Quote:
Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!
Nope, not saying that at all, infact no-where in this thread have i said that. If you are referring to this, the OP, "committed against his own people during the ongoing popular uprising and for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103", then see underlined word. Secondly, those aren't my words, in case you weren't sure. Do i jump on the Hague's ICC's band wagon? Hell yea. Agree, why not? However, this is worth pondering over:
|
it's true that outside copy/paste you have't said very much. however i made the mistake of assuming because you were posting to support your position, the posts in some way reflected your opinion. my apologies.
this refers to when i said this is all about events more than 20 yrs ago. you deny it, yet you chose to justify it with one text that lists events all of which are more than 20 years old, and a second text which lists only measures gaddafi took in the last 10 years or so in order to get back into the community of nations.
Sorry for misunderstanding you?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kristin Rawls
During the 1970’s and 1980’s, Gaddafi was roundly mocked for an over-inflated ego of such grand proportions that he routinely spoke of himself in world-historical terms. A self-styled “Che Guevara” of the Arab world, Gaddafi mostly annoyed the neighboring despotic regimes.
They saw not a revolutionary in Gaddafi, but a competitor, someone who endangered their geopolitical influence. As such, they repudiated Gaddafi for his ill-conceived invasions of Egypt and Chad—and stepped up efforts to decrease his political power in the region. A kind of “cold peace” took hold between Libya and its neighbors for the next two and a half decades, as neighboring despots ignored Gaddafi’s eccentricities in exchange for a piece of Libya’s oil wealth.
The West did not anticipate Gaddafi’s war against the Libyan people. Neither, it seems, did the Arab states. Gaddafi hid below the radar of Western and Arab leaders for nearly a quarter of a century, engaging in a pseudo-isolationism that allowed his political activities to go mostly unchecked. After he lost his battle for dominance in the Arab world, you see, Gaddafi reinvented himself.
No longer the Arab incarnation of Che, Gaddafi retired his military garb and replaced it with royal dress inspired by Libya’s former King Idriss. Abandoning his doomed political maneuvers in the Middle East, Gaddafi now saw himself as a pan-African prophet, destined to take up the project of Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah and imbue the African citizens to the south with a new sense of anti-colonial zeal. An African liberator who would raise the collective consciousness of the sub-Saharan population, taking Fanon’s postcolonial message to the masses.
Thus, Gaddafi went South of the Sahara—and, indeed, all around it—and spent the next two decades there delivering populist speeches, sleeping in tents, kissing babies, organizing photo ops, bribing sub-Saharan autocrats and funding intrastate conflict. On witnessing some of his campaigns throughout southern Africa, one could legitimately wonder if he ever spent any time in his home country. As many people outside of Libya ignored Gaddafi for a very long time, the people of sub-Saharan Africa got to know him quite well.
As a result, millions of people in sub-Saharan Africa were not at all surprised by Gaddafi’s fierce repression. After all, Gaddafi had been pillaging their resources, cozying up to their dictators and exploiting their conflicts for decades before his crimes against the Libyan people caught the world’s attention.
A re-invention of sorts, and under the radar of Western leaders. 2 key points as to why nothing was done back then.
|
when copying and pasting someone else it is good form to provide a link and make it clear you did that, but i accept this was probably just a slip up on your part and you did not intend to pass it off as you own writing.
nonetheless, the text is notably short of crimes, and seems mostly to say gaddafi is weird (which we know), and adopted a pan-african strategy, including using development aid to gain influence. Which is not afaik a crime against humanity
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ff
But why is that an arguement in the first place? Why was nothing done back then? Well, if we have a chance to bring to justice someone then does this question really matter in the present? Moot really.
|
this bit is yours, right? if for you it is about justice/revenge, well whatever
ok, ok, it is about justice/ revenge and whatever the official line is irrelevant, right? the motives of the actors involved, both stated and unstated are irrelevant
well i suppose if you spent more time writing your posts than cutting/pasting you'd be more aware of what you had included.
it was the second of the two texts you cited earlier - the first listing crimes more than 20 years old, the second listed steps libya had taken to regain trade rights with the west, including dismantling wmd, paying damages to lockerbie victims, negotiating trade deals and attempting to negotiate himself off the list of terrorist supporting nations
this article did not include any details
this article made reference to 3 (three) extra judicial killings of captured rebel fighters. Not sure that 3 individuals is a scale of crime sufficient for a whole war-crimes thing.
but this one relates to a 1996 event which i confess i have never heard of. The allegation is serious, I grant you.
Quote:
In relation to the word massacre(s), isn't that what is occurring?
The massacre of his own people, systematically?
Or should we rather use a word like killing? Which would be wrong and underemphasizing the eradication, brutal at that of people who don't see eye to eye with him.
|
that prison story is a separate one - and serious.
but the present issue - how do you know it is a systematic massacre, and not an armed rebellion in civil war with the loyalists. How do you know the rebellion is even a majority of the population? they don't seem to control that much of the country. So you tell me, how do you fight a civil war, if any killing is a massacre and therefore illegal?
Should all rebellions be allowed to win, at all times? Is suppression of armed uprising always wrong?
Anyway it doesn't matter - the west has got itself into this, and it can't get out without daffy leaving. That means he either leaves voluntarily, or we have to go in and get him. The rebellion isn't popular enough to do it themselves. they aren't even popular enough to do it with some anglo-french airsupport. which means we have to go in to libya and create the facts.
since another occupation is not something we are really keen on, an alternative is to find someone who'll offer daffy asylum and let him go, and hopefully get a new regime in libya that can restore stability, make a few pro-western concessions and we can all go home happy we aren't stuck there for the next 7 years