Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - How is the New Gaddafi different from the Old Gaddafi?

Cornelius, sometimes, at best,  your posts and ramblings are incoherent. In this instance,  as in many other cases,  they are tainted by the same cannibalized sources you uncritically recycle and reuse, here  Sky "News", which  is Fox news in in the UK.  I'm unsure that they, or the Associated Press, which first put out the "story",  have Arabic language specialists parsing Ghadaffi's speech. This been part of our problem here. We can somewhat know people and governments by the consequences of their acts, when we know what those acts,  those consequences, and what the intent in both are are.  Sometimes it is clear; often times it is not.  Speeches in another language few too people understand, but  rely upon specious  sources to instantly assert predisposed beliefs,  shows that the knowledge-belief distinction is still a usable epistemological value.  Even the speech that Ghadaffi made that became the basis upon which NATO claimed it wanted to thwart the genocidal intent,  turns out to be at best partial cut and paste, and very likely false. News gets recycled as truth, rather than analyzed as fact.

Here is what was said in Arabic
http://www.ljbc.net/details0.p...§ion=hom , and Arabic readers on this forum can check it out for themselves. Here's what might have been said in french from one (who knows, partial?) source, for those who care anymore. Like here,  one analysis I saw claims that the Arabic never mentions attacking Europe at all. I do not know. If he did, he is once again foolish; if he did not, it's too late anyway. He should go under the guidance and wishes the people of Libya and the AU, but not under the one more big lie and bombardment from desperate people who have made a hash  of crass, self-interested hypocrisy of so-called humanitarian intervention.

Pablo




On 02/07/11 12:07 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg wrote:

How is the old Gaddafi different from the new Gaddafi?  As I observed on 25th of June, 2011  "It's not so much that Gaddafi is fighting " to defend his sovereignty" - he is merely fighting against his own people who want to overthrow him and his system of government. If he were truly committed to defending his sovereignty, he would have brought down a NATO plane or two. But he's afraid to do that, since that would be tantamount to declaring war on NATO. For the same reason, he dare not commit any terrorist act on NATO soil. That would also be an act of war, a declaration of war, and the war on terrorism would be waged on him ( not just protecting Libyan civilians) " http://groups.google.com/group/usaafricadialogue/msg/94d3b1af8ed53a80  And amazingly, Gaddafi who should know better after the "Mad Dog" Reagan episode, has fallen into the same trap once more, with his eyes wide open or maybe still slightly covered by some of that desert dust (of battle) with bombs exploding all around him he now threatens Europe with a promise of Terror-ism on NATO territory. He is definitely getting too big for his shoes. He must be thinking that his mortal frame is more powerful than the combined forces of NATO......  http://www.google.com/#hl=en&xhr=t&q=Gaddafi+threatens+terrorism+in+Europe  Chapter xviii Of Machiavelli " The Prince "  is on " How Gaddafi should keep his promise ( rendered in Swedish " Hur en furtse bör hålla sina löften"  http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince18.htm  And so, back to the question : How is the New Gaddafi different from the Old Gaddafi?  The answer is this : there is only one Gaddafi: the same old Gaddafi. Nothing has changed. The unchangeable Gaddafi is back to his old tricks again and promising more of the same not in the desert but on the greener turf of Europe which might want to call his bluff – because should he now, even once fulfil his threat, I fear what is to be feared: that would give Europe and NATO enough legal justification to drop an avalanche of angry bombs on his head live and direct wherever the radar will find him hiding in Tripoli or in the desert. And whereas his nearest and dearest kith and kin may want him alive, so does the ICC, so that they can try him for his terrorism and his many crimes against humanity, in Libya, Europe and in many parts of Africa. (Just recently Chairman Ping was expressing distress about France supplying weapons to Gaddafi's rebels; Ping did not express similar distress when Gaddafi was bank-rolling other rebels movements in various other places in his world and supplying them weapons too. Understandably, Ping wasn't Africa Union Secretary-General then and had not received any money or baksheesh from Gaddafi, personally or impersonally. The baksheesh and pittance that some of those who are blowing the moribund's trumpet hope to receive before he kicks the bucket or the flow of dollars all dries up in the dust.  Are you with me?  Yes, formerly rehabilitated into the bosom of the West he has now relapsed  into the true image of  his former not so glorious self, just because it's Obama and not his Brother Reagan in the White House. Because Reagan, like John McCain , by now would be singing this Beach Boys song : Bomb! Bomb! Bomb! Bomb!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg  Yes, its Africa Union's so called "King of Kings" threatening to retaliate with terrorism in Europe.  What say his ardent supporters here in the USA-Africa Dialogue Series? Do they justify and endorse his public threat?  Are they prepared to aid and abet terrorism – to advocate terrorism not in the name of Allah, but in the name of  Muammar their "King of Kings" –  ready to be accessories after the crime of terrorism -  in Europe  - and  to be placed on the usual list of terrorist  suspects and sympathizers?  It's a question one would like to put to Secretary-General Ping : Is Africa's so called " king of Kings"  serious  about his own personal long-term survival as the eternal Big Brother of Libya? How is his threat different from the sort of thing one would expect from al-Qaeda – who anyway know better than to issue such a threat, even if Gaddafi is now their new mouthpiece in Tripoli?  Not surprisingly, at that Final Call Press conference of 15th June, 2011, Farrakhan's  A. Akbar Muhammad introduced as opening speaker, no other than one of the most incongruous of criminal defenders namely Ramsey Clark, about whom, the least said, the better:  http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=Ramsey+Clark&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=