One of the things that annoys me most when I listen to the news is that way that obvious conclusions fail to be drawn from known facts. Point in case is the Libyan intervention. It is known that the grounds for the intervention were based on false evidence. It is known that NATO exceeded the remit of its mandate to protect civilians by taking the side of one faction in a civil way. It is known that the result of the intervention is continuing unrest in Libya and the displacement, torture and murder of sections of the Libyan population. Flawed in rationale, execution and result the Libya intervention has been a disaster so why are the leaders who took the decision to intervene not held to account for the consequences and why are they given any moral credence when they call for future interventions?
Key Links
- Aangirfan
- Alternatives
- Anti War
- Channel 131
- Cinema International
- Gaian Economics
- Global Research
- London Aikido
- London Aikiki
- London Wing Chun
- Mahala Yoga
- Manchester Exchange
- Meiquan Community
- Satyananda Yoga
- Spiritual Progressives
- The UK Ki Federation (UKKF)
- Valerie Tarico
- Vineyard Saker
- Wall of Films
- Webster Tarpley
- Wing Tsun
You are listening to the news with the wrong ears. There was nothing flawed about what happened in Libya, it fulfilled the expectations of the 1% and it gave the policy if armed intervention a lift. The flaw is expecting anything different and trying to understand what was done from a humanitarian perspective.