Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Libya's Transitional Authorities Have Killed Col Muammar Gaddafi


Recommended Posts

I couldn't agree with you more cashinmattress.

There are people posting on this topic who have obviously done no research on the subject whatsoever. If anyone wants to know the reality of

NATO's deliberate destruction of Libya I suggest they start by reading this article All About Oil Or All About Banking : http://truthout.org/libya-all-about-oil-or-all-about-banking/1302678000

From the article :

To anyone who was unaware of the above I do suggest reading the whole article, and the links provided and following it up with your own research.

I'm no apologist for Gadaffi, but there's a lot more information available about Libya and the so called NTC (too much to post here) that is never mentioned by the MSM. All you have to do is look for it. Alas, many people are content with the two minute soundbites delivered by the BBC etc.

While I'm here, this is also worth a look :

One of the first things the Benghazi rebels did was to launch their own central bank ...

CNBC

Libyan rebels in Benghazi say they have formed their own central bank.

The rebel group known as the Transitional National Council released a statement last week announcing that they have designated the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya, and that they have appointed a governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi, according to Bloomberg.

Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power? It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers

Libya also had next to no national debt to speak of - 3.3% of GDP and bottom of a league table of 133 nations.

National debt by GDP in 2010, league table

Anyone want to be that a year or two down the line, the Libyan state has a fully integrated banking system and large debts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 258
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-cnn-bodies-of-53-gadhafi-loyalists-found-libya,0,4258815.story

The bodies of 53 people, believed to be supporters of ousted Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, has been found in a hotel that was under the control of anti-Gadhafi fighters, Human Rights Watch said Monday.

The rights group said it found the bodies clustered together at Hotel Mahari in Sirte on Sunday. About 20 residents were putting the bodies in body bags to prepare them for burial when Human Rights Watch found them.

We found 53 decomposing bodies, apparently (Gadhafi) supporters, at an abandoned hotel in Sirte, and some had their hands bound behind their backs when they were shot, said Peter Bouckaert, emergencies director of Human Rights Watch.

This requires the immediate attention of the Libyan authorities to investigate what happened and hold accountable those responsible.

Officials with the National Transitional Council, Libya's new leadership, were not immediately available for comment.

The residents told Human Rights Watch investigators they found the bodies last week after the fighting in Sirte stopped and they returned home.

I'm sure when Cameron finds out about this he will be very proud and Hilary Clinton can have a good chuckle about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-cnn-bodies-of-53-gadhafi-loyalists-found-libya,0,4258815.story

I'm sure when Cameron finds out about this he will be very proud and Hilary Clinton can have a good chuckle about it.

That can't be right - the NTC are a rag-tag bunch of plucky freedom fighters. It must have been a ruse by Gadaffis crowd - probably a gang of his viagra-fuelled rapists engaging in a little counter-propaganda.

Yes - roll on a new era of freedom and democracy in Libya, not to mention national debt (who needs a surplus anyway?). Still, now that they will have a central bank that's part of the global cartel instead of being run by the state they will easily be able to run up a suitable amount of debt from the banking system with which to pay for repairs. And of course the new democratic regime will be needing to buy a load of weapons, to keep their people safe from 'domestic terrorists' who might question the authority of the new people's government, so plenty of money there for our arms manufacturers. No problem securing that credit either since by sheer coincidence they have lots of lovely oil to give in exchange for bank debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tyrannicide is not a crime.

+1

On a human level it is heartbreaking to see a weak old man being beaten to death by a baying mob.

But, he was a piece of sh¡t psychotic bastård who strafed his own people. He got what he deserved.

All tyrants deserve his fate. (and possibly most politicians)

Edited by Jack's Creation
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank god Libya has a central bank now. I am sure the Rothschilds will look after the people's interests now.

I don't mind people being a bit paranoid, but at least do a tiny bit of research first..

In a blow to those who hoped to see Libya's economy integrate further into the western world, he announced that in future bank regulations would ban the charging of interest, in line with Sharia. "Interest creates disease and hatred among people," he said.

We in the west might not like it.. but the Libyans are carving their own course. I say good for them. Linky

Link to post
Share on other sites

That can't be right - the NTC are a rag-tag bunch of plucky freedom fighters. It must have been a ruse by Gadaffis crowd - probably a gang of his viagra-fuelled rapists engaging in a little counter-propaganda.

The most aggressive fighters are likely to be the ones who have been most hurt under Gaddafi's rule. It's a shame they have crossed the line, but somewhat understandable if their family/friends have been murdered/tortured previously.

It's easy to be pious in a comfy-chair with a fistful of popcorn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

On a human level it is heartbreaking to see a weak old man being beaten to death by a baying mob.

But, he was a piece of sh¡t psychotic bastård who strafed his own people. He got what he deserved.

All tyrants deserve his fate. (and possibly most politicians)

I would take great pleasure in watching Blair and Brown being beaten to death by a baying mob. In fact I would pay to watch it. Wembley stadium would be a good venue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read these types of threads on here, you might come to the conclusion that there were largish a number of people happy with the wests plundering and warmongering. Until you look at the user names and avatars and see its the same 3 or 4 people just posting repeatedly. The same type of comments in the same type of threads. Just done a search, and the same people get involved in the same threads and post the same rubbish.

Strange.

As you were.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read these types of threads on here, you might come to the conclusion that there were largish a number of people happy with the wests plundering and warmongering. Until you look at the user names and avatars and see its the same 3 or 4 people just posting repeatedly. The same type of comments in the same type of threads. Just done a search, and the same people get involved in the same threads and post the same rubbish.

Strange.

As you were.

These would be what our cousins overseas refer to as 'talking points'

and when you see the same form of words which convey a particular political cliche or Glittering Generality being repeated ad nauseam it's a flag that someone may be deliberately pushing out a series of pre-scripted talking points or has been induced into repeating them

Of course, that person may be genuinely expressing a sincere, individual opinion but it's often easy enough to spot if that is the case after the 3rd or 4th iteration of the same argument

Edited by Charlton Peston
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind people being a bit paranoid, but at least do a tiny bit of research first..

Such as "a tiny bit of research" into Gadaffi's attempt to create an eventual United States Of Africa with it's own central bank. Imagine what that would do to the global bankster's profits. That is something that they would not tolerate.

AFRICAN MONETARY FUND, AFRICAN CENTRAL BANK, AFRICAN INVESTMENT BANK

The US$30 billion frozen by Mr Obama belong to the Libyan Central Bank and had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three key projects which would add the finishing touches to the African federation – the African Investment Bank in Syrte, Libya, the establishment in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund to be based in Yaounde with a US$42 billion capital fund and the Abuja-based African Central Bank in Nigeria which when it starts printing African money will ring the death knell for the CFA franc through which Paris has been able to maintain its hold on some African countries for the last fifty years. It is easy to understand the French wrath against Gaddafi.

The African Monetary Fund is expected to totally supplant the African activities of the International Monetary Fund which, with only US$25 billion, was able to bring an entire continent to its knees and make it swallow questionable privatisation like forcing African countries to move from public to private monopolies. No surprise then that on 16-17December 2010, the Africans unanimously rejected attempts by Western countries to join the African Monetary Fund, saying it was open only to African nations.

http://www.rightsmonitoring.org/2011/04/why-the-west-wants-the-fall-of-gaddafi-an-analysis-in-defense-of-the-libyan-rais/

Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

On a human level it is heartbreaking to see a weak old man being beaten to death by a baying mob.

But, he was a piece of sh¡t psychotic bastård who strafed his own people. He got what he deserved.

All tyrants deserve his fate. (and possibly most politicians)

The problem that many of the critics of Gaddaffi's death have is that they refuse to acknowledge other cultures.

They condemn the action according to European notions of morality.

They say 'We are forward thinking and therefore must be right'

They fear to say 'We are white, therefore superior, and obviously we are right.'

How would they answer a culture that considered it criminal not to shoot a despot out of hand if the chance presented itself?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem that many of the critics of Gaddaffi's death have is that they refuse to acknowledge other cultures.

They condemn the action according to European notions of morality.

They say 'We are forward thinking and therefore must be right'

They fear to say 'We are white, therefore superior, and obviously we are right.'

How would they answer a culture that considered it criminal not to shoot a despot out of hand if the chance presented itself?

That dog won't hunt and is riddled with the kind of cultural imperialism you are accusing other of

It's easy enough to flip your argument on itself and write stuff like...

They assume that Non-European cultures are barbaric, have no rule of law and believe that justice is best served by lynch mobs

They support the imposition of European perceptions of democracy on foreign lands through the application of overwhelming military force

They fear to say 'We are white, therefore superior and must be right'

What was taking place in Libya was none of 'Our'(ordinary citizens) business. The reason why 'Our' (Western corporate) governments interfered in Libyans' business, rather than any of the other place in the world where people are getting screwed over, is because it served 'Our' (Western corporate) interests

plus Gadhafi's regime was a relatively easy mark, incapable of striking back at the forces that were bombing it

Edited by Charlton Peston
Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem that many of the critics of Gaddaffi's death have is that they refuse to acknowledge other cultures.

They condemn the action according to European notions of morality.

They say 'We are forward thinking and therefore must be right'

They fear to say 'We are white, therefore superior, and obviously we are right.'

How would they answer a culture that considered it criminal not to shoot a despot out of hand if the chance presented itself?

So, with that in mind, what Gadaffi was doing when he was in power wasn't particularly immoral either then?

You can't have it both ways - either Gadaffi was a nasty tyrant and he abused human rights -> what happened to him (and those 50 or so of his supporters found executed with their hands behind their backs) was wrong

OR

It's perfectly acceptable to torture and execute your enemies in that part of the world -> So Gadaffi wasn't particularly bad.

