Army launches assault in Comoros

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:47 am

Let's see how much sympathy this assault garners .. doubt there will be any demonstrations against the African governments or calls for them to be banned from the Olympics.

It is labelled an invasion against a "rebellion" .. and not protesters, or people wanting independence etc.

The language of the mainstream media clearly sets the agenda.

[web]https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7312031.stm[/web]

Post by **faceless** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:21 pm

From the sounds of things Bacar took more power than he'd been given - and that the African Union gave them plenty of notice that they were coming in. I've never even heard of the place, but I'd guess this will now give the people the chance to get things back to whatever their version of normality is and good luck to them.

It's hardly the same as China killing 'its own citizens' in Tibet is it?

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:34 pm

This is possibly much worse than China. Here we have an elected government .. and the BBC spinning it in a way which makes Bacar look bad/illegitimate.

Note the BBC's "His re-election as president of the semi-autonomous island of Anjouan last year had been declared illegal."

Declared illegal by WHO ? Under what authority ? What is Bacar's counter-argument ?

I don't expect the BBC to tell us since they clearly have a spin on the story.

Why is this any different than Kosovo where a group declared independence ? Can it be that the people wanting independence are not Western allies ?

I wonder what natural resources are on this Island which makes it warrant being invaded.

harry perkins · Post by **harry perkins** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:56 pm

Wikipedia has a slightly better explanation of the background here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anjouan and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Bacar

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:10 pm

harry perkins wrote:Wikipedia has a slightly better explanation of the background here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anjouan and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Bacar

Thanks Harry .. good posts. Sounds like an old style colonialist invasion which teaches the natives a lesson.

& yes, it is a special island because "Anjouan is the world's primary exporter of ylang-ylang oil, an ingredient in almost all perfumes."

We always invade for a stated good reason .. but the real reason tends to be theft.

Post by **faceless** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:31 pm

who is this 'we' that you're talking about? Are you Sudanese or Tanzanian?

Considering the only info that is here about the place, from the 'biased' BBC and wiki, I can't see how anyone can make a fair judgment on what's happening there. But you can guarantee that if there are resources to be profitted from that they will get out, no matter who's in control, by hook or by crook.

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:41 pm

faceless wrote:who is this 'we' that you're talking about? Are you Sudanese or Tanzanian?

No .. but I meant European / West (since this invasion is surely back by the West) :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anjouan

France's role in the crisis was brought into question when a French military helicopter on a clandestine mission from Mayotte crashed in the sea close to the city of Sima on Anjouan. Reports stated that the crew survived.

"We don't know what it was doing. You can imagine the rumours. The government of Comoros did not allow them to come. They were not authorised ... The French said they sent other air and naval assets to pick up the crew." Lieutenant Colonel Salimou Mohamed Amiri, Comoros Government Spokesman [7]

The French military had already transported about 300 Tanzanian troops and 30 tons of freight to Grand Comoros Island between March 14 and March 16. According to reports a French diplomat said theat France was ready to transport Senegalese troops as well, but had not yet done so. The diplomatic source said France remains "favorable" to dialogue but on condition that Bacar accepts the presence of African troops at the port and airport of Anjouan [8].

Of-course this is NOT mentioned by the BBC

Post by **faceless** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:47 pm

so, by this token, 'we' are responsible for the French government's covert actions? I'll need to rescind my Greenpeace affiliation then, because I must have been partly involved in that attack on the Rainbow Warrior and I'd not like to be seen as a hypocrite.

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:50 pm

faceless wrote:so, by this token, 'we' are responsible for the French government's covert actions?

If Britain is turning a blind eye to it (which it clearly is), then YES, we are an accomplice with the French.

Post by **faceless** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:55 pm

Get some facts and then we'll see. You remember them? They're like rumours, allegations, flights of fancy and hearsay, only validated.

By the way I am not Britain, are you?

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:04 pm

faceless wrote:Get some facts and then we'll see. You remember them? They're like rumours, allegations, flights of fancy and hearsay, only validated.

We live in an Orwellian world where it is hard to know what is the truth and what is government propaganda. A major hint is that if the BBC says it, then that is what the Government wants you to think is the truth.

Remember that the official story of 911 & Kelly's suicide are both "validated" by independent commissions.

faceless wrote:By the way I am not Britain, are you?

Is this a note on British versus Britain .. did I say you or I were "Britain" ?

Post by **faceless** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:12 pm

So, when the BBC Scotland offices was raided by MI5 in the 90s over a documentary on some weapons system, that was all a plan to convince us of something?

You're clutching at straws and disregarding the lives of those involved for the sake of your own agenda.

Britain versus Britain? In your previous post you said 'we are an accomplice with the French'. I'll say again, I am not Britain. I am a person who happens to have been born here.

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:23 pm

faceless wrote:So, when the BBC Scotland offices was raided by MI5 in the 90s over a documentary on some weapons system, that was all a plan to convince us of something?

This is pedantic. The BBC doesn't always follow the government agenda, but when it doesn't the government tends to react (recall the firings after the "sexed up dossier").

faceless wrote:You're clutching at straws and disregarding the lives of those involved for the sake of your own agenda.

I disagree. If by agenda you mean trying to make the world a better place for all, in a socialist ideal, then I do have an agenda, but I don't agree I am disregarding lives. Maybe my concern is the bigger picture of possibly millions or billions dead if the wrong path is chosen (e.g. if China is broken up) and it becomes a capitalist playing ground. I got the same type of reaction in 1990 and 2003 when trying to stop the demonization of the next intended invasion target. Orwell is truly vindicated if elements of the left can't see this and tend to believe what is reported by the Western mass media and governments when it refers to specific countries. That is all it takes : Those countries will likely be demonised, then destabalised then ultimately overthrown by a government friendly to the neo-con agenda.

Post by **faceless** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:30 pm

so it's pedantic to give an example of the BBC not being the government's lapdog when you just said it was? haha, please.

China is already a capitalist playground, more Bentleys are sold there than anywhere else for example - it is not socialist in any sense other than by name. I'd love to see the dismantling of China and all other large nations, the bigger they are the less humane they become. China already has a government friendly to the neo-cons, in that they are all profitting from its people without giving a toss about them.

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:31 pm

faceless wrote:so it's pedantic to give an example of the BBC not being the government's lapdog when you just said it was? haha, please.

I meant likely to be, not every word, but the vast majority.

faceless wrote:China is already a capitalist playground, more Bentleys are sold there than anywhere else for example - it is not socialist in any sense other than by name. I'd love to see the dismantling of China and all other large nations, the bigger they are the less humane they become. China already has a government friendly to the neo-cons, in that they are all profitting from its people without giving a toss about the people.

I think that's Karl's viewpoint on TalkSport. I regard China as a partial counter-weight to the US hegemony, so no I would not favour China's dismantling since it would make the world even less able to stand up to the neo-con agenda.