Sunday, March 13, 2011

Massacre Is Not Civil War: The West Buys Into Qaddafi's Paradigms

A pathologically insane tyrant and his pathological tyrant sons are massacring their civilian populations with total impunity as the West engages in its usual lap-dancing, hypocritical vacillations. It's not that anyone actually likes Qaddafi. It's not that people are not disgusted by his massacre of Libyans in Zawiya and elsewhere or by Qaddafi's and his sons' obvious lies and cover ups. It's that the West basically doesn't give a damn.

Obama doesn't know what he's doing. Most of Europe doesn't give a damn. Cameron wants to look like he gives a damn, but he doesn't really...and so on...So why? Why don't the deaths of civilians being crushed by heavily armed troops inspire enough rage? Why are Libyans being categorized in Qaddafi's terms as "rebels" instead of as protesters forced to become fighters with no experience, weapons or training? Why does the West buy into Qaddafi's "rebel" and "civil war" line instead of calling them wheat they are - civilians who began what was conceived as a non-violent protest against the brutal Qaddafi regime modeled after the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions?

When more and more Libyans joined the once-peaceful revolution, Qaddafi decided to call it a "civil war" and threatened via Seif - his son-turned-War-Pimp - that there would be "blood in the streets." He made good on his promise and massacred unarmed civilians by armed troops from air, land, sea, and close range, calling it "civil war". Now NATO says they can't take action because this is a civil war and they don't "interfere" in civil wars.

Yes, the U.S., NATO, the EU, the West all buy Qaddafi's repackaging of violence. It's not a modern weaponized and mechanized armed force decimating its civilian population to keep them under a madman's repressive tyranny. No, it's a "civil war" with two sides: "the government" vs. "the rebels". But those are not "rebels" and never were. They are civilians who are fighting for their own freedom, for their lives, for their own country on their own land, for the democracy so touted in Western rhetoric. But Qaddafi, whose personal life centers on women, sex, and drugs (he's obviously strung out on drugs most of the time), will kill every man, woman and child in Libya who opposes him to keep the power and money he pathologically craves. He is hell-bent on holding the reins of his psychopathocracy and will stop at nothing. Slaughter is child's play to him. And as for his so-called devoted "people" - Apparently, no one noticed the protests in his so-called "stronghold", Tripoli, which he crushed by nothing less than all-out slaughter, coupled with fear tactics and propaganda. If he has so much "support", why does he have to bribe them? Why does he need to important foreign nationals to fight for him? So to adopt his "civil war" line is itself crazy.

Is NATO crazy? Is Obama crazy? No. But there's a sense of fear of getting mired in this, and there's political liability. There's no self-interest in backing the Libyan people, at least not in the Machiavellian sense. If he stays, the West gets oil. If he leaves, they get oil. So what's the diff? And Qaddafi knows this. He knows the West is all talk, no action. Qaddafi says when it comes to oil, Libya is important. When it comes to human rights and crimes against humanity, Libya is unimportant. The West has clearly bought into this and is currently acting on it. This plays directly into his regime.

The Generals say we need weeks, months, and the "rebels" will lose. Note: not "get slaughtered", no - "lose". We just can't take action like that in a civil war, they say. But these are Qaddafi's words.

Who said this was a civil war? Qaddafi. Who proclaimed there will be a civil war? Qaddafi. Who said when it comes to freedom, de,ocracy and human rights, Libya is unimportant? Qaddafi.

And who are happily mouthing Qaddafi's words, using his terminology, his repackaging of horrific massacre into another entirely different "internal struggle" scenario? Who are choosing when Libya is important or unimportant exactly and solely based on Qaddafi's own set conditions?

NATO. America. The West.

Now tell me - who is calling the shots? Who sets the agenda here?

And the Libyan people's hope for democracy? Their faith in Western nations' willingness to support the cause of freedom? They were hoping for Western leadership, moral backbone. Good luck with that.

No comments: