WikiLeaks founder chooses to blackmail

[Mazomaniac]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Wrong on two main counts.

*Sigh*

Why did I feed the troll?

Look PuddyCat, the company I own just happens to build some of those fancy gadgets that keep you alive out there. I've got a pretty good foundation on this subject. How about we inject some verifiable facts into this argument other than "I once saw 'Warlock' painted on a sign in Iraq", shall we?

The Warlock Green and Red systems referred to in the WikiLeaks documents were part of the Counter Remote Control Improvised Explosive Device (RCIED) Electronic Warfare (CREW) system. These early "CREW-1" devices were built in very limited numbers to act as a stop-gap measure until the more capable CREW-2 system came online. The Warlock systems were actually nothing more than upgraded Shortstop proximity fuse counter measure systems that were hastily re-built to include jamming capability in the spectrum used by cell phones. A grand total of 400 Warlock Green and 1500 Warlock Red systems were produced by EDO Corp (now part of ITT). All of them were delivered by January of 2006. No Warlock units have been built since. You can read about the history of Warlock here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...d/an-vlq-9.htm

The military realized, however, that the Warlock technology did not fully address the remote detonated IED problem so they immediately set out to replace the Warlocks with new and improved systems based on the CREW-2 standard. In 2004 CENTCOM directed that ALL HMMWV's, FMTV/LMTV's, M2's, and Strykers in the Iraq and Afghanistan operating theaters be fitted or upgraded with CREW-2 devices as soon as they were available. This started happening in 2007. You will find the initial contract solicitation for the first 10,000 CREW-2 systems to replace the Warlocks, issued December 2006, here: https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&m...=core&_cview=0

ITT won that contract (it's contract number N00024-07-C-6311 if you want to look it up) and started replacing or upgrading all of the Warlock CREW-1 systems to the CREW-2 standard in early 2007. The work was 100% completed in May 2008. All of the CREW-1 Warlocks were gone by that date. All of them.

After that the DoD went hog wild on jammers. More than 70,000 CREW-2 level systems where put into the field since 2007. These systems come from a variety of manufacturers under the names ICE (Raytheon), Symphony (Lockheed), Duke (Syracuse), Spiral (ITT), and a few others. CREW-3 capable Spiral systems are now appearing out of ITT as well.

So what does all this mean?

It basically means that you're full of shit.

1. The WikiLeaks document only referred to the CREW-1 systems and was released years after the practically worthless CREW-1 Warlocks had been phased out. Even if there were some old Warlocks still out there when the document was released, they would have been a tiny, tiny fraction of the 70,000+ CREW system in field. The document had no impact on the operational effectiveness of the CREW program. It didn't endanger anybody.

2. The fact that some parts of the military still calls every jammer a "Warlock" has nothing to do with anything. It's pretty common, as you well know, for a name to stick in the heads of you E-3/4 grunts once you've heard it. Just because you call everything with a button and dial a "Warlock" doesn't change the fact that the CREW-1 Warlock systems were long gone before the WikiLeaks document was published.

3. As you should also well know, the bad guys figured out how to bypass the whole CREW system almost as quickly as we put them into the field. IED makers switched over to passive infrared triggers once we had a significant number of jammers in the field. While I wouldn't go on a Sunday drive through the northern provinces without a CREW system, they certainly were not the end of the IED threat. Fact is, all of the CREW jammers are easily defeated by using a $5 IR sensor instead of a $20 RF trigger. The bad guys had already figured out how to get around CREW and WikiLeaks did nothing to change this.

4. Your concept of "general public" vs "in the field" is simply misguided. The guys who make those triggers aren't goat herders in Basra, they're educated electrical engineers in Iran and Pakistan. Those guys do have both the training and info they need to defeat or work around the jammers. Jamming a cell phone is electrical engineering 101. These devices work on basic principles of physics and there is very, very little inside one of those jammers that any experienced electrical engineer would not know about already. In fact, the exact same electronics found in the Warlock Red were used to jam cell phone signals in movie theaters. If you wanted to learn about Warlock all you had to do was order one of these commercially available devices and you'd know all about it. Your distinction between the public and the experts is nonsensical. It's the experts we're worried about and they already had the info.

So, if you were, as you claim, actually being sent outside the wire in 2009 with nothing but a Warlock Red system then either:

a) you were operating in a time warp rather than a war zone, or

b) your CO was trying out a creative means of eliminating one of his little problems.

From your demeanor on this board I'd go with option b all the way.

As for all the other stuff, blah blah blah, blah blah blah, so what. You've proven that, like all experienced trolls, you're long on rhetoric and hyperbole and far, far short on facts. When you can do better than "but I swear I saw one in my truck last year" come on back and I shall taunt you some more.

Cheers,
Mazo.

PS - Note that I'm not talking about Warlock Blue systems here. That's a completely different, although equally worthless, class of device that has nothing to do with the WikiLeaks document. If you're talking about turning off your Warlock Blues when going inside the wire then you're even more clueless about this subject than you appear to be.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

I'm currently doing a global sports fan's bucket list. Already did Indy 500, Super Bowl, World Series, Winter and Summer Olympics, and World Cup.

I'm hoping to finish it out over the next year with:


Ansley at Atlanta

Now there's a "sporting" event I like and understand. Good luck!

What I know about Cricket, I learned from Douglas Adams, and soccer, well I enjoyed the movie, "Damned United."

[Sisyphus]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

That's what happened on other message boards. Once they stop engaging me, time passes, then the cycle repeats, either on this board, or another one. When I argue "indefinitely," it's not just with the current debate, but continued on the following debate. I'd be a hypocrite if I advocate that America continue fighting until we accomplish our objectives, then turn around and fail to do precisely that on a specific debate on a message board.

That would be one view on what's happened. Another view....

People argue with you until they realize it's a waste of time. Argument stops. Somebody forgets - or someone new comes along who doesn't know better - and reengages you. Cycle repeats...

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Thanks for being one of the rare posters that acknowledges that fact. I'm usually the only poster, in a forum debate, openly admitting that both sides would stick to their positions, while the opposition denies it.

I do my level best to think something through before I open my mouth. Consequently, when I do so I tend to think I'm right. Arguing with me is the about the only way to get me to change my mind. I know I'm not perfect - far from it. I've learned to appreciate give-and-take in all of it's various forms. It's how we all learn & improve.

But, you've got to come correct or you're going to get tuned out. Know the community, know the audience. You may have some valid points to make on this topic & many others...but I get so turned off by the self-righteous demeanor that I quickly lose interest in anything you may have to say. I won't presume to speak for anyone but me but my guess is I'm not on an island in that regard. So, at ease, Chief! Chances are...the men you serve with are tuning you out as well. That ain't good!

There it is...in a nutshell. You may win battles & wars in your own mind; but, you've already lost the hearts & minds fight here. I'm guessing it's the same story pretty much everywhere you go.

Originally Posted by herfacechair

The real problem is that you assume that this is the only board of its kind on the internet. You also assume, erroneously, the reasons to why I do certain things. Smart people would either ask me, or investigate my past actions. Google "herfacechair" to see what I mean by this.

God help me...I did. You are one odd dude.... But, you keep at it, Sgt. York! The life of a prophet can be a lonely one...

Perhaps you've just been barking up the wrong tree. "Another Realm" is one floor down.

[charlestudor2005]

From SPHunter's sig line:

Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

'Nuf Said.

[Guest083011]

Or "It is like wrestling with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it."

[Whirlaway]

If Assange hasn't done anything illegal then why has he announced that an indictment and extradition to the US appears likely?

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

If Assange hasn't done anything illegal then why has he announced that an indictment and extradition to the US appears likely?

Because the US goverenment will do its damndest to bring some charges against him even if ultimately they don't hold up. DoJ is under pressure from Congress to "do something, do anything."

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

If Assange hasn't done anything illegal then why has he announced that an indictment and extradition to the US appears likely?

I know there's that nasty little thing called the Constitution in which everyone charged is considered innocent until found guilty.

Assange is just expressing the political reality that exists in the US despite the fact most experts believe that the US cannot sustain a criminal charge.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

I'm winning both, the debate battle and debate war. We won with a straight cut victory in Iraq, thus we don't need the troop levels there that we used to have. As long as there's a will to fight, and win, we're going to continue to receive funding for our efforts downrange.

By your own admission you are sucking at the government tit.


For that milk to continue to flow, I'm sure you are aware that the gain from military victory needs to at the very least equal the cost. If you look at our national debt you will see that is not happening. What this means is that at some point your milk will dry up as will, I suspect your cockiness.

Thus I stick by my statement that you are winning the battle but losing the funding war. It may not affect you. Now I realize that you may think this debate is all about you but from my POV it is not, it is about long term trends and economic health. Just because you are not able to see past the decade does not mean that I can't.

Originally Posted by herfacechair

As long as there's a will to fight, and win, we're going to continue to receive funding for our efforts downrange.

No you leave out a very important factor....funds to fight. The Indians had the will to fight and win. Good Lord, you sound like some Defense contractor feeding at the trough trying to feed me a line about why I need to feed you.

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Pardon me for not using big bookish, pompous words.

But understand that I've spent more time in a military environment than I have in a university environment. That's the military side of me speaking, which is lenient compared to what's actually said by military people.

As far as the movie is concerned, the character that you're comparing me to in your quote? For that character to have the rank he did, he would've had to graduate from the Naval Academy... hence, he would've ben a college graduate. He did a pretty good job acting like someone who was in the military. Our actual language, and communication with each other, is much more abrasive.

No , I was comparing you to the Jack Nicholison charchter. Col. Jessup, I believe his name was.

Look I appreciate your POV. To have the job you have, it is exactly what you need to have. I understand why they instill it in you. But it is a short term view, one that saves your life but does not take into consideration the long term health of this country.

That is why I think this discussion , at least that you and I are having is about two different subject matters. Good luck to you and from the bottom of my heart I hope like hell none of the leaks put you or any of our soldiers life in danger.

[Mazomaniac]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

If Assange hasn't done anything illegal then why has he announced that an indictment and extradition to the US appears likely?

Ah yes, the old guilty 'til proven innocent theory.

Good for you Whirlaway. I would have been supremely disappointed if there was any part of the official wing-nut party platform that you didn't endorse. If you're gonna be a wing-nut, might as well get screwed on tight.

Of course, this theory does have some disadvantages for you. Bush, Rumsfeld, and few of their friends had war crimes charges pressed against them in more than one European country. Those charges were dismissed on sovereignty grounds, of course. But hey! If there was reason enough to file the charges then those guys were obviously guilty of something, right? Shouldn't we be out denouncing them in public as the war criminals they obviously are? Don't they deserve to spend their remaining days in Spandau even if there wasn't an actual trial or an actual guilty verdict?

Yes, the wing-nut agenda does occasionally force you to swallow hard and ingest a does of reality. But that's the price ya pay for being able to point at Assange and yell "WITCH!!!" before the gavel falls. Thinking about it, I guess the cost of extremism is actually pretty low.

Cheers,
Mazo.

[Whirlaway]

Assange will get his day in court (hopefully), and we can see which way the weatherman blows.

In the mentime I understand how the European socialists thinking crowd is very upset with Obama and his handling of Gitmo and things, but reality is a hard ass motherfucker.

And being able to yell "witch" is what the constitution is all about.

But then it is always the lefty ideoluges who want to shut down/shout down the opposing side. Look at how the left always tries to intimidate and drown-out conservatiism on our college campuses.

Truth be told, the most murderous dictators of history have almost exclusively come out of the left thinking fringes.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Truth be told, the most murderous dictators of history have almost exclusively come out of the left thinking fringes.

Did you forget about Hitler who was probably responsible for more deaths (directly in concentration camps or in WW II) then any dictator in history.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Truth be told, the most murderous dictators of history have almost exclusively come out of the left thinking fringes.

Actually, murderous dictators come from both ends of the political spectrum. From Hitler to Stalin. From Genghis Khan to Constantine. And let's forget totalitarian monarchies.

Point: it is not the sole province of the left. It is both. Just as in Congress.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Did you forget about Hitler who was probably responsible for more deaths (directly in concentration camps or in WW II) then any dictator in history.

@ discreetgent - I wasn’t sure whether or not you were right. I knew approximately how many Europeans died during the war, but I also knew Mao’s governmental policies led to famine that killed millions of Chinese. I was betting that if Mao didn’t have this dubious distinction, he would be a close second to Hitler. However, based on what I found, Mao is, in fact, the winner in this infamous contest and the Communist regime in the USSR holds second place. So, Whirlaway is right—but these contenders had the added benefit of time. Hitler was only in power for a little over twelve years. .

These estimates are based on studies published by Rudolph J. Rummel. I used his numbers—neither the highest or the lowest— because of the way he broke down the events, but after I had copied the tables, I read the bibliography where he is noted as a right wing libertarian.

Russian Civil War (1917-22): 9,000,000

Soviet Union: 61,911,000 democides in the USSR 1917-87, of which 51,755,000 occurred during the Stalin years. This divides up into:
■Russian Civil War (1917-22)
■War: 1,410,000 (includes 500,000 civilian)
■Famine: 5,000,000 (50% democidal)
■Other democide: 784,000
■Epidemics: 2,300,000
■Total: 9,494,000
■1923-29: 2,200,000 (plus 1M non-democidal famine deaths)
■1929-39: 15,785,000 (plus 2M non-democidal famine)
■1939-45: 18,157,000
■1946-54: 15,613,000 (plus 333,000 non-democidal famine)
■TOTAL: 51,755,000 democides and 3,333,000 non-demo. famine

WWII European War (military) Dead (1939-45): 28,736,000
■War-related (additional) Democides
■Hitler: 20,946,000 (including Jews: 5,291,000)
■Stalin: 13,053,000

Chinese Civil War (1945-49) Estimate:
■War Dead: 1,201,000
■Democide by Guomindang: 2,645,000
■Democide by Communists: 2,323,000
■Famine: 25,000
■TOTAL: 6,194,000

People’s Republic of China, Mao Zedong’s regime (1949-1975) Estimate:
■Democide: 34,361,000 (1949-75)
■The principle episodes being…
■All movements (1949-58): 11,813,000
■incl. Land Reform (1949-53): 4,500,000
■Cult. Rev. (1964-75): 1,613,000
■Forced Labor (1949-75): 15,000,000
■Great Leap Forward (1959-63): 5,680,000 democides
■War: 3,399,000
■Famine: 34,500,000
■Great Leap Forward: 27M famine deaths
■TOTAL: 72,260,000

Under Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge imposed an extreme form of social engineering on Cambodian society — a radical form of agrarian communism where the whole population had to work in collective farms or forced labor projects. In terms of the number of people killed as a proportion of the population (2 million killed out of an estimated 7.1 million people), it was the most lethal regime of the 20th century. (Plus an estimated, additional 35,000 foreign democides)

•Estimates based on books by Rummel, Rudolph J.:
■China's Bloody Century : Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900 (1991), Calculates the lives lost in 20th Century China.
■Lethal Politics : Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917 (1990), Does the same for the Soviet Union.
■Democide : Nazi Genocide and Mass Murder (1992), The German rampage across Europe.
■Death By Government (1994), The full treatment for atrocities committed worldwide during the 20th Century.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

*Sigh*

Why did I feed the troll?

The same reason the black night tried to fight King Arthur in the Monte Python movie.

