US orchestrates regime change in Libya, using social media (video)

Gadaffi had funneled millions of dollars of
his own money into French President Sarkozy's
campaign with the sole intent of opening up doors
around the UN Sanctions on Gadaffi's weapons.

Boon, that tidbit is nothing more than propaganda from Gaddafi. Where is the proof? Gaddafi promised to provide it and so far, nothing.

In contrast to its inept response to the upheavals in Tunisia and Egypt, Nicolas Sarkozy’s government was out in front in its response to Libya — condemning the Qaddafi regime, recognizing the rebel government, and pushing for a no-fly zone. The Qaddafis’ response? We want our money back:

Gaddafi’s son was then asked that as France was the first country to recognise the Interim Transitional National Council in Benghazi, what was his opinion of President Sarkozy.

Saif al-Islam: “Sarkozy must first give back the money he took from Libya to finance his electoral campaign. We funded it and we have all the details and are ready to reveal everything. The first thing we want this clown to do is to give the money back to the Libyan people. He was given assistance so that he could help them. But he’s disappointed us: give us back our money. We have all the bank details and documents for the transfer operations and we will make everything public soon.” (source)

This is the type of propaganda Gaddafi engages in, every world leader that sought to take action against his crackdown on dissidents and rebels he then tried to embarrass. He claimed he funded Sarkozy's campaign, he called Obama "his son".

I'll believe it when there is actual proof, and not just rhetoric coming from an increasingly desperate dictator trying to cling to power.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say Gaddafi did funnel money into Sarkozy's campaign, as a backhand deal to circumvent UN sanctions. How does this then support the notion that Sarkozy, among the "powers that be", would then want to remove Gaddafi or orchestrate a regime change? That sort of shady dealing would ensure Sarkozy FAVORS keeping Gaddafi in power.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


You really dont get it do you?

There is no "credible" western news source. Lol. They are corporate owned, many, many of them owned by Satan Murdoch. You have to take anything they say with a grain of salt, and compare it broadly against other sources, and sometimes your own gut. One of the big problems with the videos of the "horror" Gaddafi was reported to be perpetrating on his people was .........................a lack of horror. No videos of air strikes, only videos of bored extras standing around vehicles shooting the occasional firearm in the air. Woooooooo. Scary. Its not like many of us havent seen ACTUAL images of horror, say, from the US air striking Iraq, or Israel bombing the # out of Palestine. Some of us know the difference between fake crap and actual war footage.

The Russian Times says there were no air strikes. Are they less credible than the corporate owned western media? How can we know? Because they are commies? Oh wait, they arent.

And I dont think I said Gaddafi was a "good guy." I personally dont think that. He is an egotistical asshole like many world leaders. He just isnt unpopular enough in his own nation for the corporations to be able to instigate a popular uprising. They were trying, oh so hard, but then the damn Japanese earthquake hit, and everyone turned their attention to that. It was sad really, how the media kept saying, "hey guys, dont forget about Libya," and no one cared. Everyone was paying attention to the real horror in Japan.

No matter what an asshole Gaddafi is, he just wasnt enough of an asshole to make people rise up. Not to mention that he really isnt officially in charge there. THAT little detail. We need to kill him out because even with him NOT being in charge he still is too influential to suit the corporate war mongers.

originally posted by Blackmarketeer

The difference between Libya and Egypt or Libya and Tunisia is that those regimes stepped aside without unleashing their military on their civilian populations. They became the role models that these Libyan protesters are clearly attempting to emulate.

And the difference there is, the "protesters" in Egypt were not setting fire to government buildings like they were in Libya.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Protesters in Libya's capital are reported to have set fire to government buildings and attacked the headquarters of state television as the anti-Gaddafi demonstrations that began in the east of the country threaten to engulf the regime.

What do you think would happen in the US if we just marched up and set the Capitol building on fire? Hmmm? Ever watched video of the WTO protests?


Or how do you think THIS would unfold in the US? You try and kill some soldiers and seize some military equipment, go ahead. I dare you. See how pacifistic your government is. Demonstrate for us how differently you would be treated than the Libyan government is treating its people.


www.jihadwatch.org...

Islamist gunmen have stormed a military arms depot and a nearby port in Libya and seized numerous weapons and army vehicles after killing four soldiers, a security official says.

The group also took several hostages, both soldiers and civilians, and is "threatening to execute them unless a siege by security forces is lifted" in Al-Baida, the official told AFP on Sunday, asking not to be named.

"This criminal gang assaulted an army weapons depot and seized 250 weapons, killed four soldiers and wounded 16 others" in the Wednesday operation in Derna, which lies east of Al-Baida and 1300km from Tripoli.

So now you want us to believe that all the world's media is in on a vast conspiracy to fake all footage from Libya showing rebels being attacked by Gaddafi, to fabricate a rebellion out of thin air? How many news organizations would this involve? How many reporters would have to be in on it?

Even Russian media is claiming rebels have been pounded by air strikes from Gaddafi's forces;

Video of Libya rebels under fire as Gaddafi airstrikes reported, and there were hundreds more links like that one.

Whatever your opinions are on Gaddafi or the US/UN intervention or even their perverse relationships between Gaddafi and western oil powers over the last few decades may be, please don't stoop to insulting my intelligence into believing the current civil war in Libya is a fabrication by western media. Not even Murdoch is that good.

Like I said earlier, the western powers had long ago "forgiven" Gaddafi for his past terrorist activities, and settled into business as usual with him, even to the point US oil giant Conoco's world headquarters was in a Libyan owned building, this isn't something you do to only wreck it by ousting the business partner you've been propping up. Russia is only whining because they had even more invested in Gaddafi (note; not Libya, but Gaddafi).

I think the real "sock-puppet" social-media campaign is to imply that this is a "fake war" not deserving of UN support. The US didn't start this. If you have proof, then show it.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


First of all, I agree fully with Illusionsaregrander on this one.

I'm sorry for the following offtopic conversation about Egypt, but I feel that what I have learned and observed during the 22 years I lived there is closely related to all the uprisings in Africa and the ME.

It is perfectly clear to me that these "revolutions" were not truly started by the people themselves.

I lived in Egypt for 20 years, and I have seen protests! I was there, in Cairo university during the huge protests when the Palestinian 'intifada' was going on. The protesters (students and muslim brotherhood members) were trying to get to the Israeli embassy, and they were stopped, violently. Hell, they shot tear gas INTO the university (through the window in the middle of a lecture), and they beat up people, some got crippled for the rest of their lives. They also arrested a lot of people, many of whom disappeared and were never heard of again.

My point is, these regimes knew how to control the people, and were constantly aware of any possible internal threats to their rule, these were swiftly wiped out.

Also, the way it worked there was:
If you have access to Twitter and Facebook (and have nearly PERFECT English skills when you tweet on BBC) you have a relatively good standard of living, and have no real reason to start up a revolution!
Again, if you are really poor, you don't have time to start a revolution because you are busy figuring out what you are going to eat tomorrow. If you are rich, then.. well... you own the country basically and live like a king.

This is just my opinion ofcourse.

@Blackmarketeer:
That video doesn't prove anything, where are the military jets ? Did you see a single military jet in that video ?
It's a bunch of people running around in the desert and shooting.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
So now you want us to believe that all the world's media is in on a vast conspiracy to fake all footage from Libya showing rebels being attacked by Gaddafi, to fabricate a rebellion out of thin air? How many news organizations would this involve? How many reporters would have to be in on it?

dude, you miss the point. Reporters don't write those stories
(most of them) they are syndicated from 1 source. The
likes of the CIA writes the story and sends it to multiple
media sources who all print the same propaganda.
They do not even know they are being used to
spread propaganda.

There was a book written about this recently
of a reporter who quit cuz he could not write
or alter the stories given to him for press.
The reporters are puppets as well.
They go along or they are fired.

reply to post by boondock-saint


That was a video from a Russian media outlet - how was that written by the CIA?

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Who says "the US" started this? Since when are multinational corporations the US?

Our government, like many first world governments, dance to the tune of multinationals, but clearly another war in the Mid East is not in the United States best interest. Our President is going to war without even getting the approval of Congress.

You yourself pointed out that there was time to run things by the Arab league, and time to run it by the UN, but no time to run this attack by Congress? Obviously not. Even though Obama himself on the campaign trail spoke firmly against any President unilaterally taking the nation to war unless it was in imminent danger. Are you claiming the US was in imminent danger from Libya?

And you say it is so hard to believe that the media might act in concert but how many outlets would have to conspire? How many are there in the US do you know? 1000? 2? How big a conspiracy would it need to be? The answer is, you really cant know. So pretending its an outrageous claim is itself outrageous.

en.wikipedia.org...

In the United States, data on ownership and market share of media companies is not held in the public domain. Academics, for example at MIT Media Lab and NYU, have struggled to find data that show reliably the concentration of media ownership.

I also completely agree with moderate skeptic. I have seen what is purported to be airstrkes, with no "air" going on. But the very MINUTE we started air strikes on Libya, there are images of planes out the wazoo. So clearly planes are able to be filmed in the air, if they are actually IN the air, that is.

