Morally bankrupt and discredited US can’t criticise Gaddafi

[Guest Adnan Darwash]

Morally bankrupt and discredited US can't criticise Geddafi

What has Geddaffi done that the USraelis haven't committed, many times over?

The deranged, with limited educational background*, 27-year old, , 1st Lieutenant army officer, Mummar A.M. Al-Geddafi, led a group of army officers to topple the hapless and aging King Idris Al-Senoussi of Libya on September 1st, 1969. Gedaffi was originally influenced by late Jamal Abdul Nasser 1952 revolution of Egypt and the call for Arab unity and freedom from colonial rule. He gave the British and the Americans six months to close down their military bases and the removal of all their military personnel. Both the UK and the US knew of Libya oil potential; went along while their oil cartels continued pumping high-grade oil at high profit. But the free Libya under the in-experienced young officers met a number of challenges with Geddafi political and social policies moved from extreme left to extreme right with the speed of a bullet. As an example he hired US Green Beret and CIA operatives to train leftist German RAF and Italian Red Brigades men on the uses of weapons. His people revolution into which he asked all departments, schools, hospitals, plants and universities to elect a people's committee and to manage their own problems. For a time it looked like a direct form of democracy. But shortly after that, he formed another committee, called the revolutionary committee which undermined the first one with authority to accuse people of betraying the revolution and went to execute young people in public and even on campuses. His foreign policy became an embarrassment to Arabs who abandoned him and forced him to look south to Africa. On the international scene Geddafi was ready to do anything or to pay any sum as long as it gets him some attention. He will soon go, dead or a live, dreaming of an invitation to the Whitehouse. The current popular uprising in Libya is highly justified after 42 years of confusion and chaos. Geddafi has two options: either to leave the country or to die inside his Bab Al-Azizia barracks. In the meantime, the Americans who lack credibility can't possibly send troops to Libya under any pretext as they know it will help Geddafi and making him a hero. The Americans who massacred people in Fallujah in 1994, and encouraged the Israelis to massacre Palestinians in Gaza in 2008, don't have the humanitarian credit to criticise Geddafi let alone interfere to help his people. The Americans have also tarnished the image of their European allies.

One must mention here that Geddafi oil has kept him so long in power and kept away the long arms of the Americans and their NATO allies.

Adnan Darwash, Iraq Occupation Times

*Geddafi needed only 18-months of training at Royal Military Academy to become a 2nd lieutenant.

[Guest Bernard]

Libya is not even a major supplier of oil to the United States. Gaddafi is traitor to his people. You are either a puppet of Saddam, Gaddafi, Bin Laden, or some terrorist group. Do you like killing innocent people?

[Guest Kfishman78]

The United States encouraged Isreal to massacre Palastinians??? LOL

 

I am sure all Arab Americans believe that. NOT!!!

 

You watch too much fiction movies.

[Guest Adnan Darwash]

Morally bankrupt and discredited US can’t criticise Geddafi

What has Geddaffi done that the USraelis haven’t committed, many times over?

The deranged, with limited educational background*, 27-year old, , 1st Lieutenant army officer, Mummar A.M. Al-Geddafi, led a group of army officers to topple the hapless and aging King Idris Al-Senoussi of Libya on September 1st, 1969. Gedaffi was originally influenced by late Jamal Abdul Nasser 1952 revolution of Egypt and the call for Arab unity and freedom from colonial rule. He gave the British and the Americans six months to close down their military bases and the removal of all their military personnel. Both the UK and the US knew of Libya oil potential; went along while their oil cartels continued pumping high-grade oil at high profit. But the free Libya under the in-experienced young officers met a number of challenges with Geddafi political and social policies moved from extreme left to extreme right with the speed of a bullet. As an example he hired US Green Beret and CIA operatives to train leftist German RAF and Italian Red Brigades men on the uses of weapons. His people revolution into which he asked all departments, schools, hospitals, plants and universities to elect a people’s committee and to manage their own problems. For a time it looked like a direct form of democracy. But shortly after that, he formed another committee, called the revolutionary committee which undermined the first one with authority to accuse people of betraying the revolution and went to execute young people in public and even on campuses. His foreign policy became an embarrassment to Arabs who abandoned him and forced him to look south to Africa. On the international scene Geddafi was ready to do anything or to pay any sum as long as it gets him some attention. He will soon go, dead or a live, dreaming of an invitation to the Whitehouse. The current popular uprising in Libya is highly justified after 42 years of confusion and chaos. Geddafi has two options: either to leave the country or to die inside his Bab Al-Azizia barracks. In the meantime, the Americans who lack credibility can’t possibly send troops to Libya under any pretext as they know it will help Geddafi and making him a hero. The Americans who massacred people in Fallujah in 1994, and encouraged the Israelis to massacre Palestinians in Gaza in 2008, don’t have the humanitarian credit to criticise Geddafi let alone interfere to help his people. The Americans have also tarnished the image of their European allies.

