Why is Egypt left to it- the Middle East Conspiracy, page 1

I was considering posting this in the Social issues/Unrest section but feel the questions this asks raises a lot of issues regarding 'conspiracy'. I apologise if this has all been said before but I feel strongly about it and want to share it, it is the reason I joined this site.

Please bear with me and take the time to read the links and watch the videos if you decide to read on. Thank you.

So, I've been researching about the deceit that goes on 24/7 in our Western 'democracies', from lying politicians to mainstream media that just flat out lies and deceives million's of people through propaganda.

Where I'm really struggling is that I keep comparing Libya with Egypt.

One country, namely Libya, we sent NATO in to bomb, we funded 'rebels', thousands have died, Gaddaffi was killed and the country is now in complete ruin, with violence worse than ever.

So when I started researching Libya, I don't for one second believe Gaddaffi was a saint, but the evidence suggests he had done a LOT for the country. From when he took over, he had improved education, literacy was very good, healthcare improved, the country had the highest living standards in the whole of Africa, and much better than some Middle Eastern countries (much better than Egypt).

globalciviliansforpeace.com...

You have to remember, the UN imposes sanctions on these countries- which affects the common person- yet the country still thrived. From what Gaddaffi started with, he did good for Libya. The above link is a good source because it has links to follow- such as only in Jan 2011, the UN was praising the countries efforts on improving human rights.

From research, the original protests started as no more than a few hundred people, if you compare that to almost 2,000,000 people marching in Tripoli in support of Gaddaffi, that is almost 1/3 of the entire population of Libya taking to the streets to support the regime. This speaks for itself.





This was mainly ignored by the mainstream media, I'm aware regarding the huge demonstrations in support of Assad in Syria they say the people are forced to do it by the police.

But I can't believe that for the two above videos, you can't force over a million people to all cheer and support like this, this is genuine support for Gaddaffi.

Video evidence of support for Gaddafi is immense. Undeniable. I don't want to say he was a saint, he didn't like opposition, when he first took over there was a lot of repression, but Gaddaffi wasn't going round killing innocent people like the mainstream news is reporting. Basically, there were countries far worse off and in need of help than Libya.

There is no video evidence of mass protest against Gaddaffi.

All we see is videos of a few armed 'rebel's firing shots etc, there's no evidence of police brutality against protestors. The mainstream media told us that the police were shooting at civilians at will- killing women and children for nothing etc- there is no evidence at all from what I can see- I've searched for it, but it isn't there.

Well anyway, here is an incredible video of media propaganda-



This is just criminal. The video explains that the supporters for Gaddaffi are forced to do it. But then it shows its 'evidence' of Gaddafi being bad- thugs burning down police stations etc- hardly any of them there- about 50 thugs causing unrest (Al Quada probably)- the police are obviously going to respond to this as they would in any country- the police have to get violent to stop them doing this- but as the video shows- the police in the van are merely trying to disperse the crowd. Not only that, but there are no innocent civilians on the street- the small crowd there are thugs burning down a police station! Any police force would act to stop it- be it in in UK or USA.

THEN, a 'witness', we don't even get his name, says the police were shooting everyone, 6 people died just now. Watch the video, this is the same, unreliable, complete nonsense BS we get over and over which is supposed to be classed as evidence of police brutality. It doesn't exist- it's all fabricated.

I've searched for hours trying to find videos of Libyan security forces being ruthless and shooting innocent people- it isn't there. All we get over and over is some unknown 'witness' claiming police were shooting people. And the media passes this as truth. It's incredible.

The more you research it- the more you will see evidence of the 'rebel's being placed in the country by our own intelligence and special forces- CIA, SAS etc.

They were on a mission to cause instability- they were the terrorists. I can't come to any other conclusion- there is no evidence of police attacking civilians, you see the police defending the country from the violent rebels who are blowing stuff up and shooting people.

SAS were arrested in Libya as the unrest was unfolding-



But, even if Gaddaffi was a ruthless killer, how does dropping bombs solve the problem? How does funding and arming ruthless rebels make it better?

Who runs Libya now-



How messed up can this be? Al Quada is supposed to be the enemy yet we fund them to over run governments?



There was no reason at all to bomb Libya in my opinion. It was disgraceful- the country is worse now than ever, all human rights and progression have been lost.

So, this is where Egypt comes up.

Now this country actually has a huge uprising- there is multiple evidence of hundreds of thousands of people protesting against the regime-



Egypt is evidence of a real mass protest against the regime, there are multiple videos of police brutality-



This is beyond disgusting-



So this is my point, if there is a country where the people need help from the ruthless oppression and violence they face, it is Egypt.

YET the West sits back and does nothing. There is no call to act on 'humanitarian' grounds, despite there being ACTUAL evidence of police brutality.

So why do they leave Egypt to fend for themselves?

Is it because Libya had vast oil reserves, that Gaddaffi was against what the elites wanted? What are your views on this, why do we leave the people who really need help to fend for themselves and suffer, yet we bomb Libya on humanitarian grounds?

It just sickens me. Is it simply because the US has funded the Egyptian regime for 30 years? Egypt has seemingly sat by whilst Israel has committed atrocites against the Palestinians.

I get the horrible impression the US used Egypt as a precursor to their wars wages on humanitarian grounds. They were well aware that whilst Mumbarek may step aside, the regime would not change- and it hasn't, it has actually got worse.

So a further question- is Egypt an ally with Israel now- where does Egypt stand in the grand scheme of the agenda being played out?

Thanks for reading, and apologies if I ranted at any point, I just wanted an opportunity to discuss it.

The rebels: en.wikipedia.org...

Also here is a pretty interesting article about what Libya looked like before the Civil War: www.michaeltotten.com...

If good old Gadaffi was widely loved as you said, he would of been able to hang onto power much much easier, then you know being on a losing side of a civil war. Now I can understand confusion the entire Libya Civil War and NATO's involvement was not exactly the greatest planned out endeavor, being pushed primarily by Britain and France with a reluctant US tagging along to give them support. They had no plan for a end game and that's why got this mess, and coincidentally this ended up causing the problems in Mali now that Gaddafi's hired Tuareg's goons went back with their Libyan trained weapons and start an insurrection there.

Anyway why the West was bombing Libya and not Egypt is that Egypt didn't errupt into a civil war and had a relative bloodless change of leadership that looks like it might (might) be more democratic, as oppose to a city revolting and the army crushing it. Plus its also far more dangerous to the entire Middle East to destabilize one way or another, and lets face it the current foreign policy with regards to the Middle East in the States is pretty reactive and trying to keep things calm especially during an election year.

Originally posted by Koffee
The rebels: en.wikipedia.org...

Also here is a pretty interesting article about what Libya looked like before the Civil War: www.michaeltotten.com...

If good old Gadaffi was widely loved as you said, he would of been able to hang onto power much much easier, then you know being on a losing side of a civil war. Now I can understand confusion the entire Libya Civil War and NATO's involvement was not exactly the greatest planned out endeavor, being pushed primarily by Britain and France with a reluctant US tagging along to give them support. They had no plan for a end game and that's why got this mess, and coincidentally this ended up causing the problems in Mali now that Gaddafi's hired Tuareg's goons went back with their Libyan trained weapons and start an insurrection there.

Anyway why the West was bombing Libya and not Egypt is that Egypt didn't errupt into a civil war and had a relative bloodless change of leadership that looks like it might (might) be more democratic, as oppose to a city revolting and the army crushing it. Plus its also far more dangerous to the entire Middle East to destabilize one way or another, and lets face it the current foreign policy with regards to the Middle East in the States is pretty reactive and trying to keep things calm especially during an election year.

The same Michael Totten who receives funding from the American Jewish Commitee?

The same Michael Totten who supported the Iraq war when the allies were pushing for it with their lies of WMD?

Answer me how 1/3 of a countries entire poluation marching on tripoli in support of Gaddaffi is not support for him?

I'm not saying he is a saint, I have no doubt his regime was repressive against oppostion, but he HAD advanced the country and the lives of the people in Libya greatly from what it started with.

Did you even read my OP? There is no evidence of mass protests against Gaddaffi- say 5,000 people or more, yet 1.8 million marched in his support?

Evidence of Western trained 'rebel's shooting police stations etc.

It's age old, America has done it many, many times in Africa before and Libya was one of the few were they needed a massive propagand campaign before going in because the country wasthe most developed in Africa at the time.

A response about the popularity.

A video showing a dictator getting support in his capital city with marches and people showing up, is no real good indicator of how popular he is when the guns and the state security apparatus are looking. Do you really think everybody who was at the giant crowds for North Korea's Dear Leader funeral was really sad that he passed?

www.youtube.com...

And one would argue that in a police state that massive anti-government protests don't emerge, and when the fighting started, they were too busy trying not to die military strikes and fighting back, then pose for youtube to convince paranoid people on the net in a similar manor as your videos.

Originally posted by Koffee
A response about the popularity.

A video showing a dictator getting support in his capital city with marches and people showing up, is no real good indicator of how popular he is when the guns and the state security apparatus are looking. Do you really think everybody who was at the giant crowds for North Korea's Dear Leader funeral was really sad that he passed?

www.youtube.com...

And one would argue that in a police state that massive anti-government protests don't emerge, and when the fighting started, they were too busy trying not to die military strikes and fighting back, then pose for youtube to convince paranoid people on the net in a similar manor as your videos.

Well if you want evidence of mass protests against the government, I provided that in the OP- look at Egypt- hundreds of thousands of repressed people taking to the streets in spite of the danger of being killed by the police. I even posted a video of police firing live bullets at protestors.

Non of this evidence exists for Libya, it is a sad summary of people that they can't accept the whole Libya NATO campaign on humanitarian grounds was a complete sham, with the only aim of removing a country that was a threat to America simply because they never played by 'their' rules. Had nothing to do with Gaddaffi supposedly killing innocent protestors.

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Originally posted by Koffee
A response about the popularity.

A video showing a dictator getting support in his capital city with marches and people showing up, is no real good indicator of how popular he is when the guns and the state security apparatus are looking. Do you really think everybody who was at the giant crowds for North Korea's Dear Leader funeral was really sad that he passed?

www.youtube.com...

And one would argue that in a police state that massive anti-government protests don't emerge, and when the fighting started, they were too busy trying not to die military strikes and fighting back, then pose for youtube to convince paranoid people on the net in a similar manor as your videos.

Well if you want evidence of mass protests against the government, I provided that in the OP- look at Egypt- hundreds of thousands of repressed people taking to the streets in spite of the danger of being killed by the police. I even posted a video of police firing live bullets at protestors.

Non of this evidence exists for Libya, it is a sad summary of people that they can't accept the whole Libya NATO campaign on humanitarian grounds was a complete sham, with the only aim of removing a country that was a threat to America simply because they never played by 'their' rules. Had nothing to do with Gaddaffi supposedly killing innocent protestors.

Egypt was far more open a government and wealthier country then Libya when their revolts broke out, it was a dictatorship, but it wasn't a constant police state Libya was. Then there is the fact that it wasn't the US for once wanting to do anything but the French and the British, and the result was a muddled foreign policy that left the situation probably worst had if the US decided it had a interest in taking down Gaddafi.

The situation brings to mind Napoleon's maxim of never attributing to malice what you can attribute to stupidity.

Originally posted by Koffee

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Originally posted by Koffee
A response about the popularity.

A video showing a dictator getting support in his capital city with marches and people showing up, is no real good indicator of how popular he is when the guns and the state security apparatus are looking. Do you really think everybody who was at the giant crowds for North Korea's Dear Leader funeral was really sad that he passed?

www.youtube.com...

And one would argue that in a police state that massive anti-government protests don't emerge, and when the fighting started, they were too busy trying not to die military strikes and fighting back, then pose for youtube to convince paranoid people on the net in a similar manor as your videos.

Well if you want evidence of mass protests against the government, I provided that in the OP- look at Egypt- hundreds of thousands of repressed people taking to the streets in spite of the danger of being killed by the police. I even posted a video of police firing live bullets at protestors.

Non of this evidence exists for Libya, it is a sad summary of people that they can't accept the whole Libya NATO campaign on humanitarian grounds was a complete sham, with the only aim of removing a country that was a threat to America simply because they never played by 'their' rules. Had nothing to do with Gaddaffi supposedly killing innocent protestors.

Egypt was far more open a government and wealthier country then Libya when their revolts broke out, it was a dictatorship, but it wasn't a constant police state Libya was. Then there is the fact that it wasn't the US for once wanting to do anything but the French and the British, and the result was a muddled foreign policy that left the situation probably worst had if the US decided it had a interest in taking down Gaddafi.

The situation brings to mind Napoleon's maxim of never attributing to malice what you can attribute to stupidity.

No, you are assuming this to be the case!

Libya was many many, many, many times wealthier per household than Egypt.

People in Libya were a lot richer than Egypt, Egypt is one of the poorest countries in the world because all the wealth is given to the regime.

These are facts.

I'm telling you outright Egypt was a far worse place to live than Libya in general. Egyptians live in extreme poverty and under extreme oppression in a police state from hell.

I'm not going to let you have the last say in this thread with your lies and false assumptions (that you most likely picked up from the MSM).

Dumbing down reality
  Posted 5 days ago with 103 member flags

The 800 Pound Gorilla Everyone Ignores
  Posted 16 days ago with 67 member flags

Organic food hit piece to coincide with California proposition 37.
  Posted 2 days ago with 67 member flags

The Illusion of Choice and Truth
  Posted 10 days ago with 52 member flags

The catch all mental health disorder... Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD)
  Posted 15 days ago with 42 member flags

A chronical of the BANKSTER WARS
  Posted 7 days ago with 42 member flags

Conspiracy Theory:The Lost Episode
  Posted 4 days ago with 39 member flags

666, NWO, Aliens and You!
  Posted 13 days ago with 36 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: