jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (80 posts)

France invaded Mali, another middle finger to international law?

  1. maxoxam41 profile image75
    maxoxam41posted 4 years ago

    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?

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. maxoxam41 profile image75
        maxoxam41posted 4 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Quilligrapher profile image92
          Quilligrapherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          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?
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
          {1} http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/16/world/afr … ?hpt=hp_t3

          1. maxoxam41 profile image75
            maxoxam41posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            CNN is much more factual. Oil resources were documented around the 70's, they wish they would have known.

        2. Xenonlit profile image61
          Xenonlitposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. maxoxam41 profile image75
            maxoxam41posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            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).

    2. Quilligrapher profile image92
      Quilligrapherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/ … EL20130116

      1. maxoxam41 profile image75
        maxoxam41posted 4 years agoin reply to this

        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"?

    3. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Mali's president requested military assistance from France. France responded with military assistance. Which aspect of international law has been violated?

      1. maxoxam41 profile image75
        maxoxam41posted 4 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Don W profile image82
          Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          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?

          1. psycheskinner profile image81
            psycheskinnerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Yes.  Apparently the fact the action was to protect the sovereign nation's government is beside the point.

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. psycheskinner profile image81
                psycheskinnerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                So the fact that a democratic government was under attack is irrelevant?

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

          2. maxoxam41 profile image75
            maxoxam41posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            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?

            1. Don W profile image82
              Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              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.

            2. Quilligrapher profile image92
              Quilligrapherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              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.
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
              {1} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali
              {2} Ibid.
              {3} http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/01/15/mali … d-soldiers

              1. maxoxam41 profile image75
                maxoxam41posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. Nathan Orf profile image85
                  Nathan Orfposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. maxoxam41 profile image75
                    maxoxam41posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    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.

  2. Cheeky Girl profile image81
    Cheeky Girlposted 4 years ago

    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....

    1. maxoxam41 profile image75
      maxoxam41posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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?

  3. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    France doesn't need US approval to act... well, like France has always acted.

    1. maxoxam41 profile image75
      maxoxam41posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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?

  4. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    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.

    1. maxoxam41 profile image75
      maxoxam41posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        That's not how France sees it.

    2. maxoxam41 profile image75
      maxoxam41posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Please enlightenment me since I lived in France!

      1. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. maxoxam41 profile image75
          maxoxam41posted 4 years agoin reply to this

          No. France in its neocolonialist policy is protecting its economical interests in the region.

  5. maxoxam41 profile image75
    maxoxam41posted 4 years ago

    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?

  6. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    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.

    1. maxoxam41 profile image75
      maxoxam41posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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?

      1. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. maxoxam41 profile image75
          maxoxam41posted 4 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. psycheskinner profile image81
            psycheskinnerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            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.

      2. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. maxoxam41 profile image75
          maxoxam41posted 4 years agoin reply to this

          AJ, made in Qatar? The same one that is financing wahhabism, takfirism with Saudi Arabia?

      3. Quilligrapher profile image92
        Quilligrapherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        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.
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
        {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.

  7. Hollie Thomas profile image60
    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago

    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.

    1. Nathan Orf profile image85
      Nathan Orfposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Nathan Orf profile image85
          Nathan Orfposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            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.

    2. maxoxam41 profile image75
      maxoxam41posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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...)

  8. Greensleeves Hubs profile image97
    Greensleeves Hubsposted 4 years ago

    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.

    1. maxoxam41 profile image75
      maxoxam41posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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?

      1. Greensleeves Hubs profile image97
        Greensleeves Hubsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        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?

        1. Quilligrapher profile image92
          Quilligrapherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          +1

        2. maxoxam41 profile image75
          maxoxam41posted 4 years agoin reply to this

          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. "

          1. Quilligrapher profile image92
            Quilligrapherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            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. 
            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

            1. Greensleeves Hubs profile image97
              Greensleeves Hubsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              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.

            2. maxoxam41 profile image75
              maxoxam41posted 4 years agoin reply to this

              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.

          2. Greensleeves Hubs profile image97
            Greensleeves Hubsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. maxoxam41 profile image75
              maxoxam41posted 4 years agoin reply to this

              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?

              1. Greensleeves Hubs profile image97
                Greensleeves Hubsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. maxoxam41 profile image75
                  maxoxam41posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Greensleeves Hubs profile image97
                    Greensleeves Hubsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    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!

  9. maxoxam41 profile image75
    maxoxam41posted 4 years ago

    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]

  10. Moderndayslave profile image59
    Moderndayslaveposted 4 years ago
    1. maxoxam41 profile image75
      maxoxam41posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      VERY GOOD INTERVENTION STATING FOR ONCE THE TRUTH! UNFORTUNATELY PEOPLE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND FRENCH. I HOPE MANY OF YOU WILL GET THE TRANSLATION. HE SAYS IT ALL.

 
working