Sunday, March 20, 2011

Libyan contradictions

"Breaking News: Libyan Hospitals Attacked. Libyan Source: Three French Jets Downed"  Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya aspires to be the new Sasha Faal, although maybe not as credible.

David Neiwert, strenuously self-proclaimed American 'progressive', outs himself as the bastard love child of Max Boot and Richard Pearl.  USA, USA, USA!  Tomorrow he'll be wondering again why the Republicans have fucked things up in the United States so badly.

Ted Rall gets it.

"Bahrain hospitals under siege as soldiers maintain Manama crackdown" While the Americans micromanage the slaughter of civilians in Bahrain, they air bomb civilians on the pretext of protecting civilians in Libya. It all kinda makes sense. I gleefully await the rationalizations of why a no-fly zone is inappropriate the next time Israel decides to slaughter some more civilians using air attacks. Actually, Gaza could use a no-fly zone right now.

Speaking of glee, isn't it wonderful how the American-Zionist attack on the civilians of Libya is described by almost everybody as an operation to remove Gaddafi, when actually nothing could more ensure his continued power than an obvious outside attack by Zionists using something as ineffectual as a no-fly zone.  The Americans carefully waited until he was in control of all the oil fields and pipelines and ports, then gave him the perfect rallying cry for the people of Libya, united against a common enemy (particularly potent in Libya given its suffering under years of Italian occupation).  Gaddafi's ace-in-the-whole was when he managed to convince the Americans that the rebels were actually radical Islamists, making Gaddafi the obvious choice to manage the oil.  Nobody ever said Gaddafi was dumb (or that the Americans were smart).  Crazy maybe, but not dumb.
blog comments powered by Disqus