Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Pakistan Used Google Earth For Military Targeting

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the bejewel-funded dept.

The Military 111

NeoBeans writes "According to this article in the New York Times about the recent 'improvements' in military strikes by the Pakistani military it is revealed that they have dropped Google Earth as part of their target planning for a more precise technology. From the article, '... the air force has shifted from using Google Earth to more sophisticated images from spy planes and other surveillance aircraft, and has increased its use of laser-guided bombs. And no, you can't really find Osama Bin Laden using Google Maps either."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

ban google earth (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28883441)

congress should ban google earth

Re:ban google earth (4, Informative)

Sl4shd0t0rg (810273) | more than 4 years ago | (#28883489)

They STOPPED using it...meaning that Google Earth wasn't a good tool for military use.

Re:ban google earth (1)

Jim_Maryland (718224) | more than 4 years ago | (#28885459)

Google Earth on the Internet is probably not a good platform for targeting but Google Earth Server could be made to work for it. Customers can buy their own Google Earth Server and build their own globe to enable more accurate and timely data.

SHHH!!!!! (1)

A. B3ttik (1344591) | more than 4 years ago | (#28883581)

Don't give them any ideas!

Re:SHHH!!!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28883945)

You can't find bin Laden with it because he's a CIA-trained asset. Look it up if you don't believe me. bin Laden is to 9/11 what Lee Harvey Oswald was to the JFK assassination - a patsy. Bush, a member of Skull and Bones, had very close business dealings with the bin Laden family and their Middle Eastern construction company, which benefitted from this shit in much the same way that Halliburton did stateside. Bush primarily preferred to deal with Osama bin Laden's brother, but nah nothing fishy about that. Certainly we should never investigate this because the USA's worst example of domestic terrorism ever isn't important enough. Yeah right. They don't want the truth, folks.

In Another Five Years, If Google is Not Stopped... (4, Funny)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 4 years ago | (#28884185)

...the headline is likely to read, "Google Uses Pakistan for Military Targeting."

Re:In Another Five Years, If Google is Not Stopped (2, Interesting)

Mr. Firewall (578517) | more than 4 years ago | (#28884577)

...the headline is likely to read, "In Soviet Pakistan, Google Maps YOU!"

There, fixed that for you.

Re:In Another Five Years, If Google is Not Stopped (1)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 4 years ago | (#28884715)

There, fixed that for you.

No you didn't.

Re:In Another Five Years, If Google is Not Stopped (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28885599)

LOL, mod parent funny! SOviet Pakistan. ROFL!

Re:In Another Five Years, If Google is Not Stopped (4, Funny)

mpatmcg (75337) | more than 4 years ago | (#28888243)

... or "Google Uses Pakistan Military for Google Maps Testing"

May not be able to find Bin-Laden (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28883479)

You may not be able to find Bin-Laden on Google Earth, but I'll bet it isn't to hard to find a large herd of Mudslums.

Hellfire missiles can't tell the difference between Mudslums and Bin-Laden, and neither can your average American.

I say we kill all the sand niggers and let God sort it out.

Re:May not be able to find Bin-Laden (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28884543)

You may not be able to find Bin-Laden on Google Earth, but I'll bet it isn't to hard to find a large herd of Mudslums.

Hellfire missiles can't tell the difference between Mudslums and Bin-Laden, and neither can your average American.

I say we kill all the sand niggers and let God sort it out.

if you really wanna piss them off just draw a cartoon of Muhammad. when a large number of them see the cartoon and have aneurysms it will thin out their population. when some more of them go apeshit in pakistan over a fucking cartoon it will further thin out their population though maybe you dont wanna be around when that happens. then if you really really want to get to them eat some pork while looking at a playboy.

only the madness of political correctness says you have to acomodate every moronic and backward worldview as though it was perfectly valid. hey here's one for political correctness. if it's okay for an "artist" to get public funding to make "art" consisting of a crucifix in a jar of urine, then how about some state-funded "art" showing the prophet muhammad in a jar of urine to go with it? surely the mightly Islam isn't so weak that it can't take the same thing christians everywhere are expected to tolerate. right? right?!?!

Google needs to improve their product (5, Funny)

R4nm4-kun (1302737) | more than 4 years ago | (#28883535)

I guess this is one unsatisfied customer.

Re:Google needs to improve their product (1)

GarryFre (886347) | more than 4 years ago | (#28883585)

Might try street-view ... it's amazing!! I can well imagine it might vary according to where you live. What I would like to see is a deal where I could navigate down the street to where I need to look for. I use it mostly for finding addresses I need to drive to .. helps to know what a building looks like when you haven't been there before, and street-view sure works for that.

