Gaddafi was not all bad

Originally posted by no1marauder
This is another highly dubious claim without any credible evidence to support it. Fletcher was shot outside the Libyan Embassy in London during an anti-Gaddafi demonstration; that Gaddafi ordered this is speculation at best.

I believe the Libyan/Gadaffi government accepted responsibility for Yvonne Fletcher's murder (although around 15 years too late) and paid her family 'compensation'.

of course, maybe they acted without consulting him first in 1984. More likely he had full knowledge of what was going on.

Originally posted by st dominics preview
I believe the Libyan/Gadaffi government accepted responsibility for Yvonne Fletcher's murder (although around 15 years too late) and paid her family 'compensation'.

of course, maybe they acted without consulting him first in 1984. More likely he had full knowledge of what was going on.

Why is that likely? It seems far more likely that someone at the scene panicked.

A nation accepting liability for the acts of some of its nationals hardly indicates that the head of state ordered such acts.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Why is that likely? It seems far more likely that someone at the scene panicked.

A nation accepting liability for the acts of some of its nationals hardly indicates that the head of state ordered such acts.

why is it far more likely that someone at the scene 'panicked'?

The Libyan authorities at the time did not offer up this 'panicker'. Somewhere along the line of this sordid affair, Gaddafi has to accept some responsibility. Is that 'likely'?

Happy St Paddy's Day, by the way

Originally posted by st dominics preview
why is it far more likely that someone at the scene 'panicked'?

The Libyan authorities at the time did not offer up this 'panicker'. Somewhere along the line of this sordid affair, Gaddafi has to accept some responsibility. Is that 'likely'?

Happy St Paddy's Day, by the way

Some responsibility does not equal ordered it.

The way the event unfolded makes a premeditated attack on orders from Tripoli most unlikely. In Libya they might not have even known who actually fired; there was some dispute among British ballistic experts where the shots came from. In any event, for the Libyan government to have ordered in advance people in the embassy to fire on protesters in London would have been an incredibly reckless and provocative act. Absent any evidence supporting such an explanation, I find its assertion as fact rather ludicrous.

Obama attacks Libya supposedly to help prevent a genocide of Muslims.

After the attack ISIS moves in and is engaged in a current genocide of Christians, and no response from Obama.

Obama is an evil man.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Some responsibility does not equal ordered it.

The way the event unfolded makes a premeditated attack on orders from Tripoli most unlikely. In Libya they might not have even known who actually fired; there was some dispute among British ballistic experts where the shots came from. In any event, for the Libyan government to have ordered in advance peo ...[text shortened]... sent any evidence supporting such an explanation, I find its assertion as fact rather ludicrous.

It indeed was a 'reckless and provocative act'. If the Libyan government wished to distance itself from your 'lone shooter' they had only to hand him over.

Instead they hid behind a smoke screen of denial. Gadaffi would have to be a weak leader indeed to allow this to happen without his knowledge. He was a lot of things, but a weak leader he wasnt.

I suspect your admiration of all things Thatcher is behind much of this. A young police officer was murdered, and I have no interest in pursuing this any further

All the best

Originally posted by st dominics preview
It indeed was a 'reckless and provocative act'. If the Libyan government wished to distance itself from your 'lone shooter' they had only to hand him over.

Instead they hid behind a smoke screen of denial. Gadaffi would have to be a weak leader indeed to allow this to happen without his knowledge. He was a lot of things, but a weak leader he w ...[text shortened]... police officer was murdered, and I have no interest in pursuing this any further

All the best

Sorry to hurt your feelings and make you go stamping off.

The idea that Gaddafi maintained absolute control over anything any Libyan did on Planet Earth remains ludicrous. The most powerful leader in the world cannot control what other people do under stressful conditions far from where he is. If you have some evidence that Gaddafi ordered such an act, present it. I continue to maintain that given how reckless provocative and pointless it would have to have done so, that the most logical explanation is that it was the spontaneous act of someone on the ground (people with guns often fire them when they should not). I have seen nothing in the approximately 30 years since that indicates otherwise.

And that has nothing to do with my dislike for Thatcher.

Originally posted by whodey
Obama attacks Libya supposedly to help prevent a genocide of Muslims.

After the attack ISIS moves in and is engaged in a current genocide of Christians, and no response from Obama.

Obama is an evil man.

I thought you were against American involvement in Libya?

Anyway you don't seem to follow the news much: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/19/africa/libya-us-airstrike-isis/

Originally posted by no1marauder
I thought you were against American involvement in Libya?/

He will be now that he knows that the Obama administration is involved in military operations in Libya.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Some responsibility does not equal ordered it.

The way the event unfolded makes a premeditated attack on orders from Tripoli most unlikely. In Libya they might not have even known who actually fired; there was some dispute among British ballistic experts where the shots came from. In any event, for the Libyan government to have ordered in advance peo ...[text shortened]... sent any evidence supporting such an explanation, I find its assertion as fact rather ludicrous.

Leaders of State generally bear the responsibility of answering for actions of underlings.

Hitler didn't personally order each execution.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

When there is a divergence of opinion of something, usually the facts are hard to come by. This is obviously the truth regarding My Lai.

The notion that Johnson or Westmoreland had ultimate control over any rogue field operative is just silly. Hell, it took decades to bring a junior officer to task on the crime.

As long as men make war on other men, and armies do the butchery, such things will happen. Let me know when and how we turn a planet of humans into angels.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Sorry to hurt your feelings and make you go stamping off.

And that has nothing to do with my dislike for Thatcher.

I detect a tad of sarcasm in the first sentence...

To clarify.

A Libyan 'diplomat' in their embassy back in 1984 takes a gun and fires into an unarmed demonstration. Because he panics.

I would argue that the consequences of incurring the displeasure of a dictator such as Gadaffi (if The Colonel had not approved of some action) would cause this gentleman considerably more 'panic' than the unruly mob (sarcasm intended) that confronted the Libyan Embassy back in '84. The storming of The Bastille it wasn't.

Thus, I would argue that it is a plausible argument that Gadaffi had knowledge of what was going on . It is certainly not a 'ludicrous' argument. As you say, however, there IS no evidence.

Apart from the total lack of co operation by the Libyans post the event to deliver this 'rogue shooter' to the UK authorities for summary punishment. (Not some medieval disembowelling, but a well deserved prison sentence).

Do you have any explanation as to why the Libyans took such a stance, if this panicky chap acted as a 'lone wolf' and against their wishes?

I think that summarises the general UK view on the event. I am also aware that a young police officer ('Fletcher' as, you correctly label her) died that day.

But, rest assured, my feelings aren't 'hurt' by exchanges on this board.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

First you are trying to avoid the truth by introducing a 'red herring'. I've had plenty of opportunity to vent about the Holocaust, and you'll not find me denying it.

"I already know that the extremely racist pathological liar Normbenign"

Your mind is made up, and I've said nothing. Tried and convicted in the court of Duchess64! 😛

Then the racist and sexist Duchess64 continues:
"The bottom line is that most Westerners here are racist and have extremely hypocritical standards.....'

This assertion is without any corroboration, and is clearly racist by any rational standard. A case of the pot calling the kettle?