Slashdot Mirror


US Bombs ISIS Command Center After Terrorist Posts Selfie Online

HughPickens.com writes: Brian Everstine writes at Air Force Times that U.S. intelligence officers were able to locate and bomb an Islamic State command center based on a photo and comments in social media. "The [airmen are] combing through social media and they see some moron standing at this command," said Gen. Hawk Carlisle, commander of Air Combat Command. "And in some social media, open forum, bragging about command and control capabilities for Da'esh, ISIL, And these guys go 'ah, we got an in.' So they do some work, long story short, about 22 hours later through that very building, three JDAMS take that entire building out. Through social media. It was a post on social media. Bombs on target in 22 hours."

Carlisle was careful to not go into great detail about the how the information was gathered and what additional effort went into targeting those bombs. It's easy to imagine that in addition to the information gleaned from the initial post that the Air Force used satellite and drone reconnaissance data. It's also possible that U.S. intelligence could have actively engaged with the original poster in order to draw out information. Attackers and researchers have shown time and time again that simply asking a target for information—either by posing as a trusted individual or using carefully created phishing attacks—works even better than fancy information-stealing digital attacks.

286 comments

  1. Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More and faster.

    1. Re:Good. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good: More and faster.

      Bad: Mouthing off about how we did it, so ISIS won't make the same mistake again.

    2. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe they want to MAKE them think into this direction. it probably is all bull and they need to protect mr al fuckta, their super humint agent. so they developed a quick lie.

    3. Re: Good. by Type44Q · · Score: 1, Informative

      I agree completely; there's no way they should've revealed their intel collection methods... so perhaps we should be willing to consider the possibilty that social media wasn't even *remotely* how they they identified their target?

    4. Re:Good. by JWSmythe · · Score: 0

      Worse: Collateral damage of all other occupants of the building.

      Even worse: They hit the building the target was in 22 hours earlier. That doesn't mean the target was still there.

      Mental note: only take selfies outside of businesses and residences of people I don't like.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    5. Re:Good. by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "More and faster."

      Yes! Kill all those selfie-ing motherfuckers, everywhere!

    6. Re: Good. by robi5 · · Score: 1

      But oh it's too late, you outed their secret! Unless it was intentionally misleading!

    7. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was under the impression we had huge problems getting humint because of the way their organizational structure and vetting goes.

    8. Re:Good. by reboot246 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think we should bomb anybody who takes a "selfie".

      And we should torture the person who came up with that word.

    9. Re:Good. by chill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uh, no.

      The person wasn't the target, the building was. If the individual was bragging he was at a military / terrorist C&C location, then the building and everyone else in it were legitimate targets. If the moron was there then it was just gravy.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    10. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      So... A member of ISIS took a selfie, and Uncle Sam... PHOTOMBED him!
      FT MF W!

    11. Re:Good. by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The truth is that the terrorists are recruiting online, so the military wanted to stop that. Also, they paid off someone's mistress for this, but didn't want to break her cover, so they made up a story about social media, giving a cover to the mistress and killing two birds with one stone.

      Nobody has denied that is the case, so I can only assume it's true.

    12. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...so ISIS won't make the same mistake again

      That might be the intention... ISIS's techies will probably not say "disable geotaging" to everyone, they'll just tell everyone to stop posting crap online---which limits their online presence, and limits their recruiting capabilities.

    13. Re: Good. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I was under the impression we had huge problems getting humint because of the way their organizational structure and vetting goes.

      That was Al Qaeda, which was small and tight. ISIS is big, and loose. This makes them much stronger, and able to hold and defend territory, but it also makes them easier to penetrate.

    14. Re: Good. by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      Good lord. Nobody gives a f about one terrorist. The target was the command and control center. Collateral damage? I get so tired of this kind of BS comment that comes from zero details in the story and is also incredibly unlikely given its a command and control center (unless they are intentionally using human shields or trying to look like a civilian building). No, it didn't come from any facts in the story. It came purely from your unrealistic personal worldview.

    15. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legitimate targets?
      Did I miss the formal declaration of war?
      I don't read many political news, so I may actually have.

    16. Re:Good. by o_ferguson · · Score: 1

      More and faster. Here we come. White and trashy and incredibly dumb. Enjoy yourself. Crash. Boom. Bang. The Final Solution: KMFDM!

      --
      - In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
    17. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People killed on 9-11 were just collateral damage from taking out the financial command and control center.
      Good for the goose is good for the gander.

    18. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And people who commit acts of vertical video too, just to be sure.

    19. Re:Good. by TedHornsby · · Score: 1

      More and faster. Here we come. White and trashy and incredibly dumb. Enjoy yourself. Crash. Boom. Bang. The Final Solution: KMFDM!

      Glad I wasn't the only one who immediately thought this.

    20. Re:Good. by Falos · · Score: 1

      That would be irresponsible, bloodthirsty, and immoral. Both of you.

      Still worth it, tenfold. When can you start?

    21. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That could be said of the pentagon, but the WTC is not a strategic military target. I could also see your argument used for e.g. a ball bearing factory.

    22. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiot.
      Darwin Award caliber mistakes arent really something you keep secret in hopes the rest of them are just as dumb.

    23. Re: Good. by kenh · · Score: 1

      Bad: Mouthing off about how we did it, so ISIS won't make the same mistake again.

      Reminds me when the clever U.S. Press pointed out that the U.S. Military was tracking Osama Bin Laden's satellite phone... Then, suddenly, Osama Bin Laden stopped using his satellite phone and we spent several more years looking for him.

      --
      Ken
    24. Re:Good. by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Uh, no.

      The person wasn't the target, the building was. If the individual was bragging he was at a military / terrorist C&C location, then the building and everyone else in it were legitimate targets. If the moron was there then it was just gravy.

      Even if it was a school? The Arab culture is different from the Western culture (difference, not better nor worse). They see no distinction between a place for worship, a place for study, and a place for shooting rockets at infidels. Furthermore, many of the places are ad-hoc and change location frequently to avoid detection. Yes, the _school_ moves location with the military _command center_ because the instructors are planning attacks after classes: makes sense when you consider the very deeply religious curriculum. Note that I'm avoiding placing blame. Do you bomb the command center / school or not? If you do, then whose blame is it when the children are killed? If you find a command center, do you first check if it is a school? If not, then whose blame is it when the children are killed? And 99 more questions that all have the corollary "whose blame is it when the children are killed". It seems if the command center is in Gaza then world opinion is those attacking the command center are to blame, but if the command center is in Mosul then the blame is on the "terrorists who shouldn't do terrorist things at a school" as if those people wear only "terrorist hats" and don't actually do anything else in life like preach or teach.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    25. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they don't see a difference then why should anyone else?

    26. Re:Good. by fuzzy2k · · Score: 1

      Uh, no.

      The person wasn't the target, the building was. If the individual was bragging he was at a military / terrorist C&C location, then the building and everyone else in it were legitimate targets. If the moron was there then it was just gravy.

      Actually, if the braggart was there at the time that bombs took the target down, that is sad. If he was not there, chances are he does it again at another location. Bang-zoom. More dead C&C, easy peasy.

      --
      --- Say something clever. Pretend it was me. Thanks.
    27. Re: Good. by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      Actually, the WTC would be a strategic military target. It could easily been included in infrastructure. There was a lot that happened through that building, therefore it was a valid target. It wasn't the best target, but it was a target.

      The thing is, the group who attacked the WTC weren't a military. They weren't even paramiltiary. All things indicate a handful of people with boxcutters. There are better organized paramilitary organizations operating within the US daily that carry out widespread crime. They just go under reported because they aren't as important in the eyes of the casual news viewer as a couple big buildings and a bunch of people in suits in a one-time event.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    28. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My NSI feature phone does video horizontally while holding upright if I recall.

      But the problem should be fixable with smart phones.

  2. Secret, covert spy knowledge by watermark · · Score: 4, Informative

    Geotags

    1. Re:Secret, covert spy knowledge by aaron4801 · · Score: 1
      Or anything else they feel like:

      ‘We kill people based on metadata.’ - Michael Hayden, former director of the NSA and the CIA

    2. Re:Secret, covert spy knowledge by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 1

      Maybe they posted a Geocache on their command site

      --
      Wherever You Go, There You Are
    3. Re:Secret, covert spy knowledge by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If this was exif tags from the selfie, then that would be data, not metadata.

      I am really, really surprised that they chose to tell us any of this honestly, unless they announced this to try to stem the flow of marketing from ISIS toward young impressionable Muslims by making the social media aspect seem particularly dangerous. If the rank-and-file can't publish their experiences without being blown up, the rank-and-file might stop trying to encourage others to join. That leaves the older people at the top to try to make such decisions, and they might not be as good at convincing the young to join them.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    4. Re:Secret, covert spy knowledge by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If this was exif tags from the selfie, then that would be data, not metadata.

      It may have been exif, but I have seen academic research that used "big data" in the form of satellite images to identify both the location and orientation of photos containing landscape. I would be astonished if the military didn't have this capability, especially since, as I recall, they were funding the research.

    5. Re:Secret, covert spy knowledge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If this was exif tags from the selfie, then that would be data, not metadata.

      We may be arguing semantics here, but the wikipedia page about exif uses the word "metadata" 29 times, with statements like:

      The metadata tags defined in the Exif standard cover a broad spectrum

      and a specific section about geolocation.

      From a linguistic/philosophical point of view, an image file contains image data. Additional information about that image data ("metadata"), would include information about the time/date/location that the picture was taken, etc.

      tl;dr: It's metadata.

    6. Re:Secret, covert spy knowledge by robi5 · · Score: 1

      Photosynth

    7. Re:Secret, covert spy knowledge by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

      Yes - for a photograph, the data are the bits that make up the image. The metadata tells about the data (how, where, when it was collected, photographic settings, etc.)

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    8. Re:Secret, covert spy knowledge by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If this was exif tags from the selfie, then that would be data, not metadata.

      If it was exif data than it would be a textbook example of what metadata is. A description with additional details of the data itself. Where it was taken, with what settings, what camera and when. It's not different to the metadata talked about in the media, where you were with your phone, who you talked to and how long.

      ExIF is metadata.

    9. Re:Secret, covert spy knowledge by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      I am really, really surprised that they chose to tell us any of this honestly, unless they announced this to try to stem the flow of marketing from ISIS toward young impressionable Muslims by making the social media aspect seem particularly dangerous. If the rank-and-file can't publish their experiences without being blown up, the rank-and-file might stop trying to encourage others to join. That leaves the older people at the top to try to make such decisions, and they might not be as good at convincing the young to join them.

      It's young and impressionable, actually. You don't have to be muslim to fall for their marketing - it's really quite slick and makes it almost seem like a vacation.

      And yes, it's probably why they revealed it.- and there's probably a ton more going on. What they usually do is have some slick YouTube videos with some link, then a guy will call you over Skype a while later with instructions on how to get to Syria and the wonderful life you're going to have.

      If you have friends, the first few weeks there WILL be as they advertise so you can try to get your friends to come over too. Word of mouth recruitment is one of the keys to which ISIL gets people to join them. Because if you're a college student, and your friend suddenly sends you a link showing you how wonderful life is over there, and you've just spent the last 12 hours cramming for an exam, well, the "freedom" sounds very appealing.

      ISIL knows how to work social media and is winning the online propaganda war. Hell, they're probably actively censoring images that try to show what life is really like (hint: it's as you think), because that would hurt recruitment.

    10. Re:Secret, covert spy knowledge by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      I get how that works, but I still have trouble believing college age students are that stupid. I can see them going because they believe in ISIL. What I have trouble believing is that they go over there expecting to not end up on the end of a Hellfire missile fired by a Predator drone. Or simply shot in the face by some Peshmerga fighter. Or asked to drive a tanker truck rigged to blow into an Iraqi army position on a "martyrdom" mission.

      The only tiny modicum of respect I have for any ISIL fighter is the fighter who goes there fighting for their fucked up version of Islam, but who understands what they are getting into and doesn't expect to be on a vacation in a war zone. The rest of them, especially the teenage females, are Darwin Award material. If they weren't hurting innocent people, I'd almost cheer for them to go over and get their stupid asses killed.

    11. Re:Secret, covert spy knowledge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's almost no chance this was from EXIF data unless the social media site in question was something like Wikimedia Commons where you can get the original image.

      Every social media platform I've bothered checking reencodes images you've uploaded to fit into a predefined set of sizes. I've only bothered checking the EXIF data from images posted to Facebook and Twitter, but both sites actively strip out EXIF metadata. Or, I suspect, more accurately they don't bother copying it over when reencoding. (And why bother? It can only make the file larger and they're going for small. Who cares if the lens and exposure information gets stripped?)

      So I doubt this was from geotags, unless the photo was uploaded some place that lets you get the original file.

    12. Re:Secret, covert spy knowledge by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Betcha the real target was done in some totally different manner. The public trumpeting will freeze ISIS' use of social media.

    13. Re:Secret, covert spy knowledge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who marked parent insightful, and on a supposed geek site of all places? The definition of metadata is data describing other data. That is precisely what EXIF metadata is -- a set of data describing settings and other capture information relating to the main data package, the image or audio data itself. Heck, it's described as metadata right there on the sites of CIPA and JEITA, creators and maintainers of the EXIF standard.

      Insightful is the very last thing parent's post was.

    14. Re:Secret, covert spy knowledge by rtb61 · · Score: 0

      Actually until it is all proven in a court of law, it is all bullshit and conjecture. So more like we blew them up because they were not Americans and it was not America and fuck em.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    15. Re:Secret, covert spy knowledge by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If this was exif tags from the selfie, then that would be data, not metadata.

      If data about the data (exif describing the photo) isn't metadata, then what is?

    16. Re: Secret, covert spy knowledge by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      It may not be any less nefarious than that but you can bet your ass it's a lot more complicated.

    17. Re:Secret, covert spy knowledge by rikkards · · Score: 1

      Have you looked at most of the suicide bombers? They were mostly college students when they were indoctrinated. Perfect age for being susceptible as they are wanting to belong to some group. It's not like they walk up with a suicide vest and they go and do it. There is a lot of manipulation going on

    18. Re:Secret, covert spy knowledge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get how that works, but I still have trouble believing college age students are that stupid.

      Average high school students in the US no longer learn civics, economics, ethics, or even fractions in math classes. You read that correctly. Teaching numerators and denominators is now a part of entry level math courses in universities. True history is neglected in favor of "America Bad! Christians Bad!" style history, propped up by popular media. Is it any wonder some of today's young adults believe the ISIS lies?

    19. Re:Secret, covert spy knowledge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I doubt this was from geotags, unless the photo was uploaded some place that lets government get the original file.

      FTFY

  3. but reporting about it is just as bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US posts story about it so that this type of intel gathering will become less effective *FACEPALM*

    1. Re:but reporting about it is just as bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Assuming the story is true. It could be a good cover story for some other type of intelligence gathering. Plus if you can get Daesh to stop using social media, it could be a good thing.

    2. Re:but reporting about it is just as bad... by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's the intelligence agencies objective in releasing this story to the press? That's what needs to be examined. Is it meant as a message to ISIS "We got you and we'll get you again because your people are stupid"? Or was it meant to convey to us, the American People: "This is what our metadata surveillance can accomplish if you'd just let us use it"?

    3. Re:but reporting about it is just as bad... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It's just a cover story. We really captured and tortured^W enhanced interrogated this guy, 'cause we all know how effective that is.

    4. Re:but reporting about it is just as bad... by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My first thoughts are
      1. Secondary story to cover a primary tool being used, which they do not want to expose. Kinda like 'giving carrots to pilots' was a cover for development of radar
      2. Striking fear into an enemy, which prevents them from using a primary recruiting tool
      3. Wanting to trumpet successes while programs are facing restrictive laws in Congress, the Courts and public opinion

      --
      Wherever You Go, There You Are
    5. Re:but reporting about it is just as bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except this had nothing to do with metadata. It is an argument for why its not needed. See! Our enemies are so stupid that they broadcast their location to publicly available locations like Facebook making them easy targets for us using precision guided weaponry we developed 30 years ago let alone with what our new stuff can hit.

      Given that a lot of ISIS success has been attributed to their use of social media this may give them pause and hurt their recruiting so it's a solid win for the military. I haven't heard about any collateral damage either so it sounds more along the lines of the military showing us that they can be effective. Something most of us already knew.

    6. Re:but reporting about it is just as bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      News articles frequently say that ISIS people are masters of social media and that they get their recruits via social media. It seems like a good thing to make them think twice about posting to social media doesn't it?

    7. Re:but reporting about it is just as bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could also be propaganda to gain support for US government monitoring of social media. After all, they haven't been able to demonstrate any terrorists thwarted by NSA spying before (and plenty whom you'd think an electronic surveillance net would have caught, like the Boston bombers and the Texas shooters).

    8. Re:but reporting about it is just as bad... by TWX · · Score: 1

      Assuming the story is true. It could be a good cover story for some other type of intelligence gathering. Plus if you can get Daesh to stop using social media, it could be a good thing.

      That was my thought. They must have figured that stemming the recruitment was worth having fewer low-hanging-fruit to attack. Of course, this isn't a new phenomenon, Geraldo Riviera did something similar during our ground operations when he was an embedded reporter and US military personnel have occasionally screwed up this way and cost us equipment too. It's possible they won't learn their lesson.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    9. Re:but reporting about it is just as bad... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      I think this is pretty spot-on. also, it would be funny if everything came down to a geotagged selfie.

    10. Re:but reporting about it is just as bad... by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      They should have at least "liked" the picture before bombing the building.

    11. Re:but reporting about it is just as bad... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If you read the US Navy history of WWII, you will find that US analysts determined the number of Japanese troops on an island by using photo-recon to identify all the privies, estimate the number of holes, and apply the Japanese Army standard ratio. Some time thereafter, it turned out that the number was from a Japanese transmission in a code or cipher the US had broken, and the Navy just came up with a great cover story.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    12. Re:but reporting about it is just as bad... by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Well, it can't be hypothesis number 2, because this is the team that is fighting against terrorism. So that narrows down the possibilities a bit. HTH.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    13. Re:but reporting about it is just as bad... by Garfong · · Score: 1

      The same thing would happen a lot in Europe too to provide cover stories for Ultra intelligence. They'd send out recon flights which would always "just happen" to spot a Nazi convoy -- every single time they went out. Or there would be a report from "French partisans peaking over a fence" detailing every unit stationed at a particular airbase -- but not what planes they were flying.

    14. Re:but reporting about it is just as bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The term is freedom tickle.

    15. Re:but reporting about it is just as bad... by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 1

      Well, it can't be hypothesis number 2, because this is the team that is fighting against terrorism. So that narrows down the possibilities a bit. HTH.

      Terrorism is defined by the US military roughly as violence or threats of violence driven by religious, ideological or political reasons.

      An attack on a strategic building like a command and control center doesn't fit any more than your average serial killing spree does.

      It does't have anything to do with who is involved, and it's not simply "scaring people". Terrorism is a label we use to describe a type of conflict that we didn't have another a good word for. Not everything ISIS does is "terrorism", but that shouldn't change how anyone regards them. Don't get hung up on labels...

    16. Re:but reporting about it is just as bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may actually have an ISIS insider giving them info but they needed a plausible reason on how they found the command centre, without burning the ISIS spy they have.

      And now they got a plausible reason.

    17. Re:but reporting about it is just as bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      was it meant to convey to us, the American People: "This is what our metadata surveillance can accomplish if you'd just let us use it"?

      Maybe "This is what our metadata surveillance can accomplish. We're using it. Inform on your neighbors or we'll read your metadata."

    18. Re:but reporting about it is just as bad... by Shalhav · · Score: 0

      Not to worry. I "liked" a picture of my property in Iraq that I just took and nothing hap$^#^&$&%^
      NO CARRIER

  4. Yet another reason by koan · · Score: 1

    To stop using Facebook and other "social" media...

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Yet another reason by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 2

      You should also stop using Slashdot for posting reasons to stop using Facebook and other "social" media, because that makes you a suspect - fuck... now i am a suspect also, because i advised you stop using Slashdot for posting reasons to stop using Facebook and other "social" media, because that makes you a suspect!

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    2. Re:Yet another reason by koan · · Score: 1

      Do you think "anti social media" would be a better term considering how some use it and what the companies/governments do with your data?

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    3. Re:Yet another reason by halivar · · Score: 1

      That might be the point. Daesh/ISIL has been really savvy about recruiting through social media. Shutting down their PR operations should be a primary goal of any military operation against them. Make them think twice before posting propaganda that will net them more fighters.

    4. Re:Yet another reason by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1

      Do you think "anti social media" would be a better term considering how some use it and what the companies/governments do with your data?

      Yes, "anti-social media" is a good term if you think how some people (ab)use facebook and other "social" media (i exclude the companies/governments case because, even if it may be also "anti-social", it then becomes more of a privacy issue, plus i don't examine any anti-social criminal/illegal/terrorist/etc use cases) - i don't have any "social" account, but just by creating a Slashdot account a couple of months ago i become extra anti-social!

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    5. Re:Yet another reason by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      I am hoping the Pentagon is developing technology to automatically launch cruise missiles at ANYBODY who posts a selfie.

      Maybe poison darts from drones would be more practical, on second thought.

      But I hope they're on it and have the technology ready to deploy soon.

  5. Anybody using a selfie-stick by FreeUser · · Score: 4, Funny

    Anybody using a selfie-stick should be bombed into oblivion.

    Well done US military, in cleaning up that particular corner of the gene pool.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re:Anybody using a selfie-stick by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      Anybody using a selfie-stick should be bombed into oblivion.

      I can't remember where I first heard it, but someone said that selfie sticks should due used to beat the people taking selflies.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:Anybody using a selfie-stick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      here ya go
      http://explosm.net/comics/3786/

    3. Re:Anybody using a selfie-stick by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      That wasn't where I saw it

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    4. Re:Anybody using a selfie-stick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I second all you say.

      Captcha: droplet

    5. Re:Anybody using a selfie-stick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kardashian's ass is next. But not because of social media, just because the pole is so damn long it shows up on google maps.

    6. Re:Anybody using a selfie-stick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The variable type used for geotagging isn't large enough to contain a geotag for that huge ass. Even if it did, I don't think a hundred MOABs would be able to blow the fuckin thing up!

    7. Re:Anybody using a selfie-stick by antdude · · Score: 1

      There are still many left. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    8. Re:Anybody using a selfie-stick by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Depending on their material and location used, they may also act as lightning rods, so we've got that going for us.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  6. One and done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And now, thanks to a General with loose lips, that's the last time such a lucky break will occur.

    1. Re:One and done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. At work, as soon as that first person was caught using Facebook and reprimanded, everyone else immediately stopped and never did it again. Because that's how people are.

    2. Re:One and done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. At work, as soon as that first person was caught using Facebook and reprimanded....

      In fact, the moron is now enjoying his 72 virgins.

    3. Re:One and done by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Because seeing someone reprimanded by their boss for something is exactly the same as seeing them and their boss blown up by an airstrike. And hence they warrant the exact same level of fucks given.

    4. Re:One and done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'murrican logic.

  7. Isn't the air force doing the very same thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't the air force doing the very same thing by bragging about their capabilities and ISIL's weaknesses in public? At least keep this quiet until you bomb a half dozen more of their bases.

    1. Re:Isn't the air force doing the very same thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But if the Govt keeps this under wraps how are they going to let us know that their surveillance programs work and need to be expanded further?

  8. So, anyone else see a problem here? by pla · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Has anyone else considered the potential implications of "terrorist posts geostamped selfie, gets bombed"?

    I predict we'll see "swatting" taken to a whole new level.

    1. Re:So, anyone else see a problem here? by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes. Deployed service people today are cautioned against taking pictures, especially with cell phones, for this reason.

      If you really want to, they recommend running it through public affairs(the professional photographer people) to make sure that information that can precisely locate the photo is removed.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:So, anyone else see a problem here? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Hmm, never thought of that possibility. That'll make for some interesting times, if any ISIS types read /.

      Or any TLA types, for that matter. First time it happens, he's likely to say something to the effect of "hey, guy on slashdot thought of this a month or so back"....

      Which would be...bad.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:So, anyone else see a problem here? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      That is why it took 22 hours to put bombs on target. They verified the building before blowing it up.
      The Geotag was just a clue.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    4. Re:So, anyone else see a problem here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, the only reason you'd make such a logical leap is that you're fond of taking selfies in ISIS controlled geographical regions. Is this what the kids call "cheezing" nowadays?

    5. Re:So, anyone else see a problem here? by LessThanObvious · · Score: 4, Funny

      And a new definition of photo-bombing a selfie.

    6. Re:So, anyone else see a problem here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It was a post on social media. Bombs on target in 22 hours.

      And, in a few months / years, we will read on wikileaks how the building actually housed a school full of children they bombed, and the US knew their mistake even as they crowed about the "success"..

      What a bunch of reckless fucks. The US military shouldn't be allowed slingshots, let alone missiles and bombs.

      Yeah, new ISIS plot, post selfie downtown Wasington.

    7. Re:So, anyone else see a problem here? by TWX · · Score: 1

      At least they were good enough to do some sanity-checking, in case a terrorist was attempting to manufacture an incident where a hospital or refugee center was blown up...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    8. Re:So, anyone else see a problem here? by penguinoid · · Score: 2

      "Check out our new headquarters, it's da bomb"

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    9. Re:So, anyone else see a problem here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you imagine that conversation at CIA headquarters?

      "Hey Frank, check this out. Some terrorist posted a selfie and included geo information."

      "Nah, George, it's a trap. No one can be that stupid." .... 17 hours later....

      "Well George, you were right. They really are that stupid."

      I think that's the biggest point in our favor when fighting against terrorist groups like ISIS. They really *are* that stupid.

    10. Re:So, anyone else see a problem here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you imagine that conversation at CIA headquarters?

      "Hey Frank, check this out. Some terrorist posted a selfie and included geo information."

      "Nah, George, it's a trap. No one can be that stupid." .... 17 hours later....

      "Well George, you were right. They really are that stupid."

      I think that's the biggest point in our favor when fighting against terrorist groups like ISIS. They really *are* that stupid.

      No, it's one guy that was really that stupid.
      But one is all it takes during a war.

    11. Re:So, anyone else see a problem here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "War Against Duckfaces"??

    12. Re:So, anyone else see a problem here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do you know how the us military verrifies it? they just assume that all males around the area between 14 and 75 are terrorists.

  9. Was it EXIF data? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

    I hope it was EXIF data.

    --
    Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    1. Re:Was it EXIF data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was my first thought too.

      "Takir, you turn your fucking GPS off before you start sexting that cute girl in Baghdad again. You'll kill us all, you horny bastard!"

    2. Re: Was it EXIF data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      even the rather capable vietnamese used wireless much more than was healthy for them. they figured they were attacked using magic powers.

      sigint is the diligent use of human stupid.

    3. Re:Was it EXIF data? by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      GPS on a camera is a relatively new thing. You have to have it turned on, then stand outside for it to register, sometimes for a few minutes. As long as you don't move away from your location, you are tagged.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    4. Re: Was it EXIF data? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      sigint is the diligent use of human stupid.

      SIGINT is HUMINT without needing to get out of your chair.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  10. Next time turn off geo tagging by WarJolt · · Score: 1

    You'd figure terrorists would be more concerned with privacy than the average Joe.

    1. Re:Next time turn off geo tagging by nedlohs · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, they just stand outside things they want to blow up and rather than actually having to do all the hard work just take a selfie with gps coordinated in the exif and post if to facebook with "ISIS new headquarters" at the description/title/whatever.

    2. Re:Next time turn off geo tagging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, cause the army will only use one metric when deciding if they are going to blow up said building

    3. Re:Next time turn off geo tagging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say they are terrorists, but that's not how they or their supporters see them. They are warriors of Allah, and they don't think they should be concerned with privacy, on the contrary, they want to spread the message of their action to the world to convince others to recruit more warriors or donations. Maybe this story reaches the kids in Syria so they think twice before using social media, but I doubt that because they will probably see every story as Western propaganda anyway.

    4. Re:Next time turn off geo tagging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, if you abandon those glorious western values like, oh I don't know, due process, fair trial, innocent until proven guilty, all that stuff, you can't be too bright. What do you think did they actually do? Go there?

      No, they just pointed another piece of technology like a satellite at the building and went "Hey Joe, does that look like a ISIS HQ? *squint*" "Yeah, could be *launch*"

      Americans are imperialistic dimwits leading "war" with a joystick from the comfort of their couch and misusing technology to tell them everything they should do. Compared to them, cowardly suicide bombers are brave heroes - and probably more free. So Land of the Free, Home of the Brave really seems to be a description for when a foreign terrorists actually goes to the USA.

    5. Re:Next time turn off geo tagging by Livius · · Score: 1

      Why go to the trouble to stand anywhere? They'll use Photoshop. I mean, GIMP.

  11. Darwin Award by jfdavis668 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Would this qualify for a Darwin Award?

    1. Re:Darwin Award by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on if the US air force can independently verify that what they whacked was actually a terrorist HQ.

    2. Re:Darwin Award by FreeUser · · Score: 2

      Depends on if the US air force can independently verify that what they whacked was actually a terrorist HQ.

      ... and whether or not the moron was on-premises when it was bombed. If not, you might have to wait for the beheading video before nominating him.

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  12. And... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Terrorist: "Ohh, my great mission accomplished moment!" (Snap) (Post)

    (booom)

    Well, the US military is often accused of being excellent at fighting the previous war. This one dragged out so long they've caught up in real time.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  13. allah akbar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was the guy in the selfie praying facing some direction that was revealing?

  14. This story is from Yesterday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This story is from Yesterday

    Slashdot used to be good.

  15. I know it's probably classified by now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I really want to know what the insurgent's last tweet looked like.

    1. Re:I know it's probably classified by now by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      Let's just say that he didn't need all 140 characters

    2. Re:I know it's probably classified by now by jimmifett · · Score: 1

      Look, Up in the sky, it's a bird, it's plane... it's dropping somethi

  16. Just lol, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So now you see why we need NSA snooping? If 2 airman just parusing online can get a target, imagine what automation can do!!

    I wish I had called it, but I remember some other commenter making a remark on the eves dropping bills they recently "fixed". Something along the lines of "yea, just watch, a demonstration of how "vital" snooping around is will come up this week, mark my words".

    well looks like that's what happened.

  17. Verification? by sexconker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Here I am standing in front of our TERRORIST HEADQUARTERS on a great sunny day! My fav pic this week hope u like it!

    I hope they spent at least a few of those 22 hours verifying that the place they were going to bomb was in fact the TERRORIST HEADQUARTERS.
    I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be a school, hospital, or frozen yogurt shop.

    1. Re:Verification? by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      or baby milk factory

    2. Re:Verification? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but it had sprinkles with sodium benzoate, so it's good.

    3. Re:Verification? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here I am standing in front of our TERRORIST HEADQUARTERS on a great sunny day! My fav pic this week hope u like it!

      ^^ Too bad about OP, but he wasn't really much of a part of the Slashdot community anyway.

    4. Re:Verification? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Milking babies is a horrible practice that needs to be stopped!

    5. Re:Verification? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would be a bit surprised to find any of those in an isis-controlled area, since this particular organization has the habit of slitting the throats, raping, mutilating, or burning alive any educated doctors, teachers, etc. And if you look at the original selfie with the dakha dakha wearing raybans, you can see that there's probably nothing frozen in 1000 mile radius.

    6. Re:Verification? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This probably isn't the way HQ was targeted. They probably succeeded infiltrating ISIS command and they are now trying to protect their source by making up this story.

    7. Re:Verification? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I surmise that some intelligence soldier was tasked with going through ISIS's social media postings, glanced at the photo, grabbed the battle captain's attention and said, "Sir, the bad guys just posted a photo standing in front of the building I worked in during my deployment. They say it's their new HQ! Can we do something about that?"

    8. Re:Verification? by Moof123 · · Score: 2

      My same thoughts. Expect them to use photoshop and medified EXIF data to send future bombs strategically elsewhere.

      The Brits broadcast false news about V1 and V2 rockets landing in southern London to get the German army to adjust their targeting to land them past the city and cause a lot less damage. The game is likely to continue with social media instead of broadcast radio.

    9. Re:Verification? by willworkforbeer · · Score: 1

      Baby Milk? I hope it isn't made the way they make almond milk.

      --
      Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
    10. Re:Verification? by Livius · · Score: 1

      Maybe it was the rival terrorist gang's headquarters.

    11. Re:Verification? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they did. Why do you think it took 22 hours before they dropped the bombs? It may be all cool and techno-hipster to claim that the military is run by idiots, but its not actually true. People love to revel in their mistakes, but that's only because the military cannot talk too much about its successes.

    12. Re:Verification? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nah Muchentuchen shop!!!!

    13. Re:Verification? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

      Of course not, that would be nuts.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  18. "And when he took the picture, he said..." by magusxxx · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Sock it to me?!?!!?"

    --
    Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
  19. geo-taging by mOzone · · Score: 2

    what if isis.. just takes selfie's around iraq mil sites and then uploads them or schools etc etc

    1. Re:geo-taging by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      That's what much of the 22 hour delay was for - verifying the target.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:geo-taging by mOzone · · Score: 1

      so airforce is gonna walk inside school/building or use non-existent iraq forces in areas..i like the idea but this will be exploited. soon as it is ..we will have youtube and liveleak videos with dead kids/familys from isis..airforce should have keep silent for a while

    3. Re:geo-taging by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Informative

      so airforce is gonna walk inside school/building or use non-existent iraq forces in areas..

      ???

      No, they look at satellite imagery, known maps of the area, run a drone by the place before deciding that hellfires are a touch small for this target, let's get some JDAMs in here, etc...

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    4. Re:geo-taging by mOzone · · Score: 1

      from story

      The Air Force has flown constant intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance flights over the battlefield, though the view has been muddy and "being able to identify the enemy is a challenge."

      this is a problem right now isis looks the same as iraq fighters/civilians inless in wideopen
      people coming and out of a building getting food looks just like isis makeing plans

  20. Re:america! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Fuck yeah, indeed.

    We have allowed ourselves to be caught up in tribal conflicts that have been going on for a couple of millennia; long before Islam - and framed as a Muslim problem by our media and government.

    What we in the West need to understand is that the Middle East is stuck in ancient tribal animosity. And we should back off. Sometimes, when school yard children insist on fighting, the only thing reasonable to do is let them fight it out.

    But our leaders will not let that happen because it will disrupt a strategic resource that we all still need - hint: OIL.

    Goddamn it.

  21. Anti recruiting campaign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Social media exposure is propaganda for ISIS. If they become scared of posting pictures, their recruitment numbers will drop.

    Killing a few because of photos is less effective than preventing 200 potential recruits from joining.

    Raqqa is hollywood for these guys, and the social media profiles are their movie stars.

  22. Sounds like a shoe-in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for a Darwin award.

  23. Almost as bad as the selfie ... by Ted+Stoner · · Score: 2

    was the General bragging about it. If he hadn't blabbed then they could get others with this technique in the future, at least for a while. An opportunity lost.

    1. Re:Almost as bad as the selfie ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not if your plan is to slow down ISIS on social media. perception is everything with this administration.

    2. Re:Almost as bad as the selfie ... by turp182 · · Score: 1

      This is the most important take away, but I have no karma.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
  24. 4Chan/reddit working for the government? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    4Chan and reddit seem to be pretty good at locating people from random photos. Perhaps the government can give them a job to help with this method.

    1. Re:4Chan/reddit working for the government? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      just make a post to /r/

  25. Idiots by ronmon · · Score: 1

    And I'm not just talking about the one that took and posted the picture.

    If you are exploiting an intelligence source the last thing you want to do is let on that you are doing so.

    1. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was my reaction as well. Hopefully this was "parallel construction" to take the heat off of an ACTUAL intelligence asset. If they're just spiking the football for press points then "Get A BRAIN! MORANS" seems applicable here.

    2. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      spoiler: it's fake, notice how they never showed the tweet in question. It's just propaganda so they can say: "look it's working, we're catching bad guys by looking through all your shit"

    3. Re:Idiots by halivar · · Score: 1

      Unless you want to stifle open recruitment operations.

    4. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.

      Yeah. Convenient how Ali posts his selfie just as Congress is debating metadata collection, huh?

  26. Re:america! by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

    I realize that you would not want to bring these ISIS folks home to meet your mother, but I do feel that we should still observe some formalities. Like perhaps a formal declaration of war from Congress? A budget with funding would be really nice.

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  27. Re:america! by ericdano · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but when was the last time we did that....

    http://blog.constitutioncenter...

    --
    It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
    I moderate therefore I rule!
    --
  28. it's not about oil by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    We get the oil anyway. It's about who gets to keep the money from all that oil. Wars aren't fought over hated, they're fought over money. People quickly forget when they've got a middle class life to live. Now, if we could get our govt to actually rebuild their country instead of lining rich schmucks pockets..

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:it's not about oil by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      We did try and rebuild their country. Try rebuilding their country when their own government is bound and determined to maintain the sectarian divide between Sunnis and Shiites. Try and rebuild things while the insurgents are shooting at you and setting off IEDs right and left.

      Yeah, we fucked up because we had no plan when we kicked out Saddam, but let's not pretend that it's because we didn't try and rebuild things. Even getting a few oil people rich doesn't preclude us from rebuilding things. There is plenty of money to go around, it's just being sucked up by the incompetent Iraqi government and insurgents preventing anything like peace from happening.

    2. Re:it's not about oil by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Bush tried.

      The problem was that if an underling told him something he wanted to hear (ie: "we can have a better army, that costs less money and employs fewer troops if we change strategic concepts from Firepower-focused to Maneuver Warfare," "I have incontrovertible evidence that Saddam has WMD so we can invade, and am totally not making this shit up so you'll invade for me and make me Prime Minister," or "it will be easy to get the Iraqi people to go along with whatever we want after we get rid of Saddam for them") he'd decide that particular underling was clearly the smartest guy in the room and go with whatever that guy said.

      Which is not really surprising, when you consider that his pre-political career was mostly being a mediocre MBA.

    3. Re:it's not about oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's still better than being a mediocre community organizer.

  29. Re:america! by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 2

    Yes, allowing ourselves to remain dependent on a resource that we do not have regional control over is a very dangerous proposal
    In the US we should be working diligently to reduce our long-term dependence on oil, something that we have neglected to do for the past 40 years when the first OPEC embargo demonstrated how we rely on an unstable region

    Nuclear should have been the answer with electric vehicles following soon behind
    Instead we let our fears of radioactive materials scare us into the arms of the fossil-fuels companies only to face the costs of additional wars and global warming as a result, while they dance away with their profits

    Aluminum and 'rare earths' are two that we should be keeping our eyes on for long term strategies
    Oh, yeah and water, but those warm-hearted Canadians would never hold that over our heads... would they?

    --
    Wherever You Go, There You Are
  30. Best Dox Ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I tell you I didn't order these bombs!"

    "Well that's just great. We built them. We delivered them. They worked just fine. *Somebody's* gotta pay for them!"

    "It wasn't me!"

  31. Parallel construction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'll take my +5 Insightful, thx

  32. And in a related story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Terrorist posts PhotoShop'd selfie of himself standing in the Whitehouse...

    Whitehouse bombs itself --- film at 11.

  33. Re:america! by invid · · Score: 2

    Thanks to fracking we are now one of the leading producers of oil and natural gas. We are pumping it out so fast we're running out of places to store it. Obama has the luxury of not putting boots on the ground in the Middle East because we no longer need their oil.

    --
    The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
  34. Morons are a problem by mi · · Score: 2

    see some moron standing at this command

    Morons are a problem for all. Russia — whose attitude towards accusations of being involved in Ukraine is "Our soldiers aren't there, but they will prevail" — is repeatedly embarrassed by the same kind of morons among her servicemen posting selfies and other photographs picturing them with well-recognizable landmarks and monuments inside Ukraine in the background.

    Sigh, if only Ukraine had anywhere near the punch of America's air-force...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Morons are a problem by sinij · · Score: 1

      Ukraine has only Soviet-era air force, and it is all grounded due to concentration of Russian anti-air tech. I am not even sure American's air force would do much better in the region, not unless major long-range missile bombardment effort was undertaken to suppress all that AA.

    2. Re:Morons are a problem by mi · · Score: 2

      Ukraine has only Soviet-era air force, and it is all grounded due to concentration of Russian anti-air tech

      No, they were using, what little was usable after two decades of neglect (much of it induced by Russia's infiltrators in Ukraine's military). It just was not much to begin with and there were combat losses...

      not unless major long-range missile bombardment effort was undertaken to suppress all that AA.

      The enemy's AA is not any better — and likely worse — than the Serbian army's was, when we bombed them in Kosovo... It can be done — and with minimum losses.

      Also, the enemy's AA has been reduced (if not entirely withdrawn back to Russia), when the morons shot down that unfortunate airliner a year ago. Should Ukraine suddenly grow a capable air force, Russia may give the Buks back, but it will take them time during which some juicy targets can be spectacularly destroyed...

      Finally, even those scary Buks, apparently, aren't such a menace to the real fighting planes — most of the air-losses Ukraine suffered were transport-planes and helicopters...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  35. #PhotoBomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Says it all

  36. Loose lips ... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
    ... sink ships.

    Evidently, some IS people didn't study this particular example of basic security precaution...

  37. Re:america! by mi · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    What we in the West need to understand is that the Middle East is stuck in ancient tribal animosity

    Please, explain, how the above is different from "Sandniggers aren't capable of Democracy."

    Thank you.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  38. re: Fracking. by mmell · · Score: 1

    I've been monitoring seismic activity in the North-Central Oklahoma region for about a year now. You might want to check . . . they didn't used to get multiple daily 3+ magnitude events there when I was young (admittedly, when dinosaurs roamed the earth).

  39. Re:america! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you offer up any evidence that they are capable? Or do you just get offended at something you do not like hearing?

  40. What DOES an ISIS Command Center Look Like? by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does ISIS have its own version of the Pentagon? Is this a building with eagles on it with a big ISIS flag waving over it? Do they have to worry about cutbacks and base closures?

    My impression of ISIS is a crowd-sourced and funded guerilla organization. Said "ISIS Command Center" was probably Seldom Bin Leyd's garage where he kept his beater Toyota pickup with the stack of 20+ year old RPGs in the bed. Seldom Bin Leyd naturally was spouting off online during his WOW session (erm, "training") about his "command center", and essentially got swatted with a few JDAMs.

    I think we just happened to catch one of the stupid ones. The competent guys in ISIS probably are glad this guy got wasted.

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    1. Re:What DOES an ISIS Command Center Look Like? by Alomex · · Score: 1

      ISIS is the former Saddam army and bureaucracy. They have extensive experience in running a country and derive income from oil operations and a taxation system.

    2. Re:What DOES an ISIS Command Center Look Like? by mbone · · Score: 1

      ISIS is the former Saddam army and bureaucracy. They have extensive experience in running a country and derive income from oil operations and a taxation system.

      Bingo. ISIS is most run by Baath members, to the extent I wonder if it isn't really just Baath hiding in plain sight.

    3. Re: What DOES an ISIS Command Center Look Like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah. you repeat the official line. allegedly they already reverted to hand drawn org charts and files. but that intel is from SPIEGEL, so it might be a lie by some tlas.

    4. Re:What DOES an ISIS Command Center Look Like? by Copid · · Score: 1

      I'm sure we killed 20 or 30 of their #2 guys.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    5. Re:What DOES an ISIS Command Center Look Like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seldom Bin Leyd's garage where he kept his beater Toyota pickup with the stack of 20+ year old RPGs in the bed

      One of the reasons ISIS could not be taken lightly is because they have expensive and modern equipment that was intended for the freedom fighters the US armed.

    6. Re:What DOES an ISIS Command Center Look Like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is interesting is that ISIS has started with the vestiges of Saddam's army, and weaponry, but with taking brutality to a new level, as well as forays into other countries, they win significant victories. They even have European countries recognizing them as a sovereign caliphate/nation in hopes that another Charlie Hebdo doesn't happen on that country's soil (Chamberlain tactics for the 21'st century.)

      ISIS has one weapon usable against civilized nations, and that is propaganda. This is because CNN, YouTube, and other broadcasting companies are more than happy to take any and app propaganda videos and put them up as front page news.

      Because they have a mouthpiece into every household in the US, Mexico, and Europe with news companies falling over each other to show the next beheading or the next historical relic destroyed, ISIS has won the biggest victory in the history of psy-ops. In no other time of modern history would you have seen this. In the 1980s, would ABC cover Pravda or TASS making propaganda speeches? Wouldn't happen.

    7. Re:What DOES an ISIS Command Center Look Like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >They have extensive experience in running a country and derive income from oil operations and a taxation system

      And yet we haven't seen systematic efforts to bomb oil installations and other income streams to deprive them of income. Which seems odd.

    8. Re:What DOES an ISIS Command Center Look Like? by cavreader · · Score: 1

      The oil wells and related facilities ISIS was using to raise cash were taken out shortly after the bombing campaign began.

    9. Re:What DOES an ISIS Command Center Look Like? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      stack of 20+ year old RPGs

      Maybe they really tracked an amazon purchase of dice and lead miniatures.

  41. To the U.S. gov, it has now become by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    a fun and cool thing to kill people in other countries. It's just something the U.S. gov does, and in the midst of getting used to this, the innocent people who are also getting killed by U.S. guns and bombs are conveniently forgotten, and no-one is ever held accountable.

    1. Re:To the U.S. gov, it has now become by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I checked those ISIS dudes were killing "foreigners" too, except much more brutally.

      Of course you're free to welcome them into your country since you think they're so warm and cuddly.

    2. Re:To the U.S. gov, it has now become by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

      Very true.

    3. Re:To the U.S. gov, it has now become by gweihir · · Score: 1

      So because other people murder innocents, it becomes acceptable if you do so too? There seems to be some glitch in your brain...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:To the U.S. gov, it has now become by dog77 · · Score: 1

      There is a big difference between trying to murder innocent people and accidently killing innocent people.

      Ask yourself, does it make it better to let ISIS kill even more innocent people by doing nothing?

    5. Re:To the U.S. gov, it has now become by manwargi · · Score: 1

      I think the goal post started in this thread was that callously killing innocents and pissing on other cultures makes a faction seem more monstrous and inhuman in the eyes of the spectators. In fighting the people who do that, the US needs to take care to be better than their opponents, not simply mightier.

    6. Re:To the U.S. gov, it has now become by gweihir · · Score: 1

      While true, even this is besides the point. Killing innocents it something that is morally wrong, and the reasons to not do it should not only be "it looks bad to others". That is the justification a psychopath would come up with.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  42. Re:america! by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 1

    That is a short lived resource and OPEC can always choose to produce more oil which makes it more economically feasible to stop the fracking operations like we saw earlier this year

    The sooner that we get off of fossil fuels the better

    --
    Wherever You Go, There You Are
  43. What they didn't report was by NEDHead · · Score: 1

    the JDAMs were actually delivered through the interweb tubes directly to the command center

    1. Re:What they didn't report was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead they should have just sent in Danger 5 to do this.

  44. But can it be easily forged? by ron_ivi · · Score: 2

    I imagine this could become a useful tool for them to take out their competors. Just take selfies at any target they want destroyed, and BOOM.

    1. Re:But can it be easily forged? by GNious · · Score: 1

      Alter EXIF data to show coordinates in Washington, DC?

  45. Re:america! by morgauxo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One refers to a people, the other refers to a place. Immigrants to the West from the middle east don't kill each other very often based on their ancestor's tribal conflicts.

    Children who are raised inside all that BS and never make it out... well.. a few of them will eventually act on it. And.. it doesn't take many to ruin a neighborhood.

  46. Re:america! by SpankiMonki · · Score: 1

    Like perhaps a formal declaration of war from Congress?

    That's so unlikely that the probability might as well be zero. (yes, I know you're probably aware of that)

    The reason we don't call it "war" any more is because the legislative and executive don't want to call it "war". They want to use the more politically correct term "Overseas Contingency Operations".

    ("politically correct" in this context meaning "don't upset the proles; it's better to confuse them")

  47. Swatting by morgauxo · · Score: 1

    This could be an opportunity to take swatting to a whole new level. I can just imagine gamer kidies dressing up as ISIS and taking selfies in front of their opponents houses now.

  48. Re:america! by Darinbob · · Score: 2

    Don't forget, we were still stuck in tribal animosity in the west just a few decades ago. It's not completely settled, euro-tribalism is still pretty volatile. And with the upcoming election, the American tribalism could flare up violently as well.

  49. Re:america! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

    There's a lot more oil in there than you think, and OPEC will also run out of oil eventually, maybe even around the same time

    I agree that getting off of fossil fuels is the better option all around, for pollution, global warming, and international relations sakes.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  50. Re:america! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Social Justice Warrior cunthole.

  51. Re: america! by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    Damn, aren't you just the intellectual heavyweight...

  52. If the government says it, it must be true... by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

    We'll never know why they blew up this building or if there were terrorists in it. They are probably announcing it as an alibi for a crime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  53. Communications Discipline by mbone · · Score: 1

    They must skip the lessons on communications discipline in the ISIS evil genius training course. Of course, it sounds like Gen. Hawk Carlisle was asleep that day as well.

    On the other hand, knowing something of the Middle East, it's probably a triple head-fake of some sort. The selfie was probably taken in front of the house of a local CIA operative whose cover was blown, as an act of combat swatting by ISIS, the 22 hours was the time required for us to get him out of there to safety, and Gen. Carlisle is just spreading disinformation to hide that we figured it out.

  54. Re:america! by mi · · Score: 1

    Can you offer up any evidence that they are capable?

    Is this your way of saying, there is, indeed, no difference — in your opinion?

    Or do you just get offended

    I said nothing about my own feelings or opinions on the subject. Let's not get side-tracked.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  55. Re: america! by mi · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, I did not mean to make it so painfully obvious for your kind. Really insensitive of me towards all of the good folks, who are challenged in this regard.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  56. Re:america! by Whiteox · · Score: 3, Informative

    caught up in tribal conflicts that have been going on for a couple of millennia; long before Islam

    Almost. The current war are by 2 factions of muslims battling with each other right now. It is not solely for wealth but more for spiritual right of one faction over another*. Fortunately for the West, these internal battles has been going on for about 1400 years. So those tribal conflicts you speak of were settled long before Islam. That is Persia vs the rest of the world, later, Byzantine (Eastern Roman Empire) vs barbarian hordes etc.
    Iran is old Persia that followed the teachings of Zoaroster, the Zoarostrian church was driven out by the muslims. The people of Iran are not arabic but Indian in origin. They are however muslim presently and are relatively stable. Turkey is muslim, but they have a secular government by choice and is stable. Saudi Arabia is run by a monarchy and is stable.
    So the reason for why ISIS is going on about a Caliphate across geopolitical boundaries is for religion. They want to change the borders. That's why it's a mess. USA coalition tends to deal with political nations and not sweeping across border movements. ISIS's goal is unlikely as pretty much everyone is moving to secular forms of government. When it's all over, they will have 2 choices. Turn into a North Korea or elect ministers to deal with the rest of the world.

    * Roman Catholic vs Lutheran for example.

    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  57. Or pharmaceutical factory? by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

    The US government tells tales. I'm sure they are announcing this as the alibi for a crime. Just like Al-Shifa was supposedly making weapons, and they never really provided much evidence for that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  58. Now you should understand by clovis · · Score: 1

    Things like this is why I usually post as AC.

    1. Re:Now you should understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shit dude, you forgot to select "Post Anonymously" check box.
      Your location is compromised, get out!

    2. Re:Now you should understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shit dude, you forgot to select "Post Anonymously" check box.
      Your location is compromised, get out!

      Anyone want to buy a newly available 4-digit ID?

  59. Or they're lying by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 2

    I see no reason to believe the Air Force is telling the truth about this.

    1. Re:Or they're lying by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      I see no reason to believe the US military is telling the truth about anything, ever.

      Can't think of many entities I would trust less.

  60. Finally, the invention I've been looking for. by Whillowhim · · Score: 1

    Interesting. It looks like the US military has not only invented, but also improved on the technology needed to stab someone in the face over the internet. This will be a boon for reasonable internet discussions everywhere!
    http://bash.org/?4281

  61. Earthquakes... by tlambert · · Score: 1

    I've been monitoring seismic activity in the North-Central Oklahoma region for about a year now. You might want to check . . . they didn't used to get multiple daily 3+ magnitude events there when I was young (admittedly, when dinosaurs roamed the earth).

    They're "3+" because we've gone to using the Moment Magnitude Scale in the 1970's, in place of the Richter Scale.

    They wouldn't be anywhere near "3+" on the Richter Scale. For that matter, it's somewhat stupid to compare numbers in data before the 970's with data after the 1970's.

    But hey, more jobs for geophysicists = a good thing!

    1. Re: Earthquakes... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      You miss the point; earthquakes were virtually unheard of in Oklahoma until fracking.

    2. Re: Earthquakes... by tlambert · · Score: 2

      You miss the point; earthquakes were virtually unheard of in Oklahoma until fracking.

      You miss the point: they weren't "unheard of" because they didn't happen (check the USGS historical records); they were "unheard of" because they largely went unremarked and unreported, because the numbers were not "scary large" enough to be newsworthy on a slow day, and because they didn't have a controversial issue, like fracking, to hang them on as an advocacy/controversy tactic.

  62. Solar power is a fossil fuel by tlambert · · Score: 1

    Solar power is a fossil fuel: it's made from fossil sunlight, which is 9 minutes old.

    1. Re:Solar power is a fossil fuel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solar power is a fossil fuel: it's made from fossil sunlight, which is 9 minutes old.

      Conversely, petroleum is solar power: its energy came from sunlight 100K years ago.

    2. Re:Solar power is a fossil fuel by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 1

      Petroleum and coal is fossilized carbon from ages when microbes did not exist to break down the dead vegetation
      Burning is effectively releases tens of millions of years of stored carbon in the form of CO2

      --
      Wherever You Go, There You Are
    3. Re: Solar power is a fossil fuel by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      But but but abiotic oil (the Russians believe in it)! :p

  63. "Honor Violence"/"Honor Killings" by tlambert · · Score: 3, Informative

    One refers to a people, the other refers to a place. Immigrants to the West from the middle east don't kill each other very often based on their ancestor's tribal conflicts.

    The original posting in this thread was rather badly put, but some interesting ideas have come up in the context of replies in the aftermath of that posting.

    "Honor Violence"/"Honor Killings": thousands of women and young girls in the U.S. each year.

    The immigrants tend to bring their culture with them, and since we've gone from the "melting pot" mentality to the "multicultural" mentality, with its enclaves, things have only gotten worse over recent years:

    http://www.theahafoundation.or...

    But, you know, feel free to believe it's an effect of radicalizing radiation that comes from a particular region, and that once people are removed from the region, it magically stops.

  64. George Carlin: I don't believe anything the govern by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 2

    George Carlin weighed in on such issues, "I don't believe anything the government tells me." https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    This is a really cute story about why they blew up some building in another country. Oh, and it's a completely unverifiable story, too. It's kind of like when Clinton blew up that pharmaceutical factory. There was never really any evidence it was producing chemical weapons. But it was a good story to tell. It sounds better than "we caused ten of thousands of Sudanese to die, in a terrorist retaliation for the embassy bombings." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

  65. Re:america! by mi · · Score: 1

    One refers to a people, the other refers to a place.

    Ah, so it is the place! I see. Would it be fair to develop your argument into something like "North America is exceptionally conductive towards Democracy"?..

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  66. Re:america! by tlambert · · Score: 2

    I realize that you would not want to bring these ISIS folks home to meet your mother, but I do feel that we should still observe some formalities. Like perhaps a formal declaration of war from Congress? A budget with funding would be really nice.

    The way formal declarations of war work is that you have to declare against nation-states.

    This is why "the war on " is so stupid, apart from the fact that you can never declare victory, because you can't establish victory conditions. Take "the war on poverty": OK, poverty surrenders. What are your terms and plans for the conquered lands of poverty going forward?

    ISIS is a difficult problem in the same way: despite being regionally located, they are not a politically recognized nation-state, nor are they likely to be in the future, and they are not done with their attempts to conquer territory, so you really can't establish fixed borders inside which you should bomb, and so on.

    The ISIS military actions must therefor most resemble what we have already done in Afghanistan, Iraq, and so forth: they are in fact "police actions", as loathe as we are to use that terminology due to the police action that we are now calling, retroactively, "The Vietnam War" (without having had a formal declaration of war there, either).

  67. Killing the dumb ones makes them stronger by gweihir · · Score: 1

    But that may exactly be what US policies are targeted at. After all, an external enemy is incredibly useful to politicians that cannot solve the problems at home...

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  68. Re:america! by Tokolosh · · Score: 2

    The nation-state is a fairly recent invention. How were wars declared previously? Here is a nice example:

    "Declaration of War
    Barbary Pirates, February 6, 1802

    An Act for the Protection of the Commerce and Seamen of the United States, Against the Tripolitan Cruisers.

    WHEREAS the regency of Tripoli, on the coast of Barbary, has commenced a predatory warfare against the United States:

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, that it shall be lawful fully to equip, officer, man, and employ such of the armed vessels of the United States as may be judged requisite by the President of the United States, for protecting effectually the commerce and seamen thereof on the Atlantic ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas.

    SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to instruct the commanders of the respective public vessels aforesaid, to subdue, seize and make prize of all vessels, goods and effects, belonging to the Bey of Tripoli, or to his subjects, and to bring or send the same into port, to be proceeded against, and distributed according to law; and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify, and may, in his opinion, require.

    SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That on the application of the owners of private armed vessels of the United States, the President of the United States may grant to them special commissions, in the form which he shall direct, under the seal of the United States; and such private armed vessels, when so commissioned, shall have the like authority for subduing, seizing, taking, and bringing into port, any Tripolitan vessel, goods or effects, as the before-mentioned public armed vessels may by law have; and shall therein be subject to the instructions which may be given by the President of the United States for the regulation of their conduct; and their commissions shall be revocable at his pleasure. Provided, that before any commission shall be granted, as aforesaid, the owner or owners of the vessel for which the same may be requested, and the commander thereof, for the time being, shall give bond to the United States, with at least two responsible sureties, not interested in such vessel, in the penal sum of seven thousand dollars; or, if such vessel be provided with more than one hundred and fifty men, in the penal sum of fourteen thousand dollars, with condition for observing the treaties and laws of the United States, and the instructions which may be given, as aforesaid; and also, for satisfying all damages and injuries which shall be done, contrary to the tenor thereof, by such commissioned vessel; and for delivering up the commission, when revoked by the President of the United States.

    SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That any Tripolitan vessel, goods or effects, which shall be so captured and brought into port by any private armed vessel of the United States, duly commissioned, as aforesaid, may be adjudged good prize, and thereupon shall accrue to the owners and officers, and men of the capturing vessel, and shall be distributed according to the agreement which shall have been made between them, or, in failure of such agreement, according to the discretion of the court having cognizance of the capture.

    SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That the seamen may be engaged to serve in the navy of the United States for a period not exceeding two years; but the President may discharge the same sooner, if in his judgment, their services may be dispensed with.

    APPROVED, February 6, 1802.

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  69. Re:america! by SpankiMonki · · Score: 2

    What we in the West need to understand is that the Middle East is stuck in ancient tribal animosity

    Please, explain, how the above is different from "Sandniggers aren't capable of Democracy."

    Thank you.

    IMO, the only difference is your substitution of "tribal" with the term "Sandniggers". (strange that you capitalized the S)

    The GP's comment has merit, yours only proves your ignorance.

  70. Re:George Carlin: I don't believe anything the gov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    George Carlin weighed in on such issues, "I don't believe anything the government tells me." https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    I once saw a bumper sticker: "Don't believe anything until it has been officially denied".

  71. Re:america! by Copid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Please, explain, how the above is different from "Sandniggers aren't capable of Democracy."

    Describing the current an past state of affairs isn't the same thing as taking a position on what those populations are capable of. It's really just stating the current state of affairs. I personally think that they're just as capable of democracy as anybody else, but I don't really take issue with the GP's description.

    The fact is, democracy is hard. We seem to make the mistake of assuming that freedom and democracy are the natural state of things and if we just bang on something with a stick hard enough, it will settle into that natural state. In reality, democracy usually requires the guy with the most guns to say, "I could be a dictator, enjoy absolute power, and take vengeance on all of the other populations who ever did me and mine wrong, but I won't. You guys go ahead and decide who will run things and I'll go with it." That's not an easy outcome. It takes a pretty difficult alignment of circumstances to get it started. Tribal war over whose turn it is to hold the whip is the natural state of things, and we're naive to think otherwise.

    --
    An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  72. That's not what you say it is. by tlambert · · Score: 1

    That's not what you say it is.

    If it's a declaration of war, it's one against the nation state of Tripoli.

    What it really is doing is a blanket grant of letters of marque:

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

  73. I love it whe this happens by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    " It's also possible that U.S. intelligence could have actively engaged with the original poster in order to draw out information."

    Probably using the standard police technique of posing as a small boy.

  74. Re:america! by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

    What we in the West need to understand is that the Middle East is stuck in ancient tribal animosity

    Please, explain, how the above is different from "Sandniggers aren't capable of Democracy."

    Thank you.

    The people in different regions evolved with different evolutionary pressures. This leads to different groups having different temperaments and values. Which in turns determines their culture. Not all groups have the temperaments or cultures suitable for Western-style democracy, it seems to me. And the American model is not necessarily the best in the world. The Chinese have a very different system which is extremely successful at improving their standard of living.

    Also - there's no need to use a racial epithet, which conflates the realization that different groups are in fact different with racism. The temperament and values of one group are not necessarily the same as another group. I don't think there's anything wrong or controversial about this. It's just reality.

  75. Re:america! by khallow · · Score: 1

    I agree that getting off of fossil fuels is the better option all around, for pollution, global warming, and international relations sakes.

    I don't agree, mostly because you ignore the camel in the tent, the enormous economic benefit of oil for everyone involved.

  76. Re:america! by khallow · · Score: 1

    strange that you capitalized the S

    Not at all. It's the beginning of a sentence. Capitalizing "Democracy" is the weird thing.

    The GP's comment has merit, yours only proves your ignorance.

    Sure, it does. Europe used to be trapped in ancient tribal animosities too. They changed for the better.

  77. i doubt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this story is even real.

  78. Re:america! by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 1

    Fossil fuels have certainly powered our advancement into a complex industrial society
    However, staying on them to the point that it alters the climate that we depend on is not beneficial
    We need to get off of the teat so to speak and step up to sources of power that have less negative impact on ourselves

    --
    Wherever You Go, There You Are
  79. Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well duh! One metric ton of explosives is all you need! Why do you like wasting taxpayer money?

  80. Re:George Carlin: I don't believe anything the gov by Livius · · Score: 1

    ... and decimated an entire country's agricultural industry, since it was the place that made all the veterinary medicine.

  81. Re:america! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... doesn't take many to ruin a neighborhood.

    True: A crime gang can move into the neighbourhood, or a corporation that doesn't follow public health and safety rules. There was a Slashdot thread last week about US social policies increasing the spread of crime gangs.

    By the way, how often is gay marriage, birth control, the theory of evolution, or sex education, ostracized or vilified in the US? Just because religious devotees aren't murdering one another doesn't mean the USA is free from theocratic policies.

  82. Re:america! by Gryle · · Score: 2

    IANAL but to my understanding a Congressional Declaration of War* can only be made on nation-states. As such, a formal declaration of war on ISIS would mean we recognize them as a legitimate government, something ISIS with its caliphate mentality craves very much.

    *An actual war, not rhetorical wars such as "war or drugs"

    --
    Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
  83. Re:america! by khallow · · Score: 1

    Fossil fuels have certainly powered our advancement into a complex industrial society
    However, staying on them to the point that it alters the climate that we depend on is not beneficial

    Is not as beneficial. You've already established that there is benefit. Now, there is cost as well. Your inability to do cost/benefit analysis is not my emergency.

    We need to get off of the teat so to speak and step up to sources of power that have less negative impact on ourselves

    We have not established that such power sources exist.

  84. Orwellian parallel by seoras · · Score: 1

    This disturbs me as it reminds me of Orwell's 1984.
    The video screening of people being bombed, or shot, and the audience laughing.
    That's the reaction they want, they want us to laugh at them killing other humans.
    Don't, it's nothing to laugh at. You're only dehumanising yourself.

  85. Re:america! by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 1

    President Carter moved the US away from using breeder reactor technology because the US had an abundant supply of coal

    This reflected a failure to recognize the need to sequester the carbon from the CO2 emissions, which made coal power seem to cost less than nuclear

    The continued failure to recognize the true cost of coal, as well as any fossil fuel, is the only reason that business has not supported nuclear power

    If we recognize the true costs of fossil fuels, nuclear power becomes the clear winner, at least for the next 100 years during which we can develop power sources with even less impact

    We cannot afford the impact to climate that another 100 years of fossil fuel use would cause

    --
    Wherever You Go, There You Are
  86. Re:america! by SpankiMonki · · Score: 1

    strange that you capitalized the S

    Not at all. It's the beginning of a sentence. Capitalizing "Democracy" is the weird thing.

    Thanks for being pedantic. I will give your subsequent comments the weight they deserve.

    Sure, it does.

    Are you saying that mi's comment has merit? Or are you saying mi's comment is ignorant? I don't think it can be both. Do you need to re-read the conversation?

    Europe used to be trapped in ancient tribal animosities too. They changed for the better.

    Could it be that they changed for the better because they didn't have invading forces fucking with them for generations?

  87. Do you really believe the guy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would an Air Force General ever reveal this information during the campaign? He is no better than Snowden /S

  88. Re: america! by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    Effective sarcasm requires a better command of the language than that...

  89. Re: america! by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    You haven't met my mother.

  90. lot of hit and runs a possible future there. by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    As most of the time those on the ground are always watching the sky. Not a good way to live ones life. Allah be praised, and make it painless..

  91. You are using the wrong word. by tlambert · · Score: 4, Insightful

    racist

    I'm a cultural imperialist. I really don't *care* what race the person is who is following Islam.

    And no, I'm not apologetic about it, because I don't see it as a bad thing.

    While there may be some good in a culture that practices female genital mutilation, gives 100 lashes -- followed by stoning to death -- women for having been raped (zina), assigns the death penalty for people who convert from Islam to another religion (apostasy), cuts off hands and/or feet for theft (a hudud crime in sharia), believe in "an eye for an eye" (Qisas) or a bribe (Diyya) in the event of property damage, injury, or murder... I'm of the opinion that the bad outweighs the good.

    And yes, I believe women should be allowed to learn to read.

    Heck, the Sunni's can't even *agree* on all aspect of Sharia -- there are four major schools: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali, and a bunch of minor ones) -- and just try to get them to agree with the Shia -- major branch is Jafari, but also a lot of minor ones.

    Getting rid of most of this crap is just good sense.

    P.S.: I'm pretty sure I'm more knowledgeable on this topic than you are, with your one word response ad hominem attack on me to try to damage the credibility of what I said in my previous posting.

    P.P.S.: In case you do not know Latin, which you probably don't, that means "to the person", and it's a logical fallacy, so your attack is pretty meaningless, even if I just proved you're an idiot who can't tell a racist from a cultural imperialist.

  92. Re:america! by khallow · · Score: 1

    Could it be that they changed for the better because they didn't have invading forces fucking with them for generations?

    Do you really have to ask that question when history demonstrates many invasions up to living memory?

  93. Re:america! by khallow · · Score: 1

    This reflected a failure to recognize the need to sequester the carbon from the CO2 emissions, which made coal power seem to cost less than nuclear

    How much of a need?

    If we recognize the true costs of fossil fuels, nuclear power becomes the clear winner, at least for the next 100 years during which we can develop power sources with even less impact

    Unless of course, you take into account the true cost of nuclear.

    We cannot afford the impact to climate that another 100 years of fossil fuel use would cause

    Of course we can. And that's not even counting that no one has demonstrated that there will be a significant cost to fossil fuel use over the next century.

  94. bomb first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do they know it was really the command center?

  95. What I don't understand is... by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

    ... how the government gets upset at Snowden and Wikileaks for giving away information that is supposed to be critical to our national security, and then goes and brags about the operational details of the Bin Ladin raid and their social networking surveillance based attacks.

    Do as I say, not as I do?

  96. Just had a depressing vision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They get the idea to repeat this, except next time, they intentionally mislead us into blowing up a building full of little kids or old people or something, à la Demolition Man.

    If I thought of it, they probably already thought of it. This was a one trick pony, and the pony used up his trick.

  97. Re:america! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What we in the West need to understand is that the Middle East is stuck in ancient tribal animosity. And we should back off.

    You're likely young, so you might not be aware that backing off is what allowed ISIS to grow unchecked. Backing off is what allowed Bin Laden to grow an organization that killed thousands in hours. If a man starts to break up a fight between to dogs, how does he back off? You have to knock the wind out of both dogs and tie them up. Take control and keep control. Use Germany and Japan's reformations as examples.

  98. ISIS and Karma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It really does work! So, keep sending those selfie posts from ISIS Heaq Quarters!

  99. Re:america! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

    I'd say losing 10-20 feet (in depth) of land is a significant cost. Or perhaps you don't believe all the 100s of thousands of cu miles of ice is melting? Of course I already bought some of the slope at 20-30 feet. I might as well profit if you continue your polluting ways.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  100. Re:america! by SpankiMonki · · Score: 1

    Could it be that they changed for the better because they didn't have invading forces fucking with them for generations?

    Do you really have to ask that question when history demonstrates many invasions up to living memory?

    Really? When was the last time the Europe we know today was invaded by outside forces? To me, the Allied invasions of the world wars don't qualify because those were actions of liberation. Even if you want to include the Allied invasions, when was the last time an external armed force entered Europe before WWI?

    Europe used to be trapped in ancient tribal animosities too. They changed for the better.

    Only since WWII.

  101. Re:america! by khallow · · Score: 1

    When was the last time the Europe we know today was invaded by outside forces?

    In 1944, when it was invaded by the combined might of Russia, the US, India, Australia, and New Zealand.

    Even if you want to include the Allied invasions

    LOL. I sure do want to include the Allied invasions.

    Only since WWII.

    Why are you even making noises here? You lost your own argument.

  102. Re:america! by khallow · · Score: 1

    I'd say losing 10-20 feet (in depth) of land is a significant cost.

    Keep in mind that the current rate of loss is less than a foot a century! Where's the evidence that this will change?

    Of course I already bought some of the slope at 20-30 feet. I might as well profit if you continue your polluting ways.

    Go for it! This is a great power of markets that people tend to be ignorant of. It can reward people who are right about the future.

  103. Re: america! by kenh · · Score: 1

    European nations battled each other for centuries.

    At the time of the U.S. Revolution, France and England were fighting each other, for example.

    Remember when the Romans wandered up out of Italy and made their way up to many European countries?

    The Europeans found a way to co-exist (for the most part, as demonstrated by the European Union - imagine the EU existing 100 years ago, around the time of WW 1...).

    --
    Ken
  104. Re: america! by kenh · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but when was the last time we did that....

    I believe that was under the previous administration - the current one seems very, very fond of continuing resolutions (as opposed to annual budgets) and would rather call the enemy 'JV Team' and leave them untold billions in armaments after our speedy withdrawal for political purposes (instead of declaring a war).

    --
    Ken
  105. Re:america! by dotancohen · · Score: 1

    ISIS's goal is unlikely as pretty much everyone is moving to secular forms of government.

    That would be nice to believe, but many states are removing their Western-backed secular governments and exchanging them for religious governments (who then often wage war against the other-religion neighbors). Just look at Turkey, Hamas, or Iran. Egypt is an interesting case that seems to support your statement, but Morsi definitely countered it and Sisi is perpetually two days away from loosing his government too.

    The truth is that Iraq has never been homogenous, Anbar (Ramadi) is Sunni and the only thing tying it to the rest of mostly-Shia Iraq was the Sunni dictator who enjoyed ruling over Shias. With him gone, it was obvious that Anbar would break away, either by itself (unlikely), in conference with Sunni Jordan to the West (very unlikely so long as the wise Hussein remains in power), or in conference with Sunni Syria to the North (very unlikely so long as the brutal Allawite Assad remains in power, oops).

    The only question was when Anbar would break away, and who would rule it. I'm actually surprised that it took this long, and I'll add another nail to the cofffin while we're at it. Two weeks ago, after the fall of Ramadi, the Iraqi army brought in a bunch of _Shia_ militias to retake (Sunni) Ramadi, even though Sunni militias in the area were asking at the time for arms from the government. And who is training the militias? Shia Hezboallah! The Sunni tribes pledged allegiance to the Sunni state (ISIL) just last week. Who would have expected anything else? Anbar is _lost_ on Iraq, no matter if it goes to ISIL or becomes another [kurdi|hamas|foobar]stan without a government.

    Back to the central topic: religion unites people with their immediate neighbours _and_ divides people from their neighbouring states. Wise rulers know this and use it, that is why you will continue to see religious governments. If you think that the US is not a Christian nation, then I invite you to try to lead an April life in late December in the US. Or proudly walk around "looking like an Arab" in the US.

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  106. Re:america! by SpankiMonki · · Score: 1

    Why are you even making noises here? You lost your own argument

    Why? Because you said so? Apparently you forgot your own statement:

    Do you really have to ask that question when history demonstrates many invasions up to living memory?

    You've mentioned one invasion. If you want to include WWI, that would be two invasions. But I guess you have different definition of the word "many" than I do.

    Europe used to be trapped in ancient tribal animosities too. They changed for the better.

    The fact is, Europe did nothing but fight amongst itself for centuries. It wasn't until the "invasion" to end German aggression that Europe changed. And they didn't do it on their own; "changing for the better" was imposed upon them.

    So no, it isn't just "sandniggers" who are incapable of democracy.

  107. Re:america! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

    I'd say losing 10-20 feet (in depth) of land is a significant cost.

    Keep in mind that the current rate of loss is less than a foot a century! Where's the evidence that this will change?

    Some Evidence:

    West Antartic ice sheet

    You don't have to look to far for other evidence either. Yes, I know the timeline there - 100 years minimum, there was another article that predicts a 5 year timeframe for the collapse of a different shelf, which was not predicted to melt for many decades. Basically they're all guessing at the rate, and sometimes apparently even the most pessimistic are far too optimistic.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  108. Re:america! by Whiteox · · Score: 1

    Interesting take on the issues. I think you are right in the short term. The same mercenaries have been employed by opposing governments a few times throughout history. It may not be money paid though but probably support for the factions at a later date. A lot of those borders were drawn up by the British, initially in the 1920s after the weakening of the Ottoman Empire and finalised by the partition of Palestine after WWII.
    I'm not sure if we a seeing the unification of the Middle East meaning the movement to too big to control by external intervention. If there comes a realisation of this by the West, then there should be some dialogue perhaps. There just not enough information available in my mind to predict any conclusion about this.
    If the ex-Bathist gain control of Iran then maybe things will settle down, but there is still Assad to deal with and Kurdistan. This isn't a race to capture the flag but a growing movement driven by frustration.
    Maybe 'secular' is the wrong word as it implies a state run by a Western democracy or at least elected officials. I can see that 'Bathistan' will be run by a government of administrators and not necessarily a religious hierarchy.

    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  109. DarinBob = "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject "Forrest" & this -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

  110. DarinBob = "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject "Forrest" & this -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

  111. Re:america! by khallow · · Score: 1

    Do you really have to ask that question when history demonstrates many invasions up to living memory?

    You've mentioned one invasion. If you want to include WWI, that would be two invasions. But I guess you have different definition of the word "many" than I do.

    "Many invasions" includes the Mongols and the Ottomans, for example. I didn't say many invasions in living memory.

  112. Re:america! by SpankiMonki · · Score: 1

    Look, *you* are the one holding up Europe as some kind of shining example of how a people can change for the better (as opposed to "sandniggers" who can't).

    The reality is that the only period of any length where Europeans weren't fighting amongst themselves has been after WWII, and it wasn't because Europe magically changed for the better of its own accord.

  113. Re:america! by khallow · · Score: 1

    Look, *you* are the one holding up Europe as some kind of shining example of how a people can change for the better (as opposed to "sandniggers" who can't).

    The reality is that the only period of any length where Europeans weren't fighting amongst themselves has been after WWII, and it wasn't because Europe magically changed for the better of its own accord.

    Quite a change from what you wrote earlier. Keep in mind what I said:

    Europe used to be trapped in ancient tribal animosities too. They changed for the better.

    So yes, Europe used to fight amongst themselves and now they don't.We pretty much have the same situation as before. Even the Arab Spring is very similar to the European revolutions of 1848.

  114. Re:america! by SpankiMonki · · Score: 1

    Quite a change from what you wrote earlier.

    I believe that's the second time I've made that point, and I don't think I've changed my position on anything during this exchange.

    Keep in mind what I said:

    Europe used to be trapped in ancient tribal animosities too. They changed for the better.

    So yes, Europe used to fight amongst themselves and now they don't.We pretty much have the same situation as before.

    We pretty much have the same situatuion as before? Talk about making noise. For the third time: Europe stopped fighting amongst themselves because stability was forced upon them. You seem to think that somehow makes Europe superior to countries in the Middle East - which was the very first claim you made in this thread.

    Sorry, that argument just doesn't hold water. I've pointed this out to you multiple times, and you continue to sidestep the issue with bullshit about the Arab Spring and European revolutions.

    BTW, the Mongols and the Moors were ejected from Europe around 1300, and the Ottomans never really made it past the Balkans. This left the bulk of Europe invasion free for centuries.

  115. Re:america! by khallow · · Score: 1

    You seem to think that somehow makes Europe superior to countries in the Middle East - which was the very first claim you made in this thread.

    That's not my argument or implication. Instead, I merely point out a situation where Middle East conditions held, and now they're mostly democracies. I don't care how those conditions for democracy came about, though I think it should be obvious that one can't force free people to stay as a democracy.

    BTW, the Mongols and the Moors were ejected from Europe around 1300, and the Ottomans never really made it past the Balkans. This left the bulk of Europe invasion free for centuries.

    Except from each other, of course. Else I could just argue that only invasions from outside of Earth should count as external invasions of the Middle East.

  116. Re:america! by SpankiMonki · · Score: 1

    Except from each other, of course. Else I could just argue that only invasions from outside of Earth should count as external invasions of the Middle East.

    Wow. I think you've just given me a much better understanding of where you're coming from. Thanks for clearing things up for me.

    Cheers!

  117. Re:america! by khallow · · Score: 1

    Sure, you have. My point here is that it's just not that bright to assume that internal invasions of parties by other parties in an arbitrarily defined region are somehow more likely to result in democracy than invasions originating from outside of the arbitrary region.

  118. Re: america! by mi · · Score: 1

    Effective sarcasm requires a better command of the language than that...

    Oh, I think it was phrased perfectly fine. And even if it was not, it certainly proved to be quite effective regardless.

    Now, if you want to criticize my command of English, let's see, whether you can stand perpendicular on that ground yourself. Oh, but you can't: you aren't even clear on where to use "the" vs. "a"!..

    And that's despite — a fair guess here — English being the first and only language for you ("una cerveza por favor" does not count), whereas for me it is the third. Celebrate diversity.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.