Wednesday, September 23, 2009

UN Theater...Qaddafi

The UN plays all sides of the globalist agenda;  a truth teller, a propagandist, cover up artist, a one world currency and government enabler...but sometimes it becomes a sort of street theater of the absurd in which truth and fiction merge into something interesting to behold. Today, Colonel Qaddafi/Gaddafi had a rambling diatribe for the ages.

Of course he played right in the hands of those who would attempt to portray him and anyone else who may have the same ideas as.....psycho. It could be he is in on the game and this is the role he plays.

I thought much of his rant was 'dead on' while some of it was just confusing.

 Gaddafi to UN: "All the terrorists in the house put your hands up?"

Gaddafi suggests Israel behind JFK assassination
Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi called for a reopening of the investigations into the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., during his speech at the UN on Wednesday, and pointed the finger at Israel in Kennedy's death.

In a wide-ranging speech that took place just after President Obama's address to the UN, and which ran much longer than scheduled, Gaddafi asked why Jack Ruby, "an Israeli," killed Kennedy's assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, and suggested Kennedy may have been killed because of his interest in "investigating" an Israeli nuclear program.

"Why did this Israeli kill the killer of Jack Kennedy? The whole world should know that Kennedy wanted to investigate the nuclear reactor of the Israeli demon," Gaddafi said.

Gaddafi also called for a reinvestigation into the assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., whom Gaddafi described as a "black rebel."

"His killing was a plot, and we should know why he was killed and who killed him," Gaddafi said. {more}

On the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Gadhafi said the two-state solution was impractical geographically because Israel and Palestine “overlapped.” Instead, he called for the creation of a single democratic state in which both Jews and Arabs lived together.

“The Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat generation is over,” he said, referring to the now comatose former prime minister of Israel and the late leader of the Palestinian Authority. “Look at the Palestinian and Israeli youth; they want to live under one state.” {more}

An hour into his address, Colonel Qaddafi began calling for investigations into each of the major wars since the United Nations was founded: the Korean War, the war over the Suez Canal, the Vietnam War and the ongoing war in Iraq, which he called “the mother of all evils.”

The Afghan war, too, he said, should be investigated for possible prosecution. At times, Colonel Qaddafi veered into conspiracy, saying, for example, that the H1N1 influenza virus, also called swine flu, might be a military or corporate weapon that got out of a lab,

But then he adds....??

For Mr. Obama personally, however, he had only warm words, calling on the collected nations to welcome “our son” on the occasion of his first United Nations appearance. “We are content and happy if Obama can stay forever as the president of America,” he said, and added that he feared America would return to its old ways after the end of Mr. Obama’s term. {more}

“We are not committed to obeying or adhering to resolutions by the Security Council in its composition right now,” Qaddafi said. “It should not be called the Security Council, it should be called the ‘terror council.’ ”

“The swine virus may have gotten out in the open after escaping from a laboratory. It may have been put together in a lab by the military…. We do sometimes make viruses in a laboratory and then they make viruses for capitalist companies who will make vaccinations and make money.” {more}

The entire video of Qaddafi's speech can be seen starting here.

The English transcript doesn't seem  to be available at this moment.


  1. Kenny,

    Regardless of the contents of the speech and whether you agree with him or not, what exactly constitutes a "diatribe"?

    I often find that label used by the mainstream media when they want to discredit and or mock someone, so they dismiss that person's words as a "diatribe".

    I don't like Qadafi. In fact, I think he's a fool and a clown - mostly due to the way he carries himself and conducts foreign policy, but - like you said - I found myself agreeing with him on a few points.

    So, why is it that Bush would have been ridiculed on the contents of his speeches, but no one has yet to label them "diatribe". They'd call him "chimpy", "nuts", "idiot". But I have never seen anyone label his speeches as "diatribes".

    Is it an east vs. west thing, or perhaps something gets lost in the translation, or due to cultural differences? I don't know.

    I'm not trying to be nit picky, I just want to understand the reasoning.

  2. He should of used Jack Ruby's given name, Jacob Rubenstein.

    And yes, he's correct about the Israeli connection to JFK's and I believe they also had a hand in RFK's a 'Palestinian.'

    To this day, even when under deep hypnosis, Sirhan doesn't recall shooting RFK.

  3. anon,
    I used the terms 'rambling diatribe' only because the NY Times article linked used it in their title when they first published it. For some reason they changed it. Maybe an editor was thinking along your lines.

  4. I have tried to get an english transcript of Ghafaffi's speech and I get this warning from Google that I am entering a virus attach site. I hit ignore and I get Jennifer Hudson's website and it is totally empty.I don't think the warning should matter because I am running linux. To me the assassination of JFK was traumatizing that I would listen to the devil if I suspected that I could get some truth on it.

  5. Qaddafi is either getting senile or on drugs or a Zionist agent and my money is on the latter.

    When he could of used his time to speak at length on the UN Israeli war crimes report, he chose to act like a damned fool and give the Zionist MSM sound bites they'll use for months and years to come.

  6. One wonders if Qaddafi wasn't under some type of hypnosis, especially in light of the fact that British agents are now operating in Libya.

    I wouldn't think much of that except in the past the SAS guys have gotten busted framing Irish and masquerading as Shiites in an explosive-laden car in Iraq.

