Could anyone watch Jeremy Bowen’s piece on BBC News last night, which showed a grieving father hugging the wrapped bodies of two tiny children killed in a NATO bombing? The fact the tiny childrens’ grandfather was a Gadaffi minister seemed to Jeremy Bowen a possible justification – he posed a dichotomy that by killing these children, more civilian lives could be saved.
But how could this warping of utilitarian judgement work in practice? Bowen quoted NATO as saying there were command and control structures in the house as well as the Minister’s family. So bombing it saved civilian lives elsewhere. What constitutes a command and control structure in these circumstances? A mobile phone? A computer? And how does destroying that little bit of infrastructure save lives so directly that it could atone for our killing of tiny children? Jeremy Bowen, who interviewed me in Tashkent and I like, should be ashamed of himself. But he did get the tiny dead children on the ten o clock news for two minutes, which has done something to undermine the pro-war propaganda pumped out everywhere.
NATO is not saving civilian lives. It is killing civilians.
Meanwhile, Obama announces the beginning of the end of the utterly pointless occupation of Afghanistan. The Afghan war was was not as illegal as the Iraq war, as it did have a connection to 9/11. But we have achieved nothing after ten years we had not achieved after one year. There is still no non-fraudulent democracy, no rule of law, no women’s rights and no economic development outwith the narcotics sector. Nor will there be, and we will have made as little societal change as the Anglo-Afghan Wars or the Soviet occupation.
We have, however, killed an awful lot of small children. And lost many of our own who were little more than children,
“The Afghan war was was not as illegal as the Iraq war, as it did have a connection to 9/11.” What spurious link was that, precisely?
According to the TV news, it was one of those ‘command and control’ centres with the very latest children’s side in the back garden.
Sorry, that should obviously read ‘children’s slide’.
I agree, Craig. Actually, while the report was harrowing and while at times I thought Bowen’s crew got disrepectfully in the way of the funeral procession (would he have done this at the funerals of, say, the 7/7 victims or at Wootton Bassett? And what if, say, a Libyan TV crew did the same at one of those places?), I thought Bowen was posing these deliberately awkward questions for the ‘audience’ to confront for themselves, rather than doing the usual BBC thing of telling us what to think. It certainly would have made even the most eager exponent of military action pause, one would hope. It’s been very clear for some considerable time that the original Arab League and UN, etc. mandate has been completely breached in the case of the Libyan situation. And the hypocrisy wrt Syria, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, etc. is stark. The Afghan situation is woeful; now all the warmongers are admitting it. Yet sites like this one have been the same thing for almost a decade. Told them so. Cold comfort.
Not sure what these comments mean. But when you cite the TV news I immediately know that it is disinformation being promulgated. The only possible link between Afghanistan and 9/11 would be a Mossad-run broadcasting site from that country. Why Craig allows, enables and even promotes islamophobic content is beyond reasoning.
“The only possible link between Afghanistan and 9/11 would be a Mossad-run broadcasting site from that country. Why Craig allows, enables and even promotes islamophobic content is beyond reasoning.”
.
Weird nonsense here. What do you mean by “Islamophobic content”?
.
Angrysob, I think David has taken exception to this statement: “The Afghan war was was not as illegal as the Iraq war, as it did have a connection to 9/11.”
But the evidence for this is negligible. As identified by Chomsky et al, Afghanistan is a war for gas and oil pipeline routes in this region and beyond…
The islamophobic content is to agree with the pretence that 9/11 was in any way connected to cave-dwelling islamists as we are instructed to believe. Straight after the event even the commentator from the “new Pearl Harbor” think tank stated that such an operation would require the resources of a government secret service (as also agreed by the Italian President who pointed to Mossad) before these comments were removed from the MSM news sites.To suggest that “the Taliban” or whomever in Afghanistan was somehow involved in 9/11 is naive at best or simply going along with the media-directed islamophobia to distract from the real culprits. In addition (as if needed) there is ample evidence to show that the attack/invasion of Afghanistan was planned well before 9/11.
What is also disturbing is how long this piece of shocking news took to hit our TV screens. These deaths happened in the early hours of Monday morning. Monday and Tuesday’s news editors thought the planned increase in women’s retirement age and other inane and mediocre (by comparison) stories were more newsworthy than the culpability of NATO in deliberately targeting buildings containing civilians. History is likely to judge NATO as it has judged NAZI Germany. But by judgement day it will be too late to bring back the dead.
