Should African Countries Recognize The Libyan Rebels?


hawajafata utaratibu, ikiwa ni pamoja na kuiarifu JMT

AU hawawatambui hawa 'wahun', nchi za Africa zitaridhiaje uwekaji bendera yao makwao
 
Lukolo said:
Nafikiri Tanzania imechukua msimamo mzuri. Kuwatambua hao jamaa kama ni viongozi halali wa Libya ni kukubaliana na approach ya upokaji madaraka ambayo waasi wameitumia. Naunga mkono hoja.
Click to expand...
<br />
<br />
Mbona Tanzania hiyohiyo ilikuwa inamtambua Gaddafi wakati na yeye alimpindua mfalme Idris?
 
hiyo bendera ya wazee wa pick up ndo ilikuwa inatumika kabla ya gadaffi kupindua nchi.gadaffi kaondoka na bendera yake imeondoka.ushabiki ndo unamsumbua membe.mia
 
figganigga said:
hiyo bendera ya wazee wa pick up ndo ilikuwa inatumika kabla ya gadaffi kupindua nchi.gadaffi kaondoka na bendera yake imeondoka.ushabiki ndo unamsumbua membe.mia
Click to expand...

utaratibu ufuatwe, sio kutundika tu

kesho na kesho kutwa mwingine ataanzisha uasi ugenini kwa kushusha bendera ya utawala asioutaka
 
figganigga said:
hiyo bendera ya wazee wa pick up ndo ilikuwa inatumika kabla ya gadaffi kupindua nchi.gadaffi kaondoka na bendera yake imeondoka.ushabiki ndo unamsumbua membe.mia
Click to expand...
Mzee mzima kaondolewa kwa pick up tu ilikuwa hakuna haja ya kurumia vifaru vya mizinga.
 
si wahuni-wanajua wanalofanya-membe ndo ana matatzo-au anasubiri NTC wamuandikie barua?
 

Who told u dat it was pple's power revolution? For ur information, This is western power(NATO) revolution. After all the fighting is still going on.
 
goodgud said:
utaratibu ufuatwe, sio kutundika tu na kesho kutwa mwingine ataanzisha uasi ugenini kwa kushusha bendera ya utawala asioutaka
Click to expand...

Panua mtazamo. Ukiwa umeudhiwa na kubadilisha bendera, mwambie balozi umtambui tena na aondoke nchini. Mtazamo wako ni wa kikasumba zaidi - NTC wana wawakilishi hata uko UN!! Umewasikia wanakasumba wenzio (AU) wakitaka serikali ya shirikisho na watu wa Ghaddafi.

Mtu aliyeuwa raia wake, kisha akaondolewa kwa nguvu - anawezaje kushirikishwa kwenye serikali. Au hujui vita au uasi ulikuwa una maana ya kuondoa kabisa kila kitu cha Ghaddafi?? Usiangalie bendera, angalia badiliko la kiitikadi.
 
Utawajua tu walokuwa wanafaidi pesa za Gadafi, sasa ameondoka na kama hamjajifunza kuvua samaki na kuogelea jiandaeni kula bila mboga na kuzama majini!
 

Who told u that it was pple's power revolution? For ur information, This is western power(NATO) revolution. After all the fighting is still going on.
 

kwenye bold: thubutu kwa serkali legelege hata hao AU niwachache wanaomaanisha, mugabe kashamkimbiza 'mhuni'

kuwa na wawakilishi UN sio hoja, UN=NATO, unategemea nn
 
Unafiki wetu ndo kifo chetu tunajifanya tunaifahamu Libya kuliko wenye nchi yao hata kuwahukumu wanaodai ukombozi kinachotuongoza sisi na kututawala ni woga wa kitoto tunaishia kulalamika tu hatuchukui hatua. Viva wanaharakati wa Libya
 

You are lacking something

Kama wahuni si muwafukuze na kuvunja uhusiano wa kibalozi. Kuwaita watu wahuni au ma-DJ wakati wanakubaliwa na wananchi wao haitakufanya wewe kuwa salama kama hautawaridhisha wahuni wa nchini mwako. Bora muhuni anayekubali kufa ili kuondoa dhulma kuliko sharobaro anayejipendekeza na kujidhalilisha ili mkono uende kinywani wakati akijua wazi kuwa wahuni wa nchini mwake hawana ajira, hawana umeme, wanakula mlo mmoja. etc

Kama Ubalozi wa Libya unatambua kuwa NTC ni serikali yao itakayowagharimia uwepo wao Tanzania iweje wewe na genge lako muwaite wahuni, kama ni wahuni watimueni kama mna ubavu, maana mtapata airtime ya bure na huo ndiyo utakuwa mwisho wenu wa kutembeza bakuli kwa wale wanaowatambua wahuni hao. Gaddafi is a history na kama AU mnapanga asault ili kumsaidia Master wa genge lenu dhini ya wananchi wa Libya mjue UN resolution 1973 bado lipo active.
 

As global powers become more interested in Africa, interventions in the continent will likely become more common.

Mahmood Mamdani Last Modified: 30 Aug 2011 11:12


[TD="class: DivTitles"] Opinion [/TD]

[TD="class: articleTitle"] What does Gaddafi's fall mean for Africa? [/TD]

[TD="class: Tmp_hSpace10"]
[/TD]

[TD="class: DetailedSummary"][TABLE="width: 33"]
[TR]

[TD="align: center"] When the UN Security Council passes resolutions allowing intervention, third parties such as NATO can carry out the interventions without accountability to anyone [EPA]
 [/TD]

"Kampala 'mute' as Gaddafi falls," is how the opposition paper summed up the mood of this capital the morning after. Whether they mourn or celebrate, an unmistakable sense of trauma marks the African response to the fall of Gaddafi.
Both in the longevity of his rule and in his style of governance, Gaddafi may have been extreme. But he was not exceptional. The longer they stay in power, the more African presidents seek to personalise power. Their success erodes the institutional basis of the state. The Carribean thinker C L R James once remarked on the contrast between Nyerere and Nkrumah, analysing why the former survived until he resigned but the latter did not: "Dr Julius Nyerere in theory and practice laid the basis of an African state, which Nkrumah failed to do."
The African strongmen are going the way of Nkrumah, and in extreme cases Gaddafi, not Nyerere. The societies they lead are marked by growing internal divisions. In this, too, they are reminiscent of Libya under Gaddafi more than Egypt under Mubarak or Tunisia under Ben Ali.
Whereas the fall of Mubarak and Ben Ali directed our attention to internal social forces, the fall of Gaddafi has brought a new equation to the forefront: the connection between internal opposition and external governments. Even if those who cheer focus on the former and those who mourn are preoccupied with the latter, none can deny that the change in Tripoli would have been unlikely without a confluence of external intervention and internal revolt.
More interventions to come
The conditions making for external intervention in Africa are growing, not diminishing. The continent is today the site of a growing contention between dominant global powers and new challengers. The Chinese role on the continent has grown dramatically. Whether in Sudan and Zimbawe, or in Ethiopia, Kenya and Nigeria, that role is primarily economic, focused on two main activities: building infrastructure and extracting raw materials. For its part, the Indian state is content to support Indian mega-corporations; it has yet to develop a coherent state strategy. But the Indian focus too is mainly economic.
The contrast with Western powers, particularly the US and France, could not be sharper. The cutting edge of Western intervention is military. France's search for opportunities for military intervention, at first in Tunisia, then Cote d'Ivoire, and then Libya, has been above board and the subject of much discussion. Of greater significance is the growth of Africom, the institutional arm of US military intervention on the African continent.
This is the backdrop against which African strongmen and their respective oppositions today make their choices. Unlike in the Cold War, Africa's strongmen are weary of choosing sides in the new contention for Africa. Exemplified by President Museveni of Uganda, they seek to gain from multiple partnerships, welcoming the Chinese and the Indians on the economic plane, while at the same time seeking a strategic military presence with the US as it wages its War on Terror on the African continent.
In contrast, African oppositions tend to look mainly to the West for support, both financial and military. It is no secret that in just about every African country, the opposition is drooling at the prospect of Western intervention in the aftermath of the fall of Gaddafi.
Those with a historical bent may want to think of a time over a century ago, in the decade that followed the Berlin conference, when outside powers sliced up the continent. Our predicament today may give us a more realistic appreciation of the real choices faced and made by the generations that went before us. Could it have been that those who then welcomed external intervention did so because they saw it as the only way of getting rid of domestic oppression?
In the past decade, Western powers have created a political and legal infrastructure for intervention in otherwise independent countries. Key to that infrastructure are two institutions, the United Nations Security Council and the International Criminal Court. Both work politically, that is, selectively. To that extent, neither works in the interest of creating a rule of law.
The Security Council identifies states guilty of committing "crimes against humanity" and sanctions intervention as part of a "responsibility to protect" civilians. Third parties, other states armed to the teeth, are then free to carry out the intervention without accountability to anyone, including the Security Council. The ICC, in toe with the Security Council, targets the leaders of the state in question for criminal investigation and prosecution.
Africans have been complicit in this, even if unintentionally. Sometimes, it is as if we have been a few steps behind in a game of chess. An African Secretary General tabled the proposal that has come to be called R2P, Responsibility to Protect. Without the vote of Nigeria and South Africa, the resolution authorising intervention in Libya would not have passed in the Security Council.
Dark days are ahead. More and more African societies are deeply divided internally. Africans need to reflect on the fall of Gaddafi and, before him, that of Gbagbo in Cote d'Ivoire. Will these events usher in an era of external interventions, each welcomed internally as a mechanism to ensure a change of political leadership in one country after another?
One thing should be clear: those interested in keeping external intervention at bay need to concentrate their attention and energies on internal reform.
Mahmood Mamdani is professor and director of Makerere Institute of Social Research at Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda, and Herbert Lehman Professor of Government at Columbia University, New York. He is the author most recently of Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, The Cold War and the Roots of Terror, and Saviors and Survivors: Darfur, Politics and the War on Terror.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


