Posted on 07/26/2011 7:49:34 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
Edited on 07/26/2011 8:40:50 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
With their Libya bombing campaign dragging on unresolved, France and Britain have been forced to accept ruler Muammar al-Gaddafi may stay there if he quits power, despite calls for international justice.
Britain denied the joint position was a climb-down after it had repeatedly called for him to quit the country, while France last week was the first to openly suggest he could stay under a negotiated settlement.
(Excerpt) Read more at channelnewsasia.com ...
He turned that guy and another guy over to the Scottish courts for prosecution in the first place. How do you spin that?
Faced with this, Gaddaffi eventually decided to cut his losses and throw the two to the wolves, justifying it to the home crowd as another example of Western imperialism forcing poor innocent Libya to accede to their outrageous demands. I have no doubt that some kind of deal was done behind the scenes to compensate the good Colonel too. Perhaps some kind of trade agreement. Perhaps some concession on technology transfer.
So, he was also involved in the committal of the Lockerbie bombing atrocity in the first place. How do YOU spin that?
Oh, well screw you too then. - Vanders9
You're kind of whiny little girl aren't you?
Either you're a liar or an idiot and life is always tough for liars and idiots.
Libyan foreign minister admits Lockerbie bombing involvement"There was talk at the time of the roles played by states and organisations. Libyan security played a part but I believe it was not a strictly Libyan operation."
He went on to say that the compensation payment to the families he helped negotiate on behalf of the regime – while disclaiming responsibility – angered the Libyan leader, Col Muammar Gaddafi. "He used to say, 'We had no role in Lockerbie, so why should we have to pay compensation'," Mr Shalgham said.
If Gaddafi knew about the Lockerbie bombing in advance it's sure strange that he would have this argument, in private, with his own people. In fact it's strange that an omnipotent tyrant would have any argument with an underling instead of just having him executed. To say the least this doesn't do much for your British propaganda. Enjoy the oil!
-——Why should we give a damn!?———
We took part because we are part of NATO. They asked, we reluctantly assented.
The thrust of this article has been missed by all. The Reason for winding down the war criminal activity is because the objective was obtained. We don’t know what it was, but the Brits and the French obviously do.
I am surprised that there was not a counter attack killing Sarkosy and some prominent Brit and a singularly important American or his kids. Collectively, they murdered family of the Libyan leader including young grand kids and are in damger of retribution
That kind of depends on whether you treat statements by Mr Shalgham and Muammar Gaddafi as gospel truth.
To say the least this doesn't do much for your British propaganda.
So when Colonel Gaddaffi and the Libyans put their case forward, that's fact. When I put an alternate theory forward, thats "British propoganda"?
Enjoy the oil!
What oil is that? Britain gets <1% of its oil from Libya. Curious. When the US led the invasion of Iraq the left took it as read that it was all about oil. Do you buy into that argument?
That kind of depends on whether you treat statements by Mr Shalgham and Muammar Gaddafi as gospel truth.
To say the least this doesn't do much for your British propaganda.
So when Colonel Gaddaffi and the Libyans put their case forward, that's fact. When I put an alternate theory forward, thats "British propoganda"?
Enjoy the oil!
What oil is that? Britain gets <1% of its oil from Libya. Curious. When the US led the invasion of Iraq the left took it as read that it was all about oil. Do you buy into that argument?
What reason would Shalgam have to lie now? He has defected, he is against Gaddafi now so why tell a story that implicates himself and exonerates Gaddafi? Use your head now and then.
So when Colonel Gaddaffi and the Libyans put their case forward, that's fact.
I guess using your head is out of the question.
Why do you say I am either a liar or an idiot?
Enjoy the nothing you're getting then.
When the US led the invasion of Iraq the left took it as read that it was all about oil. Do you buy into that argument?
No. Are you seriously suggesting that the bombing in Libya has any parallels whatsoever to invading Iraq? I think you have brought this conversation back to the question of medication. Have you been taking too much or too little? LOL
It has to be one or the other.
Do you get off on belittling people?
Why? Is it because I hold opinions you disagree with?
Coming from the guy who started this whole conversation with this...
I think it was a mistake for both of you to stop taking the medication.
You really are a whiny little twit. I guess that's to be expected when you don't have a cogent comeback for anything.
Your opinions vs. my facts is more like it.
Then why did you say "Enjoy the oil!" then? If it is of no importance, why did you say that? The implication is that you thought it WAS of some importance.
No. Are you seriously suggesting that the bombing in Libya has any parallels whatsoever to invading Iraq?
Not at all. The only possible parallel is the assertion that they are "both about oil", which seemed to be the contention you were making.
Well you havent stated any facts yet.
I just didn't feel like arguing with an idiot so I conceded the point.
Not at all. The only possible parallel is the assertion that they are "both about oil", which seemed to be the contention you were making.
Then your point makes no sense. Especially since I never made the assertion that the war in Iraq was for oil. You conflating someone else's opinion to me is a sorry debating tactic.
Yes, I did. I posted the statements made by Shalgam. Those statements were indeed made. You, on the other hand, stated nothing but your speculations. You are incredibly dense.
True. I was too fast and hard there. I apologise for saying that to you and Candor7.
You really are a whiny little twit. I guess that's to be expected when you don't have a cogent comeback for anything.
I have made cogent arguments, to which I have not had the courtesy of a reply that didnt involve calling me names.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.