US and UK helped Gadaffi regime

[Winner]

No, they helped the Libyans too, as stated in the article.

Where does it say that, exactly? Because I don't see it. There is the normal diplomatic interaction which can be expected. Handing over suspected Islamists to Libya was done clearly to benefit the Western intelligence services.

 

[Artifis]

I think it has less to do with the oil and more the fact that there's not much else we could do. We can't go around invading every country with an evil dictator, we did that for one country, and look at the backlash we got.

So basically, we only have the choices of ostracizing them until they can collapse and a better government takes it place (doesn't usually work), or work with them, and make the best of the situation.

Ah, but this was in the context of the previous UK and US administrations, not the current ones. What RedRalph is angry about is the fact that the previous governments worked with Libya, and these current ones are throwing it to the dogs.

To add to my statement, the big enemy at the time was in the Middle East. Gaddafi was never much in the focus at the time. In fact, it was on the "right side" on the war on terror, i.e. "let me stay in power and I'll help you contain the terrorist threat". Of course the USA and the UK would cooperate with Gaddafi (and Mubarak, and Ben Ali, and Pinochet).

Jesus has anyone apart from me and Mr. Dictator actually read the article???

*raises hand*

Why do you ask?

 

[Formaldehyde]

It was actually mentioned in the OP article in the 3rd paragraph:

The UK's MI6 also apparently gave the Gaddafi regime details of dissidents.

They also helped to turn over to Libya the current commander of the rebel forces who was the victim of an extraordinary rendition from Bangkok, and who was then subsequently tortured by the Libyan government. This was briefly covered in the article in the OP, but here are some more details:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...addafi-government-on-rendition-operation.html

"This was the least we could do for you and for Libya to demonstrate the remarkable relationship we have built over recent years," the letter, from Mark Allen, head of counter-terrorism at MI6, said.

"I am so glad. I was grateful to you for helping the officer we sent out last week." The documents, found by Human Rights Watch and circulated at the weekend, show the extraordinarily close relationship that developed between Libyan intelligence and MI6 and the CIA.

The letters show that the CIA arranged the final delivery of both Mr Belhadj and his deputy, known by his nom de guerre of Abu Munthir, with their wives to Libya, but that in both cases Britain provided the original intelligence tip-off.MI6's letters, many written by Mr Allen, now Sir Mark Allen and an adviser to BP, are much more personal in tone that the CIA's, however.

He now now wants an apology from the CIA and MI6:

Rendition apology demanded from MI6 and CIA by Libyan

The commander of anti-government forces in Tripoli says he wants an apology from Britain and America for his transfer to a prison in Libya in 2004.

Abdel Hakim Belhaj, then a terror suspect, says he was tortured after being arrested in Bangkok.

He says he was taken to Libya by a CIA and MI6 operation, allegedly confirmed by documents sent to Gaddafi's regime.

The Foreign Office said the government had a "long-standing policy" not to comment on intelligence matters.

Mr Belhaj told the BBC: "What happened to me and my family is illegal. It deserves an apology. And for what happened to me when I was captured and tortured.

"For all these illegal things, starting with the information given to Libyan security, the interrogation in Bangkok."

According to the Guardian, these documents were discovered in an abandoned office building in Tripoli by staff from Human Rights Watch.

Mr Belhaj said that MI6 and the CIA did not witness his torture at the hands of the former Libyan regime, but did interview him afterwards.

It was also disclosed that Libya "bullied" Britain into releasing the supposed Lockerbie bomber:

Gaddafi govt ‘bullied’ UK into releasing jailed bomber

Muammar Gaddafi’s regime warned of “dire consequences” for relations between Libya and Britain if the convicted Lockerbie bomber died in a Scottish jail, secret files released yesterday showed.

In the latest revelations from intelligence documents obtained by media and rights groups in Tripoli, senior British officials feared Gaddafi “might seek to extract vengeance” if the cancer-stricken Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi was not released.

The Mail on Sunday newspaper cited documents found strewn in the abandoned British ambassador’s residence in Tripoli which it said showed the reasons why London wanted the devolved Scottish government to free Megrahi.

The Conservatives of current Prime Minister David Cameron were bitterly opposed to his release, which happened while the Labour Party of prime minister Gordon Brown was in office.

Robert Dixon, the head of the Foreign Office’s north Africa team, wrote to then-foreign secretary David Miliband in January 2009, warning that Gaddafi wanted Megrahi to return to Libya “at all costs”.

“Libyan officials and ministers have warned of dire consequences for the UK-Libya relationship and UK commercial operations in Libya in the event of Megrahi’s death in custody,” he wrote. Gaddafi would see it as “as death sentence,” he said.

Dixon added: “We believe Libya might seek to exact vengeance.”

The confidential documents showed that British diplomats feared that the reprisals might include the harassment - “or worse” - of British nationals; the cancellations of lucrative oil and gas contracts with British firms; and the end of counter-terror co-operation and defence deals.

 

[Dachs]

Well there is the part about providing information on Libyan dissidents.

Thats kind of a big issue.

 

[RedRalph]

What difference does the fact that they got something in return make?

 

[Dachs]

What difference does the fact that they got something in return make?

It makes it a good deal?

 

[Joecoolyo]

Ah, but this was in the context of the previous UK and US administrations, not the current ones. What RedRalph is angry about is the fact that the previous governments worked with Libya, and these current ones are throwing it to the dogs.

Yeah, which I guess goes with my previous statement to RR, things change.

Its not all that hard a concept to grasp.

 

[RedRalph]

So let's say it turns out Russia has been providing Damascus with info about Syrian dissidents, you're fine with that? Or China has been doing same with Myanmar? that's OK as long as it's a good deal?

 

[Winner]

So let's say it turns out Russia has been providing Damascus with info about Syrian dissidents, you're fine with that? Or China has been doing same with Myanmar? that's OK as long as it's a good deal?

Incidentally, there was a nice article in NYT recently about how China planned to supply Gaddafi with weapons while the war with NATO was well under way. And now they're buddies with the new regime. See, hypocrisy isn't the sole domain of the West.

Anyhow, it is important to note that many of the anti-Gaddafi dissidents were islamists with links to all kind of islamic terrorist networks. I think even you can see why they wouldn't mind giving info on these people to the Libyan regime in exchange for its... assistance in interrogating other suspects.

I am not saying all these shady "we don't do torture, we have others to do it for us" dealings with crackpot regimes are entirely OK with me, but it's far from being so horrible and disgusting and hypocritical as you make it sound.

 

[Dreadnought]

There's a wide gap between cooperation with a nation and an alliance with that nation.

Diplomacy is fluid. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. It's practically the means of survival in Dictators 101.

I don't see a problem with this. Gaddafi was a leader who provided a service. We no longer need his service; hence, we no longer support him. For comparison, we have strong ties to Great Britain as a nation, not just to a service they provide.

 

[Joecoolyo]

So let's say it turns out Russia has been providing Damascus with info about Syrian dissidents, you're fine with that? Or China has been doing same with Myanmar? that's OK as long as it's a good deal?

...And? What are both China and Russia gaining out of both situations?

The U.S. here worked with Gaddafi to track down dissidents in exchange for information leading to radical groups and such. I'm fine with that, since the alternative was nothing, i.e. dissidents continue doing what they do and we have no further information regarding radical groups. We can't take out Gaddafi without full blown invasion, so it's best to make the, well, best of the situation we were in.

Now, if Russia was just giving Syria info about dissidents just to screw with the west and keep Assad in power, yeah I would be angry. They would be helping put down a popular uprising by the people. With Americas case, there was no uprising, and no threat the Gaddafi's regime, nothing pointed to the collapse of the regime at any point in the future, so once again we made the best of the situation we were in.

 

[Dachs]

So let's say it turns out Russia has been providing Damascus with info about Syrian dissidents, you're fine with that? Or China has been doing same with Myanmar? that's OK as long as it's a good deal?

No, it's okay as long as the United States does it.

You really don't pay any attention to the things I say, do you?

 

[Flying Pig]

So let's say it turns out Russia has been providing Damascus with info about Syrian dissidents, you're fine with that? Or China has been doing same with Myanmar? that's OK as long as it's a good deal?

It's probably worth pointing out that most dissidents aren't all sweetness and rainbows - even our beloved Mr Mandela was a card-carrying terrorist while he had no chance of achieving his goals by democratic means.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I think that is a classic example of why the term "terrorist" is frequently so meaningless instead of him actually being one. Or doesn't Condoleeza Rice know a terrorist from an "international symbol of freedom"?

U.S. has Mandela on terrorist list

WASHINGTON — Nobel Peace Prize winner and international symbol of freedom Nelson Mandela is flagged on U.S. terrorist watch lists and needs special permission to visit the USA. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calls the situation "embarrassing," and some members of Congress vow to fix it.

The requirement applies to former South African leader Mandela and other members of South Africa's governing African National Congress (ANC), the once-banned anti-Apartheid organization. In the 1970s and '80s, the ANC was officially designated a terrorist group by the country's ruling white minority. Other countries, including the United States, followed suit.

Because of this, Rice told a Senate committee recently, her department has to issue waivers for ANC members to travel to the USA.

"This is a country with which we now have excellent relations, South Africa, but it's frankly a rather embarrassing matter that I still have to waive in my own counterpart, the foreign minister of South Africa, not to mention the great leader Nelson Mandela," Rice said.

Is the current head of the Libyan rebels a "terrorist" merely because the CIA claimed he was and turned him over to his arch-enemy to be tortured? Or is the term really used to describe anybody these days who is opposed to a current sovereign government no matter how evil that government might be?

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff says "common sense" suggests Mandela should be removed. He says the issue "raises a troubling and difficult debate about what groups are considered terrorists and which are not."

Indeed. But what happens in the multitude of cases where "common sense" doesn't work?

 

[Dreadnought]

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but being part of an organization that commits terrorist acts means you're a terrorist, right?

I mean, you don't see similar individuals (Gandhi, for example) being members of an organization that launch terrorist attacks.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It certainly means that if you try to destroy the credibility of an entire group on the basis of acts by a handful of its members. Take Hamas and the current head of the Libyan rebel army, for instance.

The real difference between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" is simply a matter of who is trying to disparage whom in many cases. While deliberately killing civilians is something which should never be condoned, is there any proof that Madella did so or even authorized it?

Is there really that much difference between deliberately killing civilians and the indiscriminately killing them, ostensibly to help save the lives of your own soldiers?

 

[Dreadnought]

It certainly means that if you try to destroy the credibility of an entire group on the basis of acts by a handful of its members.

He seems to support those violent acts:

"Firstly, we believed that as a result of Government policy, violence by the African people had become inevitable, and that unless responsible leadership was given to canalize and control the feelings of our people, there would be outbreaks of terrorism which would produce an intensity of bitterness and hostility between the various races of this country which is not produced even by war. Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or to defy the Government. We chose to defy the law. We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the Government resorted to a show of force to crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer violence with violence."

 

[Formaldehyde]

He simply claimed there would likely be acts of terrorism which would be committed as a result, and they were by both sides. And that he agreed with using violence to counter violence.

If that is the definition of a "terrorist", it means virtually any leader today is one.

 

[Dreadnought]

He simply claimed there would likely be acts of terrorism which would be committed as a result, and that he agreed with using violence to counter violence. If that is the definition of a "terrorist", it means virtually any leader today is one.

So condoning terrorism is a-ok as long as the other side is also using violence to achieve its aims?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Did he state he was condoning it or simply that it would likely happen as a result?

Was the Nobel Peace Prize given to a terrorist?