May 27, 2005

Qadhafi: There is No Global Terrorism, Just Islamic Terrorism

If nothing else Qadhafi is a character. I spent some time perusing Memri TV and came across this video of Qadhafi and thought that I would share it with you. For those of you using dial-up or are unable to access the video here is a link to the transcript and some highlights. Here are his opening remarks.

The following are excerpts from a speech by Libyan Leader, Mu'ammar Qadhafi, at the Arab League conference. Al-Arabia TV (UAE) aired this speech on March 23, 2005.

"The issue that worries us is that the entire world talks about terrorism, morning, noon, and night. We are not dumb, we can talk.

What is terrorism? Has any American blown up an airplane? No. Has any American strapped on an explosives belt and gone to Cairo, Tripoli, or Algiers, to blow something up? Such a thing never happened. Has any Indian gone to China to blow something up? No. Has any Russian done such things? No. Has any Italian, any Frenchman...? No.

So who carries out terrorism? Who are the ones who blow up things – which is called terrorism? Terrorism is clearly limited. It takes place in Palestine, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan.

Therefore, terrorism is Islamic. Why do we say only "terrorism"? We should say "Islamic terrorism" because beyond these two areas there is no such thing as terrorism."

Qadhafi then provides some background:

"The IRA, which Libya has supported with weapons - this matter has been settled by negotiations between Britain and us in Cairo... Libya supported the IRA with weapons for Ireland's independence. Of course it is a terrorist organization, but it never had a bad reputation and international claims were never leveled against it. Ireland has been fighting for 300 years, but we've never heard of global terrorism there.

The Red Brigades in Italy killed people, and even kidnapped and killed the Italian prime minister, whose body hasn't been found to this day. No one claimed this was terrorism.

As for the Basques, fighting for the independence of the Basque region between France and Spain - although ETA, which is affiliated to them, is considered a terrorist organization, there has never been talk of [global] terrorism there.

These movements have been operating for decades. So where were the calls against terrorism, and the campaign against terrorism? They didn't exist. Therefore, when we talk about "war against terror," this means war on Islamic terrorism. We must be clear about this.

As for what terrorism is, what its causes are – this is another matter. But the current war and the campaign against terrorism - There is no global terrorism, there is Islamic terrorism."

I cannot help but wonder where the MSM was in reporting about this speech.

"I'd like to take this opportunity to say that the Palestinians… Where is Brother Abu Mazen? Ah, I see you, don't be angry – but the Palestinians and the Israelis are stupid. Why? I'll convince you, and explain to you why they are stupid.

First of all, the Israelis paid no attention to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip for 20 years, and showed no interest in them. They declared statehood and called it Israel in 1948, and put aside the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Since they considered [these areas] dispensable and unimportant, why are they fighting for them now? This is stupidity. Dozens of Jews are killed by Palestinian fedayeen even in Tel Aviv, because of their presence in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. If the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were so important, why did you abandon them in 1948? You abandoned them. They were unimportant."

I disagree with him regarding his thoughts about the West Bank and Gaza, as will many people, but for now we'll set that aside.
"As for the Palestinians – they are stupid because these territories were theirs. They were in their hands for 20 years. Why didn't they establish a state there? Why are they dying now by the dozens in order to establish a state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip? The West Bank and the Gaza Strip were yours. The West Bank was Jordan's, and Gaza belonged to Egypt since 1948. Why didn't you establish a Palestinian state then? Where was this problem until 1967? This leads to a moral, fundamental, and legal problem. It is impossible to recognize either. Both parties are guilty of stupidity."
So what do we make of this. What do we do with this public acknowledgement of the elephant in the room. Not to mention what does old Mo plan on doing, if anything to help stabilize the region other than make speeches.

Lots of food for thought here.

9 comments:

PsychoToddler said...

It's hard to digest the fact that Quadaffi is actually making sense. I disagree about the Israeli lack of interest in the west bank and Gaza prior to 67--it was called a cease fire. But the rest of it is right on the money.

So just what was his point?

Stacey said...

Wow. This got no press anywhere. Wonder what his motives are. And I agree with PsychoT about Gaza and the W. Bank.

Stephen (aka Q) said...

I'm not exactly clear on the purpose of these remarks, either. But I don't think Ghadafi is arguing that Muslims are the only terrorists in the world.

I think the reference to the IRA, the Red Brigades, and the Basques is key: "These movements have been operating for decades. So where were the calls against terrorism, and the campaign against terrorism? They didn't exist. Therefore, when we talk about 'war against terror,' this means war on Islamic terrorism."

According to Ghadafi, the world ignores terrorism unless it's Islamic terrorism. Muslims are being singled out for special attention. People speak of the war on terror to hide their real agenda, the war on Islamic terrorism.

I'm not agreeing with him, of course. But that's what he's saying, isn't it?

The latter part of the quote is more ambiguous to me. His comment that Palestinians didn't care about the West Bank and Gaza strip until '67 is certainly a surprising admission.
Q

Jack's Shack said...

According to Ghadafi, the world ignores terrorism unless it's Islamic terrorism. Muslims are being singled out for special attention. People speak of the war on terror to hide their real agenda, the war on Islamic terrorism.

I am not sure that I agree with that.

Earlier he said:

hat is terrorism? Has any American blown up an airplane? No. Has any American strapped on an explosives belt and gone to Cairo, Tripoli, or Algiers, to blow something up? Such a thing never happened. Has any Indian gone to China to blow something up? No. Has any Russian done such things? No. Has any Italian, any Frenchman...? No. So who carries out terrorism? Who are the ones who blow up things – which is called terrorism? Terrorism is clearly limited. It takes place in Palestine, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan. Therefore, terrorism is Islamic. Why do we say only "terrorism"? We should say "Islamic terrorism" because beyond these two areas there is no such thing as terrorism.

Stephen (aka Q) said...

I concede your point: the excerpt you've quoted says exactly what you take it to mean. At least, on the face of it, it does.

But does Ghadafi really mean that no American (or Asian or European) has ever blown something up? In the excerpt I've quoted, he says that the IRA, the Red Brigades, and the Basques are all terrorists. E.g., the IRA "is a terrorist organization, but it never had a bad reputation and international claims were never leveled against it."

So perhaps, in the excerpt you've quoted, Ghadafi means only that the world pays no attention when an American (or Indian or Italian) blows something up — that the world doesn't label an act terrorist if the act is carried out by an American.

I'm trying to impose some consistency on Ghadafi's remarks, but perhaps there is none. Is it possible that he's just confused and babbling incoherently? Yep, it's possible.
Q

Mary P. said...

Here's a completely different spin on it. We've all been reading his words with our own inflection. So when we read "Has any American ever blown up...Has any American ever strapped on explosives...", we hear that in tones of approbation. Of course!

But, maybe he was speaking with his typical braggadocio. Then the tone would be contemptuous, the implication being, "Has any wussy, feeble American, Indian, Russian, Italian, Frenchman ever...? No, it's only we Muslim who are brave and dedicated enough to lay claim to the label terrorist!" After all, militant Muslim families receive praise for sending their sons off to explode themselves and others. It's a point of pride for some.

Just thinking...

Zeruel said...

There has been non-islamic terrorism but that was never as deadly extreme as the islamic terrorism. Even in their prime days the likes of ETA, IRA and RAF doesn't hold a candle to AQ and derivatives.

Tragically, the reason these, often suppressed, tyranized and/or occupied muslims haven't faded in history is because they make their existence known with relentless bloodshed. Who would still care about Chechnya and the Palestinian territories if they didn't blow themselves up every once in a while? In political circles(where it counts): nobody.

Having the incentive that a harem of female delights awaits you at the other side also helps(but what can you do with them if explosions have torn you to pieces? I guess through 'magic' you will have your body back). I wonder if they have Playstation there.

Workman Chronicles said...

Personally, I think this is a sign that the world is coming to an end.
When a lunatic like Ol' Moe says something that I agree with, I know that Armageddon must be just around the corner.
I'm outraged that politically correctness has precluded the completely accurate term "Islamic Terrorists" when referring to those who callously take the lives of innocents in some hazy protest of...heck, I don't even know why Muslims hate us, other than the damning fact that we're not Muslims.
As far as the West Bank and Gaza...maybe my Wayback Machine is out of kilter, but didn't those two territories belong to other countries before the Six Day War? I seem to recall that those two strips of land became spoils of war after Israel beat the dog crap out of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.
Or maybe I'm confused. Please, somebody fix me!

*Morris Workman

Jack's Shack said...

So perhaps, in the excerpt you've quoted, Ghadafi means only that the world pays no attention when an American (or Indian or Italian) blows something up — that the world doesn't label an act terrorist if the act is carried out by an American.

You could be right. Even though we can watch the speech without being able to understand Arabic it is hard to catch all the vocal inflections.

Mary,

That is certainly possible too.

Z,

A playstation is a hell of an incentive.

Morris,

The question of legitimacy of ownership of Gaza and the West Bank predates '67, but Qadhafi is correct about the period of time between '48 and '67 in which "ownership" was at that time held by Egypt and Jordan.

The wackiest thing about this is that like you I can find some things to agree with him on.