90 Miles From Tyranny

infinite scrolling

Sunday, July 6, 2014

Booby Trapping Ammunition In The Mideast


High-explosive booby-trapped
 ammunition has been used
 in wars and guerrilla conflicts for
decades.  When used, the
sabotaged ammunition can
kill or maim.
When out on patrols in Afghanistan, Western soldiers often uncover ammunition caches used by the region’s
many fighting groups. And when on the archipelago of outposts from which they work, these same soldiers routinely have access to weapons carried by the Taliban, including Kalashnikov assault rifles, PK machine guns, rocket-propelled-grenade launchers and 82-millimeter mortars. But soldiers and Marines have been told for years not to combine these two naturally paired items — captured ammunition with captured arms — for training or other uses, even though practice with the most common weapons in Afghanistan could reasonably be seen as a valuable part of preparing for the war’s daily work. Western forces are also discouraged from collecting ammunition in the field and passing it on to the Afghan Army and police forces, who often carry weapons that could use it. Does this make sense? It depends on what a soldier knows, or is told by officers and nearby explosive-ordnance disposal techs.

The reason for these general prohibitions is rooted in a tactic shrouded in secrecy: The United States has been seeding battlefields with improvised exploding ammunition, part of a large-scale project intended to undermine the Taliban that can have grisly unintended effects. Such ammunition was introduced by the United States to Afghanistan with hopes that it would explode inside the weapons of its foes. But ammunition tends to move fluidly through and around conflict zones. And once loose, booby-trapped ammunition does not distinguish between a weapon held by a Talib, a weapon held by an American soldier or a weapon held by anyone else. This is why those cautions are issued, circulating across the country beside their slow-brewed cousins from a parallel disinformation campaign — the cannily promoted stories (which do have elements of truth, considering) that the Taliban’s ammunition supply is unreliable and therefore dangerous.


Such tactics have been widely used by the Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency in both Afghanistan and Iraq, just as they were used by a previous generation of American soldiers and intelligence operatives in Vietnam, according to many people involved in the distribution of the spiked ordnance.

Recently, The New York Times documented the tactic’s appearance this year in the war in Syria, where the ammunition supply of antigovernment fighters has been salted with similar booby traps. Rebels describe an effort run by the Syrian government that assembles rifle and machine-gun cartridges in which the standard propellant has been replaced with a high-explosive powder that detonates when a shooter tries to fire a weapon, shattering the rifle or machine gun and often wounding the shooter. These rounds are then mixed with clean ammunition and channeled into black markets or left behind at government positions when the army withdraws. The rebels also described booby-trapped mortar rounds and rocket-propelled grenade projectiles.

Morning Mistress

This Is A Man Bites Dog Story...


Hot Pick Of The Late Night

Saturday, July 5, 2014

Girls With Guns


Missed Me!


More Ronald Reagan HERE

The Leading Cause Of Hard Drive Failures..


Strange Thing Happened Today...


Fishing Like A Boss..


More Amazing Animated Gifs HERE

The Land Of The Free Becomes The Land Of The Serfs...


Know Your Animal Tracks...

More Prepping:

Prepping: How To Grow 100 Pounds Of Potatoes In 4 Square Feet..

Google Is Being Forced To Censor The History Of Merrill Lynch — And That Should Terrify You

The European Union's new law giving people a "right to be forgotten," which requires Google to
remove links to information about them, is having exactly the effect its critics predicted: It is censoring the internet, giving new tools that help the rich and powerful (and ordinary folk) hide negative information about them, and letting criminals make their histories disappear.
Exhibit A: Google was required to delete a link to this BBC article about Stan O'Neal, the former CEO of Merrill Lynch. O'Neal led the bank in the mid-2000s, a period when it became dangerously over-exposed to the looming mortgage crisis. When the crisis hit, Merrill's losses were so great the bank had to be sold to Bank of America. O'Neal lost his job, but he exited with a $161.5 million golden parachute.
There is nothing incorrect in the post, in fact it's a rather mild account of O'Neal's incompetence during the period. O'Neal was forced out of the company after he began discussing selling it without informing his board of directors. This is ancient, well-established history. Having it removed from Google doesn't undo the fact that it happened. But there is a new generation of 25-year-old investment bankers who perhaps do not have a firm grasp of the 2007 crisis that reshaped banking globally. Their grasp will be ever more slightly weaker due to this new law.
"There is an argument that in removing the blog, Google is confirming the fears of many in the industry that the 'right to be forgotten' will be abused to curb freedom of expression and to suppress legitimate journalism that is in the public interest,"  BBC writer Robert Peston says .
Also, Business Insider previously noted that deletion requests were granted for a former politician who wanted to remove links to a news article about his behavior when previously in office — so that he can have a clean slate when running for a new position — and a man who was convicted of possessing child sexual abuse imagery.
So pedophiles can take advantage of this law as well. 
Forget.me, a company that expedites Google deletion requests, tells Business Insider that it is fielding 250 requests per day. Here's a breakdown of what is being deleted from the world's greatest search engine:





View gallery
.
google right to be forgotten
Forget.me
It's exactly like the "memory holes" in George Orwell's "1984," in which Big Brother's minions burn information that the government wants people to forget.
But the E.U. law is terrifying for another reason: The entire process is so non-transparent that the consequence for the individual is even worse than what the courts intended.  
This excellent discussion from Danny Sullivan at MarketingLand.com shows that even when Google removes links, new ones pop up in their place. And Europeans can get the full, uncensored internet by leaving Google.co.uk and searching at Google.com.
Here's a U.K. search result for the Stan O'Neal article:





View gallery
.
Stan O'Nea Google
(Note the disclosure from Google that its results have been censored.)
Sullivan then searched for the name of the first commenter on the article and got this:





View gallery
.
stan o'neal google
We don't know whether it was O'Neal who asked that the link be removed. In fact, O'Neal's name may be being dragged through the mud unnecessarily here. Peston believes it may be someone mentioned by readers in the comments section under his story about the ruling. 
He suggests that as a "Peter Dragomer" search triggers the same disclosure that a result may have been censored, that perhaps it was not O'Neal who requested the deletion. In an amazing coincidence, the person posting as "Peter Dragomer" claims to be an ex-Merrill employee.
Right now, thousands of people probably think that Stan O'Neal is on some quixotic quest to make people forget that he was at the wheel when Merrill drove off a cliff. And there is no evidence that that's the case.
But because the law exists, we have no idea what the truth is.
That ought to worry everyone.