Skip to comments.Libya: US accuses Britain of legitimising Gaddafi
Posted on 02/20/2011 11:55:44 PM PST by bruinbirdman
US government has accused Britain of legitimising the Gaddafi regime after the massacre of hundreds of pro-democracy demonstrators in Libya.
Louis Susman, the US ambassador to London, suggested moves to repair relations with the Libyan dictator had only served to give him "greater stature" on the world stage while campaigners condemned the rapprochement as a failure.
Mr Susman said: I would suggest that to deal with him, to give him greater stature, greater ability on the world front to look like he is a good citizen is a mistake.
Up to 300 demonstrators are thought to have been killed after forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi attacked them with sniper fire, knives, heavy artillery.
The eastern city of Benghazi was said to be in a state of civil mutiny after forces, believed to be African mercenaries, attacked crowds attending mass burials of the dead from earlier violence.
The unrest, which follows the overthrow of the rulers of neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt and protests in Bahrain, was reported to have spread to several other Libyan cities last night.
Downing Street said David Cameron was gravely concerned by reports of escalating violence and large numbers of civilian deaths. We condemn any use of force by the Libyan authorities against peaceful protesters. Such repression is unacceptable, counterproductive and wrong, said a statement. The Libyan government must listen to the views of its people and respond to them.
William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, voiced his concerns in a telephone call to Gaddafis British-educated son, Saif.
The world should not hesitate to condemn those actions," he said.
What Col Gaddafi should be doing is respecting basic human rights, and there is no sign of that in the dreadful response, the horrifying response, of the Libyan authorities to these protests.
The Libyan ambassador
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
What’s one more insult to our regrettably “former” friends across the pond?
Make it stop!
I bet the infestors of the White House are wondering why they didn’t get an invite to the biggest international social event of the past 40 years. The Royal wedding of Prince William.
I am certain they don’t get it at all.
They aren’t smart enough to get it.
Mr. Susman, sensing that his distraction statement did not have it’s full desired effect, then pointed wildly under a couch and exclaimed “Look at the size of that cat !”
Is that for real? God is good.
Obama’s silence on Libya is embarrassing and unsurprising.
I wonder what’s really going on with this story. I don’t get it.
Someone didn't get an invitation to the wedding.
Obama is history in the NOT making. What a fool...
Much concern by those who do care...price of oil shooting up with all this unrest...and fear Saudi Arabia uprising could really damage things worldwide. Not to mention the Muslim leaders now planning to merge their countries into one power block. This stuff is going to change many things and not for the good in the long run or short.
BTW Bengazi is now in the hands of the protesters and military...who joined them. Tripoli next.
“Someone didn’t get an invitation to the wedding.”
Oh, yeah...that completely slipped my mind.
“Thin-skinned”...why do those words keep popping up? ;o)
The Labor government of Gordon Brown made the deal with Libya to return the Lockerbee terrorist for oil, so the US does have a point.
Given the Obamas track record on gifts to Britain, Kate and William were afraid theirs would be ticking.
Exactly. Cameron needs to denounce it, but he can't because of the oil deal.
Let’s make something very clear in this thread:
It was not Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and the front bench who forced the rapprochement with Gaddafi.
It was British, British-American, American, Italian, Dutch, French, Spanish, Canadian, Swiss, Norwegian, German and Austrian energy interests, and the military and state intelligence apparatus of European and North American countries, that required the energy supply from Libya to keep the lights on in Western Europe.
Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown were but butlers running errands for these interests.
Nice timing on the accusation there, Louis. (face palm)
Total Amateur Hour at the WH.
That's right, but when Obama does it with his breed of terrorists, and marginalizes long-held allies, it's an act of benevolent genius.
Gadaffi was a horrible dictator internally, but we had more or less tamed him in terms of his foreign aspirations and in fact Bush had forced him to disarm to a great extent (or at least enough not to be a threat to us).
I did notice that a couple of voices here and there (from within Libya) have declared that the Islamists are involved and are pushing for sharia. Gadaffi was not a mullah but a bizarre, crazy Oriental potentate, with his snappy all-girl security force, mercenary armies, and costumes straight out of the wardrobe room of a really bad B movie. He did the usual amount of anti-Western raving, but he continued to sell oil.
There are certainly many of the protesters, particularly in one of the cities that has a fair amount of Western influence, who are not Islamists and genuinely want a modern secular state that is not a dictatorship. But I wouldn’t be surprised if the Islamists end up with the power here because they are the ones who have the most unified agenda and also because they are probably receiving foreign support. There is so little reporting coming out of there that it is really hard to know what’s happening or who are the players.
I think Obama is on the fence. It is well known that the US (under Obama) knew all about and approved the release of the Lockerbie bomber, and in many ways, Gaddafi (a good friend of Hugo Chavez) was Obama’s buddy. But I think Obama would also like to see a solid radical Islamist bloc there and I think that because of his weird climate fantasies and hatred of oil and the modern societies it powers he actually wants to see the supply disrupted and reduced.
He’s not saying anything because he really doesn’t have to. It’s a win-win for him. If Gadaffi or his sons stay, they’re sufficiently anti-American and will probably become even more so, and even perhaps become more Islamist in orientation; and if the Islamists take over, that’s one more step towards the caliphate.
The US shielded and supported IRA terrorists for a long time. So they don’t really have any moral right to bitch and moan about this. However, considering how many British citizens have been killed by Gaddafi’s regime (all those killed by IRA terrorists trained and supported by him, WPC Fletcher, the British passengers in the Lockerbie plane etc) the British government fundamentally betrayed its own people by supporting this douche, and that pisses me off more than what he did to American citizens...
Which means there was an ulterior motive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.