The truth about Libya, why Hillary shouldn’t be President and why you should protest Obama when he visits


Screen Shot 2016-01-09 at 10.51.01 am

The true extent of America’s horrifying culpability in plotting Libya’s downfall has been exposed in the latest Hillary email dump and the rational for the overthrow is as disturbing as the means by which America toppled Gaddafi…

Hillary’s Death Squads

A March 27, 2011, intelligence brief on Libya, sent by long time close adviser to the Clintons and Hillary’s unofficial intelligence gatherer, Sidney Blumenthal, contains clear evidence of war crimes on the  part of NATO-backed rebels. Citing a rebel commander source “speaking in strict confidence” Blumenthal reports to Hillary [emphasis mine]:

Under attack from allied Air and Naval forces, the Libyan Army troops have begun to desert to the rebel side in increasing numbers. The rebels are making an effort to greet these troops as fellow Libyans, in an effort to encourage additional defections.

(Source Comment: Speaking in strict confidence, one rebel commander stated that his troops continue to summarily execute all foreign mercenaries captured in the fighting…).

While the illegality of extra-judicial killings is easy to recognize (groups engaged in such are conventionally termed “death squads”), the sinister reality behind the “foreign mercenaries” reference might not be as immediately evident to most.

While over the decades Gaddafi was known to make use of European and other international security and infrastructural contractors, there is no evidence to suggest that these were targeted by the Libyan rebels.

There is, however, ample documentation by journalists, academics, and human rights groups demonstrating that black Libyan civilians and sub-Saharan contract workers, a population favored by Gaddafi in his pro-African Union policies, were targets of “racial cleansing” by rebels who saw black Libyans as tied closely with the regime.[1]

Black Libyans were commonly branded as “foreign mercenaries” by the rebel opposition for their perceived general loyalty to Gaddafi as a community and subjected to torture, executions, and their towns “liberated” by ethnic cleansing. This is demonstrated in the most well-documented example of Tawergha, an entire town of 30,000 black and “dark-skinned” Libyans which vanished by August 2011 after its takeover by NATO-backed NTC Misratan brigades.

These attacks were well-known as late as 2012 and often filmed, as this report from The Telegraph confirms:

After Muammar Gaddafi was killed, hundreds of migrant workers from neighboring states were imprisoned by fighters allied to the new interim authorities. They accuse the black Africans of having been mercenaries for the late ruler. Thousands of sub-Saharan Africans have been rounded up since Gaddafi fell in August.

It appears that Clinton was getting personally briefed on the battlefield crimes of her beloved anti-Gaddafi fighters long before some of the worst of these genocidal crimes took place.

…so Clinton knew the forces she backed were glorified race war death squads. It is this use of immoral power that should disqualify her from the Democratic nomination and Bernie Sanders end up squaring off against Donald Trump.

But it gets far worse, the drive to end Gaddafi also saw the West back and arm Al-Qaeda…

Al-Qaeda and Western Special Forces Inside Libya

The same intelligence email from Sydney Blumenthal also confirms what has become a well-known theme of Western supported insurgencies in the Middle East: the contradiction of special forces training militias that are simultaneously suspected of links to Al Qaeda.

Blumenthal relates that “an extremely sensitive source” confirmed that British, French, and Egyptian special operations units were training Libyan militants along the Egyptian-Libyan border, as well as in Benghazi suburbs.

While analysts have long speculated as to the “when and where” of Western ground troop presence in the Libyan War, this email serves as definitive proof that special forces were on the ground only within a month of the earliest protests which broke out in the middle to end of February 2011 in Benghazi.

By March 27 of what was commonly assumed a simple “popular uprising” external special operatives were already “overseeing the transfer of weapons and supplies to the rebels” including “a seemingly endless supply of AK47 assault rifles and ammunition.”

Yet only a few paragraphs after this admission, caution is voiced about the very militias these Western special forces were training because of concern that, “radical/terrorist groups such as the Libyan Fighting Groups and Al Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) are infiltrating the NLC and its military command.”

…so American foreign policy feeds the very extremism we use to terrify domestic voters into giving away more and more mass surveillance protections.

TDB Recommends

So what was this removal of Gaddafi for? What justified genocidal race death squads and arming the very extremists who in turn threaten western cities? Was it Gaddafi’s human rights abuses? Is that what America was appealing to when it armed and trained racist death squads?

Oh no. The reason America took out Libya with such vile tactics was because Libya was threatening French Oil and Gold interests…

The Threat of Libya’s Oil and Gold to French Interests

Though the French-proposed U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 claimed the no-fly zone implemented over Libya was to protect civilians, an April 2011 email sent to Hillary with the subject line “France’s client and Qaddafi’s gold” tells of less noble ambitions.

The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy’s reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent Gaddafi’s influence in what is considered “Francophone Africa.”

Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves, estimated at “143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver,” posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency. In place of the noble sounding “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine fed to the public, there is this “confidential” explanation of what was really driving the war [emphasis mine]:

This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).

(Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.)

Though this internal email aims to summarize the motivating factors driving France’s (and by implication NATO’s) intervention in Libya, it is interesting to note that saving civilian lives is conspicuously absent from the briefing.

Instead, the great fear reported is that Libya might lead North Africa into a high degree of economic independence with a new pan-African currency.

French intelligence “discovered” a Libyan initiative to freely compete with European currency through a local alternative, and this had to be subverted through military aggression.

At this point one might be wondering, ‘how on earth did they manage to con everyone at the time with this war in Libya’? Well, there’s an answer to that…

The Ease of Floating Crude Propaganda

Early in the Libyan conflict Secretary of State Clinton formally accused Gaddafi and his army of using mass rape as a tool of war. Though numerous international organizations, like Amnesty International, quickly debunked these claims, the charges were uncritically echoed by Western politicians and major media.

It seemed no matter how bizarre the conspiracy theory, as long as it painted Gaddafi and his supporters as monsters, and so long as it served the cause of prolonged military action in Libya, it was deemed credible by network news.

Two foremost examples are referenced in the latest batch of emails: the sensational claim that Gaddafi issued Viagra to his troops for mass rape, and the claim that bodies were “staged” by the Libyan government at NATO bombing sites to give the appearance of the Western coalition bombing civilians.

In a late March 2011 email, Blumenthal confesses to Hillary that,

I communicated more than a week ago on this story—Qaddafi placing bodies to create PR stunts about supposed civilian casualties as a result of Allied bombing—though underlining it was a rumor. But now, as you know, Robert gates gives credence to it. (See story below.)

Sources now say, again rumor (that is, this information comes from the rebel side and is unconfirmed independently by Western intelligence), that Qaddafi has adopted a rape policy and has even distributed Viagra to troops. The incident at the Tripoli press conference involving a woman claiming to be raped is likely to be part of a much larger outrage. Will seek further confirmation.

Not only did Defense Secretary Robert Gates promote his bizarre “staged bodies” theory on CBS News’ “Face The Nation,” but the even stranger Viagra rape fiction made international headlines as U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice made a formal charge against Libya in front of the UN Security Council.

What this new email confirms is that not only was the State Department aware of the spurious nature of what Blumenthal calls “rumors” originating solely with the rebels, but did nothing to stop false information from rising to top officials who then gave them “credence.”

It appears, furthermore, that the Viagra mass rape hoax likely originated with Sidney Blumenthal himself.

So America armed extremists, empowered racial genocides via paramilitary militia and did so to ensure NATO gold and oil interests were protected while weakening an African country that might gain some level of self-sufficiency.

