61 dead Palestinians.... why did Trump do this?

Hamas calls themselves terrorists?

 

Long before 2012 the government used such things as KG's, KIV's etc. to encrypt classified E=mail traffic. I, myself was a cryptographic repairman during that time. We'd install, tie off smaller units who used SIPR with KIV-7's or KIV-19 bring all that classified traffic back to a hub where we would use bulk encryption devices to send it out to the world, KG-175's mostly. Before that there was KG-84's going back in time.

We're not talking commercial stuff here or how a company does business to include even a bank.

 

No, of course not. The comments were by a al-Qassam Brigades regiment commander in an interview with an Arabic station. He of course does not call his terrorist regiment terrorists.

 

And, once you do that, how does "the world" decrypt it?

I don't know.... I had colleagues who swore government security was pretty lacking. Can't argue because I don't know first hand. But I do know that government email servers were hacked at a rate of 5 per week.

 

Truth is never bigoted.

Their religious beliefs were never attacked, but even if they were, it is still merely a choice to die for them.

 

Simple, once it left our hub and arrived at the destination hub, you had another KG-175 bulk encryptor which would decypt the traffic which in turn once it left the destination hub to any outlying units or companies it would be encrypted one e-mail at a time with either a KIV or KG whatever applied sent to the unit which would have the same type of device on their end in their SIPR area and after being decrypted once again one could then log onto a SIPR computer and view the classified e-mail. There were other details, other equipment, other devices, but before any classified e-mails left any building, it was encrypted with an additional device.

Now the state department has always been known for lax security unlike DOD. That is both electronic and physical. That I won't argue with. Probably the most important thing is one has to have a like device on each end and the same key. I suppose you could google those devices if you want to know more. Here's what google has on it, that is as far as I go.

http://www.jproc.ca/crypto/kg175.html

This is but one of the devices that Clinton bypassed by having SIPR and beyond on a unclassified server and network. I'll say this, if your an IT guy and don't understand it, there's no way an average citizen ever will. Then too, you can bet NSA, DOD and other agencies aren't about to enlighten them either. Better to let Clinton off the hook than give away secrets.

I'm not saying that happen, but anything is possible.

 

So you are saying that if a clerk at the state department wanted to send an email to confirm Hillary's hairdresser appointment, the hairdresser would have to log into a government computer to read it? Or if Hillary were on a commercial flight to Germany, and she wanted to coordinate details of her arrival with Angela Merkel, Hillary would have to carry one of these devices in her hand bag, and somebody would have to provide another one to Angela?

Ridiculous!

That's not very comforting.

https://thehackernews.com/2011/05/exclusive-report-is-department-of.html
https://federalnewsradio.com/all-news/2012/01/dod-common-access-cards-vulnerable-to-new-hack/
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/world/15cyber.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/pent...d-declares-cyberspace-a-theater-of-war-2011-7
http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/local/southeast/soldiers'-personal-information-stolen-

If security were a concern, I would keep my email server at home!

 

Bigotry is "truth" only to a bigot.

 

No. Hairdresser would be on NIPR, not SIPR or a classified network. On NIPR one can send and receive e-mails from any business or even personal from family etc. But SIPR is a classified network where one can't communicate with the outside world, just with those that are on that network. It's a stand alone network not tied into the cloud as you know it. Civilians don't have access. DOD has its own SIPR network which can or could since I've been retired for a while transfer to the state departments SIPR network via a classified transfer point or interchange.

Now there were blackberry's that came with an encryption chip and an electronic key that would allow Hillary as SOS read her classified e-mails. But she would have to tie into the classified router. In other words NIPR is unclassified where one can communicate with anyone who has a computer. SIPR is a closed network where one has to have a clearance, access, need to know, plus all information is encrypted on the closed network. You can't access it and if one could, it would be all gobbly gook. You couldn't read a thing.

 

So it's useless for email.

A Blackberry? Bad idea! Encrypted or not, a blackberry would produce the perfect homing signal for missiles every time she's near a terrorist-controlled or enemy territory.

Not to mention the other numerous insurmountable security flaws that the device itself came with.

So, bottom line, you're saying that if Hilary Clinton needed to use email, her best and most secure alternative would be to use her own personal server.

 

So he has COMPLETE control? If not, to what extent does he have control? I'm guessing you're going to say "to the extent that he had control over whether or not to move the embassy."

 

Her server for unclassified or NIPR only. SIPR and higher classified e-mails, use the proper networks and lets not have 2,000 classified e-mails which belonged on SIPR on a NIPR server or computer and definitely not 22 TOP SECRET Special Access Program E-mails also on and unclassified server which isn't protected by on-line encryption devices.

You still don't get it. Huge difference between the unclas NIPR network in which is basically the government version of the internet and the stand alone classified networks. But that's okay, unless one is involved in it, others shouldn't know. But what is frustrating is that getting folks to understand unclassified only belong on the unclas NIPR while classified belongs on the classified networks and not on the unclassified networks or a unclassified server. That's the way it goes.

 

Still waiting, forum Republicans.
Still waiting.

 

Your opinion that the US is to blame for all of what is happening! What is the science and rationale that has led to this opinion?

 

Perhaps she wasn't lying but that doesn't mean she got it right.

Wrong. What Maddow said: (which I assume is what you're referring to.)

When did Swanson say anything remotely like this?

So how does this mean that he wants it in the future or is at least open to it in the future?

Wrong. You have no idea what the audience "are wanting!" How do you know? Does he say "many in the AUDIENCE have asked me?" Even if the audience DID ask him that, how does that mean that they want the death penalty for gays? I myself would love to ask him why he doesn't call for the death penalty considering his interpretation of the relevant parts of the Bible - as I said earlier, I would love to challenge him on his hypocrisy - if he believes that the Bible calls for it, then he should call for it today. Anyway, his hypocrisy is irrelevant. The important thing is that he is not calling for it today - neither is the audience and neither am I!

As much time as is necessary. I don't understand why you think he is saying that the time should have an expiry, at which point the killing should begin!
Again, why give them ANY time to repent if he hates them? Gays burning in hell would surely be his preferred option if he hated them.

Just because no legal action was taken against her doesn't mean that she was accurate in her description. This goes for Right Wing Watch too.

Unfortunately this pamphlet is nowhere to be seen, despite attempts at trying to find it online. Unless we have a copy of this pamphlet, any commentary on its content is pure speculation.
Not to mention that Right Wing Watch and Maddow don't say where the description of the pamphlet came from. Did someone who attended the conference pass a copy of the pamphlet onto the media for journalists to read it for themselves? This is poor reporting.

Assuming that Kayser does list "homosexuality among the offenses deserving of capital punishment" this is not the same as saying that it should be carried out today.

 

I don't know why you insist on thinking in absolutist terms. "Complete"? Does anybody have "complete" control over anything whatsoever? I don't even have "complete" control over my toaster. But, clearly, you use that kind of terms as a form of "entrapment". Be advised that if anything I write were intended to be treated as an absolute, I will explicitly state it leaving no doubt of the fact. Just like I do on this paragraph. You will rarely see that, though. So you can safely assume that everything has, at a minimum, the usual obvious caveats. I'll be happy to correct you if they don't.

Anyway, you guessed wrong. He has much more control than that. He even has control over sending the U.S. army and taking over the Gaza strip. There are reasons why he wouldn't do that. But as far as "power".... he has it. And in the case of Trump, he would have very few qualms about abusing it, if he wanted to.

As to what control that is relevant to this discussion, I have already told you no less than 3 times. If you need a refresher read the OP. BTW, if you have any additional questions, read the OP first. And also the responses I have sent to you already, but mostly the OP.

 

Yeah, Trump's decision to move the embassy. That is your OP. What does that have to do with control?

