Why are Egyptians "protestors" but Libyans are "rebels"?

[devil21]

It's interesting to watch the media frame the entire debate when it comes to Egyptians and Libyans. The Egyptians were hailed as "democracy protestors" seeking to overthrow a dictatorial regime yet the Libyans who are seeking to do the same thing are instead "anti-government armed rebels". Is it solely because the US gov't hasn't always been friendly with Gaddafi? Or are we planning on installing our own puppet dictator so we can control their oil? It's really amazing to watch the media and the US govt paint each conflict as somehow different.

And now Senators and Clinton wants us to send WEAPONS to those opposing Gaddafi?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110227/ap_on_re_af/af_libya



Two prominent U.S. Senators said Washington should recognize and arm a provisional government in rebel-held areas of eastern Libya and impose a no-fly zone over the area — enforced by U.S. warplanes — to stop attacks by the regime. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton echoed President Barack Obama's demand for Gadhafi to relinquish power.

"We want him to leave," she told reporters traveling with her Sunday to a U.N. meeting on Libya planned for Monday. "We want him to end his regime and call off the mercenaries and forces loyal to him. How he manages that is up to him."

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'm sure Big Z has something cooking. Him and his game of Risk, always fluttering in the background. Well, fuck you Big Z, and fuck the meglomaniacs in the USG. Leave the Libyans alone. Leave the Japanese alone. Leave the Germans alone. Leave the Afghans alone. Leave the Russians alone. If I have to hear National Security (aka personal power trips and money enriching schemes) one more time I think I may vomit.

[Peace&Freedom]

The word "rebel" evokes a sense of a "destabilized" country more clearly than the word protester. US war-whoopers must feel like they missed the infowar boat when they didn't say the r word during the Egyptian protests, so this use of rhetoric paves the way better for a US-led or NATO military intervention to "help out" Libya.

[MelissaWV]

At first glance, the "protesters" did not actually storm their leader and stage an armed takeover of various cities.

The "rebels" are doing just that, and applying force to their cries for removal of the dictator.

* * *

In general, though, it's just the spin.

[devil21]

^^^^
That's an interesting perspective. So what you're called depends on the level of force you're willing to use to impose change?

[MelissaWV]

^^^^
That's an interesting perspective. So what you're called depends on the level of force you're willing to use to impose change?

"Rebel" is one of those words that, if we hated them, would become "terrorist" in a heartbeat. Freedom-fighters/rebels use force, but are fighting for good. Protestors want things to happen, but are not an organized force. They might break a few things, but it's nothing organized and designed to achieve their goals. "Rebel" is also a term that makes them seem like the romaticized underdog. Hell, it makes them seem like Princess Leia and Han Solo.

[libertybrewcity]

I think it is because Egyptians were rather peaceful while the Libyans are taking over cities, airports, military equipment. They are actually fighting the pro-Ghadaffi forces.

[BlackTerrel]

Two prominent U.S. Senators said Washington should recognize and arm a provisional government in rebel-held areas of eastern Libya

So it should be "protester held areas"?

I don't even know that rebel has a negative connotation. And Billy Idol would agree.

[ibaghdadi]

It's interesting to watch the media frame the entire debate when it comes to Egyptians and Libyans. The Egyptians were hailed as "democracy protestors" seeking to overthrow a dictatorial regime yet the Libyans who are seeking to do the same thing are instead "anti-government armed rebels".

I don't really think it's spin. If you've been following events, you'd know that the Libyans sometimes protest Gaddafi, and sometimes fight him.

I still remember Wolf Blitzer trying to give them a name: "Those protesters, rebels, anti-Gaddafi's, pro-democracy, revolutionaries..."

The fact is that in Egypt, the regime did use force but didn't mow unarmed protesters down with fighter jet gattling cannons, or hire & arm mercenaries to shoot to kill.

The Libyans have to take up arms because Gaddafi is a bloodthirsty son of a bitch. Mubarak was an asshole but he never fired anti-aircraft machine guns into a crowd of 30,000 unarmed protesters.

When that happens, it becomes be pure stupid not to pick up a gun.

[speciallyblend]

I don't really think it's spin. If you've been following events, you'd know that the Libyans sometimes protest Gaddafi, and sometimes fight him.

I still remember Wolf Blitzer trying to give them a name: "Those protesters, rebels, anti-Gaddafi's, pro-democracy, revolutionaries..."

The fact is that in Egypt, the regime did use force but didn't mow unarmed protesters down with fighter jet gattling cannons, or hire & arm mercenaries to shoot to kill.

The Libyans have to take up arms because Gaddafi is a bloodthirsty son of a bitch. Mubarak was an asshole but he never fired anti-aircraft machine guns into a crowd of 30,000 unarmed protesters.

When that happens, it becomes be pure stupid not to pick up a gun.

Wolverines!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MozoVote]

During the American Revolution, the Colonial army was the Rebellion. I don't see a problem using the term.

[QueenB4Liberty]

During the American Revolution, the Colonial army was the Rebellion. I don't see a problem using the term.

Yeah and besides the fact that was already stated, the Egyptians remained peaceful for the most part.

[MikeStanart]

Wolverines!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.mtv.com/movies/photos/h/happy-birthday-ak-47/ak47_2.jpg

[doodle]

Simple, we had no intention of supplying weapons to Egyptian "rebels".

[awake]

There are some very big U.S. oil interests in Libya... thats why they want to get in there and get a new puppet government.

CONOCOPHILLIPS
ConocoPhillips, the third-largest U.S. oil company, holds a 16.3 percent interest in Libya's Waha concessions, which encompass nearly 13 million gross acres. Net oil production from Libya averaged 45,000 barrels per day in 2009 -- or 2 percent of worldwide output -- down from 47,000 bpd in 2008.

MARATHON OIL CORP
Marathon has a 16 percent interest in the outside-operated Waha concessions in the Sirte Basin. Its 2009 exploration program included the drilling of four wells, along with five development wells. Net liquid hydrocarbon sales from Libya were 46,000 bpd in 2009, or 19 percent of its total. Marathon said on Tuesday its Waha production was normal.

HESS CORP
In 2009, Hess produced 22,000 bpd of crude from Libya, or 8 percent of its crude output. At the end of 2009, 23 percent of its proved reserves were in Africa, with Libya making up 11 percent of that. Along with its Oasis Group partners, Hess has operations in Waha, with an interest of 8 percent. Hess also owns all of Area 54 offshore, where it drilled an exploration well in 2008, followed in 2009 by a down-dip appraisal well.

OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORP
Occidental, the fourth-largest U.S. oil company, earned $243 million in net sales from Libya in 2009, or less than 2 percent of its total. Production increased in 2010, and Oxy has plans to double its output from Libya by 2014.