[What follows is the text of a press release dated 18 March from the Scottish Government. I post it simply to confirm to anxious readers that, notwithstanding fearsome computer and internet connection difficulties, a trip to Cape Town and a big function at Gannaga Lodge, this blog is still operational.]
Welcoming the agreement by the United Nations Security Council of a "no fly zone" in Libya in order to protect civilians - which imposes a "ban on all flights in Libyan airspace" except for aid planes, as well as other measures such as toughening up the arms embargo and widening of the asset freeze - First Minister Alex Salmond said:
"The fundamental principle of international intervention is that it must be done under the authority of a United Nations mandate, and therefore I welcome the agreement of a 'no fly zone' with the clear legal underpinning of a Security Council resolution.
"The resolution - which proposes a range of measures - is a lesson to the nay-sayers who have dismissed the UN and sought to undermine its authority at every turn. This agreement - which carries the support of the Arab League, as well as the wider international community - is a vindication of the ability of the UN to act."
Mr Salmond - who met with a committee of representatives of the Libyan community in Scotland at the Scottish Parliament on Wednesday - added:
"What is vital now is that military intervention delivers the objective of securing the welfare and saving lives of innocent civilians - which is now extremely urgent - that there are agreed aims, and that there is a clear exit strategy."
Just heard that the Arab League are saying they only wanted a no-fly zone, not bombs.
ReplyDeleteFickle Arabs sitting on fence want it both ways. LOL!
I telt you - you cannot trust them.
We should have let them sort it out themselves instead of risking our young peoples' lives.
I echo their words Blogiston. Where in the words "no fly zone" do you see the intention to bombard Libya? Where are words "regime change"? They are nowhere. I don't think they want it both ways. I think they wanted a no fly zone.
ReplyDeleteAs for Salmond: aid planes? Would those be the ones carrying the missiles?
Did you hear Cameron today saying how "the people of Lockerbie know what Gaddafi is capable of"?
There goes another drunk Scot fumbling in the international limelight. This is way above your pay grade, Mr. Salmond. But here are a couple things you can do: (1) Pay attention to the Scottish schooling system, so future Scots grow up knowing the difference between being an Arab and being a Muslim. And include some remedial lessons for people like blogiston. (2) Do not prostitute your instruments of governance to the agents of murderous bastards like Muammar Gaddafi. If your government were careful about that, you would not have had to resort to such measures as disabling the JFM petition on the ground of some "irregularities" encountered by your servers. (3) Discourage marriage and sexual activities for Scottish women so that zealots like Jo would not be disqualified from joining Gaddafi's brigades of Revolutionary Nuns. (4) Related to previous item: Get your government's health insurance to cover sex-change operations for Scottish males. (5) Do something to respond to Saif Gaddafi's recent ridiculing of Scotland when he asserted his military readiness by facetiously asking his supporters to "Imagine the Queen sending us some Scottish soldiers in their skirts! ha ha ha."
ReplyDelete"Discourage marriage and sexual activities for Scottish women so that zealots like Jo would not be disqualified from joining Gaddafi's brigades of Revolutionary Nuns."
ReplyDeleteHilarious Suliman. I laughed right out loud at that here.
Sulkiman: I know the difference between Arabs and Muslims - the same as the difference between Israelis and Jews when it comes to making a right pig's ass of your countries. I even know the different kind of Muslims: Sunniis and Shiiites.
ReplyDeleteI can tell you're not a Sunnii - coz your comments resemble the other type.
blogistan,
ReplyDeletePlease explain further your comment.
'I can tell you're not a Sunnii - coz your comments resemble the other type.'
Could you give me an example of the two different types of comments?
I'm going to save Suliman's comment about me. I'm still laughing!
ReplyDeleteRuth: Oh, uh...I was being facetious!
ReplyDeleteFacetious: Being facetious is when you say something you think is funny, but NOBODY laughs. So then you have to say "Oh, uh...I was being facetious".
Oops! Arab League now right off message on Operation El Dorado Canyon II. Not happy campers (literally).
ReplyDeleteThey didn't realise we were going to start firing our new toy at their cousins, the Storm Shadow bunker buster manufactured by MBDA (you know, the company that Blair introduced to Gaddafi?).
I must say that I am surprised that some friendly fire has not yet intruded on the al-Megrahi household. But there again, I imagine that the planners know that as Mr al-Megrahi himself is "being chauffeured around Tripoli in a Lamborghini", according to Douglas Alexander, he is a much more challenging target.
ReplyDeleteQuincey R.: I can see you have the same healthy amount of cynicism that I have for this operation.
ReplyDeleteThe US/British pretext for this war on Gaddafi is that Libya sabotaged Pan Am Flight 103 of 21 December 1988. The French pretext is Libya's bombing of UTA772 of 19 September 1989.
ReplyDeleteExcept that the FBI's Thomas Thurman fabricated the evidence against Libya in respect of both PA103 and UTA772. Iran and the PFLP-GC were in fact responsible for these two atrocities (see French investigative journalist Pierre Péan and Private Eye's 'Fragment of the Imagination').
So the real reason for this war in Libya is, as George Galloway says, an oil grab by Britain, France and America!
This article in Jadaliyya is a fairly disinterested analysis of the current Western adventure in Libya. Worth reading, I think, despite being written before UN1973 was passed.
ReplyDeleteJo G: My pleasure! :-)
ReplyDeleteI have another gift for you. [And everyone who thinks I am a Shiite fundamentalist lunatic, with allies who are simultaneuously: al-Qaeda agents, Crusading colonists, and trippig on Tramadol...]
This is a poem by Khaled Mattawa, a Libyan-American professor of creative writing at... "that school up north."
I hope it will help you understand a little more about the humanity of Libyans.
Now That We Have Tasted The Hope
Dear Blogistan,
ReplyDeleteIndeed, positively basking in the stuff. Clearly the pair of us are blessed by belonging to a generation when a free prescription for the stuff was issued with every UK passport.
Much like yourself, I am sure, I find it has been invaluable in helping me to deal with the belligerent, opportunistic and duplicitous standards of moral conduct so entirely alien to the British character but yet such common currency amongst these blackguards who hail from foreign parts.
Oh my! I got a smile from Suliman!
ReplyDeleteNever mind what some loony in a far off land is doing, shouldn't the US and UK make sure it's own behaviour is beyond reproach first. Or perhaps the African nations can 'intervene' when they suspect them of certain transgressions.
ReplyDeleteYou know, say, like the arming, financing and providing political support to the apartheid regime in South Africa throughout the 1970's and 80's. Perhaps when collusion between the UK security services and paramilitaries in Northern Ireland was uncovered or with the brutal suppression of it's own citizens, denial of votes and murderous actions on civil rights, they can 'intervene', yes? What about falsely convicting an innocent man and a nations people for the biggest terrorist attack on UK soil?
Or perhaps we should get some Iraqis who had their children blown apart in front of their eyes during our illegal invasion to come over and kill Tony Blair, Alistair Campbell and George Bush eh? Let's go murder Mugabi! Woo let's assassinate Ahmejinadhad! Slaughter the Saudi Royal family! (ohh are they our bad men? Its so hard to keep up)
The US, UK, and their pliant drones, are indulging in the usual smug, self congratulatory fantasy about how great and moral they are, and it just plays right into the hands of their own war mongers, thieves and liars.
Echoing what Eddie said about UK support for the apartheid regime, I'm sure that Nelson Mandela's South Africa would never have voted in favour of military intervention in Libya under the guise of UNSCR 1973 (2011).
ReplyDeleteMandela has always been very grateful to Gaddafi for supporting the ANC against the West's oppression throughout those terrible apartheid years.
What's the betting that President Mandela would have voted against resolution 1973 rather than simply abstaining?
I agree with you, Patrick, that Mandela would have voted against because Mandela is an unprincipled schmuck. If that asshole had any principles, he would have stood in support of Libyan political prisoners not in support of the criminal Gaddafi. Mandela, the ass, knew that Libyan opposition to Apartheid preceded Gaddafi, but the idiot thinks Gaddafi was paying from his own pocket. When the idiot Mandela visited Libya, of course he did nothing for the cause of freedom of Libyans. He should have demanded to visit Abu Salim prison. He should have visited the Libyan political prisoner Ahmed Zubair Senussi, who was jailed for 31 years, including 17 years in solitary confinement. He is now a member of the Transitional National Council.
ReplyDeleteMandela ended his career as a politician. In politics, you are as good as your last game. For Libyans, Mandela's last game was a disgrace. The good news is, there is more to South Africa than that ingrate Mandela.
Suliman, AY-YAY-YAY! What kind of Arab are you, using the Yiddisher word 'schmuck'?
ReplyDeleteYou must have gone native.
Blogiston: I guess, I'm the kind of Arab who uses the Yiddish word schmuck. I don't get the reference to going native. In America, this acquired word is widely used, and borrowing is quite common in languages. I learned from reading this blog about the British expression "dizzy bint," which is an example of British double-edged efficiency, being simultaneously sexist and xenophobic.
ReplyDeleteNelson Mandela must be very disappointed with the anti-African Union stance adopted by the current South African President Jacob Zuma in relation to UNSCR 1973.
ReplyDelete"There had been much doubt about how African members of the Security Council would vote, especially given the AU resolution opposing a no-fly zone over Libya. This AU resolution in theory would oblige the three African Security Council members to vote against UNSCR 1973.
"But South Africa's President Jacob Zuma earlier this week indeed made it clear he was favouring the protesters.
'Exile, torture, jail or even killing did not succeed to stop the masses of South Africa from demanding their freedom and cannot succeed anywhere else. The recently erupted and massive protests happened because people were tired of autocratic governments which had been there for a long time,' President Zuma said."
Clearly, had South Africa voted against UNSCR 1973 - as Mandela would undoubtedly have insisted upon - the UN resolution could not have been approved.
Dizzy bint is slightly more disparaging than 'blonde' but less so than 'bitch' - so it is sexist. I don't believe in common usage it is xenophobic, and am certain people who use it have no idea of its supposed Arabic derivation.
ReplyDelete"Shouldn't the US and UK make sure it's own behaviour is beyond reproach first?"
ReplyDeleteEddie, was that a serious question? Since when did the US and UK ever consider its own conduct before they did anything? It isn't required.
Suliman.....wow you sound so American!
I don't suppose there will be a no-fly zone over Israel proposed by Hague/Cameron after Israel murdered (by mortar) innocent kids playing football in Gaza today?
ReplyDeleteSome in the Middle East are above condemnation it seems, no matter what they do.
Of course, technically South Africa doesn't have a Security Council veto.
ReplyDeleteHowever, an SA vote against UNSCR 1973 would undoubtedly have caused further abstentions, and might even have triggered a veto by China and/or Russia.
Yes, Suliman, you've learned a great deal in America, clearly.
ReplyDelete