New York Times.......making up sources again.

You cannot possibly despise modern liberals enough.

Hah! Someone else noticed. It WAS a Berenson novel.

The Ghost War, to be exact https://t.co/bqnd29CXG1

— Alex Berenson (@AlexBerenson) September 5, 2025

Apparently was the plot of a novel.

You "leak" several versions of a story like this to catch the actual leaker.

So the NYTs was trolled by someone using a book plot. That is great.

HumbleAg04 said:

---

If true… Good.

You ****ing TDS ******s realize we also bombed the **** out of Iran's nuclear program making the world a safer place with zero consequences.

We have the biggest stick. Need to wield it from time to time. "Hearts and minds" isn't the only answer and usually the wrong one.

---

That's what Marines aim for!

Quote:

---

But when they reached what they thought was a deserted shore that night, wearing black wet suits and night-vision goggles, the mission swiftly unraveled. A North Korean boat appeared out of the dark.

---

Does anyone here believe that with all the satellites, imaging equipment, acoustic equipment, radar, night vision, etc. etc. etc....

That a bunch of Navy Seals popped up from underwater and were shocked, shocked I tell you, to discover a NK boat?

We found out from the MH 370 investigation and stories that we have two independent satellite systems that can track every flight and boat of interest 24/7 in all weather conditions, between a fairly wide north and south set of lines of parallel.

The stink of why the mean ol US wouldn't admit officially that we had the systems and then share the info was one of the many side threads during that time.

Sounds like a jack Carr novel.

agent-maroon said:

---

Quote:

---

They simply want to hurt Trump even if it risks escalation of tensions with a nutty NK nuclear power.

---

Yep

---

How does it hurt Trump? I think so. It kind of makes him look bad@$$.

Farmer_J said:

---

agent-maroon said:

---

Quote:

---

They simply want to hurt Trump even if it risks escalation of tensions with a nutty NK nuclear power.

---

Yep

---

How does it hurt Trump? I think so. It kind of makes him look bad@$$.

---

SF shooting up a boatload of NK sailors sounds a bit like a failure to accomplish the mission objective, does it not? Embarrassing because the administration that authorized a mission that led to this level of failure would look pretty reckless to many.

But doesn't really matter because it's all made up BS from the pathetic remaining shell of a formerly respected news source.

usmcbrooks said:

---

HumbleAg04 said:

---

If true… Good.

You ****ing TDS ******s realize we also bombed the **** out of Iran's nuclear program making the world a safer place with zero consequences.

We have the biggest stick. Need to wield it from time to time. "Hearts and minds" isn't the only answer and usually the wrong one.

---

That's what Marines aim for!

---

Made me chuckle.

agent-maroon said:

---

Quote:

---

They simply want to hurt Trump even if it risks escalation of tensions with a nutty NK nuclear power.

---

Yep

---

The MSM would prefer we get nuked rather than have Trump be successful.

Quote:

---

Does anyone here believe that with all the satellites, imaging equipment, acoustic equipment, radar, night vision, etc. etc. etc....

That a bunch of Navy Seals popped up from underwater and were shocked, shocked I tell you, to discover a NK boat?

---

They discuss in the article that there were intelligence and technology deficiencies.

Quote:

---

Near the beach, the mini-subs would release a group of about eight SEALs who would swim to the target, install the device and then slip back into the sea.
But the team faced a serious limitation: It would be going in almost blind.
Typically, Special Operations forces have drones overhead during a mission, streaming high-definition video of the target, which SEALs on the ground and senior leaders in far-off command centers can use to direct the strike in real time. Often, they can even listen in on enemy communications.
But in North Korea, any drone would be spotted. The mission would have to rely on satellites in orbit and high-altitude spy planes in international airspace miles away that could provide only relatively low-definition still images, officials said. Those images would arrive not in real time, but after a delay of several minutes at best. Even then, they could not be relayed to the mini-subs because a single encrypted transmission might give the mission away. Everything had to be done under a near blackout of communications.

---

Sets off my bull***t detector.

We have satellites that can read a newspaper from orbit. I think they could spot a freaking boat.

How would communications reveal the mission? Obviously the Seals couldn't radio out, but how would a broadcast that they passively receive give them away?

Last, I used to water ski a lot. I was always struck by how clearly I could hear the props of passing boats when I put my head underwater. A small, slow, boat might not be noticed until close, but one of any size and speed would be heard long before it was seen

I am no expert but I believe some passive systems can still be detected and monitored now.

Back when the Chinese had their balloons going over our airspace I recall several of the guests on the different media outlets making this claim.

Maybe a real expert will chime in, but I still find it highly unlikely a passive receiver emits any kind of tractable radiation. And one would think a covert op would use receivers shielded against that possibility, if it existed

The same rag that has made up stories repeatedly and is so biased they are essentially the Democrat Party's mouthpiece, expects us to believe something that sounds like it was lifted from a spy novel? And they're just coming out with it now?

48 month rule.

You know it's a fake story cause no Navy SEAL ran off and wrote a book about it.

But I'd venture to guess that there are plenty of folks in the previous administration who may have had knowledge of this and could've leaked it. Not saying it's true or not but I'm not as quick to just dismiss it out of hand, even considering the source.

Martels Hammer said:

---

I am no expert but I believe some passive systems can still be detected and monitored now.

Back when the Chinese had their balloons going over our airspace I recall several of the guests on the different media outlets making this claim.

---

How can you monitor a receive-only passive device? Or do you mean they can monitor the transmissions that the passive device is receiving? I'm with CA77, I don't see how that's possible with a modern solid state device without already knowing that it's there to be monitored.

ETA - should also point out that "detecting" a passive receiving device is not the same as "monitoring" said device, so I maintain my unlearned opinion that a passive receiver cannot be monitored

Again I was only repeating claims I heard on the news.

But a little (Five minutes) on google and yes it seems some things can be detected that receive only. Short distance detection of devices that receive only by means of something called

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_junction_detector

Another method for long range detection apparently uses the dip in background noise caused by the reciever.

Now again, I am not even an amatuer on the topic and just repeating what the google machine told me and I am happy to be wrong on the topic.

Thanks for the wiki link. Interesting read.

Quote:

---

As a countermeasure against an NLJD, professional covert listening devices (bugs) of the Central Intelligence Agency were equipped from 1968 onwards with a so-called isolator. An isolator is a 3-port circulator of which the return port is terminated with a resistor. Any energy injected into the bug by an NLJD will be absorbed by the resistor, resulting in no (or very little) reflected energy. An example of such a bug is the CIA's SRT-107

---

It appears to be pretty easy to counter the "Nonlinear Junction Detector" (NLJD) as described in your link. Besides, this would require the norks to perform the sweep from a boat in darkness. I like the Seals chances given those parameters and they would still be orders of magnitude less likely to be detected by a NLJD than they would by starting a gunfight with a patrol boat.

I find the whole thing hard to believe too, but intentional communications blackouts past a certain point aren't unheard of. Once they were ashore, they only had a km or so to the intended site so they wouldn't be out of communication for long. Why the intel leading up to the squad going ashore was poor, I don't understand.

Wrong thread

didn't post a link for any of the long range sources. Because they were all scholarly journals or university papers, but it was clear that people are doing it.

Maroon Dawn said:

---

NYT would give Kim Jong all our nuclear codes if they thought it would mildly embarrass Trump.

---

10 years ago I would have laughed at that statement.

My recent posts remind me of the air gap topic for computer security.

Methods of jumping the air gap are real and exist. From using the microphone (or speaker in reverse to act as a microphone) to using other bits of the devices hardware are real and exploitable possibilities.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Owlagdad said:

---

Tradition for NYT. What else to expect from a rag who supported Hitler and denied the Holocaust until they couldnt.

---

Don't forget the outright lies about the Ukraine famine of the 1930s, because NYT loved uncle Joe Stalin

---

The stuff about Walter Duranty and the NYT...I read that in a book by Mona Charen called "Useful Idiots" (then she became a TDS loon).

The NYT actually defended Stalin's purge. And turned a blind eye to the holocaust, until they couldn't.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

If true, there's a former Amazon packer who shipped a half dozen NK flags to Coronado in 2019…

---

Why not Dam Neck?

CyclingAg82 said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Owlagdad said:

---

Tradition for NYT. What else to expect from a rag who supported Hitler and denied the Holocaust until they couldnt.

---

Don't forget the outright lies about the Ukraine famine of the 1930s, because NYT loved uncle Joe Stalin

---

The stuff about Walter Duranty and the NYT...I read that in a book by Mona Charen called "Useful Idiots" (then she became a TDS loon).

The NYT actually defended Stalin's purge. And turned a blind eye to the holocaust, until they couldn't.

---

Watch "Mr. Jones".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Jones_(2019_film

That whole affair gives some insight into the reason awards organizations exist. They don't exist to celebrate the worthy, they exist to give the masses the false idea that they are authorities worth listening to.

You can read about how the CIA fooled the world into accepting Modern Art in general and Jackson Pollok in particular. In addition to shell purchasing art work they paid for existing art journals to give good reviews of Pollok and started new award orgs to shower him and a few others in praise.

More New York Times shame

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Some exaggerated SEAL stories out there, unfortunately. Because of ex-SEALS looking to make a buck or command covering up something.

For example:

1) Rob O'Neill is not the guy who shot Bin Laden. He was on the raid and is a war hero, but he embellished and twisted facts to take credit that he was the guy who put THE bullet into Osama on the 3rd floor of that house. Which has been debunked by SF community. O'Neill has then made millions from the notoriety.

2) 'Lone Survivor' story was B.S. regarding Marcus Luttrell's actions. Good movie (Wahlberg played Luttrell) and book too, but Marcus Luttrell actually ran away and left his buddies. The insider joke apparently within the SF community was 'Lone Runner' would have been a better name for the book. Also the estimated guess within the SF community is a Taliban group of about 8-15 guys attacked that 4-man SEAL team. Not 150-200 enemy like the book and movie made it seem. The brass though at the time didn't want to further stain the SEAL community, and instead helped Marcus write that book with the embellished story rather than the truth.

3) Chris Kyle was a war-hero and served with distinction combat but there is controversy regarding his exploits being embellished in American Sniper.

All of the stuff like above, over time I've now started to take some of these SF stories in books and movies - and the stories they tell on their podcasts - with a big grain of salt. I have tremendous respect for guys in the SF community, and they do hard and difficult work, but there are also cases like above sprinkled in among the actually true stories.

---

Never heard any of this. Not saying you're wrong, but do you have any proof?

Would you rather the media serve at the pleasure of the president?