Redstone said:
One need not defend Qaddafi (I won't) to recognize the outrageousness of NATOs action to take him out and wield mass destruction in Libya. (Similar to not supporting Shiite radicals to recognize SA is a bad actor in Yemen.) He had deals with Sarkozy, the British, and the U.S. Libya is now a lawless open border, and a major drug and human trafficking center. Cameron literally doesn't have an entry for the word Libya in his new memoir.
Why.
Amazing timing about the fall of the gold dinar and the rise of the central bank, isn't it?
qaddafi was a psycho piece of ****, but he was useful.
whatever deal got cut after bombing him in the 80's worked for us overall.
the deep state handlers want a destabilized, jihadist violent islamic middle east, with chaos and an immigration crisis, to impose a police state on the west and keep a manageable crisis going. This is what the obama admin was deliberately doing. they destroyed secular, relatively sane and stable middle eastern powers, including libya, on purpose, and deliberately fomented radical islamic factions to take power. this happened in egypt, libya, iraq, turkey,
it was not an accident. it was against the interest of every middle class and working class american and western european.
the same ploy to destabilize latam worked, instead of the jihadist islamic button, they pused the cartel buttons.
bottom line, the us and western european governments have been turned against the best interest of their populations by international interests, using bought politicians like bush, clinton, bush, obama.
