Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Truth about Libya

Posted 2 years ago on Oct. 5, 2011, 4:35 p.m. EST by radical (0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Follow this link for the truth about the Libya situation we are not being told about in the media. The conflict there is about money as much as anything else. Also, the fact that Libya was a TRUE democracy, one that we would do well to follow, are the reasons Libya has been destroyed. Seems NATO not Gaddafi are the real aggressors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJURNC0e6Ek

83 Comments

83 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by Pierre888 (2) 2 years ago

http://libyasos.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/is-there-future-for-sirte.html

Millions of people have had thier lives ruined by military aggression in Libya...what has been achieved?

A while back I found a news article about libya in 2007, saying what a wonderful tourist destination it is. Now the Australian government website www.smartraveller.gov.au is warning it's citizens not to travel to Libya.

[-] 5 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Thanx 'P888' for your comment and links. The blog link was very disturbing.

Thus, with reference to Libya and for some information from beyond the MSM veil, I re-post some earlier points and observations :

1) Libya's offers to other African countries to trade, exchange and barter Libya's abundant gas and oil ( http://www.oilandgaslibya.com/ ) in exchange for agricultural produce, raw materials and especially Muamar Gaddaffi's thoughts, ideas and proposals for a Pan-Continental Africa GOLD backed currency { http://tinyurl.com/7ofccsu and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuFwX4-G-iM }, which would thus have undermined existing notions of the "petro-dollar" and demand for the U$D as the Global Reserve Currency ... is Absolutely Critical to understanding NATO's War on Libya ;

2) An ever greedy corporate eye is being cast upon Libya's unlikely but very real Water resources ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Manmade_River ), which will be available for future export to Malta, Sicily, Egypt & Tunisia etc., { http://www.waterpolitics.com/2011/07/31/water-big.... } ;

3) Libya has almost no national debt & is NOT in hock to the Unholy & Usurious WTO/IMF/World Bank - Nexus. Libya's 2010 debt was less than $6.4 Billion & 9% of GDP at a per capita debt of only $970/person - (See line 99, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt ) ;

4) Having a State Owned Central Bank, Libya isn't a member of that Elitist Club of Private Central Bankers, the Bank of International Settlements. One of the first acts of "The Rebels" was to establish A New Private Central Bank of Libya ( http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27881.htm ). This point can NOT be Emphasised Enough ;

5) Libya ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya ) has a very small population relative to its size (~6.5M) & thus seems ripe for de facto take over in the always avaricious eyes of The Empire & the Global Oligarchs, who with the help, blood & lives of "The Rebels", will now seek to turn Libya into yet another Imperial Fiefdom.

6) Libya's Oil reserves are the largest in Africa and the 5th largest in the world & its Light Sweet Crude has lower refining costs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Libya ).

~*~

Alas, the modus operandi of this latest WAR for Resources & Imperial Hegemony is now increasingly clear for us all to see. Libyans should be extremely wary about "throwing the baby out with the bath water" and of "jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire" ; as becoming indentured Wage-Slaves to the Oily-garchs and being in perpetual Debt-Bondage to The Infernal Banksters will NEVER constitute Liberty, Prosperity or Dignity for Libyans ... or anyone else !!

timeo 'pax americana' et dona ferentes ...

[-] 4 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Good Post here. I missed this info 6 months ago or somehow forgot it.

[-] 4 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

The realities about Libya are very far from MSM illusions and platitudes. Here's an old article which you'll enjoy if you have not read before and indeed, even if you have :

multum in parvo ...

[-] 3 points by Reneye (118) 2 years ago

Thanks so much for this. Early on I tried to bring similar information to the forum, but I think it was still too fresh for people to accept the criminality of what the government did to Libya and Gaddaffi. I think now, just a few months later, people have seen the level of propaganda our gov is capable of and can see more clearly now.

[-] 2 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

This was obvious. NATO destroys everything it touches.

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

The Green Book - Mu'ammar Qaddafi

http://www.mathaba.net/gci/theory/gb1.htm

The Philosophy of Liberty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GazZBvHhgQ

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

Read Muammar Al Qaddafi's Green Book.

http://www.greencharter.com/files/gb1.htm

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

Investigate Patraeus and his girlfriend all the way. She could have ties to the UK's M6 which helped get us into Iraq. I wouldn't trust either one of them with anything.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

There is no girlfriend. He is resigning because the shit is about to hit the fan over the CIA concentration/torture camps throughout Europe.

[-] 2 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

He's resigning for a lot of reasons. Whether there was an affair or not, their actions are downright sleazy.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

There is no girlfriend.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

OK rich, there is no girlfriend. Her having access to his email is still a big deal;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/11/10/why-david-petraeuss-gmail-account-is-a-national-security-issue/

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

I'm not trying to tie in what they may have done to what happened in Libya but you're OK with what these two are doing?

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

What do you mean?

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

This video paints the same picture .............. and more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JZu3FoVfoM

Find out about the living standards & freedoms enjoyed by Libyans.

Research the Great Man Made River Project & then find out how Libya's water supply has been targeted by the UN & NATO by bombs & special/black ops.

These are war crimes. Ignored & unreported by the inhumane Zionist mainstream media.

The 2 main objectives of the invasion of Libya were: Privatising the national oil company and the state-owned Libyan banking system.

Wake up. Unless enough of us do, we will be picked off & set against each other by these banker fascists who laugh at how easily we are controlled.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

HOLY FUCKIN SHIT

Petreaus was set to testify this upcoming week on Libya, and now he resigns due to the good old sex scandal, the go to move in DC to get people to shame themselves out.

Holy fucking shit. How any of you can trust Republicans and Democrats is beyond me.

Here's a hint. You may want to put some new parties in there, after 150+ years of the same ones. Just a thought.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3079) 1 year ago

Is Petraeus' sex scandal a potential consequence of the brigadier general's sex scandal? Petraeus came from the military world and at the CIA he could have presided over the outing of the other sex scandal.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

haha good point. Who the hell knows.

Bottom line he was set to testify on what happened at Benghazi next week, and now he's off the hook.

Whether he was refusing to say something, refusing to not say something, or simply refusing to testify is the real story.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

But he DID testify. So you were absolutely wrong.!

LMFAO

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

Why should his resignation prevent him from testifying about past events?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

It shouldnt, but CBS is already reporting he wont be testifying now.

By tomorrow the sheep will already be involved with another topic. Im going to guess some idiot Republican makes another ridiculous statement.

Alex Baldwin on the state of Republican Party: A) The rape guy lost. B) Which one?

[-] 1 points by grapes (3079) 1 year ago

The French people were rather more mature about these sex scandal matters. We are still rather uptight about them, perhaps due to insufficient homeopathic dosages and sex education in schools. I am not complaining because having a high ideal and becoming hypocritical in the process is definitely better than not having the ideal at all. We do want to weigh in the effect of these scandals on our operational efficiency, though. It is near the beginning of a new administrative term so there should have been some transitional processes already put in place in case the Obama administration were to be voted out. Perhaps Petraeus' resigning will not cause too much problem. In any case, good soldiers know well what they have achieved and take consolation from that.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Bottom line is this Benghazi mess hearings were next week,, and now the head of the CIA wont be testifying, the guy that knows all the players.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3079) 1 year ago

Petraeus is not the only one who knows because he is so high up in the CIA. If you round up enough of the lesser ranked officers, I am sure that you can still piece together a good complete picture.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Not going to happen. There's a reason this stuff happens.

[-] 2 points by grapes (3079) 1 year ago

Yes, indeed! There are certainly interests in not having "too much" Truth be exposed.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice. How many more people are going to be thrown under the bus in order to allow King Obama to keep his throne? The trail of bodies alone leads right to the White House.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

So he did testify and now you're treasonous repubs are beginning to retreat.

Even McCain!

And what do you think of this:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/11/26/thomas_ricks_fox_news_anchor_jon_scott_ends_benghazi_interview_early_after.html

LOL. Too much!

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I'm sorry....beginning to retreat on what?

I said Petraeus was thrown under the bus. I still believe he was. His testimony doesn't change that.

And contrary to what you might believe, all republicans don't think alike or agree on everything. I personally think McCain is a well meaning idiot.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Aaaaaah ha ha ha ha.

Nothing is gonna come of this Benghazi witchhunt, because repubs were using this tragedy as a political football from the beginning.

Just like YOU, they have NO HONOR!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/11/26/thomas_ricks_fox_news_anchor_jon_scott_ends_benghazi_interview_early_after.html

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I hope to God that they prove that nothing DID happen in Benghazi. That would mean that perhaps our government isn't as corrupt and evil as I think it is. Considering all the circumstances, they have a long way to go before that happens.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

All the politically motivated, dishonest slurs against Ambassador Rice, & the Pres clearly proves YOU, your repubs, and the repub propaganda mouthpiece FOX are corrupt & evil.

LMFAO.

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

What do your politically motivated, dishonest slurs against others mean?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Which ones? You makin things up again? My insults are not politically motivated, but motivated by a need to fight for the 99% against the repub corp 1% tools!

And my insults ain't been proved wrong, so they ain't dishonest. You, your repubs, & their propaganda mouthpiece FOX HAVE been!

LOL

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

So are you saying:

It is perfectly acceptable to you for someone to say whatever they want to say, and it's only "dishonest" in YOUR opinion if someone else can or does prove what they said is/was wrong.

What constitutes enough "proof" for you?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

please, stop obfuscating the facts.

You need to be told what dishonest is?

You don't know what right and wrong is?

These are questions for daddy. I already taught my daughter these basic things.

You were wrong! it was without honor to exploit the sacrifice of these great diplomats for attempted political gain.

WITHOUT HONOR!

You are sickening. And don't ask me to explain that, just ask daddy!

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Please don't obfuscate the following fact-

You said "My insults ain't been proved wrong, so they ain't dishonest".

Now, my Daddy taught me basic proper English along with the difference between right and wrong, so clearly you and my father weren't exactly similar.

How would you respond to your daughter if she said "Daddy, is it honest to insult someone as long as your insults "ain't" proved wrong?"

So, which is it? Do you believe in what you said, or don't you?

If your daughter asked "Daddy, is it honorable to make accusations about people based completely on what I believe to be true or false (or what I heard was true or false, or what someone else said it true or false) or is it honorable to insist on examining all the evidence available and determining what the truth is for myself?"

I ask because my Daddy taught me that honorable people treat other people in the way they want to be treated themselves. Do you disagree with him in that as well?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Your not makin sense. But to be clear:

You used the assassination of honorable brave Americans serving their country for political gain.

I did not. Nor would I.

As such YOU, your repubs, and your repub propaganda mouthpiece FOX are treasonous, and WITHOUT HONOR!

YOU! Not me.

Disgusting piece of shit!

[-] -3 points by janus2 (-387) 1 year ago

rice lied . the whitehouse told her to lie. the WH knew the truth about benghazi almost immediatly. 5 days later rice was on 5 sunday msm shows pushing the official lie. stevens ws a set up for a hostage that would let obama emerge as a victor negotiating his release, but the barbarian muslims didnt get the memo and raped, tortured and murdered him. this whole thing is a cover up of a cover up.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Your Coo Coo for Cocoa puffs dude.

[-] -3 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

The FACT is that one thing was said for days and then changed into something different being said.

The question is:

1- did Rice "lie" on purpose and with intent to deceive 2- was she given lies to endorse that she believed to be true? 3-was what Rice (and the White House) said either the ACTUAL truth or what both she and the White House believed at the time to BE the actual truth?

If the "intelligence" community lied from the beginning and convinced the White House /Rice it was the truth, then we have a HUGE problem with the intelligence community and a naive administration.

If the "intelligence" community did not lie, but somewhere up the line of the administration the truth was CHANGED to reflect something different, then we have a low level administration problem.

If the intelligence community did not lie and the changes were made by the President or someone on his immediate staff of advisers, then we have a high level administration problem.

There are any number of things that could have happened in Benghazi regarding Stevens-but all of them involve terrorists. I think your particular scenario is shallow and that there is a much darker one that is highly plausible.

