As events have progressed, I've been increasingly suspicious about what's truly going on in Libya. First off, the whole progression of events has seemed, well, somewhat scripted. In January, Tunisia's dictator of 23 years, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, was overthrown, then, in February, Egypt's dictator of 32 years, Hosni Mubarak, was removed from power (on Iran's "Islamic Revolution's Victory Day"!), both via seeming popular revolts. Tunisia is to the west of Libya and Egypt is to the east of Libya. Thus, the stage was set for a revolt against Colonel Muammar Gaddafi who has been Libya's dictator for more than 40 years.
Right off, the whole Libyan situation has been surreal with Gaddafi fulfilling his image as a madman by making seeming nonsensical comments that his opponents were on hallucinogenic drugs, etc. Meanwhile, opposition forces seemed steadfast that the West should not intervene:
That's a pretty elaborate sign IN ENGLISH to be made by folk caught up in a spontaneous violent uprising against their government! It's almost as if it was intended for the Western media.
Eventually Gaddafi, through brutal repression, regained the upper hand against those seeking his overthrow, and now the U.N. Security Council has a approved a no-fly zone resolution that authorizes "all necessary measures" to impose a no-fly zone in Libya, protect civilian areas and pressure Libyan leader Gaddafi into accepting a ceasefire.
Strangely, when the U.N. was contemplating a resolution for the use of military force against Libya, Colonel Gaddafi threatened:
"We will chase the traitors from Benghazi," he told his troops. "Destroy their fortifications. Show them no mercy. The world needs to see Benghazi free....We will hunt down the miscreants and bearded ones that have destroyed our country and we will punish them without mercy."
Don't you think the Libyan dictator would have been seeking to dissuade the West from intervening militarily?!
Yet....his words helped stoke a Western military response.
What's more, why do you think Lebanon, now presided over by a Syrian/Iranian/Hezbollah puppet Najib Mikati, would be willing to introduce a U.N. resolution to use force effectively to overthrow a Mideast tinpot dictator? Lebanon is a client state of Syria and Iran, both with comparable regimes to that of Libya. Thus Lebanon should have been unwilling to invite Western military action to overthrow a like government to that of its Iranian and Syrian sponsors. Indeed, this whole scenario of Western military intervention in Libya could someday play against Iran given it's pursuit of nuclear arms. Yet somehow Lebanon led the charge against Libya at the U.N.?!
When there are large-scale historical contradictions underway, you need to ponder whether or not the West is being duped into a dangerous trap.
The ultimate target of Russia and the Arab and Persian dictatorial states is Israel and the U.S. One way or another, they will seek to fashion our demise. If you blindly play into the hands of your enemies, you most assuredly will lose. The key historical fact is that Libya is a Russian puppet state.
There's likely an ominous reason that Russia's NATO Ambassador Dmitry Rogozin warned, "If someone in Washington is seeking a blitzkrieg in Libya, it is a serious mistake because any use of military force outside the NATO responsibility zone will be considered a violation of international law." (Given this Russian perspective, how is it that Russia didn't veto, or at least significantly constrain, the U.N. resolution authorizing the broad use of military force against Libya?!)
What may be telltale is that if Western military intervention starts this weekend, it will coincide with the 8th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War (much like, as noted above, Mubarak being overthrown on Iran's "Islamic Revolution Victory Day"). If Libya continues to brazenly attack Benghazi, this appears to be almost a certainty. (Why IS Gaddafi so blatantly provoking a fight?)
The bottom line is that the West simply doesn't understand the nature of the "Old Enemy" they are up against.
"History is a capricious creature. It depends on who writes it." - Mikhail Gorbachev
Getting wrong the key issue of the intentions of your primary enemies can literally prove fatal. America and her allies may soon find this out the very, very hard way. We're being intentionally painted as the 'capitalist, imperialist, warmongering bad guys' unqualified to govern world affairs. (While a Russian/Chinese communist/totalitarian 'New World Order' will be purportedly ideal?!)
Given my apocalyptic vision, my greatest concern is that Libya clandestinely has long-range SCUD missiles and chemical warheads that could be used against Israel in the event of Western military intervention. This would mean that the seemingly mad Libyan dictator is being provided the "honor" of starting World War Three. At the least, the odds are that the seeming "madman" Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has the capacity to unleash "unexpected consequences" against the West if attacked.