Showing posts with label Kaddafi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kaddafi. Show all posts

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Muammar Gaddafi killed in Libya

20 October 2011 Last updated at 12:38 ET


BBC's Gabriel Gatehouse in Sirte: "I have spoken to the man who says that he captured him... he was brandishing a golden pistol"

Libya's ex-leader Col Muammar Gaddafi has been killed after an assault on his birthplace of Sirte, officials say.

National Transitional Council (NTC) Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril told a news conference in Tripoli it was time to launch a new, united Libya.

Col Gaddafi was toppled in August after 42 years in power.

The interim authorities plan to announce Libya "liberated" before indicating the next steps towards democratic elections.

Mr Jibril said NTC forces were now pursuing Saif al-Islam, Col Gaddafi's most prominent son, who fled Sirte in a convoy before Sirte fell.

Golden gun

After a day of conflicting reports and rumours, Mr Jibril told the news conference: "We have been waiting for this moment for a long time. Muammar Gaddafi has been killed."

A video grab from al-Jazeera TV apparently showing Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's corpseAl-Jazeera TV broadcast footage it says showed Col Gaddafi's body

World leaders welcomed the news, urging the NTC to carry through its promise to reform the country.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron, who had taken a leading role in the Nato intervention, said it was "a day to remember all of Col Gaddafi's victims".

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called it a "historic" moment, but warned: "The road ahead for Libya and its people will be difficult and full of challenges."

Earlier, grainy video footage circulated among NTC fighters appearing to show Col Gaddafi's corpse.

The video shows a large number of NTC fighters yelling in chaotic scenes around a khaki-clad body, which has blood oozing from the face and neck.

Another video broadcast by al-Jazeera TV showed a body being dragged through the streets which the channel said was that of Col Gaddafi.

An NTC fighter told the BBC he found Col Gaddafi hiding in a hole in Sirte, and the former leader begged him not to shoot.

The fighter showed reporters a golden pistol he said he had taken from Col Gaddafi.

Arabic TV channels showed images of troops surrounding two large drainage pipes where the reporters said Col Gaddafi was found.

'Saif surrounded'

NTC supporters gathered in towns and cities to celebrate the reports of the colonel's death.

Groups of young men fired guns in the air, and drivers honked horns in celebration.

His death came after weeks of fierce fighting for Sirte, one of the last remaining pockets of resistance.

Nato, which has been running a bombing campaign in Libya for months, said it had carried out an air strike earlier on Thursday that hit two pro-Gaddafi vehicles near Sirte.

It was unclear whether the strikes were connected with Col Gaddafi's death.

Mr Jibril promised that National Transitional Council (NTC) chief Mustafa Abdul Jalil would give more details of how Col Gaddafi was killed either late on Thursday or during Friday.

He said Mr Abdul Jalil would also officially announce the "liberation of the country", allowing the NTC to begin pushing through democratic reforms that will lead to elections.

"I think it's for the Libyans to realise that it's time to start a new Libya, a united Libya, one people, one future," Mr Jibril said.

He also told the news conference that NTC forces had surrounded Saif al-Islam's convoy.

There are also rumours that another of the colonel's sons, Mutassim, was killed in Sirte.

At the scene

Driving into the centre of Tripoli, there are throngs of people out on the streets - men, women and children - many hugging each other and chanting. Gunshots can be heard firing into the air - despite a religious edict banning the practice. Car horns are blaring and many vehicles have their emergency lights blinking.

At some checkpoints, security officials are handing out what have been dubbed "revolutionary mints" and biscuits.

All the flags are out. People are genuinely convinced this is the end of Col Gaddafi. They felt that even in hiding he posed a threat to the revolution - but for them this news means the authorities can now start to rebuild the country.


Source


Sunday, September 11, 2011

Interpol issues arrest notice for Gaddafi

From: AAP      
 Interpol secretary-general Ronald Noble


September 09, 20117:03PM
WORLD police body Interpol has called for the arrest of fugitive former Libyan leader Mummar Gaddafi for his alleged crimes against humanity, following a request by the International Criminal Court (ICC).   
Interpol said it had issued a "red notice" for the arrest of Gaddafi, his son Seif al-Islam and his intelligence chief Abdullah al-Senussi, one day after ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo asked for the agency's help.

The international police organisation asked its 188 member countries "to take all measures consistent with their national laws to help the ICC locate and apprehend Gaddafi".

The "request for Interpol 'red notices' will significantly restrict the ability of all three men to cross international borders and is a powerful tool to help in their location and arrest," Interpol secretary-general Ronald Noble said.

"Gaddafi is a fugitive whose country of nationality and the International Criminal Court want arrested and held accountable for the serious criminal charges that have been brought against him," Noble said.
A "red notice" by the international police co-operation agency, which is based in the central French city of Lyon, seeks the arrest for an extradition or surrender of a person to an international court based on an arrest warrant.

On June 27, ICC judges agreed to Moreno-Ocampo's request for arrest warrants against Gaddafi, 69, Seif al-Islam, 39, and Senussi, 62, for crimes against humanity committed by Libyan troops on their orders, using "lethal force" to quell the uprising against his regime. Interpol secretary-general Ronald Noble

Source

Friday, September 02, 2011

Is Kaddafi the New bin Laden?

Let's all remember that before Kaddafi was enemy number one there was Osama Bin Laden.
We can also remember that before that Kaddafi was an off again and on again enemy of the United States.

How is that for an accurate comparison?

Besides falling from grace again, Moamar Kaddafi has gone through a name spelling change, just like bin Laden did before him. The same way that Peking is now Beijing, and Bombay is now Mumbai; The Colonel's name is now spelled Muammar Gaddafi. Osama bin Laden's name was also transformed from its original accepted English spelling to Uzama or Ozama bin Ladin.

What's with all these spelling updates? Are we trying to fool the Spelling Bee candidates?

Anyway, I wonder if Kaddafi is the new bogeyman now that Osama bin Laden has been bagged and buried at sea? ('as prescribed by Muslim traditions'). Speaking of Muslims: I can remember when the accepted spelling was Moslem, and I believe that before my school days it was Musulman. Well, the word Muslim is now pronounced Mooslim by many political correctness experts. Also, Afghanistan is now pronounced Af-hawney-stan and Pakistan is Pawki-stan. Well, that's neither here nor there! Yet, I return to the fact that Kaddafi is the new bin Laden (persona non grata): Since the al Qaeda leader is dead, and Syria's Assad is protected by the Russians and Red China; Kaddafi is the new enemy par excellence, until a new detestable countenance can be found. Can you remember 'pineapple face' Noriega? Well until a new Emmanuel Goldstein (target) character can be identified, Kaddafi will be it.

Now let's play the usual game of Hide and Seek.
Ain't this fun?
Ain't this predictable?

Emmanuel Goldstein


Emmanuel Goldstein's ominous face on a telescreen in Michael Radford's 1984 film adaptation. Played by actor John Boswall.


Arsenio.


Emmanuel Goldstein photo source: Wikipedia
.
.

Monday, August 22, 2011

Consequences of Gaddafi’s fall are going to be dramatic

Kudashkina Ekaterina Aug 22, 2011 10:22 Moscow Time


Muammar Gaddafi. Photo: EPA

Download (audio) http://english.ruvr.ru/data/2011/08/19/1255398954/BP%2019_08_11_Mokheifi.MP3

Interview with Dr. Mansouria Mokhefi, head of Middle East and North Africa Studies at the IFRI, the Institute of Foreign Affairs studies in Paris, France.

Just to remind you that the coalition, the Western countries, NATO intervening in North Africa and in Libya had one objective – to have Gaddafi out of Libya. They have to readjust this objective because, obviously, they could not reach it after five months of fighting in Libya and I am not sure that they are really adamant about Gaddafi leaving Libya. This is one thing from the western perspective of NATO countries intervening there. Now, the prime minister is calling for a dialog. Yes, you are absolutely right to ask the question – what kind of dialog, how real could this dialog be, because right now, after five months of this civil war, we have an insurrection which has been supported, financed, armed, encouraged, directed by NATO against the part of the Libyan population that we have never talked about and I mean the people who are still supporting Gaddafi, people who are still loyal to him, people who do not want him to go. I do not see what kind of dialog we can have between these two parties ‑ insurrectionists on one side and the people who are supporting Gaddafi and who do not want him to go. Now, have we until now heard or seen any inclination from Gaddafi that he could leave? None and we know that he has a special personality, that he identifies himself totally to his country, that nothing seems to be foreseeable for him on the side of Libya, so your question about Gaddafi leaving – I cannot see him leave for the reasons I just mentioned. What could be the outcome? Obviously and finally with all the support that we have been getting the rebels are getting closer and closer to the capital. Before talking about the outcome after the victory I think we should first reflect on what is going to happen in Tripoli because once again, as I said and I keep stressing it, there are people who do not want these rebels to lead the country, who are still loyal to Gaddafi, who are against this intervention, and so on, and so forth. Once they get into Tripoli and defeat the loyal army and dismantle the government, then we will have to face new war leaders of Libya and first to figure out who they are really because we do not know.

Do you remember several weeks ago Mr. Gaddafi’s son seemed to have proposed something that looked at least like a legitimate solution to carry out the election?

He offered, yes, but the other part dismissed every offer from Gaddafi because, as I said earlier in this interview, their only aim, their only objective was to get rid of Gaddafi. Actually, I suspect that there has been no reflection, no analysis, no vision about what could be the outcome besides just getting rid of Gaddafi. So, that is why they dismissed everything that could have been leading to the beginning of negotiations or something like that. But now, after five months of the stalemate that we have been witnessing, maybe the solution can come from both parts. I was calling for dialog, for negotiations that involving the international community or a part of it. Africa is very involved in this; the African countries, especially the close neighbors are very concerned by this whole situation. Let me remind you also that there is a major neighbor in the area that is the only military power – I am talking about Algeria which has been very upset by the recent developments of the past five months in Libya, with the country with which it has a very long border and border that is a matter of concern. So, with so many countries having their interest at stake in this solution it could be a part of political negotiations.

The lack of viable strategy might actually result in the country just falling into parts.

No, I don’t share this very pessimistic opinion and I hope that we will not see this country disintegrating, but we cannot avoid seeing many problems. I do not think that any Western countries would let Libya disintegrate and I think that even the rebels with their own agenda will try to keep the country with any means the way it is now because, of course, we talked the past months about partition. I suspect that the consequences of Gaddafi’s fall are going to be dramatic for the African countries and for the whole power balance of the region.

Could you expand a little bit on that? Dramatic in which sense?

I think that economically it is going to be a disaster for the regional African countries that have been totally helped by Gaddafi, that were sustained the economy with his help and most of investments in those countries are in a way personal investments or business investments which means that they can fall with Gaddafi disappearing from Libya and the countries I am talking about cannot sustain themselves without the Libyan support to their economy. You know that Gaddafi has been in a way given up on his efforts and offers to create many unions with the Arab countries, he was very disappointed and for the past decades he really concentrated all his diplomacy in Africa and, as I said, economically he was very involved. So, economically it is going to be a disaster: the new leaders will not keep the same diplomacy, they will have another agenda and they are not very pleased with some positions that the African countries took concerning this conflict, I mean – they were not for the rebels. Secondly, I mentioned Algeria; I think with all the structural, economic, social problems Algeria is confronting with it remains the major power in the region, the only military force in the area and we should not disregard that Algeria will not allow the disintegration that we talked about or even having the Islamist power at its door. So, Algeria is looking very attentively at the situation because the whole security of the region is at stake. And, of course, I have not mentioned all the benefits that al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb have been taking from this situation and everybody knows that they have been benefiting from the weapons that have been given to the rebels that are probably a part of the action inside Libya and in any case building, reinforcing their parties outside Libya in the whole region and Algeria would not tolerate this.

Source
.


Tuesday, June 21, 2011

All Confused On the Western Front: NATO and Libya's Rebels Don't Jibe

By Steven Sotloff / Misratah Tuesday, June 21, 2011


A heavily damaged street in the rebel-held city of Misrata, Libya on June 13, 2011.
Paul Jeffrey / AFP / Getty Images



"Where is NATO?" the rebel asks, with no small amount of frustration. It is just after midnight, Friday, June 17, and he is holed up in Dafniyah, a hamlet west of the revolutionary enclave of Misratah on the coast of western Libya. Like all the fighters in the dry fields outside the rebel city, Ashrf Ali, 30, had anticipated that the military alliance would launch a bombing campaign in the early hours of the morning last Friday, hitting Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's troops to allow the rebels to push further inland. Instead, NATO planes have merely buzzed the sky in routine reconnaissance and patrol sorties, leaving Ali and his fellow fighters unable to advance.

Throughout parts of Libya under rebel control, people are frustrated with NATO. Between its slow pace of attacks and the errant strikes that have killed rebel fighters, the speculation now is that the Western coalition lacks the resources and resolve to help the rebels topple Gaddafi.

The chief problem plaguing both NATO and the rebels is lack of coordination. Rebel leaders complain that they must jump through hoops to reach NATO officials. Field commanders requesting air strikes and relaying troop movements have no direct communication with the alliance's military command in the region, much less headquarters in Brussels, which must issue the ultimate orders. Instead, they call their senior officers via satellite phone at a rebel command center in Benghazi. The officers then relay the information to NATO officials in the same building, who only then contact Brussels. The byzantine process squanders valuable time in a war where seconds are precious.
(See a setback for NATO.)

Unable to order airstrikes, rebels in the field are forced to wait for unannounced NATO bombings before they can advance. "I never know what to tell my fighters," says Sa'adun Zuwayhli, 29, a field commander in Dafniyah, which is how far the rebels have advanced out of Misratah in their excruciatingly slow advance toward Gaddafi's capital Tripoli. "Advance, retreat, hold — they are all guesses until we see the bombs from NATO," he laments.

The rebels never know when NATO will fly in to their rescue. During a fierce offensive by Gaddafi's forces between June 7 and June 10, one that left more than 70 rebel dead under a barrage of long-range Grad rockets, the soldiers of "Free Libya" waited for a NATO counterattack that never materialized. The coalition's failure to defend the rebels angered their commanders. "NATO is to be blamed for Friday's deaths," Misratah's military council spokesman Ibrahim Bayt al-Mal told journalists. The alliance's officials have responded to such comments in the past by noting that their mandate extends only to protecting civilians, not toppling Gaddafi.

The lack of direct communication between the two sides has left NATO unable to differentiate between Gaddafi's forces and rebel fighters, leading to friendly fire incidents in which rebels were attacked. In April, two errant bombings in the rebel-held areas killed at least 20. Last Saturday, NATO mistakenly targeted a rebel convoy in which at least four were injured. The coalition immediately released a statement explaining that "a particularly complex and fluid battle scenario" led it to believe that the rebel column was a Gaddafi battalion because his forces "had recently been operating" in the area. All three attacks occurred in the area between the cities of Ajdabiyah and Brega in eastern Libya.
(Photos: See Libya's Roman Ruins.)

NATO's explanation, though, did not satisfy rebel leaders. "We are upset when civilians die," explained the rebel's military spokesman in Benghazi Ahmad Bani. Libyans in Misratah were even blunter. "We are fighting against a dictator with advanced weapons. We can't be fighting NATO as well," says Khalid Elaas, 39. "They need to figure out how to run this campaign or the people will be burning pictures of NATO leaders next to those of Gaddafi's."

NATO's actions have left Misratah's rebels not only angry, but puzzled as well. After the military alliance introduced helicopters last week for the first time, it dropped illustrated Arabic leaflets declaring, "NATO forces will take all the steps necessary to destroy the war instruments that threaten civilians." But instead of reaching their intended targets, the leaflets landed in rebel held positions, leaving the fighters there perplexed.

Confusion is the least of the rebels' worries. By the time the sun rises on Friday, Ashrf Ali is exasperated, having waited all night for an offensive that never materialized. "If NATO does not get its act together, this war is never going to end," he complains, as he heads for a nearby canvas tent to get some sleep.

Source: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2078831,00.html#ixzz1PvB7R2d0
.

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Footage shows 'armed Westerners' on ground in Libya

Video footage showing Westerners, possibly British, in Libya has increased speculation that forces are on the ground near the rebel-held city of Misurata.


The footage was shot near the rebel-held city of Misurata Photo: Al Jazeera


9:16AM BST 31 May 2011


The clip broadcast on al-Jazeera features a number of armed men, some wearing sunglasses and keffiyahs, or traditional Arab headscarves, who moved off when they realised they were being watched.

The group of six westerners are shown talking to rebels: five of them were armed and wearing sand-coloured clothes in addition to peaked caps, and cotton Arab scarves.

The sixth, apparently the most senior of the group, was carrying no visible weapon and wore a pink, short-sleeve shirt. He may be an intelligence officer.

The footage emerged after Britain and France said they will deploy attack helicopters over Libya to better pick out pro-Gaddafi forces, further deepening their involvement in the crisis.

Helicopters are more vulnerable to attack from the ground than high-flying warplanes.

Col Muammar Gaddafi denies attacking civilians, saying his forces were obliged to act to contain armed criminal gangs and al Qaeda militants.

He says the NATO intervention is an act of colonial aggression aimed at grabbing Libya's plentiful oil reserves.

Meanwhile Jacob Zuma, the South African president, said Gaddafi is ready to accept an African Union initiative for a cease-fire that would stop all hostilities, including Nato airstrikes in support of rebel forces.

"He is ready to implement the road map", Mr Zuma said.

Mr Zuma said Gaddafi insists that "all Libyans be given a chance to talk among themselves" to determine the country's future. He did not say Gaddafi is ready to step down, which is the central demand of the rebels.

In April, Mr Zuma led a delegation of the African Union to Tripoli with an AU proposal for a truce. Gaddafi said he would accept the truce but quickly ignored it and resumed his attacks, while the rebels rejected the cease-fire out of hand because it did not include Gaddafi's exit from power. Since then many cease-fire efforts have failed for similar reasons.

In Benghazi, the de facto rebel capital, Fathi Baja, the rebel foreign minister, rejected the African Union plan. "We refuse completely, we don't consider it a political initiative, it is only some stuff that Gadhafi wants to announce to stay in power," he said.

He said he believes Mr Zuma is in Tripoli to negotiate an exit strategy for Gaddafi, though Zuma's office denies that. Baja also said the rebels would launch an offensive against Gaddafi soon.

Source
.