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

[dannno]

Just another motivation for the international bankers to take out Libya.



virtually unknown in the West: Libya's water resources

We still wonder how on earth did Gaddafi manage to stay in power for forty years? Did no one notice his madness until now?

Did no one notice that he built a HUGE FRESH WATER PIPELINE to the Benghazi region, that lunatic?

Were they waiting for him to finish?

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-BtB7p8J8SLQ/TXAiCZ329EI/AAAAAAAACYc/gjug5nL7K9I/s1600/Libya-map-5.gif

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-gJg0OsPVWII/TXAiXhVS_6I/AAAAAAAACYg/UcQpqSPOFIo/s1600/manmade.jpg

The 1st of September marks the anniversary of the opening of the major stage of Libya's Great Man-Made River Project. This incredibly huge and successful water scheme is virtually unknown in the West, yet it rivals and even surpasses all our greatest development projects. The leader of the so-called advanced countries, the United States of America cannot bring itself to acknowledge Libya's Great Man-Made River. The West refuses to recognize that a small country, with a population no more than four million, can construct anything so large without borrowing a single cent from the international banks.

...In the 1960s during oil exploration deep in the southern Libyan desert, vast reservoirs of high quality water were discovered in the form of aquifers. ...

...In Libya there are four major underground basins, these being the Kufra basin, the Sirt basin, the Morzuk basin and the Hamada basin, the first three of which contain combined reserves of 35,000 cubic kilometres of water. These vast reserves offer almost unlimited amounts of water for the Libyan people.

The people of Libya under the guidance of their leader, Colonel Muammar Al Qadhafi, initiated a series of scientific studies on the possibility of accessing this vast ocean of fresh water. Early consideration was given to developing new agricultural projects close to the sources of the water, in the desert. However, it was realized that on the scale required to provide products for self sufficiency, a very large infrastructure organization would be required. In addition to this, a major redistribution of the population from the coastal belt would be necessary. The alternative was to 'bring the water to the people'.

In October 1983, the Great Man-made River Authority was created and invested with the responsibility of taking water from the aquifers in the south, and conveying it by the most economical and practical means for use, predominantly for irrigation, in the Libyan coastal belt.

By 1996 the Great Man-Made River Project had reached one of its final stages, the gushing forth of sweet unpolluted water to the homes and gardens of the citizens of Libya's capital Tripoli. Louis Farrakhan, who took part in the opening ceremony of this important stage of the project, described the Great Man-Made River as "another miracle in the desert." Speaking at the inauguration ceremony to an audience that included Libyans and many foreign guests, Col. Qadhafi said the project "was the biggest answer to America... who accuse us of being concerned with terrorism."

The Great Man-Made River, as the largest water transport project ever undertaken, has been described as the "eighth wonder of the world". It carries more than five million cubic metres of water per day across the desert to coastal areas, vastly increasing the amount of arable land. The total cost of the huge project is expected to exceed $25 billion (US).

Consisting of a network of pipes buried underground to eliminate evaporation, four meters in diameter, the project extends for four thousand kilometres far deep into the desert. All material is locally engineered and manufactured. Underground water is pumped from 270 wells hundreds of meters deep into reservoirs that feed the network. The cost of one cubic meter of water equals 35 cents. The cubic meter of desalinized water is $3.75. Scientists estimate the amount of water to be equivalent to the flow of 200 years of water in the Nile River.

The goal of the Libyan Arab people, embodied in the Great Man-Made River project, is to make Libya a source of agricultural abundance, capable of producing adequate food and water to supply its own needs and to share with neighboring countries. In short, the River is literally Libya's 'meal ticket' to self-sufficiency.


Self-sufficiency?!? Absolutely Not Allowed. Banksters don't like that sort of thing one bit.

This project has been in the works for many years. Have you ever heard of it? We had not until today.


Underground "Fossil Water" Running Out, National Geographic, May 2010

^^^^^^^

Libya turns on the Great Man-Made River, by Marcia Merry, Printed in the Executive Intelligence Review, September 1991

Read More!!

http://twelfthbough.blogspot.com/2011/03/virtually-unknown-in-west-libyas-water.html

[heavenlyboy34]

+rep, thanks! :)

[Rothbardian Girl]

Amazing article. Thank you.

[BenIsForRon]

And Gaddafi fucked it up by opening fire on peaceful protesters.

[Zippyjuan]

"About to be unveiled" eh?- it has been publicized and under construction for some 20 years now. So we (sorry- the "bankers") forced their people (or sent in their own people to pretend to be them) to rise up against their leader because they had water? Not becasue he imprisioned, tortured, and killed opponents? Interesting conspiracy theory.

[dannno]

And Gaddafi fucked it up by opening fire on peaceful protesters.

Right, because the media is really going to tell you the whole story :rolleyes:

[dannno]

"About to be unveiled" eh?- it has been publicized and under construction for some 20 years now. So we (sorry- the "bankers") forced their people (or sent in their own people to pretend to be them) to rise up against their leader because they had water? Not becasue he imprisioned, tortured, and killed opponents? Interesting conspiracy theory.

It's just one of the reasons.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?283113-The-War-Drums-Are-Pounding!!-Libyan-Rebels-Being-Fomented-By-International-Intelligence

[Icymudpuppy]

Sounds like a great communist style super project. How many people had to go without basic needs to provide the resources to construct this monstrosity? Dissidents and opponents of the project which likely raised huge taxes on the population had to be silenced, of course.

[BenIsForRon]

Right, because the media is really going to tell you the whole story :rolleyes:

Dude, I'm watching Al Jazeera, and they've had pretty damn good coverage, with opinions covering all sides.

Have you ever read a conspiracy theory that you DIDN'T believe?

[Peace&Freedom]

Dude, I'm watching Al Jazeera, and they've had pretty damn good coverage, with opinions covering all sides.

Have you ever read a conspiracy theory that you DIDN'T believe?

And have you ever resisted any government/big media official story? Do you actually deny at this point that black ops exist? Al Jazeera is not exactly the US 'A' list major media (the MSM is CBS/NBC/ABC, TIMES/POST/AP, and subordinate outlets that parrot the line set by the big 6). The false flagging and staging of world events to create a pretext for intervention or escalation is standard operating procedure for the military/intelligence community. The fact that Libyan 'rebels' were alone among government opponents in the region screaming for outside forces to intervene sorely suggests they were infiltrated by some group intent on getting the West to bomb and pillage another Mideast country. The US needs to start an new conflict, to then claim then claim "the Libyan terrorists are coming," and scare us into another round of expanded foreign intervention and domestic omni-surveillance.

[Aratus]

egypt's nasser was known for the answan dam.
there was soon to be an underground aqueduct
network tapping the deep desert aquifers???

[dannno]

Sounds like a great communist style super project. How many people had to go without basic needs to provide the resources to construct this monstrosity? Dissidents and opponents of the project which likely raised huge taxes on the population had to be silenced, of course.

Meh, you are correct in principle, but there is still a lot more to be learned from this.

Done on a local scale it's really not so bad since everyone will benefit from cheaper food. The more you centralize larger areas, the worse these infrastructure type of projects becomes as the needs for each local area is not as thoroughly considered.. here, this was not the case. They're in a desert and they need water. They got their solution, although not from the free market there probably wasn't a huge difference in this case. Not to mention oil revenue was likely the biggest source of funding.

And the really big lesson is the bank issue. The foreign banks dominate small countries by going in and setting up large infrastructure projects, like this one, but generally more useless. They do it by paying off leaders who make big promises, and then putting the entire population into debt. At least this was a "pay as you go" project ;)

[jmdrake]

Sounds like a great communist style super project. How many people had to go without basic needs to provide the resources to construct this monstrosity? Dissidents and opponents of the project which likely raised huge taxes on the population had to be silenced, of course.

Or maybe Ghadafi took advantage of the of the high price of oil and used the royalties to invest in improving the water infrastructure. And need I remind you that water is one of the most "basic needs". I'm not a fan of Ghadafi, but I can think of a lot of worse ways to spend billions of dollars.

http://www.theamericanmind.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/stealth-fighter.jpg

[jmdrake]

Meh, you are correct in principle, but there is still a lot more to be learned from this.

Done on a local scale it's really not so bad since everyone will benefit from cheaper food. The more you centralize larger areas, the worse these infrastructure type of projects becomes as the needs for each local area is not as thoroughly considered.. here, this was not the case. They're in a desert and they need water. They got their solution, although not from the free market there probably wasn't a huge difference in this case. Not to mention oil revenue was likely the biggest source of funding.

And the really big lesson is the bank issue. The foreign banks dominate small countries by going in and setting up large infrastructure projects, like this one, but generally more useless. They do it by paying off leaders who make big promises, and then putting the entire population into debt. At least this was a "pay as you go" project ;)

Something else to check out:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?284379-Wikileaks-document-reveals-Libya-rejected-investment-schemes-proposed-by-Madoff-Stanford&p=3171101#post3171101

[EndDaFed]

Dude, I'm watching Al Jazeera, and they've had pretty damn good coverage, with opinions covering all sides.

Have you ever read a conspiracy theory that you DIDN'T believe?

Everyone knows Al Jazeera is British intelligence. :D

[QueenB4Liberty]

Something else to check out:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?284379-Wikileaks-document-reveals-Libya-rejected-investment-schemes-proposed-by-Madoff-Stanford&p=3171101#post3171101

all of this is very interesting!

[agar]

And Gaddafi fucked it up by opening fire on peaceful protesters.

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?

[devil21]

Interesting bit of info there, particularly considering the quiet "water wars" under way right now around the world, to secure water resources for "Developing Countries". Could this attempt to oust Gaddafi be an attempt to take over this new african water resource? After all, these days all wars are for resources and nothing else, funded by the international bankers and fought with military/industrial complex weapons.

[Imperial]

The fact that Libyan 'rebels' were alone among government opponents in the region screaming for outside forces to intervene sorely suggests they were infiltrated by some group intent on getting the West to bomb and pillage another Mideast country.

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.

[BlackTerrel]

Right, because the media is really going to tell you the whole story :rolleyes:

Nope. I would never trust them.

I do however take as gospel http://twelfthbough.blogspot.com/

They are a known reliable source, fact check everything and would never lie.

[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.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/what-is-the-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.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/what-is-the-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?

[BenIsForRon]

Danno, the soldiers defected because they didn't want to fire on their own people. You can't ignore reality just because you have a hard on for conspiracy theories.

And you can't discount an entire revolution and their grievances just because some CIA agents were in their country. If that were the case, then no revolution would be justified, because the CIA is fucking everywhere.


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?

It may be a false choice, but your analogy doesn't necessarily hold up. Egypt just had a referendum on the constitution, and has presidential and parliamentary elections scheduled for later in the year. Ideally, the same thing would occur in Libya after Gaddafi is ousted.

[angelatc]

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

Asserting that the rebels are good guys is not sanity. We have no real idea who they are. And I'm pretty sure they aren't fighting for some liberal Utopian, romanticized definition the good of the common man.

[BenIsForRon]

Asserting that the rebels are good guys is not sanity. We have no real idea who they are. And I'm pretty sure they aren't fighting for some liberal Utopian, romanticized definition the good of the common man.

But they certainly weren't the aggressors, and the members of the military who defected did so for righteous reasons. The protests themselves were pro-democracy, much like in Egypt. So while they will probably end up being far from perfect, they are certainly in the right, Gaddafi cemented that when he shot innocent protestors.

[Chieppa1]

So, I guess every Libyan or Middle Eastern person I've followed or communicated with through social networking is a CIA op. The date for the first uprising in Libya was common knowledge of anyone following the Egypt situation.

[BlackTerrel]

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?

What is option C?

The way I see they live under a brutal dictator. Yeah I don't blame them for rebelling nor do I think Ghadaffi is a hell of a nice guy.

[nobody's_hero]

What is option C?

The way I see they live under a brutal dictator. Yeah I don't blame them for rebelling nor do I think Ghadaffi is a hell of a nice guy.

That's what I was getting at. We have reactionaries on here who think if dictator A (let's call him OBusha) is bad, then dictator B must be good.

It's impossible for some folks to fathom that there can be more than one corrupt government at any given time.

It is very likely that the CIA is involved, and it is true that whenever we have such forces playing any sort of role in an uprising, it does spoil the credibility of the movement. I think of when the Ron Paul r3volution had some unsavory characters try to link to the movement (stormfronters) and the media spun it into "Ron Paul's a Racist!!!!" It's a good thing that didn't stick (Teflon Ron?), because it could have bogged down the r3volution.

Yes, it is possible that Americans are not the only people in the world dissatisfied by their own government. :eek:

But I'll be clear here: it's their fight to fight, not ours.

[jmdrake]

Danno, the soldiers defected because they didn't want to fire on their own people. You can't ignore reality just because you have a hard on for conspiracy theories.

And you can't discount an entire revolution and their grievances just because some CIA agents were in their country. If that were the case, then no revolution would be justified, because the CIA is fucking everywhere.



It may be a false choice, but your analogy doesn't necessarily hold up. Egypt just had a referendum on the constitution, and has presidential and parliamentary elections scheduled for later in the year. Ideally, the same thing would occur in Libya after Gaddafi is ousted.

Ben, I bolded the most import word in your response. Necessarily. It might go one way, it might go the other. That goes for Egypt too. If you've learned nothing else from Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza it's that a like "democracy snake oil" doesn't necessarily equal a better society. And the Soviets had elections initially also. There's a saying. One man, one vote, one time.

[jmdrake]

What is option C?

The way I see they live under a brutal dictator. Yeah I don't blame them for rebelling nor do I think Ghadaffi is a hell of a nice guy.

Who's "blaming" them for anything? I wouldn't have blamed the Indians for choosing option "B" in the face of brutal violence from the British Empire instead of choosing Ghandi's option "C". And there's option "D" and likely option "E" as well if you have the imagination and patience to think about it long enough.

[jmdrake]

That's what I was getting at. We have reactionaries on here who think if dictator A (let's call him OBusha) is bad, then dictator B must be good.


I don't think you understand what BlackTerrel and I were discussing. I'm not saying Ghadaffi must be "good". Again the czar of Russia was not "good". But then again the Lenin/Stalin cabal that replaced the czar was not "good" either. My realizing that neither options A nor B were good does not mean I think option A was good. That's why I talked about option "C". Seeing option "C" requires deeper thought.



It's impossible for some folks to fathom that there can be more than one corrupt government at any given time.

Quite the opposite. I "see" that while Ghadaffi is corrupt, the forces attempting to overthrow him might also be corrupt and if the people in Lybia aren't careful they might empower an even more corrupt future. Out of the frying pan into the fire.



It is very likely that the CIA is involved, and it is true that whenever we have such forces playing any sort of role in an uprising, it does spoil the credibility of the movement. I think of when the Ron Paul r3volution had some unsavory characters try to link to the movement (stormfronters) and the media spun it into "Ron Paul's a Racist!!!!" It's a good thing that didn't stick (Teflon Ron?), because it could have bogged down the r3volution.


The stormfarters were always bit players. I'm not concerned about bit players in Lybia. I'm concerned about the driving forces. Maybe the driving forces are all pure pro-liberty types. Maybe they're not. Time will tell.



Yes, it is possible that Americans are not the only people in the world dissatisfied by their own government. :eek:

But I'll be clear here: it's their fight to fight, not ours.

On that we all agree.

[BlackTerrel]

That's what I was getting at. We have reactionaries on here who think if dictator A (let's call him OBusha) is bad, then dictator B must be good.

Except Obama and Bush were never dictators is another point.

Obama got the majority of votes.

Obama can be (and is) criticized all the time.

Try that in Libya.

[Qdog]

Here we go... getting drug into another war. I cant wait for my next birthday, I wil be too old for the draft!!!

[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.


What is option C?

The way I see they live under a brutal dictator. Yeah I don't blame them for rebelling nor do I think Ghadaffi is a hell of a nice guy.


That's what I was getting at. We have reactionaries on here who think if dictator A (let's call him OBusha) is bad, then dictator B must be good.

It's impossible for some folks to fathom that there can be more than one corrupt government at any given time.

It is very likely that the CIA is involved, and it is true that whenever we have such forces playing any sort of role in an uprising, it does spoil the credibility of the movement. I think of when the Ron Paul r3volution had some unsavory characters try to link to the movement (stormfronters) and the media spun it into "Ron Paul's a Racist!!!!" It's a good thing that didn't stick (Teflon Ron?), because it could have bogged down the r3volution.

Yes, it is possible that Americans are not the only people in the world dissatisfied by their own government. :eek:

But I'll be clear here: it's their fight to fight, not ours.

So now that the mainstream media has reported that Ghadafi was right and Al Qaeda was/is leading the uprising, are the three of you willing to admit that Dannno and I are right?

See:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/30/flickers-al-qaeda-libya-wouldnt-new-development/

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-25/world/libya.jihad_1_qaeda-libyan-state-television-noman-benotman?_s=PM:WORLD

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2011/03/30/lauer-shocks-bachmann-should-we-show-compassion-al-qaeda-libya

Note: Ghadafi still sucks. But the Libyans should have picked option C.

[dannno]

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-25/world/libya.jihad_1_qaeda-libyan-state-television-noman-benotman?_s=PM:WORLD




Holy crap, Gadhaffi said that the rebels were being drugged to make them want to revolt!! Propaganda + drugs sounds like some MKUltra shit, I would not be the LEAST bit surprised.. and anybody who thinks that they wouldn't do this has no credibility imo..

[BenIsForRon]

Holy crap, Gadhaffi said that the rebels were being drugged to make them want to revolt!! Propaganda + drugs sounds like some MKUltra shit, I would not be the LEAST bit surprised.. and anybody who thinks that they wouldn't do this has no credibility imo..

Dude, what drug is going to make someone pick up arms and take part in a rebellion?

Danno, you have officially lost your mind.


So now that the mainstream media has reported that Ghadafi was right and Al Qaeda was/is leading the uprising, are the three of you willing to admit that Dannno and I are right?

None of those articles say Al Qaeda is leading the uprising, unless you think "flickers of Al Qaeda" means they're leading.

[libertyjam]

Look up "Orange Sunshine". Developed, manufactured, and distributed by your friendly CIA and MKUltra.

[ds21089]

Dude, what drug is going to make someone pick up arms and take part in a rebellion?

http://michael-robinett.com/declass/c000.htm If you take the time to research MK-ultra, you will find it's very real. If you don't believe that the government has certain studies which aren't shown in the media, you are very misinformed. HAARP is another project which many scientists have proven is completely possible with our current technology. Remember the government controls the media.... Some people think that Loughner's shooting in AZ was because of this same test. People whom knew him said he was completely normal. He never showed any signs whatsoever of being ill in any way until recently before the shooting.

"Mk Ultra was a code name declassified in the 1970's Church Committee and other lawsuits brought against the government where the public was informed that thousands of people, patients from hospitals, mental health patients, prisoners in the... justice system, and even public citizens were selected for testing without their consent. Testing was conducted int he 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. Some claim they still go on today and provide evidence. The testing includes torture, drugs and exotic hypnosis experiments in an effort to explore the mind, propaganda and other related patterns. One sub department of the operation included a group of lunatic scientists who were looking to create an assassins program, to see if it was possible to kidnap someone, say an enemy in a country, conduct hypnosis and other techniques learned in Mk Ultra, and send them back to the country with a plan to assassinate their leaders. That plan is what scares people most. MK Ultra was carried out by the CIA illegally and in the 1970s, hundreds of patients sued the federal government for damages, and the government settled and paid millions of dollars.

Now here is the really trippy, scary info. Some of these patients where MK Ultra was used include Ted Kazinsky (the unabpmber), mark David Chapman (the man who shot Lennon), Sirhan Sirhan (the man who shot Bobby Kennedy) and even Lee Harvey Oswald is rumored to have attended a base in japan before heading to Russia where MK Ultra experiments were taking place. David Ferrie, Oswalds boss for a long period of time, is said to have been an MK Ultra specialist and specialized in hypnosis and believe it or not, sexual molestation to mess with his patients heads. David Ferrie was a convicted child predator who left the Catholic Church to train Black Operations hitmen for the invasion of Cuba. David Ferrie taught the Louisiana Civial Air Patrol where both Lee Harvey Oswald and Barry Seal joined as 15 year old children. Barry Seal became the primary operative in Iran-Contra who ran drugs for the CIA and was an active contract hitman, Oswlad was accused of killing John F Kennedy. David Ferrie was murdered, made to look like a suicide, the night before his testimony in a trial Jim Garrison brought against the CIA where he accused Ferrie and others of using Oswald as a patsy... "

[nobody's_hero]

So now that the mainstream media has reported that Ghadafi was right and Al Qaeda was/is leading the uprising, are the three of you willing to admit that Dannno and I are right?


Right about what?

Two bad men are fighting each other. Now a third unsavory party (al-Qaida) is fighting with the first two.

That was my point.

1. There is more than one bad person in the world, and sometimes they fight with each other.

2. It is not necessary to take sides in such a conflict.

[BenIsForRon]

LSD is not a mind control drug. Just because the CIA tried to use it as one doesn't mean it works. They quickly abandoned it because they realized that it didn't work that way.

Besides, how in the hell could the CIA hypnotize thousands of rebels? You guys need to use your heads a little bit.

[dannno]

Dude, what drug is going to make someone pick up arms and take part in a rebellion?

You have some reading comprehension skills you need to improve on.



Danno, you have officially lost your mind.

No, you have reading comprehension skills to brush up on. I NEVER said that a drug alone would make people pick up arms and revolt.. although Jacob's Ladder, likely a fiction piece, says otherwise, it's not out of the realm of possibility.




None of those articles say Al Qaeda is leading the uprising, unless you think "flickers of Al Qaeda" means they're leading.

THE article YOU read said "flickers of Al Qaeda" and that in and of itself is propaganda. The original articles WE posted BEFORE this was an issue in the US MSM stated something different.

"Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html


Of course you along with the vast majority of the American public insist on remaining ignorant regarding what Al Qaeda actually is, so this information isn't as useful to you.

[dannno]

LSD is not a mind control drug. Just because the CIA tried to use it as one doesn't mean it works. They quickly abandoned it because they realized that it didn't work that way.

You know, it amazes me that you trust the same government that lied to you about MKUltra in the first place, when it was found out, they came clean with as much as they needed to, and then you believe everything they say about the program and it's future. What is the definition of insanity? You keep believing people who are fucking LYING to you!! Why do you think they have any credibility what-so-ever? Why do you keep believing them?



Besides, how in the hell could the CIA hypnotize thousands of rebels? You guys need to use your heads a little bit.

Probably the same way as they did Iran in 1952, or very similar. Why do you refuse to remember the past and what has been done in the past?

[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/showthread.php?285662-Obama-Signed-Secret-Order-Authorizing-Covert-US-Support-For-Libyan-Rebel-Forces
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?284572-Wikileaks-Libyans-seek-renewed-commitment-from-U.S.-in-return-for-progress-on-HEU-shipmnt&highlight=wikileaks

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

[FrankRep]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Libyan_dinar_one_a.JPG/220px-Libyan_dinar_one_a.JPG



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 (http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/africa-mainmenu-27/6915-libyan-rebels-create-central-bank-oil-company)


Alex Newman | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
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 (http://ntclibya.org/english/meeting-on-19-march-2011/) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Bank_of_Libya) — 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-mainmenu-26/africa-mainmenu-27/6915-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/showthread.php?285662-Obama-Signed-Secret-Order-Authorizing-Covert-US-Support-For-Libyan-Rebel-Forces
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?284572-Wikileaks-Libyans-seek-renewed-commitment-from-U.S.-in-return-for-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/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8336573/Libya-200-dead-as-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/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8336573/Libya-200-dead-as-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.

[devil21]

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.

That would work. Or maybe some video of bombs actually being dropped somewhere, since that was your original claim in this and other threads. Were there cameras in the country at the time? What people are saying to you is that you know little more than anybody else. You're only regurgitating what you read as if it is undisputable fact. I remember "facts" about Saddam's WMDs. Facts about the Gulf of Tonkin. Facts about the USS Liberty. Lots of "facts" that turn out to be bullshit once it's ok to admit it, after the deed has been done and goals achieved. Im not sure why you believe so fiercely in what the media tells you???

[specsaregood]

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.
And no evidence that he had any idea it was happening or going to happen. Great reason to bomb an effing country.


Im not sure why you believe so fiercely in what the media tells you???
The same media from the countries currently over there bombing.

[BenIsForRon]

And no evidence that he had any idea it was happening or going to happen.

So you think he didn't know it was happening? :rolleyes:


Im not sure why you believe so fiercely in what the media tells you???

I'm going on reports from Al Jazeera. You're going on reports from Russia Today. I think I'll leave it up to the rest of the forum to check out the programming from both channels and make a decision on who's more credible.

[HOLLYWOOD]

So you think he didn't know it was happening? :rolleyes:

I'm going on reports from Al Jazeera. You're going on reports from Russia Today. I think I'll leave it up to the rest of the forum to check out the programming from both channels and make a decision on who's more credible.

Latest: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html?src=mv

C.I.A. Agents in Libya Aid Airstrikes and Meet Rebels

By MARK MAZZETTI (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/mark_mazzetti/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and ERIC SCHMITT (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/eric_schmitt/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

Published: March 30, 2011

WASHINGTON — The Central Intelligence Agency (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/central_intelligence_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org) has inserted clandestine operatives into Libya (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) to gather intelligence for military airstrikes and to contact and vet the beleaguered rebels battling Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/q/muammar_el_qaddafi/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s forces, according to American officials.





While President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) has insisted that no American military ground troops participate in the Libyan campaign, small groups of C.I.A. operatives have been working in Libya for several weeks as part of a shadow force of Westerners that the Obama administration hopes can help bleed Colonel Qaddafi’s military, the officials said.
In addition to the C.I.A. presence, composed of an unknown number of Americans who had worked at the spy agency’s station in Tripoli and others who arrived more recently, current and former British officials said that dozens of British special forces and MI6 intelligence officers are working inside Libya. The British operatives have been directing airstrikes from British jets and gathering intelligence about the whereabouts of Libyan government tank columns, artillery pieces and missile installations, the officials said.
American officials hope that similar information gathered by American intelligence officers — including the location of Colonel Qaddafi’s munitions depots and the clusters of government troops inside towns — might help weaken Libya’s military enough to encourage defections within its ranks.

In addition, the American spies are meeting with rebels to try to fill in gaps in understanding who their leaders are and the allegiances of the groups opposed to Colonel Qaddafi, said United States government officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the activities. American officials cautioned, though, that the Western operatives were not directing the actions of rebel forces.
A C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment. :rolleyes:

The United States and its allies have been scrambling to gather detailed information on the location and abilities of Libyan infantry and armored forces that normally takes months of painstaking analysis.
“We didn’t have great data,” Gen. Carter F. Ham, who handed over control of the Libya mission to NATO (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/north_atlantic_treaty_organization/index.html?inline=nyt-org) on Wednesday, said in an e-mail last week. “Libya hasn’t been a country we focused on a lot over past few years.”
Several weeks ago, President Obama signed a secret finding authorizing the C.I.A. to provide arms and other support to Libyan rebels, American officials said Wednesday. But weapons have not yet been shipped into Libya, as Obama administration officials debate the effects of giving them to the rebel groups. The presidential finding was first reported by Reuters.
In a statement released Wednesday evening, Jay Carney (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/jay_carney/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the White House press secretary, declined to comment “on intelligence matters,” but he said that no decision had yet been made to provide arms to the rebels.
Representative Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican who leads the House Intelligence Committee, said Wednesday that he opposed arming the rebels. “We need to understand more about the opposition before I would support passing out guns and advanced weapons to them,” Mr. Rogers said in a statement.

Because the publicly stated goal of the Libyan campaign is not explicitly to overthrow Colonel Qaddafi’s government, the clandestine war now going on is significantly different from the Afghan campaign to drive the Taliban (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/t/taliban/index.html?inline=nyt-org) from power in 2001. Back then, American C.I.A. and Special Forces troops worked alongside Afghan militias, armed them and called in airstrikes that paved the rebel advances on strategically important cities like Kabul and Kandahar.

In recent weeks, the American military has been monitoring Libyan troops with U-2 spy planes and a high-altitude Global Hawk drone (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/unmanned_aerial_vehicles/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), as well as a special aircraft, JSTARS, that tracks the movements of large groups of troops. Military officials said that the Air Force (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/us_air_force/index.html?inline=nyt-org) also has Predator drones, similar to those now operating in Afghanistan, in reserve.

Air Force RC-135 Rivet Joint eavesdropping planes intercept communications from Libyan commanders and troops and relay that information to the Global Hawk, which zooms in on the location of armored forces and determines rough coordinates. The Global Hawk sends the coordinates to analysts at a ground station, who pass the information to command centers for targeting. The command center beams the coordinates to an E-3 Sentry Awacs command-and-control plane, which in turn directs warplanes to their targets.
Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, who recently retired as the Air Force’s top intelligence official, said that Libya’s flat desert terrain and clear weather have allowed warplanes with advanced sensors to hunt Libyan armored columns with relative ease, day or night, without the need for extensive direction from American troops on the ground.

But if government troops advance into or near cities in along the country’s eastern coast, which so far have been off-limits to coalition aircraft for fear of causing civilian casualties, General Deptula said that ground operatives would be particularly helpful in providing target coordinates or pointing them out to pilots with hand-held laser designators.

The C.I.A. and British intelligence services were intensely focused on Libya eight years ago, before and during the successful effort to get Colonel Qaddafi to give up his nuclear weapons (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/atomic_weapons/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) program. He agreed to do so in the fall of 2003, and allowed C.I.A. and other American nuclear experts into the country to assess Libya’s equipment and bomb designs and to arrange for their transfer out of the country.
Once the weapons program was eliminated, a former American official said, intelligence agencies shifted their focus away from Libya. But as Colonel Qaddafi began his recent crackdown on the rebel groups, the American spy agencies have worked to rekindle ties to Libyan informants and to learn more about the country’s military leaders.

A former British government official who is briefed on current operations confirmed media reports that dozens of British Special Forces soldiers, from the elite Special Air Service and Special Boat Service units, are on the ground across Libya. The British soldiers have been particularly focused on finding the locations of Colonel Qaddafi’s Russian-made surface-to-air missiles.

A spokesman for Britain’s Ministry of Defense declined to comment, citing a policy not to discuss the operations of British Special Forces.

[jmdrake]

None of those articles say Al Qaeda is leading the uprising, unless you think "flickers of Al Qaeda" means they're leading.

And during the Egyptian uprising people were claiming the Muslim Brotherhood was just in the background too....until the smoke cleared and the dust settled and the only people in the driver's seat were the military and the Muslim Brotherhood. Put your head in the sand all you want.

Edit: And for the record Gaddafi said the rebels were linked to Osama Bin Laden.

Milan, Italy - Libyan leader Moamer Gaddafi on Tuesday ruled out negotiations with anti-government rebels, whom he described as 'terrorists linked to Osama bin Laden,' but warned that if the West were to attack his country, he would ally his forces with al-Qaeda in a 'holy war'.

It's clear to any objective person that this is a fact. Your moving the goalpost from "linked to" to "led by" doesn't change that fact.

[jmdrake]

Right about what?

Two bad men are fighting each other. Now a third unsavory party (al-Qaida) is fighting with the first two.

That was my point.

1. There is more than one bad person in the world, and sometimes they fight with each other.

2. It is not necessary to take sides in such a conflict.

Well then your point was a straw man. There were no "reactionaries" (your word) in this thread that claimed Ghadafi was a good leader. Only that in one specific instance he was doing something good for his people and more importantly he was doing it independent of the banks and that might have prompted the bankers to move against him. That's all anyone's been saying.

[Razmear]

Bumping because now they want to blow it up:

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2011/06/02/Gadhafis-river-could-be-hidden-weapon/UPI-69881307039136/



Western military sources say that the commanders enforcing the NATO-led no-fly zone over Libya to aid the rebels and pressure Gadhafi, branded a tyrant and supporter of international terrorism for much of his rule, to relinquish power fear he could be hiding tanks and missiles in the 15-foot-wide tunnels.

OK, Western military geniuses, how do you get a tank in and out of a pressurized water pipe? Do they put their missiles in giant zip lock bags before hiding them in the pipes?
I was waiting for the lame ass excuse to bomb the water delivery system. If they hit it, they should be charged with war crimes.

[Andrew-Austin]

Well then your point was a straw man. There were no "reactionaries" (your word) in this thread that claimed Ghadafi was a good leader. Only that in one specific instance he was doing something good for his people and more importantly he was doing it independent of the banks and that might have prompted the bankers to move against him. That's all anyone's been saying.

I don't agree that this water pipeline was a good idea, I tend to disfavor government projects, bad habit I guess. He was probably doing it more for himself, lol am I supposed to believe this "doing something good for his people" tripe.

And it just came off as a defense of or siding with Gadhafi, and frankly I wouldn't put it past some of the people on this forum to try and invent some reason to make Gadhafi look like a good guy just so they can babble on more about the new world order. We get it, they are bad guys who specialize in fucking things up, especially in the middle east.

Really its enough to oppose these things (bombing Libya) on principle.

[Razmear]

The water pipeline supplies drinking water to 4.5 million people, and we're dreaming up WMD excuses to blow it up. This is not a Gadhafi issue, it is one of genocide if we bomb the pipeline.

[galantarie]

and DEVIL 21 is right: The media made it appear that Gadhafi fired on his people. That is not true at all:


http://vimeo.com/24620625

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bqbrn_GTUA&feature=player_embedded

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And Gaddafi fucked it up by opening fire on peaceful protesters.
This following video would prove to you that that is not true. The Libyan did not open fire on protesters: that was propagated lies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItP6EvslHD4&feature=player_embedded

and see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDt92tR2YnA&feature=player_embedded
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmZC_ZjGiYQ&feature=player_embedded

[galantarie]

I don't agree that this water pipeline was a good idea, I tend to disfavor government projects, bad habit I guess. He was probably doing it more for himself, lol am I supposed to believe this "doing something good for his people" tripe.

And it just came off as a defense of or siding with Gadhafi, and frankly I wouldn't put it past some of the people on this forum to try and invent some reason to make Gadhafi look like a good guy just so they can babble on more about the new world order. We get it, they are bad guys who specialize in fucking things up, especially in the middle east.

Really its enough to oppose these things (bombing Libya) on principle.

ANDREW: You are so wrong, this pipeline would eventuall benefit all of Africa. Gadhafi is far more benevolent than you have been taught to think!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYxxSblD9eM&feature=player_embedded


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE_giD1i4sM&feature=player_embedded


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qogT-DDKHgQ&feature=player_embedded


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-cDezY3cTY&feature=player_embedded


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAzdHZPooYk&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1omQdyEkqk&feature=player_embedded

[galantarie]

R2P: 'No Confirmation Whatsoever' according to the Pentagon that Gadhaffi 'Fired on his Own People'
Saturday, 04 June 2011 06:54

'Responsibility to Protect: The War on Libya was launched but there was "No Confirmation Whatsoever" according the Pentagon that Gadhaffi "fired on his own people from the air"

The war on Libya was launched on the pretext and justification that Gadaffi was killing civilians and that the US and NATO had a responsibility to come to the rescue of innocent civilians.

Below is the transcript of a March 1st Press briefing at the Pentagon. On the very same day a UN no-fly-zone resolution was being discussed, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Michael Mullen, "admitted their utter ignorance as to what's happening on the ground in Libya".'

Read more: R2P: 'No Confirmation Whatsoever' according to the Pentagon that Gadhaffi 'Fired on his Own People' (http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25103)
R2P: “No Confirmation Whatsoever” according to the Pentagon that Gadhaffi “Fired on his Own People”
Read the Pentagon transcript

by Global Research

Global Research, June 3, 2011

Responsibility to Protect: The War on Libya was launched but there was “No Confirmation Whatsoever” according the Pentagon that Gadhaffi “fired on his own people from the air”

The war on Libya was launched on the pretext and justification that Gadaffi was killing civilians and that the US and NATO had a responsibility to come to the rescue of innocent civilians.

Below is the transcript of a March 1st Press briefing at the Pentagon.

On the very same day a UN no-fly-zone resolution was being discussed, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Michael Mullen, “admitted their utter ignorance as to what’s happening on the ground in Libya”

(for further details see Eric Pottenger and Jeff Friesen, Victors’ Justice and the “Responsibility to Protect”: Who are the Real War Criminals? Global Research, June 3, 2011)

Sec Gates and Adm. Mullen plead ignorance.

Q. Do you see any evidence that [Gaddafi] actually has fired on his own people from the air?

SEC. GATES: We’ve seen the press reports, but we have no confirmation of that.

ADM. MULLEN: That’s correct. We’ve seen no confirmation whatsoever.

PENTAGON BRIEFING WITH SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT GATES AND ADMIRAL MIKE MULLEN, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF MODERATOR: COLONEL DAVID LAPAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR MEDIA OPERATIONS LOCATION: PENTAGON, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA TIME: 2:44 P.M. EST DATE: TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2011

Federal News Service

01 March 2011 Tuesday

Q: Mr. Secretary, Admiral Mullen just mentioned that in Libya Moammar Gadhafi is waging war on his own people, as you put it. What — is U.S. military intervention realistic? And what specific kinds of options are you considering? Could you describe, for example, the possibility of a no-fly zone or arming rebel forces?

SEC. GATES:

… I would — I would note that the U.N. Security Council resolution provides no authorization for the use of armed force. There is no unanimity within NATO for the use of armed force. And the kinds of options that have been talked about in the press and elsewhere also have their own consequences and second- and third-order effects. So they need to be considered very carefully.

Our job is to give the president the broadest possible decision space and options, and to go into the things that we’re thinking about, the options that we’re providing, I think, have the potential to narrow his decision space. And I have no intention of doing that.

Q: Do you see any evidence that [Gaddafi] actually has fired on his own people from the air? There were reports of it, but do you have independent confirmation? If so, to what extent?

SEC. GATES: We’ve seen the press reports, but we have no confirmation of that.

ADM. MULLEN: That’s correct. We’ve seen no confirmation whatsoever.

Q: Mr. Secretary, could you give us your assessment of the situation on the ground? How bad is it? Can the rebels take Tripoli? Are thousands dying?

SEC. GATES: Well, the — I think the honest answer, David, is that we don’t know in that respect, in terms of the number of casualties. In terms of the potential capabilities of the opposition, we’re in the same realm of speculation, pretty much, as everybody else. I haven’t seen anything that would give us a better read on the number of rebels that have been killed than you have. And I think it remains to be seen how effectively military leaders who have defected from Gaddhafi’s forces can organize the opposition in the country. And we are watching that unfold, as you are.

Q: Do you have any requests from rebel leaders for air strikes — (inaudible) — have you heard of any of that?

SEC. GATES: No. ….

Global Research Articles by Global Research

[nbhadja]

And Gaddafi fucked it up by opening fire on peaceful protesters.

Yeah and Ron Paul is racist :rolleyes:

Don't believe everything you read especially if it is from MSM companies like Fox and CNN.

[nbhadja]

Gadaffi is a big threat to the elite so they want him out. The guy is a genious and very good for Africa.

[HOLLYWOOD]

US Embassy Cables/Telex to Washington DC

WikiLeaks cables: Libyan attacks aimed to force out 'Zionist' Marks & Spencer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/20/wikileaks-cables-libya-marks-spencer


HERE"S the CABLE from the Department of State Enbassy Tripoli... Damn Travesty how the US screwed the Libyans over. This whole "No-Fly-Zone" "National-Security" is a complete lie by Washington DC. Washington DC has become Nazi Germany 1930's with their Security/Patriotism/False-Flag OPS.

Wikileaks: Libyans seek renewed commitment from U.S. in return for progress on HEU shipment/Chemical Weapons removal-cleanup
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?284572-Wikileaks-Libyans-seek-renewed-commitment-from-U.S.-in-return-for-progress-on-HEU-shipmnt

The 2009 HEU shipment from Libya detailed
http://www.fissilematerials.org/blog/2010/11/the_2009_heu_shipment_fro.html

And this is what is really going on behind the scenes:
Reference ID
09TRIPOLI941 (http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/11/09TRIPOLI941.html)
Created
2009-11-30 17:05
Released
2011-03-22 00:12
Classification
SECRET//NOFORN
Origin
Embassy Tripoli


Subject: Libyans seek renewed commitment from U.S. in return for progress on HEU shipment

S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 04 TRIPOLI 000941

NOFORN
SIPDIS

STATE FOR NEA/FO AND NEA/MAG. STATE PLEASE PASS TO ENERGY (KELLY
CUMMINS AND SARAH DICKERSON).

E.O. 12958 DECL: 11/30/2019
TAGS PREL, PGOV, MNUC, PARM, PINR, RS, KGIC, KNNP, KRAD, ENRG,
LY
SUBJECT: LIBYANS SEEK RENEWED COMMITMENT FROM U.S. IN RETURN FOR
PROGRESS ON HEU SHIPMENT
REF: TRIPOLI 938

CLASSIFIED BY: Joan A. Polaschik, Charge d’Affaires, U.S. Embassy Tripoli, Department of State. REASON: 1.4 (b), (d)

¶1. This is an action request; see para 13.

¶2. (S/NF) Summary: Saif al-Islam al-Qadhafi told the Ambassador November 27 that Libya had halted the shipment of its final HEU stockpiles because it was “fed up” with the slow pace of bilateral engagement. Saif claimed that Libya had not received the “compensation” it was promised in exchange for an end to its WMD programs, including cooperation in the military, security, nonproliferation, civilian-nuclear, and economic spheres. Libya sought a high-level reaffirmation of the United States’ commitment to the bilateral relationship, in the form of a message to Libyan leader Muammar al-Qadhafi, in order to move forward on the HEU shipment. Saif al-Islam, who claimed that he was “back” on the U.S. portfolio, said his father did not want to move back to “square one” and wanted to develop a positive relationship with the new U.S. Administration. The Ambassador underscored the gravity of the situation and noted that the Libyan Government had chosen a very dangerous venue to express its pique. He also noted that many of the holdups in the bilateral relationship had been due to Libyan political missteps and bureaucratic bungling. The Ambassador told Saif he would try to get some kind of statement along the lines requested, but the HEU shipment should in no way be held hostage to any specific actions beyond that. Saif assured the Ambassador that once that message was conveyed to Tripoli, he would immediately “fix” the problem. End Summary.

¶3. (S/NF) Once again exhibiting their flair for the dramatic, and after almost one week of stonewalling regarding the decision to not allow the departure of the HEU shipment to Russia, the Libyan leadership authorized a meeting between Saif al-Islam (accompanied by an assistant) and the Ambassador (accompanied by Pol-Econ Counselor) as the Ambassador was departing for the airport to travel to Washington. During the November 27 meeting, the Ambassador expressed his deep concern about Libya’s decision to halt shipment of its remaining Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) stockpile to Russia for treatment and disposal. The Ambassador said that Libya’s WMD commitments were the cornerstone of the relationship, and the last-minute, unexplained disapproval of the shipment seemed to renege on those commitments. He emphasized that the Libyans must move forward with the shipment as soon as possible, for security reasons and to preserve the bilateral relationship. The Ambassador pressed Saif to explain why the shipment was held up and insisted that the Libyans must improve communication in times of crisis, stating that Libyan officials cannot simply ignore calls from high-level USG officials and refuse to explain their decisions that negatively affect bilateral interests. This was no way to conduct a relationship. The decision to halt the shipment and create this crisis was intensified by the timing and the international context, given the President’s focus on non-proliferation and the problems engendered by Iran. By its actions, Libya was jeopardizing its relationship with the whole international community.

¶4. (S/NF) Saif al-Islam explicitly linked Libya’s decision to halt the HEU shipment to its dissatisfaction with the U.S. relationship. Saif said the shipment was halted because the regime was “fed up” with the pace of the relationship and what it perceived as a backing-out of commitments to bilateral cooperation. The areas of specific concern were Libya’s purchase of military equipment (non-lethal and lethal weapons), an update on what was being done with Libya’s centrifuges, movement on the Regional Nuclear Medicine Center, and financial assistance for the chemical weapons destruction program, including construction of the destruction facility. Saif pledged to solve the HEU crisis and to allow the shipment to move forward as early as next week if the USG expressed a renewed commitment to the relationship and to deeper engagement. Saif noted that the message needed to be conveyed to (or addressed to) Libyan Leader Muammar al-Qadhafi.

¶5. (S/NF) Saif continued that prevailing domestic opinion and conservative forces were critical of Libya’s decision to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. Noting that he personally had played an important role in Libya’s re-engagement with the West, Saif asserted that “If something goes wrong, people will blame me, whether I am in a certain official position or not.” Saif stated that Libya’s decision to give up its WMD programs was contingent upon “compensation” from the U.S., including the purchase of conventional weapons and non-conventional military equipment; security cooperation; military cooperation; civil-nuclear cooperation and assistance, to include the building of a Regional Nuclear Medicine Facility; and the end of “double taxation” and economic cooperation, such as the signing of a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA).

¶6. (S/NF) Saif noted that Libya was a small, rich country, surrounded by large, powerful, poorer neighbors. Yet Libya, the only Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) signatory in the region, had given up all of its conventional weapons and could not purchase replacement systems or military equipment from the United States. He highlighted Egypt, a non-MTCR signatory, as an example of a neighboring country that receives millions of dollars in U.S. aid and military assistance but did not have to share Libya’s nonproliferation commitments. Relative to such neighbors, Libya’s decision to dismantle its nuclear programs had weakened its ability to defend itself. He stated, “We share rich natural resources -- oil and gas -- along the borders, yet we have no capacity to defend that wealth.” Saif complained that Libya could not purchase conventional weapons from the United States or even from Sweden or Germany due to U.S. holds on the sale of those weapons to Libya -- “even until now, seven years later, there is an embargo on Libya’s purchase of lethal equipment.” He specifically mentioned a problem purchasing “Tiger” vehicles outfitted with American-manufactured engines from Jordan, due to a U.S. legal restriction on Libya’s purchase of American-equipment.

¶7. (S/NF) Inquiring about the status of the centrifuges Libya gave up as part of its WMD commitments, Saif argued that the U.S. had used the “deal” as a public relations coup for the previous administration. He said that the fact that the centrifuges were sent to the United States and are still there, rather than under IAEA surveillance and control was a “big insult to the Leader.” The fact that Libya was never “compensated” for the centrifuges added to the insult. In addition to the centrifuge problem, he complained that Libya had to pay for the destruction of its chemical weapons. Saif insisted that Libya was not able to pay to destroy its chemical weapons stock, noting that the construction of the destruction facility alone was estimated to cost US $25 million. For these and other reasons relating to “non-compensation” for WMD decisions, he stated that certain voices in Libya were pressuring the Leader to withdraw from the MTCR agreement. He lamented that “slowly, slowly, we are moving backward rather than forward.” He told the Ambassador that in order for the relationship to progress, the U.S. needed to make a move. “The ball is in your court,” Saif urged.

¶8. (S/NF) Continuing his lament, Saif said the U.S.-Libya relationship
was “not going well.” Since his last visit to the United States in 2008, Saif said that both sides had deviated from the roadmap that had been agreed upon at that time, which specified cooperation in the military, security, nonproliferation, civilian-nuclear, and economic spheres. He asserted that the roadmap had gotten “lost” due to his own “disappearance” from the political scene and “preoccupation with other issues overseas.” He acknowledged that he was disconnected for a long time but that he was back on the political scene -- although he was careful to caveat that he had not yet accepted an official role in the regime.

¶9. (S/NF) Saif raised a few recent incidents that he argued illustrated how things were going wrong. First, he pointed to Muammar al-Qadhafi’s recent trip to New York, which in Saif’s opinion had not gone well, because of the “tent and residence issues and his [pere Qadhafi’s] inability to visit ground zero.” He said that all three issues had been complicated by local U.S. authorities and had humiliated the Libyan leader -- “even tourists can see ground zero without permission, but a Head of State cannot?” Secondly, Saif believed that his father’s UNGA speech had been misinterpreted by U.S. audiences; he specifically focused on statements involving moving the UN Headquarters outside of the United States and various assassination investigations (JFK, Rafik al-Hariri, etc.). Saif stated that the elder Qadhafi meant no offense by his statements, but was merely trying to “pave the way” for any future decisions that POTUS might make related to those issues. Lastly, Saif noted that the Libyan leader was worried about U.S. intervention in Africa. The elder Qadhafi was also against the linguistic and political division of Africa into “North” and “Sub-Saharan” Africa and wanted countries such as the United States to treat Africa as a single entity rather than two blocs.

¶10. (S/NF) Saif said that Muammar al-Qadhafi was serious about deepening engagement with the United States and establishing a relationship with the Obama Administration. Saif said that his father did not want to “go back to square one,” but wanted to move the bilateral relationship forward. Saif emphasized the Libyan leader’s interest in meeting POTUS in a third country if a meeting in the United States was not possible. Such a meeting would help overcome the negative history that our nations shared, would support the rebuilding of trust, and might even help with U.S. Embassy operations and activities in Libya, according to Saif.

¶11. (S/NF) The Ambassador noted that the relationship had seen several advancements and several serious setbacks since Saif’s last visit to the United States, including the August 20 hero’s welcome accorded to Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset al-Megrahi by Saif himself. Megrahi’s return had severely offended American sensitivities and renewed tensions that set the relationship back. Until that point, there had been significant progress, with a military-to-military agreement signed in January and the positive April visit of National Security Advisor Mutassim al-Qadhafi and his meeting with the Secretary. Although the death of Fathi el-Jahmi had been a setback to the relationship, the U.S. and Libya had found a productive way forward through the establishment of a bilateral Human Rights Dialogue. Regarding concerns about U.S. intervention in Africa, the Ambassador reminded Saif that Colonel Qadhafi and General Ward had had what we believed to be a very productive meeting several months ago, which we had hoped would have dispelled any concerns the Libyans had about U.S. intentions in Africa. The Ambassador explained that Americans were hoping for a more forward-leaning statement by Muammar al-Qadhafi in New York but instead heard a series of remarks that were not agreeable to the American public. As a result, the relationship has been placed on a “low-burner” since August.

¶12. (S/NF) In spite of these issues, the Ambassador said the U.S. had managed to keep moving ahead in the areas of security, military, political, civilian-nuclear, and economic cooperation. However, many of the delays in implementation were due to Libya’s opaque bureaucracy. The Section 505 end user agreement, for example, had languished in the GOL for months, as had Libya’s response on TIFA. Libya’s slow-rolling on visa approvals for official American travelers had delayed movement in areas such as civilian-nuclear cooperation and on the Regional Nuclear Medicine Facility.

¶13. (S/NF) Saif acknowledged that he was disconnected for a long time from the bilateral relationship and recognized that the hero’s welcome for Megrahi had set engagement back. He reiterated that he was “back” on the scene and could serve as the “trouble-shooter” for any future problems. He urged the Ambassador to contact his office directly in times of crisis. He also promised to resolve the visa issue, stating that he understood the importance of a transparent and reliable system of issuance. In their one-on-one discussion afterwards, the Ambassador asked Saif to explain his actions when he accompanied Megrahi back to Tripoli. Saif said he knew what the reaction in the West would be, but that it did not constitute an “official” welcome. He had worked on the release for a long time, he was not a public official, and there were no international media like Al Jazeera present. In addition, Saif claimed that the Libyans would someday find a way to show that Megrahi was innocent. The Ambassador reiterated the damage the welcome had done and said no amount of justification could undo that. Saif nodded his understanding. Saif also replied that if he is confirmed in his new position, he was as yet not sure whether he would retain his current position as head of the Qadhafi Development Foundation.

COMMENT AND ACTION REQUEST

¶14. (S/NF) The Libyan Government has chosen a very dangerous issue on which to express its apparent pique about perceived problems in the bilateral relationship, a point the Ambassador underscored with Saif al-Islam. If Saif is to be believed, it appears we might have a way forward. If the Department is willing, we would urge a phone call from the Secretary to Musa Kusa with a message for Colonel Qadhafi comprising a general statement of commitment to the relationship, a commitment to work with the Libyans to move the relationship ahead, and a strong point insisting that the HEU shipment be allowed to go forward immediately and not be held hostage to any further actions.

BIO NOTE

¶15. (S/NF) Saif met the Ambassdor in an office on the Bab Al-Aziziya compound. The office was filled with books, including a high stack of art and interior design books and several brochures distributed by the Embassy’s Public Affairs Section. Saif conducted the meeting in English. He was accompanied by his personal assistant, Mohamed Ismail Ahmed (DOB 07/06/1968), who said that he was born in Alexandria, Egypt, and spent his childhood years traveling abroad with his diplomat father, including in Afghanistan in the late 1970s, where he attended the American School. Ahmed was soft-spoken and spoke fluent English. He asked Pol/Econ chief to provide him with additional information on the status of Libya’s military procurement requests and Letters of Offer and Assistance (LOA’s). POLASCHIK

[galantarie]

HOLLYWOOD: THANKS SO MUCH for the accurate info. Bless you.