Monthly Archives: May 2011

Impact of the G8 summit on Libya

The Gadhafi regime remains defiant. Their latest response is “we are an African country”, and we “do not listen to the G8”. However, the G8 communique was important because, for the first time Russia showed that it was losing patience with Gadhafi, and that it no longer saw Gadhafi as the legitimate leader of the country. However, it is the alternate National Transitional Council that continues to gain legitimacy in this situation. The leadership in Benghazi is not associated with Al Qaeda. Amongst the group are ex-members of the Gadhafi regime. In fact the spokesman for the NTC is an ex-official of the regime. Another of the officials had been living in the USA and had returned to Benghazi to assist with finance matters.

That being said, we now need to focus on any new attempts to engage in talks with Gadhafi via the African Union. South Africa’s Zuma is due to arrive in Tripoli for talks, and it is believed that an exit strategy will be discussed. Medvedev has also promised to send someone to Benghazi and to Tripoli for talks. The Benghazi National Transitional Council have advised that there can be no negotiations until Gadhafi leaves. (It is best to ignore anything that comes from Østupid because his opinions on the subject are virtually irrelevant. Daffy is not going to take notice of that extremely weak leader who also needs to go).

On the war front itself, nothing much has changed, except that I am learning more about some of the British military equipment that is being used. Their spy plane is really very impressive, and it is from this aircraft that much of the action is directed. Whilst there is relief in Misrata, the actual shelling of the town has not stopped. Neither has it stopped for Zintan and for other towns that have been under seige. On top of that the Daffy goons have continued to harass the population in Zawiyah and Tripoli, with an increase of arrests and beatings, and disappearances.

The situation in Libyan was certainly more extreme than in Syria and Yemen, as well as Tunisia and Egypt. However, the killing of the civilian populations in each of these countries should be roundly condemned. The Syrian situation continues to be serious, with the Iranians taking a much larger role in the crackdown and the murder of the civilians. Yemen is heading towards civil war, and Al Qaeda has successfully taken over one town. (I will address that situation elsewhere).

totally unrelated but…..

I am not a fan of Brad Pitt, and I do like Angelina Jolie as an actress. Normally, I would not read anything about them…  their love life… their supposed break-ups etc. etc. However, this news item caught my eye and I had a look.  Besides the pap in the article, what caught my attention was: Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie homeschool their children!!  Now that is interesting.

The Arab Spring – Tunisia – onwards Islamist soldiers

Just spotted this article, and I think that it is a good warning for anyone who thinks that the Arab spring will lead to real democracy. The article speaks about a Tunisian who is secular, a man who is a creative director and who has been honoured for his work. In April he was stabbed in the head – minor wounds. Just recently a very serious threat was made against his life.

As we expect, the Arab spring is something different from what has been inferred. This is the case in Egypt where we are witnessing the rise of Muslim Brotherhood, as well as the rise of the Salafists who are connected to Al Qaeda.  What we had not seen had been a similar activity in Tunisia. It is way too soon to know about Libya since they are still trying to get rid of a very evil man, but we do know that there are elements of Al Qaeda in Libya, and what we do not know is their strength in the total community. Hopefully, someone will report more accurately on this particular subject.

However, this is about Tunisia, and the group known as Ennhada, which is Tunisia’s largest Islamist party. Here are parts of that story that are of interest:

But just a week later, the source of some of the hostility to him became clearer.

At an April 17 rally organised by Ennahda, Tunisia’s largest Islamist party, a speaker called for Bouzid to be “shot with a Kalashnikov”.

The audience, which included a senior Ennahda leader, responded with cries of “Allahu Akbar”.

Distracted by the dramas of Libya, Syria and Yemen, the world appears to have forgotten the place where it all started. It was Tunisians, on January 14, who kicked out their dictator and began the Arab Spring. Now, though, there is growing concern here that the birthplace of the democratic revolt will also be the first country to see Islamists take significant political power.

With elections for a body to draw up the constitution due in just eight weeks’ time – though they may be postponed – Ennahda, according to opinion polls, will be the largest single party, with around 30 per cent of the vote, giving it a pivotal role in shaping the new Tunisia.

Mokhtar Trifi, head of the country’s human rights league, says that manifestations of Islamic radicalism – forced veiling, forced prayer, and condemnations for apostasy – are rising, too, all over the country.

But Ennahda draws support from the less prosperous interior.

And in a fractured political spectrum, with a dozen new parties since the revolution, it has the priceless advantage of a history. Formed, under a different name, in 1981, banned in 1990, Ennahda was the main opposition to the authoritarian rule of Zine el Abidin Ben Ali, with hundreds of its members tortured and jailed.

“We fought against the dictatorship. We have branches all over the country. We are not totally prepared for the elections, but perhaps we are better prepared than the others.”

That preparation manifests itself in many different ways. Earlier this month, in the poor Tunis suburb of Ettadhamen, Ennahda activists organised patrols to protect residents from rioting and looting (the local police, despised truncheon-arm of the regime, had their station torched after the revolution, and are still nowhere to be seen).

And in mosques across the country, Ennahda is moving to take control.

“After the revolution, seven local fundamentalists from Ennahda came,” says Aziz Khasseba, a teacher who is fighting to stop what he says is an Ennahda takeover of the Ahmadi mosque in Boumhal, just south of Tunis.

“They created a committee to control the wellbeing of the mosque. They meet every night, behind closed doors. They want to replace the imam and we’ve got up a petition to stop it. Even in front of the lycees [schools], they’re telling young people what to wear. They’re taking advantage of the revolution.”

In the town of Sfax, Habib Maaloul, the former imam at the el-Manar mosque, told The Sunday Telegraph that he and 15 other local imams had been forced from their posts by Ennahda activists.

“I was afraid,” he said. “I could complain, but the government is weak, it doesn’t want to get into a confrontation with Ennahda.”

Though these tactics are classic Islamism, Ennahda insists that their purposes are entirely moderate and benign. “We say that Islam and modernity can live together in complete tranquillity,” says Arbaoui, the spokesman. “Since 1981 we have respected pluralism, choice, and democracy.”

Ennahda does not want to impose the veil, Sharia law or an alcohol ban, though another spokesman, Abdullah Zouari, admits that a ban may be a long-term goal.

But many Tunisians simply do not trust the party. “Our problem is the gap between what they say and what they do,” said Jribi, the liberal leader.

There’s one message in the media and another in the mosques, where they are doing a big campaign. There they say that Islam is a package, you have to take the whole package. For politicians to say that, that’s very dangerous.”

Halima Jouini, of the Association of Democratic Women, says: “They never talk about human rights for women. They never talk about the rates of unemployment among women, only the numbers of women who are left unmarried.”

I have tried to highlight some of the more disturbing information.  Although Tunisia is not Iran, it seems that the Ennhada resembles Muslim Brotherhood. The methods and the taqiyya are the same. There is the claim that they are moderate, but then they are doing sneaky things that indicates that they have a different aim from most of the country.

Tunisia could be the first country to fall to the Muslim Brotherhood, and it looks like Egypt will fall as well. Anyone who believes the MB propaganda is being totally naive about what to expect. In Tunis there is an opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood but they are weak. This is probably the same for Egypt.

At the same time there is some really bad news coming from Yemen, as that country edges closer to civil war. Al Qaeda is on the rise in Yemen. It is a seriously bad situation.

what does the G8 know about Libya? Amazing turnaround by Russia over stance on Libya

I have just seen an amazing news report. As a result of the G8 conference Russia has changed its stance over Libya. Russia has joined with other European nations in demanding that Gadhafi goes from power.

Russia abstained from the UN vote that allowed NATO to start the no-fly zone action. Russia and China had been very vocal in their criticism of the NATO action claiming that NATO had gone beyond what was sanctioned by the UN resolution.

However, Russia has had a change of heart. This is the result of a discussion at the G8 conference… ah to be a fly on the wall.


The Guardian has some more detail on the G8 decision regarding Libya. Russia has decided that Gadhafi must go, which means there is a united front that did not exist before. It also means that Daffy Duck is being totally isolated.

However, this report goes a lot further and I think that it is quite interesting. Nations such as France have had continued contacts with unnamed individuals in Tripoli. They have had faxes and emails asking how they can “get out of this mess”. The answer remains the same: Gadhafi must go.

Sarkozy also highlighted the terms of the communique, saying: “There is unanimous support for this objective and the terms used against Gaddafi are particularly clear and hard and accepted by all the G8 countries including Russia.”

In unusually simple language for a G8 communique, the leaders of the industrialised west said: “Gaddafi and the Libyan government have failed to fulfil their responsibility to protect the Libyan population and have lost all legitimacy. He has no future in a free, democratic Libya. He must go.

“We welcome the work of the international criminal court in investigating crimes in Libya and note the chief prosecutor’s request on 16 May for three arrest warrants.” The Russians said they would send a delegation to Benghazi, but would not accept Gaddafi into exile.

George Will – the first to mention impeachment?

Just saw this at the Daily Caller. George Will is asking why the Progessives and extreme leftists are not clamouring for the impeachment of Østupid based upon the involvement of the USA in Libya. It is a good question, because the fact that Østupid did not go to Congress to request permission, per the 1974 law means that he is in breach of yet another law in the USA. It is now 66 days and counting and Østupid has not gone before Congress to do the right thing.

The issue here is not the action in Libya, because the action is sanctioned by the United Nations resolution 1973 to use all means possible, short of boots on the ground, to prevent the massacre of Libyan civilians. The action has been carried out via air strikes, and the use of tomahawks etc. There is also a naval blockade. The issue from the American and Congressional point of view should be that Østupid is now in contempt of the Congress, in that he has had more than 60 days to request that the Congress sanction the US involvement. He had plenty of time before the UN resolution was made, but he dithered and only came on board at the last minute. He should have used that time to take the issue to Congress to seek approval for any action that was sanctioned by the United Nations. Instead, he used the 60 days and has tried to get around the meaning of the Act so that there is USA “limited involvement”.

My own government supports the action in Libya. I am a conservative person and yes I support the action in Libya. The reason that I have supported it from the beginning is based entirely upon the human rights of the people of Libya who are being attacked by their “rulers” (who are not rulers by choice, but the result of a coup in the 1960s). The Libyan people have been forced into having a socialist country. Many business owners, especially in Benghazi had their businesses stolen from them by Gadhafi. The feeling against Gadhafi runs strong in Benghazi and other Libyan cities. This is from people not associated with Al Qaeda or with Islamists. What I abhor the most has been the use of landmines and cluster bombs, as well as the shelling of Misrata harbour and the shelling of Zintan (close to the Tunisian border) in the west of Libya. Also, I abhor the use of rape as a tactic against the people.

When the action started Gadhafi tried to use propaganda as a means of splitting the coalition, especially the Arab nations. Immediately the action started the Russians and Chinese (close associates of Gadhafi) started condemning the NATO action based upon the propaganda that came out of Tripoli. Whilst it is true that there have been a few deaths, the numbers given by Tripoli have been a lie. Even the alleged death of Gadhafi’s son has not been verified. No one actually saw the face of the man in the burial shroud. Russia and China have been relentless in their opposition and it is only when you realize that they have been continuing to do business with Gadhafi does it make sense. On the other hand, Italy who was slow to get involved did the 180 degree turn and now fully supports the action. I wonder what took place when the deputy foreign minister went to Italy and Greece, because both nations turned their backs on Libya.  The other supporters of Gadhafi are Venezuela, Cuba and Bolivia. Drum roll please… look at all of the countries who are supporting this piece of human garbage.

At this point, I will say that it is probable that amongst the fighters in Libya there are some who have been supporters of Al Qaeda, and who had even worked as mercenaries in Iraq. The fact of being a mercenary does not mean commitment to the cause. In this situation what trumps Al Qaeda is the need to protect one’s family from Gadhafi. Of the 100 or so  know Al Qaeda members in Libya (the ones released by Gadhafi shortly before the protests began), none of them hold a leadership role in the National Transitional Council, although some have been on the front near Brega fighting against Daffy goons. For all we know, several of them have been killed in action. Some expressing “God is greatest” before being pumped with bullets by Daffy goons is making a statement that requires context.

One of the stories that I spotted was that of a witness report about a doctor killed by Daffy goons. The doctor had been in an ambulance that had been ambushed. The Daffy goons had wounded him, and as he lay on the ground, they demanded that he give allegiance to Gadhafi, instead he declared “God is greatest”. The context here is that this man swore allegiance to God and would not give any form of allegiance to a temporal dictator. I view this scenario in the same way that I view the attitude of early Christians who were killed because they refused to sacrifice to the Roman emperor. It was the same inherent statement. On the other hand, someone who rushes at the door of the cockpit of an aircraft shouting “alluha akhbar” is having a fit of sudden jihad syndrome. It is the type of scenario that we should fear because such a person has the intention to murder.

Regardless, Østupid had no right to commit the USA to being involved without first taking the situation to Congress, and getting Congressional approval. The fact that he has not done so means that he is very close to having committed an impeachable offense according to your constitution – under high crimes and misdemeanours. Slick Willy was impeached because he committed perjury, but the Senate failed to follow through with the next step in the process.  Therefore, the question that is being raised is: why haven’t the left been baying for Østupid’s blood over his deliberate actions relating to Libya?

FYI the codename used by Scotland Yard for protecting Østupid in Punjabi means “smartass” .

The DNC watches Fox and Friends…. and discovers Herman Cain

I just spotted this item at the Daily Caller. Up until now the DNC has been ignoring Herman Cain and have been attacking the boring Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman (the real non-starters in the Presidential race). However, Herman Cain turned up on Fox and Friends supporting Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan. The attacks are now starting. I guess they discovered Herman Cain.

Some members of the UK press are awake

I just found some reports via Gateway Pundit regarding Barry and Moo’s expensive  adventure in the UK. These particular reports were not very flattering to Barry. Nile Gardner is known for not being a fan of Barry, and his report spells it out in great detail :):

President Obama has finally left for France and the G8 after two intense days of meetings, dinners, speeches and ping pong in London. I doubt that many Americans were watching Barack Obama’s press conference with David Cameron yesterday but those who did (it was shown live on CNN) would have been disappointed with their president’s performance. To say that he was outclassed by his British counterpart would be an understatement – the president floundered in the face of some straightforward questions and evaded others altogether.

Obama rarely performs well without a script, and this was no exception. The president greatly prefers big set piece speeches, like the one he delivered later in Westminster Hall, carefully choreographed, without annoying questions from the media. While Cameron clearly relishes these more combative occasions, Obama shies away from them. And you can see why. His response to a question on the budget deficit, for example, was painfully poor, offering no solutions at all to the biggest problem facing the United States today.

If Paul Ryan, the charismatic chairman of the House Budget Committee, had been asked the same question, he would have knocked it out of the park, as would have lead Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney. The economy is Obama’s Achilles heel in the November 2012 election, and his woeful answers only reinforced the image of a president way out of his depth on economic matters.

And there is also this comment:

The lack of clarity in this Downing Street press conference was symbolic, I think, of a broader disarray in the Obama presidency’s foreign and economic policy. A great deal of Barack Obama’s leadership on the world stage has been muddled and uninspired, from the global financial crisis to the Middle East. This approach does not bode well for the White House in 2012.

Please read the whole article. It is honest, which is something that is missing from LSM in the USA.