Financed by Blood

So we had to have it from the CIA itself, since Kurt, Joseph and the present administration didn't bother to ask Sciberras Trigona, Anglu Farrugia and Karmenu Vella about it before issuing a statement that the 'present administration is not informed of any donations by the Gaddafi regime'. Gaddafi's regime, apart from financing Labour's pride: the children's allowance and social services in the so called "Golden Years", financed the Labour Party's activities and election campaigns at least up to 1987. And Muscat's visit last year, while still Leader of the Opposition, on Gaddafi's private jet (something which in any other country would have led to his resignation, as with the case of the French Finance Minister travelling on Ben Ali's private jet), leads me to think that this funding probably didn't stop there.

So it wasn't really a bilateral country-to-country relationship as they would like us to think when comparing it with Gonzi's and EFA's visits as heads of state. It was a regime-to-party relationship. No wonder the PN had boycotted Gaddafi's "Gieh ir-Repubblika" award ceremony in 1975, when Gaddafi was still considered a terrorist by the international community. No wonder George Vella still describes the uprising as a "zmien ikrah" and "we need to see what went wrong". And no wonder that in SIX MONTHS the Labour Party has never condemned Gaddafi, never even dared to mention him by name. Just to be "wise and prudent", in case he gets back in power.

What do we care that Libyans were being killed, tortured, and arrested. What do we care that his regime treated their staff as slaves and rubbish (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8291777).

Read the comments from PL supporters online: "gid rajna m'ghand Gaddafi!" You'll realize that them, and their party's leaders, very much preferred Gaddafi and his funding than a democratic Libya. What do they care that his cheques were signed by his people's blood.

"Il-ftit minn ghand il-hafna". Yeah right, pity that the 'hafna' included the oppressed Libyan people.

References:
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000478912/DOC_0000478912.pdf
http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0001518848/DOC_0001518848.pdf

Comments

Why I am dropping out of the Anti-ACTA protest

Like many avid internet users, I have followed with interest the debate about ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement). After reading numerous articles, watched sensational videos, and discussed ad nauseam with friends, I have realized that what I have come across is a campaign hi-jacked by lies, myths and misconceptions as to rival Malta's misinformed divorce referendum campaign. I have to say that the videos on Youtube got me worried. I quickly signed the petition, joined the Anti-ACTA groups, and prepared myself for a full-blown fight against the big-governments who want to intrude on our privacy and freedom of expression. Like our MEP Edward Scicluna invited us to do in the University debate last Wednesday, I did not try to understand the details of ACTA but rather saw who the players behind it were. But as usual, my logical instincts took over, and his call to not try to understand ACTA actually pushed me to read the text. And here's what I now know: ACTA is ...

Who's the real monster?

I usually hate comparisons, but some very different reactions from the 'great unthinking' rabble do merit some analysis. In May this year, the notorious dog Star was found buried alive . A prima facie , this looked liked the most horrific case of animal cruelty, and is still considered so by some. The perpetrator was described by the sensitive and caring animal-lovers as a villain, a heartless monster, deserving of death, stoning, or even to be 'buried alive in the same manner'. But what did Mr. Vella actually do, according to the testimony heard in Court? Star was sick. It was shedding fur, and quite old already, and its owner did not afford the treatment. In trying to save some money from paying for the dog to be put to sleep and killed properly by vets, she gave it to Mr. Vella to have it killed himself. Nothing much to make people angry till now. Mercy-killing of very sick and suffering animals is widely done and usually a...

The Church and its riches

The above pictures has lately been doing rounds on facebook. Posted comments refer to injustice, hypocrisy, and of the Church not practising what it preaches. It seems it has become a common trend to blame the Church for everything under the sun. Hitting at the Church is the new way of looking cool. But before joining the bandwagon of shares, likes and comments, let me try to analyze the points this photo is trying to make. The first one: the Church is immensely rich. Well, it could be, but what do most of these riches constitute? Most of the Church's "riches" are fixed immovable assets, of which most are important human heritage. They can practically never be sold. Let's just say that the Pope sells all his adornments (provided anyone wants to buy them), maybe even Michelangelo's Pieta, and once we're at it , yes, maybe he should also sell the Sistine Chapel and have it converted to apartments. Then what? Apart from making UNESCO and the rest of human...

Mark Anthony Sammut

Search This Blog