New Stak Attack: New Privileges, Same Old Libya
posted at 2:09 pm on August 9, 2007 by Allahpundit
Erick Stakelbeck looks in on the burgeoning US relationship with Libya, and brings reaction from two American victims of Gaddafi’s old-school terrorism.
Addendum: Gaddafi’s son claims that the Bulgarian nurses were tortured.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
If you want great relations with the U.S. do many many evil things and then just stop doing those evil things for the most part. Daffy isn’t the only one this has worked with; Arafat is another example.
- The Cat
MirCat on August 9, 2007 at 2:35 PM
P.S. also let’s not forget that when Reagan ordered the bombing of Tripoli, France made us fly aound their airspace. So this thing of Bush causing our alies not to respect us, like france, is bull.
MirCat on August 9, 2007 at 2:37 PM
Nice work, Erick.
see-dubya on August 9, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Last month at the African Union summit in Accra, Ghana, Gaddafi tried to bum-rush black Africans into immediately forming a United States of Africa. Let’s just say that the black Africans–even the Muslim ones–weren’t buying it.
baldilocks on August 9, 2007 at 3:15 PM
Gaddafi may have made a mistake by giving up his nuclear program you say?
Check out the number of days between when Saddam Hussein was pulled out of that spider hole and Gaddafi’s acknowledging his nuclear program. Then compare the faces of the two dictators. Gaddafi did not make a mistake, he had an epiphany. Gaddafi looked at Saddam in disgrace and saw himself.
Gaddafi only listens to threats Reggie Borders says?
Right thought Mr. Borders but he really listens well to the sound of falling bombs.
For a threat to work it must be credible, here that Dems.
TunaTalon on August 9, 2007 at 3:17 PM
Indeed, he did.
baldilocks on August 9, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Very informative. I might also add, I like the bigger “widescreen” format this vlog is posted in.
emmaline1138 on August 9, 2007 at 5:10 PM
Genital torture was “not deliberate“?
Guess the ransom extortion “not deliberate” either?
/Islamo-nuance
Terp Mole on August 9, 2007 at 5:17 PM
Did you know that you can now take tourist trips to Lybia? I read a very detailed account of one trip, about a year ago, in which the writer claimed that the structures built by the Romans, for God’s sake, were in better shape than those built by the contemporary gov’t…
What a hell hole.
Which brings up another point; so, the Bulgarian nurses were finally ransomed. We now have 22 (is it?) Christian medical workers from S. Korea held by the Taliban. When will these “missionary types” get the message and stop going to countries that want to kill them or use them as barter? We got plenty of people in Appalachia that they can help… I can only assume that the countries of Bulgaria and S. Korea are full of people that could use loving medical attention. You know, what is up with these people traveling to hostile countries to “do God’s work”???
Babs on August 9, 2007 at 5:20 PM
Doing God’s work isn’t about staying safe.
Bryan on August 9, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Well Bryan, it might not be about “staying safe” but I am getting damn sick and tired of it.
When I look at the world I see people from every nation in need of care. Certainly, in the nations of S. Korea and Bulgaria there are swarms of people that could use medical care. The thing about traveling to a hostile country is that if you are taken hostage the entire western world must turn the wheel to free you. I actually look at it as a kind of self aggrandisement. “Look at me, in God’s name I am putting my life on the line.” What isn’t figured into their equation is if they are captured the western world has to pony up for their release…
I hope I don’t get banned for this statement but…
I would wish that for every Christian S. Korean medical worker killed in Afghanistan one Taliban prisioner was taken out and shot publicly. If a female hostage is murdered 4 Taliban prisoners are executed.
To paraphrase a British magistrate in India, you build your funeral pire and we will build our gallows…
I don’t see any end in sight for the kidnap/ransome racket unless we do something like this. Clearly, ransoming them isn’t working very well.
Babs on August 9, 2007 at 5:34 PM
Gotta’ side with Bryan on this, Babs. If it isn’t missionaries, it’d be aid workers or diplomats or soldiers. What are we supposed to do? Submit to the Koranimals?
Is the Red Cross in the business of “self-aggradisement”? How about soldiers and diplomats who are captured?
No. You don’t submit to blackmail either way… by paying ransom or cowering away. Your taking the path to Ron Paul.
If we learned anything on 9/11 it’s that fortress America is a chimera.
Terp Mole on August 9, 2007 at 7:38 PM
It’s called liberal Christianity, and stupidity in the face of evil is its absolute moral imperative. As an atheist, I just wish other atheists would stop viewing liberal Christianity as some sort of role model for atheist morality. Conservative Christianity would be a better choice. Conservative Christianity does not hold that “turn the other check” means “here’s a knife & here’s my jugular, please come slit my throat, evil one.” There is a subtle difference between the two concepts, even if liberal Christians are unable to see it.
thuja on August 9, 2007 at 8:16 PM
I’m probably being far too simplistic again, but why can’t we go too the countries, who’s citizens were compensated, and say “how bout a little help here. Your people were compensated, put a little pressure on Daffy for us”. Yes, I know they would point and laugh, but at least we would have a little something for the next time they come groveling.
And let me get this straight, the dhims say the way to progress with Liby is by “not talking too them”?
oakpack on August 9, 2007 at 8:58 PM
Christian Missionaries go into “unfriendly” territory knowing full well what can happen to them. It’s not stupidity; it’s a calling on their lives that they feel compelled to fulfill. Their primary goal is to preach the word of God to those that have not heard it before. Regardless of the risk involved. After all, no one has ever stopped anything to turn their full attention to the plight of any missionaries any where, unless in doing so will further their own agenda. Most of the resources being spent for the release of the missionaries are by the media.
If some individuals never performed acts that required great personnel risk, then our military would not exist. Remember, all volunteers.
Let us not forget all those contractors that have been kidnapped and murdered. What is their motivation? Money.
It’s obvious that a few individuals have bigoted views concerning Christians. Just ask yourself, when was the last time you did anything to help the people of Appalachia. Better yet, how about the poor people in your own town.
Zaire67 on August 9, 2007 at 9:21 PM
Well Zaire, I can answer that! Just today I donated about $400 worth of goods to the poor people of Apalachia as well as some of these goods going to the homeless in my community. I researched various charities and donated a fairly unusual product that I think will help the people of Apalachia as well as the homeless in my area.
What is your point? That somehow if I question the religious self aggrandisement of Christian missionaries that put themselves in situations that require western nations to extract them from at great expense politically as well as financially then I might be a Christian bigot?
Why don’t you think again…
Babs on August 9, 2007 at 10:47 PM
“it’s a calling on their lives that they feel compelled to fulfil”
And then all the rest of us have to rescue their lives through ransom or prisoner exchange…
Maybe someone could explain to me how the burden of these people’s lives that they so recklessly placed in jeopardy in the “name of God” is such a Christian thing to do.
I wish they would stop it. While I am very sorry about the deplorable conditions in third world hostile nations I also don’t feel responsible as an individual or a member of a nation to rescue someone from a situation that they were fully aware would cost them their lives.
I would much rather use the “You build your funeral pire and we will build our gallows” philosophy a few times and see if that makes things better. After all, the people that went to these countries had to know that their lives were in danger of demise… I think they wouldn’t have gone if they hadn’t known this. For that, I resent them.
Babs on August 9, 2007 at 11:02 PM
Having grown up poor in Appalachia–all the meat I ate as a teenager was venison given to us–I have slight resentment towards people talking about the poor in Appalachia as some special moral category.
And in terms of the poor in my own home town, I’m letting three homeless people sleep in my house tonight. They sleep in my house for my amusement and not for some lame, stupid feeling of guilt. Helping the homeless should be as self-interested as any other activity and not some ridiculous feeling of moral superiority.
thuja on August 10, 2007 at 12:41 AM
I agree with you thuja. It just so happened that the items I had to donate would be best used by a charity that tries to help people in Appalachia. It could have also been some other part of the country that needs help.
I have no moral superiority nor any thought of guilt. I consider myself a Christian and therefore want to help my fellow man. I do try to direct my help to those that are a match for what I have to offer.
Babs on August 10, 2007 at 1:03 AM
No doubt, the poor people of Appalachia have many of the same “drawbacks” which many of the poor people in *my* hood–South Central Los Angeles–have: parents–or, more likely, only one parent–who don’t totally understand how real education (formal or otherwise) can benefit their offspring.
However, other parents from the same environments–some formally educated, but most not–also exist and do have an understanding of how a *real* education would benefit their progeny and how such would help those children rise up from the low station in which those same parents did not take the opportunity to bring themselves out of.
After all, this *is* America, the Land of the smart, innovative and, most importantly, the Land of mandatory education up to twelfth grade. All a boy/girl from the hood/hills has to do to move up in life is to have the desire to work hard in school–or even merely have a love of reading. Most of the time, the fruits of that hard work/reading would enable any individual boy/girl to move past–economically and socially–the type of lives which their parents lived.
But, as we know, the idea of individual achievement has fallen far out of fashion in the last few decades; that is where you parents come in. It’s up to you all–you “poor people”–who have children and who believe in individual achievement, to take the reigns–at least in your own homes.
If you do this, your children won’t need to be the beneficiaries of those of us who would be be inclined to helping the poor–whether such philanthropic people are “guilt-tripped” into that assistance or not.
Get busy, poor folks, if you haven’t done so already.
baldilocks on August 10, 2007 at 3:17 AM
“I’m sorry, soooo sorry” is the national anthem of the left; let’s not fall for the same ol’ song and dance.
MSGTAS on August 10, 2007 at 9:54 AM
My point, your a bigot.
Zaire67 on August 10, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Heh, you are almost funny Zaire…
Since I clearly don’t agree with you I MUST BE a bigot.
Never mind that cross I wear arond my neck or the service I do for the Christian community, pay no attention. Maybe I should wear a gold B for bigot!
My suggestion to you is try to learn to disagree without hurling stupid insults.
Babs on August 10, 2007 at 6:27 PM
Very informative Erick, I try to keep pace with the news but I knew almost none of that.
Maxx on August 10, 2007 at 9:18 PM
Another first class “Stak Attack”, thanks Erick.
Libya has been simmering on the back burner for a few years now, I’m glad you have moved this issue to the front burner to stimulate re-newed discussion. Leveraging our recently improve relations with the dictator in fighting this Long War should not preclude Khadaffy from keeping his commitments to all his victims.
Strategically, it would be sweet to have a few informal “outposts” in that part of North Africa but first things first, Khadaffy must make amends with his victims.
Zorro on August 11, 2007 at 9:46 AM
I could quote more, but there’s so much going on in this thread that I’ll just stop here.
Personally, I think Babs has a point. The USA gives, and gives, and gives…Where does it get us?
Literally half of the world hates us!
And, as Babs has implied, why shouldn’t we stick close to home? Take care of those we know?
And, is it wrong to fight fire with fire? The US is the greatest country in the history of the world–with incredible spirit, resources, work-ethic, technology…
Shouldn’t we STOMP those who would stomp us?
Wouldn’t we gain more through incredible, invincible force, than we have thus far? (We have that capability, and I’m not even talking about the use of nukes.)
While those of you objecting to Babs’ statements may call it ruthlessness, our enemies would call it power. (And we have it.)
If things continue the way they are, it will come down to us vs. them. I, personally, hope that we prevail.
RedCrow on August 12, 2007 at 3:17 AM
Update:
Terp Mole on August 13, 2007 at 3:30 PM