Cockburn's "clearly demonstrable factual errors" seem to consist of getting the population of Tripoli wrong (a disagreement over what counts as the SMSA?).
More importantly he seems to have got the evaluation of the killing wrong in some people's views. Given that his brother is perhaps the leading English-language reporter in the region, I'd think that his account of the facts is defensible.
On Dennis' reference to "the eternal go-to bloodbath to justify later bloodbaths," see Nicholson Baker's "Why I Am a Pacifist: the Dangerous Myth of the Good War" <http://harpers.org/archive/2011/05/0083402>, with discussion in various places. --CGE
On 7/18/11 1:36 PM, dperrin at comcast.net wrote:
> Wojtek:
>
> " What is the point of berating him? Not only does he point out
> some clearly demonstrable factual errors in Cockburn's piece, but his
> logic seems sound as well. By that logic, the US involvement in the
> war against the Nazi Germany was fully justified, even though few
> would argue that its purposes were altruistic."
>
> No berating. My responses are based in love.
>
> I'm not defending Cockburn, Qaddafi, or DR's beloved freedom fighters. Our views on NATO's actions are meaningless. We have zero impact on imperial aggression, not to mention official enemies. Rooting for this or that faction is like playing fantasy football. Let's focus on issues we can have an effect on, starting with ourselves.
>
> God bless WW2, the eternal go-to bloodbath to justify later bloodbaths. WW2 was an inevitable clash of imperial powers, especially in the Pacific. What that has to do with the present Middle East and Central Asia I've no idea.
>
> Dennis
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk