Gaddafi Son Unhurt After Shooutout, Rebel Leaders Says

[Steely Dan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6ZZOmi-JJ0&feature=player_embedded#!

The Arab word for black is the same as for slave, which sums up the racism of Arab Muslims towards sub Saharan Africans. Yet more blowback from the Arab spring.

[koheesti]

there's so much fuss about creating the enemy picture, in this case Gadhaffi, by the bought MSM, that therfore of course, time will reveal the real motivation behind this hunt.

Fact is, Libya was debt free.

Education was free, and those who wanted to further their education that was not available got funded by the govt.

The government paid half for each car that was purchased.

Newly weds got $ 50.000.00 to buy a new home.

Health care was free and on a very high standard.

Overall, Libya had the highest living standard in Africa and was superior to many other first world Nations.

Loans were provided for 0% interest.

Those who wanted to do farming got the land, livestock and everything it takes to start a farm.

Price of oil was $0.14.

I also suggest you to read the green book. There's an English translation. Assuming that it was written by Saddam himself, he can't be that bad. With this reading you can make yourself a picture of his personality... click this link

Sounds like heaven! Why would the people revolt?

And I thought the Green Book was written by Gaddafi?

[Scott]

Koheesti: Obviously you haven't been taking notes. Libya was heaven. The people didn't revolt. This was a plot by the US to get their oil and to stop a currency that didn't yet exist.

[Ulysses G.]

There are a few on here who will applaud your perceptiveness in this matter.

[midas]

I don't believe a thing the West have been telling us about how evil Gadaffi is supposed to have been.

There are few real statesman in the world to compare with Nelson Mandela and as far as

I am concerned if he endorsed Gadaffi that's good enough for me.

" Mr Mandela acknowledged the Libyan leader's initiatives in seeking a solution to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, comparing these to his own efforts to resolve the Lockerbie dispute.

"We look forward with joy and anticipation to the full re-entry of Libya into the affairs of our continent and the world," the South African president said.

He was speaking at a reception in Cape Town to welcome Colonel Gaddafi, whom he described as "my brother leader".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/368124.stm

[Ulysses G.]

I'm not sure how much of a recommendation that is. Nelson Mandela was a convicted terrorist in his younger days, so he probably had a soft spot for Gadaffi.

[flying]

I'm not sure how much of a recommendation that is. Nelson Mandela was a convicted terrorist in his younger days, so he probably had a soft spot for Gadaffi.

The founding fathers of the USA would all be deemed Terrorist too.

[Steely Dan]

I don't normally subscribe that readily to conspiracy theories but the narrative we are expected to believe runs something like this. Gaddafi is a tyrant who when faced with revolt responds with great brutality causing NATO to step in to stop him and not Assad because that's different . Nobody knows exactly who the rebels are, some may be secular but many are clearly Al-Qaeda militants, what is for sure is that the tribal nature of Libya means there is no clear replacement to fill the power vacuum left by Gadaffi.

If the tyrant is removed then the various tribes will come to some agreement and out of gratitude to the west form some sort of Islam lite government with reformed militants and then like clockwork the oil starts flowing again, all with former Gadaffi sympathizers or Islamic extemists not sabotaging the oil infrastructure. Everything ends happily with the new Libyan democracy providing the blueprint for the Arab spring.

I think Gadaffi's utopia and fictional currency being thwarted by the Wall St illuminati sounds far less silly than the official narrative.

[Ulysses G.]

I'm not sure how much of a recommendation that is. Nelson Mandela was a convicted terrorist in his younger days, so he probably had a soft spot for Gadaffi.

The founding fathers of the USA would all be deemed Terrorist too.

Huh? I do not think so. I do not recall the founding fathers planting bombs in cafes and purposely targeting innocent men, women and children.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[siampolee]

Said founding fathers didn't do too bad at the ethnic cleansing of the original "Native Americans of the Indian Nations though. The Libyan revolt was engineered by sovereign states to secure their future oil supplies.

There was, and still is also the the fear that Gadaffi was about to start naming those sovereign states who covertly supported his regime.

That dirty linen is being aired now concerning a number of dubious acts of returning people to Libya, the supply of armaments etc etc.

The end result of this ''revolution'' will be the further reinforcement of a radical policy by Al Qaeda, there are many anti west factions working alongside each other in this conflict with aims that are not in line either with N.A.T.O. or its allies.

A very nasty genie is about to pop out of the bottle as time will show us which will indeed eclipse Gadaffis actions regarding the west.

[midas]

I'm not sure how much of a recommendation that is. Nelson Mandela was a convicted terrorist in his younger days, so he probably had a soft spot for Gadaffi.

Eugène Terre'Blanche was also a convicted terrorist but I don't think Gaddafi had a soft spot for him ?

[Scott]

Let's stay on the topic. Who was/wasn't a terrorist in 1700's in America or elsewhere is not particularly relevant.

[Wallaby]

According to the latest reports the US and the UK govts didn't seem to have an issue with Gaddafi either.

[kerryk]

According to the latest reports the US and the UK govts didn't seem to have an issue with Gaddafi either.

Didn't the US bomb Gaddafi's house a while back?

[chuckd]

According to the latest reports the US and the UK govts didn't seem to have an issue with Gaddafi either.

Didn't the US bomb Gaddafi's house a while back?

The US bombed Tripoli in 1986 in retaliation for a terrorist attack in Berlin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Libya_(1986)

[flying]

Technically NATO bombed his house...but yes bombed they did.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382341/Libya-Nato-strikes-kill-Gaddafis-son-grandchildren.html

[maidu]

This morning's news reported a heavily armed (but not armored) convoy of vehicles fleeing the last loyalist town - and heading south, probably at speed. In to Niger and probably beyond.

My question is: If the rebel forces have such large numbers and are in possession of bunches of weapons, why didn't they put a perimeter around that last town? Are they even laying siege to it, or are they just on its north approach making noise? Ok, maybe they want Gaddafi to split. Actually, an interview with a Libyan who is supposed to know these things, claimed Gaddafi is still holed up in that last town. Maybe so, but I doubt it. I picture him dressing up like an old lady and waddling out somehow.

.....and the Gaddafi family was able to flee to Algeria a week earlier. Again, don't the rebels have any discipline and/or tactics? ....enough to to guard some roads? Or perhaps they're just relieved to let the scoundrels flee with their gold bars and suitcases full of cash. Reminds me of right after the coup, about 9 years ago, when Thaksin's wife and kids were allowed to split with a truckload of large stuffed suitcases. No checks, no nothing. just walked right through the airport and got on the plane. They could have been carrying out priceless Buddhist sculptures, but we'll never know. The super rich don't have to play by the same rules as us common folk.