USA Today (3/23/11):
WASHINGTON–The top commander of the allied air war to protect civilians in besieged Libyan cities said the forces of Moammar Gadhafi must pull out or face attack, a task analysts say is complicated by the risk of bombing in populated areas.
The “war to protect civilians” could be “complicated” by the killing of civilians.
Is this speculation what passes for “fair and accurate reporting”? Pro-Gaddafi tanks have already been destroyed within Misurata, without loss of civilian life, but rather than commend the coalition for the job they have done you would rather knock them for something they might do.
It doesn’t seem to have been particularly complicated in other wars where we’re “committed to protecting civilians”, does it?
It’s been in large measure a matter of “Kill ’em all … let Allah sort ’em out”, hasn’t it?
“It was found necessary to kill the civilians in order to save them.”
Show me a freedom that did not have path of blood. 80% of the deaths are civilians in a war, internal or external. The public drives the economy and grants power over them and sometimes takes it back. We are just bit players in the world of history.
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/03/20
US Struggles to Explain Difference Between Bahrain, Libya
Posted By Jason Ditz On March 20, 2011 @ 5:58 pm In Uncategorized | 5 Comments
The Obama Administration’s rush to escalate Libya into a full-scale war, nominally as a reaction to the Gadhafi government’s violence against protesters, has put it in an awkward position. The violence was far from exclusive to Libya, and similar crackdowns are growing all the time in Yemen and particularly Bahrain.
Which leads to the inevitable question: how can the Obama Administration use Gadhafi’s crackdown on Libyan protesters as an excuse for war, while insisting Bahrain not only has the right to do the same, but has the â┚¬Ã…“sovereign rightâ┚¬Ã‚ to invite Saudi Arabia et al. to join in on the fun?
It is a question that was raised on a number of stages over the weekend and tackled by a number of top officials, particularly Sen. John Kerry (D â┚¬“ MA), who insisted that Iran and Hezbollah were secretly to blame for the protests.
The most honest answer, however, came from Admiral Michael Mullen, who insisted that Bahrain â┚¬Ã…“has been a critical ally for decadesâ┚¬Ã‚ but Libya hasn’t, and that in and of itself justified treating it as a totally different matter.
Bahrain’s opposition, for its part, has been urging the UN and the Obama Administration to put a stop to the crackdown. No one seriously expects this to actually happen, but other than Admiral Mullen’s unusual candor, no one seems willing to explain why.
The US rationale is baffling, to say the least. They wage war for peace, screw for virginity and slaughter civilians to…hmmm…save civilians lives. In the MIC’s mind, I suppose that it’s the thought that counts. And the millions they put in their pockets, of course.
Dont worry, Obama goes on the boob tube tonight to ease all your minds.
MK ULTRA “screw for virginity”? Ok I have been spinning this about in my mind.What does that mean?Sorry if IM the slow kid in the class but…..
for a good explanation of Bams speech look to jon Stewart.