During the lead-up to the West’s bombing campaign to force the ouster of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, we noted that, in our belief, a major reason for the eagerness of France, Britain, and the U.S. to force the overthrow was to gain control of Libya’s light sweet crude oil, the world’s cleanest.
Well, guess what.
We were right.
And there was yet another reason cited by Clinton, the would-be president: To gain control of Libya’s gold reserves, which Gadaffi intended to use as the basis of a new pan-African currency designed to end the domination of the continent by the American dollar.
And for proof we will turn to those Hillary Clinton emails.
But first, yet another revelation: Gadaffi himself warned former British Prime Minister that a direct result of his ouster would be a surge in Islamist violence which would invariably lead to attacks on the European continent itself.
The story, from RT:
‘Greater share of oil production’ Hillary Clinton emails reveal motives of Libya intervention
Newly declassified emails belonging to Hillary Clinton reveal some new possible motives behind the intervention in Libya.
Transcripts of phone conversations from 2011 between then-Libyan President Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair have been made public. During the calls, the pair discussed the threat of jihadi and extremist attacks in Europe if Gaddafi’s regime collapsed. RT’s Alexey Yaroshevsky takes a look at the dialogue.
Meanwhile, the violence in Libya continues, with armed contingents representing ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other radical Islamists battling it out for control.
On Thursday, at least two truck bombs claimed more than 50 lives in Libya, with the greatest number of casualties coming at a police training in Zliten, killing at least 47 and injuring score more.
That blood is on the hands of Hillary Clinton and Brack Obama.
The latest revelations, then, are simply validation of what Mark Twain wrote in 1916 in The Mysterious Stranger:
There has never been a just one, never an honorable one — on the part of the instigator of the war. I can see a million years ahead, and this rule will never change in so many as half a dozen instances. The loud little handful — as usual — will shout for the war. The pulpit will — warily and cautiously — object — at first; the great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, “It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it.” Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity. Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers — as earlier — but do not dare to say so. And now the whole nation — pulpit and all — will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.