Bharat Rakshak

Praanv, What if they are new improved Jihadists?

ramana wrote:Praanv, What if they are new improved Jihadists?

I would say that Gaddhafi had mellowed - giving up nukes, sending thousands of Libyan students to the west on scholarships etc. I don't see anything to suggest that he was raring to go on a new and improved Jihad.

He had no choice after Iraq got Saddamed.
It wasnt any new peaceful urge but deadly fear.

ramana wrote:He had no choice after Iraq got Saddamed.
It wasnt any new peaceful urge but deadly fear.

Nothing was forcing him to thousands of students to the west on scholarships, or his sons to do internships on democratization. And no evidence that he wants to be a new and improved Jihadist.

If there is any force in the world that is creating and promoting Jihadists, it is America. Wherever they intervene, they end up instigating religious violence, not matter their spoken aims might be. It makes one wonder whether the whole goal of America is to promote dogmatic religious movements.

Whether it is Iran 1979 or now, America's actions have always strengthened those who want to take their society back. Iran would have undergone a genuine democratic change, until American opposition to Ahmedinijad forced the Iranian nation to unite behind him. The less said about Iraq (right from mossadegh to Saddam) and Afghanistan, the better. Non Jihadi countries have been transformed into cesspools of backwardness because of the dark forces in Washington and London. Their support for the two true Islamic terrorist countries - KSA and pakistan, has to be seen to be understood that the real purpose of American foreign policy is to promote Jihadism.

Mossadegh was from Iran in the 1950s

My bad.

Yes Mossadegh was in Iran. But the progression remains the same. The shah was placed because he would crush the democratic forces in Iran, then when he started to nationalise the oil industry and bid for peace with Iraq, he was replaced by the mind numbing Khomeini. Who not only crushed the democratic aspirations of that country but also restarted the aggression against Iraq which the shah had stopped in larger interests of both countries. Then, when 8 tired years later, Iraq and Iran made peace, Saddam was lured into the quagmire in Kuwait (not that he needed much prompting), and another round of blood letting started. And when.....

The story, just one sense murder campaign promoted by the west after another.

The current round of blood letting is the same reason as before - which is why there is no reason to support their interests, no matter what Q says about Kashmir - he is simply the lesser evil.

Post-Hosni Mubarak, EU wanted to choke out and stall the rise of a predominantly Shiite caliphate construct across North Africa, Jordan, coastal Sudan, Syria, Red Sea coast of KSA (including 2 holy sites), Iraq, Kuwait and Bahrain.

This Fatimid version 2.0 would throw a spanner in the works of Sunnis, Turkey's neo-Ottoman dreams and Iran. However, the biggest loser would be the EU with its aspiration of resurrecting the Roman Empire. The Fatimids would be able to accommodate Turkey and Iran but would be a serious threat to the Roman Empire.

However, it looks like the idea may just come to pass after all.

Klaus, some more details

Abhishekcc, It was Iraq under Saddam Hussein that invaded Iran thinking it was weakend by Khomieni purges of Iranian armed forces.

X-post...

Chinmayanand wrote:US general says stalemate in Libya is more likely now that US has turned control over to NATO

The United States may consider sending troops into Libya with a possible international ground force that could aid the rebels, according to the general who led the military mission until NATO took over.

Army Gen. Carter Ham also told lawmakers Thursday that added American participation would not be ideal, and ground troops could erode the international coalition and make it more difficult to get Arab support for operations in Libya.

Ham said the operation was largely stalemated now and was more likely to remain that way since America has transferred control to NATO.

He said NATO has done an effective job in an increasingly complex combat situation. But he noted that, in a new tactic, Moammar Gadhafi's forces are making airstrikes more difficult by staging military forces and vehicles near civilian areas such as schools and mosques.

The use of an international ground force is a possible plan to bolster rebels fighting forces loyal to the Libyan leader, Ham said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

Asked if the U.S. would provide troops, Ham said, "I suspect there might be some consideration of that. My personal view at this point would be that that's probably not the ideal circumstance, again for the regional reaction that having American boots on the ground would entail."

President Barack Obama has said repeatedly there will be no U.S. troops on the ground in Libya, although there are reports of small CIA teams in the country.

Ham disclosed that the United States is providing some strike aircraft to the NATO operation that do not need to go through the special approval process recently established. The powerful side-firing AC-130 gunship is available to NATO commanders, he said.

Other strike aircraft, including fighters and the A-10 Thunderbolt, which can provide close air support for ground forces, must be requested through U.S. European Command and approved by top U.S. leaders, including Defence Secretary Robert Gates. Ham said that process is quick, and other defence officials have said it can take about a day for the U.S. to approve the request and move the aircraft in from bases in Europe.

Ham said recent bad weather and threats from Gadhafi's mobile surface-to-air missile systems hampered efforts to use aircraft like the AC-130 and the A-10 to provide close air support for friendly ground forces. He says those conditions contributed to the stalemate.

Since the U.S. handed off the strike mission to NATO, U.S. planes account for only 15 per cent of NATO planes now doing those air attacks, Ham said.

What are the politicial implications of this handing over to NATO? Is it passing buck or Pontius Pilate or realization Gaddafi is here to stay?

abhischekcc wrote:Klaus, some more details

Qaddafi was/is a candidate who is malleable (if not amenable) to a construct/caliphate to prevent breaking down of ME power structures. Hosni Mubarak might have been in the process of discussing these very same aspects with KSA and Jordan prior to being removed, this might also be the reason he has alienated himself from the West. However, there is a possibility that Egypt might still be under discussions with interested parties (Unkil included).

The thrust of my arguments come from a series of posts, starting with this post in the West Asia thread.

Hosni Mubarak might have been in the final stages of discussion with KSA and Jordan before he was removed, he is understandably upset at the fact that the West will end up taking credit for a movement that he re-ignited. A Shiite construct will take away exclusivity claims from Iranian hands who believe that the Arabian Sunnis are a spent force and that they (Iranian Shia) deserve the right to secure the two holy sites. This ties in neatly with Ramana ji's 500 year explanation of Iran as well as a 1000 year shift of power starting from the Fatimids to the Arabian Sunnis (with Persians and Ottoman Turks in between). This also explains why the Libyan operation is not Unkil's war to fight. The only party which seems to have takleef with this development is the Oiropeans (understandable as they do not understand anything other than a Judeo-Xtian dynamic).

Some links:

Fatimid Caliphate

Link to blog

Imam Reza's article on Fatimid Dynasty in Egypt

Website of the Institute of Ismaili Studies

But who would have headed the new Arab Shia state?

^^^ Mubarak was the logical choice. At this point of time, the figurehead's identity is anyone's guess.

But was he a Shia?

Oh I get it. He was recreating a modern version of the Fatimid Caliphate but under Sunni dispensation with Egypt as the center.

The Fatimids were a very moderate construct. Intra-Islamic affiliations did not matter as long as the job got done. Sunnis held high positions in the clergy, military and elite. Also, Jews and Coptics were part of the institutional framework in the old Cairo based Caliphate.

Very stark contrast to the radically pure and green to pure green trash that we are witnessing today.

So it would be opposite of the Wahabis. Interesting. I did read the wiki and the other links. My only question was I thought Fatimds were Shia.

I understand creation of a new version but with a modern name.

The biggest thing is it would restore Egypt to its former high status.
Takes advantage of the high status of Al Azhar.

The Ottomons did take advantage of the system in place with the Fatimids.

What was UK's reaction for they promoted alternate states: KSA, Pakistan for example and their evangelists still preach the Blunt doctrine.

And Israel was most distraught with his ouster.

abhischekcc wrote:Q says about Kashmir - he is simply the lesser evil.

Also the bolded part is the reason why he could be persuaded to come to an agreement and round table talks to keep Turkey and Iran in check, it would be a suitable reward for risk play at work (if he comes out of the current scenario).

ramana wrote:So it would be opposite of the Wahabis. Interesting. I did read the wiki and the other links. My only question was I thought Fatimds were Shia.

I understand creation of a new version but with a modern name.

The biggest thing is it would restore Egypt to its former high status.
Takes advantage of the high status of Al Azhar.

The Ottomons did take advantage of the system in place with the Fatimids.

What was UK's reaction for they promoted alternate states: KSA, Pakistan for example and their evangelists still preach the Blunt doctrine.

And Israel was most distraught with his ouster.

IMO, it would be a far better outcome than the CIA map display of truncated states throughout the ME, which would be one big radical feudal setup.

Jordan is one state which can bring around all the dazed and stunned (from war and attrition) players to the meeting room, Syria is probably the joker in the pack, although Assad is just as strong a candidate as Q. Need to watch both of them for their ability to withstand adversity and pressure, the last man standing wins!

Just my 2 cents!

>>Very stark contrast to the radically pure and green to pure green trash that we are witnessing today.

Indeed.

Come to think of it the only similarity seems to be that they are both getting their asses kicked regularly by the Westerners, previously the "Franj" and now the "French" - same difference. Ironic, isn't it?

A good reading of the crusades, especially the early years, will really allow us to understand to some extent why the Muslims are so edgy as far as Western involvement in their region is concerned.

ramana wrote:So it would be opposite of the Wahabis. Interesting. I did read the wiki and the other links. My only question was I thought Fatimds were Shia.

I understand creation of a new version but with a modern name.

The biggest thing is it would restore Egypt to its former high status.
Takes advantage of the high status of Al Azhar.

The Ottomons did take advantage of the system in place with the Fatimids.

What was UK's reaction for they promoted alternate states: KSA, Pakistan for example and their evangelists still preach the Blunt doctrine.

And Israel was most distraught with his ouster.

You see Gaddafi had talked about (somewhere in the hours of rambling) recreating the fatimid state. Therefore Sunni's may have seen him as pro shia. So source speculated that Qatar and UAE were interested in seeing the end of him because of this idea and others of course. But it was to shut down this plan.

So its more like a struggle between NA (North Africa) and WA (West Asia) states for who controls the ummah. The WA states are Bluntised states.

Shyamd and Klaus, You guys are onto something.

I googled for Gaddafi and Fatimid dynasty
Among thelinks I found this

Qaddafi the Neo-Fatimid

....
“The Shi’ites are North Africa… We will [build] the modern, second Fatimid state, and its identity will be a Fatimid identity. The Arabs and the Berber Arabs will be fused in it, and the parties, the Left and the Right, the extremists, and the proponents of violence will be fused in it. All of them will become a single identity.

“The conflict… in North Africa will end. The conflict in Algeria will end, and in Sudan, and the conflict in Egypt will end, and the conflict in the Sahara will end. Tribal, sectarian, and ethnic conflict will end, because we will have become Fatimids…

“We in North Africa are Arabs, and North Africa is 100% Arab. Thosewhom we say are Berbers are the original, unadulterated Arabs. The fact that France and Western colonialism say to them ‘you are not Arabs’ – whoever accepts this will bear his responsibility.

“North Africa is Arab and Shi’ite… The Shi’ite Fatimid state arose in North Africa, and not in Iran. We want to revive it once again. We direct a renewed call to all of the forces in the first Fatimid state to revive [it in] a modern, second Fatimid state – on the condition that it be free of all of the sectarian conflicts and [the debate about] the Imamate and [religious] rule [hakimiyya] and the sophistry of old…
....

and

.....
Politics, it seems, is only one of the attractions of Shiism. In addition to Louay, I spoke with four other Syrian converts, who asked not to be identified for fear of harassment by Sunni fundamentalists. Louay and the others all spoke of religious transformation as much as of Hezbollah. “Half the reason why I converted was because of Ijtihad,” Louay said, using the Arabic word for the independent interpretation of the Koran and the words and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad. Suddenly the mufti’s enigmatic answer became clearer. Ijtihad is practiced more widely by Shiites of the Jaafari school than by Sunnis. These Shiites believe that, on all but the largest moral issues, Muslims should interpret their faith by reading holy texts and reasoning back and forth between them and current issues. Many Sunnis say they quietly practice Ijtihad in everyday life as well, but conservative Sunnis do not encourage individual interpretation of the Koran.
For Louay, the difference is immense. “Take the Internet. Some conservative Sunni sheiks say the Internet is haram,” or illegal, he said. “If I go back to Jaafar al-Sadiq” — the eighth-century founder of the Jaafari school — “I will not find a ruling on it. So instead I use my mind to sort it out. On the Internet, some things are positive, some negative. I choose the positive for myself.”
....

So the great ME project since mid 80s and renewed after 9/11 is the creation of a new Arab Shia entity in the Fatimid mold. Reducing Ayatollah Iran is needed to bring the focus back on Arab Shiasm. A new version of the Blunt plan. We can see who will line up where if we understand this. TSP will be with GCC as its part of Blunt project.

All Ralph Peters maps are a ruse or red herrings.

^^ Sort of. But he's had these ideas for a very long time. I wouldn#t look too much into it in a NA Perspective but the arabs GCC want him out. Period - he wants to recreate the fatimids which is a no no obviously. They see Q as pro shia.

Source spent over a decade researching all this.

As I mentioned before, Qaddafi as a figurehead depends upon whether he eventually gets out of the current mess with his life and sanity intact. In any case, GCC and Wahhabi Saudis will try to kill off this project in a very clandestine manner, however in the age of internet and twitter such activities and ideas cannot be suppressed easily.

It also depends upon how clearly the idea has been transmitted between Q, Mubarak, Assad, El Baradei and others. If its time has come, the idea will sprout leaves without any figurehead being present.

JE Menon wrote:
Come to think of it the only similarity seems to be that they are both getting their asses kicked regularly by the Westerners, previously the "Franj" and now the "French" - same difference. Ironic, isn't it?

Given this fact, it is also possible to hazard a guess in which the current Libyan fiasco will end, although specific events will roughen the tide. IIRC, the Germanic tribes were disinterested even during those times before Europe slipped away into the darkness!

Nasser had one version of this when he created UAR between Egypt and Syria and that got dissolved as it was unworkable.

^^^ Perhaps, the main reason was that Nasser was more devoted to JLN and NAM and wasnt seen as devoted (to the Ummah) or pious enough. Need to understand the times were favouring Wahhabism and Arabic Sunni project at that time. Iran Shiite project was also a strong 2nd place (this is relative positioning).

The wheel has turned since then.

Saving civilians: murky geopolitics

Brahma Chellaney
The mission creep in the western military intervention in Libya shows how narrow geopolitical interests, even at the risk of creating another Iraq or Afghanistan, are driving a professed humanitarian campaign.

From initially seeking to protect civilians to now aiming for a swift, total victory in Libya, the mission creep that has characterised the western powers' military attack raises troubling questions about their Libyan strategy and the risk that it could end up creating a jihadist citadel at Europe's southern doorstep.

(oirope soft under belly similar to fsu in afg but without nato troops on ground.)

Ivory Coast — where rampant abuses and widespread killings have led about one million residents to flee Abidjan city alone — was clearly a more pressing case for international intervention than Libya, given strongman Laurent Gbagbo's months-old defiance of the United Nations writ. But because Ivory Coast lacks strategic importance or oil, the exodus of Ivorians into Liberia and the influx of Liberian mercenaries continued unchecked, triggering civilian massacres.

In recent weeks, security forces have helped shape developments in different ways in three Arab states

--Egypt-

In Egypt, it was the military's refusal to side with Hosni Mubarak that helped end that ex-air force commander's three-decade-long dictatorial rule. The military, long part of the political power structure, had become increasingly wary of Mr. Mubarak's efforts to groom his son as his successor. Today, the heady talk of freedom cannot obscure the reality that the people's revolution in Egypt thus far has spawned only a direct military takeover, with the 30-year emergency law still in force and the country's political direction uncertain. Although the ruling military council has scheduled parliamentary elections in September, the fact is that in no country has the military voluntarily ceded power without mass protests or other pressures.]

(same as removal of musharraf in TSP with military control intact)
--Yemen-

While the popular uprising in Yemen has splintered the security establishment there, with different military factions now in charge of different neighbourhoods in the capital Sanaa and the United States seeking to replace the Yemeni President with his No. 2,

--Bahrain--

the Bahraini monarchy has employed foreign Sunni mercenaries that dominate its police force to fire on the predominantly Shiite demonstrators.

--saudi arabia--

External factors are especially important in small or internally weak countries. The House of Saud sent forces into Bahrain under the Gulf Cooperation Council banner to crush peaceful protests, yet it is civil war-torn Libya that became the target of a western military attack. The blunt fact is that no nation has contributed more to the spread of global jihad than Saudi Arabia. Indeed, this terror-bankrolling state's military intervention to prop up the Bahraini regime parallels the 1979 Soviet intervention to bolster a besieged Afghan regime in Kabul — an invasion that led to the multibillion-dollar, CIA-sponsored arming of Afghan rebels and the consequent rise of transnational Islamic terrorists, including the al-Qaeda.

The broadening of the Libya intervention from a limited, humanitarian mission to an all-out assault on the Libyan military suggests that this war is really about ensuring that the Arab world does not slip out of western control. The intervention has seemingly been driven by a cold geopolitical calculation: to bottle up or eliminate Muammar Qaddafi so that his regime doesn't exploit the political vacuum in neighbouring Egypt and Tunisia.

Saddam Hussein's ouster by the invading U.S. forces did not secure the desired political objectives; rather a once-stable, secular Iraq has been destabilised, radicalised and effectively partitioned. With Libya set to become Mr. Obama's Iraq, a plausible scenario there is a protracted stalemate, coupled with a tribally partitioned country.

U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates recently rebuked allies for effectively abandoning the Afghan war. Why blame allies when the U.S. itself has abandoned the goal of victory and now seeks only a face-saving exit? And even as the U.S. fires hundreds of missiles at Libyan targets, its policy on Pakistan — the main sanctuary for transnational terrorists — is crumbling, with Washington clueless on how to stem the rising tide of anti-Americanism in a country that is now its largest aid recipient.

The resort to different standards and practices in the name of promoting human freedom, unfortunately, sends the message that any society's democratic empowerment is possible only if it jibes with the great powers' geopolitical interest. The fundamental issue is whether there should be a rules-based international order or an order pivoted on military might and driven by narrow, politically expedient interests of the most powerful.

About Q and Kashmir : [I think I posted this also before - but since it has gone out of people's memory - here it is again, and should never, ever be forgotten]. This was reported Thursday, September 24, 2009, from Washington.


http://www.ndtv.com/news/world/gaddafi_ ... _india.php

Maverick Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, has embarrassed India at the United Nations. In his marathon speech Gaddafi raised the Kashmir issue. "Kashmir should be an independent state, not Indian, not Pakistani. We should end this conflict. It should be a Ba'athist state between India and Pakistan," he said.

And he also opposed expanding the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to include countries like India, saying that would add more injustice and tension to the world. "The preamble says all nations are equal whether they are small or big. Are we equal in the permanent seats? No we are not equals," Gaddafi said.

About pro-Q and anti-Q things :

There is no point in us getting divided up into two camps - and getting whipped up into frenzy depending on news feeds being fed to us within the media. I guess what is happening perhaps even on this thread, is that people have already decided their sides - and if they sympathize with Q in the given conflict they get enthused on news that seem to show Q winning, while if they sympathize with anti-Q they similarly get enthused on Q retreating. We should remember that the media is playing out by proxy an information war fought by two sides in this conflict - at various levels it is a contest between the Left-centre and right in ideological affiliations in the global perspective. In this case it is the Leftist-center world groupings/opinion mobilizers who champion Q now while the Right is against him. The reasons to do so would be OT but interesting as an illustration of the basic motivations driving both camps. Q has time until Autumn I think. But his fundamental base of power is shaken and a lot of it could be about the need of Europe for capital.

Analyzing Q based on standard models of Islamism may prove futile. Because he may not overtly satisfy all that is usually characterized as being "Islamist". Problem is that we perhaps do not keep in mind the detailed and complicated internal processes of historical Islam, and the various official or overt faces it has worn in the fundamental drive within ME Islamism - that of imperialist mobilization of a large and widespread population for extracting imperialist benefits in favour of small "elite" [or aspiring elite] stuck within a small subregion within this imperialist hinterland.

If Q remains in power, that does not necessarily mean that we Indians can rejoice. Q will as easily throw his money around to jihadists willing to launch on Kashmir valley if that complements his other tactical or strategic needs as he has offered oil-blocs to India for abstaining on the UN resolution. You have to understand, that the ephemeral concept of Ummah has been constructed with two very specific agenda.

The first is to provide (hopefully) an identity that can be used to mobilize a large number of foot soldiers and efforts to focus on a single imperialist project of extracting power and benefits from outside the imperialist hinterland. This was what the first Arab Islamists used to cannibalize the dying bodies of the Byzantine and Parthian empires. Subsequently the model was used in turn by Persians/Iranians, Kurds, Moors, Turks, and Afghans and finally the Mongols.

Second is ironically, to beat down competing claims to the leadership of this very same imperialist project from other regions. Therefore, we find the definition and characterization of the Ummah and what constitutes a "pure" version is a hotly contested issue within Islam. In a sense it is one link in the continuity of the great tradition of all religions that are essentially organized manifestations of an ideology of imperialism - where there is always a tendency to have increasingly bitter factionalism over the "true" interpretation as time goes by. It happened in imperialist phase of Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and finally Communism.

In each of these cases, the polemical battles were a cover for a contest over power and leadership.

But the contest never, ever, actually detracts from the core imperialist drive. People can get excited about these apparent fights over "purity" and intra-Islam contests - but each of them are about leadership of the imperialist project and detracts nothing from its targets on the non-islamic world.

Q will use Islamism as any other aspiring emperor within the teeming population of tiny regional emperors. Trusting his conflict and contest with other Islamic aspirants to detract from sponsoring jihadis against India covertly is a pipe dream. His sending of Libyan youth for western education is no proof of his "un-Islamic" activities - some of the most die-hard Saudi neo-cons were educated in the US. The GCC countries send off a large number of their young for western education and they have been doing this for decades. Think of Iranians who were there in large numbers in western academics prior to 1979. By that logic Islamism should have been wiped off in the region. In Turkey the Islamist parties would not have made a come-back.

In fact scholars from Islamic countries had been visiting India long before actual Islamic conquest of northern and western India. Al Beruni should be a shining example. How did it prove anything about any essential change in the imperialist attitude of islamist leadership of those times?

So let us see about the un-Islamic activities of Q: to start with, how about un-Islamic taxes of an un-Islamic "moderate" ruler?
http://www.taxarticles.info/2009/06/lib ... -a-glance/

Name of tax Rate

“Jihadi tax (tax for national defence) on companies: it applies to the annual taxable profits of companies.

4% of taxable profits.
Jihad tax on individuals

It varies from 1% to 3% according to income.
Registration tax in the context of a contract

The tax reaches 2% for the main contract and 1% for a sub-contract.

I will anticipate apologists who may deride this as actually a proof of his "un-Islamic" ness - he cannot be so crude and obvious - he must be using religion as a mask to amass private fortune. Since such a tactic is not supposedly "Islamic" - or the ideology supposedly does not support it [in spite of Shahi Bukhari quoting at least 6 different Hadiths in support, and almost famous Islamist rulers indulging in it - so we never really had any Islamists at all at any point in history], this is a proof of the essentially modern, non-religious politician and hence a proof of his moderation and "good" "secular" credentials.

Added : in case the above ref is ridiculous because found on the "web" and "googled" look also at PwC report for ME Tax Update, June 2010, page 16 of the the report (p. 19 of the file). "The effective Jehad Tax rate of 3% on taxable income remains in force."

>>Given this fact, it is also possible to hazard a guess in which the current Libyan fiasco will end, although specific events will roughen the tide. IIRC, the Germanic tribes were disinterested even during those times before Europe slipped away into the darkness!

Yes, they were not as involved as the French (mainly - although the mixture was fairly multinational - not very much unlike today, though they were the barbarians then), who even indulged in a spot of cannibalism on a couple of occasions. The Germans on the other hand, under a certain Conrad, made a grand initial foray, got their butts handed out to them in fairly short order and returned back home... At least after their first foray...

Even more irony? the crusaders were ideological returnees of a sort... considering that the Phoenicians in their time spread their wings across the Mediterranean rim and one of the most famous of them Prince Cadmus brought the alphabet to Greece and thence elsewhere... And his sister, gave the crusader continent its name. She was called Europa - and of course, the Phoenicians were from Lebanon/Syria - two of the countries raped mercilessly by the Franj; so much so that even now large numbers of children are born blonde, blue eyed and, well, could easily pass for Frenchmen

Turkey's PM Suggests Roadmap for Peace in Libya

Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan has suggested a "roadmap" towards a negotiated end to the conflict in Libya that began on February 15 with protests in the eastern city of Benghazi and then spread to many parts of Libya.

There have been a number of initiatives by various sides and governments in order to find a way that could lead to a peaceful settlement, this by Turkey, one of the countries that have enjoyed good relations with Libya for a number of years, being the latest one.

Mr Erdogan is urging forces aligned with Libyan leader Muammar Al Qathafi to withdraw from besieged cities, and called for the establishment of humanitarian aid corridors and comprehensive democratic transformation process that takes into account the legitimate interests of Libyan people should start immediately.{Why is it that only Libyans need a democratic process, not the Bahrainis and the Saudis and the Emiratis? } He said that Al Qathafi should halt his attacks on cities and withdraw his forces.

Last Monday Erdogan's foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, had already received now Libyan Foreign Minister Abdelati al-Obeidi in the Turkish capital Ankara, as the Libyan official sought a political settlement by negotiating a ceasefire with opposition forces in the country. At the time, though the Turks said the contacts were "at a very early stage."

Turkey has also had talks with representatives of the Libyan opposition and assured the Transitional Council in Benghazi it supports their demands, following recent protests in Libya against Turkey by some opposition members.

Erdogan said the measures would be discussed at a meeting by the contact group set up to guide the international intervention in Libya next Wednesday in Doha, Qatar. Turkey, is one of the first countries that expressed its desire to attend the meeting. Others include be representatives from Britain, the United States, the Arab League, and other allies from the Middle East.

Turkey initially balked at the idea of military action in Libya, but is now taking part in the enforcement of a no-fly zone to shield civilians. It has also volunteered to lead humanitarian aid efforts and even arranged humanitarian medical aid vessels to ferry wounded out of the city of Misurata, which has been under attack from the regime's forces for weeks. It has also delivered supplies to Benghazi.

abhischekcc wrote:If there is any force in the world that is creating and promoting Jihadists, it is America. Wherever they intervene, they end up instigating religious violence, not matter their spoken aims might be. It makes one wonder whether the whole goal of America is to promote dogmatic religious movements.

Whether it is Iran 1979 or now, America's actions have always strengthened those who want to take their society back. Iran would have undergone a genuine democratic change, until American opposition to Ahmedinijad forced the Iranian nation to unite behind him. The less said about Iraq (right from mossadegh to Saddam) and Afghanistan, the better. Non Jihadi countries have been transformed into cesspools of backwardness because of the dark forces in Washington and London. Their support for the two true Islamic terrorist countries - KSA and pakistan, has to be seen to be understood that the real purpose of American foreign policy is to promote Jihadism.

The 'spiritual guru' of America is Albert Pike. It is his plan that is being followed. Support to KSA and Pakistan is to ensure that the Islamic Al-Ciada that they are building up doesn't get too strong to defeat their mentors.

brihaspati wrote:About Q and Kashmir : [I think I posted this also before - but since it has gone out of people's memory - here it is again, and should never, ever be forgotten]. This was reported Thursday, September 24, 2009, from Washington.


http://www.ndtv.com/news/world/gaddafi_ ... _india.php

Maverick Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, has embarrassed India at the United Nations. In his marathon speech Gaddafi raised the Kashmir issue. "Kashmir should be an independent state, not Indian, not Pakistani. We should end this conflict. It should be a Ba'athist state between India and Pakistan," he said.

And he also opposed expanding the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to include countries like India, saying that would add more injustice and tension to the world. "The preamble says all nations are equal whether they are small or big. Are we equal in the permanent seats? No we are not equals," Gaddafi said.

Hmm ... Baathism is a secular ideology. Saddam Hussein was a Baathist, and he had supported the Indian position on Kashmir.

Your quote reinforces the view that Gaddhafi is bit of a nut-case. He had also angered the Chinese by meeting with the Taiwanese President. But still, he has support in Libya, and it cannot be denied that Libya has had pretty high Human Development Indicators.

Anyway, his survival will not cause as much Takleef to India or China or Russia as it will to others.

Hmmm, there is a loss of interest in this thread as the 'rebelion' in Libya winds down.

1. There was a loss of air support to the 'rebels' in the past few days. 'Rebels' were angry at nato and were losing morale fast.

2. There is battle going on for Brega and Ajdabiya. It will be a crucial test for the 'rebels'. Loss of any city will crush their morale and even lead to the breakdown of the 'rebel' alliance and the end of the 'rebellion'.

3. The induction of western 'advisors' (sabotage agents and officers to control the 'rebels') in Libya has had no noticable effect on the war effort against Q. The only thing noticable was friendly fire on the 'rebels'

4. There is a renewed thrust in the west to involve more countries in the fight against Libya. Sweden has OKed providing military air support, and there is talk of getting Ireland on board. Britain claimed destroying 7 Q's tanks.

5. How far this will impact the war effort is questionable. But substituting quantity for quality indicates that they have run out of options to try.

Pranav wrote: Hmm ... Baathism is a secular ideology. Saddam Hussein was a Baathist, and he had supported the Indian position on Kashmir.

Your quote reinforces the view that Gaddhafi is bit of a nut-case. He had also angered the Chinese by meeting with the Taiwanese President. But still, he has support in Libya, and it cannot be denied that Libya has had pretty high Human Development Indicators.

Anyway, his survival will not cause as much Takleef to India or China or Russia as it will to others.

Baathism as secular is a slight mis-construction. I could go on about the claims of Baathist secularism here and its connections to certain families of Palestinian Muslims of clerical background. But OT!

His survival means a known sleek survivor who will compromise with whoever he feels can hurt him. Just extrapolate that to pressures from usual suspects to supply the yelping canine pack with teeth sharpeners.