“We can export terrorism.We can assassinate and set fires inside the territory of the United States as it did to all of us.”

Muammar al-Gaddafi

The Western world and its so called feeling for democracy and human rights is nothing but pure interventionism with the hidden geopolitical aspirations and financial interests.  It is so obvious what is behind every action in  the Middle East region that if it is not so tragic, it would be funny how that policy is perfidious and cheap in the same way. I would  like to illustrate it with the next example: I want to take the money from my neighbor but I don’t want to  steal it and being considered as a thief.So, I come to my neighbor and accuse him that he beats his wife and that I will call the police. He has some arguments with his wife but he doesn’t hurt her. I don’t care. I am the leader of the neighborhood. I am powerful. Others believe me. My word against his.  It is better to calm me down with the money I need or he   will be labeled as the bad boy and the price will be high. This is just a plastic picture of the current international relations and the dispositions of fake good and bad boys. But, the caricature is true. Unfortunately.When it comes to the Middle East zone, the situation is even worse. So many players, so many calculations and people who always suffer, at the end of the day.

While the Syrian drama doesn’t stop for years  and we are all shocked, day by day,  with the level of violence and terrorism which comes from the terrorists of ISIS, some other country in this bloody area, slowly  transfers itself into the serious terrorist haven. Libya after Gaddafi. New Libya which we simply  don’t recognize.

First of all, I would like to emphasize that Libya is not the geographically  part of the Middle East but North Africa. However, according to “Secretary of State John Foster Dulles defined the Middle East as the area lying between and including Libya on the west and Pakistan on the east, Syria and Iraq on the North and the Arabian peninsula to the south, plus the Sudan and Ethiopia.” This is very important because we need to understand where is located and which are the closest neighbor countries so we can track the possible old and new Libyan influences in the region as itself.


In 1967,Colonel  Muammar al-Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest African nations. The country was ruined, the tribes were fighting against each others, there was no any solid base to move on. But, he was a man with a vision. He believed in  Libyan Jamahiriya’s direct democracy which was something even more better than the complete western democracy. Why? First of all, this was a direct participation of citizens who were gathering into thousand committees and making decisions about domestic and foreign policy. That was something very authentic and typical for Libya and the western propaganda used to call it as “military dictatorship” but that what Libyans had under Colonel Gaddafi the ordinary Western people will never achieve in their happy countries. He also tried to make a good economical foundation and :”For over four decades, Gaddafi promoted economic democracy and used the nationalized oil wealth to sustain progressive social welfare programs for all Libyans. Under Gaddafi’s rule, Libyans enjoyed not only free health-care and free education, but also free electricity and interest-free loans” He was enabling to his citizen the most direct democracy and he was also giving them the possibilities to obtain financial security. But, he was also aware that many outside actors are playing the role in that part of the world and he was warning that the rise of Islamic fundamentalism  will be dressed into revolutionary clothes.  In an interview with Le Journal du Dimanche, he stated his opinion about the Arab Spring, Islamism and terrorism:“I am surprised that nobody understands that this is a fight against terrorism.Our security services cooperate. We have helped you a lot these past few years. So why is it that when we are in a fight against terrorism here in Libya no one helps us in return?There would be Islamic jihad in front of you, in the Mediterranean.(Osama) bin Laden’s people would come to impose ransoms on land and sea. We will go back to the time of Red Beard, of pirates, Ottomans imposing ransoms on boats.”


Unfortunately, his warning was a good excuse for US to attack Libya in bombing campaign in 2011 and push this prosperous Arabic democracy into the jaw of chaos. In October 2015, it was a four-year anniversary of shameful assassination of Colonel Gaddafi and the dark period of Libya and its proud people. The infrastructure is destroyed by Western military intervention, people are divided among those who support Islamists and those who are their opponents.  This is a failed state. Only a shadow of that old glorious Libyan Jamahiriya. All foreign diplomatic representatives left the country long time ago. On the South, ISIS founded its Libyan branch so it is a new paradise for Islamic terrorists and their headquarter for organizing training camps for jihadists. On the Northern coast, there is a crime area, where criminals are  dealing with immigrants or smuggling them. The good reason for Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia to shut down their borders with Libya and help it being more isolated and turned into no-go zone.


Since 2014, it has had two competing governments,two parliaments, two sets of rivaling claims to control over the central bank and the national oil company, no  national police or army, one based in Tripoli and the other in the east, both are trying to find supporters and to move on. As it was expected, the Islamic State misuse this lack of the right government and took control of the city of Sirte. They are planing to spread their terrorism ideology and they are establishing the training camps for jihadists  all over the Libya. Some anti-Islamists politicians have warned for years that if the International Community doesn’t help the Libyan weak institutions and army by lifting the arms embargo,  it is a big chance for Libya to become the logistic center for coordinated jihad actions against Europe.It is already happening. Not only what Colonel Gaddafi warned that the thousand of immigrants will spread the Islam across the western world but they will also spread  the danger of potential  jihadism to be planted in Europe or the US.


The main problem with the hypocritical Western world policy is that it loves dancing with the terrorism. It thinks it can control it or use it  in the international politic chess game. It is well know that the CIA first aligned itself with the growing political Islam and empowering it against the possible Soviet World domination. Then, when the credits were spent, they labeled the old allies among political Islam extremists as the global threat. Then, when the challenge in the global diplomacy and interests fluctuations orders, come back again to the islamists and give them hand, promising them help in demolishing the countries  based on so called ” American vision of dictatorship”. Islamist want Islam back to those states, American administration and powerful lobbies want more money. Then they trade with million of people’s destinies like some housewife is trading in the grocery. American policy could be assumed this way:”We dont have friends. We dont need them. We order friends. We use them. We betray them.” Yesterday they were “friends” with dictators, today they are “friends” with revolutionists and tomorrow they will coordinate with terrorists.That was the case with  the  Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt against Soviet expansion, the Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and definitely the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan.There is no stop, only to protect the interest so doesn’t matter where are the limits of political ethic or healthy diplomatic common sense. No worries about it because always will be someone else guilty. Always will be the place where they need to deliver the democracy with the bombs.


The ISIS cancer occurred in Libya too,  under the leadership of one Abdelhakim Belhadj, the same man who was described by the United States and Senator McCain as a “heroic freedom fighter” in 2011. Just two years before it, the US claimed that Libya under Colonel Gaddafi  has a perfect tactic against Islamic Terrorism and it was considered as one of the most important American allies. How it is entertaining to follow how American politicians believe now that heroic freedom fighter, Mr.  Belhadj is a big threat to the security of the States.

Beside ISIS, there is also Al-Qaeda located in Ubari with desire to monitor the whole Islamic Maghreb. We shouldn’t forget the Ansar al-Sharia in Libya (Partisans of Islamic law – Sharia) specific Salafist -jihadist, Sunni, takfiri,Qutbist militia based in Benghazi and Derna because it is the union of two brigades,the Ansar al-Sharia Brigade in Benghazi (ASB) and Ansar al-Sharia Derna (ASD). Their main goal is Shar’ah Law for the whole Libya through dawa (proselytizing), hisba (commanding right and forbidding wrong through sharia)  and jihad( armed struggle). This terrorist group doesnt believe in using of democracy for implementing the crucial Shari’ah Law  and they claim they will never give up on that requests. They do not feel admiration for ISIS projects but because they aren’t so strong, it is logical they will join to the ISIS in the future and pledge the allegiance. Their cooperation if it comes will not be perfect or ideal because the ASL follows the ideology of Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi,who separated  jihad into brutal – qital al-nikayya with a purpose to damage or kill the enemy and into peaceful jihad -qital al-tamkin, as an attempt to consolidate power without hurting others. This is the spot of difference between  ASL  on one side and Al-Qaeda and ISIS on another side. ASL follows the qital al-tamkin jihad and ISIS and AL-Qaeda follows the qital al-nikayya.


The Libyan story of painful years in civil wars and the broken spirit of people cant be expressed in one single article. This is the country which was the target for many predators. There were always Islamists who wanted to disturb its peace and to roll on for their own “sold or bought plans” and also there were the western world snakes which didnt want to give up on petrol dollars so easy. The bone is threw away, Libya is now alone.Left on the wind storm, without any help. The proud Libyan Jamahiriya then and now the ruined but enhanced  terrorism womb. Who to believe to? Who to look up for a help? They are all same. Wolves who hunt and haunt.

If we stand up for Libya, maybe it  has a chance to be cured and saved or forever lost in the darkness if we stay silent.


  1. There has been much conversation in the United States about the role of Country in relation to foreign policy and supporting countries around the world. There are those who believe the United States has an obligation as the so called ‘leader of the free world’ to go out to any country in crisis and avert the crisis while building a democracy that would prevent a future crisis. In this instance a crisis is defined as one in which terror attacks are taking place or a leader of the country is accused of murdering his own people.

    There is another belief that the United States is not the ‘policeman of the world’ and should stay within its own borders and take on domestic matters primarily and normally only intervene internationally if the interest of the United States is clearly at risk and where a coalition of allies is assisting.

    The article dealing with ‘the womb of terrorism’ is timely because it sheds light on what Americans commonly discuss. The discussions usually are whether a so called rogue regime should be overthrown for the betterment of the people. In addition, there are questions whether the outcome of an overthrow of any regime was the right thing to do. Iraq and Lybia are two immediate examples. In both cases, it was the assertion of the United States government to the American people that the rulers Sadam Hussein and Moummar Ghadaffi were committing crimes against humanity in killing their own people, sponsoring terrorists, and imposing social, political and economic conditions on the people that were said to be cruel, demeaning, inhumane and worthy of American intervention.

    In both cases, the leaders were overthrown and the power vacuum there were competing factions of forces seeking to fill the void. In both locations oil is a primary source of economic stability. The facts show that in each case where the leaders were overthrown, the state of affairs in each country was worse than the first. ‘State of affairs’ is from the perspective of the United States government not the people living in the countries. While it is true sharia law is a very harsh legal system especially for women and that both countries outlawed any media other than that which was state run, the leaders provided a wedge of stability around the countries around them that would in a moment take over and use the economy for terror groups to send abroad to spread jihad and to promote militant views toward Israel to destroy the State of Israel. On the Itanian and Iraqi maps as well as many other Muslim countries, Israel is not on any of those maps because Israel is not recognized as legitimate.

    Even though these are true statements, the overthrow of the leaders Sadam and Moummar created a hotbed for terrorists as well as complete destabilizing of the region. It is more difficult now to identify who the enemy who only has murder on his mind than it was before. America has been called Imperialist because of its intervention approach which is what many Muslim countries hate. In a country that is sovereign, the people have a choice to choose their leader. In Moummar’s case, the author makes it clear the Lybian people were happy with his reforms and there is ample evidence that before he came into power, the people were worse off under the old regime. Is it right for another country to determine what the political outcome should be for another country? This is a question readers should ask themselves. Would you want a foreign country coming into your territory and setting up its own version of political reform or is that your responsibility even if the current status is bleak? Sovereignty dictates you get to decide.

    We could get into the rationale behind interventionism that is more intellectual with more to do with governments making deals with leaders for economic gain and military access to establish bases and such and then arming those same leaders to do the grunt work. The enemy of my enemy is my friend is a good way to describe this. It may be that America does not necessarily agree with a leader it gets in bed with and makes a deal but the interests of the country the deal is made with may be one in which that other country gets a chance to defeat its enemy. Giving up a base is a small concession for a large gain. The problem becomes when the country America is aligned with operates outside of the parameters of the agreement or there is much world opposition to the manner in which the country treats its people or may be trying to establish more capable weapons. In this case, America then reverses course and the partner country is now Public Enemy #1. Moummar was once named by President Ronald Reagan as Public Enemy #1.

    Many world leaders differed from that perspective. He did oppose apartheid and racial injustice in the United States. He made socialist reforms that allowed his people to go to college for free although there were not jobs diversified enough where a graduate would earn what the degree was worth.

    What does this all mean? It means leaders are not perfect. It means there are legitimate questions to ask regarding overthrowing established governments. It means sovereignty either means self determination or it doesn’t. It means America has had destabilizing consequences in regions of the world where many countries today are dealing with the outcome of it in terms of suicide bombers who are well funded because the militant groups took over the power vacuum. It means every country in the world can learn from mistakes Iraq, Lybia, America and other countries have made in political process. It also means it isn’t an open and shut case to say Moummar was the only person with blood on his hands. He is a complicated person however what he did openly in letting the world see how he operates, many around the world wonder what American decisions are made in secret in regards to which country is next?

    You don’t have to be anti American to say or understand these things. You only need to be open to see the truth. See the truth for yourself and research. The author does quite extensive research from my experience and is somewhat of an authority on these issues. I would encourage those with questions or who want to dialog about issues complex, and often going unsaid that the author is a good source to start the conversation.



    Friday, 11 November 2011
    Gadhafi’s Gold-money Plan Would Have Devastated Dollar
    Written by Alex Newman

    It remains unclear exactly why or how the Gadhafi regime went from “a model” and an “important ally” to the next target for regime change in a period of just a few years. But after claims of “genocide” as the justification for NATO intervention were disputed by experts, several other theories have been floated.

    Oil, of course, has been mentioned frequently — Libya is Africa‘s largest oil producer. But one possible reason in particular for Gadhafi’s fall from grace has gained significant traction among analysts and segments of the non-Western media: central banking and the global monetary system.

    According to more than a few observers, Gadhafi’s plan to quit selling Libyan oil in U.S. dollars — demanding payment instead in gold-backed “dinars” (a single African currency made from gold) — was the real cause. The regime, sitting on massive amounts of gold, estimated at close to 150 tons, was also pushing other African and Middle Eastern governments to follow suit.

    And it literally had the potential to bring down the dollar and the world monetary system by extension, according to analysts. French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly went so far as to call Libya a “threat” to the financial security of the world. The “Insiders” were apparently panicking over Gadhafi’s plan.

    “Any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world’s central banks,” noted financial analyst Anthony Wile, editor of the free market-oriented Daily Bell, in an interview with RT. “So yes, that would certainly be something that would cause his immediate dismissal and the need for other reasons to be brought forward [for] removing him from power.”

    According to Wile, Gadhafi’s plan would have strengthened the whole continent of Africa in the eyes of economists backing sound money — not to mention investors. But it would have been especially devastating for the U.S. economy, the American dollar, and particularly the elite in charge of the system.

    “The central banking Ponzi scheme requires an ever-increasing base of demand and the immediate silencing of those who would threaten its existence,” Wile noted in a piece entitled “Gaddafi Planned Gold Dinar, Now Under Attack” earlier this year. “Perhaps that is what the hurry [was] in removing Gaddafi in particular and those who might have been sympathetic to his monetary idea.”

    Investor newsletters and commentaries have been buzzing for months with speculation about the link between Gadhafi’s gold dinar and the NATO-backed overthrow of the Libyan regime. Conservative analysts pounced on the potential relationship, too.

    “In 2009 — in his capacity as head of the African Union — Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi had proposed that the economically crippled continent adopt the ‘Gold Dinar,’” noted Ilana Mercer in an August opinion piece for WorldNetDaily. “I do not know if Col. Gadhafi continued to agitate for ditching the dollar and adopting the Gold Dinar — or if the Agitator from Chicago got wind of Gadhafi’s (uncharacteristic) sanity about things monetary.”

    But if Arab and African nations had begun adopting a gold-backed currency, it would have had major repercussions for debt-laden Western governments that would be far more significant than the purported “democratic” uprisings sweeping the region this year. And it would have spelled big trouble for the elite who benefit from “freshly counterfeited funny-money,” Mercer pointed out.

    “Had Gadhafi sparked a gold-driven monetary revolution, he would have done well for his own people, and for the world at large,” she concluded. “A Gadhafi-driven gold revolution would have, however, imperiled the positions of central bankers and their political and media power-brokers.”

    Adding credence to the theory about why Gadhafi had to be overthrown, as The New American reported in March, was the rebels’ odd decision to create a central bank to replace Gadhafi’s state-owned monetary authority. The decision was broadcast to the world in the early weeks of the conflict.

    In a statement describing a March 19 meeting, the rebel council announced, among other things, the creation of a new oil company. And more importantly: “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.”

    The creation of a new central bank, even more so than the new national oil regime, left analysts scratching their heads. “I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising,” noted Robert Wenzel in an analysis for the Economic Policy Journal. “This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences,” he added. Wenzel also noted that the uprising looked like a “major oil and money play, with the true disaffected rebels being used as puppets and cover” while the transfer of control over money and oil supplies takes place.

    Other analysts, even in the mainstream press, were equally shocked. “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?” wondered CNBC senior editor John Carney. “It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era.”

    Similar scenarios involving the global monetary system — based on the U.S. dollar as a global reserve currency, backed by the fact that oil is traded in American money — have also been associated with other targets of the U.S. government. Some analysts even say a pattern is developing.

    Iran, for example, is one of the few nations left in the world with a state-owned central bank. And Iraqi despot Saddam Hussein, once armed by the U.S. government to make war on Iran, was threatening to start selling oil in currencies other than the dollar just prior to the Bush administration’s “regime change” mission.

    While most of the establishment press in America has been silent on the issue of Gadhafi’s gold dinar scheme, in Russia, China, and the global alternative media, the theory has exploded in popularity. Whether salvaging central banking and the corrupt global monetary system were truly among the reasons for Gadhafi’s overthrow, however, may never be known for certain — at least not publicly.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

About Sarahowlgirl1982

I am a master of Political Sciences, with special focus on Security Studies, Islamic Counter Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction. I enjoy discovering and commenting things which are " in the air" but still not spoken.I also do like science writing and planing to move myself into the pure science journalism !