Libya: Special units hunt for Gaddafi

2011-09-09 08:50

Cairo - Libyan rebels have set up special units to hunt down fugitive Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, Arab media reports said on Friday.

According to Al Arabiya, the rebels have formed units of fighters to track down phone calls made by the former leader's aides to try to locate where Gaddafi might be hiding.

The channel quoted Anis Sharif, a spokesperson for the Tripoli military council, as saying they now have "a unit of more than 200 special forces" leading the hunt.

Sharif said the rebels have located Gaddafi, but did not say where, adding that his capture is a matter of time.

Gaddafi, who has not been seen in public for months, went into hiding after anti-regime fighters took control of Tripoli on August 21.

The fugitive leader is believed to be hiding in one of the three areas which are still under the control of his followers - his hometown of Sirte, the city of Bani Walid south-east of Tripoli, or the city of Sabha in the southern desert.

  • Marlyn - 2011-09-09 09:15


      IC1 - 2011-09-09 09:24

      Also the day Selebi and Mc Bride pitch up to jail to start serving their respective sentences

      chocobutter - 2011-09-09 10:13

      Hey Marlyn why don't you say same thing about George Bush that killed millions of people,you only talk about Qaddafi?Lets see when the war is on your door step.

      tommy 2 - 2011-09-09 14:48

      @Marlyn, And the day you learn how to type, will be the day our eyes will not be strained.

  • tommy 2 - 2011-09-09 09:22

    Long live gaddafi,The last king of Africa....... A leader that did not bow to the West. My prayers are with you and the Libyan people. Down with the REBEL TERRORISTS.

      IC1 - 2011-09-09 09:25

      You are a sick and confused puppy, get well soon

      chocobutter - 2011-09-09 10:39

      Tommy i think you right stupid people only remember bad things not good ones,Gaddafi has done good things in Libya giving Libyans free Education and health care they were first country in Africa to have all that,Not even South Africa have free Education and Health care. not even South Africa have free Education and Health care

      john - 2011-09-09 12:07

      There is no such thing as free, there is only "paid for by somebody else". Because I'm pretty sure that Libyan doctors and teachers don't work for no salary. In this case, free education and healthcare for the Libyan people were paid for by Western (and other) customers of Libyan oil. So Gaddafi didn't pay Libyan doctors, teachers and other expenses associated with education and healthcare. You and I did, by filling up our cars with petrol derived from Libyan oil. We paid the petrol station, who paid the petrol refineries, who paid the oil suppliers, who paid Libya/Gaddafi, who paid the teachers/doctors, with each role player taking their cut all the way along the value chain. Gaddafi took his cut, just like everyone else did. It is hard to estimate what that cut was. Suffice it to say, it was a lot more than is taken by, for example, the PM of Norway - a country that makes about the same income as Libya from oil sales. Incidentally, Norway also gives its citizens free healthcare and education. Along with a bunch of things that Libya didn't - like a free press and a vote. With approximately the same oil income, Norway propelled its people to the head of the UN Human Development Indices rating, which ranks countries on their citizens' quality of life. Libya isn't in the top 50. So rather than marveling at how much Gaddafi did for the Libyan people, ask instead how much more he could and should have done.

      tommy 2 - 2011-09-09 12:24

      @John So how can it be right for western countries to invade and steal resources from Libya to fund there failing economic situation. You seem to think it is ok. These rebel terrorists will also take a cut,but the people of Libya will suffer cause these fools no nothing about governing a country. With regard to your last point, Then we can agree that gaddafi was on the right path. By the way i am sure if sanctions were not imposed on Libya,it would be in the top 10.

      john - 2011-09-09 12:42

      *sigh* They are not stealing resources. They are buying them. Libya under Gaddafi made about $40bn per annum in oil sales. Iraq under the new govt is making $60bn which will increase to $100bn once they have the infrastructure upgrades in place. Can you please explain to me how Iraq's resources are being stolen while Libya's (under Gadaffi) weren't? Both countries were/are doing exactly the same - negotiating business deals with oil companies to harvest their resources for mutual benefit. That is how business works.

      tommy 2 - 2011-09-09 13:06

      @John, They are buying them at far,far below the going rate..... You see it costs for nato and the west to overthrow a goverment.(military intervention) Let me ask you. Who blow up the infrastructure in IRAQ............ 9 YEARS on and there is still no infrastructure built. Who blow up the infrastructure in Libya............ The contracts to rebuild these countries go to Western countries. The very same countries that messed up the infrastructure in the first place.Oh lets not forget security contract,military contracts.... All this does is keep the country in debt to the west & its allies..... while there resources are being stolen. What will follow in libya is the same that is taking place in Iraq. It will be unstable.The west use local assets to create this. Cause these countries are made up by different tribes,which will be fighting each other while the west goes along with they plan. None of the contracts in Iraq have been fulfilled but the U.S is already talking about pulling out. So if this is how business is done, By bombing,destroying infrastructure,killing innocent people and keeping a country in debt which had no debt before...... I will not support that. S.A. should be very scared, cause there has been talk of a U.S. military base being put up in the SADEC region. Food for thought, now you do the dishes.

      john - 2011-09-09 14:00

      They are not buying it at below the going rate. Oil is traded on world markets at fixed prices that are based on the benchmarks of Brent Crude, Oman/Dubai Crude, the OPEC "mixed basket" of prices, etc. The price depends on the quality of oil delivered, not on who has invaded whom. Libya and Iraq both belong to OPEC, which actively intervenes in markets to keep prices within its preferred limits. It's a supply and demand industry. If supply drops and prices rise, OPEC may deliver extra capacity to bring prices down. And the opposite if supply is abundant. So even if Iraq and Libya wanted to give all their oil to Obama for free, they would be prevented from doing so by OPEC. Not to mention their own people, who realise that they need oil as a form of national income. Lots of infrastructure has been built in Iraq. The progress has been hampered by corruption of Western firms, corruption of Iraqi officials, security problems/sabotage, and several other factors. Yes, the West must take some blame for this. But not all. And indeed we see the same thing in SA, with government money either given to contractors who fail to deliver, or pocketed by corrupt govt officials. Is this the West's fault too?

      tommy 2 - 2011-09-09 14:33

      @john, Who runs the oil market,who is opec,who are the main players. The information you have stated,is given to the world by who. Tell me john,how was Libya & Iraq able to sell oil even when sanctions were imposed on them.Where was opec. With regard to S.A. one cannot blame the west cause they have not invaded us.

      john - 2011-09-09 15:55

      tommy2, nobody runs the oil market. Russia is the biggest single producer but most known global reserves reside in the OPEC block of countries: Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela. North America also produces, as do countries like Norway, Britain (North Sea), and so on. Oil is the world's most-traded commodity, every country uses it, every country buys it, every country who has it sells it. Like most other commodities, it is subject to market forces of supply and demand, and the price is based thereon. Nobody 'runs' it. While there is some manipulation by OPEC, it is only to a limited extent - and dwindling. All of this is easily googled. Try OPEC doesn't deal with sanctions. It is largely a supply-side entity that deals with production quotas by OPEC members, although embargoes were part of its activities historically. Sanctions are a demand-side factor implemented at either global (UN), regional (EU, AU) or national level. Sanctions are not necessarily global. The US sanctions Sudan's oil industry. This does not mean that Sudan may not sell oil, only that US companies are forbidden (by their own government, not by the UN or EU or OPEC or anybody else) from dealing with Sudan. China, however, does not sanction Sudan's oil. So Chinese companies are free to operate in Sudan.

      tommy 2 - 2011-09-09 16:46

      @john, some manipulation by opec...... The EU/UN WITH regard to sanctions,and these are aligned to the U.s. Who has the biggest influence on opec.....

      john - 2011-09-09 17:18

      The UN is not aligned to the US, the US is a member state of the UN and permanent veto-holding member of the Security Council. However, Russia and China have the same permanent member and veto status, and they were historically the ideological enemies of the US. If the UN wanted to align itself with the US, it would hardly give veto votes to America's traditional enemies. If the UN wanted executive power for the US, it would give the US sole occupation of the Security Council. Or, at least, the only veto vote of the five permanent members. OPEC is not a puppet of the West. Far from it. If it was, then countries like Iran and Venezuela would have no part of it. However, it is also not some "Arab-driven resistance movement" to undermine the West, as some conspiracy theorists in the West have claimed. There are conspiracy theorists on all sides, lol. Nobody benefits from an unstable oil industry with wildly fluctuating prices, except for maybe some futures speculators. So the entire world, including OPEC, is agreed that reliable supplies at fairly predictable prices is in everyone's favour. The oil industry is both immense and complex, and also very competitive. There is no way that the industry is going to sit on its hands and allow one stakeholder - whether the US, OPEC, Russia, China or EU - to dominate things. These bodies are big enough and ugly enough to defend themselves. They don't need the conspiracy theorists to defend them.

      tommy 2 - 2011-09-09 17:59

      @John, The U.N. with that puppet who is still floating on the moon. Come on john, If you climb up a mountain on one side & i the other, This does not mean we would have went through the same struggles. Let alone the view.

      john - 2011-09-09 18:14

      Climbing up different sides of a mountain?? A puppet floating on the moon?? I'm afraid you've lost me completely. I fail to see how that relates to the UN, OPEC or the oil industry.

      tommy 2 - 2011-09-09 20:07

      @ john, Your side of the mountain................. You have been brainwashed by the western media........ A puppet still floating on the moon.......... Your U.N. chief banki moon,,,,,,, Last but not least Opec....... These idiots are run by who,who has the most influence in opec..... I am sure you are not lost now........... Follow the bread crumbs or pebbles left behind to find your way home.

