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

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

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.

It doesn't matter how close to the West these governments were before being toppled. The fact is the USA aimed to instill democracy in specific countries of the region. Among the many reasons given to attack Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, establishing a democracy was one of them. The USA hit Iraq to topple its government and rebuild it. The USA hit Afghanistan to topple its government and rebuild it. The USA hit Libya to topple its government and rebuild it. The USA also wanted to go into Syria, and are actively funding rebel groups against the government, for ostensibly similar purposes.

a reply to: ausername

free power, free medial, subsidized weddings, subsidized housing as a universal human right, subsidized auto ownership/transportation, subsidized education, 0% interest loans by law. If only the leaders of the West could be so brutal and fascist to us as well eh??

originally posted by: AmericanRealist

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.

There's more than one side to people.

I agree that Gaddafi done many good things for his country and his people. We only have to look at the list you provided as well as Libya's former HDI for evidence. That said, dictatorships usually try to keep the living standards of the people adequate so as to maintain firm support and happiness in the people. When the Arab Spring protests initially began in Libya, Gaddafi tried further lowering the costs of services in an attempt to stave off anger and halt what would become the revolution.

a reply to: daaskapital

Lets not forget it was not Libyan flags that were raised after his fall, but the Al-Qaida flag. So who exactly was revolting again??? Did we forget Obama authorized targeted assassination of American citizens by killing the 4th amendment in NDAA 2012?? Who is the dictator again??

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: daaskapital

Lets not forget it was not Libyan flags that were raised after his fall, but the Al-Qaida flag. So who exactly was revolting again??? Did we forget Obama authorized targeted assassination of American citizens by killing the 4th amendment in NDAA 2012?? Who is the dictator again??

I know...i posted the Al-Qaeda flag topic on ATS when it was first reported in 2011...

It's no secret that terrorists were involved in the revolution of Libya. Anybody who actually looked into the war could see it.

As to who was revolting, it was probably a mixture of different groups with different aims. Much like the Syrian civil war.

Not everything is black and white.

You can argue all day about Obama being a dictator, but at least the USA has certain balances and checks in place. Just because you think Obama is a dictator, doesn't negate the fact that Gaddafi was also. Or Hussein. Or Assad.

a reply to: daaskapital

no doubt. But when measuring on quality of life, and not access to Ipad's, twitter, Jordan's or Netflix, I feel Qaddafi wins hand down.

a reply to: daaskapital

You keep blaming the USA but the big banks and military industrial complex run everything that happens. The governments only have so much control.

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: daaskapital

no doubt. But when measuring on quality of life, and not access to Ipad's, twitter, Jordan's or Netflix, I feel Qaddafi wins hand down.

It's hard to say without actually living there and experiencing the full effects of his government. That said, there is no doubt some things were pretty good under his rule.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: daaskapital

You keep blaming the USA but the big banks and military industrial complex run everything that happens. The governments only have so much control.

He was talking about the West, not independent companies which may or may not have direct control of governments.

The USA, i.e. a superpower and the strongest Western country, was the public leader in those conflicts and argued for democracy in the region. It is one reason out of many which was used to attack. That's all i'm saying.

a reply to: daaskapital

If you really believe the aim of these attacks in the middle east is to install democracy then you are incredibly naive

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: daaskapital

If you really believe the aim of these attacks in the middle east is to install democracy then you are incredibly naive

You people must have troubles with reading comprehension or something.

I never said i believed the official line. I said that among many of the reasons given by officials, instilling democracy was one of them.

There are obviously a multitude of public and confidential reasons why these countries interfered in the Middle-East. Out of the many reasons the USA had to go into the Middle-East, it was using democracy as one of them. They toppled the governments and tried replacing them with democracies, but they also had ulterior motives.

a reply to: daaskapital

It's the way you phrased it, not about our reading comprehension

Yes they said it was their aim to install democracy and topple these so called horrendous dictators, but let's be honest, who really believed that line ? Even average idiot joe public wouldn't believe it the 3rd time (in the case of Syria) after seeing that line used for Iraq/Afghanistan and then for Libya but seeing nothing but trauma and destruction in the aftermath and very little to show in the form of democracy and improved living conditions for the inhabitants.

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: daaskapital

It's the way you phrased it, not about our reading comprehension

I can see where my phrasing may have caused some miscommunication, where i said 'the fact is...', but i did make it clear that democracy was only one reason out of many used to go into the Middle-East.

Yes they said it was their aim to install democracy and topple these so called horrendous dictators, but let's be honest, who really believed that line ? Even average idiot joe public wouldn't believe it the 3rd time (in the case of Syria) after seeing that line used for Iraq/Afghanistan and then for Libya but seeing nothing but trauma and destruction in the aftermath and very little to show in the form of democracy and improved living conditions for the inhabitants.

I agree. It is good to see that the average public woke up to the whole thing. It's also good to have some form of evidence that other motives were involved (with the content of this thread). Not that any of us wouldn't expect that to be the case.

a reply to: daaskapital

The bigger problem is, even with damning evidence like this, the lack of WMD's in Iraq despite being told it was 100% guarantee Iraq had WMD's and every other lie we've ever been told, nothing happens. Nobody is brought forward to take responsibility for their lies to public, it's like it has become ingrained in people ever since Nixon and the watergate that politicians lie and it's ok because they're politicians and it's what they do.

I await the day that we begin to take action against and punish such politicians who abuse the trust and faith we give them in order to do their job to serve our interests and not the interests of a few powerful people

a reply to: daaskapital

Well I'd just say there is a fundamental difference between a reason and a justification. They were all strong independent secular nations that threaten the West Uni-polar world view. Just like we had seen and still see in Africa and Latin America.

This mail does not confirm anything. What you see here is a private adviser, whose assessments were often unreliable and who himself had financial interests in Libya, forwarding a conspiracy theory to H. Clinton.

The theory existed before this mail, was published by a right-wing Italian journalist Franco Bechis e.g. www.voltairenet.org...

Please note, I am not claiming that the conspiracy theory as such is wrong or right, just that this mail does not provide any factual information either way.

...and then you still go vote for trump or your local right wing politicians, "these stupid sandn**** invading or countries and raping our woman", you idiot deserve it! The mainthreat is not the "brown man" it is your politcian at home and as long as you live in your bubble and support your dream right wing propaganda nothing will change. Good luck being brainwashed. OP great information, more and more lies comes to light.

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: daaskapital

The bigger problem is, even with damning evidence like this, the lack of WMD's in Iraq despite being told it was 100% guarantee Iraq had WMD's and every other lie we've ever been told, nothing happens. Nobody is brought forward to take responsibility for their lies to public, it's like it has become ingrained in people ever since Nixon and the watergate that politicians lie and it's ok because they're politicians and it's what they do.

I await the day that we begin to take action against and punish such politicians who abuse the trust and faith we give them in order to do their job to serve our interests and not the interests of a few powerful people

I absolutely can't stand the Bush crime family but there most certainly were chemical weapons. Other threads have shown from where they came from that Iraq used on the Kurds. The Kurds know 1st hand about WMDs. Now if you are saying no Nuclear bombs, that is probably a true statement. Bush was looking for any excuse to attack Saddam, probably to leave this mess. Most of us know how the Bush family is anything but saintly and we can start with his Dad who has to be pure evil to free people. His group doesn't like us being allowed to decide how we the people who were given the power over government were running the USA. Since Reagan was shot and nearly died, the Bush CIA family has run things. As FDR said "nothing in politics happen by accident, nothing".

originally posted by: Gogvonmagog
...and then you still go vote for trump or your local right wing politicians, "these stupid sandn**** invading or countries and raping our woman", you idiot deserve it! The mainthreat is not the "brown man" it is your politcian at home and as long as you live in your bubble and support your dream right wing propaganda nothing will change. Good luck being brainwashed. OP great information, more and more lies comes to light.

The "Orwellian speak" of the media is being called out everywhere for the lies they are representing and now people of all walks of life have had their fill. THAT is why people make horrible comments like sand N's.... WE HAVE to learn to separate the people who want to be free and allowed to defend themselves from those who want neither for those of us who do. Without much action by good men to stop these evil deeds, as very few have acted, there is little hope till enough people awaken to reality.

Safe to say it is true when good men DON'T act, this stranglehold over all mankind is the end game. We have allowed the media the permission to lie to us for so long that some free people want to invite invaders in, not understanding that without proper vetting of insane people who want to control the world for a religion, creed or drug lord of their choosing, we destroy our 300 year attempt to allow free men to be ruling freely. With fair laws in place that disallows Tyrannical power grabs and the crushing of the will of the people for political gains by small violations of the Constitution (death by a thousand cuts).

shocking....
because all of America's other wars were (will be) justified by morality and the best interest of human kind...

its too bad history is written by the victors, the real threat to the destabilization of the world and the only country constantly involved in a war for nearly a century will be seen as the "good guys".