Libya SIGINT Jamming Satellites, Towers

h00manist writes "Libya's Gaddafi apparently loves radio hacking. Signal jamming is being used to disable Thuraya satellite phones. Also being jammed is satellite TV network provider Arabsat, affecting vast areas in the Middle East, Gulf, Africa and Europe. Cellphone and internet transmissions are working only intermittently. Soldiers are confiscating electronics, too. This has gone on for days, allowing killing to be carried out largely hidden from the rest of the world, quite different from what happened in Egypt. The locations of the jamming signals are known to company executives — around the capital, Tripoli — but nobody can do anything. Only POTS is available, and it is monitored. Technically speaking, could this happen everywhere? Alternatives?"

Comments

Could be worse

[Just Some Guy]

They could be going with SIGKILL. Of course, SIGQUIT would be a nice improvement.

Re:Could be worse

[Presto Vivace]

I think that they have already gone to SIGKILL

Solution?

[jasno]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-radiation_missile

Re:Solution?

[WillAffleckUW]

even a HARM is fairly expensive. A standard JDAM (originally JATO) would suffice.

I'd say just airdrop some Russian plastique and let the locals take em out - maybe put the coords on a map with the case.

Re:Solution?

[couchslug]

Fun stuff, but the US shouldn't be the ones firing them or it will taint the process.

For people to appreciate freedom they must suffer to obtain it, and for peoples justice to be respected the people must kill their masters themselves.

Re:Solution?

[amicusNYCL]

Thing is that the US should not do this. Libya has used the US as a boogieman for a long time.

The UK shouldn't have any problems, now that Libyan diplomats are flat-out saying Gaddafi ordered the Lockerbie bombing. And they aren't attacking Libya, they're attacking Gaddafi. Gaddafi and Libya are currently at war with one another.

Re:Solution?

[amicusNYCL]

How do you know that this isn't Psy Ops to get us to attack oil-rich Libya?

Ah, Psy Ops, the new catch-all conspiracy theory.

We aren't attacking Libya, we're attacking Gaddafi. Gaddafi and Libya are at war, and the world has appeared to side with Libya.

There's also no reason why the US has to be the one to defend Libya from Gaddafi. There are plenty of other nations, including much of the Arab League, that aren't very fond of him.

And if we wanted Libya's oil, we would have made him a deal for it. There are already plenty of international oil companies operating there.

Re:Solution?

[Sir_Lewk]

Just what the world needs, another reason to shoot at hospital ships. Real smart.

Re:Solution?

[rezalas]

People here keep assuming that America is doing nothing, but that is highly unlikely. The entire purpose of the SOF community is to go into shit holes like this and get out without being noticed. It only takes a small team of green berets to move in, train a militia and then pull out after the rebels know what to do. Hell, they probably would even help procure regional weapons to avoid suspicion (like, I don't know, blowing up Lybian arms depots similar to the ones that were blown up) and make it look home grown.

Re:Solution?

[Patch86]

The damned place is on the brink of civil war, with angry mobs and half the army on one side, smaller mobs with the rest of the army and some foreign mercenaries on the other. Do you realy think handing out assult rifles at the dockside to whoever wants one is really the best idea? Are you the kind of person who thinkgs the best way to clear up a petrol spill at a filling station is with matches?

Actually, don't answer that.

Re:Solution?

[bcmm]

People are afraid of that sort of intervention, because of what happened last time: after two US servicemen were killed by a nightclub bomb that was probably connected to Gadaffi, the US conducted widely condemmed airstrikes on some basically random Libyan government targets, killing at least 15 civilians (not counting those working for the government in a non-military capacity), and Gadaffi's 15 month old adopted kid.

The overall result was massive damage to the reputation of the United States in the middle east, internation sympathy for Gadaffi, who had otherwise looked like a nutter, and of course no change in the regime's behaviour, since they were already completely uncooperative.

So, the world is now very nervous about intervening...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_El_Dorado_Canyon

What next?

[mr100percent]

Clearly Qadafi is going to do the full Tiananmen Square on his people, and yet Europe is not doing anything because 9-10% of their oil was coming from Libya.

It's ridiculous, Libya's own ambassadors are resigning to protest him, and the Libyan UN delegation broke from Qadafi and is publicly demanding from New York that the UN step in and do something. Will anyone at least do something now that he's jamming regional TV and phone?

Re:What next?

[shutdown -p now]

Clearly Qadafi is going to do the full Tiananmen Square on his people

Tiananmen Square was Army firing on unarmed demonstrators. The situation in Libya is way past that already - Ghaddafi has been using fighter jets to do airstrikes, and ships to shell areas, while opposition has taken over several regions of the country entirely (organizing brand new power and law enforcement structures in place in a grassroot manner), and in large cities, has captured large amounts of weapons. At this point, it's pretty much a civil war already.

Re:What next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the Libyan UN delegation will be in favor of UN intervention. But before we go into a Muslim country YET AGAIN and start fucking around with their affairs YET AGAIN after we've been told repeatedly for decades that our continual meddling in Muslim affairs is the prime reason behind Islamic terrorism, maybe we should, you know, ask whether the Libyans really want our involvement? It's true that people are being killed, but it also seems like the revolt is gaining the upper hand over the old regime.

Do you really think a UN or American intervention in Libya is going to end with freedom for Libyans, or don't you think it's more likely that we'll just install another puppet regime like we have done dozens of times in this region of the world? Do you think the people of Libya are too stupid to realize that would happen?

Gaddafi's government is defecting left and right, the man is on TV saying bin Laden is drugging the children of his country with hallucinogens, the man has clearly COMPLETELY lost his mind and will not be in power for much longer. Let the Libyans handle this their own way. Treat them like adults.

Re:What next?

[gman003]

Pretty much a civil war? Hell, at the rate it's going, the civil war will be over before the UN even forms a committee on it.

Re:What next?

[swb]

This isn't "clear" at all.

He's got a pretty small fighting force comprised of mercenaries and what amounts to a small Praetorian guard left on his side; there have been mass defections from him and his hold on actual real estate is pretty small.

My sense is that he might hold out another week or two, but the whole thing is running on a cash and carry basis and with the chaos and world opinion, cash won't hold out. The defections are already legion.

I'm not sure what Europe is supposed to "do", either -- occupy Libya? Mount an air campaign against Qadafi's strongholds? Even if the Europeans had a sea lift capability, European public opinion -- and public treasuries -- would not support it. It would probably also be counter-productive to the Arab "street" and larger Arab diplomacy.

Re:What next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post pretty much explains why nobody - the U.S. included - is exactly going in with blazing guns there.

As tempting as it is to say "Europe should go in!" or "USA should go in!" (or Russia, or China, or the Australians), I'm not entirely sure it would actually -help- the population. It may end the killing a little sooner, but then what?

Libya doesn't really have a modern political and legal structure. If outsiders were to go in now, they'd have to commit to 10-20 years of essentially building a country from scratch with many of its inhabitants extremely displeased with the status quo and who emotionally want to see complete change overnight - blinding them from rational thought and understanding that this takes time.

Drop out of the 10-20 years and you antagonize the people because they feel you've abandoned them (Afghanistan/Russia skirmishes). Stay there for the 10-20 years and you antagonize them because clearly you're the western oppressor simply replacing the old oppressor (Iraq, current).

If Libyans in the street (not the embassy workers/etc. - the people seen in the few videos that make it out of the country) were clearly calling for intervention from outsiders, that would be a different thing. As it is, though, they're in their own revolution not calling for any such help.

Gaddafi has indeed completely lost it - first blaming western (U.S.) pressure (much like Mubarak did in Egypt), now blaming Al Qaida, tomorrow.. who knows - the Pope?

Re:What next?

[Mashiki]

I was thinking more along the lines of he'll have purged the majority of his supporters before the UN forms a committee on it. As it's going right now, you've got his thugs running around hacking people up(house to house). You have mercs from some of the bloodiest intra-africa conflicts there, opening fire on people and dragging the bodies away.

Of course there is some heartening stuff like the fighter pilots who ran to malta, or the couple that ditched in the desert and ran like hell. He doesn't have absolute control on his military, but he has enough that a lot of people are going to die.

And regardless of that, this is going to be the status-quo for the next 10 years in the middle east.

Re:What next?

[dfenstrate]

and yet Europe is not doing anything because 9-10% of their oil was coming from Libya.

Are you sure it's about oil? Perhaps it's more standard things like:
1) Cowardice
2) Unwillingness to put their soldiers lives and their nations funds on the table for something that isn't vital to their interests
3) In combination with number 2, unwilling to sign up for a multi-year commitment to see through what they start
4) Unable to react competently to such a rapidly unfolding scenario
5) Materially unprepared to intervene with military might
6) Suffering from plain old paralysis by analysis and/or standard indecision

"It's all about oil" is rather bland fare, given how long that worthless sentiment has been floating around.

Re:What next?

[williamhb]

I was thinking more along the lines of he'll have purged the majority of his supporters before the UN forms a committee on it. As it's going right now, you've got his thugs running around hacking people up(house to house). You have mercs from some of the bloodiest intra-africa conflicts there, opening fire on people and dragging the bodies away.

Of course there is some heartening stuff like the fighter pilots who ran to malta, or the couple that ditched in the desert and ran like hell. He doesn't have absolute control on his military, but he has enough that a lot of people are going to die.

And regardless of that, this is going to be the status-quo for the next 10 years in the middle east.

Unfortunately, it may be worse than that. Gaddafi has been successful enough in squishing all opposition over the last 40 years that after his toppling the likely result is not "Yay, we're magically transformed into a liberal market democracy" but "Now the tribal leaders get their turn at fighting each other for power in various regions, and tearing any civillians caught in the middle to shreds". The dilemma for the UN and Europe is that there are no certain good options here.

• Topple Gaddafi and potentially watch the aftermath turn it into another Somalia (but much closer to Europe's doorstep) - not so good.
• Invade and try to nation build -- hasn't worked so well in Iraq or Afghanistan and nobody has the stomach (or money) for it any more.
• Hope an African-led UN intervention can take place -- good luck with that.

They are scratching for options and desperately hoping a good one will appear.

You can tell the West is stuck for options by what they say -- they still stop short of saying Gadaffi must go. Obama, Cameron, and other western leaders all troop up to say how deplorable and illegal Gadaffi's actions are and that they must stop -- but they all still stop short of calling on him to resign, even after he has already lost control of most of the country and launched attacks on his own civilians that would presumably be considered crimes against humanity.

Re:What next?

[Luckyo]

So your option is to play it like US does and do yet another re-enactment of "elephant in a porcelain shop"? Only this time, some poor EU country being the dumbass elephant with no clue?

You do realise that most of NATO members learned a LOT from last two adventures that had a goal of "bringing freedom and democracy"? Reality is, when it's time for a civil war, you supply humanitarian aid and stay the fuck out and let locals figure out who's right and who's dead. If you're really smart, you'll supply guns to the side that is most likely to win, or one that has world views that most align with yours. But you stay the fuck out. Nothing is as dumb as getting in between two of those who are certain of themselves being RIGHT. You're not going to convince anyone that they're wrong, and at best you'll have them kill each other anyway, and at worst, they'll kill you first, and then each other a la Iraq.

Re:What next?

[mr100percent]

Libya is increasingly relevant to Europe's interests, both in terms of oil flow and trying to stem the tide of illegal immigration. Italy, Spain, France, and Greece have reached out to Qaddafi over the past several years, because they think there's no way they can close the borders without his help. Given all the fearmongering on Iran's supposed threat to Europe, you'd think Libya would loom even larger if it goes down the tubes and goes Somali on them.

Europe can do a heck of a lot without sending soldiers in and bombing the cities. Condemnation, severing diplomatic ties, freezing Qaddafi's assets, threatening war crimes charges at the ICC Hague if this continues, sanctions, canceling the recent economic agreements (Italy alone gives billions in both reparations and an attempt to stop immigration), etc. are all ways they can exert some power over Qaddafi.

Re:Alternatives?

[electron sponge]

A NATO stealth bomber strike to take them out with missiles intended for that (i understand some ordinance can fry electronics). Enough is enough. Fuck Gaddafi!

You mean an American stealth bomber. We're the only ones who have them. Of course it will be done, under the auspices of NATO or the UN. Some ordinance can indeed fry electronics, but I doubt we're going to go full EMP-burst on them. HARM works well enough and has the added bonus of not being a weapon of mass destruction. It's going to happen, by the way. Just a matter of the weather in Tripoli.

Re:Network of nodes using Uucp, USENET

[YrWrstNtmr]

If I were there right now

Either you'd be:
1. Shitting in your pants hiding in the basement, praying not to get blown up
or
2. At the port, begging for a ride on a ferry out.

Sadly, our western, basement dwelling nerdiosity doesn't begin to comprehend the potential of violence in such a situation.

If you support democracy, leave Libya alone

[thetagger]

Look, people die, that's horrible. But Libya's problems are their own internal problem. It's ultimately a healthy thing that Libyans are revolting against their dictator. This is democracy at its finest. If all goes well, this is going to be their 1776.

If the West were to intervene, that would kill all of the legitimacy that this movement has. The West is pro-Kadaffi, just Google a bit and you will find pictures of Kadaffi shaking hands the hands of smiling people like Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and Silvio Berlusconi. The West doesn't give a flying fuck about Libyans as long as their own citizens can buy cheap oil and that is why the West is so embarrassed when a regime they support falls. That is what happened in Egypt, Tunisia and now, possibly, in Libya. That is what happened in a dozen Latin American countries two decades ago. The West is part of the problem here, not the solution. Leave them alone. This could be the blood bath that will end all future blood baths.

Re:If you support democracy, leave Libya alone

[russotto]

The West is pro-Kadaffi, just Google a bit and you will find pictures of Kadaffi shaking hands the hands of smiling people like Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and Silvio Berlusconi.

Shaking hands, that's your evidence? Shaking hands with someone doesn't mean you like them, particularly if you're a politician or a diplomat. It's true that NOT shaking hands with them is a rather major public snub, but in politics you can shake hands with someone and declare war on him the next day.

Re:If you support democracy, leave Libya alone

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but the French (believe it or not) helped us out in 1776, changing the course of our War for Independence. They hated the English, so their enemies enemy was their friend. We should assist anyone who is fighting for democracy if asked. Pay it forward with a couple of well aimed HARM missiles. Put a well armed ship off the coast (screw the 12 mile limit) to receive wifi broadcasts and retransmit to the world. Gaddafi needs to relive the whupping we gave the Barbary pirates in Tripoli.

Re:If you support democracy, leave Libya alone

[__aaxtnf2500]

The United States was successful during the War of Independence with French logistical and financial support. That didn't kill the legitimacy of the new government. Your argument is false.

Re:If you support democracy, leave Libya alone

[c0lo]

And the result of it was a global war between several European powers - the equivalent of a World War in what can be considered "world" at that time (England, France, Spain, Dutch republic + colonies... with Austria/ and Russia the only empires missing).

This is also to put into perspective that what US consider a "local" revolution, many other parties involved had experienced as war.

Funny, everyone who says the west should do someth

[SmallFurryCreature]

Funny, this. When Saddam killed Kurds, people cried out for western intervention. Then the west invades to dispose and it isn'y right either. Somalia erupts and again the same people cry out for intervention, but then complain when some war mongers get killed. Same with Afghanistan. Women get stoned, intervene! Intervention happens: GET OUT!

So, are you pro Iraq invasion? Pro-war? Pro-increased military budgets? Pro-conscription? Then what exactly do you mean with intervention.

The simple fact is that the real world is a hellishly difficult place and western governments are dealing with an electorate incapable of keeping a coherent train of thought in a single sentence. How can you make policy of any kind when one moment people want peace and war the next? When we should leave other nations alone but also stop them from doing anything we disagree with?

And do the Libyans even want intervention? By who? The reports coming from Libya are far from reliable. One thing that has been noted is that foreigners who have gotten out speak of plenty of HEARED violence and even some theft but not a single sign of the hardcore violence reported. Covering their tracks? Violence happens elsewhere or maybe the violence is over stated? Who knows for sure and you wish western officials to commit to what might turn into an extended decades long war based on this?

And if you start intervening, how soon? Intervene at any protest where people die at the hand of the police? That would have seen the US invaded by the west to stop its police killing protestors pretty much throughout its history. What of the many race riots, intervention?

Intervention is rarely used, it is just to drastic a tool.

And of course it would play right into the dictators hand, see, the rioters are lead by foreigners seeking to re-establish their colonies. You are away that Libya used to be a colony of, I believe, France? Send in the Foreign legion? Yeah, that would go over well.

No, the cries for intervention are best ignored by a politician because the exact same kids will be protesting ten seconds after you intervene about that as well. Best to ignore them.

Let the Libyans choose their own destiny. When they win, it will have been their own freedom they have won on their own terms. Imposed freedom will never taste as sweet as freedom you won yourself.

Re:Al Jazeera live from Libya

[gknoy]

Alternatively, someone may have painted the graffiti on the wall after the bullet holes had been made.

Re:first post

[Anonymous Coward]

The best tweet: "I hope programmers worldwide will join me in calling for M[ou]'?am+[ae]r .*([AEae]l[- ])? [GKQ]h?[aeu]+([dtz][dhz]?)+af[iy] to step down."

You know who has experience dealing with Libyans?

[mykos]

I was in high school back in '85, doing odd jobs for this wealthy freelance scientist, Emmett Brown.. Anyway, long story short, he used some creative methods into tricking Libyans into giving him what he wanted. They gave him plutonium to make a bomb, but he used it in a wild science experiment instead...you wouldn't believe me if I told you.

I'm sure Doc Brown is still around somewhere, haven't talked to him in a while since he got married and had a couple kids.

The law

[currently_awake]

Everybody is running around talking about military intervention, but you're forgetting a basic point: This is an internal matter of a sovereign nation. We might not like what's happening, but going into Libya with guns blazing is just as illegal as doing it to Iraq. There is a long list of people who complain about america running around invading countries for their oil, and yet they will happily stand there and say that the americans should rush into this country and do the same. If you want your opinions and morals to be respected you have to be consistent in them. The people of Libya haven't asked for outside aid.