Gaddafi's useful idiots.

Virus · 14th June 2011, 03:12 AM

Libya is a dark and brutal place which has been run by a filthy little fascist for the last 40 years. That's longer than I've been alive.

When NATO intervened to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe it was obvious that morally cretinous ideologues would be lining up to run interference for Gaddafi.

Lee Smith writes in Tablet how intellectuals have been bought off by the Gaddafi regime for ages. Various prestigious universities in England have been found out to have received generous endowments by the Libyan regime. Similar to the slathers of oil money that made their way into American universities courtesy of the Saudi monarchy.

But some intellectuals could be bought by something else; appeals to vanity.

Quote:

For instance, Rutgers professor Benjamin Barber wrote just last week that he has “no doubt” that his engagement with Qaddafi “ameliorated the consequences of his rule and created conditions conducive to gradualist reform.” How Barber squares this assessment of his contribution to Libya’s future with events unfolding in the country is unclear. What is clear is that Barber turned a blind eye to Qaddafi’s past record, the murders, tortures, and disappearances that were the basis of Hisham Matar’s novel In the Country of Men, which was shortlisted for the 2006 Man Booker Prize.

In the same category as Barber is Joseph Nye, the Harvard professor famous for his ideas about soft power, or “the art of projecting influence through attraction rather than coercion.” “Sometimes people say soft power is too soft to accomplish anything,” Nye told an interviewer. “It’s an important part of the arsenal of power. When you ignore it, as we tend to have done, it turns out to be quite costly.”

Nye knows that Qaddafi “has long been seen as a bad boy in the West”—a sponsor of terrorism with little respect for human rights—“but in recent years, Qaddafi has appeared to be changing. He still wants to project Libyan power, but he is going about it differently than in decades past.” Does that mean the Bedouin chieftain in the big tent is interested in Nye’s intellectual framework? “Sure enough,” writes Nye, “a half hour into our conversation, he asked how Libya might increase its soft power on the world stage.”

It was clearly lost on the Harvard academic that he is part of Qaddafi’s “soft power” campaign to whitewash his regime’s image. But the Libyan strongman had him at hello—“Qaddafi ushered [Nye] into his tent, where he had five of Nye’s books laid out on a table.” Thus are intellectuals bought off, by showing an “interest” in their work.

http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-po...430/committed/

Cynthia McKinney is another such useful idiot, albeit without the intellectual sophistication of Albert and Nye. A former US congresswoman, radical Leftist and Truther, she recently travelled to Libya on a "fact finding mission" ie a sugar-coated disinformation campaign for the fascist dictatorship.

Here is a clip of her appearance of Libyan state TV:
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2955.htm

I knew that support for Gaddafi would be a fixture for the idiotic, simple-minded and loony-toon ideologues of the radical Left. Support for bloody totalitarians has been their thing since the Bolsheviks seized power in Moscow. This video from an "anti-war" demo featured some Native Americans delivering a hate-filled anti-white screed which the masochistic leftists couldn't get enough of. Note the "Long live Gaddafi" placard:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Rolfe · 14th June 2011, 03:54 AM

This isn't something I really want to get into in detail, because I have insufficient knowledge. However, I don't think the situation is entirely black-and-white. Gadaffi is a nasty tyrant, yes. But has he actually done all the things that are attributed to him? Examination of the role of the CIA back to the 1980s, and especially Vincent Cannistraro, gives a lot of reason to believe in the existence of a structured campaign to generate "black" stories about Gadaffi.

Some of the support he gets from Libyans seems to be quite genuine. I've heard westerners who have lived in Libya declare that life in the country wasn't nearly as bad as it was being portrayed, and that a lot of the "bad" was in fact a direct consequence of western sanctions in place throughout the 1980s and 1990s.

It's arguable that Gadaffi was actually trying to get on better terms with the west over the past ten years. Sure, he was still a nasty little despot, but that hasn't been a barrier to being allowed to get on with things in other cases. He was prepared to schmooze up to Blair and other foreign leaders, and vice versa. He really did pay out something like $26 billion to try to "normalise" his relations with the west.

The reason I'm posting this is that last night on TV I heard an interview with one of the Libyan rebel fighters, accusing Gadaffi of a bunch of stuff I didn't believe for half a second. It was absolutely risible. Forcing his troops to take hallucinatory drugs and so on.

I have no idea where the truth lies in any of this, and I doubt it will ever be established. But I think a lot of things aren't as clear cut as some people like to imagine. And I'm always wary when I see western governments demonise a foreign ruler as a prelude to getting in there with some "regime change". Especially when they've been cosying up to him very recently.

Rolfe.

Caustic Logic · 14th June 2011, 04:18 AM

I wonder if the NATO bloc has any useful idiots out there?

Virus? What do you think?

Eddie Dane · 14th June 2011, 04:39 AM

Originally Posted by Virus

Cynthia McKinney is another such useful idiot, albeit without the intellectual sophistication of Albert and Nye. A former US congresswoman, radical Leftist and Truther, she recently travelled to Libya on a "fact finding mission" ie a sugar-coated disinformation campaign for the fascist dictatorship.

I take issue with you calling Cynthia McKinney a useful idiot, sir.

I demand that you retract that statement.

There is absolutely nothing useful about her.

Virus · 14th June 2011, 04:55 AM

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

I wonder if the NATO bloc has any useful idiots out there?

Virus? What do you think?

I think the concept of a "NATO useful idiot" doesn't make sense, since NATO don't allow totalitarians to join.

geni · 14th June 2011, 04:56 AM

Originally Posted by Virus

Libya is a dark and brutal place which has been run by a filthy little fascist for the last 40 years. That's longer than I've been alive.

He's not a fascist (his ideology is rather different as well as being subject to change from time to time) and he has oil. As an when your country has that much cheap oil the world might consider carring if you think it is dark and brutal.

Quote:

Lee Smith writes in Tablet how intellectuals have been bought off by the Gaddafi regime for ages. Various prestigious universities in England have been found out to have received generous endowments by the Libyan regime. Similar to the slathers of oil money that made their way into American universities courtesy of the Saudi monarchy.

Not really. The overwelming majority of intellectuals has spent the last few decades not caring about Libya. I mean lets face it does it look like a supersymmetric particle to you?

Quote:

But some intellectuals could be bought by something else; appeals to vanity.

http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-po...430/committed/

Given the extent to which that neither the words "France" nor "Sarkosy" appear in that article it's a pretty blatent attempt to rewrite history.

Quote:

I knew that support for Gaddafi would be a fixture for the idiotic, simple-minded and loony-toon ideologues of the radical Left.

Then you are ignorant. No supprise there.

Quote:

Support for bloody totalitarians has been their thing since the Bolsheviks seized power in Moscow. This video from an "anti-war" demo featured some Native Americans delivering a hate-filled anti-white screed which the masochistic leftists couldn't get enough of. Note the "Long live Gaddafi" placard:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Oh wow a whole 6 people truely they speak for the radical left.

Virus · 14th June 2011, 04:58 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

This isn't something I really want to get into in detail, because I have insufficient knowledge. However, I don't think the situation is entirely black-and-white. Gadaffi is a nasty tyrant, yes. But has he actually done all the things that are attributed to him? Examination of the role of the CIA back to the 1980s, and especially Vincent Cannistraro, gives a lot of reason to believe in the existence of a structured campaign to generate "black" stories about Gadaffi.

Some of the support he gets from Libyans seems to be quite genuine. I've heard westerners who have lived in Libya declare that life in the country wasn't nearly as bad as it was being portrayed, and that a lot of the "bad" was in fact a direct consequence of western sanctions in place throughout the 1980s and 1990s.

It's arguable that Gadaffi was actually trying to get on better terms with the west over the past ten years. Sure, he was still a nasty little despot, but that hasn't been a barrier to being allowed to get on with things in other cases. He was prepared to schmooze up to Blair and other foreign leaders, and vice versa. He really did pay out something like $26 billion to try to "normalise" his relations with the west.

The reason I'm posting this is that last night on TV I heard an interview with one of the Libyan rebel fighters, accusing Gadaffi of a bunch of stuff I didn't believe for half a second. It was absolutely risible. Forcing his troops to take hallucinatory drugs and so on.

I have no idea where the truth lies in any of this, and I doubt it will ever be established. But I think a lot of things aren't as clear cut as some people like to imagine. And I'm always wary when I see western governments demonise a foreign ruler as a prelude to getting in there with some "regime change". Especially when they've been cosying up to him very recently.

Rolfe.

He's a fascist Rolfe, regardless of how much oil money he throws around.

geni · 14th June 2011, 05:10 AM

Originally Posted by Virus

He's a fascist

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Caustic Logic · 14th June 2011, 05:31 AM

Originally Posted by geni

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Lol. Thanks for that. You're okay.

Virus · 14th June 2011, 05:38 AM

Originally Posted by geni

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Do too.

I call totalitarians "fascists" as a pejorative because the differences between them are superficial.

All complaints about that can be directed to the Department of Don't Care.

Rolfe · 14th June 2011, 06:19 AM

I'm sorry, I mistook this thread for a genuine attempt to discuss a controversial issue.

See you later.

Rolfe.

geni · 14th June 2011, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by Virus

All complaints about that can be directed to the Department of Don't Care.

So glad you are happy in your ignorance.

Johny2x4 · 15th June 2011, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by Virus

I think the concept of a "NATO useful idiot" doesn't make sense, since NATO don't allow totalitarians to join.

Wrong. Fascist Portugal was one of the founding members of NATO.

egslim · 15th June 2011, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by Johny2x4

Wrong. Fascist Portugal was one of the founding members of NATO.

Don't confuse him with facts.

Virus · 15th June 2011, 04:21 PM

They don't allow them in now.

Johny2x4 · 15th June 2011, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by Virus

They don't allow them in now.

Irrelevant. You said they didn´t in your post. You would probably would not even changed your answer had I not said that.

Virus · 15th June 2011, 05:18 PM

Caustic called me a useful idiot for NATO. There are no totalitarians in NATO, so the concept doesn't make sense.

McHrozni · 18th June 2011, 03:56 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

This isn't something I really want to get into in detail, because I have insufficient knowledge. However, I don't think the situation is entirely black-and-white. Gadaffi is a nasty tyrant, yes. But has he actually done all the things that are attributed to him?

Probably not. Has he done the majority? Yes.

Pointing out that not everything evil about him is true really shouldn't be used as a defence against all the evil he undoubtedly has done, both within Libya and outside of Libya. As you say, he is a nasty tyrant, and he deserves that tag for a multitude of reasons. Supporting him, as some people outside of Libya still do, is nothing more than being a case of an idiot, useful idiot if you're in a position that matters.

McHrozni

Undesired Walrus · 18th June 2011, 05:41 AM

Well, Virus, while you talk about the radical Left, I think you'll find that the isolationalist right have been some of the most forceful critics of the Libyan intervention.

Gazpacho · 19th June 2011, 01:38 AM

Originally Posted by Virus

This video from an "anti-war" demo featured some Native Americans delivering a hate-filled anti-white screed which the masochistic leftists couldn't get enough of. Note the "Long live Gaddafi" placard:

How much is the war against Gaddafi costing the US government each day? Are Native Americans who live on the rez, often in appaling conditions, not even slightly justified in questioning the political priorities involved?

Virus · 19th June 2011, 01:50 AM

Originally Posted by Gazpacho

How much is the war against Gaddafi costing the US government each day? Are Native Americans who live on the rez, often in appaling conditions, not even slightly justified in questioning the political priorities involved?

Brandishing "long live Gaddafi" signs? Get real Gaz.

Gazpacho · 19th June 2011, 01:52 AM

Originally Posted by Virus

Brandishing "long live Gaddafi" signs?

If that's what it takes to get people's attention, sure.

McHrozni · 19th June 2011, 02:15 AM

Originally Posted by Gazpacho

If that's what it takes to get people's attention, sure.

Your position is therefore that a person brandishing "Long Live Ghaddafi" sign doesn't really support Ghaddafi, he just wants the funds that are currently going to oust him (about $10 million a day, apparently) to be diverted to the Native American community instead, and that the purpose of the sign is to attract attention and nothing else?

McHrozni

angrysoba · 19th June 2011, 02:20 AM

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Your position is therefore that a person brandishing "Long Live Ghaddafi" sign doesn't really support Ghaddafi, he just wants the funds that are currently going to oust him (about $10 million a day, apparently) to be diverted to the Native American community instead, and that the purpose of the sign is to attract attention and nothing else?

McHrozni

Well, it sure has got us talking about it.

Do you think that the funds could go to Native Americans? Just asking...

Gazpacho · 19th June 2011, 02:29 AM

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Your position is therefore that a person brandishing "Long Live Ghaddafi" sign doesn't really support Ghaddafi, he just wants the funds that are currently going to oust him (about $10 million a day, apparently) to be diverted to the Native American community instead, and that the purpose of the sign is to attract attention and nothing else?

Could be. Pretty smart of them if it is. You'll have to ask them to find out.

It might also indicate that, from where they stand, they're not really impressed with the idea that the US is a better defender of human rights than Gaddafi.

Virus · 19th June 2011, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by Gazpacho

Could be. Pretty smart of them if it is. You'll have to ask them to find out.

It might also indicate that, from where they stand, they're not really impressed with the idea that the US is a better defender of human rights than Gaddafi.

Or that they support Gaddafi and hate white people.

angrysoba · 19th June 2011, 03:34 AM

Originally Posted by Virus

I knew that support for Gaddafi would be a fixture for the idiotic, simple-minded and loony-toon ideologues of the radical Left. Support for bloody totalitarians has been their thing since the Bolsheviks seized power in Moscow. This video from an "anti-war" demo featured some Native Americans delivering a hate-filled anti-white screed which the masochistic leftists couldn't get enough of. Note the "Long live Gaddafi" placard:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

I didn't hear either of those two say "white". I know that the guy did talk about the Indians being indigenous and he did use the word "wetbacks" but as far as I know the word "wetback" isn't typically used against white people.

Gazpacho · 19th June 2011, 03:59 AM

Originally Posted by Virus

Or that they support Gaddafi and hate white people.

Clearly the solution is for white people to hate them back!

JihadJane · 19th June 2011, 04:08 AM

Re: "Long live Gaddafi" signs.

Is assassinating leaders they don't like now official US foreign policy?

McHrozni · 19th June 2011, 04:09 AM

Originally Posted by Gazpacho

Could be. Pretty smart of them if it is. You'll have to ask them to find out.

It might also indicate that, from where they stand, they're not really impressed with the idea that the US is a better defender of human rights than Gaddafi.

None of which make sense.

McHrozni

McHrozni · 19th June 2011, 04:12 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Do you think that the funds could go to Native Americans? Just asking.

You and I both know this is an absurd idea. It would require, literarily, for the US military to draw funds from budget allocations for native americans, which is legally unable to do.

This is precisely why I think Gazpachos' idea makes no sense whatsoever. It is significantly more likely they're Quackdaffis' useful idiots and nothing more.

McHrozni

Gazpacho · 19th June 2011, 04:19 AM

Originally Posted by McHrozni

You and I both know this is an absurd idea. It would require, literarily, for the US military to draw funds from budget allocations for native americans, which is legally unable to do.

Are you dismissing as absurd the idea that there is a policy controlling the operation of the laws, and that the public might be able to affect the policy?

McHrozni · 19th June 2011, 04:23 AM

Originally Posted by Gazpacho

Are you dismissing as absurd the idea that there is a policy controlling the operation of the laws, and that the public might be able to affect the policy?

No. I'm dismissing as absurd the idea that the US militarily is clandestinely siphoning funds from Native Americans to it's campaign in Libya.

McHrozni

angrysoba · 19th June 2011, 04:30 AM

Originally Posted by McHrozni

You and I both know this is an absurd idea. It would require, literarily, for the US military to draw funds from budget allocations for native americans, which is legally unable to do.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that money meant for Native Americans was going to the military.

I think they were saying that the government spends money bombing Libya which it could allocate to Native Americans instead. I don't agree personally, but it is pointless arguing against a position nobody holds.

Virus · 19th June 2011, 04:40 AM

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Re: "Long live Gaddafi" signs.

Is assassinating leaders they don't like now official US foreign policy?

When you use airstrikes and artillery to put down protests you bring it on yourself. Instead of doing that, he shouldn't have done it.

Caustic Logic · 19th June 2011, 05:16 AM

Originally Posted by Virus

When you use airstrikes and artillery to put down protests you bring it on yourself.

Heck, you don't even have to actually do it. Just having it reported by defecting pilots and rebels who were storming army bases and seizing heavy weaponry from day two or three - was sufficient. Just fighting back in a civil war the rebels started was enough.

McHrozni · 19th June 2011, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I think they were saying that the government spends money bombing Libya which it could allocate to Native Americans instead.

Perhaps. Or maybe they just like Quackdaffi.

"Long Live X" usually means "I like X" after all.

McHrozni

Virus · 19th June 2011, 09:07 AM

People that support Quackdaff and complain about fiscal innneficiency.

JihadJane · 19th June 2011, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Perhaps. Or maybe they just like Quackdaffi.

"Long Live X" usually means "I like X" after all.

McHrozni

Who's Quackdaffi?

LukeB · 19th June 2011, 09:52 AM

It takes a very special talent to make Ghaddafi supporters seem to be more resonable have a clearer grasp of reality than yourself. Good work Virus.

14th June 2011, 03:54 AM	#2
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,327	This isn't something I really want to get into in detail, because I have insufficient knowledge. However, I don't think the situation is entirely black-and-white. Gadaffi is a nasty tyrant, yes. But has he actually done all the things that are attributed to him? Examination of the role of the CIA back to the 1980s, and especially Vincent Cannistraro, gives a lot of reason to believe in the existence of a structured campaign to generate "black" stories about Gadaffi. Some of the support he gets from Libyans seems to be quite genuine. I've heard westerners who have lived in Libya declare that life in the country wasn't nearly as bad as it was being portrayed, and that a lot of the "bad" was in fact a direct consequence of western sanctions in place throughout the 1980s and 1990s. It's arguable that Gadaffi was actually trying to get on better terms with the west over the past ten years. Sure, he was still a nasty little despot, but that hasn't been a barrier to being allowed to get on with things in other cases. He was prepared to schmooze up to Blair and other foreign leaders, and vice versa. He really did pay out something like $26 billion to try to "normalise" his relations with the west. The reason I'm posting this is that last night on TV I heard an interview with one of the Libyan rebel fighters, accusing Gadaffi of a bunch of stuff I didn't believe for half a second. It was absolutely risible. Forcing his troops to take hallucinatory drugs and so on. I have no idea where the truth lies in any of this, and I doubt it will ever be established. But I think a lot of things aren't as clear cut as some people like to imagine. And I'm always wary when I see western governments demonise a foreign ruler as a prelude to getting in there with some "regime change". Especially when they've been cosying up to him very recently. Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

14th June 2011, 05:38 AM	#10
Virus Master Templar Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Australia Posts: 6,194	Originally Posted by geni You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Do too. I call totalitarians "fascists" as a pejorative because the differences between them are superficial. All complaints about that can be directed to the Department of Don't Care.
	Last edited by Virus; 14th June 2011 at 05:40 AM.

14th June 2011, 06:19 AM	#11
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,327	I'm sorry, I mistook this thread for a genuine attempt to discuss a controversial issue. See you later. Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

15th June 2011, 03:50 PM	#14
egslim Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,856	Originally Posted by Johny2x4 Wrong. Fascist Portugal was one of the founding members of NATO. Don't confuse him with facts.
egslim Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,856

18th June 2011, 03:56 AM	#18
McHrozni Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,563	Originally Posted by Rolfe This isn't something I really want to get into in detail, because I have insufficient knowledge. However, I don't think the situation is entirely black-and-white. Gadaffi is a nasty tyrant, yes. But has he actually done all the things that are attributed to him? Probably not. Has he done the majority? Yes. Pointing out that not everything evil about him is true really shouldn't be used as a defence against all the evil he undoubtedly has done, both within Libya and outside of Libya. As you say, he is a nasty tyrant, and he deserves that tag for a multitude of reasons. Supporting him, as some people outside of Libya still do, is nothing more than being a case of an idiot, useful idiot if you're in a position that matters. McHrozni
McHrozni Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,563

14th June 2011, 04:18 AM	#3
Caustic Logic Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 3,979	I wonder if the NATO bloc has any useful idiots out there? Virus? What do you think?

14th June 2011, 04:39 AM	#4
Eddie Dane Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 4,417	Originally Posted by Virus Cynthia McKinney is another such useful idiot, albeit without the intellectual sophistication of Albert and Nye. A former US congresswoman, radical Leftist and Truther, she recently travelled to Libya on a "fact finding mission" ie a sugar-coated disinformation campaign for the fascist dictatorship. I take issue with you calling Cynthia McKinney a useful idiot, sir. I demand that you retract that statement. There is absolutely nothing useful about her.

14th June 2011, 04:55 AM	#5
Virus Master Templar Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Australia Posts: 6,194	Originally Posted by Caustic Logic I wonder if the NATO bloc has any useful idiots out there? Virus? What do you think? I think the concept of a "NATO useful idiot" doesn't make sense, since NATO don't allow totalitarians to join.

14th June 2011, 04:58 AM	#7
Virus Master Templar Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Australia Posts: 6,194	Originally Posted by Rolfe This isn't something I really want to get into in detail, because I have insufficient knowledge. However, I don't think the situation is entirely black-and-white. Gadaffi is a nasty tyrant, yes. But has he actually done all the things that are attributed to him? Examination of the role of the CIA back to the 1980s, and especially Vincent Cannistraro, gives a lot of reason to believe in the existence of a structured campaign to generate "black" stories about Gadaffi. Some of the support he gets from Libyans seems to be quite genuine. I've heard westerners who have lived in Libya declare that life in the country wasn't nearly as bad as it was being portrayed, and that a lot of the "bad" was in fact a direct consequence of western sanctions in place throughout the 1980s and 1990s. It's arguable that Gadaffi was actually trying to get on better terms with the west over the past ten years. Sure, he was still a nasty little despot, but that hasn't been a barrier to being allowed to get on with things in other cases. He was prepared to schmooze up to Blair and other foreign leaders, and vice versa. He really did pay out something like $26 billion to try to "normalise" his relations with the west. The reason I'm posting this is that last night on TV I heard an interview with one of the Libyan rebel fighters, accusing Gadaffi of a bunch of stuff I didn't believe for half a second. It was absolutely risible. Forcing his troops to take hallucinatory drugs and so on. I have no idea where the truth lies in any of this, and I doubt it will ever be established. But I think a lot of things aren't as clear cut as some people like to imagine. And I'm always wary when I see western governments demonise a foreign ruler as a prelude to getting in there with some "regime change". Especially when they've been cosying up to him very recently. Rolfe. He's a fascist Rolfe, regardless of how much oil money he throws around.

14th June 2011, 05:10 AM	#8
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,559	Originally Posted by Virus He's a fascist You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

14th June 2011, 05:31 AM	#9
Caustic Logic Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 3,979	Originally Posted by geni You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Lol. Thanks for that. You're okay.

14th June 2011, 06:25 AM	#12
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,559	Originally Posted by Virus All complaints about that can be directed to the Department of Don't Care. So glad you are happy in your ignorance.

15th June 2011, 01:59 PM	#13
Johny2x4 Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Portugal Posts: 472	Originally Posted by Virus I think the concept of a "NATO useful idiot" doesn't make sense, since NATO don't allow totalitarians to join. Wrong. Fascist Portugal was one of the founding members of NATO.

15th June 2011, 04:21 PM	#15
Virus Master Templar Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Australia Posts: 6,194	They don't allow them in now.

15th June 2011, 04:23 PM	#16
Johny2x4 Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Portugal Posts: 472	Originally Posted by Virus They don't allow them in now. Irrelevant. You said they didn´t in your post. You would probably would not even changed your answer had I not said that.

15th June 2011, 05:18 PM	#17
Virus Master Templar Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Australia Posts: 6,194	Caustic called me a useful idiot for NATO. There are no totalitarians in NATO, so the concept doesn't make sense.

18th June 2011, 05:41 AM	#19
Undesired Walrus Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: London Posts: 10,884	Well, Virus, while you talk about the radical Left, I think you'll find that the isolationalist right have been some of the most forceful critics of the Libyan intervention.
	__________________ Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, 1945

19th June 2011, 01:38 AM	#20
Gazpacho Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Valley Lodge, USA Posts: 2,136	Originally Posted by Virus This video from an "anti-war" demo featured some Native Americans delivering a hate-filled anti-white screed which the masochistic leftists couldn't get enough of. Note the "Long live Gaddafi" placard: How much is the war against Gaddafi costing the US government each day? Are Native Americans who live on the rez, often in appaling conditions, not even slightly justified in questioning the political priorities involved?

19th June 2011, 01:50 AM	#21
Virus Master Templar Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Australia Posts: 6,194	Originally Posted by Gazpacho How much is the war against Gaddafi costing the US government each day? Are Native Americans who live on the rez, often in appaling conditions, not even slightly justified in questioning the political priorities involved? Brandishing "long live Gaddafi" signs? Get real Gaz.

19th June 2011, 01:52 AM	#22
Gazpacho Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Valley Lodge, USA Posts: 2,136	Originally Posted by Virus Brandishing "long live Gaddafi" signs? If that's what it takes to get people's attention, sure.

19th June 2011, 02:15 AM	#23
McHrozni Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,563	Originally Posted by Gazpacho If that's what it takes to get people's attention, sure. Your position is therefore that a person brandishing "Long Live Ghaddafi" sign doesn't really support Ghaddafi, he just wants the funds that are currently going to oust him (about $10 million a day, apparently) to be diverted to the Native American community instead, and that the purpose of the sign is to attract attention and nothing else? McHrozni
McHrozni Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,563

19th June 2011, 02:20 AM	#24
angrysoba Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 8,517	Originally Posted by McHrozni Your position is therefore that a person brandishing "Long Live Ghaddafi" sign doesn't really support Ghaddafi, he just wants the funds that are currently going to oust him (about $10 million a day, apparently) to be diverted to the Native American community instead, and that the purpose of the sign is to attract attention and nothing else? McHrozni Well, it sure has got us talking about it. Do you think that the funds could go to Native Americans? Just asking...

19th June 2011, 02:29 AM	#25
Gazpacho Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Valley Lodge, USA Posts: 2,136	Originally Posted by McHrozni Your position is therefore that a person brandishing "Long Live Ghaddafi" sign doesn't really support Ghaddafi, he just wants the funds that are currently going to oust him (about $10 million a day, apparently) to be diverted to the Native American community instead, and that the purpose of the sign is to attract attention and nothing else? Could be. Pretty smart of them if it is. You'll have to ask them to find out. It might also indicate that, from where they stand, they're not really impressed with the idea that the US is a better defender of human rights than Gaddafi.

19th June 2011, 03:24 AM	#26
Virus Master Templar Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Australia Posts: 6,194	Originally Posted by Gazpacho Could be. Pretty smart of them if it is. You'll have to ask them to find out. It might also indicate that, from where they stand, they're not really impressed with the idea that the US is a better defender of human rights than Gaddafi. Or that they support Gaddafi and hate white people.

19th June 2011, 03:59 AM	#28
Gazpacho Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Valley Lodge, USA Posts: 2,136	Originally Posted by Virus Or that they support Gaddafi and hate white people. Clearly the solution is for white people to hate them back!

19th June 2011, 04:08 AM	#29
JihadJane Penultimate Satisfaction Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 42,714	Re: "Long live Gaddafi" signs. Is assassinating leaders they don't like now official US foreign policy?
	__________________ THE END of the recession IS NIGH

19th June 2011, 04:09 AM	#30
McHrozni Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,563	Originally Posted by Gazpacho Could be. Pretty smart of them if it is. You'll have to ask them to find out. It might also indicate that, from where they stand, they're not really impressed with the idea that the US is a better defender of human rights than Gaddafi. None of which make sense. McHrozni
McHrozni Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,563

19th June 2011, 04:12 AM	#31
McHrozni Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,563	Originally Posted by angrysoba Do you think that the funds could go to Native Americans? Just asking. You and I both know this is an absurd idea. It would require, literarily, for the US military to draw funds from budget allocations for native americans, which is legally unable to do. This is precisely why I think Gazpachos' idea makes no sense whatsoever. It is significantly more likely they're Quackdaffis' useful idiots and nothing more. McHrozni
McHrozni Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,563

19th June 2011, 04:19 AM	#32
Gazpacho Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Valley Lodge, USA Posts: 2,136	Originally Posted by McHrozni You and I both know this is an absurd idea. It would require, literarily, for the US military to draw funds from budget allocations for native americans, which is legally unable to do. Are you dismissing as absurd the idea that there is a policy controlling the operation of the laws, and that the public might be able to affect the policy?

19th June 2011, 04:23 AM	#33
McHrozni Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,563	Originally Posted by Gazpacho Are you dismissing as absurd the idea that there is a policy controlling the operation of the laws, and that the public might be able to affect the policy? No. I'm dismissing as absurd the idea that the US militarily is clandestinely siphoning funds from Native Americans to it's campaign in Libya. McHrozni
McHrozni Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,563

19th June 2011, 04:30 AM	#34
angrysoba Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 8,517	Originally Posted by McHrozni You and I both know this is an absurd idea. It would require, literarily, for the US military to draw funds from budget allocations for native americans, which is legally unable to do. I don't think anyone was suggesting that money meant for Native Americans was going to the military. I think they were saying that the government spends money bombing Libya which it could allocate to Native Americans instead. I don't agree personally, but it is pointless arguing against a position nobody holds.

19th June 2011, 04:40 AM	#35
Virus Master Templar Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Australia Posts: 6,194	Originally Posted by JihadJane Re: "Long live Gaddafi" signs. Is assassinating leaders they don't like now official US foreign policy? When you use airstrikes and artillery to put down protests you bring it on yourself. Instead of doing that, he shouldn't have done it.

19th June 2011, 05:16 AM	#36
Caustic Logic Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 3,979	Originally Posted by Virus When you use airstrikes and artillery to put down protests you bring it on yourself. Heck, you don't even have to actually do it. Just having it reported by defecting pilots and rebels who were storming army bases and seizing heavy weaponry from day two or three - was sufficient. Just fighting back in a civil war the rebels started was enough.

19th June 2011, 08:39 AM	#37
McHrozni Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,563	Originally Posted by angrysoba I think they were saying that the government spends money bombing Libya which it could allocate to Native Americans instead. Perhaps. Or maybe they just like Quackdaffi. "Long Live X" usually means "I like X" after all. McHrozni
McHrozni Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,563

19th June 2011, 09:07 AM	#38
Virus Master Templar Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Australia Posts: 6,194	People that support Quackdaff and complain about fiscal innneficiency.