John Kerry coins a new phrase: "Civilian Rebel"

[PurityOfEssence]

Yep, that's the concept: they can be under arms and actively seeking to overthrow a government by force and SIMULTANEOUSLY be innocent waif-like civilians.

This was on an NPR interview earlier. He did square the confusing aims and justifications rather well for a bit, saying that our position was for Qaddafi to be removed, but that this operation was not to that end. As for the many military vehicles destroyed in what is supposed to be a no-fly operation, he was less clear.

The distinction between civilian and rebel was pursued by the reporter, and this is where his chilling little euphamistic oxymoron surfaced.

Civilian Rebel. I guess that's like honest politics.

As he went on, it got less convincing; yep, Qaddafi's got it coming to him.

What disturbs me most is the sheer willingness people have for us to use clearly deceptive requests to do completely different things, and to flout the Constitution to do so. Nothing means anything if you can call war peace and combatants civilians, so why even bother with consultation that's required or an authorization that's required; just toss 'em a letter a couple days later with the pronouncement of its legality.

[Catherina]

1. We need to get rid of these representatives for life. Rec'd n/t

[howaboutme]

4. Same faces, same voices, same message, same bull shit

Term limits may not be a perfect solution but they would keep DC swept clean of those who have all to often made a career, entrenched to both interests and wiliness and immersed in creating a corrupt system. Longevity increases the comfort level of lobbyists and Congress. Neither should be comfortable with the other.

We need constant turnover with new ideas and idealism instead of the same ole faces and voices.

[LiberalAndProud]

2. Civilian rebels and enemy combatants.

It's a confusing lexicon we employ in times of war.

[Raksha]

9. You read my mind!

I was just about to say: Yeah, "civilian rebel" if you sympathize with him and "enemy combatant" if you don't.

[joshcryer]

12. If a hair dresser picks up a gun, are they a civilian, or a rebel?

Me, I call them a fucking revolutionary.

[Bluerthanblue]

3. well America was fought for and created by 'civilian rebels'-

my ancestors were among them.

I heard the interview, and I agree with him. He's being honest when he says that he believes Gaddafi should not remain leader of Libya. He also made it clear that it is not our -The US's goal- to oust him. When the reporter pressed on saying 'well Britain said it was their goal- he said that they speak for themselves, our (USA) goal is to give the Libyan people a chance to determine their own future.-

[bobbolink]

13. Thank you. It seems that so many can't remember our OWN revolutionary war.

:shrug: :(

[Igel]

5. Not a surprise.

I've already read where attacks by the "rebels" on Ajdabiyah was portrayed as defense, while the actions of Gaddhafi supporters in repulsing the attack was portrayed as offense. It was viewed as important that all rebel-held territory be restored to the rebels; whatever linguistic distortins were needed to facilitate the military missions necessary to ensure that were considered just fine.

So we have civilians staging a military strike, with those attacked being the attackers and those attacking being innocent bystanders.

Next up: Anything less than allowing your positions to be overrun constitutes breaking the ceasefire. And such violations of the ceasefire, should they go on, will necessitate have non-occupation troops, at the express invitation of the only legitimate, duly (self-)elected government of Libya--the "rebels'."

[Warren Stupidity]

6. They have to invent some new words as Libya has every right to

put down an armed rebellion with force. As do we.

[PurityOfEssence]

7. Yes, but to refer to armed insurgents as innocent civilians isn't quite cricket

Yeah, yeah, he had it coming to him.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Once upon a time that seemed a bit rough.

[joshcryer]

11. You'd support Saleh if he put down the Yemen forces or Mubarak if he put down the Egyptian forces?

Both the Yemen armies and the Egyptian armies defected in much the same way.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. I don't support Quadaffi.

I said Libya has the right under international law to put down armed insurrection within its borders, as do we, as does every nation state.

[Rex]

8. What totally amazes me is that Republicans get away with this kind

of stuff for DECADES and yet we see a Democratic senator do it and it just doesn't work. Something comforting in at least that little bit of nothing.

[joshcryer]

10. 9 in 10 of the "rebels" aren't even armed.

Watch any video coming out of Libya during any conflict, it is true.

[PurityOfEssence]

14. How about the 34-100 blown up in the arms depot; were they combatants or innocents?

If people overreach and go into open rebellion with inflated estimations of their own abilities and then get counter-attacked, does that make them innocent civilians?

Call them what they are. Something like 70 military vehicles were destroyed to protect CIVILIANS? The call has been consistently to ONLY save the innocents; this is NOT what is being done. We are picking sides in a Civil War and actively targeting government troops.

Sure, Qaddafi's evil, but we don't know who these people are or what they have in mind, and even if we did, we were not sold support for one faction in a civil war, we were sold protection of the defenseless. It's false representation. What else are we not being told? How do we know what will come of this ill-defined, ill-conceived non-war? Wandering around clobbering this and that and lying through our teeth while choosing sides may not only have unintended consequences, it may further retrench our very real image as imperial fucks.

Just askin'...

What if this stalemate continues for a very, very long time, and another state ceases oil production because of internal strife? Put aside any ire at my reducing this to greed and my base bean-counting in the face of the teary-eyed armed rebels and think what happens if this crashes the world's economy. That's a VERY real possibility. Will our half-assed overestimation of our abilities mess up everybody's world? It's a very real possibility, and a sad irony if the downtrodden people get in a fix because of exuberance and over-inflated egos, and we amble in all smiling and confident and do it on the cheap because we're so full of OURSELVES and our egos do the same damned thing.

We have a responsibility to act sensibly, judiciously and adequately, and often that means to not act.

Enough of that, though; what's most galling is the lying. It's NOT just protecting innocents. It's NOT untainted with oil-lust. It's not pure altruism. It's not a true, broad coalition. It's not a walk in the dunes.

It's extremely galling to be harangued as fiendish, unfeeling sympathizers with evil by people who are demanding choosing sides in a civil war and launching a major, bloody war of imperial hegemony; the very idea of being on the side of non-involvement and having warmongers tar us as murderous is loathsome. If some of the supporters of intervention would at least admit some blood and recklessness in their camp, the recriminations would go down a bit easier.

Even so, the lies and distortions are abominable.

[joshcryer]

16. Can you clarify? What incident are you talking about?

[PurityOfEssence]

19. Friday, March 4th: a crater the size of a football field.

http://www.globalconflictmaps.com/2011/03/05/benghazi-ammunition-depot-blast-kills-at-least-27/

Look, let's step back for a second. First off, analyze those who are against this invasion; most are VERY sympathetic to the rebels and I have yet to see anyone who has much good to say about Qaddafi, although some have justifiably shown how he has recently been helpful to the U.S.

I know you're very emotionally involved with the plight of the demonstrators, and I and others very much empathize with that and hate to see someone's hopes crushed, but we--certainly some of us--are disturbed by an illegal war, especially when it is grossly misrepresented and justified by extreme distortions. It's a problem.

I hope our President at least covers his ass, but I still want him to behave himself and not overstep his bounds like this again.

[tcaudilllg]

15. John Kerry has disappointed many times.

I don't look for leadership from that clown.

[PurityOfEssence]

18. He was actually quite measured and sensible for most of the interview

It fell apart after awhile, though.

[politicasista]

20. Cause they aren't saying what we want to hear, they are,

according to some here, "disappointed" and think they can't "lead" on anything. Never mind BCCI. Same when it comes to Obama, and Kerry to some degree. Rather than something, it's all or nothing when it comes some here. Maybe Gibbs was right, some people wouldn't be happy if their favorite liberal or lefty was president.


Been out of the loop for a week so don't understand all the issues.

[karynnj]

17. He was not calling all rebels "civilain rebels"

The way I heard it is that many civilians essentially became part of the rebels when Gadaffi attacked their town. They were swept up in it because Gadaffi defined them as the enemy. These are people who did not "join" any rebellion until it came to them.

In the comment, he seemed to be distinguishing one group "civil rebels" from the other rebels.

What he went back to was Gaddafi's threats to show no mercy to the town.

[WinkyDink]

21. 1775?