IS is a weapon of mass destruction. No need for secret documents to prove it since they have quite a robust advertising and media campaign to make sure there is no doubt that they are brutal serial killers. It's seems there are a whole lot of people are just fine with standing back and letting the madness continue unabated. All IS needs to do to survive is to launch some attacks on the Israelis and these same people standing around would start proclaiming them saviors and freedom fighters.

Your assuming that IS actually gives a shit about killing their own people. And the people funding that pack of serial killers doesn't live any where near the battle field so no matter what happens they are pretty safe sitting in their 5 star hotels in Qatar and Kuwait. If the so called Arab leaders were not such a pathetic bunch of morally bankrupt , incompetent, greedy, and cowardly pussies they could have prevented IS from ever getting started in the first place.

I have found it is usually the older guys who are better at analyzing the proposed changes to determine if the new or just different technology is going to provide you with functionality that you don't already have. Making this determination is easier if you understand both the new and old technology you are replacing.

Well he can't run for re-election and that tends to let second term Presidents do things they normally wouldn't do for fear of negatively impacting the next election. The world cannot continue using the earlier Iraqi and Afghanistan wars as an excuse to completely oppose all potential military involvement in any future situation. When making the decision on whether to commit military forces each situation needs to be evaluated separately and on it's own merits. The ISIS threat needs to be destroyed using any means possible. US air support, spec ops teams, and military advisers are working with both the Iraqi and Kurdish ground forces. It's a low risk strategy for the US military and the Iraqi and Kurd ground forces are doing the lions share of the fighting and dying. After all it's their country and their people. In the past the US provided a no-fly zone to protect the Kurds from retaliation by Saddam Hussein after the 1991 Iraqi War. The people in that region are probably the only ones in the world who actually has a favorable opinion on the US. That fact alone is reason enough to try and help them now. Normally I don't think the US should get involved in any military conflicts unless US interests are realistically and directly threatened. There is currently no country in the world worth the loss of even one US soldier. However, in this particular case I am willing to set that requirement aside and support the destruction of a truly despicable group of serial killers.

A small strip of black electric tape will defeat any camera hack no matter who initiates it.

Mastering and ultimately harnessing quantum entanglement as it pertains to quantum computing and the limits we face right now go right out the window.

They need to defeat their own extremists in Xinjiang before going around helping others. They had an attack a couple weeks ago were 100 people were killed. The fact the government is willing to acknowledge 100 deaths only means the total was most likely closer to 1000.

Didn't Russia just announce a bounty for anyone who could help them identify weaknesses and track TOR users? Maybe the presentation at the Black Hat conference was cancelled because the Russians pay more?

The majority I mentioned are those who want to see the US reduce their involvement in foreign conflicts that have nothing to do with US core interests. The mayhem engulfing the Middle East and Eastern Europe is spinning out of control in part because all the warring parties know without a doubt that the US is not going to intervene militarily in these conflicts in any meaningful way. This state of affairs could actually enhance US security in the short term because as long as no one strikes the US directly like blowing up skyscrapers or bombing naval bases the US government will not have the support of it's citizens to get involved in any military conflict. We have already seen this in regards to Syria. Unfortunately sooner or later some one is going to see less US involvement and think that somehow translates to a decrease in US military capabilities and pull another 9/11 or "Pearl Harbor". After that happens they should have enough time to ponder the depths of their misjudgment before the first missile or spec ops team comes through their bedroom window.

If someone is secretly manipulating or shaping information to push a preferred outcome it first needs to be secret to have any true effects. Without the secrecy you are free to evaluate the posted information with the knowledge that someone is trying to influence your opinion by excluding certain pieces of information or posts in this particular case. If you recognize this pattern you are free to go to another source for information. Unfortunately there are far to many news outlets or websites pushing their own agendas and partisan editorial lines instead of facts. A lot of folks can not recognize fact from opinion and tend to gravitate towards sources that publish information that validates their pre-determined opinion while ignoring any information that contradicts their stated opinion. You have the far right and far left and everything in between supposedly reporting on or describing the same thing but the information they publish turns out looking like the people providing the information all live in their own little universe. Web forums are notorious echo chambers where facts tend to get in the way. "Winning" the argument comes before facts. Most popular news sources and web sources are becoming adept at using "lies of omission" to shape their stories. This allows them to state that everything they published was factually correct which in a sense would be true but the information omitted could have put a whole different slant on the argument.

It's obvious you do not have a clue about what real "censorship" is. So a website rejects posts that do not meet their basic and usually very low standards you agree to when posting there, BFD. On the other hand under real censorship the site would not even exist in the first place and if you tried to start one in some countries you would have state security knocking on your door.

Obama's foreign policy decisions have basically been exactly what a majority of it's citizens want. It's not pretty by any means but he is fulfilling his promises in this one area of state.

When the Iranian jet was shot down the naval task group had declared a 100 mile restricted airspace zone over the naval group which was in international waters at the time. Even today that is SOP whenever a carrier or other naval assets are in international waters. They establish and enforce the no-fly zone in the air and on the surface. Prior to the Iranian plane being shot down Iranian military jets had attempted to violate the restricted airspace several times a day over the previous 7 days. When the commercial jet was shot down their flight plan was headed right into the restricted airspace. The Iranians knew about the air space restrictions and knowingly let the commercial jet fly into that area instead of routing the plane away from the danger. The plane in question would also not acknowledge any communication attempts by the navy to warn them off. And to top it off the plane had it's transponder turned off making it difficult to identify the plane. It almost feels like the Iranian actions were a setup to cause exactly what happened to secure a huge propaganda victory. The US acknowledged the shoot down immediately and did not try to hide or deny the incident. Instead the navy captain who ordered the plane to be shot down was exonerated and the US paid millions dollars to the Iranians in reparations. The circumstances of the Ukrainian shoot down are nothing like what happened in Iran.

Might as well give it a rest. Everyone knows that every country in the world except for the US and possibly Israel are a bunch of meek pacifists who would never engage in state violence of any type under any circumstances and even to suggest such a thing is now a despicable war crime. Although I have to say with all the peace, love, and understanding being spread around the world today I am pretty happy the US massively overspends on the military because were really going to need it in the not so distant future.

Yes he recognizes that the characteristics defining the US government behavior have been in a state of change since day 1. Governmental changes are changed based upon the cultural, economic, and the basic societal environment that exists in each era. It's hard to critique and judge government actions and behaviors in the past by using today's moral, economic, average public mindset, and ethical standards .And a lot of people argue the changes taking place somehow represents a decline when in fact the US government and the US in general has never reached the pinnacle of civilized governance and behavior from which to decline from. We have a Constitution serving as the bedrock of government behavior and societal responsibilities but even that document stated "all men are created equal" when in fact this basic idea was demonstrably false. Changes have been made for 200+ years and we still have some more work to do before "all men created equal" idea is an actual realized in practice..I have always believed the Constitutional ideas and protections serves a goal to strive towards and there are still changes needed before we can reach that goal.