Where are all the videos of Gaddafi's fighter jets bombing unarmed protesters? I have looked more than two years all over the internet for those and could not find a SINGLE one. I challenge any of you to find one and prove the government didn't lie us into these wars.
Why would there be videos?
Because there are plenty of videos of Assad bombing Syrian cities. But no one gives a shit about that because Syria hasn't got any oil. Why aren't there any videos of Libyan jets bombing protesters in the street? Let me tell you something, I was born near Libya and have many friends there who were initially very happy with the toppling of Mubarak in Egypt. Then shit went down in Libya and some still supported Gaddafi, others wanted him gone. When we started to hear the first news reports about Libyan fighter jets bombing protesters in eastern Libya chills went down my spine and I called a friend of mine who lives in Tobruk. He assured me he was alright and the bombing rumor was false, spread by rebels so they could garner outside support. He himself was ok with it since he was anti-Gaddafi and if you don't believe me I can show you blogs of Libyans who are anti-Gaddafi and attest to the same thing: that the bombings never happened. Only some munition depots in army bases outside the cities were bombed at some stage, to prevent the insurgents from gaining access to weapons.
The main reason we got into that war was exactly this reason, to prevent the so-called bombing of unarmed civiilans. Just like we got into the Iraq war for so-called WMD's
I believe the Boston bombings were carried out by two individuals who were corrputed by radical Islamist ideas and hatemongering. I never outright blamed the government for this, but the reason people develop a sceptical attitude towards the US government is because they have already lied to us before.
Who Juan Cole the same guy who calls the ultra-oppressive Iranian theocracy "an indigenous democratic institution" ? He's an apologist for Islamic radicalism. Not exactly the best source on Middle Eastern affairs.
Who Juan Cole the same guy who calls the ultra-oppressive Iranian theocracy "an indigenous democratic institution" ? He's an apologist for Islamic radicalism. Not exactly the best source on Middle Eastern affairs.
But the guy who thinks Maggie Thatcher never pooped is?
Who Juan Cole the same guy who calls the ultra-oppressive Iranian theocracy "an indigenous democratic institution" ? He's an apologist for Islamic radicalism. Not exactly the best source on Middle Eastern affairs.
But the guy who thinks Maggie Thatcher never pooped is?
I was born in the region and my Libyan friends told me the bombings in their cities never happened. Are you calling my friends liars?
If it was not for them I would have probably gone along with the official media narrative too.
Don't you think the media would have showed videos of the bombings already if they had really happened?
Who Juan Cole the same guy who calls the ultra-oppressive Iranian theocracy "an indigenous democratic institution" ? He's an apologist for Islamic radicalism. Not exactly the best source on Middle Eastern affairs.
But the guy who thinks Maggie Thatcher never pooped is?
I was born in the region and my Libyan friends told me the bombings in their cities never happened. Are you calling my friends liars?
If it was not for them I would have probably gone along with the official media narrative too.
Don't you think the media would have showed videos of the bombings already if they had really happened?
Who gives a Thatcher shit where you were born?
And I like how your friend in Tobruk has now magically turned into "friends."
Yes my friend Adnan and his friends. This is the 2010s, I've spoke with the others on twitter and they all conformed it was a lie. You and your lot know nothing about the region except when you come to destroy it, pillage its resources and support radical Islamists. Thanks to warmongers like you my friends have to live under an Al-Qaeda run 'Islamic State' now.
Who Juan Cole the same guy who calls the ultra-oppressive Iranian theocracy "an indigenous democratic institution" ? He's an apologist for Islamic radicalism. Not exactly the best source on Middle Eastern affairs.
Are you a born liar or just a complete idiot?
From Cole's site: "In fact, Iranian clerics often point to this system as an indigenous democratic institution, and it certainly gives the grand ayatollahs a huge measure of independence from the autocratic state and from one another while recognizing the importance of popular support and public opinion. "
You're taking that way out of context, especially since it's not even Cole writing it. It's from a guest editorial on the site.
There are many more examples for Juan Cole's anti-Semitism and adoration for the Iranian Nazi regime, all of which are concisely summarized in this article:
Few professors in the controversial world of Middle East studies boast more about their own notoriety than Juan Cole, a man who believes the consistent criticism of his public positions to be a sign of distinction. Yale University's decision not to hire him for an endowed chair five years ago due to insufficient scholarship led him to publicly charge that George W. Bush and the CIA torpedoed his candidacy. When organizations such as Campus Watch publicize Cole's outlandish commentary, he cries "censorship" and labels them "McCarthyite."
His latest lecture at New York University???a collaboration with Sinan Antoon, an Iraqi-American assistant professor of Arab culture and politics at NYU???dealt with Iran's response to the "Arab Spring." In a packed room of over 100 mostly Iranian and Arab-American students, Cole analyzed the Islamic Republic of Iran from a "classical realist" perspective. If one didn't know any better, one would have departed the lecture believing that Iran justifiably protects its own interests; that America is a malignant and aggressive force and Israel its trigger-happy satellite; that Turkey's Islamist Freedom and Development Party (AKP) is headed by a practical and liberal Prime Minister Erdogan who promotes "Middle Eastern multiculturalism"; and that a moderate Islamist party in Tunisia called Ennahda does the same.
Cole's lecture bounced around the Middle East and North Africa, hardly sticking to one topic for more than a few minutes. His dispassionate professorial tone evinced few of the biases so clear in his intemperate blog Informed Comment. Yet his skewed view of the region was nevertheless obvious. He displayed a general tolerance for politically hostile sentiments toward America and Israel in the Arab world, spoke with astonishing credulity regarding Islamists and their goals, and argued that America and its allies are bullies and manipulators.
Amid an analysis loaded with sectarian distinctions between Sunni and Shiite, Cole pointed to an area of agreement between the two: support for Iran's aggressive stance toward Israel. It is no secret that religious divisions hardly dissuade run-of-the-mill Arab anti-Semites from supporting any entity which promises to "wipe the Zionist entity out of the pages of time"???an Ahmadinejad quote, which, incidentally, Cole falsely claims to be mistranslated and not in the least genocidal. But describing, as did Cole, the Iranian regime's bellicose threats merely as "a stand on the Palestine issue" speaks volumes.
Such apologetics are deeply troubling from a man who regularly uses terms such as "Zionofascism" in referring to Israel's right to exist. Whither the outrage in the following analysis, taken directly from his lecture:
The Islamic Revolution was an attempt to create a new paradigm for governance in the region, which was neither the traditional monarchy nor the officers' regimes or postcolonial one-party states that were so prominent in the Middle East. It combines in itself an elective branch of government with Montesquieu's spirit of laws, executive-legislative-judiciary, but at the same time incorporates into itself a set of institutions that are intended to be reflective of Iranian and Shiite sympathies.
The use of a principal figure of the French Enlightenment to bolster the legitimacy of the Islamic Revolution is typical of Cole's efforts to whitewash radical Islamists. This is a particularly egregious instance, in that Montesquieu is well known for advocating the separation of powers to prevent tyranny, which is precisely what exists in Iran.
Cole described America and Israel as imperialistic powers threatening the sovereignty of other countries. Israel, he claimed, will probably tone down its???ostensibly typical??? aggressive behavior and refrain from attacking a nuclear Iran because of instability in Egypt:
You don't have a Hosni Mubarak or Omar Suleiman there to support the Israeli position. Now to look for trouble, to me, seems very unlikely, either from Israelis or Americans.
Similarly, discussing the new warming of Iranian-Egyptian relations, Cole noted that:
This is Washington and Tel Aviv's worst nightmare. I assume Egypt has gone from the column of supporters of the Washington and Israeli line, to . . . playing footsy with the Iranians. And the Iranians see this and they can see that one of the outcomes of the Arab Spring is that those countries that were close to the West before are now adopting a more independent foreign policy.
Leaving aside that Tel Aviv is not Israel's capital and that the Israeli government resides in Jerusalem, Cole consistently described America and Israel as powers demanding adherence to a party line, while Iran merely benefits from Egypt adopting a "more independent" stance. Throughout the lecture, such negative phrasing was always associated with an American interest and the positive with an Iranian one.
He later referred to Shiites who supported Musa Sadr???the Lebanese founder of the Amal party, a Shiite Islamist entity that laid the foundations for the development of Hezbollah???as "activist Shiites." (Cole has long been an apologist for Iranian former president Muhammad Khatami, who is married to Sadr's niece.) No one in his lexicon is an "extremist" unless they happen to be American conservatives, "Likudniks," or supporters of any military intervention he opposes.
Sinan Antoon chimed in toward the end of the lecture to express disagreement with Cole's known support for American intervention in Libya. He also seemed troubled by any Arab or Muslim nation that might approve of America's actions:
The Iranian regime are not fans of Qaddafi . . . but are really troubled, as are many leftists all over the world, by this cheering for the NATO intervention, which should be seen in its proper context as an intervention on the part of the counterrevolutionary forces of Saudi Arabia and the U.S. to contain the so-called Arab Spring and of course to ensure their own logistical interests on the ground. And I know I was surprised, too, that the Libyans are waving U.S. flags, but I think and hope that in the coming months???once all the documents come out and they realize that until the last second France and Britain and precisely the U.S. were firmly behind Qaddafi???these flags are going to disappear.
Antoon's anti-U.S. cheerleading was met with applause from the audience.
In the question and answer period following the lecture, the first questioner asked about Turkey's Islamist ruling party, the AKP, to which Cole responded with clich??s about Islamist "multiculturalism." One wonders how many persecuted Turkish Kurds or Greeks the professor has spoken to about "multiculturalism" in Turkey. Noting that Tunisia's Islamist Ennahda party???the winner of recent elections???takes cues from Turkey's AKP in seeking a similar "moderate Islamist" model, Cole reassured the questioner, who correctly noted that Turkey has moved far from secularism, that:
They want to spread the Turkish model. They think this is the right mix of things; they think it should be a relatively secular constitution. They're not interested in promoting Sharia, and on the other hand, they think you should have a kind of Middle Eastern multiculturalism.
Yet Cole had earlier noted recent attempts by Erdogan's party to legislate criminal punishments for adultery.
