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-troops-on-ground-libya?CMP=twt_iph

---

video at link

It does not even come close to verging on such a status....

It is what the article states not the lady who posted it.

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.

because I don't want to skew the discussion one way or the other.

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:

I could be wrong but it looks like the linked article has been altered and that line has been removed.

Once Gadhafi's gone, this War is over.

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.

only that authority would be handed over to NATO quickly, and this would not be a US-led operation.

commit our troops. And, we were told by various leaders it would be a short operation, measured in weeks not months.

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.

Or was that Bin Laden?

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.

They got oil - they got money to hire

And this new development is right on schedule.

PB

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

: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

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?

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?

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.