Deaf Juxtaposition

This was on the front page of MSNBC’s website earlier:

Say hypothetically that despite the air assistance the rebels still fail.  Libya would probably be partitioned into east & west, and anyone suspected of aiding or supporting the rebellion (read: anyone who Qadaffi thinks is looking at him funny) who happens to be on the west side of the line would most likely be marked for torture and/or death by the remnants of the regime.  String together enough of those deaths and the proper phrase becomes not “we prevented a massacre!” but “…we delayed a massacre?”.

BTW: from what I’ve read, the contradictions and hollow spots in Obama’s speech were so obvious that a lot of pundits who normally toe his line are finding their concern gene.  Meanwhile, look who did like it

Share
This entry was posted in Foreign Policy. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Deaf Juxtaposition

  1. Todd S. says:

    What’s disturbing still is that while “we” may have prevented a massacre at one location, we enabled the rebels to turn around and attack a town for no other reason than Qadaffi was born there. That’s pretty humanitarian.

    Of course, should the rebels fail, Washington now has the perfect pretext for a land invasion.

    • B Psycho says:

      Yeah, that is a bit curious. The way that’s being talked about makes it seem like there was no resistance there at all until the rebels showed up. If accurate, then it’s nonsense to assume civilians weren’t caught in the crossfire; if not, then where was the resistance on the part of people who were already there?

      The root cause on the part of anti-Qadaffi Libyans — previous non-violent demonstration being met with gunfire — was clearly just. I get the feeling though that once this finally does end, the West is going to see some of the means taken up towards the end they backed and blow chunks. For all the tinkering that goes on to that area of the world in our names, you couldn’t fill a sippy cup with what’s actually understood about it from the outside.

    • ricketson says:

      I think the rebels attacked Sirte because their stated goal is to govern the entirety of Libya.

      However, I’ve heard no indication on an indigenous uprising in Sirte, so it’s an open question whether this attack is legitimate (from a libertarian perspective)

      From what I’ve heard, the best justification for attacking it would be its strategic importance — going around it is not really possible, and it therefore prevents the eastern rebels from coming to the aid of their western compatriots.

      Still, I’m a bit apprehensive about what will happen if the rebels take that town. I wouldn’t be surprized if there was a massacre.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


+ 2 = five

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>