Slashdot Mirror


Russia Is Attacking US Forces With Electronic Weapons In Syria, General Says (yahoo.com)

john of sparta shares a report from Yahoo: American forces in Syria are increasingly facing attacks from Russian and Syrian electronic warfare weapons, as Moscow uses the conflict to test its future arsenal. General Raymond Thomas, head of the U.S. Special Operations Command, said that Syria has become "the most aggressive electronic warfare environment on the planet," Breakingdefense.com reported. Speaking at a geospatial intelligence conference in Florida, Gen. Thomas said that Russian and Syrian regime forces "are testing us everyday, knocking our communications down, disabling our [EC-130 aircraft]."

The Lockheed Martin EC-130 Compass Call is one of America's most advanced electronic warfare weapons. Based on the C-130 Hercules, the plane was developed to disrupt enemy communications, radar and command operations. The craft's presence in Syrian skies gives Russia the chance to test its weapons against the best the U.S. has to offer, whether directly or through its Syrian allies. Earlier this month, four anonymous officials told NBC News that Russia has also been regularly targeting smaller U.S. surveillance drones. One of those quoted said Russian operations were having a significant impact on U.S. capabilities. The sophisticated attacks were even successful against encrypted signals and anti-jamming devices, the official said.
Slashdot reader john of sparta adds, "Well, it's war; not a surprise..."

83 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. Re:What, how could this be? by gavron · · Score: 2

    Well now, they're also jamming ENCRYPTED communication!
    That doesn't just piss off Trump... it also pisses off all the sex traffickers that weren't on backpage.

    Seriously, sometimes the press releases the military puts out are so stupid.

    "We had a really good supply caravan. With hidden stuff under blankets. And then the Russians blew it all up,
    even the stuff under blankets!!!!!"

    Encryption is of no value when the underlying medium is sufficiently attacked.

    E

  2. Not only there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ""are testing us everyday, knocking our communications down,"

    They also knocked a moron as president down your throats.

    1. Re: Not only there by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That was in 2008. Get with the times. Those years are over.

    2. Re: Not only there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He's referring to Hillary being knocked out of the election she tried to steal.

    3. Re:Not only there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Your map says it all: Look at all that red! It's commies, commies I tell you. They've taken over all those counties, and are on the way to impurify our precious bodily fluids!

    4. Re:Not only there by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      ""are testing us everyday, knocking our communications down,"

      They also knocked a moron as president down your throats.

      Ah, if only we had more "moron" presidents. Reagan, Trump ...

      I've been around long enough to recognize domestic propaganda too.

    5. Re: Not only there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      The whole Trump Russia connection a tired democrat narrative. Only a moron would believe this shit at this point.

    6. Re: Not only there by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Just curious - in your worldview how do you reconcile the âoeTrump is a Russian stoogeâ fantasy narrative with the âoeRussia is fighting us in proxy warsâ reality?

    7. Re: Not only there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      She didn't try to steal it, she bought it fair and square!

    8. Re:Not only there by FudRucker · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      and all the big blue spots are centered over sanctuary cities where illegals are allowed to vote, but those sanctuary cities forget that illegal aliens dont qualify to vote in a federal election, maybe the electoral college ignored a lot of votes from blue areas that could not be verified

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    9. Re:Not only there by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "This narrative that Russia got him elected.. take a look at this map of voting by county i"

      Thanks for the link, I got confirmation that the morons in this country live exactly where I thought they would.

    10. Re: Not only there by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      It sucks when you pay for something and then due to unforeseen circumstances you cannot take delivery.

    11. Re: Not only there by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Russia tries to control both sides of any situation they are involved in. That way, even if it doesn't make any sense, they are still in control.

      How conviniently unfalsifiable a statement.

      "conviniently" Is that the Russian spellink, Komrad?
      Unfalsifiable is not the same as false.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  3. This cuts two ways... by Freischutz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The craft's presence in Syrian skies gives Russia the chance to test its weapons against the best the U.S. has to offer...

    At the same time it also gives the US a sample of the best Russia can throw at them and the effect that has on US tactics which have relied on battlefield networking, large numbers of remote controlled drones and the apparent assumption that these communications will never be significantly disrupted or even completely disabled. Let's just hope that this lesson will be better heeded than those learned by the Americans who fought the Japanese in the run-up to WWII. Their reports were filed away or ignored by the Pentagon which ignored the threat because the reports contradicted their preconceptions about the Japanese.

    1. Re:This cuts two ways... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      At the same time it also gives the US a sample of the best Russia can throw at them..

      Hah, keep thinking that..
      This isn't (yet) a full on war between the US and Russia, both sides are *not* deploying 'the best' as they'll be needing them in the event that they do directly engage each other.
      As an example, at no point (according to a ex-colleague who worked on them) have any of BMEWS systems been run at 'full capability', the point being to try 'steer' Russian tactical planning in specific directions based on observed capabilities. Now, this is not to say that the Russians don't know this, they do, so any overt display of their tactics in regards to this have to be taken with a large pinch of salt.
      Ditto re this story, the Russians deploy various EW tactics, the USians bleat 'Nasty Russians, their EW degrades our ability to function..' both countries analysts then sit and try figure out by how much the other lot are taking the piss..

      Oh!, the games people play....

    2. Re:This cuts two ways... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I really doubt that the Russians are using their best tech here. They will just be testing how practical electronic warfare is for their soldiers to use. It has to be usable by low skill front line troops.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:This cuts two ways... by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      I really doubt that the Russians are using their best tech here. They will just be testing how practical electronic warfare is for their soldiers to use. It has to be usable by low skill front line troops.

      Maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong, it is immaterial. Even if you are right and the Russians are already disrupting US comms, drone control and battlefield networking without even really trying or deploying their best assets it should be a wakeup-call to the Pentagon.

    4. Re:This cuts two ways... by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      At the same time it also gives the US a sample of the best Russia can throw at them..

      Hah, keep thinking that.. This isn't (yet) a full on war between the US and Russia, both sides are *not* deploying 'the best' as they'll be needing them in the event that they do directly engage each other. As an example, at no point (according to a ex-colleague who worked on them) have any of BMEWS systems been run at 'full capability', the point being to try 'steer' Russian tactical planning in specific directions based on observed capabilities. Now, this is not to say that the Russians don't know this, they do, so any overt display of their tactics in regards to this have to be taken with a large pinch of salt. Ditto re this story, the Russians deploy various EW tactics, the USians bleat 'Nasty Russians, their EW degrades our ability to function..' both countries analysts then sit and try figure out by how much the other lot are taking the piss..

      Oh!, the games people play....

      I'm pretty sure that to hurt the US the Russkies are not using re-conditioned 1970s vintage Soviet era EW equipment in Syria that they borrowed from a a museum. They must be using at least SOME of their best stuff to mess with one of the best equipped high tech armies on earth even if they are not be using their best stuff to its full capacity. Basically I don't really care whether they have thrown all of their best stuff at the US forces in Syria at full capacity or if they are holding back, for me this is a warning bell. I've always had severe doubts about the vulnerability networked battlefield concept and the idea of replacing the entire USAF an USNAS with remote controlled drones and those doubts are due to EW and hacking. The networked army is nice while it works and when you are using it against the Taliban or the badly trained private armies of dictators using upgraded Soviet era equipment. However, those forces are meant to look good during military parades, they are not meant to perform on a battlefield.They are not the reformed Russian army and they most especially aren't anything like the opponent China would be. When US planners planners structure their networked 21st century army they'd better upgrade their expectations from what Saddam's armies could do to them to considering what countries on the level of Britain/Germany/France could do to disrupt their operations and conduct manoeuvres with these allies bearing that in mind (that's assuming Trump hasn't already ruined relations with these US allies beyond repair). The US forces need to be able to survive a complete breakdown in all of these networked systems and if there is one thing that recommends manned tanks/aircraft/choppers it's that a crew on board the vehicle driving/flying it manually can neither be jammed nor hacked.

