Double Speaking Diplomats – What really happened anyway?


A crater, which the Libyan government said was caused by coalition air strikes on the General Assembly, is seen at an area in Tripoli. (File Photo)
 The claim that Muammar Qaddafi’s three grandchildren were killed in an airstrike conducted by NATO late Saturday is not true, an Al Arabiya source has revealed.

It is not always easy to understand political posturing, but that may be the purpose, to confuse everyone.   Yesterday Gaddafi offered a cease-fire to the UN, it was rejected out of hand – no demands, nothing, just a rejection; actually they did answer, with bombs.  What is the UN asking Libya to do?  Or on the other hand, was Gaddafi posturing, trying to buy time waiting for the viagra to work its magic with his troops?  Whatever the case, the UN was not buying it and charged straight at him and his family in their personal compounds –  apparently by definition a military target.

Gaddafi fired back with the only weapon at his disposal, the media; he announced to the world that his youngest son and three of his grandchildren had been killed in the bombing.  Journalists were given a tour of the bombed-out villa and subjected to an angry and sarcastic tirade suggesting that the bombing demonstrated clearly that protecting citizens was not the mission of the UN.   The Arab press is skeptical, almost, but not quite, accusing Gaddafi of making up the deaths, if not everyone at least of the children to gain sympathy.   Who did what to whom and why?  See what I mean about posturing?  Both sides are playing a game, neither is telling the complete truth and both want two things, to confuse the other and to gain support for their side.

In any case both the UN and Great Britain thought they needed to retaliate diplomatically for Gaddafi’s failures to protect them. The UN has announced it is moving its officials currently residing in Tripoli out of the area for their safety; Britain went one step further, expelling the Libyan ambassador from England because the government of Libya failed to protect the British embassy (unoccupied) from demonstrators angry because of the bombing and other destructive forces – you know like bombs falling out of the sky.

Oh, on another subject, twice this week I have implied that it is safe and secure to demonstrate in the streets of any western country, while demonstrates take their lives in their own hands when the go in the streets in the Middle East.  I was just getting carried away with enthusiasm for the pageantry of the royal wedding; within the last century all of the major western powers (as well as those in the former Eastern Block and Asia) have used force against unruly demonstrators (their own citizens), both arresting and killing demonstrators.  In the United States it has happened over race, over union organization, over war and over political campaigns.  The truth is simple, when threatened all governments protect themselves (not their citizens) with the use of force and violence, while universally blaming other countries and governments for doing the same.

Advertisements

0 Responses to “Double Speaking Diplomats – What really happened anyway?”



  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Disclaimer

This is a personal blog and the information in articles posted here represents my personal views. It does not necessarily represent the views of people, institutions or organizations that I may or may not be related with, and is not sponsored or endorsed by them unless stated explicitly. Comments and other public postings are the sole responsibility of their authors, and I shall not take any responsibility and liability for any libel or litigation that results from information written in or as a direct result of information written in a comment. All trademarks, copyrights, and registered names used or cited by this website are the property of their respective owners. I am not responsible for the contents or the reliability of any articles excerpted herein or linked websites and do not necessarily endorse the views expressed within them. I cannot guarantee that these links will work all of the time and have no control over the availability of the linked pages.

Pages


%d bloggers like this: