The United States and its allies have been so eager to remove the Assad regime in Syria that they’ve enabled some extreme elements to move into the void. Could the Western strategy in Syria result in the displacement of a secular regime with elements of Al Qaeda?
Really interesting material on Syria flies by, largely unnoticed and unremarked upon. Here’s a grab bag of potentially consequential items from the past couple of months.
As pressure grows for military intervention in Syria, we are now hearing that Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad is behind alleged widespread rape in his country. Didn’t we hear the same thing about Muammar Qaddafi, followed by mounting Western calls for his ouster? As before, when you read the fine print, it gets more complicated.
Everyone’s in a hurry to say goodbye to the “Lockerbie bomber,” the man convicted of bombing Pan Am 103. But a closer look is warranted—as usual—when the stakes are so high. Was Libya really behind the atrocity, or was some other country or element involved?
Is the US preparing the public for war with Iran? You bet.
And so begins the deluge of “coverage” on the end of Muammar Qaddafi. But will you learn anything substantive about how and why he met his end? Don’t bet on it. However, at WhoWhatWhy, we’ve been providing fresh and unique reporting and analysis about Libya and the West’s murky role over there, from the beginning. If you haven’t been reading us, here’s your chance to catch up. And feel free to share with others.
WhoWhatWhy editor Russ Baker discusses what’s really going on in Libya—and what NATO and the corporate media won’t tell you about the real motives behind the effort to remove Muammar Qaddafi.
Forget the “humanitarian crisis” that justified the NATO bombing that helped destroy Qaddafi’s regime. It was always about oil and other strategic issues. And the rebels were a wholly owned subsidiary of West, Inc. Here’s the evidence.
San Francisco radio host Pat Thurston interviews WhoWhatWhy editor Russ Baker on a variety of topics, including nasty talk radio, Rupert Murdoch, and Qaddafi
The stories we’re hearing that supposedly “justify” the Libyan bombing are getting even more convoluted. Even Congress can’t figure it out. And the media keep on “disinforming” us.
The desperate effort to depose Qaddafi has some new, credible supporters. John Kerry and John McCain give the curious Libyan mission-creep some added muscle. But like the administration, they don’t want to tell us the real reason this is so important.
While the eyes of the US and the world were on Anthony’s wiener, a second salacious story, with far greater potential consequences, began making the rounds. It’s a doozy: Libyan madman Qaddafi ordering his troops to commit mass rape, and dispensing Viagra to ramp up the damage. Even the BBC is rushing into this one. But is it true? New doubts—and new reckless reporting.
Pro-invasion elements are whipping up new hysteria against Qaddafi. Now, it’s that he personally ordered hundreds of rapes by troops backing him. Think about it: would that be a wise course of action for someone who needs sympathetic opinion domestically (and internationally) now, more than ever? Who’s fact-checking this headline-making story? No one, it seems.
Finally, if you look hard enough, you can start seeing the back story to the urgency to remove Qaddafi. It’s an ugly story—and all the ugliness is not on Qaddafi’s side, not by a long shot.
On Memorial Day, there’s a lot of talk about “supporting our troops” and “honoring our dead.” But one thing is left out of the discussion—the real story behind why they die.
Finally, the truth about Libya begins to emerge. A blunt Brit helps out. And we help you read between the lines in the New York Times.
The complicated back story to the “spontaneous uprising” in Libya deserves our attention
We easily forget how extensive are the psychological operations that sell the public on war. When considering the Libyan rape charges, a bit of perspective and context is wise….
Here’s a quiz: Embattled Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi: Good or bad? How about GE Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt? Here are your answers, straight from the top: Qaddafi, way bad. And Immelt? Good guy, business and civic leader. Should be a key adviser to the president. On Qaddafi, we already knew he was a bad Read More
While the US government expresses outrage over the brutality of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi toward his own people, we’re missing a complex but significant wrinkle that ties Qaddafi to America’s cover-up of the true path to war in Iraq.
In May, 2009, a man named Ibn Shaikh al-Libi supposedly committed suicide while being held in a Libyan jail. Al-Libi is a deeply, deeply interesting fellow. Back in 2002, he was tortured by Egypt under US direction. It appears that the reason the US government had him tortured was not to stop some imminent attack on the United States, but to generate alleged—and false— links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein that could justify invading Iraq.