Mazomaniac: Look PuddyCat, the company I own just happens to build some of those fancy gadgets that keep you alive out there. I've got a pretty good foundation on this subject.

If you "owned" a company, like you claim you do, you wouldn't be debating, from a position of weakness, on the Internet. You wouldn't be wasting your time here period. If you "own" a company in terms of stock ownership, then you're being intellectually dishonest at best, deceptive at worst, when using the term, "company I own."

After reading your post, I seriously doubt that you have a "pretty good" foundation on the subject. If your home's foundation was anything like the "foundation" you claim to have on this subject, your home's base would be in quicksand by now.

Also, if your claims are to be believed, if you "own" a company that makes gadgets that keep us alive out there, your posts indicate that your "company" isn't involved with making warlock related equipment. I don't know what gadgets your "company" makes for us, but it doesn't give you a leg to stand on when debating about warlocks and other equipment that we use downrange.

Mazomaniac:How about we inject some verifiable facts into this argument other than "I once saw 'Warlock' painted on a sign in Iraq", shall we?

First, what I actually said:

"Enter one of these major FOBS or COBS, and you'll see NEW signs that read, 'Turn your WARLOCKS off!'" - herfacechair

WHERE, in THAT statement, does it say, "I 'once' saw 'Warlock' pointed on a sing in Iraq"? Link me to a post where I allegedly said that, or admit to being reading comprehension challenged.

Second, you failed to provide verifiable facts to support your argument. All you did was quote articles, from the internet, that didn't prove my statement "wrong," my statement that we've been using warlock while downrange. Do realize that first-hand experience downrange has validity over internet links you pull that don't support your argument.

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

The Warlock Green and Red systems referred to in the WikiLeaks documents were part of the Counter Remote Control Improvised Explosive Device (RCIED) Electronic Warfare (CREW) system. These early "CREW-1" devices were built in very limited numbers to act as a stop-gap measure until the more capable CREW-2 system came online. The Warlock systems were actually nothing more than upgraded Shortstop proximity fuse counter measure systems that were hastily re-built to include jamming capability in the spectrum used by cell phones. A grand total of 400 Warlock Green and 1500 Warlock Red systems were produced by EDO Corp (now part of ITT). All of them were delivered by January of 2006. No Warlock units have been built since. You can read about the history of Warlock here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...d/an-vlq-9.htm

First, the link doesn't support your argument. In fact, here's what it actually says about the delivery:

"On 01 March 2004 EDO Communication and Countermeasures, Simi Valley, Calif., was awarded on Feb. 27, 2004, a $6,753,000 increment as part of a $45,287,633 firm-fixed-price contract for 132 Warlock Green electronic countermeasure devices. Work will be performed in Simi Valley, Calif., and is expected to be completed by Jan. 31, 2006." -Global Security.

Do you see the contrast?

Your statement utilized January 2006, as the delivery date that "all" Warlocks were delivered. But, if you shift to the source that you used, it talks about a contract that's expected to deliver the goods by the end of January 2006.

Your article doesn't "close out" Warlock's history, nor does it "close out" warlock's use. It was written in 2005, with a projection as to what was to happen in 2006.

Mazomaniac:The military realized, however, that the Warlock technology did not fully address the remote detonated IED problem so they immediately set out to replace the Warlocks with new and improved systems based on the CREW-2 standard.

First, the military is going to constantly try to improve its systems. So even if we end up with a new weapon system, we're going to be working on a newer one. That's a no brainer, and it's beside the point. Second, it didn't seek to replace the Warlock system with another one. It replaced an old version of Warlock with a newer one.

Mazomaniac: In 2004 CENTCOM directed that ALL HMMWV's, FMTV/LMTV's, M2's, and Strykers in the Iraq and Afghanistan operating theaters be fitted or upgraded with CREW-2 devices as soon as they were available. This started happening in 2007.

But, what's said there is easier said than done. Replacement usually takes longer than what they anticipate. I've lost count of how many times we were supposed to get a new system, or equipment, because it was mandated that we were to get a newer version of a piece of equipment. Unfortunately, real world conditions didn't match the "on paper" conditions that existed in the offices of the people that mandated the upgrades, or change. Consequently, we ended up using older equipment that was supposed to be replaced prior to going downrange.

I also noticed that you took your statements, almost word for word, from your sources. As if you were parroting, in your own words, what these sources were saying. This isn't the action of someone that's trying to insinuate that he owns a company that makes widgets that we use downrange.

Mazomaniac: You will find the initial contract solicitation for the first 10,000 CREW-2 systems to replace the Warlocks, issued December 2006, here: https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&m...=core&_cview=0

Building on what I said earlier. The military is always trying to come up with better equipment, weapons, etc. When they solicit bids to develop the new technology, they generate something like what you linked to, according to FCR/FAR. You're also wrong in your assumptions that "CREW-2" "replaces" Warlock. It doesn't. "CREW-2" is an upgrade to Warlock. Regardless of whether it's "CREW-1," "CREW-2," "CREW-3" or something more advanced, it's still WARLOCK.

Mazomaniac: ITT won that contract (it's contract number N00024-07-C-6311 if you want to look it up) and started replacing or upgrading all of the Warlock CREW-1 systems to the CREW-2 standard in early 2007. The work was 100% completed in May 2008. All of the CREW-1 Warlocks were gone by that date. All of them.

The only thing that happened was that the first generation of the WARLOCK system got replaced... they got replaced by a later version of the Warlock systems. Regardless of how you try to spin it, we're still using Warlock.

Mazomaniac: After that the DoD went hog wild on jammers. More than 70,000 CREW-2 level systems where put into the field since 2007. These systems come from a variety of manufacturers under the names ICE (Raytheon), Symphony (Lockheed), Duke (Syracuse), Spiral (ITT), and a few others. CREW-3 capable Spiral systems are now appearing out of ITT as well.

You didn't say anything that supported your argument, or detracted from mine. This statement indicates a 3RD generation of Warlock. That's the Warlock that the civilians were talking about when they worked on our WARLOCK system.

Mazomaniac: So what does all this mean?

This means that your "ownership" of a "company" that allegedly makes things that we use downrange, isn't adequately supported by the comments that you made. You're taking extensive efforts to baffle the audience with bullshit... attempting to dismiss the fact that warlock is still being used, and further trying to release the Useful Idiot from his part in helping the enemy.

Mazomaniac: It basically means that you're full of shit.

Quit trying to BS people about your credentials, and quit parroting websites that you find on the internet as if you have no mind of your own, before dismissing someone, making a valid point, as being "full of shit." Remember, I've dealt with the stuff downrange. I'm speaking from first-hand experience. You're pretending to be someone that "owns" a company.

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

1. The WikiLeaks document only referred to the CREW-1 systems and was released years after the practically worthless CREW-1 Warlocks had been phased out. Even if there were some old Warlocks still out there when the document was released, they would have been a tiny, tiny fraction of the 70,000+ CREW system in field. The document had no impact on the operational effectiveness of the CREW program. It didn't endanger anybody.

This isn't a case where it was a "possibility." No matter how you try to spin this, WIKI released documents on equipment that was still being used. The release of the document isn't going to directly impact the warlock use in the field; however, the information that it contained gave the hostiles hard data on how to overcome their use. That information alone could've ben used to kill service members downrange.

Mazomaniac: 2. The fact that some parts of the military still calls every jammer a "Warlock" has nothing to do with anything. It's pretty common, as you well know, for a name to stick

WRONG, it has everything to do with what we're talking about. For someone that claims to own a company that makes some of the things we use, you of all people should know that even with the upgrades, the name remains. CREW 1 was an early version of Warlock. CREW 3 would be a more advanced version of Warlock. This is something that the MAJORITY of the military goes by.

And nowhere did I say that every jammer in use is called a "warlock."

Give the enemy information on the early versions of our equipment, you make it easier for them to figure out more advanced versions of our equipment. You probably don't realize that reality, given the comfort you enjoy within the 3 feet perimeter of the comfort of your computer and your company related manuals.

Mazomaniac: in the heads of you E-3/4

Sorry Skippy, but I was an E-3/4 back in 92. Haven't ben one since.

Mazomaniac: grunts once you've heard it.

Feels great being a grunt dismantling a POG's drivel on a message board.

Mazomaniac: Just because you call everything with a button and dial a "Warlock" doesn't change the fact that the CREW-1 Warlock systems were long gone before the WikiLeaks document was published.

First, it's not a fact. Go back to what you said, which I highlighted in bold. It's the one about your scenario trying to dismiss the number of Warlock Crew 1 systems out there. You had to make that statement based on what you read on the internet. Here you are, contradicting yourself.

Second, they were not long gone by the time the wiki leaks article was released.

Third, we don't call everything with a button and a dial a "Warlock." (And this dirtweed claims to "own" a company that creates some of the things that we use downrange).

Mazomaniac: 3. As you should also well know, the bad guys figured out how to bypass the whole CREW system almost as quickly as we put them into the field. IED makers switched over to passive infrared triggers once we had a significant number of jammers in the field.

The way the military world works, one side creates offensive and defensive systems. The other side tries to defeat those systems. This works both ways. They succeed, and the other side goes up a notch with a new system. The cycle repeats, while both sides play this game against each other. What you say isn't rocket science.

Mazomaniac: While I wouldn't go on a Sunday drive through the northern provinces without a CREW system,

You wouldn't want to take a Sunday drive through any of the Iraqi, or Afghani, provinces without a crew or other system.

Mazomaniac: they certainly were not the end of the IED threat.

Never said they would've ended the IED threat. But using this argument is a lame attempt to try to excuse the useful idiot for his website's reckless disregard for information sensitivity. The fact remains, the Useful Idiot made information available to those who otherwise would not have had access to that information.

Mazomaniac: Fact is, all of the CREW jammers are easily defeated by using a $5 IR sensor instead of a $20 RF trigger.

Those are a couple ways to defeat them, the methods you mention isn't available to every enemy that we're up against.

Mazomaniac: The bad guys had already figured out how to get around CREW and WikiLeaks did nothing to change this.

Not exactly. Not all bad guys figured out how to get around the CREW system. Wikileaks made that information available to anybody that had access to the internet. Not every one of them were able to figure out how to defeat the system. Some of the readers knew, some didn't.

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

4. Your concept of "general public" vs "in the field" is simply misguided. The guys who make those triggers aren't goat herders in Basra, they're educated electrical engineers in Iran and Pakistan. Those guys do have both the training and info they need to defeat or work around the jammers. Jamming a cell phone is electrical engineering 101. These devices work on basic principles of physics and there is very, very little inside one of those jammers that any experienced electrical engineer would not know about already. In fact, the exact same electronics found in the Warlock Red were used to jam cell phone signals in movie theaters. If you wanted to learn about Warlock all you had to do was order one of these commercially available devices and you'd know all about it. Your distinction between the public and the experts is nonsensical. It's the experts we're worried about and they already had the info.

Take it away Mazo....

"...you're full of shit." - Mazomaniac

Do you see what I highlighted in bold red? What you said, what I have highlighted above, consists of the FIELD!

Unlike the general public, aka, those outside the field, they know information the rest of the public don't know. And you're drastically mistaken with your assumption about what the Anti-Iraqi Forces know and don't know. Again, not every group that we fought knew how to defeat our systems. For those people, WIKI offered a "force multiplier." THAT'S the point that I'm arguing. No matter how much you try to spin this, WIKI's actions gave the enemy a relative advantage over us.

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

So, if you were, as you claim, actually being sent outside the wire in 2009 with nothing but a Warlock Red system then either:

a) you were operating in a time warp rather than a war zone, or

There's no "ifs" about this, it's a fact that I've crossed the wire in 2009 and 2010. During the mounted missions that I was a part of, we activated our warlocks. What I actually said:

"Our MRAPS and HMMWVs used warlock. When we rolled into a major logistics FOB or COB, we occasionally brought our vehicles to the shop that handled warlock. When we received updated operator's manuals for the warlock, they stated warlock, as well as other technical terms they were referred to. Enter one of these major FOBS or COBS, and you'll see NEW signs that read, "Turn your warlocks off!" And get this, the FOB Mayor at the last FOB we operated out of made it a UCMJ offense to NOT deactivate the warlocks while operating in the FOB... or to have the warlocks activated while operating in the base." - herfacechiar

Nowhere in there does it say that I was sent out there, "with nothing but..." one of the sensitive items, nor does it say anything about a singular sign, as you erroneously assumed at the beginning of your post.

Let's simply this.

FACT: I did mounted missions in 2009/2010 where we used Warlock.

Mazomaniac: b) your CO was trying out a creative means of eliminating one of his little problems.

All a CO would have to do to "get rid of one of their problems" is to have someone kicked up to one of the Battalion Offices. I'm still in a line company. You're wrong, as usual.

Mazomaniac: From your demeanor on this board I'd go with option b all the way.

Unlike you, my CO has standards. He doesn't get rid of people that embrace the facts, while refusing nonsense. You seem to have problems with people that reject your garbage and trash. Sorry, you only fool the naïve with your false sense of knowing things.

Mazomaniac: As for all the other stuff, blah blah blah, blah blah blah, so what.

The smartest thing that you typed in your post is bolded. However, the real reason you said that is that you wanted to ignore a question that I asked you. This question challenges your claim's validity. You can't answer this question truthfully and factually without exposing the error in your argument. Well, you're going to see the question again.

Mazomaniac: You've proven that, like all experienced trolls, you're long on rhetoric and hyperbole and far, far short on facts.

Baghdad Bob? Is that you?

You sound just like Saddam's information minister, when he said things that contradicted what the cameras were showing us.

What you dismissed as "full of shit" is information that's chock full of facts. You, on the other hand, have presented an argument that's devoid of supporting facts... an argument that utilizes unrelated facts in an attempt to baffle the audience with bullshit... and to cover up for the fact that when it comes to an argument involving what happens downrange, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Mazomaniac: When you can do better than "but I swear I saw one in my truck last year" come on back and I shall taunt you some more.

FACT, we had warlock on the MRAPS and HMWWV's that we used. Do understand that first-hand experience/accounts has far more validity than what you could pull from the internet.

I have a better idea. Come back with comprehensive first-hand experience from DOWN RANGE, then get back with me. Until then, you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the adverse-affects of the wiki releases on combat operations down range.

Mazomaniac: PS - Note that I'm not talking about Warlock Blue systems here.

Doesn't matter what you're talking about. Your argument, attempting to dismiss the negative impact the wiki releases have on military operations, is wrong, and doesn't reflect real world realities. The fact that you're clueless about wartime realities painfully shows with your posts.

Mazomaniac: That's a completely different, although equally worthless, class of device that has nothing to do with the WikiLeaks document.

Service members that used these didn't have a problem with their use.

Mazomaniac: If you're talking about turning off your Warlock Blues when going inside the wire

Go back and read my posts with the intentions of understanding what I'm talking about. If you have knowledge about these systems, as you're trying to claim here, you'd know that I targeted the adverse affects the wiki releases have on military operations. In this case, the release of Warlock related information.

Mazomaniac: then you're even more clueless about this subject than you appear to be.

Actually, your post counters your claims, of owning a company that makes some of the things we use. Your posts painfully shows that you have no knowledge of what's actually going on downrange with regards to warlock use, and the adverse affects of making information more available than it should be. Your posts painfully show that you don't know what you're talking about. But where you lack in validity, you more than make up in BS.