The encore to this coup was the involvement in Syria

The public history of relations between the US and Syria over the past few decades has been one of enmity. Assad condemned the 9/11 attacks, but opposed the Iraq War. George W. Bush repeatedly linked Syria to the three members of his ‘axis of evil’ – Iraq, Iran and North Korea – throughout his presidency. State Department cables made public by WikiLeaks show that the Bush administration tried to destabilise Syria and that these efforts continued into the Obama years. In December 2006, William Roebuck, then in charge of the US embassy in Damascus, filed an analysis of the ‘vulnerabilities’ of the Assad government and listed methods ‘that will improve the likelihood’ of opportunities for destabilisation. He recommended that Washington work with Saudi Arabia and Egypt to increase sectarian tension and focus on publicising ‘Syrian efforts against extremist groups’ – dissident Kurds and radical Sunni factions – ‘in a way that suggests weakness, signs of instability, and uncontrolled blowback’; and that the ‘isolation of Syria’ should be encouraged through US support of the National Salvation Front, led by Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian vice president whose government-in-exile in Riyadh was sponsored by the Saudis and the Muslim Brotherhood. Another 2006 cable showed that the embassy had spent $5 million financing dissidents who ran as independent candidates for the People’s Assembly; the payments were kept up even after it became clear that Syrian intelligence knew what was going on. A 2010 cable warned that funding for a London-based television network run by a Syrian opposition group would be viewed by the Syrian government ‘as a covert and hostile gesture toward the regime’. 

But there is also a parallel history of shadowy co-operation between Syria and the US during the same period. The two countries collaborated against al-Qaida, their common enemy. A longtime consultant to the Joint Special Operations Command said that, after 9/11, ‘Bashar was, for years, extremely helpful to us while, in my view, we were churlish in return, and clumsy in our use of the gold he gave us. That quiet co-operation continued among some elements, even after the [Bush administration’s] decision to vilify him.’ In 2002 Assad authorised Syrian intelligence to turn over hundreds of internal files on the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria and Germany. Later that year, Syrian intelligence foiled an attack by al-Qaida on the headquarters of the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, and Assad agreed to provide the CIA with the name of a vital al-Qaida informant. In violation of this agreement, the CIA contacted the informant directly; he rejected the approach, and broke off relations with his Syrian handlers. Assad also secretly turned over to the US relatives of Saddam Hussein who had sought refuge in Syria, and – like America’s allies in Jordan, Egypt, Thailand and elsewhere – tortured suspected terrorists for the CIA in a Damascus prison.

Which is why when Obama visits for his pay off trip to John Key for Key’s service to the Corporate hegemony, we should protest loud and clear that NZ resents and condemns America’s foreign policy which helps ignite and grow the very grievances that turn people to extremism.

Especially when the military industrial complex decides foreign policy for itself…

A new report by the Pulitzer-winning veteran journalist Seymour Hersh says the Joint Chiefs of Staff has indirectly supported Bashar al-Assad in an effort to help him defeat jihadist groups

Look at American support for Saudi Arabia. After executing 47 people at a time, including a Shiite Cleric to inflame Iran, NZ and America should be using its position on the Security Council to demand Saudi Arabia are removed from the UN Human Rights Council

By subjugating women, trampling religious freedom, oppressing minorities, and imprisoning innocent human rights activist and blogger Raif Badawi, Saudi Arabia demonstrates why the U.N. should NEVER have elected this oppressive regime to its Human Rights Council.

And it should never have placed Saudi Arabia at the head of the committee  that selects UN human rights experts. For Saudi Arabia to decide who will be an investigator on violence against women or arbitrary detention is like asking the foxes to guard the chickens.

Article 8 of the council’s founding resolution provides that member states can be removed for gross and systematic violations of human rights. More than ever, it’s time to finally remove Saudi Arabia. 

…but what are we doing? In NZ we are trying to bribe a Saudi businessmen to get a free trade deal with Saudi Arabia and America is attempting to have its cake, eat it, steal everyone else’s cake, eat that too, shoot everyone at the party and then sue their families for the blood stains

The four core elements of Obama’s Syria policy remain intact today: an insistence that Assad must go; that no anti-IS coalition with Russia is possible; that Turkey is a steadfast ally in the war against terrorism; and that there really are significant moderate opposition forces for the US to support. The Paris attacks on 13 November that killed 130 people did not change the White House’s public stance, although many European leaders, including François Hollande, advocated greater co-operation with Russia and agreed to co-ordinate more closely with its air force; there was also talk of the need to be more flexible about the timing of Assad’s exit from power. On 24 November, Hollande flew to Washington to discuss how France and the US could collaborate more closely in the fight against Islamic State. At a joint press conference at the White House, Obama said he and Hollande had agreed that ‘Russia’s strikes against the moderate opposition only bolster the Assad regime, whose brutality has helped to fuel the rise’ of IS. Hollande didn’t go that far but he said that the diplomatic process in Vienna would ‘lead to Bashar al-Assad’s departure … a government of unity is required.’ The press conference failed to deal with the far more urgent impasse between the two men on the matter of Erdoğan. Obama defended Turkey’s right to defend its borders; Hollande said it was ‘a matter of urgency’ for Turkey to take action against terrorists. The JCS adviser told me that one of Hollande’s main goals in flying to Washington had been to try to persuade Obama to join the EU in a mutual declaration of war against Islamic State. Obama said no. The Europeans had pointedly not gone to Nato, to which Turkey belongs, for such a declaration. ‘Turkey is the problem,’ the JCS adviser said.

If the West wants to stop extremism, perhaps we should stop funding it first.


  1. Surely no one expects anything other than deceit and warmongering from a Clinton. Deceit and warmongering have been family policy for decades, and their willingness to lie and is and promote wars (and serve the real ‘powers that be’) was the reason the Clintons were elevated to power in the first place.

    It used to be called the military-industrial complex but after Bill Clinton’s trashing of financial regulations it became known as the military-industrial-financial complex.

    And that’s why Hi-Liar will probably be put into power, whoever the ordinary people of America may actually support.

    It’s all a corrupt puppet show.

  2. “When Obama visits for his pay off trip to John Key for Key’s service to the Corporate hegemony, we should protest loud and clear that NZ resents and condemns America’s foreign policy”

    Yes Martyn, as perhaps there will by then be an all out war over in the middle east, judging by the serious rifts now developing inside the countries of that region, Syria, Libya, Turkey, Ethiopia, with Iran flexing it’s mussels, and Saudi Arabia’s clear part in fuelling the unrest there who just happens to be Jonkeys partner also!

    This may cause our dear leader some issues that may be his undoing finally.

  3. Goodness! Who’d ‘a’ thought the ol’ USSR would ever be missed?

    I sure miss it now…

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:

    America was founded on genocide and was the place where the rubbish of Europe ended up. American ‘foriegn policy’, which is behind most of the misery and conflict of the 20th Century and beyond, is simply the exporting of its original genocide of ‘manifest destiny’ to the rest of the planet.

    And what they fail kill with their corporate/military industries with weapons will be killed by their generous helping of planetary pollution.

    Why on earth would you support cancer…

  4. These so called revelations are hardly new.
    It was obvious that the US and EU powers coverted the oil that Gaddafi was promising to China. That is what you expect from imperialist powers when they are competing for a vital resource such as oil.
    Does that mean that imperialism determined the fate of the Libyan revolution?
    The Libyan revolution won despite imperialist intervention. It got rid of Gaddafi’s dictatorial regime. There were excesses including the summary execution of black mercenaries by the rebels, and the summary execution of Gaddifi himself.
    These were know at the time and opposed by those supporting the revolution while at the same time criticising such excesses.
    But what Western revolutionaries would like to see happen and what happens when fighting a military dictatorship are two different things.
    Because the revolution won does not mean that suddenly the future is rosy. But talk of chaos and anarchy is stupid when killings are a fraction of downtown Chicago.

    It opens up the usual problems of revolutions. Counter-revolution by the old forces and new forces like the jihadists unleashed to destroy them.
    Internally the rivalry of tribal militias has so far been kept in check.
    But what is clear is that the popular masses are still in control. The militias will not agree to disarm until a national army exists that represents all their interests.
    They control the oil production and negotiate shares.
    The US/NATO bloc and Russia/China bloc have not been able to impose a regime to pump the oil for them.
    That is one reason that until now the US and Russia have intervened in Syria from behind the scenes. They intervene openly now to use the phoney war on terror against Daesh as a cover (haha) to bomb the rebels and their civilian supporters.
    The machinations of Clinton and her US power brokers is largely irrelevant to this situation because they failed in Libya and they will ultimately fail in Syria.
    The so called revelations are merely fuel for the imperialist left that is desperate to find ‘facts’ to prove that Arab and other MENA people are incapable of determining their own future without being dupes of the CIA or degenerating into Muslim ‘extremists’.
    This is the left that has benefited from generations of ‘democracy’ paid for by the blood of colonial peoples and suppressed by dictators like Gaddafi, Assad and Sisi.
    These people would not recognise a democratic revolution if they ran into it in a pub.
    The imperial left are liberals who gave up on revolution decades ago and who look to progressive dictators (eg Gaddafi) or big powers (eg Russia) to create a better world without having to get off the backsides.
    When reality social media shows up their conspiracies they have to look for new conspiracies to plug the gaps.
    Clinton’s emails don’t tell us anything we don’t already know and fuck all about the reality of revolutions.

    • Actually I think those emails tell us how revolutions pretty very often really work.

      Whether it was the Venetian aligned power brokers behind the parliamentary forces in the English civil war, the free masonic structures of the bourgeois forces in the French and American revolutions, to the British sponsorship in the 19th century of Mazzini and Garibaldi’s ‘Young Italy’ movement, and their encouragement of People’s Will, Young Poland, the Hungarian Anarchists and so on – these were in fact British intelligence operations designed to destabilise the Russian and Austro-Hungarian empires so that Russia would be too weak to threaten British India, and Austria-Hungary would be too weak to combine with Germany to produce a land army which would outmatch the entente cordiale.

      Then of course we have our friend Lenin, whose coup d’etat in ’17 was a German intelligence operation inspired by Britain’s 19th century astroturfing of the nationalist and anarchist movements of the 19th century, and to the same ends – to remove a massive land army from the strategic equation. Similar speculation with the Americans and their asset Chairman Mao abound, since returned to China in the wake of the Yale years, which he seems to have spent within the Skull and Bones milieu – which may explain why the ambassadors appointed by the Americans have always been bonesmen.

      In all these cases, there was a genuine social movement there, but it only got to the point of revolution when manipulated into doing so and financed accordingly by intelligence services looking to weaken an opponent for geopolitical ends. Heads the oligarchy wins, tails the people lose.

      • Cemetery you prove my point.
        Those who write off the masses as no more than the pawns of Big Power spies, cannot explain the failure of these conspiracies.
        Britain and France who owned most of Russia’s industry did not plan that Lenin would come to power and expropriate their assets.
        Hence the invasion of 7 armies that lost the civil war to the Red Army creating ‘communism’ as the thorn in the side of imperialism.
        They also risked a German revolution that was stopped no thanks to the Entente whose greed drove the masses to insurrection but to German social democracy bought off by the German ruling class to kill the leaders and suppress the armed revolution.
        The US didn’t bank on the Chinese revolution kicking out both imperialism and the national bourgeoisie.
        And it certainly didnt plan for Russia and China emerging from defeat in the Cold War to become rivals to US hegemony.
        For all its spies the US has lost every war it fought since Vietnam.
        There is only so much that the spies of the Great Powers can do and sooner or later they are powerless in the face of the armed masses who lose their ‘fear’.
        The imperialist 1% are only in power because they hire a praetorian guard of spies and mercenaries.
        Instead of cynically bemoaning that fact as some helpless spectator why not recognise that the working masses will always overshoot the plans of their ‘masters’ when they have nothing to lose but their chains.
        One of those chains is the imperialist left bought off by the comforts of civilisation to write off the masses as history’ losers.

        • Oh I don’t write off the masses, I simply observe that those who nominate themselves as their leaders are the ones who are usually outwitted by the oligarchy.

          “Britain and France who owned most of Russia’s industry did not plan that Lenin would come to power and expropriate their assets.”

          Correct, which is why the Royal Marines were sent to briefly occupy Archangelsk before withdrawing when they realised that the White Army was as useless as it had been before the rank and file joined the Revolution. Germany however pulled it off, and had no reason to worry about the outcome of the Revolution – they had so soundly defeated the Tsar’s army that they comfortably had the measure of Russian capability regardless of what happened next. That’s why Trotsky accepted an armistice with Germany which lost the Soviet Union almost a million square miles of territory and close to a third of the population of the new Russian SSR, along with most of the aforementioned industial base, which ended up in the hands of Germany – the Revolution’s sponsor. Oligarchs are a dangerous foe.

