Mali Civil War and the Western Intervention

[Hurlshort]

These aren't Muslims destroying cultural heritage sites, these are violent extremists. They have very little in common with the millions of people who practice Islam peacefully around the world.

[BruceVC]

Personally I was rather upset that they destroyed cultural heritage sites of old muslim tombs because "Blasphemy!" the tombs were idolatry.

There they were at one of the most spiritual places in the world, where real theology was practised, where great ideas (whether for good or bad I leave to you) were inspired. and they ****ing destroyed it. poof. gone from history the oldest korans in north africa, burned, gone the beautifully constructed tombs, bulldozed.

 

why? because they didn't practice their religion "the right way"

 

So I'm biased. The cultural anthropologist in me is upset.

 

Pretty much, i hope that France gets the balls for a total annihalation of those barbarians. Or rather capture each one of them and force them to slave labour and restore every single artifact while being forced to listen to Slayer - "Reign in Blood" in every waking hour. **** them and **** every piece of **** that support them.

 

Luckily enough, i am not the one calling the shots here. Destroying cultural heritage really rubs me the wrong way.

You know - us westerners are not really it position to call others Barbarians over such practices.

There has been plenty of destroying cultural heritage throughout our history.

I disagree that we can't get upset by there vandalism and call them barbarians, how do you think the Muslim community would have felt if the Americans had desecrated and destroyed Islamic mosques or religious sites in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Except it wouldn't be done by believers of the same religion.

In the end those sites are muslim and if muslims feel that they are blasphemous it's their call to make.

 

Your point doesn't really make sense to me as there are different interpretations of Islam amongst Muslims and they have different places they consider holy in many cases. I would also say this has got nothing to do with religion but rather a lack of respect for objects or places that are considered sacred to some within Islam, so in other words barbaric behavior = barbarians

[Hurlshort]

Mansa Musa would not approve, that's for dang sure.

[JFSOCC]

I disagree that we can't get upset by there vandalism and call them barbarians, how do you think the Muslim community would have felt if the Americans had desecrated and destroyed Islamic mosques or religious sites in Iraq or Afghanistan?

what do you mean, "if"? In one example, the US military paved over an archaeological site when they needed a landing strip for aircraft.

Do you know how much an aircraft carrying tanks can weigh? everything below was destroyed.

That pissed me off too. Though it was early in the war (Iraq) so I can understand the reason, even if I don't think it's a valid one.

 

anyway I'm ranting I'm not really disagreeing with you.

[NOK222]

Hard to believe this is the same place Mansa Munsa used to rule.

 

Anyways, those extremists have to go.

[Zoraptor]

These aren't Muslims destroying cultural heritage sites, these are violent extremists. They have very little in common with the millions of people who practice Islam peacefully around the world.

Yeah. Basically the Salafis hate Sufis because their interpretations of Islam are almost diametrically opposed in terms of philosophy- albeit the Salafi/ Wahhabi doctrine is dogmatically opposed to pretty much anything that isn't Salafi. They'll cheerfully enforce rules (as always,their cherry picked subset of specifically and specially interpreted rules) from the seventh century on everyone else whatever religion or sect because they believe it's what god wants. Practically though I rather doubt their problem is with 'idolatry' per se with regard to the Timbuktu mausoleum but with something that is identifiable with an alternative and more tolerant sect which reminds people that there were early alternatives to radicalism and that were extremely successful in peaceful conversion.

[BBMorti]

Personally I was rather upset that they destroyed cultural heritage sites of old muslim tombs because "Blasphemy!" the tombs were idolatry.

There they were at one of the most spiritual places in the world, where real theology was practised, where great ideas (whether for good or bad I leave to you) were inspired. and they ****ing destroyed it. poof. gone from history the oldest korans in north africa, burned, gone the beautifully constructed tombs, bulldozed.

 

why? because they didn't practice their religion "the right way"

 

So I'm biased. The cultural anthropologist in me is upset.

 

Pretty much, i hope that France gets the balls for a total annihalation of those barbarians. Or rather capture each one of them and force them to slave labour and restore every single artifact while being forced to listen to Slayer - "Reign in Blood" in every waking hour. **** them and **** every piece of **** that support them.

 

Luckily enough, i am not the one calling the shots here. Destroying cultural heritage really rubs me the wrong way.

You know - us westerners are not really it position to call others Barbarians over such practices.

There has been plenty of destroying cultural heritage throughout our history.

I disagree that we can't get upset by there vandalism and call them barbarians, how do you think the Muslim community would have felt if the Americans had desecrated and destroyed Islamic mosques or religious sites in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Except it wouldn't be done by believers of the same religion.

In the end those sites are muslim and if muslims feel that they are blasphemous it's their call to make.

 

Your point doesn't really make sense to me as there are different interpretations of Islam amongst Muslims and they have different places they consider holy in many cases. I would also say this has got nothing to do with religion but rather a lack of respect for objects or places that are considered sacred to some within Islam, so in other words barbaric behavior = barbarians

Muslims behave worse than any barbarian ever did. I think Muslim behavior should be the term to use. Your point falls through when you defend Muslims against blanket statements and then do the very same thing against barbarians.

[Hurlshort]

Barbarian is a general term that defines a certain behavior, so it is well suited for blanket statements. Islam is an incredibly diverse religion with tens of millions of followers around the world, so using blanket statements to define them is ridiculous and ignorant.

[BBMorti]

Barbarian is a general term that defines a certain behavior, so it is well suited for blanket statements. Islam is an incredibly diverse religion with tens of millions of followers around the world, so using blanket statements to define them is ridiculous and ignorant.

Using barbarian as a general term is as much a choice as using Muslim as such, the diversity of either is irrelevant.

 

In any case protesting against a blanket statement while making another in arguing against it, is the irony I wanted to point towards.

Edited January 15, 2013 by BBMorti

[Hurlshort]

Barbarian IS a general term. It used to simply refer to people that didn't speak Greek, but it has been adopted to mean anyone who is uncivilized. There aren't millions of people around the world who call themselves barbarians and are going to be offended when you use that word as a generalization.

 

Using Muslim as a generalization on the other hand is very offensive.

[BruceVC]

Whats really gratifying for me is to see how happy the Malian citizens are to have the French getting involved in this conflict. Despite the fact that the French were the previous Colonial power the people of Mali recognize and appreciate there assistance. I have always maintained that one of the biggest issues in Africa is when certain African leaders blame Colonialism for there own lack of good governance and corruption. There is this "anti-western" sentiment in some places due to Colonialism and you see concerns raised where some African leaders would rather have African countries suffer from wars and poverty than to allow Western countries to intervene.

 

Thats why this French intervention in Mali is also significant.

[Meshugger]

Personally I was rather upset that they destroyed cultural heritage sites of old muslim tombs because "Blasphemy!" the tombs were idolatry.

There they were at one of the most spiritual places in the world, where real theology was practised, where great ideas (whether for good or bad I leave to you) were inspired. and they ****ing destroyed it. poof. gone from history the oldest korans in north africa, burned, gone the beautifully constructed tombs, bulldozed.

 

why? because they didn't practice their religion "the right way"

 

So I'm biased. The cultural anthropologist in me is upset.

 

Pretty much, i hope that France gets the balls for a total annihalation of those barbarians. Or rather capture each one of them and force them to slave labour and restore every single artifact while being forced to listen to Slayer - "Reign in Blood" in every waking hour. **** them and **** every piece of **** that support them.

 

Luckily enough, i am not the one calling the shots here. Destroying cultural heritage really rubs me the wrong way.

You know - us westerners are not really it position to call others Barbarians over such practices.

There has been plenty of destroying cultural heritage throughout our history.

 

Don't be an imbecile. That line of thought only dwells into a pointless "sins of our fathers"-scenario with no return.

 

Of course we are in a position to call them for what they are, no matter religion they claim to follow: thuggish, backwater barbarians who are so culturally retarded that they have forbidden music entirely.

[obyknven]

Some explanation about political siltation in this region. Can't find something similar in english language, because this google translated russian text:

http://translate.goo....com/10333.html

 

This man - Iyad Ag Ghali. He led the rebellion in the early 1990s and was also involved in the 2006 rebellion. MNLA reject his leadership near and he went on to form a movement called Ansar Al Din, which means the “followers of the faithful”. There are reports that he got together a group of like-minded Tuaregs with similar tribal allegiances and they, it is said, are fighting alongside the MNLA as a semi-autonomous wing of the rebel movement. They were apparently very present in the Aguel’hoc and Tessalit battles. After win in near Tuareg Rebellion ( Iyad Ag Ghali is real creator of this win ), he overthrow MNLA posers and take power in region. Now enemies of this guy ( Mali government, MNLA, French administration ) blame him as "Al-Qaeda-leader", because their butthurt so strong.

[Gorgon]

They want to stop a potential hard line sharia regime on the edge of Europe and protect their interests. The difference from, say, Chechnya, is that most of the world seems to agree which is why there is a UN mandate and a Pan African intervention force. France probably are getting nostalgic about their lost empire, but I seriously doubt this is a move to try and reinstate it.

[BruceVC]

They want to stop a potential hard line sharia regime on the edge of Europe and protect their interests. The difference from, say, Chechnya, is that most of the world seems to agree which is why there is a UN mandate and a Pan African intervention force. France probably are getting nostalgic about their lost empire, but I seriously doubt this is a move to try and reinstate it.

100 % correct, the French have already mentioned on numerous occasions that they don't want to be in Mali indefinitely . And frankly you can't blame them

Edited January 16, 2013 by BruceVC

[pmp10]

Personally I was rather upset that they destroyed cultural heritage sites of old muslim tombs because "Blasphemy!" the tombs were idolatry.

There they were at one of the most spiritual places in the world, where real theology was practised, where great ideas (whether for good or bad I leave to you) were inspired. and they ****ing destroyed it. poof. gone from history the oldest korans in north africa, burned, gone the beautifully constructed tombs, bulldozed.

 

why? because they didn't practice their religion "the right way"

 

So I'm biased. The cultural anthropologist in me is upset.

 

Pretty much, i hope that France gets the balls for a total annihalation of those barbarians. Or rather capture each one of them and force them to slave labour and restore every single artifact while being forced to listen to Slayer - "Reign in Blood" in every waking hour. **** them and **** every piece of **** that support them.

 

Luckily enough, i am not the one calling the shots here. Destroying cultural heritage really rubs me the wrong way.

You know - us westerners are not really it position to call others Barbarians over such practices.

There has been plenty of destroying cultural heritage throughout our history.

 

Don't be an imbecile. That line of thought only dwells into a pointless "sins of our fathers"-scenario with no return.

 

Of course we are in a position to call them for what they are, no matter religion they claim to follow: thuggish, backwater barbarians who are so culturally retarded that they have forbidden music entirely.

Actually you don't need to get into 'sins of our fathers' to see clash of cultures.

I'm sure the issues of women in Afghanistan is already a major point of contention today.

[HoonDing]

Of course we are in a position to call them for what they are, no matter religion they claim to follow: thuggish, backwater barbarians who are so culturally retarded that they have forbidden music entirely.

If they were subjected to some contemporary pop music, it's understandable.

[BruceVC]

Of course we are in a position to call them for what they are, no matter religion they claim to follow: thuggish, backwater barbarians who are so culturally retarded that they have forbidden music entirely.

If they were subjected to some contemporary pop music, it's understandable.

 

You funny

[obyknven]

AL qaeda gaining a country again? 

Even now we can't have proof of Al-Qaeda presence in Mali (Actually we can't find they in any part of Earth). 

 

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2012/10/ansar-dine-spokesman-dismisses-terrorist-label.html

 

Asked about labeling Ansar Dine as a “terrorist organization no different than al-Qaeda,” Ould Bouamama replied: ''The term terrorist movement is being used to describe any side that opposes [the status quo], and the resistance is being labeled according to this perspective.''

He added: ''To say that the Ansar Dine movement is a terrorist organization is ridiculous. Even the Algerian mujahideen in the liberation revolution were described as such.''

 

The Ansar Dine spokesman expressed hope for a conclusive solution in northern Mali that would “end a 49-year-old problem, which involves a region and a marginalized people. Although they have the right to live in dignity like other peoples of the world, the people of the [Azawad] region did not even have the right to live like animals.''

 

The spokesman alludes to a ''grand conspiracy'' that may hinder the achievement of conclusive solutions. He said: “We believe that the key to the solution is in Algeria, but some are seeking to surpass and confiscate its role."

 

“I believe that these countries are trying to supersede their borders,'' he added.

 

When asked whether the movement is still allied with the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA), he moved on to talk about the French role in particular: “Our alliance with the movement was aimed at reaching a common approach, but the French only want to include in the dialogue [parties] that serve their agenda.''

 

He said that “it is a game and major conspiracy that transcends northern Mali to southern Algeria and northern Niger.”

 

Ould Bouamama added, “The game is very serious and not as simple as some might imagine. There is a serious attempt to plunge the region into a bad scenario.''

In other words Ansar Dine is not Al-Qaeda, but western  media continue mumbling about Al-Qaeda without proofs.

[Gorgon]

Since it doesn't have very clear leadership and a cell based structure, it's basically no more than a loosely defined anti western terrorist ideology.  If you are Al-Qaeda you generally shout it from the rooftops. They constantly try and outdo eachother to gain fame.

[obyknven]

Other militant fraction from Mali/Algeria is "Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb".  They are not Al-Qaeda  (actually they are some sort of imitators).

 

http://www.algeria-watch.org/en/articles/1997_2000/paradox_democracy.htm

 

In December 1991, the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), an Algerian political party, had won national democratic elections, proving to be immensely popular. However, before the parliamentary seats could be taken after January 1992, the Algerian military violently overturned democracy. The parliamentary elections that would have brought the FIS to power were cancelled by the Algerian army.

 

After this civil war began in Algeria. The Armed Islamic Group (GIA)  begin fight against military dictatorship, but discredited yourself by mass civilian casualties. in 1998   The Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC) was founded by Hassan Hattab, a former (GIA) regional commander who broke with the GIA  in protest over the GIA's slaughter of civilians. The GSPC continues to conduct operations aimed at government and military targets, primarily in rural areas, although civilians are sometimes killed.

 

http://www.terrorism101.org/organizations/Salafist_Group.html

 

In January 2007 these local militant fighters change name from  GSPC to world famous Al-Qaeda. It's a smart decision ( after all what do by western media to  promote Al-Qaeda brand as powerful opposition to West ).  Now these faction have name "Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb", but they are not global terrorist organization. They are local militant fighters, who fight against West backed dictatorship in Algeria.

 

 

[Valsuelm]

 

AL qaeda gaining a country again? 

Even now we can't have proof of Al-Qaeda presence in Mali (Actually we can't find they in any part of Earth). 

 

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2012/10/ansar-dine-spokesman-dismisses-terrorist-label.html

 

...<

/p>

In other words Ansar Dine is not Al-Qaeda, but western  media continue mumbling about Al-Qaeda without proofs.

 

 

 

That's because many westerners have made duped into believing in the boogie man. Only those who haven't enough background in world history/events and haven't done enough homework believe they exist outside of the propaganda machine or as an 'intelligence community' asset, or the unintelligent. Al-Qaeda = boogiemen. Anyone that considers just how powerful this organization that spans the globe supposedly is should begin to question just how that is even remotely possible. Most don't question though, not much of anything.

[Rostere]

Since it doesn't have very clear leadership and a cell based structure, it's basically no more than a loosely defined anti western terrorist ideology.  If you are Al-Qaeda you generally shout it from the rooftops. They constantly try and outdo eachother to gain fame.

This. "Al- Qaeda" is so similar to Anonymous in many ways...

[NOK222]

Except Anonymous aren't religious fundamentalists, or killers, or terrorists. 

[BruceVC]

 

 

AL qaeda gaining a country again? 

Even now we can't have proof of Al-Qaeda presence in Mali (Actually we can't find they in any part of Earth). 

 

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2012/10/ansar-dine-spokesman-dismisses-terrorist-label.html

 

...<

 

/p>

In other words Ansar Dine is not Al-Qaeda, but western  media continue mumbling about Al-Qaeda without proofs.

 

 

That's because many westerners have made duped into believing in the boogie man. Only those who haven't enough background in world history/events and haven't done enough homework believe they exist outside of the propaganda machine or as an 'intelligence community' asset, or the unintelligent. Al-Qaeda = boogiemen. Anyone that considers just how powerful this organization that spans the globe supposedly is should begin to question just how that is even remotely possible. Most don't question though, not much of anything.

 

 

I don't think anyone with even a semblance of insight into Al-Qaeda and there organizational structure is unaware of there real influence. It doesn't matter what you call the fighters in Mali who the French are fighting. Islamists,. Jihadists, Al-Qaeda..whatever  its irrelevant to the reality of the situation. They want to impose an orthodox and archaic form of Sharia law  in the region. And they need to stopped. They will be stopped as very few people and countries in the region want them to succeed.