Since the US gave former empires the exemple with Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, why wouldn't they follow? Since when the West is more righteous than any other part of the world? Since economical interests prevail?
Possibly since the west hates terrorists that intentionally kill innocent non-combatants to spread their religion. Especially since the govt. asked for help in preventing the foreign takeover by said terrorists.
Especially since Mali has gold, oil, diamonds, bauxite, uranium... It reminds me of Congo, Sierra Leone, Nigeria... What Malians will become is the least of the West concern, so let's be realistic.
Hi again, Max.
I am sorry to see that you failed to admit that the intervention by France was at the request of the legitimate government of Mali. The title of this thread is an outright lie, it seems.
As for Mali’s economic importance, you also ignore another fact. France granted independence to Mali in 1960 at a time when it could have tapped all of your so-called mineral resources without any military intervention at all. Conveniently, your posts exaggerate the country’s economic importance in an effort to promote the cause of the pro-al Qaeda forces occupying the North. Today, Mali is far from being the treasure chest of gold, oil, and diamonds as you claim. According to CNN, “Mali is hardly a regional powerhouse and is "marginal" to the world economy. It does not sit on lakes of oil; it is landlocked and desperately poor. But it is very big -- nearly twice the size of France -- with seven neighbors whose long, poorly guarded borders provide militants with supply (and escape) routes.” More importantly, CNN goes on to report, “The international community has voiced concerns about al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and its expanding presence in Mali.” {1}
As previously noted, the OP statement contains unsupported innuendo distorting Franco-American policy. Being realistic, Max, instead of more pro-al Qaeda propaganda, I would like to see some real facts that support your claims. Do you have any?
{1} http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/16/world/afr … ?hpt=hp_t3
Why don't you be realistic about Muslims who have murdered and enslaved Africans since the 1400s? Perhaps, for African nations to stabilize, they do not need Arab despotism or religious fanaticism to interfere for one more stinking minute. Get the mote out of the eye.
Get real. African nations are on the verge of coming into their own. The Middle East does not like this and is nothing but trouble. Africans have had it with Islamic extremists and are about to wipe them out.
In matter of murder and enslavement christianity leads any other religions doesn't it? Africa was exploited by European nations so don't distort history. If Africa was/is destabilized, Europe and later the US were/are the culprits. Once again, let's not ignore history.
China as their new economical partner understood that it is better to consider African countries as partners versus a place to loot (proper to colonialism and neocolonialism).
Hello there, Max.
I see no excuse or justification for blaming this intervention on the US. This entire post does not make a single definitive statement. It consists of just unanswered questions that affirm that the implied motivations can not be supported by any facts. Another example of accusations without merit in the form of unanswered questions in an anti-US, pro-Al-Qaeda post is not surprising.
“(Reuters) - In five days, France's mercy dash to Mali to stop al Qaeda-linked Islamists seizing the capital has bounced it into a promise to keep troops there until its West African former colony is finally back on its feet.” {1}
May I pose my own unanswered questions, Max? Do you have any facts to support the claims in the OP statement? I would love to hear the facts that support those opinions.
{1} http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/ … EL20130116
I don't blame the action on the US, France has the blame. But we have to acknowledge the world we are living in. The US led the path to nonpunitory international military invasions by superpowers, on which ground? Humanitarian? Or economical? If it suits your conscience to practice the ostrich policy feel free. Which facts do you want? Why do you think we are in the middle east? To save them from Al-Qaeda? Or more likely to steal their natural resources? Al-Qaeda is in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrein why aren't we there to protect their population against "evil"?
Mali's president requested military assistance from France. France responded with military assistance. Which aspect of international law has been violated?
Mali is one of the richest African country but the people are one of the poorest. It is true that its natural resources are untapped but still many nations are salivating. And France among them will have the preseance. Toure (2012), military man took over. Was Bush's friend. Traore supported him in 2007. Toure, Traore different name same political alignment. 90% of malians are muslims, it seems to me quite bizarre that each time people discover natural wealth in their soil, Al-qaeda is here to play the boogey men and we occidentalists are here to save them!
Al-Qaeda is the perturbing element that will rationalize any military intervention in a little country in opposition to the superpowers. It is clear that the real motive is economical gain.
You appear to have not read, or not understood my question.
When one country requests military assistance from another country, and that country gives military assistance, which aspect of international has been violated?
Yes. Apparently the fact the action was to protect the sovereign nation's government is beside the point.
I believe you are correct. If there is anything at all of value, the evil superpowers will steal it under the guise of helping kick out the invaders, as requested.
You can tell because the US continually steals all the oil without paying for it.
So the fact that a democratic government was under attack is irrelevant?
Of course! That France's help was requested is immaterial; the only possible reason for any powerful nation to have any contact with a weaker one is to steal resources. The World Of Max. And one I'm actually rather glad I don't live in.
I just see the president as a friend of the French oligarchy therefore to call them to "pacify" a rebellion is to ask them to keep on the corruption, the thievery... The call was to maintain the endogenous theft not to protect them against danger. The Algerian president was elected democratically, does it mean that corruption and dictatureship don't exist? It is an open door to local abuse, it destabilizes the country and initiate war... Isn't it the UN role? Is it legitimate that a country solves another's country's predicament? Why would a country intervening for personal interests be called? And why do we have to use military force? At which point jus ad bellum is relevant?
Look, despite your apparent desire to wrap everything up in a neat little package, there is no "good guy" or "bad guy" and sometimes real life can't be turned into a straightforward good vs. evil narrative. There is no black or white. Just shades of gray. Was the temporary government in Mali corrupt? Yes. Would the Islamic insurgents trying to take over the country be any better? Unlikely. Does France have a vested interest in protecting the natural resources in Mali? Yes. Does the U.N. have a duty to respond to request for assistance from a nation in which a democratically elected government is threatened by insurgents? Yes. Was the election process in Mali completely democratic and corruption free in the first place? No. Has the Mali government voluntarily ceded its sovereignty to legitimise multinational intervention? Yes. Are European countries and the U.S. always looking for opportunities to 'secure' natural resources from resource-rich African nations? Yes. Would the 'West' care about Mali if it had no natural resources? Probably not. Will the intervention help prevent the country being overrun by Islamic extremists?Yes.
Nothing is clear cut. It's messy, and the lines between right and wrong are blurry at best. In that sort of situation pointing the figure at one country is stupid and naive. This is not like a movie where we know who the good guys and bad guys are. There are just various groups of people, doing various things for various (usually self serving) reasons.
Hello Max. How are you this evening?
Instead of questions and more questions, give us your answers to all of your questions and tell us the facts that support your conclusions. None of your questions have any merit unless you furnish facts. Posting unanswered questions is a useless exercise. If your basic beliefs and opinions are based on facts then please share those facts with us. If all of your arguments are based on unanswered questions then you have no arguments at all.
Just saying all national foreign policies are self-serving is undisputed. However, no one should view all international events as negative solely on this premise. The significance of each individual issue must be weighed not on assumed motivation but rather on factual causes and effects.
The French foreign policy, as with the USA, is self-serving, as it should be. However, conditions in Mali have been deteriorating over the last few years. The new constitution written in 1991 established Mali as a democratic, multi-party state. {1} Islam as practiced in Mali before 2012 was moderate, tolerant, and adapted to local conditions; relations between Muslims and practitioners of minority religious faiths were generally amicable.
Since 2012, the al Qaeda backed insurgents you support have imposed restrictive sharia rule in the northern area of the country. As a result, Mali was listed high (#7) in the Christian persecution index published by Open Doors which described the persecution in the north as severe. {2}
I have some more facts about your favorite militants occupying Northern Mali, Max. “Witnesses interviewed by Human Rights Watch by phone since January 8[, 2013] – when hostilities between the Islamist groups and Malian army intensified – described seeing many children, some as young as 12, taking active part in the fighting. Witnesses also said that children were staffing checkpoints in areas that have come under aerial bombardment by the French or are near active combat zones. The Islamic groups – Ansar Dine, the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa (MUJAO), and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) – have recruited, trained, and used several hundred children in their forces since occupying Northern Mali in April 2012.” {3}
Please tell us more about your Islamist forces in the North. Why are they so good for Mali? From what I can see, they are looking to overpower and destroy the predominant, more culturally advanced, pro-democracy Sufi Muslims who now rule. These are the current facts, as I know them. Have you any facts to share with us, Max, or have you only more of unanswered questions?
Hope you enjoy your evening, Max. Thanks for sharing.
{1} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali
{2} Ibid.
{3} http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/01/15/mali … d-soldiers
You don't need to sugarcoat your introductions, it's a bit hypocritical.
In what way your facts are more rational than mine? What do you really know about the situation in Mali? Nothing like me. You have your opinion and so do I. But you still profess that I need to look for facts whereas I have to believe you. You categorized me as a pro-Al-Qaeda because it happens that they are muslim and that they are rebelling against their governement. Why wouldn't they be simply people that are fed up of the corruption and the dictatureship of their government? After all he was a Toure's partisan!
What about Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia, or Bahrein (since people are rioting there)? Isn't it a radical one? Can't the Bahreinis aspire to freedom and democracy? Where are we to support their cause?
On the other side of the barrier they are nice and are an epitome of virtue. Seen under this angle I understand your behavior, but once again you lack realism.
It is the right of the people to pursue happiness, we are not the only entitled ones.
Quilligrapher's facts were supported by cited information from credible sources, which he lists. He and others on this forum have merely pointed out that you do not provide such solid backing for your own arguments. Mali requested French military assistance in its internal conflict against radical islamists intent on taking over the country. France has responded to this request.
Neither Saudi Arabia nor Bahrain has requested international intervention, and the protesters in those countries have not demanded international action. Furthermore, military action in the Middle East is very unpopular in most Western countries currently, and even President Hollande of France is taking a huge political risk by intervening.
At this point, it is clear that the rebels in northern Mali are extremist islamists, backed by terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and intent on imposing a strict interpretation of sharia law in the country. They have already been blamed for many human rights abuses in Mali.
So, your arguments have little merit without the papers and citations to back them up. Mali has formally requested international aid, and France has responded. Saudi Arabia and Bahrain have completely different problems than Mali. The rebels in Mali are responsible for human atrocities. Your arguments ignore these points, so they carry little weight and no realism.
Here the Malian president's introduction of his call : "Mes chers compatriotes,
Populations des villes et des campagnes,
Il y a exactement un an que notre pays a été agressé par des irrédentistes du Mouvement National de Libération de l’Azawad (MNLA), associés à une kyrielle d’organisations terroristes et mafieuses gravitant autour d’AQMI. Au bout de quelques mois, ces agresseurs ont réussi à renforcer leur mainmise sur les trois régions du Nord de notre pays qu’ils ont fini par occuper. Si jusque-là certains d’entre nous pouvaient s’imaginer que cette guerre d’occupation livrée à notre pays n’était qu’un épiphénomène qui cesserait de lui-même, comme par enchantement, aujourd’hui, ils doivent se rendre cruellement à l’évidence : la guerre est déclarée à la Mère-Patrie et ceux qui la portent n’ont d’autre dessein que de détruire notre Nation, notre République, notre société et les acquis qu’il s’est forgés à la sueur du labeur de ses filles et de ses fils..."
Where does he say that they are Al-Qaeda? So which source is more reliable? Mine or his? Once more people on this platform speak without searching.
Since I do not read french or speak the language, I cannot testify as to the Malinese Presidents statements concerning Al-Qaeda.
But when it comes to "speaking without searching," maybe you ought to read my comment more closely. Never did I accuse the Malinese rebels of being Al-Qaeda members. I did accuse them of being supported by that terrorist group, among others. Other commenters have done so as well, and have offered sources.
It is clear to all the world that the rebels have done some pretty horrific things in Mali. This is not an indictment of Islam, or any other particular group of people; it is a statement of fact. If they take control in Mali, they will surely do worse things.
All told, France's intervention in Mali is not so much an expression of Western Imperialism and arrogance, as it is a necessary action to protect their national security, as well as maintain a legitimate, democratically elected government.
I gave you the speech to show you the limitation of your info. To make it worst, you are telling us that you got the "info" that Al-Qaeda was supported the liberation front of the Azawad by someone else! So you take an info from someone without checking it and you want me to swallow it as an info?
Since the people that are rebelling belong to the liberation front why don't they have the same attention than the so-called ones in Syria? It's been one year that they've been fighting why our media are not focusing on their cause? Maybe because Traore's political lign coincides with ours? After all, and once again, he's Toure's partisan and Toure was Bush's friend.
Deleted
I'm sure that by googling it, you'll find the English version. But Al-Qaeda and its extremism are not mentioned.
I don't "claim", it is the president's words.
Exactly, France is involved economically in Mali and wants its investments to be protected, but I don't want to be fooled by people stating that the French intervention corresponded to the presence of Al-Qaeda in disguise!
I found his speech in www.voltairenet.org.
Why would people rebel? If not against their government? Why do we grant trust to the free syria movement and not the Malians'.
By the way, why would your source be more objective than mine since they belong to the mainstream? After all, Reuters feeds every media.
You might read the Washington Post editorial titled, "Stiffing an ally in Mali." Apparently, the Obama Administration has been reluctant to get involved in the current crises in Mali, even though France has requested aid in noncombat roles, like reconnaissance.
I would like to make a point concerning your information. I reiterate, I do not understand French, and cannot read the language. Therefor, the speech you posted is quite useless in showing me the limitation of my information. If you could translate the speech, I will be able to address the information that the speech contains.
You make the claim that "Traore's political lign coincides with ours." So what? The United States is not currently involved in Mali. France is.
You also state that "After all, and once again, he's Toure's partisan and Toure was Bush's friend." Again, so what? Bush has been out of office for the last four years. The Obama Administration has pursued a foreign policy that is more reasonable and responsible, but that, too, is beside the point. The United States is not involved in Mali. France is.
You state that "the people that are rebelling belong to the liberation front." There are two questions here. the first is this; From whom are the rebels trying to liberate themselves? The second question is; Would the rebels be any better than the current government?
If you can answer these questions by providing sources and citations to back up your opinion, then you have an argument. Please, provide those sources. Below, I will present some of my own.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ … story.html
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/20 … 56575.html
http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Mali- … s-20120222
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/ … 5720120628
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar … 10148d.121
Sorry Max, I accidentally posted my last comment twice, and then deleted the first posting. Sigh...
First, about the speech, in French. I maintain that, since you posted the speech originally, it is your responsibility to make sure that the other people on this forum can read it. Not mine, but yours.
I will take your word for it that Al-Qaeda was not mentioned in the speech, since that seems to have been your point anyway. But that does not change the fact that the rebels have ties to Al-Qaeda. Much evidence has been collected and shown supporting that statement.
So far, the most reliable posting on this forum has been the one from Don W. His points are very true. France doubtlessly has selfish reasons for being involved in Mali. That does not change the fact that the rebels are a threat to the democratically elected government of Mali, or that they have been responsible for human rights violations.
You are making a case based on wishful thinking. The rebels are not the "good guys" here. Neither are the French, or the Malinese government. But should the rebels gain control of Mali, they will surely make a bad situation much, much worse.
No it's not my responsibility. You stated that Al-Qaeda was backing up the rebels and I opposed your argument. If Malian's affairs were interesting wouldn't you go to the source? The source is the president, it is not CNN, MSNBC, the Times... or their interpretation.
How can you say that Al-Qaeda is not mentioned by the top person of a country and assess in the same breath that the rebels have ties with Al-Qaeda? What is the rationale behind your assumption?
If the rebels want to change their government the decision belongs to Malians, not the French, not the West. Why isn't their action legitimate since the country is poor in spite of its wealth?
On which ground do you base your last assertion?
Hi Max. I hope you a feeling okay today.
I think it is important to note that you argue with questions rather than with facts. Rhetorical questions are not evidence of anything but your own personal beliefs; they prove nothing. Look at the question in your statement above. You try to deny the fact that the AQMI has been hijacked by external al Qaeda sponsored elements during the last year with a question instead of any form of verifiable facts to refute the reputation of the AQMI!
Maxoxam41 wrote:
“Since the people that are rebelling belong to the liberation front why don't they have the same attention than the so-called ones in Syria? It's been one year that they've been fighting why our media are not focusing on their cause? Maybe because Traore's political lign coincides with ours?”
There you go again, Max. Three questions, no answers, and no credibility. Two of the three questions are a deliberate attempt to deflect the discussion from Mali to Syria. It should be clear to you that the rebels in Syria and the rebels in Mail do not receive the same attention because they are not the same liberation causes. In Syria the fight is against a suppressive family dictatorship and in Mali the rebels sprang up unlawfully to take armed control of undefended regions in the North after a military coup toppled a democratic government on March 22, 2012. {1} Your should know this, Max. These are facts waiting for your facts.
Stay well, Max. I enjoy exchanging ideas with you.
{1} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali
No, the common denominator is dictatorship. So, again, why do we fight one (Syria) and why are we helping the other (Mali)? Since you want me to answer to the questions I ask, because one refuses slavery and the other protects western interests.
Fortunately sometimes what the west wants, doesn't get. By pushing Syria to the edge (by supporting extremists that fought Assad), it triggered the gathering of the Syrian people behind their leader, because freedom was more important than the future exploitation of their land by westerners. In fact, it probably taught Assad a lesson, that without his people, he wouldn't have made it. And, I will bet you whatever that at the end of the conflict, democracy will rise.
Don't feel obligated to be obsequious!
Since you have refused to make it easy for me and others to read the Presidents speech, you cannot realistically expect me to analyze the information that the Malinese President suggests.
I have based my "assumptions," as you call them, on information I have read from reading the Washington Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Reuters, among others, and that list is hardly an example of bipartisan, unbiased media!
I have also gathered my information from a variety of News media, excluding CNN and FOX. I have found that BBC is particularly informative.
At any rate, I agree that any one source of media is hardly objective. There are biases inherent in all news media, and any one source is not necessarily as accurate as another. Therefor, I try to get my news from as many sources as possible, in order to gain an understanding of all of the possibilities.
All of the above sources are agreed on the fact that the United States, France, the rest of the E.U. and most of the other African countries in the region, have all shown a great deal of concern about the situation in Mali. All of the above sources are agreed on the fact that the rebels have ties with foreign Islamic extremist terrorist groups.
I agree with you that the people of Mali have the right to determine what occurs inside their own country. The people of Mali democratically elected the current government. That government has asked for foreign intervention to deal with a group that threatens Mali's democratically elected government.
That point above has been made many, many times on this forum, by myself and others. You have yet to acknowledge it.
You also do not seem to accept the argument that the rebels in northern Mali are hardly representatives of the people there. They were not democratically elected. They are soldiers who mutinied and rebelled against the government. In the areas they control, they have installed a strict interpretation of sharia law, and are responsible for numerous human rights abuses. Under those circumstances, it would seem that if the rebels gain control in Mali, conditions there will indeed worsen.
