|
20 Dec 03 - 08:49 PM (#1077091) Subject: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: akenaton Big news today...Gadaffi offers to give up all WMDs....Bush and Blair Rush to use this as justification for strong arm tactics in Iraq. Seems a lot of scullduggery has gone on behind the scenes,but who stands to gain most,and how does it affect the "war on terror" In my opinion,things have moved on and WMDs are of no real value to the terrorists..Economic terrorism is the future...Ake |
|
21 Dec 03 - 12:42 AM (#1077187) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: Little Hawk WMDs are mainly of value to large military organizations, I think, which means: national armies. If Quaddafi is getting rid of his efforts in that direction, he's smart. They could only get him in serious trouble at some point. Yes, economic and communications media terrorism would seem like the most effective way for smaller, unofficial cadres to attack large national powers, I would think...but there is always the possibility of a wild card when it comes to that sort of thing. 911 was a wild card, and also was a strike on financial power in America as well as on important national symbols or icons. It was an attempt (so far successful) to start a world war between 2 civilizations. (I don't believe for one moment that it was an attack on "democracy" or "freedom". That's facile propaganda talk, designed to get people all worked up over a nonexistant issue. They had enough to get worked up about regardless, I'd say.) WMDs? 911 required nothing more sophisticated than boxcutters and some well-trained people who were willing to die. Quadaffi is looking to survive, and WMDs would do him no good anyhow. - LH |
|
21 Dec 03 - 02:16 AM (#1077218) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: DonMeixner 911 was an attack on Americans in America. It was an attempt to kill as many Americans as possible in a very dramatic manner. It was wholesale murder. I don't believe it was an act of war or a blow against democracy. I do believe they knew what they were doing and that the effect on the economy of the nation would be devastating for some time to come. Otherwise why attack buildings that housed so many varied financial institutions. The Statue of Liberty is certainly more symbolic and an easier target. Quadaffi has a long way to go to even begin to make up for Lockerby. Many of those people killed on that plane were from Syracuse University in the city where I work. I know there is a fine line between one persons terrorist and anothers freedom fighter but I think that distinction is clear in this case. Don |
|
21 Dec 03 - 01:39 PM (#1077261) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: akenaton I dont think anyone would disagree that these poeople are terrorists Don,but In their eyes they are doing what they must to preserve their culture,religion and history. As I said in another thread ,this seems to be one occasion when the weak have the means to defeat the powerful.I mean by attacking our economy. I suppose its the old adage of "the end justifies the means" ...In Islamic eyes...Ake |
|
21 Dec 03 - 01:49 PM (#1077267) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: McGrath of Harlow Saddam gets rid of his Weapons of Mass Destruction, but is cagey about letting people know for sure, and he gets invaded. Gaddaffi announces he's getting rid of his, and suddenly he's everyone's friend. I suppose the thing is, Saddam was shy about owning up, in case his opponents at home took advantage of the fact he wasn't in a position to gas them any more, whereas Gaddaffi is probably well-liked enough at home not to worry too much about that kind of thing. |
|
21 Dec 03 - 04:22 PM (#1077391) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: GUEST,boab Sorry--but I mustpoint at possibilities again! I'm afraid that after the monstrous procession of lies ---lies which were meant---and succeeded in some cases---to "justify" an illegal attack on Iraq, I am never again about to give credence to any statement emanating from either Westminster or the White House unless absolute proof is laid before the World. An economic embargo was in place againstLibyafor mny years, and was causing serious economic hardship. The concession by Gadaffi that Lybia would accept liability for the consequences of the Lockerbie bombing was therefore forthcoming under duress, and is consequently "suspect" --as such a concession would be in any court of law in a civilised society. I am not convinced that the person imprisoned in Scotland as the direct perpetrator of the outrage is the guilty party, nor am I convinced fully that Lybia had any part in the planning or the completion of the act. My suspicions my well be misplaced---but in view of the proven record of prevarication and deceit of those who now crow in a kind of grotesque triumph---Blair, Straw, Bush et al--I cannot accept that anything they now say has any perfect relationship to the truth. National "confessions" and "reforms" have been forced under duress from individuals and nations before, and not too far in the past, at that. Think about the economic blockade of Venezuala, which succeeded, and the similar economic blackmail of Cuba, which hasn't [yet ]succeeded. I am very pleased to see the re-emergence of Lybia into the international society of trading nations.but only if Lybia indeed did NOT have a hand in the Lockerbie atrocity. If on the other hand, Lybia DID have some part to play in recent terrorist acts, and the gang of proven liars truly KNOW that they did, we can now add to their dossier of lies the proof of monumental hypocrisy. Why mke an example of Hussein on one hand, and welcome Gadaffi , whom they accuse of atrocities every bit as heinous as the Iraqi dictator's, into their circle of trading partners, on the other? Any answers? |
|
21 Dec 03 - 04:34 PM (#1077401) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: DonMeixner Interstingly, to me anyway, I wrongly spelled Lockerbie and am more concerned about that than I am debating whether there is any defense of the terrorism of Quadaffi or Hussein or anyone who murders from hiding no matter what the cause or the goal. Don |
|
21 Dec 03 - 05:39 PM (#1077446) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: McGrath of Harlow My understanding is there's at least as much evidence pointing to Syria as to Libya on that, but it was important at the crucial point to mend a few fences with Syria because of how things were going with Iraq at that time, and putting Libya in the frame made a lot of practical sense. And the evidence against the two guys tried was pretty shaky, and no stronger against the convicted one than the acquitted one. The impression seems that Gadaffi preferred to work through intermediaries, as exemplified by his practical help for the IRA. The thing is, we're on the outside, it's all speculation. Which is why we should never get too heated about this kind of stuff. Thirty years down the road, if we are still around, maybe we'd get a clearer picture of the truth of what has been going on. General reaction seems to be that people didn't think of Libya as having anything significant in the way of Weapons of Mass Destruction. |
|
21 Dec 03 - 06:18 PM (#1077460) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: Little Hawk Boab - Your posts would be easier to read, and therefore more effective, if you would throw in a few paragraph breaks here and there by hitting the "enter" key. That's my suggestion. - LH |
|
21 Dec 03 - 06:38 PM (#1077467) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: akenaton Right from the start of the"War on terror",Iv been sceptical of the whole WMD scenario. What "rogue state" would use such weapons ,knowing annihilation would swiftly follow. Likwise WMDs would be useless to any terrorist group,given that this would mean engaging the enemy head on. The only reason I can see, to have WMDS,is as a bargaining counter to improve a states trading position. It could be argued that this tactic has actually been created by the "war on terror". To my mind the"War on terror" is simply another way of signaling a fullscale attack on the Islamic culture,as it dosnt fit in with the Wests' plans for Global capitalism...Ake |
|
21 Dec 03 - 07:30 PM (#1077499) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: Gareth Ake - Negotiating counters they may be but it only requires one idiot to misinterpret thier orders/authority ........!!!! "And we'll all go together .... Suggest you read that classic Neville Shute novel "On the Beach" Gareth |
|
22 Dec 03 - 12:48 AM (#1077634) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: Teribus Guest Boab: "Why mke an example of Hussein on one hand, and welcome Gadaffi , whom they accuse of atrocities every bit as heinous as the Iraqi dictator's, into their circle of trading partners, on the other? Any answers?" The answer to that is fairly simple, the former after having agreed to rid his country of the ability to threaten his neighbours and terrorise his own population reneged on the deal, having been given every opportunity to disarm in a manner that could be verified by the international community. The latter has made a statement of intent to the international community and declared his country's willingness to have that process of disarmament verified - I believe South Africa did the same and achieved that successfully. Akenaton: Among a minority contributing to this forum, I beleive that the "War on Terrorism", and the recent war in Iraq, were totally justifiable. The former has improved international co-operation to an extent that terrorist groups find it increasingly difficult to acquire and use such weapons. That does not mean that they won't, it does not mean that they will give up trying, so the guard stays up. As to your scepticism of the "War on Terror". No "rogue state" unless out of their tiny minds would USE such weapons, but it is quite possible that they could supply such weapons. As you have have stated the deterrent to "rogue states" using such weapons was the direct consequences to themselves - this they fully realised after Afghanistan. Subsequent to Afghanistan and Iraq, we have North korea being led to regional multilateral talks on their nuclear programme, Iran agreeing to co-operate completely with the IAEA and the UN and the declaration from Lybia to rid itself of it's WMD. WMD's as bargaining counters - North Korea has tried to play that card in the past, it has been trying to play it recently and has so far failed to do so because it's neighbours simply do not trust anything that the leadership in North Korea says. The US does not have to worry about any North Korean threat - if North Korea ever even remotely looked like following through on any of them, China would take measures to prevent them. There is not, nor has there ever been, any implied attack, fullscale, or otherwise on Islamic culture. Many Islamic states are under more threat from these terrorists than are the countries of the West. So economic terrorism is the future is it? Just how do "they" go about doing it Akenaton? It's not as easy as you appear to think it is - and it's a damn sight more traceable. |
