An odd thing happened on the way to the Libyan 'revolution'...

[Dover]

Libya all about oil, or central banking?
By Ellen Brown

Several writers have noted the odd fact that the Libyan rebels took time out from their rebellion in March to create their own central bank - this before they even had a government. Robert Wenzel wrote in the Economic Policy Journal:

I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising. This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences.

Alex Newman wrote in the New American:
In a statement released last week, the rebels reported on the results of a meeting held on March 19. Among other things, the supposed rag-tag revolutionaries announced the "designation of the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi."

Newman quoted CNBC senior editor John Carney, who asked, "Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power? It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era."

cont'd

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD14Ak02.html


Video - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x632533

[sabrina 1]

1. Lots of people were pretty stunned by that at the time.

Not too many people left who doubt the real reasons for this fake revolution.

On to the next, Syria? Iran? How many left now on the PNAC list? Iraq, Libya = Done.

The Neocons loved the Libyan 'Revolution'. They were on board from the beginning.

[TheWraith]

9. If you mean "not too many conspiracy theorists left who doubt it," you might be right.

Meanwhile, some people will look for any excuse to lionize a brutal dictator and demonize the popular uprising that got rid of him. Funny how people rising up only applies to groups who do it the way you imagine it should be.

[sabrina 1]

25. Except it wasn't a 'popular uprising'. But keep on believing

that, despite all the evidence to the contrary. It was a Neocon generated invasion of one of the countries long on their list to invade.

Btw, did you support South Africa's fight for independence against Apartheid?

[TheWraith]

30. Given your long history of believing things that are factually wrong even when proven false...

... I'm not at all surprised that you want to create an alternate reality. Kind of like your insistence that Anwar Al Awlaki was in the US for five years after he left.

[sabrina 1]

32. Personal attacks are against the rules here.

As for your nasty comment, I made one error which I acknowledged, an error which did not in any way change the substance of the argument. Nor were you able to back up your claims regarding Awlaki airc.

As for this comment, prove me wrong if you can, I have no problem acknowledging errors. But so far not one person who has claimed this 'popular uprising' CT has been able to prove it.

The problem for you is that those who know Libya, who have spent time there, have from the beginning identified who these 'rebels' were. While NATO pretended it didn't really know, when in fact they did. Gadaffi had the support of the people of Libya which is why the most powerful alliance of countries in the world, were unable to defeat them using over 9000 bombing missions, putting 'agents' from Qatar and elsewhere on the ground, and using propaganda to try to dissuade people from continuing to fight for their country to keep out the invaders.

It took nearly a year to accomplish NATO's goal of regime change, illegal goal btw. If this was a popular revolution, as Egypt's was, it should have taken less than the time it took the Egyptians considering they had no help from NATO bombings and drones etc, nor did they bring in agents from other countries to fight with them, nor did they arm themselves and it took 18 days.

This was an imperial invasion and if you want to go on believing otherwise, do so. And your nasty, personal attacks don't give you much credibility either. In fact they do the opposite.

[TheWraith]

34. You did not acknowledge your error, and continued repeating the same line for days.

And given that your entire argument was that if the US wanted Al Awlaki he was right here in the country, yes, it DID change the "substance."

It's not a "personal attack" to point out that you selectively believe whatever you need to in order to create a scenario where the US is an Evil Empire. The belief that Libya is somehow other than as advertised is similar, in that to think that you have to ignore all objective evidence. It's the international relations version of global warming denialism. Your repeated insistence on things which are flatly false, like that Ghaddafi was loved and that the Libyans had great lives, doesn't make it true.

The only thing here which lacks credibility is the increasingly fringe claims that we "invaded" Libya. You might want to actually listen to what the Libyans said about it, or compare an assisted revolution in Libya with an actual invasion in Iraq. Frankly this whole claim is close enough to self-parody that I wouldn't bother with it, except that someone otherwise uninformed might think that you had some kind of factual basis for your claims.

[sabrina 1]

37. Dragging old threads into other threads is also against the rules

here.

'Listen to the Libyans'. Human rights have been listening to them, although anonymously as they are terrified of the 'rebels'. Young girls who used to have decent homes and parents and schools, now have nothing and are terrified for their lives. Innocent people who did nothing to deserve to have to live this way in their own country.

The country was invaded, believe what you will, but you are very much in the minority round the world. Which was the case with those who supported the Iraq invasion by the same suspects also, back when the left used to oppose Imperial wars like this.

