by Sarahli » Fri Mar 04, 2011 5:37 am In time of war or revolution the first victim seems to be the truth.
Sarahi..a few notes on Libya's economy, since you were asking about Gadhafi's leadership ability etc.
emerging markets; libya; gadaffi; frontier markets | oil Libya has debt levels to die for and huge amounts of oil,
Robert Tashima, an editor for Oxford Business Group, highlighted the country’s “elephantine” levels of FX reserves, and the privatisation of 80 companies so far, with telecoms and steel sales slated for this year.
Rory Fyfe, an economist with the Economist Intelligence Unit, said he expected the country’s budget to remain in surplus and inflation under control, and pointed to high levels of non-oil growth
,
Charles Gurdon, managing director of Menas Associates, said in his presentation on politics..
that the lack of a designated successor to Muammar Gaddafi, who has led Libya for over 40 years, could lead to violence.
re: your quote about the truth being sacrificed.
a write up, below, all are invited to read if interested:
(long article <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: --> but worth reading, imo. <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) --> )
LIBIA: I funzionari russi chiamano le pretese della NATO un mucchio di bugie.
post pubblicato in damnatio memoriae, il 4 marzo 2011
Libya: Is the West lying again?
02.03.2011
Where is the evidence of the air strikes ordered by Colonel Gathafi against his "unarmed" civilians?
Is this yet another contrived pretext for the USA and its sycophantic allies in NATO to start an invasion?
Why is NATO speaking about enforcing a no-fly zone? Who started the conflict in the first place?
Russian officials call the NATO claims a bunch of lies.
Let us be perfectly honest here. We are not dealing with well-meaning countries whose own history is flawless.
We are dealing, in many cases, with former imperialist powers which committed massacres, rode roughshod over peoples and laws and lores and cultures and imposed their own will by invading other territories, drawing lines on maps and "civilizing" vast swathes of the world with the Bible and the bullet. What a legacy.
We are dealing with those who launched a savage and illegal attack against Iraq, outside the auspices of the United Nations Organization,
we are dealing with those who lied through their teeth that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weaponry because he bought yellowcake uranium from Nigeria (when in fact the country producing it is Niger), an accusation refuted categorically by Mohamed El-Baradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
We are dealing with those who insulted Kofi Annan's UNO and his weapons inspectors in Iraq, who failed to find any evidence of an "immediate" threat to the USA and its allies,
we are dealing with those whose foreign ministers/secretaries of state claimed that Iraq had WMD, and that they knew where they were.
·
We are dealing with those who forged a causus belli based upon lies, fabrications and manipulation, cajoling, bullying and blackmail, those who stated that Saddam's WMD was "in Bagdad and Tikrit and north, south, east and west of there" (Rumsfeld),
with those whose officials had received shopping lists from Baghdad's museums already before the invasion,
those who deployed military hardware against civilian structures and then doled out billionaire reconstruction contracts - without tender - to White House cronies.
We are dealing with those who committed war crimes in Kosovo, in Afghanistan and in Iraq, all in the last decade, not to mention a myriad of other countries beforehand.
I.e. The GADHAFI REFERRAL for prosecution as a war criminal etc..
Nobody has yet referred for persecution who is responsible for dropping cluster bombs on civilians, nobody has yet referred who is responsible for acts of torture, illegal detention, strafing wedding parties with rockets, deploying Depleted Uranium against civilians, or indeed phosphorous attacks on schools, to the Hague War Crimes Tribunal, or International Criminal Court, as it is called –
the one that ordered the kidnapping and illegal detention of Slobodan Milosevic before he died in its custody,
God alone knows how.
So now the same clique of warmongers, whose foreign offices and military have been involved in wars ,since time immemorial, accuse Colonel Muammar Gathafi of war crimes, namely bombing his own people with aviation.
Russian officials call these claims a bunch of lies. Russia Today correspondent Irina Galusho interviewed members of Russia's Joint Chiefs of Staff, who claimed "Some of the reports made by western media are not entirely corresponding to the pictures they are getting"
Where are the air strikes, for example, registered by the BBC and Al Jazeera, on February 22, on Benghazi?
The Libyan government has ordered its aviation to strike against arms depots to stop them falling into the hands of the rebels (not unarmed civilians, but terrorists) since then, but the initial statement that the Government was using air strikes against "protesters" fails to produce any evidence. Basically because there isn't any.
And for those who made such claims, in the media and in governments?
Where is the accountability?
These politicians lie and remain in office?
These journalists fabricate evidence and continue to work as if nothing had happened?
Perhaps Colonel Gaddafy should have ordered attacks by predator drones against the civilians, then he may have won a Nobel Peace Prize, like President Obama.
Maybe he should have enticed them into a football match, like the British Black and Tans did with the Irish, and then mown them down with machine guns.
Or how about a Lynndie England style "just having fun" medieval torture chamber, à la Abu Ghraib?
In short, the West is once again fabricating evidence, lying and manipulating the media, as it did in the Balkans, when an absurd image was shown of Bosnian "refugees" in a Serbian "concentration camp", when in fact the images were taken from within a barbed wire perimeter to protect Serbs against marauding terrorists... and as it has done so many times.
Time for the circus to move on, starting with Libya and ending with Iran.
After all, Hillary Clinton represents what?
The will of the people of the United States of America, or AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee)?
Amid the hype, from the bought western media, no reference to the great contribution Colonel Gadhafi has made, namely in helping to free countless peoples from the yolk of colonialism - without any personal gain, i.e. Colonel Gadhafi , a real freedom fighter - no reference to the fact that Libya has the greatest Human Development Index in Africa.
Some dictator, eh
? No mention of the fact that Gadhafi wrote the Green Book, expounding the Third Way of economic theory, and that he has implemented its teachings in Libya, namely the government of Libya by the Libyan people
..
.the quality of life for Libyan is over a hundred times better than it was when he took over in 1969, when he instilled a policy of control of Libyan resources by Libyans for Libyans, then literacy rates rose from 10 to 90 per cent. Is this a dictator?
Is he any more tyrannical than others who control countries in the Middle East?
And that goes for the behaviour of the USA as well in Iraq...
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey
Pravda.Ru
<!-- m -->http://criticatestuale.ilcannocchiale.i ... chiam.html<!-- m -->
thanks for the links, I will check out some of them, but Al Jezeera..has got to be one of the worst Liars on God’s green earth . <!-- s --><!-- s --> .
<!-- s --><!-- s -->
Shame that the Arabs would do this to each other,(Libyan report?), that station is Qatar /Saudi owned and not much more than a propaganda machine for its owners basically the same as all other mainstream media? <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: --> .
Also note the link of the above article,if you are interested, seems to carry alternative views, compared to the corporate mouths, like Fox CNN BBC Reuters et.al...
Peace
by Gema » Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:37 am
It is lke a chain effect. If one shouts for no reason, the rest will also shout not knowing the reason either, but the shouts happen leading to excitement leading to revolution but do they know what for?
<!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s -->
Who is pulling the strings?
Good question.
Gadaffi is an eccentric dictator, very charismatic (I mean, have you seen his nice looking all fixed up body guards? I admire this guy, he has humor beyond everything) and I think he got lost within his power.
<!-- s --><!-- s --> He did not get lost Gema..they are just trying to put him out to pasture, and the old goat is refusing to go <!-- s --><!-- s -->
Looks like he feels betrayed from his people but at the same time his people feel betrayed by him.
No, the pic is, that Libya is a tribal country ,over 140 different tribes are in Libya,
here is a link an excerpt that gives a clearer pic , if you wish to know more about this Man and his country /people..etc
<!-- m -->http://mercurymail.blogspot.com/<!-- m -->
Make up your own Mind
Libya and the Colnel:
When Gaddaffi took power he took over a non-country with a large number of tribes composed of a small population on a tremendously big area.
