Libya Strikes Back, Hits NATO Warship

Tyler Durden's picture

Apparently even Libya has had enough of the toothless and impotent NATO offense and is hoping for some sort of escalation. Reuters reports: "Libya said on Tuesday its forces had hit a NATO warship while it was shelling areas in the western parts of the rebel-held Libyan city of Misrata. Libyan state television said "our forces fired (at warships) and hit one directly and severely". It gave no further details. It was not immediately possible to verify the report." It remains to be seen if Nicholas "the people's liberator" Sarkozy, busy celebrating the recent developments in New York, will take time from his presidential campaign to urge the "marines in the water" to become "boots on the ground."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Head for the Hills's picture

Elephants heading to Europe soon....

Spirit Of Truth's picture

Libya is a Russian puppet state and the West's checkmate draws near IMHO:

Sad but true I'm afraid.

The Feds Connection's picture

All this doom. I watched max keizer show on 24france yesterday. Taped on 28 oktober 2009 in which he sayd financial catastrophe would hit again in in 6-9 months. How long can this be stretched?

Spirit Of Truth's picture

Max Keiser works for Russia Today and Iran's Press TV.  Speaks volumes...

living on the edge's picture

You sir are full of shit. Be well...

Popo's picture

RT is known unofficially in Russia as "The propaganda channel".   I kid you not.

Max is their puppet.

Titus's picture

I watched Max for the first time recently. He was interviewing Reggie Middleton. Reggie was good, the interview was fairly professional. The rest of Max's program reeked of Soviet style propaganda. The cheapness of it left me feeling raped. 

Azannoth's picture

NATO gotz bitch slapped! Oh no!

MarkS's picture

Oh really...and we now believe the Ghadaffi why?

I'm not saying it isn't possible...just that it is very unlikely that a naval warship got within range of shore based artillery...or that the Libyans could actually get a firing solution on a moving ship.


TBT or not TBT's picture

Hey now, the arabs put the first (bearded) man on the moon, invented quantum mechanics(it's all in the Koran), and were first to use petrolatum for shagging dry orifices...which dryness is a rampant problem for them, culturally. Don't be talking trash about their command of modern naval warfare.

NOTW777's picture

obamas war - uncovered by the MSM and ignored by liberals

legal eagle's picture

Russia and China need to man-up and veto any further UN resolutions, not just abstain like a wronged teen aged girl.  It is time someone stood up to the US and our arrongance. 

HUMANITARIAN, give me a fucking break.

And I thought Obama was an intellectual, how niave I was.  He is as ignorant as Bush, just finely polished.  



Al Gorerhythm's picture

You can't, try as you might, polish a turd.

Hephasteus's picture

It's a cycle of deception.

Old bush Direct brutal sadistic lies to home audience.

Clinton appears reasonable calms the waters sucks in suckers.

Bush  Direct brutal lays down the separation lines. Everyone against us is against us everyone for us is for us.

Obama appears reaonable tries to calm the waters but too late too much has been exposed.

Whoever's next will be much more sadistic and overt than bushes because it doesn't get them anything to contnue trying to fool anyone.

Moe Howard's picture

You can, however, roll it in glitter.

Rodent Freikorps's picture

Makes you wonder what they were promised to get them to sit it out.

DivisionBell's picture

The current UN Security Council resolution is all NATO needs.  Russia and China won't have another chance.  They foolishly gave up that voice, and by doing so, they authorized it.  

If they have changed their minds now, it would take military intervention and probably nuclear brinkmanship to stop the fireworks.  If any NATO member decides to call the bluff though, it's WW3.  I doubt Russia or China would try it without at least some kind of significant real leverage.

They may not be able to win, but they can deal damage.  The kind of damage that terrorists dream of and aren't necessarily advantageous coming up on an election.  Forces may be spread out to deal with insurgent capabilities but not necessarily strategically optimized for global total war against multiple capable belligerants.  These guys aren't Afghani farmers and herdsmen.

It requires more than talk and indecision though and that seems to be all they have... maybe they think it is a trap or have decided not to interrupt their enemy when he is making a mistake.

Urban Redneck's picture

Russia and China won't have another chance.  They foolishly gave up that voice, and by doing so, they authorized it.

It wasn't foolish.  It draws down US & NATO resources and exposes their weaknesses, while driving up demand for Russian oil.  On the longer horizon it creates a bigger opening for both of them at the New World Bargaining Table at the expense of US & NATO.

tmosley's picture

I guess maybe those war games prior to the Iraqi invasion DID mean something.

Drag Racer's picture

the exact battle plan used to remove insane from Kuwait was practiced by my unit for over 2 years before he invaded.

tmosley's picture

Wow. That is interesting. You think they knew it was going to happen? I have heard rumors in the past that Saddam invaded because he thought the US had his back.

For those wondering what I was talking about above, here is a write up of it:

ZackAttack's picture

I think there are off-the-shelf plans for a bazillion contingencies.

I doubt it would have been designed with the Saddam/Kuwait scenario in mind, but there was probably something as specific as 'invade a hostile Persian gulf nation.'

tmosley's picture

Yes, those are contingency plans, though. The GP mentioned "practice", which I assume means in the form of war games.

It was always my understanding that the invasion caught the US flat footed, with armored forces deployed far from the Middle East (hence "Desert Shield" prior to "Desert Storm").

But then, I don't know all that much about the military, beyond what I learned from playing civilization (which never seems to place any real importance on naval power, much to my annoyance).

Moe Howard's picture

After returning from the invasion of Panama, my unit was briefed on the next mission, Haiti. We were issued maps, etc. I left the unit for another post. The division was inactivated and the 10th Mountain took its' missions / place in deployable units. Guess what happened? They were sent to Haiti on the same mission we were preparing for several years before. Operation Uphold Democracy.

There are no suprises to the elite. Only to us the peons.

TBT or not TBT's picture

With a name like Hate-ey, I mean, linguistically, it stands to reason that would have been the country name Find/Replaced into the war plan they handed you back then. Next, Islam-a-bad or some similarly unfortunately named place. Terror-an anyone?

Ahmeexnal's picture

I'm sure you had a discombobulating moment while typing "invasion of Panama" and *really* meant "liberation of Panama".

/sark ozy

wisefool's picture

The new game Civ5 has some pretty serious flaws, but it is getting better with naval importance.

The "happiness" of a civilization is very, very dependant on luxury and strategic resources. In the old games, you just had your settlers build roads on every single square on the map, such that your trade network was never seriously impacted.

In version 5, roads cost signifigant amount of maintanence, and plopping down major cities willy nilly also costs lots of money, production, culture and happiness. So you end up spreading them out and placing them primarily on resources.

Thats where the navies come back into importance in the game. most cites and trade networks are connected by harbors and one road. You send in seals to cut the one road. (remember in this version roads have high maintenance costs) Then you use your navy to blockade the port. Shore based artillery typically has shorter range than navies blockade range. And even if it does not, you just tank shore bombardment for a few rounds, set sail, heal up and come back and do it again. the disruption of strategic resources wreaks havock on production, and the disruption of luxuries causes nasty cultural and growth affects. Even if sporatic.

Its a more realistic play style, but it requires a huge investment to have a navy that can pull it off, and you do take losses, which many min/max'ers don't like to do, trying to play the perfect game.

legal eagle's picture

When you say "insane" do you mean GW Bush or Bernake?  Certainly, both are greater criminals than Saddam.

buzzsaw99's picture

Do I have to take Hillary's side or can I root for GoDaffy?

NotApplicable's picture

Well, what's your opinion about a Gold Dinar?

Josh Randall's picture

I'm rooting for NATO to lose -- to anyone

buzzsaw99's picture

Real gold? I like them? :confused:

solgundy's picture

who cares about Dinars......will the IMF raper beat the rap??

TBT or not TBT's picture

It was a celebrity sex tape thing. The IMF had decided to go for the demographic that follows the druggie/abusive/philandering celebrity gossip.

Someone in the last century said actors would be the most powerful people in next century. This century it is aging technocrats allied to high finance.

Historians will recognize this as the turning point, and my comment as the first consciousness of the change afoot.

Red Light District will appear to have made the most money out of it at first glance, but this will not be so, by six orders of magnitude.

Juice Box's picture

Remember the Maine!  

Ooops!  That was the Spanish-American War.

Remember the Sarkozy!

NOTW777's picture

remember political correctness gone amuck. when does rev wright get his ship?

Herman Strandschnecke's picture

This is surely a declaration of war by Gadaffi?

john39's picture

all one big NWO puppet show.  what is really interesting, is what happens now that Palestinians have learned that non-violent resistance is a far more effective tactic against tanks and guns than suicide bombers.  I think the isrealis are screwed as they will not be able to stop themselves from shooting unarmed old women, as was demonstrated yesterday at the lebanese border.

magpie's picture

The beginning of a Tom Clancy novel, not sure which one...

sun tzu's picture

That's why they need huge speakers blasting Metallica and other head banger music. That will drive the old women away.

BigJim's picture

The Israelis have plenty of soldiers who have no problem shooting civilians - be they women, old women, or children. They've been taught the Arabs aren't human, so killing them is akin to squashing lice - a bit distasteful, but generally A Good Thing.

In fact, throughout history, most armies have distinguished themselves slaughtering whomever their commanders told them too. "Infidels", "Heathen", "Juden", "Commies", "Capitalist Running Dogs", "Terrorists" - just conjure the bogey-de-jour and away our finest go, guns a-blazin'.

It's only later, when they get back, and are haunted by visions of limbless children, as they tuck their own to bed, that they begin to have doubts.

Too late, of course.

pops's picture

Better late than never.....

CPL's picture

You mean being picked to pieces by NATO's useless few via annoyance, sanctions, etc, etc wasn't the declaration of war.  I thought this was the other way around.

Herman Strandschnecke's picture

You mean being picked to pieces by NATO's useless few via annoyance, sanctions, etc, etc wasn't the declaration of war.  I thought this was the other way around.

Well The script says we are there for humanitarian reasons. It was probably a hospital ship that they fired at I reckon.