'I saw Gaddafi's troops shoot children': (False, according to Chavez's man on the ground.)

[naaman fletcher]

Because it's false, there is no need to get on Ortega's case for supportig Ghadaffi.





Helicopter gunships were shooting at them .
'The army were using heavy machine guns and automatic rifles against little children throwing rocks.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1360120/Libya-unrest-Hundreds-US-citizens-STILL-stranded-Obama-pressure-act-grows.html#ixzz1F2RPNqKy

Viva Ortega and his allies!!!!!!

[bemildred]

1. Well, it's like classic stuff in these situations, remember the unplugged incubators,

the raped nuns? "The army were using heavy machine guns and automatic rifles against little children throwing rocks." It's highly questionable stuff. But I don't owe Ghaddaffi nothing.

[joshcryer]

2. Yeah, very possible these people were US agents.

:sarcasm:

I've seen enough video of the Libyan massacres (of old and young alike, as young as 14-15) in so many configurations (brains spewing from skulls, bodies missing lower halves, bones protruding from legs blown off with faces ripped to shreds, bleeding profusely on the ground with puddles of blood that are so deep they drain into the sewer, I can go on and on and on, and that was all from TODAY / LAST NIGHT) I almost wish I could erase it from my memory, but in instances like this I owe it to myself to remember, just in case it is covered up and the end is with tyranny.

[bemildred]

3. That stuff is also common as dirt, and doesn't mean much.

There are exceptions, if there is "identifying information". I mostly stay away from that sort of "imagery" these days.

My basic rule is that if I feel someone is trying to manipulate my emotions, with words or pictures, to get me mad or scared or disgusted, I tend to believe nothing they say and wait for other sources and information.

I am not suggesting by any means that the violence in Libya is fake. I was glad to read that the "rebels" have some military people in charge and planning for an assault on Tripoli. Mobs will not do the job here.

[joshcryer]

4. I think, contextually, I am obliged to believe it unless there is evidence to the contrary.

Context is important, especially as it pertains to protesters who are speaking after the fact. There was a Libyan who told his story while he was on the operating table. I had no reason to disbelieve what he was saying, nor the various YouTube comments and their translations.

A protester says that they're doing coverups of the massacres. I can't believe that because there's no context, he could just be saying that, right? Another protester shows a video of a presumed protester being thrown into the back of a van, could be true, maybe not, I dunno, maybe it was one of the killers guys. Another protester shows video of construction crews working on a burnt out building, one that had presumably been burned the night before. All this builds context.

If there was a false narrative being built here, I would easily be duped. But false narratives are very very difficult to get right. For instance, it is nearly unquestionable that peoples legs were blown off. A false narrative would say "that is makeup and special effects." Hint, the movies never ever get it right, it's always more gruesome. So I'm inclined to believe that with the stuff that is very hard to make up, and the stuff that may not be cut and dry, it is good enough to conclude that the whole must have some truth beyond some standard line.

The standard line for me is that "many people have died in Libya." (Visual evidence that is hard to fake.) Since the Gaddafi forces are saying that "few people have died" the standard beyond the line goes way up, because I have been introduced a falsehood (and Saif stood there on TV and basically told it to me with his own two lips). I'm already in a territory where I can believe without too much effort that dead Libyans are being cleaned up off the streets.

For me this is the best way to avoid emotion manipulation, seeking out straight up falsehoods and clamping down hard on them. Verifiability.

[naaman fletcher]

5. there is evidence to the contrary!

Chavez's man on the ground!

[bemildred]

6. There in no question that various competing narratives are being built here.

That is normal. I am not suggesting that anybody in particular is lying about the facts, I am not in a position to know. I'm just saying that there is a lot of noise and one ought to keep ones head, support the rebels, and wait and see what happens.

WRT your other line of argument, context can be manufactured just like anything else, and any competent propagandist will see that it is.

I have no doubts that plenty of atrocities are being committed, by both sides, and I fully support the "rebels" regardless, Ghaddaffi is an asshole.

[bemildred]

7. Qaddafi Forces Shooting From Ambulances, Witnesses Say

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4749558

See consider this one too. Would you pick an ambulance? I would go with something less conspicuous if I was going to shoot up a mob. And it's classic propaganda. I could not count the stories I've seen over the years about ambulances being used for nefarious purposes in war zones. But for some reason no criminals ever think of that as a good way to sneak around and do bad things in civilian life.

I am OK with demonizing Ghaddaffi, but I am not going to swallow that sort of shit whole, or any similar propaganda cliches.

[bemildred]

8. Oh yeah, and don't forget the "Bombed Ambulance" stories either.

Those are also common as dirt, sometimes even with real bombed ambulances. Ah yes, here is the one I'm looking for: