Gaddafi’s Plan to Introduce Gold Dinar

While researching which countries have Gold backed currencies, I came across this story written by Jason Hamlin. It answered many questions I have been asking myself over the past few months such as why my country was involved in this operation and why it is so important that the U.S. dollar remain the reserve currency of the world and how a gold backed currency could destroy the current status of the U.S dollar.

Before you ask if I believe everything I read online, the answer is no, but this is one story I would recommend everyone consider reading.

http://www.goldstockbull.com/articles/libya-invasion-gaddafi-plan-gold-dinar/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I wouldn't pay much attention to the author's theory. This is the old trick of shooting the arrow and then drawing the bullseye.

 

Basically, I derived from the story that Gaddafi found a way to change how the world operates currently and to shift things to his own benefit and gain, and that is why we all manned up and killed him. To keep our Cable, Walmart, McDonalds and current standard way of life... um ok, if the story is true, I still do not have an issue with it...

Well we certainly didn't go into Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction, even Bush joked about his own excuse to go in later down the road...

 

At the top of the page it says 'GoldStockBull'...

Take that word 'bull' as a summary of the article...

 

I see it as just a goldbug making up conspiracy theories. This is a bothersome aspect of being a believer in PM, so many conspiracy theorists also are PM believers. Sorry, but some little dictator having nothing going for him but some oil would be in a position to move the dollar away from being the world's reserve currency, and the thought is laughable enough to not give the US one second pause.

Now, the Euro or possibly the yuan in the future could dislodge the dollar, but it will never have anything to do with gold. It will be based on strength of the economy.

Chris

 

Have heard a few non-PM conspiracy theories about the Libya operation.
Also, Saddam had supposedly been thinking about selling his oil in euros.

This.

 

Just because it may be a conspiracy doesn't have any impact on whether or not it's theory or fact. I don't see any factual or logical basis being proposed for dismissing the original article.

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/news/intrnational/2011/10/31/1427.html

 

Shouldn't it be the other way around? I would think the author would have to do a better job providing supporting facts and concrete evidence or quotes from people in a position to know, not speculate, before anyone should believe his claims. All things considered, Agora isn't a particularly unbiased source for news. It's all editorial and opinion - not investigative journalism.

 

Always remember the more outlandish the claim the more outlandish the proof required. Its an old saying, and my motto. Especially with the advent of the internet, but even before, and trained monkey can write whatever they feel like dreaming up. Like Cloud says, just because its written does not give it the benefit of the doubt. Their speculation needs to be proved, not disproved. You are asking others to disprove their speculation, why bother? If an author of a claim cannot convince me of its voracity, then I dismiss it. Its his job to convince ME, its not my job to disprove HIM.

Life is a lot easier and more understandable if you follow that logic. There are simply way too many outlandish claims for you to go through life wasting your time trying to disprove.

Chris

Edit: Btw Rush thanks for sharing the article though. Just because I do not agree does not mean we did not appreciate your effort to share it. I always try to read anything I can, some times my mind does get changed, and anyone who never changes their mind is doomed to failure.

 

When the thesis of the essay rests on the presumption that Moammar Gadhafi planned to "share the wealth" with...well..anyone, the rest of the essay really isn't even worth reading.

False premises beget false conclusions.

 

Sure the burden of proof is on whoever is proposing the information, but I already posted a link with a news clip that does just this. I guess nobody watched it. It was a video from RT (Russia Today), just hosted on Agora's site.

Just because the essay may have done a bad job of presenting the information doesn't mean the information isn't verifiable or not externally to that essay. If it were not verifiable by other sources then I wouldn't just believe the essay at face value, but regardless of the essay it can be verified in this case. So debunking one person's retelling of the information doesn't prove anything about the source, only the messenger, which is also irrelevant to the validity of the source.

And again I still don't see any logical reasoning for dismissing the information. I see reasons on behalf of the writer's intelligence or lack thereof, or due to bias of the hosting site, but no actual information that contradicts the information being presented other than from an opinionative standpoint.

 

Inflexion,

Here are some highlights of my critique of this article, (too many to list):

1. Why in the world would changing from one currency to another "Share the wealth"? Typical socialist BS propaganda
2. There already are other currencies that have been tried or being tried to sell oil under. None of them have, are, or ever will work.
3. Your news source is another country whose only wealth in natural resources, and wish these natural resources ruled the economy of the world. They don't, as Japan shows.
4. Quoting a former Congresswoman who was a quack and an embarrassment to her party while she was a Congresswoman adds no validity to the story. Research her other outlandish lies she spouts.
5. Some throwback hippy is the main economic commentator for the entire story. I am sure he has been considered for the Nobel in economics many times.

Not trying to be mean, but if you cannot see through this thin propaganda in 2 seconds then you would fall for about any anti-western slanted "news article". The Soviet Union used to put out much more believable stuff than this.

Chris

 

I'm not going to try and defend the article (nor have I intended to). All I would point to is that Gaddafi's plan to introduce the gold dinar as an alternative to the US dollar is not dependent on this article or on RT. Anything beyond that isn't in my interest to debate since it's not relevant to the important information. You may be right that all these sources are wrong, but then who can you trust?

http://thedailybell.com/2228/Gaddafi-Planned-Gold-Dinar-Now-Under-Attack.html

 

I watched the clip. The most repeated phrase is "some say." That isn't verification. No evidence is presented. It is just an assertion that since the discussion of the dinar preceeded the attack, it must be the cause of the attack. Everyone can decide for themselves what level of proof they require. I need more than none.

 

Another slanted article. Reagan planning on attacking Libya? Duh, of course after they attacked our ships in the Mediterranean, but the article never mentions that little tidbit huh? I wonder why......

No one said Qaddafi did not have a hair brained plan that had been tried before and was basically a little publicity stunt, we are saying these articles saying it had anything to do with the uprising, (which was started by Libyans wanting freedom like their Egyptian brethren btw), is simply socialistic anti-western propaganda. If you are saying these articles can be trusted just for the fact Qaddafi had this plan, well yeah, that is all you can believe.

Chris

P.S. Just FYI Iran has also announced similar plans to try to sell their oil on another currency. That was a couple of years ago. THat also went over like a lead balloon, and never went anywhere. If you wish to look it up, you can find many examples of similar proposals tried over and over again over the years. Its not a new example, Qaddafi just added the PM and "unified Africa" twist, which btw he wanted since he envisioned himself ruling over, and controlling all of the resources of, Africa. I wonder if they have found his and his family's number Swiss bank accounts yet.

P.P.S. No offense meant Inflexion, I just dislike slanted news stories twisting facts.

 

If your saying that Gadaffi did not share the wealth then your another person that has been misinformed by the media. The facts are, under Gadaffi, the standard of living in Libyia was the best in Africa.
Every citizen had free housing, free education and free medical.

I hear a lot of people debunking the story because it's on the internet but have not heard much else.

We do know one thing for certain and that is that Gadaffi was seeking to create a new gold backed currency to be used for payment on oil exports rather than the paper-token money that is currently used. This is not a theory but the truth. Chavez was also seeking the same kind of gold backed currency a few years ago. We also know that the Libyan rebel flag and the flag of al Qaeda are now flying side by side on top of Benghazi’s courthouse and women can now be stonned to death for adultery.

You and a few others may choose to dismiss this story as something dreamed up by some gold bug or some conspiracy theory but as the other poster stated, give us some factual information that contradicts the original story if you can.

 

Facts? He ordered the murder of US and other westerners on the Lockerbie bombing, he murdered any dissidents in Libya for years, his country trained and sponsored terrorists for decades leading to thousands of innocent deaths around the world, (look up where most IRA and similar European terro groups trained). All of this is easily verified by any elementary google search. I have many more "facts" if you are interested.

Isn't it amazing how these countries under international sanctions are so eager to come up with new currency and banking arrangements? Its a real coincidence.

Chris

 

Nobody debunked the story because it's on the internet. They debunked it for lack of factual information. The burden of proof is on the people saying Libya was attacked because they proposed a gold dinar. You also did no credit to yourself by defending Gadaffi.

 

This isn't about changing from one currency to another in order to share the wealth, but more about a country that wants something of value for it's resources rather than something that can be printed on a printing press at any time.

I will leave this with you to ponder:

When one party gives something of value
and the other party pays him with something,
in this case paper, of no value,
and when one party’s wealth is created out of thin air,
while the other party has to slave and earn to pay off the ill-gotten credit or loan,
is this not devouring of other people’s wealth?

 

What does it matter if you can turn around and buy what you "value" with however the buyer paid? Is it not true that Qaddafi probably bought all of his gold with dollars received from oil sales? That is the beauty of a medium of exchange, you can choose what you wish to trade it for. If he did not like dollars, he could exchange them for gold, silver, or another 1000 goats for all we care. The US never asked him to keep one single US Federal Reserve note, he was completely free to spend every one.