Moan the Tunisians....

[(((Fergus)))]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFhVtlcCYSI&feature=player_embedded

From AFP:
Islamists hurled stones and shoes at Mohamed ElBaradei, Nobel Peace laureate and a secular contender for Egypt's presidency, as he tried to vote Saturday in a referendum on constitutional amendments.

ElBaradei was hit in the back by a stone thrown from the crowd of hundreds but managed to escape unhurt and slammed as "irresponsible" the holding of a referendum without adequate law and order.

"We don't want you," the mob shouted, throwing stones, shoes and water at the former UN nuclear watchdog chief as he turned up at a Cairo polling station, five weeks after president Hosni Mubarak was ousted by mass protests.

"He lives in the United States and wants to rule us. It's out of the question," one of them said.

"We don't want an American agent," said another.

ElBaradei beat a retreat to his car and left without voting at the polling station in Muqattam, a largely poor district in south Cairo.

"Went 2 vote w family attacked by organized thugs. Car smashed w rocks. Holding referendum in absence of law & order is an irresponsible act," he wrote on Twitter.

Members of the crowd interviewed by AFP before the assault identified themselves as Islamists without elaborating on their precise allegiance.

An official from the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest and most organized opposition movement, denied members of his group were involved.

Egyptian media: http://english.ahram.org.eg/~/NewsContent/1/64/8084/Egypt/Politics-/ElBaradei-car-attacked-while-he-tries-to-vote.aspx

[hibsbollah]

Yes, it was wrong, and I hope you will accept my apology for that.
No worries :-)

[Big Ed]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFhVtlcCYSI&feature=player_embedded

From AFP:
Islamists hurled stones and shoes at Mohamed ElBaradei, Nobel Peace laureate and a secular contender for Egypt's presidency, as he tried to vote Saturday in a referendum on constitutional amendments.

ElBaradei was hit in the back by a stone thrown from the crowd of hundreds but managed to escape unhurt and slammed as "irresponsible" the holding of a referendum without adequate law and order.

"We don't want you," the mob shouted, throwing stones, shoes and water at the former UN nuclear watchdog chief as he turned up at a Cairo polling station, five weeks after president Hosni Mubarak was ousted by mass protests.

"He lives in the United States and wants to rule us. It's out of the question," one of them said.

"We don't want an American agent," said another.

ElBaradei beat a retreat to his car and left without voting at the polling station in Muqattam, a largely poor district in south Cairo.

"Went 2 vote w family attacked by organized thugs. Car smashed w rocks. Holding referendum in absence of law & order is an irresponsible act," he wrote on Twitter.

Members of the crowd interviewed by AFP before the assault identified themselves as Islamists without elaborating on their precise allegiance.

An official from the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest and most organized opposition movement, denied members of his group were involved.

Egyptian media: http://english.ahram.org.eg/~/NewsContent/1/64/8084/Egypt/Politics-/ElBaradei-car-attacked-while-he-tries-to-vote.aspx

Very interesting; but I'm not sure what your point is.
From what I have heard, ElBaradei is unpopular with a number of Egyptians, who see him as an opportunist.
Whilst I consider this attack to be worthy of condemnation; I can't say that it is surprising.

[Leicester Fan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFhVtlcCYSI&feature=player_embedded

From AFP:
Islamists hurled stones and shoes at Mohamed ElBaradei, Nobel Peace laureate and a secular contender for Egypt's presidency, as he tried to vote Saturday in a referendum on constitutional amendments.

ElBaradei was hit in the back by a stone thrown from the crowd of hundreds but managed to escape unhurt and slammed as "irresponsible" the holding of a referendum without adequate law and order.

"We don't want you," the mob shouted, throwing stones, shoes and water at the former UN nuclear watchdog chief as he turned up at a Cairo polling station, five weeks after president Hosni Mubarak was ousted by mass protests.

"He lives in the United States and wants to rule us. It's out of the question," one of them said.

"We don't want an American agent," said another.

ElBaradei beat a retreat to his car and left without voting at the polling station in Muqattam, a largely poor district in south Cairo.

"Went 2 vote w family attacked by organized thugs. Car smashed w rocks. Holding referendum in absence of law & order is an irresponsible act," he wrote on Twitter.

Members of the crowd interviewed by AFP before the assault identified themselves as Islamists without elaborating on their precise allegiance.

An official from the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest and most organized opposition movement, denied members of his group were involved.

Egyptian media: http://english.ahram.org.eg/~/NewsContent/1/64/8084/Egypt/Politics-/ElBaradei-car-attacked-while-he-tries-to-vote.aspx

If a prominent politician of any party went out with out protection somewhere in this country somebody would want to stone them.
This isn't necessarily significant.

[CropleyWasGod]

Maybe I have missed it, but I don't see the BBC reporting that the Arab League have condemned the air strikes on Libya.

[Betty Boop]

Maybe I have missed it, but I don't see the BBC reporting that the Arab League have condemned the air strikes on Libya.

Nor will you either. Maybe the Arab League didn't read the resolution properly ! :wink:

[ancient hibee]

What will happen now is that those Arab countries who supposedly encouraged action against Gadaffi but in reality are only interested in a bit of conflict to drive up oil prices will now say to their own dissidents that if there is unrest they can expect Western bombing from the crusaders.Expect terrorist activity to escalate.

[CropleyWasGod]

Nor will you either. Maybe the Arab League didn't read the resolution properly ! :wink:


Sorry, but I think I should. If the BBC is the news organisation that I think it is, then they should report it.

[Betty Boop]

Sorry, but I think I should. If the BBC is the news organisation that I think it is, then they should report it.

I agree. The head of the Arab league has called an emergency meeting to discuss latest events. I wonder just what they were expecting to happen ? Incidentally yesterday was the eighth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.

[(((Fergus)))]

@ Cropleywasgod

From BBC:

The Arab League's secretary general, Amr Moussa, has announced an emergency meeting of the grouping, saying that the current situation isn't what Arabs had envisaged. "What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," he said.

Col Franklin Childress, the US military spokesman, says the issue of avoiding civilian casualties is difficult. "We have to choose our targets very wisely, it is a very difficult process but we have to be very careful and judicious - unlike the Libyan regime." In response to criticism from Amr Moussa of the Arab League, Col Childress says establishing a no-fly zone is "very complicated and there are certain things have to be done". The goal was to prevent attacks against civilians and mass atrocities which Col Gaddafi seems intent on committing, he adds.

Amr Moussa's comments continue to prompt reactions from US officials. A senior official travelling with President Obama in Brazil, tells Reuters: "The resolution endorsed by Arabs and the UNSC (United\rNations Security Council) included 'all necessary measures' to protect civilians, which we made very clear includes, but goes beyond, a no-fly zone."

Husni, from Amman, writes: "I think Amr Moussa should "man up" a bit. What did he think was going to happen when the request of a no-fly-zone to protect civilians was made? If he objects to this Western intervention, I'm sure the Arab League could have requested the Egyptian army (which is more than capable of taking the Libyan army out) to intervene instead. Grow up Amr, you're better than this... the Libyan people were being slaughtered"

[Beefster]

The Arab League are unbelievably naive if they thought that enforcing a no-fly zone was just a case of getting some planes in the air and not having to worry about Libya's air defences.

[Mibbes Aye]

The Arab League are unbelievably naive if they thought that enforcing a no-fly zone was just a case of getting some planes in the air and not having to worry about Libya's air defences.

Have to agree.

I don't think they are naive however.

Given that there are a few dictatorships in there facing their own pro-democracy issues, it makes political sense to back what's essentially been driven by the West, on the understanding they won't face anything like the same international pressures to reform - the fact that some of these dictatorships harbour US bases and buy our weapons in vast quantities must help a bit too :greengrin

At the same time, they have to be careful when there's a perception at least that Western military strikes are killing civilians (I would be astonished if civilians weren't dying but the perception's enough). I suspect (and it's an assumption admittedly) that amongst the general population there's still perhaps more buy-in for 'resisting imperialist aggression' than there is for importing the Western model of liberal democracy and that's a sentiment that can be easily exploited to cause all manner of turmoil domestically.

I think many of the leaders of these nations are having to strike a very delicate balance, in the pursuit of self-preservation.

[(((Fergus)))]

The Arab League are unbelievably naive if they thought that enforcing a no-fly zone was just a case of getting some planes in the air and not having to worry about Libya's air defences.

Amr Moussa head of the Arab League is planning on running in the Egyptian presidential election. It is not in his interest to appear too friendly with the crusader. He and the League approved the plan, these late objections are probably only PR and not to be taken seriously.

[Betty Boop]

Robert Fisk spot on here IMO.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-first-it-was-saddam-then-gaddafi-now-theres-a-vacancy-for-the-wests-favourite-crackpot-tyrant-2246415.html

[khib70]

Maybe I have missed it, but I don't see the BBC reporting that the Arab League have condemned the air strikes on Libya.


Nor will you either. Maybe the Arab League didn't read the resolution properly ! :wink:


Is this the same Arab League of which you said a few posts ago"I don't have any faith in the Arab league either, just another bunch of autocratic leaders, looking for self preservation."? Suddenly they're the voice of reason, and their objections are being suppressed by the BBC? Suppressed like this??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12801812

And it looks like it's kicking off against the brutal Assad dictatorship in Syria - another anti-Western Arab state which supplies weapons to Hamas. Presumably the rebels there will have your full support?

[CropleyWasGod]

Is this the same Arab League of which you said a few posts ago"I don't have any faith in the Arab league either, just another bunch of autocratic leaders, looking for self preservation."? Suddenly they're the voice of reason, and their objections are being suppressed by the BBC? Suppressed like this??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12801812

And it looks like it's kicking off against the brutal Assad dictatorship in Syria - another anti-Western Arab state which supplies weapons to Hamas. Presumably the rebels there will have your full support?

Not sure why you've quoted my post here.

[Betty Boop]

Is this the same Arab League of which you said a few posts ago"I don't have any faith in the Arab league either, just another bunch of autocratic leaders, looking for self preservation."? Suddenly they're the voice of reason, and their objections are being suppressed by the BBC? Suppressed like this??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12801812

And it looks like it's kicking off against the brutal Assad dictatorship in Syria - another anti-Western Arab state which supplies weapons to Hamas. Presumably the rebels there will have your full support?

The voice of reason ? :greengrin The BBC in the UK were well behind the rest of the media in reporting their objections.

[Sir David Gray]

Not often I agree with you, however were you not in favour of the invasion of Iraq ? Regime change dressed up as WMD was used as the reason then, and now it is regime change dressed up as humanitarian intervention. Nothing changes ! When in opposition David Cameron said 'we cannot drop democracy from 10,000 feet and we shouldn't try', now he wants Britain to be 'on the front foot' in the North African crisis. Hypocrisy of the highest order !

I didn't have too much of an opinion either way at the time of the Iraq invasion as I was only 15. However, with hindsight, if history was going to repeat itself all over again today with regards to what we were told about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction and that he could deploy them within 45 minutes, then of course I would have supported military action against Iraq.

As it turns out, that evidence was wrong and the Iraq war turned out to be an absolute disaster. 179 members of the British Armed Forces died needlessly in Iraq and countless more have suffered horrendous injuries. Those who are responsible for making the decision to take us into Iraq should be held accountable. Iraq is also a far more unstable and dangerous country now than it ever was during the 24 year rule of Saddam Hussein and the influence of al Qaeda can now be felt far more than it could under him because although he was an extremely bad leader and the way that he treated the Kurdish people in particular was despicable, he had absolutely no time for al Qaeda and groups like them.

The conflict in Libya has nothing to do with us and we have absolutely no business sending any of our troops to that country.

I wish those who are fighting against Gadaffi all the very best in their efforts to get rid of him as he is one of the most brutal dictators on the face of the Earth but it's something that Libya should be sorting out for themselves.

[Woody1985]

How do they sort it out themselves though when a dictator is using military might against them?

He's wasn't going to stop bombing them or sending death squads after them.

[steakbake]

How do they sort it out themselves though when a dictator is using military might against them?

He's wasn't going to stop bombing them or sending death squads after them.

Meh, it'll all blow over at some stage I expect. They'll probably run out of ammunition or people to shoot it at. We're best off out of it. Gaddafi will calm down eventually. Wonder when Dave is going to get an invite to the tent to talk about oil/arms deals and legal stitch-ups? :rolleyes:

[Sir David Gray]

How do they sort it out themselves though when a dictator is using military might against them?

He's wasn't going to stop bombing them or sending death squads after them.

It's just not a conflict that I believe Britain should be getting involved in, it's got nothing at all to do with us.

I think that, first and foremost, the onus should be on the UN to actually step up to the plate and fulfill its responsibilities for a change, instead of just sending out meaningless messages that leaders such as Gadaffi take absolutely no notice of. Second of all, the neighbouring countries to Libya have a duty to get involved and it's also in their personal interest to end a conflict that's on their doorstep. The only problem with that is, they are also extremely unstable after similar protests there.

We could have justified an attack on Libya and targeted Gaddafi in 1988 in the aftermath of the Lockerbie bombing but this particular dispute is an internal matter and we should have steered clear of it.

David Cameron speaks about wanting Gadaffi to go but if he does go and, two years down the line, Libya ends up with a government that is just as bad, do we then go back in and stay there until we finally get a government in Libya that we're happy with?

As I said in my last post, we went into Iraq in 2003 and removed Saddam Hussein and now, eight years on, Iraq is a far more dangerous place to live than it ever was under the rule of Saddam Hussein. Yes he was a brutal dictator who massacred his own people and who ordered the torture and execution of anyone who dared to defy or oppose him but, at the time of the invasion, he did not threaten any other nation.

My fear is that Libya ends up like Iraq once Gadaffi departs - and I'm assuming that outcome is a certainty now that we are involved - and al Qaeda gains a foothold in the country. I know Gadaffi is a tyrant but, as I outlined in a previous post, there are a lot of tyrants who are current world leaders and we've not gone after them. In fact we actually have a pretty close relationship with the Saudi government and Royal Family and we seem to tolerate the brutal regime that they have in place there and turn a blind eye to all the human rights abuses that go on there.

I've heard Cameron and others say, when trying to justify the action taken in Libya, that the Libyans deserve to enjoy the freedoms that we have in this country;

Do Saudi Arabians not deserve that same freedom?
Do Yemenis not deserve that same freedom?
Do Syrians not deserve that same freedom?
Do Bahrainis not deserve that same freedom?

It's not up to us to implement freedom and democracy in other countries and the only scenario where we should intervene with military action is when another country is either posing a direct threat to ourselves or our allies.

There are surely other things that the international community could do to isolate Gadaffi and make it extremely difficult for him to remain as Libya's leader, without sending in the armed forces.

I just think that this will prove to be a huge mistake.

[Woody1985]

It does affect us though. Regardless of the arguements it's all about the oil.

If countries are going to use expensive resources they're going to do what think suits them best.

Even if Britain did try and intervene in all the places mentioned the troops would be too thin and would leave us open to attack and generate even more animosity towards the country.

It's pointless making arguements asking why we're not intervening elsewhere because everyone already knows the answer.

[steakbake]

It's about energy security. People talk about foreign policy as if it is a means to an ends in itself. It isn't. It's driven by many things but at the moment as the folly of basing our entire civilization on a finite resource becomes clear, our need is to secure our energy supply to maintain our position in the world. Oil and gas is critical to our economic livelihood because we are an oil and gas dependant economy.

Hence, we make deals with tyrants, invade and occupy countries and turn a blind eye to oppression in others because our foreign policy is based on the need for us to secure energy supplies. We also have a Westminster consensus which will see a new generation of nuclear power stations built, despite any objections or reasonable debate. It will happen because there is no time for the alternative to develop.

On the one hand, the west use a mixture of questionable diplomacy and military means to secure it. On the other, countries like China and Russia - well aware of their own failings on human rights that we often don't speak about openly - curry favour in their client countries by often making appropriately disapproving noises. When it comes to the international stage, it's all just a series of pantomimes with the same basic plot.

[Woody1985]

Great post.

[(((Fergus)))]

Seconded

In other news: reports from Syrian opposition sources that the government is importing Hezbollah members from Lebanon to suppress the demonstrations in Daraa. If true, this means we have Hezbollah giving payback to a secular not-exactly-muslim sponsor against opposition groups that include the muslim brothers...

[Betty Boop]

Seconded

In other news: reports from Syrian opposition sources that the government is importing Hezbollah members from Lebanon to suppress the demonstrations in Daraa. If true, this means we have Hezbollah giving payback to a secular not-exactly-muslim sponsor against opposition groups that include the muslim brothers...

Kind of flys in the face of this speech Hassan Nasrallah gave a couple of days ago, where he supports the uprisings across the Middle East.

http://arabrevolt.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/sayyed-hassan-nasrallah-speech-march-19-2011-video/

[(((Fergus)))]

Kind of flys in the face of this speech Hassan Nasrallah gave a couple of days ago, where he supports the uprisings across the Middle East.

http://arabrevolt.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/sayyed-hassan-nasrallah-speech-march-19-2011-video/

Indeed. Here is the quote from him:

Hezbollah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah appeared again today on TV via video link to praise the revolutionaries and protesters in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, and Yemen for their “faith and high spirituality.”

Addressing the protesters he said : “We are with you and we are ready to help you “

http://www.yalibnan.com/2011/03/20/nasrallah-praises-protesters-in-me-except-syria-iran/

No mention of Syria, Iran or the anti-Hezbollah riots in Lebanon in late January.

(If the speech in the video says different maybe you could post the text)

EDIT: just listened to the first couple of minutes and he mentions a list of countries by name in what he calls chronological order but of course misses out his own country as well as his sponsors, Syria and Iran.

[(((Fergus)))]

And here's another indication from two weeks ago of Lebanon's (Hezboah's) current relationship with Syria:

Critics of Syria disappear - in Lebanon

Human-rights groups are becoming increasingly concerned about the fate and whereabouts of three Syrian brothers who disappeared in the Lebanese capital about two weeks ago after they distributed fliers calling for demonstrations for democratic change in Syria.

On Thursday, U.S.-based Human Rights Watch called on Lebanon in a statement to immediately launch an independent probe into the matter.

The circumstances of the brothers' disappearance are murky. According to Human Rights Watch research, agents from Lebanon's Military Intelligence took at least six members of the Jasem family into custody on Feb. 23 and 24 after they handed out pamphlets calling for more democracy in Syria, a country ruled by the Assad family for decades.

One of them, construction worker Jasem Mer`i Jasem, then disappeared in the early hours of Feb. 25 along with his two brothers, who had gone to pick him up from a police station in Beirut's Baabda district, according to the rights group.

Family members worry that the brothers might have been sent back to Syria, where, rights groups say, authorities regularly arrest political and human-rights activists, block websites and detain bloggers.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/03/lebanon-syria-critics-of-syrian-government-disappear-in-beirut-rights-group-call-for-independent-inv.html

[Betty Boop]

Indeed. Here is the quote from him:

Hezbollah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah appeared again today on TV via video link to praise the revolutionaries and protesters in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, and Yemen for their “faith and high spirituality.”

Addressing the protesters he said : “We are with you and we are ready to help you “

http://www.yalibnan.com/2011/03/20/nasrallah-praises-protesters-in-me-except-syria-iran/

No mention of Syria, Iran or the anti-Hezbollah riots in Lebanon in late January.

(If the speech in the video says different maybe you could post the text)

EDIT: just listened to the first couple of minutes and he mentions a list of countries by name in what he calls chronological order but of course misses out his own country as well as his sponsors, Syria and Iran.

He talks about the March 14th Alliance towards the end of his speech, the last fifteen minutes or so.

[(((Fergus)))]

The Beirut Observer last week reported that two planes filled with Iran's Basij militia were flown from Iran to Damascus last Saturday. The purpose was to protect the Assad regime from continuing protests throughout the country.

http://www.bangawelat.com/news/file-today/2605-2011-03-21-12-00-49.html


Arabic news sites also mentioned a YouTube video showing a funeral for one of the people killed in Daraa, Syria, this week, with the protesters chanting "Neither Iran nor Hezbollah ... only to be a Muslim who is afraid of God."

100 Syrians protested in front of the Syrian embassy in Dubai yesterday, saying that "Israel is more merciful than the Syrian regime, she [Israel] did not do what he [Assad] has done to us" and they accused Syria of importing Hezbollah fighters as well to quash demonstrations, also chanting "Neither Iran nor Hezbollah..."

http://www.palpress.co.uk/arabic/?action=detail&id=1982

[steakbake]

Iran has a lot at stake in Syria for Assad's regime to stay intact. The link between Iran and Hezbollah is well known: Hezbollah is I suppose, Iran's own paramilitary, but Syria is the common link between the two. Often the conduit through which weapons, money, support etc is passed.

What would be significant is for the Syrian regime to fall, despite attempts to shore it up by the Islamic regime in Iran. If that happens, then I think the message of isolation, impotence etc that that sends about the Iranian regime may be enough to inspire another attempt of a green revolution in Iran. I hope it works this time round.

I know there's various rumblings all over the Middle East, but I think that if Syria and ultimately Iran started to go the same way as Egypt, then it would be increasingly hard for the Sauds to keep the status quo going there. To be honest, Libya is a bit of a sideshow - significant in it's own way, but the really interesting chain reaction would be to see what happens in Syria.

PS - anyone else see Rory Stewart and Niall Ferguson on Question Time last night? I think that they both called it absolutely right. During the cold war, the west's tactic was to engage with the dissidents and give support to the new leaders who might potentially come through - and they did so, which created stability where there otherwise might have been a vacuum.

They didn't say this and I'm adding it on now as my thoughts, but perhaps if successive governments here hadn't been so concerned with ensuring the oil kept flowing and keeping things relatively sweet for Israel by appeasing the various hardmen and nutters in the region who are now being protested against and instead concentrated on bringing through and supporting moderate, secularist dissidents, then perhaps we might have a degree of certainty about the way things will turn out?

[hibsbollah]

Its a bit simplistic to describe Hisbollah as Irans guerilla force. Thats where the arms come from, for obvious reasons, but hisbollah came into existence as a result of Israels invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Hisbollah exist because a sizeable proportion of poor south lebanese consider them their only defence against a rapacious regional superpower. They also get regional support because they battled a vastly superior invading army to stalemate in 2005.

Until Israel stops throwing its weight around, Hisbollah will have legitimacy.

[khib70]

Its a bit simplistic to describe Hisbollah as Irans guerilla force. Thats where the arms come from, for obvious reasons, but hisbollah came into existence as a result of Israels invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Hisbollah exist because a sizeable proportion of poor south lebanese consider them their only defence against a rapacious regional superpower. They also get regional support because they battled a vastly superior invading army to stalemate in 2005.

Until Israel stops throwing its weight around, Hisbollah will have legitimacy.
That's a bit disingenuous. Israel has only ever gone into Lebanon when first Fatah, then Hezbollah, used it as base for murderous terrorist incursions onto Israel's territory, then for indiscriminate rocket attacks. And both these groups used Lebanese territory whether the Lebanese wanted it or not.

They are totally dependent for military and political support on the Iranian theocracy and the Assad dictatorship in Syria. If either of these fall, they've had it.Which is why they simultaneously salute the "Arab Spring" everywhere else, while serving as merecenaries, alongside the Iranian Basiji, to assist Assad in his brutal repression of protests.

Hopefully, when the autocracies and theocracies of the Arab world are swept away, their foreign clients like Hezbollah and Hamas will be swept away with them.

Lengthy but good article on Hezbollah here

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/10/14/021014fa_fact4?currentPage=1

[Mibbes Aye]

That's a bit disingenuous. Israel has only ever gone into Lebanon when first Fatah, then Hezbollah, used it as base for murderous terrorist incursions onto Israel's territory, then for indiscriminate rocket attacks. And both these groups used Lebanese territory whether the Lebanese wanted it or not.



So Israel's three invasions of neutral Lebanon are justified on those grounds, eh?

Makes you wonder why we didn't invade the Republic of Ireland.......:greengrin

[khib70]

So Israel's three invasions of neutral Lebanon are justified on those grounds, eh?

Makes you wonder why we didn't invade the Republic of Ireland.......:greengrin

Yes they are

Er, we did, actually, and occupied it for 800 years.

[Mibbes Aye]

Yes they are

Er, we did, actually, and occupied it for 800 years.

Er, I don't think we could have.

The Republic hasn't been in existence that long.

Out of interest, were there UN resolutions supporting and legitimising the Israeli invasions of a neutral sovereign state?

[hibsbollah]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/26/libya-woman-silenced-accusing-gaddafi-forces-rape?mobile-redirect=false

The worlds reporters got a glimpse of the real Gaddafi regime today. What was most telling for me was the clear shock in the journalist's prose, as if they werent aware that this is the reality of thousands of peoples' lives under a police state. But they could only watch her being dragged away...

[(((Fergus)))]

Er, I don't think we could have.

The Republic hasn't been in existence that long.

Out of interest, were there UN resolutions supporting and legitimising the Israeli invasions of a neutral sovereign state?

Lebanon wasn't neutral, it was hosting the PLO and then Hezbollah, both of whom launched offensives against Israel, not the other way around.

If the RoI allowed a non-state actor to control its northern counties, to kidnap and murder British soldiers from inside Ulster, to launch rockets on civilian centres, killing Protestant and Catholic alike, and said non-state actor was funded, armed and provided with technical specialists by a sworn enemy of Britain who was committed to destroying the UK, conducted bombings of UK embassies and British ex-pat meeting places around the world, how do you think the UK would and should react when the people of NI called for action?

[(((Fergus)))]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/26/libya-woman-silenced-accusing-gaddafi-forces-rape?mobile-redirect=false

The worlds reporters got a glimpse of the real Gaddafi regime today. What was most telling for me was the clear shock in the journalist's prose, as if they werent aware that this is the reality of thousands of peoples' lives under a police state. But they could only watch her being dragged away...

I quote enjoyed this "American in Libya" reportage from Michael Totten. It's quite long but gave a sense of the repressed vitality and sheer bleakness of the place:

http://pajamasmedia.com/michaeltotten/2011/02/20/in-the-land-of-the-brother-leader-2/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[Mibbes Aye]

Lebanon wasn't neutral, it was hosting the PLO and then Hezbollah, both of whom launched offensives against Israel, not the other way around.

