It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


False coverage regarding Libya?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 03:56 PM
I just had a conversation with a group of friends who just returned from Libya and they put the entire situation in a totally new perspective for me.

According to them (2 of which are Libyan by birth and upbringing, having only spent 10-15 years in the US) the "genocide" never took place. They say there is no evidence, anywhere of thousands being murdered in cold blood. They say that even other citizens of Libya haven't described the situation as a mass murder, simply a few (hundred) lives lost in a power clash. However, our MSM (including, cnn, msnbc, fox news, and even al-jazeera) constantly told us that if not stopped Ghadafi would kill any, and everyone who opposed his "iron fisted rule", basically painting him to be the new Saddam Hussein. This isn't the first time people have told me that the "genocide" didn't happen as it was reported. I've been told multiple times by people who have visited Libya, and Egypt and Tunisia that the death tolls between Egypt and Libya are not too much different.

This question was also given to me:

If Ghadafi was really murdering everybody, shamelessly, why would Americans still be allowed by America to go to Libya?

A couple of these people are genuine friends of my whom I've known for years now, and would trust their word in a heartbeat, ESPECIALLY over the word of our gov't.

Another thing they've said was that the reasons for NATO firing on Libya and calling the head of Ghadafi "fair game" are:

1) He's given BILLIONS toward the cause of uniting the continent of Africa under one currency, and giving countries that were colonized the leverage to break free of their dependence on the backing of French currency. (This is France's reason)

2) He sits on a pool of black gold and has no interest in exporting to the US, and I've read in multiple places that

"the United States, the world's largest consumer of oil, does not import any petroleum from Libya."
.. And quite frankly, you saw what happened to Iraq..

As for Canada, and Italy getting in on it, I'm honestly not sure. Interestingly enough, one of my friends speculated that Canada fell victim to the false media reports of genocide and is the only country truly there on a humanitarian mission.

Interested to hear anyone's thoughts on the idea.
edit on 19-6-2011 by because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 04:30 PM
Interesting that you mention Canada. I believe this was planned to make Canada a target so the Obama/Harper plan of setting up the N. American Military Perimeter can be justified.

Make Canada look like it supports the US in its latest Invasion, pull a false flag somewhere in Canada and then set up the perimeter for security against the next bogeyman.

Harper is now Canada'a Obama but the interesting thing is that he actually believes he knows what he's doing when in fact, he's Obama's puppet.

This would be my guess as to why Canada was pulled into Libya. We don't need to be there at all IMO.

edit on 19-6-2011 by jude11 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 04:43 PM
reply to post by jude11

That's a good analysis. You'd know better, since you're there. Also, I read somewhere that this operation has costed Canada $26 million so far.

Either way you look at it, Canada is on the azz end of the stick.

ETA: I take it back, it's now looking like $60 million for Canada
edit on 19-6-2011 by because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 05:00 PM
Qaddafi was never some ‘tyrannical dictator’ to begin with. Of course his power grip was strong, what else could you expect from a man in a country centered on a centralized socialist state? He of course was no saint either. But he made his country and people prosperous, upheld the sovereignty of the Libyan people, state, and culture, while also developing the cities of Tripoli and Benghazi into architectural masterpieces. That is withholding the fact that his man-made river project was working, a feat that even the most ‘developed’ countries in the West could not dream of.

I am definitely not a man who endorses socialism to any degree but will admit when I see things done right and Qaddafi done things right. Under his leadership Libyans became highly educated and affluent combining a 21st century education with respect and devotion to Libyan culture and religious temperance. Libya is, well was, the most developed country in Africa when using the Human Development Index. The life expectancy was only one year shy of the United States. Education was rather low but extremely high when comparing it to other African and Arab nations. Income, when factored in, is around $17,000 GDP (PPP) per capita which is also extremely high.

While the people lack many freedoms those of us in the West claim to have they make up for that with competent leadership, strong direction, and stability. All of which these Libyan rebels have within a matter of weeks tore away from the people of Libya, sending them into a hellish nightmare. This ‘revolution’ reminds me far too much of the French Revolution in certain aspects. A small elite clique of disgruntled rebels fighting for God knows what started this whole fiasco which is now being backed by the West to overthrow the legitimate leader of the Libyan people.

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:36 PM
reply to post by Misoir

Ok so this whole thing is questionable, yet our government and NATO insist that it's humanitarian. How much more will we take?

top topics

log in