a thread about the civil unrest in egypt (& elsewhere in 'the region' if necessary)

but then humanity basically never changes, eh

i want to live in a wooden house

then making friends would be easy.

Looks like a Guardian journalist and another one from a Brazilian newspaper have disappeared in Libya.

people who live in wooden houses shouldn't throw stones

cause they bounce off the walls and come back at u

shit is dangerous

it's a cold game to play

xxp it's been confirmed that they've been arrested, i think. brazilian officials have supposedly been told that their man will be released. but nothing yet on ghaith abdul-ahad.

what's french for 'recognize'?

lol that jeremy paxman dude was getting so frustrated, love it

SO WHAT SHOULD WE BE DOING?? NOTHING!?

lol this is great just for this british dude's incredulous reactions

"we know how you regard bush's and blair's records in the middle east. do you believe obama's no better?"
"well in many ways he's worse"
*spits out tea*

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/world/europe/11france.html?_r=1&hp

France Becomes First Country to Recognize Libyan Rebels
By ALAN COWELL and STEVEN ERLANGER
Published: March 10, 2011

PARIS — Moving ahead of its allies, France on Thursday became the first country to recognize Libya’s rebel leadership in the eastern city of Benghazi and said it would soon exchange ambassadors with the insurgents.

The move was a victory for the Libyan National Council in its quest for recognition and a setback for Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi who has been seeking whatever international support he can as NATO members in Brussels began a debate about the possible imposition of a no-flight zone over Libya.

The French announcement came as loyalist forces in Libya claimed new successes against the rebels west of the capital in the town of Zawiyah, while, to the east, loyalist forces renewed ferocious assaults on the key oil town of Ras Lanuf.

President Nicolas Sarkozy met in Paris on Thursday with Mahmoud Jibril and Ali Al-Esawi, representatives of the Libyan National Council that was set up after the uprising in Libya erupted in February. He was the first head of state to meet with insurgent leaders.

Soon afterward, a French announcement said France recognized the council as the sole legitimate representative of the Libyan people. News reports said that, in response, Libya would break diplomatic relations with France.

Um, isn't that the point? That's the very definition of an empty threat.

Saudi Police open fire at protest.

Fill your tanks.
Buy Canadian oil sands etc.
Fasten your seat belts.

ugh.

Saw them adding another 10c a gallon to gas prices at lunch today.

Coptic Christians were protesting an attack by a group of Muslims on a church in Atfeeh, Helwan, south of Cairo, earlier this week and what they said was a delay in rebuilding the church. The conflict was sparked by a romantic relationship between a Coptic man and a Muslim woman.

Some observers fear that Egypt’s notorious State Security may have instigated the recent wave of sectarian strife in order to distract protesters who are demanding that State Security be dismantled.

In a statement released Tuesday, the Muslim Brotherhood accused the remaining members of the ousted regime of attempting to ignite sectarian tensions to destroy national unity. from the NY Times

Ok Morbs, Egypt is not a perfect democracy yet.

One week after President Obama demanded that Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi cede power in Libya, the president’s top intelligence official predicted on Thursday, “over the longer term, that the regime will prevail” in Libya’s civil war, an assessment that cast significant doubt on efforts so far by the NATO allies to drive him from power.

James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee that Colonel Qaddafi has a potentially decisive advantage in arms and equipment that would make itself felt as the conflict wore on.

The statements by Mr. Clapper, a retired Air Force general who oversees America’s 16 intelligence services, could limit the Obama administration’s options.

No suggestions from Clapper on how to get arms and equipment to rebels? I guess that would be risky for our troops, and the rebels might still lose, is his thinking (shared by other Pentagon realists and by left-wing isolationists alike).

This opening line from Pilger's latest column threw me. "As the US and Britain look for an excuse to invade another oil-rich Arab country, the hypocrisy is familiar." I'd say they were looking for an excuse not to. Does anyone in power in the US or UK - as opposed to neocon pundits - actually relish intervention?

http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2011/03/pilger-assange-sweden

yeah i was pretty shocked to see pilger writing complete horseshit

i don't know about 'relish' but i think there are people who are not neocons who favour helping the rebels

like philippe sands and ming-campbell, both 'staunch anti-iraq war' people, who say the rebels need help

not from the_west of course, but from the african union or arab league

neither of which is being particular vocal about the need for gadaffi to go

where to even start with that pilger article? also what, people still hold julian assange up as a hero?

i'm also completely unimpressed with the hampstead mansion "occupation". maybe try some meaningful targets instead of empty figureheads, professional activists.

TBH I posted the link to bitch about its transcendent wrongness, not because I was surprised. The whole piece is nonsense but something about applying the tired old "blood for oil" narrative to such a confused situation, with the pro and anti intervention camps ranging from right to left, boiled my piss.

Does anyone in power in the US or UK - as opposed to neocon pundits - actually relish intervention?

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

tbh i didn't read beyond the bit about tom paine, though i posted it to the wikileaks thread coz it was something someone in 'community' said as a joke

you don't really go to the NS for original thinking

xpost

oh good point louis, whatever it is

I have reëvaluated all commentators as 'entertainment', rather than 'news' or 'politics', and it makes stuff like that much easier to take. Basically form ideas first, then read Pilger/Aaronovitch for amusement or ignore entirely, according to taste. They're just whimsy.

Granted, some are useful for telling you interesting facts, but Pilger is probably not in that category.

oh, that was me stirring. of course america is looking to invade. invasion is usually financial rather than military.

could you expand?

Oh FFS Louis.

*nods sagely*

sorry, not really very balanced or rational atm, we have the fucken sea heading towards us at jet speed

reëvaluated

diaeresis <3

Where are you, LJ?

new zealand. so we're not gonna cop it bad. but plenty are. anyway, i'll stfu about this but it'll be interesting to see how the libyan and egyptian economies rebuild

I actually have no idea what to think re: intervention right now. At the moment, I'm leaning towards "let the rebels deal with it". If Gaddafi's seriously gaining the upper hand and the consequences are likely to be so brutal for those on the losing side then I'm not so sure. Anyone who claims to have a fixed position on this is kidding themselves.

otm. i brought up a no-fly zone on this thread ages ago, or so it feels, but im not sure exactly what i think. louis is kind of right that these countries are at risk of being drawn into the evil western banking system via the shock doctrine. but that's on the cards even without intervention.

i think what france has done is the story to follow. what happens if help is formally requested by what is now recognized by a pretty big regional player as the legitimate government? don't mention the mirage jets.

louis is kind of right that these countries are at risk of being drawn into the evil western banking system via the shock doctrine.

well yeah, except that Libya was already in the international economy and happily selling oil to the west. So I don't really see the relevance of this made-up shock doctrine in this case.

The Libyan rebels are surely happy to carry on selling oil to the_west, it's that the oil money is being squandered by a tiny handful of Gaddafi stooges.

How is Libya's oil production doing at the moment? Are we still buying Libyan oil? Will we continue to do so whatever happens? A war so devasting that it takes out Libya's main source of income is not really in anyone's best interests, unless they're insane.

Doesn't mean it won't happen obviously.

If the frontline stabilises, I could imagine Gaddafi using his jets to take out the oil infrastructure in the rebel held parts of the country.

How is Libya's oil production doing at the moment? Are we still buying Libyan oil? Will we continue to do so whatever happens? A war so devasting that it takes out Libya's main source of income is not really in anyone's best interests, unless they're insane.

― Matt DC, Friday, March 11, 2011 12:28 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark

yeah, and beyond that, who is BP's contract with? the libyan government? once that's de-recognized then...

also surely a bunch of the oilmen have been airlifted out?

I could be wrong, but I think the way the oil market is structured it wouldn't be that easy for "us" to stop buying Libyan oil, because all oil just kind of makes its way onto the open market and goes through several intermediaries before it becomes gasoline at your service station or whatever.

Horrified (but not surprised) at stories that Libyan loyalists have been "cleaning up" battle scenes before letting the press in. Also, locking down hospitals to prevent reporters (whose equipment is being confiscated) from reporting on casualties. And burying bodies.

I'm no expert Hurting 2 but from what I've read Italy is the only western country heavily dependent on Libyan oil.

I think Libya is pretty low on the list of producers, but apparently Libyan oil is a lot easier to refine, which makes it appealing to the usual suspects.

Qaddafi is a better bet for American imperialism than any of the alternatives, don't look for too much heavy lifting from Washington.

if washington did do some heavy lifting you'd be calling that imperialism too

win-win

well, it's what imperialists do; plz tell me who else is running this sorry excuse for a country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/world/africa/12libya.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all

Only days ago, rebels were boldly promising to march on Surt, Colonel Qaddafi’s hometown, then on to Tripoli, where opposition leaders predicted its residents would rise up. But the week has witnessed a series of setbacks, with a punishing government assault on Zawiyah, near the capital, and a reversal of fortunes in towns near Ras Lanuf, whose refinery makes it a strategic economic prize in a country blessed with vast oil reserves.

There was a growing sense among the opposition, echoed by leaders in opposition-held Benghazi and rebels on the front, that they could not single-handedly defeat Colonel Qaddafi’s forces.

“We can’t prevail unless there’s a no-fly zone,” said Anis Mabrouk, a 35-year-old fighter. “Give us the cover, and we’ll go all the way to Tripoli and kill him.”

That seemed unlikely, though. Even without warplanes, Colonel Qaddafi’s government could still marshal far superior tanks, armor and artillery, along with the finances and organization to prosecute a counteroffensive. Given the disarray, some rebels took pride in their success in holding the lines at Ras Lanuf as long as they had. Soviet-made warplanes struck Brega, more than 100 miles from the front line on the road that resupplies the rebels, as well as several spots on the way to Ras Lanuf.

Andrew Exum thinks out loud:

http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2011/03/order-battle.html

It seems to me to be both important and worth noting that if the United States and its allies are to intervene in Libya, simply enforcing a no-fly zone will not be sufficient enough to alter the balance of power in favor of the rebels. (Assuming that this is something in the national interest to do in the first place.) Just going off of field reports as well as a rough order of battle, it seems likely that it would take a more aggressive military intervention to really alter the balance in Libya.* Are the United States and its allies willing to do such a thing? Would that be in our interests?

The cautious steps, at an emergency European Union summit, represented a setback for President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, who had pushed for a bold stand that would put Europe more actively on the rebel side and encourage its ragtag fighters as they seek to beat back advancing counterattacks by Gaddafi's military.

To some extent, Sarkozy was joined by Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain in demanding a muscular stand and support for military preparedness. The two leaders had sent a letter to their E.U. colleagues Thursday appealing for a "clear political signal" from the summit. What emerged with the most clarity, however, was that a majority of the 27-nation European group, although sympathetic to the rebellion, was uncertain what steps to take to help the fight against Gaddafi

Washington Post