It is interesting that people need to be told that there are Palestinian Christians given that a key player in the first anti-Zionist movement, Isa al-Isa, was a Christian. The first cause that he took up, near the start of the 20th century, was to get the Greek Churches in Palestine to conduct services in Arabic. He went on to found the journal 'Filistin', which was very important to Palestinian nationalism.
In the report on the Syrian towns, a man in a rebel town says of a nearby Shia town, " being Shia, their survival depends on the survival of the regime." So, don't expect peace and tolerance in the wake of Assad's downfall.
I hear liberal radio hosts blaming high gas prices on speculators, without explaining why speculators are acting different now than they did a year ago. The Left understands that the free market is not the panacea that libertarians say it is. But their understanding of markets ends there, to their detriment.
So let the Pakistani elite play Uncle Sam. A disaster for the superpower will be a disaster for the policymakers in Washington and those they serve, but not for those in the bottom 10%. When England folded up its empire, were the lower class Brits hurt? Or were they glad they'd not be sent off to war so often?
What a fabulous painting!
In the Bishop's message, he said we can rejoice in suffering, knowing that by sharing Christ's suferring, we share his joy. If we believe this, we accept the suffering. This acceptance, or surrender lessens the pain. By total acceptance and reframing, we turn the suferring into happiness.
Islam also recommends accepting suffering , and seeing it as a good thing. In Buddhism , the idea is to be open and accepting of everything, including suffering. So the idea that suffering is just a way that we respond to things that we need to get over, is a key point in the major religions.
Obama ordered the killing of a US citizen without due process. Awlaki may have been killed for exercising his right to free speach. Awlaki was disturbed by seeing US soldiers killing so many innocent Afghanis. Awlaki was a jerk for advocating the killing of Americans. But, as the Obama administration continues to kill civilians, while disgarding the Bill of Rights, it will meet resistance, I hope.
In AlJezera on Wednesday, Robert Grenier opined that Kofi Annan's diplomacy is bad because it buys time for Assad and precludes more effective options. The option Grenier wants is to quickly send more arms to Assad's enemies. He's right to mention that high-minded peaceniks can be responsible for catastrophies (like the violence that followed in the wake of the British departure from India). But armed freedom fighters have also been the cause of much evil. If you are fighting an unspeakably evil regime, then apparently you can use any means, and you don't need to think about the impacts on your neighbors, whether they live next door or in a nearby country. Whether you want to stop the killing or liberate the people, you need to be careful that you are not actually making things worse.
If they make us buy health insurane, what's next? Maybe they'll make us buy eyeglasses for poor kids who can't read the blackboard. And what kind of a country can call itself free if it doesn't have a few people dying from bad teeth? The price of living in a free society is that you need to keep your distance from sick people who may be contagious.
I'll refer you to Human Rights Watch's March 23 press release "UN Rights Council: North Korea Condemnation Goes Unapposed." The subtitle is "Western Countries Turn a Blind Eye to Libyan Abuses." So,they could use their positions on the Rights Council to issue appropriate resolutions, for starters.
I supported the intervention on behalf of the rebels. But I'm not that impressed by those who cheered on the rebels, but then have nothing to say about the ongoing crimes those rebels are committing. If you were a black man in libya, the rebels would assume you were a Qadaffi supporter, and you'd be in danger. Qaddafi is dead. The militias are responsible for the crimes they are committing.
The only real problem in libya is that thousands of people are being detained without trial, some of those people are being tortured, and the people who left the town of Tawergha are not being protected or resettled. The revolution will not be honored until these abuses end. And since the UN and the West show little interest in adressing human rights problems, how Libya looks will depend on which half of the glass your looking at.
Well said. There are also leftist intellectuals who misuse the plight of the Palestinians. Like when they take positions that are totally unrealistic, and thereby squander opportunities to improve things for Palestinians. BTW, don't miss Norman Finklestein's 30-minute critique of the BDS movement on Youtube.
The Catholic church should be used as a smorgasbord. Take what you like and forget the rest. I'll take Oscar Romero and Therese of Liseux. You can keep the Knights of Columbus.
Those who supported the Libyan intervention have been silent about the abuses that continue to be committed by some of the militias they backed. I'm referring to the reports by Doctors Without Borders, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. The care of many humanitarian interventionists seems to have arbitrary limits. I understand that the focus must be on the largest problems. But that's no reason to entirely ignore abuses that occur on a smaller scale.
We could learn something from the recent election in Yemen. If we had only one candidate, we could shorten the campaign season.
But, I'm just curious, since Hadi got 99.8% of the vote, who did the other 0.2% vote for?
General Martin Dempsey said, " I would challenge anyone to clearly identify for me the opposition movement in Syria at this point". We know that there are religious radicals amongst them, that they are not all united behind the SNC (thank God), and that various outside groups are trying to co-opt the movement. So, whatever is done, let's not paint "the opposition" as secular,democratic, human-rights-respecting freedom fighters, unless some evidence of that emerges.
Someday, the moral puritans amongst the Christians, Muslims, and Jews may recognize their similarity and unite against their common enemy (those who indulge in or tolerate any sort of fleshly pleasure). God gave us our bodies and our desires, but he doesn't want us to enjoy them, they believe. Sexuality is their main concern. Puritans are more obsessed with sex than many liberals.
Juan, in your Nov. 9 2011 post, you said you believe Iran wants "nuclear latency". If they want such capabilty, they're likely doing some work in that area. Or maybe they are close to knowing how to build a bomb quickly. The amount of time between when they decide to make a bomb and when they blow one up will get shorter as time goes on. The best course of action is to take them up on their offer of renewed talks. But the US insists on hanging on to the fantasy that it can call all the shots in that region.
The Misratan kids sounded ok to me too. But I didn't know they were going to be torturing the Tawerghans. The Syrian Sunnis have grudges that pre-date 1982. When they come to power, there will be plenty of revenge killings and etnic cleansing.
Good poem. Here is the beginning of one by Forugh Farrokhzad:
I don't repent,
thinking of this resignation, this pained surrender.
I've kissed my life's cross
on the hills of my execution
Made me think of the poem you posted a month ago with the line "get up and grab that bottle". The reaching for the bottle is reaching for the divine. The looking to the idol is looking to the divine. This reaching and looking is itself divine. The thing in you that seeks is actually the holy thing you're looking for.
I'm not interested in the veil. But I have a problem with honor killings and genital mutalation. These practices do not define Islam. But they should be ended. Western girls are often viewed as sexual commodities and sold as such. If we got rid of our European prejudices, we would still have to decide if we want to view the Muslim world through the eyes of Muslim girls and women or Muslim men.
A referendum passed in September 2010 included judicial reforms. The number of Constitutional Court members was expanded from 11 to 17. Parliament appoints 3 members and the president appoints 14.
At least he mentions the poor. The other candidates, including Obama, speak only of the middle class. Romney says that if the safety net needs repair, he'll fix it. I doubt that. But millions of Americans get some kind of government help. In California, it's a Democratic governor who's cutting programs for the poor.
It is unclear how much contact the SNC has with people who live in Syria. There is much division amongst the opposition, both inside and outside of the country. The UK's "The Times" reported that Saudi Arabia and Qatar will begin funding the SNC as well as armed opposition groups. What kind of revolution embraces a theocratic monarchy like Saudi Arabia?
From the Mandate period to the present, the Palestinians' leaders made numerous blunders. For example, the PLO's interference in the lives of the Lebanese led to their being expelled from Lebanon. While in exile, they did little to prepare for statehood. During the second Intifada, when suicide bombers were killing Israelis, the PA was either unwilling or unable to stop them. Arafat's PA was a corrupt, incoherent entity that abandoned the Palestinians in the diaspora, and did not help build a Palestinian state. Rashid Khalidi's "The Iron Cage" examines these things in detail. Is there any chance of the Palestinians getting some competent and trustworthy leaders?
Regarding Obama's support for democracy in the ME: he just approved the sale of 60 billion dollars worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia. This means the US will have to support the Saudi regime for years so that they can pay their bill to Boeing.
Obama also is willing to see sky-high gas prices and more US war deaths in order to please Israeli hardliners and neo-cons. He's sacrificing our national interest for some agenda I don't understand. A war with Iran will have many bad consequences, including an increase in anti-Semitism.
There is a similar conflict between the Western liberals and the people of Uganda, a predominantly Christian nation. The US and UK are threatening to withhold aid unless Uganda makes progress on gay rights. A homosexual act is punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Ugandan politicians accuse the Western leaders of having an ex-colonial mentality and treating them like children. They feel that if progressive Westerners had more respect for what the good Christians of Uganda want, they would let them do as they see fit. I am not ashamed to say that I have respect for those persons who are imprisoned, killed, or maimed by the faithful. I also respect people who help the victims of the religious.
It is possible that the very strong showing of the Salafis could push the Muslim Brotherhood rightward, in the same way that the American far-right has pushed the whole mainstream political spectrum rightward. They may not want to work with the Salafis, but they may be worried that if they don't act Muslim enough, it will hurt them. Another possibility is that the Salafis ally with secular liberals in order to keep the MB from controlling everything. And the parties that are victorious this year could lose their appeal in a few years.
If Iran was a nuclear power, that might constrain some of the United States' activities in the region, such as invasions and drone-warfare. A nuclear-armed Iran that continued to back Hamas and Hezbollah might make Israel less eager to gobble up Palestinian land.
But, the Iranian regime is not a force for good, anymore than the US or Israel are. Let's help them with renewable energy. But, if that carrot fails, there's no reason to bang them with a stick. There is no proof that they are developing nuclear weapons. And if they did develop such weapons, we could deal with them like we do other nuclear powers.
George Bush started a war in his first term, and he was re-elected during the war. But, I don't think Obama wants to follow the Bush playbook here. After the last nuclear scientist was killed, Hillary said, " we had nothing to do with this". It sounded like she was saying to Iran, "maybe it was the Israelis, but we do not in any way accept this." After that, Iran stated that it was still interested in a new round of talks about its nuclear program.
Militaries are hugely expensive welfare programs. They are funded by taxes (money taken from the wealth-creators by force). Where they control businesses, it's because the state nationalized those businesses (took them from the wealth-creators by force). If Pakistan's military was good at creating wealth, the country wouldn't be so poor. Pakistan has alternated between corrupt civilian rule and military rule. The top 15% crushes the bottom 85% through outright theft.
If Eygpt had a dictator like the one they had in the early fifties, Gamal Abdul Nasser, a secular nationalist who imprisoned Muslim Brothers, leftists would love him for his anti-Israel, anti-US stance.
Most Egyptians are concerned about their personal security and economic survival. They don't care whether or not alcohol or bikinis are banned. And they don't care what their government's policy toward Israel is. I can't believe that poor Egyptians are as obsessed with Israel as Leftist intellectuals are. When you're trying to make ends meet, you don't spend you're time playing geo-political mind-games.
I think most people would like to live in a relatively free society, with certain rights guranteed. But if most Egyptians don't care if adulterers or gays are stoned, that does not in any way make it acceptable. Individual liberty is not a uniquely Western value. If the majority wants to imprison all persons who wear shorts, than the will of the people should be opposed. If Westerners lie when they say they're concerned with theocracy, that has no bearing on whether or not decent people should be concerned with theocracy. All sides that play geopolitics use human rights and freedom in a selective, self-serving way. But some human-rights groups, for example, will criticize America, Iran, Israel, Turkey, South Korea, Cuba, etc. If you care about people, you can't pledge your allegiance to a flag, a leader, an ideology, the West, the East, the South, or the North.
Zbignew Brzezinski says that China's currennt leadership knows that it's success depends on a gradual redistribution of power, not a sudden collapse of America. China will be a still be a devoloping state for decades. Even by 2025, no single power will be ready to play the role of leader of a new globally cooperative world order. Read "After America" by ZB in new Foreign Policy. If the US wants help create a workable new order, it needs to come up with better ideas than bombing Iran.
Ron Paul's positions on several issues are awful. But on some key issues like Iran and civil liberties he is so much better than Obama and Romney/Santorum/Gingrich/Perry. I might vote for someone who would abolish social security if I thought that was necessary to prevent a ruinous war. It shouldn't be necessary, but where are the loud voices demanding both a sane foreign policy and a humane domestic policy?
Anglo-Celtic? 72% of Americans are "white persons", but 63.7% are "white persons not Hispanic". So about 27 million people of Hispanic origon call themselves white.
21 years ago, during the Gulf War, I saw this graffiti on a church in southern Mexico: "Yankee go home. Viva Iraq" . Whoever wrote that can breathe a little easier now. It's been a long time coming.
Has any Pope ever mentioned the massacre of Palestinians at Sabra and Shatila in 1982 , a crime against humanity committed by Lebanese Maronite Catholics?
Speaking of Yemen, did you know that before the protest began there, Saleh was allowing the US to conduct drone strikes? When the uprising began there, the US military expressed concern that the instability would make things easier for the al-Queda offshoot they were targeting.
The Ameicans and Israelis no doubt work to further their interests, but they are not in control of world events. The regime change in Iraq did not install a regime friendly to the US. Throughout the region, Muslims are gaining political power, and this is making Israel nervous. Egypt was vey friendly with the US a year ago. Why did the CIA cause unrest there? Wasn't the Tunisian regime friendly? I would think that seeing the hidden hand of the US and Israel behind everything does take some effort. It is definitely an insult to those who've gone out and faced the tyrants' bullets.
By beating, kidnapping, electrocuting, and killing protestors, the military is stating clearly, " we control everything. We'll let you play with elections. But freedom to assemble or speak? No way. We are in charge. Period." If the Muslim Brotherhood's tactic is to silently watch the dream of freedom be crushed, they are making it clear that all they want is to share power with the military. The US gives a billion a year to the Egyptian military. But if the Islamist parties put all their resources into stopping the police state once and for all, they could do it.
It appears that the success of the Muslims at the polls has not dampened the left's antipathy toward the military. They are not interested in using the military as a buffer against theocray. And the military's brutality, which they should know will be filmed and viewed, makes them look like the crazy ones. Could the military be forced out by popular demand? What would happen in a real democracy dominated by Muslims? How would they deal with the economy? How much freedom would they allow?
Tens of thousands of poor farmers in India have killed themselves in the past decade, but no political upheaval has resulted. The Arab World must have been a highly flammable, waiting for the tiniest spark.
I heard there's been a lot of sectarian violence in Homs, mainly between Sunnis and Allawites. It sounds like some Sunnis decided to target Christians. If the revolutionaries continue to engage in religious war, they will cause as much harm to Syria as Assad has.
The trade unions, the women, the students, the Copts, and the lefties will need to keep fighting both the military and the Muslim hardliners for some time. The military and the Salafists have already shown that they are a danger to whoever is not with their program. And if a government is elected that tolerates the abuse of women or any minority, it should be implaccably opposed. Democracy may be the best form of government, but "the people" can be as demented as any tyrant.
I'm a white guy in Los Angeles who witnessed the gradual inflow of Latinos over the past 40 years. I enjoyed watching the invasion, especially the gorgeous Latinas. I don't see why people define themselves by their race or nationality to the extent that they do. Nationalism seems to make sense if your a beleaguered group like the Tamils or Palestinians. But I've never felt like going to bat for the white race, and I'm proudly un-American.
I saw a documentary about young Iranian women which showed both the presence of the morality police and humanity and intelligence of much of the populace. Watching non-propagandistic Iranian films, whether fiction or documentary, is a good way to open your eyes to the humanity of the people that some want to starve or bomb. Reading the poetry of Forugh Farrakhzad might make you scratch your head when you hear about a clash of cultures.
The debate about how to treat Qaddafi loyalists is focused on the ex-leaders. The plight of common people accused of being loyalists needs more attention. Human Rights Watch's 10-30-11 report on 'Militias Terrorizing Residents of "Loyalist" Town' gives examples of the kind of abuse that must end.
The Egyptian military own companies, sells all sorts of products, and is an economic giant. They've been in charge since the early fifties. They have the guns. Who's going to control them? Some liberals might like seeing the military putting limits on what the Muslims can do. But it might be better to have the Muslims put limits on the military.
If the MB took power in Syria, the Arab counties would still be no more united than they were in 1948. This 'Muslim Empire' would be no more of a threat to Israel than was Nassar's secular nationalism in 1956.
it might be easier to intervene in Bahrain than in Syria, if there were the will to do so. But the US could influence Bahrain without violating their sovereignty. The US could stop selling them arms and move the 5th fleet. Do you suggest we ignore the few dozen because there are larger problems ? Syria may not have an easy solution right now. But why not do those things that are doable? If those who could saved a few dozen lives every time they could, the numbers would add up quikly.
A large portion of Middle East Christians belong to the very oldest churches- Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, and Armenian. When was the last time a Great Power came to the aid of these Christians? Culturally, they are a world apart from US evangelicals.
The possibility of US expulsion from WIPO is a big deal for companies like Microsoft. Maybe congress will change that law so that the US doesn't have to walk away from all these international bodies.
A one-state solution would mean the end of the Jewish state, and so is unacceptable to many powerful people. But the demographics suggest that it is inevitable. Israel is desperate for Jews. Even within the 1967 borders, it will be hard to keep it a Jewish state because there are so many non-Jews. Palestine could be seen as one state now, one state in which 40 % of the people have no rights. In 30 years, 'Greater Israel' may have more Arabs than Jews.
A year ago 44 Christians were massacred in a church in Iraq. Fear of this kind of violence is why many Syrian Christians support Assad. As bad as things have been in Syria, they could be made worse by careless intervention.
I don't understand the media's obsession with Syria. In 2009, twenty thousand Tamils wre killed in Sri Lanka, and the media snoozed. There are troubles in numerous places, but the big media outlets don't want to overburden us with information.
There are some who have done very well for themselves fighting for the oppressed. Progressive authors, journalists, commentators, and film makers can make plenty of money, and a few have become rich through their championing of the underpriveled.
So they are getting their military ready to defend their national interests. Are Pakastani national interests less important than American national interests? Can't we do better than a world focused on national interests? Why are we so in love with nationalism?
The repression began in March. On April 25, you said, "...Washington's hands appear to be tied by it's need for the naval base it leases from Bahrain...". On June 1, you called for the US to move it's naval base from Bahrain. This delayed response may have been because there were more pressing issues. Or maybe there's just too much news to digest.
Well said. The Arabs approve of our role in Libya. But in spite of that, the US has a low approval rating among Arabs. We are not engaging the Arab world with this inconsistent approach.
I heard that the chances that one of the 7 billion people on earth gets hit is one in 3200. Nasa brought this to our attention because their standard is to keep the odds at no worse than 1 in 10,000. So the odds are 3 times what is routine. Chances are it'll go into the ocean. It is ,however, absolutely certain that someone will win the lotery this year. Remember, if you don't play, you can't win.
The Turkish authorities continue to abuse the penal code, in particular Article 301, in order to punish those who peaceably express their opinions on minorities in the country. [European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance 8 feb 2011]. The peaceful expression of a minority's identity seems to be perceived as a threat to the Turkish state. Public officials who express themselve in Kurdish risk censure, as does anyone who defends the interests of minorities.
My understanding is that after the Soviets left Afghanistan, there were several years in which warlords fought each other, while plundering, raping, and killing the people at will. The Taliban's rise was a response to this chaos. Most of the Northern Alliance were both fundamentalist and criminal, while the Taliban were "honest" brutal fanatics. If Massoud was really upright and freedom-loving, his killing was indeed a great loss. ---- At the Bonn Conference, US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilizad and others pressured the popular old king, Zahir Shah to stay out of the new government. They put in Karzai, and created a legislature filled with warlords and war-criminals. ---- In "Bleeding Afghanistan" by Sonali Kolhatkar and James Ingalls, they say they found no evidence of the common belief that Karzai was involved in the oil business. Zalmay Khalilizad,on the other hand, did have a connection to Unocal.
That is one of the larger questions. US anti-interventionists are usually thinking only about US intervention. The US has by far the biggest military and can exert a lot of influence through air power. If you look at what the US has done overseas during the past 30 years, you may conclude that the US is not, on balance, a force for good, and deserves to have its wings clipped. But, if the US were somehow disempowered, other countries would step up to fill the vacuum, and all the small wars would continue. China is in the UN, so I guess the UN is not the answer to all international conflicts. As to whose and which interventions I'll support, I'll take that on a case by case basis.
More Palestinians have been killed by Israelis than viceversa. So Palestinians should have the right to disarm Israel. The gross error in the UN report demonstrates the danger of depending on the UN for justice. People like Norman Finklestein repeatedly cite UN resolutions in advocating for the Palestinians. And Juan Cole constantly talks about legal vs illegal wars. So let's remember that international law is a work-in-progress that hasn't gotten to far. And it seems like many decisions of international bodies are ignored.
Bush's White House was asking the CIA to destroy your reputation because they didn't like what you wre saying about the Iraq War. So, John Walsh's claim that you had a relationship with the CIA does not make sense, and his evidence is nothing. But you can't say that opposing the Libyan War was allying with the CIA. The White House and the CIA work together. When Obama decided that Qaddafi was finished, all relations between the CIA and Qaddafi ended. Besides, opposing US involvment in Libya was not supporting Qaddafi. There are many dictators who kill protesters. Are we supporting all of them because we don't force them out? Some anti-war people may just have different ideas about what is practicle.
"African Union Accuse Libyan Rebels of Killing Blacks Indicriminately" - International Business Times 8-29-11. "Misrata Rebels Defy Libya's New Regime" - The Guardian 8-29-11. The TNC's PR firm definitely has it's work cut out for them.
Here are 2 articles from The Independent: Rebels Settle Scores in Libyan Capital by Kim Senguputa . Rebels Wreck Revenge on Dictator's Men by Patrick Cockburn. Also google : both sides in Libya guilty of abuses, says Amnesty Int'l
There are reports of many black men,some handcuffed, being executed, even injured men in stretchers. All blacks, many of whom are migrant workers, are assumed to be mercenaries by the rebels. Arab Gadaffi loyalists have also been executed after capture, in Zawiyah as well as Tripoli. But since we're allied with the rebels, these reports will be ignored and minimized. The details will remain sketchy and largely forgotten.
The presence of Western troops in Muslim lands creates terrorism. That's what happened in 1990-1991 in Saudi Arabia and Iraq. That intervention was legal under international law. Also, just killing from the sky may create terrorists also. I think what the West just did in Libya was fine. But there have been UN-approved bombing campaigns that were wrong.
NATO has not been killing too many soldiers because it wants the army there to keep order in the post-Gadaffi time? And the rebels are not pleased about that? So in the new Libya there will be soldiers who defected, those who did not, and the rebels all together. Very awkward.
Twenty years ago, the elder Bush decided to bomb Iraq into the stone age, in order to show the world that what we say goes. We killed 100,000 Iraqis in 1991. That massive killing was unnecessay. If we had done things differently back then, there might not have been 9-11, the Afghan war, the Iraq war. I mean, Usama got pissed about our troops in the holy land. We quickly replaced the Soviets as his main enemy. Now, he's dead meat. But what have we done for ourselves?
According to Justin Raimondo, the US is allying with al-Queda in Libya. A few months ago, Raimondo said the purpose of the US/NATO intervention was part of a larger plan to eliminate all possible threats to Israel. (First Iraq, now Libya, later Iran...). So, we are allied with al -Queda in Libya on behalf of Israel. As for the Balkans,the only result of Nato intervention there was "a Muslim country in the heart of Europe". When Raimondo said that, I know he wasn't playing on peoples' fears, because he recently condemned Islamophobia.
If the Muslims win the first election in Egypt, their popularity will eventually fall, because they won't deliver the economic improvements people are desperate for. Whoever wins the next election will not be able to meet peoples expectations. So, if the Muslims get in , will they allow themselves to be voted out in a few years?
Immigration is very good for the industrial democracies. But it doesn't work so well for some of the locals within China. In Xingjiang, the native Uighurs are marginalized and discriminated against by the newcomers, the Han Chinese. The Tibetans have the same problem. These groups don't mix at all. The state encouraged the Han to go west. And the Han have the political and economic power.
Breivik reminds me more of the Fort Hood shooter, or the Unabomber, than Mohamed Atta (the 9-11 hijacker who spent time with Las Vegas hookers). I think he's a lone super-nut. Christianity should not be tarred with the brush of Breivik. But it's already been twisted and disgraced by right-wing televangelists.
When studios make a dud, they must know it's bad before they distribute it. But they advertise it and put in theatres anyway, knowing audiences will feel ripped off. They want to make every dollar they can. They've invested way too much. Studios are willing to make us suffer through a "Renaldo and Clara". Bad governments are willing to kill us.
"Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made it clear that it took the US so long to take this step because Washington had been vetting the TNC leadership for signs it was actually committed to democratic elections and was free of radical Muslim tendencies." It's too bad there is no one to vet Washington for it's commitment to due process, transparency, and rule of law. As revealed recently by Jeremy Scahill in "The Nation", the US is involved in renditions, secret prisons, and torture in Somalia.
I was heartened to see that last week Egypt rejected $5 billiion in loans from the IMF and World Bank. Being in debt to such institutions obviously puts a country in grave danger of losing its independence. Hopefully, they'll get their economy going. I'd say that between Wikileaks and the Arab Spring, it's been a good year for liberty.
The ICC indictment certainly made deal-making difficult, but I'm glad to see the rebels are considering such options. I'm wondering if NATO is now trying to retire Qaddafiq, kill him, or arrest him.
My congressman, Brad Sherman, tried to get a law passed to have Gaza aid flotilla participants arrested as abettors of terrorists. When I have to choose between him and a Republican, I don't vote.
The UN attempt to forbid unilateral aggresive war may be our best hope. But in evaluating our international system, let's look at the 1991 Gulf War. It was legal. 88,500 tons of bombs dropped. 100,000 Iraqi soldiers killed. Was it a shining success? Had all the alternatives to this mass killing been exhausted? In the wake of this legal war came much anti-American terrorism, the Afghan War, and the Iraq War. The UN does many good things, but the consequences of it's mistakes can be horrible.
Were thousands of Libyans saved from a looming disaster or not? Will more Libyans be killed as a result of the intervention? These questions are much more important than the motives of the parties involved. But it seems illogical to assume that national leaders can never be partially motivated by a humanitarian impulse. It's also conceivvable that national interests could motivate an action that has a humanitarian result, as a by-product. The result is what counts. Those who somehow know that every single thing the West does is wrong are tiresome.
The fate of Yemen may affect me, but I'm willing to leave it in the hands of Yemenis, and hope that the likes of this opposition leader can bring freedom to their country. I don't want American taxes being used to train the forces of autocrats how to crush dissent. Is instability and uncertainty really worse than the fruits of Western think tanks and huge intervention?
The grievances of the jihadis seem legitimate. But the US would counter that we do drones, torture, occupations because they used violence first and they threaten us. The answer is a global movement against violence, disrespect, and bondage.
I agree there's no need to show Usama's blown up head. But things like the wikileaked film of our troops shooting Afghani civilians we see far too little of. These wars would get less support if Americans were seeing the ugly realities on a daily basis.
There is a horrible repression happening now in Bahrain. The US has given tens of millions in military aid to this country in recent years. We are aiding a regime that is now acting like a vicious police-state.
We can support an intervention we think will save lives and at the same time point out the crimes of those coming to the rescue. Being hypocritical is better than being consistently wrong.
Many say, " nothing good ever comes of Western intervention", "Can a country that kills hundreds of thousands in Iraq do anything good?" If you are cemented in this mindset, than anything any US president says or does must be imperialistic. If America stumbled into doing something good, the "anti-war-party" would not know it.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
It is interesting that people need to be told that there are Palestinian Christians given that a key player in the first anti-Zionist movement, Isa al-Isa, was a Christian. The first cause that he took up, near the start of the 20th century, was to get the Greek Churches in Palestine to conduct services in Arabic. He went on to found the journal 'Filistin', which was very important to Palestinian nationalism.
In the report on the Syrian towns, a man in a rebel town says of a nearby Shia town, " being Shia, their survival depends on the survival of the regime." So, don't expect peace and tolerance in the wake of Assad's downfall.
