Egyptian embassy staff "seized" in Libya

MMC · Jan 26, 2014

apdst said:
The US didn't interfere, alone. If France hadn't been chomping at the bit to intervene, Obama probably wouldn't have touched it with a 10-foot pole.

That's Right Apdst......it was the French who filed 3 resolutions in the UN and the First officially recognize the Rebels and TNC government. Which by the way, they did do that without telling us they were going to. Also the Neo Cons pushed for No Fly Zone Right away.

MMC · Jan 26, 2014

iguanaman said:
Ghadaffi was using his military to kill his own people. Is that what you call "stability"? The problem now is radical groups that are trying to make it a religious state. The Saudi's are more to blame for Libya instability now than the US. Iran is similarly to blame for the renewed sectarian violence in Iraq. The difference in Libya was our level of involvement. Was it worth 4000 lives and a trillion dollars to hand Iraq to the Iranians? No. Was it worth a few airstrikes to stop the slaughter of civilians in Libya? Easily, even with the risk of further "instability" which is always present when a regime is overthrown.

Where were all the pics of this? Where were all the headlines, where was the proof of genocide.....other than what The French, Brits, and the US was saying?

MMC · Jan 26, 2014

Montecresto said:
Another US foreign policy success.

At least four Egyptian embassy personnel have been kidnapped in the Libyan capital Tripoli, the Libyan foreign ministry says.

Another embassy official was seized in the Libyan capital on Friday.

Several kidnappings of officials in Libya recently have been blamed on militias. They are often paid by the government, but their allegiance and who controls them remain in doubt.

BBC News - Egyptian embassy staff 'seized'in Libya

Heya Monte. :2wave: It appears Egypt is closing up shop and taking their people with them now.

Egypt diplomats quit Libya after kidnappings......

Egypt's ambassador and his staff have left Libya for security reasons after the kidnapping of five of their colleagues, the foreign ministry said Sunday.

"The ambassador and more than 50 staff and diplomats of the Egyptian embassy left Tripoli on Saturday evening," ministry spokesman Saeed Lassoued told AFP.

The evacuation had been decided on security grounds, he said, as Libyan authorities worked to secure the release of the abducted diplomats.

Justice Minister Salah al-Marghani has implicitly linked the kidnappings to the arrest in Egypt on Friday of a prominent former Libyan rebel commander who fought in the 2011 uprising against Moamer Kadhafi.

Shaaban Hadeia, head of the Operations Centre of Libya's Thuwar (revolutionaries), was arrested in the Mediterranean city of Alexandria.

"We await an explanation from our Egyptian brothers on the accusations against Shaaban Hadeia," Marghani said late Saturday, while condemning the kidnappings as a "criminal act".

The foreign ministry, meanwhile, said it was in contact with Cairo requesting information on Hadeia and seeking his early release.....snip~

Yahoo!

APACHERAT · Jan 26, 2014

joG said:
The cost of bananas is surely an important issue, when dealing with the lives of a dictator's subjects.

The UN peacekeeping forces buy bananas and then trade the bananas for sex with young little starving girls.

That's your UN at work keeping the peace while getting a piece.

DA60 · Jan 26, 2014

The moral of this story is...if you get posted to a Libyan Embassy...refuse it.

Also, whatever side 21'st century America picks in a civil war will either lose or be the wrong one.

Solution? Don't meddle in other countries internal affairs other then humanitarian efforts...unless a major genocide is taking place (like in Rwanda, where that coward Clinton actually removed troops from back in '94).

Montecresto · Jan 26, 2014

joG said:
I would have to reread the document to be totally sure of the wording. But at the time I checked it out and it seemed a good piece of work. Also it seemed happily in line with the UN's norms. What exactly is your problem with it?

And yes. I think it was good that the neighborhood took care of the problem arising from the unruly behavior of the dictator's subjects. And yes. I think it was right for Obama to give logistical support.

Logistical support?? It was a violation of the resolution!

Montecresto · Jan 26, 2014

apdst said:
Be that as it may, France is as much to blame for overthrowing Kadaffi as the United States.

Well sure, I wouldn't dispute that.

MMC · Jan 27, 2014

Update: They now have been released. Do you think the Egyptians released the one they wanted back?

Libya says five kidnapped Egyptian diplomats freed.....

Five Egyptian diplomats kidnapped in Tripoli in retaliation for Egypt's arrest of a Libyan militia commander have been freed, Libyan Deputy Foreign Minister Abdul Razak Al-Grady said on Sunday.

The abduction of diplomats in the Libyan capital illustrated the fragility of government control over former rebels and militias who two years ago helped topple Muammar Gaddafi in a NATO-backed revolution.

Gunman snatched four Egyptian diplomatic staff from their homes in Tripoli on Saturday, including the cultural attaché, and kidnapped another on Friday, forcing Cairo to evacuate its embassy and its Benghazi consulate.

Libya's government said earlier the diplomats had been snatched in reaction to the arrest of Shaban Hadia, commander of the Operations Room of Libya's Revolutionaries, a powerful militia in Libya.

The group said Hadia was arrested while visiting Egypt with family for medical treatment. Egypt has said he had been detained, but no details were immediately available about whether he had been freed on Sunday.

The group was accused of briefly abducting Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zeidan in Tripoli in October last year. It initially claimed it had arrested the premier, but later denied that after he was released hours later.....snip~

Yahoo!

joG · Jan 27, 2014

Montecresto said:
Logistical support?? It was a violation of the resolution!

Don't you think you exaggerate to fit your ideology a bit?

joG · Jan 27, 2014

APACHERAT said:
The UN peacekeeping forces buy bananas and then trade the bananas for sex with young little starving girls.

That's your UN at work keeping the peace while getting a piece.

Yep! There have been scandalous things that went on. When such things happen, the persons must be punished and the controls made more robust.
But it certainly does not discredit the mission.

Montecresto · Jan 27, 2014

joG said:
Don't you think you exaggerate to fit your ideology a bit?

I'm not projecting an ideology. I'm telling you that Res. 1973, did not authorize regime change, period. Now you may be one that supported regime change in Libya, but it was illegal nevertheless. When you violate the law, it has consequences. In this case, due to the Wests violation of the UN resolution, both China and Libya denied the US a similar resolution for Syria on the basis that we proved (and not for the first time) we couldn't be trusted.

Philippe Sands QC, professor of international law at University College London, warned that coalition forces were facing a "major problem" to justify their latest strikes on legal grounds and Lord Ashdown, the former high representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, said the coalition forces led by Britain, France and the US were facing "a moment of danger" over the legality of their actions. He said "continued support for this looks as though it is leading to support for regime change, which legally is beyond the [United Nations] security council resolution".

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/28/libya-bombing-un-resolution-law

joG · Jan 27, 2014

Montecresto said:
I'm not projecting an ideology. I'm telling you that Res. 1973, did not authorize regime change, period. Now you may be one that supported regime change in Libya, but it was illegal nevertheless. When you violate the law, it has consequences. In this case, due to the Wests violation of the UN resolution, both China and Libya denied the US a similar resolution for Syria on the basis that we proved (and not for the first time) we couldn't be trusted.

Philippe Sands QC, professor of international law at University College London, warned that coalition forces were facing a "major problem" to justify their latest strikes on legal grounds and Lord Ashdown, the former high representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, said the coalition forces led by Britain, France and the US were facing "a moment of danger" over the legality of their actions. He said "continued support for this looks as though it is leading to support for regime change, which legally is beyond the [United Nations] security council resolution".

Libya: Coalition bombing may be in breach of UN resolution's legal limits | World news | The Guardian

There are always those that take the opposite position. They are, you will find, usually political opponents to the parties taking action, ,appears to be the case here. ! Mostly the arguments rest on a manipulation of the facts or a different slant and spin. And, in fact, it would have been illegal for the British, Italians, French etc to invade in order to remove Gaddafi. But the things they did were consistent with the mandate even if the Libyens used the actions of population protection to fell the tyrant.

Montecresto · Jan 27, 2014

joG said:
There are always those that take the opposite position. They are, you will find, usually political opponents to the parties taking action, ,appears to be the case here. ! Mostly the arguments rest on a manipulation of the facts or a different slant and spin. And, in fact, it would have been illegal for the British, Italians, French etc to invade in order to remove Gaddafi. But the things they did were consistent with the mandate even if the Libyens used the actions of population protection to fell the tyrant.

What are you talking about, those who always take the opposite position? There was a resolution that created a no fly zone and use of force to protect civilians. The resolution explicitly denied the use of any ground forces or the supply of weapons to the rebels. Both of those were violated. Furthermore, there was no language whatsoever authorizing the overthrow of Gaddafi. This has been criticized by Russia, China, India, Brazil and South Africa. Early on in the conflict, Arab league nations that had supported the resolution, re characterized their support on the grounds that civilian populations were being targeted. And in classic US foreign policy style, the exact same type of popular democratic uprising that wrought all kinds of handwringing in the west for humanitarian reasons in Libya, was not only ignored in Bahrain, when the government attacked their own civilians, but in an attempt to secure Saudi OK, and support for western intervention in Libya, Hillary Clinton was dispatched to Saudi Arabia to assure them that the US would look the other way as they went in to crush the popular democratic uprising in Bahrain in exchange for their support in our Libyan mission.

joG · Jan 27, 2014

Montecresto said:
What are you talking about, those who always take the opposite position? There was a resolution that created a no fly zone and use of force to protect civilians. The resolution explicitly denied the use of any ground forces or the supply of weapons to the rebels. Both of those were violated. Furthermore, there was no language whatsoever authorizing the overthrow of Gaddafi. This has been criticized by Russia, China, India, Brazil and South Africa. Early on in the conflict, Arab league nations that had supported the resolution, re characterized their support on the grounds that civilian populations were being targeted. And in classic US foreign policy style, the exact same type of popular democratic uprising that wrought all kinds of handwringing in the west for humanitarian reasons in Libya, was not only ignored in Bahrain, when the government attacked their own civilians, but in an attempt to secure Saudi OK, and support for western intervention in Libya, Hillary Clinton was dispatched to Saudi Arabia to assure them that the US would look the other way as they went in to crush the popular democratic uprising in Bahrain in exchange for their support in our Libyan mission.

Only an example: The resolution did not forbid the use of boots on the ground, as you will, if my memory does not deceive me, quickly see, when you revisit the text. The interpretation you presented was often presented by those who sided with Gaddafi at the time. But it was nonsense and even Lavarov gave up on that one.

But why do you mention that? None of the allies put soldiers in the field other, perhaps, as observers or advisors. But why do you single out Obama, when the main players were French, Italien and British? I suspect you complain about the NSA but not the French, Spanish or Polish services?

Montecresto · Jan 27, 2014

joG said:
Only an example: The resolution did not forbid the use of boots on the ground, as you will, if my memory does not deceive me, quickly see, when you revisit the text. The interpretation you presented was often presented by those who sided with Gaddafi at the time. But it was nonsense and even Lavarov gave up on that one.

But why do you mention that? None of the allies put soldiers in the field other, perhaps, as observers or advisors. But why do you single out Obama, when the main players were French, Italien and British? I suspect you complain about the NSA but not the French, Spanish or Polish services?

It explicitly forbid boots on the ground and the arming of rebels. There was objections to some of the targets early on which concerned many that the US and NATO were going beyond the resolutions intent and seeking regime change.

I am an American and live in America and therefore concern myself with American politics, policy and standing in the world. The other countries you mentioned have their own citizens that protest and object to their own countries policies.

The efforts of Moscow and Beijing, however, have not hindered Washington and its NATO allies from breaching international law or U.N. Resolution 1973. Washington has casually admitted that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was on the ground supporting rebel forces. According to Washington, the involvement of U.S. intelligence agents in Libya started as soon as the U.S. embassy in Tripoli was closed. [1] February 25, 2011, is the date that the U.S. embassy in Tripoli was reported as being closed. [2]

This is a casual omission that the U.S. had violated international law and was operating on the ground in Libya before any U.N. approval. Moreover, Italy had opened its military bases to use by the U.S., Britain, and France before any U.N. approval by repudiating its non-aggression pact with Libya on February 27, 2011. [3] In other words, the war against Libya had already begun.

Unnamed U.S. officials even told Reuters that U.S. intelligence operations were underway in Libya before President Obama signed a secret order in March 2011 that authorized covert U.S. actions against the Libyan government. [4] The U.S. was not alone in operating in Libya. It has been reported that dozens of British agents and commandos from MI6, the Special Air Services (SAS) unit, and the Special Boat Services (SBS) units were also operating inside Libya. [5]

These foreign forces in Libya were sent to prepare for the war by selecting targets to be bombed. [6] Even before the attacks were launched, both Britain and France even announced plans in November 2010 for war games that envisioned attacking Libya under the exercise codename “SOUTHLAND.” [7] The British and French military assets being mobilized for these drills ended up being used to attack Libya. [8] November 2010, according to the Italian journalist Franco Bechis of Italy’s Libero, also happened to be the time that Paris started planning for regime change in Libya.

