Libya : A no lie zone

[Bill Kelly]

Mag, this video is 90% accurate, but if it truly wants to portray the origins of the Libyan Revolution, why does it fail to mention Mohamid Bouazizi and the successful revolution in Tunisia that took place the month before, right next door, and undeniably sparked the revolt in Libya? You can't take the Libyan revolution out of the overall democratic Arab revolt that continues to sweep the region, unless of course, you are promoting some sort of ideology, which this video certainly is.

It is true that some of the revolutionaries are former Al-Qaeda, the current commander of the military in Tripoli was captured by the CIA, renditioned to Libya and tortured by Gadhafi's men, but the overall commander of the military in Libya is not an Islamist but from the Zintan Brigade, from the mountains, which led the attacks on the coastal cities and liberated Tripoli. In fact, none of the appointed administration are radical Islamists, so the prediction that they will take over has not yet materialized, though it certainly might. But I doubt once the people taste freedom, especially the women, they will allow for the radical Islamic law to force them into an orthodox religious state.

It is true that only a few hundred people in Benghazi responded to the call for a Day of Rage, but that was enough to spark the revolt. The American revolution had similar numbers at the beginning, as 90% of the Americans were loyal to the crown, and only a small percentage revolutionaries. But the same things happened, the heavy, violent crackdown by state security forces swayed those on the fence and even former loyalists to join the rebels.

This is exactly what happened in Egypt, Syria and at Walls Street and UC Davis, if you follow the news and the continuing revolution.

Bill Kelly
Revolutionary Program

[Magda Hassan]

Regardless of what happened in Tunisia or Egypt (ongoing it seems) there was no genuine people's movement in Libya. The majority did not support the uprising or it would not have taken so long. The people would have joined in everywhere. This did not happen. It would be over in 7 days not 7 months. This was a small number of anti-Gaddafi and Islamic fundamentaist types trained and funded by the US and UK primarily to cause destabilisation so as to over throw the legitmate regime in the interests of the west and its corporate interests. I am not going to say that Gaddafi was universally loved by his people but he and his Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya certainly had genuine majority support even if you find this hard to accept personally. During his time the vast majority of Libyan people benefitted greatly. King Idris did nothing for his country. What has happened to the Libyan people in the name of 'freedom and democracy' is a crime of historic proprtions. A travesty of justice. The west is the barbarian in this case and many others.

[Albert Doyle]

I find Mr Kelly's pro-CIA swagger a little offensive and inappropriate for this site. Frankly I find it like Dick Cheney or Helms was allowed to come in and troll. As if rogue offenses and government abuse of power was justifiable if you just assume a gingoistic "revolutionary" gun-ho swagger. (The 'revolution' part which I don't take as sincere compared to what it is being used to justify)

[Bill Kelly]

I find Mr Kelly's pro-CIA swagger a little offensive and inappropriate for this site. Frankly I find it like Dick Cheney or Helms was allowed to come in and troll. As if rogue offenses and government abuse of power was justifiable if you just assume a gingoistic gun-ho swagger...

Yes, ban me for my views. Have be thrown out so I can be one of the "disappeared."

And I take your offense at saying my views are pro-CIA because I'm not pro-CIA or even pro-USA - I am against tyrants and dictators whether they are fascists or socialists, kings or commies - I'm a radical revolutionary who has fought against the US government over Vietnam, was teargased and arrested, beaten and threatened by the security state you now wrongly associate me with. I am also against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and have spent much of my life researching and exposing political assassinations, including those conducted by the CIA and Mossad. And ideological idiots of whatever stripe offend me.

And Maggie, Gadhafi certainly was a benevolent dictator to some of his people - and my friends Cynthia McKinney, Wayne Madsen and others view the situation in Libya and the Arab revolt as you do - East vs. West and the West are the Colonial Imperialists who thurst for oil and greed. But they had little interest in Libya and only jumped in the game when NATO got involved. They didn't care much about the thousands of political prisoners that Gadhafi killed or that Gadhafi was in bed with the CIA since Ed Wilson sold him the explosives and guns.

Those who say that the CIA, USA, UK and France were behind the ouster of Gadhafi refuse to recognize that they already had Gadhafi in their pocket, the USA got ZERO zilch oil from Libya though US oil companies had contracts and like the UK, France and Italy, were already working with Gadhafi, not only in the oil fields, but in torturing the renditioned al Qaeda terrorists. So Gadhafi was the CIA's man in Libya, and they had no wish, desire or reason to get rid of him. The change in policy from Pro-Gadhafi to pro-rebels in both Egypt and Libya and Tunisa was a break in the previous CIA-USA policy of using coups and assassinations to place puppets in power - as they had done in Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, Cuba, etc.

Well, Gadhafi is gone, and the cut throat Arabs are killing those who keep a grudge - and we'll have to see how the revolts play out in all of these countries, as it took USA seven years to win their revolution and ten years to come up with a constitution that could be agreed on.

If you want a little forum where you can all pat yourself on the back and rant and rave about the NATO child killers - well then you can take Mr. Doyle's threat to have me banished seriously.

William Kelly
Revolutionary Program

[Magda Hassan]

Bill will not be being banned even if he and I and others disagree vigorously on this subject he has certainly proved his committment in other areas particularly JFK. I certainly hope that the forum can stand a bit of passionate debate on these matters.

I'll respond to your post Bill in a little while i just have dinner to make.

[Danny Jarman]

Mag, this video is 90% accurate, but if it truly wants to portray the origins of the Libyan Revolution, why does it fail to mention Mohamid Bouazizi and the successful revolution in Tunisia that took place the month before, right next door, and undeniably sparked the revolt in Libya? You can't take the Libyan revolution out of the overall democratic Arab revolt that continues to sweep the region, unless of course, you are promoting some sort of ideology, which this video certainly is.

It is true that some of the revolutionaries are former Al-Qaeda, the current commander of the military in Tripoli was captured by the CIA, renditioned to Libya and tortured by Gadhafi's men, but the overall commander of the military in Libya is not an Islamist but from the Zintan Brigade, from the mountains, which led the attacks on the coastal cities and liberated Tripoli. In fact, none of the appointed administration are radical Islamists, so the prediction that they will take over has not yet materialized, though it certainly might. But I doubt once the people taste freedom, especially the women, they will allow for the radical Islamic law to force them into an orthodox religious state.

It is true that only a few hundred people in Benghazi responded to the call for a Day of Rage, but that was enough to spark the revolt. The American revolution had similar numbers at the beginning, as 90% of the Americans were loyal to the crown, and only a small percentage revolutionaries. But the same things happened, the heavy, violent crackdown by state security forces swayed those on the fence and even former loyalists to join the rebels.

This is exactly what happened in Egypt, Syria and at Walls Street and UC Davis, if you follow the news and the continuing revolution.

Bill Kelly
Revolutionary Program

What do you mean by "when the people taste freedom"?

Libyans under Gadaffi were some of the most privileged people in the entire African and Arab world, infact, in the entire world. They pretty much had everything.

Also, what is your definition of a "Radical Islamist"?

[Peter Lemkin]

What do you mean by "when the people taste freedom"?

Libyans under Gadaffi were some of the most privileged people in the entire African and Arab world, infact, in the entire world. They pretty much had everything.

I think there are only villians in this 'piece'. Gadaffi was a thug [yet, who did do some good things for some African causes] and had a large number of his own citizens in prison, murdered in and out of prison, under surveillance and fearful of the secret police - the typical tyrannt dictator. He lavished money on Sirte and a few favorite persons [as well as on himself]. The average Libyian was above the general levels in Africa, but that is not saying much. The education system had been limited to not encourage any independant thought, but rather the technocrats needed [similar to the USA model of today - but more so]. The citizens could leave and return, but they couldn't criticise. To some extent we do not really know the details. There was propaganda on all sides. Tripoli was fairly well off, the smaller towns were backward. I think the two of you have extreme positions and the truth may well lie in between. Calls for Bill to be removed are really off the mark. He is a respected researcher and decent person, even if you don't agree on this topic. Gadaffi was OUR dictator and it may well turn out [I'm not fully convinced - but see many indications] that we [the US and NATO] got rid of him by proxy. It wouldn't be the first time. While to me it is clear that NATO and US tried to control much after the insurrection broke out, I'm not fully convinced they started it - even if they had conceived of it for some reasons of their own. Clearly, our 'no fly zone' killed as many or more non-combatants as combatants and clearly was not primarily to protect non-combatants. I think it was mixed in Libya, those who would have welcomed a revolution and those who would not. I'm inclined to believe more would have and did, but at first many were afraid, with good reason and kept their silence until the front lines reached them. Others backed Gadaffi. It certainly was not as peaceful as Tunisia nor Egypt and was more complex, internally and with external interference. Time will tell better after the fog of war that still hangs over Libya clears more. IMHO.

[Albert Doyle]

I don't know who was calling for banning besides Bill. I don't think the point is being answered here though. I think Mr Kelly said some things that pretty much suggested CIA was on the side of "revolutionaries". And even indirectly suggested they were of the same bravado and cause as OWS. CIA is surely firmly against OWS and presently plotting against them probably.

Even if the Tunisian revolution was caused by the self-immolation of a fruit stand owner, it was still influenced by the overall awareness of regime change in the region spurred by an illegal war in Iraq. The decision to back Gadhafi is a difficult one since he fully fits the description of tyrant. The problem with his violent replacement is that it empowers a much more sinister and tyrannical movement happening in the region by those very war criminals now seeking widespread reward for their original illegal invasion. It really comes down to a question of which movement causes the most long-term harm to America and its democracy. Clearly Gadhafi was the least harmful and wasn't involved in a corrupted world-wide campaign of invading falsely-accused nations.

To attach valid revolutionary connotations to CIA, as Bill did, is to indirectly endorse the same group that killed the Kennedy's. This vaunted CIA revolutionary zeal is exactly what the Kennedy's were fighting. It's a serious disconnect and misattribution to speak of CIA in those terms. If Gadhafi's Libya was already corrupted by CIA then Gadhafi joins a long list of foreign leaders induced to cooperate with CIA and the US who then end-up having a bad fate. This is hardly "revolutionary".

[Bill Kelly]

Mag, this video is 90% accurate, but if it truly wants to portray the origins of the Libyan Revolution, why does it fail to mention Mohamid Bouazizi and the successful revolution in Tunisia that took place the month before, right next door, and undeniably sparked the revolt in Libya? You can't take the Libyan revolution out of the overall democratic Arab revolt that continues to sweep the region, unless of course, you are promoting some sort of ideology, which this video certainly is.

It is true that some of the revolutionaries are former Al-Qaeda, the current commander of the military in Tripoli was captured by the CIA, renditioned to Libya and tortured by Gadhafi's men, but the overall commander of the military in Libya is not an Islamist but from the Zintan Brigade, from the mountains, which led the attacks on the coastal cities and liberated Tripoli. In fact, none of the appointed administration are radical Islamists, so the prediction that they will take over has not yet materialized, though it certainly might. But I doubt once the people taste freedom, especially the women, they will allow for the radical Islamic law to force them into an orthodox religious state.

It is true that only a few hundred people in Benghazi responded to the call for a Day of Rage, but that was enough to spark the revolt. The American revolution had similar numbers at the beginning, as 90% of the Americans were loyal to the crown, and only a small percentage revolutionaries. But the same things happened, the heavy, violent crackdown by state security forces swayed those on the fence and even former loyalists to join the rebels.

This is exactly what happened in Egypt, Syria and at Walls Street and UC Davis, if you follow the news and the continuing revolution.

Bill Kelly
Revolutionary Program

What do you mean by "when the people taste freedom"?

Libyans under Gadaffi were some of the most privileged people in the entire African and Arab world, infact, in the entire world. They pretty much had everything.

Also, what is your definition of a "Radical Islamist"?

I consider a radical islamist as one who imposes his religion on everyone who lives in the state, one who follows Islamist law that cuts off the hands of thieves, permits more than one wife, requires women to cover their faces in public, forbids them to drive and outlaws liquor (except for the rulers and their cronies like Gadhafi's kids). It's one thing to believe and practice a religion, and another to force everyone to practice it by law.

The Libyans under Gadhaffi were not able to voice any dissent or they were KILLED, like Sadiqu Hamed Shwehdi, who was hanged in a school gymnasium in front of students so they would get the message and not voice opposition to the regime - and the 1000 political prisoners who were executed in one day by Gadhafi. Were they among the "most privileged people in the entire African and Arab world, in fact the entire world.?" Yes, they had everything but freedom to voice their opposition to Gadhafi. And those students who witnssed Gadhafi's henchwomen kill Sadiqu remembered their lesson well, because when the revolution began on Feb. 17 - the first place they went was the home of Hana the Horrible who personally pulled the rope that hanged him, and they burned her house down. She is now a prisoner of the revolution. For more info see: - [URL="http://revolutionaryprogram.blogspot.com/2011/07/gaddafis-libyan-rule-exposed-in-lost.html?showComment=1312091029591#c3203087918499391044"]Revolutionary Program: Sadiq Hamed Shwehdi
[/URL]

[Bill Kelly]

I don't know who was calling for banning besides Bill.

BK: Well I guess I misunderstood your assertion that, "I find Mr Kelly's pro-CIA swagger a little offensive and inappropriate for this site."
And I apologize. And thank Maggie for sticking up for me.

I don't think the point is being answered here though. I think Mr Kelly said some things that pretty much suggested CIA was on the side of "revolutionaries".

BK: I thought the CIA was an extension of the US government, who were with Gadhafi until he ordered his army to kill those who opposed him, and after they pretty much destroyed a half dozen towns and cities and were a few miles from Benghazi, where they were ordered to hunt down and kill every rat house to house - then the President, at the urging of the Sec State Hillary, agreed to the UN, Arab Union and NATO accords and stop him. The CIA failed to predict the uprising, as they failed to predict the entire regional revolution.

And even indirectly suggested they were of the same bravado and cause as OWS. CIA is surely firmly against OWS and presently plotting against them probably.

BK: What's the cause of OWS again? I thought they were rebels without a cause, and the CIA is surely and firmly uninterested in OWS as they have no domestic responsibilities and the idea they are plotting against them is ridiculous.

Even if the Tunisian revolution was caused by the self-immolation of a fruit stand owner, it was still influenced by the overall awareness of regime change in the region spurred by an illegal war in Iraq.

BK: Mohamid Bouazizi wasn't thinking about Iraq when he killed himself.

The decision to back Gadhafi is a difficult one since he fully fits the description of tyrant. The problem with his violent replacement is that it empowers a much more sinister and tyrannical movement happening in the region by those very war criminals now seeking widespread reward for their original illegal invasion. It really comes down to a question of which movement causes the most long-term harm to America and its democracy. Clearly Gadhafi was the least harmful and wasn't involved in a corrupted world-wide campaign of invading falsely-accused nations.

To attach valid revolutionary connotations to CIA, as Bill did, is to indirectly endorse the same group that killed the Kennedy's. This vaunted CIA revolutionary zeal is exactly what the Kennedy's were fighting. It's a serious disconnect and misattribution to speak of CIA in those terms. If Gadhafi's Libya was already corrupted by CIA then Gadhafi joins a long list of foreign leaders induced to cooperate with CIA and the US who then end-up having a bad fate. This is hardly "revolutionary".

BK: I don't think the CIA is a separate and complete entity, but is made up of many people, different divisions with different tasks and as J. J. Angleton put it, "A house has many rooms, I don't know who shot John."

JFK was the revolutionary, as he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."

BK
Revolutionary Program