Gaddafi accepts the African Union’s “roadmap” to a cease-fire, but details are unclear. Whatever it is, the rebels have not yet accepted it; the AU delegation meets with them Monday.
Yeah, right. This is the same guy who said his forces were not firing at anyone at the same time they were slaughtering people, isn’t it?
Aaaannnndddd the rebels ain’t havin’ none.
According to this CNN article, everyone’s favorite leader President Ahmadinejad says that the unrest in the Middle East is the fault of the West.
“They are trying to foment discord in the region. They are trying to cause destruction and provoke wars between nations and governments in order to sell their weapons,” Ahmadinejad said in a speech translated into English by state-run Press TV. “They are seeking destruction and a reinforcement of their evil dominance in the region.”
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/04/18/iran.ahmadinejad/index.html?hpt=T2
There’s not really enough rolleyes smilies for this…
Hey, waitaminnit, a few weeks ago Ahmadinejad was calling this wave of revolutions in the MENA an “Islamic Awakening.”
If by “awakening” he means “if you protest your government our security forces will shoot you in the street”, then…yes!
And it slays me to think that he would say its because we want to sell weapons. He obviously hasn’t a clue that we sell a mountain of our weapon systems every year to other countries all the time.
BTW, interestingly, this makes Libya a very underpopulated country compared to its neighbors east and west. See this population-density map of Africa. There is a long, continuous, thickly-populated strip along the northwest edge of the Sahara – that’s the Maghreb (northern Morocco, northern Algeria, all of Tunisia, and Libya in the neighborhood of Tripoli) – and a thickly-populated strip along the banks and delta of the Nile – and then, between them, there’s a sort of human island around Benghazi – and between Benghazi and Tripoli, a stretch of (seemingly) empty desert, and south of them vast miles of (really) empty desert.
In a development that will hopefully surprise absolutely no one, Christendom has decided to escalate its ongoing war of aggression. After the French spent some time contemplating sending troops into Libya, the Brits decided to go ahead and actually do it:
Clearly, this is a blatant and illegal violation of the current resolution. The British attempt to weasel out of this conclusion using semantic sleight-of-hand is about as convincing as Bush’s decision to create the “enemy combatant” category in order to escape the US’s Geneva Conventions obligations.
Moreover, this decision also violates the resolution by clearly taking sides in a civil war - something that is clearly outside of the scope of the “protecting civilians” mandate.
This is a sad day for humanity.
*Christendom *???
Yeah, sort of like Bush on 911 saying, “Our crusade”.
Folks over there get ticked off at things like that.
It’s happening in Syria.
Oh, absolutely. As I have mentioned before, I am of the opinion that this latest international war of aggression is very much influenced by religious overtones. It is naive to believe that it is simply a coincidence that, once again, we have a group of Christian states ganging up on a weaker Muslim target. Funny how that tends to happen over, and over, and over… Almost like a never-ending Crusade, don’t you think?
NATO includes a number of countries with sizable (as in close to being a majority or even a majority) Muslim populations.
By the way, are you aware that the Libyan rebels happen to be Muslim? I’d ask you for a cite to substantiate your allegations but that’s a losing proposition as both the mods and other members here have noticed often.
White founts falling in the Courts of the sun,
And the Soldan of Byzantium is smiling as they run;
There is laughter like the fountains in that face of all men feared,
It stirs the forest darkness, the darkness of his beard;
It curls the blood-red crescent, the crescent of his lips;
For the inmost sea of all the earth is shaken with his ships.
They have dared the white republics up the capes of Italy,
They have dashed the Adriatic round the Lion of the Sea,
And the Pope has cast his arms abroad for agony and loss,
And called the kings of Christendom for swords about the Cross!
– “Lepanto,” Chesteron
Surely you can tell the difference between “sending troops” and “a group of ten UK officers in an advisory role” can’t you? The way you worded your post makes it sound as if Britain is sending in an army or something. Why am I not surprised?
:rolleyes:
And to echo Monty, the rebels are Muslim…and asked for assistance. How does that line up with your “Christian Crusade” theory again?
And I also seem to remember the Arab League (formed of Muslim countries) actively calling for the UN airstrikes, and that jets from Qatar are actively participating.
Consider the way the English took over Ireland. Compare and contrast. 
Why don’t you take another look at the question you just posed. Are you honestly, in good faith, arguing that “ten UK officers” do not count as “troops?” If military personnel are not military personnel, what the hell are they? Sports mascots?
Why do you suppose this is important? Are you arguing that a pragmatic decision is sufficient to refute the presence of an overall ideology? I think not. If I told you that the NAZIs had a racist white-supremacy ideology, would you say, “No, that’s wrong, because they allied themselves with the Japanese?”
The reality of neo-colonialism is that direct rule of the subjugated has long fallen out of favor. Invaders now typically seek to rule through proxy, choosing lap-dogs to do their bidding from amongst the conquered population. Hence, nominally independent governments in Kabul and Baghdad that just so happen to be puppets of Christendom. The fact that the puppets themselves are Muslim does not mean that they are not puppets.
Remember that the world is not black and white, and hence ideologies tend not to be absolutist in nature. The Christian world is very much engaged in a crusade against Islam (seen both in such wars of aggression and in domestic Islamo-phobia), but that does not mean that it is above recruiting Muslim traitors to do its dirty work. If anything, this frees its own people up to spread even more terror throughout the free Muslim world.
See above. Also, I haven’t actually found any accounts describing actual bombardments by “jets from Qatar.” How active is the participation? What have they actually been up to?
About 30,000 feet.
Commisar, of course the ten UK officers could be labeled as “troops”, because essentially they are, but I do also think that the word “troops” conjures up an amount of soldiers far larger than ten in most people’s minds, and I also think you know that and used that word intentionally to further your argument of “See? They said they weren’t sending in ground forces, but they lied! Here’s proof right here!” when in fact it would have been more accurate to just note that the UK has sent ten officers to Libya in an advisory role for the rebels.
As for the rest of your argument about neo-colonialism…say what? Libya and a lot of other countries in the ME are being swept up in a series of protests against their governments, many of which are dictatorial and hardline in nature. What does the West have to do with that? Mubarak was supposedly a US puppet…he was deposed, the USA did nothing to intervene.
Iran has its protests and is not a US puppet regime, nor is Syria nor Libya.
The USA is a part of a UN-sanctioned effort to stop Ghadafi from committing humanitarian crimes against his own people. Where are you getting this colonial vibe from?