As predictable, the Libyans are denying that the group is on Libyan territory. Given that only the Libyans have the logistical capability to do a proper search in the area, probably they are right.

Since the incident had been dragging on for over a week now, they must be at some water source, or moving towards one soon. If they are no longer at Uweinat, then most likely they have moved south to one of the oases in the South Libyan Desert (Merga or Bir Natrun) that are currently under the SLA 'sphere of influence'. (Calling them being under anybody's "control" would be a gross overstatement). These oases are about 500-600 kilometres from Uweinat, there is no other water source till the inhabited areas of Darfur a further 300 kilometres south.

An interesting parallel is that in the early nineten thirties the same area was the hideout of a pretty notorious band of bandits led by one Aremi Gongoi, a Goraan of the eastern Ennedi. The Sudan Defence Force made a full fledged military operation in 1931 to capture the bandits, with no result. It later emerged that the bandits simply moved to Bir Bidi, a well some 15 kilometres north of Merga.

Some more insight in the rumour they moved across the border into Libya.
Temporarly to fill up stocks and are back in Sudan.

on Reuters: Egypt | Africa - Reuters.com

Though I've no knowledge about the region, it sounds plossible (and disturbing).

???

The closest store is in Kufra 400 kilometres away, and the Libyan military are sitting on the two wells on the western side of Uweinat. Sounds like ignorant journalism to me...

The BBC is reporting that six of the bandits have been shot, but that the 19 other are OK but still in captivity.....

BBC NEWS | World | Tourist kidnappers 'shot dead'

News is being repeated parrot fashion all accross the global media, together with the added info that the group is now held in Chad. Two days ago they went to Libya, and yet a day earlier the Sudanese military surounded the village they were hiding in. I'm sure it is all reliable and accurate information...

... and Reuters said that "the army seized a white car and a bus (sic!) belonging to an (sic!) Egyptian tourism company":

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LS333674.htm

BBC now reporting that they have been freed
 

The news of the group having been freed appear to be credible, though I'd be happier if some german official source would also confirm it.

Some sources say Egyptian special forces were involved, and that the rescue operation happened in northern Chad. I wonder what / how much of all the reports of the past week will be proven true, and how much is journalist fiction.

If indeed the group is being flown back from the Chad/Sudan border regions, they should arrive in Cairo in about 1-2 hours.

The kidnapped group has just arrived to a military airport east of Cairo, they were released in a military operation and no ransom was paid, half of the kidnapers were killed!

I got into an argument here few months ago , and now I must say im sorry to refuse to believe the January rubbery incident , I guess in some situations people refuse to believe the bad news until its confirmed .

Any way I guess it was better to kill those bandits instead of paying to them.

Mahmoud Mohareb

Permits for Egypt Desert
 

The end of this episode raises an interesting moral, philosophical point for me. If by going to these places and accepting the risk of abduction for yourself, what is the moral implication of putting at risk those who are sent to secure your release, not mention those abductors who lose their lives as a result of their own actions?

As a consequence of these people going to the Gilf a number of people are now dead.



There are other places in the world where the risks and potential consequences are similar. Should they be avoided?

I think everyone wants to know what exactly went on here first......

Hmmm, I'd rephrase that:

As a consequence of some people thinking it was a good idea to take other people hostage and demand a ransom these first people are now dead.

Yes, I know it's not that simple, but I don't think the victims should be blamed. They did have guides, after all and presumably govt. permits as well.

As this event demonstrates, having guides and permits has very little to do with whether you are abducted or not. In the absence of economies, local goverments, tax and observed borders, abductions have been an age old way of making an income in the Sahara. The trick is to try and figure out when and where these abductions are likely to happen. There were some warning signs earlier this year that the Gilf was on the list.

Wow, for me too! But I can't imagine a world where moral responsibility of the victim is always weighted against that of the perpetrator. Because then we will be only a step away from the conclusion that the very existence of victims is a major incitement to crime. Why bother with chasing knife wielding yobs if we can make walking streets after dark a morally repugnant activity?