Libyan rebels move into Tripoli...

Maybe I didn't state it well.. but there is NO reason to assume that all government employees are Khadafi loyalists.. as we did in Iraq.

A bit of history.. When Ibn Saud defeated the Rasheed and drove them away.. he waited a year and invited them back for a pow wow..

They were able administrators.. He asked them to take positions in his ministry . ... The options was death or banishment.

They accepted.. .. so he married their daughters.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

 

Besides the 27 million U.S. dollars he sent yesrterday to the Libyan Rebels.

I'm just waiting to see how large a check Obama will stroke, and send as a good will jesture too try earn their Muslim love and trust.

 

Obama doesn't have to stroke a check.. The US and Europeans froze Khadafi's assets so that money will be returned to the Libyans .. and oil revenues will be flowing from the six companies operating in Libya within six months.

 

Originally posted by Snakestretcher:

Yeah, Libyan government propaganda is pretty hysterical I agree.

There, there Snakestretcher. Propaganda works both ways, something someone as two-faced as you should know. Read this and stop fuming:



NATO's "democratic" terrorists reject free elections for Libya
17.06.2011
NATO attacks hotel while the Libyan government makes peace offer




No shortage of Ghaddafi supportersRepresentatives of the Libyan government and the opposition met on Thursday (16th) to discuss the crisis, said Mikhail Marguelov, diplomat sent to the country by Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. Meanwhile, the rebels and U.S. officials said they will not accept the election campaign proposed by the Libyan leader's son, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi.

Marguelov said the Tripoli authorities admitted they were in "direct contact" with the National Transitional Council (NTC), which represents the opposition against the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

The Russian remained for several hours in the Libyan capital, in dialogue with Prime Minister Baghdadi al-Mahmoudi, and the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, to articulate a mediation of the Kremlin to establish a ceasefire pact and further negotiations with the rebels.

According to the Russian, "the prime minister said that the last round of negotiations had taken place in Paris on Wednesday (15th)," with the knowledge of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, according to the diplomat.

Both Al-Mahmoudi and Marguelov agree that the dialogue with the Libyan government does not include discussion on the exit of Gaddafi from power. "This is an inviolable border," explained the Prime Minister while rejecting the pressures and conditions the West is trying to impose on Libya.

0SharePrint version
Font Size
Send to friend
The Russian envoy was in Benghazi last week, meeting with terrorist leaders of the NTC, and declared, before arriving in Tripoli, that he believes that the Libyan opposition does not desire the death of Gaddafi.


democratic unarmed darlings of NATO know they would lose an electionLibyan television reported the stay of the Russian envoy and his evidence on the NATO air bombings, which hit in 44 attack missions, of which only 13 were supposedly military targets.

Foreign correspondents affirm that one of the places destroyed was the Wanzirik Hotel, situated in the center of the capital, near the complex of Bab al-Aziziya - where Gaddafi used to reside - causing at least 12 civilian casualties.

On the other hand, the local press reprinted excerpts from an interview with Saif al-Islam Gaddafi to an Italian newspaper in which the son of the Libyan leader said his government would accept elections in a period of three months or up to the end of 2011.

Saif expressed the conviction that his father would be victorious in any vote because "He is very popular in the country." He even proposed that these hypothetical polls be monitored by international authorities in order to put an end to the armed clashes.

"The European Union, the African Union, the United Nations or even NATO can monitor the voting process," said Saif, who also defended a new constitution and independence for the media.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, after being informed of the interview, the U.S. backed terrorist rebels and U.S. officials said they will not accept the election campaign proposed by Saif.

In other words, it's all a farce, a scam, total utter lies and deception from beginning to end. NATO and their terrorist cronies are just interested in stealing everything from the Libyan people, using Libya as a doorway to Africa to colonize the entire continent once again and establish a base of operations.

They know they can NEVER win a free and democratic election in Libya. Their end game is to supplant the African Union (free movement of people and goods, affordable public services for all Africans) by AFRICOM.

NATO will not accept the elections and the terrorists will not support the elections for one simple reason: they know clearly that Gaddafi would win and this gives legitimacy to his Government and totally removes any iota of right and reason NATO claimed to have for their terrorist imperialist assaults on Libya.

They are nothing but totally corrupt, rotten, dishonest and most of all genocidal murderers. May their ugly, rotten black souls be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed to hell and may they get sent there as soon as possible.

As has been said before in this space, they are truce breakers and cannot be trusted, not under any circumstances whatsoever. They make Hitler and his SS look like Mother Theresa and a choir of singing nuns.

Source: Prensa Latina

　

Translated from the Portuguese version and appended by:

Lisa Karpova

Pravda.Ru


Hence the Libyan gov't was by all means inclined to seeking a democratic solution to this crisis. Seems they were confident about their chances of victory in popular elections because given a choice between the incumbant and the challengers, the Libyan people would probably have elected the incumbants, since they represented a safer and more independent course in politics. The NATO would have none of it, because as their representatives had stated, they wanted to see new political factions in Libya. So this means that the incumbants be kicked out, banned from any political participation, whereas any subsequent political process would take place b/w the rebel factions allied to NATO. If NATO wants to put a new face on Libyan politics, they should ban equally any political groupings tied both to Ghaddafi and the rebels. Otherwise this whole thing stinks of hypocricy with leanings towards making of a puppet state.

 

The rebels are currently fighting inside Khadafi's 4 square mile compound.

Its nearly over.. The 7 oil companies will return soon and be back in production within six months.

 

Mission Accomplished. Haha.

 

Its too early to say that.. but they will get Khadafi within the next three days...

Then comes the hard work, but they are well aware of the Iraq model and won't replicate those mistakes.

 

The rebels are currently fighting inside Khadafi's 4 square mile compound.

Its nearly over.. The 7 oil companies will return soon and be back in production within six months.

Yep, business as usual. I mean, let's not forget freedom and democracy. So let's hear it for Al-Republicans and Al-Democrats who will now have the opportunity to chart Libya's course.

 

Business as usual?

The people of Libya have been fighting Khadafi's forces for nearly six months.

 

Business as usual?

The people of Libya have been fighting Khadafi's forces for nearly six months.

So why did they call the situation in Libya a civil war? In a civil war you have people aligning themselves on both sides. It was predominantly Anderson Cooper who has been fighting Khadafi's forces for nearly six months with propaganda tools such as "if Khadafi had built more schools and hospitals, things would be much different", ommitting to mention facts about the state of education in Libya where everyone had a free access to higher education in addition to other things such as free or subsidized housing for young couples. The bottom line is that although both sides in Libya made mistakes and played too hardball, there was a democratic solution on the table based on compromise, but it got slapped, thrown away because the military one proved easier, faster and more conveniant. Now everyone non-aligned will be reaching for nukes.

 

There wasn't any democratic solution on the table... Khadafi wasn't going to offer up any reforms.

I was in Libya when he overthrew Idris and made Tariki his oil minister.

Khadafi is uneducated and extremely impulsive.. The one thing he is NOT.. is honest.

There is no Nuclear threat involved here....

 

The old Khadafi was ready to fully retire and would have most likely agreed to allow his son to take over political leadership to represent his faction's interests under new democratic rules. Now with the way that NATO handled things, there's nothing left but hard feelings instead of a smooth transition..

 

That was just one of Khadafi's lies.

I have been watching him since 1969..

He's a mess..

Bush lifted sanctions in 2004 because the international community wanted to get back into Libya and do business.. but Khadafi hadn't matured or changed his spots.

 

You mean the United States and the CIA have been fighting Quadaffi.

 

Bush lifted sanctions in 2004 because the international community wanted to get back into Libya and do business.. but Khadafi hadn't matured or changed his spots.

No, the initiative to normalize relations came from both sides since Khadafi paid out compensation to the families of Lockerbe victims. Then however Khadafi made a suggestive appeal in 2008 or 2009 to nationalize the Western oil companies operating in Libya under the pretense that they are extracting too much oil hence keeping the prices low. The Libyan gov't counteracted Khadafi by pointing out this would drive away investments. The next year the oil prices jumped, and Khadafi's arguments fell flat, but his move was not forgiven. This also went to show that Ghadafi was far from holding an absolute power in Libya.

 

Actually the multi national corporations have been lobbying to get back into Libya at least since 1998..

Kadafi nationalized the foreign oil companies in Libya in the early 1970s.

 

You mean the United States and the CIA have been fighting Quadaffi.

Yes, and stupidity wins the day.

 

Here is an example of fake activists and color revolutions ...

"An amusing example is the case of the blog "Gay Girl in Damascus", created on 21 February 2011. Edited in English by 25 year-old Amina, the website became a source of reference for Western media. Therein the author described the plight of a young lesbian under Bashar’s dictatorship and the day-to-day unfolding of the terrible repression unleashed against the revolution. As a gay woman, she garnered the protective empathy of Western web surfers who mobilized as soon as her arrest by the secret services of the "regime" was announced."

"However, as it happened, Amina was a fiction. Betrayed by his IP address, a US 40 year-old "student" was discovered to be the real author of this masquerade. This propagandist, who was allegedly preparing a PhD in Scotland, recently participated in a pro-Western opposition conference held in Turkey, urging for a NATO intervention. He quite obviously did not attend in his capacity as a student."

"What is particularly surprising is not so much the gullibility of the internet surfers who swallowed the lies about the fake Amina, but the outpouring of the defenders of freedom in support of those who trample those same freedoms."


"Reality reversal is a principle being applied on a large scale. We may recall the United Nations reports on the humanitarian crisis in Libya alleging that tens of thousands of immigrant workers were fleeing the country to escape from violence. The conclusion drawn and spewed by the Western media was that the Gaddafi "regime" had to be toppled in favor of the Benghazi rebels. And yet, it was not the government of Tripoli who was responsible for this tragedy, but the so-called revolutionaries in Cyrenaica who were hunting down black Africans. Stirred by a racist ideology, they accused them of being at the service of Colonel Gaddafi and lynched whoever they could get their hands on."

"In Syria, the images of armed groups perched on the rooftops and firing at random into the crowd or on police forces were broadcast on national television networks. Yet, these same images were relayed and used by Western and Saudi television channels to attribute these crimes to the government of Damascus."



http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25377

 

Kadafi nationalized the foreign oil companies in Libya in the early 1970s.

Wasn't it in 69 when he nationalized oil, and was the first to manipulate prices by controlling supply which was soonafter copied by OPEC? Then later he let the foreign oil companies back into Libya. So what does it prove if anything?

 

Khadafi's oil minister was a hardliner named Tariki who had been fired by the Saudis and replaced with Zaki Yamani.

Tariki wanted to nationalize Aramco in the mid 1960 but neither ARAMCO nor the SAG was ready for that.

Khadafi nationalized Esso Libya and another... memory fails me ... between 1970 and 1972.. He closed Wheelus AFB and the British base in Tobruk.

He was impulsive, dumb and defiant... and he never matured at all.

Just last year he tried to have King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia assassinated.

 

Well, if he had retired and let a new generation take over, that would have been the end of all that. The opportunity was there, and then it would have been a different type of fireworks.

 

You mean his sons???

They are no better than their father.. and Khadafi wouldn't relinquish control to them.

 

Sure he would. Of course it's not in the mainstream news. And the keyword is under the new democratic rules.

 

Old Arabs don't stand down for their sons..

When the Arab Spring first started.. that was the time to LEAD reforms and have a dialogue with the people.

 

Well, better late than never. Instead, the lesson learned is that when ever there's a national crisis anywhere, that's a green light for international interests to intervene with a full scale military response. What happened to the international law based on sovereignity of nations? This could have had many outcomes and the will was there to make a peaceful solution happen, but instead... fireworks.