Many people think that Meisha good kill. The sense of aversion to the, No friends (pegged out) and of course there will be no joy. No maple story mesos, you will not feel happy! I just like playing a few career, spent a total of 100 to block it.

Posted by: maple story mesos at August 8, 2008 07:56 PM

nice to meet you

Posted by: wowpowerleveling at April 14, 2008 11:52 PM

I'm not even going to start on what's wrong with this article. As soon as it mentions AQ and Iran as partners I began to laugh. This author doesn’t know what sect of Islam AQ is affiliated with let alone the difference between Sunni, Shia and Suffi.

Posted by: Ryan at April 19, 2007 05:55 AM

The story as linked smells of propganda. In simplest terms, it doesn't make technical sense; it's either balderdash or using the wrong terms to describe what they're talking about.

Posted by: TrustButVerify at April 12, 2007 10:14 AM

>With passive radio direction finding equipment

You could also have that mounted on the vehicle and detect where RF signals came from to detonate RF triggered IEDs. The next second the IED is triggered, you get to know where the IED team is and they are dead. By the way, do you think the IED teams will be able to have access to those equipment for sure? They don't need that in the first place. They've got scouts to spot the vehicles. They even used kites to alert vehicles nearby.

Posted by: pedestrian at April 11, 2007 05:00 PM

Yes, there has been other source indicating use of jamming, not just against IED jammers but also against GPS equipment. However, there are several counter measures to this, and it will risk the IED team. The phenomenom of IED activation while IED jammers in use can easily be explained by the use of other spectrums of electromagnetic waves, and wired IED. In southern regions, infrared sensors were in use with the ERP. There were other methods such as wired IEDs, pressure sensors, and timers used in the central region to counter the IED jammers. In the past, IED teams tried to switch to other frequencies to avoid being countered by IED jammers, but it did not take long for the department of defense to have better jammers to cover other frequencies. The IEDs that are activated these days are likely infrared, pressure, timer, and wired activated IEDs. These were known from months ago, and I wonder why this is news on Defense Tech so late. All methods are defeatable.

Posted by: pedestrian at April 11, 2007 04:41 PM

Again, the units on the hummers must be fairly low power (a 120 watt amplifier would use about 4 amps) due to power limits, plus not interfereing with their own comm gear. I don't think it would be efficient for us or them to network the proper triangulation, especially in an urban environment, but it may come to that.

Posted by: Grandjester at April 11, 2007 03:11 PM

Surely any active radio jammers fitted to vehicles simply give the enemy plenty of warning to prepare an ambush with a command line detonated bomb ?

With passive radio direction finding equipment, such vehicle mounted jammers could also betray the movement patterns of patrol or convoy vehicles, over a large distance, given the easy availability of portable computers and software capable of plotting such signals rapidly and automatically onto a map.

Posted by: Watching Them, Watching Us at April 11, 2007 02:28 PM

How are you going to jam a jammer? I've worked with all those devices over there as an infantryman, I'm not going to go into detail - but from what I'm reading here such a device would not work against what we use there. I hope they are trying such a thing though, because we could easily triangulate the source of any jamming attempt and eliminate it. There are easier ways to defeat the jammers we use, broadcasting your location to every antenna farm in Iraq is not a good way to go about it.

Posted by: US Marine at April 11, 2007 12:52 PM

Yeah, I smell bullshit. There are any number of RF devices that can be used for a trigger across a pretty wide spectrum of just the commercial/civilian frequencies. Cell & Cordless phones, garage door openers, UHF, VHF, and so on. A cheap wireless microphone might have hundreds of potential freqs. Transmitter power on the Hummer would be limited by both the potential of interference and the power available from the hummer, which we all know is already taxed. Any IED transmitter would only have to generate a stronger signal to be effective. IF door chimes or line of sight devices would create additional problems for our attempts to defeat. We would literally have to bombard the entire RF range with white noise at very high power (tens of thousands of watts) and the IR spectrum with "light" to defeat all possible scenarios. Very difficult when the device needs less than an tenth of a second to receive that signal. This is all strictly Radio Shack stuff too, you don't need a multi-million $$$ ECM budget (or the Iranians for that matter) to pull it off. Finally, any sort of hard wire defeats all these countermeasures.

Posted by: Grandjester at April 11, 2007 11:28 AM

Are they claiming these are active jamming devices, or, is this just the proliferation of passive devices that have already proven effective (i.e., infrared sensors) and those that the US military has linked to Iran?
If AQ is now employing active jammers, this must be extremely sensitive info within the US intel community.
It is very doubtful AQ-affiliated or other coalition adversaries have the technical capabilities to develop and manufacture these technologies without the help of a proxy nation-state like Iran.
If it is true, it would require fairly sophisticated analysis of signals emitted from our electronic detection devices by our adversaries. One wonders if the US military has found hardware of this kind in Iraq, or, if some of our detection technologies have been recovered and analyzed by whomever is behind this initiative.

It seems that a significant number of attacks occur by command detonation, not a sensor, whether it is a wired or a wireless connection (i.e., cellular or radio) to the IED.
I wonder if there been any evidence these types of IEDs are being shielded or other means are being employed (optical fiber connections?) to counter our efforts to disable them. I realize this is extremely sensitive info, given the high percentage of casualties that occur from IEDs alone.
There are very low tech TTP's for them to reduce the effectiveness of our detection technologies, and I'm sure they are using them there. In addition, the suicide car bomber is particularly hard to identify and prevent in urban areas and heavy traffic congestion.The chemical and magnetic signatures emitted from these types of devices may help us single them out, but it still seems like finding a needle in a haystack.
It is unfortunate Saddam had so much ordnance stockpiled in Iraq and that we did not do our best to secure it post-invasion. We are paying a heavy price for it, despite the advances we've made in detecting IEDs and the innovations we have seen with EFP devices in use within the past few years.

Posted by: j house at April 11, 2007 09:51 AM

Firstly, calling the insurgency "Al Quaeda" is definatly a tipoff to be suspicious. Likewise Iran cooperates strongly with Shiites, but would be quite happy to see the Sunnis burn in hell, while Al Quaeda is a Sunni group. Thus any site which would conflate the two must be viewed with suspicion.

Second, it is a cat and mouse game which there are well known countermeasures to electronic jamming: IR triggers (both "pass a point" triggers and line of site command detonation. Think remote control), physical triggers, wires, timers, etc.

Third, the US EM jamming can't be absolute, as the US radios still have to work. Expect radio-detonated bombs to converge into that part of the frequency space.

Posted by: Nicholas Weaver at April 11, 2007 09:27 AM