How could this possibly go wrong -
One doesn't exaclty have to think very long or hard to figure out how this situation will progress. Just like it is not in the best interests (read profit) of the banksters to have a stable economy, it is not in the interests of the makers of war to have stable governments. Therefore they have a conflict of interest when it comes to promoting 'policy'. Indeed it is their policy to generate as much disturbance as possible, many times funding both sides of a conflict to double their profits. Aren't they generous?
In this situation, Gaddafi (A stooge) has promised to strike back at international targets. If this happens, this will be interpreted as an act of terrorism by the world governments. (But not one of war, well, because this is just a kinetic military action) Enraged, we demand that we put an end to the stooge before any more people are hurt. Of course, a government (and a central bank) are necessary to support this fledgling democracy. (Funny, I don't recall anyone voting) All of this results in a disenfranchised populace ruled by a colonially imposed governor that imposes sharia law. Blowback anyone?
Now someone please explain how this is better then Gaddafi?
NATO’s support for the Libyan Al-Qaeda cell known as Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which was declared a foreign terrorist organization by the US State Department in 2004, will provide the extremist group the opportunity to seize “a stew of deadly chemicals, raw nuclear material and some 30,000 shoulder-fired rockets”The Real Effect
Not only will the group have access to such weapons, it also “may become the real political power behind whatever regime is established once Gaddafi relinquish power,” according to a report in the Asian Tribune.
LIFG was also behind the 1996 attempt to assassinate Colonel Gaddafi, a plot hatched and funded by MI6. British intelligence, along with SAS soldiers, were also instrumental in directing the assault on Tripoli.
As we have previously highlighted, shortly after the start of the conflict in March, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the leader of the anti-Gaddafi rebel army, admitted that the rebel ranks include Al-Qaeda terrorists who have killed U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
One doesn't exaclty have to think very long or hard to figure out how this situation will progress. Just like it is not in the best interests (read profit) of the banksters to have a stable economy, it is not in the interests of the makers of war to have stable governments. Therefore they have a conflict of interest when it comes to promoting 'policy'. Indeed it is their policy to generate as much disturbance as possible, many times funding both sides of a conflict to double their profits. Aren't they generous?
In this situation, Gaddafi (A stooge) has promised to strike back at international targets. If this happens, this will be interpreted as an act of terrorism by the world governments. (But not one of war, well, because this is just a kinetic military action) Enraged, we demand that we put an end to the stooge before any more people are hurt. Of course, a government (and a central bank) are necessary to support this fledgling democracy. (Funny, I don't recall anyone voting) All of this results in a disenfranchised populace ruled by a colonially imposed governor that imposes sharia law. Blowback anyone?
Now someone please explain how this is better then Gaddafi?
No comments:
Post a Comment