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

[jdowns]

I think it's a good idea to go way back when the "Libya uprising" began. The people were chanting for the ouster of their head of Parliament, Mahmoudi, not Qadaffi.

For years Qadaffi has been trying to organize a Constitutional Convention to empower people at tribal member level and eliminate complete tribal committee control. Mahmoudi not only supressed a call for a Constitution but had newspaper reporters that supported it arrested. He even threatened to arrest Saif Qadaff'.

A Constitution in Libya according to Wikileaks would nationalize all companies using Libyan resources and divide the profits from these deals to be split among all tribe members. Tribal councils want all the power and Parliament is comprised of tribal councils. Mahmoudi is truly screwing Libya in the interests of foreign business. Even though the media did report the protests against Mahmoudi, it's been silenced since.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/08/libya-detains-journalists

 

[BenIsForRon]

Danno, I meant that the CIA abandoned the LSD aspect of MK-ULTRA, not the entire program. LSD simply is not a mind control drug, and the CIA isn't dumb enough to beat a dead horse like that for fifty years after the fact.

And that Telegraph article doesn't say Al Qaeda is leading either! Stop embellishing! There are sprinkles of Al Qaeda everywhere in the middle east, but that doesn't mean they're the ones in control.

I know Al Qaeda has links to the CIA, but that doesn't mean every single illiterate member of the it is freaking double agent, so drop that shit.

I find it INSANE that you are actually taking what Gaddafi says at face value. He's a dictator that's about to be ousted, he's going to say some crazy shit. Show me ONE OTHER source that says the rebels are actually taking hallucinogenic drugs.

 

[dannno]

Danno, I meant that the CIA abandoned the LSD aspect of MK-ULTRA, not the entire program. LSD simply is not a mind control drug, and the CIA isn't dumb enough to beat a dead horse like that for fifty years after the fact.

So there was a government program 40 some odd years ago that was looking into mind control drugs.. They tried LSD and it didn't work, and then they got caught because LSD is a dramatic experience that people remember.. They didn't abandon the program completely, there are people who claim to be mind control victims, ending up forgetting their experiences under mind control rather than remembering.. but you are claiming they couldn't possibly have made any headway in this department in 40 years? And no, nowhere did I claim that they for sure have mind control drugs.

There are sprinkles of Al Qaeda everywhere in the middle east, but that doesn't mean they're the ones in control.

What IS Al Qaeda??

I know Al Qaeda has links to the CIA, but that doesn't mean every single illiterate member of the it is freaking double agent, so drop that shit.

Wow, you still don't know how these things work after all this time discussing it on the forums.. There could be ZERO double agents in Al Qaeda, but if these groups are funded, trained and fomented into creating disorder with the specific purpose of the establishment being able to justify coming in and creating an orderly solution with military force, then they are an intelligence asset..

I find it INSANE that you are actually taking what Gaddafi says at face value. He's a dictator that's about to be ousted, he's going to say some crazy shit. Show me ONE OTHER source that says the rebels are actually taking hallucinogenic drugs.

Who said anything about hallucinogenic drugs? We're talking about mind control drugs that make you forget shit, and I didn't say they were doing it, I said it was highly probable.

 

[BenIsForRon]

Wow, you still don't know how these things work after all this time discussing it on the forums.. There could be ZERO double agents in Al Qaeda, but if these groups are funded, trained and fomented into creating disorder with the specific purpose of the establishment being able to justify coming in and creating an orderly solution with military force, then they are an intelligence asset.

I'm sure you remember that Tunisia was the first country to throw out their dictator in this current round of revolutions. Then Egypt, inspired by Tunisia, threw out Mubarak, now Libya and every other country is trying to do the same. Do you think the CIA has been the primary mover and shaker since the outset (i.e. Tunisia)?

 

[specsaregood]

I'm sure you remember that Tunisia was the first country to throw out their dictator in this current round of revolutions. Then Egypt, inspired by Tunisia, threw out Mubarak, now Libya and every other country is trying to do the same. Do you think the CIA has been the primary mover and shaker since the outset (i.e. Tunisia)?

It is certainly possible, would you not agree? Although I'd put Egypt in the non-cia group based on our government's response.

 

[BenIsForRon]

It is certainly possible, would you not agree? Although I'd put Egypt in the non-cia group based on our government's response.

Man, this is so frustrating. Let me try to explain, please for the love of God try understand what I'm saying.

Tunisia, for a variety of reasons, decided to rise up. Some fruit stand guy set himself on fire, which got people to open their eyes. This also happened right after Wikileaks released some cables about corruption in the Tunisian administration. So these two things along with a lot of other factors caused the Tunisians to peacefully throw out Ben-Ali.

Then a couple weeks later, Egypt really started to get going with their revolution, which was mostly peaceful. Many of these protesters stated explicitly they were inspired by Tunisia, by the fact that it is possible to peacefully throw out a dictator.

Then came Libya and the rest of the Middle East. They have tried to peacefully throw out their dictators but have unfortunately been met with violence.

Ok, now, is it so hard to believe this is organic? Is it impossible for these people to have free will, to want freedom from their corrupt, American/European supported dictators? Is it impossible for these people to actually be inspired by revolutions happening in their neighboring countries?

All of you think I'm denying that the CIA installed the Shah or something. That is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that all of you are ignoring the truth because it's more complex than the narrative you're used to seeing. There is no simple line dividing the good guys and bad guys, and there is no easy line dividing where the west has successfully corrupted the rebels and where it hasn't. But all of you are sure as hell trying to draw one.

 

[specsaregood]

Ok, now, is it so hard to believe this is organic? Is it impossible for these people to have free will, to want freedom from their corrupt, American/European supported dictators? Is it impossible for these people to actually be inspired by revolutions happening in their neighboring countries?

That is certainly a possibility and I think likely in the case of Egypt and Tunisia.
But when you get things like:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ing-Covert-US-Support-For-Libyan-Rebel-Forces
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...r-progress-on-HEU-shipmnt&highlight=wikileaks

It indicates to me that it is not the case in Libya.

 

[FrankRep]

As analysts debate possible motives behind President Obama's United Nations-backed military intervention in Libya, one angle that has received attention in recent days is the rebels' decision to establish an oil company and a new central bank to replace dictator Muammar Gadhafi's state-owned monetary authority.​

"Libyan Rebels" Create Central Bank, Oil Company


Alex Newman | The New American
30 March 2011


As analysts debate possible motives behind President Obama’s United Nations-backed military intervention in Libya, one angle that has received attention in recent days is the rebels’ seemingly odd decision to establish a new central bank to replace dictator Muammar Gadhafi's state-owned monetary authority — possibly the first time in history that revolutionaries have taken time out from an ongoing life-and-death battle to create such an institution, according to observers.

In a statement released last week, the rebels reported on the results of a meeting held on March 19. Among other things, the supposed rag-tag revolutionaries announced the “[d]esignation of the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.”

The Gadhafi regime's central bank — unlike the U.S. Federal Reserve, which is owned by private shareholders — was among the few central banks in the world that was entirely state-owned. At the moment, it is unclear exactly who owns the rebel’s central bank or how it will be governed.
...

Full Story:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world...libyan-rebels-create-central-bank-oil-company

 

[BenIsForRon]

That is certainly a possibility and I think likely in the case of Egypt and Tunisia.
But when you get things like:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ing-Covert-US-Support-For-Libyan-Rebel-Forces
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...r-progress-on-HEU-shipmnt&highlight=wikileaks

It indicates to me that it is not the case in Libya.

Man, you are having a Chicken-Egg issue here.

Just because America is intervening now doesn't mean they started the whole mess. It means that they're now trying to play catch up; they're doing their best to take advantage of a chaotic situation.

Do you not remember that Gadaffi was the one who initiated force? The protesters were peaceful until he started to gun them down in the streets.

