Dutch Radio Geek Tracking Libyan Airstrikes

Will he be able to track the missile by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 05:43 · Score: 5, Funny

Hitting his house in 3... 2... 1...

Re:Will he be able to track the missile by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 05:46 · Score: 1

Sorry, I'm at my work :-) They will never track me he $^$^&*%^67
@FMCNL
Re:Will he be able to track the missile by blair1q · 2011-03-21 06:24 · Score: 1

wherupon he changes his handle to @FML
Re:Will he be able to track the missile by rednip · 2011-03-21 06:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yea, because he 'intercepted' an open frequency call for ships to stay in port, this was deliberately broadcast to keep people from traveling. Next up 'man who hears siren' will be going to jail for knowing where the police are.
If the Pentagon had transmitted that encrypted, it'd be pretty useless as a general warning.

--
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
Re:Will he be able to track the missile by hesaigo999ca · 2011-03-21 07:16 · Score: 0

In all seriousness, the men in black might come after him, and could technically, silence him, as this is major issues (military) and classified and he has no status like that of Assange to help him stay alive....
Re:Will he be able to track the missile by burningcpu · 2011-03-21 07:20 · Score: 1

Whoops, I meant to moderate as funny and hit overrated. I'm responding to undo my moderation. My bad.
Re:Will he be able to track the missile by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 07:58 · Score: 0

Did you even RTFA? (Silly me for asking.)
Quoth Wired,

...Huub is just a single node in a sprawling online network that trawls the airwaves for clues to military operations. ...
Military aircraft have to provide basic information about their position over unencrypted, unclassified UHF and VHF radio networks; otherwise, they’d risk slamming into civilian jets in mid-air. That allows savvy listeners like Huub to use radio frequency scanners, amplifiers, and antennas to capture the communications.
Re:Will he be able to track the missile by bberens · 2011-03-21 08:30 · Score: 1

How many proxies are you behind :)

--
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
Re:Will he be able to track the missile by Mister+Whirly · 2011-03-21 08:39 · Score: 1

Yeah, they had better silence the person pointing out the fact they are broadcasting unencrypted radio messages in public. Sounds like a serious threat to national security. The military really isn't in the habit of publicly broadcasting classified information unencrypted. Telling ships not to leave the port is hardly information that needs to be kept top secret.

--
"But this one goes to 11!"
Re:Will he be able to track the missile by Oxford_Comma_Lover · 2011-03-21 10:11 · Score: 1

Surely they don't *have* to--that would be like painting a bulls-eye for antiaircraft.

--
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Re:Will he be able to track the missile by mjwx · 2011-03-21 15:12 · Score: 1

Hitting his house in 3... 2... 1...
Because the missiles are French, they'll probably obliterate some poor guy's house in the Ukraine.

Yes I know French munitions like exocets are quite effective, it's a joke, get over it.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:Will he be able to track the missile by hesaigo999ca · 2011-03-22 02:38 · Score: 1

>Telling ships not to leave the port is hardly information that needs to be kept top secret.
Deductive reasoning, if any names are used, someone spying (for another country) can tell which are in port, and then based no the sending out of info, know which ones stay behind and which are out to sea, which then lends another fact that they now know how much artillery is sitting at home to protect the coast, and how much is out to sea, should they want to challenge them.
I understand that most people do not consider this very important stuff, but this is basic social engineering 101, kevin metnic who wrote the book by the same name got his hacking rep by more doing social stuff, then actually running shells and breaking down the code. I stand by what I am saying, that should they report the exact location of the troops at the time of the bombing, then someone can intercept them, or other situations....
And having known people that have died over seas in those same places, by car bombs, sent out to locations only know to limited few, lets me believe they don't have a leak (someone on the inside) but more like they have a sharing of location info from locals.
Re:Will he be able to track the missile by Mister+Whirly · 2011-03-22 02:52 · Score: 1

But ship information isn't secret, and can be obtained by satellite images, listening to the dock radio transmissions, or simply going down to the docks and seeing for yourself. It Isn't like the ships aren't all sitting there in plain sight for all to see. Hardly classified, or even secret information. Or did you think that the US was broadcasting the names and locations of it's ships? They were simply broadcasting a generic public message to all the ships from what I understand. Not sure how the enemy could use "Do not leave the port or you will be destroyed" to gain a lot of tactical information.

--
"But this one goes to 11!"

Now that by Evtim · 2011-03-21 05:44 · Score: 1

is what I call real geek!

Respect, meneer Huub!

Count down till.... by vawwyakr · 2011-03-21 05:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

The US military wants to "talk" this guy for his "spying".

Re:Count down till.... by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-03-21 06:43 · Score: 2

Assuming the US isn't releasing precisely the information it wants to - probably accurate without the no-fly zone, possibly inaccurate within - and just happy that there's another repeater of (mis)information for the enemy.
The conspiratorial extreme would be to assert that this Dutch fellow is knowingly cooperating with the US. The more likely truth is that fortune has just provided the US with another useful tool. If he soon goes quiet... well, we still cannot say for sure.
Re:Count down till.... by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-03-21 06:58 · Score: 5, Informative

He did the same thing on forums during the '98 raids on Iraq, '99 in Serbia/Kosovo, some of 2001 in Afghanistan, IOF in '03, etc.
If the US military wanted to "talk to him" they would have before.
Some of the stuff he passes on is helpful, like identifying a plane that has a transponder set to the wrong setting, and passing it on to Africa Command.
Re:Count down till.... by HungryHobo · 2011-03-21 07:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

quite litterally anyone with the right radio could pick up this info.
he's not disclosing anything secret.
This is what the planes are shouting out to the world.
any libyan loyalist could be sitting 2 streets over from him with the same equipment passing on the same info quietly.
Re:Count down till.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 10:01 · Score: 0

Saving lives of poor guys from USAF using obsolete planes and radio technology...
Re:Count down till.... by Stupendoussteve · 2011-03-23 15:26 · Score: 1

It's not even a "right" radio, you can pick up a radio at Radio Shack for less than $100 that can listen to aircraft. You don't always even need a radio, sites like LiveATC have streaming audio.
If you want to go farther you can get something like the AirNav Radarbox, and watch the aircraft flying around based on their transponder, unless it's off.
The fact that anyone can listen to this is well known to the DoD, it's not some secret.

Hope he doesn't get into trouble by countertrolling · 2011-03-21 05:49 · Score: 1

Some bastard could come along and accuse him of unauthorized "retransmission" of "illegally" intercepted signals

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone

Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by Nadaka · 2011-03-21 05:51 · Score: 5, Funny

Even worse... Copyright infringement.
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by C_amiga_fan · 2011-03-21 06:04 · Score: 0

Several have already called him on it:
"Huub, who ordinarily spends his days as a digital forensics manager in the town of Hilversum, has lately spent up to 16 hours a day, scanning for clues about the attack on Libya..... 'If you are not delaying your tweets by a WIDE margin, you are putting the pilots in harms way!!!!' tweets @Joe_Taxi. 'When the sounds of the #operationoddesydawn aircraft are heard in #Libya it should be a complete surprise.'"
16 hours a day. So the guy quit his job? Hmmm.

--
FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 06:10 · Score: 1

Hope that was a joke, because the US gov't doesn't get to copyright anything -- it's all public domain.
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by Nadaka · 2011-03-21 06:11 · Score: 1

Maybe he does not sleep some days
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 06:12 · Score: 1

How are the pilots going to be put in harms way when the Libyan regime forces were too ignorant to immediately surrender and flee when the US announced their involvement? If the army had been reading Twitter the ground troops would have deserted before the UN attacks.
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by GooberToo · 2011-03-21 06:14 · Score: 5, Informative

Some bastard could come along and accuse him of unauthorized "retransmission" of "illegally" intercepted signals
Extremely doubtful since the ATC frequencies he's listening to are specifically intended to be heard by public facilities. Anything heard on these frequencies are transmitted with the full intent and knowledge anyone and everyone can hear. Anything which is not intended for public consumption is transmitted over military frequencies and encrypted. The former is what he's listening to. The later would be completely unintelligible for anyone whos receivers have not been pre-programmed with the decryption keys. Programming with the proper keys is part of pre-flight procedures and handed out during the pre-mission briefing.
Absolutely nothing he's doing is secret or hard and is extremely unlikely to be illegal in any free country.
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-03-21 06:14 · Score: 2

The US government effectively includes a set of permanent privatised contractors who are allowed to put Intellectual Property[tm] protections their work. Wouldn't apply here, of course.
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by pthisis · 2011-03-21 06:16 · Score: 4, Informative

Hope that was a joke, because the US gov't doesn't get to copyright anything -- it's all public domain.
Works by the US government are only non-copyrightable domestically. They can certainly hold foreign copyright on them, which would apply to a Dutch radio geek.

--
rage, rage against the dying of the light
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 06:23 · Score: 0

Because, even though the US spends more on the defense budget than any other country in the world (combined?), the US is a joke, right? Right?
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by grub · 2011-03-21 06:24 · Score: 1

16 hours a day. So the guy quit his job? Hmmm.

Maybe it's all a big cron job.

--
Trolling is a art,
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by blair1q · 2011-03-21 06:29 · Score: 1

So far he's intercepted some sloppy links and one that is clearly open so that Libyan forces can hear it and do what it tells them.
He is likely not causing anyone serious grief (and I'm not counting a navigator getting dressed-down for leaving his transponder on as serious), as he is unlikely to be breaking into any comms that really are secured.
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 06:32 · Score: 0, Insightful

Tell Bradley Manning and Julian Assange that.
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by strength_of_10_men · 2011-03-21 06:39 · Score: 1

I don't understand the criticism. He can do the scanning but Libya and "unfriendly" forces have no idea how to do this?
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 06:44 · Score: 0

some people in a free country that likes to eat delicacies like spotted dick got in to trouble over exactly that
http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/110433-legalities-atc-listening-uk-2.html
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by mrops · 2011-03-21 06:58 · Score: 1

Absolutely nothing he's doing is secret or hard and is extremely unlikely to be illegal in any free country.
I guess he better not visit US then.
Ok ok, I know flaimbait, but I just couldn't resist.
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-03-21 06:59 · Score: 1

He isn't updating 16 hours a day now, he said he had to go back to work. Most of the traffic was during the weekend.
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by _Sprocket_ · 2011-03-21 07:04 · Score: 1

This is why the state of Copyright is so screwed up; people just don't know what it is. There's a difference between classified material and a copyright.
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-03-21 07:05 · Score: 1

By broadcasting when planes are leaving airfields and identifying airfields and runways being used.
There were rumors about plane spotters in Italy telling Serbia when planes left airfields in '99.
Also, Gaddafi was alerted to the 1986 airstrike when he was called and told American planes had just overflown Malta.
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by dpilot · 2011-03-21 07:06 · Score: 1

Or get him under the DMCA for illegally decrypting the double rot-13 encrypted signals.

--
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by GooberToo · 2011-03-21 07:11 · Score: 1

I guess he better not visit US then.
Ok ok, I know flaimbait, but I just couldn't resist.
Ironically, everything he's doing is completely legal in the US. But as others have pointed out, he better not visit the UK.
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-03-21 07:20 · Score: 2

Some people's brains shut down the moment their tribe goes to war against the evil subhumans from the tribe across the hill. I think that that basically explains that vein of criticism.

Libya's air defense systems have a strong 'Red and Retro' flavor to them; but they have a reasonable number of airbases and SAM sites. Unless the ongoing fighting has left those in total shambles, they almost certainly have listening capabilities superior to the hobbyist level(if only because autocratic armed forces tend to encounter less hassle with neighbors and zoning when putting up antennas) and probably some active radar as well. It isn't clear that they have the capability to hit much of the more modern force attacking them; but they aren't exactly cowering in primitive awe because they don't know what a radio receiver is.
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by HungryHobo · 2011-03-21 07:31 · Score: 1

anyone with the right radio could pick up this info.
he's not disclosing anything secret.
This is what the planes are shouting out to the world.
delaying it by a "WIDE margin" would be utterly pointless since the libyans would have already heard it themselves.
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by Runaway1956 · 2011-03-21 07:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

Whole different ballgame. In fact, you're talking about two different ballgames, while trying to infer something into yet another ballgame.
1. Manning is a US citizen, who was sworn to secrecy, and sworn to obey various and sundry orders, general orders, rules, regulations, etc ad nauseum.
2. Assange is a foreign national, who is not in any way subject to US military law, and should not be subject to the various laws that our politicos are trying to subject him to. The man released classified information - but he didn't steal it, intercept it, or anything of that nature. The information was given to him, for the purpose of wide dissemination. In short, he is a new type of reporter who was doing his job.
3. Our Dutch geek freind, on the other hand, is yet another foreign national who is intercepting military radio messages, and seems to be seeking to aid the allies.
So you see, none of the three have very much in common with the others.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by hypertex · 2011-03-21 07:57 · Score: 1

What happens when a coalition plane encounters an unauthorized aircraft? I cannot believe that radio contact is not initially attempted and that would be in the clear. Or just shoot first?
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by Runaway1956 · 2011-03-21 08:02 · Score: 1

I agree with your post - but I'll point out that any active radar would immediately be targeted. You can't light up the sky without drawing attention to yourself. It's the job of those airborne command craft to ensure that when a light comes on, the proper command is notified, and that the most effective weapons system is deployed to put that light out, ASAP No Libyan with a shred of self preservation is going to light a torch in ANY spectrum!

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by Obfuscant · 2011-03-21 08:33 · Score: 1

Ironically, everything he's doing is completely legal in the US.
Really? The basic concept of US freedom to listen to anything includes a prohibition on conveying what you hear to third parties. If he's just listening, he's probably ok, but by tweeting what he hears he's not. The US transmissions certainly do not fall into the broadcast exclusion for third party communications.
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 10:13 · Score: 0

...too ignorant to immediately surrender...
Hey! This isn't France we're talking about here.
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-03-21 10:32 · Score: 2

The only exception that I could think of(though I don't know if Libya has tried it) might be the use of RF decoys to draw the (extremely expensive) firepower of the attacking air forces away from more valuable targets.

If you skip all the sophistication required to make any use of the return signal, and just focus on pumping out the microwaves, you could probably knock something together that looks enough like an actual radar system(particularly a mobile one, since the adversary couldn't discount it based on satellite data, as they could a static installation) to require an airstrike at low cost and with minimal technical sophistication.

As noted, I haven't heard of Libya doing this; but it might be a reasonably sensible strategy for somebody in their position, where they just don't have the anti-aircraft capacity to engage the attacking aircraft in any serious way: the fakes would help absorb some percentage of the damage at very low cost, and help keep enemy aircraft flying around in locations where dumb AA fire and/or short-range-guidance-only SAMs might hit some with sufficient luck... Anything that they actually care about, though, is presumably going to stay very quiet and pretend that it isn't home.
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by Half-pint+HAL · 2011-03-21 11:14 · Score: 2

This IP was first published in Libya -- US copyright law doesn't apply.
And yes, I know I'm taking the joke too far.

--
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 11:31 · Score: 0

Your logic doesn't hold water else you just made a criminal of all US hams.
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by mirix · 2011-03-21 16:05 · Score: 2

Ah, Yugoslavia had plenty of retro pinko hardware. NATO bombed them for 78 days, and all they managed to hit was (deserted) bases, civilians, civilian factories, schools, airstrips, TV transmitters and stations, bridges, etc. Despite claims of decimating the yugo forces, they only really hit strategic dual use facilites at best, and as far as tactical it was limited to around a dozen rusting T-55s, maybe a dozen MiG-29's that were pretty much in disrepair, and probably a few dozen parked / decoy rusty MiG-21s... An airstrike on the Chinese embassy was a pretty big fuckup too.
I think almost all of the mobile AA radars, guns, SAMs, etc came out pretty much unscathed from the ordeal. I presume fixed installations got wiped out, but I'm not sure.
The Serbs even managed to knock out a F-117 with some 60's soviet hardware, so there is more to it than just hardware. I'd say Gadhaffi is a touch more hardass / total war than Milosevic too. Serbia could have kept going, the army was fine, but civilians can only handle no bridges or power and smoking factories for so long...
I also heard of the Serbs running microwaves out in the sticks with their doors off, which I suppose looks like centimetric pulse radar or so (suppose it's not pulsed, but unsure if the anti-radar bits are smart enough to figure that out). So a $25 microwave pulls in a $100k missile.
argh, I guess this is more of a reply to the replies to your post, but i'll put it here anyhow.

--
Sent from my PDP-11
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by AP31R0N · 2011-03-22 00:17 · Score: 1

Yeah, but paranoia is so in these days, so stop throwing a wet blanket on their fun. Makes them feel important and they think it will impress the girl at the campus bookstore.

--
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by GooberToo · 2011-03-22 00:43 · Score: 1

Very likely radio contact is attempted. But unless the aircraft is listening on well known and procedurally established frequencies, good luck hoping they'll actually receive the message.
Besides, in a no-fly-zone, its extremely unlikely you'll find anything other than military aircraft flying.
Re:Hope he doesn't get into trouble by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-03-22 02:24 · Score: 1

Vaguely related: it is reported this morning that an F-15E crash landed(apparently without the assistance of hostile fire). Luckily it fell near a rebel position, so the locals gave the flight crew an enthusiastic reception and they were recovered without incident; but that is still 30+ million in hardware that fell out of the sky without any AA systems even working.

Given the disparity in GDP between Libya and the western coalition currently air-striking, this obviously isn't the start of an unwinnable war of attrition or anything; but modern air wars are expensive, even if they are the equivalent of kicking someobody while they are down. The better you are at hiding/disguising/spamming/decoying your real assets, the longer your enemies have to keep doing expensive things. You can't easily win that way; but if you are lucky they'll lose interest and leave you to your little civil war...

Pertinent part of the article by Compaqt · 2011-03-21 05:49 · Score: 5, Informative

Military aircraft have to provide basic information about their position over unencrypted, unclassified UHF and VHF radio networks; otherwise, theyâ(TM)d risk slamming into civilian jets in mid-air. That allows savvy listeners like Huub to use radio frequency scanners, amplifiers, and antennas to capture the communications.

--
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog

Re:Pertinent part of the article by geekmux · 2011-03-21 06:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

Military aircraft have to provide basic information about their position over unencrypted, unclassified UHF and VHF radio networks; otherwise, theyâ(TM)d risk slamming into civilian jets in mid-air. That allows savvy listeners like Huub to use radio frequency scanners, amplifiers, and antennas to capture the communications.
Which ultimately begs the question as to why ALL aircraft transmissions (civilian or otherwise) aren't encrypted.
Don't get me wrong, I'm kind of glad they aren't for cool hacking tricks like this, but seriously, kind of makes you wonder...I mean we're only talking about a few hundred tons of metal flying through the air with thousands of gallons of jet fuel. What could possibly go wrong?
Re:Pertinent part of the article by zAPPzAPP · 2011-03-21 06:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

Wait, they don't switch these off, when they go for a bombing run?
Doesn't this defeat the whole idea of stealth?
Re:Pertinent part of the article by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 06:02 · Score: 1, Informative

http://begthequestion.info/
Re:Pertinent part of the article by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-03-21 06:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

I don't understand why that would help. You have to provide the information in order to not smack into another aircraft, so every other aircraft/ATC in the vicinity needs to know how to decrypt the information. This means that the decryption keys are effectively public.
Anyway, is the US still consistent with its rule about most of the spectrum being a-ok to listen in on? Unlike the UK's Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, where the default assumption is that you can't. And, of course, assuming he's in Holland... what about Dutch law?
(also, "begs the question" etc.)
Re:Pertinent part of the article by Sprouticus · 2011-03-21 06:07 · Score: 1

We cant even convince all websites to use SSL, why do you think we could convince all aitlines to encrypt their data?
And lets not even get started on the antiquated ATC systems world wide. (US included)
Re:Pertinent part of the article by nedlohs · 2011-03-21 06:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

Because you want them to be public. The other aircraft, including those of your "enemies" and the light aircraft being flown by Bob the gardener down the street need to be able to communicate to avoid smashing into each other.
Encrypting serves no purpose when the entire idea is for anyone to be able to receive the information.
Re:Pertinent part of the article by Obfuscant · 2011-03-21 06:14 · Score: 1

Which ultimately begs the question as to why ALL aircraft transmissions (civilian or otherwise) aren't encrypted. Don't get me wrong, I'm kind of glad they aren't for cool hacking tricks like this, but seriously, kind of makes you wonder...I mean we're only talking about a few hundred tons of metal flying through the air with thousands of gallons of jet fuel. What could possibly go wrong?
Well, you just explained why they aren't. Simple analog AM communications are about as simple as it gets, and still radios fail. Imagine making them all digital encrypted.
The other obvious reason is, why bother? If all aircraft signals are encrypted, then everyone would have access to the keys and the radios to listen. What do you accomplish by encrypting? Who do you stop from listening? Only Mom and Pop who have a casual interest in the chatter. The guys who would use the data for harm (like tweeting the positions and data about incoming airstrikes) would buy an encrypted radio and listen in just like now.
Re:Pertinent part of the article by ChinggisK · 2011-03-21 06:14 · Score: 1

Guess they consider the risk of colliding with a civilian aircraft more threatening than Gadhafi's anti-aircraft systems...
Re:Pertinent part of the article by ElectricTurtle · 2011-03-21 06:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

Considering that many aerial engagements are now done sight-unseen by radar only, IFF is really important, doubly so in a no-fly zone. These are not particularly stealthy aircraft involved here either.

--
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
Re:Pertinent part of the article by GuldKalle · 2011-03-21 06:20 · Score: 1

Yeah, i'd figure that too. Especially since Libya is a no-fly zone.

--
What?
Re:Pertinent part of the article by houghi · 2011-03-21 06:21 · Score: 1

I could imagine that if there is a No-Fly-Zone and a War-Zone, they turn it off. If there is a civilian aircraft in that area, being accidentally hit by another plane is least of their problems.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Re:Pertinent part of the article by GooberToo · 2011-03-21 06:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yes. They absolutely switch these off. Only the elements which are completely intended for public ears (including potential enemies) are transmitted in the clear. Position reports will typically, only be provided when flying in high traffic areas where civilian traffic is likely, such as airports or published navigation aids. Furthermore, many of the cited navigation aids are likely to have been created by the military and the name of such aid may only be known to the military. So them saying, 135' from RAFLO, or some such, has little direct meaning since the location of RAFLO is completely unknown. Furthermore, that aid may be renamed later for different missions. So even if the enemy figures out where RAFLO is at, they may not realize TRKSTOP is simply a new name for RAFLO.
Lastly, you need to understand, all of these concepts are extremely well understood in the signals discipline, which means some of these transmissions from a given flight may be completely fictitious in nature and transmitted with the full awareness the enemy is listening.
Re:Pertinent part of the article by DarthBart · 2011-03-21 06:30 · Score: 4, Informative

Current US law allows people to receive and listen to un-encrypted radio transmissions, except for cellular telephone channels, as long as the reception is for personal use only and not to be used in the commission of a crime.
That means you can sit around listening to the cops all day long, as long as you don't say "Hey, I heard all the cops are at the donut shop on the north side, so I can go rob the southside bank". It also means you can't legally sit around at your taxi company office and listen to the competition's radio system and jump their calls.
Re:Pertinent part of the article by blair1q · 2011-03-21 06:31 · Score: 1

They're not as antiquated as you think, and it costs a metric assload to upgrade them, and to support backward-compatibility with aircraft and airfields that are just not economical ever to upgrade.
Re:Pertinent part of the article by Caerdwyn · 2011-03-21 06:32 · Score: 5, Informative

Which ultimately begs the question as to why ALL aircraft transmissions (civilian or otherwise) aren't encrypted.
Legacy.
The cost of avionics is extremely high when those avionics go into a commercially-built aircraft; every piece of avionics must be certified for use in a specific aircraft model and revision. A VHF radio transceiver going into a home-built "experimental" aircraft can be less than half the price as that going into a Cessna 172, even though it is identical, new production. That approval-sticker is one expensive bit of paper and adhesive.
It gets far worse for passenger-carrying commercial aircraft. Not only does the equipment have to be certified for use in-type; when you change out the equipment, you have to update the aircraft's MEL (minimum equipment list) you also have to refresh your training regimen, and conduct that retraining and certification for any flight deck crew that might end up flying that plane, The expense would be very high, some carriers and private owners couldn't afford it, and it would involve downtime. It would certainly be a windfall for the likes of Bendix-King, but for commercial and private aircraft operators, a new avionics mandate that doesn't grandfather existing equipment is ruinous.
General aviation is already expensive enough and pilot shortages are happening. With the military turning out fewer and fewer pilots (they're paid well and with military air fleets becoming smaller and more expensive, there are fewer of them), with four-year aviation programs costing as much as Ivy League schools but with starting pay less than 40,000 a year, general aviation is critical for producing charter and airline pilots. General aviation is already in trouble, with new aircraft costing as much as a house, the existing fleet aging, and fuel and maintenance costs pushing operation of even a little 172 to near a hundred dollars per engine-hour. Adding a new five-figure-per-aircraft mandate is simply not possible.
As for open transmissions... that's a hard requirement, by treaty. Everyone has to be able to listen in on everyone else and be able to talk to everyone on a moment's notice. The aforementioned 172 is on the same frequencies as the 747s when they're in the same airspace. There's even a rule about language. Air traffic control is ALWAYS in English. Yeah yeah yeah cultural imperialism cry me a river. Everyone must understand everyone, or planes slam into each other.
I'm a private pilot; every time I fly I'm reminded that I could be digested by a Boeing Buzzard. Whenever I go near Class B or Class C airspace, ATC is constantly in communication with everyone asking "Do you see that 737? Good. Do you have visual on that Beechcraft? No? Descend 1000 feet." And in minor airports without an air traffic controller, the pilots perform their own control, by speaking to each other on a common frequency and following established procedures and calls at checkpoints. Set 122.7 Unicom. "Cessna 53614 inbound South County runway 31, on the 45 at the golf course. Cessna 53614 downwind, South County runway 31. Cessna 53614 on base, South County runway 31. Cessna 53614 on final, South County runway 31. Cessna 53614, clear of active runway." The guys I'm talking to, like me, are flying 40-year-old (or older!) aircraft with analog gauges, no on-aircraft radar, and a few don't even have transponders.
An example of why this is critical from my own experience. I was a student pilot at the aforementioned South County, practicing takeoffs and landings. Round and round touch-and-go, solo flights. There were four others doing the same. Everything was going like clockwork (well, counterclockwork, the pattern was counterclockwise), until... I had just taken off, climbing out on the "upwind" leg of the pattern. 65 knots, best climb rate, about 500 feet above ground level, when I saw an inbound aircraft aimed straight at me. The bastard was going the wrong way, and apparently on the wrong frequency. Slam the yoke forward, turn to the right.

--
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
Re:Pertinent part of the article by blair1q · 2011-03-21 06:34 · Score: 1

Makes me wonder. It'd be interesting to see if GPS is currently giving out whacky numbers.
Re:Pertinent part of the article by blair1q · 2011-03-21 06:36 · Score: 1

Well, since the entire world was informed that Libya is a no-fly zone, anything on the wing in that neighborhood is now a legal target. Which I think is your meaning though in the fog of war it's best to ACK and NACK.
Re:Pertinent part of the article by eudaemon · 2011-03-21 06:55 · Score: 3, Informative

Traffic handling at private airports rely upon a common shared radio band. If you're in a Cessna 150 doing touch and goes at your local uncontrolled airport, and someone in a King Air announces on direct approach and a 3 mile final, this is useful information that keeps you both safe. Technically the lower of the two planes on approach gets the right of way, but if someone's flying a plane that stalls near what's considered a moderate speed for your plane, you get the hell out of the way.
With the King Air's announcement you know which direction he's landing (assuming you don't already know from normal operations or cross-winds), roughly when he's going to get there, and that you need to either park yourself in the pattern* or land and get the hell out of his way.
Most people think there's air traffic control everywhere. There is not, so traffic follows a predefined pattern with customary entrance and exit protocols. If you need to stay out of the final approach for someone, you have control to do that without asking anyone else, assuming you follow the predefined rules.
Re:Pertinent part of the article by GooberToo · 2011-03-21 06:55 · Score: 2

Certainly possible, but I doubt it. Remember, the goal is to bait the enemy into engaging you with radar and AA-systems. Part of that means allowing the enemy know where you are.
When you think about it, its really incredible these aircraft can even get off the ground given the size of the balls these pilots have.
Re:Pertinent part of the article by Compaqt · 2011-03-21 06:56 · Score: 1

I have no knowledge about this, but I'd guess they'd be broadcasting in the clear over the Mediterranean, and then once over restricted (NFZ) areas, switch to encrypted.

--
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Re:Pertinent part of the article by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-03-21 07:07 · Score: 1

Encrypted transponders would mean everyone's transponder would have to be graded, in every aircraft, every airport, every ATC on the planet.
Similar to asking why every computer in the world doesn't have Wi Fi.
Re:Pertinent part of the article by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-03-21 07:16 · Score: 2

Some of these are particularly stealthy aircraft, Rafale, F/A-18 E/F/G aren't stealth, but they are stealthy compared to F-15E, F-18C and Tornado.
B-2 bombers spoofed the ATC watchers by using a tanker/transport call sign on the transponder the entire trip over and back, those are really stealthy.
Think of stealthy this way
MiG-21 through MiG-29, F-16, F-15, F-18 A/B/C, Tornado, Mirage F-1, Mirage 2000, Super Etendard - really not stealthy
Su-27-33, Rafale, F-18 E/F/G, B-1B, Tomahawk cruise missile - getting stealthy
F-22, Eurofighter Typhoon - pretty stealthy
B-2 - really stealthy
Re:Pertinent part of the article by _Sprocket_ · 2011-03-21 07:56 · Score: 3, Informative

Wait, they don't switch these off, when they go for a bombing run? Doesn't this defeat the whole idea of stealth?
Not all military aircraft are stealth. Note one of the examples is a F-16 running Wild Weasel missions; not a stealth aircraft. Aircraft are also pretty noisy on the RF spectrum. During the Gulf War, there was a very high demand for F-4G Wild Weasels. Initial Weasel strikes did a pretty good job taking out the normal collection of AAA / SAM threats. But most missions still called for a F-4G in the mix to suppress remaining SAM threats. Those remaining threats tended to remain because as soon as they identified a F-4 by its nav radar, they shut down. Mission planners took a risk and occasionally included a F-4C (unarmed reconnaissance aircraft) in the place of a F-4G since the Recy looked like a Weasel to SAM operators and essentially filled the same role when SAM threats when offline to avoid being attacked by what they mis-identified as a Weasel.
Re:Pertinent part of the article by harl · 2011-03-21 07:58 · Score: 1

>Air traffic control is ALWAYS in English. Yeah yeah yeah cultural imperialism cry me a river. Everyone must understand everyone, or planes slam >into each other.
It's not cultural imperialism. Last I checked the States not only invented the airplane and the airline industry but also have the most operations per day. No one else can make a claim for language.

--
I find being offended by me offensive.
Re:Pertinent part of the article by harl · 2011-03-21 08:00 · Score: 1

How is loss of a very expensive fighter and the loss of an even more expensive pilot "the least of their problems?"
That's a very serious problem.

--
I find being offended by me offensive.
Re:Pertinent part of the article by Runaway1956 · 2011-03-21 08:11 · Score: 1

I was looking for the right place to insert my own comment. You're on target - the ONLY people who would benefit from such a mandate would be the encrypted transmitter manufacturers. It would cost a wheelbarrow of money from every passenger, along with two or three wheelbarrow loads of from taxpayers. In the process, any number of smaller businesses would go bankrupt, and be gobbled up by the sharks at the top.
In short, it would be a disaster for all but a very select few.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:Pertinent part of the article by GottMitUns · 2011-03-21 08:14 · Score: 1

> Air traffic control is ALWAYS in English. Not so. Pilots and controllers are also allowed to communicate in the language of the country in which airspace they are. You think they speak English when Air France lands in Paris?
Re:Pertinent part of the article by selven · 2011-03-21 08:19 · Score: 1

Wait, what's the point of making it illegal to use something to commit a crime? I rob a bank, I commit one crime, I rob a bank using radio interception, I've committed that crime, and a completely new crime? Doesn't make much sense to me.
Re:Pertinent part of the article by sznupi · 2011-03-21 08:23 · Score: 1

general aviation is critical for producing charter and airline pilots
Less than you imply. It wasn't really so hot in the first place in many parts of the world. Its relative ("Big Mac Index"-style) costs were and are often significantly higher than the ones you're concerned about. "Adding a new five-figure-per-aircraft mandate" is certainly possible, many places operate on pretty much such basis.

Air traffic control is ALWAYS in English. Yeah yeah yeah cultural imperialism cry me a river.
That is not true, certainly not for general aviation (and AFAIK not strictly for airlines; at least Russians often demand somebody fluent in Russian, in the cockpit)

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
Re:Pertinent part of the article by syousef · 2011-03-21 08:32 · Score: 0

Some of these are particularly stealthy aircraft, Rafale, F/A-18 E/F/G aren't stealth, but they are stealthy compared to F-15E, F-18C and Tornado.
B-2 bombers spoofed the ATC watchers by using a tanker/transport call sign on the transponder the entire trip over and back, those are really stealthy.
Think of stealthy this way
MiG-21 through MiG-29, F-16, F-15, F-18 A/B/C, Tornado, Mirage F-1, Mirage 2000, Super Etendard - really not stealthy
Su-27-33, Rafale, F-18 E/F/G, B-1B, Tomahawk cruise missile - getting stealthy
F-22, Eurofighter Typhoon - pretty stealthy
B-2 - really stealthy
I prefer to think of it this way:
MiG-21 through MiG-29, F-16, F-15, F-18 A/B/C, Tornado, Mirage F-1, Mirage 2000, Super Etendard - Oh fuck I'm going to be killed by a barrage of explosives!
Su-27-33, Rafale, F-18 E/F/G, B-1B, Tomahawk cruise missile - getting stealthy - Oh fuck I'm going to be killed by a barrage of explosives!
F-22, Eurofighter Typhoon - Oh fuck I'm going to be killed by a barrage of explosives!
B-2 - Oh fuck I'm going to be killed by a barrage of explosives!

--
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Re:Pertinent part of the article by fishbowl · 2011-03-21 08:37 · Score: 1

Thanks for your post. I sometimes wonder if the rules change drastically when GA/VFR fliers share a facility with small jets.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Re:Pertinent part of the article by demonbug · 2011-03-21 08:42 · Score: 1

Because you want them to be public. The other aircraft, including those of your "enemies" and the light aircraft being flown by Bob the gardener down the street need to be able to communicate to avoid smashing into each other.
Encrypting serves no purpose when the entire idea is for anyone to be able to receive the information.
Not sure about the "enemies" part... I'm sure military aircraft turn off their transponders before getting to "enemy" territory; this guy is just tracking them while they traverse the thousands of miles of civilian-controlled airspace between home base and targets.
But yeah; no reason at all to encrypt transponder transmissions, the whole point of which are to let people know where you are.
Re:Pertinent part of the article by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-03-21 08:45 · Score: 1

Or, F-22, Typhoon, Su-33 - I fly so high those barrages of explosives can't reach me.
SR-71 - I'll just outrun a barrage of explosives.
http://gizmodo.com/#!5511236/the-thrill-of-flying-the-sr+71-blackbird
The pilot referes to going well over Mach 3.5, thats damned fast
Re:Pertinent part of the article by demonbug · 2011-03-21 08:49 · Score: 1

Wait, they don't switch these off, when they go for a bombing run?
Doesn't this defeat the whole idea of stealth?
I'm sure they turn off their transponders before entering Libyan airspace (or even coming close, probably). This guy is tracking them as they fly over the Continent, through civilian-controlled airspace, on the way to and from bombing runs.
Re:Pertinent part of the article by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 09:04 · Score: 0

It means when you're stepping over the line you'll find out that you did by the guys in suits that will be knocking on your door.
Re:Pertinent part of the article by Caerdwyn · 2011-03-21 09:06 · Score: 1
> Air traffic control is ALWAYS in English. Not so. Pilots and controllers are also allowed to communicate in the language of the country in which airspace they are. You think they speak English when Air France lands in Paris?
Yes. They are required to. Annex I, section 164. International operations.
Please see the ICAO languages FAQ on the matter, and the ICAO discussion and adoption of Amendment 164. Quote:
- Therefore, pilots on international flights shall demonstrate language proficiency in either English or the language used by the station on the ground. Controllers working on stations serving designated airports and routes used by international air services shall demonstrate language proficiency in English as well as in any other language(s) used by the station on the ground.
Once on the ground, local languages may apply, but English is the language used in air-to-ATC communications, and all required phraseology for air operations is in English. This is the requirement for any airport engaging in international operations and all international flights.
A good summary is at this site, which specializes in training to the required proficiency.
--
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
Re:Pertinent part of the article by Caerdwyn · 2011-03-21 09:09 · Score: 1

It's true for all international operations. Local operations may be in the local language, but as of 1 January 2008 all international operations have an English language requirement, and air crews and controllers serving those operations must demonstrate proficiency in English. Please refer to the ICAO discussion of Amendment 164 to Annex I for details.

--
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
Re:Pertinent part of the article by Unbeliever · 2011-03-21 09:59 · Score: 1

You misinterpret the ICAO requirement. It only states that English be made available and be spoken proficiently on both the pilot and controller side. It does not say it must be used. "shall demonstrate language proficiency" not "shall be used". Find me a quote in 164 that says "English shall be used." You can't.

The first sentence "Therefore, pilots on international flights shall demonstrate language proficiency in either English or the language used by the station on the ground."

In other words, if you don't speak the local language, English is the default for both sides, that way a German pilot in Russia can drop to English if he or she doesn't speak Russian. Or he can use Russian if he knows it.

"PP-ASEL-IA"

--
--Carlos V.
Re:Pertinent part of the article by Unbeliever · 2011-03-21 10:04 · Score: 1

Again, you misinterpret the requirement. Go to liveatc.net and go browse the non-English speaking feeds. You won't find one that's exclusively English.

--
--Carlos V.
Re:Pertinent part of the article by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 10:56 · Score: 0

Encryption just doesn't make sense for mission-critical applications like aircraft...too much can go wrong. Even unencrypted digital modulation fails to function properly in fringe-reception areas...this is why aircraft communications still use AM radio. Old? yes..but reliable? Very. When lives are at stake, the KISS principle is in full effect.
Re:Pertinent part of the article by k6mfw · 2011-03-21 11:09 · Score: 1

>I'm a private pilot; every time I fly I'm reminded that I could be digested by a Boeing Buzzard.
Excellent discussion, I like the term "Boeing Buzzard."

--
mfwright@batnet.com
Re:Pertinent part of the article by metlin · 2011-03-21 11:23 · Score: 2

Most people think there's air traffic control everywhere. There is not, so traffic follows a predefined pattern with customary entrance and exit protocols. If you need to stay out of the final approach for someone, you have control to do that without asking anyone else, assuming you follow the predefined rules.
Yup. And I'll add that many of those rules were derived from maritime rules, and are either the same ones or similar to the ones that ships use in open water.
Re:Pertinent part of the article by Half-pint+HAL · 2011-03-21 11:26 · Score: 1

It's all about sentencing. If something is only a crime when it occurs in conjunction with another crime is effectively "bonus points" on your prison sentence.
If you think about it, having an using the equipment effectively shows premeditation, and possibly hints to repeat offences and/or organised crime.
In Scotland, trespass is not a crime... unless you commit another crime while trespassing. This effectively means it's a worse crime to step into someone's house and steal a box than it is to take the same box from the pavement if they left it lying unattended. Which makes sense, when you think about it.

--
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Re:Pertinent part of the article by nedlohs · 2011-03-21 11:37 · Score: 1

Enemies too, as you say you'd turn it off when you got close enough. But you don't want to crash into a Iran Air passenger plane on the way there.
I suspect if they were doing a long range stealth bomber attack they'd either have informed everyone that they "own" a corridoor of airspace which most of the time is empty but which no one else should enter. Or shadow another military plane most of the way. Then again I'm not a military guy, so I'm probably way off base.
Re:Pertinent part of the article by ElectricTurtle · 2011-03-21 12:02 · Score: 1

I think he was coming from the perspective of people on the ground, not the pilots.

--
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
Re:Pertinent part of the article by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 12:18 · Score: 0

still waiting for the footnote on the * you placed..
Re:Pertinent part of the article by sznupi · 2011-03-21 20:52 · Score: 1

Hence not only you basically admit "is ALWAYS in English" to be not true - also, "must demonstrate proficiency" != "must be used"! (and again, some countries really prefer that the pilot handling communications be fluent in theirlanguage)

I hope not many other pilots misinterpret basics of regulations so easily...

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
Re:Pertinent part of the article by Caerdwyn · 2011-03-22 06:13 · Score: 1

I choose to believe my CFI over you. He's the one with the instructor's license, I'm the one with the pilot's license, and you... what, exactly, are your flight qualifications again?

--
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
Re:Pertinent part of the article by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 08:37 · Score: 0

hell they actively jam the frequencies, run counter em noise, ECM packages and all that. Yes they can turn IFF and transponders of in fighters and bombers. Even more so i stealth ones. It depends on the plane, you wouldn't be tracking USAF or RAF aircraft that easily.
Re:Pertinent part of the article by sznupi · 2011-03-22 08:41 · Score: 1

I have ears and understand in what language (mine...) a general aviation / Wilga pilot next to me (well, via earpiece obviously) talks; one of better ones in the country and on a quite legendary aeroclub. Also in what language the responses are.

My place had helluva of a hysteria a year ago, something about our president (and everybody on board) getting killed in an airliner crash; during which a Russian requirement for "fluent in Russian" crew member surfaced; a language which is also used in recording.

But don't let that pesky reality stop you... oh w8, you were saying something about cultural imperialism / viewing everything from your atypical perspective (because that's what it is, in broadest sense)

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
Re:Pertinent part of the article by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 15:42 · Score: 0

I have flown in military aircraft (large jet) and done a "go around" because a Cessna was on approach. So no, not really.

So I use trackmyflight.something - by wsanders · 2011-03-21 05:50 · Score: 1

- what *is* the ICAO airport code for the USS Barry?

--
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"

Re:So I use trackmyflight.something - by blair1q · 2011-03-21 06:37 · Score: 3, Funny

Doesn't matter. Southwest doesn't fly there and I refuse to use any other carrier, even to get to a carrier.
Re:So I use trackmyflight.something - by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 06:54 · Score: 0

Barry's a destroyer.
Re:So I use trackmyflight.something - by blair1q · 2011-03-21 07:02 · Score: 1

Hey. The enemy doesn't know that.
Re:So I use trackmyflight.something - by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-03-21 07:17 · Score: 1

It has a *H-60 or two on board.
Re:So I use trackmyflight.something - by demonbug · 2011-03-21 08:55 · Score: 1

Yeah, GP should be looking for the ICAO code for the USS Kearsarge - but only if Southwest is flying Harriers these days.

No detail by vlm · 2011-03-21 05:54 · Score: 2

I was amazed at how little detail there was in the article. Its just, like all magic and stuff because he's so smart and experienced. And we're only going to use one syllable words here, because you're... not. What a Pulitzer of modern journalism, almost worth catching a fish so I can wrap it.

Sounds a lot like a scanner guy with an ADS-B receiver, either homemade or purchased something like this:

http://www.radargadgets.com/.

Google for ADS-B and 1090 MHz and terms like that, you'll get the idea real quick of how he does it.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger

Re:No detail by jesseck · 2011-03-21 06:03 · Score: 1

I think he goes beyond that. He stated that he uses the receivers, and then also correlates that data with other information sources online. While I don't think listening to the traffic is necessarily exceptional, bringing together the data and correlating it with other sources of information is unique. It also seems he has done this for a long time- part of TFA mentions this guy has been doing it for a long time.
Re:No detail by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 06:10 · Score: 0

That was a good piece of info - thanks
Re:No detail by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 06:18 · Score: 0

in god you trust
(the world (military/religion (USA) military/religion) the world)
Re:No detail by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 09:52 · Score: 0

Huub uses the ICOM R20 receiver and the Uniden UBC-785XLT scanner, both of which retail for a little more than $500.
Re:No detail by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 17:05 · Score: 0

Don't be so lazy. Did you RTF Wired A? It says exactly what he listens to and what equipment he uses. No, I'm not copypasting that for you.

Re:"Propaganda Planes" cover the skies by countertrolling · 2011-03-21 05:59 · Score: 0

Troll Dig it! And so quick to mod. You zombies are out in full force today. You poor fools.. At least the trance blocks the pain, I hope, for your sakes.

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone

Not Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 06:00 · Score: 0

I like how the article deems the craft a "Propaganda Plane", but then goes on to describe it's message, as a transmission on maritime frequencies saying: "If you attempt to leave port, you will be attacked and destroyed immediately”... I was expecting something more along the lines of "Qaddafi is sleeping with your camel"...

but I guess in the good-ole' euroweenie tradition of bashing anything American, "Propaganda plane" makes it sound more ominous and spooky, and makes the intent seem more underhanded

Re:Not Propaganda by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-03-21 06:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Move and we'll immediately kill you," aka, "We're omnipresent and you're completely impotent - roll over and prepare to be conquered," is the asymptotic extreme of all propaganda, war or otherwise.
Re:Not Propaganda by blair1q · 2011-03-21 06:46 · Score: 1

A safety warning that is, in essence, 100% true and unvarnished, isn't propaganda per se. There's no ulterior anything to it. And it will save the lives of boat captains who thought they could just wander out of port and avoid the fight, who would have found the irony of being blown out of the water somewhat un-funny.
Re:Not Propaganda by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-03-21 07:07 · Score: 2

Propaganda doesn't have to have an ulterior anything - if its dissemination is intended to influence someone's view of their position ("OK, I'm helpless") with a selective account of facts then it is propaganda.
Now neither of us have any evidence that the announcement is "in essence, 100% true". To state "you will be attacked" rather than "you may be attacked without warning" seems to be a choice made for psychological effect rather than an accurate statement of omnipresence and omniscience.
To state that the announcement was to benefit those innocent captains whose vessels would otherwise be killed trying to escape is spin - it may or may not be one of many reasons for making the announcement.
Re:Not Propaganda by blair1q · 2011-03-21 07:22 · Score: 1

To state that would be spin if that was the stated intent. But it isn't. The stated intent is to make the enemy surrender, and not for psychological reasons but for obvious ones. Fight us and you will die. Make a move and you will die. Blink and you will die. Pretty clear-cut. No psychological effect required. Logic suffices.
It's only propaganda if it's not backed up by the utter inevitability of its coming true.
F'rinstance, this guy is using propaganda:
http://www.desertusa.com/mag99/july/papr/gophersnake.html
this guy is not:
http://www.desertusa.com/may96/du_rattle.html
As for whether any ship that moves will actually be attacked, well, Libya's not that big a place, and we're going to run out of ground targets pretty quick, and there's a lot of guys who will want to shoot something. First skipper to risk it will be an example for the rest, at the very least. Beyond that, someone will have to come up with hard intel showing that our side has run out of ammo and coffee before anyone can make a reasonable claim that there's a nonzero chance of surviving another attempt.

best tweet ever: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 06:02 · Score: 1

@USAfricaCommand be advised, one of your WEASEL's F-16CJ from 23th FS Spangdahlem Germany has his transponder Mode-S on! NOT secure!

Re:best tweet ever: by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-03-21 07:23 · Score: 1

Yes, a Wild Weasel should have all it's stuff secure.
Re:best tweet ever: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 09:38 · Score: 0

but as pointed out above thread, a Wicked Weasel pretty much leave all your assets exposed.

Re:"Propaganda Planes" cover the skies by Stormwatch · 2011-03-21 06:02 · Score: 1

Oh hi Muammar!

--
Circumcision is child abuse.

How is this new? by dorpus · 2011-03-21 06:03 · Score: 1

Has the article's author ever heard of ham radio?

HF by fauxhemian · 2011-03-21 06:03 · Score: 5, Interesting

I've been able to track a lot of aircraft movements on Shortwave/HF radio from Ireland - and it's surprising just how much information still goes out over unencrypted links. Friday night, there was a marked increase in French AWACS and support aircraft activity - and then on Saturday other frequencies came alive with a whole host of NATO aircraft; for instance RAF Transports, Tankers, Surveillance, Strike and Fighter aircraft. Some aircraft discussed the targets they'd hit, the ordinance they had used and their current bearings and distance from Benghazi. There have been some intriguing transmissions - for instance aircraft operating at altitudes which are beyond their published service ceilings and voices co-ordinating movements from countries whose governments voiced opposition to the NFZ. Over the years frequency hopping and encryption have reduced the number of military transmissions to be read and understood on HF, but clearly there's still interesting ones out there. On a tangent - an Israeli Numbers Station , designated E10 and famous for lending the title to a Wilco album amongst other things, stopped transmitting on March 1st of this year - given the recent events in Egypt, it's interesting timing.

--
I've got news for Mr. Santayana: we're doomed to repeat the past no matter what. That's what it is to be alive.

Re:HF by fauxhemian · 2011-03-21 06:06 · Score: 1

Apologies for lack of formatting!

--
I've got news for Mr. Santayana: we're doomed to repeat the past no matter what. That's what it is to be alive.
Re:HF by jittles · 2011-03-21 08:15 · Score: 2

With regard to HF, the US Army is actually removing HF radios from certain attack helicopters.
Re:HF by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 10:11 · Score: 0

Now imagine when they attack opponent who uses all these radio emissions to his advantage (i.e. locating planes). Even frequency hopping can be detected with proper, however expensive, equipment (wide band listening etc.) - because signal is there, being emitted from the plane. Imagine an attack with rocket sensor which can see F.H. communications. A lot of planes would be hit before they figure out what is happening and turn radios off (and of course smart enemy would wait for a lot of planes to be in shooting range before firing those).
There is no alternative to a proper radio silence in a symmetrical warfare (Libyan AA weapons here are even more useless than those used in Iraq or Serbia).
Re:HF by Ysangkok · 2011-03-21 20:39 · Score: 1

So why aren't you twittering too? The people of the nations that co-operate without informing their public should have the chance to know.

Headline Somewhat Misleading by srussia · 2011-03-21 06:07 · Score: 1

I wonder if transmissions from the actual attackingaircraft can be received in the clear.

--
Set your phasers on "funky"!

Gatta love this one... by GooberToo · 2011-03-21 06:07 · Score: 5, Informative

@USAfricaCommand be advised, one of your WEASEL's F-16CJ from 23th FS Spangdahlem Germany has his transponder Mode-S on! NOT secure!

That means the F-16 in question was transmitting both its altitude and GPS position for all to see. Then again, if its truly a wild weasel platform, that may be entirely its intent.

Re:Gatta love this one... by i.r.id10t · 2011-03-21 06:13 · Score: 4, Funny

While the planes and ordinance is neat, I prefer the platform (or chassis) for Wicked Weasel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Weasel

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Re:Gatta love this one... by psydeshow · 2011-03-21 06:34 · Score: 1

You gotta be shittin' me!
Wow, nice bit of mil history there.
Re:Gatta love this one... by blair1q · 2011-03-21 06:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

And it's merely a presumption that the information being transmitted was accurate.
Weasel: Here! I'm over here
Ack-Ack: I have you now, infidel! (*budda-budda-budda*)
Weasel: Ahem.
Ack-Ack: (spinning) Curses!
Weasel: Fox 1!
Ack-Ack: (exploding) grrrrrrrglglglglg
Re:Gatta love this one... by couchslug · 2011-03-21 06:53 · Score: 1

Spang does HARM missions.
http://www.spangdahlem.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet_print.asp?fsID=7911&page=1

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:Gatta love this one... by Thud457 · 2011-03-21 08:06 · Score: 1

looks like both that bird's transponders are active...

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

I support OPERATION ODESSY DAWN. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 06:07 · Score: 0, Funny

I fully support bombing the crap out Tito Jackson for his crimes against fashion.

Re:I support OPERATION ODESSY DAWN. by blair1q · 2011-03-21 06:39 · Score: 1

The U.N. will never approve of it. Some of them dress that way too.

Re:"Propaganda Planes" cover the skies by countertrolling · 2011-03-21 06:08 · Score: 1

And thanks for the money shot..

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone

Re:"Propaganda Planes" cover the skies by erroneus · 2011-03-21 06:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

Not sure where you get your own propaganda, but this latest involvement is extremely unpopular with the majority of people in the US.

Ironically, though, I actually back this operation where I did not believe Afghanistan and Iraq should have been engaged in. Why? Well, when a nation seeks to oust its leader and the leader responds with crimes against humanity, we are honor-bound to defend those civilians under attack by their own leadership. (Likewise, we should also take more aggressive actions against China and other countries for the same reasons)

I recognize the fact that the majority of the US are mindless. But even in this case, the mindless aren't fully in support of the current actions. But with that said, we don't (yet) have feet on the ground for this one. As far as I know, we are just launching fireworks at military hardware put in place by Libyan leadership to suppress and attack the people.

Re:"Propaganda Planes" cover the skies by countertrolling · 2011-03-21 06:16 · Score: 0

As far as I know...

Exactly.. You have insufficient data to justify anything. And if you want to believe it's about the people, maybe you ought to check out the rebellions the US is suppressing. This is business, nothing else.

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone

That would be self-defeating by mangu · 2011-03-21 06:18 · Score: 3, Informative

why ALL aircraft transmissions (civilian or otherwise) aren't encrypted. ... we're only talking about a few hundred tons of metal flying through the air with thousands of gallons of jet fuel. What could possibly go wrong?

WHAT could go wrong? Let me tell you what could go wrong. There's a hundred tons of metal flying around. Its position is *secret* because some dumbfuck thought it would be better to encrypt all its transmissions.

Then comes uncle Bill in his Cessna. He doesn't know where the big passenger aircraft is, because its position is *secret*, since some dumbfuck though it necessary to encrypt all transmissions from the aircraft.

Do you begin to see now why aircraft transmissions *cannot* be encrypted?!!!

OK, I know your next argument; Imagine all aircraft transmissions are encrypted and all aircraft must have a receiver able to decode those transmissions. Only registered aircraft owners have access to the receivers, so what could possibly go wrong?

Think of the thousands of small airfields all over the world. Climb a fence, cut a padlock at night, pick a receiver. Or buy it from a salvage firm, grease some hands, whatever. It wouldn't stay secret very long (ask Sony about that).

Re:That would be self-defeating by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 07:52 · Score: 0

The airfield closest to me doesn't even have a fence.
Re:That would be self-defeating by L4t3r4lu5 · 2011-03-21 21:49 · Score: 1

That sound you're hearing is the Whoooosh! of a low-flying aircraft, with unencrypted transponders.

WARNING TVTropes Link, do not follow at work! WARNING
What could possibly go wrong?"
WARNING TVTropes Link, do not follow at work! WARNING

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/

Re:"Propaganda Planes" cover the skies by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-03-21 06:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

Define "honor-bound", please. I appreciate the good sentiment, but it sounds like a term which can be used to excuse anything. If the nation was seeking to oust its leader, there would be no leader. What's happening is that some of the nation is seeking to oust its leader - something which could be said of every nation on the earth. And almost all leaders, freedom-loving or dictatorial (but I repeat myself), crush such rebellions. Why are we caring so much about Libya? (why did we care so much about Iraq and Afghanistan?)

While everyone was looking at Japan, and while our countries (UK, France, USA) have so much shit to sort out at home, the bastards just managed to engage us in another offensive war.

not another twikileaks debauch? executions? oh god by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 06:23 · Score: 0

doesn't the military know where the bombs are falling/aimed? if 'some guy' is tweekyleaking it, can't that throw a terrorist advantage into an already overly secret process? are investigative desponses in the works? austin powers was right about the dutch?

Where's The URL for The Tracking? ( +1, Jihadist ) by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 06:34 · Score: 0

Dear Slashdot Editors:

I have informed CentCom that Slashdot is a Gaddafi operation.

I'll let the Slashdot editors come to their own conclusions.

FU,
Kilgore Trout

P.S.: Post some news instead of your usual CRAP !

Re:"Propaganda Planes" cover the skies by Evtim · 2011-03-21 06:41 · Score: 1

Unpopular?!

In heavy Texas accent - "Those cheese-eating surrender monkeys fired the first shot!"

I can see why :)

Re:"Propaganda Planes" cover the skies by Obfuscant · 2011-03-21 06:42 · Score: 2

Well, when a nation seeks to oust its leader and the leader responds with crimes against humanity, we are honor-bound to defend those civilians under attack by their own leadership.

Does this honor-binding apply to all revolutionaries attempting to overthrow the existing civil government, or only those whose actions you agree with? One man's revolutionary is another man's freedom fighter, so to speak. Would you feel honor-bound to defend, e.g., Timothy McVeigh had he made it to a remote hide-away and ATF and FBI were conducting a full-scale assault to capture him? What about one of the militias in Idaho if they start trying to "oust [their nation's] leader"? Would you have moved to South Carolina to help the Confederates "oust [their] leader"?

but this latest involvement is extremely unpopular with the majority of people in the US.

I recognize the fact that the majority of the US are mindless.

Such insults are usually levied against those who supported the UN sanctions and US participation in Iraq. It is refreshing to see them applied to those who knee-jerk oppose all military action anywhere.

In any case, your claim requires citation. When did we vote and measure the popularity?

But even in this case, the mindless aren't fully in support of the current actions.

Yep, that's how the insult is usually applied.

You have to face it. The same man who promised he'd get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan and close Gitmo "on day one" of his administration is now getting us involved in yet ANOTHER war trying to depose the leader of yet another sovereign country.

Re:"Propaganda Planes" cover the skies by blair1q · 2011-03-21 06:43 · Score: 1

is extremely unpopular with the majority of people in the US

The gross number depends on how you word the question, but no. It's not. It's got the usual suspects up in arms (ironic metaphor there, eh?) about various things. The peaceniks who would decry a cop shooting the person trying to kill them are of course making their noise. And since it's a Democrat President who signed the orders the entirety of the GOP is acting into the microphone like it's a travesty against the Constitution, while masturbating under the table to the images on the screen.

Regime change in Libya is a laudable goal, and destroying Momar's ability to stop Libyans from enacting it it is a proper use of the world's risk-delivery systems.

Google Earth is amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 06:44 · Score: 5, Informative

The news media wasn't particularly helpful with geographic details either before the airstrikes or after. Their maps are very generalized and sometimes erroneous or omit important sites. The media would say "battles in Ras Lanuf in eastern Libya", and there was a poor sense of where exactly that was or how far it was from Benghazi (how long would it take Ghaddafi's forces to drive from there to Benghazi, for example?). And where exactly are the airfields and military bases that were either the source of Ghaddafi's attacks or the places being attacked by the local people?

So, in frustration, I spent a weekend finding all the visible airfields, military bases, surface-to-air missile, oil pipeline/storage tank/refinery/oil port infrastructure, etc. that I could spot in the Google Earth imagery. The Google Earth program is best for hunting, but Google Maps can show some of the results. For example, here's a SAM site to the south of Tripoli airport, here's a SAM site in Tripoli itself. These seem to be two different types of missile setups, with missiles visible on the second one, but hidden in sheds in the first picture. Here's Mitiga air base in Tripoli. If you look in the SE corner you can see MIGs parked on the ground. There are also some helicopters, including some big, twin-blade Chinooks. Here's a big ammo/weapons dump in the SE of the city. Here's the ammo/weapons dump south of Adjdabiya that the Ghaddafi forces bombed a few times to try to prevent the rebels from getting the stores there. Notice the difference in color of the ground -- the security fences keep the grazing wildlife out, so there are more plants inside the fence == darker. An easy way to spot the secure fenced-in areas even if you can't see the fence itself. Practically every major city has military bases of some size (usually high security fences with guard towers) where you can see APCs parked, or occasionally tanks and tank transporters and other heavy weapons. Even if you can't see them out in the open air you can often recognize the warehouses that have this sort of equipment because of the security fences and the very WIDE turns in the roads around the buildings. The various military airbases around the country (at least 8 or 10 of them) often have the planes hidden in earth-covered bunkers, but this centrally-located base near Hun has plenty of visible aircraft, including ones recognizable as Tu-22 bombers and MiG-25 fighters. This large airbase south of Sirte has quite a few small fighters visible in addition to transport aircraft on the big tarmacs.

Besides military assets, there are other types of infrastructure that are important, such as this large storage tank area to the SW of the Ras Lanuf oil port/refinery, where several pipelines converge. There are several storage/port areas like this at coastal points along the southern end of the Bay of Sirte. The oil fields them

Re:Google Earth is amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 12:36 · Score: 0

Wow, I wasn't expecting that much interest. Okay, here's a little more.
I just did a total -- I found 9 SAM sites (+ one deactivated), some with multiple batteries, around Tripoli, Sirte, Benghazi, and Tobruk. As would be expected, most are around Tripoli or it's airport. There are probably others I haven't spotted. You can match the SAM site layouts with the list of equipment the Libyan air force has and figure out which sites are which. A lot of the satellite pictures have enough detail that you can see the missiles on their launch racks.
There are ~12 active major military airbases, plus numerous small civilian and/or military airstrips. If you hunt around these you can find many of the types of planes listed on that same page. They don't seem to have a lot of helicopters visible, which is surprising given the numbers listed on that page. Many of them must be either decommissioned or in hangars. An exception is the Mitiga airport in Tripoli, where you can see a nice collection, including 4 of the 8 Chinook helicopters that (ironically) Italy sold them, and a bunch of Russian-made ones. These are probably the ones that people claimed were firing on crowds in parts of Tripoli a few weeks ago. You can find many bladeless hulks laying around here and elsewhere too.
This is a typical urban military base, made obvious by the many armored personnel carriers (APCs), sometimes tank transporters, and other military vehicles surrounded by a high wall, usually with guard towers. There are *a*lot* of these in and around every major city. A comical observation for somewhere so grim: a surprising number of these bases seem to have vehicles parked all over the place in a rather disorganized fashion in the trees -- broken down vehicles? Either that or they ran out of space to park them. What's amazing is the number of them in some places.
No tour would be complete without the Ghaddafi compound with double security walls, guard towers all around it, etc.
One thing I haven't figured out is this HUGE (4km wide) facility in the hills SE of Tripoli. It's a whole series of large warehouses behind a security fence, and you can tell a lot of vehicles have driven around them thanks to the dark tire marks in the asphalt. But hardly a vehicle is in sight and the place looks practically abandoned. It's probably not ammunition storage because that's a very different pattern -- a series of isolated bunkers to limit the possibility of an explosive chain reaction if something detonates. Military vehicle storage? A weird abandoned factory? I'm mystified.
Re:Google Earth is amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 19:38 · Score: 0

The two SAM sites are different types, respectively, SA-5 and SA-2. The SA-5 is typically not kept loaded on the launcher, but kept in the bunker nearby, probably because of maintenance issues with a liquid fuelled rocket motor. The SA-2 are often left on their launchers.

Re:"Propaganda Planes" cover the skies by countertrolling · 2011-03-21 06:50 · Score: 1

You seem to be a particularly good example of the trance everybody is in. Prez waves his hand, and you'll believe anything. Makes me wonder if you're one of the guys on the plane.

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone

Re:"Propaganda Planes" cover the skies by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 06:56 · Score: 0

I actually back this operation where I did not believe Afghanistan and Iraq should have been engaged in. Why?

Because Obama wants their oil. It's OK if Lord Obama kills and kills and kills for oil! Just don't let those damn Republicans do it!

Re:"Propaganda Planes" cover the skies by SnarfQuest · 2011-03-21 06:58 · Score: 1

They probably invaded just to find someone to surrender to. They haven't been able to surrender to anyone in over a year.

--
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.

Re:"Propaganda Planes" cover the skies by blair1q · 2011-03-21 07:00 · Score: 1

You seem to be a particularly poor troll. Here, have a cookie: @

Re:"Propaganda Planes" cover the skies by GooberToo · 2011-03-21 07:01 · Score: 1

Not sure where you get your own propaganda, but this latest involvement is extremely unpopular with the majority of people in the US.

Not sure where you get your propaganda, but every poll I've seen was overwhelmingly in support of this action. As was support in NATO and the UN. This all strongly suggests you're the only one falling for propaganda.

Re:"Propaganda Planes" cover the skies by SnarfQuest · 2011-03-21 07:08 · Score: 1

The gross number depends on how you word the question,

If this were a Republican in power, the question would be "Do you support the unconstitutional and violent overthrow of a peaceful country in order to take over their oil fields and to kill and rape their women and children?"

Since this is Obama, it was probably more like "To you support protecting a peaceful demonstration from an evil and oppressive terrorist regime?"

Of course there is no bias in how the question is asked.

--
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.

Re:"Propaganda Planes" cover the skies by countertrolling · 2011-03-21 07:14 · Score: 0

Yep, sounds like we got you pegged. A powerful spell you are under. Just like before, and before that, and before that... Without your control center (the TV) you will collapse and fall over like the droid army.

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone

Cruise Missile FAIL by DarthVain · 2011-03-21 07:19 · Score: 1

Sure tweeting is all cute and everything, but soon we will start getting YouTube videos of "Cruise Missile FAIL".... Then the inevitable "fake." comments.

Re:"Propaganda Planes" cover the skies by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-03-21 07:22 · Score: 1

Don't paint the GOP as the ones screaming about the Constitution, some of the Democrats are doing it as well, hell Kucinich thinks the President could be impeached over it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/21/dennis-kucinich-obama-impeachment_n_838502.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html

As an old ham and scanner nerd by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 07:22 · Score: 0

I've been enjoying his tweets as well as MilcomMP. I live kinda under one approach into McGuire AFB so a few times a year I get to see America's military build-up up close and personal. I have to admit it was creepy seeing a C-17 Globemaster III take a low approach into McGuire only to then see one of them pop up over the Mediterranean about 36 hours later. I was passing the AFB a couple times a day in the early post-9/11 days and those (huge!) planes were in and out of there at all times. I am a 20+ year scanner nerd and ham radio geek, so I have been known to sit under an airport's flight path running an ACARS decoder. It is pretty cool watching a private jet shoot by overhead, put out a burst over ACARS and see their flight plan pop up on my laptop, complete with pictures of the jet courtesy of airliners.net. Good times for radio geeks. The big bummer about not having real conflict in my hemisphere is missing out on the good radio traffic this guy is hearing. I have to think detecting Tornadoes in the area and running outside to see them in the sky must be pretty cool.. well, at least once.

Details? by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-03-21 07:25 · Score: 1

What's flying really high and who is involved?

Re:"Propaganda Planes" cover the skies by blair1q · 2011-03-21 07:26 · Score: 1

If you look around, there are plenty of people saying this is a war for oil, and asking why we aren't acting in Bahrain or Yemen. And it's the same ones who said Iraq was a war for oil. They think since they were right then they're right now.

Re:"Propaganda Planes" cover the skies by blair1q · 2011-03-21 07:28 · Score: 1

Kucinich is a comic-book personality. What he thinks might happen and what happens are rarely correlated.

Direct links please. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 07:44 · Score: 1

http://twitter.com/FMCNL -- for anyone else who just wanted to see the twitter feed.

Re:"Propaganda Planes" cover the skies by blair1q · 2011-03-21 07:49 · Score: 1

You're like some sort of kitty chasing a laser-pointer.

Radio/web gurus tracking Libyan NATO Odyssey Dawn by Samfer · 2011-03-21 07:51 · Score: 1

We also posted a little blog entry about this story @ http://blog.operationreality.org/?p=1808 Hope you enjoy! Feel free to drop us any feedback you may have.

Re:"Propaganda Planes" cover the skies by countertrolling · 2011-03-21 08:12 · Score: 1

I found one of the <tools> being used on you people. A simple internet forum can never overcome that kind of power. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. Words can only go so far. Turn off your monitors!

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone

Re:"Propaganda Planes" cover the skies by blair1q · 2011-03-21 08:34 · Score: 1

Ooh! where'd it go?

Is it.....................over there?

Or is it...over there?

Re:"Propaganda Planes" cover the skies by Obfuscant · 2011-03-21 08:39 · Score: 1

Except they weren't right then.

Re:"Propaganda Planes" cover the skies by countertrolling · 2011-03-21 09:11 · Score: 1

There you go! Now you're getting it..

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone

Re:"Propaganda Planes" cover the skies by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 09:11 · Score: 0

Except the polls are propaganda.

What did you imagine they were for? To measure opinion? Nonsense. They exist to shape it.

Re:"Propaganda Planes" cover the skies by blair1q · 2011-03-21 12:20 · Score: 1

Unfortunately they were. There were no WMD, Saddam was not a threat, and it distracted us from finishing up in Afghanistan, which is now a total tar-pit. There are only two reasons Bush went into Iraq: 1) Oil. 2) political bump from fighting a shooting war closer to the 2004 election cycle.

This Thing by DFurno2003 · 2011-03-21 12:28 · Score: 1

Leads to an article, about an article, about an article that links to: http://twitter.com/FMCNL

Crappy submission by Luke+has+no+name · 2011-03-21 13:53 · Score: 1

It took me three websites to get to the guy's twitter, which is the focus of the story.

The truth about USA politics by luk3Z · 2011-03-21 21:14 · Score: 0

Watch this and know the true: youtube.com/watch?v=xUDTRfbs-oM + "3 Ways Of USA To Overturn a Dictatorship"

--
Recipes for USA bankrupt - http://tinypaste.com/0d66f dd = dollar deluge (printed in the infinity)

Re:"Propaganda Planes" cover the skies by GooberToo · 2011-03-22 00:51 · Score: 1

Whooosh!

Slashdot Mirror

Dutch Radio Geek Tracking Libyan Airstrikes

187 comments