bulgarian nurses and palestinian doctors sentenced to death

[judvic]

Hello,

This story illustrates how difficult it is to reach objective reality.

A medical team is being sentenced to death in Lybia for infecting children with the HIV virus.

Mainstream says this sentance is a scandal and that the team is innocent. It is Kadafi trying to get money out of it.


I start questionning myself. So I try to gather "facts" and questions.
Kadafi is a contraversial man.
There is oil in Lybia and Kadafi is a proponent of pan arabism.
Kadafi has made big efforts to enable Lybia from joining again the International Community. What is the interest for him of this sentence?
I have direct testimony that in Lybia Kadafi has redistributed to the people the money from petrol (like Chavez)
Is it an inside plot to get rid of Kadafi by another faction of the lybian elite?
Is there such thing as an HIV virus? Is aids not rather caused by poor nutrition and chemical componants and drugs that bring down people's immunity?
Having read the constant gardener from John Le Carré, could it be that this team was the puppet of Pharmatical companies and trying drugs on children hence leading many of them to death?

Could the team have usesd alternative treatments that worked well, and for doing so are dangerous ,and Kadafi ,in order to please big Pharma, is jailing them?
Why Bulgarians and Palestinians?
Is big pharma really evil? Or is big Pharma unfairly attacked by opponents to Progress and Science (cult of Mother Nature)?
Is there any truth in this story or is it just made up?

I must conclude that I don't have a single fact on which I could give a satisfactory explanation to this story.

And this drives me on the verge of madness?

But Maybe this is the goal?

Ludovic

 

[Laura]

Yeah, nothing like getting a little "Transmarginal Inhibition" going with confusing messages and unbearable ambiguity.

Actually, you do have a few facts, as you noted:

1) Kadafi is a controversial man.

2) There is oil in Lybia and Kadafi is a proponent of pan arabism.

3) Kadafi has made big efforts to enable Lybia from joining again the International Community. What is the interest for him of this sentence?

4) [You] have direct testimony that in Lybia Kadafi has redistributed to the people the money from petrol (like Chavez)

So, it seems that the problem is to get some factual data out of Libya. How to do that? If you know someone who has given you the direct testimony about conditions in Libya, perhaps that person would be able to write to the proper sources (once they have been determined) and try to obtain the facts for publication.

Worth a try.

 

[judvic]

Hello,

Yes indeed it would be necessary to have direct testimonies of the situation in Libya.
The direct testimony I had is from a French civil servant who worked there. This testimony is already a few years old and since the person has left the country. Therefore I have no direct link with the country.
This emphasises the need for networking with people from all over the world provided that they seek the truth...


Ludovic

 

[Laura]

So, that means we need somebody in Libya in the network who we can ask to do research and translations. If anybody reading this is such a person, or knows one, hook us up!

 

[Z...]

My friends father works in Libya for years
I will try and send hima list of questions and see what he replies.

I followed Bulgarian nurses story and indeed there seem to be a lot of controversy.

Btw isn't it Gadaffi?! Colonel Muammar el Gadaffi to be more precise ;)

 

[Beau]

There's different spellings all over the place. I've seen it spelled as Khadafi as well, but Wikipedia spells it Gaddafi.

 

[Z...]

Very interesting twist in the whole Bulgarian Nurses drama, maybe it will answer some of your questions

REWARDING TORTURE AND BLACKMAIL WITH NUCLEAR ENERGY by Raphael Vassallo

So now we know how to do it.
After years of mysteries wrapped inside enigmas, we know how any country regardless of its international reputation can lay its hands on nuclear energy for absolutely free... so long as the technology is used for "peaceful purposes "(for instance "peacefully" blackmailing the entire world into giving whatever you want, whenever you want it).

And not just your nice, democratic countries either. Oh no. Even a dyed-in-the-wool military dictatorship with no respect for (or even concept of) human rights, a country in which democratic opposition is banned by law, where free speech does not exist, and where torture and human rights violations are undisguised, everyday fact of life...well, this is precisely the kind of country that gets rewarded with nice memorandum of understanding , signed by French President Nicolas Sarcozy, for a nuclear reactor to power its national desalination programme.

Yes, indeed I am talking about the Great People's Arab Socialist Jamahariya of Libya here - you know, our friendly neighbor to the South, who very amicably sent a gunboat to stop us searching for oil in international waters in 1981, and a few years later (under the same leadership in case you have forgotten) drew a "line of death" across the Gulf of Sirte threatening to declare instant war on those who cross it.

Ah, I hear you all say: but Libya has changed beyond recognition since then, hasn't it? Its no longer maverick state it used to be in 1980s. After all it abandoned its weapons programme a couple of years ago; and besides, it also...um... erm...hang on...
Ok, I give up. What exactly did libya do, to suddenly enjoy the trust of European countries like France, while harmless little Malta evidently does not?
(For lets face it: the very least France could have done was consult us, before giving nuclear technology to the only country to have threatened us with military action since WWII...)

Apart from abandoning a programme to build nuclear weapons which none of us has ever seen-and which many believe did not exist, other than as ruse to rid itself of its previous reputation as the pariah of the world - the answer appears to be "sweet FA".
With thith the possible exception of Tunisia, Libya is the only North African country not to have made even the tiniest concession to democracy since it was taken over by military commander in a 1969 coup, Everywhere else, there has been at least some kinds of devolution away from autocracy. Egypt held its first "free" multi-party elections in 2005. Admittedly it was a laughable affair, involving more rigging than the Marie Celeste , but at least it was a start. Elsewhere, Morocco has had bi-cameral, multi-party legislative assembly since 1996-a fact that makes kingdom more democratic (technically at least) then Malta.
Even Algeria's 10 year civil war was precipitated by democratic forces, after general elections were canceled in 1992. (Europe's role in this sordid affair, by the way, makes for very depressing footnote in the History of European Hypocrisy Vol. XVIII. But thats another story...) [Deckard: ]

So make no mistake: of all the countries north of Sahara, only Libya has so far resisted all notions of democracy. And to make matters worse, its human rights record is every bit as chilling as the many so called African "failed states" which horrify us so much. If you don't believe me, you can look up the most recent country report on Libya complied by Amnesty International. Word of advice: keep sleeping pill ready, they might come in handy for next few weeks.

Actually you needn't bother with the AI reports. You can get a good idea of Libya's human right record simply by revisiting the "negotiations " which landed Muammar with nice new nuclear power station, courteously provided by his newfound buddy, Nicolas Sarkozy.

It went roughly like this:

1. Allow the standards of your health service to reach such a positively abysmal state that over 400 babies are infected with AIDS because of unhygienic conditions at teh Benghazzi general hospital

2. Concoct bizarre and ludicrous conspiracy theory in order to blame the epidemic on the only foreign nurses and medics working at the same hospital ( after all, the alternative would be to blame the Health ministry, and consequently the government, and consequently Ghaddafi himself).


3. Imprison the foreign medics for eight years, during which time they are raped, beaten and subjected to regular electric shock torture, until they sign a forced confession to multiple infanticide ( note: the torture detail was kindly supplied by Muammar's son, Seif Al Islam Ghaddafi, in recent interview with Al Jazeera. Ghaddafi junior also openly boasted about technique he calls "political blackmail"... and rightly so, for it evidently works
4. Sentence the Bulgarian nurses to death, and then play a game cat-and-mouse with EU interlocutors until they release of the medics is finally secured in exchange for:
a) nice anti-missile and anti-tank system neatly wrapped and with a card signed "T. Blair"
b) shiny new nuclear reactor complete with tag saying "fond regards, Nicolas"

5. Final note: If you followed the above instructions to the letter, you will find a long queue of European countries outside your tent, all desperately falling over each other in the mad scramble for lucrative deals withe the Mediterranean's last remaining full time dictator.
Naturally, this is all part of Europe's strategy to promote human rights and respect for human dignity around the world.

In a few words, what the French government has just done is trumpet the message that it is perfectly OK to detain and torture foreign nationals for no apparent reason, other then to openly blackmail the world into giving it to all your whims. Not only that France has also provided an incentive for human rights violations, by rewarding torture with a technology which is actually denied to other countries.

This brings me to the remarkable double standards Europe employs when it comes to nuclear energy and nuclear proliferation. Can Iran have nuclear energy? No way. It'is a "rogue state". Never mind that, regardless of its somewhat primitive policy regarding Israel, Iran is also a parliamentary democracy in its own right. Never mind that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad unlike Muammar Gaddafi was democratically elected and could be democratically booted out tomorow. These are incidental trivialities. In practice dictator get all the goodies, while the elected representative gets threatened with invasion and usurpation. Why? I have no idea. But it is certainly not because of greater trustworthiness on the part of lybia. Far from it.

Nota Bene:
Maltatoday is the only fully independent newspaper in the island, much feared by local political mafia,
chief editor and the owner had his house door set on fire several times ( that is typical local intimidation tactics) .

 

[Joe]

That pretty much sums up the situation as I understand it, although the author could easily have been much more critical of the UK France the US and that permanent silent partner, Israel.

Gadaffi duck was simply playing the game by their rules. He sold out Libya's support for Arab nationalism beginning in 2002 in exchange for a lifting of the American threat that the "war on terror" might spread to Libya, and perhaps a wink and a nod about a nuclear reactor.

The Americans and Brits made much public noise over Libya's return to the "democratic fold" a few years ago, and throughly enjoyed the example it set to other nationalist Arab nations, not to mention the lucrative oil deals that opened up for Exxon BP et al.

As the years passed however, the reactor wasn't appearing on the horizon, and Gaddafi realised that he could more or less do as he liked without much complaining from his Western buddies, so he resorted to dirty tricks taken straight out of the CIA, MI6 and Mossad's play book. The level of condemnation in the Western press over the past few years over the plight of the detainees has been muted to say the least. I wonder why...

Joe