Friday, 21 October 2011


The news that Gadaffi has been overthrown partly by Libya's own people but mainly because of the assistance of NATO and especially Britain and France opens up a new era.

The reason for Cameron's and Sarkozy's assistants in overthrowing the tyrant are as yet unclear but the attitude of the two countries to Libya seems to have reversed in the last two years.
They knew he was a tyrant but still dealt with and were friendly to him before.

Were they waiting for an uprising to depose him? It looks like it. But why?
Why were our forces deployed in Libya and not in the other dictatorial countries of the Middle East? After all they are all run by tyrant regimes.
What about Syria? Their government has killed thousands and continues to kill every day.
Is Syria too strong or has too little oil or too close to Israel? We are not told the reason for this differing policy. I know Hague has said a few strong words to them. That'll frighten Assad.

The barbaric treatment of Gadaffi showed what a rabble we have supported and what we face if these people ever are in a position of power in Britain.
Even in Nazi Germany the perpetrators of atrocities were given a fair trial before their end.
That is the difference between barbarism and Western standards.

This treatment of a tyrant will have unfortunate side effects.
Assad will not wish for the same fate in Syria and will fight harder to preserve his life and regime. What has he to lose? only the lives of the Syrian people.
And there are the dictatorships of Arabia, Yemen and Saudi to name but two. Why not them ?
Do we fear the loss of their oil? The leaders of these countries will also fear the same fate as Gadaffi and will fight harder to preserve themselves.

It seems freedom is very important but not as important as financial motives.
There is far more to this squalid intervention than democracy as there is little hope of it in any muslim country. They don't want it in any case.

Much as I deprecate the actions of those complicit in the final demise of Gadaffi I am glad he is no more.
It will solve two problems at the same time.
The new democratic Libya will attract all those of that nation who are at present here as refugees. They will relish the opportunity of returning to their own country and to help to rebuild it.
Their departure will ease the pressure on housing here.
If enough return it will obviate the need as expressed by Tessa Jowell for people such as myself and my wife who selfishly live in three bedroom houses since our children fled the nest.

We are told we should move to a one bedroom apartment to ease the housing shortage and make room for those with large families (usually muslims).

I know this might seem a bit selfish but I don't want to move. Yes we have two spare bedrooms now but we have made this house our home.
We have put our stamp on it and want to end our days, however selfish that might seem.

The return of the Libyans will help to solve this crisis.
If that is not enough the house (mansion) occupied by champagne socialist Tony Blair I believe has great potential to be broken up into large apartments to provide suitable accommodation for Somalian "refugees" up to the standards they expect.

Meanwhile we will remain in our more humble abode safe in the knowledge that a mass exodus of Libian patriots is about to occur.




These are the beginings of the corporate wars,resource wars,tyrants come in many shapes and sizes,who can say wether to the ordinary libyan in the street,daffy was the evil incarnate that is belaboured in our media?In fact our tyrants are much worse,for they hide behind "democracy"and twist morality to suit thier agenda,the meanings of words to incriminate the innocent,and the rule of law to facilitate indigenous dis- possession.Now that the imf will hit this junta of insane criminal jihadis,with a large loan of fiat currency locking them into rothschild governance,how will they handle the imposition of interest?

Andyj said...

Gadaffi clearly stated he wanted his oil paying for in gold. The banks and investors don't have real gold, they have paper gold. He would not be accepting that. Game over.

S. Hussein on the second round of invasion was after he said his oil should be paid for in Euro's. Utterly unacceptable.

The Iranian leader said we give them oil and in return we get useless bits of paper in return (bonds).

The Taleban on the gas/oil pipeline discussions. You accept and we give a carpet of gold. Refuse and you will have a carpet of bombs ... They refused.