No they were not, the people of Libya were working on a totally new form of payment for oil, the gold African Denar, basically any oil that was sold from Africa would be paid for by this currency rather than American dollars.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/oct/06/oil-us-dollar-threat-to-america

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

How exactly was Libya a failed state? compared to the rest of Africa they were doing very well for themselves!

I think South Africa would take issue with that.

My point being that if you think Gaddafi was great you weren’t aiming very high, the Libyans decided they could do better. I think they were right.

Ernie, I only felt the need to say it once.

Yes I think you’re right – saying it once is enough to convey the message that you think kaesae is “a proper, swivel-eyed, frothing conspiracy nut”, there’s really no need to repeat it. But I surprised that you think this allows you to avoid a ban, I had no idea that it works like that.

Am I right in assuming that you’re on an extremely long lead ?

Yes I think you’re right – saying it once is enough to convey the message that you think kaesae is “a proper, swivel-eyed, frothing conspiracy nut”, there’s really no need to repeat it. But I surprised that you think this allows you to avoid a ban, I had no idea that it works like that.

Am I right in assuming that you’re on an extremely long lead ?
I honestly wouldn’t have the foggiest notion. I was just giving my honest opinion. I’m not someone who regularly comes on here and deliberately spends hours winding people up just to gain entertainment from it.
Unlike some ‘big hitters’.

I see.

I wouldn’t worry too much. The security guys at my work assured me that the Internet is being kept in a big vault buried underground in the Arizona Desert, and guarded by the CIA. It’s totally safe from Al Quaida.

It’s totally safe from Al Quaida.

Its one and the same thing though isn’t it? “Al Quaida” roughly translates as “The Database”

Interesting, that we have so much evidence from the actual court cases of individuals inciting riots and civil unrest using facebook and then subsequently being jailed once evidence of this is produced and yet we also have individuals stating that you cannot use facebook to incite civil unrest.

To argue that facebook does not have this ability and cannot therefore be misused is to say that the riots did not occur!

Because if the riots did occur and individuals were convicted for using facebook to encite civil unrest, then surely it must be possible?

As someone said earlier, inciting rioting (or whatever) is just sending a particular message, which obviously Facebook can be used for- just like loads of other mediums.

People are taking issue with the claim that it somehow causes things like that.

I do think internet/social media helps things gather momentum faster than other mediums can, especially in places where more traditional media might be restricted. If people know things are kicking off in a town 100 kms away in real time they may be more likely to get involved themselves, which maybe speeds up the spread of dissent or whatever.

Perhaps, but the questions must be asked, could experts in psychology and other behavioural sciences as well as experts in media technologies not have the ability to incite this kind of violence at will.

Has it not already been established that Films and other media based programmes have the ability to create emotional and physical as well as psychological responses in individuals?

To claim that these media resources could not be misused by intelligence groups is simply to ignore the history and all relevant research from the behavioural science field!

If a bunch of everyday average people can use facebook to incite the kind of violence and civil unrest that was seen in the UK, could not some of the best behavioural science experts in the world along with media experts do a lot more than that?

I believe that facebook has great power, however I am not sure that I trust that kind of powers in the hands of those that own it or with it being heavily influenced by the US government and intelligence services!

If a bunch of everyday average people can use facebook to incite the kind of violence and civil unrest that was seen in the UK, could not some of the best behavioural science experts in the world along with media experts do a lot more than that?

I believe that facebook has great power, however I am not sure that I trust that kind of powers in the hands of those that own it or with it being heavily influenced by the US government and intelligence services!
Cite your evidence that any government or intelligence service ‘influences’ Fb.
As I’ve said, Twitter is much more heavily used in regions of the world where there is great turmoil. Fb much less, purely because it’s so much easier to see who people are on Fb.
Why are you so obsessed with Fb?
If you want to obsess about something really scary, try using your time investigating Trapwire, a surveillance system that has got the Australian government pretty agitated, and has been reported on by the Guardian.
And if you want to see how Twitter is used in volatile parts of the world, just look at the feeds that @andycolvin links to.

Some interesting musings on Fb and government involvement here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamthierer/2012/08/17/10-reasons-why-nationalizing-facebook-would-be-ridiculous/

As I said social networking sites, in this case we are focusing on facebook, as it has been predominantly mentioned and involved.

U.S. Army Special Forces Unconventional Warfare Training Manual November 2010

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

Going Rogue: America’s Unconventional Warfare in the Middle East

The intelligence services would need to be completely brain dead not to be targeting Facebook due to it’s size of user base!

Did you really need to post that again?

Can social networking sites be used to insite and organise civil unrest?

I dunno but I reckon we should give it a try..

Chiswick High Street, 20 minutes from now, unlicensed morris dancing.. who’s with me..?

Just looking out my bells.

Surely you can only incite civil unrest if and only if the populace are already restless. That being the case the answer to the OP is an unequivocal No! What you can do is focus that unrest and direct it, which is an entirely different thing.

Surely you can only incite civil unrest if and only if the populace are already restless.

What and you can’t incite restlessness ?

yunki has threaten to organise a spontaneous morris dancing event in Chiswick High. If that doesn’t spread anxiety/restlessness amongst the general population I don’t know what will.

yunki has threaten to organise a spontaneous morris dancing event in Chiswick High. If that doesn’t spread anxiety/restlessness amongst the general population I don’t know what will.

It usually ignites a spontaneous mass outbreak of utter indifference among most people I know. Unless the Morris men drink all the beer, in which case there will be an uprising!

utter indifference/civil unrest – the difference between the two is barely perceptible these days..

(bar da urban yout dem looting innit)

EDIT: and the critical mass lot

It’s totally safe from Al Quaida.
Its one and the same thing though isn’t it? “Al Quaida” roughly translates as “The Database”

That’s a very suspicious translation with an improbable explanation pushed by Robin Cook. I don’t speak Arabic nut I’m inclined to believe Wkipedia over him.

yunki has threaten to organise a spontaneous morris dancing event in Chiswick High. If that doesn’t spread anxiety/restlessness amongst the general population I don’t know what will

Fair enough…… when you put it like that.. 😉