Slashdot Mirror


F-16 Engines Stolen From Israeli Air Base

Hugh Pickens writes "Defense Tech reports that several F-16 engines weighing 3,700 pounds each have been stolen from a base in a central part of the country. Israeli officials played down the loss, saying the engines were old or retired and likely stolen for scrap. U.S. security and aviation experts contacted were not so dismissive of the missing engines and said that some countries would see value in having them and taking them apart. 'They're still more modern than anything in the Iranian air force inventory, and they would even be helpful to China in their jet engine development,' says Richard Aboulafia, noting that modern technology engine design remains 'a black art' and that competitors would love the opportunity to study them. This is not the first time jet engines have gone missing. In June 2011, Israel reported the loss of eight F-15 and F-16 fighter engines from a base at Tel Nof near Jerusalem when investigators found the engines had been taken away on large trucks, prompting speculation that the thieves had help from inside the base. In 2009, two F-5 engines were stolen from an airbase in Malaysia, tracked to Argentina and ultimately located in Uruguay."

200 of 346 comments (clear)

  1. Building Supplies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Those new settlements in the West Bank have to be built out of something.

  2. supposedly by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    with gps attached.

  3. Mr. Fusion ... by pollarda · · Score: 5, Funny

    I admit, I have the engines. I hooked them up to my Delorean and the Mr. Fusion I've been keeping in my garage.

    1. Re:Mr. Fusion ... by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 3, Funny
      Just a reminder, der national Sicherheitsstaat has no sense of humor. It also wants to know why you've been experimenting with fusion and stainless steel (armored?) cars. Expect a visit from black SUVs in your near future.

      Sorry I had to inform you of all this. It's my responsibility and my burden. Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.

    2. Re:Mr. Fusion ... by siddesu · · Score: 1

      You should upgrade. Mr. Lowenr replaced Mr. Fusion a couple years ago. Jet propulsion is now part of the package and it works much better than anything based on chemical fuel.

  4. Early Lead by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Israeli government have discounted earlier reports of Iranian involvement, and are now looking for a Mr. Wile E. Coyote.

    1. Re:Early Lead by ryzvonusef · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't they be looking for the Road Runner? Since he is the one who actually owns Acme...

      --
      I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
  5. Thank your imperial overlords by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    The export of military technology to so many different nations, depending on the political wind of the moment, makes this a highly likely occurrence.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  6. Again. by rex.clts · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And this is why we shouldn't be giving the Israelis our military technology.

    1. Re:Again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Could not agree more.
      They have lots of money and lots of smart people.
      Glad to help when we can but right now we are broke.
      You should be able to get by in the word without our help till we get back on our feet.
      Otherwise, what have you been doing with the 3 billion we send a year?

    2. Re:Again. by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 2

      Maybe you should look at the map of operators. We've sold them to half the world at this point, and for good reason: the F16 is a quality plane.

    3. Re:Again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      the technologies in the computer u use right now to post ur inane comments, largely come from israel.

    4. Re:Again. by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      Who says it's all one way?

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    5. Re:Again. by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually do the research, most American military aid comes in the form of loan gaurentees. Last time I checked Israel was getting around $10B worth of loan gaurentees so that they could raise the money and spend it on US miltary goods. In other words what the US government do is provide a kind of insurance to the American companies in the case that whoever buys their stuff decides not to pay up. This is the "military industrial complex" that FDR warned you about before you were born.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:Again. by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      You do realize they have some better technology than WE DO in those F-16s of theirs ... RIGHT?

      Do you have any idea how much Israeli tech we buy and put in our military equipment? Clearly you don't.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    7. Re:Again. by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      The US support to Israel have never been for humanitarian purposes. It's there to secure a strong ally in the middle east. Removing that support might not be a bad idea since it creates a lot of hate towards the US amount the surrounding countries but the US will have to make sure that it doesn't rely on the middle east for oil first.

      Its to secure votes back in the USA.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    8. Re:Again. by WillgasM · · Score: 1

      more likely we'll give them $35B to "beef up security" at these bases.

    9. Re:Again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Make that President Eisenhower.

  7. Re:www.FoxNews.com by MartinSchou · · Score: 4, Funny

    Are you suggesting that socialists like me are arguing, that we should all be given F-16 engines stolen from Israel?

  8. Design or buy off the black market? by buybuydandavis · · Score: 1

    A lot easier and cheaper to do R&D with a working prototype in hand. Big problem for the US. You can always have the best equipment, but you're also always helping your enemies to catch up.

    1. Re:Design or buy off the black market? by icebike · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A lot easier and cheaper to do R&D with a working prototype in hand.

      And it wouldn't be the first time Israel disappeared some foreign manufactured equipment to get it "off the books" only to come up with some derivative internal products later. In fact, they have concentrated on making major components for foreign purchased platforms for years, rather than building new platforms from scratch. Most of their tech is derivative work.

      It seems just as likely, given Israel's apparent lack of concern over these thefts, that they know exactly where these engines are.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:Design or buy off the black market? by icebike · · Score: 1

      Most of everyone's tech is derivative. But somehow, it's only bad if the Jews do it?

      I never meant to imply it was "bad" in any sense of the word.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:Design or buy off the black market? by Isaac+Remuant · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about Jews?

      --
      "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
    4. Re:Design or buy off the black market? by mjwx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A lot easier and cheaper to do R&D with a working prototype in hand. Big problem for the US. You can always have the best equipment, but you're also always helping your enemies to catch up.

      Why is everyone assuming they are stealing this technolgoy to copy it?

      The F15 and F16 engines are now 20 years old. You can buy the same level of technology from Russia or India these days. Even China has better engines based on Russian designs.

      Occams Razor says that these engines are worth more as replacements for older F15/16's that are owned by countries that cant get new engines/spares from the US or cant afford them (Iran is far from the only suspect here).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    5. Re:Design or buy off the black market? by Isaac+Remuant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My point is that
      Israel != Jews.
      USA != Christians.
      Saudi Arabia != Muslims.
      [Country] != [Majority Religion]

      You mentioning religion out of the blue when the previous poster said nothing only serves as flamebait.

      --
      "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
    6. Re:Design or buy off the black market? by Isaac+Remuant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Rarely would someone say something like what the previous poster did without intending it as an insult against Jews.

      Exercise, let's replace Israel with Liberia:

      And it wouldn't be the first time Liberia disappeared some foreign manufactured equipment to get it "off the books" only to come up with some derivative internal products later. In fact, they have concentrated on making major components [globes.co.il] for foreign purchased platforms for years, rather than building new platforms from scratch. Most of their tech is derivative work.

      It seems just as likely, given Liberia's apparent lack of concern over these thefts, that they know exactly where these engines are.

      "Most of everyone's tech is derivative. But somehow, it's only bad if the black people do it?"

      "Rarely would someone say something like what the previous poster did without intending it as an insult against black people."

      "And I find it interesting that you refuse a link between black people and Liberia, when Liberia was created specifically for the black people, and is officially a Black State" (This one is not really true but I hope it helps further prove my point that the linkage it's completely of your own doing. Not every Israeli is Jewish and not every Jew is Israeli.)

      --
      "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
    7. Re:Design or buy off the black market? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Yes you had the Mirage 5 history with the plans and parts been in the right place at the right time.
      You have the history of the Phalcon advanced airborne early-warning (AEW at 250 miles?) radar system and China.
      Small arms drift off bases around the world every year, getting out with an engine with the surrounding safe transport container/sled structure- not so easy.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    8. Re:Design or buy off the black market? by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      [Country] != [Majority Religion]

      In the US and some other countries we have separation of church and state. That is not true of all countries. Israel is a Jewish country, it's not just a matter of that being the majority religion. Here's some throne room material to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

      By the same token, Iran is a Islamic country (actually the name isn't really "Iran" it's "the Islamic republic of Iran". Here's more throne room material: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran

      So my point? He said "Israel" and Israel = Jews.

    9. Re:Design or buy off the black market? by Isaac+Remuant · · Score: 1

      I'm well aware certain nations have an official religion but that doesn't mean that every time we say something about the country we're talking about the followers of that religion.

      For example: "Argentina is corrupt and bureaucratic". If I follow your premise
      Argentina = Catholic
      (therefore) Catholics are corrupt and bureaucratic.

      I wasn't trying to say that at all with my sentence. I meant that the Argentinian government functions in an extremely bureaucratic way and has a terribly track record regarding corruption.

      --
      "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
    10. Re:Design or buy off the black market? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      But that doesn't work because Fascist is no longer a description of a government type, but a pejorative of unclear definition. If Fascist still held useful meaning, maybe, but it hasn't since the 1950s.

    11. Re:Design or buy off the black market? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The definition listed dictatorial, and Israel is a democracy without any dictatorial leanings I see.

      That the dictionaries still define it doesn't mean that's what people think of when you say the word.

    12. Re:Design or buy off the black market? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I am not saying there isn't any crime there. You are proving my point with your comments, but complaining that you don't like where your logic takes the conclusion 5 steps later. I didn't go there. You did. You agreed with me, then argued with yourself. But at least you feel better, right?

    13. Re:Design or buy off the black market? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly certain you don't know what Israel or Jews are.

      You should look up the definition in the dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jew

      Jew == Israelite

      AND ALSO

      Jew == Religion

      Though they are not mutually inclusive.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    14. Re:Design or buy off the black market? by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      'Better'?

      F16's have been upgraded you realize, right? They haven't been using the original design in 30 years. There are at least 4 different engines used in the aircraft that I'm aware of, which means probably more.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    15. Re:Design or buy off the black market? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      'Better'?

      F16's have been upgraded you realize, right? They haven't been using the original design in 30 years. There are at least 4 different engines used in the aircraft that I'm aware of, which means probably more.

      Yes, better.

      You realise Russia are selling 4.5 generation fighters right?

      If you wanted to build your own domestic engines, you'd be mad to steal an older US design and try to reverse engineer it when it would be cheaper to buy a Russian design under license and Russia will send you experts to get your industry up and running. How do you think India got it's indigenous fighters up so quickly? The cost and delays of reverse engineering make it cost prohibitive compared to the alternative.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    16. Re:Design or buy off the black market? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      How did you get that definition when several governments of that type have been elected? There's been plenty of such governments at times and not just Italy, Germany, Greece, Spain etc. Instead of trying to change the words in my mouth why not just consider them at face value?
      Personally I think the current government of Israel is something the founders of that nation would look at in abject horror. Despite that it's still just about as good as it gets at the moment in that part of the world.

    17. Re:Design or buy off the black market? by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      I get your point, and you are wrong

      No he's not wrong. 21% of the Israeli population are Arabs. Are you saying you have proof it was only Jewish people involved in the theft?

    18. Re:Design or buy off the black market? by Isaac+Remuant · · Score: 1

      I might just be guessing but I think that an Israeli Arab or an Israeli atheist would not enjoy being called a Jew because he would probably associate it with the religion. Most used meanings are usually what count when talking about these things.

      I'm not even sure if those talking about Jews around this whole thread tree are speaking about israelis in general. I'm pretty sure they aren't and, if they were, why not use the less ambiguous term, Israeli? Anyway, what about foreigners living in Israel for a long time? What about phrases using the country Israel (like OP did)?

      What, exactly, are they talking about and why does criticism gets suddenly equated with exclusive criticism of Jews (whatever your definition)?

      I have to say one thing about internet conversations. It's lovely that they usually start with a condescending (you don't know what you're talking about or, you're wrong and then they point out something easily googled and discussed in previous posts. Doesn't really make it easy to keep a friendly tone).

      --
      "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
    19. Re:Design or buy off the black market? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So my opinion on what others think when they say "Israel" as a pejorative is incorrect because they can't be bashing Jews when there are some non-Jewish people living in Israel? I don't follow your logic.

    20. Re:Design or buy off the black market? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      How did you get that definition when several governments of that type have been elected?

      I looked at the AC's links. He argued that there is a clear definition of Fascist. I pointed out that most people probably wouldn't agree with the definitions he gave, but there isn't a definition source for "contested word, no clear definition".

  9. Prime suspects by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The prime suspects are the Israelis themselves. They'd love to get into the fighter-aircraft business or even the jet engine business. Seriously, this is Israel, the penultimate security state. You don't get stolen military hardware out of Israel unless the government knows about it.

    1. Re:Prime suspects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let me get this straight. They have the engines, and can copy them at will. But they decided to steal the engines from themselves so they can copy them. I see. You, my friend, should cut down on the weed. You and the imbecile that modded you up.

    2. Re:Prime suspects by rtaylor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The military has the engines.

      Private companies (no direct access) may want to manufacture something similar.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    3. Re:Prime suspects by icebike · · Score: 1

      I suspect something along similar lines. The borders are simply not that porous. Cover for large trucks roaming back roads is pretty scarce. I would be surprised if the engines are actually out of the country.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    4. Re:Prime suspects by Bomazi · · Score: 4, Informative

      penultimate: that word doesn't mean what you think it does.

    5. Re:Prime suspects by qbzzt · · Score: 1

      Seriously, this is Israel, the penultimate security state.

      The IDF is staffed with conscripts. Almost everybody is between the ages of 18 and 22. Almost all officers are in their early twenties. It is not the most competently run organization in the world, to say the least.

      --
      -- Support a free market in the field of government
    6. Re:Prime suspects by EnsilZah · · Score: 4, Informative

      You know, Israel actually tried getting into the fighter-aircraft business once.
      And I hear it was a pretty good plane, but in the end the US and Israel came to a mutual agreement that's it would be for the best if Israel didn't export a competitor to the F-16 and Israel continued getting subsidized planed from the US.
      So I doubt Israel would want to get into the fighter-aircraft business now, and anyway, Israel is doing pretty well on the UAV side of things.

    7. Re:Prime suspects by dbIII · · Score: 1

      If they fit in a shipping container I'd say just about every border on the planet is porous enough for stuff going out. Coming in is a bit of a different story,

    8. Re:Prime suspects by PPH · · Score: 1

      except for the conscription part,

      That point isn't a trivial one to be overlooked.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    9. Re:Prime suspects by wmac1 · · Score: 1

      Can copy them at will? Can you count a few turbofan jets (or even turbojets) produced in Israel?

    10. Re:Prime suspects by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      The military has the engines.

      Private companies (no direct access) may want to manufacture something similar.

      Even if we image that to be true, your thinking is that it is not possible for contractors and various engineers to get access to the military bases, maybe even have an office there, where they could both examine the engines and have access to the personnel trained to maintain them - including disassembly - for a bit of help? Besides, even if they drove there, Israel is not a big country.

      --
      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
    11. Re:Prime suspects by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      They'd love to get into the fighter-aircraft business or even the jet engine business.

      News flash - the Israelis already have their own design for a jet fighter called the Lavi.

      It would be a tough sell in a world market dominated by US, Western European, Russian, and Chinese designs used by their air forces. Ask the Swedes.

      --
      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
    12. Re:Prime suspects by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      If the Israeli government wants them back, theyll be searching every cargo container that goes out of the country for them, along with every truck that crosses the border. Like I said Israel is a security state. The government can do whatever it wants, no matter how intrusive, and the people will tolerate it because it's part of their war on terrorism or can be cast that way.

      They'll either find these engines or we'll know they moved them to some Israeli company to be studied, disassembled, copied and perhaps improved upon.

      Imagine how important military hardware is guarded in a country constantly beset by the likes of Hamas and with potential hostiles across every border. There's no way these engines were stolen by any outside group without help from insided the IDF and no way they're getting out of the country without that and help from the government itself.

      And what do you think would happen to somebody in Israel caught going rogue with military weapons of this magnitude if they were caught?

      Seriously, if anybody trusts the Israelis to not do everything in their power to get their hands on military technology they want, consider:

    13. Re:Prime suspects by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Yes it does. It means next to ultimate. The ultimate security state, IMO, is North Korea.

  10. Re:Stolen to order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If we're so worried about China getting our jet engine tech (and we probably should be), then why is GE allowed to be in a joint Chinese venture to make engines?

    http://www.dailytech.com/GE+Announces+Chinese+Joint+Venture+for+Avionics+on+the+C919/article20681.htm

    China and Iran don't need any fancy undercover operations - we'll happily shoot ourselves in the foot if it's called business.

  11. how about a warning first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'd like to know if I'm clicking on Wikileaks before I click, asshole. Most of you might not care, but some people do.
    ( yeah yeah... should have looked at the url before clicking... I know )

    1. Re:how about a warning first? by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Yes, if you care so much about any random site, you should check the URL. People will not put warnings about every possible problem with every link.

    2. Re:how about a warning first? by pitchpipe · · Score: 1

      I'd like to know if I'm clicking on Wikileaks before I click, asshole.

      Somewhere there is a database where you were just knocked down from True Patriot to just Patriot . Hopefully this doesn't happen too many more times or you're going to find out what an extraordinary rendition of Beethoven's 10 symphony (The Water Boarding) with a salsa flair sounds like.

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    3. Re:how about a warning first? by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 1

      I'd agree with you except that it's common to look at the bottom right corner of your firefox window to see what the linked url points to (except these days, when the url can show up in either the bottom right or the bottom left corner depending on if you've got a text-search box open or if a no-script button/bar is open on the bottom... I'd like to see a little consistency on that in FF). But it would be nice if the postings of stories followed the rules of postings of comments after the stories: any urls posted in comments automatically have the base-URL-web site listed in brackets after the link, so that you aren't accidentally clicking on a link without realizing where you're going, e.g. pointing back to /. here
      :>)
      So in that respect, I agree with you. The story ought to have bracketed URL-base-link info immediately following the link. That way the naive and stupid and quick-to-click don't complain about where the link leads.

  12. id10t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you hover your mouse pointer over the link it will show you the address. I know you are probably new to the internet so I will give you this one for free. The price jumps next time my friend.

  13. Re:Hypocrisy... by cynyr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think there is a difference between the info wikileaks was leaking (info on past events), and technical data for currently used devices. I would say that if wikileaks were to release plans to the engine in the P51 I wouldn't car at all. It is no longer in use, as it has been replaced by newer tech. I'm willing to bet that there is not a substantial difference between the F16 engine, and the F22/F35 ones.

    I wonder how long it would take to engineer and build a jet engine with the info available on the internet about jet engines and various design issues, for example, keeping the inlet air at below super-sonic speeds while the aircraft is flying at supersonic speeds. There was an article on /. a while back about that, and I believe it included basic solution.

    --
    All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
  14. WikiLeaks link in the summary? by jittles · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dear Editors:

    Thank you for putting a WikiLeaks link in the story summary. I know I could have hovered over it with the mouse cursor and seen where it linked to, but I was expecting an actual news story and not WikiLeaks. You do realize that anyone who works in the Defense Industry, military, or other US Government contracting positions could lose their job over clicking that, right? It's not likely that they would be "caught" so to speak, but I thought this was a news aggregator, and would, you know, have links to the news. Thankfully I am no longer in the defense industry, and do not have to worry about losing my job.

    For those of you who are about to freak out on the US Government's rules realize this: When you do work in certain areas you agree to not seek out information that is covered by a "Need to Know." The US Government has specifically said that those who work in sensitive areas are not to visit WikiLeaks, and have warned all employees and contractors. The reason is pretty simple. If you explicitly agree not to do something as a condition of employment, and you do it anyway, then you probably aren't a very trustworthy person. And anyway, I think that a proper news story would have been more informative and read better than a diplomatic cable, or whatever that document was.

    1. Re:WikiLeaks link in the summary? by RocketRabbit · · Score: 2

      You won't lose your job over clicking a Wikileaks link. More than half the traffic to Wikileaks is from .gov or .mil domains anyway.

    2. Re:WikiLeaks link in the summary? by jagapen · · Score: 1, Troll

      And just how does your choice to work for dangerous, anti-American thugs translate into the rest of the world's responsibility to edit itself?

    3. Re:WikiLeaks link in the summary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Should /. censor stories that criticize the Chinese government, too, since that could land a Chinese user in trouble?

      When you do work in certain areas you agree to not seek out information that is covered by a "Need to Know."

      I'm no military, but it was my understanding the idea behind "need to know" was to minimize damage in case of a leak. If the information is public, one should assume anyone who has an interest in that information knows it already.

      The US Government has specifically said that those who work in sensitive areas are not to visit WikiLeaks, and have warned all employees and contractors.

      That is creepily similar to how Scientology tells their cultists not to read certain public websites anyone can access. It isn't the cultist's fault, but it sure is weird for non-fanatics and you shouldn't expect everyone to self-censor only to make your self-imposed restrictions easier to follow.

    4. Re:WikiLeaks link in the summary? by qbzzt · · Score: 1

      You do realize that anyone who works in the Defense Industry, military, or other US Government contracting positions could lose their job over clicking that, right?

      Actually, they probably didn't. This is not a well known fact, and considering all of the US's enemies already have that information, it is not obvious to people who don't have a clearance that looking at it would be a problem.

      --
      -- Support a free market in the field of government
    5. Re:WikiLeaks link in the summary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It was a front page story...

      http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/10/01/1143233/state-dept-employee-investigated-for-linking-to-wikileaks

    6. Re:WikiLeaks link in the summary? by PNutts · · Score: 2

      There's probably also a lot of other types of links that can get you fired. It's your responsibility, not the editors.

    7. Re:WikiLeaks link in the summary? by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      For those of you who are about to freak out on the US Government's rules realize this: When you do work in certain areas you agree to not seek out information that is covered by a "Need to Know."

      I wasn't about to freak out about the US Government's rules, but I was about to freak out over your complaint on the summary.

      Those rules apply to those of you who have agreed to them as a condition to the work you do. It does not apply to the rest of the population. Considering I would imagine the majority of people frequenting slashdot do not share those restrictions, it makes no sense to sensor the site as you propose.

      There's absolutely nothing wrong with the government requiring that people working in certain sensitive areas do not seek out information they don't have the clearance to read. However, if you have agreed to such a restriction, it is your responsibility to double-check the links you follow. It is not the responsibility of the rest of the world to make this easy for you.

    8. Re:WikiLeaks link in the summary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, you don't lose your job. You immediately report your unauthorized access of classified or otherwise restricted information to your FSO, and the circumstances leading up to that access. Once you've done this, you're in the clear.

      Are you a jarhead?

    9. Re:WikiLeaks link in the summary? by sootman · · Score: 1

      Funny -- usually people bitch at Slashdot for linking to crappy blogs instead of the original source.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    10. Re:WikiLeaks link in the summary? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      why are you accessing slashdot from a WORK COMPUTER, then, smart guy? if you worry about your job, don't do recreation things (like slashdot) from what you say are sensitive systems!

      (government geniuses, at work. gotta tell them every last thing or they won't figure out much on their own)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    11. Re:WikiLeaks link in the summary? by dcollins · · Score: 1

      "The US Government has specifically said that those who work in sensitive areas are not to visit WikiLeaks, and have warned all employees and contractors. The reason is pretty simple. If you explicitly agree not to do something as a condition of employment, and you do it anyway, then you probably aren't a very trustworthy person."

      So the simple reason is that it's a purely arbitrary test to see if you follow nonsensical rules?

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    12. Re:WikiLeaks link in the summary? by jittles · · Score: 1

      This is supposed to be a news site, and I don't see how a WikiLeaks link is news. They normally comment when a link may be sketchy for work. But how many people, when they see a link that say: "two F-5 engines were stolen from an airbase in Malaysia" think they are going to go to anything but a news site? I'm not saying that I couldn't have checked the link, I had said in my OP that I should have checked the link. I just don't think they addressed the link appropriately. I don't believe that WikiLeaks should be considered news by any means, and they implied it was a news story. I also think that, due to the ire raised by WikiLeaks, they ought to at least provide a warning for those who aren't paying attention.

    13. Re:WikiLeaks link in the summary? by jittles · · Score: 1

      Except that it wasn't the original source. The original source was the government of Malaysia, and they had posted news stories about it for a great deal of time following the theft. Even if those diplomatic cables were the original source, WikiLeaks is not. Anyway, my point is that it should have been obvious it was a WikiLeaks link and not disguised as a news story. I know the link was visible, but the linked text implied a news story.

    14. Re:WikiLeaks link in the summary? by jittles · · Score: 1

      I'm not accessing slashdot from a work computer, or a government computer or any hardware that I do not own. I lease the network connection as well. As I said, I no longer do defense contracting. However, DSS (Defense Security Service) made an effort of going around to contractors to tell them that accessing WikiLeaks could be grounds for losing your clearance. It doesn't matter where you look at WikiLeaks, whether it as at work, at home or abroad. People in these positions have promised the government that they would not access classified material that they do not have the clearance and the need to know. There is no distinction between classified information that is at your office, and things that you could potentially access from home. As I said previously, the odds of getting caught are pretty damn slim, but I would hate to see someone lose their job for clicking on a link at Slashdot.

    15. Re:WikiLeaks link in the summary? by jittles · · Score: 1

      No, the reason you get into trouble is simple. You are violating the rules. The reason for the rule is pretty simple, too. You may not understand the full implications of the things you are working on. If you have access to external information, it could be used to create new pieces of information that are classified and that you do not need to know. The more information you know, the easier it is to accidentally let something slip when you should not. So the point is to prevent employees from trying to gather all of the information they possibly can. Not to mention it makes it easier to find spies. You look for the guy who is poking his nose around where it doesn't belong.

    16. Re:WikiLeaks link in the summary? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      wikileaks, by definition, is not an original source. It is in fact a stolen, illegal copy of the original source.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    17. Re:WikiLeaks link in the summary? by siddesu · · Score: 1

      Who the fuck cares that you think you may lose your job because you clicked a link? Fuck off, suck it up and spend the time you bitch about your stupidity to actually check links.

    18. Re:WikiLeaks link in the summary? by jittles · · Score: 1

      Who the fuck cares that you think you may lose your job because you clicked a link? Fuck off, suck it up and spend the time you bitch about your stupidity to actually check links.

      Reading comprehension fail. I said I don't have to worry about my job, I don't work in the defense industry anymore. I said others may have to worry about their jobs. Yes I should have checked the link. Again reading comprehension fail. I said that I should have checked the link before I clicked it. My point is that Wikileaks is not a news source, and should not be linked to in an article summary, especially without indicating that the site being linked to is WikiLeaks. So before you call me stupid, you may want to work on your reading comprehension.

    19. Re:WikiLeaks link in the summary? by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry for your country.

    20. Re:WikiLeaks link in the summary? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you explicitly agree not to do something as a condition of employment, and you do it anyway, then you probably aren't a very trustworthy person.

      If you agree to work for a government that cannot handle criticism, and thus cannot stand to have you see what is being said about it, then you probably aren't a very trustworthy person. Same thing I think about someone who works for Halliburton, or Chevron.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:WikiLeaks link in the summary? by siddesu · · Score: 1

      Wikileaks is as much a "news source" as any other blog or website that is usually linked to here, idiot.

    22. Re:WikiLeaks link in the summary? by jittles · · Score: 1

      If you explicitly agree not to do something as a condition of employment, and you do it anyway, then you probably aren't a very trustworthy person.

      If you agree to work for a government that cannot handle criticism, and thus cannot stand to have you see what is being said about it, then you probably aren't a very trustworthy person. Same thing I think about someone who works for Halliburton, or Chevron.

      It has nothing to do with criticism, in this circumstance. While I do not believe that the government was fond of the leaked cables, or Julian Assange, there are security implications involved. If you sit through the DSS/FBI counter-intelligence briefings, they explain to you why these rules exist. They are actually quite fascinating presentations, at least the first few times you sit through them. The point in restricting information is that two sources of independent information can cause a third piece of information to be pieced together. In the case of these jobs, you agree to not seek out independent pieces of information that you do not need to know. If you go out of your way looking for independent information that you are restricted from seeing, then you are basically spying. You may be spying out of personal curiosity, but it may appear that you are spying for a reason. They never said you could not read the NYT, or go to any other accredited news source that may be discussing the leaks. They just specifically said do not go to WikiLeaks.

    23. Re:WikiLeaks link in the summary? by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      > You do realize that anyone who works in the Defense Industry, military, or other US Government contracting positions could lose their job over clicking that, right?

      You say that like it's a bad thing!

    24. Re:WikiLeaks link in the summary? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you sit through the DSS/FBI counter-intelligence briefings, they explain to you why these rules exist

      And if you believe what they say without question, then you are beyond help, and there is no reason to waste time talking to you.

      The point in restricting information is that two sources of independent information can cause a third piece of information to be pieced together.

      So the point is to keep the enlisted from finding out too much about what our own government is doing? Got it.

      They never said you could not read the NYT, or go to any other accredited news source that may be discussing the leaks. They just specifically said do not go to WikiLeaks.

      IOW, they said you can only get the government-approved version of the news, and you are forbidden to go straight to the source and get the facts. Anyone who agrees to such a restriction is a bad citizen and, again, is Part Of The Problem.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    25. Re:WikiLeaks link in the summary? by jittles · · Score: 1

      If you sit through the DSS/FBI counter-intelligence briefings, they explain to you why these rules exist

      And if you believe what they say without question, then you are beyond help, and there is no reason to waste time talking to you.

      When it comes to the things they say about counterintelligence I do believe them. Why? Because they have been doing it for a long time. What they say also makes sense; its very logical. Of all the things they may want to lie about, I hardly doubt that what they teach on counterintel is a lie. Why would they lie? Don't they, by nature, want to make it more difficult for those who may want to spy on them?

      The point in restricting information is that two sources of independent information can cause a third piece of information to be pieced together.

      So the point is to keep the enlisted from finding out too much about what our own government is doing? Got it.

      No that is not it at all. I have never, and will never serve in the military. I was under the same rules. The reason often has nothing to do with hiding things the government has done, but to hide things they intend to do. Don't get me wrong, I think they hide things they shouldn't have done all the time, but this is often enforced to protect operational security on active operations, ground breaking technology, etc

      They never said you could not read the NYT, or go to any other accredited news source that may be discussing the leaks. They just specifically said do not go to WikiLeaks.

      IOW, they said you can only get the government-approved version of the news, and you are forbidden to go straight to the source and get the facts. Anyone who agrees to such a restriction is a bad citizen and, again, is Part Of The Problem.

      "if you believe what they say without question, then you are beyond help." Those WikiLeaks cables are not guaranteed to be 100% factual, accurate, unbiased, or otherwise useful. You have no idea what kind of ax the person who wrote them has to grind. You have no idea what, if any, are disinformation to validate the security of Government communications. You have no idea about those cables at all. I have no interest in reading them because I think what Manning did was despicable. But even if I had any interest in reading them I would take every word with a grain of salt. I would trust the BBC or NYT at least as much as I trust the original source of the cables themselves. The news was meant for general consumption, and the people who write it theoretically have a reputation to uphold. While the people who wrote the cables have a business reputation to uphold, they may also be writing their reports in order to cast a favorable light on personal policies and interests, or even the policies of their superiors. So read the WikiLeaks stuff all you want, enjoy. I'd rather read the news from a source that is supposed to have their international reputation at stake.

    26. Re:WikiLeaks link in the summary? by dcollins · · Score: 1

      ^ This is one of those uncomfortable cases where I think that's satire, but I'm not totally sure.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  15. money talks by KernelMuncher · · Score: 1

    I think the most likely explanation is that somebody was paid a big fat bribe to ship the engines to a country who wanted them: China, Russia, Iran, India (?), etc.

  16. Penultimate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Seriously, this is Israel, the penultimate security state.

    Which state is, therefore, the ultimate security state? Seriously, penultimate doesn't mean "ultimate, except with three extra prefix letters of awesome emphasis!", it means "next to last".

    1. Re:Penultimate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      North Korea

    2. Re:Penultimate... by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      North Korea

      Bingo!

  17. Re:www.FoxNews.com by ExploHD · · Score: 1, Troll

    Fox News would rather you forget that half-truths are still whole lies

  18. tracking things down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    One of the comments in TFA was interesting. (From memory)

    Mossad can track down a terrorist cell to a specific house and take it out, but the IDF can't locate a couple of jet engines that rolled out of the base on a flatbed truck!?!?!?!?

  19. please clarify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why's that? Because that technology might make it to a country like Iran? ummm... We have given a HUGE amount of high-tech weaponry (including jets) to Egypt over the years and THAT place is now run by the Muslim Brotherhood which has begun cozying-up to some of the worst governments on Earth (including Iran). Israel is not the only country to let this happen... during the cold war, a Japanese firm intentionally transferred American nuclear submarine propeller technology directly to Russia, which resulted in the American taxpayer spending BILLIONS of new dollars to improve our ability to detect the newer quieter Russian subs and to make ours even more quiet.

    So... is it that you oppose helping Egypt and Saudi Arabia and others (anybody who might let our tech slip out to our enemies) as well, OR are you just using this incident to disguise a personal predisposition for Jew-hating?

    Muslims have huge swaths of land and many nations, rich with natural resources. The Jews (who have repeatedly faced threats and actual attempts of genocide) have only one tiny country, and it seems to be on the only middle-eastern soil that's not floating on oil (smile) so it's always interesting to see the warped and evil mindset of the irrational freaks who want to eliminate them. I'm not Jewish... I'm just a rational human who is fascinated by the freakish irrational behavior of Jew haters... it seems like every evil person on Earth hates Jews, even if they've never met one...

    1. Re:please clarify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not Jewish

      But you play an Israeli talking head on the Internets. So I'm guessing Republican?

      It's always hilarious to see Israel fanboys equate 'The United States should not be emptying our treasury on behalf of Israel' into 'ZOMG ANTI-SEMITISM!'

      Israel has nuclear weapons. Israel has a strong military. Israel has a damned good number of engineering and science folks, to boot.

      The fact is, citizens of the US should not be paying Israel's way. That's it. As for the rest - whatever. Personally, I don't give a damn if Israel launches a war of aggression and takes the whole of the Middle East. At least it'd stop our politicians from fucking about with puppet administrations. That's worked out so well for us in Iraq and Iran, after all.

    2. Re:please clarify by caseih · · Score: 1

      Wow. Where to start with that diatribe. While I agree with much of what you say about what has happened in Egypt, accusing this person of being anti-Semitic is pretty darn close to invoking Godwin's law, and highly disingenuous.

      Israel, the nation-state, definitely has the whole world in a nice spot. We can't criticize what they are doing, and the fact that they are deliberately inciting the Palestinian people with their actions, lest we be accused if being a Jew-hater or an anti-Semite. I greatly admire the Jewish people and what they have built in Haaretz Israel, but I am highly critical of high-level government policies that seem specifically designed to thwart the prospect for peace for whatever reason. Granted Palestinian leadership doesn't seem interested in peace either, but then again most of the moderate leadership potential have been killed, either by the Israeli military or by extremists among their own people, or have been pushed to extremism by the ongoing-policies of settlement building (in land Israel has no intention of ever annexing except piecemeal) and Palestinian house razing. The situation in the Holy Land is a political one, not a religious one. I would urge you to travel there and see first hand how the two peoples interact with each other. Talk to Israelis about their Palestinian neighbors. Talk to Palestinians about their Jewish neighbors, and also about their prospects and hope for the future. I think you'll find that hope and future potential, particularly for the average west bank resident, are in very short supply, and it's easy to see why. I've done this and I have many good friends on both sides of the political divide. I'm aware of how difficult and nuanced the situation really is.

      As for painting the Muslims with a broad brush, well, you've got it fairly wrong. In the middle east, the people and cultures are primarily Arab (Muslim, Christian, and for a very tiny minority, Jewish--yes Jewish Arabs do exist), and many of the things we have such a hard time with aren't really religious in nature, but cultural.

      And as for Arabs being rich in natural resouces, I can tell by that statement you have never visited the region. All of the nations that surround Israel, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria have practically no oil resources at all. Egypt has natural gas, but nothing like Saudi Arabia. And all of these countries have hardly any water. It's only the gulf Arab states that have oil and wealth. And they are beset by corrupt, despotic regimes that we support in the west. The average Saudi sees nothing of the benefit of the oil revenues that flow like liquid gold in the region.

    3. Re:please clarify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm not Jewish

      But you play an Israeli talking head on the Internets. So I'm guessing Republican?

      i.e. you think all Gentile Democrats hate Jews. I think you're projecting onto others.

    4. Re:please clarify by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      This. Maybe we should avoid giving countries weapons and money and saying "good luck with that". If we stuck to diplomacy it would at least be cheaper and less risky.

    5. Re:please clarify by pitchpipe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      OR are you just using this incident to disguise a personal predisposition for Jew-hating?

      We need to stop conflating not wanting the US to be Israel's bitch with Jew-hating. They are not the same thing. Maybe if we (the US) started making our commitment to their security contingent upon them making peace, they might start moving in that direction. Right now they act like they can do whatever they want, and we will still back them no matter what. This is actually the case, and it doesn't make sense.

      BTW, all forms of racism are born of ignorance, so don't think that I'm Jew hating. The world would be a lot worse off if we didn't have them contributing to our collective well being. I just want a rational US policy when it comes to Israel.

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    6. Re:please clarify by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Right now they act like they can do whatever they want, and we will still back them no matter what. This is actually the case, and it doesn't make sense.

      No, as long as they pursue our agenda in the region, we will back them no matter what. You don't think the western world is benefiting?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:please clarify by caseih · · Score: 1

      Hmm I guess being critical of Israeli policies gets one modded down. Kind of proves my point I guess. Sad, really. Next time instead of blindly modding me down because you disagree with me, try addressing my points.

    8. Re:please clarify by Quila · · Score: 2

      It's kind of hard to move in the direction of peace when the other side has as its main goal the goal destruction of your country. Any time the Jews take one step, the other side wants another and another and another, without themselves giving up anything except a temporary (it's always temporary) halt to attacks on Jewish civilians.

      The Jews living in Israel under their own laws is offensive to most of the Muslims in the area. The country MUST become Muslim, the Jews killed, expelled (as they were from most ther Muslim countries) or subjugated.

    9. Re:please clarify by jackbird · · Score: 1

      We give both Israel and Egypt billions in foreign aid as an incentive to maintain the peace of the Camp David accords. Also, the foreign aid consists of gift certificates to ATK, Lockheed Martin, etc. so the treasury is actually being emptied into the pockets of domestic war profiteers rather than actually sent overseas.

    10. Re:please clarify by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "BTW, all forms of racism are born of ignorance, so don't think that I'm Jew hating."

      Superstition is not Race. It is ideology which one may doff, don, or modify as their fantasy suits them.

      Any doubts? Explain Sammy Davis Jr's conversion to Judaism.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  20. Is slashdot the problem here? by Isaac+Remuant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think that this reflects a problem on those organizations. Not Slashdot.

    My advice, come up with a wikileaks blocker and use it. Why deprive ANYONE else of a link just because?

    Another thing. If you're at work, why browse slashdot at work? :P If you're at home, why is it that your employers control what you can or can not read in your house? It's public info.

    --
    "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
    1. Re:Is slashdot the problem here? by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Add Wikileaks to adblock and be done with it if you work for such an organization. Don't ask the rest of the world to censor itself for you.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    2. Re:Is slashdot the problem here? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      With regard to classified information. Anyone with a clearance has the legal obligation to not access or attempt to access classified information for which they do not have a need to know and clearance to access. Legally, all classified information remains classified until it is officially unclassified. Until then, cleared individuals have a legal obligation to not access that information. Even if it is publicly released, it remains classified, and thus, effectively radioactive to anyone with a clearance.

      No one is asking for the site to be blocked, but identifying it as wikileaks would be a very nice thing to do for the people who wish to avoid that site.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  21. Does not solve the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even if the US used NO oil at all, we'd still be all entangled in the middle east... because we have many allies who are (and will be for many decades) fully dependent upon that oil. We could be sitting happily in the US with our own oil, coal, nuclear, wind, hydro, solar, etc energy and yet our economy could crash because our allies and trading partners crash in response to somebody like Iran choking-off middle east oil. Even if our allies in Europe got off oil from the middle east and instead got it from Russia, they'd leave themselves vulnerable to Russian blackmail and without a readily-available supply of middle east oil as a backup things would still be a mess. Our Asian allies need it. Even China, not an "ally" but certainly a trading partner, is becoming more-dependent upon middle-east oil (one reason they will feel increasingly driven to build-up a blue water navy) and will therefore make Americans worry about the region even if we do not directly use its oil. Quite simply, middle east oil is a vital part of world markets no matter how much or how little the US uses.

    1. Re:Does not solve the problem by Dan667 · · Score: 3, Informative

      don't care. Let them fend for themselves. Maybe if everyone in the middle east has to use the same sticks and stones to kill each other they would think twice.

    2. Re:Does not solve the problem by Swampash · · Score: 3, Funny

      But... but... if the Jews don't hold Jerusalem that means Jebus won't come back! Israel must have the full economic and military support of the USA or Jebus will stay away!

    3. Re:Does not solve the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      (please lie to me and tell me this doesn't constitute official Republican policy)

    4. Re:Does not solve the problem by Hillgiant · · Score: 1

      Perhaps not in so many words, but this is the basis of much of their support.

      --
      -
    5. Re:Does not solve the problem by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      How bad of a crash are you willing to take for that little piece of ego boosting?

      Because if you think that your current way of life comes purely from US and not from extremely lucrative, essentially colonial exploitation of 3rd world, you are going to hit a wall or reality running.

    6. Re:Does not solve the problem by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      your trying to argue that exploitation of third world countries is ok?

    7. Re:Does not solve the problem by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      About as much as you're arguing that everyone will be happy to accept complete economic collapse of their country in the style of pre-WW2 Germany.

  22. Re:Why are we still supporting these clowns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    They are not "universally unpopular" they are just unpopular with sick, evil, twisted, freaks like NAZIs, skinheads, and the Muslim Brotherhood (who were allied with Hitler in WWII). Not all Muslims hate Jews (not all Muslims are warped and evil) ... but the truly evil fringe of Islam is the Muslim Brotherhood and they and their associated groups like Hamas and Hezbollah are currently an the ascendancy in the region. The Brotherhood does what every evil leader/government/agitator does... gain support of the local population by pointing at some "other" or "outsider" person/people as the party responsible for all the failings of a society. They tell the Muslim world that all their problems are not because they are have a backward ideology, corrupt leaders, dysfunctional courts, and they severely oppress half of their own population (women and girls) ... oh, no... ALL their problems are because there is a tiny little country with JEWS in it...

  23. Tinfoil Oragami by CanadianRealist · · Score: 4, Funny

    Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.

    Maybe try using a bit less tinfoil next time. The whole roll is definitely too much. If you learn to fold it just right and not wrinkle it you can make a really good hat from a small piece of tinfoil.

  24. LOL @ Italy by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

    "the lease is up" - color them red.

    Really? You can lease a warplane? I suppose they bought "gap" insurance too.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  25. Re:PW F100 used in both F-15 and F-16 by Nimey · · Score: 2

    No, some blocks of F-16s use GE F110 engines instead, which are more advanced. The only reason that some C-model F-16s use F100s is because some asshole senator decided it was more important for his district to get money than it was for DoD to save the cost of a second superfluous engine program.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  26. Re:Stolen to order by cheesybagel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    China doesn't need to get old F-16 engines from Israel. They already got their hands on some F-16s from Pakistan several years back. This is well known knowledge.

    China has the capability to manufacture relatively modern jet engines. One example is the WS-10A engine they use in their J-15 carrier jet instead of the standard AL-31F engine used in the Su-27. The J-31 uses smaller WS-13 engines, also used in the JF-17 they sell to Pakistan, which is based on the Mig-29 RD-33 engine. They had several production problems namely in FADEC, turbine blade reliability and production capacity but it seems they have solved them. Otherwise they wouldn't be testing airplanes powered with their own engines on their carrier.

  27. Re:Stolen to order by WGFCrafty · · Score: 1

    Because it could be a disinformation campaign, or a goodwill gesture where we tell nothing of value.

  28. Endemic Corruption by MarkvW · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How your American tax dollars are spent by Israel.

    1. Re:Endemic Corruption by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      Endemic Corruption - How your American tax dollars are spent by Israel.

      Fascinating. And you know this how?

      You're assuming that those jets were not ones the Israelis purchased? Do you have any grounds for that?

      Were these jet engines stolen at an American Air Force base due to "endemic corruption," or the activity of simple thieves?
      HAFB THIEVES CANNOT SET THE VALUE OF 3 STOLEN JET ENGINES, SAYS JUDGE

      Do you have equal concerns about Venezuela and Iran? Or just the Jewish state?

      Do you think Israel is less corrupt, as corrupt, or more corrupt than Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Palestinian Authority, all of whom receive large amounts of US aid?

      Speaking of endemic:
      Rising Anti-Semitism on the Left
      The European Left and Its Trouble With Jews
      The Full-Blown Return of Anti-Semitism in Europe

      --
      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
  29. Point of information: by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 4, Informative

    Contrary to what you'd think from what politicians say, Israel is not a treaty ally.

    1. Re:Point of information: by deburg · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Anyway, considering all the TLC that US has been treating Israel to, you'd think they (Israel) is from sort of protectorate (like Purta Rico) or favorite trading partner.

      Hence all the conspiracy theories I'd keep hearing about. Seriously, Illuminati? US Senate are all Jews? What the heck have my country mates been drinking?

  30. things that make you go hmmm... by v1 · · Score: 2

    Israeli officials played down the loss, saying the engines were old or retired and likely stolen for scrap.

    hmmm...

    In 2009, two F-5 engines were stolen from an airbase in Malaysia, tracked to Argentina and ultimately located in Uruguay.

    Wow those scrappers sure can go to great lengths to fence their scrap!

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:things that make you go hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When all the Jews were pulled out of Gaza, including their dead bodies out of the local cemeteries, state-of-the art farming, greenhouses and light industrial complexes were left behind. Within a few weeks they were completely destroyed, torn up for scrap by thieves. Before the separation fence was built, Israel was pretty close to the top in car thefts, mostly for parts and scrap, all driven across the "green line" into the West Bank. The fence and checkpoints slowed that down, as well as putting a stop to the almost daily bombings and murders in the area. I live in a tiny desert community far away from everything, and we just had 10 SUV-type cars stolen in one night a few months ago. A new hotel being built here was held up for over a year because all of the tile and wood was stolen from the site. The entire southern part of the country was offline for several days because several kilometers worth of phone line was pulled down and stolen. Farmers are routinely robbed of vehicles, tools, equipment, animals; one Jewish shepherd just had his entire flock of 400 sheep stolen a few nights ago. Fences don't do any good since they'll steal the fence, too. If you get dogs, they'll either steal or poison the dogs. It's a fact of life here.

  31. Re:www.FoxNews.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You mean main stream media in general. Fox news is one of the few defending the other position, and it's one of the few that makes money. The others spew lies and half truths, and sway the nation into voting for more debt and government control.

  32. Re:Stolen to order by Baloroth · · Score: 1

    You do realize there is a slight bit of difference between military grade avionics, and commercial ones, right? It's kind of a big difference, in fact, like the difference between an F-16 and a 747. Actually, not "like", that is the difference between an F-16 and a 747.

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  33. Not quite right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's public info.

    Whatever you may think of Wikileaks, clearly this is not public info. It is publicly accessible but it plainly says right on the document: CONFIDENTIAL. For those who are held to an expectation of respect for that classification, just viewing it accidentally is as bad as being entirely incompetent.

    1. Re:Not quite right by tibman · · Score: 1

      lol, actually it is STILL confidential.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    2. Re:Not quite right by tibman · · Score: 1

      It's a title, not a state. Though i'm sure that's the desired state. Asshole : )

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    3. Re:Not quite right by tibman · · Score: 1

      Attempts to force it's (paid) employees to accept that state. Even if the rest of the world doesn't. Kind of like how you and your friends say you smell okay but everyone else has another thought on that matter : P

      Whether you agree with me or not. The title is still confidential and gov employees who shouldn't read it, still can not read it. Especially while at work.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  34. Re:Stolen to order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Actually there's very little difference between "military grade" and commercial avionics. I've worked on both.

    As for engines, there's obviously a difference between fighter and airliner engines, but the commercial stuff is every bit as sophisticated as the military. They face many of the same problems, and there's a reason why the same companies make both military and commercial jet engines.

  35. Mod me "Obvious" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    USofA

  36. I'll be watching ... by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... next summer's SeaFair hydro races with renewed interest.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  37. Re:Stolen to order by TheLink · · Score: 2

    I might trust the better commercial ones more than military grade. Most airliners don't have ejection seats for the passengers ;).

    --
  38. Re:Stolen to order by dj245 · · Score: 4, Informative

    If we're so worried about China getting our jet engine tech (and we probably should be), then why is GE allowed to be in a joint Chinese venture to make engines?

    GE has a long history of doing this. They licensed their steam turbines to Toshiba as early as the 1970's (and still maintain a joint venture with them). Then they licensed them to Hitachi. Recently, they have been playing the game with Doosan (Korean multinational).

    I wouldn't worry too much about stealing gas turbine technology though. This is basically a mature technology now with only incremental improvements every couple years. If you wanted to play the gas turbine game, stealing an engine or 5 would help, but it would be cheaper and less risky to just send people to the various conferences on such technologies throughout the year. In this industry, the secret design is important, but the manufacturing capability and production engineering is more important. If you just steal an engine you still have a long way to go.

    If you were starting a gas turbine program from scratch, you would need a big pile of money (500 million would probably do it), some engineers skilled in thermodynamics, separate engineers skilled in materials, production engineers, etc. You can have GE, Siemens, Alstom, and Rolls Royce's engineers defect to you if you want it bad enough (money and benefits talk loudly in this industry). Then you need to locate a supplier of exotic alloys and large forgings (not as difficult as it sounds), buy some 5 axis CNC machines for airfoils and some larger vertical tables and lathes for the rotors and casings. Get yourself some machinists and millwrights and you're in business. This is out of reach of a small or medium size company, but a Fortune 500 company or medium-size government could do it if they wanted it badly enough.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  39. Re:Stolen to order by manu0601 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If we're so worried about China getting our jet engine tech (and we probably should be), then why is GE allowed to be in a joint Chinese venture to make engines?

    Because as Lenin said: "Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them"

  40. This has happened at least once before by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In 2000 there was a US Senate inquiry into how a classified targeting system in tanks was given to Israel, stolen by some criminals there, sold to China, then onsold to Iran. The government in Israel wasn't too happy about that stuff ending up in Iran either (especially since Iran gives away their obsolete rockets to people that keep shooting them at Israel).
    So it's not really about Israel, but instead some crooks that just happen to live there.

  41. Re:Stolen to order by wmac1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    - Iran does not have F-16 or use airplanes that use them.

    - Iran has access to new Russian jet engines (RD-33 and many other types), American engines (TF-30 turbofan, J79 and J85 turbojets etc.) and french Snecma 9R-50. Also according Jane's defense a Venezuelan F-16 was transferred to Iran for research. They already have 2 F16-A engines in hand.

    - Iran produces localized J-85 engines (for their F5 derived Saeghe fighters) and possibly limited number of TF-30 (for their 30 years old but still operational! fleet). They would most probably consider one of those engines for industrial production (as they have 40-45 years of experience with them).

    This is a "partial" list of engines available to Iran :

    Turbojets:
    J85 14kN
    Snecma Atar 42kN
    Tumansky R-195 (su-25) 44kN
    J79 50kN
    AL-21F (su-24) 75kN
    Khatchaturov R-35,R-29 (Mig23,27) 83kN

    Turbofans:
    RD33 50kN
    TF30 65kN

  42. calling bullshit on the OP. by nimbius · · Score: 1

    'They're still more modern than anything in the Iranian air force inventory, and they would even be helpful to China in their jet engine development

    No, they arent the mig 29 is a newer and arguably better aircraft than the F16 could ever hope to be. and if that isnt 'modern' enough, the SU 30's bolstering the Iranian air force sport avionics alone that make the F16 look like a model T.
    chinas current fleet of J series aircraft are powered by the Saturn AL-31 or domestically produced clones with nothing except the turboblades imported. it has 27,600lbs of thrust, compared to the emaciated 17,600lbs of thrust for the pratt and whitney powering the F16.
    in summation: Israel is bang on, the F16 has been a collectors item for quite some time.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:calling bullshit on the OP. by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      hahah, thats pretty funny.

      The Mig 29 and SU 30s are rather a joke. They are really upgrades from older aircraft rather than new designs.

      F-16s regularly beat the every living shit out of 'newer' aircraft in simulated combat. You seem to think the F-16s that the US and Israel use are from the original models. They aren't. Israel's specifically are using some of the most advanced avionics on the planet.

      The ORIGINAL F16s had 23,500lbs of thrust ..., they were given 29,500 in the 90s, Newer models have 32,500 pounds of thrust.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:calling bullshit on the OP. by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      The ORIGINAL F16s had 23,500lbs of thrust ..., they were given 29,500 in the 90s, Newer models have 32,500 pounds of thrust.

      Well, like you said, "they are really upgrades from older aircraft rather than new designs".

      What goes around, comes around.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  43. Great News by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    yeah lets give more shit to Israel, they are such a great friend - if they aren't stealing our technology outright they are either losing it or selling it off.

    1. Re:Great News by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      Compete with stolen technology? Israel is nothing more than a bunch of thieves who have been spying on the US and our defense industry since day one. Israel can barely keep their economy afloat let alone compete with the US defense industry. One thing that does not separate the Jews from their hated semite arab brothers is being braggarts.

  44. Re:Stolen to order by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

    I might trust the better commercial ones more than military grade. Most airliners don't have ejection seats for the passengers ;).

    Most commercial aircraft don't engage in combat.

  45. Re:irritating israel is a US friend by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    ifthat'strueyoushouldsavemoretimebyleavingoutthespaces. obviouslyit'samuchmoreefficientuseofyourprecioustime.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  46. Re:Stolen to order by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So an Slashdot commenter thinks Iran is a neighbor of Israel? Your post should be scored interesting or funny.

    2. a person or thing that is near another.

    Neighbor is a fairly nebulous term. I suppose it's relative too. For someone living in Jordan, no, they would probably not consider them to be neighbors with each other(Iran and Israel). However someone in Ohio may consider them to be. Just as the same person in Jordan may consider Ohio and Illinois regional neighbors.

  47. Re:irritating israel is a US friend by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    You know, I do a lot reading of 20th century history, and this comment would not be out of place in Bavaria 1936.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  48. How the hell does one lose F-16 engines? by overmoderated · · Score: 1

    Oops, I lost my F-16 engine. I can't remember where I put it.

  49. Re:Hypocrisy... by jollespm · · Score: 2

    Would you call the difference between a 486 and a core i7 substantial? There's plenty of information out there about jet engines, and certainly a talented individual could build one. But to build an engine that has 35,000+ lbs thrust and can withstand temperatures of 3500+ F, amongst other things, is not exactly trivial.

  50. Re:www.FoxNews.com by pitchpipe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Read it. Learn it. Live it. This website will provide you with all the facts and tools you need to solidly refute any socialist debaters who argue we should all be provided government entitlements and destroy wealth by stealing it and handing it out to the underclass. Educate yourself, and those around you. Our way of life depends on it.

    Your post is a perfect example of Poe's law. I cannot tell at all whether you are parodying a fundamentalist, or are actually a fundamentalist. Congratulations!

    --
    Look where all this talking got us, baby.
  51. Remember this is Israel by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    They have a history of funneling our technology to the highest bidder. My only doubt is usually after they do it they tell our politicians to fuck off or AIPAC will visit your opponent's campaign office next election.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  52. This is why by kiriath · · Score: 1

    We can't have nice things!

  53. Re:Why are we still supporting these clowns? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    The USA's actions are often indefensible, it has nothing to do with Christians.
    The old USSR's actions were often indefensible, it had nothing to do with Athiests.
    Israel's actions are often indefensible, it has nothing to do with Judasim.
    Can you see a pattern now, or do you still want to be part of the problem?

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  54. Re:Stolen to order by grcumb · · Score: 2

    Most airliners don't have ejection seats for the passengers ;).

    And parents of squalling babies the world over are grateful for this.

    --
    Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
  55. Re:www.FoxNews.com by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Really? Mod this AC down? This is the funniest shit I've read all day. Seriously, read whatever you want, but dismiss half of it as bullshit.

    --
    Chewbacon
    The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
  56. Re:Stolen to order by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    Yep, instead the passengers die when something goes wrong rather than ejecting.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  57. Re:www.FoxNews.com by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Faux Noise leads the way in divisiveness in this country. Some dirtbag who was chased out of Australia somehow managed to purchase news media in both the UK and the US, so that he could brainwash masses of zombies into attacking their fellow countrymen. Rupert Murdoch should be executed, along with his top henchmen here and in the UK. Hang them from the Verrazanos Narrows bridge, and let their bodies rot in the air.

    Let them serve as an example for all the liberals on the OTHER networks who are happy to promote the divisiveness. They are only little better. Maybe we should hang Hearst and the Turners beside Murdoch, just to be sure everyone gets the message.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  58. Re:Stolen to order by Harvey+Manfrenjenson · · Score: 1

    A nice plane without engines is useless. Over land through Iran to China

    How? Through Syria and Iraq? How easy would it be to even get the engines out of Israel without alerting border agents?

  59. Religion? by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 1

    What does religion exactly have to do with jet engines?

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
  60. Re:Stolen to order by Arancaytar · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Using the definition of "can lob missiles at each other", most nations in the Middle East are each other's neighbours. The really psychotic kind.

  61. Re:www.FoxNews.com by BeanThere · · Score: 4, Interesting

    stealing it and handing it out to the underclass

    Pitting members of the proletariat against one another is a technique known as 'divide and rule', or in this case, 'divide and rule by thieving kleptocrats' .. the basic idea is that if you, say, have two neighbors and you can keep them bickering against one and blaming one another for everything that goes wrong, they won't notice while you rob both their houses (and will blame one another). Well done for playing your part like a good little pawn *pats head*.

    The more phony divisions you sew, the better - e.g. pit old vs young (e.g. tell the older generation they're poor because the younger generation is eating Social Security and tell the younger generation they're poor because the older generation are living high off the hog off their labor ... meanwhile both feel poor because you are robbing them both blind, but they will instead bicker and blame one another ... it helps if you can deliberately construct a convoluted robbery system in which there's just enough of a grain of truth both ways for it to seem plausible, e.g. pyramid-scheme-based retirement funds or government debt).

    The only "divide" in the country should be that between the moral and the immoral, between thieves and honest folk.

  62. Re:Stolen to order by rtb61 · · Score: 1

    High powered computers and incremental engineering allow for highly advanced designs to evolve fairly quickly. Besides the US is losing planes all of the time, and US corporate executives are all to happy to sell fully detailed designs as long as the price is.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  63. Re:www.FoxNews.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Mmmmm, the "conservative" tears are still delicious.

  64. Jet engines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well if I were the agent in charge the first place I would check would be Jay Leno's garage. He's got every other souped up vehicle ever made, but two jet engines on a 1968 Chevy Impala would be way cool.....

  65. Re:www.FoxNews.com by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The other position." Is that the one when they start talking about a person who's simultaneously a socialist fascist stalinist nazi, empty suit evil manipulative genius, god-hating atheist antichrist with an Angry Black Man for a pastor, who (despite being an empty suit) will surely crush America under social security administration tyranny with an iron fist after duping the entire American legal system into covering up his Kenyan past (despite having held no government position that would remotely give him such power at the time) but (despite being an evil genius) can't speak without a teleprompter, who's surely coming for your guns (And if anyone points out he hasn't made a single move to, it's proof he's planning to)...

    One would think that it's obvious that no one else defends this viewpoint because this viewpoint is manifestly insane, bringing to mind the delusional/hallucinating aspect of psychosis.

  66. Re:Stolen to order by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    In the past, commercial jet engines were basically afterburner-less versions of military engines.

    Case in point: Rolls-Royse Olympus (used by military and civilian aircraft, marine propulsion and industrial electricity generator) , Soloviev D-30 (MiG-31, Tu-154M).

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  67. Wild guess by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

    Let me guess : the Mossad will "find" engine parts in Teheran, Gaza stripe & Mevaseret Adumim.
    The obvious answer would be to bomb Iran, to drop white phosphorous bombs and shrapnel bullets against the civilian population of Gaza and create a new settlement in E1.

    Given the record of Mossad, Bibi and Liebermann, it might not be such a crazy idea.
    Problem is, Hamas leaders are just as bonkers.

  68. Re:Stolen to order by captainpanic · · Score: 1

    If we're so worried about China getting our jet engine tech (and we probably should be), then why is GE allowed to be in a joint Chinese venture to make engines?

    http://www.dailytech.com/GE+Announces+Chinese+Joint+Venture+for+Avionics+on+the+C919/article20681.htm

    China and Iran don't need any fancy undercover operations - we'll happily shoot ourselves in the foot if it's called business.

    Yeeeeeeeees.... but we make them sign a non disclosure agreement, so then they cannot reveal... oh, wait.

  69. Re:Stolen to order by saider · · Score: 1

    They already have 2 F16-A engines in hand.

    Perhaps that what these engines are intended to be used in. They are not invulnerable and do wear out eventually.

    --


    Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
  70. Re:Stolen to order by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

    Wrong - nothing to do with making engines, it's to co-develop avionics...

    I'm sure GE will be happy to sell them engines, but not to share key engine development knowledge.

  71. Re:irritating israel is a US friend by no+bloody+nickname · · Score: 1

    Mel Gibson is that you?

  72. Sounds like Mossad's arms dealing tricks to me by DABANSHEE · · Score: 1

    Remember Israel was even caught out dealer arms to both sides in the Sri Lankan civil war at the same time.

  73. Bus versus Formula One by sjbe · · Score: 1

    If we're so worried about China getting our jet engine tech (and we probably should be), then why is GE allowed to be in a joint Chinese venture to make engines?

    The difference in those technologies is the difference between a bus engine and the engine in a Formula One car. Just because you know how the bus engine works doesn't mean you can build a Formula One engine.

  74. Rope and commies by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because as Lenin said: "Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them"

    And how well did that work out for Lenin do you think? It seems to me that the necks of the capitalist pigs are still quite intact.

    1. Re:Rope and commies by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      Because as Lenin said: "Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them"

      And how well did that work out for Lenin do you think? It seems to me that the necks of the capitalist pigs are still quite intact.

      You confuse the fate of the individuals with the fate of the ideology, sir.

    2. Re:Rope and commies by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that the necks of the capitalist pigs are still quite intact.

      lollll...only 'cuz Immelt controls a "corporate person", and that "corporate person" can afford to buy America's politicians in bulk.

      The generals who know damned good and well that they will have to watch their men die because of Immelt's betrayals in the here and now work for those politicians, and so they know their hands - and the hands of the intelligence community - are well and thoroughly tied.

      I.e., capitalism - as re-corrupted since 1980 by the modern American right - is a self-betraying system; it ensures that the hog trough is crowded with both corporate and political leaders - and the PRC plays it well.

      --
      Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  75. Re:Why are we still supporting these clowns? by cpghost · · Score: 2

    (...) but the truly evil fringe of Islam is the Muslim Brotherhood and they and their associated groups like Hamas and Hezbollah are currently an the ascendancy in the region.

    So are they in Syria, with friendly help of our "allies" Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and heavily supported by the US and most EU Governments, no less.

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  76. Military Supply by jasper160 · · Score: 1

    Half of them are thieves, the others are too lazy to care.

    --
    No good deed goes unpunished.
  77. Fox News by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Only LOOKS conservative....due to the liberal bias of the rest of the news organizations.

  78. Re:Stolen to order by JTsyo · · Score: 1

    Name one military plane that has an ejection seat for passengers. Sure with something like the C-130 the passengers can jump out with parachutes but no ejection seats.

  79. Re:irritating israel is a US friend by Dan667 · · Score: 1

    godwin, is that you?

  80. Re:irritating israel is a US friend by Dan667 · · Score: 1

    israel could let Palestine form their own country, but they won't because they want to steal Palestinian Land. The houses israel authorized in occupied Palestine after the UN vote for Palestinian statehood could not have framed the problem that is israel any better.

  81. Fair and balanced by Quila · · Score: 1

    Note, not fair and balanced within itself, it's obviously wildly on the right. But it provides a fair balance for the blatantly far-left media outlet MSNBC and the rest that are generally left-leaning (CBS, etc.).

    But I'd bet you'd just like the airwaves to be filled with the leftist echo chamber, with no challenging viewpoints.

    1. Re:Fair and balanced by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      *sigh*

      Please, re-read my last sentence. Maybe read it twice. How might you construe what I have actually posted as approving of the left's mass media propaganda? I find them to be only slightly less revolting than Faux Noise.

      It often seems that people are intentionally obtuse. This looks like one of those instances.

      The problem is the divisiveness. During the election, the left put out plenty of nonsense indicating that a Republican victory would send us back in time to about the twelfth century. The right positively stated that a Democratic victory would mean the end of the civilized world, the collapse of the United States, and possibly even the end of life as we know it.

      I have problems with both sides of that issue.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    2. Re:Fair and balanced by Quila · · Score: 1

      I have problems with both sides of that issue.

      Yet I hear Faux Noise, but no PMSNBC. It's funny how people are so adamant about the effects of this one news network and rail against it, when there are at least four major US news networks in opposition from far left to slightly left.

    3. Re:Fair and balanced by mk1004 · · Score: 1

      Yes, they must all have been CX debaters: Vote for my side or it all ends in Global Nuclear War.

      --
      I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
  82. Not the first time this has happened... by bobthesungeek76036 · · Score: 1

    I remember reading a story about a couple of F-16 engines being hi-jacked from Ogden AFB years ago. We expected to see something akin to the Darwin Award story about the dude that hooked up C-130 jetos to his car and plowed into the side of a mountain not soon after...

    --
    Karma: Bad
  83. Re:www.FoxNews.com by Occams · · Score: 1

    Poe's law only works in the USA where the kooks are so pure.

    --
    Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
  84. Now wait a minute by boddhisatva · · Score: 1

    An F-16 engine is about 65% of an F-16 by weight & volume. It's a single engine plane. It's an engine with wings and a chair tied to the top. Can I put on a set of coveralls that say "Al's Jet Engine Repair", drive with in with a 1987 flatbed truck, borrow a forklift from a line mechanic, load 'em and drive away? How stupid is the Israeli military? Not very. How corrupt is the Israeli government? Very. Most Israeli's think so. Is everyone afraid that some higher up was responsible and doesn't want to know? Israel may have it's precarious position compromised by the greed of its own people. Take everyone on duty that night and put their feet in a tub with a chironex fleckeri, commonly known as a sea wasp, a species of box jellyfish. They will tell you everything they know and make up what they don't. Sort out the facts and do the same at the next level. When you get to the top, recover the engines. After you do or if you don't, take the top guys out in the desert and shoot them. Don't bury them. Let it be known that they were shot, not buried and and animals are currently splitting up the bodies based on how big and how mean the animals are. Doing this once should put an end to this bullshit.

  85. Re:Hypocrisy... by cynyr · · Score: 1

    Never said it was trivial, just "do-able" given enough funding, and talented people. Also note, that I agreeing for the most part with the article, and against the GGP, in that the loss of the F16 engine is basically a loss of a F22/F35 engine.

    Nothing I saw reported to have been leaked by wikileaks contained info on on-going, or future-useful info.

    To use a car analogy, at this point leaking the spec's to a horse and buggy would not be upsetting at all, but a '64 mustang would provide a substantial amount of the info needed to build a modern car. An out of date "un-safe" car, but a car none the less.

    --
    All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
  86. Re:www.FoxNews.com by pitchpipe · · Score: 1

    I'd bet it applies even more in parts of the Muslim world.

    --
    Look where all this talking got us, baby.
  87. Re:Stolen to order by couchslug · · Score: 1

    China isn't Communist, and is following Capitalist rules beautifully.

    China isn't "Maoism", it's fucking Foxconn, and that works.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  88. Re:Stolen to order by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    I did not say anything about China, but indeed China retained the worst properties of communism and capitalism. The individual is nothing, but individualism thrive.

  89. Ignore deliberate communications breakdowns by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but "most people" don't agree on the meanings of just about anything when it is convenient to do so. Relativism can just go fuck itself - experts know more than non-experts about the subject they have expertise in so there's no need to pretend that the definitions they put forward are "unclear" just because people are don't like it when minor aspects of a different ideology also occur in their own.
    This sort of relativism bullshit has been especially rampant while PR agencies are pretending climate experts do not know any more than non-experts, but it's been around for a while and really is an major inpediment to an informed democratic society (or if the leaders believe this bullshit and ignore their experts, any society).

  90. Horse bolted by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Searching probably won't help now, and they are not going to be doing it with every shipping container from now on to forever.

  91. Not accurate by DoriH · · Score: 1

    It wasn't F-16 engines, it was just specific parts