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 ...
How very convenient.
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.
Then once again, why did you say "Enjoy the oil"? What was the point of that last dig?
If you're going to apologize you might ping all those you are apologizing to. It's kind of a lame apology after all your subsequent posts trying to twist yourself out of the rhetorical corner you backed yourself into.
Pragmatic is closer to the truth.
Then once again, why did you say "Enjoy the oil"? What was the point of that last dig?
So, why is Britain bombing Libya? Just needed to lighten yourself of several billion pounds worth of ordinance? Don't tell me you buy the "humanitarian mission" bullcrap?
A former Libyan foreign minister has admitted the country was involved in the Lockerbie bombing but said for the first time it was part of a wider conspiracy.
So basically, Libya was involved, according to Mr Shalgam.
The former minister, Abdul Rahman al-Shalgham, who was ambassador to the United Nations when he defected in February, revealed a new theory about who was responsible for the explosion on board Pan-Am Flight 103 in an interview with an Arabic newspaper. "The Lockerbie bombing was a complex and tangled operation" he said, when asked to describe the background to the disaster.,p> I can buy that. I'm sure it was.
"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."
Libya WAS involved.
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.
I see you are taking this point to be proof positive that although Libya had a part, Colonel Gaddaffi did not personally know about it. Assuming Mr Shalgams evidence is correct (and as you say, he has no real reason to lie, unless he is a Gaddaffi "plant") there is always the possibility that Gaddaffi was lying when he said that. If Libyan security was acting without Gaddaffi's knowledge, and he was so angry about it, would he not have taken out his anger against them? I havent heard of a purge of the libyan security services.
Two Libyan state employees were put on trial in The Hague under Scottish law for the bombing of Flight 103, in which 270 people died in 1988. One, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison, though he was released on medical grounds in 2009. Libya always denied involvement...
Which we now know was untrue.
and alternative theories state that it was the work of Iranian intelligence, or a Palestinian terrorist group. Mr Shalgham's revelations are the first serious suggestion that there could be elements of truth to both stories.
I am prepared to concede that they were all guilty, if it makes you feel any better.
Obama should never have gone along with this ridiculous scheme in Libya in the first place
I was under the impression Obama got them to commit to this war, then declared we weren't going to fight, we were just there to support the real warriors.
Candor7, I hope you will accept my apology for my statement.
That's a very convenient answer too.
Then once again, why did you say "Enjoy the oil"? What was the point of that last dig?
You still haven't answered this question.
So, why is Britain bombing Libya? Just needed to lighten yourself of several billion pounds worth of ordinance? Don't tell me you buy the "humanitarian mission" bullcrap?
See post #31.
Not how I recall it happening. Obama’s big mistake was (as usual) taking too long to make up his mind. The Europeans (mostly Britain and France) were trying to get a concensus to intervene, but were put off by the contradictory signals coming from the whitehouse. By the time they did get a tacit ok from Obama, it was too little and too late.
What possible reason would he have to lie to an underling in a private conversation? Think, man, think!
If Libyan security was acting without Gaddaffi's knowledge, and he was so angry about it, would he not have taken out his anger against them?
Exactly the point I made earlier about having a disagreement with Shalgam and whoever else was pushing to pay reparations. We don't know that he didn't execute some security personnel for it do we? There are other circumstances where we know that he did.
Libya WAS involved.
But no evidence that Gaddafi was. You seem to sail right over points of logic.
I see you are taking this point to be proof positive that although Libya had a part, Colonel Gaddaffi did not personally know about it. Assuming Mr Shalgams evidence is correct (and as you say, he has no real reason to lie, unless he is a Gaddaffi "plant") there is always the possibility that Gaddaffi was lying when he said that.
First of all, we only know that Shalgam says he said that. Secondly, you keep ignoring the fact that is illogical for Shalgam to make that up now. Your ridiculous "Shalgam may be a double agent" theory notwithstanding.
I am prepared to concede that they were all guilty, if it makes you feel any better.
You can't make me feel better when I have no interest in feeling anything about it. The fact that you considered feelings a motivation does explain your fuzzy thinking though.
It's true which is all that matters. To me anyway.
See post #31.
OK, I looked at it. I'm not sure I can take anymore of your thinking. You're apparently prone to swallowing anything except common sense.
Well Gaddaffi is a Dictator. And dictators, understandably, are very paranoid and play people off against each other. Mabybe he thought the conversation was being recorded. Maybe he suspected Mr Shalgams loyalty even then. Maybe anything. However, even if Gaddaffi was not personally involved, he is still responsible. He is, after all, the head of State of Libya (in actuality if not in title). If he cannot control his own security services, he's of no use to the west against the islamists anyway.
Exactly the point I made earlier about having a disagreement with Shalgam and whoever else was pushing to pay reparations. We don't know that he didn't execute some security personnel for it do we? There are other circumstances where we know that he did.
That's true.
But no evidence that Gaddafi was. You seem to sail right over points of logic.
No, I was only commenting on the proceeding paragraph. I address the other points of logic later.
First of all, we only know that Shalgam says he said that. Secondly, you keep ignoring the fact that is illogical for Shalgam to make that up now. Your ridiculous "Shalgam may be a double agent" theory notwithstanding.
I'm not ignoring the fact that it is illogical at all. I was saying that Gaddaffi might have been lying to him. And why is the "double agent" theory ridiculous? Do you have any "facts" to counter the supposition? Its no stranger than assuming the absolute controller of Libya has no knowledge of what his own security services are doing.
If you're going to refute an argument, its usual to provide a reason, rather than just call someone an idiot.
Yes, it's quite a bit stranger actually. I based my opinion on a statement made public. You based yours on ... nothing. It is not at all hard to believe that the leader of a country is not aware of all that goes on. That never happen in Britain? Wow!
I don't think answering a baseless supposition with a supposition is going to advance this any closer to reality. You are free to spin your theories without opposition.
Unless they have firmly established that the premise is true with repeated examples.
You have yet to propose even one reason NATO is bombing Libya. I gave two. The gold and the oil. They already seized the bank accounts but that’s small potatoes comparatively speaking.
Gadhaffi is a complex character, but since 9/11 he has very clearly alligned Libya with US interests. It is Ghadaffi’s pre 9/11 conduct that Obama and his propaganda machine used to villify Ghadaffi, much in the same way that Obama villified Honsni Mubarak.Its a characteristic of Obamas foreign policy, one day we have an ally, and the next he is a dirty rotten bastard. This is so characteristic of national socialism in history, and this in fact is exactly what Obama is. His mis-adventures in Libya remind one of Mussolini in Ethiopia prior to WWII.
The general US public , among them Vanders 9, bought this grift lock, stock and barrel, thinking that Obama had a perfect presidential right to prosecute his own little private ideological war in Libya in support of the Muslim Brotherhood. This support is true of Obama in both Egypt and Libya.
Now seque to what has been done to Libya. Tripoli, just a few short months ago was a thriving sea port , with a plethora of new construction. It is now in ruins from air strikes by NATO and by US bombing.An entire nation has been economically and socially destroyed. There was NO need of it. But Gadhafi presented two factors which made Obama strike:
1) Gadhaffi’s sin is that he is an extremely wealthy man.Obama wanted his money, and he did get his hands on a great deal of it by “freezing the tyrants assets “ in the USA and Europe. These funds will be released to Libyas”provisional government” , when in fact Gadhaffi has not yet been deposed or defeated and according to International Law,Gadhaffi is still Head of State.The provisional government are essentially CIA selected Obama aparatchiks,and a sizeable proportion of these monies will line the Swiss coffers of Obama and his fellow political thugs, used for campaigns, and for creating more mayhem in Africa.Much of the rest willl go to arms dealers.
2) Gadhaffi is a bedouin, and the Bedou have always been adversaries of the militant Muslim Brotherhood who seek to conquer their tribal lands in the name of Islam.The Bedou and Gadhaffi will never surrender to the “ Provisional Government” of Libya, even if Gadhaffi is killed, the fight will go on for as long as it takes for the Bedou to resecure their country.
The result is simply that Obama has lined his pockets indirectly, and the cost is the complete ruination of a whole country, and forwarded the cause of the Muslim Brotherhood by creating mayhem and disorder. The grift is that Obama convinced NATO to do a lot of his dirty work for him. Now both France and Britain have cottened to the truth of Obama’s motivation, and they want out. Who can blame them?
Obama and Odinga did much the same thing in Kenya 2006/2007, advancing the cause of the Muslim Brotherhood by trying to talke over a good portion of the northern districts of Kenya for the Somali Muslim Council, an organ of the Muslim Brotherhood. The government of Kenya was villified and intertribal genocide in which 7000 people were killed was used to secure Odinga an official position in Kenya’s government as Prime Minister.Now as so called president of the USA, Obama works with Odinga, while regarding the legitimate government of Kenya as colonial pawns.Much of the money Obama gets from Gadhaffi will go to Odinga to be used to destabilize Kenya further, and establish an invasion corridor down the coast from Kenya, while simultaneously the Muslim Brotherhood will use Libya as the gateway South into countries such as Nigeria, where they are already bombing state schools.
This is the Obama plan, and it is being prosecuted using American taxpayers money. The USA’s involvement in Libya should be stopped dead in its tracks.We as a people have no national interest there, and to Gadhaffi’s credit, he is actually winning the war on the ground. I hope Gaddhaffi prevails, and lives to dance on the political grave of the traitor and usurper, Baraq Hussein Obama.
Well the Brits and France are finally paying attention, they have it figured out and they want OUT, poste haste.
Can’t say as I blame them much, but Obama has his hands on Libyas money, and it is flowing throughthe provisional government, a lot of it designed to go right into the Swiss banks Accounts of some of Obama’s African allies, such as Odinga and his Orange Party.
Gaddafi has far more money in gold though and NATO hasn’t taken possession of that yet. And the oil is there for whoever prevails. NATO hasn’t really done much to hurt him financially.
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.