[-] -3 points by janus2 (-387) 1 year ago

rice and the whitehouse and hillary kept saying it was a due to a video ( that had been around for months) defaming islam. obama said it in his UN speech weeks later. they all knowingly lied. they knew it wasnt due to a video.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Again, while I tend to believe you are right, I cannot SAY with any credibility that you ARE right until I see evidence that proves what they knew or didn't know at the times that coincide with their statements. All I can do is express my opinion.

That's what EVERYONE should do-and all truly honest people DO attempt to do. The FACT that what they were saying CHANGED stands independent of the FACTS about what they knew or did not know.

That is the problem I have with most of the posters here-the inability (or avoidance?) of admitting the difference between a FACT and an opinion. Facts require evidence, opinions do not. And we cannot EVER communicate with any honesty as a society together if we do not insist upon the distinction.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

[-] 0 points by janus2 (-106) 19 minutes ago

"do you really think you will ever get the truth from people that have no problem with lying? for them the means always justifies the ends."

I think you meant to say the end justifies the means. The idea that if the outcome itself is noble and just and better-that it doesn't matter what road you take to arrive there. I don't believe that ANYTHING that is truly and purely just or noble or better can be arrived at by using untrue, unjust, un-noble means.

My expectation is to find as much truth as possible outside of the liars themselves. Even liars tell the truth once in a while and even the most honest among us are mistaken once in a while. I WANT those same considerations given to me at every point in my life, and so I extend them ALWAYS to others FIRST.

If I condemn them without any evidence to support my condemnation, then I am no better than the people here who say that all Republicans are X or all conservatives are Y without any evidence to support their claims.

[-] -2 points by janus2 (-387) 1 year ago

do you really think you will ever get the truth from people that have no problem with lying? for them the means always justifies the ends.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I don't put much stock in polls but I thought of you might be interested.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/11/27/1240821/poll-cover-up-benghazi/

[-] -2 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 1 year ago

Only because the folks that took that poll are not following the story. Kinda hard to if you don't have cable since the compliant, criminal leftist major news orgs are the official media sponsors of the Bumbler-in-Chief. Man, Obama is definitely a star pupil of Alinsky. He is a master at rule #5..RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

You aint so bad at that one yourself, VQ

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

you are delusional.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

CBS is already reporting he wont be testifying now. Your right, he still could. But he wont be. Mission accomplished.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"but he won't be" testifying. You're a partisan shill. But he DID testify you imbecile. What are you gonna say now!?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/11/26/thomas_ricks_fox_news_anchor_jon_scott_ends_benghazi_interview_early_after.html

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

When Libya started falling apart the WH said the CIA was active on the ground. In otherwords, expect the unexpected. This souldn't be a big deal to anyone except Patreaus and his family. Remember when he passed out at that meeting? PTSD? The big brass gets it too. Things should proceed as they would have otherwise.

[-] 2 points by grapes (3079) 1 year ago

It is very possible that the White House was "scapegoating" the CIA for the Benghazi attack that killed ambassador Chris Stevens. Of course, it might just have been impossible to cover up that fact after the incident had occurred. The White House was obviously seeking scapegoats at the time, including the implausible excuse of an inflammatory anti-Islamic video online. The Islamic world certainly took that bait, sinker, and line in its reactions.

[-] 2 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

The comment about the video was plain stupid.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3079) 1 year ago

In Benghazi, there were TWO separate waves of attacks and rocket-propelled grenades were involved in the later apparently well-planned-for attack. The state department knew about the video as the agitation in Egypt was happening. The video had been there for a while at least.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

They won't.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

people will make a a big deal of Patreaus's affair and resignation. It won't change anything. One thing you won't hear is that the general has PTSD and just needs to step back. He's wound up tighter than a knot. Let him testify and get on with his life. He's a mess.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

He's not going to testify.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

But he did testify. LOL Now what are you gonna say?

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

Have you checked out Paula Broadwell's bio? This is all CIA BS. She's very attractive, an army officer, highly educated in the US and UK. She was working on a doctoral dissertation in Afghanistan. You can't make this stuff up!!

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Yeah man Petreaus affair has everything to do with the 2 party control of American Politics.

Damned Duopolistic bastards.

We meed more 3rd parties 'cause they don't have affairs. This is the last straw!

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

The affair is the cover you imbecile

[-] 1 points by grapes (3079) 1 year ago

Even risking potentially mortal danger, hermit crabs still need to move to new shells when they outgrow their old ones.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You're the fuckin imbecil. You said he wouldn't testify, he has and now repubs are retreating like little children.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Name calling is so childish.

Who the fuck cares!

You blame Obama for everything anyway.

Give it a rest.

The election is over. Time to resume the protest movement in the street.

Economic fairness! Thats what we want!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

The US military conducted airstrike

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7058) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

good point no need to blame NATO,

tough call, a lot of people were saying a lot of people were getting ready to die, I wasn't there

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Gaddafi died

dead men tell no tales

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7058) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

what about CSI?

as for me in general I come down on the side of the protesters during the Arab Spring, always prefer peaceful action, but life is hard, we all make choices

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

CSI?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7058) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

dead men talk like crazy to them CSI guys

(this was joke)

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

oh lol

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

How could the same person be in charge for decades if it was a true democracy? This is the worst attempt at spin I have ever seen.

[-] 0 points by Coyote88 (-24) 1 year ago

They were a true democracy? Since when?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

MSNBC- "Petraeus was responsible for the surge in IRaq that worked"...

What? So someone says "double the troops" and it leads to a decrease in violence, and it deserves some kind of special recognition?

Tampa got to witness what a police state does during the RNC. Ya crime goes down, but you turn the average person away. Its not a winning strategy.

Iraq got a surge, violence went down, and then they told us to get the fuck out of there. Now it is back to being a total mess. Where was the brilliant planning here?

[-] 1 points by grapes (3079) 1 year ago

The brilliant planning here is by our Commander-in-Chief who drove a hard bargain in Iraq to secure immunity for our troops staying there longer -- so no deal, pull out. Iraq was thrown a chance of "carpe diem" but its choosing political expediency is well within its rights as a sovereign nation. The U.S. has very little interest, oil or otherwise there. The oil deals in Iraq are going to other countries because there are U.S. laws on our corporations paying bribes to secure favors. This amply shows the stupidity of the Bush-Cheney rush into Iraq, mostly for naught in the end, unless we take comfort in the fact that Iraq is a democratic country there now (besides Israel which used to keep reminding us of its very special status as such).

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Damn D/R MSM adulterous low lifes!

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Oblah-blah ?! The Obomber ?!! Ohbummer !!! q. e. d. ...

[-] 0 points by SPAR23 (25) 2 years ago

Im sorry but how can any one actually say this. Gaddafi bomber his own people and murdered hundreds. The U.S. might have done some spec ops but I doubt it. We did not bomb at all. It was NATO lead. Why do you think there were rebels against Gaddafi. He was a murderer, if you had been there when he was in power you would think differently. It wasnt about oil because Libya doesnt produce that much. Youre an idiot if you dont think so.

[-] 0 points by Zombiefighter (-16) from Ione, CA 2 years ago

Libya under Ghaddafi was a true democracy? Please to explain..

[-] -1 points by Saesneg (-166) from Linwood, NJ 1 year ago

Well, duhhh... and only an African American president could pull this off in Libya and the Congo. This has all been common knowledge since the start though so I don't get it. And Benghazi will be swept under the rug, too - what's a few more bodies? I don't understand how people can bash Bush as a war monger while simultaneously supporting Obama; Qaddafi does not appear to have been any more corrupt than Hussein, perhaps less so... So I fail to see any moral difference. And what of war profits?

[-] -2 points by ThatSkepticGuy (4) 2 years ago

Typical Islamic Fundamentalist Apologism.

"Also, the fact that Libya was a TRUE democracy"

You're completely full of shit, and this sort of fetish for totalitarianism and mass murder is exactly why the real 99% of American citizens aren't taking any of you seriously.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Nice, I like how you take one posters 'opinion' and paint the whole of Occupy with it! Truly a propagandist maneuver, you fool no one. fail.