I figured this might happen eventually too.
Al-Qaida leader Zawahri praises Syrian protesters
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...-zawahri-syria
Printable View
I figured this might happen eventually too.
Al-Qaida leader Zawahri praises Syrian protesters
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...-zawahri-syria
[QUOTE=Stavros;1093048]My apologies for the length of this reply.
For the USA, the crisis in Syria exposes the weakest position that the USA has been in the region since George H Bush ousted Iraq from Kuwait. All the gains that the President of Charm, Bill Clinton, made in the 1990s were trashed by George W Bush. Had Barack Obama from the outset played tough with Israel, he might have been able to persuade the Arabs that the bias in favour of Israel which began under LBJ is subject to review. However, Obama’s advisers, particularly Rahm Emmanuel and Dennis Ross, tended to suggest the gradualist soft-shoe shuffle as an operational tactic, except that Netanyahu doesn’t dance, just encourages settlers to break the law and treats the President of the USA with contempt. It is important because right now the USA has little or no leverage in the region outside its long-established relations with Saudi Arabia and Jordan (I am assuming King Abdullah gets the monthly thank-you cheques his dad used to rely on. In return, Hussein gave the US raw intelligence on other Arab leaders). Maintaining regional order is the USA’s priority at a time when Israel is threatening to attack Iran. However, there may be some backroom diplomacy going on in which the USA is offering moral support to the opposition in Syria, and, in the long term, vague guarantees about protecting a fledgling democracy in Syria, possibly using Qatar as a conduit for these messages.
This is pure folly. You're one of those arm chair intellectuals who sits behind his keyboard with too much time on his hands and oozes out your pabulum. I think you like to hear yourself talk. Your anti Semitism comes through like a bright light in this, and most of your other overly verbose posts. So it was the Jews in the administration that strong armed Obama into his permissive tact towards Israel? That my friend in pure unadulterated anti Semitism...and what does it say about Obama that he can be led around by the nose by his Jews? You're hopeless foolish and naive if you think any living man can "persuade" the Arabs anything. You must have been dozing for the first year of the Obama Administration where he traveled the Muslim world often, flashed his Muslim family credentials, and played nice with every Muslim country....even was awarded the Nobel Peace prize for his apologies.....and to what end?
You would have us believe that Netanyahu's disdain form Obama is simply unwarranted. As if he fabricated it without cause....Doesn't this Jew realize what we've done for him? lol
As far as your "charmer", Bill Clinton, he forfeited the gains he achieved in his first term with the attack on Iraq, and the Lewinski affair in his second. You may or may not recall Madeline Albright didn't even visit the region for nearly a year as Clinton was distracted at home. Is that Netanyahu's fault as well? To develop a peace process you need honest brokers. Arafat could never be put in that category, and BiBi knew it. Additionally it was Arafat who walked away from the Camp David deal, and it was Clinton who clearly blamed him for the impasse. You seem to have short term memory loss when it pertains to certain facts. Arafat once said to Clinton..."You are a great man" Clinton is said to have responded..."I am not a great man, I am a failure, and you made it so" . Better go back and hit the history books. Your version is sorely lacking perspective.
On with the ad hominem attacks! CHARGE!
Trish, any opinion on the Syrian situation? I'd like your opinion too.
None I'm willing to defend or worth repeating. I certainly don't want to see any more U.S. troops lose their lives in the Middle East or anybody else's troops. But I certainly detest seeing Syrian civilians being killed and trammeled by an inhuman dictator. Finally, I'm certainly glad I don't number among those to whom people are turning to for a solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino Velvet
That's your right. I respect that. I wanted to see how much agreement is on all sides. I don't want our military in there either even though I do not like what is going on there.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Well if I don't tell him how lacking his post was....who will? You? Please. This type of bilge is passed off every day by liberal academics sympathetic to the Palestinians. .
His post reeked of anti Semitism. He had to be dealt with. I didn't see anything ad hominem about it...You're over reacting ...again.
[quote=onmyknees;1093443]I am not anti-semitic. There is a difference between being a critic of Israel and its politicians, and hating Jews. I have already defended the Jews from the preposterous argument that they are behind the problems of the world, that our world is run by Jewish bankers and all that crap-you can read it here:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=63803
There is a large body of literature on the US-Israel relationship which tries to explain the different reasons why the US since the 1960s has shown a bias to this state, in spite of Israel's attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 -sometimes it was for strategic reasons, in more recent times it has been partly pressure from Israel and its silly claim to be the 'only democracy' in the Middle East sharing the values of the USA (which simply isn't true), and partly the support for Israel that comes from Christian fundamentalists who believe the Second Coming will take place in the same place where Jesus last appeared, but who then believe the Jews must convert or be consigned to hell -not exactly a pro-Jewish stance.
Your own understanding of the history of your own times is shaped by your loathing of Democrats and the recorded fact that the only two Presidents to have brokered a peace between Israel and the Arabs since 1948 were Democrats. What have the Republicans achieved?
Clinton alienated a lot of the same people he might have won over in the first half of the 90s with the imposition of sanctions on Iraq, I didn't actually say Clinton was a runaway success, charm goes a long way but not far enough. But Arafat did sign a peace treaty, when Yitzhak Rabin was the democratically elected leader of Israel. Netanyahu and his boss, Ariel Sharon, were in opposition and opposed this historic deal from the start. At Camp David in 2000, it was the democratically elected Ehud Barak along with Arafat who failed to find the formula to conclude the process that had begun in 1993. Arafat was offered something he could not accept, it is as simple as that.
Netanyahu was not part of the process, he never wanted to be. His entire political lineage from Jabotinsky and Stern to the present day has been shaped by a belief that there is nothing to negotiate.
Every year Netanyahu celebrates the terrorist attack on the King David Hotel in 1946, a bombing that killed 91 people -including Jews- and injured 45, a bombing carried out by the Irgun and condemned by the Jewish Agency -this outrageous annual celebration of terror speaks volumes for the divisions in Israel as much as the loathsome politics of Netanyahu -but the truth is Israelis are more bitterly critical of him than even I am, but then I suppose to you they must be 'self-hating Jews' -for what? Not wanting to see their country dragged into the gutter by this man or his foul-mouthed buddy Avigdor Liberman?
If there is to be a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians, both sides have to offer concessions -in the past it was the USA that acted as an honest broker, and delivered. However imperfect the details have been, the mere fact that it happened is something for which, as an American, you should be proud.
Ironically, it is true, I am an armchair intellectual, as I am now semi-retired but still willing to produce if asked. The difference between the two of us is that I have connections to Palestine and Syria that you do not not, but forgive me if I dont think my family history should be aired for your entertainment. In addition, I have lived on the West Bank, not you; I have researched and published on the region, not you. That doesn't mean I am right, my posts here are my interpretations, complete with errors of fact, twisted logic, or whatever other failings you can attribute to me.
On my last trip to the Israel State Archive in Jerusalem, I stayed in Arab East Jerusalem where I had once lived -and loved- before. I walked through the Jaffa Gate in the opposite direction Allenby took when claiming victory in November 1917. I turned right on my way into Jewish West Jerusalem for a coffee in one of the pavement cafes they have there. On the way I passed a fast food joint: McDavid. You need to go to Israel/Palestine and see the misery of the occupation, listen to the violent, hysterical garbage of religious extremists on all sides; and then experience the humour and the love of life that Israelis and Palestinians express in their music, their poetry, their food, and make a choice, just as the people who live there must choose.
And realise that amidst all this humiliation and pain, people fall in love and get married; protest at the price of housing; watch American movies and American tv; and Arab boys furtively search for sex with Jewish boys (well, anyone will do) in the parks at night; and crack jokes; and you can get a Kosher burger that is even cheaper than McDonalds.
Against all the odds, you end up being an optimist; because the alternative is despair, and that is the road to nowhere littered with dead and mutilated bodies where nothing is achieved, and we are all better than that, and capable of better things.
OMK, your post is a paradigm example of pure pablum oozed from the pours of an armchair layabout. And please don't insult our intelligence by conflating that statement of pure fact with ad hominem argumentation.
So now you're hiding behind Jews? What makes you think they'd have a problem with Muslims in the neighborhood? Got any more lame stereotypes to toss around? Might as well get them all out. The only "information" you've managed to impart is that you're a punk. Apparently, so are your "mates", who are such pussies that they'd rather pack up & run away than take a chance on catching Muslim cooties or some such horseshit. I've heard all the lame excuses for white flight for the last half century. Forced out? Bullshit! It always comes down to the runners being a bunch of pathelogical wimps who are too stupid to know that they don't know shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by russtafa
hey hippie i worked nightclubs for over ten years yah punk .i like jews they don't cause trouble not like mussies yah shithead.how many jews in side for assault =not many.how many mussies in jail=fucking heaps ,dickhead
i love how the resident australian village idiot keeps increasing the depth of his hole with every single post
I don't care how many floors you've mopped. A punk is just a punk. You're nothing more than an upside down version of the sheet monkeys we have over here.
Back on topic:
Invasion doesn't work. Heavy handed military action doesn't work anywhere. It's always resented by the people in the line of fire. whatever happens, keep it covert & deniable.
Dang, dare I say it.. totally agree.. i need to phone my therapist.Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
suck my big dirty cock cuntQuote:
Originally Posted by muh_muh
It's the Arab League's problem, not ours. If those countries aren't willing to marshal their military assets to save the lives of Syrian civilians, why is Uncle Sam expected to intervene??
In case you haven't noticed, the U.S.A's rep in the Middle East when it comes to military intervention is lower than shit.
At best we make the situation worse.
I feel for those people with all my heart, but they need to ask themselves why their Arab brothers are watching them being slaughtered in the thousands and stand by and do nothing.
THe Saudis and Egyptians alone have the military might to overthrow the Bashir regime in 48 hours. Ask them why they choose not to act.
Newsflash, the world is a shitty place. There are crises happening all over the globe, all the time.
Captain America can't save everyone.
The only bloke on this site that's a realist not a bleeding heartQuote:
Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel
They already know the answer to that. Aside from the 3 countries that were overthrown by popular uprising last year, the rest of the Arab league is ruled by the same kind of kings, princes, & asshole dictators as Assad. The US & Europe have gone out of their way to prop up one man rule in the region for the last century at least. Don't kid yourself. Nobody on this planet has ever given a shit about the Arab peoples, including their own rulers. That's why they're so pissed off. They were cut off from the rest of the world so it'd be easier to get them to buy into the various lines of bullshit they've been fed. Not anymore. The powers that be in the Arab League won't turn on Assad because they know they're the next target of the regional uprising.Quote:
I feel for those people with all my heart, but they need to ask themselves why their Arab brothers are watching them being slaughtered in the thousands and stand by and do nothing.
hippie has already told me he does not give a shit about the rest of the world? cunt can't keep his shit right
Oh really? If you want to quote me, go ahead. I don't mind. But don't lie about what I say. Everything here is in writing. Paste it up, punky boy.Quote:
Originally Posted by russtafa
I don't give a shit about you, but you're not the rest of the world.
you are just a fucking pimple hippieQuote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
Russtafa - argument is one thing, simple abuse is another. Offer your arguements but name calling is just a waste of space. It demeans you.
i used to stand on hippies for a laugh in the seventies .i am being nice these days.when we were kids hippies were great fun cause every one knows they hate work and washing and love drugs,their sluts everyone can root and they are weak.now i am a responsible citizen but worrying about mussies who hate the infidel and would kill most of you lot without a second thought is like a mouse worrying about a cat.to kill an infidel is one step to heaven
First part of your message connected to the latter part?
So you relish your adolescent thuggery - picking on those you perceived as weak. If you and your mates were now to come upon a Muslim alone on a dark street at night, would you do the same to him i.e. "stand on" or worse? Just wondering?
i would help him on the first boat back to where he came from and you and your liberal buddies that love the mussies so much could go with him
Ahh... I see forced deportation to begin with. If that doesn't work, then what? Some nice camps to keep 'em away from the rest of you nice white Aussies? (And i guess you'd put folks like me and maybe mental defectives in the camp as well). I don't think you've thought this through properly. You gotta have some kind of final solution to sort out he Muslim question surely?
no i talked to so Cambodians and Vietnam and i asked them about muslims and they laughed and said they just kill them when they find them in their countries so i reckon they are great citizens for Australia, but you lot yes re-education camps or just dump you with the muslims and if they kill you tough luck, you love them you be with them.most people here whatever religion or race except muslims hate them,i suppose it might be from their meeting them in their own countriesQuote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
Funny that Russtafa. I've worked on and off in Muslim countries quite a lot for a few years and like any group there are good ones and bad ones. On the whole though, you know, they are people. Ordinary people. They happen to go to mosques rather than churches or synagogues or buddhist temples or whatever. I'm not a big fan of islam but then I'm not a fan of Catholicism or the Baptists or any organised religion really either.
i guess a lot of people around the world are not fans of that religion either .enough to kill them,wow so extreme wonder why that is
There are Christians in the U.S. who murder obstetricians and invoke name of Jesus to justify the heinous act. Using your logic, russtafa, the few are representative of the whole and we'd be justified in killing all cross kissing chrissies.
How repulsive is that? An unwashed Australian with a smelly, filth encrusted dicklet. Take a bath and clean up your act. Really, you are the perfect example of an unthinking hate-filled, knee-jerk conservative jerk-off. You do your 'cause' considerably more harm than ... well you don't do it any good at all, which is why I haven't clicked the ignore button yet. Keep up the 'good' work hate-boy ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by russtafa
cheers i do my best :dancing:Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Giovanni, the Arab League may be able to set a tone of outrage, withdraw their ambassadors, and embarrass the Syrians, but in practical terms intervention is a very risky strategy. Not only would it be unpopular, there would have to be a coherent exit strategy, and unlike Libya, it is not clear that such an intervention would succeed. Libya was a success in part because it did not have a conventional army, as is the case in Syria, and in part because the rebels were being armed from external suppliers, being trained by officers from the Qatari armed forces, and had vital air cover and support from the French and the British.Quote:
Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel
The history of inter-Arab interventions has been poor, suggesting the precedents warn against it. For example,
In 1962 the Imam al-Badr was overthrown in a coup a week after inheriting the leadership of Yemen from his father. The coup had been mounted by Arab Nationalists supported by the Egyptian leader Nasser who at that time was still in his prime as the man who ‘defeated’ Britain France and Israel in the Suez crisis in 1956, he was pro-Soviet (they were the source of most of his armaments) but who was to the Royal Arab regimes in the 1960s as aggressive a threat as the Ayatollahs have been since 1979.
The result was a war in which the Egyptians fought alongside Yemeni, against a smaller group of Yemeni who supported the Imam, backed by Britain, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. A group of mostly British mercenaries also got stuck in on the Imam’s side. The logistics for the so-called Royalists were provided by Britain, whose primary concern was the security of the port and oil refinery at Aden on the south coast. And yet, Britain acknowledged secretly to Kennedy that it actually preferred the Republican option, but to do so would have been a victory for Nasser, and Britain didn’t want that, nor did either King Hussein or King Feisal of Saudi Arabia. Incidentally, the arms were supplied by the Israelis who took them across the Red Sea to Saudi Arabia, but the war ground to a stalemate and was overtaken by Egypt’s defeat in the 1967 war, and in 1969 the Imam fled to Britain where he died, so eventually the republicans got what they wanted, sort of. The moral being: the intervention prolonged an internal dispute in which most of the parties wanted the Republicans to win anyway, but not if it meant a victory for Nasser. It cost millions of $$, thousands of lives, and exacerbated existing tensions in the Yemen which then split into two states.
Even before this civil war had ended, a guerrilla war broke out in Dhofar in neighbouring Oman. The guerrillas, who claimed to be Marxist revolutionaries, were fighting a weird autocrat, Sultan Said bin Taimur, who owned the only car in the country, and a man who thought education would be the ruin of Oman. Oil exploration in the interior at this time had failed, so the man had little money. Nevertheless, the British, along with the Saudis, the Jordanians and the Iranians, put together a military force which took on the guerrillas and fought them to a standstill. I once met a soldier who had been there and who assured me that if was the fact that British officers led the campaign which were the cause of its success. The guerrillas were being supplied, in a half-hearted fashion by the Chinese, but were a small group who, crucially, had little or no support among the majority population in the east and north of Muscat. When Said bin Taimur was visiting London in 1970, the Prime Minister, Edward Heath, put him under ‘house arrest’ in Claridges (an exclusive five-star hotel, where he lived until his death shortly after) so that his son, Qaboos could take over and begin the modernisation of Oman, which he has done. The guerrilla war ended and the rest is history.
As for Syria’s intervention in the civil war in Lebanon in 1976, that also can be argued prolonged the violence, but was complicated by the personal fight between Hafiz al-Asad and Yasser Arafat –anyway, it took the Lebanese nearly 30 years to get rid of them. From where I am sitting, intervention by another Arab state looks like a terrible option.
And anyway, for the Syria revolution to succeed, it is the people themselves who must make it. It is possible that there could be defections in the army, maybe even disaffected politicians around Asad, if the going gets bad enough for them to measure their chances in a new regime….difficult to predict the future on this one.
Maybe the focus should be Iran... ;)
The current state of US neo-con foreign policy discourse:
Family Guy - Visiting Ground Zero - YouTube
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...56131b5927d2c4
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/21...ath/?hpt=hp_t3Quote:
US softens stance on arms for Syria rebels
By BRADLEY KLAPPER, Associated Press – 4 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration opened the door slightly Tuesday to international military assistance for Syria's rebels, with officials saying new tactics may have to be explored if President Bashar Assad continues to defy pressure to halt a brutal crackdown on dissenters.
In coordinated messages, the White House and State Department said they still hope for a political solution. But faced with the daily onslaught by the Assad regime against Syrian civilians, officials dropped the administration's previous strident opposition to arming anti-regime forces. It remained unclear, though, what, if any, role the U.S. might play in providing such aid.
"We don't want to take actions that would contribute to the further militarization of Syria because that could take the country down a dangerous path," White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters. "But we don't rule out additional measures if the international community should wait too long and not take the kind of action that needs to be taken."
The administration has previously said flatly that more weapons are not the answer to the Syrian situation. There had been no mention of "additional measures."
At the State Department, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland used nearly identical language to describe the administration's evolving position.
"From our perspective, we don't believe that it makes sense to contribute now to the further militarization of Syria," she told reporters. "What we don't want to see is the spiral of violence increase. That said, if we can't get Assad to yield to the pressure that we are all bringing to bear, we may have to consider additional measures."
Neither Carney nor Nuland would elaborate on what "additional measures" might be taken but there have been growing calls, including from some in Congress, for the international community to arm the rebels. Most suggestions to that effect have foreseen Arab nations such as Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia — and not the West — possibly providing military assistance.
Other officials said discussions are now under way about adding a military component to a package of humanitarian and political aid to the opposition that's to be discussed at a major international conference on Syria this week in Tunisia.
More than 70 countries have been invited to meet Friday in Tunisia for a "Friends of Syria" meeting. The meeting follows the failure of the UN Security Council to endorse an Arab plan that would have seen Assad removed from power.
The meeting of the "Friends of Syria" in Tunis is not likely to produce decisions on military aid or even recognition of Syria's disparate opposition groups, according to U.S. officials. But countries are considering creating large stockpiles of humanitarian aid along Syria's borders, the officials said.
U.S. officials stressed that discussion of military assistance is still preliminary. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the diplomacy. To maintain the pressure against Assad, Washington is trying to keep as many countries as possible involved in the international coordination against Syria's government — even if there is no consensus strategy on arming the rebels.
This week's talks will seek to clarify some of the confusion. The U.S. is trying to get a clearer picture of what promises countries such as Syria's Arab neighbors are making to elements of the opposition; which rebels each government might support; and some agreement on what types of assistance would be helpful or damaging.
The backdrop to the discussions is the increasing fear that Syria could descend into an all-out civil war.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon on Tuesday disputed reports that Iranian ships docked at a Syrian port over the weekend.
Iranian state-run Press TV said Saturday that an Iranian navy destroyer and a supply ship had docked in the port of Tartus to provide training to ally Syria's naval forces, as Syria tries to crush the opposition movement.
But Defense Department press secretary George Little said Tuesday the U.S. military saw no indication that the ships docked or delivered any cargo. Little said Tehran's ships went through the Suez Canal and now appear to be going back through the canal again.
Associated Press writer Pauline Jelinek contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Quote:
Inside Syria: 'I can guarantee ... people will starve to death'
Editor's note: CNN correspondent Arwa Damon recently spent some time in Baba Amr, a neighborhood in Homs, Syria, a city that has been a flashpoint in a months-long uprising against President Bashar al-Assad. Government forces have shelled parts of the city – especially Baba Amr, a bastion of anti-government sentiment – for more than two weeks, damaging houses and other buildings and leaving many dead and wounded.
Damon was one of the few international reporters in Syria, whose government has been placing restrictions on journalists and refusing many of them entry. Below is the latest in a string of edited accounts of what Damon and her team saw and heard from activists in Homs:
Virtually no food has come into Baba Amr since the shelling began more than two weeks ago, activists say. So, the residents who are gathered in makeshift bunkers collect what food they can find there and carefully ration it – though those supplies are running out.
Some of what they’ve gathered comes from, among other places, stores that have been hit by artillery fire.
“We take the products to distribute so they don’t go to waste. We keep track of everything we took to reimburse the owners,” an activist says.
In hard-hit Baba Amr, hundreds live in makeshift shelters, having left their homes out of necessity – many have been destroyed – or fear. Navigating the rubble-strewn streets of Baba Amr is made more difficult, activists say, by frequent shelling by government forces and by government snipers. Under cover of darkness, teams head to stores to gather what little supplies are left, quickly loading lentils, diapers and cracked wheat into vehicles.
At one of the shelters, a woman shows off the dwindling food supply.
“There is no food. There is only cracked wheat and rice,” she said.
Another woman, who is at the shelter because her home was destroyed, volunteers at a medical clinic in the neighborhood. She said she had coffee and two cigarettes for the day, and nothing for two days before that.
“I can guarantee you this, people will starve to death," she said.
Baba Amr has been "completely cut off and services are pretty much nonexistent," Dima Moussa, a Chicago lawyer and a Syrian opposition activist, told CNN on Tuesday.
"Communicating with the activists in the area is becoming harder, so getting complete information about casualties is becoming difficult, and we think that the numbers far exceed those that we have been reporting, since we're only reporting those that we can confirm," she said.
The neighborhood has been "completely cut off and services are pretty much nonexistent," Moussa said.
Al-Assad has denied reports that his forces are targeting civilians, saying they are fighting armed gangs and foreign fighters bent on destabilizing the government. But many accounts inside the country say Syrian forces are killing civilians as part of a crackdown on anti-government opposition.
More detailed coverage of what's happening in Syria:
Monday, February 20: 'What is the world waiting for? For us to die of hunger and fear?'
Saturday, February 18: Residents bracing for the worst in Homs
Friday, February 17: Syrian protesters hail 'resistance'
Friday, February 17: In one Syrian town, full-throated cries of defiance
Thursday, February 16: Farmers, teachers, carpenters armed with rifles fear massacre
Thursday, February 16: Wounds ooze, doctors cry in Syrian city
Wednesday, February 15: Activists say trying to flee from homes under attack is virtually a suicide run
Tuesday, February 14: Fearful residents prepare for a bloody battle
gee nobody ever hears about the disgusting shit going on in that failed experiment of a country called Zimbabwe because that dictator is black ,funny that the news media never brings that place to the attention of the world.i don't suppose the media[left wing] is biased .non of those other shit holes in Africa interfere in that country because their own backyards aren't to sweet.go the left wing do gooders and their shit they should have their noses rubbed in it .Malcom Frazier[ex PM for Australia] was one of the supporters of that fuck up ,the pick should have a rope around his neck
that's fuck all and what are the leaders of Africa doing about it?,sweet F.A or the world leaders?How about the rock stars=Bono,Geldolf,=sweet F.A .And why aren't the media in an outrage?Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Russtafa there is nothing to stop you starting a thread on Zimbabwe if it interests you that much; this is a thread on Syria. I sometimes feel you would be best advised to either read the papers on a regular basis or keep your mouth shut. There have been numerous stories in the press in the last seven days on Zimbabwe, its not a forgotten crisis at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by russtafa
Another set of links below, including an article by RW Johnson which is now ten years old but still one of the most perceptive accounts of Mugabe's rise to power, aided curiously enough, by a man called Ian Smith...it may be beyond your patience, but that's the price one pays for scholarship. The long and the short of it is that Mugabe suited the interests of people who were more concerned to end the war in Zimbabwe than what happened after it, as was the case in well -make up a list, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Iraq....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...ar?INTCMP=SRCH
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...ns?INTCMP=SRCH
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...us-Christ.html
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v23/n04/rw-john...-came-to-power
Its even been in FOX
http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012...nking-reforms/
G'night all, it's past my workday bed time.