Libya worse after Gaddafi?

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Was just looking up the current state of Libya after the so-called "liberation" of the country.
It seems that the issues over there have gotten worse since the NATO intervention in the country.

www.thenorthstar.info...

www.scoop.it...

There is car bombings almost daily and brutal treatment of the pro Gaddafi supporters

zeenews.india.com...

www.aljazeera.com...

amnesty.ie...

And yet any the MSM is not reporting it the way they should be. It seems that the countries involve in the NATO bombings are taking no responsibility for the absolute destruction of Libya. Why isn't anyone being held responsible for the current state of the country? I am not stating that Libya was a paradise under Gaddafi but there was surely a bit of rule. Is there no one that can be held accountable for the crimes that this country now has to put up with daily? Or is the world blind to the crimes that "civilized" nations impose on countries without any real justification?




posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
This is exactly what the over throwers of Gaddafi wanted and also will ultimately happen to Syria in the end....and I doubt it will stop there.

Shame. Everyone seems to be believing this dribble about 'rebels' and the MSM take on it.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankel
 


Couldn't agree more. It is an absolute disgrace and people just turn a blind eye to it, once that war was over it was on to the next country and everyone just forgot about Libya. The suffering that country has to endure is horrendous.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Todzer
MSM is not reporting it the way they should be. It seems that the countries involve in the NATO bombings are taking no responsibility for the absolute destruction of Libya


Who benefits from the chaos in Libya and probable eventual take over by hardline Islamist?

The UK and France who were the driving force behind the allied intervention?

Israel?

Hard line Islamists?

I suspect that the intervention was planned by people thinking three or four steps ahead. People with very deep pockets and a widespread influence in Western countries at the highest level.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


It's just so unbelievably blatant on what the agenda was there, now there is next to no reports on the t.v or in the paper about what is happening there. They just went in and helped destroy the country and then off to the next "liberation", it is an awful world we live in.
edit on 2-9-2012 by Todzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Todzer
 


Well it went from the most prosperous African nation with the largest Middle Class, larger even than South Africa.. to being just a hair better than Somalia. Yeah. I'd say we did a great job there. Even the anti-war folks cheered on the ousting of the "dictator" .... regardless of the cost.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
The level of knowledge on what took place there is terrible.
I just hope that this is not the future of the u.s. or the entire world.
Fasten your seat belts folks.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Todzer
 


Absolutely agree. "Humanitarian War" is a ridiculous idea. All wars cost live and cause blood shed not human about it.

Gaddafi improved conditions in Libya drastically for his people. Life expectancy rose, literacy rate went from 10% to 90% and general standard of living drastically increased.

"At the time Gaddafi died, some of the worst economic conditions were in eastern Libya.[280][281] 97% of urban dwellers have access to "improved sanitation facilities" in Libya, this was 2% points lower than the OECD average, or 21% points above the world average.[285] During Gaddafi's rule, infant mortality rates went from 125 per 1000 live births, about average for Africa at the time, to 15 per 1000, the best rate in Africa."

en.wikipedia.org...

The problem was Gaddafi did not listen to those powers in the west and would not become a puppet for them.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by crankySamurai
 


That's exactly what happened, the man stood up for country against foreign interference and got assassinated for his troubles. NATO went into that country and bombed it back to the stone age and then took off, no one wants to talk about the monumental balls up they made of Libya. Just ignoring it in the media like the problem doesn't exist. The people are suffering because of foreign interference and someone should be held accountable. It is scary the way the world just ignores the crimes of western countries and condemns countries in the middle east. Countries where they should not be sticking their noses in the first place. Is there ever going to be a day when some uncorrupted nation says hold on a minute this is wrong and stand up to these obviously corrupt policies?



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Thanks for the reminder but Libya is far in the rearview now... As you will see this thread will drown quickly.

This is how it's done and then get Sascha to make a stupid movie... The military propaganda complex is, complex. Word games have us cheering the destruction of sovereign nations under the guise if humanitarianism. Ever fn word out of every politicians mouth is a bald faced 180 outright lie. I have come to the conclusion that as horrible the whole Libya thing is, that is business as usual. And until we stop nodding and smiling at whoever is on the TV, the podium, the mic, or otherwise allowed to speak publicly..



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
There were several of us who saw the writing on the wall for what was happening over there, many a video posted about Libya and how they live before and after our "intervention". I can say I personally condemned the actions of our governments and those in power. But to little avail, the plan is in motion, and we are just along for the ride. The stats posted on pre and post intervention Libya are shocking and should be an eye opener. But with a new season of big brother, and one more of Jersey Shore who's really got time for real world problems and hypocrisy. You can wake up a few before there bills at the end of the month are due, but as soon as they go back to worrying about there own problems, financial, social, there's little time left but to sit down to the idiot box, forget about today, and think about how your gonna get food for tomorrow. Till we break free of our own personal miseries it's gonna be hard to get people to pay attention to the ones we're creating for others....

