Chavez, Ahmadinejad denounce [Western!] 'aggression' in Libya, Syria

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2011 10:21 PM GMT
    Gadhafi's troops use hospital as base, doctors say.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44164314/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa

    ZAWIYA, Libya — The day Libyan rebels advanced into the strategic city of Zawiya, Moammar Gadhafi's forces clamped down on the local hospital.

    They forced doctors to perform hours of consecutive surgeries, put snipers on the roof and an anti-aircraft gun near the entrance, two doctors who managed to escape said Tuesday.

    ...Dr. Hamid al-Shawish, a 30-year-old surgeon, said the regime had clamped down hard on Zawiya since March, arresting anyone suspected of sympathizing with the rebels. At least 20 doctors and nurses were seized from the hospital, and some remain missing, al-Shawish said.

    ...On Saturday morning, there was an influx of dead and wounded regime soldiers, and civilian patients were ordered to leave the hospital to make room, the two doctors said. Troops closed down the pediatrics and gynecology wards, among others.

    ...Gadhafi's men posted snipers on the roof and an anti-aircraft gun in a yard, right outside the window of the emergency room, the doctor said. Gadhafi's forces fired randomly at nearby houses, but he did not hear incoming rebel fire, he said.

    ...Regime soldiers have been pounding Zawiya with Grad rockets, mortar rounds and artillery shells, sending many civilians fleeing south toward the safety of the mountain range. On Monday, 15 people were killed in an artillery strike.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 12:56 AM GMT
    A combination of prior posts on RJ and current news:

    pouncer, Mar 01, 2011 1:44 PM EST:
    What Chavez really said:
    I can't say that I support, or am in favor, or applaud all the decisions taken by any friend of mine in any part of the world, no, one is at a distance. But we do support the government of Libya

    Chavez's statement might well be perceived as disappointing. But it's hardly a declaration of unilateral support.


    Nearly 6 months later:

    Chavez, Ahmadinejad denounce 'aggression' in Libya, Syria
    http://www.thestatesman.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=380031&catid=37
    CARACAS, 17 AUG: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have denounced the West's “imperialist aggression” in Libya and Syria, the foreign ministry in Caracas said.

    Did you get that? They are not denouncing their friends Gaddafi or Assad, but the opposition!

    In the Syria topic, we see the Iranian regime-run "PressTV" under-reports fatalities in Syria by 2 orders of magnitude (100x).
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1449735

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 12:50 PM GMT
    pouncer> Qadhafi after all still has a tranche of our (Western) weapons

    This is akin to the lie that the US/west built up Saddam's Iraq and his 4th largest army in the world.
    Like Iraq's armed forces were, Libya's is mostly composed of Soviet arms.
    They are flying MIG planes, have T-xx tanks, are firing Scud and Grad missiles, etc.


    pouncer> It would be harsh to say that the Libyan "revolution" largely lost its credibility when it enlisted the help of the former colonial powers and the neighbouring Arab despots to help them in their struggle.

    Then why say it?

    Was there a similar loss of "credibility" when NATO intervened in the former Yugoslavia?


    pouncer> Just as outside forces (primarily Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, but to a lesser extent Israel and the US) are very active in Syria

    LOL. Lebanon is "active" in Syria? Lebanon was a Syrian puppet for more than 30 years. 99% of Lebanon was occupied by Syria. To a large extent, Syria still controls Lebanon by force via Hizbullah. I suppose one could just as well state that Czechoslovakia was "active" in Moscow in the 1970s.


    But if we're looking at pouncer's collection of idiotic natterings, let's not forget this one uttered half a year ago:

    pouncer> I predict Qadhafi will be ousted much quicker than Mubarak was in Egypt.

    Right.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 5:25 PM GMT
    pouncer> Then Iraq attacked Iran

    Wow. You jumped from 1968 to that?
    Skipping over the fact that Saddam turned to the USSR after the West refused to arm him?
    Are we really to believe that Iraq's Soviet tanks and jets were from the 1950s and 60s rather than from the 1970s and 80s?


    Was there a similar loss of "credibility" when NATO intervened in the former Yugoslavia?

    p> yet another "analogy" that doesn't work - that of the Bosnians and Croatians, who declared their independence from Yugoslavia in 1991 and were attacked for exercising that right.

    As if had the Libyan rebels declared independence then NATO intervention would be legitimized?
    Again we see that pouncer doesn't even understand the nature of "principle".
    Thus he natters them about as cheap slogans.


    Lebanon is "active" in Syria? Lebanon was a Syrian puppet for more than 30 years. 99% of Lebanon was occupied by Syria. To a large extent, Syria still controls Lebanon by force via Hizbullah. I suppose one could just as well state that Czechoslovakia was "active" in Moscow in the 1970s.

    p> Are you denying that Hizb at-Tahrir and other anti-Syrian movements are not active currently, in the violence in Syria?

    Are they?
    Is this why you support Assad?

    Were they active in the violence in Egypt?

    What does this have to do with your mindless prattle that "outside forces (primarily Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, but to a lesser extent Israel and the US) are very active in Syria"?

    For anyone who is tempted by the argument that "it's the occupation", consider that Syria occupied 99% of Lebanon for more than 30 years. What backlash was there locally? Distant and pitiful hatists like pouncer didn't care, instead complaining only that Israel occupied the other 1%, a 6-mile wide security strip (to keep terrorist rockets out of range of Israeli population centers). As if that's not bad enough, now he flips reality and claims that Syria's Lebanese puppet is an "outside force" that is "active in Syria"?

    How deranged can his mind get?


    But when it comes to pouncer's endless inanity, this takes the cake:

    pouncer in March> I predict Qadhafi will be ousted much quicker than Mubarak was in Egypt.

    p> What makes you think the Egyptians only started "revolting" against Mubarak on January 25??

    ROTFL.
    As if the Libyans "only started 'revolting'" against Qaddafi in March?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2011 3:49 AM GMT
    As if had the Libyan rebels declared independence then NATO intervention would be legitimized?

    p> The difference between a country exercising its legal right to declare independence from a pan-national confederation, and the right of a disunited group of "rebels"....

    Why pretend to answer the question if you can't?

    Had Mubarak not backed down and had the Egyptian army attacked protesters would you likewise mischaracterize the opposition as "a disunited group of "rebels"? Is this also true in Syria? And who can forget that you claimed this about protesters in Iran, too?

    The poor confused little hateball. If the West were backing the regime, the "rebels" would be his heroes.
    Once again betraying how he hates the West more than he cares for the people in Libya.

    What a sad soul it must be that must do a calculus of who he hates more to figure out where he stands.
    It's as if hate is the only (non selective, faux) "principle" that pouncer knows.


    Lebanon is "active" in Syria? Lebanon was a Syrian puppet for more than 30 years. 99% of Lebanon was occupied by Syria. To a large extent, Syria still controls Lebanon by force via Hizbullah. I suppose one could just as well state that Czechoslovakia was "active" in Moscow in the 1970s.

    p> Are you denying that Hizb at-Tahrir and other anti-Syrian movements are not active currently, in the violence in Syria?

    Are they?
    Is this why you support Assad?


    p> ?


    Were Hizb at-Tahrir active in the violence in Egypt?

    p> ?


    What does this have to do with your mindless prattle that "outside forces (primarily Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, but to a lesser extent Israel and the US) are very active in Syria"?

    p> ?


    For anyone who is tempted by the argument that "it's the occupation", consider that Syria occupied 99% of Lebanon for more than 30 years. What backlash was there locally? Distant and pitiful hatists like pouncer didn't care, instead complaining only that Israel occupied the other 1%, a 6-mile wide security strip (to keep terrorist rockets out of range of Israeli population centers). As if that's not bad enough, now he flips reality and claims that Syria's Lebanese puppet is an "outside force" that is "active in Syria"?

    p> [diversion]


    pouncer in March> I predict Qadhafi will be ousted much quicker than Mubarak was in Egypt.

    p now> What makes you think the Egyptians only started "revolting" against Mubarak on January 25??

    As if the Libyans "only started 'revolting'" against Qaddafi in March?

    p> There's a full blown civil war going on in Libya (has been for half a year).

    What does that have to do with when people in Egypt or Libya "started" "revolting"?

    The fact of the matter, despite your comment, is that the protests in Egypt are numbered in days while in Libya it is months - and still counting.

    For all of his faults, Mubarak (who pouncer considers much worse than Qaddafi for the sole reason that he was a friend of the West and Israel) stepped down rather than pursue military action which would have likely kept him in power at a cost of (tens of?) thousands of lives.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2011 4:19 AM GMT
    Pouncer saidQadhafi is one of the most discredited political leaders in the world - posing first as a champion of Arab liberation, then as a Western good-boy, and now again as a discredited "rebel".

    He has done nothing for Libya in 42 years. Every Libyan, given the country's oil-wealth, ought to be a millionaire living the life of Riley. Instead, large parts of their capital city don't even have street lights and the roads are littered with potholes.

    Plus Qadhafi is stark raving bonkers. I can understand Libyans taking sides in this civil war, but I just can't for the life of me understand any Libyan (or Arab) calling himself "pro-Qadhafi".
    Can they really not set their sights any higher??


    I do not agree with your assessment, although I think it is up to the Libyan people to decide and to determine their own fate - hopefully without foreign interference.

    The political process led by Gaddafi instituted many positive changes in the country, wiping out illiteracy, raising people's cultural and economic level, and instituting many social guarantees. These are good things that should be pointed out, notwithstanding real crimes and errors committed by the Libyan state.

    If strongly opposing foreign interference and supporting the people resisting it makes me "pro-Gaddafi," then so be it. As a gay man, I'd much prefer to live under the "Green Revolution," than in an Islamic republic. In one, keep your shit pretty private and you're OK. In the other, a death squad will come in the night to decapitate you.

    BUT... I don't see it as my place to decide. If the Libyan people want a theocratic republic and to reenslave women, that's on them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2011 7:26 PM GMT
    Pouncer saidQadhafi in my opinion has seldom had a clue what he should be doing. He alternates between socialist ideals and strict Islamic Sharia like a man confused by power.

    ...

    But Qadhafi is the man who betrayed the Palestinian cause, who handed over his weapons programme to Britain and America, and who kissed Tony Blair in a tent in the desert.

    ...

    And as soon as the Libyan people find it within themselves to topple him, WITHOUT the Western forces taking the credit and thereby dictating who the next autocrat will be, the better.


    Gaddafi made exactly one major shift: from "Arab nationalist," Soviet-allied supporter of real liberation movements to pan-Africanist, making major accommodations with the West under changed international circumstances. It is easy to be critical of leaders who made such policy changes after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but in pragmatic terms, what else could be done under conditions of such pressure? Just playing devil's advocate...

    Gaddafi supported factions in the Palestinian movement that were beholden to Libya. The biggest betrayal was by the PLO itself, not Libya. I think that Gaddafi's "Isratine" concept was actually useful as a means to settle the Palestine/Israel question. He was right not to support those who wish to evict the "settler colonialists."

    The option of Libyans toppling Gaddafi without Western domination being the end result is no longer on the table. The options are either defeat of the NATO/insurgency or loss of national independence. It's not about supporting Gaddafi or opposing him, it's about the objective conditions and the choices that actually exist, in reality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 31, 2011 2:30 PM GMT
    Libya commander says 50,000 dead in anti-Gadhafi uprising
    Figures include those killed in the fighting between Gadhafi's troops and his foes, and those who have gone missing over the past six months.


    http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/libya-commander-says-50-000-dead-in-anti-gadhafi-uprising-1.381606


    Libya massacre site discovered near Tripoli
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/08/28/libya-massacre.html