De-demonising Gaddafi - what you don't know

BlaasForRafa

end a eknny wrote: »

so gadafi armed the IRA rebels who where fighting against a regime where their people had no democratic rights and were being victimised by a corrupt political dynasty in which if they protested they would be killed. on the other hand you have nato arming and helping rebels in libyia to..............

This deserves about a million rolleyes but I guess one will suffice :rolleyes:

The provisional IRA were not "rebels", they were terrorist criminals, there is a big difference. The provos didn't have the majority support of the nationalist community let alone the support of the community as a whole whereas the anti-Gaddafi forces seem to have widespread support....where it isn't being crushed by rocket and artillery attacks from Gaddafi forces that is.

Plus I don't see any anti-Gaddafi forces targeting pro-Gaddafi civilians hmmm?

AlekSmart

Noreen1:I won't argue with that.
On the other hand - if Gaddafi is so sure of his support, then why the violent suppression of the protests? Then the subsequent acceptance of free and fair elections? Might it be that he has had time to put measures in place that ensure his victory in these "free and fair" elections?
He strikes me as being a very cunning strategist, hence I view any sudden changes in his stance with suspicion .(The "Mad Colonels" level of "Cunning" is indeed the stuff of legend,perhaps he may even have interrnal US State Department Cables putting it on a par with CJ Haughey' s ?)


On the flip side, there can be little doubt that certain Western Governments have long had an itch to dispose of Gaddafi, hence they have an interest in exaggerating the levels of violence used when suppressing "protesters". Logic dictates that least some of said "protesters" have an ulterior, and not entirely altruistic motive.

The one thing we in the West can be sure of - is that we are being fed lies and propaganda by both sides. The truth is always somewhere in the middle.

However, the fact that Gaddafi responded to an uprising - whether minor, or major, violent or peaceful - by shooting protesters, ensured that the UN/NATO had no option but to act, imo.(This represents the core of the issue for me,at no point has the UN managed to produce anything other than some colourful and well appreciated "Gadaffispeak" to definitively prove that the Colonel was about to embark on a crusade of mass murder against innocent non-combatant Libyan civilians. I'm afraid that the threats against the armed and organized Libyan "Freedom-Fighters" have to be taken as being part of the legitimate defence of one's own administration in these parts. Who knows,we may yet see the UN/NATO having to interpret Mr Papandraeu's greek blás as it too descends into rebellion )

Whether the final outcome will benefit the Libyan people remains to be seen.
I sincerely hope they get the type of Government they want, and deserve - but, without any reliable, impartial, information coming out of Libya - whether that will happen is impossible to predict, imo

(A valid and pertinent point,which is why my default position is to remain sceptical of the level of "populism" which the UN has attached to this particular "popular rebellion".

Gadaffi has had ample opportunity to wage murderous and destructive war upon his people as a whole,but as yet that has not occurred...instead we have continuing evidence of military action against armed rebel factions,with rare occurences of Libyan civilian non-combatant casualities deliberately targeted by Government forces..

We have even had incidences of safe-passage and prisoner exchanges taking place on a number of occasions,which to me,at any rate,takes away from the wild-eyed,bloodthirsty,cockroach-hunting Colonel image which the UN appear so badly to need )

Merch

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

This deserves about a million rolleyes but I guess one will suffice :rolleyes:

The provisional IRA were not "rebels", they were terrorist criminals, there is a big difference. The provos didn't have the majority support of the nationalist community let alone the support of the community as a whole whereas the anti-Gaddafi forces seem to have widespread support....where it isn't being crushed by rocket and artillery attacks from Gaddafi forces that is.

Plus I don't see any anti-Gaddafi forces targeting pro-Gaddafi civilians hmmm?

That whole post deserves rolleyes!
Im not an IRA supporter but, if I'm impartial I'd say they did have a lot of support during the 70's and 80's, I'd say a lot of the nationalisy community, and whether you see them as rebels or terrorsit criminals (which I think they became eventually, more criminals) is really a matter of a persons own opinions (one persons freedom fighter is anothers terrorist)
and for the last statement, we really dont know what is happening there and I'd take with a pinch of salt if even so called reputable organisations say whats going on, its open to all sorts of manipulation.
I mean, what do you expect Gaddaffi to do anyway, there are some reports also that the area of Benghazi is a hotbed of fundamentalism, at least with Gaddaffi there is generally stability and the wealth seems to be used to improve the country, but like everything else we dont know.

I cant see why some kind of mediation on the part of the west, set up elections and see if the Libyans choose Gaddaffi, but can you imagine had some arab country called for that in Florida????? going back a few years.

Its the ease at which people believe what they are being told which concerns me.

Jonny7

cyberhog wrote: »

It hurts my head to read such ignorance, as yours. The area around Benghazi, has been one of the most fertile recruiting grounds for Al Qaeda in the world.

Try to attack the post not the poster.

I linked that Huffington post article in another Libyan thread actually. Unfortunately people often fail to distinguish between foreign fighters and the Al Qaeda philosophy. Insurgent Sunni groups who were fighting the US occupation of Iraq also fought against Al Qaeda elements.

Just to highlight for some, being muslim and fighting against the US forces does not automatically equate to being a member of Al Qaeda. The French resistance and the IRA were both fighting occupation, that does not mean they automatically subscribed to the same methodology.

By the rebels own admission they have some extremists in their ranks, I suspect if we start to see reports of children having bombs strapped to them and sent in to kill pro-Gaddafi supporters then they'll show their true stripes.

As for Gaddafi's and Saif's claims that they are all Al Qaeda - doesn't seem fully true

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9b3NViyIps

Syria has also been "fertile recruiting grounds" for extremists, but I've yet to see any post passionately corroborating any of Assad's claims that the protesters are "armed terrorist groups". Of course with any Western intervention comes a certain amount of revisionism.

The obvious problem for NATO is that Gaddafi could win and they end up looking like a bunch of tools. That's why regime change is the only game in town.

I dont think this is about "NATO winning". Its not a football game. For all intensive purposes it could be the Chinese army.

They could have elections in Libya as the ICP pointed out, would you feel comfortable with foreign boots on Libyan soil to monitor these elections? would Gaddafi?

jmayo

AlekSmart wrote: »

The self-determination thing is all well n good,but whatif...whatif the Libyan people do choose Gadaffi....there appears to be a very great certainty here that the greater Libyan people want rid of him...but do we actually know their mind at all..?

Well have we ever known their mind or have we just known what their leader of the last 40 years has been telling us ?

AlekSmart wrote: »

With Gadaffi the elder and younger already on the record as being acceptant of Supervised Free Elections,with the most strenuous opposition coming from the Rebels themselves who want Gadaffi to leave the stage to them.

Remember the way the other protests throughout North Africa/Middle East have panned out ?
It is obvious that these leaders have to go for their to be any chance of free elections. Mubarak had to go in Egypt.
The difference there is that military have assumed interim control.
The military in Libya are not that powerful as Gaddafi never trusted them and also they did not stand united one way or the other.

Maybe they know Gaddafi a lot better than you or others do ?
Maybe they known damm well that the chance of having full and free elections whilst he or his kin are in charge are feck all. :rolleyes:

AlekSmart wrote: »

It seems simple ...maybe too simple...Take up Gadaffi's offer.Let him stand against his accusers,with the Libyan electorate deciding the issue themselves.

What are the perceived difficulties with this ?

Oh FFS the level of naivety around here is gobsmacking.
the rebels know that they will be rounded up as soon as they lay down their arms.

The same situation played out in Egypt.
The protesters knew that if they gave up their location in the central square that would be it.
Mubarak knew that if he could get them to disperse and go back to their homes, that it would give him time to round up the ring leaders.

cyberhog wrote: »

That's not entirely true. The ICG report entitled "Making Sense of Libya" declared,
...
The obvious problem for NATO is that Gaddafi could win and they end up looking like a bunch of tools. That's why regime change is the only game in town.

Yeah a bit like the wya saddam or mugabe used to win elections ?

end a eknny wrote: »

so gadafi armed the IRA rebels who where fighting against a regime where their people had no democratic rights and were being victimised by a corrupt political dynasty in which if they protested they would be killed. on the other hand you have nato arming and helping rebels in libyia to..............

