Here’s the link I promised regarding the massacre in Zawiyah and the desecration of graves there:
I think it’s more cynical bullshit on Gaddaffi’s part. By characterising the coalition forces as anti-Muslim “crusaders”, he’s painting himself as the blameless victim and the proud Islamic leader standing up to Western aggression. It’s an appeal to a historical picture of enmity, but he conveniently ignores the fact that other Muslim countries have called for air-strikes against him, and that some of the planes doing the bombing are from Qatar and the U.A.E.
Meanwhile, over in Tehran, Ahmadinejad is trying to spin this whole wave of anti-authoritarian revolutions/protests in Muslim countries as an “Islamic awakening.”
Well as with almost everything in the region, religion is part of it, but it’s most certainly not the reason or the driving force behind the uprisings. It’s been about throwing off oppression and tyranny and wishing for a decent standard of living rather than religion per se.
While I appreciate your fervor, you seem to be seriously distorting the facts, Bibliovore. Your link does nothing to substantiate your claims. Here is what you asserted in a previous post:
Thus, you are arguing that pro-government forces have committed “wholesale mass-murder” of the “civilian population” in Zawiyah. To me, this brings up images of families being marched out and shot, bodies carpeting the streets, neighborhoods depopulated, mass graves all over the place. I’m thinking a massacre of Rwandan proportions here…
And then you post your link, which comes down to the following: 100 rebels may or may not have died battling the pro-government forces. And a couple wounded rebels may or may not have been detained for questioning. Oh, and some bodies were moved (the horror!!!).
In other words, not much at all seems to have happened after the pro-government forces took this city. Certainly not “mass-murder.” Your mischaracterization of the facts is not bolstering your highly partisan position.
Oooh, this oughta be good . . .
The article certainly doesn’t support claims of a massacre.
I’m more uncertain about the grave “desecration”. In Islamic countries, are bodies never moved once buried? I’m not sure that any country would want to leave bodies buried in the main square of a city, and I would hope that they were given decent burial in a more appropriate place. I suspect that had the rebels won the city, the bodies would have been moved anyway.
Good explanation, Bibliovore. But I was actually asking about the use of the term by a particular poster on this board.
I suppose Islam, like Christianity, can be interpreted to support authoritarian or democratic political arguments. I think Mohammed said every Muslim is the brother or sister of every other Muslim, right? Ideally, the whole global community of Muslims is one umma of equals, and when there was a Caliph he was theoretically Caliph by choice of the umma – I think. Now, that doesn’t necessarily imply modern multiparty electoral democracy, but it’s certainly a democratic world-view.
There’s nothing to wonder about there. He’s using it for the same purposes as Qaddaffi is.
Presume you mean, here.
Of course, France is intervening in the Ivory Coast.
The cheese-eating surrender monkeys have bigger balls than we do, huh? 
Here, BTW, is an analysis that blames the Cote d’Ivoire crisis in part on the Western demand for chocolate.
:o Ahermm . . . This is . . . morally difficult. I cannot countenance the POV that regards the blood of poor or dark-skinned foreigners as expendable for the sake of cheap imported oil. But chocolate . . . that’s serious . . .
True, but the French involvement goes to a different power dynamic; European ex-colonial powers often mistakenly believe that they have an inherent right to interfere in the affairs of their wayward “children.” Highly paternalistic arrogance, to be sure, but not quite related to what I identify as the crusading zeal directed at the Muslim world. For example, notice that neither the US nor the UK are chafing at the bit to join the Ivory Coast fight. Notice the complete lack of Western outrage concerning a much more violent conflict than the one seen in Libya. Were it a Muslim nation, I submit that the response would be far more shrill and far more violent.
But the Ivory Coast IS a majority Muslim nation.
The latest statistics say 39% Muslim, 33% Christian, 17% Atheist, 11% other (local) religions.
And that’s national figures; in actuality they religions are concentrated; the north probably has a Muslim majority, while the south has a Christian majority.
You wouldn’t happen to have on hand anything at all resembling an actual fact to support that assertion, would you?
My initial cite was intended more to provide evidence of the desecration of the graves, but I see we may also be disagreeing on what the definition of a massacre is.
More than one reputable Western news source has reported clear evidence that the regime’s forces used tanks and artillery to shell residential buildings, that they fired on mosques, used live fire on marching protestors, and even used live fire on ambulances that were attempting to collect casualties off the streets. Let’s be clear that we’re talking about civilians and non-combatants here, including children and the elderly. Doctors at Zawiyah also confirmed that these were not accidents and that the injuries they saw were clear evidence of a “shoot to kill” policy.
To me, the deliberate mass-murder of civilians counts as a massacre.
Here’s another cite:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115948211
but it’s clear that these atrocities have in fact happened. I have also spoken to doctors at both the Al-Jalaa’ and the Al-Hawari Hospitals in Benghazi, who provided first-hand accounts of the casualties inflicted by 14.5mm anti-aircraft rounds used against civilian protestors by Gaddaffi’s forces. Many of the dead were reduced to bloody chunks of meat by these massive rounds - families were bringing the pieces of their loved ones into the hospital, simply because they had no idea what else to do.
But first-hand accounts aside, I have no doubt that the International Criminal Court will amass further documented evidence of these atrocities. It’ll be well-nigh impossible for Gaddaffi to hide what he’s done, no matter how many graves he digs up and how many bodies he takes.
Oh, and in response to **Frank’s **question about desecration, bodies in Islamic countries are rarely, if ever moved once interred. But even if they *were *later moved to a more appropriate place in the event that the rebels had won, there’s a world of difference between that sort of respect for the fallen, and Gaddaffi’s thugs digging up the bodies of those they’d murdered in an effort to hide the evidence of their crimes.
Think about it. The families of these victims won’t even be able to grieve properly or visit the graves of their loved ones because the corpses were stolen. I can only guess that they’ve been cremated or destroyed in some other fashion, but the horror that that kind of ghoulish barbarity engenders is very easy to understand.
It’s not quite the same thing as if Gaddafi’s troops had rounded up all the fighting-age males in Zawiyah and stood them all in one place and machine-gunned them, which was what your earlier posts on this topic seemed to imply – the sort of thing the Nazis (and sometimes the Soviets – see Katyn) did to civilian populations during WWII – but I take your point.