Libya and Syria: The Government’s (Indirect) Case for an Armed Population

As anyone with a rudimentary education regarding American Constitutional politics can properly explain, the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the “Right to Bear Arms”, has far less to do with “hunting and sport shooting”, but far more to do with the business of guarding the liberty of the citizens of the State from the encroachments of tyrannical government.

Former President Ronald Reagan perhaps understood and said it best,



As we explore the “gun debate” more thoroughly, the Government of the United States has made what is perhaps the greatest case for an armed population: Libya and Syria.

take our poll - story continues below

Trump or Biden, who will win?



Humoring the Narrative – Libya

libya-rebels-re-cature-mirstataIf we are to believe the mainstream narratives on Libya and Syria, the indigenous populations of these two nations were so disgusted with the state of their existence in their respective countries that they rose up en mass in an effort to overthrow their respective governments.

The truth of the matter is: the overthrow of Libya and the attempted overthrow of Syria is far more rooted in Paul Wolfowitz’s pro-Israel plan of creating a unipolar Middle East where U.S. hegemony cannot be contested and the ensuing morass enables Israel to expand on its Greater Israel project.

A win-win for those elements within the United States government who view Israeli interests as being in parallel with the greater interests of the United States.

However: lets humor the narrative.

One month before the launching of NATO’s air campaign in support of armed insurgents opposed to Libya’s central government and it head of state, Muammar Gaddafi, the United Nations was to bestow an award to the Libyan central government (the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) and Muammar Gaddaffi.

According to a report by issued by the United Nations’ Human Rights Council, submitted to the U.N. General Assembly entitled the “Report of the Working Group on the Universal, Periodic Review* Libyan Arab Jamahiriya“, it was noted that,


One month later, the press in the United States, began changing the narrative to a country that was leading Africa in social and economic development to that of a country “led by a brutal dictator”.

As the narrative was spun, it became necessary for the United States to arm the Libyan opposition, a project apparently headed or coordinated through the efforts of the late (assassinated) Ambassador Stevens, as well as provide offensive air power in support of the opposition elements.

It all ended with the rather ghoulish giggle from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, “We came, we saw, he died!”

In the case of Libya, a well armed militia was something that the United States government, operating through the Departments of State and CIA, clearly found to be a necessary and beneficial reality for the people of Libya “to defend” themselves.

The implication is that the United States Government believes that for foreign citizens, these citizens not only have a right to “bear arms”, but these arms should be sufficient enough to defend against the weaponry that may be brought to bear by the “tyranny of the State”.

Humoring the Narrative – Syria

World_News_4-1_jpg_727893tWith Libya “down”, one of the remaining wish lists in the Jewish centered Neo-Con movement was the destruction and take-down of Syria. Indeed, as early as 1996, President Bashar al-Assad, and little time was wasted.

In April, 2011, a rally was held in the city of Homs. Snipers opened fire, leaving 50 dead. According to some activists videos, the snipers were foreign elements. However, Western media portrayed the shootings as being the handiwork of the Syrian government.

A media war started. The Syrian press, less respected than the Western press, was believed over the Syrian press. People bought the tactical lie, and the rest is history.

Foreign fighters (Sunni extremists), backed by weaponry from the newly decapitated Libya and financed by the same Qatar and Saudi elements that were instrumental in the fall of Libya, flooded Syria, unleashing a wave of chaos and terror.

Syria has since slid into a deepening chaotic violence.

Humoring the narrative:

If Western media is to be believed, the Syrian “opposition” is but (originally) a home grown uprising against a “tyrranical” government. Reporting in the BBC on March 12, 2012, Peter Harling of the International Crisis Group is quoted as saying,

Many Syrians have been shocked by what they describe as the savagery of the regime and protesters in Homs have been successful at displaying a sense of civilisation which belies the regime’s narrative of a thuggish underclass.

This statement is typical of the willful and childish polemic presented by “Western press” sources.

Additional reporting sought to lay the framework for the need for “Syrians” to be better armed,

But correspondents in the city said the rebel soldiers of the Free Syria Army (FSA) were armed only with guns, no match for the artillery they faced.

In order to facilitate the Neocon takeover of Syria, the United States State Department, according to an article in the Israel National News, has sought to facilitate the arming of the “opposition”:


The Gulf States have shipped weapons, including anti-tank weaponry, to help the rebels fight back against Syrian President Bashar Assad,

As in the case of Libya, it is clear that the United States Government believes that a people have a right to bear arms and to be sufficiently armed to ward of the tyranny within which the people find themselves.

Libya and Syria: The Case for an Armed America?

liberty_4The United States Government, through its words and actions regarding Libya and Syria, has clearly come down on the side of a people armed to the necessary levels required in order to create the conditions for “democracy” to be able to be implemented.

One has to ask then: if arming Syrians to defend themselves against tyranny, and if arming Libyans to defend themselves “against tyranny” is so fashionable and preferable, why then all the interests in disarming the American people?

Is it the intent of the Federal Government to implement tyranny and hence, desire to see the population disarmed to the point of being defenseless?

In the case of Libya and Syria, the message from the United States government is that an oppressed people have not only the right to bear arms, but to bear arms in the sufficient caliber and quantity in order to defeat the inherent power of the State.

With a failed 9-11 narrative, a failed Sandy Hook narrative, among many others narratives, combined with unlimited and warrantless violations of privacy, of a clear intent to suspend Habeus Corpus, arguments by the Executive Branch to unilaterally assassinate American citizens and/or detain them secretly and indefinitely, how far removed are the machinations to enable rogue elements within the United States Government from being the very tyrannical element for which the United States government so willingly armed Libyan and Syrian opposition groups?


Become an insider!


Previous MSNBC Host: Get Rid Of The Bible On Inauguration Day
Next Former Dem Gov: "The good thing about Newtown is, it was so horrific"

Join the conversation!
