Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Why we must send Gaddafi the way of Saddam

His Grace tweeted yesterday that he thought it inconceivable that the West would just stand by and watch Gaddafi reassert his authority and systematically slaughter his political opponents.

Clumsy wording. He received a swift response that it isn’t inconceivable at all. And, of course, it isn’t. In fact, it is entirely conceivable, for we are talking here about political expediency, not moral imperatives.

His Grace then tweeted that it would be a moral outrage if, having spurred on the protesters to risk life and limb from the comfort of our armchairs, we then sat idly by as Gaddafi took his bloody revenge upon them. Moral outrage it would be. But the UK’s foreign policy has not been ethical since Tony Blair declared it to be so. Having found no WMD in Iraq, the removal of Saddam was still a righteous pursuit, Mr Blair told us, considering what he was doing to the Shi’a majority and the Kurdish minority. So we intervened. As we did in Sierra Leone and Kosovo. And let’s not forget Afghanistan. Good grief, if Blair were still in power, we’d probably be at war with Syria and Iran by now as well.

The revolutions sweeping the Middle East have been upstaged by the appalling devastation in Japan. Under the cloak of earthquake, flood and nuclear fire, Gaddafi is able to move against his own people in ways the West would never have tolerated in Tunisia and Egypt. Our resolve was fixed because our attention was focused: Ben Ali had to go, for his people demanded political reform; Mubarak had to go, for his people demanded political reform. And our Prime Minister spurred the protestors on, as did many of us.

But neither Ben Ali nor Mubarak carried their military forces: in both cases, the generals remained neutral between their presidents and their peoples. In Libya, by contrast, Gaddafi retains the support of his military machine and is now using it to crush the democrats. Tyrants cannot abide those who challenge their absolute power: those Libyan people who agitated for democracy are enemies of the state; enemies of the people’s republic; traitors to Islam for colluding with the West and desiring the political system of the Great Satan. For Gaddafi and his supporters, to cleanse the earth of their stench is a righteous and noble pursuit. And each day we do nothing, hundreds die. And as Japan suffers further quakes, Gaddafi will kill thousands. And as nuclear reactors melt down, he will kill tens of thousands.

And by the time our news cycle has reverted to David Beckham’s tattoo, the birth of his first daughter or his attendance at the Royal wedding, Gaddafi will be victorious. He will once again be in charge of his state, ruler of all he surveys, impregnable and omnipotent. And so he will wreak his revenge upon us, just as he has done in the past by arming the IRA or blowing up Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie. Rogue states do not conform; they cannot integrate, compromise or comply with UN resolutions. If they could, they would not be rogue.

When David Cameron says time is of the essence, and he is right. His instincts on this foreign policy issue point in the same direction as a moral compass. Every day that passes, pro-democracy Libyans are being captured, tortured and murdered. Every hour is an hour in which the Strong Man re-arms and his forces re-group. Britain and France want to impose a no-fly zone to assist the revolutionaries; Germany and the US do not. This civil war is an internal matter for Libya: Gaddafi may be a demon, but better the devil you know. There is no unity of purpose; no common EU foreign policy; no unified strategic interest. Instead, we have a cacophony of individual nation states all bleating their opinions while the innocents are bombed by gun-ships and butchered by barbarians.

With each passing day of procrastination, it becomes evident that the West is not overly concerned with the struggle of ordinary people who want to be rid of the yoke of slavery, tyranny and corruption. We dither, and say we’ll only help them on the path to freedom if bombs and bullets are put aside. That’s big of us. If we had an aircraft carrier with a few aircraft, we might be able to do something. But we are now a third-rate military power, more concerned with international development than with defence of the realm.

The Just War was a Christian formulation; its precepts have permeated international law. The early Christian attitude of abstention was difficult to sustain after Christianity became the established religion of the Roman Empire and thinkers such as Augustine turned to the idea that waging war was a legitimate exercise of the authority of rulers. As the ruler does not bear the sword for nothing – that is, he may justly punish the wrongdoing of his subjects – so, likewise, war is just when it is waged to effect retribution against those who do evil.

In 1991, the West stood by as Saddam Hussein crushed an uprising against him: thousands were tortured and executed, often without trial, invariably without mercy. Overthrowing a dictator is a risky business, especially when you can’t count on those you thought were friends. If it was right and just to rid the world of Saddam – or temporarily suspend opposition to the death penalty while Islamic justice took its course – a fortiori it must be right and just to rid the world of Gaddafi – or at least facilitate his capture in order that Libyan justice can take its course. It is surely a greater evil to leave Gaddafi in power than to depose him, which constitutes the jus ad bellum criteria. He is an aggressor against Western civilisation and a murderer of his own people.

How many Hitlers must we regret not terminating?


Anonymous David said...

I regret removing Saddam.
He was evil but under him there was freedom of religion.
Now there is none.
Thousands have died to change one tyranny for another.

16 March 2011 at 10:12  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld and Tiddles said...

Your Grace highlights in his post.

"Gaddafi will be victorious. He will once again be in charge of his state, ruler of all he surveys, impregnable and omnipotent. And so he will wreak his revenge upon us, just as he has done in the past by arming the IRA or blowing up Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie."

You just KNOW it's coming after the comments expressed by David Cameron unless something is done, like yesterday, to oust him. What further atrocities will some extremeist deliver from his hand.

"When David Cameron says time is of the essence, and he is right. His instincts on this foreign policy issue point in the same direction as a moral compass."

It is not the compass in question but the premature timing of very vocal 'British Intent' that was delivered by him and William Hague. Do not challenge a ruthless dictator when all you carry is a tickling stick. How very tattyfilarious.

"If we had an aircraft carrier with a few aircraft, we might be able to do something. But we are now a third-rate military power, more concerned with international development than with defence of the realm."

It is not that the statements issued by HM government were not righteous but they were foolish and have left us at the mercy of his treachery IF, 'and it appears he will', he hangs on to power. We are precariously positioned with a policy of staged withdrawl from Afghanistan so that as the last few hundred are left he may find a way of getting the Taliban to attack the remnant of British Armed forces left.

Ernst is VERY CONCERNED, Your Grace.

16 March 2011 at 10:34  
Blogger Claire Khaw said...

Gaddafi will be victorious while the West drowns in a vat of cant, empty rhetoric, division, confusion, impotence and humiliation.

How tragic then that a British Prime Minister who ought to have known better did not.

Shows how well we are being governed, eh?

16 March 2011 at 10:40  
Anonymous Gordo said...

Mister Powell once said that to control Suez you would need to occupy Cairo, and to occupy Cairo meant you would need to govern Egypt. Apply a similar logic here: to ensure that Libya is fairly and liberally governed we would need to occupy and govern Libya. Is that what you are advocating? Aren't you simply dancing to the neo-con, "draining the swamp", Pied Piper? Or may I put it another way and ask how many British lives some temporary democratic sham in Libya is worth to you?

16 March 2011 at 10:41  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Whiggish nonsense YG!

How would we have responded if some foreign power had intervened to depose and execute Tony Blair (apart from the week-long celebrations of course)?

Gaddafi holds back an Islamic republic. And don't give me that 'transition to democracy' drivel! Arabs see through that straightaway.

And look what we've done to Iraq!

It was wrong and hypocritical to connive at the execution of Saddam but consider ourselves above the death penalty in Britain and the EU.

These self-righteous people whose 'moral' indignation tells them they have the right on 'moral' grounds to interfere in other countries should start here at home before they purport to tell others how to manage their affairs.

16 March 2011 at 10:52  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

His Grace: "His Grace then tweeted that it would be a moral outrage if, having spurred on the protesters to risk life and limb from the comfort of our armchairs, we then sat idly by as Gaddafi took his bloody revenge upon them."

Did we actually do that? I thought the uprising there took almost everyone here by surprise.

I'm with Matthew Parris on this one: we need to put an enormous effort into sitting on our hands and leave others, preferably Arab League others, to step up.

16 March 2011 at 11:04  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Blofeld is right: our leaders spoke prematurely.

And you are right: the author of the Green Book – if he consolidates his grip – will crush the rebels – and then have designs on us.

The mistake has been made. It is a fact.

Establishing a NFZ is a coercive step. The risk is escalation. We do not need ships with platforms.

But there is another method.

What they badly need is a command and control structure to give them, in my opinion, any chance of success. Further, and this could be supplied easily: intelligence information and receiving-sending equipment

In my opinion, we now have no choice except to support the rebs.

Just one question: are you sure they are democrats?

And you are right again: this is a matter of political expediency.

16 March 2011 at 11:30  
Anonymous Sage said...

To be a Gaddafi supporter there's a good chance that you have a mental problem. Claire Khaw's "Colonel Gaddafi Support Group" on Facebook is for people with such psychological problems. Perhaps Ms Khaw should see a doctor.

16 March 2011 at 11:49  
Anonymous berserker- nkl said...

My heart agrees with YG but democracy will never be attainable in an Arab or Islamic State. Yes we might get rid of one load of rubbish only to find another pile l labelled: Rebels!

Look at Egypt: The freedom fighters got rid of Mubarak and what have we in its place? A regime that appears to allow the persecutions and killing of Christians that Mubarak's did on the whole, not do.

A point about Libya that no one seems to make. Where will the money come from for the Colonel? Oil is hardly being produced and the infrastructure of the Country depends on foreign workers from top engineers and other professionals to the thousands of Egyptians and Bangladeshis who do the donkey, sorry, camel work.

How are Gadaffi's loyal troops to be paid? Sooner or later money must if not run out be in short supply. Or will they import Chinese or Russian technologists?

16 March 2011 at 11:50  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

How i wish we had the much maligned George W Bush to make these decisions instead of the current master of rhetoric and arch-prevavicator President Obama.

If nothing else, Dubya's Freedom Agenda had the merit of clarity and a moral compass. He understood that if a country has democracy with accountability of its leader to its people, then the people and other countries had a greater chance of living in peace.

Whilst many opponents claimed that the US intervention in Iraq was to secure dominance and oil the truth has been shown that the US left Iraq after its people had chosen its Government - even though many in the west might have preferred other parties to have been successful. It is the example set in Iraq that has motivated the brave in other countries to seek such freedom of choice for themselves.

If the UN and the African and Arab Nations do nothing but veto effective support and intervention, you may be sure that they will also be wringing their hands when the dictators crush the innocent. In this they will be supported by many in the liberal/left who desire outcomes but lack the spine to make benevolent outcomes happen.

We have become in thrall to the appeasers and pontificators who do not dare to make a brave decision lest their moral consciences be compromised by the uncertainties of positive action.

P.J. O'Rourke identified the problems that such attitudes often create when one is dealing with vicious dictators - "Peace Kills."

16 March 2011 at 11:54  
Anonymous MrJ said...

This is another robust and cogent editorial on a topic much deserving attention, as the above comments show. Please believe that the following remark is not made in a spirit of meanness or pedantry (and the blogmaster here would be able to make a better job than this commentator of writing about it).

In connection with the present topic, it may not be apt to be writing of 'democracy' and 'democrats'. These words have become so overused in our own country, in political theory and practice, and in what is nowadays called 'MSM' (main-stream media) as to be at risk of becoming fit only for partisan sloganeering or name-calling, and reduced to the cultural value of 'David Beckham’s tattoo'. The same could be said of 'human rights' and so much else.

The events here and abroad (including Japan) show a willingness for resolute collective action to overcome hardship and distress; but apprehension about the abuse of power directly or indirectly against a people, whether inhabiting this or any other country, is also widespread. Here at home, the people are at risk of being bamboozled about AV Etc. in the name of promoting 'democracy'. The blogmaster, knowing this, aims above the level of 'David Beckham’s tattoo' and the present mess of a 'dogs breakfast' (and that may be more than a small mercy in many people's lives, to be thankful for).

