Libya Threatens Counerstrikes Against Civilians, Mediterranean Traffic If Attacked As UN Set To Vote On Air Strikes At 6 PM

Tyler Durden's picture

Minutes after the United Nations announced it would vote on imposing the No Fly Zone (resolution text link) over Libya, which is probably merely a formality at this point with virtually no hold outs on the Security Council, Libya has immediately retaliated by saying that it such a decision would open counterstrikes by Libya against any "air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean Sea" as well as "civilian and military facilities in the country." Whether this means that Gaddafi will promptly attack his oil infrastructure as Zero Hedge first suggested 3 weeks ago is unclear, but the Crude market is not taking any chances: Brent is now up almost $4 on the day having snapped its several day losing streak.

From Reuters:

Any foreign attack on Libya will endanger air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean basin and expose the area to both short and long term risks, the Defence Ministry said in a statement broadcast on Libyan television.

The statement said Libya would strike back at civilian and foreign targets if the country comes under attack from foreign forces.

"Any foreign military act against Libya will expose all air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean Sea to danger and civilian and military (facilities) will become targets of Libya's counter-attack," said the statement.

"The Mediterranean basin will face danger not just in the short-term, but also in the long-term," it said.

The ensuing disruptions to naval traffic should Libya follow through with its threat could mean the short Japan relief-based covering spree in the market today will promptly come to an end.

Comment viewing options

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

I wonder if by "long term" he means 10,000 years of nuclear winter in Europe?

Lord Welligton's picture

Long term will be about a week if he takes out a civilian aircraft.

kaiserhoff's picture

Oh goodie.  Now, how many fighter/bombers does the UN have?

Cash_is_Trash's picture

According to the statement:

civilian and military (facilities) will become targets of Libya's counter-attack

Warships such as the Kearsarge and international naval vessels will be shot at.


viahj's picture

i doubt that.  firing on less armed rebels is one thing but his military commanders wouldn't have the balls to strike the US Navy...ok, maybe one of them is crazy enough to do it

AnAnonymous's picture

There is no rebels. Only illegal combatants. Call a spade a spade.

astartes09's picture

This is Gadaffi we are talking about.  Less we forget that he's already bombed one commercial airliner and sent his fighters on suicide runs against US carriers before.

Its mostly talk, but he will make more than an annoyance for a short time.

gina distrusts gov's picture

It could be unpleasently intresting if Daffy has aquired  some

of the russan hypersonic antiship cruse missles on the black market

ElvisDog's picture

Agreed. Quadaffi (how do you spell his name anyway?) isn't crazy, he's smart and ruthless. He knows an attack against the U.S. navy will (A) fail and (B) bring shock and awe down on Libya.

dbTX's picture

not a good idea unless he's looking for a few dozen virgins

Lord Welligton's picture


That's why they won't be enforcing the non fly zone.

TonyV's picture

Not only that they will be enforcing a non-fly zone but I give a 50% chance that air strikes will be authorized.

Lord Welligton's picture

Agreed. Russia and China would object.

Mercury's picture

I still don't think the US (read: Obama) will be involved in any Libyan air strikes or troop deployments onto Libyan soil.  Gaddafi is basically promising all out war if anything like that happens and I doubt that a non-US, UN sanctioned force will actually be willing to take that on.

In any case if they wait much longer there aren't going to be many rebels left to defend...

chinaguy's picture

Russia will object & Obama will be off the hook for having to do something "uncool"....someone on this site already laid out this scenario a week ago.

Antipodeus's picture

I don't know about the U.N. - actually, I do: "zero" - but NATO sure has a sh#tload close by.

slewie the pi-rat's picture


well,  moQ seems to be interpreting the upcoming vote and subsequent military action as an act of war.  duh.

he's been rockin and rollin with some ordinance recently and sounds pretty tuned up, to me, here, if the ear does not deceive...  isn't this how we got into needing to spend trillions to hang saddam?

back to moQ:  now that his targets have increased by 450%, he's feelin capable?  wanna blow something up?  well, now!

or, more likely, just bluffing...

...unless he's getting ready for his "say hello to my li'l friends" moment... but the "UN" (spare me!) is taking the level of belligerence up a notch here, not moQ, he's just doing the civil war thingy.  so far.

Ahmeexnal's picture

Good point.

Now imagine that A380 ramming into a nukular powerplant in the heart of europe.

Lord Welligton's picture

Not a pleasant thought I must admit.

zaknick's picture

Imagine that. Shit on for a thousand years.

MachoMan's picture

Isn't that also part of our impetus to be in the region?  To protect Europe should this asshole get too desperate...  [along with keeping oil infrastructure operating heh].

Rodent Freikorps's picture

God Dammit. It is time we cut the apron strings on Europe. Let them reap what they sow.

No blood for Europe.

MachoMan's picture

It's not really that simple...  we don't care, per se, we just need to keep up the meme of world police/flowwer of oils.  If this makes our goals coincide, then awesome...  so be it.  If we have to go it alone, so be it.  You don't want to train a pitbull to kill and then keep it in the kennel all day do you?

I also can't fathom how all of this chains into saudi arabia...  we back the rebels in libya and then gut them all in bahrain?  Seems difficult at best to contain this...  and maybe we eventually get sufficient provocation to go into iran, but how do we keep a lid on SA in the meantime?  Too many spinning plates.

Rodent Freikorps's picture

I would support killing Iran. If we do not kill the source, we will fail anyway.

BigJim's picture

The source of what, brave warrior?

papaswamp's picture

With Japan offline we need the UK to step up and buy our debt.

MachoMan's picture

At what point do people get spooked?  The FED is the largest holder of treasuries...  that fact in and of itself should send alarm bells off to any sleepwalker.  Further, the UK doesn't buy dick...  China does through the UK...  we just need to make sure Japan doesn't sell its treasuries...  we've got the buying covered....  at least for a while.

kaiserhoff's picture

Anyone else remember Lockerbie, and who ordered it?

Hicham's picture

I think most nuclear plants are a lot better protected against that sort of thing than they are against earthquakes/tsunamis. Still nasty though

jus_lite_reading's picture

Hey TD can you confirm anything about a bank run in Japan?

TWORIVER's picture

Look look over there...running out of eyes to watch this show.

jesse livermoore's picture

great post.  you need a head on a swivel

PhattyBuoy's picture

You ain't seen nothing yet ... this is just getting warmed-up.

misterc's picture

The US should just go and take out this bastard.

SDRII's picture

yes those decapitation strikes have a good track record. More like Q up the proxy war.

dark pools of soros's picture

go down to the range if you are itching for target practice

nonclaim's picture

The US should just go and take out this bastard.

Why? He was an ally until a few weeks ago and by the unwritten laws of war he is winning fair and square.

He's a terrible person and should have gone to jail/executed long time ago. He wasn't and became a "friend of the west". So the question is why now?

misterc's picture

The US should just finish the job they once started. They bombed Tripolis and tried to kill him after Lockerbie, as far as I know.

tahoebumsmith's picture

yeah and then funded him for 20 years after they didn't kill him.. Not to mention allowed England to free the man accused of the Lockerbie incidint so they could strike up an oil deal with BP!

nonclaim's picture

After that we has received a few times in US soil, tent and blonds included.

The question remains, why now? Who supplied arms and ammunition and incited the "rebels"? The broad spectrum media support for the "rebels".

It's hard to defend such person but he has been acting within his role so far... and he is winning.

AnAnonymous's picture

There is no rebels. Only illegal combatants... Probably Al Qaeda or Muslim brotherhood...

Rodent Freikorps's picture

So what?

This is Italy's mess. The US does not have a dog in this fight. The US should take no action at all.

MachoMan's picture

Look at the price of oil...  Now who's problem is it?

Rodent Freikorps's picture

Europe's. We can take the hit. Let them step up, or die.

No more dead Americans to save Europe from themselves. This shit has to end. Three strikes, and you are out.

AnAnonymous's picture

Italy's mess or not, it does not change the fact that Gaddhadfi's army is killing illegal combatants, not civilians, not rebels.

Rodent Freikorps's picture

I do not care. The US should sit this one out.

AnAnonymous's picture

The US should side with Gaddafi as his military is doing a job the US supports: killing illegal combatants.

BigJim's picture

And exactly by what steps does a population rebelling against its tyrant overlord become legal combatants, in your legalistic eyes?