Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

«‹›3125 »

Doc Hawkins: Jun 15, 2010; Dashing? But I'm not even moving!

Lascivious Sloth posted:

When has training outside forces- who are not loyal to your own ideals- in special guerrilla warfare operations ever been a good idea.

When the alternative was Global ~~Theromonuclear War~~ ~~Terrorist Impunity~~ Reduction In Relative Power.

# ? Sep 21, 2012 23:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 3, 2024 17:53

Mc Do Well: Aug 2, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

I think Orwell really predicted what a 'stable' global power balance needs to look like; Eurasia, East Asia, and the Americas (Oceania)

Of course the finer details and how power will arrange itself is still very much up for grabs.

The people of Benghazi are trying to reclaim the narrative. I hope it works.

Mc Do Well fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Sep 22, 2012

# ? Sep 21, 2012 23:53

hadji murad: Apr 18, 2006

Smudgie Buggler posted:

a) responding to a craven and brutal attack against civilians with violence towards declared hostile combatants

and

b) responding to having the founder of your religion made out to be a bit of an rear end in a top hat with a craven and brutal attack against civilians

?

I'm far from a huge fan of the way America wields its military and geopolitical strength, but you can't deny the fact that America doesn't go out of its way to hurt people who aren't violent and dangerous. When it does hurt people who aren't a threat to anyone, and it is admittedly often, it's pretty much always because they missed what they were aiming for. The people who aimed an RPG in the general direction of Ambassador Stevens and Vilerat hit exactly what they were aiming for: four people trying to do some good for Libya and the Arab World in general who had done absolutely no harm whatsoever to their attackers or anybody the attackers care about.

Yes, yes, I know, the attackers were psychopathic opportunists who almost certainly weren't responding directly to the movie trailer. But your implication that the invasions of Mesopotamia and Afghanistan following 9/11 can reasonably be compared to using an offensive video as an excuse for killing people got right the gently caress under my skin.

Let's start a thread if you really want to compare shelling the Taliban with murdering diplomats.

It is more the murdering of thousands of civilians tha you glossed over that I take issue with. That is exactly the problem. People don't even care how many millions of lives they utterly ruin but soon as there is a hint of blowback they are calling for more violence (while ignoring the violence on a daily basis)

# ? Sep 22, 2012 02:32

Darkman Fanpage: Jul 4, 2012

Lascivious Sloth posted:

When has training outside forces- who are not loyal to your own ideals- in special guerrilla warfare operations ever been a good idea.

When they oppose the Soviets? That worked out great for us, didn't it?

# ? Sep 22, 2012 03:05

Darkman Fanpage: Jul 4, 2012

Smudgie Buggler posted:

I'm far from a huge fan of the way America wields its military and geopolitical strength, but you can't deny the fact that America doesn't go out of its way to hurt people who aren't violent and dangerous. When it does hurt people who aren't a threat to anyone, and it is admittedly often, it's pretty much always because they missed what they were aiming for. The people who aimed an RPG in the general direction of Ambassador Stevens and Vilerat hit exactly what they were aiming for: four people trying to do some good for Libya and the Arab World in general who had done absolutely no harm whatsoever to their attackers or anybody the attackers care about.

Essentially America is a gigantic retard with lots of knives.

# ? Sep 22, 2012 03:10

Smudgie Buggler: Feb 27, 2005; SET PHASERS TO "GRINDING TEDIUM"

visceril posted:

Marx wrote that religion is an expression of human suffering. In the place with (arguably) the most suffering, it's understandable that more people believe and believe more fervently.

What utter twaddle. It's not the slightest bit understandable that those who suffer believe more fervently. More forgivable perhaps. But living under the yoke of Western imperialism isn't an excuse for thinking that inserting you dick into a child bride is acceptable. There are large corners of the world where far more suffering occurs than in Egypt where the vast majority would think this Egyptian MP's proposal to be just as nauseating as I do.

How does Marx explain the prevalence of fanaticism amongst white Americans?

quote:

Add to that the years of Western treachery, and I think there's a real chance that this guy sincerely believes there's no abuse involved in marrying a 9-year old, any evidence to the contrary is more Wesrern lies, and that it would make Allah happy and benefit everyone involved.

So he's dangerously stupid rather than wilfully malicious. He should still be locked up.

quote:

Again, not saying he's right or that we should excuse his obviously (to us) terrible opinions. Just that with all we in these forums about dissonances, fallacies, and biases, we should understand his position, where it came from, and how to address it.

No, not "obviously (to us) terrible opinions". His opinions are obviously terrible to nine-year-old girls. Pureauthor has already asked literally the only relevant question here.

