Gaddafi warned Blair his ousting would 'open door' to jihadis

a reply to: Swills

S&F
Worth reading as well imo :

Ripped From Hillary’s Emails: French Plot to Overthrow Gaddafi and Help Itself to Libya’s Oil

The Congressional harrying of former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over emails concerning the 2012 death of an American Ambassador and three staff members in Benghazi, Libya, has become a sort of running joke, with Republicans claiming “cover-up” and Democrats dismissing the whole matter as nothing more than election year politics. But there is indeed a story embedded in the emails, one that is deeply damning of American and French actions in the Libyan civil war, from secretly funding the revolt against Muammar Gaddafi, to the willingness to use journalism as a cover for covert action.

The latest round of emails came to light June 22 in a fit of Republican pique over Clinton’s prevarications concerning whether she solicited intelligence from her advisor, journalist and former aide to President Bill Clinton, Sidney Blumenthal. If most newspaper readers rolled their eyes at this point and decided to check out the ball scores, one can hardly blame them.

But that would be a big mistake.

While the emails do raise questions about Hillary Clinton’s veracity, the real story is how French intelligence plotted to overthrow the Libyan leader in order to claim a hefty slice of Libya’s oil production and “favorable consideration” for French businesses.

The courier in this cynical undertaking was journalist and right-wing philosopher Bernard Henri-Levy, a man who has yet to see a civil war that he doesn’t advocate intervening in, from Yugoslavia to Syria. According to Julian Pecquet, the U.S. congressional correspondent for the Turkish publication Al-Monitor, Henri-Levy claims he got French President Nicolas Sarkozy to back the Benghazi-based Libyan Transitional National Council that was quietly being funded by the General Directorate for External Security (DGSE), the French CIA.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Thank you thank you thank you, those e-mails may worth the time looking into after all.

Anyone with any insight could see what would happen with the Iraq war. It would open a can of worms in the area. Gaddafi was a cruel dictator but over people that had similar natures to dictate. Removing him would just open the door to another. Iraq was better off with him because he had the intelligence and authority to keep these people under control I said this and heard many others say the same thing. If poor uninfluential people could see this clearly I say why couldn't those appointed to the task of governing see it too?

originally posted by: annstey
Anyone with any insight could see what would happen with the Iraq war. It would open a can of worms in the area. Gaddafi was a cruel dictator but over people that had similar natures to dictate. Removing him would just open the door to another. Iraq was better off with him because he had the intelligence and authority to keep these people under control I said this and heard many others say the same thing. If poor uninfluential people could see this clearly I say why couldn't those appointed to the task of governing see it too?

That's the worse part, they do see it too. Here's Dick Cheney from 1994. Remember, he was the Secretary of Defense during the Persian Gulf War.

I've always had a bad feeling about how Gaddafi came about to his end.

It always seemed that the lockerby incident was the necktie of his empire. Something we wouldn't talk about anymore if Russia had done it years from now .. whatever Gaddafi killed wasn't a smart thing to do. But that's just afterward .. Maybe we should stop dictating dictators with dictators. ..

a reply to: 0bserver1


Funny how it ALWAYS end up:

"Maybe it wasn't such a SMART idea to "remove" [insert flavor-of-the-month-dictator] & is now worse off. . .


. . . When will people wake up?

Blair like most elites only care about money and power. Desperate people from their nation being destroyed means cheap labor and cheap oil for people like him. They don't even care about their own people much less Libyans.

originally posted by: SurrenderingIsBack
a reply to: 0bserver1


Funny how it ALWAYS end up:

"Maybe it wasn't such a SMART idea to "remove" [insert flavor-of-the-month-dictator] & is now worse off. . .


. . . When will people wake up?

I agree. From now on, people should ask "Who's getting new deals if this guy's dead?" every time they try to scare us with a new bad guy. Our politicians don't care about the civilians in those countries or we wouldn't have the "collateral damage" policy.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Exactly.

a reply to: Swills

Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader".

rather interesting. I was told that the al-Qaeda guys were "extremists"...not of Islam. Here it appears this guy thinks they are also good Muslims...

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Yeah we literally armed and fed Al Qaeda terrorists. And not just us, all of our western allies did. Then NATO bombed the hell out of Libya leaving it in ruin. Now it's over run by ISIS and other militants terrorists factions.

This is why military members were posting signs covering their faces saying they won't fight for Al Qaeda in Syria. And for a long time because of that and public outcry about another Middle Eastern war DC stepped back but we still armed and fed the so called rebels, so did our allies. Now with Russia in the game who knows what will happen in Syria and our military intervention.

a reply to: SurrenderingIsBack

$176,300 ??

Surely that's not something he would even get up in the morning.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Politicians are bought cheap. It's really pathetic and sad. Yet we support these idiots and keep them in power while playing Blue v Red blame game.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Yeah we literally armed and fed Al Qaeda terrorists. And not just us, all of our western allies did. Then NATO bombed the hell out of Libya leaving it in ruin. Now it's over run by ISIS and other militants terrorists factions.

This is why military members were posting signs covering their faces saying they won't fight for Al Qaeda in Syria. And for a long time because of that and public outcry about another Middle Eastern war DC stepped back but we still armed and fed the so called rebels, so did our allies. Now with Russia in the game who knows what will happen in Syria and our military intervention.

My point was rather in a different alley all together. Who is an "extremist" and who is the "moderate" ?...it appears they are both good Muslim.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

What else would you say about Muslim terrorists within your ranks? Funny how this made it in the news in real time yet no issues about it from any politician anywhere in the West.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

What else would you say about Muslim terrorists within your ranks? Funny how this made it in the news in real time yet no issues about it from any politician anywhere in the West.

I think I would rather say nothing than equate the two...but that's just me with all my fancy elementary school level education. What is clear to me...more now then ever...is that there is a thin line between the two that doesnt make them all too different. The distinction might just be in our western minded heads.

Blair didna care about "Jihadis", he / they cared about Qaddaffi funding Afircas first private communication satellite, the first African private Bank, the African Monetary Fund, reverting to gold for oil instead of Petro Dollars, and finally, unity of African Nations of, by and exclusively for Africans.

Only Qaddafi could begin afford and organize these things. The commo satellite was to go up the year NATO started bombing Libya.

One fell stroke changed all that.

See and hear for yourselves…

The secon Gadaffi talked about leaving the gold dollar, the Saudis wanted rid and the Americans wanted rid. It seems Saddam was also considering moving avay from the petro dollar too. No matter what we have been told about these dictators via mainstream media, their countries and people were far far better off than they are now. However we have been lead to percieve these and others like Assad, they kept their countries in line, they were relatively safe places with high standards of living. What right does anyone have to interfere with the running of someone else's country? To tell them to leave? To threaten and intimidate? Surely that makes the aggressors no more than Dictators themselves?

Furthermore, it wasn't their even own people that overthrew them

Gadaffi as it happens was considered the "bouncer" of Europe. He prevented mass migration from Libya into Europe from Africa and elsewhere and now he's gone Libya has become the feared gateway to Europe

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

I guess he wasn't lieing because Europe just got invaded.