[NUKELIES]

That picture does look like a nuclear bomb lol. Alex Jones seems to like the picture too as it is posted on the front page of infowars:

from infowars.com front page 2011-03-23

infowars.jpg (231.57 KiB) Viewed 372 times

from guardian.co.uk

Vehicles-explode-after-an-017.jpg (63.79 KiB) Viewed 372 times

[rerevisionist]

'The rebels in Libya are in the middle of a life or death civil war and Moammar Gadhafi is still in power and yet somehow the Libyan rebels have had enough time to establish a new Central Bank of Libya and form a new national oil company. Perhaps when this conflict is over those rebels can become time management consultants. They sure do get a lot done. .."

- From David Icke's site

[rerevisionist]

Two views of Libya....

Anti Gaddafi From 'Imnokaffir' on BNP site; amateurishly pasted; I've reformatted it to make it more readable:-

Muammar Gadhafi Was the Richest Man in the World; Total Net Worth Keeps Adding Up
Posted by Mike Tirone - Monday, November 7th, 2011
Let's be honest, Muammar Gadhafi was a horrible man.Truly someone that, in whatever light shown, would be viewed in history as a terrible person. And even after his death, his already outrageous legend continues to grow, it somehow buries him even deeper into the layers of the world's hatred for the ex-Libyan dictator. From his vibrantly flamboyant attire to his ice-cold stare, Gadhafi was a man of many stories and many riches; many we are only now discovering. Reports claim that Gadhafi, who was killed in late October in Libya, could have potentially been the richest person in the entire world... By personally controlling Libya's rich supply of oil, Gadhafi not only died the richest man in the world, with $200 billion in his pocket, but he took the sole position in front of three prominent billionaires: Carlos Slim, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett...combined. So the two questions asked are how did he do it? And why did we not see this coming? Forbes, who most of the world looks to in their annual rankings of the World's Billionaires, came out with a statement stating that they distinguish “between personal, entrepreneurial wealth and wealth derived largely from positions of power.” “...where lines often blur between what is owned by the country and what is owned by the individual. That is why rulers such as the King of Thailand, the Sultan of Brunei and Dubai's Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum are not listed among the world's billionaires, though we have estimated that each controls an 11-figure fortune.The same principle would apply to Gadhafi, who took advantage of his station and literally lived like a king off of the backs of his people. Indeed, the vast majority of the $200 billion figure ascribed to him by the LA Times was apparently held in accounts owned by the government of Libya, the country Gadhafi ruled brutally for 42 years.”

Gadhafi was able to achieve such a hesit [sic] by using his own power over Libya's prosperous oil supply which exported 1.3 million barrels of oil each day to build his riches. Investigations show that he had roughly $67 billion in bank accounts and investments, which were seized at the beginning of the conflict in Libya early this year. While another $30 billion was seized in England, France, Italy and Germany and the Obama administration found a whooping [sic]$37 billion in the United States.It is said that he had around $30 billion more hidden throughout all parts of the world, with cash stored or invested in nearly every single major country in the world; from Asia, Europe, and the Middle East all the way to the U.S.Like many of the world's richest people, he invested heavily in many sectors, having his hand in everything from sports teams, media outlets to real estate and energy companies. He invested significant amounts in the “beautiful game” of soccer, specifically European club Fiat and Italian club Juventus FC. He also had investments in Italy's largest engineering and defense company worth $3.9 billion, Italy's largest bank, UniCredit SpA, valued at $3.3 billion, and even Pearson Plc which owns book publisher Penguin and the Financial Times newspaper valued at $14.8 billion. Many native Libyans and those close to Gadhafi believe that he has even more money, worth billions of dollars worth in gold, hidden in his nativeland.As for real estate, he had it everywhere. Gadhafi had millions invested in London real estate assets alone. He had even money spread throughout Europe in Prague and Italy, and more of it all the way across seas in New Jersey; with a home fit for king. His Englewood, NJ house has a tennis court, shooting range, and a massive swimming pool. That home is worth billions alone. Should be an easy sell: “Former owner was a ruthless dictator of a struggling nation for more than 4 decades but was killed by his own people... and the pool is Olympic sized!” It is estimated that with Gadhafi's $200 billion, he had enough money to give $30,000 to each of his country's 6.6 million citizens. There is more where that came fromIt is reported that many nearby African countries refused to freeze Gadhafi's accounts due to loyalty or fear of the all-powerful dictator. Although the $200-billion-figure has been investigated and accounted for, U.N. Security officials feel that even more money may turn up in the near future now that he has been killed. The most surprising fact is that Gadhafi's earned the majority of his riches in the past four to five years because he canceled plans for a nuclear weapons program which was worth billions. It is said that when you pass on, your legend may proceed your history and in Gadhafi's case, it seems like his legend has only just begun.

