Short ‘n’ Stubby: Ms. Manx senses a theme developing…

Being the astute kitty she is, Ms. Manx noticed something while she was looking for more stuff on Libya over the past week. Here’s her round-up…can you tell what the theme is?

Wired has a shocker about how the Libyan conflict is loaded with psy-ops…and they’ve been recorded, too! The Stumpy Cat is not too surprised by this; after all, this war had to be sold somehow. But she thinks it’s just great that someone went to the trouble to find out just how heavily marketed it’s been.

Meanwhile, at Canadian Dimension, Murray Dobbin has a scathing piece up that echoes, rather uncannily, my own thoughts on Libya.

And Miller-McCune finds it singularly interesting that the same European countries now leading the anti-Gaddafi campaign against Libya, are the very ones that sold him all those weapons they’re now wringing their collective hands about.

Meanwhile, The Nation waxes unusually euphemistic about the so-called “liberal hawks”, calling them “innocent”. Ms. Manx thinks ignorant would be a better word, preferably prefaced with fucking.

Bless Yansoon, then, for being more direct about the matter, and not shying away from heavily loaded words like blackmail, and for also saying that “the West is not innocent, nor is it impartial. Its interests are not those of the Libyan revolution, but aimed at guaranteeing a series of deals made by Gaddafi to the West.” It also mentions the weapons deals reference by Miller-McCune, this time bringing up the US’s contributions to the now-infamous Gaddafi arsenal. But the most damning passage, I think, is this:

Western powers have from the beginning made it difficult for the revolution to succeed on its own terms. Libya’s Transitional National Council (TNC), the body that grew out of the revolution, made a series on simple demands in the first days of the uprising. Western governments refused to accept these until certain “guarantees” were in place.

The rebels asked for the recognition of the Transitional National Council; they demanded access to the billions in sequestrated regime funds in order to buy weapons and other crucial supplies; and they demanded an immediate halt to the “mercenary flights” that provided the regime with its foot soldiers.

The answer they received was an unequivocal No. The West declared that they did not recognize “governments”, only countries. They refused to block the mercenary flights as these “security contractors” play an important role in other conflicts — such as Iraq and Afghanistan. They objected to any weapons sales as they feared that these could fall into the hands of “Islamist terrorists”, and they refused to release the funds on “legal grounds”.

Instead Western powers put a number of conditions on a revolution. They demanded that any future Libyan government would abide by all contracts signed by the Gaddafi regime. These contracts, including “generous” oil concession, had to be honored without question. Western powers demanded that the strict repression of “Islamist movements” would remain, and that Libya would maintain its role as a guardian against the migration of Africans into southern Europe.

Ms. Manx ventures that all the psy-ops mentioned by Wired also play into this somehow. Ya think, kittycat?

And at Global Research, Peter Dale Scott has been asking the taboo question as to who these Libyan rebels really are, and finding some disturbing answers. Would we in the west support this war if we heard all this openly talked about on CNN, instead of being spoon-fed the usual chicken noodle “news”? Ms. Manx doubts it very much. Which, again, makes Wired‘s psy-ops story that much more relevant.

Further to the topic of the media and its subtle (or not-so-) spoon-feeding of opinions and bullshit disguised as news, we get this neat little item from the Columbia Journalism Review, that tracks exactly when the word dictator gets trotted out. By some strange coincidence, it’s usually when some western leader or other (not naming any names, it doesn’t matter anyway) has arbitrarily decided that it’s time to get the war drums a-pounding against said leader, who used to be more or less acceptable until he did something which demonstrated him to be less than tame. This strategy, Ms. Manx notes, is applicable not only to Gaddafi, but to virtually any un-tame president of an oil-producing country, anywhere. Which no doubt explains a lot about how the democratically elected president of Venezuela keeps getting that label slapped unfairly on his little brown ass, too.

Meanwhile, Uruknet notes that the spectre of “depleted” uranium weapons is once again rearing its ugly, cancerous head. Which just has Ms. Manx shaking hers. Clearly, nobody has learned fuck-all from Iraq.

And finally, for a bit of comic relief, check out what Ms. Manx found at Raw Story on Newt Gingrich. Also, enjoy the picture of him and his lovely wife and her platinum football helmet. Ms. Manx cattily hopes that thing is good against radiation!

This entry was posted in Angry Pacifist Speaks Her Mind, Barreling Right Along, Canadian Counterpunch, Crapagandarati, Environmentally Ill, Fascism Without Swastikas, Filthy Stinking Rich, Huguito Chavecito, Isn't It Ironic?, Newspeak is Nospeak, Rivers in Egypt, Short 'n' Stubby, Spooks, The United States of Amnesia, The War on Terra. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Short ‘n’ Stubby: Ms. Manx senses a theme developing…

  1. Kitty says:

    Seriously, these are things that we have to question…The official line of “humanitarian intervention” or that X is massacring his people, is exactly what we need to question. Who seriously believes we give a shit about the Libyan people, and by we, I mean those in power?

    • Sabina Becker says:

      I know I don’t…but a great many otherwise intelligent, well-meaning people do, and that’s what worries me. Aside from the hurtfulness of getting into arguments with them (talk about beating one’s own head against a wall!), there’s the danger that once this not-so-humanitarian intervention passes unchallenged, it creates a dangerous precedent. And precedents have an ugly way of becoming law, or something effectively equivalent to it.

      • Kitty says:

        I think the whole deal and I am not loathe to say this, is that many in the states have bought the usual line because Obama’s saying it…

        The precedent has already been set, it’s just that “our guy’s” meaning Obama’s doing it and well somehow that this time we’re actually doing it for humanitarian reasons…That line of thinking also scares me, but I’m seeing it on Think Progress…

        Of course the stupid trolls over there are knee-jerk in their mentality…I posted skepticism about our motives in Libya and one of them, (the one supposedly with a doctorate and a business owner) asks, “So BO ‘aiding’ Al Qaeda is a good thing?” as if I supported the whole intervention…

  2. Beijing York says:

    Funny you should mention Chavez. Hubby was out with what we consider an open-minded and intelligent friend and he was shocked, SHOCKED, that we would even step foot in Venezuela with it’s vicious dictator, as bad as North Korea don’t you know. The mainstream media is far too respected by too many for people to realize they are basically being spoon fed propaganda.

    So yes, it’s hard to discuss Libya with normally very rational and critical thinkers who have fallen for the “humanitarian intervention” angle.

    At least 3 members of the so-called provisional government (one that’s been officially recognized by Sarkozy) are US-based Libyan expats with various degrees of close ties to the CIA. They are big fans of free market, heavy foreign investment capitalism. The kind of democracy the US imposed on Iraq and Afghanistan.

    • Sabina Becker says:

      And anything BUT a grassroots pro-democracy movement, it appears.

      No wonder the US hates the Bolivarian revolution of Venezuela. That was as grassroots as it got–it kept right on growing even while Chavecito was in prison for his failed uprising against CAP & Co. And it’s not wonder, either, that the media is in deep denial as to just how grassroots it is, and getting more so every day. Never a word about the Communal Councils or any other bottom-up efforts Chavecito supports–just about him as “dictator”.

      If only the joke were funny, I’d laugh.

  3. Anthony says:

    When I read about European countries selling weapons to Gadaffi, only to swiftly turn against him and go to war, I tend to think of a joke from Chapelle’s Show, where a person asks comedian Paul Mooney why Bush is so certain Iraq has WMD’s.

    Mooney responds “Because he has the receipt.” History in the remaking.. :s

    • Sabina Becker says:

      Yep…and that’s no joke either. There are even pics of Rummy shaking Saddam’s hand, back when the latter was tame. And Rummy was ReaganBushCo’s weapons salesman to Iraq…

Comments are closed.