/siberia/ - Off-topic

>>749245
The only ones who hated and killed him were CIA and Mossad glowies

>>749248
Never got this line of thinking where le CIA can magically brainwash people (except when it can't) to ignore their material conditions and act against their own interests.
Is it to avoid the truth that this board's heccing based thirdie dictators are just that, dictators. And that they were put into and hold onto power not trough a popular mandate given to them by the people but instead by military force and when that force is lost they lose power?

>>749252
The ones who killed him were paid agitators, same thing happening in Iran

>>749253
No they werent.

>>749255
He was killed by Soros hired antifa thugs.

>>749255
The jihadists were paid mercenaries.
the US, Saudis, Pakistanis funded the original mujahideen movement in Afghanistan 1979 to fight the soviets. After that was rolled down, the mujahids were then spread out to new theatres like Chechnya, Philipines, and
Algeria and Libya, used like death squads or contra fighters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Islamic_Fighting_Group

>LIFG was founded in 1990 by Libyans who had fought against Soviet forces in Afghanistan, but only revealed its existence publicly in 1995. Its objective was to establish an Islamic state in Libya. According to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the group viewed the Gaddafi regime as oppressive and anti-Muslim, and aimed to overthrow it
>In the 2011 civil war, members claim to have played a key role in deposing Muammar Gaddafi. The force was part of the National Transitional Council.

>>749259
Yeah these literally who's didnt do shit
And the us didnt fund them

I don't think Gaddafi was a "Great" leader, it was stupid to give up his Nukes and suppressing Berbers was really fucked up, but his rule from 1969 (nice) to 2011 was still the best time ever in Libya. Watch this video for more information:

>>749245
>>749252
>>749255
>>749260
low quality bait, try harder

>>749252
All revolutions and counter revolutions are committed by a very small percentage of the population. A leader being liked is irrelevant.

>>749245
>Never got the worship of these dude
he wasn't worshiped. he was just a ceremonial leader after the revolution. he wasn't some kind of dictator like westoids make him out to be.
> if he was actually a good ruler
he wasn't a ruler after the revolution
>and the libyan people liked him
they did like him but that didn't matter because he wasn't the ruler
>he wouldnt have been overthrown.
he wasn't overthrown. he was brutally raped and murdered by reactionary forces armed, trained, and backed by the US military and its air force. Reactionary might that struck at the right moment and got lucky overthrew the Libyan government, not some democratic mass movement.

>>749252
>Never got this line of thinking where le CIA can magically brainwash people
not what is being said. that's just a strawman you made up. they usually find a committed minority group of zealous reactionaries, arm them, give them funding, training, intelligence, and other forms of assistance, then help them carry out a coup against a government that the US doesn't like, whether or not "the masses" agree with the US in that particular situation is besides the point, then afterwards the USA frames it as a "revolution" only to admit decades later that it was a CIA coup when nobody cares. Iran 1953 wasn't declassified until 2013 but until it was declassified there were tons of super annoying apologists just like you who would go around saying there was "no proof" and "no admission" even though it was pretty obvious. Read Killing Hope by William Blum. It documents all this stuff ind depth, with plenty of citations.

>>749324
>1953 wasn't declassified until 2013 but until it was declassified

Yes and they all say the same thing; US involvement was minimal and coup was already being planned by the Iranian armed forces long before the US had the idea of getting involved.

The actual reality is simple; the shah had already been in power since the 40s. The Iranian constitution allowed the shah to appoint and dismiss prime ministers as he wished and thus the prime minister was below the shah not vice versa. He was the one who appointed Mossadegh and the coup was in response to Mossadegh refusing to step down after the shah dismissed him from his post.

>>749476
The shah was a western and zionist puppet installed by reactionary coupists armed and funded by the CIA and Mossad, Mossadegh was the last and best Iranian leader, I truly wish the theocracy was ousted by another Mossadegh or Gaddafi like figure but we all know what the """protestors""" in Iran are

>>749493
>The shah was a western and zionist puppet installed by reactionary coupists armed and funded by the CIA and Mossad
Again completely untrue the shah WAS in power and mossadegh was trying to usurp him by ignoring the power he LEGALLY had over him.