talked to my three wonderful daughters and my brother in London and
I'm feeling a little better, if a man can at all feel "better" in the
given circumstances.
You keep making a fuss about the normal news outlets for some of us
normal mortals. I don't know where you go to drink but for me, it's
basically
http://www.freeman.org/other.htm
http://www.dailyalert.org/archive/
and for good measure ( you may call it balance) :
http://www.shaykhabdalqadir.com/content/articles.html
http://www.shaykhabdalqadir.com/content/articles.php
In my poverty I know (personally) a Secretary of State or two, with
well staffed, well informed offices. Specialists. At least one ex-
president and two West African presidents, to the East of Liberia. No
big deal.
I am deficient in intelligence and woefully found wanting, so, pray,
tell me, why should I be interested in pursuing a useless discussion
with a great scholar like you about what Gaddafi said, not in veiled
but in clear unambiguous language?
How many signatures do you intend to collect to bolster the
uncertainties of your own uncompromising understanding?
You say that " it's too late anyway." It's not as if what Pablo
Idahosa says here or there in Canada or anywhere else will
significantly impact on the Arab League, the United Nations, or the
US, the EU or AU policy. I don't suppose any of them will be listening
to you or your movement.
I live in Sweden - and Sweden being part of the humanitarian
intervention in Libya, the threat of any terrorist attacks here
whether real or only imagined ( imaginable) is taken most seriously. A
relative who was working in the office of the Mayor of London , lost a
leg in that terrorist attack in July, 2005.....
http://www.thelocal.se/search.php?keywordSearch=Libya&search=Go
Yes Sir, its quite encouraging, the AU initiative appears to be
gaining "some momentum"....perhaps an African solution will eventually
be presented to the United Nations, for final arbitration?
Professor Idahosa, are you sure that Colonel Gaddafi is not the new
ever-lasting Methuselah?
On 3 Juli, 16:18, Pablo Idahosa <pidah...@yorku.ca> wrote:
> Cornelius, you clearly didn't sleep well. Also, evidently, one can
> study anywhere to be boneheadingly obtuse as well as demonstrating
> selectivity ad hocery. The source is not the speech but what we make
> of it, just as what we make of the other speeches, whether by the
> father or the son. Further, while it may not have been your intention,
> when I click on one of your many pointless URLS (what in your gods' name
> is the point of the recycled BBC quotes?), at the top, I get Sky News
> among many similar recycled "sources". As I said, it is may or may not
> have come from Sky; it may have come from Associated Press, al-jazzera
> or the CIA, but they took it from a speech that few people, other than
> those who read Arabic and who know better than you or I can. I lived and
> worked in Algeria for two years, and have a little Arabic, but do not
> read it.
>
> Interestingly, Al-jazeera-- they of the country that has given support
> to the rebels, and about which one of their senior journalists has
> resigned over their lack of balance in reporting-- gave a few
> selective, juicy quotes. However, even they now seem to be stealthy
> dropping that story, perhaps as the AU initiative appears to have some
> momentum.
>
> Regarding when the the AU could have intervened, yes I was in error. Of
> course it wasn't at the outset, but there have been a number of
> initiatives for a ceasefires and a resolution since that have not been
> heeded, partly because NATO has wanted nothing less than Ghaddafi out
> on their terms, thinking that they would be able to do it quickly.
>
> I too know and listen to some Libyans. They inevitably have divided
> opinions over what is happening.
> Pablo
>
> On 03/07/11 12:11 AM, Cornelius Hamelberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > If it is not from SKY news,
> > then why put it in?
>
> > The source was the speech itself.
>
> > Not that I am particularly interested in your opinions about me or
> > even your more knowledgeable opinions about yourself or Gaddafi. Or
> > the whereabouts of Osama bin Ladin....
>
> > Of course you are self-appointed, to represent yourself and your
> > public opinions.... just as Gaddafi is self-appointed, to speak on
> > behalf of all bis bepple, and as he says, ( I heard him); They love
> > me all ... and by the way, my technique of investigation - is mostly
> > through talking to Libyans ( I know a few ( not only Muslims). I
> > wasn't trained at York or Lakehead.
>
> > As an iceberg, you surely don't expect me to tell you all the tricks
> > of the trade, do you?
>
> > Well, there's you and your attempts at the niceties of perfumed
> > poetry, hanging up your soiled knickers on the line for the smell of
> > the donkey's arses to dry by Pablo Idahosa and of course there's also
> > the ever better Pablo Neruda.
>
> > Here's another stinking headline that will no doubt tickle your funny
> > rib and as Lady Macbeth said, Here s the smell of the blood still;
> > all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand. :
>
> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13883793
>
> > WHERE did I feature Sky News as the source of Gaddafi's speech?
>
> > And WHO told you that the rambling text on that website is an
> > accurate Arabic transcript of what Gaddafi actually said and why/on
> > what grounds do you make such an assumption did you listen to the
> > speech? Does it correspond to the rambling text?
>
> > By your own admission, 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. Your words. So what's the beef? Your Arabic speakers may
> > be in disagreement.
>
> > I sometimes do not understand your posts Good. It's enough that
> > you understand Gaddafi's or some other kind of poetrie that has a
> > little analytical anus.
>
> > Others near me, understand me, my wife understands me , and who are
> > YOU to me?
>
> > In your first post on this thread you say 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.
>
> > The speech in question was made by his son. I listened to it.
>
> > I've skipped your paragraphs 2& 3. That's what I do with things that
> > you are capable of saying that don't interest me and that are
> > unlikely to add an iota to my grasp of the reality.
>
> > Sleep well Idahosa.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Ghanaian+Fisherman&aq=f
>
> > 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....
>
> ...
>
> läs mer »
--
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