Libya taunts UK over rebel leader death

K

killadoob

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 30, 2004
Messages
46,571
Reaction score
17
Location
South Africa.
It has been claimed the former Libyan government minister was shot by an Islamist militia linked to the rebels.

A Libyan government spokesman said the incident showed the UK government had made a mistake by recognising the rebel council as the sole authority in Libya.

He said it was "a nice slap to the face of the British" that the rebels were unable to protect their army chief.

On Saturday, the rebels' Oil Minister, Ali Tarhouni, told reporters in Benghazi that a leader of the Obaida Ibn Jarrah Brigade had provided information on the circumstances of Gen Younes's death.

But he did not provide a motive for the killing, which he said was still being investigated.

On Wednesday, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said the UK would recognise the Libyan National Transitional Council of the rebels as the "sole governmental authority", as it expelled Gaddafi-regime diplomats from the UK.

Gen Younes and two aides were killed by gunmen after being recalled from the front line of fighting.

Hundreds of mourners carried a coffin containing the general's body into Benghazi's main square on Friday.

Col Muammar Gaddafi's government in Tripoli said the killing was proof the rebels were not capable of ruling Libya.
'Nice slap to face'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14351722

They could be lying but this is a very interesting development, rebels killing each other :eek:. If this is true it shows without a doubt that nato have no idea who they got into bed with.
 
killadoob said:
It has been claimed the former Libyan government minister was shot by an Islamist militia linked to the rebels.

A Libyan government spokesman said the incident showed the UK government had made a mistake by recognising the rebel council as the sole authority in Libya.

He said it was "a nice slap to the face of the British" that the rebels were unable to protect their army chief.

On Saturday, the rebels' Oil Minister, Ali Tarhouni, told reporters in Benghazi that a leader of the Obaida Ibn Jarrah Brigade had provided information on the circumstances of Gen Younes's death.

But he did not provide a motive for the killing, which he said was still being investigated.

On Wednesday, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said the UK would recognise the Libyan National Transitional Council of the rebels as the "sole governmental authority", as it expelled Gaddafi-regime diplomats from the UK.

Gen Younes and two aides were killed by gunmen after being recalled from the front line of fighting.

Hundreds of mourners carried a coffin containing the general's body into Benghazi's main square on Friday.

Col Muammar Gaddafi's government in Tripoli said the killing was proof the rebels were not capable of ruling Libya.
'Nice slap to face'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14351722

They could be lying but this is a very interesting development, rebels killing each other :eek:. If this is true it shows without a doubt that nato have no idea who they got into bed with.
Click to expand...

:D Hell yes, even the rebels themselves are perhaps starting to realize they are fighting for the wrong side.

I hope Gaddaffi and his regime pull through and regain what is rightfully theirs so this unnecessary blood shed for oil can stop. -- Unlikely but I really hope they make it through.
 
VioAdmin said:
:D Hell yes, even the rebels themselves are perhaps starting to realize they are fighting for the wrong side.

I hope Gaddaffi and his regime pull through and regain what is rightfully theirs so this unnecessary blood shed for oil can stop. -- Unlikely but I really hope they make it through.
Click to expand...

Oh I wouldn't worry too much. I'm sure Kadaffy will end up in an orange jump suit or with a rope around his neck in the near future. Hopefully both! :D
 
I am surprised that this kark has lasted so long,this guy must just step down but because he is power(for americans oil hungry) hungry people are getting killed :(
 
Looks like this threads heading for another w@nc fest of the 'any enemy of the evil white west is a friend of mine' types.
 
Shibal said:
Looks like this threads heading for another w@nc fest of the 'any enemy of the evil white west is a friend of mine' types.
Click to expand...

Hope "Not So" But I'll volunteer for free - for a job that makes sure that Libya's Petro dollars go into education, public benefit, etc!
Hell! I'll even volunteer for a job (no payment necessary! Will score off the tenders! - damn! How do I get the "grin" icon")!
Ok jokes aside " get me a job with the Hawks" & I promise your grandmother will be able to shop in Hillbrow/Lens/Soweto/CT/ Dbn agter 8pm!
 
killadoob said:
If this is true it shows without a doubt that nato have no idea who they got into bed with.
Click to expand...

I think NATO are having 2nd thoughts about the ME fiasco. They had to do something about Kaddafi (he was killing innocent civilians) but no matter what they do, they are going to be castigated by the Arab world. Lose/lose. Hence they are staying clear of Syria, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, etc. (there are also strategic issues at stake). Waste money, their citizen’s lives and be criticized for fighting other people’s battles? What a waste of effort! Just stay neutral and let the ME solve its own problems. Libya caught everyone by surprise. That a leader could slaughter his own citizens. NATO learnt its lesson – interfering in ME problems. The citizens (of other countries watching) learnt that rebelling against a dictator/butcher carries its own risks.
 
