The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[peterms]

Perhaps we should also recognise that waiting for definitive answers...

Who said anything about waiting for definitive answers?

Then I don't follow the point you're making.

[Awol]

Amid cluster bombing and the "medieval siege" of Misrata, Libyan rebels inevitably call for the deployment of NATO ground forces to save the city.

Nato must send in troops to save Misrata, say rebels

The city that has become the epicentre of a desperate battle by Libyan rebels against forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi came under renewed pounding today amid mounting evidence of the use of cluster bombs against the besieged civilian population and calls for Nato to send in ground troops.

More than 100 rockets had been fired on opposition-held areas of Misrata by mid-morning and there were "raging battles" in two strategically key streets, according to rebels. The assault added pressure on the city's beleaguered hospitals, which are already overwhelmed with appalling injuries and a rising death toll. Most of the casualties are civilians, and they include many women and children, say doctors.

TV pictures showed scenes of devastation and desperation from inside the city – Libya's third largest, home to around 300,000 people – which has been under intense attack for seven weeks.

Mohamed, a rebel spokesman who asked for his full name to be withheld, told the Observer via Skype that "the killing and destruction and human suffering" was relentless. "The massacre that was prevented in Benghazi is now happening in Misrata. There is nowhere safe in the city."

Evidence that Gaddafi's forces are now targeting cluster bombs on civilian neighbourhoods of Misrata is likely to fuel calls for accelerated action from Nato, whose military actions and international sanctions against the regime have succeeded in weakening Gaddafi but have failed so far to secure a decisive breakthrough in the conflict.

Human Rights Watch released photographs and testimony from its arms expert which it said confirmed witness reports that the munitions, banned by more than 100 countries, were being fired on the city. Cluster bombs explode in midair, indiscriminately throwing out dozens of high-explosive bomblets which cause widespread damage and injuries over a large area. The sub-munitions often fail to explode on impact but detonate when stepped on or picked up.

"They pose a huge risk to civilians, both during attacks, because of their indiscriminate nature, and afterwards because of the still dangerous unexploded duds scattered about," said Steve Goose, HRW's arms division director.

The Libyan government denied its forces were using the munitions, challenging HRW to provide incontrovertible proof. Libya has not signed the convention on cluster munitions, which bans the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of cluster munitions.

Amnesty's Donatella Rovera said she had found "several bomblets and canisters all over the centre of town". Mohamed said Misrata's hospitals were seeing victims of what he described as "candy bombs – something that resembles a pretty bottle. You pick it up and it explodes and kills you."

Rebels hold the port area and the north and the east of the city, which is surrounded on three sides by government forces. Yesterday Tripoli Street and Heavy Transport Road leading to the port saw heavy fighting, said Mohamed. "He has identified the throat and he is going for it," he said. "Gaddafi's forces are trying to destroy the port and the port area at all costs. They know that it's the lifeline for Misrata and they want to cut it off."

Residents of the city are corralled in an ever-decreasing area, lacking adequate food, clean water, sanitation and medical supplies. Many homes now have multiple occupants as people have fled neighbourhoods under fire.

The electricity supply was limited to six hours every three days, said Mohamed, and food was becoming scarce – "especially vegetables and manufactured products like macaroni. There's been no water for God knows how long. Misrata is really feeling the effects of the siege and the destruction and the murderous shelling."

The shelling was "random, crazy," he said, adding: "No one feels safe in the city. There is nowhere safe to go. You can imagine the pressure and anxiety and fear that strikes into people."

Rovero, who arrived by boat in Misrata on Friday, said she had found "scores and scores" of Grad rockets in a residential neighbourhood of the city. They were "in people's bedrooms and kitchens, gardens, courtyards, in the streets. This neighbourhood was considered safe till yesterday, but is obviously no longer so. Families who had fled other areas had gone there, and yesterday after the shelling they left again to seek shelter elsewhere – but people are running out of places to shelter as more and more areas are coming under fire."

Mohamed said the large numbers of displaced people were "putting a strain on everyone. Seventy per cent of the population is crammed into 30% of the city. Schools, mosques and community centres are full of people."

Paulo Grosso, an Italian anaesthetist from the NGO Emergency, said the hospital where he is based, 2km from the frontline, had seen an average of 10 deaths and 40 wounded people each day. Most were civilians, including children. "We are seeing gunshot wounds, injuries from shelling and bomb explosions," he said. Twenty-three civilians were killed on Thursday alone. The hospital was suffering a critical shortage of nurses, he said, as the Filipino staff had fled.

A doctor from Médecins Sans Frontières, Morten Rostrup, said medical supplies were running critically short and that "doctors were being forced to discharge patients prematurely". Typical injuries were headshot wounds, brain damage, chest traumas and fractures. People with chronic medical conditions were also suffering because of the lack of supplies, he said.

Rebel boats from Benghazi carrying arms and aid to Misrata are attempting to dock in the port, along with international aid ships trying to evacuate civilians. The Libyan government claims that aid agencies are smuggling weapons to the rebels under the guise of aid.

Among those desperate to flee the city are more than 8,000 migrant workers. According to Mohamed, five Egyptians waiting to be rescued were killed last week on the dockside by shelling.

Rostrup said a large group of sub-Saharan Africans were living in "dire conditions" under plastic sheeting after heading to the city in the hope of being evacuated by sea. "They are desperate to leave the country. They've heard there are ships leaving, so they come." Gastro-enteritis was rife, he said.

Rebel fighters in Misrata have called on Nato to step up its airstrikes on loyalist positions around the city to protect the civilian population and aid the resistance. Nato has said that Misrata is its "number one priority". Barack Obama, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy last week described the government attack on Misrata as a "medieval siege… to strangle its population into submission". In a jointly authored article, the three leaders wrote: "The brave citizens of those towns that have held out against forces that have been mercilessly targeting them would face a fearful vengeance if the world accepted [Gaddafi staying]. It would be an unconscionable betrayal."

The shift by the US, Britain and France towards regime change as a goal of the Nato operation is controversial among some countries that backed UN resolution 1973, which authorised military action to protect Libya's civilian population. But the three countries that have been the driving force behind the international coalition insist that Gaddafi must "go and go for good".

The Libyan government has refused to allow journalists based in Tripoli access to Misrata, citing security, although it permitted a team from the Red Cross to send a fact-finding mission to the city today. Its spokesman, Moussa Ibrahim, claimed that "terrorists and armed gangs" were behind the opposition and that "many so-called independent reporters are collaborating with the rebels". Calls for Nato to intensify its military operation were, said the deputy foreign minister, Khaled Kayim, "a clear call to target and kill civilians and destroy Libya's infrastructure. They [the international coalition] are siding with the rebels fighting a legitimate government. It has nothing to do with supporting democracy."

Nato itself is in a quandary about how to break the military deadlock in Libya. UN resolution 1973 specifically rules out a "foreign occupation force". Amid mounting calls for a Nato ground presence in Libya, politicians, lawyers and military chiefs are poring over the resolution's semantics to establish whether such a step – with its enormous political and military risks and implications – could be taken.

Mohamed said the rebel opposition in Misrata had appealed to Nato to send ground troops to relieve the city. They were, he said, grateful for the international coalition's military intervention. "But we're surprised. And we're angry. We are angered by the lack of hits on Gaddafi's troops by Nato forces.

"This reluctance and hesitation is allowing him to suffocate the city. It's unbearable. It's getting to the point where it's troops on the ground – or it's over. We are so grateful and relieved by the international community's efforts, it's just that they didn't go the extra steps, and that has played into the tyrant's hands.

"He will massacre the people of Misrata. If a massacre happens, [Nato's] credibility is on the line. Either they intervene immediately with troops on the ground – now, now, now – or we will all regret this. It's murderous and mad, the people of Misrata are paying the price."

So, should NATO ride to the rescue with a ground deployment or let the 200,000+ in Misrata die?

[peterms]

So, should NATO ride to the rescue with a ground deployment or let the 200,000+ in Misrata die?

I think that's been made harder by the perception that more could be done to stop the offensive through air strikes, but the planes which could do that job best have been withdrawn; but more especially by the statement that regime change is required.

I suppose many countries will draw the conclusion that having got the resolution, the most active countries are not doing all they can within its terms, while seeking support to extend the type of action for a purpose different than that stated in the resolution.

It's hard to see that being the basis for any international consensus. I can imagine the current legitimacy of the action eroding quite quickly, leaving a choice between observing a bloody stalemate, and the usual western military invasion unsupported by the wider world community.

So in answer to your question, I think NATO needs to ensure that your two options don't become the only ones.

[Awol]

So, should NATO ride to the rescue with a ground deployment or let the 200,000+ in Misrata die?

I think that's been made harder by the perception that more could be done to stop the offensive through air strikes, but the planes which could do that job best have been withdrawn; but more especially by the statement that regime change is required.

Well, yes. The 70 Harriers configured for the ground attack role that are waiting to be turned into razor blades might be quite useful, as would parking the now 'for sale' Ark Royal 50 miles offshore. Strike one and two for the recent genius defence cuts.

In truth, as soon as the West decided Gaddafi's forces had to be stopped and dropped the first bomb then regime change was the only logical conclusion. The good Colonels' CV is rather impressive when it comes to international terrorism, so any arrangement that leaves him in control and holding a large grudge is simply not tenable from a western POV (despite the hand-wringing pontification by european politco mincers).

The strategic corner we've been painted into by the leaders of the main protagonists (egged on by the Arab League and others) is inescapable:

1) Gaddafi has to go.

2) The pull back of US strke aircraft means UK and France alone now lack the overwhelming airpower needed to make this happen, but even if they hadn't the target list/rules of engagement are so restricted in order to avoid civilian casualties that it wouldn't work anyway.

3) Assuming one of his own doesn't slot him first, the only way to get him out is going to be the application of NATO ground forces in a short and ultra violent campaign. In, smash Gaddafi's troops around until they are combat ineffective and then out again. No occupation or prolonged presence in any numbers but enough to remove the only prop holding up the old boy. Once that is gone he will fall, probably in the 'done by his own side' scenario.

I realise this isn't a popular view, but it is also the only way to end this in any way that is deemed politically acceptable by ourselves, the US and the French.

[snowychap]

Sri Lanka President Rajapaksa calls for UN report rally

Sri Lanka's president has called for mass protests against a UN report said to allege that war crimes were committed at the end of the civil war.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa said the claims were not new but called for a "show of strength" against the report.

Leaked excerpts suggest that Sri Lankan soldiers and Tamil Tiger rebels committed serious violations as the civil war came to an end in 2009.

Troops crushed the rebels in May 2009 after 26 years of bloody conflict.

Responding to a leak of the reports in a Sri Lankan newspaper, Mr Rajapaksa told party officials May Day gatherings should be used to protest.

"All these days we did not demonstrate our strength, but now on May Day we will show our strength," he said.

The UN-appointed inquiry gathered evidence for 10 months and submitted its findings to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon several days ago.

"The [sri Lankan] government says it pursued a 'humanitarian rescue operation' with a policy of 'zero civilian casualties.' In stark contrast, the panel found credible allegations, which if proven, indicate that a wide range of serious violations were committed [by both sides]," the report says, according to excerpts quoted by the Associated Press.

Sri Lanka's government, which also received a copy of the report, described it as "fundamentally flawed and patently biased," adding that it was "presented without any verification", AP reported.

Mr Rajapaksa's comments, made to members of his Sri Lanka Freedom Party, are his first personal comments on the leak.

Both sides were accused of atrocities in Sri Lanka's long conflict. The Tamil Tigers were fighting for an independent homeland for minority Tamils in the island's north and east.

As many as 100,000 people were killed, including some 7,000 in the final stages of the war, the United Nations estimates.

The BBC has heard numerous allegations from Tamils that their relatives are missing, among them a number of senior rebel fighters.

[snowychap]

Syria protests: 'Thousands occupy Homs after funerals'

Thousands of anti-government protesters have occupied the centre of Syria's third largest city, Homs, insisting they won't leave until they bring down the country's leadership.

A woman told the BBC by phone crowds were still large late on Monday.

Earlier, funerals were held for some of those killed in Sunday's violence in the city, with crowds calling for the overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad.

Syria's interior ministry has said the unrest amounts to armed insurrection.

Eight people died in Homs on Sunday after soldiers fired on crowds protesting at the death of a tribal leader in state custody.

The opposition says the occupation of the city centre will continue until their political demands are met. These include the immediate lifting of Syria's longstanding emergency laws and the release of political prisoners.

Activists say that checkpoints have been set up around the square to ensure that people coming in are unarmed civilians.

One opposition supporter, who said his brother was shot dead in Sunday's protests, said volunteers were providing the demonstrators with food and water.

Another, Najati Tayyara, told AFP news agency: "More than 20,000 people are taking part in the sit-in at Al-Saa Square and we have renamed it Tahrir Square like the one in Cairo.

"It is an open-ended sit-in which will continue until all our demands are satisfied."

The unprecedented wave of protests in Syria shows no sign of abating, despite promises of reform by President Assad, says the BBC's Kim Ghattas.

The persistence of the protests and the number of people out on the street make Syria's demonstrations even more striking then the other Arab uprisings, our correspondent adds.

'Ambush'

Syria's official news agency has also been reporting on events in Homs. It says three army officers including a brigadier-general, together with his two sons and a nephew, were ambushed and killed on Sunday by "armed criminal gangs" which then mutilated the bodies with sharp tools.

The northern town of Banias also saw anti-government protests on Sunday.

In a statement, the interior ministry said: "The course of the previous events... have revealed that they are an armed insurrection by armed groups belonging to Salafist organisations, especially in Homs and Banias."

The BBC's Lina Sinjab says using the Salafist allegation is seen as a threat to peaceful protests.

Many fear it means further violence by authorities against protesters under the pretext of fighting terrorist elements, our correspondent says.

President Assad has pledged reforms to try to calm weeks of protest, but protesters say the concessions are not enough.

Human rights groups say at least 200 protesters have been killed in the past four weeks as security forces try to quell the most serious challenge to Mr Assad's rule since he succeeded his father 11 years ago.

[Awol]

It seems to be sinking in that limited airstrikes are not going to shift Gaddafi Duck and involvement on the ground is (and always was) going to be required. If Cameron was advised that waving a few fast jets at the regime would make them roll over and give up then it's another triumph of hope over experience in Whitehall. Alternatively if - as the UNSC resolution would indicate - this has been expected from the beginning then the West will eventually need to break decisively wth its limitations to get the job done.

This looks like phase one to me..

British military officers to be sent to Libya

Britain is to send a team of military officers to Libya to help advise the rebels fighting Col Muammar Gaddafi.

The BBC understands about 10 UK officers and a similar number from France will provide logistics and intelligence training in Benghazi.

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said the move was in accordance with the resolution on Libya, which forbids foreign occupation forces.

The Libyan foreign minister said it would only prolong hostilities.

Abdul Ati al-Obeidi told the BBC the sending of UK military personnel to Libya would harm any peace initiative and "prolong the confrontation".

Support and advice

Following the fall of presidents in neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt, an uprising against Col Gaddafi's 42-year rule began on 16 February.

It has developed into an armed conflict, with rebels pitted against pro-Gaddafi forces for control over territory. Misrata, the rebels' last stronghold in the west, has faced weeks of heavy bombardment.

The UN Security Council resolution, passed in March, authorised "all necessary measures short of occupation" to protect civilians.

Nato is currently in charge of the no-fly zone and coalition operations have been largely confined to air attacks.

Mr Hague stressed the officers being sent to the eastern rebel stronghold of Benghazi would not be involved in any fighting...

More on link

10 advisors hardly justify the expected media wails of a "new Vietnam" but I expect it is the very thin end of the wedge.

[peterms]

It seems to be sinking in that limited airstrikes are not going to shift Gaddafi Duck and involvement on the ground is (and always was) going to be required. If Cameron was advised that waving a few fast jets at the regime would make them roll over and give up then it's another triumph of hope over experience in Whitehall. Alternatively if - as the UNSC resolution would indicate - this has been expected from the beginning then the West will eventually need to break decisively wth its limitations to get the job done.

This looks like phase one to me..

10 advisors hardly justify the expected media wails of a "new Vietnam" but I expect it is the very thin end of the wedge.

Certainly Cameron has been advised. He seems to have no liking for detail and no wish to get involved beyond fronting the PR side of things, so I assume he's made the elementary step of asking some questions about the likely effect of various options.

Was the advice poor? Was it intended to highlight the vast gap between his global ambitions and what he supports by way of funding and equipment? Have things turned out in an entirely unexpected way? Is the MOD staffed by renegade pinkos who are trying to subvert the case for military intervention by leading us into untenable situations?

Or are we just doing the same old same old, feeding arms and support to either or sometimes both sides of a middle eastern conflict to create a balance of force and keep them occupied and worn down, so that we can pick up the profits from their falling apart?

The case for our intervention grows weaker by the hour. International support can't continue for long on the basis of this apparently leaderless drift. Our motives will now be entirely disbelieved, following the pointless statement about regime change.

