Thread: The Libyan Crisis

Originally Posted by OhOh

allow the US to free up more than $30bn of Gaddafi's assets held by American banks for the opposition fighters. France has agreed to unfreeze $250m in assets for the opposition, while Italy pledged to unfreeze an additional $100m. Kuwait and Qatar reportedly have given about $100m to the opposition.

when you read this, it's clear that banks are a very unsafe way to store your hard earned assets

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by Carrabow

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

With marksman skills shown above, this gonna take a long time

probably some American CIA special ops shooting,

Dresses like one actually. But Carrabow - it keeps the US military-industrial complex ticking along. Shares in munitions are up.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MG19Ad01.html

"Another take on Libya hubris for China
By Peter Lee

Western self-regard was on full display in a United States headline describing the Libya Contact Group confab in Istanbul over the weekend. It read: World leaders open Libya talks in Turkey. [1]

Well, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was there. Much-diminished leaders of 19th-century world powers Britain and France - and first millennium world power Italy - were there, too.

But attendance from the BRICS countries was patchy: Nobody was there from Russia, which boycotted the talks. China declined to send a representative. Brazil and India only sent observers, which meant they had no vote in the proceedings. South Africa didn't attend, and blasted the outcome of the meeting. [2]

It is an indication of the altogether ghastly reporting on Libya that there has been little effort to determine the Libya Contact Group's constituting authority, its decision-making processes, or even its membership, let alone the legitimacy of its pretensions to set international policy on Libya.

The LCG was formed in London on March 29 under the auspices of the United Kingdom, at a conference attended by 40 foreign ministers and a smattering of international organizations. Its declared mission was be to "support and be a focal point of contact with the Libyan people, coordinate international policy and be a forum for discussion of humanitarian and post-conflict support". [3]

Since then, the group has met three times and its attendance seems to have stabilized around a core of 20 or 30 countries, mostly drawn from members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), conservative oil-rich states in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), and GCC cadets Jordan, Lebanon and Morocco. Dutiful ally Japan has also tagged along.

The unambiguous American template for Libya - and the LCG - is Kosovo, another humanitarian bombing campaign cum regime change exercise conducted by NATO in disregard of the United Nations.

United States Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg invoked the Kosovo precedent - and a prolonged diplomatic and sanctions campaign that grew out of a "humanitarian military action" - in testimony before the US Congress on Libya:
Our approach is one that has succeeded before. In Kosovo, we built an international coalition around a narrow civilian protection mission. Even after Milosevic withdrew his forces and the bombing stopped, the political and economic pressure continued. Within two years, Milosevic was thrown out of office and turned over to The Hague. [4]
NATO decision-making is a rather fraught exercise in consensus-building, especially when it involves political as well as military issues. NATO's military command draws its legitimacy in Libya from UN resolution 1973 (the infamous no-fly + protect civilians undertaking), which it obviously interprets as it sees fit. Political undertakings like the LCG appear to be adjuncts to the military operation, a state of affairs that has not served NATO particularly well in Afghanistan.

NATO's political policy on Libya is in the hands of the "North Atlantic Council" or NAC; for obvious reasons this crusaderish piece of nomenclature is not often invoked in the Libyan situation.

A 2003 paper by the Congressional Research Service described the decision-making process and applied it to the Barack Obama administration's explicit template for bombing people into freedom, the Kosovo air war:
The NAC achieves consensus through a process in which no government states its objection. A formal vote in which governments state their position is not taken. During the Kosovo conflict, for example, it was clear to all governments that Greece was immensely uncomfortable with a decision to go to war. NATO does not require a government to vote in favor of a conflict, but rather to object explicitly if it opposes such a decision. Athens chose not to object, knowing its allies wished to take military action against Serbia. In contrast to NATO, the EU seeks unanimity on key issues. [5]
In other words, the dominant powers decide the policy; then it is up to the other guys to decide if they wish to undermine NATO's unity, credibility and image by obstructing the mission.

Inside NATO, it appears that most countries choose to opt out in order to affirm their diplomatic, doctrinal or political concerns, but not raise a formal, explicit objection.

