A New York Times piece by C.J. Chivers (7/13/11) presents a scary picture of Libyan rebel behavior:
Rebels in the mountains in Libya’s west have looted and damaged four towns seized since last month from the forces of Col. Muammar el-Gadhafi, part of a series of abuses and apparent reprisals against suspected loyalists that have chased residents of these towns away, Human Rights Watch said Tuesday.
The looting included many businesses and at least two medical centers that, like the towns, are now deserted and bare.
Rebel fighters also beat people suspected of being loyalists and burned their homes, the organization said….
Some of the abuses, Human Rights Watch said, were directed against members of the Mashaashia tribe, which has long supported Colonel Gadhafi.
Chivers later writes:
Rebel conduct in the war has been mixed. Many captured pro-Gadhafi soldiers have received medical treatment in rebel hospitals and have been kept in detention centers that nongovernment organizations have been allowed to visit.
But Colonel Gadhafi’s soldiers have also been beaten at the point of capture, and some have been shot, including several prisoners in the besieged city of Misurata who were shot through the feet, either as a punishment or as a means to prevent escape.
Rebels have also been seen by journalists repeatedly firing makeshift rocket launchers indiscriminately into territory or towns held by the Gadhafi forces.
But as if to try to repair some of the PR damage, the New York Times follows that with this:
Such rebels actions, however, have paled next to the abuses of Colonel Gadhafi’s forces, which have fired on unarmed demonstrators and used artillery, rocket batteries and mortars against many rebel-held cities and towns.
Phones taken from dead or wounded soldiers have yielded images that strongly suggested that some of Colonel Gadhafi’s units have executed detainees.
The colonel’s forces have also ransacked and looted homes and businesses on many fronts throughout the war.
So the real abuses of the war are by Gadhafi, who’s attacked civilians, fired indiscriminately into residential areas, executed detainees and looted homes and businesses.
The alert reader will notice that these are the exact same crimes the Times has just said the rebels have been committing.
See “Gadhafi’s Cluster Bombs–and Uncle Sam’s” (FAIR Blog, 4/16/11) for another example of Chivers’ skillful employment of the double standard.
Given how often this occurs, may I suggest that “pale” as an active verb be added to the language – as in, “Corpress accounts have paled the crimes of the Western-backed forces in their comparisons with those of the regime.”
It sounds a little odd at first, but with regular usage …
You’ll notice the CJChivers notes ongoing civilians MURDER committed by Gaddafi forces (the indiscriminate shelling of civilians areas in Nalut, Zintan, Misrata etc). How you can call that comparable to the rebel crimes detailed by CJChivers latest article (isolated beatings and arsen) I have no idea.
He doesn’t say rebel atrocities are not “real”, that is your own spin you’ve added in an attempt to portray him as playing down one side. And then he says Qaddafi’s forces committed far worse, that’s the point you seem bent on avoiding. How come?
Saying that one side’s crimes “paled” in comparison to the other sides’ *is* playing down the first side’s crimes.
Note that both sides are described by the article as firing indiscriminately into civilian areas. Both sides are portrayed as attacking civilians, the rebels apparently singling out targets for abuse based on ethnicity. Both sides are described as shooting prisoners.
Only the Gadhafi government is reported to be firing on protesters–which is not surprising, given that there does not seem to be a widespread pro-government protest movement.
If Chivers has a basis for his assertion that the government’s crimes are far worse than those of the rebels, he does not make it clear in this article.
Hell, don’t read the rag. It lies. All of them do. Their existence, like that of broadcasters, depends on Chamber of Commerce money, from all the peddlers who advertise. The nooze media select the stories, then change them around to suit the folks with the bucks. That’s the way it’s always been.
In response to Jim Naureckas
>Both sides are portrayed as attacking civilians
The rebels are accused of isolated incidents of beating civilians, while the Gaddafi regime is accused of MURDERING civilians. Hardly comparable. You”ll notice Human Rights Watch, in their latest Nafusa Mountain report, found NO indication of rebels murdering pro-gaddafi civilians.
>Both sides are described as shooting prisoners.
The rebels are described as on occasion shooting prisoners in the foot to keep them from running away. The gaddafi regime forces are accused of murdering prisoners. Once again, hardly comparable. HRW found no evidence of the rebels murdering prisoners, and as the NYT article points out, HRW and NYT were given unrestricted access to POWs held by the rebels.
Given all your exaggeration, one wonders what YOUR personal bias is and why you have chosen to so widely skew the NYT article.
I do not see any” friendlies”on Libyan shores to speak of.Im not sure who it is that will be sharing high fives with our president the day after Gadhafi falls.In a war you usually have sides, with allies.If you asked me what Libyan faction is on OUR SIDE….I would say no one.
Heard the col was celebrating today.He even painted a donkey green.Seems the insurgency and American and nato strikes are failing.Obamas war is predictably going down hill.
“The rebels are accused of isolated incidents of beating civilians, while the Gaddafi regime is accused of MURDERING civilians. Hardly comparable.”
Not exactly. The article quoted actually says “Gadhafi’s soldiers have also been beaten at the point of capture, and some have been shot, INCLUDING several prisoners in the besieged city of Misurata who were shot through the feet, either as a punishment or as a means to prevent escape” [emphasis mine]. The circumstances involved in all of those who were shot aren’t made clear, but generally some people who are shot die. The word “isolated” is never used.
“Human Rights Watch, in their latest Nafusa Mountain report, found NO indication of rebels murdering pro-gaddafi civilians.
Other reports have described the murder of civilians by rebel forces. See http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/lynch-law-and-summary-executions-rebel-held-libya, for instance; such reports which have been studiously ignored by the Western press. But the article Naureckas describes here doesn’t mention the HRW report, it describes rebel behaviour and contrasts it to that of the Libyan military, concluding there are massive differences between the two despite the fact that the behaviour actually described is very similar.
“The rebels are described as on occasion shooting prisoners in the foot to keep them from running away.”
They are described as shooting Qaddafi supporters. The phrase “on occasion” isn’t used, and the circumstances you describe above explicitly don’t cover all such incidents.
“The gaddafi regime forces are accused of murdering prisoners. Once again, hardly comparable.”
The word “murder” doesn’t appear in the article, which mentions cell phone camera images that suggest that some rebels were executed.
“Given all your exaggeration, one wonders what YOUR personal bias is and why you have chosen to so widely skew the NYT article.”
I would say the same thing about your mischaracterization of Naureckas’ post. The NYT article essentially lists 2 sets of very similar actions then characterizes one of them as far worse as the other (favourably corresponding to the group the US supports over the one it opposes merely coincidentally, I’m sure). It may very well be that Qaddafi’s crimes are worse than those of the rebels; it would certainly be historically unusual for it to be otherwise, given the balance of power involved. The NYT article doesn’t establish this one way or the other however; it lazily assumes it as a given, despite the 2 sets of facts it actually lists. This is standard procedure for imperial media transcriptors like the NYT, which is hardly concerned what the facts say since its conclusions are predetermined. FAIR is right to point this out.
I think FAIR is doing this issue partial justice at best, and is failing to be objective.
The problems of perspective are multiple. A major distortion in this article from the start is how NATO’s Libya warfare is just erased from the discussion, as if this is just a civil war in a global vacuum. Furthermore, the general perspective of drawing a hypothetical “equal sign” between the alleged atrocities of a nation’s government and those of what are clearly puppet forces fighting as surrogates of former colonizers of the nation is warped; war crimes of aggression are the ultimate crimes, according to the Nuremberg standard.
Just as in the “Gadhafi’s Cluster’s Bombs – and Uncle Sam’s” article, FAIR is jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions regarding Gadhafi. I’d deconsructed Chiver’s propagandistic “cluster bomb” article further beyond FAIR’s circumscription in the comments section of that previous article.
As was my goal in that previous endeavor, Human Rights Investigations (HRI) has disproved Chiver’s (and other media outlets’) claims that only Gadhafi’s forces was capable of using the controversial weapons in Misrata, making alleged proof of Libya government ‘atrocities’ in this case into no proof at all. See “The use of cluster munitions in Misrata”
http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/05/25/the-cluster-bombing-of-misrata-the-case-against-the-usa/
It seems obvious that the NATO / Libyan “rebel” alliance and various groups and media organizations are capable of demonizing Gadhafi and pronouncing him and whatever constitutes the current Libyan government guilty of crimes which have not been proven. Why we should accept an “Alice in Wonderland” “verdict before the trial” scenario shows a quite distorted journalistic reality.
Assuming that Gadhafi is guilty of atrocities before any court proceedings is absurd, considering the record of the self-appointed ‘judge and jury” corporate press in slandering perceived enemies, generating hate and failing to provide authentic evidence related to alleged crimes of heads of nations subjected to Western nations’ serial aggressions. An objective viewpoint here also calls for considering the obvious kangaroo court qualities of the ICC prosecution, which is being controlled by the Libyan government’s political enemies; and also considering the African Union rejection of the ICC’s dubious Ghadafi-Libyan ‘atrocities’ prosecution / persecution.
Sweat and sour
I can’t find much good to say about the good Col.He is, and always has been a nut. Sometimes comical,sometimes dangerous.My question is what changed?Why now?And by what authority?
We all agree how the Afghan war began.Iraq is debated but the bottom line is Saddam broke every caveat of his surrender terms.Any one of which would give legal right to a resumption of the war. Whether or not it was wise is another story.But Congress did have a voice.But Lybia now?How is it in our national interest?