Britain in ("urgent") talks with 10 more (senior) Gaddafi aides (about possible defection)

[Turborama]

Source: The Independent (UK)

Inner circle turn their backs on besieged Libyan dictator

By Cahal Milmo, Oliver Wright and Donald Macintyre in Tripoli

Friday, April 1 2011

The British Government said it was in urgent talks with up to another 10 senior figures in Colonel Gaddafi's creaking regime about possible defection following the dramatic arrival in Britain of the Libyan dictator's chief henchman for much of his 40 years in power.

As former foreign minister Moussa Koussa was reported to be "talking voluntarily" to British officials yesterday, the Libyan regime was desperately struggling to limit the damage of the stunning desertion, suggesting he was exhausted and suffering from mental problems.

But its capacity to stop the domino effect appeared to be limited. The Independent understands that British officials are already in contact with up to 10 leading Libyan officials about following Mr Koussa's lead and deserting Gaddafi. As Libyan diplomats at the United Nations said they expected further defections and reports emerged that a senior figure in the country's London embassy had changed sides, David Cameron said others should now "come to their senses". Meanwhile, speculation was rife in Tripoli that a series of defections was imminent. And it was reinforced by the confirmation that Ali Abdussalam Treki, a top Libyan official who had also served as Foreign Minister and UN ambassador, had quit over the "spilling of blood" by government forces.


Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-in-talks-with-10-more-gaddafi-aides-2258900.html

[joshcryer]

1. Diplomacy second?

Good enough for me. :hi:

[David__77]

2. lol

besieged... creaking regime... dramatic... henchman... desperately... stunning... domino effect...

What, is this world war 2? We haven't had this good of war propaganda since then. I am not commented on the veracity - or potential lack thereof - of the report. But the storytelling is an issue in itself. Why the need for media to editorialize to such an extent?

[joshcryer]

3. It's The Independent.

Check out the wiki article on them. :rofl:

Note: this is being reported in other sources, but you can expect that kind of editorializing in The Independent. I think it makes for good writing at least. And I would say Gaddafi is besieged because there's only one way for this to end. I would hope you like anyone else believes it should end diplomatically rather than with Gaddafi and his regimes heads in nooses (Gaddafi's favored way to execute people).

[Turborama]

4. You mean this...?

Political stance

When the paper was established in 1986, the founders intended its political stance to reflect the centre of the British political spectrum and thought that it would take readers primarily from The Times and The Daily Telegraph. However it is now seen as tending towards left-wing views, more a competitor to The Guardian, even though it still features conservative columnists such as Bruce Anderson and Dominic Lawson and tends to take a classical liberal, pro-market, stance on economic issues. A 2004 poll by MORI showed 39% of readers were Liberal Democrat voters while 36% supported the Labour party. However on May 5, 2010, the eve of the British general election, The Independent made its political stance unequivocally clear, advising its readers: "There is a strong case for progressively minded voters to lend their support to the Liberal Democrats." Since the Lib Dems entered into a coalition with the right-wing Conservative party after the election their support has been much less vocal.

The paper took a strong editorial position against the 2003 Invasion of Iraq and aspects of US and UK foreign policy related to the War on Terrorism following the September 11 attacks. It has also been critical of Israeli government policies and highlighted what it refers to as “war crimes” being committed by pro-government forces in the Darfur region of Sudan.

A leader published on the day of the London Mayoral election of 2008 which compared the candidates said that, if the newspaper had a vote, it would vote first for the Green Party candidate, Sian Berry, noting the similarity between her priorities and those of The Independent, and secondly, with "rather heavy heart", for the then incumbent, Ken Livingstone.

The paper has also taken strong positions on environmental issues, and has run campaigns for electoral reform, against the introduction of ID cards and against the restriction of mass immigration to the UK. In 1997 The Independent on Sunday launched a campaign for the decriminalisation of cannabis, however ten years on it reversed that position, writing that it had underestimated the harm caused by the latest strains of the drug. Originally it avoided royal stories, with Whittam Smith later saying he thought the British press was “unduly besotted” with the Royal Family and that a newspaper could “manage without” stories that focused on the monarchy. The Independent sponsors The Longford Prize, in memory of Lord Longford.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent#Political_stance

[David__77]

6. I don't want leftist editorializing under cover of "news."

Not any more than rightist editorializing. The Independent did engage in some sensationalism, as I recall, with regard to Iraq.

[Turborama]

8. The Independent was the only British broadsheet newspaper against the Iraq war.

What "sensationalism" are you talking about?

They are a well respected broadsheet newspaper and this article follows LBN rules.

TBH I really don't care what you want. It's irrelevant. It's only a complaint about the style of writing, which does nothing to disprove the actual validity of the news.

[David__77]

9. I didn't mean to imply it wasn't LBN.

I was just noting the strong editorial content of much nominally straight news reporting. I clearly was also not trying to disprove that which cannot be disproved. Thank you for posting the article.

[joshcryer]

7. I'm not knocking them.

And I am not slighting you for using that source.

But they are left-wing and their editorializing does leave something to be desired. I'm really having a love affair with The Guardian's articles, but they may be also characterized as left-wing possibly. They've been remarkably balanced on the Libya issue.

[David__77]

5. I like news reports as dry as possible.

I like wording to be very concise, no passive voice, clear. Similarly, I think it's good when news anchors are rather dispassionate in their delivery. I know that won't garner ratings though!

I'm extremely skeptical of many news reports given how things are coming down relative to the preceding media narratives. It seems like hopes are driving media reports as much as facts. I have no idea what to make of Koussa or any of that at this point. I think the intelligence community is skeptical as well.

[Waiting For Everyman]

10. K&R