If you support Gaddafi, you are supporting the biggest globalist of ALL... and have lost your mind.

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   
I find it utterly insane that many freedom-loving patriots around the world (including the infamous Alex Jones) have decided to side with a self-appointed meglomaniacal, brutally iron-fisted, autocratic despot over an authentic grassroots uprising of (mostly) freedom-loving people to take back their country from the clutches or tyranny. Yeah, I know that many people are naive enough to believe that the CIA can flip on a "revolution switch" and just cause whole countries to revolt whenever they feel like it, and while it might be truth that the CIA does have some influence over such matters, reality does not support this assertion or else Gaddafi would have been ousted by revolution long ago -- but this is beside the point.

Yes, the same people who 6 months ago were (deservedly) crying and screaming about the tyranny within America and calling for a revolution to "gain our freedoms back" are the same ones praying that a real revolution against real tyranny gets completely crushed.

I'm not saying that the United States / Western foreign policy isn't entirely hypocritical or that the justification of "protecting civilians" (civilians that are militant and holding guns, mind you lol) makes a whole lot of sense. I'm not saying that the war on Afghanistan and Iraq are great; of course they were/are both illegal wars based off of even bigger untruths and lies. What I am saying is that not everything in world politics is black and white. Oftentimes we find ourselves immersed in a sea of gray, and the Libyan controversy is no exception. It doesn't always come down to "small guy good, imperial powers bad" -- that line of thinking is elementary and juvenile. Sometimes the reality of morality is much more complex...

Here's the point I'm really trying to get at: Most people who are rooting for Gaddafi's regime to pull through and defeat the freedom-loving rebels claim that its because "the globalists are trying to take over the world", or something along those lines. However, when looking at the situation through black and white spectacles, one fails to realize that Gaddafi is actually the biggest globalist of all.

Muammar Gaddafi vows to create 'United States of Africa' -- London Telegraph

Whoah! Hold on!


Colonel Gaddafi, 66, was elected to lead the 53-nation AU for a year in a closed-door vote during a summit in Addis Ababa. Dressed in a gold robe and cap, he made clear his intention to push for an alternative "USA" - a plan he has outlined before and that has met with resistance among fellow African leaders. "I hope my term will be a time of serious work and not just words," he said in his inaugural speech. "I shall continue to insist that our sovereign countries work to achieve the United States of Africa," he said, admitting that African leaders were "not near to a settlement" on the issue. "We are still independent states. It is your decision to respond to the call for unity, to push Africa forward towards the United States of Africa."


Let me get this straight -- Gaddafi was spending millions of dollars to attempt to create the "united states of Africa" wherein all nations were completely absolved and they would take up the use of a unified currency called the "Afro"

www.bornblackmag.com...

So, the SAME people that (rightfully) freak out about the globalists attempting to create a "North-American union" that uses a single currency like the Amero are actually in support of someone trying to do the exact same thing to Africa! Not to mention this special someone has a habit of brutally oppressing his people, crushing political dissent by spattering blood, crushing bones and pulling nails (even from teenagers) and is so greatly opposed to any semblance of freedom that voting isn't even allowed to take him out of power. Gaddafi's true goal was to become the king of a unified Africa!

Sure, the fact that the US is supporting the rebels but turning a blind eye to all the other despots in the world that are our allies is hypocritical... but those of you supporting a freedom hating globalist trying to dissolve the nations of Africa to where he can be the defacto ruler of his proposed world superpower; you people are the biggest hypocrites of all.

Peace.
edit on 24-3-2011 by FalselyFlagged because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by FalselyFlagged
 


I don't find anything wrong in "globalising" Africa, in fact, it would had been far more popular than the EU & the Euro's.

Ariel Sharon talked about a similar plan to globalise the Middle East.

The US could do likewise between Canada and the USA with South America participating at a later stage.

Australia and NZ could share a one currency. Britain and Ireland could do likewise. Europe could be carved in to 4 quarters, North, South, East and West. Asia another.

Makes much better sense than a one world currency.

Globalisation is not just about currency, its about mega corporate control, one world government, etc etc.

What Ghaddafi had in mind was a far cry from what the world globalists have in mind.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


Sorry, but you fail to realize that regional unification is simply a step to creating a global government / global currency.

Are you really that naive to think that it won't progress to the next stage after their regional objectives are achieved?

You are as much of a Globalist as Gaddafi.
edit on 24-3-2011 by FalselyFlagged because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by FalselyFlagged
 


And according to who is this? To you?

This is merely your opinion, not a fact. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But at the end of the day, it is just that, an opinion.

There are much bigger threads to globalization than Gaddafi.

