Qaddafi threatens the West with attacks +++

Originally posted by dario86
The more i research this topic the more i like Gaddafi. Why?
Thanks to mainstream media i thought that whole Libya stood up against Gaddafi and his tyranny and i thought that whole nation can't be wrong. But its obvious now that he got a lot of supporters which means he did something good for them in the past.

Then i saw NATO bombing civilians and killing children just because they are related to Gaddafi. Then i remembered who controls EU and US. That was enough for me to start changing my mind.
But what really got me is last few speeches from Gaddafi. Of course it could be poor propaganda but i guess Libyan people should know the best and like i said in the beginning, Gaddafi has a lot of supporters.

And if west has right to attack Libya why wouldn't Libya attack back? I just hope this madness will end soon and peacefully.

edit on 4/7/11 by dario86 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/7/11 by dario86 because: (no reason given)

Here is a timeline of his crimes that i'm sure you uncovered during your research:

newlibya.com...

If you are starting to like this guy you should invite Stalin and Hitler over for tea also. Sounds like the four of you have alot in common.

reply to post by confreak


The might of the west? Look at the trouble we are having with Afgan atm. Our military resources are already at a massive stretch and European countries wont commit a significant % of forces to help. It would be smarter for us to try and ally ourselves with larger powers like China and Russia which would be difficult to say the least,

If only we could just use the other option and not take military action against the middle east to a further extent. I think our leaders are arrogent and think that they will scare their enemies into submission, but these are very stubborn and religiously motivated enemies who wont go down without a fight and significant cost to us.

reply to post by xavi1000


ummm, thanks, thats a lot of stuff to look through. hope its not too one-sided...

Originally posted by Wachstum
reply to post by xavi1000

 

ummm, thanks, thats a lot of stuff to look through. hope its not too one-sided...

MSM is one sided ..this is the truth ..just connect the dots and listen the general Wesley Clark

I am not joking with My response here, nor am I trying to stir anyone's emotions into either anger nor love. I am just trying to point out an eerie fact. Eerie if you do not believe in fate of the Human Race.

George Washington had a vision from an 'angel' (not of the Christian religion, I am just using the word as it's most known for nearly everyone can picture) that said North America would be warred by Arabs, Chinese, and Russians.

webcache.googleusercontent.com...:nexdG-kl1lIJ:www.civil-liberties.com/pages/prophesy.html+george+washington+prohpec&cd=1&hl=en&ct= clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.ca

I am not saying the Russians, Chinese, nor Arabs are bad either, as we have let our egos run amok and caused untold misery by ways of giving up our responsibility to big corporations as they take advantage of the rest of the world, to give us what we want.

But we can unite together, not only as North American, but as a planet together.

Hahahahahahaha yea ok I bet $200 that he is full of it. Nothing is going to happen

i have a friend from libya whos brothers still in the country and he says that the west libya is all for the rebals and only a small part of the east is still loyal to gadaffi

I wish that we in America would arm every last citizen. Just like the Constitution states...but alas we will just let TPTB walk all over our so called "rights" until we have no "rights" at all. Oh wait that already happened. I almost forgot that 110,000 Japanese American citizens were thrown into interment camps in 1942. OH YEA, and the Act of 1871 that changed the title of the Constitution. And let us not forget the Peace Treaty of 1783 that sold out the U.S.A. to the British Empire (no wonder they join in every war we fight, they own 65% of the U.S.)

Never mind go back to bed America...go to sleep, go to sleep, close your big bloodshot eyes...dadada...tatata...and I hope you don't wake up...LATER

reply to post by kro32


Come on, lets leave cheap insults aside. We can talk like adults, at least ill try.

Since you mentioned Stalin and Hitler lets talk a little bit about second world war. Hitler attacked half of Europe and occupied it for some time. When world war ended Stalin was the one who occupied half of Europe. More than 50 million people died in second world war and many more suffered.

On other hand Gaddafi surely did some crimes that you mentioned but he did not invade tens of countries. He did not kill tens of millions. So i wouldn't compare him with Hitler and Stalin. That being said let's move on.

What really made me think about Gaddafi is:
1) Amount of support he still has in Libya.
2) Number of foreign workers that found workplace in Libya. I read in one article that number was above 1,5 million which is a lot if you keep in mind that population of Libya is about 6,5 million. I even remember first news when war in Libya started. They were about workers waiting for help and transportation to their homeland. So if there is no freedom of speech, religion and so on (that's what your link claims) why did all these people chose to move to Libya and work there?
3) Projects he did in Libya (man made river, schools, housing...). Today Libya in one of the richest countries in Africa. GDP per capita was $14,880 in 2010 which is, for example, higher then in Romania and Bulgaria (both joined European Union).
4) And guess what. Main export countries are/were Italy,Germany, France and Spain. Same countries that now started attack on Libya or they help NATO in their mission there.

Anyway, what i want to say is that i know he isn't a saint but i don't think he is as bad as mainstream media shows him.

Also when he helps terrorist groups he is criminal but when "west" does the same thing then it is ok?
I don't want to approve his crimes because others do it to i just think there should be same standards for all world leaders. And if same standards would be applied then Gaddafi just might be a better leader then some "west" leaders.

P.S. You should read post by xavi1000.

reply to post by dario86


Thanks for your input .. I will add some small info to your post ..about how Gaddafi helped Libya people in last 40 years

* GDP per capita - $ 14,192.
* Unemployment benefit - $ 730.
* Each family member subsidized by the state gets annually $ 1.000
* Salary for nurses - $ 1.000.
* For every newborn is paid $ 7.000.
* The bride and groom receive a $ 64 thousand to purchase flats.
* Major taxes and levies prohibited.
* To open a personal business a one-time financial assistance of $ 20.000
* Education and medicine are free.
* Educ.Internships abroad - at government expense.
* Stores for large families with symbolic prices for basic foodstuffs.
* Part of pharmacies - with free dispensing.
* Loans for buying a car and an apartment - no interest.
* Real estate services are prohibited.,
* Buying a car up to 50% paid by the State.
* No Payment for electricity for the population.
* Sales and use of alcohol is prohibited.
* Petrol is cheaper than water. 1 liter of gasoline - $ 0.14.

The US and all the western allies are pissing countries like Lybia, Iran, Syria and all those others off with their false evidence, accusations and disprove of their way of living. Maybe it is their intension to piss them off and insulting them to the point some extremist blow something up in the middle of manhatan and have an excuse to drop the bomb.Why not seek peace and understanding instead of hostile rerlations. Are these leaders kids...? Idiots......and they certainly do not represent me with their wise decisions and acts of war.

reply to post by kro32


The site you posted, the logo says "free Libya". Do you think that is an unbiased website? Wait, do you think that Website has any agenda?

It is evident that Qaddafi did much good, no one can deny that part but he was against the party system as I posted in the first page. When he banned parties he didn't do it to ban people from being politically involved, rather to stop people from giving their rights and their responsibility to someone else, which is exactly what representative Democracy is about.

That being said, representative Democracy creates huge problems, as you can see in the West where the parties people vote for don't really represent the people. Instead Qaddafi preferred direct Democracy, where people are more involved and take more responsibility, hence his radical idea to abolish the government completely.

It is a great idea, and I have been thinking about a similar idea myself, hence individual Democracy. In the West it is different, you give your say to someone else, someone who represents you, Qaddafi says no one can represent you except you. You can keep voting, but that person isn't you, so how can he represent you, that person in the end, even if you voted for him, will look after his own interests because he represents himself, like Obama for example.

Regarding the arrest and tortures in the Website, very stupid for anyone to believe that without any source, also it is very stupid for people to believe it with a complete one sided story of the events. It is like me cherry picking some arrests in US and then saying they were arrested because they were against the government, they broke no laws, they weren't involved in any criminal activities, and surely they didn't do anything bad. Like Mr. Bradley who is locked up right now in an undisclosed location, what crime did he commit again? Other than telling the truth? Or maybe Mr. Al-Awlaki who is being hunted down like a dog by US, its own citizen hunted down, kill or capture without any guilt, any charge, nor any conviction. See the difference? When you talk about those cases, give a little detail, or it will show the one sidedness, I can go on and do the research, but I want you to do it, find the government explanations for those arrests, then compare it to war propaganda, then look for evidence. If you are not looking at both sides, you are naively taking half of a picture and believing it is a full picture.

Regarding his support for different factions in African conflicts, that was normal (it wasn't right in my opinion), but what the website doesn't say is the fact that Qaddafi was the one calling for peace between different factions, when peace failed, you take sides with who you think is right. That isn't surprising, something which the West is heavily involved all around the globe as we speak.

Regarding the CIA attempt to topple Qaddafi again (2011), that is all once again MSM propaganda repeated, this isn't odd at all that the B.S Mercenary claim is injected there, so if that lie is injected then the credibility is mute, also once again no source for any of the claims, where's the evidence except the same parrot style reverse and replay, as if you repeat it long enough it might come true.

The supposed protesters weren't obviously peaceful protesters when they were armed and killing Libyans, they were Mercenaries AKA CIA forces trying to spread chaos in an attempt to cause regime change.

It would help to deny ignorance if you stopped reading those websites and actually do your own research. It is truly mind boggling that someone would post that website and then claim Qaddafi is comparable to Stalin and Hitler.

Surley No-one is suprised he threatens attacks?

his coutry is at war, his allies will help.. war is a too sided thing,

There has been information in here about him i didnt know and for that i am very happy,
i think some people are over looking the fact that he hasnt always been a saint so there are two sides to every coin,

also... when people have asked about the protesting rebels etc.. could this not be easily stirered by CIA or black ops type affairs without any problem if he is as good to his people as you say?

Well this may be a little off topic; but there is no doubt in my mind that we will witness World War 3 within 15 years (15 years being the highest maximum. IMO its more like 3 years)

reply to post by confreak


Direct democracy in Libya is theoretical. In theory Libya is governed by a large amount of commisions where people dirrectly vote for refurendums. But in reality Libya is ruled by Qaddafi and his cabinet alone.

It is a shame what NATO is doing in Libya and if Libya did attack the West, essentially we here would be on the recieving end of what people living in Tripoli are. However, the Libyan military does not have the capability to attack the West and if it did any hope at winning even a small portion of Libya for themselves would be over. Once they attack a NATO state, a Western occupational force would enter under the guise of self defence and security.

The massive protest rallies are quiet interesting as it shows what I have been speculating and claiming for a long period of time. Qaddafi has a strong support base in Tripoli and the West as that is where the tribes on the recieving end of most the oil moneys are. Those affiliated tribes have had Eastern oil money directed to them in order to create all sorts of infastructure, welfare and often to pay individuals (corruption). So essentially the West is relatively (depending on which areas) content with Qaddafi's rule: My solution to this conflict would be, to have the East and West seperate along tribal borders.

Just as planned Qaddafi will be provoked into striking Europe.

This will justify a full blown ground invasion, but not before the Sudanese ally themselves fully with Qaddafi.

Then my friends we shall see the full-on invasion of North-Africa and then the big push South.

Cosmic...

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by confreak

 

Direct democracy in Libya is theoretical. In theory Libya is governed by a large amount of commisions where people dirrectly vote for refurendums. But in reality Libya is ruled by Qaddafi and his cabinet alone.

It is about the effect rather than the perception. In places like Libya the effect is more important than the perception. Maybe in the West they like voting which gives them the illusion of being politically involved, but in reality the real political freedom exists in Libya under the coined term "direct Democracy".

It is a shame what NATO is doing in Libya and if Libya did attack the West, essentially we here would be on the recieving end of what people living in Tripoli are. However, the Libyan military does not have the capability to attack the West and if it did any hope at winning even a small portion of Libya for themselves would be over. Once they attack a NATO state, a Western occupational force would enter under the guise of self defence and security.

It isn't the Libyan military, rather Libyan proxy forces in Europe and US. Libya has a lot of connections, and Qaddafi would have no dignity left if he doesn't retaliate, at least in the eyes of his people.

The massive protest rallies are quiet interesting as it shows what I have been speculating and claiming for a long period of time. Qaddafi has a strong support base in Tripoli and the West as that is where the tribes on the recieving end of most the oil moneys are. Those affiliated tribes have had Eastern oil money directed to them in order to create all sorts of infastructure, welfare and often to pay individuals (corruption). So essentially the West is relatively (depending on which areas) content with Qaddafi's rule: My solution to this conflict would be, to have the East and West seperate along tribal borders.

That is not true, it isn't just in Tripoli, the wealth didn't only go for one portion of the Libyan society, it was equally shared. All Libyans were given homes, all Libyans were given water, infact the underground springs came from the South of the country, but it was equally shared across the country, including Benghazi. That spring became the only source of water for Benghazi for those who didn't know. Free Medical care for all, free education for all, some Libyans are studying in US and Canada right now as we speak, the Libyan government continues the payment of their fees even when the country is in a state of war. Even land and seeds were given to those who wanted to go and start farming. Oil money was equally distributed amongst Libyans, straight to their bank accounts, no hurdles and strings. Libyans didn't even want to work, infact so much work was needed in Libya that millions came from overseas to fill in the huge demands. But the ignorant continually say work was scarce in Libya, that is completely false, there was a lot of work in Libya, but Libyans didn't want to work because they didn't need to work.

reply to post by confreak


And if Western media is lying as usual and Ghaddafi did'nt threaten the West with attacks....

Reply to post by confreak

Interstimg you mention Sudan.

I need to do some research, but I think Sudan is one of the countries/areas that go against Israel in the end times, according to the Bible.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by confreak

 

And if Western media is lying as usual and Ghaddafi did'nt threaten the West with attacks....

He did, it is in his speech, and I believe it is legitimate because if any country was attack you would expect a retaliation. You can't just attack a country and just think there won't be a retaliation, that is just absurd.

US destroyed and occupied two countries because of one attack, Libya is being attacked in daily basis.