The rise and fall of Colonel Muamar Gadaffi
The rise and fall of Colonel Muamar Gadaffi
RAJ PATEL JR
JF-Expert Member
- Sep 8, 2010
- 743
- 169
Let's wait and see! It's hard to believe anyone about what's currently happening in Libya
Webabu
JF-Expert Member
- Apr 29, 2010
- 8,870
- 14,258
Like Osamas while the colonialism creeps to some where else.
Obama amnyime vyandarua????
<br />
<br />
<br />
Kiumbemwanadamu
Member
- Nov 27, 2010
- 32
- 11
We can speak out loudly after Idd el Fitri, This Ghadaffi is in Ramadhan, since the first day of ramadhan he never fight and thats why the rebels advanced. Lets wait and see.
Askari Kanzu
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 7, 2011
- 4,596
- 1,234
Rebels say no firm information on Gaddafi location
Reuters August 28, 2011, 2:16 am
BENGHAZI, Libya (Reuters) - Libya's rebels have no concrete information on the location of Muammar Gaddafi or his sons, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, chairman of the rebel National Transitional Council, said on Saturday. Rebel fighters who took control of the Libyan capital this week say Gaddafi and his sons are in hiding and have offered a $1.3 million reward and amnesty from prosecution for anyone who kills or captures him.
Egypt's state news agency sparked a new round of speculation about his whereabouts when it quoted a Libyan rebel source as saying a convoy of six armoured Mercedes cars which crossed from Libya into Algeria may have been carrying Gaddafi. Rebel officials and fighters have said on several occasions they know where he is and have him cornered, but those assertions have later turned out to be wrong.
"We have no factual report about the whereabouts of Gaddafi and his sons," Abdel Jalil said. Speaking at a news conference, he said the council might consider inviting police officers from Arab or Muslim states to Libya to help with security, but did not want a police presence from any other nations.
He also said that anyone who had worked in a senior position for Gaddafi and had not defected by now to the rebel cause "will not be allowed to have a place in the future Libya, politically speaking."
Rebel commanders were still negotiating with Gaddafi loyalists to try to persuade them to surrender control over the city of Sirte, Gaddafi's home town about 500 km (310 miles) east of Tripoli, Abdel Jalil said.
(Reporting by Emma Farge and Alex Dziadosz; writing by Christian Lowe; editing by Tim Pearce)
Reuters August 28, 2011, 2:16 am
BENGHAZI, Libya (Reuters) - Libya's rebels have no concrete information on the location of Muammar Gaddafi or his sons, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, chairman of the rebel National Transitional Council, said on Saturday. Rebel fighters who took control of the Libyan capital this week say Gaddafi and his sons are in hiding and have offered a $1.3 million reward and amnesty from prosecution for anyone who kills or captures him.
Egypt's state news agency sparked a new round of speculation about his whereabouts when it quoted a Libyan rebel source as saying a convoy of six armoured Mercedes cars which crossed from Libya into Algeria may have been carrying Gaddafi. Rebel officials and fighters have said on several occasions they know where he is and have him cornered, but those assertions have later turned out to be wrong.
"We have no factual report about the whereabouts of Gaddafi and his sons," Abdel Jalil said. Speaking at a news conference, he said the council might consider inviting police officers from Arab or Muslim states to Libya to help with security, but did not want a police presence from any other nations.
He also said that anyone who had worked in a senior position for Gaddafi and had not defected by now to the rebel cause "will not be allowed to have a place in the future Libya, politically speaking."
Rebel commanders were still negotiating with Gaddafi loyalists to try to persuade them to surrender control over the city of Sirte, Gaddafi's home town about 500 km (310 miles) east of Tripoli, Abdel Jalil said.
(Reporting by Emma Farge and Alex Dziadosz; writing by Christian Lowe; editing by Tim Pearce)
Advancing to where? pretty much to beghazi.
Kiumbemwanadamu
Member
- Nov 27, 2010
- 32
- 11
To what they said Tripol and Ghadaffi's home place
Memo
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 17, 2011
- 2,157
- 760
na wama itatoa wapi hela?
Ulevi ni noma...kwa hisani ya watu wa marekani!
Wambandwa
JF-Expert Member
- Dec 3, 2006
- 2,249
- 832
Memo
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 17, 2011
- 2,157
- 760
hahahahaha!
Does he have the sun goggles on covering half of his face?
Gamba la Nyoka
JF-Expert Member
- May 1, 2007
- 7,036
- 9,331
THE HISTORIC ONE AND ONLY ONE ADDRESS EVER BY BROTHER LEADER GHADAFI TO THE UN IN 2009.
[h=1]Reminder to the World: The Dysfunction of the UN, explained by Gaddafi[/h] Posted on 2011/08/27 by Divine Law
Who is Muammar Al-Qadhafi: Read his Speech to the UN General Assembly
We bring to your attention the transcript of Muammar Qadhafi's September 2009 speech to the United Nations General Assembly:
"In the name of the African Union, I would like to greet the members of the General Assembly of the United Nations, and I hope that this meeting will be among the most historic in the history of the world.
In the name of the General Assembly at its sixtyfourth session, presided over by Libya, of the African Union, of one thousand traditional African kingdoms and in my own name, I would like to take this opportunity, as President of the African Union, to congratulate our son Obama because he is attending the General Assembly, and we welcome him as his country is hosting this meeting.
This session is taking place in the midst of so many challenges facing us, and the whole world should come together and unite its efforts to defeat the challenges that are our principal common enemy those of climate change and international crises such as the capitalist economic decline, the food and water crises, desertification, terrorism, immigration, piracy, man-made and natural epidemics and nuclear proliferation. Perhaps influenza H1N1 was a virus created in a laboratory that got out of control, originally being meant as a military weapon. Such challenges also include hypocrisy, poverty, fear, materialism and immorality.
As is known, the United Nations was founded by three or four countries against Germany at the time. The United Nations was formed by the nations that joined together against Germany in the Second World War. Those countries formed a body called the Security Council, made its own countries permanent members and granted them the power of veto.
We were not present at that time. The United Nations was shaped in line with those three countries and wanted us to step into shoes originally designed against Germany. That is the real substance of the United Nations when it was founded over 60 years ago.
That happened in the absence of some 165 countries, at a ratio of one to eight; that is, one was present and eight were absent. They created the Charter, of which I have a copy. If one reads the Charter of the United Nations, one finds that the Preamble of the Charter differs from its Articles. How did it come into existence? All those who attended the San Francisco Conference in 1945 participated in creating the Preamble, but they left the Articles and internal rules of procedures of the so-called Security Council to experts, specialists and interested countries, which were those countries that had established the Security Council and had united against Germany.
The Preamble is very appealing, and no one objects to it, but all the provisions that follow it completely contradict the Preamble. We reject such provisions, and we will never uphold them; they ended with the Second World War. The Preamble says that all nations, small or large, are equal. Are we equal when it comes to the permanent seats? No, we are not equal.
The Preamble states in writing that all nations are equal whether they are small or large. Do we have the right of veto? Are we equal? The Preamble says that we have equal rights, whether we are large or small.
That is what is stated and what we agreed in the Preamble. So the veto contradicts the Charter. The permanent seats contradict the Charter. We neither accept nor recognize the veto.
The Preamble of the Charter states that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest. That is the Preamble that we agreed to and signed, and we joined the United Nations because we wanted the Charter to reflect that. It says that armed force shall only be used in the common interest of all nations, but what has happened since then? Sixty-five wars have broken out since the establishment of the United Nations and the Security Council 65 since their creation, with millions more victims than in the Second World War. Are those wars, and the aggression and force that were used in those 65 wars, in the common interest of us all? No, they were in the interest of one or three or four countries, but not of all nations.
We will talk about whether those wars were in the interest of one country or of all nations. That flagrantly contradicts the Charter of the United Nations that we signed, and unless we act in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations to which we agreed, we will reject it and not be afraid not to speak diplomatically to anyone. Now we are talking about the future of the United Nations. There should be no hypocrisy or diplomacy because it concerns the important and vital issue of the future of the world. It was hypocrisy that brought about the 65 wars since the establishment of the United Nations.
The Preamble also states that if armed force is used, it must be a United Nations force thus, military intervention by the United Nations, with the joint agreement of the United Nations, not one or two or three countries using armed force. The entire United Nations will decide to go to war to maintain international peace and security. Since the establishment of the United Nations in 1945, if there is an act of aggression by one country against another, the entire United Nations should deter and stop that act.
If a country, Libya for instance, were to exhibit aggression against France, then the entire Organization would respond because France is a sovereign State Member of the United Nations and we all share the collective responsibility to protect the sovereignty of all nations. However, 65 aggressive wars have taken place without any United Nations action to prevent them. Eight other massive, fierce wars, whose victims number some 2 million, have been waged by Member States that enjoy veto powers. Those countries that would have us believe they seek to maintain the sovereignty and independence of peoples actually use aggressive force against peoples. While we would like to believe that these countries want to work for peace and security in the world and protect peoples, they have instead resorted to aggressive wars and hostile behaviour. Enjoying the veto they granted themselves as permanent members of the Security Council, they have initiated wars that have claimed millions of victims.
The principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of States is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. No country, therefore, has the right to interfere in the affairs of any Government, be it democratic or dictatorial, socialist or capitalist, reactionary or progressive. This is the responsibility of each society; it is an internal matter for the people of the country concerned. The senators of Rome once appointed their leader, Julius Caesar, as dictator because it was good for Rome at that time. No one can say of Rome at that time that it gave Caesar the veto.
The veto is not mentioned in the Charter.
We joined the United Nations because we thought we were equals, only to find that one country can object to all the decisions we make. Who gave the permanent members their status in the Security Council? Four of them granted this status to themselves. The only country that we in this Assembly elected to permanent member status in the Security Council is China. This was done democratically, but the other seats were imposed upon us undemocratically through a dictatorial procedure carried out against our will, and we should not accept it."
[h=1]Reminder to the World: The Dysfunction of the UN, explained by Gaddafi[/h] Posted on 2011/08/27 by Divine Law
Who is Muammar Al-Qadhafi: Read his Speech to the UN General Assembly
We bring to your attention the transcript of Muammar Qadhafi's September 2009 speech to the United Nations General Assembly:
"In the name of the African Union, I would like to greet the members of the General Assembly of the United Nations, and I hope that this meeting will be among the most historic in the history of the world.
In the name of the General Assembly at its sixtyfourth session, presided over by Libya, of the African Union, of one thousand traditional African kingdoms and in my own name, I would like to take this opportunity, as President of the African Union, to congratulate our son Obama because he is attending the General Assembly, and we welcome him as his country is hosting this meeting.
This session is taking place in the midst of so many challenges facing us, and the whole world should come together and unite its efforts to defeat the challenges that are our principal common enemy those of climate change and international crises such as the capitalist economic decline, the food and water crises, desertification, terrorism, immigration, piracy, man-made and natural epidemics and nuclear proliferation. Perhaps influenza H1N1 was a virus created in a laboratory that got out of control, originally being meant as a military weapon. Such challenges also include hypocrisy, poverty, fear, materialism and immorality.
As is known, the United Nations was founded by three or four countries against Germany at the time. The United Nations was formed by the nations that joined together against Germany in the Second World War. Those countries formed a body called the Security Council, made its own countries permanent members and granted them the power of veto.
We were not present at that time. The United Nations was shaped in line with those three countries and wanted us to step into shoes originally designed against Germany. That is the real substance of the United Nations when it was founded over 60 years ago.
That happened in the absence of some 165 countries, at a ratio of one to eight; that is, one was present and eight were absent. They created the Charter, of which I have a copy. If one reads the Charter of the United Nations, one finds that the Preamble of the Charter differs from its Articles. How did it come into existence? All those who attended the San Francisco Conference in 1945 participated in creating the Preamble, but they left the Articles and internal rules of procedures of the so-called Security Council to experts, specialists and interested countries, which were those countries that had established the Security Council and had united against Germany.
The Preamble is very appealing, and no one objects to it, but all the provisions that follow it completely contradict the Preamble. We reject such provisions, and we will never uphold them; they ended with the Second World War. The Preamble says that all nations, small or large, are equal. Are we equal when it comes to the permanent seats? No, we are not equal.
The Preamble states in writing that all nations are equal whether they are small or large. Do we have the right of veto? Are we equal? The Preamble says that we have equal rights, whether we are large or small.
That is what is stated and what we agreed in the Preamble. So the veto contradicts the Charter. The permanent seats contradict the Charter. We neither accept nor recognize the veto.
The Preamble of the Charter states that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest. That is the Preamble that we agreed to and signed, and we joined the United Nations because we wanted the Charter to reflect that. It says that armed force shall only be used in the common interest of all nations, but what has happened since then? Sixty-five wars have broken out since the establishment of the United Nations and the Security Council 65 since their creation, with millions more victims than in the Second World War. Are those wars, and the aggression and force that were used in those 65 wars, in the common interest of us all? No, they were in the interest of one or three or four countries, but not of all nations.
We will talk about whether those wars were in the interest of one country or of all nations. That flagrantly contradicts the Charter of the United Nations that we signed, and unless we act in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations to which we agreed, we will reject it and not be afraid not to speak diplomatically to anyone. Now we are talking about the future of the United Nations. There should be no hypocrisy or diplomacy because it concerns the important and vital issue of the future of the world. It was hypocrisy that brought about the 65 wars since the establishment of the United Nations.
The Preamble also states that if armed force is used, it must be a United Nations force thus, military intervention by the United Nations, with the joint agreement of the United Nations, not one or two or three countries using armed force. The entire United Nations will decide to go to war to maintain international peace and security. Since the establishment of the United Nations in 1945, if there is an act of aggression by one country against another, the entire United Nations should deter and stop that act.
If a country, Libya for instance, were to exhibit aggression against France, then the entire Organization would respond because France is a sovereign State Member of the United Nations and we all share the collective responsibility to protect the sovereignty of all nations. However, 65 aggressive wars have taken place without any United Nations action to prevent them. Eight other massive, fierce wars, whose victims number some 2 million, have been waged by Member States that enjoy veto powers. Those countries that would have us believe they seek to maintain the sovereignty and independence of peoples actually use aggressive force against peoples. While we would like to believe that these countries want to work for peace and security in the world and protect peoples, they have instead resorted to aggressive wars and hostile behaviour. Enjoying the veto they granted themselves as permanent members of the Security Council, they have initiated wars that have claimed millions of victims.
The principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of States is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. No country, therefore, has the right to interfere in the affairs of any Government, be it democratic or dictatorial, socialist or capitalist, reactionary or progressive. This is the responsibility of each society; it is an internal matter for the people of the country concerned. The senators of Rome once appointed their leader, Julius Caesar, as dictator because it was good for Rome at that time. No one can say of Rome at that time that it gave Caesar the veto.
The veto is not mentioned in the Charter.
We joined the United Nations because we thought we were equals, only to find that one country can object to all the decisions we make. Who gave the permanent members their status in the Security Council? Four of them granted this status to themselves. The only country that we in this Assembly elected to permanent member status in the Security Council is China. This was done democratically, but the other seats were imposed upon us undemocratically through a dictatorial procedure carried out against our will, and we should not accept it."
X-PASTER
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 12, 2007
- 11,605
- 1,843
'Mass Grave' Found In Libya After Massacre
Sky's chief correspondent Stuart Ramsay has seen evidence of a mass grave near Tripoli after as many as 150 people were reportedly massacred.
He said he had counted as many as 53 executed bodies in a burnt-out warehouse.
Ramsay was shown the burnt out warehouse where eyewitnesses who escaped the massacre said people were murdered on August 23 and 24.
He said he had also seen the bodies of two soldiers, with their hands tied behind their backs.
"Locals believe they refused to fire on the people being held inside the warehouse, and were then murdered," he said.
Salim lives nearby and heard shouting and gunfire at the farm building which he said was next door to a military base.
He said that as many as 150 civilians were killed but around ten people escaped.
Salim said that the military had not allowed anyone to enter the building recently. but that local residents investigated after the military left.
He said he believed the massacre was carried out by pro-Gaddafi forces.
The discovery of the mass grave came as fears started to grow about the humanitarian situation in Libya.
Earlier, dozens of dead bodies were found at a hospital near Tripoli.
They were patients apparently abandoned in their beds at the Abu Salim building when fighting broke out last week.
Most of the victims were men and several had been shot, according to reports.
Witnesses described seeing the decomposing bodies piled up in the building.
It was unclear when the men died or who killed them, but reports said they had darker skin than most Libyans. Gaddafi had recruited fighters from sub-Saharan Africa
International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell told Sky News that the reports from the hospital were "appalling".
"We will hold to account anyone, on either side, who commits atrocities," he said.
Mr Mitchell said that the International Criminal Court would be the correct place for dealing with those accused of war crimes.
The news came as Britain announced it would fund surgical teams and medicines to help up to 5,000 wounded Libyans.
Food and household essentials will also be supplied to almost 690,000 others.
The assistance will be provided by the International Committee of the Red Cross with support from the Department for International Development.
More to follow...
Last edited by a moderator:
Askari Kanzu
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 7, 2011
- 4,596
- 1,234
It seems like both sides, the rebels and Gaddafi loyalists, have committed reprehensible, abominable, and heinous crimes against humanity!
Bujibuji Simba Nyamaume
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 4, 2009
- 76,107
- 160,001
Ngoja waungu wapele UKRISTO pale mapepo, na majini yakimbie
Gamba la Nyoka
JF-Expert Member
- May 1, 2007
- 7,036
- 9,331
si bora wangekuwa na huo ukiristo ingekuwa afadhali!, hawa ni madhalimu wasio na utu hata kidogo!
Azimio Jipya
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 27, 2007
- 3,362
- 1,133
... Such thing could in no way be avoided!!