Sas-Backed Libyan Diplomatic Mission Ends In Humiliation

[dalsingh101]

This is interesting to observe in context of Britain trying to keep a foot in the Libyan door by initiating communication with the 'rebel leadership'. No doubt they want to preserve the previously agreed lucrative arrangements with the Gaddafi regime with any possible new comers. Hence the supportive 'moves'.

It's a shame apnay aren't generally hip to the nature of the British political beast.

In any case, if these fools know what's best, they should keep their noses out of these affairs as they have stirred the hornet's nest enough with the Iraq jaloos.

If you don't agree, hold your horses as I'm sure Tony will be along real soon with his Jat arse licking perspective on events.

SAS-backed Libyan diplomatic mission ends in humiliation

British special forces and intelligence agents leave Libya on HMS Cumberland after being released by anti-Gaddafi rebels

The SAS and British intelligence agents have now left Benghazi, where children spent part of Sunday playing on an armoured vehicle outside the offices of the rebel forces in the port city. Photograph: Kim Ludbrook/EPA

A British diplomatic effort to reach out to Libyan rebels has ended in humiliation as a team of British special forces and intelligence agents left Benghazi after being briefly detained.

The six SAS troops and two MI6 officers were seized by Libyan rebels in the eastern part of the country after arriving by helicopter four days ago. They left on HMS Cumberland, the frigate that had docked in Benghazi to evacuate British and other EU nationals as Libya lurched deeper into conflict. The diplomatic team's departure marked a perfunctory end to a bizarre and botched venture.

"I can confirm that a small British diplomatic team has been in Benghazi," said William Hague, the foreign secretary. "The team went to Libya to initiate contacts with the opposition. They experienced difficulties, which have now been satisfactorily resolved. They have now left Libya."

Audio of a telephone conversation between the UK's ambassador to Libya, Richard Northern, and a senior rebel leader was later leaked.

Northern suggested in the call that the SAS team had been detained due to a misunderstanding.

The rebel leader responded: "They made a big mistake, coming with a helicopter in an open area."

Northern said: "I didn't know how they were coming."

Despite the failure of the mission, Hague indicated that Britain would continue to try to make contact with the opposition.

"We intend, in consultation with the opposition, to send a further team to strengthen our dialogue in due course," he said. "This diplomatic effort is part of the UK's wider work on Libya, including our ongoing humanitarian support. We continue to press for Gaddafi to step down and we will work with the international community to support the legitimate ambitions of the Libyan people."

According to Guardian sources, the British intelligence and special forces unit was caught near the town of Khadra, about 20 miles west of Benghazi.

A senior member of Benghazi's revolutionary council said: "They were carrying espionage equipment, reconnaissance equipment, multiple passports and weapons. This is no way to conduct yourself during an uprising.

"Gaddafi is bringing in thousands of mercenaries to kill us, most are using foreign passports and how do we know who these people are?

"They say they're British nationals and some of the passports they have are British. But the Israelis used British passports to kill that man in Dubai last year."

Rebel leaders said claimed the captives had been treated well and would be released as soon as the British government vouched for their identity with the rebel command.

The news follows Sunday Times claims that an SAS unit was being held by rebel forces it had approached in an attempt to open up diplomatic channels to opponents of Muammar Gaddafi.

Whitehall sources said on Friday it needed to learn more about the leadership of the anti-Gaddafi forces and find out what logistical support they needed, but would not give arms to the rebels, as an international arms embargo was in place.

British officials during the day declined to comment on reports that special forces were being held but defended the objective of the mission.

The defence secretary, Liam Fox said: "It is a very difficult situation to be able to understand in detail. There are a number of different opposition groups to Colonel Gaddafi in Libya who do seem relatively disparate. We want to clearly understand what the dynamic is here because we want to be able to work with them to ensure the demise of the Gaddafi regime, to see a transition to greater stability in Libya and ultimately to more representative government.

"So getting a picture of that is relatively difficult, as is widely reported. Communications are being interrupted, there are difficulties with mobile phones, with the internet potentially being interfered with.

"So we are trying to build a picture – it's essential that the government does that and it's essential that all western governments do that so we are able to get a clearer idea of what we are able to do in terms of helping the people of Libya."

David Cameron, speaking at the Tory party spring conference in Cardiff, repeated his call for "Gaddafi to go". "On Libya, our strategy is clear," he said. "We will continue to intensify pressure on the regime. We will continue to state clearly that international justice has a long reach and a long memory, and that those who commit crimes against humanity will not go unpunished. We will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to those affected by this crisis, and continue to demand access for aid agencies to reach those in need.

And we will continue to plan, with our allies, for every eventuality. "

The Sunday Times reported Libyan and British sources confirming the SAS unit had been detained by rebel forces it had approached to secure a meeting with a junior diplomat to offer help in their fight against Gaddafi. The mission backfired when rebel leaders in Benghazi objected to foreign interference from governments which had not yet formally recognised them as Libya's legitimate rulers, it said.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/06/sas-diplomatic-mission-in-libya

Edited March 6, 2011 by dalsingh101

[HSD1]

If you don't agree, hold your horses as I'm sure Tony will be along real soon with his Jat arse licking perspective on events.

lol, so non-jatt sikhs tend not to be anglophiles?

[dalsingh101]

lol, so non-jatt sikhs tend not to be anglophiles?

Not always, but they don't have a clearly identifiable long history of making a career out of it....lol

Anyway, that was a sort of tongue in cheek snipe at my old nemesis. Don't make too much of it.

Going back to the piece, I wonder if the apparent flux in the Arab world foreshadows possible major changes to how the western oil dependent economies operate?

Not long ago I would have thought that they would just go in and take what they wanted. I think recent events will possibly make them more cautious of that than previously?

[HSD1]

Going back to the piece, I wonder if the apparent flux in the Arab world foreshadows possible major changes to how the western oil dependent economies operate?

Not long ago I would have thought that they would just go in and take what they wanted. I think recent events will possibly make them more cautious of that than previously?

The thing is that no one knows what will happen in Libya. The british know that they cant support one side too much, but they need to ingratiate themselves with both sides. If this was somalia, punjab or afghanistan the sas wouldnt have thought twice about opening up on anyone trying to take them prisoner. But because its rebels who may end up controlling oil, they dont want stories of british special forces killing locals to linger and spoil their relationship when the dust has settled. Add to the equation the fact that Libya is an anglophobic country due to their history in the last few decades, it's little wonder the british are careful to avoid the eggshells.

[dalsingh101]

Relating it to our own people and playing a devils advocate to ask uncomfortable questions:

Having this handle on the nature of the Brit beast, do our brothers and sisters who annually march at Hyde Park really have any chance of influencing things at a governmental level, seeing as we have nothing like oil to offer whitey? Especially as only recently companies like BP invested a whopping $7.2 billion into Hindustan?

Plus I'm talking outside of Libya too. There seems to be ferment in a few parts of the Araba world in general? The overall toll of this on the western/arab relations, specifically economical?

Edited March 6, 2011 by dalsingh101

[tonyhp32]

Dalsingh you are a sad, sad man. Anti-Jat paranoia and Anti-'imperialist whitey' jingoism, is that the sum total of all you have? I bet you got an orgasm when you read that story!

[dalsingh101]

Yeah, the same way you probably have an orgasm when some white military types turn up at your local Gurdwara looking for gullible farmer canon fodder to recruit....

Edited March 6, 2011 by dalsingh101

[HSD1]

Having this handle on the nature of the Brit beast, do our brothers and sisters who annually march at Hyde Park really have any chance of influencing things at a governmental level, seeing as we have nothing like oil to offer whitey? Especially as only recently companies like BP invested a whopping $7.2 billion into Hindustan?

Hyde park has been happening for 26 years, I dont think it does anything anyway. As for the relationship between hindustan and britain, it goes far deeper than money.

[dalsingh101]

Hyde park has been happening for 26 years, I dont think it does anything anyway. As for the relationship between hindustan and britain, it goes far deeper than money.

What, perceived Aryan cultural shite?

Anyway, the Hyde park 84 thing isn't that old.

Edited March 6, 2011 by dalsingh101

[HSD1]

What, perceived Aryan cultural shite?

No man, lol, those lies went out the window with partition. What I mean is india's role as a superpower and in the commonwealth. If india is a success, the anglos say it was them that made india what it is. Considering what arselicks the hindus are, the anglos will feel justified in their beliefs. Now thats not my racism, speak to whites who have been to india and many say that the indians there thank them and are quite proud of having been in the empire. If india fails, then the anglos will blame it on the indians themselves saying that the indians threw away all their opportunities and that they would be better off under the english. Bigging up india's (lack of) human rights records would give the impression that the country the anglos built is not the world's greatest democracy, something the brits dont want their former colony to be seen as.

As for Khalistan rallies, have you heard many indians say that if east Punjab is free that the rest of india will break up? What countries would form if this happened? Well there would be a major Bengali state in the east, a large Punjabi state in the northwest, a central indian state and a major southern state. Sound familiar? Yep, thats right, before the anglos turned up there was Bengal, Mysore, Maratha Confederacy and the Khalsa Empire. What would this imply? That the centralised indian superstate is unnatural just like the mughal empire was. All the notions that the british helped india would go out the window.

The english say they ruled india with a few thousand civil servants. They never finish the sentence though. The truth is, the british ruled india with a few thousand civil servants and millions of policemen, paramilitaries, soldiers and shady state security types. Just like the indian government does today. The British may have left but we are still slaves. Its just not the hindustani elite hold the keys to our chains, not the english.

Edited March 6, 2011 by HSD 2

[dalsingh101]

Now thats not my racism, speak to whites who have been to india and many say that the indians there thank them and are quite proud of having been in the empire.

You've lost the plot. I've heard this from more Sikhs (mainly but non uniquely the farming types) than any other Indians, no actually, more than ANY other community formerly subjugated by the Brits. Who jumps about more proudly about their sepoy position in the empire than Sikhs, especially the usual pendus?

The english say they ruled india with a few thousand civil servants. They never finish the sentence though. The truth is, the british ruled india with a few thousand civil servants and millions of policemen, paramilitaries, soldiers and shady state security types. Just like the indian government does today. The British may have left but we are still slaves. Its just not [sic?] the hindustani elite hold the keys to our chains, not the english.

You conveniently brush over the fact that many of our lot were 'willing accomplices' in all this. Furthermore they even went abroad and helped the English (and their other minions) subjugate other races. Read up on the opium wars. Plus go to Singh Sabha Southall, and you can find another trickle of buffoons still up for that type of shite even today apparently? Our people still haven't learned....

Edited March 6, 2011 by dalsingh101

[HSD1]

You've lost the plot. I've heard this from more Sikhs (mainly but non uniquely the farming types) than any other Indians, no actually, more than ANY other community formerly subjugated by the Brits. Who jumps about more proudly about their sepoy position in the empire than Sikhs, especially the usual pendus?

Oh poor old Dalsingh. Go and speak to whites who have been to india, read their travel journals and newspapers and speak to non-sikh freshies, they all say it. Just because the sikhs you know are thickos doesnt mean the rest of us are, nor does it mean that outsiders are super-clever either.

You conveniently brush over the fact that many of our lot were 'willing accomplices' in all this. Furthermore they even went abroad and helped the English (and their other minions) subjugate other races. Read up on the opium wars. Plus go to Singh Sabha Southall, and you can find another trickle of fools still up for that type of shite even today apparently?

And plenty of sikhs didnt.

Let me explain something to you. The real world isnt all logic and based on your opinions. In WW2, Holland produced the largest amount of non-german recruits to the German Army per capita of their population. The Dutch also produced the largest number of resistance fighters per capita to German occupation. Strange, no? Just as many sikhs sided with the british, many didnt and died fighting their oppressors. Just like in the 80s when sikh kharkoos fought sikh policemen and army troops.

[dalsingh101]

Well, , good luck with your lofty ambitions for the panth.

Sorry, I just don't see what you see.

I honestly hope you are going to actually try and do something outside of talking on the net. Seriously.

Here is wishing you the best.

[HSD1]

All I'm saying is there are 20 million of us who need to have the links that bind us strengthened rather than trying to change people's personalities which will take centuries and involve changing how people are raised as it's too late when they are old.

Anyway it seems we go around in circles in these threads, especially as no one else seems to have an opinion or insight they want to post.

[dalsingh101]

My insight is this. Consider it an opinion.

These people, who have consistently been stabbing us in the back and historically using our more gullible and mercenary farmers for their own political and economic domination, need to be treated with the gravest of suspicion and contempt (at a corporate not personal level) when it comes to Sikh interests. This is a lesson we consistently fail to learn and these people seem to know how to tap into the more sycophantic and selfish elements of our community.

I find the original post quite insightful because despite what may happen in future, the frosty response towards the ever opportunistic Brits, is one we should learn from. I have no doubt that they probably expected to be warmly heralded when they embarked on the above mission, but this opposition seems to have put things in context for them.

But you hit on something important:

What exactly binds us and as to the differences, which ones are ones that cause the exploitable splits between us?

[HSD1]

These people, who have consistently been stabbing us in the back and historically using our more gullible and mercenary farmers for their own political and economic domination, need to be treated with the gravest of suspicion and contempt (at a corporate not personal level) when it comes to Sikh interests. This is a lesson we consistently fail to learn and these people seem to know how to tap into the more sycophantic and selfish elements of our community.

Whilst we live here, pissing on our hosts isnt usually a good idea. There is plenty we can learn, use to organise ourself, educations, money, etc all that to help fund our own institutions and sort out our community. Once we have got what we want off them and are strong and self reliant you can be as rude as you like to them.

I find the original post quite insightful because despite what may happen in future, the frosty response towards the ever opportunistic Brits, is one we should learn from. I have no doubt that they probably expected to be warmly heralded when they embarked on the above mission, but this opposition seems to have put things in context for them.

Dont think it will stop them from trying again.

What exactly binds us and as to the differences, which ones are ones that cause the exploitable splits between us?

The things that bind are religion, heritage, history, culture and personal morals that tie into how groups interact internally.

What divides us is living in societies where baser instincts are turned to max and anything goes. Its also what we dont have, the things that make us go cap in hand to others for - the things that we had but have now been taken or destroyed.

[dalsingh101]

Whilst we live here, pissing on our hosts isnt usually a good idea. There is plenty we can learn, use to organise ourself, educations, money, etc all that to help fund our own institutions and sort out our community. Once we have got what we want off them and are strong and self reliant you can be as rude as you like to them.

Just being around these people seems to cost our lot, gravely. Even if it's the way they spread their ideas into our heads and bingo - you've got compliant sell out, coconuts. At best indifferent to Sikh interests, at worst ready to sell any Sikh cause out without a blink or second thought.

Dont think it will stop them from trying again.

I'm sure it wont, but I'm pretty sure all of the change around them is having an accumulatively negative effect on them in ways not so apparent right now. Hypothetically a nice time to get a Sikh boot in.

The things that bind are religion, heritage, history, culture and personal morals that tie into how groups interact internally.

That's way too simplistic. Our culture is also one of our more divisive forces. Normative notions of personal morals differ widely across subcommunities. That's what we desperately need more consensus on.

What divides us is living in societies where baser instincts are turned to max and anything goes.

Have we ever not been like this I wonder?

Its also what we dont have, the things that make us go cap in hand to others for - the things that we had but have now been taken or destroyed.

Or maybe what we've been condition to believe we need, but could really do without. Sure everyone likes status, but sometimes it seems like our lot can become obsessed with it?

Edited March 7, 2011 by dalsingh101

[HSD1]

Just being around these people seems to cost our lot, gravely. Even if it's the way they spread their ideas into our heads and bingo - you've got compliant sell out, coconuts. At best indifferent to Sikh interests, at worst ready to sell any Sikh cause out without a blink or second thought.

I guess it's how a sikh acts around them. If you dont open yourself up to crap, they wont waste time trying to hit you with it. Not taking anything they try but still being civil is the best way to go about it.

Our culture is also one of our more divisive forces.

It also binds in the sense that is unique. I'm not on about things like drinking, but music or books.

Have we ever not been like this I wonder?

The Gurus pretty much told us how to act, kind of like our own set of laws.

Or maybe what we've been condition to believe we need, but could really do without. Sure everyone likes status, but sometimes it seems like our lot can become obsessed with it?

I didnt mean status, rather a sense of belonging and a link to a community.

Edited March 7, 2011 by HSD 2

[dalsingh101]

The Gurus pretty much told us how to act, kind of like our own set of laws.

Forget the hardcore personal rehat stuff, we haven't even managed to let the wider, good egalitarian stuff permeate our society.

We are so far removed from how we were told to act.

[HSD1]

Forget the hardcore personal rehat stuff, we haven't even managed to let the wider, good egalitarian stuff permeate our society.

We are so far removed from how we were told to act.

You asked if there was ever a time when we were not succumbing to every whim and I pointed out when we were a lot closer to it than now.

[dalsingh101]

You asked if there was ever a time when we were not succumbing to every whim and I pointed out when we were a lot closer to it than now.

Sometimes I get the feeling that of all the legacy bequeathed us by our Gurus, the beautiful, sublime social gospel they taught and lived is one that has had the least impact on Panjabi Sikh society. We positively seem to ignore it? lol

Anyway, I'm looking forward to that book review you are working on, pull your finger out tidy it up and post it.

[HSD1]

Sometimes I get the feeling that of all the legacy bequeathed us by our Gurus, the beautiful, sublime social gospel they taught and lived is one that has had the least impact on Panjabi Sikh society. We positively seem to ignore it? lol

Anyway, I'm looking forward to that book review you are working on, pull your finger out tidy it up and post it.

I think its more a case that no one has actually thought out how it would apply to a society as big as the sikh community is.

As for the book review, sikhchic produced a half decent review so I'm not too sure if I'll bother finishing it.