Well, I'm about to get down voted into oblivion, but I have to state this as bluntly as possible.

This is the most perverted kind of propaganda that can be trotted out by someone, and it sickens me to see it. Glen is absolutely correct in every fact he points out, and is in that respect, doing nothing but telling the truth and educating his audience with things they likely didn't know before, and should have. It would seem that should be an unqualified good thing then, but it's not.

What makes this offensive propagandizing to me is the absolutely deliberate omission of equally true, relevant and significant facts that Glen can't help but be aware of. His sole purpose for the omission is that it suddenly shifts things from black and white into the gray that audiences don't like as much.

I'll start from the most important point, and the very premise of the talk, why do they hate us? There is a bigger question though that is even more illuminating, and it is why to they(jihadist terrorists) hate and kill their fellow Islamic countrymen and neighbours? The fact here is that jihadi terrorists before 9/11 and even more so since, have killed tens and hundreds of times as many middle eastern muslims than they have white western infidels. Glen points out plenty of reasons people can have to be upset with America over it's past actions, which is legit in itself, but NONE of those reasons explain why these jihadists target there own fellow middle eastern muslims for the exact same violence and retribution America faced on 9/11. The fact this makes plain is that the jihadi terrorists will hate not only us, but everyone who is not willing to join them unconditionally. They are not the misunderstood, historically slighted and unjustly maligned people Glen's talk might lead people to think of them as. They(jihadi terrorists) do not deserve our sympathy or apologies, their countrymen and neighbours that are their biggest victims do.

Glen also goes on to list the deaths from sanctions on Iraq as an American crime. Apparently Saddam's horrific(then American approved) war on Iran, his genocide of the Kurds, his extensive use of chemical weapons in both, his complete seizure of Kuwait and his genocide of Iraqi Shiites are not relevant to the discussion of placing sanctions on his country. In Glen's discussion, despite this laundry list of crimes against humanity, Saddam is entirely innocent and not in anyway to blame for the children starving in his country while he continued to build himself new palaces and kept his personal guard and secret police forces well equipped and well fed. How is one to take this seriously?

Finally, Glen omits a terrifically important American crime in East Timor that Bin Laden listed. No, sadly it's not our tacit support for the pro Islamic genocide of the people there in the past, but it was America's support for an end to that genocidal repression and support for a free and independent East Timor. This was listed near the very top of American crimes. When Zarqawi blew up the Canal Hotel in Baghdad, he was very clear that it wasn't for Iraqi children dead at the hands of American sanctions. It was because Sérgio Vieira de Mello(killed in the blast) helped over see the transition to a free East Timor.

I'm afraid I am beyond disappointed by talks like this, I find them offensive and contemptible.

No, nothing is the only thing the UN ever does. It similarly did nothing to stop the Rwandan genocide. It similarly did nothing to stop Saddam's genocide of the Kurds. It similarly did nothing to stop Saddam's genocide of Shia Iraqis. Seems perfectly consistent that it continue it's track record without requiring any manner of puppet/fear conspiracy theory.

HAHA! That's awesome...I was correct on accident I suppose. Or I knew that all along...>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^rottenseed:
I don't moderate my channel. The irony is that it's the "law" channel.
[edit] is that irony?

I think in this case, you're dead on:

"Irony deals with opposites; it has nothing to do with coincidence. If two baseball players from the same hometown, on different teams, receive the same uniform number, it is not ironic. It is a coincidence. If Barry Bonds attains lifetime statistics identical to his father’s it will not be ironic. It will be a coincidence. Irony is “a state of affairs that is the reverse of what was to be expected; a result opposite to and in mockery of the appropriate result.” For instance:
If a diabetic, on his way to buy insulin, is killed by a runaway truck, he is the victim of an accident. If the truck was delivering sugar, he is the victim of an oddly poetic coincidence. But if the truck was delivering insulin, ah! Then he is the victim of an irony.
If a Kurd, after surviving bloody battle with Saddam Hussein’s army and a long, difficult escape through the mountains, is crushed and killed by a parachute drop of humanitarian aid, that, my friend, is irony writ large.
Darryl Stingley, the pro football player, was paralyzed after a brutal hit by Jack Tatum. Now Darryl Stingley’s son plays football, and if the son should become paralyzed while playing, it will not be ironic. It will be coincidental. If Darryl Stingley’s son paralyzes someone else, that will be closer to ironic. If he paralyzes Jack Tatum’s son that will be precisely ironic."
- Baba Ram Carlin

>> ^rottenseed:

I don't moderate my channel. The irony is that it's the "law" channel.

