Monday, April 11, 2011
NY Times: Libyan Rebels Take Risks With Makeshift Arms
This weeks blog from the NY Times will cover the continued violence in Libya. Rebel forces of Libya's leader Qaddafi continue to fight for their freedom as they push towards the oil cities of Sirte and Tripoli. Along the way the rebel forces have been rigging up an arsenal of weapons to use against the Qaddafi forces. The rebels have few to no lethal weapons while the Qaddafi forces have all the weapons of a structured military. These rigged rocket-pods have begun to be a big hit for the rebels. They are lethal but are quite dangerous to the rebels themselves, but also the surrounding civilians. Already one has been killed by a mis-fired rocket. What should be done to arm the rebels with the weapons they need to attack in a lethal but safer manner? Should the US or NATO forces provide them with used artillery or weapons from their arsenals? Is that too much of a risk if they could potentially get in wrong hands? Please provide your comments and or questions regarding this sensitive matter. Here is the link to the blog: http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/rebels-get-rockets-but-using-them-proves-tricky/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
On this blog post I noticed one instance of ethos. The author, C.J. Chivers establishes the credibility of both the NY Times and the At War blog by mentioning how both the NY Times have both covered the growing threat of high tech weapons falling into the hands of terrorists and rebels. Although he does not mention anything that establishes his own credibility, he does so for the blog and the newspaper. On another post, "Embedistan: Unembedded vs. Embedded," the author directly tells the audience that she has been in Afghanistan for 6 months. These specific cases and several others leave the impression on me that the authors on this blog value experience and knowledge and especially hands on experience, more so than his or her education or credentials.
ReplyDeleteIt is evident from the very beginning of this article that the author is suggesting that the rebel forces fighting Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi's regime are less than capable of winning the war in Libya by themselves. In the third paragraph, he furthers his arguement by describing just how unpredictable and dangerous the makeshift weapons the rebels are using can be. He establishes pathos when he makes note of a medical student that was killed by such a weapon while treating the wounded. The article closes with more disturbing news. At the end of the article he once again uses pathos when he says that more civiallian casualties can be expected due to the increasing number of makeshift weapons being used in battle. The author of this blog does a very good job of appealing to his readers' emotions so that they maintain interest.
ReplyDeleteAs for me, the featured blog actually does affect on people's values and ideas. In my opinion, rebel is a negative word while after reading the article, I have a sense that the author is on the side with the rebels, in other words, the author tries to present specific details to support rebels. First of all, the author uses several positive words to describe the rebels, such as “pride”, “ spirited” and ” free Libya”. All the words lead readers to construct a more righteous image for rebels. As we see, the author doesn’t present any personal judgment to support rebels. But the author uses a binary opposition to make some implicit ideas explicit. He gives an example of rebel Mr. Sanfad and brings out the image of so-called government through the description from Mr. Sanfad. The words used to describe rebels are bright-eyed and collegial while those describe the government are ossified, brutal, and corrupt. From the binary opposition, we can see the opinions the author hides in the article. Overall, the author neutrally analyzes the situation in Libya and points out the rebels are still in inferior position. While we can see more sympathy and attention are focused on the rebels instead of the government.
ReplyDeleteIt is apparent that the author finds the whole situation to be unnerving. In the way they describe the makeshift weapons that the rebels are using, the fact that it is uncertain whether or not America should play a role, and a resulting death of a volunteer doctor. The last detail especially conveys pathos as a photo is also provided of a friend mourning another friends loss.
ReplyDeleteI think this article was written to gain support from American people. The author provides countless pieces of evidence proving the rebels have neither the proper equipment nor the training to overthrow Qadaffi. For those who don't necessarily understand this situation, here is a link to a wikipedia page explaining it all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Libyan_civil_war.
ReplyDeleteIn short Col. Muammar el-Qadaffi is is the leader of Libya. The "rebels" are a group of civilians fighting to overthrow Qadaffi and hold democratic elections in Libya. The author is trying to gain the support of more Americans because, my idea is that he believes a majority do not fully understand this situation. Outlining the difficulties the rebels are faced with such as none sufficient equipment to fight a force as strong as Qadaffi's. The U.S. has the ability to side with the rebels and deploy mass amount of force against Qadaffi to help establish a democratic, human rights supporting government in Libya.