    I didn't watch Qaddafi's speech so I can not comment on the impressions people have
    (those noses usually pretty accurate); however, from the brief news clips I saw he looked ghoulish. Quite frankly, those hollow eye sockets filled with blackness gave me the creeps.

    On the other hand, I did rather enjoy Ahmadinejad's address. Of course, anyone who says what he said is going to be savaged by the lovable American press. Didn't Katie Couric just carry the Zionist ball on that one?

  7. Cal, it was the same last night and now it's even worse. My virus and malware software is working overtime on all of sites that come up to the top of a google search for the transcript.

    Greg and Rocker, the Lockerbie 'incident' and aftermath showed that Qaddafi is playing with the intelligence services.

    I keep having thoughts that maybe Ahmadinejad is too or am I being paranoid?

  8. "Playing" as in cahoots?

    No. I think the US media does a fantastic job at demonizing even those who repent, bend over and give the US whatever it wants. Yet, they are still called "terrorists".

    Qadaffi paid 10 times more in compensation to the families of the PanAm flight victims than the US did to the families of the Iranian airline that was shot down by the USS Vinsense. Yet, Qadaffi remains a "terroris".

    Israel's Menachem Begin, Ariel Sharon, and Yitzah Shamir were members of terrorist organizations, but they were welcomed and respected by the average American. Heck, even Arafat who recognized Israel and bent over backward just to satisfy its demands is still used in reference to terrorism.

    So long as the government and Israel's lobby in DC have a tight grip on the media, you'll continue to see Arabs, Muslims, non-White people vilified the minute they do not acquiescence to the demands of western powers.

    That is the very reason why you are seeing Ahmadinejad and Qadafi as caricatures, or at best, agents provocateurs, because that's what the media wants you to see.

    I have been watching Jon Stewart for close to 10 years now. Tonight, though, he was lock step with every media whore out there. God forbid the media would actually treat personalities who do not agree with the hardliners in DC with objectivity.

    Look at events dating as far back as the 1960s. Every time a grass roots movement questions the government's official version of incidents, mockery and ridicule ensue to discredit and discourage such movements.

    From the JFK assassination to 9/11 to issues involving Israel's wars - the Suez Canal, 1967 etc.

    End of Part One

  9. Continued...

    Part Two

    It's as if a powerful entity behind the scenes is pulling the strings. Surely, that response is not genetically codified into news agencies or journalists. Someone in power is following a standard operating procedure. SOP 101 when you want to go after someone, discredit him. If he's not well known, famous or otherwise, then mockery and ridicule work even better.

    That's what we're seeing here in regard to Iran and Libya and in fact regarding the entire Middle East.

    The problem with media and mobs is that viewers are highly uneducated. They swallow the propaganda whole and then the entire country because like one huge echo chamber.

    Saddam - I know he had his faults and crimes - but he too was labeled "crazy" in 2001 by the western media. Even though he apparently wasn't "crazy" when he was a US ally against Iran in the 1980s.

    Sarah Palin is crazy in my opinion. She throws around slogans even she doesn't seem to understand. On the other hand when one actually listens to Ahmadinejad or Qadaffi, surely, they have their own rants, but that doesn't mean that they should be dismissed as "crazy".

    They are leasers of other countries. The US has to communicate with them and interact with them. They are part of the political landscape.

    At least, in the Middle East, when Bush spoke Middle Easterners listed to him. They didn't dismiss him as crazy. Sure they called him "evil", "criminal" "dog". But they didn't throw labels at him for the sake of discrediting him - you know, empty meaningless slogans.

    It's the same thing with the "teabaggers" and Obama. How many of those protesters actually understand what "Socialism" or "Marxism" actually mean?

    So, in response to your question, my personal opinion is NO.

    Look for Iran to be threatened with more and more sanctions .Even if Iran allowed the Israeli army into each nuclear facility across Iran, that too wouldn't be good enough for either Israel or the US. Why? Because they could care less about Iran's nuclear ambitions. What they want is Iran's oil and for Iran to lack political clout in that region. They want Iran to be like Jordan and Egypt, oppressive domestically, but friendly with the US. I take that back. "Friendly" implies mutual respect. No. What they want is to have Iran licking their proverbial boots.

    End of Part Two

  10. Continued...

    Part Three

    This goes back to the SOP I mentioned earlier. Case in point, Saddam.

    On the eve of the US/NATO invasion into Iraq in 2003, news outlets across the Middle East and much of Europe were reporting that Saddam was calling American embassies across the region, frantically trying to get in touch with the White House or whoever would listen, asking to allow him to surrender peacefully on the condition that Iraq and his sons were spared. Washington ignored the offer.

    So Saddam realized that they were after him, that they were coming to get him. He ran and hid.

    The powers that be are following the same SOP with Iran now. But, the goal is not to attack it, but to destabilize it from within. Just like Clinton did during the 90s with the embargo him imposed on Iraq.

    An attack on Iran would be too costly for both Israel and the US.

    All these drills, joint exercises and threats we've been hearing about over the last five years are aimed at pressuring and destabilizing Iran, scaring it into submission. They don't give a crap about Iran's nuclear facilities. They want to have a "moderate" ("newspeak" for "they're our puppets) government in power that they can manipulate and control.

  11. usa paid 300,000 to each income earning individual.

    libya paid 10,000,000 to every one.

    so i've read.