NATO’s Secret Ground War in Libya | Global Research

joG · Jan 27, 2014

Montecresto said:
It explicitly forbid boots on the ground and the arming of rebels. There was objections to some of the targets early on which concerned many that the US and NATO were going beyond the resolutions intent and seeking regime change.

I am an American and live in America and therefore concern myself with American politics, policy and standing in the world. The other countries you mentioned have their own citizens that protest and object to their own countries policies.

The efforts of Moscow and Beijing, however, have not hindered Washington and its NATO allies from breaching international law or U.N. Resolution 1973. Washington has casually admitted that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was on the ground supporting rebel forces. According to Washington, the involvement of U.S. intelligence agents in Libya started as soon as the U.S. embassy in Tripoli was closed. [1] February 25, 2011, is the date that the U.S. embassy in Tripoli was reported as being closed. [2]

This is a casual omission that the U.S. had violated international law and was operating on the ground in Libya before any U.N. approval. Moreover, Italy had opened its military bases to use by the U.S., Britain, and France before any U.N. approval by repudiating its non-aggression pact with Libya on February 27, 2011. [3] In other words, the war against Libya had already begun.

Unnamed U.S. officials even told Reuters that U.S. intelligence operations were underway in Libya before President Obama signed a secret order in March 2011 that authorized covert U.S. actions against the Libyan government. [4] The U.S. was not alone in operating in Libya. It has been reported that dozens of British agents and commandos from MI6, the Special Air Services (SAS) unit, and the Special Boat Services (SBS) units were also operating inside Libya. [5]

These foreign forces in Libya were sent to prepare for the war by selecting targets to be bombed. [6] Even before the attacks were launched, both Britain and France even announced plans in November 2010 for war games that envisioned attacking Libya under the exercise codename “SOUTHLAND.” [7] The British and French military assets being mobilized for these drills ended up being used to attack Libya. [8] November 2010, according to the Italian journalist Franco Bechis of Italy’s Libero, also happened to be the time that Paris started planning for regime change in Libya.

NATO’s Secret Ground War in Libya | Global Research

Let's stick to your claim that the resolution forbade intervention on the ground. Which sentences/articles do you have in mind.

Montecresto · Jan 27, 2014

joG said:
Let's stick to your claim that the resolution forbade intervention on the ground. Which sentences/articles do you have in mind.

. U.N. resolution 1973, passed in March, authorized member states “to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi.” But the resolution also explicitly forbids “a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory.” The al-Jazeera film appears to suggest that codicil is being ignored. And the Arab League has distanced itself from the alliance, protesting that it endorsed a no-fly zone, not the heavy shelling with attendant civilian casualties that has ensued.

Read more: The Mystery of the Soldiers Filmed on the Ground near Misrata: Are NATO Land Forces in Libya? | TIME.com The Mystery of the Soldiers Filmed on the Ground near Misrata: Are NATO Land Forces in Libya? | TIME.com

joG · Jan 27, 2014

Montecresto said:
. U.N. resolution 1973, passed in March, authorized member states “to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi.” But the resolution also explicitly forbids “a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory.” The al-Jazeera film appears to suggest that codicil is being ignored. And the Arab League has distanced itself from the alliance, protesting that it endorsed a no-fly zone, not the heavy shelling with attendant civilian casualties that has ensued.

Read more: The Mystery of the Soldiers Filmed on the Ground near Misrata: Are NATO Land Forces in Libya? | TIME.com The Mystery of the Soldiers Filmed on the Ground near Misrata: Are NATO Land Forces in Libya? | TIME.com

So occupation was forbidden. And? That means other troops are okay in UN Speak. You know that.

Montecresto · Jan 27, 2014

joG said:
So occupation was forbidden. And? That means other troops are okay in UN Speak. You know that.

OF ANY FORM! ON ANY PART OF LIBYAN SOIL. There were forces of various forms occupying Libyan soil. The French were supplying the rebels (with al Qaeda amongst their ranks) with arms, further violating the resolution and the US was using tomahawk cruise missiles on targets inconsistent with the resolution and directed toward regime change.

Special forces troops from several countries were occupying Libyan soil for weeks and months directing and aiding the insurgents in their search for Gaddafi. This was a direct violation of the resolution. I don't understand why you would defend this breach as you do other than in an attempt to protect US image, but that baby is busted.

For more than two pages now, you have brought me nothing but your opinion, I have linked multiple sources documenting the abuse of resolutions 1970 and 1973. So I'm wasting no more time on another apologist for abuse of US power.

joG · Jan 27, 2014

Montecresto said:
OF ANY FORM! ON ANY PART OF LIBYAN SOIL. There were forces of various forms occupying Libyan soil. The French were supplying the rebels (with al Qaeda amongst their ranks) with arms, further violating the resolution and the US was using tomahawk cruise missiles on targets inconsistent with the resolution and directed toward regime change.

For more than two pages now, you have brought me nothing but your opinion, I have linked multiple sources documenting the abuse of resolutions 1970 and 1973. So I'm wasting no more time on another apologist for abuse of US power.

"Occupation force" is the important phrase. Nobody occupied nor wanted to occupy as well you know. Why should anybody want to occupy that place? Possibly it would have helped the freedom fighters. But as it stood? All they did was give the Libyans a shot at freedom, which they seem to be squandering.

Montecresto · Jan 27, 2014

DaveFagan said:
Suffice to say, intervention in Libya was immoral, criminal, unethical, criminal, unconscionable, and criminal. If anyone thinks otherwise, they been sucking on the Kool-aid stick too long. Nothing said here will counter their successful mind bending and they even think they are patriots. Maroons.

Yes of course, but the apologists for US crimes against humanity, do not care! The coalition, for targeting areas that left heavy civilian casualties quickly lost Arab support. And this finds support here!!

And the Arab League has distanced itself from the alliance, protesting that it endorsed a no-fly zone, not the heavy shelling with attendant civilian casualties that has ensued.

Read more: The Mystery of the Soldiers Filmed on the Ground near Misrata: Are NATO Land Forces in Libya? | TIME.com http://world.time.com/2011/06/01/br...-soldiers-filmed-near-misratah/#ixzz2rcpowBNw

Sherman123 · Jan 27, 2014

Montecresto said:
This is directly the result of the US abusing the UN resolution to use force to protect the civilians, to overthrow the Libyan dictatorship, destabilizing the country as we have been doing elsewhere s in the ME.

Changed that for you to make it more accurate. Let's not pretend a just and legitimate government was toppled.

Sherman123 · Jan 27, 2014

Montecresto said:
OF ANY FORM! ON ANY PART OF LIBYAN SOIL. There were forces of various forms occupying Libyan soil. The French were supplying the rebels (with al Qaeda amongst their ranks) with arms, further violating the resolution and the US was using tomahawk cruise missiles on targets inconsistent with the resolution and directed toward regime change.

Special forces troops from several countries were occupying Libyan soil for weeks and months directing and aiding the insurgents in their search for Gaddafi. This was a direct violation of the resolution. I don't understand why you would defend this breach as you do other than in an attempt to protect US image, but that baby is busted.

For more than two pages now, you have brought me nothing but your opinion, I have linked multiple sources documenting the abuse of resolutions 1970 and 1973. So I'm wasting no more time on another apologist for abuse of US power.

They were invited in by the legitimate representative of the Libyan people: the Libyan opposition. No other authorization was necessary. The UNSC resolution was merely a political catalyst for allowing these justifiable activities to take place.

Sherman123 · Jan 27, 2014

Montecresto said:
. U.N. resolution 1973, passed in March, authorized member states “to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi.” But the resolution also explicitly forbids “a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory.” The al-Jazeera film appears to suggest that codicil is being ignored. And the Arab League has distanced itself from the alliance, protesting that it endorsed a no-fly zone, not the heavy shelling with attendant civilian casualties that has ensued.

Read more: The Mystery of the Soldiers Filmed on the Ground near Misrata: Are NATO Land Forces in Libya? | TIME.com The Mystery of the Soldiers Filmed on the Ground near Misrata: Are NATO Land Forces in Libya? | TIME.com

Special Forces & Advisers =/= Occupation Force.

Montecresto · Jan 27, 2014

Sherman123 said:
They were invited in by the legitimate representative of the Libyan people: the Libyan opposition. No other authorization was necessary. The UNSC resolution was merely a political catalyst for allowing these justifiable activities to take place.

Sorry. But that is completely false. Do not categorize the UN as some ceremonial formality. It AUTHORIZED conditional use of force, conditions that the US and NATO failed to follow!!!!