The “ Emperor of War” has no clothes, and it is right that his nakedness be exposed.
http://www.normangirvan.info/barnett-end-bombing-libya/
The original raison d’être for Resolution 1973 being that Gadaffi was about to massacre civilians has now lost traction. Clearly, there is armed rebellion coming from eastern Libya, and primarily Benghazi. External assistance is being given to try and topple Gadaffi or assassinate. This does not accord with the lawful enforcement of Resolution 1973. Also, there are two salient points that spring to mind:-
i) Gadaffi still has strong support amongst a majority of his people; and
ii) The African Union, as the legitimate voice for the African continent, is willing and able to broker a
political solution to the crisis.
It is time that the US/NATO stop bombing the Libyan people. They are acting illegally.
The Afghan war has accomplished 3 main things over a decade:-
1. It has made trillions for the warmongers.
2.It has built, in part, an oil pipeline, which is intended to avoid the need to traverse territory controlled
by the Russians and likewise give the best export route for significant amounts of Caspian resources.
( see: http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/afghan.htm – and – http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-03-18/news/0203180046_1_caspian-taliban-gulf-war).
3. It has made a quite impressive supply to the world’s total stock of heroin ( see: addicts in London).
If this all sounds a little cynical, maybe then I will have to enlist George Bernard Shaw to give sustenance to my points:-
“The power of accurate observation is often called
cynicism by those who have not got it.”
1.
Not sure how salient they are but as you say the bombing has to stop.
‘Gadaffi still has strong support amongst a majority of his people;’
Sorry to be so blunt but this is absolute rubbish.
“The Afghan war was was not as illegal as the Iraq war”
I would thought something was legal or illegal, it’s a binary thing.
“We have, however, killed an awful lot of small children. And lost many of our own who were little more than children.”
–
Very clever construction Craig; Courtenay, Suhayl and John are inviolable; the power of intention is strong in them. Some are left to build castles in air.
Courtenay, on what basis do you make this statement:
‘Gadaffi still has strong support amongst a majority of his people;…’?
Letter to Jeremy Bowen
Monday, 20 June, 2011 15:25:0
.
Dear Mr Bowen,
.
I quote you from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13843798
.
‘This is Nato striking at the very heart of the Libyan establishment, sending a clear signal after what happened in Tripoli [on Sunday] when civilians were killed. It is sending a clear signal that their campaign continues.’ ‘Clearly’ it does.
.
‘Clear signal’ you write on your BBC lap top. When does clear signal become Coventry or Dresden? Oh! Hiroshima and Nagasaki were ‘clear signals’. That being the Israel/US/UK axis rules this world and kills at will.
.
Your first reporting of the killing of a family yesterday was fair, within limits, but the twisting of the words that followed were evil. And I mean evil. It has been documented on Media Lens.
.
David Halpin FRCS a repairer of humans
Dear Mr Bowen,
I quote you from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13843798
‘This is Nato striking at the very heart of the Libyan establishment, sending a clear signal after what happened in Tripoli [on Sunday] when civilians were killed. It is sending a clear signal that their campaign continues.’ ‘Clearly’ it does.
‘Clear signal’ you write on your BBC lap top. When does clear signal become Coventry or Dresden? Oh! Hiroshima and Nagasaki were ‘clear signals’. That being the Israel/US/UK axis rules this world and kills at will.
Your first reporting of the killing of a family yesterday was fair, within limits, but the twisting of the words that followed were evil. And I mean evil. It has been documented on Media Lens.
David Halpin FRCS a repairer of humans
Apologies for duplication. Can mod delete. Thanks.
I thought it was remarkable, and much to the Libyans’ credit, that no one attacked the BBC crew either physically or even verbally. Imagine how Londoners would have felt had German journalists and photographers turned up to the funeral of women and children killed in the Blitz! (The rights and wrongs of the wars has nothing to do with it – ordinary people never feel much connection with the doings of politicians).
Ruth, why are YOU so sure that Qadafi is not supported by the majority of his people? Surely that is a default assumption about any ruler of a nation – let alone one who has been in power, virtually unchallenged, for over 40 years?
I have been entirely unable to unearth any concrete evidence whatsoever for the dreadful crimes of which Qadafi keeps being accused. Western media such as the BBC unhesitatingly refer to his killing of his own people, terrorism, repression, etc. for all the world as if these were established facts. But no one has ever established them, or published supporting evidence!
On the other hand there is extremely strong and consistent scientific evidence for the fact that the “West”, the “international community”, NATO, or whatever other synonym you care to use for the White House and the Pentagon, caused well over 1 million DEATHS in Iraq, plus a very large number of injuries, the destruction of many families, the uprooting and homelessness of 4-5 million, and destruction of the entire national infrastructure.
So who is entitled to throw rocks at whom?
No-one really knows what the levels of support is for the rebels or Ghadafi.The Rebels are a shady bunch and we know they have the support of NATO and Benghazi seems to be on their side too.NATO have been denying for years cililian casualties in Afghansitan,why should they begin to tell the truth.It was Rasmussen standing there with a straight face that the only way to save civilians was to keep bombing them..I felt sick. Then there was this little english speaking spokesman ,reminding me of one of Saddams henchmen, trying to explain that a house full of children was a legitimate target…. And my country is doing this.. Even Cameron speaks about the war… we’ve morphed into war from humanitarian mission and bombing kids is necessary.Cameron was never given a mandate to do this !!! NATO has become a headless monster and they are far from a defence force as the crusaders were.The UK should get out of that club as well.They are out of control.
“Was the decision taken [by NATO] that killing civilians here would save others elsewhere?” – ‘Libya: Funerals fuel controversy over Nato airstrikes‘, Jeremy Bowen, BBC News Website, 22 June 2011
When I first heard this report by Bowen on 22/6/11 I couldn’t believe my ears! Here is the much vaunted objectivity of the BBC revealed for what it’s worth, nothing, nothing at all. Does Bowen really listen to what he himself said? Kill little children here so that these little children won’t kill people elsewhere?
Jeremy Bowen is a pretty good reporter who pushes the limits of what the BBC will let him report, but i agree that the family homes of members of Gaddafi’s government are not “command and control centres” and not military targets. If Libyans carried out a bombing of the home of a member of the Coalition government or a senior British military commander, targeting him or her, but knowing they’d probably kill that person’s partner and children in the process would anyone in the UK, France or the US argue that they’d hit a “legitimate military target” or “command and control centre” – not for a second. Bombing family homes with children in them is targeting civilian targets and making no attempt to avoid killing civilians, however they try and dress it up. Claiming Gaddafi and his government must take full responsibility for whatever NATO decide to do is a load of bollocks.
It’s not as if this is something no-one could foresee either. When it was tried in 1986 by Reagan it killed a young girl. I predicted on my blog when i first heard they were targeting Gaddafi’s compounds in Tripoli that it would happen again if they continued. http://inplaceoffear.blogspot.com/2011/03/time-for-peace-negotiations-in-libya.html
It did. When they tried it against Gaddafi’s youngest son they killed him, but also his two young children. Yet they didn’t stop – and so the children of one of Gaddafi’s advisers have been killed (in a deliberate NATO strike) along with other children not even related to members of Gaddafi’s regime due to mistakes.
If NATO really want to protect civilians they will stop targeting family homes. They and the rebels should also reconsider their rejection of Gaddafi’s offer of a ceasefire along with elections supervised by international observers.
I completely understand why the rebels oppose any deal that doesn’t guarantee the Gaddafis leaving power, but if they really want a transition to democracy and to avoid many more civilians being killed by NATO air strikes and Gaddafi’s rockets, taking up the offer of elections is the best chance of doing that.
http://inplaceoffear.blogspot.com/2011/06/libya-nato-and-rebels-should-accept.html
The war is not going to end soon and certainly not by Bastille Day (July 14th), whatever orders Sarkozy gives the French military. Without a peace deal it’s likely to drag on for years and continue even after that as an Iraq style guerilla or insurgent war by whatever side loses.
Of course protecting civilians hasn’t been NATO governments’ motive for intervening so far – as their strikes on family homes and their failure to intervene in Syria or even end their support for Saleh in Yemen (until it was clear he was finished anyway) or the Saudis and Al Khalifa in Bahrain show.
http://inplaceoffear.blogspot.com/2011/06/libya-nato-governments-actions-and.html
It’s been about oil and votes and distracting TV coverage from their continued support for dictators who are having civilians killed elsewhere
http://inplaceoffear.blogspot.com/2011/06/more-on-oil-motive-for-natos.html
While it is not certain or even likely that Ghadaffi was part of any kind of mass exterminations like those that others were part of, such as the CIA agent Saddam Hussein.
However he has certainly been politically repressive and it is inconceivable that did not extend at times to extra judicial killings of opponents.
(I doubt if a vocal critic of him would have much future).
And we do have to remember that his weaselish evasion of submitting himself to some kind of democratic process is not very credible.
He says he isn’t a president or needs to be elected -he is just the revered leader of the revolution, with a natural role as elder of the tribe.
Certainly he is not inclined to democracy as we would recognise it here, and he is essentially tribal, patriarchal, despotic, and dynastic in inclinations. There is little doubt that tribal divisions are one the factors behind the current situation.
In addition he has a history of dabbling in actions that would be regarded as ‘terrorist’ such as, at the very least, being deeply involved in military and other training of people who went on to become ruthless pursuers of political power, and unleashed some very nasty events and characters, such as in Sierra Leone, for one. He is (or was) certainly a player in the many kinds of skullduggery and cruelties that typify international politics, especially that of the ME and Oil-related activity.
He is certainly no angel and he has used his money to some considerable effect in creating difficulties or cruelties, at a number of levels. He is also tyrannical in the sense of his acquiring and holding control over assets in such a way that he and his family and cronies receive special benefits out of proportion to the value of their contributions. Nepotism is rife. However putting any kind of figure on this form of corruption is difficult.
It seems that Gaddaffi is a slightly unusual character- he is depicted as a ‘mad’ man but I discern quite a keen intelligence and, by the standards of such people, someone who has control over his more extreme inclinations.
In other words he is ‘relatively benign’ as despots go.
I doubt very much if he is actually ‘mad’, although he is, like most leaders extremely narcissistic and this may well veer into abnormality.
He is certainly inclined to eccentric demonstrations of his individuality, which can leave him open to the accusation of ‘madness’. But this is simply spun to maximum effect by those hostile to him.
He is something of a technocrat, (like Saddam) which is appealing to the western mentality, and he clearly understands how to use money in ways that promote development, and social and technical progress. I think that is why he was able to form connections with people like Blair-they shared a similar idea of ‘progress’ as subordinate to the niceties of democracy.
Ironically, isn’t it, that he had sufficient in common with such as Blair to form a close connection. Mad?
So he has certainly held oppressive control over significant elements within Libya, while at the same time spreading some of the benefits of the wealth throughout a reasonable range of the population.
I personally knew an American oil man (in Aberdeen in the seventies), who had a visceral hatred for Gadaffi for interrupting his very nice little earner there. My impression was that he was intent on revenge and was always, rather irrationally,it seemed to me, plotting some kind of devious way of getting back his Libyan income stream. I am absolutely certain that he was interacting in some way with the support and connections to both British and American intelligence system. His sidekick was an ex-captain in a British regiment.
The man was actually very wealthy, but he was convinced that he had been stolen from by Gaddaffi. He was also deeply involved in some very nasty ‘business’ (essentially corrupt dealings)in the Aberdeen oil scene.
I personally saw him walk away with 27,000 pounds cash from one tiny deal involving a small pipeline component. The deal was for 30,000. His ‘cut’ was the 27,000. That was not bad money in 1977, for an afternoon’s work. it was also the routine proportion of ‘costs and cut’ for those ‘in position’.
I suppose my point is that ‘intelligence’ services and policy of certain countries are sometimes driven by people and personalities who harbour personal grievances and that the borders between ‘ordinary’ people and powerful state organisations are very blurred indeed.
Yes disgraceful William Bowles and I have written yet again to the shady bunch of BBC trustees on your point and Mary’s.
–
Ruth
I have much faith in Lizzie Phelan’s reporting on Libya, she is a young English political activist who has been to Libya.
–
http://lizziesliberation.wordpress.com/
–
See also my comment in a previous thread if you missed it here:
–
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/06/illegal-blockades/#comments
–
It is another angle but one you might like to consider.
Ruth
Lizzie Phelan is a young political activist who has been to Libya. You might like to consider her views here:
–
http://lizziesliberation.wordpress.com/
Ruth said: “‘Gadaffi still has strong support amongst a majority of his people;’ Sorry to be so blunt but this is absolute rubbish.”
*
Since we’re being so direct, how about evidence, Ruth, that Gadaffi does not have strong support amongst the majority of his people?
*
But of course, such demands are idiotic. Who can possibly know? Is the Gallup organization at work in Libya:
*
Do you support President Gaddafi (a) very strongly, (b)somewhat strongly, (c) weakly, etc.
*
And are we supposed to judge the legality and morality of war based on the results of an opinion poll? Obviously not.
*
Morality is a matter of conscience. Is it justified to kill men, women, children for oil? global hegemony? for national survival?
*
Legality depends on who wins. for Surely at any Muslim dominated Nuremberg, George Bush and Tony Blair would go to the gallows.
Ruth,
You asked me about Gadaffi’s support. I preface what I have to say by reference to what Tom posted:-
“Ruth, why are YOU so sure that Qadafi is not supported by the majority of his people? Surely that is a default assumption about any ruler of a nation – let alone one who has been in power, virtually unchallenged, for over 40 years?
I have been entirely unable to unearth any concrete evidence whatsoever for the dreadful crimes of which Qadafi keeps being accused. Western media such as the BBC unhesitatingly refer to his killing of his own people, terrorism, repression, etc. for all the world as if these were established facts. But no one has ever established them, or published supporting evidence!
On the other hand there is extremely strong and consistent scientific evidence for the fact that the “West”, the “international community”, NATO, or whatever other synonym you care to use for the White House and the Pentagon, caused well over 1 million DEATHS in Iraq, plus a very large number of injuries, the destruction of many families, the uprooting and homelessness of 4-5 million, and destruction of the entire national infrastructure.
So who is entitled to throw rocks at whom?”
May I ask rhetorically – after some 2/3 months of non-stop bombardment, if Gadaffi did not have considerable internal support, wouldn’t the army, the citizens, the vast majority of the people not by now turned on him and overthrown the government? I guess – on your line of logic – that this reasoning by deduction does not warrant any consideration as regard numerical support?
And – as Donald said:-
“No-one really knows what the levels of support is for the rebels or Ghadafi.The Rebels are a shady bunch and we know they have the support of NATO and Benghazi seems to be on their side too.”
In the meantime I am consulting Gallup on the cost of its Libya poll to give you the final statistically accurate answer Ruth.
Your rebel support numbers a.s.a.p. please Ruth.
@ Paul,
Really ” 1.
Not sure how salient they are but as you say the bombing has to stop.”
Is this the best you can muster?
Courtenay
The brilliant idea which many ordinary people have, and quite a few politicians have is: Why not make a quick military intervention to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, and then pull out again? Why don’t we prevent a massacre in Benghazi, and then leave? Why don’t we catch Bin Laden or at least give his Afghan protectors a bloody nose, and then get out again?
The brilliant idea which generals have is: Why don’t we create ourselves a career for life, by refusing to pull out of Afghanistan, and refusing to pull out of Libya, and soldiering on uselessly for years?
Courtney,
Your evidence for the notion that Gadaffi is supported by the majority of his people relies firstly on the fact that he’s been in power for over 40 years. Well, how many times has the West tried to get rid of him and even now with all their bombs they’re struggling. So how can you expect the Libyans to have done the job? The regime is/was supported by layers and layers of impenetrable security built up over many years costing billions of dinars.
Next you state there’s no evidence. Go and speak to the families who lost their husbands and sons in the Abu Salim prison massacre where over 1200 political prisoners were shot dead in a few hours in 1996. Or if you can’t believe them then speak to Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch. Search the internet for the bits of bodies of protestors blown apart by artillery fire in Benghazi in February or if you have time you can even find video clips of public hangings in Benghazi.
Next you use Donald’s comment, ‘No-one really knows what the levels of support is for the rebels or Ghadafi.’ Not quite true, the Libyans do. Ask them. I have.