      john - 2011-09-09 20:40

      How exactly has the "Western media" brainwashed me? Ban Ki Moon does not run the UN, the nations of the UN do. Issues are put up to votes. If the Security Council votes for something or against it, what Moon thinks is irrelevant. It is a committee, not a dictatorship. I'm not aware of who has the most influence in OPEC. Chavez or Ahmadinejad probably think they do. But if you looked at their overall functioning, you'd probably find that most issues are resolved by consensus or, at least, majority opinion. I'm not sure what "trail of breadcrumbs" you're talking about. If you're talking about believing what conspiracy theory sites say then sorry, I've read what they have to say and it makes no sense to me. I'm not sure why sites that attribute sinister motives to government are so popular and why people find them so believable. People in the US, for example, are completely paranoid about things like identity cards because "the government will use them to enslave us". Have you been "enslaved" by having an ID book? No, me neither. These sites are just trolling by people who don't really know how the world works. They get hold of some details about a story, misunderstand them, and then spin it into the big evil government wanting to enslave us. I've worked with govt here. Trust me, there are no sinister agents reading your emails and looking for ways to enslave you. Just a bunch of bored civil servants waiting for 5 pm so they can knock off and go home, heh.

      tommy 2 - 2011-09-09 21:26

      @john, bRAINWASHED,cause you beleive what they say....... About the civil agents working till 5,i think you are wrong. About you not knowing who runs opec,this is my point. Conspiracy theories,i think not....... It is basically the other side of the story,you brainwashed fool.

      john - 2011-09-09 21:39

      Oh dear, the conspiracy theory sites seem to have got hold of you. You do know that 99% of conspiracy theory sites are run by Americans, yeah? But OK, I'll humour you. Enlighten us - who actually does run OPEC?

  • Amos Rakgots - 2011-09-09 09:27

    Please WEST rid our world of all dictators....

  • IC1 - 2011-09-09 09:43

    @ YES: WTF????

  • arthur.amgen - 2011-09-09 11:14

    @chocobutter and Tommy2 Your hate for the West should not allow you to excuse wrong caused by Dictators Gadaffy, Sadam, Mugabe, Osama and co.. Unless you think they are fine leaders and kind and caring for their people. Then you are deluded. Bush did not kill millions. Do not lie. Osama started the war anyway by killing thousands at the Twin Towers.

      tommy 2 - 2011-09-09 12:01

      @Arthur.amgen Let us look at your dictators. Gaddafi; The western world have been trading with him,keeping Libyan funds in their banks and we never heard nothing about ill treatment to the Libyan people until feb 2011.They dropped sanctions and excepted him in the world,in fact gave him a great welcome. Sadam; Came into power through a coup which was funded by the CIA,. Was great friends with the west cause they trained him,sold arms to him etc.. Mugabe, Was the Afican leader who was loved by Britain, Once again funded by britain and was a good servant until............ You see Arthur all these dictators you mention were buddies with the west & its allies but the moment, they decided that they will no longer bow down to the west. These very same dictators all of a sudden became monsters. As for OBL he is not a dictator. But hes family has very strong ties with the bush family. You have failed to mention the biggest dictator of all the SAUDI KING.......(one wonders why) The day bush & blair have they day at the puppet court (the hague) is the day i will start beleiving other wise.

      arthur.amgen - 2011-09-09 12:53

      @tommy2 Gaddafi was legitimised in the West by Nelson Mandela and become part of the world community. That does not excuse his terrorist actions before or his stealing from the country or his persecution, and killing of his own people. He is a tyrant. Period. He was never ,ever elected. Sadam. Same can be said of him. So what if the West befriended him. Do you not understand power and politics. He turned on his own people . Same as Gadaffi. Mugabe is an arch Marxist terrorist. Britain was just to glade to dump Rhodesia on Mugabe. But that does not condone what Mugabe has done. Thousand of Matabele and opposition killed and persecuted. White,s violently driven off the land with out compensation.No currency. No economy. I don,t know about the Saudi King. Maybe you are right there.

      tommy 2 - 2011-09-09 14:11

      @Arthur, Gaddafi was not legitimised in the west by Mandela, it was after he agreed to pay the families for the lockherbie disaster and stop his nuclear development program. Not forgetting the deal cut with BP in exchange for the return of the libyan accused for the lockerbie disaster. Saddam. How is Iraq better than when saddam was in power? In fact, it is worse off. Spare me that nonsense about power & politics. This has to do with greed,cause your own democratic system is falling apart. Mugabe, You said it,"britain was to glad to dump rhodesia on mugabe" So the problem in Zimbabwe was caused by who.......... If you are that concerned about human right issues why has the west not gone to china & saudi arabia.Syria No currency is caused by Sanctions. So haven't tHE INTERNATIONAL community learnt,that sanctions only cause the innocent people of the country to suffer not the ones in power.

  • pages:
  • 1