          “The US didn’t bank on the Chinese revolution kicking out both imperialism and the national bourgeoisie.”

          Didn’t they? I would agree that Eisenhower didn’t, and McArthur too. But the Yale clique wanted this, and their old college buddy Mao was very easily turned. These guys outwitted Eisenhower from the start, that was the whole point of his ‘military industrial complex’ speech as a parting shot. The aim for the Wall St Yankees was the destruction of Sun Yat Sen because he had an agenda of unaligned geopolitics and a national development agenda. Even during Ike’s time, a report from the American forces supporting the Kuomintang pointed out that they were hopelessly corrupt, incompetent, and on the take. When they gave them money, it was embezzled. When they gave them supplies, they were not issued to troops but instead sold either to provincial gansters or to Mao’s agents. When Henry Kissinger, Winston Lord, and George Bush got the opportunity, they booted the KMT off the UN security council in favour of the PRC because they already had a deal on China as a hedge against the USSR.

          “And it certainly didnt plan for Russia and China emerging from defeat in the Cold War to become rivals to US hegemony.”

          Here I’m close to the same opinion – Yeltsin is the model they wanted, a useful idiot who made a great power into, as Condi Rice put it, “Upper Volta with nukes”. China has proven harder to control than they thought, but as we see at the moment, the American strategy has created an inter-dependence. China is trying to escape that with the New Silk Road project, and you’ll no doubt have observed that the USA only started to have a problem with China when they began to pursue energy independence and attempted to transition away from being an economy reliant on US consumers for prosperity. The volume of trans-Pacific trade overtook that of trans-Atlantic trade over 30 years ago. The Americans thought they had a deal, and this has come unstuck. But when you’re dealing with a vicious plutocracy like the combined Anglo-American oligarchs have become, a thorn in the side is not yet a dagger in the throat. My money would however be on Putin being more of a threat than China, simply because of the S-500 missile system. This leads of course to a separate debate too, of whether the BRICs represent a genuine alternative, or whether they are simply a new plutocracy in waiting. One must be careful in that sense.

          “The imperialist 1% are only in power because they hire a praetorian guard of spies and mercenaries.”

          This, my friend, is the point – those spies and mercenaries have successfully owned the (usually self-appointed & bourgeois) leadership/wannabe vanguardists of every major revolution in order to ensure that the country they come to power in remains backward and/or becomes a thorn in the side of an enemy, or a straw enemy to ensure soaring military budgets and an atmosphere of fear at home, allowing the oligarchy to operate as they please. Time is on the side of these folks, they weave their webs patiently, passing the torch between generations in institutional power, while the rest of us live out our short lives.

          “Instead of cynically bemoaning that fact as some helpless spectator why not recognise that the working masses will always overshoot the plans of their ‘masters’ when they have nothing to lose but their chains. One of those chains is the imperialist left bought off by the comforts of civilisation to write off the masses as history’ losers.”

          This is true so long as they realise that the self appointed ‘vanguard’ will often simply be another link in that chain. But I disagree with the end. Until the masses realise that we are history’s losers, and take a stern look at why, nothing is likely to change. Once the Revolution is successful, the first thing it should do is kill the vanguardists who led it – on the weight of historical evidence, the new boss is more than likely to be doing the work of the old one.

  5. Like all good citizens of the world we are treated like mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed on bullshit.

    Go back to the US overthrow of Prime Minster Mossadegh of Iran in 1953, very belatedly acknowledged by the CIA as their dirty work, or President Diem in South Vietnam in 1963, again at the behest of the US government or Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi, (and those are the high-profile leaders), the result is the same, anarchy, the disintergration of anything resembling a civilised society, a total lack of understanding of what is happening in each respective country and a total lack of an alternative followed by non stop bloodshed. And, as it appears, a vile lust for power and money.

    The “Arab Spring” looks more and more like another US funded, manufactured mess for reasons best known only to the leaders and government politicians of the countries now involved. And apparently according to Key we should “show some guts” and join up to crush the byproduct of it,”because we are in the club”.

