Osama Bin Laden

[Flixy]

Why don't you recount the amount of federal dollars sent to Libya over the years while he was "in charge"?

Or the times he was bombed, including his headquarters? And freezing of Libyan assets? Or the sums paid by Libya to settle Lockerbie and the Berlin discotheque bombing?

He may have gotten aid in the more recent years, to 'reward' his cooperation in recent years, but to say he was fully supported by the West is ridiculous.

[Enoch the Red]

Why don't you recount the amount of federal dollars sent to Libya over the years while he was "in charge"?

Sure, GGT, why don't you show us just how many federal dollars were sent over to Libya. I'm very interested in those numbers as well.

Here's a hint: Most munitions in our arsenal costs more than the sum of what we've sent over in the last three years, which, unless I'm mistaken is the first time any federal dollars were sent to Libya in years.

[GGT]

Sure, GGT, why don't you show us just how many federal dollars were sent over to Libya. I'm very interested in those numbers as well.

Here's a hint: Most munitions in our arsenal costs more than the sum of what we've sent over in the last three years, which, unless I'm mistaken is the first time any federal dollars were sent to Libya in years.

I asked because my memory isn't very reliable lately. My memory says we've given Libya around $3 billion per YEAR for at least ten years. $30 billion, right? Not just training their military, or being an "ally" in the War Against Global Terrorism, but direct federal "aid" meant to assist their education and infrastructure. How far off is my "memory" from fact?

[Loki]

Your memory is wrong. We don't give any money to Libya. And the only countries that get nearly that much money are Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel. Why you'd think Libya got that much is beyond me.

[GGT]

Did I think in billions instead of millions?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ve-little.html

[wiggin]

Any more illegal than going into a country to assassinate someone?

Actually, it's probably less illegal. It's probably not even legal to assassinate someone if they're in your jurisdiction and your own citizen (though the argument can be made that this isn't a good argumentum a fortiori since part of the logic of targeted killings is that other options aren't available), while an arrest on your own soil is eminently legal.

Hey, I rather have a dead Osama than a wounded soldier. And considering it's a pretty high risk operation with armed resistance, I am not surprised he is shot even if he personally was not armed. Have to act quick, after all. How often do swat teams kill unarmed people? And those generally don't invade fortified terrorist hideouts.

Agreed. I'm not upset about the outcome in the slightest.

[Flixy]

Did I think in billions instead of millions?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ve-little.html

Did you even read that? That's not support for Ghadaffi, that's support for the people suffering in the current conflict. So it definitely isn't aid from the past ten years, but from the past few weeks. So this pretty much goes against what you were trying to say.

BTW, until a few years ago there were strict embargoes against Libya, and some of their assets were frozen.

[GGT]

Yeah, I read it. But couldn't find a source showing how much money the US had given Libya over the years. (Granted, I wasn't looking too hard.) I'm not sure the USA had strict embargoes against Libya recently, even though the EU may have. I recall the US sending millions of dollars to Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon....many Arab nations. Sending money to dictators we knew, for fear of others we didn't know.

[Loki]

Again, you recall wrong. Not only did we not send money to Libya, A) we froze Libya's money, B) we made Libya pay us money, and C) we were preventing our firms from doing business in Libya (unlike some Europeans, like the Italians and the Greeks).

[GGT]

Was that after Lockerbie?

[Flixy]

Yeah, I read it. But couldn't find a source showing how much money the US had given Libya over the years. (Granted, I wasn't looking too hard.) I'm not sure the USA had strict embargoes against Libya recently, even though the EU may have. I recall the US sending millions of dollars to Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon....many Arab nations. Sending money to dictators we knew, for fear of others we didn't know.

The USA did have strict embargoes against Libya, until 2003, and slowly decreased sanctions since then. From 2004 on their assets were unfrozen, and in 2006 removed from the terrorist watchlist. See it as a 'payoff' to Libya to dismantle their chemical warfare program, and paying restitution to the victims of their terror attacks, not so much as support for Ghadaffi.

By the way, while I agree that supporting dictators is, at best, dubious, there is from the US perspective a difference between a nation that oppresses their own people, and a nation that actively tried to kill US citizens.

Also, if you did read it, why the hell did you post it as an article supporting your case that the US donated millions to Ghadaffi? This money is going nowhere near Ghadaffi. Why would you post it when it has nothing to do with your point? Trying to cause confusion, or think that just reading the headline people might think money went to Libya before the uprising? I just don't get it, sorry.


By the way, I found that with one minute of 'research' , so your 'not looking too hard' is definitely true.