 
Wahuni ni kina membe wasiotaka mabaliko, ni kwa kuwa nao si wasafi hata kidogo, na siku zao zinahesabika
 
Flag history of Libya

[The name "Libya" was introduced by Italian colonialism in 1934. Before 1911, the Ottomanvilayet of Tripolitania (the "kingdom of Tripoli") included much of the same territory as modern Libya.

1918&#8211;1923 The short-lived Tripolitanian Republic in western Libya had its own flag, which had a light blue field and a green palm tree in the center, with a white star on top of it.[SUP][12][/SUP] It was unilaterally declared in 1918 and claimed sovereignty over the entire former vilayet, but never had full de facto governance.

1934&#8211;1943 From 1934 to 1943, Libya was an Italian colony and used the flag of the kingdom of Italy.

1944-1950 During World War II, Italian Libya was occupied by France and the United Kingdom.

The emirate of Cyrenaica was declared in British-occupied Cyrenaica in 1949 with the backing of the British authorities. The "emir of Cyrenaica", Idris of Libya, kept the emirate's flag (a white crescent and star on a black background) as his personal flag after he became king of Libya in 1951.

1951&#8211;1969 The flag of the Kingdom of Libya was adopted when Libya gained full independence in 1951. It consisted of a white crescent-and-star on a triband red-black-green design, with the central black band being twice the width of the outer bands.

The design was based on the banner of the Senussi dynasty from Cyrenaica, which consisted of a black field and crescent-and-star design, and was later used as the flag of the region. The red represented the blood of the Libyan people who died under the Italian fascist rule, while the green represents the era of independence, freedom and a new start for the Libyan people. The crescent and star represent the main religion of Libya which is Islam.

1969&#8211;1972 Following the coup d'état of 1969, the flag was replaced by the Pan-Arab red-white-black tricolor of the Arab Liberation Flag, first flown after the Egyptian Revolution of 1952 (which also formed the basis of the flags of Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen).

1972&#8211;1977 In 1972 when Libya joined the Federation of Arab Republics its flag was adopted by the country, linking it to Egypt and Syria. It featured a golden hawk (the "Hawk of Qureish"), holding a scroll with the Arabic name of the Federation.[SUP][13][/SUP]

1977&#8211;2011 On November 11, 1977 following the country's official renaming as the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the flag was changed to the all-green design, in reaction to Anwar Sadat's visit to Israel. In addition to its symbolism in Islam, green is also symbolic of Gaddafi's "Green Revolution".

2011&#8211; During the Libyan Civil War against the rule of Muammar al-Gaddafi, the 1951&#8211;1969 flag &#8211; as well as various makeshift versions without the crescent and star symbol, or without the green stripe &#8211; came back into use in areas held by the Libyan opposition and by protesters at several Libyan diplomatic missions abroad.



 
Ninashangaa sana hasa hao wanaowaita walibya kuwa wahuni wakati wao ndio wanaoishi libya na wanamfahamu gaddafi kuliko sisi,kama wamechukua maamuzi magumu kwa nini tuwaite wahuni? Huyu membe mbona wakati mchakato wa kumtoa gaddafi na gaddafi alipokuwa anawaita panya,mende na kuwaua raia zake mbona membe hakusikika?

Au ndo zao wanavyo waona watz kutojua au kuogopa viongozi wanapotuibia mali za nchi yetu hatusemi? je wanadhani hayo kwao yako mbali? MUNGU ibariki tanzania na watu wake wote wasio wezi wa mali za nchi uliyotupatia AMEN
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar Discussions

Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…