Archive for September, 2011

“Protected Witness” Killed in Germany

An Albanian wanted to tell what he knew about KLA crimes during the “just war” but suprise, surprise, he did not live long enough. That Germany armed and trained KLA and his testimony would not be “helpful” to the government must be considered as well as a fact that witnessess against KLA “freedom fighters” have been killed before and perpetrators were not found either.

Very convenient. And how shocking!


Turkey is sheltering known Chechen terrorists which on its own is an act of war and Russia has a full right to attack Turkey. That of course would be even more mess than if Turkey attacked Israel.

Instead, Russia is sending executioners to do the “surgical” jobs in the “outhouse”. (Bush would love my language if he read this!)

In Libya, Sirte, NATO is pulverizing the city as much as it can to “protect civilians”. Still not enough and “rebels” cannot win. But civilians are starving. NATO and rebels are really winning hearts of Sirte people on the road to democracy. But is not democracy when people do not want to be occupied by foreign tribes?

In Serbia, NATO and EU occupational force (called sometimes NATO and sometimes EULEX) is shooting with live amunition at unarmed demonstrators that are throwing rocks in self defense against buldozers. They sure could not shoot at people in EU or US but Serbs are certainly not human and so it is OK. Otherwise, why wouldn’t they meekly accept what the Sultan (or is Obama Cesar?) decides for them?

Former UN Regional Representative in Kosovo, American diplomat Gerard Gallucci has said that the EULEX operations are illegal.

He also added that the northern Kosovo issue could not be solved with military actions.

“The first myth that apparently still needs busting: that there is a military/police solution to the northerners refusal to accept rule by Priština,” he explained.

“In March 2008 this failed and it has failed again. Not even placing a large occupying force on every road and town center can compel people to give up institutions they view as their own and to accept those they find illegitimate. NATO never had the stomach for this but let itself be used by the U.S. to back up Thaci’s politically motivated effort to steal the north. KFOR’s support for Priština’s trade embargo was, and remains, illegal under its UNSCR 1244 mandate. And it has not worked; there remains no solution to the north through use of force,” Gallucci pointed out.

The former UN officials said that the next myth was that criminals were forcing the northern Kosovo Serbs to refuse the benefits of being ruled by the majority-Albanian government in Priština.

“The Serbs have been holding weddings, classes and parties on the barricades. They have been peaceful but insistent. They blocked the northern Gates while building a new boundary along the Ibar River on main roads crossing the line to the majority-Albanian south. But the “hoodlum” myth remains dangerous as even now Thaci is using it to justify his call to impose a Kosovo court in north Mitrovica. Hopefully, KFOR and EULEX will not rise to this provocation,” he noted.

“The next busted myth is that EULEX is acting legally in seeking to impose Kosovo customs in the north. It claims that treating Kosovo as one customs zone and the agreement on customs stamps agreed to early this month means it can support establishment of Kosovo customs in the north and collection of fees to be sent to Priština,” Gallucci continues.

“Some argue that EULEX’s mandate includes helping develop the Kosovo state. But the UN passed EULEX responsibility for rule of law in November 2008 with the condition it be status neutral. Whatever customs regime might be established, it would have to meet that condition. Imposing Kosovo customs and officials and collecting funds for Priština clearly would not,” the U.S. diplomat underscored.

“And any agreement on customs stamps between Belgrade and Priština does not ipso facto allow EULEX to apply it where Belgrade and the local Serbs refuse to accept it,” he added.

According to Gallucci, the final myth is that the Quint and Priština’s “effort to seize the north is legal as it enforces a Kosovo state and constitution that the ICJ found legal and that Serbian ‘parallel’ institutions are illegal under UNSCR 1244”.

“The ICJ never said that the Kosovo declaration of independence or state were ‘legal.’ It said that there was nothing in international law on the subject and noted that the Priština UDI was made outside the ambit of UNMIK. The ICJ did reaffirm the continued legality of UNMIK. One could argue that Kosovo independence and institutions are a fact – they are – but not that they were found legal by the ICJ. Under international law, UNMIK remains the official administrative authority for Kosovo. Any other institutions are therefore parallel to it. But in the north, the local institutions fly under the UN flag, south of the Ibar River they don’t. Some are therefore more ‘parallel’ than others,” the former UN official pointed out.

He believes that the situation in northern Kosovo “may have stabilized, at a point not quite back to July 25 but substantially much the same.”

“It can be said that the Quint/Thaci effort to change the situation on the ground in the north by bringing the Serbs to accept rule from Priština has failed. While the local Serbs have certainly been affected by the moves by KFOR and EULEX to isolate them from Serbia proper and impose Kosovo customs at the northern Gates, their resistance in the form of peaceful protest and barricades has stalled the Quint effort to make them accept the Kosovo state,” Gallucci explained.

“EULEX has not backed away from its plan to impose Kosovo customs at the northern crossings. But as the locals have blocked these, there is nothing for customs officials to do. The Serbs appear able to find ways to cross the boundary quicker than KFOR can close them. KFOR may be tiring of chasing down trucks and providing helicopter service for Gate workers. The new, perhaps more sensible, KFOR commander reportedly is urging a political approach to resolving the current crisis rather than looking for military solutions,” the former UN official concluded.

Now that the international community backed by US decided that Operation Storm was a war crime and awarded Croatian generals who led it long prison terms due to their “command responsibility”, let’s see what happens with MPRI trial in Chicago. As a reminder, MPRI organized and planned Operation Storm as a hired hand of Croatian government.

Quote below:
“On April 15 the Hague Tribunal sentenced Gotovina to 24 and Markač to 18 years in prison for war crimes during the Operation Storm and participation in the joint criminal enterprise aimed at forcibly and permanently expelling the Serbs from the Republic of Serb Krajina.”

As mentioned in another post, MPRI, a US outfit staffed by retired US generals, were in charge of the whole operation as “advisors” and carry as much responsibility.

“A private U.S. defense contractor “trained and equipped the Croatian military for Operation Storm and designed the Operation Storm battle plan,” which killed or displaced more than 200,000 Serbs in 1995, in the largest European land offensive since World War II, the Genocide Victims of Krajina say in Chicago Federal Court. They demand billions of dollars in damages from MPRI, founded by U.S. military officers who were “downsized” at the end of the Cold War, and L-3 Communications, which bought MPRI for $40 million in 2000.”

But don’t hold your breath on seeing them punished. After all, they are Americans in service of the government (which used them as a cover when there was a UN embargo on such help) and they could spill a lot of uncomfortable truth.

Bill Clinton: Netanyahu killed the peace process
Posted By Josh Rogin Thursday, September 22, 2011 – 2:22 PM Share

Who’s to blame for the continued failure of the Middle East peace process? Former President Bill Clinton said today that it is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — whose government moved the goalposts upon taking power, and whose rise represents a key reason there has been no Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.

Clinton, in a roundtable with bloggers today on the sidelines of the Clinton Global Initiative in New York, gave an extensive recounting of the deterioration in the Middle East peace process since he pressed both parties to agree to a final settlement at Camp David in 2000. He said there are two main reasons for the lack of a comprehensive peace today: the reluctance of the Netanyahu administration to accept the terms of the Camp David deal and a demographic shift in Israel that is making the Israeli public less amenable to peace.

“The two great tragedies in modern Middle Eastern politics, which make you wonder if God wants Middle East peace or not, were [Yitzhak] Rabin’s assassination and [Ariel] Sharon’s stroke,” Clinton said.

Sharon had decided he needed to build a new centrist coalition, so he created the Kadima party and gained the support of leaders like Tzipi Livni and Ehud Olmert. He was working toward a consensus for a peace deal before he fell ill, Clinton said. But that effort was scuttled when the Likud party returned to power.

“The Israelis always wanted two things that once it turned out they had, it didn’t seem so appealing to Mr. Netanyahu. They wanted to believe they had a partner for peace in a Palestinian government, and there’s no question — and the Netanyahu government has said — that this is the finest Palestinian government they’ve ever had in the West Bank,” Clinton said.

“[Palestinian leaders] have explicitly said on more than one occasion that if [Netanyahu] put up the deal that was offered to them before — my deal — that they would take it,” Clinton said, referring to the 2000 Camp David deal that Yasser Arafat rejected.

But the Israeli government has drifted a long way from the Ehud Barak-led government that came so close to peace in 2000, Clinton said, and any new negotiations with the Netanyahu government are now on starkly different terms — terms that the Palestinians are unlikely to accept.

“For reasons that even after all these years I still don’t know for sure, Arafat turned down the deal I put together that Barak accepted,” he said. “But they also had an Israeli government that was willing to give them East Jerusalem as the capital of the new state of Palestine.”

Israel also wants a normalization of relations with its Arab neighbors to accompany a peace deal. Clinton said that the Saudi-inspired Arab Peace Initiative put forth in 2002 represented an answer to that Israeli demand.

“The King of Saudi Arabia started lining up all the Arab countries to say to the Israelis, ‘if you work it out with the Palestinians … we will give you immediately not only recognition but a political, economic, and security partnership,'” Clinton said. “This is huge…. It’s a heck of a deal.”

The Netanyahu government has received all of the assurances previous Israeli governments said they wanted but now won’t accept those terms to make peace, Clinton said.

“Now that they have those things, they don’t seem so important to this current Israeli government, partly because it’s a different country,” said Clinton. “In the interim, you’ve had all these immigrants coming in from the former Soviet Union, and they have no history in Israel proper, so the traditional claims of the Palestinians have less weight with them.”

Clinton then repeated his assertions made at last year’s conference that Israeli society can be divided into demographic groups that have various levels of enthusiasm for making peace.

“The most pro-peace Israelis are the Arabs; second the Sabras, the Jewish Israelis that were born there; third, the Ashkenazi of long-standing, the European Jews who came there around the time of Israel’s founding,” Clinton said. “The most anti-peace are the ultra-religious, who believe they’re supposed to keep Judea and Samaria, and the settler groups, and what you might call the territorialists, the people who just showed up lately and they’re not encumbered by the historical record.”

Clinton affirmed that the United States should veto the Palestinian resolution at the U.N. Security Council for member-state status, because the Israelis need security guarantees before agreeing to the creation of a Palestinian state. But the Netanyahu government has moved away from the consensus for peace, making a final status agreement more difficult, Clinton said.

“That’s what happened. Every American needs to know this. That’s how we got to where we are,” Clinton said. “The real cynics believe that the Netanyahu’s government’s continued call for negotiations over borders and such means that he’s just not going to give up the West Bank.”

During the George W. Bush years, when I would ask my fellow conservatives why a Republican president was spending like a Democrat, they would often tell me: “Well, we are fighting two wars.”

Lately, those in both parties who continue to advocate fighting two, three or more wars, have tried to cook-the-books by saying that national security spending doesn’t really cost that much when compared to the gross domestic product. Sure, our government might be broke, but our foreign policy and related policies have nothing to do with it, they tell us.

Admittedly, math has never been my forte, but even I’m not this stupid.

Today at The Daily Caller, constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein sets straight those who make this absurd argument:

With the same confidence President Bush had in Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, (The Daily Caller Senior Editor)Jamie Weinstein has asserted that the nation’s bloated defense budget is not fueling the deficit crisis. With similar confidence, Weinstein also seems to believe that Ron Paul’s foreign policy arguments are “fallacious.”

Let us examine some of the assertions that Weinstein made in his recent Daily Caller op-ed, “Ron Paul’s foreign policy fallacies.”

On the national security budget, I will trust the judgment of readers. Below are some figures from President Obama’s 2012 official budget request.

The baseline request for the Department of Defense (DOD) is $558 billion. The supplemental request to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is $118 billion. The request for the Department of Energy’s development and housing of nuclear weapons is $19.3 billion. DOD has $7.8 billion requested for “Miscellaneous.” The State Department requests $8.7 billion for counterterrorism programs. An additional $71.6 billion is requested for homeland security counterterrorism, including $18.1 billion for DOD and $53.5 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services. National Intelligence Programs are budgeted for $53.1 billion. The Department of Veterans Affairs requests $129.3 billion to treat wounded veterans, a figure that is climbing exponentially as soldiers return from Iraq and Afghanistan with mental and emotional traumas.

The foreign affairs budget, including both its military and counterterrorism components, is $18 billion. Payments to military and DOD civilian retirees are budgeted at $68.5 billion. Interest on the national debt attributed to past borrowing to fund the Pentagon is $185 billion.

This brings the national security budget of the United States for FY 2012 to a staggering total exceeding $1.2 trillion, or approximately one-third of the entire budget and almost 100 percent of the projected budget deficit.

If the nation embraced the founding fathers’ creed of “Millions for defense, but not one cent for empire,” the national security budget could be slashed by 75% to $300 billion annually without impairing the safety of the United States from foreign attack. It would still leave America with the largest defense budget in the world…

For Syria’s minorities, Assad is security

In order for minority groups, including Alawis, to join Syria’s uprising, they need assurance of post-Assad protection.
Majid Rafizadeh Last Modified: 16 Sep 2011 16:10

Alawites are Syria’s largest religious minority followed by the Christian, Druze, and Jewish communities [GALLO/GETTY]

When I asked a Greek-Orthodox Christian Syrian man in Bab-Toma, Damascus, if he agreed with Assad’s socio-political policies he responded that he did not support Assad’s oppressive security apparatus, but under his rule he and his family were able to freely attend church mass each Sunday and celebrate Christian holidays like Christmas each year. He followed up by saying that he had no assurance that any other sect in Syria would protect the Syrian-Christian community.

In Syria there exists a diverse set of communities strongly bonded by language, region, religion, and ethnicity. The Sykes-Picot Agreement, the secret deal reached between the colonial British and French during World War I, partitioned the Middle East based on British and French interests rather than the interests of those living in Syria.

The result of the arbitrary divisions made the newly formed Syrian nation a highly ethnically and religiously diverse society – without establishing the governing institutions to harmoniously facilitate such a society. This arrangement led to decades of civil war and coup d’états in Syria until the iron-fisted Assad regime rose to power.

Comprising Muslims, Christians, Alawis, Druze and Ishmaelites, in no other country in the Middle East, except for Lebanon, do such a multiplicity of religious and ethnic groups co-exist. The Alawis or Nusayris, who number about 2,400,000, constitute Syria’s largest religious minority.

They mainly live along the coast in Al Ladhiqiyah province, where they form more than 40 per cent of the rural population (the provincial capital, Latakia, itself is largely Sunni).

The second largest minority are the Christians. Christian communities of Syria, which comprise about 10 per cent of the population, hail from both the Roman-Catholic and Protestant traditions. With the exception of the Armenians, most Christians in Syria are ethnically Arab. Syrian Christians are generally urbanites; many live either in or around Damascus, Aleppo, Hama, or Latakia. In general, they are more urbanised than Muslims and they are in relatively higher income brackets.

The Druze community constitutes five per cent of the population, making them the country’s third largest religious minority. The overwhelming majority of Druze reside in Jabal al Arab, a rugged and mountainous region in southwestern Syria.

Additionally, Syria has a very small Arabic-speaking Jewish community, as well as Yazidis who primarily live in the Jazirah and in Aleppo.

After Syria gained independence in 1946, the various sects and groups living in the region (specifically in Damascus, Aleppo, Homs, Hama, Sweida and Latakia) attempted to gain power to protect their economic and legal rights. Sunni Aleppines competed for dominance with Sunni Damascenes in commercial and political life. The Druze remained solely loyal to the Druze, the Kurds to the Kurds, and tribal peoples to tribal institutions.

Alawis, the largest minority group, rebelled against Sunni-Muslim control.

In the 1970s, there existed ten different cabinets with several coups and countercoups with four different constitutions. Syrian minorities were constantly insecure and frequently subjected to prosecution. The short-lived, pre-Assad regimes were mostly Sunni dominated and there was no considerable governmental protection provided to the Druze, Christian, Shias, Jews, and Alawites.

In Syria, the Paris mandatory administration imposed a confessional system of parliamentary representation similar to that in Beirut, in which specific number of seats were allocated to Sunnis, Christians, Kurds, Druzes, Alawis, Circassians, Turkomans, and Jews. These ethnic and religious groups were guaranteed around 25 per cent of the parliament’s 142 seats.

Minority groups also protested what they believed to be an infringement on their legal and political rights. In 1950, they successfully prevented efforts by the Sunni Muslim president to declare Islam the official state religion of Syria. However, a 1953 bill finally abolished the communal system of parliamentary representation introduced by the French. Additionally, subsequent legislation eliminated separate jurisdictional rights in matters of personal and legal status which the French granted to certain minority groups during the French Mandate.

Successive Syrian administrations, including those of the Amin al-Hafez, Shokri al-Ghowatli and Shishkali governments, have attempted to create a unified Syrian national identity by eliminating the centrifugal effects of sectarianism. Despite these efforts, Syria’s post-independence history was replete with conflict between minority groups and the central government – until President Hafiz al-Assad came to power.

To protect his sect, Assad implemented laws and policies to secure all minorities from the rule of any religious-majority ideology. The Ba’ath party heavily opposed any inclusion of religion in matters of state. This policy against the rule-of-majority ideology culminated in the bloody 1982 massacre which aimed at eliminating the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood, a movement strongly opposed to Assad’s radically secular and socialist regime.

The secular socialism of the ruling Ba’ath (Arab Socialist Resurrection) Party de-emphasised Islam as a component of Syrian and Arab nationalism. However, Ba’ath ideology prescribed that non-Muslims respect Islam as their “national culture”.

In general, the Alawite communities in Latakia and Damascus, aside from the Alawite army, hold an important key to change. However, the Alawites will need assurance that their communities will be secure if they are to join forces with Sunni Muslim activists opposing the Assad regime.

Alawite religious and community leaders have attempted to reach out to Sunni religious figures – including leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood – in the past few months, to obtain assurances that their security and well-being will be protected in a post-Assad era.

It is crucial that the Sunni opposition offer such promises, which would encourage the Alawites to join the revolt en masse.

If the Sunni majority is be able to reassure the Alawites and the other minorities – who believe they need the regime’s protection – that they will not be subjected to acts of vengeance after Assad, their participation could significantly strengthen the revolution.

Serbs Given Go-Ahead by U.S. Court to Sue Defense Contractors over Genocide

Wednesday, August 18, 2010Last Update: 10:28 AM PT
U.S. Mercenaries Accused of Abetting Genocide
(CN) – A private U.S. defense contractor “trained and equipped the Croatian military for Operation Storm and designed the Operation Storm battle plan,” which killed or displaced more than 200,000 Serbs in 1995, in the largest European land offensive since World War II, the Genocide Victims of Krajina say in Chicago Federal Court. They demand billions of dollars in damages from MPRI, founded by U.S. military officers who were “downsized” at the end of the Cold War, and L-3 Communications, which bought MPRI for $40 million in 2000.
“This is a class action brought by ethnic Serbs who resided in the Krajina region of Croatia up to August 1995 and who then became victims of the Croatian military assault known as Operation Storm – an aggressive, systematic military attack and bombardment on a demilitarized civilian population that had been placed under the protection of the United Nations,” the 40-page complaint begins.
“Operation Storm was designed to kill or forcibly expel the ethnic Serbian residents of the Krajina region from Croatian territory, just because they were a minority religio-ethnic group. Defendant MPRI, a private military contractor subsequently acquired by Defendant L-3 Communications Inc., trained and equipped the Croatian military for Operation Storm and designed the Operation Storm battle plan. Operation Storm became the largest land offensive in Europe since World War II and resulted in the murder and inhumane treatment of thousands of ethnic Serbs, the forced displacement of approximately 200,000 ethnic Serbs from their ancestral homes in Croatian territory, and the pillaging and destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Serbian-owned property. The victims of Operation Storm and their heirs and next of kin herein claim that Defendants were complicit in genocide.”
Two named plaintiffs, Milena Jovic and Zivka Mijic, describe what they suffered in the offensive.
Jovic says that as she and her husband and children fled the bombardment of Knin, on Aug. 4, 1995, “they saw dozens of bodies scattered throughout the streets and roads leading out of Knin and houses and buildings burning as a result of shelling with incendiary explosives. … While driving through the Lika area in the Krajina region, the Jovic’s refugee column was shelled by artillery, and bombed and strafed by Croatian military aircraft. People were wounded and dying all around them.”
They escaped to Serbia, where they still live.
Mijic, who suffered the same attack, say she and her family was a neighbor “decapitated when struck by an artillery projectile … and many other attacks by Croatian forces resulting in refugees being wounded and killed in their exodus from the Krajina.”
They lived in a refugee camp in Kosovo, and were granted residency in the United States in July 2000.
They claim, for the class, the MPRI and L3 knew, or should have known, when they sought work as mercenaries in the former Yugoslavia, of the atrocities and war crimes that Croatians had committed against Serbs in World War II concentration camps, and in widely reported statements from Croatian officials, including its president, in the 1980s, as the violence in the former Yugoslavia intensified.
The United Nations in 1991 set up four protected areas – two of them in Krajina – to protect Croatian civilians from the Serbs. “The concern thus evidenced by the Security Council for the Serbian inhabitants of Krajina is objective proof of the imminence of hostilities coming from Croatia. This fact was known or reasonably should have been known to MPRI,” according to the complaint.
“By October 1994, the accelerating campaign in Croatia to kill or oust all the Serbs in that country had focused intently upon the 200,000 Serbs living in the Krajina region. There was pressure on the Croatian Army to get rid of these people. But the Army could not figure out any way to do so. Objectively speaking it was virtually impossible to move or kill 200,000 people,” the complaint states.
The class claims that MPRI got a multimillion-dollar contract from Croatia in or about October 1994. Among MPRI’s duties were to “procure through its contacts heavy
military equipment including artillery batteries and import it into Croatia; [and] arrange for Croatia to receive real-time coded and pictorial information from US reconnaissance satellites over Krajina in order for the data to be used for accuracy targeting in artillery batteries,” the complaint states.
“It was evident that MPRI’s acts, especially including equipping and training military forces, would run counter to UN Security Council Resolution 713. But because MPRI is not a state, it is not legally bound by U.N. resolutions. Thus MPRI could do things that the United States could not do, such as importing weapons into Croatia. …
“There can be no doubt that MPRI knew exactly what Croatia would do with the training and armaments that MPRI was going to provide. During the contract negotiations between MPRI and Croatia in October 1994, Minister Susak specifically told the MPRI representatives: ‘I want to drive the Serbs out of my country.'”
The complaint then describes in detail the planning and execution of Operation Storm, which the victims say was named after the U.S.’ Operation Desert Storm operations against Iraq.
The complaint cites an indictment from the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia at The Hague: “In the course of Operation Storm and the continuing related operations and/or actions, Croatian forces inflicted inhumane acts on Serb civilians and persons taking no part in hostilities, including persons placed hors de combat, causing not only mental abuse, humiliation and anguish (including threats to kill such persons or their families), but also severe physical injury, by shooting, beating, kicking and burning people, including extensive shelling of civilian areas and an aerial attack on fleeing civilians. Family members were often forced to watch while other family members were beaten and abused. Inhumane acts and cruel treatment were especially inflicted on the most vulnerable victims, including elderly women and civilians in hospitals.
“Whether MPRI personnel took part in the genocide is not known and is not alleged here. But what is known definitively is that MPRI provided the means that enabled the genocide to occur. And the well-known history of the Jasenovac massacres should have put MPRI personnel on notice that employing Air-Land Battle Doctrine on a peaceful civilian population would most likely have as its aftermath the murderous ‘mopping up’ operations of the Croatian army as described in the indictment quoted in the preceding two paragraphs.
“During and immediately after Operation Storm, land mines were placed in the areas that had had high-density demographics. The result is that displaced Serbians are afraid to go back to their old neighborhoods that are land-mined. The 1995 genocide is not over. The Statute of Limitations has not yet begun to run due to the presence of the deadly land mines.”
The class seeks damages for complicity in genocide: Damages at $25,000 per capita for 200,000 victims of genocide amount to a total of $5 billion. The equivalent amount in today’s dollars, figured at 15 years at 5 percent interest compounded annually, is $10.4 billion.”
The class’s lead attorney is Anthony D’Amato, with the Northwestern University Law School. Robert Pavich, John Ostojic, and Kevin Rogers, all of Chicago, signed on as co-counsel.

Libya is now set to be a scene of multiple battles. Opportunistic and corrupt pro-western former Gadhafi’s henchmen versus Al-Qaida -alied fundamentalists.

The same fundamentalists that US (Obama), France (Sarkozi) and UK (Cameron) armed, trained, and assisted with air support and on-the-ground special forces to win the civil war. Does it sound like Afghanistan and mujahedeens in 1980s?

Ron Paul calls is a “blowback” – when US does “something” (because “something has to be done”) and the result is much worse than if nothing were done.

Guardian is now catching up to what many people have said in the past few months. A growing rift between the National Transitional Council and local leaders exposes conflicting visions for Libya’s future.

And it is not going to be just 2 groups as they both consist of multiple fractions. In adition to that, the foreign powers are not unified either: France, Italy, UK, US will not necessarily have the same policy towards various groups in Libya. Add to it other Saharan countries and China and it may feel like Somalia was just a kiddie play.

As the kids are told: “Don’t play with a knife, you can cut yourself.”

What kind of democracy is in the West that this kind of ruthless and yet totally incompetent dictators (called presidents or prime ministers) get elected?! Roman Empire again, in its last phase…

The best at the end: “liberated” Libyans are quietly waiting for a moment to rise up against their “liberators”.

“In [‘liberated’] Ajaylat, several people said they were still hoping that Gaddafi could make a comeback and were prepared to fight on his behalf.”

“People want Gaddafi. I can’t deny this,” said a resident named Khaled, 40. “We can’t live under the invasion. Even though they are afraid, in a few days people can fight again — men, women and children.”