You are merely basing your argument on rhetorical questions. They are good questions, and would be valuable in another forum. But you have provided your opinions as fact, and your questions as proof. That is hardly the basis for a logical argument.
You checked CNN, FOX... but you are not curious enough to google his speech. I understand, the truth is hard to swallow and it will destabilize the comfort of your thinking, however it remains the truth.
For your convenience, here is what I actually said; "I have also gathered my information from a variety of News media, excluding CNN and FOX. I have found that BBC is particularly informative."
I hope that you notice the word "excluding," in that sentence. I would highlight it for you if I could.
On the contrary, I am very curious to read the Presidents speech. I will not do so, however, until you translate it. Why? Because you originally posted it in French. It is simple courtesy that you should post comments that others can read. That makes it your responsibility.
I have tried to understand your thinking, even as I have presented my own. I have laid down the solid facts. You have laid down rhetorical questions and opinion.
So far, there are no facts, and therefor, no apparent "truths" in your arguments. If there are, name them without resorting to red herrings or cherry picking.
Including, excluding is not the point. The point is when it comes to know the truth, you bring less efforts. Given that according to quilligrapher, I am a pro-Al-Qaeda, would you entrust me with a translation?
Which solid facts did you lay down? Your facts have precedence over the Malian president's speech?
Excluding is precisely the point. I mentioned the word to highlight the fact that I DO NOT gather my information from CNN or FOX, as a general rule. I have also admitted that no single news source is entirely accurate.
I do not claim to understand the truth. I have simply provided facts. I am not the only person on this forum to have provided those same facts. If you look closely, you will notice that there are solid facts all over the place in this forum. You don't even have to look that hard.
As I've said, I will read the President's speech, if, and only if, you take the time to translate it for me. Other wise, there is no point in squabbling over a speech that I cannot read.
Hi.Max. It seems that you feel I am your enemy just because we do not agree. It would be so sad if you did. I apologize to you if my pleasantries irritate you. I do not believe politeness is hypocritical. Actually, your posts have been characterized as pro-al Qaeda because they defend the pro-al Qaeda insurgents in the North.
So, please explain for us, Max, why you defend these aggressors in the north, particularly "d’AQIM". According to CNN, they are “militant Islamist groups: al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), the Movement for Jihad and Unity in West Africa (MUJAO), Ansar Dine and Boko Haram.” {1} Please tell us if you think CNN’s report is wrong and show us your sources.
You clearly stated your opinion in your OP title, “France invaded Mali, another middle finger to international law?” In addition, you claimed, “The call was to maintain the endogenous theft not to protect them against danger.” Should we just take your word for this, Max, or do have something to support this opinion? Apparently, the rest of the world sees the actions by the French government differently.
CNN - January 19, 2013 ~ “West African leaders meet Saturday to finalize plans to deploy additional troops to Mali to fight alongside French soldiers battling Islamist militants in the north…The meeting in the Ivory Coast capital of Abidjan will address the conflict in Mali and how the region can work with the international community to resolve it.” {2}
Here are more facts for you to digest, Max: “It [Mali] was one of the most successful democracies in Africa until last year, when a coup toppled the president and Islamists capitalized on the chaos and established themselves in the north. There, they imposed a strict interpretation of Sharia law, banning music, smoking, drinking and watching sports on television. They also damaged historic tombs and shrines…The European Union has approved a training mission. The Canadians and British are deploying military transport aircraft. Nigeria is set to deploy soldiers as part of a U.N.-mandated African force to fight the insurgents.” {3} You might file this with the other report about children being used as combatants in the North. {4}
Please do not take my presentation of facts as something personal. If you have any facts to support your claims, I would be happy to see them. I sincerely respect your opinions and your right to hold them. However, so far your posts are long on questions and short on verifiable and reliable data.
Thank you again, Max, for launching this topic.
{1} http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/16/world/afr … index.html
{2} http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/19/world/afr … index.html
{3} Ibid.
{4} http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/01/15/mali … d-soldiers
I am an anti-Al-Qaeda but I am a pro freedom of religion. So you don't give me the benefit of the doubt? Since anyone characterized me therefore I am? It is the same expedient judgement than the one in the Salem's witch trials or under the maccarthyism hunt.
Thanks for underlining CNN said so, it means everything. CNN is part of the mainstream media, meaning far from being objective. The president, himself, didn't allude to Al-Qaeda so how does it suddenly become a pro-Al-Qaeda? I just proved you the danger of the mainstream media, how distorted the info is! Just google his speech and you will find it. My secret is an independent source www.voltairenet.org, but for that you have to have an independent mind.
You are telling us that their government is not corrupt (therefore it's not stealing revenues), that "investors" are not pilfering their natural resources? When was the last time Africa was not exploited by the West?
Which African countries will gather? Dictatureships? One of the most influential country, Algeria disagreed with the military intervention, and what is happening as a retaliation of voicing up its opinion? A so-called Al-Qaeda member killed an American. Is it a coincidence or is it "a propos"?
Your interpretation is everything but personal! Personal would entail criticism. Or at least to look beyond the main source of info.
Why did we help the so-called Syrian insurgents and why aren't we helping those Malians? Because their government protect our interests? I guess that what everything is about!
Hi Max. Back again.
Seems like you are caught in a moral dilemma! The democratic government over thrown a year ago was extremely tolerant of minority religions while reports coming out of the Northern territories under rebel control today are filled with intolerance and abuse. {1}{2} If you think these reports are wrong, show us your evidence.
Maxoxam41 wrote:
“CNN is part of the mainstream media, meaning far from being objective.”
Max, the motives of the media have no bearing on the quality of their facts. You might be right if we were discussing CNN’s editorial comments. However, critical thinking demands that the reader separate factual content from conclusions. Factual content corroborated by other sources plays a big role in separating facts from fiction. Verified facts stand on their own merits and their validity is not reduced by the motives of the messenger. The only way to discredit claims supported by facts is to provide other facts that prove the original facts are false.
Maxoxam41 wrote:
“One of the most influential country, Algeria disagreed with the military intervention,”
Max, it is hard for me to believe a person with a reasonable knowledge of current events would make such a distorted statement. Algeria did not disagree with the French intervention in Mali. Algeria actually granted permission to the French to fly through its air space to attack locations in Mali. This news has been carried by a number of different outlets, Max.
