Yesterday I posted the diary underneath. It was shouted down by the dailykos mob with the usual insipid catcalls, but there was very little substance in the comments.
There was one link in the comments to the following article about Misrati
http://www.amnesty.ie/...
But this happened in May after NATO became involved. This incident argues against intervention. So far all the evidence that I have seen shows increased violence since intervention.
I am still not understanding how this war is justified. Can someone please argue in favor of intervention using logic and substance?
I found this posted on the internet. I do not know all that much about Gaddafi or Libya. I would guess that most that have an opinion know even less than I do which isn't much.
Throughout history most wars are justified by rank propaganda. Why should this war be any different? And how come our mass media does not even present the opposing point of view which can easily be found all over the internet.
The rebels numbered about 1,000 fighters by their own estimates -- in a country of six million. These were never the peaaceful, innocent demonstrators as characterized by the war propaganda. They were, and are, Islamic extremists from the east of Libya, an area known to the US as a hotbed of Al Qaeda. Their beef with Gaddafi had nothing to do with despotism or bad governance and everything to do with wanting an Islamic state under clerical rule.
This relatively small band of extremists never had the support of the Libyan people, whose standard of living under Gaddafi was by far the highest in all of Africa. It was only the NATO bombing campaign, claiming an estimated 50,000 lives including thousands of children, that pushed the rebels to "victory."
Obama's overthrow of Gaddafi is a study in treachery. First, a propaganda campaign falsely portrayed the armed extremist rebels as peaceful unarmed civilians asking for nicer houses. The propaganda machine went on to invent a massacre, totally uncorroborated according to Defense Secretary Gates. This uncorroborated rumor of a massacre, together with uncorroborated threats of more non-existent massacres, was used as a pretext for "humanitarian" intervention. The humanitarian intervention was then used as a pretext for wholesale bombing of cities and towns in collaboration with the small rebel ground force.
There is nothing to celebrate about this kind of immoral and illegal conduct.