This below article is a replication of a blog post by an Icelandic blogger named Deila, it contains important information on Libya that you are not hearing from the mainstream press (republished with permission)
Yes. You heard what I said. All of it. It's all a bunch of lies. I know that it is a shocking claim to many, that our trusted officials in concert with our reliable mass media actually participated in deliberate deception designed to get us to accept war, but deal with it. I'm making it.
Our biggest moral obligation is ensuring that wars are not waged against people under false pretenses. War is the most disgusting and horrible thing you can inflict on any person.
As you read this article I am sure you will find there are a number of things that will surprise you. After researching the situation for months I assure you I have investigated as many sides of the story as possible. But I did reach a clear conclusion and I will not shy away from openly expressing the views that I have formed during this process.
What we have been seeing recently in the media, this time with a special emphasis on the online community, is the most sophisticated propaganda firework display we have ever witnessed. It’s no surprise so many people have been duped.
But a lie can travel the world before the truth has tied it’s shoe laces. But I believe that once the laces have been tied and the truth starts walking, eventually it’s gonna get to people.
There are at least two sides to every story
None of us could possibly have avoided hearing NATO’s side of the story and the reasons and justifications given for Gaddafi’s removal and how military intervention is necessary to protect Libyan citizens.
But are you sure you’ve heard both sides? Have you heard Gaddafi’s perspective on this issue? Or have you just heard “his side” as represented by the mainstream western media? If so I can start by telling you that his words, and the words of his son, Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi have been deliberately misinterpreted and edited out of context to create simple soundbite propaganda to influence people.
You will find that there is a completely different side of this story that is being completely ignored. It is not even being debated for it's merits, it simply is not talked about at all in the mainstream media.
Think about it. How much do you really know about Libya? Did you in all honesty know anything about the country before these events started unfolding? If I would have asked you back in February 10 questions about Libya and it’s affairs, how many do you think you would have answered correctly? And how much do you honestly know about what is going on there now?
I often find it intriguing how people tend to think they are qualified to give their view on things that in reality they know next to nothing about. They might have vague ideas generated by the mainstream media, biased textbooks and general pre-conceived notions, but not an actual thorough understanding of the country and it’s people and customs.
I had a discussion with a guy at a local bar the other day and I began the conversation by asking if he could tell me on what continent Libya was. Neither he nor his friend could answer correctly, picking Europe and Asia as their educated guesses. For some reason this guy still felt that his take on the situation was more accurate than mine, even as I told him I had been spending weeks investigating the matter. For those of you confused the correct answer is Africa.
I want to ask a simple question to make a simple case? Can you name me one current Libyan government official? You’re not allowed to say Gaddafi. Who holds the position of “Secretary of the General People’s Assembly” a position comparable to that of prime minister, although with a slightly different emphasis as he does not represent a political party and does not alone hold significant power. Did you even know that such a position exists in Libya and that he is elected by the people?
The less you know about something, the easier it is to deceive you.
My intention for exposing your potential and likely ignorance on this subject is not an attempt to show that I’m smarter or better than you. As I found out myself researching this article I knew remarkably little about Libya. And that is my point.
The mainstream media is focusing entirely on a set of news stories that have the specific intention of gathering support for military action and actively suppressing any story that would lead to people opposing it. This pattern will be exposed clearly as this article progresses.
It’s no wonder we don’t know much about Libya. Of course it gets confusing with all the different stories we hear of dictators and tyrants oversees. It is difficult to be an expert on all nations in the world. Just consider how many nations have existed and how long and rich each of their history is and how complex and unique the situation in each country is today.
When this is combined with a relentless, precise and extremely well organized propaganda blitz against one nation that is being targeted by an army, it’s all too easy to tag along.
I would also like to add that this article has proven difficult and this is the third version of it. Well actually it's the fourth considering that this translation is updated from the third, final Icelandic version. Yet it is of vital importance to me that it is as comprehensive and convincing as possible, because the more I wrote and the more I researched, the more clear the magnitude and the scale of this massive deception campaign became. Most people, unfortunately have not developed the type of immunity to this kind of propaganda and are simply put, still to gullible in the face of such force.
I am not going to be answering comments about me being arrogant or one sided or any other remarks unrelated to the specific points I raise in this article. My only goal is to speak truly and freely how I feel about this after my research and you are welcome to make of it whatever you want.
I will not pretend to be neutral when it comes to the deliberate killings of innocent civilians and the attempted destruction of a great, unique nation whose people want nothing but peace and independence.
"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.
- Bishop Desmond Tutu
My goal is obviously not to achieve popularity or attention as Gaddafi is certainly not the most popular man in the world right now. Thanks to the media mind manipulation machines most now see him as a crazed dictator who kills peaceful protesters, schedules mass rapes and supports terrorism. And I’m taking "his side" ? Good luck me…
If the only thing I achieve with this article is to show that there is such a thing as Gaddafi's side and that it has been blacked out by the media, then it will have been worth it. As that should be of deep concern to us all.
Ultimately of course, the question is not about Gaddafi. This is what the propaganda machines manage to do so successfully. With their Hollywood formula they create the image of a bad guy that has to be stopped by the good guy and all other sides of the arguments can be ignored as long as that is perceived to be the case.
But don’t think for one second I will just sit by as this next blockbuster bloodbath unfolds and not do my best to expose it for what it is.
Unfortunately this is not a subject that can be covered in the fast food style of the gossip, profit driven mainstream media garbage. I do not take their example in aiming my writings at the lowest common denominator, rather I am trying to appeal to those who are genuinely interested in researching this topic with the goal of understanding it. There is simply put far too much that needs to be addressed and I assure you, every word is there for a reason. Except for these five words.
I sometimes get comments that my articles are too long and that no one will bother to read them. It reminds me of a story I heard of Bob Dylan. This slick record executive came to the studio after hearing an album, and said “ I love this song, but you need to make a short version so we can get it played on the radio. “This is the short version” Dylan replied and I would say the same.
Don’t be so naive as to think you can be knowledgable about a subject after reading a few mass produced news stubs.
I would also like to point out that if you think this article is long, just think how long it took me to write it. I promise you, I am saving you a lot of trouble. What took me months to research, you can read in a few hours. And for that I am getting no money from anyone. I don’t do it for fun either as I know of many more fun ways to spend my time than browsing through pictures and watching videos about war and death.
I do this solely out of responsibility for my own conscience. And even after this article and all the research I did, I still have questions.
You don’t need to finish the entire article now, it will be here, but I highly recommend finishing it eventually.
I will provide links and sources as we go and I encourage anyone to challenge their contents, or the arguments I make. Let’s hope I’m not wrong after all the work I’ve put into this.
Now, some of you won’t need to read any article to know that the war on Libya is based on lies. You just know by experience not to trust the mainstream media and to know that the military powers NEVER take on such a mission for simple humanitarian reasons. They know that all such rhetoric by those in power is empty and meaningless and only meant to camouflage other reasons that include geo-political strategy, resources and control.
If you are one of those people I still recommend that you continue reading, I am positive you will understand more thoroughly the nature and scale of this particular deception, in this particular war.
My goal in this article is to deconstruct every single argument and justification being made for the bombing and potential ground invasion of Libya. It is divided in these 6 chapters:
1st chapter: Gaddafi is an evil dictator
2nd chapter: Human Rights violations in Libya
3rd chapter: We must protect peaceful protesters
4th chapter: LIES LIES LIES
5th chapter: History of Libya
6th chapter: Motives
1st chapter: Gaddafi is an evil dictator
Pick any mainstream news story about Libya and this will be stated as given. He is one of those corrupt third world dictators, of course he is! He’s been in power for far too long! But wait a minute…
It is not even officially acknowledged that this claim is being heavily disputed. What is also not being reported is an even more stunning fact, not only is he not an evil dictator, he is not even a dictator at all.
He holds no official power. I think I am going to repeat this cause it is staggering how loud this has been screamed while being completely ignored:
LISTEN CLOSELY! GADDAFI HAS NO OFFICIAL AUTHORITY IN LIBYA
If this statement is true you will immediately notice that all the talk you have heard about “removing him from power” is just a farce.
In fact, Gaddafi has only an honorary title as “the father of the revolution” and is also dubbed “the leader of the revolution” hence the common reference to him as leader of Libya. He has influence, as anyone with such a status and reverence in a country would have. But by no technical or logical definition can he be described as a dictator.
A dictator is someone who has the official authority to make all decisions facing a country. He has final and official authority over the army, laws and courts. Plenty of such figures exist. Gaddafi has no such authority so how can anyone claim he is a dictator? That can only be considered a conspiracy theory.
In the few instances this has been addressed it is claimed that despite this “everyone knows” that he is really in charge. Of course. But when I say a powerful group of bankers is really in charge of the US government you call me crazy. Maybe “everyone” doesn’t know that yet, but I have a feeling it won’t be long.
So who is in power in Libya, if not Gaddafi? This is where things start to get interesting.
We have to bring democracy to Libya!
Oh really? What kind of democracy? Representative democracy such as the one currently being employed in most western countries? A two party system such as the one in the US?
People in Iceland have been talking a lot lately about democratic reforms. What these discussions usually revolve around is more emphasis on people’s participation, more national voting and big matters being discussed in big meetings.
Direct democracy is very similar to the system we used in Iceland during our founding years. Almost exactly the same. The idea is basically this, get people together in conference halls open to discuss specific issues relating to neighbourhoods and vote on them. Choose representatives to go a more centralized meeting to discuss matters relating to larger areas and then finally do this for the entire country. This is the general idea and it seems pretty simple.
But oh yes, excuse me, I was supposed to be talking about the dictatorship in Libya but just started rambling on about democratic reforms in Iceland.
No, in fact I just trolled you, I am talking about Libya. Direct democracy has been employed in Libya ever since when Gaddafi relinquished all official power and resigned to the symbolic position he has today in 1977. Let me repeat this fact that is also being completely ignored by the mainstream media.
ATTENTION! LIBYA HAS A FUNCTIONING DIRECT DEMOCRACY
Or at least they did until the western powers started their “operations”.
Do you understand what I am saying? That despite how many times you have heard Gaddafi being referred to as a dictator, it is still false? Either because someone is lying to you or have themselves been lied too?
In this Orwellian world we find ourselves in it is actually quite difficult to find reliable information concerning this, especially from the mainstream media who some people still, unfortunately see as the official certifiers of truth.
But do not despair. Valiant internet knights have managed to dig up excellent footage that completely contradicts the narrative being currently fed to us.
One of the best information regarding this whole situation is in fact, just an amateur video put together by a random youtube user that had about a 100 views when I discovered it.
I always think it’s a bit funny when people try to discredit certain types of information by alluding to it being “something you picked up from the internet’” while simultaneously hailing the internet as one of the most wonderful technological achievements of history.
These people have seen stupid videos online, we all have. They conclude that since you believe something that to them seems so far fetched, it must mean you’ve watched one of those videos and fell for it without researching it using “solid sources”.
A lot of people also seem to think that we "can't" know what's really going on, since you can't trust any of the media. Well, we can and should trust ourselves in piecing together the information available and draw an informed conclusion, or at least educated assumptions.
Meanwhile this trust that the large media networks have as the only “solid sources” is being systematically abused to favour the military and Wall Street.
And the fact is that the internet invites anyone to become an independent journalist.
You can record your own material or edit together relevant clips from different sources to make extremely interesting and informative videos.
Often these videos will include small bits from these so called “solid sources” that have revealed discrepancies in the official line and put them into proper context.
This video I am posting is a prime example of that and includes extremely relevant information relating to Libya’s democratic system.
Please take a quick break from reading to watch these videos. If you have any genuine interest in knowing the truth and are sincere in your respect for justice you will watch them. Trust me, it’s worth it.
2000 Conference Halls
What you are now looking at is a conference hall that was designed to be built but has been put on hold after these recent events. Since the Libyan Revolution of 1969, 2000 conference halls have been built in which people come together to decide local policies and appoint people’s commission to implement these policies.
The secretary general of state in Libya is Baghad Mahmudi. I think if you would make a wager of 100$ with everyone living in the west about who that guy is you would become very rich.
I’m not saying this to pretend to be smarter than you, like you I did not know who he was until I started researching for this article. My point is we should not engage in the bombing of a country which we have so little real knowledge about! Have you been to Libya? Well neither have I, so shouldn’t you at least look into it in detail before we just barge in their with military aircraft and start killing people?
Consider that if the fact holds that Gaddafi has no official power in Libya beyond a regular citizen and some honorary treatments, all the arguments for the bombings and support of rebel groups have collapsed, as the whole operation is based on aiding a popular revolution to topple Gaddafi and “remove him from power” So what power"?
Could it be that we live in such a crazy world. Yes, in fact it very well could be.
Here we see Moussa Ibrahim, spokesman of the Libyan government saying that Obama is delusional.
And take for instance this example, a little gem that passed through the propaganda filters.
This Washington Post reporter tries to put what he is hearing in context with what his programmed reality can come up with and the only thing he can conjure up is that all these supporters of Gaddafi he met in Libya must just be this crazy.
(To enter the world of the Gaddafi believers is to enter an “Alice in Wonderland” realm in which the regime’s supporters are the real revolutionaries, not the rebels seeking to topple the government, because Libya is in a state of perpetual revolution.
The Libyan people can’t overthrow their government because they are the government, in accordance with the country’s definition of itself as the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, which loosely translates as “state of the masses.”Gadhafi can't be toppled because he holds no formal position; he is the Brother Leader, a guide and a mentor, a patriarch and an uncle who advises his people but does not rule them.)
I hope you still have appetite. There is a lot more to come.
2nd Chapter - Human Rights abuses in Libya
This is a mantra that is easy for the propaganda machines to preach. Once again reality seems to be quite different.
First question you might ask yourself, if Gaddafi is such a gross human rights violator, why was Libya elected by other African Nations to lead the Human Rights Council of the United Nations in 2003?
First of all, if Gaddafi has no power in Libya accusing “his men” of human rights violation simply doesn’t fly. Unless he just has his private secret mafia? But that would also be just a conspiracy theory. (Do not get me wrong, a lot of conspiracy theories have basis for them, but I have seen no evidence for this one)
Most, if not all of the accusations being presented to us by the media come from one organization "Human Rights Watch" an American based organization that receives most of it's funding from George Soros, a well known banking mogul and leading globalist. It is not an unbiased organization at all, yet the media will always report it as a "human rights organization" as if it is an authority on this subject.
"According to a 2008 financial assessment, HRW reports that it does not accept any direct or indirect funding from governments and is financed through contributions from private individuals and foundations. According to NGO Monitor this policy is violated by support from the Dutch government and a May 2009 fund raising trip to Saudi Arabia.
Notably, billionaire financier and philanthropist George Soros announced in 2010 his intention to donate US$100 million to HRW over a period of ten years. He said, "Human Rights Watch is one of the most effective organizations I support. Human rights underpin our greatest aspirations: they're at the heart of open societies." The donation increases Human Rights Watch's operating budget from $48 million to $80 million. The donation was the largest in the organization's history"
So, George Soros, who likes to manipulate the economies of entire nations for personal gain (including Iceland and Greece) is their biggest supporters and they go to SAUDI ARABIA on a fund raising trip??
Yes, one of the biggest violators of human rights in the history of mankind financed this human rights organization.
Just because a human rights organization makes an accusation against someone doesn't make it true. Anyone that has the money could form an organization and name it "human rights watch", especially if he intended to use it for this purpose.
There is one substantiated allegation, and that is that in Libya, people have been executed people for terrorism and high treason. This is not something I agree with personally. But then again, I have not been living under constant attacks by secret agents and subversive groups funded by western intelligence agencies trying to undermine a people's revolution.
I have not had multiple attempts on my life and NATO hasn't killed my daughter. I'm sure after a while your sense of humor for people trying to kill you, your people and the leader of your people's revolution, would go away. In any case this is no excuse for the US to bomb anyone as they execute about 44 people a year, many of whom are later proven to have been innocent of their charges.
It is possible that Libya would be the greatest welfare paradise on the planet were it not for the constant interference by greedy western companies. There appear to be few places on earth that have a welfare system as good and where every person is as valued. I kid you not.
Consider Iceland for example. In Iceland we are ruled by a wealthy minority that lives in luxury while many of us work day after day, weekend after weekend, just to be fed and get to live in a home.
In Libya, everyone is entitled to a home, food, water, a vehicle and the opportunity to pursue his interests. If you want education abroad, the government pays for it completely. Need to buy a home to start a family? The government gives you 64.000$ to buy one when you get married.
As with other stuff relating to Libya at the moment it is not that easy to find reliable information regarding this from mainstream sources, but with a little internet detective work you can verify this quite clearly.
From Wikipedia: During the 1970s, the government succeeded in making major improvements in the general welfare of its citizens. By the 1980s Libyans enjoyed much improved housing and education, comprehensive social welfare services, and general standards of health that were among the highest in Africa.'
So… let me get this straight… this evil dictator takes over and stars improving everyones lifestyle! What a monster!
Another thing I did researching this was to watch old mainstream documentaries about Libya, it is informative to see how these films contradict the picture being painted now:
This one is incredibly boring but it gives some insight into the life in Libya:
Consider this video that went viral recently. Gaddafi is writing in a motorcade without any protection and everywhere he goes people meet him in celebration.
Does it now seem to you, just a little bit less of a sign of his “insanity” when he claimed that his people loved him?
I think it’s time you watched this video, with a message from Gaddafi, broadcast over Tripoli on July 1st.
This is a support march for Muammar Gaddafi and it includes 1.7 million people Source. There are 2 million people living in Tripoli! And only 6.5 million in the entire Libya! Seems that only those who called in sick that day didn’t make it. Just watch it, and tell me we are witnessing a “popular revolution against Gaddafi in Libya”
One commented that people in North Korea also loved Kim Jong Il. This comparison is preposterous. First of all people are allowed to freely exit Libya as they please. Second of all, that person is admitting that he is loved by his own people and hence that all the talk about him oppressing his own people is utter garbage. Why don’t they just say that then? Why doesn’t Obama admit that, yeah… the people love him, but they’re all batshit crazy…
So… let me get this straight… We’re actually at that point now? We will bomb a country to kill people, to help them get rid of a “dictator” that they all appear to love, but we, sitting on our arrogant asses in front of the TV claim we know better about what is best to them! To the point that we’re willing to kill them to prove that we are right?
How is that not batshit insane??
If you’re thinking it must have gotten worse since you would be wrong.
Here is the Human Development Report of the United Nations, notice that Libya is the only African nation that reaches the green color.
This picture is from 2010.
Still in doubt? Then I suggest you also read this report from the United Nations in 2011 (for those not paying attention, it’s this year)
It reads like a valedictorian report card.
5. During the interactive dialogue, statements were made by 46 delegations. A number
of delegations commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for the preparation and presentation
of its national report, noting the broad consultation process with stakeholders in the
preparation phase. Several delegations also noted with appreciation the country’s
commitment to upholding human rights on the ground. Additional statements, which could
not be delivered during the interactive dialogue owing to time constraints, will be posted on
the extranet of the universal periodic review when available.
Here are some figures that have been circulating the internet, although I have not been able to find them posted on any of the “solid sources” from the documentaries I have seen and testimony I’ve heard it appears fairly accurate.
Unemployment benefits - 730 U.S. dollars a month.
Nurse salary - $ 1000 per month.
Each baby receives a single gift from the Libyan State - $ 7,000.
The couple receives money from the Libyan government of $ 64,000 to buy a house.(Wedding gift)
State support for a one-off starting their own business - 20,000 U.S. dollars.
High taxes and any fees to forbidden M. Gaddafi initiative.
Education and health care - free of charge.
Education and training abroad is fully payed by Libyan government
Residents receive electricity for free.
Teacher's salary - $ 3,000 per month.
When buying a new car government pays half price.
Brokering real estate is prohibited. Available only direct buyer - seller relationship
Here we see an inquiry about this on Yahoo Answers
Here we also see how the Libyan government funds projects that actually benefit the population instead of just powerful corporations. "Government to build thousands of new homes in Libya"
Here is something that might make you ask yourself another question. If Gaddafi is so hated by his own people, why would the Libyan government pass out weapons to the population to protect people from the rebels and the possible invading armies? Wouldn’t that be suicidal for a dictator trying desperately to retain his power against a popular uprising?
Then the question has to be asked, why does he have so much support from his people and why is the media and our political leaders trying to convince us the opposite?
Here is Serbian journalist Miroslav Lazanski on the issue, corroberating some of these findings:
But then you might start havind second thoughts, thinking… if everything is so good in Libya, what are all these people doing protesting? Are they just wrong?
Here is where the propaganda gets serious. In order to sell you this war, the perception of a massive popular rebellion had to be manipulated into the public mind.
But it is however a valid question, why are these people protesting? And who are they?
Let's look at these questions and find out how convincing the case for a popular rebellion in Libya against Gaddafi is.
3rd chapter - We must protect the peaceful demonstrators
This is the ultimate firecracker...
Hey, I've got a joke for you, How do you get all the protesters to shut up while you're waging a war? You convince them you're going to war to protect peaceful protesters!
HAHAHAHAHALOLDERP!! Or... wait a second... Maybe it really isn't that funny...
Let's look at this in more detail.
In the start it was a peaceful protest, but after Gaddafi started brutalizing the peaceful demonstrators it turned violent, right?
Weird, cause not even the intentionally biased wikipedia article actually supports that conclusion:
So let us see, early phase, 15. february, first day:
In the evening approximately 200 people began demonstrating in front of the police headquarters in Benghazi following the arrest of human-rights activist Fathi Terbil. They were joined by others later who totaled between 500 to 600 protesters. The protest was broken up violently by police, causing as many as forty injuries among the protesters.
In Al Bayda and Az Zintan, hundreds of protesters called for "the end of the regime" and set fire to police and security buildings. In Az Zintan, the protesters set up tents in the town centre.
Am I getting this straight? In a country of six and a half million, 200 people showed up to protest?
My response to that would have to be...
Furthermore, on the first day of the protest, about 500-600 people go around Benghazi and start setting police stations and security buildings on fire?? And these are the supposedly peaceful protesters we are supporting?
When Haukur, an Icelandic Human Rights activist was arrested because of a political stunt where he climbed on top of the parliament building and carried the flag of Bonus, a local grocery chain owned by one of Icelands most notorious banker, symbolizing their dynasty's control over congress, about 500-600 Icelanders went and protested at the police station, demanding his release.
The incident escalated to a point where the protesters, broke down the door at the police station and got pepper sprayed by the police. The stand down ensued until allegedly some high ranking official bailed him out, the feeling of victory was nice as you can see in this video:
The response from the media was harsh and many locals acted almost as if this had been a terrorist attack. Are you telling me that if we had actually just burned down the police station, and then gone on to burn down other police stations, that we would have gotten instant military equipment by NATO and support of the international community to get rid of our oppressive government? And the world would praise us as pioneers in a global revolution!
Surely you must be joking
So what have these peaceful demonstrators been up to since their peaceful revolution started? Well, as any group of peaceful demonstrators would, hunting black people! Yes, just listen to this group of immigrant workers who fear for their lives because of the activities of these people. They don't even leave their houses:
Notice how traumatized the man reliving his experience is, a tell that he is not making up the story. Were he to be enthusiastic and dramatic about it, that would be a clear indicator that he was lying. This point becomes more relevant later on.
See here this more detailed story on this issue. (Libya: Rebels execute immigrant workers while forces kidnap others)
Here is a very recent and puzzling turn of events. The leader of the rebels in Tripoli has now come out and said that the US tortured him and left him in solidary confinement for 6 years! I suppose that's one way to get militant fighters on your side. Maybe this was the plan all along with Guantanamo? To torture innocent people until you have broken them down and then force them to do your dirty military work? Actually this is something Gaddafi himself seemed to insinuate in the BBC interview you will watch at the end of this article.
Anyone that has taken part in any type of protest knows how ridicilously far fetched these ambitions would be to any movement. Sure it would have been cool if we could have just set up our own central bank while demanding the removal of the head of our central bank at the time, David Oddson, but how on earth would we have gone about doing that? Never mind trying that in the US! So what's going on then?
It's seems pretty simple. This is much less a "protest movement" and much rather trained militants backed, armed and financed by the CIA and I would guess Mossad and MI6 as well.
The Libyans that are protesting appear to mostly make up the former upper class of Libya who are pissed off that their power was taken away from them in a popular revolution. Many of these families fled Gaddafi's rule and have had it in for him ever since.
The goal of these clandestine operations was to start enough disturbances, riots and terror events that would be portrayed to people as a revolution of the people through the media.
This has been tried previously in the case of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, but that attempt failed due to the enormous support he had in his country. (See full documentary from BBC on this case here "The Revolution will not be televised")
Evidence for media manipulation
I don't need to remind you that representatives of all the major media news outlets of the world went to Libya as soon as the protests started, with the intention of covering them. Surely they must have numerous good photos of large peaceful demonstrations against Gaddafi?
Here are some pictures of the protests in Egypt. You can find scores of these kind of pictures with huge crowds, sometimes clashing with police:
And even in Iceland, a country with a population of 300.000 we see this turnout:
Well, now let us compare these images, all of which were easily located with a simple google search with some of the images coming from Libya. In Libya I have yet to find a single picture of protesters clashing with police or being barricaded by police. If you can then by all means post it.
Here we see a definitive flag of the Libyan monarchy now being used by the rebels. Is this even in Libya? Well, anyway, when you see a picture of this flag in a protest, you are looking at anti-gaddafi protests. When you are looking at Gaddafi supporters they will be carrying the green flag. The flag of the Libyan Revolution of 1969.
This is one example of such an event:
Well, you might find it curious that this is a picture taken from here, headlined "84 killed in Libya protests: Rights organization" (Human Rights Watch, of course)
Do these appear to be people protesting Gaddafi? Would protesters of Gaddafi be carrying a glamorous picture of him celebrating? And the flag of his revolution? The answer is clearly no so why are they using this picture? Shouldn't there be plenty of good pictures from the huge protests against Gaddafi?
Actually if you google Libya rebels in the image search you will see a more accurate depiction of this presumed protest movement in Libya. Just try it.
Waving a peace sign with a machine gun and a machine gun belt wrapped around him. Kumbaja my friend. Kumbaja.
Surely we should be routing for the gun touting gentlemen over the green flag waving madmen in the picture above.
This is not the only media news outlet to make the same embarrassing mistake:
The Associated Press carried the same picture in this story:
And just look at this one, what is this but a bad photoshopped photobomb? They are all celebrating Gaddafi in the background! Either someone actually snuck in to take the picture or it was just added in post production. Either way, it is pure deliberate propaganda!
This was posted here, and under it reads "A recent picture of an anti-gaddafi demonstration"
Are you sure mr. reporter that these people wearing the color of his revolution with a glamourous picture of him are anti-Gaddafi? Or is this a bad fake?
And wait a minute... Gadafi.. butcher of libya, didn't I see that movie already...? Oh wait no! That was another guy... Must have been the same producers...
Again, are these anti Gaddafi protesters? This is from a discussion where the poster says he found the picture on google earth. Of course he did. And how was he supposed to know that all these crowds were there to support Gaddafi. That's not what the media had told him.
Notice how all the signs are in Arabic. That's also something I've wondered. Why does it seem that all the protesters from pictures of Iran, Syria and Libya have signs in English?
Of course the picture being painted is that they are "pleading to the international community" and surely that's what some of these people are doing. But isn't just a little strange? In the Icelandic protests of 2009, even if we knew the foreign press was watching, very few decided to post their signs in English, most would have just felt that it was silly.
Even though almost everyone in Iceland speaks English and it is not exactly the most common language in Libya.
Some of the most well known pictures might not even be from Libya. Some might just be of gullible westerners who feel they are supporting justice.
Oh that's just brilliant. "Hopeless" As opposed to the "Hope" delivered by Obama's presidency. Straight from the Washington propaganda machines anyone? No... get out of town...
The group American Libya Freedom Assocation or "ALFA" has been the most prominent group to support this rebellion. They have written propaganda articles that make all types of wild accusations against Gaddafi without any proof. Take for example this article that has so many falsehoods in it I almost drowned in them. Of the top of my head it claims, baselessly that Gaddafi implemented Sharia law. In fact, there is now talk of introducing Sharia law in Libya, after the fall of Gaddafi.
Well if the most oppressive, apartheid state in the world supports it it must be ok. A country who murdered peaceful protesters aboard the Mavi Marmara and has systematically robbed Palestinians of their lives and land.
But let's move on:
In this picture that has been posted everywhere online, including the mainstream press, there clearly are a lot of people. But why is the only flag visible in the crowd waving right above the camera? Strange, I wonder if it's been planted? No... The technology might be pretty advanced now... but doctoring pictures? Common. That's impossible.
Well, the resolution and proportions seem fine... but wait... why is there only ONE FLAG? In the middle of the picture?
This one was posted in a few places, including press.tv
Again.. really? One flag? One guy decided to bring his flag?
But wait, here we have a lot of flags!
The only problem with this picture is that it's the same picture as we looked at before and shows the Gaddafi supporters that were being posted as Gaddafi protesters. Except this time, someone went through the trouble of adding red paint on the flags.
While one has to wonder about how amateur the doctoring of these photos is, it also makes you wonder how convincing they could make photos if they actually did their best work.
The most convincing images of masses protesting Gaddafi came after the alleged fall of Gaddafi. This video being among the "best":
This is a screenshot from that very recent BBC report about celebration in Benghazi after allegedly conquering Tripoli.
Here is the image from 01:10
And here we have the frame from 02:05
I have questions about the vanishing flag, the Gaddafi poster with green background next to the demon (subliminal propaganda perhaps?) and why they could only get less than a minute of footage that is looped. Perhaps these can all be explained, and focusing too much on it would amount to speculation that would probably be inadmissable in court. But given the manipulation we've seen so far you can't help but wonder.
In any case these are pictures of Benghazi, the only place where it is recognized that there is opposition to the Green Revolution.
The footage shows celebration after the news about the "fall of Tripoli" which we found out later had not been the fall of Tripoli at all, but was simply a trap set by government forces.
And what has become quite well known in the alternative media now is that the footage allegedly coming from the Green Square in Tripoli did not show a place consistent with the actual Green Square, making it more likely that this is actually filmed in a movie set:
Here is a full article on this kind of manipulation
And then there is this recent "slip up" at the BBC, showing green square in India as supposedly live from the protests in Libya:
It's almost as if they're doing this on purpose just so they can laugh among themselves at how gullible we are.
The case for a popular uprising being waged against Gaddafi simply seems very thin to me.
Think of it this way, if there was an agenda to make you think there were bigger protests in Libya than there actually were to disguise military operations by CIA funded militant groups to gain control over a country and it's resources, how would they go about doing that?
It's clear that they could do that so that leaves it at, would they. And if we consider that they've done that many times before the answers to that seems clear as well. And if you consider what is at stake in a war like this "it's the least they can do".
Having said that, it is not as if a protest happening in a country is justification for starting a war. If it would be we would have had to bomb every country in the world a long time ago. Where did this notion come from? How many times have there been huge protests in the West?
And what about killing protesters? Well, we'll cover that claim later but what about Kent State Massacre in the US?
Should the US not have been swiftly invaded? Besides the fact that the case for "Gaddafi's Men" having killed peaceful protesters is very thin. It seems more like people died trying to protect security buildings and police stations and the "protesters" who were killed were armed aggressors.
And EVEN IF, there is a dictator who is believed to oppress his own people, it would only make matter worse to bomb the country! It would not be an excuse!
Do i really have to get into the hipocrisy factor here? How many brutal dictators has the west supported and how many democratically elected leaders have they assassinated? Is this history still unknown to you? And talking about torture! The US officially admits to torture! Have we forgotten about Abu Ghraib already? So you're saying you don't like how Gaddafi is torturing his people so you want the US army to do it instead?
This whole thing is absurd.
What I can unequivocally demonstrate, is that there is not an overwhelming majority protesting Gaddafi. The pictures of his supporters were in general a lot more convincing and crowded. 1.7 million people marched in his support! It's absurd for us to claim that we know better what is in their best interest!
(I refer back to the video above where 1.7 million march in his support, if you did not watch it before, I recommend watching it now)
The peaceful protesters?
The West hasn't exactly been hiding it's support for these forces. Here are a few stories worth noting:
Here we can see the rebel army, these are not peaceful protesters. Forget that notion. They are armed to the teeth and they are killing black people and burning down police stations. Are the Libyan people supposed to sit back while that happens? Would you?
Not only a connection to the CIA, but also to Al Qaeda
No I am not making this up. The same people that the Americans are supporting in Libya have also been members of the "Al Qaeda" movement in Iraq.
I can just hear some of you blurting out that it is nothing but a crazy conspiracy theory. But don't call the doctor yet, we have "solid sources"
Anti American Extremist among Libyan Rebels U.S. has vowed to protect
You can't dismiss this that easily can you? Straight from the horses mouth! The commander of the rebels admits this and a few media outlets pick up on it before it slips down the rabbit hole.
So, now, is there any picture starting to emerge inside your head at this point?
Or does this all still seem very contradictory and confusing to you?
What if I told you that the most likely explanation in my humble opinion is that the CIA are knowingly funding terrorist activites, that KILL American Soldiers and innocent Iraqi people to justify their continued military presence?
Pretty much exactly like in 1984. Perpetual Warfare. I think it's time for a quote from that book, performed by Michael Moore. He has fortunately remained consistant in his anti war stance, and is against the military aggression in Libya (source)
It is also worth noting that a lot of the rebels in Afghanistan were funded and armed by the ISI in Pakistan, which has had a close relationship with the CIA for many years and Pakistan has been given military aid from the US all throughout the course of the war. Source
But as this would be enough material for a whole new article I'll just leave it at that. Let's concentrate on Libya for now.
And what about Benghazi?
A little bit of history is needed. Wiki will do for this purpose:
Heavily bombed in World War II, Benghazi was later rebuilt with the country's newly found oil wealth as a gleaming showpiece of modern Libya. It became the capital city of Emirate of Cyrenaica (1949-1951) under Idris Senussi I. In 1951, Cyrenaica was merged with Tripolitania and Fezzan to form the independent Kingdom of Libya, of which both Benghazi and Tripoli were capital cities. Benghazi lost its capital status when the Free Officers under the leadership of Muammar Gaddafi staged a coup d'état in 1969, whereafter all government institutions were concentrated in Tripoli. Even though King Idris was forced into exile and the monarchy abolished, support for the Senussi dynasty remained strong in Cyrenaica. This was emphasized by real or perceived injustices from the government towards the people of Benghazi, including the demolition in the year 2000 of the arena of footballclub Alahly Benghazi S.C., following anti-government protests.
Whoever these protesters are they are glorifying a brutal monarch that was deposed by a popular revolution. Here is a picture of a young Benghazi carrying a picture of King Idris during the 2011 revolution:
While it is clear enough that Gaddafi has overwhelming support in Tripoli and most other parts of the country, Benghazi seems to be the only place were any significant number of people oppose him and the Jamahariya, State of the masses.
Somehow I have a hard time so sympathize with people glorifying a monarch that oppressed the people of an entire nation, just because their city was "it" at the time... Especially when they use means of terrorism to get their point across.
This conversation is just brilliant to listen to. Anyone enthusiastic about debating in general should check it out. Such a pwning has rarely been recorded:
Of course it is possible that people in the Benghazi area have some legitimate grievances that they feel Gaddafi is responsible for. That I simply can not know for certain at this point.
Regardless, this is a reality that is very different from what is being propagated in this blitz media campaign, and does not mean that this minority is entitled to take over a country.
So what have we learned so far?
Fighters with ties to Al Qaeda, sponsored by NATO and the CIA are burning down police stations and security buildings, and when Gaddafi says his people will resist this foreign hostility and attempted occupation he is "declaring war against his own people" What a bunch of fucking bullshit!
And oh sure, we just have to help them by BOMBING their capital!
What would have to happen for you to support your home country being bombed from the air? Historic landmarks, universities and peoples houses were being blown to pieces and people killed?
Libyans do not want these air strikes! It is simply a disgusting lie!
4. kafli LIES LIES LIES
There is one thing that becomes abundantly clear upon deitaled inspection of this issue. What we are seeing is not mistakes. It's not "intelligence failures". It's not a misunderstanding. It's pure and deliberate propaganda with the aim of taking over a country and it's resourcese.
Of course a lot of the dumbed down reporters that read from their teleprompters have no clue that what they are saying is a part of a disinformation campaign. They usually know nothing more than the average citizen. But this is being orchestrated by very skilled propaganda specialists, and there are people fully aware of the manipulation in place that are doing this on purpose.
This is a barrier that some people seem to have a hard time to breach. The media may lie, but never on purpose...These people are likely to be thinking "Well what about all the mass rapes, airstrikes against his own people? The torturing and the oppression? Are they just lies?"
Well... again... yes...!
If you have ever known a person who is a compulsive liar you would know that they will lie as much as they can as big as they can so in the end it such a grand illusion you think that it is unlikely someone would go through such lengths to deceive you.
These propaganda specialists will lie endlessly and no one corrects it until it's too late.
Truth is the first casualty of war. The lies leading up to the war in Iraq were endless and grotesque.
They said they KNEW that Saddam had nuclear weapons and was willing to use them on the United States! This is how badly they wanted you to support the war! What makes you think anything has changed now? Obama?
Really? Are you supporting this war because of Obama? Because of all the "changes" he's been implementing?
Obama is another example of how many lies they are willing to tell you to get you to go along with their plans. He had the image of an anti-war president who was against the Wall Street fat cats. Seriously how often has this card been played? How long will it take us to call the bluff?
Obama is a prime example of how much the media and politicians will distort the truth, and somehow people usually fall for it for just as long as is required for the operation to succeed.
Somehow a majority of people can't seem to get it through their head that the media will lie shamelessly, again and again.
People seem to know this on some level and are aware that it has happened repeatedly throughout our history. But when it comes to seeing through it when it really matters they are simply still to gullible. Do they think that the media has learned from it's mistakes and won't lie to us again? Do they believe that the war in Iraq was due to "intelligence failures"?
On Reddit.com, an upvoting site that has a lot of entertaining and informative user submitted material, this clip from George Carlin is almost universally upvoted and praised. Yet the contents of what he is saying doesn't seem to have sunk in yet. Let's listen to it, and listen to his message, he isn't joking!
Michael Jackson even tried to tell us this:
Imagine what it was like before the war in Iraq trying to tell people it was based on lies and there should not be an invasion. Imagine how many reasons people could find in the media at the time to believe you were crazy. Are you telling me they are all lies?
Yes, I'm saying they were all lies.
If you were in my shoes at the time this must feel like deja vu all over again. (To be accurate I was quite young at the time and wasn't really sure what to think initially but quickly started opposing it after it began)
And some of you are not going to change your minds. Some of you just trust that all this information would be covered in the mainstream media if it was true. These people will trust them more than the alternative media to report information accurately.
Imagine the stupidity. The media corporations are owned and controlled and have long since been infiltrated by intelligence agencies.
The website where I post this doesn't even have advertisers. We have no owners or editors and are only here to try to figure out what is going on.
Most people can't seem to fathom how well calculated, widespread and big this lie is. They don't seem to notice how ideas are deliberately being put in their heads. Anything that contradicts what they've learned through this will immediately be disregarded as crazy or a "conspiracy theory".
Some people will even read this entire article and still not see a reason to disapprove of the bombings. Going by their feeling that all the stuff you've heard and read in the media can't all be false.
But most people, and this is the real problem, won't actually read it. They won't watch any of the videos, and they won't even leave room for the possibilty that they are wrong. They have been so convinced that they simply feel it is awaste of time to even look into it. That will not stop them from claiming they have, however.
After I published an earlier version of this in Icelandic you would not believe the response from some people who had obviously in no way even skimmed through the article. Most of the questions were answered in the article itself. For example, if someone comments: "How can you support a dictator?" that person is proving that they did not even see that this article is presenting information that he isn't.
It's a cute little feeling, that everyone is trying their best and it's better not to be too negative.
The compulsive liar knows this as well. He knows that you are a sensitive being and he abuses it. When he's been exposed he apologises and promises it will never happen again. But guess what? He is lying.
If you actually think that the largest militaries in the world would go into a concerted operation without there being a major preparation for it, you have no clue about modern warfare. If you think that a big portion of that preparation doesn't involve a propaganda campaign to ensure the support of the people, you are sadly mistaken again.
Consider this story about Donald Rumsfeld's speech from 2006 where he talks about how the Americans are lagging behind in the propaganda department and must do something about it quickly with heavy emphasis on the internet.
You might also want to evaluate the words of General Wesley Clark, when he said that there were plans to attack Libya 6 years ago:
But how did they go about orchestrating such a media war?
Might it involve a little scandal recently about leaked e-mails from HB Gary? Where it was revealed that the pentagon was using bots online and fake social media accounts to use for propaganda campaigns?
And here is where it get interesting. You all know that this is the "twitter revolution" and a lot of the videos were just youtube videos being posted by Libyans. Right?
Well then how come only about 9% of Libyans have internet access according to statistics from 2009? See here
I think it's about time you watched another of these random youtube videos I've found. The song is actually quite overused but the information is worth it. The most peculiar thing is the amount of twitter updates that were posted in a short period of time:
And here we have two journalists testifying on air that they have been threatened by other journalists and intelligence officials for going against the NATO propaganda. Thierry Meissan goes on to claim that many of these reporters are actually card carrying CIA agents.
Now, let's look at a list of recent news stories, most of which are the primary reasons why most people claim to support the "revolution" in Libya. Expect more news stories like this with outrageous over the top claims against Gaddafi or anything related to him. These stories will be aimed at affecting people emotionally and horrifying them, with blame assigned to Gaddafi and his supporters.
Gaddafi used airstrikes against his own people
This story was originally posted on twitter without a shred of evidence and from there got reported by all the major media outlets. This appears to be nothing more than yet another deliberate, fabricated piece of propaganda.
This report from the Russian Army contradicts these claims:
Gaddafi is ordering mass rapes!
This is a big one. Gaddafi's men are mass rapists! And he even ordered Viagra for his presumably impotent men to assist in their mass rapes! What a monster!
Really?? Isn't that a bit over the top? Do you actually believe that he did that?
But the news says so! He must have! What a lunatic! Who does that?
No one, because it is a lie.
The only evidence for these mass rapes is a "questionnaire" that reportedly included the question of whether or not women had been raped, and reportedly a lot of the women had tagged yes to the question... and when asked by whom many had reportedly said "Gaddafi's men" most left the questionnaire anynomous but some wrote their initials... for fear of reprisal... obviously.
Right... So basically the easiest forgery in history.
There is a lot of talk about how rapes are such a disgrace to the family in the Muslim community and how most women don't tell anyone about it. That didn't seem to matter to Eman Al-Obeidy who at the most opportune time for NATO came rushing into a Tripoli Hotel to tell her horrifying story of how she was gangraped by Gaddafi's men!
Here is a report from Amnesty International that questions these claims.
Just a few days ago we saw this story, about one of Gaddafi's son, and the way his wife treated this apparent worker. Again, the wounds are so over the top and, according to the reporter still boiling. Yet the woman seems to not be in immediate pain. Also, who is this woman? Does she provide any proof that she was actually working for Hannibal Gaddafi? No, but of course the media wouldn't lie to us about something like this.
Both of these stories both seem extraordinarily convenient for anyone that wants to gather support for a war in Libya. They are both extremely emotional and target the viewers empathy. You will not see stories like this about the thousands of people burned alive by Nato bombs.
This is exactly what they do. No one cares about deep historical understanding of what is going on in Libya. Did you see that woman's head! Didn't you hear about that gangrape by Gaddafi's men!? This is what modern propaganda looks like.
And to some this claim even seems ridicilous. But just to be clear, yes, I am stating that in all likelihood, both of these events were staged. The wounds of both these women are probably fake and the work of the Hollywood department of the CIA. These are in all likelihood paid actors or deliberate liars.
Can I prove that? No, not literally, I can't prove either case individually with forensic evidence as that would be impossible. However, it is the aim of this article in it's entirety to expose the fraudulent basis of this war in general. That I can do.
And seen from that perspective these stories and their timing must seem highly suspicious to anyone witnessing what is going on.
Understand this, there is no claim to wild, no lie to big, no method to unethical for these people. This is about much bigger issues and for them the end always justifies the means.
There are a number of ways to get people to lie. One possibility is that they have some connection to the rebels, or are simply paid agents. It's not like they are saving money on a mission like this. It is supported by the richest and most powerful people in the world and the stakes are high. Paying off a couple of people here and there is not a big problem.
They could do it, they would do it, they have done it and they are doing it.
The question is rather, why would they stop when it is proving to work so well?
Just check out this brief video, we have prior convictions:
If you think that my claim that these horror stories from Libya are fake is a ridicilous claim, will you at least admit that you would have also thought it was ridicilous if at the time this was being played in the media, I had claimed that it was staged?
This is now officially acknowledged to have been war propaganda. The girl telling us this horrifying story was a trained actor, the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States and the event was orchestrated by the public relation firm Hill & Knowlton, working for the Kuwaiti government. Even the increasingly censored Wikipedia acknowledges all of this and there are numerous other sources that confirm this if you have any doubt. Wiki
Obviously, that's why they keep doing this. And if you need a further reminder on how the authorities blatantly lie to the public it's time for a little symphony:
But no, authorities wouldn't go that far to stage a war... Well, if you think so consider Operation Northwoods, were all sorts of outrageous plots were considered to gain popular support for war in Cuba, including staging terror attacks, even shooting citizens in the US and blaming it on Cuba:
But common! The media wouldn't participate in this kind of behaviour! Well... then consider Operation Mockingbird. Wiki explains here.
But no... NATO and the US would never knowingly arm and support terrorists... Well, then consider Operation Gladio, where they did exactly that, in Europe:
Al Jazeera has also provided a lot of the propaganda effort for this war. It has proven really effective, as many progressives view Al Jazeera as a good alternative to the US media they have learned not to trust. This documentary, which I watched from start to end is a prominent candidate for the Goebbels award:
"Libya - A state of Terror"
This film only includes testimony from Libyan defectors and provides no additional evidence. No shortage of emotional music and enthusiastic story telling though. If you watch this film, do they seem uncomfortable talking about their horrific experience, or are they trying to sell it?
This is the opposite of the Nigerian immigrant we saw earlier who was chased down a street by the rebels in Libya. It's like they're trying to squeeze out every inch of sympathy they can get.
Now, I might be wrong on this. If I am I apologize to them and those who feel they have suffered. Very few issues are actually purely black/white, but for what I can assess this documentary is pure propaganda.
Here is this documentary for those who are interested:
Gaddafi is staging mass funerals and parading fake victims
This blew my mind when I saw it. I refer to my writing on this website when this story was released. We awarded Nic Robertson the Goebbels award that month for an excellent performance in the art of deception.
The Goebbels award this week goes to Nic Robertson for his exemplary contribution to the brainwashing campaign about Libya.
He uses many effective tricks on the viewer that are worth noting. The goal of the story is to claim that the victims of the NATO bombardment were simply non-existent. All this was an elaborate propaganda stunt by Gaddafi to gain international solidarity and we must not let it work. One might think such plans were to ambitious but he somehow managed to pull it off.
Nic knows that by now people will believe just about anything about Gaddafi and by doing this he hopes that the anger ofer the murdering of innocent civilians that would otherwise be directed against the people throwing bombs, would instead be directed against Gaddafi!
In the first scene we see how he edits the speech which probably included a fair amount of inconvenient statements. the editing makes him appear frantic, angry and a bit fanatical. Good job there.
He proceeds to claim, without any evidence, that noone in the area seemed to have been a relative of the victims. Of course we should just trust him as a neutral reporter, a man from a country that is invading another country, reporting from the country his country is invading. Of course he is not biased!
He also describes how one of the coffins had opened and nothing had been in it. Embarrassing huh? Well what is also embarrassing is the fact that his camera man must have been looking away while it happened. It would have been great footage. But who cares, it's not like anyone will suspect that he is lying.
This story echoes a similarly bizarre claim that Gaddafi's men were emptying the cities morgues and get this, placing the bodies near damaged sites to make it look like people had been killed there!
Yes, for sure! This is the first time in history were a military bombardment produces no civilian casualties! It's just Gaddafi and his gang of madmen trying to trick you into feeling empathy for his people! DON'T FALL FOR IT!
It would be extremely inconvenient if the public would figure out that we are bombing young guys with a nike cap holding the peace sign. We congratulate Nic Robertson and CNN on this outstanding achievement.
Keep in mind that all the people attending this funeral are supporters of Gaddafi! They are carrying green flags and huge numbers have turned out. Regardless this devious reporter spins it so fast that it hypnotizes the viewer.
Of course the super precise Nato bombs have a special bad guy app that ensures it only hits them and no innocent people.
Except maybe a few children and a university...
This ridicilous claim first surfaced here and has since been repeated throughout the entire spectrum of the mainstream media.
This is another blog making these claims and even more wilda accusations, based on stories from his "contact" including that Gaddafi empley a "rape squad" who had that labelled on their uniforms. Who comes up with this kind of bullshit?
5. Kafli The history of Libya
Now then, time for a brief history lesson. The history of Libya is obviously long and has many different eras. I will let suffice to cover the last 100 years of it.
Almost exactly 100 years ago, Italy "liberated" Libya from the Ottoman empire. The coverage of this on wikipedia is pretty ironic in light of recent events.
"The attempted Italian colonization of the Ottoman provinces of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica was never wholly successful, at least initially. On 3 October 1911 the Italians attacked Tripoli, claiming somewhat disingenuously to be liberating Libya from Ottoman rule. Despite a major revolt by the Libyans, the Ottoman sultan ceded Libya to the Italians by signing the 1912 Treaty of Lausanne."
Somewhat disingeniously you say...
And now, a 100 years later, what is the leader of Italy saying about Libya? Well, basically exactly the same thing.
Libya had been ruled by the Ottoman empire since 1551 or for 260 years when Italian fascist came and took over. Well not literally fascist, they didn't become fascists until 1922 but would control Libya brutally til the end of the second world war.
Considering this it is even "funnier" that Berlusconi payed compensation to Libya in 2008 for the Italy's colonial oppression to the sum of 2.5 billion pounds.
2008 Pays compensation to Libya for colonial oppression
In 1943 when the allied forces drove the Italians away the power over the territory fell to Britain and France. In 1949 it is agreed that their puppet. Idris, will take over in a farce which gave the country "independence" but kept it under control of the old colonial rulers.
Idris assumed all power in the country. He was a despised tyrant who was only doing the bidding of the colonies that supported his rise to the throne. He oppressed people, he had official control over everything! That is what a dictator is. And they are proud of their role too.
This king was meant to inherit his throne to his descendants. His flag is now being used by the rebels.
In April 1955, oil exploration started in the kingdom with its first oil fields being discovered in 1959. The first exports began in 1963 with the discovery of oil helping to transform the Libyan economy, although imposing a resource curse on Libya. Although oil drastically improved Libya's finances, popular resentment grew as wealth was increasingly concentrated in the hands of the elite.
As was the case with other African nations following independence, the remaining Italian settlers in Libya held many of the best jobs, owned the best farmland and ran the most successful businesses.
King Idris, a monarch supported by Israel... is now being championed as a figure for democracy and freedom? How does that fly?
In 1969, Gaddafi and his men are the ones who manage to free the people from this fascist dictatorship! What ensues is a remarkable story, one that has rarely been told and for good reason.
When Gaddafi and his men took over, Gaddafi's parents lived in a tent. He promised he would house every person in Libya before housing his parents. The promise was kept and remarkably they soon managed to give everyone in Libya a home. But not before his father died.
Accompanying the revolution was the Green Book, a complete theory on how a society could be organized in the most fair and effective way.
If you have never heard of this book I think it's time we take a peek inside:
The Green Revolution
The Green Revolution is the Libyan Revolution of 1969. The Green Book is a recipe of sort for a different kind of society. I highly recommend reading it in it's entirety but I am going to post bits of it. I think you will see why I think this issue is pretty important. You can download the book in English here. þessa síðu og dánlódi bókinni
"The instrument of government
- All political systems in the world today are a product of the struggle for power between alternative instruments of government. This struggle may be peaceful or armed, as is evidenced among classes, sects, tribes, parties or individuals. The outcome is always the victory of a particular governing structure – be it that of an individual, group, party or class — and the defeat of the people; the defeat of genuine democracy. Political struggle that results in the victory of a candidate with, for example, 51 per cent of the votes leads to a dictatorial governing body in the guise of a false democracy, since 49 per cent of the electorate is ruled by an instrument of government they did not vote for, but which has been imposed upon them. Such is dictatorship."
So, in the current democratic system there is constant struggle and there's always the risk that the majority will oppress the minority. Fair enough
- If parliament is formed from one party as a result of its winning an election, it becomes a parliament of the winning party and not of the people. It represents the party and not the people, and the executive power of the parliament becomes that of the victorious party and not of the people. The same is true of the parliament of proportional representation in which each party holds a number of seats proportional to their success in the popular vote. The members of the parliament represent their respective parties and not the people, and the power established by such a coalition is the power of the combined parties and not that of the people. Under such systems, the people are the victims whose votes are vied for by exploitative competing factions who dupe the people into political circuses that are outwardly noisy and frantic, but inwardly powerless and irrelevant. Alternatively, the people are seduced into standing in long, apathetic, silent queues to cast their ballots in the same way that they throw waste paper into dustbins. This is the traditional democracy prevalent in the whole world, whether it is represented by a one-party, two-party, multiparty or non-party system. Thus it is clear that representation is a fraud…
Philosophers, thinkers, and writers advocated the theory of representative parliaments at a time when peoples were unconsciously herded like sheep by kings, sultans and conquerors. The ultimate aspiration of the people of those times was to have someone to represent them before such rulers. When even this aspiration was rejected, people waged bitter and protracted struggle to attain this goal.
So, representative democracy was better than monarchy and fascism but was still far from perfect.
- The purpose of forming a party is to create an instrument to rule the people, i.e., to rule over non-members of the party. The party is, fundamentally, based on an arbitrary authoritarian concept — the domination of the members of the party over the rest of the people. The party presupposes that its accession to power is the way to attain its ends, and assumes that its objectives are also those of the people. This is the theory justifying party dictatorship, and is the basis of any dictatorship. No matter how many parties exist, the theory remains valid…
Political parties are corrupt in their nature and represent interest groups or specific members of society. Sounds about right.
Popular Conferences and People’s Committees
- Popular Conferences are the only means to achieve popular democracy. Any system of government contrary to this method, the method of Popular Conferences, is undemocratic. All the prevailing systems of government in the world today will remain undemocratic, unless they adopt this method. Popular Conferences are the end of the journey of the masses in quest of democracy.
Popular Conferences and People’s Committees are the fruition of the people’s struggle for democracy. Popular Conferences and People’s Committees are not creations of the imagination; they are the product of thought which has absorbed all human experiments to achieve democracy.
Direct democracy, if put into practice, is indisputably the ideal method of government… The Green Book guides the masses to an unprecedented practical system of direct democracy. No two intelligent people can dispute the fact that direct democracy is the ideal, but until now no practical method for its implementation has been devised. The Third Universal Theory, however, now provides us with a practical approach to direct democracy. The problem of democracy in the world will finally be solved.
Authority of the people has but one face which can only be realised through Popular Conferences and People’s Committees. There can be no democracy without Popular Conferences and Committees everywhere…
The General People’s Congress is not a gathering of persons or members such as those of parliaments but, rather, a gathering of the Popular Conferences and People’s Committees. Thus, the problem of the instrument of government is naturally solved, and all dictatorial instruments disappear. The people become the instrument of government, and the dilemma of democracy in the world is conclusively solved.
The only way to get the power directly to the people is through their direct participation. This can be achieved using direct democracy. Conference halls need to be built were people can get together and make decisions. Interesting.
Who supervises the conduct of society?
- The question arises: who has the right to supervise society, and to point out deviations that may occur from the laws of society? Democratically, no one group can claim this right on behalf of society.
Therefore, society alone supervises itself. It is dictatorial for any individual or group to claim the right of the supervision of the laws of the society, which is, democratically, the responsibility of the society as a whole. This can be arrived at through the democratic instrument of government that results from the organisation of the society itself into Basic Popular Conferences, and through the government of these people through People’s Committees and the General People’s Congress.
This principle is what seems to seperate Libya from other states. No one group has the right to dominate another! Bravo! Are you paying attention?
What about the freedom of the press? Isn't that limited too?
You could say it is, but only by our western standards. This is the reason:
- An individual has the right to express himself or herself even if he or she behaves irrationally to demonstrate his or her insanity. Corporate bodies too have the right to express their corporate identity. The former represent only themselves and the latter represent those who share their corporate identity.
Since society consists of private individuals and corporate bodies, the expression, for example, by an individual of his or her insanity does not mean that the other members of society are insane. Such expression reflects only in the individual’s character. Likewise, corporate expression reflects only the interest or view of those making up the corporate body. For instance, a tobacco company, despite the fact that what it produces is harmful to health, expresses the interests of those who make up the company.
The press is a means of expression for society: it is not a means of expression for private individuals or corporate bodies. Therefore, logically and democratically, it should not belong to either one of them.
The media should not be a mouthpiece for special interest groups but instead a natural right for all citizens. Makes sens right?
The economic basis of the Third Universal Theory
- The ultimate solution lies in abolishing the wage-system, emancipating people from its bondage and reverting to the natural laws which defined relationships before the emergence of classes, forms of governments and man-made laws. These natural rules are the only measures that ought to govern human relations…
If we analyse the factors of economic production from ancient times to the present, we always find that they essentially consist of certain basic production components, i.e., raw materials, means of production, and a producer. The natural rule of equality requires that each of these components receives a share of this production. Because production cannot be achieved without the essential role of each of these components, it has to be equally divided amongst them. The preponderance of one of them contravenes the natural rule of equality and becomes an encroachment upon the others’ rights. Thus, each must be awarded an equal share, regardless of the number of components in the process of production. If the components are two, each receives half of the production; if three, then one-third…
The labour force has become a component of the production process. As a result of technical advancement, multitudes of unskilled toilers have been transformed into limited numbers of technicians, engineers and scientists. Consequently, trade unions will subsequently disappear and be replaced by syndicates of engineers and technicians. Scientific advancement is an irreversible gain for humankind.
Thanks to this process, illiteracy will be eliminated and unskilled workers will become a temporary phenomenon destined to gradual disappearance. However, even in this new environment, persons will always remain the basic component in the production process.
We need to abolish the wage system in it's current form.. BLASPHEMY! Just because it is based on domination and extortion?
He who takes part in the production or other fields of the operations that creates revenue, should be entitled to an equal portion of the revenue, compared to the other people involved.
Thanks, my sentiments exactly. Do you have more?
- The freedom of a human being is lacking if his or her needs are controlled by others, for need may lead to the enslavement of one person by another. Furthermore, exploitation is caused by need. Need is an intrinsic problem and conflict is initiated by the control of one’s needs by another.
You can use people's needs to exploit them. This creates conflict so it is necessary to prevent people from controlling what other people need.
Not so insane?
- Housing is an essential need for both the individual and the family and should not be owned by others. Living in another’s house, whether paying rent or not, compromises freedom… In a socialist society, no one, including society itself, has the right to control people’s needs. No one has the right to acquire a house additional to his or her own dwelling and that of his or her heirs for the purpose of renting it because this additional house is, in fact, a need of someone else.
YES! Thanks! Every person is entitled to his own house! And noone is entitled to having two houses! Because that exceeds your need and can only be used with the intention of profiting from others or controlling them!
I couldn't have put it better. Well I even tried, this is eerily similar to what I wrote in an article in November of last year called "What do we want?"
"I am not saying I know exactly how this can be accomplished, but like others I have my theories. The only thing I'm saying is that if we are going to unite over some demands, than these demands, as radical as they might seem to some, as natural as they could possibly be!
Food and shelter! Is that too much to ask? In a country that is freezing and struggles to deal with a housing capacity that far exceeds our population!
On the contrary, any system, that in this day of remarkable technological advances allows people to starve to death, despite they're being plenty of food around, that is rather thrown away than given to the starving, and that let's people freeze to death in a place that has too many houses. That is absolutely insane."
- To the individual, the family is more important than the state. Mankind acknowledges the individual as a human being, and the individual acknowledges the family, which is his cradle, his origin, and his social umbrella. According to the law of nature, the human race is the individual and the family, but not the state.
The individual is the important thing? Not the state? He's got to be kidding..
- Discrimination against woman by man is a flagrant act of oppression without justification, for woman eats and drinks as man eats and drinks; woman loves and hates as man loves and hates; woman thinks, learns and comprehends as man thinks, learns and comprehends. Woman, like man, needs shelter, clothing, and transportation; woman feels hunger and thirst as man feels hunger and thirst; woman lives and dies as man lives and dies.
But why are there men and women? There must be a natural necessity for the existence of man and woman, rather than man only or woman only…
Deliberate interventions against conception form an alternative to human life. In addition to that, there exists partial deliberate intervention against conception, as well as against breast-feeding. All these are links in a chain of actions in contradiction to natural life, which is tantamount to murder. For a woman to kill herself in order not to conceive, deliver and breast-feed is within the realm of deliberate, artificial interventions, in contradiction with the nature of life epitomized by marriage, conception, breast-feeding, and maternity. They differ only in degree.
To dispense with the natural role of woman in maternity — nurseries replacing mothers — is a start in dispensing with the human society and transforming it into a merely biological society with an artificial way of life. To separate children from their mothers and to cram them into nurseries is a process by which they are transformed into something very close to chicks, for nurseries are similar to poultry farms into which chicks are crammed after they are hatched.
Nothing else would be as appropriate and suitable to the human being and his dignity as natural motherhood. Children should be raised by their mothers in a family where the true principles of motherhood, fatherhood and comradeship of brothers and sisters prevail, and not in an institution resembling a poultry farm… As for children who have neither family nor shelter, society is their guardian, and only for them, should society establish nurseries and related institutions. It is better for them to be taken care of by society rather than by individuals who are not their parents.
If a test were carried out to discover whether the natural propensity of the child is towards its mother or the nursery. the child would opt for the mother and not the nursery…
There must be a world revolution which puts an end to all materialistic conditions hindering women from performing their natural role in life, and so drives them to carry out men’s duties in order to attain equal rights. Such revolution will inevitably take place, particularly in industrial societies, as a response to the instinct of survival, even without any instigator of revolution such as the Green Book.
All societies today look upon women as little more than commodities. The East regards her as a commodity to be bought and sold, while the West does not recognise her femininity…
Freedom means that every human being gets proper education which qualifies him or her for the work which suits him or her. Dictatorship means that human beings are taught that which is not suitable for them, and are forced to do unsuitable work. Work which is appropriate to men is not necessarily appropriate to women, and knowledge that is proper for children does not necessarily suit adults.
There is no difference in human rights between man and woman, the child and the adult, but there is no absolute identity between them as regards their duties.
The oppression of women is completely unjustified. Western society oppresses women by denying them their natural role as mothers. They should not have to work so much that they don't have time to care for their kids!
Even if we were to disagree with this, who are we to say it's wrong? Even if you think that the fact that know both parents have to work as hard as one parent did earlier to provide the same for the family is just a necessary part of equality then fine. But that does not justify imposing opinions on people! Particularly not if you do it with bombs.
At any rate, it is acknowledged that women have much more respect in Libya than the muslim stereotype would have you believe.
Since the early 1960s, Libyan women have had the right to vote and to participate in political life. They could also own and dispose of property independently of their husbands, but all of these rights were exercised by only a few women before the 1969 revolution.
Since then, the government has encouraged women to participate in elections and national political institutions, but in 1987 only one woman had advanced as far as the national cabinet, as an assistant secretary for information and culture. However, from 1989-1994 Fatima Abd al-Hafiz Mukhtar served as Minister of Education. From 1992-1994 Bukhanra Salem Houda served as Minister of Youth and Sports; Salma Ahmed Rashed from 1992-1994 served as Assistant Secretary of Women, then as Secretary in the General Secretariat of the General Peoples' Congress for Women's Affairs from 1994–1995, and was eventually the Ambassador to the League of Arab Nations in 1996. Others serving as Secretary in the General Secretariat of the General Peoples' Congress for Women's Affairs included from 1995-1998 Thuriya Ramadan Abu Tabrika, Nura Han Ramadan Abu Sefrian from 1998–2000, Dr. Shalma Chabone Abduljabbar, and Amal Nuri Abdullah al-Safar from 2006-2009. Women serving as Secretary in the General Secretariat of the General Peoples' Congress for Social Affairs have included Dr. Shalma Chabone Abduljabbar and Abd-al-Alim al-Shalwi, while from 1995-2000 Fawziya Bashir al-Shalababi served as Secretary for Information, Culture and Mass Mobilization. Dr. Huda Fathi Ben Amer began serving as the Secretary of People's Committees Affairs in 2009, and also served as President of the Transitional Arab Parliament. Dr. Salma Shabaan Abdel Jabar began serving as Secretary of Woman Affairs in 2009.
Let's continue shall we:
– Education, or learning, is not necessarily that routine curriculum and those classified subjects in textbooks which youths are forced to learn during specified hours while sitting in rows of desks. This type of education now prevailing all over the world is directed against human freedom. State-controlled education, which governments boast of whenever they are able to force it on their youths, is a method of suppressing freedom. It is a compulsory obliteration of a human being’s talent, as well as a coercive directing of a human being’s choices. It is an act of dictatorship destructive of freedom because it deprives people of their free choice, creativity and brilliance. To force a human being to learn according to a set curriculum is a dictatorial act. To impose certain subjects upon people is also a dictatorial act…
This does not mean that schools are to be closed and that people should turn their backs on education, as it may seem to superficial readers. On the contrary, it means that society should provide all types of education, giving people the chance to choose freely any subjects they wish to learn.
Societies which ban or monopolize knowledge are reactionary societies which are biased towards ignorance and are hostile to freedom. Societies which prohibit the teaching of religion are reactionary societies, biased towards ignorance and hostile to freedom. Societies which monopolize religious education are reactionary societies, biased towards ignorance and hostile to freedom. Equally so are the societies which distort the religions, civilizations and behaviour of others in the process of teaching those subjects. Societies which consider materialistic knowledge taboo are likewise reactionary societies, biased towards ignorance and hostile to freedom.
Knowledge is a natural right of every human being of which no one has the right to deprive him or her under any pretext, except in a case where a person does something which deprives him or her of that right.
Ignorance will come to an end when everything is presented as it actually is and when knowledge about everything is available to each person in the manner that suits him or her.
The current educational system is an obstacle to the natural freedom and thirst for knowledge that humans possess. A better system needs to be designed.
Are those ideas beginning to sound familiar?
Well if they are it's because they echo almost every progressive sentiment for social evolution. These are the kind of thoughts that have been emerging in the circles of all revolutionaries in the western world!
What have we been talking about here in Iceland? Being able to produce our own food sustainably! Democratic reform! Direct democracy! National votes! To have the basic necessities of life guaranteed by law!
Those of us who have been studying this for a while have long since seen the problems of an easily controlled two party and multi party systems. The flaws of the education system, financial system and the labour system.
Well, I know what you are thinking. Who is to say that this book is being applied in Libya right now? We've all heard of glorified communist states who had similar claims about being for and by the people. But that is no prove that this version of socialism is not working in this particular case. In fact the evidence would be showing it to be working extremely well! Do you think perhaps there is correlation between the initiatives suggested in this book and the widely recognized improved standard of living for Libyans?
At least if seen from a human perspective, from the perspective of big corporations it's been dreadful and tyrannical.
Most likely you had never even hear about this to begin with, so the question is, are you just going to assume that it can't be in use cause it sounds to good to be true?
Did he just magically write all this accurate philosophical and social analysis with such detailed steps for propaganda purposes? Why would we assume that this book that is widely regarded as the bible of Libyan society is not being implemented?
You may think it's pure rhetoric, but you have nothing to base that on. Isn't it possible that this is the reason that he is so popular? And that you have in fact been lied to? Repeatedly and grossly?
Is it not possible that this book explains why the Libyan people haven't been exploited and screwed over the same way as their neighbours?
In the first video I posted in this article you can see actual footage from inside these conference halls. Were they just faked to maintain this illusion?
And you say you don't want to listen to "conspiracy theories"?
Gaddafi's "reign of terror"
Gaddafi and his movement was immediately perceieved as a threat to sensitive business interess of Isreal, the US, Britain, France and other nations. So right from the start a campagin of villification begun. He was portrayed as a supporter of terrorist and as a madman.
These powers made many attempts at his life. Sometimes they almost worked. See here.
At the same time they've done everything in their power to get control back to the oligarchs. Now, it seems they might finally achieve their long standing goal.
But Gaddafi and the Libyan people were extremely vigilant and had no tolerance for people. They had their experience with colonial powers and knew that they didn't fuck around. They implemented massive domestic food projects and housing projects to ensure that the nation could be self sustainable and independent.
Seen from this perspective, the stories about bad treatment of the Libyan dissenters is simply a punishment for trying to murder people and instigate a staged coup to put a puppet of these business interest and someonw who supports the US and Israeli agenda in the neighbourhood.
There were public executions, the logic being that they wanted people to think twice before trying something like that. To say that these were on Gaddafi's order is not more accurate than it would be to say that the President of the United States is behind every execution in the US.
Like I said, it may not be something I agree with, but I live in a country where extreme violence is quite rare, and I have never been in that situation.
Obviously when someone tries to attack you and kill you, you have a right to defend yourself.
The people of Libya overwhelmingly supported the revolution because it gave them a share of the oil wealth of the country and had housed and fed Libyans! They did not want the West to gain control cause they had lived that and knew that they were not working in the interest of the people!
If you need further proof of that just look at the neighbouring countries!
And if you think that they're commitment to bringing wealth to the people and to avoid exploitation by foreign interest didn't bring them hazzle you don't know how these people have plundering the world's resources for the last hundreds of years! Keep in mind that Libya didn't let any foreign businesses enter the country until 2003. In this increasingly globalist capitalist economy, an analogy would be the family owned coffee house trying to survive a takeover by Starbucks. Those bastards don't quit, you will be assimilated.
Here is an example of a now commonly used brainwashing method, when Time magazine posted a picture of Gaddafi on it's cover. Only it was illustrated and the lines on his face spell out KILL and SEX to influence your subconscious level of thinking:
From the beginning the mouthpieces of large oil companies and the former colonial powers painted Gaddafi as a supporter of terrorists. This was based also on his support for elements within Palestine fighting the Israeli occupation.
Probably the most controversial thing you can accuse Libya of is their support for Idi Amin's forces.
However, they have apologized for it and stated many times that it was during a complicated time in which they saw any enemy of the US and Israel as an ally, and they regretted it having found out what he was doing in his country.
But if that support is reason enough for an invasion, than how many times should we have invaded the US by now? That have supported tyrants and terrorists in numerous other countries?
This is the kind of double standard we see repeatedly when it comes to military aggression by the US and the west.
In 1973 things really started to happen as Gaddafi announced the birth of the "Jamahariya" "The state of the masses" leaving all power in the hands of the Libyan people through direct democracy.
Even Wikipedia acknowledges this:
The "remaking of Libyan society" contained in Gaddafi's ideological visions began to be put into practice formally beginning in 1973 with a so-called cultural or popular revolution.
This "revolution" was designed to combat bureaucratic inefficiency, lack of public interest and participation in the subnational governmental system, and problems of national political coordination. In an attempt to instill revolutionary fervor into his compatriots and to involve large numbers of them in political affairs, Gaddafi urged them to challenge traditional authority and to take over and run government organs themselves. The instrument for doing this was the "people's committee." Within a few months, such committees were found all across Libya. They were functionally and geographically based and eventually became responsible for local and regional administration.
People's committees were established in such widely divergent organizations as universities, private business firms, government bureaucracies, and the broadcast media. Geographically based committees were formed at the governorate, municipal, and zone (lowest) levels. Seats on the people's committees at the zone level were filled by direct popular election; members so elected could then be selected for service at higher levels. By mid-1973 estimates of the number of people's committees ranged above 2,000.
In the scope of their administrative and regulatory tasks and the method of their members' selection, the people's committees purportedly embodied the concept of direct democracy that Gaddafi propounded in the first volume of The Green Book, which appeared in 1976. The same concept lay behind proposals to create a new political structure composed of "people's congresses." The centerpiece of the new system was the General People's Congress (GPC), a national representative body intended to replace the RCC.
Here we can also see an interesting chapter on the economic reforms that happened after this happened:
Remaking of the economy was parallel with the attempt to remold political and social institutions. Until the late 1970s, Libya's economy was mixed, with a large role for private enterprise except in the fields of oil production and distribution, banking, and insurance.
But according to volume two of Gaddafi's Green Book, which appeared in 1978, private retail trade, rent, and wages were forms of "exploitation" that should be abolished. Instead, workers' self-management committees and profit participation partnerships were to function in public and private enterprises. A property law was passed that forbade ownership of more than one private dwelling, and Libyan workers took control of a large number of companies, turning them into state-run enterprises. Retail and wholesale trading operations were replaced by state-owned "people's supermarkets", where Libyans in theory could purchase whatever they needed at low prices. By 1981 the state had also restricted access to individual bank accounts to draw upon privately held funds for government projects.
These economic changes spread Libya's wealth much more broadly than it had been. The Gini index is a measure of economic dis-equity. In the mid 2000s Wikipedia showed a Gini of 36 for Libya. The Gini for the USA in 2009 was 40.8 (substantially more dis-equitable). Gaddafi's efforts also improved the average health of Libyans. In 2009 the CIA's World Factbook showed the average life expectancy of a Libyan to be 77 years (only one year less than that of an American citizen).
However, the measures created resentment and opposition among the newly dispossessed. The latter joined those already alienated, some of whom had begun to leave the country. By 1982 perhaps 50,000 to 100,000 Libyans had gone abroad; because many of the emigrants were among the enterprising and better educated Libyans, they represented a significant loss of managerial and technical expertise.
So.... the wealth was spread a lot more evenly... well we can't have that now can we! So what we see now is these disgruntled people that made up the elite of Libya coming back to claim what they think is still theirs. And we are helping them accomplish that. After all taking their undeserved and unecessary extravagant wealth was a crime we can not let go unpunished!
It appears as though these are mostly the people we see and hear about, talking of Gaddafi's mistreatment and his "reign of terror"
The Lockerbie incident
In 1986, Ronald Reagan bombed Libya and killed Gaddafi's daughter, justified by the accusation that they were involved in a terror attack on a German disco.
A german documentary later concluded that it had been the work of the Israeli Secret Service, Mossad. Source
It was then two years later, in 1988 that a plane was blown up over Lockerbie in Scotland where 143 people died. Ever since Libya has been charged with being responsible, despite there being absolutely no evidence that connects them with it.
The Lockerbie incident is a little like Icesave has been for Iceland. This big international dispute that is based on absoulte bullshit but is used as an excuse to exert control over the country.
After 15 years of international disputes and economic sanctions over these alleged acts of Libya, the US invaded Iraq. Seeing this made Libyans realize that they meant serious business and that they weren't going to listen to reason.
Saying they didn't have anything to do with it wasn't going to cut it anymore so they decided to do anything they could to make peace with these nations. They did not want war with the West, for obvious reasons.
They were willing to give into all the demands they had, ridicilous as they may have thought they were. One of these conditions was to "declare responsibility" for the attacks of Lockerbie although they stated firmly it was not an admission of guilt or participation in the preparation of the attack.
(af wiki: Until 2003 Libya had never formally admitted carrying out the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. On 16 August 2003 Libya formally admitted responsibility (but did not admit guilt) for Pan Am Flight 103 in a letter presented to the president of the United Nations Security Council)
It would only be a year until the Secretary General of Libya openly declared that this arrangement was made exclusively with the aim of "buying peace" and reiterated that Libya had not had any part in this attack.
Here is a mainstream news story showing that witnesses were bribed and evidence was fabricated in the Lockerbie trial.
In 2009 a dutch documentary was released. It is in dutch but if you just watch the beginning there are some interviews in English and the conclusion of the film makers was that blaming Libya for this attack was just preposterous.
Strange things start to happen following these compromises. They opened up to foreign business and Gaddafi and his family make business deals with politicians that they had previously been in conflict with.
All of the sudden a lot of these people start to "loosen up: towards Gaddafi. The rhetoric changes. He is no longer a tyrant, but simply an eccentric man.
Sarkozy says Gaddafi is not considered a dictator by his neighbours
Even the senile old cook, John McCain had good things to say about Libya! (He is now back to singing from the dictator songsheet obviously, but just listen to this clip)
Despite this relatively brief period of friendly exchanges it was clear that there were other plans in store for Gaddafi. Just look at Obama, it's almost as if he knows:
They would simply smile and welcome him for a few years before turning around and stabbing him in the back.
In doing this Gaddafi was actually hurting his image more than he could have imagined. Cause most of these people are so despised in their home countries that associating with them is a bad PR move. It has given people the wrong impression that he is one of the brutal dictators that has been supported by the West. After all, we've seen him in pictures, rubbing shoulders with those evil war mongers. So right! We should let those war mongers start a war with him!
Or wait... something's not right here....
This has done a lot to hurt his image in the circle of people that would under normal circumstances be out there to defend him. Imagine if this was happening in Venezuela. A lot of people would know immediately that something was up. People don't pay attention to detail. But they remember the pictures:
I know that this was the image I had of him before all this started to happen and I began researching what was actually going on.
For those of you who have supported Hugo Chavez and his revolution in Venezuela, you might wonder why Chavez has aligned with Gaddafi and considers him a fellow revolutionary. Of course the media will use that to demonize Chavez, but not the other way around.
Another important figure that has hailed Gaddafi as one of the greatest freedom fighters of our times is Nelson Mandela.
Chapter 6 - The motives
The motive, is in this case like in most others, multifold.
The first and most obvious one in this context is oil. Libya has the largest oil supply in Africa and twice as much oil as the US does.
Here is former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney telling us what she found out, when she, along with a number of other notable people went to Libya on a fact finding mission.
Then there is the very real chance that this has a lot to do with the great water resources in Libya. It has been claimed by the Libyan government that these water reserves could quench the thirst of all of Africa.
Some might think that this would be good news to our benevolent world leaders, what with all their end poverty and live aid and charity work... Nope, what they do is start dropping bombs with depleted uranium to contanimate the water supplies. Just listen to this soldier. He is fucking pissed off over it, to quote him directly.
In fact, the Libyan government had started a project called the Great Man Made River which sought to irrigate the Libyan dessert and would have significantly improved the lives of the Libyan people.
Or maybe this all boils down to Gaddafi's plans to introduce a new gold dinar, a currency free from the manipulation and stranglehold of the global banking elite.
Most likely, it is partly all of these reasons that led to the globalist intervention in Libya. It may also just have to do with getting a country that has so far managed successfully not to be exploited by the corporate plutocracy. To stop a movement that threatens the very structure that the political establishment relies upon for their domination of society.
Partly, a motive is also to keep the motor running in the war machine. Do you know how many missiles and bombs are produced each day? We can't just have them lying around, taking up all that storage space! And we also have to keep raking in profits for the weapons manufacterers, and all the corporate gangbangers that profit from war. Many of the people profiting from this are in many cases literally the same people that make the official decisions to start wars. The most famous examples of which would be the Bush connection to the Carlyle group and Dich Cheney with Halliburton as they decided to start a war with Iraq.
Whatever motive they may have, one thing should be absofuckinglutely clear. IT IS NOT to help civilians. It has NOTHING to do with protecting people from a tyrant, and it has nothing to do with democracy. Except perhaps in the sense that they want to implement the type of democracy they know how to control.
This notion should be insulting to every human being of average intellect. The fact that people actually believe it for a second boggles my mind. How can it be, that the same people that have routinely brutalized, beaten and tazered protesters in their own country, all of the sudden have this compassion for the people protesting in Libya?
How can it be that the response to protesters being brutalized in Egypt, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia has been so radically different to the response now? Why have these people let the suffering of the Palestinians continue for more than half a century without even pretending to interfere? What about Burma, Morocco, Chad, Turkmenistan, Nigeria, Somalia, Haiti, Ivory Coast... and I could literally go on (No, I'm not saying Syria or Iran, they are part of this same propaganda campaign orchestrated by the US)
Are we to believe that Gaddafi is just that much worse!?
Be vary of people who use this argument as disguised war propaganda against other nations. Like saying, why Libya when we could invade Syria or Iran? And then go on to say how much sense that would make. That is not the point. Syria and Iran have actually been targeted with the same kind og propaganda campaign.
A case in point. Just a few days after Saudi Arabian troops brutally attacked protesters in Bahrain, the king of Bahrain was invited to the royal wedding of Kate Middleton and that guy!
This is how powerful the propaganda is. It makes people believe absolutely ludicrous things that don't even come close to anything that has ever occurred in our dimension of this reality.
It is so easy to discredit this claim that I don't even think I should have to.
There seems to be a great deal of doublethink going on here.
A lot of people seem to understand that the war powers have selfish motives, but they seem to think that getting rid of Gaddafi is "still a good thing".
By now I'm sure we've all heard about Syria's "crackdown on protesters".. Well, in a similar pattern we see here millions of people marching in support of President Assad. Noticing a pattern here anyone?
These enemies of Israel are being targeted and their friends are being let off the hook for doing what the enemies of Israel are being accused of.
Just watch this video and try telling me we're not being duped! Why would all these people support guys that were torturing and killing their own people??
They wouldn't! And that's the point! These guys aren't killing and torturing their own people!
If you think this "couldn't happen" well then think agian. It already has. The most recent example, escluding the failed attempt in Venezuela is the NATO bombardment of Serbia. Of course these cases have different details but the basic plot is the same. Those who know what happened in Serbia will clearly see the similarities of these campaigns. If you don't and still think it was just a necessary effort to get rid of evil Milosevic, then you should reinvestigate the case, knowing what you know now.
I'll leave this documentary on the case here for those of you who are interested. (Part 1, but you should be able to find the rest)
It can happen, and it frequently does and will continue to happen unless we educate ourselves about how this is accomplished and expose it!
Do you understand now why thousands of Libyans placed themselves at Gaddafis palace to prevent him from being bombed by NATO?
Do you understand that it is us who are insane? Not these people?
Or these people?
Do you now understand what this guy was trying to do when he photobombed this goebbels wannabe, demonizing him and his country with the aim of killing their people?
Do you understand now, why we have to stop this horror??
Do you understand now why Cynthia McKinney is defending Libya, having been there and seen the scale of the deception. "The most common thing that I hear people ask me is WHY? Why are they doing this??"
Uhh... to uhh... help you.....
Do you understand why this article needed to be so thourough? Do you see the scale of this deception and how difficult it would be to tear it apart with a few paragraphs?
Do you now understand why I spent so much time working on this article without getting any money for it? Twice I stayed up for 24 hours and just continued writing and working on it.
The only thing I stand for is peace!
Have we in fact reached that stage again were standing up for peace is dangerous!?
Are we really at the stage were protesting a war is considered crazy?! And those who do are dismissed as conspiracy theorists?
WAR IS NOT PEACE! It is a lie! I never thought I'd have to say this!!
WAR IS NOT PEACE!
THE WAR IN LIBYA IS NOT ABOUT PEACE! IT IS ABOUT WAR!
Please! SEE! You have been blinded if you can not see this! WAR AND PEACE ARE OPPOSITES!
Cause the most disturbing thing is that most people claim to be against war. But when it comes to it, everybody either shuts up or directly supports it! And most people don't even investigate it from both sides!
If you are against war than spread this information! Expose the lies before it gets out of hand and spreads to Iran and Syria and even more countries!
The truth is on our side! Eventually it will be exposed, just like it has been on Iraq.
The propaganda machines just work a lot faster. They know in advance what the plan is and can prepare!
Us freelance journalists have a hard time to keep up, cause we can only react. I've been investigating world events for the last 6 years and I never suspected that Libya was about to become such an important factor. So to counter it I had to start researching it when the propaganda had already started.
That is the problem. They control the media but they don't control reality. We will get them eventually.
There are at least two sides to every story
The media is not being neutral! They are not even pretending to cover both sides! Try listening to or reading any news story. It's not that they are taking a side, they pretend that the other side doesn't even exist!
Everything I've been covering here has been largely ignored by the mainstream press! Every reference to Gaddafi assumes it as a given that he is an evil dictator!
Every mention of the rebels portrays them as freedom fighters! The media is acting like an absolutely blatant cheerleader for this war.
It is almost never acknowledged that the reason Gaddafi says he won't step down is because he has no power! How can he step down if it has no power?? He just laughs at it because it is so ridicilous! Why do they always just report that he "refuses to step down"?
It was just barely reported that he offered to symbolically "step down" just as long as he wouldn't be tried in a court who knew would be corrupt! The rebels rejected the offer, saying that would be offensive to his victims.
Sure, a peaceful resolution to this conflict would be insulting, we demand blood!
Every word you hear out of Gaddafi is not directly from him, but quoted out of context by the media.
You are not hearing his side, but the other sides version of his side. If you want to hear his side it is very easy! Just fucking listen to what he has to say!
So... are you ready to listen to Gaddafi?
Now that you've read this extensive article almost to the end, this is my last request.
Consider these videos the last plea of a man on his knees. You have a gun pointed on his head and he is asking for your mercy (actually Gaddafi is more proud than that, but you catch my drift). Are you going to pull the trigger before he gets to say what he wants or will you at least let him speak?
Will you just shoot first and ask questions later?
Consider why, it had never occurred to you before to listen to the other side of this story directly from the source. My mother told me never to judge anyone before you hear their side. It is the best advice she ever gave me.
Consider how naive it was of you to think you could just trust that the media was telling you the truth. Even knowing they're consistant history of manipulating facts in favor of wars and the establishment.
You don't want war! So stop it! Plant seeds in any way you can. Do not be afraid. Don't be afraid of being judged by others. It is there mistake not yours. Yours would be to succumb to this societal pressure and abandon your conscience. Allocate your empathy! Feel for these people who are being deeply wronged and do something about it.
Having said that I just want to affirm that I obviously in no way condone or advocate violent action for the cause of Libya. We do not need that. We just need people to wake up, and they will! This information is too powerful and they can only overlook it for some time. Plant seeds of information everywhere you can! Be courageous enough to tell people they are wrong even if it is more comfortable that everybody agrees!
I may not be right about everything I wrote in this article and I'm sure that some nitpickers can pick out some minor flaws, that is not the point. Last time I checked there is freedom of speech and people are entitled to be wrong. All I can promise is that I am giving my honest take on this situation and all the information that I found researching it.
So, watching these interviews I am sure you will see how blatantly these "reporters" are not even listening to what they say and simply have a script that they are sticking to no matter what.
I recommend starting with this interview with the very eloquant Saif al-Islam Gaddafi. He is now being portrayed as some vicious wannabe tyrant but I think you would find that he doesn't really look the part.
Saif Gaddafi í viðtali BBC
Here he is speaking with our friend, Nic Robertson of CNN
And a shorter version you can share with people that is a must see:
Please reproduce this article and any of it's contents as widely as possible. Share it with everyone you know and post it on your blogs, facebook, websites and etc. You will not get in trouble if it's not properly referenced, just go ahead and spread this information.