, I couldn't reply to it all!

Just going to reply in one bit because it's a waste of time replying to each bit when you haven't got a leg to stand on.

Everything I said was facts, they are all proven. It wasn't people from Libya who dragged him out etc, it was Al Qaeda. They are in Syria as well and even Obama admitted that. (yes he admitted he is supporting them)

The website I posted is a normal news website not a conspiracy one. Just like the many others reporting on it. (that was before the government was put in place)


Also election? According to Wikipedia it was not an election, it was handed down to the other guy. (Yes there is a goverment now, but there wasn't for a while, it was still run by militia)

Explain why Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya never had Central banks before then?

[Corp]

Wiki article on the Libyan election:

http://en.wikipedia...._election,_2012

It was an election with 61% voter turn out.