BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: GUEST,Pamwe
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 06:25 AM

How many of you heroes have put anything right?    Bigotry and ignorance are not qualifications.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 04:56 AM

Your regard for the British Government taking the views of the people concerned didn't seem to be all that evident whenever the Falklands was discussed.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Apr 04 - 04:47 PM

But perhaps I have more respect than Teribus for the possibility that the British government in that kind of situation might choose to have some regard for the wishes of the people involved, when realpolitic didn't make that impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Apr 04 - 01:41 PM

Based on what? Based on common sense about the way the world works.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: ard mhacha
Date: 02 Apr 04 - 12:35 PM

Gareth In your ignorance rave on, after all you take every statement from Blair as the truth, God help your wit.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Tiocfaidh
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 06:07 PM

Yes. British squaddies had a habit of doing that

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Gareth
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 06:02 PM

You must excuse Ard M - I gather (from his previous posts) that once upon a time a British "Squaddy" must have given him a nasty look and this has affected his judgement ever since.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Tiocfaidh
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 05:56 PM

Sure you could never make us subject to anything, Teri baby.
Isn't that what all the bawr was about in the first place?

What waves are you ruling these days, by the way?

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 11:56 AM

By all means Ard, please continue to run on fiction. It makes your posts and comments so quaintly "Oirish". I'll continue to rely on fact if it's all the same to you. MGOH can continue with his "if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle" nonsense.

Have fun over Easter, Oh favoured and fortunate subject of the Queen.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: ard mhacha
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 11:26 AM

Aye, McGrath trying to get through to yer man is like attempting to convert Pasiley to the Franciscans.
The citizens of Hong Kong told Chris Patten where to go when he arrived to tell them that the your mighty neighbours are taking over and there is damm all we can do about it, now had it been Argentina, Spain or Ireland , Chris wouldn`t have been going anywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Terry K
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 01:28 AM

Gaddafi is yet another victim of people's perceptions based on media misinformation. Maybe. Certainly from what I saw in the months I spent in Libya following the RCC takeover, the efforts were all aimed at dismantling the sytematic corruption that held Libya back under King Idris, and giving Libya back to the people. The nationalisation of BP (which happened while I was there) was only a part of that - and a positive part to boot. The burning of our flag at the British Embassy to celebrate the fact was a less positive aspect.

The essential thing is that a Gaddafi was needed. The good thing is that, of the RCC members, he was the best choice to be leader. What is less appreciated is that Gaddafi brought prosperity to a people who had previously been denied a share in the country's wealth, brought a new sense of pride and, lets face it, a stability since 1969 which could not possibly be foreseen by outsiders.

Maybe Libya had some (as yet unproven) dodgy contacts with terror groups. There is probably more evidence to connect the ANC and its much vaunted erstwhile leader to such activities.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 12:59 AM

MGOH,

Your "little reason to doubt" being based on what exactly?

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 02:59 PM

Hong Kong proper, and Kowloon, were not part of the New Territories, and theoretically had been ceded to Britain permanently.

There can be very little reason to doubt that, if the country next door had been some powerless third world state rather than China, some way would have been found to avoid handing over a population that on the whole did not in fact wish to be handed over.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 02:38 PM

Ard, you really should try taking a bit more water with what ever it is you are rendering yourself safe on.

A wee bit of history for you:

"In June 1898 the Second Convention of Beijing presented Britain with a 99 year lease for the New Territories, beginning 1 July 1898 and ending 1 July 1997."

Being extremely good tennants Ard, when the lease expired we threw a terrific party and left. Not a dry eye in the house, ask Chris Patton.

Unlike Hong Kong, Gibraltar, the Falklands and the North of Ireland are not held on leases.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: ard mhacha
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 01:04 PM

Aye , Right you are Teribus, if it would have been the Falklands, Gibralter or the wee sick six, they would have brought their brave squaddies out on to the streets.
When China said run they ran.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: DougR
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 11:56 AM

Gee, Stig, thanks for giving GWB the benefit of the doubt! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Stu
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 10:02 AM

Teribus,

"As to saving the culture of Tibet, that can only be done by Tibetans." Superb! I think you're playing devils advocate here Mr. T - but I'll rise to the bait. This is like saying the only way the Native Americans could keep their culture and tribal lands was by doing it themselves - and we all know what happened there, or the Jews could have saved themselves from the Holocaust etc. They don't actually have a choice in this matter.

