Slashdot Mirror


Islamic State "Laptop of Doom" Hints At Plots Including Bubonic Plague

Foreign Policy has an in-depth look at the contents of a laptop reportedly seized this year in Syria from a stronghold of the organization now known as the Islamic State, and described as belonging to a Tunisian national ("Muhammed S."). The "hidden documents" folder of the machine, says the report, contained a vast number of documents, including ones describing and justifying biological weapons: The laptop's contents turn out to be a treasure trove of documents that provide ideological justifications for jihadi organizations -- and practical training on how to carry out the Islamic State's deadly campaigns. They include videos of Osama bin Laden, manuals on how to make bombs, instructions for stealing cars, and lessons on how to use disguises in order to avoid getting arrested while traveling from one jihadi hot spot to another. ... The information on the laptop makes clear that its owner is a Tunisian national named Muhammed S. who joined ISIS in Syria and who studied chemistry and physics at two universities in Tunisia's northeast. Even more disturbing is how he planned to use that education: The ISIS laptop contains a 19-page document in Arabic on how to develop biological weapons and how to weaponize the bubonic plague from infected animals. ... "The advantage of biological weapons is that they do not cost a lot of money, while the human casualties can be huge," the document states.

369 comments

  1. But is it reaslistic? by houstonbofh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is the "19-page document in Arabic on how to develop biological weapons" a viable plan, or wishfull thinking? Getting ahold if bubonic plague is not exactly easy. If it was ebola, that would be easier...

    1. Re:But is it reaslistic? by donaldm · · Score: 1

      The problem with biological weapons is that unless you make sure all your so called friends are immunised or leave they are also going to among the casualties. Usually large scale immunisation or exoduses are pretty noticeable especially if that immunisation is for diseases that are really unusual. However terrorists normally don't care for other people other than themselves so if they use biological weapons you can expect casualties on all sides.

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    2. Re: But is it reaslistic? by mc6809e · · Score: 5, Informative

      The plague exists in the wild in many western states of the USA.

      Colorado just had four cases in the past few months.

    3. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should learn some things. The Plague occurs in the US. There are animals like rabbits and the like that can be found infected with plague. It is not a real issue to people in the US for a number of reasons. 1. We don't regularly play with wild jack rabbits. 2. We tend to wash our selves and clothes more and are generally cleaner than we were in the middle ages. 3. We have antibiotics.

      You will not find any Ebola in the US outside of highly secured research facilities.

    4. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ebola isn't realistic either. You'd get more results with empty glass vials and a written "Deadly Ebola" label in a few dozen big malls.

      The widespread panic would have the same effect for much less cost.

    5. Re:But is it reaslistic? by jrmcferren · · Score: 1

      They make money by the Fuckton, give them enough time and they can buy nukes.

      --
      sudo mod me up
    6. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Smallpond · · Score: 4, Funny

      The well-known terrorist organization Aqua Teen Hunger Force shut down the city of Boston in 2007 with just some boards with blinky lights.

    7. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 0
      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    8. Re: But is it reaslistic? by bugnuts · · Score: 1

      Plague is easily treated today. It's just a bacterium, and it doesn't even spread from person to person without blood exchange. That's like one of the dumbest things I've heard, only interesting because plague once killed many people.

      I'd be far more worried about smallpox, an easily created virus that has few people immunized these days.

    9. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Copid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'd be a little more inclined to believe that the person who wrote the document was a real expert if there had been a known case of these guys actually producing a biological weapon. This sounds a whole lot more like people who have never built a biological weapon teaching other people who have never built a biologial weapon how to build a biological weapon. Lots of thought experiments being put on paper as instructions as if they were tried and true methods.

      I can do a write up for how to build a nuclear bomb for my terrorist brothers based on my rudimentary undergraduate physics education, but there's no way in hell those instructions would actually produce anything useful.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    10. Re:But is it reaslistic? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      3. We have antibiotics.

      FTFY: We have antibiotics that we have rendered useless because we have fed them to cows to make them bigger which we then eat and so any germ we might encounter may already have evolved defences from said antibiotic.

      FWIW, there are a lot of animals that can carry plague, not just rabbits (I know you implied that). But people don't know that most rodents in North America can carry it including squirrels, prairie dogs, rats, etc etc etc. And people still die from it occasionally.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    11. Re: But is it reaslistic? by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yea and it's not the middle ages either and there are no strains of plague that are anti-biotic resistant. The only Bacteria that are scary are anti-biotic resistant ones, all the rest can be cured with a dose of anti-biotic. That's why people with the real knowledge don't research bio-weapons from bacteria, they use viruses that have no effective treatment option.

      This sounds like some rank amateur typing up a letter that says "we could do X" where X is some fanciful attack. What I see here is groups like the CIA playing this up as a fund raising drive even if the "plan" is stupidly simple and not even viable. This in fact sounds a lot like the yellow cake uranium crap they pushed into the media.

      People need to stop falling for this BS.

    12. Re:But is it reaslistic? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's always better to be prepared after something very bad happens. Let's just ignore it for now.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    13. Re:But is it reaslistic? by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      Not so much...
      The South West of the US has it's share, and given the rains of this year it may be worse.
      http://www.arizonaedventures.com/things-to-see-do/arizona-top-ten/scary-arizona/
      I can remember seeing warnings in the local paper as well as hunters advisories.
      Google it...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    14. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

      +1 propaganda. that's all this is. we better amend the patriot act to give CIA power to stop these underground bioterrorists!

    15. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I guess holding up a 'vial of anthrax' just wont cut it any more.

    16. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Copid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's a difference between "being prepared" and "Oh, shit, let's panic!" When this stuff comes up, the public reaction is usually the latter. These guys aspire to all sorts of stuff and if even half of it were realistic they would have taken over the world by now. The reality is that their resources and competence don't match their aspirations and our policy responses should take that into consideration. Some nutbar in a cave announcing his intention to get hold of a hydrogen bomb and blow us all to hell should cause us to spot check the security of the known hydrogen bomb storage sites. It shouldn't cause us to start digging billion dollar fallout shelters under every major city or grounding airplanes whenever somebody uses the word "hydrogen."

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    17. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Serious question, as I live somewhere with free healthcare at the point of service (not "free healthcare", as some people call it): what happens if you can't afford antibiotics?

    18. Re:But is it reaslistic? by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      I guess I should have said weaponed or actually dangerous plague, as opposed to the stuff we see in the ERs from time to time that does not even make the news...

    19. Re: But is it reaslistic? by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Ebola isn't realistic either. You'd get more results with empty glass vials and a written "Deadly Ebola" label in a few dozen big malls.

      The widespread panic would have the same effect for much less cost.

      Considering that the goal of a terrorist is to spread terror, having a documented case of getting ebola could be very effective. http://www.nydailynews.com/new... Oh, wait...

    20. Re:But is it reaslistic? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not saying panic either. But I wouldn't blow them off. I would think that the biggest barrier they have is access to the equipment and materials to build what they want. They number in the tens of thousands at least, and we keep hearing how many were engineering grads or university students. They can't all be stupid. But sure another roadblock they will have are the throngs of stupid people they have lumped themselves in with. The thing is for biological warfare they don't even need weapons systems. They'll just infect a few hundred 'martyrs' and put them on a plane somewhere. Pneumonic plague (black death) doesn't need physical contact.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    21. Re:But is it reaslistic? by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 3, Funny

      The problem with biological weapons is that unless you make sure all your so called friends are immunised or leave...

      I just had this vision of a surrealistic scene...
      It was like I just woke up in a Family Guy Episode...

      Asshat (that looks like Quagmire): Dude, come on! We are gonna go see this babe that has an uncle that will let her show us her ankles!
      Peter: No, I told my Dad I'd study weaponizing virulent pathogens tonight...
      Asshat: Oh Man, this chick has eyes that go all the way down to her veil! Hey, if you don't want a look, it's your loss!
      Peter (sotto voce): Dude, you are SO not getting inoculated!

      Damn You Peter Löwenbräu Griffin!

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    22. Re:But is it reaslistic? by SylvesterTheCat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with biological weapons is that unless you make sure all your so called friends are immunised or leave they are also going to among the casualties.

      Do you really think they see that as a problem?

    23. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Bartles · · Score: 1

      In the US you get treated anyway, because the law requires it. Also, if you can't afford antibiotics you are eligible for medicaid. If you haven't enrolled and haven't been forcibly enrolled, its your own fault.

    24. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, the means of a terrorist is to spread terror, the goal is something else.

    25. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In the US you get treated anyway, because the law requires it. Also, if you can't afford antibiotics you are eligible for medicaid. If you haven't enrolled and haven't been forcibly enrolled, its your own fault.

      Not only what you said, but most antibiotics are trivially inexpensive. For example, at Publix grocery store pharmacies the common antibiotics are free:
      Amoxicillin
      Ampicillin
      Sulfamethoxazole/Trimethoprim (SMZ-TMP)
      Ciprofloxacin (excluding Ciprofloxacin XR)
      Penicillin VK

      There are some expensive ones. If you are very sick, then you're going to be in the hospital, and the cost of the antibiotics is the least of your financial problem.

    26. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Copid · · Score: 1

      So the question is, what are the policy implications? As far as I can tell, we're about as well prepared for a plague as we can reasonably be short of massive expenditure on serious emergency programs. We could go as far as buying everybody NBC suits, but that seems like it's way out of proportion.

      We have a robust medical system with good antibiotics that's reasonably good at containing outbreaks knowledge of how to treat the plague, so what's next, and are the cost of that next thing justifiable given the real probability of a serious attack? If we put serious effort into defending against every conceivable tail risk that crazy people introduce, they could bankrupt us just by releasing Tom Clancy style whitepapers and never actually have to do a thing.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    27. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Smallpox is not "easily created".

    28. Re: But is it reaslistic? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yea and it's not the middle ages either

      Those Islamic folks seems to think it's the Middle Ages . . . or they would like to bring the people under their control back to the Middle Ages.

      Ah, the Middle East: God's Monkey House

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    29. Re: But is it reaslistic? by khallow · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yea and it's not the middle ages either and there are no strains of plague that are anti-biotic resistant. The only Bacteria that are scary are anti-biotic resistant ones, all the rest can be cured with a dose of anti-biotic. That's why people with the real knowledge don't research bio-weapons from bacteria, they use viruses that have no effective treatment option.

      OTOH, it's far easier to cultivate bacteria than viruses. For example, Yersinia pestis, the bacteria that causes bubonic plague can be grown in a modified agar gel with no need for host cells of any kind. And it's pretty easy to breed in resistance to anti-biotics by exposing the bacteria over many generations to all the anti-biotics in use at doses where a small part of the colony survives.

      Whether that can be done over a short enough time that interests an organization like ISIS, is unknown to me. But it wouldn't take much effort IMHO to make a bubonic plague variant that is at least highly resistant to anti-biotics. Making it also highly infectious and lethal is another problem. That might require substantially more testing and breeding of the bacteria in host animals like rats or mice or something closer to us, like monkeys or people themselves.

    30. Re: But is it reaslistic? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Smallpox is not "easily created".

      Maybe not 'easily', but it can be created. The entire genetic sequence of Variola Major is known and has been published, so the virus could be synthesized artificially by reproducing the sequence.

    31. Re: But is it reaslistic? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      the 'culture of fear' continues on.

      BE AFRAID! IF YOU FOLLOW OUR INSTRUCTIONS, YOU WILL BE SAFE!

      yeah, right.

      I'm tired of this scare bullshit. I worry more about my own people (the government and authorities) than I will ever worry about some foreign 'bad guy'.

      when are people going to finally tire of being told to 'be afraid!' ? maybe the next generation will wise-up. (probably not, though; they are not any smarter than we are and they are falling for all the same propaganda.)

      at least some of us can see thru this. not that it helps, any.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    32. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are forgetting that if Abu al-Attacker successfully infects a few thousand people, this can overwhelm the medical care infrastructure and deplete the stocks of antibiotics. Once that happens, and there are enough cases to stir up a good epidemic, we have a serious problem on our hands.

      This obviously hinges on the ability to infect lots of people in the first place, which in turn requires obtaining feedstocks and making and spreading enough of the stuff to infect a goodly swathe of people without or at least before the attacker succumbing himself.

      So how viable the plan is for any given terrorist group remains to be seen. And, of course, we've heard so many scare stories that we've become jaded (the TSA's lingering fear of exploding water, anyone?). And this may well be fanciful brainstorming, not an actual plan, also because bacteria typically don't discern between believer and unbeliever.

      But it's not as cut and dried as you make it seem. "Typical" research is about advancing the state of the art, even in mass killing, and so would "naturally" seek to be able to overcome "typical" hurdles like antibiotics and medical care. The key is exactly that brute force in sufficient quantity works just fine, and brute force is what these people do far better than advanced research. So this idea fits their modus operandi fairly well.

    33. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually bubonic has been cycling in rodents in the US Southwest since 1900, when Chinese laborers shipped into San Francisco brought the disease in. A human outbreak was quickly contained, but bubonic in animals has been a part of Western life ever since. Roughly every year, someone in northern Arizona gets it from handling a dead animal.

      For terrorist usage, a disease like this is weaponized by developing a public dispersal plan. "Not infecting your co-workers" hinders use of deadly diseases by conventional bad guys like drug cartelistas, but ISIS warriors are willing self-sacrificers. This allows them to develop tactics that nobody else would contemplate.

    34. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2, Funny

      >when are people going to finally tire of being told to 'be afraid!' ?

      when the populace starts to see through their schtick, they'll greenlight another terrorist attack. I just hope they don't attack an airplane with a body cavity bomber. that would make future TSA checkpoints awful.

    35. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't underestimate their resources. ISIS has over 2 billion dollars in their war chest currently and if they manage to start selling the oil they're sitting on, that number will skyrocket. They have all sorts of captured Syrian weapons, possibly even chemical or biological ones.

      Now, being able to turn money or captured weapons into attacks on the US mainland will be difficult at best. Chemical weapons would be rather hard to smuggle into the country. Syrian Mig fighters could barely get a quarter of the way here before running out of fuel and the US navy would shoot them down the moment they hit international waters. The only real attacks they could pull off would be traditional terrorist attacks from ISIS sympathizers in the US or even possibly a biological attack if they could find the weapons. They're crazy enough to do it, too.

      Now, embassy attacks are a real threat. I would be surprised if 9/11 comes and goes this year without some sort of attack by them. VERY surprised. Terrorism works best when it's memorable and 9/11 is a date that everyone remembers.

    36. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Dereck1701 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sadly you're completely right, a bag of flour thrown off a building or put a few Lite-Brite signs out and you throw a city into chaos. All at the cost of a few bucks and one or two nuts willing to do it. You don't have to look far to see how crazy things have gotten, there have been what, two aircraft diverted in the past week because of minor incidents on-board at least one of which "required" a fighter escort because of a few drunk women having a fight? I can't recall where it came from but there is one statement that pretty well sums it up "the terrorists said "boo" and our reaction was to shoot ourselves in the head". We simply can't sustain this idiocy, eventually we'll end up like Russia at the end of the Cold War, throwing so much money into buying bullets (security) that we can't afford bread (the economy).

    37. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Horshu · · Score: 1

      ISIS should infect some of their bravest with MSRA and then infiltrate the US, where they would spontaneously start grappling with random people on the streets, thus causing a staph epidemic. But yeah, they probably want to avoid ancient diseases that modern medicine has been able to treat.

    38. Re: But is it reaslistic? by mc6809e · · Score: 2

      The only Bacteria that are scary are anti-biotic resistant ones, all the rest can be cured with a dose of anti-biotic.

      Don't be so dismissive.

      I realize the plague is so dark ages and that we have antibiotics, but from 1990 until 2010 the overall mortality rate was 11%.

      People still die even with antibiotics.

    39. Re:But is it reaslistic? by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'd be a little more inclined to believe that the person who wrote the document was a real expert if there had been a known case of these guys actually producing a biological weapon. This sounds a whole lot more like people who have never built a biological weapon teaching other people who have never built a biologial weapon how to build a biological weapon.

      It's been known for quite some time that al Qaida and company have conducted lethal experiments with biological agents, even if at times inadvertently. You are also far too dismissive of them. Many terrorists and terrorist leaders have been well educated people: engineers, doctors, lawyers, scientists, etc. You should also keep in mind that al Qaida has previously canceled attacks because they were uncertain that a particular attack would produce casualties of a large enough number to meet their approval and maintain their "brand" as highly dangerous.

      Black Death 'kills al-Qaeda operatives in Algeria'

      --
      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
    40. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smallpox is not a virus. Sorry but having the DNA is going to do much.

    41. Re: But is it reaslistic? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      So it's an ineffective plan. Good. And yes, you're probably right about using this as justification for, yet, more government bloat. That said however, the fact this one captured laptop revealed the dark intentions of just "one" radical speaks volume of how truely fucked humanity is. This ideology is hell bent on destroying modern civilization and leaving a culture of hell-on-Earth in its place.

      So what do you suggest we do about it? Leaving them alone might make them choose us last if we're lucky. But no doubt, they want you, me, and every non-Muslim converted or dead.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    42. Re: But is it reaslistic? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Where are you going to get the rats and fleas to spread Y.pestis?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    43. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it matter? America has already stated it will treat this class of weapon as a nuke and they have conveniently given a 'nation state' actor location to turn into a glass parking lot .

      Though I don't know how if that would help \ hinder the dead jeebus transportation extraction

    44. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other side of things, why do we not infect that group / area with Ebola. No one will go there to help for fear of being shot, and whilst we are at it.. dig up some of
      the nasty variants of smallpox they have in the fridge and spread that amongst those groups / areas. After the plagues have cleared we can help those left alive to a better life in our fashion.

      They all have a end of the world ideology so lets make it happen.

    45. Re:But is it reaslistic? by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I'd be a little more inclined to believe that the person who wrote the document was a real expert if there had been a known case of these guys actually producing a biological weapon. This sounds a whole lot more like people who have never built a biological weapon teaching other people who have never built a biologial weapon how to build a biological weapon. Lots of thought experiments being put on paper as instructions as if they were tried and true methods.

      I can do a write up for how to build a nuclear bomb for my terrorist brothers based on my rudimentary undergraduate physics education, but there's no way in hell those instructions would actually produce anything useful.

      The Bubonic Plague strikes me as a bit of a red flag. I don't know much about biological warfare but the Bubonic Plague strikes me as something you talk about if you don't know anything about biological warfare and just want something that sounds bad and has historical connotations.

      Even if they had a good disease I still think it's a terrible plan.

      If they target a western state the health care system will make it mostly useless. If they target a middle eastern state they're at war with it will be worse than useless, the target state will have better health care than the neighbouring ISIS territory, the plague could easily boomerang and devastate the ISIS controlled areas far worse than the target state.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    46. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are forgetting: Bio weapons don't have to target people.

      All that is needed is something that targets corn (a single breed of corn that is Roundup-ready is 99% of what is grown in the US), chickens (similar with white leghorn breeds), or other livestock.

      Remember what happened with the Irish and the Lumper potato being the only game in town? It wouldn't take much for a bad guy to get a blight or infestation started, and this would cause far more damage in the long run.

    47. Re:But is it reaslistic? by DerekLyons · · Score: 0

      I can do a write up for how to build a nuclear bomb for my terrorist brothers based on my rudimentary undergraduate physics education, but there's no way in hell those instructions would actually produce anything useful.

      Just because you're ignorant - that doesn't mean everyone else is. There's a lot of stuff openly available for the use of those that aren't [ignorant].

    48. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Copid · · Score: 1

      So what are the policy implications? What do we do differently now that we know this? I mean, we've always been aware that they'd do something with bio weapons if they could. We also know that their capabilities are limited and that what we're really likely to see is a an attempt that may fizzle or may, if they're lucky, be moderately successful. Finally, we've always known that there's a short list of biological agents that amateurs with limited resources would likely deploy.

      The bottom line is, is this really something that should alter our course, or is it just another entry in a very long list of difficult to stop bad things they would do to us if they had the chance but are unlikely to really succeed at without a spot of luck--things that we're already as well prepared for as we can reasonably be? Or is this particular thing so much more likely than any of the million other attack vectors that we should spend outsized resources on it?

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    49. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Copid · · Score: 2

      So those documents are based on first hand knowledge and tested results and people who read them are likely to succeed at building the bombs, right? That's why the countries that have done it recently just pulled those docs off of the Internet instead of hiring experts and spending tons of cash on expensive R&D programs which often failed the first few times anyway, right? Or are these documents written up by people with physics and engineering expertise who pieced the knowhow together and have never actually built a working bomb?

      Because my point is that there's a ton of "howto" stuff out there about all sorts of weapons / drugs / how to be a badass hitman and never get caught / whatever else the kids are into these days that's probably only 80% correct, is written by people who have never actually tried the stuff themselves, and will more likely than not get you killed if you try it as written. And I'm reasonably willing to bet that the "how to make yourself a bubonic plague weapon" documents are just like that. Good educated guesses by reasonably smart people who have done some reading but want stupid people to do things that they're too smart to try themselves.

      I'd be a lot more concerned if somebody had written, "XX engineer from North Korea's weapons lab is known to be working with them," instead of, "They have the Anarchist's Cookbook! We're all doomed!"

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    50. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...

      Do try and keep up with recent research, eh?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    51. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "I'd be far more worried about smallpox, an easily created virus that has few people immunized these days."

      Yea, about that. People who have contracted chickenpox or cowpox are pretty much half-immune to smallpox in the first place. Uh, classic Edward Jenner case, in fact; did you even pay attention in high school?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    52. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget about the hawaiian girl who invented the taco-copter shutting down the Boston airport that year too.

    53. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Black Death 'kills al-Qaeda operatives in Algeria'

      I call bullshit. That was 2009. Since then what? Nothing.
      A couple of dudes probably got bit by naturally infected fleas out there in the forest and some guy decided to play it up as propaganda.

      > keep in mind that al Qaida has previously canceled attacks because they were uncertain that a particular attack would produce casualties

      Run for the hills al qaeda is cancelling attacks! Attacking, not attacking, either way TERROR TERROR TERROR!!!!

      Your post is just typical cold fjord running his mouth off.

    54. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      al Qaida's capacity for international terrorism was extinguished on 9/11/2000. They haven't even phoned in a fake bomb threat since then. Considering how credulous and fearful the American public has become since 9/11, how devastating these threats would be economically, why not? Because the only sound al Qaida makes is noise from the US govt.

    55. Re:But is it reaslistic? by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Actually, getting hold of bubonic plague is easier than you think. It's endemic amongst e.g. prairie dogs in the Four-Corners area of the US (where Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Arizona connect).

      Of course, that ubiquity means it'd make a pretty poor bioweapon, since it also means the medical infrastructure is equipped to handle it. Also, it's a bacterium, so it can be treated with antibiotics. (In the 4-Corners area, hantavirus is a more serious concern.)

      To answer your original question, I'd say "wishful thinking" -- but the 9/11 attacks probably started out that way too.

      --
      -- Alastair
    56. Re:But is it reaslistic? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      So what are the policy implications? What do we do differently now that we know this? I mean, we've always been aware that they'd do something with bio weapons if they could.

      You ask and answer your own question - the important steps to deal with this sort of threat should have been taken long ago. And if we're "lucky" the "insightful" people in government responsible for helping to prepare haven't dismantled the apparatus developed by the previous administration for handling it. It hard to say what the current state is, but if the constant denial we see on this and related topics on Slashdot is any indication .... well .... we're already screwed.

      We also know that their capabilities are limited and that what we're really likely to see is a an attempt that may fizzle or may, if they're lucky, be moderately successful.

      Well, that's assuming they didn't make off with any of the biological weapons developed by Saddam (and there were some) or by Syria where ISIS controls considerable territory and apparently has already used chemical weapons, or that the government scientists from those regimes or the former Soviet Union didn't either sell their expertise or volunteer it to "help the brothers."

      Finally, we've always known that there's a short list of biological agents that amateurs with limited resources would likely deploy.

      And the general public isn't really vaccinated against many of those agents, are they? Also note that amateurs may have a freer hand, especially if they don't aim for a high probability of killing. It is the professionals that are aiming for military grade effectiveness that have to push the envelope. And who says that they aren't buying help from various places, places with considerable experience in "experimental" "evidence based" programs such as North Korea?

      Revealed: the gas chamber horror of North Korea's gulag

      ...things that we're already as well prepared for as we can reasonably be?

      Are we? I can think of some things that probably haven't been done, or funded. Do you think the Obama administration is refilling the vaccine stocks as they expire? I'm not sure I would be confident. After all, they "ended" the war on terror, didn't they?

      Or is this particular thing so much more likely than any of the million other attack vectors that we should spend outsized resources on it?

      Is something potentially this dangerous something that we should just ignore? I'm pretty sure there must be some middle ground between denial and surrender to it being "too hard."

      --
      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
    57. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      al Qaida's capacity for international terrorism was extinguished on 9/11/2000. They haven't even phoned in a fake bomb threat since then.

      Your weed habit may be a bit excessive. Al Qaida and associates have killed tens of thousands of people in the last 13 years if not more.
         

    58. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Copid · · Score: 2

      You ask and answer your own question - the important steps to deal with this sort of threat should have been taken long ago.

      I'm not sure I read an answer in either of our posts. What, specifically, are we not doing that we should be doing based on this new information? We've known about bubonic plague as a biological agent for centuries, we had a world war when it was used as a weapon, and we had a whole cold war during which both sides looked at bubonic plague as a weapon, so it would be kind of surprising if the DOD ignored the whole thing for all those years and should start scrambling now that some guys playing solider in homebrew camps are thinking about it. It doesn't make sense unless your theory is that Evil President Obama is intentionally dismantling any programs we may have had in order to make terrorist domination of the world easy, twirling his mustache all the way.

      Well, that's assuming they didn't make off with any of the biological weapons developed by Saddam (and there were some) or by Syria where ISIS controls considerable territory...

      I suspect not, given that they appear to be trying to get it from dead animals at the moment. That would be bad, but again, what should we be doing differently assuming it's true?

      And the general public isn't really vaccinated against many of those agents, are they?

      The wouldn't be vaccinated at all against bubonic plague. My understanding is that it's a "treat with antibiotics after exposure" type of thing. And we have and produce lots of antibiotics, many of which I remember us ramping up production on post 9/11.

      You seem to be speculating that Obama is doing things to actively undermine any defenses we have based on... I'm not sure what exactly. This seems to be part of the "bizarro world" theory that people have about political opponents. They think, "I'm against policy X and they're for policy X" means that the other guy is their exact mirror image and end up with, "I'm for fighting terrorism, so he must be for enabling it." No actual evidence of policy disagreement or bad policy is necessary. It's just reasonable to assume that the other guy is making a hash of it because he's your opposite and you'd be doing everything right.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    59. Re:But is it reaslistic? by DerekLyons · · Score: 0

      *sigh* Not only are you ignorant, you seem doggedly determined to remain that way.
       

      So those documents are based on first hand knowledge and tested results and people who read them are likely to succeed at building the bombs, right?

      Those documents are on science, physics, chemistry, and engineering. They aren't bomb making instructions, they're the science behind the instructions - and thus it doesn't matter what the bomb making experience of the writers are. It's a critical difference and one you seem determined to remain blind to.
       

      Because my point is that there's a ton of "howto" stuff out there

      There's also a ton of solid science out there - and so long as you insist on not even trying to grasp the difference between actual science and handwaving how-to's you haven't the requisite intellectual equipment to have a point. You're just a parrot repeating phrases you have no grasp of the meaning of.

    60. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So those documents are based on first hand knowledge and tested results and people who read them are likely to succeed at building the bombs, right? That's why the countries that have done it recently just pulled those docs off of the Internet instead of hiring experts and spending tons of cash on expensive R&D programs which often failed the first few times anyway, right? Or are these documents written up by people with physics and engineering expertise who pieced the knowhow together and have never actually built a working bomb?

      Most of the documents are, as you say, no better than "The Anarchist's Cookbook".

      We're generally "professionally alarmed" at things, and things which we choose to be alarmed about are a misdirection to keep the less clever people from actually being successful.

      For example, the Stuxnet attack on the high speed gas centrifuges used for Uranium enrichment presupposes that they were using them. It's a high tech solution to a problem that's not only amenable to one. There are other ways to attack the problem that are just as effective.

      Neither Oppenheimer's team in the U.S., nor Heisenberg's team in Germany, both of whom were developing atomic weapons, had PLC controlled gas centrifuges available to them, and they both manufactured enough weapons grade Uranium to build working bombs (the German failure to build one is a controversial topic in the history of WW II, and is usually attributed to bad design, something easily fixed by reading a 1962 World Book Encyclopedia). Even moreso the fact that you don't actually need an "Earth Shattering Kaboom" for use as a terror weapon, so you don't even need successfully enriched material.

      It's pretty clear that terrorists as a group are not very good at achieving their goal, if it's a WMD, and are probably not actually the people fronting their goals anyway. If we judge by the results, and assume those are the actual goals, then the goals are probably a police/surveillance state in all countries, and then you'd have to ask yourself "Who has benefitted, was it these guys over in the Middle East?", and the answer to that would be "No".

      It's not like the knowledge isn't out there, or readily available to someone with less than a bachelor's degree, to successfully pull off the production of a WMD (and there are better choices than Y.Pestis or a nuclear bomb; you could pretty much shut down most of the world's economy for a couple of months with some infiltrators and a crate of Johnson's Baby Powder, if you thought about it a bit.

      So yeah, we are watching "Terrorist Reality TV" here.

    61. Re: But is it reaslistic? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      What made you believe this is meant to target USA? ISIS has killed one American so far, and what, around 10K Syrians and Iraqis?

      How about Shiite-dominated areas of Iraq, for instance? I doubt their hygiene and medicine is on par with US - can it combat such a threat?

    62. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Awful for whom? Picture a traveler with explosive diarrhea getting a cavity check. I'd think the TSA agents would need a pay raise to do that sort of thing.

      I'd rather see airlines responsible for their own security, rather than have the TSA do it.

    63. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently subtle thought isn't your forte.

      In your case you should be shouting: "I'm in ERROR! I'm in ERROR! I'm in ERROR!"

      Stupid errorists.

    64. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      it will be awful for me because they'll try to stick their hands up my butt.

    65. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Do you really think they see that as a problem?

      The ones who don't see it as a problem will be dead before they can do any significant amount of damage.
      So it doesn't really matter if they "see" it as a problem, it is a problem.

    66. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholera

    67. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a problem if they die before managing to infect anyone due to the fact that they are very obviously lying on the floor dying from a deadly disease.
      Biological diseases tend NOT to be something one can just cook up in any garage with a drill, some gasoline and a lot of fertilizer.

      Even with access to such extensive education on the subject as a "19-page document in Arabic".

    68. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

      Do try and keep up with Wikipedia, eh?

      You need either already infected humans, who would live long enough for the plague to reach the pneumonic form, OR an ability to CREATE AND DEPLOY an aerosoled version without catching any yourself.
      Hint: It's not something you'll be doing in a cave.

    69. Re: But is it reaslistic? by quenda · · Score: 1

      The only Bacteria that are scary are anti-biotic resistant ones ..

      So all that fuss over anthrax was misguided? Nothing scary, nothing to worry about?

    70. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      That'd work. Provided, of course, that such a thing can be found. Picking something well-known and relatively easily available (go to Arizona and find a couple dead rats) is a bit of a different game from setting up a lab and tinkering with various promising biologicals until they'll do what you want. This bunch hasn't shown to be big on applying advanced knowledge, or much of advance weapon development. That we know of anyway. But the monoculture does make for a nice attack surface. Still and all, their priority for the moment is with arabic apostates, and since this bunch is sunni, that includes every muslim in their vicinity not of sunni denomination. So until "all the others" are wiped out (or a change in policy) there likely won't be much in the way of attacks outside the area.

      In short, I'm not sure they have either the will or the wherewithal to do what you describe. Though they might, the chance they do seems about as high as the chance Powell could have been right about WMDs.

    71. Re: But is it reaslistic? by umghhh · · Score: 1
      smarter does not help if fear campaigns are constantly present in media. In fact if you are able to make media coming back saying 'this terrorist is doing this or that' where 'this or that' may but does not have to be true and/or dangerous to anybody or evil in any sense you get general perception shifting in certain way. No amount of brains will protect you from bias then. The only cure is reasonably believable information which you may have problem getting at or identifying. Fog of war was the old term with assumption that this happens mostly in war situations but the West and particularly US is at war most of the time.

      Looking at this from another angle this sort of high tension may be something like societal immune system that has to be ready all the time in case of likely and unavoidable conflict situation. Our history provides enough lessons for societies that love peace so much as to retire their armed forces and police only to find out being a construction material for pile of dead bodies. This said it would be good and is something I would expect not to be lied to all the time. At least in developed and stable societies. I suppose this is not possibly anywhere outside Switzerland. Switzerland is somehow different I guess because of population stability (constant change does not allow for establishing bonds needed to be able to talk unpleasant truths publicly and make decisions effectively), relatively small size and law system that asks for referenda - these are factors not available anywhere else.

    72. Re:But is it reaslistic? by umghhh · · Score: 1

      I think if used properly such instructions could have been used to induce quite nice SWAT team raid.

    73. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Dan1701 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      During the second Sino-Japanese war (1937 to 1941) the Imperial Japanese military frequently used both chemical and biological weapons against the Chinese, to no really marked effect. Toxic gas attacks only really work on an unprepared enemy, and take some time for the agent to spread out enough to be useful. Biological warfare is even less predictable; the Japanese military during this war frequently suffered quite large casualties in their own army as a result of biological agents blowing back onto them. Civilian casualties were large, but the military effect of all of this was quite small and you have to remember that this was conducted in a time before widespread countermeasures were available.

      These days, attempting to breed up the hundreds of millions of fleas needed to spread plague then trying to contaminate them, and subsequently disperse said fleas in the environment would be a huge job, and largely futile given the fairly low amounts of insecticides needed to kill off fleas. Spraying large areas of towns and cities with chemicals like deltamethrin would of course not be particularly popular, but it would stop a flea attack dead.

      Similarly weaponising anthrax is not a job for the faint-hearted, nor for the inexperienced or indeed anyone who has not got access to the antibiotics needed to treat an infection with this disease. As an aside, weaponised anthrax was the stand-by weapon devised in World War 2 for if the D-day invasions had not worked; the Scottish island of Gruinard was the original test target, and was only decontaminated by soaking the entire landmass in a seawater-formaldehyde mixture. The problem here once more is that a weaponised biological powder is hard to disperse, and ridiculously easy to counter as commonly-available HEPA-grade masks will keep it out of a person's lungs.

      The final point to remember with terrorism is one of motivation. Terror attacks only work to achieve the terrorists' aims if they are very carefully targetted and choreographed along with a political campaign, to make them look like attacks against a mutually-disliked foe. This is why the IRA in Eire and Northern Ireland are largely silent these days; they changed from being seen as freedom fighters to being thought of as a general blight upon the entire society. Islamic terrorists are already being cast as such a blight, and never really get the chance to put over their side of the argument.

    74. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Dan1701 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Western culture sees men and women as more or less equal, with neither having a right to oppress the other. This leads to areas of the middle east where the women get liberated, empowered and at that point the culture is forced to get a lot more open and the male-domination gets tempered by a great deal more discussion. Quite a lot of men in that culture cannot handle this sort of thing, and fall back on their religious document (written by a Medieval primitive) as justification for their prejudices.

      The Islamists making all this noise are the thick ones, the losers, the unsocialised and frankly maladaptive ones who cannot make the switch from a prescriptive male-dominated society that uses females as property, to one where women have a culture and an equal say in things. Basically, we're listening to losers yapping away at everything and everyone, because they cannot quite handle the Western way of life.

    75. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Dan1701 · · Score: 2

      There is still the political aspect to all of this. What a terrorist is trying to do is to convince someone or lots of someones to do something different. What this current bunch are trying to do is actually quite vague; they haven't articulated any actual goals, nor do they seem to have thought about this themselves. They do not have a stated victory scenario, so getting to this is more or less impossible.

      All that seems to have been articulated is that they want to establish an Islamic Caliphate. This amounts to a religious dictatorship led by one man, with all laws being those in the Koran. As at some point in the development of these laws the authors had a nasty experience with a loan-shark, quite a lot of modern monetary concepts such as interest on loans and the like are completely forbidden. This leads to the phenomenon of "Islamic banking", which to an outsider such as I looks suspiciously like "Dream up a complicated scam and get a mullah to say it is OK". The basic problem with a Caliphate is that it is a dictatorship founded on pretty primitive laws, written in an ambiguous fashion in a mixture of Old Arabic and Old Aramaic; in other words a bloody mess.

      This leads to the other phenomenon seen very often in religious groupings: sectarianism. Islam is no different to any other religion in that it has several different sects such as Shia, Sunni and Kurdish, plus an assortment of others. All share a common characteristic of not really liking any other sect, which shades through to absolute and outright hatred between some adherents. Sectarian religions tend to unite against common enemies, but if the enemy is cunning enough to leave the field of battle, then the different sects normally forget their common cause quite quickly and go back to business as usual and start fighting amongst themselves.

      What I'm getting at is this: Islamic terrorists won't succeed because there's a heck of a lot of different groups, all of which hate all the other ones.

    76. Re:But is it reaslistic? by GNious · · Score: 1

      If CNN, Fox News et al report that ISIS introduced THE BLACK DEATH KILLER PLAGUE OF DEATH into a populated area in the US, the general reaction amongst the population and the government will do a not insignificant amount of financial damage. Actually killing people (at least directly) may be less relevant, than sheer terror and legislative kneejerking.

    77. Re:But is it reaslistic? by apraetor · · Score: 1

      God will protect the faithful.

    78. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The plague is probably easier to source than Ebola. It is a common infection among rodents in the desert SW in the US. It isn't a great bio weapon due to the fact we can easily ID it and treat it.

    79. Re:But is it reaslistic? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Is the "19-page document in Arabic on how to develop biological weapons" a viable plan, or wishfull thinking?

      For that matter, is it real? Do we have any reason to trust a file presumably found on a laptop held by intelligence agencies?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    80. Re: But is it reaslistic? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      That said however, the fact this one captured laptop revealed the dark intentions of just "one" radical speaks volume of how truely fucked humanity is. This ideology is hell bent on destroying modern civilization and leaving a culture of hell-on-Earth in its place.

      If modern civilization falls, it won't fall to plague-infested terrorists, but to people like you who believe any bullshit story you're told. Or do you honestly think "enemies of ISIS gave me a document that totally says ISIS is up to no good" is even remotely credible evidence?

      But no doubt, they want you, me, and every non-Muslim converted or dead.

      I see. And how do you reconcile with this assertion with the alleged intent to use as weapons bacteria which are quite infamous for being unable to know or care about their victim's piety? Because state-building and doomsday plots are somewhat contradictory goals.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    81. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 2

      The final point to remember with terrorism is one of motivation. Terror attacks only work to achieve the terrorists' aims if they are very carefully targetted and choreographed along with a political campaign, to make them look like attacks against a mutually-disliked foe. This is why the IRA in Eire and Northern Ireland are largely silent these days; they changed from being seen as freedom fighters to being thought of as a general blight upon the entire society. Islamic terrorists are already being cast as such a blight, and never really get the chance to put over their side of the argument.

      The IRA in the Irish Republic largely achieve it's aims, independence from Britain and they are not exactly gone. They supported the IRA in N-Ireland operationally and logistically throughout the troubles. As for the IRA in N-Ireland they weren't exactly angels but then the UVF wasn't exactly a legion of boy scouts either (anybody remember the Shankill Butchers?). I'm not in favor of either organization but the IRA does have one good point: the Irish situation in its entirety is a witches broth cooked up by the British and they deserve no pity when they complain about it's foul taste. Whether intentionally or not, by stamping the IRA 'terrorists', you simplify the situation in Ireland and make it sound as if the IRA 'terrorists' unbalanced a previously peaceful British province where everybody lived in harmony and contentment. Britain built a society in Ireland where Catholics were second class people and it is not surprising that when the Catholic challenges of that social order during the 20th century caused the Protestant elite to feel threatened, the ongoing and centuries long project of brutal religious and ethnic reengineering of Ireland blew up in the Britain's face (yet again). That is the real root cause of the Irish troubles. Organizations like the IRA, UVF and for that matter ISIS, Hamas and the likes are just a symptom of some deeper problem.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    82. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pure gold.

    83. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      So has the genetic code of numerous pathogens. That doesn't make them easily created. For a simple example, we currently have an entire field dedicated to bottom-up synthetic life creation (start with a DNA sequence, and bootstrap a cell). That's a hot field, which has required thousands of man-hours to understand.

      Terrorists in field laboratories without proper equipment are not going to be accomplishing it. It is a huge expensive project.

    84. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When people talk about the IRA they generally mean the Provisional IRA ("provos"). The provos did not achieve independance from Britain (Independance for Eire had already beein granted). The provos were fighting to force Northern Ireland (Ulster) which had voted to stay part of Britain to become part of Eire. Explain to me how you reconcile the fact that the two different sections of Ireland had different ideas about their relationship with Britain. Oh, and also you might like to remember that British troops were deployed to Northern Ireland originally to protect the Catholic population. The provos then turned on the troops.

      Are you American?

    85. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but modern Americans don't generally live in flea-infested houses anymore. Bubonic plague is endemic in the squirrel population in Los Angeles, yet everyone who goes to a park doesn't come down with it. We just don't have enough exposure to fleabites.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    86. Re:But is it reaslistic? by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      Bubonic plague... Bah.

      Throw antibiotics at the problem (that's what they're for).

      Considering the hygiene issues they probably have as jihadis, they're far more at risk of dying from plague than anybody in a civilized country - this effect is known as "Karma" among the superstitious and "Natural Selection" among everyone with half a brain (not these two sets are not exclusive of each other).

    87. Re: But is it reaslistic? by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      Be careful, primitives might read "primitives" as "primates" and get all offended and mark you for death.

      Why should you be careful? After being marked for death, the understandable reaction is to laugh your ass off. If you laugh too hard, you might asphyxiate.

    88. Re: But is it reaslistic? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      But no doubt, they want you, me, and every non-Muslim converted or dead.

      I hope you realize that Non-Muslim includes a lot of people we would consider Muslim. I wouldn't be surprized for example that the Palestinians would be considered "non-believers" because if they truely were "believers" then Israel would have been pushed into the sea with the help of Allah, besides they are the ones that allowed the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock in Old City of Jerusalem to fall into Israeli hands. Additionally the Iranians, Afgans and Pakistanis would all be "Non-Believers" because they are Shia and Persians not Arabs.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    89. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Copid · · Score: 1

      Those documents are on science, physics, chemistry, and engineering. They aren't bomb making instructions, they're the science behind the instructions - and thus it doesn't matter what the bomb making experience of the writers are. It's a critical difference and one you seem determined to remain blind to.

      Have you ever actually tried to do a serious engineering project from scratch based only on what's in the published literature in any field without consulting somebody who had actually done it? It's actually really hard. The devil is always in the details, and there's usually a shitton of details, a lot of which get you killed when you're fiddling around and finding them when the project is a bomb, a poison, or a disease. I'm not denying the existence of the theoretical basis for those weapons or even that there's lots of useful theory available. I'm denying that most people, even the ones who study the theoretical framework pretty deeply, would do a halfway competent job at making them. Rockets for getting into space are a really good example. The fundamental principles are straightforward and the engineering concepts are well documented and easy to grasp, but every new design is really hard and requires a lot of testing because there are a million important technical decisions to be made along the way that can't easily be derived from first principles.

      In a field like weapons, it's also difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff because there aren't nearly as many sources that are clearly reliable. You often have to choose from one technical document of dubious origin from the web versus another similarly shady document and evaluate them from first principles, which requires a pretty good grounding in the field and often a lot of luck. If you know the field, it's often easy to spot when somebody makes a conceptual mistake. But what about experimental results? When one paper says that material X works really well and another says that it failed dangerously and the only way to know is to build a prototype and do the test, which one do you believe? It's usually nice to have somebody around who can say, "Yeah, we tried that and it didn't work. Cost us $3M and now Joe is missing a hand. Do it the other way."

      I'm not saying it's impossible, but these guys have a long slog ahead of them. They're doing this stuff from first principles and they don't have the advantage of big budgets and rooms full of really smart people. They have sporadic budgets and rooms with a smart person or two surrounded by a bunch of overeager morons, which isn't exactly the team I'd want to assemble for something like this. The idea that they're on the brink of a devastating weapon that nobody in the DoD thought to prepare for during the Cold War when we had the entire Soviet weapons program working on it seems like a stretch. For me, the "revalation" that these guys want bio weapons and they have freely available information on biology and chemistry is more of a, "Yeah, I kind of figured," than an, "Oh shit! Really? This changes everything!"

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    90. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Islamists making all this noise are the thick ones, the losers, the unsocialised and frankly maladaptive ones who cannot make the switch from a prescriptive male-dominated society that uses females as property, to one where women have a culture and an equal say in things. Basically, we're listening to losers yapping away at everything and everyone, because they cannot quite handle the Western way of life.
       
      We're listening to people who are raping and pillaging... killing with little or no logical reasoning... psycho and sociopaths... Yes. But don't forget they're also making a ton of headway. These people have money and power that few others fringe groups could even imagine.
       
      Dismiss them as losers but they are powerful. Your words don't mean shit compared to their agenda that has people willing to kill and die for it.

    91. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plague is endemic in Colorado and China. Easy to get. Also easy to cure.

    92. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone is trying to keep the funnel open, for another trillion dollars to keep being poured in.

    93. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shhhhh!!!! You're going to ruin it!

      Americans were grown too complacent and blase.

      A conviently recovered laptop with nightmare scenarios is just what 'bama ordered!

    94. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

      Islam allows polygamy - "up to 4 wives". WTF do you think happens to the 75% of the male population that then cannot have a wife?

      Polygamy is *the* reason for fucked up, male dominated culture where those that have a wife will hide said wife from another. That's why men becomes control freaks and the ones that don't have a wive, are much more likely to rebel.

      First step of an equal society is to ban polygamy.

    95. Re:But is it reaslistic? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between "being prepared" and "Oh, shit, let's panic!" When this stuff comes up, the public reaction is usually the latter.

      Is the public reaction generally panic? I don't think so. Where do you see the public panicking? The actual reaction is largely indifference by most of the public while commentators like you claim the public is panicking and therefore we should do nothing.

      These guys aspire to all sorts of stuff and if even half of it were realistic they would have taken over the world by now

      But they have taken over countries before, and endangered many others. You're almost building a strawman there.

      The reality is that their resources and competence don't match their aspirations and our policy responses should take that into consideration.

      The reality is that they have caused enormous damage and killed many tens of thousands of people (at least) using meager resources. In the manner of the classic guerilla they often take what they need from the government.

      Some nutbar in a cave announcing his intention to get hold of a hydrogen bomb and blow us all to hell should cause us to spot check the security of the known hydrogen bomb storage sites. It shouldn't cause us to start digging billion dollar fallout shelters under every major city or grounding airplanes whenever somebody uses the word "hydrogen."

      You're not getting that right in several respects. We should continue to secure all sorts of nuclear related materials, as we have been, to prevent dirty bomb attacks, or the theft or illegal sale of fissionable material. Requiring emergency shelters in new construction of various type of buildings as some countries do wouldn't add much to the cost and could pay off in many different disaster or attack scenarios. The nutters in North Korea already have nukes and missiles, the Iranians aspire to them, and eventually others will get them. Some of the nutters likely to end up with nukes may find their destruction an acceptable trade-off if they get to badly damage the US. Just 9-11 resulted in $100,000,000,000 in damage to the US economy. What do you think it would have been had New York been attacked with a nuke which would destroy more than one building? Patting yourself on the back for not "over reacting" to the aspirations of "guys in a cave"* is going to be cold comfort if you need shelters to meet other emergencies and you don't have them.

      *Who have already managed to kill thousands of Americans and probably well over 100,000 around the world.

      --
      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
    96. Re:But is it reaslistic? by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      Have you ever actually tried to do a serious engineering project from scratch based only on what's in the published literature in any field without consulting somebody who had actually done it? It's actually really hard. The devil is always in the details, ...... It's usually nice to have somebody around who can say, "Yeah, we tried that and it didn't work. ....

      Maybe you haven't noticed, but the Middle East is full of countries that have had WMD programs involving chemical and/or biological weapons, and even some nuclear programs. The expertise is out there.

      The idea that they're on the brink of a devastating weapon that nobody in the DoD thought to prepare for during the Cold War when we had the entire Soviet weapons program working on it seems like a stretch.

      The Cold War is long over and the resources assembled to be prepared to fight if it ever went hot started going away long ago, not unlike the heavy lift space rockets (Saturn V) built to go to the moon. Even the people that knew how to build some those things are retiring and dying. They have already had to try to recreate lost knowledge for materials in nuclear weapons. Knowledge and infrastructure a perishable, and that's assuming you aren't actively dismantling them. There are things we could do in the 1950s and 1960s that we can't today without recreating large industrial programs that would take years to put in place.

      Being prepared to fight the Soviets 25 years ago doesn't necessarily buy us anything today.

      --
      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
    97. Re: But is it reaslistic? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      This is nothing but cultural imperialism - imposing our own, "correct" values at gunpoint and forcing the native peoples to accept it or die.

      P.S. "Islamist" is a right-wing term used only by Islamophobes.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    98. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "... Many terrorists and terrorist leaders have been well educated people: engineers, doctors, lawyers, scientists, etc..."

      Well educated people don't kill other people because their invisible magical supreme leader tells them to.

    99. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well educated people don't kill other people because their invisible magical supreme leader tells them to.

      Believing that would seem to point to a gap in your education.

    100. Re:But is it reaslistic? by GbrDead · · Score: 1

      Civilian casualties were large...

      So it works! Praise Allah!

    101. Re: But is it reaslistic? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is nothing but cultural imperialism - imposing our own, "correct" values at gunpoint and forcing the native peoples to accept it or die.

      Yeah well, I ain't a moral relativist. They treat people as property (and hey force them to accept that at gunpoint).

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    102. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The intent of IS is not a terrorist attack, it is the creation of a caliphate and the extinction of anyone who opposes it, and it does not matter who dies since the enemy will go to Hell and the true believers who die in the process will go to Paradise where they will be rewarded.

    103. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it will be awful for me because they'll try to stick their hands up my butt.

      I don't know, That sounds like fun to me! especially if they let me have my choice of lube and other toys. :P

      And even more fun if I get to do it back! :*

    104. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      general blight upon the entire society

      The entire society is the enemy. They want to create a new society to replace it while trying to evict or eradicate all people thinking differently from the specific land area.
        The IRA faced the cost of using violence as losing any political power they otherwise might have. They didn't have as strong mechanism of religious cult to protect and support them as the Islamic terrorists have. The 100 year's war took care of that in Europe.
        Unlike in the areas to the east, a typical European despises and turns against violent despots. Using violence equals losing influence, while in the Soviet [insert country], the opposite seem to hold.

    105. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the baddies seem to have a steady supply of weapons, ammo, and explosives. Dont usually get that at Wal*Mart. I would imagine that pretty much anything is out there for a price.

    106. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Copid · · Score: 1

      Is the public reaction generally panic? I don't think so.

      You're right. I should rephrase. The median member of the public doesn't panic but enough of the public is swayed to allow stupid panic responses and bad public policy from people in government.

      We should continue to secure all sorts of nuclear related materials, as we have been, to prevent dirty bomb attacks, or the theft or illegal sale of fissionable material.

      Yup. That sounds like a very reasonable set of policies that we're already doing and should continue to do. I don't think many people would argue with you on that. But the tenor of the discussion I'm hearing here implies that this laptop is some sort of a revelation and that we should really do something different.

      When people say we're "doing nothing" what they really seem to mean is that we're doing nothing that we weren't already doing. That may be true (the "doing nothing" claim certainly isn't), but that may or may not be a bad thing. Maybe what we're already doing puts us roughly in the sweet spot for cost/benefit. I haven't seen a lot of evidence that we're way off base as it is.

      Requiring emergency shelters in new construction of various type of buildings as some countries do wouldn't add much to the cost and could pay off in many different disaster or attack scenarios.

      That's an interesting thought. What are other countries doing, and what are the costs and benefits? Israel is the only one I can think of, but I'm not very familiar with their measures, and their needs are rather specialized.

      Just 9-11 resulted in $100,000,000,000 in damage to the US economy.

      And many, many times that in public response (wars, additional public safety spending, etc.). So as bad as 9-11 was, we're easily able to do a lot of harm to ourselves if we don't prioritize our use of resources. If we're thinking about ways to save literally thousands of lives per decade and we have a few hundred billion dollars to play with make that happen, there are a lot of options.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    107. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea and it's not the middle ages either and there are no strains of plague that are anti-biotic resistant.

      So what? This plague-attack might not be meant for the western world. We have all the antibiotics we need. How about Syria, Iran and Iraq, where IS have immediate enemies? If they can weaken armies (or unwanted civilians), then they can grab more land before western antibiotics arrive.

    108. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Sciath · · Score: 1

      You cant be serious. Private industry fought all past attempts to screen passengers because of the inconvenience and cost. They even fought the Air Marshalls proposal way back when. Only the government mandates from 9/11 made any significant difference. Even then the airlines industry balked fearing it would adversely effect air travel and thus their bottom line. In addition to that, if each company was responsible for their own security they would no doubt have a system with substantial discrepancies in procedures and safeguards.

      --
      "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
    109. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can do a write up for how to build a nuclear bomb for my terrorist brothers based on my rudimentary undergraduate physics education, but there's no way in hell those instructions would actually produce anything useful.

      Nuclear bombs are trivial. Getting the U235 is the very hard part. Making a high-yeld bomb small enough to go on a rocket is also hard, as is the rocket itself. But a nuke transportable by car/freighter is easy enough. Push the pieces together by hand for a low-yield bang. (Recruiting a jihadist for this purpose would be easy enough.) Low yield means a few kiloton, but still incredibly nasty. Pushing two pieces together using dynamite is not much harder, and you can have a Hiroshima-size explosion.

      A small nuke to put on a freighter, as opposed to a rocket, is easy once you have weapons-grade material. It is something you can put together with only wikipedia and some experience with conventional bombs.

    110. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pneumonic plague (black death) doesn't need physical contact.

      The black death was bubonic plague. Stupid nigger.

    111. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      You appear to be confusing science with engineering, which makes me suspect you know very little about either.

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    112. Re:But is it reaslistic? by DerekLyons · · Score: 0

      The only possible way for someone to think I'm confusing the two is to be even more ignorant and clueless than the poster I was replying to. Not an easy feat, I salute you!

    113. Re: But is it reaslistic? by joocemann · · Score: 1

      Are you aware of the power of molecular biology? Do you know that a B.S. in the field and a little experience is all that is required to begin orchestrating very nasty science? Please find a way to think deeper or know more when forming opinions.

    114. Re: But is it reaslistic? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Where are you going to get the rats and fleas to spread Y.pestis?

      Yea, those are pretty scarce resources and near impossible to find in any city. Or as the other replier noted, they could always use humans. Those always seem to be present in every city for some reason.

      And I read your response to that replier:

      You need either already infected humans, who would live long enough for the plague to reach the pneumonic form, OR an ability to CREATE AND DEPLOY an aerosoled version without catching any yourself. Hint: It's not something you'll be doing in a cave.

      I imagine it'd be something you could do in a lab ... which could be put in a cave or anywhere else they happen to be.

    115. Re:But is it reaslistic? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1
      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    116. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the current system doesn't?

    117. Re:But is it reaslistic? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      It doesn't make sense unless your theory is that Evil President Obama is intentionally dismantling any programs we may have had in order to make terrorist domination of the world easy, twirling his mustache all the way. . . .

      You seem to be speculating that Obama is doing things to actively undermine any defenses we have based on... I'm not sure what exactly. This seems to be part of the "bizarro world" theory that people have about political opponents. They think, "I'm against policy X and they're for policy X" means that the other guy is their exact mirror image and end up with, "I'm for fighting terrorism, so he must be for enabling it." No actual evidence of policy disagreement or bad policy is necessary. It's just reasonable to assume that the other guy is making a hash of it because he's your opposite and you'd be doing everything right.

      Apparently you believe that all well intentioned actions regardless of how different they are have the same result in the end. Cut 100,000 troops to the Army and slash its budget by $50 billion is the same as adding 100,000 troops to the Army and adding $50 billion to its budget. Refusing to capture and interrogate terrorists provides just as much information as capturing and interrogating them. Is there any chance that you can spot the nonsense there? Can you make an allowance for well intentioned but flawed, counterproductive actions resulting from decision making based on ideology divorced from the facts? Is that a possibility? Or does it all devolve to "mustache twirling"? That is just so tedious. Do you pay any attention to the news?

      Pentagon Set to Slash Military to Pre-World War II Levels

      ...so it would be kind of surprising if the DOD ignored the whole thing for all those years and should start scrambling now that some guys playing solider in homebrew camps are thinking about it.

      DOD is great for the 1% of Americans involved with the military. Unfortunately that doesn't do much for the other 99%.

      My understanding is that it's a "treat with antibiotics after exposure" type of thing. And we have and produce lots of antibiotics, many of which I remember us ramping up production on post 9/11.

      There are vaccines for plague, but other than the military or some travelers not many people get them. Even with treatment the plague still kill around 10% of its victims. When untreated it kill a far higher percentage. About 100 years ago it kill about 2/3 of its victims in the US.

      I suspect not, given that they appear to be trying to get it from dead animals at the moment.

      There are plenty of groups associated with al Qaida and ISIS. The fact that one is doing that says nothing about what another has been able to do.

      --
      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
    118. Re: But is it reaslistic? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      This is nothing but cultural imperialism - imposing our own, "correct" values at gunpoint and forcing the native peoples to accept it or die.

      Women in traditional Muslim countries are pushing for reform as they can. Saudi women drive in protest. Afghan women and girls go to school despite death threats and acid attacks. There are plenty of examples. Why would you think that women would be satisfied with being confined to burkas, forced to be escorted outside the home by a male relative, accept being beaten with sticks, and so on?

      P.S. "Islamist" is a right-wing term used only by Islamophobes.

      My impression has been that you're usually better informed than that.

      --
      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
    119. Re: But is it reaslistic? by delt0r · · Score: 1

      OTOH, it's far easier to cultivate bacteria than viruses. For example, Yersinia pestis, the bacteria that causes bubonic plague can be grown in a modified agar gel [nih.gov] with no need for host cells of any kind. And it's pretty easy to breed in resistance to anti-biotics by exposing the bacteria over many generations to all the anti-biotics in use at doses where a small part of the colony survives.

      Working on such data is my day job. It is not even close to as easy as you describe often needing 1000s of generations or more, and you end up with something that is antibiotic resistant *on agar*. Your host is not such a simple media.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    120. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's been known for quite some time that al Qaida and company have conducted lethal experiments with biological agents"

      you mean "reported by propagandists".

    121. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...viable plan, or wishfull thinking?

      Well, for the 24/7 news sources here in the US, it depends: CNN has interviewed experts/commentators who seem to have come to the general conclusion that the "scary" parts are essentially wishlists and rehashes of various experiments that AQ and other groups have been doing for many years (remember the reports about chemical an bio weapon experiments on dogs from a decade ago). The balance of the seemingly huge amount of files are indoctrination videos and similar junk. AFAICT, this seems to be fairly accurate and complete, given that access to the copy of the laptop's contents is not yet widespread.

      FOX news is mostly reporting on the "scary" stuff while just happening to avoid looking even a little deeper, which allows them to push their usual agenda. Worse, when they cover stuff like this, they usually end up interviewing former General McInerny (who had it on "good authority" that MH370 had been hijacked and flown to Pakistan - right), a commentator who clearly has been refusing to take his meds. I'm not sure what MSNBC is pushing. I usually watch them all to get a balanced set of distortions, but I've missed anything on MSNBC about it; if I had to guess, they're probably on the sane side with respect to this specific issue, probably close to CNN.

      - T

    122. Re: But is it reaslistic? by khallow · · Score: 1

      It is not even close to as easy as you describe often needing 1000s of generations or more, and you end up with something that is antibiotic resistant *on agar*. Your host is not such a simple media.

      Thousands of generations? So that's a few years at most assuming that part of the problem really is as tough as you claim. Most definitely, beyond the attention span of an organization like ISIS, we hope.

      And then a few passes through rodents to get virulence up for the first try. Sounds moderately tough to me too. But not as tough as trying the same thing with a virus that needs to infect living tissue in order to propagate.

    123. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Copid · · Score: 1

      Is there any chance that you can spot the nonsense there?

      I am starting to detect a whiff of nonsense, now that you mention it. Maybe it's the fact that you're conflating "not doing exactly what cold fjord would do" with "taking no action" or just total bullshit like this:

      Refusing to capture and interrogate terrorists provides just as much information as capturing and interrogating them.

      I must have missed the announcement that President Obama had decided to stop all capture and interrogation of terrorists. Or wait, did you really mean that there was a case when you disagreed with him on a particular policy about capturing and interrogating a certain set of people under certain circumstances? Because that would sound a lot more like a rational argument and a lot less like ridiculous hyperbole and demonization of people who don't agree with your policy preferences. But we can't have that.

      Pentagon Set to Slash Military to Pre-World War II Levels

      OK, so since this is what you posted in response to my "what should we be doing" question, I assume that you think that the best use of resources to fight small groups of well-hidden off-the-grid terrorists is to increase the size of our standing army (measured in "number of troops" and not some other metric), build more amphibious assault vehicles, keep the A-10, upgrade the F-18, buy an extra 20 littoral combat ships, etc. The implication being that without those sorts of tools, we're going to have a hard time fighting these guys. This is what I mean by "stupid policy reaction" to scary bad guys. Buying a bunch of big iron weapons and building up the size of the standing army to root out terrorists seems like one of the least efficient and most knee-jerk ways of spending money to stop terrorists.

      A giant ass military is great if your goal is to destroy the war fighting infrastructure of an enemy nation or to convince the median citizen of that country that waging war against us is a bad idea. But a giant ass military has historically proved to be not a particularly great tool at convincing the tail members of the political distribution to stop fighting a guerrilla war. In fact, it also seems like it has historically not been a great tool even for fighting those remaining stragglers. Unless you're going to do it Roman style and starting exterminating citizens and sowing their fields with salt until the terrorists stop, I don't think that more combat ships and armored fighting vehicles are going to do us much good on this one.

      DOD is great for the 1% of Americans involved with the military. Unfortunately that doesn't do much for the other 99%.

      So your position is that even though we've known about plague as a weapon for centuries, and even though we saw it used in World War II by the Japanese, and even though we put tons of R&D money into germ warfare scenarios throughout the Cold War, the government never bothered to come up with any sort of mitigation plan for a bio attack on the US that did anything other than take care of the military? And now that we know about this Laptop of Doom, Obama is derelict in not correcting that colossal oversight? That's a multi-generational failure of epic proportions. Surely the only thing that will fix this is more boots on the ground.

      There are plenty of groups associated with al Qaida and ISIS. The fact that one is doing that says nothing about what another has been able to do.

      Indeed. And if only we had the budget to build a few more submarines and armored fighting vehicles, we might know so much more. Damn you Obama!

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    124. Re: But is it reaslistic? by delt0r · · Score: 1

      It really doesn't work that way, it really is much much harder than that. Also 1000s is with mutagens. You also get bad mutations "hitchhiking" along for the ride, for example ones that reduce virulence. In other words it is only better in the presence of the drug. The other strains would by far out compete it.

      Consider how many generations are exposed to these treatments in the real world. Yet we don't see new "bioweapon" strains popping up all the time. And we don't precisely because it really doesn't work that way.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    125. Re: But is it reaslistic? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Consider how many generations are exposed to these treatments in the real world. Yet we don't see new "bioweapon" strains popping up all the time.

      Actually, we do see dangerous drug resistant strains coming up all the time. And why should those environments be even remotely as effective at creating a bioweapon as deliberating creating an environment where the dominant selection processes are for bioweapon potential?

    126. Re: But is it reaslistic? by delt0r · · Score: 1
      Err not really. They have taken many decades to really have any impact, and yet they are very poorly selected for patients without treatments. In other words they have these negative mutations with them as well. Also quite a lot of them are because people don't follow treatment programs properly. Tuberculosis is a prime example there.

      And why should those environments be even remotely as effective at creating a bioweapon as deliberating creating an environment where the dominant selection processes are for bioweapon potential?

      Because evolution just does not work the way you think it does. You can't use evolution to select for a bioweapon, because a bioweapon is not selectively advantageous. Killing your host does not help you perpetuate. Living asymptotically in a host is not a weapon. Getting something that works well in media, has been selected to live well in media and not outside it. We see this all the time. We have math models of it. We have done evolutionary experiments and observed it.

      Bioweapons just don't evolve. They must be designed and created. They also don't work well at any rate. Russia and the US didn't agree to stop pursuing them because they thought they could work. They agreed because they had figured out that they just don't work well at all.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    127. Re: But is it reaslistic? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Bioweapons just don't evolve. They must be designed and created. They also don't work well at any rate. Russia and the US didn't agree to stop pursuing them because they thought they could work. They agreed because they had figured out that they just don't work well at all.

      Directed evolution is another way to design and create. While I don't know about ISIL, a small terrorist group need not have the same definition of "work well" as a major superpower. For example, I recall Osama bin Laden was reported to be satisfied with the outcome of the 911 attacks. But they wouldn't have served a useful purpose for a hostile superpower since they didn't actually diminish the US's power or weaken their relations with other countries.

    128. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about cultural Marxism taught by any institution beyond high school? I guess that is OK. After all, without swallowing Marxism, no one graduates frp, a post-secondary educational environment.

      PTFO

    129. Re: But is it reaslistic? by delt0r · · Score: 1

      While this is true. Even with decades of experiments, they are not going to get anything worse than what is out there already, and most likely more benign, since its no longer evolving under pressure from our immune system (that "evolves" on the order of days and weeks). Sure they could get hold of an Ebola patent and convince them to take a world tour. That is about as effective as they can be. Or blow them up in some very blood spattering way (not sure that would work however).

      But a advance lab to create some superbug in some super Crag Venter style is hardly credible. Using evolution to do the dirty work is even less so.

      To give you some examples without just a list of reference to papers you probably can't get access too. Common yeast is not the same as lab yeast. Lab yeast does not clump like wild yeast. This is purely unintended selection over the generations with particular lab protocols. Cool eh. We can get some lab strains to replicate quite fast in some media at 37C. Only it turns out that a lot of the "optimal" temperature thing is based again on unintended selection on strains optimized for the most common default lab environments.

      We are currently working on tamiflu resistance in evolutionary experiments. Yes we observe resistance in only a few dozen generations. But this already happened in the real world (yea tamiflu more or less never worked properly anyway). We also observe hitchhiking of many things that don't look too good outside the media used. In fact we have to control for the fact that things happen on this media. We let there be a few 100 generations on the media so we don't confuse what is just selection for that media.

      And of course all that happened without the presence of a rapidly responding immune system. Now move it into a real host (different media) with a immune system, and you find these lab strains just die out. We see this with lots of different systems by the way.

      Bioweapons are even worse than dirty bombs. The threat is not from a terror organization or a stupid scientist. But just old fashion evolution. These make poor bio weapons. But a new pandemic on the scale of Spanish flu would be expensive. However not as devastating as the movies make out. In fact many believe a disaster movie level pandemic is impossible due to the tradeoffs that must be made in the design of the bug/virus.

      But don't get me started on these recent H1N1 or bird flu bullshit. I will rant all day.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    130. Re: But is it reaslistic? by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm curious about your views on the H1N1/bird flu, as it sounds like you're not just pulling stuff off the internet and quoting it.

    131. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't tell, are you calling Obama god, or a monkey? Cause he's the head cheerleader for the "let's turn the ME into a slag heap, then drill for oil" crew these days.

    132. Re: But is it reaslistic? by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Well in the H1N1 case the WHO did launch an investigation as to why H1N1 was declared a pandemic. Turned out that 2 advisers that pushed for it had a substantial tamiflu stake. The Data simply never supported it at all. In fact it was a more mild flu season than the previous year. No it wasn't because of tamiflu.

      This also illustrates some very serious problem when studying these things. The data is of such poor quality, mostly because doctors collect it, that it is hardly usable at all. For example in NZ, if you had any flu like symptoms that year, it was reported as a H1N1 case. Clearly that is not how it works.

      Bird flu and SARS where very similar in that 1 perhaps 2 quite young people died and then everyone jumped on the "new disease" bandwagon. A post analisis of the data didn't suggest there was anything out of the ordinary, and some countries did flat out ignore it because they didn't see any support from the data (Austria for example). For example the fatality rate of SARS was suppose to be 3%, but only people sick enough to get admitted to hospital where tested to see if they have it. Many people could have had it with much milder symptoms. BTW i worked directly on some of the SARS data, and well NDA and stuff i can't say much other than its was pretty poor quality.

      Make no mistake, we need an organization like WHO (we get a lot of data from them in fact). And we need to have people on the lookout for pandemics. But we need to base these decisions on data, not emotion. Note data may not be serology tests or DNA test. But old fashion symptom progression, disease state and fatality rates with responses to treatments. ie stuff even a 3rd world hospital would have if the doctors would bloody well write down what they thought, did and measured. Something as simple as temperature rather than a blanket statement of "fever".

      Of course a bunch of tests/measurements on the general public "background" would also be useful. But this is expensive and hard to do properly since you can't force it on people and you get selection bias and also a bunch of ethics issues.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    133. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      You cant be serious. Private industry fought all past attempts to screen passengers because of the inconvenience and cost. They even fought the Air Marshalls proposal way back when. Only the government mandates from 9/11 made any significant difference. Even then the airlines industry balked fearing it would adversely effect air travel and thus their bottom line. In addition to that, if each company was responsible for their own security they would no doubt have a system with substantial discrepancies in procedures and safeguards.

      Exactly. It is called the free market. If I don't want to be groped or nudie-scanned, I can go to the airline that does effective and decent security. Imagine that, having the right to choose who your business goes to. Oh, but you don't believe we should have rights, do you?

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    134. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Sciath · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, I'm a big civil rights fan and advocate. Which is one reason I dont fly... period. I'm merely asserting that IF the PEOPLE see a need for some security practice that the security procedures ought to be consistent across the industry so that every passenger knows in advance what security (or lack thereof) they are dealing with. Without having to scrutinize ten different airline security practices. I for one dont trust private industry any more than government. ... each one has their own misguided motivations. Not to resort to ad homonym attacks, but free market ideologues are as repugnant as socialist or communist ideologues for the fail (or are unwilling) to admit every system is corrupt one way or another.

      --
      "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
    135. Re: But is it reaslistic? by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      I would not say it is consistent. Politicians and rich get around any inconveniences any time they want. And it's all just theatre any ways. The airline locked the door, nothing else needed after that.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    136. Re: But is it reaslistic? by strikethree · · Score: 1

      While you are correct, your analysis is too simplified. ISIL does not exist as a backlash against modern society. It exists as a vehicle to gain power. It is currently popular due to sectarian policies and funded through wishful thinking from outsiders. ISIL aka IS aka Da'esh, will soon become self-sustaining, at which point, lots of people will have real problems on their hands.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    137. Re:But is it reaslistic? by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      I considered asking the original poster if he took Physics for Non-Scientists. The simplest design that would theoretically work involves U-235 in a gun type configuration, an evacuated metal tube at least five stories tall, and no high explosives needed. But I tend to agree with OP in part, such a device isn't really very useful. I grew up in Oak Ridge, TN. We'd find physics packages when they fell off the trucks, but they always had that sticker saying "Atomic bomb, handle with caution - put in any mailbox and the government will pay the return postage", so we never kept them. However, not being able to put them back together right resulted in a lot of teasing, so we all learned pretty quickly. That was a few years before everyone moved back above ground, when the strobe-gophers really got loose and started burrowing through the lead walls and blinking those eyes at us, but for a while there, they were just making the roads bumpy. It might have been the year the giant slime mold ate all the paint off of everyones's cars that the government started telling us kids to stay off the reservation ...

      Warning: at least one of the things I've said above is actually true. Sorry if anyone loses sleep over this, but that fact's been out of the bag since the 1950s, when people worked the math out in the letters column of Astounding Science Fiction. U-235 has a broad enough prompt criticality window someone could theoretically get a yield of about 10 Kt by just letting gravity draw the two pieces of a gun type device together.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  2. Re:tsa needs to protect us from this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    have you tried to magnetically erase a flash drive? good luck with that.

  3. Hidden Files section? by ShaunC · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Buried in the "hidden files" section of the computer were 146 gigabytes of material, containing a total of 35,347 files in 2,367 folders.

    WTF is the "hidden files" section of a computer? From their screenshot, it appears the guy just made a directory called "Videoooooo" and stuffed it full of New Folder, New Folder 2, Copy (3) of New Folder, etc. My cat can hide stuff better than that.

    Most of the things they're describing are absolutely nothing to worry about. Instructions for stealing cars? How to use disguises? This is the kind of shit that was all over every BBS file door 20 years ago. You can download torrents chock full of gigs of this "extremist literature" or "terrorist training materials" now. ISIS are surely a bunch of cunts and I imagine they do pose some threat, but the value of this laptop and its contents is highly exaggerated.

    --
    Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    1. Re:Hidden Files section? by Sperbels · · Score: 2

      Funny, I keep more porn in the same spot.

    2. Re:Hidden Files section? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      My cat can hide stuff better than that.

      I bet your cat would be better at spreading plague as well.

    3. Re:Hidden Files section? by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can hide folders and files in most operating systems, It's generally a file attribute you set either through a command line argument or the properties dialog in the US.

      There have been a couple root-kits that used special characters enveloping the file or folder name which would hide it from the OS and anyone using the OS to look for it. I'm betting it is just the attribute in this case.

    4. Re:Hidden Files section? by MrL0G1C · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No no no, the US and UK have elections coming up and want to shit on your civil liberties again and look tough whilst doing it.

      Security Security Security TERRORISTS

      Please be sufficiently terrified and not notice it's a sham caused by western meddling in the 1st place.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    5. Re:Hidden Files section? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This hidden-directory thing makes me think of all the toys that were advertised as having some kind of secret hiding place. Too bad these people aren't playing with toys.

      ... except that they are playing us like toys.

    6. Re:Hidden Files section? by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      Mine's in the "stuff" directory.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    7. Re:Hidden Files section? by mpetch · · Score: 1

      If you use a program like attrib on windows you can mark a directory as hidden and system. If you just mark it hidden then the folders are easily unhidden via file explorer. Marking it as system and hidden will prevent it from appearing even from file explorer. Although there are low level ways of finding such directories, it may be enough to fool a few extra people on the planet.

    8. Re:Hidden Files section? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the things they're describing are absolutely nothing to worry about. Instructions for stealing cars? How to use disguises? This is the kind of shit that was all over every BBS file door 20 years ago. You can download torrents chock full of gigs of this "extremist literature" or "terrorist training materials" now. ISIS are surely a bunch of cunts and I imagine they do pose some threat, but the value of this laptop and its contents is highly exaggerated.

      This. Give every terrorist a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook. They'll all be dead in a week having Darwinned themselves, and the rest of us can get on with living our lives.

    9. Re:Hidden Files section? by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's believed that the killing of cats (by Christians) lead to the explosion of the rat population that allowed the plague to kill so much of Europe.

      Cats are pretty clean creatures.

    10. Re: Hidden Files section? by Type44Q · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they keep themselves clean and only fuck-up everything else. :p

    11. Re: Hidden Files section? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he was a it terrorist and started the the folder name with a .

    12. Re:Hidden Files section? by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      Right-click, Properties, select "hidden", and OK.

      What, you thought that was general knowledge?

      Great, you get to run the country, because you are obviously smarter than 80% of the population. Or better yet, you get to be the editor for every technical article ever.

      Here's the catch.

      Every journalist at every newspaper or website writes for a slightly different audience. Every story has to be tuned for that audience. You have to find a way to describe "hidden files" to every target audience. If you type what I typed above and ask, "was that so hard?" then you failed. Because for the bottom 50%, they have no idea what you are talking about.

      The last paragraph is maybe relevant, but redundant. If you spent less time being retarded, maybe your comment would be the relevant one.

      Allow me to paraphrase on your behalf: "HAHAHA, things I know that most of the world doesn't. So obvious, cretin. Allow me to care by pointing out how obvious it should be to everyone who is not me! There, I cared."

    13. Re:Hidden Files section? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Try again. We now know the Bubonic plague was not a bubonic plague, but a pneumonic one.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    14. Re:Hidden Files section? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > WTF is the "hidden files" section of a computer?

      That is a typo, it was really the "hidden fleas" section - that's the part of the laptop where they took out the cd-rom drive and replaced it with a small cage containing fleas infected with bubonic plague.

    15. Re:Hidden Files section? by cold+fjord · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please be sufficiently terrified and not notice it's a sham caused by western meddling in the 1st place.

      Many problems in the world are either caused or exacerbated by ignorance of the sort that you have just demonstrated. Al Qaida's goals have nothing to do with what the West does or has done, other than repelling the Muslim invasions 500+ years ago. They want to rule the world, and that means taking over places they don't rule now. Pretending the problem is something other than what it actually is will be very likely to have unfortunate results. The Islamists are teaching their children that they will retake the lands they formerly ruled, and eventually control it all. Now there is a key point here: it doesn't matter if you believe them, believe that they actually believe that, or that they will succeeed. They do believe it, and will act on it, so Western societies and the rest of the world had better be ready for it.

      Alarm in Spain over al-Qaeda call for its “reconquest”
      HAMAS Targets Spain

      The price of denial and PC thinking is starting to be felt in very ugly ways.

      Rotherham: In the face of such evil, who is the racist now?

      --
      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
    16. Re:Hidden Files section? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christ, you can easily find that stuff on 4chan if you ask.

      It is hilarious the lengths people go to in order to hide things.

      ISIS are going to get absolutely destroyed if they do indeed carry out any of these attacks.
      Right now they have just been an annoyance with regards to the militaries of the countries they intend to attack.
      If they attack now, they will be gone in a few years. Or endangered. Again. Like the last morons that tried to attack huge military countries.

    17. Re:Hidden Files section? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      got to love the use of American tech (computer, OS, software) to organize themselves...

    18. Re:Hidden Files section? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are trying to claim that the US did not arm and train the Mujaheddin, which we know of more commonly as "al Qaeda" today? Are you trying to claim that the US is not funding, arming, and training rebels in Syria known as the FSA which has ties to al Qaeda? I could keep traversing a very long list which backs GPs point that the "West" is causing many of the problems we see in the Middle East.

      Sock puppets can't argue facts, they argue straw men and appeals to emotion. Lets see where you line up.

    19. Re:Hidden Files section? by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      While I generally would agree with this suspicion, I don't think you're right this time.

      IS poses a huge threat at least to European countries because they have so many fanatic supporters who will return with combat experience and indoctrination from Syria and Iraq. They are more radical than Al Qaeda in some respects. I'd be surprised if there weren't an increase in (attempted) terrorist attacks. Whether that justifies all the Western security theater is another question, of course.

    20. Re:Hidden Files section? by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 2

      Nah, you're not very knowledgable yourself. I'm not an expert either but at least read up a bit on history rather than referring to wacky websites. You're mentioning one of their historical justifications, but one of minor importance. (It's also among the most silly ones, because the Kalifats they admire so much and wish to rebuild were at their height at a time when the Muslim world was the most tolerant, when people of all faith were living together without problems while Christians were slaughtering each other in Central Europe.)

      If you want to understand the motivation of these terrorist movements (which are pretty evil, no doubt about that), you need to look at the colonial history of the Middle East and how the French, Brits and the US messed up the region. And if you think that's the past and they have learned from their mistakes, think again, because they have just repeated them in Iraq and, very recently, in Egypt. When you install dictators and puppet military juntas in foreign countries and the only notable opposition left is radical islamic, then you ought not be surprised if radical islam arises in the long run.

    21. Re:Hidden Files section? by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      In "West Side Story", from 1957, there is a song about why the gang members are, in fact, gang members. Among other things, "Hey, I'm depraved because of I'm deprived!" If a mugger is pointing a gun at me, I don't really care whether he has legitimate reason to be dissatisfied with his place in society, or whether he had a terrible childhood; I'm just worried about whether he'll shoot me. Similarly, while you may be totally correct about the unintended consequences of European and American interference - that by disrupting the moderates they opened the door to the radicals - it doesn't change the fact that ISIS makes medieval look good.

    22. Re:Hidden Files section? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Nah, you're not very knowledgable yourself. I'm not an expert either but at least read up a bit on history rather than referring to wacky websites

      Agreed, you aren't an expert, and you don't seem to have enough of an understanding of the issue to make informed judgments about either my views or what is going on. Instead you are substituting your personal wacky views for hard facts and statements by the Islamists about why they are doing what they are. Maybe you could explain how it is that you know better than they do why they are doing what they are doing? You do realize that there is a long history of insurrection and conquest by Muslim peoples that predates "Western imperialism," don't you?

      If reestablishing a Caliphate is of "minor importance" and "among the most silly," then why do they keep declaring them? Why are so many Muslim peoples drawn to them?

      Your views seem to be little more than a restatement of politically correct nonsense unconnected to the facts.

      --
      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
  4. Death to america? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I miss madtv!

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VbPCmXc_91Q&list=PLkiaE7F5sV7sjU3k6xBcvlMQHTcaRTRJp

    1. Re:Death to america? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they really mean death too all America?
      South America too?
      Don't they really mean death to the United States?

      yes

  5. Self-Inflicted Damage by wispoftow · · Score: 1, Insightful

    NB. I can't believe that I am responding to this submision, but here I go.

    I can guarantee that whatever disease was launched would make its way back to the population that ISIS purports to represent. I predict that its consequences would eventually be more devastating in the generally-poorer populations.

    It seems there is a reason that chemical/biological warfare didn't make it much farther than the first world war -- for the simple reason that the "wind" changes direction.

    I think Shylock said it best: "cut me, and do I not bleed?" We're all humans, and we need to cut this crap out.

    1. Re:Self-Inflicted Damage by alantus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just recently Israel was fighting against Hamas, who was launching rockets while hiding behind civilians that they were purporting to represent. They really don't care about the people they "represent".

      Suicide terrorists are glad to blow themselves up if they take a few infidel's lives with them. They believe they get rewarded with a number of virgins in heaven.

      El Che Guevara is hailed as a hero for dying for his cause, even when he was directly responsible for the killing and misery of so many, especially his own people. You can buy one of "Che" iconic t-shirts almost anywhere, they sell like hotcakes.

    2. Re:Self-Inflicted Damage by sl149q · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, it probably would reflect back to their own population.

      a) they don't care
      b) they would blame it on the US
      c) they would blame it on the Israelis
      e) they would call them martyrs
      f) they don't care

    3. Re:Self-Inflicted Damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hamas is known to do this, and has been known to do this, and yet it still was democratically elected, and enjoys popular support in the Gaza.

    4. Re:Self-Inflicted Damage by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      I can guarantee that whatever disease was launched would make its way back to the population that ISIS purports to represent.

      And? This isn't a problem for them.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    5. Re:Self-Inflicted Damage by retroworks · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's called "Blow-back" and mod parent up.

      --
      Gently reply
    6. Re:Self-Inflicted Damage by cavreader · · Score: 2

      Your assuming that IS actually gives a shit about killing their own people. And the people funding that pack of serial killers doesn't live any where near the battle field so no matter what happens they are pretty safe sitting in their 5 star hotels in Qatar and Kuwait. If the so called Arab leaders were not such a pathetic bunch of morally bankrupt , incompetent, greedy, and cowardly pussies they could have prevented IS from ever getting started in the first place.

    7. Re:Self-Inflicted Damage by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      In other words, the IS should really be re-labeled as the Honey Badgers of Religion, or HoBeR.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    8. Re:Self-Inflicted Damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Just recently Israel was fighting against Hamas, who was launching rockets while hiding behind civilians that they were purporting to represent. They really don't care about the people they "represent".

      Suicide terrorists are glad to blow themselves up if they take a few infidel's lives with them. They believe they get rewarded with a number of virgins in heaven.

      El Che Guevara is hailed as a hero for dying for his cause, even when he was directly responsible for the killing and misery of so many, especially his own people. You can buy one of "Che" iconic t-shirts almost anywhere, they sell like hotcakes.

      "Hamas, who was launching rockets while hiding behind civilians".

      First, Hamas is a civilian organization. They are civilians elected by the people of Gaza, so you're saying "civilians hide behind themselves".

      Al-Qassam is the militant wing that does the fighting, and Al-Qassam does not take orders from nor does it report to the Hamas leadership.

      The Gaza strip is one of the most crowded places on Earth. Any place you launch a rocket from is going to have a bunch of people around.
      If you're launching a rocket, exactly how do you "hide behind a civilian'? Seriously, how do you do that?
      If you mean that they are launching rockets from near buildings that have non-military uses, like schools, then why don't they just say that?
      And then could you tell us where you could launch rockets from Gaza that doesn't have people around.

      Israel bends over backwards to avoid killing non-militants, but it's unavoidable even when dropping pin-point precision guided bombs because, well they're bombs.
      Because Gaza is so crowded, bombing anything anywhere is going to kill some people who died simply because they were nearby.
      .
      So then there's the media being on two sides of this story. The media shows pictures of Israel bombs killing children in Gaza, and out the other side of their mouths they are repeating the "hiding behind civilians" trope to make the killing seem like, well, not the fault of the bombing.

      Anyway, the "hiding behind civilians" is just a manipulation of our emotions and does not accurately describe the situation.
      It's about the same as "Weapons of Mass Destruction" was to the invasion of Iraq.

    9. Re:Self-Inflicted Damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, another machiavellian way to handle these clown is to make muslim countries responsible for their behavior. Just make it quietly known that if the problem is not taken care of, Mecca might get a nuke or two. Their most holy site would be gone forever. No more state funding for them and state police would deal with the private backers.

      Excessively evil, I know, but very cheap and hands off.

    10. Re:Self-Inflicted Damage by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      "They?" Half the regulars around here would adopt b and c as gospel.

      Yeah, I know, smallpox blankets, MK-ULTRA, Tuskegee Institute, blah blah. Get some new material.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    11. Re:Self-Inflicted Damage by khallow · · Score: 1

      Their most holy site would be gone forever.

      Gone forever until they rebuild the hotels. I wager inside of twenty years, the pilgrims on Hajj would be just as numerous as they are now. Functionally, there's no real difference between having a few meteorites or a glass lake at the spot.

    12. Re:Self-Inflicted Damage by backspaces · · Score: 1

      The number: 72
      The translation mistake: Raisins not Virgins.

      Can you imagine how pissed off you'd be?!

    13. Re:Self-Inflicted Damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's your point against the Che? Any leader will have tons of his own people dying and suffering in case of war. You have just shown your bias, but I don't hold my breath that you'll acknowledge it.

    14. Re:Self-Inflicted Damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insha'Allah, the wind will blow the right way, kaffir. For Allah is just, and merciful.

    15. Re:Self-Inflicted Damage by dkf · · Score: 1

      Is d) going to be "Profit!"?

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    16. Re:Self-Inflicted Damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Gaza strip is one of the most crowded places on Earth. Any place you launch a rocket from is going to have a bunch of people around.
      [...]
      And then could you tell us where you could launch rockets from Gaza that doesn't have people around.

      Israel bends over backwards to avoid killing non-militants, but it's unavoidable even when dropping pin-point precision guided bombs because, well they're bombs.
      Because Gaza is so crowded, bombing anything anywhere is going to kill some people who died simply because they were nearby. .

      One solution to this dilemma could be for everyone to just stop shooting at each other.
      But it seems that is not a feasable solution.

  6. Here's hoping nobody seizes my laptop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some Tor .onions have gigabytes of documents and manuals like this one. Just the (publicly available on P2P) terrorism / bombing / chemistry / etc folders of "Everything You Need To Know Ever" are scarrier than TFA. Finding those on some potential terrorist's laptop doesn't mean that they can or will actually use it.

  7. so just how affriad should I be by 0xdeaddead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Im somewhere between 0 and 0.
    really? hidden documents?

    big whoop.

    But I know a scared population is an easy to control one.

    1. Re:so just how affriad should I be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      9/11 was a long time ago, you gotta refresh the effect on the sheep, a laptop of dubious origin is easy to fake :)

      Who the fuck keeps sensitive data on a fucking laptop anyway?

    2. Re:so just how affriad should I be by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2

      These aren't security experts FFS. Personally I wouldn't stop my life over this, but it is good to understand what some of them have in mind, and keep an eye on it.

      Remember these guys are predisposed to killing themselves for the cause. We have to watch for things like getting themselves infected and travelling somewhere before symptoms show. They could weaponize themselves. As an example, look at how Ebola went to Nigeria and now some student sneaking into Senegal. Imagine if it was a whole bunch of nuts doing it on purpose. It's not something to just dismiss. Even if it didn't kill thousands, the panic caused in the general population who thanks to modern news organizations have no ability to filter or prioritize what they need to panic over. And western nations are too politically correct or have too much economic interest to test people at the borders or airports.

      I'm not going to get bent about the whole thing, we should have already guessed guys like this have been trying to dream up ideas for years. But it shouldn't be discounted out of hand.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    3. Re:so just how affriad should I be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main thing is what a journalists I know is saying, don't go to Syria. I suppose this would be a very bad time to go to Iraq.

    4. Re:so just how affriad should I be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This, and Foreign Policy Magazine isn't exactly Fox news

    5. Re:so just how affriad should I be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sad, but true. Two days ago my coworker started talking about how I should be happy to take shoes off because it stops terrorism. She was actually offended when I questioned the "9/11 changed everything" speech.

      I was starting to see the light with general population saying fuck no in Syria, but I guess the pendulum is going to swing back again unless we have more talks with our neighbors, coworkers and friends. Maybe we can make them less scared if we point out some of the idiocy.

  8. These people are walking a right rope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like it or not the West has been known to simply destroy everything that threatens its way of life. Sadly pushed too far I fear global powers will simply level the Middle East.

  9. The horror! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can't imagine USA engineers designing and creating weapons of mass destruction. How could these bastards! I mean, education is always for good things, right? right?

    1. Re:The horror! by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Agree'ed. It might be time for someone to test a few nuclear weapons. Time to remind the crazies out there there is some out there bigger than you and possibly a little more crazy.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    2. Re:The horror! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's a USA engineer? Have you looked in a grad school lately?

    3. Re:The horror! by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I can't imagine USA engineers designing and creating weapons of mass destruction. How could these bastards! I mean, education is always for good things, right? right?

      Yep, the US would have to hire some Germans to do the job for them.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  10. Re:tsa needs to protect us from this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh yeah? How are they going to read the flash drive without a laptop, Mr Smarty Pants.

  11. Re: Extremist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What about black anti-government groups?

    There were black panthers openly calling for the death of officer Wilson in Ferguson just a couple weeks ago.

    And black Muslims from Minnesota went to Syria to fight with Isis.

  12. 2X Generation ***Hole Conversion Rule by retroworks · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This will last about a generation, and a lot of damage is to be expected. There will be soft targets hit. It will last approximately until the Gen2 kids of the Jihadists realize " Dad was an ASSHOLE ". Nazis, Japanese, USA vs. Mexico/Indians... it usually self corrects if Dad gets paddled. Gen2 (or G3) Kids can grow up to be different kinds of assholes (USA no doubt has several generations, I admit) but it's usually an altogether different kind of asshole than grandpa was. Anarchists of 100 years ago did proportionately about the same amount of "terror" as Al Qaeda /Jihad. But shooting world leaders and blowing up post offices didn't impress the kids who grew up with it and realized the anarchists were just assholes.

    If Dad succeeds and gets rich, history shows, all bets are off. Successful assholes breed. Letting dictators rule for several years just gives latent asshole syndrome. So let the assholes get what's coming to them, because the more successful they are, the more we'll elect people to drop bombs on them.

    --
    Gently reply
    1. Re:2X Generation ***Hole Conversion Rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anarchists in America did negligible damage as in next to none. Your entire rule sounds like it was put forth by a radio dj didn't know shit except what sounds good.

    2. Re:2X Generation ***Hole Conversion Rule by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The asshole narrative of history.......I'm not sure I've ever seen that one before.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:2X Generation ***Hole Conversion Rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't let their kids grow up. They send them in a suicide bombers and use their enslaved wives to make more.

    4. Re:2X Generation ***Hole Conversion Rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Right. Within a generation or two, everybody sees the errors of their ways and comes to the American point of view.

    5. Re:2X Generation ***Hole Conversion Rule by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      18 inch dishes bitches.

      Just as the french are pissed their kids prefer Mcdonalds. The arabs will be pissed their kids are emos.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:2X Generation ***Hole Conversion Rule by evilviper · · Score: 1

      It will last approximately until the Gen2 kids of the Jihadists realize " Dad was an ASSHOLE ". Nazis, Japanese, USA vs. Mexico/Indians... it usually self corrects if Dad gets paddled.

      It didn't work with Germany after WWI. In fact WWII is usually blamed on the harsh "paddl[ing]" Germany received.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    7. Re:2X Generation ***Hole Conversion Rule by retroworks · · Score: 1

      In what way were German fathers "assholes" during World War I? I don't think every time dad gets paddled the kids revolt. The point is if Dad's an outlandishly bad acting head-chopping innocent killing and embarrassing liar and gets caught at it, the next generation doesn't tend to copy his behavior.

      --
      Gently reply
    8. Re:2X Generation ***Hole Conversion Rule by evilviper · · Score: 1

      In what way were German fathers "assholes" during World War I?

      Starting the war... Invading neutral countries... Sinking ships of neutral countries... Introducing chemical (poison gas) warfare... Executing "over 6,500 French and Belgian civilians between August and November 1914, usually in near-random large-scale shootings of civilians ordered by junior German officers." etc., etc.

      the next generation doesn't tend to copy his behavior.

      They did, and took it up a notch, too.

      "it was common for Germans in the 1930s to justify acts of aggression in terms of perceived injustices imposed by the victors of World War I."

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    9. Re:2X Generation ***Hole Conversion Rule by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      This may have been an acceptable response in the days of hand weapons or single-load firearms. It's harder with automatic fire, shoulder-fired missiles, and the ability to kill a plane at cruising altitude managed by any idiot who can push a red button. It won't work at all if Gen0 or Gen1 unleashes a plague that devastates the world before anyone has time to reflect. These are people willing to commit suicide; suppose a handful of the international ISIS crowd go down to Africa, make sure they catch Ebola by drinking some blood from someone dying of it, and spend their incubation periods traveling across Europe and the US, airport-hopping as they go?

  13. Not so sure by Andurian · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm anything but a conspiracy nut. I think we landed on the moon, that Oswald shot Kennedy, and that Icke is a con man. But the timing on this is seriously convenient. We want to attack ISIS, and *poof*, evidence suddenly shows up that ISIS has weapons of mass destruction. It's enough to make me consider making tinfoil hats.

    1. Re:Not so sure by goruka · · Score: 2

      Not only that, a guy is decapitated by a british speaking terrorist. The timing was just too good, specially because it helped to move the public opinion away from Israel/Gaza. Coincidentally, the moment Hamas stopped getting press they basically surrendered.

    2. Re:Not so sure by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      I can see it now:

      first we attack ISIS, then we go for OSPF. ...probably the bridges will come down next.

      I suspect cisco has something to do with it. I can't prove it, though.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re: Not so sure by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      that Oswald shot Kennedy

      Look, genius; there's a good reason you're not likely to find even an FBI guy who believes that... :p

    4. Re:Not so sure by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Not only that, a guy is decapitated by a british speaking terrorist. The timing was just too good, specially because it helped to move the public opinion away from Israel/Gaza. Coincidentally, the moment Hamas stopped getting press they basically surrendered.

      You haven't really been paying attention to the stuff that's been on-going then. It's similar to the people who don't watch what the jihadi's are doing then say: "but he was such a nice neighbor," after they found out that ran off and committed a suicide attack. Hell Jawa Report has been tracking the guy they suspect for at least a year. As a point, they were also instrumental in nailing several dozen other terrorists or want-to-be terrorists to the wall who are now spending time in federal prison.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    5. Re:Not so sure by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      No, there's no evidence of having weapons of mass destruction. There's evidence of talking about wanting weapons of mass destruction, which should not come as any surprise to anyone. An actual conspiracy would involve evidence of possession, but this is simply a useful spin on facts.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    6. Re:Not so sure by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      We want to attack ISIS, and *poof*, evidence suddenly shows up that ISIS has weapons of mass destruction.

      You might recall that they have recently taken control of sizable territory in Iraq to add to the sizable territory in Syria that they control. You may also recall that there were chemical weapons used in Syria, and apparently not all of that use was by the Assad regime.

      One of the problems with the news is that is sometimes gets the story more or less right and your cynicism is powerless to alter the facts.

      --
      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
    7. Re:Not so sure by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      The level of anti-"terrorist" propaganda is 10 times more than after 9/11, and there is no event even remotely close to that nowadays.

      Notice the change in the level of dissent. After 9/11 there were Stockhausen and Maher. Granted, both of them were slapped at their dissident hands, so that contributed to deafening silence that followed.

      I haven't heard a single voice that dares to doubt the propaganda.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    8. Re:Not so sure by Nethead · · Score: 1

      It's the Brotherhood of God's People that I fear the most. Just last month they topped 512k members.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    9. Re:Not so sure by cavreader · · Score: 1

      IS is a weapon of mass destruction. No need for secret documents to prove it since they have quite a robust advertising and media campaign to make sure there is no doubt that they are brutal serial killers. It's seems there are a whole lot of people are just fine with standing back and letting the madness continue unabated. All IS needs to do to survive is to launch some attacks on the Israelis and these same people standing around would start proclaiming them saviors and freedom fighters.

  14. distinguishing between good and bad muslims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It is very hard to distinguish between good and bad muslims. In the process, any war on extremists muslims results into heavy amount collateral damage. Good muslims have to learn this and must try their best effort to root out extremists. Unfortunately, we don't see much action on the part of muslim nations at all. Have you seen UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Sultanate of Oman, Brunei etc which are relatively rich and stable country doing anything at all to get rid of extremists? Instead many of these are funding creation of low quality mosques and madrassas which are only churning out even more extremists. I wonder why we see no reformists at all in muslim countries with significant power and influence to make any difference. The last one was perhaps Kamal Ataturk.

    1. Re:distinguishing between good and bad muslims by bargainsale · · Score: 1

      It's not hard at all. I suspect you don't actually know any Muslims. Hint: that nice neurosurgeon in your local hospital - she's good. That bastard killing other Muslims in Iraq - bad.

      --
      Aberrations have appeared in my destiny prognostication engine!
    2. Re:distinguishing between good and bad muslims by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      So the Army shrink was good?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  15. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The recent case of that plague were actually tests, isn't it.

  16. Oh yeah?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well the crusades...blah...blah..blah...

  17. These guys need to be swatted hard by riverat1 · · Score: 2

    I'm usually a pretty live and let live kind of guy but IS/ISIL/ISIS need to be treated like they're treating the people who don't agree with them, with no mercy. That is come down on them like a ton of bricks.

  18. Levenshtein Distance by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 0

    Is the diff between
    Black Death by way of Obama
    and
    Black Death by way of Osama
    None, or Undefined
    when dead?

  19. Yup - the story is doing its job by Bruce66423 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I remain conflicted; as a moderately competent STEM educated person, I am aware of any number of ways of reducing Western cities to chaos without a lot of effort and no risk. Yet our jihadi brethren never succeed in pulling it off. 7/7 in London and the Boston bombing seem to have been independent efforts, not carried out by people in the jihadi chain of command. Which leads me to suspect a lot of the hype is FUD by our government, or at least its security agencies, to milk the situation for as much as possible. OTOH it is totally clear that IS and HAMAS are committed to doing very nasty things to anyone who gets in their way. Something weird is going on; I look forward to discovering the truth, but I have nasty suspicion we won't.

    1. Re:Yup - the story is doing its job by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Jihadists succeeded in a pretty big way with the 9/11 attacks. I fail to see why another group wouldn't be capable of doing something of that magnitude again, given some proper funding and competent planning. It seems illogical to conclude that there isn't a real threat against western targets after we've seen those and other attacks.

      I'm not saying we should panic, overreact, or (in the case of the NSA) overreach, but I think some vigilance is surely warranted.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:Yup - the story is doing its job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, eventually, there will be another large scale attack on the US that will inflict a large number of casualties.

      We assume a few things about terrorism:
      1. 99% of the attacks will either be stopped or simply never get off the ground, leaving 1% that actually make it through to succeed to some extent.
      2. 99% of those attacks will either fail (Times Square bomber) or be small scale attacks (Ft. Hood shooting)
      3.The 1% of 1% that get through and are not small scale attacks will be so rare that they do not present a significant risk to the general public.

      If 1,000,000 people were to try to kill us and these numbers held, only 1,000 would actually make it past planning the attack and not be caught. Ten of those people would actually succeed in carrying out a large scale attack against us.

      The last time that happened, 19 people killed nearly 3,000 of a country with over 300,000,000 people. Our food kills a higher percentage of us annually than terrorists. Yes, there is a very real threat. It's just a very small, real threat. I've seen terrorism first-hand in Iraq. It's a horrible sight when someone detonates a suicide vest in front of a crowd of people. But honestly, I'm more scared of the staircase leading out of my apartment than someone blowing themselves up near me in public. Those stairs are steep and it's all concrete all the way down...

    3. Re:Yup - the story is doing its job by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Well, I was of that opinion before I ever read the story. The IS are fanatics of the worst kind who think everyone should be like them or they don't deserve to live.

    4. Re:Yup - the story is doing its job by whistlingtony · · Score: 1

      I'll second this. I could bring this country to its knees with $5000 on a Home Depot card. Drive past electrical substation, throw long and thick piece of wire, keep driving. That's just off the top of my head. Heck, I live in Portland, where the main water supply is open to the air, and in a city PARK. People jog past it.

      There is no threat. I am much more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than a terrorist.

    5. Re:Yup - the story is doing its job by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Your odds do not consider the prospects of damage. All it would take is one or two people with Ebola landing in the same city's airports to kill a lot more than 3000.

    6. Re:Yup - the story is doing its job by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I remain conflicted; as a moderately competent STEM educated person, I am aware of any number of ways of reducing Western cities to chaos without a lot of effort and no risk. Yet our jihadi brethren never succeed in pulling it off. 7/7 in London and the Boston bombing seem to have been independent efforts, not carried out by people in the jihadi chain of command. Which leads me to suspect a lot of the hype is FUD by our government, or at least its security agencies, to milk the situation for as much as possible. OTOH it is totally clear that IS and HAMAS are committed to doing very nasty things to anyone who gets in their way. Something weird is going on; I look forward to discovering the truth, but I have nasty suspicion we won't.

      This.

      Our governments are gunning for war and this seems like a very convenient intelligence coup. Besides, it's not like they weren't wrong about Saddam having weapons of mass destruction, right, guys, right?

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  20. Go for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If history is any evidence, they will likely end up killing vastly more of themselves than their target.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uC2BjCFtPaw

  21. Looking for a real conversation by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This may come across as a troll, but I promise it's not. I'm looking for a genuine discussion on something.

    From the small amount of reading I've done, it seems that the Koran is pretty clear: Islam requires non-Muslims to convert or pay tax or be killed:

    http://infidelsarecool.com/200...

    http://www.vexen.co.uk/religio...

    So it seems to me like all fully observant Muslims are required to engage in, or at least approve of, this behavior.

    If that's true, then:

    (1) Why do so many Muslims renounce such violence? Is it that they can't stomach what appears to be this straight-forward interpretation of the Koran?

    (2) If there is some alternative, justifiable interpretation of the Koran, why aren't governments fighting that propaganda war? Does the fact that they're not doing so indicate that no such justifiable interpretation exist?

    1. Re:Looking for a real conversation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the small amount of reading I've done

      Therein lies your problem.

    2. Re:Looking for a real conversation by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      From the small amount of reading I've done

      Therein lies your problem.

      Oh thank goodness! I assume then that you can point me at something to read which answers my question?

    3. Re:Looking for a real conversation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most religions don't take their doctrine as fact IMO. Not to mention that Mohammad preached living in peace with Christians and other religions. I don't think there is a single answer to your question, these things are complicated. This isn't isolated to the quran.

    4. Re:Looking for a real conversation by fluffy99 · · Score: 2

      Go read the bible which has passages advocating similar violence. You don't see the Christians following those either, at least not since the crusades.

    5. Re:Looking for a real conversation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the small amount of reading I've done

      Therein lies your problem.

      Oh thank goodness! I assume then that you can point me at something to read which answers my question?

      The Koran is not a simple document, and as with the Bible, you can take single sentence quotes out of context and justify almost anything.
      Here some other quotes from the Koran for you that take the opposite tack.
      http://www.courierpress.com/li...

    6. Re:Looking for a real conversation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the west does pay their tax. we buy their fucking overpriced oil.

    7. Re:Looking for a real conversation by ComputersKai · · Score: 1

      (1) Why do so many Muslims renounce such violence? Is it that they can't stomach what appears to be this straight-forward interpretation of the Koran?

      Quran 2:256 and Quran 18:29 can be interpreted as discouraging forced conversion.

    8. Re:Looking for a real conversation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Well, the Christian bible also has some pretty extreme stuff written in it. It advocates stoning disobedient children to death, committing incest, religious war against heathens, owning slaves, and so on. . .

      The thing is that a lot of religious people are not completely fundamentalist devout. Most Christians just go to church, sing some happy songs and go about their day, whereas others, such as the Wesboro Baptist Church, have a very extreme fundamentalist interpretation. You just look at some of the TV preachers out there saying they believe homosexuals should be sent to concentration camps and killed. . . either all Christians believe that way (I don't think they do), or most just don't take an extreme view of their religion.

      I'm not a Muslim, so I couldn't tell you first hand, but I suspect the same thing is true with them. There are probably a majority that just use their religion as a means for social community, and some sort of moral guideline. I think the jihadists of the world probably have major psychological problems to begin with. I can't imagine any normal person enjoying cutting off someone's head or inflicting terror on people. You have to be a pretty evil person to engage in that sort of thing.

      Personally, I'm of the mind that all religions make no sense. Some have little bits of wisdom here and there, but I can't imagine people taking anything like that to a level where someone is willing to commit atrocities in the name of it. Destructive people who enjoy hurting others are just assholes. Even without their religious excuse, they'd probably be doing the exact same thing.

    9. Re:Looking for a real conversation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps it helps to point out that for many muslim boys the only teaching they'll ever get is learning the koran by rote. Girls typically don't get to learn much of anything as they're easier controlled ignorant. This is a far cry from western values and so hard to believe for westerners, but it isn't untrue. In fact, the sharia explicitly values women as being worth half that of men (and unbelievers as being worth less than believers, with, indeed, unbeliever women being worth least of all). Now you know why boko haram explicitly targets schoolgirls. It does mean that many muslims have little to no perspective outside what the koran teaches. So if there's a big backlash against "muslim extremist" doings, how can they be wrong? Must be someone else's fault!

    10. Re:Looking for a real conversation by DirePickle · · Score: 1

      Look, come on, this is easy. The percentage of adherents of any religion that are "fully observant" is vanishingly small. The Jewish and Christian (by extension) texts are full of "such and such infraction requires death" rules. Ancient desert religions are full of dumb rules, and modern practitioners pick and choose which of those dumb things they can throw away.

    11. Re:Looking for a real conversation by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Those quotes are correct. The problem is that taking them like that completely ignores their context. For example, take by far the most widely known verse advocating such things, known as ayat al-sayf, or the Sword Verse:

      "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

      The context of this is a war that Muhammad and his followers are waging against a hostile pagan Arab tribe in Mecca (while Muhammad himself is in Medina, where he escaped from Mecca due to persecution). There was a truce in effect at that time, but it was violated by the Meccans, and Muhammad gave them four months to make amends, or else hostilities would be resumed.

      Now, most Muslims today interpret this quote in that context - that it was a specific commandment given to the followers within the boundaries set by that particular conflict, and that it ceased to be relevant afterwards. Some - in particular, Salafi - interpret it the way you did, by saying that the context doesn't matter, and that the commandment is generic and applies to the entire Ummah from there on.

      The governments are, in fact, fighting the propaganda war - for example, make the state-approved Islamic authorities condemn such interpretations, and issue fatwas against following them.

    12. Re:Looking for a real conversation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recommend you read the first comment on that same page. You are reading this out of contexts as did this idiot, who wrote the blog article.

    13. Re:Looking for a real conversation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found Joseph Campbell to be a worthwhile read. He has a series discussing the myths of various regions of the world including the MIddle East.

    14. Re:Looking for a real conversation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its called Taqiyya - a culture of deception - look it up.

    15. Re:Looking for a real conversation by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Just in the off-chance that you aren't a troll and are truly looking for a discussion: here's the first hit in Google. http://islam.about.com/od/terrorism/f/terrorism_verse.htm I disregard thereligionofpeace links, as they are utter nonsense, and just quote mining the Koran. If we're going down that road, the Bible is full of similar nonsense.

      As for a more personal answer: it's because muslims as a group aren't bloodthirsty morons, and quite a few have learned to read the Koran so as to better their lives - just like Christians. Regarding your last question: Egypt's populous, military and judiciary just kicked out Morsi because he had turned out to be a fundamentalist. Just because you don't hear of it on Fox News doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    16. Re:Looking for a real conversation by whistlingtony · · Score: 2

      I see them following those passages. Perhaps you're not looking? Look in the direction of Uganda... Where it's now a death sentence to be gay, or to advocate for gay rights, or even just say that being gay is OK. Christians have plenty to answer for.

    17. Re:Looking for a real conversation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Well, the Christian bible also has some pretty extreme stuff written in it.

      It does indeed. But it's in the Old Testament. But, for mainline Christians, the New Testament formally renounces and replaces the old, except as former context.

      There is nothing in the New Testament remotely comparable to what the Koran has to propose in the way of nastiness, even though - happily - most Muslims ignore the nasty bits.

    18. Re:Looking for a real conversation by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Go read the bible which has passages advocating similar violence. You don't see the Christians following those either, at least not since the crusades.

      And you never saw the Jews follow them at all, and they wrote the damn thing.

    19. Re:Looking for a real conversation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What was written about the Jews in the old testament do not apply to Christians. The whole point of the new testament was to show the Jews that there was a new way of relating to God and that the old ways of Moses were outdated and no longer valid for Jew and Christians alike.

    20. Re:Looking for a real conversation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and my argument typically goes along the lines of: they are not true believers anymore. Both, bible and koran, say what they say. It is mostly straightforward. The society changed somewhat and it forced the change on the beliefs, but both books still say exactly the same.

      I forgot what the point was, but coffee didn't kick in yet.

  22. National Security? by jythie · · Score: 1

    I am trying to picture the hissy fit the US government would throw if someone released the NSA/CIA equivalent of this to the media.

  23. Alah Ackbar! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You call cunts us! We find you and make interweb picture show of lopping head!

  24. Not particularly inspiring by Stonefish · · Score: 2

    This stull is not particularly inspiring and about I could have written this stuff when I was at high school. The reality of the situation is that any biological vector created will impact the poor and the 3rd world more than the Western world. Look at natural outbreaks such as HIV. Western world OK (not great butOK), 3rd world broken, Islamic world really broken because the can't discuss the problem openly.
    The 'cure' in this case might be to infect the region with something virulant and taboo, this may have already been done as apparently there's a couple of particularly virulent STD's making the rounds of ISIS.

  25. Hope they think about it... by forand · · Score: 1

    As others have stated most of the information doesn't seem to be any more harmful than a copy of The Cookbook. With regards to biological weapons: one would hope that whomever thought of this would keep on thinking to realize that poorer nations always fare worse when it comes to communicable diseases. They have fewer resources, longer response times, denser populations, etc.. If the biological isn't communicable it still doesn't make too much sense without some industrial scale dispersal methods which are generally easy to detect.

  26. tsa needs to protect us from this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Duct-tape your windows, bitches.

    As someone said during the Bush era.

  27. Re:Extremist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe the aforementioned subject(s) match you stated parameters.

  28. Know thy enemy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wouldn't read anything into people having those documents. The first step to knowing how to defeat something is to know how it works. Same reason you see locksmiths get into thievery or thieves go legit as locksmiths (or pen testers, or dozens of other illegal to legal profession changes.) Hell Wyatt Earp was a two bit thug before he became a famous sheriff.

    Point being: The time at which you should worry isn't when they have literature that could provide knowledge of dangerous things, but rather when they take actions that combined with that knowledge could lead to deaths. A large load of fertilizer, for instance.

  29. Tax evasion by tepples · · Score: 1

    Islam requires non-Muslims to convert or pay tax

    Non-Muslims have to pay tax (jizya). Muslims have to pay tax too; it just goes by a different name (zakat). Which non-failed state doesn't enforce laws against tax evasion?

    1. Re:Tax evasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such bullshit. The jizya is an EXTRA tax on top of the regular one.

      And they didn't offer a jizya to the Yazidis they just offered "conversion or death".

      Jizya only applies to "people of the book", Jews or Christians. It's death for everyone else.

    2. Re:Tax evasion by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. GP is entirely correct, zakat is a tax on Muslims, jizya on non-Muslims.

      Also, Islamic rulers in the past have extended the notion of "People of the Book" to pretty much any religion that fell under their control in practice - Zoroastrians, even Hindus. The only ones that they truly cannot tolerate is the ones that appeared after Islam and are derived from it or borrow from it heavily (like Yazidi, Ahmadiyya or Ba'hai).

    3. Re:Tax evasion by justaguy516 · · Score: 1

      zakat is not entirely a tax, it is supposed to be a voluntary donation of about 10% of one's income to charity. It goes directly to the wakf, the charitable board, which maintains mosques, feeds the poor, etc. The purpose of jaziya is also to balance the fact that non Muslim conquered people were not required to serve in the army (in fact, there was an actual prohibition) but Muslims were. /Indian Hindu, but I see the logic, really.

    4. Re:Tax evasion by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't exactly call it voluntary. For one thing, Qu'ran is pretty harsh on people who refuse to pay it when they have the means, to the point of calling such munafiq. For another, a state-administered system of collecting it (which was not voluntary) was in place from a very early time, since the second Caliph.

      But, yes, the original intent was charity, and specifically a form of guaranteed basic income.

      With jizya, yes, it was positioned as a monetary compensation for lack of armed service. On the other hand, the reason why armed service was not expected was also telling: non-Muslims were prohibited from owning and bearing weapons in general.

    5. Re:Tax evasion by justaguy516 · · Score: 1

      Muslim rulers in India have always had soldiers and generals of all religions. Aurangzeb was hardly anybody's idea of a "liberal" ruler; he re-imposed jaziya and banned music from the court, among other things and yet his principal general was Rana Jai Singh of Amber, a Rajput Hindu.

    6. Re:Tax evasion by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Just as Christianity, Islam often adapted to the circumstances. However, the original restrictions on dhimmi did include armed service and bearing arms in general, and this was enforced in the original Caliphate.

  30. More like the "Laptop of Muwhahhahahahaha..." by jpellino · · Score: 1

    Yes, people occasionally die of it, but for this or any jihadist to think Y. pestis is an effective way to wipe unbelievers from the earth is naive. The range of antibiotics that take care of it is pretty readily available, and the "plague" bacteria are not currently "medically resistant" to them. "When the microbe is injected in small mice, the symptoms of the disease should start to appear within 24 hours," is hardly rigorous clinical testing. You'd learn more about how to properly culture bacteria from any academic microbiology lab manual. "Use small grenades with the virus, and throw them in closed areas like metros, soccer stadiums, or entertainment centers ... Best to do it next to the air-conditioning. It also can be used during suicide operations." Means they're spitballing this stuff. This is no more instructive than watching a half season of "24".

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    1. Re:More like the "Laptop of Muwhahhahahahaha..." by bargainsale · · Score: 1

      It's not very clear from TFA, but if "virus" is supposed to refer to plague, the hopeful jihadist seems lacking in even basic microbiological knowledge. I don't think I'll start panicking just yet.

      --
      Aberrations have appeared in my destiny prognostication engine!
    2. Re:More like the "Laptop of Muwhahhahahahaha..." by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      It's not very clear from TFA, but if "virus" is supposed to refer to plague, the hopeful jihadist seems lacking in even basic microbiological knowledge.

      Since the hopeful jihadist probably wasn't writing in English, it's just possible that "virus" was a translation error.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  31. Time to educate yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not actually gain some knowledge and find out why the Gaza strip is called the worlds largest prison. Israel has blockaded the strip for decades stopping entry of food and medicine, and is surely not innocent in escalating violence. Violence is never a good answer, but more often than not is a two way street. If you don't look both ways you may get hit by a car.

    1. Re:Time to educate yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not actually gain some knowledge and find out why the Gaza strip is called the worlds largest prison. Israel has blockaded the strip for decades stopping entry of food and medicine, and is surely not innocent in escalating violence. Violence is never a good answer, but more often than not is a two way street. If you don't look both ways you may get hit by a car.

      The blockade of Gaza has been in place since 2007, not decades. After Israel disengaged unilaterally from the strip and forcefully relocated its settlers, Hamas kicked out Fatah and started launching attacks against Israel.

      I suppose you would have embraced the attacks with open arms, Mr. Education.

  32. Hate to mod an AC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting point, so gave a member point to you.. next time log in?

  33. Oddities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't it interesting that we can shut down bank accounts in all other occasions, except for this ISIL thing. For some reason we can not freeze their assets or stop money transfers...

    use your head a bit, it will make sense.

  34. Should be taken with an appropriate amount of salt by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 1

    Regime change, again anyone? There've been enough indications it's sought after in some quarters.

    --
    Some days it's just not worth
    chewing through my restraints.
  35. Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The biggest barrier is not just access to the equipment and materials. The most complex parts of a Nuclear/Chemical/Biological weapons plan is in the A) Delivery mechanism and B) Safe storage and transport.

    If they only developed the weapon, they would all be dead trying to handle it and store the materials. Delivery mechanisms are extremely expensive and incredibly complex. So they make a jug of Anthrax, do they carry it on to a plane? How do they infect people with it, drink and spit? If they can smuggle in a jug of bioweapon juice, then the TSA/DHS/ATF all failed miserably (not the first time) and we need to revamp these agencies. Like stop trying to fondle old people and children and actually look for dangerous stuff...

    1. Re:Nope by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I imagine they would infect themselves and then travel to places making sure to come into contact with as many other people as possible. Sort of like slow suicide bombers.

      With the plague, someone can rub the crap on themselves, then contact as many doors, people, subways, and so on as possible and hit quite a few of these before symptoms even start showing after 2 to 5 days. Then they can cover the symptoms and go somewhere dirty but hidden to die so rodents and fleas get infected thereby transferring it to even more people.

      They can likely do this without ever coming into contact with the TSA/DHS/ATF at all. Our borders are not secure and that fact has been all over the news recently and no one in government seems to be able to do anything about it. So they perfect some plague well enough to kill humans, travel to Canada and Mexico, divide it between 40 or 50 people spread across the border areas (north and south), infect themselves right before coming over legally, and from there, no place in the US cannot be reached within those first two symptom free days.

    2. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that they would have to get infected first, then travel to Mexico, then travel to into the US, then travel to a city, it's not a very plausible scenario. Possible, sure. I can possibly win the lottery too, but I find the chances for me winning the lottery much higher than a terrorist attack in the way you describe.

    3. Re:Nope by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Why would they need to get infected first? The TSA and so on are US agencies and only impose their will on flights entering the US.

    4. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You just provided my point for me, probably without realization. In order for a terrorist to get into the US, they are going to have to pass through numerous countries which don't want infected populations and do screen passengers deemed a threat. Mohamar is not going to be entering Sweden (for one example) with a bottle of bioweapons. He's probably not going to try and carry it through Felluja air port for that matter, because he has a high chance of getting caught there also. So he chugs his juice before leaving the shed and heads out. 2 days later when he arrives in Mexico city, he's sick as a dog and quarantined. If it takes him just 24 hours to get to Mexico city, he's still got to drive for 9-10 hours to get to the border, find a coyote, and get into the US. Any lethal bacteria or virus is going to have him incapacitated at least by this point, and a coyote is probably not going to risk catching even the common flu so won't transport someone sweating their ass off and vomiting everywhere.

      Even in the unlikely event that they make it into the US within 2 days, where are they going to be able to travel and infect? Houston? Dallas? They are not making it out of either of those airports.

      Why do you keep arguing like this is a likely scenario when it simply is not, are you trying to troll or just live up to your /. handle? It is not a huge threat, and does not rely on just US agencies (which I fully agree can be, and are, often useless against real threats). The only way this scenario plays out is if the CIA imports the "terrorist" that ate the plague, and at that point it really does not matter because it was not a foreign terrorist plot that cause the damage.

    5. Re:Nope by HJED · · Score: 1

      Alternately he is a US citizen (a lot of ISIS fighters are from western countries). Gets on a plane from a country bordering Syria (say Turkey, which has quite a pours border atm) and lands directly in a major US population centre (say New York). He now can very effectively spread the disease. It is also worth noting that air travel is a brilliant way to spread a disease (hundreds of people trapped on a plane with recycled air for 12hours)
      Now a better question is, realistically is it sensible to introduce extra security measures to respond to this? The answer is most likely no.

      --
      null
    6. Re:Nope by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Why do you keep arguing like this is a likely scenario when it simply is not, are you trying to troll or just live up to your /. handle?

      First of all, people who have different opinions than you are not trolling or dumbasses. They, as in this case, could very well have more information than you or simply hold differing opinions concerning the information available. Contrary to what your mom may have told you, you are not the smartest person in the world, you likely are not even the smartest person in the room most of the time. The world does not materialize as you will it too so please stop with this bullshit of attacking the messenger when the message is not what you want. Had you pulled this crap in any high school debating course, you would have flunked out quickly. So even if you think I am wrong, present the case and leave the bullshit for third grade recess.

      You just provided my point for me, probably without realization. In order for a terrorist to get into the US, they are going to have to pass through numerous countries which don't want infected populations and do screen passengers deemed a threat.

      I did not make your point at all. Drugs of abuse which are illegal in the US, Canada, and Mexico all find their way from other countries and into those countries. What is so magical about a capsule sized container that could be shoved in various body holes before passing through those other countries and into one of the ones mentioned? And who says those other countries would even have to know about the end intentions or the infectious disease before they pass through them? Are you suggesting that they know all about those illegal drugs that pass through them on their way to the US?

      Mohamar is not going to be entering Sweden (for one example) with a bottle of bioweapons. He's probably not going to try and carry it through Felluja air port for that matter, because he has a high chance of getting caught there also. So he chugs his juice before leaving the shed and heads out. 2 days later when he arrives in Mexico city, he's sick as a dog and quarantined

      Actually, for something like the plague, you can find it in the wild in some countries. In the US Midwest, it thrives quite well. One of the articles supposedly on the laptop was how to weaponize the plague. It could be that Hohamar doesn't need to travel with the plague at all until he is ready to fuck shit up. So Mohamar's brother gets a hold of this wild plague, creates a bio-weapon from it in Mexico or Canada or even in Iraq/Afghanistan and ships it with a load of heroine destined for the US and Canada (which seems to have less of a problem getting here than the illegal aliens currently strolling across the borders), Mohamer and 40 of his buds make their way to the Canada or Mexico either with their American or UK passports or even by being smuggled in with another batch of heroine, infect themselves and its on.

      I'm really not sure why you seem to think they would be traveling under their real identities, through real airports and declaring their bio weapons at the customs counter when there are so many avenues for alternatives already in place and available via the drug and human trafficking trades.

      Even in the unlikely event that they make it into the US within 2 days, where are they going to be able to travel and infect? Houston? Dallas? They are not making it out of either of those airports.

      With a car and perhaps an accomplice in the states, from the Texas border, you can be in any city inside the continental US within 2 days. They can hit Atlanta, Cincinnati, Columbus Ohio, Philadelphia, NYC, Boston Seattle, LA, San Fransisco, Vegas, ANY CITY IN THE 48 STATES.

      But that is just where they could go before symptoms show. If they are in a car being driven by an accomplice, they can hide their symptoms and operate until the disease consumes them or t

  36. Run for your lives... by Patent+Lover · · Score: 2

    In other words he downloaded a bunch of shit from the Internet. Oh the horror....

  37. global suicide by manu0601 · · Score: 2

    The problem with biological weapons is that you are never sure it will not destroy your own population.

    And even evil regimes need a population to support them, to get food to eat, for instance, or to produce oil sold for food.

    1. Re:global suicide by Kaenneth · · Score: 2

      The first mistake is assuming your opponent has the same goals as you.

    2. Re:global suicide by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      Well, IS said they want to rule a given territory. They need to be alive to do that.

    3. Re:global suicide by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      Idealists, whether they be Islamic or leftist, want to see their version of the world come to pass. If it doesn't, or if we're too stupid and reject them, then the world should come to an end because it's too corrupt and doesn't deserve to live.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  38. Sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of reading people's opinions, read historical translations of the sources. It is amazing how much propaganda you find in all kinds of places by actually reading the sources themselves.

    I have not read much on the Koran myself, just a few pieces many years ago which proved that Saudi Arabia adds text to Korans they print and ship around the world. Often this is an obvious addition which is in a block next to a paragraph, and sometimes editing the text to make it appear authentic. This used to be easily found by Google, but today not so easy. I'd suggest starting with "Saudi Arabia Quran Editing Extremism", and expand the search to find the additions people know Saudi Arabia has added.

    1. Re:Sources by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The Sword Verse is very widely known and there's no dispute about its authenticity. It's a matter of its interpretation in context, and contexts can vary.

  39. They could start by not using civilians as shields by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you're launching a rocket, exactly how do you "hide behind a civilian'? Seriously, how do you do that?

    Not launch missiles from (or store them in) a school or hospital? No other countries military does that.

    Or, not launch missiles right next to the hotel where journalists are staying? I don't recall reporters electing Hamas.

    You are obviously a propaganda stooge for Hamas. How anyone could live with themselves otherwise backing a group that kills children to build tunnels and fires random rockets at peaceful populations is beyond me. What's an 11-year old going to do with all those virgins anyway?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  40. Impossible to rebel when brainwashed by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You have no idea how deep the conditioning goes. In Palestine children's programming is (no joke) broadcasting cartoons showing that jews should be killed and you get a nice reward in heaven for killing yourself in the pursuit of killing said jews.

    The kids are also building the tunnels used to eventually kill jews.

    With enough brainwashing, how are they to rebel? And if one child does break free, they will simply be executed.

    You are applying your own western way of thinking to the problem where children have any value at all. In the middle east for religious fanatics they are just tools of war and treated as such.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Impossible to rebel when brainwashed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly this is true.

      I'm hoping that the internet destroys their conditioning for some future generation, but that won't apply to everyone everywhere, and the internet will also create terrorists from some assholes as much as defuse cultures.

    2. Re: Impossible to rebel when brainwashed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The conditioning is there on both sides. That's what happens in a conflict, nobody sits around and debates the finer points of bigotry. The enemy is the enemy and the dehumanization necessary to make killing the other palatable happens in every culture.

      Check out Selfies for Hate -- pre-army teen girls calling for genocide on twitter.

    3. Re:Impossible to rebel when brainwashed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure that "assholes" was meant to apply generally to all enemies. Hezbollah is walking a fine line, and is alienating many by going as far as they are going, but Palestine generally is much more reserved than ISIS and seems to spend its asshole currency sparingly. I think the original point is that scary psycho killer assholes scare us with ruthlessness and irrationality, and get short term rewards with press attention, but don't generate much martyrdom.

    4. Re:Impossible to rebel when brainwashed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what is your solution? Kill everyone in 100 mile radius? Seems a little messy.

  41. Contagious? by michael_cain · · Score: 1

    Has anyone else said it? Bubonic plague is not particularly contagious, unlike pneumonic plague, and tetracycline stops Y. pestis cold. Plague is endemic in the wild rodent population in the western US. People get it from time to time, but it's pretty big news if a case is fatal.

  42. Bubonic plague by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what year is this? 1500? I guess the terrorist found some fleas from Europe or China?

  43. It is realistic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This can be done very easily. If an organization or country has any type of stable power, even if it is 2-3 diesel generators and a battery bank, they can get a bio lab working.

    Delivery? Abu doesn't mind infecting himself, because he has his 72 virgins, each virgin having 72 assistants to look forward to. Where to go? In the US, enforcement on the southern border is spotty at best due to politics and pork barrels, so all it would take to get people across is one good coyote who doesn't mind moving some odd-looking characters with their "medical" equipment. From there, it is a drive (or even a general aviation plane trip) to large cities.

    Combine this with the fact that most US cities have woefully inadequate funding for anything but their sports stadiums. Just a heavy flu outbreak would shut down hospitals and clinics in most cities. At best, the police will seal off the town until the germs run their course (which means no food coming in... and we all know that 72 hours after the last food truck, dense populations turn into mass re-enactments of the Donner Party.)

    Of course, this type of attack doesn't have to kill many people. We are talking terror and demoralizing the enemy here, not racking up the mass numbers. Watching people in LA starve to death on the news would get the US completely out of the Middle East, similar to how Reagan pulled all troops out when the Marine barracks was attacked.

    1. Re:It is realistic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Of course, this type of attack doesn't have to kill many people. We are talking terror and demoralizing the enemy here, not racking up the mass numbers. Watching people in LA starve to death on the news would get the US completely out of the Middle East, similar to how Reagan pulled all troops out when the Marine barracks was attacked.

      I was agreeing with you up till this point, I suspect anything on such a wide scale would have exactly the opposite affect on US foreign policy. (massive increase in troops)

    2. Re:It is realistic... by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Given how the US reacted to about 3,000 deaths at the WTC, I would confidently expect any bio-weapon attact killing a million or so US citizens (directly, or as a consequence of wrecking our transportation system and economy) would result in the use of thermonuclear devices jacketed in Cobalt to to create an area denial effect (that is, not even radiation resistant bacteria would be able to survive in the designated area for the next 100 years or so.). (It was actual US doctrine at the time I mustered out (middle of the Clinton years) that we did not have offensive biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction, and so the use of WMD level biologicals against the US would ALWAYS be met with a nuclear reponse, and that hasn't really changed under Clinton or Bush 43 or Obama).
                Assuming an Islamic source, probably that "designated area" would be much or even all of what we currently call Southwest Asia. A little panic, and the US congress would pass a resolution claiming that human decency required spitting all surviving infants in the region on bayonets to send the sub-human monstrous larvae straight to Satan their maker. Remember, Pearl Harbor was enough to make the US demand unconditional surrender and place many ethnic Japanese/American is internment camps, and for a US admiral to promise to make Japanese a language only spoken in Hell.
                If we actually acted better than that, any biological attack sufficent to leave millions starving to death in the US would probably involve literally a hundred times that many people in tropical and sub tropical nations around the globe, and India and China are both thermonuclear powers. Maybe Russia would take a much smaller number of casualties, especially if the attack occured after cold weather set in, but who would bet Putin would say "Ehh, we only lost half a million, let's be calm about this". So if the US didn't, the chances are damned good at least one of the others would. (And all the nations that were about to starve if the US and other Nuclear Powers couldn't even distribute food to themselves would be voting FOR such options in the UN, plus a lot of them would take 50% casualties from a Biological strong enough to disrupt us like that).

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  44. seriously by slashmydots · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    And yet the Obama "give a fuck-ometer" remains at zero. Good thing, America, he cares more about his legacy and ego and being famous for pulling out of Iraq than he does about security. We'll all remember that when half the world is dead.

    1. Re:seriously by WindBourne · · Score: 2

      What a fucking moron you are.
      The whole crisis over there was created by you neo-cons/tea-baggers that sit at kock brothers zippers getting slobbered faced.
      The smartest thing that O can do is study the board before making visible moves.
      In the mean time, he is busy training others over there and sending weapons there.

      Sadly, it was you neo-cons/tea* that blocked O from going into Syria and helping the GOOD side, and instead, allowed Assad AND ISIS to gain strength.

      Take the kock's cock out of your mouths and walk away from your addiction to them.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:seriously by slashmydots · · Score: 0

      Oh sure, before the Iraq war there was never any islamic extremists or terrorists.

    3. Re:seriously by whistlingtony · · Score: 1

      What are you afraid of? What is there to be afraid of? Why SHOULD Obama give a fuck at all? Some dude had things written down on his laptop. Big Whoop.

  45. Who Is Under Threat? by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    Terrorists of any flavor really had better not be effective. If the terror nuts in the Arab states were much of a threat they could easily be totally destroyed. They are dealt with in milder ways only because they are not effective terrorists. If we thought more highly of their abilities we would have the option of exterminating their nations completely. Their ace in the hold is that we don't want to kill innocents. But if they ever became a serious threat we would not be concerned about non-hostiles being killed at all. They have no clue as to how easily we can crush their nations.

    1. Re:Who Is Under Threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their ace in the hold

      Mind-boggling literary incompetence. Characterised perfectly only by North Americans.

  46. Because people can twist religion as they like by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The thing is, religious texts say a lot of shit, particularly the major religions which often have a whole lot of text including not just their "official" book but all kinds of other documents that have some measure of authority in their belief system for various reasons. Also because the documents are old, and composed of various collected stories of various authorships, there are generally plenty of contradictions, things that have been shown to be untrue, and so on.

    So what really happens is people choose to believe the parts they like, and ignore or reinterpret the rest. They follow the parts they wish and find justifications for not following the others. This happens all the time in all religions. Generally, religious ideology is an excuse, a justification, for a behaviour, not the case. People don't read a holy text and say "Oh, well I have to follow this to the letter!" Rather they have something they want to do and they find a way to make their belief system justify it.

    You can see it with things like the "prosperity gospel" Christians and so on. Any even somewhat literal reading of Jesus's teachings shows the guy was the ultimate hippy. All about helping the poor, against material wealth, etc, etc. However, they find a way to justify their views in the bible.

    Or the crazy things Orthodox Jews go through to supposedly obey arbitrary restrictions in the torah, while then skirting around them. Like they believe that the prohibition on making fire on the sabbath applies to electricity. However then there are things like ovens with timers greater than 24 hours, so you can have it come on automatically on the sabbath and that's ok. Oh Shabbos Goys, non-Jewish individuals you can hire to do things for you that you are not allowed to do on the sabbath.

    Same shit with any of the variants of Islam. What the Koran says isn't really relevant. They'll find a way to make it justify what they want to believe. They can find a way to twist it to allow things that are specifically forbidden, or to ignore things that are required, or whatever.

  47. Self-restraint is an option, not a rule. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poke the bear and you get Hamburg, Dresden, the firebombing/nuking of Japan, and the impressively thorough bombing of North Korea during the Korean war.

    The US played nice in Viet Nam. I'd have bombed the paddy dikes and let General Starvation break the Communists beyond resistance. The dead resist nothing.

    Perhaps we've played nice for too long. These little wars with tiny numbers of casualties don't impress me, nor the Jihadists. If the Jihadists think that's what war looks like they may get their feelings hurt in a real one.

  48. Re:They could start by not using civilians as shie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    > Not launch missiles from (or store them in) a school or hospital? No other countries military does that.

    Actually false.
    Amnesty International investigated the last time such claimes were made, back in 2008, and found that not only is that a myth, but the Israel used palestinians as human shields. And that was after the Israeli supreme court ruled that the IDF had to stop using palestinians civilians as human shields in 2005.

    > Or, not launch missiles right next to the hotel where journalists are staying

    As the video says in an abandoned plot of land roughly the entire length of a football field away from the hotel. Not from a school, not from a hospital -- an empty lot 100+ meters away from the hotel.

    It is Gaza after all, with 1.8 million people in just 137 square miles it isn't like there are many open fields.

  49. Looking for a real conversation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >>Why do so many Muslims renounce such violence? Is it that they can't stomach what appears to be this straight-forward interpretation of the Koran?
    They are practicing "Al-Taqiyya" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya).

  50. These guys need to be swatted hard by Jast_Sagami · · Score: 1

    Agreed. This group is different. Not just a bunch of local radical, jihadist thugs. They should be eliminated without prejudice.

  51. Regarding Bubonic Plague by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Couple of links that all of you should study

    http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03...

    http://io9.com/5908290/during-...

  52. Re: Meore like the "Laptop of Muwhahhahahahaha..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Xsacx

  53. They seized a laptop and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OMFG! It contains ***INFORMATION***! Quickly! Destroy that!

    Now seriously: I think those ISIL (or ISIS?) are as disgusting as can be, and that it's OK to muster some international force against that -- but the scare tactics this side of the line has long surpassed my nausea level.

  54. Probably reads like CIA, NSA, DHS, etc playbook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probably reads like CIA, NSA, DHS etc playbook. Not too long ago, your own government agencies where there, teaching those same guys.
    I agree, what they do (more like dream) is wrong but what USA is actually doing over there, is seriously wrong too.
    Those guys, over there, are faithing against invaders - USA and it's corporate sponsored army.

    Why are you, fat american, so surprised that people fight back? Is it because you do not fight back and let yourself and your freedoms be ass raped by your own corporate government every single day? Really? Get off your ass and do something. Blabbering here about freedoms will not change anything.
    Maybe you do not like their religion? Really? Or is it because your corporate government likes the oil and gas in those regions more?

  55. Wrong Laptop by Livius · · Score: 1

    The actual terrorist laptop has documents describing the real terrorism strategy, which consists of, "plant a laptop with vague, nasty-sounding terrorist plots that will induce panic in people who don't think too hard about plausibility".

    Who the genuine terrorist is who owns that laptop is a separate matter.

  56. Wipe them out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wipe out all Arabs and all Nord-Africans. Then let's see where we are, we might need to do more, but maybe that's enough.

  57. Great post - shame humans AREN'T as rational by Bruce66423 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    FUD works because people don't think things through; we are very bad at proper risk assessment. The question remains whether we should trust our government to do better - or suspect it of abusing the opportunity this allegation makes. Recent history encourages the latter!

    1. Re:Great post - shame humans AREN'T as rational by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      FUD works because people don't think things through; we are very bad at proper risk assessment. The question remains whether we should trust our government to do better - or suspect it of abusing the opportunity this allegation makes. Recent history encourages the latter!

      Keep in mind that it's quite literally the government's job to try to protect against or prepare for worst case scenarios. FEMA does it with natural disasters. The military plays end-of-the-world wargames and trains for battle against people we hope never to fight against. And of course, the various Homeland Security agencies look for people who want to do America or its citizens harm. It's their job to try to anticipate or prevent worst-case scenarios. We hire people to do this so we won't have to.

      This create a quandary of sorts. On the one hand, they're by far the most qualified to answer the question as to how legitimate the potential threats are. On the flip side, it's in their own best interest to magnify the threats so as to increase their own budgets and importance, which is a natural trend for any bureaucratic agency. We can, however, blame them for overreaching their legal and constitutional bounds in carrying out their mandate. And we need to call them out when we see that they've magnified threats beyond their logical probability as well. That second part is a bit harder to do - realistically, only our elected officials have access to the most sensitive raw sources and data, so we have to trust that they'll exercise proper oversight in that regard.

      As lay persons, you and I (and the general public) are not really qualified to determine whether various threats are real or not, both because a) it's not our area of expertise, and b) we don't have enough data to make a well-informed judgment. For instance, many terrorists may have been stopped by good intelligence, but it's possible this information can't be released to the public (similar to the allies Ultra/Enigma project in WWII), for fear of compromising the source or techniques used. This leaves the public feeling like there is no credible threat, which on the one hand, is a good thing, but on the other, leads people to question the necessity of the very agencies preventing the attacks. It's unfortunate that these agencies have undermined their own trust, because now we have a hard time believing them even if they're telling us the truth.

      Who do you turn to when your best guard dog has been crying wolf?

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  58. Re:tsa needs to protect us from this by flyingsquid · · Score: 2

    It's probably real. This is after all a group that engages in beheadings, mass murder of captives... even crucifixion. You're talking about a group with a medieval worldview, and you can't get much more medieval than the Black Plague.

  59. Bad spy movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    my god what a bad plot... common usa. come up with something more... original if you want to make your war look legit this time... moar illusionary weapons of mass destruction, eh? fucking retards.

    if you try to smuggle such a bs story past hollywood, you would be blacklisted for life for being lame.

  60. 11% of ~7 is ~0.77 deaths. Per year. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.cdc.gov/plague/faq/...

    How many cases of plague occur in the United States? Globally?

    Plague was first introduced into the United States in 1900. Between 1900 and 2010, 999 confirmed or probable human plague cases occurred in the United States. Over 80% of United States plague cases have been the bubonic form. In recent decades, an average of 7 human plague cases are reported each year (range: 1-17 cases per year). Plague has occurred in people of all ages (infants up to age 96), though 50% of cases occur in people ages 12â"45. Worldwide, between 1,000 and 2,000 cases each year are reported to the World Health OrganizationExternal Web Site Icon (WHO), though the true number is likely much higher.

    Don't be so panicky.
    It's a threat on the same level heebie-jeebies or scurvy are. Probably a lot less.

  61. Re:tsa needs to protect us from this by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    "You're talking about a group with a medieval worldview, and you can't get much more medieval than the Black Plague."

    Indeed, using a bacteria that's propagated by fleas is not very modern in the Streptomycin age.

  62. Easy solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    tactical nukes....nuke em all.

  63. Don't discount a plant by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    What better than to gin up TERROR! in a war weary US/UK population than planting a laptop with naughty bio-fetish dreams.

    1) Nobody looked at the laptop for months. Really? Honest? Didn't even bother to check that for intel from your competion/enemy in Syria? Oh, Mr Journalist? Here maybe you like this, we are just using it for door stop.

    2) Put laptop in hands of semi-credible news magazine looking for a big scoop to boost image.

    3) Sit back and watch Fox News make it the number one story for the next 60 days while government(s) figure out how many troops are going to go where.

    4) Announce troop deployment because of TERROR!

    Now.. perhaps it is all legit. But to ignore the plant angle is to be led down the WMB path again with blindfold on. And nobody does this kind of stuff better than the UK, a country with a long and sordid history of using "journalists" to plant fake "information" to justify government actions and policies.

  64. no, its been a while by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mosul fell in early June. Ever since then, people in DC have been wondering what to do, including the expensive option, of killing ISIS themselves. Timing would have to be more precise than 2 1/2 months to be suspicious.

  65. wrong website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is slashdot. We discuss the technical merits of the weapons, and not the ideology behind the war.

  66. Re:They could start by not using civilians as shie by Rich0 · · Score: 2

    As the video says in an abandoned plot of land roughly the entire length of a football field away from the hotel. Not from a school, not from a hospital -- an empty lot 100+ meters away from the hotel.

    Conducting military operations 100m away from a civilian building is inappropriate. If a conflict broke out in just about any civilized nation that required basing soldiers within 100m of a hotel, the hotel would be evacuated. Heck, the whole city would probably be evacuated.

    It is Gaza after all, with 1.8 million people in just 137 square miles it isn't like there are many open fields.

    Well, then don't launch rockets from within Gaza then. Those rockets generally aren't targeted at military targets anyway, so there is nothing legitimate about firing them off in the first place.

    When conducting war you have a responsibility to minimize the danger to non-combatants. That includes not basing your soldiers in close proximity to non-combatants (and 100m is close proximity).

    The alternative is to return to tactics like WWII bombing, and that isn't in anybody's interests. Those fighting in Gaza (whatever they want to call themselves) are not acting as soldiers - they're basically acting as terrorists.

  67. I am not afraid by whistlingtony · · Score: 1

    I am not afraid of a word document. This is nothing. Why must we always be afraid? Perhaps we wouldn't tolerate always being a war if we didn't have An Enemy to be afraid of.

    I have books in my house with dangerous information. Having information is not a crime. Have a desire is not a crime. Writing down that you want to release bubonic plague on people is a FAR cry from having the actual means and will to do so.

    A terrorist can take my life, but let's face it. Odds are, I'll die in a car accident. Terrorists with ACTUAL bombs don't scare me. Terrorists with word documents on a laptop certainly don't scare me.

    The only people that hurt my freedom were Americans that keep voting stupid.

    I'm going to download lots of dangerous information on my laptop. Perhaps a chemistry book or two. Perhaps my own country should invade my house.....

    1. Re:I am not afraid by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Agreed about voting stupid. The problem is, what do you consider voting stupid? I would guess that my form of stupid is exactly what you want.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  68. But remember people by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Serious criticism of the administration over its treatment of ISIS will be downmodded as flamebait.

  69. they forgot ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plus the "catch Ebola, wait til infectious, aerosolize yourself in a large theatre" scenario. No wonder we're in a hurry about that vaccine.

  70. Policy implication #1: Basic income & resilien by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    As I wrote here about the USA: http://www.pdfernhout.net/basi... "Right now, a profit driven health care system has sized emergency rooms for average needs, and those emergency rooms are often full. With a basic income and more money going on a systematic basis to the health care system, the health care system emergency rooms will no longer be overrun with people there for reasons they could see a doctor for. So, emergency care would be better for millionaires. Millionaires with heart attacks won't be as likely to end up being diverted to far away hospitals because the local hospital emergency room is full. Likewise, emergency rooms might, with more money going to medicine, become sized for national emergencies, not personal emergencies, so they might become vast empty places, with physicians and other health care staff keeping their skills sharp always running simulations, learning more medical information, and/or doing basic medical research, with these people always ready for a pandemic or natural disaster or industrial accident which they had the resources in reserve to deal with. So, millionaires who got sick or injured in a disaster could be sure there was the facilities and expertise nearby to help them, even if most of the rest of the population needed help too at the same time too. In that way, some of this basic income could be funded by money that might otherwise go to the Defense department, because what is better civil defense then investing in a health care system able to to handle national disasters? So, any millionaires who are doctors (many are) would benefit by this plan, because their lives as doctors will become happier and less stressful, both with less paperwork and with more resources."

    We should also reduce the monopoly power of the AMA and related organizations that creates an artificial scarcity of physicians in the USA using quotas and high credentialing prices. See for example:
    http://c4ss.org/wp-content/upl...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

    We should also be systematically rethinking our technical infrastructure to be more resilient rather than depend on long supply lines that need to be "defended" by troops in foreign countries, and also rethinking our security strategy to be more mutual rather than unilateral.
    http://www.pdfernhout.net/reco...
    "Biological weapons like genetically-engineered plagues are ironic because they are about using advanced life-altering biotechnology to fight over which old-fashioned humans get to occupy the planet. Why not just use advanced biotech to let people pick their skin color, or to create living arkologies and agricultural abundance for everyone everywhere? ... We the people need to redefine security in a sustainable and resilient way. Much current US military doctrine is based around unilateral security ("I'm safe because you are nervous") and extrinsic security ("I'm safe despite long supply lines because I have a bunch of soldiers to defend them"), which both lead to expensive arms races. We need as a society to move to other paradigms like Morton Deutsch's mutual security ("We're all looking out for each other's safety") and Amory Lovin's intrinsic security ("Our redundant decentralized local systems can take a lot of pounding whether from storm, earthquake, or bombs and would still would keep working"). ... This all suggests that our biggest danger as as society is in putting the *tools* (some being useful as weapons) of a post-scarcity civilization into the hands of scarcity-preoccupied minds. (Especially ones following outdated military dogmas like unilateral security instead of mutual security.) As Albert

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  71. The real problem is not that they have weapons by WindBourne · · Score: 0

    Look, I have said all along that AQ has access to biologicals and that they can do FAR WORSE damage.
    BUT, AQ had some warped and interesting principles. Basically, until a islamic priest would give permission to kill many innocents, they did not attack. In POF, they took responsibility for their actions. In a number of ways, they acted like a normal nation SHOULD

    ISIS is NOT under the same constraints. Weaponized plague is easy enough to solve and cure.
    I am far more concerned about their weaponizing avian flu, mers, ebola, or even rabies.

    Thsee have the potential to spread much further through western society without easy ways to stop them.

    Oddly, in some of my earlier posts about ISIS, we had a number of ppl defending these animals. I have to wonder if any of them were trolls with ISIS, or just sympathizers.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  72. Re:They've tried this before by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    We do make it worse if we invade. Horrible idea. BUT, there is no reason why we can not help those that oppose ISIS.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  73. Re:Probably reads like CIA, NSA, DHS, etc playbook by WindBourne · · Score: 0

    uh, no.
    Dumb fucks like you just come here and troll so that idiots will believe you.
    Cowards like you can troll on another site.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  74. Re: Extremist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thanks for putting that all together for us:

    black anti-government groups == ISIS

  75. This makes it official ... by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 1

    ... Islamic State is a literal plague on humanity.

  76. Re:tsa needs to protect us from this by gomiam · · Score: 1

    SSD? Same USB stick?

  77. Time to educate yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop lying.
    Gaza has been blockaded since 2007 when the Israelis left the territory Hamas grabbed power and started bombing the Israelis. Not 'decades'.
    Food and medicine are exactly what the Israelis have allowed in, It's building supplies and other materials are restricted.

  78. You are ignorant. Please get off the Internet. by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Bubonic, Septicemic, Pneumonic, Pharyngeal, Meningeal and Cellulocutaneous plague are the SAME DISEASE.
    Only distinction is the main area of infection and the vector which got it there.
    It will shift from one form to the other as the disease progresses.

    You're basically trying to be a smartass by saying something like "Ha! You fool! It's not a pastry. It's a croissant."

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  79. Pre-emptive strike at debt. payoff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Conquer Mid-Eastern Oil Rich Muslim countries.
    2. Give Israel Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.
    3. Trade Iraq, Iran ,Afghanistan, U.A.E., Saudi Arabia and the rest to China in full payment of our debt.
    4. Let China police and control their asses for a change of pace and entertainment.
    You can bet Mohammed didn't prophesy that one! Let them learn Mandarin, bwahahahaha.

  80. There. Fixed that for ya by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Great, you DON'T get to run the country, because you are obviously smarter than 80% of the population.
    Or better yet, you DON'T get to be the editor for every technical article ever.

    That will be $29.95.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  81. Re:They could start by not using civilians as shie by whistlingtony · · Score: 1

    You're accusing other people of being brainwashed, but you sound even more brainwashed. Evil Hamas uses children to dig Tunnels of Terror! Let's face it, it takes two to tango and Israel is just as guilty of violence as Hamas. As long as they keep pointing fingers and taking retribution for the last attack, there will never be peace between Palestine and Hamas. Frankly, I don't think Israel WANTS peace. I think they want the Palestinian land. There's also the fat stacks of defense cash flowing through Israel. It's hard to blame Palestinians for fighting back when they're blockaded and can't get medicine or even building materials to fix up their buildings. It's hard to look at the situation with Palestinians throwing rocks, Hamas firing shitty homemade rockets that immediately get shot down by Israel's Iron Dome system... and then look at the disproportionate Israeli response, the 10:1 Palestinian:Isreali death ratio, and the facts of life under blockade, and see anything but Israel being the aggressor.

    The Palestinian demands are to end the blockade and recognize them as a state. How is that unreasonable?

  82. Remarkable complacency by wytcld · · Score: 1

    Since I saw the Trade Center fall in person (not on screen) I am unable to go "La la la they can't strike us here" and believe myself. Nor do I believe that recent history predicts the future. The main players in Islamic State are far more radical than Osama ever was. Osama was one nasty piece of work who deserved killing, but he wasn't pure evil. His main goal was a "purer" Saudi Arabia without so much US influence. These fucks have as their goal an Earth purified of all who don't share their exact beliefs. Osama was dependent on funding primarily from his friends among the Saudi princes, who insisted on some degree of moderation especailly after 9/11 when they got back-channel messages that we'd come after them next if not; these fucks control their own oil fields, and depend on no other nation as long as they have markets for their oil.

    We're can obliterate them now, while they're relatively local, or nuke 'em later, by which time they'll have cells trained and equipped throughout the First World. Our Iraq experience is not what we should be learning from. Iraq needed to be successfully occupied and turned around. We were terrible at that. Islamic State merely needs to be utterly destroyed. That's within our scope. Osama wasn't the threat we thought he was; these fucks are the threat we thought he was. We must abstain from restraint in their obliteration, unless we're ready to tolerate far worse in terms of terrorist attacks than 9/11 ever was.

    I say this as a left-wing, pro-Palestinian admirer of Ghandi and MLK. The US might have done well to stay out of WW I, but if we'd stayed out of WW II the world would have been ruined. The US would have done well not to start Iraq War II, but if we hold back from a strategy for full victory over the Islamic State, civilization's odds are not good. If we leave them intact for long enough to attack us here - which they will - say goodbye to what's left of our civil liberties.

    --
    "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
  83. Re:They could start by not using civilians as shie by Keyboard+Rage · · Score: 1

    Your argument... As opposed to what? Israel just killing Palestinians (terrorists, adults, children, men, women, journalists, doctors, UN personel, whatever), period?

  84. Re:They could start by not using civilians as shie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Well, then don't launch rockets from within Gaza then.

    Yes, this is the authoritarian response. Do not fight back, just roll over.

    > When conducting war you have a responsibility to minimize the danger to non-combatants.

    How fortunate we are to have people like you to tell the palestinians how they should resist occupation.
    The day you go and fight side-by-side with them is the day you get to have a say in how they conduct the fight.

  85. Re:They could start by not using civilians as shie by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    If you call giving you simple facts "brainwashing" you don't understand what the word means. I'm the one with real links to real reports - the UN schools holding missiles was also well documented.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  86. Re:They could start by not using civilians as shie by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Actually false.

    Well Actually We're Talking About This Year You Moron.

    Are you seriously so stupid as to try and debunk something so widely reported???

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  87. Usual despicable fear-mongering by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Some cretins dreaming about bio-weapons does not give them any real capability. And no, they are neither easy to make nor cheap nor easy to use. This is just the usual exceedingly unethical fear mongering used to sell more copy and to keep the population docile.

    It is also not a new tactics, but most people are still cretins that fall for it every time:

    The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. -- H.L. Mencken

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  88. Re:They could start by not using civilians as shie by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    The Palestinian demands are to end the blockade and recognize them as a state.

    No, the demands of Hamas (who runs Palestine now) are that every Jew be killed (it's in the written charter, that is not hyperbole). They include the right to keep all arms, including rockets, so they can continue to fire them at Israel.

    Also in the demands are that Israel not be recognized as a star (they do not currently). If it's reasonable to recognize someone else as a state, then Hamas not doing so with Israel is obviously unreasonable - by your own definition.

    It's just a shame that people like you do not actually look deeper to see what is going on. In now way is allowing Hamas to gather far more arms to attack Israel reasonable. That is the only thing that lifting the blockade would cause to occur. Food and medicine and other relief is already allowed to enter the country freely.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  89. Re: tsa needs to protect us from this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That age is about to end... If idiots are actively starting trouble they'll just speed up drug resistance mutation and that'll make a mess.

  90. Do you really expect us to believe this crap? by lippydude · · Score: 1

    Do you really expect us to believe this crap? PROTHERO: "Do you believe this crap, Dascombe?

    DASCOMBE: "It's not our job to believe it, Lewis. Our job is to tell the people" --

    PROTHERO: '"Exactly what they tell us." I Know but do you think that people will believe it?'

    DASCOMBE: They will if it's you that's telling it to them. Now let's try it again." ref

  91. Re:They could start by not using civilians as shie by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    Well, if they want to launch their rockets from next to schools, then they shouldn't be surprised when their kids get blown up by artillery fire. That is probably their objective in any case - it makes for good PR.

    Is firing artillery on schools wrong? Of course. Is firing rockets from nearby a school wrong? Of course. The one is still a consequence of the other.

    I don't really see the Palestinians achieving their goals with the methods they're currently using. I get the impression that their plan is to keep blowing up the odd house until God comes down and wipes out the infidels for them. Or maybe they're just happy dying in the attempt.

  92. Serously? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    A jihadist downloads the musilm verison of anarchists cookbook and now its the end of the world?

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  93. doom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i hope they don't bomb me for having it on my laptop.

  94. Then: Provide the Context ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Koran is not a simple document, and as with the Bible, you can take single sentence quotes out of context and justify almost anything.

    Ah... the out of context argument... I love that one.
    It's the easy answer for most of the blatant crazyness we can read in those kind of texts.
    Each time I ear/read that, I'd like to ask:
    => Then please provide the context (in which it has been written that they either must be killed or pay taxes).
    Then will see who hasn't read enough.

    Here some other quotes from the Koran for you that take the opposite tack.

    Yes... That's quite strange for a so-called perfect prose, isn't it?

  95. Did Saddam have WMDs? by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

    It's always been a more open question than the failure to find them reflects; the fact that Assad's Syria proved to have chemical weapons after denying it raises the prospect they inherited them from Saddam. There are claims wandering round the internet that IS now has some - the proof of that will be when they use them of course. The jury is out - let's wait and see!