[desine]

>The public justification for killing Gaddafi is 'stopping the imminent genocide', which by the way, he literally declared he was about to commit. >The thing is, geopolitics is messy and there are quite a number of 'factors' many of them true to some extent.

Yes, exactly. It's not that I know I am right, or that there's one answer. But it is interesting only one of the discussions is allowed, and one very plausible explanation is universally labeled as a "conspiracy theory".

>The real question to ask someone when they are talking about 'Bitcoin' is how much Bitcoin (or other crypto) do you own? Because I find it's like talking to people in Amway or Scientology.

FWIW, basically none. Might have an old wallet on the computer in my closet with ~.1 left on it, from back when I used to buy drugs off the silk road. But I'm not a crypto fanatic, though I do find it interesting.

[bawolff]

> But it is interesting only one of the discussions is allowed

Is someone stopping you?

Having people not be convinced is not the same as preventing discussion.

[desine]

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.

[bawolff]

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.

[desine]

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.

[jollybean]

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.

[lowkey]

What if the argument was simply that NATO powers went to war over false pretenses in Libya just like they did in Iraq (Where WMD?) and so many countries before.

I am Canadian and I remember when we would send peacekeepers to stabilize a country under the name of the UN. In this case the UN authorized a nofly zone. Western powers took that as their opportunity to bomb Libya into the stone age and before the NATO-backed rebels were even in power they immediately established a central bank linked to the bank of international settlements [1].

Instead of installing peacekeepers to stabilize the region, once the “dictator” was disemboweled (instead of facing a fair trial) NATO powers left the country to it’s own devices. Shortly after the country devolved to the point where open air slave markets are a thing in the 21st century. Thanks NATO! [2] I would argue if a group of nations violently overthrow a government, then they are responsible for the consequences.

As such the US, Canada, France, UK, and Italy all have the blood of slaves on their hands in Libya. Curious how the mainstream news so rarely connects the dots on that one.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2011/03/28/libyan-rebels-form-their-own...

[2] https://time.com/longform/african-slave-trade/