Slashdot Mirror


Hezbollah Hacked Israeli Military Radio

florescent_beige writes, "Newsday is reporting that Hezbollah was able to monitor secure Israeli military communications, perhaps using technology supplied by Iran, during the recent Lebanon war. A former Israeli general, speaking anonymously, called the results 'disastrous' for Israel. The story reports that an anonymous Lebanese source said that Hezbollah might have taken advantage of Israeli soldiers' mistakes in following secure radio procedures. The radio gear uses frequency hopping and encryption." The article identifies the Israeli communications equipment as the US-designed Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System.

360 comments

  1. The Real News by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The real news is that this made it into the news. Not because it isn't news worthy but because it only makes sense to maintain a shroud of ignorance once you have actually cracked a channel of communication thus instilling your enemies with a false sense of security.

    For instance during World War II, even after the allies had broken a German code or devised a method to figure out that day's cipher string, they would still go about their routine of acting like they didn't know what the Germans were going to do. Meaning that if a cargo ship was headed towards a line of submarines, they might find it best to sacrifice that cargo ship at the possibility of saving a warship later in the day. If they responded directly to communications, the Germans would continue to change the code or investigate ways to improve their encryption methods and upgrade Enigma. Necessity breeds innovation and you don't want your enemies feeling a strong necessity for better encryption. I'd like to cite my source but I don't believe Simon Singh's The Code Book is available online and that's where I read this.

    How interesting that Hezbollah would have the shortsightedness to let this crucial knowledge publicly available. However, this can be expected when the primary morale boosting for troops and citizens is bragging about your capabilities. I highly doubt they consider the conflict over and suspect that Isreal will now heavily ramp up its encryption & security to the highest standards since I believe that's one of the few things the United States will not export to them (see Phil Zimmerman's FBI case file on exporting encryption programs to foreign soil).

    As the department this summary is coming from reveals, guerilla warfare depends heavily on information like this. I'm surprised it's gone public that they had access to it.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:The Real News by Moby+Cock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While I agree with everything you said, I speculate that the Israelis made public thier knowledge of the snoops first. Once the 'cat was oout of the bag' the Hezbollah officials are using it for bragging rights.

    2. Re:The Real News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How interesting that Hezbollah would have the shortsightedness to let this crucial knowledge publicly available.

      Nah, it's to be expected. If a Coke bottle fell from the sky and bonked them on the head, it wouldn't mean they were ready to set up a bottling plant.

    3. Re:The Real News by caluml · · Score: 1

      I came to post just this, but eldavojohn beat me to it. Damned subscribers :).
      If I had access to my enemy's supposedly secret information, I would not take advantage of what I had learned in case they could work out that their channels were compromised. Until the day came that losing the ability to monitor their communications was less important than whatever strike I could make with the information gleaned.

    4. Re:The Real News by plover · · Score: 4, Interesting
      It may seem like a mistake for them to reveal their intercept capabilities, but TFA says the Israelies had captured a "listening outpost", and so probably knew this information anyway. But since Israel knows anyway, Hezbollah has now turned this into propaganda: "We are so clever we cracked the Israelies' secret codes."

      This is different from the way U.S. intelligence services handle secrets. They maintained the fiction surrounding the Venona decrypts for 50 years. However, the Soviets found out about the project somewhere around 1948 from a spy. And, the U.S. then found out from one of their spies that the Soviets had found out about Venona. So both sides' intelligence agencies knew about the break, yet it was kept secret from the public. Even though the intel was germane to the FBI prosecutions of several traitors, including the Rosenbergs (who were very obviously guilty after having read the Venona decrypts.) The info could also have been used to verify Senator McCarthy's allegations (or prove him wrong.) Lots of good could have come from knowing the truth.

      --
      John
    5. Re:The Real News by ShamelessHero · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hardware encryption anyone?

      The SINGARS uses Hardware Encryption, in addition to frequency hopping mode to ensure that all traffic remains secure.

      With the an omni antenna and a spectrum analyzer you can spot and triangulate frequency hopping transmissions, but you aren't going to be listening in without obtaining all the crypto keys.

      The fact that they claim they were able to crack it is only possible if they obtained a fully operational radio with loaded fill device with that time periods keys. Then they would have to know what key goes where to ensure that they're sync with the rest of the net.

      The only other way would be if the Israeli's were just hanging out in plaintext and single channel mode.

    6. Re:The Real News by keyne9 · · Score: 1

      You're making the assumption that this information has been verified by a non-(very)biased source.

    7. Re:The Real News by DesertBlade · · Score: 1

      You also forgot with frequency hoping the radio needs to be synced to the correct time of the hops. That is easy enough to do with the military GPS units but still needs. Manually doing this was a big pain.

      --
      Half of writing history is hiding the truth.
    8. Re:The Real News by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How do you triangulate a signal using an omni directional antenna?
      You many need a multi band antenna but I doubt that most frequency hopping systems hop out of band.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    9. Re:The Real News by alcmaeon · · Score: 1

      The real news is that this made it into the news.

      No, it isn't really. You would think it would be, but it isn't. If you read any of the Israeli newspapers (and most of them are avaialble online in English) you will see that the latest Lebanon venture is viewed as an unmitigated disaster in Israel. Conversely, it is viewed as a shining success for Hezbollah--an irregular group of poorly equiped partisans handily defeating the regions reigning superpower backed by the world's real superpower, the U.S. It's a genuine modern-day David vs. Goliath story (all irony intended).

      Consequently, it isn't at all surprising that career IDF functionaries are trying to find something to explain the disaster that doesn't involve personal responsibility for them or the political leadership. After all, no one wants to admit that it was just a bad idea in the first, place, that it was poorly planned and even more poorly executed. This would embolden (as it already has) the rest of the countries in the region.

      What is interesting is that there is anecdotal information that Hezbollah was calling Israeli Soldiers by name when they saw them based on their interception of the communications. This tells us that: a) communications was being intercepted; b) that Hezbollah has trained Hebrew speakers; and c) that it had a significant negative psychological impact on the Israeli forces.

    10. Re:The Real News by lazarusdishwasher · · Score: 2, Funny

      Would it mean that they have to stop the jihad while they throw the evil thing off of the end of the world?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gods_Must_Be_Craz y

    11. Re:The Real News by SeanBaker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This isn't strictly true... don't make the classic mistake of historical fallen militaries who were arrogant enough to believe that not only were their means (read: routes) of communication uninterceptable, but that their method of encryption was unbreakable as well. Neither has ever proven true; see the aforementioned Simon Singh work if you want a laundry list of individuals / nations who made these mistakes.

      For the poster who asserts that Iran articles are a dime-a-dozen these days - while some are apparently fake, this one rings with a great deal of plausibility. It's not something that we've just pushed out recently to state Iran is supporting Hezbollah - the intelligence services have been saying for 20+ years that Iran has been a supporter of their organization, its contemporaries, and their predecessors. What's news is that they're doing so now so flagrantly without concern for international repercussion. And the notion that Iran may have technology to intercept and break these transmissions isn't so far-fetched, either. The FH / crypto used on these systems is actually quite old and based on computing power which didn't even anticipate what a laptop computer today is capable of. But we'll probably not know details of this aspect for 50+ years. What we can talk about is that the idea that they did have access to all the Israelis' communications fits with what we do know. The Israeli Army has shown itself time and again to be one not to be trifled with, and yet they were given a very bloody nose in this recent engagement... not by a collaboration of Arab nations, but by a terrorist organization with largely inferior arms and far less training. Yes, part of their losses stemmed from their shift of tactics to a campaign of minimizing collateral damage. Additional losses stemmed from the hesitance of the Israeli government to commit. But that doesn't explain losses which should not have otherwise occurred (the majority) in the individual battles. Short of having been trained alongside the Iranian version of special forces, Hezbollah could not have inflicted such heavy casualties on the Israelis without having exceptional intelligence. We already know that the Iranians provided them with UAVs... why not SIGINT gear as well?

      --

      Sean R. Baker
      CDT, United States Army
      "Lead me, follow me,
      or get out of my way."
    12. Re:The Real News by Doctor+Memory · · Score: 0
      with frequency hoping the radio needs to be synced
      No it doesn't! That's why it's called frequency hoping! You spin the dial and hope you land on the right frequency!
      --
      Just junk food for thought...
    13. Re:The Real News by Metaldsa · · Score: 1

      "an irregular group of poorly equiped partisans handily defeating the regions reigning superpower backed by the world's real superpower, the U.S. It's a genuine modern-day David vs. Goliath story (all irony intended)."

      Why do people say Israel was defeated by Hezbollah. Lebanon's land was taken, people massacred, economy was crippled, and they had no counter attack. Hezbollah beat the spread but I wouldn't say they defeated Israel.

    14. Re:The Real News by u38cg · · Score: 1

      As others note, the chances are it leaked and now they're just blowing their own trumpets a bit. This reminds me strongly of an incident involving South African troops in Nigeria: the SAs were fighting Nigerian rebels (IIRC) on behalf of their government. The Nigerian rebels mounted an attack where their attack helicopters reflected the SAs incoming IFF radar to SA forces over the horizon; the reply was then relayed back through the Nigerian helicopters who mounted a strike right in the centre of the SA zone. Although the military damage was not huge, being outsmarted by black rebels was a major blow to (white) South African pride.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    15. Re:The Real News by cowbutt · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Even though the intel was germane to the FBI prosecutions of several traitors, including the Rosenbergs (who were very obviously guilty after having read the Venona decrypts.

      Even the NSA doesn't go quite that far; in this article they only claim the intercepts show that Ethel " may have known about her husband's activities" (my emphasis).

      Innocent until proven guilty, right?

    16. Re:The Real News by mqduck · · Score: 1

      How interesting that Hezbollah would have the shortsightedness to let this crucial knowledge publicly available. However, this can be expected when the primary morale boosting for troops and citizens is bragging about your capabilities.

      That's their primary moral boosting? Not the idea of protecting their nation against invasion? I suppose the vast majority of Lebanese civilians supported Hezbollah because they were mesmerized by it's boasting?

      --
      Property is theft.
    17. Re:The Real News by SageMusings · · Score: 1

      Not so!!

      The worst thing the Israeli's could do is let on that they know the full capabilities of an enemy. There is tremendous utility in feeding an enemy false information.

      Never show your cards, ever.

      --
      -- Posted from my parent's basement
    18. Re:The Real News by rthille · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Innocent until proven guilty, right?

      Wow, a post from the past!

      Sigh...

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    19. Re:The Real News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hezbollah != Lebanon

    20. Re:The Real News by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The real news is that this made it into the news. Not because it isn't news worthy but because it only makes sense to maintain a shroud of ignorance once you have actually cracked a channel of communication thus instilling your enemies with a false sense of security.

      The most likely explanation then would be that Israel had already figured out their communications had been compromised, and that Hezbollah in turn figured out what Israel figured out. At that point the best thing to do is to make the shared knowledge public for PR and morale purposes.

      Hezbollah may not be a regular army, but they showed enough savy and sophistication during the conflict that I doubt they would give up the advantage of being able to hear Israel's communication.

      For instance during World War II, even after the allies had broken a German code or devised a method to figure out that day's cipher string, they would still go about their routine of acting like they didn't know what the Germans were going to do.

      Yes, I remember this in the Pacific too, with a carrier battle (Midway I think) where we knew from intercepted communications exactly where the Japanese fleet was, but we first flew a recon plane near enough to the fleet to be seen so it would appear as if we just "accidentally" ran into them in the middle of the ocean. We sacrificed some element of surprise to maintain the illusion that their codes were secure.

      Also there were U.S. codes that were compromised by the Japanese, but in this case we knew it. We used these codes to send messages we wanted the Japanese intercept and read, and would gauge their reactions in messages we intercepted from them to improve our intelligence.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    21. Re:The Real News by cluckshot · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Think! Think a little! Who made those radios and who uses them other than Isreal. The USA Army uses them in Iraq. This means the US Army battlefield radios are hacked. This is a may as well give up and die for US Troups and explains much of what is going on in Iraq. Another fine case of D. Rumsfeld and his army of one thinking. Single point failure is death to any group. If I need to explain this any further....!

      Remember all the talk after 9/11/2001 about needing all radios to chat one to another!? It works now!

      --
      Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
    22. Re:The Real News by westlake · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Hezbollah was dug in, well-trained and well-indoctrinated, could listen in on what the Israeli's were doing, and still had its ass handed to it.

      In short: Did Israel achieve any of it objectives in the war? Has it gained ground or lost ground, politically, economically, militarily?

    23. Re:The Real News by inviolet · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The USA Army uses them in Iraq. This means the US Army battlefield radios are hacked. This is a may as well give up and die for US Troups and explains much of what is going on in Iraq. Another fine case of D. Rumsfeld and his army of one thinking. Single point failure is death to any group. If I need to explain this any further....!

      The radios are not hacked. It was the Israeli procedure that was hacked -- or more precisely, it was the sloppiness that was hacked.

      Any cryptosystem can be hacked if it is (for example) configured with weak keys or passwords.

      But please, don't let this information temper your passion for blaming everything (even the choice of radios?!) on Rumsfeld.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    24. Re:The Real News by zerosix · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they really didn't crack it and it's pure mind games.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. ~Albert Einstein
    25. Re:The Real News by Talahaski · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the Hezbollah are only pretending to have broken the code to gain media attention and bragging rights and to fake them out, thus forcing them to limit their communication channels and to spend resources upgrading their encryption.

    26. Re:The Real News by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      How do you triangulate a signal using an omni directional antenna?
      I can give you a simplified explanation. Measuring the signal strength gives you an idea of how far away the signal is coming from, geographically in the form of a circle around you (assuming the transmitter is not airborne). If you take two measurements from two locations at the same time, then the transmitter is located where the two circles intersect (which is at two possible points, so you don't know for sure yet). If you take three measurements, there will only be one point where all three circles intersect, which is where the transmitter really is.
    27. Re:The Real News by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1

      Who won the Tet Offensive? The US Army definitively destroyed the Viet Cong in that battle, to the point that the NVA had to infiltrate troops into the South to maintain the pace of guerilla operations, yet it is not generally accepted as a US victory (including by me).

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    28. Re:The Real News by DerekLyons · · Score: 0
      The real news is that this made it into the news. Not because it isn't news worthy but because it only makes sense to maintain a shroud of ignorance once you have actually cracked a channel of communication thus instilling your enemies with a false sense of security.
       
      For instance during World War II, even after the allies had broken a German code or devised a method to figure out that day's cipher string, they would still go about their routine of acting like they didn't know what the Germans were going to do. Meaning that if a cargo ship was headed towards a line of submarines, they might find it best to sacrifice that cargo ship at the possibility of saving a warship later in the day.

      That in fact - is not correct. The Allies broke the [U-boat] Enigma specifically for the purpose of evasive routing. The UK had a whole Tracking Center where info from Bletchley, Huff-Duff, etc... etc... was integrated into a single picture and used to route convoys, determine when to send them out from their origin ports, where to concentrate ASW forces and HUK [Hunter-Killer] groups. Now it is true, as a general principle, that one does attempt to shroud the source of the intelligence from the enemy. In the case of the Battle of the Atlantic, this was done by never mentioning the Enigma decrypts except by their code name ('Ultra'), and by paraphrasing the information anytime it was conveyed outside of small inner circle. (For a description of US practice, here is description of the US Tracking Room. Or you can check out this photographic tour.) It was extremely rare (I.E. no example exists of which I am aware) for them to not direct a convoy to avoid a U-boat whose location was specifically known.)
       
      The reason for this decision is simple; If the Germans changed their codes - tracking could still be accomplished by Huff-Duff (though with less accuracy). The *only* way for the Germans to avoid being tracked was to cease the daily transmissions from the U-boats to Dönitz - but if they did so, his whole strategy of detailed control of both the wolf packs and individual U-boats would have fallen apart. Either way, it seemed at the time, the Allies came out to the better.
       
       
      f they responded directly to communications, the Germans would continue to change the code or investigate ways to improve their encryption methods and upgrade Enigma.

      The Germans upgraded [the U-boat] Enigma twice during the war, and each time it was broken after a short period. During the blackout periods, tracking by non cryptographic means proved mostly sufficient.
    29. Re:The Real News by cowbutt · · Score: 1
      Innocent until proven guilty, right?

      I hate when people throw this out all the time. Yes, they are innocent until proven guilty. He didn't round up the Rosenbergs and throw them in jail without trial. He is not a government official making an official statement. He has an opinion, a very distinct opinion, and he stated it.

      No, he stated as a fact that the VENONA intercepts showed that the Rosenbergs (plural) were "obviously guilty", which contradicted what I knew about the case (which could have been wrong or mis-remembered), and what was confirmed by the NSA article. That was a wrongful assertion which I felt needed to be corrected, or at least stated rather more cautiously. Of course, these days, "trial by intuition" and "guilty until proven innocent" seem to be the fashion, as I was disappointed to find out when I performed jury service earlier this year.

      You're one of the many that doesn't understand the "seperation of church and state" clause also, aren't you?

      You're one of the many who assumes that everyone who posts to Slashdot is an American, just because they have some knowledge of the US constitution, laws, history and customs, right? :-P

      Where I live (a constitutional monarchy), the head of state is also the head of the Church of England, therefore we have no seperation of church and state.

      But yes, I'd expect you're the kind of person who probably has the opinion of me that I'm one who doesn't understand that clause in the US constitution, since I strongly believe in a secular state, but one which allows people to practice whatever religion they follow (or no religion at all) as long as it harms no other person. This belief follows from a) the violence perpetrated centuries ago by the religion into which I was born when it did have political power and b) the fact that despite no longer practicing that religion, I am offended by the principle that in a supposedly modern democracy, a 300 year old discriminatory law would still apply to me, simply because of my ancestry.

    30. Re:The Real News by KDN · · Score: 1
      For instance during World War II, even after the allies had broken a German code or devised a method to figure out that day's cipher string, they would still go about their routine of acting like they didn't know what the Germans were going to do. Meaning that if a cargo ship was headed towards a line of submarines, they might find it best to sacrifice that cargo ship at the possibility of saving a warship later in the day.

      I believe I once saw on the History Channel someone who said that even though they knew where the U boats were, they never went after them unless they had an aircraft in the area to provide a reasonable explanation (they had an airplane in the area that spotted us with radar). So if the Germans got away or if they got a radio message out, they would blame the airplane patrol, and not suspect that their "unbreakable" code machine was broken.

    31. Re:The Real News by FesterDaFelcher · · Score: 1

      I'd be pissed if I couldn't be a queen also. :)

      --
      My user number is prime. Is yours?
    32. Re:The Real News by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      one of the many that doesn't understand the "seperation of church and state" clause also

      Indeed? Exactly what "clause" are you "quoting" there anyways?

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    33. Re:The Real News by klmth · · Score: 1

      There are many ways to achieve this. If the transmitter or receiver is moving, you may use intersections of isodoppler curves. You may also use TDOA multilateration methods or TOA methods to locate a single transmitter using an omni antenna.

    34. Re:The Real News by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I think he meant multilateration, not triangulation. Using three antennae, you can identify one single point where the transmission could have originated (on a plane). A fourth antenna could be used for 3D positioning. Directional antennae are neither required nor desirable for multilateration since you're calculating the position based on the time differences of reception, not direction of signal strength.

    35. Re:The Real News by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Never show your cards, ever.
      Secrecy/surprise are just one element of winning a conflict. Kennedy knew this when he revealed our spy plane photos of Russian missile sites in Cuba to the the world. Secrecy is also inherently incompatible with democracy. Of course in the real world some secrecy is vital. But it's not as simple as a card game.
    36. Re:The Real News by Metaldsa · · Score: 1

      I'm no vietnam expert so I'm not into analogies.

      All I know is that Israel had the power to destroy that entire country and Hezbollah's only ability was to hide. The peace terms has Hezbollah disarming, giving back Israel soldiers, and leaving the land it occupied. Don't the winners of the war dictate the terms or at least have the upper hand in negotiations? From what I see Israel can still do whatever the hell it wants but Hezbollah is under the microscope to play nice.

    37. Re:The Real News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you're one of thsoe fruitloops who thinks the United States is a Christian Nation, and the President is the head of the Church of America

    38. Re:The Real News by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I was aware of using signal strength, or timing to find the location of a transmitter but I thought triangulation required using two locations and finding the angle of the signal.
      Signal strength and or timing could have issues with multi-path propagation and other issues but probably good enough to get a rough location.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    39. Re:The Real News by dbIII · · Score: 1
      "We are so clever we cracked the Israelies' secret codes."

      It is also possible they just bought the gear through a third party. Classified US and Israeli equipment is in Iranian tanks due to an Israeli company selling the stuff to China and it then getting sold again. There are plenty of other examples, but at least that one got it's own US Senate inquiry.

      The info could also have been used to verify Senator McCarthy's allegations
      Now we are getting into tinfoil hat territory - I suggest you look at the history around McCarthy and how he named people right up to General Marshall as potential spies and how McCarthy's downfall was that he used his position to get his boyfriend a good job. In my opinion he was a nasty attention grabbing evil bastard looking for a fast ride to the top.
    40. Re:The Real News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the an omni antenna and a spectrum analyzer you can spot and triangulate frequency hopping transmissions, but you aren't going to be listening in without obtaining all the crypto keys.

      Once upon a time, frequency hopping was a method to prevent eavesdropping. I remember there were also digital voice sampled systems which would rearrange the order of the samples over short durations (increasing durations cause greater delay), which was of course an extremely weak jigsaw puzzle at best. But nowadays, with strong crypto, the big thing frequency hopping gives you is some rejection of what is essentially Denial of Service. If you want to block a radio transmission which is jumping around, you will need to know where it will jump to next. Otherwise you will need a LOT more power to block the spectrum which those radios use.

      There are radios which can spot the hopping across a wide band and lock on to each hop quickly. In fact even cheap consumer scanners have the ability to switch to a frequency which is close to that which is currently tuned, when that previously ignored channel suddenly becomes active. Military radios are leaps and bounds ahead of consumer and even industrial crypto-able radios (police and security for example). I worked as a radio technician in the Navy in the 80's and it seems to me that military radio technology was about 20 years ahead of non military technology. I say "was" because I've been out of the game for a long time and that sort of technology is now outsourced (the radios used then were too, but to a lesser degree). I would not doubt that they are still far ahead though, since companies like General Dynamics may as well be an arm of the military. They need to keep things secret as a matter of requirement and also for their business success. So for me, it is not hard to believe that current or upgraded military radios can track frequency hopping transmissions. The hairy bit would be if your enemy had hundreds or thousands of transmitters which are perhaps mobile and constantly transmitting noise with a stream of pseudo random hops. The radios could then be squelched if the packets received did not decrypt correctly. This way, there would be constant noise coming from thousands of channels which are jumping around. Even if you could know what to listen to, you would then be up against the crypto.

      A digital cipher stream should be indistiguishable from digital white noise. You could essentially fill the used spectrum with garbage which no spectrum analysing radio could deal with.

      Of course, get a grunt to punch codes into a system which requires them and then you get fuck ups. They need to not only be taught what to do, but also be taught all the things NOT to do, so that they can appreciate how catastrophic a seemingly innocent variation can be. I think these systems should be set and forget for a long period, where they are set by crypto techs within military bases and then work for long periods of time (months) without needing to be re-keyed. These systems should only work for personnel who log-in with tokens and passwords and those tokens AND the radio should have a fast erase ability AND a remote erase ability.

    41. Re:The Real News by alcmaeon · · Score: 1

      You missed several points:

      a) reality doesn't matter, perception does
      b) Isreal's stated goal of the "incursion" was to defeat Hezbollah, not destroy Lebanese infrastructure and massacre civilians
      c) If Isreal could have defeated Hezbollah, it surely would have, it obviously has no qualms about causing civilian caslualties and destroying infrastructure
      d) Hezbollah is still there, ergo Isreal did not achive its objective
      e) Israeli perception is that Israel lost
      f) The perception of the rest of the Middle East is that Israel lost
      g) No one in Isreal cares what you (or I) think, but they do care what Israelis think and they do care what the other Middle Eastern countries think
      g) FOXnews is a propaganda channel

    42. Re:The Real News by johnsmith_12345 · · Score: 1

      I'm getting a desire to read cryptonomicon right about now...

    43. Re:The Real News by freedom_india · · Score: 1
      I don't think so. Never in the modern times, has such well-trained army been so utterly defeated and demoralised by a ragtag group of rebels. (Not even Chechenya, Iraq).

      Hizb drove out israelis. They need not win: They just need not lose, and they are good. For israel, they had to win, else they lose.

      Nasrallah's comments were political in nature. He never called it catastrophic. He said: "If we had known this is the extent of response, we would never have kidnapped them..."

      Get your facts before you open your mouth.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    44. Re:The Real News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "I hope that you have re-read the Constitution of the United States in these past few weeks. Like the Bible, it ought to be read again and again."

      -- President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Radio Address of March 9th, 1937

      Imagine any politican nowadays telling the nation that we should read the Bible "again and again". Or the Constitution, for that matter!
    45. Re:The Real News by plover · · Score: 1
      No, she definitely knew about her husband's role as a ringleader who ran several technical spies, including her brother; the debate is simply about the level of her participation. According to Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America by John Earl Haynes & Harvey Kleher, they write that in VENONA #1657, KGB New York to Moscow of 27 November 1944, the New York center wrote (translated) "Information on LIBERAL's wife. Surname that of her husband, first name Ethel, 29 years old. Married five years. Finished secondary school. A Fellow-countryman [CPUSA member] since 1938. Sufficiently well developed politically. Knows about her husband's work and the role of METER [Joel Barr] and NIL [unidentified agent]. In view of delicate health does not work. Is characterized positively and as a devoted person."

      [ Emphasis mine. ]

      Combine that with her brother's testimony that she was an active participant in her husband's treason (by typing his notes, although he later recanted this to a reporter, he claimed he lied for more lenient treatment for his wife and children;) her husband's silence rather than coming to her defense; and add the fact that both Rosenbergs (not just Julius) were secretly recommended for Soviet medals.

      Now, I'm not a modern day McCarthyite. (Senator McCarthy was a vain, self-serving bastard who didn't care who he trampled upon for personal gain. I think he may have had a hint at the existence of VENONA, and leveraged these rumors to cast suspicion upon anyone who got in his way.) Regardless, the case against Ethel Rosenberg was strong. It was strong enough to have her executed even without the VENONA decrypts being brought up at trial.

      --
      John
    46. Re:The Real News by plover · · Score: 1
      which contradicted what I knew about the case (which could have been wrong or mis-remembered),

      It would be easy to have heard something that contradicted this. For decades, the execution of the Rosenbergs was trumpeted as a "show trial" or as the triumph of McCarthyism over the truth. There probably would have been no controversy at all except the CPUSA ran an active misinformation campaign to try to stir up sympathy. It wasn't till the release of Venona that the proof of their crimes was really laid bare.

      --
      John
    47. Re:The Real News by cowbutt · · Score: 1
      It would be easy to have heard something that contradicted this.

      This was a recent BBC docu-drama ("Days That Shook the World: The Cost of Betrayal") that mentioned the VENONA intercepts, that they implicated Ethel's brother and husband, but that they left some doubt as to her involvement and knowledge. I'm not foolish enough to believe everything in a docu-drama, which is why I looked for some sort of official confirmation of that conclusion before posting - like from the NSA, for instance. :-)

    48. Re:The Real News by igb · · Score: 1
      We can assume that the Russians knew _of_ Venona by 1949 at the latest, because Kim Philby was told about it and he was, of course, a Soviet agent. However, it's not at all clear that the Russians knew how much, how accurately and how rapidly the material was being decrypted. They had stopped using duplicate pads in 1946, possibly in reaction to learning of Venona, but equally possibly because they understood perfectly well that using two-time pads is a bad idea.

      But the impact on Russian espionage in the USA was considerable, and justified the Americans keeping quiet about the extent of the breaks. It's an open question how effective fragmentary intercepts would have been in court, and a defence lawyer would of course have wanted to trace the process used to produce this evidence. Although Venona has been declassified in large part, the full repertoire of methods used is not in the open literature even today. In the end, the Russians had to assume that _all_ their communications between the late 30s and 1946 had been compromised or would be compromised in the future, and that had a massively negative effect on their work.

      Furthermore, given that most crypto breaks result from flaws in process rather than brute-force analysis --- used correctly, Enigma would have been far more secure, for example --- giving lessons in correct crypto procedure to your opponents is a bad idea.

      ian

    49. Re:The Real News by cowbutt · · Score: 1
      Regardless, the case against Ethel Rosenberg was strong. It was strong enough to have her executed even without the VENONA decrypts being brought up at trial.

      Interestingly, Haynes & Kleher are of the opinion that although the VENONA messages "confirm that she was a participant [...] [b]ut they suggest that she was essentially an accessory to her husband's activity, having knowledge of it and assisting him but not acting as a principal." and that "It is also unlikely, had the messages been made public or circulated more widely within the government than they did, that Ethel Rosenberg would have been executed" (p. 15/16).

    50. Re:The Real News by Rungchen · · Score: 1

      Could be that the Israelis are just trying to make excuses for loosing.

      It sounds better that Hezbollah won, because they were eavesdropping, than admitting that the Israeli army made a bad job.
      Especially since, this is the first time ever, the Israeli army has failed in doing what they came for.

      --
      You can get it fast, you can get it good, You can get it cheap. Pick two!
    51. Re:The Real News by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      I highly doubt they consider the conflict over and suspect that Isreal will now heavily ramp up its encryption & security to the highest standards since I believe that's one of the few things the United States will not export to them (see Phil Zimmerman's FBI case file on exporting encryption programs to foreign soil).

      This must be written by an american. Everybody else knows that the US Govt gives billions of dollars worth of military kit to Israel free of charge every year (source :http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Is rael/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html).
      The US supplied Israel with Apache gunships free of charge years before they would sell them to the British (Where I live).

      Without American support there never would have been a war. In fact the only reason Israel still exists is because the entire country is bankrolled by the US. That is why the US is so hated in the Arab world. And the main people who foot the bill are the US taxpayers.

      It was also the main reason the lunatics who flew planes into the WTC picked American targets.

      If you disagree, check out the source above and find something that proves it inaccurate please. Otherwise do not just mod this a troll because you dont like it.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    52. Re:The Real News by Pictish+Prince · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should stop being surprised and re-examine Hizbollah's motives. I'm not trying to be a chauvinist but do you really think they could have cracked the Israeli code without help from the US? Until it was made public on a blog, nasrollah.org was hosted by a *US defense contractor* based in Saudi Arabia. Also reports have surfaced of Hizbollah fighters receiving arms directly from the US. To boil things down, the entire Israel-Hizbollah conflicted was staged.

      --
      Only his tendency toward a dazed stupor prevented him from screaming aloud.
    53. Re:The Real News by zork5555 · · Score: 1

      More formally known as "The Establishment Clause"

      1st Amendment (partial)

      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

      Thomas Jefferson seems to be the first to call this "separation of church and state"

      In a letter to the Danbury Baptist association in 1802 he wrote:

      "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

      Since the Establishment Clause, as well as other freedom of religion clauses in the constitution, was inserted by James Madison based on Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, we can assume that "Separation of Church and State" reflects the original author's intent.

      James Madison, interestingly enough, viewed the appointment of chaplains in Congress as a violation of this clause as well.

    54. Re:The Real News by plover · · Score: 1
      OK, this is my last post on the topic, and I'll promise to shut up after it. :-)

      First, I said only that VENONA made it obvious that the Rosenbergs (both of them) were guilty. I did not say to what extent that guilt went, nor did I say that they both received fair sentences.

      But do I think Julius committed treason, and do I think VENONA corroborates that assumption? Absolutely. Do I think his crime was serious enough to warrant death? That's a different question, but the magnitude of his crimes, and the possibility they may have led to the hostilities on the Korean peninsula, makes me think the chair wasn't an unreasonable sentence.

      The real questions surround Ethel's case. Do I think she was also guilty of treason? Yes, and I think VENONA confirms that. But did she participate to the same extent as her husband? Not according to VENONA. So, was she truly deserving of death? Aiding and abetting treason of this magnitude (and with knowledge of what she was participating in) is very serious. But really, that's a much harder judgement to make, and I don't know for sure; I haven't studied the trial, and since it took place before I was born, I certainly didn't get swept up in the emotions of the time.

      For the record, I'm not a big fan of the death penalty. There certainly are many people on this planet that we no longer have a use for, but I'm not convinced death is an appropriate punishment for two reasons: first, the courts can make mistakes, and have been wrong on many occasions, and you can't undo death. But more importantly is that I don't think there's an afterlife. If you execute someone today, that's it; they won't suffer an eternity with demons poking their backsides with hot pitchforks, they're just dead. If you really want them to suffer for their crimes, the best way is to keep them alive and alone in a little concrete box for the next 60 years or so.

      --
      John
    55. Re:The Real News by cowbutt · · Score: 1
      OK, this is my last post on the topic, and I'll promise to shut up after it. :-)

      No worries; it's been an informative and educational discussion, and you kept it civil. :-)

    56. Re:The Real News by 3263827 · · Score: 1

      There's no clause in the constitution about the "separation of church and state." None. Try again.

    57. Re:The Real News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's the establishment clause in the First Amendment.

  2. Frequency hopping? by plover · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is there any reason to consider frequency hopping secure, or is that simply adding "security through difficulty"? I understand it has certain resistance to jamming, but couldn't a sophisticated outsider simply have a large set of receivers to monitor all possible hops?

    --
    John
    1. Re:Frequency hopping? by ej0c · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The article said "and encryption".

    2. Re:Frequency hopping? by mmell · · Score: 1
      Sure - monitor all possible frequencies, then select the ones which have the thread of the conversation you're after and discard the rest.

      Uh, you do see where that could be as difficult as following the frequency hops, right? You'll hear everything your enemy is saying, alright - along with several thousand radio channels of noise, gibberish, unrelated conversations, etc. The S/N (signal to noise) ratio will accomplish the same objective as encryption.

    3. Re:Frequency hopping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Security through difficulty" is a valid security measure as long as the level of difficulty is sufficient. For example modern cryptosystems are based on the difficulty of doing certain mathematical operations (discrete logarithms, factoring, etc), yet they are trusted as being secure.

      Whether or not the frequency hopping is difficult enough for security is another matter, of course.

    4. Re:Frequency hopping? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, for that matter, given other aspects of Hezebollah's technology, security through difficulty might not be a half bad idea. Say, in addition to the encryption and frequency hopping you're already doing, hook up a 14.4kbaud accoustic modem, a palmtop of some sort, and use a low-sample-rate VOIP program that has been ROT 13'd.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    5. Re:Frequency hopping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes of course they could, but where Frequency Hopping becomes a problem (for the person breaking it), is when you A) encrypt it all anyways, and B) send false packets on the same channels you were using before - only people who know which frequency to listen to know which packets to decrypt to get the message - where as if you are trying to break it you'll need to look at all the packets transmitting on all the frequencies - and then attempt to either crack them all (nigh impossible if they put jibberish in the non-important packets because it will skew any results you might otherwise obtain with false information) or try to figure out which packets, on which channels, are the information - how exactly you'd go about that is beyond me (and I imagine it would involve looking for embedded markers or some pattern, basically error spotting). The hard way about it would be to take sample data, and then try to compare all packets on all frequencies with all variations of all other packets, and then try to decrypt all information individually - which would work - if you had infinite time or infinitely powerful computers (or an infinite number of computers). More likely what happened is Israeli troops left a some evidence of their frequency pattern that Hezbollah found - or they got lazy and didn't bother hoping (or sending jibberish packets on old/upcoming frequencies) and then it was merely a matter of decrypting the one channel they transmitted on and they'd then know the correct encryption and finding the correct packets would be much easier (decrypt all via proven encryption packet, if jibberish, toss out).

    6. Re:Frequency hopping? by CrazySailor · · Score: 3, Informative

      Frequency hopping by itself is not secure. It does add value to the system by making it more difficult to intercept and jam communications. By placing the entire output power of the radio into a limited frequency band, you get better range and jamming resistance. By both radios being on the same hopset, the receiving radio already knows where to tune its receiver and seek the new signal. From the linked description, SINCGARS has 2320 channels, so monitoring all of them at a given time becomes difficult. However, SINCGARS is a fairly old technology, so the chipping frequency is low compared to more modern radios.

      --
      -- Improve Windows - Buy a Mac!
    7. Re:Frequency hopping? by TED+Vinson · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Frequency Hopping is not a security measure in the same sense as encrytion.

      FH is an Electronic Counter Countermeasures (ECCM) measure. It is intended to make the radios harder to jam (jammer needs to transmit on a wide band of frequencies in stead of a single frequency) and harder to locate through direction finding.

      Communications security (COMSEC) is provided by a symmetric encryption module on the radios. FH/ECCM is emphatically NOT a substitute for encryption.

      The article did not come right out and say that the encryption was broken. It is not unknown, especially in a time-critical situation such as a firefight, for users to switch the encryption off if they are having difficulty talking to another unit. The thought is that some communications, even non-secure, is better than nothing in the heat of the moment.

      The more likely way an enemy gets into the radio net is to capture a keyed radio, even worse if they get a crypto fill device too. Reacting to such a compromise is a critical skill set for the signal personnel in a combat unit.

      -"Pro Patria Vigilans"

    8. Re:Frequency hopping? by plover · · Score: 1
      That's what I'm wondering: if the S/N ratio adds any security, or if that can be beaten by an opponent who knows the operating frequencies and has a modest amount of skills to track the hopping. I should think that someone could put together a "conversation-follower" in software, perhaps by studying signal strength and the presence of a carrier wave. But it would be difficult, and certainly not easy to put in a handheld receiver usable by guerillas in a combat situation.

      Of course with the data being encrypted, that still wouldn't give you the ability to understand it anyway.

      --
      John
    9. Re:Frequency hopping? by rbunker · · Score: 1

      Well, no it isn't practical to monitor all frequencies, as there are other things happening on them and following the thread of the signal in a spectrum full of many signals would be just as rough as following the hops. However if the technology is unsophisticated enough to follow a predictable pattern of hops, or to transmit the upcoming freq in a way easy to decrypt, well following the leader is easy enough. I am stunned to infer from this that the radios aren't all digital and encoded with something at least as robust as, to quote the example above, PGP. It would almost certainly be impractical to try to crack a 1024 bit PGP encrypted signal in real-time.

    10. Re:Frequency hopping? by wkitchen · · Score: 1

      All security is "security through difficulty". That's true even of security through obscurity. In fact, lack of difficulty is really the only thing wrong with security through obscurity. The trouble is that any difficulty it has shrinks drastically once the method is discovered. And discovery itself is sometimes much less difficult than hoped once someone actually makes the attempt. Much better to use methods that remain difficult even when well understood. Methods that have already endured and survived all but the most expensive efforts. But I don't think there's anything wrong with adding a layer of obscurity or other weak security methods on top of that. Stealth, deception, surprise, and nimble movement can keep your enemies from getting a bead on you as often. Just know that none of that will help you once they do.

      I am not a security expert. Just a guy who sometimes ponders such things.

    11. Re:Frequency hopping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TED Vinson, huh? Signal Corps!

    12. Re:Frequency hopping? by SageMusings · · Score: 1

      I would say that traffic sent over a man-packable radio (secure) is very secure and even if it was decrypted, it would take so long the perishable information would be of little value. That's why mere tactical info is sent on such devices. Strategic info would not be sent on these radios. If I said "set an ambush" and you spent the time required to decrypt the message. It would be worthless when you found out a few days later that I ambushed a squad of your personnel.

      My personal belief is no transmissions were actually decrypted. I'll bet one of the previous posters was accurate in his belief this was simple DF'ing.

      --
      -- Posted from my parent's basement
    13. Re:Frequency hopping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FH doesn't do what encryption does, so in a sense the answer to the first question could be no. But the reason isn't what you suggest; trying to monitor all possible frequencies in the band won't work against any decent FH implementation.

      In fact, one of the major non-military reasons for interest in FH and other "spread-spectrum" techniques is that to someone whose receiver isn't keyed in, the signal looks like thermal noise. How much so? Depends on the implementation; but typically you can have an FH conversation on a band where a bunch of "conventional" (narrow-band) conversations are also taking place, and neither will interfere with the other.

      So, trying to pick an FH signal out of the band in real time just by analyzing the entire band is probably not a reasonable attack; but again, it's also correct that FH would fail to make a conversation "secure" on its own.

    14. Re:Frequency hopping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking Signal Towers.

    15. Re:Frequency hopping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      seriously, after being a vocational Signaller in an infantry batallion, one will know how 'reliable' these 'advanced' communications sets are. Frequency hoping basically makes it harder for the enemy to jam and hijack, eavesdrop your radio frequency as the signal set changes its frequency quite frequently. In conventional radio set, you use one fixed radio frequency, and your enemy manage to hear comms while scanning thru the frequency, they can then easily eavesdrop from then on. Radio sets with Frequency hoping will make this very difficult.

      How does the army unit then communicate in sync if the frequency keeps hoping? Well, each unit will synchronise thier radio set with date/time and a secret key. So the equipments will frequency hop at the right sync with one another. So unless Hizbolla got these right and have the same equipment, or if they have other advnaced equipment, I'm not sure how else they would be able to 'hack'. Furhtermore, if you set to secure mode, signal would be encrypted.

      How then do they 'crack'?
      It all boils down to battlefield discipline and heat of the moment.
      Do you think it is easy to intercept radio signal? It is already difficult to sometimes maintain comms over a certain distance between friendly units, so for the enemy to intercept it would be doubly difficult.

      Firstly if their equipment is not powerful (manpack set) They have to be within the 'line of sight' range of the signals. If they have more powerful sets, they will need to be in a vehicle or in a stationary dug-out area with very long antena (which can be improvised by hanging long wires on tall trees on high ground).

      For Isreali army or any amry units in the world for the matter, by right they should use codewords and proper voice procedures. But the fact is most except the best discipline soldier would adhere 100%. They also must maintain strict radio silence, not to speak in clear words, not to use unauthorised frequency etc. however, many times, in the heat of the moment or when one party cannot get another, they may lose discipline and resort to the above unauthorised methods including using of cellphones.

      The Hizbolla cells may have various small 'strategic dugged out listening outpost' that may have monitored occasional voice traffic from the Isreali as a result.

    16. Re:Frequency hopping? by benj_e · · Score: 1

      I agree. Just because the equipment may have a secure mode, doesn't mean that it was used. This was constantly a problem in Vietnam as well as an ongoing problem in Iraq. Comm gear is only as secure as the operators of the net make it. Just because, for example, you use frequency hopping doesn't mean that you can't be monitored successfully.

      Without good COMSEC practices, even secure nets can be compromised. This means that you can't assume that you are moving too fast for the intel to be worthwhile, or that the enemy is too unsophisticated to be able to monitor.

      And don't get me started on the risk that cell/satellite phones have.

      --
      The Tao that can be spoken is not the one eternal Tao
  3. According to Hizbollah officials by Gothmolly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of course they'll say that they h4xx0r3d the Israeli radio. It's called PROPAGANDA. Unless confirmed, I'd call this FUD.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:According to Hizbollah officials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But is it Propaganda cheering Hezbollah's defeat of Israel's technological advantage?

      Or is it propaganda cheering Iran's defeat of the United State's technological advantage?

    2. Re:According to Hizbollah officials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False dichotomy :)

    3. Re:According to Hizbollah officials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      I wonder why Hezbollah needs to crack Israeli radio channel. The UN keep them updated about Israeli positions and movements at anytime during the conflict. The UN is a greater danger to the West than terrorists.

  4. Maybe they haven't really by Veinor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe they haven't really cracked the code, they're just putting out false information to try to get the Israelis to switch to a different code. This would cause some confusion, thereby giving Hezbollah an edge.

    1. Re:Maybe they haven't really by RobertB-DC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe they haven't really cracked the code, they're just putting out false information to try to get the Israelis to switch to a different code. This would cause some confusion, thereby giving Hezbollah an edge.

      If that's not the case, then someone in Hezbollah should feel really, really dumb now.

      If you have access to your enemy's communications, the absolute last thing you would ever want to do is tell your enemy that you know what they're saying.

      Of course, now the Israelis have to figure out whether the statement is an unwise boast, or an elaborate deception designed to look like an unwise boast. Such a deception would be even more wily if the folks leaking the news actually think it's true.

      Thank goodness our country would never fall for such a scheme. Oh, never mind.

      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    2. Re:Maybe they haven't really by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you have access to your enemy's communications, the absolute last thing you would ever want to do is tell your enemy that you know what they're saying.

      Sure, but thats not the real stupidity. It sounds like Hezbollah just admitted to a DMCA violation!!! So I'm a bit skeptical of this information. I think it could just be the beggining of a brillant new offensive against Hezbollah. Next we'll see stories of Hezbollah leading massive piracy operations. Then its on, bitch! Dealing with Bush may not be a big deal, but sending the legions of Disney, Sony, WB, etc lawyers after them is another thing all together!

      Thats REAL terrorisim! If this comes to pass I may actually feel sorry for them.

      Sorry probably a bad attempt at a joke :-)

      --
      "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
  5. Ouch by Bryansix · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If this is true then the US military is going to be throwing away a lot of expensive radio equipment over the next couple of months.

    1. Re:Ouch by Veinor · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You mean you actually think the US government cares about security? How naïve.

    2. Re:Ouch by RingDev · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Given the subtext "Hezbollah might have taken advantage of Israeli soldiers' mistakes in following secure radio procedures"

      It is far more likely that some ass hat of a soldier left a radio, a list of channels and codes, and/or other secret information relating to communication someplace available to the enemy.

      When faced with two explanations, one taking an amazing amount of skill and luck, and the other taking a severe amount of incompetence... go with incompetence.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    3. Re:Ouch by DerGeist · · Score: 1
      This is exactly why Software Defined Radios were invented and why they're currently in use.

      You just load new software and it's a whole different beast. Basically anything you could want to do with a radio you can. Obviously there are hardware limitations (max hoprate, available memory, etc.) but generally you could turn your SDR into a toaster if you wanted.

    4. Re:Ouch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It is far more likely that some ass hat of a soldier left a radio

      Or maybe they just shot him and took it off his corpse.

    5. Re:Ouch by Xaositecte · · Score: 1

      Air Force Comm guy here - and I've got to say, Communications Security procedures are pretty much the most rigidly enforced part of our job.

    6. Re:Ouch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I imagine the senior members of the US Government's executive branch are very concerned about their security--gotta have a nice investment portfolio and pension fund to keep the wolves from the door. Soldiers' security on the other hand, meh...

    7. Re:Ouch by RingDev · · Score: 1

      "Or maybe they just shot him and took it off his corpse."

      A completely plausible explanation however, I have never heard of the Israeli regulars leaving bodies behind.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    8. Re:Ouch by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      I really don't think those radios require a list of codes to work. The encryption is worked out internally between the radios. One would have to be confescated (like when they kidnapped the soldiersin the first place). Then they would have to reverse engineer it.

    9. Re:Ouch by dr_d_19 · · Score: 1

      When faced with two explanations, one taking an amazing amount of skill and luck, and the other taking a severe amount of incompetence... go with incompetence.


      Ah, RingDev's Razor :)
    10. Re:Ouch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False. In one of the links, a VINSON device is referred to. Among other functionality, the purpose of a VINSON is to store a set of keys for that device, usually a few days' worth with one set per day. Keys for most military systems are decided upon in advance and distributed to those who need them. It's simply not practical to have keys autonegotiated on a broadcast network. (Note that the broadcast nature of most traffic means a public key crypto scheme becomes impractical since public key only works for multipoint-to-point and point-to-point, not point-to-multipoint - symmetric algorithms are required.)

      Just like with many computer networks, the weakest point in a system's security is the human operator. Look at Kevin Mitnick - I believe most of his success was not from technical compromises, but from good social engineering that essentially caused people to give him access to the system. I'm pretty sure that this is what happened in the Israel-Hezbollah situation. The algorithms and frequency hopping scheme were not cracked, neither were the keys. Most likely a couple of radios were stolen, and keys were obtained via either incompetence or a traitor. Equipment isn't going to be thrown away, but heads will roll if the Israelis can figure out who was responsible for the keys being compromised.

  6. Re:styles broken? by Azarael · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Probably a bad css upgrade I imagine. A bunch of the ads are sized/placed wrong as well.

  7. You stoooopid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    perhaps using technology supplied by Iran

    Ok, all together now: DUUUUUUUUUHHH!

    That whole scuffle was Israel versus Iran-By-Proxy.

    Personally, I love how the arabs can stand on the pile of rubble that used to be their infrastructure and shout "we won!"

    Dumbest. Culture. Ever. And that's saying something on this silly planet.

    1. Re:You stoooopid! by nycsubway · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree. Iran did fund and supply Hizbollah during the Lebanon conflict. The claim by Hizbollah that they listened to Israeli communications during the war was probably true. No communication device is completely secure, and no military is invincible. Most likely, Hizbollah got their technology directly from Iran, or were lucky and captured a piece of Israeli communications hardware.

      I visited Israel from the US on August 18, only 5 days after the cease-fire began. The northern part of the country was devoid of tourists, but the Israelis were not afraid at all, and were thrilled to see us. We saw rocket damage across the north, and Israeli tanks coming back from Lebanon. We also saw many off-duty 20 year old soldiers (male and female) at McDonalds with their M-16s. All were interesting sites that would scare the crap out of Americans. The Israelis are happy to have a soldier nearby, and the soldiers are required to carry their weapon at all times as long they are on active duty.

      Seeing the real Israel gave me perspective that is not present in America. People here say "How you can Israel bomb innocent civilians?" Those people haven't seen who they are fighting against. The palestinians and arabs do not care about their land. They do not care about their people. They do not care about other people.

      Israelis do care about the Palestinians... at Hadassah hospital in Jerusalem, which is run by Israel, 40% of patients are palestinian. Palestinians get FREE health care, whereas Israeli citizens do not. All nurses in the hospital are required to be bilingual in hebrew and arabic.

      The palestinians do not want their own land, they dont want to do anything with the land they have. And, yes they do stand on top of their rubble and shout "we won". Because if they're not actually fighting for land or rights, then the battle itself is their victory.

    2. Re:You stoooopid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you are saying about the palistinians is called hear say. You did not talk to palestinians in the occupied territories, did you?

      No amount of visiting northern Israel strengthens your position as an "expert" on the palestinian issue. Sorry.

    3. Re:You stoooopid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No amount of visiting northern Israel strengthens your position as an "expert" on the palestinian issue. Sorry.
      As if living in your mom's basement your whole life makes you more of an expert?
    4. Re:You stoooopid! by NMC · · Score: 2, Informative
      "Israelis do care about the Palestinians... at Hadassah hospital in Jerusalem, which is run by Israel, 40% of patients are palestinian. Palestinians get FREE health care, whereas Israeli citizens do not. All nurses in the hospital are required to be bilingual in hebrew and arabic."

      I had to reply to this ridiculous comment.

      Israel cares so much about the Palestinians that Ariel Sharon order Sabra and Shatilla.

      Israel cares so much about the Palestinians that they killed over 770 Palestinian children since 2000.

      Israel cares so much about the Palestinians that they built the apartheid wall to rob them of their land.

      Israel cares so much about the Palestinians that they're starving them.

      And on another note: Israel apparently cares about their own Israel-Arab citizens so much they didn't even provide them with bomb shelter during the recent Lebanon/Israel conflict.

      It's time to stop supporting racism and get you're facts straight.

    5. Re:You stoooopid! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That whole scuffle was Israel versus Iran-By-Proxy.

      Yeah, obviously.

      Personally, I love how the arabs can stand on the pile of rubble that used to be their infrastructure and shout "we won!"

      Um... Notice how very few Israelis are actually disagreeing with that assesment? Victory isn't making piles of rubble. If you look at the larger picture, this was a victory for Hezbollah without a doubt.

      The Israeli military is supposed to be one of the best in the world. They've fought a number of nations around them and absolutely trounced them. There was no way Hezbollah, some rag-tag little militia, was supposed to be able to stand up the IDF. When this conflict started, initiated by Hezbollah when the kidnapped those soldiers, Israel was brimming with confidence, setting their explicit goal as the removal of Hezbollah from southern lebanon.

      Well that's not even close to what happened, now is it?

      What happened is that Israel got hit very hard. They lost a lot of soldiers, and worse a lot of tanks. Their Merkavas are the most heavily armored tanks in the world and double as troop carriers to boot, but they got wasted by shaped charge mines and a more modern version of the classic Russian RPG. With good tactics and planning, Hezbollah was able to fight the ground forces of Israel to a standstill, taking what is for a guerilla conflict a very good ratio of casualties.

      Sure, Israel destroyed a lot of infrastructure with a little "shock and awe" air power. Doesn't really do much other than harm the citizenry and piss them off. In the end, Israel couldn't do what mattered, and that's occupy the land that was and still is controlled by Hezbollah.

      Make no bones about it. Hezbollah lured Israel into a fight at the time and place of their choosing, handed Israel an unexpected spanking, and sent them packing without giving up much of anything. They're stronger than ever now, both in terms of their support level and in terms of morale. The Arab underdogs beat the big bad Zionist bully, and you better believe others noticed. This little war is going to be studied for a long time, both to refine and improve the techniques used by Hezbollah, and to figure out how to counter them. At the strategic level, this was a stunning victory for Hezbollah and all the nations/groups that oppose Israel. It would be very foolish to view it otherwise.

      Dumbest. Culture. Ever. And that's saying something on this silly planet.

      Which? The one that declares victory standing on the rubble that used to be their infrastructure? Or the one that thinks whoever makes the most piles of rubble out of infrastructure wins?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:You stoooopid! by Grail · · Score: 1

      Visiting Israel gave you this deep insight into Palestinians? You say Palestinians don't care about their land - could this be because any time they try to do something with it, an Israeli tank or missile will destroy their work? Or perhaps it could be because anyone trying to walk out in a field to try ploughing the land is an open target for Israeli snipers, or at the very least risks digging up a UXO. No, there is no practical explanation for the Palestinian state of mind, they must just be lazy people with no regard for their future or the future of their families.

      Amazing powers of deduction. Please explain how your point of view is not racist.

      Very nice piece of propaganda, by the way - it even got moderated to "insightful" on Slashdot!

    7. Re:You stoooopid! by kinglink · · Score: 1

      The only victory is Hezbollah wasn't completely destroyed. They are shown as the kidnappers they are, show their utter lack of defiance and hatred to Israel, and the fact that they really don't care about their islamic beliefs (assuming Islam is really about Peace and tolerance as some of the muslim faiths have learned) Of course in a culture that rewards that it's a victory.

    8. Re:You stoooopid! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      The only victory is Hezbollah wasn't completely destroyed.

      And in fact are stronger than ever. Israel was going to completely destroy them, and instead they are the ones who left. Yes, that's a huge victory.

      They are shown as the kidnappers they are, show their utter lack of defiance and hatred to Israel, and the fact that they really don't care about their islamic beliefs (assuming Islam is really about Peace and tolerance as some of the muslim faiths have learned) Of course in a culture that rewards that it's a victory.

      I don't think you meant "utter lack of defiance" as that makes no sense; they showed lots of defiance.

      Anyway, that's all a Western view of Hezbollah that was already held anyway. You'll condemn muslims who wage wars as not being peaceful, but give our own Christian religion a pass on waging war. Whereas middle eastern muslims are more likely to view Hezbollah's actions as just, and Israel's as those of a violent religion and oppressive state.

      But if your point is that this was a PR loss for Hezbollah, then again you're wrong. In the places where it counts, this was a great PR victory for Hezbolah.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    9. Re:You stoooopid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The palestinians do not want their own land, they dont want to do anything with the land they have. And, yes they do stand on top of their rubble and shout "we won". Because if they're not actually fighting for land or rights, then the battle itself is their victory."

      http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2006/08/20 _august_2006.html

    10. Re:You stoooopid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Palestinians and Lebanese are TWO SEPARATE GROUPS. How hard is it to separate them in your mind? I know, you're full of racist "All Arabs are alike" propaganda and don't realize that they are completely separate. Lebanon is/was a cosmopolitan and educated society, and Israel crumpled it. Twice. FYI, Nasrallah apologized to the Palestinian and Arab civilians killed in the rocket attacks, so your idea that "they don't care about their people or other people" is garbage. Palestinians get free healthcare and Israelis don't? Show me proof of that, no Israeli government could possibly stay in power if they did. Israel's Knesset bans all Arabs from cabinet posts in government, they're not as fair as you think.

    11. Re:You stoooopid! by SourGrapes · · Score: 1

      Israel's Knesset bans all Arabs from cabinet posts in government, they're not as fair as you think. This is an absolute lie. There have been Arabs elected to and sitting in the Knesset (parliament) consistently since 1948. Arab citizens of Israel have more rights under the law than they do in any Arab country.

    12. Re:You stoooopid! by nycsubway · · Score: 1

      I think you should visit the country. Visit the occupied territories. Speak to the Palestinians there. Ask them why they live the way they do, and ask them what they want. Their answers may surprise you. I visited the arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem. Unless you are arab you will feel very uncomfortable. If you are particularly interested, you should visit Bethlehem, or Gaza. Show your support for the Palestinians and see how safe you really feel there. I highly suggest you visit the places of which you speak.

      I not only saw arab villages, I saw Druze villages, Bedouin camps, and met Arab-Israelis. Not all arabs are bad. They make the best hummus and pita! The arabs were and will continue to be a nomadic people. They had no interest in settling the land. They moved to where it suited them. Not until colonialism in the late 1800s did they even experience structured government... Just over 100 years being governed, and it wasn't even by themselves. The arabs are not a stupid, lazy people.

      I knew after seeing this article on Slashdot, that it would soon degenerate away from 'news for nerds'. Lets discuss cool technology from the region, like what is being developed to shoot down rockets using lasers: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-00g.html

    13. Re:You stoooopid! by nycsubway · · Score: 1

      Israel cares so much about the Palestinians that they built the apartheid wall to rob them of their land.

      It's called the 'separation wall'. Much like the United States has a large wall between it and Mexico. Israel built the wall along the Israel-Palestine border to keep suicide bombers from coming into Israel. No land was taken from the Palestinians to build the wall. Since the wall has been built, there have been no suicide bombings in Israel.

      I also want to point out that the websites you cite are about as unbiased as Fox News, with less credibility. Like I said in a previous post. If you feel that strongly about the Palestinians, you should visit the country. Meet Palestinians, talk to them, show your support for their cause.

      One thing I forgot to mention... It was arabs who were shooting rockets at the Arab-Israelis, which is kind of ironic. The other ironic thing is that the other arab countries surrounding Israel refuse to let Palestinians into their countries. The arabs in other countries have a worse hatred toward the palestinians than they do toward the israelis.

    14. Re:You stoooopid! by ROFLcoptor · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Um... Notice how very few Israelis are actually disagreeing with that assesment? Victory isn't making piles of rubble. If you look at the larger picture, this was a victory for Hezbollah without a doubt.
      Both sides claim victory

      There was no way Hezbollah, some rag-tag little militia, was supposed to be able to stand up the IDF.
      Ragtag militia gets 100 Million dollars a year from Iran
      Ragtag militia has advanced wire-guided anti-tank missles
      Ragtag militia has advanced anti-ship missles
      Ragtag militia holds 11% of the seats in parliament
      Ragtag militia's political bloc holds 27.5% of seats in parliment

      What happened is that Israel got hit very hard. They lost a lot of soldiers, and worse a lot of tanks.
      Hezbollah destroyed or damaged up to 50 tanks. Israel has 3600

      Hezbollah was able to fight the ground forces of Israel to a standstill,
      While fighting to a standstill, Israel was able to occupy ground up to 30km into Lebanon.
      While fighting to a standstill, Hezbollah was able to occupy ground up to -30km into Israel.

      Sure, Israel destroyed a lot of infrastructure with a little "shock and awe" air power. Doesn't really do much other than harm the citizenry and piss them off. In the end, Israel couldn't do what mattered, and that's occupy the land that was and still is controlled by Hezbollah.
      Israel controls the land held by Hezbollah until an International force relieves them.

      Make no bones about it. Hezbollah lured Israel into a fight at the time and place of their choosing,
      Hezbollah didn't expect a war at all

      ...handed Israel an unexpected spanking, and sent them packing without giving up much of anything.
      Israel currently occupies the land controled by Hezbollah.

      At the strategic level, this was a stunning victory for Hezbollah and all the nations/groups that oppose Israel. It would be very foolish to view it otherwise.
      ROFL
    15. Re:You stoooopid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My dear young racist,

      When you grow up you'll think about your comments here and shudder with shame -- one hopes. I invite you to replace references in your last post to "arabs" with, say, "blacks" just so you can get a sense of how racist your thinking is.

      As for the facts: you seriously need to check out a book about world history, and read a little about the great arab empires of the past. Your line about their not knowing structured government is laughable by its ignorance.

      They did a jobbie on you on your trip to Israel.

    16. Re:You stoooopid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great arab empires of the past ...

      like military victories of the French?

      And the word 'black' is not racist. A lot of my friends prefer to be called 'black' over "African-American"...and that, of course, applies to people in the U.S.

    17. Re:You stoooopid! by radja · · Score: 1

      ofcourse you're toally ignoring the fact that israel has unilaterally confiscated (i.e. stolen) quite some plots of land, including part of jeruzalem and the golan heights. if israel wanted peace, they'd start implementing resolution 242, and give back all the occupied territories.

      --

      No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
      --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
    18. Re:You stoooopid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Israel's Knesset bans all Arabs from cabinet posts in government, they're not as fair as you think."
      This is an absolute lie. There have been Arabs elected to and sitting in the Knesset (parliament) consistently since 1948. Arab citizens of Israel have more rights under the law than they do in any Arab country.
      He specifically wrote "bans all Arabs from cabinet posts," you stupid shit.
    19. Re:You stoooopid! by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      That whole scuffle was Israel versus Iran-By-Proxy.

      No, it was the USA verses Iran by proxy. While Iran was helping Hezbolla, the USA was providing Israel with sat intel, communications intercepts and all the weapons they could handle.

      It's a warmup for the real thing which is likely to start within the next 12 months. Just after the midterms I reckon.

    20. Re:You stoooopid! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Okay, I realize I'm replying to a joke that isn't trying to do more tie the first available news article to the most obvious rebuttle, even if they don't really match, but still.

      Both sides claim victory

      But only one discussed sacking those responsible for the "victory".


      Ragtag militia gets 100 Million dollars a year from Iran
      Ragtag militia has advanced wire-guided anti-tank missles
      Ragtag militia has advanced anti-ship missles
      Ragtag militia holds 11% of the seats in parliament
      Ragtag militia's political bloc holds 27.5% of seats in parliment


      While Israel spent over $9 billion on defense last year, and also receives aid from the U.S. On paper, it isn't supposed to be a contest. Based on Israel's boasting before the war, it wasn't supposed to be a contest. They've faced the full-fledged national armies of recognized modern states. This is a "rogue terrorist group" that despite its role in politics and de-facto rulership of the south, is not part of the Lebanese military. Yes, they have anti-tank missles (the majority being RPG-29s, not wire-guided) and just enough anti-ship weapons to keep Israel on their toes. Again, this is not the same as a full-fledged modern military, like the IDF is supposed to be. They are a guerilla force vs 1st-world military.

      Hezbollah destroyed or damaged up to 50 tanks. Israel has 3600

      Wow, that's even more than I thought! I had last heard it was less than 20. You do realize that is a lot of tanks, don't you? That's 50 MBTs in 38 days. That's more than twice what the U.S. has lost in three years of fighting. For a tank that's touted as having even more survivability than most other MBTs, that is a truly sad showing.

      That's more than 1% of their entire tank force, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of equipment, in just over a month in combat vs an enemy that can field neither armor nor air power. You're distrubingly disconnected from reality if you think "only" losing 50 tanks is anything but a disaster for Israel.

      While fighting to a standstill, Israel was able to occupy ground up to 30km into Lebanon.
      While fighting to a standstill, Hezbollah was able to occupy ground up to -30km into Israel.


      30km is pathetic when you're chasing after a guerilla force, who routinely retreat and give up villages and then come around to re-take the village you just left. That just means the farthest they drove into Lebanon was 30k, not that this actually represented military gain. Your second statement makes it look like you think Hezbollah actually wanted to invade Israel, which is retarded. Hezbollah didn't want to invade Israel, they wanted Israel to invade Lebanon so they could fight the IDF in their home turf where all their tunnels, pill boxes, and kill zones were prepared. Those 30km were Hezbollah's killing grounds, and as long as the IDF was stuck there they were in fact at a standstill.

      Israel controls the land held by Hezbollah until an International force relieves them.

      Your conflation of "is present in" with "controls" is rather amusing. Funny that the article you cite doesn't make it sound like Israel "controls" the land -- usually, if one of your helicoptors crashes in land you control, you're able to send rescuers to get the crew. I guess the problem was that Hezbollah didn't agree that IDF controlled it!

      Hezbollah didn't expect a war at all

      If Nasrallah said he didn't expect the Katyusha missles launched at Israel to kill civilians, that he thought they'd turn into flowers and bring peace between their peoples, would you believe him? You might, if inexplicable credulity served your purpose.

      Yeah, Nasrallah didn't expect Israel to attack, despite Israel attacking the Palestinians after Hamas kidnapped a soldier just prior. That's believable. Or just maybe he's spinning it because he's trying to counter the criticism leveled at Hezbollah for provoking Israel, indirectly causing the destruction wrecked by IDF's bombing campaign? It's blatant P.R. to make Israel look brutal. Nobody with any sense actually thinks Hezbollah didn't want war.

      ROFL

      Your catch phrase I assume?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    21. Re:You stoooopid! by ROFLcoptor · · Score: 1

      But only one discussed sacking those responsible for the "victory".

      They both claimed victory. They both claim they sacked the other side. Where's your source anyway?

      While Israel spent over $9 billion on defense last year, and also receives aid from the U.S. On paper, it isn't supposed to be a contest. Based on Israel's boasting before the war, it wasn't supposed to be a contest. They've faced the full-fledged national armies of recognized modern states. This is a "rogue terrorist group" that despite its role in politics and de-facto rulership of the south, is not part of the Lebanese military.

      Again, cite your sources. The point I made was that Hezbollah is certainly not a "Ragtag militia" as the parent suggested.
      "Ragtag militias" don't get an annual funding of $100M.

      Yes, they have anti-tank missles (the majority being RPG-29s, not wire-guided) and just enough anti-ship weapons to keep Israel on their toes.

      They did indeed have wire-guided missles. Where is your source that proves otherwise?

      Wow, that's even more than I thought! I had last heard it was less than 20. You do realize that is a lot of tanks, don't you? That's 50 MBTs in 38 days. That's more than twice what the U.S. has lost in three years of fighting. For a tank that's touted as having even more survivability than most other MBTs, that is a truly sad showing.
      That's more than 1% of their entire tank force, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of equipment, in just over a month in combat vs an enemy that can field neither armor nor air power. You're distrubingly disconnected from reality if you think "only" losing 50 tanks is anything but a disaster for Israel.

      Again, where are your souces?

      30km is pathetic when you're chasing after a guerilla force, who routinely retreat and give up villages and then come around to re-take the village you just left. That just means the farthest they drove into Lebanon was 30k, not that this actually represented military gain. Your second statement makes it look like you think Hezbollah actually wanted to invade Israel, which is retarded. Hezbollah didn't want to invade Israel, they wanted Israel to invade Lebanon so they could fight the IDF in their home turf where all their tunnels, pill boxes, and kill zones were prepared.

      Do I even have to ask for sources again? The point is Hezbollah lost ground. Period. If Israel was doing badly and lost ground, you can bet Hezbollah would have taken that ground from them. If Hezbollah's master plan was to let themselves be invaded by Israel (which Nasrallah didn't expect would happen) then you would have to admit it was a pretty stupid plan.

      Those 30km were Hezbollah's killing grounds, and as long as the IDF was stuck there they were in fact at a standstill.

      Sources? The IDF was not fought to a standstill - they could have completely rolled over Lebanon. Yet it is true to say the politicians (especially Olmert) were fought to a standstill and forced the IDF to stop as a result. Weak politicians != weak military.

      Your conflation of "is present in" with "controls" is rather amusing. Funny that the article you cite doesn't make it sound like Israel "controls" the land ...

      Almost as funny as you citing absolutely nothing at all!

      ...usually, if one of your helicoptors crashes in land you control, you're able to send rescuers to get the crew. I guess the problem was that Hezbollah didn't agree that IDF controlled it!

      ...except that your wrong and Israel does control it.

    22. Re:You stoooopid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the fench also ??
      wow I didn't think you were THAT racist ..

  8. Re:styles broken? by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    And all the text shrunk! CTRL "+"!

  9. I thought the Israelis were sharper than that by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 4, Funny

    They should have used the New Testament Bible Code, not the Old Testament Bible Code.

    1. Re:I thought the Israelis were sharper than that by lixee · · Score: 1

      Get the latest! Upgrade to the Quran code.

      --
      Res publica non dominetur
    2. Re:I thought the Israelis were sharper than that by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      I didn't see the movie - which one is the DaVinci code?

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    3. Re:I thought the Israelis were sharper than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Get the latest! Upgrade to the Quran code.

      Uhh... that would be more commonly known as pseudo-code. ;-)

    4. Re:I thought the Israelis were sharper than that by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      There is no Bible in Judaeism, let alone a "New Testament." The Torah is pretty much the same as the first 5 books of the Christian Old Testament, but that's about it.

      For future reference: Jokes are usually better when they're relevant, or at least intentionally irrelevant.

    5. Re:I thought the Israelis were sharper than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > They should have used the New Testament Bible Code, not the Old Testament Bible Code.

      "What did he say ?"

      "I don't know - it's Greek to me ..."

  10. I think it may be several things by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    One is that you have to remember that though somewhat unified, groups like Hezbollah are not military and are essentially made up of a bunch of thugs. They don't have the kind of strict discipline that one might associate with a normal military. There can be factions that don't agree with the leadership and so on. For that matter there may be groups that call themselves Hezbollah that the actual Hezbollah doesn't think is affiliated with them.

    The other thing you have to remember is that terrorist type groups have decided to play a PR war. Makes sense since they have no chance militarily. I mean Hezbollah could take every fighter they have, the best arms they have, and launch an assault on Israel. The net result would be no more Hezbollah. So they play a PR war game, which means trying to make your enemies look weak and stupid. Well this kind of thing would play in to that, they just perhaps didn't think of the implications.

    Or maybe they knew that Israel knew that their communications had been compromised, so decided that they'd use it for propaganda value since the cat was already out of the bag.

    Either way you can't apply more classical military logic to the situation because it's not two militaries facing off.

    1. Re:I think it may be several things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      groups like Hezbollah are not military and are essentially made up of a bunch of thugs

      I love when news bounces right off someone's ultra-thick skull. Hacking the enemy comms is just one piece of evidence among many that Hezbollah is much more militarly sophisticated that anyone assumed. Just because they are unable to invade Isreal doesn't change the fact that they were vastly underestimated by the people trying to kill them.

    2. Re:I think it may be several things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The foregoing comment displays a wanton ignorance of the actuality of guerilla conflict. It's obviously not classically militaristic, and it overtly is important to have effective propaganda when your group is like 'fish in the sea'.

      You say Hezbollah wouldn't have a chance if they launched a direct assault on Israel. The group would never try this. It would be lunacy. But this is not about arms or numbers, it is about the persistence of a threat, and the ongoing support of a community, or international allies - which in part requires the assertion of some sense of achievement or progress.

      It's about perpetuation, not all out victory. If they were ever appeased they'd wilt and die as a group, but this is politically impossible, and terminally unlikely.

      Your thoughts are vapid, base, and not worth making. Sorry.

    3. Re:I think it may be several things by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      What a shortsighted (and incorrect) view of the situation.

      The arab Shia are the largest ethnic/religious group in Lebanon, at 30% (if you break it down by religion only, the Christians are larger, although there are many different, and sometimes conflicting, Christian sects). Hezbollah is their largest *political party*, which has a private militia that is more powerful than the Lebanese army (largely thanks to Iran and Syria's generosity, but also thanks to extensive training in fighting the Israeli army since the early 80's). The next largest political party, Amal, doesn't have near their level of support. Of course, don't think too mildly of Amal, either -- they fought Israel just as hard, even during this war, although they don't have Hezbollah's resources. Hezbollah is not only a major political party, but is the country's second largest employer, mostly for its network of government services that it provided to areas that the Lebanese government was either unable to or unwilling to provide to -- schools, hospitals, etc. Public service activism is one of the main ways that the party wins support, even down to the local level. I saw a documentary recently where one Hezbollah woman talked about an initiative she started in which Hezbollah families would stock medical supplies in their homes. Whenever anyone was injured, they could come and get treated for free, so that even if the hospitals were destroyed or taken over, people could get care. By doing things like this, addition to helping their own people, they rally support for Hezbollah at the same time.

      Hezbollah has a very tight military discipline. They've been using what's termed "fourth generation warfare" by US military analysts. It combines classic guerella tactics with modern weaponry and a unique "peer to peer" communications structure. Weaponry is buried until used, then restored immediately, always in numerous, small caches, making it incredibly difficult to destroy. Local cells operate in their hometowns or other supportive territory, and are able to pick and choose targets as will. Groups communicate with their neighbors to exchange intelligence information; critical information is sent through hardened channels, sometimes even through physical runners. Overall strategy and reserves are controlled by Hezbollah itself. In the 2006 conflict with Israel, the army was bogged down in dealing with the local cells, in their supportive terrain.

      Contrary to popular myth, Hezbollah (unlike Hamas and the other Palestinian groups) prefers not to operate around civilians. Not for a concern for the civilians' safety -- they'll confiscate buildings to use as shooting positions if needed, whether their owners like it or not -- but for their own safety. Hamas operates openly as a sign of pride and defiance. However, by doing that, it only takes a tiny handful of defectors to point out to Israel where they are and what they're doing. Hezbollah, on the other hand, prefers to operate in areas where nobody is around to reduce the risk of being exposed by defectors.

      As we saw in the last conflict, they're a very effective military, and it's a big question mark on how to deal with them. It's almost funny how the major Arab powers were defeated one after another, yet this tiny band was blowing up warships and taking out hundreds of Merkavas, in addition to maintaining a steady rain of over 100 Katyushas per day throughout the entire conflict. And now their popularity is soaring -- not just in other countries, but even in Lebanon, where they started the conflict. Check out these polls. Check out this as well.

      --
      No, she's fine. My associate is vomiting for a totally unrelated reason.
    4. Re:I think it may be several things by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Big deal. Those tactics can easily be overcome with genocide, so they're unlikely to be practical in the wars planned for 2007 and 2008.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    5. Re:I think it may be several things by russ1337 · · Score: 1
      Hezbollah are not military and are essentially made up of a bunch of thugs.
      I give you:

      Hezbollah is not a small guerrilla organization. It is a trained, skilled, well-organized, highly motivated infantry that is equipped with the cream of the crop of modern weaponry from the arsenals of Syria, Iran, Russia and China, and which is very familiar with the territory on which it is fighting. Hezbollah military is considered to be the most capable non-state armed group in the Middle East. Jane's Information Group:

      "Islamic Resistance guerrillas are reckoned to be amongst the most dedicated, motivated and highly trained of their kind. Any Hezbollah member receiving military training is likely to do so at the hands of IRGC [the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps], either in southern Lebanon or in camps in Iran. The increasingly sophisticated methods used by IRGC members indicates that they are trained using Israeli and US military manuals; the emphasis of this training is on the tactics of attrition, mobility, intelligence gathering and night-time manoeuvres.(REF)

      and
      Hezbollah's strength was enhanced by the dispatching of one thousand to fifteen hundred members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the financial backing of Iran.
      Thugs indeed. - highly trained, skilled, well funded clever thugs...
    6. Re:I think it may be several things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah, that's the thing. Relying on those tactics is relying upon your opponent's sense of mercy, which is something they may find lacking if they "succeed" and a nuclear weapon goes off in in US soil. Of course, the irony is that if roles were reversed, you can be sure that the Islamists wouldn't hesitate to exterminate any of us infidels in the West.

    7. Re:I think it may be several things by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You may be surprised to know that you're a part of the problem. Terrorism isn't anything special. It's just a mode of combat, the only way that a poor and backwards group of people can attack a wealthy nation located thousands of miles from where they live.

      They aren't trying to exterminate us, they are conducting a war against us. Just like ANY war, one of the ways to end it is diplomatically. The war they are conducting has goals that they'd like to achieve, and only the most ignorant would think that they want to simply exterminate us.

      I don't think that the average American would feel that our country has lost any respect at all if we tried to figure out what is pissing those people off so much, and figured out how to address that problem to remove their reason to fight. It's the only way any lasting peace will be achieved.

      We could also do it your way and just kill them all. It's certainly a lot easier, since it doesn't require any of us to understand anything. We don't even have to vote. Plus, it makes great TV for Fox to play.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    8. Re:I think it may be several things by rewt66 · · Score: 1

      Historically, there have been a number of intolerant Islamic regimes. There have also been tolerant ones.

      Look, I'm not a Muslim apoligist. I'm both an American and a born-again Jesus freak, and I do not want to live under Islamic government. But history is what it is, and you're painting with too broad a brush.

      And woe to us if we go with genocide. Yeah, we'd win the war (at least for a few years). But we'd lose... I guess this is overstating it slightly, but we'd lose our humanity. Or at least something worth having, something precious to western civilization, the idea of treating other human beings with decency. (See Nuremburg for why this is important.) And we'd sow seeds of hatred that would last for centuries, rather than just for decades...

    9. Re:I think it may be several things by angelasmark · · Score: 1

      Not to pick apart your post... but uhhh... I think we sowed the seeds of hatred that would last for centuries with the crusades. They still bring that up from time to time. Don't think we need to worry about that.

    10. Re:I think it may be several things by rewt66 · · Score: 1
      Sure we did. The question is, do we want to do it again?

      \ And it's one thing to say, "Yeah, our ancestors in other countries did that a thousand years ago, but, hey, we're not like that." It's quite another to demonstrate, both to the world and to ourselves, that yes, we are like that.

    11. Re:I think it may be several things by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      The crusades were started by Islamic radicals butchering Christian pilgrims on the way to Jerusalem.

      I guess I'd call that unprovoked terrorism.

      It's funny how history repeats itself, sometimes.

    12. Re:I think it may be several things by yog · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > resources. Hezbollah is not only a major political party, but is the country's
      > second largest employer, mostly for its network of government services that it
      > provided to areas that the Lebanese government was either unable to or unwilling
      > to provide to -- schools, hospitals, etc. Public service activism is one of the
      > main ways that the party wins support, even down to the local level. I saw a

      Yes, but it's Iranian money; Hezbollah is basically an Iranian shell company. One could argue that they've bought loyalty with this money. But there's evidence that some of this loyalty has been frayed by anger at the pointless destruction that Nasrallah's group instigated.

      There's also anecdotal reports about people who were ordered to stay put in southern Lebanese towns by Hezbollah gunmen, apparently to provide more human shields.

      > Contrary to popular myth, Hezbollah (unlike Hamas and the other Palestinian
      > groups) prefers not to operate around civilians. Not for a concern for the
      > civilians' safety -- they'll confiscate buildings to use as shooting positions
      > if needed, whether their owners like it or not -- but for their own
      > safety. Hamas operates openly as a sign of pride and defiance. However, by
      > doing that, it only takes a tiny handful of defectors to point out to Israel
      > where they are and what they're doing. Hezbollah, on the other hand, prefers to
      > operate in areas where nobody is around to reduce the risk of being exposed by
      > defectors.

      This may be true but many Hez fighters nonetheless operated extensively around civilians, sometimes in the same building but more often near civilian-occupied structures.

      > As we saw in the last conflict, they're a very effective military, and it's a
      > big question mark on how to deal with them. It's almost funny how the major
      > Arab powers were defeated one after another, yet this tiny band was blowing up
      > warships and taking out hundreds of Merkavas, in addition to maintaining a
      > steady rain of over 100 Katyushas per day throughout the entire conflict. And
      > now their popularity is soaring -- not just in other countries, but even in
      > Lebanon, where they started the conflict. Check out these polls. Check out this
      > as well.

      As stated previously, there is also a lot of anger at Hezbollah for starting the conflict which wrecked people's homes across the south as well as parts of Beirut and set the country back many years in its economic development. Hezbollah has resorted to paying off returning families with $10K grants and crowing about its victory, while opposition editorialists have denounced Hezbollah for their reckless adventure.

      Hezbollah certainly did not take out "hundreds of Merkavas"; I believe the number is more like 13, and the IDF is claiming that the Merkavas actually performed very well--probably would have done even better without this communications hacking disaster, and no doubt they have a lot more incentive now to get off their duffs and install the Trophy system (reported on /. a few months ago). The one hit to a battleship was made by an Iranian guided missile system that was probably manned by Iranian technicians. It's doubtful that Hezbollah could pull that off on its own, though with extensive training they could probably man future missile batteries. It should be noted that the Israeli air force took out most of the Iranian missile batteries in about 34 minutes at the outset of the war, unfortunately not all of them however.

      Given 4-5 more weeks, Israel would undoubtedly have degraded Hezbollah significantly enough that it would not be a threat again for a long time. Note how after claiming he would never cease fire, Nasrallah hypocritically sued for a cease-fire, and Israel's stupid government caved to U.S. pressure to call it off just when they were finally winning.

      Privately, the Iranians are said to consider this war a disaster bo

      --
      it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
    13. Re:I think it may be several things by MikShapi · · Score: 1, Informative

      Say, what about all the /good/ things Hitler did?

      1. Hezbollah *does* hide behind civillians, thank you very much. Not two months ago it was hiding artillery units - rocketry - in urban areas.
      2. The fact that they're brainwashing them (al-manaar?), bribing (should I say "buying"?) their political supporters with Iranian cash (12,000$ per household payments?), and offering them a lifeline (employement? social welfare?) does not change the fact that this organization uses the political power thus purchased to push their agenda (as opposed to that of the people it bribed) and doesn't make them any less of what they are - a fundamentalist religious movement intent on zeal, provocation, further conflict and utter elimination of one of its neighbouring countries.
      3. Hezbollah uses hitlerian propaganda tactics to brainwash, incite and worst of all teach hate starting at infancy, demonizing the west as lesser human beings. Ask any 3-year-old from a Hezbollah-funded kindergarden, he'll be happy to explain it to you using all the graphic terms you'd expect. All that Iranian money doesn't come for free you know.
      4. Hezbollah is "a political party" when it needs to be, and a sovereign not answerable to the government it was claiming to be a part of (i.e. has its own military) when it needs to be. For the life of me I haven't figured this out. How *does* that work? What would happen in the hypothetical situation that it declared war against a neighbour? would it still be ... representative of the government it's pretending to go along with while making its own policy? Would that government have a say? Can you be a leading part of a democracy and a traitor wildly betraying its underlying principles at the same time?
      In Lebanon, as it appears, you very much can. All you need is a solid supply of cash and guns.

      You'd have to be either pushing a close agenda or seriously naive (I shy away from harder terms) to be giving the pitch about their legitimacy.
      So... what /about/ all the /good/ things Hitler did?

      Case in point: doing any amount of good does not absolve you of doing evil or driving a zealous agenda opposed to any modern values (values cynically used by offending party left and right, often exagerated or simply lied about, to show the party's suffering and gather support, mind you).

      Hezbollah, is busy putting on a snake-oil-salesman smile and buying political support from dirt-poor shia with a serious inferiority complex.
      Fixing this would first and foremost mean its financial source be replaced with one coming from people that don't blindly hate and are thus socially compatible with the rest of the peoples of the modern world. With money come the macro interests being followed.

      --
      -
    14. Re:I think it may be several things by naz225 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I saw a live interview on Sky News (in the UK) with their correspondent David Bowden during the war, in which he said that Hezbollah did not fire rockets close to, or from buildings. Instead they typically fired from olive plantations. About three seconds later the transmission was mysteriously lost. Obviously it wasn't what the Israelis wanted viewers to hear. If the media misled people about this, then what is to say they didn't mislead viewers over the number of tanks the Israelis lost? Propaganda is a key element of war these days, and nothing can be broadcast from Israel without being subject to censorship. You really think Israel was winning? Why is it then, that during the last days before the ceasefire they came under the heaviest rocket attacks of the war? Also, the Israeli army is far from being outdated and under funded, complacent and under trained perhaps, but not under funded. Do you even know how much they get from the American government on a yearly basis? Surely you must have been aware of the arms shipments, consisting of the latest bombs that took place during the fighting? It caused a bit of fuss in the UK at the time. Don't trust without question what you see on the news broadcast, they show you what they want you to see, with the slant that they want it to have.

    15. Re:I think it may be several things by naz225 · · Score: 1

      Without agreeing, or disagreeing with anything you've said, I'd like to ask you this...do you believe Israel is a totally innocent party that is free from having committed grievous acts against the Palestinians and Lebanese?

    16. Re:I think it may be several things by hunterx11 · · Score: 1

      The relevance of the Crusades today is practically nil compared to things that still have a very real impact like the legacy of British and French imperialism in the Middle East, or U.S. foreign policy in the last century.

      --
      English is easier said than done.
    17. Re:I think it may be several things by Shipud · · Score: 2, Informative

      yet this tiny band was blowing up warships and taking out hundreds of Merkavas

      "Tiny band": estimated 3,000 regulars + 10,000 reserves. Not exactly "tiny" by Middle Eastern standards

      "hundreds of merkava tanks": 14

      "blowing up warships": one ship was damaged and towed for repairs. Hardly blown up, definitely not in the plural

      I must congratulate you on managing to compress so many lies into a singe sentence....

      --
      /sdrawkcab si gis siht
    18. Re:I think it may be several things by dbIII · · Score: 2, Insightful
      As stated previously, there is also a lot of anger at Hezbollah for starting the conflict

      Which war were you watching? The one I was watching had a bunch of right wing Israeli politicians in an unstable situation looking for an excuse to go to war and boost their popularity - but it backfired and turned into a month long recruiting drive for Hizbollah paid for by Israel and the USA - making both Israel and the USA look bad. The USA was left in the situation of paying for a lot of weapons, having no say in how they are used, having eveyone hate them as they pulled missile fragments labelled "made in the USA" off their dead kids and the USA having to pay some of the money to clean up the mess.

      The thing I don't understand is the claims that they are all just agents of Iran and that Palestinians have nothing whatsover to do with it - that's simplistic and stupid. A news program in my country had to apologise for saying this, but it is true that Hizbollah has a lot of Palestinians in it and it is true that Iran will sell weapons to any group that they share any ideals with. It is as stupid as Nixon trying to scare the USSR into putting pressure on North Vietnam and thinking the place was micromanaged out of the Kremlin instead of a bunch playing China and the USSR off each other. There is no way this is micromanaged out of Tehran, but it is also true that there is some involvement. Most of it is Israelis and Palestinians fighting it out in Southern Lebanon as has been happening on and off for a long time. Syria is of course mightily pissed off from losing their territory and is involved as well.

    19. Re:I think it may be several things by MikShapi · · Score: 1

      >> I'd like to ask you this...do you believe Israel is a totally innocent party that is free from having committed grievous acts against the Palestinians and Lebanese?

      Shit no, though that's two very different puddles you're mixing there.

      Palestinians? I don't agree with Israel's 40-year-old policy regarding them and the Jewish fanatics it funded to go live among them, I do agree there should be a barrier, I don't think it's fairly placed and I do think that barrier is better than no barrier (considering a fair one has no fighting chance in the Israeli ballot box, making it a choice between this one and none at all).

      Lebanese? To a very very lessened degree, but still so.

      To directly answer your carefully-worded question, is it a "totally innocent party"? no, by no means. Nobody is ever innocent in a war.

      While Hezbollah has been issuing provocation after provocation since Israel left Lebanon in 2000, amassing more and more guns at the border, making incursions into Israeli territory, abducting people and firing across the border, I think the 6-year-old policy of taking it standing and ignoring it despite the pain was a policy that served Israel well.
      Going in full-force did hurt Israeli interests (this is my opinion - Israel gained some, it lost some and it's really a matter of opinion of whether it was justified). To the point, choosing not to do so would have resulted in less innocent loss, both in life and in macro-effect on Lebanon as a nation and all its residents indirectly through the nation getting trashed.

      But the fact that Israel could have acted differently (and thus has its hands in the responsibility pile) does not make an even moral ground. Again, just because the Hezbollah was not the only one playing this out and driving at the eventual outcome does not make it any less hitlerian in the incitement/propaganda/teach-kids-to-hate department, or any less a bunch morally bankrupt fanatics with a bought "electoral" base.

      Looking at your question, it may be worthwhile to point out that Israel is
      [a] A democracy. It follows the interests of the people who elect its government. Like any real democracy, its government cannot follow a narrow fanatical agenda without putting its political future on the line. The lebanese government, as of the time one of the parties had an armed militia running around declaring war on neighbours is at most a cynnical parody of a democracy upheld by a fundamentalist mob, and an externally-funded one at that.
      [b] Motivated by security of its citizens and by removing the threats of armaments pointing at them, not by a religious crusade to dismantle it's neighbouring state and instill its religion on the area. If you're one of those who think the present Israeli incursion into Lebanon is either an imperialistic crusade or religiously-motivated, you're buying too hard into the abovementioned propaganda and should probbably take a shot at trying to prove such a claim.
      [c] Not brainwashing its 3-year-olds to hate the people on the other side of the fence.

      On the other hand, it would have (again, opinion) been much wiser for Israel to have refrained from retaliating a while longer and let the newly-established Lebanese system fall into place and do its own dirty laundry without the need to flatten half the country. We can speculate all day as to how much chance that had of happening, but I do think the Lebanese deserved (still deserve) a fair shot at it.

      I daresay you're thinking along the wrong lines. You're thinking "who do we blame?" and "Who is right?" "Who is getting hurt?"
      The answers to these are always self serving, and the real answer is always "Everybody", "Everybody" and "Everybody" respectively.

      The questions smarter people ask is "What can we [each sitting in whatever place in the world he's sitting] do to prevent it from happening further? How can we /fix/ it? An Israeli or Lebanese might make take this question with him to the ballot box. Some may reevaluate the moral

      --
      -
    20. Re:I think it may be several things by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Every country has radical loonies. One problem in that part of the world is we have idiots that pretend to have Jewish values but actually preach genocide with a major say in politics on one side and a bunch that want to drive the Israeli settlers into the sea on the other. It isn't going to get any better by trying to kill everyone that opposes certain views - that's how we ended up with people in Lebanon with nothing to lose becoming suicide bombers some years back in the first place, and it has since spread to Palestine and Iraq.

    21. Re:I think it may be several things by dbIII · · Score: 1
      "What can we [each sitting in whatever place in the world he's sitting] do to prevent it from happening further?

      What can we do? We can only really deal with the people that are already talking with us because it will take years to build up trust with people that are blaming everyone in the outside world for the death of their kids. We can fix the things like missile paid for by the US Marines getting deliberately fired into an ambulance by an Israeli helicopter (I'm talking the incident several years back, not the recent ambulance incident). If we don't approve of such a use we can convice the government that the US taxpayer should not be paying for it, which will eventually trickle down to people in the Israeli army having to account for expensive missiles and perhaps only using them against military targets. We can also do things like insist that the Geneva convention is followed and not give free stuff to countries that defy it. We can't take the line that we'll let one side do bad things because the other side is also doing that - it's an excuse that most children grow out of so we shouldn't accept it from diplomats.

    22. Re:I think it may be several things by MikShapi · · Score: 1

      Every country has radical loonies, but not every country is run by radical loonies. Some countries actually have failsafe mechanisms to prevent the odd radical looney from doing too much damage in office. Things like provisions when a leader is to be removed. Things like separation between government and religion. Things like freedom of press. Things like elections. Things like a transparent system. Others simply don't.
      Some (not all) are being taken advantage of due to this. Can you tell me what happens after Mubarak in Egypt? is there a system resilient enough to prevent radicals from taking power? Jordan? Turkey? Quwait?

      >> One problem in that part of the world is we have idiots that pretend to have Jewish values but actually preach genocide with a major say in politics on one side and a bunch that want to drive the Israeli settlers into the sea on the other

      I think that's a fairly good summary, though if you've been following either Israeli or Lebanese politics lately you'd have known said Israeli idiots have much less say than they used to and have and have largely alienated themselves to the marjority of Israelis (for the exact purpose you've quoted). The trend is good on the Lebanese side as well, Seniora's government, while having Hezballah cabinet members, is nothing short of miraculously pragmatic.

      I hope we see more of this kind of trend on both sides, and in fact everywhere else throughout the middle-east.

      >> It isn't going to get any better by trying to kill everyone that opposes certain views
      Again, I couldn't agree more.

      So... how do we get dubya on this train?

      --
      -
    23. Re:I think it may be several things by MikShapi · · Score: 1

      Several things.
      [a]
      You're raising a mute point: Israel is well capable (and is often in the habit of) of manufacturing its own [A-A, A-G, you name it] missiles. If it won't be an american Hellfire, It'll be an Israeli-made Popeye.

      Contrary to your understanding, the US taxpayer is not paying for it. Israel buying these missiles from the US rather than manufacturing it means more jobs in the US, more American companies and individuals earn income. It's money recycled from and back to the the American economy, not money spent.

      Buying arms with american-provided cash saves Israel some (at the expense of jobs local manufacturing would create), but that will not prevent the next ambulance from being hit by a missile. One way or another, the missle stays in the equation.

      Mute point, QED.

      [b]
      Regarding shooting ambulances (we'll take that as a case study, this goes similarly to other moral taboos)

      What some fundamentalists do is prey on the fact that they are "morally unencumbered", yet the rest of the world they're selling the show to is not.
      You speak of shooting at ambulances as a bad thing. Most of us would agree it is. Or at least used to be.

      Used to be until people started taking advantage of that fact, smuggling bombs in them, even caught smuggling a bomb under the clothes of a woman made to look pregnant, with Hezballah following suit using them so smuggle guns. Consequently, ambulances passing Israeli checkpoints are now searched, to the great (and sometimes fatal) dismay of the (actually sick/dying) people inside them. The radicals are of course very happy about this as it can now point at Israel and yell "look at these inhuman butchers, searching/firing at ambulances!".

      Sadly, the real butchers in this story are those who violate the taboo by taking advantage of the opposing side's respect for it to further their agenda. As of the moment this taboo is not respected by either side, the moment the ambulance becomes a serious security vulnerability that can and is used to transport terrorists, bombs or armaments, the taboo is (sadly, yet unavoidably) void, and ambulances become fair game.

      So is life. You can't eat the cake and leave it whole.

      The game has changed since the Geneva convention. It's only a matter of time before the official laws of acceptable warfare naturally adjust themselves to the new ballgame being played.
      A game cannot be played when one side doesn't respect the rules yet can't stop whining about the other not following them at the same time.

      Thus, when you say "people in the Israeli army having to account for expensive missiles and perhaps only using them against military targets" is again a mute point.
      Not unlike my country, Israel doesn't use its army to dick around. It uses its army to defend its citizens. If the offender is an invading military, it points its arms to it. If the offender is a bunch of aliens, it will point its arms to it, and if the offender is a radical muslim army hiding in civillian clothes and carefully choosing their fortified positions to be near schools and mosques, that's where the arms get pointed.
      Churchill bombed the living shit out of 200,000 civillians in Dresden because there were strategically significant targets there.
      A threat is a threat and a war is a war. And yes, it's ugly. Smart people who don't want it prevent it, not cause/allow it to start and then bitch.

      >> We can't take the line that we'll let one side do bad things because the other side is also doing that
      Amen. Now if only everyone applied it to themselves and stopped justifying its wrongs by way of the other side's wrongs, wouldn't it be a nicer world?

      --
      -
    24. Re:I think it may be several things by yog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > Don't trust without question what you see on the news broadcast, they show you what
      > they want you to see, with the slant that they want it to have.

      Hm, I don't watch TV but I do read a lot. The Israeli army, especially the reservists, has had its budgets cut a lot in recent years, and its equipment is old. There's a famous report of some reservists obtaining new backpacks from a wealthy American relative because the IDF expected them to go with whatever they had. The tanks were also running outdated equipment. The Israelis asked for an accelerated shipment of bunker busting bombs from the U.S. and undoubtedly other less public items, but it's a bit of a stretch to say they were completely up to date with their equipment. Here is where Ariel Sharon really fell down on the job, thinking that war with Lebanon was never going to happen.

      Hezbollah would like us all to believe they beat the mighty Israeli army through sheer valour and righteousness, but in fact it was more like a combination of Hezbollah competence and preparedness and Israeli unpreparedness for their tactics. The rematch will be different, I think, because a competent Israeli leadership would not make the same mistakes again, and I strongly suspect that the current leadership is going to be booted out. Hezbollah, meanwhile, has shown every card in their hand and will have to go back to the drawing board and reinvent themselves in order to take the Israelis by surprise a second time.

      As for Katyusha launchers, there are satellite and drone photographs of the things sitting in courtyards of buildings; Hezbollah certainly didn't avoid dwellings, and the Israelis certainly didn't go after buildings just to be vindictive; every civilian they hit becomes another martyr and propaganda point for the enemy.

      The heavy rocket attacks by Hezbollah were undeniably a very visible, if largely ineffective, aspect of their arsenal. I'm sure it made for great TV footage. The Israeli air force destroyed most of them, but it only takes one launcher to send 100 rockets a day, and they apparently had thousands of rockets hidden in caves and caches, so it was going to be a long, slow slog to get rid of all of them. I think the Katyushas were more impressive as a propaganda thing than as a strategic weapon; they hardly hit any military targets, and mainly were able to hit Haifa, a religiously mixed city known for its relatively harmonious Jewish-Arab relations (ironically).

      Despite its losses, Israel was steadily degrading Hezbollah, and a few more weeks would have forced Hezbollah to stop firing Katyushas in order to avoid losing its last remaining rocket launchers, and losing men at a rate of 100/week would have reduced Hez as a fighting force. Israel could have and probably should have stayed a few weeks longer, because now Syria and Iran are sending tons of new equipment to Lebanon and rearming Hez as quickly as they can. Israel is certainly watching all of this; they keep sending their drones over Lebanon and it's likely they know where Nasrallah is and what he had for breakfast, and wondering whether to take him out or not. This fight's not over yet.

      --
      it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
    25. Re:I think it may be several things by takochan · · Score: 1


      >I don't think that the average American would feel that our country has lost any respect at all if we

      Yep thats right. Actually, arab people aren't generally different than we are (exception of various nutcases wako's around, but the USA has its plenty share too)

      >tried to figure out what is pissing those people off so much, and figured out how to address that
      >problem to remove their reason to fight. It's the only way any lasting peace will be achieved.

      Its very simple, and not unreasonable actually..

      1)The Palestinians want (at least some of) their land back, and they want their country back (it was where Israel is now). The Israelis don't want to give (any of) it back.

      2)Arabs want the USA to stop funding Israel's army and govt, as they are going around the middle east bombing and terrorizing the palestians as well as their neighbors, and the arabs are absolutely sick of it. 9/11 and such was (a rather extreme) case of 'what goes around, comes around'.. see www.aljazeera.net for a daily rundown of what the Israelis do daily over there, all paid for with US free money, free bombs & free support.

      3)If the Israeli's (and the USA) want 'terrorism' to stop, see point #1 above.

      Basically thats it.. its very simple really.

    26. Re:I think it may be several things by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Contrary to your understanding, the US taxpayer is not paying for it.
      Missiles have serial numbers. That paticular missile as recovered by UN troops who saw the impact and a second one that did not explode were manufactured by Lockheed in Florida and sold to the US Marines. Representatives of Lockheed were very surprised that their missile ended up in a civilian ambulance, as were representatives of the US Marines who would have preffered to get their own budget instead of paying for gifts to Israel dropped off on the way back from Kuwait as well as many others coming via other means.

      ambulances ... Used to be until people started taking advantage of that fact, smuggling bombs in them
      There were disinterested UN and press witnesses to the event which render this elaborate argument pointless in this instance. As for fabricating more atrocities - there are enough for the propaganda of anyone without some wild conspiricy theory of tricking people into bombing ambulances.

      Not unlike my country, Israel doesn't use its army to dick around. It uses its army to defend its citizens
      Obviously a lot of other operations as well - don't take it from me pay attention to the news, paticularly in actions around the many settlements in the Palestinian areas as well as the recent and to some extent still ongoing operations in Southern Lebanon - those Israeli troops in the hills above Tyre now did not just get forgotten in the withdrawal. My point is that military actions are very cheap for the current Israeli government with little personal consequence or accountability and foreign aid being used to run some of it.
    27. Re:I think it may be several things by dbIII · · Score: 1
      So... how do we get dubya on this train?

      I think we find a way for the Republicans to remove a sitting President of their own party without committing political suicide - or replacing him with Chaney. The neocons set policy in that area for Bush and some of them act as if they are bent on bringing on armageddon.

    28. Re:I think it may be several things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They aren't trying to exterminate us, they are conducting a war against us. Just like ANY war, one of the ways to end it is diplomatically. The war they are conducting has goals that they'd like to achieve, and only the most ignorant would think that they want to simply exterminate us.
      No, as long we all convert to Islam and follow their laws, they would be happy to let us live. Sounds real peachy, idiot. Yes, they can be contained and we aren't going about it the right way. But your pig ignorant bullshit doesn't help, either.
    29. Re:I think it may be several things by MikShapi · · Score: 1

      You completely miss my point. Both of them in fact.
      1.
      I haven't objected your claim about the missiles being american. I just made a complementary claim that preventing America from selling arms to Israel will accomplish nothing. Israel will still have missiles. Isreal itself is one of the largest hi-tech arms exporters in the world and is perfectly capable of satisfying all of its own misslie-manufacturing needs.

      I'm saying your suggestion would achieve nothing.

      2. You're talking about a /particular/ ambulance incident. I believe everything you say about it, no need to get protective, I'm not going to discredit your witnesses.

      I'm trying to tell you that many of the taboos you and I were raised on, such as conduct dictated by the Geneva convention is now in some places and times, void.
      I'm not implying the rules were broken by the people in the ambulance you are describing. They were probably not. They were, however, broken. By others. But the fact that they were broken changed the rules of the game.
      Israel is in a position where its enemies do use things like ambulances and hospitals as cover for katyushas or bombs, which are later used for the very very immoral purpose of randomly butchering civilians.

      I am not saying ambulances should be shot at, I much prefer it the way it used to be, when such resources were regarded as "sacred ground".
      But in a world where this is not respected, where they become legitimate means to stash and move arms or bombs, the taboo starts fading away. As of today, September 2006, Israeli don't trust palestinians and probbably Hezbollah in ambulances. I frankly can't say I blame them, and suspect that under circumstances where this is not respected by an opposing side, you and I would act in much the same way.

      >> My point is that military actions are very cheap for the current Israeli government with little personal consequence or accountability
      I understand your point. I can only suggest that some of the accountability is there. Israel's government and its use of their national resources - their money, the lives of their soldiers, etc - is fully accountable to the Israeli people. If they feel the government did not serve the purpose of protecting them adequately, they will elect another.

      As for accountability towards damage done in Lebanon - Israel is very unlikely to be be made accountable for it. The only one who has the power to make them accountable for it is the US, and the US is pretty grateful to Israel for having done their (and your, btw) dirty work cooling off the Hezbollah a bit.

      Furthermore, Lebanon (as a country) is indirectly responsible for what happened to it by being negligent of its duties to police its turf and prevent armed fanatics from harassing its neighbors. The middle east has a special spot in hell for countries that are too weak to keep their internal affairs under control and thus take care of their own interests. These countries are the ones that get beaten up every time someone uses their weakness to harass someone else. Lebanon will have to work hard to pull itself out of that group.

      >> and foreign aid being used to run some of it.
      As I said, does it really matter if you get hit by Israeli-made or American-made bullets? You sound like you believe that if the US were to stop selling Israel arms, Israel will not have arms. Rest assured, it will.

      --
      -
    30. Re:I think it may be several things by dbIII · · Score: 1
      So it doesn't get missed again I will state my point more clearly. The missile in question was a gift to Israel paid for out of the budget for a division of the US Marine Corps. There are many other gifts of this type paid for by the US taxpayer. Some of these gifts even ended up being installed in Iranian tanks via someone unscrupulous in Israel selling them to China - hence the senate inquiry in early 2001.

      I'll state the next point more clearly - US aid money is being used by the current Israeli goverment to buy weapons. Looking at these two points you will see that US citizens can do something about irresponsible use of these weapons if nothing else. If they have to buy the things with their own money they may think twice before firing half million dollar missiles at non-combatants and the people at the blunt end blaming it on the USA when they read the markings on the fragments.

      As for the Geneva convention - I don't think the next US administration will have the same view of abandoning it no matter which party gets the presidency. It's purpose is to stop the very sort of atrocities Saddam is on trial for, and it makes it difficult for any nation that does not adhere to it to denounce others. I don't think we should drop it just because the propaganda of the time is that it is OK to torture anyone we see as a threat.

    31. Re:I think it may be several things by cold+fjord · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Just like ANY war, one of the ways to end it is diplomatically. The war they are conducting has goals that they'd like to achieve, and only the most ignorant would think that they want to simply exterminate us.

      I don't think that the average American would feel that our country has lost any respect at all if we tried to figure out what is pissing those people off so much, and figured out how to address that problem to remove their reason to fight. It's the only way any lasting peace will be achieved.


      We already know what they want, it has never really been a secret. As Islamist extremists, their ultimate goal is to unite all the Muslim lands under a new Caliphate (an Islamic government uniting church and state), and expand its control to the entire earth. This means that they will have to overthrow many of the existing Arab governments to install clerical rule and Sharia (Islamic law). Their plan also includes retaking control of "lost" possessions, like Spain and the formerly Muslim controlled areas from Greece to Austria. Beyond that, they want to expand Muslim control to all of Europe, Africa, Asia, ... you get the picture. Unfortunately, it also requires that they will have to kill other Muslims from time to time, but generally only those who are not sufficiently pious. (Like in one of the bombings timed for prayer time at the local mosques - only bad Muslims would be away from the mosques and be in danger of being killed.)

      What is "our" role in this? Their preferred outcome is that we all convert to become Muslims. That was Bin Laden's first demand in his letter to America.

      (Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

      (1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

      There should be nothing novel in this. Recently, Palestinian extremists forced two Fox News reporters to "convert" to Islam after taking them hostage. There is a long history of this.

      He also wants us to jettison the Constitution and adopt Sharia law, stop drug & alcohol use, homosexuality, sexual immorality, sleeping around, adultery, charging interest on loans, etc., etc. At least it would be easy to remember the penalty for many of these infractions: death, death, death, etc.

      (2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

      (a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.

      (i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator.

      (iii) You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants. You also permit drugs, and only forbid the trade of them, even though your nation is the largest consumer of them.

      (iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object.

      Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which every

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    32. Re:I think it may be several things by Circuit+Breaker · · Score: 1

      Which war were *you* watching? This war was initiaited by the Hez, unless you believe crossing the border into a neighbouring country and kidnapping to be peaceful actions. Your ignorance with respect to ties between the Hez and Iran is so unbelievable that you must already have an unremovable SEP field in place.

    33. Re:I think it may be several things by meadowsp · · Score: 1

      If they weren't being vindictive, how do you explain this?

      http://web.amnesty.org/pages/lbn-010906-action-eng

    34. Re:I think it may be several things by TaGirl_Keri · · Score: 0

      Go Hez. Show them how to fight.

      --
      My fav units are dead Mavs
    35. Re:I think it may be several things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      1)The Palestinians want (at least some of) their land back, and they want their country back (it was where Israel is now). The Israelis don't want to give (any of) it back.

      1. The so-called "Palestinians" have never had a country. Constantly repeating this lie does not make it true.

      2. The only entity who previously controlled these lands and still relevant today are Jordan and Egypt (over the West Bank and Gaza, respectively). Neither of these countries are interested in these lands and both have peace accords with Israel.

      3. The Israelis have tried repeatedly to get rid of most (or even all) of these territories, only to get rocket attacks and bus bombings in return. The Palestinians want the Jews out of Israel - or living under Muslim rule. They will settle for nothing less.

    36. Re:I think it may be several things by umghhh · · Score: 1

      Nice reading but I am afraid you exaggerated a bit. Of course they are popular. Every winning party is and they won this struggle or it seems so fo now. Now Iranians will buy them new HW and Europeans build new infrastructure. Nice deal is it not?

      But as I said you exagerated slightly, for instance: where from did you take these hundreds of Israeli tanks being destroyed? Speaking in plural about blown up warships is not close to reality either, is it?

      Any war, this included, is fought by people on the front lines as well as by wider economy. At the end winner is who can prevail in both places - it is as important to obtain fighters (and there is enough frustrated young man available) as it is to have finance to buy hardware for them and pay for their training. Looking on the prices of oil and the fact that mullahs in Teheran have no respect for life one can deduce that as long as Iran has oil so long Hezbollach will last.

      It may be that once oil runs out situation will deteriorate quickly - especially if Iran obtains WMD till then - as the frustration of the people will need to be channelized somehow but we have some way to go to achieve this 'holy' goal still.

      Maybe the mullahs lose power and terrorism will stop one day. Maybe Israel will reach peace agreement with Palestinians. I would not bet my money on any of that though.

    37. Re:I think it may be several things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those children would have grown up to be suicide bombers anyway?

    38. Re:I think it may be several things by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      My history book says that is the reason why the United States, the most powerful nation in the world, engaged in a disasterous series of wars which slowly ground down their standard of living, eroded their influence, and either squandered their wealth or transferred it to a very small group of people. In the mid-21st century, the republican form of government was more inefficient than ever. The national debt had ballooned to over a hundred trillion dollars and less than a third of the population had any meaningful work. The formerly great nation fractured into separate pieces, and promptly went to war against each other using the remnants of the still terrifying power of the leftover military equipment. For over three-hundred years, liberalism was dead on the Continent. Not even Canada or Mexico were safe from the second American Civil War, and both of those countries were completely looted and depopulated in the genocidal wars. About a hundred years ago, there were over a thousand separate American states, each run by warlords and their families. That was when General Todd Bandrowski united all of the states under a single flag through a series of wars that lasted more than 60 years - most of his life. Now General Todd Bandrowski's daughter, Monica Lewinsky Bandrowski rules the Holy Empire of New Dakotalina which covers most of the North American continent, and has almost 130 million impoverished citizens. Their major industry is religion, which employs a mere 3% of the poplulation.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    39. Re:I think it may be several things by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      That was the most eloquent advocacy of genocide that I have ever read.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    40. Re:I think it may be several things by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Excellent post, agree on 4GW, but "taking out hundreds of Merkavas"?

      HUNDREDS??? Sources please!
      A quick web search points to (possibly) over 100 disabled, which can be anything from a busted track to total destruction. The percentage that burned/exploded or were blown up sufficient to be total losses is hard to guage.
      'Hundreds" would be destruction on the level of that inflicted on the Republican Guard in Gulf War Part 1!
      It would be difficult to hide that many kills (discreet tank recovery, transport, and refurbishment would be no mean feat!), and that level of loss would be a traumatic defeat for the IDF.
      There would be no way to hide trailers carrying that many machines to the rear.

      It would be an impressive chunk of the whole IDF Merkava fleet:

      http://www.waronline.org/en/IDF/arms/merkava.htm

      "Overall the total number of all Merkava tanks produced as of 2001 is estimated at 1280 tanks, although as opposed to most other sources, according to Jane's Defense Weekly, the IDF operates about 1,050 Merkava mk.2/2B and 700 Merkava mk.3/3B/BAZ tanks.
      Assuming the more widespread number of 1280 tanks is the correct one, we see that during the last decade (1990-2000, taking into account the stopping of production in 1990/91), some 480 to 680 Merkava mk.3 tanks were built, meaning a rate of production of about 50 tanks per year.
      Although the capability is there to produce no less then 120 machines a year, the funding most likely isn't."

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    41. Re:I think it may be several things by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "one hit to a battleship"

      Israel has never had a battleship or anything nearly that large. Missile ships are their mainstay.

      Here's a recent list:

      http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israe l/navy-equipment.htm

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    42. Re:I think it may be several things by MikShapi · · Score: 1

      Yep. we're definitely transmitting on two different channels here.

      You're busy blaming the US for giving Israel financial support. I get your point, and am well aware of this.
      The US support is /CONDITIONED/ on buying weapons. The US does not only give money to Israel, it gives money to Israel UNDER THE CONDITION that this money will be used to buy weapons from the US, which creates more jobs and more export in the US. Between us boys, the US cares (and will care, regardless of which administration is in) more about creating more jobs for its citizens than about either Israeli or Lebanese lives.

      This treatment is not unique to Isreal. The US gives money to every country that serves its interests. Why to you think the Egyptians are flying F-16 fighters and using M-16 rifles? what about the Turks? The Quaitis? The Saudis? The US is giving money to every country it can that will serve its interest, /under the condition/ the money is used to buy US (military) products. And the American people have been very happy with this arrangement for the last half-century or so. I don't see that changing.

      You're all fixated about blaming the US, which is exactly the kind of attitude that will get Lebanon screwed over and over again. It's not who about who sold guns to Israel. It's about armed agenda-driven fanatics that should be kept on a leash. By /YOU/, as they are your fanatics.
      Look at your cousins, the Palestinians. Look at how far blaming and avoiding their own responsibility got them. Think very hard if you want Lebanon going down that road.

      The important thing you don't seem to understand is that regardless of who you blame in your private little blame-game (WHO gave Israel weapons?! YOU! Americans! Look what you did!), I'm saying it doesn't matter at all who gave them weapons. Israel WILL have weapons no matter what you or I or George W. Bush does. Even if you prevent all the countries of the world from selling Israel weapons, they will still have weapons. They /make/ them, and judging by Israeli behaviour to date, they'll probably stay armed to the teeth with itchy trigger fingers forever.

      You're wasting your time and effort climbing that blame-America tree.
      You'd probably be wiser to do support Lebanon in doing what Jordan and Egypt did - "If you can't beat them - befriend them".

      >> I don't think we should drop it just because the propaganda ...
      I think you're not getting it. I'll make it in several simple points for you:
      1. Nobody wants to drop the geneva convention. Not you, not me, not the US. If it were just between us when we make war, it would have been working.
      2. What will make you drop it very happily is when someone will start using ambulances to kill you. This happened to Israel, and now Israel delays for searching and under certain conditions even shoots ambulances. If someone uses ambulances to kill YOU, YOU will shoot at them too. We all - you, I prefer to shoot an ambulance and live than to respect the taboo and get killed by someone who doesn't. This has /NOTHING/ to do with propaganda. It has everything to do with moralless fanatics who abused the rules. That's when the rules get tougher and everybody suffers. It's like living in a city that has never known robbery. Nobody locks the door. But the moment robberies start, everyone starts to lock up, which makes everyone more miserable, but there is not enough trust to go around to avoid it. The geneva convention is built on trust - trust that all sides adhere to it. Lacking that trust, as in the case of the Hammas and the Hezbollah, it's worthless. Welcome to the real world.

      --
      -
    43. Re:I think it may be several things by dbIII · · Score: 1
      You're all fixated about blaming the US
      Rubbish - if you look back you'll see earlier a poster wondering what people in the USA could do about it and my reply from there. On that point and doing exactly that - back in 1982 Ronald Reagan took a stand on the issue when cluster bombs were used on civilians in defiance of the Geneva convention - he stopped the delivery of F16 fighter jets.

      By /YOU/, as they are your fanatics.
      By talking about the issue I become an enemy without even seeing anyone in the group you are talking about, communicating with them in any way, condoning their actions in any way or even going to Lebanon? I also see that point of the Geneva convention is that nations that condone their forces breaking lose the trust of other nations. It's not about how bad the other guy is - it's about not taking your nation down the path to true evil for any reason.
    44. Re:I think it may be several things by dbIII · · Score: 1
      I don't believe in prescience so I cannot accept that the operations in Southern Lebanon that took some time to plan and were shown to representatives of the US State department before the kidnapping were in response to it. We live in a time of "spin" and oversimplification so I suggest you rely on more than CNN - many international newspapers are on the web now. Anyway, this short war has taken a Hizbollah that was rapidly descending into irrelevance and given them a lot of new members all working together and willing to do very nasty stuff against a new common enemy and also backfired against those who wanted a quick victory against a weakening Hizbollah to get popular support and fill the Sharon power vacuum.

      As for the Iran ties - do you really think they are all Iranian agents? This isn't James Bond. While it's convenient to blame absolutely everything on people far away instead of a bunch of Palestinians that were kicked over the border or pissed off Syrians next door or actual Lebanese it is really a juvinile attitude but it has been getting press. The Algerians do it too in a more extreme case - they were blaming their problems on Afgans!

    45. Re:I think it may be several things by MikShapi · · Score: 1

      >> By talking about the issue I become an enemy without even seeing anyone in the group you are talking about, communicating with them in any way, condoning their actions in any way or even going to Lebanon?

      By no means, we're not enemies.

      You became the proverbial master of your country, not the enemy. I was just stating that it comes with responsibilities, such as keeping the people who violate the principles of your society's chosen system and hurt your national interests - on a leash. The country I live in - Australia - does it with police and prisons and courts, the US does it likewise, Israel (mostly) does it likewise, Lebanon should too if it wants to be a respected country and if its government wants to be treated like a government. Last I checked, unleashed Lebanese fanatics opened a war against Israel, not the other way around. Israel's genocide-preaching fanatics were not a part of this ordeal.
      Letting someone other than the government run around with assault rifles, anti-tank munitions, rockets etc means not taking care of your fanatics. This does not imply I am accusing you of affiliation with them, quite on the contrary, you seem quite pragmatic and open on the subject.

      I teach my kids to embrace responsibility, not throw it around like blame. I warmly recommend you teach yours the same. Responsibility is power.

      --
      -
    46. Re:I think it may be several things by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Last I checked, unleashed Lebanese fanatics opened a war against Israel, not the other way around.
      Please look at what you wrote and then consider what happened and which country invaded and occupied which for a few weeks. Sadly local politics in Israel meant that any excuse to go into Gaza again and then Lebanon a few weeks later after a bit of preparation was seen as a way to make the current government look "strong". I'm not condoning any of the actions of Hizbollah either - but we keep getting a lot of "spin" where people do not want to be responsible for their own actions - right down to the now becoming common could have been a bomb in the ambulance idea you were talking about before. We can't just act like barbarians because we feel like it and then expect respect in return.
    47. Re:I think it may be several things by MikShapi · · Score: 1

      As long as you completely ignore your (Lebanon's whoever is in charge there) responsibility I don't buy that self-serving rhetoric.

      Israel didn't invade lebanon to "occupy" it. It's neither settling it, or claiming the land, it doesn't even want or intend to stay there.
      It went in to do what your country screwed up doing - something that is Lebanon's duty - to keep its nutcases from arming to the point of having a formidable force, then from staging attacks on your neighbours. Until you can acknowledge that
      [a] This is your country's responsibility
      [b] That your country majorly screwed up in curbing this
      [c] That this led to your neighbour getting harrassed since 2000 (and I'm actually quite surprised Israel chose to hold its guns for 6 years and didn't kick Hezballah's ass much sooner)
      and
      [d] The invasion of Lebanon was to curb this immediate threat.

      If you can't acknowledge these facts, you're no different from the self-serving-rhetoric-preachers of the Hezbollah that understands not what personal responsibility is, and we have no basis for a discussion.

      You seem to be suffering from exactly the same symptoms as most Israelis who don't give a rats ass about what their crazed genocide-preaching fanatics are doing in Gaza and the west bank - they don't care, they ignore that the people on "their side" harrasses the other side, they prefer to bury their head in the sand and pretend it is not happening.

      You're exactly the same as they are. Hezbollah has been harassing northern Israel since the Lebanon pullout left and right, putting more and more weapons - guns, rockets etc on the border, raiding Israel, firing at settlements, abducting people... You don't seem to give a shit about that (and I daresay you didn't give a shit before July when Israel invaded - as nobody was busy putting an end to it.

      So you the Lebanese people did not give its government a mandate to leash the Hezballah, and now the Lebanese people paid the price of negligent self-policing policy.

      You eat what you cook, mate.

      Oh, and regarding the ambulance.. That's where you just don't get it. Ever since your Hezballah countrymen put weapons in ambulances, it quite factually /could/ have been a bomb. Quit this habit of throwing trust and morals at westerners (your "We can't just act like barbarians!" bit) while utterly ignoring your countymens utter lack of these morals that led to the breach in trust. The trust (between Israel and whoever operates your ambulances ) is apparently no longer there. They don't trust you to let ambulances do their job. Hezbollah breached the trust. Cope. And if you really want to blame someone that bad, blame them.

      --
      -
    48. Re:I think it may be several things by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Interesting - I said before I've never been to Lebanon - so where did all the stuff above come from? I'm not from that part of the world, I speak from the perspective of a westerner that can only speak English but I pay attention enough not to fall for at least the blatantly obvious propaganda and the wildest lies. The memes of having to blow up ambulances because they may be carrying weapons or kids because they may grow up to be soldiers I see as some of the nastier bits of propaganda that are being swallowed wholesale even by major newspapers.

      and I'm actually quite surprised Israel chose to hold its guns for 6 years
      They didn't. A friend of mine was on holiday in Turkey a couple of years back and was thinking about going to Lebanon as well - but reports that Israeli jets had bombed the major roads leading from Lebanon to Syria that week changed his mind. Since 1982 the occasional bombing in that part of the world has not been considered worth printing in international newspapers apart from the occasional summary article. I suggest you look at more than the shallow sound bites - if you only get those you would be conviced that all Israeli troops had gone home and those troops in the hills above Tyre were a figment of the imagination of the international news agencies and the UN.

      All I'm saying really is we shouldn't simplify things to us versus some nebulous them that can be dealt with by any atrocity. We can't stop other nations commiting atrocities but we can convince our governments that we don't want them done in our names - and we can question them when they lie to us.

  11. The war is over, that's why by soft_guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is a cease fire currently. The conflict is effectively over. Therefore, Hizbula is trying to get extra mileage by revealing this. It is probably not the most wise move since they might end up fighting Israel again in the future, so maybe keeping it quiet would have been of benefit. But there is a certain logic to revealing this. Basically they are saying "see we are not as primitive as you think and Israel is not as advanced as some people (especially in the muslim world) think - therefore defeating Israel might be possible". That's what they are trying to get out of it.

    --
    Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    1. Re:The war is over, that's why by thule · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is a cease fire currently. The conflict is effectively over.

      Traditionally a conflict is over with the other side is subdued to the point they have no choice but to lay down arms. A cease fire just means they'll stop shooting while everyone re-arms. In this case, this is especially true. Nothing has been resolved long term.

    2. Re:The war is over, that's why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The conflict is effectively over.
      Traditionally a conflict is over with the other side is subdued to the point they have no choice but to lay down arms.

      As far as I can tell, both sides had a long history of launching minor attacks against each other that killed a few people here and there. Over time the geopolitical situation evolved and Israel concluded that if it bombed Lebanon severely enough then it could get the Lebanese government to agree to move Hezbollah back from the border.

      In a narrow view, the "conflict" was whether Hezbollah had to move back from the border. Officially Israel won this narrow conflict. To really win (get Hezbollah to disband) Israel would need the support of the Lebanese people and it is unlikely that the bombing achieved that.

      As I see it, though, the larger conflict is between individual freedom and ethnic discrimination and segregation. Since both Hezbollah and the Israeli government are working to promote discrimination and segregation ("Islamic" states and "Jewish" states, respectively), to the extent that the conflict polarizes people along ethnic lines, Hezbollah and Israeli leadership are winning but, to the extent that the conflict turns people against ethnic discrimination and segregation, they are losing.

      I suspect that, in the short term, the effect is polarizing but in the long term the effect will be to turn people against discrimination and segregation.

      It is sort of like how one could credit the Nazis with being responsible for the civil rights movement in the United States. Prior to WWII most people in the United States thought that discrimination and segregation were entirely proper but after WWII people took a long hard look at the Nazis and said "If that's what discrimination and segregation look like then we don't want any. That's what bad people do."

    3. Re:The war is over, that's why by thule · · Score: 1

      Considering that the Hezbollah wackjobs teach that they (and their view of Islam) need to re-take Spain and restore it to it's old glory when ruled under a Islamic impire, I very much doubt it is a discrimination and segregation issue.

    4. Re:The war is over, that's why by khallow · · Score: 1

      It is sort of like how one could credit the Nazis with being responsible for the civil rights movement in the United States. Prior to WWII most people in the United States thought that discrimination and segregation were entirely proper but after WWII people took a long hard look at the Nazis and said "If that's what discrimination and segregation look like then we don't want any. That's what bad people do."

      Yes, a very effective bit of propaganda there. But my take is that neither discrimination nor its absence are guaranteed end states. There are several cases in the world today of regions that backpeddled on discrimination. The Middle East is one. It never was free of discrimination, but it was a lot healthier around the begining of the 20th Century. Second, was the slow collapse of Yugoslavia following the death of dictator Josip Tito. If you have a system where people are treated equally, then discrimination will eventually vanish, but if discrimination is institutionalized, then I see no reason for it to wane.

      I don't see the conditions in the Middle East for a decline in discrimination. Religious discrimination is institutionalized in most of the Middle East including Israel, Palestine, southern Lebanon, and virtually all of the neighboring countries except possibly Turkey and northern Lebanon. At least, current wars are far less intense than the wars prior to Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons.
    5. Re:The war is over, that's why by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      Religious discrimination? No. Israel allows Moslems and Christians full civil rights, as do other even slightly secularized countries in the Middle East. The issue is ethnic discrimination. A completely unobservant American who happens to have a Jewish mother can become an Israeli citizen, while a Palestinian Moslem or Christian cannot. Why? Because M'dinat Yisrael cares about Am Yisrael (the People of Israel), not Y'hudut (Judaism).

    6. Re:The war is over, that's why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...re-take Spain and restore it to it's old glory when ruled under a Islamic impire, I very much doubt it is a discrimination and segregation issue.

      If some rednecks from the deep south of the USA decided they needed to re-take the south and restore it to its pre-civil-war slave plantation glory then I would very much see it as a discrimination and segregation issue. The key point is that it's not a battle between one culture of discrimination (fundamentalist Islam) and another (fundamentalist Christianity and/or Judaism) but that instead it's a battle between individual freedom and all cultures of discrimination.

    7. Re:The war is over, that's why by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      So its a state based on race, like 90% of the other places on the planet.

      China is primarily chinese people, Japan is ... oh never mind.

      Sure, its descriminatory, no, it probably shouldn't happen, but this is much better IMHO than discrimination on beliefs.

      I'm pretty sure saying you're a christian in the UAE is still a bad move, for example, no matter if you're yellow, white, black, etc.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    8. Re:The war is over, that's why by khallow · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the correction. In hindsight, there is plenty of discrimination in the Middle East that isn't religion based, and has grown in intensity since around 1900.

    9. Re:The war is over, that's why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are stupid on so many levels you're hardly worth correcting at all, let alone on the most minor of your idiotic notions.

  12. It's awful, FIX IT!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the site hurts my eyes with the electric blue links and fux0red ads!

  13. Billions and Billions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Well with 6 billion dollars in U.S. aid per year, I think Israel can afford new radios.

    1. Re:Billions and Billions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the America, as well as the rest of the world, is now footing the bill for cleaning up all the devestation and damage (like the oil spill, reconstruction, hospitals etc.) caused by the Israeli invasion.

      So America is paying twice - once to allow the Israelis to invade other countries, and again to help clean up the damage in other countries done by the Israelis.

      If I was American I would be pushing my government to tie funds to Israel with strict plans to go back to original boundaries, deconstruction of the illegal settlements, and A LOT of money tied to helping raise the surrounding countries out of abject poverty and despair. Once that was done, we might start to see a more stable middle east.

    2. Re:Billions and Billions by gd23ka · · Score: 0

      6 billion you say, did you know that with $6 000 000 000 a year you could pay
      one million people of the poorest here in the US a monthly 500 dollars which
      would allow them the security to turn around and tell their McJob bosses to
      fuck off. This in turn would have the effect of raising minimum wages benefiting
      millions more.

      Oh and did you know that Israel gets the same amount from Germany each year?
      Another million of their people who could tell their Mcjob bosses Scheiss!

  14. The US is revamping their radio communications by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Been going on for some time now. I have a friend at GD working on the encryption end of it. Of course he can't give any technical details but basically has said that they are doing a totally new communication system where everything, from the individual soldier on up, is linked and shares all information. It's an almost videogame level of information availability.

    This will, perhaps, accelerate the push for that, but it's already been in the works for a long time.

    Also nothing's saying that the US still uses the same system, or that they don't have additional scrambling on top of it.

    1. Re:The US is revamping their radio communications by russ1337 · · Score: 1
      but basically has said that they are doing a totally new communication system where everything, from the individual soldier on up, is linked and shares all information. It's an almost videogame level of information availability.
      Network Centric Operations are all the rage... which goes along with what you said above. What happends when a patrol is intercepted and the enemy get their hands on your PDA/Radio. Can they then see all your movements and listen to your comms until the key is changed? (24Hrs?) Could this give the enemy FULL access to all your information for a short period of time allowing them to plan future capture operations?
      All I'm sayin is you cant beat a bit of compartmentalisation now and again.....
    2. Re:The US is revamping their radio communications by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

      How about making the hardware require a password after it's been removed? Assuming it's wearable. Or maybe even key it to an individual soldier's DNA, if that's possible yet.

    3. Re:The US is revamping their radio communications by russ1337 · · Score: 1
      Or maybe even key it to an individual soldier's DNA, if that's possible yet.
      So you also take a body part (or thin slither of skin) when you peel the device from the dying soldiers hands..
    4. Re:The US is revamping their radio communications by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

      Good point, biometrics isn't really everything it's hyped up to be. Maybe it could check that the individual is alive? Capturing a soldier alive would be a bit harder than grabbing a piece of skin. Perhaps through an implant that monitors vital signs, that could be useful for other purposes also. Bring on spinal implants a la Axis of time. :)

    5. Re:The US is revamping their radio communications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what the "OH SHIT" button is for. Lots of time is spent by defense contractors working on various aspects of INFOSEC, and this includes ensuring that the basic question of "how fast can I nuke all classified information on a device in an emergency". In the case of a manpack radio, I would be surprised if there weren't an easy way to nuke all crypto if you felt like you were in trouble. There is on all systems I've seen, although I'm not familiar with the specifics of SINCGARS, especially the manpack variants.

