The United Nations resolution calling for a no-fly zone was a useful pretext for the Western air war against Libya, but it came with one very specific restriction: absolutely no ground troops were to be allowed in the country.
So imagine the surprise of the six western soldiers in Misrata who were talking to rebel fighters only to discover that they were being broadcast worldwide on al-Jazeera. The six are believed to be British soldiers, and the front-line reporter said they may be helping to plan helicopter attacks.
Spotting the cameras, the six quickly scrambled from view, but the damage was done, and it could wind up being the second major embarrassment for Britain in this war. The first, of course, was when a group of SAS soldiers escorting a diplomat bumbled into the outskirts of Benghazi to meet with the rebels, and were immediately taken prisoner.
This case might be more serious internationally, however. The UN Security Council was very clear about “no ground troops” and these are most assuredly ground troops. Though NATO has had little problem in spreading the definition of a no-fly zone to fit their interests, the new revelation could do massive damage to the war’s already floundering international credibility.
spin baby spin! can't wait to ride the merry-go-round on this one.
NATO and the Western Alliance bombing Libya has been shown for what they are!
Cheats and Liars who will do anything and say anything to get their hands on Libyan OIL.
What about a NO FLY Zone over Britain in retaliation??
No surprises here: this is what us Brits have been about since we reluctantly handed over the mantle of empire to the US after world war two. We now do the dirty work that that the new master prefers not to be directly involved with. http://www.newstatesman.com/200510030009
the mantle was not handed over it was taken and the brits still have the boot on their neck
How do the british people manage to put these war criminals in power starting from winston churchill down to the present,and why are they not at the Hague to answer these war crimes africans/europeans are indicted why not they.
One has to understand that NATO is the preferred military of the former Colonial powers. All the mess in the middle east is the direct the result of the Colonial powers of England, France, USA and Russia attacking the Ottoman empire to directly take control of the land area. Lawrence of Arabia got thousands of Arabs to die in the effort to establish a homeland for the ARABS in the middle east. Upon the defeat of the Ottoman empire the colonial empire of England then provided to make a homeland for the Jews in the land promised to the Arabs. This was called the great betrayal or as the British would call it situation normal. The colonial power of the USA provided arms to Iraq and overthrew the Shaw of Iran and provided trillions for the Newly created homeland of the Jews. Recently as the colonial powers discovered how difficult it was to field an attack army using the United Nations turned to using to the useless NATO which has no rules. The gentlemen agreement of the colonial powers is all that is needed to attack.. A thousands years of colonial plundering has long established that there are no gentlemen in the colonial powers just war freaks.
One should read the history and understand the true history. It is all greed and death is the preferred method of dealing with the people who actually own the land that the colonial powers desire. BTW those that do not understand that the USA is just a colonial power should read about our military in china about 1900 and our war on Spain to get the spanish colonies. One should read about the tens of thousands of "rebels" that the USA military killed in bring democracy to the Philippines
I'm not entirely comfortable taking lectures on history from someone who thought that the US overthrew the Shah of Iran.
And this was a UN operation, not a unilateral NATO one – it just happens that NATO are the force being used to carry it out.
I'm sure you're all far too convinced that NATO is an evil organisation to listen to this but they're operating well within the UN resolution which authorises all necessary measured to protect civilians. Ground forces in such small numbers are not an invasion force but they are very necessary in ensuring air strikes hit what is being aimed at and they don't harm civilians.
Protect civilians. ROFL! How many of those 'protected civilians' are 6 feet underground?
I'm glad to see that the author has decided not to let facts get in the way of a good story.
1) There's no evidence that these people are British
2) There's no evidence that even if they are British, that they aren't privately employed by the Libyans or their allies
3) The UNSC resolution doesn't prohibit ground troops anyway.
But don't let me get in the way of all of this righteous outrage.
There's ample evidence though of a naked (well, if you don't count the fig leaf) western aggression against a sovereign state. There were other proofs of western involvement in Lybia prior and during the violent outburst instantly and conveniently labeled by the docile mainstream media as revolution. As many lies about what was happening in Lybia were subsequently proved to be exactly that.__At least the Russian envoy to NATO had no doubts (before the UN slick resolution) about western special forces being present in Lybia. Of course, we all know Russians are evil._
There's ample evidence though of a naked (well, if you don't count the fig leaf) western aggression against a sovereign state. There were other proofs of western involvement in Lybia prior and during the violent outburst instantly and conveniently labeled by the docile mainstream media as revolution. As many lies about what was happening in Lybia were subsequently proved to be exactly that.
At least the Russian envoy to NATO had no doubts (before the UN slick resolution) about western special forces being present in Lybia. Of course, we all know Russians are evil.
i believe the phrase used was "to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory".
So no, as Matt says, the UNSC does not prohibit ground troops.
Also, according to the Daily Mail article, they are described as being "possibly British". Similarly, even if they are british, it does not mean they are soldiers. PMC's will be very interested in Libya.
Unless it's a show it seems Russdia is against what is happening in Lybia and in the other wars witch I belive.But given how good the US,Britan and Israel lies I can't say for sure.But if Iran is attacked Russia will fight along with many countrys in the mid east and also North Korea and probably China.So it would become WW3 witch would kill billions and in the end we win or lose would suffer like never in the history of the wetern civilization.Not to downplay what happend to the Native Americans but this time they would die along with most or probably half of the people and animals on earth.But it's bound to happen with all the illegal wars conducted by western nations and I'm Canadian probably the best western country besides doing the US bidding witch will make us hated instead of loved around the world.
I'm not sure why this is news.
Anyone familiar with western military ops would know that special forces "spotters" are ALWAYS on the ground during an air-campaign. They are especially valuable now that helicopters are arriving.
There were small detachments of ground troops in Libya three months ago during the first week of bombing. The war wouldn't take place without them.
Looks like NATO has unleashed its wordsmiths to spin this story in this forum. The Talmudic hair-splitting over "soldier" gives this game away. It's irrelevant whether they're SAS, British Army, Mark Thatcher's mercenaries, Foreign Ministry "liaisons," or Royal Navy volunteers on leave. They're boots on the ground, and as such are occupational by their very presence. NATO wallows in falsehood at every opportunity, because it strives to imitate its US master.
The whole thing was a shameful facade since day 1. EXXON and BP are probably already hard at work siphoning that good Libyan oil.
I'm still trying to figure out how enforcing a No Fly Zone can be construed as permission to target tanks and ground troops and ships. If memory serves me correctly, none of the tanks I crewed nor any of the ships I was transported on were equipped with wings or helo blades.
On the other hand, it's a dazzling display of Western hypocrisy and the spin machine is in full swing trying to justify everything being done. Why must we brandish our guns and missiles every time when an honest handshake might get us what we want? What are we compensating for? When will someone stand up and say the obvious: "THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES AND HE HAS A TINY WILLY".
When has an honest handshake avoided war? It didnt in 1938 in Munich. It didnt in Bosnia or Kosovo, or the Falklands, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia etc. It would be great if it did, it really would, cos no more sons or daughters would have to be buried by their parents. It would be even better if those who start the wars were the ones who did the fighting. But the world doesnt work that way.
If NATO had not started bombing Libya, what would u suggest? Sanctions take time to work, and Gaddafi was massacring his own people in the short term. Petitions and protest marches in another country do not mean a thing to him. Nothing does, other than power.
Everything done with peoples tax money they have no say if it's spent to kill men,women and children.People in all illegal wars should not pay the government 1 dime.You would end up jailed but if even half the population took part they would have to stop the murders or have there country would begin to collapes.Don't know if it would work but it's a none violent way to possibly make a major difference in millions of lives.Just a thought
The Weasel words will be like thus!
Let me see, the words were no troops of occupation on the ground!
If the troops are immediately removed from Libya after Gadaffi is captured to stand for war crimes then they are not troops of occupation.
I take your point regarding whether they are soldiers or not – thats fair.
However, six squaddies are not an occupation force! An occupation force is one that can take and hold ground, regardless of how the locals may feel. 6 blokes can be over run, as was seen in Iraq 2003 when the 6 RMP's were overrun and killed.
If 6 blokes constitute an occupation force, then the British still occupy half the world!
John, the quote i mentioned above is taken directly from the UN resolution – its not one i made up (although i note numerous people didnt like having that poitned out). It is not just a no fly zone, never was and NATO is not stretching the rules in bombing tanks etc, as long as they are targetting or in a position to target the rebel militia.
As for being a NATO wordsmith, nope sorry. Any pro-war feeling in me died with the bloke who bled to death in front of me in Iraq 2005. Wasnt a nice experience, and turned me quite firmly against war in general. However – just because you are against war, and I am against in principle, does not mean that the Gaddafi's, the Husseins, the Blairs or the Bushes will be as well. If they are able to hold power by getting other people to fight for them, then no sanctions or protests will work. Bliar and Bush have gone now, thats democracy for you. Gaddafi will not go unless he is physically forced out. Hussein did not go until he was.
Disgusting. The 'rebels' do not have the best interests of Libyans at heart. They are opportunists taking money from whoever is handing it out.
NATO and the US need to stop fighting this illegal war and let the will of the Libyan people work this crisis out — if that means Gaddafi back in power, so be it. It makes more sense than Qatari or European proxy forces stealing Libya from its people.
On the other hand, who will win a fight? A thousand men with AK-47's, or a 4 tanks?
That is (should) be the aim of NATO, to level the playing field to allow a even "contest". If one side posses all the artillery, tanks and aircraft while the other posses the genuine support of the public, public support will not win.
Why is the war illegal?