Revolution in the Middle East - was: Egypt's Peaceful Revolution

[Greg]

Sweet taste of success turns sour for thousands of Egyptian protesters

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/artic ... protesters

[Greg]

Clinton Says Assad Lost Legitimacy After Mob Attacks Embassy

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-1 ... bassy.html

[Greg]

Yemen's President Wounded in Rocket Attack

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/mid ... 93808.html

[Big Magilla]

Mobs set Egypt churches on fire, 12 killed

Associated Press Sarah El Deeb, Associated Press – 39 mins ago

CAIRO – Muslim mobs set two churches on fire overnight in Cairo during sectarian clashes that left 12 dead and more than 200 injured. The deepening religious violence in military-ruled Egypt added news tensions to an already chaotic and lawless transition to democracy.

Military authorities arrested 190 people, immediately sending them to military prosecutions and threatening the maximum penalty against anyone attacking houses of worship. It was the military's toughest response yet to a series of violent clashes between the two religious groups and signifies swift justice.

Mobs of ultraconservative Muslims attacked the St. Menas church in the Cairo slum of Imbaba late Saturday following rumors that a Christian woman married to a Muslim man had been abducted. Local residents said a separate mob of youths armed with knives and machetes attacked the Virgin Mary church several blocks away with firebombs.

"People were scared to come near them," said local resident Adel Mohammed, 29, who lives near the Virgin Mary Church. "They looked scary. They threw their firebombs at the church and set parts of it ablaze."

During Egypt's 18-day uprising that ousted former President Hosni Mubarak several months ago, there was a rare spirit of brotherhood between Muslims and Christians. Each group protected the other during prayer sessions in Cairo's Tahrir Square, the epicenter of the revolution.

But in the months that followed the toppling of Mubarak on Feb. 11, there has been a sharp rise in sectarian tensions, fueled in part by newly active ultraconservative Muslim movement, known as the Salafis.

The once quiescent Salafis have become more assertive post-revolution in trying to spread their ultraconservative version of an Islamic way of life. In particular, they have focused their wrath on Egypt's Christians, who make up 10 percent of the country's 80 million people.

On Friday, a few hundred Salafis marched through Cairo celebrating al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and condemning the U.S. operation that killed him.

Egypt's state news agency said of those killed, at least six Muslims and at least three Christians were among those killed. The body of one Christian was found inside the St. Menas church, the agency said. The Health Ministry said 12 had died and more than 230 were injured, at least 11 of them critically.

The clashes were set off Saturday around sundown when word spread around the low-income neighborhood of Imbaba that a Christian woman who married a Muslim was abducted and is being kept in the church against her will.

The report, which was never confirmed by local religious figures, sent a large mob of Muslims toward the St. Menas church. Christians created a human barricade around the church and clashes erupted. Gunfire sounded across the neighborhood, and witnesses said people on rooftops nearby were firing into the crowd.

Muslims alleged the Christians opened fire first. Then crowds of hundreds of Muslims from the neighborhood, in many parts instigated by the local ultraconservative Salafi sheiks, converged on the area. They lobbed firebombs at homes and shops and also at St. Menas church, setting its facade on fire.

Residents say Christians were hiding inside. Muslims were chanting: "With our blood and soul, we defend you Islam."

The army and police tried to break up the crowd by firing tear gas, but failed to clear the streets. Troops surrounded the church after the fire was put out.

Later the same night, witnesses said a separate Muslim mob, mostly youths armed with machetes and knives, moved to the Virgin Mary church nearby and also set it on fire.

The mob then dispersed to side streets, and local residents, including the neighborhood's Muslims, tried to put out the fire. At one point, they attempted to get into the closed mosque opposite the church to get water. But the youthful mob armed with knives blocked Mohammed and others in his group.

"They told us keep the mosque out of it," said Mohammed, who lives near the church. "They were thugs. The way they talk, they have no religious or political views."

He said the firefighters and security arrived on the scene more than an hour later.

In the early hours of Sunday morning, angry residents stormed a six-story building near the St. Menas, saying Christians used it to shoot at Muslims.

"They were shooting from the roof, and they killed Muslims," said 18-year old Yehia Ramadan. "We won't stand by idle."

Flames were coming out of windows, and furniture were strewn along the sidewalks. The building appeared to be empty, but it was not clear when its residents fled.

Islamic clerics denounced the violence, sounding alarm bells at the escalating tension during the transitional period.

"These events do not benefit either Muslim or Copts," Ahmed al-Tayyeb, the Sheik of al-Azhar told the daily Al-Ahram.

In the deadliest violence since Mubarak's ouster, 13 were killed in pitched street battles in March after Muslims torched a church. That violence was also triggered by rumors of a love affair between a Muslim woman and a Christian man.

A New Year's Eve suicide bombing outside a Coptic church in the port city of Alexandria killed 21 people, setting off days of protests. Egypt made some arrests but never charged anyone with the attack.

[Big Magilla]

TRIPOLI, Libya – NATO says it struck a government building in Tripoli but can't confirm that one of Moammar Gadhafi's sons was killed.

Sunday's statement comes hours after an airstrike that the Libya regime said killed Gadhafi's youngest son Seif al-Arab and three of the Libyan leader's grandchildren. Gadhafi escaped unharmed.

NATO says it struck a "command and control building in the Bab al-Azizya neighborhood" Saturday evening, insisting all its targets are military in nature and linked to Gadhafi's systematic attacks on the population.

Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard says he is aware of unconfirmed reports that some Gadhafi family members may have been killed and he regrets "all loss of life, specially the innocent civilians being harmed as a result of the ongoing conflict."

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information.

[Greg]

Senators press Obama to take strong action against Syria

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nationa....ry.html

[Greg]

US calls on Yemen president to quit

http://www.abc.net.au/news....n=world

[Sonic Youth]

The Kill Team
How U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan murdered innocent civilians and mutilated their corpses – and how their officers failed to stop them.
Plus: An exclusive look at the war crime photos censored by the Pentagon

By Mark Boal
Rolling Stone

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic....nt=true

The article is too long to post. Click on the link if you can bear it, as there are photos included.



Edited By Sonic Youth on 1301344269

[Sonic Youth]

Obama has now joined a long and distinguished list: U.S. Presidents who have sent soldiers to war ignoring the Constitutional requirement of Congressional approval (G.H.W. Bush did it twice!).

http://online.wsj.com/article....ews_wsj

First of all, the requirement is that the President ask for approval within 90 days of a conflict/military action, so Obama can still so so retroactively. Secondly, President Bush did acquire the authorization for use of force against Iraq (before he sent troops) and got approval for funding both for Iraq and Afghanistan several times. That is Congressional approval.

Here we go again... Congress isn't supposed to approve a president's war. They're supposed to declare war before a president can launch it. That's Kucinich's issue.

But it's irrelevant. Every administration and every congress has been subverting their Constitutional powers since 1941 and before. We can bitch about it, but what's the use? By now it's as American as negative campaigning.

Not that the MSM has asked me, but I think our one and only "goal" is to stop the shelling of crowds, the mass executions, and the cutting off of food and provisions to the cities as best we can within the time-frame of, I don't know, two or three weeks. And with no ground troops. Anything beyond that is getting way too far into Bush territory. If Qaddafi happens to fall, all the better, but only as a side-effect. As a solution it sucks, but it also sucks to watch war crimes of such magnitude going on before our eyes.



Edited By Sonic Youth on 1301018104

[criddic3]

Obama has now joined a long and distinguished list: U.S. Presidents who have sent soldiers to war ignoring the Constitutional requirement of Congressional approval (G.H.W. Bush did it twice!).

http://online.wsj.com/article....ews_wsj

First of all, the requirement is that the President ask for approval within 90 days of a conflict/military action, so Obama can still so so retroactively. Secondly, President Bush did acquire the authorization for use of force against Iraq (before he sent troops) and got approval for funding both for Iraq and Afghanistan several times. That is Congressional approval. That was in addition to his appeals for, and receipt of, resolutions from the UN warning of consequences. This time, President Obama got the UN on board, but didn't ask Congress for their approval.

My problem is not so much the action as the reasoning for the action. If we're only going to be there for a "few days," what is our goal there? President Obama says he thinks Qaddaffi should step down, but has said he will not commit ground troops to enforce that outcome. I'm not sure we should send troops there, so maybe that's the right approach, but he hasn't made it clear what his aim is with this air strike.

EDIT: I now realize that you named George H.W. Bush and not his son, George W. Bush. I would have to look it up, but I thought that Bush 41 had pretty wide-spread support for getting Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in the Gulf War.



Edited By criddic3 on 1300932882

[Zahveed]

I have a problem with this being considered a war this early in the game. Personal opinion.

[Sonic Youth]

Look, I understand congress' irritation with Obama not consulting with them first. And they're absolutely right. This history-long precedent of Presidents engaging in war-like actions without congressional approval in the form of a formal Declaration of War is wrong. It's an abuse of power. But it's also a waste-of-time side issue. Few presidents seek a formal Declaration before bombing and invading; hardly any get chastised; none were impeached for this reason. I think Obama waiting for Congress to go on one of their many vacations to start bombing was crass and calculated. But if no impeachment was good enough for all our other presidents, then no impeachement is good enough for Obama. It's also a waste of time because Congress would have approved military action anyway. Certainly the Republicans would have - this is the sort of thing that gets these old men hard. They're just grateful they have another thing to yell at Obama about. So, this is more a political huff over due process, not over whether invasion is right or wrong.

So, let's leave off on the issue of due process, which doesn't advance the primary question: is intervention in Libya wrong? I'd like to think there are some excellent arguments as to why we shouldn't stop Gaddafi mowing down crowds of people and using army tanks to destroy his own cities. I'm not feeling good about this intervention myself. But that's an emotional response. If there are compelling arguments against it (other than the standard "pacifist, no matter what" boilerplate), I've yet to hear it. I understand the hypocrisy of invading Libya while we do nothing as Bahrain fires into demonstrations and destroys monuments, because Bahrain is our ally. I get that some NATO countries who would not sign off on the Iraq war now have more conservative leaders leading the war cries. And yes "Everything America does, it really does for it's own self-interest" blah blah blah. All agreed. I still want to know how doing nothing will be more beneficial for the Libyan people.

But please spare me the talking-point-of-the-day, "We should never get involved in another country's civil war". France did just that during the American Revolutionary War. It happens.

[Greg]

Rep. Dennis Kucinich: Defund Libya attack
By JAKE SHERMAN | 3/22/11 11:37 AM EDT

Liberal Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich plans to offer up a measure that would defund U.S. efforts in Libya.

According to a letter blasted to his email list, Kucinich plans to offer an amendment to the next spending bill to ensure no federal funds go to the bombing campaign in Libya. . .


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51736.html

[kaytodd]

Obama has now joined a long and distinguished list: U.S. Presidents who have sent soldiers to war ignoring the Constitutional requirement of Congressional approval (G.H.W. Bush did it twice!).

http://online.wsj.com/article....ews_wsj



Edited By kaytodd on 1300750800

[Sonic Youth]

Rogue U.S. soldiers pose with dead Afghan civilians