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.