Uprising in Libya
- Thread starter Blackwater
- Start date
Brit held with SAS in Libya was spy
By VIRGINIA WHEELER, Defence Editor,
and TOM NEWTON DUNN, Political Editor
THE British "diplomat" captured in Libya along with seven special forces soldiers was a Bond-style MI6 spy, The Sun can reveal.
He and his SAS team were released last night, 72 hours after a secret mission to make contact with rebel leaders went badly wrong.
Angry questions were being asked about alleged intelligence failures that forced them to surrender when surrounded and "suicidally outnumbered" by militia.
Despite Government claims it sent a "small diplomatic team", The Sun can reveal it was an MI6 secret agent and his special forces minders.
The government has also confirmed that the botched SAS mission was authorised by Foreign Secretary William Hague.
Their job was to contact opponents of Libyan tyrant Colonel Gaddafi after intelligence reports that the rebels were open to talks.
But the Brits found themselves surrounded by scores of militia armed with AK-47 assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades.
Armed farmers reportedly challenged the team when they arrived at an agricultural compound.
It was claimed they were spotted after driving into a farm and unloading kit bags.
One AK-47-wielding farmhand, named Rafah, said: "We fired into the air and said, 'Hands up, don't move'. They did as we said. It wasn't very difficult."
The farmers kept them at gunpoint for several hours, giving them breakfast while waiting until rebel leaders arrived.
Their phones and weapons were seized before delicate negotiations secured their release after 72 hours.
And last night a row was brewing over the bungled op - which handed a PR coup to Gaddafi.
The team was made up of the MI6 officer, six SAS troopers plus an Army signaller. They were captured on Friday near the town of Khandra, nearly 20 miles west of rebel-held Benghazi, after landing in the desert by helicopter three days earlier.
The MI6 man was NOT directly plotting to help bring down Gaddafi, Government sources insisted.
He was trying to establish diplomatic relations with rebels fighting to topple the dictator and a larger Foreign Office team was to follow.
It has emerged that rebel chiefs tried to persuade him to make London recognise them as the legitimate government.
Later Libyans were filmed holding underpants said to belong to one Brit - which they said had a secret compartment sewn into it.
After being freed, the team left Benghazi on the frigate HMS Cumberland, heading for Malta. A military source said they had to surrender. He went on: "This is a massive intelligence failure that rests on bad government planning. It is NOT a question of the professionalism or bravery of the SAS.
"They were suicidally outnumbered. The men did absolutely the right thing." The official slammed ministers "for yet another shambolic decision on Libya." He said: "This could have ended in catastrophe. Lives were at risk."
A senior member of Benghazi's revolutionary council said it had been feared the SAS men were Gaddafi's foreign mercenaries.
He said: "They were carrying espionage equipment, reconnaissance equipment, multiple passports and weapons. How do we know who they are?" Libyan state TV last night broadcast a recording of a phone call in which British Ambassador Richard Northern tells a rebel leader he was "not surprised" the SAS were greeted with hostility.
He says: "I understand there has been a misunderstanding and they have been picked up."
The rebel chief replies: "Actually they made a big mistake coming in with a helicopter in an open area." Mr Northern then says: "Oh did they? I didn't know how they were coming. I'm not surprised that's alarmed them."
A Foreign Office source said the team WAS given the green light to go in but local rebels were not told. The senior source said: "It's easy to criticise and the operation didn't go as well as hoped. But nothing ventured, nothing gained. It's vital to know what's going on in Libya." The SAS men were from a unit formerly known as The Increment, hand-picked to protect MI5 and MI6 officials.
It was the latest British embarrassment over Libya, after the US shot down the idea of a no-fly zone and we were slow off the mark rescuing stranded citizens.
And Gaddafi exploited it last night, telling his citizens the uprising was a Western conspiracy.
Mr Hague said further attempts will be made to contact the rebels.
He said: "A small British diplomatic team has been in Benghazi. They experienced difficulties, which have been resolved."
Libya: personal account of RAF pilot who took part in SAS rescue mission
Flight Lieutenant Stuart Patton, Royal Air Force - personal account of the Hercules Operations in Libya.
Flight Lieutenant Stu Patterson at Tripoli Airport
(Age 29 from Chelmsford Essex and is based at RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire.)
I had been following the deteriorating situation in Libya on the news for a little while when, over lunch in the Officers' Mess, I heard that the Squadron was looking for volunteers for a standby crew in the event that an aircraft was needed to deploy. Having spent much of my two front line tours supporting established operations in the Middle East, I was very keen to be involved in a humanitarian relief mission and jumped at the opportunity to be a part of it. I was more than a little surprised when I was informed we were to go only a few hours later.
I arrived at the aircraft to find a hectic scene of people and equipment being loaded on. Royal Marines crammed dozens of life jackets into the aircraft which they would be taking for evacuees who would board Royal Navy rescue ships as our crew loaded their own equipment on. We arrived in Malta full of excitement but uncertain of what to expect, or when to expect it.
My crew had barely had time to rest from the short notice journey out when the phone rang, tasking us to fly to Tripoli International Airport. My dream of being involved in a humanitarian mission was to be realised – we were to collect people seeking to leave Libya as a result of the security situation and return them to Malta. Although we were getting small amounts of information on the situation at the airport, as we took off I had very little idea of what to expect from our flight to Libya. Would we be allowed to enter the airspace? Would we be able to land when we got there? Everyone on the crew had been watching the news and hearing that the airport was becoming crowded, and it was difficult to shake the idea that we might be surrounded by people desperate to leave the instant we turned up. The reality was inevitably more benign- we parked in a section of the airport that gave little clue to the chaos that had been reported on all the news channels, surrounded by civil and military aircraft from many other nations all seeking to collect their passengers. Word filtered from the embassy staff at the airport that it would take some time to process people from the crowds at the terminal. We eventually took off some hours later, returning to Malta with 64 passengers and a Chihuahua. The passengers were a mixture of British citizens and entitled personnel who were all overwhelmed to be picked up by the RAF and taken out of the ever-worsening situation in the country. As we shut down at the other end, all the crew were smiling and visibly delighted to have been involved in the effort to help the evacuees to safety.
On the drive back to the hotel we discovered that more crews and more aeroplanes had either arrived or were on their way out. We wasted no time in telling our new story to the crews that were there already and were left fairly certain that we'd had 'our go' and would be unlikely to be going back for a little while, though of course we had no idea of the next step in any case. It was therefore something of a surprise when, less than two days later, we were called in to work. Although details were sketchy at first, we began to learn that we would be going in as part of a mission to rescue the workers stranded in the oilfields of Libya. This was almost too good to be true – we would be landing on desert strips to evacuate the trapped workers and everyone was very excited, if a little nervous. We took off with even more questions racing around our head – What would the strip be like, and what would the ground situation be? Again, would we be allowed in? And what would happen if they didn't speak to us? Libya has extensive anti-aircraft defences and we didn't want to find out that they weren't happy to see us after we'd committed ourselves into their airspace.
There was one Hercules ahead of us and we learned from the Awacs surveillance aircraft that was providing threat information to us that they had made it into the country. Hoping we would have similar luck, we carried on and stated openly on the radio that we were a humanitarian flight, without stating where we were going. When radio contact with Tripoli was lost, they hadn't said we could come in, but then they hadn't said no either, so we pressed on.
The next challenge was getting in to the airfield itself we knew we were going to have to conduct an assessment of the site ourselves to see if it was suitable for landing. We heard word that the other aircraft was on the ground at its objective and began the descent in to the strip. As the field came into view it became clear that there was a runway in decent condition, and after a close inspection proceeded to land and taxi to the area we'd identified as both a suitable area to receive the passengers and to make a quick get away. While the crew sat waiting for news of the passengers, we laughed about the surreal situation we found ourselves in, sat on an unmanned runway hundreds of miles into the Libyan Desert. As the passengers began to turn up, communications were passed to us that 2 unidentified aircraft were heading towards the location of the other aircraft. For a short while, everyone was quiet, and a tangible sigh of relief was heard when we learned that these were in fact two German aircraft on a similar mission to us. Around that time, we also had word that the third aircraft had been turned away by Libyan ATC, though quite what that meant for our return to base, no one was exactly sure. After what seemed like a long time, the other aircraft called that they were airborne and passed information that the ground situation in their location had begun to deteriorate. Not long after that, we found out things weren't good where we were either. .Information passed to the ground troops indicated that people had arrived who would attempt to block the aircraft in. The loadmaster summarised the situation succinctly over the intercom – "we need to go now!", with the noise of ground troops shouting "GO!" audible in the background we were rolling down the runway before he'd finished his sentence with everyone safely on board.
At this stage, we had 40 evacuees on board, and were stunned to learn over the radio that the other aircraft had 136 evacuees, a huge number for our type of aircraft. A quiet hour followed as we headed north for the border, with everyone waiting for any contact from Libya or the E3 to say that something was happening. As we reached Maltese airspace, everyone visibly relaxed and as we landed and shut down, we were jubilant. Had that really just happened? Two aircraft in the middle of the desert, rescuing evacuees. It was slightly surreal to be at RAF Lyneham one day and rescuing evacuees from the desert only hours later. Once again the passengers were delighted to be safe and were so grateful that the RAF had rescued them, that an Australian passed round his flag and all the passengers signed it to thank the crew.
As we arrived back at the hotel for the second time, this time with an even bigger story, we became aware of how widely reported the event was being and smiled at the satisfaction of a job well done. The other crews put up with the story telling and made it even clearer that we'd definitely had 'our go' now. It was all the more surprising when the crew phone rang early the next morning, again calling us to cockpit readiness.
This time we were going as the third aircraft, and just hoped we weren't going to be turned away as had happened to the 3rd aircraft the day before. We were to go to two strips to rescue evacuees. We took off and things began in much the same way as the day before. The E3 announced that the other two aircraft had made it across the border and we began the same routine as yesterday, calling Tripoli on the radio and declaring our status as a humanitarian flight. This time there was no answer, so we didn't force the issue and just listened for any sign of trouble. Around this time we had our first destination changed and had found out that the other aircraft were having similar experiences – some of the strips had been blocked and someone back at HQ was doing some rapid rethinking. We found our first target without issue and continued as we had the day before, recce'ing the area, landing and then prepping for a quick get away. Again we waited for our passengers, this time pressured by the failing light that we would need to safely recce the second airfield, which was only a 10 minute flight away.
We took off with the sun beginning to set, and 27 evacuees on board. We quickly found the next airstrip, and it was immediately clear that the first portion of the strip had been blocked with oil drums and large containers. Following a very through inspection, we could see that the strip was in poor repair, but was still suitable and made a landing. We had only just touched down when we heard over the radio that one of the other aircraft had taken damage. Everyone was quiet, and it was hard to fight the temptation to ask what was happening to the other aircraft, but you know you have to leave them to get on with it and wait for them to pass an update. When it came, we were faintly relieved to know they were hoping to make it back to Malta and just hoped we'd be on the way soon. News was passed that there was no one for us at this strip, which was massively disappointing but did at least mean we could get going. It was dark by this stage, and we climbed away into the night with the aircraft unlit, using Night Vision Goggles to keep a good lookout. From there, the return to base was similar to the day before, but with the added tension of knowing one of the aircraft had been damaged by ground fire. We kept hearing reports from the damaged aircraft and were extremely relieved when we landed back at Malta, and even more so to see the damaged aircraft land a short while after.
As the three Herc crews met to debrief, it was clear that another enormously successful day had been had. 189 more evacuees had been recovered to Malta, and in spite of some damage, no one had been hurt. It was incredible to have been a part of something like this, and the shared experience amongst all the crew members was one to remember for a lifetime. It's all too obvious when things like this happen just how important every person in the chain is, and very clear that the professionalism of all involved was at the heart of the success of the weekend's missions
The pen versus the sword
The Gaddafis enjoyed a political facelift from the West whilst carefully avoiding blowback - until now.
Larbi Sadiki
The so-called "Butcher of Tripoli", Muammar Gaddafi, and his son, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, hired Western consulting firm Monitor Group to help improve their image abroad [EPA]
The quill may be mightier than the sword. But this is a story of how some Western academics have succumbed to the power of the cheque book.
Which leads me to ask the question: is it money that makes the world go round? Whatever happened to the strength of liberal ideals, humanism, democracy and all that spiel?
There is a Libyan connection, which is the context of this story. Maybe Gaddafi, sons and henchmen have survived till now and may kill more Libyans due to the fact that many experts and academics, some brilliant voices of the global democratic agenda, have chosen to accept the Libyan regime's illicit funding over the ethics they preach to their own students.
Knowledge is power
It may be so that knowledge is power, but surely not when knowledge serves dictatorships.
I first wrote this story for Al Jazeera more than two weeks ago. A few months ago Libyan friends (who have lost loved ones in the fight for Zawiya and before for Benghazi) shared with me and others documents coming from Monitor Group, the Harvard-based global consulting group.
This is the firm which was hired by the Gaddafis to revamp their image. That was before the eruption of the current anti-Gaddafi uprising in Libya.
A few observations are noteworthy here.
The Gaddafis have missed the traffic of information circulated by Libyans within Libya recording the visits, payments, lectures, and visits to either the Gaddafis or the colonel's so-called 'Green Book Centre'. Libyans have been for some time questioning Western complicity in extending the life of one of the worst regimes in the region.
Colonel Gaddafi, more than anything else, has struggled and failed all of his political life to emerge on the world stage as a thinker. He failed dismally and no serious scholar has taken his 'Green Book' seriously.
I had occasion to read it when writing The Search for Arab Democracy, suffice to say that those hours have been lost forever.
However, Gaddafi and his sons fully appreciate the value of ideas for the Libyan state after the lifting of international sanctions. They, especially Saif al-Islam, realised that in politics, ideas are instrumental to the reproduction of power.
Saif, groomed by his father as political heir, was being educated by the best - the London School of Economics.
Saif has been on a long quasi-presidential campaign for years. He has been recruiting and cultivating loyal followers by funding their higher education in Western universities.
One of these is a former undergraduate student of mine who graduated several years ago from the University of Exeter. His name is Musa Ibrahim, a member of the Qadhadhifa, who now serves as a spokesperson for the regime while it wages an illegal war for survival against its own citizens.
Where did the West go wrong?
Let's reverse this standard question Orientalists have traditionally asked in reference to Arabs and Muslims. Arabs are today knocking on the doors of tyrants to seek their own answers locally.
The collaboration of those Western global actors driven by self-interest or self-importance with authoritarianism warrants this question. Regimes like those ousted in Tunisia and Egypt survived because they were brutal - and the technology of violence at their disposal was Western.
Many Western governments may have practised democracy for longer, but they also did so via support of autocracy.
The killings going on right now in Libya display the extent to which the Libyan regime has been misjudged.
Under Bush, the neo-cons sought to re-order the region, including by force (e.g Iraq). Maybe Libya was intended to be remodelled by approving and grooming acceptable dynastic heirs (plausibly the same for Egypt).
Libya's vast riches (40 billion barrels of oil reserves, potential business deals, well-stashed sovereign wealth fund), might have been what saved Gaddafi.
But the Gaddafi regime should have fallen at the turn of the new millennium, around the same time when Baghdad was sacked by the US-led 'coalition of the willing'.
However, Western political establishments chose to subdue Gaddafi's Libya and conquer it economically, thus giving Gaddafi's failed state a longer lease on life. There is no surprise here: economic gain often prevails over moral principles in the international relations of the Middle East.
Western academics were complicit in all of this, giving the 'butcher of Tripoli' an undeserved respite.
Yet months after they prevailed over Saddam, the neocons' message reached Gaddafi: he was ready to play ball with the West. In August of 2003, Libya agreed a $2.7 billion compensation package for the families of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing victims.
In December 2003, Gaddafi gave Bush an unusual Christmas present by renouncing terrorism and giving up his WMDs programme.
In early 2004 Tony Blair's visit to the Gaddafis signalled the rehabilitation of the Libyan dictatorship. Whether Blair was or was not making business for BP or acting in an advisory or consultancy capacity to the Gaddafis and their Libyan Investment Authority is incidental.
What was particularly interesting is that the Gaddafis worked with the very man whose power play in Iraq led to the ousting of Saddam.
Enter 'Monitor Group': Reinventing Gaddafi!
Soufflés, it is said, do not rise twice.
Monitor Group (MG) is in the business of a different type of cooking: consulting governments and business.
In undertaking in 2006 to help Libya shed its pariah status and ease it into a zone of "enhanced economic development", MG defined two goals for its Herculean task:
1. "enhance international understanding and appreciation of Libya and the contribution it has made and may continue to make to its region and to the world"
2. "to introduce Muammar Gaddafi as a thinker and intellectual, independent of his more widely-known and very public persona as the Leader of the Revolution in Libya."
Harvard Business Professor Michael Porter's expertise was sought to revamp the economy of a police state in which the likes of Gaddafi, his brother-in-law Abdullah Sanoussi - who dealt with MG - had their hands tainted with the blood of Libyans and foreigners.
Sanoussi is the man who had a part in the killing of 1,200 political detainees in the Bou Slim prison in 1996. The cabal advising Gaddafi on security included Musa Kusa, Touhami Khalid, and Abdullah Mansour. Two other associates, Matug Al-Warfalli and Abd Al-Qadir Al-Baghdadi, may be linked with the slaying of policewoman Yvonne Fletcher in April 1984.
This is hardly the kind of stuff that would be unknown to men and women of high learning.
The MG strategy aimed to "introduce to Libya important international figures".
Once having been to Libya or met with Gaddafi and Saif, these high profile academics, journalists, politicians and businessmen are multi-tasked with "influencing other nations policies towards" Libya; "making a contribution to economic development"; gaining "a more sensitive understanding" of the country; and becoming "part of a network building bridges between Libya and the rest of the world."
The idea is that these international personalities share through major media outlets their knowledge about the 'new Libya' to combat stereotypes.
Is it Libya that these actors, and MG's work, were packaging to the world? Saif did not consult with the Libyan people about his national economic strategy, which Porter was recruited to develop.
Note the similarity between Gamal Mubarak and Saif al-Islam Gaddafi in their preference of privatisation.
Anyone who reads MG's 'Executive Summary of Phase 1' entitled "Project to Enhance the Profile of Libya Muammar Gaddafi" is left with no doubt that Saif was being groomed for taking over Libya's leadership.
Note also that MG was helping Mu'tassim, Saif's younger brother, in setting up a National Security Council.
Literati or spin doctors?
Richard Perle going to Libya is something. But why did Francis Fukuyama, Anthony Giddens, Bernard Lewis, Nicholas Negroponte, Benjamin Barber, Joseph Nye, and Robert Putnam meet Gaddafi?
Some of these names were guest speakers at the Green Book Centre. Libyans who criticise the Green Book end up losing their employment, freedom or both.
Lewis wanted to learn specifically about Gaddafi's idea of 'Isratin' (a joint Israeli-Palestinian state). Lewis according to the 'Executive Summary' shared his findings with Israel and the US.
Barber was deluding only himself when his 2007 Washington Post article seemed to do exactly GM's PR work, crediting Gaddafi with "an extraordinary capacity to rethink his country's role in a changed and changing world."
The several meetings with the Gaddafis, father and son, earned him a seat in the board of Saif's Foundation for International Development, the very foundation that turned human rights the exclusive bastion of Saif - excluding, for instance, human rights activist Fathi al-Jahmi, amongst others.
Like Barber, writing in 2006 in the New Statesman, Giddens brags about Gaddafi, granting him audience for more than three hours, not the standard half-hour political leaders (supposedly like Blair) give their visitors.
Giddens makes it clear in his article that Gaddafi and he did not agree on the meaning of democracy. Nonetheless, and for some reason, Giddens left the Colonel, convinced of Gaddafi's "conversion" away from terrorism and pursuit of disarmament.
His article observes GM's packaging instructions. He talks about Gaddafi's "global prominence", "egalitarianism", intelligence, and, of course, the Green Book.
Gaddafi younger - Saif - is today renamed by Libyan dissidents 'Zaif', meaning fraudulence. There are many names of Libyan professors linked with the writing of his academic work.
However, in many Western political and intellectual establishments he was treated as 'the chosen one'.
Elisabeth Rosenthal's piece in the New York Times in September 2007 heaps even more praise on Saif than Giddens, highlighting the rise of his political stardom, describing him as "un-Gaddafi".
MG amassed so much brain power for its Libya campaign. Yet how could so much misreading of the Gaddafis come from leading scholars?
Saif's February speech showed him to be a monster in the closet, not the democratic subjectivity the LSE reconstituted.
Dr Larbi Sadiki is a Senior Lecturer in Middle East Politics at the University of Exeter, and author of Arab Democratisation: Elections without Democracy (Oxford University Press, 2009) and The Search for Arab Democracy: Discourses and Counter-Discourses (Columbia University Press, 2004), forthcoming Hamas and the Political Process (2011).
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Our Beloved Bloodied Libya--A No Fly Zone or a Spin Zone
by Mohamed Khodr
(Wednesday, March 16, 2011)
"If the U.N. Security Council does not immediately adopt and establish a No Fly Zone over Libya which will save the lives of countless Libyans and allow Gaddafi to continue his rule which will even be more ruthless and merciless against his people then the value and mission of the United Nations, which already suffers in the Arab world, as well the exhortation of the West that their goal is to free humanity from tyranny and establish democracies of the people, by the people, and for the people rings as hollow as the Declaration of Independence's noble idealism "that all men are created equal"; when in practice it only rang for white men in power and not for oppressed."
While Gaddafi's planes are flying to kill, Libyans are dying in the plains of the desert. Since oil is thicker than blood the Europeans and Americans are deliberating and divided on whether to save Libyans from an almost guaranteed mass slaughter by establishing a No Fly Zone to ground Gadaffi's fighter jets that can determine the outcome of the conflict between a ruthless dictator and a people fighting for their freedom from his rule and the politics of oil.
Only two European nations thus far, France and Britain, have taken the principled and humanitarian position that an immediate No Fly Zone is necessary to stop Gadaffi's slaughter of his people. Germany under the pretext of non military intervention in Libya has nevertheless sent thousands of its troops as part of NATO's mission in Afghanistan where civilians on a daily basis are murdered by fighter jets and drones. Recently nine innocent boys were killed by NATO helicopters (March 2) who mistook the boys collecting firewood for insurgents. Yet the Conservative Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, who knows first hand of life under the brutal Soviet regime, by her opposition to the no fly zone, is surrendering and sacrificing the lives of innocent Libyans to a blood thirsty dictator thereby denying them the freedom they cry for. Merkel's policy is not only hypocritical but goes against the German public's support for a No Fly Zone.
Russia opposes establishing a No Fly Zone over Libya because it fears another Western intervention and perhaps occupation of an African nation having already invaded and occupied Iraq, Afghanistan, with enormous influence over Pakistan. It does not wish to see a western presence in Libya with its vast oil reserves, the largest in Africa.
Libyan oil is not only coveted but it has the highest quality "sweet" crude oil in the world making it easily refinable into gasoline and diesel due to its lower content of sulfur, an environmentally safer and cleaner oil to burn. Saudi oil has a higher content of sulfur and thus is more expensive to refine.
President Obama, as is customary in his execution of foreign policy, has shown weak leadership in the E.U. and the U.N. in establishing a No Fly Zone over Libya despite Congressional support, even from the Republican Party that has never shied away from U.S. foreign military interventions to project U.S. power worldwide. Although he's demanded Gaddafi step down he's taken no steps to facilitate the end of his dictatorial rule that has lasted for forty two years.
Perhaps Obama prefers the devil he knows to the freedom fighters he doesn't know lest they be "Islamists" and spread their violent ideology to neighboring Algeria, another oil producing Arab nation, or even use their new found oil wealth to destabilize Saudi Arabia ad the Gulf nations.
When the U.S perceives its interests are threatened it doesn't resort to the United Nations Security Council or seeks any approval from the E.U., NATO, Russia, or China for it to act unilaterally and militarily as it did in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and many other Asian, Central and South American nations.
Yet in Libya the U.S. is caught between exporting freedom, importing oil, and the private vociferous objections of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Israel lest the No Fly Zone sets a precedent for interference in other Arab oil exporting nations whose populace may rise demanding their freedom, most importantly Saudi Arabia that unilaterally invaded Bahrain to shore up its Monarchy in contravention of the U.N. Charter, yet has not faced any U.S., E.U., Russian, or Chinese condemnation much less a U.N. Security Council Resolution akin to when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Obviously U.N. Security Council Resolutions led by the U.S. are passed and implemented depending on who the violators and victims are.
Imposing sanctions has been a historical joke and failure. They have not impacted any nation or leader to change course. From Cuba, to Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, North Korea, and Gaza, the sanctions have only been a mild challenge to countries and corporations wishing to do business with these nations. Even Vice President **** Cheney's Halliburton oil company did business with Iran despite U.S. sanctions.
The U.N. imposed sanctions on Libya only to ignore the open violation of the sanctions by Greece as it sent a large oil transport ship bound to Gaddafi's Tripoli only to be intercepted by Libya's freedom fighters. i
The U.N. Security Council is scheduled to meet Wednesday, March 17, to discuss and possibly vote on establishing a No Fly Zone to save Libyans from the continuing slaughter and advancement of Gaddafi's foreign mercenary forces who depend on air power to overwhelm the freedom fighters. Both the Libyan people and the entire Arab League have asked the U.N.S.C. to establish the no fly zone over Libya.
Yet Europe, the U.S. and Russia are playing the spin game blaming each other on the feasibility and potential outcome (s) of such a decision. Without strong U.S. leadership it's difficult to ascertain the outcome of the U.N.S.C. vote.
To the Arab world Obama was late in recognizing and supporting the revolutions in Tunis and Egypt. To them it's apparent that when U.S policy deals with the Arab world America's position is that oil is thicker than Arab blood, but when it comes to Israel its support is immediate and without question. It is this hypocrisy and double standard that has lost America the Arab and Muslim street and accounts for the animosity they adopt against U.S. foreign policy, but not toward the American people or culture that they deeply admire and emulate.
Such an assessment was expressed by the Pentagon's Defense Policy Council:
"Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy."
-- Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication, September 2004 (Also reported in Christian Science Monitor November 29, 2004
Until the U.S. can demonstrate a fair and balanced approach to the Arab and Muslim world that their lives, humanity, human rights, independence, sovereignty and freedom are as equal and valuable as that of Israelis and the rest of humanity, America's oil based economy will be threatened and could lead the country into a spiral depression. The free Arab street will be unforgiving of America if it fails to protect the Libyan people from an eventual slaughter. A failure to establish a No Fly Zone will only empower Al Qaida and all extremist elements in the Muslim world that America is indeed an enemy of Islam and Muslims and can never be trusted. In the Arab and Muslim world the U.S. has long been on the wrong side of history in its blanket support of Israel's military hegemony and occupation of Arab land and its self centered support of Arab Tyrants.
If the U.N. Security Council does not immediately adopt and establish a No Fly Zone over Libya which will save the lives of countless Libyans and allow Gaddafi to continue his rule which will even be more ruthless and merciless against his people then the value and mission of the United Nations, which already suffers in the Arab world, as well the exhortation of the West that their goal is to free humanity from tyranny and establish democracies of the people, by the people, and for the people rings as hollow as the Declaration of Independence's noble idealism "that all men are created equal"; when in practice it only rang for white men in power and not for oppressed.
With Libya under tyrannical siege the world in the body of the United Nations once again faces a crossroad to destiny. Whether it has learned the lessons of history that Tyrants left to their will are prone to war and genocide, or whether it will meet the reasonability of its Charter and existence as phrased by President Harry Truman who said:
"The United Nations is designed to make possible lasting freedom and independence for all its members"
What is Libya's fate? Is it freedom or tyranny? We will soon learn the monumental outcome that Obama and the United Nations will make in not only determining the future of Libya but for all those people who seek the freedom endowed to them by their Creator but are often denied by the powers that be.
SHASH2K2
New Member
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
- Messages
- 5,711
- Likes
- 730
As I said yesterday that Unilateral ceasefire was nothing but a bluff .He is once again successful in fooling west.
Libya unrest: Gaddafi forces push into rebel city of Benghazi
BENGHAZI: Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's forces pushed into the rebel-held city of Benghazi on Saturday, defying world demands for an immediate ceasefire and after France's UN envoy predicted an imminent military action.
Explosions shook Benghazi while a fighter jet was heard flying overhead, and residents said the eastern rebel stronghold was under attack from Gaddafi's forces.
"The explosions started about 2am Gaddafi's forces are advancing, we hear they're 20 kms (12 miles) from Benghazi," Faraj Ali, a resident, said.
"It's land-based fire. We saw one aircraft," he added. Gaddafi's forces advance into Benghazi pre-empted an international meeting hosted by France on Saturday to discuss military intervention in Libya. The meeting will be attended by US secretary of state Hillary Clinton and Arab leaders.
"We saw Gaddafi's tanks, cars and missile trucks less than five km away," a rebel figher giving his name as Mohammed told Reuters.
Libya had declared a unilateral ceasefire on Friday after the UN Security Council authorised a no-fly zone over Libya.
But the United States accused Gaddafi of defying international demands for an immediate ceasefire, and France's UN envoy predicted military action within hours of the Paris meeting on Libya on Saturday.
Libyan rebels said they were being forced to retreat by Gaddafi's forces. Black plumes of smoke could be seen on the road to the west of the city, a Reuters witness said.
"They were 60 km (40 miles) away yesterday, today they are 20 kms away and they can be here in a half hour to 90 minutes," rebel fighter Khalid Ahmed told Reuters at a rebel base on the western edge of the city.
"We have no hope in the Western forces," Ahmed added as around him rebel forces pulled back from the advancing frontline.
Elsewhere in the city, rebels also reported skirmishes and strikes by Gaddafi forces.
"Fighter jets bombed the road to the airport and there's been an air strike on the Abu Hadi district on the outskirts," Mohammed Dwo, a hospital worker and a rebel supporter, told Reuters.
He was speaking at the scene of an apparent firefight between rebels and what they claimed were two mercenaries who had infiltrated the city and were driving in a car which they said contained a crate of handgrenades.
The two men, in civilian clothes, had been shot and killed and rebels produced blood-soaked identity papers they said showed them to be of Nigerian nationality.
"We were sitting here and we received gunfire from this vehicle then we opened fire and after that it crashed," rebel fighter Meri Dersi said.
Landing by boat
Jamal bin Nour, a member of a neighbourhood watch group, told Reuters he had received a call to say government forces were landing by boat, but it was impossible to confirm the information.
The city has been so rife with rumours and hearsay that it is virtually impossible to verify due to lack of communications.
A unilateral ceasefire declared on Friday by the Libyan government appeared to have done little to convince outside powers to hold off on plans for air strikes to force an end to an increasingly bloody civil war.
Within hours of President Barack Obama saying the terms of a UN resolution meant to end fighting in Libya were non-negotiable, his UN envoy, Susan Rice, asked by CNN whether Gaddafi was in violation of these terms, said: "Yes, he is."
Gaddafi said there was no justification for the UN resolution.
"This is blatant colonialism. It does not have any justification. This will have serious consequences on the Mediterranean and on Europe," he said in comments reported by Al Jazeera television.
France, which along with Britain has been leading a drive for military intervention, will host a meeting on Saturday on Libya which will be attended by US secretary of state Hillary Clinton and Arab leaders.
"So I guess that after this summit, I think that in the coming hours, I think we will go to launch the military intervention," the French ambassador to the United Nations ambassador Gerard Araud told BBC's Newsnight.
Obama made clear any military action would aim to change conditions across Libya -- rather than just in the rebel-held east -- by calling on Gaddafi's forces to pull back from the western cities of Zawiyah and Misrata as well as from the east.
"All attacks against civilians must stop," Obama said, a day after the UN Security Council passed a resolution authorising international military intervention.
"Gaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata and Zawiyah, and establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas. Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya ...
"Let me be clear, these terms are not negotiable... If Gaddafi does not comply ... the resolution will be enforced through military action."
In Tripoli the government said there had been no bombing since it announced the ceasefire.
"We have had no bombardment of any kind since the ceasefire was declared," deputy foreign minister Khaled Kaim told journalists when asked about reports of continued government operations in Misrata and other parts of the country.
Kaim said Libya was asking China, Germany, Malta and Turkey to send observers to monitor its adherence to the ceasefire.
French foreign minister Alain Juppe said on Friday everything was ready to launch military strikes in Libya.
The United States, after embarking on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, had insisted it would participate in rather than lead any military action. Obama said the United States would not deploy ground troops in Libya.
BENGHAZI: Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's forces pushed into the rebel-held city of Benghazi on Saturday, defying world demands for an immediate ceasefire and after France's UN envoy predicted an imminent military action.
Explosions shook Benghazi while a fighter jet was heard flying overhead, and residents said the eastern rebel stronghold was under attack from Gaddafi's forces.
"The explosions started about 2am Gaddafi's forces are advancing, we hear they're 20 kms (12 miles) from Benghazi," Faraj Ali, a resident, said.
"It's land-based fire. We saw one aircraft," he added. Gaddafi's forces advance into Benghazi pre-empted an international meeting hosted by France on Saturday to discuss military intervention in Libya. The meeting will be attended by US secretary of state Hillary Clinton and Arab leaders.
"We saw Gaddafi's tanks, cars and missile trucks less than five km away," a rebel figher giving his name as Mohammed told Reuters.
Libya had declared a unilateral ceasefire on Friday after the UN Security Council authorised a no-fly zone over Libya.
But the United States accused Gaddafi of defying international demands for an immediate ceasefire, and France's UN envoy predicted military action within hours of the Paris meeting on Libya on Saturday.
Libyan rebels said they were being forced to retreat by Gaddafi's forces. Black plumes of smoke could be seen on the road to the west of the city, a Reuters witness said.
"They were 60 km (40 miles) away yesterday, today they are 20 kms away and they can be here in a half hour to 90 minutes," rebel fighter Khalid Ahmed told Reuters at a rebel base on the western edge of the city.
"We have no hope in the Western forces," Ahmed added as around him rebel forces pulled back from the advancing frontline.
Elsewhere in the city, rebels also reported skirmishes and strikes by Gaddafi forces.
"Fighter jets bombed the road to the airport and there's been an air strike on the Abu Hadi district on the outskirts," Mohammed Dwo, a hospital worker and a rebel supporter, told Reuters.
He was speaking at the scene of an apparent firefight between rebels and what they claimed were two mercenaries who had infiltrated the city and were driving in a car which they said contained a crate of handgrenades.
The two men, in civilian clothes, had been shot and killed and rebels produced blood-soaked identity papers they said showed them to be of Nigerian nationality.
"We were sitting here and we received gunfire from this vehicle then we opened fire and after that it crashed," rebel fighter Meri Dersi said.
Landing by boat
Jamal bin Nour, a member of a neighbourhood watch group, told Reuters he had received a call to say government forces were landing by boat, but it was impossible to confirm the information.
The city has been so rife with rumours and hearsay that it is virtually impossible to verify due to lack of communications.
A unilateral ceasefire declared on Friday by the Libyan government appeared to have done little to convince outside powers to hold off on plans for air strikes to force an end to an increasingly bloody civil war.
Within hours of President Barack Obama saying the terms of a UN resolution meant to end fighting in Libya were non-negotiable, his UN envoy, Susan Rice, asked by CNN whether Gaddafi was in violation of these terms, said: "Yes, he is."
Gaddafi said there was no justification for the UN resolution.
"This is blatant colonialism. It does not have any justification. This will have serious consequences on the Mediterranean and on Europe," he said in comments reported by Al Jazeera television.
France, which along with Britain has been leading a drive for military intervention, will host a meeting on Saturday on Libya which will be attended by US secretary of state Hillary Clinton and Arab leaders.
"So I guess that after this summit, I think that in the coming hours, I think we will go to launch the military intervention," the French ambassador to the United Nations ambassador Gerard Araud told BBC's Newsnight.
Obama made clear any military action would aim to change conditions across Libya -- rather than just in the rebel-held east -- by calling on Gaddafi's forces to pull back from the western cities of Zawiyah and Misrata as well as from the east.
"All attacks against civilians must stop," Obama said, a day after the UN Security Council passed a resolution authorising international military intervention.
"Gaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata and Zawiyah, and establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas. Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya ...
"Let me be clear, these terms are not negotiable... If Gaddafi does not comply ... the resolution will be enforced through military action."
In Tripoli the government said there had been no bombing since it announced the ceasefire.
"We have had no bombardment of any kind since the ceasefire was declared," deputy foreign minister Khaled Kaim told journalists when asked about reports of continued government operations in Misrata and other parts of the country.
Kaim said Libya was asking China, Germany, Malta and Turkey to send observers to monitor its adherence to the ceasefire.
French foreign minister Alain Juppe said on Friday everything was ready to launch military strikes in Libya.
The United States, after embarking on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, had insisted it would participate in rather than lead any military action. Obama said the United States would not deploy ground troops in Libya.
youngindian
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 1,365
- Likes
- 77
Obama rules out ground troops in Libya
Washington, March 19, 2011
US President Barack Obama on Friday ruled out deploying ground troops in Libya, saying the US will act as part of an international coalition if Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi does not comply with the UN resolution. "We are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal, specifically the prot
ection of civilians in Libya," Xinhua reported quoting Obama as saying in a televised speech.
"Particularly at a time when our military is fighting in Afghanistan and winding down our activities in Iraq, that decision is only made more difficult," said Obama, referring to the use of military force.
The Libyan government Friday decided to halt military operations against rebels in line with a UN Security Council resolution that imposed a no-fly zone over the North African country.
The announcement of a ceasefire came after the international community began discussing measures, including military action, against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's forces to enforce a no-fly zone.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Obama-rules-out-ground-troops-in-Libya/Article1-675219.aspx
Washington, March 19, 2011
US President Barack Obama on Friday ruled out deploying ground troops in Libya, saying the US will act as part of an international coalition if Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi does not comply with the UN resolution. "We are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal, specifically the prot
ection of civilians in Libya," Xinhua reported quoting Obama as saying in a televised speech.
"Particularly at a time when our military is fighting in Afghanistan and winding down our activities in Iraq, that decision is only made more difficult," said Obama, referring to the use of military force.
The Libyan government Friday decided to halt military operations against rebels in line with a UN Security Council resolution that imposed a no-fly zone over the North African country.
The announcement of a ceasefire came after the international community began discussing measures, including military action, against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's forces to enforce a no-fly zone.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Obama-rules-out-ground-troops-in-Libya/Article1-675219.aspx
youngindian
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 1,365
- Likes
- 77
Libya: France sees 'swift' action against Gaddafi's military
http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/Aki/En...n-against-Gaddafis-military_311802539026.html
http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/Aki/En...n-against-Gaddafis-military_311802539026.html
SHASH2K2
New Member
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
- Messages
- 5,711
- Likes
- 730
Libya crisis: fighter plane shot down as Gaddafi forces attack Benghazi
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's forces pushed into the rebel-held city of Benghazi on Saturday, defying world demands for an immediate ceasefire and after France's U.N. envoy predicted an imminent military action.
Image 1 of 4
A parachute (L) is ejected from a Libyan jet bomber as it crashes after being hit over Benghazi on March 19, 2011 as Libya's rebel stronghold came under attack, with at least two air strikes and sustained shelling of the city's south sending thick smoke into the sky. Photo: PATRICK BAZ/AFP/Getty Images
Image 1 of 4
A Libyan jet bomber crashes after being shot down in Benghazi on March 19, 2011 as Libya's rebel stronghold came under attack, with at least two air strikes and sustained shelling of the city's south sending thick smoke into the sky. Photo: PATRICK BAZ/AFP/Getty Image
Image 1 of 4
A parachute (L) is ejected from a Libyan jet bomber as it crashes after being hit over Benghazi Photo: AFP
Image 1 of 4
Smoke billows after a Libyan jet bomber crashed after being shut down in Benghazi on March 19, 2011 as Libya's rebel stronghold came under attack, with at least two air strikes and sustained shelling of the city's south sending thick smoke into the sky. Photo: AFP PHOTO/PATRICK BAZ
Libyan rebels shot down a warplane that was bombing their eastern stronghold Saturday as the opposition accused Moammar Gadhafi's government of defying calls for an immediate cease-fire an launching a sea and land assault
"The explosions started about 2 a.m. Gaddafi's forces are advancing, we hear they're 20 kms (12 miles) from Benghazi," Faraj Ali, a resident, said.
Gaddafi's forces advance into Benghazi pre-empted an international meeting hosted by France to discuss military intervention in Libya. The meeting will be attended by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Arab leaders.
"We saw Gaddafi's tanks, cars and missile trucks less than five km away," a rebel figher giving his name as Mohammed told Reuters.
Libya had declared a unilateral ceasefire on Friday after the U.N. Security Council authorised a no-fly zone over Libya.
But the United States accused Gaddafi of defying international demands for an immediate ceasefire, and France's U.N. envoy predicted military action within hours of the Paris meeting on Libya on Saturday.
Libyan rebels said they were being forced to retreat by Gaddafi's forces. Black plumes of smoke could be seen on the road to the west of the city, a witness said.
"They were 60 km (40 miles) away yesterday, today they are 20 kms away and they can be here in a half hour to 90 minutes," rebel fighter Khalid Ahmed told Reuters at a rebel base on the western edge of the city.
"We have no hope in the Western forces," Ahmed added as around him rebel forces pulled back from the advancing frontline.
Elsewhere in the city, rebels also reported skirmishes and strikes by Gaddafi forces.
"Fighter jets bombed the road to the airport and there's been an air strike on the Abu Hadi district on the outskirts," Mohammed Dwo, a hospital worker and a rebel supporter, told Reuters.
He was speaking at the scene of an apparent firefight between rebels and what they claimed were two mercenaries who had infiltrated the city and were driving in a car which they said contained a crate of handgrenades.
The two men, in civilian clothes, had been shot and killed and rebels produced blood-soaked identity papers they said showed them to be of Nigerian nationality.
"We were sitting here and we received gunfire from this vehicle then we opened fire and after that it crashed," rebel fighter Meri Dersi said.
Jamal bin Nour, a member of a neighbourhood watch group, told Reuters he had received a call to say government forces were landing by boat, but it was impossible to confirm the information.
The city has been so rife with rumours and hearsay that it is virtually impossible to verify due to lack of communications.
A unilateral ceasefire declared on Friday by the Libyan government appeared to have done little to convince outside powers to hold off on plans for air strikes to force an end to an increasingly bloody civil war.
Within hours of President Barack Obama saying the terms of a U.N. resolution meant to end fighting in Libya were non-negotiable, his U.N. envoy, Susan Rice, asked by CNN whether Gaddafi was in violation of these terms, said: "Yes, he is."
Gaddafi said there was no justification for the U.N. resolution.
"This is blatant colonialism. It does not have any justification. This will have serious consequences on the Mediterranean and on Europe," he said in comments reported by Al Jazeera television.
France, which along with Britain has been leading a drive for military intervention, will host a meeting on Saturday on Libya which will be attended by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Arab leaders.
Obama made clear any military action would aim to change conditions across Libya - rather than just in the rebel-held east - by calling on Gaddafi's forces to pull back from the western cities of Zawiyah and Misrata as well as from the east.
"All attacks against civilians must stop," Obama said, a day after the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution authorising international military intervention.
"Gaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata and Zawiyah, and establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas. Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya ...
"Let me be clear, these terms are not negotiable... If Gaddafi does not comply ... the resolution will be enforced through military action."
In Tripoli the government said there had been no bombing since it announced the ceasefire.
"We have had no bombardment of any kind since the ceasefire was declared," Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim told journalists when asked about reports of continued government operations in Misrata and other parts of the country.
Kaim said Libya was asking China, Germany, Malta and Turkey to send observers to monitor its adherence to the ceasefire.
French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said on Friday everything was ready to launch military strikes in Libya.
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's forces pushed into the rebel-held city of Benghazi on Saturday, defying world demands for an immediate ceasefire and after France's U.N. envoy predicted an imminent military action.
Image 1 of 4
A parachute (L) is ejected from a Libyan jet bomber as it crashes after being hit over Benghazi on March 19, 2011 as Libya's rebel stronghold came under attack, with at least two air strikes and sustained shelling of the city's south sending thick smoke into the sky. Photo: PATRICK BAZ/AFP/Getty Images
Image 1 of 4
A Libyan jet bomber crashes after being shot down in Benghazi on March 19, 2011 as Libya's rebel stronghold came under attack, with at least two air strikes and sustained shelling of the city's south sending thick smoke into the sky. Photo: PATRICK BAZ/AFP/Getty Image
Image 1 of 4
A parachute (L) is ejected from a Libyan jet bomber as it crashes after being hit over Benghazi Photo: AFP
Image 1 of 4
Smoke billows after a Libyan jet bomber crashed after being shut down in Benghazi on March 19, 2011 as Libya's rebel stronghold came under attack, with at least two air strikes and sustained shelling of the city's south sending thick smoke into the sky. Photo: AFP PHOTO/PATRICK BAZ
Libyan rebels shot down a warplane that was bombing their eastern stronghold Saturday as the opposition accused Moammar Gadhafi's government of defying calls for an immediate cease-fire an launching a sea and land assault
"The explosions started about 2 a.m. Gaddafi's forces are advancing, we hear they're 20 kms (12 miles) from Benghazi," Faraj Ali, a resident, said.
Gaddafi's forces advance into Benghazi pre-empted an international meeting hosted by France to discuss military intervention in Libya. The meeting will be attended by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Arab leaders.
"We saw Gaddafi's tanks, cars and missile trucks less than five km away," a rebel figher giving his name as Mohammed told Reuters.
Libya had declared a unilateral ceasefire on Friday after the U.N. Security Council authorised a no-fly zone over Libya.
But the United States accused Gaddafi of defying international demands for an immediate ceasefire, and France's U.N. envoy predicted military action within hours of the Paris meeting on Libya on Saturday.
Libyan rebels said they were being forced to retreat by Gaddafi's forces. Black plumes of smoke could be seen on the road to the west of the city, a witness said.
"They were 60 km (40 miles) away yesterday, today they are 20 kms away and they can be here in a half hour to 90 minutes," rebel fighter Khalid Ahmed told Reuters at a rebel base on the western edge of the city.
"We have no hope in the Western forces," Ahmed added as around him rebel forces pulled back from the advancing frontline.
Elsewhere in the city, rebels also reported skirmishes and strikes by Gaddafi forces.
"Fighter jets bombed the road to the airport and there's been an air strike on the Abu Hadi district on the outskirts," Mohammed Dwo, a hospital worker and a rebel supporter, told Reuters.
He was speaking at the scene of an apparent firefight between rebels and what they claimed were two mercenaries who had infiltrated the city and were driving in a car which they said contained a crate of handgrenades.
The two men, in civilian clothes, had been shot and killed and rebels produced blood-soaked identity papers they said showed them to be of Nigerian nationality.
"We were sitting here and we received gunfire from this vehicle then we opened fire and after that it crashed," rebel fighter Meri Dersi said.
Jamal bin Nour, a member of a neighbourhood watch group, told Reuters he had received a call to say government forces were landing by boat, but it was impossible to confirm the information.
The city has been so rife with rumours and hearsay that it is virtually impossible to verify due to lack of communications.
A unilateral ceasefire declared on Friday by the Libyan government appeared to have done little to convince outside powers to hold off on plans for air strikes to force an end to an increasingly bloody civil war.
Within hours of President Barack Obama saying the terms of a U.N. resolution meant to end fighting in Libya were non-negotiable, his U.N. envoy, Susan Rice, asked by CNN whether Gaddafi was in violation of these terms, said: "Yes, he is."
Gaddafi said there was no justification for the U.N. resolution.
"This is blatant colonialism. It does not have any justification. This will have serious consequences on the Mediterranean and on Europe," he said in comments reported by Al Jazeera television.
France, which along with Britain has been leading a drive for military intervention, will host a meeting on Saturday on Libya which will be attended by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Arab leaders.
Obama made clear any military action would aim to change conditions across Libya - rather than just in the rebel-held east - by calling on Gaddafi's forces to pull back from the western cities of Zawiyah and Misrata as well as from the east.
"All attacks against civilians must stop," Obama said, a day after the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution authorising international military intervention.
"Gaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata and Zawiyah, and establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas. Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya ...
"Let me be clear, these terms are not negotiable... If Gaddafi does not comply ... the resolution will be enforced through military action."
In Tripoli the government said there had been no bombing since it announced the ceasefire.
"We have had no bombardment of any kind since the ceasefire was declared," Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim told journalists when asked about reports of continued government operations in Misrata and other parts of the country.
Kaim said Libya was asking China, Germany, Malta and Turkey to send observers to monitor its adherence to the ceasefire.
French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said on Friday everything was ready to launch military strikes in Libya.
SHASH2K2
New Member
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
- Messages
- 5,711
- Likes
- 730
Obama Takes Hard Line With Libya After Shift by Clinton
WASHINGTON — In a Paris hotel room on Monday night, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton found herself juggling the inconsistencies of American foreign policy in a turbulent Middle East. She criticized the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates for sending troops to quash protests in Bahrain even as she pressed him to send planes to intervene in Libya.
Only the day before, Mrs. Clinton — along with her boss, President Obama — was a skeptic on whether the United States should take military action in Libya. But that night, with Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi's forces turning back the rebellion that threatened his rule, Mrs. Clinton changed course, forming an unlikely alliance with a handful of top administration aides who had been arguing for intervention.
Within hours, Mrs. Clinton and the aides had convinced Mr. Obama that the United States had to act, and the president ordered up military plans, which Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, hand-delivered to the White House the next day. On Thursday, during an hour-and-a -half meeting, Mr. Obama signed off on allowing American pilots to join Europeans and Arabs in military strikes against the Libyan government.
The president had a caveat, though. The American involvement in military action in Libya should be limited — no ground troops — and finite. "Days, not weeks," a senior White House official recalled him saying.
The shift in the administration's position — from strong words against Libya to action — was forced largely by the events beyond its control: the crumbling of the uprising raised the prospect that Colonel Qaddafi would remain in power to kill "many thousands," as Mr. Obama said at the White House on Friday.
The change became possible, though, only after Mrs. Clinton joined Samantha Power, a senior aide at the National Security Council, and Susan Rice, Mr. Obama's ambassador to the United Nations, who had been pressing the case for military action, according to senior administration officials speaking only on condition of anonymity. Ms. Power is a former journalist and human rights advocate; Ms. Rice was an Africa adviser to President Clinton when the United States failed to intervene to stop the Rwanda genocide, which Mr. Clinton has called his biggest regret.
Now, the three women were pushing for American intervention to stop a looming humanitarian catastrophe in Libya.
Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, one of the early advocates for military action in Libya, described the debate within the administration as "healthy." He said that "the memory of Rwanda, alongside Iraq in '91, made it clear" that the United States needed to act but needed international support.
In joining Ms. Rice and Ms. Power, Mrs. Clinton made an unusual break with Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, who, along with the national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, and the counterterrorism chief, John O. Brennan, had urged caution. Libya was not vital to American national security interests, the men argued, and Mr. Brennan worried that the Libyan rebels remained largely unknown to American officials, and could have ties to Al Qaeda.
The administration's shift also became possible only after the United States won not just the support of Arab countries but their active participation in military operations against one of their own.
"Hillary and Susan Rice were key parts of this story because Hillary got the Arab buy-in and Susan worked the U.N. to get a 10-to-5 vote, which is no easy thing," said Brian Katulis, a national security expert with the Center for American Progress, a liberal group with close ties to the administration. This "puts the United States in a much stronger position because they've got the international support that makes this more like the 1991 gulf war than the 2003 Iraq war."
Ever since the democracy protests in the region began three months ago, the Obama administration has struggled to balance America's national security interests against support for democratic principles, a struggle that has left Mr. Obama subject to criticism from all sides of the political spectrum. And by taking a case-by-case approach — quickly embracing protesters in Tunisia, eventually coming around to fully endorse their cause in Egypt, but backing the rulers in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen — the administration at times has appeared inconsistent. While calling for Colonel Qaddafi's ouster, administration officials indicated Mr. Obama was more concerned with unfolding events in Yemen, Bahrain and Egypt than with removing the Libyan leader.
There was high drama right up to the surprising Security Council vote on Thursday night, when the ambassador for South Africa, viewed as critical to getting the nine votes needed to pass the resolution, failed to show up for the final vote, causing Ms. Rice to rush from the chamber in search of him.
South Africa and Nigeria — along with Brazil and India — had all initially balked at authorizing force, but administration officials believed they had brought the Africans around. Mr. Obama had already been on the phone pressing President Jacob Zuma of South Africa to support the resolution, White House officials said. Eventually, the South African representative showed up to vote yes, as did the Nigerian representative, giving the United States one vote more than required. Brazil and India, meanwhile, joined Russia, China and Germany in abstaining.
The pivotal decision for Mr. Obama came on Tuesday though, after Mrs. Clinton had called from Paris with news that the Arab governments were willing to participate in military action. That would solve one of Mr. Gates's concerns, that the United States not be viewed on the Arab street as going to war against another Muslim country.
Mrs. Clinton "had the proof," one senior administration official said, "that not only was the Arab League in favor, but that the Emirates were serious about participating."
During a meeting with Mr. Obama and his top national security aides — Ms. Rice was on video teleconference from New York; Mrs. Clinton from Paris — Ms. Rice sought to allay Mr. Gates's concern that a no-fly zone by itself would not be enough to halt Colonel Qaddafi's progress, recalled officials attending the meeting.
"Susan basically said that it was possible to get a tougher resolution" that would authorize a fuller range of options, including the ability to bomb Libyan government tanks on the road to Benghazi, the rebel stronghold in the east, administration official said.
"That was the turning point" for Mr. Obama, the official said. The president was scheduled to go to a dinner with military veterans that night; he told his aides to draw up military plans. And he instructed Ms. Rice to move forward with a broader resolution at the Security Council.
She already had one ready — drawn up the week before, just in case, officials said. Besides asking for an expanded military campaign, Ms. Rice loaded up the resolution with other items on the American wish list, including the authorization to use force to back an arms embargo against Libya. "We knew it would be a heavy lift to get any resolution through; our view was we might as well get as much as we could," Ms. Rice said in a telephone interview.
On Wednesday at the Security Council, Russia put forward a competing resolution, calling for a cease-fire — well short of what the United States wanted. But the French, who had been trying to get a straight no-fly resolution through, switched to back the tougher American wording. And they "put it in blue" ink — U.N. code for calling for a vote.
"It was a brilliant tactical move," an American official said. "They hijacked the text, which means it could be called to a vote at any time."
On Thursday, the South Africans, Nigerians, Portuguese and Bosnians — all of them question marks — said they would support the tougher resolution.
Even after getting the Security Council endorsement, Mr. Obama made clear that the military action would be an international effort.
"The change in the region will not and cannot be imposed by the United States or any foreign power," the president told reporters at the White House on Friday. "Ultimately, it will be driven by the people of the Arab world."
WASHINGTON — In a Paris hotel room on Monday night, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton found herself juggling the inconsistencies of American foreign policy in a turbulent Middle East. She criticized the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates for sending troops to quash protests in Bahrain even as she pressed him to send planes to intervene in Libya.
Only the day before, Mrs. Clinton — along with her boss, President Obama — was a skeptic on whether the United States should take military action in Libya. But that night, with Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi's forces turning back the rebellion that threatened his rule, Mrs. Clinton changed course, forming an unlikely alliance with a handful of top administration aides who had been arguing for intervention.
Within hours, Mrs. Clinton and the aides had convinced Mr. Obama that the United States had to act, and the president ordered up military plans, which Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, hand-delivered to the White House the next day. On Thursday, during an hour-and-a -half meeting, Mr. Obama signed off on allowing American pilots to join Europeans and Arabs in military strikes against the Libyan government.
The president had a caveat, though. The American involvement in military action in Libya should be limited — no ground troops — and finite. "Days, not weeks," a senior White House official recalled him saying.
The shift in the administration's position — from strong words against Libya to action — was forced largely by the events beyond its control: the crumbling of the uprising raised the prospect that Colonel Qaddafi would remain in power to kill "many thousands," as Mr. Obama said at the White House on Friday.
The change became possible, though, only after Mrs. Clinton joined Samantha Power, a senior aide at the National Security Council, and Susan Rice, Mr. Obama's ambassador to the United Nations, who had been pressing the case for military action, according to senior administration officials speaking only on condition of anonymity. Ms. Power is a former journalist and human rights advocate; Ms. Rice was an Africa adviser to President Clinton when the United States failed to intervene to stop the Rwanda genocide, which Mr. Clinton has called his biggest regret.
Now, the three women were pushing for American intervention to stop a looming humanitarian catastrophe in Libya.
Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, one of the early advocates for military action in Libya, described the debate within the administration as "healthy." He said that "the memory of Rwanda, alongside Iraq in '91, made it clear" that the United States needed to act but needed international support.
In joining Ms. Rice and Ms. Power, Mrs. Clinton made an unusual break with Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, who, along with the national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, and the counterterrorism chief, John O. Brennan, had urged caution. Libya was not vital to American national security interests, the men argued, and Mr. Brennan worried that the Libyan rebels remained largely unknown to American officials, and could have ties to Al Qaeda.
The administration's shift also became possible only after the United States won not just the support of Arab countries but their active participation in military operations against one of their own.
"Hillary and Susan Rice were key parts of this story because Hillary got the Arab buy-in and Susan worked the U.N. to get a 10-to-5 vote, which is no easy thing," said Brian Katulis, a national security expert with the Center for American Progress, a liberal group with close ties to the administration. This "puts the United States in a much stronger position because they've got the international support that makes this more like the 1991 gulf war than the 2003 Iraq war."
Ever since the democracy protests in the region began three months ago, the Obama administration has struggled to balance America's national security interests against support for democratic principles, a struggle that has left Mr. Obama subject to criticism from all sides of the political spectrum. And by taking a case-by-case approach — quickly embracing protesters in Tunisia, eventually coming around to fully endorse their cause in Egypt, but backing the rulers in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen — the administration at times has appeared inconsistent. While calling for Colonel Qaddafi's ouster, administration officials indicated Mr. Obama was more concerned with unfolding events in Yemen, Bahrain and Egypt than with removing the Libyan leader.
There was high drama right up to the surprising Security Council vote on Thursday night, when the ambassador for South Africa, viewed as critical to getting the nine votes needed to pass the resolution, failed to show up for the final vote, causing Ms. Rice to rush from the chamber in search of him.
South Africa and Nigeria — along with Brazil and India — had all initially balked at authorizing force, but administration officials believed they had brought the Africans around. Mr. Obama had already been on the phone pressing President Jacob Zuma of South Africa to support the resolution, White House officials said. Eventually, the South African representative showed up to vote yes, as did the Nigerian representative, giving the United States one vote more than required. Brazil and India, meanwhile, joined Russia, China and Germany in abstaining.
The pivotal decision for Mr. Obama came on Tuesday though, after Mrs. Clinton had called from Paris with news that the Arab governments were willing to participate in military action. That would solve one of Mr. Gates's concerns, that the United States not be viewed on the Arab street as going to war against another Muslim country.
Mrs. Clinton "had the proof," one senior administration official said, "that not only was the Arab League in favor, but that the Emirates were serious about participating."
During a meeting with Mr. Obama and his top national security aides — Ms. Rice was on video teleconference from New York; Mrs. Clinton from Paris — Ms. Rice sought to allay Mr. Gates's concern that a no-fly zone by itself would not be enough to halt Colonel Qaddafi's progress, recalled officials attending the meeting.
"Susan basically said that it was possible to get a tougher resolution" that would authorize a fuller range of options, including the ability to bomb Libyan government tanks on the road to Benghazi, the rebel stronghold in the east, administration official said.
"That was the turning point" for Mr. Obama, the official said. The president was scheduled to go to a dinner with military veterans that night; he told his aides to draw up military plans. And he instructed Ms. Rice to move forward with a broader resolution at the Security Council.
She already had one ready — drawn up the week before, just in case, officials said. Besides asking for an expanded military campaign, Ms. Rice loaded up the resolution with other items on the American wish list, including the authorization to use force to back an arms embargo against Libya. "We knew it would be a heavy lift to get any resolution through; our view was we might as well get as much as we could," Ms. Rice said in a telephone interview.
On Wednesday at the Security Council, Russia put forward a competing resolution, calling for a cease-fire — well short of what the United States wanted. But the French, who had been trying to get a straight no-fly resolution through, switched to back the tougher American wording. And they "put it in blue" ink — U.N. code for calling for a vote.
"It was a brilliant tactical move," an American official said. "They hijacked the text, which means it could be called to a vote at any time."
On Thursday, the South Africans, Nigerians, Portuguese and Bosnians — all of them question marks — said they would support the tougher resolution.
Even after getting the Security Council endorsement, Mr. Obama made clear that the military action would be an international effort.
"The change in the region will not and cannot be imposed by the United States or any foreign power," the president told reporters at the White House on Friday. "Ultimately, it will be driven by the people of the Arab world."
Phenom
Regular Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2010
- Messages
- 878
- Likes
- 406
CNN Reporter says the fighter plane may have belonged to the rebels (in the video).
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/19/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T1
Gunning for Libya
The Indian tricolour in Tripoli harbour – amid all the chaos and violence of Libya's current crisis – was perhaps the most incongruous image of all. Yet, it was also the most reassuring image for hundreds of Indians bound for the INS Jalashwa, the naval warship that had travelled ten days from Karwar port to take out the last of 15,000 Indian evacuees from the Libyan capital. Interestingly, India was one of the only three countries – Turkey and South Korea being the others – allowed to bring a military ship right into Tripoli. Countries like Germany, China, UK and Greece were made to wait on the high seas by the Gaddafi regime and allowed only to escort passenger ferries carrying nationals on board. India also got unprecedented clearances to operate 47 Air India sorties. This is one of many signs of India's particular standing in this West Asian-North African (WANA) country.
On the streets in Tripoli, too, people go out of their way to acknowledge a special bond with "Al-Hind", and come up to shake hands. For Gaddafi's 40-year commemoration in power, the only non-African, non-Arab leader to feature in publicity material was Jawaharlal Nehru. In both the western and eastern halves of Libya, Indians are seen as reliable construction partners, a disciplined workforce, and its doctors and teachers are acknowledged as the best. As the West now circles its wagons around Libya, pushing through the UN Security Council's no-fly zone resolution, India's decision to abstain from the vote is more than just a recognition of that relationship. It is pragmatic policy.
To begin with, the efficacy of a no-fly zone itself must be questioned. In the past week, Gaddafi's regime has already taken back many of the towns claimed by rebels during the February 17 uprising. Though it will be difficult for him to finish his offensive on the rebel strongholds of Benghazi and Tobrouk without airpower, Gaddafi may be able to keep his grip on Libya for a while. This is, incidentally, not the first time that Benghazi, the seat of the oil-rich province of Cyrenaica, has revolted against Tripolitana since Libya was cobbled out of three separate regions in 1951. The February 17 revolution in that sense may have been triggered by the pro-democracy protests in neighbouring Egypt and Tunisia, but is as much about traditional rivalries and tribal history.
Secondly, Gaddafi's Libya has weathered international strictures for decades, through the 1980s and the 1990s, and may not be as susceptible to the pressures of fresh sanctions. When the US and the UK decided to rehabilitate him in 2002, despite his role in the Lockerbie bombings and allegations of gunrunning to the Irish Republican Army, they were surprised to find a very strong economy in place there. The rapid business boom that followed and the flow of oil to the West since 2002 have ensured the Central Bank of Libya now holds reserves of approximately $110 billion, enough to shore up Libyan imports for at least three years. Meanwhile, the cost of bombing Libya, as the UN has now authorised, will be felt in terms of human casualties — but also economically by the world, with the price of oil expected to stay at least $20 a barrel higher for a while, and it will also serve to strengthen the anti-West, nationalistic fervour among Gaddafi's supporters. Ironically, it may also provide fertile ground for groups like Al-Qaeda, who don't have a toe-hold in Libya yet. After Iraq and Afghanistan, it seems inconceivable that the US would take such a step lightly.
And it is the US that will bear the greatest responsibility of strikes on Libya; at the UN Security Council, the resolution for a no-fly zone hung fire until Washington's decisive shift in its favour. In addition, the move smacks of a Western double standard; on the same day this week that President Obama renewed his call for "Gaddafi to Go", Saudi Arabian-Gulf Cooperation Council troops were pouring into Manama's Pearl roundabout to quell protests there. When six protestors died in the firing that followed, President Obama's reaction was to call the Saudi and Bahrainian monarchies only to advise "maximum restraint". While those pushing for action against Libya have often spoken about Gaddafi's bombarding of civilian areas, they have not yet provided proof of mass civilian casualties. Certainly, in eastern Libya, where the media was free to report, there have been no images of buildings or homes being bombed — in Ras Lenouf, Ajdabiya, etc, Gaddafi's forces have demonstrably unleashed their airpower only on oil installations, munition depots and rebel military bases so far. The US' pressing ahead with action on Gaddafi without waiting for the UN special envoy's report, but not for other Arab countries also snuffing out rebel movements, seems to prove the American maxim "he maybe a son of a gun, but he's our son of a gun" in reverse.
Clearly, Gaddafi is no one's "son of a gun" at present — neither the West's nor the Sunni Arab world's that despises him. And yet, if this uncontrollable, part-mad, part-comic tribal dictator manages to live on as Libya's leader, India would do well to look beyond the narrow prism of regime change for its future relationship with the country and the people. Libya doesn't just have some of the best "sweet" crude reserves, its geography makes it an important gateway to all of Sub-Saharan Africa's resources, as well as the Nile Delta. In the past, India has been at the forefront of infrastructural projects in the country, bidding for oil refineries, road construction, and even the railway project that eventually went to China. It would be counterproductive for India to give up its unique positioning in Libya simply to be swept up in the train of the US and Europe's interests there.
The writer is Deputy Foreign Editor, CNN-IBN. She reported from Tripoli during the current crisis
The Indian tricolour in Tripoli harbour – amid all the chaos and violence of Libya's current crisis – was perhaps the most incongruous image of all. Yet, it was also the most reassuring image for hundreds of Indians bound for the INS Jalashwa, the naval warship that had travelled ten days from Karwar port to take out the last of 15,000 Indian evacuees from the Libyan capital. Interestingly, India was one of the only three countries – Turkey and South Korea being the others – allowed to bring a military ship right into Tripoli. Countries like Germany, China, UK and Greece were made to wait on the high seas by the Gaddafi regime and allowed only to escort passenger ferries carrying nationals on board. India also got unprecedented clearances to operate 47 Air India sorties. This is one of many signs of India's particular standing in this West Asian-North African (WANA) country.
On the streets in Tripoli, too, people go out of their way to acknowledge a special bond with "Al-Hind", and come up to shake hands. For Gaddafi's 40-year commemoration in power, the only non-African, non-Arab leader to feature in publicity material was Jawaharlal Nehru. In both the western and eastern halves of Libya, Indians are seen as reliable construction partners, a disciplined workforce, and its doctors and teachers are acknowledged as the best. As the West now circles its wagons around Libya, pushing through the UN Security Council's no-fly zone resolution, India's decision to abstain from the vote is more than just a recognition of that relationship. It is pragmatic policy.
To begin with, the efficacy of a no-fly zone itself must be questioned. In the past week, Gaddafi's regime has already taken back many of the towns claimed by rebels during the February 17 uprising. Though it will be difficult for him to finish his offensive on the rebel strongholds of Benghazi and Tobrouk without airpower, Gaddafi may be able to keep his grip on Libya for a while. This is, incidentally, not the first time that Benghazi, the seat of the oil-rich province of Cyrenaica, has revolted against Tripolitana since Libya was cobbled out of three separate regions in 1951. The February 17 revolution in that sense may have been triggered by the pro-democracy protests in neighbouring Egypt and Tunisia, but is as much about traditional rivalries and tribal history.
Secondly, Gaddafi's Libya has weathered international strictures for decades, through the 1980s and the 1990s, and may not be as susceptible to the pressures of fresh sanctions. When the US and the UK decided to rehabilitate him in 2002, despite his role in the Lockerbie bombings and allegations of gunrunning to the Irish Republican Army, they were surprised to find a very strong economy in place there. The rapid business boom that followed and the flow of oil to the West since 2002 have ensured the Central Bank of Libya now holds reserves of approximately $110 billion, enough to shore up Libyan imports for at least three years. Meanwhile, the cost of bombing Libya, as the UN has now authorised, will be felt in terms of human casualties — but also economically by the world, with the price of oil expected to stay at least $20 a barrel higher for a while, and it will also serve to strengthen the anti-West, nationalistic fervour among Gaddafi's supporters. Ironically, it may also provide fertile ground for groups like Al-Qaeda, who don't have a toe-hold in Libya yet. After Iraq and Afghanistan, it seems inconceivable that the US would take such a step lightly.
And it is the US that will bear the greatest responsibility of strikes on Libya; at the UN Security Council, the resolution for a no-fly zone hung fire until Washington's decisive shift in its favour. In addition, the move smacks of a Western double standard; on the same day this week that President Obama renewed his call for "Gaddafi to Go", Saudi Arabian-Gulf Cooperation Council troops were pouring into Manama's Pearl roundabout to quell protests there. When six protestors died in the firing that followed, President Obama's reaction was to call the Saudi and Bahrainian monarchies only to advise "maximum restraint". While those pushing for action against Libya have often spoken about Gaddafi's bombarding of civilian areas, they have not yet provided proof of mass civilian casualties. Certainly, in eastern Libya, where the media was free to report, there have been no images of buildings or homes being bombed — in Ras Lenouf, Ajdabiya, etc, Gaddafi's forces have demonstrably unleashed their airpower only on oil installations, munition depots and rebel military bases so far. The US' pressing ahead with action on Gaddafi without waiting for the UN special envoy's report, but not for other Arab countries also snuffing out rebel movements, seems to prove the American maxim "he maybe a son of a gun, but he's our son of a gun" in reverse.
Clearly, Gaddafi is no one's "son of a gun" at present — neither the West's nor the Sunni Arab world's that despises him. And yet, if this uncontrollable, part-mad, part-comic tribal dictator manages to live on as Libya's leader, India would do well to look beyond the narrow prism of regime change for its future relationship with the country and the people. Libya doesn't just have some of the best "sweet" crude reserves, its geography makes it an important gateway to all of Sub-Saharan Africa's resources, as well as the Nile Delta. In the past, India has been at the forefront of infrastructural projects in the country, bidding for oil refineries, road construction, and even the railway project that eventually went to China. It would be counterproductive for India to give up its unique positioning in Libya simply to be swept up in the train of the US and Europe's interests there.
The writer is Deputy Foreign Editor, CNN-IBN. She reported from Tripoli during the current crisis
sandeepdg
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2009
- Messages
- 2,333
- Likes
- 227
Western warplanes, missiles hit Libyan targets
TRIPOLI: Western forces hit targets along the Libyan coast on Saturday, using strikes from air and sea to force Muammar Gaddafi's troops to cease fire and end attacks on civilians.
Libyan state television said 48 people had been killed and 150 wounded in the allied air strikes. It also said there had been a fresh wave of strikes on Tripoli early on Sunday.
There was no way to independently verify the claims. French planes fired the first shots in what is the biggest international military intervention in the Arab world since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, destroying tanks and armoured vehicles in the region of the rebels' eastern stronghold, Benghazi.
Hours later, US and British warships and submarines launched 110 Tomahawk missiles against air defences around the capital Tripoli and the western city of Misrata, which has been besieged by Gaddafi's forces, US military officials said.
They said US forces and planes were working with Britain, France, Canada and Italy in operation "Odyssey Dawn".
Gaddafi called it "colonial, crusader" aggression. "It is now necessary to open the stores and arm all the masses with all types of weapons to defend the independence, unity and honour of Libya," he said in an audio message broadcast on state television hours after the strikes began.
China and Russia, which abstained in the U.N. Security Council vote last week endorsing intervention, expressed regret at the military action. China's Foreign Ministry said it hoped the conflict would not lead to a greater loss of civilian life.
Explosions and heavy anti-aircraft fire rattled Tripoli in the early hours of Sunday. The shooting was followed by defiant shouts of "Allahu Akbar" that echoed around the city centre.
Libyan state television showed footage from an unidentified hospital of what it called victims of the "colonial enemy". Ten bodies were wrapped up in white and blue bed sheets, and several people were wounded, one of them badly, the television said.
Tripoli residents said they had heard an explosion near the eastern Tajoura district, while in Misrata they said strikes had targeted an airbase used by Gaddafi's forces.
A Reuters witness in the eastern rebel stronghold of Benghazi reported loud explosions and anti-aircraft fire, but it was unclear which side was shooting.
The intervention, after weeks of diplomatic wrangling, was welcomed in Benghazi with a mix of apprehension and relief.
"We think this will end Gaddafi's rule. Libyans will never forget France's stand with them. If it weren't for them, then Benghazi would have been overrun tonight," said Iyad Ali, 37.
"We salute France, Britain, the United States and the Arab countries for standing with Libya. But we think Gaddafi will take out his anger on civilians. So the West has to hit him hard," said civil servant Khalid al-Ghurfaly, 38.
GADDAFI SEEN LOSING GRIP ON LIBYA
The air strikes, launched from a flotilla of some 25 coalition ships, including three US submarines, in the Mediterranean, followed a meeting in Paris of Western and Arab leaders backing the intervention.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said participants had agreed to use "all necessary means, especially military" to enforce the Security Council resolution calling for an end to attacks on civilians.
"Colonel Gaddafi has made this happen," British Prime Minister David Cameron told reporters after the meeting. "We cannot allow the slaughter of civilians to continue."
Some analysts have questioned the strategy for the military intervention, fearing Western forces might be sucked into a long civil war despite a US insistence -- repeated on Saturday -- that it has no plans to send ground troops into Libya.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper suggested that outside powers hoped their intervention would be enough to turn the tide against Gaddafi and allow Libyans to force him out.
"It is our belief that if Mr. Gaddafi loses the capacity to enforce his will through vastly superior armed forces, he simply will not be able to sustain his grip on the country."
But analysts have questioned what Western powers will do if the Libyan leader digs in, especially since they do not believe they would be satisfied with a de facto partition which left rebels in the east and Gaddafi running a rump state in the west.
One participant at the Paris meeting said Clinton and others had stressed Libya should not be split in two. And on Friday, Obama specifically called on Gaddafi's forces to pull back from the western cities of Zawiyah and Misrata as well from the east.
"It's going to be far less straightforward if Gaddafi starts to move troops into the cities which is what he has been trying to do for the past 24 hours," said Marko Papic at the STRATFOR global intelligence group.
"Once he does that it becomes a little bit more of an urban combat environment and at that point it's going to be difficult to use air power from 15,000 feet to neutralize that."
The Libyan government has blamed rebels, who it says belong to al Qaeda, for breaking a ceasefire it announced on Friday.
In Tripoli, several thousand people gathered at the Bab al-Aziziyah palace, Gaddafi's compound bombed by US warplanes in 1986, to show their support.
"There are 5,000 tribesmen that are preparing to come here to fight with our leader. They better not try to attack our country," said farmer Mahmoud el-Mansouri.
"We will open up Libya's deserts and allow Africans to flood to Europe to blow themselves up as suicide bombers."
US SAYS NOT LEADING INTERVENTION
France and Britain have taken a lead role in pushing for international intervention in Libya and the United States -- after embarking on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq -- has been at pains to stress it is supporting, not leading, the operation.
In announcing the missile strikes, which came eight years to the day after the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, Obama said the effort was intended to protect the Libyan people.
"Today I authorised the armed forces of the United States to begin a limited action in Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians," Obama told reporters in Brasilia, where he had begun a five-day tour of Latin America.
He said US troops were acting in support of allies, who would lead the enforcement of a no-fly zone to stop Gaddafi's attacks on rebels. "As I said yesterday, we will not, I repeat, we will not deploy any US troops on the ground," Obama said.
But despite Washington's determination to stress its limited role, Vice Admiral Bill Gortney, director of the US military's Joint Staff, said the strikes were only a first phase.
Earlier on Saturday, hundreds of cars full of refugees fled Benghazi towards the Egyptian border after the city came under a bombardment overnight. One family of 13 women from a grandmother to small children, rested at a roadside hotel.
"I'm here because when the bombing started last night my children were vomiting from fear," said one of them, a doctor. "All I want to do is get my family to a safe place and then get back to Benghazi to help. My husband is still there."
Those who remained set up make-shift barricades on main streets, each manned by half a dozen rebels.
In the besieged western city of Misrata, residents said government forces shelled the rebel town again early on Saturday, while water supplies had been cut off for a third day.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...es-hit-Libyan-targets/articleshow/7746002.cms
TRIPOLI: Western forces hit targets along the Libyan coast on Saturday, using strikes from air and sea to force Muammar Gaddafi's troops to cease fire and end attacks on civilians.
Libyan state television said 48 people had been killed and 150 wounded in the allied air strikes. It also said there had been a fresh wave of strikes on Tripoli early on Sunday.
There was no way to independently verify the claims. French planes fired the first shots in what is the biggest international military intervention in the Arab world since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, destroying tanks and armoured vehicles in the region of the rebels' eastern stronghold, Benghazi.
Hours later, US and British warships and submarines launched 110 Tomahawk missiles against air defences around the capital Tripoli and the western city of Misrata, which has been besieged by Gaddafi's forces, US military officials said.
They said US forces and planes were working with Britain, France, Canada and Italy in operation "Odyssey Dawn".
Gaddafi called it "colonial, crusader" aggression. "It is now necessary to open the stores and arm all the masses with all types of weapons to defend the independence, unity and honour of Libya," he said in an audio message broadcast on state television hours after the strikes began.
China and Russia, which abstained in the U.N. Security Council vote last week endorsing intervention, expressed regret at the military action. China's Foreign Ministry said it hoped the conflict would not lead to a greater loss of civilian life.
Explosions and heavy anti-aircraft fire rattled Tripoli in the early hours of Sunday. The shooting was followed by defiant shouts of "Allahu Akbar" that echoed around the city centre.
Libyan state television showed footage from an unidentified hospital of what it called victims of the "colonial enemy". Ten bodies were wrapped up in white and blue bed sheets, and several people were wounded, one of them badly, the television said.
Tripoli residents said they had heard an explosion near the eastern Tajoura district, while in Misrata they said strikes had targeted an airbase used by Gaddafi's forces.
A Reuters witness in the eastern rebel stronghold of Benghazi reported loud explosions and anti-aircraft fire, but it was unclear which side was shooting.
The intervention, after weeks of diplomatic wrangling, was welcomed in Benghazi with a mix of apprehension and relief.
"We think this will end Gaddafi's rule. Libyans will never forget France's stand with them. If it weren't for them, then Benghazi would have been overrun tonight," said Iyad Ali, 37.
"We salute France, Britain, the United States and the Arab countries for standing with Libya. But we think Gaddafi will take out his anger on civilians. So the West has to hit him hard," said civil servant Khalid al-Ghurfaly, 38.
GADDAFI SEEN LOSING GRIP ON LIBYA
The air strikes, launched from a flotilla of some 25 coalition ships, including three US submarines, in the Mediterranean, followed a meeting in Paris of Western and Arab leaders backing the intervention.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said participants had agreed to use "all necessary means, especially military" to enforce the Security Council resolution calling for an end to attacks on civilians.
"Colonel Gaddafi has made this happen," British Prime Minister David Cameron told reporters after the meeting. "We cannot allow the slaughter of civilians to continue."
Some analysts have questioned the strategy for the military intervention, fearing Western forces might be sucked into a long civil war despite a US insistence -- repeated on Saturday -- that it has no plans to send ground troops into Libya.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper suggested that outside powers hoped their intervention would be enough to turn the tide against Gaddafi and allow Libyans to force him out.
"It is our belief that if Mr. Gaddafi loses the capacity to enforce his will through vastly superior armed forces, he simply will not be able to sustain his grip on the country."
But analysts have questioned what Western powers will do if the Libyan leader digs in, especially since they do not believe they would be satisfied with a de facto partition which left rebels in the east and Gaddafi running a rump state in the west.
One participant at the Paris meeting said Clinton and others had stressed Libya should not be split in two. And on Friday, Obama specifically called on Gaddafi's forces to pull back from the western cities of Zawiyah and Misrata as well from the east.
"It's going to be far less straightforward if Gaddafi starts to move troops into the cities which is what he has been trying to do for the past 24 hours," said Marko Papic at the STRATFOR global intelligence group.
"Once he does that it becomes a little bit more of an urban combat environment and at that point it's going to be difficult to use air power from 15,000 feet to neutralize that."
The Libyan government has blamed rebels, who it says belong to al Qaeda, for breaking a ceasefire it announced on Friday.
In Tripoli, several thousand people gathered at the Bab al-Aziziyah palace, Gaddafi's compound bombed by US warplanes in 1986, to show their support.
"There are 5,000 tribesmen that are preparing to come here to fight with our leader. They better not try to attack our country," said farmer Mahmoud el-Mansouri.
"We will open up Libya's deserts and allow Africans to flood to Europe to blow themselves up as suicide bombers."
US SAYS NOT LEADING INTERVENTION
France and Britain have taken a lead role in pushing for international intervention in Libya and the United States -- after embarking on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq -- has been at pains to stress it is supporting, not leading, the operation.
In announcing the missile strikes, which came eight years to the day after the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, Obama said the effort was intended to protect the Libyan people.
"Today I authorised the armed forces of the United States to begin a limited action in Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians," Obama told reporters in Brasilia, where he had begun a five-day tour of Latin America.
He said US troops were acting in support of allies, who would lead the enforcement of a no-fly zone to stop Gaddafi's attacks on rebels. "As I said yesterday, we will not, I repeat, we will not deploy any US troops on the ground," Obama said.
But despite Washington's determination to stress its limited role, Vice Admiral Bill Gortney, director of the US military's Joint Staff, said the strikes were only a first phase.
Earlier on Saturday, hundreds of cars full of refugees fled Benghazi towards the Egyptian border after the city came under a bombardment overnight. One family of 13 women from a grandmother to small children, rested at a roadside hotel.
"I'm here because when the bombing started last night my children were vomiting from fear," said one of them, a doctor. "All I want to do is get my family to a safe place and then get back to Benghazi to help. My husband is still there."
Those who remained set up make-shift barricades on main streets, each manned by half a dozen rebels.
In the besieged western city of Misrata, residents said government forces shelled the rebel town again early on Saturday, while water supplies had been cut off for a third day.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...es-hit-Libyan-targets/articleshow/7746002.cms
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2009
- Messages
- 24,324
- Likes
- 11,757
Gaddafi's daughter says father is well, fighting
Gaddafi's daughter says father is well, fighting - The Times of India
Gaddafi's daughter says father is well, fighting - The Times of India
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2009
- Messages
- 24,324
- Likes
- 11,757
Gaddafi's son captured, Tripoli celebrates
Gaddafi's son captured, Tripoli celebrates - The Times of India
Gaddafi's son captured, Tripoli celebrates - The Times of India
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2009
- Messages
- 24,324
- Likes
- 11,757
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 6,017
- Likes
- 3,364
Libyan warplanes hit Benghazi bases
Two jets reportedly bombed a base in Benghazi belonging to the February 17th Brigade.
Libyan warplanes have bombed bases of armed groups in Benghazi as part of a self-declared campaign by a renegade former general to purge the North African country of religious hardline militias.
A Reuters witness and an air force official in Benghazi said two jets bombed a base belonging to the February 17th Brigade, one of the armed groups operating in the eastern city, and an Ansar al-Sharia base in the west of the city.
"Air raids targeted a camp of the February 17 Martyrs Brigades, hitting it with two missiles," Ahmed al-Jazaoui, a former rebel, also told the AFP news agency.
February 17 is one of the biggest and most powerful militias in Benghazi. It had its origin during the uprising against longtime dictator Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.
Al Jazeera's Stefanie Dekker, reporting from the capital Tripoli, said that the operation was led by forces loyal to former general Khalifa Haftar.
Witnesses also told our correspondent that dark smoke was seen from the location of the attack. Panicked residents also reportedly fled the area.
Haftar launched a campaign last week to rid Libya of what he called "terrorists". He had earlier accused the government of being weak, and not acting against the religious hardline militias in the country
Gunmen claiming loyalty to him attacked the parliament building in capital Tripoli two weeks ago to demand a power transfer, triggering the worst clashes in the capital for months.
Gaddafi's authoritarian rule and three years of unrest have left Libya with few institutions and no real national army to impose state authority on the competing militias and brigades of former rebels who have become power-brokers.
The OPEC oil producer has been in turmoil since the NATO-backed war ousted Gaddafi, with different armed groups, regional and political factions locked in conflict over its future.
Libya's Ansar al-Sharia, targeted in Wednesday's air attack, is listed as a "terrorist group" by Washington. The group warned the United States on Tuesday against interfering in the country's crisis, and accused Washington of backing Haftar.
Libyan warplanes hit Benghazi bases - Africa - Al Jazeera English
