YOU CANNOT HAVE A SITUATION WHEN HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE DIE BECAUSE THEY ARE EXERCISING THE RIGHT TO PROTEST

On social media as a double-edged sword to spur political and social change.

I need to be able to find a positive arising from the Syrian "Gay Girl in Damascus" blog hoax fiasco. It's too upsetting to see the good-nature of people being exploited without some good coming from it. For every ounce of effort made in this particular case, the same has been denied from a cause of genuine worth.

Is it enough to rely on the generosity and inherent goodness in people to involve themselves time and time again in appeals that they cannot be certain are genuine? No, it is not.

The real progress will be in seeing this particular case in a wider context. It will involve closer scrutiny of our own international actions and convictions. Given the amount we have already invested into helping the people of Libya liberate themselves; is it not correct that we continue to hold our intervention up for questioning, testing our belief that we are truly helping enact the will and aim of the majority?

Would it also be correct to suggest that part of this process would involve our own media's ability to report truths? Given the sway they command, it is right that they install more robust controls on what they send to the front page unqualified.


(Regarding the poster: allow me the "Irrelevant Actor" visual joke.)

STIGMATISING A WHOLE PEOPLE NEVER GOT US ANYWHERE

And for today, a double-bill double entendre:

"Stigmatising a whole people never got us anywhere"

- Angelique Chrisafis, a French Muslim.

AN EXAMPLE FOR LEGITIMATE SOCIAL CRITICISM AND FREE EXPRESSION

Chinese artist Ai Weiwei was arrested by government authorities last Sunday.
No-one has heard from him since.

A foreign ministry spokesman claims Ai has committed economic crimes and that the arrest is legitimate under Chinese law.

How legitimate and lawful is the utter silencing of one of your citizens?

IF THE PEOPLE ARE ON YOUR SIDE, WHY WORRY?

Taken from David Aaronovitch's comment in today's Times. No link though because of the paywall.

In summary of (and in agreement with): If the Chinese government feel the need to crackdown on those who support a different political agenda; how can it claim to truly speak for its people?

THIS IS NOT IMPERIALISM

THE PEOPLE OF LIBYA MUST BE PROTECTED

From the lips of Barack Obama.

It is important to hear a simple, definitive focus after so much disagreement over method.

WE SHOULD NOT ARRIVE TOO LATE

It is with a heavy heart that I concede to the necessity of military intervention in Libya. My only hope is that by acting early enough, order and the will of the Libyan people can be achieved without too much bloodshed.

On the topic of blood: enough already has been spilt.

I would love to adopt the unilateralist rhetoric of the German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle: "Considering alternatives to military engagement is not the same as doing nothing."

But what else will dislodge the madman?

If violence could be ended by his leaving, it might be a good step.

I have winced at recent comments made by international politicians denouncing Col Gaddafi and his regime. It isn't because I don't endorse their sentiments (I do), it is their stark terminology that worries me.

Libya is fractured. Endorsement for change is not so clearly cut as the recent calls delivered by the peoples of Tunisia and Egypt. An international narrative which seeks to push a single agenda could be an alienating alternative to a very sticky problem.

These words, served by America's Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, are exemplary of a softer reasoning. They could very well be the way to progress. Sticking to sentiments of rationality and concern, an argument can be crafted that is incontrovertible.

Ask the Libyan people to open their eyes to the violence and they will understand Gaddafi's sinister grip on them, regardless of his own broadcast absolutes to the contrary.