  15. Article sounded suspiciously familiar by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, Informative
    It took me a second to realize I had already read about this on the Asia Times Online site. In fact, reading the Newday article, it appears the author simply copied and pasted from the Asia Times article.


    For those interested, here is the original article. Compare for yourself the various comments.

    Still a good reading and it explains why Hezbollah could say they had killed X number of troops or destroyed Y tanks before the Israeli military admitted to the losses. They were listening to the Israeli transmissions from the battlefield!

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:Article sounded suspiciously familiar by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Still a good reading and it explains why Hezbollah could say they had killed X number of troops or destroyed Y tanks before the Israeli military admitted to the losses.

      As opposed to having X machine-gun militias or Y bazzoka militias reporting sucessfull application of ammo to target?

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    2. Re:Article sounded suspiciously familiar by Aim+Here · · Score: 1

      It's the same story all right (looks like the Sunday Times of London got there first) but I don't see any evidence of cutting or pasting, and I didn't spot any duplicated quotes either.

      Perhaps being a Slashdotter means you're a bit overeager to cry 'dupe'...

    3. Re:Article sounded suspiciously familiar by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Except that most of the Hezbollah offensive was rocket attacks. Pretty hard to find out where a rocket landed 10-30 miles away.. A bunch of the tanks were destroyed by mines. You generally place mines and don't stick around to watch the action.

    4. Re:Article sounded suspiciously familiar by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      As opposed to having X machine-gun militias or Y bazzoka militias reporting sucessfull application of ammo to target?

      Kill confirmation is a tricky thing, and even our military usually has to send someone by later after the smoke has cleared to confirm that the target was hit. For a guerilla army anti-tank unit, sticking around long enough to make this determination would be foolish, if not suicidal. If you can intercept the enemy's communication, then let them figure out how many of them you took out while you head for safety.

      Of course they probably counted themselves as best they could as well, and I doubt they were intercepting all Israeli communication. The reason Hezbollah said they had killed such and such before Israel admitted it is simply because Israel didn't want to admit it. Besides as far as their PR goes a "suspected" kill was as good as the real thing. So yeah, I agree there's no real mystery there.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  16. Propaganda? by noretsa · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It is very easy for a propaganda article to quote an "anonymous Israeli source".

    If Hezbollah actually had cracked Israeli radio codes why would they admit it? Isn't that just giving information to the other side?

    The only purpose in saying this is to boost morale and cause doubt for the opposition. Neither of those requires actually breaking a code and Hezbollah is known for making boasts without anything to back it up.

    Until their is actual evidence, or at least a quote from a non-anonymous Israeli military official, I don't see why I should believe this.

    Just because it's on the internet, doesn't make it true.

    1. Re:Propaganda? by east+coast · · Score: 1

      I dunno... if I had an exploit (or hack or whatever you'd like to call it) I may use it and brag about my victories but I sure as hell wouldn't let anyone know about my "competitive edge" technology.

      I think it's foolish when someone comes to victory via clandestine techniques to come out and admit how they did what they did. The only think it helps to do is give the opposition an opportunity to close another breech in their defenses.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    2. Re:Propaganda? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hezbollah is known for making boasts without anything to back it up.

      Yeah, i remember how they said they'll hit an Israeli destroyer at sea in the first week on the war, heh.

    3. Re:Propaganda? by Cartzca · · Score: 1

      >Just because it's on the internet, doesn't make it true. WHAT? You mean the nice widow from Nigeria ISN'T going to give me $6 million (SIX MILLION DOLLARS)?

  17. Diebold question by ciaohound · · Score: 2, Funny

    Were they able to crack the Israeli's mini-bar?

    --
    Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
    1. Re:Diebold question by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
      Were they able to crack the Israeli's mini-bar?

      Would matter since, as good Muslims, they wouldn't be able to use the contents anyway. In fact, even if they did crack the MB, they should have left everything there in the hope that the Israelis would both celebrate too much to be effective, and screw their chances of going to the Islam Paradise -- which may have women (Horus), but no wine or song.

      --
      "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  18. Of course! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting
    I speculate that the Israelis made public thier knowledge of the snoops first. Once the 'cat was oout of the bag' the Hezbollah officials are using it for bragging rights.
    Well put and completely missed in my original post. I had not considered this and am now amazed at my own shortsightedness.

    eldavojohn
  19. ... This week in the news... by Manip · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Prior to the US IRAQ invasion there were weekly stories focusing around how evil Iraq is... Iraq "might" be responsible for this, Iraq "might" have helped with that... The sort of "Iraq hurts kittens and little children for fun" but more subtle kind of stuff...

    Now we have weekly Iran stories... There is no real evidence ever... For example there was this wonderful "Iran plans on executing girl for defending herself from rape" story... Completely fake, no known source, but yet got the internet all up in arms..

    I feel this is yet another one of these stories... No proof... Can't be proven either way, perfect propaganda.

    1. Re:... This week in the news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Now we have weekly Iran stories... There is no real evidence ever...

      Yes, it all sounds like the neocon drumbeat of war again. More rumors, half-truths, lies and manipulation. Death and destruction at 11:00, but first this word from the good guys at your neighborhood gas station. What sad and primitive times we are backsliding into. I fear that the real bad guys are those who tell us we should be afraid.

      1) Rumors, misdirection and lies
      2) War
      3) PROFIT!
      4) GOTO 1
    2. Re:... This week in the news... by lixee · · Score: 1

      Remember the little Kuwaiti breaking in tears about how the evil Iraqis were killing babies in kuwait in 91. It turned out the kid was the son of the Kuwaiti ambassador in Washington!

      This could be propaganda but it might just be real. No system is infallible and Lebanese don't live in caves, you know! Plus, I can't think of a better incentive to crack codes, as when your country is being blasted mercilessly.
      There's the possibility that the Tsahal figured out that the Lebanese were listening and changed their communication system before this story was made public. The world's fifth military power would surely not acknowledge such an event. It makes perfect sense for Hezbollah to advertise the fact afterwards.

      --
      Res publica non dominetur
    3. Re:... This week in the news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      okay, but what about this story? Two gay teenages hanged: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/47259 59.stm http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/07/321936.sh tml I think the evidence is quite genuine.

    4. Re:... This week in the news... by Detritus · · Score: 1

      It's been well known for decades that Hezbollah gets large amounts of money, training, weapons, and equipment from Iran, via the Revolutionary Guards. It isn't a secret.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    5. Re:... This week in the news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been well known for decades that Israelgets large amounts of money, training, weapons, and equipment from the USA. It isn't a secret.

    6. Re:... This week in the news... by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Prior to the US IRAQ invasion there were weekly stories focusing around how evil Iraq is... Iraq "might" be responsible for this, Iraq "might" have helped with that... The sort of "Iraq hurts kittens and little children for fun" but more subtle kind of stuff...

      Now we have weekly Iran stories...

      Yes, this has been ramping up for six months or so now. The Project For a New American Century has a vision for the middle east which they have been stating since around 1998. Check their official webpage under "publications". Look at the names on these publications, they are currently running the USA government. The first stage of this plan was the Iraqi regime change, to be followed by Iran.

      We'll be in there under twelve months for sure. My money is on a terrorist attack in the US (or maybe the UK) with a "smoking gun" to Iran sometime around the midterm elections.

      I'll leave you with a quote from the Nazi's, the masters of propaganda. Everytime a politician kisses a baby, they are literally implementing techniques pioneered by these guys.

      Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country. - Hermann Goering, 1946
    7. Re:... This week in the news... by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      It's amazing how much we see eye to eye, and I'm your foe why?

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    8. Re:... This week in the news... by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      It's amazing how much we see eye to eye, and I'm your foe why?

      I honestly can't remember! I think it was yesterday I marked it, but looking at your posts from then I have no idea why. I must have clicked on the wrong person, sorry!

  20. Probably only works once by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree with everything you said, although I doubt that the U.S. really has many export restrictions on encryption gear to Israel, except insofar as they're worried that the gear could end up in somebody else's hands besides Israel and compromise the U.S.'s own capabilities.

    This is because it's not like Israel is that far behind the U.S. in terms of mathematics, computers, or encryption, so not exporting to them wouldn't change their strategic posture much at all, and would just deny business to a U.S. corporation in favor of a homegrown one (e.g. IMI).

    If there are concerns about exporting to Israel, it's probably more because folks here are afraid that the stuff will be resold and eventually make it to countries that are hostile to the U.S., not really because anyone fears Israel directly. After all, although it's never been publicly admitted, I think there's a very good chance that the U.S. has given Israel nuclear weapons -- I doubt we'd bicker about a few lines of encryption code (that they could probably replicate domestically) if they wanted to buy it.

    As to the idiocy of giving away your capabilities if you've successfully broken your enemy's communication system, you're totally right (and yes, it is Singh that goes into much detail about this in his book). However, it may be that Hezbollah either doesn't have the internal safeguards to prevent this type of leak, or is more interested in the public opinion to be gained through bragging than in actual operational superiority. (Or, is so convinced of their own superiority that they don't care, i.e. they've fallen victim to their own rhetoric; this doesn't seem implausible.)

    Based on the past few conflicts and the reading I've done about them, the Israelis strike me as being pretty good at doing tough self-assessments and changing the way they fight in order to avoid repeating mistakes. If there is another Israeli/Hezbollah conflict (and I have no reason to believe that there won't be), I would look for some very different tactics on the part of Israel. This is the way war works: you see the greatest changes to tactics and strategy as a result of defeat or near-defeat than you do from victory.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:Probably only works once by bogjobber · · Score: 1
      This is because it's not like Israel is that far behind the U.S. in terms of mathematics, computers, or encryption, so not exporting to them wouldn't change their strategic posture much at all, and would just deny business to a U.S. corporation in favor of a homegrown one (e.g. IMI).

      Not to put on my tin foil hat or anything, but we don't really know how sophisticated the US government's mathematics and encryption technologies are. The NSA employs a huge amount of mathematicians (particularly number theorists/cryptologists), and their work certainly isn't made public. They very well may be as far ahead of the rest of the world in those matters as they are militarily.

    2. Re:Probably only works once by angst_ridden_hipster · · Score: 1

      Not to put on my Sneaky Zionist Propaganda hat or anything, but we don't really know how sophisticated the Israeli government's mathematics and encryption technologies are either.

      --
      Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
      www.fogbound.net
    3. Re:Probably only works once by Detritus · · Score: 1

      In terms of resources, money and warm bodies, I suspect that the NSA is way out in front of the Israelis. As Stalin said, quantity has a quality all its own.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    4. Re:Probably only works once by timeOday · · Score: 1

      We know they're at least as good as whatever we've told/given them, which may be quite a lot.

    5. Re:Probably only works once by richlv · · Score: 1

      ...unless one controls the other.

      --
      Rich
    6. Re:Probably only works once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Israel is pretty much known to have nukes, see http://www.nuclearweaponarchive.org/ , but they developed them apparently with the help of South Africa. The US wouldn't give them weapons; it would be a political nightmare if used. Ditto for technology to build a US-style bomb. With South African uranium, it's not as if Israel lacks the tech and science base to figure out what high school kids these days can figure out and build workable bombs.

  21. Lack of Implementation by DesertBlade · · Score: 2, Informative

    Having used SINCGARS before (and for few years) they change frequency every few seconds. Add encryption to it and it would be nearly impossible to breach.

    When I was in the military our base frequency changed everyday and our ciphers changed on a regular basis weekly and sometimes daily.

    If they were exercising proper procedures the only way I think it could have happened is if they stole an ANPASS(If I remember the name correctly). It includes all the frequencies and ciphers that you would need. Three wrong passwords and it turned into a big paperweight. If that was stolen then they were not keeping track of sensitive items well enough.

    --
    Half of writing history is hiding the truth.
    1. Re:Lack of Implementation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VINSON encryption is not the most secure form we have. This is the reason for phasing out old KY57/58/99 equipment in favor of newer technology. To crack the encryption in a useable timeframe, however, the Israelis must have royally screwed up their COMSEC procedures - probably by missing a few rekeys, misplacing a KTD, or using a weak, unverified key such as that generated by early KG equipment. We won't even begin to theorize about a TEMPEST/EMSEC breach of RED data that would render encryption moot anyway..... Although this post contains no classified data, I'm gonna stay an A/C to CYA.

    2. Re:Lack of Implementation by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      I recall that the russians intercepted a lot of american communications during the Iraq war. Indeed the strict operation rules for SINCGARS were often not followed, but I got the impression that the russians had cracked many of hard cases too. The frequency hopping is the easy part, there exist wideband frequency hopping interceptors for that.

      I do not know if this is considered a critical issue because reliability and simplicity have a higher priority and people on the ground just have to take in account that the communication is not bulletproof.

      There were daily briefings of russian intelligence on http://www.iraqwar.ru/ but the site was soon taken down under pressure from higher up.

      So Hezbollah hacking SINCGARS communication is no big news if you accept that they were competent and well equipped. The only issue could be that the IDF were particularly sloppy because they severely underestimated the adversary on the ground.

  22. CIGARS? by BancBoy · · Score: 1

    Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System

    If that isn't nicknamed Cigars already, it should be!

    --
    [UID-HeinzIntel]
    1. Re:CIGARS? by symeg · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't that be Single cHAnnel Ground and Airborne Radio System - SHAGARS?

      It certainly sounds like they got shagged from where I am sitting.

  23. So no "hack" here by The+Bungi · · Score: 1

    SINCGARS is about as secure as you can get. If the Hezbollah bomb boys managed to get into the system it's only because some Israeli recruit didn't follow procedure. Also, there were a lot of units from the IDF involved - how widespread is this?

  24. This is proof that... by squidguy · · Score: 1

    ...the IDF has been deploying SINCGARS clones using technologies and software from Redmond...

  25. lawwwwlz! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lawlz

  26. Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More amazing it took so long to hit this site. This was reported by Haaretz as early as 31st August http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/750483.html, and it reported more extensively on how Hezbollah compromised IDF communications since then. /. seems to hate people trying to register new accounts. Hence, I am an anonymous coward.

  27. Wait... they have computers now? by Kenja · · Score: 1

    They have computers now? That means its just a matter of time before they download all our secerets!

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  28. That wouldn't make mushc sense either by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you know your enemy is eavesdropping on a method of communication, the prudent course is not to tell the world about it, it is to use that knowledge to send him *false* information, while continuing your real communication through some other (new) secure channel they hopefully do not know about.

    1. Re:That wouldn't make mushc sense either by stubear · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Different kind of fighters, different kind fo war. To those people, propaganda is just as effective a weapon as gullets. It's an effective recruiting tool as well.

    2. Re:That wouldn't make mushc sense either by Chacham · · Score: 1

      ...and then getting out of the neutral zone as fast as possible.

    3. Re:That wouldn't make mushc sense either by houghi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Perhaps that happend and Hezbolla realized that the information was now useless.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    4. Re:That wouldn't make mushc sense either by jpbelang · · Score: 1

      Anybody feel like watching The Princess Bride ?

      Never bet against a sicilian when death is on the line.

      --
      JP http://www.wearerite.com
    5. Re:That wouldn't make mushc sense either by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Replacing every radio in your army and retraining every soldier is not a smart thing to do during a battle. If it's one or two people, then leaving a bug in place and lying in front of it might make sense, but not if you're trying to coordinate a whole army.

    6. Re:That wouldn't make mushc sense either by king-manic · · Score: 1

      Different kind of fighters, different kind fo war. To those people, propaganda is just as effective a weapon as gullets. It's an effective recruiting tool as well.

      I remember beign hti bya gullet.. My god blood evrywhere.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    7. Re:That wouldn't make mushc sense either by DuSTman31 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, corbomite maneuvre!

    8. Re:That wouldn't make mushc sense either by Shanep · · Score: 1

      To those people, propaganda is just as effective a weapon as gullets.

      I didn't realise gullets were used as weapons. I always thought they were used as targets to be cut or shot out.

      --
      War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
    9. Re:That wouldn't make mushc sense either by Magada · · Score: 1

      So Hezbollah found out that the Israelis know they had broken some of their comms. So now they can safely assume (or have observed) that the Israelis have changed EVERYTHING, and that whatever is coming in through the compromised channels is plain disinformation. So they're milking the last drop here, using the story as a propaganda tool.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
  29. One thing you can count on... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One thing you can count on. They, or Iran, won't be able to do it the same way the next time around.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:One thing you can count on... by crabpeople · · Score: 1

      Because the previously thought to be uncrackable radios will be replaced by new and improved uncrackable radios!

      Its a joke. Someone probably just wasnt following procedure like other comments in this thread said and turned off the encryption.

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    2. Re:One thing you can count on... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
      ...be replaced by new and improved uncrackable radios...Someone probably just wasnt following procedure like other comments in this thread said and turned off the encryption.

      I think it had to be more than one person to compromise the integrity of the entire operation.

      Maybe the improved radio won't have an Encryption Off switch.

      --
      "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  30. Overconfidence leads to sloppiness by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    I think you hit it right on the head when you said "If they were exercising proper procedures," because that's a mighty big if.

    I don't think it's hard to imagine that at least at the outset of the conflict, the Israeli soldiers might have gone into the conflict with a very distorted idea of the enemy; one that was incapable of doing anything more than listening to the latest propaganda on a 20-year-old shortwave set and cleaning their AK-47.

    Thus, like the Germans with their Enigma, they got lax on the procedures, and were compromised as a result.

    However, unlike the Germans, I suspect that the Israelis will get another shot, and will probably not be so cavalier next time.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  31. well the article is deceptive, too by Quadraginta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Read the article very, very carefully, bearing in mind that since it's written by a journalist it might as well have been written by the Hezbollah PR 'n' Propaganda team.

    What the article actually says about 'hacking' Israeli military radio communications is merely this:

    Using technology most likely supplied by Iran, special Hezbollah teams monitored the constantly changing radio frequencies of Israeli troops on the ground. That gave guerrillas a picture of Israeli movements, casualty reports and supply routes.

    So what precisely did Hezbollah do? Sounds like they merely verified that there was radio traffic on certain frequencies, and that it came from Israeli units, and then they were able to do a little direction-finding on it to verify where it came from. Look, imam! Funky radio traffic in the Bekaa valley that sounds like the usual gibberish exchanged between Israeli armor and base -- I'll bet there are Israeli tanks on Route such-and-such!

    Well, gosh, big deal. Any amateur could do as much as easily. It's not right brilliantly clever to deduce when you get a lot of chatter on military frequencies in a certain neighborhood that there are military operations afoot in it. I mean, Hezbollah probably got as good or better "intelligence" about Israeli movements just by taking reports of survivors who counted the number of tanks that rolled over them.

    Did Hezbollah actually decrypt communications, which would be an intelligence coup? Your logic argues pretty persuasively that they did not, because if they had they would have kept it a deep dark secret. In fact, they would have done their best to avoid drawing attention to their radio-interception program, lest it start the Israelis thinking. They -- or rather their Iranian paymasters -- would not have countenanced boasting about the operation to a damn fool journalist who would embellish it with wild speculation about 'hacking' secret Israeli radio messages.

    Nor does the article actually manage to get anyone who might have known to say otherwise. It merely attempts to imply that they might have said it, or something like it. Hence statements like this:

    The official refused to detail how Hezbollah was able to intercept and decipher Israeli transmissions.

    A nice example of the old 'begging the question' fallacy, such as in the question 'Have you stopped beating your wife yet?' Maybe the official refused to "detail" how Hezbollah was able to decipher Israeli transmissions because, in fact, they weren't able to.

    Or this:

    But a former Israeli general, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Hezbollah's ability to secretly hack into military transmissions had "disastrous" consequences for the Israeli offensive.

    "Israel's military leaders clearly underestimated the enemy and this is just one example," he said.

    Hmmm....wait a minute, the direct quote only says the military leader underestimated Hezbollah. And what's the mysterious 'this' to which the general refers, which is an example of the underestimation? Interception and radio direction-finding? Or actual decryption? We don't know. The journalist implies, in the previous sentence, that 'this' means 'hacking' into military transmissions, and that this means interception and decryption. But does it?

    If the anonymous general were willing to be quoted saying quite plainly: "Ayup, Hezbollah decrypted our most secret communications, damn 'em," then you can bet your last dollar the journalist would have used that very juicy quote. The fact that he didn't use that quote, or one like it, means he couldn't get it. And I'm sure he tried very hard, with all the artful questions he could. The general just wasn't willing to say those words. Because, almost surely, they would have been false.

    In short, I think the odds are good that this is just another journalist whoring for Hezbollah, 'cause it makes a scary exciting man-bites-dog story.

    1. Re:well the article is deceptive, too by glwtta · · Score: 0

      A nice example of the old 'begging the question' fallacy, such as in the question 'Have you stopped beating your wife yet?'

      This is so exciting - an entirely new, wrong use of "begging the question"!

      So, are the descriptivists going to jump in with how this is now also a valid definition through popular use? Or can I just go ahead and point out that that is not what the fallacy refers to?

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    2. Re:well the article is deceptive, too by timeOday · · Score: 1
      You argue convincingly that the story is overblown. But that could be in the interest of any of the involved parties, not just Hezbollah:

      Hezbollah: We resisted the Israel/US agression and beat them where they are strongest: high technology. Iran: Don't screw with us America Israel: It's not our fault we didn't trounce Hezbollah, we trusted the American equipment! US: Iran is a threat to the world and we must act quickly and decisively against them.
    3. Re:well the article is deceptive, too by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      I agree 100%.

      But you should add the people who wrote and published the story.

      Journalist: Hey! Only I have access to these fascinating and scary facts. You need to pay for my work.

      Editor and publisher: Worry! Fear! The world is too random and strange for you to understand yourself. Buy our paper to find out what craziness is happening that only we know about in advance, and to be told what it means.

    4. Re:well the article is deceptive, too by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      Well...only if I can go ahead and point out that your pointing-out sentence is grammatically valid only through popular use. (You meant to say "..point out that that is not to what the fallacy refers," although popular usage certainly validates your actual sentence in colloquial speech.)

      I'm hard pressed to see why you think the article does not contain a BTQ fallacy. The definition of such is to assume the thing under debate. The journalist writing the article assumed in his question that it had already been proven that Hezbollah had decrypted Israeli military radio, and the only remaining question was how it was done, which was not true. But by framing the question the way he did, he was able to suggest that the "I can't tell you" answer he got implied that it was in fact done, but the details could not be told. Seems like a straightforward BTQ fallacy to me. But perhaps you have some more detailed criticism that explains why it is not.

    5. Re:well the article is deceptive, too by darkmeridian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If the Israelis were dumb enough to use particular radios and protocols for particular kinds of military units, then Hezbollah did a great job leveraging it. In other words, you seem to think that what Hezbollah did was trivial, yet this "trivial" hack enabled them to defend against a huge Israeli onslaught. I mean, everyone thought Israel would roll over Hezbollah, but Isreal had to move back.

      Also, Hezbollah had the cell phone numbers of the Israeli commanders. That was a huge breach of security by Israeli forces. There had to be some translations going on, and I'll bet it was the cell phone traffic. Hezbollah had Hebrew-speaking translators and they must have translated something.

      Israel is going to learn radio discipline = cell phone discipline.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    6. Re:well the article is deceptive, too by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      you seem to think that what Hezbollah did was trivial, yet this "trivial" hack enabled them to defend against a huge Israeli onslaught.

      "Defend" in what sense? Put up some resistance? Sure, why not? Unless they're flat dead they're going to put up some resistance. The Israeli invasion could never be cost-free.

      Is what they did trivial? If you mean what the article explicitly says they did (not what the article implies they did), then it's not so much trivial as plain obvious warfighting stuff, like aiming your rifle before you fire it. You wouldn't expect to read a breathless page-one story in a newspaper saying Hey! Those wily Hezbollah guys aimed their Kalishnikovs before firing them at the Israelis! Clever, no? No wonder they were able to resist the invasion so well...

      I mean, everyone thought Israel would roll over Hezbollah...

      And so they did. Don't recall hearing of any Israeli defeats, or even serious losses.

      but Isreal had to move back.

      Nah. Israel chose to terminate their invasion, for their own reasons, and at a time of their choosing. What were those reasons? I don't know, not having been present at the Cabinet meeting where it was decided, but if I had to guess, I'd say two possibilities: (1) they got word from Washington that they should, or (2) they accomplished whatever they'd wanted to do in South Lebanon. Their objectives are not likely to be entirely public, you know. Maybe they nailed someone they wanted to, or cleaned out a certain territory they wanted to, or whatever. Neither the Israelis nor Hezbollah are likely to talk about it.

  32. um....okay by not+a+cylon · · Score: 1, Funny

    So they intercepted all this encrypted data, and *still* got their asses kicked? Talk about the suck.

    1. Re:um....okay by westlake · · Score: 1, Insightful
      So they intercepted all this encrypted data, and *still* got their asses kicked? Talk about the suck.

      But they didn't get their asses kicked. That is what has shaken Israel to the core.

    2. Re:um....okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      But they didn't get their asses kicked. That is what has shaken Israel to the core.


      Give me a break.. if Israel wants to they'll go back in and commit genocide as long as the supply lines with the US remain open. Who's going to stop them? The UN? The EU? Their neighbors? There are three militaries you summarily do not want to fuck with: US, UK, and Israeli. If Iran made a move on Israel there'd be two or three US divisions moving out of Iraq and right up their ass, and without even a token effort to maintain civlian infrastructure and not worrying about Iranian civilians they'd kill everything in sight.

      As a matter of fact look for it in 2007 according to intel estimates. What nuclear program? *snicker*
    3. Re:um....okay by Jack9 · · Score: 1
      But they didn't get their asses kicked

      It's hard for Hezbollah to tell who won when Heezy militia started out in mud-huts riding camels. Israel walked in, looked around, walked out. It certainly wasnt fo-Heezy that they stopped, but that there's little point in spreading thin to chase ghosts, when you've clearly demonstrated military superiority and had some valuable live target practice. Shoulda been what we did with Iraq the second time.
      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    4. Re:um....okay by grolschie · · Score: 1

      No perhaps its the 100's of rockets indescriminantly being fired into Israel each day by evil terrorists that is the cause for their concern.

