It appears the Libyan rebels have captured Saif al-Islam Gaddafi.
Which appears to be a lie. From all accounts, pictorial and video, he appeared, UN-incarcerated, in front of his supporters just in the last 24 hours or so.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/08/22/libya.war/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
It seems that Reuters, AP, Al Jazeera, BBC, and others are routinely running with rumors as fact throughout the course of the last few days.
For more on the alleged truthfulness of mainstream media in the war on Libya, see
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/08/libya-nato-psy-op-collapses-qaddafi.html
How much reporting, by the way, has anyone heard about the likely assassination by the rebels of one of their own leaders, General Abdul Fatah Younis?
A Gaddafi regime spokesman claimed yesterday that al-Qaida killed Younis.
Whatever the truth of the killing, Jalil will face the hostility of Younis's clan, the biggest tribe in Benghazi, if he fails to conclusively show that rebel forces had no hand in the general's death. Members of the Obeidi tribe shot out the windows of the hotel where Jalil gave his late-night press conference, shouting that the rebel authorities had killed him. With the rebel coalition already fractious, a split with the largest tribal group is the last thing the NTC needs.
In the besieged city of Misrata, too, the death sparked consternation. Misrata's military spokesman joined the city's ruling council in emphasising that its army units did not take orders from Benghazi. And security was stepped up amid fears of attacks by pro-Gaddafi elements, the fabled "fifth column" that is an anxiety across rebel-held areas.
Younis was a controversial figure as chief of staff, having defected after quitting his post as Gaddafi's interior minister at the start of the revolution. Many in the rebel camp did not fully trust a man who had been a close confidant of Gaddafi for 40 years. When asked by the New York Times in April whether Younis had kept in contact with her father, Gaddafi's daughter Aisha "pointedly" refused to respond, reported the newspaper.
Update: You can't make this up - the International Criminal Court (ICC) now claims it never confirmed that Qaddafi's son Saif Al-Islam was captured. Here is the Telegraph article quoting ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo as having indeed confirmed his capture. Here is a farcical Reuters report now claiming such a confirmation was never claimed. ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo should resign, so should editors at both the Telegraph and Reuters and a myriad of other media agencies complicit in spreading this willful and malicious propaganda.
On July 30, AP reported that Younis' son, Ashraf, broke down at his father's funeral, "crying and screaming as they lowered the body into the ground - in a startling and risky display in a city (Benghazi) that was the first to shed Gaddafi's rule nearly six months ago - pleaded hysterically for the return of the Libyan leader to bring stability," saying:
"We want Muammar to come back! We want the green flag back!" referring to Libya's national banner under him.
Notably on July 29, London Guardian writer Richard Seymour headlined, "Gaddafi is stronger than ever in Libya," saying:
NATO's war "has not gone well." Efforts are under way to end it. No sign of a palace coup against Gaddafi exists. In fact, "(if his) regime is not more in control of Libya than before, then this completely undermines the simplistic view put about by the supporters of war - and unfortunately by (rebel elements) - that the situation was simply one of a hated tyrant hanging on through mercenary violence."
The whole thing since March has been a roller coaster of "this, that, and the other thing" and accusations from one side and the other, usually mutually exclusive.
Western Media, however, and American media in particular, are complicit propagandists, so naturally anything reported will be slanted to the side of this "freedom revolution" and the Obama administration, who flagrantly violated the Constitution and even the UN Resolution (and charter)* in order to wage this war of aggression. Which, by the way, is of NO benefit to the United States.
*
The United Nations Charter strictly limits Chapter 7 military actions to threats to international peace and security, which Libya has never represented, but rules out interference in internal affairs of member states. The pretext cited in this case was the protection of defenseless civilians, but it is clear that the rebels constitute an armed military force in their own right. Since no state can be an aggressor on its own territory, the Security Council resolution stands in flagrant violation of the UN Charter. Russia, China, Brazil, Germany, and India abstained. The resolution contains an arms embargo against Libya which the US is already violating by arming the rebels through Egypt.
---http://tarpley.net/2011/03/19/obamas-bay-of-pigs-in-libya/