Big fucking deal. Rank and title don't necessarily mean anything.
The "Surgeon GENERAL" of the United States is a VICE ADMIRAL of the Navy. What does that mean?
Perhaps you should learn something about special commissions.
So, you're telling me that he had no experience or something like that?
He'd been personally in charge of two other operations in Iraq.
I was a mere SPECIALIST in the 10th Mountain Division (you may recognize that unit from the report), and I, for damn sure, know how to pass through friendly lines.
Great. I'm talking to an E-4. I had boots with more time in grade than you had time in service.
You know nothing about the situation, yet you're going to claim everything because you were an E-4 in one of the units that was mentioned.
I'm sure that an E-4 knows more than a Major General with years of experience.
The MAJOR GENERAL clearly assumed he had route clearance when he did not. A poor assumption, and a definite mistake.
You might want to check the facts.
The unit doing the block was operating on an expired mission.
If they had been recalled by the US chain of command as they were supposed to have been, then there wouldn't have been a problem.
Now, as for the non-existance of his route, read the report. Once the Major identified himself, the blocking tore down and escorted them through.
So he did have a route.
Imagine, an E-4 not knowing all the details and thinking he can out-guess a Major General.
That doesn't matter, and in fact supports the soldiers case that they did the right thing. Every Army soldier memorizes the General Orders for guard, which I reproduce here:
Yep.
Pay very special attention to "... and quit my post only when properly relieved." They were not properly relieved, so they were right to continue carrying out their special orders (run the blocking point).
Their mission had expired and they were not recalled.
They were setup in the open for over an hour.
In a combat zone.
Now, if the enemy had moved in a couple RPG's and blown them up, there WOULD definately have been a problem and SOMEONE would want to know WHY they were left in an open position for so long.
The MAJOR GENERAL, being a MAJOR GENERAL and oh-so-smart, should have recognized that the block was in force by the spot and laser.
Read the Italian version.
In the Italian version, there was no delay between warning and shooting. So he would not have been able to.
If he didn't recognize this fact, then he was ignorant or uninformed about American SOP. If he did recognize it, he made a conscious decision to ignore it.
Again, you're basing that off of what people have said.
This was NOT his first time operating in Iraq.
This was NOT his first time interacting with the US.
Yet, in order for you to be right, he has to be an idiot.
And you still haven't read the report.
The facts are: #1. This was an unscheduled block.
#2. The block was left in place after the mission had expired.
#3. The block did not have direct communications with other units.
#4. It was night and there was no advance warning of the block until the searchlight hit them.
Now, tell me oh E-4, how was the Major General supposed to contact that unit doing an unscheduled block with no communications.
Let me guess, you weren't the one leading those patrols you're so fond of talking about, were you.
Yes - you've made the assumption that all the information provided, they already have. You've made that assumption several times. That doesn't make it a known.
Then tell me how it is possible for the enemy NOT to have that information.
The checkpoints are setup on PUBLIC sites.
They are setup DURING DAYLIGHT.
They process CIVILIANS through them.
Yet you, somehow, seem to believe that the enemy cannot SEE it.
Furthermore, you're also ignoring the importance of providing the enemy with the knowledge one's own understanding. It's one thing to know something. It's another thing to know that your enemy also knows or does not know it.
And would you be SPECIFIC in that example?
WHAT, specifically, are you talking about. Provide a quote from the report.
Just because the enemy COULD or very likely does have good intel, does not mean any intel you yourself have is immediately worthless.
And have I ever said that? Just because they can see how the checkpoints are setup and operated, does NOT mean that we fire all of our spies and informants.
But then YOU are the only one who has said anything like that.
At the same time, it doesn't mean it's golden.
And now you've lost all touch with reality.
This is about the REPORT. Remember?
One side point to this is the value of this information.
What the FUCK are you talking about "side point" for?
This is ALL ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE INFORMATION.
There is no fucking "side point" to that. It is the WHOLE POINT.
If there is any military / security value at all, it should be considered worthwhile to protect (at least at a rudimentary level).
Which was my whole point that I've restated time and time and time again. Yet YOU seem to think that you've come up with some new insight.
There Is No Military Value In The Report
None. All of the information (except the names) can be and has been collected by the enemy already.
Which is how the enemy has been able to improve their attacks.
The discussion of which forms of IEDs and VBIEDs are most difficult to detect, most effective, and most "devious" will serve to confirm and refine the most effective enemy tactics.
They already have that info. They are the ones who know what they planted and where and how and whether it went off and caused casualties.
Again, WHAT information does the enemy NOT ALREADY have access to?
The detailed discussion of Standard Operating Procedures invloving the conduct of inspections and troop approach conditions is devastating, as are the Rules of Engagement conditions and specifications, which will allow the enemy to avoid engagement with only trivial behavior and appearance changes.
The enemy is either using a IED or a suicide bomb.
Neither case has ANYTHING to do with an attempt to "avoid engagement".
The principle of not underestimating the enemy does *not* mean that you just hand him information that he might not have.
And what information, specifically, would that be, from the report?
Be specific.
The enemy may have been able to *see* in person some of the information that was released, but they probably did not know our military's assessment of itself and the enemy's tactics. That is useful information.
They know what our assessment of ourselves is just by watching what changes we make in our operations.
If we don't change our operations, they know that we think they are good enough.
As for the enemy's tactics, the casualty rate is enough to gage that. Why would they care about what we thought of their attacks if their attacks were killing our people?
Once again. You may assume an enemy has the information, but you do not give it to him.
Once again, be specific. What information.
FWIW, I'm a 10th Mountain Division Artillery veteran.
Great. 268th Attack Helicopter Battalion, here.
When you say "veteran", what do you mean, specifically?
That doesn't mean you ensure that they do by providing them with the information.
As I had originally stated, this isn't providing them with ANY information that they don't already have (except the names of the individuals).
So, the rest of your position falls apart.
Unless you can show where one of the items I mentioned can be shown to NOT be available to them. Go ahead and try to show that checkpoints set up in the open, in broad daylight, can not be seen by people travelling through them and by people watching from other sites.
No unit has 100% communication with other units. I believe he did not let anybody know since there's no evidence at all that he did.
So, you haven't read the article. Here's the quote you should have seen.
The 1-76 TOC had two means of communicating with 4th Brigade, its higher headquarters: Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP)2 and FM. The 1-76 FA Battle Captain was using only VOIP to communicate with 1-69 IN, but experienced problems with VOIP, therefore losing its only communication link with 1-69 IN, other than going through 4th Brigade. (Annex 97C). As a result, the Battle Captain was unable to pass updated information about the blocking mission either directly to 1-69 IN, or to 4th Brigade. He did not attempt to contact 4th Brigade via FM communications. (Annex 63C). Fourth Brigade, in turn, could not pass updated information to its major command, 3ID. (Annex 57C). Likewise, 3ID had no new information to pass to its subordinate command, 2/10 MTN. Finally, 2/10 MTN was thus unable to pass updated information to its subordinate command, 1-69 IN. (Annexes 51C, 52C).
It looks like you are 100% wrong. Too bad for you.
Passage through friendly lines usually depends on the unit involved/SOP but we used chemlights, passwords, IR signals, whitestar clusters, that sor tof deal.
I don't care what DEVICES you used.
HOW did you coordinate with the other UNIT to let you through?
Then explain HOW the Italians were supposed to do that with the communication problems that were mentioned in the REPORT? With a unit that wasn't even supposed to BE there? Here's another part of the REPORT that you didn't bother to read.
Both agents made a number of phone calls to various officials during the drive. (Annex 104C). Mr. Carpani was mostly talking to his colleague, Mr. Castilletti, who was waiting for them outside of BIAP near Checkpoint 539. He updated Mr. Castilletti on his location and discussed arrangements at the airport. (Annex 105C). Mr. Carpani, who was driving, had to slow down at one point due to a flooded underpass on Route Vernon. (Annexes 103C, 104C). Mr. Carpani, who had experience driving in Baghdad, did not have an alternate route to the airport planned.
Of course, no one on the US side had any knowledge of any activity prior to the shooting.
Which is why the Italians are having so much trouble accepting this "report".
Now, if you had read the article (I know, it's long and it doesn't have pictures) you'd see that the kids firing the weapons did NOT have communication with the other units to let them know that their mission had expired and they could tear down and return to base.
You really might want to read the article next time.
You're making a rather large assumption on what the enemy knows. Their information may or may not have been complete. It isn't wise to help them fill in any gaps or confirm any of their current assumptions / understandings.
First off, you always assume the enemy has perfect knowledge.
Secondly, read the report. It tells how the enemy has been adapting their attacks based off of that knowledge.
Furthermore, its even less likely the enemy has a full understanding of what your own intel on the situation is.
Can you quote that from the article?
I don't recall reading that there.
But it does mean taking steps to ensure you don't hand that information over to the enemy on a plater.
Again, read the article. Look for the section with this quote in it:
The techniques for employing VBIEDs continue to evolve. Some of the more commonly used techniques include:
That will show you that they are learning and adapting.
"Security through obscurity" is a derogatory term in information security.
As it should be in any situation.
This is because in that environment, we can write and re-write the laws of that realm.
No. It is because it is "brittle". Once it is broken, it is broken.
In the physical world we live in, and thus physical security, "security through obscurity" has a much more time-honored status.
Only amongst those who do not understand security.
Look at the WTC attack for proof of that.
Its one of the few things that can be done.
Again, only amongst those who do not understand security.
After all, it's considerably more difficult to change the laws of physics.
Why would you have to? Do you even know what "Security through obscurity" is?
It is where your defense depends upon the enemy NOT knowing something.
The thief does NOT know that you keep an extra house key under the front door mat.
How does it require re-writing the laws of physics to just NOT put the key there?
You bank probably has the vault in plain sight. Wouldn't it be more effective if they hid the vault? No. Banks understand security. They want the vault in plain sight and they want to rely upon their security system to prevent theft.
In war, you NEVER hope that the attacker will NOT know something that is critically important to your success.
As far as I am concerned, with 1 of the 3 Italian witnesses being a virulent anti-American/anti-war zealot, and the other 2 having TONS of reasons to cover up their own stupidity and non-performance of their job, I believe the other 10 witnesses.
One of the Italians is dead. So he isn't saying anything.
He was also a trained intelligence agent with more time in service than most of the people in the US unit COMBINED.
So, why do you ASSUME that he made any mistakes?
And the fact that something bad happened can't possibly be because one excited Italian secret agent hurrying to get his biggest triumph in years to the airport while talking on the phone while listening to a conversation in the back seat - made a mistake.
Again, you're ASSUMING specifics about the situation that haven't been established.
The guy driving the car was a MAJOR, the guy in the backseat was a MAJOR GENERAL.
So, of course you ASSUME that some kids in the National Guard know more about operations than two high ranking Italian agents.
There are other situations where someone did something clearly wrong, and for some reason the US Military justice system totally failed to do the right thing.
So, you have a system has you admit has had problems in the past (yet you don't say how it's been corrected) and you have your assumptions about how experts were less experienced than a bunch of National Guard kids...
But that doesn't mean that there's *always* something rotten going on.
Possibly. But you stating your assumptions as fact is no better than someone else stating their assumptions that the US is wrong as fact.
Personally, I'm waiting for the Italian report on the condition of the car and the bullet holes in Calipari.
Which explains why satellite photos show they were driving at speeds in excess of 60 mph toward the soldiers as if they were going to a) run through the check point or b) were going to bomb the soldiers.
You do realize that you're accepting "evidence" that you haven't even seen yet.
How is that any different than that the "information" about Saddam's "WMD's" that he was "hiding" from the inspectors? There were lots of "satelite photos" showing trucks and buildings.
And we all know how that ended.
Personally, I'm not going to accept any "satelite photos" until I've seen them posted.
#1. IED & VBIED analysis. The attackers already know that. The only people who don't know it are the US citizens who only watch Fox news. That is how the attackers can improve their attacks. So no military reason to hide that info.
#2. Analysis of specific checkpoints. Again, the attackers already have that information.
#3. Combat readiness analysis - this might be useful to the attackers, but most likely won't be. The attackers aren't going to attempt to match military units.
#4. Description of the layout - not useful to the attackers. They can already see it. About 50 cars had already seen it. That is one of the items they consider when improving their attacks.
#5. Grid locations - again, the attackers already know that.
#6. Details on searches - again, the attackers already know that and have used that information to improve their attacks.
#7. Details of threat assesment methods - possibly not fully be known by the attackers. But, given the number of recorded shootings of civilians, this information wouldn't be very useful. Which is why the suicide attacks have increased.
#8. Analysis of "normal" traffic - again, that information is available to the attackers already and it is part of what they've used to improve their attacks.
etc, etc, etc.
About the only information that should have been completely removed are the names of the soldiers/officers involved and their units. They can be impacted by various journalists and such seeking stories.
None of the other information wouldn't already be known by the attackers.
And operating as if the attackers did NOT know that information just leaves you vulnerable to more attacks.
As can be seen in the report. The soldiers secured the points they were most vulnerable from. Including overpasses where grenades could be dropped.
You have to assume the enemy has all the information you do before you start operations. Otherwise, when the enemy DOES know something that you are relying upon him to NOT know, you're fucked.
That has GOT, without a doubt to be the stupidest thing I have ever read in my entire life, and I feel my IQ temporarily dropped 10 points for having read your comment.
Well then I am very sorry because if there's one person on this planet that cannot handle a 10 point drop in IQ, it is you.
You are complaining because he linked 3 with 4? thats what THIS FUCKING MOVIE IS SUPPOSE TO DO YOU MORONIC RETARD.
No, the complaint is about HOW he linked them.
Go watch Titanic. The ship goes out, hits an iceberg and sinks. Some people live, many die.
Yet, while linking those incidents, the writer, director and producer manage to tell a WHOLE STORY. They fit a whole movie in between those incidents.
Yet the great George Lucas can't do that even when he controls the incidents.
Why did anakin kill the kids? BECAUSE THEY WERE FREAKING JEDI.
And THAT is the kind of mentality that will think this movie is "awesome".
Yes, they were Jedi. But they were also KIDS.
Killing an adult Jedi in combat is one thing. But being able to slaughter a bunch of kids takes a different personality. I'm probably wasting my time on this subject with you, but you might want to look up "age of consent" and "juvy" and "tried as an adult". Our culture has very different rules for children and adults.
why was he personally responsible? HE'S THE VILLAN.
Great. How many HOURS has Lucas had to develop Annie as the bad guy and the best he can do is "HE'S THE VILLAN".
That just about defines "piss poor" right there.
Please don't watch the movie.
You don't have to plead.
I agree the first two were not the greatest movies in the world, but for all the horseshit you are spreading around you would think they were gigli or something.
"not the greatest movies in the world".
They sucked dog shit. Just accept that. You're a fan-boy and that colours your perception of anything Lucas does.
and my kids like them, aged 11 and 12, right at the age when those movies should appeal to them.
"those movies".
Yet the original Star Wars appealed to children AND adults.
Did you miss that? Children AND adults.
ANYONE can make a movie that appeals to 11 & 12 year olds. ANYONE
Get over yourself.
That's pretty funny coming from someone who hasn't progressed beyond the level of his own kids.
Don't hate me because I understand continuity or production or storylines. Just go back to your GI Joe cartoons and 1 dimensional characters and consider yourself lucky.
Vader showed more dimensions in ep#4-6 than in 1-3 and that is what makes those movies so much better than the current crap.
He never says that he doesn't remember them, he says something to the effect of "I don't remember ever owning any droids." And that is technically true, as he never owned them (or any others as far as the films show).
And that would be acceptable if the story somehow depended upon him hiding the facts in a technical truth.
But it doesn't.
Ben (Annie's old MENTOR) rescues Annie's SON who is accompanied by the droid that Annie BUILT and another droid from Ben's past when he fought and almost KILLED Annie.
And the only reaction Ben shows is... none.
No interest in HOW that particular droid got there.
No concern that a droid built by a planet destroying maniac with a personal grudge against him just showed up on his doorstep.
Seeing the kid isn't something new. Ben knew that Luke was there and why.
Seeing C3PO AND R2D2 show up SHOULD have caused a reaction.
EVERY JEDI KILLED (except 2)
Yet no reaction. None at all.
Here, let me give you a movie scenario and you can fill in the emotion.
Back in our hero's past, he had fought against the bad guy and the bad guy had killed all of our hero's family. Our hero knows the car the bad guy drives. Our hero rescued the bad guy's kid and hid him away in another city.
Then, one day, the kid shows up at our hero's apartment in the city. Our hero looks outside and sees... THAT VERY SAME CAR...
Our hero says....
==========
Right. The ENTIRE dialogue sequence is wrong in ep#4 when you've seen ep #1-3.
That's just like the old "parsec" non-explanation.
You already know that the ship will sink and that lots of people die and some people survive.
Yet they managed to cram a whole movie into it. A movie that lots of people liked and saw lots of times.
Yet from the "review", this movie is nothing more than links between ep#2 and ep#4. There is no movie.
WHY does Annie hack the kids up with lightsaber?
This is the THIRD movie in the SERIES yet Annie still has no motivation. He is a one dimensional character. Vader had more dimensions in ep#4-6 and he had to display them while wearing a mask and armour.
They were all nothing more than links to the real movie that he loved. The droids from the original, the ship from the original, the planet from the original, etc.
So Annie kills a bunch of kids...... WHY does he do that? Why is he PERSONALLY involved in it?
This is the "Star Wars" prequel the haters have been bitching for since "Menace" came out, and if they don't cop to that when they finally see it, they're lying.
Why does anyone have to be "lying"?
#1 & #2 truly did suck. #3 will have a LOT to make up for and I doubt it will be able to.
Is there any reason to like this movie other than so many of the scenes are DESIGNED to conjure memories of the #4.
That bullshit was reason enough to hate #1 & #2 where in a whole fucking galaxy, you find that everyone you know is related to someone your father knew.
It's like moving from New York City to Seattle and finding out that the car you just bought belonged to your dad. And your girlfriend is the daughter of one of his old girlfriends. And your boss is your dad's old boss. And your house was built by your dad 30 years ago.
Yeah, sure. I'd have to be "lying" to say that such a string of coincidences WITHOUT AN UNDERLYING CAUSE would result in a stupid movie.
But some other guy, who really likes your dad would think that it was so awesome that everything in your life can be traced back to your dad.
whee fucking splat.
We know Vader. We know what he does in #4 & 5 & 6. The question is WHY is he like that. WHAT made him like that.
Instead of fixing that (which would mean scrapping a lot of working apps such as MS Office), Microsoft is applying layers of band-aids.
For a good example of that, look at viruses on Windows. A virus exploits either a flaw in the security model or a hole in the code.
Running anti-virus software is nothing more than a REACTIVE application of a single band-aid for each and every virus that is currently known.
Yet no one at Microsoft has stopped to think "Hey, why don't we fix the core problem so the viruses can't infect us or spread?"
Instead, Microsoft decides to BUY an anti-virus company.
And Microsoft decides to BUY an anti-spyware company.
I think Microsoft knows they are losing traction because of their old and messy code that they can barely update and are taking this period to clean it up and try to fix and loop hopes in security and bugs. Why is this bad?
Because they are NOT doing that.
They are STILL looking for ways to band-aid their existing junk.
But the band-aids are starting to affect each other and the apps that people want to run.
What else would they have been working on in the past 5 years after sending all their programmers for security training?
They're working on Microsoft code. Why do you ask? And no, they aren't working on the security model.
Which is why we still have ActiveX junk and a browser that is part of the OS.
Skip the rhetorical questions. They don't work.
This is the first release (well not counting SP2) that will break some applications, which is a good thing. It means they are finally sacrificing compatibility to fix long standing issues.
No. What it means is that the band-aids have grown so much that they're now affecting each other, the OS and the apps.
Otherwise, they'd be able to release a quick test suite that would run in the background that would be able to tell you if your app that works on Win2K/XP/2003 would also work on Longhorn.
I guess you don't remember all the talk about Win2K being so much more secure (and the *nix killer).
And how XP was supposed to be so much more secure.
etc. etc. etc.
Microsoft says that about EACH new version when they announce it.
THEN they start dropping features as the development drags on.
Eventually, they ship what they have and declare it to be more stable, secure and easier to use than any previous system.
The next day, they pre-announce the next version and promise that all the dropped features will be that version.
Check back on what the original feature list for "Cairo" was supposed to be. You remember "Cairo", right? Win95?
5 passwords to boot and check email on the laptop? What in the world are they *for*? BIOS, system login, email login, maybe one for decrypting if you're receiving encrypted emails all the time. What else?
More importantly, if someone can your BIOS password AND your system login then that someone should not have any problem getting the other 3 passwords.
In which case, having that many passwords is just stupid. It is not providing any more security.
It takes five passwords to boot up my laptop and check my e-mail.
But is he running Outlook?
Someone looking to install a zombie does not need to crack his 5 passwords to do so.
In fact, I cannot think of ANYTHING that requires 5 passwords to protect that won't be just as secure with 3 passwords (or even 2 passwords) provided that each password is protected in the same fashion (writing down the 5 passwords and sticking it beneath your keyboard works that same even if you have 20 passwords).
Security is all about restricting the avenues of attack. But once an avenue is restricted, piling more layers upon it does NOT make it more secure.
I'm guessing that his 5 passwords are: #1. BIOS password #2. Hard drive password #3. Windows login #4. email password #5. some other password that may be earlier
Now, think about what someone would have to do to be able to get the first 2 passwords.
If someone can get those, then they can get the other 3.
Is he paranoid? I don't believe so.
But he does NOT understand computer security as well as he would like to believe.
I am. And I am also the email administrator for the company I work for.
Most of the senders whose legitimate mail gets blocked are in no way connected to the RBL.
The RBL's don't block anyone's email.
It is people like me who use the RBL's and have my email server setup to reject (with proper attribution) email from sites on the RBL's.
On the receiving side, how are you to know you should complain to your ISP about their crappy RBL (assuming you somehow know what they are) when the problem is you didn't get the message in the first place?
The person sending you the message will get their message kicked back to them with a very clear "We rejected your message because your domain/IP address is on a blacklist at www.xxx.xxx".
How much easier does it get then that?
Even if you're an ISP mail administrator, who do you know the RBL did something stupid like this until the angry phone calls start coming in?
Simple. I read the logs and the discussions. I've only had one problem since I put in the blacklists. And that was from a company with BellSouth who had had other problems with blacklists because BellSouth didn't handle the IP addresses correctly.
Now, balance that against the thousands of rejected spams EVERY SINGLE DAY and the course is clear.
With less than.000001% problems, I'm sticking with the blacklists. People who get on those blacklists do have other communication channels open to them and they can easily contact me if there is ever a problem.
Believe it or not, many of us Bush supporters are highly educated, quite intelligent, scholarly, and are capable of recognizing propaganda for what it is.
Yes, of course you are. And you only have to ask yourselves for validation of that.
Maybe some of us recognized that the terror link to Saddam was just that, propaganda, but because we agree with GWB on most other issues we decided to let it go.
"other issues" such as... what?
Maybe some of us really do think that the Christian right are extremists, but we would rather talk to them and rein them in a touch rather than accept the alternative -- a totally secular, moral relativist society with no social norms whatsoever.
Re-read my original post about "enemies" and how we must support our Leader to defeat those enemies.
Your "enemy" is "a touch rather than accept the alternative -- a totally secular, moral relativist society with no social norms whatsoever".
"Secular" and "social norms" are not mutually exclusive. They aren't exclusive at all. In fact, most "secular" states have the same basic "social norms" as religious states (no killing, no stealing, etc).
But that false dichotomy is exactly the behaviour I described.
That's not to say we all agree with him on everything -- far from it -- but by and large we take the good with the bad, and with him we largely feel there is more good than bad.
Our Leader is strong and good. Those who oppose him are weak and evil.
Only by giving our Leader our full support will we defeat the enemy.
You might want to re-read my original post.
And maybe -- just maybe -- we know what Socialism is, what damage it has done throughout the world, and we collectively decided that we would fall on our proverbial swords rather than let it gain a foothold here
Again with the enemy SOCIALISM.
So, tell me what, exactly, is it about Socialism that makes it the enemy.
Otherwise, that falls 100% on the "support our Leader in all thing, defeat the enemy" jingo.
Just maybe we support Conservatives (and welcome the alliance of the religious right) because we face a common enemy (in most cases, enemies) on idelogical grounds -- Socialism, and the social and moral consequences it produces.
Again, the enemies are coming! Which was exactly what I said.
Maybe we support GWB because we actually agree with him on ideological grounds.
Maybe. But from your post, it seems that your "ideological ground" is nothing more (or less) than the enemy is coming.
You must DEFEND Conservatives against the ENEMY of Socialism (and no social norms, secular society, etc).
Understand that for people like us, no amount of repackaging Socialism, secular humanism, or Communism-lite will work.
Yep. Again, Satan has many allies and many of them look just like you and me. We must find these allies before they destroy us. etc.
We know them for what they are, we actively oppose them, and many of us dedicate ourselves toward rooting such efforts out and exposing them to the light of day.
Satan... allies... look like us... defeat the witches.
A great many of us voted for GWB because WE DON'T WANT SUCH THINGS.
Support our Leader against the witches!
Okay, is it possible for you to make a political statement that is NOT something I've already covered?
We are not going to wake up one day and say, "Wow, that (leftist politician) is really making some sense! Socialized medicine/income redistribution/high-taxes/other Socialist program is the way
Slashdot Mirror
He'd been personally in charge of two other operations in Iraq.Great. I'm talking to an E-4. I had boots with more time in grade than you had time in service.
You know nothing about the situation, yet you're going to claim everything because you were an E-4 in one of the units that was mentioned.
I'm sure that an E-4 knows more than a Major General with years of experience.You might want to check the facts.
The unit doing the block was operating on an expired mission.
If they had been recalled by the US chain of command as they were supposed to have been, then there wouldn't have been a problem.
Now, as for the non-existance of his route, read the report. Once the Major identified himself, the blocking tore down and escorted them through.
So he did have a route.
Imagine, an E-4 not knowing all the details and thinking he can out-guess a Major General.Yep.Their mission had expired and they were not recalled.
They were setup in the open for over an hour.
In a combat zone.
Now, if the enemy had moved in a couple RPG's and blown them up, there WOULD definately have been a problem and SOMEONE would want to know WHY they were left in an open position for so long.Read the Italian version.
In the Italian version, there was no delay between warning and shooting. So he would not have been able to.Again, you're basing that off of what people have said.
This was NOT his first time operating in Iraq.
This was NOT his first time interacting with the US.
Yet, in order for you to be right, he has to be an idiot.
And you still haven't read the report.
The facts are:
#1. This was an unscheduled block.
#2. The block was left in place after the mission had expired.
#3. The block did not have direct communications with other units.
#4. It was night and there was no advance warning of the block until the searchlight hit them.
Now, tell me oh E-4, how was the Major General supposed to contact that unit doing an unscheduled block with no communications.
Let me guess, you weren't the one leading those patrols you're so fond of talking about, were you.
The checkpoints are setup on PUBLIC sites.
They are setup DURING DAYLIGHT.
They process CIVILIANS through them.
Yet you, somehow, seem to believe that the enemy cannot SEE it.And would you be SPECIFIC in that example?
WHAT, specifically, are you talking about. Provide a quote from the report.And have I ever said that? Just because they can see how the checkpoints are setup and operated, does NOT mean that we fire all of our spies and informants.
But then YOU are the only one who has said anything like that.And now you've lost all touch with reality.
This is about the REPORT. Remember?What the FUCK are you talking about "side point" for?
This is ALL ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE INFORMATION.
There is no fucking "side point" to that. It is the WHOLE POINT.Which was my whole point that I've restated time and time and time again. Yet YOU seem to think that you've come up with some new insight.
There
Is
No
Military
Value
In
The
Report
None. All of the information (except the names) can be and has been collected by the enemy already.
Which is how the enemy has been able to improve their attacks.
Again, WHAT information does the enemy NOT ALREADY have access to?The enemy is either using a IED or a suicide bomb.
Neither case has ANYTHING to do with an attempt to "avoid engagement".
Try being "specific" next time.
Don't post from your fear.
Be specific.They know what our assessment of ourselves is just by watching what changes we make in our operations.
If we don't change our operations, they know that we think they are good enough.
As for the enemy's tactics, the casualty rate is enough to gage that. Why would they care about what we thought of their attacks if their attacks were killing our people?Once again, be specific. What information.Great. 268th Attack Helicopter Battalion, here.
When you say "veteran", what do you mean, specifically?
You post claims and for substantiation, you link to other stories with those claims.
The "satelite photo" story does not contain any satelite photos.
The reference to "handfuls of bullets" does not have her saying that. Only her boyfriend telling someone that she said that to him.
The reference to the "4 inch tank round" again does not have her saying that but has someone who claims to have heard her say that.
The REAL question is whether or not they had passed through other checkpoints.
So, the rest of your position falls apart.
Unless you can show where one of the items I mentioned can be shown to NOT be available to them. Go ahead and try to show that checkpoints set up in the open, in broad daylight, can not be seen by people travelling through them and by people watching from other sites.
HOW did you coordinate with the other UNIT to let you through?
Then explain HOW the Italians were supposed to do that with the communication problems that were mentioned in the REPORT? With a unit that wasn't even supposed to BE there? Here's another part of the REPORT that you didn't bother to read.Of course, no one on the US side had any knowledge of any activity prior to the shooting.
Which is why the Italians are having so much trouble accepting this "report".
Because he's dead, he probably made a mistake.
Now, if you had read the article (I know, it's long and it doesn't have pictures) you'd see that the kids firing the weapons did NOT have communication with the other units to let them know that their mission had expired and they could tear down and return to base.
You really might want to read the article next time.
Or, better yet, how do you propose that he let the unit know he was coming?
Read the article. That unit did NOT have 100% communication with the other units.
Their mission had expired and they WERE LEFT OUT THERE because it was not COMMUNICATED to them.
Secondly, read the report. It tells how the enemy has been adapting their attacks based off of that knowledge.Can you quote that from the article?
I don't recall reading that there.Again, read the article. Look for the section with this quote in it:That will show you that they are learning and adapting.As it should be in any situation.No. It is because it is "brittle". Once it is broken, it is broken.Only amongst those who do not understand security.
Look at the WTC attack for proof of that.Again, only amongst those who do not understand security.Why would you have to? Do you even know what "Security through obscurity" is?
It is where your defense depends upon the enemy NOT knowing something.
The thief does NOT know that you keep an extra house key under the front door mat.
How does it require re-writing the laws of physics to just NOT put the key there?
You bank probably has the vault in plain sight. Wouldn't it be more effective if they hid the vault? No. Banks understand security. They want the vault in plain sight and they want to rely upon their security system to prevent theft.
In war, you NEVER hope that the attacker will NOT know something that is critically important to your success.
Which to choose, which to choose?
...
On the one hand, it's an entirely new episode of Enterprise
On the other hand, it's a repeat of a show with dated material, bad effects and hilarious acting. Looks like it will be the repeat.
Isn't it strange how none of the other series on TV have to compete with reruns?
Will people skip the new Batman movie to watch the old Batman and Robin TV show?
Will people skip the latest hospital drama to watch reruns of Emergency!?
Did anyone skip Firefly to watch reruns of Space 1999?
I think I'll skip CSI and re-watch some old Columbo and Baretta episodes.
Right.....
He was also a trained intelligence agent with more time in service than most of the people in the US unit COMBINED.
So, why do you ASSUME that he made any mistakes?Again, you're ASSUMING specifics about the situation that haven't been established.
The guy driving the car was a MAJOR, the guy in the backseat was a MAJOR GENERAL.
So, of course you ASSUME that some kids in the National Guard know more about operations than two high ranking Italian agents.So, you have a system has you admit has had problems in the past (yet you don't say how it's been corrected) and you have your assumptions about how experts were less experienced than a bunch of National Guard kids
Personally, I'm waiting for the Italian report on the condition of the car and the bullet holes in Calipari.
So, you can make a statement and provide no substantiation for it, yet still get mod'ed up.
You know, there just might be a reason that those photos haven't been shown.
How is that any different than that the "information" about Saddam's "WMD's" that he was "hiding" from the inspectors? There were lots of "satelite photos" showing trucks and buildings.
And we all know how that ended.
Personally, I'm not going to accept any "satelite photos" until I've seen them posted.
#1. IED & VBIED analysis. The attackers already know that. The only people who don't know it are the US citizens who only watch Fox news. That is how the attackers can improve their attacks. So no military reason to hide that info.
#2. Analysis of specific checkpoints. Again, the attackers already have that information.
#3. Combat readiness analysis - this might be useful to the attackers, but most likely won't be. The attackers aren't going to attempt to match military units.
#4. Description of the layout - not useful to the attackers. They can already see it. About 50 cars had already seen it. That is one of the items they consider when improving their attacks.
#5. Grid locations - again, the attackers already know that.
#6. Details on searches - again, the attackers already know that and have used that information to improve their attacks.
#7. Details of threat assesment methods - possibly not fully be known by the attackers. But, given the number of recorded shootings of civilians, this information wouldn't be very useful. Which is why the suicide attacks have increased.
#8. Analysis of "normal" traffic - again, that information is available to the attackers already and it is part of what they've used to improve their attacks.
etc, etc, etc.
About the only information that should have been completely removed are the names of the soldiers/officers involved and their units. They can be impacted by various journalists and such seeking stories.
None of the other information wouldn't already be known by the attackers.
And operating as if the attackers did NOT know that information just leaves you vulnerable to more attacks.
As can be seen in the report. The soldiers secured the points they were most vulnerable from. Including overpasses where grenades could be dropped.
You have to assume the enemy has all the information you do before you start operations. Otherwise, when the enemy DOES know something that you are relying upon him to NOT know, you're fucked.
Go watch Titanic. The ship goes out, hits an iceberg and sinks. Some people live, many die.
Yet, while linking those incidents, the writer, director and producer manage to tell a WHOLE STORY. They fit a whole movie in between those incidents.
Yet the great George Lucas can't do that even when he controls the incidents.And THAT is the kind of mentality that will think this movie is "awesome".
Yes, they were Jedi.
But they were also KIDS.
Killing an adult Jedi in combat is one thing. But being able to slaughter a bunch of kids takes a different personality. I'm probably wasting my time on this subject with you, but you might want to look up "age of consent" and "juvy" and "tried as an adult". Our culture has very different rules for children and adults.Great. How many HOURS has Lucas had to develop Annie as the bad guy and the best he can do is "HE'S THE VILLAN".
That just about defines "piss poor" right there.You don't have to plead."not the greatest movies in the world".
They sucked dog shit. Just accept that. You're a fan-boy and that colours your perception of anything Lucas does."those movies".
Yet the original Star Wars appealed to children AND adults.
Did you miss that? Children AND adults.
ANYONE can make a movie that appeals to 11 & 12 year olds. ANYONE That's pretty funny coming from someone who hasn't progressed beyond the level of his own kids.
Don't hate me because I understand continuity or production or storylines. Just go back to your GI Joe cartoons and 1 dimensional characters and consider yourself lucky.
Vader showed more dimensions in ep#4-6 than in 1-3 and that is what makes those movies so much better than the current crap.
But it doesn't.
Ben (Annie's old MENTOR) rescues Annie's SON who is accompanied by the droid that Annie BUILT and another droid from Ben's past when he fought and almost KILLED Annie.
And the only reaction Ben shows is
No interest in HOW that particular droid got there.
No concern that a droid built by a planet destroying maniac with a personal grudge against him just showed up on his doorstep.
Seeing the kid isn't something new. Ben knew that Luke was there and why.
Seeing C3PO AND R2D2 show up SHOULD have caused a reaction.
EVERY
JEDI
KILLED (except 2)
Yet no reaction. None at all.
Here, let me give you a movie scenario and you can fill in the emotion.
Back in our hero's past, he had fought against the bad guy and the bad guy had killed all of our hero's family. Our hero knows the car the bad guy drives. Our hero rescued the bad guy's kid and hid him away in another city.
Then, one day, the kid shows up at our hero's apartment in the city. Our hero looks outside and sees
Our hero says
==========
Right. The ENTIRE dialogue sequence is wrong in ep#4 when you've seen ep #1-3.
That's just like the old "parsec" non-explanation.
You already know that the ship will sink and that lots of people die and some people survive.
Yet they managed to cram a whole movie into it. A movie that lots of people liked and saw lots of times.
Yet from the "review", this movie is nothing more than links between ep#2 and ep#4. There is no movie.
WHY does Annie hack the kids up with lightsaber?
This is the THIRD movie in the SERIES yet Annie still has no motivation. He is a one dimensional character. Vader had more dimensions in ep#4-6 and he had to display them while wearing a mask and armour.
They were all nothing more than links to the real movie that he loved. The droids from the original, the ship from the original, the planet from the original, etc.
So Annie kills a bunch of kids...... WHY does he do that? Why is he PERSONALLY involved in it?Why does anyone have to be "lying"?
#1 & #2 truly did suck. #3 will have a LOT to make up for and I doubt it will be able to.
Is there any reason to like this movie other than so many of the scenes are DESIGNED to conjure memories of the #4.
That bullshit was reason enough to hate #1 & #2 where in a whole fucking galaxy, you find that everyone you know is related to someone your father knew.
It's like moving from New York City to Seattle and finding out that the car you just bought belonged to your dad. And your girlfriend is the daughter of one of his old girlfriends. And your boss is your dad's old boss. And your house was built by your dad 30 years ago.
Yeah, sure. I'd have to be "lying" to say that such a string of coincidences WITHOUT AN UNDERLYING CAUSE would result in a stupid movie.
But some other guy, who really likes your dad would think that it was so awesome that everything in your life can be traced back to your dad.
whee fucking splat.
We know Vader. We know what he does in #4 & 5 & 6. The question is WHY is he like that. WHAT made him like that.
Instead of fixing that (which would mean scrapping a lot of working apps such as MS Office), Microsoft is applying layers of band-aids.
For a good example of that, look at viruses on Windows. A virus exploits either a flaw in the security model or a hole in the code.
Running anti-virus software is nothing more than a REACTIVE application of a single band-aid for each and every virus that is currently known.
Yet no one at Microsoft has stopped to think "Hey, why don't we fix the core problem so the viruses can't infect us or spread?"
Instead, Microsoft decides to BUY an anti-virus company.
And Microsoft decides to BUY an anti-spyware company.Because they are NOT doing that.
They are STILL looking for ways to band-aid their existing junk.
But the band-aids are starting to affect each other and the apps that people want to run.They're working on Microsoft code. Why do you ask? And no, they aren't working on the security model.
Which is why we still have ActiveX junk and a browser that is part of the OS.
Skip the rhetorical questions. They don't work.No. What it means is that the band-aids have grown so much that they're now affecting each other, the OS and the apps.
Otherwise, they'd be able to release a quick test suite that would run in the background that would be able to tell you if your app that works on Win2K/XP/2003 would also work on Longhorn.
I guess you don't remember all the talk about Win2K being so much more secure (and the *nix killer).
And how XP was supposed to be so much more secure.
etc. etc. etc.
Microsoft says that about EACH new version when they announce it.
THEN they start dropping features as the development drags on.
Eventually, they ship what they have and declare it to be more stable, secure and easier to use than any previous system.
The next day, they pre-announce the next version and promise that all the dropped features will be that version.
Check back on what the original feature list for "Cairo" was supposed to be. You remember "Cairo", right? Win95?
In which case, having that many passwords is just stupid. It is not providing any more security.
From TFA:But is he running Outlook?
Someone looking to install a zombie does not need to crack his 5 passwords to do so.
In fact, I cannot think of ANYTHING that requires 5 passwords to protect that won't be just as secure with 3 passwords (or even 2 passwords) provided that each password is protected in the same fashion (writing down the 5 passwords and sticking it beneath your keyboard works that same even if you have 20 passwords).
Security is all about restricting the avenues of attack. But once an avenue is restricted, piling more layers upon it does NOT make it more secure.
I'm guessing that his 5 passwords are:
#1. BIOS password
#2. Hard drive password
#3. Windows login
#4. email password
#5. some other password that may be earlier
Now, think about what someone would have to do to be able to get the first 2 passwords.
If someone can get those, then they can get the other 3.
Is he paranoid? I don't believe so.
But he does NOT understand computer security as well as he would like to believe.
I use SpamAssassin and Exim4.
I don't bother processing all the crap from the blacklists. I just reject them with a note that they were found to be in blacklist "X".
I figure that if there is a real person sending it, they'll contact someone where I work through some other means (like a phone call).
Rejecting messages at SMTP time is fine with me.
It is people like me who use the RBL's and have my email server setup to reject (with proper attribution) email from sites on the RBL's.The person sending you the message will get their message kicked back to them with a very clear "We rejected your message because your domain/IP address is on a blacklist at www.xxx.xxx".
How much easier does it get then that?Simple. I read the logs and the discussions. I've only had one problem since I put in the blacklists. And that was from a company with BellSouth who had had other problems with blacklists because BellSouth didn't handle the IP addresses correctly.
Now, balance that against the thousands of rejected spams EVERY SINGLE DAY and the course is clear.
With less than
Yes, of course you are. And you only have to ask yourselves for validation of that.
"other issues" such as ... what?
Re-read my original post about "enemies" and how we must support our Leader to defeat those enemies.
Your "enemy" is "a touch rather than accept the alternative -- a totally secular, moral relativist society with no social norms whatsoever".
"Secular" and "social norms" are not mutually exclusive. They aren't exclusive at all. In fact, most "secular" states have the same basic "social norms" as religious states (no killing, no stealing, etc).
But that false dichotomy is exactly the behaviour I described.
Our Leader is strong and good. Those who oppose him are weak and evil.
Only by giving our Leader our full support will we defeat the enemy.
You might want to re-read my original post.
Again with the enemy SOCIALISM.
So, tell me what, exactly, is it about Socialism that makes it the enemy.
Otherwise, that falls 100% on the "support our Leader in all thing, defeat the enemy" jingo.
Again, the enemies are coming! Which was exactly what I said.
Maybe. But from your post, it seems that your "ideological ground" is nothing more (or less) than the enemy is coming.
You must DEFEND Conservatives against the ENEMY of Socialism (and no social norms, secular society, etc).
Yep. Again, Satan has many allies and many of them look just like you and me. We must find these allies before they destroy us. etc.
Satan ... allies ... look like us ... defeat the witches.
Support our Leader against the witches!
Okay, is it possible for you to make a political statement that is NOT something I've already covered?