Mathaba.net article: Franglo-American Attack on Libya Prepared Months in Advance

[PurityOfEssence]

I can't vouch for the accuracy of this article, but the website is a pretty hard left alternative media site that has been referenced many times on this board. The claim is that the deal was struck on November 2, 2010, and was intended to be enacted on March 21.

They further claim that at least some of the initial Benghazi protests were instigated.

If this is even just somewhat true, it's explosive. Your thoughts?

http://mathaba.net/news/?x=626341

[SDuderstadt]

1. If you haven't fact-checked...

why did you post it?

[Hannah Bell]

2. when did that ever stop anyone from posting? why are you singling *him* out?

[SDuderstadt]

3. Because it's...

irresponsible, for starters.

[Hannah Bell]

4. evades the question. DUers were posting tweets from unknown sources: your concern for fact-checking

was not in evidence.

[SDuderstadt]

5. Great...

If you find evidence that I have ever read every post made here, let me know.

[dipsydoodle]

6. You've pointed out the biggest absudity of all

Tweets from unknown locations.

[PurityOfEssence]

13. Before posting, I checked "Operation Southern Mistral", the alliance of 11-2-10, and Mathaba

I also checked DU to confirm that it was an acceptable source and perused many of their other articles and looked up their history on various issues.

This seemed like such a hot topic that it was destined for massive retaliation from the usual sources here, yet it also seemed worthy of immediate attention.

[SDuderstadt]

17. Unintended irony

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=437x2378

[PurityOfEssence]

19. That's not irony, it's consistency: it shows a respect for the truth, odd concept though that may be

I found this article late last night, looked up information on the website from which it came, looked up on DU whether it was considered an acceptable source, looked up the Military Alliance between the French and British and read a couple of entries about its particulars, then searched for some more information on Southern Mistral, and THEN posted the story with caveats about it.

Even after that, I honorably state some wariness about the site quite clearly.

How on earth does this compare with what you linked, which was my question to the Moderators about seeing if there was a way to do something about certain posters who repeatedly continue to post false information when they've had it specifically refuted with original documents in threads where they've continued to post?

I may suck in many ways as a person, but I literally worship the truth, deeply resent lies, and see omissions as effectively the same thing.

Please explain yourself; this is unwarranted.

[SDuderstadt]

20. Note your subject line...

In Logic, we call that an "unwarranted conclusion".

Note a number of the replies to this OP. Didn't your "source's" entry about "nukes at the WTC" set off any warning bells in your head about their credibility?

Why contribute to the river of misinformation here, even "warily"?

[PurityOfEssence]

21. An interesting question

If an iffy source has a story that seems to check out, what's the problem?

The National Enquirer was correct about John Edwards; that doesn't mean that Aliens are regularly buggering my cows, and it definitely raises the bar of scrutiny when they make such a claim.

The sheer explosive nature of such a revelation should bear some discussion, and, again, before posting, I did some checking. When leafing through their other stories, I didn't see anything about nuclear charges under the World Trade Towers, I saw stuff about Venezuela, Fukushima and other stories which, although fringy-leftist, seemed hardly like fantasy.

I do not, even at this point, see this as "misinformation" in the slightest: most of what they say is backed up by mainstream sources. It's REALLY suspicious, especially in light of the French getting their percentage of oil production from wells cut almost in half with the threat of nationalization in 2009. Personally, I don't see what other country they could really be considering here, and there are many questions that should be answered.

To the Obama-is-perfect crowd and the this-is-ONLY-humanitarian group here, it has repeatedly been touted that there is NO oil component in the mix. Repeatedly, it is shouted that Qaddafi was a reliable source of oil, with NO danger to the spigot at all. Now, we're seeing evidence that's quite to the contrary, and it deserves to be explored.

Our job as good Democrats should also function at the intersection of being good human beings, and if we're playing on peoples sympathies, helping to instigate revolution and using it to justify the conquest of a sovereign nation and the thievery of its natural resources, then everything should be brought to light. There is a sick, destructive and selfish belief that the President is to be held as a saint and allowed to do as he pleases, and that this country is only to have its misdeeds mentioned when it won't reflect badly on he who is supposed to represent us.

Is that enough? Let's forget that site for a moment; the Treaty itself, the specifics of the "hypothetical" situation in the exercise and the festering frustration of European Oil interests who have the jitters about a local potentate are PLENTY by themselves to give this set of FACTS some air.

As for those who claim that this is just a normal exercise. Sure, it is, but it shows quite clearly whom they think may be worth some drubbing. And hey, lookey there: suddenly we are.

Aren't these three things enough? Do you often see someone presenting hot information with at least some honorable caveats?

Are you saying that this shouldn't even be brought up? To be clear, with full disclosure, just WHY is this such a problem for you? Are you only interested in the sober filtering of information to try and keep this a productive and reality-based discussion board, or are you a partisan? Are you truly the Vox Populi for truth-in-reportage, because if you are, I take you to task right there for repeatedly bitching about one source, when the damaging information exists elsewhere. Do you apply the same standards to those with whom you ally yourself? Just what is the problem here?

[SDuderstadt]

22. "Do you apply the same standards to those with whom you ally yourself?"

Yes.

[PurityOfEssence]

23. Great. That was the easy part, and I take you at your word. What about the rest of it?

You entered this thread with aspersions a'blazin', so I asked you a few pertinent questions. Answering an easy one is a fine start, but if you're going to slag someone's character and they respond with a few pointed questions, civility should prompt some responses, especially after tart lessons in logic and the overall tone of rectitude.

The idea held by many that merely siding with the administration is proof of moral superiority holds no water to many of the rest of us; the arguments themselves must hold sway.

[SDuderstadt]

26. I didn't "slag"...

your character, dude.

[PurityOfEssence]

30. "irresponsible" is generally not used in praise.

Look, I've said my piece. I'm very much with you on the spirit of the thing here, and was actually trying to do something in keeping with what seems to matter to you.

It bears some scrutiny, though, and I'll post some other links when time permits.

The initial response was a slap-down, which is why that other poster took you to task for it. It's a problem on this board and it's human nature, but the blinkered zealotry of the disciples here is nauseating, and terse dismissals of anything that hints at Obama being other than altruistic and perfect get irksome.

Bad mood. I don't like defying the Constitution and skewing the facts to get us into "for-profit" wars that masquerade as "protecting the innocent", and I'm absolutely astonished by the immorality that supports such nastiness.

[yodermon]

15. that's part of what goes on at DU. Fact-checking posts.

Posters aren't journalists.

[TorchTheWitch]

7. Kucinich said something similar in a letter to congress...

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/03/29-8?quicktabs_1=0
On November 2, 2010 France and Great Britain signed a mutual defense treaty, which paved the way for joint participation in a military exercise called 'Southern Mistral' (www.southern-mistral.cdaoa.fr). While war games are not uncommon, the similarities between 'Southern Mistral' and 'Operation Odyssey Dawn' highlight just how many unanswered questions remain regarding our own military planning for Libya.

The 'Southern Mistral' war games called for Great Britain-French air strikes against an unnamed dictator of a fictional country, "Southland." The pretend attack was authorized by a pretend United Nations Security Council Resolution. The 'Southern Mistral' war games were set for March 21-25, 2011.

On March 19, 2011, the United States joined France and Great Britain in an air attack against Muammar Gaddafi's Libya pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1973.

Scheduling a joint military exercise that ends up resembling real military action could be seen as remarkable planning by the French and British, but it also highlights questions regarding the United States' role in planning for the war. We don't know how long the attack on Libya has been in preparation, but Congress must find out. We don't know who the rebels really represent and how they became armed, but Congress must find out.

[malaise]

8. British operatives were caught in Bengazi very early

No surprise.

[defendandprotect]

27. Do you understand that the British were CAUGHT BY THE PROTESTERS???!!!

That the PROTESTERS turned them around and sent them back to Britain?

Or that the Council refused to meet with them?

Did you happen to see BBC reports on that embarrassment for Britain?

Meanwhile, the CIA did then ask for a meeting with the Council and they

were permitted to come in and Council has met with them.

[defendandprotect]

28. Love Kucinich -- and anything is possible, but not proven -- meanwhile....

how about connecting some of those similar dots re 9/11!!!!

[dipsydoodle]

9. Unreccers out in force this morning GMT

:(

[defendandprotect]

29. Interesting... I disagree with the premise, but I "rec'd" the thread --- !!!

[xchrom]

10. Interesting. Nt

[IScreamSundays]

11. kick and rec

[JoePhilly]

12. Did they set that website up yesterday?

I enjoyed all of the "advertise your business here" banners.

[jberryhill]

14. This is a predictable class of story

I am certain that, somewhere in the bowels of the DoD, there are contingency plans for the invasion of Canada.

That doesn't mean anyone is fixing to invade Canada. But if something bizarre happened, and Canada became a threat, then the plan is sitting on the shelf ready to pull out and implement.

These plans - gazillions of them - receive updates and other care and feeding periodically.

[The Magistrate]

16. You Have Stumbled Onto A Humorous Site, Sir

http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=625926

Mathaba World Exclusive: Russian Expert Confirms Nukes Beneath New York WTC
Posted: 2011/02/05
From: Mathaba

Thermo-nuclear charges placed below New York City`s World Trade Center Twin Towers since at least 1980s, Flight 93 shot down by US Air Force, Pentagon penetrated by Granit missile and other revelations are bound to shake the world this year. Photo: Dimitri Khalezov discusses 9/11 with George Mapp in Bangkok, Thailand.

[intaglio]

18. Normal planning

There will be similar plans for Tunisia, Morocco and Egypt. Both France and Italy will be prepared, on each others behalf for uprisings in Corsica and Sardinia. In Europe itself the major powers will be prepared for problems in all of the "new" states. It's normal preparedness planning, if senior officers and civil servants did not prepare such plans they would be canned.

[WhollyHeretic]

24. Wow that is a link full of lunacy

[defendandprotect]

25. My thoughts are that in order to believe that we'd have to believe true of Egypt, Yemen,

Ivory Coast -- and probably labor uprising and LGBT battle here in America --

are all pre-organized -- people are just too dumb in Libya to understand that

they've had a monster ruling over them for 40 years!!!



:eyes: :nuke:

[Swede]

31. They should hire Pepe Escobar.

No,really.