Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Al-Jazeera footage captures 'western troops on the ground' in Libya

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 01:34 PM
Original message
Al-Jazeera footage captures 'western troops on the ground' in Libya
Source: Guardian

Report claims soldiers may be British, possibly SAS which would break UN resolution over any 'occupation force'

Armed western men have been filmed on the ground with rebels in central Libya in the first apparent confirmation that Nato has sent military advisers to train anti-government forces.

A group of six westerners were clearly visible, according to a report by al-Jazeera from Dafniya, described as the westernmost point of the rebel lines west of the town of Misrata. Five of them were armed and wearing informal sand-coloured clothes, peaked caps, and cotton Arab scarves.

The sixth, apparently most senior of the group, was carrying no visible weapon and wore a pink, short-sleeve shirt. He may be an intelligence officer. The group is seen talking to rebels and then quickly leaving on being spotted by the television crew.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/30/western-tro...



video at link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. This Does Not Constitute An 'Occupying Force', Ma'am
Edited on Mon May-30-11 01:43 PM by The Magistrate
It does not even come close to verging on such a status....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IScreamSundays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Sir..
It is what the article states not the lady who posted it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. Quite true
I also concur with the other poster that the thread-starter wasn't necessarily agreeing with the article, but then again, certainly didn't point this out.

By my reading of Resolution 1973, it seems like it's just fine to deploy even real-live sizable foreign armies, just as long as they don't stay there after the cessation of hostilities. The wording is rather broad and written to literally have tanks driven through it.

Much as I'm thoroughly opposed to this illegal intervention (illegal for the U.S. by its own laws, not necessarily for the other participants) the written resolution is pretty much a carte blanche, and certainly open to question. By the standard definition, a force of occupation is a foreign presence that continues after the fighting is over, and this little brouhaha is just made for quibbling, since fighting is liable to continue for awhile.

Once Qaddafi leaves, is killed or allowed some position, that would be the point when it would become an occupation, unless the loyalists continue to resist.

What an ugly episode; it's shameful to its mendacious core.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #9
21. I usually don't comment on the articles I post...
because I don't want to skew the discussion one way or the other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
16. Each journey begins with one step. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-11 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #1
29. I think The Guardian agrees now; the sub-headline about 'occupation force' has gone
It now just reads "Five of Gaddafi's generals are among latest defectors to rebels as South African president seeks to broker ceasefire". All that's left on the subject is a couple of paragraphs in the middle of the article:

The group was withdrawn soon afterwards and a new "liaison team" sent in its place. Asked for comment on Monday, a Ministry of Defence spokeswoman said: "We don't have any forces out there."

The subject is sensitive as the UN security council resolution in March authorising the use of force in Libya specifically excludes "a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oberliner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-11 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #1
30. That line appears to have been excised from the article
I could be wrong but it looks like the linked article has been altered and that line has been removed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eagle Mall Donating Member (199 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
3. All this means is that Gadhafi's days are numbered. Is that so bad?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. This means mission creep and war quagmire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eagle Mall Donating Member (199 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. 1, it means we're not doing this unilaterally. 2, it means Gadhafi won't hang on much longer
Once Gadhafi's gone, this War is over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. I never said it was unilateral.
What makes you think troops on the ground, which we were promised wouldn't happen, will bring this to a quick end.

Remember when we were also told this operation would 'last weeks, not months'? Into month 3 now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eagle Mall Donating Member (199 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. we were never told this operation would last weeks.
only that authority would be handed over to NATO quickly, and this would not be a US-led operation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. It was implicit when Obama relied on the War Powers Act to
commit our troops. And, we were told by various leaders it would be a short operation, measured in weeks not months.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arctic Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. Wishful thinking is not a war ender.
More likely scenario, MG gets nailed, his people return the favor to anyone dumb enough to take the controls. Queue, "green zone" two, Africa edition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #6
24. We didn't do Iraq unilaterally either, or Afghanistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #6
25. Just like Saddam, right?
Or was that Bin Laden?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
26. They've probably been there since day 1.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truth2power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-11 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. That would be my take. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. It meand Iraq 2! Exactly what the rebels
early on stated repeatedly they did not want. The new 'rebels' seem to have different ideas.

Soon there will be 'peace-keeping' forces on the ground and before long a full-fledged occupation with 'contractors' etc.

Does anyone think that when Qadaffi is gone the fighting will stop? Has it not become clear that he has a lot of support in that country which is why the initial uprising failed and even with the help of NATO for months now, they still cannot do what the Egyptians and Tunisians did in a matter of weeks with NO help or violence or bombings from outside?

Removing Qadaffi will not end the fighting. This is another war for resources and to keep Europe safe from the immigration of Black Africans.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
7. You mean Rebal forces can't hire Mercs like Gadafi does
Edited on Mon May-30-11 02:05 PM by FreakinDJ
They got oil - they got money to hire
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poll_Blind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
10. From the get-go I and quite a few others have labeled this an absolute failure clutsterfuck
And this new development is right on schedule.

PB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
plumbob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Yep, I was one who said on the first day that it would not take 6 months
to get boots on the ground and another disastrous (for Libyans, US taxpayers, US soldiers) but profitable (for the usual profiteers) would be underway for the next decade (minimum).

I have not supported any US military action since 1952 (the year I was born), and that includes this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
13. I don't understand this report.
Edited on Mon May-30-11 02:49 PM by EFerrari
It has already been reported that CIA was on the ground from the beginning or near the start of the demonstrations and the Brit SF have reportedly also been on the ground for nearly that long. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2banon Donating Member (794 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. exactly.. this isn't news
but then... it seems news reporting is a constant regurtitation of old news. I suppose it could be argued that would be for the puporse of informing those that do not bother to keep up on current events as matter of routine. I would buy that argument if such was indicated in the articles. But I rarely if ever see that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. It's more akin to the ever "new" reports of the US torture program
which were reported for the first time over and over. What it does is create cognitive dissonance and makes you doubt what you knew in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
17. I don't think it's a big secret. There was talk of
sending in weapons and people to train the rebels in the use of the weapons and some basic military organization from day one, so I don't think it should be a big surprise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
20. "He may be an intelligence officer"
:rofl:

Pink short-sleeved shirts are de rigeur for CIA agents in a war zone. Although he must be younger, those are flat-fronted chinos, not pleated khakis. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 05:44 PM
Response to Original message
22. This might well be breaking the UN resolution. But to provide balance to the discussion we should
mention that Gaddafi is also violating the UN resolution. I know that two wrings don't make a right buy why only mention that one side is breaking the UN resolution when the other side also is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Qadaffi didn't sign the resolution. He is not bound by it.
The UN works for the Western powers and gave them cover to do what they intended to anyhow. We all remember what happened before the Iraq invasion with the UN.

This resolution was an act of war against a sovereign nation. The UN has little credibility when it comes to the Imperial powers. Have they ever NOT given a green light to them to invade an oil rich country?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-11 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
27. Can't get the government you want, unless you take part!
Edited on Tue May-31-11 09:19 AM by Javaman
oh wait, that saying is about voting isn't it?

You don't get the government you want, you get the one you deserve...by western powers.

Yeah, that's better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 18th 2014, 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC