- Mark Twain once called reports of his death greatly exaggerated.
The same hold for Libyans, not ready to submit to NATO colonization, occupation,
plunder and exploitation. Not at least without a fight.
- The stakes are high - stay free or die socially, economically,
politically, emotionally, and/or perhaps physically.
- Washington-led NATO is a rogue killing machine plunderer.
It comes, sees, slaughters, ravages, and pillages all its surveys.
- In March, it arrived in Libya on cruise missiles, bombs,
shells, other munitions, fifth column infiltrators, media liars, and other
rogue elements, not white horses, not as liberators nor humanitarian interveners.
- It came for another imperial trophy at the expense of
free Libyans. They know it and won't submit without a fight, a long-term
struggle perhaps that may ebb and flow, but won't end until NATO's scourge
- It's the same spirit driving Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians,
and millions of others throughout North Africa/Middle East/Central Asia/and
elsewhere. Live free or die.
- On August 22, activist Don DeBar offered hope, saying:
- Most of what major media scoundrels report is untrue.
Despite daily bombing and deplorable conditions across Libya, "(t)he
invaders have been largely turned back. They arrived under severe aerial
attacks across (Tripoli), including (bombing and) strafing civilians intended
to clear streets for the invasion."
- "They were supplemented (by) landing troops from
NATO naval vessels" offshore. A "NATO expeditionary force"
comprised "mainly of Qatari and other troops" accompanied insurgent
hooligans, given license to shoot civilians on sight, as well as loot freely
to create fear and chaos.
- They've taken full advantage, but not without Libyans
fighting back, a committed spirit across Tripoli and most other parts of
- Against them is a typical NATO operation, exposing the
evil it represents everywhere.
- Nonetheless, as of Monday evening, temporary calm returned
to most of Tripoli, except for ongoing bombing, ahead of street clashes
- In addition, loyalists showed up with two allegedly captured
Gaddafi sons, after which Seif al-Islam, accompanied by huge throngs of
supporters, spoke to reporters at the Rixos Hotel. Earlier, insurgents
prematurely said he and his brother Mumammed were being transferred to
the Hague's hanging tribunal.
- Seif said his father and family were safe in the capital,
and that he wished to refute media reports of his capture and detention.
He also said, "Tripoli is under our control. Everyone should rest
assured. All is well in Tripoli."
- In fact, conditions remain in flux, but Libyans were
buoyed by his message, rallying them to stand firm against NATO and thuggish
- Pro-NATO New York Times Reporting
- Throughout the conflict, New York Times disinformation
and gloating never quit, so unsurprisingly it headlined an August 22 editorial,
"Qaddafi's Final Hours," saying:
- "For more than 40 years, (Gaddafi) dominated and
terrorized Libya - his image plastered on what seemed like every wall and
his goons posted on every corner."
- Fact check
- Scandalous rhetoric like the above pollutes Times editorials
and op-eds in place of accurate, clear analysis, an absent ingredient throughout
- Admitting possible "dark moments to come,"
The Times expressed "awe of the courageous Libyans (read renegade
insurgent hooligans) who pressed their fight. (They) overcame incredible
odds, battlefield defeats and bitter internal divisions....(Nonetheless,
they) showed extraordinary commitment and resilience."
- Fact check
- Without daily NATO terror bombing and low-level strafing,
much of it targeting civilians and nonmilitary sites, cutthroat mercenaries
would have been routed in days at most. Libya is NATO's war, using them
as disposable imperial tools.
- No matter, The Times urged them "to build a democratic
- Fact check
- Washington-led NATO, of course, calls the shots, their
imperial plan excluding democracy and humanitarian concerns.
- Libya needs more support, said The Times. "The challenges
of building a stable and representative new country cannot be overstated....When
(Gaddafi) is found, he should be sent to the (Hague for) justice."
- Fact check
- Times opinion and analysis commentators are so addicted
to imperial thinking, they don't recognize or accept clear facts and analysis
others provide lucidly, fully and honestly.
- The editorial ended as disgracefully as it began, saying:
- "It will be up to the Libyans to build their own
future. The rebels' victory - if followed by the democracy they promise
- should inspire others to believe that the battle is worth fighting."
- Fact check
- The battle is far from over. Declaring victory is premature
and arrogant. Moreover, the vast majority of Libyans, Gaddafi loyalists,
are totally excluded from NATO (not "rebel") plans.
- A Times rethink won't be forthcoming to explain. Nor
on its news pages. On August 22 and 23, they reeked of the usual combination
of self-assured/I-told-you-so bravado and arrogance, as well as this time
some well-deserved crow.
- David Kirkpatrick, Kareem Fahim and Alan Cowell headlined
the lead August 23 story titled, "Tripoli Uneasy as Rebel Euphoria
- Renewed fighting spread across Tripoli. Gaddafi's whereabouts
aren't known, and "his son Seif al-Islam made a 'surprise' appearance,"
showing perhaps he wasn't taken captive after all, despite media reports
claiming it along with his brother also free.
- Since February, in fact, Times and other major media
reports proliferated lies about the war, misreported and distorted other
information, and omitted key facts, including:
- -- alleged insurgent victories;
- -- claiming NATO doesn't target civilians and nonmilitary
sites when, in fact, it's done willfully;
- -- ignoring Gaddafi's overwhelming popularity;
- --numerous times alleging his regime's near collapse;
- -- leaving unexplained that no humanitarian crisis existed
until NATO showed up well before it began bombing in mid-March;
- -- that under Gaddafi, Libyans had Africa and the Arab
world's highest standard of living and human development index, lowest
infant mortality, and highest life expectancy;
- -- that Libya's oil wealth was used to provide generous
social services, including free high-quality education and healthcare,
as well as housing assistance and more;
- -- that Libya's Tripoli-based state-owned central bank
(replaced by the Benghazi-based HSBC Bank-run private one), financed low
or no interest productive economic growth, free from IMF/World Bank/and/or
other predatory lending agencies;
- -- that most Libyan tribes, including its largest, support
- -- most important leaving the war's illegality unexplained,
and why fought - never for humanitarian reasons or liberation.
- Instead, numerous propaganda pieces left readers misinformed,
in the dark, and unaware why America ever goes to war, let alone so often.
- Kirkpatrick, Fahim, and Cowell headlined the lead August
22 story titled, "Qaddafi Son Taunts Rebels in Tripoli," saying:
- "The (short-lived) euphoria that followed the rebels'
triumphant march in Tripoli gave way to confusion, wariness and renewed
fighting on Tuesday (as) loyalist units 'stubbornly resisted rebel efforts
to take control of the capital."
- In fact, without State TV and independent journalists
able to report freely, what little information slipping out suggests no
lost government control over areas earlier Times accounts said were in
- Saying it, of course, doesn't mean it's so. In fact,
Times writers repeatedly falsified events on the ground, shredding their
credibility in the process.
- This time, they had to admit that "the immediate
aftermath of the lightning invasion was a vacuum of power (meaning no insurgent
victory), with no cohesive rebel government in place and remnants of (Gaddafi's)
government still in evidence (read Libyans, not NATO in charge).
- Other Times articles headlined:
- "After Uprising, Rebels Face A Struggle for Unity,"
reluctantly admitting destructive internal wrangling and rivalries.
- "Rebels' Assault on Tripoli Began With Careful Work,"
providing a falsified account of what didn't happen. It was a typical Times
propaganda piece, so poorly done, in fact, writers Kirkpatrick and Myers
should tell readers they'll try to do better next time.
- "Qaddafi's Whereabouts Still a Mystery as Rumors
Swirl," bemoaning the fact that he's very much alive, well, and supported
by the vast majority of Libyans, many willing to fight to save him. Hardly
a profile of a hated tyrant.
- "For Obama, a Moment to Savor, if Briefly,"
calling him for his involvement for months of planning and orchestrating
naked aggression "a reluctant warrior."
- "Parallels Between Qaddafi and Hussein Raise Anxiety
for Western Leaders," stopping short of admitting Washington plans
exploiting Libya like Iraq, Afghanistan and other imperial targets.
- "The Scramble for Access to Libya's Oil Wealth Begins,"
omitting mention that Western powers want it privatized for themselves,
excluding China and other non-NATO participants.
- "Rebels' Sudden Success Sends European Backers Scrambling,"
leaving unexplained that Libya is NATO's war. So-called "rebels"
are merely hired hands, disposable, easily replaceable imperial tools.
- "US Seeking Ways to Finance New Libyan Leaders,"
again with no explanation that Washington stole Libya's wealth, dispensing
billions for its imperial ambitions.
- "Journalists Kept in Hotel as Battle Rages Outside,"
omitting who's endangered and who isn't.
- True enough - bombing, strafing, and street fighting
might claim anyone indiscriminately inside or outside the Rixos Hotel where
most Western journalists stay, as well as fifth column fake ones, pretending
to be what they're not because they're allied with NATO, supplying bombing
coordinates and other intelligence.
- In contrast, however, independent journalists are endangered
because they're targeted. Notably they include Mahdi Nazemroaya, Lizzie
Phelan and Franklin Lamb, friends of this writer, doing responsible heroic
- Others from Cuba, Telesur, and elsewhere are also at
risk for reporting truthfully, unlike Times and other corporate media propagandists,
disgracing themselves shamelessly.
- On the ground, events remain fast-moving, chaotic, violent,
unresolved, and far from NATO able to claim victory it hoped to achieve
by early spring in a walkover.
- Millions of Libyans have other ideas, old-fashinged ones
like their sovereign right over their own country, unwilling to let imperial
predators deny them.
- Everyone should support that spirit proudly, denouncing
Obama's led NATO war, an imperial enterprise for conquest and plunder.
- They should also avoid media liars, disgraceful guardians
of power for their own self-interest.
- A Final Comment
- Growing numbers know what dominant media sources provide.
They expect better from others they trust, notably Amy Goodman's Democracy
- On August 22, it fell far short, hardly for the first
time. Reporting on fast-moving Tripoli events, Al Jazeera's Zeina Khodr
was featured, reporting lies about anti-Gaddafi celebrations, saying:
- "There's a feeling of euphoria here. People are
shouting, 'We are free! Muammar Gaddafi has gone!' The city is now in the
hands of the opposition."
- In fact, it was fake footage produced in a Doha Qatar
studio - made-for-media propaganda about a nation overwhelmingly pro-Gaddafi,
many determined to resist to avoid NATO occupation. You'd never know it
though from Democracy Now (DN), leaving an opposite impression.
- DN also misreported the alleged capture of three Gaddafi
sons, aired illegitimate Transitional National Council (TNC) head Mahmoud
Jibril's bogus victory message, then followed with International Red Cross
spokesperson Robin Waudo and pro-NATO Professor Khaled Mattawa.
- Conspicuously absent was one or more independent journalists,
heroically reporting accurate facts and analysis of events and conditions
on the ground. In fact, since conflict began last winter, what DN viewers
and listeners most need to know isn't reported.
- It was true on March 29, 10 days after bombing began.
DN featured Professor Juan Cole, a shameless NATO supporter, backing its
illegal intervention, leaving unexplained reasons why.
- Instead he said he "unabashedly cheer(ed) the 'liberation'
movement on (and was) glad that the (Security Council) authorized intervention"
to save Libyans "from being crushed."
- Omitting facts and real analysis, he expressed hateful
anti-Gaddafi propaganda, calling NATO imperialism "a popular uprising."
Nor did he explain that SC Resolution 1973 authorizing a no-fly zone assured
war, what a Pentagon commander openly admitted before it passed. Yet he
shamelessly wrote on March 30, "If NATO needs me, I'm there."
- On August 22, he again appeared on DN, supporting NATO's
imperial lawlessness, displaying a profound ignorance and disdain for international
law and right of sovereign people to govern their own affairs, free from
- Instead he said "Libya, in a way, has reignited
the flame of liberty in the Arab world. It's given new hope, a new charge
to people in Cairo, in Tunis, and certainly in Syria." In fact, what's
ongoing is mirror opposite, an affront to people everywhere yearning to
- Shamelessly, Cole is like many other disreputable academics.
However, being an alleged liberal intellectual makes it worse. It's exacerbated
by DN giving him air time in place of honest analysts viewers and listeners
- So do consumers of all media, corporate or otherwise.
Deserving and getting, however, diverge greatly at all times. Thankfully
growing numbers understand and choose wisely. Maybe some day everyone will,
or at least a majority large enough to matter.
- Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
- Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and
listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive
Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central
time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy