Authors note: The official U.S. position on this debacle is that Lebanon is acting in self defense by shelling a refugee camp. Lemme reiterate, Lebanon is acting in SELF DEFENSE by BOMBING a refugee camp.

Fighting rages in Lebanese camp
Intense fighting is raging between troops and Islamist militants at a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon.

At least nine civilians have died in the clashes at Nahr al-Bared camp, near Tripoli, officials there said.

Thick plumes of smoke are choking the sky over the camp as soldiers attack the militants with tanks and artillery.

Fatah al-Islam, a group accused of links to al-Qaeda and Syria, has threatened to widen its campaign if troops do not stop the shelling.

A spokesman for the group, Abu Salim, told French news agency AFP: "The army is not only opening fire on us, it is shelling blindly.

"If this continues, we will carry the battle outside the city of Tripoli."

Failed ceasefire

Red Cross officials have appealed for a truce to let aid agencies reach those worst affected by the violence.

FATAH AL-ISLAM
Split from Palestinian group Fatah al-Intifada in late 2006
Believed to have 150-200 armed men, based in Nahr al-Bared camp
Denies al-Qaeda links but says it endorses its ideas
Has links with Syrian intelligence, Lebanon says
Leader is Shaker al-Abssi

A planned two-hour ceasefire on Monday ended after just a few minutes, with clashes resuming before United Nations and Red Cross vehicles could enter the camp.

Medical workers have only been able to evacuate a few of the many injured civilians trapped inside the camp and water supplies have been hit in the clashes.

The UN Secretary-General's special envoy, Terje Roed-Larson, condemned the violence as he met Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak after presenting a report on Lebanon to the UN Security Council.

"We both are deeply concerned about the situation in Lebanon," Mr Roed-Larson said. "The recent violence there is of deep concern to both of us."

The fighting, which began on Monday, is the bloodiest internal conflict in Lebanon since the civil war ended 17 years ago.

On Sunday, 50 people were killed at the camp, which houses about 40,000 Palestinian refugees.

More than 20 soldiers and 20 militants were killed, as well as an unconfirmed number of civilians, in clashes around the camp.

The clashes erupted when security forces tried to arrest suspects in a bank robbery. Militants from Fatah al-Islam then attacked army posts at the entrances to the camp.

The Lebanese army regained control of the camp's perimeter but clashes have continued.

Lebanon is clearly determined to eradicate Fatah al-Islam but the militant group is well armed, highly motivated and well dug in, says the BBC's Jim Muir in Beirut.

Civilian casualties have not been confirmed by the Lebanese authorities which, under a 38-year-old deal, are not allowed to go into the camp.

Lebanon is home to more than 350,000 Palestinian refugees, many of whom fled or left their homes when Israel was created in 1948.

Nahr al-Bared has been under scrutiny since two bus bombings in a Christian area of Beirut in February, blamed on Fatah al-Islam militants based in the camp.

Fatah al-Islam is a radical Palestinian splinter group alleged to have links with al-Qaeda. Lebanese officials also believe it has ties to Syrian intelligence. Other Palestinian groups have distanced themselves from Fatah al-Islam.

There are rival theories about what lies behind the latest violence, says the BBC's Roger Hardy.

Government ministers suspect Syria is behind the violence, with the aim of destabilising the country. Others see a quite separate radical Islamist agenda, our correspondent says.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/m ... 676291.stm

I read about this in the NYT today, some Lebanese spectators were saying they wished the government would wipe out the refugee camps as "nothing good has ever come from the Palestinians". The article also stated that the plight of Palestinians in Lebanon is worse than in any other Arab country. Maybe there's a relation between lack of economic opportunity and extremism.

Is it even conceivable that an Arab state, let alone Lebanon would consider giving them citizenship and allowing them to integrate into the greater society?

*fixed.

Perhaps. Lebanon seems to be in a shitty situation in general, and I don't know what they could possibly do to make things better for themselves.

right, this must be the problem

Maybe, but the more I study this the more I'm convinced that we are watching the Islamic reformation unfold every evening on our televisions. Pretty cool in my opinion, if it wasnt for all this:

is this perceived reformation moving in the direction of the extreme elements or the more moderate ones, in your view?

Overall I believe the Muslim world is moving towards a more moderate stance (current events notwithstanding). One must remember that the Protestant Reformation precipated an intense backlash in the Catholic Counter-Reformation which, in turn, led to centuries of religious violence. Fundamentalist Islam constitutes nothing more than a modern counter-reformation, and is therefore a problem that western societies cannot, and indeed should not, attempt to solve.

Hell, most colonists immigrated to this country to escape the same religious strife that we now involve ourselves with. Its absurd.

It is fascinating though, I only wish I were around long enough to see it conclusion.

Interesting thought... but do you really think that the social-political results of the Reformation apply today? The globalization of society, as well as large international wealth gaps, has transformed how people all over the world view each other and communicate with each other. I can't help but think that in our Internet-enabled age that what you have labeled as a Fundamentalist "modern counter-reformation" can spread so quickly and gain supporters outside of the Muslim faith , in charismatic 'do it for the people' leaders such as Hugo Chavez, that a generation raised on this Fundamentalism will overwhelm the generation before it that drifted towards moderation.

I have a strong feeling that much of the moderation in the Muslim comes from it's leaders playing both sides of the fence. The must appeal to western leaders to keep trade flowing and maintain their dictatorships while at the same time appealing to radicals within their nations to kept domestic stability. The certainly is a growing educated secular Muslim class, we had a poster here named FakePlasticTrees (I think) who was a good example of this, that has found a balance between modern moral values and the demands of religion. Whether of not their voices can rise above the crowds remains to be seen.




Lets hope the world is around to see it's conclusion.

Absolutely. Could globalization accelerate the process? Possibly, however that is not necessarily the case. It could just as easily serve the needs of a fundamentalist agenda, and the internet is perfect example. Radical fundamentalists have embraced its use for propaganda and communication, it is not just the tool of the enlightened or civilized.

The idea came to me when I was looking at maps of Europe before, during, and after the 30 years war. You see a plethora of warring kingdoms and city states and strange alliances between religious opponents (Cardinal Richelieu for example). The parallels to the middle east are startling, its the same principle as the European "balance of power". I am not saying it is an instance of history repeating, but its about as close as it gets.

Now THAT is what I call an .


If non-Muslim nations and people were to disengage from attempting to solve this problem, do you think the Muslims would just fight it out amongst themselves, or do you think they would just end up dragging everyone else into their reformation regardless?

Not even discussing Israel (which is already smack in teh middle of the whole thing), it seems that a tactic of the extremists is to deflect Arab ills onto western nations, or really any neighbors who aren't Muslims.

I've documented it before, but in practically every place on earth where the Islamic world borders the non-Islamic world, there is conflict, and it's hard to not blame that on the common element.

I would say the Islamic world is polarizing. There may be an element of the Islamic world that is surely moderating, or even westernizing. But there is also a disturbingly large portion that is just simply becoming more extremist as well.

There are so many great things to point in this thread. I just don't have the time...

Theres always going to be outside involvement, but I think history dictates that our present course should be cautionary, not "hands on" or, more appropriately, "hands on trigger". Britain and France were the mightiest nations during our Civil War, and both wisely refrained from direct involvement.

The ultimate dilemma is one of morality, if you are the most powerful nation on earth is it your responsibility to stabilize a war torn region, or do you sit idly by?

And the measure of that morality should be, "Is your attempt to help stabilize making the situation better or worse in the long run?"

while i do truly hope that globalization and the co-opting of the Muslim religion will eventually lead to a secularizing effect in the Middle East, i guess i don't see much evidence of this happening yet and in fact recently things seem to be turning the opposite direction, when you look at Iran in the 21st century, the political rise of Hamas and Hezbollah, etc.

in general it seems to me that the radicals are winning, for a variety of reasons. part of the problem i think is that so called moderates, when you boil it down, are technically non-believers in Islam, and in most Moslem countries this by definition limits their political influence.

Ain't so different in America at times. Only one out-of-the-closet atheist in Congress and he came out after being elected.

Yes. But which of us is clairvoyant?

well, i see your point to some extent, although we're probably getting off on a tangent. in general, i hate any intrusion of religion into the public policy realm. however, i would say that the faith litmus test for public servants in the USA is much different than what i understand it to be in many Moslem countries, where i don't think there are very many prominent secularists in positions of power.

How is a moderate Muslim a non-Muslim?

Religion has different meanings to everybody. The Muslim world would get a lot further ahead if they'd realize this.

So what you're saying is there needs to be a muslim version of the Unitarians?