Pro Gaddafi From 'crankcase08' on the BNP website:--
Falling for the usual unsubstantiated media propaganda. There is a deliberate campaign of deliberately blurring the difference between Gaddafi's personal wealth and state funds invested outside the country. Most of the properties situated abroad, such as New Jersey (where property is cheap), were used by government officials such as diplomats. As for Gaddafi being a 'horrible man', well that's rather subjective. 'Horrible' and 'terrible' compared to whom? Warmongers such as Nixon, Bush, Obama, and Blair? Why would you so easily believe character assassination from the same pro-globalist propaganda sources that also portray the BNP as 'ultra-right wing' and 'neo-fascist'?

As for Gaddafi ruling Libya 'brutally', well according to who? The likes of David Cameron and Richard Littlejohn? The fact that he turned it from one of the poorest and most backward countries in the world (thanks to foreign exploitation) to the wealthiest in all of Africa is quite an achievement. He used the oil revenues to fund a very low cost of living with the highest standard of living, best education and healthcare systems of the continent, provided a free house as a matter of right, provided electricity free of charge, free water, interest-free loans, unemployment benefit at equivalent of £9000 per annum, cars sold at factory prices, subsidised foreign higher education, provided a lump sum of £3000 for each infant, and provided petrol for 6p per litre. If that's what you call a brutal tyranny, I wouldn't say no to some of that myself. He certainly gave his own people a better deal than our crooked governments give us!

The fact is that he was overthrown by the NATO powers because he was spearheading an African Central Bank to be financed by gold-backed dinars instead of dollars, and then to sell oil in this currency rather than US dollars. Notably this was also supported by Saddam Hussein. This would have taken control away from the globalist banksters and the US Federal Reserve, leading to a crash in the value of the dollar. Gaddafi was putting the interests of his own country and continent before the interests of the western globalists, and for that his regime was overthrown to be replaced by CIA-controlled, al Qaeda-led Islamists.

Under Gaddafi, Libya was a well run country with no foreign debt and a nationalised banking system. Now the IMF, led by the crooked banksters, has moved in to steal the spoils. Furthermore, Libya was a secular state where minorities, including Christians, were protected. Now, as in Egypt, they are have reason to be scared. Gaddafi was in opposition to the globalist crooks, and in my book he was one of the good guys.

There's a rule of thumb that is generally true: if the controlled mainstream media is waging a propaganda blitz against someone, you can bet it's for the wrong reasons. Any BNP supporter should be aware of that.

[Cowan Bellarmino]

Cynthia McKinney said some interesting things in her blog over at Black Agenda Report about Libya and Africa.

Regarding the now forgotten incident in the Ivory Coast:

Speaking of Henry Kissinger, let me just say this about him and his minions: When I was in the Congress, I received a phone call from Alassane Ouattara from aboard Henry Kissinger's yacht. I had received many such calls from people wanting to benefit from my good reputation within the human rights and peace community in the United States and they wanted me to sell their particular potion of iniquity to people inside the United States and to the world. Usually, these people were the kind of people accustomed to buying the consciences of public persons, so my "no" resounded rather sharply to them, and I earned yet another set of crosshairs on my forehead, I guess.

Alassane Ouattara and his Zionist wife, Dominique, were seeking my assistance--or maybe my silence--in his effort to become President of Ivory Coast. I applaud Laurent Gbagbo in his efforts to stave off imperialism in Ivory Coast, one of the few African countries that has not one iota of a relationship with the U.S. military. However, Democracy Now, FOX, CNN, AP, Reuters, and all the rest didn't tell you that when they ran their many stories about Ivory Coast. While the world will celebrate "democracy" arriving in Ivory Coast once Gbagbo is gone, the exact opposite will actually be the case. Handing Ivory Coast over to Henry Kissinger and his ilk is the policy of the Obama Administration. I guess, President Obama is proving his worth: perhaps no one could have done it better.