One must mention here that Geddafi oil has kept him so long in power and kept away the long arms of the Americans and their NATO allies.

Adnan Darwash, Iraq Occupation Times

*Geddafi needed only 18-months of training at Royal Military Academy to become a 2nd lieutenant.

Correction

The American massacres in Falluja, took place in 2004 and not in 1994 as stated above. In Fallujah 2450 people were killed while the Israeli attack on Gaza killed 1300 Palestinians out of which 400 children. Adnan (IOT).

[Guest Adnan Darwash]

Libya is not even a major supplier of oil to the United States. Gaddafi is traitor to his people. You are either a puppet of Saddam, Gaddafi, Bin Laden, or some terrorist group. Do you like killing innocent people?

 

I vehemently oppose killing any human being or any animal. I am a vegetarian. For this reason I am against USraeli massacres, Hitler's holocaust or Saddam mass killings.

Adnan Darwash (IOT)

[Guest Adnan Darwash]

The United States encouraged Isreal to massacre Palastinians??? LOL

 

I am sure all Arab Americans believe that. NOT!!!

 

You watch too much fiction movies.

 

Lol, do you know how to google? The infamous Condoleeza Rice refused calls to ask the Israelis to stop the massacres in Gaza in 2008 and went to expedite the delivery of cluster and phosphosphorous bombs to Israel.

Adnan (IOT)

[Guest Thomas]

Sunnis and Shi'ites both believe in God and follow the teachings of Mohamed. But, there is a divergent path that separates the two. Democrats and Republicans believe in American Liberty, but there is also divergent path that separates the two.

[Guest Widow's Son]

While not being Arab in heritage, there are many of us that do fully understand your plight.

 

Robert Finlayson Cook (28 February 1946 – 6 August 2005) was a British Labour Party politician, who was the Member of Parliament (MP) for Livingston from 1983 until his death, and notably served in the Cabinet as Foreign Secretary from 1997 to 2001.

 

In 1994, following the death of John Smith, he ruled himself out of contention for the Labour leadership, apparently on the grounds that he was "insufficiently attractive" to be an election winner, although two close family bereavements in the week in which the decision had to be made may have contributed.

 

In early 2003 he was reported to be one of the cabinet's chief opponents of military action against Iraq, and on 17 March he resigned from the Cabinet. In a statement giving his reasons for resigning he said, "I can't accept collective responsibility for the decision to commit Britain now to military action in Iraq without international agreement or domestic support." He also praised Blair's "heroic efforts" in pushing for the so-called second resolution regarding the Iraq disarmament crisis. Cook's resignation speech.

 

7:00

 

On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain. They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own. Above all, they are uneasy at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies.

 

From the start of the present crisis, I have insisted, as Leader of the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war. It has been a favourite theme of commentators that this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics. Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support. I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the Government.

[Guest Eli]

We are all subject to the profit organism.

