Recent news that the head of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), Abdel-Hakim Al-Hasidi , was captured whilst fighting for the Taliban back in 2002, hit the world after an interview in the Italian Press, with the Rebel Leader, resulted in perhaps one of the most shocking news stories to come out of Libya in recent weeks.
However, besides the fact that this whole episode has added weight to Colonel Gaddafi's claims that rebel forces have strong Islamist links; I can't help but wonder just how, or why, the CIA and various western governments were able to overlook the shocking truth about the rebel leadership when they had been implicit in Al-Hasidi's capture back in 2002.
Now don't be fooled. Very rarely do western security agencies hand over captured Taliban fighters to outside nations. As the detention center in Guantanamo Bay and the imprisonment of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan shows. Yet Al-Hasidi was handed over to the Libyan government. Only to be released six years later by the very man who The West accuses of human rights abuses. Despite the fact that Al-Hasidi had also been implicated in a number of attacks on Gaddaif's Forces in 1995 and 1996.
However, my question is this. Given that Al-Hasidi had been captured whilst fighting for the Taliban, why is it that he, the man formerly held captive by the CIA, is now receiving help from the very people he was caught fighting against? Nobody knows for sure, but on this, I do have a theory.
Ever since the 1980's Colonel Gaddafi has been a bit of a public hate figure. Lockerbie, the shooting of PC Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan Embassy. Both of these tragic events were used to justify The West's isolation of the Gaddafi regime. That is despite the somewhat serious question marks hanging over the investigations into those events. As well as the somewhat questionable involvement of the Libyan regime in these events.
Fast forward twenty three years however, and all of a sudden, UK Government is seeking to bring Gaddafi in from the cold as Peak Oil begins to hit home and the West finds itself in need of new oil supplies. Yet given the rush to secure energy supplies in the Middle East and Asia (Oil in Iraq, Gas in Afghanistan via the trans-Afghanistan pipeline), the vastly depleting levels of those supplies, and the need to secure further supplies in order to safeguard the gigantic consumer societies which have been built up in The West; very easy it is to see how the west may be left feeling like it has to secure further such supplies if it is to safeguard its future.
However, given the already high death tolls in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is no way people in The West would support yet more Oil wars. Even if against those who, whether justly or unjustly, have been vilified to the extent that Colonel Gaddafi has. After all, given the mistakes that were made with Iraq, with the false claims that were made about the threat Saddam Hussein posed, it's easy enough to understand why a British and American public may be left feeling skeptical about military action in yet another oil rich nation.
Yet, the vastly approaching negative effects of Peak Oil, and the need to stimulate economic recovery, could easily lead to the need to secure, not only further supplies of oil, but also, the desire to expand the global financial and oil industries into new markets. Libya being one such market,
The problem though, is how to get a skeptical public onside. And it seems, to me anyway, that funding and supporting the likes of Al-Hasidi is one such way. After all, imagine for one second that the hardline Islamist, LIFG were to gain serious political power in the country. A not too unlikely possibility given the role it's played in the rebellion. Then, considering the Daily Telegraph's claims that arms have already been funneled to Al Quaeda, it isn't too difficult to see how Libya could find itself lending state support to Taliban forces and assorted terrorist organisations.
Naturally, in the event this was to happen, there could only be one eventuality. That is to say, working on the need to confront hardline Islamist, state supported terrorism; Western Governments would find themselves in the position whereby they can justify military action/regime change in a nation which could be proven to be actively supporting international terrorism. And as a result, would not only gain unlimited access to one of the worlds largest supplies of oil, but would also guarantee the world financial systems expansion into what is, potentially, an extremely profitable market. An action which would, granted, help delay the inevitable collapse of that financial system, and by extension, the downfall of Western economies. But not before Libya had been dispossessed of its natural resources, and endebted too the international bankers, to the tune of trillions of dollars.
Of course, I could be wrong. And for too many reasons to list, I hope I am. But what concerns me is that if this possibility were to bear some fruit, it certainly wouldn't be the first time that The West launched attacks on sovereign states as the result of what one leading NWO researcher refers to as “problem, reaction, solution” (or as it is also known, the Hegelian Dialectic). The idea being that all too often, the western establishment creates a problem, which results in a public outcry, alongside demands that “something must be done”. At which point the establishment offers up the required solution. A solution which achieves the aim it was working toward all along.
Whether that aim is a crackdown on civil liberties (the Reichstag fire...The NAZI's burn down The Reichstag, a public outcry results alongside demands that “something must be done”, which results in the “solution”...Hitler's Enabling Act), The movement towards global government (WW2...create the problem by treating Germany too harshly at Versailles, have the likes of J. P. Morgan, I. G. Farben/American IG, Ford and Standard Oil; fund and support Hitlers tyranny...resulting in one of the worst massacres in human memory, which in turn resulted in a public outcry, alongside demands that “this mustn't ever happen again”...only for the formation of Supranational government – the EU – to be offered up as the “Solution”). Or, as seems likely in this case, the chance to further expand the global economic empire into previously unchartered territory, and strike a blow against independent sovereign states in what can only be described as a final push toward the inevitable New World Order, One World Government.
DL
However, besides the fact that this whole episode has added weight to Colonel Gaddafi's claims that rebel forces have strong Islamist links; I can't help but wonder just how, or why, the CIA and various western governments were able to overlook the shocking truth about the rebel leadership when they had been implicit in Al-Hasidi's capture back in 2002.
Now don't be fooled. Very rarely do western security agencies hand over captured Taliban fighters to outside nations. As the detention center in Guantanamo Bay and the imprisonment of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan shows. Yet Al-Hasidi was handed over to the Libyan government. Only to be released six years later by the very man who The West accuses of human rights abuses. Despite the fact that Al-Hasidi had also been implicated in a number of attacks on Gaddaif's Forces in 1995 and 1996.
However, my question is this. Given that Al-Hasidi had been captured whilst fighting for the Taliban, why is it that he, the man formerly held captive by the CIA, is now receiving help from the very people he was caught fighting against? Nobody knows for sure, but on this, I do have a theory.
Ever since the 1980's Colonel Gaddafi has been a bit of a public hate figure. Lockerbie, the shooting of PC Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan Embassy. Both of these tragic events were used to justify The West's isolation of the Gaddafi regime. That is despite the somewhat serious question marks hanging over the investigations into those events. As well as the somewhat questionable involvement of the Libyan regime in these events.
Fast forward twenty three years however, and all of a sudden, UK Government is seeking to bring Gaddafi in from the cold as Peak Oil begins to hit home and the West finds itself in need of new oil supplies. Yet given the rush to secure energy supplies in the Middle East and Asia (Oil in Iraq, Gas in Afghanistan via the trans-Afghanistan pipeline), the vastly depleting levels of those supplies, and the need to secure further supplies in order to safeguard the gigantic consumer societies which have been built up in The West; very easy it is to see how the west may be left feeling like it has to secure further such supplies if it is to safeguard its future.
However, given the already high death tolls in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is no way people in The West would support yet more Oil wars. Even if against those who, whether justly or unjustly, have been vilified to the extent that Colonel Gaddafi has. After all, given the mistakes that were made with Iraq, with the false claims that were made about the threat Saddam Hussein posed, it's easy enough to understand why a British and American public may be left feeling skeptical about military action in yet another oil rich nation.
Yet, the vastly approaching negative effects of Peak Oil, and the need to stimulate economic recovery, could easily lead to the need to secure, not only further supplies of oil, but also, the desire to expand the global financial and oil industries into new markets. Libya being one such market,
The problem though, is how to get a skeptical public onside. And it seems, to me anyway, that funding and supporting the likes of Al-Hasidi is one such way. After all, imagine for one second that the hardline Islamist, LIFG were to gain serious political power in the country. A not too unlikely possibility given the role it's played in the rebellion. Then, considering the Daily Telegraph's claims that arms have already been funneled to Al Quaeda, it isn't too difficult to see how Libya could find itself lending state support to Taliban forces and assorted terrorist organisations.
Naturally, in the event this was to happen, there could only be one eventuality. That is to say, working on the need to confront hardline Islamist, state supported terrorism; Western Governments would find themselves in the position whereby they can justify military action/regime change in a nation which could be proven to be actively supporting international terrorism. And as a result, would not only gain unlimited access to one of the worlds largest supplies of oil, but would also guarantee the world financial systems expansion into what is, potentially, an extremely profitable market. An action which would, granted, help delay the inevitable collapse of that financial system, and by extension, the downfall of Western economies. But not before Libya had been dispossessed of its natural resources, and endebted too the international bankers, to the tune of trillions of dollars.
Of course, I could be wrong. And for too many reasons to list, I hope I am. But what concerns me is that if this possibility were to bear some fruit, it certainly wouldn't be the first time that The West launched attacks on sovereign states as the result of what one leading NWO researcher refers to as “problem, reaction, solution” (or as it is also known, the Hegelian Dialectic). The idea being that all too often, the western establishment creates a problem, which results in a public outcry, alongside demands that “something must be done”. At which point the establishment offers up the required solution. A solution which achieves the aim it was working toward all along.
Whether that aim is a crackdown on civil liberties (the Reichstag fire...The NAZI's burn down The Reichstag, a public outcry results alongside demands that “something must be done”, which results in the “solution”...Hitler's Enabling Act), The movement towards global government (WW2...create the problem by treating Germany too harshly at Versailles, have the likes of J. P. Morgan, I. G. Farben/American IG, Ford and Standard Oil; fund and support Hitlers tyranny...resulting in one of the worst massacres in human memory, which in turn resulted in a public outcry, alongside demands that “this mustn't ever happen again”...only for the formation of Supranational government – the EU – to be offered up as the “Solution”). Or, as seems likely in this case, the chance to further expand the global economic empire into previously unchartered territory, and strike a blow against independent sovereign states in what can only be described as a final push toward the inevitable New World Order, One World Government.
DL
