Middle East on fire - should we worry

I'm sure lots of posters on here have been on holidays at one time or another to the Middle East. I'm sure some have even been to Egypt and are looking on at the events there in surprise and worry. I've been watching events grow from the Tunisia mayhem to what is happening now in Egypt, what is building in Jordan and what is also happening, though less noticed, in Yemen.

Now, maybe it's just me, though I doubt it, but I'm getting worried by what is happening. When I hear the US spokespeople embracing "change" and "increasing international pressure" being put on Mubarak to get out, it just shatters my belief that these people who advocate placating the mob, actually know what's going on. These countries don't do democracy well, they do autocracy badly, and the one thing do manage is to keep tabs on the fundies who would love to grab control.

If Mubarak goes, and "democracy" comes in, Israel is in serious trouble. The people who are going to take over are the type who don't believe in religious harmony, remember this is a country where Christians are slaughtered and liberal muslims end up swinging from lamp posts.

Worse still, if Jordan goes, then we're going to have even more trouble. Jordan is a police state, though it's the only one in the Middle East that granted Palestinians citizenship and let them take an active part in civic life - the marriages of the royals bolstered this. It's almost 50-50 between native Jordanians and Palestinians, Jordan are a trading nation and balance the wild east (Iraq) with a relatively calm west (Israel and Lebanon).

I am no fan of Israeli policy. That they allow so many criminal types in and are in existence thanks to American firepower, says bad things for them. However I appreciate the fact that they are a progressive nation, with many elements we appreciate in European society - plus it's not their fault they've been dumped with the legacy of American and European distaste. They at least provide a buffer against the hypocritical rulers of Saudi and the military regimes of Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

From what I can see in the Irish, British, US and general European media - getting rid of Mubarak and his kleptocrats - to give the country democracy, is a frightening prospect. Mubarak has been a thug and ruled with an iron fist, and even he can't keep the fundies at bay. What happens when they take over - see Iran.

It doesn't follow that once the dictators fall, fundamentalists will take over - El Baradei seems to have a greater popular support in Egypt than the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Tunisian uprising looks to have most in common with the Ukraine's Orange Revolution in terms of resentment against corruption. Most of these countries have never had elections that were truly democratic by Western standards, so much like with Sinn Féin here, the ordinary people won't be fooled by simplistic Islamist solutions.

Culloty82, we're not talking about citizenry that would think twice about having another go at Israel, or turning to the fundies. El Baradei is a decent sort, but it was the same in Iraq, and Afghanistan - how have they turned out? Tunisia, true enough, was alot to do with corruption, though the Ukraine was not quite that. One of the leaders of the Orange Revolution, Timoshenko, was one of the elite and highly corrupt, using her various positions to grab more and more wealth, in the same manner as Luzkhkov's wife in Moscow. She got the bums rush and those who risked all by taking to the streets to push the Orange agenda (which was financially and materially supported by American agencies) now are calling for her head. I just fear that meddling nations, UK, USA are going to unleash hell in the region.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spudulika

I am no fan of Israeli policy.

---

Reminiscint of the classic, "Im not a racist but...."

Quote:

---

That they allow so many criminal types in and are in existence thanks to American firepower, says bad things for them. However I appreciate the fact that they are a progressive nation, with many elements we appreciate in European society - plus it's not their fault they've been dumped with the legacy of American and European distaste. They at least provide a buffer against the hypocritical rulers of Saudi and the military regimes of Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

---

You find ethnic cleansing progressive?
Israel ahs sytematically ethnically cleansed the Palestinians from their lands and is one of the worlds most criminal states.
It has broken more UN conventions than any other country in the world, including all the Arab states you have listed.
To state Israel is in any way progressive is just hilarious.
It is a criminal state based on Relgious Fundamentalism and is the biggest threat to Middle East stability.
The amount of stereotypes, misconceptions and casual racism throughout your post is really quite staggering.
You do realise who has supported the tyranny of Mubarek, and ill give you a clue its not the "fundies".
Also who is the primary allys of the "hypocritical rulers" of the Saudis?

Quote:

---

From what I can see in the Irish, British, US and general European media - getting rid of Mubarak and his kleptocrats - to give the country democracy, is a frightening prospect. Mubarak has been a thug and ruled with an iron fist, and even he can't keep the fundies at bay.

---

So Mubarek was their to cure fundamentalism?
He hasnt been a cause of it, no?
Is it really beyond your chauvanistic perspective to comprehend that Mubarek and his ilke of yankee imperial puppets are in a large part responsible for Islamic Fundamentalism by fanning discontent and giving the people legitimate grievence's that the Imams funnel into fundamentalism?
Look at the House of Saud or the Shah or Israel or any of the countless forays into the Middle East by western imperial interests that have created a seething pot of discontent harnessed by Islamic Fundametalists.
Mubarek wasnt placed in Egypt to placate the masses he was placed there to control the masses and now American Imperialism has helped create more enraged Arabs through their foreign policy.

Quote:

---

What happens when they take over - see Iran.

---

haha, sweet mother of god.
Have you just copied and pasted Glenn Becks latest tweet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rasputin

Reminiscint of the classic, "Im not a racist but...." No, I do not agree with Israeli policy. No buts, nothing. Too many things they have done are wrong. However I appreciate many of the things they have done right. Their situation was created out of European and US collaboration to solve the Jewish question in Europe once and for all, yet it ignored the rights of the Palestinians.

---

To each their own I guess and I will refrain from any generalisation or lack of respect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rasputin

Reminiscint of the classic, "Im not a racist but...."
You find ethnic cleansing progressive?
Israel ahs sytematically ethnically cleansed the Palestinians from their lands and is one of the worlds most criminal states.
It has broken more UN conventions than any other country in the world, including all the Arab states you have listed.
To state Israel is in any way progressive is just hilarious.
It is a criminal state based on Relgious Fundamentalism and is the biggest threat to Middle East stability.
The amount of stereotypes, misconceptions and casual racism throughout your post is really quite staggering.

---

what solution would you propose for the Israeli situation given that its neighbours dont want it to exist at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billsthoughts

what solution would you propose for the Israeli situation given that its neighbours dont want it to exist at all?

---

Of course they dont want it to exist, it is a state founded in the 40's and 50's by exporting White Europeans with the assistance Western powers into Palestinian lands and ethnically cleansing the natives from it.
You would swear that them not "wanting it to exist" was some sort of zany fundamentalism.
Maybe its because people in the Middle East have a wider comprehension of the context that spans more than just the last 3 or 4 decades.
I suggest you read "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" by Ilan Pappe and also the author is Jewish so that should rubbish the inevitable anti-semite claims.

Again what would be your solution as the only logical progression of what you are saying would be to ethnically cleanse the Isaraelis? Or repatriate them all back to Europe?

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the Israelis being there they are there now. Any resolution of the conflict will have to take that into account.

Stopping the continued illegal settlement of the West Bank would be a nice start.

On the face of it this has gone way off topic, but in another way its got to the core of the topic. The middle east has been on fire since the partition of the British mandate, and until a resolution to the Israel-Palestine issue is found the situation will continue to deteriorate. Given the influence of the pro-Israel faction in Washington, things will have to get much worse before the political will is found to impose a realistic 2-state solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billsthoughts

Again what would be your solution as the only logical progression of what you are saying would be to ethnically cleanse the Isaraelis? Or repatriate them all back to Europe?

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the Israelis being there they are there now. Any resolution of the conflict will have to take that into account.

---

Israel doesnt want peace, my suggestions for the solution to the situation are irrelevant.
Israel will continue to do what it has done for the past decades and continually ethnically cleanse the Palestinians in any way possible.
In the not so distant future Palestinians wont exist in the Palestinian territorys and Israeli settlers will occupy their lands.
This was all set out in the Koenig Memorandum.

A shocking OP and the idea that "These countries don't do democracy well" is nothing short of racist - implying that the people of the middle east are less capable of making rational decisions than white europeans and Americans. Yet the real reason why fundamentalists win support is that the western superpowers (and previously the Soviet Union) have been meddling in their affairs for what seems like an eternity. The interest in these countries varies from the economic to supporting the Israeli zionist state and is never concerned with the welfare of the inhabitants of the region.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

A shocking OP and the idea that "These countries don't do democracy well" is nothing short of racist - implying that the people of the middle east are less capable of making rational decisions than white europeans and Americans. Yet the real reason why fundamentalists win support is that the western superpowers (and previously the Soviet Union) have been meddling in their affairs for what seems like an eternity. The interest in these countries varies from the economic to supporting the Israeli zionist state and is never concerned with the welfare of the inhabitants of the region.

---

BohsP, read your history books and visit the region, immerse yourself in the culture and you'll find they're not too distant from our own, or any others, and outside influence has little to do with it. Religion is a major factor in any assessment, it is still causing Ireland headaches and hasn't been thrown off, however it's not polite to discuss such matters in "polite" society. Any questioning of ME affairs always has to be tempered, why? Why is it okay to slam Israel and zionism, yet far more muted attacks take place on, for example, wahabism? Peadar is 100% right, new settlements need to be stopped and existing illegal ones removed and the inhabitants rehoused in ACTUAL zones under law. This is a major start. Another start would be for reform of Islamic rule in countries such as Saudi Arabia (who are the chief fundraisers and trouble makers in Palestine), Iran etc. Until there is give and take on both sides there will be no progress.

By adding "racism" as a slur you're demeaning the discussion and also lumping all the peoples in the region together. It's unfair on many areas and uninformed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rasputin

Israel doesnt want peace, my suggestions for the solution to the situation are irrelevant.
Israel will continue to do what it has done for the past decades and continually ethnically cleanse the Palestinians in any way possible.
In the not so distant future Palestinians wont exist in the Palestinian territorys and Israeli settlers will occupy their lands.
This was all set out in the Koenig Memorandum.

---

why do you think israel are doing that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spudulika

BohsP, read your history books and visit the region, immerse yourself in the culture and you'll find they're not too distant from our own, or any others, and outside influence has little to do with it. Religion is a major factor in any assessment, it is still causing Ireland headaches and hasn't been thrown off, however it's not polite to discuss such matters in "polite" society. Any questioning of ME affairs always has to be tempered, why? Why is it okay to slam Israel and zionism, yet far more muted attacks take place on, for example, wahabism? Peadar is 100% right, new settlements need to be stopped and existing illegal ones removed and the inhabitants rehoused in ACTUAL zones under law. This is a major start. Another start would be for reform of Islamic rule in countries such as Saudi Arabia (who are the chief fundraisers and trouble makers in Palestine), Iran etc. Until there is give and take on both sides there will be no progress.

By adding "racism" as a slur you're demeaning the discussion and also lumping all the peoples in the region together. It's unfair on many areas and uninformed.

---

If you make a blanket statement that "These countries don't do democracy well" you are implying that the ethnic groups there are less capable of making their own decisions than those in Europe. That is a racist statement so it's not a slur on my part. If you mean something else you should clarify it. I'm well aware of the history of the region. For example the coming to power of the Islamic regime in Iran was in part a backlash against the corrupt US sponsored regime of the Shah and the powerfull workers movement which played a big role in the early days of the revolution being heavily influenced by Stalinism and as a result following Soviet foreign policy in standing aside and allowing the Islamists to take over (this was in line with the Stalinist "two-stage" theory of revolution, that first the "progressive bourgeoisie" had to take power in colonial and semi-colonial countries and develope capitalism before the working class could take power - yes they did bizarrely consider the Islamists to be "progressive bourgeoisie").

Pretty concise video analysis of the whole Egyptian situation here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

If you make a blanket statement that "These countries don't do democracy well" you are implying that the ethnic groups there are less capable of making their own decisions than those in Europe. That is a racist statement so it's not a slur on my part. If you mean something else you should clarify it. I'm well aware of the history of the region. For example the coming to power of the Islamic regime in Iran was in part a backlash against the corrupt US sponsored regime of the Shah and the powerfull workers movement which played a big role in the early days of the revolution being heavily influenced by Stalinism and as a result following Soviet foreign policy in standing aside and allowing the Islamists to take over (this was in line with the Stalinist "two-stage" theory of revolution, that first the "progressive bourgeoisie" had to take power in colonial and semi-colonial countries and develope capitalism before the working class could take power - yes they did bizarrely consider the Islamists to be "progressive bourgeoisie").

