So who took down Gadaffi's website -- and who ordered his murder?

    There's no question that America's former enemy Muammar Gaddafi, who Barack Obama and his NATO allies murdered without cause, was a strange bird. He viewed himself a a philosopher king and issued proclamations on everything from the ownership of machine guns, to the need for a single state of Israeltine, to his proposed solution to the Kashmir problem.
    Some of his opinion pieces are a bit disjointed. Perhaps that is due to his own disjointed thinking or due to problems with translating the articles from Arabic; probably both. But his writings are not necessarily anti-Western and he was strongly opposed to Islamic extremism.
    Although Gaddafi's website has been taken down, the website http://africaindependence.com has preserved part of it. Those who denounce him as a "mad dog" ought to at least read some of his opinions. I can't help but wonder why his original website has been taken down as old websites tend to stay up for years. Who ordered its removal?
    For example, in November 2002 Gaddafi wrote or delivered an address on why the European Union shouldn't admit Turkey to membership, entitled Turkey, Europe and the Bin-Ladenists. In this piece he denounces Islamic extremism, capital punishment and Islamic justice, i.e. the cutting off of hands. I quote from Gaddafi's column:

The risk that Europe cannot condone nor take is to have Turkey as its Trojan horse.

The problem does not lie with the older generation of Turkish politicians who continue to hold Ataturk and his teachings sacred. The problem is with the new generation. The youth who have access to the satellite channels and the internet, are learning lessons from the scholars of the Islamic World and from Bin-Laden personally every minute of the day. That influence cannot be prevented.

What if thousands of young Turks get their world view from Bin Laden and his followers or from Mullah Omar and his group? I say “if” just to soften the blow. They will consider Europe as a land of unbelief that deserves nothing but forceful conquest. They will not stop at the gates of Vienna like the Ottomans did. They will wish to cross the Atlantic.

They will follow the example of Uqba ibn Nafie, the Arab commander, who stopped at the Atlantic coast and addressed the ocean saying:” If I knew that there are people living on your other coast, I would cross you to conquer them and force them to adhere to Islam”. Uqba did not [know] of the existence of a continent called America beyond the ocean. Those young people know very well what exists beyond the Atlantic.

Those young people oppose the abolition of capital punishment because it is mentioned in the Koran. Moreover, they maintain that a thief’s hand must be amputated as ordained by God. Adulterers must receive a hundred lashes without mercy. To them, these are the punishments established by God in his Book.

They do not, and will not accept the ban on parties with an Islamic name in Turkey while those with Christian names are not banned in the rest of Europe. [Blogger note: A good point which I've never seen made before.]

The new Islamic extremists, who will come to power in Turkey and will control its streets, will not accept joining an entity whose constitution does not mention the Islamic Sharia or the divinely-ordained punishments. Believing that contraception and family planning are sinful, they will ban them completely. [Blogger note 2: Is he talking about Turkey or Mississippi?] Thus, they could very well have the majority in the European Parliament. With polygamy, Turkey could become more populous than any European country.

The Turkish Islamists, supported by Al-Qaeda, plan to establish Islamic states in Albania and Bosnia. Europe, the land of unbelief, will thus face the pressure of a new Muslim European front that enjoys the backing of the whole Muslim World. Europe will have to adhere to Islam or pay the tribute. Islamists consider this to be their duty because they see it written in the Koran. These ideas might seem ridiculous or laughable to some. However, to Islamists it is their God-given mission.

    Whatever Gadaffi's past crimes were (for which he paid $2.7 billion in reparations), does this sound like a man who has it in for the West? A pan-Arab anti-colonialist, absolutely, but not anti-Western.
    When Gadaffi's refers to Ataturk he refers to the father of modern Turkey, who insisted on a purely secular state which was strictly neutral in regards to religion. The Turkish military has repeatedly forced the government to toe the secular line. For example, as recently as 1997 the army forced an Islamist government out of power. But in July of this year all of the top military generals resigned en masse, effectively surrendering that country to a future of state-sanctioned Islam. It won't happen overnight, but in the next 20 years we will see a Turkey that is far more like Egypt or Saudi Arabia and far less like Italy or Austria. Gadaffi warned us.
    It's interesting that we claimed to have attacked and murdered Gadaffi because he was using too much force in putting down civil unrest that in all likelihood was fomented by the CIA. Several hundred people were killed prior to NATO's attack, and I'm sure Gadaffi has killed plenty more over the years. I have no illusions that his first priority was to remain in power by any means necessary, just like the rulers of virtually any country. By American standards he was ruthless; by Saudi or Syrian standards he was a powder-puff.
    Although NATO was not authorized to seek regime change or to take offensive action, it did, attacking loyalist troops merely defending themselves. Today numerous towns are completely empty, their citizens beaten and murdered for supporting Gadaffi, and told not to return. For example, Tawarga, once a city of 10,000, is empty and ransacked in retaliation for its citizens' support of Gadaffi. Other cities face the same fate, which is odd given that the American propaganda machine would have had us believe that each and every Libyan citizen hated and despised the man. Remember, the first casualty of war is the truth. If our government says it, it is likely a lie. Many, perhaps even most, Libyans loved Gadaffi until the bombs started falling.
    I don't know why the United States attacked Libya. Perhaps we just needed a military base. Supposedly Gadaffi had been publicly advocating a devolution of power from the Saudi monarchy to tribal leaders. Can't make the Saudis mad now, can we? But I think he did so at the 2009 Arab Doha summit, detailed in this news article, Muammar Gaddafi accuses Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah of lying at Arab summit. The video of the event, which I've posted below, is actually far more entertaining.
    I just find it interesting that Gadaffi saw what was happening in Turkey 10 years ago and warned the West of the dangers that lay ahead -- and of his strong opposition to Islamic extremism. He publicly stood down the monarch of the most repressive, anti-woman regime in the world from which most anti-American terrorist funding comes, and for his effort Obama and his NATO goons murdered the man, his children and grandchildren in cold blood.
    I guess we didn't want to anger our Saudi masters.