Stimulating the sex tourism business-- a great way to kick off the Columbia Free Trade Agreement.
I hear liberal radio hosts blaming high gas prices on speculators, without explaining why speculators are acting different now than they did a year ago. The Left understands that the free market is not the panacea that libertarians say it is. But their understanding of markets ends there, to their detriment.
So let the Pakistani elite play Uncle Sam. A disaster for the superpower will be a disaster for the policymakers in Washington and those they serve, but not for those in the bottom 10%. When England folded up its empire, were the lower class Brits hurt? Or were they glad they'd not be sent off to war so often?
What a fabulous painting!
In the Bishop's message, he said we can rejoice in suffering, knowing that by sharing Christ's suferring, we share his joy. If we believe this, we accept the suffering. This acceptance, or surrender lessens the pain. By total acceptance and reframing, we turn the suferring into happiness.
Islam also recommends accepting suffering , and seeing it as a good thing. In Buddhism , the idea is to be open and accepting of everything, including suffering. So the idea that suffering is just a way that we respond to things that we need to get over, is a key point in the major religions.
Obama ordered the killing of a US citizen without due process. Awlaki may have been killed for exercising his right to free speach. Awlaki was disturbed by seeing US soldiers killing so many innocent Afghanis. Awlaki was a jerk for advocating the killing of Americans. But, as the Obama administration continues to kill civilians, while disgarding the Bill of Rights, it will meet resistance, I hope.
In AlJezera on Wednesday, Robert Grenier opined that Kofi Annan's diplomacy is bad because it buys time for Assad and precludes more effective options. The option Grenier wants is to quickly send more arms to Assad's enemies. He's right to mention that high-minded peaceniks can be responsible for catastrophies (like the violence that followed in the wake of the British departure from India). But armed freedom fighters have also been the cause of much evil. If you are fighting an unspeakably evil regime, then apparently you can use any means, and you don't need to think about the impacts on your neighbors, whether they live next door or in a nearby country. Whether you want to stop the killing or liberate the people, you need to be careful that you are not actually making things worse.
If they make us buy health insurane, what's next? Maybe they'll make us buy eyeglasses for poor kids who can't read the blackboard. And what kind of a country can call itself free if it doesn't have a few people dying from bad teeth? The price of living in a free society is that you need to keep your distance from sick people who may be contagious.
I'll refer you to Human Rights Watch's March 23 press release "UN Rights Council: North Korea Condemnation Goes Unapposed." The subtitle is "Western Countries Turn a Blind Eye to Libyan Abuses." So,they could use their positions on the Rights Council to issue appropriate resolutions, for starters.
I supported the intervention on behalf of the rebels. But I'm not that impressed by those who cheered on the rebels, but then have nothing to say about the ongoing crimes those rebels are committing. If you were a black man in libya, the rebels would assume you were a Qadaffi supporter, and you'd be in danger. Qaddafi is dead. The militias are responsible for the crimes they are committing.
The only real problem in libya is that thousands of people are being detained without trial, some of those people are being tortured, and the people who left the town of Tawergha are not being protected or resettled. The revolution will not be honored until these abuses end. And since the UN and the West show little interest in adressing human rights problems, how Libya looks will depend on which half of the glass your looking at.
Well said. There are also leftist intellectuals who misuse the plight of the Palestinians. Like when they take positions that are totally unrealistic, and thereby squander opportunities to improve things for Palestinians. BTW, don't miss Norman Finklestein's 30-minute critique of the BDS movement on Youtube.
The Catholic church should be used as a smorgasbord. Take what you like and forget the rest. I'll take Oscar Romero and Therese of Liseux. You can keep the Knights of Columbus.
Those who supported the Libyan intervention have been silent about the abuses that continue to be committed by some of the militias they backed. I'm referring to the reports by Doctors Without Borders, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. The care of many humanitarian interventionists seems to have arbitrary limits. I understand that the focus must be on the largest problems. But that's no reason to entirely ignore abuses that occur on a smaller scale.
We could learn something from the recent election in Yemen. If we had only one candidate, we could shorten the campaign season.
But, I'm just curious, since Hadi got 99.8% of the vote, who did the other 0.2% vote for?
Sounds like Ecclesiastes
So maybe we'll see an anti-Assad army made up of Hamas fighters, Saudis, Frenchmen, and Americans.
General Martin Dempsey said, " I would challenge anyone to clearly identify for me the opposition movement in Syria at this point". We know that there are religious radicals amongst them, that they are not all united behind the SNC (thank God), and that various outside groups are trying to co-opt the movement. So, whatever is done, let's not paint "the opposition" as secular,democratic, human-rights-respecting freedom fighters, unless some evidence of that emerges.
Someday, the moral puritans amongst the Christians, Muslims, and Jews may recognize their similarity and unite against their common enemy (those who indulge in or tolerate any sort of fleshly pleasure). God gave us our bodies and our desires, but he doesn't want us to enjoy them, they believe. Sexuality is their main concern. Puritans are more obsessed with sex than many liberals.
Juan, in your Nov. 9 2011 post, you said you believe Iran wants "nuclear latency". If they want such capabilty, they're likely doing some work in that area. Or maybe they are close to knowing how to build a bomb quickly. The amount of time between when they decide to make a bomb and when they blow one up will get shorter as time goes on. The best course of action is to take them up on their offer of renewed talks. But the US insists on hanging on to the fantasy that it can call all the shots in that region.
The Misratan kids sounded ok to me too. But I didn't know they were going to be torturing the Tawerghans. The Syrian Sunnis have grudges that pre-date 1982. When they come to power, there will be plenty of revenge killings and etnic cleansing.
Good poem. Here is the beginning of one by Forugh Farrokhzad:
I don't repent,
thinking of this resignation, this pained surrender.
I've kissed my life's cross
on the hills of my execution
Made me think of the poem you posted a month ago with the line "get up and grab that bottle". The reaching for the bottle is reaching for the divine. The looking to the idol is looking to the divine. This reaching and looking is itself divine. The thing in you that seeks is actually the holy thing you're looking for.
Someone should tell Susan Rice about all the disgusting vetos the US has voted in defense of Israeli crimes.
I'm not interested in the veil. But I have a problem with honor killings and genital mutalation. These practices do not define Islam. But they should be ended. Western girls are often viewed as sexual commodities and sold as such. If we got rid of our European prejudices, we would still have to decide if we want to view the Muslim world through the eyes of Muslim girls and women or Muslim men.
A referendum passed in September 2010 included judicial reforms. The number of Constitutional Court members was expanded from 11 to 17. Parliament appoints 3 members and the president appoints 14.
At least he mentions the poor. The other candidates, including Obama, speak only of the middle class. Romney says that if the safety net needs repair, he'll fix it. I doubt that. But millions of Americans get some kind of government help. In California, it's a Democratic governor who's cutting programs for the poor.
It is unclear how much contact the SNC has with people who live in Syria. There is much division amongst the opposition, both inside and outside of the country. The UK's "The Times" reported that Saudi Arabia and Qatar will begin funding the SNC as well as armed opposition groups. What kind of revolution embraces a theocratic monarchy like Saudi Arabia?
