extremely talented people here you know, some of whom don't ever want
to make a show not even at some second rate universe-ity theatre /
think tank/committee. So there's no point talking paternalistically
down to me or Sonny Terry... You might be black and blue and a
professor too but you are not better than me.
"the AU initiative, which could have had a life from almost the
beginning
of this awful crisis."
There was no AU initiative at the beginning of the crisis. By the time
the AU came into the picture, the disaster was beyond repair and there
was little chance for the forgiveness and reconciliation Gaddafi is
so disingenuously moaning about in this his last address to his
people. Moreover, the AU is financially beholden to Gaddafi; to put it
more bluntly many of them are in his pocket and are therefore less
likely to be impartial, although their sustained impartiality could
also be less likely once the source of Gaddafi's largesse dries up
or is transferred to the "rebels". In the meantime you can be as
cynical or as pragmatic as you can care to be with the philosophy of
"a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush"/ "better the devil you
know than the devil you don't know."
I'm feeling free. Please don't puke here. Or try to tell me HOW to be.
It reminds me of this joke about anti-Semitism:
" "The Duke of Mannheim said to the Jewish scholar, Rabbi Isaac Brill:
"They say that Jews who come before the courts try to buy the favour
of the judges with large amounts of money. Isn't it unjust to bribe
the judge in order to bend the law?"
The Rabbi answered:
"The law isn't bent this way - on the contrary. Let me explain. When a
Jew and a Christian have an argument and come to stand before a
Christian judge, it is natural that the judge, to start with, is
prejudiced in favour of the Christian. The money that the Jewish party
gives to him motivates the judge to steer his opinion away from the
Christian and to become completely impartial!"
Halifa Sallah has tabled these sensible suggestions :
http://www.gambia.dk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10870
Now Dr. Pablo these your words are both misleading and inaccurate and
you know it:
" The ICC, lest we forget, was induced to investigate
Ghadaffi on the ludicrous charges of plying his soldiers so as to
rape
the wives and daughters of their opponents. Thereafter, they went to
discovering that Ghadaffi and his son fired on people! "
The rape charges came later. Every donkey knows this.
About "line of thinking", it's not everything that you can understand
Dr. Watson, it's sometimes different subjects, the exegetical would
not come in handy here – as for the vacuum cleaning - the
"dammsugare" - that would sweep or suck you and some of the much
bigger fish off their feet, 200 meters deep and you wouldn't know it.
On Jul 3, 3:54 am, Pablo Idahosa <pidah...@yorku.ca> wrote:
> Cornelius I'm not self appointed, like you I have an opinions. I
> asked people to look at an Arabic website that happens to Libyan, but is
> it or is it not the speech? I asked Arabic readers to check it out, so
> as to confirm or refute so as to recommend for or against your attempt
> at polyglotting autodidactism represented by your cut and paste
> technique of investigation, Do we always have follow the smell of the
> donkey's arses that are your headlines? If it is not from SKY news,
> then why put it in? As I said, one attribution where Sky got it from
> was the Associated Press. Whatever the source, it is likely
> inaccurate. And /Farrakhan/? Wherefore I be?
>
> Let's be clear, I never have been a supporter of Ghadaffi, and long
> before it became fashionable to excoriate on this list, always and
> continue to believe not that he was a "Mad dog", but that he was a
> dangerous, meddling megalomaniac buffoon who had lots of money live out
> his many fantasies, while forfeiting his once post-revolutionary
> radicalism at a time when few questioned the one party state. I never
> bought into into the look at the per capital income, how nice, though
> people argue this about many a place in the world and are not tarred
> with being pro-anything. People want freedom, they deserve to have it,
> and fight for it. Like many, I supported, dispositionally and
> viscerally his removal; like many, however, I averred when it began to
> appear as to who was carrying it out. That is not being pro-Ghadaffi, as
> there are other options that some do not like to acknowledge, such as
> the AU initiative, which could have had a life from almost the beginning
> of this awful crisis.
>
> As to the ICC, anyone who follows this thread on this list knows my view
> about it's apparent tacit support for intervention, and your silly non
> sequitor about how Ghadaffi answers if he is before it, speaks for
> itself, even as an attempt at humor. Rhetorical question is an answer
> to what? I just do not like to be fooled more than once from
> mendacious governments and institutions that are not seeking justice,
> even less resolution, but rather it seems to me, self-serving
> pragmatism and realpolitik, disguised under humanitarianism. I do not
> believe that, currently, bodies such as as the ICC are impartial; they
> appear motivated less by justice and more plied with policy from those
> same interventionist states who claimed a moral high ground that lies
> way beneath it. The ICC, lest we forget, was induced to investigate
> Ghadaffi on the ludicrous charges of plying his soldiers so as to rape
> the wives and daughters of their opponents. Thereafter, they went to
> discovering that Ghadaffi and his son fired on people! So, please,
> don't you or anyone else gently, humorously, or otherwise try to
> patronize me about one at a time. Right now, the ICC is a stick, a form
> of politico-juridical leveraging, not an inspirational institutional
> conviction for justice.
>
> You are not fishing, Cornelius, like a trawler you trawl, picking up so
> many things, not even knowing whether they are digestible or edible--
> that is, if they are comprehensible to those whom you ask to consume
> them. For one, I sometimes do not understand your posts; they range
> from the exegetical to the vacuum cleaning nomenclature that has little
> analytical end, with details and from sources hitherto unknown until you
> unearth or catch everything in your internet scouring. I sometimes
> just do not understand your line of thinking, even though I know that
> you have a position. //Cornelius, brudder m, perhaps you spread yourself
> too thin with too many posts. But forgive me, there I go again with my
> self-appointed self again.
>
> Pablo
>
> On 02/07/11 5:43 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/07/01/libya.war/index.html
>
> > Pablo,
>
> > Where did I give you the impression that Sky news was my authority on
> > Gaddafi?
>
> > Uncritically, what kind of self-appointed specimen of one-upmanship
> > are you?
>
> > Why even bother with the incoherent? Why pay it any mind? Why not just
> > let it go like the ramblings of an old mad dog?
>
> > And who appointed you to some High Court Judge's chair to judge what
> > is so obviously incomprehensible to you? You remind me of someone who
> > has no access to intelligence data but wants to be adviser to the US
> > government based on the kind of information he gleans from Al-
> > Jazeera.
>
> > At most, diablo - I know that the simple and straightforward Arabic
> > or English, French or Swedish German or Dutch is not as easily
> > accessible to the language nut in your brain - not to mention poesy,
> > Quranic or Hebraic. Or even the horrifically Gaddafic � and the
> > translations of his murderous intent most acceptable to you. When you
> > start off on the wrong footing about your own pro-Gaddafi babbling �
> > at best supposed to be intelligible to me, what am I supposed to do,
> > fall in love with Mohammed Gaddafi and start rooting for him?
>
> > Perhaps you could be better equipped by familiarizing yourself with
> > Arabic hyperbole, after some further down-grading of my own reading
> > between the lines comprehension....
>
> > I read and understood the Green Book. You would like me to do a
> > serious review of it? For whom? You? Gaddafi? Is that what he is
> > following � the Green Book or is it the Qur'an or is it Das Kapital?
>
> > And the charge sheet � what's that going to look like in the Libyan
> > dialect of Arabic, when the ICC reads it out to him if not some more
> > of what you would call rambling as he pleads � Not Guilty�.
>
> > Now Pablo, what is it exactly that you're trying to teach a fisherman
> > like me?
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4VRGALZdBA&playnext=1&list=PL0BB5D1A5...
>
> > On 2 Juli, 22:21, Pablo Idahosa<pidah...@yorku.ca> wrote:
> >> 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 Arabichttp://www.ljbc.net/details0.p...
> >> <http://www.ljbc.net/details0.php?home_news_id=20076>�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+E...
> >>> Chapter xviii Of Machiavelli � The Prince � is on � How Gaddafi
> >>> should keep his promise ( rendered in Swedish � Hur en furtse b�r
> >>> h�lla sina l�ften�
> >>>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
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment