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

«‹›15 »

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

quadratic posted:

Gorbachev thinks it may happen. http://on.wsj.com/gIKwhY

I'm sure as hell not an expert, but Arab countries in the middle east have a long shared history, religious and lingual homogeneity, similarities involving societal pressures fueling the revolution, even strains of pan-Arabism reinforcing a sense of "if it could happen there, it should happen here." Russia seems to be pretty disconnected from all that.

# ¿ Feb 18, 2011 05:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 5, 2024 17:43

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Here's an article laying out how these revolutions are very much not 'Islamic" ones:

quote:

In Europe, the popular uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East have been interpreted using a model that is more than 30 years old: the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran. Commentators have been expecting to see Islamist groups - the Muslim Brotherhood and their local equivalents - either at the head of the movement or lying in wait, ready to seize power. But the discretion of the Muslim Brotherhood has surprised and disconcerted them: where have the Islamists gone?

Look at those involved in the uprisings, and it is clear that we are dealing with a post-Islamist generation. For them, the great revolutionary movements of the 1970s and 1980s are ancient history, their parents' affair. The members of this young generation aren't interested in ideology: their slogans are pragmatic and concrete - "Erhal!" or "Go now!". Unlike their predecessors in Algeria in the 1980s, they make no appeal to Islam; rather, they are rejecting corrupt dictatorships and calling for democracy. This is not to say that the demonstrators are secular; but they are operating in a secular political space, and they do not see in Islam an ideology capable of creating a better world.

http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2011/02/egypt-arab-tunisia-islamic

I'm bowled over by what's going on in Libya right now.

# ¿ Feb 18, 2011 20:12

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Sivias posted:

So basically, Saudi Arabia is hosed. Every single nation around them are going through uprisings. Except Oman and the UAE, and Kuwait (Although the protests in southern Iraq can probably count as Kuwaiti protests to some extent.)

Are there any reports for any sort of demonstrations happening within Saudi Arabia? I know they're considered the most conservative of all the Islamic middle eastern nations, and sedition is quite frowned upon, but they have to have some big concerns on what is happening all around them.

Apparently there's small, peaceful protests in Oman:

quote:

MUSCAT, Oman�About 350 protesters marched through the Omani capital of Muscat Friday afternoon chanting against corruption and demanding to know where their country's oil proceeds have gone. Like Bahrain, also in the Arabian Gulf, the Sultanate of Oman is a monarchy, but its ruler, Sultan Qaboos bin Said al Said, is generally revered here. Still, there is a growing disconnect between the nation's youth and their parents, who remember what Oman was like 40 years ago, before Sultan Qaboos came to power, building schools, encouraging trade, and developing the economy.

http://www.slate.com/id/2285656/

But it seems a lot more low key and less ambitious than other protests we've seen. I'd never go as far as to insult the people who've died in Egypt already by saying that the protests were initiated by economics, but the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia (and pointedly, not Oman) have some of the highest per capita income in the world. There doesn't seem to be that desperation fueling the revolts elsewhere that'll tip things over in these countries, but what do I know?

EDIT: That's what I heard too, Cull, but it's amazing that the protesters have gained so much territory so quickly from such bastards.

EDIT 2: Good point, Patter.

# ¿ Feb 18, 2011 20:22

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Sivias posted:

Farraday,

That's interesting. Is there any news on the demonstrations on the west bank? I remember hearing something about Palestinian factions calling for unity. Could this lead to some violence against Israel, or are those calls for peaceful unity?

Last I heard the demonstations led to the PA announcing new elections, and then retracting the offer once Hamas refused to have elections in Gaza (this is from the BBC newscast last night).

# ¿ Feb 18, 2011 20:57

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Stay safe, dude.

# ¿ Feb 18, 2011 21:05

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Updates!

guardian posted:

� Libyan security forces killed 35 people in the eastern city of Benghazi last night, according to Human Rights Watch. This brings the death toll from three days of protests in the east of Libya to 84, according to the New York-based group. Eyewitness accounts given to news agencies suggest the total could be significantly higher.

� Libya's main internet service provider, General Post and Telecommunications Company, has largely cut off access to the internet. Al-Jazeera says its Arabic news channel is being jammed on several frequencies.

� Bahrain's main Shia opposition group has rejected King Hamad's offer of national dialogue to end the violent unrest in the Sunni-ruled Gulf state. At least 50 people were wounded on Friday in the capital, Manama, following the funerals for four protesters killed on Thursday.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/feb/19/libya-bahrain-protests-live-updates

Also,

NY times posted:

CAIRO - Hundreds of thousands of Egyptians poured into downtown Cairo's main square Friday to celebrate the ouster of former president Hosni Mubarak and press the country's military chiefs to steer the country toward democratic reform.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/18/AR2011021801336.html

I'm kind of surprised by the protests spreading to Djibouti, a city state, while being very much Muslim and Arab influenced, but solidly seen as African as well. This spotlights the shakiness of neighboring autocracies Eritrea and Ethiopia.

# ¿ Feb 19, 2011 19:19

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

lil sartre posted:

Djibouti isn't really arab influenced, the population consists of Somalis and an Afar large minority, both being African ethnic groups. Their grievances are mainly the huge unemployment rate (over 50% afaik) with many jobs going to western expats instead of locals, and the widespread government corruption.
In Eritrea I don't think theres any chance for protests since the regime there is north korea level repressive, all media is state owned and president Afewerki uses the hate towards Ethiopia to keep the population united under him.
In Ethiopia a revolution would turn into a civil war and the country would disintegrate since it's a country made up of about 80 very different ethnic groups that would rather join countries inhabited by their own people (Ogaden would join Somalia, Gambela would go to South Sudan) or declare independence rather than staying under the current Tigrayan/Amharic rule.
And in both Eritrea and Ethiopia internet penetration is very low even by African standard (Ethiopia has 500.000 internet users for a population of 80 million, while for example Nigeria has 50 million internet users out of ~150 million) so you won't see the same facebook/twitter coordination as in Tunisia or Egypt.

