We are entitled to all the most stupid arguments. For example, if you criticize Gaddafi, it is only by racism and hatred of the South (Beyala is the great expert on this strategy of victimhood: when Read had found dozens of plagiarism in his works, she also denounced anti-African racism). Besides, she says, nobody criticizes Bush (by the way, the fact that El-Kadhafi says that the insurgents are handled by bin Laden suggests he is capable of imitating the methods of Bush). Similarly, any criticism of the Libyan regime is of colonialism and our democracy is as dictatorial as the company is full of discrimination.
And when the journalist tells the attempted rape that she suffered in 1984, Beyala implies, by repeating the vile sexism argument of all, it was she who tried to seduce " Guide "(his phrase" I do not judge sexuality Guide "is undoubtedly one of the worst statements ever heard).
The only positive argument against Beyala Algathafi is that he has resumed Nasser project (Pan-Arab first, then to failure, "Pan" to better justify the invasion of Chad) and he fought consistently for African Unity. True, but one wonders if the fact that the project is supported by a megalomaniac Caligula who did so only because he dreamed as a prophet of the continent did not hinder this process. And in any case that the United States of Africa had been based on a confederation of some dictatorships accomplices would not make Gaddafi a Jean Monnet, a Washington or even a Bolivar.
If Libya is never free from this madman and his family, there will have been a leap again from Ben Ali and Mubarak (or possibly the monarchy of Bahrain and the Republic "authoritarian" of Yemen). These dictators were only "traditional" as there are many others while with Colonel Gaddafi we were in the more fantastic and rarest of Nero, Saparmurat Niyazov or Kim Il- sung.
(this post has abandoned any consistent spelling in the Latin transliteration of his name)
0 comments:
Post a Comment