Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Communications Government The Internet The Military Your Rights Online

Libya SIGINT Jamming Satellites, Towers 463

Posted by timothy
from the gentlemen-do-not-kill-a-bunch-of-citizens dept.
h00manist writes "Libya's Gaddafi apparently loves radio hacking. Signal jamming is being used to disable Thuraya satellite phones. Also being jammed is satellite TV network provider Arabsat, affecting vast areas in the Middle East, Gulf, Africa and Europe. Cellphone and internet transmissions are working only intermittently. Soldiers are confiscating electronics, too. This has gone on for days, allowing killing to be carried out largely hidden from the rest of the world, quite different from what happened in Egypt. The locations of the jamming signals are known to company executives — around the capital, Tripoli — but nobody can do anything. Only POTS is available, and it is monitored. Technically speaking, could this happen everywhere? Alternatives?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Libya SIGINT Jamming Satellites, Towers

Comments Filter:
  • by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Thursday February 24, 2011 @08:05PM (#35307558) Homepage Journal

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

  • Solution? (Score:5, Informative)

    by jasno (124830) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @08:06PM (#35307572) Journal
    • Exactly my thoughts. A stealth bomber strike to get some (not much needed, but some) plausible deniability armed with those things.

      Takem the fuck out. Ill be rootin'

      • by LWATCDR (28044)

        A better solution and less risk would be to use cruse missiles like the Apache, Storm Shadow or SLAM-ER. The jamming sites are fixed and should be easy to target. Thing is that the US should not do this. Libya has used the US as a boogieman for a long time. Hey the EU is capable if they want to. ANd if you are going to do that you might as well take out the air bases as well. Over all I would say that tactic would be unwise at this time.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by WillAffleckUW (858324)

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

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

        • Re:Solution? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by amicusNYCL (1538833) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @10:35PM (#35308690)

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

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

    • by dr2chase (653338)
      Works for me, too. To quote a favorite blog, Gaddafi is Arabic for Ceausescu [first-draft.com]. Strafe your citizens, do not pass go, do not get a jury trial.
      • It's a superficial comparison.
        Ceausescu was replaced by a fairly organized albeit shadowed group of people who used the power of the masses to their own interest. As a direct result, 21+ years later, some of them still rule over Romania.
        (diacritics won't work, they are replaced by... nothing. Nice job Slashdot!)
    • I think we've already meddled in Libya's affairs quite enough thank you.
    • Re:Solution? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by couchslug (175151) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @09:42PM (#35308400)

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

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

    • Re:Solution? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rezalas (1227518) on Friday February 25, 2011 @12:16AM (#35309212)
      People here keep assuming that America is doing nothing, but that is highly unlikely. The entire purpose of the SOF community is to go into shit holes like this and get out without being noticed. It only takes a small team of green berets to move in, train a militia and then pull out after the rebels know what to do. Hell, they probably would even help procure regional weapons to avoid suspicion (like, I don't know, blowing up Lybian arms depots similar to the ones that were blown up) and make it look home grown.
    • Re:Solution? (Score:4, Informative)

      by bcmm (768152) on Friday February 25, 2011 @07:03AM (#35310680)

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

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

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

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

  • What next? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mr100percent (57156) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @08:11PM (#35307612) Homepage Journal

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

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

    • Re:What next? (Score:5, Informative)

      by shutdown -p now (807394) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @08:20PM (#35307690) Journal

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

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

      • Re:What next? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gman003 (1693318) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @08:37PM (#35307818)
        Pretty much a civil war? Hell, at the rate it's going, the civil war will be over before the UN even forms a committee on it.
        • Re:What next? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Mashiki (184564) <mashiki&gmail,com> on Thursday February 24, 2011 @08:55PM (#35308002) Homepage

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

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

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

          • Re:What next? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by williamhb (758070) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @10:33PM (#35308678) Journal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • by h00manist (800926)

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

          I think the jam at the UN Security Council is that several countries don't really want to be targeted in the future, when they find themselves wanting to shoot unarmed demontstators or civilians. Russia, China, France, and the US have killed unarmed civilians more than a few times, though not usually their own. And all these countries have veto power. Something would likely get decided if it went to the general council, but it's the security council that decides in armed confrontations.

          • China is vetoing action.

