undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdesine4y ago0 comments

The rhetoric used stops me from bringing it up, in certain circles. I really only can bring it up with close friends/family, or anonymously on the web. I've been called anti-semitic, racist, alt-right, my intelligence insulted. Again, related to another comment in this thread, it's seen as a "conspiracy theory". The mainstream news media didn't cover it, but certain less tasteful websites did.

0 comments

bawolff4y ago

I mean, you presented the theory with no evidence that it happened. Your argument is basically that the united states could have done it, had motive to do it, and has a history of doing underhanded things in the past. Even if for the sake of argument i grant all of those things, its still not any more plausible than the official story. If you don't want people to call it a conspiracy theory, get some actual evidence that they actually did do it. Saying they could have done it and might have wanted to isn't enough.

desineOP4y ago

The point is not to determine the actual reason(s) - us plebs will likely never know. The point is to examine the possibility that sometimes alternative explanations to the official narrative could be plausible. Which loops back to how this all started and my original comment, that there's a narrative of electrical power usage and transparency issues - which are real. But there's other plausible explanations - political power and control. Even if the latter were true, it's unlikely the World Bank would cite them in their response.

Most of this thread stemming from my comment has been around "conspiracy theories" and such, which I find disappointing, because there is a healthy level of skepticism and distrust that should be applied to these institutions.

jollybean4y ago

It's perfectly reasonable to bring up the fact that Gaddaffi, Saddam and all sorts of other characters suggest moving on form the petro dollar.

It's not covered by mainstream news, because it's not really a news item.

It's also reasonable to suggest that this will catch the ire of the US and their diplomatic corps, but it's really not an important thing.

It's 'conspiratorial' to suggest that this was in any way a primary reason for killing Gaddafi.

Gaddafi was already getting increased investment from many Western firms, and the US was literally looking to pass his public image to the extent that he provided reparations for Lockerbee and stopped acting crazy. Everyone was keen on 'being normal and making money'.

But the Arab Spring happened, and he made public statements that went to far, people feared the worst and that was the straw that broke the camels back.

The decision to intervene was barely a consensus, nobody really wanted to do it, Obama was super reluctant.

If Gaddafi were to have made a different public statement about his intentions, and were to have signalled in some way that he was unwilling to commit to blood or something ... he would have suppressed the insurrection and probably be still ruler today.

Qatari special forces that ended up killing him were only able to act because of the various forms of American cover and intel. support and of course the chaos of the war with him on the run.

The petrodollar is an important part of American foreign policy and they will get 'really mad' if people try to move away from it, but that's a far cry from the conspiracy stories.

Also, BTC is a giant distraction from reality, it serves to fuel hype and headlines as much as anything.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse