Re: Middle-East & North African Discussion

by **Kil'drakor** Sun Jan 30, 2011 6:39 pm

Principally, I prefer transparency in decision making.

You illustrated the problem quite well. International affairs is a dirty business in which there is and always will be a great deal of horse trading. Something that can cost you ballots and support when made public.

by **Muzjhath** Sun Jan 30, 2011 6:43 pm

Kris, this isn't about that people shouldn't be allowed to know what their governments do.
It is about the fact that many cases the governments can't do their job to the best of everyone (not just their own people, but those outside of their direct influence aswell) if one side is afraid of telling them because they fear someone else will hear it. With hearing it go up and retailate against the faction who said something.
This is mostly a question about humanity's social maturity. Which is very uneven and in most places extremely low.

We as a people can't globaly deal with everything being open. Some think so, but the reality wouldn't work because there is so much sensetive information and dealings that can only be understood on a large scale, aswell as sensetive as in there are people who would work against it if they knew. (Like Cerr's example of Saudi informing the "west" on Iran's nucklear program).

by **Antistia** Sun Jan 30, 2011 6:52 pm

Muzjhath wrote:Kris, this isn't about that people shouldn't be allowed to know what their governments do.
It is about the fact that many cases the governments can't do their job to the best of everyone (not just their own people, but those outside of their direct influence aswell) if one side is afraid of telling them because they fear someone else will hear it. With hearing it go up and retailate against the faction who said something.
This is mostly a question about humanity's social maturity. Which is very uneven and in most places extremely low.

We as a people can't globaly deal with everything being open. Some think so, but the reality wouldn't work because there is so much sensetive information and dealings that can only be understood on a large scale, aswell as sensetive as in there are people who would work against it if they knew. (Like Cerr's example of Saudi informing the "west" on Iran's nucklear program).

Pretty much this.

On a side note, would anyone happen to know if the accidental killing (as in, non intentional) of one or multiple civilians constitute a war crime? If so could you link me to that text?

by **Kristeas Sunbinder** Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:00 pm

I think the geneva convention states that civilians have to be protected during times of war. I'm quite sure accidentaly killing falls under not protecting. In general anything that is bad for civilians such as deportation.

by **Antistia** Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:05 pm

Kristeas Sunbinder wrote:I think the geneva convention states that civilians have to be protected during times of war. I'm quite sure accidentaly killing falls under not protecting. In general anything that is bad for civilians such as deportation.

Got into a discussion with someone regarding collateral damage and that was the closest thing I found too. Which is too ambiguous to convince the dude. I need something where it is stated explicitly. Sad

Personally am of the mind that it is a war crime when it is the intention to do so, not when it happens accidentally so ya, I kinda want conclusive evidence. Closest I've come to getting my point asserted though is someone from amnesty stating the following: "Most of these attacks targeted civilians directly and therefore constitute war crimes,"

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/killings-civilians-iraq-constitute-war-crimes-2010-04-07

But that is not seen by the dude as conclusive evidence Sad

by **Kristeas Sunbinder** Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:07 pm

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO/470

"Among the most important Articles are those on the protection of the civilian population against the effects of hostilities. "
Bullet to the face is an effect of hostilities.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO/380
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

by **Antistia** Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:11 pm

Kristeas Sunbinder wrote:http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO/470

"Among the most important Articles are those on the protection of the civilian population against the effects of hostilities. "
Bullet to the face is an effect of hostilities.

Aye true, but one can do as much as possible to defend civilians but at one point or another a stray bullet is going to hit a civilian and kill him/her, a bomb is going to hit the wrong house etc. In my mind it doesn't sound logical to immediately sue the soldier for war crimes because it was not the intention. Murder is what he could be sued for at most in my mind.

by **Kristeas Sunbinder** Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:16 pm

It takes atleast two sides to fight a war, a civilian isn't on either side.
Civilian cassualties are never acceptable and to call it collateral damage is an incredible insult to human life. It is that line of thought that has, for example banned the use of cluster bombs. Any weapon not aimed at an enemy combatant, but at an area, building or general location, has the chance to inflict injury on civilians. One could ask "what if the enemy takes civilians into military area's, for example airfields?". You could wonder, why do they do it, are you willing to take the chance that this is to "discourage enemy combatants from attacking the location with bombs and artillery" and not "to keep the civilians safe from looters and other dangerous elements that the war has spawned"?

I wold not be surprised if the action of callously turning human lives into acceptable numbers of war casualties, is considered evil by most people on this planet.

by **Antistia** Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:26 pm

Kristeas Sunbinder wrote:It takes atleast two sides to fight a war, a civilian isn't on either side.
Civilian cassualties are never acceptable and to call it collateral damage is an incredible insult to human life. It is that line of thought that has, for example banned the use of cluster bombs. Any weapon not aimed at an enemy combatant, but at an area, building or general location, has the chance to inflict injury on civilians.

Civilian casualties are not good, no. However, collateral damage, cold as it may sound, is not an insult to human life. It is merely denoting the inadvertent/incidental outcome which kills civilians and/or damages civilian property. It can also be seen as damage that was accidental to the intentioned outcome in a broader sense of the term. It is an accurate term for describing accidental damage to life and property.

Furthermore, cluster bombs are not outlawed. Countries that have both signed AND ratified the CCM are prohibited from using cluster bombs.

by Guest Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:28 pm

Victors rarely gets tried for war crimes of any kind Neutral

I haven't been able to find anyone getting tried for accidental killings of civilians.
Lots of cases for purposefully killing though.

by **Rasonal Dranger** Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:30 pm

Nithel wrote:The only American news worth watching is Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart. There I said it

PS Shael, there's really no ruckus where you live? I heard a lot of countries had little things. We are worried Shael!!

Nothing is going to happend there, don't worry Wink

And you are right xD

by **Antistia** Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:31 pm

Saali wrote:Victors rarely gets tried for war crimes of any kind

I haven't been able to find anyone getting tried for accidental killings of civilians.
Lots of cases for purposefully killing though.

Hmm, if we assume that what you've found so far (coupled with my search, which has yielded the same result) is reflective of what it all is then I think we ought to conclude that accidental killings of civilians are not grounds for trying someone with having committed war crimes.

by **Ehrfürchtige Bennedict** Sun Jan 30, 2011 9:42 pm

The internet wrote: If you know people in Egypt, please give them this:
Egypt : To bypass government blocking of website names, use numerical IP addresses:
for Twitter 128.242.240.52
for Facebook 69.63.189.34
for Google 72.14.204.99

Ehm... Waitwut?

by **Rasonal Dranger** Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:31 am

Bennedict wrote:
The internet wrote: If you know people in Egypt, please give them this:
Egypt : To bypass government blocking of website names, use numerical IP addresses:
for Twitter 128.242.240.52
for Facebook 69.63.189.34
for Google 72.14.204.99

Ehm... Waitwut?

Egypt is blocking the Website names, so if you use the IP addresses literally, it will work.. probably.. xD

by **Jeanpierre** Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:48 am

Kristeas Sunbinder wrote:One could ask "what if the enemy takes civilians into military area's, for example airfields?". You could wonder, why do they do it, are you willing to take the chance that this is to "discourage enemy combatants from attacking the location with bombs and artillery" and not "to keep the civilians safe from looters and other dangerous elements that the war has spawned"?

Don't assume the enemy is using it 'for good reasons' other than a strategical advantage. That's not how the military works. Intentions are one thing, what is fact and what happens are another.

by **Antistia** Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:07 pm

Rasonal Dranger wrote:
Bennedict wrote:
The internet wrote: If you know people in Egypt, please give them this:
Egypt : To bypass government blocking of website names, use numerical IP addresses:
for Twitter 128.242.240.52
for Facebook 69.63.189.34
for Google 72.14.204.99

Ehm... Waitwut?

Egypt is blocking the Website names, so if you use the IP addresses literally, it will work.. probably.. xD

Indeed. It's quite easy to identify undemocratic regimes these days by looking at the accessibility of their internet, some are obviously dictatorships but internet freedoms are an easy indicator of a free society.

Jeanpierre wrote:
Kristeas Sunbinder wrote:One could ask "what if the enemy takes civilians into military area's, for example airfields?". You could wonder, why do they do it, are you willing to take the chance that this is to "discourage enemy combatants from attacking the location with bombs and artillery" and not "to keep the civilians safe from looters and other dangerous elements that the war has spawned"?

Don't assume the enemy is using it 'for good reasons' other than a strategical advantage. That's not how the military works. Intentions are one thing, what is fact and what happens are another.

Well this, and sometimes, just sometimes, targets with a high risk need to be taken out even when there's a high chance to kill civilians.

by **Zinkle Figgins** Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:35 pm

China's investment of up to 1.5 billion dollars in a special economic zone near the Egyptian city of Suez marks the
largest Egyptian-Chinese project to date. Beijing is playing a rapidly growing role in Egypt's economy -- as an
investor, trade partner, and, at times, competitor.

www.relooney.info/SI_Oil-Politics/Africa-China_29.pdf

China Daily, September 27, 2010

China, Egypt eye closer economic ties

Chinese and Egyptian industry officials vowed closer bilateral economic ties on Sunday with the signing of an industrial cooperation agreement.

Egyptian Minister of Trade and Industry Rachid Mohamed Rachid met with Chinese Minister of Industry and Information Technology Li Yizhong. Both talked about the expansion and improvement of bilateral trade and economic cooperation.

Rachid told reporters that he hoped the new agreement would pave the way for more cooperation in different industry sectors including manufacturing of cars components, textiles, petrochemicals, electronics and technology.

"This agreement includes the process of sharing technology and increasing investment in the industrial sector and training of workers as well as helping Egyptian companies promote their products in the Chinese markets," said the Egyptian minister.

The agreement also includeds the formation of an Egyptian- Chinese task force that takes the responsibility of sharing information and experiments in the industrial sectors and encouraging Egyptian and Chinese firms to establish joint ventures in different areas of cooperation, according to Rachid.

Rachid said that Egypt wanted to benefit from the successful Chinese experience in the industrial sector.

Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif also met with the Chinese minister. The prime minister said Egypt shows great interest in boosting cooperation with China.

The bilateral trade between Egypt and China increased from $3 billion in 2006 to $6.24 billion in 2008, according to Chinese Ambassador to Egypt Wu Chunhua.

By the end of last year, Chinese investment in Egypt exceeded $500 million. Chinese auto companies such as Chery Automobile and Brilliance Automobile have had assembly lines here in Egypt.

Rachid expected that the Egyptian-Chinese cooperation would witness a great milestone in all sectors, particularly the trade and industry relations thanks to exchanges on the economic and political levels.

www.china.org.cn/business/2010-09/27/content_21016647.htm

Monday, 13 December 2010 22:22

Egypt, China Discuss Boosting Joint Investments

Egypt’s Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif has received China's new Ambassador to Egypt Song Aiguo.

Cabinet Spokesman Magdi Radi said Nazif highlighted during his meeting with the Chinese diplomat the depth of bilateral relations.

Nazif told the Chinese diplomat that Egypt looks forward to upping the volume of Chinese investments especially in the field of high tech, said Radi, adding that the two sides discussed cooperation at a tripartite level in Africa.

Radi said the Chinese diplomat asserted the depth of relations, saying that Egypt was among the first countries to recognize China.

He said the two countries are keen on bolstering coordination within the framework of efforts to increase Chinese investments in the African continent.
(SIS)

http://www.english.globalarabnetwork.com/2...nvestments.html

And the list goes on. If with the new government the trade with the USA will increase and the one with Russia and China will decrease instead, we'll know who to blame.

by **Antistia** Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:59 pm

Or it is the result of repression, 13% inflation, nearly 10% unemployment, etc?

I mean, that's just circumstantial evidence at best.

by Guest Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:30 pm

D'awww!

Awww!

by **Zinkle Figgins** Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:37 pm

Antistia wrote:Or it is the result of repression, 13% inflation, nearly 10% unemployment, etc?

I mean, that's just circumstantial evidence at best.

More than half of the world has those problems, we should search deeper. Anyway, we'll see within the next few months.

by **Antistia** Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:48 pm

Zinkle Figgins wrote:
Antistia wrote:Or it is the result of repression, 13% inflation, nearly 10% unemployment, etc?

I mean, that's just circumstantial evidence at best.

More than half of the world has those problems, we should search deeper. Anyway, we'll see within the next few months.

Because it makes total sense to overthrow a loyal ally against Al-Qaeda and co? Because it makes total sense to overthrow an Egyptian regime which is actually not that opposed to the existence of Israel, unlike the general populace? Some news sources are already reporting the Israeli military planning to rearrange its troops. Islamists have already been broken out of jail. There's a big chance a new government is going to come which isn't all that friendly to the United States nor its ally Israel.

It just doesn't make sense to overthrow that regime.

by **Rasonal Dranger** Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:03 pm

Antistia wrote:
Zinkle Figgins wrote:
Antistia wrote:Or it is the result of repression, 13% inflation, nearly 10% unemployment, etc?

I mean, that's just circumstantial evidence at best.

More than half of the world has those problems, we should search deeper. Anyway, we'll see within the next few months.

Because it makes total sense to overthrow a loyal ally against Al-Qaeda and co? Because it makes total sense to overthrow an Egyptian regime which is actually not that opposed to the existence of Israel, unlike the general populace? Some news sources are already reporting the Israeli military planning to rearrange its troops. Islamists have already been broken out of jail. There's a big chance a new government is going to come which isn't all that friendly to the United States nor its ally Israel.

It just doesn't make sense to overthrow that regime.

Well Obama never proved to be the most smart guy when it comes to this, he is rather an idealist.

Or he simply doesn't hire any experts..

by **Antistia** Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:11 pm

Rasonal Dranger wrote:
Antistia wrote:
Zinkle Figgins wrote:
Antistia wrote:Or it is the result of repression, 13% inflation, nearly 10% unemployment, etc?

I mean, that's just circumstantial evidence at best.

More than half of the world has those problems, we should search deeper. Anyway, we'll see within the next few months.

Because it makes total sense to overthrow a loyal ally against Al-Qaeda and co? Because it makes total sense to overthrow an Egyptian regime which is actually not that opposed to the existence of Israel, unlike the general populace? Some news sources are already reporting the Israeli military planning to rearrange its troops. Islamists have already been broken out of jail. There's a big chance a new government is going to come which isn't all that friendly to the United States nor its ally Israel.

It just doesn't make sense to overthrow that regime.

Well Obama never proved to be the most smart guy when it comes to this, he is rather an idealist.

Or he simply doesn't hire any experts..

It is historical fact that most regime changes initiated by the United States explode in their face. That, and it is really a stretch to have this initiated by the United States as we're seeing unrest across large parts of the Middle East. And the facts I already stated.

Oh, and Obama is quite smart when it comes to realpolitik. The Israeli-Palestinian issue is just impossible to solve in a satisfactory manner for party A or B let alone spectator C. His handling of Iran, while it could have been tougher at some points, has been good. The US military is stretched, Israel would be in huge problems if they attacked the Iranian nuclear program (especially due to the rockets Hezbollah has). Stuxnet proved to be a good way of buying some time, the sanctions are done well and I really have to give kudoes to US diplomats for it.

by Guest Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:21 pm

It was in the best interest of the entire western world to have a stable yet dictatorial Egypt. The egyptians wanted it different obviously, after seeing what happened in Tunesia.
I doubt that anyone apart from the egyptians can claim to have started it.

by **Kil'drakor** Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:55 pm

Jesus started it.

by Sponsored content