Just heard a former Gadaffi confidante say on Al Jazeera that he has amassed up to $82 BILLION as personal wealth since seizing power 42 years ago.

I've said it repeatedly that the only thing saving these Arab countries from starvation is their small populations allied to  huge oil resources. Their leaders are ten times more corrupt than African leaders. Quote me on that. God knows how much loot people like the rulers of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, etc have in their personal accounts! It must run into the trillions in total.

The funds are being seized as we speak - along with the assets of his cronies.
Apparently he has over £3 billion in central London alone.

The western banks are doing well out of this crisis.

From what they have seized from Mubarak, Ben Ali and now Gaddafi they are able to rebalance some of the huge losses their own banks have made through their own currupt people and practises.

There is no such thing as a secret bank account or a secret 'front company' - everything can be traced.

Looks like NATO would like to occupy the country - Libya will be another Iraq.

and what was America and Europe looking when he was stashing the funds in their country? They werent aware?

I hope our leaders (past and present) are watching, If you have money abroad, bring it back to Nigeria to store it, don't care if you stole it; Just keep it in our country    lol.  Better us than leave it to some foreign country.

A word is enough for the wise

I would probably never understand why some leaders feel compelled to own/ steal this much wealth from their own people.

suspicious allegations.

why are they just "revealing" all this now.

tpiah!:

suspicious allegations.

why are they just "revealing" all this now.

thank you

the minuite OBJ, GEJ and co become excess bagage to the machinations of the west we will suddenly hear it being broadcast all over Al jazeera, bbc, cnn and msnbc that between them they have over $1 trillion dollars in stolen funds, funny.

cap28:

thank you

the minuite OBJ, GEJ and co become excess bagage to the machinations of the west we will suddenly hear it being broadcast all over Al jazeera, bbc, cnn and msnbc that between them they have over $1 trillion dollars in stolen funds, funny. 

Daft analysis, but not surprising. How can a "normal" person love a mass murderer like Gaddafi, open all sorts of donkey-brained threads all over the place. . . and then spread rumours about GEJ?
Gaddafi is saint being brought down by the 666, meanwhile his armies are firing on the people with anti-aircraft guns, attack helicopters, bombing them from planes and straffing them with fighter jets?

Dude, madness is best cured in its early stages.

againstGEJ:

and what was America and Europe looking when he was stashing the funds in their country? They werent aware?

What a silly question to ask.  . .  if America and Europe had made it their place to monitor the man's wealth and had revealed it before now, I am certain people like you would have been up in arms demanding they mind their own business. 

What reason would these countries have to reveal the assets of these leaders before now? I mean lets use our heads a bit more. Why? So as to . . . what?

Kobojunkie said:

What reason would these countries have to reveal the assets of these leaders before now? I mean lets use our heads a bit more. Why? So as to . . . what?

So as to return the stolen loot to its rightful owners, the people perhaps, or

So as to sensitize the citizens of the looted country to their ruler's thieving habits perhaps, or

So as to quit being accessories after the fact of theft perhaps, or

So as to quit being handlers of stolen property perhaps, or

So as to - ah never mind. (Rolls eyes)

So Libya is not an African country again?

$82b, c'mon, as if Nigerian president are not worst. People who live in glass. . . .

ROSSIKE:

Kobojunkie said:

So as to return the stolen loot to its rightful owners, the people perhaps, or

So as to sensitize the citizens of the looted country to their ruler's thieving habits perhaps, or

So as to quit being accessories after the fact of theft perhaps, or

So as to quit being handlers of stolen property perhaps, or

So as to - ah never mind. (Rolls eyes)

You are kidding me . . . this is your reasoning ?? REALLY?? Are you serious? ROFLMAO!!

Illiterate-Idi said:

$82b, c'mon, as if Nigerian president are not worst. People who live in glass. . . .

Sani Abacha, commonly regarded as the worst thieving dictator from Nigeria, reportedly embezzled about $5 billion max. So where are the ''worst'' ''Nigerian president'' that you've pulled out of your asss?

Kobojunkie said:

Quote from: ROSSIKE on Today at 08:45:06 AM
Kobojunkie said:

So as to return the stolen loot to its rightful owners, the people perhaps, or

So as to sensitize the citizens of the looted country to their ruler's thieving habits perhaps, or

So as to quit being accessories after the fact of theft perhaps, or

So as to quit being handlers of stolen property perhaps, or

So as to - ah never mind. (Rolls eyes)



You are kidding me . . . this is your reasoning ?? REALLY?? Are you serious? ROFLMAO!!

What's so funny? Your nervous laughter suggests you've nothing concrete to justify the retention of stolen billions by aiders and abetters of theft - the receivers of stolen property you shamelessly support.

^^^ You are joker, aren't you? ROFLMAO!!! Imagine the drivel for a response you offered thre?? lol

ROSSIKE:

Illiterate-Idi said:

Sani Abacha, commonly regarded as the worst thieving dictator from Nigeria, reportedly embezzled about $5 billion max. So where are the ''worst'' ''Nigerian president'' that you've pulled out of your asss?

Plz what have you now said that I'm supposed to respond to?

Kobojunkie said:

^^^ You are joker, aren't you? ROFLMAO!!! Imagine the drivel for a response you offered thre?? lol

Classic Argument From Intimidation

As explained by the scholar Ayn Rand,

''There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent’s agreement with one’s undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure . . . [It] consists of threatening to impeach an opponent’s character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: “Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X’s argument is false.” . . . The falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality.

In today’s epistemological jungle, that second method is used more frequently than any other type of irrational argument. It should be classified as a logical fallacy and may be designated as “The Argument from Intimidation.”

The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: ''Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.''

The Argument from Intimidation dominates today’s discussions in two forms. In public speeches and print, it flourishes in the form of long, involved, elaborate structures of unintelligible verbiage, which convey nothing clearly except a moral threat. (“Only the primitive-minded can fail to realize that clarity is oversimplification.”). But in private, day-by-day experience, it comes up wordlessly, between the lines, in the form of inarticulate sounds conveying unstated implications. It relies, not on what is said, but on how it is said—not on content, but on tone of voice.

The tone is usually one of scornful or belligerent incredulity. “Surely you are not an advocate of capitalism, are you?” And if this does not intimidate the prospective victim—who answers, properly: “I am,”—the ensuing dialogue goes something like this: “Oh, you couldn’t be! Not really!” “Really.” “But everybody knows that capitalism is outdated!” “I don’t.” “Oh, come now!” “Since I don’t know it, will you please tell me the reasons for thinking that capitalism is outdated?” “Oh, don’t be ridiculous!” “Will you tell me the reasons?” “Well, really, if you don’t know, I couldn’t possibly tell you!”

All this is accompanied by raised eyebrows, wide-eyed stares, shrugs, grunts, snickers and the entire arsenal of nonverbal signals communicating ominous innuendoes and emotional vibrations of a single kind: disapproval.

If those vibrations fail, if such debaters are challenged, one finds that they have no arguments, no evidence, no proof, no reasons, no ground to stand on—that their noisy aggressiveness serves to hide a vacuum—that the Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence.


“The Argument from Intimidation,”

The Virtue of Selfishness, P.140.

- Ayn Rand

^^^ Wow . . . all that because I stated your answer to the question asked was childish drivel? ROFLMAO~~~~


Again, if you really have a valid answer, please post it. Else move and let those you have better answers offer them instead

That's my answer. Make the most of it.

Could you tell us why you think it is ok for the west to retain those stolen billions? What is your answer?

^^^ I already seen it and I don't think I should even touch it because that is the sort of response I expect from my niece, not an adult who claims to be all knowing when it comes to world politics, and also pretends to be impartial

Kobojunkie said:

^^^ I already seen it and I don't think I should even touch it because that is the sort of response I expect from my niece, not an adult

Yawwn.

''The Argument from Intimidation dominates today’s discussions,
The tone is usually one of scornful or belligerent incredulity.[''Surely, only my niece could come up with that response, not an adult!'']

All this is accompanied by raised eyebrows, wide-eyed stares, shrugs, grunts, snickers and the entire arsenal of nonverbal signals communicating ominous innuendoes and emotional vibrations of a single kind: disapproval.

If those vibrations fail, if such debaters are challenged, one finds that they have no arguments, no evidence, no proof, no reasons, no ground to stand on—that their noisy aggressiveness serves to hide a vacuum—that the Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence.''


“The Argument from Intimidation,”

The Virtue of Selfishness, P.140.

- Ayn Rand




Kobojunkie, you've been decoded.

^^^ You are one real joker!!~

You forget that there's nothing new under the sun, including debating styles and conventions. Long before you were born, scholars like Ayn Rand had declared your debating style invalid.

So you need to come correct. 

Kobojunkie:

^^^ You are one real joker!!~

 

When you are done misusing Ayn Rands observations there to support that silly retort of yours, and you are ready to offer up something more meaningful in the area of response, let me know . . .