ChatterBank2 mins ago
Who's Next ?
40 Answers
Once Cameron has sorted out the little problem with Libya - we should encourage him , ( whils't he is on a roll ) , to head towards Syria .
Apparently there is also a little problem there, with one call a Mr Bashar al-Assad , that also needs his attention .
All those if favour - say Aye
Apparently there is also a little problem there, with one call a Mr Bashar al-Assad , that also needs his attention .
All those if favour - say Aye
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by BertiWooster. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"Moussa Koussa wouldn't be like the Iraqi source who told the USA and the UK what they wanted to hear, that Saddam had WMD? "
I have no idea, but where is the evidence to the contrary? i.e. that Gaddafi did NOT have anything to do with the Lockerbie bombing? As was suggested. Why would the USA and the UK necessarily want to hear that Gaddafi was responsible anyway? if it comes to evidence for a possible future trial I think there'll be plenty of Libyan victims willing to testify against him.
I have no idea, but where is the evidence to the contrary? i.e. that Gaddafi did NOT have anything to do with the Lockerbie bombing? As was suggested. Why would the USA and the UK necessarily want to hear that Gaddafi was responsible anyway? if it comes to evidence for a possible future trial I think there'll be plenty of Libyan victims willing to testify against him.
<<I don't think we are "friends" with groups who funded the IRA >>
We are friends with many influential individuals in the US who contributed to NorAid in the day.
Just as it suited people to do a deal with Gaddafi as long as he accepted the blame for certain events when pursuing other suspects was more difficult.
It's all Realpolitik isn't it?
We are friends with many influential individuals in the US who contributed to NorAid in the day.
Just as it suited people to do a deal with Gaddafi as long as he accepted the blame for certain events when pursuing other suspects was more difficult.
It's all Realpolitik isn't it?
A few years ago Colonel Gaddafi claimed that he wanted to rejoin the "international community" - realising he had more to gain by cosying up to world leaders than isolating himself by conniving with terrorists and gunrunners. The then PM Tony Blair embraced this change of heart, and was right to do so. Of course Gaddafi was still a gangster oppressing his own people (and still not averse to the odd international conspiracy or two). Realpolitik if you like. But imagine the outcry - and rightly so - if we'd "done an Iraq" and gone for regime change there. When gaddafi;s people finally turned on him we seized the chance to help them get rid of him, dressed up if you like as a crusade "to protect civilian life". I for one couldn't care less whart it was dressed up as. I don't see where the short-term political gain for Cameron lay in leading the charge against Gaddafi. Certainly not considerations of oil: had that been the case we'd have muscled in on the side of the "devil we knew" and propped up a dictator with whom we already had cosy deals for oil, etc. That would have been the tactic of certain other members of the UN security council. Why if I was that sort of person I'd be feeling jolly proud to be British today :-)
"During the Gulf War America shot down an Iranian passenger plane killing 290 people.
If I wanted to find the hand behind the Lockerbie incident I'd look to Iran. "
I'm confused there. The Gulf War postdates Lockerbie by a couple of years. Or are you suggesting that was America's revenge?
In 1986 American planes bombed Libya, and I think it's generally accepted that that incident influenced Gaddafi. I do';t know the ins and outs of the whole investigation, but I think we've at least established it was definitely the hand of Libya, but maybe someone knows something the rest of the world does not.
If I wanted to find the hand behind the Lockerbie incident I'd look to Iran. "
I'm confused there. The Gulf War postdates Lockerbie by a couple of years. Or are you suggesting that was America's revenge?
In 1986 American planes bombed Libya, and I think it's generally accepted that that incident influenced Gaddafi. I do';t know the ins and outs of the whole investigation, but I think we've at least established it was definitely the hand of Libya, but maybe someone knows something the rest of the world does not.
-- answer removed --
ichkeria
it may be the reference to Gulf War that confused you.
in fact the us shooting down of the iranian passenger plane was in July 1988 and the Lockerbie bombing december of that year - hence the hypothesis that it was revenge and whilst libya was the fall guy, the iranians were actually behind it.
it may be the reference to Gulf War that confused you.
in fact the us shooting down of the iranian passenger plane was in July 1988 and the Lockerbie bombing december of that year - hence the hypothesis that it was revenge and whilst libya was the fall guy, the iranians were actually behind it.
"If I wanted to find the hand behind the Lockerbie incident I'd look to Iran"
I think they did originally, then decided it was Syria, then Libya. The evidence never seemed entirely convincing, though I can no longer remember why. Gadaffi paid compensation as the price for getting back on friendly terms with the west; but in the world of realpolitik it didn't actually mean he or his country were guilty.
Assad trained at the Western Eye Hospital in Marylebone and married a nice girl from Acton. I think this means EU rules prevent us from overthrowing him.
I think they did originally, then decided it was Syria, then Libya. The evidence never seemed entirely convincing, though I can no longer remember why. Gadaffi paid compensation as the price for getting back on friendly terms with the west; but in the world of realpolitik it didn't actually mean he or his country were guilty.
Assad trained at the Western Eye Hospital in Marylebone and married a nice girl from Acton. I think this means EU rules prevent us from overthrowing him.
zeuhl // or just take partial quotes out of context for the hell of it? //
If you didn't want to be challenged on it you should have made it clear what you thought rather than hiding behind the word ' hypothesis'. Especially as it was discredited almost immediately . Also it appeared , in you opinion , Libya was innocent or using your term //the fall guy.//
If you didn't want to be challenged on it you should have made it clear what you thought rather than hiding behind the word ' hypothesis'. Especially as it was discredited almost immediately . Also it appeared , in you opinion , Libya was innocent or using your term //the fall guy.//
"in fact the us shooting down of the iranian passenger plane was in July 1988 and the Lockerbie bombing december of that year - hence the hypothesis that it was revenge and whilst libya was the fall guy, the iranians were actually behind it. "
Understood. I'm quite prepared to pin anything on Iran, but this incident isn't an unsolved crime, to my knowledge.
Understood. I'm quite prepared to pin anything on Iran, but this incident isn't an unsolved crime, to my knowledge.