I will leave you to your meanderings. I prefer to speak to people who do not feel the need for personal attacks. That is always an indication of a lack of ability to defend their positions, and more of a need to 'win'.

Enjoy the rest of your day ...

[sabrina 1]

2. Rec'd to zero

We must not be exposed to facts it seems.

[dipsydoodle]

3. same here.

.

[whistler162]

4. Obviously not if your are this gullible....

better for the revolution to recieve funds and have them disappear into some unknown hole!

GADS... to many gullible people believe everything that is in print.

[Dover]

6. Happy to have you lay out for us the alternative interpretation of that story.

Or better yet, provide a contrasting news item that addresses this banking issue.

[sabrina 1]

8. What is it that people are gullible about?

Your post is not clear. Have you read anything about that bank was set up by a bunch of so-called 'rag-tag rebels'?

[TheWraith]

11. If you believe the rebels who have been organized for months are "rag tag" and incapable of anything

...then how do you justify your opinions on Occupy Wall Street, which is far less organized and has been in existence a much shorter time?

[EFerrari]

10. LOL. No kidding.

[Poll_Blind]

5. And the rebels had been selling us oil since June! Quite a precocious lot, aren't they?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?address=102x4877988&az=view_all">Libyan rebel group sells first oil to U.S.

PB

[tabatha]

20. They needed the money to feed their people. DUH.

All of Libya's money was in Tripoli, and Gaddafi paid all of the wages.

Since Libya has very few other exports, the fastest way to earn money was to sell oil.

To feed the people who no longer had food or wages from Gaddafi in Tripoli.

[rug]

7. I think it has more to do with establishing Islamic banking, which is probably a good thing.

"Announcing the country’s liberation to a cheering crowd in Benghazi last week, the head of the new government made few concrete pledges of economic policy. But one of them was to promote Islamic finance, which prohibits the lending of money for interest and other practices violating religious principles."

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=468478&version=1&template_id=48&parent_id=28

There's a lot to suspect about the vultures circling over Libya, as well as the establishment of religious law, but I think Islamic banking is an improvement.

[EFerrari]

12. What happens in practice is that interest is simply renamed and charged

anyway.

[sabrina 1]

14. Except that Libya was one of the few countries who were

completely independent of Western Banking systems. So where was this need to establish Islamic Finance? Gadaffi's main problem with the West was his determination to keep them out of African/Muslim's affairs, particularly their financial affairs. Which is why many people were very surprised by that claim at the time. Had he been more 'cooperative' he would not have been brutally murdered, btw what happened to the investigation into that war crime?

Libya, eg, was free from debt to the IMF/World Bank, another reason for the 'west' to hate him.

And Libya already had a Central Bank. So this should not have been a priority at all, especially at that time when no one knew what the outcome would be, or did they?

[rug]

15. So what do you think is up?

Western banks will manipulate this bank?

[sabrina 1]

23. Yes, I believe that is the reason. The article linked in the OP

explains quite a bit about how the IMF eg, views countries that do not 'cooperate' with Western control of the banking systems, globally now.

One seldom mentioned fact by western politicians and media pundits: the Central Bank of Libya is 100% State Owned ... Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue that Libya is a sovereign nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.

There is a lot more in the article regarding this. I have also read a lot about this elsewhere especially when the news of this new Central Bank first came out.

In the Libya cables released by Wikileaks, this was a 'concern' airc. That western businesses who had contracts with Libya had to deal through their currency. Also, Gadaffi was talking about creating an African currency based on the Gold Dinar. This terrified the Western financiers especially since he seemed to be getting some interest in his ideas from African nations. His goal was to make the African Continent independent of their old Colonial masters. He wanted to form an African NATO type alliance to protect the continent from future invasions as has been their history.

The truth is the Libyan people were very prosperous under Gadaffi, it was a Socialist State, where the Government gave many 'hand-outs' as the Rightwing calls them, to its people. Eg, it was considered by Gadaffi that owning a home was a human right, so every Libyan was given approximately $50,000 towards buying a home when they were ready to so. The government also paid for education including for those who wanted to study abroad. Many other 'socialist' programs existed. They can kiss goodbye to all of that now, but it makes you wonder, why would people, living in a very prosperous nation where they were provided with so much from the government, want to rise up against that government, and end up with the disaster they are now living under?

[rug]

27. Thanks!

[TheWraith]

31. You're repeating falsehoods again.

"The truth is the Libyan people were very prosperous under Gadaffi, it was a Socialist State, where the Government gave many 'hand-outs' as the Rightwing calls them, to its people."

The actual Libyans don't agree with you. In fact, the place was pretty much plundered by Ghaddafi, with few to no social services. Inadequate healthcare, inadequate education, no jobs, those WITH jobs were often not paid, no welfare, no unemployment benefits, nothing of the kind. And that $50,000 towards owning a home is a total myth. Ask the Libyans: There is no recorded instance of anyone receiving such a bonus, period. Likewise for education: the claims that Libyans were provided for to go outside the country for healthcare or education is completely fabricated. It's not even an exaggeration, it's an outright lie.

Meanwhile, that "disaster" as you call it that they're currently living under includes the public taking back the resources stolen from them by one of the wealthiest men on the planet.

You're simply repeating propaganda which has no basis in reality and never has. Anyone actually familiar with Libya could tell you that.

[sabrina 1]

39. Actually I am repeating reports from the UN among other

entities who I think know a lot more about these things than someone on the Internet. There is no credible person who denies these facts. They may not like the Gadaffi regime, but they could not claim that Libya was not a prosperous country for its people as it was too easy to prove otherwise.

[tabatha]

21. Gadaffi already practiced Islamic banking.

[tabatha]

13. The reason is simple, duh!

Unlike most revolutions when the whole country was embroiled in war, Benghazi has been independent since they kicked Gaddafi out of the city.

Thus, unlike other revolutions, they were functioning as a non-war city for most of the uprising - where banking and revenue generation are required.

Since, thanks to Gaddafi, the major Libyan product is oil, they needed to sell oil so that they could import food and medicine.

Because, once again thanks to Gaddafi, Libya imports most of its food.

The population in the east, were no longer being paid by Gaddafi, because he cut off all wages.

Because, thanks to Gaddafi, Gaddafi was the biggest employer in Libya.

So, thanks to some non-stupid people in Libya, they knew they had to do the following in the eastern part of the country

--- feed the people
--- pay the people
--- earn money to feed and pay the people
--- sell oil to get money to feed and pay the people
--- create a bank that was not accessible by Gaddafi in order to sell oil to get money to feed and pay the people

DUH ! DUH ! DUH !

(The conspiracies and nonsense reminds me too much of another place.)

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tabatha]

18. You have made a statement that means nothing.

Please explain a little more.

[sabrina 1]

17. What right did one city have to steal the entire country's resources?

And the difference in THIS so-called 'revolution' was the plotting of it by the French going back months before it began.

Btw, are any of the war crimes, the murders, the rapes, the terrorizing of civilians being prosecuted, are the millions of terrified civilians being protected from the rampaging thugs who were used to take over the country yet?

What happened to all the concern for civilians? And why are the demands from Human rights organizations to protect civilians and to investigate the massacres by the same thugs, being ignored?

Why do many other African nations view the invasion of Libya as the 'beginning of the new Colonialism'? Think they don't know anything about these same Colonial Powers who raped their countries for generations? I'll trust them, if you don't mind. I think they know their tragic history better than anyone in this country.

[tabatha]

19. Answers:

"What right did one city have to steal the entire country's resources?"
They were not stealing the entire country's resources. Please explain how they were doing that?

"And the difference in THIS so-called 'revolution' was the plotting of it by the French going back months before it began."
Really? Please provide more information.

"Btw, are any of the war crimes, the murders, the rapes, the terrorizing of civilians being prosecuted,"
Yes, the ICC is looking into all crimes by all people.

"What happened to all the concern for civilians? And why are the demands from Human rights organizations to protect civilians and to investigate the massacres by the same thugs, being ignored?"
They are not being ignored. ICC is looking into them.

"Why do many other African nations view the invasion of Libya as the 'beginning of the new Colonialism'?"
The AU is actually pleased that Gaddafi is no longer head of the AU.
Sudan helped the rebels with weapons, because they were furious at Gaddafi for the harm he did to their country.

I don't think you know much about Gaddafi and Africa.

[sabrina 1]

22. At this point I know a great deal about Africa and Libya

which is why I could never in conscience support what has been done to that nation. I took the trouble to thoroughly study the history of Libya, and in doing so had to get rid of years of prejudices I now realize were instilled in Western people against that nation, through sheer propaganda. Propaganda that changed when convenient and then changed back again, when convenient.