    Because NZ now has an opaque government whose motivations remain a mystery, run by a thoroughly untrustworthy multi millionare leader who comes from an equally odious banking background we are expected to leave our brains at home and contribute further to the cesspool that has been created.

    Right now we badly need a decent honest government accompanied by a similarly honest thinking leader who will walk away from the madness created by our so-called allies and say enough is enough and tell the world exactly why we think that way.

  6. Whilst I’m certainly no fan of ‘Billary’, in the end NATO had little choice but to bomb Gaddafi out of office because their hand was forced.

    He’d started mass killings to retain power and showed every intention of continuing this genocide.

    If they hadn’t stepped in, no doubt you wingnuts would now be droning on about how NATO had failed to come to the aid of Libyans and allow Gaddafi to slaughter them all.

    Libya was always going to unravel one way or another

    • It’s a sad state of affairs when Gaddafi, Saddam, and Assad seem to be better options than what we have now.

      I don’t think you know what your talking about my son

    • Sure Gaddafi was a tyrant but he was a Western backed tyrant untill he went roque just like Saddam did. So you condemn mass killings Andrew? Are these mass killings, invasions and occupations by all foreign nations or only those your historical amnesia allows you to condemn? Im guessing you believe due to indoctrination the West always invades,bombs and murders for purely benign purposes? The R2P doctrine?
      Lets sell them the weapons, arm some rebel factions with more weapons, orchestrate a coup, let them start to kill each other then we will bomb them and kill them to save them from themselves and of course save the world. Its is a method used by the West namely the USA since Pago Pago to present day Andrew, you need to wake the fuck up.
      Or perhaps your dividend from the BAE and Ratheon shares you own is paying off ?
      Please clarify how exactly Libya was going to unravel before Western intervention destroyed the lives of the Libyan people?

  7. The USA will be back to poking their noses into every other countries business if either Clinton or that other goon who blows his own Trump (et) get elected.

    China is not going to be pushed around and Putin has let it known that he will not tolerate America getting pushy either.

    So interesting times ahead for sure.

  8. We can see the arrogant US policy at work in relation to North Korea as well. The media is full of how they may have exploded a hydrogen bomb but completely neglects to mention that in January 2015 North Korea offered to shut down its nuclear programme if the USA and South Korea would halt their annual joint war games. THe USA refused. They are only interested in subjugating a nation on their terms so they can install a puppet regime and further threaten China and Russia. North Korea, like Libya under Gaddafi, has a central bank independent of the western banking system. Gaddafi oversaw the most prosperous country in Africa and had plans to trade oil in a gold backed Dinar. This is why he was killed resulting in that loathsome creature Hillary Clinton attempting to make a memorable quote for prosterity.
    i.e “We came We saw He died. heh heh heh.”
    The first things done in the New libya were the theft of the country’s gold and the establishment of a US compliant central bank
    More reading on North Korea and why they hold on to their nukes.

  9. When you say “Black Libyans”, I assume you mean the Nubians from the south of the country?
    If so, there is a long history of the Nubians acting as paid mercenaries for other armies. They fought for the Carthaginians, the Romans and the Egyptians at various times.
    Mercenaries always get the worst of it if the side for which they are fighting loses and this appears to be the case here too.
    Not that it excuses any of the powers involved, though.
    The US and Britain wanted Gaddafi out at any cost and didn’t give much thought to what would happen afterwards. Seems they still haven’t learned their lesson.

  10. You all wail and moan because the world is a mess but what you don’t offer is any solutions.

    History: It’s just one intractable mess after another. Best you all get used to it.

    We in the free world have had to bite our lips for decades now because a bunch of middle eastern tyrants had us by the balls. If we wanted their oil we had to put up with their appalling behaviour.

    We can only hope that era is slowly drawing to a close thanks to the development of alternatives to fossil fuels. The sooner the better!

    Meanwhile the middle east is still stuck somewhere in the 14th century but armed with modern weapons. It’s probably going to get even messier before it’s over.

    If I was living in Europe I’d want to build a very strong wall between us and them to prevent them infecting and destroying my cultural too.

Comments are closed.