So my basic problem with most of you on this board is that you are unfairly discrediting the rebels when in fact they were trying peaceful means in the beginning. I mean hell, some people on this board have all but taken Gaddafi's side in recent discussions.

It's fine to question the rebels, I certainly do. Do they really want democracy? Do they really want liberty? All valid questions. But to state that the whole revolution is null and void because western governments have taken their side is complete bullshit.

 

[specsaregood]

Do you not remember that Gadaffi was the one who initiated force? The protesters were peaceful until he started to gun them down in the streets.

I must have missed it. Can you point to me the evidence that Gadaffi ordered protesters be gunned down? Thanks in advance.

So my basic problem with most of you on this board is that you are unfairly discrediting the rebels when in fact they were trying peaceful means in the beginning. I mean hell, some people on this board have all but taken Gaddafi's side in recent discussions.

Who are the rebels? If you read the wikeleaks documents I linked to, it shows that Gadaffi wanted a good relationship with the US! He gave up his nuke and WMD programs and was working with us! He was giving US information on al-qaeda. In the meantime we were not fulfulling our part of those treaties and Gadaffi was coming under increased pressure from those in his government that wanted him to drop out of those treaties (wmd/nukes). So tell me, what evidence do you have that indicates that the rebels aren't the very same people that wanted Gadaffi to start up his WMD programs? If you read those documents it says to me that Gadaffi would do whatever it took to keep the US as a friend.

It's fine to question the rebels, I certainly do. Do they really want democracy? Do they really want liberty? All valid questions. But to state that the whole revolution is null and void because western governments have taken their side is complete bullshit.

To discount the possibility that they are agents of our government or secretly sided with elements of our govt that thrive on war is completely naive.

 

[BenIsForRon]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Gaddafis-forces-fire-on-protest-mourners.html

Gaddafi killed lots of his own people. Well documented, only happened a few weeks ago, you should know this.

To discount the possibility that they are agents of our government or secretly sided with elements of our govt that thrive on war is completely naive.

It isn't naive when you payed attention to WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED! I mean shit dude, you didn't know that Gadaffi fired on his own people! That's a pretty important detail.

As I said a hundred times, I'm sure many of the rebels have links to the military/CIA, and many more will in the future as our trusty Pentagon tries to get a handle on the situation, but you can't say the literally thousands of rebels are corrupted.

 

[specsaregood]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Gaddafis-forces-fire-on-protest-mourners.html
It isn't naive when you payed attention to WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED! I mean shit dude, you didn't know that Gadaffi fired on his own people! That's a pretty important detail.

As I said a thousand times, I'm sure many of the rebels have links to the military, and many more will in the future as our trusty Pentagon tries to get a handle on the situation, but you can't say the literally thousands of rebels are corrupted.

I don't see anything in there that says that"
1. Gadaffi did any actual firing.
2. That he ordered the firing.

So basically no evidence?

 

[BenIsForRon]

You have to be fucking kidding me. They were Gaddafi's security forces!

 

[dannno]

Speaking of chicken and eggs, as I don't know for a fact how organic or inorganic the Tunisia and Egypt revolutions were, the fact is that they have had the blocks in place to build upon these types of incidents before they occurred.

 

[BenIsForRon]

Speaking of chicken and eggs, as I don't know for a fact how organic or inorganic the Tunisia and Egypt revolutions were, the fact is that they have had the blocks in place to build upon these types of incidents before they occurred.

This makes absolutely no sense. The fact that the CIA has contingency plans doesn't mean the revolutions didn't have an organic origin. "Bulding blocks in place to build upon these types of incidents" means that the incidents have to happen first.

You seem to be having the same chicken-egg conundrum that specsaregood is having.

 

[specsaregood]

You have to be fucking kidding me. They were Gaddafi's security forces!

Using that logic, then you must believe that President Nixon personally ordered our troops to fire on the students at Kent State. Or to use your claim, Nixon fired on the students at Kent State.

 

[dannno]

This makes absolutely no sense. The fact that the CIA has contingency plans doesn't mean the revolutions didn't have an organic origin. "Bulding blocks in place to build upon these types of incidents" means that the incidents have to happen first.