VVv



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
I whole heartedly support Gaddafi, because

1. Russian satellite said that the attack against civilians did not occur
2. The no-fly zone was implemented a day before a plane was shot down, which the media blamed on Gaddafi ignoring the no-fly zone they reported on just a day ago.
3. The U.S. didn't rush to get rid of Mubarak even though this clearly was a revolution of, by, and for the people. I haven't seen any footage of millions of Libyans in the streets cheering for victory.
4. The so called "peaceful protesters" are actually rebels with ammunition funded by the CIA
5. Gaddafi is currently public enemy number 1, in a cultural stew of other public enemy number 1's including Bradley Manning, Charlie Sheen, and Julian Assange, and if they hate Julian Assange and Bradley Manning then they must have equally insane reasons to hate Gaddafi meaning he is most likely a good guy because of the hatred being spewed against him.
6. Obama is declaring war without congressional approval but orders from the UN
7. They are not calling it war because it is so highly illegal, it is just another "humanitarian issue" that led to the killing of civilians
8. Already Libyan civilians are being shot down by NATO

Do you want me to continue?



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
I whole heartedly support Gaddafi, because


Too bad you didn't address any of the points in my original post.

You are supporting a brutal freedom-hating dictator that keeps his people down through violence and torture.

Please explain to me why exactly its good to have a police state that tortures/murders people for political dissent.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by FalselyFlagged

Too bad you didn't address any of the points in my original post.


I addressed your main title. The unstated assumption was no, I have not lost my mind, I support him with pride.


Originally posted by FalselyFlagged

You are supporting a brutal freedom-hating dictator that keeps his people down through violence and torture.


Yes, I love brutal freedom-hating dictators, so much better than those who parade around as "constitutional scholars" and invade countries for the good of humanity. Give me a straight talker as opposed to a used car salesman any day. And I love violence and torture, I just hate "interrogation" by means of water boarding and "humanitarianism" by means of invasion.


Originally posted by FalselyFlagged

Please explain to me why exactly its good to have a police state that tortures/murders people for political dissent.


Of course I will explain it to you my son, I am here to enlighten. It's great to have a police state that tortures/murders people for political dissent because then they can keep the mythology alive that arabs with box cutters are a constant threat, some man in a turban hiding behind every bush. Without a police state, how will people know that marijuana will kill them? Without a police state, how will the state generate money through parking violations? Without a police state, how can the government enforce taxes needed to fund humanitarian wars? Yes, I love police states that torture, murder people for political dissent, which is why I love being an American. But, What makes you so sure that police states only exist in Arab lands?

Any more questions or accusations feel free to impose upon me.
edit on 24-3-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by FalselyFlagged

Originally posted by filosophia
I whole heartedly support Gaddafi, because


Too bad you didn't address any of the points in my original post.

You are supporting a brutal freedom-hating dictator that keeps his people down through violence and torture.

Please explain to me why exactly its good to have a police state that tortures/murders people for political dissent.


Just like a disinfo agent you gloss right over the solid facts and keep spewing pro-imperialist propaganda.

Nice job!



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
I find it utterly insane that many freedom-loving patriots around the world (including the infamous Alex Jones) have decided to side with a self-appointed meglomaniacal, brutally iron-fisted, autocratic despot over an authentic grassroots uprising of (mostly) freedom-loving people to take back their country from the clutches or tyranny. Yeah, I know that many people are naive enough to believe that the CIA can flip on a "revolution switch" and just cause whole countries to revolt whenever they feel like it, and while it might be truth that the CIA does have some influence over such matters, reality does not support this assertion or else Gaddafi would have been ousted by revolution long ago -- but this is beside the point.


Peace.
edit on 24-3-2011 by FalselyFlagged because: (no reason given)


op, you lost me with your rant, when you specified that the people are naive enough to believe that the cia can flip a switch.

you might want to read up on your history a bit chap as i have not the time or the patience to scream about just how much power the cia has.

my opinion is before you rant with acusations such as you stated, you educate yourself first


ill give you a hint read about reagans appointment of vice pres bush, then study what implications that reagan gave to the cia, you will find public policy foreign and domestic, and that is just skimming the tip of the proverbial top if you know what i mean
edit on 24-3-2011 by allprowolfy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
owe i had just one tiny winy bit more information for you to think about op, do you remember ollie north? if you do or dont google it you will find it was the first time that the congress was told they where on a need to know basis and they did not need to know, if this piece of information-a flash from the past does not get your attention my friend then nothing will



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by FalselyFlagged
 


Thats your opinion but I'm telling you, you are wrong. I kept up with Ghaddafi and his African program; believe me if it had come to pass it would had fed almost all of Africa within 10 years. The plans he and the African federation had was actually quite brillant considering the Western world did bloody nothing for them except bring disease, starvation and wars.

In the past 30 years the West has been charitable donating hundreds of billions of $$$ that none of the charity organisations can account for yet these organisations, no, CORPORATIONS are sitting in blue chip leased offices around the world, flying first class, declaring extraordinarly high expenses, driving in expensive cars etc etc. The corruption among these large charity corporations is a balant slap in the face for those giving their hard earned money to. Africa could had been fed 100 times over by now. Ghaddafi knew it.

The British and French Govt spent 40 LONG YEARS sucking up to Ghaddafi like leeches....they pretty much bowed to the guy because he put money and a hell of alot of it in to their personal pockets.

I personally don't like the guy but he had vision for Africa, long term.

Those nations who rose against Ghaddafi would rather see Africa starves because it's a multi multi billion dollar business to see that Africa fails.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
I understand this is a very complex topic, but currently my support is with Gaddafi. He was chairman of the African Union from 2009 to 2010. He did push for more unification with the African and Arab Nation and The united states of Africa was one of his aims while in this role. Currently there is not the political will or cohesion for the individual nations to unite to such an extent. Gaddafi also worked to introducing a gold backed dinar as a common trading currency between the African and Arab nations. This is where I see the biggest threat to the current globalist like the BIS and other banking cartels, Monsanto and other multinationals, Rothschild's and other powerful families.

There has been a tighter media control on just what is happening in Libya compared to Egypt to gauge what the majority of people want. There has been clashes and conflict with the rebels as they attempted a revolution. From what I have seen, the rebels did not have the majority of the public support to pull it off and went about it in a very destructive way. If the majority of the people did want gaddafi gone, then national strikes and peaceful protests over a few weeks would have built up the pressure to remove him and allowed time for the next political stage to develop.

The only thing at the end of a gun is more dictatorship. The African Union is becoming better at working through these leadership issues, but it take time if it is to be done responsibility and in a way that truly benefits the people.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
It's not a matter of "siding with" Gaddhafi. It's a matter of compliance to Constitutional law, and the fact the Libya has not presented a threat to us. He is putting down rebellion in his nation, and nations do that. Even in your nation or anyone's nation.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
S&F OP, very well said.

Kinda sickens me that we get rid of one brutal dictator in Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi is now trying to crush people for rebelling against decades of his own brutal regime yet people here are saying the coalition forces are the bad guys? What? Do your government hating mentalities make you immediately side with a guy willing and able to murder his own people as soon as the people standing up for their rights get a little outside help?



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by curious7
S&F OP, very well said.

Kinda sickens me that we get rid of one brutal dictator in Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi is now trying to crush people for rebelling against decades of his own brutal regime yet people here are saying the coalition forces are the bad guys? What? Do your government hating mentalities make you immediately side with a guy willing and able to murder his own people as soon as the people standing up for their rights get a little outside help?


No, I don't immediately side with anyone. In fact I thought Gaddafi was a lunatic liar just the way the msm wanted me to think, but then when more facts were revealed they showed, as always, who the real tyrants were. You call getting picked off from a helicopter help? You have a strange sense of hospitality, which branch are you in?



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by curious7
 


I do not have a problem with regime change, I do have a problem in how it is conducted. Libya could very easily turn into another Iraq or Afghanistan with years, if not decades of conflict of war torn strife. This would result in a very significant higher rate of pain, suffering and anarchy. There are ways to institute regime change and ultimately it rests with the will of the people in that nation. There are systems to assist in the process of regime change and for Africa there is the African Union, the Arab state have the Arab League. Both of these bodies are against the current intervention taking place.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
There is a big difference between Libya trying to start a United States of Africa, and the comparison to a North American Union. Is that not what we did here in the US? We are able to enjoy our "freedoms" here in the US, but a foreign leader tries to do the same by empowering his people and their neighbors and its wrong? I don't know about that.

Who cares what other people, including Alex Jones, has to say? You don't have to be a "freedom-loving patriot" (propoganda buzzwords) to realize that these people have the right to do as they wish. If the people are fed up, they will rise and change the system. We should not judge what others do based on a false sense of arrogant superiority!

In the grand scheme of things, I am a globalist. I believe that we have to think about all the poeple of all nations before we make stupid decisions that only serve to benefit one nation. Maybe if we had more globalists running around, we would be able to actually solve our problems. Right now, each nation thinks of only itself, and the ways in which it can profit.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Yeah, Gaddafi is the globalist who wants to take over the world and be a tyrant and kill kill kill .. And the other countries are the freedom fighters which try to fight for our liberties and to free us ....

Yeah that makes so much sense .....



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
It's so simple ....Gaddafi or Libya not attacked US,France ,UK !!!

US,France ,UK are bombing and attacking Libya and Gaddafi. Even my 12 year old son understand this



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by xavi1000
It's so simple ....Gaddafi or Libya not attacked US,France ,UK !!!

US,France ,UK are bombing and attacking Libya and Gaddafi. Even my 12 year old son understand this

exactly, star for you

those civilians Obama and Company are protecting
are not entirely civilians. A lot of them are returning
fighters/terrorists who fought on the side of Al Queda
killing Americans in Iraq.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

that means Obama is aiding the enemy of the war on terror.

How do you think the families of those soldiers killed
in Iraq would feel about Obama giving their children's
killers air cover in Libya ????





new topics
top topics
 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant