Middle East and North Africa 17, where everything is what it seems

[Dicer]

Any comments to the 21 murdered egyptian christians in Lybia or doesnt it fit your narrative?

There are enough people commenting on how very, very outraged they are about the murdered Egyptian Christians and Jordanian pilots. I was expressing outrage at the equally outrageous barbarity and murder of innocent men, women and children at the hands of the so called 'civilized' countries. Anything wrong with that? Palestine and Yemen are in the middle east are they not? Any reason I should not post about them in here? Is it a rule that I should first condemn Egyptian murders before I talk about the killing of babies in Gaza by Israel or the burning of children in Yemen by the US?

By the way any comment on the slaughter of more than 2000 Egyptians by Sisi and Western support (including the sale of helicopters and arms) for this barbaric dictator? Or does that not fit your narrative?

By the way, one can be against American drone bombing and still condemn the barbarity of burning a man alive.

Did I say anywhere that one should not condemn the burning of the Jordanian pilot? It's a barbaric act and Americans have been engaged in barbaric acts like hitting families with drones that incinerate the flesh and burns people to death. Civilians. 13 year children and marriage parties. I was also condemning the barbarity of burning people to death.

Allahu akbar I guess...

Ugh.

You understand that not doing it deliberately means the US isn't targeting them, yes?

The fact that they don't want to kill civilians but don't really care if they do makes little difference in the grand scheme of things to the people burned to death or to the families who lost loved ones. It becomes a war crime when you a hit a target knowing that there are civilians but do so anyway to get at the terrorists. So it's not deliberate but it's still targeting them. Because there's a bad guy standing next to them. Understand?

great New Yorker article on Haftar, Libya and that swaggering fraud Bernard-Henri Levy

Four failed states: Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya. I don't think anyone is going to learn anything from this and Western meddling and intervention in the region is going to continue. Can there be something worse than ISIS on the horizon? I think yes.

[The Once and Future King]

There are enough people commenting on how very, very outraged they are about the murdered Egyptian Christians and Jordanian pilots. I was expressing outrage at the equally outrageous barbarity and murder of innocent men, women and children at the hands of the so called 'civilized' countries. Anything wrong with that? Palestine and Yemen are in the middle east are they not? Any reason I should not post about them in here? Is it a rule that I should first condemn Egyptian murders before I talk about the killing of babies in Gaza by Israel or the burning of children in Yemen by the US?

By the way any comment on the slaughter of more than 2000 Egyptians by Sisi and Western support (including the sale of helicopters and arms) for this barbaric dictator? Or does that not fit your narrative?

Did I say anywhere that one should not condemn the burning of the Jordanian pilot? It's a barbaric act and Americans have been engaged in barbaric acts like hitting families with drones that incinerate the flesh and burns people to death. Civilians. 13 year children and marriage parties. I was also condemning the barbarity of burning people to death.

Ugh.

The fact that they don't want to kill civilians but don't really care if they do makes little difference in the grand scheme of things to the people burned to death or to the families who lost loved ones. It becomes a war crime when you a hit a target knowing that there are civilians but do so anyway to get at the terrorists. So it's not deliberate but it's still targeting them. Because there's a bad guy standing next to them. Understand?

Four failed states: Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya. I don't think anyone is going to learn anything from this and Western meddling and intervention in the region is going to continue. Can there be something worse than ISIS on the horizon? I think yes.

Fact: The US Army does not target civilians. Collateral damage while sad is unavoidable.

Fact: In their latest defensive engagement the Israeli Defense Force had a 1:1 ratio of militant to civilian casualties(U.N. report). That means 50% of the people killed were terrorists. That is unheard of. No other army has ever achived that in history. Collateral damage while sad is unavoidable.

Fact: ISIS indiscriminately murders men women and children anywhere they can regardless of race color creed or religion. They rape and mutilate and women, viciously torture men, and sell children into sexual slavery.

Its not really the same thing.

[Altherion]

great New Yorker article on Haftar, Libya and that swaggering fraud Bernard-Henri Levy

It's pretty surprising how many of these guys have lived in the West for decades. Haftar is from Virginia. The media chief from the faction opposing him is from Manchester. The finance minister is from Seattle.

[The Once and Future King]

It's pretty surprising how many of these guys have lived in the West for decades. Haftar is from Virginia. The media chief from the faction opposing him is from Manchester. The finance minister is from Seattle.

Most leaders in the portion of the world we are discussing spent significant amounts of time in the west, whether for education, fun, or work.

[Horza]

It's pretty surprising how many of these guys have lived in the West for decades. Haftar is from Virginia. The media chief from the faction opposing him is from Manchester. The finance minister is from Seattle.

Yeah, one of Gaddafi's legacies is that a lot of opposition networking and political organisation had to happen overseas.

Most leaders in the portion of the world we are discussing spent significant amounts of time in the west, whether for education, fun, or work.

Or they were, yanno, exiled.

[The Reckoner]

Do the bombing strikes target, specifically though? Seems like they're aiming for ISIS compounds or whatever, which is a bit more nebulous. The majority of the US is probably apathetic to the Israeli Hijinx and Yemen baby burnings...neither threatens the US's way of life or whatever.

[The Iceman of the North]

Fact: The US Army does not target civilians. Collateral damage while sad is unavoidable.

Fact: This is utter bullshit and totally irrelevant.

[Dicer]

Fact: The US Army does not target civilians. Collateral damage while sad is unavoidable.

Fact: In their latest defensive engagement the Israeli Defense Force had a 1:1 ratio of militant to civilian casualties(U.N. report). That means 50% of the people killed were terrorists. That is unheard of. No other army has ever achived that in history. Collateral damage while sad is unavoidable.

Fact: ISIS indiscriminately murders men women and children anywhere they can regardless of race color creed or religion. They rape and mutilate and women, viciously torture men, and sell children into sexual slavery.

Its not really the same thing.

Load of bullcrap really. Israel's indiscriminate slaughter of the trapped population in Gaza managed to even shock the sensibilities of most Americans last summer. And that's saying something. And really, if no other army in the world has ever been able to achieve the awesomeness of the IDF in avoiding civilian causalities, Israel should have nothing to fear about the Palestinians going to the ICC to investigate war crimes on both sides right? No idea then, why both Israel (Taking away their tax money) and the US (mulling over cutting aid) are punishing the Palestinians for legally approaching the ICC to look into it.

Also agree with this:

Media ISIS playbook: when victims r Muslim, call'em anything but Muslim #Kurds #Jordanian #Iraqi; when victims r non, call'em by religion

https://twitter.com/bedier/status/567544418886881280

[Crixus]

How can anyone posit that there is no discrimination from the Western media toward Muslims vs. the West/everyone else? Preposterous, really.

If a Muslim nutter opens fire somewhere, he's a terrorist immediately (even if he's unhinged and acting on his own). If a Christian/Hindu/Buddhist/Atheist/Odin-worshipper does it, they're 'disturbed'. Reference: North Carolina killings and the media's steadfast refusal to even consider the possibility that the victims' religion may have been a reason. Wow.

I also find it hilarious that the USA did its bit in aiding the creation of ISIS; not just through its bullshit invasion of Iraq but also because it helped fund and arm (some of) these very people. What's next? Easy enough: KURDISH/whoever the West is arming now to fight ISIS=the new danger!1! We must annihilate them.

We've seen this shit play out before, of course: Mujahideens aka Al Qaeda/extremists. Sigh.

Last, to say shit like 'the US doesn't target civilian's is so disingenuous it doesn't merit a response.

ETA: that article by Graeme Wood is a great read and sheds new light on IS' philosophy (for me anyway).

[Werthead]

Fact: In their latest defensive engagement the Israeli Defense Force had a 1:1 ratio of militant to civilian casualties(U.N. report). That means 50% of the people killed were terrorists. That is unheard of. No other army has ever achived that in history. Collateral damage while sad is unavoidable.

If you mean in a century or even two, this may be accurate. But in terms of warfare overall, no. Mass civilian casualties are a relatively modern phenomenon. Even the Napoleonic Wars, which in many ways have a claim to be the first true world war, had only about a quarter to a third of the total casualties being civilian, and before that it's a lot less in most conflicts due the way wars were fought (armies marching off to a field and having at one another rather than bombing cities).

If a Christian/Hindu/Buddhist/Atheist/Odin-worshipper does it, they're 'disturbed'.

Anders Breivik's Christian beliefs and support for far-right Zionism were often mentioned in media reports of his killings, at least here in the UK. Bush and Blair's Christian beliefs and the possibility they were partially religiously 'inspired' to invade Iraq were very controversial as well.

[Hereward]

The Thirty Years War would like to have a word. I believe there's a queue after them.

[The Iceman of the North]

Anders Breivik's Christian beliefs and support for far-right Zionism were often mentioned in media reports of his killings, at least here in the UK. Bush and Blair's Christian beliefs and the possibility they were partially religiously 'inspired' to invade Iraq were very controversial as well.

Compare the media and political response to the murders of Lee Rigby and Mohammad Saleem that both took place in the UK in 2013.

[Ramsay Gimp]

One can legitimately oppose Israeli policy, and US support, but to equate Israeli tactics with ISIS is nonsense. Israel could wipe out all of Gaza if they wanted. What would ISIS (or even Hamas) do with that kind of power?

[Biglose]

@Werthead

You are talking about armies fighting in the field. That has not been the case in gaza. The tactic used against "terrorism" or "hit and run" was always brutal and hit civilians in masses. Talking about Gaza, Alexander the Great had the same problem with this city. His soldiers were attacked in the narrow streets after beating the army in the field. Took him a while to take this city.

Reaction: Crucified every male along the costline and sold children and women into slavery.

So yeah, looking at "anti-terrorism"-operations one to one is great, for any time in history.

Disclaimer: Yeah, that Alexander.

[Axes]

If you mean in a century or even two, this may be accurate. But in terms of warfare overall, no. Mass civilian casualties are a relatively modern phenomenon. Even the Napoleonic Wars, which in many ways have a claim to be the first true world war, had only about a quarter to a third of the total casualties being civilian, and before that it's a lot less in most conflicts due the way wars were fought (armies marching off to a field and having at one another rather than bombing cities).

I believe the distinction should not be about periods in history, but rather the type of warfare. Ths high civilian/soldier ratio tends to take place in urban battles. The 'relatively' low civilian to militant ratio in the Gaza war is compared to other urban wars like Grozny or Fallujah.

[Shryke]

One can legitimately oppose Israeli policy, and US support, but to equate Israeli tactics with ISIS is nonsense. Israel could wipe out all of Gaza if they wanted. What would ISIS (or even Hamas) do with that kind of power?

Indeed. Israel does some heinous shit to the Palestinians but they are not even in the same sport as ISIS. It's apples and oranges.

[JoeyBanana]

If you mean in a century or even two, this may be accurate. But in terms of warfare overall, no. Mass civilian casualties are a relatively modern phenomenon. Even the Napoleonic Wars, which in many ways have a claim to be the first true world war, had only about a quarter to a third of the total casualties being civilian, and before that it's a lot less in most conflicts due the way wars were fought (armies marching off to a field and having at one another rather than bombing cities).

I would argue that choice of battlefield and strategy tends to shape the toll of civilian casualties more than technology itself. Not that Israel or Palestine have any great alternatives outside of not fighting in that regard which is why those of militant conviction are able to undermine moderate voices so successfully.

[Clueless Northman]

If you mean in a century or even two, this may be accurate. But in terms of warfare overall, no. Mass civilian casualties are a relatively modern phenomenon. Even the Napoleonic Wars, which in many ways have a claim to be the first true world war, had only about a quarter to a third of the total casualties being civilian, and before that it's a lot less in most conflicts due the way wars were fought (armies marching off to a field and having at one another rather than bombing cities).

As Hereward hinted to, it really depends on the era and the place. Sure, Mesoamerican wars weren't about butchering people but capturing future sacrifices; often, European wars were quite toned down to fight between armies, because of Church influence and of nobles not wanting to rule over ashes and corpses - but notice how it went away as soon as it was Religious Wars (a distant mirror of what happened to the Cathars). And then there are plenty of ancient wars where civilians died en masse. Or we can look at Chinese demographics, and the huge drop of population during the biggest wars.

It's not because there's a lack of good songs about sacked cities that these rarely happened. It's quite possible things go even worse on average if we look outside Europe - Mongols, Assyrians and others -, but even here, there was a lot of massacres in earlier times, and still a fair amount in more recent centuries.

While I don't fully agree with the War Nerd's opinion that warfare where you just massacre unarmed people, rape and plunder, while avoiding battle with armed forces, is the most common and normal kind of warfare, I'm quite of the opinion that the very low civilian casualties of the 18-19th (up to and including WWI) Europe is the outlier.

[Arakan]

Double post

[Arakan]

By the way any comment on the slaughter of more than 2000 Egyptians by Sisi and Western support (including the sale of helicopters and arms) for this barbaric dictator? Or does that not fit your narrative?

Four failed states: Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya. I don't think anyone is going to learn anything from this and Western meddling and intervention in the region is going to continue. Can there be something worse than ISIS on the horizon? I think yes.

First paragraph: a tragedy

Second paragraph: while I am against Western interference it is way too easy to blame the West for the failure of the arab states. All of those states would be losers of globalization without oil & gas revenues. I see big hope for Iran which has a huge potential as soon as the US will stop their unjustified over-the-top attitude towards Iran.

Even in the worst years of the Islamic Revolution, Iran was a shining light of freedom and logic compared to the totalitarian, barbaric and corrupt monstrosity called Saudi Arabia.

Maybe a bit of hyperbole but the point stands, my personal experience with both those countries.