The post you are reporting:
Mark, what probably happened is that someone had a great time using the Web to start an upheaval in Tunisa; then it was the turm of Egypt.
So then a campaign was made on the Web to launch an uproar in Libya.
It didn't go the same way! It turned into a civil war.
Incidentally, someone tried a few weeks back to launch an Intifada N. 3 in the
West Bank, but the Web operators closed down the page: it had already received thousands of subscriptiuons in favour of an intifada.
Many Libyans in the East probably regretted having takien part in the upheaval against their own government, especially the 10.000 or so soldiers who defected (if that many ever defected). The vast majority of Libyan soldiers did not defect, and throngs of Libyans support Col. Gedaffi, as can be seen now especially.
Many rioters who became rebels probably imagined, back in February, that it would be a two day upheaval and that they would then have 198 squabbling parties bickering for power and prancing in front of the TV cameras.
It didn't work! But then any strategy based on a Web-preached upheaval in another country is destined sooner or later to fail!
I asume that sooner or later the Briitish Government will pull out of the bombing raids on Libya, and today's speach by Rear Admiral Hardy that the UN mandate means that the rebels could be bombed if trying to enter a civilian area with armopured vehicles, should be (should be, not necessarily will be) a cold shower for these rebels who don't know themselves what they want and foolishly race up and down the Libyan coast in vehicles mounted with machine guns!
The rebels wrongly assumed that the UN mandate means that they will be bombed to power. Rear Admiral Harding taught them otherwise!