An interesting and informative take on Libya

I read this blog often and believe she does her homework and makes very sound analyses and recommendations for real economic stability. So, I was surprised to see this piece on Libya.

Not knowing much about the country and just a bit of it's history due lack of interest on my part and sensationalism on the part of the media, I found this piece fascinating. Her pieces are always well documented. Much of the documentation of this particular article comes from Secretary Clintons released private emails. Not about Bengazi whatsoever but you are free to extrapolate as you choose.

All quotes from:

ellenbrown.com...

Critics have long questioned why violent intervention was necessary in Libya. Hillary Clinton’s recently published emails confirm that it was less about protecting the people from a dictator than about money, banking, and preventing African economic sovereignty.

... Libya was relegated to the back burner by the State Department, “as the country dissolved into chaos, leading to a civil war that would destabilize the region, fueling the refugee crisis in Europe and allowing the Islamic State to establish a Libyan haven that the United States is now desperately trying to contain.”

NOTE: After killing Kadafi and declaring victory (one more time).

A wee bit of factual history about Libya....

Before 2011, Libya had achieved economic independence, with its own water, its own food, its own oil, its own money, and its own state-owned bank. It had arisen under Qaddafi from one of the poorest of countries to the richest in Africa. Education and medical treatment were free; having a home was considered a human right; and Libyans participated in an original system of local democracy. The country boasted the world’s largest irrigation system, the Great Man-made River project, which brought water from the desert to the cities and coastal areas; and Qaddafi was embarking on a program to spread this model throughout Africa.

Now on to the interesting, but unsurprising, revelations in Ms. Clinton's 'hidden' emails:

In a “source comment,” the original declassified email adds:

According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion.

French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.

According to these individuals Sarkozy’s plans are driven by the following issues:

A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,

Increase French influence in North Africa,

Improve his internal political situation in France,

Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,

Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.

Conspicuously absent is any mention of humanitarian concerns. The objectives are money, power and oil.[color]

Qaddafi’s threatened attempt to establish an independent African currency was not taken lightly by Western interests. In 2011, Sarkozy reportedly called the Libyan leader a threat to the financial security of the world. How could this tiny country of six million people pose such a threat? First some background.

She goes into some economic history here - one of Ellen Brown's strong points.

And points out some appalling devastation done to the country by NATO:

That could explain why this critical piece of infrastructure was destroyed in 2011. NATO not only bombed the pipeline but finished off the project by bombing the factory producing the pipes necessary to repair it. Crippling a civilian irrigation system serving up to 70% of the population hardly looks like humanitarian intervention. Rather, as Canadian Professor Maximilian Forte put it in his heavily researched book Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and Africa:

And adds her voice to the conclusion of another author:

It was all highly suspicious, but as Alex Newman concluded in a November 2011 article:

"Whether salvaging central banking and the corrupt global monetary system were truly among the reasons for Gadhafi’s overthrow . . . may never be known for certain – at least not publicly."

There the matter would have remained – suspicious but unverified like so many stories of fraud and corruption – but for the publication of Hillary Clinton’s emails after an FBI probe.

They add substantial weight to Newman’s suspicions: violent intervention was not chiefly about the security of the people. It was about the security of global banking, money and oil.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Yet she is still looking like she might become president.

This is why I am so against her and the administration we have - None of them care about Life, Liberty, Nor happiness, they just serve the special interest of big corporations, dynastic bloodlines, and only care for money. The actions of the elite are beyond psychopathic, yet most people have no idea.

Thanks for the post - I had heard something of this before, and your post further elaborates this situation.

a reply to: FyreByrd

This is a really good documentary about Libya, for those who haven't seen it:


such a shame TPTB doesn't like competition...

Wash, rinse, repeat. Nothing new under the sun.

What's tragic is listening to those who promote this bull# as they sit on their high horses calling those who question our governments motives uneducated nutters.

Some actually believe it.

I get it. It's taboo to accuse governments of such atrocities publicly, lest they be removed from reindeer games too. The world is dominated by dickhead bullies, not because it ought to be, because everyone else are just pussies. Cause and effect.

The murder of Gaddafi was a tragedy and a disgrace.


I highly recommend watching this King of Kings' speech to the UN too:
Muammar Gaddafi Speech To United Nations. September 23, 2009 (Full)

The murder of Gaddafi was not a mistake. It was a premeditated plan. It was devised long before 2011. I would say that it was the main idea since the end of the cold war. It was jointly planned by the EU and the USA, since the times when they were asking him to dismantle his nuclear weapons program. It is the typical pattern of the colonialists now or crusaders before. Disarm and then strike. Not vice-versa.

Thank you for introducing me to Ellen Brown. I can see what I will be doing for the rest of the day

a reply to: Flanker86

Yes the Plan of a former Secretary of State and war criminal now running for President