“Airstrikes in Libya did not take place� – Russian military

[The Vegan Marxist]

NO sectarian attacks please. This isn't some endorsement to Gaddafi, nor an attack against the protesters. This is being reported here to clear out the bullshit rumors in order to make more room for the truth.

“Airstrikes in Libya did not take place” – Russian military
March 1, 2011

XYesnOD6_gQ

The reports of Libya mobilizing its air force against its own people spread quickly around the world. However, Russia’s military chiefs say they have been monitoring from space – and the pictures tell a different story.

According to Al Jazeera and BBC, on February 22 Libyan government inflicted airstrikes on Benghazi – the country’s largest city – and on the capital Tripoli. However, the Russian military, monitoring the unrest via satellite from the very beginning, says nothing of the sort was going on on the ground.

At this point, the Russian military is saying that, as far as they are concerned, the attacks some media were reporting have never occurred.

The same sources in Russia’s military establishment say they are also monitoring the situation around Libya’s oil pumping facilities.

http://rt.com/news/airstrikes-libya-russian-military/

[danyboy27]

and what about all those pilots who defected?

[gorillafuck]

NO sectarian attacks please. This isn't some endorsement to Gaddafi, nor an attack against the protesters. This is being reported here to clear out the bullshit rumors in order to make more room for the truth.Why do you assume Russian media is the truth? Russian media is just as bad as US media. Media in Russia is legitimately horrible.

[The Vegan Marxist]

and what about all those pilots who defected?

It was only two pilots, and was widely lambasted through mainstream media. I would actually like to see the evidence that they really sent down airstrikes. Right now, it's just pure accusation spouted by the media. Isn't it possible that Gaddafi ordered airstrikes, but never took place after the pilots defected, thus led the media to spinning the story in their favor?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Why do you assume Russian media is the truth? Russian media is just as bad as US media. Media in Russia is legitimately horrible.

I see no need of lying about this. Why would they?

[gorillafuck]

The accusations of jets bombing people aren't only from pilots.

[danyboy27]

It was only two pilots, and was widely lambasted through mainstream media. I would actually like to see the evidence that they really sent down airstrikes. Right now, it's just pure accusation spouted by the media.

well, they where fully loaded with rockets.

[#FF0000]

I see no need of lying about this. Why would they?

Yeah that's what I'm wondering too. I wonder what interests the Russians have in Libya.

[The Vegan Marxist]

well, they where fully loaded with rockets.

I added more to what you quoted, just so you know.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The accusations of jets bombing people aren't only from pilots.

It's always going through media though. I've yet to see a video where the protesters have actually stated, with their own words, that an airstrike took place. I've yet to see video or pictures of damage from airstrikes either. Don't you find that a bit odd?

[gorillafuck]

I see no need of lying about this. Why would they?Libya is regarded by Russia as it's strongest ally in the Arab world. Russia sees the protests as well as the seemingly impending imperialist actions against Libya as a threat.

[#FF0000]

I don't know where this idea that RT is anywhere close to a fair and unbiased media outlet

[The Vegan Marxist]

Libya is regarded by Russia as it's strongest ally in the Arab world. Russia sees the protests as well as the seemingly impending imperialist actions against Libya as a threat.

Well, since Russia's in agreement of implementing economic sanctions against Libya and have denounced Libya's act of violence against the protesters, I would say their past relations are a bit irrelevant. Thus, why I still highly doubt Russia would lie about this.

http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=16000919&PageNum=0

[#FF0000]

Well, since Russia's in agreement of implementing economic sanctions against Libya and have denounced Libya's act of violence against the protesters, I would say their past relations are a bit irrelevant. Thus, why I still highly doubt Russia would lie about this.

http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=16000919&PageNum=0

Would you believe it if it were America and not Russia?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Would you believe it if it were America and not Russia?

Well, given their ideological stance against Libya, and the now known possible attempts of invading Libya by surrounding the country. I would say yes, because there'd be no need of lying about that. Thus why, if the CIA comes forward on a certain lie and acknowledging it was a lie, there'd be no need of believing their lying about this acknowledgment.

[gorillafuck]

Well, since Russia's in agreement of implementing economic sanctions against Libya and have denounced Libya's act of violence against the protesters, I would say their past relations are a bit irrelevant. Thus, why I still highly doubt Russia would lie about this. Just like how America backs the Egyptian protesters and just like how America condemned the Honduran coup. Russia isn't run by people who aren't capable of trying to save face.

Also, it's because of Russia that no-fly zones have been vetoed, and they voiced their opposition to war against Libya (not that war would be a good thing, it wouldn't be). Obviously Russia wants NATO to have nothing to do with Libya (not that I do, though). There is a clear motive for Russia to deny the bombings happened.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Just like how America backs the Egyptian protesters and just like how America condemned the Honduran coup. Russia isn't run by people who aren't capable of trying to save face.

Also, it's because of Russia that no-fly zones have been vetoed, and they voiced their opposition to war against Libya (not that war would be a good thing, it wouldn't be). Obviously Russia wants NATO to have nothing to do with Libya (not that I do, though).

lol, America never "backed" the protesters, because they didn't agree with the protesters' demands. They wanted Mubarak to complete his position as leader in order to ensure a transition of power under the US's interests. When it comes to the Honduran coup, they didn't condemn it, they called for peace and never even called it a coup. After the coup was successful, they backed the new leadership.

And just because they don't support an actual invasion, they clearly don't support the Libyan govt. or people if they endorse their support in economic sanctions! Again, I see no need for Russia to lie about this. They're clearly not allies, thus no need to protect them.

[#FF0000]

Peoples naivete never fails to astound me.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Peoples naivete never fails to astound me.

Your lack of addressing my statements is what's astounding.

[gorillafuck]

lol, America never "backed" the protesters, because they didn't agree with the protesters' demands.They said they wanted Mubarak gone, just like how Russia says they want Qaddafi gone now.


They wanted Mubarak to complete his position as leader in order to ensure a transition of power under the US's interests. When it comes to the Honduran coup, they didn't condemn it, they called for peace and never even called it a coup. After the coup was successful, they backed the new leadership. Yes. They officially opposed the coup though. We're not going by what they actually wanted, that's the point. It's political games. America did say they opposed the coup, officially. Doesn't make it true. Russia condemns Libyan actions. Well, ya see, it would look horrible if they didn't. That's why they did.

In fact, America put sanctions on the Honduran coup leaders once the coup was exposed. They did this because that looks good and they can appear anti-coup while behind the scenes they supported it and they can still maintain imperialist control over the honduran situation, which is exactly what they did.


And just because they don't support an actual invasion, they clearly don't support the Libyan govt. or people if they endorse their support in economic sanctions! Again, I see no need for Russia to lie about this. They're clearly not allies, thus no need to protect them.They have been Libyas strongest ally in the Arab world for quite a long time, but Russia needs to condemn Libyan actions to save face. So they want a transition to a new pro-Russian government with Qaddafi gone because that looks good. They really don't want NATO to get involved and they don't want America involved because that would likely prop up a government less close to Russia, hence why they condemn Qaddafi and Libyan actions but don't want NATO or America to get too involved.

[gorillafuck]

Your lack of addressing my statements is what's astounding.You lack understanding of the common political games played by world powers.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Really, both sides provide no evidence to their claims. We have one side claiming there were strikes because pilots say they were ordered in doing so, and the other side stating there weren't any airstrikes due to what the satellites showed. Both sides need to provide evidence.

Remaining skeptical of both sides seems the most legitimate position to take right now.

[#FF0000]

Remaining skeptical of both sides seems the most legitimate position to take right now.

That's fine but it's completely unreasonable to say "RUSSIA HAS NO REASON TO LIE, SO WHY NOT BELIEVE THEM" which is what you were saying a page back.

[PhoenixAsh]

Seriously....I have had my doubts about the attacks taking place these last few days. There is no evidence except for some eyewitnes reports. There is no footage and no photographic evidence...and there is evidence of many, many other events taking place. Yet the airstrikes on Benghazi, Tripoli, Misratha and Zuwarah are so far incidentally not captured on any media device? Air attacks and bombardments of jets on protests is just too big an issue not to have footage off....its also something that can be seen from miles away.

