PELHAM

My thoughts only: The Greeks have some sort of national neurosis about invasion. There is a perceived notion that the Turks want to invade them and are at 24hrs notice to do so. While there is a history of tensions between the 2 countries, particularly over Cyprus, I doubt it's been true for many years but there are extreme tensions in certain areas. Greek jets intercept Turkish jets on a daily basis and it's not polite stuff as is illustrated in the list of incidents below. I have travelled to many Aegean islands and you see the same sort of thing. The sky is full of Greek jets on a daily basis, particularly in the Volos, Skiathos, Skopelos, Skyros, Limnos area. If you know what to look for you will see patriot missile batteries, radar installations on hilltops, tanks on exercise and much more. -Once when I was fishing on a deserted beach a dozen bored troopers asked to borrow my fishing rod so they could pose for pictures and make it look like they were having a great time on national service. -On Rhodes I was stuck in a traffic jam because a tank had thrown a track and skidded, blocking the main road. -At Iraklion in Crete our plane was delayed on take off due to military jets on a scramble. -Volos 'Airport' is in fact a military air base and they have ZSU-23 AA guns all over the perimeter and the by the entrance. They are particularly sensitive about all this. If you like hiking in the hills and taking pictures you would be wise to ask your tour guide/locals if there are any areas you should avoid. Several tourists have been detained as 'spies' and some were even put on trial. We were told very sternly by a worried looking tour guide not to take any pictures of Volos airport. She actually walked up and down the bus to make sure all cameras and phones were put away. When I heard about Arma3 and Limnos I raised an eyebrow and briefly wondered if the locals would be happy about that. It looks like they still think there is a security risk. I don't know if it's real or imagined but all this was entirely predictable. Greek politicians have used the national rivalry with Turkey to get their voices heard for many years. You can read about Turkish / Greek tensions here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek%E2%80%93Turkish_relations#Aegean_Sea Aegean incidents: During the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974, two Turkish F-102's were shot down by a pair of Greek F-5A's.[5] On 18 June 1992, a Greek Mirage F1CG crashed near the island of Saint Eustratius in the Northern Aegean, during a low-altitude dogfight with two Turkish F-16's. Greek pilot Nikolaos Sialmas was killed in the crash. On 8 September 1996, a pair of Greek Mirage 2000's intercepted a pair of Turkish F-16's over the Aegean. One of the Turkish F-16's was shot down by a Greek Mirage 2000 piloted by Thanos Grivas.[6] Turkish pilot Nail ErdoÄŸan was killed whereas back seater pilot Osman Cicekli bailed out and was rescued by a Greek helicopter. On 23 May 2006, a Greek F-16 and a Turkish F-16 collided near the island of Karpathos during a Turkish reconnaissance flight.[7] Greek pilot Kostas Iliakis was killed, and the Turkish pilot bailed out and was rescued by a cargo ship. Greek Defence Minister E. Meimarakis stated at the Greek National Television (NET) and the morning programme 'Proti Grammi' that it was a a Turkish spying operation against the Greek island of Crete.

First two videos - I don't doubt Gadaffi has supporters as he made sure life was very comfortable for certain people. The question of support of a democratic majority was never allowed to be put to the test. Hence this uprising which now controls 90% of the country. We could trade videos of rival supporters but it's meaningless. At some point there will be elections, those members of the Gadaffi family not on trial at the ICC will be free to form a political party and get themselves voted back into office. If they have genuine nation wide support, it could happen and no one could argue with that. Last 3 videos, the circumstances, who was killed, if any and who bombed what cannot be determined in any of them. E.g. in the last vid those are definitely NATO bombs but where are they landing and what are they targetting? It could be in open ground outside the city or it could be on houses, you can't tell because it is filmed from far away. It looks like it is filmed from the centre of the city looking out. The video of the tall white multi storey building certainly looks like it was hit by a NATO bomb. But who was there at the time, it's high ground, was it occupied by Gadaffi forces or not? You can't tell. The Tarhuna video. That is a small explosion and could be a rebel rocket? It certainly isn't a 250 / 500lb bomb. You also can't tell what it falls on. Is it houses or industrial units with military equipment hidden inside? It could be a NATO missile or it could be an NTC rocket. So I can't really tell if anything is genuine or not. I guess time will tell. There is also a language problem for me as I don't speak German or Arabic so can't really comment further.

Well you never know it could be fake.......we just have to consider what else is around 6ft tall, has 2 arms, 2 legs, has 5 fingers and toes and wears prison clothes and shoes......??? Could be the Libyan 5 toed desert ground sloth??? Then again these CNN medics (if they really existed) might need to seek urgent medical help to cure the sudden onset of rapid degenerative blindness. As a 30 second search of the Internet finds hundreds of news sites with these pictures. The International Committee of the Red Cross says it has helped with the recovery of remains from 13 mass graves across Libya. It accuses the Gadaffi Regime of human rights abuses during the last days it was in control of the areas. Abu Salim mass grave site. The human jaw bone is very distinctive:

The history of Gadaffi's support for international terrorism is well documented and a five minute search of the web will turn up numerous incidents including the interception of ships carrying hundreds of tonnes of weapons. Just post some links da12thMonkey? The real vid from the pIRA's own blog is here, it shows a battery of Libyan supplied DShKM 12.5mm machine guns etc supposedly shooting down the Lynx in 1988: The attacks on RAF helicopters are listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_IRA_South_Armagh_Brigade "The South Armagh Brigade was by far the most effective IRA brigade in shooting down British helicopters during the conflict. They carried out 23 attacks on British Army helicopters during the Troubles, bringing four down on separate occasions: -Gazelle in February 1978, -Lynx in June 1988, -In 1994 another Lynx and an RAF Puma were shot down in March and July respectively, -A sustained machine gun attack against a helicopter was filmed by a Dublin television crew in March 1991 outside Crossmaglen Health Center, -The only successful IRA attack against an Army helicopter outside South Armagh was carried out by the East Tyrone Brigade near Clogher, County Tyrone, on 11 February 1990." ---------- Post added at 04:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:23 PM ----------

Err someone has a video download plugin for their web browser, they sat on the mouse by mistake and the video ended up in the archive lol. Everyone screws up occasionally but when the audience is this big, it makes you shudder on their behalf :D

There are lots of them! Also includes Falkland Island recreations and a Moscow 1941 battle. He writes titles on the screen in felt tip pen lol. That hand held camera thing he does gives it a realistic feel. The news clips on his page are from TeleSur - looks like he is a South American Arma2 fan? This guy deserves a BIS T-shirt - very creative.

Recreate the fake IRA video so you too can fool overworked, underpaid documentary makers! The original YouTube vid from post 1 was removed this evening, possibly someone (I wonder who) complained of copyright infringement. It's back! Thanks to jerryhopper The full length film was also removed from ITV's web player. Here is the full length fake vid - the 1st few mins were used in the documentary: Careful analysis and reconnaissance (flying up and down the railway to find the right bridge) has led me to the exact spot where the sorry tale began! The middle of the left edge of grid square 070124 near Chernogorsk on Chernarus Island. Men: OPFOR Guerilla faction Medic x2 Grenadier x2 Materials: OPFOR Guerilla faction: Pickup (PK) Ural (ZU-23) Off-Road (DShKM) Civilian faction: Car (white) Objects: Crashed UH-1Y Campfire (burning x2) Barrel fire x2 Settings: -You need low video settings, the IRA fan has a crap PC. I messed for ages but my monitor and video card is too good. I can't make it look as bad. Also he did not film it with the in game camera - he used a hand held camera to film the monitor. -Turn the gamma way down and the brightness all the way up, you need lots of contrast. -You need to set the barrels on fire with the action menu. -You possibly need one of the vegetation tweak mods. There are fewer trees in the video? -You will need a recording of some Irish folk music, tin whistles and violins etc. -The view distance in the video is about 500m (wow just how crap is that PC?) You can see the hills behind the nearest trees don't show in the video. Place your items in the map editor like so, the position of the player (bottom left) must be precise to recreate the viewing angle: View 1 - vehicles on the hill - note the red and white radio tower above the trees. The Island was updated / or original video was using the mod that cut down the vegetation as you can see it more clearly in the video, there are less trees. View2 - Civilian Car - note the house with the white roof, railway bridge, large barn and gravel pile. View 3 - Overview of entire scene View 4 - crashed UH-1Y (shh it's supposed to be a Lynx but journalists can't tell the difference!) Screenshots of original video: Note - the smoke from the grassy knoll is just a burning barrel! Note- the gun smoke above the grassy knoll really is gun smoke! Note - the smoking gun! You will notice the flying UH-1Y crashes to the left of the white car. It should leave a dark wreck model but instead reappears 75m to the right in the shallow lake as a Crashed UH-1Y model which is lighter and more detailed. I have not included instructions for this as it needs further investigation. I want to rule out magic bullets, CIA, FBI and NSA involvement in the morphing, teleporting helicopter. There is also evidence of ejecting crew at 1:13 onwards. As this is not possible with known technology, I suspect a black program with secret (possibly alien) technology and funding. It's possible the crew are also involved in some kind of CIA conspiracy! Oops sorry I forgot for a moment that it's a video from a PC game. Edit: lol In your map you will notice that the default civilian driver in a brown suit keeps jumping out of the car, runs around then gets back in. He is also caught on film in the original video - 0:43 he is standing by the white car. Annoying, unpredictable civilians running in a very strange way - it's got to be Arma2? Or maybe he is an MIB?

Yes I had already compared the titles? Which is how I reached my conclusion on page 3. So my guess is as good as yours because we will never actually know what happened. And you are making the same educated guess I made, are you not? :clap: Bet you can't make a screen shot of the AI and vehicles from the Arma2 editor before I do? :D

No you simply repeated what I said in post #23 on page 3. Too late Walker :D To clarify: Your assumption and videos were all posted in previous replies There is the original fan video posted by JdB in post #50 And the real video of genuine footage from the IRA posted by me in #23 "I wonder if some researcher was told to get the video and edit it and picked the wrong one?" You simply repeated us in your post #59, looks like poor research is not limited to ITV?

Very true, the French and Irish governments intercepted several shipments of weapons from Libya. On 1 November 1987 The MV Eksund vessel was found to contain 120 tonnes of Libyan arms, including HMGs, 36 RPGs, 1000 detonators, 20 SAMs, Semtex and 1,000,000 rounds of ammunition. Some of the IRA SAMS were later sold to ETA to assassinate Spanish politicians but the missiles were stored incorrectly and did not work when fired. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army_arms_importation Back on topic - I have emailed ITV a complaint and demanded a statement. I will post if I get anything back. :D If you want to see the IRA using Libyan weapons - the real shoot down footage is here: Hey - maybe ITV need my services lol

There is actual footage of the incident on youtube: IRA Shootdown UK Army Lynx, Silverbridge, South Armagh. They used a battery of DSHKs and other MG's in an agricultural trailer. I wonder if some researcher was told to get the video and edit it and picked the wrong one?

OMFG Journalists!!?? Whatever next? There is lots and lots of IRA footage showing them dragging 12.5mm DSHKs across the landscape. I don't think they ever used anything bigger than that or shoulder launched SAMs supplied by Gadaffi (later some were sold to ETA but were faulty and did not work). Truck mounted guns like that are too difficult to hide. I guess ITV didn't want to pay/could not get access to the rights for the original vids? Having travelled widely and seen what journalists really get up to I am not surprised. A friend told me he saw a well respected journalist throwing handfuls of coins into a rubbish pile so he could film local children picking through it. It made a nice 'poverty' piece to camera back in the UK.

Pro Gadaffi forces are the only ones that deliberately attacked civilians. The evidence for that is contained in UN 1973 and the ICC documents. There is no evidence of that. If you have some please provide it - I will require something better than Syrian TV or Gadaffi's spokesman who has made all sorts of wild accusations only for them to be proved false. Well that got close to the wire and I would also say that Bahrain's crack down was too harsh. You can't compare the Bahraini leader with Gadaffi though, he is not in the same league. Well they have not supported international terrorism for 40 years, bombed airliners, carried out assassinations all over the world, declared 'lines of death' in international territory, fired on ships and aircraft in international territory, stockpiled WMD etc. etc. The list of countries where Gadaffi has either provided arms and money to terrorists, promoted radicalisation, carried out killings etc is very, very long. The others are not in the same league. This is why when asked to vote against Gadaffi the UN provided a greater than 2/3rds majority in all cases. Everyone is fed up of his trouble causing. He even attempted to create a Maori terrorist organisation in New Zealand! Libya Latest Headlines: Mass Grave discovered in Tripoli Officials think some 1,270 prisoners were buried after what is known as the Abu Salim massacre, one of the darkest chapters of Col Gaddafi's rule. Libyan NTC fighters breach Gaddafi city Sirte from east NTC fighters entered Sirte through the main gates, and pulled down the green flags of Gaddafi's regime on the main roundabout. Chemical and Nuclear stockpiles discovered Lynn Pascoe, the UN's top political official, told the Security Council that control must be established over sophisticated arms including ground-to-air missiles and chemical weapons. He said destruction of chemical-weapons stockpiles stopped in February when international inspectors left the country. Last week NTC forces uncovered a stockpile of yellowcake - a powdered form of uranium ore that can be used for nuclear weapons.

@ Sppoky Lynx - you still have not read UN 1973 have you? It authorised a no fly zone AND whatever means necessary to prevent attacks on civilians by Gadaffi troops in response to crimes against humanity by Gadaffi. The items listed in the International Criminal Court document concerning the indictment against Gadaffi all occurred before UN 1973 came into existence. This war started when 1/2 of Libya rebelled as part of the North African (Arab Spring) uprising. UN 1973 and the involvement of the security council came much later. The involvement of other countries was authorised by UN 1973. Please read up on the subject and get your time lines sorted out. Most of what you say is factually incorrect. If you go back in this thread much of the info is listed in my posts.

The countries on the SC might also be members of the GA but the phrase you used was "those same countries" referring to a post on the GA. You were incorrect, be a big man and deal with it. I don't understand your references to Hitler please explain? I would love to know what possible comparison you could draw? If it's about Gaddafi leaving hundreds of prisoners to suffocate in underground prisons and cargo containers in the sun or mass executions and burning of bodies. If it's also about a coalition of nations bringing about the end of 1 tyrant, well I would agree with you. Why you pick on the UK and France I'm not sure? Do you not know that UN 1973 is being enforced by Air forces from many countries, NATO and Non NATO, Armed forces of the nations below are operating out of bases in 5 southern European nations: United Arab Emirates Qatar Belgium Canada Denmark France Italy Norway Netherlands Spain Sweden United States France United Kingdom Latest Headlines: Libyan Rebels capture southern city of Sabha Libya’s provisional authorities captured the strategic Gaddafi stronghold on Wednesday, reporting they had taken hold of the remote southern oasis city of Sabha with little violence. Fadi Fellani, a resident of the city, said almost all of Sabha, except for one neighbourhood controlled by Col Gaddafi’s tribe, favoured the uprising against the Gaddafi regime. Gaddafi forces now remain in control of only two cities, Bani Walid and Sirte Key: Red - NTC controlled Green - Gaddafi controlled

Nonsense: UN Resolution 1973 was voted on by the UN Security Council not the General Assembly. Read UN resolution 1973 (particularly what it authorises) and then read the International Criminal Court Indictment for Gadaffi which lists crimes against humanity. Then come back and we can have a reasoned debate based on facts not half truths.

All these ideas are wonderful but no one ever provides any practical details or statistics. How will it work on an industrial scale? Will it be efficient? Where will all the plant waste come from and do we produce enough? How much additional electricity will the process use and where will that come from? Precisely how much CO2 is released and is that a good thing? Will it produce more CO2 than current power sources when used on a world wide scale? Without the facts, as usual its nothing but pretty pictures. No doubt some 'soft in the head' millionaire or government department will provide them with $millions to conduct the research without asking any pertinent questions. Can't knock it, it's a fantastic way to make a living. additional: have a look at this page: http://www.microbialfuelcell.org/MFC/index2.htm All that to produce 0.263 volts. A tiny AAA battery gives you 1.5V - 1.25V If you look at the other experiments on that page you will notice that many use some very toxic chemicals as mediators. Now it is possible to build these things without using mediators but is that practical? I suspect to be of any use the industrial plants that would carry out this process would be huge, many square miles. Also should they require the use of mediators there is the possibility of creating thousands of tonnes of toxic chemical waste every year. How will that be treated and disposed of? If you look at any of the websites there isn't really anything listed on the real world practicalities of actually getting it to work. They will all produce 100,000's tonnes of CO2 every year too. What will happen to that? CO2 capture requires lots of energy, where will that come from?

I was a big fan of all versions of the film and Kurt Russell's acting and character, along with the rest of the cast, were inspired. If you have not seen the 1950's version make sure you watch it. It's an inspired film for it's day. Here we have another unimaginative Hollywood remake that seems to follow the original word for word. So why bother? $$$$$ I guess? My problem with it: Since Aliens and Sigourney Weaver, have you noticed that nearly all science fiction films now have to include a woman as the strong lead character that saves the day? I don't have a problem with women getting their fair share, as in Captain Kirk's day it was a little ridiculous and they were nothing but sex object furniture, but 95% of films since Aliens?? Come on Hollywood get some imagination. They get one film that works and the formula is then set in stone. Out of all the women I know, I can't think of 1 that does not run shrieking into another room when confronted by a tiny house spider. Yet we are expected to believe they will confront a howling, six foot multi-legged, tentacle wriggling space monster with the same fortitude as a Zen master? If you want to see some good inspired Sci-Fi don't miss this. It's one of the best I have seen in years: Moon staring Sam Rockwell, Kevin Spacey and directed by Duncan Jones. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_%28film%29

Nope doesn't upset me, I am glad you have found something that actually works for a change. It's a good idea, I might even put one in my garden shed. Why not start your own Blog though? This is the BIS Offtopic forum section not a Greenpeace RSS news service?

The first public hydrogen station opened in the UK today so I expected Walker would be in an excited state of self flagellation. Give it a few days, it will wear off........ As usual the press didn't ask any searching questions. We were simply told that it's green because the car burns the hydrogen and all that is produced is water. Hmmm lots of things missed out there but we have discussed all that before.

His point is he didn't like the outcome of the vote so he wants to change the rules and the system until he gets the outcome he wants. Does this sound like anyone we know? There are many leaders in the world who don't like elections and change the rules (constitutions) until they get the result they want including extending their terms of office indefinitely. You will find many of them on the No side in the above vote. He was certain that all 46 members who were absent were showing support for Gadaffi even though many have recognised or shown support for the NTC as the legitimate Government. Why would they support one government and then decide that another should represent the country at the UN. It doesn't make logical sense, does it? In a democratic vote the winner is always the majority. People in the minority often try to tinker with things and the most common is saying a vote isn't valid until you have a 'significant' majority. B101 is suggesting he will not accept anything less than an 83% majority (jury system 10:2) which is clearly ridiculous. No doubt if we get 83% at some point he would suddenly require a 90% majority.

It isn't peculiar to Iraq.... An indian fisherman in southern Chile who we hired to boat us between islands was obsessed with fiki fiki too. Mostly how much fiki fiki we got and he was most anxious that that we refrained from any fiki fiki with his sister. (It's taken very seriously, someone was killed for it while we were there!) His sister weighed about 250lbs and looked more manly than he did so what he was worried about I dunno? We were more worried about it than he was because every time his back was turned she did nothing but attempt fiki fiki with the unusual local custom of making loud kissing noises while peeking at you from the alley way at the back of his shack. It became customary for us not to leave anyone in the group alone at any time!

It certainly wasn't lol you see he has not bothered to look at the policies or previous voting record of the absent UN Members. To assume that those who did not vote are in some way supporting Gadaffi is ridiculous - here's the proof. He also does not know that there are in fact 193 members of the UN since South Sudan was added this year. The UN Gen Assembly requires a 2/3 majority to pass a resolution. Out of 192 members: 114 voted against Gadaffi 17 for 15 abstentions 46 absent Being absent from a vote is not necessarily a snub and counting those votes as negative shows you have no understanding of democracy and what you did above is akin to stuffing a ballot box to get your own way. A common tactic used by dictators. UN Members are absent for many different reasons and it's actually very common for 1/4 or more of them not to show up. Lets have a look at at who wasn't present at the vote: 1) Libya You cant count Libya as it was suspended from the UN GA until after the vote. -1 2) Non regional democracies. These have little or no connections with Libya and are distant geographically. Did they have any interest at all?: Bhutan, Cambodia, Papua New Guinea, Kyrgyzstan. 3) Dictators club, 1 party states and those with histories of unfair elections and human rights abuses, lets call these snubs: Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Myanmar, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Belarus, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan. 4) States that have recognised the NTC or declared their support for NTC as the ligitimate government but did not attend the preceedings. Albania, Nigeria, Rwanda, Niger, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Central African Republic, Ghana, Comoros, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Liberia, Seychelles, Marshall Islands. -14 5) States that do not recognise the NTC Dominica, Eritrea 6) Pacific Island Nations - these have a history of limited attendance and usually only attend votes in which they have some interest. Most have not voted or made statements for years. Most have not updated their UN webpages for many years and some are blank. Do they have any interest? Micronesia (Federated States of), Samoa, Palau, Solomon Islands, Nauru, Tonga, Tuvalu. -8 7) Members without permanent missions to the UN - they don't vote on anything: Kiribati -1 8) Carribean States and South American states, may have chosen not to attend due to support of Gadaffi by neighbours. Saint Kitts and Nevis, Bahamas, Barbados, Grenada, Haiti, Guyana. 9) African States, don't knows. Burundi, Republic of Congo, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Somalia. 10)No recent history of participation, blank UN mission page. Sao Tome and Principe. -1 So........I will graciously hand over all undecided, non participating nations to your side. Some of those have stated that they will recognise a Democratic Libyan Government after the elections, i.e. not Gadaffi. Lets see if you still win with those very generous allowances. I will take the 14 members who have recognised the NTC, we will not include Libya as it was the subject of the vote. 193 - Libya = 192 46 - 14 = 32 17 + 15 + 32 = 64 (your total) 114 + 14 = 128 UN Members with clear evidence of support for the NTC. As you can see, out of the 192 members of the UN that could possibly vote, there is still 2/3rds support for the NTC, probably more. That is enough to carry a vote under UN General Assembly rules.