Which is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It staggers me that people think war is this civilised thing where one minute you are frantically trying to kill each other, and then it is immediately all by the rules of gentlemanly conduct once one side is beaten/captured.

Civil wars are always the nastiest, it seems more personal as the opposition is trying to destroy your vision of your country end enforce their own. You know that pretty Bridge in Rhonda, Spain? The various factions used to gleefully chuck each other off that.

The brutality of war is always there, and only varies by extent. In WW2 the Eastern Front was notorious for it's extreme brutality, but it was not exactly cricket in the West either. In the early days of the invasion of France by the Allies, they took few prisoners. What do you think they did - tickle the captured Germans to death?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, with that in mind, what Gadaffi was doing when he was in power wasn't particularly immoral either then?

You can't have it both ways - either Gadaffi was a nasty tyrant and he abused human rights -> what happened to him (and those 50 or so of his supporters found executed with their hands behind their backs) was wrong

OR

It's perfectly acceptable to torture and execute your enemies in that part of the world -> So Gadaffi wasn't particularly bad.

Which is it?

For my own amusement I've been pondering upon how events would have progressed if the US and Europe had sided with the rioters in England a few months back

Imagine that the US and NATO had declared support for the rioters - citing the UK's support of oppressive regimes around the world, the huge economic inequalities in the UK, and the hundreds of people who have died in domestic police custody in recent years. On the first day they take out the UK's air defences and the BBC. Then they provide the rioters with arms, special forces and public relations 'advisors', and air support controllers. Any groupings of police or security forces are immediately plastered with bombs. How would events progress from there? Would they be any different to what happened in Libya?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For my own amusement I've been pondering upon how events would have progressed if the US and Europe had sided with the rioters in England a few months back

Imagine that the US and NATO had declared support for the rioters - citing the UK's support of oppressive regimes around the world, the huge economic inequalities in the UK, and the hundreds of people who have died in domestic police custody in recent years. On the first day they take out the UK's air defences and the BBC. Then they provide the rioters with arms, special forces and public relations 'advisors', and air support controllers. Any groupings of police or security forces are immediately plastered with bombs. How would events progress from there? Would they be any different to what happened in Libya?

+1

Link to post
Share on other sites

For my own amusement I've been pondering upon how events would have progressed if the US and Europe had sided with the rioters in England a few months back

If it had got to that stage I expect Cameron would have stood down and an emergency election would have been called.

What was your conclusion?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it had got to that stage I expect Cameron would have stood down and an emergency election would have been called.

What was your conclusion?

That would be the situation currently in Egypt. The 'tyrant' was sacrificed so that the existing regime would continue, for the time being anyway

And it does raise the question of what would NATO's response have been if Gadhafi had promised free and fair elections in 2012. I suspect the freedom (sic.) fighters and their sponsors would have pressed on until Gadhafi had stood down and handed over to an interim regime which would have been acceptable to the insurgents and their sponsors

So, in your scenario Cameron would have to hand over to an interim administration which is acceptable to the rioters, the disaffected unemployed, the newly liberated prison population and any other significant demographic with an axe to grind against the existing UK regime. He wouldn't turn the UK administration over to 'anarchy', so the bombing and glorious war of liberation would continue

My conclusion so far is that with enough bombs and enough PR it would be possible to take down any regime and justify doing so. You would, however, have no guarantee that the final outcome would suit your interests. In which case you would simply start all over again until you got a result which did

Edited by Charlton Peston
Link to post
Share on other sites

Libya rebels free Al-Queda rebels previously jailed by Ghadaffi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUeNBy3FjRM

I wouldn't be too worried, the Al-Q threat is grossly overemphasised.

Plus, having a few bogeymen running around the place gives our governments all the excuse they need to supply guns, bombs and 'special advisors' to make sure whoever it is that they have chosen to be the next dictator has a firm grip on power.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Civil wars are always the nastiest, it seems more personal as the opposition is trying to destroy your vision of your country end enforce their own. You know that pretty Bridge in Rhonda, Spain? The various factions used to gleefully chuck each other off that.

An often repeated, supposed truism of warfare which doesn't stack up under critical scrutiny

I doubt very much that any of the combatants on the Eastern Front ever said to themselves 'gosh, I'm so glad we're not fighting a civil war, otherwise things would get really nasty'

The worst wars are racially or tribally motivated. There are no opt outs for the losers

The brutality of war is always there, and only varies by extent. In WW2 the Eastern Front was notorious for it's extreme brutality, but it was not exactly cricket in the West either. In the early days of the invasion of France by the Allies, they took few prisoners. What do you think they did - tickle the captured Germans to death?

which is, of course, exactly the same argument a tyrant would use to justify the methods he is 'obliged' to employ in stamping out dissent

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 415 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.