I Was Born Free

"We're all one thing, Lieutenant. That's what I've come to realize. Like cells in a body. 'Cept we can't see the body. The way fish can't see the ocean. And so we envy each other. Hurt each other. Hate each other. How silly is that? A heart cell hating a lung cell." - Cassie from THE THREE
Posts tagged "Libya"

BENGHAZI — A U.N. official says a Libyan woman who claims she was gang-raped by Moammar Gadhafi’s troops has been deported from Qatar, where she sought refuge.

Sybella Wilkes, spokeswoman for the United Nations’ refugee organization, says Iman al-Obeidi is now in Benghazi.

Wilkes said Thursday that al-Obeidi was a recognized refugee and that there wasn’t any “good reason” why she was deported from Doha, where she sought refuge last month.

Al-Obeidi made headlines in March when she rushed distraught into Tripoli’s Rixos Hotel, seeking to speak to foreign reporters.

She claimed she was detained by a number of Gadhafi troops at a Tripoli checkpoint and raped.

As she told her story, al-Obeidi was tackled by government minders and dragged from the hotel.

This knocked the wind out of me.

The Arabic spelling of “Libya” is perfect.

Jeremy Scahill reins in Ed Schultz’s over-the-top plea to aide “freedom fighters” in Libya.

My Scahill crush is becoming almost unmanageable.

Being a humanitarian only when it suits your own interest isn’t humanitarianism, it’s opportunism.

Not going to bother pasting in excepts.  Read the whole thing.

Some of the best commentary on Libya that I’ve seen.

It’s amusing, but characteristic, that it doesn’t at all occur to Anne Marie Slaughter to include the price tag in her arguments for a “no fly” zone over Libya.

It’s even more comical, and even more characteristic, that Michael Barone goes after Obama for doing nothing on Libya and for doing nothing on the budget, without bothering to consider whether or not the “we can’t afford it” rhetoric as applied to helping Americans obtain home heating oil might also be applied to major military escapades abroad.

On any other issue involving the government spending money, we’re “broke.” When it comes to exploding things on top of foreigners… we’re rich again!

We knew that already, of course. But it’s still fun to be reminded yet once more that literally the only thing our wise and benificent ruling elites have no especial moralobjection to spending money on, is reckless war. Indeed, reckless war is good, and you are a bad person if you oppose it.

Likewise, you are a bad person if you think it would be a good idea to help Americans buy home heating oil.

You bastard.

When more than 300 people were killed by Hosni Mubarak's security forces in a couple of weeks, Washington initially called for “restraint on both sides”. In Iraq, 50,000 US occupation troops protect a government which last Friday killed 29 peaceful demonstrators demanding reform. In Bahrain, home of the US fifth fleet, the regime has been shooting and gassing protesters with British-supplied equipment for weeks.

The “responsibility to protect” invoked by those demanding intervention in Libya is applied so selectively that the word hypocrisy doesn’t do it justice. And the idea that states which are themselves responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands in illegal wars, occupations and interventions in the last decade, along with mass imprisonment without trial, torture and kidnapping, should be authorised by international institutions to prevent killings in other countries is simply preposterous. The barefaced cheek of William Hague’s insistence that there would be a “day of reckoning” for the Libyan regime if it committed crimes or atrocities took some beating.

The reality is that the western powers which have backed authoritarian kleptocrats across the Middle East for decades now face a loss of power in the most strategically sensitive region of the world as a result of the Arab uprisings and the prospect of representative governments. They are evidently determined to appropriate the revolutionary process wherever possible, limiting it to cosmetic change that allows continued control of the region.


Sheen, Beck, or Qaddafi?

Clearly, February was a peerless month in the history of unhinged rants. Between Charlie Sheen, Glenn Beck, and Muammar Qaddafi, it was difficult just to keep track of who was saying which unintelligible thing at any given time. Really difficult, in fact. To demonstrate just what a struggle it is to distinguish between the mad ramblings of an entertainer, a despot, and a newsman another entertainer, we’ve put together this quiz.

If you get them all right, you are some kind of savant.

I got 10 out of 15 correct.

Pretty difficult, actually.