Libya Was About to Unveil a Hugely Successful Project Built W/Out the International Banks

[BenIsForRon]

You sound lke a CIA or Mossad troll. Those "peaceful protestors" are now armed to the teeth. Where did the "rebels" get their arms and training from?

Are you really asking me that? It shows that you haven't been following this crisis at all. Fine, I'll explain.

The rebels are made up partially of former Libya military soldiers. After Gaddafi ordered them to fire on protesters, they defected. Many high level military men defected, and thus gave rebels access to weapons depots. For all the rebels without training, the former military people are attempting to train them as they go.

If you were paying attention, you'd see that part of the problem with the rebel forces is that many of them are in fact untrained, and aren't the best assets to stand up to Gaddafi loyalists.

I'm really saddened by the lack of logic and facts on this forum. Yes, it sucks that Obama acted unilaterally, but at the same time, the rebels are still the good guys in this conflict. They tried to do it peacefully, but Gaddafi made that impossible.

 

[RabbitMan]

Are you really asking me that? It shows that you haven't been following this crisis at all. Fine, I'll explain....

...I'm really saddened by the lack of logic and facts on this forum. Yes, it sucks that Obama acted unilaterally, but at the same time, the rebels are still the good guys in this conflict. They tried to do it peacefully, but Gaddafi made that impossible.

Thank you for establishing a little bit of sanity into this thread. This forum worries me sometimes.

 

[devil21]

Thank you for establishing a little bit of sanity into this thread. This forum worries me sometimes.

Can you tell us how far the rabbit hole actually goes?

 

[Kylie]

Are you really asking me that? It shows that you haven't been following this crisis at all. Fine, I'll explain.

The rebels are made up partially of former Libya military soldiers. After Gaddafi ordered them to fire on protesters, they defected. Many high level military men defected, and thus gave rebels access to weapons depots. For all the rebels without training, the former military people are attempting to train them as they go.

If you were paying attention, you'd see that part of the problem with the rebel forces is that many of them are in fact untrained, and aren't the best assets to stand up to Gaddafi loyalists.

I'm really saddened by the lack of logic and facts on this forum. Yes, it sucks that Obama acted unilaterally, but at the same time, the rebels are still the good guys in this conflict. They tried to do it peacefully, but Gaddafi made that impossible.

This reminds of a quote that was spoken around the time I was born, by a CIA head.

Something to the effect of Once the public doesn't believe anything they read, we have done our job

 

[Peace&Freedom]

This one has a really easy and far more plausible answer. Qaddafi responded with more force than any of the other Middle Eastern and North African dictators. Once things escalated as Qaddafi refused to give up power, he turned to the military to take them out. When an actual military was about to crush them, it appears that most of the protesters turned rebels were much more willing to accept a hand from the West.

The problem with this "easy" answer is it is not plausible, because of the chronology of events refutes it. The rebels were calling for Western meddling BEFORE Qadhafi moved to crush them militarily, and have groups within it that have long been CIA controlled:

"Media coverage from Libya has been confusing at best, and often contradictory. Air attacks that never happened, heavy fighting that was nothing of the sort, rebel advances that ended up being retreats without a shot fired — all in all there has been very little "news" from the shores of Tripoli, and a whole lot of propaganda. Also suspicious is the fact that, alone in all of North Africa and Arabia, the Libyan rebels have clamored for foreign help from the start."

http://original.antiwar.com/malic/2011/03/18/to-the-shores-of-tripoli-2/

"Is “the National Front for the Salvation of Libya [one of the rebel groups] . . . less likely to be so pliable” than Gaddafi? I’m afraid the NFSL will be even more pliable than the autocratic colonel that it has long sought to supplant. According to Richard Keeble, Jeffrey Richelson, and Joseph T. Stanik among other sources, the NFSL was an outfit funded by the CIA and Saudi Arabia during the Cold War. "

http://redantliberationarmy.wordpre...he-national-front-for-the-salvation-of-libya/

 

[Imperial]

The problem with this "easy" answer is it is not plausible, because of the chronology of events refutes it. The rebels were calling for Western meddling BEFORE Qadhafi moved to crush them militarily, and have groups within it that have long been CIA controlled:

"Media coverage from Libya has been confusing at best, and often contradictory. Air attacks that never happened, heavy fighting that was nothing of the sort, rebel advances that ended up being retreats without a shot fired — all in all there has been very little "news" from the shores of Tripoli, and a whole lot of propaganda. Also suspicious is the fact that, alone in all of North Africa and Arabia, the Libyan rebels have clamored for foreign help from the start."

http://original.antiwar.com/malic/2011/03/18/to-the-shores-of-tripoli-2/

"Is “the National Front for the Salvation of Libya [one of the rebel groups] . . . less likely to be so pliable” than Gaddafi? I’m afraid the NFSL will be even more pliable than the autocratic colonel that it has long sought to supplant. According to Richard Keeble, Jeffrey Richelson, and Joseph T. Stanik among other sources, the NFSL was an outfit funded by the CIA and Saudi Arabia during the Cold War. "

http://redantliberationarmy.wordpre...he-national-front-for-the-salvation-of-libya/

The Anti-War article is wrong. There was significant division of if there should be intervention, but generally people were skeptical. In late February one could see a billboard up in Bhengazi arguing against foreign intervention. And I read plenty of news articles showing people were divided. It is fair to say some supported intervention from the start, at least once it became clear the conflict would turn bloody. But it is willful ignorance to claim that there was not significant opposition as well.

And the NFSL has little support in the population and rebellion at large anyway. Per Ian Black, cited in your second article:"Exiled groups such as the National Front for the Salvation of Libya are thought to enjoy little support among the country's 6.5 million people." That is like saying the white supremacists that attach themselves to Ron Paul are a significant group worthy of attention.

 

[Knightskye]

Hitler built roads and schools, didn't he?

 

[angelatc]

You sound lke a CIA or Mossad troll. Those "peaceful protestors" are now armed to the teeth. Where did the "rebels" get their arms and training from?

A significant part of the military defected to the side of the rebels.

 

[nobody's_hero]

The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend.

 

[dannno]

The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend.

Why is Qadhafi your enemy?

 

[dannno]

It's unfortunate that the rebels don't realize that they are actually playing into the hands of their enemies' intelligence ops. Qadhafi merely happens to know what is going on, and has to fight his own citizens that have fallen into the trap of supporting international intelligence operations that have been waged against Libya.

If you are rooting for the rebels, they you are lacking severely in understanding the agenda behind the intelligence ops that are propping them up.

 

[BenIsForRon]

It's unfortunate that the rebels don't realize that they are actually playing into the hands of their enemies' intelligence ops. Qadhafi merely happens to know what is going on, and has to fight his own citizens that have fallen into the trap of supporting international intelligence operations that have been waged against Libya.

If you are rooting for the rebels, they you are lacking severely in understanding the agenda behind the intelligence ops that are propping them up.

Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about. Gaddafi was saying a week ago that these rebels were members of Al-Qaeda. He's an idiot.

 

[jmdrake]

Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about. Gaddafi was saying a week ago that these rebels were members of Al-Qaeda. He's an idiot.

Calling whoever is against you "Al Qaeda" worked for Robert Mugabe, George W. Bush and other despots. Why would Gaddafi be an "idiot" for attempting the same trick?

 

[nobody's_hero]

Why is Qadhafi your enemy?

He is not 'my enemy', he just isn't 'my friend.'

So I'm not going to rush to be his 'friend' just because my 'enemy' doesn't like him. That's all I'm saying.

 

[dannno]

Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about. Gaddafi was saying a week ago that these rebels were members of Al-Qaeda. He's an idiot.

That actually makes a lot more sense than you realize..

 

[specsaregood]

That actually makes a lot more sense than you realize..

LOL, touche'

Ben, if you are confused by this statement, see here:

Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook wrote that the word Al-Qaeda should be translated as "the database", and originally referred to the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen militants who were recruited and trained with CIA help to defeat the Russians

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

 

[dannno]

He is not 'my enemy', he just isn't 'my friend.'

So I'm not going to rush to be his 'friend' just because my 'enemy' doesn't like him. That's all I'm saying.

Analogy..

Let us pretend that you are against public schools, but one of the states in the U.S. sets up a really good public school system that teaches liberty and the Constitution. Eventually that state threatens to secede from the union and causes a big ruckus that ends up bringing the establishment to their knees and brings back Constitutional order to the entire country.

The public school system they setup, even though you are against it in principle, was well organized and had good intentions and ended up working towards the ends of liberty. That goes the same for the water system Gadhafi has setup. It wasn't done in a principled, free market way, but due to the great organization and positive intentions it has the consequence of bringing prosperity and freedom to the people of Libya..

HOWEVER, the globalists don't want that for Libya, and so they put out a bunch of propaganda making the leader of the country look much worse than he actually is, they train ignorant soldiers to rise up against him for their own ends.

Now, the question is, do you use this bit of positive information to help convince people that he has the people's best interest in mind so perhaps more people will consider being against foreign intervention, or do you keep talking about what a horrible person Gadhafi is and simply say that even though the rebels are being slaughtered we shouldn't fight Gadhafhi merely out of principle? I'll take the former rather than the latter, but I'll take the latter when it becomes the truth.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

The Anti-War article is wrong. There was significant division of if there should be intervention, but generally people were skeptical. In late February one could see a billboard up in Bhengazi arguing against foreign intervention. And I read plenty of news articles showing people were divided. It is fair to say some supported intervention from the start, at least once it became clear the conflict would turn bloody. But it is willful ignorance to claim that there was not significant opposition as well.

I didn't say there wasn't division, just that it was willful ignorance to to claim there was not significant support for intervention from the start, unique among the Mideast countries experiencing unrest. This is consistent with a rebellion being worked by intelligence forces, as opposed to one that is not.

 

[BlackTerrel]

It's unfortunate that the rebels don't realize that they are actually playing into the hands of their enemies' intelligence ops. Qadhafi merely happens to know what is going on, and has to fight his own citizens that have fallen into the trap of supporting international intelligence operations that have been waged against Libya.

Yep. They should have just done whatever their nice dictator said right?

 

[jmdrake]

Yep. They should have just done whatever their nice dictator said right?

False choice. Look at it another way. If you could go back in time to the Russian revolution, would you advise the people to "do whatever their nice dictator (the czar) said", join the "glorious revolution" or pick option C?