Archive for the ‘Human rights’ Category
Let’s Take A Look at a Legend, Muammar Qaddafi
Libya: Ten Things About Gaddafi They Don’t Want You To Know
Posted by El-Bull on April 24, 2016
Below is a short discussion between myself and a YouTuber who said they were from Libya. It is their response to this video that was posted on YouTube. This video is part of the playlist that I created to be added to this blog.
YOUTUBER RESPONSE: I’m Libyan and thanks for uploading such an amazing documentary about Libya. I agree about all the material in this video except two things which are: 1) when Qaddafi said all his people loved him ” in fact many people didn’t like him especially in the east part of Libya (Benghazi City) as Qaddafi didn’t like and ignored Benghazi. moreover, some people didn’t like his regime, as he made Libya centrally controlled by the Capital (Tripoli), while the capital didn’t manage to provide the basic stuff for the other cities and villages, consequently if you want to be happy in Libya you have to live in the capital . 2) Qaddafi never spent Libyan’s money to build and develop Libya’s infrastructure.
- Libya: Ten Things About Gaddafi They Don’t Want You To Know
- Here are ten things Gaddafi did for Libya that you may not know about…
- 5. A bursary was given to mothers with newborn babies
Posted by El-Bull on April 24, 2016
Colonel Muammar Gaddafi is dead, a controversial leader who believed in revolution and to united Africa to a single government. Moreover, He funded and armed Black South African to fight against apartheid in South Africa. In 2008 Gaddafi was declared the King of Kings by the African traditional leaders, and one of those traditional leader after eard that Gaddafi was dead that what Philip Winyi said” Col Gaddafi was a “visionary” and would be missed. We saw the human side of him and not Gaddafi the colonel or the proverbial terrorist as the Americans and Europeans described him.” “In spite of what many see as his weaknesses, he has done quite a lot for Africa, contributing to the building of infrastructure.”http://mycontinent.co/Gaddafi.php
A meeting of more than 200 African kings and traditional rulers has bestowed the title “king of kings” on Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.The rulers, wearing gold crowns, sequined capes and colourful robes met in the Libyan town of Benghazi in what was billed as a first of its kind.Col Gaddafi urged the royals to join his campaign for African unity.Africa’s political leaders are lukewarm about his vision of merging their powers to create a single government.”We want an African military to defend Africa, we want a single African currency, we want one African passport to travel within Africa,” Col Gaddafi told the assembled dignitaries, who come from countries such as Mozambique, South Africa, Ivory Coast and the Democratic Republic of Congo.The BBC’s Rana Jawad in the Mediterranean town of Benghazi says Libya’s leader wants them to create a grass-roots movement to press Africa’s political leaders to sign up to his vision. Sheikh Abdilmajid from Tanzania told the BBC that the traditional rulers could play an important role.”The people believe in the chiefs and kings more than they believe in their governments,” he said. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7588033.stm
Just two years ago, a coterie of longtime Arab leaders posed for what seemed a routine photograph.
But today, the snapshot from the 2010 Arab-African summit is a relic from a different time. The former leaders of Tunisia, Yemen, Libya and Egypt, all deposed and one of them dead, appear untouchable as they smile for the camera.
The photo showcases just how much the Middle East has changed since the Arab Spring revolutions began sweeping through the Middle East last year and ousting its embattled leaders.
In the photo, Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi wears black sunglasses and distinctive robes, with his arms draped around Yemen’s Ali Abdullah Saleh and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, both of them grinning.
To one side is Tunisia’s Zine el Abidine Ben Ali, standing with his hands clasped, smiling and relaxed.
Today, Saleh is out of power, Ben Ali is in exile, Mubarak is on trial and Gadhafi is dead, killed by rebel fighters. Their countries are enduring often-painful transitions. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/arab-leaders-2010-photo-highlights-power-shakeup-1.1156487
Shocking Documentary: The Creation Of HIV/Aids. [FULL]
Shocking Documentary: The Creation Of HIV/Aids. [FULL]
NB Commentary: But they do know how it came about. they know who created it and why. It was bio-warfare, created in the laboratory. It has killed many in its wake and has filled the coffers of the pharmaceutical companies.
December 6, 2000
I’m confused, can anyone help me? — RT Op-Edge
I’m confused, can anyone help me?
I’m confused. A few weeks ago wewere told in the West that people occupying government buildings in
Ukraine was a very good thing. These people, we were told by our political leaders and elite media commentators, were ‘pro-democracy protestors’.
The US government warned the Ukrainian authorities against using force against these ‘pro-democracy protestors’ even if, according to the pictures we saw, some of them were neo-Nazis who were throwing Molotov cocktails and other things at the police and smashing up statues and setting fire to buildings.
Now, just a few weeks later, we’re told that people occupying government buildings in Ukraine are not ‘pro-democracy protestors’ but ‘terrorists’ or ‘militants’.
Why was the occupation of government buildings in Ukraine a very good thing in January, but it is a very bad thing in April? Why was the use of force by the authorities against protestors completely unacceptable in January, but acceptable now? I repeat: I’m confused. Can anyone help me?
The anti-government protestors in Ukraine during the winter received visits from several prominent Western politicians, including US Senator John McCain, and Victoria Nuland, from the US State Department, who handed out cookies. But there have been very large anti-government protests in many Western European countries in recent weeks, which have received no such support, either from such figures or from elite Western media commentators. Nor have protestors received free cookies from officials at the US State Department.
Surely if they were so keen on anti-government street protests in Europe, and regarded them as the truest form of ‘democracy’, McCain and Nuland would also be showing solidarity with street protestors in Madrid, Rome, Athens and Paris? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?
Have I misremembered the ‘Iraq has WMDs claim’? Was I dreaming back in 2002 and early 2003 when politicians and neocon pundits came on TV every day to tell us plebs that we had to go to war with Iraq because of the threat posed by Saddam’s deadly arsenal? Why is having a democratic vote in Crimea on whether to rejoin Russia deemed worse than the brutal, murderous invasion of Iraq – an invasion which has led to the deaths of up to 1 million people? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?
media ‘experts’ that the Crimea referendum wasn’t valid because it was held under “military occupation.” But I’ve just been watching coverage of elections in Afghanistan, held under military occupation, which have been hailed by leading western figures, such as NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen as a “historic moment for Afghanistan” and a great success for “democracy.” Why is the Crimean vote dismissed, but the Afghanistan vote celebrated? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?
Syria too is rather baffling. We were and are told that radical Islamic terror groups pose the greatest threat to our peace, security and our ‘way of life’ in the West. That Al-Qaeda and other such groups need to be destroyed: that we needed to have a relentless ‘War on Terror’ against them. Yet in Syria, our leaders have been siding with such radical groups in their war against a secular government which respects the rights of religious minorities, including Christians.
When the bombs of Al-Qaeda or their affiliates go off in Syria and innocent people are killed there is no condemnation from our leaders: their only condemnation has been of the secular Syrian government which is fighting radical Islamists and which our leaders and elite media commentators are desperate to have toppled. I’m confused. Can anyone help me?
Then there’s gay rights. We are told that Russia is a very bad and backward country because it has passed a law against promoting homosexuality to minors. Yet our leaders who boycotted the Winter Olympics in Sochi because of this law visit Gulf
states where homosexuals can be imprisoned or even executed, and warmly embrace the rulers there, making no mention of the issue of gay rights.
Surely the imprisonment or execution of gay people is far worse than a law which forbids promotion of homosexuality to minors? Why, if they are genuinely concerned about gay rights, do our leaders attack Russia and not countries that imprison or execute gay people? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?
We are told in lots of newspaper articles that the Hungarian ultra-nationalist party Jobbik is very bad and that its rise is a cause of great concern, even though it is not even in the government, or likely to be. But neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists
do hold positions in the new government of Ukraine, which our leaders in the West enthusiastically support and neo-Nazis and the far-right played a key role in the overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected government in February, a ‘revolution’ cheered on by the West. Why are ultra-nationalists and far-right groups unacceptable in Hungary but very acceptable in Ukraine? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?
We are told that Russia is an aggressive, imperialist power and that NATO’s concerns are about opposing the Russian ‘threat’. But I looked at the map the other day and while I could see lots of countries close to (and bordering) Russia that were members of NATO, the US-led military alliance
whose members have bombed and attacked many countries in the last 15 years, I could not see any countries close to America that were part of a Russian-military alliance, or any Russian military
bases or missiles situated in foreign countries bordering or close to the US. Yet Russia, we are told, is the ‘aggressive one’. I’m confused. Can anyone help me?
Neil Clark is a journalist, writer and broadcaster. His award winning blog can be found at www.neilclark66.blogspot.com. Follow him on Twitter
Published time: April 15, 2014 10:06
Nana Baakan Connections
Recent Comments