    5. Re:This cuts two ways... by Streetlight · · Score: 1

      So, what kind of communications will be used when EW equipment is totally compromised and put out of commission? There's not much one can do to communicate with unmanned vehicles and even autonomous ones can be disabled. For communication with manned vehicles (planes, trucks, etc.) or individual groups of troops does the military drop back to smoke signals, semaphores, or very, very long wires? Pilots and ground forces may have to depend on individual initiative to get the job done. The battle field will become even more dangerous than it already is.

      --
      In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    6. Re:This cuts two ways... by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Another possibility is you leak a story to the press whining about how the Russian electronic warfare has successfully crippled your most sophisticated electronic warfare assets. When in reality they're able to operate just fine despite the jamming, and you just want to lull the opposition into a false sense of having succeeded. Those of you who grew up after the Cold War have no idea just how convoluted the disinformation game can become.

    7. Re:This cuts two ways... by Spamalope · · Score: 1

      You also report things like this when you want the Gov't contract feeding trough to be topped up. It's turtles all the way down.

    8. Re:This cuts two ways... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      They must be using at least SOME of their best stuff to mess with one of the best equipped high tech armies on earth even if they are not be using their best stuff to its full capacity.

      I'd agree neither side are likely to be going full capability, but that also means that the Russians aren't necessarily using any of their best stuff. ECW technologies dating back to WWII will compromise drone control and it'll be useful to Russia to find out how they respond to that type of attack.

      The US forces need to be able to survive a complete breakdown in all of these networked systems and if there is one thing that recommends manned tanks/aircraft/choppers it's that a crew on board the vehicle driving/flying it manually can neither be jammed nor hacked.

      Well, even that's not necessarily true. Given A10 pilots' tendency to shoot friendly forces even when not under electronic countermeasures I can only imagine how US forces will respond when they're receiving false and misleading signals from their equipment.

  4. Same thing in Ukraine by quonset · · Score: 4, Informative

    From the beginning of the Russian attack against Ukraine, the Russian military has been using and testing its electronic warfare capabilities. They were even able to track an app Ukrainian artillery units were using to calculate their fire and use it to target the units.

    The OSCE monitors routinely report their UAVs are being jammed while over Russian-occupied territory. Also, these monitors report on a regular basis the presence of Russian mobile electronic jamming vehicles.

    Fortunately, as was stated further up, this jamming has given us a look into Russian procedures and allows us to find ways around it or at the least, to mitigate it. As a result, Ukrainian military units are able to communicate and coordinate their activities to target Russian military personnel on Ukrainian territory.

  5. Turns out... by puddingebola · · Score: 1

    Turns out the Russian's secret weapon (in the best tradition of Russian engineering) is just a giant magnet.

  6. Re:What, how could this be? by AndyKron · · Score: 2

    It's all FAKE NEWS!

  7. Re:What, how could this be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yes, that is why the News is the enemy of the people, as we are told daily in our reports from the only trusted source in news.

  8. Re:Bloody hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The British and US military and governments are a bunch of bloody hypocrites. :-(

    BTW, I'm British.

    ALL governments are a bunch of bloody hypocrites, goes with the territory.

  9. Re: Bloody hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I could tell by your use of bloody, Ivan.

  10. How dare they by melted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How dare they interrupt our electronic weapons with their own electronic weapons!

    1. Re:How dare they by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      We'll have to fight back using Psychic communication links!

    2. Re: How dare they by jader3rd · · Score: 1

      That sentiment would be reasonable if we were at war with Russia, but we're not. We're in Syria to fight Isis. Russia's public position is that they're in Syria to fight Isis too. The problem is that Russia is leaving Isis alone, and is kind of supporting Isis by interfering with us.