Oh FFS ...
We have a description in Mayo for what you post, but forum rules prevent me from stating it. :mad:

Jeeze I never knew that Nationalists in Northern Ireland had no democratic rights and were been shot for protesting in the late 80s ?
How the hell was John Hume, bobby sands, gerry adams, etc elected ?

Go back to the late 60, early 70s whilst Northern Ireland was self governed and you have a point, but Gaddafi was supporting IRA long after.

mattjack

end a eknny wrote: »

so gadafi armed the IRA rebels who where fighting against a regime where their people had no democratic rights and were being victimised by a corrupt political dynasty in which if they protested they would be killed. on the other hand you have nato arming and helping rebels in libyia to..............

Jesus Wept.. so know you accept Gadaffi armed the IRA.....now Google Pan Am 103....and justify that...then Google "Black September" ..and after that WPC Yvonne Fletcher..

nacho libre

Nelson Mandela at one point had a high opinion of Gadaffi, it seems.

"...If he had been an egotist, he wouldn’t have risked the wrath of the West to help the ANC both militarily and financially in the fight against apartheid. This was why Mandela, soon after his release from 27 years in jail, decided to break the UN embargo and travel to Libya on 23 October 1997. For five long years, no plane could touch down in Libya because of the embargo. One needed to take a plane to the Tunisian city of Jerba and continue by road for five hours to reach Ben Gardane, cross the border and continue on a desert road for three hours before reaching Tripoli. The other solution was to go through Malta, and take a night ferry on ill-maintained boats to the Libyan coast. A hellish journey for a whole people, simply to punish one man.

Mandela didn’t mince his words when the former US president Bill Clinton said the visit was an ‘unwelcome’ one – ‘No country can claim to be the policeman of the world and no state can dictate to another what it should do’. He added – ‘Those that yesterday were friends of our enemies have the gall today to tell me not to visit my brother Gaddafi, they are advising us to be ungrateful and forget our friends of the past.’"


.

nacho libre

Jonny7 wrote: »

T


I dont think this is about "NATO winning". Its not a football game. For all intensive purposes it could be the Chinese army.

/QUOTE]

It's all about winning.
The reason the west are so anxious about The Libyan conflict dragging interminably on is the fear of the rebels being eventually forced into a stalemate, whereby they have to negotiate with Gadaffi. The West want Gadaffi gone. Were he to somehow hang on it at this stage it would be an embarrassment for Nato. Also it would show Nato can't achieve anything without America playing an active role. So being seen to win in Libya is very important for Nato.
Don't be surprised if Gadaffi eventually is taken out in a strike, which will be justified as an attack on a c &c position. The cleverness of the original un statement is that taking out Gadaffi can actually be justified.

Jonny7

Iraq/Afghanistan and even residual bitterness over the cold war have made this, for some, a game of NATO v Gaddafi, like an infowar, just scoring points.

It could be said there are those who are more morally outraged by the hypocrisy that Western entities are intervening (who indeed have acted in careless self-interest many times before) than by the fact that a dictator is severely abusing human rights.

Let me say it plainly - if the Samoan navy were intervening in Libya, then I suspect most of those who are currently objecting to action against Libya would be eerily silent.

That said they would prob do a better job than NATO is.

AlekSmart

Jonny7 wrote: »

It could be said there are those who are more morally outraged by the hypocrisy that Western entities are intervening (who indeed have acted in careless self-interest many times before) than by the fact that a dictator is severely abusing human rights.

Let me say it plainly - if the Samoan navy were intervening in Libya, then I suspect most of those who are currently objecting to action against Libya would be eerily silent.

That said they would prob do a better job than NATO is.

Thankfully,for myself,I've no moral outrage baggage at all relating to Libya.

All I have is a sceptical attitude to the "Central Casting" role of Gadaffi as put forward by the UN to secure this resolution.

Whilst The Colonel and his Libyan State has left grubby pawmarks all over the World which,no doubt provides good reason for the present hunt,why was this reasoning alone not put forward to secure his departure?

Instead we have a somewhat difficult to substantiate game-plan portraying him as an enemy of the true Libya....which is simply not what the mans current survival is demonstrating.

If he were as all pervasively detested by "Ordinary Decent Libyans" I have little doubt but those "Ordinary Decent Libyans" would have got rid of him quite easily within the first week of UN/NATO action...

I think Nacho Libre has it sussed here....

Don't be surprised if Gadaffi eventually is taken out in a strike, which will be justified as an attack on a c &c position. The cleverness of the original un statement is that taking out Gadaffi can actually be justified.

At some point UN/NATO will have to accept that Gadaffi has enough genuine popular Libyan support to survive the current attacks,when that penny drops then so most likely will the Barrack Buster that eventually asassinates Gadaffi.

GO Samoa !

end a eknny

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

This deserves about a million rolleyes but I guess one will suffice :rolleyes:

The provisional IRA were not "rebels", they were terrorist criminals, there is a big difference. The provos didn't have the majority support of the nationalist community let alone the support of the community as a whole whereas the anti-Gaddafi forces seem to have widespread support....where it isn't being crushed by rocket and artillery attacks from Gaddafi forces that is.

Plus I don't see any anti-Gaddafi forces targeting pro-Gaddafi civilians hmmm?

the difference is only in your brainwashed mind. the anti gadafi forces have widespread support prove it. didnt sinn fein have lots of m.ps elected. and you can prove no civilians where killed dream on

end a eknny

mattjack wrote: »

Jesus Wept.. so know you accept Gadaffi armed the IRA.....now Google Pan Am 103....and justify that...then Google "Black September" ..and after that WPC Yvonne Fletcher..

google this .............. when gadafi and the ira have killed a fraction of 1% of what the good ole u.s or brits have killed come back with the names of all their victims are did they deserve what they got

end a eknny

jmayo wrote: »

Well have we ever known their mind or have we just known what their leader of the last 40 years has been telling us ?



Remember the way the other protests throughout North Africa/Middle East have panned out ?
It is obvious that these leaders have to go for their to be any chance of free elections. Mubarak had to go in Egypt.
The difference there is that military have assumed interim control.
The military in Libya are not that powerful as Gaddafi never trusted them and also they did not stand united one way or the other.

Maybe they know Gaddafi a lot better than you or others do ?
Maybe they known damm well that the chance of having full and free elections whilst he or his kin are in charge are feck all. :rolleyes:



Oh FFS the level of naivety around here is gobsmacking.
the rebels know that they will be rounded up as soon as they lay down their arms.

The same situation played out in Egypt.
The protesters knew that if they gave up their location in the central square that would be it.
Mubarak knew that if he could get them to disperse and go back to their homes, that it would give him time to round up the ring leaders.



Yeah a bit like the wya saddam or mugabe used to win elections ?



Oh FFS ...
We have a description in Mayo for what you post, but forum rules prevent me from stating it. :mad:

Jeeze I never knew that Nationalists in Northern Ireland had no democratic rights and were been shot for protesting in the late 80s ?
How the hell was John Hume, bobby sands, gerry adams, etc elected ?

Go back to the late 60, early 70s whilst Northern Ireland was self governed and you have a point, but Gaddafi was supporting IRA long after.

it amazes me how somebody who knows so little can have an answer for everything.

mattjack

end a eknny wrote: »

google this .............. when gadafi and the ira have killed a fraction of 1% of what the good ole u.s or brits have killed come back with the names of all their victims are did they deserve what they got

and on and on, you go........I have two friends who lost family members in no warning bomb attacks..neither were members of the security forces.and both were Irish citizens..and I have another friend who almost lost an arm in another bomb attack...I know I,m wrong to bring it down to a personal level..your replys and comments suggest you are delusional at the very least.so I,m going to leave at that...best of luck..

end a eknny

mattjack wrote: »

and on and on, you go........I have two friends who lost family members in no warning bomb attacks..neither were members of the security forces.and both were Irish citizens..and I have another friend who almost lost an arm in another bomb attack...I know I,m wrong to bring it down to a personal level..your replys and comments suggest you are delusional at the very least.so I,m going to leave at that...best of luck..

and that has any relevance to nato bombing the sh.te out of libiya how. its well known that the security forces ignored warnings to maximise civilian injuries as part of their propaganda war against the ira. the problem here is that the u.s leading nato just keep repeating history to make a bad situation worse.and anybody who believes they are doing this motivated by a concern for the welfare of the citizens of libyia are living in dream world

RandomName2

digme wrote: »

Doesn't look like a dictator to me.
Only 2% of Libyan people are revolting, aided by U.S. agents, military and NATO.
Media propaganda and lies steer the thinking of the masses.

THe only good thing to be said about Gaddafi is that he is secular. Like all the secular dictators of islamic countries he has based a lot of his MO on Communism - so developing the country's infrastructure in this manner is par for the course.

However, Gadaffi, like Saddam seems to use his oil money to build infrastructure specifically in areas loyal to him. Saddam put a great deal of money into minority Sunni areas, particularly in Baghdad. Gadaffi has put a great deal of money into Sirte - one of the reason why the area is so loyal to him.

If you are serious about the 2%, however, you must be delusional.

Jonny7

end a eknny wrote: »

and that has any relevance to nato bombing the sh.te out of libiya how. its well known that the security forces ignored warnings to maximise civilian injuries as part of their propaganda war against the ira. the problem here is that the u.s leading nato just keep repeating history to make a bad situation worse.and anybody who believes they are doing this motivated by a concern for the welfare of the citizens of libyia are living in dream world

NATO aren't intentionally targeting civilians though. There's been 3 or 4 incidents in as many months, whilst tragic and inexcusable, it still doesn't compare in any way with actions of the Libyan military, e.g. artillery shelling and using of grad rocket launchers almost daily against residential areas, particularly in Misrata.

jmayo

nacho libre wrote: »

Nelson Mandela at one point had a high opinion of Gadaffi, it seems.

"...If he had been an egotist, he wouldn’t have risked the wrath of the West to help the ANC both militarily and financially in the fight against apartheid. This was why Mandela, soon after his release from 27 years in jail, decided to break the UN embargo and travel to Libya on 23 October 1997. For five long years, no plane could touch down in Libya because of the embargo. One needed to take a plane to the Tunisian city of Jerba and continue by road for five hours to reach Ben Gardane, cross the border and continue on a desert road for three hours before reaching Tripoli. The other solution was to go through Malta, and take a night ferry on ill-maintained boats to the Libyan coast. A hellish journey for a whole people, simply to punish one man.

Mandela didn’t mince his words when the former US president Bill Clinton said the visit was an ‘unwelcome’ one – ‘No country can claim to be the policeman of the world and no state can dictate to another what it should do’. He added – ‘Those that yesterday were friends of our enemies have the gall today to tell me not to visit my brother Gaddafi, they are advising us to be ungrateful and forget our friends of the past.’"

.

Isn't that one of the reasons that South Africa refuses to do anything about mugabe, because he was a friend of the ANC during the bad old days ?

end a eknny wrote: »

it amazes me how somebody who knows so little can have an answer for everything.

I like when someone engages in self analysis.

nacho libre

jmayo wrote: »

Isn't that one of the reasons that South Africa refuses to do anything about mugabe, because he was a friend of the ANC during the bad old days ?

Yes I believe so. Though as Mandela's statement said, the Americans were no in position to condemn others for dodgy alliances. Still it is awkward for Mandela's followers, particularly those on the left, if he still views people like Mugabe and Gadaffi as friends. As you can't selectively condemn nations for supporting dictators.

cyberhog

Well it seems Gaddafi has far more support than his opponents would like to admit.

01 Jul 2011

Tens of thousands of supporters of Muammar Gaddafi gathered in Tripoli's Green Square, waving green flags and chanting as the Libyan leader addressed them via telephone.

The embattled leader addressed the crowds and vowed to stay on, warning Nato to stop its air strikes or face defeat.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8612220/Libya-Colonel-Gaddafi-threatens-to-target-Europe-if-air-strikes-do-not-stop.html

In March the UK and France made a plea to Gaddafi's supporters "to drop him before it is too late" but judging by the huge crowd that turned out yesterday it appears his supporters are not all that worried.

Cameron keeps insisting that time is not on Gaddafi's side but I think it's becoming increasingly apparent that the clock is ticking toward NATO failure.

AlekSmart

cyberhog wrote: »

Well it seems Gaddafi has far more support than his opponents would like to admit.

In March the UK and France made a plea to Gaddafi's supporters "to drop him before it is too late" but judging by the huge crowd that turned out yesterday it appears his supporters are not all that worried.

Well I would imagine that somebody will be along shortly to say that the Colonel paid or coerced the large attendance into protesting their defiance of the UN's vision of An Libya Núa.....

This little event underlines for me,yet again,that something is just not right about the UN line,and this has been my feeling from Day 1.

Even the reported "Threat" against the Western Allies by Gadaffi is far from the specific intentional one which the News Groups would like

"These people (the Libyans) are able to one day take this battle ... to Europe, to target your homes, offices, families, which would become legitimate military targets, like you have targeted our homes," he said.

"We can decide to treat you in a similar way," he said of the Europeans. "If we decide to, we are able to move to Europe like locusts, like bees. We advise you to retreat before you are dealt a disaster."

The man sure does like his Insects,thats for sure...first Cockroaches,now Bees and Locusts....he's a real Beetlejuice Boy !

Yet,put yourself in the position of an "Ordinary" Tripolian...not particularly a Gadaffi fan,but not patricularly rebellious either..somebody who just gets on with life,wants to be left alone to leave others alone....?

I'm certain there are quite a few such Libyan's who now have NATO dropping ton's of Explosive Ordinance on their City each night.....what would YOU say to the NATO Big Boys who are itching to play with their even bigger,better and far more awe inspiring toys,if only the pesky politicians will give the nod....

Generals,Admirals,Air Vice Marshalls and assorted other uniform wearing lads seem to be popping up a lot these days in a kind of "We can match Gadaffi,uniform for uniform" contest....

Take up Gadaffi's offer of elections I say.....demonstrate the West's ACTUAL commitment to democratic principles etc etc....either that or Nuke Him.....Stop Bullshytting and make the Call,boys !! :eek:

Jonny7

AlekSmart wrote: »

Take up Gadaffi's offer of elections I say.....demonstrate the West's ACTUAL commitment to democratic principles etc etc....either that or Nuke Him.....Stop Bullshytting and make the Call,boys !! :eek:

Its Gaddafi's son who offered elections, this man

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n2jOKjxT1U

He doesn't seem to have the faintest notion what national dialogue is.

Somehow I doubt their capacity to hold "free and fair" elections and to tolerate the largescale presence required to monitor such elections, especially with such a fear apparatus and no toleration of opposition or democracy for decades.

Some have pointed out the pro-Gaddafi rallies, pretty twisted irony, oddly they don't get gunned down in the streets by the state. Of course I could point out the 99% vote that Saddam received and the rallies of hundreds of thousands in favor of Kim Il Yong.

AlekSmart

Jonny7 wrote: »

Its Gaddafi's son who offered elections, this man

He doesn't seem to have the faintest notion what national dialogue is.

Somehow I doubt their capacity to hold "free and fair" elections and to tolerate the largescale presence required to monitor such elections, especially with such a fear apparatus and no toleration of opposition or democracy for decades.

Some have pointed out the pro-Gaddafi rallies, pretty twisted irony, oddly they don't get gunned down in the streets by the state. Of course I could point out the 99% vote that Saddam received and the rallies of hundreds of thousands in favor of Kim Il Yong.

I would'nt attempt to deny Jonny7`s point regarding Free and Fair,however the offer as detailed by Gadaffi the younger was somewhat more comprehensive....

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/06/201161613564341905.html

Specifically....

"They (elections) could be held within three months. At the maximum by the end of the year, and the guarantee of transparency could be the presence of international observers," Saif al-Islam told Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera.

He said his father, who has ruled the country for more than four decades, would be ready to step aside if he lost the election but would not go into exile.

What I find odd is the rapidity with which the "Coalition" and in particular the U.S State Department rushed out to reject the very notion of Libyans being asked to vote under observed conditions....Is there a problem with this voting lark ?

Jonny7

AlekSmart wrote: »

Is there a problem with this voting lark ?

Yeah the "lark" part.

AlekSmart

Jonny7: Yeah the "lark" part.

Boom Boom !....but since the Gadaffi's don't mention Electronic Voting (:eek:) I'm assuming it will be the tried and trusted type of voting which has satisfied the UN itself on past occasions ..?

Jonny7

AlekSmart wrote: »

Boom Boom !....but since the Gadaffi's don't mention Electronic Voting (:eek:) I'm assuming it will be the tried and trusted type of voting which has satisfied the UN itself on past occasions ..?

In what situation with which dictator?

Rebelheart

mattjack wrote: »

Gaddafi, Gaddafi..? armed the IRA Ido believe ......

Ha! What he armed in the IRA was nothing compared to what Thatcher armed when she armed Suharto's fully-fledged genocide against the East Timorese at the same time. Somehow, I doubt people with your political views would be even aware of that enormous crime against humanity by the eternal self-proclaimed civilisers of the world, even if you have possibly heard of Thatcher's financial and political support for fascist dictators like Pinochet. Then again, for apologists of British imperialism those "darkies", Suharto's victims, don't count for as much as white loyalist British Protestants, the IRA's victims. Isn't that really the unspoken tribal truth about when supporting violence to achieve a political aim is acceptable to people, and when it's not.

Anyway, carry on...

mattjack

Rebelheart wrote: »

Ha! What he armed in the IRA was nothing compared to what Thatcher armed when she armed Suharto's fully-fledged genocide against the East Timorese at the same time. Somehow, I doubt people with your political views would be even aware of that enormous crime against humanity by the eternal self-proclaimed civilisers of the world, even if you have possibly heard of Thatcher's financial and political support for fascist dictators like Pinochet. Then again, for apologists of British imperialism those "darkies", Suharto's victims, don't count for as much as white loyalist British Protestants, the IRA's victims. Isn't that really the unspoken tribal truth about when supporting violence to achieve a political aim is acceptable to people, and when it's not.

Anyway, carry on...

what have my political views got to do with you...you know nothing about me

mattjack

Rebelheart wrote: »

Ha! What he armed in the IRA was nothing compared to what Thatcher armed when she armed Suharto's fully-fledged genocide against the East Timorese at the same time. Somehow, I doubt people with your political views would be even aware of that enormous crime against humanity by the eternal self-proclaimed civilisers of the world, even if you have possibly heard of Thatcher's financial and political support for fascist dictators like Pinochet. Then again, for apologists of British imperialism those "darkies", Suharto's victims, don't count for as much as white loyalist British Protestants, the IRA's victims. Isn't that really the unspoken tribal truth about when supporting violence to achieve a political aim is acceptable to people, and when it's not.

Anyway, carry on...

I am very aware of what happened East Timor and I am certainly not an apologist for British Imperialism.We all know about the arming Suhartos regime and its support by USA and Britain.I,d regard Thatcher ,Clinton and Suharto all as war criminals and I,ve no particular leaning toward Nato and for all of the UN,s failings ..is there an option..?...
White Loyalist British Protestants..?..Is that all they killed ? Interesting that you call them victims.Throughout this thread its been a sore point when Gadaffis mention of arming the IRA has been brought up..yet nothing is said about PanAM 103,Yvonne Fletcher,La Belle Nightclub..etc..Gaddafi is on record as saying he will support any terrorist organisation in any country that has antiGaddafi groups in it.
Had Colonel Gadaffi any interest in Ireland..? None whatsoever,even Sinn Fein acknowledges his arms smuggling.Whatever way you want to calculate levels of terrorism ,in East Timor or here is up to yourself ...to me ,one person dead from an act of terrorism is an abomination.
What I,ve said is nothing new...but nor is anything you,ve regurgitated ...carry on yourself...