As a race we have a collective resposibilty to keep our cutural diveristy, and cultures like Tibet need help every now and then, because not everyone with a big gun is right.

"Come on, that's a bit of a stretch isn't it" The Tibetans don't think so. Your following comment I would agree with.

Ard - "Might is right and always will be, pity the poor country that tries to save it`s culture with a gun pointing at it." Too true.

"Batman Bush and Robin Blair" - Bizarrely enough, Boy George has met and talked with the DL, as recently as last year, much to the disgust of the Chinese (which is what Tone is thinking about). One can hope his motives are that he wants to make the world a better place and fight injustice, but I believe it's more likely he wanted to needle the Chinese and let them know who's boss.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 07:18 AM

Ard Mhacha,

"...notice how when China said your time is up, Britain had to high-tail it out of Hong Kong."

Er, I think that had something to do with time of expiry of a lease.

Nothing whatsoever to do with a, "tyrannical regime", telling anybody to get out of anywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: ard mhacha
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 06:17 AM

Stigweard, Do you really believe that Blair would protest to China over Tibet, not much chance of that happening, it`s quite simple, unlike Iraq, China is a mighty nation, and they Do have many weapons of mass destruction.
What are the chances of Batman Bush and Robin Blair ridding the World of this tyrannical regime?, again no chance, notice how when China said your time is up, Britain had to high-tail it out of Hong Kong.
Might is right and always will be, pity the poor country that tries to save it`s culture with a gun pointing at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 12:45 PM

Stigweard,

Thanks for the recommendation of the book in your post - I will look it out.

When you say - "the Younghusband expedition was responsible for drawing China's attention to the strategic location and value of Tibet, and this event led to the eventual invasion by the People's Army."

Come on, that's a bit of a stretch isn't it. I believe that when Mao's boys went walk-about to expel the KMT, they would have quite happily have gone into a number of places on a more-or-less permanent basis.

As for - "So should we all give up and let the people with the biggest guns, most money etc run the show for their own ends?"

That's pretty much how the world has struggled along thus far, irrespective of culture or continent. Situations arise when things can be changed and things happen to improve the lot of mankind, sort of three steps forwards two steps back sort of routine, but progress is made (little steps again).

DL pays a visit to the UK and his PR agent? (Ms Carrick) requests a meeting with the Prime Minister, unfortunately over the period of the visit the PM is busy. Now, I'm sorry, but that seems fairly plausible to me, what's the problem? Has there been any statement to the fact that the current PM has vowed that the DL will never darken his door - don't think so.

The DL should be concentrating on talking to the Chinese, they are the ones he has to convince that such a province would pose no threat to them. The number of temporary world leaders he has visited previously will not sway the Chinese decision one way or another.

As to saving the culture of Tibet, that can only be done by Tibetans.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Stu
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 08:40 AM

Teribus,

"Your point?" was that the Younghusband expedition was responsible for drawing China's attention to the straegic location and value of Tibet, and this event led to the eventual invasion by the People's Army (though it's far more complicated that, but to illustrate British involvement in Tibet).

"It certainly does not suggest to me that the occupation, liberation? of Tibet is a peculiarly UK problem" and I would agree - it isn't, nor is the possible loss of any culture anywhere in the world. As for the UN, I think with China being a permanent member of the Security Council we can be sure the veto would be used, even if someone had the political will to table one.

"...go ask some of our fellow Europeans...etc" That's not the point here - I was more interested in what Tone wasn't doing about even meeting the DL.

"but then most things in life are neither right, or fair - Fact" So should we all give up and let the people with the biggest guns, most money etc run the show for their own ends?

"China about Tibet, ask them to tell China that they (the chinese) should withdraw from Tibet, pay stax in compensation and restore the country to it's previous glory" Not even the DL would accept that was over going to happen - how about an autonomous region within China where people can live the life they wish without state oppression?

Tibetan culture offers us an alternative to the current dominant human mindset, which has an emphasis on the material and not the fact humans simply want to be happy. Over 2000 years of intense study of the mind and inner well-being of humans could be lost and we can't afford that as a species, and it's a mark of our ability to act civilised as to whether we let it disappear forever.

For an introduction, try The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, by Soygal Rinpoche. you never know, you may like it!

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 07:12 AM

Stigweard,

So the sum total of the UK's involvement with Tibet dates back about 100 years ago, where the Younghusband incursion/expedition, call it what you will, suceeded in placing two trading agents in Lhasa - Your point?

It certainly does not suggest to me that the occupation, liberation? of Tibet is a peculiarly UK problem. As you rightly say - "..it was invaded.......and the UN has agreed the invasion was illegal." That was in 1950, so early days yet for the UN to have even thought about doing anything about it - you have to appreciate, they do have a bit of a back-log of work. Case in point - they recognised Israel as a sovereign state and guaranteed it's security in 1948, and that is still work in progress - be patient Stigweard, they'll get round to it - eventually. "According to our Tone, anywhere there is an injustice being perpetrated against a population by an oppressive regime it's in all our interests to act" - quite right Tone it is - The "all our interests" bit IS the UN, the international community as a whole.

Now, don't just take the UK, go ask some of our fellow Europeans, France and Germany for example. Alternatively, ask the Indians, the South Koreans or the Japanese. Tell them that they should have a chat to China about Tibet, ask them to tell China that they (the chinese) should withdraw from Tibet, pay stax in compensation and restore the country to it's previous glory. By all means ask them, I have a very good idea what their answers would be singularly, and collectively - might not be right, might not be fair, but then most things in life are neither right, or fair - Fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Stu
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 04:43 AM

Teribus,

Can I refer you to my post of 27 Mar 04 - 06:17 AM - the second link there will provide some background to the UK involvement in Tibet's past.

"It has been a province of PRC since 1950."

Because it was invaded - bit like Kuwait was by Iraq, Poland was by the Nazis and China was by the Japanese. Before that it was a soverign nation, and the UN has agreed the invasion was illegal.

"So what serves the best interests of the UK?"

Nice try! According to our Tone, anywhere there is an injustice being perpetrated against a population by an oppresive regeime it's in all our interests to act - or is that only when we get some sort of material gain?

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 09:14 AM

stigweard,

Simple question in relation to Chinese/Tibetan relations.

It has been a province of PRC since 1950

It clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with the current UK Government - So what serves the best interests of the UK?

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 07:04 AM

Your post GUEST,Tír Eoghain - 26 Mar 04 - 03:24 PM, regarding alternative activities might go some way to explaining the breakdown of the fatalities - provided in the link supplied by Guest GH - Deaths attributed to Nationalist/Republicans amount to just over 58%, because there were no ambulance drivers, doctors or nurses on duty because they were all out killing people - Yeah Right!!!

Sorry I missed the Ireland v Scotland game last Saturday, friends who watched it said it was one of the best games of this six-nations - well done Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 06:53 PM

There was an old story about Amin and a jigsaw puzzle...

Apparently he was in his 'study', accompanied by his advisors one day. He was trying to fit a piece of sky that he had in his hand in to a vacant space in the puzzle. No matter which way he rotated the piece, it was becoming obvious that it wasn't the correct one, and not wishing to criticise him too much, one of his advisors commented, "Perhaps, Excellency, it does not fit".
Whereupon, Amin took a large paperweight from the table, and hammered the piece of the jigsaw into place, shouting "I'll make it fit".....

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 06:35 PM

Since the thread is going all over the place, I remind people that Idia Amin was also responsible for playing the accordion. He learnt it as a British soldier, and wasn't too good, I believe. Otherwise maybe he'd have channelled his ambitions elsewhere, and become the kind of authoritarian squeezebox player you sometimes run into at sessions.

.....................

The evidence that Libya was responsible for Lockerbie is pretty shaky. There were other countries and organisations in the frame for it as well, but Libya was a bit more convenient than some of them. All very murky.

.....................

Also the suggestion that Libya has made big disarmamant concessions which weren't on offer already is a bit questionable. It's suggested that the Iraq war made Gaddaffi much more conciliatory - what seems to have happened is that it made Blair (and presumably Bush) more willing to accept the concessions already on offer. Suited everyone to cosy up in public at this time.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 06:03 PM

There do seem to be certain conflicting signals directed towards China, these days. On the one hand, there's stigweard's observation that the Dalai Lama is ignored, perhaps shunned, whereas Bush recently congratulated Taiwan's new incumbent President (who may not be so incumbent, as it is now looking) on his recent election.

China of course, is livid at this recent Bushism.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 01:38 PM

Stigweard - yes.




On a different tack, I found a nice quote above : -

"I think it's diffcult to reason with somebody who is intent on destroying your culture and occupying your country especially in the case of an authoritarian regeime with WMDs and a huge army."

It seems to apply in quite a number of situations.

Even, to my chagrin (since I am not an IRA supporter) Ireland.

And more if you redefine WMDs to include economic WMDs.




As to the shoes, Bliar (I like that coinage) usually seems to have a few cards up his sleeve. I wonder what the comeuppance will be.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Stu
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 03:38 AM

DougR -

I'm trying to point out (in my own clumsy way) the ethics of Blair meeting with Gaddaffi (lunatic and very dangerous), whilst he won't make time to meet the Dalai Lama, the leader of a people who are suffering terribly at the hands of a tyrannical regime.

If Blair is so concerned about human rights and righting wrongs, why doesn't he even acknowlege the DL?

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: GUEST,Tír Eoghain
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 01:34 PM

Teribus is probably in Landsdowne Road watching Scotland's ass getting kicked.

It would be nice if he was!

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: DougR
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 12:54 PM

I'm somewhat at a loss to see what Tibet has to do with Libya.

As to Gadaffi pointing his foot, big deal. Gadaffi may want to show his Arab friends that he is not Blair's buddy. I doubt Blair would invite him for cocktails at 10 Downing Street either, unless it was a formal diplomatic occasion. Friendship is not necessary so long as Libya gets rid of it's nuclear ambitions.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Stu
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 06:17 AM

Teribus - your normal fine debating ability seems to have deserted you in this case. Obviously distracted by the


Get Dalia Lama to talk to Chinese - first small step

Or, get the Chinese to talk to the Dalai Lama.

The Dalai Lama has been trying to talk to the Chinese for years, have a look here
for the latest installments on that. I think it's diffcult to reason with somebody who is intent on destroying your culture and occupying your country especially in the case of an authoritarian regeime with WMDs and a huge army.


fuck-all to do with UK

So eloquently put, and wrong. But, like Iraq, has a lot to do with the Britain, as a read of this
will tell you.

After having made our point to the Chinese what do we then do if they ignore it? - Not talk to them? Pretend they don't exist?

What, like your mates in NI do with each other? Doesn't work. Innocent people die (not good -remember?) Dialogue is the only way forward, and that is the point of getting the UK invoved.

Iraq + Oil = war + big contracts for western business.

Libya + Oil = grandstanding Prime Minister (who may, I accept, be right in this case) + big contracts for western business.

Tibet + Yaks = UK (led by Tone and cronies) stands idly by while only truly peaceful culture on earth destroyed + big contracts for western business in China (who we don't want to upset over the fate of a few Tibetans with vast untapped mineral desposits).

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 06:01 AM

From this morning's 'Daily Mirror''Cobblers To You Tony'

It's like everything else, I suppose. One believes what one wants to believe.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 06:55 PM

Good old Gadaffi.... Caught on camera exposing the sole of his foot to Blair.

No greater insult.....

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 05:38 PM

Wasn't there a Jazz musician once called Sanctimonius Fuck?

Oh, sorry.... I'm thinking of Thelonious Monk...

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: ard mhacha
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 04:12 PM

Gordon Highland why don`t you invite Gareth and Teribus to do a survey on the collusion between HM Forces and the Loyalist murder gangs, after all Gareth along with his Tory mate Cllr went on a wild goose chase to suss out personation in our fag end of the British Empire.
Teribus wouldn`t know a lot about the Claudia and the Eskund, but he may be able to inform us of the security force weapons that were used in the murder of Catholics.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: GUEST,Tír Eoghain
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 03:24 PM

What does a provo do when he's not being a provo, Bill?

Among other occupations, he/she is an ambulance driver, a fireman, a doctor, a nurse.

What does the Reservist, the UDR member, and many of your sort do when they finish duty?
Get pissed in the mess, go kill a Catholic or two, and claim responsibility in Billy Wright's name.
Why do they do this?
BECAUSE THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME!!
As you must well know

Are you thinking of cutlery that is used for slicing meat?
Or for just cutting the gristle off it?

Sanctimonius Fuck.......

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: DougR
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 01:56 PM

Gaddaffi got scared shitless he may be next on Bush's invasion list. He decided the better part of valor would be to scrap his nuclear program and join the side of the West. I would think all you peace loving folks would see this as a good sign!

Blair's visit to Libya was a positive step and, in my opinion, should be viewed as such. Former enemies later becoming allies is nothing new. While the "never changes it's spots" analogy may be true, the important thing is Libya will become less a threat to the world because of Gaddaffi's actions.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Spot
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 01:13 PM

Methinks leopards and gaddafi's never really change their spots!!! Dunno what Bliars playin at, either....I feel once gaddofis got some money into his country, he may well use it against us...Thanks again Bliar....Just my feelings.
Regards to all...Spot

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 12:32 PM

Question for you Ard - name me ONE member of any Nationalist/Republican paramilitary organisation who saved anybody's life?

By the bye Ard, I can tell you about the collusion between various Republican Groups and the British Army, when certain Republican/Nationalist wanted internal scores settled in a way that would provide the desired result, but look right - if yuh know what I mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 12:22 PM

Your first link - So the Prime Minister of the UK was busy? Has anybody said that he categorically would not see him? - Or has that just become fact because you and Ms Carrick THINK that?

Stigweard, ould son, the UN has ALWAYS only been a talking shop, there purely to serve the self-interests of its members - not its intended purpose I know but that is what it is in FACT. So the UN managed to pass three resolutions, which all seem to be repeats dating back from 1959, well it's only 2004, early days yet in terms of UN time. Interestingly enough, no resolutions at all from the British.

Make what point to the Chinese? That Tibet should be an independent country? Not even the Dalai Lama wants that (according to Ms Carrick). After having made our point to the Chinese what do we then do if they ignore it? - Not talk to them? Pretend they don't exist?

Get Dalia Lama to talk to Chinese - first small step - fuck-all to do with UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: ard mhacha
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 12:16 PM

At last I don`t believe it, a truthful squaddie, Gordon Highland tell the unenlightened some more of the collusion between the Brits and the Loyalist murder gangs, Gareth and Teribus never ever comment on this.
Judge Corys reports may unearth a nest of vipers,so tell Tony when he has stopped crawling up Omar`s ass, to get on with it, why the wait, surely he should have no worries.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Stu
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 11:42 AM

What should Tony do then?

Well, for starters he should meet with the Dalai Lama instead of making weak excuses for avoiding him - details. Remember, His Holiness is a geniune man of peace - a true believer in dialogue not bombs would be eager to meet a man of such experience.

The UN has done a fair bit, but as we all are aware these days, the UN is now little more than a gossip shop if the people with the biggest guns decide they're going to do what they want anyway. UN resolutions (and others passed in national parliments) on Tibet are available for viewing here.

When has our Tone been in a position to do something about Tibet?
All world leaders are in a position to do something about Tibet. Remember, it was under a 'Labour' government Tibet flags were confiscated from peaceful law-abiding protesters during the Chinese Premier's visit. Even making the point to the Chinese would be a start - George Bush meets with the Dalai Lama - Tone normally follows his lead.

As for the Libyan meeting, I think it is a move in the right directon, but he should have sent the man of Straw first and not gone himself -small steps!

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 10:59 AM

OK Stigweard,

What should out Tony do then?

Better still what has that august body, The United Nations, done about it. Seem to remember that Tone gets a bit of stick if he doesn't do what the UN, France, Germany, et al want him to do, or does things without them clearing it first.

When has our Tone been in a position to do something about Tibet?

Do you honestly expect any leader not to advance the chance of a peaceful solution to one diplomatic wrangle, just because he can't solve all the world's ills at the same time.

In answer to your question - Yes it is a way forward with regard to UK-Libyan relations, that being the case, it has no connection whatsoever to Tibet - Fair enough?

If you want to talk about Politicians and hypocracy - Pleeeeease it's been done to death.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Stu
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 10:39 AM

Oh well, it's nice to know the thread that I started to highlight the governments hipocrisy about the Tibet situation has degenerated into another slagging match about the monumental balls-up that is Northern Ireland.

Well, here's the news - it's wrong to kill innocent people whether you're a Provo, Loyalist, Al-Qaeda supporter, Fred West, Israeli conscript, Hamas bomber, a drunk driver, George and Tony by proxy or who the bloody hell ever.

In the end, everyone's going to have put their guns down and talk, just like the Dalai Lama's trying to do with the Chinese, with no support from Tony.

Free Tibet!

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 10:18 AM

Hi Jim,

Sorry about that misunderstanding, totally my fault, I should have made it clearer.

Watched CNN last night, the British father of one of the Lockerbie victims was fairly positive about this meeting, he seemed more pissed off at Michael Howard for jumping in immediately and criticising the visit on the grounds that it would offend the relatives/loved ones of those killed. The father being interviewed was of the opinion that if Howard was going to come out with a statement like that he should have contacted their association first before attempting to speak on their behalf. An interview with an American father who had lost his son on that flight was completely different, he just couldn't believe that anything like this could be allowed to happen. So it takes folks in different ways, even those closely involved.

The general Brit public? They were, I believe, 100% behind Blair when he took the steps necessary to bring about the Good Friday Agreement. Hopefully they will go along in a similar manner with this.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 09:42 AM

"The Loyalists bought weapons through Libya too -"

I know, Teribus. But your earlier way of assessing the situation: "US Courts and legal system played their part too in ensuring that the weapons continued to flow, resulting in the deaths of almost 3,500 people over the course of the 'troubles'", seemed to imply that it was these weapons that the US Courts and legal system ensured continued to flow, which resulted in the deaths of (over) 3500 people in the course of the troubles.

I'm sure you must know also, that The good Colonel actually gave the stuff away on occassion.

I'll be fairly interested to see how all of this pans out with the British public, though. We have been so entrenched against him for years, it will certainly be a PR coup if everybody swallows it.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 09:27 AM

Psst! Jim McCallan - 26 Mar 04 - 08:50 AM

The Loyalists bought weapons through Libya too - on one documented occasion representatives from both sides were in a hotel in Tripoli at exactly the same time doing their respective deals with the arms salesmen.

Gadaffi got disaffected with the NI scene quite early on, as did the PLO. The money to buy the arms came from America throughout.

According to link supplied by Guest G H:

Organisation responsible for the death puts out of 3523 deaths as follows:

Forces of Law & Order North & South - 10.45%

Loyalist Paramilitaries - 28.95%

Republican/Nationalist Paramilitaries - 58.33%

Unknown - 2.27%

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 08:50 AM

Geoff the Duck, just to put it into perspective Idi Amin was Sergeant in the Ugandan Army before Independence, not an officer - that came later, he was promoted/commissioned by Milton Obote.

ard mhacha - 25 Mar 04 - 12:54 PM

Just to refute some of your drivel,

Where exactly do I say that - "the IRA responsible for the deaths of 3500"?

From the, "Brit dirty tricks dept" - I receive lots and lots, a fantastically obscene amount of money Ard - every month, have done for years - and if you believe that you'll believe anything (which judging by some of the crap you come out with is just possible).

"...after all he was a squaddie (not true), armed to the teeth (on occasion), in a land he wasn`t welcome in (Not so: First tour - greatly welcomed by the those in the Catholic areas we were protecting; Second tour greatly welcomed by the greater majority of the community we were protecting from the indisrciminate bombings, maimings and killings being perpetrated by the paramilitaries of both sides)."

Question for you Ard - name me ONE member of any Nationalist/Republican paramilitary organisation who saved anybody's life? I don't count bombers or bomb-makers who managed to blow themselves up either constructing their bomb or in transit while delivering that bomb to its target.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 08:50 AM

I dont really know what other 'small steps ' Teribus is talking about, that supposedly complete this journey. Perhaps you could give us some examples of this.

As far as I see it, it is all over, including the shouting, and all that went before will be consigned to that bottomless wastepaper bin called 'The Past'.

And much as I detest the the blatant predjudice of that named guest above, I have to agree that (as an 'ex-squaddie' myself, who has served in the province), we and the 'Proddys' did account for a fair amount of that total in one way or another I'm sorry to say, Gareth, although at the same time I don't think anyone is seriously going to suggest that the IRA didn't kill anybody. Not even the statistics on that website that Guest G H directed us to, bear that out.

So in that, Teribus may also be right, in so far as we may have overstated Gaddaffi's significance in killing 3500 people in the troubles.

I concur with Amos, though. This is not an IRA thread, and although I would prefer not to see one, certainly start one if you think it is going to change any perception people already have of that quagmire, now also (thankfully) consigned to 'The Past'

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 03:58 PM

I seem to recall that Libya's main crime in the eyes of America was that it is a Socialist governed Dictatorship, and so is run by the same devil who controlled Fidel Castro and Kruschev.
potted history of modern Libya
Actually, the thing I find most opffensive is that Tony Blair is shaking the hand of a leader who brought in Socialist changes to his country. He nationalised the banks, oil production and the runninf=g of the country. Blair, on the other hand supports invasion of sovereign states, sucks up to capitalists and has sold our country down the river.
I know which leader I have more respect for.
GTD.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 03:37 PM

Idi Amin - let me see - educated and trained by the British Army. A family friend who had met him during that period said he was regarded as a good officer.
A one time workmate lived and worked in Libya during the 1980s. He regarded the way the Libyan government treated it's own people exemplary compared to most of the African and Arab dictatorships supported by successive British Governments.
Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: GUEST,Gordon Highland
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 03:05 PM

"that diplomacy can work, when suitably backed by the possibility of an undiplomatic solution." Gareth 25 Mar 04 - 01:17 PM

That worked the other way around in Northern Ireland

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 02:11 PM

I, You, He, She, We, They murdered whomever. Get over it. THere is not one nation state that has not been or is not now guilty of that crime. We need to move on.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Gareth
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 01:52 PM

Ard M Yet again you avoid the question

Ard Mhacha Are you attempting to say that the IRA did not murder people ?

Still at least this time the Libyans will not be supplying arms to the IRA murder machine.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: ard mhacha
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 01:23 PM

Read your friend Gordon Highlander and he will put you and Treibus right about the breakdown of the various murders, he may also give you an insight into the collusion that went on between the British Army and the Loyalist murder squads, resulting in the deaths of innocent Catholics.
To date the Cory report has not been made public by the Blair government, the learned Canadian Judge was disgusted at Blair for holding back on not releasing this information on the deaths of the two Lawyers Rosemary Nelson and Pat Finucane.
Gaddaffi and Blair will work out a nice nest-egg for some of the big companies in England and also supply Gaddaffi with the latest in killing machines.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Gareth
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 01:17 PM

Nice try !

I find the whiole thing sick.
Mind you - when was the last time President Gadaffi invaded another country against international laws and opinions?
Quack!

Leaving out border excursions to the East ie Egypt, those of us with longer memories will recall the overthrow of Idi Amin consequent upon Amins invasion of Tanzania, backed by Libyan Troops flown into Uganda.

IIRC the surviving Libyans were repatiated by the Tanzanians.

All of which miosses the main point, that diplomacy can work, when suitably backed by the possibility of an undiplomatic solution.

I am confident that 'Catters will recognize the criticism here of Blair for what it is, the triumph of prejudice over logic.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Amos
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 01:15 PM

Gentlemen, gentlemen: go to your corners and start a separate thread about who did what when and why.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Gareth
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 01:08 PM

Ard Mhacha Are you attempting to say that the IRA did not murder people ?

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: ard mhacha
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 12:54 PM

Teribus has the IRA responsible for the deaths of 3500 in the sick six, and does this nutter expect us to believe all the rest of the long-winded drivel he sends to the people on this Site.
It would be interesting to know how much he is getting from the Brit dirty tricks dept, after all he was a squaddie, armed to the teeth, in a land he wasn`t welcome in.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Stu
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 11:03 AM

Bang on, Amos.

The money is what's at stake here. oil in particular, as the western powers look for other suppliers for this finite natural resource.

Going back to my original post, if the Tibetans were sitting on vast reserves of hydrocarbons then perhaps Tone and Dubbya would be more interested in what's going on there.

As it happens, US and UK business already have access to the Chinese market (the fact a Grand Prix is being held in Shanghai was due to sponsor pressure) so as far as the western world is concerned, the oppressed people of Tibet can take a hike - they can't make money from them so their plight isn't worth fighting for.

I met the Dalai Lama's sister, Jetsun Pema once. The tale she told of what she saw when she went back as part of the Tibet Government-in-exile's fact finding mission was one of the most truly heart-rending things I've ever heard in my life.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Peace
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 10:58 AM

The difference between $2.00 whores and $1000 call girls is price.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Amos
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 10:50 AM

From FOrbes Magazine (an excerpt):

"LONDON, March 25 (Reuters) - British companies have secured an important toe-hold in Libya, seizing on improved relations to line up deals in energy and aviation, but the juiciest prizes in the oil-rich country are likely to go to U.S. firms.

To Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, whose country's most coveted asset is its oil and gas, the U.S. dollar speaks much louder than the British pound, oil industry experts said.

"Gaddafi knows the only game in town is Washington, so there'll be a big slice of Libyan oil for the Americans..," said Fred Halliday of the London School of Economics.

He said there was plenty of oil, gas and other business for Western firms, but added: "The United States is the power in the world, the only power with the ability to actually overthrow him, and the only power that might just achieve some of the things Gaddafi wants to see happen."

British Prime Minister Tony Blair shook hands with the West's old foe in Tripoli on Thursday. In doing so, he began to usher Libya out of the investment wilderness -- and into the arms of London-listed firms Royal Dutch/and BAE Systems ."

Seems a lot clearer when you follow the money, doesn't it?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 10:33 AM

Click here

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Amos
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 10:28 AM

Blair made it clear he was not forgetting the past but trying to move beyond it.

According to some arguments here we should not try to move beyond the past without subjecting it to intensive processes of trial. But Gaddafi's last year has been one of asserted and apparent reform, vboting to side with the West against Al Qeda and the various terrorist elements he now disavows. Looks good on the face of it, doesn't it?

Why does it feel like there's a lot being left untold about it?

For example, the Dutch Shell connection? Anyone know any more about that?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 10:11 AM

I find the whiole thing sick.
Mind you - when was the last time President Gadaffi invaded another country against international laws and opinions?
Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: GUEST,Gordon Highland
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 09:50 AM

3523, to be exact, and not all done by the Paddys
Between ourselves and the Proddies, we managed to knotch up quite a bit of that total, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: GUEST,Gordon Highland
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 09:17 AM

And I suppose it was those same 'Plastic Paddy's' who helped set off our own 11 Sept, in Lockerbie.

Where did the Claudia and the Eskund come from, then?
And Semtex?

Now we're going to supply him with arms and technology.

It seems Mr Blair can do no wrong in some peoples' eyes, and how quickly things change.
We'll be talking to Bin Laden next, I expect

When is a war criminal not a war criminal?
When we're kissing his ass, apparently.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 08:55 AM

Hear Hear Teribus, right on the button. Guest, Gordon Highland - listen to Stan Rogers' "House Of Orange", he was right on the button too.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 08:50 AM

GUEST,Gordon Highland - 25 Mar 04 - 08:15 AM

You appear to be somewhat confused, those who, "..supplied the IRA with arms for all those years", were those friendly Americans. NOT the American Government I hasten to add, just the Plastic Paddy's who cling on to their Celtic Roots out of pure love of the Ould Country. However, it must be said that the US Courts and legal system played their part too in ensuring that the weapons continued to flow, resulting in the deaths of almost 3,500 people over the course of the "troubles".

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: GUEST,Gordon Highland
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 08:46 AM

They didn't look to be enemies to me.

All forgiven, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 08:34 AM

You can't make peace talking to your friends, you make peace by talking to the enemy.
eric

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: GUEST,Gordon Highland
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 08:15 AM

I saw the pictures on Sky News today. Does it not fly in the face of all that is sacred that he sit down with the man who supplied the IRA with arms for all those years?

Dutch Shell seem to be doing very well out of it all, im any case.

Some things can be brushed away as if nothing ever happened, it would seem.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 07:09 AM

Stigweard - no, you spelt it CORRECTLY in the title.
:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 06:57 AM

Lots of small steps still complete the journey.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 06:51 AM

The have a lot in common.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Stu
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 06:46 AM

Sorry, I spelt Blair wring in the title.

Subject: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Stu
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 06:44 AM

Part of me thinks only when we sit down and talk to our opposites (however disdainful we may find that) will find a true understanding, so it's a good thing, but part knows Blair won't meet the Dalai Lama (whose country is oppressed by a undemocratic government that flouts human rights and possesses WMDs), and so this is a big dose of hypocrisy and he's grandstanding for the media.

Is this the way forward or is it a mistake?

stigWeard