If the RoI allowed a non-state actor to control its northern counties, to kidnap and murder British soldiers from inside Ulster, to launch rockets on civilian centres, killing Protestant and Catholic alike, and said non-state actor was funded, armed and provided with technical specialists by a sworn enemy of Britain who was committed to destroying the UK, conducted bombings of UK embassies and British ex-pat meeting places around the world, how do you think the UK would and should react when the people of NI called for action?

So, in answer to my question are you saying the UN didn't pass any resolutions supporting Israel's three invasions of the neutral sovereign state of Lebanon???

Have the UN passed any resolutions relating to Israel and Lebanon?

[hibsbollah]

So, in answer to my question are you saying the UN didn't pass any resolutions supporting Israel's three invasions of the neutral sovereign state of Lebanon???

Have the UN passed any resolutions relating to Israel and Lebanon?

Theyve proposed plenty, but two countries tend to veto these resolutions making it to statute.:rolleyes:

[khib70]

So, in answer to my question are you saying the UN didn't pass any resolutions supporting Israel's three invasions of the neutral sovereign state of Lebanon???

Have the UN passed any resolutions relating to Israel and Lebanon?
Your question is a devious reversal.

On what legal basis did Fatah and Hezbollah launch rocket attacks and military incursions into the sovereign state of Israel? Which was, by the way, created by a UN resolution.

[Mibbes Aye]

Your question is a devious reversal.

On what legal basis did Fatah and Hezbollah launch rocket attacks and military incursions into the sovereign state of Israel? Which was, by the way, created by a UN resolution.

Less of the 'devious' if you don't mind.

You can answer it any way you want, it's simple stuff - Israel is a sovereign state and a UN member. Lebanon likewise.

Did Israel get any UN resolutions supporting its three invasions of Lebanon?

If not, were there any UN resolutions relating to Israel's three invasions of Lebanon?

[khib70]

Less of the 'devious' if you don't mind.

You can answer it any way you want, it's simple stuff - Israel is a sovereign state and a UN member. Lebanon likewise.

Did Israel get any UN resolutions supporting its three invasions of Lebanon?

If not, were there any UN resolutions relating to Israel's three invasions of Lebanon?
A sovereign state does not require a UN Resolution to defend its population from attacks by or from another state. There were undoubtedly UN resolutions condemning Israel's actions, but then, there always are. That's the way the UN is these days. There are probably UN resolutions condemning changes in Israel Railways new timetable.

[Mibbes Aye]

A sovereign state does not require a UN Resolution to defend its population from attacks by or from another state. There were undoubtedly UN resolutions condemning Israel's actions, but then, there always are. That's the way the UN is these days. There are probably UN resolutions condemning changes in Israel Railways new timetable.

:greengrin

It's a simple yes or no. Open to you too, Fergus.

Did the UN pass resolutions supporting any of Israel's three invasions of Lebanon?

And if it didn't, did it pass any resolutions about these repeated invasions of a neutral sovereign state?

[(((Fergus)))]

So, in answer to my question are you saying the UN didn't pass any resolutions supporting Israel's three invasions of the neutral sovereign state of Lebanon???

Have the UN passed any resolutions relating to Israel and Lebanon?

The UN has passed resolutions in relation to Israel and Lebanon, e.g., 425 and 426 established the UNIFIL presence in southern Lebanon. Unfortunately these forces have failed in their mandate to "restore international peace and security" and "assist the Lebanese Government in restoring its effective authority in the area". They have however achieved the first aim of their mandate: "to confirm Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon". Despite this Hezbollah has increased its arsenal, under the eyes of UN forces, to four times the number of missiles that it had in 2006.

Maybe you have a point though. Next time Hezbollah (or even Hamas) launches a rocket at Israel, perhaps Israel should go to the Security Council and demand a resolution. But then, a resolution has already been passed, hasn't it? There are UN forces on the ground in Lebanon, yet they are unable - or unwilling - to prevent abductions and killings of IDF troops on Israeli soil and the rocketing of Israeli towns and villages, where incidentally both Jews and Arabs are killed.

But never mind Israel, what would/should we (the UK) do in the hypothetical scenario I outlined above? (To which I'd like to add that a UN force is already present in the Republic.) I would love to hear an alternative.

[Betty Boop]

Black migrant workers are being hunted down by the rebels.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/rebe-m31.shtml

[easty]

Black migrant workers are being hunted down by the rebels.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/rebe-m31.shtml

I hope theres no banana throwing..:rolleyes:

[Betty Boop]

I hope theres no banana throwing..:rolleyes:

:tsk tsk:

[Leicester Fan]

Black migrant workers are being hunted down by the rebels.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/rebe-m31.shtml

Nice to see the Socialists are on the side of the dictator as usual.

[clerriehibs]

Nice to see the Socialists are on the side of the dictator as usual.

Isn't that just a report on what may or may not be happening in Libya? Chances are it's a heck of a lot more accurate than our own red tops. Doesn't actually seem like a green flag waving call to arms for Gaddafi to me.

[Betty Boop]

Nice to see the Socialists are on the side of the dictator as usual.

I must have missed the bit that says Socialists are backing Gadaffi. Al Jazeera are also reporting the abuse of black migrant workers, you could hardly accuse them of siding with Gadaffi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNA8z5G-Xmk&feature=player_embedded

[khib70]

I must have missed the bit that says Socialists are backing Gadaffi. Al Jazeera are also reporting the abuse of black migrant workers, you could hardly accuse them of siding with Gadaffi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNA8z5G-Xmk&feature=player_embedded
:agree:Although the Fourth International is hardly a good source for balanced news, this is undoubtedly an unwanted and despicable by product of the conflict.

It would appear that innocent Africans are being caught up in the rebels' understandable desire to hunt down the murderous mercenaries Gadaffi has recruited.

And, while Socialists have been known to back the odd dictator (Castro, Chavez), it's not them who's backing the Saudi government, or the Bahraini government, is it? The only socialist I can remember who had any time for Gadaffi was Ron Brown, the late Leith MP, who was frankly, a bit out of the mainstream.

"He might be a sonofabitch, but he's our sonofabitch" is a refrain still frequently heard from all parts of the political spectrum.

[Leicester Fan]

I must have missed the bit that says Socialists are backing Gadaffi. Al Jazeera are also reporting the abuse of black migrant workers, you could hardly accuse them of siding with Gadaffi.


While not actually saying we back Gadaffi they make it clear that they not are not backing the rebels;


barbaric, pogrom-like massacres perpetrated by the so-called “rebels” against black African workers in Libya.


On February 28, the Arab TV station Al Jazeera reported the racist massacre of black African workers by so-called “freedom fighters”


They've chosen to be less forgiving about these alleged massacres than the many carried out by left wing dictators.

[Betty Boop]

While not actually saying we back Gadaffi they make it clear that they not are not backing the rebels;





They've chosen to be less forgiving about these alleged massacres than the many carried out by left wing dictators.

The UNCHR is apparently concerned about the plight of black migrant workers also, as highlighted in this report. I think you are being a bit picky, depending which side we are on, the media in this country frequently refer to 'rebels' as insurgents and terrorists.


Libya: UN alarmed at reports of violence against sub-Saharan migrants



The United Nations refugee agency today voiced alarm at increasing accounts of violence and discrimination in Libya against sub-Saharan Africans in both the rebel-held east and the Government-controlled west, including the reported rape of a 12-year-old girl. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) “reiterates its call on all parties to recognize the vulnerability of both refugees and migrants from sub-Saharan Africa and to take measures to ensure their protection,” spokesman Adrian Edwards told a news briefing in Geneva.
Yesterday Sudanese refugees arriving from eastern Libya at the Egyptian border told UNHCR that armed Libyans were going door to door, forcing sub-Saharan Africans to leave. “In one instance a 12-year-old Sudanese girl was said to have been raped,” Mr. Edwards said.
“They reported that many people had their documents confiscated or destroyed. We heard similar accounts from a group of Chadians who fled Benghazi, Al Bayda and Brega in the past few days.”
The number of people who have fled the violence since the start of mass protests against Muammar Al-Qadhafi three weeks ago has passed 212,000, including 112,000 in Tunisia, more than half of them Tunisian and Egyptians migrants; 98,000 in Egypt, over two thirds of them Egyptian; and 2,000 in Niger, mainly Niger nationals.
UNHCR has also heard from the Algerian Government that more than 4,000 people have arrived in Algeria by air, land and sea, including evacuations from Tunisia and Egypt.
UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres is in Tunisia today to meet with officials and visit the border area, where he will meet with local community members who have offered aid, shelter and solidarity to the tens of thousands of migrants and refugees.
Another group that has been facing particular hardship are Bangladeshi migrants, with some 3,500 stranded at the Egyptian border, many of whom have been waiting for up to 10 days for onward transport. They are becoming “increasingly agitated,” Mr. Edwards said, and one Bangladeshi man died over the weekend after a fight over food distribution.
Many are sleeping outside in the bitter cold as available shelter is filled to capacity. Over 14,000 meals were distributed to people stranded at the border yesterday, where overall some 5,000 people are awaiting onwards transport.
At both the Egyptian and Tunisian borders, most of those awaiting evacuation are Bangladeshi single men. There is a critical shortage at present of long-haul flights to Bangladesh, other Asian countries and sub-Saharan Africa, Mr. Edwards said, noting that UNHCR and the inter-governmental International Organization for Migration (IOM) are using cash contributions to charter planes and several donor countries have offered long-haul flights.
“Nevertheless, with an estimated 40 to 50 flights needed to repatriate all the migrants, further support will be needed to ensure that everyone is transported home,” he added.
At the Tunisian border with Libya, the number of arrivals has dropped considerably, compared to a week ago, with 2,485 people arriving yesterday, coinciding with intensified fighting in western Libya that has reduced mobility. Recent arrivals describe numerous military road blocks along the route, with the majority reporting that they are searched for mobile phones, memory cards and simcards,” Mr. Edwards said.
UNHCR’s tented transit camp in Choucha, close to the border, currently holds 15,000 people, 311 of them with protection concerns, including Somalis and Eritreans.
Meanwhile, a convoy of trucks from the UN World Food Programme (WFP) entered Libya last night and is due to arrive in the eastern city of Benghazi today with 70 metric tons of high-energy, fortified date bars, the first delivery of UN food aid to enter the country.
WFP is mobilizing food for the hungry as part of a $39.2 million emergency operation to feed more than 1 million people in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia over a three-month period. Preparations are under way for delivery of another 70 metric tons of the locally-produced date bars, and 150 metric tons of wheat flour, taken from the stocks of WFP operations in Egypt.
A shipment of 1,182 metric tons of wheat flour which turned back from Benghazi on Thursday amid security concerns, set sail for Libya again today.
Some 80 metric tons of WFP high energy biscuits, airlifted to the Tunisian border last week, are now being distributed as part of the food rations for new arrivals there.

[Mibbes Aye]

The UN has passed resolutions in relation to Israel and Lebanon, e.g., 425 and 426 established the UNIFIL presence in southern Lebanon. Unfortunately these forces have failed in their mandate to "restore international peace and security" and "assist the Lebanese Government in restoring its effective authority in the area". They have however achieved the first aim of their mandate: "to confirm Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon". Despite this Hezbollah has increased its arsenal, under the eyes of UN forces, to four times the number of missiles that it had in 2006.

Maybe you have a point though. Next time Hezbollah (or even Hamas) launches a rocket at Israel, perhaps Israel should go to the Security Council and demand a resolution. But then, a resolution has already been passed, hasn't it? There are UN forces on the ground in Lebanon, yet they are unable - or unwilling - to prevent abductions and killings of IDF troops on Israeli soil and the rocketing of Israeli towns and villages, where incidentally both Jews and Arabs are killed.

But never mind Israel, what would/should we (the UK) do in the hypothetical scenario I outlined above? (To which I'd like to add that a UN force is already present in the Republic.) I would love to hear an alternative.

I got tired of waiting for a straight answer, so I checked myself :greengrin



I asked (more than once :greengrin) "yes" or "no", did the UN support Israel invading Lebanon. Answer - there doesn't appear to be any UN resolution supporting any of Israel's three illegal invasions of neutral Lebanon. That'll be a "no" then. Closure at last, job's a good 'un :wink:



Does that therefore put them in breach of international law? It's a simple 'yes' or 'no' again, but given the tardiness of previous responses, I'm not hopeful! Assuming they have broken international law, does that make them a repeat offender? Like a 'rogue state'?



I also asked if there had been any UN resolutions about Israel and Lebanon. I didn't think your answer seemed to say much about UN resolutions, so again, I checked myself :greengrin



I found the following, and I'd only gotten as far as 1992! (you must have just missed them, it's easy to overlook the odd one or two :agree:)............



Resolution 262: "...condemns Israel for attack on Beirut airport"

Resolution 270: "...condemns Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon"

Resolution 279: "...demands withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon"

Resolution 280: "...condemns Israeli's attacks against Lebanon"

Resolution 285: "...demands immediate Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon"

Resolution 313: "...demands that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon"

Resolution 316: "...condemns Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon"

Resolution 317: "...deplores Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon"

Resolution 332: "...condemns Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon"

Resolution 337: "...condemns Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty"

Resolution 347: "...condemns Israeli attacks on Lebanon"

Resolution 425: "...calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon"

Resolution 427: "...calls on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon"

Resolution 444: "...deplores Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces"

Resolution 446: "...determines that Israeli settlements are a serious obstruction to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"

Resolution 450: "...calls on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon"

Resolution 467: "...strongly deplores Israel's military intervention in Lebanon"

Resolution 498: "...calls on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon"

Resolution 501: "...calls on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops"

Resolution 509: "...demands that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon"

Resolution 515: "...demands that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in"

Resolution 517: "...censures Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon"

Resolution 518: "...demands that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon"

Resolution 520: "...condemns Israel's attack into West Beirut"



Perhaps even more significant, in that time alone there were another couple of dozen resolutions, far, far stronger in their condemnation, but not passed as they were vetoed by the USA, as is its right.....




One final question, because I've done enough reading! - have Israel's actions been condemned by the UN more times than those of Libya, Iran, North Korea and Saddam-era Iraq combined???

[Leicester Fan]

I honestly don't know the answer to this so I'm curious to find out, has the UN ever condemned hisbollah for it's rocket attacks on Israel or Iran for supplying them with weapons?

[Betty Boop]

Gadaffi's youngest son and three of his children killed in NATO air strike.

[Big Ed]

:agree:Although the Fourth International is hardly a good source for balanced news, this is undoubtedly an unwanted and despicable by product of the conflict.

It would appear that innocent Africans are being caught up in the rebels' understandable desire to hunt down the murderous mercenaries Gadaffi has recruited.

And, while Socialists have been known to back the odd dictator (Castro, Chavez), it's not them who's backing the Saudi government, or the Bahraini government, is it? The only socialist I can remember who had any time for Gadaffi was Ron Brown, the late Leith MP, who was frankly, a bit out of the mainstream.

"He might be a sonofabitch, but he's our sonofabitch" is a refrain still frequently heard from all parts of the political spectrum.

I think you'll find that Chavez has been elected into power democratically.

[Leicester Fan]

I think you'll find that Chavez has been elected into power democratically.

And Putin has been elected in Russia, doesn't make it democratic.

[Betty Boop]

And Putin has been elected in Russia, doesn't make it democratic.

No he hasn't. Mevedev was elected President, he then appointed Putin as Prime Minister.

[Big Ed]

And Putin has been elected in Russia, doesn't make it democratic.

I don't want this to hi-jack the thread but I think you are barking up the wrong tree with this one LF. Chavez faces significant opposition in Venezuelan elections; so it does make it democratic.

[khib70]

I think you'll find that Chavez has been elected into power democratically.
And has done everything he can to make sure he doesn't get elected out of power democratically.

[Big Ed]

And has done everything he can to make sure he doesn't get elected out of power democratically.

As I said earlier, I don't want to hijack this thread, but as far as I am aware, Chavez is due to stand for re-election as President next year. There was some controversy regarding a referendum about a change in the Venezuelan constitution to allow him to run again. However he will be up against significant political opposition which will receive more backing than Chavez in all forms of media. It'll be up to them to generate enough support to defeat Chavez, but there is no evidence that his previous victories have, in any way, been controversial.

[Betty Boop]

Three months on in the conflict in Libya, with 'friendly' fire incidents and civilian casualties, what are peoples thoughts on the way this is going ?

[hibsbollah]

Three months on in the conflict in Libya, with 'friendly' fire incidents and civilian casualties, what are peoples thoughts on the way this is going ?

Its slipping away from the terms of the original UN mandate to prevent humanitarian catastrophe, which I agreed with at the time, and has now become an instrument for achieving regime change. The French seem to be most hawkish and are leading the air attacks...Sarcozy is deeply disliked at home and is using it to boost his sagging popularity (and possibly his libido as well).

The problem is, the alternative to air attacks on Govt. positions is to step up arming the rebels, and we all know what flooding the region with European-made arms has done in the past.

Another shot at diplomacy maybe?

[Betty Boop]

Its slipping away from the terms of the original UN mandate to prevent humanitarian catastrophe, which I agreed with at the time, and has now become an instrument for achieving regime change. The French seem to be most hawkish and are leading the air attacks...Sarcozy is deeply disliked at home and is using it to boost his sagging popularity (and possibly his libido as well).

The problem is, the alternative to air attacks on Govt. positions is to step up arming the rebels, and we all know what flooding the region with European-made arms has done in the past.

Another shot at diplomacy maybe?

I see the head of the Arab League Amr Moussa, along with the Italian Foreign Minister, has called for a ceasefire and talks with Gadaffi.

[Sir David Gray]

Three months on in the conflict in Libya, with 'friendly' fire incidents and civilian casualties, what are peoples thoughts on the way this is going ?

Same as what my thoughts were in the beginning.

This conflict has absolutely nothing at all to do with Britain and we should have no involvement with it.

[(((Fergus)))]

From Now Lebanon:

A graphic video [gruesome: watch?v=uBzk8WZZxzg] posted on YouTube Wednesday claims to show the body of Syrian activist Ibrahim Kashoush after having his throat slashed by security forces in Hama. His body was reportedly found dumped in the Assi River on Wednesday morning.

Kashoush’s song “Yalla Erhal Ya Bashar” (It’s time to leave, Bashar) gained recognition in recent weeks as the spirited anthem for peaceful demonstrators demanding an end to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

He reportedly joined crowds in Hama for massive street demonstrations that took place [last] Friday, where as many as 500,000 protesters gathered in protest, according to activists who spoke with AFP.

In the video below, Kashoush can be heard screaming the lyrics to a large group of people as they repeat the refrain with vibrant enthusiasm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XbItvK--8P0


“To die but not be humiliated,” he sings in an eerily prophetic, but touching moment toward the end.

[Here are the lyrics:]

"Yalla Erhal Ya Bashar" -- It's time to leave, Bashar!!

Bashar, you’re a germ, your statements don't make sense, your news is that of an owl, and its time you leave Bashar!!

It's time you leave Bashar!!

Bashar, Maher and Rami are thieves, they've stolen from my brothers and uncles, Bashar it's time you leave!!

Bashar, screw you, and screw any who salute you, it's time you leave Bashar!!

Bashar, stop going in circles, your blood in Hama "mahdour" (killing you as a form of retribution is acceptable), your crimes here have not been forgiven.

It's time you leave Bashar!!

Bashar, you're an agent, screw you and the Baath party. It's time you leave Bashar.

Bashar, you're a liar, screw you and your speech. Freedom is near. It's time you leave Bashar!!

Bashar, you're damned, you believe you have words over us, we will not forgo our martyr's blood. It's time you leave Bashar!!

It's written on our flag: Bashar is a traitor to our nation.

To die but not to be humiliated.

The people want to bring down the regime!!

[(((Fergus)))]

...Assad's Syria.

From YNet (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4096576,00.html):
Some 400 Lebanese women arrived in Syria Sunday to show solidarity with the protesters – the pro-government protesters, that is. The women did not come to side with the activists calling for reform and democracy, but rather to support Bashar Assad's regime.

The women, who intended to set sail from Lebanon to the Gaza Strip aboard the Miriam ship in June 2010 but were eventually barred from doing so, chose a more easily accessible destination this time – Damascus. They travelled overland to stand with Assad against "the schemes being plotted against him."

At 7 am, the women boarded eight buses and set out from Beirut's Gallery Hotel towards the Beqaa Valley.

Samar Al-Hajj, a spokeswoman for the group, expressed contentment with the initiative's progress.

"The Lebanese and Syrian security forces have facilitated the convoy's passage at the border, and congratulated it," she said in an interview with the Hezbollah-affiliated Al Manar television station. "Upon arriving on Syrian land, they welcomed us in a moving manner.We, Miriam's women, cry only on happy occasions, and we did shed tears of happiness.

"We came to Syria to tell the truth, because it is the land of truth and resistance," Al-Hajj said. "We came to stop the attempts to isolate Syria, and to remove the barriers of fear inseminated by those worried about the people and the regime's strength."

[Betty Boop]

Hosni Mubarak and his two sons appear in court in Cairo, while outside anti and pro Mubarak supporters clash.

http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/

[(((Fergus)))]

11.32 Surreal moment as a lawyer calls out that Mubarak died in 2004, and that this court appearance is a conspiracy on the part of America and Israel. He is calling for a DNA test to prove that it's the real Mubarak and not a lookalike.

Various lawyers ranting at the judge, who wearily asks one: "What does what you're saying have to do with the trial?"

...A little more detail on the odd conspiracy-theory stuff about Mubarak being a lookalike who took over when the real one died in 2004:

Conspiracy lawyer is named Hamed Siddik, and he filed this very case in 2004 ... that Mubarak died and this is an imposter.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/8678565/Hosni-Mubarak-trial-live.html

[Betty Boop]

11.32 Surreal moment as a lawyer calls out that Mubarak died in 2004, and that this court appearance is a conspiracy on the part of America and Israel. He is calling for a DNA test to prove that it's the real Mubarak and not a lookalike.

Various lawyers ranting at the judge, who wearily asks one: "What does what you're saying have to do with the trial?"

...A little more detail on the odd conspiracy-theory stuff about Mubarak being a lookalike who took over when the real one died in 2004:

Conspiracy lawyer is named Hamed Siddik, and he filed this very case in 2004 ... that Mubarak died and this is an imposter.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/8678565/Hosni-Mubarak-trial-live.html


Talking of Israel, surprised to see thousands of Israelis out on the streets, demanding social justice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQdpb-D6sgA

[hibsbollah]

Talking of Israel, surprised to see thousands of Israelis out on the streets, demanding social justice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQdpb-D6sgA

I was reading the other day that 60% of Israelis surveyed wanted most of the illegal settlements dismantled. (70% of Israeli settlers by contrast and unsurprisingly, want them kept). I'm not as informed as i should be about the Israeli Peace Movement but it is fairly vibrant. Its easy to pigeonhole countries into homogenised blocs but im sure plenty of Israelis favour co-existence.

[Betty Boop]

I was reading the other day that 60% of Israelis surveyed wanted most of the illegal settlements dismantled. (70% of Israeli settlers by contrast and unsurprisingly, want them kept). I'm not as informed as i should be about the Israeli Peace Movement but it is fairly vibrant. Its easy to pigeonhole countries into homogenised blocs but im sure plenty of Israelis favour co-existence.

These protests are taking place to oppose unaffordable housing costs, and for access to free education and healthcare.

http://roarmag.org/2011/07/150000-demonstrate-for-social-justice-in-israel-in-pictures/

[khib70]

]
Talking of Israel, surprised to see thousands of Israelis out on the streets, demanding social justice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQdpb-D6sgA

Nothing surprising about that, Betty, Israel is a democracy, despite the efforts of Netanyahu and his ilk to subvert the constitution in favour of the settlers.

You (and HB) should have a wee look at the Peace Now website, of which I'm a supporter. They have been tirelessly and courageously campaigning against the ridiculous bias in favour of settlers by the present government, at the expense of the citizens of Israel. The tide of opinion, as HB says, is turning against the settlers.

Meanwhile, the Knesset is talking about this outrageous proposal, put forward, shamefully by Labour and Kadima

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/lawmakers-seek-to-drop-arabic-as-one-of-israel-s-official-languages-1.376829

[Betty Boop]

]

Nothing surprising about that, Betty, Israel is a democracy, despite the efforts of Netanyahu and his ilk to subvert the constitution in favour of the settlers.

You (and HB) should have a wee look at the Peace Now website, of which I'm a supporter. They have been tirelessly and courageously campaigning against the ridiculous bias in favour of settlers by the present government, at the expense of the citizens of Israel. The tide of opinion, as HB says, is turning against the settlers.

Meanwhile, the Knesset is talking about this outrageous proposal, put forward, shamefully by Labour and Kadima

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/lawmakers-seek-to-drop-arabic-as-one-of-israel-s-official-languages-1.376829

I suppose I was surprised, as there seemed to be a lack of coverage in our mainstream media, the first I saw of it was on RT and Al Jazeera. As for the proposal, Israel moving towards a Theocracy ?

[khib70]

I suppose I was surprised, as there seemed to be a lack of coverage in our mainstream media, the first I saw of it was on RT and Al Jazeera. As for the proposal, Israel moving towards a Theocracy ?
It's hard to know what to make of it, especially as it has cross-party support. Whatever, it doesn't look good. Any state which puts its religious nature ahead of its democratic nature is heading for theocracy in my book.

I've always believed, along with some of the founders of Israel that only a democratic state could truly be called a Jewish state. I think that conservative (small 'c') elements in all parties seem to be forming the wagons into a circle against the growing resentment about the fact that the state seems to be running the country principally for the benefit of settlers in the territories. Their attempts to restrict and proscribe liberal NGO's within Israel, and to make boycotts of the settlements illegal seem to be part of this process.

Obviously, on the Palestinian side there are some who are calling for a single Islamic state in the region. If there is to be a just solution, it will not be based on religious exclusivism. Language is a huge factor in ethnic identity, and the proposal about Arabic and English being de-recognised could well be the thin end of the ethnic cleansing wedge.

There's no fence to sit on here. Those of us who have defended Israel for years on the grounds of its being the only democracy in the region have a duty to speak out when that is threatened. It's also no longer possible for reasonable supporters of Israel to support a settlement policy that is morally bankrupt, incompatible with a just and lasting peace settlement, and also potentially ruinous to the economy and living standards of the majority of the population.

I think a lot of people, without in any way diluting their belief in Israel's right to exist, are rethinking their positions, both inside, and outside, Israel. I certainly am.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Arabs love bizarre conspiracy theories.

That sounds like something a racist would say. Oh, hang on...


Talking of Israel, surprised to see thousands of Israelis out on the streets, demanding social justice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQdpb-D6sgA

Shouldn't surprise anyone. The Israeli left has, for a long time, been pretty excellent in mobilising on issues of economic justice within Israel. They've also tended, with some notable exceptions that are all the more exceptional because of their notability, to be pretty awful at recognising the centrality of their position as a (largely) settler society and the occupation to these economic issues. You can get tens of thousands on the street over attacks on public housing, education and welfare but the protests over the boycott legislation or the law banning Palestinians under occupation from joining their spouses in Israel failed to extend outside of the usual smallish groups. There seems to be an unwillingness of many otherwise progressive Israelis to make a fairly stark, but necessary, admission - that the prosperity of Israeli society (including a relatively generous welfare state) is built on two main blocks, American patronage and the expropriation of Palestinians. The Israeli ruling class has been using the occupation to crush not only the Palestinians but also the seeds of conflict within Israel for decades.

Akiva Orr and Moshe Machover are unrivalled in analysis of this sort of thing, you might find them interesting. The Class Character of Israel (http://www.isreview.org/issues/23/class_character_israel.shtml) and a PDF of Machover's Conflict and Resolution (http://www.amielandmelburn.org.uk/articles/moshe machover 2006lecture_b.pdf). Unfortunately I understand they can't find a publisher for a recently completed English translation of their 1961 work Shalom, Shalom, Ve'ein Shalom (Peace, Peace, And There Is No Peace) which is pretty shameful.

Without getting ahead of myself there's something incredibly heartening about these protests, namely the extent to which they are directly and evidently informed by the Arab revolts. The number of banners that had "Mubarak, Assad, Netanyahu" either pictorially or written was pretty wonderful. This could be the start of something.

I really try to avoid ever giving advice to Palestinian activists but there's a really important opening here that needs to be exploited. If you can make the correct arguments about how the diversion of resources towards maintaining the occupation and funding colonialism in Jerusalem and the West Bank is threatening the welfare of ordinary Israelis then you've got a genuine chance of getting whole sections of Israeli society on board. And that's the starting point for tearing the whole rotten thing down (and, no, this doesn't mean a caliphate, expelling Jews, giving them second-class status or whatever Fergus, in his pathology, might take it to mean).

And of course you have to fight this sort of **** where a leading Israeli economists claims the state could collapse due to overbreeding, lazy Arabs and Orthodox Jews (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/10/world/la-fg-israel-idle-20100511) and of course the possibility that they'll turn to tried and tested methods of reigning in internal conflict via military means; this means you, Iran.


It's hard to know what to make of it, especially as it has cross-party support. Whatever, it doesn't look good. Any state which puts its religious nature ahead of its democratic nature is heading for theocracy in my book.

I've always believed, along with some of the founders of Israel that only a democratic state could truly be called a Jewish state. I think that conservative (small 'c') elements in all parties seem to be forming the wagons into a circle against the growing resentment about the fact that the state seems to be running the country principally for the benefit of settlers in the territories. Their attempts to restrict and proscribe liberal NGO's within Israel, and to make boycotts of the settlements illegal seem to be part of this process.

Obviously, on the Palestinian side there are some who are calling for a single Islamic state in the region. If there is to be a just solution, it will not be based on religious exclusivism. Language is a huge factor in ethnic identity, and the proposal about Arabic and English being de-recognised could well be the thin end of the ethnic cleansing wedge.

There's no fence to sit on here. Those of us who have defended Israel for years on the grounds of its being the only democracy in the region have a duty to speak out when that is threatened. It's also no longer possible for reasonable supporters of Israel to support a settlement policy that is morally bankrupt, incompatible with a just and lasting peace settlement, and also potentially ruinous to the economy and living standards of the majority of the population.

I think a lot of people, without in any way diluting their belief in Israel's right to exist, are rethinking their positions, both inside, and outside, Israel. I certainly am.

You do realise you've just given FalkirkHibs another piece for his eschatological jigsaw? First Obama calls for a pre-67 settlement, now khibs has become a supporter of Peace Now. Everyone better get a-praying.

N.B. Just as an aside, even when taking the 'only democracy in the region' stuff at a fairly base level, why does poor little Lebanon always get disregarded?

[khib70]

You do realise you've just given FalkirkHibs another piece for his eschatological jigsaw? First Obama calls for a pre-67 settlement, now khibs has become a supporter of Peace Now. Everyone better get a-praying.

N.B. Just as an aside, even when taking the 'only democracy in the region' stuff at a fairly base level, why does poor little Lebanon always get disregarded?
Oh dear.:paranoid:
:greengrin

I shan't however, be converting to Man Utd, any time soon, although I'm not sure how they fit into the biblical apocalypse.

There comes a time when you have to take a long critical look at what you're supporting, and how you're supporting it. If the Israeli left, and increasingly large numbers of ordinary citizens can do that, so can supporters on the outside. The more I've seen of Peace Now, the more I'm impressed by their consistency and effectiveness. And it's quite often that the merits of a movement are illustrated best by the way their opponents react to them. The idea, as Steve Earle once said, that criticising the policies of democratically elected and accountable leaders is in some way unpatriotic, is a very poisonous one.

[Betty Boop]

Cheers for the links LH, with a huge rally planned for tonight in Jerusalem, it will be interesting to see how this pans out.

Hey Khib, you may need to rethink that right wing roaster tag ? :greengrin

[LiverpoolHibs]

Oh dear.:paranoid:
:greengrin

I shan't however, be converting to Man Utd, any time soon, although I'm not sure how they fit into the biblical apocalypse.

There comes a time when you have to take a long critical look at what you're supporting, and how you're supporting it. If the Israeli left, and increasingly large numbers of ordinary citizens can do that, so can supporters on the outside. The more I've seen of Peace Now, the more I'm impressed by their consistency and effectiveness. And it's quite often that the merits of a movement are illustrated best by the way their opponents react to them. The idea, as Steve Earle once said, that criticising the policies of democratically elected and accountable leaders is in some way unpatriotic, is a very poisonous one.

Obviously I'm not really a fan of Peace Now but this is all positive stuff.

Really good NYT op-ed article on the protests and the link to the Occupation from Dimi Reider and Aziz Abu Sarah here (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/opinion/in-israel-the-rent-is-too-damn-high.html?_r=2).

[Betty Boop]

The NATO backed rebels have apparently reached Tripoli, Gadaffi's last stand. This will surely end up a bloodbath in a city of two million, most of who are Gadaffi loyalists.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/08/21/libyan-state-tv-newsreade_n_932342.html

[bighairyfaeleith]

looks like no one is supporting him. I give it a few hours and he will dead, probably by his own bullet

[(((Fergus)))]

From Al Arabiya:

Jubilant crowds of Libyans gathered in Tripoli’s central Green Square Monday to celebrate a hard-fought victory over the forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Qaddafi, reportedly staying in the Tajura-Cardiac hospital, east of Tripoli.

Rebels and Tripoli residents waving opposition flags and firing into air swept into the square, a symbolic showcase the government had until recently used for mass demonstrations in support of the now embattled Qaddafi. Rebels immediately began calling it Martyrs Square.

The armed brigades of Colonel Qaddafi quickly melted away as rebel forces from the western mountains entered the capital on Sunday to join local rebel groups who rose up against Qaddafi a day earlier.

The whereabouts of Colonel Qaddafi were not immediately known, but a reporter from Tripoli told Al Arabiya TV that he was being treated in the Tajura-Cardiac hospital, east of Tripoli. There were no reports on whether Colonel Qaddafi was undergoing treatment in the hospital or simply taking refuge the facility.

The reporter said rebels had taken control of most of Tripoli neighborhoods. He added Qaddafi loyalists could not be seen in the city.

Opposition fighters captured his son and one-time heir apparent, Seif al-Islam, who along with his father faces charges of crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court in the Netherlands. Another son, Mohammad, was under house arrest.

“It’s over, frizz-head,” chanted hundreds of jubilant men and women massed in Green Square, using a mocking nickname of the curly-haired Colonel Qaddafi. The revelers fired shots in the air, clapped and waved the rebels’ tricolor flag. Some set fire to the green flag of Mr. Qaddafi’s regime and shot holes in a poster with the leader’s image.

The startling rebel breakthrough, after a long deadlock in Libya’s 6-month-old civil war, was the culmination of a closely coordinated plan by rebels, NATO and anti-Qaddafi residents inside Tripoli, rebel leaders said. Rebel fighters from the west swept over 20 miles over a matter of hours Sunday, taking town after town and overwhelming a major military base as residents poured out to cheer them. At the same time, Tripoli residents secretly armed by rebels rose up.

When rebels reached the gates of Tripoli, the special battalion entrusted by Mr. Qaddafi with guarding the capital promptly surrendered. The reason: Its commander, whose brother had been executed by Colonel Qaddafi years ago, was secretly loyal to the rebellion, a senior rebel official Fathi Al-Baja told The Associated Press.

Mr. Fathi al-Baja, the head of the rebels’ political committee, said the rebels’ National Transitional Council had been working on the offensive for the past three months, coordinating with NATO and rebels within Tripoli. Sleeper cells were set up in the capital, armed by rebel smugglers. On Thursday and Friday, NATO intensified strikes inside the capital, and on Saturday, the sleeper cells began to rise up.
...
The day’s first breakthrough came when hundreds of rebels fought their way into a major symbol of the Qaddafi regime - the base of the elite 32nd Brigade commanded by Qaddafi’s son, Khamis. Fighters said they met with little resistance. They were 16 miles from the big prize, Tripoli.

Hundreds of rebels cheered wildly and danced as they took over the compound filled with eucalyptus trees, raising their tricolor from the front gate and tearing down a large billboard of Qaddafi. From a huge warehouse, they loaded their trucks with hundreds of crates of rockets, artillery shells and large-caliber ammunition.

One group started up a tank, drove it out of the gate, crushing the median of the main highway and driving off toward Tripoli.

The rebels also freed more than 300 prisoners from a regime lockup, most of them arrested during the heavy crackdown on the uprising in towns west of Tripoli. The fighters and the prisoners - many looking weak and dazed and showing scars and bruises from beatings - embraced and wept with joy.

“We were sitting in our cells when all of a sudden we heard lots of gunfire and people yelling ‘God is great.’ We didn’t know what was happening, and then we saw rebels running in and saying ‘We’re on your side.’ And they let us out,” said 23-year-old Majid al-Hodeiri. He said he was captured four months ago by Qaddafi’s forces crushing the uprising in his home city of Zawiya. He said he was beaten and tortured while under detention.

From the military base, the convoy sped toward the capital.

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/08/22/163445.html

[Betty Boop]

Still heavy fighting in and around the centre of Tripoli this morning.

[steakbake]

Hope the rebels can keep this going and see it out...

Ed Milliband is a very recent convert to the military intervention, I saw... finally publicly backed the multinational air support on the day it looks like it has worked. I love his conviction...

[Betty Boop]

Gadaffi's son Saif al Islam allegedly captured by the rebels, confirmed by the ICC, appears in the centre of Tripoli, surrounded by his supporters. How embarassing ! :rolleyes:

[bighairyfaeleith]

gaddafi has lured them into tripoli for some guerrilla warfare, tbh he has had no choice as with Natos bombing campaign his troops couldn't operate out in the open. Strange thing is nato's campaign has been designed to protect the innocent civilians and it may now have put a great many of them in danger.

Not defending gadaffi by the way, just putting a slightly different tint on the rounds of celebrations about nato's involvement which I am still dubious about.

[hibsbollah]

Hope the rebels can keep this going and see it out...

Ed Milliband is a very recent convert to the military intervention, I saw... finally publicly backed the multinational air support on the day it looks like it has worked. I love his conviction...

I'm not sure where you get that from, hes supported the British involvement from day one...here he is in March;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12812564

[Betty Boop]

We have went from a taking part in a No Fly Zone to protect civilians, to taking sides in a civil war. Of course lucrative oil contracts have nothing to do with it. If we were really serious about protecting civilians, what about Syria, Bahrain etc. The misinformation and propoganda machine is in full swing, with our media playing a full role. Another Iraq, Afghanistan is the likely outcome IMO.

[khib70]

Gadaffi's son Saif al Islam allegedly captured by the rebels, confirmed by the ICC, appears in the centre of Tripoli, surrounded by his supporters. How embarassing ! :rolleyes:
And this is good, because?

You can put whatever spin on the downfall of Gadaffi you like. It's possibly good for Western oil interests, but surely you can concede that it's extremely good for the Lybian people? I suspect that the reason you appear less than pleased about the rebel victory has a lot to do with the fact that Western powers were involved in supporting it.

The only way to secure the safety of civilians in the long run is to get rid of Gadaffi, and in that sense, they are following their mandate

And, given that the "oil deals" of which you speak were negotiated with the Gadaffi regime, by your logic, the West's interests would lie with supporting them, not the rebels. A rebel victory may lead to disruption to oil supplies for various reasons, or the coming to power of a violently anti-Western regime which will sell all the oil to China instead.

I don't think it will, since I've never subscribed to the patronising and racist viewpoint that "Arabs can't handle democracy". However, if the West was simply cynically protecting its oil interests, it would have been far more logical to covertly support Gadaffi with arms and intelligence, even Special Forces, while publicly expressing moral outrage at his deeds. It wouldn't be the first time the West had done that.

[hibsbollah]

And this is good, because?You can put whatever spin on the downfall of Gadaffi you like. It's possibly good for Western oil interests, but surely you can concede that it's extremely good for the Lybian people? I suspect that the reason you appear less than pleased about the rebel victory has a lot to do with the fact that Western powers were involved in supporting it. The only way to secure the safety of civilians in the long run is to get rid of Gadaffi, and in that sense, they are following their mandateAnd, given that the "oil deals" of which you speak were negotiated with the Gadaffi regime, by your logic, the West's interests would lie with supporting them, not the rebels. A rebel victory may lead to disruption to oil supplies for various reasons, or the coming to power of a violently anti-Western regime which will sell all the oil to China instead. I don't think it will, since I've never subscribed to the patronising and racist viewpoint that "Arabs can't handle democracy". However, if the West was simply cynically protecting its oil interests, it would have been far more logical to covertly support Gadaffi with arms and intelligence, even Special Forces, while publicly expressing moral outrage at his deeds. It wouldn't be the first time the West had done that.I broadly agree with that.The Libya military intervention was different from Iraq and Afghanistan because a) it was authorised by the UNSC, (whether its broadly kept within that mandate to protect civilians and not be about regime change is open to debate). And b) Its been characterised by the French being the most beligerent partner, with Britain and the US playing a much more minor role, at least militarily.This makes me think that if there any 'spoils of war' in the form of govt rebuilding contracts etc., its the French, who flew most of the bombing raids from aircraft carriers (the UK no longer even has any!) will have already negotiated to get 'em. Of course it would be nice to see a genuinely local solution to rebuilding, maybe with UN/African Union involvement, and a commitment to dealing with poverty and income redistribution, but recent history doesnt fill you with confidence, does it?Access to cheap oil across the Med would certainly help sort out France's exposure to the Greek/Italian sovereign debt problem. And since they and Italy have sold Libya all these weapons over the years, they probably think of it as a colonial acquisition already anyway.

[RyeSloan]

We have went from a taking part in a No Fly Zone to protect civilians, to taking sides in a civil war. Of course lucrative oil contracts have nothing to do with it. If we were really serious about protecting civilians, what about Syria, Bahrain etc. The misinformation and propoganda machine is in full swing, with our media playing a full role. Another Iraq, Afghanistan is the likely outcome IMO.

Maybe because we could? It was clear Gadaffi was intent on crushing the uprising if he could and it was clear that would involve a huge amount of bloodshed.

The NATO mission may have stretched the UN resolution but your insinuation that it was drafted purely as a no fly zone is not accurate. YOu also have to remember that this was a UN resolution backed intervention, what other authority do you require to allow the world to step in and prevent what would have been a genocidal sized massacre?

You points about Bahrain and Syria are valid to a point but the simple facts are that the West is not capable of intervening in Syria in the way it has in Libya...among others things the superior Syrian air defences have seen to that. Bahrain may not be the most tolerant of places and there has been some horrible actions carried out by their government but unlike Libya I don't think there is a direct and real threat that the regime is about to cleanse a huge swathe of it's population like Gadaffi was gearing up to do.

Fact is in the end we can't intevene everywhere and there will be a multitude of reasons when we do and don't. I for one am pleased that the West prevented Gadaffi from brutally re-inforcing his regime even if that doesn't sit quite right with intervention and non intervention elsewhere.

[hibsbollah]

There seems to be pretence going on these days that a 'No-Fly Zone' means a nice friendly middle ground between war and peace. It isnt. It involves moving all your weaponry into another countries territory (which you need to do enforce it) and saying you will shoot anything down that moves. Its an old fashioned declaration of war, with a bit of re-branding.

[Betty Boop]

There seems to be pretence going on these days that a 'No-Fly Zone' means a nice friendly middle ground between war and peace. It isnt. It involves moving all your weaponry into another countries territory (which you need to do enforce it) and saying you will shoot anything down that moves. Its an old fashioned declaration of war, with a bit of re-branding.

I am well aware of what a No Fly Zone means, and also what an Arms Embargo is, both of which were broken in terms of the UN resolution.Your earlier point re Britain playing a minor role militarily doesn't stack up, the RAF were at the forefront of the bombing campaign, Anyhow thats all immaterial now, I only hope for the Libyan peoples sake that they get everything they wish for, and have free and fair elections without outside interference. This article sums up the situation nicely for me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/23/gaddafi-downfall-britain-intervention

[hibsbollah]

I am well aware of what a No Fly Zone means, and also what an Arms Embargo is, both of which were broken in terms of the UN resolution.Your earlier point re Britain playing a minor role militarily doesn't stack up, the RAF were at the forefront of the bombing campaign, Anyhow thats all immaterial now, I only hope for the Libyan peoples sake that they get everything they wish for, and have free and fair elections without outside interference. This article sums up the situation nicely for me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/23/gaddafi-downfall-britain-intervention

I don't doubt you know what a no fly zone entails, i was meaning that the world's media likes portraying it as an alternative to war when it really IS war.
Regarding the bombing, France has flown more than three times as many sorties as the UK, and more than twice as many as US fighters(see link). We have the same sort of air power in Nirth Africa as Norway Canada and the Belgians. Simon Jenkins is wrong IMO, its Sarkozy who's the main enthusiast for all this, not Cameron.


http://www.acus.org/natosource/national-composition-nato-strike-sorties-libya

[(((Fergus)))]

Here's a remarkable interview with a high-ranking Syrian Army defector in NOW Lebanon:

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=304631
(http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=304631)
This is the video he refers to in one of the answers:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xi96yy_bashar-al-assad-security-forces-tortures-people-in-banias-syria_news

[Betty Boop]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/rebels-settle-scores-in-libyan-capital-2344671.html

A humanitarian crisis in Tripoli now, and reports of mass graves and atrocities being committed by both sides. What a tragedy for the Libyan people ! :boo hoo:

[khib70]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/rebels-settle-scores-in-libyan-capital-2344671.html

A humanitarian crisis in Tripoli now, and reports of mass graves and atrocities being committed by both sides. What a tragedy for the Libyan people ! :boo hoo:
There's been a humanitarian crisis in Tripoli for the last 42 years. The loss of life and the suffering of the survivors is truly awful, but the removal of Gadaffi leaves the way open to a better life for everyone in Libya.

And while there's no doubt that the rebels have behaved fairly shockingly on occasion, especially in their treatment of black Africans, they have also acted with astonishing compassion in dealing with the Gadaffi loyalists on other occasions. Any way up, nothing they have done can be compared with 42 years of oppression, corruption, torture and self-aggrandisement.

The Libyan people may well get it wrong in the months and years to come, but at least they will be making their own choices. In a situation where pretty much two generations have had no experience of political life, or democracy, they can hardly be expected to get it right first time.

[TariqE]

There's been a humanitarian crisis in Tripoli for the last 42 years. The loss of life and the suffering of the survivors is truly awful, but the removal of Gadaffi leaves the way open to a better life for everyone in Libya.

And while there's no doubt that the rebels have behaved fairly shockingly on occasion, especially in their treatment of black Africans, they have also acted with astonishing compassion in dealing with the Gadaffi loyalists on other occasions. Any way up, nothing they have done can be compared with 42 years of oppression, corruption, torture and self-aggrandisement.

The Libyan people may well get it wrong in the months and years to come, but at least they will be making their own choices. In a situation where pretty much two generations have had no experience of political life, or democracy, they can hardly be expected to get it right first time.

:shhhsh!::shhhsh!:

You're not reading from the right script Khib! You should be wringing your hands and fretting over all the wrongs that we in the west have done to cause such suffering in Libya...

:lips seal

[Betty Boop]

:shhhsh!::shhhsh!:

You're not reading from the right script Khib! You should be wringing your hands and fretting over all the wrongs that we in the west have done to cause such suffering in Libya...

:lips seal

Oh yes, because being concerned about the rooting out of black migrant workers, who are being lynched and beheaded by the Nato rebels, is really hand wringing and fretting. Or maybe our mandate to protect civilians only applies to the one side eh ?

[hibsbollah]

:shhhsh!::shhhsh!:

You're not reading from the right script Khib! You should be wringing your hands and fretting over all the wrongs that we in the west have done to cause such suffering in Libya...

:lips seal

Sarcastic, pointless diarrhoea. What are you actually trying to say?

[TariqE]

Oh yes, because being concerned about the rooting out of black migrant workers, who are being lynched and beheaded by the Nato rebels, is really hand wringing and fretting. Or maybe our mandate to protect civilians only applies to the one side eh ?

So should we (the west) intervene to save civilians? That seems to be what you're saying and is pretty much what the west have done in Libya but were berated in some corners for doing so. Granted, some civilians in Libya are suffering but short of omnipotence on the part of western powers, I fail to see how that can be avoided.

I ask you, if concern for innocent civilians is what is motivating your argument, then are the civilians of Libya generally better or worse off now than they were under Gaddafi's rule?

[TariqE]

Sarcastic, pointless diarrhoea. What are you actually trying to say?

Sarcastic, I'll give you. Pointless, no.

What I'm saying is that the west are condemned (mostly by westerners) for action that they take or action that they don't take.

I'll ask you, was NATO right to take action in Libya? How would the Libyan part of the 'Arab Spring' be looking now had no action been taken? Do you think that the future of the Libyan people is better or worse following the west's military help of the NTC?

I think that NATO was right. I think that the Libyan civilians on the whole can look forward to a better government for themselves. I think that Libya has a better future now than it did under Gaddafi. And I think these things because the west intervened and managed to prevent Gaddafi from killing not only the armed rebels but the civilians who sympathised with them.

I also think that the NTC have shown a great deal of restraint and compassion following their victory in Tripoli. A level of restraint that I am sure would not have been shown to the residents of Benghazi had Gaddafi defeated the rebels there prior to NATO's intervention.

That's what I'm trying to say, what are you actually trying to say?

[hibsbollah]

Sarcastic, I'll give you. Pointless, no.

What I'm saying is that the west are condemned (mostly by westerners) for action that they take or action that they don't take.

I'll ask you, was NATO right to take action in Libya? How would the Libyan part of the 'Arab Spring' be looking now had no action been taken? Do you think that the future of the Libyan people is better or worse following the west's military help of the NTC?

I think that NATO was right. I think that the Libyan civilians on the whole can look forward to a better government for themselves. I think that Libya has a better future now than it did under Gaddafi. And I think these things because the west intervened and managed to prevent Gaddafi from killing not only the armed rebels but the civilians who sympathised with them.

I also think that the NTC have shown a great deal of restraint and compassion following their victory in Tripoli. A level of restraint that I am sure would not have been shown to the residents of Benghazi had Gaddafi defeated the rebels there prior to NATO's intervention.

That's what I'm trying to say, what are you actually trying to say?

I broadly agree. I would have hoped to see more Arab League or Pan African involvement but the UN resolution was adhered to.

A much better post than your first one, as youll probably agree.

[TariqE]

I broadly agree. I would have hoped to see more Arab League or Pan African involvement but the UN resolution was adhered to.

A much better post than your first one, as youll probably agree.

I'm not sure if the same result would have been acheived had it been left entirely to the AU or the Arab League. I think the Arab League would still be talking about it because too many members supported Gaddafi and I'm not sure how well or not the AU are equiped in order to deal with such a situation without putting soldiers on the ground.

I think that NATO had as much support from those quarters as it was gonna get, and let's not forget that at the start of the NATO intervention, the danger to civilians in eastern Libya was immenent so action had to be taken swiftly.

As for my previous post, it may have been sarcastic, but I was trying to call out those that criticise the actions of western governments no matter what they do, right or wrong.

[Betty Boop]

So should we (the west) intervene to save civilians? That seems to be what you're saying and is pretty much what the west have done in Libya but were berated in some corners for doing so. Granted, some civilians in Libya are suffering but short of omnipotence on the part of western powers, I fail to see how that can be avoided.

I ask you, if concern for innocent civilians is what is motivating your argument, then are the civilians of Libya generally better or worse off now than they were under Gaddafi's rule?

I haven't a clue whether civilians in Libya are better or worse off, and neither do you. I doubt that the civilians of Sirte and Bani Walid think they are better off, as they are being bombed back to the Stone Age. Maybe they are the wrong kind of civilians, and they deserve a good old pounding ? The UN resolution was supposed to protect all civilians, not just the side we are backing in a civil war. Unfortunately for the Libyan people, they will have little or nothing to with the outcome from here on in, unless it all goes pear-shaped, when of course it will be all their own fault. By then all the lucrative oil contracts will have been divvied up and nobody will be worrying about the Libyans. Why do we even bother with UN resolutions anyway, as clearly countries don't appear to take a blind bit of notice of them. The resolution forbade, arming combatants, training and advising combatants, moving combatants by helicopter or ship, putting foreign troops on the ground to assist or fight, all which broke the terms of the resolution. No this was regime change, pure and simple, IMO. This is my opinion which I am entitled to, not handwringing or fretting, maybe some of us don't fall for the propoganda, and hypocrisy, that is being churned out by the Government and mainstream media. Mission accomplished ?

[hibsbollah]

Human Rights Watch have apparently found evidence of CIA/M16 involvement in propping up Gadaffis regime while he was being rehabilitated by Blair, Bush &co. There could be major fallout from this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14774533

Most astonishing of all, one of the CIA torture victims 6 years ago is actually now in charge of anti-Gadaffi rebel forces now fighting on 'our' side against Gadaffi, and was held and presumably tortured back then on the basis that he was a dangerous Islamist.

More evidence that theres no discrimination between right and wrong when 'national interest' comes into play.

[hibsbollah]

I broadly agree with that.The Libya military intervention was different from Iraq and Afghanistan because a) it was authorised by the UNSC, (whether its broadly kept within that mandate to protect civilians and not be about regime change is open to debate). And b) Its been characterised by the French being the most beligerent partner, with Britain and the US playing a much more minor role, at least militarily.This makes me think that if there any 'spoils of war' in the form of govt rebuilding contracts etc., its the French, who flew most of the bombing raids from aircraft carriers (the UK no longer even has any!) will have already negotiated to get 'em. Of course it would be nice to see a genuinely local solution to rebuilding, maybe with UN/African Union involvement, and a commitment to dealing with poverty and income redistribution, but recent history doesnt fill you with confidence, does it?Access to cheap oil across the Med would certainly help sort out France's exposure to the Greek/Italian sovereign debt problem. And since they and Italy have sold Libya all these weapons over the years, they probably think of it as a colonial acquisition already anyway.

...And almost unreported except in Liberation, the trading starts;

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-09-01/middle-east/29953280_1_oil-reserves-oil-production-libyan-oil-fields

[Betty Boop]

[QUOTE=hibsbollah;2906900]Human Rights Watch have apparently found evidence of CIA/M16 involvement in propping up Gadaffis regime while he was being rehabilitated by Blair, Bush &co. There could be major fallout from this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14774533

Most astonishing of all, one of the CIA torture victims 6 years ago is actually now in charge of anti-Gadaffi rebel forces now fighting on 'our' side against Gadaffi, and was held and presumably tortured back then on the basis that he was a dangerous Islamist.

More evidence that theres no discrimination between right and wrong when 'national interest' comes into play.[/QUOTE

Apparently the British were at it as well, turning over information about opposition activists to the Gadaffi regime. Its all here in our new best pal Moussa Koussa's letters. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/moussa-koussas-secret-letters-betray-britains-libyan-connection-2348394.html

[TariqE]

I haven't a clue whether civilians in Libya are better or worse off, and neither do you. I doubt that the civilians of Sirte and Bani Walid think they are better off, as they are being bombed back to the Stone Age.

Bombed back to the stone age by NATO? Really


Maybe they are the wrong kind of civilians, and they deserve a good old pounding ? The UN resolution was supposed to protect all civilians, not just the side we are backing in a civil war.

Is there any evidence that NATO are targetting civilians at all, let alone those who consider themselves on a particular side in this conflict?

Unfortunately for the Libyan people, they will have little or nothing to with the outcome from here on in, unless it all goes pear-shaped, when of course it will be all their own fault. By then all the lucrative oil contracts will have been divvied up and nobody will be worrying about the Libyans.

Little or nothing?? The prospect of a goverment elected by themselves and freedom to speak out against a dictator that has held them under his boot for 4 decades is little or nothing??


Why do we even bother with UN resolutions anyway, as clearly countries don't appear to take a blind bit of notice of them. The resolution forbade, arming combatants, training and advising combatants, moving combatants by helicopter or ship, putting foreign troops on the ground to assist or fight, all which broke the terms of the resolution. No this was regime change, pure and simple, IMO.

I agree, it is regime change. Now answer, good or bad?


This is my opinion which I am entitled to, not handwringing or fretting, maybe some of us don't fall for the propoganda, and hypocrisy, that is being churned out by the Government and mainstream media.

Or maybe we can just admit (however hard it may be for some people), that the governments of the western powers involved in the Libyan conflict actually got it right on this occasion? Or have the (goverment controlled??) media deceived me so much that I missed the slaughter of thousands of innocents by the west ? If it was all about oil contracts then it would have been far easier, cheaper and swifter to back Gaddafi in return for them. I'm not saying the west have been completely altruistic in this and no doubt are expecting favourable contracts from the NTC but IMO this has been, on the whole, a humanitarian mission which has saved the lives of innocent civilians.


Mission accomplished ?

Looks like it, don't you agree?

[Prof. Shaggy]

Looks like it, don't you agree?

I think there's an irony you're missing.

[TariqE]

I think there's an irony you're missing.

hmmm.....nope.....reckon I got it, just answering the more appropriate question

[Betty Boop]

Bombed back to the stone age by NATO? Really



Is there any evidence that NATO are targetting civilians at all, let alone those who consider themselves on a particular side in this conflict?


Little or nothing?? The prospect of a goverment elected by themselves and freedom to speak out against a dictator that has held them under his boot for 4 decades is little or nothing??



I agree, it is regime change. Now answer, good or bad?



Or maybe we can just admit (however hard it may be for some people), that the governments of the western powers involved in the Libyan conflict actually got it right on this occasion? Or have the (goverment controlled??) media deceived me so much that I missed the slaughter of thousands of innocents by the west ? If it was all about oil contracts then it would have been far easier, cheaper and swifter to back Gaddafi in return for them. I'm not saying the west have been completely altruistic in this and no doubt are expecting favourable contracts from the NTC but IMO this has been, on the whole, a humanitarian mission which has saved the lives of innocent civilians.



Looks like it, don't you agree?

I absolutely don't agree with 'Mission Accomplished', and ditto with regime change. You seem to be confident that 'western powers' have got it right on this occasion, what evidence do you have for that ? There is still carnage in Iraq years after the last 'Mission Accomplished', except it hardly makes headline news, as we have now moved on to our next conflict . Seeing as you are calling people out, can you tell me why the Egyptians and Tunisians managed to bring their dictators down without the help of outside intervention ? You also seem to be quite blase about civilian casualties, I suspect like Iraq nobody will be bothering to count. If you have read the whole thread, its the double standards of Western Governments, that sickens me, one minute we are backing dictatorial regimes to the hilt, and the next they are our latest bogeyman. Its not as if Gadaffi, Mubarak, Ben Ali et al became brutal dictators overnight, is it ? As for the mainstream media this whole scenario reminds me of the biased reporting in Afghanistan and Iraq, when the propoganda machine was also in full swing, the euphoria when Saddam's statue was brought down, and thousands of Iraqis cheering, and the overthrow of the Taliban, only to be replaced by Karzai (another western stooge).
Anyway, all we can do is wait and see how this all pans out, I suspect there is a long way to go.
Have a wee watch of this interview on Newsnight, and tell me everything is hunky dory !

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29024.htm#idc-cover

[RyeSloan]

I absolutely don't agree with 'Mission Accomplished', and ditto with regime change. You seem to be confident that 'western powers' have got it right on this occasion, what evidence do you have for that ? There is still carnage in Iraq years after the last 'Mission Accomplished', except it hardly makes headline news, as we have now moved on to our next conflict . Seeing as you are calling people out, can you tell me why the Egyptians and Tunisians managed to bring their dictators down without the help of outside intervention ? You also seem to be quite blase about civilian casualties, I suspect like Iraq nobody will be bothering to count. If you have read the whole thread, its the double standards of Western Governments, that sickens me, one minute we are backing dictatorial regimes to the hilt, and the next they are our latest bogeyman. Its not as if Gadaffi, Mubarak, Ben Ali et al became brutal dictators overnight, is it ? As for the mainstream media this whole scenario reminds me of the biased reporting in Afghanistan and Iraq, when the propoganda machine was also in full swing, the euphoria when Saddam's statue was brought down, and thousands of Iraqis cheering, and the overthrow of the Taliban, only to be replaced by Karzai (another western stooge).
Anyway, all we can do is wait and see how this all pans out, I suspect there is a long way to go.
Have a wee watch of this interview on Newsnight, and tell me everything is hunky dory !

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29024.htm#idc-cover

Regime change in Libya was instigated by it's own people…to try and paint the NATO Libya intervention (backed by a UN resolution) as the same as the 2nd Iraq war is disingenuous and you know it.

Absolutely there is no way of knowing at this moment if the Libyan people will be better off in the long run but I think it is a reasonably safe assumption to say that a significant percentage of them had no future and no hope under the Gadaffi regime and now that he has been toppled that, temporarily at least, is no longer the case.

Whether the Libyans take this opportunity to put their country on a road to more fairness and prosperity for all I have no idea but I think that this will largely be down to the Libyans themselves as the western powers are absolutely loathe to put troops on the ground. I don’t think there will be a requirement to do so nor the political will.

Finally Libya was totally different to Egypt. The Egyptian army was NEVER prepared to crush their own people. The Libyan armed forces were and there is your answer as to why no outside force was used or required in those countires.

[khib70]

I absolutely don't agree with 'Mission Accomplished', and ditto with regime change.
Not sure what you mean here. Would it have been better for the Libyan people if Gadaffi had won? Regime change was the explicit aim of the rebellion, long before any Western powers were involved. And that involvement was with the sanction of the UN. You seem to be confident that 'western powers' have got it right on this occasion, what evidence do you have for that ?

They have supported a popular uprising against a vicious dictator, successfully. I wouldn't have thought that you would have issues with that

There is still carnage in Iraq years after the last 'Mission Accomplished', except it hardly makes headline news, as we have now moved on to our next conflict .

Yes, there is still a problem in Iraq. Caused by Islamist terrorists, and the embittered rump of Saddams Baathist minority

Seeing as you are calling people out, can you tell me why the Egyptians and Tunisians managed to bring their dictators down without the help of outside intervention ?

Because, as others have said, the armed forces in these countries did not allow themselves to be used to crush the rebellion. Had there been "outside intervention", would that invalidate the result of these revolutions for you? If there had been intervention from non-Western powers (as there is from Iran and Hezbollah on Assad's side) say from Russia or China, would you be upset then?

You also seem to be quite blase about civilian casualties, I suspect like Iraq nobody will be bothering to count. If you have read the whole thread, its the double standards of Western Governments, that sickens me, one minute we are backing dictatorial regimes to the hilt, and the next they are our latest bogeyman. Its not as if Gadaffi, Mubarak, Ben Ali et al became brutal dictators overnight, is it ? As for the mainstream media this whole scenario reminds me of the biased reporting in Afghanistan and Iraq, when the propoganda machine was also in full swing, the euphoria when Saddam's statue was brought down, and thousands of Iraqis cheering, and the overthrow of the Taliban, only to be replaced by Karzai (another western stooge).

Karzai probably is a western stooge, and corrupt to boot, but to suggest he is in some way equivalent to the Taliban is disingenuous in the extreme. He's not pouring boiling water on women for seeking education, or murdering schoolteachers in front of their pupils.

Anyway, all we can do is wait and see how this all pans out, I suspect there is a long way to go.
Have a wee watch of this interview on Newsnight, and tell me everything is hunky dory !

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29024.htm#idc-cover

You're right to have humanitarian concerns. But you shouldn't let your anti-Western agenda overwhelm your logic all the time.

[hibsbollah]

http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4E54EFDD03225/

Good article here.

[(((Fergus)))]

Here is an example of how the Syrian army kills protesters:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntl9nikU_rs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntl9nikU_rs)

[Hibrandenburg]

Here is an example of how the Syrian army kills protesters:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntl9nikU_rs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntl9nikU_rs)

But it's ok because the guy pulling the trigger isn't part of the western/jewish conspiracy to oppress the rest of the world.

[Betty Boop]

Violent military crackdown as thousands are back in Tahrir Square and Alexandria. Three dead and 600 injured.

[Betty Boop]

The brutality of the Egyptian military.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa2Cm9dqUqY

[Sir David Gray]

The Islamist Muslim Brotherhood is expected to come out on top of the recent elections that have taken place in Egypt.

The even more radical, al-Nour party, is expected to have done quite well in the polls as well.

This is coming hot on the heels of Morocco and Tunisia both electing Islamist governments after overthrowing their previous leaders and Libya's widely tipped to go the same way.

Well, I didn't see this coming...:rolleyes:

All I can say is, God help the Coptic Christians in Egypt, if the Muslim Brotherhood and/or the al-Nour party have anything to do with governing the country.

