Libyan massacre that should shame Blair
By Daily Mail Comment
Last updated at 1:47 AM on 21st February 2011
Blood on his hands? Tony Blair struck a deal with Colonel Gaddafi in 2004 when he was prime minister
Seven years ago Tony Blair shocked Britain and the U.S. by travelling to Libya and publicly shaking hands with the blood-soaked dictator Muammar Gaddafi.
Even at the time, few could believe the then prime minister was cosying up to this ruthless tyrant who had been directly responsible for the deaths of so many innocent British and American people.
Today, as the scale of the massacres in eastern Libya is laid bare, that symbolic handshake and the sinister diplomatic machinations that followed it look even more contemptible.
Gaddafi had long proved his hatred of the West. He armed and funded the IRA, providing them with the Semtex used in bomb outrages from Brighton to Omagh. His envoy shot dead WPC Yvonne Fletcher at the Libyan embassy in London, and he directed the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.
Yet Mr Blair and his cabinet colleagues were prepared to overlook all of this, even helping secure the release of the Lockerbie bomber from a Scottish jail, for the sake of a few lucrative contracts to British oil and arms companies.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1359014/Libyan-massacre-shame-Blair.html#ixzz1EYkWpSdR
it shows you who *rules* - oil and money
AntwortenLöschenI think there is a danger in holding up one man as a scapegoat.
AntwortenLöschenIf there is a diseased apple hanging on a tree, you can't just pull the apple off; you have to look at the whole damn tree.
My other thought is to wonder which of those two men actually had the most innocent blood on their hand during that handshake.
(Oops, I forgot. We don't call it that. We call it collateral damage.)
In terms of this man, I would happily make an exception.
AntwortenLöschenAnd as he is, after all, the "Envoy to the Middle East", why not measure up his utter and complete silence since these uprisings started, and with the totally amazing progress that he has made since Brown booted him out of Downing Street.
I don't think Blair is the only man who can be considered to have blood on his hands. Consider all of those " oil and money" men, too. They may be unnamed but they are complicit. Those who conspired to free the Lockersby bomber, I'd throw into the bunch, too. All of them. And the ones who released him. There's plenty to go around.
AntwortenLöschenAnd why are we letting Gaddafi off of the hook and blaming others anyway?
That is a fair point. After all, it is Gaddafi that is behind people actually pulling triggers on people.
AntwortenLöschen