Was the Anglo-French invasion of Egypt in 1956 within the doctrine of 'just war'? The then prime minister, who saw the issue in terms of opposing a Hitler-like opponent, must have thought so.

16 March 2011 at 12:01  
Anonymous Hannibal Lecter said...

Sage said 16 March 2011 11:49

'To be a Gaddafi supporter there's a good chance that you have a mental problem. Claire Khaw's "Colonel Gaddafi Support Group" on Facebook is for people with such psychological problems. Perhaps Ms Khaw should see a doctor.'

The offer has been sent, an appointment slot is awaiting and fava beans and a nice chianti are in the fridge..*slurpslurp* ,

Brave Claire. You will let me know when those pigs stop screaming, won't you?


16 March 2011 at 12:25  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Your Grace, I list my own thoughts below :

1)How are we going to do this without American backing- the French have 1 Aircraft Carrier and the UK have none (thanks to this governments cuts in the Defence budget) at present. The Americans have plenty within their 6th fleet, but are not keen on the idea of armed force on this one. Thus any intervention will be a debacle of the highest order.

2). If it is not a debacle and any military operation is deemed to be a "success" (e.g. removal of the regime a la Iraq) then we would need to pour vast amounts of money into Libya and where pray tell will this money come from? Yes the western/UK taxpayer, who is already been told libaries and public services have to be shut because of the deficit. So if we cannot afford public services at home, why should we be spending it on a foreign country?

3)As above, given the cuts agenda and the deficit where will Cameron magic the money from in order to do a little bit of gun boat diplomacy? And if they can find the cash for this foreign adventure, then wouldn't it be put to better use it elsewhere, e.g. the victims in Japan?

4)Where will this all end? What if a revolt starts in say, Saudi Arabia, are we going to send in our forces to overthrow the absolute monarchy of that country, whose human rights record isn't exactly any better than any other regime in that region?

5)Isn't fighting one war enough at present, especially when the MOD is sending text messages to the brave troops telling them they are to be made redundant from the army?

To conclude it is all well and good for Cameron to take the moral high ground, but his words mean nothing without the ability to back this up with force, via the armed services. Sadly, thanks to his own governments cost cutting agenda, he has made any British action (be it a coalition or unilateral) impossible.

16 March 2011 at 13:21  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

It appears Miss Khaw is correct.

16 March 2011 at 13:38  
Anonymous Voyager said...

the removal of Saddam was still a righteous pursuit, Mr Blair told us, considering what he was doing to the Shi’a majority and the Kurdish minority

The League of Nations received petitions of complaint throughout the 1920s and 1930s as German minorities were persecuted in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary and Romania in breach of the Versailles Treaty and those of St Germain.

When Reichsfuehrer Adolf Hitler decided to intervene and uphold the German cIty of Danzig from Polish interference Britain obstructed.

Why did Britain go to war to uphold persecution of ethnic minorities, and to defend a nation whose Endecja Party had stripped Jews of civil rights 1935 onwards (Poland) and revoked passports in 1938 ?

There is real inconsistency Your Grace. We did not fight for Biafra either

16 March 2011 at 13:43  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Subtract from Lord Lavendon's 5 points whatever is attributable to present shortages of money, man(+woman)power, military (+ naval and airforce) hardware and services (due to years of political and other mismanagement under the present and previous governments) and there is still a weighty case against Mr Cameron blagging for glory by threatening any such interventions.

16 March 2011 at 13:48  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

In 1991, the West stood by as Saddam Hussein crushed an uprising against him: thousands were tortured and executed

In the years since the overthrow of Saddam, there have been between 100,000 and 109,000 violent civilian deaths in Iraq, according to the Iraq Body Count. The injured and maimed are not recorded but are likely to be even more numerous. As Your Grace wisely notes, overthrowing a dictator is a risky business.

