In the aftermath of NATO's destruction of Libya, official rhetoric fluctuated between transition and reports of violence which were swiftly brushed aside as mere consequences of a country struggling to embrace a democratic framework.
Is this a guy who was terrorizing his citizens?
A war crime was committed against the peoples of Libya by NATO nations. This is beyond dispute. The UN gave its sanction to this and is part of that same war crime.
In the 1950s Libya was one of the poorest countries on earth. When Qaddaffi took over he transformed it into the richest in Africa, eliminating poverty and giving people guaranteed health care, education and housing. NATO nations claimed they had an inherent right to protect the people of Libya from all of this and it once more one of the worlds poorest nations.
Libya used to be a destination country for refugees from all over Africa. It had one of the largest refugee populations in the world, these people fleeing neighboring states. Those same people now try to seek sanctuary in the EU and it was member nations of the EU that helped to destroy Libya. The Governments of those nations now suggest this an issue with Islam and with terrorism.
Naomi Klein has written about the corporate "Shock Doctrine." It happens as a result of natural disasters but also in human (read corporate) created ones. The latter can also be said for the US government in recent history - Libya being an example. Create a crisis (or turn a situation into one), used US military power, and then simply stay forever.
Now the entire African continent is being captured.
Is this also related to the corporate capture of government?
Yes, Africorps paving the way for corporate expansion in Africa and eternal occupancy, and war to assure eternal military industrial complex revenue model are both examples of "corporate capture of government".
Not that Qaddafi committed no crimes of his own, or had no enemies of his own.
But clearly, his "high crime" in the eyes of the Western war-mongers, was to organize for African economic independence from the West. Including denominating petroleum in non-US dollars, and creating a non-US dollar currency for such transactions. EDIT: And also i believe creating an independent African development bank.
Again, not that carrying out genuine social welfare programs did not pose a "threat of a good example" that might merit destabilization in itself. But the moves to undermine US control of petroleum reserves and dollar denomination of oil took the "bad example" of economic fairness to the highest levels.
This in itself tells us how fragile the dollar is and no matter how many proxy wars we fight, the dollar is going to fall.
That is correct. And the powers that be in the neocon / neolib US establishment know it. That's a key reason they are moving resolutely toward global war.
It's their ultimate out card, a fantasy of regaining global supremacy by exercising "full spectrum dominance."
Most residents of the USA are effectively ignorant of the long-term strategic planning that is coming to fruition under Obama. Clinton is programmed as the next president who will carry forward toward hot war with Russia and China.
I fear that you are 100% correct.