Delusions of Innocence

This Wednesday Syrian's President Bashar al-Assad's interview with ABC's Barbara Walters aired for the first time, the first foreign interview since the beginning of the uprisings nearly a year ago. Obviously there would be no way he would own up to the brutal treatment of his own people. But it still comes as a shock and an insult when he said that "OK, we don't kill our people, nobody kill. No government in the world kill its people, unless it's led by crazy person" Really Assad? Only crazy people kill their own people? Then what does that make you? Are you sane then? Because a lot of your people have been dying for some reason and it looks to me like it's caused by your bullets. According to Assad during the interview he is not in the position to give the order to kill, for that would be against the will of the people. He says that the people who have been killed have been government supporters and that there is no majority support for the uprising. Its weird to hear him say this and know for a fact that these statements are wrong. You have to wonder whats hes trying to achieve, whether he believes this or not and even if hes insane. ABC's Barbara Walters seems to thing hes just disconnected from everything that's happening.

Bashar al-Assad sits down with ABC's Barbara Walters to explain his side of the story.

However there is always the fact that he could be carefully trying to manipulate the perception of events going on in Syria. By accepting the interview, he could try to sway the public opinion to his side, although I'm not sure if that's even a reasonable thing to do at all. The world has now seen numerous revolutions where the government plays it off and every time the government is just spreading pathetic propaganda. So i don't see how he could think people would accept his version of events, seeing that they have no proof for his version and that international opinion on Middle Eastern dictators is so harsh right now. (I wonder why?) So that leads me to believe that he really is just disconnected from everything going on OR that he feels he has to at least try to deny it, as a last-ditch hope at international appeasement. If this is the case, then it may not be long before he realizes that the world is not listening to his side of the story, and just decide to say screw it, i'll just go all out. But hopefully that will never happen.


Also stated in his interview was that the forces that have been attacking civilians were not his, but the governments. Which is the flimsiest excuse I've heard so far, since with his regime power he basically is the government, whether he likes to admit it or not. And reminiscent of other leaders he also wanted to see proof and view reports made by the UN and other councils over alleged human rights violations. They always want to see the proof, even though it right outside their window. Its like they really expect us to believe that they're that naive. But once again Assad cements this tradition among dictators in the Middle East by saying it is the work of individuals, he has majority support, everyone loves him, blah blah blah. Assad, although seemingly better educated and intelligent, seems to have fallen for the same trap the others have.

The Long Road to Tripoli: Spotlight

Al Jazeera reveals an in-depth look at a group of Libyan revolutionaries as they join the fight against Muammar Gaddafi. Really astonishing and gives a look into how much life changed for these people. I think this does a good job of revealing to us how many of these revolutionaries came from all parts of life to fight for their freedom, and really opens your eyes to the fact that these are all normal people who took up arms. It specifically follows one family in particular that has been in exile in London, and has now made the trip back to Libya to join the fight for freedom. Truly touching tale and one that highlights the obstacles faced by the Libyan revolutionaries as well and personal troubles they had to overcome to get there. A great documentary capturing the human aspect of the war.

Violence Flares in Syria

Once more it seems violence has taken hold of another society, this time Syria's. Violence suddenly flared as kidnappings and deaths rose starting Sunday, with reports of both sides instigating events. Gangs of armed men roamed the streets of Homs abducting people from their homes and killing them, instigating some of the worst violence since the protests in march. This surge in violence is representative of sectarian conflict as Sunni's and Alawites continue to force each other out of homes and towns. This is just yet another happening caused by deeply rooted sectarian tensions in Syria. While protests against the government continue, tensions and conflict between sects often go overlooked as violent surges are thrown in with the violence committed by the government. This could also be true of this occurrence, as more than 25 people have also been killed in Homs by security forces in recent days. Also relating to the violence between Sunnis and Alawites, is that Bashar al-Assad and his top elite are Alawite, while most of the country is Sunni. This rift between the oppressive ruling class and the majority of the country only increases sectarian distrust and tension as many blame each others sect as the cause for problems. This problem can be found in many other Arab countries, where the majority and minority sects and parties often end up hating each other due to political/religious factors.

Protest against the regime of Syrian president Bashar al Assad' . The banner reads: "Sunni, Alawite, Christian, Druze...I am Syrian"

 

 

 

While this sectional divide may create more conflict as seen in this recent string of kidnappings, often the protestors do not care what minority they are in, they rally around the cause against Assad as one. As seen above, these poplar protests go beyond the sectional tensions, as they are about removing Assad from power and restoring a just democracy rather than majority vs. minority politics, although sometimes it seeps in, as evident here. However despite this, many believe that sectional tensions will fall away under the cause to overthrow Assad. While supporters of Assad might be mostly alawites (due to the ruling class being mainly alawites) many also oppose him and see him as tyrannical. Therefore, it does not simply come down to Sunni vs. Alawite politics.

US ambassador Robert Ford meets with Bashar al-Assad and representatives of the Syrian government.

Another problem with dealing with a country with a clear cut minority/majority aspect is that voices are often dismissed because of sect, religion, tribal affiliations, and whatnot. This problem is one that Hillary Clinton and US ambassador Robert Ford wish to address when he makes his way back to Damascus on Tuesday. Clinton recognized not only the need for Assad to step down or make serious reform, but also for minorities and majorities to have their voices heard in a fair, democratic way in any new government that may become of the uprising.

Sanctions: The Band-aid of International Intervention

"The Arab League has approved sweeping sanctions against the Syrian government in a bid to pressure it to put an end to the ongoing crackdown against protests." -Source

If other Arab countries and the international community stop trading with Syria, or even other corrupt violent countries, will that be enough pressure to stop the violence? Al Jazeera tries to determine this in their latest segment. 

The Syrian Massacre

Tunisia. Egypt. Libya. Countries torn apart by revolution, corruption and war. As with many countries in the Middle East, run by regimes who have been in power for decades. Yet another country stands out among the rest in it's blunt use of violence, intimidation, and corruption. Syria has for the past four decades been ruled by the Assad family, starting with the bloodless coup orchestrated by the military and led to the rule of Hafez al-Assad, the father of now-president Bashar al-Assad. But the rule of Assad have been anything but bloodless. Marked by massacres of thousands, most notably the 1982 Hama massacre where nearly 40,000 deaths occurred due to bombing and door-to-door operations under the control of Hafez al-Assad's brother, Rifaat. Not the first time such horrible displays of violence had occurred, as before the entire village of Kinsafrah was massacres and more than 1,000 prisoners were executed in their cells. A long history of violence has shaped the Assad family's rule, and unfortunately it has once again reared up against the popular protests against the government.

Over the past nine months since protests have began, over 4,000 have been killed by the government officially. Thousands more are said to have been killed. Once again we see a regime striking back against it's people, people who are peaceful and nonviolent. once again the UN has placed sanctions on the government and its top officials in order to make it more difficult for them to travel, and to sap support from the regime financially. Once again these sanctions do relatively nothing as thousands are killed in the streets by armed thugs and security forces. And once again intervention is not wanted by those in the Arab League. The Arab League, while condemning the actions of the Syrian government and issuing threats against the government if it does not comply with terms to stop the violence, has stated that it does not want foreign intervention. Having reached the 4,000 mark has pushed the conflict to the point where it could technically be called a civil war. With more and more Syrians taking up arms every day, most notably the defecting Syrian military members, the threat of a civil war could very well be true. Like other similar situations in other countries however, any defecting army will have a hard time identifying their enemies. The Assad government has used the tactic of hiring armed thugs to disperse protestors and intimidate those who wish to speak out.



 The big question that has yet to be answered is whether or not to retaliate with violence. Is it right to retaliate against a government that sends out troops and thugs to kill peaceful protestors? Or is that just sinking to their level if you fight back? Taking the moral high ground seems to be favored by many, but just as many favor a retaliation attempt because of t he belief that they will keep attacking protestors until protestors fight back. These assumptions could be both verified and disputed based on happening in Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia. In Libya one could argue that Gaddafi's regime would just keep killing and that the resulting civil war was the only way real change could have been achieved. But if one looks at Tunisia, you can see a relatively violence-free (relatively) revolution where peaceful protests were able to overthrow the government. These outcomes often depend on the specific factors relating to each country, as each regime can be different in it's approach. Syria, in my opinion, seems more like a Libya than any other, and unfortunately i fear a civil war may be inevitable.

Egyptian Turmoil

It seems the eye of the storm has passed as riots and demonstrations began again in Egypt last week, resulting in a fierce crackdown by the military amid cries for the military to step down from power. Lately, discontent with the ruling military class has risen, due to the expansion of the emergency laws, which are still in place despite the fact that the revolution was supposed to get rid of them. Also, the military has been heavy-handed with it's crackdowns, limiting free speech in new additions to the emergency laws, trying thousands of civilians in closed military court, and using excessive force to quell any backlash from the public. I just don't get how this is at all acceptable and what exactly the military is thinking. Obviously, there are some people in charge that don't want to let go of the old ways. And obviously this will not stand. Limiting free speech further? Did they think that they'd be able to sweep that under the rug and walk away? No, the Egyptian people are not blind and have taken notice. So what else is there to do when your government is still restricting your rights, but to protest?



So they did. They protested just as they have been since January, demanding their basic rights, their own government, a say in what happens. And once again they were met with violence, a swift and brutal retaliation by the police. And why is this happening? What is causing more bloodshed on the behalf of the Egyptian people? Their own government, the military council. Now you could try to cut them some slack, surely trying to guide a country in chaos towards democracy is terribly difficult to do. But it seems to me that the military council has little care towards true democracy. If they did, why would they try civilians in military court, outside of the realm of their peers? Why would they limit free speech, especially speech against the military council? Why would feel the need to beat down their own people? Obviously, optimism was beaten out when the protestors were, and once again the Egyptian people are calling for the end of yet another government.

As Egyptians gather in Tahrir square once again, many rally around cries for Egyptian Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi to step down from power, and for the Egyptian military to relinquish it's stranglehold on the country's politics. As shown with the Maspero Massacre in October, Egyptians once again have to fear a government who is willing to use deadly force against peaceful protestors. When Coptic Christians protested in front of Maspero, the national radio and television building, they had no idea that by the end of their protest more than two dozen would be killed by the hands of police and military forces. This brutal turn of events was made even more gruesome when military tanks refused to stop and subsequently ran over protestors, killing them in a despicable fashion. The military showed its strength and willingness to use force, but to what end I do not know. I don't understand why they think using force against protestors would win them any support; maybe they are still afraid of the power and popular opinion of the movement. Whatever it is, the Egyptian army has taken control of the country once again.

Anonymous going Mainstream? New Documentary in the Works

A new trailer for the documentary We Are Legion: The Story of the Hacktivists has just been released today. Slated for a 2012 release, the movie's being produced by the Los Angeles group Luminant Media and is directed by documentarian Brian Knappenberger. While it may seem rather odd to think of Anonymous as having their own documentary, it is at the same time intriguing. The short glimpse into the documentary reveals a revolutionary, inspirational feel. It kinda makes you wanna get up and punch a policeman. But the fact of the matter is, this documentary has to be well-balanced. Anonymous has numerous faults, and unless the documentary addresses these faults, it will most likely end up being a longer version of the many fringe videos on YouTube. but enough with the analysis and speculation, have a look for yourself and decide whether or not this lives up to it's topic.

Occupy Oakland Achieves General Strike

Last Wednesday, Occupy Oakland achieved what no other movement has achieved in over 30 years: A General Strike. People all over the city walked out of schools, jobs, and homes to take to the sreets in protest against the 1% and the corruptness of corporate America. This show of solitude went rather peacefully throughout the day, resulting in only a few smashed windows due to a small group of hooligans. But that night riot police moved in once again, using tear gas, rubber bullets, and nightsticks to subdue the crowd in ways reminiscent of Tahrir Square. While the official word is that protestors provoked police violently, thus giving the officers no  other choice, the protestors say otherwise.
Protestors blocked off the city's port, stopping all traffic to and from the area and effectively shutting down production. (Although it is worthy to note that production was already shut down due to a previous problem with certain containers) This lasted late into the night, eventually leading up to the occupation of an abandoned warehouse in the pier area. While this in itself may not be enough to provoke a tear gassing and shooting of protestors, it may have been enough for the police to get involved. I'm not saying that the police are in the right, obviously there are some lined being crossed at some point, but the protestors have to realize that are breaking laws and ordinances sometimes, thus forcing the police's hand. So here's the fork in the road. Either the movement must amp up its tactics or tone them down and focus on cooperative demonstration. But before we choose, lets just think back at the success of civil disobedience.

Anonymous: The Hand of the Internet

As popular revolutions and protests are gaining momentum throughout the world, there is one group particularly involved in all of them: Anonymous. The Guy Fawkes masks pervade every gathering, every riot, every protest. They're not only a sense of anonymity, but also of community and activism, spreading the word and ideals of anonymous. While still being a relatively new group, Anonymous defies all attempts at characterization and normalcy. The web-based hive mind of the Internet does not seem to have a hierarchy, a member list, or any defining characteristic of a organized group. No, Anonymous is more of a face for those on the Internet (cyber activists, vigilantes, and hackers) to assume and use for their own goals, often for freedom of speech and rights. But with this decentralized stance,one wonders how they can be effective at all?

Like everything else about Anonymous, this is the unofficial flag for the group.

They can. Anonymous has proven over the few years that it has been active, that it can and will act out against those who oppose them. Check out the Wikipedia page for anonymous. Under the activities sections there are more than 30 separate operations that were performed against various corporations, governments, and groups Anonymous views as corrupt and/or harmful to the freedom of the people. As you look closely, many things about these operations or raids become clear. Often they are associated with separate arms of Anonymous, and almost always have an activist, hacktivist, or vigilante air about them. Examples of internet vigilantism include the arrest of Chris Forcand, a convicted child predator who was under surveillance by Anonymous members, who then reported him to the police after receiving sexual propositions from him under the assumption that they were minors. This as well as the recent, direct threat against the Mexican drug cartel Los Zetas for supposedly kidnapping one of Anonymous's members. Threatened with the leaking of names/personal information of those involved, the cartel released the hostage supposedly involved with anonymous. With these examples of vigilantism also come examples of hacking "For the Lulz" and of activist support. As you can probably tell, Anonymous is totally chaotic.

Protesters affiliated with the Occupy Wall Street protest wear Guy Fawkes masks in Zuccotti Park in New York on Oct. 10. (Andrew Burton/Associated Press) #

 

 But this supposed chaoticness often organizes itself into scarily cohesive groups when they feel the need arises. Example: The Arab Spring. Anonymous launched several operations to aid the popular uprising in the Middle East and  North Africa, including Operation Tunisia, and Operation Egypt. In both these cases Anonymous took down government sites during the protests, and in both cases the sites were down until the protests had ousted the government. Apart from Anonymous's obvious technical help, they also advised many rebels on how to circumnavigate their government's censors using proxies, as well as circulating information as well as protesting advice. Arguably, one could say Anonymous helped give them the tools to revolt, but that may be going a bit too far.

But while Anonymous has been growing on the ever-increasing demonstration front, they have really gained momentum with the Occupy Wall Street movement. Support has been forthcoming from Anonymous, and often they highlight scenes of police brutality by publicizing it on the web. But this seems to be their only sticking point right now, as a messenger. Anonymous spreads the word about the protests, they pass the information on across the web. But as for the threats, the promises of retaliation against the injustice and corruptness of the police, nothing has happened. But nothing needs to happen. Yet. Right now, Anonymous is doing the most good by publicizing the movement, making it known the world over and spreading it's message. That is what will help the movement grow. But once the movement has grown, then it is time for Anonymous to do what they have done in the past: Make a statement.

A protester wearing a Guy Fawkes mask look on as a Carabinieri police vehicle burns during a demonstration by the "Indignant" group in Rome, on October 15, 2011. (Reuters/Stefano Rellandini) # 

Anonymous has proven that they can make the media pay attention, make governments pay attention. But what would really help them the most would be for them to make the world pay attention with a massive event, a massive protest. If they could pull off anything like the movie V for Vendetta, a movie they idolize so much it's borderline creepy, then there would be no stopping the momentum of the popular will. But at this point that seems nowhere near possible. Anonymous has yet to do any significant works in the movement, apart from the previously mentioned role as messenger. So do they have a trick up their sleeve? Are they waiting to play their cards? Or is anything going to happen at all? Only time will tell, but it's any indication from their slogan, time might prove it true.

 

 

We Are Anonymous

We Are Legion

We Do Not Forgive

We Do Not Forget

Expect Us!

Libya Standing on its Own

NATO has just announced that it will be ending it's military mission in Libya, which includes the no-fly zone, a huge area of support for the NTC. But this recent announcement came with some conflicting emotions, as the NTC had previously asked NATO to postpone the ending of the no-fly zone. The NTC fears that Gaddafi loyalists will retaliate against them now after their leaders death, and say that the no-fly zone would serve as a deterrent for the time being until Libya has a firm grasp on its own freedom. No that NATO has gone ahead with ending their mission, will the NTC be able to handle it without the support from a no-fly zone? I think so, as I seriously doubt any loyalist groups will have access to any fighter jets anytime soon. With that in mind, this announcement is the first step into giving Libya full independence.

Fair Trials?

With Gaddafi killed as well as his son Mutassim, attention has now been focused on Saif al-Islam, Muammar's most dangerous and loyal son. Recent reports say Saif is in Niger, exiled from Libya. Having been thought to been in Bani Walid, Libyan rebels lost track of him and was able to escape into hiding. Saif al-Islam has a warrant from the ICC, and this is the sticking point in the final stages of the revolution. Wanted by the international court for crimes against humanity, Saif al-Islam is a hot topic, specifically because many in Libya would like to have him tried in Libya. But many fear that if he was tried in Libya, a repeat of what happened to his father would occur. With the ever increasing suspicion that Muammar Gaddafi was executed by the mob that found and captured him, and new footage showing graphic footage of a bloody Gaddafi being violently jostled and even stabbed by the crowd. With this new development, the NTC has stated that they will put those responsible for Gaddafi's death on trial. How this plays out will be interesting. The sentiment of most Libyans is of extreme hatred of Gaddafi. I mean that's understandable, he made their lives living hell day in and day out. But with the trial of the people who killed him, those sentiments could cause many to get upset. The last thing the NTC wants right now is to lose support from their people. But, hopefully many will overcome their bind hatred now that he is dead. If most Libyans can look past the hatred that built up over the last forty years, then maybe the NTC won't have such a problem and people will realize that the trial is necessary to uphold human rights.

With this insistence on fair trials being held in Libya, the news that Saif al-Islam is in informal talks with the ICC, who would have Saif tried in The Hague rather than in Libya, is full of tension. An ICC spokesman says he has substantial evidence that Saif was involved in the planning of bombing and shooting at civilians, as well as paying and transporting mercenaries from foreign countries. Libyans and the NTC  say that it would be the best if Saif was tried in Libya, and that it would be the only way that the Libya people can get any sort of closure. Seeing that the ICC has no police force, it all relies on what Niger decides to do. Niger is an ICC member state, meaning they have an obligation to arrest Saif is an order is given. But whether or not they do will decide whether the ICC has any chance of trying Saif. With this development, international pressure is high over the trial of one man. And with this pressure, it will be decided whether or not the international community is ready to trust the NTC with judicial power.

Occupy Oakland

On Tuesday, Occupy Oakland was forced out of their encampment. Early in the morning, police in full riot gear stormed the site and dismantled the tents and other structures set up their, as part of a fierce crackdown on protesters by police. Flashbang grenades and tear gas were used on protesters, many of whom were still sleeping wen the assault began. Is this was America stands for now? I thought we had a right to free speech, to protest, to gather. Apparently we can only protest during the day, when it suits people and their schedules. No! That's not what protests are about! Protests are about creating a rift in the status quo, interrupting peoples daily lives and making them think about the issues. Protesting isn't being assaulted by police as if you were violent rioters. Occupy Oakland was a peaceful protest, doing everything in it's power to have a clean, safe place of protest while at the same time spreading their grievances. The police response to this was unnecessarily brutal and its sickening to me how little compassion was shown to protesters, and many were injured indiscriminately and beaten.




As you can see in this video, police have started throwing tear gas canisters at the protesters. This took place later in the day on Tuesday, as protesters took to the streets in protest of the demolishing of their encampment. Some protesters are seen to be hurling the tear gas back at police, but about 25 seconds in, you can see someone lying on the ground a few feet from the police line clearly injured. As protesters notice something is amiss, they rush to help the injured protester, pleading with the police, shouting "Help him! Help him!" Of course the police do nothing but stare menacingly at the protesters, who obviously incited the whole incident. (Note my use of sarcasm here) But to make matters even worse, one police officer decides that adding an explosive to the mix would make it much better. 35 seconds in you see a black object, a flashbang grenade, thrown from behind police lines. This is hurled directly into the group around the injured protester, going off right by the person on the ground, scattering the helpers. There are so many things wrong with that! Why would anyone do such a thing, knowing full well that this group of people is not a threat, and that they are merely trying to aid someone that is injured? Where is the humanity in this? I'm sorry, but this seems more like something that would happen in Egypt 5 months ago, not America.





This time, another protester is injured, but this time it is much more serious. 24-year-old Iraq war veteran Scott Olsen is seen here being carried away after being shot in the head with a rubber bullet round from police. As seen ere, he is bleeding from the head and looks very dazed and confused. After being taken to a nearby hospital, Scott was unconscious for nearly 12 hours before finally waking up. He is now doing fine, although his speech is somewhat impaired. Unfortunately, his brain is swelling due to the fracture of his skull, and surgery may have to be performed if it does not go down soon. Since when are police allowed to shoot a person in the head, nonlethal projectile or not, and cause them to have a skull fracture and result in a mini-coma and swelling of the brain? Personally, this disgusts me, and I seriously hope that attention will be brought to the OPD and their brutal tactics. But so far, no major news organization seems to be covering it, leaving me to wonder how far America has fallen.

International Outreach

All across the world nations are sending messages of support for a new Libya. Many are wishing a fast transition from a bloody and gruesome fighting phase to the democratic phase, one which may be easier said than done. Many countries are also worried about the state of aid in the country, as medical supplies and basic human needs are running low. As a new age for Libya comes, new allies and help will be more important than ever.

Death of a Dictator: Inhumane?

               With all the videos and pictures circulating about Gaddafi's last moments before death, criticism from the international community has started to grow. There is no doubt the images are disturbing, a bloody, weary man being beaten and pulled around by a angry crowd of fighters, each having their own personal vendetta against him. Videos has also emerged now showing him alive and wounded, on the hood of a pickup truck, and also video of him being dragged out of the drain where he was found hiding. As of now, the NTC is saying that Gaddafi was killed in a crossfire on his way to Misrata to receive medical attention. He was already wounded at this point, from the blast and from being beaten by a crowd, although not severely. This is what the UN Human Rights council is questioning. Did he really die in a crossfire, or was he executed? An execution is against human rights laws and would be dealt with severely. Although how effective that would be, since it was so chaotic and there were so many people at the time of his death, that it would be almost impossible to determine who actually did it.

             Also, you've got to think to the implications of this investigation within Libya itself. The Libyans themselves have been oppressed by this man for generations, their family killed by his government and during the revolution. They feel intense hatred towards this one man and it is hard to override compassion sometimes for someone you hate so much. I feel like if the UN tries to get involved and point fingers of blame at certain fighters and at the rebellion as a whole, that the Libyan view of them will deteriorate. Instead of being incredibly thankful for the support they've been shown by the UN and NATO, they might feel betrayed and suspicious of the UN if the the UN tries to intervene with human rights trials and investigations. Not that these investigations would be pointless. There have been reports for awhile now that abuse of Gaddafi loyalists and black Africans has been a problem, and that discriminatory views are starting to take hold as many of the loyalists were black mercenaries from southern Africa. This and the fury-fueled revenge enacted by rebel fighters creates an uneasy environment where at one moment they might be cheering in celebration, the next parading around a prisoner in a abusive and almost grotesque way.

The UN has raised concerned over the possibility that Gaddafi was executed. [EPA]

                So far the UN is beginning to look into the events that transpired in Sirte, trying to piece together what really happened. Gaddafi's wife Aisha has called for a human rights investigation as well, seeing that Gaddafi's son Mutassim has died just as mysteriously as Gaddafi did, and reports of Seif al-Islam being wounded but captured are also circulating without any concrete idea of where he is. Right now, I think an investigation might be appropriate in this whole revolution, seeing as the rebels overstepped some boundaries in abuse and executions sometimes due to the adrenaline/rage fueled antics. But if human rights violations are unearthed, what will they do? They can't directly pinpoint certain people in many cases, and if they do the backlash from the Libyan population will be severe. I think for now, they should investigate and withdraw, waiting until Libya is more stable and controlled to act upon evidence of human rights violations. Because if they act now, the reactions will not be favorable in Libya.

The Fall of a Dictator

Unless you literally live under a rock, you would know that Muammar Gaddafi, the longtime dictator and oppressor of Libya, was killed today by rebel forces in his hometown of Sirte. Reports broke out early this morning, with unconfirmed pictures of an injured, but alive Gaddafi, in the hands of Libyan rebels. Soon, reports of his death were circulating, with a video taken from a cell phone showing Gaddafi's bloodied body(Warning: Graphic Footage). What was at first thought just another unconfirmed report, this news soon became verified, as the NTC announced that Muammar Gaddafi was in fact dead. This created an uproar of coverage, every new agency was all over it, reporting live, minute-by-minute coverage. I had never seen anything like it related to the Arab Spring. It was almost comforting seeing that this huge story was shown the attention it deserved here in the US.

Libyan rebels rejoice at the news that Col. Muammar Gaddafi is dead.

While this broke, I was at school. Unfortunately, I didn't know about it before school, which was when news first started to break out. Luckily, my friend told me about it, and I quickly got on it, looking at every mobile news app I had. To what did my wondering eyes did appear, but the most welcome news of the year! They had actually done it, they had killed Gaddafi! I was thrilled, and so were my friends. Lunch was an intense discussion about the affects and story surrounding his death, with new updates coming in every minute. I hadn't felt this relieved since Hosni Mubarak stepped down from power in Egypt!

The storm drain where Muammar Gaddafi hid from rebel fighters.

Here's what I've managed to piece together so far of what happened, from various news sites and sources: Muammar Gaddafi was in Sirte with a legion of loyalist fighters. They were in the western industrial side of Sirte, where intense fighting was breaking out. They started to flee, a convoy making its way out of the town. Not two miles outside of town, NATO planes and US drones fired missiles at the convoy, hitting and destroying some of the cars, scattering the rest. Muammar Gaddafi's son Muatassim was killed in the attack and his other son, Seif al-Islam was wounded and captured. Following this blast, Gaddafi and a small group of his loyalists took refuge in the drain pipes where he was later found. Having been in one of the cars initially hit, Muammar was at this point already injured. Then as rebel forces moved in to surround the convoy, a firefight broke out around where Gaddafi was hiding, being instigated when a loyalist came out and yelled for surrender, then promptly started shooting at the rebels when they emerged from behind cover. Gaddafi was wounded in the leg after this, and maybe in the stomach as well. Bleeding heavily and somewhat out of it, rebels found him in the drains and pulled him out. He even said to one fighter, "What have I done to you?"













At this point stories confuse each other. Some say that on of his own guards shot him in the chest at this point, although not immediately fatal. Wounded nonetheless, Gaddafi was captured by rebel forces, and soon taken to a pickup, where he was to be taken to Misrata to receive medical attention. Once again, stories clash when at this point, he dies suddenly. Some say he just collapsed to the ground, dead, others say it was an execution, with him being shot. At this point, the official story seems to be leaning towards the latter. (Which if it is true, may raise all kinds of hell)

Libyans celebrate Gaddafi's death

At this point, huge celebrations are being held across Libya, people finally rejoicing over the fact that they are now free from the fear and rule of Gaddafi. As this story develops, be sure to come back for the reactions and implications this will have on the world, and what the NTC has to do next in order to smoothly transition from the fighting stage, to the democratic stage. Until then, feel free to listen to the Libyan's ecstatic cries of Allahu Akbar!

The Inside Story

  

Al Jazeera’s Inside Story analyzes the effects of the Occupy Wall Street movement, it’s causes, and the goals of the movement with OWS media team member Mark Brayer, and independent stock broker Alessio Rastani. Watch this video! If nothing else, this video gives a clear-cut interpretation of the movement, with easy-to-understand language, and two sides of view. Seeing the stock broker, I thought we were in for heated exchange, but I was wrong. Alessio Rastani for the most part agrees with the movement and realizes that big business does in fact control politics, and that things do need to change. Both Mark and Alessio gave great points about the topics handed to them and I think their statements complements each other’s nicely, growing off of each other’s statements. The weirdest thing about this video though has to do with Alessio Rastani’s prediction at the very end.

This video was filmed recently, but just as the worldwide support was showing. At the very end, Alessio Rastani makes his prediction that this will spread throughout the world, to every major city. People will realize the situation and will not be happy. And he says this means they will go after the banks and financial institutions, the governments, the politicians and the lobbyists. He makes it clear that people will want real change and that the entire system of running things may be changed by this. With the worldwide support growing, I found it eerie how his prediction is starting to play out, and anxious to see if it proves to be true.

The Real Reasons

Now many people have so far asked the question: What do the protestors of Occupy Wall Street want? Answers vary from source to source, reflecting different viewpoints of the people. The fact of the matter is people have different reasons for participating in the Occupy movement. Some are unemployed are want unemployment to be dealt with. Others are upset about the inefficiency of the government, while others are upset about the corporate lobbying and corruption of Congress. Still others are upset about the wide gap between the top 1% of the population (who control most of the wealth) and the lower 99%. But all these problems are all part of a general dissatisfaction with the current political and economic system.

Now some may say it’s not so bad. The wealthy aren’t as high up s you think they are, and it’s been like this forever. These people don’t get it, and are probably trying to cover their backs. Because looking at the stats, the statistical support is overwhelmingly in Occupy Wall Street’s favor in terms of who’s right. But that’s not really a good thing, now is it? According to Business Insider, the gap between the top percent of America and the rest is larger than ever, and isn’t reflected in other countries. Unemployment is at a high and its taking longer for people to find jobs and longer for companies to find qualified employees. All these factors weigh in heavily on the minds of people, and it’s just now finally showing through with these movements. 

About one thousand people gather and form a large "99%" in the middle of Freedom Plaza during an occupation of the plaza Oct. 6 in Washington, DC. Inspired by the Occupy Wall Street movement that began last month in New York, large and small occupations have sprung up in cities across the country. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) #

With all these readily discernible facts and statistics ready to back up the movement and its validity, you would think there would be more of a positive reaction, a call to action if you will. Now while the people feel this call to action, (The movement has spread nationwide and worldwide incredibly fast) the people who can actually initiate the change are still sluggish to react in any meaningful way.