Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cracks Showing in the Libyan Firewall?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the i-want-to-break-free dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Most Libya Internet traffic has been blocked since the start of the uprisings on February 17. In what may be the first cracks in the Libya Internet firewall and a sign of the rapidly evolving political situation, Libya Internet traffic climbed over the weekend according to Arbor. Twitter updates also suggest the Internet is now working in eastern cities like Benghazi. Gaddafi may be losing control of his state telecom (Libya Telecom and Technology)?"

88 of 126 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Offtopic: by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Or a hosts file war if APK decides to show up.

    --
    Loading...
  2. How does the livestream come through by Gunstick · · Score: 1

    Since quite some time a livestream from Benghazi is available. How is this possible if the internet was blocked?
    http://www.livestream.com/libya17feb

    --
    Atari rules... ermm... ruled.
    1. Re:How does the livestream come through by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Informative

      There are two Libyas now.

      The Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya - That's Gaddafi's Libya, its the government that use to run all of the geographical area we think of as Libya.
      The National Libyan Council - is revolutionary Libya based on Benghazi, it's been under rebel control for over a week now.

    2. Re:How does the livestream come through by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The "rebels" as they still seem to be called, are gaining more territory by the day. I'm envisioning a bunker scenario for Gaddafi. I doubt he'll let himself be taken alive.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:How does the livestream come through by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      You see that they grabbed one of his bunkers? I'm not sure what we call the two factions informally, I use Gaddafi and New Libya when talking about it with my wife.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L1hWPGVcB0

    4. Re:How does the livestream come through by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I doubt he'll let himself be taken alive.

      On the contrary, he has all the hallmarks of a coward and probably doesn't have the guts to shoot himself. I predict a Saddam Hussein style ending for him.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:How does the livestream come through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You know she just married you for your low uid.

    6. Re:How does the livestream come through by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm going to go with the "big-time pop/rock star" ending (drug overdose) for Gaddafi. He seems to be on something most of the time he speaks, so an OD wouldn't be too far fetched.

      Considering all of the US's "allies", I expect this country to bite the hand that fed Qaddafi. Where;s Cheney lauding his friends now?
      Can't wait until Saudi Arabia turns considering all the payoffs to the "royal" family.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    7. Re:How does the livestream come through by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2

      Bringing Gaddafi in from the cold was a good deal in 2003-2004. The guy did give up his WMD program to the US/UK and opened up for inspections.

      http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/2011227162155530547.html

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapon_proliferation#Libya

      If the US and UK hadn't bridged the gap, then he'd had mustard gas to drop on the Free Libya movement and social networking technologies like Twitter, Skype would be banned from distribution to Libya.

      As it is now, there is mustard gas a few hundred km south of Tripoli (where the US/UK can see it from satellite) at a military base but no bomb canisters for deploying it.

    8. Re:How does the livestream come through by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Bringing Gaddafi in from the cold was a good deal in 2003-2004. The guy did give up his WMD program to the US/UK and opened up for inspections.

      Bringing Gaddafi in from the cold might be good for the US, it's definitely good for Gaddafi, however, Gaddafi is not the Libyan people just as the Shah of Iran is not the Iranian people. The only thing in common is the outcome, a lot of dead and another country anti-US.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    9. Re:How does the livestream come through by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      So if the west had left Gaddafi isolated he'd have deliverable chemical weapons, the people would have limited social media access (Libya was on the no crypto, no advanced computers, no advanced software lists until 2005), limited cellular options and thus limited ways to organize.

      So opening up Libya is bad because the United States was involved?

    10. Re:How does the livestream come through by slick7 · · Score: 1

      So opening up Libya is bad because the United States was involved?

      In a word, no. However, the corruption of Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan is a reflection of the corruption of the US. The false flag 911 attack, the yet to be revealed (by the US government) attack of the Pentagram by a Soviet made Granite cruise missile (nuclear tipped yet somehow defective), the whitewash of the 911 investigation (the government must really believe we are that stupid), are nothing more than indicators. The government attacks on unions (brought on by the self-serving unions themselves) goes to show the true level of arrogance of this elected government. Watch what happens when the American people take to the streets in protest like Lybia and Egypt. I foresee martial law, foreign troops on American soil, FEMA curtailment of the constitution etc and so on.Then and only then will the sleeping American giant awake and awake pissed.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    11. Re:How does the livestream come through by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      P-700 Granit, although SS-N-19 Shipwreck is the preferred name in the West.

      I'll rate that 2/10, you used too many crazy references in one paragraph.

    12. Re:How does the livestream come through by slick7 · · Score: 1

      I'll rate that 2/10, you used too many crazy references in one paragraph.

      What's crazy, the comments or the lack of citation? What if (and I don't like what ifs) the warhead had not failed?

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    13. Re:How does the livestream come through by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      757-223s don't carry warheads.

    14. Re:How does the livestream come through by slick7 · · Score: 1

      757-223s don't carry warheads.

      757-223's are not neat (like the Pentagram lawn) when they crash. The videos would show that, oh wait, there are no videos, oh wait, there are videos, but they are classified. HMMMMMM?!

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    15. Re:How does the livestream come through by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      1. Its a Pentagon. A five-sided polygon. A pentagram is a five-pointed star drawn with five straight strokes.

      2. The video is not "classified" it's been out and available for years with stills from it available from 9-11-01 on
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pentagon_Security_Camera_2.ogv

      3. Wreckage from the 757-223 was clearly visible and photos are available if you look around.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flight_77_wreckage_at_Pentagon.jpg

      When aircraft hit hard things they don't leave big pieces behind. I was involved in the salvage of a Piper PA-28 (N7731W) along with my grandfather and uncle. In that case the aircraft had a engine failure at about 90 mph while at 1000-1500 agl. There wasn't much left, when the 757-223 hit the Pentagon it was going over 500 mph and hit a reenforced concrete and steel building, it was lucky that even wheels and blade disk were found.

      http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

      Also, when jet aircraft with a lot of fuel crash they burn, often hot enough to melt aluminum and composites.
      Like the C-130 during Desert One, Pan Am Flight 1736 from 1977, the C-17 from Elmendorf in 2010, etc

    16. Re:How does the livestream come through by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Saw the video, big deal, doesn't show anything. No plane, no cruise missile, nothing. As to a winged aircraft making the hole, it's interesting that there no markings indicating where the wings were attached. I guess they just folded up prior to impact. As to the definition of the Pentagram, it's nothing more than a four sided building with an installed spare. As to your theory about melting metal, the 911 whitewash already stated that one aluminum aircraft with jet fuel can bring down one world trade tower with reinforced steel and concrete. Therefore your argument is invalid. As to what really happened, the truth was the first casualty. The lies will continue until someone, somewhere brings forth the truth and it will not be from the pentagonesians. They and all the war effort contractors and banksters have vested interests in prosecuting armed aggression, lucrative armed aggression.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    17. Re:How does the livestream come through by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Yes, wings fold back when they hit something made of concrete and steel at 500+ mph

      Metal weakens under exposure to high temperatures, aviation fuel burns, nearly all the contents of an office building burn and burn hot, etc.

    18. Re:How does the livestream come through by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Yes, wings fold back when they hit something made of concrete and steel at 500+ mph

      Metal weakens under exposure to high temperatures, aviation fuel burns, nearly all the contents of an office building burn and burn hot, etc.

      Nice physics. At 500 mph aluminum wings don't fold back, they shear off. The hole in the Pentegram, shows no damage to the periphery, no damage whatsoever indicating the penetrating object was anything but circular or in this case, cylindrical, no vertical stabilizer damage, no horizontal wing damage to the holel.
      As to the metal weakening due to burning, the physics doesn't support the hypothesis. The only way the wing could be compromised by fire is if it were burning before impact.
      Of all the video cameras around the Pentagram, only a few frames were released to the public, why is that? I guess I'll have to wait until Wikileaks releases the videos.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    19. Re:How does the livestream come through by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      They can fold or sheer, the momentum of the objects will make them continue on into the building, which is where they found the wreckage.

    20. Re:How does the livestream come through by slick7 · · Score: 1

      They can fold or sheer, the momentum of the objects will make them continue on into the building, which is where they found the wreckage.

      60 mph = 88 fps:: 500 mph = ???. You do the math.
      The aircraft that flew into the WTC didn't leave little holes as you suggest. Sure, WTC != Pentagram, yet the wings should of slapped the building prior to folding...???!!!
      Where? No wing marks, no vertical stabilizer marks. Compare the "No Parking" sign to the size of the hole compared to the size of the alleged aircraft. Hello.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    21. Re:How does the livestream come through by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Top speed for a 757-223 is 573 mph, which is 256.15 meters per second.

      Max takeoff weigh for a 757-200 series is 115,680 kg with 42,680 L of fuel.

      So burn off some of the fuel and ballpark it weighing about 95,000 kg when it hit

      The photo you linked to was from an engine that punched through the second ring wall after it came off the aircraft.

      http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp

    22. Re:How does the livestream come through by slick7 · · Score: 1

      You still here? If you questioned the leadership as much as you question me, would any of us be in the situation we find ourselves?
      Photo and data manipulation by experts is far more subtler than my blatant attempts. I showed you this photo rather than this one.
      Why is it that day after day, hour by hour, the American people were shown this yet not much of the Pentagram other than this, even though many video tapes were seized. What are people hiding?
      People are more interested in two train wrecks like Charlie and LiLo and yet, two other train wrecks like this and this here have greater impact on American policy.
      Politicians elected to office by 51% of the vote consider it a mandate, so what does this article say about the pissed off American voter? Politicians in office for more than two terms do not care about their constituents, this is my opinion. Two states and possibly three have decided to go back on their contract agreements. Considering how the American people were left with a bag of worms when Wall Street and the banksters tanked the economy and the politicians used taxpayer money to bail them out so the Wallstreeters and banksters could continue with their obscene bonuses, is it possible that the repercussions in Bell, California could escalate across the country all the way to Washington DC, I wonder?
      When the Europeans arrived in North, Central and South America, they first de-stabilized the indigenous people and then decimated them. Just ask any Native American Indian what they think of US government agreements. Now, the American people are being de-stabilized, what next?
      It's really been fun debating this with you, but I must move on. So long and thanks for all the fish.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  3. Information wants to be free by rs1n · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sooner or later, governments will finally acknowledge that you simply cannot stop the dispersal of information. Even in countries such as China where there is heavy regulation of media, people still manage to find ways to communicate their ideas -- just not on a large scale as elsewhere in the world. What we are seeing is that the internet may be the key to a future in which governments will no longer be able to censor speech. To disconnect from the internet would be to engage in electronic economic suicide (I am sure that Egypt's e-commerce was considerably hurt by the outage), and to remain connected would mean that sooner or later, the gates to the control center of censorship will crumble from all the tiny cracks created from within.

    1. Re:Information wants to be free by TheLink · · Score: 2

      China isn't having those sort of problems yet because there are also the carrots. It's not all sticks. People in China have got richer (though the gap has widened) and thus got more and more to lose over the decades. There's hope of improvement and obesity is even becoming a problem.

      Not true for too many people in Tunisia, Egypt etc. When you have large numbers of discontented people with little to lose, you have a big problem.

      Once more and more people have low confidence that they or their loved ones would be alive even a month later[1], they stop getting so scared of you even if you threaten to kill them and their families.

      [1] Apparently Egypt is very dependent on wheat imports. Russia (and India) stopped exporting wheat last year due to poor harvests. The "bread and circuses" stuff stops working when you run out of bread.

      --
    2. Re:Information wants to be free by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Sooner or later, governments will finally acknowledge that you simply cannot stop the dispersal of information.

      Many of them have. They work by contaminating information and it lets them delay the people's realization long enough to hit them with the next distraction. Welcome to the new millenium.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Information wants to be free by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1, Interesting

      People in China have got richer (though the gap has widened)

      This is not a coincidence. Margaret Thatcher explained it more succinctly than any economist. There is a blind assumption that "wealth gaps" are indicative of an unhealthy society, completely oblivious to the real quality of life. Hong Kong has a great deal of "wealth inequality" but its quality of life is immeasurably greater than far more "equal" nations like Kyrgyzstan.

      [...] and thus got more and more to lose over the decades.

      Which has actually worked against political reform. As you note yourself, when people are starving the threat of death loses its sting. The corollary is that when people are comfortable, injustices that happen to others are easier to tolerate. Liberty has been traded for stability in China, as it always has been since the death of the hundred schools of thought at the burning of books and burying of scholars. Several more generations in China must live and die before the authoritarian spirit that has been at the core of its society and government for more than three thousand years might finally pass away.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    4. Re:Information wants to be free by mlts · · Score: 1

      You hit the nail on the head. It isn't hard to get so much information out there, fake or not, that people just don't care. If people get so many factoids that they can't tell if it is another The Onion headline or actual news, they will stop caring.

      The only way this will be gotten around is to have anon news sources which vet any information they get, either by corroborating it with other stories, or by other means, then signing that the information is actually real.

    5. Re:Information wants to be free by mysidia · · Score: 1

      governments will finally acknowledge that you simply cannot stop the dispersal of information.

      Is that before or after Qaddafi deploys his Backhoe corps to plow across the country severing all the underground fiber lines while increasing power to his WiFi jammers?

    6. Re:Information wants to be free by localman57 · · Score: 1

      Then they'll do what the rebels have been doing since the beginning. A lot of the early stuff was sneaker-netted on CDs and Flash drives across the border, and injected into the internet from there.

    7. Re:Information wants to be free by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Ironic in a way: Egypt was the source of wheat for the *original* "bread and circuses".

    8. Re:Information wants to be free by foobsr · · Score: 1

      The only way this will be gotten around is to have anon news sources which vet any information they get, either by corroborating it with other stories, or by other means, then signing that the information is actually real.

      Here, in Germany, they have already foreseen this dangerous development and are having a test run on obfuscating reality in a way that makes it hard to realize real reality. In case you did not care, I am referring to the Guttenberg copy&paste case.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    9. Re:Information wants to be free by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Do those backhoes have any armor plating? http://xkcd.com/705/

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  4. Twitter's fine but ... by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... you really can't get a good feel for Gaddafi's rants in 140 character chunks.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Twitter's fine but ... by chill · · Score: 2

      Can you imagine Hugo Chavez with his 5-10 hour speeches broken into 140 characters?

      Unlimited text messaging would soon become a human right in Venezuela!

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    2. Re:Twitter's fine but ... by wsapplegate · · Score: 2

      Can you imagine Hugo Chavez with his 5-10 hour speeches broken into 140 characters?

      While I understand it's always fun to lambast Hugo Chávez, I'd like to point out he indeed has a Twitter account, and he even attracted more than one million followers. Not so shabby, eh?

      --
      Xenu brings order!
    3. Re:Twitter's fine but ... by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      Especially in unicode!

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
  5. Re:Offtopic: by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    No it'll become a US sucks/No it doesn't within the 30th comment.

  6. Re:Offtopic: by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

    Ding ding ding! We have the winning prediction!

    --
    I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  7. I suspect the US Government is doing something by wiggles · · Score: 1

    “We are also supporting the development of new tools that enable citizens to exercise their rights of free expression by circumventing politically motivated censorship,” she said. “We are providing funds to groups around the world to make sure that those tools get to the people who need them in local languages, and with the training they need to access the internet safely. The United States has been assisting in these efforts for some time, with a focus on implementing these programs as efficiently and effectively as possible. Both the American people and nations that censor the internet should understand that our government is committed to helping promote internet freedom.”
    --Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 1/21/2010
    Source

    1. Re:I suspect the US Government is doing something by wiggles · · Score: 1

      I trust them about as far as the Secret Service would let me throw them, which isn't very far at all, but she said what she said. You have to admit that unfettered access to the internet for citizens inside an oppressive regime seems to be quite the game changer these days, to the point that it can be used strategically.

    2. Re:I suspect the US Government is doing something by chemicaldave · · Score: 1

      You have to admit that unfettered access to the internet for citizens inside an oppressive regime seems to be quite the game changer these days, to the point that it can be used strategically.

      Indeed, much less messy than a physical show of force with the military. I've heard testimony from Libyans asking foreign powers to help them oust Gaddafi, but they'll have to deal with it themselves in that regard. Hopefully we are doing something directly other than scrambling for a UN sanction.

    3. Re:I suspect the US Government is doing something by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Realistically, this is time for Iraq strategy. The old one, not the target Jr. one, only taken to the end. No fly zone over country (would be the first time those expensive as fuck F-22s could actually see any action), supply arms to rebels quietly through CIA contacts. Have them win and be in debt to you.

      The problem is that Gaddafi can afford to get all those Ruandan/Sudanese/Kongolese rapist mass-murdering fucks to come and do it in his own country and is currently flying them in as much as his planes let him. Contain that and he will likely fall. Don't contain, and he has a pretty good chance of winning it Ruanda style - it doesn't matter how hungry you are, when your options are to support him, or be forced to watch as all your female relatives get raped until they die or get pregnant and be forced to keep the kid who will be taken away to be trained as another merc punches the rebellious air out of men very fast - no matter how poor and hungry they are.

      This is isn't a horror story. This is reality in large parts of Africa, and has been so for decades now.

    4. Re:I suspect the US Government is doing something by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Well, the tools will be restricted to non-free countries, because after all, in free countries you don't need them anyway ...

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    5. Re:I suspect the US Government is doing something by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Nice dig at the F-22, but you don't need top of the line intercepters running a no-fly zone over Libya.

      UN/NATO/EU No-Fly Zone would likely look like this...
      French carrier Charles DeGaulle and an American carrier would be in the Gulf of Sidra with AWACS up from both carriers, maybe Eurofighter Typhoons and F-16s coming down from Italy. Anything unauthorized thats spotted over Libya gets escorted or shot down by the 60+ Rafales and F-18s off the two carriers. Two carriers like that could dominate the region for two or three months.

      Control the air corridors into Libya and no murdering asshats get in to do Gaddafi's wet work.

      The former head of Libya's Special Forces said he'd liked to see "...an Arab air force, a European air force or the United States Air Force for air support, in that order of preference." Before the Revolution, the Egyptians would be the best poised to do that, but I doubt they'll get involved now, so then the Gulf States...umm I doubt they'll aid a revolution with their own about the break out. So Arab air forces are out. The EU might be able to do it themselves, but right now they only have one carrier (Charles de Gaulle), five STOL carriers (HMS Illustrious, Cavour, Giuseppe Garibaldi, Juan Carlos I, Principe de Asturias). The CdG is pretty capable, the five STOL carriers can't do a No Fly Zone, not even with the five of them together.

      It just happens that USS Enterprise is in the Red Sea and might be heading back through the Suez today for Libya.

    6. Re:I suspect the US Government is doing something by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The US government only cares about the right of the people to express dissent against foreign leaders they disapprove of. In fact, no more than a month after Hillary Clinton gave that speech, she gave another address condemning foreign governments for silencing dissent. During that speech, Army veteran and former CIA analyst Ray McGovern turned his back. For that silent, peaceful, non-disruptive act he was dragged from the room and assaulted.

      This is the definition of hypocrisy. Hillary Clinton witnessed the scene happening directly in front of her and never said a word. These are the kind of people we have leading America today.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:I suspect the US Government is doing something by khallow · · Score: 1

      but she said what she said

      If only words meant something (heh, well at least credible action).

    8. Re:I suspect the US Government is doing something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's why the US government is so supportive of Wikileaks.org, right?

    9. Re:I suspect the US Government is doing something by localman57 · · Score: 2

      You specifically don't use F22's in a place like Libya. Less cutting edge stuff will easily do the job, as well as the fact that the only place you need to enforce no-fly zones is near the coast, making longer range naval surface to air a possiblity for large percentages of populated areas.

      Even with your latest, greatest, there is always the chance that some guy with an AA gun will get lucky, or that you'll have a mechanical failure and crash. Then you have a big, big problem, as all of a sudden Russian and Chinese agents show up with giant duffle bags full of cash, offering farmers $$$ for anything that looks vaguely like busted up aircraft parts.

      There's a lot of speculation that the latest Chinese stealth fighter was developed so quickly because they got hits from the parts of the F-117 that went down during the Kosovo operations.

    10. Re:I suspect the US Government is doing something by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2

      And F-22s are only forward deployed to the Pacific and Korea.

      That risk of loss from operation tempo and the magic bullet are also reasons why the EU/NATO won't send Eurofighter Typhoon down there. Harriers, Rafales, F-16s and F-18s can deal with anyone in North Africa and have more loiter time than F-22 or Typhoon.

    11. Re:I suspect the US Government is doing something by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I think you need to vet your news more carefully. That is a very one-sided account you presented us with, and the guy "assaulted" is a total nut-job, so the one-side is immediately suspect.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    12. Re:I suspect the US Government is doing something by Hatta · · Score: 1

      The guy in question is actually a very reasonable person. He was a CIA analyst for 25 years and advisor to the first President Bush. He's not any more a nutjob than Hillary Clinton is.

      The entire thing was captured on video, and reported in many non-mainstream news sources. The mainstream media will of course not report on anything that conflicts with the narrative the government puts forth.

      If events did not transpire as described, you could find at least one report saying so. There is no evidence otherwise, so the media simply doesn't acknowledge it happened.

      If you're worried about a one-sided account, there's half a dozen mainstream news channels with professional reporters who could shed light on the issue. Not one of them has chosen to do so.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    13. Re:I suspect the US Government is doing something by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      but she said what she said.

      That's what she said!

    14. Re:I suspect the US Government is doing something by LanMan04 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The guy worked as an intelligence analyst under 7 different administrations (27 years) and was the guy who prepared/gave the daily intel briefing to the president for a lot of those years.

      That gives him at least a *little* base credibility. He's not some "Don't taze me bro" protester.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    15. Re:I suspect the US Government is doing something by Chris+Burkhardt · · Score: 1

      Ray McGovern is also the guy who stood up to Rumsfeld in 2006:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1FTmuhynaw

      The internets have jaded me to the point that whenever I see someone written off as "a total nut-job" (as the GP did to McGovern) I almost automatically read it as "a principled person who I disagree with."

      --
      "And there be unix which have made themselves unix for the kingdom of heaven's sake." - Matt. 19:12
    16. Re:I suspect the US Government is doing something by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      A problem and an issue:

      1. Libya has decent SAM and AAA. You'd need to go into attack mode and kill at least radar installations first. That would be something we really, really don't want to be doing, as that paints it like an invasion. Hence, you want stealth fighters if possible with AWACS craft from out of SAM radar range guiding the interception. Rafales, tyhoons and F18s are at a very real risk of getting shot down, especially if doing interceptions. Look at the lessons learned from Iraq - at the start of the war, you have no non-stealth craft in the SAM range until B-2s and F-117s have killed most to all of them. Else, look forward to lost aircraft.

      2. Carriers are essentially pointless like a cock on a cow here. We have NATO airbases all over the area. We can use actual ground-based fighters, that are generally lighter, more nimble, far more numerous, and can carry more payload as they don't need to have ruggedised airframe, hook and other STOL capabilities. Deployment options range from Crete, Greece and Italy that are within a few tens of minutes of flight to France and Spain that may take about an hour.

    17. Re:I suspect the US Government is doing something by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      That gives him at least a *little* base credibility

      Which he pisses away by being a "truther" and doing a tour of all the paranoid sites on the web.

      Besides, aren't the CIA known for some of the BAD things they do? Don't you think that a CIA guy might know how to work the media? Especially the crazy media, since I can't find any info on a reputable news site except Al Jazeera. And even they just have a blurb and not anything substantial.

      At the very least, you'd want an independent report from some witnesses. All that link shows is the story as told by one guy with a history of these kind of stunts.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    18. Re:I suspect the US Government is doing something by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      I almost automatically read it as "a principled person who I disagree with."

      He's a 911 "truther". He may have been a good CIA analyst, but he's either playing up the nutjobs for money or he is one himself.

      At the very least, you should be skeptical when literally the only account you can find of an event in a room full of people comes from one man. I won't come right out and call him a liar, but nor will I condemn Clinton without hearing more... and believe me, I'm no fan of Clinton.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    19. Re:I suspect the US Government is doing something by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      If events did not transpire as described, you could find at least one report saying so.

      That's quite the logical jump.

      Why hasn't a single media outlet, alternative or otherwise, talked to anyone else who was in the room with the man. It was a room full of people at a University! I'm not going to make any condemnations of Hillary Clinton based on a single story from a man with CIA training, an activist agenda, and a history of similar publicity stunts.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    20. Re:I suspect the US Government is doing something by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2

      1. Libya has 1970s SAMs and 1960s AAA, the places where those nodes are still in Gaddafi's hands are airbases around Tripoli. The Prowlers and Super Hornets on a US carrier as well as the Rafales on Charles de Gaulle can identify those, jam and kill those with HARM and SCALP missiles with very very little collateral damage.

      That is if the Libyan military even turned those on. If the Libyan military is down to flying in guys from the Congo and Sierra Leone as heavies, the danger of an integrated air defense network is very low.

      2. Carriers beat NATO airbases because they are able to get much, much closer while carriers and amphibious assault ships make for very good and efficient staging areas for humanitarian assistance. Carriers and Amphibs can deploy food, medical teams and evacuate people with helicopters, planes out of Sicily can't.

      Naval Air Station Sigonella to Benghazi is 450 air miles. Crete to Benghazi is 310. Malta to Benghazi is 410 air miles. The eastern Gulf of Sidra is 50-75 miles from Benghazi.

      Cairo West Airfield to Benghazi is 650 air miles, if the Arab League and Egypt decided to allow that to be used.

      If the humanitarian problems go to western or southern Libya, naval aviation remains the most flexible option.

    21. Re:I suspect the US Government is doing something by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Also, the United States Navy has a long and storied history of farking up Libyan air defenses, even when Gaddafi controlled the entire area and the military was loyal.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Sidra_incident_(1981)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_in_the_Gulf_of_Sidra_(1986)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Libya#U.S._forces_and_targets - look to the A-6 and A-7 targets
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Sidra_incident_(1989)

    22. Re:I suspect the US Government is doing something by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      1. Libya has 1970s SAMs and 1960s AAA, the places where those nodes are still in Gaddafi's hands are airbases around Tripoli. The Prowlers and Super Hornets on a US carrier as well as the Rafales on Charles de Gaulle can identify those, jam and kill those with HARM and SCALP missiles with very very little collateral damage.

      Which brings us to the point that you have to go into ground attack. Which means awesome propaganda material for enemy and a huge anti-western backlash in the region. No go.
      Remember, we do NOT want to get on the ground. We do NOT want to attack ground. We do NOT want to do anything that will make it look like West is attacking Arab world. It's one thing to supply the rebels (which is doable via sending simple supply fleets to their ports), it's entirely another to start taking part in the shooting war on the ground, even from the air. I think we all learned from Iraq and Afghanistan that when you go between two sides who both hate you, they stop fighting each other and both turn on you.
      What we want done is air superiority, i.e. no transport flights in our out of the country. This is best achieved by simple AWACS and loitering air superiority aircraft. Carrier is utterly pointless considering the air bases you listed.

      Carriers beat NATO airbases because they are able to get much, much closer while carriers and amphibious assault ships make for very good and efficient staging areas for humanitarian assistance.

      Carrier is perhaps the single most overestimated and overadvertised military unit of modern ages. As long as you have an airbase within reasonable range, carrier is a lame duck. It's far less efficient, far more vulnerable, and deploys significantly weaker aircraft then airbases can. Amphibious assault is done by amphibious ships, supplying by supply ships. The reason carrier get advertised when this happens is because these ships are usually a part of carrier's strike force, and US navy needs every single reason it can get its hands on to advertise carriers as viable. There is absolutely no reason to send a carrier strike force for amphibious mission when there is a large airbase nearby - have airbase provide air support and send a strike force of actual, specialized supply and amphibious ships. It's much cheaper, much less risky and much faster.

      The main reason for media advertising carriers so much is to turn public attention from reality - that being that the moment the real war against a real opponent starts (i.e. China, Russia, etc), ALL US carriers have life expectancy of less then 24 hours, with most being killed inside first 6-12 hours by enemy submarines and supersonic maritime strike bombers. When you consider the cost of each unit, and what you could have for that cost, you begin to understand just how wasteful they generally are.

      Essentially the main viability of a carrier is force projection where friendly airbases are scarce. In Iraq and Afghanistan, carriers got a lot of media attention, but vast majority of air force projected over area was flown from ground bases, and essentially entire early strike was done from US-based airbases with refuel over Atlantic, and support flights provided from Saudi-Arabian and EU bases. The reason US has had so much wrangling with local former USSR republics over air bases is because if they stop functioning, there is simply no way to pick up the slack. Vast majority of existing heavy attack and bomber craft as well as supply planes simply cannot operate from a carrier due to lack of STOL capabilities.

    23. Re:I suspect the US Government is doing something by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      US carriers don't operate STOL aircraft.

      US carriers operate traditional fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft, up to and including two engine turboprop cargo and AWACS aircraft.

      Like my post pointed out, the land bases for Libya are some distance away, to operate a No Fly Zone over Libya from land bases in the northern Med, tankers and SAR would have to be moved into place before anything could happen.

      Combat radius of an F-16 on a CAP is about 500 miles, so to fly from Sicily to northern Libya is going to require two refuelings (one down for time on station, one back), three for southern Libya.

      Italy's Typhoon has a range of 100 miles for a three hour CAP, the same amount of fuel or an extra tanking.

      An F-18E/F from a carrier has combat radius for air to air interdiction of 450 miles, plus the F-18E/F can carry tanks to refuel other F-18E/Fs or aircraft with a refueling probe (Rafale, US Navy/Marine aircraft, Typhoon). Plus because it's an aircraft carrier it can operate much closer to shore than Sicily/Crete or Malta are.

      Discussions about the survivability of carriers against China or Russia are moot and off topic, we are talking about a No Fly Zone against Libya.

    24. Re:I suspect the US Government is doing something by Chris+Burkhardt · · Score: 1

      > He's a 911 "truther". [911truth.org] He may have been a good CIA analyst, but he's either playing up the nutjobs for money or he is one himself.

      I understand your skepticism, but to dismiss him as a "nutjob" because he holds to theories that you and I find incredible is a rather black-and-white approach to assessing the credibility of the story. Dan Ellsberg is on the list in the link you posted; does that give you serious doubts about the validity of the Pentagon Papers?

      > At the very least, you should be skeptical when literally the only account you can find of an event in a room full of people comes from one man

      I agree, and I wish I could find more accounts of the event. It seems that Amy Goodman and Democracy Now was the most mainstream program to cover it. Though much of it was captured on video:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-Vy8fFnz18

      --
      "And there be unix which have made themselves unix for the kingdom of heaven's sake." - Matt. 19:12
    25. Re:I suspect the US Government is doing something by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      US carriers don't operate STOL aircraft.

      FYI: all carrier operated aircraft is STOL-modified. Modifications typically include:
      1. Ruggedised landing gear (and often slightly longer nose landing gear for better take off angle).
      2. Ruggedised airframe.
      3. Landing hook.

      This tends to add quite a bit of extra weight to the aircraft. Additionally some STOL mods include larger wingspan (i.e. F-35's upcoming naval version) and other modifications.

      Carrier-based AWACS aircraft, in comparison with heavy ground based one is a joke. We're talking significantly smaller antennas and less power to radar, and I'm sorry, but laws of physics dictate that there is no way to compensate for that.

      Refueling isn't done via essentially jury-rigging another heavy fighter to lug 4 external tanks (it's something done in carrier-only scenario and is extremely inefficient). It's done via a real heavy refueling aircraft like american KC-X tankers.

      Finally, most fighter aircraft has a significantly longer effective range with external fuel tanks. The only real exception to this rule in modern fighters is SU-27 and its derivatives, which has significant internal tanks as it was designed from get go not to carry any external fuel tanks unless absolutely necessary.

    26. Re:I suspect the US Government is doing something by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      No, US and French carrier based aircraft are not STOL modified aircraft.

      STOL is an acronym for short take-off and landing, a term used to describe aircraft with very short runway requirements. F-18, Rafale, EA-6, C-2, E-2,, Super Étendard, for example either use a catapult for take off and arrestors for landing, those don't make something STOL.

      Super Hornet does have a refueling capability with the center line refueling tank and four extra fuel tanks.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-18E#Tanker_role

      Yes, the E-2C and D are jokes, thats why they've been used by a number of countries for over 40 years and continue to have upgrades. They only directed American fighters and strike aircraft through Vietnam, Lebanon, the Gulf of Sidra, the Tanker War, Desert Storm, Bosnia, Kosovo, OIF and thousands upon thousands of refugee and drug interdictions.

    27. Re:I suspect the US Government is doing something by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Dan Ellsberg is on the list in the link you posted; does that give you serious doubts about the validity of the Pentagon Papers?

      It might if the Pentagon Papers weren't released in the 70s and authenticated :)

      I'll tell you what I see in that video - I see a man actively resisting some cops and shouting things. His account of what happened before and after the video may or may not be true, but I have no way of knowing. Certainly they are not using disproportionate force in the video - you wish that they weren't wrestling with him, but then again he is wrestling too. The cops have every right to remove someone disruptive from a private event like that.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    28. Re:I suspect the US Government is doing something by Chris+Burkhardt · · Score: 1

      > The cops have every right to remove someone disruptive from a private event like that.

      Clinton was in the middle of a speech -- of a sentence! -- demanding that foreign governments allow their citizens the freedom of expression. If you don't see the hypocrisy in that, can you at least appreciate the irony? Did she mean expression should only be protected if it is not disruptive to anybody?

      And in this case "disruptive" would have to be defined as standing silently (admittedly this is according to McGovern himself, though it is largely corroborated by the video as the mic had no problem picking up the noise once he started struggling with the police).

      You find it suspicious that no one else at the event has publicly corroborated McGovern's story -- but it is also notable that no one else has contradicted it (including the camera).

      I don't know what you mean when you say the police had 'every right', but if you mean legal right then I agree. But that is exactly the hypocrisy the whole fiasco makes apparent: when a public official speaks at a private university about the importance of protecting the freedom of expression, the police can and will repress peaceful protesters!

      If you meant moral rights, I disagree (based on the facts as best as I can discern them) that the police had any right to remove McGovern the way they did.

      Anyway, I think you have healthy skepticism and appreciate your desire not to jump to inaccurate conclusions. I just think the evidence is fairly convincing in this case... and it fits with my pre-conceived notion that governments are prone to hypocrisy :)

      --
      "And there be unix which have made themselves unix for the kingdom of heaven's sake." - Matt. 19:12
    29. Re:I suspect the US Government is doing something by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      can you at least appreciate the irony?

      Yes, of course... but he chose that moment to stand, and the setting was very different than a public square.

      And in this case "disruptive" would have to be defined as standing silently (admittedly this is according to McGovern himself, though it is largely corroborated by the video as the mic had no problem picking up the noise once he started struggling with the police).

      He said he stood up and faced the other way. Granted, he wasn't shouting (yet)... but it is still disruptive. I don't know if the cops asked him to leave before they dragged him out or not. They certainly should have. In any event, once he was being dragged his "silent" approach went out the window, as he was clearly resisting physically and yelling.

      You find it suspicious that no one else at the event has publicly corroborated McGovern's story -- but it is also notable that no one else has contradicted it (including the camera).

      I agree that is odd, and I don't really know what to say other than perhaps it didn't seem like a big deal to the people in the room.

      when a public official speaks at a private university about the importance of protecting the freedom of expression, the police can and will repress peaceful protesters!

      There's peaceful protest and then there's "being a dick". Private property is private property, no matter what is being said. I could be persuaded that we need to have some kind of a relaxation of private property rights in political situations... but you need to draw a line. For instance - is it criminal trespass or "peaceful protest" when someone sneaks onto the set of Larry King while he interviews Clinton? So why is GWU different? Maybe something like an exemption when you receive public funding? I don't know.

      If you meant moral rights, I disagree (based on the facts as best as I can discern them) that the police had any right to remove McGovern the way they did.

      Morally, the police are fine if they first asked him verbally. A trespasser can be removed by force unless your moral code is very, very strict regarding violence. Maybe the Quakers wouldn't remove someone, for instance. And that's fine... I guess I'm suggesting that morality is relative, and that the police weren't acting immorally by the prevailing standards in the US.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  8. cracks of the crackpot by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    "Gaddafi's rants in 140 character chunks."

    What else do you expect from a strange person (still not necessarily a legal crackpot)? My guess he was so filled with self esteem he lost touch with the outside world, in a sense Salvador Dali did. I am not convinced either of these were "legal madmen", just bizarre. Unfortunately, Gadaffi still has some power left power but Dali never did.

    1. Re:cracks of the crackpot by khr · · Score: 1

      In 140 characters? "The difference between me and madmen is I am a madman"?

  9. makes more sense 140 chars at a time by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    hmmmmmm, #timecubebot , anyone?

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  10. Re:Offtopic: by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    Nah, this time Europe sucks. Specifically Italy, France, and UK... The US got sloppy seconds..

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  11. Future dictators will take a Col. Kilgore approach by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

    "I want that firewall fire-bombed! Bomb that Internet and twitter back into the stone age, son! I love the smell of napalm in the morning . . . "

    Although this sounds outrageous, this is probably what a bunch of them have their general staff working on . . .

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  12. Re:News from Lybia are simple not true in 75% of a by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    What about Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya?

    A number of countries, Cuba and Venezuela come to mind, are denying the revolution and supporting Gaddafi's claims.

    The tens of thousands of Libyan and foreign refugee's testimony make it sound like the US/EU reports are closer to the truth.

  13. Re:we should all setup proxies for them by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Dream on. Gas prices have only just begun to rise. It will take demand destruction (ie the next collapse of the US economy) to pull them down again. There's too much money to be made by traders.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  14. Am I stupid or what? by t0p · · Score: 1

    Okay, maybe this'll get me flamed to death for my ignorance: but .ly is the TLD for Libya, right? But bit.ly has been working fine throughout all the trouble, right? So what kind of paltry firewall has Gadaffi been using?

    --
    http://ihatehate.wordpress.com
    1. Re:Am I stupid or what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      root servers not in ly

    2. Re:Am I stupid or what? by wsapplegate · · Score: 1

      *Sigh* No flames, but if I may say so, a bit of investigation wouldn't have hurt, either. Two command lines (dig -t ns ly. and whois `dig +noall +answer bit.ly | cut -f7`) would have told you two things:

      • The .ly ccTLD has got secondary nameservers outside Lybia, courtesy of RIPE, UUNet and the University of Oregon
      • bit.ly uses a Lybian domain but is hosted in the US (by NTT)

      As far as the "Lybian firewall" is concerned, it appears to exist, in a very crude form (they drop their BGP sessions, which cuts them off from the rest of the Internet as a matter of fact), but it seems it's intermittently on and off (currently, I can reach LTT's network, at least). As to what is really going on, I haven't the faintest clue.

      --
      Xenu brings order!
    3. Re:Am I stupid or what? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      *Sigh* No flames, but if I may say so, a bit of investigation wouldn't have hurt, either.

      I read the GP as deliberately appearing misinformed, and making a separate point : that ".ly" domains nominally belong to Lybia, but by being outside their physical domain, are practically out of the control of the Lybian government. The varying reports of partial/ intermittent access to some networks in some regions of Lybia simply make the same point better.

      I suspect that increasing numbers of countries are going to start making stipulations that domains under their TLD are going to be hosted and authoritatively-name-served within the borders of that state. Which might make life slightly awkward for the likes of Western Samoa.

      So, who does control the .com domain, really? (This is a rhetorical question.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  15. If I were Gaddafi, Kadafi, KahDaffy or whatever, by cvtan · · Score: 1

    I would be worrying about my precious bodily fluids, not the internet.

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
  16. Re:Displacement Activity by OctaviusIII · · Score: 1

    Our job is to get the word out about corruption here at home while supporting those that are taking on the blatant corruption elsewhere. Our corporate greed feeds their dictatorship, and their dictatorship gives good cover for our corporate greed. We're all in this fight together.

    --
    What's this? Another weblog? On transit?
  17. Re:Here I am (what's your hassle w/ HOSTS?)... apk by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 1

    I have no interest in explaining why hosts file usage (the way you do it, at least) is a bad idea, in much the same way I have no interest in explaining to my 3 year old how the microwave makes her applesauce warm; the capacity to understand isn't there. I made the comment because your initials are synonymous with "moron" and everyone in this forum knows APK is an idiot. You've made quite a name for yourself that way.

    Now Pete, go ahead and paste your pre-copied accolades from 1997, use phrases like "ad hominem", "too easy!", "My apps are NOT malware" and then blather on about how no has ever been able to "defeat" you in a battle. Most people realize quickly that you're an egotistical know-it-all (That was sarcasm. I point that out because your ego would see that as a compliment if I didn't) and stop communicating with you because they realize that you have no interest in holding a meaningful debate, not because you've bested them. You may even have valid points at times, but because you're such a dick about trying to prove someone wrong you lose credibility (not that you ever had it) and push people away.

    P.S.=> (see what I did there?) my 8 digit account means I at least had the balls to register an account, even if I took 5 years to do it. You never will because it would be a matter of weeks before you were banned, just like you've been banned in all the other forums you troll (lemme guess, it's a compliment to get banned). Go ahead and respond because you'll continue to prove my point about what an ego maniacal and seriously off-balance person you clearly are. This is my final post.

    YOU

    LOSE

    --
    Loading...
  18. Daffy Khadaffy's precious bodily fluids by Jim+Efaw · · Score: 1

    I would be worrying about my precious bodily fluids, not the internet.

    He's been doing that quite enough. The whole time he's been in power, or at least the last 30 years or so, he has been obsessed with people being doped up, given alcohol, or otherwise polluted. A few days ago, he told the public to avoid any milk or Nescafe from the areas in rebellion because they had been spiked with hallucinogens.

  19. Re:Offtopic: by andrea.sartori · · Score: 1

    We both lose. APK wins. Sort of.

    --
    Mostly harmless.
  20. Re:You RUN, You LOSE, I WIN... always! apk by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 1

    Wow, Pete. Four posts over a 16 hour period?! I must have really ruffled your fat-boy feathers for you to sit and stew for over a half an Earth-rotation...LOL. Too, too..TOO EASY! (see what I did there?)

    BTW, not that I'm counting (but at least I can) it's a 7 Digit ID next to my name. Learn to count, fucktard.

    You Lose AGAIN!!

    P.S.=> looks like you're making friends per usual. HAHAHA!

    --
    Loading...
  21. Re:You RUN, You LOSE, I WIN... always! apk by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

    FFS, quit feeding the damn troll! Honestly, there should be a special trolling section with no moderation on slashdot, and give moderators the ability to move whole threads over there.

    --
    I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.