Isn't there a large Yemeni population there? As well as sheesha places and other things emblematic of Arabic countries? I wasn't saying that they were Arabs, but you see pieces of Arabic culture floating there, down to Oman chips (which are delicious, by the way) and Arabic television.

As far as your read on Ethiopia and Eritrea, I think you're correct. Having just left the region (last fall), I can tell you that people there (city dwellers lucky enough to have internet) are practically glued to Facebook. And a lack of internet access didn't do anything to stop the student protests of 05 in Ethiopia (brutally suppressed). Its PM and the rest of his party must be sweating in their boots right now.

# ¿ Feb 19, 2011 20:11

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

MrQwerty posted:

Well plus the Gulf states all have THE Middle Eastern brutal theocratic monarchy backing them up in the end.

What's really interesting is what's going in Kuwait with the bedouin protesting for citzenship. For Kuwait, the UAE, and for some part, Saudi Arabia, who becomes a citizen is a huge freaking deal. On one side, people are given health care, free housing and education, and a lot of times jobs, the other total poo poo all. In UAE, the emirati (UAE nationals) make up something like 10% of the population and sit on top of the heap, while the rest, immigrants sometimes there for three or more generations, can be deported at any time. If the protests spread there....

# ¿ Feb 20, 2011 00:34

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Isentropy posted:

Unlike America, France actually supported their buddies with actions.

I you france

Considering France's armed forces role in Rwanda, I would think they'd be more careful about helping out awful regimes.

# ¿ Feb 20, 2011 00:54

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Frackmire posted:

It would only be racist if African mercenaries were known for their humanitarianism at some previous point of time. But they are not even soldiers anymore, they're criminals at best and animals at worst, created by deplorable living and political conditions in that part of the world.

Yeah, that's the kind of racist tone he was mentioning. One thing we need to keep reminding ourselves to focus on what's happening, resist the urge to generalize, and try to get informed about the very different context for each situation we're looking at.

Generalizing Chad troops (whose symbiotic relationship with Libya is an interesting thing to note) as typical African bushwackers doesn't really help you understand the situation. Also, now we're saying that African mercenaries are the only ones who act like animals? Iraq, Equitarial Guinea, Nicuaraga, etc would like to disagree with you.

# ¿ Feb 20, 2011 18:27

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Thundarr posted:

KJI might take Ghadaffi in, but only on the condition that he brings his Amazon brigade along with him.

More seriously though, Ghadaffi is pretty much hosed. Mubarak was rightfully denounced for how he handled the protests in Egypt, but it sounds like what is happening in Libya is a straight-up war declared on the general populace. Even Ghadaffi's most steadfast buddies outside of Libya will be hard-pressed to look past that assuming he does escape. If he doesn't, he's going to die in a very unpleasant fashion once the protesters get their hands on him if he doesn't kill himself first.

What it depends on is if there are independent institutions in Libya able to counteract Ghaddafi, like you saw in Egypt. There needs to be something pushing on the inside as well as the outside. Didn't a previous poster state that Libya's military was basically Ghaddafi's bootlickers?

# ¿ Feb 20, 2011 20:48

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

The-Mole posted:

I know you didn't personally feel like getting into this, but you touched on a subject very close to me. And an important one for Americans, who profoundly misunderstand the culture of the ME and who have crafted a disastrous and counter productive foreign policy out of that ignorance.

Honestly, I'm curious: What is your personal exposure to Arab/Persian culture? Because even (and often especially) among the educated and liberal, family honor is immensely prised. If anyone is reading this as "any middle easterner would kill someone over family honor" then they're an idiot reading words that aren't there, and given how a few people responded, it seems like that's the case.

I've spent 5 years dealing with both Arabs and Persians. While it has been an overall positive experience, it has also been infuriating. Americans profoundly misunderstand Middle Eastern culture (which is itself inaccurate given the diversity of groups represented in the ME, but whatever for the minute). I've yet to meet an American without considerable first hand exposure to ME culture who understood just how overwhelmingly sexist and honor driven ME culture is. Of course this culture isn't 100% universal, but it is dominant, widespread, and deeply rooted. Denying it does no one any good.

There are far more things about the ME that I like than dislike, but over there, when it is bad, it is really loving bad. Also the honor issue is as much of a good thing as it is bad: families are very close and very loyal.

Which belies the real point: the only way to criticize a Middle Easterner is to sandwich it between two compliments.

As a guy born and raised in the Middle East, I have to say you're way off-base. First off all, which Middle Eastern country are you talking about? Egypt, Lebanon, the Gulf states (which have their own huge differences, there's an figurative ocean between life in Oman and the UAE), etc? Second, you just can't classify people by country. Growing up, hanging out with friends that were Jordanian, Palestinian, Egyptian, we'd geek out over Star Wars and make fun of old fogies and how out of touch they were. And then there would be fucks, even in my age, getting off on power trips and pushing down those that weren't like themselves. It depends on the individual.

Just because you've have some experience dealing with people for a handful of years doesn't make you expert on hundreds of millions of people. It wasn't until I started working in Africa that I ran into in your face racism. And it tended to be expats living in-country for years on end ranting about the people they work with.

