- Current Latest Page
- All Contents of Site – Index
- New blog – The Feral Press
- Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here
Or – Tweet this post
28th October 2011
Debating with tweeps who defend Gaddafi’s killer
Forget the sodomist for now (see here if you can’t forget)
But before the tweepery – a song … “All you need is love – da da ra da ra…”
“I shot Gaddafi” – says “the boy with the golden gun”
Hang on a minute – “I shot Gaddafi”– says this man –
Above full video at LiveLeak
Oh, hang on – hang on a bit longer! Just noticed this –
You know something? I could write a song about this. “The Man Who Shot Colonel Gaddafi” has a certain ring to it, don’t you think?
After sorting that out (?!) – who shot the “mad dog” dictator of Libya – I’ll get back to where I started.
I had an interesting chat on Twitter on Friday afternoon about Gaddafi’s death.
Let me get a few things clear on my position right from the start.
- I am no fan of Gaddafi’s.
- I have no time for dictatorships; none whatsoever.
- I have deep sympathy for ALL who were mistreated, killed, injured or damaged under Gaddafi’s rule.
- I am a humanitarian interventionist.
I sincerely wish, though I am not all that hopeful, that the new Libya will find itself in a far better place now that Gaddafi has gone. At the same time I am mindful that not everyone felt they had suffered under his 42-year regime (see this video. Yes I know it’s propaganda, anti-west and all the rest but I notice that Libya looked not so bad not that long ago. And no-one forced passers-by to come out and cheer him.)
NOTHING QUESTIONED OUR VALUES WITH SUCH URGENT IMPACT THAN…
THE MANNER OF GADDAFI’S “GOING” AND OUR REACTION TO IT
Little about this historic week has concerned me as much as how Gaddafi met his bloody end. In that concern I seem to be in a minority. We seem to have become immune to such horrors played out as they often are before our very eyes. We have become values-vacant comparative moralists. And worse, we have barely noticed the transformation.
Twisters of fact, truth and human rights – often anti-interventionist so-called liberals – have in reality few if any concerns regarding the universality of human rights. You will notice this writ large even from the conversation I had at twitter some of which is pasted below. But there is much more to confirm their confused values where that came from, believe me.
The twitter conversation started with my responding to a tweet which had mentioned Amnesty International critically. This is it –
I read and noted the response to the above from Amnesty International, which was –
I tweeted this back –
Note that my concern here in a 140-character-limited tweet was how the international community has behaved. It is not by any means the only thing that concerns me, though the British media have been all but mute in (lack of) outcry as have most British MPs as they watched, like the rest of us, Gaddafi’s bloody ending. We should also note that it didn’t take the “protectors of the Libyan people” – Britain, France, USA and others under the NATO/UNSC mandate long to get the hell out of there. They are off on Monday even though the Libyan NTC has asked them to stay. Job done. Or so it would seem.
I see backs protecting backs, but not necessarily Libyan backs.
This is an example of how the twitter conversation went later on in the chat stream.
DID THE TWEEPS SUPPORTING THE GADDAFI KILLER(S) LIE or what?
DO THEY HAVE THEIR OWN ‘TRUTH’ TO DEFEND?
Throughout this chat I was repeatedly informed by some – at least one of whom is a Libyan – that the “boy” who did this – (and they seemed to have no concerns about the man who sodomized Gaddafi) – was a “boy” whose actions should be understood. Not one of my chatty friends raised any doubt that it was a 17 year-old killer, therefore, presumably below the age of criminal responsibility in Libya. There was a repeated contention that this “boy” was the victim, not the man who died, bloodied, sexually abused and shot in the brain. Perhaps the videos at the top of this page will cast light (or even questions) on their alibi.
I do not find it easy to conclude that my co-tweeps were unaware that others had also claimed to have killed Gaddafi. Their argument, if they were aware, tells of an agenda which is so utterly reprehensible as to be almost unreal.
Their argument, possibly based on a false ‘underage’ premise, went like this:
- the killer was just a boy. If he’d been a few months older, it would have been different (?)
- he had been brutalised himself under Gaddafi’s rule
- he may have seen countless merciless murders, of family or friends
- his “revenge” was justifiable
All very well and understandable. Except that notwithstanding the possibility that the ‘boy’ was not the killer, it raises umpteen questions.
Knowing that the “rebels” were a ragtag bunch of testosterone-laden hyper males (seen any females involved in this revolution?) why did the Libya NTC and/or the NATO-led alliance seem to will the ends without limiting the means?
As regulars here will likely know I have never been convinced about the rightness of the Libyan intervention. Forgive me my scepticism but I have yet to be persuaded that it had much to do with protecting the Libyan people. I still see it as David Cameron wishing to show that he could do international humanitarian intervention “legally”, in comparison to Tony Blair who some still contend participated in the Iraq intervention “illegally”. To contrast and compare – note that Blair kept to the task in hand in Iraq despite its almost complete destruction of his political authority, even integrity. That was press-inspired destruction of course.
There is much more that I could write on the press’s take on Gaddafi’s
death murder and our reaction to it. I may do so. But PLEASE – we cannot “do” human rights selectively. As with defending the rights of all to freedom of speech we MUST defend the rights of all humans to humane treatment.
If human rights are to mean anything at all they must apply to all people. No exceptions. Otherwise Amnesty UK might as well pack up and forget it. They need have few fears. Other organisations will soon pop up to protect such as Binyam Mohammed. We already have so-called Liberty, specifically intended to speak up for many who would do us harm.
But all leaders, politicians and those who put themselves in the political firing line WILL have fears in the unlikely circumstance of Amnesty’s demise.
“If only Tony Balir[sic] was with Gaddafi at the time !
The world would have been cleansed of two evils ! “
Also note that that comment had 24 ‘recommends’.
And some wonder why I do this blogging in support of Blair
Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here
I am staggered by all the hate directed towards our former Prime Minister. I believe that Tony Blair made the Iraq decision in good faith and is most certainly NOT a war criminal. If anyone should be tried at the Hague it should be those in the media for totally misrepresenting the information and facts. The media are to blame for fuelling this hatred as it is purely driven by them. (UK)
- Colonel Gaddafi’s blood is on our hands and leaves a stain on our decency (mirror.co.uk)
- Libya to try Gaddafi’s killers (vanguardngr.com)
- Libya:Gaddafi’s killing may be a war crime (laaska.wordpress.com)
- Gaddafi’s family to sue NATO (revolutionizingawareness.com)