Re:Google needs to improve their product (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28883755)

[...] helps to know what a building looks like when you haven't been there before, and street-view sure works for that.

Yeah, but when your express purpose is to take measures to make that building not look like it does in StreetView (in fact, to make it look not like a building at all, more like a pile of smoldering rubble), I can imagine it would be a self-defeating technology in this case.

Re:Google needs to improve their product (2, Funny)

ElectricRook (264648) | more than 4 years ago | (#28887183)

The writers of the article made the fatal mistake of stating "you can't". Which combined with our proximity to an improbability field, means not only "you can", but that someone will. Or more likely, someone already has...

Re:Google needs to improve their product (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28883701)

Pakistan tested their first nuclear bomb in 1998, the same year Google Search launched. Coincidence ?

Re:Google needs to improve their product (1)

lomedhi (801451) | more than 4 years ago | (#28883951)

Well, that was around the time of all the media hype about kids learning to make bombs online from the Terrorist's Handbook, right?

Re:Google needs to improve their product (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28885721)

You misspelled "Anarchists' Cookbook".

--
-4, Pedantic

Re:Google needs to improve their product (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28883957)

Pakistan didnt like the "Do no evil" bit

Re:Google needs to improve their product (1)

xTantrum (919048) | more than 4 years ago | (#28884131)

if any one knows i really would like to be enlightened so... there are open source software that can't go to some countries because it would be considered amunitions. I don't understand why the u.s. government doesn't consider google earth to be that as well. its almost like giving an enemey country access to your spy satellites...almost. but close enough. anyone have any ideas?

Re:Google needs to improve their product (1)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 4 years ago | (#28886133)

Yeah, but think of the potential Google users not blammoed by Pakistan's bombs as a result.

- RG>

Re:Google needs to improve their product (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28887543)

The new Microsoft slogon for their map technology:
Bing! Bam! BOOOOM!!!

First--- (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28883537)

How lame am I???

Re:First--- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28883577)

Extremely, since you're really fourth and your subject says you're negative second (or would that be negative first)?

everyone's doing it. (5, Interesting)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 4 years ago | (#28883559)

When I was in Ramadi (mid 05 to mid 06), all the local insurgent groups and out-of-town AQI used google earth for rocket and mortar attacks. Crazy, when "poor man's sat imagery" is almost as good as the rich man's. Luckily, GE images are often out of date....and insurgents fire rockets with an Insha'Allah kind-of mentality.

Re:everyone's doing it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28883751)

And you didn't stop them?

Re:everyone's doing it. (5, Funny)

mdm-adph (1030332) | more than 4 years ago | (#28883851)

His nick is "Gandhi," not bloody "Rambo," you moron.

Re:everyone's doing it. (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28884565)

Actually Gandhi's reaction to the pakistan secession crisis killed at the very least 10 million people. It is also directly responsible for the disappearance of dozens of millions more.

Gandhi is like all other liberal (socialist) "heroes" : right up there with guevara, hitler, lenin, stalin, mao, ... and other the nobel peace prize laureates and winners.

Re:everyone's doing it. (1)

ElectricRook (264648) | more than 4 years ago | (#28887391)

Ghandi was a genius, albeit an evil genius...

Ghandi realized that his forces could not match the British on the battle field, so he changed the rules of the battle to fit the strengths of his army. Hide under the umbrella of "non-violence".

Straight out of "The Art of War"... "Attack where they cannot defend, defend where they cannot attack."

Re:everyone's doing it. (2, Interesting)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 4 years ago | (#28884921)

The insurgency is a rough game. You hang one too many mortar rounds, the counterfire gets you. Apaches get you. Snipers get you. Poor safety standards, your own IED's get you. And often enough, Allah does NOT Insha [youtube.com] .

And I'm Gandhi II [youtube.com] .

Re:everyone's doing it. (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 4 years ago | (#28885925)

Insha'Allah

For those that don't know, that's the Islamic version of the anime Inuyasha about a young Muslim boy who dreams of becoming a full fledged djinn.

Re:everyone's doing it. (1)

mano.m (1587187) | more than 4 years ago | (#28886309)

To be pedantic, 'Insha'Allah' only means 'God-willing' in Arabic. I'm not sure an Insha'Allah mentality would lend itself to actively fighting....

Re:everyone's doing it. (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 4 years ago | (#28887703)

Well, when they shoot... if it kills their enemy, it was because God willed it. 'Cause everything is in Allah's hands. So, to spend TOO much time aiming would be sinful: thinking that you could decide things that are in God's domain. Kind of like the Sin of Pride in the Judeo-Christian world (taking credit for things that God allowed to happen).

So, quite literally, they aim in the right area and fire. It will hit...God Willing. This is a very common thing with MANY Islamic fighting forces, and I don't doubt a number of others too. Watch videos of modern US and European troops, or even Soviet troops, they usually aim. Compare to videos of current-day Iraqi and Afghan Army troops firing, it's STILL hard to get them to aim. Of course, some aim quite well, but the tendency is an Insha'Allah attitude.

Me...I spent more time on the firing range than in the chapel.

Re:everyone's doing it. (1)

mano.m (1587187) | more than 4 years ago | (#28888213)

Cf. Athena guiding an arrow to graze Menelaus, and Apollo guiding one to Achilles' heel. 'God(s)-willing' seems to be the dominant strategy in the Trojan archery corps as well.

Re:everyone's doing it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28886383)

When I was in Ramadi (mid 05 to mid 06), all the local insurgent groups and out-of-town AQI used google earth for rocket and mortar attacks.

And you know this how? Sounds like one of those stories told at the bar, that may have a kernel of truth to it, but has been magnified to massive proportions in the telling and retelling.

it loads that fast? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28883569)

I can't even get google earth to keep up on a wired broadband connection....how can they get it to load fast enough to be useful on a moving bomb??!!

Re:it loads that fast? (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#28883925)

If it loads slow on your broadband connection, consider a new video card and more ram. Seriously. The more GE can cache, the better.

What did they drop Google Earth for? (5, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#28883689)

Microsoft Encarta Atlas 97?

Re:What did they drop Google Earth for? (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 4 years ago | (#28883857)

Google maps on iPhone.

Re:What did they drop Google Earth for? (4, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#28883911)

OpenStreetMap! Targeting information wants to be free!

Re:What did they drop Google Earth for? (1)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 4 years ago | (#28886167)

OpenStreetMap! Targeting information wants to be free!

I'm one step ahead: I tagged my house with "NOT REALGROUCHY'S HOUSE" on OpenStreetMap. They'll never find me!

- RG>

Pakistani citizen (2, Interesting)

ryzvonusef (1151717) | more than 4 years ago | (#28883733)

The problem is, unlike you lucky folks with you spy satellites, we have to rely on such open techs as Google Earth. If only you guys would share the info and the tech with us.

Instead, your military insists it wants to hunt the terrorist itself in our territory, which seeing your track record, we simply cannot allow.

And the terrorist roam free as a result, blowing bombs with impunity, at least once a week.

Re:Pakistani citizen (1)

swb311 (1165753) | more than 4 years ago | (#28883833)

But how can we siphon money off contractors if you guys are doing all of the work?

Re:Pakistani citizen (2, Interesting)

ryzvonusef (1151717) | more than 4 years ago | (#28883943)

Um, troll? I am being deadly serious here. Read the news please, our president recently attempted to (and failed) to get drone tech from you guys, but you wouldn't share. Come on, if you want to defeat them, then please help us, instead of ignoring us.

Re:Pakistani citizen (0, Flamebait)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#28884017)

Um, troll? I am being deadly serious here. Read the news please, our president recently attempted to (and failed) to get drone tech from you guys, but you wouldn't share. Come on, if you want to defeat them, then please help us, instead of ignoring us.

Bwhahahahahahahah! Our military won't share details of our drone tech with us, what the hell makes you think they're gonna share our drone tech with you?

Hey, I know! You could find The Pentagon on Google Earth and go there and steal the tech! Yeah! Oh and, good luck getting anywhere near the place without getting your ass shot up.

Re:Pakistani citizen (2, Informative)

ElectricRook (264648) | more than 4 years ago | (#28887489)

Heh, in my day, enemies of the US could by top-notch military technology directly from the Commander in Chief of the US military.

Re:US citizen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28884063)

Why should we give you our drone technology when you are next on our list?

Re:Pakistani citizen (3, Insightful)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 4 years ago | (#28884129)

Um, troll? I am being deadly serious here.
Read the news please, our president recently attempted to (and failed) to get drone tech from you guys, but you wouldn't share. Come on, if you want to defeat them, then please help us, instead of ignoring us.

Because everyone knows that what happened earlier was that all the technology given earlier was used more to rattle sabers with India instead of using them against the terrorists that your intelligence,military and government raised in the first place.

Re:Pakistani citizen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28891293)

Musharraf is gone now. That excuse doesn't work anymore

Re:Pakistani citizen (3, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#28884157)

I'm sorry, but giving advanced military technology to the Pakistani government while said government is bordering on unstable would be mind numbingly stupid. If the Pakistani government were to fail, there is no telling what kind of government will replace it. The US government isn't quite stupid enough to take that risk, maybe they've temporarily learned their lesson now that they have to worry about F14s in Iran and Stinger missiles in Afghanistan. No, that that level of military technology should be given only to our closest and most stable allies.

Re:Pakistani citizen (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 4 years ago | (#28885425)

that that level of military technology should be given only to our closest and most stable allies.

WITH a backdoor, thankyouverymuch.

Re:Pakistani citizen (5, Insightful)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 4 years ago | (#28884023)

The problem is, unlike you lucky folks with you spy satellites, we have to rely on such open techs as Google Earth. If only you guys would share the info and the tech with us.

Instead, your military insists it wants to hunt the terrorist itself in our territory, which seeing your track record, we simply cannot allow.

And the terrorist roam free as a result, blowing bombs with impunity, at least once a week.

Looks like a self made problem. The Pakistani military, intelligence and government sponsored terrorism and trained and armed them to create big trouble in Afghanistan and India. It succeeded. Now when the chickens come home to roost, you're blaming others. The US gives billions in military and other aid to Pakistan, every year anyway. Stop whining, the terrorist problem you're facing now(and you and your country no doubt cheered in glee when India or Kashmir was/is attacked by pakistani made terrorists) is entirely of your making. As you sow so shall you reap.

signature: muslims!=terrorists

That might be true, but there seems to be something about the culture which seems to raise terrorists very easily compared to other cultures. Is it because the culture prohibits all contact with members of other sex except in marriage, resulting in testosterone fueled violence or is it the strict adherence to some questionable material in the holy book? I don't know, but all I know is, the tendency and problem does exist and you can't brush it under the carpet with inane platitudes like the one in your sig.

Re:Pakistani citizen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28884491)

That might be true, but there seems to be something about the culture which seems to raise terrorists very easily compared to other cultures. Is it because the culture prohibits all contact with members of other sex except in marriage, resulting in testosterone fueled violence or is it the strict adherence to some questionable material in the holy book? I don't know, but all I know is, the tendency and problem does exist and you can't brush it under the carpet with inane platitudes like the one in your sig.

Well you can say that to each instance of a conflict involving Muslim terrorists there's obviously more than religion, and that when you have people who see themselves at the receiving end of things like military occupation, economic exploitation, cultural domination etc. in the real world it's at least as straightforward to consider this asymmetrical perception as reasons why a particular person becomes a terrorist as their religion. Obviously it's rather unlikely that they're blowing themselves up for fun just because the holy book commands it, and it's just as unlikely that all those who haven't blown themselves up yet are going to do so in the near future because there must be some kind of correlation between those that have blown themselves up and those that haven't yet. Hence, you can also say that looking for religion as the ultimate culprit is in practice a rather pointless exercise - because even if there is something that makes members of a particular religion fundametally more likely to blow themselves up (which you haven't exactly bothered to prove if you haven't come to the point of considering other reasons why people become terrorists), you obviously can't kill all the Muslims, or convert them to something else, or change the nature of a world religion. At least IMHO you can't have much hope for changing it anymore than you're changing it already at present in the other direction, simply because many Muslims who aren't terrorists see themselves at the receiving end of violence and arguably can't be blamed for doing so. For a Muslim in 2009 it's much more straightforward to feel oppressed than in 1999, and it's really no wonder why that is.

In other words, in a world where the West in general and the US in particular can directly or indirectly be credited for creating a significant percentage of the present terrorist population itself, asking whether religion is the ultimate culprit seems like a somewhat nonobvious route of inquiry.

Re:Pakistani citizen (0, Troll)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 4 years ago | (#28884763)

you obviously can't kill all the Muslims, or convert them to something else, or change the nature of a world religion. At least IMHO you can't have much hope for

Actually in over a dozen countries, muslims have demonstrated the falsity of your statements. In dozens of muslim countries believers of other faiths are extinct, and they have not become extinct peacefully, but through prolonged genocide and persecution comitted by muslims. Historically, the "state religions", which come in all shapes and sizes, prove you wrong in more than 90% of history. If you are prepared to commit prolonged genocide, you most certainly can kill all muslims/christians/hindus/... or convert them all. The entire middle east is an example of this, and the state of religious freedom in the "muslim holy places" exemplifies just how simple it is : simply kill anyone even suggesting a different thinking pattern, do this for long enough and you will succeed.

There is not a single country, either middle eastern, asian or african, where islam peacefully became a force of any meaningful size. Islam was spread by invasions, genocide and slave-trade.

Worse: the "international community" accepts their methods, as Sudan's massacres blatantly exemplify. Then again, the "united nations" (then league of nations), which seems like the definition of "international community" has never been on the side of justice. They even supported hitler (at least enough to threathen to attack anyone opposing him militarily, right INTO WWII). Sometimes it gets as bad as calling the only reason to resist muslim genocides "racism" (like Israel, Ethiopia, ...)

Of course, once that first falsehood is understood to be bullshit, the rest of your argument crumbles like a deck of cards. Even in other places the concept of "state religion" (the only non-"state" religion is Christianity, of course, but that was not universally so throughout history). Worse : lots of ideologies that are not generally called a "religion" do the same, communism being the most blatant example.

Terrorism, very similar to today's existed before the 2 Egyptian kingdoms merged. So blaming the US for it seems a bit ... idiotic. Muslims have used terror campaigns throughout their history, and the paedophile prophet himself did it, on "direct orders" from allah. Terror has always been bound to specific ideologies, and while islam is not entirely unique as a terror ideology, it is by far the one making the most use of it.

Re:Pakistani citizen (3, Informative)

rxmd (205533) | more than 4 years ago | (#28885123)

you obviously can't kill all the Muslims, or convert them to something else, or change the nature of a world religion. At least IMHO you can't have much hope for

Actually in over a dozen countries, muslims have demonstrated the falsity of your statements. [...]

If by "falsity of his statements" you mean that yes, you can kill them all, then you're of course technically correct, because it's possible to kill everybody. This statement however is utterly useless, because if we start from the premise that we can kill everybody, our policy decisions aren't going to be good. At best they will create more terrorists because a lot more people will feel threatened that otherwise wouldn't. Great job.

The rest of your post doesn't warrant much discussion IMHO. You say terror has always been bound to ideologies - that's true, but it's a statement of the obvious, just like the AC's statement that it's also always been bound to particular political and economic situations. He maybe presents his point in a slightly less bigoted fashion. You say the US shouldn't question its own role in today's emergence of terrorism because terrorism existed already in ancient Egypt. Why don't say you shouldn't question Islam's role in genocide because genocide existed before Islam ever emerged then? From that point of view nobody should ever question themselves, because there's always somebody else who did the same thing.

Re:Pakistani citizen (0, Troll)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 4 years ago | (#28886173)

You say terror has always been bound to ideologies - that's true, but it's a statement of the obvious,

Hence, you can also say that looking for religion as the ultimate culprit is in practice a rather pointless exercise - because even if there is something that makes members of a particular religion fundametally more likely to blow themselves up (which you haven't exactly bothered to prove if you haven't come

Two diametrically opposed statements (since a religion clearly is an ideology). Since the second basically states the first is obviously wrong, why am I trying to reason with you ?

You state both A and (not A) as true statements (and add the word "obviously"). With blatant dishonesty like that, why bother actually using any argument ?

If by "falsity of his statements" you mean that yes, you can kill them all, then you're of course technically correct, because it's possible to kill everybody. This statement however is utterly useless, because if we start from the premise that we can kill everybody, our policy decisions aren't going to be good.

No I mean that killing every last adherent (e.g. every last muslim) in large geographical areas (including "everywhere") has been demonstrated to be possible by muslims, who have exterminated large ideologies, by comitting continued genocide on native peoples, in large geographical areas. I just visited an exhibition about the Tuareg, a now extinct north-African black culture that has been exterminated by islam-sanctioned slave trade (which is, by the way, still continuing, and yes, still islamically justified. After all "the prophet" raped kidnapped people, and sold them into slavery later on, on "direct orders from allah". You can't get more islamic than that).

But since actual truth is not of intrest to you (otherwise you wouldn't make self-contradictory statements) I have little hope of a decent response. You say about yourself that you're obviously wrong, so let's leave it at that.

It is obvious that you are defending preset conclusions, without caring about the consistency of your arguments. Clearly you have motives in this discussion other than increasing understanding or actually usefully reasoning about a big problem.

I am however interested in what your true reasons are for defending these assertions that you know to be false. Are you a racist ? Are you a marxist ?

Re:Pakistani citizen (1)

rxmd (205533) | more than 4 years ago | (#28888489)

Since the second basically states the first is obviously wrong

Why shouldn't it? You're quoting two different people.

I just visited an exhibition about the Tuareg, a now extinct north-African black culture

Are those the same where there's population of 5.2 million [wikipedia.org] ? What's wrong with you?

Re:Pakistani citizen (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28884607)

Stop whining, the terrorist problem you're facing now(and you and your country no doubt cheered in glee when India or Kashmir was/is attacked by pakistani made terrorists) is entirely of your making. As you sow so shall you reap. Along the same lines, can't the same argument be made that the terrorist threat that the west is facing is the same enemy that the west created and nurtured to take on the USSR. The enemy that metastasized into a demon that is now giving everyone nightmares? How much blame can we assign to a third world country like Pakistan when more developed and advanced countries like US financed and supported folks that one day became Taliban and Al-Qaida.

Re:Pakistani citizen (4, Informative)

kalirion (728907) | more than 4 years ago | (#28884631)

The Pakistani military, intelligence and government sponsored terrorism and trained and armed them to create big trouble in Afghanistan and India. It succeeded. Now when the chickens come home to roost, you're blaming others.

So what you're saying is that Pakistan is following our example?

Re:Pakistani citizen (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28884689)

What you said is right but you cant neglect CIA-Osama relations, creating of military movements in Afghanistan by CIA using Pakistan as proxy ...... US played equal evil if not more than Pakistan

Re:Pakistani citizen (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#28884849)

Is it because the culture prohibits all contact with members of other sex except in marriage, resulting in testosterone fueled violence or is it the strict adherence to some questionable material in the holy book?

Doubt it. I didn't get laid as a high schooler, yet I managed to channel my angst into electronica and FPS* instead of blowing up stuff or religion or some messed up combination thereof.

(* yes, it was a positive feedback loop, thanks for not pointing that out at the time...)

Re:Pakistani citizen (4, Informative)

vertinox (846076) | more than 4 years ago | (#28885153)

That might be true, but there seems to be something about the culture which seems to raise terrorists very easily compared to other cultures. Is it because the culture prohibits all contact with members of other sex except in marriage, resulting in testosterone fueled violence or is it the strict adherence to some questionable material in the holy book? I don't know, but all I know is, the tendency and problem does exist and you can't brush it under the carpet with inane platitudes like the one in your sig.

I thought it had something to do with extreme poverty, corrupt governments, and lack of education that created such a mindset.

Yes, some of the 9/11 bombers were well to do and educated but their support base over all would be less inclined for such activities is they weren't rotting in hellholes.

Re:Pakistani citizen (5, Interesting)

ryzvonusef (1151717) | more than 4 years ago | (#28885285)

1-Um, you are the ones who gave us the money to create the god-damned idiots in the first place, and they were created to bug the soviets as you well know, not the Afghanis and the Indians... and now when we are asking your help to get rid of them, you are ignoring us, come on, don't you want these guys gone or not? they attacked you because you stopped the gravy-train, and now they are attacking us because we did too.

2-We do get get aid, but we don't get "billions". Trust me, the finance minister is crying our budget is shot because we didn't even get the last-dole out of the international aid or whatever.

3-Also, its not the money problem only, we want the tech to find the the bad guys in the first place.The bottom line is, the bad guys are out there (literally in my case) and since you guys are so pressurizing us to get rid of them, then help us. The recent govt. seems to be genuinely interested in getting rid of the menace.

4-No we don't cheer in glee, because we have more attacks then them. We get even more paranoid.

Re:Pakistani citizen (1)

atamido (1020905) | more than 4 years ago | (#28887093)

I feel for you, I really do. But these points are worth looking at.

1. If you pay someone $500 to cut off their arm, is it your fault if they do? In the end it makes you quite the bastard, and you'd hardly be blameless for the difficulties they encounter with one arm, but in the end it was their decision to accept the money and cut off the arm.

2. You get aid. Do you know when the last time was that someone gave my country aide? I'm not feeling any empathy about this. Still, I wouldn't trust your finance minister.

3. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for not giving Pakistan high tech equipment. There is little guarantee that it won't be used against us in a couple of years. At the same time I can understand why you wouldn't want the US military tromping through your country. I can't see a compromise both sides would be very happy with.

4. I'd feel the same way.

Re:Pakistani citizen (2, Informative)

mano.m (1587187) | more than 4 years ago | (#28888309)

I agree, the Taliban wasn't created to bug India. That would be the Lashkar-e-Taiba.

Re:Pakistani citizen (4, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 4 years ago | (#28885569)

there seems to be something about the culture which seems to raise terrorists very easily compared to other cultures. Is it because the culture prohibits all contact with members of other sex except in marriage

No, it's because that culture uses that tactic against your culture's use of massive armies with sophisticated, laser-guided, satellite-targeted weapons.
If your culture was Sinhalese it would seem to you that there is something about the Tamils that makes them terrorists more than others.

Now stop trying to make yourself feel better by calling The Other a bunch of sexist terrorists.

Re:Pakistani citizen (4, Insightful)

FailedTheTuringTest (937776) | more than 4 years ago | (#28886971)

That might be true, but there seems to be something about the culture which seems to raise terrorists very easily compared to other cultures.

Different times make different terrorists. Today, when you think "terrorist", you think "Muslim". But from the 1970s to the 1990s, "terrorist" meant the IRA, who were of course Catholic Christians. In the 1950s and 1960s, the main terrorist group in the USA was the Ku Klux Klan, or to a lesser degree in terms of body count the Black Panthers. In each case, I suspect people at the time said the same thing you wrote above: "there seems to be something about the culture which seems to raise terrorists very easily compared to other cultures."

Re:Pakistani citizen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28887425)

This is really xenophobic garbage. It should not be modded +5.

Re:Pakistani citizen (1)

Ender_Wiggin (180793) | more than 5 years ago | (#28891345)

You've fallen into the availability heuristic, where you associate Islam with terrorists because you don't hear about the non-terrorist Muslims. South America and parts of Europe are crammed with terrorism, but nobody blames Christianity. Maybe culture is a cause, but not the religion, since most Muslims live in non-terrorism areas.

Re:Pakistani citizen (2, Interesting)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 5 years ago | (#28891823)

That might be true, but there seems to be something about the culture which seems to raise terrorists very easily compared to other cultures.

Religion and culture have little to do with it -- it's all about semantics. So long as state actions are labeled "war" rather than "terrorism", then those parts of the planet that got hosed by colonialism and the Cold War to the point of leaving behind unstable nation-states are going to produce "terrorists" rather than "soldiers".

If we were honest and labeled all aggressive transnational violence and use of weapons of mass destruction as "terrorism", then the greatest source and supporter of terrorism would be a nation that's about 76% Christian [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Pakistani citizen (2)

aquatone282 (905179) | more than 4 years ago | (#28884085)

Maybe the West would be less reluctant to share sensitive military technology if your track record didn't include sharing nuclear weapons technology [wikipedia.org] with the Stalinst freak-show that calls itself the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.

Your ISI [wikipedia.org] leaves a lot to be desired, too.

Re:Pakistani citizen (1)

Ender_Wiggin (180793) | more than 5 years ago | (#28891323)

Yeah, we all know the ISI lags behind the CIA. How many governments has the CIA overthrown versus how many the ISI did? How many drugs has the CIA been involved in selling compared to the ISI? Who backed the fighters in Afghanistan in the 80's first, the ISI or the CIA?

Re:Pakistani citizen (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 4 years ago | (#28885679)

The problem is, unlike you lucky folks with you spy satellites, we have to rely on such open techs as Google Earth. If only you guys would share the info and the tech with us.

They share with google, google shares with you... it's trickle-down intelligence.

Google Earth is fine for personal scale military (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28883757)

I find Google Earth to be completely adequate for all my weapons targeting needs.

Without leveraging free/open-source technologies I would barely be able to field my own personal military force in any case.

weapons of war is not consider evil? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28883787)

What happened to do no evil? Providing a nation with the tools necessary to perform attacks on freedom fighters seems pretty evil to me. Google ought to do its best not to be used as a tool of war if we are to take its primary directive to heart.

Re:weapons of war is not consider evil? (4, Insightful)

Shatrat (855151) | more than 4 years ago | (#28883979)

If I was to use an android phone to call you up and tell you not to be such a $%^&ing moron, would that be another example of google being evil?

Re:weapons of war is not consider evil? (3, Insightful)

Whatsisname (891214) | more than 4 years ago | (#28884041)

Combatants could use gmail to communicate and organize their attacks. Combatants could use google docs to prepare training and intelligence information. They could use google's tools for a lot of nasty things.

However, they are amoral tools. Google tries to provide them to everyone.

Their don't be evil motto applies to how they operate in the market, using vendor lock in, suing competitors, etc. If google provided google earth to the enemies of Pakistan but not pakistan themselves, how would that not be evil?

Re:weapons of war is not consider evil? (1)

schon (31600) | more than 4 years ago | (#28884651)

What happened to do no evil? Providing a nation with the tools necessary to perform attacks on freedom fighters seems pretty evil to me.

Yes, because the sole reason for Google Earth to exist is so that Pakistan could use it (ineffectively) for military purposes. It has no other use at all, and Google never released it to anyone else, for any other purpose.

Bin Laden Found (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28883937)

You wrote "And no, you can't really find Osama Bin Laden using Google Maps either."

No need for Google Maps. I found his location
in Richard B. Cheney's spider-hole [slashdot.org] .

I hope this helps the war crimes trials in The Hague.