 

[Guest American4Progress]

For years, Silvio Berlusconi cultivated a close relationship with Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi. Time Magazine assessed that "of all the mutual back-scratching among Europe's rich democracies and North Africa's strongmen, Italy's dependency on Gaddafi stands apart." The relationship was so cozy that, according to Bloomberg News, "Berlusconi shut down the city's biggest park in June 2009 to allow the visiting Libyan leader and his entourage of all- female bodyguards to set up camp by the 16th-century Villa Doria Pamphili." The relationship brought immense economic benefit to both countries. The longest underwater pipeline in the Mediterranean runs from Libya to Italy. "Libya is Italy's largest supplier of oil, providing for roughly a third of the country's energy consumption. The dictator's government owns a substantial share of the Milan stock market. ... Libya also provides a critical market for its northern neighbor's struggling construction firms. And, since 2008, when Italy agreed to invest $5 billion in Libya, Gaddafi has kept a tight grip on the attempts by his citizens and other African migrants to take ships northward on the Mediterranean." Yet Berlusconi has refused to use this leverage to put significant pressure on Qaddafi. When turmoil erupted in Libya, and Qaddafi's forces massacred innocent protesters, "Berlusconi was reluctant to criticize his ally. The premier said Feb. 19, four days after anti-government protests began, that he did not want to 'disturb' Qaddafi and had not called him," reports Bloomberg. Piero Fassino, of the opposition Democratic Party, described the Italian government's response to the bloody repression as one of "deafening silence." Berlusconi "eventually put out a late-night statement on Feb. 21, in which he condemned the 'unacceptable' use of force by the military regime."

[Guest Thaqalain]

The need for a scapegoat. Iraqis in 1991, even the Shia, did not trust Iran. According to Kanan Makiya, an Iraqi academic in his book, Cruelty and Silence, agents from the Iraqi state began to post pictures of Iran’s leader, Ayatollah Ali Khomeini across the south. This allowed Saddam to frame the uprising as one orchestrated by Iran, not disgruntled Iraqis with real grievance against the regime. This idea gained traction and was key to maintaining support among the ‘”White Provinces”, the mainly Sunni areas to the north and west of the country that feared that an Iranian-style regime would replace Saddam, and that the new system would be inherently hostile to their community. These provinces remained loyal and formed the mainstay of Saddam’s support base throughout the uprising.

 

Supporters of the monarchy in Bahrain are painting the unrest as a Shia uprising to try to retain support of the country’s Sunni community (despite leading Sunni opposition MPs, including Munira Fakhro of Wa’ad, coming out in support of the protest movements). Similar tactics, but with an ethnic dimension, have been used in Jordan; King Abdullah sacked the Palestinian-born prime minister and replaced him with a Jordanian replacement. Part of the reason for the move is likely to play on the Palestinian/Jordanian rift within society and to shore up his Jordanian support base who are uneasy about Palestinian representation in the government.

 

 

Violence only works if it is overwhelming. Up to a critical point, civilian losses embolden protestors who will rally against the injustices they see in the loss of their comrades. If the losses are massive, and pass that point, protestors are likely to realise that the state means business and is here to stay. This was the case in 1991; as soon as Saddam Hussein was allowed to use helicopter gunships, he did. The magnitude of destruction was stratospheric and anybody seen as being remotely sympathetic to the uprising was punished. Even palm trees were destroyed (10m in Basra alone), and the Marshes were drained, ostensibly to stop rebel fighters from seeking refuge there, but undoubtedly also to punish the people seen by the state as being complicit in the uprising by destroying their livelihoods.

 

The need for a patronised inner coterie: Iraq taught us that magnitude of destruction has to be immense. Muammar Qaddafi’s rhetoric suggests he understands this and is willing to follow through. This will depend on the willingness of the army to follow his directives. Saddam did not have the army, but he did have a series of concentric circles of supporters loyal to him because of the patronage he extended them (special-forces units and tribes). He had tied their interests to his survival so successfully that they could not risk defecting. In the same way that Mr Qaddafi has turned to foreigh mercenaries, He could also rely on his own foreign legion, the Mojahid-e-Khalq organisation whose divisions were used to fight both against the Kurds and the Shia down south (Mariam Rajavi, one of the groups leaders, famously said “take the Kurds under your tanks and save your bullets for the Islamic Guard”).

[Guest Ralph]

There are too many wolves in sheep's clothing.

[Guest LAW]

Before the distortion takes over. Our President supports human rights.

 

Remarks by the President on Libya

Grand Foyer

 

5:07 P.M. EST

 

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. Secretary Clinton and I just concluded a meeting that focused on the ongoing situation in Libya. Over the last few days, my national security team has been working around the clock to monitor the situation there and to coordinate with our international partners about a way forward.

