Daphne, picking up a fight is one thing, disagreeing with some of your opinions, is another.

I never insulted you but I am under the impression that the sole purpose of blogs is for inviting different comments from different perspectives on the same issue. Insulting, pointing fingers and ridiculing individuals who stay within the rules is somewhat distasteful.

I agree with you that I have a choice of not reading your blog. Now that is a very positive comment, if I ever heard one. I think that I am quite capable of reaching that conclusion by myself.

Your criticism of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Affairs Minister has nothing to do with me forming an opinion as to what is the best way of handling the Libya situation. I can safely stick my head out and say that the way things are shaping up, it may be that the way the government (not just the PM or DPM) has handled the situation, could very well be the only sane way.

[Daphne – Angus, you have been bitching about my views on Libya, Malta and Gaddafi since day one. You have done so because you are incapable of looking at the situation objectively. Everything this government does must be right, even when it isn’t. You are angry at me because I don’t see it the same way. Yet I don’t, and I never will. Your last sentence, for example, I consider to be horrendous. It indicates a primitive pragmatic amorality that is typical of Maltese survivalist thinking.]

I have taken this too far, but the same could be said for you, Daphne. A steady dose of a good thing, and one could end up with a bellyache.

[Daphne – You have a choice not to log on and read what I write. I have no similar choice where your comments (or anyone else’s) are concerned. I have to read them before I upload them. And believe me, it can be very tedious sometimes, which I why I often put it off. I really sympathise with the moderator at timesofmalta.com, who must deal with so very much more than I have to. As for what I should write about and how often, I’ll be the judge of that. I’ve had a handle on what people want to read about for the last two decades (I use myself as a bellwether – if I’m going to find it boring, I assume that my readers will too). Suffice it to say that since the Libya crisis broke out, and I’ve been writing about it regularly, this website moved into the top 100 for Malta for the first time, and up to 46 at one point. You probably feel far removed from it, with consequent lack of interest, because you live on the other side of the world. And that’s understandable, even though I probably wouldn’t feel the same way myself if I were in your position.]

Opinions are formed irrespective of one’s address, so please quit bringing this up. Getting mad at me because of my location shows lack of judgment on your part.

[Daphne – No, opinions are formed with everything in our experience being brought to bear. Address and location are among those things. You won’t find a similar level of interest in Libya in, say, Hong Kong, as you do in Malta and Italy, and opinions will be different.]

Over the years I have admired your comments about subjects which have been recorded in history and when they unfold in front of everybody’s eyes but take exception to comments made based on partial information and innuendo.

Although all of us are curious animals, some things may not be revealed by governments in the interest of national security. In any case some events hardly affect one’s life and an absence of immediate revelation becomes less important.

I cannot understand why it is “most unnecessary and most unwise” for me to express my observations, which, to my knowledge are written in the English language and not in Chinese.

This is your blog and I respect that, however, it is most unnecessary and most unwise to insult contributors to your blog and who help in no uncertain way to keep up its popularity.

[Daphne – Perhaps you haven’t noticed, Angus, but it is generally commenters who insult me and not the other way round. Sometimes, it is as though they come in here – anonymously generally – for the specific purpose of picking a fight with me or denigrating me in some way. Unfortunately, you are beginning to veer in that direction, simply because you can bear the fact that I criticised the prime minister’s actions and words.]

If I were Ms Claudia Taylor-East I would have clarified that the ship is the only means of transport to Misurata and they do not control what goes on during or after the ferrying of the much needed aid.

SOS Malta are not adhering to their mission statement which states :”Aiding people experiencing times of crisis and empowering them by providing support services and opportunities to implement development and change in their country to ensure a better quality of life.”

Corinne et al, please read the SOS press release one more time. It appears that they are pointing fingers at their vessel’s activity not from Misurata but TO MIsurata from Valletta harbour.

Read, “SOS Malta will temporarily suspend its participation in any efforts to deliver humanitarian aid to Libya until an unequivocal guarantee is obtained from Government authorities that {transport to Misurata} is engaged solely and entirely for humanitarian purposes.

Fortunately, this peasant can read between the lines, unless Claudia Taylor-East meant ‘transport FROM Misurata (to Malta)’. I would imagine that if the vessel they chartered was returning Libyans and others to war torn Libya, many more would immediately notice especially, Libyans living in Malta who, no doubt and rightly so, be the first ones to object.

If only SOS Malta would clarify?
“…

[Daphne – There is no need to clarify, Angus. It is perfectly clear. There is one ship, and SOS Malta is talking about it: saying that it does not want to use a ship which might be used for non-humanitarian reasons on the return leg. There is nothing to read between the lines. You are taking this business of defending the indefensible rather too far now. You should know, living where you do, that it most unnecessary and most unwise. In fact, it is quite Chinese.]

And the government’s silence is deafening.

SOS Malta’s objection is to being used as a cover for clandestine operations with dubious objectives. The organisation is correct in suspending its operations, in more ways than one: it is right to do so, and it is doing so above board and in full communication with the public, through the media.

Shamefully, we can’t say the same of our government’s actions.

Immigration law is probably the only bit left intact – technically, visas were ready when the Shatwan family landed.

Why is Omar Fathi Bin Shatwan any different from other Libyans who are being shot at and bombarded by Gaddafi’s troops? Is he less human only because he was a former minister in Gaddafi’s regime and quit some five years ago and has not even be in contact with Gaddafi since? What has affordability to reside in a hotel got to do with whether this man qualifies as a refugee?

So, we are backing the rebels, right? What guarantee do we have that these same rebels were not applauding Gaddafi less than six months ago? Is it for this reason, perhaps, that the UN and the West were so hesitant to act much sooner?

One cannot make judgment based solely on suspicion. Sometimes one has to give the benefit of the doubt.