It's like they want it to founder, and end in a bloody mess. Perhaps they do. Trying to raise the game - hold back on the firepower you have and which could be deployed within the terms of the resolution and which would severely hamper or stop the attacks, in order to make a case that invasion is required. Underline that we need more spending on arms if you want to play these global games.

The first line of enquiry for me is this. We are told that the aircraft which were withdrawn or not deployed would have been most effective in tackling the arms Gaddafi is now using in Misrata. We continued to use the less suitable aircraft. Why would that be?

Of course this can only be solved politically. The military intervention should only ever have been something aimed at preserving life and bringing parties to the table. So where are we with that, I wonder?

[blandy]

Certainly Cameron has been advised. He seems to have no liking for detail and no wish to get involved beyond fronting the PR side of things, so I assume he's made the elementary step of asking some questions about the likely effect of various options.

Was the advice poor? Was it intended to highlight the vast gap between his global ambitions and what he supports by way of funding and equipment? Have things turned out in an entirely unexpected way? Is the MOD staffed by renegade pinkos who are trying to subvert the case for military intervention by leading us into untenable situations?

Or are we just doing the same old same old, feeding arms and support to either or sometimes both sides of a middle eastern conflict to create a balance of force and keep them occupied and worn down, so that we can pick up the profits from their falling apart?

The case for our intervention grows weaker by the hour. International support can't continue for long on the basis of this apparently leaderless drift. Our motives will now be entirely disbelieved, following the pointless statement about regime change.

I wholeheartedly agree with the above. I have pretty much felt the same from the off.

It's like they want it to founder, and end in a bloody mess. Perhaps they do. Trying to raise the game - hold back on the firepower you have and which could be deployed within the terms of the resolution and which would severely hamper or stop the attacks, in order to make a case that invasion is required. Underline that we need more spending on arms if you want to play these global games.

They don't want it to founder, they simply don't have the nouse, the will, the understanding or the experience, politically to comprehend the consequences of what they choose to do, when they flounce about the international stage saying " we must do something to help these people. I am strong, I will do something"

The first line of enquiry for me is this. We are told that the aircraft which were withdrawn or not deployed would have been most effective in tackling the arms Gaddafi is now using in Misrata. We continued to use the less suitable aircraft. Why would that be?

I missed that part. Do you have any details?

Of course this can only be solved politically. The military intervention should only ever have been something aimed at preserving life and bringing parties to the table. So where are we with that, I wonder?

Where we were always going to be. In a mess. The stated (or intended) objective, originally was incompatible with what the UN authorised.

There is amassive fault line, a kind of fissure, through much of the Arab world, and to think that we in the west can somehow stich it back together while cosseting the democratic ambitions of the people on the one side of the fissure is ridiculous. On the other side are the despots, the lunatics, the minority powerful castes who will go to great lengths to keep things as they are.

It cannot be "solved" with aircraft, with troops or with politics from without.

We should not even try. We should not appoint ourselves, in parts of the west, as the world's policeman, or enforcer.

We do not have the political integrity to set an example, the moral authority to tell them how to behave, or the joined up military/political capability and understanding to compel their society to behave to our ideals

[Awol]

They don't want it to founder, they simply don't have the nouse, the will, the understanding or the experience, politically to comprehend the consequences of what they choose to do, when they flounce about the international stage saying " we must do something to help these people. I am strong, I will do something"

FWIW I think ^ hits it absolutely on the nose

The first line of enquiry for me is this. We are told that the aircraft which were withdrawn or not deployed would have been most effective in tackling the arms Gaddafi is now using in Misrata. We continued to use the less suitable aircraft. Why would that be?

I missed that part. Do you have any details?

I suspect Peter is referring to the 70 aircraft of JFH that are sitting in a hangar awaiting sale/destruction, although now Gaddafi's forces are fightng within the city their utility is obviously limited while protecting civvies remains the primary focus.

It could be argued that Apaches would be more useful in those circumstances but as I understand it the MANPAD threat is considered to be too high.

We do not have the political integrity to set an example,

Whilst our politicos are undoubtedly crooks, they are not in the main genocidal maniacs.

the moral authority to tell them how to behave

Not so much a question of telling them how to behave, more a case of a moral duty to support those struggling against despotism where it is realistically possible to do so. A democratic N Africa would be better in the long term for both them and us. If we can help them bring that about then that in itself is justification enough for me.

or the joined up military/political capability and understanding to compel their society to behave to our ideals

Agree on the first part but not the last. We're not trying to compel those fighting for freedom in Libya to do so, motivation is the one thing they have in spades.

[blandy]

It's the other half, awol, I was talking about, the half that doesn't want to have a free society.

On the moral authority thing, for me it's not enough just to be "not a genocidal maniac" to have moral authority. Lack of hypocrisy is also important, as is consistency.

[peterms]

The first line of enquiry for me is this. We are told that the aircraft which were withdrawn or not deployed would have been most effective in tackling the arms Gaddafi is now using in Misrata. We continued to use the less suitable aircraft. Why would that be?

I missed that part. Do you have any details?

I suspect Peter is referring to the 70 aircraft of JFH that are sitting in a hangar awaiting sale/destruction, although now Gaddafi's forces are fightng within the city their utility is obviously limited while protecting civvies remains the primary focus.

No, I didn't know about those until Jon posted about it. You will have gathered that my knowledge of military technology is about on a par with Osborne's understanding of economics.

I meant this story about the US having withdrawn specialised planes which would apparently be more suited to the particular conditions now being faced, and the Nato commander calling for them or their equivalents to be made available. I take that to mean that he knows they exist and could be deployed, but aren't being used. The point being that using these would be entirely within the terms of the UN resolution, and would more easily achieve the aim of the resolution, saving civilians, than the course of action currently being followed. Which makes you wonder why they are not doing it.

[peterms]

There is a massive fault line, a kind of fissure, through much of the Arab world, and to think that we in the west can somehow stitch it back together while cosseting the democratic ambitions of the people on the one side of the fissure is ridiculous. On the other side are the despots, the lunatics, the minority powerful castes who will go to great lengths to keep things as they are.

It cannot be "solved" with aircraft, with troops or with politics from without.

We should not even try. We should not appoint ourselves, in parts of the west, as the world's policeman, or enforcer.

We do not have the political integrity to set an example, the moral authority to tell them how to behave, or the joined up military/political capability and understanding to compel their society to behave to our ideals

Yes, that's right, and part of the reason we can't stitch it together goes beyond your point about not having integrity; it's worse than that, it's that we have spent about a century deliberately playing divide and rule in that part of the world.

That makes me very wary of getting involved in more conflicts there. Yet I thought, and still think, that it was right to intervene when we did. The reason for that is that it seemed that a large scale massacre was about to unfold, and that we were in a position to be able to do something about it.

Given our long previous history of deliberately destabilising countries for our own ends, and that this is better understood by the peoples of those countries than our own (we don't get told this at school), the best course of action is to get out as quickly as we can, having hopefully done something useful in the meantime.

My fear is that the government is not getting out, but getting deeper, whether by accident or design.

[maqroll]

The Syrian govt. massacred at least 75 civilians today....Surely this injustice means NATO forces will begin a bombing campaign to protect the innocent.....what's that? No oil? Ah, right.

[Gringo]

It's just going bad isn't it. The drones so beloved of the afghan and pakistani villagers are being sent in on the back of their senders saying they are more accurate. Oh the hills of waziristan will be rolling with laughter at that one, Meanwhile down the road

Bahrain’s security forces stole ambulances and posed as medics to round up injured protesters during a ferocious crackdown on unarmed demonstrators calling for reform of the monarchy, an investigation by a rights group reveals today.

The first major report on repression of the medical profession during the country’s crisis details how a doctor was abducted during an operation and injured patients lying in hospital were tortured and threatened with rape.

One of the complaints of pro-democracy demonstrators prior to the all-out army and police attack was that the ruling al-Khalifas were trying to change the demographic balance in Bahrain by importing Sunni from Pakistan, Jordan and Yemen who were rapidly made Bahraini citizens.

The 30,000 strong army and 30,000-strong security forces recruited many officers from Sunni countries and have almost no Shia members.

According to one 20-year-old witness interviewed by a team from Physicians for Human Rights, riot police attacked a Shia wedding ceremony taking place on 13 March.

The witness said “tens of riot police in blue uniforms and white helmets attacked unarmed civilians during a wedding ceremony taking place in his town’s Ma’tam (a Shi’a congregation hall).

They launched tear gas inside the enclosed building and fired 40mm hard rubber bullets at the wedding party causing guests to flee outside where they met more armed police.

Elderly men and women collapsed to the ground. The groom’s father tried to speak with the riot police to say that this gathering was just a wedding. The police yelled in broken Arabic to move back, which made clear to the father that they were not from Bahrain.”

Gadaffi merceneraries bad, saud merceneraries [see no evil][hear no evil][speak no evil]

[peterms]

No wonder we're seen as not to be trusted, if we attack Libya and stand by and let other corrupt murderers do what they want. It's a kind of moral cowardice.

[Awol]

The Syrian govt. massacred at least 75 civilians today....Surely this injustice means NATO forces will begin a bombing campaign to protect the innocent.....what's that? No oil? Ah, right.

On the point about denials by govt that oil is a factor in the Libyan intervention, this article provides some interesting historical context (I'm surprised it sneaked past our Indy readers without getting posted up):

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq

Plans to exploit Iraq's oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world's largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show.

The papers, revealed here for the first time, raise new questions over Britain's involvement in the war, which had divided Tony Blair's cabinet and was voted through only after his claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

The minutes of a series of meetings between ministers and senior oil executives are at odds with the public denials of self-interest from oil companies and Western governments at the time.

The documents were not offered as evidence in the ongoing Chilcot Inquiry into the UK's involvement in the Iraq war. In March 2003, just before Britain went to war, Shell denounced reports that it had held talks with Downing Street about Iraqi oil as "highly inaccurate". BP denied that it had any "strategic interest" in Iraq, while Tony Blair described "the oil conspiracy theory" as "the most absurd".

But documents from October and November the previous year paint a very different picture.

Five months before the March 2003 invasion, Baroness Symons, then the Trade Minister, told BP that the Government believed British energy firms should be given a share of Iraq's enormous oil and gas reserves as a reward for Tony Blair's military commitment to US plans for regime change.

The papers show that Lady Symons agreed to lobby the Bush administration on BP's behalf because the oil giant feared it was being "locked out" of deals that Washington was quietly striking with US, French and Russian governments and their energy firms.

Minutes of a meeting with BP, Shell and BG (formerly British Gas) on 31 October 2002 read: "Baroness Symons agreed that it would be difficult to justify British companies losing out in Iraq in that way if the UK had itself been a conspicuous supporter of the US government throughout the crisis."

The minister then promised to "report back to the companies before Christmas" on her lobbying efforts.

The Foreign Office invited BP in on 6 November 2002 to talk about opportunities in Iraq "post regime change". Its minutes state: "Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP is desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity."

After another meeting, this one in October 2002, the Foreign Office's Middle East director at the time, Edward Chaplin, noted: "Shell and BP could not afford not to have a stake in [iraq] for the sake of their long-term future... We were determined to get a fair slice of the action for UK companies in a post-Saddam Iraq."

Whereas BP was insisting in public that it had "no strategic interest" in Iraq, in private it told the Foreign Office that Iraq was "more important than anything we've seen for a long time".

BP was concerned that if Washington allowed TotalFinaElf's existing contact with Saddam Hussein to stand after the invasion it would make the French conglomerate the world's leading oil company. BP told the Government it was willing to take "big risks" to get a share of the Iraqi reserves, the second largest in the world.

Over 1,000 documents were obtained under Freedom of Information over five years by the oil campaigner Greg Muttitt. They reveal that at least five meetings were held between civil servants, ministers and BP and Shell in late 2002.

The 20-year contracts signed in the wake of the invasion were the largest in the history of the oil industry. They covered half of Iraq's reserves – 60 billion barrels of oil, bought up by companies such as BP and CNPC (China National Petroleum Company), whose joint consortium alone stands to make £403m ($658m) profit per year from the Rumaila field in southern Iraq.

Last week, Iraq raised its oil output to the highest level for almost decade, 2.7 million barrels a day – seen as especially important at the moment given the regional volatility and loss of Libyan output. Many opponents of the war suspected that one of Washington's main ambitions in invading Iraq was to secure a cheap and plentiful source of oil.

Mr Muttitt, whose book Fuel on the Fire is published next week, said: "Before the war, the Government went to great lengths to insist it had no interest in Iraq's oil. These documents provide the evidence that give the lie to those claims.

"We see that oil was in fact one of the Government's most important strategic considerations, and it secretly colluded with oil companies to give them access to that huge prize."

Lady Symons, 59, later took up an advisory post with a UK merchant bank that cashed in on post-war Iraq reconstruction contracts. Last month she severed links as an unpaid adviser to Libya's National Economic Development Board after Colonel Gaddafi started firing on protesters. Last night, BP and Shell declined to comment.

www.fuelonthefire.com

Not about oil? what they said before the invasion

* Foreign Office memorandum, 13 November 2002, following meeting with BP: "Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP are desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity to compete. The long-term potential is enormous..."

* Tony Blair, 6 February 2003: "Let me just deal with the oil thing because... the oil conspiracy theory is honestly one of the most absurd when you analyse it. The fact is that, if the oil that Iraq has were our concern, I mean we could probably cut a deal with Saddam tomorrow in relation to the oil. It's not the oil that is the issue, it is the weapons..."

* BP, 12 March 2003: "We have no strategic interest in Iraq. If whoever comes to power wants Western involvement post the war, if there is a war, all we have ever said is that it should be on a level playing field. We are certainly not pushing for involvement."

* Lord Browne, the then-BP chief executive, 12 March 2003: "It is not in my or BP's opinion, a war about oil. Iraq is an important producer, but it must decide what to do with its patrimony and oil."

* Shell, 12 March 2003, said reports that it had discussed oil opportunities with Downing Street were 'highly inaccurate', adding: "We have neither sought nor attended meetings with officials in the UK Government on the subject of Iraq. The subject has only come up during conversations during normal meetings we attend from time to time with officials... We have never asked for 'contracts'."

Acting to secure cheap long term oil supplies is in itself a sensible thing to do, I just wish we could be honest about the motivation being energy security rather than dressing it up as a moral crusade.

The drones so beloved of the afghan and pakistani villagers are being sent in on the back of their senders saying they are more accurate.

1) They can be flown at lower altitude because there is no onboard pilot to risk and so can be more accurate.

2) The rebels are chuffed to bits that they are being deployed.

3) If we are trying to fulfill our UN mandate of protecting civilians by attacking Gaddafi's army, then surely deploying more platforms to do so is a good move?

[Ads]

Reports that the Lybian army has retreated back fromMisratah following a drone strike.

[blandy]

It's just going bad isn't it. The drones so beloved of the afghan and pakistani villagers are being sent in on the back of their senders saying they are more accurate. Oh the hills of waziristan will be rolling with laughter at that one...

They're not more accurate, or less accurate. They are as accurate. Without going into boring work stuff, the accuracy of a weapon strike depends on the weapon and on the designation of the target. Most of the weapons being used would be multi mode seeker weapons - using GPS, laser designation and depending on weapon type, radar or other measures.

If a manned aircraft, a RPV/UAV/Drone, releases a weapon, the effect will be the same.

It's not accuracy that tends to be the issue, it's selection of the target. If a person (and it's always a person) selects a house to attack, then the house will be hit with the same accuracy regardless of platform

[Awol]

Close, but no cigar - yet.

Col Gaddafi's youngest son 'killed in Nato air strike'

Saif al-Arab Gaddafi, the youngest son of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, has been killed by a Nato air strike, the Libyan government said.

The 29-year-old is said to have died after a missile hit a house in a wealthy residential area of the capital, Tripoli.

Three of Gaddafi’s grandsons were also killed, and other friends and relatives injured, the regime said.

There was no immediate Nato or independent confirmation of the reports.

The Libyan leader himself was also in the large one-storey villa but was not injured, spokesman Mussa Ibrahim claimed.

Saif al-Arab, 29, who had studied in Munich, Germany, had a lower profile than his five brothers, including Saif al-Islam, who studied at the London School of Economics.

He was once accused of trying to smuggle an assault rifle and other weapons from Germany to Paris, though charges were dropped.

Libyan officials took journalists to the house, which had been hit by at least three missiles.

The roof had completely caved in, leaving strings of reinforcing steel hanging down among chunks of concrete.

Reporters said that, given the level of destruction, it is unclear that anyone could have survived, raising the possibility that if Gaddafi had been present he had left before the missiles hit.

Mr Ibrahim condemned the attack, which he said was “not allowed by international law”.

He said: “Until today we gave martyrs, young and old. Today it was the turn of the leader’s family to give martyrs to the Libyan nation.

He added: “The leader with his wife was there in the house with other friends and relatives, the leader himself is in good health, he wasn’t harmed.

“This was a direct operation to assassinate the leader of this country.”