---

Using the racist slur is something that is too readily thrown about when discussions on the ME occur, and in this case it is very wrong, especially as you now draw a line between nations and race. Countries have nothing to do with race, yet in your mind you appear to see the ME as one homogeneous block - Arabs/Muslims, when in fact it varies greatly even within national borders (Lebanon a perfect example). Your insertion of Iran is the accepted version, though leading the revolution at that time were academics, progressive reformers and communists, yet they ended up fleeing the country or swinging from lamp posts once the religious bloc took over. This religious grouping then, ironically with Saudi assistance, began pushing up into Soviet territory which has gone on to become the destabilising factor the world sees today. If you're inferring that the revolution was Soviet backed you're partially right, it had more to do with French interests in the region and their tacit support of enlightened islamic rule. However what is continually misunderstood is the nature of radical islam, this is what the tenet of the thread itself. Like our own country with it's long history of tribalism and clientelism, countries in the ME are no different. Interference from the outside continues - unless you missed it Obama is saying "yes they can" to those wanting Mubarak out. In the manner of FF's suggestions of how Ireland should be run and what is best for the electorate, are the USA so enlightened now that they should be listened to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spudulika

BohsP, read your history books and visit the region, immerse yourself in the culture and you'll find they're not too distant from our own, or any others, and outside influence has little to do with it. Religion is a major factor in any assessment, it is still causing Ireland headaches and hasn't been thrown off, however it's not polite to discuss such matters in "polite" society. Any questioning of ME affairs always has to be tempered, why? Why is it okay to slam Israel and zionism, yet far more muted attacks take place on, for example, wahabism? Peadar is 100% right, new settlements need to be stopped and existing illegal ones removed and the inhabitants rehoused in ACTUAL zones under law. This is a major start. Another start would be for reform of Islamic rule in countries such as Saudi Arabia (who are the chief fundraisers and trouble makers in Palestine), Iran etc. Until there is give and take on both sides there will be no progress.

---

I think this does have a lot to do with the fact that it is almost universally agreed, in Western Europe at least, that radical Islam is a bad thing. Nobody really feels the need to convince anyone otherwise. There's a lot more support in various areas for Israel, and their supposed Divine Right to rule over the middle east, so arguments are a lot more common between the supporters, and those who think otherwise.

And you are dead right about compromise. If both sides continue refusing to give an inch, the situation will never be resolved. Of course, an impartial broker, whose government aren't in thrall to conservative christians, would be very welcome. I wonder could China ever fulfil that role.

Peadar you're speaking complete sense! I don't know if you mean Israel's right to rule over the Middle East or the Islamic radicals, if it's the former I think you mean the holy land which is where they're at right now, if it's the latter you couldn't be more wrong - they want to rule the world, though they'll take the ME for now. Of course I say you couldn't be more wrong as a joke, I've traveled throughout the region, lived there and just saw the great differences from country to country. This summer I was in Libya for the first time and while I'm not a fan of Ghaddafi, I could see how the islam practiced there was far more open and progressive than in (for example) Egypt or Algeria. At least religion was well monitored in the state. Again, I think Ghaddafi is not a nice person and the country is a nervous wreck, though the outrages of radicals are kept well out of the way.

You've hit a good note with an honest broker role, though China, it's food for thought. I had a very weird experience in Sudan back in 2002, standing in a dusty desert town trying to figure how I was going to catch a lorry bus when three impeccably turned out Chinese (in shiny suits) appeared with brief cases and looked at me as if I were out of place. It was +35 and I was melting, these guys in their shiny acrylic suits must have been liquid. Up pulls a large Nissan Patrol, they jumped in and disappeared. Apparently they were in doing deals and had that air of neutrality and honesty, according to some I spoke with. The Japanese would also be decent with no religious ties whatsoever (there is a substantial muslim population in China so this might be a hold up). I can't remember where I read it, could have been a novel, but the Swiss Guards have been suggested as peacekeepers as the head of the Catholic church carries relatively good weight and has good relations with Jewish and Islamic leaders. Though hand on heart, I just can't see anything being enough for the hard core on either side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spudulika

I can't remember where I read it, could have been a novel, but the Swiss Guards have been suggested as peacekeepers as the head of the Catholic church carries relatively good weight and has good relations with Jewish and Islamic leaders. Though hand on heart, I just can't see anything being enough for the hard core on either side.

---

Tom Clancy, Jack Ryan novel, Sum of All Fears. The one where an ex-Stasi and Islamic fundamentalist alliance nuked Denver with an Israeli bomb. From the '73 war. Wasn't exactly War and Peace.

Thank you! I knew I'd read it years ago, I remember some old Arab guy finding a bomb, then how peace arrives in Jerusalem and so on. Not a great piece of work, but good fun.

I'm going to re-read his Red Storm Rising. I read it by chance back in 1996 when I first moved to Canada and it felt so real and plausible. Don't like the man's politics too much, but his theories are interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spudulika

Peadar you're speaking complete sense! I don't know if you mean Israel's right to rule over the Middle East or the Islamic radicals, if it's the former I think you mean the holy land which is where they're at right now, if it's the latter you couldn't be more wrong - they want to rule the world, though they'll take the ME for now.

---

I was talking about the Israelis. Many Jewish people and conservative christians have a nasty habit of justifying everything they do on religious grounds. Unfortunately they're a very important voting bloc in the US, so the US government has few qualms about sacrificing a few thousand Palestinians in return for a few million votes.

Quote:

---

Of course I say you couldn't be more wrong as a joke, I've traveled throughout the region, lived there and just saw the great differences from country to country. This summer I was in Libya for the first time and while I'm not a fan of Ghaddafi, I could see how the islam practiced there was far more open and progressive than in (for example) Egypt or Algeria. At least religion was well monitored in the state. Again, I think Ghaddafi is not a nice person and the country is a nervous wreck, though the outrages of radicals are kept well out of the way.

---

I still think compromise is the best route. Imposing Western Democracy is clearly not the best route for peace in the Middle East. Obviously there will still be a fringe of lunatics, but having, say, a constitution that confirms the rights of women, and non-Muslims, while having an elected upper house of religious leaders, would bring a lot more Muslims on board.

Quote:

---

You've hit a good note with an honest broker role, though China, it's food for thought. I had a very weird experience in Sudan back in 2002, standing in a dusty desert town trying to figure how I was going to catch a lorry bus when three impeccably turned out Chinese (in shiny suits) appeared with brief cases and looked at me as if I were out of place. It was +35 and I was melting, these guys in their shiny acrylic suits must have been liquid. Up pulls a large Nissan Patrol, they jumped in and disappeared. Apparently they were in doing deals and had that air of neutrality and honesty, according to some I spoke with. The Japanese would also be decent with no religious ties whatsoever (there is a substantial muslim population in China so this might be a hold up). I can't remember where I read it, could have been a novel, but the Swiss Guards have been suggested as peacekeepers as the head of the Catholic church carries relatively good weight and has good relations with Jewish and Islamic leaders. Though hand on heart, I just can't see anything being enough for the hard core on either side.

---

I think a major part of the problem is the obviously biased nature of the US's dealings with the Middle East over the last 60 years. The Israelis will expect a continuation of the support they have received, while the Palestinians will want someone who will treat them as they've seen the Israelis being treated.

You're right about Japan though, there'd also be less of a perception that they were using the deal as some sort of ploy in becoming a superpower. There's an awful lot of distrust of China in the US, Japan, not so much.

Mubarak has resigned with a "Military Council" taking over for now. Rejoicing in the streets but seems to be no real idea where things will go from here. Presidential elections due in september this year.

We wait and see. Arrests supposedly taking place of protestors. The last thing the Military want is to have radicals on board, it could be another Turkey or even Jordan.

Libya in total chaos, 2 colleagues are holed up at the international airport waiting to leave after running gun battles in Tripoli between rival factions - they don't know if the inbound flight from Malta will actually arrive. The sons look to be starting their own civil war. I keep wondering when the media luvvies will actually wake the heck up to this. Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Iraq, Jordan, Libya - lots of fun.

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles...s-of-civil-war

I was watching that fascist Glenn Beck the other night where he was comparing the coming of the 12th imam to the coming of satin. I think I'd be more worried about America if people actually believe stuff like that then what's happening in the Arab world at the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean South

I was watching that fascist Glenn Beck the other night where he was comparing the coming of the 12th imam to the coming of satin. I think I'd be more worried about America if people actually believe stuff like that then what's happening in the Arab world at the moment.

---

Glenn Beck would be hilarious if so many people didn't hang on his every word. Saying things like "Obama is looking at providing health care for everyone. You know who else tried to do that? Hitler!"

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/s...eck-quotes.htm

I'm getting a bit worried about the price of diesel.

Glen Beck is the most insufferable expletive ever.

Anybody wanting decent coverage of what's going on in the Middle East should watch Al Jazeera English. They've wall-to-wall coverage of Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Iraq, all of them. AFAIK, it's free to all Sky customers on ch. 514. I've been getting a feeling of smug righteousness about the whole thing from Western media.

I'd be pretty concerned by Gaddafi saying he'd open the armories and hand out the weapons to those who stayed loyal to him. It seems like he wants to go all out to try and crush the revolt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfrank

go all out to try and crush the revolt.

---

or go out in a blaze of glory...which could be worse :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfrank

Anybody wanting decent coverage of what's going on in the Middle East should watch Al Jazeera English. They've wall-to-wall coverage of Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Iraq, all of them. AFAIK, it's free to all Sky customers on ch. 514. I've been getting a feeling of smug righteousness about the whole thing from Western media.

I'd be pretty concerned by Gaddafi saying he'd open the armories and hand out the weapons to those who stayed loyal to him. It seems like he wants to go all out to try and crush the revolt.

---

While I agree with you, Al Jazeera would also be a little one sided, plus there are so many sides to this whole mess. I met a friend this morning in London who luckily (as he has a UK passport) escaped and feels that now as a refugee he'll never see Libya again. As he said, a big push came on from either side of Libya, armed mercenary groups joined in and there is so much going on that the "west" is not being told. Russia Today (www.rt.com) were doing some good reports until 2 days ago (I haven't watched since) and since they have an Arabic channel they're right inside the situation. There is a whole heap of Russian commercial interest there - I was shocked back in July to see the Russian Railways symbol all around the place - and this was a major bone of contention as they won the contract to build the railways and rolling stock in Libya at the expense of the French and Spanish.

Oh, and some of what Ghaddafi is saying is being deliberately misinterpreted - BBC are the greatest culprit in this. However when the media luvvies and UK/US/EU neo-cons are clamouring for more cheap oil and gas, nothing will stand in their way.

Has anyone seen the new "elected" President of the Libyan rebel council - presented on Sky News? If there is any doubt as to his motivation, check out his forehead. I'll leave it at that.

Interesting development in the last day, American air and naval assets are "repositioning themselves" near Libya to assist. Hmm, maybe the natural resources of Libya is of value, perhaps it's just coincidence - US "advisers" riding along with rebels and such.

The last thing the US want is Middle Eastern democracy. If the people rule the country, the people will want control of the resources. Much easier for the US and their lackeys to keep a dictator in power in return for the right to steal the natural wealth of the region.

Evidently, democracy as it is practiced, is no barrier to the stealing of the natural wealth of a nation.

Do we have to look very far to see how the natural wealth of a nation can be leased out to foreign interests and all done in total compliance with what passes for a constitution, which gives executive dictatorial power to government to decide that such state assets are managed with little or no beneficial interest to the citizens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQeRG72E3OM

Think this video encapsulates the issues in the Arab world!

I'm wondering when there will be the slightest balance in coverage of unfolding events in the ME, especially in Libya. Nobody has commented on the murder (usually by hanging or behading) of black Africans in "protestor"/"rebel" held territory in Libya - especially as they're the good guys. Nobody has commented on the fact that the leader of the Libyan Transnational Council Jibril and his ties to hardliners and French oil giant Total. Nobody has questioned why the French are leading the way into Libya? Nobody has asked why they are determined to "bring democracy" to a secular country when they crush Islamic dissent at home. Sky are desperate for war, CNN too, they're driving up hatred through tweets and facebook so that everybody believes a just war will take place. We can expect attacks on Libya to start within a week. Sick.

So wonder with this no fly zone will America and the rest (sorry I forgot - the UN!) also have one in place in Yemen, Bahrain (US trained/supported SA troops) and North Pakistan?

Great time to be sent to Oman for 2 weeks work! Im flying monday morning, hopefully things wont flair up much more in yemen, bahrain or saudi til i get back