‛Royal’ Wootton Basset - a fitting and enduring tribute to the town’s patriotism and devotion to our Armed Forces.

More like a cynical public relations exercise by the Tories to portray themselves as patriotic while sticking two fingers up to the Armed Forces. HMS Ark Royal: Their final mission; Quarter of RAF trainee pilots to be sacked in defence spending cull; Chopped up for scrap, Britain’s £4 billion fleet of Nimrods; British troops on front line in Afghanistan told they face the sack; RAF commander: our air force will be little better than Belgium’s.

16 March 2011 at 14:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Blair, Brown and now Cameron are war mongers stirring up hatred for the West and Britain in particular.

The real reason for the second Iraq war was that it has oil that the West wants to keep flowing its way. The real reason for the Afghan war and the continued sacrifice of British boys for years to come is to facilitate the construction of a huge gas pipeline across that God forsaken country to deliver natural gas to the West.

Now it’s Libya’s turn and guess what? They have oil and Cameron wants to keep it pumping in a westerly direction because Peak Oil is here already and he doesn’t want the Chinese to monopolise it.

16 March 2011 at 14:56  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Would the same moral high-grounded obligation to get militarily involved apply if say there was a similar uprsing in Saudi Arabia, The Emirates, Bahrain? - Oh yes, I forgot about that little bit of nonsense in Bahrain (sarc)

16 March 2011 at 15:40  
Anonymous the one and only Rambling Syd Rumpo said...

Hello me deario's, Just scroped my gander bag and lo and behold another sparkling diamond.

As Davey has his gander bag all empty and hasn't a pot to.., Rambling Syd Rumpo has a song he offers for HM Armed Forces to sing at a libyan dictator, whilst pondering their imminent redundancies, courtesy of The Black Smiling Grunger Of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath ;

What shall we do with the mad dictator

What shall we do with the mad dictator,
What shall we do with the mad dictator,
What shall we do with the mad dictator,
He’s bending his cordwangle.

Hit him in the nadgers with the bosun’s plunger,
Slap him on the grummitt with a wrought iron lunger,
Cuff him in the moolies with the Captain’s grunger—
Till his bodgers dangle.

The moral of this story is: Make sure the armed forces have all the plungers, lungers and captains grungers before ye blab off. Or you'll be hung by the postern and we'll nail your mooly to the fence.

Rambling Syd Rumpo

16 March 2011 at 15:40  
Blogger Alcuin said...

I am no supporter of Blair, but I did, and still do support the removal of Saddam. As for Gadaffi, I agree the West (and this means the USA) should interdict Gadaffi's air strikes and heavy artillery, which should be enough to level the field.

I am rather interested in the "abortive" mission to Banghazi. What was that all about? Suppose the "ineptitude" is a cover story for, say, the delivery of arms and communication equipment. As a cover story, the press has swallowed it hook, line and sinker. I wonder ... are our secret and special forces as inept as the story indicates. God help us if they really are.

16 March 2011 at 15:51  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld and Tiddles said...

Rambling Syd Rumpo cordwangled 16 March 2011 15:40

Excellent, my fine chap. You have put Ernst into a fine mood with that jaunty little sea shanty.

What a brilliant idea, as we have no weapons to launch and we are able to maintain a no fly zone except with the use of handgliders.
We sing them into submission, Last Night of The Proms style.. At least it will save the lives of our brave chaps and chapesses being wasted on people who despise us.

ahh well, might as well get drunk like Atlass Shrugged and join in..What shall we do with the mad dictator,
He’s bending his cordwangle.!

Wish Ernst had the wit and musicality to compose such a piece.

E S Blofeld

16 March 2011 at 15:52  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Gaddaffi has only done what the British Establishment would do under the Defence of the Realm act and Churchill went to great lenghs to prepare for such action in 1919

16 March 2011 at 16:33  
Anonymous Keep Britain Bona said...

We tried all the other parties, left labour because of the budget deficit, split from the tories because blue isn't our colour, it isn't is it Jules. With the Lib Dems for a while but we felt personally betrayed by the actions of our member..He went and got MARRIED.
So we left to form our own, The Universal party. We are at it right left and centre.

As we have no means of arming our defence force, we are taking the radical step of using dress to have the same effect as carrying an automatic rifle, peuce combats with lime coloured collar and wrist trim, finished with Jimmy Choo's fur lined boots. Should scare the life out of those homophobic arabs. HM Armed Forces..Dressed to thrill.

Our Motto to all who agree with us is 'Shake hands with your prospective member.'

Pull out your manifesto, Sandy. That bred in the bona looks like member material to us.

Keep Britain Bona. Vote for the Universal Party.

Julian and Sandy

16 March 2011 at 17:20  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Thankyou Rambling Syd Rumpo, a nice shanti of the seas .

I was aghast at Douglas Alexanders first comments when troubles started he wouldnt even say if he thought gaddafi should go . It is odd that at a time when we all looked towards the UN and Arab league to work very hard to ensuring gaddafis exile and , there was this sort of stunned surprise , as though they had never really considered any defences of democracy.
The rebel free libyans are out gunned , it perhaps would have been better for the Arab league to have got somthing rolling when they were in Brega.
Gaddafi will only cause more trouble once he claims victory , support the rebels is my view .

I understand why people were not so sure about Iraq , but to me that was a UN resolution that did not allow the people to go after him the first time round . people will die . dissapear in the night under gadaffi , we mustnt forget that . I understand Hillary Clinton was trying to get things moving , but obama wasnt sure .it is a chance to begin to change libya , and the arabs must consider that change by there own people is what is wanted than by desperate means

16 March 2011 at 17:20  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Philip Walling @ 10:52 :

I tend to agree with you. The West will be damned regardless of what we do, or fail to do. It is the nature of democracy that we will almost always be wrong-footed , by previous actions/policies, when facing new dilemmas.

If the monster, Gaddafi, fell, he would be replaced sooner or later by some fundamentalist regime ... likewise the rest of the middle-east, degenerating into waring tribal factions, or lunatic Islamic dictatorships.

The quesion is: how do we safeguard our oil supplies?

Too much is happening world-wide; the chaos of Japan has diverted more than just news-copy. At present, who knows where; to do what; and for what reason?

16 March 2011 at 17:51  
Anonymous Tony B said...

>Why we must send Gaddafi the way of Saddam

16 March 2011 at 18:03  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Mr Hannibal Lecter is an imposter. The very idea of keeping Chianti in the fridge... What a dreadful thought.

16 March 2011 at 18:07  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Keep Britain Bona said...Our Motto to all who agree with us is 'Shake hands with your prospective member.'

A party eh!

Will they be serving Cocktails?

16 March 2011 at 18:25  
Anonymous Keep Britain Bona said...

Bred in the Bona said 16 March 2011 18:25

"Will they be serving Cocktails?"

Brought directly to your table by our waitress, Miss Molly Coddle.


Mr GruntFuttock
The Universal Party Campaign Manager

16 March 2011 at 18:39  
Blogger OldSouth said...

Very good points, Your Grace. However, we in the US have tired of charging in on the white steed to undo a Sadaam, or the Taliban, or (fill in the blank), only to be vilified as we are bled white for our troubles.

I'm certain the UK has had the same experience.

Sadly, he has not yet created enough chaos for Europe to locate its spine.

We miss President Reagan, who had the moral clarity, credibility, and the Navy in place to deal with such creatures as Gadafi.

16 March 2011 at 18:46  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

"Brought directly to your table by our waitress, Miss Molly Coddle."

Then order three for the party leaders sat in the armchairs.

16 March 2011 at 19:34  
Anonymous Keep Britain Bona said...

Mr Bred in the Bona 16 March 2011 19:34

"Then order three for the party leaders sat in the armchairs."

Can I take yer order now, Mr Bona.

What will the three weasels be supping tonite? (apologies to weasels, Mr MatureCheese).

Binky Huckerback

16 March 2011 at 20:01  
Anonymous Martin sewell said...

Haven't the " It was all about oil" crowd worked out that if you want oil from the likes of a Saddam and Gadaffi there is a much easier way to get it than through invasion.

You BUY it!

The only oil based influence in Iraq came from
France and Russia who were heavily invested and would have used Security Council vetoes to prevent a UN resolution to protect their investment.

Oil security for the West was already guaranteed by finds in Alberta and off West Africa. The argument is ill- informed.

16 March 2011 at 22:45  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Your Grace, your communicant recommeds a sortie by a remotely piloted vehicle equipped with Halfaya missiles.

Decapitation is the best poilicy where the likes of Gaddafi and his evil spawn are concerned.

Then let nature take its course.

16 March 2011 at 22:47  
Anonymous Sage said...

Why is it that there are no African or Arab countries coming to the aid of the oppressed Libyans?

16 March 2011 at 22:53  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Sage (22:53)—African and Arab leaders are too busy oppressing their own people, in some cases with divine justification; prompted by stirrings of unrest in Saudi Arabia, the country’s Council of Senior Clerics reaffirmed its ban on political parties because they are ‘not in keeping with Islam’.

16 March 2011 at 23:03  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

I have to agree with Ernie Blowjob and all the Cocktails he tells us.

Although I was disappointed the around the horne fan had no Will Hay in his collection.

17 March 2011 at 01:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Herman and Gaddafi in happier times

17 March 2011 at 01:35  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Send in the troops? What troops are they planning to send? Last I heard the Cleggerons were busy sacking them all. Even the SAS seem incapable of performing to expectations these days. Let's hope there aren't going to be any embassy hostages to rescue because even lions can fail miserably when lead by absolute asses.

17 March 2011 at 06:28  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Do we have many embassies left, Gnotic? I thought they'd been shutting those down for years!

17 March 2011 at 07:20  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Yeah, non mouse. All part of the national closing down sale, everything must go (to the EU), no doubt.

17 March 2011 at 09:24  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Where are European Council President Herman van Rompuy and High Representative for Foreign Affairs Baroness Catherine Ashton?

Couldn't they help out?

17 March 2011 at 11:32  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Thank you for the link, Johnny Rottenborough (16 March 2011 23:03)

You will have noted that the report there (in the Guardian) mentioned that a statement issued by the country's council of senior clerics at the time had said that the council affirmed that demonstrations were forbidden, and that the correct way in sharia [law] of realising common interest was by advising, which is what the Prophet Muhammad had established; reform and advice should not be via demonstrations and ways that provoked strife and division-- that was what the religious scholars of that country in the past and now had forbidden and warned against. The report added that the statement made clear the council's stance against political parties, which were banned as they were deemed to be not in keeping with Islam. (source: Guardian, Thursday 10 March 2011 18.54 GMT ).

Have statements to that effect not been issued in this country, in our lifetime (and in the remoter past)? Are there laws to that effect now available for enforcement (mutatis mutandis)? Is the making and enforcement of such laws a near danger or certainty?

17 March 2011 at 12:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For the first time , I find myself in almost complete disagreement with His Grace.
I do not have a problem with the comments themselves , but rather the thrust of His Grace's arguments.

There are no moral imperatives for Western governments.As others here have stated,
it's all about Liquid Gold.
The lack of it in Zimbabwe is the reason why President Mugabe is still in power.

As for this line : "The Just War was a Christian formulation" - sure , agreed.
But I wonder if the bloke from Nazareth approves??

Marcus Foxall

17 March 2011 at 13:05  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ MrJ (12:13)—There’s no doubt our ruling triumvirate would take action against other parties if they represented a real threat to the triumvirate’s monopoly of power.

17 March 2011 at 13:39  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older