It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: daaskapital
originally posted by: AmericanRealist
originally posted by: markosity1973
Gadaffi was not the best ruler for sure, but the way they got rid of him is a crime against humanity. It has left the people of Libya in a far worse state than they were under his regime and allowed ISIS to incubate. How is any of this justifiable?
Well, truth be told Gaddafi was a much nicer, kinder, and better ruler to his people than possibly anyone on Earth in the last 500 years, based solely on what he offered his people. Here is a post I made last week or so regarding why from a page CNN recently edited to say they could not confirm. Sat there for four years, and then less than two weeks after I posted it on here, suddenly "they cannot verify/confirm", no doubt because it started to circulate once again.
That said, dictatorships usually try to keep the living standards of the people adequate so as to maintain firm support and happiness in the people.
originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: daaskapital
You keep blaming the USA but the big banks and military industrial complex run everything that happens. The governments only have so much control.
originally posted by: gladtobehere
Hillary Emails Reveal True Motive for Libya Intervention.
Newly disclosed emails show that Libya’s plan to create a gold-backed currency to compete with the euro and dollar was a motive for NATO’s intervention.
The source is the Foreign Policy Journal but they link to the State Department's website. They also reference CNN, the BBC and some of the actual email.
This is something that we speculated from the beginning, that the real "threat" Kadaffi posed was to the world's debt based fiat currency via his gold backed Dinar. He was organizing African nations and introducing the premise that a limited resource like oil should be exchanged for something more valuable than the Rothschild currencies, Kadaffi wanted gold.
And there was at-least one media outlet which put their speculation in print:
Libya all about oil, or central banking?.
But wait, theres more.
It became obvious that the West was allied with Al-CIAeda and that they helped us to overthrow Kadaffi. How? Because the Al-CIAeda "flag" went up soon after Kadaffi was murdered. This is no longer speculation and has also been confirmed via the e-mails.
Libya: Al Qaeda flag flown above Benghazi courthouse.
The same intelligence email from Sydney Blumenthal also confirms what has become a well-known theme of Western supported insurgencies in the Middle East: the contradiction of special forces training militias that are simultaneously suspected of links to Al Qaeda.
In this article from July of 2005, British MP Robin Cook reminds us that Al-Qaeda was a US creation:
Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.
Of-course less than a month later, he died of a "heart attack".
But I digress.
The point being that once the Western/Al-CIAeda link went public, the West needed a new boogeyman: cue ISUS.
Rand Paul sparks firestorm with claim that John McCain posed with ISIS-linked jihadists in Syria.
And lets be honest, many of the wars fought throughout history were bankster/Rothschild wars. Money Masters does a good job of detailing these events.
Will these world leaders be arrested and tried for war crimes? No. Will their actions be called acts of terrorism? Absolutely not.
The elites will go on as though nothing happened.
originally posted by: SurrenderingIsBack
Figures, cowardly not to be blunt. . .
Only criticize - - Come forward!
Who do you got?