Hillary emails confirm what we suspected: Libya was a Bankster war.

Welcome to the frightening reality. We here in the West are the bad guys. We are on the wrong side.

This is the reason I like Russia and Putin more and more every day. He is the only voice of opposition that is capable of bringing any of the SOB's raping and pillaging the world in the name of global profits to account.

Gadaffi was not the best ruler for sure, but the way they got rid of him is a crime against humanity. It has left the people of Libya in a far worse state than they were under his regime and allowed ISIS to incubate. How is any of this justifiable?

a reply to: markosity1973

The same can be said for Iraq also, Saddam was a far worse dictator than Gadaffi but even so, Iraq is in a much worse state now than it ever was under Saddam's rule

BUT war is good for unethical business, both sides need weapons and ammunition and in the aftermath when everything is destroyed they need supplies and equipment to rebuild so it's a win for the American/European businesses who get contracts to sell to the war torn states during and after the wars

a reply to: markosity1973

You should've seen some of the faces when one of our Iraqi Christian coworkers told us his experiences in Iraq. He told us how Saddam's government gave money to Christians to build churches, like the church his uncle built. And he told us that many of his Christian family members were pretty high ranked in the Ba'ath Party & Saddam didn't allow any religious discrimination, literally crushing any groups who fomented hate against the others. He said the sanctions were the hardest part, but his family still had property in Syria, Lebanon, & Iraq at the time. (He's part of the older Christian sects that have lived in the region since the Apostles, and some of their family lands were split when the modern borders were created.)

Then the Iraq War happened. He described the utter destruction, the family members killed, and the neighborhoods destroyed. He even described how the West unleashed major chaos by dissolving the military & Ba'ath Party, then only secured the oil fields and related businesses & agencies as the rest of the country was pillaged by looters. He said he & his family fled to Lebanon & Syria to escape the destruction. (note: More than 2 million Iraqi Christians fled Iraq during the war.) Then, when his family was in Lebanon, Israel launched its war against Hezbollah. This destroyed even more of their properties and forced them to move again, this time to Syria.

Then, his family left Syria for America right before the protests started. Many people here don't know much about the Hariri billionaire family, but he kept saying the Hariri's were backing the protests because of their belief that Assad had their patriarch killed (look into it, it gets deep). Needless to say, he wasn't too fond of our foreign policy.

I think a lot of people here would be surprised to know we're generally seen as the bad guys because of stuff like this. And remember, the people in those countries knew about the torture scandals like Abu Ghraib long before the American people found out. And our "collateral damage" doctrine only makes it worse.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Yep, Hussein, Gadaffi and even Assad were / are secular rulers. Islamic radicals are the real enemies. Gadaffi and Hussein knew this and so does Assad.

The puppet masters treat these radicals like playthings and try and manipulate them to achieve their greed and power based goals.

It's all shameful and one of the many reasons Putin, while far from being a saint is man of the hour because he is calling these nations and people out for what they are in the current climate of chaos.

Great post, star and flag!

At this point, why do we trust anything the western governments and MSM tell us? If they don't tell us it's really about money, war and power, then they are lying. We didn't give a rats ass about the Libian people.

Like 9/11, the Libyan military action was a well-orchestrated lie, cooked up by the west and the UN for purposes of financial protection and gain, and served up by the compliant MSM.

Excellent post.
The new world order is aimed at invading countries by taking over their control of money.
You dont need a physical army to invade,just back the rebels and cause enough chaos for a few choice death scenes on the 6 oclock news and the public wont bat an eye when we send the bombers in to make sure they are liberated.
No troops on the ground needed.
Then the newly liberated government will borrow untill it is in complete control of the invading lenders.

This map of total debt ratio of how much a country owes to how much it makes in one year pretty much shows how the debt machine is spreading like a cancer across the planet. Guess where it comes from.

World Debt Cancer

Really puts all those who championed the war in Libya in the spotlight. Within the government's involved and those who posted here on ATS and other places. Years of "no no we went to war to help the "people" of Libya". Obvious agendas is obvious.

Great thread gladtobehere

a reply to: gladtobehere

Foreign Policy Journal, an online publication dedicated to anti-American propaganda, should not be confused with Foreign Policy, a legitimate journal devoted to diplomatic analysis. The OP should bear in mind that using cheap propaganda phrases like "al-CIAda" and "Banksters" immediately negates any genuine information the post might contain.

Majority of our foreign policies is for the pursuit of control over others and their resources.
It has always been that way through out history.
They trick the people with propaganda like terrorists, human rights abuses and so on.

A major human rights issue occurred in China when they bulldozed 250 million Rural Chinese homes and sent them to work in the cities making widgets.

We never heard a peep about the human rights abuses, because the corporations in is country own our government and there was a lot of profits to be made utilizing Chinese workers that have no rights. They will support Communism, Fascism, or any other ism if there are profits to be made and they don't have to pay for it.

a reply to: gladtobehere

This makes no sense: it's literally conspiratorial nonsense from people who don't understand banking.

For example:

One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.

That is no different from any other nation with a currency on the planet. Do you want Malaysian ringgits? The ultimate source of them is the central bank of Malaysia.

The idea that Libya's financial and banking system had any significant influence on the economic power in the world is preposterous. And in any case, the interest of financial powers would always be on the side of preserving and enhancing existing stable and working banking networks, not disrupting them.

The size of the petroleum trade is insignificant quantitatively compared to the size of the bond and currency markets. Libya has no influence on any purported challenge to the reserve status of the euro or dollar. That comes from the choices of millions of people making investment and trade decisions.

There are plenty of reasons to criticize foreign policies but this isn't going to stick.

a reply to: gladtobehere

What Difference does it make? The brain dead progressives will still vote for her.

a reply to: gladtobehere
I have an old thread called 'About this Axis of Evil Thing" that I wanted to cross reference. All the countries included in the famous 'Axis of Evil' that the Bush Administration coined just happened t be the last countries left in the world that weren't under the financial influence of the IMF or World Bank. Certainly seems so in Libya's case in light of this.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: gladtobehere

This makes no sense: it's literally conspiratorial nonsense from people who don't understand banking.

For example:

One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.

That is no different from any other nation with a currency on the planet. Do you want Malaysian ringgits? The ultimate source of them is the central bank of Malaysia.

The idea that Libya's financial and banking system had any significant influence on the economic power in the world is preposterous. And in any case, the interest of financial powers would always be on the side of preserving and enhancing existing stable and working banking networks, not disrupting them.

The size of the petroleum trade is insignificant quantitatively compared to the size of the bond and currency markets. Libya has no influence on any purported challenge to the reserve status of the euro or dollar. That comes from the choices of millions of people making investment and trade decisions.

There are plenty of reasons to criticize foreign policies but this isn't going to stick.

But how do you explain we're all in debt to our ears and Lybia wasnt? If youre an authority on the principals of central banking you should be able to explain this curious fact to us? Could be coincidence ofcourse.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: gladtobehere

What Difference does it make? The brain dead progressives will still vote for her.

Well, you certainly won't persuade us to support your candidate by calling us "brain dead".


The only way I'd vote for her is if Trump won the Republican nomination. Then I'd do the same thing I did in 2004 and vote against the Republican candidate (Bush's 2nd term) instead of voting for a candidate I prefer (Nader, who I voted for in 2000). Yes, Trump & his spokeswoman's anti-Hispanic & anti-Islam rhetoric hits much closer to home for me than Hillary's despicableness (... wait, is that even a word? should it be "despicabosity"? "despicability"? "despicafullness"? hmmm... meh.)

originally posted by: markosity1973

Gadaffi was not the best ruler for sure, but the way they got rid of him is a crime against humanity. It has left the people of Libya in a far worse state than they were under his regime and allowed ISIS to incubate. How is any of this justifiable?

Well, truth be told Gaddafi was a much nicer, kinder, and better ruler to his people than possibly anyone on Earth in the last 500 years, based solely on what he offered his people. Here is a post I made last week or so regarding why from a page CNN recently edited to say they could not confirm. Sat there for four years, and then less than two weeks after I posted it on here, suddenly "they cannot verify/confirm", no doubt because it started to circulate once again.

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: Spider879

must not have been that tyrannical considering his people were treated better than nearly any other in Africa, The Middle East, and damn near anyone on Earth
Here are some Facts you probably do not know about Libya under Muammar Gaddafi:
• There was no electricity bills in Libya; electricity is free … for all its citizens.
• There was no interest on loans, banks in Libya are state-owned and loans given to all its citizens at 0% interest by law.
• If a Libyan is unable to find employment after graduation, the state would pay the average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
• Should Libyans want to take up a farming career, they receive farm land, a house, equipment, seed and livestock to kick start their farms –this was all for free.
• Gaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country.
• A home was considered a human right in Libya. (In Qaddafi’s Green Book it states: “The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by others.”)
• All newlyweds in Libya would receive 60,000 Dinar (US$ 50,000 ) by the government to buy their first apartment so to help start a family.
• A portion of Libyan oil sales is or was credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens.
• A mother who gives birth to a child would receive US $5,000.
• When a Libyan buys a car, the government would subsidizes 50% of the price.
• The price of petrol in Libya was $0.14 per liter.
• For $ 0.15, a Libyan local could purchase 40 loaves of bread.
• Education and medical treatments was all free in Libya. Libya can boast one of the finest health care systems in the Arab and African World. All people have access to doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines, completely free of charge.
• If Libyans cannot find the education or medical facilities they need in Libya, the government would fund them to go abroad for it – not only free but they get US $2,300/month accommodation and car allowance.
• 25% of Libyans have a university degree. Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans were literate. Today the figure is 87%.
• Libya had no external debt and its reserves amount to $150 billion – though much of this is now frozen globally.

Gaddafi wrote, “They want to do to Libya what they did to Iraq and what they are itching to do to Iran. They want to take back the oil, which was nationalized by these country’s revolutions. They want to re-establish military bases that were shut down by the revolutions and to install client regimes that will subordinate the country’s wealth and labor to imperialist corporate interests. All else is lies and deception.”

Many believe the NATO-led invasion of Libya was/is about oil and a vast wealth of other natural resources. Yet another critical element that few are aware of is the fact that Gaddafi had planned to introduce a single African currency made from gold. [Of this proposed African currency] Dr James Thring stated, “It’s one of these things that you have to plan almost in secret, because as soon as you say you’re going to change over from the dollar to something else, you’re going to be targeted … There were two conferences on this, in 1986 and 2000, organized by Gaddafi. … Most countries in Africa were keen.” This would have eradicated the US Dollar and Euro as trade currencies for Africa.

It would not be false to say, it is very possible the Gaddafi may have been the single most selfless leader of a country to its citizens of the last 500 years based on all that. Unfortunately, it is the Devil who has domain over the world of men.
[/url]

What a shame, it almost looks like he tried to pull a Jesus, and was rewarded equally in kind. Not that I am saying he was an equal to the false monotheistic God of 1/3 of the planet, just that he tried to do right by humanity for his citizens.
Tell you what though, sure is creepy to see the Orwelian editing in practice. That edit by CNN was literally put there within the last five days after being up for years, and they even got to the wayback machine, which recently had an edit of its own terms of service and Privacy policy.

Hehehe, good one guys (@ the Ministry of Truth)

a reply to: AmericanRealist

Gaddafi kind and nice?

He kept order, and held off chaos brutally. Especially when dealing with jihadists and rebels. He like Saddam knew how to make them too afraid to attack. One rumored method that was most effective was that when a jihadist was captured that person's family, usually including women and children, wives, mothers, etc and were brutalized, tortured and killed while the captive watched. Among other unspeakable methods. Those secret prisons and torture cells were real, and it was how these dictators held on to power and secured their reign over their countries. In fact it is how it has been done in that region for centuries.

The mistake was in thinking that by encouraging revolts, and helping rebels these countries could be tamed with some kind of westernized government and society, when all they really did was cause more pain, suffering and misery with war, then opening the gates of hell.

The reason the west will never be able to contain this problem now is because they are unable to put enough fear in the radical Islamic jihadists, that there will be a real deterrent. For a jihadi who is gleefully willing to die from his twisted ideology in suicidal ways, there are few things for him to fear.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: gladtobehere

Foreign Policy Journal, an online publication dedicated to anti-American propaganda, should not be confused with Foreign Policy, a legitimate journal devoted to diplomatic analysis. The OP should bear in mind that using cheap propaganda phrases like "al-CIAda" and "Banksters" immediately negates any genuine information the post might contain.

Attacking the source and OP with no attention to what is actually being shared, you know Hilary's emails, one could easily argue negates any genuine point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting the emails don't exist and they're just making up anti-American propaganda?

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: AmericanRealist

Gaddafi kind and nice?

He kept order, and held off chaos brutally. Especially when dealing with jihadists and rebels. He like Saddam knew how to make them too afraid to attack. One rumored method that was most effective was that when a jihadist was captured that person's family, usually including women and children, wives, mothers, etc and were brutalized, tortured and killed while the captive watched. Among other unspeakable methods. Those secret prisons and torture cells were real, and it was how these dictators held on to power and secured their reign over their countries. In fact it is how it has been done in that region for centuries.

The mistake was in thinking that by encouraging revolts, and helping rebels these countries could be tamed with some kind of westernized government and society, when all they really did was cause more pain, suffering and misery with war, then opening the gates of hell.

The reason the west will never be able to contain this problem now is because they are unable to put enough fear in the radical Islamic jihadists, that there will be a real deterrent. For a jihadi who is gleefully willing to die from his twisted ideology in suicidal ways, there are few things for him to fear.

Everything you just said is bull#. The west has no intention of taming anything or installing western whatever. All the countries attacked post 911 have been secular in nature, meaning they were far closer to the west than any of the West's allies in the MiddleEast. Period.

Imagine the problems that will occur if payment in gold is required..only to discover..no gold

a reply to: Rosinitiate

It is what it is, despite whatever you choose to believe.

I can respect your choice and leave it at that.