My thoughts on Libya

Without mentioning names here - if there's one thing I can't stand more than our snivelling, grovelling, vicious toadies to Uncle Sam in Ottawa - it's a junior toadie to a bunch of lap poodles.  arf-arf!  

CMOT Dibbler wrote:

 

I realize  that  there  have probably  been a trillion  threads about  Libya,  and  that  I'm very  late  to  the  party  but I  figured  that  I should  add my  thoughts  to  the  discussion of  this  important  issue.  I apologize   if  some of the  points  I make  have already   been  presented. 

 

*ahem*

Moahmar Gadahfi (sp?) is a savage.I  don't  care  how  secular  the  man  is, how many  female bodyguards  he  has,  or how anti American  he is,  the mad dog  is  indeed  mad.  He's  a barbarian.  Given that old Mo is such  a nasty  human being,  the  temptation  is quite  strong  to endorse  the American  decision  to Bomb Libya  and  to salute Obama in his attempt to  assist the  Libyan rebels.

...blah blah blah repetition of MSM Western propaganda...  

Ya wanna know the real reason behind the War on Libya, Iraq, al Qaida and all the other horrible Arab nasties?

Here you go:

Yup; The Sheikh.  The whole War on Terror® is an exercise in penis envy: western males who feel they aren't UP to it and who feel the only way to prove their virility is to kill as many Arab males as posssible.

All other "political" analysis is just so much jacking off.

Fidel wrote:

Without mentioning names here - if there's one thing I can't stand more than our snivelling, grovelling, vicious toadies to Uncle Sam in Ottawa - it's a junior toadie to a bunch of lap poodles.  arf-arf!  

But how to you square yourself with performing out of the same bag of tricks?  Are they dropping milkbones at the table leg?

CMOT Dibbler wrote:

I realize  that  there  have probably  been a trillion  threads about  Libya,  and  that  I'm very  late  to  the  party  but I  figured  that  I should  add my  thoughts  to  the  discussion of  this  important  issue.  I apologize   if  some of the  points  I make  have already   been  presented. 

*ahem*

Moahmar Gadahfi (sp?) is a savage.I  don't  care  how  secular  the  man  is, how many  female bodyguards  he  has,  or how anti American  he is,  the mad dog  is  indeed  mad.  He's  a barbarian.  Given that old Mo is such  a nasty  human being,  the  temptation  is quite  strong  to endorse  the American  decision  to Bomb Libya  and  to salute Obama in his attempt to  assist the  Libyan rebels.

However, the question that arises is, why are the Americans taking such an interest in the affairs of the Anti Gadahfi resistance?  I mean, King Hamad is brutally suppressing the pro democracy movement in Bahrain and the U.S. hasn't batted an eye.

Some would argue that support for the Libyan opposition is all about oil and imperialism, but if it was all about empire, wouldn't the yanks have tried to shore up Moamar's existing police state, and sent in troops to "keep the peace"? If it was all about oil wouldn't the powers involved have a much clearer idea about what they want Libya's future to be?

Personally I think it's all about TV.  Both  Obama  and sarkozy Run a fairly  high  risk of  losing elections  in their  respective countries unless  they do  something  drastic, like blowing up brown people.  This would explain why their hasn't been an end game set out.  They don't need one, they are causing explosions for the sake of publicity.        

I think the Libyan Revolution caught the U.S.A. by surprise.

The U.S.A.'s (military) interfering in the affairs of Libya is a post de facto reaction.

The U.S.A. is hedging its bets by playing both sides in Libya.

It's a win-win situation.

When the war is over, whoever is left leading Libya will want to sell Libyan oil at or below market cost to pay for the war.

Uncle Sam will be the first in line to buy all that readily available oil.

[url=http://wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/hift-m30.shtml]American media silent on CIA ties to Libya rebel commander[/url]

wsws wrote:

Two days later, another McClatchy journalist, Chris Adams, wrote a brief biographical sketch of Hifter that left the implication, without saying so explicitly, that he was a longtime CIA asset. It headlined the fact that after defecting from a top position in Gaddafi's army, Hifter had lived in northern Virginia for some 20 years, as well as noting that Hifter had no obvious means of financial support.

Hmm, It takes money and typically a job to live in a "right to work" state like Virginia. No problem if you're working for the Langley boyz I guess.

And someone posted this in another thread about Libya:

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/840... rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links[/color][/url]

Sword operators' operators operating Operation Libya?

Oh come on Elvis bin Laden and Qaeda are our friends same as the Nazis were. Don't ever fool yourself. We're the good guys! We should always choose to murder thousands in order to get to one man. It comes down to utilitarianism and Americanized world view. Always-always remember that. KoolAid anyone? 

I think Gadhafi's statement that he would show the rebs "no mercy" was a dumb move. He should have known that blood for oil hounds and the UN and even the frickin NDP in Bananada would pick up on that. Dumb, stupid move on his part. I don't particularly enjoy Gadhafi or his ways, but still this attack on Libya has nothing to do with democracy. It's about the oil and getting China's state oil company out of Africa. It's neocolonial maneuvering. Blood for oil hounds are in total conflict with democratic principles any way you look at it.

Mubarak had no one out on the streets protesting in his favour. No one willing to form a human line of defence around any one of his dozen or so palatial homes. 

Question:

If Egyptians were to carry on with armed attacks on government troops loyal to the Egyptian oligarchy, would you agree to a US-led attack on them to put down an armed insurrection? (As if that would ever happen.)

Who armed Libyan rebs? And who is now training and arming Lib-Qaeda and rebs to attack Ronald Reagan's old nemesis, Moammar Gadhafi and Libyans loyal to his government?

Why are blood for oil hounds not interested in protecting the lives of wounded protesters in Yemen similarly? Bahraini dictators get Saudi military help, too, and it's not to protect pro democracy demonstrators.

I don't think it takes much effort to 'demonize' the rebels considering all the reports of their executing prisoners and the hospitalized based on how 'African' they look. 

Honestly, I think Gaddahfi would have had a much harder time if the West hadn't given him the enormous propaganda tool of 'defense against foreign intervention.'  I think we hurt their democracy movement which is a real shame, especially because it's so clearly much stronger than the movement here.

Are you saying that Murder Inc doesn't carry vendettas? What about George I, Maggie and Rummy's trist with their good friend Saddam Hussein whom they stabbed in the back millions of times from 1991-2003? Those three and the CIA expedited weapons deals with Saddam involving General Pinochet's people in Chile, an apartheid regime in South Africa, a good friend of Barry Goldwater's in Canadian Gerald Bull, and a host of their excellent friends in European NATO countries. You can imagine the confusion among their Saudi sheikh friends advised by them to help out Saddam as much as possible whilst they in turn helped weaponize the Ayatollah's "revolutionary" regime in Iran.

Yes the cold war is supposed to be over. The Sovs ceding the cold war took them totally by surprise. The war crims and their allies are still totally lacking in imagination as to the prospects for world peace and prosperity. The possibilities are way, way beyond their comprehension.

 

CMOT Dibbler wrote:

I would fight the foreign invaders and US-backed al-Qaeda.

There is some question as to whether Al Q is a threat, to anybody.

This uprising began whithout US support. The yanks came along after it started and gave some assistance, but it's worth noting that even with the aerial bombardment the rebels are still getting there asses handed to them. Which begs the question, does the west really want the opposition to win?

Al-Q is the USA's creation. They are not real and yet they are. There is no such thing as al-Qaeda "the foreign threat to US national security". "al-Qaeda" is really al-CIA'da since the 1980s war of annihilation against secular socialism in Central Asia.

CMOT Dibbler wrote:

Fidel wrote:

I would fight the foreign invaders and US-backed al-Qaeda. I would defend innocent bystanders and myself from would-be oiligarchs on the rampage and anyone else out to liberate me and my people from our birth right to exist.

So if Moammar Gaddahfi(a plutocrat who has run his country as a police state for the past 42 years, about 15 of those years with yankee support) were to say, I will defend your homeland, you would follow him?

So, no, I didn't say that. I said I would fight the foreign invaders and the British and US-backed "al-Qaeda".

When I was a child, Sesame Street on TV had this song that went like this:

"One of These Things Is Not Like the Others One of These Things Just Doesn't Belong Can You Tell Which Thing Is Not Like the Others By The Time I Finish My Song?...."

There are people in Libya today who just weren't born there and haven't filled out the proper paperwork, like the Homeland Stupidity Feds insist we do when crossing our NAFTA border for the secure siphoning off of Canadian oil while blocking the free-flow of undesirables looking for a bargain on their side.

Question:

If some guys are trained by a foreign government's intelligence agency and special forces to commit acts of terrorism, hijacking planes etc, and today that some other country's President admits to their special forces training and arming them to attack Steve Harper's regime, would you support those seditious acts aided and abetted by two fascist foreign governments in London and Warshington, CMOT Dibbler?

I enjoy playing Devil's advocate, too. ha ha

French journalists are reporting that they have no real leadership worth mentioning.

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/who-are-these-libya... are these Libyan rebels?[/url]

Quote:

To the outside world, the Transitional National Council is represented by the amiable figure of Mahmoud Jebril, who holds advanced degrees from the University of Pittsburgh. But the reality behind him is very different.

The council's chairman is Mustafa Abdul Jalil, a former justice minister in Col. Gadhafi's government. The appellate court of which he had been president twice confirmed the death penalty for five Bulgarian nurses who had been arrested in 1999 on the ludicrous charge of contaminating Libyan children with the AIDS virus. (The nurses were freed in 2007 after French President Nicolas Sarkozy negotiated a deal with the Gadhafi clan. In February, in an interview with Al Jazeera, Mr. Abdul Jalil recognized their innocence.)

Abdul Fatah Younis, a senior military commander of the insurgency, is a former interior and public security minister. As such, he was responsible for the system of torture set up by the Gadhafi regime.

Idris Laga, the council's "military co-ordinator," was head of the Association of Relatives of Children Infected with AIDS, an organization set up by the regime to raise the price exacted for the Bulgarian nurses held hostage. Vladimir Chukov, a Bulgarian expert on the Arab world, says Mr. Laga "harbours a deep hatred for the West."

The young rebels are often trigger happy desperados shooting at random and often high on hashish. Apparently the drugs are supplied by the same people sending them food rations. Hmm, what two western world intelligence agencies are synonymous with running guns and drugs?

CMOT Dibbler wrote:

Are you saying that Murder Inc doesn't carry vendettas?

Come on, the neo cons aren't that petty. Brutal yes, petty no.

Bush and co.  invaded Iraq for oil and to secure Israel's position in the middle east,  not because Saddam jilted Rummy at a dinner party in Paris in 1983.

If this current intervention is all about a conflict the U.S. had with Moamar  in 1986, why didn't they destroy his regime earlier on?  Why did they apend the 90s sucking up to him?

Gadhafi let Exxon and BP into the country to drill oil. Prolly his first mistake as the hounds that sniff oil got a taste of how cheap a barrel of oil is to produce in Libya. And then Gadhafi paid the ransom money for NATO's sword operation aka the Lockerbie bombing. 

And, they couldn't care less about Israelis except to use the country as forward operating military base. They plan to abandon Israel at some point after hundreds of new bases are secured in Iraq and Afghanistan. The CIA itself produced reports describing Israel as an unviable Israeli nation state within so many years. But the hawks couldn't care less about the actual people living there, whoever they might be in coming decades. At some point Israel will be left to its own devices to negotiate with what will be a neighborhood of nuclear-armed enemy nations. And Israel's enemies will likely purchase nuclear weapons tech from corrupt US state dept officials on the black market as was the case with cold war ally Pakistan according to US whistleblowers in recent years.

CMOT Dibbler wrote:

No. the CIA funded the mujahadin, which faught the soviet occupation of Afganistan, an occupation that was all about soviet authoritarianism and had nothing to socialism.

Ah yes, "blowback". That's a CIA myth according to the evidence since 1992. 

No, according to Canadian John Ryan and others, not even the CIA blamed the Sovs for what was a peoples revolution to overthrow a corrupt imperialist regime in Kabul. The CIA has since admitted to aiding and abetting Afghan drug barons and some of the worst scum of the earth in Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Rabanni, Dostum, bin Laden and so on. The CIA's story is that they severed all ties with these war crims after 1992. The evidence says otherwise. 

And, lo', the Gladio Gang Inc. are still aiding and abetting al-Qaeda in Libya today. al-Qaeda were never there in Saddam's Iraq. Not until after the Luftwaffe bombing of Baghdad. And then it was al-CIA'da and other US-backed Sunni radicals attacking the true anti-American insurgents.

al-Qaeda = al-CIA'da/al-MI6'da

CMOT Dibbler wrote:

It was  Osama bin Laden,  that  incredibly  intelligent,  charasmatic and wealthy  religious  wackjob who founded Al Q.  Surprise!  The Arabs are able  to  do things by themselves  without  CIA  backing.

Not according to Pakistani news journalists and left wing political commentators. Operation Cyclone was the largest covert operation in the history of US shadow government. bin Laden and Bush families are well connected to each other and to a few more noteworthies there in America. 

I hate to say it but you've been a human sponge for the cold and now colder war propaganda. You are part of a new generation of young people who are mind-fucked by an invisible enemy, a colder war army of darkness that doesn't exist except on the CIA's and British MI6's payroll.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares][color=blue]The Power of Nightmares[/color][/url]

  CMOT Dibbler wrote: "No. the CIA funded the mujahadin, which faught the soviet occupation of Afganistan, an occupation that was

all about soviet authoritarianism and had nothing to socialism."

 

"Hushtory"= 'The redoing of history in way that makes rightwingers happy and  gets into record to confuse and mislead seekers after truth etc   

How is it in the 1970s, until the gop fascasti took advantage of Jimmy Carter's troubles with rightwing pigmedia and thus Carter's distraction, began pouring money to rightwing 'muhajadeen' aka 'taliban' in order to force poor old USSR, which benign-neglected Afghanistan as part of the Soviet 'theatre' (with agreement of west)

how is it that under SOVIET CONTROL Afghanistan was one of freest countries on earth (almost everyone must knows someone who lived there in those days- the expat ie 'white' community numbered over 35000 people...john MacDonald based a book in Afghanistan, where his hero tracked down an heiress kidnapped by hippie drug dealers (?)...)

Yet, here someone can say boldly that 'Soviet authoritarianism' which, btw, was triggered by the attempted overrthrow of government by western funded Islamofascists. So, the mister pigs wins simply by lying, boldly and with out restraint. after all, who gives a darn

Snert wrote:

Quote:

The young rebels are often trigger happy desperados shooting at random and often high on hashish.

 

Just like Gadaffi claimed? Just a bunch of druggies, nothing to see here, that sort of thing?

I have read as much as I can from on the ground reports and it seems to me the truth lies somewhere in the grey area between the Gaddafi view and the hero worship. I see a country where people want to have freedom and everyone is fucking them over for fun and profit. Without even an election the economic levers of the country are being turned over to people from america. If it smells like a rat it likely is a rat.  Cheering for the rube at the fairgrounds is not really helpful if you know the game is rigged.

Look at what Karzai has brought to Afghanistan.  How many lives have we saved in that viscous civil war or has our presence merely lengthened it for as long as we prop up one side?  I have no belief in NATO's ability to help the LIbyan people achieve democracy because of our track record in Afghanistan.  

Civil war is always brutal and nasty and only the business of the people themselves.  That is why NATO has no place interfering. Seems to me the air strikes in the end will only strengthen the dictator's grip as the Libyan people have a deep and very warranted hatred of imperialism.  I am sure that in the discourse going on in Tripoli the symbolism of the planes coming from Italy wasn't lost on many.   

Snert wrote:

Quote:

The young rebels are often trigger happy desperados shooting at random and often high on hashish.

 

Just like Gadaffi claimed? Just a bunch of druggies, nothing to see here, that sort of thing?

I'd smoke hash too if I had to fight a tank with a machine gun mounted on a pick-up truck... just saying...

clandestiny wrote:

  CMOT Dibbler wrote: "No. the CIA funded the mujahadin, which faught the soviet occupation of Afganistan, an occupation that was

all about soviet authoritarianism and had nothing to socialism."

 

"Hushtory"= 'The redoing of history in way that makes rightwingers happy and  gets into record to confuse and mislead seekers after truth etc   

How is it in the 1970s, until the gop fascasti took advantage of Jimmy Carter's troubles with rightwing pigmedia and thus Carter's distraction, began pouring money to rightwing 'muhajadeen' aka 'taliban' in order to force poor old USSR, which benign-neglected Afghanistan as part of the Soviet 'theatre' (with agreement of west)

how is it that under SOVIET CONTROL Afghanistan was one of freest countries on earth (almost everyone must knows someone who lived there in those days- the expat ie 'white' community numbered over 35000 people...john MacDonald based a book in Afghanistan, where his hero tracked down an heiress kidnapped by hippie drug dealers (?)...)

Yet, here someone can say boldly that 'Soviet authoritarianism' which, btw, was triggered by the attempted overrthrow of government by western funded Islamofascists. So, the mister pigs wins simply by lying, boldly and with out restraint. after all, who gives a darn

 

Okay quiet everybody while CMOT consults his history book printed in Texaw, or perhaps NY or even VA. 

Yep, it sure does stink like hell. Pee-U!

[url=http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24126]Mounting Evidence of CIA Ties to Libyan Rebels[/url]

Patrick Martin wrote:

There has long been reason to doubt the "war on terror" narrative, not least the fact that Al Qaeda was effectively created by the CIA through its activities in recruiting and mobilizing radical Islamists to go to Afghanistan in the 1980s and join the mujaheddin guerrillas fighting the Soviet army there. Many of the 9/11 suicide hijackers were known to the CIA as Al Qaeda operatives, and in some cases under active surveillance, but were nonetheless allowed to enter the country, receive training at US flight schools and carry out the terrorist attacks.

An incident during a hearing Thursday before the House Armed Services Committee demonstrates the sensitivity of the US government concerning the links between US intelligence services and Al Qaeda. Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman questioned a witness, Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg, about the role of Abdel Hakim al-Hasady. Steinberg refused to discuss the matter, suggesting it could be taken up only in a closed-door session where US covert operations are regularly reviewed.

So do we support the rebels high on Air America's hashish and shootin up the place, their friends in the CIA plus the US-backed al-Qaeda against Gadhafi in an African country that has the highest HDI on the continent before this NATO sword operation began, or what?

If Libya has a high HDI score now, wait until the corrupt dictator is gone.

This isn't an endorsement of any foreign intervention, but you bet I'm rooting for the rebels. 

And you, Fidel?  Rebels, or dictator?

Snert wrote:

If Libya has a high HDI score now, wait until the corrupt dictator is gone.

This isn't an endorsement of any foreign intervention, but you bet I'm rooting for the rebels. 

And you, Fidel?  Rebels, or dictator?

 

I think it should be babble policy not to support al-CIA'duh terrorism in another country. What do you think? What's your personal wisdom on the matter?