 

You are working way to hard to deny the obvious. Maddow does not say Swanson said we should round up gays and kill them right now. I state directly in my previous post that he argues for a waiting period so they have time to repent.

Maddow says that the discussions at the conference - surrounded the timing. Swanson directly addresses the timing issue.

Regardless - Swanson argues that the death penalty for gays is just on the basis that it is "Gods word" and that "we ought to receive it".

As does Kayser

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/phillip-kayser-ron-paul-gays-iowa-caucus-2012_n_1173338

Unfortunately the link to Kayser's pamphlet no longer works. Should the pamphlet not have existed - Kayser would have sued. 100%. I do not believe the Huff Post was "lying" about it.

 

When the hell does he use the phrase "waiting period?" I'm just going to quote from my previous post because you clearly didn't read this part:

"I don't understand why you think he is saying that the time should have an expiry, at which point the killing should begin!

Again, why give them ANY time to repent if he hates them? Gays burning in hell would surely be his preferred option if he hated them."

And yet he doesn't believe that the death penalty for gays should apply. He's a hypocrite.

 

There is a difference between having a personal belief and forcing that belief on others through physical violence (Law).

Swanson avoids calling for the death penalty (at this very moment) giving the rational that he wants to first give gays time to repent.

Swanson: " I am not ashamed of the Truth of the word of God - and I am willing to go to Jail for it" and that Truth states - according to the Good Pastor - that there should be the death penalty for gays. And he says this in no uncertain terms.

When addressing the issue of Swanson saying people have said to him: "Why would't you call for it - capital punishment for Gays" he responds 4.49 in the video - " I say its because we need some time for homosexuals to repent" "america needs time to repent"

How much time ? Swanson does not tell us.

So Swanson - in no uncertain terms - believes that the death penalty for gays should apply - just not right at this moment. The gays need some time to repent first.

Regardless - at the end of the day it is a false narrative to say that no Christians are advocating for the death penalty for gays, adulterers - and he even puts fornicators into the mix.

Obviously this goes against the teachings of Jesus (and in the case of fornicators it goes against the OT and the teachings of Jesus). This is why I take issue with fundamentalists - they often make up their own dogma as they go and then attribute this man made dogma to God and/or Jesus.

I don't think these fundamentalists have any business calling themselves "Christians" as they certainly do not follow the teachings of Christ.

 

I'm afraid you're the one who doesn't get it. I'm only interested in email. Not on data storage, not on internal communications. You see, as an IT professional I have learned that IT security is useless, and often even a negative, if it affects the mission-critical activities of an organization. And that applies both to the Public and Private sectors. It would be great for me, in the private sector, to implement one system for internal communications and another for external communication. But, in practice, it just doesn't work. People will simply not use it. Especially people who work in the field and rely on immediate communication at both internal and external levels. Otherwise, they can't do their job. In the private sector, when a security system simply doesn't allow people to accomplish the company's mission effectively, it's the security system that needs to be changed. Not the mission.

And the same applies to government. I'm sure you have a hard time getting folks to understand what belongs where. And this is probably why government servers are hacked constantly. The system is so cumbersome, it's ineffective. The last administration showed a little bit of discipline. This one has almost none. So I can only imagine what sorts of classified information is flying all over the world and in the hands of our enemies.

 

You don't get it. You're all fired up with NIPR, the unclassified network with regular e-mails. You haven't a clue how the classified portion works. So be it.

 

Please rephrase your question without using using absolutist words or expressions like "all". Not telling me what my opinion is would also be appreciated. I'm the only one who can say what my opinion is. You can quote what I say, but not what I think.

 

Wrong! One more chance. Try actually reading it this time.

 

Moving the embassy is a clear assault on the decades long foundation of bilateral negotiations.

It's a statement that the US strongly backs Israel and is satisfied with Israeli ethnic cleansing of West Bank as well as their last 10 years of active war on Gaza.

The US role as a peace broker was terminated by Trump.