Comments on: Labour on Libya: doublespeak and deceit

By: Jozef

Jozef — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 11:25:24 +0000

Silvio,

They weren’t even capable of a mea culpa for the violence and intimidation in the 80s.

All the great leader could muster was that those things shouldn’t have happened (mur obsor).

How do you expect them to admit to the underlying motive behind that psychological horror?

The only thing that gives me hope is that all that’s being unearthed right now provides a plausible explanation to this country’s predicament.

And that the Maltese are capable of better things.

By: Jozef

Jozef — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 00:43:01 +0000

What has to be underlined is that this vicious mechanism is integral to the nature of the party.

I take their silence as proof.

By: Min Weber

Min Weber — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 23:53:34 +0000

Why does Mr Felice limit the scope of his question?

“Have any of the present Labour Administration gained personally through Col Gaddafi’s special relationship?”

Why does he limit it to the PRESENT administration. What about past administrations? People who held posts such as International Secretary… ?

By: 'Angus Black

'Angus Black — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 22:00:06 +0000

In reply to La Redoute.

Talk about ‘lying all along’…have we all forgotten Joseph’s bragging about Gaddafi discussing and showing him the Libya-Italy agreement on immigration and other matters which involved a 6 billion euro gift to Libya, and, as it turned out, all Joseph saw were excerpts from a Libyan newspaper?

Lying all along? That’s an understatement.

By: La Redoute

La Redoute — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 19:13:50 +0000

Muscat had made much of his ‘agreement’ with Gaddafi on matters concerning oil exploration, and so on. What he didn’t say then, and doesn’t say now, is why Gaddafi’s government – such as it was – would enter into such an agreement with a party that cannot deliver anything until it is in government.

The agreement is not legally binding, but it certainly was (is?) politically binding. Would anyone have cared to defy Gaddafi? Not the Labour Party, that’s for sure.

That leads to one of two possible conclusions:

1. the Labour Party was paid – in cash or in kind – for whatever the party was (is?) committed to deliver when in government;

2. Joseph Muscat was lying when he said that an agreement had been reached.

For his next trick, Muscat might wish to explain to his public what it was his party received, or was supposed to receive, and what he gave away in exchange.

Either that, or admit that he was lying all along.

By: 'Angus Black

'Angus Black — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 17:26:35 +0000

Oh well, that’s all in the past and as Labour would have it, we should forget all about it and tear off a few black pages off our history books.

The gall, the ineptitude and the arrogance of GaddafiPL is beyond comprehension.

By: silvio

silvio — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 16:12:09 +0000

Maybe the P.L. should come clean on this matter. It should just admit (if it is the case) that, yes we were friends with Gaddafi, yes we did receive some help, be it in cash or in kind.
No, at that time we were not fully aware of what was going on in Libya, we now know and we are truly sorry.

That is now the past, matter closed.

After all even the Nationalist Party is not proud of its past association with Italian fascists. Time has proved us wrong in supporting them, but we paid for our mistakes, we had some of our people deported, etc.

But that is now the past, matter closed.

Sorry is a very small word, but it takes a big man to say it.

By: Edward Caruana Galizia

Edward Caruana Galizia — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 15:37:27 +0000

They probably think it’s really unfair that people keep bringing up their relations with Gaddafi and will tell us that it has nothing to do with Labour today because today’s PL is different.