Lol laughable nonsense guys. Scroll up 2 posts and see how many countries and organisations agree with me. That's 114 nations of the UN General Assembly or 72% voted against Gadaffi on Friday. All the Gadaffi state sponsored terrorism, attacks on neighbouring countries, and 35 years of international trouble causing are historical fact. Everyone knows it and that's why the only countries that vote for him are old corrupt friends, old communist allies and dictators just like himself. If it's propaganda prove it wrong. 72% of the UN General Assembly don't think so. PS there are people living in an Orwellian nightmare, it's called Syria, Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, Burma and Zimbabwe and around 26 others. Also Dictatorships are often characterised by some or all of the following traits: suspension of elections and of civil liberties; proclamation of a state of emergency; rule by decree; repression of political opponents without abiding by rule of law procedures; these include single-party state, and cult of personality. Does this sound like anyone we know?

UN General Assembly votes 114 - 17 to give NTC Libyan UN seat The UN General Assembly voted Friday to give Libya's seat in the world body to the National Transitional Council which led the rebellion that ousted Muammar Qaddafi. The vote means that a senior council official will be able to join world leaders and speak for Libya at next week's ministerial session of the General Assembly and also participate in meetings. The resolution was approved by a vote of 114-17 with 15 abstentions, revealing divisions in Africa and Latin America over who should represent Libya. The General Assembly's credentials committee had unanimously recommended that the former rebels be seated. It's chairman, Panama's UN Ambassador Pablo Antonio Thalassinos, said Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, who heads the National Transitional Council, had sent a letter seeking to take over Libya's seat. The committee's recommendation faced opposition from a left-leaning Latin America trade group ALBA whose members include Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba among others. Southern Africa's main regional bloc also opposed giving the NTC credentials immediately, but it failed to win support to defer a vote. @ Minutemen Your replies are factually inaccurate so I will not respond further until you read up on the subjects and can give a rational response. e.g. you can read about Oswald's defection to the USSR here, it lasted 18 months. He returned to the US with a Russian wife, Marina. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald#Defection_to_the_Soviet_Union The man in your top photo meeting Gadaffi is Tony Blair by the way not David Cameron. Tony Blair is not an aristocrat as you seem to suggest. Tony Blair has to meet people like Gadaffi as part of his role as Middle East envoy for the United Nations, European Union, United States, and Russia, he had several meetings with Gadaffi as a UN envoy. That particular meeting pictured was TB meeting Gadaffi during his African farewell tour in 2007 after he had announced his resignation. Meetings as PM were mainly to remove Libya's WMD program, bring to justice the Pan Am 103 bomber and in return try to normalise Libyan international relations. That all came to a halt in 2009 during Gadaffi's rambling address at the UN where he 'hijacked' the podium for 90 mins and threw the UN charter on the floor. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/23/muammar-gaddafi-general-assembly-speech http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuEuWb14gbQ&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvOo5LK22sg The man in the next photo is Sarkozy meeting Gadaffi in 2007. The two countries signed an agreement about cooperation on a military-industrial partnership, in addition to a number of other deals on cultural, economic and scientific cooperation. The French president called his visit to Tripoli, the first of a European leader since the release of the Bulgarian medics, a "political trip" to help Libya reintegrate into the international community after decades of isolation. France played an important role in securing the release of the six medics, which paved the way for Sarkozy's visit. PS I don't know why you call him a Bagdad Bob? France had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq and Sarkozy was not PM then?