The country was ruled by a king who took the oil revenue as his private income as it was the use amongst the bedu tribes, the chief took all.
Gaddaffi was a very poor boy with a brilliant mind, born in Sirte and his local teachers advised his father to send him to a better school.
His father didn’t have the money and sent Gaddaffi, aged 11/12 on a 250 km donkey trip through the desert from Sirte to an uncle, a chieftain in Misurata. The boy went to school and continued to the military academy.
After he graduated he was confronted with a hopelessly divided extremely poor non-country under the rule of king Idriss.
Idriss was of Cyrenaica origin and a religious leader of the Senussi, a sufi sect. He was born at Al-Jaghbub, near the Egyptian border.
He became the Emir of Cyrenaica with the approval of the Britiish after WWII
When the British made him Emir of Tripolitana he could become king of Libya, with British approval.
This was one more idiotic British decision. Joining Cyrenaica(Benghazi area) with Tripolitana(Sirte and Tripoli area) under a Cyrenaica king was a disaster waiting to happen.
The oil was originally found exclusively in Sirte Basin and the Tripolitana tribes saw their riches disappear in a Cyrenaica pocket, literally, the country got nothing.
When Gaddaffi graduated the country was extremely poor and the oil exploitation was in the hands of American and British companies, which paid royalties to Idriss.
Agriculture, Libya has about 500.000 sq. km. rich agricultural land, was in the hands of Italian families, who had fled during the war but were still owners-in-absentia.
After Gaddaffi took power he invited the Italian families and arranged a payment for the Libyan State to aquire the property.
The biggest property, Al Khadra, was an olive plantation, started by the Italians in the 1930’s and probably one of the biggest and best in the world.
Today, after many pieces of the plantation were developed for modern construction projects, the remaining plantation is still covering 40.000 hectares with 6 milliom olive trees. It has natural irrigation by 6 months rain each year.
Gaddaffi went with 3 Willy’s jeeps to the old palace of the king, who was for medical treatment in Turkey, and took over the country.
He declared immediately that the oil and the riches of the country belonged to all Libyans and reinforced the power of the tribal chiefs.
The old tribal customs were respected and every Libyan, respected as an honest man in his own tribe, could at any time go to his tribal chief for his requests, problems or justice.
This was of course a Libya for the Libyans system.
It has been said that Libya followed the Marxist system of the Soviet Union.
Here you have a young officer,with absolutely no friend in the world, hated by the biggest corporations in the world, which were told to leave the country and the oilfields, and he has no clue what a modern society or country looks like, nor how the Western democracies function.
All he knows about Western democracies is the Italian colonialism, the German and British warfare on Libyan soil and the Libyan deaths it all created.
Talk about values? What values? Exploitation and warfare.
On the other hand the Russians offer a hand in the construction of his country and they are introduced by an Arab hero: Nasser from Egypt.
Of course he accepted Russian help and advise, of course he went his own socialist ways, equality and freedom for all, no kings, the people are sovereign, poor people are having finally a voice.
So Gaddaffi accepted Russian help and advise, and created his own socialist muslim brand.
The only people who were not satisfied were the people from Benghazi, Tobruk and the Egyptians who lost all privileges, Idriss significantly had fled to Egypt and lived in a Cairo luxury home until his death at the age of 93.
Gaddaffi made sure that all Libyans were treated equally and he made it a point of honor that each and every Libyan had direct access to him in case of abuse of power by any other authority.
In the beginning he took tea in the small tea-houses in Tripoli or Sirte together with the common people until the assassination attempts started, all coming from Benghazi and/or Egypt.
He slept in army barracks and had no home of its own
.
The Chief of Air Staff told me the story that one day he came in his room and found the body of a soldier, wrapped in a blanket on the concrete floor, next to his bed.
He kicked the soldier to wake him up and move so that he could go to bed himself, and Gaddaffi unwrapped himself out of the blanket.
The Chief of Air Staff apologized profusely but Gaddaffi told him to shut up, that it was his fault and he apologized to the Chief for using his room.
When the assassination attempts started he constructed himself a fortress in Tripoli, but spent most of his time in a tent in the dessert, moving all the time. When the Americans bombed his fortress he was in a tent in the dessert
.
Gaddaffi knew that he had a tribal patchwork which had disaster incorporated in it, aggravated by the Beduïn character of the people.
When a Beduin meets another Beduin for the first time they will identify themselves first through the tribe, then the family and afterwards they will look for mutual relations. This can last normally half an hour <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: -->
. After that they will decide if it’s worth continuing talking or not.
A foreigner like me is identified through his Libyan friends. If there are absolutely no connections between the two it’s better not to continue, there will be no trust until such time that there is a connection somewhere.
State structure
Gaddaffi made following structure:
- Every tribe has its own tribe council and tribal representatives who represent the tribal council
- The tribal council representatives are seated in the Revolutionary Council(the Libyan type parliament), which takes all decisions.
- Moammar Gaddaffi is the brother leader who takes and gives advice to the Revolutionary Council.
- We know what that means, but it is true that all projects, claims and complaints are really discussed by that Revolutionary council and Gaddaffi is no fool, he knows when something is false or true, he takes serious notice of everything which is happening in his country at grass-roots level.
- On television, during hours of speeches he really tells his people the truth, he really talks to them like a father and admonishes them.
- Further every province has a local governor-administrator, mostly a very honest old guard general.
The ones I met are normally clad the poorest of the delegation with old battle dresses and open sandals of rough leather.
They are simple Bedu’s who command very serious budgets. (Billions.$$$$$$$$$$$. <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
read more on link..
<!-- m -->http://mercurymail.blogspot.com/<!-- m -->
Who will benefit at the end? NON imo. Another "power" is going to take over and explote the resources---->$$$
.
Exactly. That is why,imo. the colonel would be their best bet for now, until they take their time and organize their system for transmission of power , constitution/ laws etc.
Look at Iraq, it is a pure example of "how to get rid of a dictator" and many private companies signing in just to "help rebuilt the country", yeah...sure
Iraq was an outright invasion by the west, you know, for the oil, and to carry more influence in the area as well,protection of Israel is a paramount concern as well.Plus the threat of IRAN etc.
.
Gema wrote:
This is just a bunch of opinions of mine, may be with no sense at all, so please, humor me I feel swallen today
thanks for the links, I will check out some of them, but Al Jezeera..has got to be one of the worst Liars on God’s green earth . .
<!-- s --><!-- s --> just checking, I knew that you would react like this...you're pretty predictable <!-- s --><!-- s -->
No seriously, you wrote "has got to be one of the worst Liars". Although Jazeera's independence has been tested and doubted according to the next article, AJ is still considered as an independent source. Of course it's up to you to consider it as reliable or not.
In October, Al Jazeera played a leading role in examining a huge trove of classified American documents released through WikiLeaks. It brought to light important revelations on a wide range of topics, including the killings of hundreds of civilians at coalition roadblocks and the U.S role in Iraqi state torture.
This time, however, as WikiLeaks released more than 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables extending from the mid-1960s to the present day, Al Jazeera has opted for the back seat.
Its coverage of what the Italian foreign minister called “9/11 of diplomacy” for the most part has been shallow, sometimes based on translated and paraphrased articles from the New York Times and the Los Angles Times — for a very good reason.
This time the subject of the embarrassing leaks involves not only the United States, but also the leaders of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, including Qatar, Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Kuwait.
The leaked U.S. diplomatic cables have shown that Qatar shares the other GCC states’ view that Iran is the primary threat, not Israel.
This is completely contradictory to what the ruling family in Qatar has been saying in public. It is also contrary to Al Jazeera’s own coverage, which presents Israel as the primary threat, not Iran. In fact, Qatar probably boasts the closest ties with Iran of all the GCC states.
Now, the leaked U.S. cables expose Muslim countries backstabbing another Muslim country. That is one of the ugliest acts a Muslim can perform. The Prophet Muhammad, in fact, compared it to “eating the flesh of one’s own dead brother.”
Al Jazeera tried to mitigate the embarrassment by singling out the roles of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, saying that the two kingdoms strongly urged the United States to strike Iranian military facilities, contrary to what those countries have been saying in public. Al Jazeera conveniently attributed the information to a Los Angles Times article.
What Al Jazeera totally ignored, however, was the role that Qatar played in highlighting the Iranian threat against the United States.
According to one of the leaked U.S. diplomatic cables, the Qatari Emir Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani told Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) last February that, based on 30 years of experience, (to paraphrase) the Iranians will give you 100 words but you should trust only one of them.
The Qatari Prime Minister Hamad Al Thani also told Kerry that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had told him: "We beat the Americans in Iraq; the final battle will be in Iran."
Assad Abukhalil, professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus, who has appeared numerous times on Al Jazeera, strongly criticized the network on the radio show Democracy Now.
During the interview, he said: “I think the extent to which the Saudi government—and all Arab governments in the Gulf—are embarrassed by these leaks is evidenced by the clampdown that is being exhibited throughout the Saudi-controlled Arab media. And even the so-called 'independent' Al Jazeera— which, contrary to its reputation here in the West, is the most serious news organization—is also trying to cover up the embarrassing revelations about the way Arab governments operate vis-à-vis the United States.”
Al Jazeera television not only found itself in an awkward position because its “independence” was tested, but also because the leaked cables raised an important question about its coverage of Iranian affairs, which tends to be more positive than that of other Arab television networks.
For example, Al Jazeera often assiduously covers Israeli violations against Palestinians as well as U.S. violations in Afghanistan and Iraq, while ignoring Iranian violations against Arabs such as the oppression of Arabs in the Iranian province of Khuzestan, bordering the Iraqi province of Basra, and the occupation of the three UAE islands of Abu Masa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb.
This helps Iran improve its image among Arabs and distracts them from the growing Iranian influence in the oil-rich region in southern Iraq. Iran’s support for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is also ignored by Al Jazeera.
The question is: Why does Al Jazeera make Iran look good despite the mistrust between the two neighboring countries, Qatar and Iran?
Qatar shares several offshore gas fields with Iran,including al-Shaheen and South Pars, which makes it extremely important to have good relations with its strong neighbor. In fact, Qatar’s livelihood as a nation depends on its good relations with Iran.
"Iran, if it wanted to, could click its fingers and sever Qatar's money,” David Roberts, a doctoral candidate in Qatari foreign policy at Durham University in England, wrote on The Gulf Blog.
However, Qatar also uses U.S. military presence on its territory to deter any possible Iranian infringement on the shared offshore oil fields. According to secret diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks, “Qatar agreed to pay 60 percent of the upkeep costs for the Al-Udeid airbase, which has already been used by the U.S. military to launch air sorties in Iraq.” It agreed to support its use against Iran as long as the South Par natural gas fields were not threatened.
Qatar’s willingness to host the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East is, in effect, a diplomatic balancing act against the threat of Iran.
According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, a WikiLeaks document quoted Mossad chief Meir Dagan saying to American diplomats, "I think that you should remove your bases from [Qatar]…[The Qataris] owe their security to the presence of the Americans]."
Arguably, Al Jazeera’s coverage of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is still superior to that of all other Arab television networks, which explains why it’s still the most watched Arab news source. However, Al Jazeera’s failure to report on the recent U.S. leaked cables highlights its Achilles’ heel: the Qatari ruling family and its powerful neighbor, Iran.
When the assassination attempts started he constructed himself a fortress in Tripoli, but spent most of his time in a tent in the dessert, moving all the time.
When the Americans bombed his fortress he was in a tent in the dessert
.
Gaddaffi knew that he had a tribal patchwork which had disaster incorporated in it, aggravated by the Beduïn character of the people.
When a Beduin meets another Beduin for the first time they will identify themselves first through the tribe, then the family and afterwards they will look for mutual relations.
As an open minded person, it's good to read the story behind the story. This background/profile info gives a better view on the man and his acts. Though he IS a dictator and I condemn his acts concerning human rights.
Op-Ed: Something is going horribly wrong with news reporting from Libya
Massacres, tank battles, murderous bombings, we've seen a flood of news describing these and other events in Libya recently but even a cursory study of the content shows that it consists mostly of second or third-hand accounts which cannot be verified.
I have had an uneasy feeling about the coverage coming out of Libya ever since the fighting began in earnest two weeks ago. Much of it seems to lack solidity and substance and the modus operandi seems to be something between a mix of hyperbole, inappropriate descriptions and unverifiable sources to describe conflicting claims from both sides.
Today's coverage has followed this pattern and here is a look at what has been happening.
The Guardian reported this on its Libya Live feed at 2:53. “Reuters correspondent Mohammed Abbas is within sight of the battlefield in Ras Lanuf. He said: ‘There are lots of flames, thuds and bangs. There is the wailing of sirens and puffs of smoke in the air. More and more rebels with heavy artillery are streaming by to the front-line.’ One could be forgiven that Abbas was describing a WWII battle, complete with battalions of troops and artillery and a flak barrage targeting swarms of fighter planes. But he wasn’t. This was Libya, and he completed his dispatch with the rather more modest assertion that “ ...an anti-aircraft gun mounted on a truck and an anti-tank gun were the latest to go by.” There's a world of difference between the lead-in and the conclusion.
Reuters also filed this today. “rebels trying to retake Ras Lanuf have been firing their assault rifles at helicopters overhead which fired machine guns at the rebel positions.” Or at least that's what the rebels said had happened, because Reuters didn't actually see it. Other reports on that live feed include a claim that one of Gaddafi’s sons was leading an attack on a heavily-defended Zawiyah at the head of a “brigade” of troops. A "pitched battle" was said to be going on. And if one knows that a military brigade comprises anything between 4 and 12 thousand men, had this been the case we would have been seeing hundreds of casualties this evening. But we are not. Fighting was said to have gone on throughout last night too, but there were apparently “no casualties.” "Battles" are said to be "raging" in several places and "bombing raids" have also gone on apparently. I even read somewhere about "random bombardments."
Over in France at Le Figaro we learn that there have been "bombardments" over several days, and there is a video filmed by a French crew in which they interview rebels who have been combating Mig and Mirage fighter-bombers. Meanwhile, The Washington Post says that "Brega was hit Thursday by at least three powerful air-strikes" although the paper does not say where it got that information from. The New York Times quotes someone saying that there had been "a massacre."
France24 carries an interesting story which is also typical of what we've been seeing. The headline reads 'Air Force carries out fresh raids on rebel-held east'. Fine. Except that the reporter says in his video report that he is 'confirming' air raids which were related to him by a member of the site's personnel who had not seen them himself but had heard eye-witness reports from others! And, of course, there's "no damage" because the weapons are said to have fallen outside the compound. Not a bomb or missile crater was to be seen.
There are many other examples of this sort of reporting, which is almost entirely based on second or even third-hand accounts of alleged events which have rarely been filmed or photographed by anyone. One of the only videos I was able to find on the Internet with footage of a bombing was said to have been filmed by an Al-Jazeera crew, but it turns out that is the same one that is at the top of this page, which is by CNN and was brought to my attention by Digital Journal's David Silverberg. There is precious little evidence which bears out the rest of the reports and many of the stories have come to the press from Twitter, FaceBook or email sources which are impossible to verify. Yet they are published in their dozens. Total death tolls in Libya have been put at anything between just a few hundred according to the Libyan government and as many as 6000 by The Libyan Human Rights League.
But there is more than the credibility of press reports at stake here. Moreover, the world's press is hardly to blame for this state of affairs seeing as it has been put under a high degree of controlled surveillance by the regime and seems to be doing the best it can in very difficult circumstances. But because the press's freedom is being abused all we have is a kind of "it is reported that..." journalism which is helping to shape public opinion and even government policy.
How can we know if a no-fly zone should be declared or not, given the paucity of verifiable information? How do we know that our governments are making the right decisions based on corroborated versions of events? Should we trust most of these reports, most of which are either from Libyan rebel or government sources? Who are 'the rebels' exactly? And who are the mercenaries? I ask that last question because at the moment I am about to put this online the BBC quotes (at 18:31) Peter Bouckaert, emergencies director at Human Rights Watch, as saying that many of the claims [concerning their numbers and origin} have been overplayed and that ""Since the beginning, we have been investigating reports of African mercenaries and most of these reports have been untrue."
I simply don't know enough about what is going on in Libya to make up my mind about what should be done, but if you think you do I would be grateful if you could tell me below the comment line where you found the hard and corroborated facts which helped you decide, because I am still waiting to see them.
This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of DigitalJournal.com
"Massacres, tank battles, murderous bombings, we've seen a flood of news describing these and other events in Libya recently but even a cursory study of the content shows that it consists mostly of second or third-hand accounts which cannot be verified." ->which cannot be verified, so not reliable
"seems to be something between a mix of hyperbole, inappropriate descriptions and unverifiable sources to describe conflicting claims from both sides. -> does make you wonder what is REALLY happening there, doesn't it?
"There's a world of difference between the lead-in and the conclusion."-> very well described
claims [concerning their numbers and origin} have been overplayed and that ""Since the beginning, we have been investigating reports of African mercenaries and most of these reports have been untrue." <!-- s:!: -->:!:<!-- s:!: -->
I simply don't know enough about what is going on in Libya to make up my mind about what should be done -> <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? --> same here
by everlastinglove_MJ » Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:08 am
As an open minded person, it's good to read the story behind the story. This background/profile info gives a better view on the man and his acts. Though he IS a dictator and I condemn his acts concerning human rights.
Gema wrote: @supervision,
Regarding what lybia is, that is why i made the comment about "tribes fighting".
To find some "truth" may be one should talk to a Lybian to see if this is really happening in the level is being promoted.
Sorry guys, Not much time to post a lengthy one as usual ..but pls check out this vid if you have not seen it, about how the Libyans are responding to this “dictator” who supposedly has violated their human rights...The news is obviously very biased.And the constant vilification of the Colonel,by the mainstream media, is really wearing too thin,and these folks read need a new writer or something to freshen up the same old lies and lines they told in IRAQ about SADDAM. <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: --> imo.
in the vid , pls. check out the fact that these people in Libya , are quite far from poor and ragged like the rest of most African countries,
and......Basically they have even enjoy a higher standard of living than even some European countries. <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
Raw Video: Gadhafi Supporters Pour Into Streets ..in YT
As for the “revolution” .
Comment: This is a fake revolution. Every Libyan should think carefully and protect the country from its enemies. Libya will be the next Iraq if all Libyans dont stop and think as one. The West has already started stealing Libyan money. This is not a revolution. Wake up Libyan people.
..My take is, that the "revolution" may / has been heavily funded by some “folks” , who are intent on their aim to break up the country in two or more pieces,to better exploit it, and weaken it. Gadhafi is what is holding it all together and that is why they zero in on getting rid of him. And I think the Libyans know that too, and they have true love for their leader as he does love them too , (well, not the 'protesters" obviously.. <!-- s --><!-- s --> )
That is what I understand about this issue so far, plus the grudge of the King Idris tribe (east Libya), though Gadhafi’s wife herself, his childrens mother, is from Baida , from the east.
Talk to you guys later...nice posts , but ,I really have to go back an reread later.
one thing though,before I go, the way the British officers got “caught” got me wondering wht the heck is going on over there in "the new Libyan provisional gov" ..the one that the rebels set up, with so much a hurry, with the defector Justice Min sister no less, who was just with the Colonel two weeks ago, (a real shameful clown of a character, if you ask me <!-- s --><!-- s --> )
.well, anyway, .hmmmm..I am thinking hard, lol never ever trust a Brit to save YOUR LIFE <!-- s --><!-- s -->
. . .
Sooo, the British officers(special forces)
The Rebels got them and under custody, and they say, they only just went to Bengazi just to talk to the opposition,to ask them what they wanted.. <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? --> ? I smell a big , big rat. <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) --> <!-- s --><!-- s --> British special forces. Hmmmmm...wonders never cease.
well check out the vid .. and see ya later...
<!-- m -->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybHYjuFx ... r_embedded<!-- m -->
Peace
As for the “revolution” .
Comment: This is a fake revolution. Every Libyan should think carefully and protect the country from its enemies. Libya will be the next Iraq if all Libyans dont stop and think as one. The West has already started stealing Libyan money. This is not a revolution. Wake up Libyan people.
My money is on that there will be an intervention.
I'm in the midst of reading the book "The Shock Doctrine: the Rise of Disaster Capitalism" by Naomi Klein. A very interesting read itself, but she has quoted another writer, Stephen Kinzer and his book "Overthrow". Can't quote either book here directly, but I found an interview where Kinzer explaines the same thing. It is quite interesting now that we're all looking at Libya:
"...Guernica: Your book traces a long tradition of preemptive regime change in United States foreign policy. Is there much difference between what we've seen in Iraq and the thirteen prior examples you examine in your book?
Stephen Kinzer: In telling the story of each of these 14 times that the U.S. overthrew a foreign government, I asked three questions about each episode. First, what happened? How did we overthrow the government of this country? Secondly, why did we do it? And third, from the perspective of history and from the perspective of today, what has been the long-term effect of these interventions? I studied these overthrows of foreign governments not as isolated unrelated incidents but as part of a long continuum. By doing that, you begin to pick out certain patterns. You also begin to realize that it's wrong to think of our invasion of Iraq as a great departure in American history.
Guernica: Tell me about that pattern. For instance, who are some of the recurring players?
Stephen Kinzer: The first thing that happens is a foreign government begins to bother or harass or restrict or regulate or nationalize some big foreign company. Usually, an American company. That's what starts the trouble. If governments do not become nationalist and do not try to control their own natural resources, they do not even come into the crosshairs of American leaders. The directors of these companies, outraged at attempts of some foreign government to regulate them, come to the White House and complain. That's the first phase.
The second phase is what happens to the intervention process while it's in the White House. American leaders do not intervene in foreign countries in order to protect foreign companies. They transform the motivation from an economic one to one that they call "political" or "geo-strategic." They allow themselves to become convinced that any government that would be bothering, harassing, restricting or taxing an American company must be anti-American, anti-capitalist, evil, repressive, and probably the tool of some outside interest that's trying to subvert American power in the world. That's the way the motivation morphs in the political process.
It then morphs one more time when American leaders have to explain to American citizens and others around the world why we carried out a particular intervention. At that point, we usually do not use the economic, or even the political, motivations to explain our actions. Instead, we say that we are intervening out of charity—that we are doing it to help an oppressed people who are being brutalized by an evil regime. This rationale works very well in the United States for two reasons. First of all, because Americans are compassionate people. We truly hate the idea that people in other areas are suffering. We want to help them. And, the second aspect of our character that allows us to embrace this argument is that we're actually very innocent and naive and, in many cases, ignorant about history and culture. This leads us to believe that anything we want to do is also possible. Generations of American leaders have played on this sense of American exceptionalism—the sense that the United States has a gift to give to the rest of the world in order to justify interventions abroad that have actually been planned for very different reasons. "
(<!-- m -->http://www.guernicamag.com/interviews/2 ... egime_cha/<!-- m -->)
Brings some interesting perspective to the current situation.
Someone here wrote that there's been western business in Libya - could there be phase one as explained above that triggered this?
Thanks for the link with love from the 156 countries. LOVE from everyone to everyone without judgments upon others, united in one message, that's how it should be.
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
Great care should be taken when passing judgment upon others. Jesus is telling us to look at our own lives first: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye" (vss. 3-5). As Spurgeon comments: "The judging faculty is best employed at home."[2] Jesus here expresses the importance of clearness of vision when judging others. If there is a plank in your own eye, you may very well be mis-seeing the speck in your brother's. "Casting out the [plank] will make us more clear-sighted, more sympathetic, and more skillful, in casting out the [speck]."[3] And, note well, that Jesus does not say to ignore the speck in your brother's eye. He says "first" take the plank out of your own eye, "then" you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. "The would-be helper's first priority must be to remove the obstacle to clearsightedness from his own eye. That done, he is equipped to bring aid to his brother. We should not overlook the point that the speck is to be removed... It is not unimportant that even this small defect be rectified."[4]
Jesus is telling us to look at our own lives first
look in the mirror
The would-be helper's first priority must be to remove the obstacle to clearsightedness from his own eye
Michael's quote: "If you wanna make the world a better place… Start with your mirror."
Comments
emerging markets; libya; gadaffi; frontier markets | oil
Libya has debt levels to die for and huge amounts of oil,
Robert Tashima, an editor for Oxford Business Group, highlighted the country’s “elephantine” levels of FX reserves, and the privatisation of 80 companies so far, with telecoms and steel sales slated for this year.
Rory Fyfe, an economist with the Economist Intelligence Unit, said he expected the country’s budget to remain in surplus and inflation under control, and pointed to high levels of non-oil growth
,
Charles Gurdon, managing director of Menas Associates, said in his presentation on politics..
that the lack of a designated successor to Muammar Gaddafi, who has led Libya for over 40 years, could lead to violence.
re: your quote about the truth being sacrificed.
a write up, below, all are invited to read if interested:
(long article <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: --> but worth reading, imo. <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) --> )
LIBIA: I funzionari russi chiamano le pretese della NATO un mucchio di bugie.
post pubblicato in damnatio memoriae, il 4 marzo 2011
Libya: Is the West lying again?
02.03.2011
Where is the evidence of the air strikes ordered by Colonel Gathafi against his "unarmed" civilians?
Is this yet another contrived pretext for the USA and its sycophantic allies in NATO to start an invasion?
Why is NATO speaking about enforcing a no-fly zone?
Who started the conflict in the first place?
Russian officials call the NATO claims a bunch of lies.
Let us be perfectly honest here. We are not dealing with well-meaning countries whose own history is flawless.
We are dealing, in many cases, with former imperialist powers which committed massacres, rode roughshod over peoples and laws and lores and cultures and imposed their own will by invading other territories, drawing lines on maps and "civilizing" vast swathes of the world with the Bible and the bullet. What a legacy.
We are dealing with those who launched a savage and illegal attack against Iraq, outside the auspices of the United Nations Organization,
we are dealing with those who lied through their teeth that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weaponry because he bought yellowcake uranium from Nigeria (when in fact the country producing it is Niger), an accusation refuted categorically by Mohamed El-Baradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
We are dealing with those who insulted Kofi Annan's UNO and his weapons inspectors in Iraq, who failed to find any evidence of an "immediate" threat to the USA and its allies,
we are dealing with those whose foreign ministers/secretaries of state claimed that Iraq had WMD, and that they knew where they were.
·
We are dealing with those who forged a causus belli based upon lies, fabrications and manipulation, cajoling, bullying and blackmail, those who stated that Saddam's WMD was "in Bagdad and Tikrit and north, south, east and west of there" (Rumsfeld),
with those whose officials had received shopping lists from Baghdad's museums already before the invasion,
those who deployed military hardware against civilian structures and then doled out billionaire reconstruction contracts - without tender - to White House cronies.
We are dealing with those who committed war crimes in Kosovo, in Afghanistan and in Iraq, all in the last decade, not to mention a myriad of other countries beforehand.
I.e. The GADHAFI REFERRAL for prosecution as a war criminal etc..
Nobody has yet referred for persecution who is responsible for dropping cluster bombs on civilians, nobody has yet referred who is responsible for acts of torture, illegal detention, strafing wedding parties with rockets, deploying Depleted Uranium against civilians, or indeed phosphorous attacks on schools, to the Hague War Crimes Tribunal, or International Criminal Court, as it is called –
the one that ordered the kidnapping and illegal detention of Slobodan Milosevic before he died in its custody,
God alone knows how.
So now the same clique of warmongers, whose foreign offices and military have been involved in wars ,since time immemorial, accuse Colonel Muammar Gathafi of war crimes, namely bombing his own people with aviation.
Russian officials call these claims a bunch of lies. Russia Today correspondent Irina Galusho interviewed members of Russia's Joint Chiefs of Staff, who claimed "Some of the reports made by western media are not entirely corresponding to the pictures they are getting"
Where are the air strikes, for example, registered by the BBC and Al Jazeera, on February 22, on Benghazi?
The Libyan government has ordered its aviation to strike against arms depots to stop them falling into the hands of the rebels (not unarmed civilians, but terrorists) since then, but the initial statement that the Government was using air strikes against "protesters" fails to produce any evidence. Basically because there isn't any.
And for those who made such claims, in the media and in governments?
Where is the accountability?
These politicians lie and remain in office?
These journalists fabricate evidence and continue to work as if nothing had happened?
Perhaps Colonel Gaddafy should have ordered attacks by predator drones against the civilians, then he may have won a Nobel Peace Prize, like President Obama.
Maybe he should have enticed them into a football match, like the British Black and Tans did with the Irish, and then mown them down with machine guns.
Or how about a Lynndie England style "just having fun" medieval torture chamber, à la Abu Ghraib?
In short, the West is once again fabricating evidence, lying and manipulating the media, as it did in the Balkans, when an absurd image was shown of Bosnian "refugees" in a Serbian "concentration camp", when in fact the images were taken from within a barbed wire perimeter to protect Serbs against marauding terrorists... and as it has done so many times.
Time for the circus to move on, starting with Libya and ending with Iran.
After all, Hillary Clinton represents what?
The will of the people of the United States of America, or AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee)?
Amid the hype, from the bought western media, no reference to the great contribution Colonel Gadhafi has made, namely in helping to free countless peoples from the yolk of colonialism - without any personal gain,
i.e. Colonel Gadhafi , a real freedom fighter - no reference to the fact that Libya has the greatest Human Development Index in Africa.
Some dictator, eh
?
No mention of the fact that Gadhafi wrote the Green Book, expounding the Third Way of economic theory, and that he has implemented its teachings in Libya, namely the government of Libya by the Libyan people
..
.the quality of life for Libyan is over a hundred times better than it was when he took over in 1969, when he instilled a policy of control of Libyan resources by Libyans for Libyans, then literacy rates rose from 10 to 90 per cent.
Is this a dictator?
Is he any more tyrannical than others who control countries in the Middle East?
And that goes for the behaviour of the USA as well in Iraq...
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey
Pravda.Ru
<!-- m -->http://criticatestuale.ilcannocchiale.i ... chiam.html<!-- m -->
@by everlastinglove_
thanks for the links, I will check out some of them, but Al Jezeera..has got to be one of the worst Liars on God’s green earth . <!-- s
<!-- s
Shame that the Arabs would do this to each other,(Libyan report?), that station is Qatar /Saudi owned and not much more than a propaganda machine for its owners basically the same as all other mainstream media? <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: --> .
Also note the link of the above article,if you are interested, seems to carry alternative views, compared to the corporate mouths, like Fox CNN BBC Reuters et.al...
Peace
<!-- s
No, the pic is, that Libya is a tribal country ,over 140 different tribes are in Libya,
here is a link an excerpt that gives a clearer pic , if you wish to know more about this Man and his country /people..etc
<!-- m -->http://mercurymail.blogspot.com/<!-- m -->
Make up your own Mind
Libya and the Colnel:
When Gaddaffi took power he took over a non-country with a large number of tribes composed of a small population on a tremendously big area.
The country was ruled by a king who took the oil revenue as his private income as it was the use amongst the bedu tribes, the chief took all.
Gaddaffi was a very poor boy with a brilliant mind, born in Sirte and his local teachers advised his father to send him to a better school.
His father didn’t have the money and sent Gaddaffi, aged 11/12 on a 250 km donkey trip through the desert from Sirte to an uncle, a chieftain in Misurata. The boy went to school and continued to the military academy.
After he graduated he was confronted with a hopelessly divided extremely poor non-country under the rule of king Idriss.
Idriss was of Cyrenaica origin and a religious leader of the Senussi, a sufi sect. He was born at Al-Jaghbub, near the Egyptian border.
He became the Emir of Cyrenaica with the approval of the Britiish after WWII
When the British made him Emir of Tripolitana he could become king of Libya, with British approval.
This was one more idiotic British decision. Joining Cyrenaica(Benghazi area) with Tripolitana(Sirte and Tripoli area) under a Cyrenaica king was a disaster waiting to happen.
The oil was originally found exclusively in Sirte Basin and the Tripolitana tribes saw their riches disappear in a Cyrenaica pocket, literally, the country got nothing.
When Gaddaffi graduated the country was extremely poor and the oil exploitation was in the hands of American and British companies, which paid royalties to Idriss.
Agriculture, Libya has about 500.000 sq. km. rich agricultural land, was in the hands of Italian families, who had fled during the war but were still owners-in-absentia.
After Gaddaffi took power he invited the Italian families and arranged a payment for the Libyan State to aquire the property.
The biggest property, Al Khadra, was an olive plantation, started by the Italians in the 1930’s and probably one of the biggest and best in the world.
Today, after many pieces of the plantation were developed for modern construction projects, the remaining plantation is still covering 40.000 hectares with 6 milliom olive trees. It has natural irrigation by 6 months rain each year.
Gaddaffi went with 3 Willy’s jeeps to the old palace of the king, who was for medical treatment in Turkey, and took over the country.
He declared immediately that the oil and the riches of the country belonged to all Libyans and reinforced the power of the tribal chiefs.
The old tribal customs were respected and every Libyan, respected as an honest man in his own tribe, could at any time go to his tribal chief for his requests, problems or justice.
This was of course a Libya for the Libyans system.
It has been said that Libya followed the Marxist system of the Soviet Union.
Here you have a young officer,with absolutely no friend in the world, hated by the biggest corporations in the world, which were told to leave the country and the oilfields, and he has no clue what a modern society or country looks like, nor how the Western democracies function.
All he knows about Western democracies is the Italian colonialism, the German and British warfare on Libyan soil and the Libyan deaths it all created.
Talk about values? What values? Exploitation and warfare.
On the other hand the Russians offer a hand in the construction of his country and they are introduced by an Arab hero: Nasser from Egypt.
Of course he accepted Russian help and advise, of course he went his own socialist ways, equality and freedom for all, no kings, the people are sovereign, poor people are having finally a voice.
So Gaddaffi accepted Russian help and advise, and created his own socialist muslim brand.
The only people who were not satisfied were the people from Benghazi, Tobruk and the Egyptians who lost all privileges, Idriss significantly had fled to Egypt and lived in a Cairo luxury home until his death at the age of 93.
Gaddaffi made sure that all Libyans were treated equally and he made it a point of honor that each and every Libyan had direct access to him in case of abuse of power by any other authority.
In the beginning he took tea in the small tea-houses in Tripoli or Sirte together with the common people until the assassination attempts started, all coming from Benghazi and/or Egypt.
He slept in army barracks and had no home of its own
.
The Chief of Air Staff told me the story that one day he came in his room and found the body of a soldier, wrapped in a blanket on the concrete floor, next to his bed.
He kicked the soldier to wake him up and move so that he could go to bed himself, and Gaddaffi unwrapped himself out of the blanket.
The Chief of Air Staff apologized profusely but Gaddaffi told him to shut up, that it was his fault and he apologized to the Chief for using his room.
When the assassination attempts started he constructed himself a fortress in Tripoli, but spent most of his time in a tent in the dessert, moving all the time.
When the Americans bombed his fortress he was in a tent in the dessert
.
Gaddaffi knew that he had a tribal patchwork which had disaster incorporated in it, aggravated by the Beduïn character of the people.
When a Beduin meets another Beduin for the first time they will identify themselves first through the tribe, then the family and afterwards they will look for mutual relations.
This can last normally half an hour <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: -->
. After that they will decide if it’s worth continuing talking or not.
A foreigner like me is identified through his Libyan friends. If there are absolutely no connections between the two it’s better not to continue, there will be no trust until such time that there is a connection somewhere.
State structure
Gaddaffi made following structure:
- Every tribe has its own tribe council and tribal representatives who represent the tribal council
- The tribal council representatives are seated in the Revolutionary Council(the Libyan type parliament), which takes all decisions.
- Moammar Gaddaffi is the brother leader who takes and gives advice to the Revolutionary Council.
- We know what that means, but it is true that all projects, claims and complaints are really discussed by that Revolutionary council and Gaddaffi is no fool, he knows when something is false or true, he takes serious notice of everything which is happening in his country at grass-roots level.
- On television, during hours of speeches he really tells his people the truth, he really talks to them like a father and admonishes them.
- Further every province has a local governor-administrator, mostly a very honest old guard general.
The ones I met are normally clad the poorest of the delegation with old battle dresses and open sandals of rough leather.
They are simple Bedu’s who command very serious budgets. (Billions.$$$$$$$$$$$. <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
read more on link..
<!-- m -->http://mercurymail.blogspot.com/<!-- m -->
.
Exactly. That is why,imo. the colonel would be their best bet for now, until they take their time and organize their system for transmission of power , constitution/ laws etc. Iraq was an outright invasion by the west, you know, for the oil, and to carry more influence in the area as well,protection of Israel is a paramount concern as well.Plus the threat of IRAN etc.
.
well read more on link... re: about the Gadhafi family, the sons and the Lawyer daughter etc .....
<!-- m -->http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... -1,00.html<!-- m -->
<!-- m -->http://annalsofunsolvedcrimes.blogspot. ... attei.html<!-- m -->
Peace.
<!-- s
No seriously, you wrote "has got to be one of the worst Liars". Although Jazeera's independence has been tested and doubted according to the next article, AJ is still considered as an independent source. Of course it's up to you to consider it as reliable or not.
<!-- m -->http://newamericamedia.org/2010/12/wiki ... s-heel.php<!-- m -->
In October, Al Jazeera played a leading role in examining a huge trove of classified American documents released through WikiLeaks. It brought to light important revelations on a wide range of topics, including the killings of hundreds of civilians at coalition roadblocks and the U.S role in Iraqi state torture.
This time, however, as WikiLeaks released more than 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables extending from the mid-1960s to the present day, Al Jazeera has opted for the back seat.
Its coverage of what the Italian foreign minister called “9/11 of diplomacy” for the most part has been shallow, sometimes based on translated and paraphrased articles from the New York Times and the Los Angles Times — for a very good reason.
This time the subject of the embarrassing leaks involves not only the United States, but also the leaders of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, including Qatar, Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Kuwait.
The leaked U.S. diplomatic cables have shown that Qatar shares the other GCC states’ view that Iran is the primary threat, not Israel.
This is completely contradictory to what the ruling family in Qatar has been saying in public. It is also contrary to Al Jazeera’s own coverage, which presents Israel as the primary threat, not Iran. In fact, Qatar probably boasts the closest ties with Iran of all the GCC states.
Now, the leaked U.S. cables expose Muslim countries backstabbing another Muslim country. That is one of the ugliest acts a Muslim can perform. The Prophet Muhammad, in fact, compared it to “eating the flesh of one’s own dead brother.”
Al Jazeera tried to mitigate the embarrassment by singling out the roles of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, saying that the two kingdoms strongly urged the United States to strike Iranian military facilities, contrary to what those countries have been saying in public. Al Jazeera conveniently attributed the information to a Los Angles Times article.
What Al Jazeera totally ignored, however, was the role that Qatar played in highlighting the Iranian threat against the United States.
According to one of the leaked U.S. diplomatic cables, the Qatari Emir Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani told Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) last February that, based on 30 years of experience, (to paraphrase) the Iranians will give you 100 words but you should trust only one of them.
The Qatari Prime Minister Hamad Al Thani also told Kerry that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had told him: "We beat the Americans in Iraq; the final battle will be in Iran."
Assad Abukhalil, professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus, who has appeared numerous times on Al Jazeera, strongly criticized the network on the radio show Democracy Now.
During the interview, he said: “I think the extent to which the Saudi government—and all Arab governments in the Gulf—are embarrassed by these leaks is evidenced by the clampdown that is being exhibited throughout the Saudi-controlled Arab media. And even the so-called 'independent' Al Jazeera— which, contrary to its reputation here in the West, is the most serious news organization—is also trying to cover up the embarrassing revelations about the way Arab governments operate vis-à-vis the United States.”
Al Jazeera television not only found itself in an awkward position because its “independence” was tested, but also because the leaked cables raised an important question about its coverage of Iranian affairs, which tends to be more positive than that of other Arab television networks.
For example, Al Jazeera often assiduously covers Israeli violations against Palestinians as well as U.S. violations in Afghanistan and Iraq, while ignoring Iranian violations against Arabs such as the oppression of Arabs in the Iranian province of Khuzestan, bordering the Iraqi province of Basra, and the occupation of the three UAE islands of Abu Masa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb.
This helps Iran improve its image among Arabs and distracts them from the growing Iranian influence in the oil-rich region in southern Iraq. Iran’s support for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is also ignored by Al Jazeera.
The question is: Why does Al Jazeera make Iran look good despite the mistrust between the two neighboring countries, Qatar and Iran?
Qatar shares several offshore gas fields with Iran,including al-Shaheen and South Pars, which makes it extremely important to have good relations with its strong neighbor. In fact, Qatar’s livelihood as a nation depends on its good relations with Iran.
"Iran, if it wanted to, could click its fingers and sever Qatar's money,” David Roberts, a doctoral candidate in Qatari foreign policy at Durham University in England, wrote on The Gulf Blog.
However, Qatar also uses U.S. military presence on its territory to deter any possible Iranian infringement on the shared offshore oil fields. According to secret diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks, “Qatar agreed to pay 60 percent of the upkeep costs for the Al-Udeid airbase, which has already been used by the U.S. military to launch air sorties in Iraq.” It agreed to support its use against Iran as long as the South Par natural gas fields were not threatened.
Qatar’s willingness to host the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East is, in effect, a diplomatic balancing act against the threat of Iran.
According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, a WikiLeaks document quoted Mossad chief Meir Dagan saying to American diplomats, "I think that you should remove your bases from [Qatar]…[The Qataris] owe their security to the presence of the Americans]."
Arguably, Al Jazeera’s coverage of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is still superior to that of all other Arab television networks, which explains why it’s still the most watched Arab news source. However, Al Jazeera’s failure to report on the recent U.S. leaked cables highlights its Achilles’ heel: the Qatari ruling family and its powerful neighbor, Iran.
<!-- m -->http://www.kansascity.com/2011/02/10/26 ... zeera.html<!-- m -->
<!-- m -->http://www.allvoices.com/news/6014873-a ... d-coverage<!-- m -->
As an open minded person, it's good to read the story behind the story. This background/profile info gives a better view on the man and his acts. Though he IS a dictator and I condemn his acts concerning human rights.
Massacres, tank battles, murderous bombings, we've seen a flood of news describing these and other events in Libya recently but even a cursory study of the content shows that it consists mostly of second or third-hand accounts which cannot be verified.
I have had an uneasy feeling about the coverage coming out of Libya ever since the fighting began in earnest two weeks ago. Much of it seems to lack solidity and substance and the modus operandi seems to be something between a mix of hyperbole, inappropriate descriptions and unverifiable sources to describe conflicting claims from both sides.
Today's coverage has followed this pattern and here is a look at what has been happening.
The Guardian reported this on its Libya Live feed at 2:53. “Reuters correspondent Mohammed Abbas is within sight of the battlefield in Ras Lanuf. He said: ‘There are lots of flames, thuds and bangs. There is the wailing of sirens and puffs of smoke in the air. More and more rebels with heavy artillery are streaming by to the front-line.’ One could be forgiven that Abbas was describing a WWII battle, complete with battalions of troops and artillery and a flak barrage targeting swarms of fighter planes. But he wasn’t. This was Libya, and he completed his dispatch with the rather more modest assertion that “ ...an anti-aircraft gun mounted on a truck and an anti-tank gun were the latest to go by.” There's a world of difference between the lead-in and the conclusion.
Reuters also filed this today. “rebels trying to retake Ras Lanuf have been firing their assault rifles at helicopters overhead which fired machine guns at the rebel positions.” Or at least that's what the rebels said had happened, because Reuters didn't actually see it. Other reports on that live feed include a claim that one of Gaddafi’s sons was leading an attack on a heavily-defended Zawiyah at the head of a “brigade” of troops. A "pitched battle" was said to be going on. And if one knows that a military brigade comprises anything between 4 and 12 thousand men, had this been the case we would have been seeing hundreds of casualties this evening. But we are not. Fighting was said to have gone on throughout last night too, but there were apparently “no casualties.” "Battles" are said to be "raging" in several places and "bombing raids" have also gone on apparently. I even read somewhere about "random bombardments."
Over in France at Le Figaro we learn that there have been "bombardments" over several days, and there is a video filmed by a French crew in which they interview rebels who have been combating Mig and Mirage fighter-bombers. Meanwhile, The Washington Post says that "Brega was hit Thursday by at least three powerful air-strikes" although the paper does not say where it got that information from. The New York Times quotes someone saying that there had been "a massacre."
France24 carries an interesting story which is also typical of what we've been seeing. The headline reads 'Air Force carries out fresh raids on rebel-held east'. Fine. Except that the reporter says in his video report that he is 'confirming' air raids which were related to him by a member of the site's personnel who had not seen them himself but had heard eye-witness reports from others! And, of course, there's "no damage" because the weapons are said to have fallen outside the compound. Not a bomb or missile crater was to be seen.
There are many other examples of this sort of reporting, which is almost entirely based on second or even third-hand accounts of alleged events which have rarely been filmed or photographed by anyone. One of the only videos I was able to find on the Internet with footage of a bombing was said to have been filmed by an Al-Jazeera crew, but it turns out that is the same one that is at the top of this page, which is by CNN and was brought to my attention by Digital Journal's David Silverberg. There is precious little evidence which bears out the rest of the reports and many of the stories have come to the press from Twitter, FaceBook or email sources which are impossible to verify. Yet they are published in their dozens. Total death tolls in Libya have been put at anything between just a few hundred according to the Libyan government and as many as 6000 by The Libyan Human Rights League.
But there is more than the credibility of press reports at stake here. Moreover, the world's press is hardly to blame for this state of affairs seeing as it has been put under a high degree of controlled surveillance by the regime and seems to be doing the best it can in very difficult circumstances. But because the press's freedom is being abused all we have is a kind of "it is reported that..." journalism which is helping to shape public opinion and even government policy.
How can we know if a no-fly zone should be declared or not, given the paucity of verifiable information? How do we know that our governments are making the right decisions based on corroborated versions of events? Should we trust most of these reports, most of which are either from Libyan rebel or government sources? Who are 'the rebels' exactly? And who are the mercenaries? I ask that last question because at the moment I am about to put this online the BBC quotes (at 18:31) Peter Bouckaert, emergencies director at Human Rights Watch, as saying that many of the claims [concerning their numbers and origin} have been overplayed and that ""Since the beginning, we have been investigating reports of African mercenaries and most of these reports have been untrue."
I simply don't know enough about what is going on in Libya to make up my mind about what should be done, but if you think you do I would be grateful if you could tell me below the comment line where you found the hard and corroborated facts which helped you decide, because I am still waiting to see them.
This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of DigitalJournal.com
Read more: <!-- m -->http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/3 ... z1FjVhvNSX<!-- m -->
"Massacres, tank battles, murderous bombings, we've seen a flood of news describing these and other events in Libya recently but even a cursory study of the content shows that it consists mostly of second or third-hand accounts which cannot be verified." ->which cannot be verified, so not reliable
"seems to be something between a mix of hyperbole, inappropriate descriptions and unverifiable sources to describe conflicting claims from both sides. -> does make you wonder what is REALLY happening there, doesn't it?
"There's a world of difference between the lead-in and the conclusion." -> very well described
claims [concerning their numbers and origin} have been overplayed and that ""Since the beginning, we have been investigating reports of African mercenaries and most of these reports have been untrue." <!-- s:!: -->:!:<!-- s:!: -->
I simply don't know enough about what is going on in Libya to make up my mind about what should be done -> <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? --> same here
[youtube:1ar3sjrv]
That explains it all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Regarding what lybia is, that is why i made the comment about "tribes fighting".
I read all the posts. To find some "truth" may be one should talk to a Lybian to see if this is really happening in the level is being promoted.
My gosh! a man burned himself in Tunisia and that lead to all this revolutions in a domino effect? <!-- s:| -->:|<!-- s:| -->
in the vid , pls. check out the fact that these people in Libya , are quite far from poor and ragged like the rest of most African countries,
and......Basically they have even enjoy a higher standard of living than even some European countries. <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
Raw Video: Gadhafi Supporters Pour Into Streets ..in YT
<!-- m -->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybHYjuFx ... r_embedded<!-- m -->
As for the “revolution” .
Comment:
This is a fake revolution. Every Libyan should think carefully and protect the country from its enemies. Libya will be the next Iraq if all Libyans dont stop and think as one. The West has already started stealing Libyan money. This is not a revolution. Wake up Libyan people.
..My take is, that the "revolution" may / has been heavily funded by some “folks” , who are intent on their aim to break up the country in two or more pieces,to better exploit it, and weaken it. Gadhafi is what is holding it all together and that is why they zero in on getting rid of him. And I think the Libyans know that too, and they have true love for their leader as he does love them too , (well, not the 'protesters" obviously.. <!-- s
That is what I understand about this issue so far, plus the grudge of the King Idris tribe (east Libya), though Gadhafi’s wife herself, his childrens mother, is from Baida , from the east.
Talk to you guys later...nice posts , but ,I really have to go back an reread later.
one thing though,before I go, the way the British officers got “caught” got me wondering wht the heck is going on over there in "the new Libyan provisional gov" ..the one that the rebels set up, with so much a hurry, with the defector Justice Min sister no less, who was just with the Colonel two weeks ago, (a real shameful clown of a character, if you ask me <!-- s
.well, anyway, .hmmmm..I am thinking hard, lol never ever trust a Brit to save YOUR LIFE <!-- s
. . .
Sooo, the British officers(special forces)
The Rebels got them and under custody, and they say, they only just went to Bengazi just to talk to the opposition,to ask them what they wanted.. <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? --> ?
I smell a big , big rat. <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) --> <!-- s
British special forces. Hmmmmm...wonders never cease.
well check out the vid .. and see ya later...
<!-- m -->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybHYjuFx ... r_embedded<!-- m -->
Peace
My money is on that there will be an intervention.
I'm in the midst of reading the book "The Shock Doctrine: the Rise of Disaster Capitalism" by Naomi Klein. A very interesting read itself, but she has quoted another writer, Stephen Kinzer and his book "Overthrow". Can't quote either book here directly, but I found an interview where Kinzer explaines the same thing. It is quite interesting now that we're all looking at Libya:
"...Guernica: Your book traces a long tradition of preemptive regime change in United States foreign policy. Is there much difference between what we've seen in Iraq and the thirteen prior examples you examine in your book?
Stephen Kinzer: In telling the story of each of these 14 times that the U.S. overthrew a foreign government, I asked three questions about each episode. First, what happened? How did we overthrow the government of this country? Secondly, why did we do it? And third, from the perspective of history and from the perspective of today, what has been the long-term effect of these interventions? I studied these overthrows of foreign governments not as isolated unrelated incidents but as part of a long continuum. By doing that, you begin to pick out certain patterns. You also begin to realize that it's wrong to think of our invasion of Iraq as a great departure in American history.
Guernica: Tell me about that pattern. For instance, who are some of the recurring players?
Stephen Kinzer: The first thing that happens is a foreign government begins to bother or harass or restrict or regulate or nationalize some big foreign company. Usually, an American company. That's what starts the trouble. If governments do not become nationalist and do not try to control their own natural resources, they do not even come into the crosshairs of American leaders. The directors of these companies, outraged at attempts of some foreign government to regulate them, come to the White House and complain. That's the first phase.
The second phase is what happens to the intervention process while it's in the White House. American leaders do not intervene in foreign countries in order to protect foreign companies. They transform the motivation from an economic one to one that they call "political" or "geo-strategic." They allow themselves to become convinced that any government that would be bothering, harassing, restricting or taxing an American company must be anti-American, anti-capitalist, evil, repressive, and probably the tool of some outside interest that's trying to subvert American power in the world. That's the way the motivation morphs in the political process.
It then morphs one more time when American leaders have to explain to American citizens and others around the world why we carried out a particular intervention. At that point, we usually do not use the economic, or even the political, motivations to explain our actions. Instead, we say that we are intervening out of charity—that we are doing it to help an oppressed people who are being brutalized by an evil regime. This rationale works very well in the United States for two reasons. First of all, because Americans are compassionate people. We truly hate the idea that people in other areas are suffering. We want to help them. And, the second aspect of our character that allows us to embrace this argument is that we're actually very innocent and naive and, in many cases, ignorant about history and culture. This leads us to believe that anything we want to do is also possible. Generations of American leaders have played on this sense of American exceptionalism—the sense that the United States has a gift to give to the rest of the world in order to justify interventions abroad that have actually been planned for very different reasons. "
(<!-- m -->http://www.guernicamag.com/interviews/2 ... egime_cha/<!-- m -->)
Brings some interesting perspective to the current situation.
Someone here wrote that there's been western business in Libya - could there be phase one as explained above that triggered this?
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1926917
Thanks for the link with love from the 156 countries. LOVE from everyone to everyone without judgments upon others, united in one message, that's how it should be.
Matthew 7,3
As a reaction to your quote I found <!-- m -->http://www.scripturestudies.com/Vol6/F5/f5_nt.html<!-- m -->
Great care should be taken when passing judgment upon others. Jesus is telling us to look at our own lives first: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye" (vss. 3-5). As Spurgeon comments: "The judging faculty is best employed at home."[2] Jesus here expresses the importance of clearness of vision when judging others. If there is a plank in your own eye, you may very well be mis-seeing the speck in your brother's. "Casting out the [plank] will make us more clear-sighted, more sympathetic, and more skillful, in casting out the [speck]."[3] And, note well, that Jesus does not say to ignore the speck in your brother's eye. He says "first" take the plank out of your own eye, "then" you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. "The would-be helper's first priority must be to remove the obstacle to clearsightedness from his own eye. That done, he is equipped to bring aid to his brother. We should not overlook the point that the speck is to be removed... It is not unimportant that even this small defect be rectified."[4]
look in the mirror
Michael's quote: "If you wanna make the world a better place… Start with your mirror."
Wise words, sooo true.