Bahrain was slaughtering their own citizens before qaddafi apparently did so, yet no bahrain attack, the saudi's even helped barhain keep the protests down much like syria is doing but that was OK.

I don't buy this BS story of wanting to help the people or they would have helped bahrain. Seems odd that so many still support qaddafi after he supposedly slaughtered them.

I could also list about 7 african countries where things are even worse yet i see no nato in those countries helping and i wonder why? Why libya out of all the countries before it that have been in a much worse situation? Explain that to me please?

Nato cannot pull out it will be an embarrassment and they cannot send in troops, so all they can do is bomb libya to death and hope qaddafi gives up which he won't so they have always lost the war, they are just too stubborn to admit it.
 
killadoob said:
Bahrain was slaughtering their own citizens before qaddafi apparently did so, yet no bahrain attack, the saudi's even helped barhain keep the protests down much like syria is doing but that was OK.
Click to expand...

Qaddafi is insane (I recall this opinion by journalists in the 1970’s). He was slaughtering his own citizens and the Arab’s requested NATO assistance – hence NATO involvement. Bahrain and Saudi leadership are Sunni – hence Saudi assistance (tribal). There are NO Arab requests for assistance and NATO is still smarting from Arab criticism over Iraq. They won’t move without Arabs climbing onboard. There are also strategic considerations by the US (a heavy NATO funder) in Bahrain and Saudi, made at a different time with a different geopolitical picture. Interference at that time would have the Arab world squealing.
 
So they went into libya on the word of some unknown rebels? who could turn out to be worse for the west than qaddafi?

What exactly is nato trying to achieve now? Qaddafi still going, rebels are doing OK so what exactly is nato's plan for liyba in the next year? Continue destroying it? Do you see a land invasion? Russia was burnt by nato so they would veto any plans and so would china which leaves nato with no option for a land invasion unless i am mistaken, so moving forward i cannot see an end to the bombing and the all i see is years of Libyan suffering at the hands of the people who are suppose to be protecting them.

They need to go in and find qaddafi, i cannot see any other option.
 
Last edited:
killadoob said:
So they went into libya on the word of some unknown rebels?
Click to expand...

It wasn’t on the word of some ‘unknown rebels’. Several Arab nations acceded. I don’t recall all of them but Qatar was one.

Note: You seem under the impression that I’m a big fan of NATO. I’m not. I’m just correcting the biased crap you’re spewing.
 
Palimino said:
It wasn’t on the word of some ‘unknown rebels’. Several Arab nations acceded. I don’t recall all of them but Qatar was one.

Note: You seem under the impression that I’m a big fan of NATO. I’m not. I’m just correcting the biased crap you’re spewing.
Click to expand...

Biased crap? Biased is allowing bahrain to slaughter people while you attack libya for the same reason. I don't see you as a fan of nato. I am also wondering how they move forward. I don't have an issue with them attacking libya my issue is how they are going about it.

Why is there no ground offensive? Why did france break an international treaty and supply the rebels with weapons? All i am wondering is why they attacked libya when many countries before libya needed help? why did they break the resolution set out before the attack and why are we allowing countries to break arms treaties?

You talk about biased but all i see is bias in libya. I have no issues with the war but it strikes me as odd why there is no ground offensive and why they are not helping other countries in worse a situation?
 
killadoob said:
Why is there no ground offensive? Why did france break an international treaty and supply the rebels with weapons? All i am wondering is why they attacked libya when many countries before libya needed help? why did they break the resolution set out before the attack and why are we allowing countries to break arms treaties?
Click to expand...

Ground offensive – the Arab’s are especially against Western ‘boots on the ground’. Before the West has casualties fighting someone else’s battles, they want good reasons why (for e.g. Egypt) the Arab’s can’t solve their own messes, put their own troops on the ground and absorb their own casualties..

France always went their own way. During the cold war America forced a loyalty quid pro quo on Europe. France was the perennial fly-in-the-ointment and didn’t walk in lockstep with America. They were nuclear mavericks with their force de frappe and refused to be part of cosy nuclear agreements between Britain, America and Russia because they refused to be party to ‘arrangements’. They acted solely in their own interest.

I also suspect they may want to set a precedent for unilateral action in the Arab world for when Algeria and Morocco rebels. They never got over losing them.
 
"Before the West has casualties fighting someone else’s battles,"

So rather bomb them into submission than lose troops? Perhaps if they dropped a nuke qaddafi might change his mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X