Gaddafi's death

Hint - if you're doing it (whatever it is) with the benefit of NATO airpower, it's in the open and being debated in a wide variety of forums - it ain't a conspiracy at that point.
 
There certainly was a conspiracy of the leaders of western governments to remove Gaddafi from power, but it was sort of out in the open. Does it count as a conspiracy if the leaders talk about it in public?

That's a common fall back for the CT nuts. After they run out of ammunition they'll start naming random, commonly accepted historical events and call them "conspiracies!" E.G. the invasion of Normandy or a common bank robbery. That these ordinary operations were not secret the day after their execution or that they didn't involve super secret machinations that would make Hollywood proud is lost on them.
 
Mathaba has cracked the case! Turns out it was a Gaddafi look-alike from Sirte named "Ahmid." Very well known apparently, although there's no evidence of his existence until this very moment.

http://mathaba.net/news/?x=629132

Yes, we're wise to your tricks, banksters! Next time you announce the Brother Leader's death you better be ready to show us the death certificate. :D
 
The conspiracy is that propaganda painted Gaddafi as evil murderer of his own people (innocent civilians). It seems apparent to me that this had financial motives behind it. Gold, oil, and other things that conflicted with western ways (such as banking, oil profits, etc).

Many lies seemed to spread the airways. NATO financed and aided rebels to kill Gaddafi. Rebels were NOT the people. The people marched in favor of Gaddafi and against NATO. 1.8 million of them, 95% the population of Tripoli, the largest protests ever history. NATO committed war crimes by killing innocent civilians with airstrikes. Rebels, who were funded by NATO murdered and raped innocent.

Im not even sure this is a conspiracy. Seems pretty obvious to me.
 

Was having an argument over at another messageboard. After doing some googling, this one has already been repeated quite a few times- not by anyone credible, of course, but it seems to be gaining momentum, either way.

Good old Russia Today...

Good to see my assertion backed up. I have to admit that it feels nice being on the cutting edge of conspiracy theory hype, instead of the more common case of me seeing something that looks absurd, and then investigoogling.








With regards to the content of lee5's post, and not just the nature of it:

1. Pro-Gaddafi protest numbers in Libya were fake, as one would expect in a dictatorship. See below, copy/pasted from a post I made in another forum:
I don't have the time or desire to watch the entire thing, but with regards to 2:40- it would literally be impossible to fit that number of people in the location mentioned- link from DailyKos, which isn't exaclty pro-establishment http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/19/996082/-Tripoli-Green-Square-Reality-Check

See also: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2011/08/22/top-ten-myths-about-the-libya-war/

2. I don't think your nonspecific claims about financial motives is worth responding to, because you're making vague accusations and have no facts.

3. You defend Gaddafi by saying that the many stories of Gaddafi's brutality and corruption are propaganda. So, are you dismissing anything bad ever said about Gaddafi? How far back do you want to go?

In the late 1970s and early ’80s, he eliminated even mild critics through public trials and executions. Kangaroo courts were staged on soccer fields or basketball courts, where the accused were interrogated, often urinating in fear as they begged for their lives. The events were televised to make sure that no Libyan missed the point.

The bodies of one group of students hanged in downtown Tripoli’s main square were left there to rot for a week, opposition figures said, and traffic was rerouted to force cars to pass by.

In the 1990s, faced with growing Islamist opposition, Colonel Qaddafi bombed towns in eastern Libya, and his henchmen were widely believed to have opened fire on prisoners in Tripoli’s Abu Salim prison, killing about 1,200.

“Qaddafi’s ability to have survived so long rests on his convenient position in not being committed to a single ideology and his use of violence in such a theatrical way,” said Hisham Matar, the author of “In the Country of Men,” a novel depicting the devastation of life under Colonel Qaddafi. “He deliberately tried to create a campaign that would terrorize the population, that would traumatize them to such an extent that they would never think of expressing their thoughts politically or socially.”
From the New York Times.

So has the West been involved in this propaganda conspiracy for 40 years? Or are you willing to dismiss any accusations against Gaddafi, period?
 
TS: Pro-Gaddafi protest numbers in Libya were fake,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVy1V0GgJCY&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVHlSradhg4&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1NEZRdiJtM&feature=player_embedded

Dozens more if you want. If you can't notice, they are holding pics of Gaddafi.

So Gadaffi forced hundreds of thousands to protest in favor of him? 1.8m is the claim. On many separate occasions.

1. Rebels were NOT the people.
2. Rebels murdered and raped innocent civilians.
3. NATO did also with air strikes.
4. The people supported Gaddafi in general.
5. NATO funded NATO.

If the mass of people truly wanted Gaddafi out, they could have on their own. The rebels needed NATO support to accomplish their goals.
 
Last edited:
So Gadaffi forced hundreds of thousands to protest in favor of him? 1.8m is the claim. On many separate occasions.

And the Colonel is one of the few dictators in modern history NOT to "strongly encourage" people to come to a location and chant? Or hold a sign?
1. Rebels were NOT the people.

Then who were they ?

2. Rebels murdered and raped innocent civilians.

While not condoning that behavior, it was a civil war and those tend to get nastier than your run of the mill war.

3. NATO did also with air strikes.
I'm going to presume that you are solely referring to civilian deaths here - the other being challenging to do while in a plane. And said casualties were minimized. Artillery strikes from the rebels would have caused much more damage then precision guided munitions. Civilian deaths likely would have been much higher if NATO hadn't intervened.
4. The people supported Gaddafi in general.

Until they did not.

5. NATO funded NATO.

Duh. However, if you have a point, please feel free to share.

If the mass of people truly wanted Gaddafi out, they could have on their own. The rebels needed NATO support to accomplish their goals.

Doubtful. With what the rebels had at the start the Libiyan forces would likely have probably defeated the rebels .

Unless dissatisfaction with the political situation also has spread to the military, unarmed people's rebellions tend to end badly for the people.
 
And the Colonel is one of the few dictators in modern history NOT to "strongly encourage" people to come to a location and chant? Or hold a sign?


Then who were they ?



While not condoning that behavior, it was a civil war and those tend to get nastier than your run of the mill war.


I'm going to presume that you are solely referring to civilian deaths here - the other being challenging to do while in a plane. And said casualties were minimized. Artillery strikes from the rebels would have caused much more damage then precision guided munitions. Civilian deaths likely would have been much higher if NATO hadn't intervened.


Until they did not.



Duh. However, if you have a point, please feel free to share.



Doubtful. With what the rebels had at the start the Libiyan forces would likely have probably defeated the rebels .

Unless dissatisfaction with the political situation also has spread to the military, unarmed people's rebellions tend to end badly for the people.

Meh... I somewhat see some of your points.

I just don't see why we over threw Gaddafi in the name of protecting citizens, yet killed many in the name of it. The rebels are murderous bastards. Just a bunch of radicals the US took advantage of to take out Gaddafi to get their hands on the pie. The rebels get rewarded with treasures they find, and homes to move into.

I do not see evidence that Gaddafi killed innocent civilians. Everything I have looked into so far is either a gross exaggeration or an outright lie.

If the people truly wanted Gaddafi out, it would of happened. None of our business. Millions of people will defeat Gaddafi if they choose. Instead they held rallies in support of Gaddafi and against NATO. Sure, many may be happy for it to be over, and some may even swallowed the propaganda, but the support was clear, and we did not listen.

Ive seen kids with half their faces blown off by NATO airstrikes.

Show me a celebration of Gaddafis death that is not just a few hundred people.

My point about NATO funding rebels? We funded murder, rape, and lynching of blacks. In the name of what?

This was Gaddafi vs. western needs.
 
Last edited:
I just don't see why we over threw Gaddafi in the name of protecting citizens, yet killed many in the name of it. The rebels are murderous bastards. Just a bunch of radicals the US took advantage of to take out Gaddafi to get their hands on the pie. The rebels get rewarded with treasures they find, and homes to move into.

Why now? Libya has a long history of conflict with the west. If oil is the prize, why was it worth doing now, and not say during the oil crisis
 
Why now? Libya has a long history of conflict with the west. If oil is the prize, why was it worth doing now, and not say during the oil crisis
Well yeah, why did we wait for the four decades he ruled as absolute dictator, supported international terrorism, and developed actual WMD? What changed:

Arab Spring and an internal revolt?

The conspiracy is that propaganda painted Gaddafi as evil murderer of his own people (innocent civilians). It seems apparent to me that this had financial motives behind it. Gold, oil, and other things that conflicted with western ways (such as banking, oil profits, etc).

Many lies seemed to spread the airways. NATO financed and aided rebels to kill Gaddafi. Rebels were NOT the people. The people marched in favor of Gaddafi and against NATO. 1.8 million of them, 95% the population of Tripoli, the largest protests ever history. NATO committed war crimes by killing innocent civilians with airstrikes. Rebels, who were funded by NATO murdered and raped innocent.

Im not even sure this is a conspiracy. Seems pretty obvious to me.
You might want to get your eyesight checked.

Please, tell us how Gaddafi wasn't an evil murder?
Please, tell us how his capital city having been his last stronghold means anything?
Please, tell us how NATO intentionally killed civilians during combat.
Please, tell us how the rebels were "funded by NATO."

Honestly, do you actually know anything about the situation or are you simply parroting anit-US slogans because of your prejudices?
http://blip.tv/gaddafi-crimes/gaddafi-crimes-against-humanity-4792411
 
I do not see evidence that Gaddafi killed innocent civilians. Everything I have looked into so far is either a gross exaggeration or an outright lie.

Well by proxy he was responsible for many IRA deaths and the murder of an unarmed police woman.
If the people truly wanted Gaddafi out, it would of happened. None of our business. Millions of people will defeat Gaddafi if they choose.

They did but only because we stopped Gadaffi using all his tanks and aircraft to crudh the rebellion before it started.

Instead they held rallies in support of Gaddafi and against NATO.

So you disbelieve rallies celebrating Gadaffi's fall but those in his favour were spontaneous demonstrations? You show a touching naivete.

Sure, many may be happy for it to be over, and some may even swallowed the propaganda, but the support was clear, and we did not listen.

Yes it was clear that it was a minority at best, at gunpoint at worst.

Ive seen kids with half their faces blown off by NATO airstrikes.

Tragic, if true. Even if it were the war was Gadaffi's doing, he could have met the political demands of his people instead of resorting to brute force.

Show me a celebration of Gaddafis death that is not just a few hundred people.

Like you would believe it if anyone did.

My point about NATO funding rebels? We funded murder, rape, and lynching of blacks. In the name of what?

We did nothing of the sort, unless you have any evidence to back up your claims?

This was Gaddafi vs. western needs.

It was Gaddaffi versus his own ego and a popular rebellion, and we gave it some help.
 
Please, tell us how the rebels were "funded by NATO."
I'm surprised that you're disputing this one, since it was openly reported that the rebels received their funding from Libyan state assets that had been frozen and diverted under the NATO countries' direction.
 
I'm surprised that you're disputing this one, since it was openly reported that the rebels received their funding from Libyan state assets that had been frozen and diverted under the NATO countries' direction.

I should be more accurate. I was disputing his implication the rebels were somehow NATO hirelings and part of the West's evil plan to capture Libya. Receiving frozen Libyan funds certainly helped but they were already revolting against Gadaffi at the time.
 
Lee5, don't be surprised to encounter a lot of dancing around. This kind of knowledge is quite difficult for most people to even fit in their mouths, let alone start chewing on or swallowing.

You make plenty of fair points, some a little crudely, but they're better than the responses.

I should be more accurate. I was disputing his implication the rebels were somehow NATO hirelings and part of the West's evil plan to capture Libya. Receiving frozen Libyan funds certainly helped but they were already revolting against Gadaffi at the time.

The money helped, both in their having it and the Libyan government not having it. Soldiers aremore prone to defect, and people less happy with the status quo when they can't get paid or have services provided for.

Well, to get the funding,eventually, or anyWestern support and sanction, they had to be attached to the gradually recognized government - the TNC. They in turn happened to be primarily Western-groomed "free-market" reformers. Some of their members allegedly met with French intel in the months before the revolt, co-ordinating with shady-as-hell defector Nouri al-Mesmari. He in turn oversaw the work of deputy ambassador to the UN Dabbashi, who followed Mesmaris on Feb 21 with a public defection/stealing of post, repetition of every wildest baseless claim from the rumor mill, and both specified "genocide" was happening and proposed almost exactly the war measures soon taken.

Meanwhile, armed insurgents called protesters were blowing up bases, lynching,beheading, and stealing huge arsenals of weapons from people they described afterwards as "defected to their side" but really just vanished. Defensive fire along the way: Only the injuries after shown, never the attack where it happened. Always called a protester mowed down for speaking up.

Those Malta pilots told their strange story, and the only two reports of bombing of Tripoli, were placed to al Jazeera the same day as Mesmari and Dabbashi's defections, begging for air intervention. Still no physical evidence of any bombing of people in those early days at all, but boy did a bunch of people know just the right things to say, and when and where to say them.

Looks to me like a matrix of support well-identified, well-tapped-into, and freely dispensed from there along approved lines for a conspiratorial overthrow by information and conventional warfare. All private sector, for-profit stuff, of course.
 
The money helped, both in their having it and the Libyan government not having it. Soldiers aremore prone to defect, and people less happy with the status quo when they can't get paid or have services provided for.

So why then would any soldiers have defected prior to the unfreezing of the assets?

Well, to get the funding,eventually, or anyWestern support and sanction, they had to be attached to the gradually recognized government - the TNC. They in turn happened to be primarily Western-groomed "free-market" reformers. Some of their members allegedly met with French intel in the months before the revolt, co-ordinating with shady-as-hell defector Nouri al-Mesmari.

I've seen a lot of news reports that allege that, but then don't substantiate their sources. Several do indicated that the meetings were not known. What is clear is that Mesmari was in France for a period prior to the revolt. The rest is speculation.

He in turn oversaw the work of deputy ambassador to the UN Dabbashi, who followed Mesmaris on Feb 21 with a public defection/stealing of post, repetition of every wildest baseless claim from the rumor mill, and both specified "genocide" was happening and proposed almost exactly the war measures soon taken.

Not to go out on a speculative limb here, but speculating that any Libyan rebel group would need air cover to protect themselves from the Libyan air force doesn't require a military genius on par with Molteke the Elder, Wellington or Saladin.

Meanwhile, armed insurgents called protesters were blowing up bases, lynching,beheading, and stealing huge arsenals of weapons from people they described afterwards as "defected to their side" but really just vanished. Defensive fire along the way: Only the injuries after shown, never the attack where it happened. Always called a protester mowed down for speaking up.

You do realize that in order to get weapons most residents would need to go after arsenals - at a very least to get anything heavier than small arms. And to be blunt, civil wars involved in the overthrow of a dictatorship tend to vent frustration on the instrument of the oppression - in this case the military.

Those Malta pilots told their strange story, and the only two reports of bombing of Tripoli, were placed to al Jazeera the same day as Mesmari and Dabbashi's defections, begging for air intervention. Still no physical evidence of any bombing of people in those early days at all, but boy did a bunch of people know just the right things to say, and when and where to say them.

Looks to me like a matrix of support well-identified, well-tapped-into, and freely dispensed from there along approved lines for a conspiratorial overthrow by information and conventional warfare. All private sector, for-profit stuff, of course.


Given the announced decision to go to sharia law and the reactions of many western governments to this, we sure didn't look a t the bill of goods before we bought it, did we?

Or it might just be that NATO decided to assist a potentially friendly rebel force espousing a political view potentially more compatible than the previous one (who had a genuinely horrific human-rights record). That the NATO is an organization of more-or-less free market representative democracies and that they decided to support a group purporting to bring in just that sort of governemnt isn't completely unrealistic. Plus the logistic tail to do so is fairly short in this case - always a bonus for the military.

Where's the private sector involvement?
 
Not to go out on a speculative limb here, but speculating that any Libyan rebel group would need air cover to protect themselves from the Libyan air force doesn't require a military genius on par with Molteke the Elder, Wellington or Saladin.
But apparently more than the OP was capable of drumming up.;)
 
I have spent my weeks in banishment - for derailing the Atomic Lies thread by comparing it with the Flat Earth Society joke forum - ceaselessly searching for more details on Gaddafi - to no avail.

Interestingly this article by a Russian journalist reports widespread scepticism on the part of Russian diplomats on Gaddafi's death. What gives this account credibility is that the author is trying to hose these doubts down, rather than breathlessly reporting them as "what really happened"
http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20111024/168052657.html

To conspiracy theorists, the disappearance of Gaddafi's body makes the whole affair all the more dubious. Russian ultranationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, for one, said that the story about the former Libyan leader's death was a sham. I didn't take his remarks seriously at first, shrugging them off as a publicity stunt ahead of Russia's parliamentary elections. But it soon became clear that Zhirinovsky is not alone.

Even some Russian diplomats admit, off the record, that this might be a well-orchestrated show. Indeed, U.S. State Secretary Hillary Clinton showed up in Libya just one day before Gaddafi was reported dead. And Libya's rebel leaders began trumpeting their triumph well in advance.

These circumstances bring to mind the discrepancies surrounding Saddam Hussein's capture in Iraq in December 2003 (some of the photos, for instance, showed a palm tree in the background, the color of which was unusual for the season) [actually there was nothing wrong with the color of the palm tree, but the fact that it was laden with ripe fruit in the middle of December - an odd and possibly revealing omission on the part of this Russian "sceptic" - LGR]. Saddam took even longer to hunt down than Gaddafi - nine months. But once caught, the former Iraqi leader was put on trial and then executed by hanging. Gaddafi, by contrast, was gunned down without trial, and there is evidence that he was shot to death after having sustained other gunshots. Saddam spent the final part of his life hiding in a bunker, whereas Gaddafi never stopped fighting.

From palace to battlefield

The fact that quite a few members of the Russian political elite doubt the veracity of Gaddafi's death shows there is a high degree of distrust for the West, especially the United States.
 
"We hope he can be captured or killed soon so that you don't have to fear him any more," Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, said in Tripoli on Tuesday. "The most important thing now is to make sure that Gaddafi and his regime are finally prevented from disrupting the new Libya."

Oh well, lets all have a little snigger about five-times a night Gaddafi

WHEN Prince Andrew and Muammar Gaddafi sat down to dine together at a luxurious villa in Tripoli, the duke would have had no idea that the then Libyan leader had bedded at least four women earlier that day.....

Faisal was also trusted to apply Gaddafi's make-up and dye his hair. He often saw him naked. His position ensured he witnessed the despot's voracious sexual excesses, driven by extensive use of Viagra, the anti-impotence drug.
...

"There were four or sometimes five women each day," Faisal said. "There were so many. They had just become a habit to Gaddafi. They would go into his bedroom, he would have his way with them and then he would come out, like he had just blown his nose."

According to Faisal, Gaddafi's sexual appetite was well known in Libya. Some of the women who slept with him suffered so badly "they went immediately from his bedroom to the hospital" with internal injuries, he claimed.

The head of Gaddafi's office was once sent to Pigalle, the sex district of Paris, to buy a machine that was supposed to lengthen his penis. Gaddafi was swallowing so many Viagra pills his Ukrainian nurse told him he had to cut his intake, Faisal said.

Among his many duties, Faisal applied the thick make-up Gaddafi insisted on wearing in public - the Libyan leader preferred Chanel. He insisted that Gaddafi had not had a face-lift.

Gaddafi's lectures were notorious; he would speak about his Green Book and then take his pick of the women to a room near the lecture hall with a double bed.

The university dean told Faisal that Gaddafi wanted him to be his private servant. When he refused, his family was threatened; to continue to refuse would mean death.

Faisal frequently saw Gaddafi naked except for an open, gold-coloured robe he wore when he prayed. He helped to dye Gaddafi's hair and deal with his baldness. "I had to spray this French recipe on the front of his head. It was black and fuzzy and looked like hair, so he would not look like he was bald," Faisal said.

Faisal grew close to some of Gaddafi's female bodyguards, known as the "nuns of the revolution". They all had sex with Gaddafi, he admitted. The more canny of them became wealthy from his gifts of villas or cash.

Faisal is uncomfortable talking about it, but it is clear that Gaddafi was bisexual and surrounded himself with handsome young men. He reluctantly admits Gaddafi tried to seduce him and that he saw him bed young men.

Faisal said Safia, Gaddafi's wife, led a separate life from her husband and they lived apart.

Gaddafi's courtiers would pay up to $US300,000 for foreign women to be flown in.

Faisal was arrested in a roundup of Gaddafi's inner circle but will probably escape charges. "His life was destroyed by the tyrant," said Salah Ben Sassi, the leader of the brigade that captured him.

Well of course he will.

This hair issue is really causing a bit of problems - spray on hair, whatever next?
 
Last edited:
What problems?

He's dead at the hands of his former countrymen. Time to see how the new government there shapes up.
 

Back
Top Bottom