But, uh, couldn't it also, potentially, lead to the Afghan model of "peace and stability"?
I mean, from what I can see, the guys doing the invading of Tripoli are Berbers. But the guys in the NTC are Libyan Arabs and Islamists. Islamists who might be, right now, planning a coup against their more secular and moderate allies.
Neither of them alone has the strength or legitimacy to rule the country, and all of them together barely do. And all of them together is just not going to happen, as far as I can see.
Oh, and we've made it clear now that humanitarian intervention means "NATO countries settling old scores under the guise of international law". So, uh, great.
(*special forces and bombing attacks in conjunction with allied local ground forces)
Probably not a popular opinion, but they may just be better off under Ghadafi.
Well, Gaddhafi supporters and other opponents of the rebels certainly will be. The rebels are not adverse to imprisoning and killing civilians, it should be recalled.
As for the long term...it's hard to say. But the most modern instances of war, from Chechnya down, show that winning is relatively easy, keeping the peace is damn hard work. Russians entered Chechnya, second time around, in 1999, but didn't really pacify the region until 2007, after the FSB butchered the rebel leadership (and lots of other people besides). Afghanistan...well, look at it. Baghdad was relatively peaceful for, like, a week after Saddam fled and it fell, and they're still having random suicide bombings over there. Lebanon is a mess, an empty shell that Hezbollah wears like some kind of ghoulish mask, while Israel sulks and pouts and abuses the Palestinians instead.
The past track record is not very good.
As far as I can see, there are three major forces that make up the rebels: the Berbers, Royalist Loyalists and Islamists. The first two may play nice...I honestly don't know enough about Libyan history under the monarchy to comment, except to note that Berber was an official language back then, and that Gaddafi was very brutal to the Berbers during his rule. So they may cooperate. Jihadi don't surf, though. And there were a lot of jihadis around Benghazi, and these jihadis may have had the clout to assassinate General Younis.
There are also lots of African migrant workers who are having the shit beaten out of them for being "Gaddafi mercenaries". They're a potential fourth player in this, though at the moment they simply don't have any kind of organization or leadership, as you would expect.
Yeah, almost always after an overthrow there are long periods of unrest and suppression. Too often it ends up being a change in name only.
We can't rule out pro-Gaddafi terrorism, either. Reports from all the major news stations are saying "the rebels have taken the city unopposed" and even the rebels are saying "its been too easy".
Gaddafi ain't a complete moron. I don't know if he is in that compound or not, the one where all the fighting is, but he likely noted Saddam's strategy for continuing the war even after the fall of Baghdad. And Gaddafi is an old pro at terrorism. Do we know where his gold stockpiles are? His foreign mercenaries, the Belarussians and the Serbians?
Apparently, Ghaddafy ran out of loot to pay his mercs with.
Anyway, he's supposedly holed up in a bunker somewhere.
They've captured his bunker, he was already gone.
Salizoran influence suspected.
His compound was just looted. He wasn't present, apparently.
Also, I don't know about money, but his gold stocks seemed significant. Then again, gold isn't easy to carry around. Either way, Gaddafi was talking a lot about Mao in the last couple of months, that he would abandon cities like Tripoli in light of that seems a fairly solid assumption.
There was just some speculation on ITN News that Gaddafi was headed towards Sirte. I find that unlikely - although he'd likely find more support there than anywhere outside of Tripoli, he'd also be pinned against the coast and between the western and eastern rebels. Escaping into the Med is not a good idea, given the international warrants for his arrest. If he's smart, and looking to flee, he'll head south. He still has influential friends in Uganda, Tanzania and the Congo...not necessarily the governments of those countries, who tend towards supporting America, but individuals in their military and intelligence services. Africa has a virtual industry in keeping disposed dictators hidden for a rainy day, and I've no doubt someone will want that ace in the hand.
LOL.
William Hague just said on the news that Britain would offer the new government advice on policing.
:lol:
http://www.acus.org/natosource/national-composition-nato-strike-sorties-libya
QuoteFrance: 33%, approximately 2,225 strike sorties (out of 6,745 total sorties by August 4)
US: 16%, 801 strike sorties, (out of 5,005 strike sorties by June 30)
Denmark: 11%, dropped 705 bombs (out of the 7,079 missions by August 11)
Britain: 10%, 700 strike sorties (out of 7,223 total sorties by August 15)
Canada: 10%, approximately 324 strike sorties (based on 3,175 NATO strike sorties by May 25)
Italy: 10% (Not applicable until April 27 when Italy committed 4 Tornados for strike sorties)
Norway: 10%, 596 strike sorties (out of the 6,125 missions by August 1, no longer active)
The most interesting thing about that is, apart from France doing most of the attacks, the UK being outclassed by Denmark and equalled by Italy, Norway and Canda in terms of contribution.
It just shows how much the UK military capacity has been gutted and overextended, when France can clearly out-match it in a near-local theatre.
Quote from: Cain on August 22, 2011, 11:52:47 AM
But, uh, couldn't it also, potentially, lead to the Afghan model of "peace and stability"?
I mean, from what I can see, the guys doing the invading of Tripoli are Berbers. But the guys in the NTC are Libyan Arabs and Islamists. Islamists who might be, right now, planning a coup against their more secular and moderate allies.
Neither of them alone has the strength or legitimacy to rule the country, and all of them together barely do. And all of them together is just not going to happen, as far as I can see.
Oh, and we've made it clear now that humanitarian intervention means "NATO countries settling old scores under the guise of international law". So, uh, great.
(*special forces and bombing attacks in conjunction with allied local ground forces)
I've always and EVER said that Revolutionaries make SHIT governing bodies, just saying. They do a service by turning over corruption or despotic situations, but then they quickly devolve into strife themselves...or further the despotism just from a different pathway.
Quote from: Jenne on August 23, 2011, 08:52:16 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 22, 2011, 11:52:47 AM
But, uh, couldn't it also, potentially, lead to the Afghan model of "peace and stability"?
I mean, from what I can see, the guys doing the invading of Tripoli are Berbers. But the guys in the NTC are Libyan Arabs and Islamists. Islamists who might be, right now, planning a coup against their more secular and moderate allies.
Neither of them alone has the strength or legitimacy to rule the country, and all of them together barely do. And all of them together is just not going to happen, as far as I can see.
Oh, and we've made it clear now that humanitarian intervention means "NATO countries settling old scores under the guise of international law". So, uh, great.
(*special forces and bombing attacks in conjunction with allied local ground forces)
I've always and EVER said that Revolutionaries make SHIT governing bodies, just saying. They do a service by turning over corruption or despotic situations, but then they quickly devolve into strife themselves...or further the despotism just from a different pathway.
You just made Oliver Cromwell cry. :cry:
Quote from: Cain on August 23, 2011, 08:33:49 PM
http://www.acus.org/natosource/national-composition-nato-strike-sorties-libya
QuoteFrance: 33%, approximately 2,225 strike sorties (out of 6,745 total sorties by August 4)
US: 16%, 801 strike sorties, (out of 5,005 strike sorties by June 30)
Denmark: 11%, dropped 705 bombs (out of the 7,079 missions by August 11)
Britain: 10%, 700 strike sorties (out of 7,223 total sorties by August 15)
Canada: 10%, approximately 324 strike sorties (based on 3,175 NATO strike sorties by May 25)
Italy: 10% (Not applicable until April 27 when Italy committed 4 Tornados for strike sorties)
Norway: 10%, 596 strike sorties (out of the 6,125 missions by August 1, no longer active)
The most interesting thing about that is, apart from France doing most of the attacks, the UK being outclassed by Denmark and equalled by Italy, Norway and Canda in terms of contribution.
It just shows how much the UK military capacity has been gutted and overextended, when France can clearly out-match it in a near-local theatre.
Because France has held back in the last 10 years while everyone else contributed if not full-throttle at least a *cringe* "decent showing"?
They seem rather...CHOOSY when it comes to international military arms play.
Quote from: Jenne on August 23, 2011, 08:56:03 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 23, 2011, 08:33:49 PM
http://www.acus.org/natosource/national-composition-nato-strike-sorties-libya
QuoteFrance: 33%, approximately 2,225 strike sorties (out of 6,745 total sorties by August 4)
US: 16%, 801 strike sorties, (out of 5,005 strike sorties by June 30)
Denmark: 11%, dropped 705 bombs (out of the 7,079 missions by August 11)
Britain: 10%, 700 strike sorties (out of 7,223 total sorties by August 15)
Canada: 10%, approximately 324 strike sorties (based on 3,175 NATO strike sorties by May 25)
Italy: 10% (Not applicable until April 27 when Italy committed 4 Tornados for strike sorties)
Norway: 10%, 596 strike sorties (out of the 6,125 missions by August 1, no longer active)
The most interesting thing about that is, apart from France doing most of the attacks, the UK being outclassed by Denmark and equalled by Italy, Norway and Canda in terms of contribution.
It just shows how much the UK military capacity has been gutted and overextended, when France can clearly out-match it in a near-local theatre.
Because France has held back in the last 10 years while everyone else contributed if not full-throttle at least a *cringe* "decent showing"?
They seem rather...CHOOSY when it comes to international military arms play.
Whereas WE will fuck ANYTHING for $100. :lulz:
:spits on ground and mumbles cromwell:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 23, 2011, 08:53:42 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 23, 2011, 08:52:16 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 22, 2011, 11:52:47 AM
But, uh, couldn't it also, potentially, lead to the Afghan model of "peace and stability"?
I mean, from what I can see, the guys doing the invading of Tripoli are Berbers. But the guys in the NTC are Libyan Arabs and Islamists. Islamists who might be, right now, planning a coup against their more secular and moderate allies.
Neither of them alone has the strength or legitimacy to rule the country, and all of them together barely do. And all of them together is just not going to happen, as far as I can see.
Oh, and we've made it clear now that humanitarian intervention means "NATO countries settling old scores under the guise of international law". So, uh, great.
(*special forces and bombing attacks in conjunction with allied local ground forces)
I've always and EVER said that Revolutionaries make SHIT governing bodies, just saying. They do a service by turning over corruption or despotic situations, but then they quickly devolve into strife themselves...or further the despotism just from a different pathway.
You just made Oliver Cromwell cry. :cry:
:lulz: Sorry. I used to say this to my husband back in the 90's when he was PRAYING for someone to end the Afghan civil war.
And then someone did.
And look at how THAT all turned out...
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 23, 2011, 08:57:01 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 23, 2011, 08:56:03 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 23, 2011, 08:33:49 PM
http://www.acus.org/natosource/national-composition-nato-strike-sorties-libya
QuoteFrance: 33%, approximately 2,225 strike sorties (out of 6,745 total sorties by August 4)
US: 16%, 801 strike sorties, (out of 5,005 strike sorties by June 30)
Denmark: 11%, dropped 705 bombs (out of the 7,079 missions by August 11)
Britain: 10%, 700 strike sorties (out of 7,223 total sorties by August 15)
Canada: 10%, approximately 324 strike sorties (based on 3,175 NATO strike sorties by May 25)
Italy: 10% (Not applicable until April 27 when Italy committed 4 Tornados for strike sorties)
Norway: 10%, 596 strike sorties (out of the 6,125 missions by August 1, no longer active)
The most interesting thing about that is, apart from France doing most of the attacks, the UK being outclassed by Denmark and equalled by Italy, Norway and Canda in terms of contribution.
It just shows how much the UK military capacity has been gutted and overextended, when France can clearly out-match it in a near-local theatre.
Because France has held back in the last 10 years while everyone else contributed if not full-throttle at least a *cringe* "decent showing"?
They seem rather...CHOOSY when it comes to international military arms play.
Whereas WE will fuck ANYTHING for $100. :lulz:
Yes, yes we will.
Methinks we were robbed. :x
Quote from: Jenne on August 23, 2011, 08:56:03 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 23, 2011, 08:33:49 PM
http://www.acus.org/natosource/national-composition-nato-strike-sorties-libya
QuoteFrance: 33%, approximately 2,225 strike sorties (out of 6,745 total sorties by August 4)
US: 16%, 801 strike sorties, (out of 5,005 strike sorties by June 30)
Denmark: 11%, dropped 705 bombs (out of the 7,079 missions by August 11)
Britain: 10%, 700 strike sorties (out of 7,223 total sorties by August 15)
Canada: 10%, approximately 324 strike sorties (based on 3,175 NATO strike sorties by May 25)
Italy: 10% (Not applicable until April 27 when Italy committed 4 Tornados for strike sorties)
Norway: 10%, 596 strike sorties (out of the 6,125 missions by August 1, no longer active)
The most interesting thing about that is, apart from France doing most of the attacks, the UK being outclassed by Denmark and equalled by Italy, Norway and Canda in terms of contribution.
It just shows how much the UK military capacity has been gutted and overextended, when France can clearly out-match it in a near-local theatre.
Because France has held back in the last 10 years while everyone else contributed if not full-throttle at least a *cringe* "decent showing"?
They seem rather...CHOOSY when it comes to international military arms play.
Well yeah, they don't want to piss off any of their customers. :lulz:
Quote from: Jenne on August 23, 2011, 08:56:03 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 23, 2011, 08:33:49 PM
http://www.acus.org/natosource/national-composition-nato-strike-sorties-libya
QuoteFrance: 33%, approximately 2,225 strike sorties (out of 6,745 total sorties by August 4)
US: 16%, 801 strike sorties, (out of 5,005 strike sorties by June 30)
Denmark: 11%, dropped 705 bombs (out of the 7,079 missions by August 11)
Britain: 10%, 700 strike sorties (out of 7,223 total sorties by August 15)
Canada: 10%, approximately 324 strike sorties (based on 3,175 NATO strike sorties by May 25)
Italy: 10% (Not applicable until April 27 when Italy committed 4 Tornados for strike sorties)
Norway: 10%, 596 strike sorties (out of the 6,125 missions by August 1, no longer active)
The most interesting thing about that is, apart from France doing most of the attacks, the UK being outclassed by Denmark and equalled by Italy, Norway and Canda in terms of contribution.
It just shows how much the UK military capacity has been gutted and overextended, when France can clearly out-match it in a near-local theatre.
Because France has held back in the last 10 years while everyone else contributed if not full-throttle at least a *cringe* "decent showing"?
They seem rather...CHOOSY when it comes to international military arms play.
Last ten, yes. Not so much in the last five, they're fairly active in a few major conflict zones at the moment, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa. And they did contribute the third largest force in Afghanistan, after the UK and USA. Really they just didn't sign onto Iraq, which seems a fairly sensible thing, in hindsight (and foresight).
And it also shows when the French actually feel they have something to gain (like resurrecting their inane Mediterranean Cooperation Sphere, knocking off Gaddafi and stemming the flow of illegal immigration to their country all in one go), they're willing to commit the forces. In large number.
Yes, that last paragraph is the ultimate in importance--when they have something to gain.
In other words, their perception of gain and loss seems to harken back to the colonial times, where as the US and UK are clinging to a more, uh, "modern," esoteric form of "gain." One that politicos can only GUESS at the real-time worth of--because so much of it is just hope and bullshit.
Quote from: Jenne on August 24, 2011, 08:07:52 PM
Yes, that last paragraph is the ultimate in importance--when they have something to gain.
In other words, their perception of gain and loss seems to harken back to the colonial times, where as the US and UK are clinging to a more, uh, "modern," esoteric form of "gain." One that politicos can only GUESS at the real-time worth of--because so much of it is just hope and bullshit.
Balls. Every war America gets into has to do with monetary gain for our corporations. Every single one.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 24, 2011, 08:33:38 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 24, 2011, 08:07:52 PM
Yes, that last paragraph is the ultimate in importance--when they have something to gain.
In other words, their perception of gain and loss seems to harken back to the colonial times, where as the US and UK are clinging to a more, uh, "modern," esoteric form of "gain." One that politicos can only GUESS at the real-time worth of--because so much of it is just hope and bullshit.
Balls. Every war America gets into has to do with monetary gain for our corporations. Every single one.
Sshhhhh. You know what happens when that sort of truth gets out, Rog.
Quote from: Jenne on August 25, 2011, 02:41:19 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 24, 2011, 08:33:38 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 24, 2011, 08:07:52 PM
Yes, that last paragraph is the ultimate in importance--when they have something to gain.
In other words, their perception of gain and loss seems to harken back to the colonial times, where as the US and UK are clinging to a more, uh, "modern," esoteric form of "gain." One that politicos can only GUESS at the real-time worth of--because so much of it is just hope and bullshit.
Balls. Every war America gets into has to do with monetary gain for our corporations. Every single one.
Sshhhhh. You know what happens when that sort of truth gets out, Rog.
Everyone sort of farts a bit, and goes on with their day?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 25, 2011, 02:41:53 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 25, 2011, 02:41:19 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 24, 2011, 08:33:38 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 24, 2011, 08:07:52 PM
Yes, that last paragraph is the ultimate in importance--when they have something to gain.
In other words, their perception of gain and loss seems to harken back to the colonial times, where as the US and UK are clinging to a more, uh, "modern," esoteric form of "gain." One that politicos can only GUESS at the real-time worth of--because so much of it is just hope and bullshit.
Balls. Every war America gets into has to do with monetary gain for our corporations. Every single one.
Sshhhhh. You know what happens when that sort of truth gets out, Rog.
Everyone sort of farts a bit, and goes on with their day?
:lulz: :horrormirth: Unfortunately...yes.
Here's a question for you, Cain.
Why should I, a person of little means or impact on a African nation 6000+ miles away care about this as much as any other distant conflict of post-WWII Earth? After the onset of nuclear weaponization, every single military conflict has been a small scale, long term skirmish by nuke having governments with/over small scraps of neutral territory that posess none, corporations flocking to suck up resources after a coop put on by many a government or government organization. All the while the people in these regions just trying to take control of and get the fuck on with their lives and are not helped in the least by the intervention. Every single one of the Cold War and post cold war conflicts has been like this. Why should I not be jaded to it all and just ignore it?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 25, 2011, 02:41:53 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 25, 2011, 02:41:19 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 24, 2011, 08:33:38 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 24, 2011, 08:07:52 PM
Yes, that last paragraph is the ultimate in importance--when they have something to gain.
In other words, their perception of gain and loss seems to harken back to the colonial times, where as the US and UK are clinging to a more, uh, "modern," esoteric form of "gain." One that politicos can only GUESS at the real-time worth of--because so much of it is just hope and bullshit.
Balls. Every war America gets into has to do with monetary gain for our corporations. Every single one.
Sshhhhh. You know what happens when that sort of truth gets out, Rog.
Everyone sort of farts a bit, and goes on with their day?
J-Lo re-signed with Idol.
Um...what were you saying?
I wasnt sure which thread to put this in.
http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/25/7470058-in-the-ruins-of-gadhafis-lair-rebels-find-album-filled-with-photos-of-his-darling-condoleezza-rice
:lulz: This is the best time in all of human history to be alive. :lulz:
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on August 25, 2011, 08:28:21 PM
I wasnt sure which thread to put this in.
http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/25/7470058-in-the-ruins-of-gadhafis-lair-rebels-find-album-filled-with-photos-of-his-darling-condoleezza-rice
:lulz: This is the best time in all of human history to be alive. :lulz:
Nice one with the uh MICROPHONE up near her face...
that's hilarious...
So Bin Laden watches himself on TV and faps to that, while Gadhafi faps to Condie...
WTF, MUSLIM DESPOTS?!
British government is leaking SAS wank material. Namely, that the SAS are hunting for Gaddafi. Not officially, of course, but nothing about the SAS gets out unless the government wants it to.
This, of course, means the British have no fucking clue where Gadaffi is. SAS wank material is provided strictly for the media and home crowd to whack one off to. Those of us with an attention span beyond five minutes may also recall the last time an SAS and MI6 team parachuted into Libya they were capured by farmhands and so are probably not the best people to lead a hunt for an internationally wanted fugitive.
Meanwhile, Tripoli is looking more and more like Moscow, circa 1812. Food is running low, ammo is running low and snipers and urban hit and run attacks on overstretched and undertrained rebel forces. Most rebels with actual military experience have been sent to the front, about 60km from Sirte, where Gadaffi also probably isn't, though many of his die-hard followers with little to lose are holed up there at present.
http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110825/wl_nm/us_libya_killings
Hey Cain remember when you were worried about the African immigrants getting targeted?
QuoteAnd there is the mantra, with racist overtones, that the Qaddafi government is using African mercenaries, which rebels repeat as fact over and over. There have been no confirmed cases of that; supposedly there are many African prisoners of war being held in Benghazi, but conveniently journalists are not allowed to see them. There are, however, African guest workers, poorly paid migrant labor, many of whom, unarmed, have been labeled mercenaries
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/24/world/africa/24fog.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all
Quote
A Reuters team saw a rebel pick-up truck in Tripoli with three dark-skinned men in the back. One of them told Reuters he was from Nigeria. He sobbed as he said: "I do not know Gaddafi, I do not know Gaddafi, I am only here for working."
Rebels are suspicious of people from sub-Saharan Africa because some have fought on the side of Gaddafi's forces.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/both-sides-libya-conflict-must-protect-detainees-torture-2011-08-25
Quote
When Amnesty International delegates spoke to several of the detainees however, they said that they were migrant workers. They said that they had been taken at gunpoint from their homes, work-places and the street on account of their skin colour.
None wore military uniforms. Several told Amnesty International that they feared for their lives as they had been threatened by their captors and several guards and told them that they would be "eliminated or else sentenced to death"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD_IU17aEs4
I would say I'm shocked only, y'know, I'm not.
Some of Gaddafi's family have turned up in Algeria. Not the hardcore members, Khamis or the security chief one, but the more in the background ones. Algeria has been quite sympathetic to Gaddafi, so this is not surprising.
On the other hand, the NTC have declared habouring Gaddafi's family is "an act of aggression". So there could, potentially, be a future Algerian-Libyan war.
Also, the UN plan for Libya has been leaked. What is prominent is what is lacking: any input from the Libyan government or people.
Quote from: Cain on August 29, 2011, 08:35:28 PM
On the other hand, the NTC have declared habouring Gaddafi's family is "an act of aggression". So there could, potentially, be a future Algerian-Libyan war.
Annnnnnnd, once again, humans snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
"We could either build a nation, or spend what little we have in a nice war. Think, think, think."
I've always felt North Africa needed another big fucking land war. Especially between a crazy authoritarian, quasi-military dictatorship which hates radical Muslims, and democratic rebels who came to power aided by radical Muslims.
So far, the NTC have said they will pursue all legal means to have the Gaddafi's extradited. It's unclear under what charges, however, and it's not clear that certain Western powers are actually keen on the idea either, given that they want the Gaddafi's in the Hague rather than executed by the NTC (though I'm sure a certain faction of businessmen and political leaders, who aided Libya's "rehabilitation" would quite like the entire family to turn up dead, before they start spilling more uncomfortable secrets).
I don't see Algeria responding well to these requests. I suspect the word "sovereignty" will be bandied around a lot, with an underlying tone of "and so you can fuck right off". I suspect that tone will be noted in Benghazi and Tripoli, and a bunched of rebel soldiers, riding high on victory, might just decide an escalatory response is within their abilities.
Maybe not. From the sound of it, the UN plan for the country has the place locked up pretty tight for the next year, minimum. On the other hand, as Joe Stalin would no doubt say "the UN? How many divisions does Ban-ki Moon have?" NATO probably don't want a fight either, but NATO is becoming more retarded and less predictable as the years go by, and as the Gaddafi example shows (and the Iraq one), they will not necessarily decline to act against a leader because they are anti-Islamicist.
Gaddafi loyalists have crossed the border into Niger. The NTC reports the convy was carrying gold and cash.
Just yesterday, the NTC reported that they knew the whereabouts of Gaddafi. Coincidence? Maybe.
QuoteOfficials from the NTC said the convoy set out from the Gaddafi-held town of Jufra.
"Late last night [Monday], 10 vehicles carrying gold, euros and dollars crossed from Jufra into Niger with the help of Tuaregs from the Niger tribe," Fathi Baja from the NTC told Reuters.
These claims have not been independently verified.
The BBC's Kevin Connolly, in the Libyan capital Tripoli, says there is speculation that the convoy could be carrying members of Col Gaddafi's entourage, as the desert route is the likeliest way for them to escape troops loyal to the NTC.
Many Tuareg former rebels from Mali and Niger were trained in Libya in the 1970s and 80s.
Col Gaddafi helped broker a peace accord in 2009 between the government of Niger and a Tuareg rebel group led by Rissa ag Boula, who then took refuge in Libya.
Multiple witnesses reported seeing Rissa ag Boula on the convoy, but he denied the reports, telling AFP: "I'm in [Niger's capital] Niamey."
The NTC spokesman in London, Guma el-Gamaty, told the BBC that Niger would be penalised if it was proven to have helped Col Gaddafi escape.
"Niger is a neighbour of Libya from the south and should be considering the future relationship with Libya," Mr Gamaty said. "This - if confirmed - will very much antagonise any future relationship between Libya and Niger."
Niger's foreign minister said Col Gaddafi was not in the convoy.
"This is not Gaddafi and I do not think the convoy had the numbers attributed to it," Mohamed Bazoum was quoted as saying by AFP.
Col Gaddafi's wife, two of his sons and his daughter have already fled to Algeria.
The BBC's Jon Leyne, in Benghazi, the seat of the transitional authorities, says such a large convoy could not have crossed the desert without Nato turning a blind eye.
Nato does not comment on intelligence matters, a spokesman told the BBC.
Col Roland Lavoie said the alliance's mission was to protect civilians, not to track "fleeing former regime leaders, mercenaries, military commanders and internally displaced people".
All sounds a little odd. Especially since NATO were looking to overthrow Gaddafi from the start, and the recent revelations that MI6 and the CIA renditioned suspects to Libya for torture, and possibly spied on Libyan dissidents for Gaddafi.
Lavoie's such a blatant liar.
I read about the CIA in Libya, it came as no surprise at all.
Was Gulf Co-operation Group support the deciding factor in Libya? Well, maybe
Asia Times Online writer Peter Lee has this to say at his personal blog:
QuoteThe claim that fealty to Western neo-liberalism is the key to global peace and prosperity looks increasingly threadbare. Nevertheless, the undeniable attractiveness—and political corrosiveness—of democratic ideals to the societies of the authoritarian regimes holds out the hope that Western values will prevail even as the Western nation-states forged in the 19th and 20th century crumble under the assaults of globalization, increasingly mobile capital, and disengaged elites.
Therefore, as the US and European economies struggle with anemic economic growth and political gridlock, it is desperately important for proponents of both Western hegemony and liberal democracy to assert that We Did the Right Thing in Libya.
Of course, we didn't do the Right Thing in Libya, as Alexander Cockburn's stable of correspondents have been pointing out indefatigably in the pages of Counterpunch.
The Western and Gulf powers illegally provided military support for a hodgepodge of anti-Gaddafi forces under cover of a UN resolution to "protect civilians".
The whole enterprise seemed doomed to an embarrassing collapse and negotiated settlement at the beginning of August.
However, it appears that an as yet underappreciated factor in Gaddafi's fall was the implacable hatred of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE for the Libyan autocrat—and their willingness to act on that hatred beyond their rather symbolic support of the NATO air war.
As the Benghazi-based TNC flailed away in eastern Libya, the "Tripoli Brigade" under Abdelkarim Belhadj drove on Tripoli and occupied it end-August, aided by the timely defection of a Gaddafi brigade commander, Barani Eshkal, and the surrender of his Mohammed Megrayef Brigade, which had been entrusted with the defense of the capital.
Belhadj, a militant Islamist, one-time leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, and reputed friend of al Qaeda, had been captured by the US in 2004 and tortured in a black prison in Thailand before being handed over to Gaddafi.
In what was not an example of Saif Gaddafi's best work, at least in retrospect, Belhadj was released in 2010 as part of an effort to defang and integrate Islamists into the Gaddafian Libyan order.
The obvious inference would appear to be that Belhadj was assisted by the Arab Gulf states in 2011 out of sympathy for his militant Sunni leanings, and to rescue the Libyan adventure from Western blundering.
Indeed, an al Jazeera video from June 6 preserved on Youtube features attendance by correspondent James Bays at an orchestrated display of Tripoli Brigade will and martial prowess and included the declaration that new weapons provided by the UAE and Qatar "would soon arrive"-- seemingly illegal support at that stage of the "civilian protection" effort.
It is also not impossible that Gulf gold was deployed to arrange the timely surrender of the Mohammed Megrayef Brigade, or that the torture and murder of the chief rebel commander (and suspected accommodationist) Abdel Fateh Younes, represented the determination of Gulf-backed Islamist forces to take the bit in their teeth put an end to the dilatory phony war conducted out of Benghazi.
Given the instinctive discretion of the Gulf States and the almost hysterical need of the Western powers to claim credit for the collapse of Gaddafi's regime, it will be interesting to see when and if the full story of the role of Islamists and the Sunni Gulf autocracies ever comes out.
In any case, don't expect to see a lot of think pieces about the fall of Gaddafi as a victory for the forces of the conservative Sunni counter-revolution in your hometown paper.
A cache of Russian-made surface-to-air missiles has vanished from an arms depot in Tripoli, according to ITN News.
The missiles can take down aircraft from 1100 feet off the ground, and were found missing as rebel troops secured the city from Gaddafi loyalists. Of course, these are the same troops who, according to Peter Lee above, are loyal to an Al-Qaeda linked Islamist militant, so...
Just read this on the Al Jazeera live blog (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Libya).
QuoteAFP - At least 12 people were killed and many more wounded when two groups of fighters opposed to Muammar Gaddafi turned on each other in Libya's west, two officials told the AFP news agency on Sunday.
The fighting, which has its roots in ancient rivalries and pitted combatants from the towns of Gharyan and Kikla on the one side and from Asabah on the other, broke out on Saturday, according to the chief of the Gharyan council and confirmed by the head of the military council of Asabah.
The towns are on the eastern edge of the Nafusa mountains and were important centres of resistance to Gaddafi's forces in months of fighting to oust the strongman.
Well this looks promising.
I have to say, I'm automatically suspicious of the "ancient rivalries" reason given, for, well anything, pretty much. I suspect there was something else going on, rivalries between commanders, a cache of arms or gold one side was refusing to give up, a high priority prisoner...
Either way, it's not good, no. Though I've been surprised by the generally good conduct of the TNC rebels, black Africans being murdered and stuffing Gaddafi loyalists in political prisons nonwithstanding. It could be ideological differences are also coming to the forefront, between the more democratic TNC and their Islamist allies.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/09/has-the-libyan-insurgency-begun/
QuoteThe world has declared victory over Moammar Gadhafi. Only no one told Gadhafi he was defeated. Stop me if you've heard this one before.
Fighters loyal to Gadhafi killed 17 guards at an oil refinery near Ras Lunuf on Monday. They drove to the refinery in a convoy of more than a dozen vehicles. Witnesses reported that the attackers used hand grenades to kill the guards.
And the attack occurred less than two hours after Libya's post-Gadhafi oil minister announced limited oil production had resumed. The refinery itself was undamaged, though it's unclear if that's by design or incompetence. Still, the message sent seems clear: Gadhafi loyalists will target the revolutionary government's ability to exploit the sources of Libyan wealth, weakening its ability to stabilize the country. Then, presumably, comes the restoration.
That last part may be unrealistic, given how deeply Gadhafi is hated in Libya. But in the near term, all that Team Gadhafi needs to do is distance the people from the Transitional National Council. And the revolutionaries may not make that difficult.
Rebel fighters are torching houses and conducting revenge killings in the loyalist town of Tawergha. Council Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril shrugged when asked about the offensive, pleading that there's nothing he can do. There's a racial element to the revenge, the Wall Street Journal reports: "On the gates of many vandalized homes in the country's only coastal city dominated by dark-skinned people, light-skinned rebels scrawled the words 'slaves' and 'negroes.'"
The revolutionaries managed to drive Gadhafi out of Tripoli thanks to on-the-ground training by Qatari Special Forces. Those western Libyan fighters — the same who are attacking Tawergha — are more effective fighters than the ragtag, DIY army assembled in the old revolutionary capitol of Benghazi. Those fighters relied on a five-month air war prosecuted by NATO to attrit Gadhafi loyalists.
NATO's war continues. On Monday, NATO warplanes conducted 37 airstrikes, battering a radar system, surface-to-air missile systems and other targets in Gadhafi's unconquered hometown of Sirte. But at some point, NATO's war will stop. What happens to the revolutionary forces then, if the refinery attack was a prelude of things to come?
The Gadhafists have the opportunity. Libya is practically swimming in unsecured rockets and missiles from Gadhafi's weapons stockpiles. As early as April, Gadhafi loyalists experimented with insurgent tactics, dispersing their weapons and logistical supply chain and hiding amongst the population to strike at a time of their choosing.
Sound like Iraq yet? One difference, at least, is that neither NATO nor the revolutionary government appears to want foreign troops to help stabilize Libya. But if an insurgency develops, will the U.S. Congress — which demanded a No-Fly Zone before balking when President Obama actually enforced one — demand further U.S. involvement to secure a "victory" over Gadhafi? If this decade of war has two lessons, it's that insurgencies escalate quickly — and so does cheap political rhetoric demanding a forceful U.S. response.
I believe I said, perhaps on this very site, that Gaddafi is an old pro at terrorism. Is anyone really surprised he would go this route?
And let us not forget, Niger, Chad and Algeria are at the very least apathetic about the TNC Government. They may well be prepared to offer save havens to potential insurgents, giving them plenty of space to operate in.
Predictions of a North African war just went up a notch.
Why hasn't anyone managed to kill him yet?
He's too fabulous to die.
Ok, good point. But realistically, since no one wants to come in and lay the hammer down, is there any other way to prevent Lybia from becoming another Afghanistan or Iraq?
Well, I'd say it doesn't have the potential to be as bad as either. There are few real ethnic rivalries among the main Libyan powerholders (more by Arabs and Berbers against poor foreign black workers) and the structure of the proposed government doesn't seem to preclude any major group, or promote ethnic factionalism over nationalism. Afghanistan was already like that when we got there, we just didn't help matters...and as for Iraq, we purposefully made it that way. Libya is starting from a better point than Afghanistan, and with less interference and short-sightedness from foreign occupiers unfamiliar with the culture and politics of the country.
Really, the best thing they could do is offer amnesties for Gadaffi loyalists not wanted on war crimes or crimes against humanity charges. Otherwise, they've got no incentive to do anything except fight to the bitter end. Secure the borders, secure weapons dumps and use good old policing/intel operations to disrupt the rest.
Other than regional, what would the long term effects of a North African war be?
More brown refugees trying to get into Europe, pissing off France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Denmark and the UK.
At they very worst, they might intervene in order to prevent more migration...beyond that, the impact would be pretty minimal. Oh, a rise in oil and gas prices as well, but that happens pretty much at random now, anyway.
That's about what I figured. Unless the Empire I live in decides to go play tough guy.
David Cameron is intent on securing more voters....for the Labour Party
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15070911
QuoteSailors who took part in the Libya campaign will be among hundreds of Royal Navy personnel to learn they are being made redundant later this week.
Dozens of sailors from HMS Cumberland, which rescued Britons from Libya in February, could be affected, along with those on other ships that took part.
Personnel not on or preparing for deployment are eligible for redundancy.
Up to 400 compulsory redundancies are expected in the Ministry of Defence's first round of 1,100 navy job losses.
Plymouth-based HMS Cumberland, which was decommissioned in June, was the first UK warship sent to Libya earlier in the year.
'Uncertain future'
An MoD spokeswoman said: "Only those who have returned from operations and have taken all their operational leave" had been considered for redundancy.
"We need to structure our forces to ensure that they are sufficiently flexible and adaptable to meet the demands of an uncertain future.
"The decisions we are making are not easy but they will help to defend the UK, protect our interests overseas and enable us to work effectively with allies and partners to deliver greater security and stability in the wider world."
The next set of redundancies are due in March, as the Royal Navy cuts its numbers by 5,000 to 30,000 by 2015.
Under the Strategic Defence and Security Review announced last year, the Ministry of Defence is to cut numbers by 22,000 across all three military services.
In a way, this makes me put the Tories above the likes of the Republican Party. The Tories really, vehemently believe they need to reduce the deficit, and are inflicting pain all over the place in order to do so, including in our military forces.
The Republicans are like "cut spending and cut taxes lol" because they don't give a fuck. Magic pixies will pay off the national debt, so long as they are appeased by sacrifical rites to bring about "small government".
Still, sucks to be a sailor right now.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is a deliberate move by the Ministry of Defence to try and turn the public away from Cameron.
On the other hand, that doesn't make it any better. You'd think that our politicians would at least be competent at, you know, politics, being completely unable to do any other job, and therefore would take steps to try and avoid this kind of insane PR blunder.
Maybe he thinks that throwing people who just risked their lives for him to the wolves will get the public on side because he clearly is taking tough decisions. I'd like to think he's not that stupid. But he does seem determined to prove me wrong on that front.
Very possible that this an MoD move. They're very unhappy with all the cuts, coming on top of a decade of total conflict and a probable further 30 years (at least) of global instability, and this is definitely one way to throw Cameron under a patriotic bus.
Cameron is himself a PR man, I cannot see him, personally making a blunder this severe. Liam "I'm hiding from Gaddafi's assassins" Fox, on the other hand, I could.
Looks like NATO finally realized the GCG might be playing them in Libya:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/04/qatar-interfering-libya
QuoteWestern diplomats say Arab state is bypassing international agreements, to pursue its own agenda
The tiny Arab emirate of Qatar, a leading supporter of the revolution in Libya, has been accused by western diplomats of interfering in the country's sovereignty.
The claims come amid growing concern among Libyans in the National Transitional Council (NTC) and western officials that Qatar, which supplied arms to Libyan revolutionaries, is pursuing its own postwar agenda at the cost of wider efforts to bring political stability to the country.
Concern has been mounting over the last month that Qatar is bypassing an internationally agreed assistance strategy to Libya to throw its support behind individuals and factions contributing to the continuing political instability.
A senior diplomat said: "There is a question now about what foreign players like Qatar are doing in Libya – whether it is being helpful and respectful of Libyan sovereignty. "Qatar is not being respectful, and there is a feeling that it is riding roughshod over the issue of the country's sovereignty."
Another diplomatic source said: "This is an issue that has been building steam for some weeks." All foreign powers with an interest in Libya, among which are the US, Britain and France, have had their own agendas. However, the source said: "There is a feeling that Qatar has been providing money and support to certain individuals."
At the centre of concerns are allegations that, rather than supporting the NTC, Qatar has chosen to back favoured key figures with financial and other resources. Most prominent among these woulld be the Islamist head of Tripoli's military council, Abdul-Aziz Belhaj.
Qatar earned substantial gratitude from many in Libya for its early support of the revolution against Muammar Gaddafi's rule. Its air force joined a UN no-fly zone while it also helped rebels sell oil.
Qatar is also widely credited with having helped supply revolutionaries with much-needed weapons during the uprising, including modern Belgian-made FN assault rifles and Milan anti-tank rockets.
Qatar has long had a cautious but active foreign policy that typically focused on negotiation and mediation. Since the Arab spring it has taken a more aggressive regional role, most notably over Libya.
Media reports have also suggested that Qatari special forces helped train rebels in the Nafusa mountains, flying some unit commanders to Qatar for training.
Of particular concern over the last month has been how Qatar has chosen to throw its weight behind a group of Libyan individuals including Sheikh Ali Salabi, a Libyan cleric who resides in Doha and has close relations with Belhaj.
There has been the growing friction between Salabi and the NTC's interim prime minister, Mahmoud Jibril. Salabi has appeared on television to suggest Jibril is a "tyrant in waiting".
Basically, the way I see it is that the Gulf Cooperation Group is using Salabi and his Al-Qaeda assets to pursue a distinctly Sunni agenda in North Africa. We may see this pattern repeat itself in Syria, though I very much doubt the GCG would move openly to topple Assad without Western military backing - which may not be forthcoming.
