Added: 1 year ago
From: AlJazeeraEnglish
Views: 25,296
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (113)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • @1ConservativeCitizen I would say that about Americans...

    

  • love you gaddafi

  • Al Jazeera are anti-Gaddafi, being owned by Qatari Royals who are the rebels largest financers. Their coverage has been so biased it's worse than Fox news.

    Those backing the invasion of Libya are largely financed by the US, so why make conspiracies about Gaddafi's influence in South & Central America. Last I looked Gaddafi has never molested governments or sent in troops/agents to place in puppets like the US.

  • amazing how fast leaders will turn on each other sometimes.

  • NATO get out from Libya.

    NATO and USA want libyan'oil no more

  • Where is the so called division here? the only thing we have is that idiot Chavez who is insignificant and his opinion does not matter.

    The report make an effort to bring Brazil to the matter, recording from there for few minutes.......LOL what a great division! ahahahah by the way, the brazilian government already took all its 700 workers out of Lybia and what happens inside of that country is a matter of the United Nations. Period. so silly this report.

  • I support a high level commission formed by Chavez, Castro Bros, Ortega, Correa, etc. in order to go to Libya and tell those people whose families have been slaughtered that their resolution is to keep Gadhafi in power for some other 40 years.

    You know! Their so called socialist fair and peaceful way

    I just wish they all receive same Gadhafi's treatment

    That would solve some world problems.

    I'd even pay for their air tickets in Air Force Sukhoi 1

    There is no need for a return ticket

  • Gaddafi can never kill as much as America has over the years we can just go back alittle while 2003 Iraq i wonder how many American troops and Iraqi People died because of W Bush

  • Gaddafi had strong ties with peronism in Argentina. It dates back to the early seventies. Peronism to some Argentinians is almost like a religion. We can see how Peron learnt a thing or two while he met Mussolini in the late thirties. On her last visit to Libya, Argentina's current president, of course peronist, compared herself with Gaddafi. Their ties are really strong. It's time to stop these authoritarian and extremely corrupt goverments all over Latin America.

  • @colourmegone Part 3: In terms of free elections, Germans were opposed to Hitler at 56.1%.

    I'm sure that among the 11 000 000 Jews, Gypsies, Commies, Homosexuals, Disabled, dissenters etc that were murdered in the holocaust there were millions of Germans opposed to Hitler.

    Fascism's rise was popular among the masses of the nations for a reason. Each country was in deep trouble, economically and civilly. They needed to pin the blame, and they wanted to feel superior.

  • @colourmegone Part 2: Hitler's popular support after the enabling act (making him dictator) came as a result of brutal oppression of those who sided against him (communists, socialists and anarchists and other groups which made up a good portion of society).

    Im willing to garner that support may have been as large as 80%. But you have to ask why it was so high. It had nothing to do with the lack of caring, or lack of class conscious of the working class.

  • Why do you bring boxing into this ???

  • Oliver Stone made a fawning documentary about Hugo Chavez. I wonder what he thinks now of this great leader (who has a penchant for shutting down critical media operations) and his murdering Libyan friend.

  • ~•~ BRAVO PERU ~•~

  • A lot of idiots here in my beloved South America have adopted the mistaken view that being against imperialism and having an independent/democratic foreign policy is equivalent to supporting any anti-US government no matter how dictatorial/authoritarian/geno­­cidal they are. Its also hypocritical when Chavez, who repeatedly "criticizes" the U.S., has suddenly developed an oversensitivity when making comments on Gaddafi's genocide. Liberals in the U.S. have to stop justifying Chavez's actions.

  • Comment removed

  • I won't be surprised if gaddaffi is hiring cubans, nicaraguans, venezuelan mercs to fight in Libya.

    The cubans especially need the cash.

  • No wonder why Hugo was quiet he would have to scramble just to justify the 1,000+ dead by mercenaries.

  • The two leaders(Chavez and Gaddafi) are so close that they are anal bum buddies!!!!!!

  • Dictators supporting other dictators why are you suprized? Time to take down the elite world dictators and empires . We the people say enough is enough . Game over

  • It south am, I'm not surprised Peru is the only one with bad ties to Libya. Libya probably funded the Shining path and the Tupac Amaru rebel groups.

  • @NeoGracchus You talking about FARC?

  • OF COURSE! They are dictators too! They don't want to go against their buddy or someone just like them........

  • Calderon is a terrorist hypocrit - his own army and police have been preying on the Mexican people for years now.

  • I'm loving seeing leftists trrying to deny Ghaddaffi was their hero and trying to blame the West

  • I'm not surprised that Ortega defends Wacky qaddaffi, a hypochirte commie rapist feels at home with a psycho genocidal dictator with a poor fashion sense.

  • @Bander1 exactly!

  • "Gadaffi is waging a great battle to defend his nation." --what? Did I miss something? I thought the people of his country want him out? Maybe I'm missing a piece of the story cuz to me..if they want him out then for Gadaffi to do his nation a service he needs to GTFO...

  • they're all fuck heads. if u to open their heads u'll only find expired beans.

  • One backward, corrupt regime failing to denounce another? Shocking!

  • Gaddafi has also been giving money to the UK and other western countries who give him arms to kill his own people for their oil.

  • This is where the socialist fruitcakes and capitalist fruitcakes are the same, not split. This is between people who follow God, and morons who follow peer groups and power mad leaders.

  • Al-Jazeera is manipulating any coverage it can to get this Wahabbi, pro-Vatican agenda some steam.

  • The fact is that in a situation that Libya and North Africa and Middle East is experiencing now, any relationship Libya has with foreign governments is going to be important for those countries as well as for Libya's new leadership.

    Al-Jazeera knows far well that Gaddafi himself is playing every Saudi card and EU card he can get his hands on. Gaddafi is an openly declared enemy of Perisan (Iranian) influence that now gains traction in the region.

  • In this report, countries leaning toward traditional T-Party policy in Latin America are shown as condemning the actions of Gaddafi. South American countries with independent streaks are shown as not opposed to Gaddafi.

  • chile!

  • HE IS BROTHER LEADER!

  • @NeoGracchus When did Colombia massacre civilians? What are you talking about? When and where? Sources?

  • by the way why is mexican president getting involved and fereling sorry for civilians when thousands are killed in mexico every year by the narco drug cartel regimes

  • @bozirob Ehh... Wouldn't it be because the narco drug cartels aren't the Mexican government? Actually the Mexican government is fighting the cartels... It's like blaming the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina for Srebrenica.

  • @GustavoCLa they are doing a good job from what i read in the news thousands of women raped every year, thousands killed the worst thing is they are all mexicans killing each other, your president it taking the stage to give out to gadafi so his pay masters usa would be happy

  • gadafi paid billions for lockerbie bombings met with tony blair and was embraced by the west until a few days ago when the media and the west all of a sudden start demonizing him arabs and west all together bashing gadafi the only ones that will be happy after he is gone are the oil mafia regimes

  • AL JAZEERA, KEEP THE COMMENTS ON !

  • As always the the international press give too much attention to 3 or 4 Latin American leaders, always the same ones, you know who, Chávez, Castro, sometimes Morales, Ortega or Correa. The dumber and more fanatical you are, the more attention you receive.

  • i don't think the majority of people here understand just how bad chavez is, he has already perpetrated massacres in his country to protesters, he took power just like gadaffi he BELIEVES himself to be a reincarnation of simon bolivar (latin american equal of george washinton) oh, and dueing his ten years of rule he has spent five billion dollars buying weapons from russia and china and becoming BFF's with iran and iraq.

  • 1:13 A 3-compartment bus!! I never saw those before!!

  • Eso es lo que va a hacer CHAVEZ, lo mismo que QADHAFI!!!

    NOS VEREMOS EN LA PROTESTA!!!

  • well, it's easy: just do not trust anyone. do not trust your own political system. everyone is corrupt because they are all power-crazed habitual liars. worldwide corruption. fight the power.

  • While Qaddafi is a Zionist ass-licker who's betrayed his people, he surely isn't as bad as the evil US politicians.

  • Let us not forget that Nicolae Ceaucescu received and honorary knighthood from the UK in 1978. Power is a club that looks after its own. The US supported Ceaucescu as did many other western countries despite the fact that he was a brutal Communist dictator. I'm sure Mr Obama would have gotten on famously with him.

  • @colourmegone

    Communism has never existed.

    The people who claimed to be communist. like Stalin, Castro and Pol Pot. Were merely power hungry men who took over and sought power for themselves, and not for the working class.

  • @Propagandhi900 Using this logic Christianity, capitalism, socialism, Islam, etc. have never existed. Let's just say that the Communism of Stalin is not that posited in the writings you have read. In human life things get muddled up with nationalism, elitism and other pernicious 'isms' much to our dismay. In reality the working classes are no better, or worse, equipped to run the world than any other class. What we need to concern ourselves with is benefitting class homo sapiens.

