http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/30/world/africa/30loyalist.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=libya&st=cse
The headline reads "Qaddafi ‘Gave Us Dignity,’ a Captured Loyalist Says" and I was surprised that these people exist simply because the riots and rebellion seemed to outnumber the loyalists.The loyalist featured is named Faraj Mohamed and while injured in a Libyan hospital, he still vowed to remain loyal to Qaddafi. “What is happening now is because of the rebels, not Qaddafi,” Mr. Mohamed said. It seems kind of crazy to me because I remember watching TV and a female citizen exclaimed that he has been killing and torturing its citizens for years. This article helped me realize that maybe this is because of nurture versus nature. Perhaps Mohamed is like this because his family is loyal to Qaddafi's reign of terror, then I realized he is like because of fear. When he's alone with "innocent" patients, he was all for Qaddafi.
"When the rebel captors entered, Mr. Mohamed often abruptly switched the tone of his comments. “Now I think that all Libya is more united,” he volunteered at one point, temporarily contradicting his previous statements for the benefit of his captors.
In another apparent attempt to mollify his captors, he at times blamed Colonel Qaddafi’s propaganda for his plight. Until he was captured, he said, he had believed the reports on state- run television that the rebels were foreigners, bearded Islamic radicals, or bloodthirsty monsters who ripped out the hearts of Qaddafi loyalists"
It's hard to know what's the truth and what comes out of fear. For my two cents, I will believe the rebels over the Loyalists any day.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/31/libya-shows-british-crush-war-growing
In the Guardian piece by journalist Andy Beckett, he uses first person and objective view to describe the wars going on between Libya and British troops have been ongoing for more than a decade. It was a different view of what's going on. I learned that Beckett is one of many journalists that wants to describe the war through his personal experience but cannot.
I thought this tidbit was interesting:
"Wars are complicated; their outcomes often unpredictable – especially in faraway countries of which we know little. And since making peace with our European rivals in 1945 and withdrawing from almost all our colonies in the 50s and 60s, it has been in distant, unfamiliar places that we have fought. Bellicose British journalists who opine about such conflicts from a safe distance, judging in an afternoon the merits of the Kosovo Liberation Army or Libya's National Transitional Council, and the justification and best military tactics for siding with them, ought to be more careful.
It's hard to see that happening. The British press generally prefers certainty to caution and nuance. Decades of cutbacks in reporting from abroad, driven by recession, the digital erosion of newspaper profits and, quite possibly, a growing national introversion, mean the foreign context for our military interventions feels in ever-shorter supply. In Libya, who are the key anti-Gaddafi protagonists? What do they really want? What is the exact balance between secular and religious forces? Only the keenest students of the last six months' Libyan coverage are likely to know."
Obviously Britain has more to do with what's going on and is trying to cover the rebellion as objective as it can but there are some scars left after years of fighting numerous countries over the past couple of decades. In this piece, Beckett reminds his audience about the bombings in England that started in 1939 and says no country is threatening them now. He doesn't think Britain should be joyful about their involvement with Libya because there are cuts in their government and army defense (spelled defence in the article). The comments below think that British politicians know more about politics and what's best for their defense. I just hope they find Qaddafi so that America and Britain can prevent another major war when it's truly unnecessary.