[hibsbollah]

The Islamist Muslim Brotherhood is expected to come out on top of the recent elections that have taken place in Egypt.The even more radical, al-Nour party, is expected to have done quite well in the polls as well.This is coming hot on the heels of Morocco and Tunisia both electing Islamist governments after overthrowing their previous leaders and Libya's widely tipped to go the same way.Well, I didn't see this coming...:rolleyes:All I can say is, God help the Coptic Christians in Egypt, if the Muslim Brotherhood and/or the al-Nour party have anything to do with governing the country.Rubbish. The Tunisians have just elected a MODERATE coalition government committed to pluralism and respect for multifaith democracy.

[Betty Boop]

The Islamist Muslim Brotherhood is expected to come out on top of the recent elections that have taken place in Egypt.

The even more radical, al-Nour party, is expected to have done quite well in the polls as well.

This is coming hot on the heels of Morocco and Tunisia both electing Islamist governments after overthrowing their previous leaders and Libya's widely tipped to go the same way.

Well, I didn't see this coming...:rolleyes:

All I can say is, God help the Coptic Christians in Egypt, if the Muslim Brotherhood and/or the al-Nour party have anything to do with governing the country.

There are still two further rounds of parliamentary elections to take place in Egypt, with Presidential elections promised in June. Any how I doubt anything will change for the Egyptian people, while the US backed Junta are still pulling the strings behind the scenes. Interesting to note that the Muslim Brotherhood did not support the latest uprising, despite the deaths of 45 protestors.

[Betty Boop]

On the first anniversary of the inauguration of Morsi, millions of Egyptians are out on the streets, in the biggest protests ever seen in Egypt. 16 people have been killed and over 750 injured in violent clashes between pro and anti-government protestors. The army has now issued an ultimatum giving politicians 48 hours to reach a compromise, or they will step in. A military coup on the cards ?

[Betty Boop]

Military coup underway in Egypt, Morsi's gone.

[steakbake]

Egyptian army have stormed the Muslim Brotherhood's HQ, arresting a number of people.

[Betty Boop]

So Egypt is basically back to where all this started in 2011, in the grip of a US backed military junta.

[khib70]

So Egypt is basically back to where all this started in 2011, in the grip of a US backed military junta.
It's not good BB. Much as I seriously dislike the Muslim Brotherhood, and had no time for Morsi, they were democratically elected. Undoubtedly there was huge popular opposition to the Islamicising of Egypt, but I didn't see any of these protests calling for a military takeover.

Sad and troubled days for the long-suffering Egyptian people. Essential that new elections are held as soon as practicable, and the US should be using what influcence it undoubtedly has to make this happen.

[Betty Boop]

It's not good BB. Much as I seriously dislike the Muslim Brotherhood, and had no time for Morsi, they were democratically elected. Undoubtedly there was huge popular opposition to the Islamicising of Egypt, but I didn't see any of these protests calling for a military takeover.

Sad and troubled days for the long-suffering Egyptian people. Essential that new elections are held as soon as practicable, and the US should be using what influcence it undoubtedly has to make this happen.

Hi khib, a sad situation indeed. Violent clashes tonight between pro and anti-Morsi supporters on the 6th October bridge, with 6 people killed so far today. Do you think this could end in civil war ? I'm off to Egypt next week with my son and his girl-friend who is pretty nervous to say the least.

[khib70]

Hi khib, a sad situation indeed. Violent clashes tonight between pro and anti-Morsi supporters on the 6th October bridge, with 6 people killed so far today. Do you think this could end in civil war ? I'm off to Egypt next week with my son and his girl-friend who is pretty nervous to say the least.
Don't know where it's going to go from here but the situation is very unstable. Full scale civil war is unlikely, but the MB are unlikely to take this lying down. And the army are likely to come down hard on any violent dissent.

I can understand anyone being nervous about going there, though. The Foreign Office is advising against all but essential travel except to the Red Sea resorts https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/egypt

Hope you manage to enjoy your trip and stay safe

[(((Fergus)))]

Hi khib, a sad situation indeed. Violent clashes tonight between pro and anti-Morsi supporters on the 6th October bridge, with 6 people killed so far today. Do you think this could end in civil war ? I'm off to Egypt next week with my son and his girl-friend who is pretty nervous to say the least.

The ethnic/religious number don't suggest a civil war like the one in Syria, more a heightening of the jihadist and anti-Christian terrorism that has been going on for years anyway. In the past 48 hours there have been bomb attacks on the gas pipeline to Jordan and five security officers were killed at checkpoints in the Sinai. It would take major defections from the army for their to be a civil war.

Here's what Mr and Mrs Angry have to say about it:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFX1heljE9k

[Betty Boop]

42 Morsi supporters shot dead by the army, after a sit in outside the Republican guard barracks. Muslim Brotherhood have called for an uprising, the situation appears to be escalating daily.

[Sylar]

42 Morsi supporters shot dead by the army, after a sit in outside the Republican guard barracks. Muslim Brotherhood have called for an uprising, the situation appears to be escalating daily.

Hope you've cancelled or rearranged your trip BB:

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/egypt

[(((Fergus)))]

Here's a cool video from Egypt.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeDm2PrNV1I

[Betty Boop]

Hope you've cancelled or rearranged your trip BB:

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/egypt

I was planning a week in Luxor, then a week in Sharm, however have had mixed reports about the situation in Luxor, so maybe do the two weeks in Sharm. I will be gutted though if we are confined to the resort, like to do a bit of travelling throughout the country. :greengrin

[Sylar]

Scores of people killed in 2 opposing rallies in Egypt yesterday in Cairo:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23474645

[Betty Boop]

When will the Americans cut off military aid to the interim Government in Egypt ? Surely after the slaughter of the last 24 hours, it is time for them to call it what it is, a coup, and therefore prohibits them from giving aid.

[(((Fergus)))]

When will the Americans cut off military aid to the interim Government in Egypt ? Surely after the slaughter of the last 24 hours, it is time for them to call it what it is, a coup, and therefore prohibits them from giving aid.

What do the Americans want from Egypt? My understanding is that they pay them for peace and quiet. The army is and has been the best guarantor of that as the brotherhood haven't got a clue how to run a country, never mind one in such a perilous condition. Withholding aid might only exacerbate the economic problems (= more bloodshed) and lead Egypt to look to other donors.

More importantly, have you called off your own trip to Egypt? Actually relieved to see you posting here.

EDIT: looks like the morsi loyalists are taking out their frustrations on the Copts - for whatever reason.

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/79124/Egypt/Politics-/Churches-torched-across-Egypt-in-antiCoptic-violen.aspx

[magpie1892]

EDIT: looks like the morsi loyalists are taking out their frustrations on the Copts - for whatever reason.

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/79124/Egypt/Politics-/Churches-torched-across-Egypt-in-antiCoptic-violen.aspx

Of course they are. It's all the fault of the Copts. To the MB, Copts are as the Jews were to the Nazis.

[Betty Boop]

What do the Americans want from Egypt? My understanding is that they pay them for peace and quiet. The army is and has been the best guarantor of that as the brotherhood haven't got a clue how to run a country, never mind one in such a perilous condition. Withholding aid might only exacerbate the economic problems (= more bloodshed) and lead Egypt to look to other donors.

More importantly, have you called off your own trip to Egypt? Actually relieved to see you posting here.

EDIT: looks like the morsi loyalists are taking out their frustrations on the Copts - for whatever reason.

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/79124/Egypt/Politics-/Churches-torched-across-Egypt-in-antiCoptic-violen.aspx

Whether or not you agree with the MB, they were elected in fair and free elections, the first in five decades. Surely you cannot support them being removed by the American backed military junta as an acceptable outcome. The problem for Morsi was he had no real power, when he came to office many of the old regime were still in key postions, to oppose any measures he tried to enforce.
I came back from holiday two weeks ago, stayed in Sharm which is cocooned from the rest of the country, we were unable to travel anywhere outside, so boring. Tourism has been greatly affected by the troubles and I fear Egypt will take a long time to recover. Nice of you to ask though ! :agree:
+

[hibsbollah]

Whether or not you agree with the MB, they were elected in fair and free elections, the first in five decades. Surely you cannot support them being removed by the American backed military junta as an acceptable outcome. The problem for Morsi was he had no real power, when he came to office many of the old regime were still in key postions, to oppose any measures he tried to enforce.
I came back from holiday two weeks ago, stayed in Sharm which is cocooned from the rest of the country, we were unable to travel anywhere outside, so boring. Tourism has been greatly affected by the troubles and I fear Egypt will take a long time to recover. Nice of you to ask though ! :agree:
+

In the last year we've had a democratically elected Govt replaced by the army, a military coup, and a Tiannemen scale massacre by the Army on its own people.

But the rule of law and respect for the will of the electorate, as usual, is tolerated only when it fits with strategic interests. Having a military dictatorship in place in Egypt suits the 'international community' quite well, especially when those pesky voters keep electing Islamists into power.

[Betty Boop]

In the last year we've had a democratically elected Govt replaced by the army, a military coup, and a Tiannemen scale massacre by the Army on its own people.

But the rule of law and respect for the will of the electorate, as usual, is tolerated only when it fits with strategic interests. Having a military dictatorship in place in Egypt suits the 'international community' quite well, especially when those pesky voters keep electing Islamists into power.

Sad but so true :agree: Would we expect our democratically elected government to turn things round in twelve months ? No surprise that The House of Saud and the UAE are openly supporting the coup and crackdown on protestors.

[Betty Boop]

According to Al Jazeera security forces have opened fire on the Al Fateh Mosque in Ramses Square, where hundreds are trapped inside.

[(((Fergus)))]

Whether or not you agree with the MB, they were elected in fair and free elections, the first in five decades. Surely you cannot support them being removed by the American backed military junta as an acceptable outcome. The problem for Morsi was he had no real power, when he came to office many of the old regime were still in key postions, to oppose any measures he tried to enforce.
I came back from holiday two weeks ago, stayed in Sharm which is cocooned from the rest of the country, we were unable to travel anywhere outside, so boring. Tourism has been greatly affected by the troubles and I fear Egypt will take a long time to recover. Nice of you to ask though ! :agree:
+

Apologies for using the reductio ad hitlerum argument, however the Nazis were also elected to power democratically. Should the Wehrmacht have staged a coup in the 1930s? Would it have changed anything? Would the the democratic world have protested?

Given the choice of Islamic dictatorship or secular dictatorship... as a non-muslim or rather non-islamist I would opt for the secular dictatorship as many Egyptians clearly have. Those are the only two options at the moment. There's also the economic argument: "bread, not beards". Hopefully Egypt will have another alternative one day but it seems they have to undergo a cultural transformation first. Perhaps the military should have given the MB longer to really wreck the country - if that was indeed their judgment as to what was happening - but then their action now may have prevented much greater sacrifices later. It seems that plenty of Egyptians have already seen more than enough from the MB. The popular muslim TV preacher Amr Khaled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amr_Khaled), for instance, issued a fatwa today stating that "fighting the Brotherhood is even more important than fighting the Jews" (http://www.nuqudy.com/%D9%85%D8%AC%D9%84%D8%A9/%D9%85%D8%B4%D8%A7%D9%87%D9%8A%D8%B1/%D8%B9%D9%85%D8%B1%D9%88_%D8%AE%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF_ %D8%A3%D9%81%D8%AA%D9%89_%D8%A8%D9%82%D8%AA%D9%84-27996). Does it get more damning than that?

Glad to hear your holiday wasn't too "exciting". Sure the Red Sea was delightful though.

[hibsbollah]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/30/tony-blair-backs-egypt-military-ruler-abdel-fatah-al-sisi

Blair backs the military's coup in Egypt. It really is as if the revolution that toppled Mubarak never happened.

[Future17]

These days, if Blair says it, there must be money in it for him somewhere.

[Big Ed]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/30/tony-blair-backs-egypt-military-ruler-abdel-fatah-al-sisi

Blair backs the military's coup in Egypt. It really is as if the revolution that toppled Mubarak never happened.

It appears that Robert Fisk doesn't have much time for the sycophantic narcissist either: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/robert-fisk-if-only-tony-blair-could-grasp-the-truth-about-field-marshal-sisi-9097378.html

[(((Fergus)))]

Haha, LA gang members fighting in Syria. It's like the International Brigades all over again. (NOTE: language is NSFW)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Ogt9FWgIs

[(((Fergus)))]

In other Arab Spring news, this time on a more positive note, the Egyptian army has invented a cure for Hepatitis C and HIV:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2plhq-VqDbI

[RyeSloan]

In other Arab Spring news, this time on a more positive note, the Egyptian army has invented a cure for Hepatitis C and HIV: YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2plhq-VqDbI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2plhq-VqDbI)

Is that some sort of bizarre joke?

Someone better tell the shareholders of Gilead that there companies value has just been halved...

[Sylar]

Haha, LA gang members fighting in Syria. It's like the International Brigades all over again. (NOTE: language is NSFW)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Ogt9FWgIs

That is one of the most preposterous things I've seen online for a long time :greengrin

2 walking cliches - the video would have had added comedic value with some return fire to watch them 'bitch out, homie, for real...'.

[Betty Boop]

Western countries urge their citizens to leave Libya, as the country descends into civil war.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/27/libya-western-citizens-leave-civil-war