  • @colourmegone Stalin didn't have a "communism". There is only one type of communism, that communism is a STATELESS (no police or military or government), classless (the bourgeois ruling class is eliminated as are the classes below the working class) and moneyless (a super abundance of goods and resources will provide for a sort of gift economy) society.

    The working class is the majority. That is why it is their right to end class, their right to bring equality, and their duty to revolt.

  • @Propagandhi900 And why there will never be a "communism" such as you describe. The working class are just as class concious as any of the other classes. They resent the aspirations of those they consider beneath them just as keenly as any member of any other elite The working class overwhelmingly supported Reagan, Thatcher and Bush. Hitler was extremely popular among German workers, indeed he garnered over 90% of the votes in the plebiscite which got him elected.

    I wish it wasn't so...

  • @colourmegone You're comment is so factually inaccurate it's worthy of Fox News.

  • @Propagandhi900 In what respect? There is nothing that I have written that isn't historical. I advise you to read history before you make such a sweeping accusation. The politicians I have named were all highly popular and consistently garnered a majority of the votes cast by all classes, except Hitler whose support among the German people was almost unanimous. The working class are no more "noble" nor "caring" nor even revolutionary than any other segment of the human race.

  • @colourmegone Let's take you're example of these politicians you speak of, when you say majority, you also fail to mention that it is a small majority. Sometimes between only 51% and 60% in bi-party states (USA), and as low as 30% in multi-party states (Canada). That leaves 40% or more in opposition.

    Hitler's NSDAP (Nazi Party) never recieved more than 43.9% of the vote.

    The working class, whether they are class conscious, "caring" or "noble" is still the majority.

  • @Propagandhi900

    "Hitler Endorsed by 9 to 1 in Poll on his Dictatorship, but Opposition Is Doubled

    Absolute Power Is Won

    38,279,514 Vote Yes, 4,287,808 No on Uniting Offices 871,056 Ballots Spoiled

    Negative Count Is Larger in Districts of Business Men and Intellectuals

    Hamburg Has 20% Noes

    Reich Bishop at Victory Fete Says Hitler's Anti-Semitism Is Fight for Christianity"

    Source NY Times Aug 20 1934

    Note that opposition was largest among businessmen and intellectuals.

  • @Propagandhi900 You may cavil about percentages all you like, the truth is that the "working class" is deeply conservative in its outlook and deeply resentful of the aspirations of those it considers to be of the lower orders. Communism was a product of 19th cent. intellectualism, Nazism and its predecessor Fascism, were reactions to it, and both were highly popular. They were both promoted by capitalists but embraced by the workers.

  • @colourmegone I'm done, you're way to stupid to even talk to.

    The logistics just escape your grasp.

  • @Propagandhi900 Good, saves me finding further evidence to refute your baloney.

  • @colourmegone Part 1: Actually, I change my mind.

    You need to understand , until Hitler eliminated elections, his party never gained more than 43.9% support from the populous. The remaining 56.1% voted Social Democrat, Communist, etc.

    Posters for his party read: "If you want your country to go Bolshevik, vote Communist. If you want to remain free Germans, vote for the National Socialists." Claiming that the Nazis promoted freedom.

    in 1933 he established the "Enabling Act".

  • @Propagandhi900 Everyone knew perfectly well what the Nazis stood for. You need to read the headline from the NY Times published less than a week after Hitler won the national plebiscite with a 90%+ majority that confirmed him as dictator. Hitler's party had been steadily gaining ground since its foundation and was one of the most popular parties in Germany eventually garnering over 40% of the electoral vote before the plebiscite which confirmed him as dictator.

  • @colourmegone The people did not vote, the people who were in the Reichstag voted.

  • @Propagandhi900 "38,279,514 Vote Yes, 4,287,808 No on Uniting Offices 871,056 Ballots Spoiled" source NY Times. This is taken directly from the headlines above which I published in reply to your comment, which you obviously either haven't bothered to read or haven't understood. Unless you wish to contend that the there were 43,000,000+ members of the Reichstag....

  • @colourmegone Regardless, doesn't answer why they voted for him.

    That's exactly what's missing from your argument.

    There were reasons behind his mass support. Similar reasons to Stalin and Mussolini's mass support.

  • @Propagandhi900 The historical analysis of Hitler's success is well documented. If you care to pick up any one of the numerous books on the subject from the contemporary "Insiide the Third Reich" by Schirer to the more modern "Adolph Hitler" by Toland you'll find his popularity was widespread among the working and middle classes as was Catholicism and anti-Semitism.

  • @colourmegone Yes yes it was.

    But you are not identifying the reason for that support.

  • @Propagandhi900 No I'm not, it's been done in depth by professional journalists, historians and others who had far more than 500 characters. However it was partly to do with a rejection of Communism by the European working classes. This is a rather simplistic analysis but all you're going to get in a YTube comment. Read the authors I mention and do your own research, although you may not like the results.

    As I said I wish it wasn't so.

  • @colourmegone .... Youre also aware that opposition doubled when Hitler gained Dictatorial powers, right?

    Hitler used buzz words like socialist and worker's party to garner support. This, along with the promises of greatness for a nation that was torn asunder and slapped in the face at the end of WW1 (Treaty of Versailles) garnered him support. And with that support he had military victory and other victories which gained him support, along with his cult of personality.

  • @Propagandhi900 Hitler wasn't fooling anyone. He set out his agenda in "Mein Kampf" and pretty much stuck to it. The great mass of the Germans were Christian so his anti-Semitism was well received. There had been a big influx of east European Jews following the Revolution and WWI so Jews were an issue in pretty much the same way Muslims are today. Of course he had the blessing of the Catholics so that helped but the truth is people found his philosophy appealing. Versailles was only an excuse.

  • @colourmegone You're sooo stupidd. It's not even funny, it's just annoying.

    Yes, there WAS rampant anti-semitism. Hitler scapegoated the Jews as the reason behind losing WW1, Versailles, the economy going to shit, etc.

    And no, Muslims today aren't an issue, neither were Jews back then.

  • Gaddafi could've stayed if he didn't start killing people.

  • It's interesting so many blame the US, UK and EU states for doing business with Gaddafi and supporting the regime while at the same time they're mute about Venezuela, Turkey or China.

  • damn chavez why you hanging around with that piece of shit..fuck. you lost my repspect

  • @XxMzt4RVLCNRYxX

    That piece of shit will be judge by his people ,,, Chavez is trading with Ahmadinejad also.. And when they asked him about it Chaves answered that he dont intefiere in other nations inside politics .. and that is up to the people to change them .. not up to others .. What is happening in North Africa is mainly against US suported dictators ,, Ghaddafi is one of them

  • @elektra1968 The US supported Gaddafi? Gaddafi overthrew a pro-US monarch. From the very beginning the US had a fiercely hostile relationship with him Gaddafi allied himself with the USSR, threatened to join the Warsaw Pact, tried to kill the pro-US Hosni Mubarak, supported various rebel groups throughout Africa, clashed with the US Navy in the Gulf of Sidra, and blew up Americans in airplanes and dance clubs. The US bombed his home and killed his daughter. Not a supportive relationship.

  • @XxMzt4RVLCNRYxX

    As if he could evade that,when he is the leader of a freakin state.

  • chop his head off. let the good times roll. 

  • Calderon expressing deep sorrow for the deaths of civilians? HA HA HA Mexico right now is drowning in its own blood.

  • South America does businesse with Libya, so what ? so does the US.

  • @luc649 ... so does hell... so?

  • @luc649 and so do Canadian companies like Suncor, Petro-Canada and SNC Lavalin, who had just signed a contract to build a jail to house the colonel's opponents. Don't get me wrong people, I hate what is happening in Libya as much as the next guy, but to simply point the finger at one man is simplifying a complex issue. Those who have profited as a result of this dictatorship are as guilty, and in my opinion deserve to be harshly punished.

  • @ChiCan76 Couldn't agree more, was just keeping my comment short,not pointing a finger only on the US, corporate evil is as much here in Canada as anywhere else...evil has no border.

  • @luc649 yea but cesar chaves is a douche bag D:<

  • So the American client states in Latin America are following the US State department line. Nothing new there. The rest are independent and considering their positions. When Gaddafi goes....they will say how they really feel. If he goes.

  • @linuxluver The independent states of Latin America are the ones speaking out against Gaddafi. The governments of Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua are slaves of a stupid and hateful ideology. Anyone who is against them is bad and anyone who is with the (like Gaddafi) is good.

  • @GustavoCLa "slaves of a stupid and hateful ideology"....this sounds like empty propaganda.

  • Ortega....... Chavez...... Castro...... Morales..... a quartet of Latin American red fascists sucking the suck of Gaddafi. These scumbags have no morals whatsoever to still defend that Libyan butcher!

  • @HalalKafir The real fascists in Latin America as Felipe Calderon, Juan Manuel Santos, Martineli, Alan Garcia, they've all carried out massacres and brutal repression in their countries. Go to the poorest zones of Mexico and see if they have freedom.

  • a pack of wolves

  • world war 3 about to start soon maybe?

  • @ahmer9800 Unlikely. Usually, no one wants war, Recent exceptions would be G W Bush and his Neo-Cons. These uprisings in the Middle East are because people want a better life...not one destroyed by war.

  • It's easy to give other equally corrupt contries sweet heart deals, when you steel and neglect from your own country.

  • I bet those pair get well monged when they get together.

  • Ortega turned Nicaragua into a militarized dictatorship for over a decade. He also molested a girl. Castro supported the Tiananmen Square massacre and the 1991 military/KGB coup in the Soviet Union. If these monsters are supporting Gaddafi, that is one more reason Gaddafi should go.

  • @sonoki82 To be fair, Ortega was lawfully elected in fair elections...and Reagan illegally traded with Iran to et cash to fund a terrorist army that killed 10,000 Nicaraguans in a guerilla war the US bought and paid for. So while these guys may not be very nice.....pleae don't imagine that the leaders of the US are any nicer. If anything, when you could the bodies, the US leaders are often the worst.....not that you'd ever know it from the US media. But the rest of the world knows.

  • @linuxluver In the 1979-1990 period, he was never elected in a free and fair election. The FSLN controlled the media and its thugs intimidated the opposition. If GW Bush used these same tactics in a US election, you would never call the election "fair". The Nicaraguan guerrillas were all Nicaraguan; they were no more terrorists than the FSLN. But even if they were, and even if US policy in the 80s was totally wrong, what does that have to do with Ortega's Libya policy in 2011?

  • @sonoki82 Context is important. The Sandinistas overthrew the US-client dictator, Anastasio Somoza and then lead a multi-party junta to re-distribute land to landless peasants, improve education and provide universal health care. The Reagan Administration's corporate backers don't like their assets being nationalised and so the "Contras" were cultivated and supported. Every aid agency reference I can find says the Sandinistas did a lot of good. "Oppressive" = fighting US-backed terrorism.

  • @linuxluver They did do some good, including land redistribution. But they also did a lot of evil. They quickly turned on their partners in the "multi-party" front that fought Somoza. Some were jailed and others fled the country. The revolution's greatest hero, Eden Pastora, took up arms against the FSLN. Other contras came from several native tribes that were brutally displaced by the Sandinistas. Look, I hate Wall St. too, but let's not use it to excuse human rights abuses by the FSLN.

  • @sonoki82 It's an old tactic the US has used many times: Fund terrorist activities and assassinations to provoke a forceful response from a regime you don't like.....then call them "oppressive". Look around. This tactic has been used so many times I'm surprised anyone still falls for it. Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Iran.....a long, sad list of victims of American business interests.

  • @linuxluver Hmmm. I won't argue that this tactic is never used by the US, but it surely was not used in the case of Nicaragua. In Nicaragua, the US imposed an arms embargo on its old ally Somoza and pressured him to leave. After he fled, the US recognized the new FSLN govt. and pledged an aid package that made the US the largest aid donor to the Sandinista regime. The contras were not funded until - 1982 long after the FSLN had squeezed out moderates and cast its lots with the USSR.

  • @linuxluver YOu are right. and our day is a coming too....-an american

  • @linuxluver fair point but lets not forget that Ortega is about as socialist as Reagan. He has $400,000,000 in the bank and most Nicaraguans ain't got shit! and he has rigged this years elections. don't get me wrong america and its corporations are the genocide, slave owning kings of the world. But all politicians are corrupt. Check out "the Zeitgeist movement" and "the venus project"

    fuck race, religion and nationalism. we're all one. (ask a scientist)

  • @linuxluver To be fair Hitler was elected, too. So what? Ortega is garbage and is heading Nicaragua to dictatorship.

  • Libya gives interest-free loans to other countries -- as much as $300 million to Nicaragua alone?! No wonder those globalist banksters want to take him out!

  • No es por nada, pero a quien le importa lo que piense Latinoamerica acerca de Gaddafi. Esos Presidente como Chavez, y el de Nicaragua no saben nada de politica internacional.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more