Freedom Rider: Attack of the Cruise Missile Liberals


by BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley

Americans are warlike – as long as they think they can be victorious. These nominal Democrats and Republicans “differ only on who they want to see doing the dominating.” Today, a Black Democrat is the head killer in charge, allowing the likes of Ed Schultz, Bill Maher and Juan Cole to endorse the criminal assault on Libya. When the chips are down, fraudulent anti-war liberals show their true racist, Manifest Destiny-loving colors. “The true anti-war movement must reawaken itself and hit the streets in the hundreds of thousands.”


Freedom Rider: Liberals Love War

by BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley

The desire for America to dominate the rest of the world is prevalent among most of its citizens, regardless of party affiliation.”

Peace loving Americans are few and far between. The vast majority of our citizens see nothing wrong with their government killing masses of people as long as the rationale sounds high minded and noble.

The love of bloodshed is generally connected with the right wing in this country, but nothing could be further from the truth. The desire for America to dominate the rest of the world is prevalent among most of its citizens, regardless of party affiliation. Those citizens differ only on who they want to see doing the dominating. Republicans are ecstatic when a Republican president drops bombs, sends drones on killing missions or occupies other nations. Democrats are equally enthusiastic when one of their own does the same.

Democratic party reaction to President Obama’s military intervention in Libya is but the latest example of the American propensity to exult over government sponsored violence. Obama, like George W. Bush before him, claims that his intervention, no-fly zone, peace mission (take your pick) is being conducted only for the most humanitarian of purposes. The dead bodies belie the claims of dogooderism but those words have a distinct power for people in this country and will always be used as a pretext for someone dying somewhere on the planet.

The belief in white American superiority effects and infects every policy discussion in this nation.”

The legacy of Manifest Destiny and the belief in white American superiority effects and infects every policy discussion in this nation. The equation of goodness and rightness with white America holds sway very strongly and sadly not just for white people either. The willingness to see white behavior as normative means that foreign policy decisions get a pass precisely at the moment when resistance and skepticism are needed.

No, Barack Obama isn’t white, but he may as well be. He is president precisely because he assured voters that he would not change the complexion of their belief systems. If he didn’t fulfill the deeply ingrained belief that might makes right as long as America, a country thought of as white, is in charge of world affairs, he would never have become the president.

The United States attack on Libya has brought out the worst in this phenomenon. Liberals are gleeful that conservative icon Newt Gingrich backtracked on supporting intervention until the Democratic president actually intervened, but Gingrich is no different than they are.

We now have MSNBC television host Ed Schultz proclaiming “Support for Obama’s Invasion of Libya.” Never mind that Obama has taken great pains to claim that the bombing will be of limited duration and that ground troops will not have a presence there. Schultz seems to be ahead of the president on this one, but his show of support is telling in revealing the true support for American motivations in its interventions abroad. Likewise Juan Cole in an “Open Letter to the Left on Libya” dismisses criticism of the intervention thusly. “I would like to urge the Left to learn to chew gum and walk at the same time,” and adds, “We should avoid making ‘foreign intervention’ an absolute taboo . . .”

Barack Obama isn’t white, but he may as well be.”

Foreign interventions conducted by the United States should be taboo. Our system is not designed to be in any way humanitarian. Its motives are to say the least suspect and no matter how evil its enemies are made out to be, the evidence of past history should make us suspicious of the arguments in favor of war.

The liberal hawks, like Obama, have no concern for Libyan civilians who are enduring bombing, and exposure to depleted uranium shells which create cancers and birth defects for years to come. This is not conjecture, but has been seen in Iraq and ought to be a reason for anyone who claims to be on the “left” to oppose the actions which bring it to pass.

The true anti-war activist, not just anti-Republican activist, has to raise its voice. The true anti-war movement must reawaken itself and hit the streets in the hundreds of thousands, just as they did in 2003 before the invasion of Iraq. That moment can be recreated, and in a deeper, more honest way, now that a Democrat is the head killer in charge.

