Originally posted by kato
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
No Fly Zone for Libya?
Collapse
X
-
sigpic
-
Originally posted by Dago View PostAnd wasn't the disco bombing in Germany?
Four of the five people involved in the bombing (three Germans, one Palestinian, one Libyan) received sentences of 12 to 14 years each in a German court ruling in 2001 and are all sitting in jail right now. The fifth, one of the two German women, was acquitted for lack of evidence. At least two of the perps - the other woman and her Lebanese-German ex-husband - were actually proven double agents of East-German domestic intelligence services turned by the Libyan intelligence.
All non-US victims were compensated in a mutual settlement with Gaddafi in 2004, with the relatives of the dead Turkish woman receiving one million bucks, the seriously injured receiving 350 grand and the lightly injured 190 grand each.
The US victims - the two dead and some eighty injured - were compensated by US court ruling and - irrespective of degree of victimization - cashed in a flat 8 million Dollar each in 2008, when Bush signed the Libya Claims Resolution Act.Last edited by kato; 09 Mar 11,, 02:20.
Comment
-
Actually, the local groups were pretty free on their target decision.
For the Berlin attack, there were five possible targets evaluated by the group: The LaBelle discotheque, a McDonalds restaurant, an US Military Base, a US Military Hospital and the American Consulate in Berlin. LaBelle was decided on as the easiest target to hit quickly (was actually only #3 on the evaluated list), since the attack was a direct reaction to the sinking of two Libyan ships by the US Navy ten days earlier.
Comment
-
Originally posted by kato View PostActually, the local groups were pretty free on their target decision.
For the Berlin attack, there were five possible targets evaluated by the group: The LaBelle discotheque, a McDonalds restaurant, an US Military Base, a US Military Hospital and the American Consulate in Berlin. LaBelle was decided on as the easiest target to hit quickly (was actually only #3 on the evaluated list), since the attack was a direct reaction to the sinking of two Libyan ships by the US Navy ten days earlier.Last edited by Dago; 09 Mar 11,, 03:40.sigpic
Comment
-
Hague defends botched Libya mission
The Times - Wednesday, March 9
William Hague blamed a “serious misunderstanding” with rebel leaders for the botched diplomatic mission to eastern Libya as recriminations flew around Whitehall.
The Foreign Secretary insisted that the anti-Gaddafi council in Benghazi had welcomed the idea of meeting British diplomats, as he defended his decision to authorise the operation. It ended with the two MI6 officials and their six special forces “bodyguards” from the Special Boat Service being withdrawn after they were detained for two days by armed Libyan farmers.
Diplomatic and defence sources blamed the “mindset” of the special forces for surprising locals with a drop-off by helicopter under cover of darkness instead of deploying from HMS Cumberland in Benghazi harbour.
However, other officials pinned blame on an intelligence and diplomatic failure for misjudging conditions on the ground. “We have not had our finest hour,” one Whitehall official said.
Mr Hague said that the timing and details of the mission had been “decided by the professionals”, but added that he took full ministerial responsibility. The Prime Minister was aware that it was going ahead. Mr Hague told the Commons that he would shortly send in another team of diplomats, but “on a very different basis”.
A poll for The Times today shows that there is significant support among voters for Britain to take a leading role in the Libyan crisis. Almost half back military intervention on humanitarian grounds and a clear majority support help for refugees regardless of their country of origin.
In the Commons, Mr Hague was taunted from both sides of the chamber for the failings of the weekend mission. Sir Menzies Campbell, the former Liberal Democrat leader, said it had been “ill conceived, poorly planned and embarrassingly executed”.
Douglas Alexander, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, said the failed mission raised further questions about Mr Hague’s response to events in Libya.
Mr Alexander, referring to the night-time helicopter landing, said that voters would wonder, if new neighbours moved in next door to the Foreign Secretary, “whether he would introduce himself by ringing the doorbell or instead choose to climb over the fence in the middle of the night”.
The Special Boat Service team took off in a Chinook from Valetta, Malta, in the early hours of Friday, it emerged yesterday. By the time senior government officials in London had discussed sending diplomats to meet the rebels, the team had already been detained.
However, the Populus poll found that 49 per cent of respondents believe that Britain should be prepared to use military force to prevent foreign regimes from launching attacks against citizens campaigning for freedom. This compares with 45 per cent of respondents who were against such a measure. Liberal Democrats were least in favour, with 50 per cent opposed to intervention.
The poll also found that a big majority supported Britain helping refugees, with 68 per cent in favour and 28 per cent against such a move. This effectively endorsed the mission last week by Andrew Mitchell, the International Development Secretary, to help refugees on the Libyan-Tunisian border.Britain also has an obligation to passport holders working abroad when their safety is threatened by political unrest, according to voters, with 86 per cent in favour and 11 per cent opposed.
Mr Hague said that any no-fly zone would require “a clear legal basis” and support from the region.
.................................................. .................................................. ..
Diplomatic and defence sources blamed the “mindset” of the special forces for surprising locals with a drop-off by helicopter under cover of darkness instead of deploying from HMS Cumberland in Benghazi harbour
“We have not had our finest hour,” one Whitehall official said.
Hague told the Commons that he would shortly send in another team of diplomats, but “on a very different basissigpicFEAR NAUGHT
Should raw analytical data ever be passed to policy makers?
Comment
-
Un tough stand on qaddafi: Exception or rule?
UN WIRE - Monday, March 7
The U.N.'s tough stand on Qaddafi: exception or rule? - By Colum Lynch | Turtle Bay
For the first time, the 15-nation council's major powers had overcome their historic reservations about the Hague-based International Criminal Court (ICC) and joined in a unanimous vote to invite the tribunal's Argentine prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, to investigate possible crimes against humanity perpetrated by Qaddafi's governmentThe U.N.'s old guard, Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela have denounced what it is has described as a U.S. led plot to occupy Libya.the Obama administration's calls for regime change in Libya have fueled suspicions about American, British and French military intentions,sigpicFEAR NAUGHT
Should raw analytical data ever be passed to policy makers?
Comment
-
Originally posted by citanon View PostYour understanding of the situation seems to be quite far removed from reality.
When the rebellion did occur, Army units were more often loyal to local tribal affiliations rather than any centralized command, which is why the Army melted away and then switched sides in the first place.
At best, this could be called a citizen's revolution or a tribal rebellion with military participation. So is it a tribal rebellion?
Look, it's best for all if Gaddafi is gone and I certainly agree with that logic. I don't understand why people fall back on idealistic bullsh*t instead of just being honest with themselves and call a spade a spade.Last edited by rj1; 09 Mar 11,, 18:28.
Comment
-
Courtesy of Stratfor:
As the Libyan crisis enters its third week, the forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi and those affiliated with the newly created National Libyan Council in eastern Libya remain in stalemate. Though the line of control continues to shift back and forth near the oil export facilities around the town of Ras Lanuf, neither side seems capable of pushing through and defeating the other. The opposition has proposed a no-fly zone as a potential solution. The main problem for the countries being asked to implement one (the United States, France, the United Kingdom and Italy would be the main candidates), is that a no-fly zone would not do much to shift the military balance in the rebels' favor. Gadhafi's strength does not lie in the Libyan air force (it is in his conventional military), and the rebels do not appear capable of making any armored push across the desert first to Sirte, and then Tripoli, even were all the fixed-wing aircraft prevented from flight. There are other risks involved in implementing a no-fly zone, which would require first the bombing of Libyan military installations. Hidden anti-aircraft installations or surface-to-air missile sites could down foreign planes, collateral damage could create a public relations incident, and the situation could escalate to the point where getting out would become harder than initially conceived. This, of course, is to say nothing about the potential for unintentionally aiding a rebel force about which the international community knows little, other than the fact that the rebels are predominantly from eastern Libya and oppose Gadhafi's continued rule.Last edited by rj1; 09 Mar 11,, 18:36.
Comment
-
Sounds to me like the main problem the opposition forces are having is a lack of leadership; if they can get their $hit together, they might be able to take Gaddhafi.Last edited by Stitch; 09 Mar 11,, 19:55."There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge
Comment
Comment