He described Iran's government as modeled on Montesquieu; Israel as an aggressor willing, but unable, to strike; America as a cynical and domineering political actor; and Turkish and Tunisian Islamist parties as "relatively secular" and "multicultural." This is a remarkably inaccurate and ahistorical portrait of a region in which radical Islam is on the rise. But why should the author of a blog titled Informed Comment get hung up on facts?
Alan Jacobs is a student of Middle Eastern studies in New York. This essay was written for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
There are many more examples for Juan Cole's anti-Semitism and adoration for the Iranian Nazi regime, all of which are concisely summarized in this article:
That's David Horowitz's extreme right-wing site. You'd have as much credibility if you were linking to shit from Stormfront.org.
That a viper like Horowitz hates Juan Cole is a badge of honor for Cole.
And I'm sorry you and your friends miss Gaddafi so much. I guess you really enjoyed his work with Pan Am Flight 103.
Ok you just showed your true anti-Semitic colors, I already suspected you hated Jews the moment you cited Ayatollah lover Juan Cole as a credible source. I don't support any rightwing ideas, and this article was written by a professor called Alan Jacobs, not David Horowitz. But apparently you have no problem with Juan Cole being an apologist for someone who denies the Holocaust and says 'Israel should be wiped off the map".
And we're not debating whether Gaddafi is a dictator or not here, we're discussing how people like Hillary Clinton shamelessly lied to the public into another useless war that helped Al-Qaeda to power in Libya. Between Gaddafi and Al-Qaeda, Gaddafi was the lesser of the two evils. Look what they did to ambassador Christopher Stevens! His blood is on your hands.
Ok you just showed your true anti-Semitic colors, I already suspected you hated Jews the moment you cited Ayatollah lover Juan Cole as a credible source. I don't support any rightwing ideas, and this article was written by a professor called Alan Jacobs, not David Horowitz. But apparently you have no problem with Juan Cole being an apologist for someone who denies the Holocaust and says 'Israel should be wiped off the map".
And we're not debating whether Gaddafi is a dictator or not here, we're discussing how people like Hillary Clinton shamelessly lied to the public into another useless war that helped Al-Qaeda to power in Libya. Between Gaddafi and Al-Qaeda, Gaddafi was the lesser of the two evils. Look what they did to ambassador Christopher Stevens! His blood is on your hands.
Now I'm anti-Semitic because I call out Horowitz for the right-wing crackpot he is? That's a joke.
And Cole isn't an apologist for Ahmadinejad any more than you're Pat Buchanan's right testicle.
I'm laughing out loud over your moronic Benghazi reference, though.
I don't give shit about Horowitz and his political views, I form my own opinion unlike you who says "I'll go with Juan Cole on this political issue". You openly sided with Juan Cole, who is well known for being an anti-Semite apologist for Iranian Holocaust deniers.
Not only that, Juan Cole calls Islamic terrorists in Tunisia and Libya 'moderates' and refuses to characterize Hezbollah as terrorists. Instead he calls them a 'sub-nationalist movement' and 'activists'. The same Hezbollah that suicide bombed 300 unarmed innocent UN peacekeepers in Beirut!
I don't give shit about Horowitz and his political views, I form my own opinion unlike you who says "I'll go with Juan Cole on this political issue". You openly sided with Juan Cole, who is well known for being an anti-Semite apologist for Iranian Holocaust deniers.
Not only that, Juan Cole calls Islamic terrorists in Tunisia and Libya 'moderates'.
He's not "well known" as any such thing, and he doesn't refer to any terrorists, anywhere, as "moderates."
And if you form your own opinions why do you agree with the likes of Horowitz about everything? He's aligned with Pam Geller and her band of extreme bigots. It's not a good look, so why do you share it?
"Anyone who reads this column knows that I deeply disagree with Ahmadinejad???s policies and am not interested in defending him on most things. I profoundly disagree with his characterization of Israel, which is a legitimate United Nations member state, and find his Holocaust denial monstrous. But this quite false charge that he is genocidal is being promoted by Right-Zionists in and out of Congress as a preparatory step to getting up a US war against Iran on false pretences. I don???t want to see my country destroyed by being further embroiled in the Middle East for the wrong reasons. If the Israeli hardliners and their American amen corner want a war with Iran, let them fight it themselves and leave young 18 year old Americans alone."
I was born in the region and my Libyan friends told me the bombings in their cities never happened. Are you calling my friends liars?
If it was not for them I would have probably gone along with the official media narrative too.
Don't you think the media would have showed videos of the bombings already if they had really happened?
Why do you think you having been born there is significant.
I was born in California, but that doesn't give me a better insight as to what happens there.
Am I calling your friends liars? Hmmm....it depends on what cities they live in. Ghaddafi didn't bomb every city. Where did they live?
The people I know live in Tobruk, Derna, Qar Yunus and east Tripoli. Allegedly Tobruk and Tripoli were bombarded.
Can you point to any evidence that the US claimed that Tobruk and Tripoli were bombed by Ghaddafi?
TBH, I don't think we said that. My memory and the simple googling I've done seem to point to the no-fly zone was preventative, and not in response to any actual things done by Ghaddafi, with the exception of him threatening to crush the uprising.
So, plaese to provide Hilary or anyone else from the US sayng Ghaddafi bombed Libyan towns with jets.
Yeah, I guess I'm calling your friends liars. You gave me no other choice.
Sorry.
Signed,
Mr. Inconsiderate Subhuman.
That comment wasn't directed at you, sorry. It was meant for Thymebomb. My mistake there.
As for the bombings, Reuters reported civilians were being bombed in Tripoli:
Reuters) - Libyan warplanes were bombing indiscriminately across Tripoli on Monday, a resident of the Libyan capital told al Jazeera television in a live broadcast.
"What we are witnessing today is unimaginable. Warplanes and helicopters are indiscriminately bombing one area after another. There are many, many dead," Adel Mohamed Saleh said.
Saleh, who called himself a political activist, said the bombings had initially targeted a funeral procession.
"Our people are dying. It is the policy of scorched earth." he said. "Every 20 minutes they are bombing."
Asked if the attacks were still happening he said: "It is continuing, it is continuing. Anyone who moves, even if they are in their car they will hit you."
There was no independent verification of the report but Fathi al-Warfali, the Libyan activist who heads the Swiss-based Libyan Committee for Truth and Justice, who was taking part in a protest outside U.N. European headquarters in Geneva said he had heard the same reports.
"Military planes are attacking civilians, protesters in Tripoli now. The civilians are frightened. Where is the United Nations, where is Amnesty International?" al-Warfali told Reuters.
Bon Vivant said:
Can you point to any evidence that the US claimed that Tobruk and Tripoli were bombed by Ghaddafi?
TBH, I don't think we said that. My memory and the simple googling I've done seem to point to the no-fly zone was preventative, and not in response to any actual things done by Ghaddafi, with the exception of him threatening to crush the uprising.
So, plaese to provide Hilary or anyone else from the US sayng Ghaddafi bombed Libyan towns with jets.
Thanks.
Yes Hillary said Gaddafi indiscriminately bombed his own people:
h ttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-27/u-s-won-t-intervene-in-syria-unrest-clinton-says-on-cbs.html
No,??? Clinton said when asked on the CBS program ???Face the Nation??? if the U.S. would intervene in Syria???s unrest. Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad???s security forces clashed with protesters in several cities over the weekend after his promises of freedoms and pay increases failed to prevent dissent from spreading across the country.
Clinton said the elements that led to intervention in Libya -- international condemnation, an Arab League call for action, a United Nations Security Council resolution -- are ???not going to happen??? with Syria, in part because members of the U.S. Congress from both parties say they believe Assad is ???a reformer.???
???What???s been happening there the last few weeks is deeply concerning, but there???s a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities,??? Clinton said, referring to Qaddafi???s attacks on the Libyan people, ???than police actions which, frankly, have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see.???
How is that 'smoking gun' on Gaddafi's jets bombing unarmed protesters coming along? Where is the evidence?
Libya got turned into an Al-Qaeda fiefdom because of that lie. You supported the same people that bombed the Boston marathon.
The Tsarnaev brothers were al Qaeda?
Where the hell is your evidence for that, or for this ignorant notion that Libya is now run by al Qaeda?
Oh, right, you're just making shit up, like you made up that crap about Juan Cole's "admiration" for the Iranian leaders. Pulled it right out of your fundament.
1.Tsarnaev brothers associated themselves with Islamic terrorists yes, are you disputing this? Because no one else is, even their own family members admit that.
2.The Libyan government is run by Islamist extremists who embrace Sharia law, don't let them fool you because they say they are moderate. There is no difference between 'moderate' Sharia law and extremist Sharia law. That's like saying there exists moderate lapidation and extremist lapidation.
3.Juan Cole openly voiced his support for Mohammed Khatami, and he is part of the Iranian theocracy. Same argument goes here, there is no such thing as a 'moderate theocracy'. A theocracy is the most crazy and backward ultra-authoritarian political system possible.
That's enough class for today boy, I mainly come to this board to discuss music not to discuss politics with amateurs all day.
How is that 'smoking gun' on Gaddafi's jets bombing unarmed protesters coming along? Where is the evidence?
Libya got turned into an Al-Qaeda fiefdom because of that lie. You supported the same people that bombed the Boston marathon.
The Tsarnaev brothers were al Qaeda?
Where the hell is your evidence for that, or for this ignorant notion that Libya is now run by al Qaeda?
Oh, right, you're just making shit up, like you made up that crap about Juan Cole's "admiration" for the Iranian leaders. Pulled it right out of your fundament.
1.Tsarnaev brothers associated themselves with Islamic terrorists yes, are you disputing this? Because no one else is, even their own family members admit that.
2.The Libyan government is run by Islamist extremists who embrace Sharia law, don't let them fool you because they say they are moderate. There is no difference between 'moderate' Sharia law and extremist Sharia law. That's like saying there exists moderate lapidation and extremist lapidation.
3.Juan Cole openly voiced his support for Mohammed Khatami, and he is part of the Iranian theocracy. Same argument goes here, there is no such thing as a 'moderate theocracy'. A theocracy is the most crazy and backward ultra-authoritarian political system possible.
That's enough class for today boy, I mainly come to this board to discuss music not to discuss politics with amateurs all day.
1. Tsarnaevs associated themselves with Islamic terrorists? Who, exactly and where is the proof. They associated themselves with Islamic extremism as an ideology but no links to any other terrorists (nevermind al-Qaeda) have been established yet.
2. The National Forces Alliance got 40 percent of the general national congress in Libya, followed by the MB, who only got 10 and then a bunch of different parties. The NFA is the least Islamist of all the major parties and is politically liberal-democratic. Their mentions of Sharia are no different than Qaddafi's, during his rule. As a matter of fact, Islamism as a political ideology was very much entrenched in his rule/governance.
3. If you think that Khatami is no different than Ahmadinejad or Khamenei, and that his proposals/reforms are moot, then oh well.
Dude you quoted campuswatch. follow your own advice and post some raers or something. quit talking out of your ass.
How is that 'smoking gun' on Gaddafi's jets bombing unarmed protesters coming along? Where is the evidence?
Libya got turned into an Al-Qaeda fiefdom because of that lie. You supported the same people that bombed the Boston marathon.
The Tsarnaev brothers were al Qaeda?
Where the hell is your evidence for that, or for this ignorant notion that Libya is now run by al Qaeda?
Oh, right, you're just making shit up, like you made up that crap about Juan Cole's "admiration" for the Iranian leaders. Pulled it right out of your fundament.
1.Tsarnaev brothers associated themselves with Islamic terrorists yes, are you disputing this? Because no one else is, even their own family members admit that.
2.The Libyan government is run by Islamist extremists who embrace Sharia law, don't let them fool you because they say they are moderate. There is no difference between 'moderate' Sharia law and extremist Sharia law. That's like saying there exists moderate lapidation and extremist lapidation.
3.Juan Cole openly voiced his support for Mohammed Khatami, and he is part of the Iranian theocracy. Same argument goes here, there is no such thing as a 'moderate theocracy'. A theocracy is the most crazy and backward ultra-authoritarian political system possible.
That's enough class for today boy, I mainly come to this board to discuss music not to discuss politics with amateurs all day.
1. Tsarnaevs associated themselves with Islamic terrorists? Who, exactly and where is the proof. They associated themselves with Islamic extremism as an ideology but no links to any other terrorists (nevermind al-Qaeda) have been established yet.
2. The National Forces Alliance got 40 percent of the general national congress in Libya, followed by the MB, who only got 10 and then a bunch of different parties. The NFA is the least Islamist of all the major parties and is politically liberal-democratic. Their mentions of Sharia are no different than Qaddafi's, during his rule. As a matter of fact, Islamism as a political ideology was very much entrenched in his rule/governance.
3. If you think that Khatami is no different than Ahmadinejad or Khamenei, and that his proposals/reforms are moot, then oh well.
Dude you quoted campuswatch. follow your own advice and post some raers or something. quit talking out of your ass.
Why don't you come visit Libya if things are so hunky dory for Westerners like you. There is a reason why all the embassies discourage Westerners from going to Libya, it's because terrorists rule everything there now.
Khatami is an undemocratic leader part of a theocractic government, how can you support a theocracy? I bet you wouldn't mind if Pat Robertson was president in your country either.
"Radical Vigilantes in Khatami's Iran
Michael Rubin
2001
DOWNLOAD PDF
Hardline vigilante groups, generally referred to as "pressure groups" (guruh-i fishar) in popular Iranian parlance, have long influenced Iranian politics and society during times of political tension. But particularly since President Muhammad Khatami???s 1997 election???as the power struggle between the Islamic Republic???s reformist and hardline camps has accelerated???vigilantes have become increasingly active, bold, and violent. Seeming to operate with impunity, their actions threaten both to undercut Iranian domestic reform and to challenge U.S. efforts toward a gradual rapprochement with Iran.
Iranian pressure groups cannot be considered a part of the "opposition" camp because, in reality, they act on behalf of various hardline factions within the government. Rather than attempt to overthrow the regime, pressure groups instead use violence, intimidation, and assassination as tools to affect government policy when they may not have the numerical strength or the power to do so through legal or legislative means.
In this richly detailed Policy Paper, historian Michael Rubin presents a comprehensive survey of Iranian vigilante or ???pressure??? group, along with an exploration vigilantism patterns throughout modern Iranian history. He argues, U.S. and Western policymakers should take Iranian hardline vigilante groups into account when constructing a coherent policy on Iran. Drawing on both a wide array of Persian language sources and his own research conducted in Iran, Dr. Rubin, a 1999-2000 Soref research fellow at the Institute, concludes that???despite the inevitably of political change suggested by demographic and economic realities in the Khatami era???the prospects for real reform in Iran within the existing system of rule are weakened by vigilante activism."
All you strutters might want to know that because of the Libyan intervention, Libyan terrorists got embolded and invaded Mali last year and threatened to destroy all the rich cultural heritage of that country INCLUDING ALL MUSICAL RECORDS.
If it wasn't for French president Francois Hollande, who clearly differs in his policiy from his gangster predecessor Nicolas Sarkozy, Mali would still be an extremist Islamist state now and Mali's musical heritage might have been lost forever.
It's these same Libyan terrorists Hillary supported who are wreaking havoc in Mali now.
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2012 AT 10:20AM
Mali's Music Scene Being Destroyed by Extremists
Over the years, a tremendous amount of excellent music has come out of Mali. Just ask Damon Albarn or Robert Plant or anyone else who has gone to Festival au Desert. Acts like Tinariwen have established fan bases around the work. Hell, Bono has performed with them.
But if you've been following the news, you'll know that large swaths of Mali are under attack from hardline Islamists, espcially in the north. And they hate music. I mean, really hate it--to the point of cutting out the tongues of people who dare sing.
Cutting. Out. Their. Tongues.
From the Washington Post:
???Music is against Islam,??? said Oumar Ould Hamaha, the military leader of the Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa, one of the three extremist groups controlling the north. ???Instead of singing, why don???t they read the Koran? Why don???t they subject themselves to God and pray? We are not only against the musicians in Mali. We are in a struggle against all the musicians of the world.???
Comments
Find me ONE video then IDIOT
Because there are plenty of videos of Assad bombing Syrian cities. But no one gives a shit about that because Syria hasn't got any oil. Why aren't there any videos of Libyan jets bombing protesters in the street? Let me tell you something, I was born near Libya and have many friends there who were initially very happy with the toppling of Mubarak in Egypt. Then shit went down in Libya and some still supported Gaddafi, others wanted him gone. When we started to hear the first news reports about Libyan fighter jets bombing protesters in eastern Libya chills went down my spine and I called a friend of mine who lives in Tobruk. He assured me he was alright and the bombing rumor was false, spread by rebels so they could garner outside support. He himself was ok with it since he was anti-Gaddafi and if you don't believe me I can show you blogs of Libyans who are anti-Gaddafi and attest to the same thing: that the bombings never happened. Only some munition depots in army bases outside the cities were bombed at some stage, to prevent the insurgents from gaining access to weapons.
The main reason we got into that war was exactly this reason, to prevent the so-called bombing of unarmed civiilans. Just like we got into the Iraq war for so-called WMD's
I believe the Boston bombings were carried out by two individuals who were corrputed by radical Islamist ideas and hatemongering. I never outright blamed the government for this, but the reason people develop a sceptical attitude towards the US government is because they have already lied to us before.
No one can find WMD's in Iraq.
Still everyone concludes Bush lied and Iraq had no WMD's moments before the 2003 invasion.
IM WORKING ON IT BRO; GIVE ME TIME PLEASE.
No. Everyone concludes that Saddam gave up his WMD years before the invasion.
What does that have to do with Maggie Thatcher never taking a shit?
Who Juan Cole the same guy who calls the ultra-oppressive Iranian theocracy "an indigenous democratic institution" ? He's an apologist for Islamic radicalism. Not exactly the best source on Middle Eastern affairs.
But the guy who thinks Maggie Thatcher never pooped is?
I was born in the region and my Libyan friends told me the bombings in their cities never happened. Are you calling my friends liars?
If it was not for them I would have probably gone along with the official media narrative too.
Don't you think the media would have showed videos of the bombings already if they had really happened?
Yes my friend Adnan and his friends. This is the 2010s, I've spoke with the others on twitter and they all conformed it was a lie. You and your lot know nothing about the region except when you come to destroy it, pillage its resources and support radical Islamists. Thanks to warmongers like you my friends have to live under an Al-Qaeda run 'Islamic State' now.
Why do you think you having been born there is significant.
I was born in California, but that doesn't give me a better insight as to what happens there.
Am I calling your friends liars? Hmmm....it depends on what cities they live in. Ghaddafi didn't bomb every city. Where did they live?
There are many more examples for Juan Cole's anti-Semitism and adoration for the Iranian Nazi regime, all of which are concisely summarized in this article:
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/11873
Few professors in the controversial world of Middle East studies boast more about their own notoriety than Juan Cole, a man who believes the consistent criticism of his public positions to be a sign of distinction. Yale University's decision not to hire him for an endowed chair five years ago due to insufficient scholarship led him to publicly charge that George W. Bush and the CIA torpedoed his candidacy. When organizations such as Campus Watch publicize Cole's outlandish commentary, he cries "censorship" and labels them "McCarthyite."
His latest lecture at New York University???a collaboration with Sinan Antoon, an Iraqi-American assistant professor of Arab culture and politics at NYU???dealt with Iran's response to the "Arab Spring." In a packed room of over 100 mostly Iranian and Arab-American students, Cole analyzed the Islamic Republic of Iran from a "classical realist" perspective. If one didn't know any better, one would have departed the lecture believing that Iran justifiably protects its own interests; that America is a malignant and aggressive force and Israel its trigger-happy satellite; that Turkey's Islamist Freedom and Development Party (AKP) is headed by a practical and liberal Prime Minister Erdogan who promotes "Middle Eastern multiculturalism"; and that a moderate Islamist party in Tunisia called Ennahda does the same.
Cole's lecture bounced around the Middle East and North Africa, hardly sticking to one topic for more than a few minutes. His dispassionate professorial tone evinced few of the biases so clear in his intemperate blog Informed Comment. Yet his skewed view of the region was nevertheless obvious. He displayed a general tolerance for politically hostile sentiments toward America and Israel in the Arab world, spoke with astonishing credulity regarding Islamists and their goals, and argued that America and its allies are bullies and manipulators.
Amid an analysis loaded with sectarian distinctions between Sunni and Shiite, Cole pointed to an area of agreement between the two: support for Iran's aggressive stance toward Israel. It is no secret that religious divisions hardly dissuade run-of-the-mill Arab anti-Semites from supporting any entity which promises to "wipe the Zionist entity out of the pages of time"???an Ahmadinejad quote, which, incidentally, Cole falsely claims to be mistranslated and not in the least genocidal. But describing, as did Cole, the Iranian regime's bellicose threats merely as "a stand on the Palestine issue" speaks volumes.
Such apologetics are deeply troubling from a man who regularly uses terms such as "Zionofascism" in referring to Israel's right to exist. Whither the outrage in the following analysis, taken directly from his lecture:
The Islamic Revolution was an attempt to create a new paradigm for governance in the region, which was neither the traditional monarchy nor the officers' regimes or postcolonial one-party states that were so prominent in the Middle East. It combines in itself an elective branch of government with Montesquieu's spirit of laws, executive-legislative-judiciary, but at the same time incorporates into itself a set of institutions that are intended to be reflective of Iranian and Shiite sympathies.
The use of a principal figure of the French Enlightenment to bolster the legitimacy of the Islamic Revolution is typical of Cole's efforts to whitewash radical Islamists. This is a particularly egregious instance, in that Montesquieu is well known for advocating the separation of powers to prevent tyranny, which is precisely what exists in Iran.
Cole described America and Israel as imperialistic powers threatening the sovereignty of other countries. Israel, he claimed, will probably tone down its???ostensibly typical??? aggressive behavior and refrain from attacking a nuclear Iran because of instability in Egypt:
You don't have a Hosni Mubarak or Omar Suleiman there to support the Israeli position. Now to look for trouble, to me, seems very unlikely, either from Israelis or Americans.
Similarly, discussing the new warming of Iranian-Egyptian relations, Cole noted that:
This is Washington and Tel Aviv's worst nightmare. I assume Egypt has gone from the column of supporters of the Washington and Israeli line, to . . . playing footsy with the Iranians. And the Iranians see this and they can see that one of the outcomes of the Arab Spring is that those countries that were close to the West before are now adopting a more independent foreign policy.
Leaving aside that Tel Aviv is not Israel's capital and that the Israeli government resides in Jerusalem, Cole consistently described America and Israel as powers demanding adherence to a party line, while Iran merely benefits from Egypt adopting a "more independent" stance. Throughout the lecture, such negative phrasing was always associated with an American interest and the positive with an Iranian one.
He later referred to Shiites who supported Musa Sadr???the Lebanese founder of the Amal party, a Shiite Islamist entity that laid the foundations for the development of Hezbollah???as "activist Shiites." (Cole has long been an apologist for Iranian former president Muhammad Khatami, who is married to Sadr's niece.) No one in his lexicon is an "extremist" unless they happen to be American conservatives, "Likudniks," or supporters of any military intervention he opposes.
Sinan Antoon chimed in toward the end of the lecture to express disagreement with Cole's known support for American intervention in Libya. He also seemed troubled by any Arab or Muslim nation that might approve of America's actions:
The Iranian regime are not fans of Qaddafi . . . but are really troubled, as are many leftists all over the world, by this cheering for the NATO intervention, which should be seen in its proper context as an intervention on the part of the counterrevolutionary forces of Saudi Arabia and the U.S. to contain the so-called Arab Spring and of course to ensure their own logistical interests on the ground. And I know I was surprised, too, that the Libyans are waving U.S. flags, but I think and hope that in the coming months???once all the documents come out and they realize that until the last second France and Britain and precisely the U.S. were firmly behind Qaddafi???these flags are going to disappear.
Antoon's anti-U.S. cheerleading was met with applause from the audience.
In the question and answer period following the lecture, the first questioner asked about Turkey's Islamist ruling party, the AKP, to which Cole responded with clich??s about Islamist "multiculturalism." One wonders how many persecuted Turkish Kurds or Greeks the professor has spoken to about "multiculturalism" in Turkey. Noting that Tunisia's Islamist Ennahda party???the winner of recent elections???takes cues from Turkey's AKP in seeking a similar "moderate Islamist" model, Cole reassured the questioner, who correctly noted that Turkey has moved far from secularism, that:
They want to spread the Turkish model. They think this is the right mix of things; they think it should be a relatively secular constitution. They're not interested in promoting Sharia, and on the other hand, they think you should have a kind of Middle Eastern multiculturalism.
Yet Cole had earlier noted recent attempts by Erdogan's party to legislate criminal punishments for adultery.
He described Iran's government as modeled on Montesquieu; Israel as an aggressor willing, but unable, to strike; America as a cynical and domineering political actor; and Turkish and Tunisian Islamist parties as "relatively secular" and "multicultural." This is a remarkably inaccurate and ahistorical portrait of a region in which radical Islam is on the rise. But why should the author of a blog titled Informed Comment get hung up on facts?
Alan Jacobs is a student of Middle Eastern studies in New York. This essay was written for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.
Oh shit, that looks like Serg.
The people I know live in Tobruk, Derna, Qar Yunus and east Tripoli. Allegedly Tobruk and Tripoli were bombarded.
Well, that's all I needed. Case closed.
my first thought as well!
We need one of our photoshop experts to insert logos for Lone Star Beer and DJ Paul BBQ Sauce onto those banners.
Ok you just showed your true anti-Semitic colors, I already suspected you hated Jews the moment you cited Ayatollah lover Juan Cole as a credible source. I don't support any rightwing ideas, and this article was written by a professor called Alan Jacobs, not David Horowitz. But apparently you have no problem with Juan Cole being an apologist for someone who denies the Holocaust and says 'Israel should be wiped off the map".
And we're not debating whether Gaddafi is a dictator or not here, we're discussing how people like Hillary Clinton shamelessly lied to the public into another useless war that helped Al-Qaeda to power in Libya. Between Gaddafi and Al-Qaeda, Gaddafi was the lesser of the two evils. Look what they did to ambassador Christopher Stevens! His blood is on your hands.
I don't give shit about Horowitz and his political views, I form my own opinion unlike you who says "I'll go with Juan Cole on this political issue". You openly sided with Juan Cole, who is well known for being an anti-Semite apologist for Iranian Holocaust deniers.
Not only that, Juan Cole calls Islamic terrorists in Tunisia and Libya 'moderates' and refuses to characterize Hezbollah as terrorists. Instead he calls them a 'sub-nationalist movement' and 'activists'. The same Hezbollah that suicide bombed 300 unarmed innocent UN peacekeepers in Beirut!
How is that 'smoking gun' on Gaddafi's jets bombing unarmed protesters coming along? Where is the evidence?
Libya got turned into an Al-Qaeda fiefdom because of that lie. You supported the same people that bombed the Boston marathon.
Can you point to any evidence that the US claimed that Tobruk and Tripoli were bombed by Ghaddafi?
TBH, I don't think we said that. My memory and the simple googling I've done seem to point to the no-fly zone was preventative, and not in response to any actual things done by Ghaddafi, with the exception of him threatening to crush the uprising.
So, plaese to provide Hilary or anyone else from the US sayng Ghaddafi bombed Libyan towns with jets.
Thanks.
You inconsiderate heartless subhuman. Wait till you you have to live and survive through a horrible civil war and its aftermath.
LOL! I edited my post.
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/02/134188512/gadhafi-forces-bomb-rebel-held-town-in-east-libya
Yeah, I guess I'm calling your friends liars. You gave me no other choice.
Sorry.
Signed,
Mr. Inconsiderate Subhuman.
That comment wasn't directed at you, sorry. It was meant for Thymebomb. My mistake there.
As for the bombings, Reuters reported civilians were being bombed in Tripoli:
Yes Hillary said Gaddafi indiscriminately bombed his own people:
h ttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-27/u-s-won-t-intervene-in-syria-unrest-clinton-says-on-cbs.html
1.Tsarnaev brothers associated themselves with Islamic terrorists yes, are you disputing this? Because no one else is, even their own family members admit that.
2.The Libyan government is run by Islamist extremists who embrace Sharia law, don't let them fool you because they say they are moderate. There is no difference between 'moderate' Sharia law and extremist Sharia law. That's like saying there exists moderate lapidation and extremist lapidation.
3.Juan Cole openly voiced his support for Mohammed Khatami, and he is part of the Iranian theocracy. Same argument goes here, there is no such thing as a 'moderate theocracy'. A theocracy is the most crazy and backward ultra-authoritarian political system possible.
That's enough class for today boy, I mainly come to this board to discuss music not to discuss politics with amateurs all day.
1. Tsarnaevs associated themselves with Islamic terrorists? Who, exactly and where is the proof. They associated themselves with Islamic extremism as an ideology but no links to any other terrorists (nevermind al-Qaeda) have been established yet.
2. The National Forces Alliance got 40 percent of the general national congress in Libya, followed by the MB, who only got 10 and then a bunch of different parties. The NFA is the least Islamist of all the major parties and is politically liberal-democratic. Their mentions of Sharia are no different than Qaddafi's, during his rule. As a matter of fact, Islamism as a political ideology was very much entrenched in his rule/governance.
3. If you think that Khatami is no different than Ahmadinejad or Khamenei, and that his proposals/reforms are moot, then oh well.
Dude you quoted campuswatch. follow your own advice and post some raers or something. quit talking out of your ass.
Why don't you come visit Libya if things are so hunky dory for Westerners like you. There is a reason why all the embassies discourage Westerners from going to Libya, it's because terrorists rule everything there now.
Khatami is an undemocratic leader part of a theocractic government, how can you support a theocracy? I bet you wouldn't mind if Pat Robertson was president in your country either.
If it wasn't for French president Francois Hollande, who clearly differs in his policiy from his gangster predecessor Nicolas Sarkozy, Mali would still be an extremist Islamist state now and Mali's musical heritage might have been lost forever.
It's these same Libyan terrorists Hillary supported who are wreaking havoc in Mali now.
http://www.alancross.ca/a-journal-of-musical-things/2012/12/5/malis-music-scene-being-destroyed-by-extremists.html