Then there is the question of the numbers of people killed. Though staggering and awful...what do you think would happen if an airforce straved or bombarded a large group of protesters?
The number of deaths reported so far is simply to few for such air strikes on such massive protests.

I need evidence before I can further believe it.


That also brings me to the reporting....which more and more leans towards trying to get military intervention to take place.

Which reminds me of a quote from Hearst: "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war. "
(Written in a telegram to a war photographer who was in Cuba and complained to Hearst that nothing was happening.)

Now the popular story behind that quote is what my exact feeling is when I watch the news on Libya.

Hearst and Pullizer were in competition for readers of their newspaper. They wanted to sell as much as possible and were not above fabricating or twisting news to suit this goal. So when an American vessel was sunk near Cuba Hearst in his New York journal put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Spanish....even providing pictures in the article about underwater mines and shore detonators.

The spanish were at that time in control of Cuba and faced a relatively minor uprising. For days on end te press published articles of brutal repression by the Spanish....it was indeed brutal* but the press were portraying it as genocide committed by Spanish canibals who indiscriminately tortures women, children and the elderly.

The NY Journal had sent amongst others a war correspondent and photographer named Remmington. He send a telegram after several days which simply stated: "now war here request to be recalled". To which Hearst gave the above reply. Within a week after the Maine was sunk and the NY journal spend eight pages a day on the attack on American honor....which was immediately picked up by every other single newspaper who did not want to be outdone in the race for the reader... The US issued an ultimatum to Spain...which was rejected...and subsequently put up a blockade around Cuba. War broke out when Madrid declared it in a response to the blockade.

Incidentally the whole affair was most vehemently advocated by the Democrats.


* The spanish simply tried and succeeded to isolate the rebels from support of the local population by relocating almost every cuban te reconcentration camps.

However...after the assassination of Castillo (by an anarchist in reply to his repressive policies :-) )...Segasta became the Spanish prime minister was pro Cuban autonomy and he and McKinley decided to end the whole affair by giving Cuba autonomy.

Thats when the Maine incident happened. Which later, in the 70's turned out to be an internal explosion in the powder chambers.

THough these days the journalism as a driving force behind the war is downplayed...it did play a role in inciting popular support and advocacy for war.



I can not help but get the exact same feeling when I watch the report abot Libya.

[Mather]

I see no need of lying about this. Why would they?


And just because they don't support an actual invasion, they clearly don't support the Libyan govt. or people if they endorse their support in economic sanctions! Again, I see no need for Russia to lie about this. They're clearly not allies, thus no need to protect them.

Here is a news article on Russia's position on the protests and uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110222/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_medvedev

More news articles on Russia's new economic interests in Libya since the sanctions were lifted, including deals on Libya's Soviet era debt, arms deals for military modernisation and the buying of new Russian weapons, energy (oil and gas) deals and investment deals. There was also a suggestion of Russia building a naval base in Libya.

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20091007/156383869.html

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3797885

Russia has billions of dollars tied up and invested in Libya, much like the other imperialist states. Russia is a capitalist imperialist state and as such it's foriegn policy in the Middle East and North Africa will be shaped according to the interests of it's own bourgeoisie. At the moment those interests favour 'stability' and the preservation of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East and North Africa.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Perhaps the bombings didn't take place because the pilots either defected to Malta or bailed their airplanes into the desert?

We do know that there were airstrikes against arms depots in the East, as well as jets attacking civilian infrastructure (cant remember if i saw it on the bbc or al jazeera), though thats obviously different from attacking the protesters themselves.

Anyway, its mostly Al Jazeera reporting this stuff, I could see the USA or UK conspiring to take Libya's oil but what does Qatar have to do with this CIA conspiracy?

[Sasha]

maybe the OP can ask the russians wheter their satalites also didnt see the bombs just almost dropped on the head of aljazeera and theguardian journalists:


2.00pm: (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/02/libya-uprising-gaddafi-live#block-50) An al-Jazeera correspondent just said a bomb was dropped about 60m from where he is outside Brega. He said there are around 300 government fighters in the town but they are surrounded.
1.52pm: (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/02/libya-uprising-gaddafi-live#block-49) The Guardian's Martin Chulov in Brega has just tweeted news of another air attack (http://twitter.com/#%21/martinchulov/status/42943832135966720) against the town which has been the scene of fierce fighting between pro and anti-Gaddafi forces (who are believed to still be in control of Brega):

Large smoke plume billows from rebel position just bombed by ghaddafi jet.

[Sasha]

more about that attack

4:14pm

Al Jazeera's Tony Birtley was just on the phone with us - 10km away from the oil-rich town of Brega. As we spoke, he was watching a Libyan airforce jet bombing the area.
It’s now an air attack. We just watched an air force jet from the Libyan air force fly over Brega and drop at least one bomb - and huge plumes of smoke are now coming out over Brega. Another bombed near our position, where anti-Gaddafi forces have gathered.

All the fighters here are massing. We understand that something like 250-300 pro-Gaddafi fighters inside Brega and they are being surrounded.

[Os Cangaceiros]

NO sectarian attacks please. This isn't some endorsement to Gaddafi, nor an attack against the protesters. This is being reported here to clear out the bullshit rumors in order to make more room for the truth.

LOL sure dude. Judging from the OPs you've posted in relation to Libya, the anti-regime forces are made up of lying Klansmen.

[El Rojo]

as psyco mentions, the bbc live feed shows footage of the jets flying over fresh explosions. can't link it the exact footage yet, see for your self

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698



the russians got it wrong. it happens.

[psgchisolm]

maybe the OP can ask the russians wheter their satalites also didnt see the bombs just almost dropped on the head of aljazeera and theguardian journalists:
pAXxL-MtYEk

[khad]

the russians got it wrong. it happens.

The Russian statement:


Uploaded by RussiaToday (http://www.youtube.com/user/RussiaToday) on Mar 1, 2011 Your article on the battle for Berga:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/02/libya-uprising-gaddafi-liveThe video linked by psgchisholm:


Uploaded by AlJazeeraEnglish (http://www.youtube.com/user/AlJazeeraEnglish) on Mar 2, 2011 Apparently 2 > 1. Therefore, it appears that March 2 is a date later than March 1. (Hey, you learn something new every day!)
Unless the whole world has collectively lost its ability to count, you're really not making a point. You can't hold a statement to events happening after the fact.

[gorillafuck]

Remaining skeptical of both sides seems the most legitimate position to take right now.
This is being reported here to clear out the bullshit rumors in order to make more room for the truth. You claimed that this article is the truth, which isn't "skeptical of both sides". It's nice to see that the facts have changed your mind, though.

[PhoenixAsh]

The question is not if they are bombing now....but if they were bombing then.

And what is also note worthy and very much relevant is that the protesters are now justivably armed with heavy equipment and are supported by large parts of the military. That does change the nature of the game entirely....everything that carries a weapon in a warzone (what we can Libya now consider to be) is according to every rule an objectively viable target simply because when you pick up arms
you seaze to be a non-combattant.

What is however also very much relevant is the reports in the first few days and their accuracy of large scale air attacks in several cities on unarmed protesters....That is what sparked of the debate of military intervention and no-fly zones.



And on that note....has anybody noticed that the reporting went from speaking about "the regime" to "the care taker state" ??? Slightly significant here... Because what you can witness in the media is an agenda shift from reporting the news to a full blown attack on socialism and welfare states and open cries for imperialism.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The question is not if they are bombing now....but if they were bombing then.
What is however also very much relevant is the reports in the first few days and their accuracy of large scale air attacks in several cities on unarmed protesters....That is what sparked of the debate of military intervention and no-fly zones.


This is true, but the lack of footage now doesn't prove that it never happened. I think this is the first revolution in history where people expect minute by minute news with precise information and sourcing, which is difficult to say the least in a war zone. There may not be footage of the events, but there are the pilots who defected, there were eyewitness accounts, and there were pilots who bailed from their airplane because they didn't want to go through with the attacks. That's plenty of reason to think that Gaddhafi, or someone in his military hierarchy, did order these kinds of airstrikes. Maybe it's not irrefutable proof, but I'd consider it pretty good evidence at least.


That does change the nature of the game entirely....everything that carries a weapon in a warzone (what we can Libya now consider to be) is according to every rule an objectively viable target simply because when you pick up arms

Though the later airstrikes were against armed people, they are still evidence of Gaddhafi's willingness to use planes on his own people. Even if they are armed, they are only so because the government has used force to put down protesters, so of course the protesters are going to arm themselves.



And on that note....has anybody noticed that the reporting went from speaking about "the regime" to "the care taker state" ??? Slightly significant here... Because what you can witness in the media is an agenda shift from reporting the news to a full blown attack on socialism and welfare states and open cries for imperialism.What attack on "socialism"? On the contrary, I've been hearing a lot about how Libya failed to "share the oil wealth" with Easterners, hence their feeling of resentment.

[PhoenixAsh]

This is true, but the lack of footage now doesn't prove that it never happened. I think this is the first revolution in history where people expect minute by minute news with precise information and sourcing, which is difficult to say the least in a war zone. There may not be footage of the events, but there are the pilots who defected, there were eyewitness accounts, and there were pilots who bailed from their airplane because they didn't want to go through with the attacks. That's plenty of reason to think that Gaddhafi, or someone in his military hierarchy, did order these kinds of airstrikes. Maybe it's not irrefutable proof, but I'd consider it pretty good evidence at least.

True. However it would be a good thing to remember that it would not be the first time defectors did not tell the truth.

For example, recently we have learned the guy who defected from Saddam's so called WMD program and told the US intelligence Iraq had WMDs was lying because he wanted Saddam out by any means possible.



Though the later airstrikes were against armed people, they are still evidence of Gaddhafi's willingness to use planes on his own people.Offcourse. What the guy has been doing in whole of these protests was inexcusable and gruesome.

The initial reports were of planes bombarding weapon stockpiles in Benghazi. A couple of hours later after the guys defected to Malta the story went from that to reporting about large scale bombing by fighter jets of masses of protesters in residential areas in several cities.

And its these airstrikes that triggered a strong response from the international community for military intervention.

There are reporters in Benghazi. There have been for over a week. Yet we have not seen any footage of these bombed residential areas....or any other area of a city. Which is strange....since these bombings are the top story in international dimplomacy....yet somehow not on the priority list of fact checking of rumours from the international media who reported them.

This leads me to conclude that these may have been an exgatteration....perhaps innocent but they may also have been concocted to get some form of military intervention by people with less savory and lofty goals.



Even if they are armed, they are only so because the government has used force to put down protesters, so of course the protesters are going to arm themselves.Also true. However...we know that governments will always use force if they can to put down revolutions. Its the doctrine that states that goverments have the right to protect the integrity of the state...which is adherred to by most countries in the world and the basis for the police being used against protesters and demonstrations.




What attack on "socialism"? On the contrary, I've been hearing a lot about how Libya failed to "share the oil wealth" with Easterners, hence their feeling of resentment.
Libya is not a socialist country....my statement had nothing to do with the nature of Libyan government or system. I am not saying with that statement that they attack Libyans "socialism" or that the demonstrations are against a socialist state.

What I am saying is that the rethorics used to report about the news or comment on the situation in Libya have changed to attack socialism and care taker states (wellfare states) in general.

If you watch the development of the reporting closely you see a change in tone.

At first they were talking about "the regime" in Libya and there was no word of socialism. That has now chaged in "the care taker state" and is absolutely tied to socialism and another failed example of what it turned out to be.

The situation is being used to brand everything that has anything to do with socialist ideals, however losely, in a bad light.

That Libya is not socialist does not mean it is not viewed as such by the capitalist world....and it does not mean the rest of the world does not take the opportunity to bash socialism and the care taker state when it has the chance.

[TC]

After the Kuwaiti "Iraqi soldiers killed babies in hospital incubator" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurse_Nayirah) lie and the Iraqi mobile weapons lab lie and the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction lies, the ridiculous staging of pvt Jessica Lynch's rescue and lies about her capture and captivity. (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/jess-m23.shtml)..the claim that Pat Tillman died fighting the Taliban in a great act of bravery (http://articles.cnn.com/2007-04-24/politics/tillman.hearing_1_tillman-and-lynch-tillman-family-bryan-o-neal?_s=PM:POLITICS)...

I wont accept anything reported in the media as a firm fact if there are only "witnesses", news reports about news reports, and people reporting what they've heard - without video or photographic confirmation.

People in Libya have mobile phones. There are still journalists in Libya. Have you ever seen live reporting of airstrikes in Libya? So much as a youtube video? No, you haven't. Neither have I.

[Sasha]

because contrary to the journalists who have an clear gain from creating false storys the russian military has no intrest in lying huh?

oh wait, what is this:





Sergei Chemezov, the head of state industrial holding for Russian Technologies, says that Russia is to lose $4 billion in arms exports to Libya due to the imposition of UN sanctions against Gaddafi's regime.


never mind.... :rolleyes:

[PhoenixAsh]

I am certainly not claiming governments of whatever country are not looking out for their own interests and are above claiming falsehoods and using outright lies to do so.

And to be thorough...I am certainly notb defending or condoning the Libyan governments response through out the protests.

But I hate trumped up charges in the media which serve no other purpose than to incite popular resentment for whatever reason....and so far have seen no evidence whatsoever of military jets being used against unarmed protesters....which does not negate the other horrible and utterly deplorable actions taken by the government which did take place.

So far every evidence and absence of evidence points towards air strikes on unarmed protesters not taking place the way as reported.

- There is no footage either on film or photo.
- There is no footage of civilian areas after the strikes in towns which have had foreign reporters for over a week now.
- The number of deads in the early days when these events were reported was simply too low for such events having taken place (which is not to say they were not high and unnecessary)
- There is no military evidence by satelite photo's (and everybody has their satelites pointed at Libya these days)

What is possible is we simply have not seen any evidence....but the airstrikes did happen or happened but not in the location as reported. But I doubt it...

Even the BBC footage of military jets at this point in time, depicting events in Brega, are now reported as being air attacks on military arms storage instead of being attacks on protesters....and the footage of the bomb near the cars is now reported as a miss of target.

So either they made a mistake and refuse to correct it. Which is condemnable. Or they made a mistake and decided to run with it to serve some other agenda.



What also strikes me is the complete and utter hypocracy of the West, especially the US and UK, in condemning these alleged air strikes.

During the war in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Palestine (by Israel) and Afghanistan bombing of civilian areas or targets in and around civilian areas even with phosphorus and cluster amunition was defended as being either misses on legitimate military targets, or were claimed to be a result of placing military objectives in civilian areas by the opponent, or were simply stated to be a result of war. Now...all of the sudden...these acts are warcrimes?

I am not defending these actions...but I do value universal equality in action. If the action of one is defendable or condemnable...the same action done by another party are certainly the same.

[Sasha]

So either they made a mistake and refuse to correct it. Which is condemnable.
actually, most reasonable media (at least aljazeera/guardian) already reported last weekend that the fighterplane atacks that did got carried out (implying that they belive that at least the pilots who fled to malta or bailed out had orders to bomb civilians) where attacks on military depo's etc and that the arial attacks on the demonstrations where with helicopters.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Vegan Marxist: If you're wondering what conflict of interest Russia might have:


Russia stands to lose $4bn (£2.5bn) in arms deals because of UN sanctions agreed last week against Libya, says state-owned industrial giant Russian Technologieshttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12636798


True. However it would be a good thing to remember that it would not be the first time defectors did not tell the truth.

For example, recently we have learned the guy who defected from Saddam's so called WMD program and told the US intelligence Iraq had WMDs was lying because he wanted Saddam out by any means possible.


This is true, but the guy who defected from his WMD program had time to plan it out. The defection in Malta seemed more spontaneous.


Offcourse. What the guy has been doing in whole of these protests was inexcusable and gruesome.

The initial reports were of planes bombarding weapon stockpiles in Benghazi. A couple of hours later after the guys defected to Malta the story went from that to reporting about large scale bombing by fighter jets of masses of protesters in residential areas in several cities.

And its these airstrikes that triggered a strong response from the international community for military intervention.

There are reporters in Benghazi. There have been for over a week. Yet we have not seen any footage of these bombed residential areas....or any other area of a city. Which is strange....since these bombings are the top story in international dimplomacy....yet somehow not on the priority list of fact checking of rumours from the international media who reported them.

This leads me to conclude that these may have been an exgatteration....perhaps innocent but they may also have been concocted to get some form of military intervention by people with less savory and lofty goals.
I do think the media exaggerated a little, though I think it was as much out of sensationalism as any conspiratorial desire. But there was reason for them to report the story, and there's also a reason why they haven't "found" the proof, since the story is evolving rapidly and there's been a lot going on.

It's more than plausible that the protesters told tall tales to gain sympathy, but I think it would be expecting too much to think that reporters should have proven it by now. Anyhow, the only evidence there would be at this point would be a crater and bomb shrapnel, you'd need more than just a reporter to confirm that civilians were bombed after the fact.



Libya is not a socialist country....my statement had nothing to do with the nature of Libyan government or system. I am not saying with that statement that they attack Libyans "socialism" or that the demonstrations are against a socialist state.

What I am saying is that the rethorics used to report about the news or comment on the situation in Libya have changed to attack socialism and care taker states (wellfare states) in general.

If you watch the development of the reporting closely you see a change in tone.

At first they were talking about "the regime" in Libya and there was no word of socialism. That has now chaged in "the care taker state" and is absolutely tied to socialism and another failed example of what it turned out to be.

The situation is being used to brand everything that has anything to do with socialist ideals, however losely, in a bad light.

That Libya is not socialist does not mean it is not viewed as such by the capitalist world....and it does not mean the rest of the world does not take the opportunity to bash socialism and the care taker state when it has the chance.i c, makes sense. The mainstream bias against socialism is latent in most Western reporting on the conflict.

[Dimmu]

Oh its from Russia Today.. For those who dont know, Russia Today is a state owned propaganda channel aimed at western audience..

Also Russia sattelite intel today is non-existent, so i cant understand how they managed to rule out airstrikes by using it..

[antisys]

Hello to everybody,

As it seems there is much of "manufactured" information about what' s going on in Libya, I would say that we should be cautious about what we hear from the mass media controlled by the transnational elite and their "leftist" counterparts, which some times are even more dishonest, as they pretend to be antisystemic.

Regarding the topic, it was not only the "unreliable" report of the Russian military that proves there was no bombing of civilians, as we were massively bombarded by the media propaganda at the beginning of the uprising and the civil war. It was also the under secretary of the UN who repeatedly confuted the statement of his Head, the secretaty of the UN, that such bombings took place.

And not only! It was also the US Pentagon which explicitly refuted that such bombings happened. I guess the US Pentagon doesn' t have so many reasons to lie on this matter as the Russian military has:

"In support of Gates' point, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the committee that despite media reports of Libyan aircraft attacking rebel areas, the Pentagon as of Wednesday had not confirmed any such attacks"

Unfortunately, I can't post the links now, as I am fresh in this forum and I don' t have the right to post links, but I I guess I can give them to whoever is interested in a private message.

About what has been heard on the relative "reliability" of Al Jazeera as opposed to Western media, I would say that on this matter Al Jazeera has **plenty** of reasons to overthrow Qaddafi, as the sheiks who control the station have vast interests in the area, and moreover they oppose Qaddafi because the regime of the latter is more of a secular regime than the "conservative Islamist" regimes of the Persian Gulf.

Finally, as about the defectors, it is indicative that they defected, not in Tunisia or in Egypt, where at least there has been a popular uprising that could potentially lead to a revolutionary process, but in Malta, which is part of European Union and generally completely embedded in the internationalized system of the market economy and representative "democracy" - the sort of client regime the transnational elite wants to impose in Libya and the entire Middle East!

[Jose Gracchus]

Because pilots terrified to face execution for insubordination landed in Malta rather than face uncertain fates in Qaddafi's immediate neighbors, where the revolution has yet to achieve true victory, that proves that they are imperialist lackeys? Are you serious?

[antisys]

I didn' t say they are "imperialist lackeys". I challenged their being "revolutionary". It' s a different thing, although in some cases the one doesn' t negate the other.

[Futility Personified]

Nice little bit of conspiracy, but what if Russia are only interested in preserving a good image of Libya so that Gaddafi survives and completely loses interest in competitive tariffs with oil selling, and Russia fills that market void? Bit of a loose theory, considering OPEC and various other probably important factors, but I feel like increasing my post count anyway