Two things the "rebels" immediately established:

1) A Rothschild Zionist Central Bank, and

2) A Rockefeller Zionist State Oil Company.

If that doesn't raise red flags, you aren't paying attention.

Your "Rockefeller Zionist" wingnuttery aside, OF COURSE the first thing they did was set up a new state bank and oil company. They needed money and credibility for their revolution, and they needed to deny it to Gaddafi. What were you expecting them to do? Drum circles?

Oh, look... It's RogerStrong, the notorious "label, mock, and ridicule" troll of r/conspiracy. Your reputation precedes you. How absolutely quaint of you to crawl out from under the baseboards to greet me on my first day here. I'd call you a reptilian, but you're more of an insect... tiny, and insignificant.

This is an example of a stupid argument

Rest of r/conspiracy, please make sure your posts never resemble this in any way

Yes. RogerStrong's ad hominem comedy routine was pretty stupid. I agree.

Translation: I publicly disagreed with some of his endless wingnuttery.

Oh, is that what you did? I thought you started your comment with an ad hominem attack and proceeded from there into a stand up comedy routine. All a matter of perspective.

Insect.

I called your claim of Arabs setting up "Rothschild Zionist" banks and oil companies wingnutty. That's not a "ad hominem attack"; that's stating the obvious.

If you disagree, kindly explain the differences between a "Rothschild Zionist" bank and a NON-"Rothschild Zionist" bank. Or the difference between a "Rothschild Zionist" State Oil Company and a NON-"Rothschild Zionist" State Oil Company

First, identify yourself. Which species are you? I need to know which dialect to use to communicate with you.

Siince you're David Icke, you'll no doubt assume that I'm a shape-shifting reptile overlord from outer space regardless of what I say.

Some of the people on here are seriously crazy, eh?

How do you debate someone who accuses you of being a reptile?

tries to act smart and throw up some useless theories about it?

Great way to engage your audience!

Downvoted.

All of a sudden most of this subreddit seems to think Gaddafi was some sort of saint killed by the US for trying to expose secrets or some stupid shit.

Bullshit.

He was a dictator killed for oil, and because he attempted to create a new African monetary union.

No, he was killed because his people rebelled against him, and European nations feared a massive wave of refugees from a prolonged civil war.

There was over 1000,000 pro gadaffi protesters in Tripoli in June. A small of his people who were backed by the west killed him.

Libya's got 6.5M people. "a small" isn't really the answer here. It was the same popular uprising that is happening all over the Middle East.

Except western intelligence has been wanting to take him out since 1996 and made use of the opportunity. It had nothing to do with his people rising up. Lybia went from being one of the poorest countries in the world to the highest standard of living on the continent. Lybia was a functioning direct democracy not a dictatorship.Egypt was an actual revolution, lybia was a coupe.

First off, there were attempts on his life by western countries in the mid-80s. Noone is denying that.

No one is denying that it had one of the best standards of living in Africa. With the world's 10th largest oil reserves, it should have.

However, why are you retarded enough to state that it was a functioning direct democracy considering Gaddafi took power in a coup detat and was a dictator for 35 years? Where the fuck is that a democracy?

No, the simple answer is never allowed on this subreddit. You should know better

So we should conjure up a complicated answer because it fits better?

The more outlandish your theory is the better. Try to relate everything to 9/11 and zionists for extra points

Don't forget chemtrails!

Errr sorry, I originally didn't notice that you were the OP and didn't pick up on the sarcasm in that previous post.

Great way to engage your audience! Downvoted.

Yes, I really give a lot of fucks. This is furthering my point, you base your opinions on rhetoric

you base your opinions on rhetoric

I don't understand where this is coming from.

You downvoted since I didn't "engage the audience". ie Didn't fit your viewpoint

Which says a lot about how you form opinions and read articles/news

Now you're just being silly.

Insulting your audience is in no way equivalent to not fitting their viewpoint.

If you want to challenge the status quo, you're better off keeping a civil tongue in your head.

You have proven me wrong

I'll edit my post

No, he was killed because his people rebelled against him, and European nations feared a massive wave of refugees from a prolonged civil war.

European nations feared a massive wave of refugees from a prolonged civil war.

Have you got a ref for that?

First I've heard of it.

And anyway, who joins a war to stop the flow of refugees?

And anyway, who joins a war to stop the flow of refugees?

Anyone wanting to stop the flow of refugees? Stop the war, stop the flow

Europe is close enough to the area to have a vested interest in its stability

Seriously, people should look at the statements released by Italy and France right before NATO attacked Libya.

Notorious 1994, you state that those that opposed the removal of Gaddafi did so because we believe there was" a conspiracy for oil or some stupid shit." The reasons for my objections are somewhat deeper than "oil or some stupid shit." The main reason Gadaffi was deposed and murdered is that he had plans tointroduce the gold dinar, a single African currency that would serve as an alternative to the U.S. dollar and allow African nations to share the wealth. The Dinar would have been backed 100% by gold, thus destroying the dollar's usability and credibility in Africa and the Middle East. It is surely no coincidence that Iraq’s prior leader, Saddam Hussein, was trying to do the same thing just prior to U.S. invasion for all of those “weapons of mass destruction.”

Human Rights Watch ranked Libya at 58 on it latest world report. When referring to this ranking by HRW one must keep in mind that a higher number is a better number. Notorious 1994, would you care to guess who has the dubious distinction of being number 1? If you guessed the United States of America, you'd be correct. In fact, of all the nations in Africa, Libya outranked EVERY single other nation on the continent. Also, the United Nations was preparing to bestow an award on the "brutal dictator" Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, and the Libyan Jamahiriya, for its achievements in the area of human rights. Lastly, Libya was a member of the UN Human Rights panel.

Notorious 1994, since you seem to be a fan of visual aids, I offer the following. This video shows what was reported by several news agencies to be over 1 million Libyans gathered in SUPPORT of Gadaffi. That would be 1 million out of a nation of 6 million Libyans.

Why? Every NATO mission in the past while seems to be about oil, frankly makes me wonder what is going on. It would be naive to say that the U.S finds all the evil in the world and randomly selects a country to be freed from their shackles.

Upvoted for discussion.

Get your facts right. US didn't lead that fight.

Get your facts right. US didn't lead that fight.

Every NATO mission in the past while seems to be about oil,

There's not a lot of oil in Bosnia or Kosovo or Afghanistan. The Somali pirates don't have much either.

NATO countries had no problem buying oil from Gaddafi. the new regime will still be part of OPEC.

Afghanistan

Oh yeah, that one's about Opium.

Riiiiiiight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMK35W05kJI

Did you think we forgot what happened already? That you guys can just waltz in here and dictate propaganda to the fluoride impaired or something? Yeah, I know; just testing the water, gotta follow orders and such. Well ram this up your chain of command: 911 called and said it's going to be a long fucking wait.

[deleted]

That's just the liberal media lying to you, it's actually liberty, democracy, and (most of all) free markets being established over there, now that the nasty old bogey man is gone. It's true because the president said so.

I share your sentiment. I think a lot of people have an immature need to provide "deeper" explanations for why things happen the way they do. These same people see inconsistencies in the status quo explanations of the world as proof that they are right.

Is everything the media telling us about Libya correct? Probably not. Can a high schooler accessing the internet from his mom's basement come up with a better explanation for why things happen the way they do? Definitely not.

Is everything the media telling us about Libya correct? Probably not.

So why do you share Notorious1994's sentiment?

It's obvious we're being lied to; why shouldn't we try to find the truth?

[deleted]

His sentiment isn't "let's accept everything at face value". His sentiment is "I am tired of idiots coming up with deluded theories."

It's one thing to "find the truth". It's another thing when we start loving a dictator simply because our government attacked his country. The latter is paranoia.

[deleted]

You got doubles as well.

"I am tired of idiots coming up with deluded theories"

He's slinging mud without providing any context.

I haven't noticed much Gaddafi love around here.

It's obvious that the MSM has been feeding us all a load of horse shit, but that's not the same thing as loving Gaddafi.

It's another thing when we start loving a dictator simply because our government attacked his country. The latter is paranoia.

While I doubt that this is even true, I have to ask: why do you see that loving someone is paranoia?

???

1) That's just what his sentiment is. And I agree with it.

2) It's paranoia because people are so angry with the American government at this point that they jump to a conclusion any leader deposed by the American government was killed because of some occult reason.

was killed because of some occult reason

Stop it with the nonsensical attacks.

There are very good reasons for Gaddafi to be attacked, and they're much the same reasons as for Saddam to be attacked.

"Installing democracy" is not on the list.

Are you too fucking stupid to understand what I am saying?

Maybe you're just not very good at expressing yourself.

But I've never seen an "occult reason" posited for Gaddafi's assassination.

Really? Because all these "he was killed for oil" or "he was killed because he tried to start a new monetary union" explanations seem pretty retarded.

Now we see where you're coming from.

Is that the best you've got?

"Going after oil seems a bit retarded?"

You got doubles as well.