It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Secret Libya Psyops, Caught by Online Sleuths: Listen

page: 2
20
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by deessell
 


ding ding ding... by George you have been paying attention..(w) The CIA and others like them lie lie lie even to us all the time. There have been many many stories that suggest the Internet will be a tool that people use for all sorts of evils... propaganda...

*sigh* I'm really quite sick of all this... I thought once civilization educated themselves... they would NEVER use murder, war to make a point. ding ding ding by George I think I'll never get it...lol




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by DevilDog0311
This guy is an idiot, its one thing to listen in on frequencies used by coalition aircraft but to tweet that # as soon as you hear it, thats childish and its going to get somebody killed. Like the article says, if this guy is not delaying his transmissions to the tweet by a wide margin its endangering the lives of the pilots and other forces.


Perhaps he doesn't like them or support their activities and is happy to see them exposed, I say exposed because I don't think Libya has the ability to shoot down a NATO plane.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
I think it clearly shows the US and Allies aren't talking this operation seriously.

If Joe Blow the part time radio monitor can pick that up, what else can he pick up,

Or... did pick up and DIDN'T release-in the interest of the troops etc.


Its a warning to ships of course they want people to hear it, if the ships dont hear the message then go out of the harbor they will be destroyed. I dont see the big deal hear, the message is meant to be heard.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Thepreye
 





I don't think Libya has the ability to shoot down a NATO plane.


I was just reading in a British paper/net that they now figure Lybia moved a good bit of it's modern Air Force and Air Defense stuff to the South, out of reach (per se') and that they (the allies) have legitimate concerns about moving inland/South.

Time will tell.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
Operational Security (OPSEC) requires that such information be controlled. It is both logical and reasonable that it should be. We certainly do not need any elements which may be hostile to the NATO efforts, using the information to exploit vulnerabilities by knowing when and what is within striking range....

However, this information is not - and cannot reasonably be - classified. It is information that is evident to any casual observer in the area.. It might have been more prudent to note the facts and discuss them after the operations (maybe months after the operations) in question; this information is not 'news'. But rest assured, the establishment will not allow this to go unchecked. Nor should it.


The smart thing to do when there is sensitive info "out there" that you cannot control is to use the yahoos putting it together and disseminating it to muddy the waters. Put out false radio transmissions, log non-existent flights, whatever.... Then the "bad guys" can't know what's real and what isn't.
I'm sure our guys are doing just that. It's SOP.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
reply to post by Thepreye
 





I don't think Libya has the ability to shoot down a NATO plane.


I was just reading in a British paper/net that they now figure Lybia moved a good bit of it's modern Air Force and Air Defense stuff to the South, out of reach (per se') and that they (the allies) have legitimate concerns about moving inland/South.

Time will tell.


The PM told parliament that he was informed that we've taken out the Libyan ability to dispute the no fly zone.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TheStev
 


Did you read what I posted or are you blind? "LIKE THE ARTICLE SAYS, if this guy is not delaying his transmissions to the tweet by a wide margin its endangering the lives of the pilots and other forces."



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevilDog0311
This guy is an idiot, its one thing to listen in on frequencies used by coalition aircraft but to tweet that # as soon as you hear it, thats childish and its going to get somebody killed. Like the article says, if this guy is not delaying his transmissions to the tweet by a wide margin its endangering the lives of the pilots and other forces.


I think you miss the whole point of the message given to the ships. The more that word gets spread, the less killing. Yes, the military probably would prefer those details not get out, but absolutely no harm is done to anyone if them stay in port!.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


OPSEC or no OPSEC, it is an offence to receive certain communications without a license. These communications fall into that category unless they were broadcast on say commercial FM radio frequencies or other frequency not requiring a license.

As for re-publishing the transmission online - that is illegal in its own right.

Would not surprise me if that guy got his front, back, side doors and windows kicked in by TPTB...
edit on 22-3-2011 by mirageofdeceit because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 





OPSEC or no OPSEC, it is an offence to receive certain communications without a license.


I bet those ships in port didn't have a license to receive that commo.


that's what I don't get. How does a No-Fly zone apply to a water port?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
reply to post by Maxmars
 


OPSEC or no OPSEC, it is an offence to receive certain communications without a license. These communications fall into that category unless they were broadcast on say commercial FM radio frequencies or other frequency not requiring a license.

As for re-publishing the transmission online - that is illegal in its own right.

Would not surprise me if that guy got his front, back, side doors and windows kicked in by TPTB...
edit on 22-3-2011 by mirageofdeceit because: (no reason given)


Just out of interest, what is the offence under Dutch law? How have you established that he does not have a licence? What is the offence under Dutch law that prohibits the re-publication?

And to clarify a point made earlier, the article (or "THE ARTICLE" as the poster put it) doesn't itself say the tweets endanger life, the article simply quotes a tweet from another user. Re-publication of someone else's tweets? I wonder if they have a licence to do that. Maybe they are committing an offence?

I would agree that it is (morally if not necessarily legally) wrong if he is publishing data relating to specific movements/locations of the military aircraft beyond that publically reported elsewhere, but these are not secret inter-party communications, they are general broadcasts. They say he's been doing this for more than 25 years without being whisked away in a black helicopter never to be seen again, perhaps he has a good idea of what is suitable to report and what isn't?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I would like to remind people that what might be illegal in the USA has no bearing on any other country. I also think that in a war any and all means to fight said war would be used. Who says this is the enemy or allied, I mean if the US was attacked do you think for one second I would give a crap about what was legal or not, I would post or transmit every thing I could to help my side/or hinder the enemy. And since when does a No-Fly zone have any thing too do with maritime operations?

I would agree that it is (morally if not necessarily legally) wrong if he is publishing data relating to specific movements/locations of the military aircraft Last time I looked all wars were morally wrong,IMO not humble at all.
Originally posted by DevilDog0311 This guy is an idiot, its one thing to listen in on frequencies used by coalition aircraft but to tweet that # as soon as you hear it, thats childish and its going to get somebody killed. Like the article says, if this guy is not delaying his transmissions to the tweet by a wide margin its endangering the lives of the pilots and other forces. How do you know he doesn't side with Libya?

Check out the link in my sig people, its so true it makes tears run from my eyes,and I'm not a softy.
edit on 3/23/2011 by dirtydog because: added one more line.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1   >>

log in

join