Yours In Justice,
Philboyd Studge

Its only a matter of time. (5, Interesting)

hombrejava (875247) | more than 4 years ago | (#28883955)

Satellites are becoming smaller and cheaper because of advances in miniature high-performance computers, solar panels, batteries, and increased launch capabilities due to standardization. CubeSats [calpoly.edu] are one example. People can put small, but high-resolution cameras into space, and if you can launch 100 pico-satellites with cameras then your going to get near real-time imagery of many places on the earth. Its only a matter of time until even the poorest third-world country gets its own fleet of spy satellites.

Re:Its only a matter of time. (1)

jerep (794296) | more than 4 years ago | (#28884335)

Think of the hubble telescope, I have a hard time trying to believe the military doesn't already have a few more of them pointing at us.

Re:Its only a matter of time. (1)

WalksOnDirt (704461) | more than 4 years ago | (#28885885)

The "KH-12" [wikipedia.org] spy satellites are thought to be a bit bigger than the Hubble.

Re:Its only a matter of time. (1)

Truth is life (1184975) | more than 4 years ago | (#28885965)

Yes--in fact, the Hubble is very similar to a number of NRO sats. To the point where the same containers were used to ship them.

Re:Its only a matter of time. (1)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 4 years ago | (#28886945)

Why bother? For the price of a single space shot, you can launch hundreds of UAVs. I simple UAV can consist of a Senior Telemaster + GPS + netbook; maybe $3000. Add another $100 for imaging and another $1000 for training. For $5k, you have a functional surveillance UAV that can't be predicted. They can fly high enough to be virtually undetectable. And you can have dozens of them flying patterns over a given area.

Hell, you can even put a kilo of explosives on-board. If you see a target of opportunity, just fly the UAV into the target.

Google Earth for Targeting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28884417)

That's what I use...

OBL is dead...for a long time! (1)

quantic_oscillation7 (973678) | more than 4 years ago | (#28884569)

well i believe you can't find OBLaden because there is a huge probability that is already dead, since maybe 13 of December 2001. http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/13/osama-bin-elvis [spectator.org] http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13743 [globalresearch.ca] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden [wikipedia.org] http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/11/opinion/11TAHE.html?ex=1089432000&en=373a282aeff2716a&ei=5070&todaysheadlines [nytimes.com]

Re:OBL is dead...for a long time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28884983)

There was a video in the fall of 2004 that read like a John Kerry ad was probrably legit. I think he died soon after that.

Re:OBL is dead...for a long time! (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 4 years ago | (#28885957)

I strongly believe he's dead. We don't get videos anymore, just audio tapes that the CIA conveniently certifies as legit. And, the candidate from Pakistan Bhutto stated shortly before her assassination he'd been killed by a warlord.

Finding people using Google Earth (1)

lbalbalba (526209) | more than 4 years ago | (#28884761)

If we can't find Bin Laden using Google Earth, then perhaps we can use it to find Lance Davis, the main project administrator for CentOS ? Ooops, wrong article...

Using NYT for spin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28885283)

Pakistan has been clamoring for upgraded F-16s and other high-tech weapons ever since they have been forced to fight the terrorists. The West has been suspicious that Pakistan is more interested in obtaining the weapons as a hedge against India. Suddenly a western journalist gets access to the Pakistani military and sees for himself how modern technology is helping with the fight against the terrorists! I am surprised that NYT actually took the bait. In other news, JuD invited journalists to see their campus where they do "humanitarian work".

Google Maps CAN find OBL! (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 4 years ago | (#28886009)

I watched an interview, on the Rachel Maddow show I think, with a guy who claimed that he could use social engineering and Google Maps to deduce a few locations where he could be. I think this is him [wikipedia.org] .

Easy Targets (1)

Cryogenic Specter (702059) | more than 4 years ago | (#28886583)

It would seem to me that the U.S. government has already done a lot of the work for them. Check out Washington DC on google maps and you will see several areas that are cut out of the map. I would assume that means that the government does not want those to be seen because they are "interesting" and would be a potential target for an enemy.

ok, that was tongue in cheek, they are obvious things like the capitol building and the white house. It's not really a secret where they are. (please don't send the black vans)

Re:Easy Targets (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 4 years ago | (#28887507)

Yes, everyone knows where they are, but now you dont know whats on the roof. Counter snipers? SAMs?

Re:Easy Targets (1)

cowscows (103644) | more than 4 years ago | (#28888959)

Ah, if that's what was up there, you'd want people to see it so that it would deter them from trying an attack. More likely that they're trying to hide the fact that the white house roof is covered with propane tanks, crates full of dynamite, and extra-flammable american flags.

"Map used for military purpose". I am so shocked! (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 4 years ago | (#28889213)

So truely shocked....

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?