SaneThinking



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Just as spring is nothing new, it happens every year and is just part of the cycle of nature, Arab Spring was nothing new and is just part of the political cycle in the region.

Every few decades or so in many Middle Eastern Countries, the population rises up against an oppressive regime. After the dust settles, the people that assume power create new oppressive regimes and the cycle starts all over again. What makes anybody think that Libya, Egypt, Syria, et. al. will not just continue to repeat the pattern.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 

But if it was not for the foreign nations involving themselves in their matters a lot of this would not be happening. Gaddafi was not a saint but he raised the level of living standards dramatically in the country and done a lot of good for Libya. NATO are on a mission to totally change the political landscape of the middle east to serve their own needs and agendas. They are countries that have no reason or right to be involving themselves in matters that are happening on the other side of the world but yet they are doing anything they want without any repercussions. They jumped in to Libya, bombed them to sh*t and took off again. Now the countries that were involved are doing very little reporting on the mess there, the mess that THEY made. It is criminal and scary that they can so blatantly do what they want in the world and no country is willing to step up and say this is not right.
edit on 4-9-2012 by Todzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Todzer
 


S&F

Good topic of discussion. Excellent points, ones which need discussed among the countrymen of those countries who are committing these crimes against other countries for no good reason.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Libyan rebels in Benghazi say they have formed their own central bank. The rebel group known as the Transitional National Council released a statement last week announcing that they have designated the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya, and that they have appointed a governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi, according to Bloomberg. Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power? It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era. Robert Wenzel of Economic Policy Journal thinks the central banking initiative reveals that foreign powers may have a strong influence over the rebels. This suggests we have a bit more than a ragtag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences. “I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising,” Wenzel writes.


www.cnbc.com...

since the first action the "rebels" took was this one, it was easy if not obvious to guess it could only go from bad to worse. i mean judging by the particular history on why, how and what happens when these privately owned central banks take control of a nation's monetary system.

now im not saying ghaddafi was a saint.
but what sealed his fate was his rumored plans to dump the dollar in oil exports and restore the gold standard on the dinar.

either way, what we are/aren't seeing in syria now is ssdd, so watch how that to will quickly go from bad to worse.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by UziLiberman
 


So true, Syria and who ever else they have got their eyes on (Iran) but as soon is all done they will stop talking about the country they have just toppled and focus all media on the next "threat". I know the subject of Libya is a dated one but it is sad to see that everyone just forgot the lies of NATO. They claimed it was such a "dangerous" country and now that it IS more dangerous thanks to their interfering they won't report jack sh*t.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Todzer
 


i agree, im my opinion iran is clearly the end game.
libya now syria, and let's not forget the egyptian case is also convenient because it destabilizes and unorganizes countries wich at the brink of a regional war between "you know who" not only had capable and mobilized armies but also would have the tendency to maybe side with iran. now are lost to internal strife and bickering.

leaving iran pretty much isolated, since russia and china will probably just intervene if the us openly backs up "you know who" too much

it's chess not checkers



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by UziLiberman
 


Doubt they will openly support "the country that shall not be named" without a good reason and no doubt they will get a reason in some shape or form. I just wish that one of the other big countries out there would say "right enough of this" and put a stop to all this "liberating". It is completely blatant what is going on but every country out there has it's own little agenda and doesn't want to be the only one to say stop all these illegal wars. It is scary times we live in.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Todzer
 


Certainly foreign help may have had a factor in Arab Spring, but that is not to say that Qadaffi or any other dictator would remain in power if foreign powers did nothing. Take Assad in Syria as an example. The West is not bombing him or aiding the rebels in any clearly obvious way. However, his hold of power is not secure. It is likely (although not 100% certain) he could fall out of power within a few months.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


Has a factor in it is a bit of a understatement, they are systematically going from country to country to topple theses governments, the majority of people in Libya didn't want NATO there

www.youtube.com...

Also the fact that NATO is supplying weapons to a certain terrorist organization called Al Qaeda in the rebellions of these countries. A organization that they are supposed to be fighting to eradicate but are actually helping in these wars to topple governments.

Libya rebel leader admits

They are also in Syria

newmediajournal.us...

Which they are not directly involved in the fight but are helping with support of communications gear and such and if you honestly believe that they are not supplying weapons on side you should just look at the track record from the NATO countries.
As stated above the end game is I believe Iran and they will eventually get there in some way. Don't believe what the news organizations throw at you because 95% of it is sh*t. All you have to do is have a look on the net and see for yourself that western counties are not there to "liberate" they have other agendas and don't mind using guise of democracy as a weapon to do it.





top topics
 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join