How to stop migrants crossing from Libya.

Truth.ie

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
27,354
The Algerian Civil War in the 90s was more bloody than either Libya or Syria, yet we never saw boat people in Med to the same extent.
Todays crisis is not a result of more war or conflict (Africa has never been so peaceful) but by idiotic and dangerous messages sent out by the EU that if you come you will not be sent back.
 


Truth.ie

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
27,354
Indeed but we can't be supporting anymore terrorist organisations and rebels in these regions there is still however to stop Syria from turning in to another Libya.

These dictatorships across Africa and Asia are the best form of governments for all parties. They provide stability and relative peace.
I absolutely agree with that, and completely disagree with Western interventionism in Libya and Syria.....unless it is to tackle ISIS.
 

Politics matters

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
7,193
The time to ask this question was before the war criminals Obama, Hillary, Cameron and Sarkozi murdered Al Gaddafi and handed Libya over to ISIS and Al Qaeda. Now it's too late. The only thing we can really do is hang these four war criminals as a warning to other mass murdering rogues.
Isn't it gas the way the lefties always assume that just because someone happens to be conservative/right wing and opposed to mass immigration they're automatically pro NATO/War.
 

kerdasi amaq

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
4,702
The real problem is to convince two goms, namely Peter Sutherland and Angela Merkel, that Europe does not have an infinite capacity to absorb migrants; at some point rigorous border controls and vigorous deportations of asylum seekers will have to be resorted to.

Anyway, the number of potential migrants is as near as infinite as makes no difference as far as Europe is concerned.
 

hamsterdam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
536
Well if 'we' means 'the West' then didn't we bomb the sh1t out of their country and leave it a lawless kip?

Considering this is it not the decent thing to do to try to help the people there?



I'm sure they said 'feckin white men bombing Muslim countries again' back in 2011.

I think they'd have preferred this not to be the case...
Of course you have not noticed that the vast majority being "rescued" and ferried now are Sub Saharan Africans. When did "we" bomb there?
 

Truth.ie

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
27,354
Of course you have not noticed that the vast majority being "rescued" and ferried now are Sub Saharan Africans. When did "we" bomb there?
There have been cases of Bangladeshis flying to Turkey...then flying to Libya...then driving to the coast...getting onto a rickety boat....and arriving in Europe claiming to be fleeing a warzone.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
Either that or it is all Israel's fault. If it wasn't for Israel and the West the entire islamic world would be a haven of peace and prosperity........or just a basket case.

The Muslim world was very peaceful until Britain planted Zionists in the Middle East. Even then, most of it was very quiet and peaceful until the Mad Cowboy Reagan started arming and funding Islamic extremists like Bin Laden to come from Saudi Arabia and fight the USSR in Afghanistan. There is even quite a bit of evidence that the CIA and MI6 were behind overthrowing the Shah and installing the Islamic régime in Iran. Fast forward to 2011, when NATO used minor disturbances to arm and fund Al Qaeda in Libya and Syria.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
Isn't it gas the way the lefties always assume that just because someone happens to be conservative/right wing and opposed to mass immigration they're automatically pro NATO/War.
I never thought that. Most of the so called extreme right in Europe supported Gaddafi and Assad and reject the NATO Ziomatrix.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
Of course you have not noticed that the vast majority being "rescued" and ferried now are Sub Saharan Africans. When did "we" bomb there?
On the surface that's true, but Gaddafi was keep all of north and central Africa in a relatively stable state. When NATO destroyed Libya, it destroyed the only stabilizing force in the whole region.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
The real problem is to convince two goms, namely Peter Sutherland and Angela Merkel, that Europe does not have an infinite capacity to absorb migrants; at some point rigorous border controls and vigorous deportations of asylum seekers will have to be resorted to.

