A group of independent observers have just returned to the UK from Libya and have confirmed that there is no evidence that  that gadaffi ever launched airstrikes against his own people as was widely proclaimed in the western corporate media, looks like this whole war is being waged under false pretences - sound familiar?

The observers are also questioning why the western media continues to remain completely silent about the mass slaughter of black libyans and other black africans by these same rebels:

[flash=350,350]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDt92tR2YnA&feature/channel_video_title[/flash]

You are quoting Russian TV you big dollop.

They were invited by a Ghadaffi Government that could not show CNN the so-called wounded civilians (They actually took them on a merry-go-round tour of the town).

Stop showing us staged Russian Propaganda.

if they were so objective, they should have visited the rebels too.

He avoided the direct question on whether Ghadaffi staged the tour and simply kept rambling about NATO needing to stop. Answer the direct question, self-servicer. He did not.

This is a very naive and suspicious advert paid for by the ghadaffi govt while the russian interviewer makes a weak attempt at objectivity.

I have seen much better propaganda on PressTV.

Who is the greater fool, You despise and loathe the West soo much yet you fall for the cheap Red propaganda.

It is a case of giving a dog a bad name in other to hang it.

@kodewrita
If you think CNN is more credible than the Russian TV then you are a bigger dollop who has no clue about the intrigues of western media propaganda.

@Yes they are more credible, why?

They are not owned by the government. They may be sympathetic, biased(to the point of insanity) but they are independent. Putin more or less owns RT.

You my friend need to clean your glasses and get out of the marxist library.

I dont believe CNN either but the video I saw was without commentary and the Libyan official in question kept stammering without giving a cogent reply.

At least CNN makes a better attempt at being objective even though they are definitely not by any long shot. BBC is still much more objective.


Africans need to move beyond the independence struggle mentality and the cold war.

Marxism failed.
There is no West.
We are our greatest enemies (generator importers killing power, road contractors deliberately creating bad roads, ministers of petroleum practising illegal bunkering, governors funding terrorism/assassinations and of course africans supporting tyranny).

Stop supporting tyranny and despotism on our continent.

Its support like yours that keeps us in the dark ages.

kodewrita:

You are quoting Russian TV you big dollop.

They were invited by a Ghadaffi Government that could not show CNN the so-called wounded civilians (They actually took them on a merry-go-round tour of the town).

Stop showing us staged Russian Propaganda.

if they were so objective, they should have visited the rebels too.

He avoided the direct question on whether Ghadaffi staged the tour and simply kept rambling about NATO needing to stop. Answer the direct question, self-servicer. He did not.

This is a very naive and suspicious advert paid for by the ghadaffi govt while the russian interviewer makes a weak attempt at objectivity.

I have seen much better propaganda on PressTV.

They were invited by Gadaffi and the first place he allowed them to inspect were the places where he is alleged to have dropped bombs on his people - does that make sense to you?  If i am accused of aerially bombarding people in a particular town why would i take people to that very town?  Perhaps you could explain to me why he would do that, unless you are saying that he was able to cover up the damage he did to the town just in time for the visit from the UK delegation.

i dont know whether you listened to this clip properly but the observer went to eastern libya where he saw black libyans being chopped up by these so called rebels - listen to the observer's statement at the end of the clip.

at the end of the day you are entitled to beleive what you want to believe, as i have said many times africans never appreciate the seriousness of a situation until it is staring them in the face - good luck.

shotster50:

Who is the greater fool, You despise and loathe the West soo much yet you fall for the cheap Red propaganda.

why is this according to you "cheap red propaganda" can you expla\in why you do not agree with what was said in this clip?

also can you tell me why you accept without question the propaganda churned out by the western media, why is that? isnt a fool someone who accepts without question or reason one view while dismissing the other? sounds like you mate.

kodewrita:

@Yes they are more credible, why?

They are not owned by the government. They may be sympathetic, biased(to the point of insanity) but they are independent. Putin more or less owns RT.

You my friend need to clean your glasses and get out of the marxist library.

I dont believe CNN either but the video I saw was without commentary and the Libyan official in question kept stammering without giving a cogent reply.

At least CNN makes a better attempt at being objective even though they are definitely not by any long shot. BBC is still much more objective.


Africans need to move beyond the independence struggle mentality and the cold war.

Marxism failed.
There is no West.
We are our greatest enemies (generator importers killing power, road contractors deliberately creating bad roads, ministers of petroleum practising illegal bunkering, governors funding terrorism/assassinations and of course africans supporting tyranny).

Stop supporting tyranny and despotism on our continent.

Its support like yours that keeps us in the dark ages.

Its amazing how quick you are to call people names and yet your knowledge and understanding of international issues is very limited  - so you think the american media outlets are more credible than RT because they are according to you "independent" -  are you aware that the majority of the american media outlets are owned by multi billion dollar corporations many of whom have business interests in many corrput dictatorship govts around the world.

These corporations actually OWN and CONTROL the US govt which is a lot worse than what you are accusing Putin of doing.

It is an open secret that the US govt is completely bought and paid for by american multinational corporations.

This has been going on for years but you dont know this because you dont know anything about US history - go and research how american multinationals like United fruit company controlled not only the US govt but the govts of many central and south american countries like guatemala, ecuador, chile etc

even in our own country nigeria, shell owns and controls the nigerian govt and weilds enormous power over the british and dutch govts.

the alternative media sources such as RT have nothing to gain from telling the public the truth, they may have their own agenda but you are more likely to hear a more objective version of the news from them than from the corporate owned media outlets like CNN, FOX, NBC etc 

you talk about CNN - CNN is owned by time warner , - time warner was one of the highest donors to obama's presidential campaign in 2008 these corporations are far from independent and have a vested interst in reporting biased information to the public.

you can check here:

http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main

the idea that the BBC is objective in its reporting is quite frankly a joke - the BBC is run by a group of govt appointed trustees these trustees are handpicked by senior govt ministers - if these trustees want to keep their jobs and big salaries they must ensure that the BBC reports news which tows the govt line - something that you are accusing Putin of doing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Trust

cap28:

They were invited by Gadaffi and the first place he allowed them to inspect were the places where he is alleged to have dropped bombs on his people - does that make sense to you? If i am accused of aerially bombarding people in a particular town why would i take people to that very town? Perhaps you could explain to me why he would do that, unless you are saying that he was able to cover up the damage he did to the town just in time for the visit from the UK delegation.

i dont know whether you listened to this clip properly but the observer went to eastern libya where he saw black libyans being chopped up by these so called rebels - listen to the observer's statement at the end of the clip.

at the end of the day you are entitled to beleive what you want to believe, as i have said many times africans never appreciate the seriousness of a situation until it is staring them in the face - good luck.

He did not go to eastern libya, he referred to videos on youtube and accused british journalists already-on-ground of not investigating events that were clearly displayed on youtube. That might be a valid accusation but HE DID NOT VERIFY IT TOO so he's guilty of the same.

cap28:

They were invited by Gadaffi and the first place he allowed them to inspect were the places where he is alleged to have dropped bombs on his people - does that make sense to you? If i am accused of aerially bombarding people in a particular town why would i take people to that very town? Perhaps you could explain to me why he would do that, unless you are saying that he was able to cover up the damage he did to the town just in time for the visit from the UK delegation.

i dont know whether you listened to this clip properly but the observer went to eastern libya where he saw black libyans being chopped up by these so called rebels - listen to the observer's statement at the end of the clip.

at the end of the day you are entitled to beleive what you want to believe, as i have said many times africans never appreciate the seriousness of a situation until it is staring them in the face - good luck.

Really? Did he visit Misurata or Adjabiya or any of those places. He's talking about Tripoli. Nobody accused Ghadaffi of bombing tripoli.

cap28:

Its amazing how quick you are to call people names and yet your knowledge and understanding of international issues is very limited - so you think the american media outlets are more credible than RT because they are according to you "independent" - are you aware that the majority of the american media outlets are owned by multi billion dollar corporations many of whom have business interests in many corrput dictatorship govts around the world.

These corporations actually OWN and CONTROL the US govt which is a lot worse than what you are accusing Putin of doing.

It is an open secret that the US govt is completely bought and paid for by american multinational corporations.

This has been going on for years but you dont know this because you dont know anything about US history - go and research how american multinationals like United fruit company controlled not only the US govt but the govts of many central and south american countries like guatemala, ecuador, chile etc

even in our own country nigeria, shell owns and controls the nigerian govt and weilds enormous power over the british and dutch govts.

the alternative media sources such as RT have nothing to gain from telling the public the truth, they may have their own agenda but you are more likely to hear a more objective version of the news from them than from the corporate owned media outlets like CNN, FOX, NBC etc

you talk about CNN - CNN is owned by time warner , - time warner was one of the highest donors to obama's presidential campaign in 2008 these corporations are far from independent and have a vested interst in reporting biased information to the public.

you can check here:

http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main

the idea that the BBC is objective in its reporting is quite frankly a joke - the BBC is run by a group of govt appointed trustees these trustees are handpicked by senior govt ministers - if these trustees want to keep their jobs and big salaries they must ensure that the BBC reports news which tows the govt line - something that you are accusing Putin of doing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Trust

On the contrary you are quite wrong. This is more like a media arms race with all despots and authoritarian governments trying to ensure they can control world opinion TOO. e.g

China: The CCTV franchise
Russia: RT and all other major news stations who only survive if putin allows.
Iran: Press TV


The others that cannot afford it simply jam the signals and make it punishable to watch them (Mugabe forces rounding up people who were watching the uprisings in Libya and Egypt for treasonable offences).

I do not argue that the US manipulates the media but at least they respect our intelligence when doing so. Not this poorly SCRIPTED news item.

cap28:

the alternative media sources such as RT have nothing to gain from telling the public the truth, they may have their own agenda but you are more likely to hear a more objective version of the news from them than from the corporate owned media outlets like CNN, FOX, NBC etc 

meant to say here RT have nothing to gain from lying to us!!

kodewrita:

He did not go to eastern libya, he referred to videos on youtube and accused british journalists already-on-ground of not investigating events that were clearly displayed on youtube. That might be a valid accusation but HE DID NOT VERIFY IT TOO so he's guilty of the same.
Really? Did he visit Misurata or Adjabiya or any of those places. He's talking about Tripoli. Nobody accused Ghadaffi of bombing tripoli.

He was invited to libya by the gadaffi regime, it is ludicrous to suggest that he would have been allowed into the rebel controlled areas along with pro gadaffi minders to investigate the killings of black libyans.

He accused the western media of not investigating these killings because their safety is guaranteed and they have access to the rebel held areas, despite this advantage they have shown no interest whatsoever about investigating the killings of blacks there, is he not justified in pointing this out?

he couldnt visit misurata or ajdabiya as they are currently under bombardment by gadaffi's troops and the rebels  and are too dangerous to be in right now, he did however visit the three cities gadaffi was accused of bombing and found no evidence of bombing as alleged by the western press, he mentions their names in the beginning of the video.

try if you can to watch these terrible videos:

http://uruknet.de/?p=m76906

cap28:

why is this according to you "cheap red propaganda" can you expla\in why you do not agree with what was said in this clip?

also can you tell me why you accept without question the propaganda churned out by the western media, why is that?  isnt a fool someone who accepts without question or reason one view while dismissing the other? sounds like you mate. 

First off, Russia's involvement or lack of in the Libya crisis is highly suspect. It would be naive to hold them up as a credible source of information in the afore mentioned crisis.

Moving on to your second question, as far as I can recollect, I never gave you that impression. You simply assumed that.
For someone who is so vehemently anti 'Western',  what are you doing abroad?!!!!

shotster50:


First off, Russia's involvement or lack of in the Libya crisis is highly suspect. It would be naive to hold them up as a credible source of information in the afore mentioned crisis.

Moving on to your second question, as far as I can recollect, I never gave you that impression. You simply assumed that.
For someone who is so vehemently anti 'Western',  what are you doing abroad?!!!!

why would it be naive to hold RT up as a credible source of information?

I wasnt aware that if you criticise the foreign policy of a western govt that makes you anti western.

I also was unaware that if you live in a country you have no right to criticise any aspect of that country's system of govt!!!


If thats the case then that would mean that anyone who lives in nigeria and criticises the nigerian govt is anti nigerian!!!

Criticising the west's  foreign policy does not necessarily mean that you are are anti west, it just means that you do not approve of their foreign policy and you are expressing your view , if we are to use your argument that anyone who criticises a nation is against every aspect of that nation that would mean the BNP are anti british because they criticise their govts stance on immigration and multiculturalism!

kodewrita:

@Yes they are more credible, why?

They are not owned by the government. They may be sympathetic, biased(to the point of insanity) but they are independent. Putin more or less owns RT.

You my friend need to clean your glasses and get out of the marxist library.

I dont believe CNN either but the video I saw was without commentary and the Libyan official in question kept stammering without giving a cogent reply.

At least CNN makes a better attempt at being objective even though they are definitely not by any long shot. BBC is still much more objective.


Africans need to move beyond the independence struggle mentality and the cold war.

Marxism failed.
There is no West.
We are our greatest enemies (generator importers killing power, road contractors deliberately creating bad roads, ministers of petroleum practising illegal bunkering, governors funding terrorism/assassinations and of course africans supporting tyranny).

Stop supporting tyranny and despotism on our continent.

Its support like yours that keeps us in the dark ages.

I'd love to kiss you, but since you are not female, here is a bottle of beer

^lol.

kodewrita:

Africans (and African Americans) _{*my insert*} need to move beyond the independence struggle mentality and the cold war.

Marxism failed.
There is no West.
We are our greatest enemies (generator importers killing power, road contractors deliberately creating bad roads, ministers of petroleum practising illegal bunkering, governors funding terrorism/assassinations and of course africans supporting tyranny).

I've lost count of how many times I've told this to Cap, but the guy no gree hear at all.

MyJoe:

I'd love to kiss you, but since you are not female, here is a bottle of beer

Yeah.  Get him drunk so you can(not) kiss him. 

Most are now inclined to disbelieve CNN. They're so irrelevant lately. And becoming more susceptible to the fake news that FoxNews is great at. Their credibility has suffered.

yawns