And who says the CIA is behind the propaganda? Personally, the propaganda they are putting out isnt even good, its pretty lame, really. I would expect better of the CIA. My guess is the multinationals in the interest of cost cutting subbed it out to some crap company who is still being paid too much for the rubbish its cranking out.

Here are more video of air strikes from Gaddafi; obviously none have occurred since the NFZ was imposed, just shelling and ground forces are still being used.

Libyan air strikes force rebels to retreat (about half way in)

Rebels fire at Gaddafi warplanes

Libyan Warplanes strike rebels at Ras Lanuf - no comment

Libyan War Planes Strike Rebel Positions (from Fox news no less)

Dramatic video of warplane going down in flames, exploding on ground in Libya (Libyan fighter goes down)

Bombs fall on Libya's Ras Lanuf

There's hundreds of these videos up on youtube showing Gaddafi's forces were striking at Libyan rebels. Hos is this all supposed to be fake??? So some idiot gets on "Russia Today" and wants to attack western forces for their response in Libya by claiming it "looks fake", and that's all it takes for you lot? (believe it was the Russian Envoy to NATO) Oh yes let's all believe the Russian Envoy. What's his stake in all this - oh that's right Russia buys even more of Moammar's oil then the EU or US.. How does he think this was all faked? CGI? Lot's of actors? Recycled footage from the last time Gaddafi attacked Libyan rebels? I'm curious, how is this all fake?

I don't see the US or the EU as orchestrating this rebellion, but maybe they can position themselves to take advantage of it by finally ridding the word of a murdering psychopath. If we weren't so HAMSTRUNG by the bs war Bush lied his way into in Iraq we or the pisspoor management of the Afghanistan was (weren't we supposed to be going after Bin Laden) we might have been in a better position to act on Libya. As it is, the Arab League came to US for aid, remember? And I'm pretty sire they wouldn't have been fooled by western social media sites. They were more than capable of seeing it first hand.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Who says "the US" started this? Since when are multinational corporations the US?

Look at the post title.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


We have all seen the footage of zero planes in the air. And let me repeat that, of all those links, there is ONE with footage of ONE plane, with absolutely no other identifying landmarks. Just a plane in blue sky.

All the others are of people shooting at nothing while sitting out in the open. And all those planes are totally incapable of seeing them or hitting them for some reason. But there is black smoke billowing from one oil depot someone set on fire.

Maybe the people sitting out in the open NOT being fired upon by planes and aircraft are wearing those elven invisibility cloaks like Frodo had and the planes just cant see them.

Oh wait, I take it all back, I finally found evidence of Libya conducting air strikes on its own people! Oh the horror! Finally, a fighter jet in the sky! Attacking something!

An interesting interview with a CIA analyst (who also thinks this action in Libya is ridiculous) who at the end essentially accuses the reporter of being a cheer leader for Obama.

Worth a watch. He uses the words "bit of theatre." And he talks about how the way it is spun by saying "this may fool some Americans,"

And more videos, these from hospitals crammed with wounded from Gaddafi's attacks;

(VERY GRAPHIC)

Gaddafi's Slaughtered Civilians in a Benghazi, Libya Hospital (Feb. 25, 2011)

Victims of Gaddafi's Special Force in a Benghazi, Libya Hospital (Feb. 2011)

Al Jalaa Hospital, Benghazi, March 10 2011 Part 1

I suppose you think the CIA sneaked in there in the dead of night just to butcher up these people all to blame it on Gaddafi, as part of some highly convoluted and vast plot to undermine him.

These are just a few of the hundreds, perhaps thousands of videos currently on youtube showing graphic proof of Gaddafi's attacks on civilians in rebel-held cities, as reprisals for their uprisings. You must have your head way, WAY, up there to try and continue to deny these videos are real.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Can we get some kind of crib notes to follow for when `MSM` reports are to be considered valid? It's really tough to follow when you reject some sources out of hand, while embracing others that support your thesis.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds



What have you said in these last two posts one or two sentence posts on the topic? Hint, I am not the topic.

You are just a troll, and Im not feeding you. If and when you actually provide some argument with some meat, and some substance that you support in some way, you might be worth it. Right now, Im just feeding your ego if I pretend your crappy one or two liners are worth a serious reply.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


What have I said in support of Obama? You're merely lobbing off-topic personal attacks because you feel pushed into a corner. That's too bad for intelligent discourse, but SOP here on ATS.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


You want to see very graphic? Go look at some of the footage of children killed by Israel lately. Or some of the blown to # babies in Iraq. As war casualties go, these are adult men in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi and for all we know they were combatants, not civilians.

Besides, lets pretend they are totally just innocent men, never lifted a hand against their government, does the US really get to be squeamish about the death of grown men of fighting age when we feel this way about children?

www.fair.org...

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)


Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's quote, calmly asserting that U.S. policy objectives were worth the sacrifice of half a million Arab children, has been much quoted in the Arabic press. It's also been cited in the United States in alternative commentary on the September 11 attacks (e.g., Alexander Cockburn, New York Press, 9/26/01).

And thats BEFORE we started bombing them. Do you know how many of their children we have killed and you have the fricken gall to post some videos showing less than a dozen dead men who were very likely rebels engaged in active attack on their government?

I know you think the hypocrisy is totally unremarkable. But I dont. I am very well aware that my leaders concerns with the well being of civilians has everything to do with the economic concerns of their wealthy friends and supporters, and very little do with with the actual people being killed.

In fact in Libya I would be very surprised if we do not kill more genuine civilians including children in our supposed effort to save them than the Libyan government would have in trying to quash a rebellion. When that threshold is crossed, those who cheerlead mindlessly with just shift their rhetoric to something else.

You want to see very graphic? Go look at some of the footage of children killed by Israel lately. Or some of the blown to # babies in Iraq. As war casualties go, these are adult men in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi and for all we know they were combatants, not civilians.

What does Israel have to do with the topic at hand? Why would you invoke such a completely off topic argument?

These are pictures and videos of the rebels who were taken to the hospitals in Bengazi after Gaddafi's reprisal attacks. You have been insisting these attacks were "fake" or the product of the media only, well these videos clearly show these are real casualties. No one is claiming they are 'innocent civilians', they are the REBELS, the opposition force, and yes, they have been getting slaughtered by Gaddafi for daring to stand up to him. How many were combatants and how many were Bengazi residents we'll probably never know. Apparently Libya is divided along an East/West mentality.

----------

This whole topic is based it seems on this video:
CIA fake YouTube Twitter accounts Push Libya War on Gaddafi
Yet where is the proof of these "hundreds of thousands" of CIA created fake twitter/FB accounts? Al Jezeera has been tracking all twitter activity and it doesn't come close to that number. All we have from the author of this video is their innuendo. We're simply supposed to believe it? FB even stated the total number of FB pages/groups that were created during Egypt's revolution - 32,000 groups generating 14,000 pages. Hardly "hundreds of thousands".

This idea that the US is orchestrating a regime change by using social media has several flaws, and the premise is bunk.

Anonymous reveals HBGary has developed software to manipulate social-media Web sites by creating fake online personas that can be controlled by a single person.

A spike occurred in Twitter/Facebook accounts and usage during the Egypt uprising. (Facebook Sees Egypt Usage Spike)

A similar spike occurred in Libya, Gaddafi responds by shutting down the Web briefly (Libya’s Internet Blackout Is No Match For Web Savvy Protesters)

This spike according to the theory, was blamed in part on the idea of social-media manipulation courtesy of software like HBGary's, designed to create an army of online personas to sway opinions (ie, "sock-puppets").

It would have us assume such spikes are the result of HBGary's software - which is a logical fallacy.

Twitter and FB both state that usage of their sites spikes during prominent events:

Twitter's usage spikes during prominent events. For example, a record was set during the 2010 FIFA World Cup when fans wrote 2,940 tweets per second in the thirty-second period after Japan scored against Cameroon on June 14, 2010. The record was broken again when 3,085 tweets per second were posted after the Los Angeles Lakers' victory in the 2010 NBA Finals on June 17, 2010,[37] and then again at the close of Japan's victory over Denmark in the World Cup when users published 3,283 tweets per second.[38] When American singer Michael Jackson died on June 25, 2009, company servers crashed after users were updating their status to include the words "Michael Jackson" at a rate of 100,000 tweets per hour - Wikipedia

More traffic was generated by Micheal Jacksons death than by Libyans during this revolution. MJ peaked at 250,000 per minute (The Day Michael Jackson – and Nearly the Internet – Died) versus a whopping 38 per minute for Libya (Al Jazeera's Twitter dashboard) I checked the average high for the past week, which was 32 tweets/minute concerning Libya.

250,000/min for MJ versus 38/min for Libya.
Not exactly an army of sock-puppets.

To "prove" the so-called rebellion against Gaddafi is just the product of social-media manipulation, proponents of this theory must now deny there is indeed a real revolution or rebellion, which is why we have deniers of any of these reprisals courtesy of Gaddafi's regime. Yet we have video proof of both air and ground assaults against these rebels, with a large number of severely wounded arriving at hospitals. This is supposed to be fake? What's worse is when these deniers and Gaddafi-apologists resort to painting Gaddafi as the good guy, by claiming he isn't brutal to his own people. Sickening.

Even Japan saw a huge spike in Twitter and FB usage as a result of the tsunami. Should we assume the US orchestrated that too?

----------

Now look at this theory from a profit and motive standpoint. US corporations (according to the theory and some of our posters in this thread) are "TPTB" behind this regime change, no doubt to gain more access to Libyan oil. See, decades ago we put sanctions on Libya for it's ties to terrorism. Obviously this would impede US corporations from access to those oil fields.

Only, Bush lifted those sanctions in 2004. (Bush signs order lifting sanctions on Libya) US corporations have been able to do business with Libya.

Factbox: U.S. oil companies' interests in Libya

These include:

CONOCOPHILLIPS: 16.3% stake in Libya's Waha concessions, which encompass nearly 13 million gross acres. Net oil production from Libya averaged 45,000 barrels per day in 2009 -- or 2 percent of worldwide output.

MARATHON OIL CORP: 16% interest in the outside-operated Waha concessions; 46,000 bpd in 2009

HESS CORP: 22,000 bpd of crude from Libya, or 8 percent of its crude output.

OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORP: Occidental, the fourth-largest U.S. oil company, earned $243 million in net sales from Libya in 2009.

In other words, US corporations were ALREADY doing business with Gaddafi/Libya. If anything, this "fake revolution" is jeopardizing those businesses. These corporations had no reason to get rid of Gaddafi, in fact they probably LOVED doing business with him, they are all just as greasy and corrupt as he is. These big oil companies pushed Bush into handing them exactly what they wanted - lifting sanctions on a known terrorist so they can all make more money. They didn't care who or what Gaddafi is, they didn't care about his proven terrorist acts that killed Americans, and thanks to Bush it was all business as usual.

So why would they rock the boat now, according to this ridiculous theory, by "manipulating social media" to incite revolution against their primary business partner in Libya?

These revolutionaries are far more likely to seize these oil ports and turn them into state-owned property wiping out all those deals that have been put in place by our big oil companies. Not too mention how badly Russia would lose out, they've done far more with Gaddafi, and the last thing they want to see is him gone. That's why they are waging this war of words against "western intervention" on the behalf of the rebels.

----------

There is no profit or motivation for these corporate interests in regime-change in Libya, I have no doubt they wish to maintain the status quo. In fact it is this notion that they would prefer the status quo that would lead me to say that if there are any HBGary "sock-puppets" fake twitter/FB or other online opinions being spread about, it's in opposition to the US intervention. After all, HBGary is a right-wing leaning entity that has been caught smearing opponents of Republicans or right-wing organizations, or major corporations facing bad publicity due to Wikileaks.

Right Wing Organizations Caught Smearing Opponents

HBGary then, is not at all on the side of Obama or his administration. Nor do I think the application they developed would be lent or allowed to be used by Obama's admin, as that is a tool held strictly by this organization for it's right-wing masters.

reply to post by Darkk


yes I completely agree, also about a month ago Hillary Clinton praised al Jazeera as "real news" -- and Western news outlets have begun publishing al Jazeera clips on their websites. Al Jazeera is possible worse than Western media outlets, especially because they have a very good reputation, among many liberal americans who are dubious of our own media but ignorant to Arab politics. Qatar was the first Arab country to fly war planes over Libya. Coincidence? No.

Fact 1: Gaddaffi was using helicopters to kill civilians.
Fact 2: There is an internal resistance of rebels already allied against Gaddaffi (and have been for the last 20 years)
Fact 3: The UN, and the League of Arab nations sanctioned this.
Fact 4: No US troops are on the ground
Fact 5: Nobody backs Libya, Gaddaffi has been ostracized by his own Arab neighbors after he attacked those protesters.
Fact 6: The war is now in control of NATO.
Fact 7: This will HURT US oil interests, not help them. But it still had to be done.
Fact 8: The riots turned bloody only after Gaddaffi used sever measures to crack down on them. Now it's a civil war.

The GOP was all for the US taking some action to stop Gaddaffi and were complaining the entire time about Obama not doing anything. Then Obama takes action and they complain about that. For the GOP it's all about standing for the opposite of whatever Obama stand for. Even if it means embracing a monster and terrorist ring leader like Gaddaffi like he was some long-lost brother. The GOP/Gaddaffi-lovers can go jump in a lake.

The only social-media manipulation I see going on is in FAVOR of Gaddaffi, and from Gaddaffi defenders on sites like this one.