|
22 Dec 03 - 12:45 PM (#1077824) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: GUEST,Boab Teribus---...."the answer to that is fairly simple...." Yes---quite so, if we all believed as you seem to, that Saddam did have "weapons of mass destruction". He obviously didn't. [Though I do suspect that there is still some backroom scheming going on to try to come up with something like "proof" that he did.] Suppose----if in some admittedly fantastic scenario, there had been Iraqi armies approaching the suburbs of New York. Would George Bush hesitate for one single moment to unleash HIS weapons of mass destruction in defence of the capital of the USA? Or would he persist in the assertion that he had none? You know the answer to that one! So what evidence is there to make any thinking person believe that Saddam would have hesitated? LITTLE HAWK---- I am working presently with an unfamiliar and extremely "sticky" keyboard. I think I can claim to be a much better user of format---and the English language---than my recent contributions have indicated. The opinions have expressed----well, I must [reluctantly!] concede the right of others around to contradict those, if they see fit!!! :-)!! |
|
22 Dec 03 - 12:51 PM (#1077826) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: Keith A of Hertford . "Likwise WMDs would be useless to any terrorist group,given that this would mean engaging the enemy head on" Akenaton, remeber the 9/11 perpetraters' interest in crop spray aircraft? What do you think they had in mind? It has become more difficult to hijack planes. Much easier to disperse anthrax, smallpox, radionucleides, nerve agent, ricin etc. |
|
22 Dec 03 - 01:04 PM (#1077837) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: McGrath of Harlow Easier to disperse, possibly, but harder to obtain in the quantities and form needed to disperse. I get the distinct impression that while security on airliners may be more noticeable there are still gaps quite big enough for trouble to get through. What is different is that, in the wake of September 11, the likelihood of getting planeloads of people sitting still while they are hijacked is very greatly reduced. When it was just a question of putting up with a few hours delay in reaching the destination, trying to overcome hijackers would just have been stupid - a high chance of getting yourself and others killed, and also a fair chance of bringing about a crash which wouldn't have happened otherwise. But after the Two Towers and the Pentagon, things are a bit different. But I'm still pretty sure that unconventional use of relatively small killing mechanisms are much more likely that WMDs. Maybe not box cutters next time, but very likely something like car bombs in carefully targeted places. |
|
22 Dec 03 - 01:20 PM (#1077851) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: akenaton At last...were all starting to look at the future and terrorism, in an alternative manner. Not how our Governments are encouraging us to think.Theres hope for you all yet!!! Well done. Ake. |
|
22 Dec 03 - 01:46 PM (#1077877) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: GUEST,Frank I think Quadaffi wants to go into the oil business. The reason that he is the "good guy" now is that he is willing to play ball with this business interest. Saddam was not. Somehow, the US seems to be getting in bed with dictators and although the Bush Administration preaches democracy in other lands, it seems to keep supporting repressive regimes. Only when the supported dictators get out of hand, then are they censured. It has a feeling of an Appalachian mafia meeting. Frank |
|
22 Dec 03 - 02:29 PM (#1077906) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: Don Firth Terrorists don't need weapons of mass destruction. The "weapons" are right there, in the midst of a large number of targets. A recent TV news magazine (60 Minutes, if I recall correctly) sent a reporter and camera crew to a number of chemical plants located near or in the midst of population centers in the United States to investigate matters of security. In instance after instance, they were able to walk through unguarded gates or doors into these chemical plants, walk right up to large, often clearly labeled storage tanks containing highly toxic chemicals, stand there for several minutes while the reporter talked at the camera, then walk back out again—without being challenged. It would have been an idiot-simple matter for someone to place plastic explosive and a timer on one or a number of these storage tanks and simply walk out. On one occasion, a security guard walked up to them as they were leaving after having been in the area for nearly half an hour and asked them who they were and what they were doing there. Remember December 1984, the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India? 16,000 dead and thousands more still suffering the after-effects. And don't think that the terrorists don't know all about this. Don Firth |
|
22 Dec 03 - 06:20 PM (#1078017) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: akenaton Terribus....In answer to your point about Iraq failing to disarm,I can remember very well,several members of the Saddam regime,telling anyone who was prepared to listen that they had no WMDs.These statements were branded as lies by our politicians.Iraq even Started to destroy weapons which were arguably within permitted limits. Robin Cook ,a member of Blairs cabinet ,said on TV,and in the House that he was sure Saddam had no WMDs ,in the accepted sense. Blix said, given time, the wholesubject could be concluded peacefully,but the decision for War had been taken long before. What we must realise ,when dicussing Islamic Fundamentalism,is that Islam is more than a religion,it is an historic culture and a way of life. Given the strength of the clergy and the deeply held beliefs of the people,Westernisation will take very many generations,not the quick fix that the Globalists expect ,and usually get.This is what makes Islam such a "pain in the arse " for capitalism. I dont suppose Lybia has much in the way ofWMDs,but Gadaffi will play the cards he has ,to his best advantage. Lybia is a perfect example of the "bargaining counter" tactic I spoke of in an earlier message. Even though the West will welcome Gadaffi back into the "fold",he is still the "desert fox" and who knows what he really thinks ,or does. Most Islamic states who are under threat by terrorists ,are seen by them as puppet states, and treated as such,driving another wedge between the West and Islam. As to "economic terrorism",the Western economies are fragile,depending on confidence in a relatively trouble free future. A small amount of terrorist activity,as out lined by myself in a previous thread,would be enough to dispell that confidence,panic and paranoia would do the rest. The most interesting thing in all this ,as far as i am concerned would be the attitude of we on the left. After decades of working for the destruction of Capitalism,would we change our stance (left hypocrisy),and try to save our comfortable lifestyle....Ake |
|
22 Dec 03 - 07:39 PM (#1078059) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: Gareth Why NoT Ake, armchair revolutionaries, are a sad fact of life. The late Alex Glascow summed it up ! :- I should have done it yesterday, But then I had a cold, But now I've had a drink or two, I'am feeling rather bold ! As soon as this pub closes, As Soon as this pub closes, As Soon as this pub closes, The Revelution starts !!" Gareth (in cynical Mode !) |
|
22 Dec 03 - 07:48 PM (#1078067) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: akenaton |
|
22 Dec 03 - 10:40 PM (#1078149) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: DougR The world benefits, my friend, the whole world. DougR |
|
23 Dec 03 - 05:41 AM (#1078292) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: akenaton Doug...If the shitheap of greed and ignorance which we inhabit seems to you a benefit,then I cannot agree.Although I think all attempts at political organisation are ultimately bad for us.The old cultures like Islam,contain some basic truths and should not be swept away to make a new place for humans to exploit one another..Ake |
|
23 Dec 03 - 05:44 AM (#1078294) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: Hrothgar The everlasting cynic sticks up his head. The Lybians' decision to give up their weapons of mass destruction implies that they don't have many of them. Now, who was it a couple of hundred years ago who said something along the lines of "The recent decision of the Quakers of Pennsylvania to liberate their slaves indicates that they have very few slaves." Maybe Adan Smith? |
|
23 Dec 03 - 06:41 AM (#1078317) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: akenaton Hrothgar....The number of WMDs is not important,In my opinion states like Lybia no longer see it in their interests to keep these weapons. This does not make them less dangerous to the West ,but more so. Gadaffi is a very shrewd man ,and his hatered of the West is Great ,having lost members of his family to American bombing. As has been explained in earlier messages ,It only takes a few determined people to cause great damage.WMDs are no longer needed. We are being fooled by our politicians. |
|
23 Dec 03 - 09:20 AM (#1078396) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: McGrath of Harlow Now if a country that really does have a lot of WMDs were to join in, that'd really be something. The United Kingdom? Israel? The encouraging thing about this is that the White House and Number 10 seem to be all in favour of this, rather than coming out with loud cries of "We know the man's a liar", accompanied by threats of war to look for the WMDs Gadaffi says he's got rid of (or to stop any arms inspectors in case they discover he's speaking the truth). I hope this new approach to such matters is an indication Bush will be willing also to take Iran off that "evil axis" wish list of countries to invade... However, here's a reminder from Amnesty that, while Gadaffi's Libya hasn't been in the Saddam's Iraq league when it comes to human rights abuses, it's got some nasty stuff in the cupboard - Libya: Time to break the 10-year silence on Mansour al-Kikhiya. |
|
23 Dec 03 - 12:42 PM (#1078569) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: GUEST,petr there may be some good ideas in Islam, in fact a 1000 years ago it was the most advanced civilization, but lost that advantage a couple hundred years ago - Lets face it when Napoleon landed in Egypt he swept aside huge armies gathered to face him, and it wasnt until another western country (a few ships led by Nelson) was able to dislodge the french. I think one of the reasons the Islamic world really fell behind is the system of corruption, and treatment and position of women in their culture. Im sure that the extreme Islamists are humiliated by the past colonialism of the west (most people in the west dont even know the Balfour declaration, or Sykes-Picot agreement but there everyone knows it) but in a recent interview on tv. one arabic speaker summed up the attitude towards the west by saying if you were to set up to recruitment booths -- one for Alqaeda and one for US Visas, 90% would go to the US visa booths, even though they hate the west they are also envious of it. looking at Saudi Arabia, the locals are so dependent on oil economy, (instead of encouraging education and a diversified economy - most of the high level work is done by westerners, and the cheap labour by other foreign nationals while bored young men sit in coffee bars talking revolution) and they export it. One of the East african embassy bombers came from a poor region where the wahhabists set up a mosque and started preaching anti-western propaganda. OBL, (Osama) talked about the legitimacy of killing american civilians - but what about muslim americans? And its not just America thats targeted. There were Alqaeda bombings in France and a shootout in Belgium that was clearly linked to the cell in Canada (Ahmed Ressam the millenium bomber caught at the US border) the shit heap of ignorance is mostly post such as akenatons. |
|
23 Dec 03 - 07:10 PM (#1078842) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: akenaton Guest...I see very little sign of ignorance on Mudcat--A veritable oasis ,if youll pardon the expression. A place where most of us can air our different ideas,without resort to ,or fear of personal abuse. |
|
23 Dec 03 - 07:36 PM (#1078864) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: Gareth Hmmm ! The problem might be the very small percentage who vist the Al-Quiada booth, then go to join the que to get thier American visa/Green Card. Gareth |
|
23 Dec 03 - 08:07 PM (#1078892) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: akenaton Dead right Gareth... "damn clever these Chinese" Best wishes..Ake |
|
23 Dec 03 - 08:18 PM (#1078900) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: akenaton GUEST...Just a few words from my historical hero,which might be of assistance to you in future posts. True wisdom is less presuming than folly. The wise mandoubteth often,and changeth his mind; the fool is obstinate,and doubteth not; he knoweth all things but his own ignorance" AKHENATON 1400 BC |
|
30 Dec 03 - 06:51 PM (#1082773) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: GUEST,petr then take his advice, you're the one who said we live in a shit heap of ignorance (the implication being that yours is the only correct view) |
|
31 Dec 03 - 02:08 PM (#1083327) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: McGrath of Harlow I can't see how what akenaton said there in any way carries "the implication being that (his) is the only correct view". It just doesn't carry any such implication - I can't follow ptr's logic there at all. |
|
31 Dec 03 - 03:28 PM (#1083375) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: GUEST,Frank As I understand it, negotiations with Ghadaffi were started during the Clinton administration. They were continued during W. Bush's time. Lybia has oil. Need we say more? Teribus says "The answer to that is fairly simple, the former after having agreed to rid his country of the ability to threaten his neighbours and terrorise his own population reneged on the deal, having been given every opportunity to disarm in a manner that could be verified by the international community. The latter has made a statement of intent to the international community and declared his country's willingness to have that process of disarmament verified - I believe South Africa did the same and achieved that successfully." Why should the US trust Ghadaffi any more than Hussein? South Africa was for many years an unwilling participant in wanting to abandon it's anti-democratic practices of apartheid. It was only after world pressure prevailed that is was forced to change its policy. As to disarmament, it becomes clear that strategic nuclear strikes or even tactical ones become irrelevant when biological weapons can be developed more economically and quickly. Or even hi-jacking airliners. (a cheaper terrorist option). The WMD quest is a red-herring when smaller, leaner more efficient ways to terrorize are available. Didn't we see this in the USSR when that country backrupted itself in the development of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons? It wasn't cost efficient. Can we trust Ghadaffi to do anything? It's a cat and mouse game with another terrorist. Does anyone believe that he wasn't behind the Lockerbie crime? Or are we still subscribing to the policy of "plausible deniability"? Frank |
|
31 Dec 03 - 10:10 PM (#1083636) Subject: RE: BS: Gadaffi ...Desert Fox? From: akenaton Guest..... I fear you have the wrong end of the stick ,regarding my posted opinions.I can assure you that I am one of the last people in Mudcat,who would be dogmatic. As I live in an isolated area, I havnt been able to enjoy much of an exchange of views up till now. Im still having fun reading all the differing perspectives,from the heady heights of McGrath and Little Hawk ,right down through the stratas to the bottomfeeders ,Doug R and Claymore. I treat everyone with respect,even some who would seem undeserving. Ake |