From the Mandate period to the present, the Palestinians' leaders made numerous blunders. For example, the PLO's interference in the lives of the Lebanese led to their being expelled from Lebanon. While in exile, they did little to prepare for statehood. During the second Intifada, when suicide bombers were killing Israelis, the PA was either unwilling or unable to stop them. Arafat's PA was a corrupt, incoherent entity that abandoned the Palestinians in the diaspora, and did not help build a Palestinian state. Rashid Khalidi's "The Iron Cage" examines these things in detail. Is there any chance of the Palestinians getting some competent and trustworthy leaders?
Regarding Obama's support for democracy in the ME: he just approved the sale of 60 billion dollars worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia. This means the US will have to support the Saudi regime for years so that they can pay their bill to Boeing.
Obama also is willing to see sky-high gas prices and more US war deaths in order to please Israeli hardliners and neo-cons. He's sacrificing our national interest for some agenda I don't understand. A war with Iran will have many bad consequences, including an increase in anti-Semitism.
There is a similar conflict between the Western liberals and the people of Uganda, a predominantly Christian nation. The US and UK are threatening to withhold aid unless Uganda makes progress on gay rights. A homosexual act is punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Ugandan politicians accuse the Western leaders of having an ex-colonial mentality and treating them like children. They feel that if progressive Westerners had more respect for what the good Christians of Uganda want, they would let them do as they see fit. I am not ashamed to say that I have respect for those persons who are imprisoned, killed, or maimed by the faithful. I also respect people who help the victims of the religious.
It is possible that the very strong showing of the Salafis could push the Muslim Brotherhood rightward, in the same way that the American far-right has pushed the whole mainstream political spectrum rightward. They may not want to work with the Salafis, but they may be worried that if they don't act Muslim enough, it will hurt them. Another possibility is that the Salafis ally with secular liberals in order to keep the MB from controlling everything. And the parties that are victorious this year could lose their appeal in a few years.
If Iran was a nuclear power, that might constrain some of the United States' activities in the region, such as invasions and drone-warfare. A nuclear-armed Iran that continued to back Hamas and Hezbollah might make Israel less eager to gobble up Palestinian land.
But, the Iranian regime is not a force for good, anymore than the US or Israel are. Let's help them with renewable energy. But, if that carrot fails, there's no reason to bang them with a stick. There is no proof that they are developing nuclear weapons. And if they did develop such weapons, we could deal with them like we do other nuclear powers.
George Bush started a war in his first term, and he was re-elected during the war. But, I don't think Obama wants to follow the Bush playbook here. After the last nuclear scientist was killed, Hillary said, " we had nothing to do with this". It sounded like she was saying to Iran, "maybe it was the Israelis, but we do not in any way accept this." After that, Iran stated that it was still interested in a new round of talks about its nuclear program.
Militaries are hugely expensive welfare programs. They are funded by taxes (money taken from the wealth-creators by force). Where they control businesses, it's because the state nationalized those businesses (took them from the wealth-creators by force). If Pakistan's military was good at creating wealth, the country wouldn't be so poor. Pakistan has alternated between corrupt civilian rule and military rule. The top 15% crushes the bottom 85% through outright theft.
art like this makes me think that sadness and desolation can be more beautiful and satisfying than joyous celebration.
If Eygpt had a dictator like the one they had in the early fifties, Gamal Abdul Nasser, a secular nationalist who imprisoned Muslim Brothers, leftists would love him for his anti-Israel, anti-US stance.
Most Egyptians are concerned about their personal security and economic survival. They don't care whether or not alcohol or bikinis are banned. And they don't care what their government's policy toward Israel is. I can't believe that poor Egyptians are as obsessed with Israel as Leftist intellectuals are. When you're trying to make ends meet, you don't spend you're time playing geo-political mind-games.
I think most people would like to live in a relatively free society, with certain rights guranteed. But if most Egyptians don't care if adulterers or gays are stoned, that does not in any way make it acceptable. Individual liberty is not a uniquely Western value. If the majority wants to imprison all persons who wear shorts, than the will of the people should be opposed. If Westerners lie when they say they're concerned with theocracy, that has no bearing on whether or not decent people should be concerned with theocracy. All sides that play geopolitics use human rights and freedom in a selective, self-serving way. But some human-rights groups, for example, will criticize America, Iran, Israel, Turkey, South Korea, Cuba, etc. If you care about people, you can't pledge your allegiance to a flag, a leader, an ideology, the West, the East, the South, or the North.
Zbignew Brzezinski says that China's currennt leadership knows that it's success depends on a gradual redistribution of power, not a sudden collapse of America. China will be a still be a devoloping state for decades. Even by 2025, no single power will be ready to play the role of leader of a new globally cooperative world order. Read "After America" by ZB in new Foreign Policy. If the US wants help create a workable new order, it needs to come up with better ideas than bombing Iran.
Ron Paul's positions on several issues are awful. But on some key issues like Iran and civil liberties he is so much better than Obama and Romney/Santorum/Gingrich/Perry. I might vote for someone who would abolish social security if I thought that was necessary to prevent a ruinous war. It shouldn't be necessary, but where are the loud voices demanding both a sane foreign policy and a humane domestic policy?
Click on the first link and you can see that 0.8% of business firms are black-owned in Iowa. It's 7.1% in the country as a whole.
Anglo-Celtic? 72% of Americans are "white persons", but 63.7% are "white persons not Hispanic". So about 27 million people of Hispanic origon call themselves white.
21 years ago, during the Gulf War, I saw this graffiti on a church in southern Mexico: "Yankee go home. Viva Iraq" . Whoever wrote that can breathe a little easier now. It's been a long time coming.
Has any Pope ever mentioned the massacre of Palestinians at Sabra and Shatila in 1982 , a crime against humanity committed by Lebanese Maronite Catholics?
Speaking of Yemen, did you know that before the protest began there, Saleh was allowing the US to conduct drone strikes? When the uprising began there, the US military expressed concern that the instability would make things easier for the al-Queda offshoot they were targeting.
The Ameicans and Israelis no doubt work to further their interests, but they are not in control of world events. The regime change in Iraq did not install a regime friendly to the US. Throughout the region, Muslims are gaining political power, and this is making Israel nervous. Egypt was vey friendly with the US a year ago. Why did the CIA cause unrest there? Wasn't the Tunisian regime friendly? I would think that seeing the hidden hand of the US and Israel behind everything does take some effort. It is definitely an insult to those who've gone out and faced the tyrants' bullets.
By beating, kidnapping, electrocuting, and killing protestors, the military is stating clearly, " we control everything. We'll let you play with elections. But freedom to assemble or speak? No way. We are in charge. Period." If the Muslim Brotherhood's tactic is to silently watch the dream of freedom be crushed, they are making it clear that all they want is to share power with the military. The US gives a billion a year to the Egyptian military. But if the Islamist parties put all their resources into stopping the police state once and for all, they could do it.
It appears that the success of the Muslims at the polls has not dampened the left's antipathy toward the military. They are not interested in using the military as a buffer against theocray. And the military's brutality, which they should know will be filmed and viewed, makes them look like the crazy ones. Could the military be forced out by popular demand? What would happen in a real democracy dominated by Muslims? How would they deal with the economy? How much freedom would they allow?
Tens of thousands of poor farmers in India have killed themselves in the past decade, but no political upheaval has resulted. The Arab World must have been a highly flammable, waiting for the tiniest spark.
I heard there's been a lot of sectarian violence in Homs, mainly between Sunnis and Allawites. It sounds like some Sunnis decided to target Christians. If the revolutionaries continue to engage in religious war, they will cause as much harm to Syria as Assad has.
The trade unions, the women, the students, the Copts, and the lefties will need to keep fighting both the military and the Muslim hardliners for some time. The military and the Salafists have already shown that they are a danger to whoever is not with their program. And if a government is elected that tolerates the abuse of women or any minority, it should be implaccably opposed. Democracy may be the best form of government, but "the people" can be as demented as any tyrant.
I'm a white guy in Los Angeles who witnessed the gradual inflow of Latinos over the past 40 years. I enjoyed watching the invasion, especially the gorgeous Latinas. I don't see why people define themselves by their race or nationality to the extent that they do. Nationalism seems to make sense if your a beleaguered group like the Tamils or Palestinians. But I've never felt like going to bat for the white race, and I'm proudly un-American.
Yes. The Egyptian military gets 40% of it's funds from the US.
I saw a documentary about young Iranian women which showed both the presence of the morality police and humanity and intelligence of much of the populace. Watching non-propagandistic Iranian films, whether fiction or documentary, is a good way to open your eyes to the humanity of the people that some want to starve or bomb. Reading the poetry of Forugh Farrakhzad might make you scratch your head when you hear about a clash of cultures.
The debate about how to treat Qaddafi loyalists is focused on the ex-leaders. The plight of common people accused of being loyalists needs more attention. Human Rights Watch's 10-30-11 report on 'Militias Terrorizing Residents of "Loyalist" Town' gives examples of the kind of abuse that must end.
The Egyptian military own companies, sells all sorts of products, and is an economic giant. They've been in charge since the early fifties. They have the guns. Who's going to control them? Some liberals might like seeing the military putting limits on what the Muslims can do. But it might be better to have the Muslims put limits on the military.
If the MB took power in Syria, the Arab counties would still be no more united than they were in 1948. This 'Muslim Empire' would be no more of a threat to Israel than was Nassar's secular nationalism in 1956.
it might be easier to intervene in Bahrain than in Syria, if there were the will to do so. But the US could influence Bahrain without violating their sovereignty. The US could stop selling them arms and move the 5th fleet. Do you suggest we ignore the few dozen because there are larger problems ? Syria may not have an easy solution right now. But why not do those things that are doable? If those who could saved a few dozen lives every time they could, the numbers would add up quikly.
A large portion of Middle East Christians belong to the very oldest churches- Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, and Armenian. When was the last time a Great Power came to the aid of these Christians? Culturally, they are a world apart from US evangelicals.
The possibility of US expulsion from WIPO is a big deal for companies like Microsoft. Maybe congress will change that law so that the US doesn't have to walk away from all these international bodies.
A one-state solution would mean the end of the Jewish state, and so is unacceptable to many powerful people. But the demographics suggest that it is inevitable. Israel is desperate for Jews. Even within the 1967 borders, it will be hard to keep it a Jewish state because there are so many non-Jews. Palestine could be seen as one state now, one state in which 40 % of the people have no rights. In 30 years, 'Greater Israel' may have more Arabs than Jews.
A year ago 44 Christians were massacred in a church in Iraq. Fear of this kind of violence is why many Syrian Christians support Assad. As bad as things have been in Syria, they could be made worse by careless intervention.
I don't understand the media's obsession with Syria. In 2009, twenty thousand Tamils wre killed in Sri Lanka, and the media snoozed. There are troubles in numerous places, but the big media outlets don't want to overburden us with information.
I would suggest that the Occupy movement tell the professional left to take a long vacation. Haven't we heard enough from these blathering careerists?
There are some who have done very well for themselves fighting for the oppressed. Progressive authors, journalists, commentators, and film makers can make plenty of money, and a few have become rich through their championing of the underpriveled.
So they are getting their military ready to defend their national interests. Are Pakastani national interests less important than American national interests? Can't we do better than a world focused on national interests? Why are we so in love with nationalism?
The repression began in March. On April 25, you said, "...Washington's hands appear to be tied by it's need for the naval base it leases from Bahrain...". On June 1, you called for the US to move it's naval base from Bahrain. This delayed response may have been because there were more pressing issues. Or maybe there's just too much news to digest.
Well said. The Arabs approve of our role in Libya. But in spite of that, the US has a low approval rating among Arabs. We are not engaging the Arab world with this inconsistent approach.
Right. You multiply the odds of someone getting hit (1 in 3200) by the number of people (7 billion) and you get about 20 trillion.
I heard that the chances that one of the 7 billion people on earth gets hit is one in 3200. Nasa brought this to our attention because their standard is to keep the odds at no worse than 1 in 10,000. So the odds are 3 times what is routine. Chances are it'll go into the ocean. It is ,however, absolutely certain that someone will win the lotery this year. Remember, if you don't play, you can't win.
The Turkish authorities continue to abuse the penal code, in particular Article 301, in order to punish those who peaceably express their opinions on minorities in the country. [European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance 8 feb 2011]. The peaceful expression of a minority's identity seems to be perceived as a threat to the Turkish state. Public officials who express themselve in Kurdish risk censure, as does anyone who defends the interests of minorities.
My understanding is that after the Soviets left Afghanistan, there were several years in which warlords fought each other, while plundering, raping, and killing the people at will. The Taliban's rise was a response to this chaos. Most of the Northern Alliance were both fundamentalist and criminal, while the Taliban were "honest" brutal fanatics. If Massoud was really upright and freedom-loving, his killing was indeed a great loss. ---- At the Bonn Conference, US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilizad and others pressured the popular old king, Zahir Shah to stay out of the new government. They put in Karzai, and created a legislature filled with warlords and war-criminals. ---- In "Bleeding Afghanistan" by Sonali Kolhatkar and James Ingalls, they say they found no evidence of the common belief that Karzai was involved in the oil business. Zalmay Khalilizad,on the other hand, did have a connection to Unocal.
That is one of the larger questions. US anti-interventionists are usually thinking only about US intervention. The US has by far the biggest military and can exert a lot of influence through air power. If you look at what the US has done overseas during the past 30 years, you may conclude that the US is not, on balance, a force for good, and deserves to have its wings clipped. But, if the US were somehow disempowered, other countries would step up to fill the vacuum, and all the small wars would continue. China is in the UN, so I guess the UN is not the answer to all international conflicts. As to whose and which interventions I'll support, I'll take that on a case by case basis.
More Palestinians have been killed by Israelis than viceversa. So Palestinians should have the right to disarm Israel. The gross error in the UN report demonstrates the danger of depending on the UN for justice. People like Norman Finklestein repeatedly cite UN resolutions in advocating for the Palestinians. And Juan Cole constantly talks about legal vs illegal wars. So let's remember that international law is a work-in-progress that hasn't gotten to far. And it seems like many decisions of international bodies are ignored.
Bush's White House was asking the CIA to destroy your reputation because they didn't like what you wre saying about the Iraq War. So, John Walsh's claim that you had a relationship with the CIA does not make sense, and his evidence is nothing. But you can't say that opposing the Libyan War was allying with the CIA. The White House and the CIA work together. When Obama decided that Qaddafi was finished, all relations between the CIA and Qaddafi ended. Besides, opposing US involvment in Libya was not supporting Qaddafi. There are many dictators who kill protesters. Are we supporting all of them because we don't force them out? Some anti-war people may just have different ideas about what is practicle.
"African Union Accuse Libyan Rebels of Killing Blacks Indicriminately" - International Business Times 8-29-11. "Misrata Rebels Defy Libya's New Regime" - The Guardian 8-29-11. The TNC's PR firm definitely has it's work cut out for them.
Here are 2 articles from The Independent: Rebels Settle Scores in Libyan Capital by Kim Senguputa . Rebels Wreck Revenge on Dictator's Men by Patrick Cockburn. Also google : both sides in Libya guilty of abuses, says Amnesty Int'l
There are reports of many black men,some handcuffed, being executed, even injured men in stretchers. All blacks, many of whom are migrant workers, are assumed to be mercenaries by the rebels. Arab Gadaffi loyalists have also been executed after capture, in Zawiyah as well as Tripoli. But since we're allied with the rebels, these reports will be ignored and minimized. The details will remain sketchy and largely forgotten.
The presence of Western troops in Muslim lands creates terrorism. That's what happened in 1990-1991 in Saudi Arabia and Iraq. That intervention was legal under international law. Also, just killing from the sky may create terrorists also. I think what the West just did in Libya was fine. But there have been UN-approved bombing campaigns that were wrong.
NATO has not been killing too many soldiers because it wants the army there to keep order in the post-Gadaffi time? And the rebels are not pleased about that? So in the new Libya there will be soldiers who defected, those who did not, and the rebels all together. Very awkward.
Twenty years ago, the elder Bush decided to bomb Iraq into the stone age, in order to show the world that what we say goes. We killed 100,000 Iraqis in 1991. That massive killing was unnecessay. If we had done things differently back then, there might not have been 9-11, the Afghan war, the Iraq war. I mean, Usama got pissed about our troops in the holy land. We quickly replaced the Soviets as his main enemy. Now, he's dead meat. But what have we done for ourselves?
According to Justin Raimondo, the US is allying with al-Queda in Libya. A few months ago, Raimondo said the purpose of the US/NATO intervention was part of a larger plan to eliminate all possible threats to Israel. (First Iraq, now Libya, later Iran...). So, we are allied with al -Queda in Libya on behalf of Israel. As for the Balkans,the only result of Nato intervention there was "a Muslim country in the heart of Europe". When Raimondo said that, I know he wasn't playing on peoples' fears, because he recently condemned Islamophobia.
If the Muslims win the first election in Egypt, their popularity will eventually fall, because they won't deliver the economic improvements people are desperate for. Whoever wins the next election will not be able to meet peoples expectations. So, if the Muslims get in , will they allow themselves to be voted out in a few years?
Immigration is very good for the industrial democracies. But it doesn't work so well for some of the locals within China. In Xingjiang, the native Uighurs are marginalized and discriminated against by the newcomers, the Han Chinese. The Tibetans have the same problem. These groups don't mix at all. The state encouraged the Han to go west. And the Han have the political and economic power.
Breivik reminds me more of the Fort Hood shooter, or the Unabomber, than Mohamed Atta (the 9-11 hijacker who spent time with Las Vegas hookers). I think he's a lone super-nut. Christianity should not be tarred with the brush of Breivik. But it's already been twisted and disgraced by right-wing televangelists.
Breivik is said to be a Zionist. Ironically, the first anti-Zionists in 19th century Palestine were anti-immigrant activists.
When studios make a dud, they must know it's bad before they distribute it. But they advertise it and put in theatres anyway, knowing audiences will feel ripped off. They want to make every dollar they can. They've invested way too much. Studios are willing to make us suffer through a "Renaldo and Clara". Bad governments are willing to kill us.
"Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made it clear that it took the US so long to take this step because Washington had been vetting the TNC leadership for signs it was actually committed to democratic elections and was free of radical Muslim tendencies." It's too bad there is no one to vet Washington for it's commitment to due process, transparency, and rule of law. As revealed recently by Jeremy Scahill in "The Nation", the US is involved in renditions, secret prisons, and torture in Somalia.
I was heartened to see that last week Egypt rejected $5 billiion in loans from the IMF and World Bank. Being in debt to such institutions obviously puts a country in grave danger of losing its independence. Hopefully, they'll get their economy going. I'd say that between Wikileaks and the Arab Spring, it's been a good year for liberty.
The ICC indictment certainly made deal-making difficult, but I'm glad to see the rebels are considering such options. I'm wondering if NATO is now trying to retire Qaddafiq, kill him, or arrest him.
My congressman, Brad Sherman, tried to get a law passed to have Gaza aid flotilla participants arrested as abettors of terrorists. When I have to choose between him and a Republican, I don't vote.
The UN attempt to forbid unilateral aggresive war may be our best hope. But in evaluating our international system, let's look at the 1991 Gulf War. It was legal. 88,500 tons of bombs dropped. 100,000 Iraqi soldiers killed. Was it a shining success? Had all the alternatives to this mass killing been exhausted? In the wake of this legal war came much anti-American terrorism, the Afghan War, and the Iraq War. The UN does many good things, but the consequences of it's mistakes can be horrible.
Were thousands of Libyans saved from a looming disaster or not? Will more Libyans be killed as a result of the intervention? These questions are much more important than the motives of the parties involved. But it seems illogical to assume that national leaders can never be partially motivated by a humanitarian impulse. It's also conceivvable that national interests could motivate an action that has a humanitarian result, as a by-product. The result is what counts. Those who somehow know that every single thing the West does is wrong are tiresome.
Why can't Egypt open it's border with Gaza more? Why has it not been called the Israeli-Egyptian blockade?
The fate of Yemen may affect me, but I'm willing to leave it in the hands of Yemenis, and hope that the likes of this opposition leader can bring freedom to their country. I don't want American taxes being used to train the forces of autocrats how to crush dissent. Is instability and uncertainty really worse than the fruits of Western think tanks and huge intervention?
The grievances of the jihadis seem legitimate. But the US would counter that we do drones, torture, occupations because they used violence first and they threaten us. The answer is a global movement against violence, disrespect, and bondage.
I agree there's no need to show Usama's blown up head. But things like the wikileaked film of our troops shooting Afghani civilians we see far too little of. These wars would get less support if Americans were seeing the ugly realities on a daily basis.
There is a horrible repression happening now in Bahrain. The US has given tens of millions in military aid to this country in recent years. We are aiding a regime that is now acting like a vicious police-state.
We can support an intervention we think will save lives and at the same time point out the crimes of those coming to the rescue. Being hypocritical is better than being consistently wrong.
Many say, " nothing good ever comes of Western intervention", "Can a country that kills hundreds of thousands in Iraq do anything good?" If you are cemented in this mindset, than anything any US president says or does must be imperialistic. If America stumbled into doing something good, the "anti-war-party" would not know it.