[edit] is that irony?


I think in this case, you're dead on:

"Irony deals with opposites; it has nothing to do with coincidence. If two baseball players from the same hometown, on different teams, receive the same uniform number, it is not ironic. It is a coincidence. If Barry Bonds attains lifetime statistics identical to his father’s it will not be ironic. It will be a coincidence. Irony is “a state of affairs that is the reverse of what was to be expected; a result opposite to and in mockery of the appropriate result.” For instance:

If a diabetic, on his way to buy insulin, is killed by a runaway truck, he is the victim of an accident. If the truck was delivering sugar, he is the victim of an oddly poetic coincidence. But if the truck was delivering insulin, ah! Then he is the victim of an irony.
If a Kurd, after surviving bloody battle with Saddam Hussein’s army and a long, difficult escape through the mountains, is crushed and killed by a parachute drop of humanitarian aid, that, my friend, is irony writ large.
Darryl Stingley, the pro football player, was paralyzed after a brutal hit by Jack Tatum. Now Darryl Stingley’s son plays football, and if the son should become paralyzed while playing, it will not be ironic. It will be coincidental. If Darryl Stingley’s son paralyzes someone else, that will be closer to ironic. If he paralyzes Jack Tatum’s son that will be precisely ironic."

- Baba Ram Carlin

Lets not try to oversimplify things just because it's confusing. Judaism is a religion but being Jewish is a culture and an ethnicity. It isn't like Christianity where the order actively seeks to convert members from foreign world. Judaism spreads by having its members procreate and maintain their roots. So where in Christianity it's more based on 'new faith', Judaism is more closely tied with family traditions.

I don't know where this 'Judaism = only about faith/religion' idea comes from, but it's not just the religion, unlike your typical black/white western sense. But more like a way of living. http://www.jewfaq.org/judaism.htm

By the way Kurds and Tibetans technically do not have a country either but that certainly don't stop them from having an identity.

Ha, lantern is one of the 63%. Good job "use'n the internets", but I think you're missing a hot episode of fox&friends. Better get back to your idiot box.>> ^lantern53:

Hussein used poison gas on Kurds.
Does that count as a WMD?
What percentage of Democrats think Obama gives a crap when he's quaffing Dom Perignon with George Clooney?

Hussein used poison gas on Kurds.

Does that count as a WMD?

What percentage of Democrats think Obama gives a crap when he's quaffing Dom Perignon with George Clooney?

>> ^cosmovitelli:

I read your stuff Yogi!
FWIW Involving the US in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan is all about money and power. Oil, minerals, rate earth shit etc etc.
In Iran they got rid of a benevolent democratically elected progressive who tried to return the oil wealth of the country to its people and replaced him with a foreign sponsored greedy foolish puppet.
When it swung back the other way the clerics took over. Doh!
They used Afghanistan as a proxy war with the soviets, training the mujahideen / aka Taliban fighters in improvised explosives, insurgency warfare and basically how to fuck up a mechanised invading army. Then they invaded. Doh!
In Iraq they supported Saddam despite his demented paranoid savagery until the Iraqi oilfields became too tasty to ignore.
Duck Cheney said it couldn't be done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I&sns=em
But they upped his end via massive Haliburton projects and installed a puppet moron to keep blaming Iraq for the Saudi attacks on 9/11.
Then they invaded, killing thousands of civilians, and dismantled the police and social services while fucking up the food and water supply. Just for good measure they disbanded the army and sent 375,000 heavily armed young men off to find food for their own families. Doh!
Never mind about panama, chile, Vietnam, Cuba, Russia, Pakistan etc etc.


I'd pretty much agree with your facts. I'm a little less sure on your point.

America helped train and support the Islamic fighter in Afghanistan to chase out the Soviets. America supported Saddam while he was using chemical weapons against Iran and even Iraqi Kurds. America propped up a strong man of their choosing in Iran which backfired and led to the current theocracy.

You needn't look far or very hard to find examples where almost any and every nation has selfishly done very bad things, or things with terrible consequences. America, Russia and China being such large nations, the examples for them are much bigger and numerous. It makes for great propaganda, and all 3 continually make heavy use of it to tarnish each other. America is characterized by the genocide of native americans and Vietnam, Russia by Stalin and China by Mao. It's great propaganda, but it's not insightful or helpful analysis.

Pretend you get be President when Bush Jr. was president. America's narrow self interests are being threatened by terrorism. Bin Laden has extremely close ties with Islamists not only in Afghanistan, but throughout nuclear armed Pakistan. AQ Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, is going around selling nuclear secrets and equipment to the highest bidder. That's an uncomfortably short path from Pakistan's nuclear arsenal to the hands of a very credible terrorist network. Do you demand Pakistan break it's ties with the Taliban, or just let it slide? Do you demand the Afghan Taliban break ties with Al Qaeda, or just let it slide? I think selfish American interest DID dictate making those two demands, and being willing to launch a war if they were refused.

I think that is a strong argument that the Afghan war was indeed a good thing from the perspective of America's narrow self-interest.

What about the Afghan people though? Their self interest depends on what the end game is, and nobody can predict that. What we DO know is that the formerly ruling Taliban hated women's rights, and we fought against them. What we DO know is that the formerly ruling Taliban burnt off more of Afghanistan's vineyards than even the Russians had, because making wine was anathema to their cult. What we DO know is that the Taliban was one of the most brutal, backwards and hateful organizations around.

I can not say that the Afghan war ensured a better future for Afghanistan's people. What I CAN say is that leaving the Taliban in power in Afghanistan ensured a dark, bleak and miserable future for Afghanistan's people. I would modestly propose that a chance at something better was a good thing.

>> ^obscenesimian:

Yes yes. Kurds, hmmmmmm let me think
oh yes they were abused by turks throughout history but most notably during the the 1890's 1920's 1930's and on up to the 70's and 80's. Ironically, Kurds also were one of the primary agents used by the Turks in the deportations and massacre Armenians before and during world war 1.
Those Kurds.
Who were also abused by Saddam. All part of a long chain of ethnic cleansing, genocide and nationalist violence caused in a large part by religion and creed as well as tribal identity throughout the balkans and the ottoman empire and what became the palestinian mandate.
Which Hitchens thought we should wade into because science and atheism will put right through warfare that which religion and warfare could not put right.
Hitchens got so much so wrong so many times, but he sounded soooo good doing it.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^spoco2:
>> ^kceaton1:
Goodbye Chris. Some of his most profound moments for me came when he actually screwed up and was wrong! It would often lead to other talks and dialogs between the people he had erred against and himself and in some occasions Christopher would merely present them and allow the other person to put the matter straight. He could be friends with these people and often was.
It showed me that he had within himself the ability to be very humble and that to him the truth WAS paramount! For that and much more I will remember him always.
He had it within himself to be the best of us all.

His about face on waterboarding after being waterboarded was the point that I started paying attention to him.

His about face on Saddam era Iraq stood out more in my mind. After being a champion of the anti-war movement in the first Gulf war he went and spent time with the Iraqi Kurds. He came back vehement in his conviction that America's worst crime in Iraq was in essence listening to him in the first place and not pushing into Baghdad and removing Saddam the first time.



Or more simply, Saddam was so horrific and brutal a monster that Iraqis and the region as a whole are better off for his removal.

Yes yes. Kurds, hmmmmmm let me think

oh yes they were abused by turks throughout history but most notably during the the 1890's 1920's 1930's and on up to the 70's and 80's. Ironically, Kurds also were one of the primary agents used by the Turks in the deportations and massacre Armenians before and during world war 1.

Those Kurds.

Who were also abused by Saddam. All part of a long chain of ethnic cleansing, genocide and nationalist violence caused in a large part by religion and creed as well as tribal identity throughout the balkans and the ottoman empire and what became the palestinian mandate.

Which Hitchens thought we should wade into because science and atheism will put right through warfare that which religion and warfare could not put right.

Hitchens got so much so wrong so many times, but he sounded soooo good doing it.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^spoco2:
>> ^kceaton1:
Goodbye Chris. Some of his most profound moments for me came when he actually screwed up and was wrong! It would often lead to other talks and dialogs between the people he had erred against and himself and in some occasions Christopher would merely present them and allow the other person to put the matter straight. He could be friends with these people and often was.
It showed me that he had within himself the ability to be very humble and that to him the truth WAS paramount! For that and much more I will remember him always.
He had it within himself to be the best of us all.

His about face on waterboarding after being waterboarded was the point that I started paying attention to him.

His about face on Saddam era Iraq stood out more in my mind. After being a champion of the anti-war movement in the first Gulf war he went and spent time with the Iraqi Kurds. He came back vehement in his conviction that America's worst crime in Iraq was in essence listening to him in the first place and not pushing into Baghdad and removing Saddam the first time.

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^kceaton1:
Goodbye Chris. Some of his most profound moments for me came when he actually screwed up and was wrong! It would often lead to other talks and dialogs between the people he had erred against and himself and in some occasions Christopher would merely present them and allow the other person to put the matter straight. He could be friends with these people and often was.
It showed me that he had within himself the ability to be very humble and that to him the truth WAS paramount! For that and much more I will remember him always.
He had it within himself to be the best of us all.

His about face on waterboarding after being waterboarded was the point that I started paying attention to him.


His about face on Saddam era Iraq stood out more in my mind. After being a champion of the anti-war movement in the first Gulf war he went and spent time with the Iraqi Kurds. He came back vehement in his conviction that America's worst crime in Iraq was in essence listening to him in the first place and not pushing into Baghdad and removing Saddam the first time.

>> ^bcglorf:

So firstly in terms of Iraq, rather than get subjective let's examine some of the facts:
Iraq's infant mortality rates are currently the highest amongst Arab countries
Iraq's life expectancy has declined (by about 7 years) since the US invasion and is the lowest amongst Arab countries.
Iraq has the second lowest purchasing power of any country in the region, only Yemen is worse,
Child malnutrition has stayed pretty similar, while education has improved.
70% of Iraq's GDP now comes from oil, it's industry and farming sectors have pretty much been destroyed.
You do realize all your comparisons there take their Saddam-era equivalents on faith from Saddam's regime, right? Life expectancy calculated in Saddam-era Iraq as an example excluded the hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shia that were murdered, starved or killed, seeing as those creatures were barely human, let alone Iraqi.
So as horrific as Saddam's reign of terror was, it was because of America that he was allowed to be in power in the first place, and even then things were better than they are now by many measures.
Stop trying to make everything about America. America this and America that...
I've not lived my life in a hole, and am well aware of America's past support for Saddam. I don't recall saying much of anything about America though. I just pointed out how horrific Saddam was, and Iraq is better for him being gone, whether his removal came at the hands of America or the Easter bunny was besides the point.
And as stated above, there are no objective measures of Saddam-era Iraq's living conditions. There is only the official Saddam government line, and the stories of it's victims. The documented facts that we do have are mass-graves, concentration camps, a campaign to exterminate and breed the Kurd's out of existence through mass murder and systematic rape. We have the same campaign waged against Iraq's Shia, witnessed first hand by everyone involved in the 1st Gulf War as America committed perhaps it's greatest sin in Iraq and stood idly by and watched Saddam's gunships murder the Iraqi Shia populations by the tens of thousands(many estimates top 100's of thousands).
In terms of Gaddafi, you're arguing into the wind, I've never said I thought he was the better option, I'm simply saying that going by the atrocities committed by or for America in recent decades (in Chile, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine to name a few countries), they are the last country that should be getting involved in any sort of democratization process. All that is assured by this 'victory' is that Libya's natural resources will be plundered, some rich elite will make a killing, the masses will suffer and the new leadership will be just as corrupt as the last.
Again, what's with your obsession with America? I declared it good that Gaddafi is gone. Your the one who complain about how it really wasn't because evil America was involved.
Lastly, if you're so convinced that America is in Libya to save lives
Again, I never said that. I pointed out that the UN mandate authorized the use of force to save Libyan lives. I pointed out that NATO's forces did exactly that, since without them Gaddafi was guaranteed to have succeeded in his genocide within 24 hours. What I did NOT say was that saving those lives was America or NATO's motivation. There are plenty of other places NATO could go save lives(particularly Sudan and Somalia) if that was their motivation, but it isn't. NATO, like every other global entity, is motivated by it's own self-interest. In Libya, removing Gaddafi was in NATO's interests, and seeing the Libyan opposition succeed was in NATO's interests.
Here's the bit you miss in the above piece. The Libyan civilians are no less dead because NATO stopped a genocide out of selfish interest versus out of humanitarian desires. What matters is that they are alive today, and that Gaddafi's ability to met out revenge against them has been destroyed. They are safe, and they are free. What they do with it, and how the rest of the world plays into that is yet to be seen. I won't disagree that every nation, America included, will play the new Libyan leadership to their own best advantages and interests. However, neither will I stand quietly by as ignorant people complain about Gaddafi's overthrow being meaningless because of that. The Libyan people HAVE seen a great victory here for their own freedoms, even if it's uncertain how long lived that victory may be.


I'm picturing an infomercial right about now. Buy our world class American installed dictator right now and you'll receive many happy decades of watching your wife get raped, your lawn regularly razed, and your children going without food or education. But wait! There's more! In thirty of forty years (basically whenever we feel like it) we'll send in an army and take your lawn for ourselves so you don't have to worry about the dictator razing it any more!!!! Special discounts apply if you order before Libya.

1. America put Saddam in power, his atrocities are in large part America's fault
2. America has enabled many other dictators around the world, it's what they do when a leader doesn't follow their wishes
3. Knowing full well what outcomes these dictatorships have had (as intended) in the past, how do you know we wont get similar results this time?

We're talking about a country here, it has people that want different things, of course some Libyans are going to be happy that Gaddafi is removed, many will have wanted other outcomes, neither of us can speak for them, we are not Libyan. You say a few people dieing/getting bombed is ok to save a possible genocide. Would you kill your family to save your village? The people dieing in Libya are someones family, they are real, just because you aren't Libyan doesn't mean you can't feel empathy for them. Wake up man, you and your country are not the center of the world, you can't force your will on others unfairly without at least some repercussions. Your day is coming, and it's coming faster than you might think.

So firstly in terms of Iraq, rather than get subjective let's examine some of the facts:
Iraq's infant mortality rates are currently the highest amongst Arab countries
Iraq's life expectancy has declined (by about 7 years) since the US invasion and is the lowest amongst Arab countries.
Iraq has the second lowest purchasing power of any country in the region, only Yemen is worse,
Child malnutrition has stayed pretty similar, while education has improved.
70% of Iraq's GDP now comes from oil, it's industry and farming sectors have pretty much been destroyed.

You do realize all your comparisons there take their Saddam-era equivalents on faith from Saddam's regime, right? Life expectancy calculated in Saddam-era Iraq as an example excluded the hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shia that were murdered, starved or killed, seeing as those creatures were barely human, let alone Iraqi.

So as horrific as Saddam's reign of terror was, it was because of America that he was allowed to be in power in the first place, and even then things were better than they are now by many measures.

Stop trying to make everything about America. America this and America that...

I've not lived my life in a hole, and am well aware of America's past support for Saddam. I don't recall saying much of anything about America though. I just pointed out how horrific Saddam was, and Iraq is better for him being gone, whether his removal came at the hands of America or the Easter bunny was besides the point.

And as stated above, there are no objective measures of Saddam-era Iraq's living conditions. There is only the official Saddam government line, and the stories of it's victims. The documented facts that we do have are mass-graves, concentration camps, a campaign to exterminate and breed the Kurd's out of existence through mass murder and systematic rape. We have the same campaign waged against Iraq's Shia, witnessed first hand by everyone involved in the 1st Gulf War as America committed perhaps it's greatest sin in Iraq and stood idly by and watched Saddam's gunships murder the Iraqi Shia populations by the tens of thousands(many estimates top 100's of thousands).

In terms of Gaddafi, you're arguing into the wind, I've never said I thought he was the better option, I'm simply saying that going by the atrocities committed by or for America in recent decades (in Chile, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine to name a few countries), they are the last country that should be getting involved in any sort of democratization process. All that is assured by this 'victory' is that Libya's natural resources will be plundered, some rich elite will make a killing, the masses will suffer and the new leadership will be just as corrupt as the last.

Again, what's with your obsession with America? I declared it good that Gaddafi is gone. Your the one who complain about how it really wasn't because evil America was involved.

Lastly, if you're so convinced that America is in Libya to save lives

Again, I never said that. I pointed out that the UN mandate authorized the use of force to save Libyan lives. I pointed out that NATO's forces did exactly that, since without them Gaddafi was guaranteed to have succeeded in his genocide within 24 hours. What I did NOT say was that saving those lives was America or NATO's motivation. There are plenty of other places NATO could go save lives(particularly Sudan and Somalia) if that was their motivation, but it isn't. NATO, like every other global entity, is motivated by it's own self-interest. In Libya, removing Gaddafi was in NATO's interests, and seeing the Libyan opposition succeed was in NATO's interests.

Here's the bit you miss in the above piece. The Libyan civilians are no less dead because NATO stopped a genocide out of selfish interest versus out of humanitarian desires. What matters is that they are alive today, and that Gaddafi's ability to met out revenge against them has been destroyed. They are safe, and they are free. What they do with it, and how the rest of the world plays into that is yet to be seen. I won't disagree that every nation, America included, will play the new Libyan leadership to their own best advantages and interests. However, neither will I stand quietly by as ignorant people complain about Gaddafi's overthrow being meaningless because of that. The Libyan people HAVE seen a great victory here for their own freedoms, even if it's uncertain how long lived that victory may be.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^marbles:
Are you fuckin slow or something?
I've made no claims one way or the other. YOU HAVE. AND YOU HAVE NO LEGITIMATE EVIDENCE.
IT'S A MOOT POINT ANYWAY. SO WHY DO YOU INSIST ON REPEATING THE SAME BULLSHIT OVER AND OVER?
YOU ARE GOING TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE AND IGNORE EVERY ARGUMENT I'VE MADE.
SO IF YOU HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO SAY, THEN FUCK OFF!

Well said. You have made claims though:
1:Foreign Intelligence members are the main instigators of the rebellions.
2:The truth is we don't know who is killing the civilians.
3:Yeah, much akin to the Kurds. Where did that get them? We encouraged them to support us in Desert Storm and then let hundreds of thousands get slaughtered after we pulled out.
4:The groups that we're "working together" with in Libya is al-Qaeda linked rebels.
5:North-eastern Libya has one of the greatest concentrations of jihadi terrorists anywhere in the world.
6:Al Jazerra nearly always has a pro-Western spin
7:the Syrian army was ambushed in one city and something like 120 army servicemen killed.
You've made plenty of claims, all of them in favor of the stories given by Gadhafi and Bashir Al-Assad. Save for number 3 where you confuse the Iraqi Kurds with the Iraqi Shia. You've already made clear that even Al Jazeera is a pro-western entity, and that eye witness testimony is bought by foreign money, so it there can not exist any evidence you would deem credible, save the apparent exception of stories provided by the State run media of Libya and Syria...
If you dislike what you see in this, then I'd recommend changing yourself since the reflection is deadly accurate.


There you go being a moron troll again. I've made no claims on whether or not Assad is responsible for killing civilians. YOU HAVE. YOU CHERRY PICK WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE AND IGNORE THE REST. Even your sources say they don't know.
Unlike you, everything I said is backed up with actual substance.

1. Arab Spring. Confirmed by multiple sources - sponsored by foreign groups (multiple links in this thread)
2. Al Jazerra even admits that.
3. From Google result:In the aftermath of Operation Desert Storm, the United States encouraged Kurds and Shiites to rebel against Hussein's regime--then withdrew and refused to support them, leaving an unknown number to be slaughtered. At one point, Hussein's regime killed as many as 2,000 suspected Kurdish rebels every day. Some two million Kurds hazarded the dangerous trek through the mountains to Iran and Turkey, hundreds of thousands dying in the process.
4. here and here
5. 2007 West Point Study
6. Already established Qatar support for NATO.
I never claimed number 7. Irrelevant anyway.

>> ^marbles:

Are you fuckin slow or something?
I've made no claims one way or the other. YOU HAVE. AND YOU HAVE NO LEGITIMATE EVIDENCE.
IT'S A MOOT POINT ANYWAY. SO WHY DO YOU INSIST ON REPEATING THE SAME BULLSHIT OVER AND OVER?
YOU ARE GOING TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE AND IGNORE EVERY ARGUMENT I'VE MADE.
SO IF YOU HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO SAY, THEN FUCK OFF!


Well said. You have made claims though:
1:Foreign Intelligence members are the main instigators of the rebellions.
2:The truth is we don't know who is killing the civilians.
3:Yeah, much akin to the Kurds. Where did that get them? We encouraged them to support us in Desert Storm and then let hundreds of thousands get slaughtered after we pulled out.
4:The groups that we're "working together" with in Libya is al-Qaeda linked rebels.
5:North-eastern Libya has one of the greatest concentrations of jihadi terrorists anywhere in the world.
6:Al Jazerra nearly always has a pro-Western spin
7:the Syrian army was ambushed in one city and something like 120 army servicemen killed.

You've made plenty of claims, all of them in favor of the stories given by Gadhafi and Bashir Al-Assad. Save for number 3 where you confuse the Iraqi Kurds with the Iraqi Shia. You've already made clear that even Al Jazeera is a pro-western entity, and that eye witness testimony is bought by foreign money, so it there can not exist any evidence you would deem credible, save the apparent exception of stories provided by the State run media of Libya and Syria...

If you dislike what you see in this, then I'd recommend changing yourself since the reflection is deadly accurate.