Tripoli mortuary eyewitness: 'Haunted by Libya deaths'

[al bupp]

Source: BBC

Anti-government protests began in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi on 15-16 February, but spread rapidly westwards, reaching the capital, Tripoli, on 20 February. Officials denied anyone had been injured in clashes between security forces and protesters. But a former orderly at a Tripoli hospital mortuary, who has fled to Tunisia, told the BBC's Pascale Harter what he saw:

...

Every one of Tripoli's ambulances - and we have a lot of them - was out on the roads, carrying dead bodies.

...

It was very confused at the hospital. We did not count the number of dead or register them. We just dropped the dead bodies and sent the wounded into surgery. No-one was taking down names or counting.

...

A few days later, soldiers came and took the dead and injured. They pulled off the patients' oxygen masks, yanked off the wires connected to their monitors, pulled out the drips and tubes, and took them away.



Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13785053

[pinboy3niner]

1. K&R

[harmonicon]

2. did they also throw babies out of incubators? nt.

[Turbineguy]

3. That's the problem with this isn't it?

This story may be entirely true.

[harmonicon]

8. It may be...

but "someone said" does not journalism make.

[al bupp]

4. Right, because the BBC is such a well known purveyor of propaganda

I wondered how long it would take someone to make that absurd comparison, which seems to come up whenever there's a post about Gaddafi's crimes, regardless of the source. Predictably, it wasn't too long.

[GOTV]

5. Did the BBC not carry the story about the babies taken from incubators? I don't know ...

... I'm really asking because the story was testified to in congress wasn't it? That's pretty good source and I would suspect that the BBC did report it although it was entirely untrue.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. FWIW, I never heard anything about Kuwaiti incubators before I started reading DU

It certainly wasn't significant news in the UK; I think I was following the news pretty well. It is quite possible the BBC never mentioned it; or, if they did, only in passing - testimony before a Congressional committee wouldn't normally be covered by the BBC, especially 20 years ago (now that they have a 24 hour news channel, their American coverage has expanded to help fill the time).

[Xithras]

6. Well, yes. They do.

The BBC has been putting out propaganda in support of British wars since WW2. A study done on the Iraq War coverage by Cardiff University found that the BBC was the most pro-war of all the British television networks. They have consistently, throughout their history, come down on the side of the British government in wartime. There's a reason why BBC reporters are outright banned from a number of countries.

Besides, if you actually READ the article, you'll see that NONE of this was witnessed by a BBC reporter. It's hearsay from one purported mortuary orderly who, by his own admission, went west to join the rebellion. Of course, we're simply supposed to believe him, because rebels are 100% honest and never lie in order to gain sympathy or win supporters to their side. The BBC, doing their part, has reported his statement as fact without a single shred of supporting evidence.

We need to get out of Libya now. He might be telling the truth. He might be lying through his teeth. There's no way to know. Either way, you DON'T go to war based on hearsay. That's all the Libyan conflict is...propaganda and hearsay.

[al bupp]

7. No one suggested, sir, that you entirely check your skepticism at the door...

Your point regarding the history of the BBC is well taken, I wasn't aware of it. Nevertheless, the fact that the reporter is simply recounting the story of a refugee does not automatically discredit the fellow's assertions. I'm not sure how the reporter would go about corroborating them under the present circumstances. The story is full, I think, of details and specifics, such as the receipt from the pocket of the fellow who's brains the refugee said he tried to scoop back into his head, that lend it credence.

Moreover, this report and others form a pretty convincing pattern which I think it's folly to ascribe entirely to the machinations of propagandists. Let's see, the conspirators would include the ICC, HWR, and Juan Cole. Not exactly your typical warmongers there.

I think the president has handled Libya very adeptly. The civil war there had already started, and Hillary and Susan Rice convinced him to jump in on the right side of history, and even-up the odds a bit. (One side had tanks, mortars, rocket launchers, jets and a navy. The other side had pick-up trucks, some old rifles and small weapons taken from abandoned police stations and army bases.) After a couple of weeks he handed it off to NATO. (I may be in sparse company thinking NATO has also played their part well.)

Most of what the US military does there these days, is provide logistical and intelligence support to NATO. All the real fighting's been done by Libyans themselves, many if not most of them completely untrained civilians just 4 months ago. The tables have turned and, I wager, the Libyans themselves will have ended this by July. At that point we will have made some allies worth the name in the region.

[EFerrari]

10. LOL, you're kidding right? Operation Mass Appeal

From The Sunday Times
December 28, 2003
Revealed: how MI6 sold the Iraq war

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article839897.ece

'War by Media', John Pilger

snip

This is true not only in America. In Britain, where I live, the BBC - which promotes itself as a nirvana of objectivity and impartiality and truth - has blood on its corporate hands. There are two interesting studies of the BBC's reporting. One of them, in the build-up to the invasion, shows that the BBC gave just two per cent of its coverage of Iraq to anti-war dissent. That was less than the anti-war coverage of all the American networks. A second study by the respected journalism school at University College in Cardiff shows that 90 per cent of the BBC's references to weapons of mass destruction suggested that Saddam Hussein actually possessed them and that, by clear implication, Bush and Blair were right.

We now know that the BBC and other British media were used by MI6, the secret intelligence service. In what they called Operation Mass Appeal, MI6 agents planted stories about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, such as weapons hidden in his palaces and in secret underground bunkers. All of these stories were fakes. However, that is not the point. The point is that the dark arts of MI6 were quite unnecessary, because a systematic media self-censorship produced the same result.

Recently, the BBC's Director of News, Helen Boaden, was asked to explain how one of her “embedded” reporters in Iraq could possibly describe the aim of the Anglo-American invasion as “bring democracy and human rights” to Iraq. She replied with quotations from Tony Blair that this was indeed the truth, as if Blair and the truth were in any way related. This servility to state power is hotly denied, of course, but routine.

snip

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13629.htm

[al bupp]

11. So your argument, ma'am, boils down to...

If they misrepresented and cheer-led about Iraq, they must be doing so about Libya. OK, fair enough, I suppose it's possible, and certainly sets a precedent. It's also possible that the myriad reports, of which the BBC is just one source, happen to coincide because there's some truth to them.

[EFerrari]

12. The snippet I posted from Pilger refers to multiple outlets

catapulting the same story. And these stories are not based on myriad reports at all but usually 1 (ONE) unverifiable report churned out through multiple outlets. Co-incidence seems to have nothing to do with it.

[WhiteTara]

13. my thought also. n/t

[pampango]

14. Hard to prove one way or the other during war. Perhaps the ICC will get the chance to rule

on that allegation and others in the future.