Margaret Kimberley's Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)


good piece but

I totally disagree with your initial statement: "Peace loving Americans are few and far between. The vast majority of our citizens see nothing wrong with their government killing masses of people as long as the rationale sounds high minded and noble." MANY people I know are completely against war of any type, regardless of whether it's for "spreading freedom" or "fighting terrorism." But the problem is they don't care enough to voice their opposition, fearing being labeled as either sympathetic to our "enemies" or looking like cowards. But I think things start to really hit home when people see the pictures of the destruction our troops really do. Did you see the pictures from that Rolling Stone article about the Kill Team? They guys are just killing civilians for fun and I don't believe anyone can condone that with sincerity. Unfortunately, the youth of today, including the a vast amount of black youth, are more concerned with their cars, kicks and chicks than they are with international relations. Unfortunately, the spirit of the 60s died in the 60s. We don't have peace loving heros and artists speaking against our government. There are no more Jimi Hendrix's, just more and more self-absorbed rappers spewing their self-indulgent nonsense. I pray that one day the youth will awake from their intellectual slumber and see the world for what it is and where it's going. —tyrone

Excellent article

“The belief in white American superiority effects and infects every policy discussion in this nation.” 

You're a hundred percent right and truer words couldnt be written. I can;t tell you how happy it makes me that the true spirit of 60s radicalism can still be found. But on another level, what shall we make of the scared pragmatism of the left, who is so afraid of a republican retaking the executive that they submit to every form of Democratic abuse? I say they need to dig in, abandon the democrats and let the chips fall where they may. 

All About Zionism

These Liberals are Zionists.  It not just a "love" of War.  It's a love of Jewish Supremacy that controls much of the U.S. political economy and for these commentators and academics, if they want to make $$$ they'll be advacing the Zionist agenda.

It's the first Jewish President after all

Libya and the Obama Cult

How the President conned his supporters – and his enemies 

by Justin Raimondo, April 01, 2011 

Like all US wars since the Revolution, this one is about the internal politics of the US, rather than a real external threat to our security. The Clintonian wing of the Democratic party is determined to regain power, and Hillary’s push for war is the spearhead of the Restoration. The Clintonites are determined to outflank the Republican party in the foreign policy field, and eliminate the Democrats’ alleged "national security deficit" once and for all, albeit while swathed in a penumbra of moral righteousness.

The Republicans, who have presided over the most aggressive expansion of the American empire since the days of Teddy Roosevelt, are in no position to criticize this new crusade in the Middle East. They do so with the albatross of Iraq weighing heavily around their necks. Politically, it’s win-win for the Democrats, as they gear up to save what remains of their hold on power. While the American public may have its doubts about this particular intervention, this is more than balanced out by the general perception that the Democrats are just as "tough" as the Republicans, if not more so.  

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, although pursued with some alacrity by the Obama-ites, are the legacy of the previous administration. This is a war the White House can call its own – and it surely bears the trademark arrogance and slippery two-faced double-dealing that is the hallmark of Team Obama.  

The "Arab Spring" that was previously being celebrated and closely watched the world over has now been co-opted and transformed into something else entirely. Faced with the prospect of losing its Middle Eastern allies to a wave of uprisings, the Americans have decided to go with the flow, so to speak, and try to control it as best they can. 

Libya is but a prelude to a major extension of US power and influence in the region, the first war in a series that will culminate in the final assault on Iran. This is what the Israelis, lurking in the background, are counting on, and what their energetic American lobby is furiously campaigning for. The Clinton faction, having seized control of the foreign policy-making apparatus, is fully on board, and there’s no one of any consequence in the Democratic party to oppose their course.  

So get ready for the big build-up – and buckle your seat-belts, because the main event is going to make the wars of the Bush era look like a garden party.   



Joe Biden calls himself a

Joe Biden calls himself a zionist, now doesn't that make one feel secure in the people leading our country?

War on Black America

I find it interesting that Glen Ford failed to mention when he visited Libya he did so as part of Cynthia McKinney's delegation to Libya.  However what is important is that under Qaddafi, Libya lent money to African American groups.

Thus there has been a long established relationship between African Americans and Libya.  It is a shame that the Black Entertainer who performed in Libya like Mariah Carrey succumb to Zionist (Jewish) pressure. 

Thus Obama War and the rally by the White Jewish Left like the ISO and Louis Proyect was quick to jump on the Qadaffi demonization bandwagon.  Libya like Iraq in 2003 reveals where the "Left's" alliance lie -- with Zionism NOT with the values of justice.

This is what Mr. Ford should be aware of before he makes a pack with the "Left".  I hope Mr. Ford who is quick to label the Tea Party as "white nationalists" he so too be aware of the "Left's"  adherence to Zionism.

Ira Chernus offers insight

Tomgram: Ira Chernus, Obama Trapped by Myth

January 20th, 2011

Tom Engelhardt

How the Power of Myth Keeps Us Mired in War
Why Are We Still in Afghanistan?
By Ira Chernus 

What is that myth you might ask?  Ms. Kimberly describes the "symptoms" (my word) of the myth as:

Democratic party reaction to President Obama’s military intervention in Libya is but the latest example of the American propensity to exult over government sponsored violence. 


I threw that Capital "C" in there to denote another "symptom." That the exulation has reached cultic proportions.  What we have in American, in a Myth called American Exceptionalism, is a CULT-LIKE belief in "our" (dominant culture's, i.e. Ango-centered ,White aesthetic) the belief in the US's inherent God-given "right" or R2P over the world, that God has given us dominion over the world and we can therefore move pieces on the "Grand Chess Board" with impunity, because we've been imparted with the "wisdom of the gods." LOL  And no act we engage in us above reproach a, unique sickness indeed.

Obama, Liberals and increasingly African Americans are trapped in the same myth.

Ira Chernus:

Conservatives are often the nicest people — that’s what I told him — the ones you’d like to have as neighbors. Then I said: I bet you’re always willing to help your neighbors when they need it.  Absolutely, he replied.

So why, I asked, don’t you to want to help out people across town who have the same needs, even if they’re strangers? His answer came instantly:  Because I know my neighbors work hard and do all they can to take care of themselves. I don’t know about those people across town.

He didn’t have to say more (though he did). I knew the rest of the story: Why should I give my hard-earned money to the government so they can hand it out to strangers who, for all I know, are good-for-nothing loafers and mooches? I want to be free to decide what to do with my dough and I’ll give it to responsible people who believe in taking care of themselves and their families, just like me. I’ll give my money to the government only to protect us from strangers in distant lands who don’t believe in the sacred rights of the individual and aim to take my freedom and money away.

What a story it is — a tale of mythic proportions! As an historian of religions, I was trained to appreciate, even marvel at the myths people tell to make sense out of the chaos of their lives. So I can’t help admiring the conservative myth: so simple yet all encompassing, offering clear and easy-to-grasp answers that cut through the everyday complexities besetting us all.

Of course, the answers are far too simplistic, as stupid (in my opinion) as they are dangerous. But I was also trained to be non-judgmental and to admire the power of a myth even when I find it morally abhorrent. And this one is impressive, with its classic good-guys-versus-bad-guys plot line turned into a stark political tale of freedom versus slavery.

White Americans, going back to early colonial times, generally assigned the role of “bad guys” to “savages” lurking in the wilderness beyond the borders of our civilized land. Whether they were redskins, commies, terrorists, or the Taliban, the plot has always remained the same.

Call it the myth of national security — or, more accurately, national insecurity, since it always tells us who and what to fear.  It’s been a mighty (and mighty effective) myth exactly because it lays out with such clarity not just what Americans are against, but also what we are for, what we want to keep safe and secure: the freedom of the individual, especially the freedom to make and keep money. 

The 'Main-Streaming' of the 'Left' Opens Door for 'Gate-Keepers'

At one time the so-called left held truly progressive anti-war, anti-imperialist, pro-workers views if not even more revolutionary / radical views & thus was not so 'main-stream'. However since the 1970s-80s what is called the left has gone main-stream. Today MLK would be considered as on the fringe of the main-stream [IE: far-left] & Malcom X would be called a extremely hard-core radical, but in their era & amongst their peers- MLK was considered a sincere & principled yet moderate [even main-stream] at the very center of the movement & Malcolm though a revolutionary icon for the Black Consciousness / Power,  Pan African / Black Nationalist movement- was no radical [that era's true radicals were totally rejecting the system & even calling for {or even actively attempting to}over-throwing the system]. This fact is why they've been so effective at re-imaging MLK even more for the so-called 'main-stream' [IE: more acceptable to most white folks] than Malcolm - though MLK was closer in both intent & spirit to Malcolm - than certainly O-Bomb-em. -HOWEVER- Now you hear FOX Noise types claim [falsely] that guys like O-bomb-em & Billary, John Kerry, etc are far-left liberals [or even socialists] when they-are actually corporate main-stream politicians of the so-called center-right - While blatant war hawks like Joe Lieberman & John{bomb bomb}McCain are considered moderates.  The fact is even guys like Kucinich, Nader, Feingold, etc- who are much more progressive than either Obama, Billary, & John Kerry - are much closer in position to MLK {IE: principled moderates} than really being radical - yet are portrayed as at the fringes of the main-stream. AND- Its note-worthy that NOW you're considered a so-called 'liberal progressive' if you support the DREAM Act &/or are against DADT - meaning supporting the right of so-called 'illegal' immigrants & so-called 'gays' to serve in the US' Military Industrial Intel Security Complex- the very engine of US imperialism & wars. 

This 'main-streaming' of the so-called left while pulling the whole so-called main-stream discourse toward an increasingly hard-core pro- Corp & imperialist [military industrial intel security complex] yet anti-working class / anti-working poor agenda - is also true for the media. I won't even talk about the MSNM News including so-called liberal -left news outlets like the NY / LA Times or even MSNBC [MS =MicroSoft = Bill Gates & NBC is owned by GE which is a big time weapons maker who built the Fukushima reactors {NOTE: Russia Today did a recent piece on how MSNBC hyped the Bushite-NeoCon Iraq War -&- how they sacked Phil Donahugh who had they're highest ranking show at the time & bought out contracts w various people (IE: Jesse Ventura) who were out-spoken against the Iraq War- to silence them.].

But I'm focused on alternative news sources like The Real News & DemocracyNow!. One would expect to see a more balanced view of the events in Libya w both being unquestionably opposed to US / UK / French / NATO military [& covert] intervention there, but [particularly DemocracyNow! - The Real News has been a bit more even-handed] this has not been the case - though they haven't overtly supported it either. Neither of these sources have had a truly even-handed take on Khadaffi [let alone had anyone on to defend him] - all of their commentary begins w the idea of 'Khadaffi's a brutal tyrant' as a given - which of course logically leads to 'Khadaffi should go' [IE: regime change] whether said explictly or not. Thus their debate isn't about whether there should be a negotiated settlement & truce / power-sharing arrangements / elections, etc- but whether or not the US / UK / France / NATO should intervene militarily [which, certainly at this point, should be Obviously be NO].  

Juan Cole was on DemocracyNow! a few days ago- essentially acting as a mouth piece for O-Bomb-em, Billary, & Rice{squared}& providing left-cover [a Left gate keeper] for them. In fact he wrote a piece specifically targeting the left -justifying this attack on Libya [as he basically dismissed the assault of the Saudi / Bahrain regimes on truly un-armed protesters in those countries- as barely significant] & urging the so-called left to support the O-Bomb-em regime. Previously DemocracyNow! had on a Libyan who was obviously a US mouth-piece for the rebels. On this past Thursday Amy Goodman featured a piece on the alleged rape by some Khadaffi troops of a woman. Now I don't know if this poor woman was raped by some Khadaffi soldiers or by some guys falsely pretending to be Khadaffi's people. In fact- I don't know if this incident actually occurred at all [remember that the 1st war on Iraq led by Mr CIA Skull{duggery}& Bones Bush Sr- was hyped by accusations by a tearful Kuwaiti girl that Saddam's troops threw Kuwaiti infants out of their incubators & stomped them to death- which later was shown to be completely untrue {the girl was the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US daughter who was coached]. Of course this accusation could be totally true- & if so would certainly be a personal tragedy & the victim is entitled to justice- BUT- one isolated rape case doesn't justify an invasion of - or a bombing campaign of Libya. And the US' hands are too filthy w rape cases of its own - to judge someone else [IE: the rash of rapes of women in the US military & Black-water / Xe; Rapes of Iraqi & Afghan women, girls & boys in Abu Ghraib & Bagram, etc; - women & juvenile girls & boys in the US Prison Industrial Complex]. So why would DemocracyNow! hype this story? Could it be to demonize Khadaffi even more than he's been already? Amy Goodman's women viewers would be particularly outraged [IE: vulnerable] after watching this story. Thus whether it is the intent or not- the effect is to push those on the so-called left to- if not actively supporting this attack on Libya - at least not speaking out forcefully against it. 

Of much greater relative significance, as far as impeaching Khadaffi, is the report that he had some 1200 prisoners killed in 1996 - which didn't even get a mention in the west until this rebellion [where was their humanitarian concerns for Libyans then] - because at that time the US & UK were too busy framing him for the sham PanAm 103 beef. The question is how valid is this accusation & under what circumstances?! Does Khadaffi have a track record of this kind of thing [remember he seized power from a despotic western puppet king in 1969 in a BLOOD-LESS Coup]?! 

Great post, you hit all the

Great post, you hit all the points. I read the report on the Pan Am flight and even the judge felt that the the evidence was superficial and flimsy. It was first blamed on a couple of Lebanese, but it also was tied in with a CIA drug smuggling being done out of the Germany airport where luggage not checked. A polygrapher results indicated these luggage handlers but he was targeted to discredit him and his findings. Pan Am wanted all the intel information but was refused "National Security". A lot was made of this but very little made out of the Iranian passenger plane that the US shot down July 3,1988, that killed 290 people. Hypocrisy is the name of the game for our actions in foreign countries.

Truth With No Chaser

Thanks Ms Kimberly for another shot of truth with no chaser.  It is absolutely incomprehensible and beyond the pale any rhyme reason or logic that the talking Butt heads on the alphabet news networks can say with a straight face the pile of lies that they are spitting out about Libya.  I mean you have to be on drugs or some mind altering substance to tell the kind of stone cold bold face lies that this group is constantly yelling and screaming.


It is even more unbelievable that the so much of the general public buys into this tsunami of bullsh*t.  There are way too many folks (I’m not even going to talk about the Obamabots who are still inebriated from the Obama-Aide or still can’t get their heads out of the fog from too much Obama Chronic) that are biting on this crap hook line and sinker standing on dry ground.  It is really scary that so many folks can be bamboozled by what David Swanson calls “Our Billion Dollar Turd Sandwich” read the article here .  A lot of us must be suffering from hypoxia (lack of oxygen to the brain) or as my father says we are dumber than an empty coal bucket.


You really have to laugh to keep from crying when you hear this stuff.  The real truth about Libya and Qaddafi is all over the place for those who really want to know.  For instance BAR has a very informative article by Gerald A. Perreira go here and to read it .  This is a really good article from someone who actually lives in Libya.  He gives a historical religious social and geopolitical perspective about the situation in Libya.


Then there is Cynthia McKinney who gave a shot of truth no chaser in her article about the situation in Libya.  Read it here .  This is the same article that is currently posted on BAR now.  Also you can read this article by Molefi Kete Asantea native African and professor at Temple University go here .  These articles will give anyone who reads them a clear picture of just what the HNIC and the puppet masters that are pulling his strings are really doing.  They are written by folks who are native to the African content/Libya or have had intimate involvement with the people of the content/Libya.  None of the alphabet news butt heads can say that.


If you want to get a view of what people are saying outside of the ameriKKKan bubble look at these articles go here this is from Pravda in Russia (you think they might have a little insight on the subject).  Their point of view can be summed up in one word O-I-L!!!  Or this article again their point of view can be summed in one word O-I-L (yikes)!!!


The propaganda machine has demonized Qaddafi as a heathen dictator (yea that what he is) but wait a minute if he is such a dictator then how come Libya has the HIGHEST standard of living for its people on the content of Africa (that’s including South Africa) NOOOO that can’t be!!!  You can always tell a dictator by how he treats his own people (think bank bailouts, foreclosures, no health care, outsourcing jobs, cuts in education, banning collective bargaining, assault on social security) and prosecuting multiple wars.  Let’s see Iraq One, Afghanistan Two, Pakistan Three, and Oh My Lord Libya Four.  Who looks more like a dictator now????


Qaddafi is much like Castro hated by the West because in their countries they have made a great effort to bring REAL Democracy to their countries and have paid a heavy price for it (Qaddafi’s daughter was killed by one of those precision munitions that doesn’t kill innocent civilians).  While here in the U.S.AmeriKKKa we have the Hypocrisy of Democracy.  We kill or destabilize governments and leaders (think Egypt, Haiti Iran) that are legally elected by the citizens and install stooges that rob the people blind and let the Western nations steal all the natural resources and leave the population dirt poor dirt healthy.  Oh by the way that is what they are now trying to do here to (You betcha) !!!





