Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Libya says NATO air strike hits major oil field

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 06:38 PM
Original message
Libya says NATO air strike hits major oil field
Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - Libya said a U.N.-mandated British air strike had hit its major Sarir oilfield killing three guards and damaging a pipeline connecting the field to a Mediterranean port.

"British warplanes have attacked, have carried out an air strike against the Sarir oilfield which killed three oilfield guards and other employees at the field were also injured," Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim told reporters.

There was no immediate official comment from Britain's Ministry of Defense on Kaim's comments about the field.

Earlier, Muammar Gaddafi's forces unleashed mortar rounds, tank fire and artillery shells on the western city of Misrata on as a French minister said NATO air strikes in Libya risked getting "bogged down."

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/06/us-libya-idUS...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 06:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. "We can charge them $6.00 a gallon now!"
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarcasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 06:07 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. I think in the UK ("British air strike") they already do.
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 06:29 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Actually c. $8 / US gallon here at present
That's for diesel. Petrol is slightly cheaper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 06:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. Oops. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 06:40 PM
Response to Original message
3. Oooops! Nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
4. That ought to help drive the cost of a barrel up.
In the words of GWB*, "heh-heh-heh...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
5. I think Gaddafi ordered it to be blown up by his own people. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Best not always believe what you think
More will become clear in terms of claims and counterclaims when its daylight there in about 7 hours time. By that time NATO , when planes have all returned to base , will also have commented one way or the other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 03:31 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. Absolutely, but it's not like Libyan government spokesmen have been a beacon of truth.
Sky reporter Alistair Bunkall said: "You have got to wonder why British aeroplanes would come in from their bases in Italy and destroy an oil field. It would mark a change in tactics.

"Equally, you have the question of how the Libyan government know they were British aeroplanes, simply because they would be releasing their missiles from some distance.

"They do have different wing shapes from the French and other coalition aircraft but unless you have an eyewitness account it is very difficult to verify."


http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201104115967763

I frankly think that Gaddafi has such a tenuous hold on the east that he decided to hit those fields. He already hit one in the east south east. The "oil grubbing" coalition and the rebels have no reason to destroy that infrastructure and would avoid it at almost all costs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Which, of course, makes it fact.
Duly noted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cerridwen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. The last 3 paragraphs of the linked article talk about gaddafi's troops
blowing up 2 rebel held oil fields.

Al Jazeera English also mentions the Libyan Deputy FM as saying the NATO strike "violated international law."

I'll start believing the Libyan gov't when I see the verified by western journalists damage on Libyan TV. Until then, the Deputy FM has as much veracity as sarah palin.

1:31am

Libyan Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim told the Reuters news agency that a British air strike hit the major Sarir oil field on Wednesday, killing three guards. He said the strike damaged a pipeline connected the field to Hariga port and that it violated international law.

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hayu_lol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. A real air strike by 2 or 3 modern aircraft would have made an...
Edited on Thu Apr-07-11 02:26 AM by hayu_lol
inferno out of an oilfield. Not just 3 dead.

Unless NATO is using piper cubs armed with rifles.

Nice propaganda try Ka-Daffy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 03:32 AM
Response to Reply #5
12. I think that is increasingly looking to be the case. We'll know soon.
Props for putting yourself out there to be ridiculed in the event you are wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swede Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #5
17. I agree with you.
NATO is hitting military targets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 06:30 AM
Response to Original message
15. Its odd that 12 hours later
NATO have yet to deny it. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baclava Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. That Canadian general dude did blame it on Moe
NATO: Gaddafi's forces to blame for oilfield fire

BRUSSELS, April 7 (Reuters) - NATO blamed forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi for a fire in an oilfield in Libya on Thursday, and denied the Western military alliance had launched air strikes in the area.

"We are aware that pro-Gaddafi forces have attacked this area in recent days, which resulted in at least one fire at an oil facility north of Sarir," Canadian Lieutenant General Charles Bouchard, commander of NATO's operations in Libya, said in a statement.

"To try and blame it on NATO is a clear demonstration how desperate this regime is," he said.

He added that NATO, which is filling a United Nations mandate to protect civilians in Libya through air strikes and enforcement of a no-fly zone, was not conducting strikes in the area because there was no threat to the civilian population there.

"The only one responsible for this fire is the Gaddafi regime and we know he wants to disrupt oil getting to Tobruk," Bouchard said.

http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFBRU01143720...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. Odd that once they did you didn't say how not odd it was.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nalnn Donating Member (528 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
18. If true
This strike was likely because the Col. was trying to hide his heavy weapons and vehicles there thinking that NATO would not attack the oil field. In that case, he was wrong.

Strategically, there is no reason to go after the oil fields.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 26th 2014, 12:18 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC