LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteYou're right. The article even said MI-6.Originally Posted by Double Edge
No, but one wonders what they had in mind
These guys wrote the book on special ops, something does not make sense here.
MI5 = domestic intel
MI6 = foreign intel
Had to be MI6
Naught naughty Hereford Hooligans, landing unnanounced
Something is definately not right with this whole thing,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The Times - Sunday, March 6
Britain was humiliated last night after Libyan state television broadcast a phone call by a senior British diplomat begging a rebel leader for help to free six SAS soldiers and two diplomats detained by opposition fighters in the east of the country. All eight men have now left Libya and were last night bound for Malta.
Richard Northern, Britain’s Ambassador to Tripoli, who is currently in London because of the unrest, is heard attempting to explain, in stuttering speech, that the Britons were simply trying to find an hotel.
The rebel commander, however, tells him: “They made a big mistake with coming in a helicopter.” The Ambassador replies: “Oh, did they? I didn’t know how they were coming.”
The SAS soldiers and the diplomats they were protecting were a forward party dispatched by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to make contact with rebel leaders and to pave the way for a more high-profile delegation.
However, the covert mission ended in farce as the team was detained shortly after they landed outside the city of Benghazi,a rebel stronghold, unannounced on Friday night.
The men were held under a sort of “house arrest” with mobile phones confiscated until the urgent phone calls between London and the rebel command finally led to them being allowed to travel to the port in Benghazi and board a British frigate yesterday.
In a final blow, the rebels confiscated the team’s helicopter and weapons.
The Foreign Office tried to play down the incident. William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, said that the team “experienced difficulties” but that he planned to send in another group to build relations with the anti-Gaddafi supporters.
The rebels, however, said that they would refuse to speak to any mission that tried to sneak in again instead of establishing normal diplomatic channels.
FEAR NAUGHT
Should raw analytical data ever be passed to policy makers?
You're right. The article even said MI-6.No, but one wonders what they had in mind
These guys wrote the book on special ops, something does not make sense here.
MI5 = domestic intel
MI6 = foreign intel
Had to be MI6
The equivalent of throwing a stone to distract the night watchman?
It does all seem a wee bit hamfisted, doesn't it? My guess is that they made contact with someone, but in all the confusion they either got the wrong someone or that somoene didn't get word to the right people in the right places. Chaos can be a bugger to deal with. Good idea, crap execution.No, but one wonders what they had in mind
These guys wrote the book on special ops, something does not make sense here.
MI5 = domestic intel
MI6 = foreign intel
Had to be MI6
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
The Brits just made fools of themselves. Doing nothing would most llikely have been a better option. Of course, you are assuming that because the US hasn't bumbled into the headlines that Americda is 'idle' & 'inept'. I recall similar criticism during the egypt crisis when it turned out that the administration was working behind the scenes to get the good result that came eventually (not that any outside power gets much credit for what was a largely Egyptian affair).
Also keep in mind that the Brits, as a result of their much-citicized dealings with Libya (I seem to recall some US squealling about it) may actually have beter contacts in Libya than the US does (though this suggests they weren't good enough). Just turning up & saying 'take me to your leader' may not go all that well.
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
T_igger_cs_30, et al,
That is all I needed to hear.
(COMMENT)
We would be foolish to get involved in any fashion (land, sea or air).
We should stay out.
Most Respectfully,
R
For all we know, American SOF or D-boys could already be in Libya assisting the rebels, and we may never find out they were there . . . .
"Yeah. See, we plan ahead, that way we don't do anything right now. Earl explained it to me." - Tremors, 1990
*If you have the collective power to stop civilians from being shot at and bombed in their homes would you not intervine if you had proof beyond the shadow of doubt and the assets in the area to do so?
Thats exactly what those NATO forces assembled are there for "Presence". Also to show Ghadaffi and his forces that the world is watching and will act accordingly. The very same was done in Iraq and other hot spots in the world.
They could/would be there to enforce a No Fly Zone if deemed necessary by the UNSC. And it would not just be US forces as can be seen by the three different nations Carrier groups in the area as recorded on the thread NATO forces gathering north of Libya.
The People are obviously getting tired of tyrants right to rule without their vote and it's slowly becoming more and more visable and not just in Libya or Egypt. Who's next?
The age of endless rule by dictators is slowing starting to shift.