Sirte has fallen. NTC are claiming to have caught Gaddafi alive, but wounded. Other reports are claiming Gaddafi is dead.
This would explain why Sirte fought so hard, if it is indeed the case.
Last report I heard was he died from wounds, but the dust needs to settle for the reports to be blindly accepted.
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 20, 2011, 01:21:20 PM
Last report I heard was he died from wounds, but the dust needs to settle for the reports to be blindly accepted.
So far, every source I've read or heard cites The Daily Mail, so I'm gonna hang on.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 20, 2011, 03:21:05 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 20, 2011, 01:21:20 PM
Last report I heard was he died from wounds, but the dust needs to settle for the reports to be blindly accepted.
So far, every source I've read or heard cites The Daily Mail, so I'm gonna hang on.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2011/oct/20/syria-libya-middle-east-unrest-live
Putting it all together seems to indicate he really is done, and is even as we speak enjoying a nubile infested afterlife.
NTC have announced he was killed.
If he's not dead, he certainly looks 'unwell'.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/warning-graphic-photo-moammar-gadhafi/story?id=14777830
NSFW if your employer doesn't want you looking at bloodied corpses of deposed dictators. Otherwise, have at it.
And, leave it Fox News to spin the death of Gaddafi as somehow BAD news, and a goof on Obama's part.
Jon Stewart tells it:
http://gawker.com/5851978/jon-stewart-left-dumbfounded-by-republican-reaction-to-gaddafis-death
Quote from: Luna on October 22, 2011, 01:51:57 AM
And, leave it Fox News to spin the death of Gaddafi as somehow BAD news, and a goof on Obama's part.
Jon Stewart tells it:
http://gawker.com/5851978/jon-stewart-left-dumbfounded-by-republican-reaction-to-gaddafis-death
:lulz: They're trying sooo hard.
Gadaffi's death is bad, but not from the viewpoint of the USA's government, past and present.
Think about how much Gadaffi knew re: the War on Terror. How many people we renditioned to be tortured in his jails. The testimony of captured Libyan Islamists was crucial in building a case for the Iraq War, especially Ibn Sheikh al-Libi, who was "suicided" in a Libyan prison in 2009. One of the rebel leaders, Abdel Hakim Belhaj, is a known Al-Qaeda ally who was tortured by the Libyan intelligence services, while being questioned by the CIA and MI6.
Gadaffi knew where the bodies were buried, and the names of government officials and intelligence agents who were working on their particular cases. And the notorious blabbermouth would've made allegations at the Hague, and they would have been investigated.
So it's no surprise that, when Gadaffi was captured, there happened to be a mystery assailant who was a very good shot with a 9mm pistol close enough to make sure the Diva of Tripoli couldn't make any unfortunate accusations.
This was a clean-up operation, the moral equivalent of a Mafia hit on their own hired killers after completing an especially dirty job. Nothing more. Bury the leads, leave no traces.
And it's started
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15428360
QuoteThe bodies of 53 Gaddafi loyalists have been found at a hotel in the Libyan city of Sirte after apparently being executed, a human rights group says.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) said the victims - some of whom had their hands bound - died about a week ago.
It is the latest accusation of atrocities in Libya committed by both sides during the eight-month conflict.
Libya's new rulers have denied any involvement in abuses and have urged Libyans to forego reprisal attacks.
QuoteThe bodies were found on Sunday on the lawn of the abandoned Hotel Mahari in Sirte, which saw heavy fighting last week as NTC forces battled for control of the city.
"Some had their hands bound behind their backs when they were shot," Peter Bouckaert, emergencies director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement.
"This requires the immediate attention of the Libyan authorities to investigate what happened and hold accountable those responsible."
It is not clear who carried out the killings.
HRW said they believed the hotel had been in the hands of anti-Gaddafi forces from Misrata before the killings, and it remained in their control until the fighting in Sirte stopped on 20 October.
On the entrance and walls of the hotel were the names of several anti-Gaddafi brigades from Misrata, HRW added.
"The evidence suggests that some of the victims were shot while being held as prisoners, when that part of Sirte was controlled by anti-Gaddafi brigades who appear to act outside the control of the NTC," Mr Bouckaert said.
This stinks to high heaven
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8865403/South-African-intelligence-investigates-role-of-British-company-in-Col-Gaddafis-attempt-to-flee-Sirte.html
QuoteA total of 50 private soldiers, including 19 South Africans, are reported to have travelled to Libya on instructions to smuggle the former dictator from his birthplace of Sirte over the border to Niger.
Among them were said to be members of the team led by former SAS officer Simon Mann on the "Wonga coup" to unseat Equatorial Guinea's dictator.
You may recall, these are the same mercenaries who are very closely associated with Mark Thatcher, son of Margaret. But it gets better:
QuoteIt has been alleged that one of the security firms who provided mercenaries for the mission may have acted as a "double agent", helping Nato to pinpoint Gaddafi's convoy for attack, and that the dictator's escape was "meant to fail".
[snip]
A source in the private security sector said it was "highly likely" that one of those involved deliberately recruited mercenaries who were ill-equipped to handle the mission.
"These guys did not have the experience to be successful," he said. "The formation of the convoy, the way they tried to leave Sirte, it's clear they were meant to fail.
"Someone got paid to protect him and at the same time to deliver him."
The part I'm struggling with is why Gadaffi would trust mercenaries so obviously tied to the British establishment?
Yeah, it seems pretty weird that a country leader of any sort would do that. I mean like trust someone who had ties to someone else who wanted him dead(?).
There have been rumours of Gadaffi having negotiated a truce of some kind before being killed. They are only rumours though, and they come from some very unreliable sources (for instance, the man who claims to have had a gay affair with Barack Obama) so I don't credit them, so far.
However, that is one scenario that would help the above make more sense. I am sure there are others as well though, including desperation.