You seem to be having the same chicken-egg conundrum that specsaregood is having.

I think you're the one with the conundrum.. MI6 is the one who has been fomenting rebels in Libya for a long time, they work in concert with the CIA and sometimes when people say "CIA" they mean international intelligence. When I say international intelligence, I'm referring primarily to the CIA, MI6, Mossad, ISI, Al Qaeda as well as private intelligence run directly by the bankers themselves.

They knew they couldn't let the rebels attack Gadhaffi until they had support from the outside, and they can't get support from the outside until there is enough support within the media and the various populations who are financially supporting the attacks. So they either sit on their ass and wait for revolutions to start occurring, or they help spark them along.. Libya wasn't a contingency plan, it was either a waiting game or it was planned all along.

I supported the Egyptian revolution, but it's possible that it wouldn't even have happened without intelligence backing.. and it's also possible that the primary reason they let those happen was because the revolution they really wanted was Libya, and once other countries start to revolt they can gauge the public's support and start a new one in Libya, start making crap up to drum up the propaganda machine, talk about no-fly zones, and while everybody is debating that then just go in and bomb the crap out of them.

 

[BenIsForRon]

Using that logic, then you must believe that President Nixon personally ordered our troops to fire on the students at Kent State. Or to use your claim, Nixon fired on the students at Kent State.

Shootings went on for multiple days. Gadaffi is the dictator, if he didn't want protesters to get shot he could have stopped the shootings.

I think you're the one with the conundrum.. MI6 is the one who has been fomenting rebels in Libya for a long time, they work in concert with the CIA and sometimes when people say "CIA" they mean international intelligence. When I say international intelligence, I'm referring primarily to the CIA, MI6, Mossad, ISI, Al Qaeda as well as private intelligence run directly by the bankers themselves.

They knew they couldn't let the rebels attack Gadhaffi until they had support from the outside, and they can't get support from the outside until there is enough support within the media and the various populations who are financially supporting the attacks. So they either sit on their ass and wait for revolutions to start occurring, or they help spark them along.. Libya wasn't a contingency plan, it was either a waiting game or it was planned all along.

I supported the Egyptian revolution, but it's possible that it wouldn't even have happened without intelligence backing.. and it's also possible that the primary reason they let those happen was because the revolution they really wanted was Libya, and once other countries start to revolt they can gauge the public's support and start a new one in Libya, start making crap up to drum up the propaganda machine, talk about no-fly zones, and while everybody is debating that then just go in and bomb the crap out of them.

Alrighty, now you're getting it sorted out! According to this post, you agree with me that the Egypt and Tunisia revolutions were the primary catalyst for the Libya protests. So now I hope you understand my point that discrediting all the rebels would be wrong, because the primary motivation of the majority of the rebels seems to be a yearning for change like they've seen in Tunisia and Egypt. What their leadership, likely connected to the Western intelligence apparatus, does is immaterial in the sense that it has little bearing on the rebel's motives for revolting.

 

[specsaregood]

Shootings went on for multiple days. Gadaffi is the dictator, if he didn't want protesters to get shot he could have stopped the shootings.

He is a dictator where our own embassy cables show that there were elements in his govt upset with his alliance with us. no doubt some of those elements are onthe "rebel" side now. he clearly did not have control of every single finger on every single trigger in the country. all I asked for was a little evidence and you can't seem to provide any. I would have thought it would be easy since it is the very excuse obama is using to justify bombing them.

 

[BenIsForRon]

He is a dictator where our own embassy cables show that there were elements in his govt upset with his alliance with us. no doubt some of those elements are onthe "rebel" side now. he clearly did not have control of every single finger on every single trigger in the country. all I asked for was a little evidence and you can't seem to provide any. I would have thought it would be easy since it is the very excuse obama is using to justify bombing them.

The only evidence that would satisfy you is a video of Gaddafi saying "KILL THE PROTESTERS!" I've shown you video of his security forces firing on the protesters.