Rebels were armed by West from beginning

There was continuous news reports at the beginning that the rebels (CIA forces) took their arms from Libyan weapon storage, but when I watched this video, the author provided some important information which made me believe that the rebels were armed from the start, meaning the whole thing was orchestrated, as Qaddafi's son calls it, "a conspiracy".

Obviously this shouldn't be that surprising to many, but the fact that the media lied, with intention, shows the propaganda war being played out right in front of us.



Watch the video and make your own judgement.

It seems the Libyan rebels (CIA forces) already have public relations hence propaganda offices in US, this video talks about it:

reply to post by confreak


There's no telling when those photos where made, so it's hard to discern if these photos are taken before or after other countries have supplied them with weapons.

FWIW, the 7.62 bullets are what was used by the Libyan army, so being supplied with weapons that use this round makes sense.

If they were supplied these weapons early on by a third party, my money is on Qatar...

english.aljazeera.net...

reply to post by Chadwickus


CIA has been involved in Libya for over 2 decades, I think it is plausible that they tried to cause a regime change for the second time.

CIA has been organizing, training and financing criminal elements within Libya to cause chaos and then lead up to a regime change. The leader of the criminal elements was living in US, and using US as a base to conduct his operations.

If you notice, the protests were violent from the start, and the media skewed the events from right the beginning. It wasn't even a week after the first protest that they got weapons, and already built a private bank where International Bankster Cartel started operating.

To me, including the video above, shows clear sign of orchestrated regime change attempt, but a failed one.

I believe the propaganda was successful, but they probably underestimated the Qaddafi support.

I usually assume that we are responsible for all the unrest in other countries.

My plan is to wait for someone to convince me otherwise.

I've been waiting for just about ten years already.

reply to post by CodexSinaiticus


So you think everybody in every country is just going to get along and never have internal problems unless America is involved?

I am very curious how you would explain all the unrest and war and regime changes in the world before America came into existence then.

With a new bank getting set up in the early days of the conflict it does support the evidence that an international conflict is at play. I have seen very little evidence to confirm that this is a local uprising as with Tunisia and Egypt. I know every nation has its dissidents, but for a leader to arm his civilian population during hostilities is a clear sign of invasion, not revolution.