Sarkozy and Lybia: Hillary Emails Reveal Propaganda, Executions, Coveting Libyan Oil and Gold
levantreport.com/2016/01/04/new-hillary-email...
levantreport.comPosted Jan 10, 2016, 1:04 PM UTC
275171
levantreport.comMobile death squads supported by NATO killing darker skinned Libyans. Making a town of 30,000 "Disappear"
Damn Hillary why hide dis?
54
Because she wants to be President? And because her husband was "the first African-American President"?
5†
Damn Hillary why hide dis?
Because she wants to be President? And because her husband was "the first African-American President"?
TIL that Bill Clinton isn't really white, it's just a* mask.
6
It was a common joke in the USA because of how much black people in general loved Clinton including personality wise.
18
That's interesting, thanks for providing this context. It looked rather strange without it, especially given that Obama now has that claim.
3
Would you like to see my mask?
1
Sarkozy truly fucked up in Libya. Weird considering Gadhaffi participated in Sarkozy's presidential victory by financing his party.
37
Honestly, reading this, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It's not convincing me that Ghaddaffi was a threat to the CFA, and furthermore, the author seems to be confusing North Africa with Western Africa. CFA (XOF) is of course a western Afrcan currency, not used in Maghreb.
"Instead, the great fear reported is that Libya might lead North Africa into a high degree of economic independence with a new pan-African currency." What?
The CFA is pegged to the euro and is used by eight nations, willingly. I've seen many conspiracy theories on Ghaddaffi's magical gold dinar, ranging from it screwing the dollar and pound to (now) eliminating the CFA (again, without evidence that the member nations wish to cease using the CFA).
27
Practically no one on the internet understands monetary policy, which is made worse by the fact that a significant fraction (goldbugs, paleolibertarians, bitcoin devotees, extreme left socialists) are aggressively ignorant about it.
15
What can I read to educate myself about these topics?
3
Introduction to Macroeconomics is a start.
1
Yeah and a lot of leaders in Western Africa worked in the CFA's central bank institutions, so they probably wouldn't have switched.
0†
Furthermore, the article doesn't realize that members who abandon their own currency and join an African monetary union would lose monetary independence, not gain it (obviously not applicable to central or western African franc). Just like the EMU members, which is also the main reason Sweden wants to stay out of it.
7
They wouldn't lose independent monetary policy, because they never had any to begin with. Since the African franc is pegged to the euro, and the currency issuance is managed by the French treasury, they are completely at their whims.
Switching to Gaddafi's gold dinar would not have allowed these countries to pursue independent monetary policy either, but it's not as if they had monetary independence to lose in the first place.
So the question becomes, which monetary dependence or currency union is most beneficial to these countries, and which one would have their best interests in mind? I suppose the answer to this question is in the eye of the beholder.
3
Because obviously it would be completely peaceful right now in Libya if NATO hadn't bombed Gaddafi...
0†
It would be (as it was) way better.
13
And how exactly ? There's a good chance it would be about the same situation as in Syria, ie. a civil war.
8†
Bombing alone, probably not, but if you also consider this:
While analysts have long speculated as to the “when and where” of Western ground troop presence in the Libyan War, this email serves as definitive proof that special forces were on the ground only within a month of the earliest protests which broke out in the middle to end of February 2011 in Benghazi. By March 27 of what was commonly assumed a simple “popular uprising” external special operatives were already “overseeing the transfer of weapons and supplies to the rebels” including “a seemingly endless supply of AK47 assault rifles and ammunition.”
Maybe it would have been better...
10
[deleted]
1
And you think that Syrian civil war has nothing to do or just a little to do with foreign aids to the rebel factions?
1
Depends who you are. If you were one of those of the regimes death lists i doubt it.
1
It's gonna be a real consolation to the people who either get bombs dropped on their head or get stoned to death by ISIS.
3†
How better would it be a scale from 1 to Syria ?
1
Best free education in Africa, free (almost) oil for his people, water/electricity distribution comparable to a western country...
Politics is not about the good or bad, it's about the better option.
2
There was a civil war going on long before NATO intervention.
1
If true then everyone involved should be persecuted, this is unacceptable.
26
Prosecuted not persecuted :P
23
Hehe, you're right :P let's do the prosecution thing instead of the persecution thing :P
2
Pourquoi non les deux?
0†
pourquoi pas
1
The source, which is state.gov, has an SSL certificate.
This means that this document has been passed around by someone using the certified persona of the USA bureaucracy.
Now, only two options are valid:
someone is lying
this is true
On the first case, someone's head should be requested, because given the current status of the politics in France it could be seen as an attempt to destabilize a foreign country.
On the second case, Sarkozy has the responsabilty of destabilizing a foreign country and being one of the causes of ISIS and the refugee crysis.
Either developments have a big impact, and spreading awareness of the available facts might have an impact on the reticent press like it happened with the Koln rape cases
5†
The source, which is state.gov, has an SSL certificate. This means that this document has been passed around by someone using the certified persona of the USA bureaucracy.
You know about SSL, as you know about diplomatic cables: not much.
18
Care to elaborate?
1†
sure...
-
SSL has nothing to do with anything, it's a measure of trust between computers, not people...
-
The cables are coming from sources in the field, which quote other sources. Some of them are double agents. Some of them have interests of their own. It's not a proof. It's hearsay at best, or an attempt at manipulation at worst.
-
The article links to BBC and other media articles which have been known for a long time.
-
One cable says Gaddafi has infinite resources to support the civil war, including 143 tones of gold. You and the other conspiracy enthusiasts interpret that as the West being after Gaddafis' gold because it threatens the EU currency. Can't get more deluded than this.
I can continue but life is short. All in all a laughable article and comments.
24
Finally a logical head in the comments. Both Sarkozy's administration, hilary, and the entire catalouge of the Bush administration is responsible for this. An SSL certificate is proof that bureaucracy is adamant in maintaining a foothold in the middle east.
-6†
An SSL certificate is proof that bureaucracy is adamant in maintaining a foothold in the middle east.
sarcasm?
13
[deleted]
0
Not to such an extent. But clear proof of where Hilary and the past few administration's interest lies when it comes to relations with the Middle East.
-3
Source is US government, hosted on webpage dedicated to Freedom of Information Act related files.
4
And people say that the Russians are acting out of sheer paranoia when we call NATO a threat.
Oh well.
23
What was the domestic reaction to not vetoing the UN decision?
5
There was almost none, I think, Libya was just too far away, Qaddafi was just too much of a buffoon.
It was certainly seen as a pretty big favour to France and the US though, and it was expected for this favour to be at least respected if not rewarded. Yet, it only took half a year for the same people we did a favour to align themselves with yet another anti-government protesters, this time in Moscow itself. The rest is history.
Now Libya has become an important cornerstone of the narrative that the US is not to be trusted.
8
Either neutral as in "We don't give a fuck", or negative "Putin allowing to bomb his allies".
1
No one is saying it's paranoia. Paranoia is based on fear, and Russia doesn't fear a NATO invasion or NATO-backed civil war as in Lybia, because it doesn't have to. It's a nuclear state, and as such completely safe from the above.
What Russia has towards NATO is the attitude of "The thief shouting catch the thief!". Russia wants to orchestrate its own Lybia-like scenarios in neighbouring, post-soviet states in order to re-establish lost influence. NATO is preventing this, and thus becoming the natural target for Russian propaganda. NATO naturally doesn't do that (help ex-soviet states protect from Russia) because it's a benevolent organisation or because western states aren't themselves prone to the same neo-colonialism, as we see they are in Lybia. They do it to counter Russia, which is good enough for the citizens of those states, but not enought to "scare" Russia into a paranoia that NATO is out to destroy them.
3
Paranoia is based on fear, and Russia doesn't fear a NATO invasion or NATO-backed civil war as in Lybia
Well, of course we do fear that. We are afraid of NATO, it's no secret. It's like in every official document nowadays.
western states aren't prone to the same neo-colonialism, as we see they are in Lybia.
Do you understand that you're writing in a thread that is all about the evidence of the most blatant colonialism?
1
And that's what my sentece says - western states ARE prone to neo-colonialism, as we see in Lybia. My sentence wasn't full so i see the confusion, fixed it now.
PS. What is Russia affraid of? A nuclear war? Cause that's what it would take for NATO to support a civil war inside Russia. And that's just insane, it would never happen. Politicians are just using it as a wonderful scare-mongering to justify own actions and more power. NATO isn't a threat to Russia's internal security, it's a threat to Russia's external ability to impose power on its neighbours, hence why the Kremlin sees it as an enemy - because it isn't preocupied with keeping Russia safe (which it is), but with extending Russian influence over the ex-soviet states. In which matter, thank God for NATO.
2
Er, who have Russia attacked that wasn't paranoid defensiveness?
1
Ah, so now Russian aggression is justified "paranoid defensiveness" on their part.
1
What would you do? Would you be better?
1
Neo-colonialism
13
Reminds me of Patrice Lumumba who became the first democratically elected prime minister after Congo's "independence". A whole circus followed and he was eventually executed. It's not even a secret. The Belgian agent, Commissioner Gerard Soete, who dug up Lumumba's body, hacked it to pieces and dissolved into acid, boasted about two teeth he kept as souvenirs on national television. The Secretary-General of the UN, Dag Hammarskjöld coincidentially also died in a plane crash in Northeren Rhodesia while on his way to cease-fire negotations in Congo.
To me it seems more and more that Africa never got a chance.
2
Honestly, none of that is really shocking.
Of course the French motives for interventionism don't impress anybody. The rest shows that, once again, a certain country has little scruples in lying to everybody. But as I understand it, the uprising started independently; and yes, some of it consisted of Islamists. All of that existed before foreign interventions, though.
Where they really fucked up is in how far they went. The situation was clear: their UN mandate didn't allow for a regime change. The fact that the coalition involved refused to negotiate with Ghaddafi and let him get overthrown was a mistake with grave consequences; both in terms of how it put the early UN talks on Syria into a tragic deadlock, and how it left Libya in a complete power vacuum.
9
let him get overthrown
They didn't 'let him' get overthrown. They actively worked hard to do that. They spent months trying to assassinate the guy and at one point murdered a bunch of camels in the desert thinking he was hiding there. They killed his son and three grandkids just to get him, and then denied that they were bombing residential areas.
The people responsible for the Libyan fuckup should be arrested. This was the event that killed the Russian reset and made them realise that the west couldn't be trusted. After Obama promised Medevedev that it was just all about saving civilians he trusted him and abstained at the UNSC vote. He looked like a fool and his career effectively died. Hardliners in Kremlin who always distrusted the west were finally victorious.
Let's not even mention the vast amount of war crimes we helped the rebels commit.
24
Let's not even mention the vast amount of war crimes we helped the rebels commit.
Remember all those haunting videos and photos of sub-saharan Africans hauled into trucks? I'll never forget those.
11
Me too. Some Africans fought as mercenaries for Gaddafi but the vast majority didn't. Most of them were just workers or people trying to get a boat to Europe.
What upsets me the most is the part we had to play. The rebels spread rumours that Gaddafi was giving viagra to soldiers so that they can rape women better. It's an incredibly stupid rumour but you know what? We helped spread it. Even the ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo, a man I had great respect for took part in spreading it and making it legitimate.
This played on people's worst instincts. "Black Africans raping fair skinned Arab women". Just like the Cologne incident this type of thing is incredibly powerful and even normal people become extreme. A lot of construction workers and refugees meet a sad end and our media covered it up.
The most tragic was the town of Thawerga. They were native Black Libyans who were pro-Gaddafi because he helped them escape from the economic servitude they used to be in. The people who used to treat them as 2nd class citizens in Misrata rebelled. We helped the Misratans take over their town, ethnically cleanse them, kidnap thousands of people and disappear them. The Misratans called them the town of rapists. Everywhere in Libya the survivors are not safe. People are fearful of their womenfolk so they get abused.
I have so much anger but I don't know what upsets me more. The fact that we did this or the fact that we don't care and the guys responsible for it have gotten away with it. The vast majority of people have even forgotten that we were attacking Libya just four years ago.
13
Article says that rumor was made up by Sidney Blumenthal himself.
6
Not only was trying to kill Gaddafi illegal under international law, it was illegal under United States law as well. Executive Orders 12333, 12036, and 11905 explicitly ban the policy of political assassinations.
Obama and Hillary are war criminals. It terrifies me that she could be the next president.
6
The Bush years were a disaster with regards to the collapse of Iraq, but one gets the impression that the Obama Administration's handling of foreign affairs was particularly cynical, under-handed, and worst of all: Ineffective.
1
I used to hate Bush and I was happy when Obama won. I even bought his two books. I can now say that he is much much worse than Bush. The only difference is that he has better PR and speaking skills.
The two good things about Bush is that he fixed the mess he made in Iraq. The majority of ISI (ISIS) were killed or in prison. The rest were hiding in the desert. Obama's policy of toppling governments in Libya and Syria basically allowed ISIS to recover. They entered Syria in 2011 under a front name called Al-Nusra. They were responsible for almost every single major rebel victory. The US government knew but thought they could use them to kill Syrian soldiers.
They gave them two and a half years to not only rebuild but become better and stronger than they ever were during the insurgency days. When ISIS attacked Mosul they had already been controlling 1/3rd of Syria for more than 15 months.
What makes Obama even more criminal is his anti-ISIS operations. His plan isn't to destroy ISIS. It's to basically eliminate ISIS when they attack US allies and funnel them to attack the Syrian Army. When ISIS was sending large convoys over weeks to attack Palmyra the US airforce did nothing. They were happy to see the ancient heritage of the town destroyed and locals massacred just as long as the Syrian government suffered.
Now they moan and cry about Russians in Syria. The man needs to have his Nobel Peace Prize taken and be sent to prison. Clinton is even worse. I actually want Trump to win. At least his hands isn't stained with blood.
0
Another grave consequence:
Gaddhafi voluntarily shut down his nuclear weapons research program in exchange for assurances from the West and rapprochement. NATO took his ass out anyway.
Ironically, this was carried out in large part by the US president who got a Nobel Peace Prize for all his 'contributions' to nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament.
This sent a signal to all world leaders, to be sure.
It told the North Koreans that if they ever surrender their nukes, they are next. They'll cling to those babies like a life preserver. Kim Jong-Un even referenced the West's betrayal of Libya as a justification for their program after this most recent test they conducted.
And basically, if they choose to go down this route, it also gave the Iranians have a bigger incentive than ever before to develop a nuclear weapon to save their own skins, given that they have been in the crosshairs of US/Israeli regime change for a long time now. (Not that Iran is, or ever was, trying to build a nuclear weapon.)
11
Who the hell is Lybia?
8
A cousin of labia.
3
The guys that sold a lot petrol to Italy. They still do in a limited fashion due to infrastructure falling apart due to both destruction and impossibility to send maintenance crews in most areas. France wanted a slice of that.
2
The guys that sold a lot petrol to Italy.
So Lybia is a man's name? TIL, Lybia sounded very feminine to me.
Lybia who?
2
Hm, didn't notice it. It says Libyan in the follow-up though.
1
I have noticed that people who like conspiracy theories also tend to write Lybia instead of Libya.
-1†
Weird how this conspiracy theory turned out true.
7
There once was this girl called Lybia
and notable was her ...
2
tibia?
2
... tibia
yet no matter how she tried
she simply could't hide
that the most prominent thing was her ...
2
The original state.gov PDF can be found here (and i think it's even more interesting than the article, btw)
Even if the article is more centered on the overall situation, it provides some context and insight on the event that led the invasion of Lybia and the subsequent North African instability.
I've seen it was discussed in r/france, so if someone has more info about it it would be very appreciated.
7
Honestly, I think a lot of France's hawkish foreign policy in Africa/Middle East is pretty shit. They really should take a hard look whether they aren't harming all of Europe with all the destabilizing they request.
5
never believed the afrcan currency gold backed thing, but looks like it actually has some merit too it. scary when you think about it actually
5
ITT: R/Europe goes full on r/conspiracy.
2
[removed]
1
Look at a sample of comments:
Jesus Christ... so it turns out even the most outlandish conspiracy theories were true.
or
Sarkozy truly fucked in Libya
and most imporant, the title: "Sarkozy and Lybia ...".
My point is this: it's not Sarkozy who did this. It's the French people themselves and the people of Europe in general. Those who would gladly call anyone who's stating the obvious a "conspiracy theorist" . Wars and coups like the one in Libya are exactly part of the so-called "liberal" market, as it exists today. See, you can't have your pie and eat it too; meaning: you can't apathetically enjoy the benefits of colonialism and demand to be considered innocent at the same time. Period.
1†
You are learning that Sarkozy hided is agenda from the french people but it's their fault? Solid logic.
7
There is a similar agenda now with Syria and yet lots of people still believe that the "heroic" FSA are fighting the "butcher" Assad.
The public seem to have little interest in the governments continuing colonial policies as long as it doesn't affect them.
2†
The FSA aren't heroic, and Assad is a butcher.
Politics are cynical, people unhappy, and the world powers are stuck in a bitter quagmire of endless proxy war.
5
Assad is a butcher
The man is trying to defend his country against islamic extremism and foreign aggression.
1†
Exactly. Is it really that they don't know / understand because they never process what mainstream media is feeding them? Or is it that they kind of know but they just don't care? I can't quite put my finger on it.
2†
You are learning that Sarkozy hided is agenda from the french people but it's their fault? Solid logic.
This is not Sarkozy's agenda, dumbass. It's how the world works, for at least 100 years now. Especially countries like France have a rich history of colonialism. Why do you think they start wars in the Middle East (clarification: not France in particular)? Out of compassion for oppressed people? Maybe you do, actually. But that's the whole point of my first post: if you are so ignorant, you are guilty too.
1†
Even if one is cynical enough to accept that: then the problem is still all those times when those no-colonial fuckery backfires and bites Europe in the ass.
Like, ok, if you really need to play with matches, how about not doing it next door/destabilizing the region right on our front porch?
1
Look's like you know plenty already. Goodbye now.
0†
farewell & goodnight
2
you can't apathetically enjoy the benefits of colonialism and demand to be considered innocent at the same time. Period.
This bears repeating. The choice between moral high ground and prosperity is a dilemma -- though I'd venture that you would choose differently than I would.
I feel that this dilemma is also at the core of current public debate on the migrant issue -- the pro-refugee standpoint is that the migration wave has negligible (and strictly economic) cost, thus preserving innocence essentially for free. The opposing view is that the current level of prosperity (and, more visibly, safety) is a direct result of the potential migrants not being here - and that preserving innocence is not worth the cost.
2
[removed]
1
I'm out of the loop. I know that Hillary was using some private email addresses for official matters, but I don't know if these recently published emails are somehow related to that scandal or are a completely different thing.
1
Self interest, people. Would french be willing to take a huge blow to their economy to allow other country to become stronger? Doubt it.
0†
[removed]
-1
[removed]
-3†
[deleted]
-10
0 state debt is not necessarily good. This is basic macro. You can make money off of borrowing money if your reputation is good enough, which is why other countries don't want 0 debt.
9
Until it's time to repay.
-5†
Again, this is not how it works. Many countries do not need to borrow but do so because with the borrowed money they will finance projects which return more.money than the initial loan, making it profitable to borrow. It is economically unwise to not borrow, unless your reputation is so bad you are unable to get good interest or unless you won't use the money in a financially responsible way. Virtually all countries should borrow.
9
[deleted]
-2†
Pay some interest and lay the debt over, economic growth will reduce the relative size on itself.
0
one of the baltic countries.
That would be us, also a reason why we didn't have to take an IMF loan like Latvia and recovered a lot better than they did.
2
How is zero debt justified domestically? In Sweden and Norway we avoid it.
1
Jesus Christ... so it turns out even the most outlandish conspiracy theories were true.
which theories?
Libyan economy distancing itself and encouraging other African nations to distance themselves from US&UK ("Western") institutions leading to massive propaganda campaign followed by NATO attack and murder of head of state - Muammar Gaddafi.
Consequences for Libya: relatively prosperous (compared to other African countries) nation with very left-leaning, social policies of education, housing, medical care now in state of constant war between various Islamist and sell-everything-to-Westerners-and-bring-McDonalds-to-us factions. Standard of living falling drastically, population measurably worse than pre-2011.
Oh and by the way - fuck you Russia and China, for not vetoing the decision.
Apparently Medvedev not vetoing it was one of the reasons Putin was determined to return to the presidency. The current state of Libya is also a cause of Russia's support for Assad.
I somehow doubt Putin couldn't convince Medvedev if he wanted to. My guess is, aside from few infrastructural and arm deals, Russia didn't have very much to gain from Libya one way or another so as sign of good relations with France chose to look away and not get involved.
They thought they had more to gain from good relations with France than from good relations with Gaddafi.
Reminds me of this article I just read in German news about a high level diplomat form the Brisigh Foreign Office (who negotiated the Iraq economic sanctions and the Kosovo peace talks). About how 20 people quit in the human rights department of the UN because the reports on how the economic embargos in Iraq killed droves of civillians (including supposedly 500.000 children below the age of five), especially due to lack of clean water due to the embargo on chlorine. And how an embargo exception was not made for chlorine but for Wrigley's bubble gum because it was classified as huminatarian aid.
Id recommend this documentary by John Pilger on the subject. I thought it was excellent. Very few people can get the interviews he does, while asking those questions.
http://johnpilger.com/videos/paying-the-price-killing-the-children-of-iraq
I fucking WISH Russia would have had the wherewithal to veto the Security Council resolution. Thing is, though, when has no UN resolution stopped the US (Iraq War) or NATO (Kosovo War) before? The resolution on Libya didn't even authorize what they ended up doing to Libya, it only authorized a no-fly zone (which is why Russia abstained instead of vetoing).
You can read a full interview with Medvedyev here on their decision.
Searched for Libya welfare found this. Is it all true I wonder?
If they vetoed the resolution Libya would had gotten screwed anyway, via western convert operations. And retards like you would lay blame on Russia and China for not supporting measures to 'save the Libyan people' just like how people bashed the two countries who vetoed another western attempt to directly attack Assad. It's never the West's fault.
There was a civil war going on long before NATO intervention. I have a feeling it is much more about European energy security than any crazy conspiracy theories. Remember the US tried sitting out intervention and was lobbied hard by France and the UK. Hardly seems like a conspiracy in the normal sense. France and the UK decided the "human rights abuses in Libya could not continue" after oil shipments started getting disrupted.
That Gaddafi was deposed to prevent him introducing a pan-African gold backed currency.
Most conspiracy theories involving the US are true, especially the one about how it's completely and utterly irrelevant who you vote for in the US because the company was brought along time ago.
Nobody gets elected in the US without them being in the pocket of the big corporations there.
That's why Bernie Sanders either ; 1. Has no chance, or 2. Is actually in their pocket as well.
Every US "candidate" is pre-selected by those who actually run the show and then they have a pantomine for their fake democracy to see who gets in.
Practically every Middle East conflict is stoked up by the US because it benefits them (and especially hurts Europe), which is also their goal.
Which is why I find it disgusting that people here actually support the US, even though everything it does in the Middle East hurts us here.
No.
You have to be careful with these easy, broad, black and white conclusions. While there is some level of competition between various US and Europe's oil companies and financial institutions, they are mostly on the same page when it comes to foreign resources.
Trump was pre selected? As well as the other like 10 Republican candidates?
Be careful. I think the lizard people might be trying to take control of you.
Bernie Sanders is in their pocket lmao
People need to stop acting as if he is a revolutionary
true because a blog post says so?
No, true because a confidential email between Hillary Clinton and her advisers says so.
Actually, it seem the "adviser" by the name of "sid" was actually simply Sydney Blumenthal
I think you would be surprised how much will turn out not to conspiracy theories. If a story has holes in it people will try to find pieces to fit. Not all that lay puzzels are nuts.
Jesus isn't real. Muhammed is the god.
You probably don't want to see current classified documents what is really going on behind closed doors or you might burst a nerve and die.
What ಠ_ಠ
Muhammed isn't even god(200% haram), he's the messenger of god.
edit:checked his post history, dude seems to be mentally ill
It is my understanding that Islam doesn't dispute that Jesus existed.
No, in fact, he's a very prominent figure in the faith as well.
The Islamic belief is that Jesus (İsa) is the prophet of Allah.
The Christian doctrine of Trinity is rejected by Islam.
Claiming that a human is Allah or descendant from Allah is considered blasphemous... or insane.
Even Muslims think that's just completely bonkers.
[removed]