This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
Al-Mabrouk didn't defect as widely reported. He left for an operation in Cairo, saying he stands firmly with Gaddafi. It's unsurprising he'd want family members with him for support.
Kirkpatrick and Fahim continued saying, "(R)ebels, emboldened by their gains in recent days, are losing incentive to make concessions."
Fact check:
Falsified rebel gains are, in fact, unreported losses and disarray. Moreover, without NATO air support, they'd have been routed months ago. Air cover also gave NATO a chance to slaughter and injure thousands of Libyan civilians, as well as cause horrific mass destruction, related to imperial, not military, aims.
Both Times writers also reported rebel claims of having Tripoli surrounded as well as key supply lines cut off. None of it is true, but fact-checking isn't part of Times writers' job description - just reporting accounts ordered by their bosses.
From Tripoli, independent journalist/Middle East/Central Asian analyst Mahdi Nazemroaya explained in a morning email:
"The insurgency was defeated in Misurata. NATO responded with massive bombing. One route is controlled. Zawiya and Sorman have not fallen. There have been attacks on the route. They are trying to cut the supply routes off" but haven't succeeded.
On August 15, Washington Post writer Leila Fadel was no better than other accounts headlining, "Gaddafi isolated as rebels advance, aide flies to Cairo," falsifying the same agitprop as their Times counterparts, claiming rebels have "a stranglehold on the Libyan capital, Tripoli."
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
7
7
6
