Topic: WE'RE STUFFED!!!

[Michael]

Don't watch this.

But if you go against my advise, ask yourself - what happens after death?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yib_sB9Ci58&feature=player_embedded&skipcontrinter=1

[Taimyr]

I would, but it asks to sign in to see it. I don't have an account there and i don't think it would be necessary to make one to see 41 sec clip of death and bodies.

I had a thought the other day, that would it be possible that women in arabic countries would start their own riot one day like what is going on now.

Just recently i saw an awarded photo of some woman whos nose and ears were cut off by her husband. The reason was that the husband was violent and she ran away to her parents.

Don't watch this.

But if you go against my advise, ask yourself - what happens after death?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yib_sB9Ci58&feature=player_embedded&skipcontrinter=1

[Builder]

I would, but it asks to sign in to see it. I don't have an account there and i don't think it would be necessary to make one to see 41 sec clip of death and bodies.

Necessary or not? You decide.
But it is the experience that changes a human, not some rational thought.
Yet it does not mean that you must watch the clip.

[Taimyr]

I doubt this video would change anything in me, i've seen quite alot of videos and pictures of dead bodies. If I was in the middle of all that, then i guess there would be a chance of chaning something in me.

Necessary or not? You decide.
But it is the experience that changes a human, not some rational thought.
Yet it does not mean that you must watch the clip.

[Builder]

Your life, your choice.

[Taimyr]

Death is death, no matter how it happens.

Your life, your choice.

[Builder]

Death is death, no matter how it happens.

I'll have my own view regardless.
You make choices, you live with the consequences, and pay the price. Like everyone does - alone. Accept it and walk with courage.

[Jahn]

Mr Gadaffi seem to be very confused in his speeches and he tells lies. He claim that the riot is kept going by young people getting instructions and drugs from the Al Quida. Now the only guy that look like being on drugs is Mr Khadaffi himself.

The East of Libya is out of control for the old regime and more areas and cities folllows.

Khadaffi is illustrated as a rat on the placards that the demonstrators show.

It is very scary that Ghadaffi use mercenary soldiers from other African states to kill unarmed civilians. I am against war and violence but I hope the people in Libya can protect themselves and get support from the national army toward these killers paid by Ghadaffi.

Well, well, how shall we spell that name?

In Swedish the dictator of Libyien is called "Muammar Khadaffi" but here is some other suggestions:

An article published in the London Evening Standard in 2004 lists a total of 37 spellings of his name, while a 1986 column by The Straight Dope quotes a list of 32 spellings known at the Library of Congress.[167] ABC made a post on its blog identifying 112 possible spellings.[168] This extensive confusion of naming was used as the subject of a segment of Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update on 12 December 1981.[169]

"Muammar Gaddafi" is the spelling used by TIME magazine, BBC News, the majority of the British press and by the English service of Al-Jazeera.[170] The Associated Press, CNN, and Fox News use "Moammar Gadhafi". The Edinburgh Middle East Report uses "Mu'ammar Qaddafi" and the U.S. Department of State uses "Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi", although the White House choses to use "Muammar el-Qaddafi"[171]. The Xinhua News Agency uses "Muammar Khaddafi" in its English reports.[172]The New York Times uses Muammar el-Qaddafi.

In 1986, Gaddafi reportedly responded to a Minnesota school's letter in English using the spelling "Moammar El-Gadhafi".[173] The title of the homepage of algathafi.org reads "Welcome to the official site of Muammar Al Gathafi".[174]

[Builder]

Views of different experts on whether the popular uprisings in the Middle East will be harnessed by Al-Qaeda

[Michael]

Views of different experts on whether the popular uprisings in the Middle East will be harnessed by Al-Qaeda

Seems Al-Qaeda has been bypassed in all this. Peter Bergen, whose recent book The Longest War: American and al-Qaida since 9/11, is one of the foremost experts in this group. He was interviewed and asked if al Qaida is in any way connected to recent events. He said they are out of the loop completely. Their whole premise of change through violence is anathema to the new wave of popular uprising. The al-Qaida model has been rejected.

BTW, in his book, through extensive interviews with al-Qaida members, he states that the 9/11 event was and remains extremely controversial in the movement. There is considerable disagreement about its usefulness to their cause. Not sure if he discusses Jahn argument that they were not involved, but regardless of actual involvement they are were and are involved psychologically - it has been a cornerstone of their recruiting process. He explains that al-Qaida are not a hierarchical structure - they inspire more than control. But he does believe they are highly active and significant in all Islamist terrorism - remove Bin Laden and his top men, he contends, and the whole movement will fade. Not everyone agrees with that.

I'm inclined to think their days are over.

They speak of a third wave in developing nations. The first was post-colonial nationalism. The second was religious politics, which only ever succeeded in Iran. This third wave is really a media-educated middle class who want a say in their country. They are not nationalistic or religious, although they are not giving those things up. They simply want the life that they see other countries living, via the media, and they see themselves as belonging to a global generation.

One of the most telling signs I saw in the Libyan demonstrations, was "Not even Voldemort killed his own people."

But things have now deteriorated in Libya. It appears to have become very nasty, and this is not in anyone's interest except Qaddafi. There is talk of a distinction between civil uprising and civil war. Beats me - looks like civil war from what I see, and the consequences could be highly unpalatable to all neighbouring countries. Despite the risks and problems, I expect US intervention in some effective non-boots-on-the-ground way to be very likely soon. At least a non-fly zone, which is touchy stuff for the US, but who else will do it?

The Libyans prefer Turkey if anyone is to intervene, but I bet Israel would not be too happy.

[Builder]

Bergen has no doubts at all about Al-Qaeda's full responsibility for 9/11, but the issue remains very controversial among alqaedistas as many of them expected the invasion of Afghanistan in response, and that was never in their interest.

Yes, the present uprisings have little to do with these religious fanatics, but there is a nuance - if countries began to dsecend into chaos as Libya seems to be doing - Al-Qaeda will be there to benefit from it. They thrive in chaos and broken societies where old values do not hold and no uniting force exists to establish new ones. The examples are failed/failing states: Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen...and Pakistan. That is what experts fear more than anything.

The uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa have engulfed 10 states with 220 million people. Add Iran and the number will be 295 million. It is as big a social change as was the break down of the socialist order by the end of the Cold War. Nobody can guide or stabilise it from the outside.

North Africa and Middle East supply 36% of world's oil and by 2035 they will supply 43%. These figures make it clear why the US carriers are converging on Libya's coast. However, the African and Arab states strongly resist any external intervention (for now).

[Michael]

I am aware the US and other Realpolitik thinkers fear an Islamicist power grab, although that is distinct from al-Qaeda. I mean it's not just al-Qaeda they fear, but Islamic-States like Iran.

Of course that is possible, but I feel it represents the politic syntax of those who hold that view. Ref the recent interview with Donald Rumsfeld. I don't believe those in power in the US or any other country have yet grasped the nature of what is surfacing in the Middle East. Sure it could get hijacked by an organised religious or military group, but that will only last for a short time. Something significant has shifted in the species socially - a new syntax of meaning and identity.

[Builder]

I am aware the US and other Realpolitik thinkers fear an Islamicist power grab, although that is distinct from al-Qaeda. I mean it's not just al-Qaeda they fear, but Islamic-States like Iran.

Very true, they fear most independently evolving, self-conscious societies (be they Islamic or secular) in resource-rich countries that are immune to external manipulation. That is a worst kind of nightmare for them.

Sure it could get hijacked by an organised religious or military group, but that will only last for a short time. Something significant has shifted in the species socially - a new syntax of meaning and identity.

I respectfully disagree. After the peak of rather materialistic, power-centred and very advanced Roman civilisation we went through the darkness of Christendom and medieval ages that eventually solidified the thought that humans are equal. But developed a power-hungry Roman catholic church that had to be reformed.

After Martin Luther nailed to the church door his 95 theses saying basically that the god is about love and not money- or deed-based merit, we witnessed 150 years of bloodiest (in per capita terms) wars of European history. It was called Reformation.

Nothing less is happening in the Middle East and North Africa now. Temporary hijacking? How about a possibility of centuries of darkness in impoverished environment, natural disasters, shrinking resources and demographic explosion?

I don't quite think that spiritual development of mankind necessarily walks hand in hand with the improvements of its material well-being.

[Michael]

How about a possibility of centuries of darkness in impoverished environment

There are significantly different factors at work. The things which caused the dark ages are not the current things which are influencing events. The communications revolution has changed that, and until the communications collapse, there will not be an end to public demands to political participation.

natural disasters, shrinking resources and demographic explosion

This is a very different matter. The current third wave is dependant upon stability in these areas, and unfortunately that seems unlikely. But when assessing current changes, it is not useful to draw in every contingent. What is happening, happens within a bubble of expectations. It has to be a limited assessment, and on that basis, I can't see the middle ages argument being relevant.

However, once we step outside the parameters of current conditions, and include the approaching tsunamis you mention, then the whole board game is thrown in the air. It's not just the Middle East which will be scrambling for survival. That is a whole new construct and discussion.

But as far as the current political troubles are concerned, the 'Catholic Church and Galileo' or the 'Dark Ages' arguments which are being proffered, are, I sense, inappropriate to our times.

One of the world's wealthiest men who happens to be one of the king's princely relatives, Al-Waleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, could not have been more blunt in filial advice that he conveyed from the opinion page of The New York Times.

"Arab governments can no longer afford to take their populations for granted, or to assume that they will remain static and subdued," he writes. "Nor can the soothing instruments of yesteryear, which were meant to appease, serve any longer as substitutes for meaningful reform. The winds of change are blowing across our region with force and it would be folly to suppose that they will soon dissipate."

The research director at the Brookings Doha Centre, Shadi Hamid, suggested Riyadh was beyond learning - "the regime is learning all the wrong lessons from Egypt and Tunisia - the unrest in the region is not fundamentally economic, it's fundamentally about politics.

"Arabs are looking for freedom, dignity and democracy … we're seeing a lack of vision on the part of the Saudi leaders right now - they are trying to bribe the people into quietude. Its cynical, predictable and it's not necessarily going to work."

Kingdom adrift in a sea of revolution

Next Friday has been billed as a 'day of rage' across Saudi Arabia.

[Jahn]

Sure it could get hijacked by an organised religious or military group, but that will only last for a short time. Something significant has shifted in the species socially - a new syntax of meaning and identity.

I agree.

I heard an Egyptian man saying, "They do now what we should had done 20 years ago!".