Middle East and North Africa Unrest

Special Report: Iran and the Saudis' Countermove on Bahrain
March 14, 2011 | 1521 GMT
By George Friedman

Saudi Arabia is leading a coalition force into Bahrain to help the government calm the unrest there. This move puts Iran in a difficult position, as Tehran had hoped to use the uprising in Bahrain to promote instability in the Persian Gulf region. Iran could refrain from acting and lose an opportunity to destabilize the region, or it could choose from several other options that do not seem particularly effective.

The Bahrain uprising consists of two parts, as all revolutions do. The first is genuine grievances by the majority Shiite population ? the local issues and divisions. The second is the interests of foreign powers in Bahrain. It is not one or the other. It is both.

The Iranians clearly benefit from an uprising in Bahrain. It places the U.S. 5th Fleet?s basing in jeopardy, puts the United States in a difficult position and threatens the stability of other Persian Gulf Arab states. For the Iranians, the uprisings in North Africa and their spread to the Arabian Peninsula represent a golden opportunity for pursuing their long-standing interest (going back to the Shah and beyond) of dominating the Gulf.

The Iranians are accustomed to being able to use their covert capabilities to shape the political realities in countries. They did this effectively in Iraq and are doing it in Afghanistan. They regarded this as low risk and high reward. The Saudis, recognizing that this posed a fundamental risk to their regime and consulting with the Americans, have led a coalition force into Bahrain to halt the uprising and save the regime. Pressed by covert forces, they were forced into an overt action they were clearly reluctant to take.

We are now off the map, so to speak. The question is how the Iranians respond, and there is every reason to think that they do not know. They probably did not expect a direct military move by the Saudis, given that the Saudis prefer to act more quietly themselves. The Iranians wanted to destabilize without triggering a strong response, but they were sufficiently successful in using local issues that the Saudis felt they had no choice in the matter. It is Iran?s move.

If Iran simply does nothing, then the wave that has been moving in its favor might be stopped and reversed. They could lose a historic opportunity. At the same time, the door remains open in Iraq, and that is the main prize here. They might simply accept the reversal and pursue their main line. But even there things are murky. There are rumors in Washington that U.S. President Barack Obama has decided to slow down, halt or even reverse the withdrawal from Iraq. Rumors are merely rumors, but these make sense. Completing the withdrawal now would tilt the balance in Iraq to Iran, a strategic disaster.

Therefore, the Iranians are facing a counter-offensive that threatens the project they have been pursuing for years just when it appeared to be coming to fruition. Of course, it is just before a project succeeds that opposition mobilizes, so they should not be surprised that resistance has grown so strong. But surprised or not, they now have a strategic decision to make and not very long to make it.

They can up the ante by increasing resistance in Bahrain and forcing fighting on the ground. It is not clear that the Bahraini opposition is prepared to take that risk on behalf of Iran, but it is a potential option. They have the option of trying to increase unrest elsewhere in order to spread the Saudi and Gulf Cooperation Council forces, weakening their impact. It is not clear how much leverage the Iranians have in other countries. The Iranians could try to create problems in Saudi Arabia, but given the Saudis? actions in Bahrain, this becomes more difficult.

Finally, they can attempt an overt intervention, either in Bahrain or elsewhere, such as Iraq or Afghanistan. A naval movement against Bahrain is not impossible, but if the U.S. Navy intervenes, which it likely would, it would be a disaster for the Iranians. Operations in Iraq or Afghanistan might be more fruitful. It is possible that Shiite insurgents will operate in Iraq, but that would guarantee a halt of the U.S. withdrawal without clearly increasing the Iranians? advantage there. They want U.S. forces to leave, not give them a reason to stay.

There is then the indirect option, which is to trigger a war with Israel. The killings in the West Bank and Israeli concerns about Hezbollah might be some of Iran?s doing, with the emphasis on ?might.? But it is not clear how a Hezbollah confrontation with Israel would help Iran?s position relative to Saudi Arabia in the Persian Gulf. It diverts attention, but the Saudis know the stakes and they will not be easily diverted.

The logic, therefore, is that Iran retreats and waits. But the Saudi move shifts the flow of events, and time is not on Iran?s side.

There is also the domestic Iranian political situation to consider. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been strong in part because of his successful handling of foreign policy. The massive failure of a destabilization plan would give his political opponents the ammunition needed to weaken him domestically. We do not mean a democratic revolution in Iran, but his enemies among the clergy who see him as a threat to their position, and hard-liners in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps who want an even more aggressive stand.

Ahmadinejad finds himself in a difficult position. The Saudis have moved decisively. If he does nothing, his position can unravel and with it his domestic political strength. Yet none of the counters he might use seem effective or workable. In the end, his best option is to create a crisis in Iraq, forcing the United States to consider how deeply it wants to be drawn back into Iraq. He might find weakness there that he can translate into some sort of political deal.

At the moment we suspect the Iranians do not know how they will respond. The first issue will have to be determining whether they can create violent resistance to the Saudis in Bahrain, to both tie them down and increase the cost of occupation. It is simply unclear whether the Bahrainis are prepared to pay the price. The opposition does seem to want fundamental change in Bahrain, but it is not clear that they have reached the point where they are prepared to resist and die en masse.

That is undoubtedly what the Iranians are exploring now. If they find that this is not an option, then none of their other options are particularly good. All of them involve risk and difficulty. It also requires that Iran commit itself to confrontations that it has tried to avoid. It prefers covert action that is deniable to overt action that is not.

As we move into the evening, we expect the Iranians are in intense discussions of their next move. Domestic politics are affecting regional strategy, as would be the case in any country. But the clear roadmap the Iranians were working from has now collapsed. The Saudis have called their hand, and they are trying to find out if they have a real or a busted flush. They will have to act quickly before the Saudi action simply becomes a solid reality. But it is not clear what they can do quickly. For the moment, the Saudis have the upper hand. But the Iranians are clever and tenacious. There are no predictions possible. We doubt even the Iranians know what they will do.

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20...readmore&elq=e64df07a87ca4a10b69c5017e4a0ba77
 
Would Iran, Al-Queada and the Moslem Brotherhood like to profit from the general unrest in the region?
Yes, I?m sure they would.

Are some protest groups being organised by the aforementioned groups?
Yes, again some of them probably are.

In my view, the majority of the protesters have nothing to do with those groups and the challenge is to make sure that newly ?liberated? countries do not allow them to hijack their revolutions.

I am hoping that the Saudi troops will take a lead from the Egyptian Army and act in a neutral way, allowing peaceful protests to continue whilst political reform are made. Some of the Bahraini security forces looked like they were loosing it yesterday.

If it is batons and bullets, then that is just repression.

I will wait to hear from any Saudi FG members to hear what they think.
 
Will, to be honest mate I can't be bothered arguing this anymore. The fact remains that the RAF is still as prominent a strike force as we always were, and that's despite heavy cuts to our capability. You clearly have some anti-RAF agenda, and I'm fine with that.

Hang on, you realise that the C model is a carrier aircraft right? We are only buying JSF for carrier roles and we're only buying just enough to fill one carrier. But, we're buying the cat-n-trap version instead of the STOVL version, which is the key point. The STOVL aircraft would have sufficiently unique training requirements that it would be a joint asset, potentially even controlled by the FAA. It's much easier to make the case that the cat-n-trap aircraft should come under the control of the RAF and have RAF pilots.

I might work in close proximity with aircraft all day, but I'm not a spotter; you can quote model and tail numbers at me all day and my brain automatically switches off. By 'carrier-borne' I assumed we would both be talking STOVL. Granted, having just read the differences between the A and C models, I am now aware that the C is still Carrier-borne.

Although that aside, the Harrier was a joint-asset, and was very much under the control of the RAF. I don't see why that would have changed for JSF.


The senior cheifs of the RAF are happy to burn current capabilities that are of great use to protect projects that are not only not delivering now but potentially will continue to not deliver in the future. Shiny fighters win every time...

I don't see any evidence for that at all.

Harrier was a very old airframe, and constant technician hours trying to keep the things serviceable were simply uneconomical, particularly in theatre where it was supposed to provide CAS. Yet despite all the bleary-eyed nostalgia surrounding Harrier, it spent most of its' time sat on the pan while the USAF provided the CAS our guys on the ground needed.

Sentinel was built for use in Afghanistan, and with our withdrawal from the region scheduled in 2015, it will be removed from service. Again, the need for an ASTOR has been deemed impractical.

Of course an element of the RAF PR campaign will rely on 'shiny new' technology to showcase itself as a more professional fighting force. As a fighting force, it will rely on fighter aircraft to do this. However, I remember more media interest when we purchased C-17s from the US than I ever remember from the launch of Typhoon, and that was despite the furore that surrounded the Typhoon projected launch dates.

Typhoon remains an effective PR tool for a number of reasons, not least of which is the fact that it's a joint programme between several nations, including the Saudis, who we work extremely closely with. It has also allowed us to build diplomatic bridges with other Nations (such as Uruguay).

Definitely, but the RAF always seems to want more fast jets than it needs or can use, often at the expense of other disciplines.

Again, that's an opinion. The Government doesn't deem you important enough to judge how many is 'too many', which is why they don't consult you.

Take a look in main building and you'll see that there aren't nearly as many transport pilots at the top as you might think. Pilots from the transport side tend to migrate out into the commercial aviation sector rather than stick around for a career of RAF politics.

I don't suppose that would have anything to do with the huge pay-rise of flying Civilian commercial aircraft? Or spending 6 months at a time in Afghanistan and other hostile environments? Or spending months at a time out of area on training exercises?

There are more reasons to leave a job in the Armed Forces than 'politics', which in reality play a VERY small part.

Also, again that's a sweeping generalisation, and you're using words like 'tend to' to avoid me saying simply 'prove it'. Certainly in our HQ, there are men who come from all kinds of backgrounds, not just fast-air.

Not to mention of course that it's an infectious mindset. The battles for funding between the three forces often border on ludicrous with different factions leaking disinformation about each other in a desperate bid to get the cash.

Instead of picking fault with the Armed Forces for protecting their "assets" (which are PEOPLE who fight on your behalf), why not pick fault with your sodding Government for forcing their hand into a position where they have to bicker and fight like children?

For all the 'faults' that people argue against the Armed Forces, we're still housing millions of illegal immigrants, we're still paying millions in benefits to people who 'can't' work, and we're suddenly making every effort to pay off a National debt which has had no impact on us for the last 50 years. Why? Because it helped Cameron get into power.

It's funny how fickle people are. We shouldn't be in Afghanistan, then we should, now we should be in Libya...in reality, the people of this country have no concept of what we should or shouldn't be doing. They'll agree with whatever the newspapers tell them. Public opinion is a very powerful tool; far more powerful than the military might which that country projects. Unfortunately, it's a double-edged sword, and can very swiftly be turned into something very detrimental. All of a sudden, people like you are told that the UK Armed Forces are the bad guys, squabbling for money in a bid to go out and kill more people. Next week, Libya are the bad guys. Then Yemen. Then Pakistan. In reality, nothing has changed for the last century. You're just told what you should pick fault with, and jump on the bandwagon.

My two cents on this is that we're either the US, or we're Switzerland. We're either so neutral that we don't need an Armed Force, or we're so aggressive that we pile money into the Armed Forces just in case. As it is now, people are doing twice the work to maintain the same capability, and this will only get worse as the Tranche 2 and 3 redundancies come into effect over the next 12 months. We're stretching ourselves very thinly, and with poltical relationships with the US already showing signs of strain, the day we come to need to fend for ourselves again, people will wish they hadn't criticised the way the Armed Forces spends money.

The Armed Forces are not a business, they shouldn't be viewed as such.

Sorry for the off-topic rant, this subject makes my piss itch.

As for the Saudis sending troops in, that's exactly the way I knew this would go. Here's hoping (...sceptically) that they're not simply being used as puppets to justify our own presence there. It'll be very interesting to watching the stepping stones the US and UK governments use from here on in. Given that the UK effectively has control over their air-force programmes, and the US over thei ground-forces, the Saudis can't afford to ignore us and do their own thing.
 
Will, to be honest mate I can't be bothered arguing this anymore. The fact remains that the RAF is still as prominent a strike force as we always were, and that's despite heavy cuts to our capability. You clearly have some anti-RAF agenda, and I'm fine with that.

To be honest, neither can I.

If I may summarise, i'd say I have an anti-RAF procurement strategy agenda. Nothing against the hard working RAF staff themselves.
 
Will, to be honest mate I can't be bothered arguing this anymore.

* snip * Closing notes from Nocturnal

To be honest, neither can I.


* snip * Closing notes from WillDAQ

:Final Gear Group Hug Pic (Political Forum):

Eeeeew!

* * *

Reuter - Libyan website reports rebels sink Gaddafi ships

Reuter said:
(Reuters) - An opposition Libyan online newspaper on Tuesday said a rebel MiG 23 warplane and a helicopter sank two pro-Gaddafi warships off the eastern coast near the front line of land battles at Adjabiyah.

The Brnieq website quoted an unnamed air force officer at the Benina airbase in rebel-held Benghazi as saying the aircraft also bombed an unspecified number of tanks near Brega and Ajdebiya.

Continues

:shock:
The Rebels, they haz Air Force?

Maybe true, probably not true.

Frontline Journalists seem to have been pulled back after the death of the Aljazeera Cameraman.

BBC's John Simpson back in London. :?

* * *

Aljazeera News - Bahrain imposes state of emergency


Aljazeera News said:
The king of Bahrain has declared a state of emergency for three months on the island following weeks of anti-government protests, as deadly clashes continued across the country.

An order by the king "authorised the commander of Bahrain's defence forces to take all necessary measures to protect the safety of the country and its citizens," a statement read out on television on Tuesday said.

The development comes a day after Saudi-led military forces arrived to support the government, which is facing pressure from the Shia majority to implement reforms.


Continues

Reported that a Saudi soldier had been killed today, this is not good news.

:(
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/15/bahrain-martial-law-protesters-troops

Bahrain declares martial law as protesters clash with troops

Kingdom's rulers tell police and army to take all measures against uprising but deny Saudi soldier was killed


The streets of Bahrain's capital, Manama, have again erupted in violence as the kingdom's besieged monarch declared martial law and ordered troops - including Saudi forces - to take all measures to quell a festering rebellion.

The clashes had been anticipated since more than 1,000 troops from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states arrived in Bahrain on Sunday, after being invited by the ruling dynasty to help restore order.

Demonstrators and security forces faced off from mid-morning in the Sitra area on the outskirts of Manama. Bystanders reported the sound of gunfire and the scent of teargas by early afternoon, followed by the familiar cacophony of ambulance sirens as they sped casualties towards the city's two main hospitals.

By late afternoon, there were numerous reports of clashes inside Shia villages throughout Manama that had led to dozens of injuries.

At least nine people were admitted to hospital with moderate to serious injuries. Hospital officials reported that two victims had what appeared to be gunshot wounds. Many more appeared to be unconscious as they were wheeled into wards amid chaotic scenes.

The Bahrain government denied a claim from Riyadh that one of the troops it deployed on Sunday night had been killed by protesters. An ambulance arrived at SMC hospital with penetrating damage from what seemed to be a large projectile.

Diplomatic tensions also intensified with Bahrain recalling its ambassador to Tehran, following the Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar's warning on Monday that Bahrain's rulers and the Gulf states who have sent troops to the kingdom needed to act with "wisdom and caution".

A standoff also appears to be worsening between the two key regional protagonists - Saudi Arabia and Iran - both of whom have accused each other of using the Arab world's smallest state as an arena for their broader agendas.

The latest events seem to mark a new phase in the crisis that has paralysed the tiny kingdom since January. Demonstrators have drawn strength from the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt that saw autocratic regimes toppled by popular protests. However, unlike in either place, Bahrain's protests have taken on a strong sectarian dimension.

The ruling minority is almost exclusively Sunni, while the majority of the population is Shia. The latter feels disenfranchised and disadvantaged by an establishment which it claims does not represent its interests.

Protesters were on Tuesday afternoon on the move towards the Saudi embassy to express their anger at the involvement of Saudi troops, who they see as buttressing the regime from legitimate political pressure.

The US government has stood behind the 200-year-old kingdom, which allows it to maintain its Fifth fleet naval base in Bahrain's port and is considered to be pro-western.
 
Aljazeera News ? Libya Live Blog - March 16 2011

Aljazeera News said:
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) says it has withdrawn its aid workers from the opposition stronghold of Benghazi to the eastern oil town of Tobruk.

"The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) today (Wednesday) transferred its staff in Benghazi to the eastern city of Tobruk, where it will continue to assist victims of the conflict," the Geneva-based agency said in a statement.

"As we leave Benghazi and Ajdabiya after almost 20 days, we are extremely concerned about what will happen to civilians, the sick and wounded, detainees and others who are entitled to protection in times of conflict," said Simon Brooks, head of the ICRC mission in Libya.

"The ICRC once again calls on all those taking part to spare civilians and medical staff," he said.
Continues

MSF also decamped, but didn?t stop at Tobruk, they went all the way to the border with Egypt.

Not a great vote of confidence by the NGOs in the Rebel defence, suppose they have to keep their staff safe.

* * *

Warning, extremely graphic video of a dead Bahrain protester being brought into an hospital...

More from Bahrain today.

BBC News - Bahrain crackdown on protests in Manama's Pearl Square

BBC News said:
Security forces with tanks have overrun a square in the centre of Bahrain's capital Manama where anti-government protesters have been camped for weeks.

At least three civilians were reportedly killed after police fired on mainly Shia protesters. Officials said three police also died.

Continues

So much for my forlorn hope of a peaceful protest continuing.

Also, Iran complained today about the treatment of the mainly Shia majority protestors to Saudi and Bahrain.

Beggars belief that Iran has the nerve to do that, given their record. But they are getting very pissy with the Saudis.

War anybody? Iran vs. Saudi Arabia.

With all the strange shit going on in the region, I have gone beyond being surprised with anything.

:|
 
Last edited:
Why is the US allies with the Saudias again? Oil, yeah so we can't say more than "You shouldn't do that, you wouldn't like it much if somebody did that to you now".
 
You forgot the saudi intelligence and the military exports.
A war between Saudi and Iran would bring a third oil crisis, but it could most likely destroy the oppressive regimes in either country, especially in Iran.
 
Let me see, perhaps we should smuggle in 120 tonnes of weapons, including HMGs, 36 RPGs, 1000 detonators, 20 SAMs, Semtex and 1,000,000 rounds of ammunition to the rebels?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army_arms_importation


The other source of IRA arms in the 1970s was Libya, whose leader, Muammar al-Gaddafi, sympathised with their campaign.[13] The first Libyan arms donation to the IRA occurred in 1972?1973, following visits by Joe Cahill to Libya. In early 1973, the Government of the Republic of Ireland received intelligence that the vessel Claudia was carrying a shipment of weapons, and placed the ship under surveillance on 27 March. On 28 March, three Irish Naval Service patrol vessels intercepted the Claudia in Irish territorial waters off the coast of Helvick Head, County Waterford, seizing five tonnes of Libyan arms and ammunition found on board. The weapons seized included 250 Soviet-made small arms, 240 rifles, anti-tank mines and other explosives. Cahill was found and arrested on board.[14][15] It is estimated that three shipments of weapons of similar size and makeup did get through to the IRA during the same time period.[16] Moloney reports that the early Libyan arms shipments furnished the IRA with its first RPG-7 rocket-propelled grenade launchers, and that Gaddafi also donated three to five million US dollars at this time.[17] However contact with the Libyan government was broken off in 1976.
Contact with Libya was restored in the aftermath of the 1981 Irish Hunger Strike, which was said to have impressed Gadaffi. In the 1980s, the IRA secured larger quantities of weapons and explosives from Gaddafi's Libya ? enough to supply at least two infantry battalions.[18] These shipments were as a direct result of Gaddafi's desire to strike at the British Government for their support and assistance during the US Air Force's bombing attacks on Tripoli and Benghazi in 1986. The USAF planes involved in the bombings had taken off from British bases on 14 April 1986. 60 Libyans died in the attack, including Gaddafi's adopted baby daughter Hanna. This second major Libyan contribution to the IRA came in 1986?1987. The arms shipments included:

An AK-47 Assault Rifle (over 1000 of which were donated by Gaddafi to the IRA in the 1980s)



RPG-7


However, on 1 November 1987, during transit to Ireland, one-third of the total Libyan arms consignment being carried aboard the MV Eksund (sometimes referred to simply as Eksund) was intercepted by the French Navy while the ship was in the Bay of Biscay,[19] along with five crew members, among them Gabriel Cleary. The vessel was found to contain 120 tonnes of weapons, including HMGs, 36 RPGs, 1000 detonators, 20 SAMs, Semtex and 1,000,000 rounds of ammunition.[20] Author Ed Moloney claimed that the Eksund shipment also contained military mortars and 106 millimetre cannon, an assertion never confirmed by the Irish authorities.[21] Despite the Eksund fiasco, the IRA was by then equipped with a quantity and quality of weaponry and explosives never available to them at any other phase of their history.[22] Furthermore, according to Brendan O'Brien there was actually an 'over-supply', specially regarding the 600 AK-47s still in the hands of the IRA by 1992.[23] There were four shipments before the Eksund which were not intercepted, in a huge intelligence failure of both Irish and British agencies described as 'calamitous' by author Brendan O'Brien.[22] The previous arm supplies from Libya developed as follows:
  • The trawler Casamara took on ten tonnes of weapons in September 1985 off the Maltese island of Gozo. These weapons were landed off the Clogga Strand near Arklow by inflatable boats some weeks later. The shipment contained five hundred crates of AK-47s, pistols, hand grenades, ammunition and seven RPG-7s.
  • The Casamara (renamed Kula at this time), left Maltese waters on 6 October 1985 carrying a cache of heavy machine guns.
  • In July 1986, there was a shipment of fourteen tonnes, including, according to the authorities, two SAM-7s.
  • In October 1986, another shipment of 80 which included one tonne of Semtex, reportedly ten SAM-7 missiles, more RPG-7s, AK-47s and hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition arrived aboard the oil-rig replenishment Villa.[24]
It is also estimated that the Libyan government gave the IRA the equivalent of ?2 million along with the 1980s shipments.[25]
Garda S?och?na (Irish police) uncovered numerous arms destined for the IRA in 1988. These included several hundred AK-47s, Russian DSHK HMGs, FN MAG machine guns and Semtex.[25]
 
Last edited:
Wow, that BBC article is so wrong... firstly, we have 1.1 million residents, the protestors were given ample time to retreat, the police advanced slowly, there is aerial photography which proves that, the tents were being set fire to by protestors themselves to slow down the police and cause mayhem, two policemen were run over repeatedly by vehicles by a "peaceful mob". there is also video footage of "peaceful protestors" holding handguns and firing.

As well, in the hospitals, the protestors stole millions of dollars worth of medicine and equipment and blocked any expatriates from receiving medical attention, that's why the police moved in and took over the hospital. Even in the days leading up to army intervention they were attacking medical personnel and ambulances and barricaded themselves inside the hospital. There was an apology issued by the protestors admitting to what they did and saying that no expatriates would be harmed from now on.
 
Wow, that BBC article is so wrong... firstly, we have 1.1 million residents, the protestors were given ample time to retreat, the police advanced slowly, there is aerial photography which proves that, the tents were being set fire to by protestors themselves to slow down the police and cause mayhem, two policemen were run over repeatedly by vehicles by a "peaceful mob". there is also video footage of "peaceful protestors" holding handguns and firing.

As well, in the hospitals, the protestors stole millions of dollars worth of medicine and equipment and blocked any expatriates from receiving medical attention, that's why the police moved in and took over the hospital. Even in the days leading up to army intervention they were attacking medical personnel and ambulances and barricaded themselves inside the hospital. There was an apology issued by the protestors admitting to what they did and saying that no expatriates would be harmed from now on.

and BTV is right?
 
I concur, state media isnt known for it's impartiality. Speaking of which, a flash from Libyas state news agency says that Libya is ready to take action against ships and planes in the mediterranean should an military intervention occur. That could very well backfire on Kadaffi, the west may not care much about the Libyan people but we do care about our trade routes through the mediterranean.
 
Last edited:
Im not talking about newsmedia, i was hearing personal reports from people, and BTV was showing video of what im talking about, am I to believe they cut together and faked all of that in less than a day? please...
 
Im not talking about newsmedia, i was hearing personal reports from people, and BTV was showing video of what im talking about, am I to believe they cut together and faked all of that in less than a day? please...

Thanks Blayde, it is always best to have a local, first hand source. We only have TV News who sometimes sensationalise or spin coverage. Aljazeera was more critical than BBC.

* * *

In Libya, the UNSC have approved the No Fly Zone with China, Russia and three others abstaining. Not sure that this will do what the politicians think it will achieve.
BBC News - UN backs anti-Gaddafi action
 
Last edited:
Top