“The terrorists’ raid [on the Ain Amenas gas complex in Algeria] was launched after Algeria let France use its air space for strikes against Islamists in Mali. That’s where French troops have been battling al Qaida-linked militants for the past week.” {3}
Regarding corroboration, “In the first apparent retaliatory attack, al Qaeda-associated militants took dozens of foreigners hostage on Wednesday at a natural gas plant in Algeria, blaming Algerian cooperation with France.” {4} Please tell us how you arrived at the conclusion Algeria opposed the French action in Mali.
You continue to make all sorts of wild assertions that have been contradicted by a variety of international news reports. You do not offer any evidence these reports are wrong; you just refuse to say they are correct.
Personally, I would like to understand your position, Max, but you do not offer anything but rhetorical questions to support your claims. I still hope you will surprise us with some real facts.
{1} http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/19/world/afr … index.html
{2} http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/01/15/mali … d-soldiers
{3} http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ML-Alg … /id/471949
{4} http://news.yahoo.com/mali-army-retakes … 49445.html
No, you show me the evidence.
Few months ago I read an article in le monde that stated that Algeria was against a military action. To your contrary, I don't state something and rush to new newspapers and collect fresh data to corroborate your statement in order to get me.
Since the killing of civilian Algerians by the army (trained by the CIA) whereas the media with the agreement of the government accused the rising islamic movement, Algerians don't fully trust their government and media.
Since we are delivering fresh news, I just read an article stating that the rebels were financed and trained by the US, that they've been fighting for 50 years now the central government, and now the US is supporting France. In that same article, it is said Al-Qaeda has never prosper more since the American and European interventions in the middle east. How interesting! And the icing on the cake, political activist Rees considered to be a mistake and, I quote, "from the Malian government to seek help from the same people that caused such desaster during the colonial era"!
And the last paragraph gives me reason, "Occidente claramente utiliza estos grupos de rebeldes, los arma y los desarma a sus anchas, los utiliza para desestabilizar a los países y después poder intervenir y de alguna manera controlar su territorio, los recursos económicos” translated "the Occident is clearly using those rebel groups, arm and disarm them at will in order to destabilize countries, to finally intervene in a way to control both the territory and the natural resources"
EEUU instruy� a los militares que luego formaron la insurgencia golpista en Mali http://www.voltairenet.org/a177161 [Red Voltaire]
In the EU, countries have signed treaties and agreements that either eliminate or reduce any possibilities of "vested interests" being explored in ways that could damage other EU countries. The point behind it is to agree to not undermine the other nation states.
Motivations backed up by too many suppositions are a wee bit troubling, and stretch credibility. If you could be more specific about your claims, however....
What about the treaty of Westphalia garanteeing sovereignty to nation-states and therefore self-determination? The UN (a US tool) is supposed to help endangered countries like Syria, Mali (for now) and more others against any international meddling. Where are they? In what way did it once stick to its principles?
France doesn't need US approval to act... well, like France has always acted.
Yes, it does. What if there's a conflict of interests? Do you really think that France will wage war against the US if interests collide? Then you are naive. Why nobody says anything about the US unlawful invasions? Isn't it because of their irrationality and also their military supremacy? Which rational state will be so swiftly inclined to throw nuclear bombs at civilians if not an irrational country? It has military bases almost everywhere in the world. Don't you think that it is a dissuasive point for any belligerent intentions? For the ones who forgot their history lessons, Mali was a former French colony as Syria was.
As in Yalta, superpowers behind Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin agreed for concessions in their share of the loot, in what way today's history would be different? What about the possibility of a bargain? I give you Algeria if you'll give me the green light in Mali? Is it that far-fetched? By the way, in case you wouldn't know it troubles are shaking Algeria. Wasn't it the US that sent its torturers to teach their soldiers to kill civilians in the 90's? What about if Algeria was the price to pay for the US silence?
I am saying tf you think France needs US permission to act this way in foreign territory, you haven't paid much attention to its behavior over the last 200 years. France's conduct is France's responsibility.
France was salivating over Syria, America said to back off and it did. France, as the US, it is clear now, is led by its military industrial complex, because there is a big discrepancy between Hollande's policy and his actions. The US dominates the world and that's it.
Please enlightenment me since I lived in France!
Then you should know, the French government is not aping US policy they are following their own long-standing policy to prop up the feeble democratic government rather than allowing an Islamist coupe.
I definitely agree with you however as for islamic extremism, why do we tolerate it in Saudi Arabia and why don't we in Mali that has a 90% islamic population?
There is no doubt that France is propping up the elected government, pathetic as they are, and opposing a military take-over that would support implementing Sharia law.
It looks to me very much like the lesser evil. I agree with their involvement. Under this system the people can get new leadership at the next election. Under the Islamist system there will not be a next election.
Who said that Sharia law would be implemented? And if it is your concern, it doesn't bother you when Saudi Arabia and Bahrein apply it. Why?
Does it bother you when the house of Saud wins every "election"? No. At which point your conscience starts to be annoyed? What is the line not to cross?
It always bothers me, everywhere. Which is why I agree with democracy being promoted and defended in Mali and also everywhere else.
Yes, France has venal reasons for intervening here and not elsewhere, but I still agree with them intervening in Mali, based on the situation in Mali and what will be least bad for the people in mali who are predominantly Muslim moderates.
Which democracy are you talking about? Why aren't scrutinize our democracy first, instead of meddling about others'? What does democracy mean? The one that fits to our definition? Is Saudi Arabia a democracy? If not, why aren't we intervening? Therefore, you can't say that democracy is your aim.
The admitted pathetic but openly elected government clinging to the south of the nation. That one.
And I have already said I support promotion of democracy whenever and wherever it occurs. When i am queen of the world i will make it universal, until then I support saving the starfish we can.
From what I saw on English language AJ, the forces carrying out the coupe said it. That is their openly stated goal, to become the government and move Mali from a secular Muslim state to an Islamist one.
The enemy of one's enemy is still sometimes one's enemy, you know. If someone can show this AQ group is not Islamist and not seeking to rule under Sharia law... feel free to show me a link.
Back to you once again, Max.
You ask, “Who said that Sharia law would be implemented?” Just look at the reports coming out of the northern regions now controlled by militant Islamist. They are telling the world about acts of religious intolerance, abuse, and rigid enforcement of Sharia law on the populace. Just read this news report, “they [rebels] imposed a strict interpretation of Sharia law, banning music, smoking, drinking and watching sports on television. They also damaged historic tombs and shrines.” {1} The brand of Islam now being forced upon the population in the north is far different than Wahhabism, the very conservative form of Islam long practiced by residents of the region.
You told me, "I am an anti-Al-Qaeda but I am a pro freedom of religion.” {2} Well, Max, you support the illegitimate combatants, some with known al Qaeda ties, who are forcing radical Islam on the defenseless Malian population in the Northern regions of Mali. You contradict your own claims to being opposed to al Qaeda and in favor of freedom of religion!
In addition, since you support the militant forces trying to replace the existing Malian government, you must also support their recruiting children to fight their battles. This from an eyewitness in the North, “These so-called Islamists are sending our innocents to be slaughtered in the name of Jihad…I ask you, what kind of Islam is this?” {3} Or this, also from the Human Rights Watch, “The witnesses have described how within Mali, the Islamists have recruited substantial numbers of boys from small villages and hamlets, particularly those where residents have long practiced Wahhabism, a very conservative form of Islam.” {4}
I know it is now pretty late. I hope, Max, you have had a pleasant evening.
{1} http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/19/world/afr … index.html
{2} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/108512? … ost2310641
{3} http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/01/15/mali … d-soldiers
{4} Ibid.
It appears to me, although they are only musings and I cannot substantiate them, that whenever a western nation decides to intervene in another country's problems, the words sharia law and Islamist are used to justify their actions. That's also how they gain support. I'm not suggesting for one moment that radical Islamists do not exist and it certainly isn't a regime in which I'd like to live. However, in many respects I agree with Max. When western nations decide to intervene because it is for the right reasons, then that should apply across the board, not just when their interests are in some way at stake.
The problem with Max's argument is that it is not based on any coherent sense of fact. It is mostly opinion and conjecture on his part.
It has been very well documented that the rebels in northern Mali are extremists with ties to Al-Qaeda. It has been very well documented that the rebels are responsible for human rights abuses. No source I have seen disputes this.
I have noted before, and will do so again, that Max has not backed up his arguments with sources and citations. He only offers us conjecture and opinion.
I agree that, in a more perfect world, Western nations would fight injustice where ever it may appear. But Max is ignoring the political realities of the West. The United States and its European allies are exhausted from Iraq and Afghanistan. There is very little support for any further military action in the middle east. President Hollande is in fact taking a huge political risk by involving France in Mali, because that action is unpopular at home.
Instead of asking rhetorical questions, Max should base his argument in collected data and other information. Only then will his argument be meaningful.
Well, western nations are responsible for human rights abuses too. For me, this isn't about who is the good and bad guy, but about having some form of benchmark as to when interventions are justified. An agreement that is universal. Should we only condemn abuses of human rights when our interests are not being served, but condone abuses of human rights when they are? is that not hypocritical?
No real data or evidence required.
In this case, intervention was justified when the democratically elected government of Mali formally requested that the French provide military aid in that country's fight against unlawful, extremist militants.
Most other nations in West Africa have also lent their support to the intervention in Mali. The U.K has prepared to give some assistance to French operations. That is a pretty large area of agreement, I would say.
I won't argue the point that the West is hypocritical. That is pretty much a solid fact. But these are all rhetorical questions, that do not address the political realities in each country.
My apologies as I didn't make myself clear and I think you may have misunderstood me when I was attempting to explore universal agreements. What I meant was, that a universal agreement should be defined by a set of agreed principles which justify intervention, not an agreement between nations about intervention for intervention's sake. And these principles, as I've previously argued, should be applicable irrespective of the nation and the west's interests.
Of course the UK have agreed, it's in their interests to do so- no justification required on their part. The UK have a fairly long history when it comes to self-interest. Most Americans look back and agree.
Thanks. I also find suspicious that they always justify their mostly unlawful interventions through their fight against radical Islam whereas on the extreme side of the spectrum they are overtly supporting it (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrein...)
Although one must always be wary of Western powers intervening in third world countries or political hotspots, in the case of Mali the French intervention appears entirely justifiable. Quite apart from the potential for this region of the Sahara becoming a safe haven for Al Qaeda style extremists, there is the question of Mali's own political and social structure. I wrote a hub page almost one year ago entitled 'In Praise of Democracy':
http://greensleeves-hubs.hubpages.com/h … eeves-Page
In that article I described Mali as
'a tolerant and free nation, respectful of minorities, and it is a democracy'.
Indeed, by all accounts, Mali 'despite' being 90% Muslim and one of the world's poorest countries, held democratic elections with peaceful exchange of power between civilian leaders in 2002 and another free election in 2007. The democracy of course was a fledgling one, and indeed a military coup in 2012 which subsequently led to a 'Government of National Unity' was a big setback. Despite this, Mali remained something of a breath of fresh air in this part of the world, with every prospect of a full return to democracy. Mali has held a reputation for being far more tolerant, and with a freer press, and more respect for womens' rights than most other countries in Northern Africa, and remarkably in recent years, even had a woman prime minister. But it is an extremely poor and vulnerable country. The progress made there is by no means secure. Democracies, once long established, become inherently stable, and Mali must be given the chance to establish itself once more as a model of civilised government under difficult circumstances. France - at the invitation of the Mali Government - is giving them that chance. The alternative is an extremist Islamic state.
Since I've just discovered that those rebels were for years trained by the US, isn't it time for the world to address the real problem and start to point fingers at the real culprit. If Mali was a democracy for at least 50 years, without counting the 2012 coup, then it means that the US are deliberatly plotting against democracy. Instead of accusing the Muslims, why not accuse the US? It's been years that it is plotting for the defection of democracies all over the world, once again why are we burying our heads?
Firstly Maxoxam, Mali was not a democracy for 50 years. It has been independent for about 50 years, but it only became a democracy with free elections in 2002. As such the nation has not had the longevity to develop the inherent stability of a long established democracy in which basic respect or at least tolerance for the rule of an elected government exists.
The idea that the US Government is plotting against democracy is silly. Indeed one reason for the US Government's hesitancy in getting involved in the current problem in active support of Mali is because the coup in March 2012 has at least temporarily removed Mali's democracy, so the current Mali Government lacks some of the legitimacy it would have had before 2012. The present crisis results from Tuareg dissatisfactions and perhaps legitimate desires for an independent state in the north called Azawad. Unfortunately for the Tuaregs, their ambitions have been usurped by Islamic extremists looking for a safe haven from which to practice Jihad throughout this region of North Africa, including in Algeria.
The idea that either the US or France wants this is not sensible, whilst the suggestion in another post that France were responsible for the recent kidnappings is not worthy of comment. In that post, Maxoxam you refer to an organisation called the Voltaire Network, renouned for - among other things - the belief of its chairman that 9/11 was an inside job. Perhaps Voltaire.net is not the most credible source of information?
The person who wrote this article is a professor in international relations. I have to doubt him and to listen to a nobody. It makes sense. My problem is that the more I analyze the international situation of the world and the less credit I give to the official version of the news.
It is "silly", is that so? That's true that the US has never been involved in any international plot! Come on back to the reality.
William Engdahl wrote on the subject : "...But, interestingly enough, I think behind the French intervention is the very strong hand of the US Pentagon which has been preparing this partitioning of Mali, which it is now looming to be, between northern Mali, where al-Qaeda and other terrorists are supposedly the cause for French military intervention, and southern Mali, which is a more agricultural region. Because in northern Mali recently there have been huge finds of oil discovered, so that leads one to think that it’s very convenient that these armed rebels spill over the border from Libya last year and just at the same time a US-trained military captain creates a coup d’état in the Southern capital of Mali and installs a dictatorial regime against one of Africa’s few democratically elected presidents... I think al-Qaeda in northern Maghreb is a very suspicious operation and the timing of its activities coming over the border suggests that perhaps some NATO countries might be helping the al-Qaeda group to get military weapons and create the Chaucer’s belly that justifies NATO intervention. "
Hello again, Max. I am just making an observation.
When I shape my opinions, I consider that there is a huge rational gap between “I think” and “I know.” It is clear to me now that you do not. Still, you have a right to form your own conclusions while ignoring the difference.
Have a great night, Max.
Very much agree. One person's thoughts and beliefs are too readily taken as Gospel truth by supporters, without the genuine evidence to back them up.
Descartes said "Cogito, ergo sum" ("I think therefore I am"), maybe it is the difference between you and us. You think that people's thoughts are based on thin air? Theirs are not based on facts but yours are! Fortunately the internet is unlimited and vast, it gives any nuance of people the opportunity to find their match as a collective conscience.
It happens that his way of thinking (critical thinking) meets mine.
Maxoxam; You say the person who wrote the article you agree with, is a Professor of International Relations, and therefore clearly you'd rather believe his words than a 'nobody'. (Presumably you mean me?). The author/ 'expert' of the article in question is none other than Thierry Meyssan himself, the Charirman of the Voltaire Network and a man who firmly believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and that a missile - not a plane - was used to attack the Pentagon. He also believes that the Syrian revolution and the Arab Spring were orchestrated by America, and he has said that Iran 'is the only large country that offers an alternative model of social organization to the American Way of Life'. I can list some other examples of his viewpoints if you wish. I haven't been able to uncover Meysan's academic qualifications - on unbiased websites he is merely described as a 'journalist and political activist'. But I have found out where he is a 'Professor' - surprise surprise, he's a Professor at the Centre for Strategic Studies in ---- Damascus, Syria! Faced with such qualifications, I think I'd rather be a 'nobody' with a brain than a 'Professor' with a clear agenda of his own!
As for the other gentleman you mention, William Engdahl, Voltaire.net itself says that he believes the ’U.S (is) secretly pushing for (an) Islamic fascist regime in Egypt’. You seem a little selective in the 'experts' you take note of.
Incidentally, where did I say that the US has never been involved in any international plot? I did not. I said that I do not believe the U.S has been plotting against Malian democracy which had become tolerant and respectful of minorities. Lastly, I'm not sure where 'huge finds of oil' have recently been discovered. There has been the potential for oil reserves in Mali known for a long time, and prospecting started many years ago, but do you have more information? The most recent report I have seen is of the major Italian International Oil and Gas group Eni, which had pulled out of prospecting in Mali. Perhaps they were aware of the rise of Islamic insurgency in the region, but their spokesman says there is 'low potential' for oil production in the area. Best wishes. Alun.
There was no need for you to extirpate his bio, I know who he is. I wouldn't agree with him in presenting Iran as a paradigm of a society but I fundamentaly agree with his views of international politics.
You forget to say that he is a French journalist who opposed mainstream media, who made an enemy of Sarkozy because he was saying the truth... Investigative journalists of his stature used to end up dead, on that matter I read somewhere that NATO had a grudge against him.
If I am selective what about you? You just stick to mainstream media that correspond to your views. We are not that different, are we?
Your "silly" was clear enough. It insinuated that the probability for the US to be involved was null and I just showed you that in almost every conflict in the world the US intervened and intervenes. What are US weapons doing in Turkey? Why did Turkey allowed islamist terrorists to be trained on its soil if not because it was granted a waiver by the US?
Max; I did not 'forget' anything. You were trying to make out that Meyssan was a respected Professor of International Relations, whose views should therefore be highly respected. I merely pointed out what he actually is - a journalist and activist who is 'Professor' at an Institute in Damascus Syria. You mention that he made an enemy of Nicholas Sarkozy 'because he was saying the truth', and you 'read somewhere that NATO had a grudge against him'. What truth in particular are you refering to and where is it? I've tried to uncover the various controversies Sarkozy was involved in, and I haven't come across Meyssan's name. Was your 'truth' only contained in one of the activist websites like voltaire.net? Or was it covered in 'mainstream media'?
Speaking of which, there seems to be a fundamental difference between us on what constitutes the 'mainstream' media. It appears that much of your info comes from sites which have a particular agenda. Looking at some of these sites it seems that any and every story is approached with the biased assumption that the U.S or Western Governments have sinister intentions. Scarcely unbiased, objective reporting. Perhaps you could direct me to any articles in Voltaire.net which support US Government, or Western or Israeli actions on any issue? By 'mainstream' I assume you mean a mouthpiece of Western Imperialist Governments? No doubt 'mainstream' journalists in some other countries (possibly Syria?) do act as mouthpieces for the Government. But by 'mainstream' I mean independent news gathering organisations which are not afraid to broadcast the news and the evidence as their journalists uncover it, irrespective of which side in any dispute the news appears to favour. The BBC being a case in point in my country which carries both sides of controversial issues and tries to question both sides in every issue.
Finally, you automatically assumed that I was guilty of the opposite bias to which your favoured websites are guilty. You automatically assumed that because I find it difficult to believe that the U.S orchestrated attacks against the Mali Government, that mean't that I believed the U.S Government had never intervened anywhere else. That would be an unthinking, biased attitude of which I am not guilty. Unlike the conspiracy theorists you follow who want to believe that evil US or imperialist forces are behind every problem in the world, I recognise both good and bad, positive and negative influences in Western governments. On this particular issue I don't see a negative influence.
Being a professor in Damascus is not recognised? The problem is that being French, he graduated in France, therefore he is a French professor. And what does that mean that professors in other countries are not professors. So far the lowest level in education I ever met in my life was in the US. So, if a professor had to have a lower level the American ones would be on the top list wouldn't they?
You don't seem to dig too much.
Mainstream media is for you, I'm one step above you.
Once more a nobody says that the website is biased and I shall believe him. If ever anyone can analyze therefore he or she will deduce sagacity in the treatment of any subject. Moderndayslave just directed me to a Belgian member of the parliament who made a discourse about the lies of the West, the lies of both the US and France since his harangue was targueting the French intervention in Mali. You need to understand French or be curious enough to find an English translation, would you do that or do you like the comfort of the mainstream media?
The BBC is not independent.
The Belgian member of parliament said that the US objective is that France positions military bases to oppose China, what makes sense since it's been for few years now that the Chinese are trading successfully with African countries. They did what the West never did. The West pilfers and destabilizes, China trades with partners.
So Max, Meyssan gained an academic qualification in France and was appointed a position as a professor at a French academic institute? Perhaps he was but can you clarify, because the term 'professor' doesn't have any significant meaning in itself. Professors are appointed, and professorships are honorific titles. they do not necessarily even indicate academic qualifications, and I wonder if he was a Professor in France before being appointed one in a Syrian institute?
You didn't answer my question about Voltaire.net. Are you still looking to see if you can find one single article which presents a stance favourable to America, the West or Israel? Until you can provide me with some, I will have to assume that yes - it is a biased website. Sorry by the way you still think I'm a 'nobody'. How do you define the difference between a 'nobody' and a 'somebody'?
I have watched the video you mention - not a very pleasant MP in his swearing, but leaving that aside, it was the usual set of delusional paranoid opinions without hard facts, and with inconsistencies. (Apparently the Malian president was not legitimate, but the Syrian leader is? In what democratic election did Assad gain power I wonder?) The MP did admit that he was alone in the Belgian parliament in his viewpoint. Given that Belgium is a free thinking country in which everyone, including this man, can exchange opinions, why do you think he is alone? Why do you think everyone else believes differently? And why do you only take the opinions of the one Belgian MP who thinks that way, and not all the others who think differently?
We can discuss China if you like, because you sem to think that the government of that country is also more civilised than Western governments. I'll leave it for now because it's not really relevent, but we can compare them if you like.
As for the BBC - sorry. You state as 'fact' that the BBC is not independent. I state as 'fact' that in its news coverage it IS independent. I'm not sure how we can proceed on that one!
I've just read in a French dissident website that the groupuscule that overthrew the governing president in Mali in 2012 were officers educated in the USA and that the so-called democratic elections that supposedly "elected" Dioncounda Traore never happened. Instead the same group picked a francophile puppet.
Meyssan, the journalist, also reveals that the islamists are not the force to fear but the Tuaregs that were financed and supported by the French.
In the same article, Algeria seems to be the real target. He also clearly points fingers at the French for the recent kidnappings that resulted in the assassinations of hostages in Algeria. How interesting!http://www.voltairenet.org/article177190.html
Mali: One war can hide another http://www.voltairenet.org/a177190 [Voltaire Network]
Stop him when he's lying.
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/01/pow … ar-on.html
by TimTurner 14 years ago
Most of you know I am very critical of Obama but it looks like he is going to send about 20,000 to 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan which is what needs to be done. At least, that is the rumor on the street.For all of you who support Obama, I'm assuming you will be against this...
by pisean282311 13 years ago
President Barack Obama Monday told Americans his actions had stopped a “massacre” in Libya, but warned a military campaign to oust Muammar Qadhafi could repeat the bloodshed and misery of Iraq.Obama mounted a firm defense of his decision to launch air strikes and launch a no-fly zone as part of an...
by Deforest 11 years ago
Do you agree?Thank you, Mr President. Dear Ministers, dear Colleagues. Belgium is indeed the land of surrealism. This morning we learned from the media that the Belgian army is incapable of fighting some extremist soldiers having radical Islamist beliefs existing within its own ranks but who...
by Paula 8 years ago
Within days of the attacks on Paris, the news is saying France is being merciless in their bombing of certain sites n Syria. The United States intelligence shared with them, so they knew where to potentially bomb. The news said the United States gave basically a menu to choose from, and...
by Ken Burgess 5 months ago
Details and Analysis of President Biden’s Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Proposalhttps://taxfoundation.org/research/all/ … proposals/The Biden Tax Hike Will Likely Exceed $7 Trillion https://gop-waysandmeans.house.gov/the- … -trillion/Biden Tax Resource...
by theirishobserver. 13 years ago
President Barack Obama has announced that the mastermind of the September 11 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people has been killed in Pakistan by U.S.-led forces.The following is the text of Mr Obama's statement to America:Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the...
Copyright © 2024 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2024 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.
For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy
Show DetailsNecessary | |
---|---|
HubPages Device ID | This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons. |
Login | This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service. |
Google Recaptcha | This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy) |
Akismet | This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Google Analytics | This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Traffic Pixel | This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized. |
Amazon Web Services | This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy) |
Cloudflare | This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Hosted Libraries | Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy) |
Features | |
---|---|
Google Custom Search | This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Maps | Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Charts | This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy) |
Google AdSense Host API | This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Google YouTube | Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Vimeo | Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Paypal | This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Login | You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Maven | This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy) |
Marketing | |
---|---|
Google AdSense | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Google DoubleClick | Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Index Exchange | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Sovrn | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Ads | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
AppNexus | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Openx | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Rubicon Project | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
TripleLift | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Say Media | We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy) |
Remarketing Pixels | We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites. |
Conversion Tracking Pixels | We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service. |
Statistics | |
---|---|
Author Google Analytics | This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy) |
Comscore | ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Tracking Pixel | Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy) |
Clicksco | This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy) |