Everyone knew what and who he was a long time ago. The reaction to it here and now is purely opportunistic.
Partly the media? I think we've established that we can't particularly trust much of what comes out of there.
Which "civvies"? Remember anyone who's not wearing a uniform is essentially a civilian. It doesn't mean that the majority of Libyans want to see a no fly zone. Just because there are certain ones who do doesn't prove anything.
When they took up arms and seized army depots (and accepted tons of soldiers-deserters with weapons, into their midst), and then turned those weapons on the Gaddafi regime they stopped being civilians. They became combatants. This is not to say they were unprovoked or unjustified in doing so. But lets face it, if tomorrow the population of Texas had giant riots, took up arms, seized army depots, and mass numbers of Texas National Guard, and US Army deserted and joined their ranks, the US federal response would hardly be one of "hey lets all have a cup of tea and talk about our feelings". The US Civil War is a good example of what would happen.
What's the definition of genocide?
And how is what Gaddafi is doing fall under that definition? Before throwing words around why don't you double check on their meanings.
See above.
Now we have a different story, no? Not all civilians are asking for intervention, a very specific group of civilians that has a stake in overthrowing the current regime. Who's to say they will be better, or are deserving of said help?
I have no love for Gaddafi, but have serious reservations about welcoming the opposition with open arms. Lets see what they do once in power (if in power) before we start committing ourselves to them.
