Obama praises rigged Libyan elections - Ignores the rape and genocide of black Libya

Republicans have never met a war they didn't like .. but I also recognize that war and genocide are not issues that democrats and and Obama supporters even want to talk about these days. Particularly those who screamed at the top of their lungs when Bush was doing it.

Out of sight .. out of mind.

You may not want to read this ..

The 2012 Libyan Election Farce

All candidates are neo-imperial candidates – Wall Street proxy Jibril of “National Forces Alliance” presumed winner.
by Tony Cartalucci

July 9, 2012 – Ideally the West would like to install “liberal” pro-globalist candidates into power in each of the nations it has destabilized and destroyed during its premeditated, engineered “Arab Spring.” In the case of Egypt where Mohammed ElBaradei was sufficiently exposed and his presidential aspirations effectively derailed, the West’s Muslim Brotherhood proxies made for a viable second option.

In Libya, a similar scenario has unfolded with two tiers of Western proxies poised to take power – pro-globalist technocrats like US-educated Mahmoud Jibril (Gibril) Elwarfally’s National Forces Alliance, and of course NATO’s terrorist proxies within the Muslim Brotherhood along with Al Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) warlords like Abdul Hakim Belhaj.

In Egypt where relative economic and social stability returned after the brief chaos and violence of the early 2011 protests, the alternative media was able to sufficiently expose and disrupt “liberal” candidate ElBaradei. In Libya, the nation has been plunged into nationwide lawlessness, violence, and sweeping genocide by sectarian extremists, tribal confrontations, and militant opportunists. The people of Libya have been too busy defending themselves and desperately fighting for their own immediate survival to function as a nation-state, let alone scrutinize candidates politically before the farcical Western-hyped elections.

In other words, no matter who wins the so-called elections in war-torn Libya, the West has ensured all the candidates are loyal proxies, and will most assuredly have one of these proxies in place to guide Libya according to its own agenda rather than that of the Libyan people.

The New York Times has already proclaimed in its article, “Party Led by Pro-Western Official Claims Lead in Libya,” that Jibril’s party is the likely winner. Readers might recall that in May of 2011, Jibril had made a pilgrimage back to the United States where he received his higher education and spent years teaching in Pittsburgh, to speak before the corporate-financier funded Brookings Institution (Brookings page here) about turning Libya into a “lake” to develop the skills of Africans to serve the needs of markets in the European Union.

Jibril will serve not as an “elected representative” of the Libyan people, but as a technocratic proxy implementing not only the West’s designs for Libya, but carrying out its role in recolonizing and exploiting both the vast populations and resources of the entire African continent. Jibril, or whoever the West finally installs into power will not only carry out this agenda, they will do so under the guise of a “democratic mandate.” While impressionable and/or duplicitous people the world over applaud Libya’s elections, they are but the most superficial attempt to spin NATO’s genocidal destruction of one of the most developed nations in Africa.

And despite these elections, Libya will remain largely lawless and a terrorist safe-haven by design so that it may continue serving its purpose as a weapons, fighter, and cash hub for NATO militant proxies throughout the region, particularly verses Syria.

Libya’s “transitional government” led by Western big oil representative Abdurrahim el-Keib had already played a significant role in carrying out Western designs against other geopolitical targets throughout North Africa and the Middle East, including Mali and Syria where Libya has shipped both weapons and fighters to augment NATO-backed terrorists seeking to overthrow these targeted governments. Libya under el-Keib has also lent significant political support to the West’s Arab World agenda. Along with the government of Tunisia – led at the time by US funded “activist” Moncef Marzouki, Libya had withdrawn recognition of Syria’s government. The US-installed Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has likewise backed Western designs throughout the region, most recently backing US calls for intervention in Syria.

What the uninformed public believes it is seeing is a transition to “democracy” across the Arab World and each of these nations joining together to ensure such a transition in remaining “dictatorships” takes place. It might be mistakenly believed then that the United States is merely “reacting” to this unfolding paradigm in a supportive capacity.

What has happened in reality is that the so-called “Arab Spring” was planned by the West as early as 2008 with activists literally flown to the United States to receive training, funding, and equipment with which to return to their home countries and begin a campaign of coordinated destabilization. It was under this cover of seemingly legitimate peaceful protesting that more violent elements, organized as early as 2007 or even earlier (as was the case in Libya), began violently overthrowing regimes targeted, according to US Army General Wesley Clark, as early as 1991, with a complete list documented as early as 2001. This list, provided during General Clark’s talk at the Commonwealth Club of California, October 3, 2007, included seven nations slated by the Pentagon for destabilization and destruction: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.
http://deadlinelive.info/2012/07/08/the-2012-libyan-election-farce/
 
I am opposed to most wars. The US should mind its own fucking business. I opposed Iraq and Libya. I mostly opposed Afghanistan; we should have gone after Al Qaeda, but we shouldn't have messed with nation building.

However, most liberals jumped on the Libya bandwagon rather quickly, and even praised Obama for it. I remember Jarod having Obamagasms all over the message board when we went into Libya. It seems like when a Democrat is in office, Republican wars = bad, Democrat wars = good. It is also true that Republicans criticized Obama for invading Libya, after toeing the party line and supporting Vietraq for eight fucking years. Partisan hypocrisy is evident on both sides of the aisle.

I wouldn't expect many constructive responses to this thread, however. Conservatives will agree only because they hate Obama, not because they are principled. Liberals will probably ignore it altogether.
 
I am opposed to most wars. The US should mind its own fucking business. I opposed Iraq and Libya. I mostly opposed Afghanistan; we should have gone after Al Qaeda, but we shouldn't have messed with nation building.

However, most liberals jumped on the Libya bandwagon rather quickly, and even praised Obama for it. I remember Jarod having Obamagasms all over the message board when we went into Libya. It seems like when a Democrat is in office, Republican wars = bad, Democrat wars = good. It is also true that Republicans criticized Obama for invading Libya, after toeing the party line and supporting Vietraq for eight fucking years. Partisan hypocrisy is evident on both sides of the aisle.

I wouldn't expect many constructive responses to this thread, however. Conservatives will agree only because they hate Obama, not because they are principled. Liberals will probably ignore it altogether.

I agree with you .. and I don't expect many responses from either side because the truth of what we are is undeniable.

I find both sides seriously unprincipled.
 
I am opposed to most wars. The US should mind its own fucking business. I opposed Iraq and Libya. I mostly opposed Afghanistan; we should have gone after Al Qaeda, but we shouldn't have messed with nation building.

However, most liberals jumped on the Libya bandwagon rather quickly, and even praised Obama for it. I remember Jarod having Obamagasms all over the message board when we went into Libya. It seems like when a Democrat is in office, Republican wars = bad, Democrat wars = good. It is also true that Republicans criticized Obama for invading Libya, after toeing the party line and supporting Vietraq for eight fucking years. Partisan hypocrisy is evident on both sides of the aisle.

I wouldn't expect many constructive responses to this thread, however. Conservatives will agree only because they hate Obama, not because they are principled. Liberals will probably ignore it altogether.

I've been against every conflict in my lifetime, except for Afghanistan - which I of course regret supporting now.

What you say may be true of some on the board, but it's been my experience that people who are anti-war are anti-war regardless of who is Prez. There were plenty of liberals who opposed Libya.
 
I've been against every conflict in my lifetime, except for Afghanistan - which I of course regret supporting now.

What you say may be true of some on the board, but it's been my experience that people who are anti-war are anti-war regardless of who is Prez. There were plenty of liberals who opposed Libya.

Where are they?

How much of the liberal press even talks about the horrors we've committed there?

Without question they would all be up-front and vocal if a republican was in office.

Better question: Where are the American people of all stripes in questioning how it is that WE are using Al Queda to topple nations?

Where is the critical thinking?
 
Where are they?

How much of the liberal press even talks about the horrors we've committed there?

Without question they would all be up-front and vocal if a republican was in office.

Better question: Where are the American people of all stripes in questioning how it is that WE are using Al Queda to topple nations?

Where is the critical thinking?


BAC - One can oppose the Libya intervention without buying what you're selling about it.
 
Where are they?

How much of the liberal press even talks about the horrors we've committed there?

Without question they would all be up-front and vocal if a republican was in office.

Better question: Where are the American people of all stripes in questioning how it is that WE are using Al Queda to topple nations?

Where is the critical thinking?

I've seen 'em. Code Pink, the locals I saw all through the Iraq War, whoever - like I said, if people are anti-war, they tend to be anti-war.

I've had it w/ the liberal media conspiracy thing. I see plenty of war-related stories, still to this day, even w/ war fatigue having gripped this country for years now. The media prints what sells - not what supports a politician. They want to make money.
 
BAC - One can oppose the Libya intervention without buying what you're selling about it.

They don't buy it because their head is in the sand. They don't want to buy it because it demonstrates their own hypocrisy.

Respectfully, I defy you to challenge what I've said about Libya. The proof of what we've done is GLARINGLY obvious to anyone who cares to seek the truth.

One can claim to be against the Libya intervention and anything else. But humanity requires more than claims my brother.
 
I guess my question to people who are mad at Obama over Libya is this: What should he have done about the old regime, and what it was doing to the people?
 
I've seen 'em. Code Pink, the locals I saw all through the Iraq War, whoever - like I said, if people are anti-war, they tend to be anti-war.

I've had it w/ the liberal media conspiracy thing. I see plenty of war-related stories, still to this day, even w/ war fatigue having gripped this country for years now. The media prints what sells - not what supports a politician. They want to make money.

I agree if people are truly antiwar .. but most are anti-Bush-war or anti<insert republican>war.

What the anti-republican-war crowd puts up today pales in comparison to what they did and would be doing if a republican was in office.

It's called conditioning .. and today, democrats are conditioned to accept a whole lot of shit they would be screaming at the top of their lungs about if Romney was doing it .. including killing American citizens without trial.
 
I've seen 'em. Code Pink, the locals I saw all through the Iraq War, whoever - like I said, if people are anti-war, they tend to be anti-war.

I've had it w/ the liberal media conspiracy thing. I see plenty of war-related stories, still to this day, even w/ war fatigue having gripped this country for years now. The media prints what sells - not what supports a politician. They want to make money.

Of course you saw them all through the Iraq1 war, a Republican was president then, you hack.....thats the point bac was making....

BAC may be socialist/liberal, but hes no lying hack that is blind to the bias, like you are.

He tells it like it, no matter whose ox is getting gored.
 
I guess my question to people who are mad at Obama over Libya is this: What should he have done about the old regime, and what it was doing to the people?

Many socialists argued that Gaddafi was a good leader. I don't know whether BAC falls into that category, but I remember reading articles on workers.org in support of Gaddafi. It's pretty twisted. But at the end of the day, I don't think intervening there will make much difference. Libya will now plunge into dark ages with the rest of the middle east.
 
I guess my question to people who are mad at Obama over Libya is this: What should he have done about the old regime, and what it was doing to the people?

Here is what he was doing to his people ..


American seniors would have an orgasm with dreams of such assistance from their government.

Cradle-to-grave free healthcare and education for all his people.

Libya had no national debt or any Rothschild bank.

Now they have both.
 
Last edited:
Of course you saw them all through the Iraq1 war, a Republican was president then, you hack.....thats the point bac was making....

BAC may be socialist/liberal, but hes no lying hack that is blind to the bias, like you are.

He tells it like it, no matter whose ox is getting gored.

Too bad - I was in the middle of an intelligent conversation, when idiot has to step in, misread what I said & spew his usual garbage.

I said I'm seeing the same people today, idiot.

Spare us your blind hackery. Naturally, you were against Libya, but think Iraq was one of the bestest things ever. Idiot.
 
That is true. I would fall into that camp. I don't believe the US is committing genocide in Libya; I simply don't think we had a legitimate reason to be there.

The truth awaits you brother.

You don't "believe" .. but you cannot back that up. I can back up the truth.

Why would you believe that the US is any different now than when we attacked Iraq or Vietnam?
 
I am opposed to most wars. The US should mind its own fucking business. I opposed Iraq and Libya. I mostly opposed Afghanistan; we should have gone after Al Qaeda, but we shouldn't have messed with nation building.

However, most liberals jumped on the Libya bandwagon rather quickly, and even praised Obama for it. I remember Jarod having Obamagasms all over the message board when we went into Libya. It seems like when a Democrat is in office, Republican wars = bad, Democrat wars = good. It is also true that Republicans criticized Obama for invading Libya, after toeing the party line and supporting Vietraq for eight fucking years. Partisan hypocrisy is evident on both sides of the aisle.

I wouldn't expect many constructive responses to this thread, however. Conservatives will agree only because they hate Obama, not because they are principled. Liberals will probably ignore it altogether.

Not I.
 
Here is what he was doing to his people ..


American seniors would have an orgasm with dreams of such assistance from their government.

Cradle-to-grave free healthcare and education for all his people.

Libya had no national debt or any Rothschild bank.

Now they have both.

All of those things are pretty easy to have in an oil-producing state. It sounds like the African version of Norway. Either way, it doesn't make up for the fact that Gaddafi's regime suppressed dissent with torture and murder...
 
The only "liberal" here I remember supporting Libya was Jarod and I would call him a Democrat not a liberal. There may be others but I don't recall.
 
Back
Top