Last edited by Dreadnought; 07 Mar 11, at 17:21.
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.
Hmm, this implies more was going on than we were told. Why create a diversion ? All sorts of possibilites with HMS Cumberland just off shore.
Robin Horsfall, ex-SAS of London's Iran embassy siege fame spun it as identifying and making contact with the opposition. This includes turning themselves in too. He did not see it as a failure at all, in fact mission accomplished.
So the Brits were the sacrficial lambs here then ?
Brits see lots of projects for BP, can't drill in the Gulf of Mexico anymore so have to make up for the shortfall elsewhere. It's in their interest to make good with the opposition there. To be seen as instrumental or very important in helping to transition over to a new govt. There's also potential future orders for arms as well.
Last edited by Double Edge; 07 Mar 11, at 17:23.
If Nato enforce a no fly zone and a vicious civil war breaks out below then its likely Nato will have to intervene with a ground invasion as well. Libya could get quite messy, I believe Al-Qaeda have a substantial presence there.
Can someone tell me why the Arab League don't intervene? Surely an Arab League intervention is the more logical choice. It's an arab country with anti-western terrorist groups, the Arab League intervening instead of the Nato should be the option not the other way around.
If I was Gaddafi I'd call the bluff. What else does he have to lose? I won't believe the world will act til it actually does so. No troops on the ground as the Libyan opposition wants means their capabilities to overthrow Gaddafi are curtailed although I understand their reasoning as I stated in earlier posts. And if the Russians veto UN-sanctioned military action, then a lot of countries are going to have eat crow and go against their statements from the past decade if they still want to provide the opposition military help.
BBC ticker (all times British):
So they want no troops on the ground, but still want the no-fly zone.1714: The BBC's Pascale Harter has been gauging public opinion in the rebel-held city of Benghazi. "The Libyans who want to get rid of Colonel Gaddafi do want a form of outside help and they'll tell you they want it now. The help they want is a no-fly zone to prevent air attacks against them," she says. "In fact, they want to know why the United States and EU aren't already taking steps. After all, they ask, haven't these nations already said Col Gaddafi is using disproportionate force against his own people? What anti-government activists will tell you they do not want are foreign troops on the ground - that would give credence to Col Gaddafi's claim that the unrest is the work of outside forces. And that's why the rebel National Council won credibility by arresting the British special forces mission which arrived on Friday. Their expulsion has boosted the council's reputation, but embarrassed the UK."
1700: The BBC's Barbara Plett, who is at UN headquarters in New York, reports: "A British diplomat has told the BBC that the UK and France has drawn up elements of a UN resolution authorising a no-fly zone in case world leaders decided it is time for such a move. He said this was a contingency measure. There are no current plans to table the resolution or begin negotiations on it. Diplomats here have said possible triggers would be a massive humanitarian emergency in Libya or widespread attacks on civilians. So far, UN bodies have voted with unusual speed and unity for steps against the Libyan government, but there is strong opposition for some Security Council members to military operations such as a no fly zone."
1706: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has reiterated his opposition to military intervention in Libya, the RIA Novosti news agency reports. Russia has the power to veto any resolution on the matter at the UN Security Council.
Because they're feckless.
Wonder if the helicopter is going to be used against Gaddafi in some form or another...Naught naughty Hereford Hooligans, landing unnanounced
Something is definately not right with this whole thing,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The Times - Sunday, March 6
In a final blow, the rebels confiscated the team’s helicopter and weapons.
The Foreign Office tried to play down the incident. William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, said that the team “experienced difficulties” but that he planned to send in another group to build relations with the anti-Gaddafi supporters.
The rebels, however, said that they would refuse to speak to any mission that tried to sneak in again instead of establishing normal diplomatic channels.
I still cannot get my head around this whole thing......as presented it is nothing but a farce and would make a great comedy sitcom along the lines of "It aint alf hot mum" ..............I have read whats out so far and it just does not add up at all .......................
Should raw analytical data ever be passed to policy makers?
How can you establish normal diplomatic channels with a government that is not really a government? Talking to rebels isn't exactly "normal". :DThe rebels, however, said that they would refuse to speak to any mission that tried to sneak in again instead of establishing normal diplomatic channels.
Last edited by rj1; 07 Mar 11, at 21:22.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: