Venezuelan take on Libya
If you want to see how much the Libyan people love Gaddafi, how there is calm in the streets, how the UN lies about human rights, how Gaddafi's son is just trying to do the right thing, and how the crisis is a U.S. plot, then check out the Venezuelan News Agency's special web page on Libya. Dictatorship never looked so good.
10 comments:
Libyan Civil War : Political Comunitarian Europe is becoming "Le Cirque du Soleil", with many extravagant exotic clowns - They want to "take the chestnuts out of the fire with the cat's paw" - Guess who is the cat !
A Monkey and a Cat lived in the same family, and it was hard to tell which was the greater thief. One day, as they were roaming together, they spied some chestnuts roasting in the ashes of a fire. "Come," said the cunning Monkey, "we shall not go dinnerless to-day. Your claws are better than mine for the purpose; pull the chestnuts out of the ashes, and you shall have half." Puss pulled them out, burning her paws very much in doing so. When she had stolen every one, she turned to the Monkey for her share of the booty; but, to her chagrin, she found no chestnuts, for he had eaten them all. A thief cannot be trusted even by another thief.
This is a tale of old France.
*************************
Future Commentary about Americans around the World ( After many years in Libya ) : "This is all America's fault! They did this, and they send no help!"
.
What! I love the Ghadaffi and Venezuela bashing--as though the hundreds of thousand murdered by the U S and it's approved monarchies and dictators simply don't exist.
Using the imperialist, stained thumb to blot out the sun, Greg.
Ever the nimble illogic quisling for imperial, mafioso barbarity and terror.
Lol
You are a joke, on all levels.
So, who are these freedom-fighters that the US and Sunni dominated Arab Leauge are promoting for a "free" Libya?
Same old iron, tyrannical fist cothed in the blood-stained glove for corrupt intelllectul apologists for US backed oligarchy and oppression.
Nothing new here folks.
So, "Slave Revolt" will kiss up any dictator as long as they are anti-US. I guess "Slave Revolt" would have loved Hitler.
I scanned most of the (dated) articles on that AVN page and could not find any of the characterizations Greg makes.
Yes, they emphasize the calm and normalcy in the capital of 2 million. But I'd strongly argue that this significant fact is being underplayed in the US media.
Yes, they quote Libya asking why the UN passed sanctions before bothering to even have some basic facts in hand. It was an unprecedented move. But where do they accuse the UN of lying about human rights?
Yes, they mention Gaddafi's son Saif has tried to negotiate with the Eastern tribes, but I am not sure what is wrong with reporting on that (again, when the West ignores it).
And where do they claim the crisis is a US plot? I have not even heard Gaddafi claim this... although as talk about US intervention heats up, there has been talk about imperialism rearing its head (which it is).
In all, a balanced review would show that Telesur has been more honest in their reporting that most US outlets. I can not count the number of things I've read in US papers taht turned out to be complete falsehoods. Please show me one false thing in the Telesur reporting.
But where do they accuse the UN of lying about human rights?
ONU decidió contra pueblo de Libia con base en mentiras mediáticas…Antes de votar la resolución, el secretario de la ONU, Ban Ki-Moon “citó reportes de asesinatos indiscriminados, incluidos algunos contra soldados que se negaron a disparar contra los manifestantes antigubernamentales”…
Yes, they mention Gaddafi's son Saif has tried to negotiate with the Eastern tribes
Yes, they note his supposed offer to negotiate but ignore the cascade of threats he also made.
And where do they claim the crisis is a US plot?
How often do you read chavista outlets? What isn’t a US plot? This article is from another chavista outlet (not there is much difference between them) where the chavista thinking on the roots of the conflict are spelled out.
a balanced review would show that Telesur has been more honest in their reporting that most US outlets.
Hardly. They reflexively dismiss any western concern about Libya as just a grab for oil. I realize this is automatically assumed to true among the far left, but in the real world, such accusations need evidence. Is Iraqi oil or Kuwaiti oil controlled by the US today? No. They do want to avoid a major disruption in the oil supply but if that was the primary motivation; they would side with Qaddafi, since that would be the quickest way to end the conflict. I say this as someone who is flatly opposed to any American involvement in the Libyan conflict, but misguided as it is, if oil is a motivation it is several notches down the list.
But where do they accuse the UN of lying about human rights?
I think he is referring to this excerpt
ONU decidió contra pueblo de Libia con base en mentiras mediáticas
Antes de votar la resolución, el secretario de la ONU, Ban Ki-Moon “citó reportes de asesinatos indiscriminados, incluidos algunos contra soldados que se negaron a disparar contra los manifestantes antigubernamentales”...
As for the whole enterprise being US plot, I'm not sure there is a link on this page but it has certainly been asserted in chavez media outlets such as this one
http://www.patriagrande.com.ve/temas/opinion/que-el-miedo-al-imperio-no-nos-paralice/
Unlike the western media outlets you criticize, the chavez "media" has a pretty uniform ideological outline. Basically, any and all western action in Libya is an oil grab. While I'm among those that think American involvement is a mistake, I'm hard pressed to see this as primarily motivated by oil.
Lefty has only one agenda. He can't imagine that the US and western governments could, even by accident, stumble into a just policy. If President Obama said this is for Libyans to decide, Lefty would just accuse him of moral cowardice and hypocrisy. Venezuela's take on Libya is to be expected. There is nothing new there and, until Chavez is removed from office, nothing much will be learned about how the international system makes decisions about the use of force.
I appreciate the effort ConsDemo, but I think your response proves my point that Greg really did not have much to go on with his assertions.
Again, they never accuse the UN of lying. It accuses them of relying on false and unverified one-sided reports (from rebels), which really can not be denied at this point.
If President Obama said this is for Libyans to decide, Lefty would just accuse him of moral cowardice and hypocrisy.
Not at all. It is the only legal and moral thing to do. Moral because taking the side of armed insurgents is a terrible precedent to set.
Leftside, the generous translation of the headline is "The UN decides against the Libyan people on the basis of media lies."
First the statement presumes the UN is against the Libyan people rather than Gaddafi. Also, the word "mentira" is a bit stronger than "false and unverified", which might allow that that the speaker is mistaken. Rather "mentira" translates as "lie." Okay, so it doesn't claim the UN lied, but rather its basing its actions on lies. That may be a distinction but not much of one.
Yes some claims on behalf of the rebels have been false. The western media does note them. The BBC said yesterday it couldn't find wreckage of the plane the opposition claims it shot down. You are welcome to point out the times the chavista outlets have suggested any of Gaddafi's claims are false. You may not like the western media, but you can discern a variety of viewpoints from the western media. There is no diversity of views in the chavista media.
"Not at all. It is the only legal and moral thing to do. Moral because taking the side of armed insurgents is a terrible precedent to set."
Why do I suspect that if the case were presented in 1958, you would have supported the 25th of July movement? Or the Sandinistas in the 1970s? I think you don't really believe your own lofty "principles." That is, of course, fine as you are entitled to make political choices, but please don't condemn others for making their choices. The people of Libya are not "armed insurgents." The mercenaries hired to fight for Gaddafi fit the description more aptly.
Post a Comment