For instance, when NATO took over the Libya mission, a US State Department official noted: With respect to the Germans, Germans have made from the very beginning a very clear - a clear statement that they would not participate militarily with their own troops in any operation. But they've also made clear that they would not block any activity by NATO to move forward. [6]
Long story short: it's likely that NATO countries vote as a bloc when it comes to LCG matters.

GCC decision-making is even more opaque, but it is not unreasonable to assume that the smaller states are voting in a bloc with lead member Saudi Arabia on the Libya issue.

In other words, NATO and the GCC get their ducks in a row before the LCG meetings, which appear to be political window-dressing to convince Western opinion, at least, that a legitimate international process - well, maybe not quite as legitimate as UN debate - is going on.

China and Russia recognize the LCG as an effort by the proponents of military intervention in Libya to take the political bit in their teeth as well, in order to keep any further Libya discussions out of the UN Security Council where China and Russia - which were spectacularly burned by Resolution 1973 - would undoubtedly wield their veto power to the fullest to sidetrack the NATO/GCC-led campaign.

China has been relatively circumspect in its criticisms of the LCG, politely declining Turkey's invitation to join the Istanbul meeting - and thereby adding a further veneer of political legitimacy to the exercise - with the statement that it would skip the meeting "because the function and method of operation of this contact group need further study". [7]

The Russians have been much more blunt. In May, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov declared that it was the LCG, and not Muammar Gaddafi, that had a legitimacy problem:
"The contact group is a self-appointed organizational structure that somehow made itself responsible for how the (UN) resolution is carried out," Mr Lavrov said ... "From the point of view of international law this group has no legitimacy." [8]
In rejecting the Turkish invitation to join the meeting in Istanbul, the Russian Foreign Ministry reiterated its objections:
[W]e were called upon many times to join this Group by our other partners through various channels ... At the same time, the Russian approach to this issue has not changed. We are not a member of the Group and do not participate in its work. This applies to the upcoming meeting in Istanbul as well. [9]
In the most unflattering construction, therefore, the LCG is not a united effort by "the leaders of the world"; it is an effort to circumvent the UN Security Council, largely coordinated by Atlantic ex-colonial powers and anxious Arab autocrats who are most deeply committed to the bombing campaign against Gaddafi.

That effort is not going particularly well. NATO has strayed well beyond its "protect civilians" UN mandate - or, at the very least, creatively interpreted the mandate so as to render its intent and limitations meaningless - to conduct air operations against Gaddafi's forces for the past four months.

Nevertheless, the Libyan rebels have been unable to drive Gaddafi from power and thereby demonstrate the potency of Western arms and self-righteous bluster, even when exercised at safe distance and through enthusiastic proxies against an isolated Third World potentate.

At Counterpunch, Alexander Coburn excoriated the rebels, the media and Western delusions that this would be a quick and politically advantageous war: He wrote:
In a hilarious inside account of the NATO debacle, Vincent Jauvert of Le Nouvel Observateur has recently disclosed that French intelligence services assured [President Nicolas] Sarkozy and foreign minister [Alain] Juppe "from the first [air] strike, thousands of soldiers would defect from Gaddafi". They also predicted that the rebels would move quickly to Sirte, the hometown of the Qaddafi and force him to flee the country. This was triumphantly and erroneously trumpeted by the NATO powers which even proclaimed that he had flown to Venezuela. By all means opt for the Big Lie as a propaganda ploy, but not if it is inevitably going to be discredited 24 hours later.

"We underestimated al-Gaddafi," one French officer told Jauvert. "He was preparing for forty-one years for an invasion. We did not imagine he would adapt as quickly. No one expects, for example, to transport its troops and missile batteries, Gaddafi will go out and buy hundreds of Toyota pick-up in Niger and Mali. It is a stroke of genius: the trucks are identical to those used by the rebels. NATO is paralyzed. It delays its strikes. Before bombing the vehicles, drivers need to be sure they are whose forces are Gaddafi's. ‘We asked the rebels to a particular signal on the roof of their pickup truck, said a soldier, but we were never sure. They are so disorganized ...' " [10]
In fact, it appears that an important purpose of the Istanbul meeting was to jumpstart the ineffectual efforts by the Libyan rebels and, in particular, deal with calls by Turkey and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) for a ceasefire during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan (approximately August 1 to August 29 this year).

Ramadan is traditionally a time of fasting and peaceful reflection. In Libya, it would also undoubtedly be an opportunity for Gaddafi to regroup his forces and engage with the myriad interlocutors and negotiators - in addition to African Union, France and Italy were also reportedly meeting with Gaddafi's representatives - who were trying to end the embarrassing mess.

Both Turkey and the OIC - as well as otherwise disengaged Islamic power Indonesia - have warned NATO that continuing the bombing campaign during Ramadan would be a dangerous political miscue.

Therefore, to guard against the dread prospect of peace breaking out in unwelcome ways post Ramadan - and Gaddafi remaining in Tripoli without having received the necessary chastisement by the righteous democratic powers - the LCG made two important decisions:

First, it recognized the Transitional National Council (TNC) headquartered in Benghazi as the legitimate government of Libya, declared that Gaddafi's regime had lost its legitimacy, thereby pre-emptively taking Gaddafi's political survival off the table.

This was despite the fact that the TNC probably controls less than half of Libya's sparse population and vast territory while Gaddafi is still in firm control of the western half of the country, most of the population, and the capital.

Foreign Policy's Joshua Keating noted that, before Libya, only twice has the United States declined to acknowledge the legitimacy of a nation's ruling power.

First, in 1913, president Woodrow Wilson, who objected to the unsavory (and suspected anti-US business) tendencies of Mexico's strongman of the moment, Vicotriano Huerta, and refused to recognize his government until it collapsed, courtesy of Pancho Villa and the US occupation of Veracruz.

The second was China; the United States quixotically not only refused to recognize the communist conquest of the mainland for 50 years; it also countenanced Chiang Kai-shek's pretensions to rule all of China, even as he exercised sway over only the formerly marginal province of Taiwan. [11]

The recognition of the TNC supposedly served the purpose of unlocking the frozen-asset goodie room for the Benghazi forces, which were officially blessed as freedom-loving, not riddled with al-Qaeda sympathizers, and committed to the honoring of previous foreign contracts in Libya, thereby reducing the cash-strapped Western forces' financial exposure to the Libyan imbroglio in general and the TNC in particular.

It is a rather amusing sidelight to the conflict that the Western powers, laboring through recessions, cutbacks in government services, and overall political disgruntlement, have taken certain steps to minimize the stated cost of the Libya intervention.

Brad Sherman, a US Congressman from California - and an accountant - pointed out that the US has decided to count only marginal expenditures as costs of the Libyan conflict: that means direct costs such as munitions and fuel consumed and combat pay disbursed, giving a misleading idea of how much it costs to pound even a third-rate power into submission.

United Nations ambassador Susan Rice, one of the architects of the Libyan humanitarian intervention, countered with the assertion that all those US seamen and airmen would be getting paid anyway even if they weren't bombing Libya: "The Libya mission is not one that falls under UN accounting or US budgeting. It is something we are undertaking in a national capacity." [12]

Even by Rice's limited yardstick, the Western alliance has already disbursed a hefty US$1 billion on the war.

In any event, there is no obvious political constituency for pouring dollars into Benghazi. Sherman, for instance, proposed that the operation be funded by confiscating Gaddafi's frozen assets in the US. The desire to make Gaddafi pay for the war against him by seizing his frozen assets is widespread.

Nevertheless, a hitch remains: countries such as Canada have laws on their books that prevent them from unfreezing Libyan assets until the UN Security Council gives its OK - a virtual impossibility given Russian and Chinese disgust with the West's adventurism. [13]

In an amusing reprise of the enthusiasm for financial derivatives that plunged the world into the Great Recession, the LCG is encouraging interested states to evade the UN process by lending cash to the TNC, with the loans collateralized by frozen assets.

In a further sign that the US is not confident that the TNC can run its finances any better than it runs its war (and perhaps has achieved a belated awareness of the risks involve in lending ready cash against illiquid assets) it declared that most of the $30 billion in Gaddafi assets in the US were illiquid ie real estate, and a mere $3.5 billion - could possibly be funneled to the TNC. [14]

Nevertheless, Western financial creativity, once again deployed in the absence of Western hard cash, will undoubtedly succeed in forestalling the collapse of the Benghazi authority for the foreseeable future.

The second purpose of the Istanbul meeting was to cut the legs out from under other negotiators - such as the Gaddafi-friendly African Union, which was holding talks with regime representatives in Ethiopia and, for that matter, the French, who were sowing epic confusion through equivocal secret contacts with Gaddafi's representatives - by setting up a single, publicly-endorsed channel.

Apparently, despite its new-found ascendancy as Libya's legitimate ruling authority, the Transitional National Council does not, in the opinion of the LCG, have the wherewithal to engage in direct negotiations with Gaddafi's rebel bastion in Tripoli.

But the TNC was not the only organization to receive the back of the hand treatment from the Libya Contact Group.

The UN also got a slap.

Initial reports indicated that the UN's special envoy for Libya, Abdul Elah al-Khatib, would be the sole designated interlocutor for the LCG. Franco Frattini, Italy's loquacious foreign minister, told reporters in Istanbul:
Mr Khatib is entitled to present a political package. This political package is a political offer including a ceasefire. [15]
His remarks on the "authorized" status of Khatib were echoed by Frattini's British counterpart, William Hague.

This raises the interesting question of how the LCG, an ad hoc organization with no legal standing, can order around the UN's Khatib as its errand boy.

The problem has apparently been rectified.

It seems that Ban Ki-moon, the ever-pliant UN secretary general, has agreed to put the LCG program into execution - per the "authorization" of the seemingly all-powerful LCG - without the inconvenience and embarrassment of a UN Security Council discussion or vote, as Bloomberg reports:
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will be the only person authorized by the contact group to negotiate with both sides in Libya. Ban will set up a board of two to three interlocutors from Tripoli and the rebel-held town of Benghazi, Frattini said. [16]
According to a Financial Times report, it appears that the passion to claim Gaddafi's scalp has evaporated in France and Italy and the Western powers will accept anything short of Gaddafi taunting them from his presidential throne in order to end the embarrassing conflict:
On Thursday it emerged that the western-led coalition confronting Colonel Muammer Gaddafi was beginning to examine the possibility of offering him a face-saving deal that removes him from power in Tripoli but allows him to stay inside Libya as a means of bringing a swift end to the conflict.

As some 40 nations prepare to meet in Istanbul on Friday to discuss progress in the Nato-led operation against the Libyan leader, Britain, France and the US continue to state publicly that the war can only end with Col Gaddafi's physical departure from Libya.

But behind the scenes in Paris and London, senior officials are discussing whether the international community and the Libyan opposition could offer a deal that sees Col Gaddafi surrendering all power while going into internal exile in Libya.

For several days, French officials have made clear that Col Gaddafi could stay in Libya if he makes a clear statement that he will abdicate all military and political power. [17]
In the best tradition of Western peacemaking, it appears that a Ramadan ceasefire will be proceeded by a two-week barrage of bombs and missiles that will demonstrate both to the Gaddafi regime and world opinion that, despite its abject and obvious desperation to disengage, the NATO/GCC coalition is still rough, tough and a force to be reckoned with, even as it hastens to fulfill its publicly-stated ambition to be "outta here" by September.

The most plausible roadmap for Libya's post-conflict (or perhaps more accurately, mid-conflict) future is Turkey's roadmap, which foresees a Ramadan ceasefire, Gaddafi leaving power but not the country, and a constitutional commission.

As floated in the Turkish media, "the core of the commission would consist of five people: Two from Tripoli who would be accepted to Benghazi, two from Benghazi who would be acceptable to Tripoli and a fifth who would be named by those four who would set up the basis for a new constitution in Libya." [18]

Good luck with that.

A prompt ceasefire and a negotiated settlement do not leave the TNC with a very attractive hand. It controls less than half the country (albeit the predominantly oily half).

Furthermore, it is unlikely to perform outstandingly in any nationwide democratic contest that would involve the TNC canvassing for votes among the inhabitants of western Libya, a certain number of whom are likely to regard the TNC as venal and incompetent eastern adventurers who conspired with foreign powers to bomb and sanction the residents of Tripoli into misery and poverty.

No wonder the TNC spokesperson, Mahmoud Shamam, harrumphed to journalists in Istanbul that the TNC would ignore a ceasefire, saying "Even the Prophet Mohammed fought during Ramadan. We will continue to fight for our lives." [19]

However, if the West's Libya fatigue holds and the war doesn't re-ignite, the TNC may find itself lording itself over Benghazi in a de facto partitioned Libya, using its advantageous location vis-a-vis Libya's oil reserves to sustain its economy and its diplomatic standing.

In an indication of the world's resignation to a divided Libya, even China and Russia, who regard the TNC as a travesty and calamity, have pledged money for "humanitarian assistance" to "the Libyan people".

On the heels of a Russian announcement that it was sending 36 tons of aid to Benghazi, a terse announcement from China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated on July 11:
Q: The prolonged war in Libya deteriorates the humanitarian situation there. Will China consider providing humanitarian assistance to Libya?

A: In a bid to alleviate the humanitarian disaster faced by the Libyan people, China has decided to provide 50 million RMB [US$8 million] worth of humanitarian assistance to them. [20]
This is something, but - considering that the TNC has consistently declared it needs $3 billion in cash to keep the doors open in Benghazi - not a great deal.

As for the West, it can content itself with the observation that, if it wasn't able to save Libya, at least it was able to cripple it.

It is a pattern that has served the West reasonably well as its diplomacy engineered partition instead of national reconciliation in Kosovo and Sudan, and expedited the fragmentation of the Soviet Union into a suspicious Russia and a host of new NATO members.

It is another lesson in US "nation-building" - born of a casual disregard for sovereignty, circumvention of the United Nations, a cavalier attitude toward international law and a reckless deployment of political power - that China, one of the last great multinational empires left standing, is likely to take to heart. "

^
Wot he said - though China is hardly an example. I mean - come on

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

though China is hardly an example. I mean - come on

It is at least dealing with the situation in a non aggressive manner if nothing else.

NATO denies coordination with Libyan rebels in Brega

"BRUSSELS, July 19 (Xinhua) -- A NATO spokesman dismissed on Tuesday that the military alliance had "direct coordination" with Libyan rebel forces, who fought their way into the eastern oil town of Brega.

"With respect to the alleged coordination with opposition forces in the area of Brega, NATO does not have direct coordination with opposition forces or rebel forces in Brega. We do not have direct contact with them," said Colonel Roland Lavoie, spokesman for NATO's Libya operation.

"The situation in Brega is very fluid... It is premature for us to come with a verdict with respect to the situation there," he said via video conference from Naples, Italy.

The spokesman said that the alliance would closely monitor the situation in Brega "in the coming days."

Libyan rebels claimed control of Brega on Monday, as most pro-Gaddafi troops reportedly retreated westward. The Libyan government has accused NATO of carrying out a coordinated attack with rebel forces on Brega."

The terrorist forces are the ones who have "reported" the direct co-ordination between themselves and NATO. They are also the people which have been accused of "colourful" reports by human rights associations - being liars.

NATO is also silent on the non intervention, the bombing of any forces attacking civilian populated areas, and assistance given whether co-ordinated or not. The assistance to the terrorist forces has been reported by many sources.

This can be construed as acting against the UN resolution calling for the stopping, by anyone and by any means, the attacks on "civilian populated areas" - the city of Brega.

Originally Posted by OhOh

We do not have direct contact with them

He could have stated "we do not have contact with them" but would be a big fib sure to be found out.

Looks like poor old Africa is going to be the proxy battle field - again - though this time China replaces Russia as the US opponent.

For those African countries taking handouts from either side - "beware Greeks bearing gifts" as there could be a very nasty price to be paid later if the two sides decide that country is worth fighting over.

France: Gaddafi could stay in Libya - Middle East, World - The Independent

"France's foreign minister suggested today that a possible way out of Libya's civil war would be to allow Muammar Gaddafi to stay in the country if he relinquishes power. Gaddafi insists he will neither step down nor flee the country he has led for four decades. With the Nato-led air campaign against Gaddafi's forces entering its fifth month and the fighting in a stalemate, the international community is seeking exit strategies.

Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said France wants to keep "a very close link" with the rebels "to see how we can help." Asked whether Gaddafi could stay in Libya under house arrest, for example, Juppe said on LCI television: "One of the hypotheses that is envisaged is that he stays in Libya, on one condition ... that he clearly steps aside from Libya's political life. This is what we are waiting for before launching a political process." The rebels initially insisted that Gaddafi leave the country, but some are not ruling out the possibility that he could stay in Libya if he gives up power.

The two sides have been locked in a stalemate with the rebels unable to advance beyond pockets in the west despite a Nato air campaign against Gaddafi's forces. Rebel military leaders Ramadan Zarmouh and Ahmed Hachem and the Misrata representative of the opposition government, Souleiman Fortia, met with Sarkozy on Wednesday. "Their message was the following: what we did to liberate our city, we can do it to move forward towards Tripoli," said French philosopher Bernard Henri-Levy, who helped organise the meeting and has championed the Libyan rebel cause.

"If they (the rebels) have the means, they just need a few days to reach the doors of Tripoli. They are expected in the three cities before Tripoli by experienced fighters who are just waiting for them. So a few days will be enough," he said. He said Sarkozy listened to them but did not say whether any aid or arms were pledged.

France has played a driving role in the Nato-led campaign of airstrikes, mandated by the UN to protect civilians from a crackdown by Gaddafi's forces on an uprising against his rule, amid revolts this year around the Arab world. Last week, more than 30 nations including the United States gave the Libyan rebels a boost by recognising their National Transitional Council as the country's legitimate government, potentially freeing up billions of pounds in urgently needed cash."

It is so good of the French to decide the direction a soveriegn state should proceed on. Would it not be a better idea to allow the Libyan people to to make that decision?

Mr Bernard Henri-Levy states that the terrorist forces " need a few days to reach the doors of Tripoli". They and NATO have had 4 or 5 months to do that already, what makes him think more time is needed? This is what he said back in march.

The headless corpse, the mass grave and worrying questions about Libya's rebel army - Telegraph

"The streaks of blood, smeared along the sides of this impromptu mass grave suggested a rushed operation, a hurried attempt to dispose of the victims.
Who the men were and what happened to them, close to the Libyan rebels' western front line town of Al-Qawalish in the Nafusa Mountains, remains unknown.
But the evidence of a brutal end were clear. One of the corpses had been cleanly decapitated, while the trousers of another had been ripped down to his ankles, a way of humiliating a dead enemy.
The green uniforms were the same as those worn by loyalists fighting for Col. Muammer Gaddafi in Libya's civil war. No one from the rebel side claimed the corpses, or declared their loved ones missing.
There was no funeral, or call to the media by the rebels to see the 'atrocities committed by the regime'.

Since the bodies were seen by the Daily Telegraph attempts to discover their identities have been unsuccessful, in part because of obstruction by rebel authorities in the area. Having highlighted the discovery to those authorities the area was subsequently bulldozed and the bodies dissappeared.
The find will add to concerns highlighted in recent days over human rights violations by rebel forces. Human Rights Watch last week said that had looted homes, shops and hospitals and beaten captives as they advanced.
The Daily Telegraph found homes in the village of al-Awaniya ransacked, and shops and schools smashed and looted. The town, now empty, was inhabited by the Mashaashia, a traditionally loyalist tribe that has long been involved in land disputes with surrounding towns.
Human rights groups fear that reprisals may get worse as the rebels advance on towns nearer the capital such as Al-Sabaa and Gheryan which are loyalist strongholds.
The author of the HRW report, Sidney Kwiram, last night called on rebel leaders to investigate the latest find. "It is critical that the authorities investigate what happened to these five men."
The bodies were discovered in a water tank just off the main road between Zintan, the main town in the area, and Al-Qawalish as the rebels consolidated their advance.
At the time, rebel commanders, including former government troops who had defected, claimed that the men were most probably killed by Col Gaddafi forces for trying to defect - a common allegation.
"The day of our first assault on Al Qawalish we found the bodies there, and they were already in bad shape," said Col. Osama Ojweli, the military coordinator for the region.
"This is not unusual in Gaddafi's army. In other battles we have found men, their hands tied behind their backs with dusty wire and executed – we found them shot in the head by the regime."
A colonel, who defected last month and cannot be named, said: "If they think you might leave, they will shoot you." His claim was backed up by loyalists captured and held prisoner in the nearby town of Yafran.
But suspicions have been raised after the rebel authorities disposed of the bodies and bull-dozed the site where they were found.
Drivers also said they had military orders not to take journalists to the site. "If you go there I will ditch you in the desert," the driver of another news organisation reportedly said.
The rebel army is aware that NATO intervention on their side was justified by concern at regime human rights abuses in western capitals.
The Libyan Transitional National Council has now flown officials, including Abdulbaset Abumzirig, deputy minister of justice, to the Nafusa to investigate abuse claims.
"From what I have seen they are treating prisoners very well," he said. "We have promised to hand them back to their families after the war."
But Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch both said there were documented cases of extra-judicial killings by rebel forces, including deaths in custody under torture.
In particular, in the early phases of the uprising, loyalists and sub-Saharan Africans accused of being mercenaries were lynched. Since then, men in rebel-held areas suspected of being members of Col Gaddafi's security services have been taken from the homes, and subsequently found dead with their hands tied.
Both organisations say these are not on the scale of the abuses perpetrated by the regime. "We have come across a number of cases of executions of suspected Gaddafi fighters in both the east and the west," said Peter Bouckaert, emergencies director of HRW.
"I does fit a consistent pattern, though I don't think these killings are authorised by the rebel authorities in Benghazi."
Diana Eltahawy, of Amnesty, said members of the Transitional National Council, the rebel government, had admitted to there being a problem with some of their troops but had not done enough to tackle it.
"There is no comparison with the Gaddafi side. But the concern is that there is not sufficient will to address this in the leadership," she said. "It needs to be stopped before it becomes worse.""

These terrorist are the people the Libyan Contact group, NATO countries and a couple of Gulf states, are funding, laising military attacks with and are supporting as the new leaders of Libya.

daily telegraph

"Hillary got the message BEFORE Cameron Did. zuma down in south africa told her three weeks ago that this was a regime change agenda from the start,and that obama PERSONALLY LIED to him when he called and asked for him to vote for the resolution.

he then told hillary in no uncertain terms that south africa would NEVER vote with any western countries EVER again and he told her that if they invade with troops, ALL african nations would then natiionalize ALL of their resources,seize the accounts of all western companies then they would DEFEND GADAFFI!

last week,he told cameron the same thing that he told clinton. now the nato countries are trying to save their own face just to try to justify bombing gadaffi under false pretensces.

if gadaffi were smart he would tell Hague to go to hell! the bigots from nato who are KNOWINGLY defending AL-QAEDA TERRORIST have the audacity to try to tell this man to leave his own country simply for defending his country from the same AL-QAEDA TERRORIST who we are fighting against RIGHT NOW over in afghanistan!

one could not make that up if one tried too!"

Britain to expel Libyan embassy staff | Reuters

"(Reuters) - Britain is to recognise the rebel opposition as Libya's legitimate government and expel all existing Libyan embassy staff from the country, Foreign Secretary William Hague said on Wednesday.

The UK will also unfreeze 91 million pounds of assets held in Britain for the rebel-held oil company AGOCO.

"We are inviting the National Transitional Council to appoint a new Libyan diplomatic envoy to take over the Libyan embassy in London," Hague told a news conference.

"This decision reflects the National Transitional Council's increasing legitimacy, competence and success in reaching out to Libyans across the country," he added.

He said that in line with a U.N. Security Council resolution, Britain is continuing to explore how to unfreeze assets to support the rebels.

"At the request of the Arabian Gulf Oil Company ... the United Kingdom is ready to make available 91 million pounds of the company's assets in the United Kingdom," Hague added.

"This company is operating under the control of the National Transitional Council and we are assured its activities will not benefit any listed entity under (UN) sanctions.

"We will issue licences for the use of its frozen funds to meet basic needs within Libya," Hague said, adding the measure was designed to allow Britain to give greater practical assistance to the rebels.

Hague has denied any shift of Britain's position towards the eventual fate of Muammar Gaddafi after he appeared to suggest earlier this month that the Libyan leader might be allowed to stay in the country as part of an eventual solution to the conflict.

"The best solution is for him to leave but this is up to the Libyan people to decide," he said"

Two hats willy states that the solution is up to the Libyan people to decide.

He then states that the UK will recognise an unelected terrorist organisation as the Libyan government.

He quotes an imaginary UNSC resolution, which he purports allows him to recognise this unelected terrorist organisation.

He then states that he will unfreeze the assets of the sovereign Libyan Government and hand money to the unelected terrorist organisation.

A truly "civilised" country acting for the benefits of the crusader coalition not the Libyan people.

TRIPOLI, Libya July 27, 2011 (AP) A Libyan man convicted in the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am plane over the Scottish town of Lockerbie has attended a rally in Tripoli in support of Moammar Gadhafi, Libya's state TV said. The TV broadcast showed a man wearing a white turban and sitting in a wheelchair during Tuesday's rally and identified him as Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber. Al-Megrahi's presence at the rally appeared to be another sign of defiance by the Gadhafi regime. Gadhafi, locked in a civil war with Libyan rebels for the past five months, has rejected calls by the international community that he step down. Instead, he has threatened to attack targets in Europe unless NATO stops its four-month-old bombing campaign of regime-linked installations in Libya, under a U.N. mandate to protect civilians. Is Gadhafi's Inner Circle Falling Apart? Watch Video David Cameron Watch Video British Prime Minister Dodges Bomber Blame Watch Video Al-Megrahi was convicted in the 1988 downing of the Pan Am plane that killed 270 people, most of them Americans, over Scotland. He was released from a Scottish prison in 2009 after being diagnosed with prostate cancer. Al-Megrahi returned to a hero's welcome in Libya later that year. Britain, meanwhile, officially recognized Libya's main opposition group as the country's legitimate government, and on Wednesday expelled all diplomats from Gadhafi's regime. Foreign Secretary William Hague said Britain is unfreezing 91 million pounds ($150 million) of Libyan oil assets to help the rebels' National Transitional Council, which the U.K. now recognizes as "the sole governmental authority in Libya."

^Wait and see how quickly the "unfrozen" funds disappear into the western banks and arms manufacturers.

Along with of course the "commission" accounts of the corrupt policians.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

A Libyan man convicted in the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am plane over the Scottish town of Lockerbie has attended a rally in Tripoli in support of Moammar Gadhafi, Libya's state TV said. The TV broadcast showed a man wearing a white turban and sitting in a wheelchair during Tuesday's rally and identified him as Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bombe

It has already been said that the Libyans have a great health service, free and available to all including "convicted" prisoners.

Abdel Basset wasn't released because he was sick, he was released to secure oil deals in Libya. Gaddafi was considered a fooking awesome bloke back then, because he was a European puppet selling oil at bargain basement prices, visiting European capitals, and having shabbo goy likie Tony Blair visit him in Tripoli. Only when he started demanding more concessions from the European oil companies and threatened to sell to China did he become a fooking terrorist and dictator again.

It's a bit of a stretch to call the rebels terrorist forces.

They're rebels. They aren't terrorists.

Originally Posted by OhOh

They are attacking civilians, they are terrorists.

Off your trolley again "oooo" more idiotic claptrap!