[LittleFuzzy]

Could that apply to Qadaffi, too? Or is it considered too dangerous (politically) to target a leading individual responsible for regime crimes, if that "leader" was once fully supported by the west?

It would be too dangerous, politically and legally, to send a hit squad after a head of state without at least a declaration of war and under most conditions not even then.

[Enoch the Red]

Yeah, I read it. But couldn't find a source showing how much money the US had given Libya over the years. (Granted, I wasn't looking too hard.) I'm not sure the USA had strict embargoes against Libya recently, even though the EU may have. I recall the US sending millions of dollars to Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon....many Arab nations. Sending money to dictators we knew, for fear of others we didn't know.

Try again.

I think it might be easier to admit you really aren't aware of whats happening, or has happened, in Libya.

Your memory is wrong. We don't give any money to Libya. And the only countries that get nearly that much money are Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel. Why you'd think Libya got that much is beyond me.

Not exactly true, but somehow ~8 million in aid in five years doesn't strike me as the full support of the West, and it certainly doesn't amount to the billions in aid that GGT seems to think they receive.

[GGT]

The USA did have strict embargoes against Libya, until 2003, and slowly decreased sanctions since then. From 2004 on their assets were unfrozen, and in 2006 removed from the terrorist watchlist. See it as a 'payoff' to Libya to dismantle their chemical warfare program, and paying restitution to the victims of their terror attacks, not so much as support for Ghadaffi.

By the way, while I agree that supporting dictators is, at best, dubious, there is from the US perspective a difference between a nation that oppresses their own people, and a nation that actively tried to kill US citizens.

Also, if you did read it, why the hell did you post it as an article supporting your case that the US donated millions to Ghadaffi? This money is going nowhere near Ghadaffi. Why would you post it when it has nothing to do with your point? Trying to cause confusion, or think that just reading the headline people might think money went to Libya before the uprising? I just don't get it, sorry.

By the way, I found that with one minute of 'research' , so your 'not looking too hard' is definitely true.

I only made one attempt to look for funds sent to Libya, not to Qaddafi's regime. Sorry if I mixed up Western with American. I think my point remains true, though. The West (including the US) has given millions of dollars to LIBYA.

[Flixy]

I only made one attempt to look for funds sent to Libya, not to Qaddafi's regime. Sorry if I mixed up Western with American. I think my point remains true, though. The West (including the US) has given millions of dollars to LIBYA.

Yes, to the civilian population in cities like Misurata, which are bombed by Ghadaffi, and you were talking specifically about US federal aid (or western for that matter) sent to Libya WHILE GHADAFFI WAS IN CHARGE.

Why don't you recount the amount of federal dollars sent to Libya over the years while he was "in charge"?

[GGT]

I think it might be easier to admit you really aren't aware of whats happening, or has happened, in Libya.
Not exactly true, but somehow ~10 million in aid in four years doesn't strike me as the full support of the West, and it certainly doesn't amount to the billions in aid that GGT seems to think they receive.

Did you miss the part where I asked if it was millions or billions, and admitted my memory wasn't the hottest? In the big picture context, we had no reason to give ANY money to Libya (hundreds, thousands, millions or more) but we did. Even when it was funneled by a corrupt regime.

I'd be happy to admit if I'm wrong.

[Enoch the Red]

Did you miss the part where I asked if it was millions or billions, and admitted my memory wasn't the hottest? In the big picture context, we had no reason to give ANY money to Libya (hundreds, thousands, millions or more) but we did. Even when it was funneled by a corrupt regime.

I'd be happy to admit if I'm wrong.

I agree we shouldn't be giving money in foreign aid to Libya, or anywhere else for that matter. However, I'm also not claiming we are in bed with Ghadaffi and his ilk.

More worrisome to me is the fact that it shows a complete lack of understanding of the dynamics of that region, or the policies we've had in place regarding Libya for the last thirty years.

[Flixy]

Did you miss the part where I asked if it was millions or billions, and admitted my memory wasn't the hottest? In the big picture context, we had no reason to give ANY money to Libya (hundreds, thousands, millions or more) but we did. Even when it was funneled by a corrupt regime.

I'd be happy to admit if I'm wrong.

The support plus lifting restriction helped to get Libya to stop their chemical weapons program, to denounce and stop terrorist activities, and to settle compensation to the victims of several terrorist attacks (a few billion dollars, so more than they received), so I would say that, yes, you did have a reason to give ANY thing to Libya.

[Flixy]

By the way, your original claim was that Qadaffi was 'fully supported by the west', which is most definitely not true.

Could that apply to Qadaffi, too? Or is it considered too dangerous (politically) to target a leading individual responsible for regime crimes, if that "leader" was once fully supported by the west?

[GGT]

Yes, to the civilian population in cities like Misurata, which are bombed by Ghadaffi, and you were talking specifically about US federal aid (or western for that matter) sent to Libya WHILE GHADAFFI WAS IN CHARGE.

I'm not convinced any money sent to LIBYA found its way to the civilian population, or cities like Misurata. Funds had to be first funneled by LIBYA's government, aka Qaddafi. Or his cronies. Am I wrong about that?

[Enoch the Red]

I'm not convinced any money sent to LIBYA found its way to the civilian population, or cities like Misurata. Funds had to be first funneled by LIBYA's government, aka Qaddafi. Or his cronies. Am I wrong about that?

Yes. They didn't send a check to the Ghadaffi government and tell them to use it to rebuild the cities they are sieging.

[GGT]

I could also show Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or President Obama shaking his hand. But this was the first in the queue.

[Enoch the Red]

You're going to IranContraScumDid911's Youtube channel now?

EDIT

I'm not clear on whether or not you are actually trying to make a point/have a discussion here, or are simply posting the first thing Google returns when you type in Libya.

[Loki]

By the way, while I agree that supporting dictators is, at best, dubious, there is from the US perspective a difference between a nation that oppresses their own people, and a nation that actively tried to kill US citizens.

I could never understand that logic. What do you mean by "support"? And why is it dubious? Should we not have relations with autocrats? Not trade with them? Actively seek to overthrow them? Even if you say the first one, what do you think would be the effect of that policy on international security (let alone America's security)?

Also, is America "supporting" the government of the Netherlands by having relations with it and engaging in trade with it?

Was that after Lockerbie?

You realize that the reason for Lockerbie was that we had horrible relations with Libya, right? We had good relations with the Libyan king, whom Qaddafi overthrew. We had decent relations with Qaddafi the first few years of his rule, but went as far as recalling our ambassador by 1972.

[Hazir]

Did you read what I wrote earlier?


I think we've been talking past each other. I'm not talking about 'conditioning' these guys - absent killing or capturing them, nothing will stop them trying to kill the infidels. I'm talking about modifying their behavior through simple self-preservation. Attempting to kill or capture them (and succeeding on a frequent basis) is what modifies their behavior for the simple reason that they don't want the same thing to happen to them. It's not rocket science.

I think it's important to differentiate between the 'masterminds' like Bin Laden, and the young people they entangle to do the actual dirty work. I think there is a significant difference between the two groups. While the latter will not be stopped by anything, the prior seem to put a lot of importance on their own survival, no matter how nihilist their ideology is.

Killing the Bin Laden's of this world doesn't stop the Richard Reid's of this world from doing utterly stupid things. It may divert their stupidity in other directions that attempts to blow up airliners.

[Hazir]

I'm not convinced any money sent to LIBYA found its way to the civilian population, or cities like Misurata. Funds had to be first funneled by LIBYA's government, aka Qaddafi. Or his cronies. Am I wrong about that?

Now, if you read up a bit about Ghadaffi you could have found out that he was propping up half a dozen of dictatorships in Africa and paid for the upkeep of the African Union. Does that sound like the kind of man who's dependent (or even wants) handouts from the US?

[GGT]

You realize that the reason for Lockerbie was that we had horrible relations with Libya, right? We had good relations with the Libyan king, whom Qaddafi overthrew. We had decent relations with Qaddafi the first few years of his rule, but went as far as recalling our ambassador by 1972.

Nothing can "reason" Lockerbie.

The whole Qaddafi history and regime is tainted with a big WTF.

[GGT]

Now, if you read up a bit about Ghadaffi you could have found out that he was propping up half a dozen of dictatorships in Africa and paid for the upkeep of the African Union. Does that sound like the kind of man who's dependent (or even wants) handouts from the US?

We know he gave money to other places in Africa (hence our questioning of the African Union and the Arab League when they convinced NATO the military interventions were needed).

None of that dismisses or cancels US foreign aid to Libya. Does it?

[Loki]

You still haven't shown the US giving foreign aid to Libya. It doesn't cancel our support for Martians either.

Nice attempt to derail the discussion yet again in the previous post by the way.

[Hazir]

We know he gave money to other places in Africa (hence our questioning of the African Union and the Arab League when they convinced NATO the military interventions were needed).

None of that dismisses or cancels US foreign aid to Libya. Does it?

Which aid, if you are so dead certain about the US propping up the Ghadaffi regime at any time get specific with the numbers and do so with sources that carry some weight in the real world.