Not I'm saying that you're in that category.

EDIT: About Egypt, more power to them. Though I am wondering where they're going to get the money they need to keep it up. Their medical infrastructure is kind of a joke (at least as far as I know), and subsidies had been cut before because the government claimed they didn't have the money to support it.

EDIT 2: from country to category

Shageletic fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Feb 21, 2011

# ¿ Feb 21, 2011 06:46

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Might want to turn on PBS for frontline's report on Egypt. Saw clips of it earlier and they had some spectacular shots of the revolution.

# ¿ Feb 23, 2011 03:06

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Here's an article I found laying out the political framework of Libya before the uprising.

New Yorker posted:

Here�s a story they tell in Libya. Three contestants are in a race to run five hundred metres carrying a bag of rats. The first sets off at a good pace, but after a hundred metres the rats have chewed through the bag and spill onto the course. The second contestant gets to a hundred and fifty metres, and the same thing happens. The third contestant shakes the bag so vigorously as he runs that the rats are constantly tumbling and cannot chew on anything, and he takes the prize. That third contestant is Libya�s leader, Colonel Muammar Qaddafi, the permanent revolutionary.

Libya is about the size of Germany, France, Italy, and Spain, combined, but its population, just under six million, is roughly the same as Denmark�s. Oil revenues make Libya, per capita, one of the wealthiest countries in Africa, and yet malnutrition and anemia are among its most prevalent health problems. It is an Islamic country where alcohol is illegal and most married women wear the hijab; it is a secular country where women are legally allowed to wear bikinis and Qaddafi is protected by a phalanx of gun-toting female bodyguards. The version of socialism promulgated in the mid-nineteen-seventies by Qaddafi�s political manifesto, �The Green Book,� is honored; the country is in the throes of capitalist reform. The head of the Libyan Publishers� League says that the books most often requested in his store are the Koran and Bill Clinton�s �My Life.� Then, of course, there�s the official line that the country is ruled by its citizens, through Basic People�s Congresses, and the practical reality that it is ruled by Qaddafi. Libyan officials must far outstrip the Red Queen in her habit of believing six impossible things before breakfast.

For Americans, there�s an even more salient contradiction. A regime led by a man President Reagan dubbed �the mad dog of the Middle East��a regime that, throughout the nineteen-eighties, sponsored such groups as the I.R.A., the Abu Nidal Organization, and the Basque ETA, and was blamed for the explosion that, in 1988, downed Pan Am Flight 103, over Lockerbie, Scotland�is now an acknowledged ally in America�s war on terror. Libya�s governing circles are beset by infighting between those who think that this alliance is a good thing and hope for closer ties to the West and those who regard the West with truculent suspicion.

And I found this especially hilarious.

quote:

The infighting helps Qaddafi moderate the pace of change. �He thinks reform should come �like a thief in the night,� so that it is hardly noticed,� one family friend said. In some areas�notably with respect to civil liberties and economic restructuring�the rate of change is glacial. �What�s the hurry?�

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/05/08/060508fa_fact_solomon?currentPage=all

# ¿ Feb 24, 2011 20:03

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Poke posted:

Last week a gallon of regular unleaded was $2.99 at the Shell gas station in front of my house. Now it's $3.30. What the gently caress? Is Libyan oil that important to the rest of the world?

What's interesting is showing how little slack there is in the market. I think Libya provides something like 2% to oil imported from abroad (in the US). But a little hint of trouble there, and boom, prices rise 30 cent. That just isn't sustainable.

# ¿ Feb 24, 2011 23:43

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

ChubbyEmoBabe posted:

It has more to do with speculation than anything else really. Basically the price goes up because people think other people will think the price will go up and buy some making the price go up.

There's a really good image to display this phenomenon but I can't find it atm.

Well, I don't think this is the image you're looking for, but here's a pie chart showing Libya and US Oil consumption

And here's a post talking about the oil market

quote:

The Financial Times is reporting that half or more of Libya's oil production has been shut down due to the unrest in the country. That's one reason the price of a barrel of Brent crude broke $110, a two-and-a-half year peak.

In recent times, Libya has exported the vast majority of the 1.6 million barrels of oil a day it produces, according to an International Energy Agency report. The biggest importers of the country's oil are Italy, China, France, Germany and Spain. Interestingly, U.S. imports of Libyan oil have fallen from 122,000 barrels a day in 2007 to just 51,000 barrels a day in 2010. Over that same time span, French and British imports have nearly doubled. Libya has the largest proven oil reserves in Africa.

To give you some perspective, U.S. oil consumption is over 20,000,000 barrels a day. Given Libya's relatively small contribution to the global oil supply, the turmoil in the energy and stock markets resulting from Libyan unrest lets you know how little slack there is in the oil market. As long as we use as much oil as we do, there's no way to avoid vulnerability to price spikes for geological or geopolitical reasons. It's a hidden cost of oil and one that we tend to forget any time the price of crude goes down.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/02/at-least-half-libyan-oil-production-shut-down/71618/

# ¿ Feb 25, 2011 02:46

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

BIG HORNY COW posted:

Would be pretty interesting but yeah I'd call bullshit on this one. No way has news of whats happening in the middle east propagated that well through the DPRK.

State media is so tightly controlled there that nobody would even want to MENTION a crazy dictator being overthrown by the angry, poor masses.

I remember watching a documentary once, it won some awards, that interviewed north korean refugees in China. They talked about still managing to contact relatives in the south while still living in the north, and from what I remember, even sometimes can tuning into South Korean TV and telecommunication

Fake edit: Here's a thing I found on Wikipedia about NK cell phones.

quote:

Rebecca MacKinnon, a research fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard, says that Chinese cellphones have reached North Korea through the black market in spite of government efforts to ban them. As the number of people using them grows, it is likely that cellphones that are web-enabled through Chinese servers will become more common. In addition, South Korean companies such as Samsung have been increasing their market share in China, which will likely lead North Koreans to have Korean-language information through their cellphones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_in_North_Korea

# ¿ Feb 25, 2011 04:02

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

EskimoFreeState posted:

Weird question, but how can you really have covert cell phones without (somehow) covert cell towers? Are they actually satellite phones, or are they piggybacking off of some other kind of tower (military, etc.)?

Hell if I know, but couldn't they be piggybacking off SK or Chinese towers, since they're so close geographically?

EDIT: Yup, should read before I hit reply.

# ¿ Feb 25, 2011 06:29

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Finlander posted:

wh-
Hold on, let me reread that.
...
what

This is from a while back, but Switzerland (I believe) briefly detained one of Ghaddafi's kids for wrecking his hotel room and assualting a maid. Then ensued a diplomatic shitstorm where Ghaddafi came pretty close to declaring war on the Swiss. Those diabolical swiss.

And here's an article talking about why Libya is going so differently than Tunisia and Egypt.

quote:

Libya is not Egypt or Tunisia. Muammar Qaddafi has no centralized government, has no institutions, and has few rivals inside his own government or military. This is why were are seeing a very different pattern in Libya. The protesters are physically taking control of the country, not just a single square, and they are sometimes doing so by force. Each man employed by the Libyan state is being forced to pick sides. Many are joining the protests, but there is no other way for this to play out than violent revolution. There is no government, to speak of, to hold a gun to the back of the dictator's head.

EDIT: Now with link! http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2011/2/24/from-tunisiaegypt-to-libyairan-notes-of-caution-on-sudden-ch-1.html

Shageletic fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Feb 26, 2011

# ¿ Feb 26, 2011 00:34

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

The first article comes off as conspiracy drivel to me, and not really connected to what's going on in the Middle East.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2011 00:45

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Everything is relative, I suppose. I was reading this article on France's responses to the Arab revolutions, and I'm suddenly glad for the US's timid stance.

quote:

At least 35 people had been killed by Jan. 11, when [French Minister of Foreign Affairs] Alliot-Marie shockingly offered to bolster Ben Ali's grip on power. She suggested to France's Parliament that the world-renowned "savoir-faire of our security forces" allows for the "solving of security problems of this sort." (She later clarified that she meant to help control protesters without killing them, but the distinction was lost to many people in France and Tunisia.)

# ¿ Mar 1, 2011 01:19

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

When I try explaining why these protests are so important, I don't think I get across its full import. Here's an article that focuses on one great aspect of what's happening.

quote:

The same mainstream Western media that habitually conveys a picture of a region peopled almost exclusively by enraged, bearded terrorist fanatics who "hate our freedom" has begun to show images of ordinary people peacefully making eminently reasonable demands for freedom, dignity, social justice, accountability, the rule of law, and democracy. Arab youth at the end of the day have been shown to have hopes and ideals not that different from those of the young people who helped bring about democratic transitions in Eastern Europe, Latin America, and South, Southeast, and East Asia.

These young voices have been a revelation only to those deluded by this media's obsessive focus on Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism whenever it turns its attention to the Middle East. This is thus a supremely important moment not only in the Arab world, but also for how Arabs are perceived by others. A people that has been systematically and habitually maligned -- probably more than any other in recent decades -- are for the first time being shown in a new, and largely positive, light.

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/02/24/reflections_on_the_revolutions_in_tunisia_and_egypt

And this is late and someone has already probably linked it, but here's a remx of (DJ) Ghaddafi's latest crazy rant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBY-0n4esNY

EDIT: That song is all over the revolution facebooks (Tunisia, etc).

EDIT 2: It was made by an Israeli.

Shageletic fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Mar 1, 2011

# ¿ Mar 1, 2011 15:52

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

breaklaw posted:

Links to the revolution pages? Are there dozens of them or a few "official" ones?

Dozens upon dozens of them, in Arabic, French, etc (like this one here http://www.facebook.com/pages/Students-support-Tunisian-uprising-victory-to-the-revolution/149064825148333 or here http://www.facebook.com/pages/Yasmin-Revolution-Do-it-Visit-Tunisia-/142579682468491). Very diffuse and decentralized. I imagine that the original facebook pages e calling for marches are still out there (maybe for Egypt, search by the term the April 4th movement).

# ¿ Mar 1, 2011 16:41

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Brown Moses posted:

More news from Egypt:

This is kind of apropos of nothing, but I've been doing some reading of what happened in 1848 and after 1789 in Europe. It seems the common thread for both of these continent spanning revolutionary movements is how quickly it was rolled back. Once change had symbolically occurred (deposing of king, new constitution, etc), counter-revolutionary forces exploited cracks between hard core revolutionaries (who keep pressing escalating demands) and the more moderate bourgeois, with people with low incomes trying to scrape by happy to just get back to work. In Egypt, I remember a report by someone traveling deep into Egypt interviewing people angry at the protesters in Tahrir for making their lives harder (less tourism meant a direct hit to their income). This was from before Mubarak was deposed.

My point after all that, I guess, is that I hope that the revolution doesn't splinter once a sliver of change has been presented. Because there are huge forces waiting in the wings to return things to the status quo.

e:

# ¿ Mar 4, 2011 16:44

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Apology posted:

I found a really dry, really technical article about Sudan if you'd care to read it. I'll quote a little of it here:

http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/key-issues/preventing-implosion-in-sudan.aspx

I'm probably the one who really needs to read it so I can understand what's really going on in Sudan, but I got through Section 1 and my eyesight got all blurry and the letters started to swim around, so I'll read it later when I'm less tired SO. MANY. ACRONYMS!!! I stink at acronyms.

Heads up, but that article is a year old. Southern seceded after 99% of the population voted for it. It's its own country now. There is a rogue general still killing a few people though.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2011 04:17

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Leperflesh posted:

Well, to be fair, the commodities speculators are speculating that the price for the commodity will rise due to future drop in supply. Turmoil in the middle east threatens the regularity and quantity of oil deliveries from those countries, and any hint of turmoil within Saudi Arabia underlines those concerns.

So while it does not seem to make sense for today's gas prices to be higher just because gas in the future might cost more, it does make sense for oil commodities futures to be rising. There is a relationship there.

It's still frustrating to know that I'm paying more at the pump in California for gasoline made from oil that was pumped out of the ground weeks or months ago and refined days ago at local refineries in california that are not running low on supply by any means. But Chevron or Exxon or BP or whoever, are paying up front for actual future delivery of oil to their refineries. They are paying prices that are rising based on speculation that supply may drop, and as a result they're raising prices at the pump to compensate (and protect their gigantic obscene profits, of course). And that's how oil futures prices cause instant changes in at-the-pump gasoline prices.

What's also a shame (according to a dude on PBS Newshour) is that as part of the Republican written cuts, the body tasked with overseeing commodity speculators and reining excessive speculation is having their budget cut by a third. Thank you, Republicans!

# ¿ Mar 8, 2011 03:00

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Guardian posted:

UN paves way for no-fly zone as Nato steps up surveillance of Libya
Nato introduces 24-hour air and sea monitoring as west prepares to act to protect Libyan citizens from Gaddafi's forces

quote:

David Cameron and Barack Obama agreed to draw up "the full spectrum" of military responses to the crisis in Libya as Britain won important US support for a possible no-fly zone over the country.

The prime minister, who has faced accusations that he was isolated over a no-fly zone, agreed in a telephone call with the president that a major international operation will swing into action if Muammar Gaddafi refuses to leave office.

quote:

Nato has launched 24-hour air and sea surveillance of Libya as a possible precursor to a no-fly zone, amid signs of growing Arab support for western military intervention to stop the bombing of civilians.

British and French diplomats at the UN headquarters in New York have completed a draft resolution authorising the creation of a no-fly zone which could be put before the security council within hours if aerial bombing by pro-Gaddafi forces causes mass civilian casualties.

A western diplomat said: "It would require a clear trigger for a resolution to go forward." In such an event, there would be pressure on Russia and China not to use their vetoes. Western officials believe support for a no-fly zone from the Islamic world, as well as from the Libyan opposition and diplomats at the UN, would put Moscow and Beijing on the defensive.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/08/un-no-fly-zone-nato-libya

poo poo getting real-er?

# ¿ Mar 9, 2011 21:11

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Warthog posted:

Is there some sort of independent unbiased US news source? I feel like a dirty progressive left-wing commie because I mostly get my infos from here and Comedy Central (and MSNBC / Fox News if I feel the need to cringe) :/

(I'm a foreigner, it's a serious question)

NY times? WashPO? Atlantic, Daily Dish, etc, there are tons of places to find good info.

# ¿ Mar 10, 2011 19:36

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Ogive posted:

From twitter: "My uncle's body has been removed from his grave in martyr square #AzZawiya, and "relocated" a.k.a burned."

gently caress you, Gaddhafi.

Desecrating graves is a war crime. Hope it was worth it, fuckers.

# ¿ Mar 14, 2011 02:30

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Jut posted:

is it that black and white?
If someone burred you in a area not designated as a grave yard (i.e. in a public park) and someone moved it (the MAN), would they be committing a war crime?

I heard someone say that on the BBC, I think, but I did a bit of research. According to Wikipedia, the Third Geneva Convention, provides that: "After every engagement, the belligerent who remains in possession of the field shall take measures to search for wounded and the dead and to protect them from robbery and ill treatment." And "the occasional mutilation of Japanese remains were recognized to have been conducted by U.S. forces, declared to be atrocities, and explicitly forbidden by order of the U.S. Judge Advocate General in 1943-1944. Many dead Japanese were desecrated and/or mutilated, for example by urinating on them, shooting corpses, or taking Japanese body parts (such as skulls) as souvenirs or trophies. This is in violation of the law and custom of war."

So depends on what Gaddafi did with the bodies I suppose. Burning them or something else to hide evidence might be prosecutable.

# ¿ Mar 14, 2011 17:54

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Here's an article talking about why the No-Fly zone is pretty unlikely

quote:

International assistance doesn�t look to be on the horizon. The Arab League asked the United Nations to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, but Russia and China are holdouts. And it�s hardly clear that the U.S. is going to forcefully back a resolution calling for a costly, open-ended attack on Gadhafi�s planes and helicopters.

What about a NATO operation? Not as long as Turkey continues to oppose it. On Monday, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called intervention �totally counterproductive.� That�s further than retired Gen. Wesley Clark, a former NATO commander, has gone. But Clark probably spoke for many in uniform when he argued on Friday that intervention isn�t in the U.S.�s interest.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/03/gadhafis-shells-planes-drive-libyan-rebels-back/

Guardian round-up

quote:

A doctor at Misrata hospital told Reuters the bodies of five people killed in shelling today had been brought in, but that he had been told more had been killed. He said the wounded were being brought to hospital in private cars because ambulance drivers were afraid of being hit by shells. "We have enough medicine but we are short on staff," said the doctor, who gave his name as Muftah.

