The Crimes of Col. Qaddafi - By Christopher Hitchens

[tabatha]

In George Orwell's 1939 novel, Coming Up for Air, his narrator, George Bowling, broods on the special horrors of the new totalitarianism and notices "the colored shirts, the barbed wire, the rubber truncheons," but also, less obviously perhaps, "the processions and the posters with enormous faces, and the crowds of a million people all cheering for the Leader till they deafen themselves into thinking that they really worship him, and all the time, underneath, they hate him so that they want to puke."

It was particularly satisfying to see, in the filling of Green Square in Tripoli and the over-running of the vulgar Xanadu of Muammar Qaddafi's so-called private "compound," the use as real space of areas that had hitherto been reserved for that special kind of degradation and humiliation—the rally for The Leader. Picture four decades in which compulsory attendance at such a ritual—kissing your owner's feet and shouting his praises in unison—was a major cultural activity. So addicted was Qaddafi to this sadomasochistic enactment that he, and his ghastly sons, continued it until the very last minutes. So, of course, did Saddam Hussein. So, as we speak, does Bashar Assad. In the nightmare state so cherished by such fantasy rulers, mere acquiescence or subjection is not enough. You must become a full participant in your own oppression, and find it in yourself to adore the collectivization of compulsory enthusiasm.

New and adapted versions of, say, the old Egyptian regime are imaginable (indeed, rather too much so). But the collapse of the Qaddafi system is necessarily absolute and complete. It is symbolized precisely by the tearing down and tearing up of the statues and posters, all showing The Leader in the various uniforms and regalias he has designed for himself over the years. The sub-Mussolini effect; the combination of Ruritania and the Gulag; a certain style of neo-fascist camp and kitsch will be virtually all that remains to study. For the rest, an unpunctuated record of cultural annihilation and the obliteration of any concept of autonomous or independent institutions. I tried to point it out in the very first weeks of the meltdown: a hugely wealthy country with a very small population, and look at their teeth! Their clothes! This pathetic poverty and mediocrity, when contrasted afresh with the contents of Qaddafi's dress-up chest and nexus of palazzi, has now combined with the memory of powerlessness and forced complicity to produce a real sense of revulsion and fury (which is surely healthy) with a gnawing sense of wasted years and of having discovered courage rather late (which can be less than conducive to nation-building).

http://www.slate.com/id/2302410/

[pacalo]

1. I'm sure he was just as bad & oppressive as he was when the U.S. considered him an ally.

[geek tragedy]

2. Indeed he was. What changed was not US policy, but the willingness

of the Libyan people to live as slaves.

[EFerrari]

3. Nonsense. Clearly what changed was US policy.

Benghazi didn't begin on Feb 17. They've been at this a long time.

[geek tragedy]

4. Yes, because Ay-Rabs could not oppose a dictator on their own.

They needed white people in the CIA to tell them to do so.

:sarcasm:

Hate to break it to you, but Libyans didn't love Qadaffi half as much as you did.

[bhikkhu]

5. Here's a good account of the beginning in Benghazi:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41794067/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/battle-benghazi-how-protesters-seized-city/

This is just a bit of the whole long struggle, but it shows the will and courage of the people - particularly the young people. I don't see how anyone could read it and still talk about how they were doing our bidding, and will be slaves of the west now - I highly doubt they'll be anyone's slaves again!

[geek tragedy]

8. Because there are those on the left who cannot conceive that

people would honestly prefer to replace their dictator and then be helped by the United States in replacing that dictator.

There is no such thing as popular resistance to dictators the US doesn't like in their world.

If the US opposes a dictator, that crowd thinks his people must unanimously love him.

[tabatha]

13. If you have not seen these, you'll probably like them, too.

Libya: Part 2 - The Uprising
http://youtu.be/z41kQvx4uKw

Arab Awakening - Libya: Through the fire
http://youtu.be/vAclhhHv43s

[indurancevile]

16. "the beginning in benghazi" goes back much further. to king idris.

[tabatha]

12. Did you read this article? Says it all.

http://arabnews.com/opinion/columns/article494931.ece

[indurancevile]

15. they could. but they'd lose.

[tabatha]

10. Nonsense. Not clearly at all.

The Libyans were inspired by the Egyptian revolution, who in turn were inspired by the uprising in Tunisia, which was all started by a man who set himself on fire.

Did you know that in January, Obama was just about to ................... but it was interrupted by the uprising. Thank God.

See if you can fill in the missing words. Bet you can't.

[indurancevile]

17. that's pure crap.

[moondust]

6. Glasses.

For some reason while watching TV coverage of Tripoli last week I didn't happen to notice people wearing glasses. I thought that was strange so I began looking specifically for people wearing glasses. In several hours of coverage I saw ONE GUY in the crowds on the street who was wearing glasses. Granted, most of the people in the street were younger, but a lot of young people wear glasses in the U.S. and elsewhere. I felt it was probably a sign of needless deprivation.

Also, about a half hour ago CNN aired a story about the nanny of Hannibal Gadhafi, Muammar's fourth son. The story the nanny told (that CNN says they verified with others there) was that she couldn't make Hannibal's baby stop crying so Hannibal poured boiling water over the nanny's head. She had horrific, probably second-degree burns on her head and shoulders and chest but had no money to seek care. It was very disturbing footage. She also said she sometimes worked for long periods and they refused to pay her. Here's another thread about it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1835691

[indurancevile]

19. incubator babies.

[moondust]

20. I remember that story.

Of course that's a possibility. One difference in the two stories is that in the incubator case there were no actual "victims" to be interviewed. I don't recall if there were any "eyewitnesses" or if it was just a story that popped up out of nowhere. In this case the nanny is interviewed on camera so the translation of her story can be verified and she can probably be tracked down if somebody else wants to follow it up. If you watch the clip in the other thread I think you'll come to the conclusion that she is not faking it.

[indurancevile]

22. the woman who testified *was* the eyewitness. but she was actually the daughter of the kuwaiti

ambassador & a member of the ruling family, as it turned out. and everyone involved most likely knew it. an american (bush-connected) public relations firm was involved as well.

How PR Sold the War in the Persian Gulf: http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

Every big media event needs what journalists and flacks alike refer to as "the hook." An ideal hook becomes the central element of a story that makes it newsworthy, evokes a strong emotional response, and sticks in the memory. In the case of the Gulf War, the "hook" was invented by Hill & Knowlton. In style, substance and mode of delivery, it bore an uncanny resemblance to England's World War I hearings that accused German soldiers of killing babies.

On October 10, 1990, the Congressional Human Rights Caucus held a hearing on Capitol Hill which provided the first opportunity for formal presentations of Iraqi human rights violations. Outwardly, the hearing resembled an official congressional proceeding, but appearances were deceiving....Notwithstanding its congressional trappings, the Congressional Human Rights Caucus served as another Hill & Knowlton front group, which - like all front groups - used a noble-sounding name to disguise its true purpose.80

In fact, the most emotionally moving testimony on October 10 came from a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only by her first name of Nayirah. According to the Caucus, Nayirah's full name was being kept confidential to prevent Iraqi reprisals against her family in occupied Kuwait. Sobbing, she described what she had seen with her own eyes in a hospital in Kuwait City. Her written testimony was passed out in a media kit prepared by Citizens for a Free Kuwait. "I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital," Nayirah said. "While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room where . . . babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die."83

Three months passed between Nayirah's testimony and the start of the war. During those months, the story of babies torn from their incubators was repeated over and over again. President Bush told the story. It was recited as fact in Congressional testimony, on TV and radio talk shows, and at the UN Security Council. "Of all the accusations made against the dictator," MacArthur observed, "none had more impact on American public opinion than the one about Iraqi soldiers removing 312 babies from their incubators and leaving them to die on the cold hospital floors of Kuwait City."84

At the Human Rights Caucus, however, Hill & Knowlton and Congressman Lantos had failed to reveal that Nayirah was a member of the Kuwaiti Royal Family. Her father, in fact, was Saud Nasir al-Sabah, Kuwait's Ambassador to the US, who sat listening in the hearing room during her testimony. The Caucus also failed to reveal that H&K vice-president Lauri Fitz-Pegado had coached Nayirah in what even the Kuwaitis' own investigators later confirmed was false testimony.

it was a testimony at a formal hearing. bush sr used that story *repeatedly* to get his war on.

it took *years* before that story was "tracked down" though it happened right here in the usa.

I watched the video. she's clearly burned, but that does not lead me to the conclusion that ghaddafi's wife burned her because she wouldn't beat her children. i have no way of knowing anything about her, or where the interview is being filmed, or what she's saying, if she's ethiopian, if she really was the ghaddafis' nanny, or anything else.

the history of fraudulent propaganda in relation to war is long; everytime = "oh, but this time it's real".

people have short memories and are willingly gullible when it supports their prejudices.

for the kind of people who do this kind of thing, it would be quite easy to find a burn victim and grease a few palms.

[moondust]

23. We'll see.

I imagine a story this gruesome will be followed up by somebody from the West if for no other reason than to see that this woman gets some medical care. And someone such as yourself will be anxious to prove that it's all just a propaganda stunt and she's just a common liar doing tricks for the imperialists. Just give it some time. We'll see.

[indurancevile]

24. who would that "somebody" be? the us media won't report anything until it no longer

matters, just as in the case of the incubator babies.

the tiny fraction of the independent press not connected to the democratic party doesn't generally have the resources.

the only likely "investigators" would be the independent press connected to (paid by) russia, china, etc. or sects like the larouchites. in which case their investigation would be labeled propaganda by the msm & most people.

the woman had *had* medical care -- that's obvious. she appears to still have an iv port. according to her story, ghaddafi's psychopathic daughter-in-law dragged her out of the hospital to make her "work". because everyone wants their children to be taken care of by a nanny burned over half her body with an iv port in her hand. psychopaths especially like to have that kind of nanny.

does it not give you pause that a US public relations firm developed that story about incubator babies & the entire us press went along with it -- when FOR SURE there were people in the capitol press corps/government who had to have known that girl was the daughter of the kuwaiti ambassador?

why would you think you could EVER trust ANYTHING these hacks & paid liars told you?

the story stinks on its face. the *only* way it's true is if the daughter in law is a raving psychopath. maybe she is, i have no way of knowing. but it's only your belief that ghaddafi is a raving psycho that makes you willing to believe the daughter in law is.

[moondust]

26. Somebody like Jeremy Scahill.

Or The Guardian. Or Richard Engel. Or Glenn Greenwald. Or a host of others.

Umm, she still needs medical attention and follow-up to check for infection and healing.

Somebody who would pour boiling water over somebody's head isn't going to give a crap what kind of shape they're in as a result: "Get back here and do what I tell you, swine!"

We'll see.

[indurancevile]

28. her work was being a nanny. you are missing the point, which is: most people

don't want someone who looks like frankenstein scaring their children.

so i guess you believe that not only does ghaddafi's daughter in law not "give a crap" about this woman, she also doesn't give a crap about her children -- in fact, hates them & wants to traumatize them. wants to traumatize them so much she orders the nanny to beat them -- & then, when the nanny refuses, rather than beat the child herself -- too much work, i suppose, but she nevertheless goes to the trouble of pouring boiling water over the nanny -- multiple times -- so that the child can be traumatized by being nannied by a burn victim with an iv port.

but first she "hid" the nanny where no one could find her -- except, i guess, her child, since she insisted the nanny "work". so i guess the child was "hidden" too.

why wasn't she already in the hospital? why didn't the cnn reporters take her there? where are the human rights people? why does only cnn & the usual twitters have this story?

this story is so convoluted & illogical.

jeremy scahill is paid by the nation. the nation is a part-time organ of the us democratic party, and is run by the daughter of an intelligence operative & granddaughter of a mogul/mafiosa.

richard engel works for nbc = msm. it's partly a "successor" to the business of that now dead mogul/mafiosa & 49% owned by GE, 51% owned by comcast.

glenn greenwald works for salon, another part-time democratic organ.

the people you mention are EMPLOYEES. They only investigate what they're told to or what they're funded for.

The Guardian is the faux-left equivalent of the nation, run by similar types.

yes, wait & see. you may have to wait years, but wait & see.

[Safetykitten]

7. I thought he was decribing the US/Wall Street and economy for a moment with this...

"I tried to point it out in the very first weeks of the meltdown: a hugely wealthy country with a very small population, and look at their teeth! Their clothes! This pathetic poverty and mediocrity, when contrasted afresh..."

He's so all over the map.

[tabatha]

11. Not at all - check out the teeth of this guy; and his clothes.

And what he tragically lost.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-14700876

[Swede]

9. K&R

[indurancevile]

14. hitch, bush's war whore. what happened to HIM? or maybe he was always a plant.

[Distant Observer]

27. Hich needs to ask Iraqis how they are doing after the liberation via bombing and horrors

[Scurrilous]

18. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Distant Observer]

21. Most Bizzare! Not based on any economic data. Libya contrasts with plundering of Congo's wealth

under US puppet Mubuto and the millions that have died since they overthrew the legitimate Gov of Patrice Lumumbah.

In Libya, a vast array of educational institutions, hospitals and development project were implemented, in contrast to other countries in the region and to the impoverished state of the average Libya under the rule of the British installed King Idris.

[MilesColtrane]

25. Chris, I know you're not doing well, but your writing is trending toward filigree.

[indurancevile]

29. fellow of the conservative/libertarian hoover institution. i guess he was a mole all along.

distinguished fellow fellows include milton friedman and margaret thatcher. condi rice, dinesh d'souza - real quality.