It's pissing me off increasingly, in a variety of political contexts, that children can't vote.

hadji murad posted:

It is more the murdering of thousands of civilians tha you glossed over that I take issue with. That is exactly the problem. People don't even care how many millions of lives they utterly ruin but soon as there is a hint of blowback they are calling for more violence (while ignoring the violence on a daily basis)

I haven't glossed over the murdering of thousands of civilians by the US. I'm outright denying that the US has murdered thousands of civilians in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's killed a lot of civilians, but it hasn't murdered them. Murder requires intent to kill. You have to be trying to kill someone for it to be murder. You can't murder someone by accident, and the US does not civilians on purpose. I'll concede that it very often doesn't care very much that it does, but, unlike people who fly planes into civilian office buildings, it doesn't actively try to kill people who aren't enemy combatants.

Stop equating terrorist attacks on civilian targets with unintentional mass manslaughter, is what I'm trying to tell you. Neither's great, but if we're talking about the legitimacy of each as a provocation then any intelligent person can spot the difference.

Crasscrab posted:

Essentially America is a gigantic retard with lots of knives.

Pretty much. My point is that killing civilians you weren't actually trying to kill through reckless incompetence is qualitatively different, and massively so, from taking aim at civilians knowing full well they're civilians with no other intention but to kill civilians.

edit: Hang on. Where are the Iraqi and Afghani enemy combatant casualties on that pie graph? Those slivers are certainly not going to be as big as the green sector, but they are noticeably absent, meaning they have been either deliberately omitted (scarcely believable that the maker of that graph simply forgot), or that members of the Taliban are being counted as Afghani civilians. I'm not sure which is worse.

Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Sep 22, 2012

# ? Sep 22, 2012 03:26

Red7: Sep 10, 2008

Smudgie Buggler posted:

edit: Hang on. Where are the Iraqi and Afghani enemy combatant casualties on that pie graph?

It's a really bad graph - unless its trying to point out that more civilians die in urban insurgencies than they do in rural insurgencies.

I'm thinking not though.

# ? Sep 22, 2012 03:36

kylejack: Feb 28, 2006; I'M AN INSUFFERABLE PEDANTIC POMPOUS RACIST TROLL WHO BELIEVES VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM. I SUFFER FROM TERMINAL WHITE GUILT. PLEASE EXPOSE MY LIES OR BETTER YET JUST IGNORE ME!

Smudgie Buggler posted:

Pretty much. My point is that killing civilians you weren't actually trying to kill through reckless incompetence is qualitatively different, and massively so, from taking aim at civilians knowing full well they're civilians with no other intention but to kill civilians.

Well since the US government asserts the right to kill even American citizens without so much as an indictment, and since it now automatically classifies any adult male casualties from drone attacks as "suspected militants", I can't really agree that they don't intentionally target civilians. They target whatever happens to be moving. If they good a bad guy, HOORAH. If they got a civilian, it's collateral damage or suspected militants.

kylejack fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Sep 22, 2012

# ? Sep 22, 2012 03:37

Origami Dali: Jan 7, 2005; Get ready to fuck!
You fucker's fucker!
You fucker!

Smudgie Buggler posted:

edit: Hang on. Where are the Iraqi and Afghani enemy combatant casualties on that pie graph? Those slivers are certainly not going to be as big as the green sector, but they are noticeably absent, meaning they have been either deliberately omitted (scarcely believable that the maker of that graph simply forgot), or that members of the Taliban are being counted as Afghani civilians. I'm not sure which is worse.

For that matter, where's the differentiating those who were killed by US soldiers and weaponry and those who were killed by actual acts of terrorism, insurgent sectarian warfare, direct or collateral damage from suicide bombings, IEDs, "friendly" fire, and the million other ways that Iraqi combatants had managed to kill their own people. Or does the simple fact that the US "started it" mean they're responsible for any death that resulted from the war?

# ? Sep 22, 2012 03:41

Red7: Sep 10, 2008

kylejack posted:

I can't really agree that they don't intentionally target civilians. They target whatever happens to be moving.

So in fact, not intentionally targeting anything? Drones fly hogwild around Afghanistan blaring out the Ride of the Valkyries and blowing up anything that moves. I understand people have an emotive response to drone attacks, but surely you can see from a purely logistical standpoint this would be untenable?

# ? Sep 22, 2012 03:43

kylejack: Feb 28, 2006; I'M AN INSUFFERABLE PEDANTIC POMPOUS RACIST TROLL WHO BELIEVES VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM. I SUFFER FROM TERMINAL WHITE GUILT. PLEASE EXPOSE MY LIES OR BETTER YET JUST IGNORE ME!

Red7 posted:

So in fact, not intentionally targeting anything? Drones fly hogwild around Afghanistan blaring out the Ride of the Valkyries and blowing up anything that moves. I understand people have an emotive response to drone attacks, but surely you can see from a purely logistical standpoint this would be untenable?

Maybe they see a guy with a gun. Maybe they see a guy with something that looks like a gun. Maybe they see women and girls gathering firewood.

And what do they do when they catch a soldier intentionally targeting civilians? The Collateral Damage crew wasn't punished at all. Wuterich ordered a civilian massacre and only got a demotion. That should be the punishment for failing to clean the latrine when it was your turn, not for ordering a civilian massacre.

# ? Sep 22, 2012 03:46

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

kylejack posted:

Well since the US government asserts the right to kill even American citizens without so much as an indictment, and since it now automatically classifies any adult male casualties from drone attacks as "suspected insurgents", I can't really agree that they don't intentionally target civilians. They target whatever happens to be moving. If they good a bad guy, HOORAH. If they got a civilian, it's collateral damage or suspected insurgents.

I believe that they are wrong to classify all adult male casualties as suspected insurgents, but if you can't see why that (although bad) is not the same as targeting civilians, then I don't know what to say. They aren't using drones to take pot-shots at civilians, even if some civilians do die in drone attacks.

# ? Sep 22, 2012 03:47

CharlestheHammer: Jun 26, 2011; YOU SAY MY POSTS ARE THE RAVINGS OF THE DUMBEST PERSON ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH BUT YOU YOURSELF ARE READING THEM. CURIOUS!

PT6A posted:

I believe that they are wrong to classify all adult male casualties as suspected insurgents, but if you can't see why that (although bad) is not the same as targeting civilians, then I don't know what to say. They aren't using drones to take pot-shots at civilians, even if some civilians do die in drone attacks.

There isn't really a difference except maybe semantically. Unless you assume that if they classify something as a something then it is that thing. Which seems to mean that if they just classified the whole country as "potential insurgents" they would never cause a civilian causality again. You could also argue they aren't intentionally killing civilians, they just don't care, but once again, that seems to just be semantics.

CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Sep 22, 2012

# ? Sep 22, 2012 03:51

iyaayas01: Feb 19, 2010; Perry'd

flatbus posted:

Sorry, I didn't specify which Iraq war and which Bush. I meant Iraq war II and Bush II:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/04/mek.html

Looks like the US switched its position on MEK between the two Iraq wars. No reason it can't switch again. My impression of the MEK as a US proxy in Iraq is a bit off then; it was only a proxy of convenience, which would explain why the US didn't do anything when Iraqi soldiers raided the Ashraf camp.

I'm not calling it complete bullshit, but the signal/noise ratio on anything Sy Hersh writes about JSOC (or anything at all, honestly, although he has a history of making up complete bullshit specifically about JSOC) is really really high...so I would take that with a BIG grain of salt.

I'm not saying that the U.S. hasn't done stupid stuff regarding training outside forces to fight proxy wars, and I'm not saying that JSOC and other covert military/paramilitary agencies haven't been at the forefront of some of those efforts in recent years, I'm just saying that Sy Hersh is not the most reliable source, particularly when it comes to JSOC.

Regarding China and Syria, the biggest thing is that China's policy regarding the rest of the world is very laissez-faire: where the West in general has a stated policy about human rights and democracy and all the rest of that good stuff (even if they frequently ignore them to instead support what is perceived as a national interest), China's take is that what nations do within their borders is their own business and China's only concern with them is ensuring favorable behavior towards China (generally regarding ensuring a consistent flow of natural resources from various developing countries to China). It doesn't have all that much to do with China's domestic situation because let's be honest, China is a great power, great powers don't have people getting into their poo poo to the same degree as lesser powers (look at how the U.S. has handled its support for democracy promotion in Russia vs less powerful countries). The fact that a lot of the countries that have natural resources China desires and which China is trying to establish friendly relations with also happen to be countries ruled by regimes that Western powers consider less than desirable has a lot to do with this policy...this is particularly true in Africa.

As for the Iraq sanctions example, that was 20 years ago...China's foreign policy and views on the issue have changed considerably since then, largely due to their changed position in the world (China was not a great power in 1991). North Korea is a pretty unique example for a whole variety of reasons that I won't get into here because it's outside the scope of the thread, but suffice to say that using NK as an example for broader Chinese foreign policy isn't really a fair conclusion to draw (same thing would apply to Taiwan.)

# ? Sep 22, 2012 03:57

kylejack: Feb 28, 2006; I'M AN INSUFFERABLE PEDANTIC POMPOUS RACIST TROLL WHO BELIEVES VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM. I SUFFER FROM TERMINAL WHITE GUILT. PLEASE EXPOSE MY LIES OR BETTER YET JUST IGNORE ME!

PT6A posted:

I believe that they are wrong to classify all adult male casualties as suspected insurgents, but if you can't see why that (although bad) is not the same as targeting civilians, then I don't know what to say. They aren't using drones to take pot-shots at civilians, even if some civilians do die in drone attacks.

Because they're classifying them as suspected militants post-strike. They kill whoever. If they can ID them as someone they were looking for, they do so. If they ID them as nobody in particular, "suspected militants."

Imagine I'm playing a video game that has civilians on the battlefield. Imagine that killing the bad guys comes with rewards, and killing the civilians is bad but doesn't penalize me at all. What am I going to do? I'm going to take shots at anything that even might be a bad guy, which means I'm often going to be targeting civilians.

It's not an analogy, it's a reality. These guys are sitting in a room playing video games, and real people are dying. It's Ender's Game realized.

kylejack fucked around with this message at 04:08 on Sep 22, 2012

# ? Sep 22, 2012 04:04

iyaayas01: Feb 19, 2010; Perry'd

kylejack posted:

These guys are sitting in a room playing video games

I have serious issues with the U.S. UAV air campaign, but if this is what you honestly believe about UAV operations you are a goddamned idiot.

# ? Sep 22, 2012 04:11

Red7: Sep 10, 2008

kylejack posted:

It's not an analogy, it's a reality.

It really isn't, it really really isn't.

# ? Sep 22, 2012 04:16

hadji murad: Apr 18, 2006

Smudgie Buggler posted:

It's killed a lot of civilians, but it hasn't murdered them. Murder requires intent to kill.

Thousands of people.

Justify it how you want, the US chooses to end the life of a gently caress load of people.

# ? Sep 22, 2012 05:00

Smudgie Buggler: Feb 27, 2005; SET PHASERS TO "GRINDING TEDIUM"

kylejack posted:

It's not an analogy, it's a reality. These guys are sitting in a room playing video games, and real people are dying. It's Ender's Game realized.

Well that's all the reason I need to ignore everything you say from this point onwards.

Are you really this stupid?

hadji murad posted:

Thousands of people.

Justify it how you want, the US chooses to end the life of a gently caress load of people.

I'm not trying to justify it. I don't know how you're getting that from my posts. What I'm trying to do is refute your drawing an equivalence between 9/11 and collateral damage from attacks against armed and angry fascists.

Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Sep 22, 2012

# ? Sep 22, 2012 05:08

kylejack: Feb 28, 2006; I'M AN INSUFFERABLE PEDANTIC POMPOUS RACIST TROLL WHO BELIEVES VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM. I SUFFER FROM TERMINAL WHITE GUILT. PLEASE EXPOSE MY LIES OR BETTER YET JUST IGNORE ME!

Smudgie Buggler posted:

I'm not trying to justify it. I don't know how you're getting that from my posts. What I'm trying to do is refute your drawing an equivalence between 9/11 and collateral damage from attacks against armed and angry fascists.

Let's accept your argument for a moment that members of the US military didn't mean to kill any of those innocent civilians. What do you think was a better terrorist recruiting tool, the 9/11 attack or the United States military accidentally killing hundreds of thousands of people?

If the latter, does it really matter from a score-keeping perspective whether or not they really meant to do it? What do people think of someone who has just killed someone in a drunk driving accident for the 4th time?

# ? Sep 22, 2012 05:23

Vertigus: Jan 8, 2011

kylejack posted:

It's not an analogy, it's a reality. These guys are sitting in a room playing video games, and real people are dying. It's Ender's Game realized.

There's a lot of things wrong with how you imagine UAV strikes are carried out, and one of them is that you think fighter pilots aren't just as divorced from their targets from 20,000 feet. It's the same as what a pilot experiences, except the operators are doing it all day every day and not once every few days during a six month deployment.

# ? Sep 22, 2012 05:47

kylejack: Feb 28, 2006; I'M AN INSUFFERABLE PEDANTIC POMPOUS RACIST TROLL WHO BELIEVES VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM. I SUFFER FROM TERMINAL WHITE GUILT. PLEASE EXPOSE MY LIES OR BETTER YET JUST IGNORE ME!

Vertigus posted:

There's a lot of things wrong with how you imagine UAV strikes are carried out, and one of them is that you think fighter pilots aren't just as divorced from their targets from 20,000 feet.

No, I don't think that. We could do well with a lot less bombing of any kind.

# ? Sep 22, 2012 05:50

Smudgie Buggler: Feb 27, 2005; SET PHASERS TO "GRINDING TEDIUM"

kylejack posted:

Does it really matter from a score-keeping perspective whether or not they really meant to do it? What do people think of someone who has just killed someone in a drunk driving accident for the 4th time?

From a score-keeping perspective? No. But then I tend not to look at these things as purely matters of bodycount. I don't think you've thought this through if you think reducing dead people to numbers is going to help your argument. Intention and motivation make all the difference in the world ethically.

People who fire rockets at embassies and fly planes into skyscrapers want to kill people who have never hurt them and theirs.

The US military only wants to kill people who would kill Americans if given the opportunity. They are not very good at this and kill an awful lot of people who aren't a threat to America or Americans by accident, thus understandably increasing the number of people who are a threat to America and Americans.

But this has nothing to do with the original issue, which was that you think religious outrage is on a par as a reason for violence with a terrorist attack resulting in the murder of 3000 civilians.

I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to answer these questions. You're persistently and deliberately skirting the issue. This wasn't even originally about 9/11 vs. collateral damage in Iraq and Afghanistan as excuses to be angry. It was about 9/11 vs. loving cartoons and movie trailers as excuses for blowing people up.

Look here:

hadji murad posted:

Kombotron posted:
The point wasn't that Muslims (or at least a subset of them) were pissed off about their religion or whatever (it's mostly Salafist rabble rousing anyway), but that they used it as a justification to kill people over it.
Non Muslim people used 9/11 to kill tens of thousands.

People need to stop this, no one has a monopoly on this, but people always point the finger to Muslims without looking at themselves. None of this helps.

Here you are, quite clearly demonstrating that you think the deliberate and calculated murder of 3000 civilians on a Tuesday morning is comparable in terms of the sort of justification it provides for violent anger to insulting a dead founder of a religion. In a rational world, neither provides real justification for violence on the scale perpetrated around the world by either Islamic terrorists or the US military, because there is no justification for violence on that scale. But one is a hell of a lot more understandable than the other and you do not seem to see the difference.

# ? Sep 22, 2012 06:22

kylejack: Feb 28, 2006; I'M AN INSUFFERABLE PEDANTIC POMPOUS RACIST TROLL WHO BELIEVES VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM. I SUFFER FROM TERMINAL WHITE GUILT. PLEASE EXPOSE MY LIES OR BETTER YET JUST IGNORE ME!

Smudgie Buggler posted:

The US military only wants to kill people who would kill Americans if given the opportunity.

That's not even close to true. Most American military adventures have nothing to do with people who are trying to kill Americans. Even still, is the US military the leadership or the individual soldiers? Do all these soldiers have the same noble motivations?

# ? Sep 22, 2012 08:31

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

quote:

Battle in Benghazi as crowds attack militia blamed for US diplomat's death

Fierce fighting broke out on Friday night after crowds trying to storm the Benghazi base of a militia blamed for the death of US ambassador Chris Stevens came under fire.

Earlier in the evening protesters calling for an end to militia rule had stormed the headquarters of the Islamic Ansar al-Sharia brigade in the city, setting fire to buildings after pushing past guards who fired in the air.

But the protesters ran into a hail of fire when they moved south to storm a much larger secondary base of the militia, whose members are accused of the attack on the US consulate that left Stevens and three other diplomats dead.

Machine-gun fire burst out as the demonstrators tried to enter the compound, a former base of Muammar Gaddafi's regime.

Later there was pandemonium as police and army vehicles jostled with civilian cars and ambulances trying to get the wounded through traffic to hospital.

Sirens, screams, car horns and the rattle of heavy machine-gun fire filled the air, with long bursts of fiery red tracer fired from inside the base going over the heads of panicked protesters.

Hours earlier, Benghazi had been quiet, its people toasting the peaceful end of a rally that saw 20,000 people gather in the city centre to demand an end to militia violence.

As the women and children left the rally, hundreds of young men stormed the Ansar al-Sharia base, and that of another city centre militia blamed for thuggery, meeting little resistance.

Live television pictures showed wounded men arriving in the city hospitals, some of the lesser wounded shouting Allahu Akbar � God is great.

A Guardian correspondent trying to approach the base was turned back by a bearded man in a long white coat traditionally worn on Friday, the day of prayer.

"You must go back, you must go back, foreigners are not safe," he said.

The decision by the Ansar al-Sharia brigade to fight back rather than surrender its base has caused an immediate political crisis for Libya's head of state, Mohamed al-Magariaf, who has blamed the unit for involvement in the death of Stevens and linked it to al-Qaida.

Hopefully this will result in more permanent action against the militias in Libya.

# ? Sep 22, 2012 09:43

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

And from Syria

quote:

Free Syria Army commander Riyad al-Assad said that the joint command of the FSA has moved into Syria "with the hope of launching the offensive on Damascus".

The FSA commander said that since the FSA leadership had left Syria the group suffered all sorts of political pressure and interference by the international community and regional powers, whom he accused of wanting the FSA to run Syria once President Bashar al-Assad is gone.

Riyad al-Assad said the FSA rejected those offers, reiterating that the people of Syria are the ones who should decide the future of the country.

quote:
* To the Syrian people, its freedom fighters and all the armed factions, we are glad to let you know that the leadership of the FSA has moved into Syria following arrangements made with other brigades that included securing liberated areas with the hope of launching the offensive on Damascus.

Since we left our country we suffered all sorts of regional and international interference and political pressure, we were isolated. Their goal was to have the FSA replace Assad once he is gone, but we categorically made it clear that we would never betray our people, reiterating that only the Syrians should decide their future institutions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3UdhFOSNnA

# ? Sep 22, 2012 09:46

Pro-PRC Laowai: Sep 30, 2004; by toby

Killer robot posted:

As I gather it, China's main stake is that they're against anything which legitimizes the international community, and the West in particular, intervening in a nation's absolute right to suppress internal opposition by their means of choice. This keeps them from ever being on the list. Countering Western influence generally is in there too, but mostly it's the first.

It's more game theory than anything else. China really doesn't care who it does business with. Does not care about messing with internal politics. If a government is in power, China will do business with it and back it. If the government is overthrown, China will do business with the new government and back it. Getting involved in the mess of who's overthrowing who though... China doesn't get very involed at all. As such, they remain a reliable partner who is not gonna bitch and whine at moan at you over domestic issues. Likewise, they are not gonna go turncoat and back groups to overthrow you.

By taking this neutral stance, it also protects all invesements.
Who got pretty much all the mineral contracts in Afghanistan? China
Who got the main benefit from Iraqi oil? China
Who's getting all the good contracts in Libya? China

When the rest of the world shuts you out, China will be there to do business with you. When you overthrow a government, China will be first in line to do business with you, regardless of your politics.

# ? Sep 22, 2012 09:54

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

AJ also has video up.

quote:

People in the crowd waved swords and even a meat cleaver, shouting "No more al-Qaeda!" and "The blood we shed for freedom shall not go in vain!"

They tore down the banner of group while chanting �no no to the brigades�.

Let's hope the secularists win out :ohdear:

# ? Sep 22, 2012 09:54

Vertigus: Jan 8, 2011

kylejack posted:

No, I don't think that. We could do well with a lot less bombing of any kind.

Then stop trotting out tired comparisons to video games. Desensitization is not the root of UAV issues, the policy governing the use of timely long-distance weapons systems is. WWII bomber pilots were even more distanced from their effects than pilots today, who are confronted with high resolution video footage of their weapon turning people into pieces.

# ? Sep 22, 2012 20:02

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

More on Libyan citizens turning against militias

quote:

Reliant on militias, Libya leaders try to stem anger after public upheaval against gunmen
Residents of Libya�s second-largest city warned on Saturday of a �revolution� to get rid of militias and Islamic extremists after protests against the armed groups, spurred in part by the killing of the U.S. ambassador, left at least four dead in an unprecedented eruption of public frustration.

In a sign of how weak the country�s post-Moammar Gadhafi leadership remains, authorities tried to stem popular anger, pleading that some of the militias are needed to keep the country safe since the police and army are incapable of doing so.

A mass protest Friday against militias turned into assaults by thousands against the compounds of several armed groups in Benghazi that lasted into early Saturday. Crowds stormed the headquarters of Ansar al-Shariah, an Islamic extremist group suspected in the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate here.

They drove out the Ansar gunmen and set fire to cars in the compound � once a major base for Gadhafi�s feared security forces � and then moved onto the base of a second Islamist militia, the Rafallah Sahati Brigade. Brigade fighters opened fire to keep the protesters at bay.

The state news agency Saturday said four protesters were killed and 70 injured in the overnight violence.

During the day Saturday, there were no new protests, but the city of 1 million in eastern Libya was brimming with anger, rumors and conspiracy theories.

Some militiamen bitterly accused Gadhafi loyalists of fueling the protests. Further adding to the tensions, the bodies of six soldiers were found in the morning dumped on the outskirts of the city, shot through the forehead and their hands cuffed, state TV reported. An army colonel was reported missing, feared kidnapped. Some media reports accused militiamen taking revenge on Gadhafi-era veterans in the military; in contrast, a military spokesman, Ali al-Shakhli, blamed Gadhafi loyalists, saying they were trying to stir up trouble between the public and militias.

Since Gadhafi�s ouster and death around a year ago, a series of interim leaders have struggled to bring order to a country that was eviscerated under his 42-year regime, with security forces and the military intentionally kept weak and government institutions hollowed of authority.

The militias, which arose as people took up arms to fight Gadhafi during last year�s eight-month civil war, have typified the problem. They bristle with heavy weapons, pay little attention to national authorities and are accused by some of acting like gangs, carrying out killings. Islamist militias often push their demands for enforcement of strict Shariah law.

Yet, authorities need them. The Rafallah Sahati Brigade kept security in Benghazi during national elections this year and guards a large collection of seized weapons at its compound, which was once a Gadhafi residence. Ansar al-Shariah protects Benghazi�s main Jalaa Hospital, putting a stop to frequent attacks against it by gunmen.

On Saturday, armed Rafallah Shahati militiamen � weary from the clashes the night before � guarded the entrance to their compound, standing next to charred cars. The fighters, some in military uniforms, others dressed in Afghan Mujahedeen-style outfits, were indignant.

�Those you call protesters are looters and thieves,� said Nour Eddin al-Haddad, a young man with an automatic rifle slung on his back. �We fought for the revolution. We are the real revolutionaries.�

Activists and protesters, however, say it is time the militias disband and the army and security forces take control. Benghazi lawyer Ibrahim al-Aribi said that if the government doesn�t act, �there will be a second revolution and the spark will be Benghazi.�

�We want stability and rule of law so we can start building the state, but the Tripoli government appears to have not yet quiet understood people�s demands,� he said.

Farag Akwash, a 22-year-old protester wounded in the arm during the night�s clashes, insisted, �We don�t want to see militias in the city anymore. We only want to see army and police.�

The Sept. 11 attack against the U.S. Consulate that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans galvanized public anger against the militias. Some 30,000 people marched through Benghazi on Friday to the gates of the Ansar al-Shariah compound, demanding the groups disband. The storming of the compound came hours later after the march ended. Protesters also stormed into the Jalaa Hospital, driving out Ansar fighters there.

The unrest comes at a time when the power vacuum in Libya continues. The first post-Gadhafi national elections in May chose a national assembly that is serving as a parliament and that chose the new president, Mohammed el-Megaref, and a prime minister, Mustafa Abushagur. But Abushagur, believed to have struck an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood, has yet to form a cabinet. Members of the assembly are pressing him to replace the interior and defense ministers in charge of security forces and the military in part because of their failures to bring control.

Authorities were left trying to keep protesters away from what they called �legitimate� militias � ones that they rely on for security like Rafallah Shahati, which is headed by an Islamist, Ismail al-Salabi, who was reportedly injured in the clashes.

El-Megaref called on protesters to leave alone militias that are �under state legitimacy, and go home.�

Omar Humidan, assembly spokesman, acknowledged that militias �have wrong practices ... serve their own agenda and have their own ideology.� But he warned that �striking these militias and demanding they disband immediately will have grave consequences.�

�These are the ones that preserve security,� he said. �The state has a weak army and no way it can fill any vacuum resulting in eviction of these militias. ... The street is upset because of the militias and their infighting. We are worried of the fallout in the absence of those militias. The state must be given the time.�

Aside from Rafallah Sahati, there are two other major militias in Benghazi that authorities rely on. One is called Libya Shield, led by Wassam Bin Hamaad, another Islamist and who has interfered several times in separating rival tribes. Another is the Feb. 17 Brigade, led by Fawzi Abu Kataf who is seen as connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. The militia is believed to be the closest to the state authorities and has helped secure borders.

Fathi Fadhali, a prominent Islamist thinker in Benghazi, said the description of some militias as �legitimate� just contradicts common sense.

�How can you be a militia and legitimate at the same time?� he said. �How do you leave a group of extremists taking charge of security? Yes, you can accept their help for the short term but not long-term.

�The state must interfere as soon as possible � even, excuse me to say it, by using force � before everything collapses., I am extremely worried.�

There's already been a report of a militia in Derna disbanding and turning over their equipment to the police, so maybe others might follow suit.

# ? Sep 22, 2012 20:15

Tortilla Maker: Dec 13, 2005; Un Desmadre A Toda Madre

State's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration was fielding questions from the public (via Twitter) with regards to the humanitarian crisis in Syria. I asked which countries have made firm commitments with regards to humanitarian aid. PRM responded and referred me to a donor tracking page hosted by the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs: http://fts.unocha.org/reports/daily/ocha_R24c_C206_Y2012_asof___1209211736.pdf

The document lists only those countries/entities which have actually made pledge commitments. Hundreds of countries make no pledge at all one way or another and therefore are not listed. Rather than follow this path Iran has to make the point that they pledge nothing and thus appear on the list with a proud pledge of $0.00 towards humanitarian relief.

:rolleyes:

# ? Sep 22, 2012 21:14

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

From Libya here's an alternative view on the militias

quote:

Militants or no, Islamist fighters praised at Benghazi hospital

Before the Ansar al-Sharia fighters came and took over security, al-Jalaa hospital was a terrifying place to work.

Now that the militia has been swept out of Benghazi on a wave of public anger after the killing of the U.S. ambassador, Dr Abdulmonin Salim is one person who will miss them.

"Really honestly? They were very nice guys," he told Reuters inside a ward in what is one of the biggest trauma hospitals in eastern Libya, now guarded by a military police unit that arrived after the militia fighters left the previous night.

U.S. and Libyan officials have blamed Ansar al-Sharia for the attack on the U.S. consulate last week that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other diplomats.

The group, whose logo features a Kalashnikov rifle, espouses a militant view of Islam which it says is incompatible with democracy.

Washington links the group to al Qaeda. Dr. Salim doesn't care.

"I don't know about their religion or ideology, but they solved problems," he said. "Honestly, I don't care what happens outside those walls. I don't care if they come from another planet. I want a secure hospital."

"Before them, this hospital was a disaster."

Until Ansar al-Sharia arrived six weeks ago to take over security, fights, threats and disruption were routine.

One of the previous government-provided security guards once thrust a gun into Dr Salim's face and started shouting orders for how to treat a patient. A patient's relative once burst into the operating theatre and held a gun to a surgeon's head while he cut.

None of that would happen on Ansar al-Sharia's watch. Fighters seemed to know how to calm angry families and prevent quarrels, Dr Salim said.

"They speak to people. Solve the problem. There is no problem."

SCORES OF ARMED GROUPS

Like the rest of Libya, Benghazi is prowled by scores of armed groups that mainly operate with the official consent of a government too week to challenge them.

The militia groups say they fill a vital role, maintaining security that the government has been incapable of imposing without them in the years since the civil war that toppled dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

Most of them have been given public buildings to guard. Ansar al-Sharia took on the task of providing security at a-Jalaa.

But it was one of the few militia that did not place its fighters under the command of Libya's defense ministry, making its overt presence an affront to the government.

The Libyan authorities responded to the death of Stevens by organizing "Rescue Benghazi Day", a mass demonstration against militia groups that culminated late on Friday with crowds storming through Ansar al-Sharia offices.

The group, which had vacated its offices in advance and put up no resistance, announced on Saturday that it had evacuated its premises in the city to preserve peace.

At al-Jalaa hospital, a unit of military police showed up to replace the fighters. Their commander, Lieutenant Salah al-Jurushi, said they were given the order on Friday night.

Rescue Benghazi Day did not go smoothly. After sweeping through at least two Ansar al-Sharia bases overnight, crowds also stormed a base belonging to Rafallah al-Sahati, a powerful militia that, unlike Ansar al-Sharia, does have government authorization.

Eleven people died and scores were injured in violence there, and looters made off with rockets and rifles.

Although Ansar al-Sharia seems no longer seems to have an overt presence in Benghazi, its departing fighters took their weapons with them. The group and its ideological allies have presences in other towns in eastern Libya, notably Derna, a city to the east that is known across the Middle East as a recruiting hotspot for Jihadists to fight in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.

For Dr Salim, the fighters' departure means the government must now step up and provide the sort of professional security it was unable to offer in the past.

"Really, we hope from the government for help," he said. "I am very worried."

# ? Sep 22, 2012 21:21

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

Well, at least they ~~made the trains run on time~~ protected the hospital.

# ? Sep 22, 2012 21:49

Fangz: Jul 5, 2007; Oh I see! This must be the Bad Opinion Zone!

I wonder what Caro has to say about this situation.

# ? Sep 22, 2012 21:56

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

He's nearly in Syria now.

# ? Sep 22, 2012 22:03

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

quote:

Two Islamist militias in Libya's Derna say disbanding: residents

The two main Islamist militias in Derna, a city in eastern Libya known as an Islamist stronghold, withdrew from their five military bases and announced they were disbanding, residents said on Saturday.

"Abu Slim had three camps and Ansar al-Sharia had two. So it's five. Empty. All empty," Siraj Shennib, a 29-year-old linguistics professor who has been part of protests against the militia, said by telephone.

# ? Sep 22, 2012 22:21

Fangz: Jul 5, 2007; Oh I see! This must be the Bad Opinion Zone!

Brown Moses posted:

He's nearly in Syria now.

Well, I mean, he's fought alongside these guys, right?

# ? Sep 22, 2012 22:27

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

Fangz posted:

Well, I mean, he's fought alongside these guys, right?

Oh, he was mainly fighting with the Misrata boys, his main experience with the Benghazi lot was being grabbed by them when he got into a fight with a photographer who was hanging out with them.

# ? Sep 22, 2012 22:29

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

Just saw this on Twitter

quote:

FLASH! GNC gov announce in a press conference, command forces will take over militia bases and enforce security in cities. #Libya #Benghazi

Finally.

# ? Sep 22, 2012 23:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 3, 2024 17:53

Darkman Fanpage: Jul 4, 2012

Do you think the Islamists will gently caress off or will they come back and try to get into some sort of position of power when the next elections roll around?

# ? Sep 22, 2012 23:11

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

«‹›3125 »