 

First, we are doing everything we can to protect American citizens. That is my highest priority. In Libya, we've urged our people to leave the country and the State Department is assisting those in need of support. Meanwhile, I think all Americans should give thanks to the heroic work that's being done by our foreign service officers and the men and women serving in our embassies and consulates around the world. They represent the very best of our country and its values.

 

Now, throughout this period of unrest and upheaval across the region the United States has maintained a set of core principles which guide our approach. These principles apply to the situation in Libya. As I said last week, we strongly condemn the use of violence in Libya.

 

The American people extend our deepest condolences to the families and loved ones of all who’ve been killed and injured. The suffering and bloodshed is outrageous and it is unacceptable. So are threats and orders to shoot peaceful protesters and further punish the people of Libya. These actions violate international norms and every standard of common decency. This violence must stop.

 

The United States also strongly supports the universal rights of the Libyan people. That includes the rights of peaceful assembly, free speech, and the ability of the Libyan people to determine their own destiny. These are human rights. They are not negotiable. They must be respected in every country. And they cannot be denied through violence or suppression.

 

In a volatile situation like this one, it is imperative that the nations and peoples of the world speak with one voice, and that has been our focus. Yesterday a unanimous U.N. Security Council sent a clear message that it condemns the violence in Libya, supports accountability for the perpetrators, and stands with the Libyan people.

 

This same message, by the way, has been delivered by the European Union, the Arab League, the African Union, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and many individual nations. North and south, east and west, voices are being raised together to oppose suppression and support the rights of the Libyan people.

 

I’ve also asked my administration to prepare the full range of options that we have to respond to this crisis. This includes those actions we may take and those we will coordinate with our allies and partners, or those that we’ll carry out through multilateral institutions.

 

Like all governments, the Libyan government has a responsibility to refrain from violence, to allow humanitarian assistance to reach those in need, and to respect the rights of its people. It must be held accountable for its failure to meet those responsibilities, and face the cost of continued violations of human rights.

 

This is not simply a concern of the United States. The entire world is watching, and we will coordinate our assistance and accountability measures with the international community. To that end, Secretary Clinton and I have asked Bill Burns, our Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, to make several stops in Europe and the region to intensify our consultations with allies and partners about the situation in Libya.

 

I’ve also asked Secretary Clinton to travel to Geneva on Monday, where a number of foreign ministers will convene for a session of the Human Rights Council. There she’ll hold consultations with her counterparts on events throughout the region and continue to ensure that we join with the international community to speak with one voice to the government and the people of Libya.

 

And even as we are focused on the urgent situation in Libya, let me just say that our efforts continue to address the events taking place elsewhere, including how the international community can most effectively support the peaceful transition to democracy in both Tunisia and in Egypt.

 

So let me be clear. The change that is taking place across the region is being driven by the people of the region. This change doesn’t represent the work of the United States or any foreign power. It represents the aspirations of people who are seeking a better life.

 

As one Libyan said, “We just want to be able to live like human beings.” We just want to be able to live like human beings. It is the most basic of aspirations that is driving this change. And throughout this time of transition, the United States will continue to stand up for freedom, stand up for justice, and stand up for the dignity of all people.

 

Thank you very much.

 

END

[Tarheel]

Hi Adnan. I let Al Canuck know

your here. H e has some questions.

Take care.

[Guest Adnan Darwash]

Hi Adnan. I let Al Canuck know

your here. H e has some questions.

Take care.

 

Good to know that you are on this site. I read Thaqalin and Tarheel's comments. Hope to read your contribution soon in addition to your questions.

Adnan Darwash, Iraq Occupation Times

[Guest VOA]

In an hour-and-a-half long televised speech, the Libyan leader vowed he would not step down from power. However, he called for talks with Libyan rebels and NATO countries involved in airstrikes in the country.

 

Libyan rebels rejected his call for negotiations saying the time for compromise had passed. Rebels from the Transitional National Council said Gadhafi's government has lost all credibility.

 

Libya's conflict spilled beyond its borders Friday, as forces loyal to Gadhafi clashed with Tunisian soldiers after chasing rebel fighters across the frontier.

 

The incursion drew a sharp reaction from Tunisian authorities, who summoned Libya's ambassador to protest.