            They're worried that they'll be next in 3-6 months, and they've already had at least four cities launch Net-instilled protests for freedom.

            NATO could act alone, but won't due to the oil dependency of the EU players.

    • If gaddafi is let to his crazyness, tiananmen will look like a boy scouts meeting.

    • Re:What next? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 24, 2011 @08:30PM (#35307768)

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

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

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

      • Re:What next? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 24, 2011 @08:50PM (#35307952)

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • by h00manist (800926)

      Will anyone at least do something now that he's jamming regional TV and phone?

      Jamming has been going on for days. Reestablishing full communications would be a serious blow to the dictatorship, which would suddenly have their mercenaries under thousands of cameras that broadcast worldwide.

    • Re:What next? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by swb (14022) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @08:42PM (#35307872)

      This isn't "clear" at all.

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

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

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

    • Will anyone at least do something now that he's jamming regional TV and phone?

      If this really does turn into a civil war, I would assume that the US would pick a side and then start training/arming them like the good old Cold War days.

    • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @09:07PM (#35308108) Journal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • When it comes to the Kurds, the problem is that the US was so bloody inconsistent. When Saddam gassed the Kurds in 1988, the US tried to frame Iran for it, and sent Rumsfeld in to reassure Saddam that the war was going well and he had the US backing (remember that famous video of them shaking hands?). In 2002-2003 Bush and his ilk kept bringing it up as a justification to invade (as if suddenly noticing it 14 years later) , but when they finally arrest him, they decline to charge him in court with neither t

    • Re:What next? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dfenstrate (202098) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `etartsnefd'> on Thursday February 24, 2011 @09:45PM (#35308420)

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

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

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

      • Re:What next? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Luckyo (1726890) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @11:13PM (#35308934)

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

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

      • Re:What next? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by mr100percent (57156) on Friday February 25, 2011 @12:12AM (#35309184) Homepage Journal

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

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

  • allowing killing carried out largely hidden from the world view

    Really? I see events in Libya plastered all over my news feeds, with numerous reports of killings, use of unprecedented amount of force (fighter jets bombing residential areas, artillery strikes) etc.

  • If I were there right now, I would be helping people set up a network of tiny servers. Use UUCP (over POTS or over a network of WiFi networks, using the pringles can antenna hack to boost range to the next node - in a pinch, sneaker net by dedicated volunteers might also bridge some gaps) and USENet software (probably INN), and you can make sure that any photos or media will spread through the whole network so that any one node's removal would not remove the data.

    You need not be up 24x7, in fact it is pr
    • by YrWrstNtmr (564987) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @08:49PM (#35307944)

      If I were there right now

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

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

      • by tm2b (42473)
        It is easy to malign random strangers. Not everybody here is still a child who has done nothing dangerous in their lives.

        Of *course* it is dangerous to resist an autocracy. But ensuring good information flow is a vital part of any mass political effort, why would we not follow the same spectrum of committment that the people who are actually there do?
      • Hear that tm2b? That's the sound of reality crushing your inspiration, idealism, and, yes, your very soul. It feels good getting old doesn't it?
    • You would be to busy trying to skoop the shit out of your pants while quaking in your mothers basement.

      Heroes are far and few between and NONE are on slashdot.

      The Libyans ain't fighting with fancy gadgets. The twitterers are BEHIND the front lines. The real heroes are attacking army bases with tractors and rocks. Not worrying about some facebook page that won't load.

      When the going gets though, the slashdotter hides under his bed. Don't pretend otherwise until you have proven yourself in battle which I hope

      • Or make a stand, right now. KILL a US arms dealer whose weapons are RIGHT now being used to kill civilians. Yes, the US didn't know how fast to sell weapons once it lifted its own embargo.

        Yea, that damn US making all those AK-47's, RPD's, T-72 tanks and Mig fighters and then selling them to Libya in the 70s and 80s. Though if you're going to turn Soviet Union into an acronym shouldn't the 'S' come first?

  • I think this was my favorite quote from the article:

    "Unfortunately there is deliberate jamming by Libya ... which is illegal," CEO Samer Halawi told Al Arabiya television.

    I'm pretty sure Gaddafi stopped caring about what is legal when he had his army open fire on the protests.
    • Just to underscore that he's not a good guy, he orders bombs dropped on crowds of civilians and he jams your TV.
    • by Cambo67 (932815)
      Radio jamming in Libya is nothing new. As a kid, I lived in Tripoli for a couple of years. We came home to the UK in 1977. At the time, they were jamming an Egyptian radio station by transmitting from a radio ship in Tripoli harbour. It was actually quite welcome for us expats, as what they were transmitting was the output from one of the pirate radio stations off the UK coast, so we got to hear the music from home :)
    • by h00manist (800926)

      "Unfortunately there is deliberate jamming by Libya ... which is illegal," .

      I'd like to know how things being legal and illegal there works, as there seems to be no constitution. There is international business however, so some sort of agreement exists. All poinless now... it'll be another country entirely in a few days.

    • by couchslug (175151)

      That reflects the modern fetish for law.

      Law is shit unless you have a gun to back it up.

  • IPoAC - IP over Avian Carriers

  • We should of finished the job while he was talking in front of his bombed house. I'm sure Regan was in his grave trying to push a launch button.

    • by h4rr4r (612664)

      Well that, or Zombie Regan was trying to push the "Sell weapons to our enemies" button.

  • by thetagger (1057066) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @09:04PM (#35308082)

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

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

    • by russotto (537200) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @09:14PM (#35308182) Journal

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

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

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 24, 2011 @09:34PM (#35308326)

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

    • 1776 might not have gone so well if it weren't for the help of the french and the spanish, also world leaders shaking hands means they support their policies? Really!?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      The United States was successful during the War of Independence with French logistical and financial support. That didn't kill the legitimacy of the new government. Your argument is false.
    • by artor3 (1344997)

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

      If the West were to intervene, that would kill all of the legitimacy that this movement has.

      Right, just like the French intervention killed all the legitimacy of the American Revolution. After all, the French were clearly helping the nascent US as a way of striking against England.

    • A truly insightful analogy, except for the actual facts... the US received help in 1776, quite a lot of it. More French troops and more French ships were fighting that war by the end of it than American troops and American ships. The conclusion from your analogy would be: let's go right in.

  • by mykos (1627575) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @10:35PM (#35308696)
    I was in high school back in '85, doing odd jobs for this wealthy freelance scientist, Emmett Brown.. Anyway, long story short, he used some creative methods into tricking Libyans into giving him what he wanted. They gave him plutonium to make a bomb, but he used it in a wild science experiment instead...you wouldn't believe me if I told you.

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

  • The law (Score:5, Insightful)

    by currently_awake (1248758) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @10:43PM (#35308730)
    Everybody is running around talking about military intervention, but you're forgetting a basic point: This is an internal matter of a sovereign nation. We might not like what's happening, but going into Libya with guns blazing is just as illegal as doing it to Iraq. There is a long list of people who complain about america running around invading countries for their oil, and yet they will happily stand there and say that the americans should rush into this country and do the same. If you want your opinions and morals to be respected you have to be consistent in them. The people of Libya haven't asked for outside aid.
    • by russotto (537200)

      Everybody is running around talking about military intervention, but you're forgetting a basic point: This is an internal matter of a sovereign nation. We might not like what's happening, but going into Libya with guns blazing is just as illegal as doing it to Iraq.

      Which is to say... not at all.

      There is a long list of people who complain about america running around invading countries for their oil, and yet they will happily stand there and say that the americans should rush into this country and do the sam

    • by JSBiff (87824)

      Honestly, I'm no expert on International law. But, I'd hazard a guess that creating radio interference outside of your territorial borders is against international law, and probably can be considered an act of war.

      Point two: "The people of Libya haven't asked for outside aid." How could they? Their communications have been cut off?

      If someone is getting beat up, shot, or raped on the street, you don't wait until they ask for help - there is a *presumption* that anybody with an ounce of sense will agree to, t

    • A bad idea and started on a shitty pretext, but legal. For one, nations do have a right to make war against each other. There are consequences of that, but war itself has not been outlawed among nations. There is no world government tot do so and treaties do not forbid it.

      However that didn't matter because a de-facto state of war already existed between the US and Iraq. There was no peace treaty after the first Gulf War. The allied forces just stopped kicking Iraq's ass. No treaty was signed, relations were

The flow chart is a most thoroughly oversold piece of program documentation. -- Frederick Brooks, "The Mythical Man Month"

Working...