Anyway, the number of potential migrants is as near as infinite as makes no difference as far as Europe is concerned.
The likes of Merkel and Sutherland only see migrants as a way to keep wages down in Europe, and rents and land prices high. You will have a hard time convincing them that migrants are not to their benefit and the benefit of their class.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
Ghadaffi was ultimately killed by brown African men. Quite a lot of Africans were cheering on the NATO bombing (nothing to do with us btw)
Most of the wars in conflicts in Africa were tribal and religious going back centuries, maybe millenium.
How about some personal responsibility from them for not getting their shyt together.
Didn't we in Ireland get our shyt together. 150 years ago we were dying in ditches by the tens of thousands.
The Imperialists left and we dragged ourselves back up.

We have been throwing billions into Africa and they blew it on bling and weapons.
When did the imperialists leave Ireland, a chara. As for the brown faced men that murdered Gaddafi, there were SAS men present supervising them. These worthless tramps would have got nowhere without NATO. The fact is that Libya did rise up off her knees, under Gaddafi's leadership, and was an example to all of Africa as to what could be achieved. Which is precisely why vermin like Obama, Sarkozi and Cameron and their bankster stringpullers wanted him dead and his country destroyed as an example to any other African country that might forget its place. Africa is to be a source of cheap materials and cheap labour - and nothing else.
 

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,862
Well beach heads would be a breach of sovereignty at a time when delicate behind the scenes negotiations are trying to put together some kind of viable 'Unity' government
But why would the internationally-recognised government object to European military forces operating in areas that it has no control over anyway?
 

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,862
When did the imperialists leave Ireland, a chara. As for the brown faced men that murdered Gaddafi, there were SAS men present supervising them. These worthless tramps would have got nowhere without NATO. The fact is that Libya did rise up off her knees, under Gaddafi's leadership, and was an example to all of Africa as to what could be achieved. Which is precisely why vermin like Obama, Sarkozi and Cameron and their bankster stringpullers wanted him dead and his country destroyed as an example to any other African country that might forget its place. Africa is to be a source of cheap materials and cheap labour - and nothing else.
Gaddafi was a paedo.

Uncovered: The macabre sex chamber of Libya's Colonel Gaddafi where he raped girls - and boys - as young as 14 | Daily Mail Online
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
The best way to prevent migrants from crossing the Mediterranean from Libya is for the armed forces of European countries to establish beach-heads on the Libyan coast in order to frustrate the people-smugglers.

The internationally-recognised government of Libya is not in control of most of the country. So why would it object?
You dont know the first thing about geography, do you?

There are dozens and dozens of tiny ports on the Libyan coast all of them with hundreds of little fishing boats. These are used on a trip by trip basis to smuggle people. Yesterdays fishing trawler becomes todays smuggling vessel and reverts to its usual occupation the next day. There are no smugglers fleets lying at anchor to be destroyed. Even watching the ports by satellite wont tell you which boats are innocently engaged in fishing and which are carrying passengers, until they are in deep waters, where the passengers board from dinghies.

Both Libyan govts reject foreign intervention and were NATO or Euro forces to arrive, the civil war would only worsen, creating more refugees.

But even if stability returned to Libya, people -smuggling would continue as long as there in a lack of economic alternatives in struggling communities. Even if Europe bombed the boats, people would still try and get away because they consider themselves dead already if they stay.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
But why would the internationally-recognised government object to European military forces operating in areas that it has no control over anyway?

More clownishness from you. There is no government in Libya now to object to anything. Nothing but a puppet régime that has no power in the country at all.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
The best barrier to stop migrants coming from Libya was Ghadaffi. I wonder why he was removed by NATO?

Several reasons:

1/ He was going to introduce a gold based African currency that would have rivaled the Petrodollar.

2/ Libya offered an example of a progressive and prosperous African country that other Africans could follow.

3/ Gaddafi did not allow the US military's Africom to operate in Africa - it had to set up shop in one of the USA's other colonies, i.e. Germany.

4/ Gaddafi did not allow Libya's economy to be run by the international bankster elite - the first thing the so called rebels did (after lynching some black Libyans) was to set up a new central bank that was under the control of the international bankster clique. The World Bank and the IMF will be in control of any reconstruction of Libya - if that ever happens.

5/ The EU elite wants cheap labour from Africa, and Gaddafi was denying that to them.

6/ Just pure murderous hatred of any African or Asian leader that dared to stand up to them - and Gaddafi had stood up to them for decades. As the old Irish saying goes: Two thing you can never trust, the snarl of a dog - or the smile of an Englishman.
 
D

Deleted member 42179

Nah, sorry, I'm not buying any of this propaganda piece. No verifiable proof whatsoever for any of the claims.

It's just papering over the whole Libya debacle by trying to tap into every possible emotive sex related button issue they can think of to smear Gadaffi as some crazy sex beast and hence rationalise 10,000 bombing raids masquerading as a "no fly zone" and the utter destruction of Libyan society and it's infrastructure and the arming of jihadists all across north africa.

By that rationale, the international community should probably have invaded the UK and bombed it into rubble because of Jimmy Saville et al.

But the real reasons for the invasion become clear from leaked hillary clinton emails as she discusses with certain french elites the use of gold backed currency in africa undermining the CFR and the guaranteeing of crude supplies to certain euro countries after the regime falls.
No mention whatsoever of his "sex beast behaviour" though. Funny that! Yet now it's the entire rationale.

Reminds me of the stories of babies in incubators and distribution of viagra to Gadaffis soldiers, danger of a civilian massacre in Bhenghazi etc. which all turned out to be bullsh1t afterwards, but at the time ithey helped polarise popular support for the bombing and the financial/military support for jihadis.

People should read the comments.

Even the Daily mail readers aren't buying any of it either and the DM evidently had to close the comments
because nearly every one of them is calling this out as a blatant propaganda piece.
 
D

Deleted member 42179

Here's the reality of Gadaffi as opposed to some propaganda caricarture

[video=youtube;YuMTzyxAuzs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuMTzyxAuzs[/video]

No doubt many of you will continue to parrot the usual soundbites and misinformation about him but few of you will bother to listen to what he actually had to say. :roll:

That's why the people who own you get away with the same sh1t over and over causing death and suffering to millions without any real consequences ever.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
Nah, sorry, I'm not buying any of this propaganda piece. No verifiable proof whatsoever for any of the claims.

It's just papering over the whole Libya debacle by trying to tap into every possible emotive sex related button issue they can think of to smear Gadaffi as some crazy sex beast and hence rationalise 10,000 bombing raids masquerading as a "no fly zone" and the utter destruction of Libyan society and it's infrastructure and the arming of jihadists all across north africa.

By that rationale, the international community should probably have invaded the UK and bombed it into rubble because of Jimmy Saville et al.

But the real reasons for the invasion become clear from leaked hillary clinton emails as she discusses with certain french elites the use of gold backed currency in africa undermining the CFR and the guaranteeing of crude supplies to certain euro countries after the regime falls.
No mention whatsoever of his "sex beast behaviour" though. Funny that! Yet now it's the entire rationale.

Reminds me of the stories of babies in incubators and distribution of viagra to Gadaffis soldiers, danger of a civilian massacre in Bhenghazi etc. which all turned out to be bullsh1t afterwards, but at the time ithey helped polarise popular support for the bombing and the financial/military support for jihadis.

People should read the comments.

Even the Daily mail readers aren't buying any of it either and the DM evidently had to close the comments
because nearly every one of them is calling this out as a blatant propaganda piece.

Nobody with any intelligence believes this bullshít. Libya is a tribal society and if a girl is raped it is the duty of her entire tribe to take the blood of the offender as revenge, or else a blood price. Any tribe that failed to do that would be utterly disgraced and humiliated. Then, of course, the muppets throw in boys too for good measure - a very English fantasy. The tunnels they refer to were for military use only. Another fact we have to remember is that the Koran allows Muslims to lie to non-Muslims, so the Islamists were very busy from the start making up these stories - and the Western media were delighted to lap them up. We had new unopened boxes of Viagra placed beside burned out tanks - and the likes of the Daily Mail found nothing strange about that. Old Arabic porno movies were sent to the ICC as "proof" that the Libyan Defense Forces were using the Viagra to rape women - and the muppets at the ICC actually accepted these obvious porno movies as evidence. It wasn't just Libya that died in 2011, but any vestige of credibility the Western media and elites may ever have had.
 


Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top