HuffPost: : Libya -- Are Western Journalists just the Propaganda Arm of the Insurgency?

[Distant Observer]

Can we really believe anything we have been told by the Western media regarding either the rationale or the course of the war in Libya. Who is really responsible for most of the death and destruction? Will the life of the Libyan peoples be better or worse following this Western-backed civil conflict? Will we ever know what was really behind the Libyan "uprising"?


- - - -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-r-barber/western-media-in-libya-jo_b_933901.html

Western Media in Libya: Journalists or the Propaganda Arm of the Insurgency?

Benjamin R. Barber

Democratic theorist; Author, 'Strong Democracy', 'Jihad vs. McWorld'

There is no better proof for the gullibility (or worse) of Western media than how easily they have been manipulated by rebel spokesmen for the Libyan insurgency. From Sunday through Monday evening for more than 24 hours, broadcast and cable media outlets reported the rebels had captured Saif Gaddafi and his brother Mohammad. Why did they believe and publicize these unconfirmed reports? Because the rebels told them so. No photos, no audio, no proof. We even heard that Saif's capture was confirmed by International Criminal Court prosecutors who apparently believed what they were told too. Let's hope they have higher standards when they put the Gaddafis on trial or the tyrant may be acquitted!

As we all know now, it was just propaganda. The rebels were apparently making it up as they went along. Saif was in custody. Mohammad too. Maybe a third brother. Or not. And... Oops. Mohammad escaped! Oops, there's a Western reporter, talking to Saif Monday evening, riding in an armored Land Rover! And that's him too, atop the shoulder of cheering supporters. Somewhere in Tripoli Monday night (I guess in the 10% of the city that isn't under rebel control). On one cable outlet, they interrupted their continuing celebration of the victory of Tripoli to announce the truth about Saif -- the anchors didn't blink an eye. One even asked whom we should believe! A stunned "expert" who happened to be on the air suggested maybe we should believe our eyes since Saif was on screen smiling at his armed entourage as the anchor earnestly posed the question.

. . .

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[NashVegas]

2. Such An Old Propaganda Tactic

[Distant Observer]

4. All the earmark of the psyops that accompany special-forces operations

Probably intended -- along with the taking of Gov broadcast off the air -- to create the psychological shock needed to cause the rapid collapse of pro-Gaddafi resistance.

Maybe intended to minimize further bloodshed, but its failure may signal the opposite result.

Does, however, suggest that Western special forces are fully in charge of this "regime-change" operation.

[Safetykitten]

3. I hear Hooters is opening there! Obama wins again!

[riverwalker]

5. who is to say

that the rumors of the capture of Saif and Mohammed Gaddafi didn't lead to mass defections of Gaddafi forces?

[Distant Observer]

6. Probably did demoralize the gov. troops as intended -- but not enough to prevent the destruction

of Tripoli, its populations and infrastructure, that now proceeds ala Bhagdad and much of Iraq.

[sabrina 1]

9. Saif was not captured, apparently. Although just saying so

could have been meant to demoralize the rest of the military.

Never trusted any of the reporting from Libya, not since they caught the British Special Ops there. Foreign reporters saying all along that there were French, British and US Special Ops on the ground from way back.

Another victory for the PNAC. For the Libyan people, probably years of strife only this time, as in the past, with their occupied and their resources going out of the country, as is the case with Iraq.

Interesting too how the Iraq Spring uprisings, brutally put down by our 'Democratic Government' there, received zero coverage in the US Media.

We are not very good at 'creating democracy with humanitarian bombs'.

[Distant Observer]

7. 50 years ago the West covertly engineered the overthrow of the great Leaders of Pan-Africanism

Patrice Lumumba and Kwame Nkrumah. Millions have died in the aftermath across West Africa and the Congo.

We only learned definitively of the CIA's role decades later as secret documents became public.

I am not sure there was any positive outcome for the peoples of Africa outside of the enrichment of a few compliant dictators and selected commercial partners who became part of the Forbes list of billionaires.

Will be interesting to see the outcome of this new Western intervention.

FOLLOW THE OIL. FOLLOW THE MONEY!

[bvar22]

8. The whole thing reeks.

Here are some of the things we KNOW about Gaddafi:

*He WAS a Monomaniacal Dictator

*He was entertained by the White House less than 3 years ago,
and given the Red Carpet Treatment of a visiting Foreign Dignitary.

*In 2008, Gaddafi demanded and received a Bigger Cut of the Oil Profits from the Foreign Oil Corporations.
This amounted to $5.4 BILLION Dollars

*In 2009, Gaddafi announced that Libya was studying plans for Nationalizing ALL the oil in the region.

*He was a committed pan-African who believed that the resources of the African Continent
should be used FOR the development of Africa.
Africa for Africans

*He refused "loans" from the IMF for Libya,
and undercut the IMF when they attempted to
to provide "loans" based on "Structural Adjustments" (Privatization of Resources) for other African nations.

*Libya used Corporate Profits from the Oil Indusrty for Social Programs,
including financing the Great Man Made River Project.

*Libya also used this money for investment and aid to other Sub-Saharan countries.

http://www.infowars.com/in-2009-gaddafi-proposed-nationalizing-libyas-oil/

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD27Ak01.html

http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/crimes/25-03-2011/117336-reason_for_war_oil-0/


With the exception of the 1st statement, I have seen very little of the above information presented or discussed by our Media. The Bias was even stronger than during the run up to the Invasion of Iraq.

So the questions remain,
Why Libya?
WHY Now?
Why not other countries?
The answers may be found in the above.

Certainly, anyone familiar with the Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein would have questions about the US involvement in Libya.

Certainly, anyone familiar with the history of US Military Involvement in the Middle East (or anywhere else) over the last 50 years would have questions about the US involvement in Libya.




If you're not FOR the New WAR in Libya,
you're WITH The Communists AlQaeda The Terrorists Saddam Qaddafi!!!