Gaddafi's troop have used tanks and artillery in the city, 200km east of Tripoli, but opposition fighters claim they have stalled a ground attack on the city and seized some tanks:

"The fighters have defeated Gaddafi's forces from the southern and western side (of the city)," a resident, who gave his name only as Mohammed, told Reuters by telephone. "The shelling on the city stopped and the rebels have captured some tanks. The battle is continuing on the eastern side, but it is not a heavy one."

A rebel fighter in Misrata, who did not give his name, said the city would make a stand. "They are trying to enter the city. I do not think they will be able to do it, at least not today," he said.

quote:

Libyan state TV has broadcast a call to arms, urging people to join a government advance, towards the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, Reuters reports. The message said: "All the armed forces in the eastern area who have not joined the traitors are called upon to join the forces as they advance towards Benghazi."

quote:

Police in Algiers used tear gas to disperse a crowd of about 60 young men who were throwing petrol bombs and stones, Reuters reports. The protesters, who had blocked a road in the east of the capital, said they had no political demands but wanted the authorities to give them better housing.

quote:

@amar456 has tweeted that the atmosphere in tense in Bahrain, where a curfew has been in place in parts of the capital for two hours now: "Thought I would be a bit of a Rambo & go out. Not a good idea. I suggest everyone stay home unless really urgent. Army check points around."

quote:

The BBC has an interesting story which says splits are beginning to emerge in Bahrain's ruling al-Khalifah family. It says that on Sunday Crown Prince Sheikh Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifah, who has a reputation as a reformer, was close "a breakthrough with pro-democracy activists". Bill Law writes:

The crown prince had offered a parliament with "full legislative authority", a government that represents the will of the people, and an end to gerrymandered electoral districts that had ensured the majority Shia population was held to a minority of seats. By any standards, these represented significant concessions. However, that afternoon, security police attacked protesters at Bahrain University and in the vicinity of Pearl square.

On lighter note, take a tour of Saif Ghaddafi's palace in london "recently expropriated by activists working in alliance with Libyan exiles":

quote:

Nearly every room in this enormous house boasts a large, flat-screen television. The occupiers have set each one to al-Jazeera, for rolling coverage of the people's revolutions that are sweeping the Arab world. Televised gunfire echoes in the marble hallway as Jay, 25, explains how activists from the London squatter movement took over the Gaddafi mansion, moving in secretly and putting up notices declaring their intention to hold the empty house under English common law. "We wanted to show our solidarity the best way we know how," he says.

�It's a symbolic and practical reclamation of private property that belongs to the Libyan people. It's about their struggle, which is why the place has been handed over to the Libyans as a place to organise and a safe space for refugees," Jay says.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2011/03/gaddafi-family-libyan-abdulla

# ¿ Mar 16, 2011 16:53

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Here's a great article I found that describes how the protest in Bahrain are not strictly about Sunni-Shia divisions.

quote:

Describing a pro-government demonstration in Bahrain last week, Michael Slackman wrote in the New York Times that it was an affluent crowd, very different from the mostly low-income Shia who were protesting against the government. "The air was scented with perfume, and people drove expensive cars," he said.

While local and international media talk repeatedly about Bahrain's sectarian divide, demonstrators on both sides insist there is Shia-Sunni unity. So what, exactly, is going on?

First, some facts. The majority of Bahrainis � about 70% � are Shia, and the majority of pro-reform/anti-government demonstrators at the Pearl Roundabout are Shia. It is true, also, that Bahrain is ruled by a Sunni royal family, and that the majority of participants at pro-government rallies appear to be Sunnis.

This is not to say that all Bahraini Sunnis are rich or that being Shia is always synonymous with being poor. As many commentators will point out, Bahrain is home to economically powerful Shia families and high-ranking Shia government officials.

But the facts of the matter speak for themselves. Corruption, crony capitalism and a lack of transparency add up to uneven development and a vast disparity in wealth. By and large, Bahrain's Shia are losing out in the country's economic boom.

What this reflects, to a large extent, is the success of the Bahraini regime's strategy to deal with challenges to its legitimacy by promoting and reinforcing identity politics within a system of privileges where certain groups and individuals are favoured over others. In a word: discrimination.

So the Shia represent the majority of pro-reform, anti-government protesters because they are the majority of the population, but also because the government actively discriminates against them.

Meanwhile, Bahrain's rulers, the majority of the government, military, and business leaders are Sunni. Bahrain's political, social and economic system operates by offering privileges and wasta to some, at the expense of the rights of others. In this way, the government maintains a separation between Bahrain's communal groups (Baharna, Arab, Howala, Ajam, Asians) and discourages citizens from associating with each other on a national basis � which has posed a real challenge to the regime in the past.

This "divide and rule" policy was developed by the Al Khalifa and its allies after they settled in Bahrain in the 18th century, appropriated land from the indigenous Shia owners and effectively made them into peasants. Even then, the regime operated with the assistance of a number of Shia families who it employed as ministers or tax collectors. Still today, high-ranking government positions are disproportionately awarded to members of the Al Khalifa family, or other Sunni allies, and a few handpicked Shia representatives are given positions of power.

Continuing a discriminatory tradition set by imperial Britain during Bahrain's time as a British protectorate (when police were recruited from British-colonised India), the regime today relies on defence from imported mercenaries, while Bahraini Shia are denied the right to serve in their own armed forces.

Another form of discrimination is electoral gerrymandering. In past elections, the Shia-dominated northern governorate of more than 91,000 voters elected nine members of parliament. In the Sunni-dominated southern governorate only 16,000 voters elected six members.

This is in addition to the detention of hundreds of Shia protesters last year, and the arrest of 23 Shia citizens charged with forming a "terror network" to overthrow the government. The 23 � many of them members of the Haq Movement of Liberties and Democracy (an opposition group that boycotts elections) � were charged under the widely criticised anti-terror law. They were eventually released last week in a concession to the current uprising, confirming suspicions that the case was politically motivated.

Bahrain's sectarian divide therefore stems from economic disparity and the denial of civil rights.

A better way to understand the current uprising is as a movement for civil rights and liberties. The demands are for transition from a system of privileges for a few at the expense of the many towards a system of greater rights for all. That is presumably why the Shia-dominated "cannot-haves" of the anti-government, pro-reform crowds appear to have crossed the sectarian rift and drawn in Bahrainis from a range of political platforms including liberals, secularists and human rights activists.

This is not to say that there are no sectarian elements within both the anti-government camp and the pro-government rallies. But at this point there appears to be a broader call for less economic disparity and more rights, which has to some extent managed to cut through the religious boundaries. A good illustration of the class element is the position of the affluent upper-middle class "Nido" youth. While some are part of the Pearl Roundabout pro-reform opposition, many more have woken from their apolitical reverie to support the pro-government movement, complaining that the protesters do not represent "the Bahrain we know" � and of course they don't.

In terms of conciliatory gestures by the government, what Bahrain needs now is not publicity stunts by the government and its privileged supporters proclaiming "unity". This is little more than a PR exercise to sideline the issue of a deeply flawed and potentially failing political system.

It has been a long winter of discontent in the wider Middle East; and the sweeping changes this spring have not escaped Bahrain's imagination. The outcome right now looks uncertain, but one thing is sure: it is not the demands of the pro-reform protesters at Pearl Roundabout but the Bahrain government's rule by repression and discrimination that is pushing this country towards a "sectarian abyss".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/03/bahrain-sunnis-shia-divided-society

# ¿ Mar 16, 2011 18:40

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Here is a video, which makes me flash back to what must of happened to the guy in Tianamen who tried to stop those tanks, of an unarmed man yelling allah akbar apparently getting :nms:

shot

in Bahrain.

Also

quote:

the New York Times has said four of its journalists are missing in Libya:
Anthony Shadid, the Beirut bureau chief and twice winner of the Pulitzer Prize for foreign reporting; Stephen Farrell, a reporter and videographer who was kidnapped by the Taliban in 2009 and rescued by British commandos; and two photographers, Tyler Hicks and Lynsey Addario, who have worked extensively in the Middle East and Africa.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/four-new-york-times-journalists-are-missing-in-libya/

# ¿ Mar 16, 2011 18:52

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

This vote is momentous. Hyperbole alert! But I honestly think a UN resolution allowing nations to bomb another because it is targeting its own citizens in AFRICA is a sharp break from whatever has happened in the past. It's loving huge!

# ¿ Mar 17, 2011 23:15

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Jamsque posted:

/\ /\ /\ /\
NORTH Africa, mind. Sub-saharan regimes are still allowed to massacre their civilians.

Would this vote be taking place at all if the outcome wasn't already known?

Also Obama is going to have to give one hell of a speech tonight.

That's true, but the fact that this is happening outside Europe, where NATO countries border the genocidal madness, and the oil incentive is nowhere near as clear as it was in Iraq, is still pretty amazing.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2011 23:21

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Fake edit: just don't make me regret being happy

# ¿ Mar 17, 2011 23:47

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Benghazi is going bananas on AJE.

# ¿ Mar 18, 2011 00:03

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Lascivious Sloth posted:

Can a mod change the title to something Libyan or UN relevant?

Middle-East in Revolt: The UNdies in your home.. blah I don't know.

Stop thinking like my brain thinks.

Middle-East in Revolt: UN in Libya's Base, Killing All of Ghaddafi's Dudes

# ¿ Mar 18, 2011 00:29

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Latest from Guardian:

quote:

At the end other end of Libya, in Benghazi, Chris McGreal says the rebels do not plan to give up the fight against Gaddafi despite his declaration of an immediate ceasefire.

"The rebels say they don't trust Gaddafi. They see it as a reflection of his desperation to try and stave off the air attacks by France and Britain and that what he intends to do is to divide up the country and for that reason they are not going to call a ceasefire themselves. They plan to call for uprisings across the country to get rid of Gaddafi."

quote:

There are doubts already about whether Gaddafi's forces are observing his promised ceasefire. The Associated Press and Al Arabiya TV report that the city of Misrata is still being shelled by Libyan troops. Twenty-five people are reported dead.

"Gaddafi's forces are bombing the city with artillery shells and tanks. We now have 25 people dead at the hospital, including several little girls," a doctor said by satellite phone.

quote:

Q: What does the UN resolution permit the participating allies to attack?

A: The security council vote gives wide-ranging authorisation for the use of force against targets in the air and on the ground, according to most international lawyers. The phrase in paragraph 4 of Resolution 1973 calls on member states "to take all necessary measures ..... to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack..." Malcolm Shaw, professor of international law at Leicester university, described it as giving the broadest powers for intervention since the UN resolution deploring the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

Q: Can UN-backed forces put anyone on the ground?

A: Ground spotters to improve the accuracy of air strikes might even be allowed under the terms of the resolution which explicitly excludes "a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory", some lawyers suggested. If the intention is not to occupy, then their presence could be deemed not to conflict with the UN's aims. "Some supportive ground presence would be authorised," Professor Shaw said.

Q: Which targets can be attacked?

A: Even though the resolution establishes a 'no-fly zone', Gaddafi's airfields, anti-aircraft batteries, command centres in Tripoli and grounds forces assaulting rebel strongholds could all come under bombardment from allied forces. Libyan troops engaged in battles with rebel fighters, for example around an arms dump, would not technically be at risk because the resolution specifies protecting only civilians. "This will involve bombing Libyan airfields and air defences," said Richard Piotrowicz, professor of international law at Aberyswyth university. "It does not mean they only attack aircraft in the air. However it would not justify French or British aircraft destroying Libyan forces just for the sake of it."

Q: Does it matter that five states abstained in the UN security council vote? Is the wording of the resolution open to rival interpretations?

A: The fact that Russia and China chose not to use a veto sends a clear signal of tacit political approval. "Sometimes these UN resolutions are not clear," explained Anthony Aust, a former Foreign Office legal adviser who helped draft the Kuwait resolution in 1990. "They are ambiguous because it's the only way to avoid a veto." The authority for military action is immediate. A ceasefire by Gaddafi's forces, however, will be used to challenge the justification for allied air strikes.

quote:

Reuters has a very useful round-up of who might be contributing what to in any military operations against Gaddafi.

France
Likely to deploy Mirage and Rafale fighters from air bases near the Mediterranean towns of Marseille and Istres or from Corsica. Airborne refuelling tanker aircraft are also ready to depart from Istres. Fighter jets could reach Libya in around an hour and a half from the south of France and in around an hour from Corsica. The Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier is in Toulon so would be ready to deploy fast.

Britain
Britain said it would deploy Typhoon patrol jets and all-weather Tornado attack aircraft based at RAF bases in Scotland and in Norfolk but would be moved to unidentified bases nearer Libya. Britain has two frigates if needed off the Libyan coast: HMS Cumberland and HMS Westminster.

United States
The US navy has an aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise, and other warships in the Mediterranean, but unclear whether they would be used.

Italy
Italy is unlikely to take part in strikes but is expected to provide its air base at Sigonella in Sicily. Fighter jets leaving from Sicily could reach Libya in around half an hour.

Norway
Norway said it will make its F-16 fighter jets available for an operation in Libya and could also provide Hercules transport aircraft to assist in humanitarian efforts.

Denmark
Denmark said it would send six F-16 planes and one military transport plane to support an intervention in Libya. The planes were ready to leave Denmark on Saturday for a southern European base with around 100 personnel including pilots and support.

Reuters says Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar are seen as the most likely Arab nations to provide back-up for an operation.

quote:

Giles Tremlett in Madrid writes that Spain is an enthusiastic member of the anti-Gaddafi coalition that will enforce the UN resolution.

Socialist prime minister Jos� Luis Rodr�guez Zapatero said he had given the US permission to use its military bases in Spain to help enforce a resolution that he called "decisive and historic". Those include both air bases and a naval base at Rota, near the mouth of the Mediterranean, some 1,100 miles from Tripoli.

Spain will also provide naval and air assets to the force, though Zapatero said the decision would have to be approved by the country's parliament - which is unlikely to oppose the move. It had not yet been decided exactly what would be needed from Spain.

Zapatero, who met UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon in Madrid today, said the ceasefire announced by Gaddafi was a sign that the UN resolution had already had some impact, but he warned that "the international community will not let itself be fooled by the Libyan regime."

quote:

Philippe Sands, law professor at University College London and a barrister at Matrix Chambers, has welcomed the UN resolution in that it rectifies the damage caused by the Iraq war - albeit with some caveats. Here's an extract.

It is one of those rare occasions in the history of the United Nations in which the use of force has been authorised under Chapter VII...

The protracted lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan weigh heavily, and the language of the resolution appears to allow more than only defensive or reactive military measures. And the language precluding any "foreign occupation force" is also ambiguous: it might be interpreted to allow the arming of rebel groups and � to the extent it is requested by those groups � feet on the ground in the form of support that falls short of being characterised as "an occupation force".

I welcome the resolution, and strongly so. But inevitably it gives rise to challenging questions: if Libya today, why not Bahrain tomorrow? at what point do such attacks on civilians cross a threshold of unacceptability? what if the attacks are led not by Gaddafi but by an old and trusted ally? These are serious, legitimate questions and they will have to be answered, now that a new door of international action has been opened.

EDIT: Added the bit about Spain.

Shageletic fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Mar 18, 2011

# ¿ Mar 18, 2011 16:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 5, 2024 17:43

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

Blackbird Fly posted:

Because you know the US is great at invading middle eastern countries to depose their governments, right? I think Gaddafi isn't crazy enough that it'll take foreign military intervention to bring him down, and hopefully he'll back down with the guns of so many nations trained on him. But everybody has seen how crazy Gaddafi can get, so who knows.

Actually, the US seems to be fantastic in invading countries to topple governments. As far as what happens afterwards....not so much.

As far as a unified command structure, the Afghanistan war has been good at forging that. But my ideal situation is that the US doesn't really do anything except maybe supply and reconaissance, and everyone else (primarily Arab countries) take the lead. And of course, that the threat of international action ends up siphoning enough support from Ghaddafi to topple him. I can only hope.

# ¿ Mar 19, 2011 04:22

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

«‹›15 »