TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) -- Moammar Gadhafi warned from hiding Thursday that tribes loyal to him were well-armed and preparing for battle, hours after rebels hoping for a peaceful surrender extended the deadline for loyalist forces to give up in the longtime Libyan leader's hometown.
Gadhafi's audio statement, broadcast by Syrian-based Al-Rai TV, came as the rebels said they were closing in on the former dictator.
"We won't surrender again; we are not women, we will keep fighting," Gadhafi said. His voice was recognizable, and Al-Rai has previously broadcast several statements by Gadhafi and his sons.
China top paper warns West to let U.N. lead in Libya BEIJING | Thu Sep 1, 2011
(Reuters) - China's top official newspaper warned Western powers to let the United Nations lead post-war reconstruction in Libya, saying on Thursday that Beijing would seek to defend its economic stake after the ousting of Muammar Gaddafi.
Excerpted
"As a permanent member of the Security Council, China has full reason to stress the leading role of the United Nations," said a commentary in the Chinese-language People's Daily, referring to Libya, where rebels are trying to wipe out resistance from Gaddafi's supporters.
Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Libya, showed what could go wrong if the U.N. is not the top body guiding international involvement in post-war rebuilding, said the newspaper.
"Looking back at these three local wars since the start of this century, it's easy to discern a pattern: the United Nations gets involved quite quickly and early on, but as developments evolve, the United States and its NATO allies come to the fore and steadily push out the U.N.," it said.
Repeating that pattern could hurt the Libyan people, as well as China's own stake, said the People's Daily.
"Stressing the leading role of the U.N. in Libyan affairs is to protect fairness in the country's reconstruction," it said, noting China's investments in Libya's telecommunications and construction sectors.
"China is willing to play an active role in Libya's reconstruction, and will give due attention to its legitimate interests in Libya," said the commentary
On September 02 2011 08:53 ImFromPortugal wrote: but they did invest greatly in Lybia...
In the revolution I mean.
Should the rebels remain in power, they will generally hold favorable views of NATO for their support, and thus provide them with favorable contracts in the reconstruction effort.
That's not to say that China is likely to lose the investments they've made so far, but it seems that China would like the same advantages that NATO is securing for itself without paying the price for it.
On September 02 2011 08:53 ImFromPortugal wrote: but they did invest greatly in Lybia...
In the revolution I mean.
Should the rebels remain in power, they will generally hold favorable views of NATO for their support, and thus provide them with favorable contracts in the reconstruction effort.
That's not to say that China is likely to lose the investments they've made so far, but it seems that China would like the same advantages that NATO is securing for itself without paying the price for it.
With this analysis I see no motive at all to invest in a countries infrastructure. You would bounce china out for working with a power hungry insane idealogue, but you would divvy up the profit making contracts rebuilding a country (hopefully) recovering from a war for whoever invested in the right winner.
There is no notion living in this thought process that the Libyan people might like a say in what happens. They are expected, not even expected, ASSUMED to be silent and greatful. Maybe the libyan people don't trust the motives of these great ubermench policemen that bet on the right horse, maybe they would like to say "hey, thanks, but we don't want to be an anarcho-capitalist experiment, we'd prefer if the UN, or noone or whoever the hell they like in, to lead the reconstruction.
Perhaps, you know, they might prefer to decide our their political and economic fate, rather than it being handed down to them from on high.
On September 02 2011 11:18 Dapper_Cad wrote: With this analysis I see no motive at all to invest in a countries infrastructure. You would bounce china out for working with a power hungry insane idealogue, but you would divvy up the profit making contracts rebuilding a country (hopefully) recovering from a war for whoever invested in the right winner.
You might want to reread my post slightly more carefully. I'm not suggesting that China should be shut out. Given their existing investments, they probably won't be. But what they're jockeying for here is the extra advantages that NATO nations will likely have in the coming years, when they didn't earn it.
On September 02 2011 11:18 Dapper_Cad wrote: There is no notion living in this thought process that the Libyan people might like a say in what happens. They are expected, not even expected, ASSUMED to be silent and greatful. Maybe the libyan people don't trust the motives of these great ubermench policemen that bet on the right horse, maybe they would like to say "hey, thanks, but we don't want to be an anarcho-capitalist experiment, we'd prefer if the UN, or noone or whoever the hell they like in, to lead the reconstruction.
That's not correct. If they're not grateful, then too bad for NATO. But the expectation that they will feel grateful can easily be seen in the positive views they already hold.
On September 02 2011 11:18 Dapper_Cad wrote: Perhaps, you know, they might prefer to decide our their political and economic fate, rather than it being handed down to us from on high.
What I'm saying, if you haven't figured it out, is that they are free to decide, but will most likely choose to work with the people who have backed them up thus far, the same way that you generally look favorably upon people who've stuck their necks out for you in the past.
On September 02 2011 11:18 Dapper_Cad wrote: There is no notion living in this thought process that the Libyan people might like a say in what happens. They are expected, not even expected, ASSUMED to be silent and greatful. Maybe the libyan people don't trust the motives of these great ubermench policemen that bet on the right horse, maybe they would like to say "hey, thanks, but we don't want to be an anarcho-capitalist experiment, we'd prefer if the UN, or noone or whoever the hell they like in, to lead the reconstruction.
That's not correct. If they're not grateful, then too bad for NATO. But the expectation that they will feel grateful can easily be seen in the positive views they already hold.
The positive views who already hold of NATO? Are we talking about the Libyan people or the National Transitional Council? Maybe, before we commit the Libyan people to contracts that might last years or decades, we might want to ask them what they think with "Democracy".
Why would we be in a hurry to begin locking in infrastructure agreements before a free and fair election can take place?
Is it really impossible to get the country running as well as it was before, under Gaddaffi, with minimal investment and then schedule internationally monitored elections as soon as possilble?
I'd like to add that popular Arab sentiment for the last 50-60 years has, from what I understand, been pretty sollidly anti west with deep mistrust for the motives of the U.S., U.K. etc. I'm not sure that it would be that different in this north african state, though I might be wrong.
On September 02 2011 12:02 Dapper_Cad wrote: The positive views who already hold of NATO? Are we talking about the Libyan people or the National Transitional Council?
Both.
On September 02 2011 12:02 Dapper_Cad wrote: Maybe, before we commit the Libyan people to contracts that might last years or decades, we might want to ask them what they think with "Democracy".
Why would we be in a hurry to begin locking in infrastructure agreements before a free and fair election can take place?
Where did you get the impression that this was the case?
On September 02 2011 12:06 Dapper_Cad wrote: I'd like to add that popular Arab sentiment for the last 50-60 years has, from what I understand, been pretty sollidly anti west with deep mistrust for the motives of the U.S., U.K. etc. I'm not sure that it would be that different in this north african state, though I might be wrong.
When nations you don't like save your people from wholesale slaughter and enable you to overthrow the dictator oppressing you, your opinion tends to be revised. You're constantly making assumptions in your posts. Please read up on the situation before jumping aboard your "Down with the Western imperialists!" train.
France has secured a deal with Libya's rebel interim rulers to exploit a third of the country's oil reserves, the daily Liberation reported today, citing a letter to the emir of Qatar.
Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said he "had no knowledge" of a "formal accord" but it was "logical" that countries like France which helped the National Transitional Council take power should take part in reconstruction.
Liberation said a letter from the NTC dated April 3 informed the emir, another major backer of the revolt, of a deal "to assign 35 percent of crude oil to France in exchange for its total and permanent support of our Council."
The report was an embarrassment for France as it prepared to host later on Thursday a meeting of world leaders and senior officials dubbed "friends of Libya" to win recognition for the NTC and its interim rule in Libya.
On August 29, the Italian oil giant ENI signed its own deal with the NTC to restart its oil production in Libya and restart a major gas pipeline running from the Libyan oil fields under the Mediterranean to Italy.
Does this mean what I think it means? Does it mean that all the profits from 35% of Libya's oil production will go to French oil companies and consequently out of Libya? If it's truly that way, then I find it revolting! I sure hope I've misunderstood something about this.
In my opinion, that money should be used to rebuild the country and invest in the future of a free, democratic Libya. Not given away to some foreign country.
On September 01 2011 20:30 Saji wrote: Times of Malta
France has secured a deal with Libya's rebel interim rulers to exploit a third of the country's oil reserves, the daily Liberation reported today, citing a letter to the emir of Qatar.
Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said he "had no knowledge" of a "formal accord" but it was "logical" that countries like France which helped the National Transitional Council take power should take part in reconstruction.
Liberation said a letter from the NTC dated April 3 informed the emir, another major backer of the revolt, of a deal "to assign 35 percent of crude oil to France in exchange for its total and permanent support of our Council."
The report was an embarrassment for France as it prepared to host later on Thursday a meeting of world leaders and senior officials dubbed "friends of Libya" to win recognition for the NTC and its interim rule in Libya.
On August 29, the Italian oil giant ENI signed its own deal with the NTC to restart its oil production in Libya and restart a major gas pipeline running from the Libyan oil fields under the Mediterranean to Italy.
Does this mean what I think it means? Does it mean that all the profits from 35% of Libya's oil production will go to French oil companies and consequently out of Libya? If it's truly that way, then I find it revolting! I sure hope I've misunderstood something about this.
In my opinion, that money should be used to rebuild the country and invest in the future of a free, democratic Libya. Not given away to some foreign country.
At the same time, though, you have to realize that there would be no free future without the intervention. It costs money. Oh, and by the way, letter's rubbish.
On September 01 2011 20:30 Saji wrote: Times of Malta
France has secured a deal with Libya's rebel interim rulers to exploit a third of the country's oil reserves, the daily Liberation reported today, citing a letter to the emir of Qatar.
Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said he "had no knowledge" of a "formal accord" but it was "logical" that countries like France which helped the National Transitional Council take power should take part in reconstruction.
Liberation said a letter from the NTC dated April 3 informed the emir, another major backer of the revolt, of a deal "to assign 35 percent of crude oil to France in exchange for its total and permanent support of our Council."
The report was an embarrassment for France as it prepared to host later on Thursday a meeting of world leaders and senior officials dubbed "friends of Libya" to win recognition for the NTC and its interim rule in Libya.
On August 29, the Italian oil giant ENI signed its own deal with the NTC to restart its oil production in Libya and restart a major gas pipeline running from the Libyan oil fields under the Mediterranean to Italy.
Does this mean what I think it means? Does it mean that all the profits from 35% of Libya's oil production will go to French oil companies and consequently out of Libya? If it's truly that way, then I find it revolting! I sure hope I've misunderstood something about this.
In my opinion, that money should be used to rebuild the country and invest in the future of a free, democratic Libya. Not given away to some foreign country.
Not benefits of course, just a right to buy oil and send french oil's firm (Mainly Total) to prospect oil in Lybia and make drilling/refining for money.
Both NTC and french government denied the existence of any agreement.
My POV is every "modern" war leaded by a country is always for a oil/richness purpose, never for "democracy" or "Saving the people".
Just few exemples : US/UK in Iraq : Oil Russia in Caucasus (Georgia, Tchecheny): Oil and gas Everybody in afganistan : Giant gas main from Kazakhstan
I would not be suprised if it was the same thing in Lybia. I'm sure this contract exists.
On September 02 2011 07:19 DeepElemBlues wrote: Aww, China's worried that they're not gonna get their chance to worm their way into Libya. Boohoo.
China wasn't willing to back the Libyan rebels, to avoid internal unrest. Now they want in after NATO did the work and paid the price?
Sucks for you, but if you don't invest you don't deserve returns.
Actually China and Russia paid the price by simply staying out during the ONU vote. There are complicated matters inside, and knowing both Russia and China, they don't do free things or get involved in any way where they don't have an interest.
On September 02 2011 07:19 DeepElemBlues wrote: Aww, China's worried that they're not gonna get their chance to worm their way into Libya. Boohoo.
China wasn't willing to back the Libyan rebels, to avoid internal unrest. Now they want in after NATO did the work and paid the price?
Sucks for you, but if you don't invest you don't deserve returns.
Actually China and Russia paid the price by simply staying out during the ONU vote. There are complicated matters inside, and knowing both Russia and China, they don't do free things or get involved in any way where they don't have an interest.
That's the same for every country, just that Russia and China's interests don't align with western interest.
Gaddafi is very serious about his life safety. A bodyguard has weapons and access to his body. At least she can refuse to save him when the time comes. Also I do not think at his age he is interested in sex. Even if one of those asked him for it. Theoretically he may rape someone. But not his own bodyguards and expose his life to unnecessary danger! Summary: the news simply does not pass logical check.
Answers to possible objections:
- Gaddafi is a crazy man! - Not relevant, he cares about his heath and life maniacally (known generally and from his nurses)
- Have you hear of "Stockholm syndrome"? - It MAY happen, but not HAS to happen. Too much risk to take.
- You like dictators! - I like logic! And never trust for granted to anybody. Especially to someone who has already lied.
- The ex bodyguards lied because wanted better treatment as victims of tyrant. - Sounds as probable, but not likely. They are known as fanatically devoted to him. Anyway, nobody can be sure 100% at this point.
Those who always protect the official information whatever comes(is it their job or what??), better skip this one, like you wisely did with the fake Green Square exposure.
Good thing the article doesn't assert it as fact, then.
Edit: You'll do good to note that it prominently displays a specific doctor making the claim, and it's obvious the article is only reporting and not confirming. If anything it makes one question if the doctor is to be trusted. But hey, you can call it propaganda if you want.
Seriously, you cannot dismiss something against your view out of hand just because of an opinion. Yes, it might be dangerous to assault a bodyguard (sexually or not) unless if you had, say, hundreds of other body guards. And the ability to make the victim's family disappear, which was the reason many of these bodyguards joined in the first place.
EPT
