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=PL0BB5D1A51A389121 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/94d3b1af8ed53a80And 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.htmAnd 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_nYgYes, 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...
No comments:
Post a Comment