    5. Re:um....okay by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      Israel had quite a few objectives during this conflict. Among them:

      a) Destruction of Hizbollah
      and/or
      b) Preventing Hizbollah from firiing rockets to Israel
      and/or
      c) Driving Hizbollah out of Southern Lebanon

      They failed in each of those. So I would be hard-pressed to label IDF as the winner of this particular conflict.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    6. Re:um....okay by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      Reduction in Hizbollah military power. Demonstrating military superiority and functionality. They succeeded in each of those ACTUAL goals. I find it curious that people don't label IDF as the winner, but fall back on "they didn't achieve world peace" as a failure. Why would you suggest that some type of utopian fantasy would be a goal?

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    7. Re:um....okay by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      Reduction in Hizbollah military power


      Since the goal was the destruction of Hizbollah and not "reduction", I'll chalk that one as failure.

      Demonstrating military superiority and functionality.


      And Hizbollah saw that they could face IDF, take them on, and be left standing when the hostilities end.

      They succeeded in each of those ACTUAL goals.


      What is this, the revisionist guide to Mid-East? When IDF fails to reach tgheir objectives we just say "those weren't their REAL objectives"? Oh I forgot another goal IDF failed to reach: the liuberation of those captured soldiers. So it seems that IDF failed to reach any of their objectives. Hizbollah managed to effectively fight the IDF and survive, Hizbollah managed to launch rockets all through the conflict, IDF failed to push Hizbollah out of Southern Lebanon AND they failed to liberate their captured soldiers. Is THAT a success?

      I find it curious that people don't label IDF as the winner, but fall back on "they didn't achieve world peace" as a failure.


      They had clear objectives, and they failed to reach any of them. What else is this than a failure? No. IDF was not defeated as such, they did not retreat in chaos or something. But they utterly failed to reach their goals. And at the end of the hostilities, their enemy was still standing.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    8. Re:um....okay by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      As far as I know it's not revisionist. It's reality. Hizbollah lost nearly every engagement...scratch that, every engagement. You can claim that an organization is a "force" or something to "deal with". I'd be worried about the "Fluffy Bunny Army" that also won that engagement, as they consist of me and my brother against Israel. We're still standing. Your perceptions are as irrelevant as my claims, because they are based on assumptions that both the FBA and Hizbollah exist in any meaningful way, outside of individual coordination. We might qualify as a gang, not some military force. The victory was that IDF went into a fully armed conflict with an unknown enemy and they promptly stomped them as well as collected information on who backs them and how to disrupt that in the future (bomb all the roads into or out of certain countries). Let's say *I* fire a rocket into Israel, would that make the FBA on par with Hizbollah? It's really laughable. There's no point discussing it with you any further when you're willing to assume that a conflicts' outcome is based on your arbitrary rules. I'm sure you do well in your circles with that nonsense.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    9. Re:um....okay by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      Hizbollah lost nearly every engagement...scratch that, every engagement.


      And USA won just about every engagement against North-Vietnam and Vietkong. So what's your point? Are you now going to claim that Vietnam War was a huge success for USA since you won just about every engagement?

      You can claim that an organization is a "force" or something to "deal with". I'd be worried about the "Fluffy Bunny Army" that also won that engagement, as they consist of me and my brother against Israel. We're still standing.


      Hizbollah launches rockets in to Israel, they killed lots of Israeli civilians and soldiers and they managed to capture IDF soldiers. And since Israel thought that they are such a credible threat that it warrants an invasion of another country, I would say that THEY certainly thought them to be a big enough threat. And now that hostilities have ended, their enemy is still there. "Fluffy bunny army" is 100% irrelevant.

      It's quite funny actually. First you claim that IDF DID reach their objectives (they didn't). And now you claim that Hizbollah is no threat at all, so it does not matter that were they destroyed or not. If Hizbollah is not a threat, why did we have this conflict then? Israel just wanted to push others around?

      The victory was that IDF went into a fully armed conflict with an unknown enemy and they promptly stomped them as well as collected information on who backs them and how to disrupt that in the future (bomb all the roads into or out of certain countries).


      Everybody already knows that Iran backs Hizbollah. And roads can be rebuilt. So what did IDF achieve here, really? And I fail to see how they "stomped" them, since their enemy is still standing, and they were capable of launching rockets in to Israel all through the conflict. AND IDF failed to free their captured soldiers.

      You just look at individual engagements (that were usually won by IDF) and declare IDF the winner, but you fail to see the strategic big picture. You seem to be VERY desperate in trying to make IDF the winner here. Is it really that hard to admit that they failed to reach any of the major objectives they had? How can you declare them the winner, when they didn't achieve much, and they failed to achieve any of their goals?

      Let's say *I* fire a rocket into Israel, would that make the FBA on par with Hizbollah?


      Uh, no?

      There's no point discussing it with you any further when you're willing to assume that a conflicts' outcome is based on your arbitrary rules.


      Countries don't go to war for shit and giggles, they have clear goals for doing so. And Israel didn't manage to reach any of their goals. Hizbollah can still launch rockets in to Israel, Hizbollah is still a credible force, Hizbollah is till holding IDF soldiers as prisoners.

      You seem to think that winner of the war is determined with some kind of scorecard, based on casualties or something. It's not. Fact remains that Israel failed to reach their objectives, period. What if some SEAL-team is given the task of capturing a bridge intact, so another force can use it to cross a river. And then the enemy blows that bridge up, before the SEAL's can capture it. Is that a "successful" mission? No it's not! So what exactly makes you think that IDF is successfull here, when they failed to reach any of their goals? They had handful of clear objectives, and they didn't reach ANY of them. And now that they failed at doing so, we have people like you claiming that "those weren't their real objectives! They just wanted to bomb some roads, and reduce Hizbollah". Bullshit. The goals was destruction of Hizbollah, destruction of their capability to launch rockets, freeing the captured soldiers.... They failed in ALL of those! But according to you, IDF succeeded just by the fact that they fought Hizbollah, since the goal was to "reduce" Hizbollah. So killing just one Hizbollah-fighter would have been enough, since they would have then "reduced" them?

      If that was a success, I wonder what failure would look like.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    10. Re:um....okay by Jack9 · · Score: 1
      Arguing your version of reality just seems increasingly delusional.
      If Hizbollah is not a threat, why did we have this conflict then?

      We didn't have the conflict. The FBA simply symbolically stood with their Hizbollah brothers. The conflict was about demonstrating strength, impacting the political arena (by both action and observation), and making sure what the real boundaries are...primarily that it would require the IDF to roll through Beruit to bring other foreign armies into the conflict. The IDF is now assured cart-blanche access to most of Lebanon on a whim.

      Countries don't go to war for shit and giggles, they have clear goals for doing so.
      Of course they don't. You believe press-conference statements with the myriad of other political factors that actually move armies.

      Fact remains that Israel failed to reach their objectives, period.

      Keep telling yourself that, because it makes it more true, right?
      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    11. Re:um....okay by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      "Keep telling yourself that, because it makes it more true, right?"

      Pray tell, what WERE their objectives then? To just about anyone thinks their objectives were pretty clear: destruction oh Hezbollah, liberation of captured soldiers, security for northern Israel. None of those goals were achieved. But now you claim that those weren't their goals. What were they then?

      Are you just annoyed by the fact that IDF failed? Or why do you have such a hard time admitting that IDF did not reach their objectives?

      The Economist declered Hezbollah the winner, 63% of Israelis want the prime-minister to resign due failure in the conflict, IDF leadership has admitted to failures, Ehud Olmert admitted to Knesset that the conflict was not a success, former Israeli defence minister referred to the conflict as "Defeat of Israel"... Yet here you are claiming that they were succesfull and that they reached their objectives. Seriously: Are you living in a Bizarro World or something?

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    12. Re:um....okay by Jack9 · · Score: 1
      Or why do you have such a hard time admitting that IDF did not reach their objectives?

      Some people claimed the justification for the conflict was to stop Hizbollah/Lebanese aggression toward Israel. In other news, politicians that make outrageous claims to explain why people die, got forced out of office by the politically fit. *cough* Katrina *cough* The only rule that seems to matter (in judging modern human conflict) is "how many generations can you control the human population within an area". You can argue endlessly about regional and temporary conflicts, reasonings, and implications, but take a second and think about what it means to "win". It's WAR. The real fear of any people has always been, who decides how your children grow up.

      Israel did not even want to control (most of) southern Lebanon, only demonstrate they could without having to convert it to glass. So you may not believe they could win because that contradicts what you heard from spokeholes. I heard Bush orchestrated the 9/11 attacks and we'll never break the speed of sound, if you're into believing everything you hear instead of thinking. There happens to be no value in holding the heart of southern Lebanon nor any real benefit to leveling Beruit once it was obvious that Syria/Iran were the puppeteers. Also, why would they occupy worthless desert, they are Jewish. Is it retreat to abandon a worthless piece of land you almost effortlessly dominate after taking what you want? Sounds like traditional imperialism and historical Israeli. Politicians, Generals, and of course /. posters all have an opinion about what success is, but it's really silly to think that the Lebanese aren't going to flee southern Lebanon when the tanks roll back in, because it's defacto Israel's playground. Being able to win the next fight without landing a single blow is something like an overwhelming victory.

      The idea that stopping individuals or individual actions (kidnappings, philosophical followers) are realistic military goals, is simply a disconnect from reality. They figured that out in Ancient Greece. Deposing and killing individuals doesn't win you anything meaningful anymore either, they figured that out AFTER the mass media (post-WWII) dilluted effective propoganda. Symbols are dead. Declarations of war are pointless. Warfare has been a matter of controlling populations since WWII, when conquest did not necessarily result in colonialism by the 'liberator'. Organized, single point conflicts are pre-known outcomes, and where it's not assured, forces sometimes go fishing as an ancillary goal. Nobody fired nuclear death at IDF, IDF took real-estate that they will control for a couple generations, people died on both sides, IDF got to practice new toys (from top of the line military vendors) and vet forces, IDF wins.

      I don't like Israel, but I have no delusions of what happened because of nonsense from the TV or spokesholes who make ludicrous statements to color a poor outcome as a win. If the IDF dropped into Florida, caused the population and US forces to fall back, then left after taking a couple of The Keyes, it's not a US win, it's a fucking scary scary thought. When Hizbollah starts from the position "we cant take the IDF" and they are right, how is that a win? When Israel whoops ass then claims "oh but we were dealt a fatal blow and defeated summarily", you are listening to the victor write history...just not the history you would expect. Look at what they have GOTTEN out of declaring defeat and you'll understand what has really happened.
      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    13. Re:um....okay by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      "Israel did not even want to control (most of) southern Lebanon, only demonstrate they could without having to convert it to glass."

      Even if they did, they failed at it. Or do you think that Israel was "controlling" southern-Lebanon? Didn't look like that to me.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  33. This matters why? by Jack9 · · Score: 3, Funny

    So they cracked communications such as

    "We've killed everyone in the area, moving on to the next village."

    "They are falling back in a northernly direction, sending missile salvos 1, 2, and 3 miles ahead of our mechanized division to thin out the runners and reduce resistance as we proceed."

    "Good hit. They didn't have a chance."

    --

    Often wrong but never in doubt.
    I am Jack9.
    Everyone knows me.
    1. Re:This matters why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You realise that Hizbollah won right?

      See for example here or here

    2. Re:This matters why? by telemart73 · · Score: 1

      i was a listener for a number of years and got a chuckle, albeit a grim one, at your post. probably very accurate...

    3. Re:This matters why? by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      Sure they did. I'll take that kind of loss all day long. I believe the military took that kind of loss in thailand today.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    4. Re:This matters why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you need French soldiers to cover your retreat, that's called a loss.

    5. Re:This matters why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when you think french soldiers can cover anything, you're called deluded and frankly, ignorant.

  34. the Brits confirmed McCarthy correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    about 10 years ago. That's why the accusation of McCarthyism is used so raraly, no sting anymore.

    1. Re:the Brits confirmed McCarthy correct by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      the Brits confirmed McCarthy correct about 10 years ago. That's why the accusation of McCarthyism is used so raraly, no sting anymore.
      But only to the informed, unfortunately. I'd say most of the screaming children here on slashdot still think Senator McCarthy was behind the silly Hollywood blacklisting nonsense stemming from the House Committee on Unamerican Activities. I can't tell you the number of people I run into with a strong opinion on McCarthy who don't even know that his concern was with potential communist spies within the US government.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    2. Re:the Brits confirmed McCarthy correct by Dever · · Score: 1
      "The American Heritage Dictionary defines "McCarthyism" as "the practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence" and "the use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition."

      from WikiP. of course, i do know the difference between HUAC and McCarthyism technically, i'm not sure to what GP refers to as to what the brits confirmed (everyone the Sen. accused and slandered turned out to be communists? indeed?)

      but McCarthy was a damned UNAMERICAN cunt himself, in my not at all humble opinion, even if he is distinct from HUAC.

      hiring the HUACs staff director when he finally did get his own committee with breadth to investigate communists, and his behavior (which was not above the HUACs at all, and in ways, perhaps more ostentatiously worse) throughout his career in the limelight (read about all his lied up war stories sometime, there's a good number of them)...ahem...

      i forgot what i was saying...damn commie brain rays...

      --
      - I'd prefer not to.
  35. The Real News by PHAEDRU5 · · Score: 0

    Hezbollah was dug in, well-trained and well-indoctrinated, could listen in on what the Israeli's were doing, and still had its ass handed to it.

    Nasrallah himself has called this war a catastrophe for Hezbollah.

    --
    668: Neighbour of the Beast
  36. Captured communique: by Chas · · Score: 1

    :Colonel I suggest that ^H^H^H^ ALLAH OWNZ J00R B0X0RZ!^H^H^H^ insurgents.: :Shit. Switch over to IM! AOL encrypts EVERYTHING!:

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  37. Re:Shame! by mkiwi · · Score: 1
    The way my tax dollars are used makes me sick.

    You better stop buying oil too.

  38. Redundancy Department of Redundancy by MrSquishy · · Score: 0
    Now, if we could only find an:
    Electronic Electronic Counter Countermeasures (ECCM) measure
    we may solve 2:???, and could proceed to 3:Profit!
    1. Re:Redundancy Department of Redundancy by TED+Vinson · · Score: 1
      Well, according to the article, Iran did provide an EECCMMCM: electronic Electronic Counter Countermeasues measure countermeasure.

      Still no clear path to '3. Profit', though...

    2. Re:Redundancy Department of Redundancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that the point of ECCM is to counter electronic countermeasures?

  39. Don't you mean... by zanderz · · Score: 1

    CigAAAHHRRRRRRRs, matey?

  40. Triangulation with omni antennas by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well if you have two of them at two known positions, you could probably get a direction based on the time difference between the signal's arrival at the two stations. Or maybe you could do something with measuring the signal's phase shift. I've never sat down and worked out the problem but it seems like it could be done, on paper at least.

    Some Googling reveals that somebody at least has thought of the same concept (and got a patent on it already, although it was filed in 1977, so I think that means it's expired now), no idea if they've ever put it into practice:
    Determining azimuth of a transponder by measuring a plurality of phase shifts. Tomasi, Jean-Pierre, United States Patent 4,110,754.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  41. Hezbollah Hacked Israeli Military Radio by CrossChris · · Score: 1

    They didn't actually have to "hack" it at all. The encryption technology is really crude (and well-known) and American frequency-hopping gear follows predetermined sequences - these are also well known.

    It's trivial for any reasonably equipped and fairly savvy military radio op to monitor these transmissions.

  42. Re:Excuses excuses by mqduck · · Score: 0

    I wish I had mod points for you. However,

    Israel lost because America woke up and realized that the cluster bombs they were shipping to Israel were intended to kill large numbers of civilians.

    sounds like wishful thinking. Seriously, that would be wonderfully wonderful, but it hasn't happened. I also think you're making the mistake lots of people make about Vietnam: they think that the anti-war movement ended the war. It may have helped, but the war was ended by the NLF and the Vietnamese people. Same here, Hezbollah "won" the invasion because of Hezbollah and the Lebanese people and their overwhelming support.

    --
    Property is theft.
  43. Stupidest propaganda BS on slashdot yet by brennz · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Contrary to popular myth, Hezbollah (unlike Hamas and the other Palestinian groups) prefers not to operate around civilians. Not for a concern for the civilians' safety -- they'll confiscate buildings to use as shooting positions if needed, whether their owners like it or not -- but for their own safety. Hamas operates openly as a sign of pride and defiance. However, by doing that, it only takes a tiny handful of defectors to point out to Israel where they are and what they're doing. Hezbollah, on the other hand, prefers to operate in areas where nobody is around to reduce the risk of being exposed by defectors."

    What the hell is this youtube video then?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aur_DmTIw70

    And this one
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68yOJVQA51E

    I'm calling BS. Take your propaganda off of slashdot - I know how to use google!

    1. Re:Stupidest propaganda BS on slashdot yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ahh, youtube, the pinnacle of the true information, the beacon of knowledge that illuminates the otherwise dark ignorant world that it's the internet.

    2. Re:Stupidest propaganda BS on slashdot yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      didn't Colin Powell have some equally-grainy black and white footage showing Iraqi ROVs that didn't exist?

      Who's spreading propaganda?

    3. Re:Stupidest propaganda BS on slashdot yet by grrrgrrr · · Score: 1

      But that video does not prove anything either especially if you consider the civilian trucks that where attack carrying pipes or cranes and that where mistaken as missile launchers there where 2 instances where journalists where present that i can recall.

    4. Re:Stupidest propaganda BS on slashdot yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny.
      Call him a propagandist an swing some youtube movies at us.
      you really convinced me man.
      I think the only sentnce u understood was the one where he told that hezbollah was not hiding behind civilians.

      greetings
      HNS

    5. Re:Stupidest propaganda BS on slashdot yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What?! Speak English!

      Kee-rist.

    6. Re:Stupidest propaganda BS on slashdot yet by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      Well, if Hizbollah is using civilians as a shield then the strategy has failed, because Isreal has shown no restraint whatsover in bombing those locations.

    7. Re:Stupidest propaganda BS on slashdot yet by Stalyn · · Score: 1

      Hey I don't know how to break this to you... but lonelygirl15 isn't real. Yeah, yeah I know I couldn't believe it either... I mean YouTube.... YouTube!? *sigh*

      --
      The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
    8. Re:Stupidest propaganda BS on slashdot yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I see is houses, not civilians. The video is not from the same day when Israel bombed Qana.

    9. Re:Stupidest propaganda BS on slashdot yet by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What the hell is this youtube video then?
      I'm calling BS. Take your propaganda off of slashdot - I know how to use google!


      Footage from (apparently) Israeli military cameras that is so low rez that it is barely discernable?
      Interspered with text telling us what to think?

      Who do you think made those videos? Israeli military video footage doesn't just appear on the net by itself. The only propaganda I see here is your post and the claims in those dubious videos. On the other hand, the OP makes a plausible and rational explanation for his claims.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  44. The IDF knew about all that a few days in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A friend of mine in the artilery told me that they were required to maintain complete radio silence, and that all targeting and unit movement data were to be sent over a target exchange network they employ. The standard radio in the IDF (MK-27, iirc) is a simple spread-spectrum radio which is not bigger of a challange to crack then the GSM networks in some countries.
    Its because of the use of these that some of the ground force communications were intercepted.

  45. Procedural error should not cause compromise by spidey3 · · Score: 1

    If procedural errors can cause the entire system security to be breached, then I would say that the system is poorly designed. A properly designed secure communications system would not operate at all if correct security procedures were not followed.

    1. Re:Procedural error should not cause compromise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If procedural errors can cause the entire system security to be breached, then I would say that the system is poorly designed. A properly designed secure communications system would not operate at all if correct security procedures were not followed.


      Right. And what military COMSEC experience do you have? Didn't think so.

      I've got a few years of COMINT, ELINT, and COMSEC experience (both using and developing) and I'm here to tell you the old adage applies:

      Designing an improved idiot proof systems brings about improved idiots.

      Why the hell do you think they put "Front Toward Enemy" on claymores? And you just *know* somebody somewhere screwed that up anyway and was instantly unpopular with the other members in his squad.
    2. Re:Procedural error should not cause compromise by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      A properly designed secure communications system would not operate at all if correct security procedures were not followed.
      Yeah, and if one SINCGARS set gets mis-loaded with the wrong encryption keys, it should be rendered totally useless, with no means of transmitting in the clear, because following procedures by the book is more important than (say) a scout platoon being able to warn of a surprise attack from the flank. The entire battalion being destroyed is the only proper punishment when one jackass Spec-4 fucks up with a key transfer device.

      You've never been in the military, have you.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    3. Re:Procedural error should not cause compromise by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      If procedural errors can cause the entire system security to be breached, then I would say that the system is poorly designed. A properly designed secure communications system would not operate at all if correct security procedures were not followed.

      I certainly wouldn't want to be a soldier with your radios then. One guy screws up and the entire system goes down..... IN THE MIDDLE OF A FREAKIN WAR! I don't think so.

      It sure would be great for ambushes though. Kill one guy, take his radio and nobody will be able to call for backup. What could possibly go wrong?

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
  46. Possible ideas... by MBC1977 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Considering that the SINGARS family of radios are very diverse set of radios (PRC-119 being the most common), there are one of two possible scenerios that
    could have occured (ranked from unlikely to likely)

    Incidentally, this is my opinion and not fact so please do not take this out of context.

    1) Israel was using an unsecure net (i.e. plaintext, single channel) - This is probably unlikely because as a fighting force, the Israelis are among
    the best, specifically in the areas of tactical security.

    2) Somebody lost a CYZ-10 encryption device (along with the physical key) - A CYZ-10 (without getting into specifics) secures the comm for the SINGARS.
    If this happened and it was not reported, essentially Israel's ENTIRE theaterwide military operations would have been compromised, until a crypto
    change-over (while unlikely), assuming that they did not rollover their crypto on a daily or weekly basis, they would have been totally open to anybody.

    Again, I'm just speculating, but considering how important it is for us when we conduct combat ops, not to lose compromise comms, these are some real
    distinct, possiblities.

    Regards,

    MBC1977,
    (US Marine, College Student, and Good Guy!)

    --
    Regards,

    MBC1977,
    1. Re:Possible ideas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the "best" just had an embarassing defeat..

  47. BzztBzztBongDong.Propoganda machine in full effect by EMIce · · Score: 1

    The Israeli military may just need propoganda to account for what's been widely considered a poor showing by it's forces in this "war" - especially considering the legendary status of Israeli military and intelligence. The citizens are not happy and are grumbling, they actually pay attention to what's going on in a conflict, unlike in the U.S, so this just might be to soothe them.

    It's hard to trust what either side is saying when so much is at stake. The Hezbollah official who was showing off about their capability probably realizes Israel has the resources to make a far more secure and foolproof communications system, but he cannot pass up the chance to offer encouragement against a very tough enemy.

    Hezbollah would like everyone to think about the advancing nature of Hezbollah technology and tactics, while Israeli leaders would like everyone to think of it is as a major fluke, which will be promptly patched up by "next time". The truth of what will probably happen next time is anybody's guess, but I'd rather trust what a military expert has to say than these guys or just any old reporter.

  48. It's a start... by kbox · · Score: 1

    .. Now all they have to do is learn hebrew.

  49. Thank You by algerath · · Score: 1
    I am glad to see a comment from someone who knows what the hell they are talking about. This has been painful to read untill now.

    In my experience the critical skill is the ability to get a BN CDR to allow the signal personnel to dictate the SOP for such a compromise. I can react to it, my problem is getting the proper reaction put in place in the sop and practiced so it can be done properly when needed.

    Algerath

    1. Re:Thank You by benj_e · · Score: 1

      This was a problem even before I was in the Army 20 years ago. COMSEC is the red-headed stepchild of Intel and Communications.

      I remember being able to crack nets with very little effort even on field exercises, let alone heat of combat.

      Heck, the US Army even did away with the COMSEC/SIGSEC MOS.

      --
      The Tao that can be spoken is not the one eternal Tao
  50. Re:Excuses excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Israel lost because America woke up and realized that the cluster bombs they were shipping to Israel were intended to kill large numbers of civilians."

    Good god you're stupid.

  51. Let's just.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...blame Microsoft.

  52. A lil' further back... no, less... lil' more... by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    Pretty hard to find out where a rocket landed 10-30 miles away.. A bunch of the tanks were destroyed by mines.

    I figured they had militants near enough to see what was going on through binoculars (therefore far enough away to avoid getting hit) telling them by radio where to aim and what they hit.

    Retro-tech espionage... maybe I underestimated their techies.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  53. Military != Easy to hack by MMaestro · · Score: 1
    Actually I think the biggest news is actually two things. One, the sheer lack of surprise from the tech-savvy /. audience. Second, the level of technology and military aid Hezbollah recieved from Iran.

    I also find interesting how you compare Hezbollah, a guerilla army with the German professional army of WWII. Lets get something straight. If Hezbollah is going to act as if its the under-equipped, under-armed, poor underdogs, they can't be launching HUNDREDS of rockets EACH DAY. They can't be hacking MILTARY COMMUNICATIONS. They can't be recieving cutting edge technology military aid for DECADES. By your logic, given the sheer ease and availability of firearms, body armor, explosives, training and auto shops to build technicals in the U.S., every citizen is, at minimum, in the National Guard.

    1. Re:Military != Easy to hack by gutnor · · Score: 1

      "cutting edge technology military aid for DECADES"

      Yes maybe they launched hundreds of rocket a day, but with what precision and result ?? With hundreds of rocket launched per day, what kind of significant damage did they managed to do ?
      In the whole campain they probably did less dammage overall than what 1 isrealian plane in 1 raid can do. Or maybe you mean that they kept their "cutting edge technology military aid" for a better time because they feared to hurt Israel too badly ?

      Hezbollah is indeed a guerilla, probably, funded and supported by Iran.
      Maybe they even received the best technologies Iran had in store, but if that's the case, that means that Iran itself is vastly under-equiped, under-armed, and certainly more in line with Irak army ( before the war )

    2. Re:Military != Easy to hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In the northern most cities of Israel, the rockets were accurate and precise enough to force evacuations... thats a pretty significant weapon when you think about it. And Israeli planes really aren't that powerful if you really step back and think about it. If you place a weapons cache in a residential building (with people still living inside) do you really think you can bomb it without causing ANY civilian casualities? (Proof? Sure, just dig up the tons of concrete without construction vehicles then search for evidence that would villify the local, violent, angry, armed people/militia/military.)

      Maybe they even received the best technologies Iran had in store, but if that's the case, that means that Iran itself is vastly under-equiped, under-armed, and certainly more in line with Irak army ( before the war )

      Wow, you know almost nothing of the standing militaries in the Middle East do you? Iran was once supplied by the United States, is currently supplied by China and is rumored to be buying weapons (tanks, planes, etc) from the Russian military. Iraq was VERY well equiped in both the Gulf War and Iraqi Freedom, you just didn't see it in action. (In the Gulf War the majority was out-flanked and largely didn't fight and in Iraqi Freedom, most surrendered before U.S. forces even showed up.)

  54. Great News! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is great news!!! Now the anglo-saxon war criminals and the zionist untermenschen may be apaled by the ingenuity of their adversary.
    After all the enemy is supposed to be the untermensch, isn't he?
    Just go on invading countries on an illegal basis and go on droping clusterbombs on civilian areas.
    And certainly keep on dying in all those countries you are trespassing. Take all your maimed and wounded back home.
    And go on trying to convince these fools, retards and mercenaries that their 'sacrifies' was worthwhile.
    For what concerns me, they are opportunistic killers fighting for a zionistic, neo-con sham. Just keep dying and bleeding, you empire of evil =:-D ...

  55. Re:Who needs encryption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Just say "Mohammed was a murdering pedophile" and they'll be so hopping, bleeding-out-the-ears mad over the next several hours that they won't be listening to anything, especially not logic.
    This is established fact. Why should this be news to any muslim?
  56. Hmmm. by jd · · Score: 3, Interesting
    You can only prove a winning strategy exists in a full information scenario. No such proof exists when only partial information exists, although you can approximate it pretty well if you get close enough to the full information case. Ergo, there will be cases when giving the "enemy" genuine information is actually the correct thing to do.


    There is also the perspective that obscurity is not the same as security. If you have secret A and are trying to prevent B from knowing it, you can NEVER be certain that B does not have that information. If they obtain knowledge of A, and keep that hidden from you, then your obscurity becomes a weapon against you. This is the problem the Germans had once the Enigma ciphers were broken. By relying totally on obscurity, the Germans became extremely vulnerable. Obscurity is a VERY dangerous tool.


    By far the best tactic is to assume the enemy could know everything - not necessarily that they will, but that they could. This introduces a degree of fault-tolerence into actions. It does not rely on an assumed weakness that may not exist (and therefore make those carrying out the action the weaker party), but assumes that the opposition is as competent and capable as it chooses to be. As this is often much closer to reality, it is a better assumption to make.


    In terms of encryption, for example, using an obscure algorithm puts you at gigantic risk as it can't have had the eyeballs to verify that it is indeed secure. Furthermore, people are more likely to use weak keys, as they won't see the point in taking care, as they're working on the basis that they don't need to. A very stupid practice. The best you could do is make the algorithm public, utterly destroy any delusions of absolute mental superiority, and force people to work damn hard to use the algorithm correctly. If the enemy finds a fault and keeps it secret, they would have done so anyway, so you lose nothing. If Joe Smurf on sci.crypto finds a fault and publishes it, you will have time to fix the bug or switch to another method. Overall, you lose nothing.


    Assuming the enemy is an idiot, merely because they're the enemy, is the best way to lose a battle or a war. Either that or acting stupid.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  57. Can you give a source for that?! by BerntB · · Score: 1
    Contrary to popular myth, Hezbollah (unlike Hamas and the other Palestinian groups) prefers not to operate around civilians.

    Well, there were interviews in Washington Post (and NY Times, but my memory can fool me here) about how the Hezbollah used to go into Christian villages and fire rockets and run away before the counter fire came.

    taking out hundreds of Merkavas

    Hundreds?! Can you give a source for THAT claim?

    it's a big question mark on how to deal with them.

    I am not a military expert, but I think history over millennia has shown two working ways of handling fanatical guerillas in bad terrain: (a) Hearts and minds of the civilian population and (b) clearing the area of people totally and not leave stone on stone.

    "(a)" is hardly possible with the Shia by the Israeli border. Saddam Hussein did a variant of "(b)" with the Shia after their uprising -- outright atrocities in such a volume they stopped giving him trouble. A civilized country like Israel can't do that unless they are desperate (or the Palestinian problems would only be in history books).

    Hezbollah isn't so much a guerilla as a dug down army division. Their problem is that they are easy to keep down using air -- and then use a big army unit clearing out area after area.

    Let us hope none of the methods will have to be done -- and that the international community will keep its promise this time and make it a calm border. If Hezbollah continues to throw rock on the bear, it will certainly wake up again, angrier for every time it happens.

    --
    Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    1. Re:Can you give a source for that?! by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
      fire rockets and run away before the counter fire came

      That kinda sounds like any army in the world's standard operating procedure. Seriously, who the fuck fires off easily triangulatable weaponry and then stands around, dick in hand, waiting for the retaliation?

      Or were you attacking the 'use of Christian villages' - if indeed that was the case? In which case, it's also logical that if you could attack from a location where your enemy is less likely to retaliate, then you would. Ethical? Moral? Probably no less ethical or moral than your enemy returning fire when they know all of this, and yet, as you yourself said "they've already disappeared from said location".

      What's less ethical or moral? Hezbollah attacking Israeli targets from civilian locations, or Israel retaliating at civilian locations in the name of "defence", "propaganda", or "attempting to foment civil discord at Hezbollah"?

      While both are at one level or another, extremely unpalatable, I actually gotta err on the "side" of Hezbollah, here.

  58. terrorist thugs? no discipline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Couple of points for the racist zionist apartheid promoters:

    Hezbollah was born of the poorest of the poor in southern lebanon after two decades of foreign occupation, when no one would help them. It is a home grown legitimate resistance movement, dedicated to freeing their lands, ALL their lands. That so called border is a joke, it was IMPOSED on those people by outsiders. What THE FUCK would you do if you had grown up with a bunch of foreign invaders as your rulers and masters, people who had unlimited life or death power over you and USED that power? Just roll over, be a quisling, go against your own people? The Israelis havbe been engaging in outright civilian massacres since day one of their artificially imposed, and NON semitic european nation thrust into the middle of SEMITIC arab peoples. Israel is a FARCE, has even hijacked the "semite" name, and always has been. Let Germany and Italy (and the UK of Lord Balfour) host the "holocaust remnants homeland" on their soil, back over in Europe, because it was THEIR fault, not the Lebanese or Palestinians or Jordanians.

    No discipline? Thugs? You must have been looking at a parallel universe TV then, because they kicked serious ass for weeks WITHOUT ANY AIR COVER OR HEAVY ARMOR. NONE. They held those european racist zionazis back well beyond anything YOU could have done, that's for sure. They took it and took it and took it and still kept fighting! I'd like to see any nation or group, including the "invincible" israelis or the "army of one" americans do that. I *doubt* they could. Even with air cover it is now being proven that trying to invade and take over people who are fighting for their own land (Iraq for one place) on their own turf is pretty hard. Screw the invaders!

  59. Not the radios by Jeff1946 · · Score: 1

    I believe it was the willingness of Hezbolah fighters to fight to the death that the difference. In the past other fighters would break and run under superior fire power. Now they hole up and take casualities. I would bet they learned tactics from Iraq. Well dug in infantry that is willing to fight will always cause a lot of casualities. Even if a someone in Hezbolah intercepted some messages, they would have to then communicate their response to many groups of fighters widely scattered. I doubt the control and communication was that good. Particulary when any movement of significant numbers would result in a punishing air strike.

  60. Obviously, Iran is behind the whole thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Funny how whenever someone we don't like is up to something, we try to link it to someone who we're just itching to bomb.

    1. Re:Obviously, Iran is behind the whole thing. by 808140 · · Score: 1

      But, I'm sure Iran has WMDs! This time we'll find 'em! Did you know that most of the people who bombed the WTC on 9/11 were Iranians?

    2. Re:Obviously, Iran is behind the whole thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe this explains how Bush got in office ...

      EVERYTHING MAKES MORE SENSE.

  61. This looks just like "signals traffic" by Rick+Bentley · · Score: 1
    The most basic way to "hack" a wireless communications system is to simply whatch where the transmissions are coming from. You don't need to break the code to do this, you just need to know on which frequencies they broadcast. This is called "signals traffic".
    Therefore, the following:
    "special Hezbollah teams monitored the constantly changing radio frequencies of Israeli troops on the ground. That gave guerrillas a picture of Israeli movements, casualty reports and supply routes. It also allowed Hezbollah anti-tank units to more effectively target advancing Israeli armor, according to the officials."

    Could really just mean:
    1) we saw a lot of radio transmissions coming from over there, so we knew they were over there ("picture of Israeil movements")
    2) we launched mortars/rockets a whole bunch of places. When we launched a mortar/rocket and immediately saw a radio transmission we had a "casualty report".
    3) averaging over time we saw that radio transmissions made a line on a map, this we called a "supply route".
    4) our anti-tank units would point their weaopns towards transmissions, "more effectively target advancing Israeli armor".

    It never says that they broke any codes, but you can get useful information anyway.
    --
    My favorite quote doesn't fit into 120 characters. Now no one will like me.
  62. ethnocentric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Iran has a smart leader and we have a deaf idiot run by a blind team having a bad trip.
    44% of americans think christ is coming back in the next 50 years. half are creationists.

    Bush hears god from his hairdryer and people belief him.
    Now think-- why does it seem less stupid if you remove the hairdryer from that statement?

  63. The Codebook by Pseudonymus+Bosch · · Score: 1

    I don't believe Simon Singh's The Code Book is available online

    At least the CDROM is.

    --
    __
    Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
    GW Bu
  64. Knew this a looong time ago.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To clear something up, Isreal knew that Hezbollah tapped into their radios. They must have changed the codes rendering the ones Hezbollah had useless, thus why they admitted they cracked the codes b/c it was a win-win scenario. Plus, everyone in the middle east knew they had the codes at the begining of the war. You want a legitimate source? I was there this summer and this info was on every channel on tv. Plus, this doesn't come to any surprise at all. The lebanese people knew even before it was said on the tv that Hezbollah had hacked in. They have insiders in Israel, they have engineers and coders as well. The mind of a guerrilla works better than that of a lazy soldier.

  65. Re:ITS THIS.. by takochan · · Score: 1


    >I don't think that the average American would feel that our country has lost any respect at all if we

    Yep thats right. Actually, arab people aren't generally different than we are (exception of various nutcases wako's around, but the USA has its plenty share too)

    >tried to figure out what is pissing those people off so much, and figured out how to address that
    >problem to remove their reason to fight. It's the only way any lasting peace will be achieved.

    Its very simple, and not unreasonable actually..

    1)The Palestinians want (at least some of) their land back, and they want their country back (it was where Israel is now). The Israelis don't want to give (any of) it back.

    2)Arabs want the USA to stop funding Israel's army and govt, as they are going around the middle east bombing and terrorizing the palestians as well as their neighbors, and the arabs are absolutely sick of it. 9/11 and such was (a rather extreme) case of 'what goes around, comes around'.. see www.aljazeera.net for a daily rundown of what the Israelis do daily over there, all paid for with US free money, free bombs & free support.

    3)If the Israeli's (and the USA) want 'terrorism' to stop, see point #1 (and #2) above.

    Basically thats it.. its very simple really.

  66. Israel wins this one by e-scetic · · Score: 1

    What probably really happened was some ragtag bunch of Lebanese kids happened upon a broken IDF radio which was making all sorts of squawking staticky sounds, brought it to the local Hezbollah leaders, etc., and from there the story was born - "Hezbollah hacks IDF communications". The Israelis, for whatever reason, are obviously encouraging it - knowing it to be bunkum (what else can it be). Maybe the Israeli side thinks the spread of this story will lead to more American funding or equipment. They're probably right.

  67. I think it may be several things like... by Dever · · Score: 1
    a caliph ordering a church in jerusalem destroyed and some pilgrims, and their lodgings presumably (the church was allowed to be rebuilt, by his successor),
    killing infidels was kind of ok at the time in the east too, they weren't mickey mousing it exactly,

    a huge glut of trained warriors who at the time found themselves with nothing to do but 'rape and pillagize' whoever the fuck they wanted (hint: local peasants and whatnot, since the vikings/etc were pacified)

    a humongous surge in secular interest in religion, due to the huge simony (selling church offices (bishops, etc), done by non church people) scandal,

    eventually emperor Alexuis got roughed up a few times by some thugs, eventually got his hood all but taken (think he claimed byzantium st. crips) and asked his kind of distant friend in the other christian posse (uhm, west st. catholics? i forget) and his homie didn't just send some troops, he rallied
    a whole motherfucking crusade to retake jerusalem, handed out crosses (or his uhm, underlings did) and promised heaven to those not good enough to survive (don't know about virgins though, think the muslims got them there).

    also, war is good for business, especially if you're a emperor or somesuch trying to consolidate power with a bunch of bored, but trained warriors sitting around not being good neighbors.

    whewww....boy, wish i had stuck with oversimplifying everything like you, woulda saved me alot of typing...

    whoever agrees, disagrees or whatever, i won't be reading your replies after already wasting time with this piece of pedantry.
    and now, back to oversimplifying encryptions export rules!!!1131!@1 the good vintage ones!!#@1!!

    oh wait, i already passed that one up...
    must...learn...to...resist...

    --
    - I'd prefer not to.
    1. Re:I think it may be several things like... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting that these were critical chokepoints for all trade happening between Europe and Asia. All kinds of spices, jewellery and other expensive goods were traded over these routes. By controlling the area the Ottoman Empire made large amounts of money from charging all travelling merchants toll. In order to avoid that chokepoint and find alternate routes to Asia (especially India) Columbus set out to see if India can be reached if you travel far enough in the other direction. So if the turks hadn't occupied that trade route the USA wouldn't exist today.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    2. Re:I think it may be several things like... by Dever · · Score: 1
      damn, my dog got me up too damn early...

      true though i suppose, the fall of the byzantium i think did come eventually after muslims had taken much of that empire...

      considering how 'civilized' cultures with the most strife are the ones who advanced quickest (comparing say western european cultures with more egalitarian ones ie, zhun-twasi in S.Africa/Hopi/Pauite all restricted to local living and trade/etc) it's interesting to think if europe had never made it this far, that early.

      knowing how the game goes though, genocide would have happened eventually as a (whenever) newly discovered americas would become an obvious resource grab. i suppose if it didn't happen in the 16th century, it would have happened soon enough.

      perhaps we'd be differently configured (US), but my (musing, not rebuttal) musings on what if native peoples to the americas hadn't been crushed, ultimately are just fantasy i think.

      ok, you got me. i replied.

      damn dog, i'm not giving him a treat.

      --
      - I'd prefer not to.
  68. RTFM by BerntB · · Score: 1
    Or were you attacking the 'use of Christian villages' - if indeed that was the case? In which case, it's also logical that if you could attack from a location where your enemy is less likely to retaliate, then you would.

    First, please read up on war laws -- it is frigging illegal to use civilians for shields in a war. As it is to explicitly target civilians. Hezbollah did both, at the same time!

    Second, afaik, counter artillery is so fast that they only go after values on an arillery radar. Often/usually, the artillery doesn't really know what they shoot back at! Because of that, Hezbollah was probably trying to get Israel to kill civilians for propaganda values rather than to get shields.

    Third, an army that as a matter of planning use civilians for cover to shoot at other civilians -- and you blaim the side shooting back equally?!?! Talk about double standards.

    --
    Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    1. Re:RTFM by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
      Speaking of double standards,

      First, please read up on war laws -- it is frigging illegal to use civilians for shields in a war.

      That's funny, everywhere I go I hear the US and Israel trumpeting how Hezbollah is "not a military army, it's a terrorist organisation", so they're exempt from the Geneva Convention, but oh no, not when it comes to the laws of war - they're expected to follow those. Which is it? An army, or a terrorist organisation?

      As it is to explicitly target civilians.

      Israel also showed itself more than capable and willing to do the same, even when they were well aware their enemy was nowhere nearby (and not just in relation to counterartillery).

      Often/usually, the artillery doesn't really know what they shoot back at!

      Ahh, shoot first, ask questions later. No wonder there's so many casualties due to "collateral damage" and "friendly fire".

  69. Cluster bombs are people killers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Israel ordered enough cluster bombs that the intention was a massacre of Lebanon. Even the Jewish US Senators wouldn't tolerate it.

  70. At least troll well by BerntB · · Score: 1

    If you are going to be a troll, at least don't be a stupid and boring one.

    The EU doesn't classify Hezbollah as a terrorist organization -- so they break war laws, according to EU. It breaks international law to be a terrorist organization, by definition. You can't defend Hezbollah's behaviour.

    Afaik, Israel hasn't targeted civilians as primary targets. If nothing else, that would be stupid, since they can only lose by doing so -- in international opinion and in internal opinion in Israel. (You will get misses and wrongful targeting in any war. That is legal.) Also, Hezbollah have an interest in getting civilians killed -- and could influence the count of what the dead was...

    Also, since you obviously know even less than me about counter artillery fire, why don't you read up on the subject before blaiming one side for shooting back at people targeting their civilians...? Because that is what every damn army will do on the planet.

    --
    Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    1. Re:At least troll well by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
      Since when is Lebanon a member of the EU? And it's not "any entity, professional, amateur, mercenary, civilian or otherwise, except terrorist organisations" that can be guilty of war crimes. By definition, the only entities that can commit war crimes are those same "enemy combatants" whose definition was so feverishly argued over when it came to Guantanamo Bay.

      Note that I never defended Hezbollah's behaviour. In fact I'm quite sure I called it both unpalatable and abhorrent.

      Afaik, Israel hasn't targeted civilians as primary targets.

      Well, Amnesty International, for one, would disagree with you. So would Human Rights Watch. As do the UN.

    2. Re:At least troll well by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
  71. Frequency hopping *was* secure.... by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    about thirty years ago. Now wideband scanners etc make it all but obsolete. These days there are commercial spectrum analysis tools (commonly used for EMI analysis etc) that can easily find reconstruct original modulation from frequency hopped sources.

    For any half-aarsed security you're going to have to encrypt the signal further.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  72. Still bad trolling by BerntB · · Score: 1

    You argued that since Hezbollah is a terror organization, it can't break war laws.

    I answered that "argument" with that EU, amongst others, doesn't consider Hezb a terror organization and that it is friggin' illegal to be a terror organization anyway (by definition, they do things that would be classified war crimes if a state did them). So it is quite equivalent.

    I really can't see how your definition game can matter, since committing war crimes like targeting civilians (by EU definition) is about as bad as being a terrorist organization. At least troll well if you have nothing to say.

    I argued that -- Afaik, Israel hasn't targeted civilians as primary targets but that if you have an air bombing campaign, you will hit civilians -- it isn't war crimes and that Hezb had lots of control over which dead was counted as civilians and which were counted as Hezb (almost none, strangely enough).

    You point out that Amnesty and HRW accused Israel of bombing civilian infrastructure needlessly (HRW reformulated the initial claims to be that they couldn't find Hezb where Israelis had bombed, which is logical since there will be mistaken targeting -- and it isn't believable they can have an opinion when being shepherded by Hezb through bombing sites, check other documents on their sites). Which isn't relevant for my point, either. (Others in this thread have pointed out documented cases of where Hezb really integrated Iran's, sorry, their infrastructure with civilians.)

    --
    Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
  73. You're kidding, right? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    There is no Bible in Judaeism, let alone a "New Testament." The Torah is pretty much the same as the first 5 books of the Christian Old Testament, but that's about it.

    No kidding, Webster. That's was the whole point of the quip. Even though you *understood* it, you didn't *get* it. Weird. Maybe because it was a Judaeism vs Christianity joke in the middle of a Judaeism versus Islam thread?

    For future reference:

    Oh, thank you, Master Po! :-P May I make another attempt at snatching the pebbles?

    Jokes are usually better when they're relevant, or at least intentionally irrelevant.

    It WAS intentionally irrelevant. Argh! You hecklers!

    Look, just because the joke worked on a level invisible to your hyperliteralism, don't take it out on me. :)

    ObSheesh: Sheesh!

  74. Somebody is getting it. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Now, make sure you don't elect politicians whos most vocal suporters are kin to hurry up the end of times thus precipitating the second comming of Christ.

    It may very well be that humanity is fucked by two polarized groups of lunatics.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  75. "Root cause" handwringing = death of the West by ccmay · · Score: 1
    Its very simple, and not unreasonable actually... The Palestinians want (at least some of) their land back, and they want their country back (it was where Israel is now). The Israelis don't want to give (any of) it back.

    Total bullshit. The Israelis have given up the Sinai, Gaza, and significant portions of the West Bank, and got nothing but more death and destruction at the hands of the Muslims as their reward. The Paelstinians would already have a country (which they stole from the Jews centuries ago, by the way) if they had stuck to the Oslo accords and given up the gun and bomb.

    Nothing Israel does is ever good enough for the Arabs and their sympathizers in the West. The Muslims want ALL of Israel. And every Jew and Hindu slaughtered. And every Christian slaughtered, enslaved, or converted to Islam. And the destruction of liberal democracy. And the imposition of Sharia law in all nations.

    This is not a secret conspiracy or the ravings of a tiny minority. It is shouted openly from the pulpit of mosques all over the world every single day. Vast majorities of the Muslim population hold to these beliefs. They are not good Muslims if they don't.

    I'm not interested in negotiating with such people. Hand-wringing, guilt-ridden, thumb-sucking, root-cause-contemplating Western liberals have nothing of value to contribute to this problem, nor do cucumber-sandwich-eating Arabist diplomats.

    The only answer to this problem is for the armies of the civilized nations to provide speedy martyrdom to each and every Muslim who seeks it. Eventually the jihad gene will be bred out of the population, and those who remain can learn to live in peace with everybody else.

    --
    Too much Law; not enough Order.
    1. Re:"Root cause" handwringing = death of the West by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Masses of people don't think that big. Taking over the world... pssh. Yeah, there's always about 1,000 organizations, religious, corporate and otherwise, whose goals involved that. You just can't actually attempt it on any serious level. If you conquer and expand, the places you have conquered win by converting *you*. Unless you start off as a vast majority you don't have a chance. It's like trying to trying to dilute a bottle of food coloring with a drop of water. The people preaching the radical ideological messages can't even establish the regimes they want in their own countries.

      Human nature is our defense here. The reason you can't really command the effort necessary to exterminate half the planet is that there is no tangible benefit in it. Virgins in the afterlife is great, but they aren't any fun right now. To humans, that requires a big discount as 'future expected revenue', no matter how strongly you believe that it will come to pass. The bottom line is this: people just don't travel around the world to suicidally attack people who are leaving them alone, simply because they believe those people chose the wrong religion. It's when we don't leave them alone that religion becomes a great vehicle for much baser human instincts: lashing out and assualting those who piss us off.

    2. Re:"Root cause" handwringing = death of the West by ccmay · · Score: 1
      The bottom line is this: people just don't travel around the world to suicidally attack people who are leaving them alone, simply because they believe those people chose the wrong religion.

      More horse shit. Why did the German trains have all those Muslim bombs placed on them this summer? Germany has done nothing but suck up to the Muslim world. It is the most feeble, craven, arse-licking doormat imaginable, the very archetype of hand-wringing guilt-ridden Western liberalism.

      It is an objective fact that there is trouble and bloodshed wherever and whenever Islam abuts or invades a non-Muslim culture. This is not open to serious argument. Even the most inoffensive and tolerant non-Muslim nations-- Thailand, for example, or Holland-- suffer greatly at the hands of the Muslim head-choppers.

      -ccm

      --
      Too much Law; not enough Order.
    3. Re:"Root cause" handwringing = death of the West by PastaLover · · Score: 1

      I call bullshit. Holland has a sizable force in Afghanistan and (partly) supported the US's war on Iraq, it also had troops there for some period of time. To say that they are inoffensive to the 'Muslim head-choppers' (i.e. fundamentalist terrorists) only on the basis of their internal policy while totally disregarding their foreign policy is just plain wrong.

  76. Terrorists vs. Terrorizers by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    I can see where you are coming from but I do not consider myself part of the problem.
    This is not "my" government nor are these "my" big fortune 500 businesses who they
    are fighting. If somebody gets killed that otherwise causes me trouble or even downright
    harm, then I welcome that death. I would love to tell you more here but going any
    further than that could land me into serious trouble :-)

    I am sure that the terrorists understand that it does not make any sense to blow up innocent
    civilians because any such an attack would only benefit their enemies. I know of few major
    attacks that have not been a false flag maneuver by what I would call the true terrorizers:
    for example western govnerment agencies that blow up subways and trains to frighten the populace.
    In fact, I am certain that only very few terrorist attacks have occurred in the past decades,
    otherwise we would have had so many more attacks against police stations, military and
    intelligence installations and maybe even the IRS or whatever else that kind of scum happens to
    be called in your country.

  77. I think it just their propaganda bot US and israel by vz3phyre · · Score: 1

    They hacked israel radio transmission?? how stupid is that?? want to attack other country but let the them here what you are saying... Is it part of their propaganda bcoz they cannot killed the Hezbollah??
    Hezbollah is terrorist?? If someone take your land and want to kill your mother, father and sisters, won't you try to protect them???
    Who invade their country? In their eyes the israel troops is the terrorist.
    Yup its true that Hezbollah kidnap one of their enemy, but the israel also kidnap lebanon men. Don't the lebonan people also have pride? Did israel think other people life is like animals life and they can killed others without any mercy?
    i've seen a documentary after the invasion, the Hezbullah is their hero bcoz they really hate israel and their family members are all Hezbollah, so if the israel attack the Hezbollah houses, of course they will protect their house..
    about the hacked, i think it is part of the propaganda to bcoz they ashamed they cannot killed the Hezbollah
    i am not anti-jews but its just my opinion ..
    I also dont agree some of the muslim bomb restaurant and holy place. bcoz killing innocent people will not solve the problem and believed every one have their right to live once in this world
    ;)

  78. haha.....those jews are in deeepp sheiitt by tt074266 · · Score: 1

    LOL!!