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.
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.
Geotags
To stop using Facebook and other "social" media...
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
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
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.
I hope it was EXIF data.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
You'd figure terrorists would be more concerned with privacy than the average Joe.
Would this qualify for a Darwin Award?
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.
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.
Let's just say that he didn't need all 140 characters
Look, Up in the sky, it's a bird, it's plane... it's dropping somethi
"Sock it to me?!?!!?"
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
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.
what if isis.. just takes selfie's around iraq mil sites and then uploads them or schools etc etc
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"?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
--
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/
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
I'll take my +5 Insightful, thx
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
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.
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.
Evidently, some IS people didn't study this particular example of basic security precaution...
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).
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.
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!
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.
I think this is pretty spot-on. also, it would be funny if everything came down to a geotagged selfie.
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
just make a post to /r/
Good: More and faster.
Bad: Mouthing off about how we did it, so ISIS won't make the same mistake again.
the JDAMs were actually delivered through the interweb tubes directly to the command center
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.
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.
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")
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.
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.
They should have at least "liked" the picture before bombing the building.
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?
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.
Damn, aren't you just the intellectual heavyweight...
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/...
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
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.
Is this your way of saying, there is, indeed, no difference — in your opinion?
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.
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.
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!
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/...
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Things like this is why I usually post as AC.
I see no reason to believe the Air Force is telling the truth about this.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
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
"More and faster."
Yes! Kill all those selfie-ing motherfuckers, everywhere!
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!
Solar power is a fossil fuel: it's made from fossil sunlight, which is 9 minutes old.
But oh it's too late, you outed their secret! Unless it was intentionally misleading!
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.
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.
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...
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
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.
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).
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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"
I think we should bomb anybody who takes a "selfie".
And we should torture the person who came up with that word.
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.
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...
" 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.
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.
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.
So... A member of ISIS took a selfie, and Uncle Sam... PHOTOMBED him!
FT MF W!
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.
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
... and decimated an entire country's agricultural industry, since it was the place that made all the veterinary medicine.
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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...
Effective sarcasm requires a better command of the language than that...
You haven't met my mother.
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..
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.
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?
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.
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.
... 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?
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.
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.
And people who commit acts of vertical video too, just to be sure.
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.
That would be irresponsible, bloodthirsty, and immoral. Both of you.
Still worth it, tenfold. When can you start?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.