New valley Massacre : We have to ask

[BBLUX]

Just found this on a blog I follow:


"Just minutes before the Ramadan breakfast breaking news came from the Western desert : 15 Egyptian soldiers were killed by smugglers in New Valley governorate.

In less than two hours more details began to surface as well a death toll increasing by the minute. An armed forces check point was attacked by smugglers killing not less than 31 armed forces personnel and Injuring dozens in army checkpoint at El-Farfara oasis.

At least 26 army soldiers and 4 low ranking officers were killed in one of the most worst attacks ever , even in Sinia the numbers are not like that "4 conscripts were killed earlier today in North Sinai in clashes with militants"

The ministry of health also stated that only 3 smugglers or assailants were injured. Yes only 3 !!! Do not ask me how."

One has to wonder at the level of training and support these poor conscripts receive

Full post here:
http://egyptianchronicles.blogspot.gr/2 ... hronicles)

[Bombay]

This is the BBC version of events with all the usual ******** we come to expect from their shoddy journalism.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28387178

Gunmen have killed at least 20 soldiers in an attack on a checkpoint in western Egypt, security officials say.

The attackers used grenade launchers and heavy machine guns when they attacked the desert post some 390 miles (630km) west of Cairo, officials said.

It is not yet clear who carried out the assault.

Militants have intensified a campaign against the security forces since the Islamist President Mohammed Morsi was ousted from power just over a year ago.

The attack took place on the Farafra-Cairo highway in Wadi al-Jadid governorate, security officials said.

Three of the gunmen were also killed, state-run news agency Mena reported.

The country's presidency has declared three days of mourning, saying: "Terrorism will be uprooted from every part of Egypt."

'Significant victory'
The area borders Sudan and Libya. Some reports suggested that the attackers could have been smuggling weapons from Libya into Egypt.

The BBC's Suzanne Kianpour in Cairo says the Egyptian army has been struggling to keep Islamist insurgents at bay.

This checkpoint attack marks a significant victory for the militants in a campaign that has already claimed the lives of dozens of policemen and soldiers, our correspondent adds.

The government led by former army chief Abdul Fattah al-Sisi has cracked down harshly on Islamists and other political opponents.

Mr Sisi - who removed Mr Morsi from power - won May's presidential election.

Yes killing a few squaddies about to eat is a real strategic move.

[Chocolate Eclair]

Talking of Massacre's and not wanting to start a new subject, did anyone see the Palestinian calling Israel "War Criminal's" How can this be? Israel accepted the peace talks and plans Egypt put forward, it was Palestine that rebuked them!!

[carrie]

I think you will find CE that blowing up children playing hide and seek on a beach can be classed as a war crime. Gaza is all but an occupied territory by the Israelis, they ask why dont the people take shelter in their safe rooms when the warnings of rocket attacks are issued, as do the Israelis, perhaps it is because sanctions have been enforced for years not allowing concrete into Gaza for them to build these safe rooms.One day Inshallah there will be an accounting for the the atrocities perpetrated by the Israelis in Gaza.

[Dusak]

The only problem with safe rooms is that they aren't much good with hundreds of tonnes of demolished steel and concrete on top of them. Even less viable as a hidy hole when they are using bunker buster shells, penetrating to a set depth then detonating.

[carrie]

Even better if you are told by the Israeli's to take shelter in the local hospital which they then procede to bomb.

[newcastle]

I think you will find CE that blowing up children playing hide and seek on a beach can be classed as a war crime. Gaza is all but an occupied territory by the Israelis, they ask why dont the people take shelter in their safe rooms when the warnings of rocket attacks are issued, as do the Israelis, perhaps it is because sanctions have been enforced for years not allowing concrete into Gaza for them to build these safe rooms.One day Inshallah there will be an accounting for the the atrocities perpetrated by the Israelis in Gaza.

Atrocities on both sides I think.

The Israelis would claim that the civilian deaths were regrettable "collateral damage" in their efforts to eliminate military targets & personnel. It appears that Hamas's rockets are aimed specifically at Israeli civilians. That they've only scored 1 death is thanks to the Israeli air defence system rather than any "care for civilian life" on the part of Hamas.

Hamas show no concern for the lives of the Gaza inhabitants either....firing from amongst their dwellings. I expect the Hamas operatives have the resources to get out of the way quite quickly when Israel announces an impending attack on any particular area. I doubt the women & children do. And of course Hamas's political elite are safe in their refuges of Beirut, Damascus & other places - far from the risk of sharing the 'martyrdom' of the Gazans.

[carrie]

I hate that term collateral damage, what does it mean collateral damage..how many people have you killed today? Also friendly fire "he was killed by friendly fire" what's so friendly about bullets that kill you. All words made up by politicians to cover up the fact that real people with real hopes and dreams..on both sides.. are dying.

[newcastle]

I hate that term collateral damage, what does it mean collateral damage..how many people have you killed today? Also friendly fire "he was killed by friendly fire" what's so friendly about bullets that kill you. All words made up by politicians to cover up the fact that real people with real hopes and dreams..on both sides.. are dying.

Couldn't agree more...hence my use of parentheses.

Leaders on each side, justifying their actions with weasel words....and using innocent civilians as pawns in their battle of wills. Human history in a nutshell

[Dusak]

Even better if you are told by the Israeli's to take shelter in the local hospital which they then procede to bomb.

The target in this instance was the building next door that was stated to be an arms holding area. You wonder how they can miss when using the latest laser guided missile technology. Perhaps it was another lesson in placing terror onto the civilian population in the hopes that their work would be made easy for them with an uprising against the common enemy. Or perhaps just down to the button presser sneezing at an inappropriate time.

[carrie]

It makes me wonder what all this is accomplishing. Rockets are being fired into Israel, and the Israelis are responding by bombing those sites from which the rockets are launched knowing full well that the terrorists, freedom fighters however you wish to define them are gone.
Surely the only thing that it is doing is radicalising even more and more young Gazians. I know for sure if they killed my kids whilst playing on a beach or doing anything else I would be after every Israeli I could find for the rest of my life.
I think I have mentioned on this site before that my son lived and worked in Israel he got on really well with the Israelis and the Israeli Arabs and in the area that he lived they got on well together (Beershebah) They didn't want trouble they all just wanted to live in peace and raise their children.
Don't really want to bring CE into this but from the posts he seemed to get more approval from male members of the forum for his actions in beating up his alleged robbers than he did women. If the world were ruled by women I think there would be a lot less violence throughout all sections of society.
Now I have had my little rant for which no doubt I will get pulled to peices I will go mop my floors.

[LovelyLadyLux]

I've thought about war and violence for a long time. For most of my life I wanted all of us to be equal and for peace to reign supreme however it seems that my thinking was actually rather naïve. I do abhor violence BUT (and the BUT is a big one) is it better to live in a situation where strength can be shown?

Again am not wanting to tout the Americans but they do have military strength and when there was a "threat" that they "might" us it the world seemed to be a calmer place as groups like Isis/Hamas/Al Quaeda were not certain what the response would be IF they acted up. Now that they know the USA isn't going to particularly do anything all these groups seem to be emboldened and are popping up all over the place committing the most atrocious acts.

Even Egypt seemed calmer under Mubarak who was definitely going to take extreme action if necessary and needed.

Lately I've been mulling over that IF a person or country knows that if they do whatever action and they're certain this action IS going to be met with extreme aggression back are they more likely to decide to live in peace as their option?

If there is a hard Dictator in place who rules strongly does this actually allow the majority to live more peacefully?

Seems nowadays when we're trying to placate everybody it has created a huge surge of uprisings and nobody is happy.

I don't have a definitive answer but more and more I'm arriving at the conclusion that the world IS unfair to many, but they do get by and is getting by peacefully with very little loss of life better than mega loss of life and on-going strife while everybody scrambles for the top? (Possibly the top of a scrap heap when all the fighting is said and done IF it is ever said as done)

Do we really do better under the rule of a super power under the threat of extreme aggression from them? Does this bring about more peace than not?

[newcastle]

With the constant diet of mayhem on the news...enhanced by our personal intake of FB & Twitter....one could be forgiven for seeing the approach of Armageddon.

Hardman/dictator or democracy? Doesn't seem to matter much when you look back over the years. It's hard to find a period when there wasn't some dire conflict going on somewhere. Not just the great conflicts....Iraq, Afghanistan,Vietnam. Korea. WWII, WWI.....but the revolutions in Central & S. America, turmoil throughout Africa, India v Pakistan etc. etc. etc.

Has it ever been different.....or are current perceptions a function of age & propensity to watch too much TV?

Memo to self : Must get out more & switch off BBC World & Al Jazeera.

[Dusak]

We are constantly pulling numbers out from reports concerning conflicts such as this one, 600 killed to date, 24 solders killed... But no one has time to mention or comment on the countless thousands that are killed each and every year from drug wars in the likes of Brazil, Mexico. The greater number of these are innocent men, women and children killed in the cross fire or the result of revenge murders.

If Hamas had not started to launch their missiles again, none of this would of happened. If the people themselves had let it be known where these launch sites had been placed, this would not have happened. If the people had not voted them in in 2006, this would of probably not have happened. If the people of Egypt had not voted Morsi in this country would probably not be as it is to day. Forethought is a wonderful thing, but always kicks in to late. You reap what you sow.

[Zooropa]

I think we have to be careful about taking any news report about this conflict at full face value.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if military installations were placed close to residential areas.

If this is true, who is the truly immoral one, the striker for missing and hitting innocents or the people who deliberately tried to use them as a shield?

It wouldn't be the first time a legitimate military target has been hit only to have a sign reading "Baby Milk Factory" tossed onto the heap of rubble afterwards.

Im afraid war is inevitable sometimes and that's regardless of whether a man or a woman is in charge.

Carrie, im not sure you are completely right, history would suggest in some cases at least that women are no less violent, Queen Mary of England was not called "Bloody Mary" for nothing.

And our Maggie wasn't what you would call a shrinking violet either.

Im no expert on the Arab/Israeli conflict and ive never taken sides but it appears to me that there is little chance of peace when one side says it will not rest until the other no longer exists.

Its not a man/woman thing in my opinion, the reasons for this conflict would exist regardless of whether a man or woman was in charge.

Once again, im sorry to say, religion has more than a little to do with it.

[LovelyLadyLux]

For the sake of discussion - take Maggie and the Falklands which was invaded. I recognize that war is never good - but - if another country takes this type of action towards you what should an appropriate course of action be?

Once one group becomes the aggressor towards another group of people how long do you tolerate it? Should you tolerate it? Is it best to strike back hard and fast which might bring back peace sooner or does one talk ad nauseum until the other side is so positioned and strong that you can neither get back what you lost or you engage in a prolonged battle with a great loss of life?

Not that I have the miracle answer but lately have been mulling the options of what is the best. I've often talked about war mongering in a disparaging way but lately as things seems to be escalating what is best? Strike back hard first and ask questions later or naively assume the other side will verbally talk on the same level as you in the first place?

[Dusak]

For the sake of discussion - take Maggie and the Falklands which was invaded. I recognize that war is never good - but - if another country takes this type of action towards you what should an appropriate course of action be?

Once one group becomes the aggressor towards another group of people how long do you tolerate it? Should you tolerate it? Is it best to strike back hard and fast which might bring back peace sooner or does one talk ad nauseum until the other side is so positioned and strong that you can neither get back what you lost or you engage in a prolonged battle with a great loss of life?

Not that I have the miracle answer but lately have been mulling the options of what is the best. I've often talked about war mongering in a disparaging way but lately as things seems to be escalating what is best? Strike back hard first and ask questions later or naively assume the other side will verbally talk on the same level as you in the first place?

The strongest and better equipped always have the upper hand against weaponless civilians. I often wonder what would have happened if the six million Jews that were senselessly massacred in WW2 had been in possession of a weapon each.

When you suddenly find yourself living next door in your quiet street to a recently installed missile launching site, you watching the kids play football in the dusty street, wives and daughters chatting and going about their daily routine jobs the last thing you do is talk about it. Talk is dangerous in these situations, talk that usually leads to a bullet in the head. The only time you can really protest verbally is when you hear the air born whistle heading towards you, but its to late then.