Print 102 comment(s) - last by boefus.. on Feb 8 at 11:12 AM

Fourth undersea cable cut seems too much to be coincidence

As Sherlock Holmes would say, the game is afoot! Many will agree that two undersea cables getting cut in the same location is conceivable. Add a third undersea cable cut two days later and things get strange.

Throw in a fourth undersea cable getting cut in less than a week and it’s hard to not think something strange is going on. According to a fourth undersea Internet and telephone cable was severed. Qatar Telecom (Qtel) announced on Sunday that the fourth cable running between the Qatari island of Haloul and the United Arab Emirate island of Das was damaged. reports that it was told unofficially that the cable breakage in this case wasn’t caused by a ship, but was related to the power supply. DailyTech reported yesterday that the mystery behind the breakage of the undersea cables deepened with the announcement from Egyptian authorities that no ships were in the area of the first two cables when the damage occurred near the Egyptian port of Alexandria.

Qtel says that its capacity loss was kept below 40% because of a large number of alternate routes for transmission. The repair ship due to set out and make repairs to the third severed cable was kept in port over last weekend due to bad weather, but it was scheduled to leave Monday and repairs are expected to take five days.

DailyTech reported on the first two damaged undersea cables last week and reported yesterday on the third damaged undersea cable.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By themadmilkman on 2/5/2008 10:00:42 AM , Rating: 5
Cueing the conspiracy theorists... now.

RE: ...
By geeg on 2/5/2008 10:02:00 AM , Rating: 5
Must be RIAA and MPAA trying to stop p2p media sharing.

RE: ...
By Mitch101 on 2/5/2008 10:09:28 AM , Rating: 5
That is 6 worthy. Vote that up people.

RE: ...
By skateordie on 2/5/2008 1:25:43 PM , Rating: 1
I saw that ipv6 is being started in the us for the first time. Maybe that has anything to do with it considering over seas started a little earlier in some places and maybe it has something to do with someone wanting to be in charge of the first servers that sort out name servers or some default routing type thing with the switchover.

RE: ...
By Samus on 2/6/2008 12:50:25 AM , Rating: 2
teh aliens are snuffing our base.

RE: ...
By Omega215D on 2/6/2008 1:01:59 AM , Rating: 2
All your internets are belong to us???

RE: ...
By boefus on 2/8/2008 11:12:30 AM , Rating: 2

RE: ...
By rcabor on 2/5/2008 12:27:14 PM , Rating: 2
I knew they were up to no good!

RE: ...
By P4blo on 2/5/2008 12:50:03 PM , Rating: 5
Naw, it's muslim extremists in scuba gear. They cant stand all the freedom and cultural diversity the Internet brings to the Middle East. Seriously though, it's got to be some form of sabotage...

RE: ...
By TSS on 2/6/2008 7:58:44 AM , Rating: 2
honestly that was the exact same thing i thought when first reading the article. must be the title.

if it *is* sabotage.... i'm wondering why i haven't seen more news like this pop up. you'd expect it to be a no brainer, to kill the internet cut the cables.....

RE: ...
By blowfish on 2/5/2008 10:08:45 AM , Rating: 5
Well, one thing's for sure - old Al Kader don't have none of them submarine things.

RE: ...
By mmntech on 2/5/2008 10:13:13 AM , Rating: 5
They wouldn't do it anyway since they rely on the internet to spread propaganda. Today's international terrorist knows how to blog.

I think it was Al Gore. He's upset he's not getting patent royalties for his invention.

RE: ...
By quickk on 2/5/2008 10:46:09 AM , Rating: 5
Al Gore never said he invented the internet. What he said was:

"During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."

The reason he said this was because of the fact that he pretty much was responsible for pushing through the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991, which lead to the creation of the Mosaic web browser in 1993. This is widely regarded as the starting point for the internet boom that followed.

Vint Cerf, Bob Kahn and Leonard Kleinrock which are main creators of ARPANET have all publicly agreed that Al Gore's Bill was vital for the development of the internet into what it is today.

To read up on this, check out these wikipedia pages:

RE: ...
By Master Kenobi on 2/5/08, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By anotherdude on 2/5/2008 11:31:12 AM , Rating: 3

Strawman. Nobody claimed he wrote it. He claims to have 'taken the initiative', this is what politicians do, they push legislation - by your logic no politician ever made any contribution to society. A tempting but obviously unrealistic notion.

RE: ...
By porkpie on 2/5/2008 11:51:18 AM , Rating: 4
He claimed he "took the initiative in creating the Internet ." What he really did was simply support one of the (many) bills that helped push the Internet. But all those bills together were just a very small piece of the total effort.

The Internet was really 'created' by tens of thousands of people, all with their own contributions. Even Vint Cerf (who himself likes to claim much more credit than he deserves) is responsible for only a microscopic portion.

Gore claiming he was the one who "took the initiative" here was just grandstanding to the point of being delusional, and people were right to laugh at it.

Oh, and let's not forget some of Gore's others claims. Like he was the one who discovered the Love Canal toxic waste dump, or that he was the person the character in "Love Story" was modeled on.

RE: ...
By RogueLegend on 2/5/2008 12:41:06 PM , Rating: 2
What I think is funny is how delusional the opposition to Al Gore and everyone who laughed at him were and continue to be. There are clear hearing deficiencies among these people. It's interesting to see how people can reduce someone's statements in their own minds to the point where it takes on a totally different meaning than what was actually said.

And you only laugh at the statement if you're *looking* for something to laugh at. What's laughable is that this still continues to be a topic of ridicule for someone who is no longer a politician. Al Gore happened to be one of the more humble politicians (which is probably why he was viewed as robotic and less exciting than GWB when campaigning).

Oh, and by the way, do a little bit more research on the Love Canal and Love Story bits. You'll find that it's another case of people (who don't happen to like Gore and want to find something wrong with him) taking something that he said which was really trivial and harmless and turning it into a big bold false claim that he made. I happen to know for a fact that at least one news entity who reported on the Love Canal deal posted a retraction, and I'm sure a bit more research would uncover more retractions.

It's amazing how people think Gore is crazy for making false statements (which he never made) yet they don't think anything less of the people who made up the stories in the first place. Partisanism at it's best.

RE: ...
By porkpie on 2/5/08, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By RogueLegend on 2/5/08, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By porkpie on 2/5/2008 1:19:11 PM , Rating: 4
Gore certainly DID claim to have discovered Love Canal, and been the role model for the book and movie "Loe Story". Here's the real story:
Around midnight, after a three-city tour of Texas last month, [Vice President Gore] came wandering back to the press compartment of Air Force Two. Sliding in behind a table with the two reporters covering him that day, he picked slices of fruit from their plates and spent two hours swapping opinions about movies and telling stories about old chums like Erich Segal, who, Gore said, used Al and Tipper as models for the uptight preppy and his free-spirited girlfriend in Love Story; and Gore's Harvard roommate Tommy Lee Jones, who played the roommate of the Gore-like character in the movie version of Segal's book." (Time, 12/15/97)

" Vice President Al Gore acknowledged Sunday a 'miscommunication' on his part in leading reporters to believe he and his wife were the model for the 1970s romance novel 'Love Story'."

"The author, Erich Segal, told The New York Times he was 'befuddled' by the comments in the first place. He said he called Gore, and the vice president said it was a misunderstanding."
(Sources: The Des Moines Register, 12/15/97; Gore concedes 'miscommunication' about 'Love Story' role)"/quote>

RE: ...
By Master Kenobi on 2/5/08, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By RogueLegend on 2/5/08, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By deeznuts on 2/5/2008 1:13:49 PM , Rating: 3
If you choose to see him as a politician, that's your prerogative- he's not running for any office.

Politicians are not limited to those running for an office, or holding one.

Nobody likes wikipedia so here is merriam webster:

How far off is saying one "invented" the internet, and that one "took the initiative in creating" the internet. Well, my cousin was instrumental too. He's the one that filled up the gas tank for those people who did invent the internet. Without him, they wouldn't have gotten to work. :P

RE: ...
By masher2 on 2/5/2008 1:26:38 PM , Rating: 5
> "climate change exists- whether or not man is substantially contributing to it is the debate"

According to Gore, that debate was over as early as 1992. So you see, his history of grandiose, overblown claims extends to much more than claiming credit for the Internet.

RE: ...
By hr824 on 2/5/2008 2:18:44 PM , Rating: 5
Wow 12 posts rehashing the same old crap over a joke. I think you all might want to take things a little less seriously.

RE: ...
By Kanti on 2/5/2008 5:10:44 PM , Rating: 5
You're fighting the good fight mate, but your wasting your time. These idiots have been brain washed too long by corporate media. They launched a MASSIVE attack against gore, with the BS about the internet, his personality, love story, all because he would have stood in the way of media consolidation. There have all ready been countless retractions and mea-culpas, but it doesn't matter now. That's their playbook, once the lie is out on page one, it doesn't matter if the truth comes out months later buried in the back. You can't de-program people who buy into that, they just can't see the media as an activist organization, they think 'news programs' and 'news papers' are completely factual, and not entertainment products.

You're right, Gore was and is right, but that doesn't matter to these morons, it's too late for them to admit to being wrong, especially to such a large degree. That's why they're grasping at flimsy rationalization and strawmen arguments, it's all they have.

So give it up, they won't believe the truth until it's shouted at them by every talking head on TV, that's the only way they learn anything.

RE: ...
By teldar on 2/5/2008 5:20:46 PM , Rating: 2
Testy testy RogueLegend

It's still not PROVEN that global warmin has anything to do with CO2 levels. It's all correlation at this point. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that Mars' CO2 caps are melting at the same rate as the Earth's Ice Caps says that maybe CO2 levels aren't everything that they are thought to be.

And I watched "An Inconvenient Truth". I can sum it up in a couple sentence. "They stole the presidency from me!! BOO HOO HOO!!"

As for the economy, do you believe Clinton had anything to do with the economic boom while he was in office? Here's a tidbit for you. Economic impact lags governmental spending by 10 years. Changes in technology lag governmental spending by ~15-20 years. So... Who was responsible for our boom while Clinton was in office? Reagan.

Have a nice day.


RE: ...
By RogueLegend on 2/5/2008 9:52:27 PM , Rating: 1
teldar- I'm not as testy as you might believe, but I think you might need some help interpreting everything I said. I never conclusively said that anything was proven as far a Global warming is concerned. Nor do I necessarily agree with everything Gore says. And just for your benefit, I never voted for him, nor do I desire to see him run for public office. I do think he is right about sustainable development.

Secondly, I think Clinton had some affect on the economy while he was in office (every President does, if you don't believe it, look at how much has been spent on our current conflicts), but he definitely was not the cause of the boom.

My main point was that approval ratings are usually dependent on how people are feeling monetarily. It had nothing to do with who was responsible. To clarify, if the economy is good, people are generally happier and give the President a higher approval rating.

If Reagan was responsible for the economy during Clinton's Administration, then he had nothing to do with ending the economic crisis he found himself in when he took office. By your logic, if we go back 15 years, then it was Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) who was responsible. Just thought I should point that out.

RE: ...
By winterspan on 2/8/2008 12:18:41 AM , Rating: 1
You are a fucking idiot. The general correlation of temperature rise and increased C02 production is so cut and dry it makes you look like a complete right-wing idiot to spout such nonsense as "Mars is warming too, must be the Sun".
Get a fucking clue.. *EVERY* SINGLE NATIONAL SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION IS IN AGREEMENT. Anthropogenic global warming is REAL, no matter whether you and the American Enterprise Institute care to acknowledge it.
I'm so sick of this anti-environment pro-energy lobby of right-wing "think-tanks" trying to confuse the general population of America to further their crazed ideology.
I've heard more than one nutjob conservative politician trying to argue with research scientists on television. It would be entertaining if not for the fact that people like yourself are so easily mislead into a belief without actually noticing the facts.

Isn't it pathetic I even have to take the time to reply to such ignorance?

Meanwhile, the rest of the world is long past arguing the causes and trying to fix the problem.

RE: ...
By Samus on 2/6/2008 12:52:56 AM , Rating: 3
You have to admit though, he's a very different politician. He's not hiding behind Global Warming, it's not a front. It's just what he's passionate about. He's been an environmental activist since long before he was a 'politician'.

RE: ...
By mcmilljb on 2/5/2008 2:53:52 PM , Rating: 3
Even Vint Cerf (who himself likes to claim much more credit than he deserves) is responsible for only a microscopic portion.

Alright jack@ss. When you co-develop the protocol that everyone on the Internet has to use, you deserve a lot more credit than "microscopic." I will grant you that Vint Cerf does seem to get more credit Bob Kahn (he invented TCP). The Internet was not "created" by tens of thousands of people. Are we including their moms, dads and janitors in this number? You only include people who invented the devices not the poor sap who puts it in the rack and flips the switch. Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf are the fathers of the Internet, end of story. And they deserve the full credit for their accomplishment.

RE: ...
By Chaser on 2/5/2008 12:52:36 PM , Rating: 2
For once I agree with Kenobi.

As far as the OP you might be clarifying the truth but I have never heard or seen Gore deny it either.

RE: ...
By Polynikes on 2/5/2008 11:37:50 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I guess that joke just flew right over your head, huh?

RE: ...
By NC Tech on 2/5/2008 1:47:05 PM , Rating: 2
but the Iranians sure do!

RE: ...
By marvdmartian on 2/5/2008 10:31:21 AM , Rating: 1
It's the CIA minisubs, I tell ya!! They're doing it to keep the outer space aliens from bouncing their signals off our satellites, and keep the organ donation clones from revolting!! [/tinfoil hat]

RE: ...
By stepone on 2/5/2008 11:53:16 AM , Rating: 1
The two Cat5e cables held together with duct tape that constitute the middle eastern internet backbone should be surprisingly hard to cut through...

I smell something fishy & i'm not talking about the contents of Baldrick's apple crumble!

RE: ...
By VahnTitrio on 2/5/2008 1:19:32 PM , Rating: 2
Ted Stevens closed a valve on those "tubes" and they burst.

RE: ...
By TomZ on 2/5/2008 4:19:00 PM , Rating: 3
Cueing the conspiracy theorists... now.

There is no question in my mind that someone is cutting these cables on purpose. The odds of having 4-5 cables "accidently" cut within days of one another make it such that it could not be a coincidence.

So, add me to the list of "consipracy theorists"!

RE: ...
By rudy on 2/6/2008 4:09:40 AM , Rating: 2
The question is who and why?

Maybe they want to update the cables and they know if they create a scene that messes with US tech support to india big corps will bring in support to get those up and running.

Or maybe the Asians who are trying to lay down some new lines want to get support for more trans pacific lines or ones already planned.

Then theres extreme islamic terrorist.

Maybe A person like me fed up with bad phone support figured the only way to end it was to cut all the lines.

This could get fun.

RE: ...
By Xed on 2/5/2008 8:27:38 PM , Rating: 2
I warned all of you, it's the Crab People!!!

RE: ...
By lompocus on 2/6/2008 12:43:26 AM , Rating: 2
w00t, already several hours in and several dozen comments in and NO CONSPIRACY THEORISTS! YAY!

RE: ...
By BuckNaked on 2/6/2008 1:44:48 AM , Rating: 3
Interesting to see who is being affected the most...

You know what this means right?
By shaw on 2/5/2008 10:58:32 AM , Rating: 5
A communications disruption can mean only one thing - invasion.

RE: You know what this means right?
By retrospooty on 2/5/2008 11:09:32 AM , Rating: 2
I am not a political science major or anything, but I am pretty sure there are other potential meanings.

RE: You know what this means right?
By frobizzle on 2/5/2008 1:20:57 PM , Rating: 4
A communications disruption can mean only one thing - invasion.

Uh...refer to Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace for explanation of this quote.

I am not a political science major or anything, but I am pretty sure there are other potential meanings.


By retrospooty on 2/6/2008 10:12:47 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry... I didn't see the thinly veiled sci-fi dorkism... As if everyone should automatically remember every line from every SW flick.

sheesh right back at ya.

RE: You know what this means right?
By webstorm1 on 2/5/2008 11:21:51 AM , Rating: 5
LOL, it must be a binary countdown timer! Lets use our TCP/IP to interface with a completely alien technology and upload a virus in Pascal to a completely alien programming language!

By pnyffeler on 2/5/2008 11:41:08 AM , Rating: 2
Of course, it has to be done by a Mac. Thank God for Jeff Goldblum!!!

By Mitch101 on 2/5/2008 2:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't it great that alien technology is also binary and at the time would that be motorola 68000 compatible. That was pre x86 mac's right?

RE: You know what this means right?
By judasmachine on 2/5/2008 11:35:34 AM , Rating: 5
Take off and nuke em from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

RE: You know what this means right?
By Polynikes on 2/5/2008 11:41:17 AM , Rating: 2
With their own space ship?

RE: You know what this means right?
By shaw on 2/5/2008 1:59:28 PM , Rating: 2
And make sure the flight instructions aren't upside down this time.

By masterbaker on 2/5/2008 2:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
"Not bad, for a human!"

Seems appropriate...
By Brandon Hill on 2/5/2008 10:00:51 AM , Rating: 5
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

RE: Seems appropriate...
By munim on 2/5/08, Rating: 0
RE: Seems appropriate...
By smitty3268 on 2/5/2008 10:19:32 AM , Rating: 2
Classic Bush quote.

RE: Seems appropriate...
By EnzoFX on 2/5/2008 10:22:59 AM , Rating: 1
what a fool...

RE: Seems appropriate...
By bupkus on 2/5/2008 4:23:33 PM , Rating: 2
"What a tool..."

RE: Seems appropriate...
By TomZ on 2/5/2008 10:57:36 AM , Rating: 4
Yeah, that's hilarious - you can't even make up stuff that funny!

Here's the video for those who haven't seen it:

You have to see the video to see the confused look on his face.

Are these cables really that thin?
By PAPutzback on 2/5/2008 10:28:08 AM , Rating: 2
I always assumed they had to be pretty thick in diameter (A couple feet perhaps) and would have a pretty thick casing to prevent damage from ocean life and the environment in general. At least thick enough that any fishing boat would defintely feel a huge snag and most likely pull their anchor and have a cable snagged on the end. They way these things are getting cut you'd think it was some RG6 laying down there.

RE: Are these cables really that thin?
By MozeeToby on 2/5/2008 11:25:48 AM , Rating: 1
Actually, the transatlantic cables are not very large at all. The cable itself is smaller than a human hair, with about .5 cm of cladding for protection, making it about as wide as a finger. Even so, a modern fiber optic cable can transmit 10gbs or more per frequency, and some cables can support dozens of frequencies.

Imagine the size of the spool needed to cross the atlantic even with the cable that small. Then imagine the mass of cable needed if it was a meter in diameter. You would need a fleet of super tankers just to get the damn thing laid.

By masher2 on 2/5/2008 11:41:38 AM , Rating: 5
> "The cable itself is smaller than a human hair, with about .5 cm of cladding for protection"

No. Diameters vary based on expected bandwidth, water depth, and a few other factors, but first of all, its going to have more than a single fiber in the might have several hundred. Then it's going to have *several* layers of cladding, including steel wires for protection, a waterproof plastic outer sheath, an alumimum innner skin and (usually) a layer of "vaseline" protecting the fibers themselves. The cables being cut are probably in the range of 5-8 cm in diameter.

By TomZ on 2/5/2008 11:48:39 AM , Rating: 4
For anyone who is interested, here is a good cross-section drawing and description of a typical submarine fiber cable:

These cables have a diameter of 45mm and 66mm for single- and double-armor, respectively.

It's for sure MOSSAD or CIA!
By El Gamel on 2/5/2008 10:32:42 AM , Rating: 1
The israelis are trying to disrupt the internet in arab countries...

RE: It's for sure MOSSAD or CIA!
By qrhetoric on 2/5/2008 10:57:05 AM , Rating: 2
If Israel did it, I hope they know they are finally answering the prayers of Al Quaeda!

By Polynikes on 2/5/2008 11:43:32 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously, any way Islamic fundamentalists can reduce Western influence is a good thing to them.

By TerranMagistrate on 2/5/2008 12:08:05 PM , Rating: 2
Yea because anything bad that happens in that region must be because of Israel. Get real...

RE: It's for sure MOSSAD or CIA!
By crystal clear on 2/5/2008 6:13:32 PM , Rating: 2
How stupid you can be ?

Israelis would prefer to hack you & your computers/internet to track your nuclear ambitions & your plans for the next act of terror-wherever it may be.
For that they want your internet working without any interuptions.

Why only the Israelis just everybody in the free democratic world,do just that...hack your internet/computers for the same purpose.

They know the Islamic fundamentalist are trying to DISRUPT the peaceful lives in the WEST.

The word BASTARDS you use,now let me remind of some biblical stuff.

Abraham had one wife called Sarah who gave birth to ITSHAK & one mistress HAGAR.

Hagar gave Abraham one son called Ishmail...from there started all the problems......

So lets stop calling names & live PEACEFULLY-GIVE PEACE A CHANCE.

Note-No intention to insult YOU or Arabs or ISLAM-regret any misunderstanding.
Let that be CRYSTAL CLEAR.

RE: It's for sure MOSSAD or CIA!
By dastaz on 2/7/2008 3:37:12 PM , Rating: 2
Actually whats "CRYSTAL CLEAR" from your statement is that from Biblical point of view Abraham was an adulterer and most Arabs ( Jews,Chrstians,Moslims etc.) come from him.

Also keep in mind that its not 'walk in the park' to insult one faith and not the other when the source of all is one person.

Comming back to your explaination on 'Bastards' , Jesus was born ouside any marriage, what would you call him ?

And at the end I will quote you

"So lets stop calling names & live PEACEFULLY-GIVE PEACE A CHANCE."

Note-No intention to insult YOU or Arabs or JEWS,CHRISTIANS,ISLAM-regret any misunderstanding.
Let that be CRYSTAL CLEAR.

Too simple?
By maevinj on 2/5/2008 11:17:52 AM , Rating: 3
Maybe the people that are repairing the cables are the ones that are cutting them. Maybe business is slow this time of year for them

RE: Too simple?
By blckgrffn on 2/5/2008 12:13:50 PM , Rating: 3
That couldn't happen, could it? That would be like firefighters starting fires or something....


From Russia with Love
By ChuckvB on 2/5/2008 11:59:53 AM , Rating: 3
The question is who gains and who might have the technology. Damaging the economy of these countries or gas prices indirectly only hurts western nations. So who would gain. The only party to really gain from inflated fuel and that would have the sub technology to damage the cables that comes to mind is Russia.

RE: From Russia with Love
By Visual on 2/5/2008 5:39:38 PM , Rating: 3
Well, yeah, but you're missing something...

... in Soviet Russia, cables cut YOU!

By Xonoahbin on 2/5/2008 5:04:54 PM , Rating: 2
My first thought was that the U.S. might be doing this to disrupt a spread of information on something like.. an attack on Iran. But who knows.

RE: .....
By derwin on 2/5/2008 6:34:25 PM , Rating: 2
could be testing the response times of repair and getting back up to speed after such a disruption, incase the tactic needs to be used later

Now a 5th
By NeoConned08 on 2/5/2008 3:42:06 PM , Rating: 3
By AlvinCool on 2/5/2008 10:19:33 AM , Rating: 2
While I can't rule out sabatage, you can't rule out the new sorry style of fishing either. It ruins the floor of the ocean and is done by dragging heavy weighted nets with steel cables. Maybe they are starting to do that in those regions and it's damaging the cables. Just a thought thats not conspiracy.

And this is really REALLY bad for the ocean.

By RobberBaron on 2/5/2008 10:32:15 AM , Rating: 2
Be interesting to see what government/country blames who first.

It would be nice if this was something more(or less) significant then some sort of sabotage or black-ops.

Godzilla FTW!

As Nelson Muntz would say...
By NinjaJedi on 2/5/2008 11:00:27 AM , Rating: 2
"haa haa"

tap tap tap
By ChuckvB on 2/5/2008 2:39:34 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps with the fiber optic cable we can only tap them on the surface so you break so your company can come by and tap them for you ;-)

By Comdrpopnfresh on 2/5/2008 3:15:46 PM , Rating: 2
Verizon laid the first two, right? What about the second two? Were they built by american companies? Maybe it is terrorist activity to try and loosen American company interests in the east. Almost all terrorist attacks by foreigns on US soil were aimed at creating economic havoc. Perhaps they've realized they can still harm the US by striking the US telcos overseas...?

By Locutus465 on 2/5/2008 3:17:46 PM , Rating: 2
I'll start out by pointing out that I fully realize what I'm typing is based on nothing at the moment, so consider these more just general thoughts...

But at least too me this seems like a good place to start attacking a small to medium sized developing nation. The internet has become such an important communcations medium these days, particularly for nations with struggling economies. Heck, we've already seen the effect internet bans have had on smaller asian nations last year.

Anyway, it seems to me that if I was going to plan an actual invasion of some sort into such a nation, disabling and or destroying internet access might be a good way to keep the west from quickly and effectivly responding.

Anyway, not trying to say an invasion of Egypt is actually underway at this very moment, but it did make me think and IMHO it's interesting food for thought.

Clover thingy
By sitong666 on 2/5/2008 4:25:41 PM , Rating: 2
The big bogey style monster in Cloverfield did it.

Its obviously The Pirate Bay...
By EODetroit on 2/5/2008 4:26:12 PM , Rating: 2
... adding high speed internet to their new secret island.

By NT78stonewobble on 2/6/2008 2:42:44 AM , Rating: 2
Some people have mentioned these, if intentional, cuttings of cables as being a precursor for taking military action against Iran.

I find this rather unlikely.

1. These cable would most likely carry civilian transmissions.

2. AFAIK most military units use different means of communicating during battle. Don't know about the Iranians but field radios have been in use since ww2. They might not have the newest satelite and encrypted systems that the US has but being dependent on public systems? Come on...

3. Even if the Iranian military did use public phones for ordering units about during a crisis then cut undersea wouldn't disrupt the internal communications in the country...

Just my 5 øre...

By Clauzii on 2/6/2008 1:05:18 PM , Rating: 2
This somewhat old (~7 years ago!) actually talks about the spything:

By FITCamaro on 2/5/08, Rating: -1
RE: Seriously
By Amiga500 on 2/5/2008 10:32:20 AM , Rating: 2

I recall the US Navy did alot of work with telephone cables in Soviet territorial waters...

RE: Seriously
By PAPutzback on 2/5/2008 10:39:54 AM , Rating: 2
I might of seen the same show. We would actually sneak in their harbors and install wiretaps on their lines.

RE: Seriously
By Master Kenobi on 2/5/08, Rating: 0
RE: Seriously
By RogueLegend on 2/5/08, Rating: 0
RE: Seriously
By crystal clear on 2/5/2008 7:57:17 PM , Rating: 2
How stupid & ill informed you can be ?????

On the contrary Israel would like the internet WORKING to HACK on them to COLLECT crucial information on subjects like nuclear ambitions/nuclear technology transfers/spare parts or components shipped illegally to Iran etc.
Terrorism/Drug smuggling/money laundering/funding for terror groups etc etc.

A long list of information on items/subjects that is ultimately passed on to the USA.

For intelligence gathering of such type you need an internet WORKING-no point in cutting those cables.

So blaming Israel is so easy but so are talking nonsense.

RE: Seriously
By MBlueD on 2/7/2008 5:14:09 AM , Rating: 2
How stupid & ill informed you can be ?????
=> How stupid & ill informed CAN YOU be ?????

So far, we have no concrete information regarding the motive or goal of the group(s) that caused this problem (assuming it was an action with malicious intent in the first place). It's all just speculation. Master Kenobi was not accusing Israel of doing this; he was just saying that they COULD have done it, as they have the ability and equipment to do it, and that he thinks that they have more reason to do it than the USA or Russia (as both have allies in the affected region, I assume).

You are being overly sensitive to the issue of including Israel to the list of suspects here. I can understand your FIRST reply (to El Gamel) because the guy 'called names first', but I don't see anyone else doing the same for their countries. I don't mind that, but please refrain from using irritating statements like the first line of both posts (especially when they are not justified). That was my real incentive to reply, by the way. While we are on the subject, at the start of this reply, I only meant to correct your grammar, not hurl the line back at you.

I'm really surprised that you were not rated down for that first line of yours...

RE: Seriously
By gtrinku on 2/5/2008 10:48:06 AM , Rating: 3
I don't think so, it's not like they blow themselves up just to kill innocent people... oh wait

RE: Seriously
By xti on 2/5/2008 11:11:25 AM , Rating: 2
maybe some sharks got hungry...

...terrorist arab sharks!

RE: Seriously
By Alpha4 on 2/5/2008 1:08:42 PM , Rating: 5
With frickin' laser beams attached to their head?

RE: Seriously
By uhgotnegum on 2/5/2008 11:13:38 AM , Rating: 3
Naive or not, I would have to argue that a terrorist who thinks that cutting a cable or four in the ocean will leave me shivering in fear is not fulfilling his job description. Anarchist? Maybe. My response in this situation is more, "F you, Comcast! Fix my cable!"

RE: Seriously
By TerranMagistrate on 2/5/08, Rating: 0
RE: Seriously
By tjr508 on 2/5/2008 12:20:29 PM , Rating: 2
He got rated down for calling a whole group of people that don't watch Fox News 'naive.'

RE: Seriously
By OdinX on 2/5/2008 1:33:19 PM , Rating: 1
half this talkback is about manbearpig the other half makes me believe there are islamic extremist fish hell bent on saving the islamic world from Ask a ninja and

RE: Seriously
By TerranMagistrate on 2/5/2008 5:42:47 PM , Rating: 3
English please.

RE: Seriously
By 0uterlimitz on 2/6/2008 6:51:58 AM , Rating: 2
This screams old man the Amusement Park.

"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki