The truth about the leaked Maidan sniper story #Ukraine

Dr. Olga Bogomolets,
source of sniper story

Here is the short story behind headlines like this one from RT:

Kiev snipers hired by Maidan leaders
- leaked EU's Ashton phone tape
They are based 100% on hearsay from the woman pictured on the left, Olga Bogomolets. What gets left out of most reports on this "sensational" story is that in the leaked conversation, Estonia Foreign Minister Urmas Paet is telling European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton what Olga Bogomolets told him. He is not telling Ashton what he knows to be fact; he is telling her a rumor he was told by an activist doctor who treated some of the sniper victims. (Paet: "There is this lady called Olga..." [2:27 on tape]) All those who take this story as truth are taking the word of this one woman and all those who peddle this story without making that clear are engaged in a Putin propaganda effort.

This story started with a tape of a leaked conversation posted to YouTube by Michael Bergman and Expertise Centre of The Russian Federation on 5 March 2014. The claim accompanying the video is:

Mr. Paet reveals astonishing information which confirms the rumours that the snipers were employed by the leaders of Maidan.

Wrong! Logic Fault!! You don't confirm a rumor by repeating it.



Within hours of being posted to YouTube, this story was picked up by RT, who has been heavily promoting it ever since, and from there it quickly moved out to all the usual "anti-imperialist" sources. I picked it up in my email over my morning coffee: Kiev Snipers Were Hired by US Supported Opposition Leaders said the pro-Russian Global Research. And the proof? "Leaked EU’s Ashton Phone Tape." Democracy Now carried the same story, Leaked EU Call: Opposition Behind Sniper Shootings in Kiev, Thursday morning. The biggest problem with this taped conversation is that it doesn't prove what these media outlets are saying it proves. The caller is describing rumors that are circulating, not established facts.

On Democracy Now, Amy called the tape "intercepted conversations," a better name for this and the earlier Ukraine related Russian leaked conversation in which Nuland is heard to say "fuck the EU," would be selectively-leaked-conversations. Just like the NSA, the Russians have been busy recording everybody's business, and lately the Russians have been using the tactic of selectively "leaking" little morsels from its find that it thinks will benefit its propaganda efforts. They don't put out all the information they've captured, WikiLeaks style; they just promote little bits they can spin.

In this leaked conversation Estonia Foreign Minister Urmas Paet tells European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton that a doctor name Olga Bogomolets says that:

"All the evidence shows that people who were killed by snipers, from both sides, among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides."

"So that—and then she also showed me some photos. She said that, as medical doctor, she can say that it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets. And it’s really disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened, so that there is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition."

Whatever you want to make of this conversation, it is important to remember that it rests entirely on the opinion of a doctor who treated people shot by snipers in Kiev. This is the same doctor, by the way, that treated Viktor Yushchenko for food poisoning in 2004.

Estonian diplomat Utmas Paet isn't telling Catherine Ashton that he knows this, he is telling her what he has been told by an activist doctor about rumors going around.This is hardly definitive proof justifying the RT or Democracy Now headlines. That's not how RT reported the story. They leave the doctor out of it and tell us:

"Urmas Paet said that snipers who shot at protesters and police in Kiev were hired by Maidan leaders."

This doctor claims to know that "they were the same snipers killing people from both sides" because they had "the same handwriting, the same type of bullets." I've known doctors who think they know everything, but I'm not sure this doctor can know that much just from treating the wounds. I am reminded of Carla Del Ponte's claim that it was the opposition that used sarin in Syria based on "the way the victims were treated" by doctors in Turkey.

Hours after RT first broke the story, they broke another one which seemed to back up the first story:

Estonian Foreign Ministry confirms authenticity of leaked call on Kiev snipers (15:02 GMT) 

but he only confirmed that it was an accurate recording of their conversation, not that what was said reflected the facts.

Today CNN is reporting:

Paet's office released a statement Wednesday that confirmed the authenticity of the recording. It said the call took place on February 26.

"Foreign Minister Paet was giving an overview of what he had heard the previous day in Kiev and expressed concern over the situation on the ground. We reject the claim that Paet was giving an assessment of the opposition's involvement in the violence," the statement read.

"It is extremely regrettable that phone calls are being intercepted," said Paet in the same statement. "The fact that this phone call has been leaked is not a coincidence."

So now we will await a retraction from Global Research and Amy. Would it be too much to ask that they join Liz Wahl and jump the Putin boat entirely?

UPDATED 8 Mar 2014: The Toronto Star reports that Olga Bogomolets says that the reported conversation with Urmas Paet never happened:

The Olga in question was identified by Russian media as Olga Bogomolets, a Ukrainian doctor who worked throughout the clashes to treat wounded.

Told of the tape, however, Bogomolets denied having any such conversation. She said she has no such evidence as she was never in a position to compare wounds.

“During the entire confrontation in Kyiv, I did not have access to law enforcement officers who died, and therefore I could not give any information on the nature of the injuries,” she told Ukrainska Pravda.

“I’m a doctor, not a forensic medical examiner to give this kind of assessment.”

Which sounds like she agrees with me that a doctor couldn't know that victims were shot by the same sniper just by examining the wounds. And actually, I was wondering if the cops and activists would have been treated by the same doctors. Now that question is answered.

So now the ball is in Paet's court. He now needs to say where the story came from. Ashton may be the headliner, but she was just the patsy, all she did was listen while Paet told the tale that made the tape that then got leaked.

Meltdown at RT over Ukraine/Russia coverage?

There's something going on at the Kremlin financed network formerly known as Russia Today. Yesterday it was RT's Abby Martin who "broke the set" by breaking entirely from the pro-Russian propaganda being spread by RT on the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, Abbey Martin, who hosts the show "Breaking the Set" went entirely off script and spoke truth to power yesterday

"Just because I work here, for RT, does not mean that I don't have editorial independence," she began. "And I can't stress enough how strongly I am against any state intervention in a sovereign nation's affairs. What Russia did is wrong."

RT anchor Abby Martin speaks out against Russian invasion of Crimea | 4 March 2014

Today her colleague Liz Wahl went even further, resigning on the air this evening saying:

"Last night, RT made international headlines when one of our anchors went on the record and said Russian intervention in Crimea is wrong," Wahl said in reference to Abby Martin's attention-grabbing comments decrying Russia's recent actions in Ukraine. After describing the "many and ethical moral challengess" she said she faced as an anchor for the Kremlin-funded network, Wahl then got down to business: "That is why personally I cannot be part of a network funded by the Russian government that whitewashes the actions of Putin," she said. “I’m proud to be an American and believe in disseminating the truth, and that is why, after this newscast, I am resigning."

Liz Wahl Quits RT on air over coverage of Ukraine | 5 March 2014

As these two women have been speaking out against Russian imperialism, others in the American Left have been blindly supporting it, as exampled by Ray McGovern who even went so far as to confuse Russia with the old Soviet Union on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now on Monday:

"You know, it’s not so hazy. It’s a choice between the EC and Western Europe and the Western Ukraine and the Soviet Union. And in this case, the Soviet Union has all the cards. And so, somebody [inaudible] should say to the president, "Look, Mr. President, you know, however much we would like to have regime change according to our own wishes, there are strategic realities that we have to remind you of, Mr. President. And one of them is that Putin and no Soviet leader is going to abide NATO infringing on the Ukraine."

It is hoped that the courageous voice of these two women will cause other on the Left to rethink their support for Russian imperialism both in the Ukraine and in Syria. We must resist both NATO and Russian imperialism. We must resist imperialism no matter what its source.

Other recent blog posts;
Budapest Memorandum and CounterPunch corruption
Why I consider Libya a revolutionary success story
Bringing David Swanson's imagination back to reality

Budapest Memorandum and CounterPunch corruption

I'm afraid my reply has gotten somewhat long winded and is destine to become a blog post, it started out as further explanation as to why I think Counterpunch is a crappy Marxist source, but it became something else as I wrote it.

I guess to me, the most important thing about Marxist is the method. It is the scientific method as it applies to human affairs.

I became a scientist at an early age. My Dad built me a chemistry lab in the water heater closet. I got merit badges in electricity and herpetology. I gave up religion and God as a child.

When you believe in things that you don't understand. Then you suffer

The thing I like about electronics is that you can so easily and thoroughly test its description of the world. Take for example Ohm's Law: Current(A)= [Pressure(V)/Resistance(Ω). Everything in electronics depends on its absolute correctness, from the largest generator to the tiniest transistor. In point of fact, everything in the universe depends on it, and in turn, everything in the universe validates it. In designing an electronic circuit, you can depend on it absolutely and categorically. You give me any two out of the three and I can tell you the third with equal precision and without hesitation. That equation is working flawlessly a billion times on this very computer as I type this. That is the scientific proof that Ohm's Law accurately understands that small view of the cosmos that it addresses. In the world of electronics there are no competing theories on the relationship between A, V and Ω, no sectarian division with some backing a different formulation, or if there are, we don't hear from them because their computers don't work. :-) It is simply the scientific description of that relationship, which is to say it is the dialectical-materialist understanding of that relationship. It is a thoroughly grounded materialism that rejects all mysticism but understands contradiction, the unity of opposites, and the way matter and energy and inextricably tied together. Ohm's Law applies to matter (electrons) in motion.

I think it could even be said that science is a sub-branch of dialectical materialism. It is dialectical-materialism as applied to the natural world broken down into bite sized disciplines. And what science requires is an unflinching regard for the truth. Science can brook no prejudice, it requires that we see the world as it is and act on that knowledge alone. There will always be unsettled areas in science where our understanding is as yet not so complete as Ohm's Law, and this will naturally give rise to different descriptions of a phenomenon, and honest differences among scientists. This is at the heart of the method by which truth is arrived at, but all must be dedicated to tracking down that truth no matter where it leads. This is what science requires and what science requires, dialectical-materialism requires as well.

Marxism is dialectical-materialism

I regard Marxism as dialectical-materialism applied to the human social condition. Like all science ultimately must be, Marxism is an applied science because theory sans activism lacks substance. Its name honors the man who, in the 19th century, first rigorously applied science to the human social condition from a progressive activist perspective.

Of course, given all the complexities of humanity, it isn't as simple as modelling the flow of electrons through a conductor. Added to which, its theories ain't all that easy to test, which brings us to the significant of historical-materialism because we can test our understanding of how things worked in the past and gain some understand of the underlying principles that shape things. Still, it is limited because it is backward looking, whereas all our tasks are before us.

For this reason also, it is incumbent on us not only to assist, but to learn from every new mass revolutionary upsurge, and to do so without fear or favor, because they are reflections of this historical process going forward and they don't care about our theories. Our theories must conform to them and not the other way round. Also since failure means end times for humanity, again, Marxist is an applied science. We should not shrink from calling ourselves social engineers.

Still it absolutely requires the unflinching honesty, and the rejection of all prejudice and mysticism, required of all science. And it requires something else: It requires more than a love of science; It requires a love of humanity, because unlike most scientific specialities under capitalism, the risks are high and the pay is poor. But more than anything, I think it requires a longing for social justice and a gut feeling for right and wrong. You have got to know which side of the barricade to stand on.

With regards to the mass revolutionary upsurge that we loosely refer to as the Arab Spring, and most dramatically with regards to violent revolutions in Libya and Syria, it must be admitted that Marxists in the West, and Leftists generally, have fallen into two broad categories, those that don't know which side of the barricade to stand on and act as if it isn't happening, and those standing on the wrong side of the barricade, this is true. I'm grateful for you and Binh and Andrew, Cort, Brian and more than I can count, but not that many more, but we are a clear minority on the Left. This is a sorry state of affairs. Added to which, many of these people presume to judge the people actually making revolutions by how closely they follow their teachings.

The worst group are those that cloak themselves in Marxism and stand on the wrong side of the barricade. They are corrupt. They do double damage and I am becoming more and more convinced that they stand as a place holder that keeps a real mass-based revolutionary movement from developing. They certainly stand as a barrier to the masses in the US learning from the revolutionary experiences of the masses in Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Egypt, Syria and now Ukraine. When the folks from Kafranbel came to LA, I publicized it in the usual places but nobody came from the LA Left. Imagine a Left that itself would have taken this up and promoted this event widely.

Not only do all the Counterpunch articles on the revolutions in Libya, Syria and the Ukraine stand on the wrong side of the barricade, they do it with corruption. They say things they must know aren't true or they leave out important facts, they very selectively quote, sometimes mis-quote. They plagiarize. They lie. They aren't engaged in an honest quest for the truth. They don't argue like scientists, they debate like lawyers. Many of their ilk will use moderation of comments on their website to filter out opposing views. Counterpunch solves that problem by allowing no comments.

Since these of is fundamentally a corruption of method, there is no honest search for the truth here, I believe that controls everything at Counterpunch. If that where not the case, we would at least read a range of views on these revolutions, there would be the occasional article representing the revolutionary view on these struggles.

These revolutions-in-progress are not only the leading edge of human social development, they are the most important classroom for Marxism. Added to this, these revolutionary mass struggles badly need the clarity that Marxism can give them and we can begin to plumb the depths of the damage caused by allowing a corrupt organizations like Counterpunch to represent Marxism. 

Example of MSM Corruption on Ukraine

When I speak of corruption, I'm not talking about a few bad actors or actions in an otherwise sound core, I'm talking about a rottenness that goes down to the bone. I believe that this Sunday's round of TV news talk shows gave us another good example of it. Of course the Russian invasion of Ukraine got top bill everywhere, but I couldn't believe I watched George Stephanopoulos interviews John Kerry extensively about the US response to Russia army invading Ukraine and nobody even mentions the Budapest Memorandum.

This 1994 treaty, signed by Bill Clinton promises the Ukraine that the US has its back in case of foreign invasion. Russia and Britain are also parties to this treaty, and it got Ukraine to give up its nukes, which made the world a safer place for everybody. If we can convince Israel to give up her nukes based on US guarantees to defend her under very specific conditions, if the Chinese can get North Korea to give up her nukes in return for certain security guarantees, I say have at it. It will mean less nukes in less hands and we all can sleep better.

Of course, the US ability to negotiate such deals in the future will depend heavily on what they do when that marker is called in and Ukraine is calling in its now. And nobody is talking about the Budapest Memorandum? Ok, I can't say nobody on the Sunday morning TV talks shows mentioned it. I saw the extensive interview with Kerry and the ABCNews This Week discussion, and nobody mentioned it. Then I switched in time to catch the CBS Face the Nation round table discussion and nobody mentioned it there either! But how can that be? It is a very big deal even if it is an embarrassment to a US imperialism that clearly has no interest in a military confrontation with Russia over the Ukraine.

I can't believe they don't know about it, backed as they are by teams of researchers. I think they all know about it and they all have conspired to talk as if it didn't exist. This implies a corruption that is thoroughgoing and indicts the SecState and everybody sitting in on those round-tables.

The Budapest Memorandum

The Budapest Memorandum is most certainly this Sunday's Elephant-in-the-Room and even in the MSM, when it is discussed, we are subjected to such weasel words as:

There will surely be much debate over whether the Budapest Memorandum is a legally binding agreement requiring action.

As if the Ukrainians thought they were signing up for a "We wish you well" when they gave up their nukes!

This "ignore the memo" strategy is not going to work, BTW, because Russia has its own "Save Ukraine" memorandum giving it a duty to save Ukraine from a “fascist and Nazi creeping coup” that goes back as far as Feb 12th and it has been calling for three party talks under the Budapest Memorandum for two weeks now, talks which will presumably now be about Russian troops invading Ukraine.

I see the same sort of corruption on the Left and in Counterpunch generally and it has come out most clearly in the debates around Libya and Syria. Do you notice how often we completely devastate a "fact" or "story" only to see it continue to be repeated on infinitum by this opportunist Left. Mint Press, Carla Del Ponte, phony massacres, etc., it doesn't matter how completely we debunk them, they revive them as soon as there is a fresh audience. And they generally don't answer our critiques in the first place, except with insults and diversions like "Oh Yeah, what about Bahrain?" They have no integrity. Counterpunch does this too. There is no use arguing with people like that except to expose them.

It just seems to me that on the really critical stuff they are 100% bad and even if you write good stuff for them in other areas it doesn’t matter because they will always be 100% bad on the critical stuff, That's the way opportunism works. Unfortunately, looking at it that way, you will quickly draw the conclusion that opportunism is the dominate trend on the Left, but if that is where a clear headed examination of the problem leads you, as a scientist, you must seriously consider it. But then, speaking from the heart, what other conclusion can be drawn when you have seen the pictures of dead children, destroyed cities and refugee families and still hear these so-called Leftist mouthing words about CIA schemes, Islamic terrorists and proxy wars?

My friends on SAC try on convince me not to waste my time trying to win people from the Left to their cause. They have had much greater success among just about every other segment of the US population. I understand why they feel this way. This is real. They have to be pragmatic and the Left is just about the only segment of the US population that sides with Assad and actively campaigns against the revolution. This, in turn is getting me to think that what is really going to have to happen is that another New Left is going to have to be built from people that aren't tied to this opportunism and at least know which side of the barricade to stand on even it they don't know the first thing about Marx or socialism. All that can be learned; I'm don't think what should be in the heart can.    

Why I consider Libya a revolutionary success story

Nader Hashemi, commenting on my response to Swanson, "who like many on the Left are living in a parallel universe" said: 

There is much more to say on the topic of Libya. The current chaos in that country is now a frequent talking point invoked by those who want to abandon the Syrian people.

As Nader is right, I think it worth repeating in my blog, what I replied to him as to why my view on Libya is "so far, so good" and that in spite of the chaos I consider it to be a big success story:

Consider that the revolutionaries were able to unite the country and form mostly grass roots self-defense forces into something like a people's army and defeat, on the battlefield, without the support of foreign troops, a well armed regime that had 40 years of uninterrupted dictatorship to entrench its rule and financial and military support from Russia and China.

They were able to enlist the air support of the main imperialist coalition, and yet largely remain in control of that relationship. They managed to use NATO in such a way as to avoid both NATO boots on the ground and massive lost of life and damage to infrastructure from NATO bombs, a remarkable feat that should be careful studied rather than derided.

They managed to restore oil production to 80% within 4 months after the fall of the regime and hold elections within 9 months. While there has been violence, overall the murder rate has been about half what it is in Chicago, there is no serious threat that Libya will be torn apart by sectarian violence or that the old regime will be restore.

With regards to our "friends" on the non-interventionist Left, those that have already abandoned the Syria people, we first must remember what they predicted about Libya in the beginning.

• Massive loss of life from NATO "carpet bombing"  <- NEVER HAPPENED!!!
• Huge bomb damage from NATO "carpet bombing"  <- NEVER HAPPENED!!!
• A very long conflict <- NEVER HAPPENED!!!
• A long guerilla war by Qaddafi supporters.  <- NEVER HAPPENED!!!
• NATO boots on the ground.  <- NEVER HAPPENED!!!
• AFRICOM HQ in Libya.   <- NEVER HAPPENED!!!
• Take over of all the oil by US companies.  <- NEVER HAPPENED!!!
• US puppet government, stacked with pro-western players.   <- NEVER HAPPENED!!!    
  

And so on. But do they examine the real outcome against their predictions and try to learn something? Of course not. They go off and trash the revolution anyway, but on a completely new basis. They know they opposed this revolution [What revolution they cry even now!] from the beginning so they know they oppose the outcome and especially the results of NATO military intervention. They don't have US boots on the ground or a puppet government to kick around so they claim there is no government and complain about all the violence and chaos, although you will never hear them make similar complaints about Venezuela, where the murder rate is ten times what it is in Libya.

But what they show to me, with all their carping about Libya today, is that at heart they are just liberals and oppose revolutions in the real world, because almost all their complaints about the Libyan revolution are really complaints about the revolutionary process in general. Take for example:

1) Libya is a failed state.
No, Libya is a country between states. This is what every successful revolution, without exception, must do. It must "smash the existing state machinery" and they must rebuild it. Usually rebuilding it from scratch is better, in the case of Libya, it is a necessity. This implies that where will be a period of no state followed by a weak state in every revolution. A period in which the old state no longer has a "monopoly of violence" and the new state has yet to obtain it.

2) The country is being torn apart by chaos and violence.
Part of what happens in periods like this is that while elements of the defeated state have been beaten, they are still around to make counter-revolutionary mischief. They did have a popular base, no matter how tiny, and they still have resources, so they can be expect to cause trouble for some time. There are other elements, like the jihadists who are now free to come out of the woodwork. Also criminals can be guaranteed to take advantage of any revolution to do their thing.

3) The country is awash with weapons and that has created regional instability.
Well, yes, the Tuareg fought for Qaddafi and he armed them well, after he was defeated, they broke into his arsenals, took even more weapons and took them all back home to Mali. One would hope this Left crowd would look at those developments and have the grace to admit that Qaddafi had African mercenaries fighting for him after all. One might blame Qaddafi or the international arms merchants that supplied him but no, this crowd blames the revolution for setting them loose. One might as well blame the needle for the puss oozing from the bole.

4) There are all of these armed militia that nobody controls.
While are are some criminal gangs and jihadists, most are revolutionary brigades that have a strong working class composition and developed in the revolutionary process. They have played a bigger role in keeping the peace than they have in creating the chaos. They see themselves as guarantors that the revolution will not be stolen and I think they are right. They are a true people's army and they control themselves.  As they see the type of state they were fighting for being constructed, they are dissolving into it. They are feared by those that fear an armed working class.

These are problems that will be faced by all revolutions. No doubt the Libyans could have handled things better, but you always have to move forward with what you have on hand. In any case, the co-called Left should be hanging its head in shame rather than complaining about the lack of socialist organization or "Marxist" clarity leading any of these struggle given how that Left has presented itself in recent decades and particular after it has so heartlessly turned its back on the revolutions in Libya and Syria.

Click here for a list of my other blogs on Libya Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria

Bringing David Swanson's imagination back to reality

This is the reply I will post to David Swanson's Oppose Force to Save Starving Syrians assuming my account, which "is currently pending approval by the site administrator" is accepted and I am allowed the privilege of commenting. But since I have already researched the matter before I discovered the review requirements, I will post to my blog in any case. David Swanson says in this piece:

I find it hard to imagine people on the ground while NATO dropped thousands of bombs on Libya pointing to the sky and remarking "Check out the air cover!"

David, you don't have to imagine it, you can hear it here clearly:

TRIPOLI - CHEERING FOR NATO - 24/05/2011

This video was posted by the Free Generation Movement, a civilian activist group that operated in Tripoli throughout the revolution. You can read about the kind of thing they did during the revolution in my blog post dated 29 June 2011, titled Tripoli Burn Notice, which describes a campaign in which these courageous youth waged a non-violent struggle that put them in mortal danger, burning or defacing the massive billboards and signs of self-glorification that Mummar Qaddafi had placed all over Tripoli. In that blog, you will also find a video that shows the Tripoli morning traffic blaring their horns of support as FGM burned a huge Qaddiffi portrait by the highway.

The description accompanying the video of people cheering from the roof tops as they watched NATO planes coming in to bomb Tripoli, reads as follows:

Uploaded on May 23, 2011

IN TRIPOLI, AS NATO UNDERTAKES ITS MOST INTENSE BOMBING OF THE CAMPAIGN, LOCALS COME OUT TO SHOW THEIR APPRECIATION BY CHEERING AND WHISTLING. ROOFTOPS ARE FULL OF PEOPLE WATCHING IN APPRECIATION.

LATER, SECURITY ROAM THE STREETS SHOOTING IN THE AIR TO SILENCE AND INTIMIDATE....

THEY SHOULD KNOW BY NOW....TRIPOLI CAN NEVER BE SILENCED.

Libya 17th February reported the same thing, another Tripoli resident said "When NATO bombs at night, I hear my neighbors clap and cheer 'bravo,'" 

A.H. alqaidi said, 16 July 2011:

When NATO Bombards Tripoli, the people there cheer, because they have become certain that the bombs are not meant for them, but for the dictator's power centres. 

I know that sounds ridiculous to you because you think Tripoli was bombed like Vietnam or Iraq, but the people of Tripoli knew that they weren't being bombed, just Qaddafi's forces, and they hated Qaddafi. The fact is that in the whole NATO campaign, less than a hundred non-combatant civilians were killed. As I reported on 5 March 2012, a comprehensive study by the United Nations found that NATO killed just 60 civilians in its campaign over Libya. A Human Rights Watch investigation of civilian deaths in Libya dated 14 May 2012 could document only 72 unintended civilian deaths caused by NATO. A New York Times report that pre-dates either of those, written by C. J. Chivers and Eric Schmitt and dated 17 Dec 2011 put the number of unintended civilian casualties resulting from NATO's seven month air campaign at between 40 and 70. Added to that, care was taken so that infrastructure wasn't harmed, like taking out tanks hidden under a bridge without taking out the bridge, so that Libya suffered no electrical or utility outages as a result of NATO bombing and housing, manufacturing, and oil production weren't impacted by bomb destruction after the war.

So yes, the people of Libya demanded international protection from Qaddafi's slaughter, just as people in Syrian are demanding now. In the case of Libya, it saved them from the sort of carnage that continues to take its toll on Syrian civilians that have lived and died under three years of Assad's aerial assaults.

David Swanson, you had a preconceived idea about what was going on in Libya, based on your lack of knowledge of real events, your imagined "socialist" Mummar Qaddafi, and in your fantasy that all of this was part of some grand conspiracy; a 5-year plan first revealed to Wesley Clark in 2001. You predicted the civil war would last 20 years, it was over in less than a year. You claimed NATO used depleted uranium but none was ever found. You said "that Gaddafi has a great deal of support," but few Libyans mourned his passing. You said the CIA had sent Khalifa Hifter to Libya from Virginia to run the rebels but he never got higher than third in command and is retired now. You opposed "the West’s efforts to impose a puppet government on Libya by force," which is to say, you opposed the popular democratic revolution which is currently rebuilding the state institutions from scratch, and you just knew that any NATO air campaign could only lead to massive death and destruction for civilian.

All of this was wrong, but by far the biggest mistake to date, was that after the success of the revolution and the people had their first national vote and elected a government, after NATO flew home without ever having set a boot on the ground, after anyone could tour the country and look for bomb damage and the dead that went with them, and even when Qaddafi's mass graves were being discovered, you stuck to what you imagined things would be like in Libya and you looked for brand new reasons to trash the revolution like claiming that violence is off the scope even through the murder rate is 10% what it is in Venezuela.

In the case of Libya you predicted "The result of NATO joining the war was probably more killing, not less." An examination of the truth about what did happen and an comparison to what is happening in Syria, where the death toll is 140 thousand and counting since both revolutions started three years ago, shows that almost certainly is not the case. But now you oppose any foreign intervention in the Syria civil war, so you can't possibly own to an honest evaluation of recent Libyan history, instead you imagine things are just the way you have always imagined them.

Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria Click here for a list of my other blogs on Libya