    3. Re: How dare they by reanjr · · Score: 1

      We're there to fight ISIL? ISIL is pretty much where we want them: out of Iraq and focused on Assad. Sunni extremists attacking our Shia allie in Iraq? Terrorists. Sunni extremists attacking Alawites in Syria? Freedom fighters.

    4. Re: How dare they by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      nope, you need to research whom we're fighting and arming in Syria. We have no good purpose in Syria

    5. Re: How dare they by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The Peshmerga aren't a radical islamic group, and neither are the SDF or FSA.

      Russia is against anyone who isn't Assad, because even though he's an asshole he's their asshole. They want a naval base in the Med and Syria has a few decent candidates.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re: How dare they by Xest · · Score: 2

      Actually the FSA kind of are now that Turkey has folded the extremist Sunni's they back into the FSA and turned them on the Kurds to do Turkey's ethnic cleansing for them. We can't really view the FSA as moderate anymore.

      This is partly our (the West's) fault too of course for letting them get repeatedly slaughtered by barrel bombs, chemical weapons, and indiscriminate attacks by the Russians as that led to them becoming more extreme and left them with no ally other than Turkey (and a handful of other gulf nations). By not supporting the FSA we lost them wholly to Turkey's influence, and Turkey just wants some people they can arm to kill Kurds and kill Assad and his forces.

      Interestingly Russia isn't really against the Kurds per-se. We're now in a weird situation where Russia is neutral to the Kurds, Assad is loosely supportive of them (because they're effective against ISIS and Turkey's incursions into Syria), and the US fully supports them - the only one killing them and refusing to recognise the fact they're the only capable and moderate force in Syria who want nothing more than peace in their slice of Syria and Iraq is Erdogan who has made a career out of blaming Kurds for his inability to run a country well in much the same way Hitler blamed the Jews to achieve the exact same thing.

      Allegiances have shifted therefore - the Kurds and the SDF are the only good guys who just want peace, democracy, and secularism. The FSA now want something akin to Morsi's Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt (and we all saw how badly that went) as proxies for Turkey, and Assad and Russia just want to continue the legacy authoritarian dictatorship of the Assad dynasty exactly as you say, so Russia can maintain it's port and Assad can live a life of luxury off the suffering of his people.

      Right now we should simply be doing everything we can to support the Kurds. Let's not forget, that when Sinjar in Iraq was overrun by ISIS and thousands of men, women, and children were chased up Mt Sinjar and murdered and raped, Turkey was at the time funding and arming them, and it was the Kurdish YPG from Syria on one side and the Kurdish Peshmerga from Iraq on the other that moved into Sinjar to pursue ISIS and rescue the Yazidis. That was a genuinely heroic and selfless action to save people whom the Kurds had no cultural or religious link to by the very people Erdogan dares to call terrorists.

      I get the impression that were the war to end now, that Assad would if nothing else give the Kurds autonomy in North East Syria in return for keeping ISIS at bay. The Russians would back that, as would the Americans and the Iraqis - the only one with a problem with it is Erdogan because it runs counter to his programme of using Kurds as a phantom enemy. Given the FSA are now acting on Turkey's behalf in this regard and killing Kurds, we should either target directly, or allow Assad and Russia to target directly the FSA, because they are no longer a moderate force at the behest of Turkey and so in turn deserve to be wiped out as much as ISIS does.

      The best outcome in Syria right now due to the failure by the West to act against Assad before Russia intervened is now to accept Assad in the West of Syria, with autonomy for the Kurds and the SDF in the East of Syria, with Turkey and it's proxies sent running with their tail between their legs with a severe military loss back into their own territory.

    7. Re: How dare they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nope, Russia is fighting ISIS. The US is fighting Assad, who was trying to defend his country against ISIS.

  11. Free strategy by king+neckbeard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If this is such a concern, I've got a strategy the US can use to combat this: Get the hell out of Syria.

    It's ridiculous to be offended/upset that someone is using countermeasures against the drones being used against them or their allies.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:Free strategy by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Why?

      Because staying in Syria kills people, and allows the big bad Rooskies to attack our expensive drones.

      According to the President, Russia is our ally, our great friend, who we should respect and celebrate.

      He's got a funny way of showing it, bombing on of their most important strategic allies.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    2. Re:Free strategy by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      According to the President, Russia is our ally, our great friend, who we should respect and celebrate.

      So, why is he attacking them in Syria ?

    3. Re:Free strategy by butchersong · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I think in a sane world we would need to articulate a very detailed and compelling reason to go to war. In this world the onus would not be on those skeptical of actions like this to justify not going to war. Doesn't that seem like a world worth working towards if most of the cost to each of us is simply pausing to take a breath and honestly listen to the other side?

      Here are a few reasons I believe this should not be happening 1) congress has not approved it. 2) the refugee crisis in Europe caused by this and our previous actions in Libya. 3) What reason do we have to think that overthrowing another secular ruler will result in anything other than the crap we've seen in Iraq and Libya? A rather comprehensive list of our work to date: master list

    4. Re: Free strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Strange that Syrians are so stupid that after assad wipes out AL qeda in controlled cities that residents move back in. Don't they know assad will kill them?

      Stop spreading propoganda bs. We killed more Iraqi civilians than saddam, so extending our war in Syria is not going to save people from big bad assad. We'll end up killing more civilians than assad ever would.

    5. Re: Free strategy by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      The reason for the Syrian war is to have a pipeline from Qatar to Europe. The US is fighting a war for oil. Literally. For the ungrateful nations of Europe. Fucked up, eh?.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:Free strategy by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Yes, people will die under Assad, but we're acting as the air force of ISIS, who also kills innocents. You know, those guys that were former members of the that other dictator we overthrew.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    7. Re:Free strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > If you haven't noticed neither Assad nor Putin cares that much for human lives

      Putin the psychopath is one thing, but the current syrian leader Basher el-Assad is actually a medical doctor specializing in opthalmology. He had studied, settled and practiced in London, that's why his wife is a white lady. He wasn't supposed to be in politics, but his elder brother, the designated successor to previous syrian dictator Hafez el-Assad, was assassinated by the Mossad in a faux car accident. Thus Basher was called home to take over upon death of his elderly father.

      (No, democracy proven doesn't work in the 3rd world, not even in a secular country like Syria. BTW, the syrian ruling elite tribe, the alawite are too few in numbers to install their half-muslim, half-gnostic ezoterics as a state religion, so the regime cultivated religious multi-culture to supress sunni numerical superiority and based the nation's ideology on pan-arabism and anti-zionism versus the jewish militarily occupying the syrian territory of Golan heights.)

      If anything, the 7-year old ongoing (not-so)-internal armed struggle in Syria owes a lot to Basher's incompetence as a 3rd-world compatible dictator. He remained too passive in the beginning, allowing the rebellion to gain steam quickly, weapon stockpiles were looted from garrisons, many officers defected, etc.. His father Hafez faced the same situation in the 1980's, when the neighbouring zionist entity tried to stir up a civil war for the breaking up of Syria, as prescribed by the infamous Yinon-plan. Hafez immediately ordered the secret police militia to round up and shoot ~ 20000 men from politically suspicious neighbourhoods of Damascus and other major cities and the whole disorder was over in 9 months. In contrast, Basher's indecisive loser of a dictator manners led to many hundreds of thousands of dead.

    8. Re:Free strategy by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Ostensibly, the U.S. and Russia are in Syria with the same goal - to fight ISIS. But behind the curtains, the U.S. is supporting Syrian rebels who want to overthrow al-Assad, while Russia is backing al-Assad and his government forces. They tolerate each others' presence in Syria because they both agree that an ISIS-controlled Syria is worse than either an al-Assad-controlled or rebel-controlled Syria. But neither will pass up a chance to "accidentally" lob a bomb at government forces, or a rebel-held city.

      In that respect, it's more akin to the U.S./UK and Soviets spying on and testing each others' capabilities during WWII. Both were fighting to defeat Hitler, but behind the scenes they had very different ideas for the future of Europe and knew they'd likely end up as adversaries after the war.

    9. Re: Free strategy by pezezin · · Score: 1

      For the ungrateful nations of Europe? We didn't ask for this war who is killing thousand of innocents and sending us a crapton of refugees. Nobody in Europe want this fucking war, so fuck off.

    10. Re:Free strategy by nasch · · Score: 1

      Good points, but between Assad and ISIS, there would have been a refugee crisis without our help.

    11. Re: Free strategy by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      It's for your goddamn energy independence so you don't have to rely on Russia. Moreover you're not diverse, so you're welcome for introducing diversity to your societies. Again, no thanks to the people who give you everything.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    12. Re:Free strategy by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Am I allowed to find it deeply ironic that the media and many others collectively berated Trump for risking WW3 due to his comments on North Korea and now, just a few weeks later, the Korean War has finally ended.

      I think the historians are going to have a fucking field day on this one.

  12. Re: What, how could this be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In the New Amerika, ignorance is strength!

  13. Re:Syria & allies don't attack,they defend mot by butchersong · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sadly.. this isn't far off the mark. The thing is most of the people around me are beginning to wake up. Everyone I knew supported the original Iraq war. I haven't really spoke with anyone that supports this crap in Syria and I live in rural America. Most everyone including me is Republican.

  14. We get to study their capabilities too.

    1. Re:And by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      yes, it's actually a good thing for the USA's ability to stay on top of ECC. Some people have no critical thinking skills....

  15. Re:How dare they fight back when attacked by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The US actions in Syria aren't self serving, it only tried to serve Israel/Saudi Arabia and their self fulfilling paranoia vis a vis Iran. It would have been far cheaper for the US to just stay out of it and only fight Isis in Iraq (and actually fighting them straight from the start). Arming ISIS and then subsequently "bombing" them and then finally actually bombing them when their former pet dogs became a little too rabid has done nothing but bring grief to the US. It didn't even help their Sunni allies, Saudi Arabia is off worse in some ways.

    In the end only Israel is laughing as it's hold on the Golan is strengthened. The US was played.

  16. Enemy actually hits you back in a war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    C-130 Hercules, the plane was developed to disrupt enemy communications, radar and command operations.

    So it is ok for the US to put a bigass electronic weapon in a foreign country.

    Russia has also been regularly targeting smaller U.S. surveillance drones

    But they are pissed that the other side do the same thing to a few drones?!

    The headline should be "US General Surprised That Enemy Actually Hit Back"

  17. Re:How dare they fight back when attacked by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

    The weapons shipped to Isis&co are almost all Russian made, so an economic loss and economic aid to a supposed rival. Operation Inherent resolve costs 10 Million per day, slightly increased weapon sales don't really help. If your weapons are superior they will sell regardless and Saudi Arabia&co will be paranoid about Iran regardless, so they'll buy weapons regardless.

    The US is a national entity, if traitors work to oppose that entity it's still not self serving for the US. Globalist institutions add little to the bottom line for the US and the trade deficit is a double edged sword at best ... not that there is a realistic alternative to the dollar, the Eurozone is a basket case and no one is going back to gold.

  18. EMP the hell out of the place by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    make it so hot that not anything electronic works anymore,

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:EMP the hell out of the place by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Umm. Why? What would be the benefit, and how the fuck do you even think it could be achieved without committing war crimes?

  19. Re: How dare they fight back when attacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Banksters and Corporate Managers are globalists. They dont care about Average Americans.

  20. Should we be outraged? by biggaijin · · Score: 1

    The author of the article makes it sounds as though some outrage is being visited on American troops in Syria. All that is happening is the the Russians and Syrians are using electronic tools to counter our own electronic surveillance. It's a little difficult for me to get upset about this.

  21. Re: What, how could this be? by Type44Q · · Score: 2

    Let's go have the beer

    All the beer are belong to us.

  22. Re: US in Syria illegally by reanjr · · Score: 1

    That depends on which government you recognize. The entire point of the civil war is there are large swaths of Syria that do not recognize Assad's government.

  23. Re:What, how could this be? by MiniMike · · Score: 1

    Is ROT13 from WW-II useful for military now?

    No, now they have to use double ROT13 encryption. I read somewhere that quad-ROT13 encryption is in development.

  24. Re:Syria & allies don't attack,they defend mot by skam240 · · Score: 1

    Just wait until some one brings back the "support our troops" bumper stickers because some how you cant support the troops if you're against the war.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  25. Incoming! by Joe+Branya · · Score: 1

    Budget season. Public presentation by a four star screaming "Crisis! Give me more money!"

  26. Electronic counter measures by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do electronic counter measures qualify as attacks, especially when the US military are flying war planes in sovereign Syrian airspace? Oh the US military are such poor, delicate victims of these evil Syrian radio waves. Why won't the Syrian military stop?

    --
    Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    1. Re:Electronic counter measures by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      Syria is still recognised as a sovereign country by the international community. As yet, no legal basis for de-legitimising the Syrian regime or any of its members has been presented in an international court of law. Declarations from poorly informed politicians and pundits are just hot air.

      Under a diplomatic framework and international oversight, the Syrian regime agreed to controlled, supervised destruction of all their chemical weapons stockpiles and facilities. That doesn't sound like an illegitimate regime to me, as much as we may deplore their actions in the Syrian conflict.

      Additionally, there is insufficient verifiable evidence on what chemical weapons attacks have taken place and who is responsible for them. At the moment, conjecture points to both the Syrian regime and the US/Saudi-backed militias being culpable. Note that the accusations and condemnations from the US and its allies came before any verifiable evidence could be gathered, e.g. hearsay and apparently staged video evidence from the 'white helmets' operating among the US/Saudi-backed militias alone cannot be regarded as reliable sources. They need corroboration.

      I also suspect that US intelligence personnel have a good idea of who's culpable but that what they know doesn't align with the US and its allies' public narrative against Syria, Iran, and Russia: "'Truth,' it has been said, 'is the first casualty of war.'" -- Philip Snowden, 1916.

      They're going to keep this conflict going at all costs. There's $billions in US tax-payers money to be siphoned off into the US military to support it and US arms suppliers are doing very well, thank you very much.

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
  27. Re:How dare they fight back when attacked by gibbsjoh · · Score: 1

    Hahah I was waiting for the "Israeldidit" reply. smh...

    --
    -- "...I'm a bad guy because I, well, I sing some rock-and-roll songs." M. Manson
  28. Israelis Monitoring? by Artagel · · Score: 2

    I suspect the Israelis are somehow monitoring this with great interest. They have the capabilities to have good performance in this area on both sides of the EW battle. And they would not be tipping their hand to either side.

  29. If the attacks were having no real effect... by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

    If the attacks were having no real effect and the existence of any technology used to thwart them was secret, our personnel would be committing treason not to complain about how it is shutting us down. They might even crash or blow up a drone or have an EC-130 leave the scene or otherwise pretend to be jammed. With more critical techs, they wouldn't even be allowed to turn on the secret capabilities unless the situation was critical. For that reason, this article isn't worth reading. It is as likely to be propaganda written for the opponent's eyes as truth.

  30. Pffff by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    Syria, much like Iraq, is simply a testing ground for both sides to see how well their new toys perform outside of a controlled environment.

    Neither side can show what they're really holding though lest they spoil the surprise.

    As a result, these are the minor, expendable assets they're playing with atm.

    Albeit, at the expense of Syrian lives.

  31. Re:How dare they fight back when attacked by labnet · · Score: 1

    Wish I could mod you 6 insightful.

    I would also add that ISIS was created by the USA from the leftover Saddam Baathists after their pointless invasion of IRAQ. It's crazy to think that the 9/11 terrorists came mostly from Saudi Arabia, but bush attacks Saddam who himself was an ex CIA asset.
    Saudi Arabia is a nasty country, promoting extreme Islam, but I hear they get a pass because they promised to support the petro dollar in exchange for protection.

    You couldn't make this nefarious shit up.

    --
    46137
  32. Red scaremngering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Seeing that a) the US is an invader in Syria and b) Russia is there at the invitation of the invadee a correct headline should be "Russia Is Defending against Attacking US Forces With Electronic Weapons In Syria, General Says"

  33. Keep showing us your cards by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    Thank YOu. :)

    --
    [($)]
  34. So, it's true? by mackul · · Score: 1

    Those reports about the US battle ship blinded "electronically" by one (older) Russian military plane in the Black Sea and the suspicions, a similar technique was used by Russians and/or Chinese to make US battle ships crash into commercial ships in South-East Asia had been caused by electronic weapons and/or infiltration of the US systems seem to be true? Someone with business connections to Russians developing such systems told me 6 months ago that the Russians had such a system and/or remote access to the software of US weapon systems and even to some databases with personal data of all US military staff The Russians only would only be "kind" enough not to demonstrate that power in full size against the US because they think the US army is still somewhat useful for the unstable stability of the world: Imagine what would happen if the Russians would demonstrate that the US army is the emperor without clothes and that they can bring down any US weapon system easily from the distance? A world-wide "anarchy" would breakt out that would be even worse than everything the US caused since 1945.

  35. Re: Bloody hypocrites by Cederic · · Score: 1

    If you know anything at all about Britain then you'll know that disparaging the PM is a national pastime. Doesn't matter who the PM is either.

    The current incumbent seems to be pretty fair and reasonable towards muslims. She doesn't seem to hold biases towards or against any particular group, she wants authoritarian control over everybody.

  36. Re:Good by Cederic · · Score: 1

    This is excellent, do you have a whole book?

    I love alternative histories, they open so many thought experiments.

  37. Re:Illegal occupiers by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Well, while the US are attacking enemies of the Syrian state then it's beneficial to let them get on with it.

    You'll notice that the attack on the Syrian state was made with missiles fired from outside Syrian airspace, and defended nonetheless.

  38. Re:Deep state lies and deceptions by Cederic · · Score: 1

    You're embarrassing other Americans with this pathetic paranoia and stupidity.

  39. Re: What, how could this be? by KingBenny · · Score: 1

    nobody would ever fly , i'm still not sure how quantum transmission is going to change the world other than instant data mirroring (which is probably already quite hardcore, i dont want to sound like the expert) over vast distances. I mean , i can imagine how it would help to build a colony somewhere round proxima centauri if you had matter synthesis handy AND a first ship to fly all the way there with the 3D printer (in a manner of speaking) as you could build a copy here and the exact same data would exist there but thats still way beyond star trek i think. If one side has access to quantum computing (which is gonna hack EVERYTHING, right) then how long will it take for all major players to have it, unless the first side strikes first and HARD (but not so hard as to destroy the whole planet) in order to eliminate all potential future opposition in some kind of quantum-blitzkrieg? Why wouldnt they be able to intercept with technology that doesn't exist yet and nobody really understands, do they ? I see more irony in the fact that they assume that it's safe to repeat afghanistan because in this case there's already an al-qaeda clone active so they dont have to worry about creating one, the big mistake from last time ... when has it ever been that the eagle and the bear go playing on a foreign court without actually poking at each other while both simply levelling the place as if their name was Dalek ? they're doing it again

    --
    Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  40. But the U.S. is not at war in Syria by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    But the U.S. is not at war in Syria, right?

    No boots on the ground, so it doesn't count.

    Just like the first Sunday in December, 1941, at Pearl Harbor.

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  41. LOL by SuperDre · · Score: 1

    So the US is bitching about Russia for doing to them what they are doing to the russians, but the russians seem to be better at it.. hahaha..

  42. Re:How dare they fight back when attacked by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

    I didn't say Israel did it, Israel is the only one who came out ahead.