[Peace-discuss] What we're doing is not only illegal...

[C. G. Estabrook]

Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Libyan War Gets Weird
Defending the indefensible.
by Tony Cartalucci

The wellspring of democracy? NYT reports Africans are being beaten
and robbed (and killed) on the mere suspicion of being loyal to Qaddafi.

Bangkok, Thailand April 21, 2011 - Even those who have studied for years the 
criminal consolidation of this planet under the global corporate-financier 
oligarchy may be noticing that the war in Libya is turning into something new 
and unprecedented. The lies and propaganda have hit an all time high and no 
article encapsulates this better than the bizarre, grotesque piece out of the 
New York Times titled, "Inferior Arms Hobble Rebels in Libya War."

In it, the glorious, heroic rebels are described as under-armed, which has 
caused them to use weapons such as landmines and rockets that indiscriminately 
target civilians and government troops alike. They wield knives that they, "want 
to stuff into Qaddafi’s heart," and 400 rifles sent by Qatar in direct violation 
of the arms embargo included in UNSC r.1973.

Perhaps this macabre, suspicious article is trying to excuse reports now coming 
out indicating that the Libyan rebels, who themselves admit ties to Al-Qaeda, 
are reportedly butchering, beheading, and mutilating captured government troops 
and now guilty of employing the same weapons and tactics NATO has accused 
Qaddafi of using - the very justification used by NATO to enter the war in the 
first place. The New York Times indeed attempts to excuse these various grisly 
reports, by stating that the, "rebels have little evident command-and-control 
and no clear or consistent rules of engagement — factors that have perhaps 
contributed to instances of abusive or outright brutal conduct."

The rebels' use of child-soldiers is also shamefully brushed aside by the New 
York Times as an afterthought along with "credible accounts of rebels beating 
and robbing African men on the mere suspicion of their being mercenaries," and a 
report from April 9th where two journalists "observed rebels capture and 
immediately kill a suspected Qaddafi informant."

Outrageously, the New York Times continues by describing the rebels' use of high 
explosive, indiscriminate weapons fire that mirrors their own accusations made 
(and heeded unquestionable by the West) against Qaddafi. The article 
acknowledges that even though the rebel leadership in Benghazi, described ad 
nauseum by the corporate media as " lawyers, professors and teachers," has 
denied that their fighters would reuse landmines captured from Qaddafi's 
arsenal, BBC had video taped them blatantly laying these mines near the city of 
Ajdabiya.

After reading this litany of blatant war crimes, and what seems to describe the 
opening scenes of yet another genocide presided over by the UN, the New York 
Times concludes with ambiguous rhetoric, stating that "to watch Libyan rebels 
head to battle is to watch young men calling for freedom step toward a bloody 
mismatch, and often their deaths. To arm them, though, is to assume other risks, 
some of which could last for years."

Quite obviously Libya's rebels are turning out to be "less than heroic," and 
groups of them as morally bankrupt and depraved on record as Qaddafi was accused 
of being without a shred of evidence. To attempt to convince the public that 
democracy and freedom can spring from an army employing extra-judicial 
executions, indiscriminate military force, and the use of child-soldiers is a 
dubious proposition indeed. To suggest that American or European blood and money 
be spent to intervene on behalf of armed militants Qaddafi seems more than 
justified defending himself and his people against, is in fact, entirely criminal.

Now, the US has granted 25 million USD for "non-lethal" aid to bolster forces 
admittedly engaged in war crimes, with further aid being currently worked out 
including additional arms shipments. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 
continues to insist that the rebel movement was "a spontaneous response within 
the context of the broader Arab spring," a blatant, willful lie. These rebels 
have been funded and supported by the United States and United Kingdom in 
particular for nearly 30 years. The "Arab Spring" itself is now admittedly the 
work of US funded opposition that had been groomed for at least 3 years leading 
up to the regional upheaval.

In the face of such evidence mounting from both critics of the ongoing war and 
now the corporate media in an attempt to spin it, even the casual reader must 
call into question the official narrative given regarding the increasingly 
bizarre war in Libya, and the seemingly unhinged minds leading the people of the 
West deeper into it.