Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Gadaffi is quite something isn't he?

38 replies

LadyBlaBlah · 28/02/2011 22:04

He seems a little barking................he thinks he is 'loved by all his people" and had seen no protests.

They are gonna have to drag him kicking and screaming. It's gonna be messy !

And he does have the world's smallest eyes

OP posts:
said · 28/02/2011 22:06

Ha ha = was just about to add my inane observation about his tiny eyes

meditrina · 28/02/2011 22:09

Any Middle Eastern experts around? I've been wondering why the last administration had a big rapprochement with him in 2004 (?). He was a pariah before - what changed?

kreecherlivesupstairs · 01/03/2011 08:21

My best prediction is he will be assasinated. He is truly barking along with his sons.

Abr1de · 01/03/2011 08:24

Is a card.

Meditrina--he had some terrible weapons. Whatever the rights and wrongs of getting closer to him it made us and a lot of other countries safer. He toned down his behaviour (to the rest of the world, at least).

Ooopsadaisy · 01/03/2011 08:30

One word - Lockerbie.

BadgersPaws · 01/03/2011 09:55

"Meditrina--he had some terrible weapons"

No he didn't, he had been working to try and make "terrible weapons" but he hadn't actually made any. In particular they'd been trying to make nuclear weapons without success since the 1960s.

So Libya admitted to and dropped expensive research which hadn't produced any results in over 40 years (compared to the US, UK and Canadian Manhattan project which gave results in 3 years).

The West got to claim that this was a major coup, had a good reason to drop the sanctions and could then make deals to access Libyan oil.

So was it about "terrible weapons", which over 40 years of research hadn't produced, or oil?

mousymouse · 01/03/2011 10:00

if it wasn't so sad it would be funny... :(

nikki1978 · 01/03/2011 10:02

Can I ask what is actually wrong with his face? No-one seems to know the answer to this...

meditrina · 01/03/2011 10:07

I didn't think we were particularly accurate in assessments of who had WMD.

And the UK rapprochement with Libya seems to have gone a long way.

IIRC, Ghadaffi let Libyans suffer under sanctions for many years, so I doubt that route would bring much pressure on him. What can happen?

Ryoko · 01/03/2011 11:05

Ooopsadaisy may I remind you that Lockerbie was a revenge attack after the deaths of 290 people on the Iran Air Flight 655, which the media conveniently never bother to mention even tho the US never even so much as apologised for it.

Isn't it great the way the media encourages the people to have a selective memory about historical events to ensure no opposition to government actions.

Every story has two sides.

MirandaGoshawk · 01/03/2011 11:10

Ryoko, can you enlighten us about that? Was it Iran Air flying out of Libya? What happened, and why do you think Gaddafi thought retaliation was needed?

Ryoko · 01/03/2011 11:25

Google is your friend

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

He is Gaddafi no one knows what he's thinking, not even him.

MirandaGoshawk · 01/03/2011 11:34

I'll have a look - thanks.

Motherfunster · 01/03/2011 11:42

Gadaffi's face has had 'work' done i recon.chesty blond nurse probs injects him with botox over his boiled egg in the mornning.
Wonder what idiot sold the box of frogs a pile of mustsrd gas though.

Ryoko · 01/03/2011 11:53

Probably us, you can be as mad as a hatter as long as you have oil you are our friend.

The thing about him saying he is loved by his people and not seeing any protesters. that is understandable you have to try and see it from his view point and not take his words literally.

His people are his supporters of which there are still a few, he thinks the protesters are all terrorists he's claimed they are everything from Al Qaeda, to American spys. you have to remember the guy is paranoid to the max among other things.

BadgersPaws · 01/03/2011 12:57

"may I remind you that Lockerbie was a revenge attack after the deaths of 290 people on the Iran Air Flight 655"

That's a theory, and a controversial one at that, not a fact.

If Libya was behind the bombing a far more likely motivation was the military run ins with the United States in the Gulf of Sidra which culminated in the bombing of Libya. An aim of that bombing was to kill Gadaffi, he survived but his wife and an adopted child were killed.

However there are plenty of other theories as to who was behind Lockerbie, including Iran, who would have been motivated by the shooting down of flight 655.

Ooopsadaisy · 01/03/2011 12:59

Ryoko.

Oh - that's ok then. It was revenge. No probs. Of course Lockerbie's death toll was only 270, so that's ok too. Nice bloke. Loving him now.

This thread was about Gadaffi and that is what I have responded to.

Abr1de · 01/03/2011 15:51

'make no mistake, the Libyan program was very serious and we?re glad it?s stopped... '

David Albright, former nuclear inspector and current head of the Institute for Science and International Security

BadgersPaws · 01/03/2011 16:07

"David Albright, former nuclear inspector and current head of the Institute for Science and International Security"

And he followed up that statement with this one : "The problem from our point of view is that the White House, which basically organized the briefing, is so focused on claiming credit that it's willing to exaggerate"

The Libyan Nuclear program was exaggerated by the White House to make it seem like a bigger victory than it was.

Yes they were serious (40 years and pots of money went into the program).

But no they weren't getting the results that you'd expect from 40 years of effort, pots of money and (alleged) assistance from other nations. Something was going very badly wrong with the program somewhere.

So Libya wasn't to bothered about giving it up, they would save a fortune and get back into the international club.

The US was chuffed to bits to have a nation give up their nuclear program (only the second nation to ever do this?) and to then be able to strike oil deals with them. I'll let you decide which of those two points was more important to them...

QueenBathsheba · 01/03/2011 18:48

Tony Blair was happy to cosy up to Gadaffi because of oil. Now it turns out he's still cosy with him because JP Morgan are paying him £2 million a year.

Seems strange that a few months ago we were selling him tear gas and ammunition now we impose an arms embargo because he dared to use them to put down the uprising. You didn't expect the Americans to sell him the latest technology that they use to put down rioters and demonstations. Microwave and sound machines that harm people, not fatally, but still using millitary force.

Cameron "he has used Millitary force" are we silly enough to think that England and America have never used millitary force on inocents.

The people of Libya are not rioting because they want Uncle Sam to come and give them Mcdonalds and free elections, they are rioting because of their abysmal living condtions. The same living conditions that we were prepared to ignore when Blair made deals with him.
They are all hypocrits.

Abr1de · 01/03/2011 21:08

'The US was chuffed to bits to have a nation give up their nuclear program (only the second nation to ever do this?) and to then be able to strike oil deals with them. I'll let you decide which of those two points was more important to them...'

I'm not actually too interested in the US view of thing. People giving up awful weapons is surely a good thing, no?

Whatever you say about England and America (perhaps you mean Britain, rather than England?) they haven't actually threatened their own populations with gas. That's been a benefit of living under Saddam Hussein or Hitler, to date. Even Mussolini 'only' gassed people outside Italian borders.

Ryoko · 01/03/2011 23:18

QueenBathsheba Damn right.

Abr1de what about the spreading of toxins in London and other cities in secret experiments on how germ warfare could spread?.

they did that without even asking how are we to know they are not still doing that.

QueenBathsheba · 01/03/2011 23:54

Ryoko, thank you.

Microwave tech and these high pitched ear piercing machines were used at the G20 summits on the crowds, all american produced I believe.

If Uncle Sam wanted Gadaffi to have the means of keeping control of Libya whilst not inflicting death upon it's citizens they might have shared these arms with him but they didn't.

huddspur · 02/03/2011 00:16

I think its very hard to be critical of Blair with regards to Libya. Gaddafi with nuclear weapons would be a frightening prospect and so entering into talks to encourage him to give them up/ stop developing them were needed. The business regarding oil is more dubious and whether we should have sold him arms is an altogether different issue.

QueenBathsheba · 02/03/2011 00:35

I personally think his actions have been more dubious since leaving office. Although it does seem strange that the corespondence between him and Bush can not be made public for an enquiry into the Iraq war, because Blair knows that contained within, is something that will almost certainly put him in the dock for war crimes.