The ICC is not going to stop the murders, the terror, the rapes and persecution that are ongoing in Libya. What are these 'rebels' doing about these crimes, and where is NATO, who claimed to be there for the protection of civilians?? Apparently, as Human Rights Orgs have pointed out, their concerns appeared to end as soon as they accomplished the illegal goal of regime change. Another lie they told. Not to mention the debunking of the 'evidence' presented to the UN by them to get a resolution to attempt to cover the crime they were about to commit.

Poor Libya, poor Iraq and Afghanistan, and next I suppose we will see support on the 'left' (unless a Republican is in the WH when our next invasion occurs) for the invasion of Iran, Lebanon (that one will be later I think) and Syria. We are already in Somalia, and close to the Sudan through Uganda so that would complete the Neocon/PNAC list of countries to invade we on the left used to be so opposed to.

[tabatha]

24. You speak in vague generalities.

The ICC has stated from the outset that they will investigate all crimes.

The prisons, unlike under Gaddafi, are open to everyone and they are being watched by all.

There are no ongoing rapes.

You have not convinced me that you know anything about Libya. I think you should visit it in the near future.

And BTW, I was opposed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Syrians need help - I hope the AL can provide it - they are being slaughtered.

[sabrina 1]

26. You speak in generalities yourself.

Human Rights orgs do not agree with you about this 'transparency' regarding those who have been disappeared. They have been unable to do their work. The evidence of the massacres, eg, was being 'cleansed' so that any investigation now will be worthless, an act condemned by the Human Rights organizations who wanted the crimes scenes thoroughly investigated by outside experts. What are they hiding?

For someone who claimed to care about 'brutality' you seem very dismissive of the massive crimes that are now being covered up over there.

I would not visit Libya or any country under the control of Western Imperialists, they are not safe. I would have visited Libya under Gadaffi, as my cousin did and according to him it was a wonderfully friendly open country for tourists. He visited Iraq also, both before and after the Imperial invasion. Iraq was never as open a society as Libya was, but now, he says, it has been destroyed. As has Libya.

[Starry Messenger]

28. "Who is who is 'NATO's' Rebel Libya?

http://waterput.yolasite.com/english/who-is-who-in-nato-s-rebel-libya-

[sabrina 1]

33. thanks, good information. I hope he keeps updating it.

Jibril, Mahmud - Economist, has lived and studied in Pittsburgh and wrote many books on the advantages of the Free Market (4). A perfect puppet for the American Dream of Economic Exploitation of Foreign countries (5). He was the unelected prime minister until October 31, 2011, when he was replaced by Abdul Rahim al-Qeeb (or Raheem al-Keeb)

So many of them living in America for so long. A Free Marketer. Poor Libya, they can kiss goodbye to their social programs now that the free marketers are there.

[Arctic Dave]

29. Ask yourself this, how was that in a matter of days we were awash in twitter feeds, blogs

news articles, high definition pictures and all other sorts of media for these "revolutions"? Where as Occupy Wallstreet is barely a blip?

[TheWraith]

35. Right, because there's NO tweets, blogs, or photos online of Occupy Wall Street.

Do you even say these conspiracy theories out loud to test how ridiculous they sound?

[Arctic Dave]

40. Are they being aired daily by the MSM?

Where are those people who religiously posted them here? I see nothing of the sort about OWS. If you have some links to these well publicised blogs, twitter feeds, photos?

[varelse]

36. not a bad question

[sabrina 1]

38. And the other question that has already been asked, but never

answered, by those of us who were following those tweets etc from the beginning, why did many of those supposed 'rebels' disappear from Twitter after people began to notice some disturbing things about them, and questioned whether they were even in Libya or not?

We never did get answers to those questions. I was following them, as I followed the Egyptian rebels who are still around, some pretty well known by now. Not so with the original instigators of the so-called 'Libyan revolution'. That was what made people a bit doubtful about the whole thing early on.

[Arctic Dave]

42. Maybe these guys could answer that.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/18/revealed-air-force-ordered-software-to-manage-army-of-fake-virtual-people/

[sabrina 1]

43. Mmm, I remember that. It would explain

their total lack of humanity in terms of how they were directing those protestors, who were not 'rebels' in the beginning, nor were they armed at first, to 'go take Misrata, or Tripoli' etc. I remember thinking 'are they crazy'? And 'who would push people to literally commit suicide like that. And that was when I began to wonder if they knew what they were doing, or if they were even in Libya. Little by little the whole thing began to seem very suspicious and a whole lot of people began to feel they were being taken for a ride, me included.

[blindpig]

41. Hahhahaha ....................

popular revolution my right nut.........................

just sayin'..