starting this thread, which i hope will be short-lived, to keep the board up to date with latest reports gleaned from the net

fred - the disproportionate problems between israel and the palestinians are exactly that, and are thus little more than a distraction, much as you and hayseed might like to think otherwise .... as for america, i suspect its apparent caution, or whatever you wish to call it, is somewhat removed from the reality of its involvement - it cannot be otherwise, for the reasons you state .....

meanwhile, we all wait with some trepidation as to how things will evolve

You might think that the Israel/Palestine conflict is just a distraction. More and more the pro democracy forces in these Arab countries are mentioning Israel in their comments. I just saw a discussion on TV a few minutes ago with a pro -democracy leader and a representative of the Jordanian government. The opposion forces mentioned Israel constantly. Israel is very much on the agenda of these potential new governments. Saudi and Egyptian Foreign Ministers met in Cairo Friday night to discuss the increasingly violent actions of Israel towards Gaza and what their response is going to be. The discussions included the head of the armed forces for Egypt. One of the topics was Israeli threats to launch a full scale war on Gaza.

Hays,

"Saudi and Egyptian Foreign Ministers met in Cairo Friday night to discuss the increasingly violent actions of Israel towards Gaza and what their response is going to be."

Being cynical, is the discussion as the present popular mood of the "Street", or is it the intent by the Military in Egypt (who are still in control of the state) and the controlling American supported Saudi hierarchy method of placating the "masses" and distract attention from their own immediate problems.

Ie. consolidating their positions.

If the latter, the discussions or any resulting actions from those discussions could be dangerous to all around.

this is a good debate
main problem as in iraq is religion and the gadaffi family dictators
i wish well to all but i will probably just read in future dont want to ruin a good string
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12873434

hayseed / fred - what have your posts got to do with the situation in libya? .... nothing at all

gibby - nor is religion the underlying cause of the unrest in libya

cynic
i agree not the only reason but it does have its place
great debate

Hardly anyone responds to the ramblings of the board muppet Ricardo and Haystack is so obssessed by the Isreal / Palestine issue I'm surprised he isn't posting the same boring crap on every thread on every financial BB; some people should really get a life.

A dedicated thread for one subject is about to be hijacked to disucss another.

Cynic,

Religion in Libya?

Ummh,

At first, I thought similarly to you, but over the last 7-10 days have notice the the congregating place for the "revolutionaries", is around the mosques.

Also, noticed that many seem to be celebrating by bowing to the West.

How much influence the Mosques have in Libya. I don't know, but still see it as influential.

I would prefer a secular state democracy evolve, but!!!!!!!!.

PS.

I am reminded of a friend, who use to say Religion (the Church) thrives on adversity.

.....

The whole ME area is heavily intertwined. Part of the current problems is due to the propping up of regimes by the US. Egypt was a good example. The peace treaty with Israel suited the US. The same has been true of the area in general. The general population due not share the US's view or policies. Once the regimes, supported by the US, are gone a new agenda should appear. On that basis Israel has a lot to do with the current strife.

The whole region is still displaying the after effects of colonialism. The French left Morocco, Algiers, Tunisia in a mess. Libya, Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Israel and many others are the result of artificially created countries. Some were the leftovers of the Ottoman Empire and some were once run by the British. Democratic institutions were not considered when these countries were created. Most of them had some sort of dictatorship in control. These decisions of new borders and population disenfranchisement are now unwinding across the region. One of the last to experience this will be Israel. It was just as artificial as the rest. Libya used to be at least two countries. One was called something like Tripolitania with Tripoli as it capital. The other whose name I can't remember had Benghazi as its capital. I think there was another one as well. They were all Italian colonies and captured from the Turks.

whoops

By far the predominant religion in Libya is Islam with 97% of the population associating with the faith.[1] The vast majority of Libyan Muslims adhere to Sunni Islam, which provides both a spiritual guide for individuals and a keystone for government policy, but a minority (between 5 and 10%) are Ibadis (a branch of the Kharijites), mostly in the Jebel Nefusa and the town of Zuwarah.

Other than the overwhelming majority of Sunni Muslims, there are also small Christian communities, composed exclusively of foreigners. Coptic Orthodox Christianity, which is the Christian Church of Egypt, is the largest and most historical Christian denomination in Libya. There are over 60,000 Egyptian Copts in Libya, as they comprise over 1% of the population alone.[2] There are an estimated 40,000 Roman Catholics in Libya who are served by two Bishops, one in Tripoli (serving the Italian community) and one in Benghazi (serving the Maltese community). There is also a small Anglican community, made up mostly of African immigrant workers in Tripoli; it is part of the Anglican Diocese of Egypt.[3]

Libya was until recent times the home of one of the oldest Jewish communities in the world, dating back to at least 300 BC.[4] A series of pogroms beginning in November 1945 lasted for almost three years, drastically reducing Libya's Jewish population.[5] In 1948, about 38,000 Jews remained in the country. Upon Libya's independence in 1951, most of the Jewish community emigrated. After the Suez Crisis in 1956, all but about 100 Jews were forced to flee.

beware....

Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi[1][variations] (Arabic: معمر القذافي‎ Muʿammar al-Qaḏḏāfī audio (helpinfo); born 7 June 1942), commonly referred to as Colonel Gaddafi, has been the leader of Libya since a military coup on 1 September 1969 where he overthrew King Idris of Libya and established the Libyan Arab Republic.[2] His 42 years in power made him one of the longest-serving rulers in history.[3]

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, Gaddafi's government was considered a pariah state by the West,[4][5] denounced for oppressing internal dissidence, acts of state-sponsored terrorism, assassinations of expatriate opposition leaders, and crass nepotism which amassed a multi-billion dollar fortune for himself and his family.[6] Gaddafi renamed the Libyan Arab Republic to Jamahiriya in 1977, based on his socialist and nationalist political philosophy published in Green Book. In 1979, he relinquished the title of prime minister, and was thereafter called "The Brother Leader" or "The Guide" in Libya's Socialist Revolution.[7][8] Gaddafi was a firm supporter of OAPEC and led a Pan-African campaign for a United States of Africa.[9] After the 1986 Bombing of Libya and the 1993 imposition of United Nations sanctions, Gaddafi established closer economic and security relations with the west, cooperated with investigations into previous Libyan acts of state-sponsored terrorism and paid compensation, and ended his nuclear weapons program, resulting in the lifting of UN sanctions in 2003.

In early February 2011, major political protests, inspired by recent pro-democracy events in Tunisia, Egypt and other parts of the Arab world, broke out in Libya against Gaddafi's government and quickly turned into a general uprising. Gaddafi vowed to "die a martyr" if necessary in his fight against the rebels and external forces.[10][11]

Contents [hide]

sorry, but as usual can't be bothered to wade through long rambling posts .... hayseed is almost never worth reading anyway, and this is no exception

fred - just because people go to the mosque, does not mean that there is religious animosity .... libya traditionally follows tribal lines, which is certainly not the same thing as religious, but even those (tribal) barriers have broken down significantly over the last few decades ..... as far as i can determine, the majority(how great?) are fed up with MG's repressive regime, and the protests etc in neighbouring regions have supplied the catalyst, assuredly aided and abetted from outside - e.g. iran and al qaeda

indeed, it is the "uncertain parentage" of these outsiders, and thus their influence and agenda, that complicates the long-term prognosis enormously

fred / mohammed
libya is tribal sunnis nornally win
but now gaddi makes it worse
gl

hmmm
ok

Arab World | 24.03.2011
Libyan Islamists stand to gain with or without Gadhafi

Gronsicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Prisoners from the banned Libyan Islamic Fighting Group were released after renouncing violence An alleged dual British-Libyan jihadist has been paraded in front of the international media to support the regime's claim that the revolt against Gadhafi's 41-year rule was being directed by al-Qaeda.

Libya has put the spotlight on the fact that it may be one of the Middle Eastern and North African countries where militant Islamists emerge strengthened from the Arab struggle to throw off the yoke of authoritarian rule.

Salah Mohammed Ali Abu Obah, a 43-year old Manchester resident, said he was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), an al-Qaeda affiliate founded by Libyan fighters in Afghanistan. He said he had been detained earlier this month by Libyan security forces in the town of Zawiya, west of the capital Tripoli. Abu Obah described himself as a low-level LIFG fundraiser.

Abu Obah's statements did little to substantiate Gadhafi's claim but fuelled Western concerns that jihadists and militant Islamists were playing a key role in the Libyan revolt unlike elsewhere in the world where they have largely been relegated to the sidelines. Abu Obah noted that the LIFG had broken its ties to al-Qaeda in 2007 around the time that its imprisoned leaders engaged in serious dialogue with the regime as part of the government's rehabilitation program.

"The part of the LIFG that I am with does not belong to al-Qaeda," Abu Obah said.

The LIFG alongside dissident elements of the Libyan armed forces are the only two groups within the Libyan opposition with battle experience. The Libyan jihadists fought a bitter insurgency in eastern Libya in the 1990s.

Many of the Islamist fighters who are facing off against Gadhafi's forces were released from prison last year as part of the government rehabilitation program that was overseen by Gadhafi's son, Saif al-Islam, in which they repented their ways, but did not fully renounce violence.

Analysts said the jihadists' role in the struggle to topple Gadhafi would strengthen their position irrespective of what the outcome is of the battle for Libya. They said the fighters' attitudes once the battle is over would constitute a litmus test for government rehabilitation programs in several Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Mauritania. The Saudi program has so far had an 80 percent success rate.
Bildunterschrift: Gronsicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Jihadists stand to gain from the Libyan uprising
Old ways

Western fears that many of the rehabilitated and escapees may revert to their old ways were reinforced by the recent refusal of Sheikh Ali al-Salabi, the prominent Libyan cleric who oversaw the LIFG's ideological rehabilitation, to mediate an agreement between Gadafhi and the rebels. Al-Salabi's refusal was backed by prominent Saudi cleric Salman al-Auda, a reformed militant, and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yousef Qaradawi, who both had earlier supported Gadhafi's rehabilitation effort.

"The real threat to US security is flying under the radar. The fate of once-jailed Islamist fighters who are now at large should be among Washington's top concerns. Islamists freed by Gadhafi and those who escaped from prison during the uprising are now able to operate in an environment of evaporating state control, abundant small arms caches, and under-guarded stocks of chemical warfare agents," Christopher Boucek, an analyst with the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for Peace, told Deutsche Welle.

Opposition leaders have stressed that their revolt is nationalist rather than Islamist in nature irrespective of the fact that LIFG fighters have joined their battle. "If there's one thing you should remember, it's that this is a people's revolution, a secular revolution," said Khaled Ben Ali, a spokesman for the 13-member rebel national council.

Analysts concede that the Islamists participation in the fight does not necessarily change the nature of the revolt, but cautioned that it remained to be seen whether they had truly broken with their jihadist past.

"They may no longer feel obliged to keep up their end of the bargain with a weakened government - a government many never accepted as legitimate in the first place. Violent Islamists have long sought to bring down the hated Gadhafi regime - just as they have looked to topple other 'apostate' governments in Egypt, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen - and some may now see this as their best opportunity to overthrow the government," Boucek said.

Fertile ground

A weakened or partitioned Libya could become a breeding ground for jihadists engaged in a low-level insurgency against the remnants of the Gadhafi regime, officials and analysts said, noting that jihadists flourish mostly in failing rather than failed states.

"There is ... the risk of division within the country and the risk of seeing a failed state in the future that could be a breeding ground of extremism and terrorism, so obviously this is a matter of concern," NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said at a recent meeting of NATO defense ministers.

Bildunterschrift: Gronsicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Al-Qaeda may be invigorated by the events across the Arab worldLibyans constitute the third-largest contingent of jihadists in Iraq after Iraqis and Saudis. Several Libyans also graduated to senior positions in al-Qaeda, including Abu Yahya al-Libi, the group's chief ideologue and a potential successor to Osama bin Laden. The LIFG, which attempted to assassinate Gadhafi on three different occasions, posed the greatest threat to the Libyan leader's regime prior to the popular revolt.

A US diplomat noted in a US embassy cable disclosed by Wikileaks in 2008 after a visit to the eastern Libyan city of Derna, home to many Libyan jihadists, that they were focused less on attacking Western targets than on undermining the Gadhafi regime.

The diplomat said the militants believed that the US and Europe were supporting Gadhafi after his 2003 renunciation of weapons of mass destruction. They saw participation in the Iraqi jihad against US forces as "a last act of defiance against the Gadhafi regime," the US diplomat wrote in the 2008 cable.

Noman Benotman, the London-based former LIFG leader who was one of the group's negotiators with Saif al-Islam, warns that eastern Libya hosts a younger, more radical group of Islamist militants who see jihad as a religious obligation.

Nonetheless, Benotman suggested that Gadhafi's pinning of the revolt against his regime on al-Qaeda meant that former LIFG fighters feared that they may be targeted by the Libyan leader's forces.

"The last time I was in contact with some members was when I was in Tripoli on the 16th or 17th of February," Benotman told Deutsche Welle." They themselves are afraid of their personal security, because they think they will be a target of the regime, and maybe assassinated or framed for some act of terrorism. So I think they are going to hide, because they start to believe they are a direct target for the regime's security forces."

Author: James M. Dorsey
Editor: Rob Mudge




http://www.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&pq=libya+religion&xhr=t&q=gaddafi&cp=3&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-ContextMenu&rlz=1I7HPEB_en&wrapid=tlif130124790881210&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&sa=X&ei=tHePTemNLoPBhAfxl-W7Dg&sqi=2&ved=0CEQQsAQ&biw=1276&bih=595

.

yes, but no! .... i think it would be the lazy and potential disastrous option in this instance to sit around and do nothing .... few things in life are certain, and sometimes one has an obligation to act in a certain way according to the balance of probability as presented at the time

no it's not a "convenience" but (almost) common sense tells me that those who wish to destabilise will assuredly make the most of the opportunities arising in the whole m/e region

a bit too complicated for my limited brain! ..... in this instance, had the "majority" not recommended action, then it would have been very difficult if not impossible to justify it ..... i have a very simple view on things - it's easily muddled or even muddied or confused by frightfully clever philosophical argument (i'ld rather leave that to the talmudic scholars) - but "unfair" as it might seem to the idealist, for the world to live in comparative peace, which is surely no bad thing, then those who hold the wherewithal sometimes have to apply it, "it" being the least of all perceived and arguably subjective evils ..... and no, there is not and cannot be any certainty as to what the ultimate outcome will be

N,
I agree with your sentiment, but differ slightly as well. (As you might expect.)

I am dubious about the underlying motivation of many interventions into other countrys affairs.

Generally, the driving force is for the financial gain of the external parties.

However, I think that if you see to warring parties and one or more parties are preparing to commit murder of the non-participating population it may be advantageous to do so, even if it necessitates the use of force.

Again, the hoped for and expected results of the actions would be that the overall cost in life would be less than not doing so.

It means drawing them to a table and evaluating and mediating in the problem. Far from easy.

It happened in Northern Island, which I watched develop as a problem from late 1950s (the likes of Paisley and Devlin) and until the recent time. (The underlying injustices were there from time seeming immemorial.)

I think Callaghan sending in the troops there was a necessary and probably reduced the carnage and bloodshed, although at times the presence of Peace Keepers did not seem to be doing what was intended of them.

But, there was bloody mindedness on the part of the Irish Catholics, the Irish Protestants and the British.

The emotions were similar to the ME now, but the weapons are smaller and the carnage less.

The results after a long time have been a relatively peaceful NI although there are still a minority of idiots (political and criminal) who are prepared to reopen violent confrontation.
=============

In Libya, I am not sure whether there is outside interference, but wouldnt be surprised and that may account for some of the improving organisation of the Rebels.

I would prefer a secular state to occur, but that has to be at the will of the indigenous population. However, I think, that if external intervention leads to a representative democratically elected government, with less blood occurs due to the present military intervention, that it is a good thing.

But, I would like to see a more powerful United Nations able to deal with problems of this nature and able to make humanitarian interventions.
================

Cynic,

You do ramble on.