 |
|
dannubis
|
 |
Ghent
Apr 2002 time: 06:34
|
|
and we must all love the great leader...
gadaffi is a good man now
dictator, (ex?)-terrorist, guilty of 275 deaths and god knows how many more, ...
musharaf is a good man now
dictator, one of the few to recognise the taliban as the official governement of afghanistan, leader of the only fundamentalist country in the world that actually has WMD, exporting this technology to other sh!tholes ...
pekka is right on this one. let him give everything he knows, let him open his country, let him give up his power, and then let him be tried for the murder of 275 people.
and fez, why is what osama did so much worse than what gadaffi did ? because he attacked the us ? because your confortable little home was soiled ?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Giancarlo
|
 |
Los Angeles
Apr 2000 time: 02:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by dannubis
and we must all love the great leader...
gadaffi is a good man now
dictator, (ex?)-terrorist, guilty of 275 deaths and god knows how many more, ...
musharaf is a good man now
dictator, one of the few to recognise the taliban as the official governement of afghanistan, leader of the only fundamentalist country in the world that actually has WMD, exporting this technology to other sh!tholes ...
pekka is right on this one. let him give everything he knows, let him open his country, let him give up his power, and then let him be tried for the murder of 275 people.
and fez, why is what osama did so much worse than what gadaffi did ? because he attacked the us ? because your confortable little home was soiled ? |
Please, mr moron provide new arguments. Gadafi did a lot of bad. But if we get him to come clean that is better than having him go off on the Kim Jong Il road.. but of course communists like you want that for your political agenda in criticizing George W. Bush. By the way Musharraf is not fundamentalist... he is a stablizing factor in the country and overthrew a completely corrupt government. There is still corruption and most inquires have found scientists selling the technology without the Pakistani governments notice.
And learn how to spell. What the hell does this mean: "because your confortable little home was soiled ?"
No offense but some of you are really full of yourselves. Bah.. who cares what you think anyways. Not like you can direct anything in this world.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002 time: 07:34
|
|
And before you say anything, I point out that I left a way out of this, if you agree that he should step down, be caught and tried. That way, we deal with terrorism same way everywhere.
Anything else, leaving him in power and not even saying anything about it, is well.. leaving a terrorist in power. Leaving a terrorist in power elsewhere and attacking them elsewhere can't be anything else except.. double standards.
I don't major in International Relations or anything like that, but if it teaches you anywhere to negotiate with terrorists, I'd say ask your money back pronto.
and letting Gaddafi live is a big prize granted to him every single morning he wakes up by the West.
Last edited by Pekka on 26-03-2004 at 15:52
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
I must admit, I am a little surprised.
When Gadaffi first came to power, he was actually a rather liberal leader. I have friends who lived there at the time and they said they had no problems despite being European - that Gadaffi actually appeared socialist, trying to help the poor and such. Obviously I don't know if this is true, whether my friends had a true picture of what was going on, but this is how it seemed to them while living there.
The claim is that Gadaffi only turned to terrorism when he realised that he couldn't fight the multinationals who were robbing the Libyan people of thier wealth. So maybe this change is really a step back to what he was before.
Do any of you know of anything to support or destroy this pov?
On the other hand, I am very suspicious. If the Americans had killed my 8 year old daughter (was she 8? - I can't recall) I would stop at nothing for revenge (even though I know it is wrong too). I certainly wouldn't be shaking the hands of western leaders. So maybe he is up to something....
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Cruddy
|
|
Well... I'm cautiously optimistic about this.
It's been a long haul since Lockerbie - but it seems that Libya is heading in the right direction.
Wouldn't be at all surprised if Gaddafi gets knocked off and a new Islamic revolution happened - but maybe that would have happened anyway if Libya stayed isolated.
As for getting justice for Yvonne Fletcher - I doubt it. There's this little thing called diplomatic immunity that covers all embassy wrongdoing.
There's also a conspiracy theory that the fatal shot wasn't fired from there - but that's mostly based on rumour rather than facts.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
The Mad Viking
|
 |
of the Great White North
Feb 2000 time: 05:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Pekka
Cerberus, I never claimed anything else, except that if we decide to really negotiate with Gaddafi, it's not what the talks about the terrorism were and still are. 'you are either with us, or against us'. It's pretty simple in this case. If we negotiate with Gaddafi, this is gone with the wind. Yes?
What ever happened in the history of negotiations I'm not even referring to. I'm referring to what is happening now and what is said to be done to terrorism. So I'm not the one wearing the stetson, I'm pointing out double standards. |
Last time I checked, the US was holding regular talks with Arafat.
Ariel Sharon committed terrorist acts when he was a young man.
You have to learn the difference between rhetoric and realpolitik.
If you want peace you must have understanding.
If you want any level understanding or Arabic nations, you must understand the culture and the rhetoric. You must appear strong, you must talk tough, or you cannot lead.
Qadaffi's rhetoric, like many arab leaders, has always been much more bark than bite.
Bush is given to major rhetoric, and 'you are either with us, or against us' is a prime example. Not even the chickenhawks are that black and white.
The whole negotiate with terrorists is a chicken and egg argument.
You say never negotiate with a terrorist.
I say, show me a terrorist, and I'll show you someone the powers that be have refused to negotiate with.
You cannot win a war with terrorists. These people have legitimate issues, and are willing to die for them. We have BMWs, and are willing to ***** about gas prices.
They don't want to be terrorists. But their situation is being totally ignored unless they engage in terror acts.
It is not a question of right or wrong. Really. Do you want them to stop? Or not?
Talk.
Don't kill.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002 time: 07:34
|
|
Mad Viking, what the hell was this all about?
Seriously, are you trying to tell me not to take everything literally? Are you trying to tell me to learn realpolitik and and rhetorics? When have I ever said anything else! I said these are double standards! Listen, you can have all the terms and words going and flying around, it doesn't change the fact that this is double standards.
I never denied listening Gaddafi. I denied being his allie. There's a difference right there, like it says in the topic, I answered NEVER.
So, because of realpolitiks and rhetorics, this is not doublestandard? yeah right. I know rhetorics is mostly bullshit, but we have a serious problem here if these things go down, we have a problem of hypocricy and doing the other thing and saying the other thing. You can't cover the double standard issue saying it was rhetorics. Everyone knows it was exactly that. The difference is, you can't use the rhetorics when it suits you and do the other thing when it works better and say 'hey I'm doing what I said'.
Yes, terrorist are poor people who are oppressed and have no other choices, because we are robbing them with our greed so we can drive your BWS's. I feel bad for them already *tear*.
And hell yes it's a question of right and wrong. If you start being allies with Gaddafi, it's not right. I'm not saying you shouldn't have relations to Libya.
I said never negotiate with a terrorists, let me be more accurate by what I meant. Never bribe a terrorist and never be extorted by a terrorist, never agree to pay terrorist anything in exchange for something. Because the cycle continues, and it never stops..
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34. Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|