De beelden die we uit Libië voorgeschoteld krijgen laten steevast een paar Japanse trucks met afweergeschut zien en wat ongeregelde rebellen met oude geweren. Dat een ongeregelde bende van deze rebellen – ook al worden ze 'gesteund' met (of geleid door) NATO-bombardementen en zijn ze met een paar duizend – in staat zouden zijn een groot land als Libië te veroveren lijkt mij praktisch onmogelijk. Nooit zien we beelden van een massa zwaar bewapende rebellen. Het is ook duidelijk dat de informatie die we krijgen komt van 'embedded journalists', mogelijk rechtstreeks van de NATO zelf. Het is dus een well-informed guess te veronderstellen dat er wel degelijk NATO-grondtroepen aanwezig zijn in Libië die vrije nieuwsgaring onmogelijk maken om welbekende redenen: de aanwezigheid van buitenlandse troepen mag niet bekend worden. Toch sluipen er hier en daar en steeds meer berichten binnen over grondtroepen. Er vallen ook journalisten (en als het niet te controleren is kunnen ze altijd zeggen dat die door Ghaddafi zijn neergeschoten). Tijdens mijn research stuitte ik regelmatig op websites die plotsklaps niet meer bereikbaar zijn, of slechts gedeeltelijk bereikbaar zodat je naar een artikel moet zoeken op een andere site die er een kopie van heeft. Het is duidelijk dat er censuur wordt toegepast. Ook onze regering zegt niet alles, denk maar aan het helicopter incident.
Examiner: "Targeted Killings of non-mainstream reporters in Libya ordered: Attempts to bury truth
The Examiner learned in communications from human rights defenders and independent journalists throughout Monday that they were shaken with news of 1300 Libyans killed and 5000 wounded Saturday, plus, the U.S. allegedly ordered Targeted Killings of Voltaire Network reporters, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya and Thierry Meyssan, non-mainstream reporters in Libya covering the NATO war, while other independent reporters there are being fired upon and one, Mohammed Nabbous was killed Saturday according to ABC News. In an interview with journalist Don DeBar on KPFA radio, he reported most mainstream "news" about Libya has been untrue, as alternative news sites heavily report but are increasingly persecuted according to their recent reports."
HuffingtonPost: "But seriously folks, what has happened to journalism? NATO quickly morphed from being a force to protect civilians under its UN and Arab League Mandate into -- 15,000 sorties later -- being the air arm of the rebel ground forces, casualties be damned. In the same spirit, it looks now like the Western media have become the propaganda arm of the insurgency. Or maybe it's just terminal laziness."
Pravda: "Let another thing be perfectly clear: the western media is misleading us and is trying to hide the interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign member of the UNO. Let us see some of the many comments from - and a presentation of several points raised by - our readers...
1. Why did the Libyan "revolution" not start in the capital, Tripoli, but rather in the separatist region of Cyrenaica?
2. Is it important that Cyrenaica is the oil-rich region?
3. How come the terrorists in Libya are referred to as "rebels" yet in other countries in the region they are "terrorists"?
4. How come the authorities of any sovereign nation have the right to impose law and order after armed insurrection, but Muammar Al-Qathafi apparently does not (according to Western media)? What does any civilised nation do when rebels burn buildings, kill women and children (oh didn't the western media publicise this?) and slaughter and torture unarmed civilians? In most countries the authorities have the right to react.
In the case of Libya, it is facing an armed insurrection fuelled by interfering foreign powers, marauding gangs of terrorists aiming to settle tribal scores, all for the right price.
5. How is it possible that the poorly equipped "rebels" "now have access to more sophisticated equipment" (SKY News). Where did it come from?
6. How to explain the fact that Dutch and British special forces have been detained operating inside Libya?"
Lees verder (als de link werkt - soms helpt het om de cached versie op te roepen met de url die je vindt via 'save link as...' en dan ter plekke op print version te drukken).
Afro: "Former U.S. Congressman Walter Fauntroy, who recently returned from a self-sanctioned peace mission to Libya, said he went into hiding for about a month in Libya after witnessing horrifying events in Libya's bloody civil war -- a war that Fauntroy claims is backed by European forces.
Fauntroy's sudden disappearance prompted rumors and news reports that he had been killed.
In an interview inside his Northwest D.C. home last week, the noted civil rights leader, told the Afro that he watched French and Danish troops storm small villages late at night beheading, maiming and killing rebels and loyalists to show them who was in control.
"'What the hell' I'm thinking to myself. I'm getting out of here. So I went in hiding," Fauntroy said.
The rebels told Fauntroy they had been told by the European forces to stay inside. According to Fauntroy, the European forces would tell the rebels, "'Look at what you did.' In other words, the French and Danish were ordering the bombings and killings, and giving credit to the rebels.
"The truth about all this will come out later," Fauntroy said."
Even verderop wordt de band van de VS met massamoordenaars nog duidelijker:
Wired: "If you thought it was bad that Washington is paying a shady French mercenary to do its dirty work in Somalia, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Just wait to you see our latest ally: an admirer of Osama bin Laden with a gory past.
Richard Rouget, a notorious gun-for-hire who uses American funds to train African Union soldiers fighting in the ruins of Mogadishu, has been mentioned in connection with at least one murder. But U.S.-backed Somali government general Yusuf Mohamed Siad, a.k.a. “Indha Adde,” a.k.a, “The Butcher,” once ruled an entire region of Somalia with a bloody fist.
The U.S.-led international intervention in civil war-torn Somalia is unlike any of America’s other wars. Where the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are fought by tens of thousands of U.S. troops, in Somalia Washington pays others to do most of the fighting. These proxies include merc firms, regional bodies such as the A.U. and local allies including the nascent federal government.
That means less direct danger to American lives. But in another sense it means more danger. The more that the U.S. relies on proxy armies to do its fighting, the more it risks those proxies usurping American support and directing it towards their own dubious ends. That’s the subject of ace reporter Jeremy Scahill’s latest piece in The Nation and also of my own feature for The Diplomat."