Lyzie-Gaal, my dear, soo taan Shariifka taleefankiisaan ku siin saan iskugu ogeyn waad ii jartey, geel beesho, out of the 550, I know personally 29 xildhibaano(9 of them live in London as we speak now, 4 of them live in Dubai, another 5 staying in Nairobi and only set foot in Mogadishu 4 times since they were elected!), personally I know them well, and I know the life they are leading, and I am aware their constant travel to London, Nairobi, Addis Ababa, Dubai and Mogadishu, markey mushaarka soo qaataan bey kifaaxaan istareex iyo damaashaad safar ugu baxaan, and 87% of them bank account ayuu automatic ugu soo dhacaa musharakooda, am not against their mushaar, or whatever they getting from the UN or the European, but rather their lack of activities, and nto doing anything good for the country, you can't just sit there and do holidays while your fellow country men are waiting you and suffering day and night, and ayukana ay isku daldalayaan suqaarkii adduunka isbarmuunto seendada muuska korneeto iyo farmaajo see u cunaayeen aa calooshii aa waxee u kala qeebsantey toman iyo siyeed qeebood. Layzie-Gaal, you know me well, and should have known better in saying nuune waa anti-government, all kinds of government, ma hadaad Shuuciga North Korea iga dhigtey, I do admire dowladaha Shuuciga though, their slogan of I own everything in the country is something to be proud of, look at China, a Shuuci country, how successful they are. Ps: From now on, yaa Layzie-Gaal, you are no longer my student, waanba ku deyriyey, but still I wov you, and that is a static love

Jacphar, meeshey Amison askari ka mida qaadanayo 8,000 kun oo dollar ugu yaraan bishii oysan ku jirin expenses kale maxaad u maleen xildhibaan waddanka u dhashey, the figures are correct, sxb, xayeysiin kuma jirto, dhowr kun oo askari oo AMison ayaa wadanka jooga, dhowr kun oo kalena Uganada iyo Burundi oo tartan siyaasadeed ku jiro ayaa u soo wada bisha soo socoto, illaa 10 kunoo askari oo Amison mushaarkooda the next 2 years were 130 million dollars, all coming from the UN, xildhibaanada dowlada lacagteeduna waxaa kala qeebsadey UNta iyo European Unionta, Arab Leaguetana waxaan naf laheyn ayey bixisaa, Saaxiib, the figures are there to see if you check the UN websites and EU websites that deal directly with the TFG and Amison. Inta aan sheegay waxa dheer other government officials, afhayeenada oo gaaraya illaa labaatan, xafiisyada dowliga kuwa fadhiya, safiirada aan waligood booskooda laga taaban and the list goes on! Dadkaas baan wax ka sugeenaa iney nabad iyo barwaaqo soo dabaalaan, waana sabata ay u kororsanayaan xilliga, waala dhadhansadey bahasha

Show bey dhigeesey islaanta, the same day she came from Benghazi to create a scene, she did, now abaalkeed aa la marsiinaa, hope in aan loo xiirin

^^ Val, apart from xildhibaanada(550 of them), there are up to 23 wasiiro, here is a quick glance of their salary: 550 MPs, each receives 13 thousand Dollars a month(correct as of December 2010), their expenses such as travel(they all travel a lot), hotel(they all live in hotels), food(they all eat at big restaurants), and other expenses are not included in the salary. One more time: 550 X 13,000 = $7,150,000, yes, that is $7 Million Doollarka Mareekanka ayey 550 xildhibaano qurquriyaan bil kasta. if I made a wild calculation of their expenses, each MP's expenses will reach $2,000 dollars a month, that is $1,100,000, YES, One Million doollarka Mareekanka each month. Wasiiradaa kuu soo harey, their salary is 2 times what the Xildhibaano earns, and sometimes even more, yes, that is half a million dollars for the 23 wasiiro for each month. The Parliment speaker and prime minister, plus the madaxweynaha all earn a monthly staggering 2 million dollars, this is not an exaggeration, we knew before Riyaale was earning half a million dollars and was the highest paid African leader, So, to every faarax and xaliimo who expects good things to come from these people, they failed, these xildhibaano plus whoever is there are there for money, nothing else, nothing more, not for country building, or peace searching, dagaalka iyo rabshada ayeyna ugu baxdaa, sidaas ayeyna jecelyihiin, ummad iyo maato toona uma maqna, iyagaa isku maqan, doonayana iney halkaas kududaan sidii diidiin aan waligii kursi ku fariisan. Lacagta meesha ay ka imaatana waa la wada ogyahey, wax soo saar ay Soomalaiya right now ay leedahayna ma jirto, walaw ayba iska yartahey ama ay ku egtahayba wadanka. Ilaahey ha u gargaaro ummada

^^ Hada waxaa i dhihi rabtaa sheekadaan aa kugu socoto miyaa Koolo, naga daa hee yaakhayoo

^^niyahow time we build a bridge we can put in good use

For now, the whole world is aware of Sarkoogy's plans and hidden motives, Erdogan took the lead to state and tell the world what has being happening. The African leaders did the same in stating the facts, but they need to act quickly and go to Tripoli, meditate between the brothers who are fighting each other, tell Gadafi to hand over some of his powers to his ministers. Libya cannot afford to be divided.

Turkey and France clash over Libya air campaign Tension mounts over military action as Ankara accuses Sarkozy of pursuing French interests over liberation of Libyan people The Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, accused France of seeing Libya as a source of 'oil, gold mines and underground treasures'. Photograph: Osman Orsal/REUTERS. Turkey has launched a bitter attack on French president Nicolas Sarkozy's and France's leadership of the military campaign against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, accusing the French of lacking a conscience in their conduct in the Libyan operations. The vitriolic criticism, from both the prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and the president, Abdullah Gül followed attacks from the Turkish government earlier this week and signalled an orchestrated attempt by Ankara to wreck Sarkozy's plans to lead the air campaign against Gaddafi. With France insisting that Nato should not be put in political charge of the UN-mandated air campaign, Turkey has come out emphatically behind sole Nato control of the operations. The row came as France confirmed that one of its fighter jets had destroyed a Libyan air force plane, the first to breach the no-fly zone since it was imposed on 19 March. The Libyan G2/Galeb trainer aircraft was destroyed by an air-to-ground missile just after it landed at an air base near the rebel-held town of Misrata, a French military spokesman said. The clash between Turkey and France over Libya is underpinned by acute frictions between Erdogan and Sarkozy, both impetuous and mercurial leaders who revel in the limelight, by fundamental disputes over Ankara's EU ambitions, and by economic interests in north Africa. The confrontation is shaping up to be decisive in determining the outcome of the bitter infighting over who should inherit command of the Libyan air campaign from the Americans and could come to a head at a major conference in London next week of the parties involved. Using incendiary language directed at France in a speech in Istanbul, Erdogan said: "I wish that those who only see oil, gold mines and underground treasures when they look in [Libya's] direction, would see the region through glasses of conscience from now on." President Gül reinforced the Turkish view that France and others were being driven primarily by economic interests. "The aim [of the air campaign] is not the liberation of the Libyan people," he said. "There are hidden agendas and different interests." Earlier this week, Claude Guéant, the French interior minister who was previously Sarkozy's chief adviser, outraged the Muslim world by stating that the French president was "leading a crusade" to stop Gaddafi massacring Libyans. Erdogan denounced the use of the word crusade yesterday, blaming those, France chief among them, who are opposed to Turkey joining the EU. Senior Nato officials are meeting in Brussels for the fourth day in a row to try to hammer out an agreement on who should assume command of the no-fly zone over Libya from the Americans who are determined to relinquish command within days. Sarkozy has agreed to give Nato military planners operational command of the campaign, but refused to grant the alliance political and strategic control, insisting this should be vested in the broader "coalition of the willing" taking part. Turkey has responded by blocking Nato planning operations for Libya while stressing that Nato should be given "sole command", senior Nato diplomats said. Turkey, Nato's second biggest army after the US and its only Muslim member, appears bent on winning the argument. It is already taking part in Nato patrols in the Mediterranean to police an arms embargo on Libya. It wants to limit and shorten the air campaign and proscribe ground attacks on Libya by Nato aircraft. If Nato is given political command of the air effort, Turkey would be able to exercise a veto in a system run on consensus. The US's top military officer in Europe, Admiral James Stavridis, Nato's supreme commander Europe, has gone to Ankara to try to mediate a deal. The Turks are incensed at repeated snubs by Sarkozy. The French failed to invite Turkey to last Saturday's summit in Paris which presaged the air strikes. French fighters taking off from Corsica struck the first blows. The Turkish government accused Sarkozy of launching not only the no-fly zone, but his presidential re-election campaign. While the dispute over Libya is substantive and political, it also appears highly personal, revealing the bad blood simmering between the French president and the Turkish prime minister. Sarkozy went to Turkey last month for the first time in four years as president. But the visit was repeatedly delayed and then downgraded from a state presidential event. He stayed in Turkey for five hours. "Relations between Turkey and France deserve more than this," complained Erdogan. "I will speak with frankness. We wish to host him as president of France. But he is coming as president of the G20, not as that of France." While the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, is also opposed to Turkey joining the EU, she has voiced her objections moderately. Sarkozy has declared loudly that culturally Turkey does not belong in Europe, but in the Middle East. France has blocked tranches of Ankara's EU negotiations on the grounds that it should not be seen as ever-fit for membership.

Secret Services Central

^^ Bahashaas aad isticmaashey bashiiroow copyrightkeeda anaa iska leh oo sameestey, laakin inaad hal mar isticmaasho waan kuu ogolahey sida hada, mar kale se, yeynaan is leyn, Soomaalidu wey dagaal jeceshahay waad ogtahey

They will receive $20,000 a month for doing nothing from the TFG. The guy is aalkoliiste and khamarji POLITICO Pro Interview: Former Sen. Al D’Amato By Dave Hansen POLITICO Pro 3/18/11 5:36 AM EDT Former Sen. Al D'Amato (R-N.Y.) was an avid poker player during his 18 years in the Senate. He left Congress in 1999, but he hasn't left the poker table. D'Amato is a regular at Monday night poker games and serves as chairman of the Poker Players Alliance, a nonprofit that promotes poker player’s rights. In this interview with POLITICO, he talks about his goal: persuading Congress to pass a bill legalizing online poker playing. Why do you want to legalize online poker? Our contention is, as more and more businesses turn to the Internet for their very existence, as we use the most modern methodologies both for entertainment and business, why shouldn’t the Internet be used? And why should people be precluded from playing a game of their choice at home? Today, we have some examples of tribes running poker-rigging games. So isn’t it better to have supervision and see to it that it is an honest game? Prohibit minors from playing? It hearkens back to the days between the government ban on alcohol and regulating it. You had more people dying from bad booze and drinking incidents. You had organized crime and unscrupulous people coming in and no taxes collected. Here you have an opportunity to keep unscrupulous people out. Even the most serious opponents have come to realize that there can be very real safeguards against youngsters playing on the Internet. If you have no regulations, you still have offshore players and you have an unregulated industry with little restrictions on who can play. Its time has come. You have to be in Never Never Land not to see the billions waged annually and that the government does nothing to protect public. In some cases, organized crime is the beneficiary of the activity. Have you always played poker? Since my college days. If you get beat when you have four of a kind by a straight flush, you don’t forget it. That has happened to yours truly. One of my most memorable hands in seven-card stud was when one player winds up with a straight flush. And Alfonse winds up with a higher straight flush. Odds of a straight flush are like a million to one. Imagine two straight flushes in a natural game in one hand? I have seen it once and was the luckiest recipient How much did you win? Let’s say it was a good pot. Who were the greatest politicians you played against? Did you ever do political business over games? I’ve played with a number of my former colleagues, and won’t go into names. I’ve played with people from all walks of life. It is a wonderful fascinating game of skill, because if you play against a skilled player enough times, you may beat him some times, but over the long run he or she will prevail because they know when to bet and how to bet. I find it a wonderfully challenging and relaxing way to spend some time. Who is the best celebrity you’ve played against? Donald Trump is the best. He’s a very bright guy — and fun. Who have you met with on Capitol Hill? Anyone you used to serve with or play against? Well, none of the people I used to play with. But a number of colleagues, both on the Republican and Democratic side expressed interest. I don’t reveal what people I am attempting to convince that this bill is long overdue. There probably won’t be any movement until the second half of this year. It probably will be June before we start the push because all energies and attention are placed on the financial situation and budget. It would be silly to make an intensive push now. But we are constantly monitoring it and attempting to put together a bill that will protect the consumer and meet some legitimate concerns, like not exposing youngsters. As more states express interest, there may be more senators and congressmen who say we should have an overall law. But it’s safe to say any legislation would provide opt outs if a state didn’t want it to have it. What are the chances of legalizing online gaming? I think we have a good chance. Last year we had an excellent chance, but when the president on the tax bill agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts, we decided not to gum up the works by putting a poker bill on it. There’s no chance to legalize sports gambling and we are not pushing it. No chance whatsoever. Online poker has the best chance because it is a skill game. Some states are considering legalized online gaming. Is it better to work at the state or federal level? Certainly better at the federal level. A number of states are actively looking at legislation to permit interstate poker. That will put more pressure on federal legislators to do something, so they can do it on a comprehensive manner. How do you spend your time now that you’re retired from Congress? We have an active consulting business. We do strategic advice. We have an active lobbying business in D.C. and New York. And we do a lot of business-to-business work with synergies. So we are very, very active. What do you miss most from the Senate? On the Senate floor, I miss the opportunity to help your community because you can pick up a phone and call a bureaucrat and ask why it is held up. That is a lot of unseen work. But to be candid, I have been blessed. The power that comes with it is intoxicating. I had a great 18 years. So while I love that, I don’t miss it because I have more time with my family. We live close to where I was raised in Long Island on the water. I have two kids and 14 grandkids. So God has blessed me. I have a very wonderful family situation that I wouldn’t have had if I continued in Senate. I don’t miss it. I loved it. I have had the best of both worlds.

BREAKING NEWS: US fighter plane downed by Gadafi Forces in Libya, this is a breaking news, The plane is an F-15E Eagle, the Telegraph added in a report from a correspondent on the ground in Libya. US officials were not immediately available for comment.

^ inaadan fahmin ayaaba fiican ehehe Everyone is taking part the parade I think, not the St.Patricks which was last Thursday, but another parade taking place in London today for anti-war. Ibti is going to Hargeisa, waaba geesiyad gabadhaa, thought she was planning to go to Shefield, another version of Hargeisa

Dallac bilaash lagu darey arraajo kaalmeeys bas ayaan shaley intan cuney baa waxaa igu dhacey qaamo qaanshiir iyo mindhicir duluqoow, aniga dhanbo baralaati camal ayaan ahey. Mornin Malika

Xamar oo sidan ah ayaa la isku heestaa, damiirnimo la'aanta jirta taas ayaa kuugu cad, Allow Xamar nuurkeedi u soo celi.

The Guardian Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya: beware the lies of March In 1999 and 2003 this was the very week Britain went to war – or, as the government put it, liberate people and protect civilians It's March, the sun is shining and spring is just around the corner. Oh, and Britain is bombing a foreign country again. If you've got a distinct feeling of deja vu about what's been going on this weekend, then it's hardly surprising. In this very week in 1999 Britain took a leading role in the bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. And on this very day in 2003, Britain took a leading role in the bombing – and invasion – of Iraq. And now we're at it again in Libya. We're being told we have to intervene in Libya to "protect the Libyan people" from being murdered by the forces of Gaddafi. We're told that having declared a ceasefire, Gaddafi "stepped up the attacks" on civilians. And that doing nothing about the dictator is simply not an option. Now all this could be true – but our experience of other March military assaults in which Britain has played a prominent role suggests we should, at the very least, treat with one huge barrow-load of salt the claims currently being made about why we're going to war. Back in March 1999 we were told that we had to intervene because the Yugoslav leader, Slobodan Milosevic, was "set on a Hitler-style genocide equivalent to the extermination of the Jews during world war two". That wasn't true. In March 2003 we were told that we had to invade Iraq, because Saddam had WMDs that "could be activated within 45 minutes". That wasn't true either. Far from Milosevic engaging in a "Hitler-style genocide", what was occurring in Kosovo was a civil war between Yugoslav forces and the western-backed Kosovo Liberation Army, with atrocities committed on both sides. And the claims about Iraqi WMD were pure hogwash put forward to justify a military intervention to topple a regime that the west, having supported in the 1980s, now wanted out. Both in 1999 and 2003 our leaders lied to us about the real reasons for our country's involvement in military conflict. How can we be sure that what is happening in 2011 is any different? If the US, Britain and France are acting out of genuine humanitarian concerns for Libyan civilians, why has there been no discussion of similar action against the government in Bahrain – which last week invited into the country military forces from that great democracy Saudi Arabia to crush pro-democracy protests – or against the regime in Yemen, where 45 anti-government protesters were killed on Thursday? The other lesson to draw from the previous March conflicts is that military interventions – sold to the public as reasonably straightforward operations against dictators with little public support – rarely go to plan. Nato thought that a few days of heavy bombardment would force Milosevic to cave in – they were wrong: the war lasted 78 days and at the end of it the Yugoslav federal army was undefeated. The invasion of Iraq, its neocon cheerleaders assured us, would be a cakewalk, with grateful Iraqis – all of whom hated Saddam Hussein – lining up to hand bouquets of flowers to their "liberators". And today, supporters of the Libyan action, such as the Tory MP Colonel Bob Stewart, predict that Gaddafi's forces are likely to desert. But what if the advocates of military action are wrong – as they were in 1999 and 2003? What if support for Gaddafi within Libya is stronger than we have been led to believe? Then we could be involved in yet another Middle Eastern quagmire. The Libyan intervention is of course different in one respect from the assaults on Yugoslavia and Iraq in that it has been officially sanctioned by the UN security council. But UN backing doesn't mean that we shouldn't remain cynical about the real reasons for the attack. For all the talk of "liberating" the people and protecting civilians, the wars against Yugoslavia and Iraq were classic imperialist ventures whose real aim was to extend western economic and military hegemony. It's unlikely that this latest March assault on an independent sovereign state is any different.

^^ ii dhaaf Siilaanyo, wuxuu aaminsanyahey qadiyada Somaliweyn, laakin dhibka jiro waxaa weeyaan, niman waalan oo uu wasiiro ka dhigtey ayaa maskax falluuq ku ridey wadaadka, isna dharkuu xoorey. On the Libya issue, waan isku soo dhawaaney xoogaa mar hadaad ciinkaas Sarkoogy aad hawadaa ka tuurtey.

Destroying Libya in order to save it, thanks yaa JB

^^ Waligaa ha soo noqon, hadaad xanaaqdo ma kabahaaga ayaad ka badan.

^^ Noted your love for Bush, Sarkoogy, and Cameroon, nothing new there from your side! and for your info, no one is supporting Gadafi, and we all know how he sided with different groups in Somalia for his own interest and popularity, and no one is supporting the people who turned into rebels, armed themselves, created this chaos, in clear terms, peaceful transition of power is what is needed in Libya, that can be achieved through dialogue, then who turned down the dialogue, your beloved rebels who were dictated by France, everyone is against foreign bombardment of a sovereign country, I hope yaa Naxar you understand this clearly, the motives of the West is crystal clear, we want to remove Gadafi from power like we did to Saddam Hussein and install someone who listens to us, tell me, what have they done for Iraq, what was the result of the liberation of Iraq.

Lyzie-Gaal, waxaagu waa ila muran, aniguna ma jecli my dear Layzie inaan la murmo, muran bilaa micna ah, wasn't I the one who was posting countless news articles one after the other denouncing Gadafi and supporting a peaceful protest like the one happened in Cairo and Tunis. Now when myself and 98% of Solers who posted here outlined the intentions of the West against Libya, you all of a sudden made us supporters of Gadafi and his regime. Libaax put it well, and everyone in this thread, I don't need to add more, read every post in this thread and tell me we are all mad, unpopular Sarkoogy and Cameroon will be our next Bush & Bush. One more strategic point, Libya is much closer to Europe than Iraq, a fighter plane can take off from Britain and France and laucnh disasterous attacks in Libya and return quickly to their bases, for this, Libya will reduce their military spending, and the liberation will bring nicmatul fashuuqii adduunka to the masses of Europe. Go and join with Sarkoogy & Cameron's liberation of the Libyan people, lets save the Libyan people by launching air strikes all over Libya naga daa ciyaarta, ee orodoo bahasha baro.

U.S. says five-nation coalition launching Libya strikes (Reuters) - A coalition of the United States and four other nations launched military action against Libya on Saturday, officials said, as the West tries to force Muammar Gaddafi from power. A U.S. official told reporters on condition of anonymity that a coalition including the United States, France, Britain, Canada and Italy had begun launching strikes on Libya designed to cripple Muammar Gaddafi's air defenses. At least some Arab nations are expected to join the coalition later, the official said. A second U.S. official, speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity, said missiles were launched from a warship against Libyan targets. U.S. forces and planes will take part in the operation, called "Odyssey Dawn," that will mainly target air defenses around the Libyan cities of Tripoli and Misrata. Some 25 coalition ships, including three U.S. submarines armed with Tomahawk missiles, are stationed in the Mediterranean, a military slide showed. Five U.S. surveillance planes are also in the area, it showed.

The Guardian Libya: Allied fighters hit Gaddafi's forces as West intervenes in conflict Western planes led strikes against Muammar Gaddafi's military as world leaders ordered the biggest intervention in the Arab world since allied forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The patience of the international community finally ran out as Gaddafi's troops pounded the rebel stronghold of Benghazi hours after the Libyan dictator had promised a full ceasefire and invited foreign officials into his country to monitor it. After US, European and Arab leaders met for urgent talks in Paris, the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, said his aircraft were already in action to stop what he described as Gaddafi's "murderous madness". He said: "Our air force will oppose any aggression by Colonel Gaddafi against the population of Benghazi. As of now, our aircraft are preventing planes from attacking the town. As of now, other French aircraft are ready to intervene against tanks, armoured vehicles threatening unarmed civilians." David Cameron said action was needed to stop Gaddafi slaughtering his own people and flouting the will of the international community. "Colonel Gaddafi has made this happen. He has lied to the international community. He has promised a ceasefire. He has broken that ceasefire. He continues to brutalise his own people. The time for action has come," the prime minister said. The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said the people of Libya had appealed for help and the international community had been united in its determination to respond: "We have every reason to fear that, left unchecked, Gaddafi will commit unspeakable atrocities. His campaign of violence must stop." Even before the summit, military sources said French Rafale planes were carrying out reconnaissance missions. Rafales are designed for bombing, reconnaissance and air defence purposes, but can also be equipped with laser-guided bombs for air strikes. A French official said a French fighter jet had fired on a Libyan military vehicle in the first exchanges with Gaddafi's forces. French defence ministry spokesman Thierry Burkhard said the strike had been reported around 16.45 GMT. France expects to carry out most of its air missions from its base on Corsica while it is believed UK fighters would be deployed from southern Italy or Cyprus. An American official said that the US intended to limit its involvement to protecting allied air missions by taking out Libyan air defences with missile strikes launched from US Navy ships stationed in the Mediterranean. Six Danish F-16 fighter jets landed at a US air base in Sicily, while Canadian CF-18 Hornets were also in the region. The Gaddafi regime announced on Friday that it would lay down arms after the UN security council passed resolution 1,973, authorising "all necessary measures" short of foreign occupation to protect the civilians of Libya. But as world leaders gathered in Paris, it was clear that forces loyal to the Libyan dictator had no such intention as they rushed to storm Benghazi – apparently in the belief that if they could embed themselves among the city's large civilian population it would be more difficult for allied forces to oust them. Early yesterday, a rebel plane was shot down over Benghazi sending plumes of black smoke into the sky. Fighting in Benghazi continued even as French military jets began patrols over the city. It was not immediately clear whether a large explosion that rocked the edge of Benghazi after dusk was caused by Libyan forces on the ground or marked the beginning of the western air assault. "Libya is not yours. Libya is for the Libyans. The security council resolution is invalid," Gaddafi wrote earlier in an open letter to Cameron, Sarkozy and UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon. "You will regret it if you dare to intervene in our country." He was more conciliatory in a message to US President Barack Obama, asking him: "If you found them taking over American cities by the force of arms, tell me, what you would do?" British sources said Cameron held discussions with Sarkozy before they joined Clinton for a session of the "leadership of the coalition of the willing". A session with all international leaders gathered in Paris then took place. Moussa Koussa, Gaddafi's foreign minister, insisted that Libya was abiding by the UN security council resolution passed on Thursday and that the ceasefire he announced on Friday was still in place. Libya has blamed rebels it describes as "armed gangs linked to al-Qaida" for breaching it. But the ceasefire was widely seen as a tactic to try to buy time and fuel international divisions over intervention. Any attack would be the first foreign military action against Libya since the US bombing of 1986 after a terrorist attack on US personnel in a Berlin nightclub. The 1988 Lockerbie bombing was widely seen as Libya's retaliation for that. Jana, the official Libyan news agency, reported that volunteers were heading to strategic sites that might be targeted by UN-mandated attacks to act as "human shields". Al-Jamahirya TV showed protests at Tripoli international airport, Gaddafi's Bab al-Azizya barracks in the capital, and the airports in his home town of Sirte and in Sebha in the south of the country, a regime stronghold and the site of an important military base. Libyan opposition sources reported government forces forcibly taking people away from Zawiya, Zuwara and other areas where there has been resistance to the regime. Another claim said the families of personnel who might be tempted to defect were being taken to Bab al-Aziziya. A communiqué issued after the Paris talks described the actions of the Libyan regime as "intolerable". It said that the Libyan people had been peacefully expressing their rejection of their leaders and their aspirations for change, adding: "In the face of these legitimate requests coming from all over the country, the Libyan regime has carried out a growing brutal crackdown, using weapons of war against its own people and perpetrating against them grave and massive violations of humanitarian law."

The Guardian Gaddafi could still have final say in Libya The enforcement, verification and permanence of a ceasefire could be a vexed and lengthy matter Muammar Gaddafi poster in Tripoli Muammar Gaddafi could still thwart Western attempts to oust him. Photograph: Ahmed Jadallah/Reuters Muammar Gaddafi's ceasefire offer will not satisfy western leaders queuing up to take a shot at him – but it's unclear what will. When the US and its allies invaded Iraq in 2003 the aim was to overthrow Saddam Hussein. When Nato entered Kosovo in 1999 its purpose was to stop ethnic cleansing by Slobodan Milosevic's army. The precise objectives of the Libyan war 2011, and how they will be achieved, are less well-defined – and therefore, potentially problematic. The ceasefire hastily announced by Libyan foreign minister Moussa Koussa in the wake of UN resolution 1973 authorising foreign military intervention will be seen as a welcome first step. Except that regime forces bombarding Misrata and other cities appeared not to hear the news. Given Tripoli's talent for lies, the enforcement, verification, and permanence of a ceasefire could be a vexed and lengthy matter. It will not happen overnight. Downing Street has tried to clarify what its eclectic alliance – including France, the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Italy and Denmark (and maybe Malta) – thinks it is doing in Libya. David Cameron and Barack Obama agreed that "the violence against the Libyan people needed to cease, that Gaddafi should depart from power now, and that the Libyan regime should comply with the [uN] resolution immediately", it said. William Hague, the foreign secretary, added root and branch regime change to this wish list. "The Libyan people must be able to have a more representative government and determine their own future," he said. On this basis, the expanding aim of the intervention is not only to stop the violence and remove Gaddafi (and his sons) from power. Its more ambitious purpose is to oversee a democratic system on western lines in a largely undeveloped country that has never known representative governance and has no tradition of civil rights and individual freedoms. This sounds more like Afghanistan-style nation-building every minute. The US and Britain both stressed the importance of Arab support. Amr Moussa, secretary-general of the Arab League, could be expected to agree. But he pointed out on Friday there must be limits to intervention, and there was already a danger they were being exceeded. The league had not backed an invasion, he said. In fact, all it had authorised was a no-fly zone – not aerial bombardment and not attacks on Gaddafi's troops and armour. And it was worried about civilians getting killed. "The goal is to protect civilians first of all, and not to invade or occupy," he said. "The resolution is clear on that point … we don't want any side to go too far, including Libya, by attacking the civilian population." It's plain that whichever way the stated aims of the intervention are defined, achieving them will be highly problematic. The least of them – a genuine ceasefire – would effectively freeze the current confrontation in place, with rival camps entrenched in the east and west. The conflict could degenerate into a prolonged stalemate, as in the Korean peninsula or Georgia. Meaningful negotiation would be impossible while Gaddafi remained in power. Interventionists cannot achieve Gaddafi's removal, another key aim, by force of arms, bar a ground invasion or a lucky shot. (The same goes for democratic governance.) The west is relying instead on more mass defections, an army mutiny or a palace coup – what analyst Shashank Joshi of the Royal United Services Institute has called "regime breakdown". By withholding immediate attacks on Friday despite French impatience to get stuck in, Obama and Cameron appeared to be hoping the pressure on Gaddafi and his supporters would lead to internal rupture and an implosion. Despite its military superiority, the west's reluctance to get involved on the ground means Gaddafi still has a big say over the outcome. He could fight on asymmetrically – although the odds are daunting. He could give himself up – but that is considered unlikely, as he would probably be lynched or jailed or both. He could flee, though it's uncertain who would offer him refuge. Or more likely, he may try to sit pat, talk about negotiations, husband his resources, and bide his time until the western powers lose interest and he can resume his war of reconquest. Right now Cameron and Obama appear to have the whip hand. But questions such as how long and how far they are prepared to pursue this campaign, and how they measure success, remain unanswered. Weakened though he is, Gaddafi could still thwart them. They have him in a corner. And that makes him all the more dangerous.