The rise and fall of Colonel Muamar Gadaffi
The rise and fall of Colonel Muamar Gadaffi
BAK
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 11, 2007
- 124,790
- 288,165
Mabilioni yameshaanguka na uharibifu mkubwa kufanywa ili kumuondoa mtu mmoja tu! Kule Iraq $1 Trillioni imeanguka kwenda kutafuta WMD ambazo hazikuonekana na baadaye kubadilisha hadithi kwamba walikuwa wanapeleka democracy! Pamoja na kutumia zaidi ya $trillioni moja bado hakuna democracy na uharamia ndio umeongezeka zaidi mauaji kwa mabomu karibu kila siku iendayo kwa Mungu.
TUJITEGEMEE
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 6, 2010
- 25,225
- 25,488
NATO Losing War in LibyaIn War Against Islam on June, 2011 by JavedLIBYANATO failing in Libya, media hiding the truth, says Prof Del Bocaby Simone CantariniFor Angelo Del Boca, journalist and Libya expert, the high costs of the No Fly Zone have reduced to nothing any hope to see the blitz against Gaddafi succeed. Instead, the war might last several months because the Libyan leader still has troops, weapons and personal assets worth more than a billion Euros. The president of South Africa is in Libya to try a last moment deal with the Libyan government.Rome (AsiaNews) The high costs of the operation against Gaddafi have turned a blitzkrieg in a media-led phony war. What NATO expected to obtain with the No Fly Zone is now gone, Prof Angelo Antonio Del Boca told AsiaNews. A journalist and university scholar, Prof Del Boca has studied Libya and its leader for more than 30 years. According to the historian, Gaddafi still has more than a billion Euros and the war could still last several months.Citing statements by a top Libyan official, Del Boca said that NATO destroyed less than 30 per cent of Libyas military hardware. Great Britain and France no longer have the means to maintain the No Fly Zone. The only alternative to unfreeze the situation is a land attack, which is banned by UN Resolution 1973, the historian said. This is why France and Great Britain are sending two ships with helicopters to comply with the UN resolutions.Today, South African President Jacob Zuma is set to meet Libyan leaders to discuss a ceasefire, but many are sceptical about the chances of success of his visit. For Del Boca, none of the countries involved in this war is interested in a peaceful resolution to the conflict. In fact, the real reasons of this war are control over the oil fields and US$ 200 billion in Libyan government funds deposited in foreign banks.The war is now illegal. Libya is still a sovereign country, Del Boca said. Europe intervened in a war, backing part of the population against the other, despite UN resolutions that ban third countries from intervening in civil wars.For the historian, the main problem is NATOs arbitrary support for the Transitional Council that recently asked for more money to pursue the war.No one knows the Benghazi rebels. According to local sources, the cities of Cyrenaica have become a refuge for criminals, spies and members of extremist groups, many from other countries, the historian said.According to Tunisian media, two border guards were killed in a gun battle with nine armed men, from an extremist movement, who were trying to join the Benghazi rebels.http://www.asianews .it/news- en/NATO-failing- in-Libya, -media-hiding- the-truth, -says-Prof- Del-Boca- 21697html
Rutashubanyuma
JF-Expert Member
- Sep 24, 2010
- 219,468
- 911,184
[h=1]Muammar Gaddafi war crimes files revealed
[/h] Rebels find documents implicating Libyan leader in war crimes, and hold them for International Criminal Court investigators
One document shows the commanding general of government forces instructing his units to starve Misrata's population during the four-month siege. The order, from Youssef Ahmed Basheer Abu Hajar, states bluntly: "It is absolutely forbidden for supply cars, fuel and other services to enter the city of Misrata from all gates and checkpoints." Another document instructs army units to hunt down wounded rebel fighters, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Plans to bombard the city are also in the archive, say investigators, who also claim they have a message from Gaddafi relayed to the troops ordering that Misrata be obliterated and the "blue sea turned red" with the blood of the inhabitants. The documents are expected to form a crucial element of any trial against Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam and his intelligence chief Abdullah Senussi if, as is expected, ICC judges confirm indictments for war crimes and crimes against humanity that are demanded by its chief prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo.
They represent a landmark in international justice because no significant war crimes trial in the short history of international courts has had access to documents directly implicating the lead players in the commission of war crimes.
"From what we have here, the case is already proved," Khalid Alwab, a Misrata war crimes investigator, told the Observer. "All the evidence is here. Signed and stamped." The documents have yet to be revealed to the ICC, according to the 60-strong team of Libyan lawyers who brave daily shelling to collect evidence from the city. "We are ready to show them to the ICC," said Alwab. "They are free to contact us."
The fierce shellfire that has pounded Misrata since late February has kept ICC investigators away, and the indictments so far requested deal with crimes elsewhere in Libya.
The documents were saved when lawyers supporting the rebellion told protesters who broke into army bases and police stations to protect the buildings against arson. Elsewhere in the rebel-held parts of Libya, such buildings have been completely destroyed along with their contents.
Government forces who surrender to the rebels are searched, and any documents they carry are preserved in case they can be used as evidence.
Alwab said that he believed Gaddafi's forces had not been ordered to destroy documents because they had not expected to be overrun.
Sir Geoffrey Nice, the former lead prosecutor of Slobodan Milosevic at The Hague, writes in the Observer: "When the citizens of Misrata made the decision not to burn the archive left to them, they were certainly serving history well."
Gaddafi continues to show defiance to Nato, greeting another night of heavy bombing of Tripoli by broadcasting a furious message through the capital's public address system.
"Nato will be defeated," he yelled in a hoarse voice that was piped across the city. Within minutes, the emotive tones of the speech were mixed with the sound of automatic gunfire and car horns from supporters across the city.
In a sign of the growing desperation felt by Libya's opposition, Ali Tarhouni, the rebel finance minister, said that they had almost run out of cash.
International loans have failed to materialise and continued fighting has made it impossible to repair damaged oil installations that halted production in April. "We don't have any [cash]. We are running out of everything," he told the Reuters news agency. "It's a complete failure. Either they [Western nations] don't understand or they don't care."
Nato has yet to find an answer to the Libyan dictator's defiance, with missiles continuing to fall on Misrata. "It is unfortunately still the case that pro-Gaddafi forces continue to show shocking determination to harm the Libyan people," said Oana Lungescu, a Nato spokeswoman.
"It is hard to imagine the end to attacks on civilians while the pro-Gaddafi regime is still in power."
Residents of Misrata hoped for just such an ending last week, when Nato leafleted government lines around the city with lurid pictures of Apache helicopters and warning of dire retribution if the bombardment continued.
Since then, the bombardment has only intensified. On the streets of the shell-shattered city, journalists are now asked at regular intervals by the frightened populace: "Where is Nato?"
[/h] Rebels find documents implicating Libyan leader in war crimes, and hold them for International Criminal Court investigators
- Chris Stephen, Misrata
- guardian.co.uk, Saturday 18 June 2011 21.30 BST
- Documents implicating Muammar Gaddafi in war crimes have been found, claim Libyan rebels. Photograph: Keystone/Rex
Thousands of documents that reveal in chilling detail orders from Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's senior generals to bombard and starve the people of Misrata have been gathered by war crimes investigators and are being kept at a secret location at the besieged Libyan port.
The documents, some of which the Observer has seen, will form damning evidence in any future war crimes trial of the Libyan leader at the International Criminal Court. The court's prosecutors are expected to travel to the city to view the documents once the daily bombardments have ceased.
One document shows the commanding general of government forces instructing his units to starve Misrata's population during the four-month siege. The order, from Youssef Ahmed Basheer Abu Hajar, states bluntly: "It is absolutely forbidden for supply cars, fuel and other services to enter the city of Misrata from all gates and checkpoints." Another document instructs army units to hunt down wounded rebel fighters, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Plans to bombard the city are also in the archive, say investigators, who also claim they have a message from Gaddafi relayed to the troops ordering that Misrata be obliterated and the "blue sea turned red" with the blood of the inhabitants. The documents are expected to form a crucial element of any trial against Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam and his intelligence chief Abdullah Senussi if, as is expected, ICC judges confirm indictments for war crimes and crimes against humanity that are demanded by its chief prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo.
They represent a landmark in international justice because no significant war crimes trial in the short history of international courts has had access to documents directly implicating the lead players in the commission of war crimes.
"From what we have here, the case is already proved," Khalid Alwab, a Misrata war crimes investigator, told the Observer. "All the evidence is here. Signed and stamped." The documents have yet to be revealed to the ICC, according to the 60-strong team of Libyan lawyers who brave daily shelling to collect evidence from the city. "We are ready to show them to the ICC," said Alwab. "They are free to contact us."
The fierce shellfire that has pounded Misrata since late February has kept ICC investigators away, and the indictments so far requested deal with crimes elsewhere in Libya.
The documents were saved when lawyers supporting the rebellion told protesters who broke into army bases and police stations to protect the buildings against arson. Elsewhere in the rebel-held parts of Libya, such buildings have been completely destroyed along with their contents.
Government forces who surrender to the rebels are searched, and any documents they carry are preserved in case they can be used as evidence.
Alwab said that he believed Gaddafi's forces had not been ordered to destroy documents because they had not expected to be overrun.
Sir Geoffrey Nice, the former lead prosecutor of Slobodan Milosevic at The Hague, writes in the Observer: "When the citizens of Misrata made the decision not to burn the archive left to them, they were certainly serving history well."
Gaddafi continues to show defiance to Nato, greeting another night of heavy bombing of Tripoli by broadcasting a furious message through the capital's public address system.
"Nato will be defeated," he yelled in a hoarse voice that was piped across the city. Within minutes, the emotive tones of the speech were mixed with the sound of automatic gunfire and car horns from supporters across the city.
In a sign of the growing desperation felt by Libya's opposition, Ali Tarhouni, the rebel finance minister, said that they had almost run out of cash.
International loans have failed to materialise and continued fighting has made it impossible to repair damaged oil installations that halted production in April. "We don't have any [cash]. We are running out of everything," he told the Reuters news agency. "It's a complete failure. Either they [Western nations] don't understand or they don't care."
Nato has yet to find an answer to the Libyan dictator's defiance, with missiles continuing to fall on Misrata. "It is unfortunately still the case that pro-Gaddafi forces continue to show shocking determination to harm the Libyan people," said Oana Lungescu, a Nato spokeswoman.
"It is hard to imagine the end to attacks on civilians while the pro-Gaddafi regime is still in power."
Residents of Misrata hoped for just such an ending last week, when Nato leafleted government lines around the city with lurid pictures of Apache helicopters and warning of dire retribution if the bombardment continued.
Since then, the bombardment has only intensified. On the streets of the shell-shattered city, journalists are now asked at regular intervals by the frightened populace: "Where is Nato?"
Rutashubanyuma
JF-Expert Member
- Sep 24, 2010
- 219,468
- 911,184
Tatizo la waasi ni kuwategemea wazungu kuikomboa nchi yao na badala ya kubuni mikakati ya wao wenyewe kumalizana na Gadaffi......watamshinda kadaffi lakini nchi yao itazama zaidi katika kuwategemea magharibi kwa kila kitu.....................................NOT YET UHURU for Mother Afrika.......................................that is what I can jab today...................
TUJITEGEMEE
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 6, 2010
- 25,225
- 25,488
[h=1]Canada went into Libya with lofty ideals and little knowledge[/h]JEFFREY SIMPSON
Last updated Wednesday, Jun. 15, 2011 1:37PM EDT
As so often happens in war, what began as a campaign with an initial, limited objective has escalated to something larger that takes longer to achieve and at greater cost.
Countries such as Canada that entered the Libyan civil war to defend civilians from dictator Moammar Gadhafi, without any stated intention to replace him, now insist that only his removal will suffice. What started therefore as a humanitarian mission now is clearly a political one, backed by daily pounding from NATO bombs, and intelligence agents on the ground: regime change.
But regime change to what? Libya is a country of sorts, an authoritarian state overlaying a multiplicity of tribes, some of which are loyal to Colonel Gadhafi, others fiercely hostile to him. If NATO succeeds in dislodging him, no one knows what kind of arrangements might arise to hold these tribes together. Put another way, it has not been easy to remove Col. Gadhafi from power – the new NATO objective – but when that removal occurs, putting durable government arrangements together in his stead might be more onerous still.
This reality, of course, seemed to dawn on NATO, and on the Canadian government, long after the decision was taken to intervene. In Canada's case, after all, we knew next-to-nothing about the complexities of Libya, and so, as with our entry into Afghanistan almost a decade ago, began military action with lofty ideals but scant actual knowledge. Our pilots began flying bombing missions, so that figuratively and literally speaking, our representatives in uniform were observing Libya from the air without knowing much about the peoples and societies down below.
When, therefore, the House of Commons got around to debating the Libyan campaign, as it did Tuesday, the level of even elementary understanding of the country that our planes are bombing could politely be described as limited, but more accurately described as non-existent.
Canada went along principally because our traditional allies felt something should be done to stop Col. Gadhafi from killing some of his opponents, perhaps on a mass scale, in the eastern part of the country. The British and French seemed keenest on this humanitarian objective, whereas the Americans were initially cool, perhaps because they were already engaged militarily in two other Muslim countries, and also perhaps because the now-villainous Col. Gadhafi has been a valuable ally in the "war on terror."
That the U.S. government is also broke occurred to a few Americans, too. Predictably, the Americans are doing much of the heavy lifting in the campaign, and are none too happy about some of their NATO allies doing little or nothing, starting with Germany.
The Germans wanted no part of this NATO mission sanctioned by the United Nations. Having campaigned very successfully for a seat on the Security Council (beating Canada handily), Germany promptly took a pass on the first UN-authorized military mission, a rather ignominious beginning for a country that wants a permanent Security Council seat.
In bombing Tripoli extensively, NATO is obviously hoping that Col. Gadhafi will either be killed or forced into exile. NATO's friends, if that is the word, would seem to be all those who oppose him: tribes in eastern Libya and secularists, Western-oriented businessmen and former Guantanamo inmates, loosely grouped in something called the National Council, who seem to have more in common about what they oppose than what to build post-Gadhafi.
It is all very well, as some MPs argued yesterday, for Canada and the NATO countries to send aid to Libya once Col. Gadhafi is removed, but we have seen repeatedly that such aid commitments – be it for AIDS, Afghanistan or climate change – fall far short of early pledges. And apart from the very likely shortfall of actual aid, whatever money is offered will be far less consequential than whether the tribes of Libya can manufacture some consensus post-Gadhafi.
Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, there is no appetite to keep sizable military forces on the ground in Libya to provide stability during regime change. Therefore, we have unleashed air power that eventually, one presumes, will replace the existing regime with another, without any idea of what will come next, and no willingness to help shape it.
Published on Wednesday, Jun. 15, 2011 2:00AM EDT
Chanzo:Opinion - The Globe and Mail
Last updated Wednesday, Jun. 15, 2011 1:37PM EDT
As so often happens in war, what began as a campaign with an initial, limited objective has escalated to something larger that takes longer to achieve and at greater cost.
Countries such as Canada that entered the Libyan civil war to defend civilians from dictator Moammar Gadhafi, without any stated intention to replace him, now insist that only his removal will suffice. What started therefore as a humanitarian mission now is clearly a political one, backed by daily pounding from NATO bombs, and intelligence agents on the ground: regime change.
But regime change to what? Libya is a country of sorts, an authoritarian state overlaying a multiplicity of tribes, some of which are loyal to Colonel Gadhafi, others fiercely hostile to him. If NATO succeeds in dislodging him, no one knows what kind of arrangements might arise to hold these tribes together. Put another way, it has not been easy to remove Col. Gadhafi from power – the new NATO objective – but when that removal occurs, putting durable government arrangements together in his stead might be more onerous still.
This reality, of course, seemed to dawn on NATO, and on the Canadian government, long after the decision was taken to intervene. In Canada's case, after all, we knew next-to-nothing about the complexities of Libya, and so, as with our entry into Afghanistan almost a decade ago, began military action with lofty ideals but scant actual knowledge. Our pilots began flying bombing missions, so that figuratively and literally speaking, our representatives in uniform were observing Libya from the air without knowing much about the peoples and societies down below.
When, therefore, the House of Commons got around to debating the Libyan campaign, as it did Tuesday, the level of even elementary understanding of the country that our planes are bombing could politely be described as limited, but more accurately described as non-existent.
Canada went along principally because our traditional allies felt something should be done to stop Col. Gadhafi from killing some of his opponents, perhaps on a mass scale, in the eastern part of the country. The British and French seemed keenest on this humanitarian objective, whereas the Americans were initially cool, perhaps because they were already engaged militarily in two other Muslim countries, and also perhaps because the now-villainous Col. Gadhafi has been a valuable ally in the "war on terror."
That the U.S. government is also broke occurred to a few Americans, too. Predictably, the Americans are doing much of the heavy lifting in the campaign, and are none too happy about some of their NATO allies doing little or nothing, starting with Germany.
The Germans wanted no part of this NATO mission sanctioned by the United Nations. Having campaigned very successfully for a seat on the Security Council (beating Canada handily), Germany promptly took a pass on the first UN-authorized military mission, a rather ignominious beginning for a country that wants a permanent Security Council seat.
In bombing Tripoli extensively, NATO is obviously hoping that Col. Gadhafi will either be killed or forced into exile. NATO's friends, if that is the word, would seem to be all those who oppose him: tribes in eastern Libya and secularists, Western-oriented businessmen and former Guantanamo inmates, loosely grouped in something called the National Council, who seem to have more in common about what they oppose than what to build post-Gadhafi.
It is all very well, as some MPs argued yesterday, for Canada and the NATO countries to send aid to Libya once Col. Gadhafi is removed, but we have seen repeatedly that such aid commitments – be it for AIDS, Afghanistan or climate change – fall far short of early pledges. And apart from the very likely shortfall of actual aid, whatever money is offered will be far less consequential than whether the tribes of Libya can manufacture some consensus post-Gadhafi.
Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, there is no appetite to keep sizable military forces on the ground in Libya to provide stability during regime change. Therefore, we have unleashed air power that eventually, one presumes, will replace the existing regime with another, without any idea of what will come next, and no willingness to help shape it.
Published on Wednesday, Jun. 15, 2011 2:00AM EDT
Chanzo:Opinion - The Globe and Mail
NATO acknowledges civilian deaths in Tripoli strike
NATO acknowledged responsibility for an air strike that killed civilians in Tripoli on Sunday.
"...a military missile site was the intended target of air strikes in Tripoli last night," a NATO statement said.
"However, it appears that one weapon did not strike the intended target and that there may have been a weapons system failure which may have caused a number of civilian casualties."
NATO acknowledges civilian deaths in Tripoli strike | News by Country | Reuters
YouTube - ‪Cynthia McKinney: Obama's So Called Humanitarian Aid to Libya is A Disaster 2/2‬‏
NATO acknowledged responsibility for an air strike that killed civilians in Tripoli on Sunday.
"...a military missile site was the intended target of air strikes in Tripoli last night," a NATO statement said.
"However, it appears that one weapon did not strike the intended target and that there may have been a weapons system failure which may have caused a number of civilian casualties."
NATO acknowledges civilian deaths in Tripoli strike | News by Country | Reuters
YouTube - ‪Cynthia McKinney: Obama's So Called Humanitarian Aid to Libya is A Disaster 2/2‬‏
Last edited by a moderator:
Huyo Cynthia McKinney anaweka ripoti zake hapa.
Twitter
http://www.answercoalition.org/national/news/why-the-nato-powers-are-trying-to-kill-gaddafi.html
http://www.answercoalition.org/national/news/why-the-nato-powers-are-trying-to-kill-gaddafi.html
Tembelea hapa ujisomee.
From Cynthia McKinney: More NATO "Humanitarian Intervention:" The Bombing of Al Fateh University, Campus B | Facebook
More on that later, but briefly, every Libyan is a member of a tribe and every tribe governs itself and selects its leaders; those leaders from all of the tribes then select their leaders, and so on until there is only one leader of all of the tribes of Libya. I met that one tribal leader yesterday in another part of Tripoli and I am told he is the real leader of this country. He presides over the Tribal Council which constitutes Libya's real policymakers. So when the young man said "We are one family," that is actually the truth.
I am told that in the surrounding area immediately outside the university others were not so fortunate.
Reports are that there were deaths in the nearby houses.
It's a funny thing about war. Those who cause war become oblivious and removed from its consequences; they seem happy to inflict harm on others and become numb to its ill effects while war's victims find a way to normalize the abnormal and live with the constant threat of death and destruction.
After visiting Tripoli, I remain as opposed to war as ever before.
The students at Al Fateh University continue their studies despite the siege that their country is under.
And oh, that second group of students that I randomly spoke to? I asked them how much they pay for tuition. They looked at me with puzzled faces even after the translation. I asked them how much they pay for their books. Again, the same puzzled face. Tuition at Al Fateh University is 16 dinars per year--about $9. And due to the NATO embargo on gasoline imports, the school now has started 10 free bus lines to its surrounding areas in order to make sure that the students can get to school, free of charge.
I told them that I was about to enter a Ph.D. program in the US myself and that I needed tuition and book money costing tens of thousands of dollars. I continued that my cousin is in debt $100,000 because she went to the schools of her choice and received a Master's degree.
They said to me, "We thank Muammar Qaddafi. Because of Muammar Qaddafi we have free education. Allah, Muammar, Libya obes!"
Well as for NATO, they still cling to the chimera that their strikes are against military targets only and that theirs is a "humanitarian intervention."
From Cynthia McKinney: More NATO "Humanitarian Intervention:" The Bombing of Al Fateh University, Campus B | Facebook
More on that later, but briefly, every Libyan is a member of a tribe and every tribe governs itself and selects its leaders; those leaders from all of the tribes then select their leaders, and so on until there is only one leader of all of the tribes of Libya. I met that one tribal leader yesterday in another part of Tripoli and I am told he is the real leader of this country. He presides over the Tribal Council which constitutes Libya's real policymakers. So when the young man said "We are one family," that is actually the truth.
I am told that in the surrounding area immediately outside the university others were not so fortunate.
Reports are that there were deaths in the nearby houses.
It's a funny thing about war. Those who cause war become oblivious and removed from its consequences; they seem happy to inflict harm on others and become numb to its ill effects while war's victims find a way to normalize the abnormal and live with the constant threat of death and destruction.
After visiting Tripoli, I remain as opposed to war as ever before.
The students at Al Fateh University continue their studies despite the siege that their country is under.
And oh, that second group of students that I randomly spoke to? I asked them how much they pay for tuition. They looked at me with puzzled faces even after the translation. I asked them how much they pay for their books. Again, the same puzzled face. Tuition at Al Fateh University is 16 dinars per year--about $9. And due to the NATO embargo on gasoline imports, the school now has started 10 free bus lines to its surrounding areas in order to make sure that the students can get to school, free of charge.
I told them that I was about to enter a Ph.D. program in the US myself and that I needed tuition and book money costing tens of thousands of dollars. I continued that my cousin is in debt $100,000 because she went to the schools of her choice and received a Master's degree.
They said to me, "We thank Muammar Qaddafi. Because of Muammar Qaddafi we have free education. Allah, Muammar, Libya obes!"
Well as for NATO, they still cling to the chimera that their strikes are against military targets only and that theirs is a "humanitarian intervention."
Last edited by a moderator:
TUJITEGEMEE
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 6, 2010
- 25,225
- 25,488
Libya war costs challenge UK govt.
Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:15AM
The British government will have to spend much more on NATO's military invasion of Libya than what was initially estimated, a minister has said.
Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander said the cost of the UK's military involvement in Libya will run into the hundreds of millions, British media reported.
Alexander's estimate contradicts those of his boss Chancellor George Osborne, who has estimated the cost will be no more than tens of millions.
When Britain launched an invasion against Libya in March, as part of the NATO military campaign Osborne told the House of Commons that the UK's involvement would cost 'in the order of tens of millions of pounds, not hundreds of millions'.
But, Alexander, a Liberal Democrat MP, said the bill was rising as the campaign goes on. He insisted, however, that the money would come from reserves, rather than other spending.
The campaign is costing tens of millions, potentially into the hundreds of millions as it goes on, but that money is coming from the reserve that we have set aside, precisely for contingencies such as this, he said.
It doesn't have an effect on any other spending, on any other public services. Of course there is a very powerful moral case for the action we are taking in Libya, it's right that we find those resources precisely from the contingency reserve that we have, said Alexander.
The British government is increasing becoming divided over the costs of the conflict amid internal pressures the people are enduring as a result of the government's economic policies.
It is worrying that Danny Alexander seems to be guessing about current costs, which are dramatically more than George Osborne originally predicted, said Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy said.
We support the mission in Libya but the government need to be clearer on the costs, he said.
The question is why the UK authorities who had had ample reserves to spend on another war, they designed austerity measures which are having an impact on every aspects of the citizens' life.
This comes as the head of the Royal Navy warned last week that Britain's defences will be at risk if the war drags on for another three months.
First Sea lord Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope said the Fleet would only be able to fight for 90 days more before it has to make serious cuts in firepower elsewhere.
The war is currently costing around £6 million a week, and a fortnight ago it was estimated that Britain's bill for the campaign has already reached £75 million.
PressTV - Libya war costs challenge UK govt.
Sidhani kama "Cameron" kama atapewa kipindi cha pili cha uongozi kwa maamuzi haya Libya,na kuwalazimisha waingereza kufunga mikanda
Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:15AM
The British government will have to spend much more on NATO's military invasion of Libya than what was initially estimated, a minister has said.
Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander said the cost of the UK's military involvement in Libya will run into the hundreds of millions, British media reported.
Alexander's estimate contradicts those of his boss Chancellor George Osborne, who has estimated the cost will be no more than tens of millions.
When Britain launched an invasion against Libya in March, as part of the NATO military campaign Osborne told the House of Commons that the UK's involvement would cost 'in the order of tens of millions of pounds, not hundreds of millions'.
But, Alexander, a Liberal Democrat MP, said the bill was rising as the campaign goes on. He insisted, however, that the money would come from reserves, rather than other spending.
The campaign is costing tens of millions, potentially into the hundreds of millions as it goes on, but that money is coming from the reserve that we have set aside, precisely for contingencies such as this, he said.
It doesn't have an effect on any other spending, on any other public services. Of course there is a very powerful moral case for the action we are taking in Libya, it's right that we find those resources precisely from the contingency reserve that we have, said Alexander.
The British government is increasing becoming divided over the costs of the conflict amid internal pressures the people are enduring as a result of the government's economic policies.
It is worrying that Danny Alexander seems to be guessing about current costs, which are dramatically more than George Osborne originally predicted, said Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy said.
We support the mission in Libya but the government need to be clearer on the costs, he said.
The question is why the UK authorities who had had ample reserves to spend on another war, they designed austerity measures which are having an impact on every aspects of the citizens' life.
This comes as the head of the Royal Navy warned last week that Britain's defences will be at risk if the war drags on for another three months.
First Sea lord Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope said the Fleet would only be able to fight for 90 days more before it has to make serious cuts in firepower elsewhere.
The war is currently costing around £6 million a week, and a fortnight ago it was estimated that Britain's bill for the campaign has already reached £75 million.
PressTV - Libya war costs challenge UK govt.
Sidhani kama "Cameron" kama atapewa kipindi cha pili cha uongozi kwa maamuzi haya Libya,na kuwalazimisha waingereza kufunga mikanda
TUJITEGEMEE
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 6, 2010
- 25,225
- 25,488
SWC to stage anti-Libya war protest
Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:14AM
Londoners are to protest on June 28, demonstrating their outrage against the interference of the UK government in Libya war leading to the death of scores of Libyan civilians.
Stop the War Coalition announced that the "Stop Bombing Libya "demonstration will be staged on Tuesday June 28 at Downing Street. The UK's main anti-war Campaign have urged all the anti-Libya war protesters to descend to the London streets forcing the UK government to step aside from the bloody war in Libya imposed by the NATO state members.
Stop the War rejected the British media's agenda, claiming that the NATO's airstrikes were planned to protect civilians, and that the coalition governments have entered into the war only to free the Libyan people from Gaddafi's crimes against humanity.
However, it believes that "the main aim of the NATO intervention is to place in power a government subordinate to the Western powers."
Britain has been playing an important role in the Libya war, providing aircraft, ships, and military personnel for the air strikes launched by the Western coalition to oust the Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi and change the regime accordingly.
Analysts repeatedly declared that the British government had not learned lessons from the past decade's interventionist wars, since the military interference is not the immediate answer to what the Libyan anti-government protesters have been looking for.
Press TV
Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:14AM
Londoners are to protest on June 28, demonstrating their outrage against the interference of the UK government in Libya war leading to the death of scores of Libyan civilians.
Stop the War Coalition announced that the "Stop Bombing Libya "demonstration will be staged on Tuesday June 28 at Downing Street. The UK's main anti-war Campaign have urged all the anti-Libya war protesters to descend to the London streets forcing the UK government to step aside from the bloody war in Libya imposed by the NATO state members.
Stop the War rejected the British media's agenda, claiming that the NATO's airstrikes were planned to protect civilians, and that the coalition governments have entered into the war only to free the Libyan people from Gaddafi's crimes against humanity.
However, it believes that "the main aim of the NATO intervention is to place in power a government subordinate to the Western powers."
Britain has been playing an important role in the Libya war, providing aircraft, ships, and military personnel for the air strikes launched by the Western coalition to oust the Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi and change the regime accordingly.
Analysts repeatedly declared that the British government had not learned lessons from the past decade's interventionist wars, since the military interference is not the immediate answer to what the Libyan anti-government protesters have been looking for.
Press TV
TUJITEGEMEE
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 6, 2010
- 25,225
- 25,488
[h=2]SUNDAY, JUNE 19, 2011[/h][h=3]NATO's Terror Over Tripoli[/h]
NATO slowly admits what the Libyan government has said all along.
by Tony Cartalucci
Bangkok, Thailand June 19, 2011 -
The NATO excursion into Libya started withdisingenuous humanitarian concerns translated into a no-fly zone, which incrementally transitioned into attacks on Qaddafi's ground forces, targeted assassinations against Qaddafi himself, then talk of destroying civilian infrastructure and a full-out ground invasion. NATO declared mid-May that it would be "increasing the range of targets" it could hit, including "government infrastructure." With a residential area hit and NATO playing dumb over its role in murdering the very civilians it is supposedly protecting, it appears they made good on their promise.
One must wonder if "R2P" holds true, who will round up NATO and send them to the Hague? ICC's failure to act further undermines its already nonexistent legitimacy.
....
The key to Qaddafi's long reign, his survival and resistance in the face of NATO's relentless attacks is the support he garners from his own people. While the mainstream media preys on the ignorance of its audience, those who took the time to examine the demographics of Libya would realize the current fighting is split along traditional tribal lines where animosity has existed, and in fact been funded and fostered by the West for at least three decades. With NATO incapable of handing their inept terrorist stooges on the ground the country with airstrikes alone, it appears they are attempting the same terroristic "shock and awe" tactics used against Iraq to break the will of the population with overwhelming violence.
Reports of civilian casualties owed to NATO strikes have been filtering out for weeks. Commonsense dictates the impossibility of dropping high explosive ordnance in the middle of a densely populated city without incurring considerable "collateral damage." However the corporate-owned media dismissed Libyan accounts of such murder and mayhem with a complete whitewash of NATO's terror over Tripoli. A ridiculous AP story titled, "Libyan regime accused of exaggerating casualties," claims that doctors dropped secret notes for reporters to read claiming many of the deaths the government was reporting were from road accidents rather than NATO's admitted bombardment of the nation's populous capital city.
Just before NATO itself had to admit it did indeed drop ordnance in a residential area, media outlets, who have built the entire case against Libya with unverified reports from less than objective sources (the rebels), attempted to downplay the "alleged" claims of the Libyan government. Slate made sure in a recent article to remind readers that, "the Libyan governments claims of civilian casualties have been exaggerated in the past." We must assume a doctor dropped Slate a secret note as well, for Slate makes no attempt to verify their assertion.
It has been previously noted how much is riding on the war against Libya. The very credibility of the the emerging international order and the primacy of international law is at stake, so says the corporate-funded Brookings Institution in their February report, "Libya's Test of the New International Order."Any and all methods to depose Qaddafi and hand the nation over to their globalist stooges will be attempted with the prospect of full-scale invasion a very real possibility. Failure for the global-elite would put an end to their gambits world-wide, signaling to struggling sovereign nations that resistance is not futile.
In many ways, though, NATO's Libyan excursion is already an absolute failure; a failure to garner wide support for the operation even amongst other NATO countries, a failure to sell the war to the public, and a failure to maintain a moral high ground they never possessed in the first place but in the lofty imaginations of their corporate-owned media networks. The clock is ticking and so the terror over Tripoli will only intensify. The global-elite and think tanks like the Brookings Institution are still selling the "R2P" or "responsibility to protect" doctrine as their reason for meddling in Libya. Not only is this confounding considering the violence they are supposedly attempting to mediate and stop was in fact started by them over the course of 30 years in the first place, it is also confounding when considering they themselves are now butchering Libya's civilian population.
source>>Land Destroyer
NATO slowly admits what the Libyan government has said all along.
by Tony Cartalucci
Bangkok, Thailand June 19, 2011 -
The NATO excursion into Libya started withdisingenuous humanitarian concerns translated into a no-fly zone, which incrementally transitioned into attacks on Qaddafi's ground forces, targeted assassinations against Qaddafi himself, then talk of destroying civilian infrastructure and a full-out ground invasion. NATO declared mid-May that it would be "increasing the range of targets" it could hit, including "government infrastructure." With a residential area hit and NATO playing dumb over its role in murdering the very civilians it is supposedly protecting, it appears they made good on their promise.
One must wonder if "R2P" holds true, who will round up NATO and send them to the Hague? ICC's failure to act further undermines its already nonexistent legitimacy.
....
The key to Qaddafi's long reign, his survival and resistance in the face of NATO's relentless attacks is the support he garners from his own people. While the mainstream media preys on the ignorance of its audience, those who took the time to examine the demographics of Libya would realize the current fighting is split along traditional tribal lines where animosity has existed, and in fact been funded and fostered by the West for at least three decades. With NATO incapable of handing their inept terrorist stooges on the ground the country with airstrikes alone, it appears they are attempting the same terroristic "shock and awe" tactics used against Iraq to break the will of the population with overwhelming violence.
Reports of civilian casualties owed to NATO strikes have been filtering out for weeks. Commonsense dictates the impossibility of dropping high explosive ordnance in the middle of a densely populated city without incurring considerable "collateral damage." However the corporate-owned media dismissed Libyan accounts of such murder and mayhem with a complete whitewash of NATO's terror over Tripoli. A ridiculous AP story titled, "Libyan regime accused of exaggerating casualties," claims that doctors dropped secret notes for reporters to read claiming many of the deaths the government was reporting were from road accidents rather than NATO's admitted bombardment of the nation's populous capital city.
Just before NATO itself had to admit it did indeed drop ordnance in a residential area, media outlets, who have built the entire case against Libya with unverified reports from less than objective sources (the rebels), attempted to downplay the "alleged" claims of the Libyan government. Slate made sure in a recent article to remind readers that, "the Libyan governments claims of civilian casualties have been exaggerated in the past." We must assume a doctor dropped Slate a secret note as well, for Slate makes no attempt to verify their assertion.
It has been previously noted how much is riding on the war against Libya. The very credibility of the the emerging international order and the primacy of international law is at stake, so says the corporate-funded Brookings Institution in their February report, "Libya's Test of the New International Order."Any and all methods to depose Qaddafi and hand the nation over to their globalist stooges will be attempted with the prospect of full-scale invasion a very real possibility. Failure for the global-elite would put an end to their gambits world-wide, signaling to struggling sovereign nations that resistance is not futile.
In many ways, though, NATO's Libyan excursion is already an absolute failure; a failure to garner wide support for the operation even amongst other NATO countries, a failure to sell the war to the public, and a failure to maintain a moral high ground they never possessed in the first place but in the lofty imaginations of their corporate-owned media networks. The clock is ticking and so the terror over Tripoli will only intensify. The global-elite and think tanks like the Brookings Institution are still selling the "R2P" or "responsibility to protect" doctrine as their reason for meddling in Libya. Not only is this confounding considering the violence they are supposedly attempting to mediate and stop was in fact started by them over the course of 30 years in the first place, it is also confounding when considering they themselves are now butchering Libya's civilian population.
source>>Land Destroyer
Rungu
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 23, 2007
- 3,932
- 1,726
NATO denies attack helicopter shot down in Libya
21.06.2011 17:38
NATO denied a Libyan government claim that one of its Apache helicopters was shot down, but did say contact was lost with an unmanned drone helicopter, DPA reported.
Libyan state television aired footage of what it claimed was a NATO Apache helicopter that had been shot down in Zleitan, 180 kilometres east of the capital Tripoli.
However, the alliance "received reports that an unmanned autonomous helicopter drone, used by NATO forces, lost radar contact with the command centre," a NATO spokesperson in Brussels said.
"This drone helicopter was performing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance over Libya to monitor pro-Gaddafi forces threatening the civilian population," he added.
NATO has been carrying out airstrikes targeting Moamer Gaddafi's forces and aiming to protect civilians since late March.
Source:
21.06.2011 17:38
NATO denied a Libyan government claim that one of its Apache helicopters was shot down, but did say contact was lost with an unmanned drone helicopter, DPA reported.
Libyan state television aired footage of what it claimed was a NATO Apache helicopter that had been shot down in Zleitan, 180 kilometres east of the capital Tripoli.
However, the alliance "received reports that an unmanned autonomous helicopter drone, used by NATO forces, lost radar contact with the command centre," a NATO spokesperson in Brussels said.
"This drone helicopter was performing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance over Libya to monitor pro-Gaddafi forces threatening the civilian population," he added.
NATO has been carrying out airstrikes targeting Moamer Gaddafi's forces and aiming to protect civilians since late March.
Source:
TUJITEGEMEE
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 6, 2010
- 25,225
- 25,488
"Najua kuna baadhi mahojiano haya watayaona kama propaganda dhidi ya NATO"
The US, more than other member nations, is financially supporting the failing NATO effort in Libya because it finds NATO "essential for operations in Afghanistan," a former US official says.
Press TV has conducted an interview with former Pentagon officer, Michael Maloof to get his views on the number of casualties in Libya.
Press TV: The Western media has accused the Libyan government of exaggerating the numbers, but does that seem viable now? Common sense dictates that if you drop an ordinance in the middle of a crowded residential area there are going to be civilian casualties, aren't there?
Maloof: Yes, the entire NATO effort is running into some very serious problems. It is killing innocent people and to my understanding they were keeping an eye on the facility for at least a few days before they actually bombed it, knowing that it was a family compound, and that there were women and children there.
So there is absolutely no excuse for what occurred, and indeed, the whole NATO effort now seems to be hitting more civilians now. I think it's drifting from what its intended purpose was. NATO efforts should stop and there should be efforts to try and sit down with Gaddafi and talk to him, if he'll talk. At this point chances are that he won't.
It looks like the NATO initiative is failing and is squabbling within NATO itself, and that's not conducive to effort on their part. I think that in time the UN is going to have to step in and do something about this. Particularly the Arab League, in trying to get something accomplished at this point.
Press TV: Let's look at some interesting statements made by US Defense Secretary Robert Gates in terms of NATO's budget. He told a very respected news media outlet that the US supports 25 percent of NATO's budget. Just a few weeks ago he said that the US alone supported 75 percent of NATO's budget. Then when recently speaking about the war on Libya, he said that "from our standpoint at the Pentagon, we are involved in a limited kinetic operation." Can you expand on these statements?
Maloof: Limited "kinetic operation" means that the US is only providing a supportive role, and that we're using explosives and providing a lot of armament supply to other NATO countries, particularly Britain and France, who are quickly running out of ordinance to continue their bombing activities.
I think Gates is quite concerned about the future of NATO, and that NATO itself is really unsure about what its future role is going to be. Even the Germans have not participated in this effort in Libya, because they do not find it to be in their national interests. There has been some trade-off behind the scenes to get more German assistance in Afghanistan.
Press TV: Why do you think NATO's Secretary General Andres Fogh Rasmussen boasts about NATO as he does when he says "NATO is more needed than ever in Afghanistan to Kosovo, to the coasts of Somalia and Libya. We are more busy than ever before," when we find that only seven to eight countries are contributing to NATO at this point in Libya.
Maloof: This is the big debate. What is NATO's role going to be? The US finds that NATO is absolutely essential for operations in Afghanistan, as it is very questionable what it is doing in Libya right now. NATO is still an organization trying to find its mission in a post-Cold War era, and it's upsetting the Russians and the Chinese.
The US is supporting NATO to a much larger degree than the other countries, and when a number of the countries start pulling out, it really shows the disintegration of the future of NATO.
Press TV
The US, more than other member nations, is financially supporting the failing NATO effort in Libya because it finds NATO "essential for operations in Afghanistan," a former US official says.
Press TV has conducted an interview with former Pentagon officer, Michael Maloof to get his views on the number of casualties in Libya.
Press TV: The Western media has accused the Libyan government of exaggerating the numbers, but does that seem viable now? Common sense dictates that if you drop an ordinance in the middle of a crowded residential area there are going to be civilian casualties, aren't there?
Maloof: Yes, the entire NATO effort is running into some very serious problems. It is killing innocent people and to my understanding they were keeping an eye on the facility for at least a few days before they actually bombed it, knowing that it was a family compound, and that there were women and children there.
So there is absolutely no excuse for what occurred, and indeed, the whole NATO effort now seems to be hitting more civilians now. I think it's drifting from what its intended purpose was. NATO efforts should stop and there should be efforts to try and sit down with Gaddafi and talk to him, if he'll talk. At this point chances are that he won't.
It looks like the NATO initiative is failing and is squabbling within NATO itself, and that's not conducive to effort on their part. I think that in time the UN is going to have to step in and do something about this. Particularly the Arab League, in trying to get something accomplished at this point.
Press TV: Let's look at some interesting statements made by US Defense Secretary Robert Gates in terms of NATO's budget. He told a very respected news media outlet that the US supports 25 percent of NATO's budget. Just a few weeks ago he said that the US alone supported 75 percent of NATO's budget. Then when recently speaking about the war on Libya, he said that "from our standpoint at the Pentagon, we are involved in a limited kinetic operation." Can you expand on these statements?
Maloof: Limited "kinetic operation" means that the US is only providing a supportive role, and that we're using explosives and providing a lot of armament supply to other NATO countries, particularly Britain and France, who are quickly running out of ordinance to continue their bombing activities.
I think Gates is quite concerned about the future of NATO, and that NATO itself is really unsure about what its future role is going to be. Even the Germans have not participated in this effort in Libya, because they do not find it to be in their national interests. There has been some trade-off behind the scenes to get more German assistance in Afghanistan.
Press TV: Why do you think NATO's Secretary General Andres Fogh Rasmussen boasts about NATO as he does when he says "NATO is more needed than ever in Afghanistan to Kosovo, to the coasts of Somalia and Libya. We are more busy than ever before," when we find that only seven to eight countries are contributing to NATO at this point in Libya.
Maloof: This is the big debate. What is NATO's role going to be? The US finds that NATO is absolutely essential for operations in Afghanistan, as it is very questionable what it is doing in Libya right now. NATO is still an organization trying to find its mission in a post-Cold War era, and it's upsetting the Russians and the Chinese.
The US is supporting NATO to a much larger degree than the other countries, and when a number of the countries start pulling out, it really shows the disintegration of the future of NATO.
Press TV