S Murph

Another example of "Left" sellout

What did the O'Jays say about the love of money?  "People will rob their own (brother/mother)?" HuffPost, another example of how the rich elites bamboozle the poor "Lefties."  Arianna was never a 'Lefty" she was a rich bitch who reinvented herself as a "Progressive."  But now that she's cashed out of her HuffPost rag, she' proclaims they are not lefty anymore.  She doesn't have to go on another (fake) leftists show, Bill Maher.  Arianna, lying, stealing, cheating bitch. I knew you were faking the funk.

Arianna: The Huffington Post is not a ‘lefty’ publication anymore 

In a recent interview with The New York Times, Arianna Huffington revealed a bit of news that's not likely to show up on The Huffington Post's front page any time soon: the site is no longer "lefty" in its political bent.

That will likely come as a surprise to the massive audience of Democrats and liberals The Huffington Post has attracted over the years, who've turned the site into a powerful voice for progressive values and one of the largest online publications going.

Speaking to New York Times reporter Andrew Goldman, Huffington said that for the last three years she has been walking the post-partisan talk.

"The tag line that we’ve used a lot is 'Beyond left and right,'" she reportedly said. 

"I’m just telling you that it is very clear that we have progressive views, but to call everything we’re doing lefty — it misses the whole point that American policy needs to be redefined beyond left and right," she reportedly said. "It’s a completely obsolete view of politics." 

That's always the favorite tag line isn't it:

"We need to move beyond left and right."  Bullshit!  We need to move beyond far right and downright facism.  There is no damn "Left" in America, not anymore, if there ever was one.

p.s.  Btw, Maher is a xenephobic, Zionist cracker.  Never once has he criticize ANY Israeli action on his show but he is oh so quick to denigrate Islam.   He's suppose to be "cool" because he smokes a little weed.  Big friggen deal.  There's a lot of rednecks in the Ozarks who smoke a lil weed too. 

Maher was born in New York City, the son of Julie (née Berman), a nurse, and William Maher, Sr., a network news editor and radio announcer.[5] He was raised in his Irish American father's Catholic religion, remaining unaware that his mother was Jewish until his early teenage years.[6] He subsequently has self-identified as ethnically half-Jewish.[7][8]  

War isn't something we take

War isn't something we take lightly. But as soon as oil is involved, Americans start polishing up their cruise missles. Americans love their mighty automobiles so much, they'll send their children and grandchildren to war to protect the oil needed for their cars, trucks, jet ski's, motorcylces and whatever else comes to mind. We have had ample time and opportunities to find alternative ways to propel our metal wheels on the road. But we're just to darn lazy and the fat cats are just making too much money to let it end. Now we are starting to pay the price for our lax ways. Get off the oil and we'll trully be a free nation.

hampers   food hampers

resveratrol review

Excellent blog , I’ve begin this insightful. A lot of accessible advice in it. I’m in fact because the advice on overweight. Associated with approved demography lipobind advised for abrasion out fat ingestion? In any added case, do analysis it out for. It’s able in my opinion. I’ve larboard a hotlink to. Thanks. resveratrol resveratrol supplements resveratrol review

i simply dont understand why

i simply dont understand why war is the main focus there is so much money wasted in building these war materials if that money could be given to poor country where there is scarcity of food and water it would be such a good deed

Green Tea Fat Burner

Obama's attack on Libya

It is about imperialism, this requires US hegemony,which makes it necessary for the US to maintain a hold on all peripheries. Libya wouldn't embrace the AFRICOM,he did not want to be part of a global militaristic organization. We wanted our base back in Libya, the one we had before Ghadaffi sent us packing in 1970. This was a set up by the CIA and British secret service.They were feet on the ground prior to the rebel uprising. Libya was not a threat to us and this action was illegal. If the administration so concerned about "Humanitarian" issues, why do we use drones that kill more innocent people than intended targets. The bombing in Libya has caused more damage, and deaths and future problems for these people. doesn't seem humane to me. Libya has/had the highest GDP in the region, everyone was insured a home, healthcare and education and the equality of income was fair, not like in the US.