Very interesting stuff indeed. I knew right off the bat that something was different with Libya’s "uprising" and questioned it because of several
1) Media's attention and exposure in relatively short span (as compared to Egypt, Tunasia)
2) Media's taking the side of the "rebels" as oppose to it's coverage of Egypt and Tunasia at the start which was more neutral and recognized Mubaraks
leadership (which they did not do with Libya).
3) Showed different sides to the uprisings in Egypt (effects of the protesting on business owners, Mubarak's friendly relations with Israel), asked
questions such as who would take the leadership's place and focused on a large muslim sect positioning for power gain (did not do the same with
4) Stressed how Mubaraks government held peace in the region.
5) Obama lack of support for the protesters until it became obvious that most of the world (citizens at least) and most of Americans (at least those
not in fear of a islamic takeover) supported them. With Libya is was the exact opposite.
6) Offered no military support (again exact opposite of what happened in Libya)
7) Reports from alternative media that Al Qaida was a major part of the rebels forces; ignored mostly by the MSM.
8) The MSM insistence of naming the fighting forces "rebels" when covering Libya and used the word "insurgents" when describing Egypt’s forces. Both
terms mean technically the same thing, but are interpreted in different ways by the people due to Orwellian like use of doublespeak.
9) Libya has large Oil reserves and resources.
10) Called Gaddafi a "dictator" while calling Mubarak the "president" of Egypt, even though both were techinically dictators.
11) Demonized Gaddafi a la Saddam Hussein, and constantly reminded the public of his roles in terrorist attacks.
That was a few months ago before I knew anything about the man other then what I perceived as a fluke, and brutal dictator (not having researched him
well). When I saw the picture of his body I knew he was tortured and beaten and news of him dying in a firefight was bogus. For whatever reason I felt
really sad by seeing that even though I still thought he was a brutal dictator (and I am sure he was in instances; the man was by no means a saint).
After reading his 2009 UN speech (which I recommend everyone do) I was shocked that such a brutal dictator would push such ideas and started to
question his public persona thrown down our throats by the MSM. From what I have read this week has kind made me even more sad, because I should have
known better than to take anything that the MSM says about foreign policy with a grain of salt.
edit on 24-10-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-10-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no