Another Round Begins in The Middle East

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by TCO
Siro: You still owe me an answer. Chop, chop. Any minute they could be calling you up to man a tank.

I was already called up for a day on sunday, and this has screwed with my upcoming algebra test and homework

I will be called up again.

I do not man a tank btw.

[TCO]

What is Jonathon's brother saying about the events?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

I was already called up for a day on sunday, and this has screwed with my upcoming algebra test and homework

I will be called up again.

I do not man a tank btw.

Is Eli hiding with his mother? Do you have to fight the fight of two men?

What is your MOS?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by TCO


Is Eli hiding with his mother? Do you have to fight the fight of two men?

What is your MOS?

Eli is probably serving as usual.
It is indeed interesting how is he dealing.

During 2006 I slept in the base for 30 days.

I will certainly not divulge my occupation info here
I will say that I have switched specialities within my unit and now it is mostly a technical/administrative role. It wasn't always.

[TCO]

Good luck.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm used to people missing small events, but this was a huge event that completely changed the nature of the PA.

And yet you misunderstand again. Hamas won the majority of seats in parliament. They had a very tenuous power sharing agreement. And in 2006 and 2007, during that agreement, the US funneled weapons to Fatah to take out Hamas. Then Fatah commanders refused to take orders from the government, which was controlled by Hamas, and Fatah began to attempt assassinations against Hamas leaders. Hamas fought back and a civil war erupted. Hamas gained control in Gaza, while Fatah has control over the West Bank.

You'll note no one talks about a "Fatah coup" in the West Bank.

The attempt to call a civil war, which was started by Fatah in response to Hamas' victory in the 2006 elections, into a "coup" by Hamas is incredibly Orwellian.

And from your articles (which you obviously ignore):

Israeli troops manning a land, sea and air cordon around the 45-km (30-mile) strip of Mediterranean coast have orders not to speak to Hamas members, whose group seeks to defeat Israel.

"Now there is nobody on the Palestinian side who is trying to coordinate with us. We are not talking with Hamas," said Colonel Nir Press, who runs frontier posts on the Israeli side.

"We're waiting until someone comes to us and coordinates," Press added, saying most of those who worked on the Gaza side were from Hamas's rival faction and are no longer in contact.

So they aren't allowed to talk with the group in power, but its all their fault. Riiiiight.

But the United Nations and other aid groups say Gaza, from which Israel pulled out two years ago, does face grave economic problems in time if its meagre trade outlets remain sealed. They want Karni, which can handle 300 trucks a day, reopened quickly.

Oh, but a small crossing that handles a full 20 trucks a day had someone place a bomb on it, so they just had to close it and its all Hamas' fault.

Perhaps you are the one who need the education.

[Ming]

I think everybody needs to leave the personal crap out of this.

Point out people's mistaken comments or "facts"... Trash their opinions... But take the personal stuff somewhere else.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui And yet you misunderstand again. Hamas won the majority of seats in parliament. They had a very tenuous power sharing agreement. And in 2006 and 2007, during that agreement, the US funneled weapons to Fatah to take out Hamas. Then Fatah commanders refused to take orders from the government, which was controlled by Hamas, and Fatah began to attempt assassinations against Hamas leaders. Hamas fought back and a civil war erupted. Hamas gained control in Gaza, while Fatah has control over the West Bank.

This is a joke, right?

There is not one sane government that supports your version of events. The Hamas coup is described as a bloody coup, and was criticised and unaccpted by all western powers and all arab governments.

I know well enough that the Fatah commanders were not a trouble to Hamas. Fatah authorities were surprisingly cooperative with Hamas elected officials, including the security minister. I also know well enough that the coup evolved as Hamas went to hunt for Fatah strongholds, killing fatah leaders and families, until they suddenly realized they can overtake the government entirely.

As far as US support - the US funneled money and training to strengthen the Palestinian security forces, as you yourself time and time again wanted.

You often argued that Israel can't expect the PA to fight radicals or stop them from shooting rockets because Israeli destroyed their forces. So when the US actually tries to restore the PA power structures and rebuild their ability to govern themselves, you criticize it?

Can the west do the palestinians no wrong?

So suddenly, from claiming that Israel is destroying PA forces so the pals can't be expected to prevent terrorism, you went to claim that rebuilding the PA forces is a political involvement. How convenient.

You'll note no one talks about a "Fatah coup" in the West Bank.

Because there is none.
As a reaction to the Hamas organized coup in Gaza, Fatah arrested several Hamas figureheads. As far as I know, most are already free.

The attempt to call a civil war, which was started by Fatah in response to Hamas' victory in the 2006 elections, into a "coup" by Hamas is incredibly Orwellian.

The attempt to label "civil war" what is infact a bloody takeover by an armed force over legitimate government structures, is a joke.

You're welcome to try and turn up examples of Fatah initiated actions against Hamas that have supposedly lead to the civil war.

And from your articles (which you obviously ignore):

[...]

So they aren't allowed to talk with the group in power, but its all their fault. Riiiiight.

Hamas is not only not the legitimate government, but are also a terrorist group that denounces Israel's existance and seeks its destruction.

Do you seriously think the US would waste time on trying to reach trade agreements with Al-Qaeda representatives in Iraq?

But the United Nations and other aid groups say Gaza, from which Israel pulled out two years ago, does face grave economic problems in time if its meagre trade outlets remain sealed. They want Karni, which can handle 300 trucks a day, reopened quickly.

Oh, but a small crossing that handles a full 20 trucks a day had someone place a bomb on it, so they just had to close it and its all their fault.

Perhaps you are the one who need the education.

You are again proving ignorance of facts.

The Karni crossing is large and is difficult to securely operate in light of the tactics Hamas employs against Israeli forces.

Google karni crossing attack and you'll see that it has been repeatedly attacked by suicide bombers, mortars and rockets, and hidden charges, in 2005, 2006 and 2007.

There is absolutely no possible justification for attacks on the crossing, which is the life vein of the Gaza strip, beyond pure provocation.

Israel chose to operate a smaller crossing because it is farther from northern Gaza and is therefore more secure.

And why is this double standard?

Why aren't you critical of Egypt who doesn't want to operate crossings to Gaza from its territory?

Why aren't you critical of EU security forces that were in charge of several crossings into Gaza, but fled for their life as soon a Hamas came shooting at them?

Why must Israeli soldiers risk be the ones that must risk their lives, to serve an enemy that tries to shoot them, as they deliver food, clothing and medicine?!

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Felch


So Belgium is big and important enough to rape a nation for a few generations, but the US has to fix what you guys broke? What's the matter, did your balls drop off?

Belgium is in no way involved in the situation in North-Kivu. If you knew anything of the recent history and the context of the problem you wouldn't make such a weak trolling effort

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is a joke, right?

Only if you consider the truth to be a joke.

The Hamas coup is described as a bloody coup, and was criticised and unaccpted by all western powers and all arab governments.

Because Hamas was an enemy to them beforehand, so they couldn't be allowed to survive as the primary party in government, even though they won the election (in a shock to the West).

You often argued that Israel can't expect the PA to fight radicals or stop them from shooting rockets because Israeli destroyed their forces. So when the US actually tries to restore the PA power structures and rebuild their ability to govern themselves, you criticize it?

Please, the US funded the "security forces", ie Fatah controlled forces, in order to get them to destroy Hamas in a bloody civil war. It's classic US tactics that we've used time and time again. Funnel money to the faction we want to win, election results be damned.

So when a civil war breaks out and Hamas takes Gaza and Fatah takes the West Bank, well, of course it's a "coup", because the wrong side won!

And Salvador Allende was a Castro like dictator in the making in Chile as well!!

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IA09Ak03.html

US Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams - whom Newsweek recently described as "the last neo-con standing" - has had it about for some months now that the United States is not only not interested in dealing with Hamas, it is working to ensure its failure.

In the immediate aftermath of the Palestinian elections won by Hama last January, Abrams greeted a group of Palestinian businessmen in his White House office with talk of a "hard coup" against the newly elected Hamas government - the violent overthrow of its leadership with arms supplied by the US.

While the businessmen were shocked, Abrams was adamant - the US had to support Fatah with guns, ammunition and training, so that it could fight Hamas for control of the Palestinian government.

While those closest to him now concede that Abrams' words were issued in a moment of frustration, the "hard coup" talk was hardly just talk. Over the past 12 months, the United States has supplied guns, ammunition and training to Palestinian Fatah activists to take on Hamas in the streets of Gaza and the West Bank.

At first, it was thought, the resupply effort (initiated under the guise of "assist[ing] the Palestinian Authority presidency in fulfilling PA commitments under the roadmap to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism and establish law and order in the West Bank and Gaza", according to a US government document) would strengthen the security forces under the command of Abbas.

Officials thought that the additional weapons would easily cow Hamas operatives, who would meekly surrender the offices they had only recently so dearly won. That has not only not happened, but the program is under attack throughout the Arab world - particularly among America's closest allies.

Senior US Army officers and high-level civilian Pentagon officials have been the most outspoken internal administration critics of the program, which was unknown to them until mid-August, near the end of Israel's war against Hezbollah. When then-secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld learned about it, he was enraged, and scheduled a meeting with President George W Bush in an attempt to convince him the program would backfire.

Rumsfeld was concerned that the anti-Hamas program would radicalize Muslim groups among US allies and eventually endanger US troops fighting Sunni extremists in Iraq. According to these authors' reports, Rumsfeld was told by Bush that he should keep his focus on Iraq, and that "the Palestinian brief" was in the hands of the secretary of state. After this confrontation, Rumsfeld decided there was not much he could do.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1620678,00.html

many Fatah officials have done their best to make it fail — perhaps encouraged by the U.S., which has refused to have any relations with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas, and has made isolating the Islamist ruling party a focus of its Middle East policy.

But go ahead, insist that the facts don't exist.

There is absolutely no possible justification for attacks on the crossing, which is the life vein of the Gaza strip, beyond pure provocation.

Israel chose to operate a smaller crossing because it is farther from northern Gaza and is therefore more secure.

So why did Isreal reject the Dayton Plan as well?

Why aren't you critical of Egypt who doesn't want to operate crossings to Gaza from its territory?

Who says I'm not? Egypt are a bunch of cowards run by a near-dictator.

Why aren't you critical of EU security forces that were in charge of several crossings into Gaza, but fled for their life as soon a Hamas came shooting at them?

O Rly?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/04/news/jerus.php

There are European Union monitors stationed at Rafah, but they are threatening to quit both because of Palestinian violations of customs rules and because of the Israeli Army's activities in Gaza, which have kept the crossing shut most of the last few months.

The European monitors are insisting first that Rafah be opened normally and that it also be opened for exports from Gaza.

Custom rules and the Isreali Army's activities. Not Hamas's shooting at them.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Traianvs
Belgium is in no way involved in the situation in North-Kivu. If you knew anything of the recent history and the context of the problem you wouldn't make such a weak trolling effort

Belgium and the rest of Europe were completely involved in drawing boundaries in Africa that served their own purposes, and ignored the history of the continent. The United States was present in Berlin, but not involved. Why should we be essential to solving the problems there? I'm not opposed to all American involvement in Africa; I think we have a special relationship with and responsibility for Liberia. The situation in the Congo has been on and off for about a decade, and has been on a scale far exceeding anything in Palestine. I think it's messed up that Europeans, especially Belgians, aren't more motivated to do something there. Maybe it's because it's harder and messier than making snide comments about a democracy fighting for its existence.

Belgium is far wealthier and more capable than a century ago. FN is one of the premier weapons manufacturers in the world. The Congolese militias are hardly a sophisticated enemy. The Belgians, with help from other nations, should do something there.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Judging by history, getting the Belgians involved in the Congo again would just increase the bloodshed.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Felch


Belgium and the rest of Europe were completely involved in drawing boundaries in Africa that served their own purposes, and ignored the history of the continent. The United States was present in Berlin, but not involved. Why should we be essential to solving the problems there? I'm not opposed to all American involvement in Africa; I think we have a special relationship with and responsibility for Liberia. The situation in the Congo has been on and off for about a decade, and has been on a scale far exceeding anything in Palestine. I think it's messed up that Europeans, especially Belgians, aren't more motivated to do something there. Maybe it's because it's harder and messier than making snide comments about a democracy fighting for its existence.

Belgium is far wealthier and more capable than a century ago. FN is one of the premier weapons manufacturers in the world. The Congolese militias are hardly a sophisticated enemy. The Belgians, with help from other nations, should do something there.

For once, Naked Gents Rut (what kind of a ****ed up nickname is that by the way) is pretty much spot on.

I'm aware that colonial powers of yore drew the borders of African countries, and in many cases they made poor judgement while doing so. This doesn't mean every problem in Congo needs to be attributed to that delineation.

I'm not propagating a direct US intervention; there would be no point. But without US consent (and Chinese for that matter), there can be no intensified and powerful UN mandate in the region. UN forces are still weak, and even though they are now at liberty to act slightly more independently from Congolese forces, they are still hampered by the mandate.

About the Belgians: we're very actively engaged in the region, and the consulates in eastern Congo were the most important intelligence hubs for the west in the entire region. On the diplomatic front Belgium has since Congolese independency been one of the countries who has put Congo on the agenda as often as possible, assisted Congolese government, and mediated in many instances. Proportionally much of our development aid is going to Congo.
One issue lately has been the persistant criticism by our minister of foreign affairs on the rampant corruption and cronyism in the government of Congo. Not to mention the institutionalized torture and imprisonment Kabila has authorized on critics of his regime. Bad governance causes a lot more damage than the intermittent conflicts and are essentially the root of the instabilityin many parts there. President Kabila is of course offended by this and has refused to communicate ever since, has even closed the aforementioned consulates and so on.

Sadly the problem is that not speaking out against the corruption doesn't help much, and speaking out damages diplomatic relations.

For obvious reasons though, we as well as the Congolese are not too keen on direct Belgian military intervention even via the UN detour.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Felch
The Congolese militias are hardly a sophisticated enemy. The Belgians, with help from other nations, should do something there.

Actually, the Congolese 'regular' army is responsible for most raping and pillaging going on, alongside their Hutu FDLR (Rwandan) allies on Congolese soil. Although it's principally Nkunda's CNDP taking the initiative, they are a lot more disciplined and quite well armed, hence the success of his movement as of late.

If anyone should do something, it's the UN forces to create a barrier between the belligerents, but they are forced to cooperate with the Congolese army. This is a major problem for the UN forces.

In the long term, Kabila needs to quit supporting FDLR, and Kagame needs to quit supporting Nkunda. And sadly, international warrants against Nkunda should be dropped and he should be brought around the negotiation table.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Traianvs
Actually, the Congolese 'regular' army is responsible for most raping and pillaging going on, alongside their Hutu FDLR (Rwandan) allies on Congolese soil. Although it's principally Nkunda's CNDP taking the initiative, they are a lot more disciplined and quite well armed, hence the success of his movement as of late.

Their "regular" army is really just a slap-dash force. The only difference between it and the militias is the veneer of legitimacy that a national force has. As far as discipline goes, I'd rather rely on some American survivalist militia than the Congolese army.