The CIA and Libya's Spy Unit

[GostHacked]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44381105/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/

TRIPOLI, Libya — Documents found at the abandoned office of Libya’s former spymaster appear to provide new details of the close relations the Central Intelligence Agency shared with the Libyan intelligence service — most notably suggesting that the Americans sent terrorism suspects at least eight times for questioning in Libya despite that country’s reputation for torture.

Although it has been known that Western intelligence services began cooperating with Libya after it abandoned its program to build unconventional weapons in 2004, the files left behind as Tripoli fell to rebels show that the cooperation was much more extensive than generally known with both the C.I.A. and its British equivalent, MI-6.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/03/cia-worked-closely-with-libyan-intelligence-tripoli-files-show/?test=latestnews

TRIPOLI – The CIA and Libyan intelligence services developed such a tight relationship during the George W. Bush administration that the U.S. shipped terror suspects to Libya for interrogation and suggested the questions they should be asked, The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday, citing documents found in Libya's External Security agency headquarters.

The relationship was close enough that the CIA moved to establish "a permanent presence" in Libya in 2004, according to a note from Stephen Kappes, at the time the No. 2 in the CIA's clandestine service, to Libya's then-intelligence chief, Moussa Koussa.

You don't say!!

[Topaz]

Sounds like Iraq all over again. Friends one day, bitter enemies the next. The leader of the rebels said he doesn't have any illl feels towards the US. Yeah right. Probably down the road, he'll take over the government and then the US and NATO will go back in and take him out. The games of war.

[GostHacked]

Sounds like Iraq all over again. Friends one day, bitter enemies the next. The leader of the rebels said he doesn't have any illl feels towards the US. Yeah right. Probably down the road, he'll take over the government and then the US and NATO will go back in and take him out. The games of war.

Yeah I think I called this Iraq 2.0 in other threads earlier this year when Libya came into view. It does seem to be playing out very much like the run up to the 2nd invasion of Iraq.

But we can all now dispell the notion of 'humanitarian aid'.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sounds like Iraq all over again.....

If it's Iraq all over again, then why is Canada bombing Libyans? Canada stayed out of Iraq (until the invasion was over), remember?

[GostHacked]

If it's Iraq all over again, then why is Canada bombing Libyans? Canada stayed out of Iraq (until the invasion was over), remember?

Because of supposed NATO obligations? But Libya has not attacked anyone. As you said before, Iraq was part of a long standing US policy. And I am suspecting that there is a long term US policy in place to remove Gadaffi from libya as well.

Why did we bomb just Libya and not Egypt? Tunisia? Bahrain? Syria? Shall I go on?

And why do we see things still blowing up in Iraq and Afghanistan? The war is hardly over for them.

[Guest Derek L]

Because of supposed NATO obligations? But Libya has not attacked anyone. As you said before, Iraq was part of a long standing US policy. And I am suspecting that there is a long term US policy in place to remove Gadaffi from libya as well.

Why did we bomb just Libya and not Egypt? Tunisia? Bahrain? Syria? Shall I go on?

And why do we see things still blowing up in Iraq and Afghanistan? The war is hardly over for them.

You fail to see one of the points of the strategy……..Yes, bombs are still “going off” in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, but there not going off in Washington, New York, LA, Toronto, Vancouver etc…

[GostHacked]

You fail to see one of the points of the strategy……..Yes, bombs are still “going off” in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, but there not going off in Washington, New York, LA, Toronto, Vancouver etc…

The bombs were not going off in Iraq prior to the second invasion of Iraq as far as I know. I could be wrong on that note. And to say that because the bombs are going off there, as a valid reason to why the bombs are not going off here is pretty naieve.

But that is part of the whole police state that is coming down the pipe. Every time there is a terror thread, more freedoms and rights are taken away. Don't take my word for it.

[Guest Derek L]

The bombs were not going off in Iraq prior to the second invasion of Iraq as far as I know. I could be wrong on that note. And to say that because the bombs are going off there, as a valid reason to why the bombs are not going off here is pretty naieve.

But that is part of the whole police state that is coming down the pipe. Every time there is a terror thread, more freedoms and rights are taken away. Don't take my word for it.

How many terror attacks have there been within the States after the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?

[GostHacked]

How many terror attacks have there been within the States after the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?

I have a rock that will protect you from bears.

[bush_cheney2004]

How many terror attacks have there been within the States after the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Indeed...how many Japanese torpedo bomber attacks have occurred at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii since 1945?

[Guest Derek L]

I have a rock that will protect you from bears.

No need, I've got a Remington 760 (.308 Win) in the bedroom closet....

[Guest Derek L]

Indeed...how many Japanese torpedo bomber attacks have occurred at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii since 1945?

'bout the same

[CitizenX]

How many terror attacks have there been within the States after the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Don't you remember? The terrorists attacked America because they hated their freedom. Bush removed some of those freedoms and solved the problem.

[Guest Derek L]

Don't you remember? The terrorists attacked America because they hated their freedom. Bush removed some of those freedoms and solved the problem.

What freedoms have been removed?

[eyeball]

If it's Iraq all over again, then why is Canada bombing Libyans? Canada stayed out of Iraq (until the invasion was over), remember?

No, Canada was in Iraq right from the beginning. Don't you remember reminding us of that too?

[Bryan]

No need, I've got a Remington 760 (.308 Win) in the bedroom closet....

You get a lot of bears in your bedroom?

[Guest Derek L]

You get a lot of bears in your bedroom?

No, why do you ask?

[Guest American Woman]

bush_cheney2004, on 04 September 2011 - 09:50 AM, said: If it's Iraq all over again, then why is Canada bombing Libyans? Canada stayed out of Iraq (until the invasion was over), remember?

No, Canada was in Iraq right from the beginning. Don't you remember reminding us of that too?

Yet Canada was claiming not to be involved in the war with Iraq (until the invasion was over) - at least Canada's not in denial this time. Hence the difference. And, I think, hence the wink.

[Sir Bandelot]

Harper was begging to go into Iraq at the time. That is a key difference between then and now.

[Sir Bandelot]

Oh and an important similarity is that Iraq did not represent an actual threat at the time, but it was a business opportunity. Same goes for Libya.

[GostHacked]

Yet Canada was claiming not to be involved in the war with Iraq (until the invasion was over) - at least Canada's not in denial this time. Hence the difference. And, I think, hence the wink.

The technicality and official stance from our government was that there were Canadians on US squads because of an exchange program going on at the time. So the Canadian troops in those squads had the choice of going into Iraq or not. Canada officially was not involved in the invasion of Iraq.

[Guest American Woman]

The technicality and official stance from our government was that there were Canadians on US squads because of an exchange program going on at the time. So the Canadian troops in those squads had the choice of going into Iraq or not. Canada officially was not involved in the invasion of Iraq.

Could be. But when the time came for awarding contracts for rebuilding, Canada's government spoke of Canada having been more involved than some of the 'coalition of the willing' as a 'sales pitch' for getting contracts for Canada.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yet Canada was claiming not to be involved in the war with Iraq (until the invasion was over) - at least Canada's not in denial this time. Hence the difference. And, I think, hence the wink.

And a well deserved wink....Chretien and Martin played games to keep voters happy, all while aiding and abetting in the invasion of Iraq. Then Martin very publicly groveled at Bush's feet for access to Iraqi oil service contracts. It's no mystery why we find this same guy (Martin) in a tent with Gaddafi only months later, doing the same damn thing.

Props to PM Harper for not playing that BS game.

Edited September 5, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[GostHacked]

Could be. But when the time came for awarding contracts for rebuilding, Canada's government spoke of Canada having been more involved than some of the 'coalition of the willing' as a 'sales pitch' for getting contracts for Canada.

Hey I am not denying the Canadian government is corrupt as well, we are involved in more crap that the average Canadian realizes. And it's not right either. I just don't make apologies about it when it happens. I know it's not right and I do not support it.

Of course Iraq was about resources like oil. Look at the smiliarities between Iraq and Libya.

Both Iraq and Libya wanted to set up another oil trading market, based on other currencies than the US greenback. That would be a threat to the USA because if another currency is used, the ones holding US dollars in order to trade/sell/buy oil, would then be looking to dump those dollars in order to trade in another currency, or use both currencies to trade on different markets. So the US would be loosing out on a lot of control of the oil and market if countries start using another market with another currency. When we talk about trading oil on the global market, you cannot ignore that it is traded and controled by the US greenback. So countries like Iraq and Libya would be of greater importance and benefit to the USA than Canada, simply because of how it's traded, even if the US does not get any of the oil.

[eyeball]

And a well deserved wink....Chretien and Martin played games to keep voters happy, all while aiding and abetting in the invasion of Iraq. Then Martin very publicly groveled at Bush's feet for access to Iraqi oil service contracts. It's no mystery why we find this same guy (Martin) in a tent with Gaddafi only months later, doing the same damn thing.

Props to PM Harper for not playing that BS game.

Really? Because, like Chretien, Harper is only too happy to play with the likes of China, one of Gaddafi's BFF's, apparently.

There's so much winking going on some days it's enough to make one cross-eyed.