RT-'Life for most Libyans worse than it was under Gadaffi'

Post Reply New Topic

http://rt.com/op-edge/withdraw-staff-li ... um=twitter

I'm sorry to hear that. I had hoped that the Libyans had suffered enough, and might get some peace. I didn't expect it, though. Sadly, my expectations have more or less come to pass.

First, we all knew from Egypt, from Tunisia, that there'd be a rift between the Muslim fundamentalists, the Secularists, and others. There's also the fact that I can virtually guarantee that the Saudi's and the Iranians have agents at play, as well as non-state players.

Still, the one thing that gives me some measure of hope is that affect any war, especially such a brief one as Libya, that there must be a period of chaos after it. When an autocrat such as Qaddafi is deposed, you have a people not used to self-determination. They will take time to find their sea-legs. Here's hoping for the best.

i think it was always going to go badly for the worst off Libyans. The NTC, the Royalists, the pro-Idris faction only ever cared about reinstating their prestige as the dominant group. Ordinary Libyans went from a situation where they were having all of their basic needs- housing, education, utilities and healthcare paid for by the state to having to fend for themselves on all fronts. For someone who was supposedly such an evil guy I think its telling that over 2 years on there remains significant clusters of resistance from the pro-Gadaffi faction but they get no exposure from the western media. Also if the NTC truly had a democratic precedence with the numbers on their side, why did they need NATO intervention to win? The UK is denying it, but its a sure thing there were western boots on the ground. Some of those 'Libyans' on the news were awfully pale for arabs.

Not to mention that the NTC are racist as hell. After the disposition of the Jamahiriya anti black violence and harrassment exploded. The Gadaffi government was specifically opposed to harrassment inflicted on non arab minorities.

Gadaffi was no bogeyman. He represented a political inconvenience for the west because he would not allow western corporations to run rickshaw in the country and gorge at the trough of their oil resources. Thats why they had to get rid of him.

Last edited by thomas81 on 13 May 2013, 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

All is proceeding as expected. It reminds me of what happened in Serbia after Milosevic was ousted, a member of the new regime proclaimed that "No one will be happy with our government". From now on, it's austerity, it's grim tidings, it's sacrifice because that's part of joining the West.

After Milosevic was ousted? Are you seriously defending a man who committed genocide? Ironic since you made your own thread talking about someone else committing genocide. Or perhaps, are you only against genocide if you think you can put some blame on the Jews?

Milosevic refused to privatise everything under the sun and actually rebuilt things without permission. He was never convicted of any genocide, Strobe Talbott at Department of State let the cat out of the bag when he said that the real reason they bombed Yugoslavia was because he wasn't doing the "reforms" demanded... It's the same thing in Libya. The new regime was very open in stating that the people were spoiled under Qaddafi and some belt-tightening and punishment was in order for the sake of the wealthy, particularly the foreign wealthy. It's the same old story.

Milosevic was a mass murdering piece of crap there can be no question, however i think the point is whenever you oust a government regardless of how reprehensible they are, it creates a political vacuum of further violence and upheaval.

The insurgency and prolonged violence with coalition forces in Post-Hussein Iraq is the textbook example.

Beginings are usually hard so its hardly surprising that a post Khaddaffi republic is still trying to find its legs.

Whatever.


Libya aside--- you have to be aware of the messenger.
Its Russia Today.

You have to be aware that if Libya instantly magically turned into Malibu- RT would still portray the place as hell on earth because RT is a mouthpiece for the Russian Government, and thus is a mouthpiece against NATO, and thus is a mouthpiece against any result of a NATO action.

As soon as the Libyan revolt broke out RT demonized the rebels, and apologized for Russia's longtime client Khaddaffi. Even before NATO involvement.

Then ofcourse when the war widened they would portray Khaddaffi as innocent victim of Anglo american, and NATO bullying,.

Not sayin everone has to agree on NATO involvement in libya, but RT was almost laughibly biased in its coverage ( like a tobacco company reporting on lung cancer).

Al Jazeera would portray Libya as a place where the locals were freeing themselves from a hated dictator. RT would portray Libya as a place being bombed to the stoneage by NATO planes who were beating up on poor little Khaddaffi. You could surf between the two networks and think that there were two entirely different nations on earth named "Libya" because how differently it was portrayed on the two networks.

Same with Syria right now. In both western news, and in Al Jazeera, Assad comes off as a desperate ruthless tyrant trying to hold on to power. On RT he is the hapless victim of Britain, the USA, NATO, the Arab League, and of everyone else who is inconvenient to Putin's foreign policy! Poor Assad! Why is everybody being so mean to him?

So any story about post Khaddaffi Libya coming from RT has to be taken with a pillar of salt.

Any story about ANYthing from ANY network should be taken with atleast a pinch.

For that very reason Ive become a conneiseur of foriegn networks like Al Jazeera and RT. You get the same amount of BS as on Fox and MSNBC. But its different BS. RT has its strengths over american networks as well. The differing pov's of different outlets makes for a great buffet.

Maybe still bad, but worse?

Of course it's worse. It's run by a patchwork of Islamists and neoliberals and militias. It's completely dysfunctional, a typical failed state that results from Western intervention.

Gadaffi wasn't overthrown as a result of western intervention. He was overthrown by Libyan rebels during the Arab Spring.

Gaddafi had the "rebels" beaten by the time NATO intervened. The west wanted Gaddafi gone and the bloodshed that followed is on their hands.

Who were those Libyan rebels then who were dragging Gaddafi dead on the streets?

The Western intervention was decisive. He was defeating the rebels until the West stepped in. Still, his government held out for several months under Nato bombs and it took Western ground troops to bring him down.

This was the patchwork of Islamist militias and neoliberals I was mentioning earlier. Not strong enough to defeat Qaddafi, not strong enough to actually control Libya afterwards and so a typical failed state following Western intervention.

The NTC is hated by large swathes of people across Libya. Many are demanding Gadaffi's surviving son, Saif Al-Islam Gadaffi to be released in the hope that he can lead a second green revolution and reinstate the Jamahiriya.