The author of this article is suggesting that the rebel forces cannot win the war. It is clear that the rebels do not have the proper artillery to overthrow Qadaffi. This fact is emphasized throughout the article to convince the reader that the rebels unstable weaponry is backfiring. I also think this article was written to gain support from Americans.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the US or NATO forces should provide rebels with used artillery and weapons because the Rebels forces could not win the war by themselves. At the beginning of the article, the author described the new weapon, air-to-ground rockets. He introduced the functions of this weapon and how it works. However, in the third paragraph, he states that rebels do not have the ability to control the weapon well and so this arms is not lethal enough and also dangerous for themselves. This could be an instance of pathos. The writer did not express the idea that Rebel would lose the war directly, but instead, he implied the opinion by explaining the deficiencies of the weapon used by rebels. The words from Mr. Sanfad in seventh paragraph could be kind of Logos. He said he hopes the war end tomorrow. The author use Mr. Sanfad as a representative of rebels and imply that they want the war finish. That’s why I think the US should help rebels with artillery to finish the war faster.
ReplyDeleteI dont think the US or NATO forces should equip the rebels with any kind of weapons. The US and NATO forces should set up meetings to get the situation so both sides are happy. The war is effecting the gas pump prices which effects all of us. The war going on is unique because civilians are uprising against their government.
ReplyDeleteFrom the beginning of this blog, it is clear that the author is on the rebel’s side. One technique the author uses through the blog is to use evidences and detail to describe the situation that the rebels face at Libya. He points out how the rebels modify the missile and the performance of the weapons such as the range and the faults. Even though using makeshifts arms is out of desperate, I think the rebels should at least make the weapons safer to use. It might takes more time, but at least they can avoid miss fired or making extra damage. Another way to fight the war is to buy the used weapons from the US or NATO forces if it is possible. Although it may cost more, it is a safer solution then using the modified rockets. I think the weapon itself is dangerous since it has terrible aim which one of the most important part of a weapon, not to mention the firepower that it has. So I would say unless the rebels can fix the missiles, it's a dangerous weapons for both the rebels and the government.
ReplyDeleteThe interface of this blog at glance seems like the average interface of the New York Times. If you look more closely, you will see that there are subtle messages being sent. All the featured articles being displayed are about war or the Middle east. Also there are stories about our military and U.S. soldiers. I feel that the website is trying to get the reader to associate our military with the Libyan war and with the Middle East. Furthermore, I feel that the interface is implicitly suggesting that our military should get involved in the Libyan war.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that the United States should be involved in this situation. Not only does it cause a distraction to our country it alters many people lives. The author also takes a unbiased approach I think. He explains both sides of the conflict.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the blog on NY Times, obviously the rebels becomes more and more dangerous, and they have a increasingly threat to the civilians, since their attack seem to be indiscriminate. However, the author of this blog seems to try to figure out why the rebels take this series terrible actions such as launching the rocket weapons. The author was trying to indicate that actually most of the people in Lybia do want to end the war as soon as possible, and this war has taken both goverment and civiians uncountable losses. Compare to the rebels, the one who truly wants to start the war is the real devil.
ReplyDeleteI personally do not agree with the US having entered Libya in the beginning because we already have two wars and many other issues on the home-front to deal with. That aside, the US entered Libya and that's what really matters at this point. What I think the author of this blog is saying is that the Libyan rebels cannot handle this situation on their own. They are making their own situation worse with their makeshift weaponry and hurting themselves. What I think the author is ultimately saying is that since we have intervened anyway, shouldn't the rebels be properly supplied with safe weaponry?
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the fact that the rebel forces are using unsafe tactics in battle, and are using unreliable weaponry. However, these forces are naturally disadvantaged due to the fact that they are opposing the reigning government of that region, and therefore do not have much training or weaponry for themselves. The rebel forces will continue to use these tactics and fight in the manner they are fighting now until they obtain training or more effective weaponry, but that probably will not happen do to the instability of arms trading within that region and training takes months to do. The rebels will continue to do what they are doing, but they're ultimately relying upon the NATO air superiority that was established as their protection against Qaddafi's forces. The author conveys the situation as a fault of the rebels for using such weapons, and repeatedly brings up the fact that the rebels have very little training. This is all very true, but then again it is very odd for a people rising against an established government through conflict to be well trained. The simple attempt at fighting Qaddafi's forces is more effectively a moral gain than an effective attempt at winning a battle. Therefore, I think the rebels can continue doing whatever tactics they find to be best fitting for them until they realize that proper training must take place, and NATO will continue to do much of the work via air superiority. This opinion stems from the fact that the rebel forces do not have much of a high opinion of NATO forces coming in the country in the first place, and to impose force military training would not go over well, hence the rebels must do these things themselves if anything must get done.
ReplyDeleteI will have to agree with some of my classmates with their comments about this blog. I do belive the author is trying to shed light on the drive of the "rebel" force and their whilingness to do whatever necessary to win their war. But is also showing what NATO's role in this conflict is, and that's to protect the citizens. If the rebels launch their makeshift rockets at anything that moves and puts citizens at risk. Then NATO will strike them as they do Qaddafi's forces. I think the rebels understand this, and will still do what they need to do to win their country over or back.
ReplyDelete