Though the New York Times, famous for backing every US war in history, has apparently long given up pretending that U.S. air strikes in the rest of the Muslim world do not intentionally include permissible collateral death of women and children (by simply not publishing most of AP wire service reports of U.S./NATO massacres), Libya as a new war, needs to be sanitized and justified as another 'clean' and 'U.S. good guys conflict. It has gone to the absurd idea for its readers to believe no ones dies from U.S. bombings.
Qaddafi's Handling of Media Shows Regime's Flaws By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK, 4/11/11
TRIPOLI, Libya -- "Even the Qaddafi government escort could not contain his disbelief at the sloppiness of the fraud: bloodstains his colleagues had left on bedsheets in a damaged hospital room for more than a week as evidence of civilian casualties from Western airstrikes" .
Libyans Offer Credible Case of Death by Air strike
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK, 3/3011
GHARYAN, Libya -- "Standing at the grave of an 18-month-old baby on Wednesday, officials of the Qaddafi government presented the first specific and credible case of a civilian death caused by Western air strikes.
The testimony of the boy's parents, a hole in the wall, damage to the house, quietly grieving family members, and a baby-sized and freshly covered grave appeared to confirm the relative's account of the death.
That made the baby, Siraj Najib Mohamed Suessi, the first specific and credible civilian death from the air strikes that the Qaddafi government has presented in 10 days of official statements decrying what they say are widespread casualties.
" He is not a man. He is Dracula," one said. "For 42 years, it has been dark. Anyone who speaks, he kills. But everyone here wants Qaddafi to go."
Does the Times ever find anyone that likes Libya the way it was???
The UN last year, ranked Libya 53rd in the world in Human Development, above Russia (63rd) and Brazil (73rd). Index is based on longevity, education, health care and income. (Everyone has a car, etc.)
As of the 18th of February, Reuters reported rebels having executed fifty government soldiers, hung three policemen, burned to death others in a barricaded police station, more than double the reported deaths of antigovernment protesters.
Meanwhile CNN reporters were emotionally claiming all sorts of unfounded generalities of "Gaddafi slaughtering his own peacefully protesting people.' the Times writers accepting the gospel that the Libyan government was not fighting wild-eyed armed gangs, even defending against their attacks, but simply targeting civilians.
As the widely quoted "newspaper of record' the New York Times ostensibly sits far above its few conglomerate competitors and high above the TV Networks and tabloids in promoting war.
But now that Europeans and slowly Americans are becoming aware of criminal domination by the private investment financial capital market managers, will they not soon wake up to the propaganda for war and capitalism on the vast net of corporate owned media?
Does anyone remember the years of New York Times tales of the terrible Communist Vietnamese, of the apparent possibility of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, of the Saudi Arabians flying our planes into the WTC towers coming from Afghanistan?
More lies and half-truths and selective news to make another war good. Anyone ever bother to check out the background of the publishers and owners of the New York Times just to see where their interests lay?