Wrestling Forum banner

Moammar Gadhafi: Transcript Shows Late Libyan Leader Warned Former UK Prime Minister of al-Qaida

1173 Views 19 Replies 8 Participants Last post by  Gandhi
Source - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...versations-with-Colonel-Gaddafi-revealed.html

Colonel Gaddafi warned Tony Blair of Islamist attacks on Europe, phone conversations reveal

'Transcripts of two telephone conversations between the two leaders which took place on February 25, 2011, are made public'

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi issued a 'prophetic' warning to Tony Blair that jihadists would attack Europe if his regime was allowed to collapse, phone conversations reveal.

Gaddafi's dire prediction was made in two desperate telephone calls with Mr Blair on February 25, 2011 - as civil war was engulfing Libya.

In the first call at 11.15am, Gaddafi said: "They [jihadists] want to control the Mediterranean and then they will attack Europe."



In the call, lasting half an hour, Gaddafi insisted he was trying to defend Libya from al-Qaeda fighters. The presence of al-Qaedas would later be superceded by the rise of the so-called Islamic State.

"We are not fighting them, they are attacking us, " he said, "I want to tell you the truth. It is not a difficult situation at all. The story is simply this: an organisation has laid down sleeping cells in North Africa. Called the Al-Qaeda Organisation in North Africa... The sleeping cells in Libya are similar to dormant cells in America before 9/11.

"They have managed to get arms and terrify people. people can't leave their homes... It's a jihad situation. They have arms and are terrorising people in the street."

In a second call made a little over four hours later, Gaddafi told Mr Blair: "I will have to arm the people and get ready for a fight. Libyan people will die, damage will be on the Med, Europe and the whole world. These armed groups are using the situation [in Libya] as a justification - and we shall fight them."



Mr Blair had made two calls to Gaddafi to try to negotiate the dictator's departure from Tripoli as civil war engulfed the nation. Three weeks later, a Nato-led coaltion that included Britain, began bombing raids that led to the overthrow of Gaddafi. The dictator was finally deposed in August and murdered by a mob in October.

Mr Blair had a developed a friendship with Gaddafi and had visted the Libyan leader at least six times after leaving Downing Street in 2007.

He cleared the phone calls with both David Cameron and Hillary Clinton, the then US Secretary of State, in an attempt to persuade Gaddafi to leave Libya with safe passage and to avoid further conflict.

The existence of the phone calls emerged last year and Mr Blair passed the transcripts to the Foreign Affairs Committee which is investigating Libya's collapse. The committee of MPs published the transcripts on Thursday.

In the calls Mr Blair told Gaddafi: "If you have a safe place to go you should go there because this will not end peacefully and there has to be a process of change, that process of change can be managed and we have to find a way of managing it.

"The US and the EU are in a tough position right now and I need to take something back to them which ensures this ends peacefully."

Mr Blair ended the call by saying: "i would like to offer a way out that is peaceful... keep the lines open."

Gaddafi's warnings appear to have been born out. Libya has collapsed following his overthrow. The country remains in the grip of civil war and much of it is in the control of Islamist extremists linked to the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil).

Terrorists sent by Isil to France were responsible for the attacks on Paris in November amid growing concern jihadists are crossing into Europe from north Africa and the Middle East.

Crispin Blunt MP, Chair of the Committee, said: "The transcripts supplied by Mr Blair provide a new insight into the private views of Colonel Gaddafi as his dictatorship began to crumble around him.

"The failure to follow Mr Blair’s calls to 'keep the lines open' and for these early conversations to initiate any peaceful compromise continue to reverberate.

"The Committee will want to consider whether Gaddafi’s prophetic warning of the rise of extremist militant groups following the collapse of the regime was wrongly ignored because of Gaddafi’s otherwise delusional take on international affairs.

"The evidence that the Committee has taken so far in this inquiry suggests that western policy makers were rather less perceptive than Gaddafi about the risks of intervention for both the Libyan people and the western interests."
The full transcript is available on the website. It basically confirms what many already know. You remove these guys from power and you create power vacuums. These power vacuums reverberate throughout the entire region and chaos ensues. Now, what was just a local problem becomes an international problem.
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

· From parts unknown
Joined
·
34,156 Posts
"The evidence that the Committee has taken so far in this inquiry suggests that western policy makers were rather less perceptive than Gaddafi about the risks of intervention for both the Libyan people and the western interests."
Or maybe they knew the risks all too well. Let's see, since America intervened, Middle East oil pretty much is on the verge of collapse meanwhile American oil has never been more profitable. Once the war is all said and done, the contracts for "rebuilding" obviously will go to big American/European contractors.

At the cost of a few hundred bombs being dropped from the sky annually, America walks away richer than ever down the line.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
16,096 Posts
MUAMMAR GADDAFI THE GOD DAMN NORTH AFRICAN LEGEND! :mark:



I seriously miss him, he was fucking awesome as a leader in a lot of aspects. Honest, charismatic, and hilarious. Fuck America & NATO for getting rid of him. :penaldo

Seriously though I've always known Gaddafi was ok, most Americans & westerns on this forum (especially guys like @BruiserKC) will pretend my posts don't exist though because they wanna live in denial that the west "wants to help" when many western politicians are sociopaths.

Many North Africans have always known Gaddafi was a pretty cool leader, the west falsely vilified him through lies to pursue selfish desires that were "best for business".


In a nutshell America didn't want Africa not kissing & licking their asses for a living, they didn't want Libya to help Africa become a well organized continent that didn't need America. Gaddafi was going to take advantage of Africa being a VERY rich continent and finally turn a lot of African countries into paradises somewhat and America & the western governments HATED that. America's policy is you either cooperate in being a puppet or you become an Iraq (and watch your innocents die and be called terrorists). The rebels in Libya were the same as the ones in Syria, a bunch of muslim fundamentalist crazies that most Libyans hated (yeah, Syria's SECULAR majority hated the Syrian rebels too). Yes, most Libyans LOVED Gaddafi because he was one of the most secular successful leaders in Africa and under him Libya prospered. After the bullshit the west did in Libya, many Libyans left Libya and many of them are in Egypt (plenty in my University) and almost all Libyans I've met here in Egypt talk about Gaddafi as if he were Batman.

I'm serious, before the west bullied Libya, Libya was a pretty kickass place to be.

https://globalciviliansforpeace.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/the-standard-of-living-in-libya/

What you can find in this link in the following:

The standards of living in Libya according to statistics....



And much much more, seriously read that article and see how "bad" Gaddafi was...



Boy, I sure am glad America & the west helped our neighbors Libya out! :rolleyes:

Also here's a video worth watching that will explain everything.


It's just one of these videos I share a lot, because you know, sharing the truth rocks.



So yes, the west LIED about everything said about Gaddafi and he was actually one of the many leaders in North Africa/The Middle East who helped his country greatly and was a very secular leader. ISIS & the west are working together, not directly but they are helping each other get rid of the secular muslim folk in North Africa/The Middle East.


It's scary how accurate this video is, eh?





Can the American flag being toilet paper please be a thing? Please?

I can assure you it'll cost ISIS big time, don't you wanna stop ISIS?



R.I.P GADDAFI :mj2

ZENGA ZENGA FOR LIFE!!! :honoraryblack
 

· Banned
Joined
·
1,692 Posts
I am not surprised people hate us TBH. I just hope the people of Libya, Iraq and Iran etc realise that people have no control over foreign policy.

I miss Gadaffi and I knew the Arab Spring would come to haunt us. That being said I dont think everything is Western powers fault. Africa and the Middle East is full of divided countries that are being forced together by their government. Nigeria for instance could easily be divided into 50 countries its that big but the government will never allow it. There isn't really any consistent foreign policy. Its all over the place.

I do think the CIA needs to fuck off. That is one evil organization.
 

· Indeed
Joined
·
18,898 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
What's happening with Western intervention in the Middle East and North Africa right now is what the US has "covertly" done to South America post-WWII and continues to do to this day. They support "rebels" and insurgents against democratically-elected officials who aren't in the US's back pocket, like they did in Paraguay.

They've done it to Chile, Guatemala, Argentina, and even my father fought against the US backed Loyalists in the Dominican Republic Civil War in the early 60s when said loyalists overthrew the democratically-elected Bosch. While Hugo Chavez of Venezuela was no saint, he did drastically reduce poverty in Venezuela, but the US vilified him all the same.

If the countries and leaders involved are not presenting the US and US corporations with any investment opportunities, they usually become a target for destabilization. This is something they leave out of US History books and it is truly a shame.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
1,692 Posts
Everything 100%? Nah.
Mostly Western powers fault? Yep.

Stating otherwise is you blatantly living in denial.
A lot of the problems in Africa and the Middle East can be solved fairly easily. Syria in civil war? Split Syria between the East and West coast. Easy. Turkey and the Kurds at war? Easy. Give the Kurds independence. Iraq in civil war? Easy split it into three: Shia, Sunni and Kurds. Done. Libya...again. Egypt? Give the Coptics their state with Alexandria as their capitol. Nigeria? Divide it between the Muslim North and the more enlightened South. Saudi Arabia? Give the Eastern Shia areas independence. Yemen, likewise. Sudan? Give Darfur its independence.

Of course none will do this because the governments want land and resources. The UK gave Scotland a referendum to leave the UK. They voted no. Not one person killed over it.

Israel Palestine is more complicated but its not that big of a deal. Its not like Saudi Arabia bombing the crap out of Yemen. Palestine has a higher life expectancy than quite a few countries.

Gadaffi was suppressing a time bomb. NATO was foolish but it was going to go off eventually.
 

· Magic, sparkles and Strap-ons!
Joined
·
14,762 Posts
He made a lot of prophet like statements. A lot which are coming true. In a place where crazy people can achieve power you need someone strong who can make the hard choices. Without a strong leader you get a massive power vacuum which leads to no good.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,559 Posts
Uhh

Gadiffi openly used Chems, its hard to get away with that
Also helped sponsor terrorism all over the world...including the Irish Republican Army.

Gadhafi was rather complicated...yes he was a secular leader but don't get it twisted. He wasn't about paradise for Africa, it was all about himself. He didn't give a shit about many movements that took place throughout the ME. He only did when it suited him. Much like Saddam...Saddam talked about the Palestinian cause, Israel, greater Arabia, etc...but in reality it was all about himself.
 

· There is no duty we so much underrate as... being
Joined
·
19,895 Posts
Uhh

Gadiffi openly used Chems, its hard to get away with that
It certainly is when the world's most aggressive and bellicose superpower wants to make it an issue. On the other hand, that same superpower will sell poisonous chemical weapons to the tinhorn dictators that they approve, and perhaps later express faux "outrage" over that same petty regime utilizing those weapons when it suits it.

As Senator Donald Riegle noted with the "Riegle Report" in 1994,

"pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."
According to the report, at least seventy shipments from the U.S. regime to the Iraqi regime were made over a few years, including approximately fifteen or so orders of bacillus antracis. United Nations inspectors found numerous American-manufactured cases of chemical weapons which had been exported to Saddam Hussein's government.

As Riegle would write based on the Senate committee's findings,

The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record.
General Khalifa Hifter launched the coup of Libya a mere four days following the American deployment of over 200 troops to Sicily, which was called a "crisis response team." The U.S.-supported General Hifter lived a couple of miles from the CIA's Langley headquarters in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. for most of his life.

The sorrowful fact is that however rotten Hussein and Gaddafi were while in power, and how repressive they were, the living hell that the U.S. interventions have wreaked and left upon the peoples of Iraq and Libya are truly ghastly to comprehend, with life for the average individual living there becoming drastically worse following those interventions. Plus there are the hundreds of thousand slaughtered in the mayhem and sectarian strife that have replaced the rule of primarily secular regimes, whatever else one wishes to say about the regimes of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party and Revolutionary Command Council.

U.S. interventionism breeds one horror show after another, with no end in sight.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,922 Posts
My problem with this kind of debate it sends the idea that people he lords under should have to accept it, that because he oppresses everyone equally than you should just go with it

The man had a collection of gold plated firearms

He rented land to terrorists to train in and didn't care

But because he stopped Islamist its ok?

He was find with everyone else suffering as long as his nation is in power

That is the same logic people damn the US over

When you have the power to stop that, even if it may make things worse you should do it

There is this bullshit philosophy its ok for these small less developed nations to have slaughter and insane dictators as long as it stops .00001% of that violence to spread to a nation we give a damn about but if more powerful nation flexes its muscles than it is "bullying" like these tiny nations are so stupid and primitive they don't understand they shouldn't torture people and that actions have consequences

If you have the power to stop this, you should, even if you fail at least you tried

We should not have to accept that their is always going to be evil, we should fight it tooth and nail

I was spending time in the local Vietnam restaurant (they still fly the flag of the Republic of Vietnam) and was talking to them. They knew their country was corrupt and had tons of problems but at least they had the option to hate, to complain and protest without being put into reeducation camps and being locked up but around the world we let these people down, we let them lose their dignity so the people at home will not have a hundredth of a fraction of their pain or so we won't lose money
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,559 Posts
Gadhafi knew that the jihadists were coming because as the Arab Spring unfolded, he knew that the grasp on power that he had so ruthlessly held for years was starting to unravel. A large part of this was the fact that "The Brotherly Leader" had no qualms about stealing money from his own people and oil reserves and blowing it all on himself and his family.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/22/gaddafi-libya-oil-wealth-portfolio

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news...en+billions+stashed+London/4348914/story.html

http://www.thelondoneveningpost.com/revealed-col-muammar-gaddafi-was-richest-man-on-earth/2/

Yes, there was a lot of money that he stole from their oil coffers and put in his own pockets (and that of his family). His son Saif thought nothing of spending millions to have performers like Usher, Beyonce, and Mariah Carey perform at his birthday party. Of course, he also had to grease the palms of other neighboring African leaders to protect his own well-being. When he died, it came about that he was one of the wealthiest men in the world...all at the expense of his own

Meanwhile, for all this talk about not embracing Islamism...that's also a crock of shit as he did it when it was convenient for him. Such as when he called for holy war against Switzerland...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...dafi-calls-for-jihad-against-Switzerland.html

What was the reason for this? Two years prior, his son Hannibal had been arrested on charges of assaulting a couple of his maids in a hotel the Gadhafi family owned in Geneva. Charges were dropped, but Muammar retaliated by closing local subsidaries of Swiss business such as Nestle and ABB plus cutting off commercial flights between the nations. He then arrested two Swiss nationals in Libya on business and put them in solitary confinement at one time with minimal food and water.

Not to mention that Sharia law was the basis of his dictatorship, especially in the beginning as Nasser was one of his admitted boyhood heroes. If you have the chance, read his Third International Theory and The Green Book. Basically, it was Marxism mixed with Islamism that he felt would be the basis of government to help the Arab world in the creation of a Greater Arabia.

He, like most other Arab leaders, didn't give two cares about Israel-Palestine unless it benefitted him.. For example, he led the charge in 1973 for OPEC's oil embargo against the United States when President Nixon OK'd a military aid package for Israel during the Yom Kippur War. Even after the other Arab and OPEC nations lifted their embargo, Libya kept theirs.

For those that want to read the articles, it will show what Gadhafi really was. The reason he was scared of the Arab Spring is that he knew that many of the people he repressed for many years were going to rise up and come after him. Self-fulfilling prophecy. Let's not pull revisionist history here, he was not this benign, wonderful human being.
 

· From parts unknown
Joined
·
34,156 Posts
Also helped sponsor terrorism all over the world...including the Irish Republican Army.
Except the exact same can be said about America and other allied western powers that helped fund (and both directly and indirectly sponsor) terrorism all over the world as well.

Taliban, Al-Qaeda are two terrorist organizations that were on the American payroll for years before they "turned" ... But they never really "turned" because the intent of sponsoring those two organizations was to fight wars against Russians and other American enemies by proxy. Israeli expansion has included chemical warfare against Palestinians (phosphorous bombing) and America has consistently vetoed any peace initiative in that part of the world ... Then there's South American destabilization .. hand-picking American friendly dictators and then wiping them out the minute they show slight non-American inclinations. They did this in Pakistan as well by first allowing Musharraf to rise to power and stay in power because it served their purpose against Taliban, but then helped take him down literally the year he started exerting more influence than they wanted him to etc etc. Pakistani Taliban post Musharraf became more power than ever and it took Pakistan another 7 years after Musharraf was ousted to get them under control again.

The list goes on and on.

I hate to say this, but aside from WWII, America has been on the wrong side of more wars than it has been on the right side.

BTW, I'm not defending Gaddafi or any other dictators in the world because as far as I'm concerned dictatorships are the worst methods of governance for many reasons (I even get annoyed when American presidents use executive orders or their veto powers to "get things done" because that is a disguised form of dictatorship in action). As you pointed out above, pretty much all Middle-eastern dictators have also used Islamists and Jihadists to keep their stranglehold on power and resources ... The problem here however is that the world needs to recognize that western powers have ALSO used Jihadists (and guerrilla warriors) in exactly the same ways as well.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,559 Posts
Except the exact same can be said about America and other allied western powers that helped fund (and both directly and indirectly sponsor) terrorism all over the world as well.

Taliban, Al-Qaeda are two terrorist organizations that were on the American payroll for years before they "turned" ... But they never really "turned" because the intent of sponsoring those two organizations was to fight wars against Russians and other American enemies by proxy. Israeli expansion has included chemical warfare against Palestinians (phosphorous bombing) and America has consistently vetoed any peace initiative in that part of the world ... Then there's South American destabilization .. hand-picking American friendly dictators and then wiping them out the minute they show slight non-American inclinations. They did this in Pakistan as well by first allowing Musharraf to rise to power and stay in power because it served their purpose against Taliban, but then helped take him down literally the year he started exerting more influence than they wanted him to etc etc. Pakistani Taliban post Musharraf became more power than ever and it took Pakistan another 7 years after Musharraf was ousted to get them under control again.

The list goes on and on.

I hate to say this, but aside from WWII, America has been on the wrong side of more wars than it has been on the right side.

BTW, I'm not defending Gaddafi or any other dictators in the world because as far as I'm concerned dictatorships are the worst methods of governance for many reasons (I even get annoyed when American presidents use executive orders or their veto powers to "get things done" because that is a disguised form of dictatorship in action). As you pointed out above, pretty much all Middle-eastern dictators have also used Islamists and Jihadists to keep their stranglehold on power and resources ... The problem here however is that the world needs to recognize that western powers have ALSO used Jihadists (and guerrilla warriors) in exactly the same ways as well.
Musharraf...also another example of the non-benevolent dictator. Yes, he kept the Taliban in check, but also committed many human rights abuses. There's the muzzling of the media and shutting down of media outlets, the disappearance of quite a few political opponents. Not to mention the forced exile of two of his top political opponents in Sharif and Bhutto. Then, of course when they returned Sharif was sent back to exile and Bhutto got wacked.

It's crazy that the world these days is just so more-than-50-shades-of-gray. You can't say someone is all good or all bad. Maybe that's the way the world has always been. You have Israel squashing Palestine, but of course many Palestinians and Arabs still beg for the wiping out of Israel and launch rockets at innocent civilians. Many of the South American leaders are exceptionally brutal at killing their own for questioning authority. Even the United States...we are so indifferent and neutral anymore that no one knows what side we are on. We don't even know sometimes what side we are on.

I would love nothing more than a United States that tells the rest of the world to figure it out for themselves and focus on the problems we have. Alas, the way the world is now won't allow that to happen.
 

· From parts unknown
Joined
·
34,156 Posts
Musharraf...also another example of the non-benevolent dictator. Yes, he kept the Taliban in check, but also committed many human rights abuses. There's the muzzling of the media and shutting down of media outlets, the disappearance of quite a few political opponents. Not to mention the forced exile of two of his top political opponents in Sharif and Bhutto. Then, of course when they returned Sharif was sent back to exile and Bhutto got wacked.

I would love nothing more than a United States that tells the rest of the world to figure it out for themselves and focus on the problems we have. Alas, the way the world is now won't allow that to happen.
Well, TBH, Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif are no angels either. Benazir and Sharif when they were both in power actually led military operations in Karachi (I was in Karachi at the time) during the early 90's where they brutally murdered thousands of young Karachiites. It was a political war being fought between 3 parties (PML, PPP and MQM) where PPP and PML wanted to rid Karachi of the MQM and so they killed their workers indiscriminately. The early 90's "war" in Karachi was the original reason why we left Pakistan. Their exile was self-imposed because of multiple charges of murder, corruption and embezzlement (all true). Bhutto's own niece is adamant that Benazir and her husband Zardari ordered the murder of Benazir's brother. Also, Zardari is known as Mr. 30% because he charges a personal 30% for handing out government contracts. He amassed billions as president of Pakistan. Also, it is more than likely that Zardari was the one that actually killed Benazir - but the investigations have been quelled since he managed to become president. There were at least 20 investigators, journalists and police officers killed during that investigation till eventually everyone gave up for fear of their life. Thousands of young boys are missing to this day and it's all thanks to Benazir and Nawaz (look up Karachi operation clean-up). Musharraf led no such internal operation.

Musharaf actually didn't quell the media at all initially. It was under his rule that Pakistani media first developed from 1.5 TV channels to over 60. I was actually an employee of one of the TV networks he tried to ban from TV and I was on the streets protesting with my colleagues when that happened. It was completely peaceful btw. Not one journalist was harmed during the media rebellion against him. Not one. Meanwhile PML, PPP, MQM and Taliban have all been killing journalists for decades.

The real reason why all of that happened was because Musharraf tried to oust the supreme court judge on corruption charges. To this day we don't know if that was true or not, but as a Pakistani I can tell you with pretty much absolute certainty that Musharraf was on to something. Unfortunately, it turned out that the judge was able to rally more support than Musharraf could and eventually ended up ousting Musharraf in the end.

Under Musharraf, Pakistan's economy grew at more than 6% annually. Yes, he was corrupt as well, but he was less corrupt than his preceding civilian government and the succeeding ones.

In Pakistan we don't have a legit civilian government even when it's democratic. What we have is feudal lords gaining power through the power of their land ownership .. There's nothing democratic about our "civilian" governments. It's essentially a modern feudal monarchy where power shifts from one family (Bhutto) to another (Sharif) as they are the two most powerful families in Pakistan. They're also the most corrupt. You should look up the cases against them.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,559 Posts
Well, TBH, Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif are no angels either. Benazir and Sharif when they were both in power actually led military operations in Karachi (I was in Karachi at the time) during the early 90's where they brutally murdered thousands of young Karachiites. It was a political war being fought between 3 parties (PML, PPP and MQM) where PPP and PML wanted to rid Karachi of the MQM and so they killed their workers indiscriminately. The early 90's "war" in Karachi was the original reason why we left Pakistan. Their exile was self-imposed because of multiple charges of murder, corruption and embezzlement (all true). Bhutto's own niece is adamant that Benazir and her husband Zardari ordered the murder of Benazir's brother. Also, Zardari is known as Mr. 30% because he charges a personal 30% for handing out government contracts. He amassed billions as president of Pakistan. Also, it is more than likely that Zardari was the one that actually killed Benazir - but the investigations have been quelled since he managed to become president. There were at least 20 investigators, journalists and police officers killed during that investigation till eventually everyone gave up for fear of their life. Thousands of young boys are missing to this day and it's all thanks to Benazir and Nawaz (look up Karachi operation clean-up). Musharraf led no such internal operation.

Musharaf actually didn't quell the media at all initially. It was under his rule that Pakistani media first developed from 1.5 TV channels to over 60. I was actually an employee of one of the TV networks he tried to ban from TV and I was on the streets protesting with my colleagues when that happened. It was completely peaceful btw. Not one journalist was harmed during the media rebellion against him. Not one. Meanwhile PML, PPP, MQM and Taliban have all been killing journalists for decades.

The real reason why all of that happened was because Musharraf tried to oust the supreme court judge on corruption charges. To this day we don't know if that was true or not, but as a Pakistani I can tell you with pretty much absolute certainty that Musharraf was on to something. Unfortunately, it turned out that the judge was able to rally more support than Musharraf could and eventually ended up ousting Musharraf in the end.

Under Musharraf, Pakistan's economy grew at more than 6% annually. Yes, he was corrupt as well, but he was less corrupt than his preceding civilian government and the succeeding ones.

In Pakistan we don't have a legit civilian government even when it's democratic. What we have is feudal lords gaining power through the power of their land ownership .. There's nothing democratic about our "civilian" governments. It's essentially a modern feudal monarchy where power shifts from one family (Bhutto) to another (Sharif) as they are the two most powerful families in Pakistan. They're also the most corrupt. You should look up the cases against them.
No question that Bhutto and Sharif were corrupt also. It just boils down to who is the most corrupt that seems to have control. Seems to be that way no matter where we go. Hell, at one point Donald Trump did business with a terrorist and a dictator...

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/07/368476-donald-trump-rented-land-brutal-dictator-muammar-gaddafi/

The Brotherly Leader was unable to find hotel accommodations when addressing the UN in 2009 so Trump rented out land to him on one of his many properties. Contrary to what he says, Gadhafi actually used the land and stayed there during his stay in NYC.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
16,096 Posts
Also helped sponsor terrorism all over the world...including the Irish Republican Army.

Gadhafi was rather complicated...yes he was a secular leader but don't get it twisted. He wasn't about paradise for Africa, it was all about himself. He didn't give a shit about many movements that took place throughout the ME. He only did when it suited him. Much like Saddam...Saddam talked about the Palestinian cause, Israel, greater Arabia, etc...but in reality it was all about himself.
Just like western leaders sponsor terrorism right? Right.

Gaddafi was no angel (no political leader is, infact they're all mostly asshats) but he wasn't this evil entity the west claimed he was and under his rule Libyans were ridiculously happy. The facts are in my first post on here, you can ignore it all you want but it won't change that it's the truth.

A lot of the problems in Africa and the Middle East can be solved fairly easily. Syria in civil war? Split Syria between the East and West coast. Easy. Turkey and the Kurds at war? Easy. Give the Kurds independence. Iraq in civil war? Easy split it into three: Shia, Sunni and Kurds. Done. Libya...again. Egypt? Give the Coptics their state with Alexandria as their capitol. Nigeria? Divide it between the Muslim North and the more enlightened South. Saudi Arabia? Give the Eastern Shia areas independence. Yemen, likewise. Sudan? Give Darfur its independence.

Of course none will do this because the governments want land and resources. The UK gave Scotland a referendum to leave the UK. They voted no. Not one person killed over it.

Israel Palestine is more complicated but its not that big of a deal. Its not like Saudi Arabia bombing the crap out of Yemen. Palestine has a higher life expectancy than quite a few countries.

Gadaffi was suppressing a time bomb. NATO was foolish but it was going to go off eventually.
This is one of the dumbest posts regarding the middle east I've ever seen.

Literally EVERYTHING you said would cause MORE issues in the middle east. Segregating these people will not only separate friends & family, but will feed the hatred some of these groups have for each other and we'll have more North/South Koreas. Also, coptics don't have anything against muslims or vice versa, of course you'll do nothing but make shit up to go "durr look at all these muzzies".

The rest of your post is complete rubbish too, nothing but moot points.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,559 Posts
Just like western leaders sponsor terrorism right? Right.

Gaddafi was no angel (no political leader is, infact they're all mostly asshats) but he wasn't this evil entity the west claimed he was and under his rule Libyans were ridiculously happy. The facts are in my first post on here, you can ignore it all you want but it won't change that it's the truth.
Tell that to the families of people he arrested on trumped up charges...such as the Swiss businessmen he had his police arrest just because the police investigated his brother. Explain that to the folks who saw a crumbling infrastructure that might not have had to be were it not for the money he stole from the coffers of his nation. Obviously they were not ridiculously happy, otherwise he might still be in power and not worm chow.

Stop trolling and/or believing everything your government and media spoonfeeds you.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
16,096 Posts
Tell that to the families of people he arrested on trumped up charges...such as the Swiss businessmen he had his police arrest just because the police investigated his brother. Explain that to the folks who saw a crumbling infrastructure that might not have had to be were it not for the money he stole from the coffers of his nation. Obviously they were not ridiculously happy, otherwise he might still be in power and not worm chow.

Stop trolling and/or believing everything your government and media spoonfeeds you.
Yeah, your post is meaningless to me because I just said he was no angel and if you've paid attention to my posts when it comes to political leaders you'd know that I mostly follow libertarian lines of thought and that I think all political leaders are asshats. Nonetheless, my point that he made Libyans overall happy and that he was this evil entity still stands.

I'm not trolling buddy, you just don't like being told you're wrong and would like to believe I'm trolling to try and sleep at night. Also I don't give a shit about my government's or media's statements and laugh at anybody who believes in them. Weak sauce American, weak sauce.

Try again.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top