Re: Secret Court Says U.S. Has Broad Wiretap Powers
Tim is absolutely right -- we need a new Timmy McVeigh everyday. The people in that building were feds, the kids were fed kids. Unfortunate for the kids, but so what? Nits turn into lice. How many kids died at Waco?
Re: Secret Court Says U.S. Has Broad Wiretap Powers
On Monday 18 November 2002 04:03 pm, Eric Cordian wrote: Someone posted: WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A special, secretive appeals court on Monday said the U.S. government has the right to use expanded powers to wiretap suspected terrorism suspects under a law adopted by Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Any chance that someone could post the pointer to this article? I missed it the first time. TIA -- Mike Diehl PGP Encrypted E-mail preferred. Public Key via: http://dominion.dyndns.org/~mdiehl/mdiehl.asc
Re: FC: Weekly column: Washington's new role in computer security
At 01:02 PM 11/18/2002 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: http://news.com.com/2010-1069-966164.html Perspective: Say hello to Big Brother By Declan McCullagh November 18, 2002, 7:05 AM PT WASHINGTON--Like it or not, the proposed Department of Homeland Security firmly establishes Washington's central role in computer and network security. When approved by Congress, perhaps as early as Monday, the massive new bureaucracy will become--among other things--the nation's clearinghouse for developing plans to prevent electronic attacks, thwart them when they occur and release advisories to the public. I'd have to disagree with the assertion that this is the nation's clearinghouse. The Federal government's internal-use clearinghouse maybe. Maybe it'll also release advisories about real attacks, scare stories about potential attacks, and other information that doesn't interfere with the Feds' own crackers or convicted felon John Poindexter's agency, but it doesn't sound like they're absorbing CERT, which does real work, or the Bugtraq mailing list, or Internet Security Systems Inc., or the security announcements from ISC or the Linux vendors, or Microsoft's security announcements, or the anti-virus companies, or the other resources that we use out here in the real world. On the other hand, those resources don't work for the nation; they work for the world.
Re: Secret Court Says U.S. Has Broad Wiretap Powers
On Monday, November 18, 2002, at 12:59 PM, Tyler Durden wrote: These aren't meant as rhetorical I'm making a really good point questions, but actual questions. Depending on your answer, I wonder how you feel about the WTC (along with a few thousand people) getting taken out by an American Airlines Smart Missle. Interested to hear your response. (And no, I don't think the answer is necessarily obvious by anyone who's thinking correctly.) \ First, please don't top post. Comment on what you want to comment on and snip the rest. Second, the archives are there for a reason. Read past opinions, don't just abstract out a few months' worth of recent traffic and project what you believe my politics to be. Third, there are good reasons why two of our list members have been sentenced to long jail terms by Big Brother, why some have fled the country, and why the Treasury Department's Criminal Investigation Unit published my SS number and declared in documents that I am a suspected criminal of some sort (yet to be determined in their secret court proceedings). You, by being on this list, are already on _their_ list. They already know where in NYC you work. They have probably already contacted your firm to make discreet inquiries. And don't forget, as they surely won't, that Tyler Durden detonated a series of skyscrapers as his final act. Crypto is a tool of war, a tool to destroy those who are stealing our liberty. If eggs get broken, that's the nature of war. To not fight a war because innocents will die is to simply concede victory to the side that _will_ fight the war. Grow up. Did you think this was some kind of crypto hobbyist, Sunday code puzzle group? --Tim May --Tim May (Mandatory Voluntary Internet Self-Rating Follows) V-CHIP CONTENT WARNING: THIS POST IS RATED: R, V, NPC, RI, S, I13. [For processing by the required-by-1998 V-chips, those reading this post from an archive must set their V-chip to 42-0666. I will not be held responsible for posts incorrectly filtered-out by a V-chip that has been by-passed, hot-chipped, or incorrectly programmed.] ***WARNING!*** It has become necessary to warn potential readers of my messages before they proceed further. This warning may not fully protect me against criminal or civil proceedings, but it may be treated as a positive attempt to obey the various and increasing numbers of laws. * Under the ***TELECOM ACT OF 1996***, minor CHILDREN (under the age of 18) may not read or handle this message under any circumstances. If you are under 18, delete this message NOW. Also, if you are developmentally disabled, irony-impaired, emotionally traumatized, schizophrenic, suffering PMS, affected by Humor Deprivation Syndrom (HDS), or under the care of a doctor, then the TELECOM ACT OF 1996 may apply to you as well, even if you are 18. If you fall into one of these categories and are not considered competent to judge for yourself what you are reading, DELETE this message NOW. * Under the UTAH PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ACT OF 1996, those under the age of 21 may not read this post. All residents of Utah, and Mormons elsewhere, must install the M-Chip. * Under the PROTECTION OF THE REICH laws, residents of Germany may not read this post. * Under the MERCIFUL SHIELD OF ALLAH (Praise be to Him!) holy interpretations of the Koran of the following countries (but not limited to this list) you may not read this post if you are a FEMALE OF ANY AGE: Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, Sudan, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Algeria, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia, Yemen, Oman, Syria, Bahrain, and the Palestinian Authority. Non-female persons may also be barred from reading this post, depending on the settings of your I-Chip. * Under the proposed CHINESE INTERNET laws, covering The People's Republic of China, Formosa, Hong Kong, Macao, Malaysia, and parts of several surrrounding territories, the rules are so nebulous and unspecified that I cannot say whether you are allowed to read this. Thus, you must SUBMIT any post you wish to read to your local authorities for further filtering. * In Singapore, merely be RECEIVING this post you have violated the will of Lee Kwan Yu. Report to your local police office to receive your caning. * Finally, if you are barrred from contact with the Internet, or protected by court order from being disturbed by thoughts which may disturb you, or covered by protective orders, it is up to you to adjust the settings of your V-Chip to ensure that my post does not reach you. *** THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE IN COMPLYING WITH THESE LAWS ***
Re: Secret Court Says U.S. Has Broad Wiretap Powers
But you forget - the BATF agents were all beeped and informed to not bother to come in to work that day, and instead met up elsewhere, suited up so they could arrive just in time (a few minutes after the boom) to be heroic. That indicates something, what exactly it indicates is left as an excercise to the reader. So does the confiscation of surveillance video from several sources across the street that was never shown as evidence (because supposedly it would have shown that McVeigh had an accomplice - who was described as possibly of Arab origin.) Further, they claimed that it was a single bomb - the truck, but eventually discovered incendiary devices inside the building. Further, the way the building exploded showed that one of the interal columns that broke could not have done so from a ryder truck parked outside the building. The lone nut theory didn't work in this case. But the results are largely the same. The death of many innocents, the loss of freedom for the rest, the ratcheting up of terror. Shades of JFK and the grassy knoll Batman! --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :NSA got $20Bil/year |Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ --*--:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :their failures, we |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Anonymous wrote: Tim is absolutely right -- we need a new Timmy McVeigh everyday. The people in that building were feds, the kids were fed kids. Unfortunate for the kids, but so what? Nits turn into lice. How many kids died at Waco?
Re: Retry: Yet another attempt to defraud egold!
At 10:42 AM -0800 11/15/02, Sunder wrote: What's disturbing about this is that we are on someone's list as e-gold customers or something, and this is very likely the same spoofer that had earlier set up e-golb.com and attempted the same kind of spoof. FWIW, I got one of the e-gold letters. I don't have an e-gold account. Cheers - Bill - Bill Frantz | The principal effect of| Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | DMCA/SDMI is to prevent| 16345 Englewood Ave. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | fair use. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
Re: Retry: Yet another attempt to defraud egold!
At 02:27 PM 11/18/2002 -0800, Bill Frantz wrote: At 10:42 AM -0800 11/15/02, Sunder wrote: What's disturbing about this is that we are on someone's list as e-gold customers or something, and this is very likely the same spoofer that had earlier set up e-golb.com and attempted the same kind of spoof. FWIW, I got one of the e-gold letters. I don't have an e-gold account. I got one, and while I'm neither confirming nor denying that I or someone like me has an e-gold account at this point in time (:-) I certainly don't have one with the name Bill Jones on it.
Re: Assassination Politics: Coming soon?
On Monday, November 18, 2002, at 02:58 PM, Mike Diehl wrote: On Monday 18 November 2002 07:24 pm, Meyer Wolfsheim wrote: On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Keith Ray wrote: It's been a number of years since Jim Bell wrote his infamous Assassination Politics essay. If someone were to try to implement the system today and not share Jim Bell's fate, they would need absolute anonymity and security. The technical requirements for implementing the system are: I'm not well informed. What was Jim Bell's fate? Google will give you immediate information. Several good introductory articles, including the Declan M. article already linked to in this thread. --Tim May The State is the great fiction by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else. --Frederic Bastiat
Re: Secret Court Says U.S. Has Broad Wiretap Powers
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Sunder wrote: But you forget - the BATF agents were all beeped and informed to not bother to come in to work that day, and instead met up elsewhere, suited up so they could arrive just in time (a few minutes after the boom) to be heroic. That indicates something, what exactly it indicates is left as an excercise to the reader. So does the confiscation of surveillance video from several sources across the street that was never shown as evidence (because supposedly it would have shown that McVeigh had an accomplice - who was described as possibly of Arab origin.) I remember clearly the search for man number 2, and it ended really mysteriously - the news media just stopped talking about him. I was in Chicago at the time, and the number of cops on bridges for the week after that was really amazing. Then no more searching. Further, they claimed that it was a single bomb - the truck, but eventually discovered incendiary devices inside the building. Further, the way the building exploded showed that one of the interal columns that broke could not have done so from a ryder truck parked outside the building. The lone nut theory didn't work in this case. But the results are largely the same. The death of many innocents, the loss of freedom for the rest, the ratcheting up of terror. Shades of JFK and the grassy knoll Batman! There was a lot of comment about this from explosives experts. Don't forget the seismometer recordings that showed a second explosion 10 minutes later (I think, it might have been 1 minute, but definitly much later). They also halted the search for victims so the DEA could remove file cabinets. It sure seemed to me at the time that McVeigh was the fall guy for an inside job. And given the one report about CIA meeting OBL about 2 or 3 months before 01/9/11 one wonders if the big boys just needed something *bigger* to make sure they got total control. But it's more likely stupidity than malfesance. McVeigh was nut, and the BATF stored explosives under a day care center, McVeigh's bomb didn't distroy the building, it just set off the explosives that weren't supposed to be there. Doesn't explain man #2 tho So there's plenty of meat for conspiracy theory for a long time to come! Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Secret Court Says U.S. Has Broad Wiretap Powers
Quoting Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Third, there are good reasons why two of our list members have been sentenced to long jail terms by Big Brother, why some have fled the country, and why the Treasury Department's Criminal Investigation Unit published my SS number and declared in documents that I am a suspected criminal of some sort (yet to be determined in their secret court proceedings). For the lazy: http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.1999.03.29-1999.04.04/msg6.html and for background on that see: http://www.antioffline.com/apol.html -- Keith Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- OpenPGP Key: 0x79269A12
buying gold
I decided to look into these DMT Rands that everyone has been yammering about. I'm not terribly surprised to see that they are a product of the Laissez Faire City grifters. No thanks. This little investigation did spark my interest in aquiring gold, however. Do readers of this list have suggestions about what type of bullion to obtain? How about referrals to reputable dealers? What is the best type of gold to aquire, and where should one get it?
Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne
All of your comments are very reasonable. I agree with most of them. However, I have to take issue with your comments on drugs and employment, and how we have hurt the Afghan people. As to drugs and employment. I'm glad to see that you recognized that a programer, like myself, has far fewer responsibilities than a (mere?) babysitter. But, I still don't want to go to work with someone who is high on something. When people are high, they are unpredictable, and potentially dangerous. Drugs are a form of escapism. Work is work; that's why they call it work. grin Having said that, I will admit that I write pretty good code after 5 beers. But I do it at home. Please notice that I'm not making a judgement on escapism, but it needs to be done at home. As for the Afghan people, being hurt by American policy, they have joined the club. Our policy has never been for the benefit of the Afghan people. It's been a policy based so-called weopons of mass distruction, oil, economics, unfriendly leadership. Right or wrong, but let's be blunt. I don't think it's fair, but that IS how things go with humans. I don't like it either. I also don't see many alternatives. If we left them alone, we'd be in constant fear of various types of terrorism funded by many governments in that region. We'd always be a hostage to OPEC. We'd have to re-establish diplomatic relations every time some Arab nation changes leadership. That entire region has been at war with themselves for 100's of years, and no one has ever come out the victor. Stalemate. Now we come along, and we can probably tip the scales. History may look at us as Evil, or as a stabalizing force. I don't know. Just something to think about. BTW, I recognize the benefit of a LAWFULL dictator, and have no idealogical problems with that form of government. On Monday 18 November 2002 12:53 am, Alif The Terrible wrote: On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Mike Diehl wrote: Dubbya has only been in office about a year and a half, and in that time, he has destroyed Freedom in this country? Not entirely, just *mostly*. I don't think so. I'm still able to practice my religion freely. Sure. Provided your religion does not offend the mainstream sensibilities. I can criticize my government and stay out of prison. As long as your criticism is not highly visible. I don't have soldiers living with/watching me. When was the last time you were out in public? How about an airport? Saddam is just as bad as most dictators, but let's not confuse the issue; he's still a DICTATOR! So? Dubbya and Asscruft have millions of people in prison for doing nothing wrong, only violating their bullshit rules in the War On Some Drugs. Hey, the law is posted. You may not agree with it, but it is the law. Saddam is the LAWFUL DICTATOR. You may not agree with it, but it IS THE LAW. I wouldn't have agreed with Prohibition, but I would have followed the law while at the same time trying to abolish it. Guess what, I have that freedom, still. As long as you do not attract any serious attention, yes. Once you attract serious attention, all bets are off. You'll either be found holding your breath forever, or you'll be carted off to the nearest Re-education Camp (maybe to share a cell with Bell). Personall, I don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home, but I won't want to drive on the same street, go to work with, or have my child watched, by anyone who is high on some drug. If that means smoking dope keeps someone from being imployed, that's not my problem. Why should my employment in a programming capacity be contingent on what you find desirable in a baby-sitter? They have killed thousands of innocent Afghans, and are intent on murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis just to steal their oil. This makes Dubbya a mass-murder far beyond the scale of Saddam. Well, mass-murder is a bit strong. No. It's exactly correct. How about what we have done in Iraq? Both life expectancy and quality of life have nosedived as a direct result of OUR actions, not Saddam's. Remember, before we got into the act, Saddam was providing the worlds finest medical services, world-class education, housing, etc... We are the ones who not only destroyed it, but have spent the last 12 years insuring that the people we are supposedly concerned for are systematically starved to death, prevented from receiving medical care, potable water, etc... I believe we are motivated by
ignore the article on computational issues I sent to the CP list
I'm sitting here, late, waiting to go out to my hot tub to catch the peak of the Leonids. Which is why I accidentally sent my article intended for the Everything list to this list by accident. If the topic interests you, the usual searching around will find the Everything list. It's a quiet list, though. --Tim May
Re: KK wired article on TOE etc
On Monday, November 18, 2002, at 10:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: as just noted by TCM, kevin kelly on a computational/algorithmic TOE, wolfram, wheeler, etcetera, from current issue of wired. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/holytech.html I would say we are all in the midst of some kind of algorithmic revolution that is sweeping across culture, industry, scientific fields etc. .. more on that theme here I just don't see any such sign of a revolution. No more so than 10 years ago, 20 years ago. Yes, computers are now more powerful. Problems tend to grow faster in size than computers do, however, and often having 100x the power only yields a slight improvement in accuracy, not qualitative leaps or breakthroughs. (Paralleling, no pun intended, the spacing of the Mersenne primes, where it's taking longer and longer to brute force find the next one, even with dramatically more computer power. Or the accelerator energy gap, where 10 times the accelerator energy doesn't produce much more new physics.) There are aspects of computers that are always touching on cultural issues. In the 60s and 70s there was much hype about general systems theory and modeling (a la Bertanlanffy, Arrow, others). Some social scientists expected a revolution. In the 1980s it was chaos theory, and fractals, with books on how financial markets are chaotic, how art is fractal, how civilization lives at the boundary between order and chaos, and so on. Trendy, and probably implicated somewhere in the Sokal hoax (Transgressing the Boundaries, the quantum mechanics/litcrit/hermeneutics put-on). Not much of lasting value came out of it, insofar as the revolutions outside of the narrow fields directly involved are concerned. In recent years it's been stuff about string theory, to some extent. The Brian Greene book, The Elegant Universe, became a best-seller, even if probably fewer than one out of a hundred buyers got past the first 20 pages. I don't think many of the coffee table book buyers are expecting many revolutions outside of physics qua physics. And of course Wolfram's book is a big seller. I won't comment, except that I see no particularly strong evidence that he has changed the way science is done, or will be done. Others have written harsher reviews. I admire him for his dedication, but I think he missed the boat by not working with others and working on specific problems. (Tegmark works on lots of cosmology and observational astronomy problems, with his Everything paper as just one small facet, almost a hobby. Working on that theory full-time might make him a frequent contributor to this list, but would probably not be good either for his career or for getting any kind of progress or confirmation (!).) My belief is that basic mathematics is much more important than computer use, in terms of understanding the cosmos and the nature of reality. --Tim May
Re: Secret Court Says U.S. Has Broad Wiretap Powers
So there's plenty of meat for conspiracy theory for a long time to come Dave Emory has documented possible links between McVeigh and neo-fascist groups. Search through http://www.spitfirelist.com/. He also extensively documents connections between the Bush family and the bin Ladens http://www.wfmu.org/playlists/DX...try Los Amigos de Bush and other programs in the months after 9/11 for a start (ironically, he had begun extensively tracing these connections shortly prior to 9/11). In either case, one may end up dismissing all of the connections as circumstantial, but the process of getting there will not be a comfortable one, particularly in the case of 9/11. As for me, I regard both events as key towards turning the US into the nice little Polic State we always wanted. So I get a little pissy when the breaking of the eggs argument is used in either context. _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: KK wired article on TOE etc
From: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: KK wired article on TOE etc Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 01:48:40 -0800 On Monday, November 18, 2002, at 10:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: as just noted by TCM, kevin kelly on a computational/algorithmic TOE, wolfram, wheeler, etcetera, from current issue of wired. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/holytech.html Friedkin at MIT invented the notion of algorithmic physics back in the late 1960s. Right now, only David Deutsch seems to be saying something interesting/testable along these lines. In the 1980s it was chaos theory, and fractals, with books on how financial markets are chaotic, how art is fractal, how civilization lives at the boundary between order and chaos, and so on. Trendy, and probably implicated somewhere in the Sokal hoax (Transgressing the Boundaries, the quantum mechanics/litcrit/hermeneutics put-on). Not much of lasting value came out of it, insofar as the revolutions outside of the narrow fields directly involved are concerned. Well, it took the world several centuries to catch up with Newton, et al, and the fundamentalists STILL seem to be fighting a universe that hasn't existed since the 1920s. As for quantum mechanics, I still believe that it will probably take a century or two for the general populace to begin to see things quantum mecahnically...so often do I see a book using the Heisenberg Uncertainty relation as some sort of white flag from the scientific community saying This means we don't understand anything, so any goofy idea you come up with has gotta be great! except that I see no particularly strong evidence that he has changed the way science is done, or will be done. Others have written harsher reviews. The Wolfram book is a real oddity. After spending a decent amount of time with it, I have to concede that he solved some fairly sticky issues relating cellular automata to the real world. But as for his contention that eventually science will be done and taught this way, this indicates he seems to have forgotten just how social a phenomenon such as science is. You may have found something great, but if you don't get the ball rolling out into the greater community, no one's going to give a crap. (Although Wolfram seems to believe that his book will leapfrog over the established scientific community and into the laptops of reglar folks, who will proceed to do science on their computers in their homes.) _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne
If we left them alone, we'd be in constant fear of various types of terrorism funded by many governments in that region. We'd always be a hostage to OPEC. These are probably the same arguments used by our state department, and I have to take exception with them. US involvement with the middle east goes back to before the Shah took power, and its been down hill ever since. And now, we have Troops in Saudi, sell arms to the Israelis (who are for the most part Europeans...how d'ya think that looks to people in the region?), supported Sadam, the Turkish government, and prop up the corrupt Saudi Royal family. It's been a disastrous, meddling foreign policy that creates huge regional instability, and that eventually cost my hometown 3000 lives on 9/11/01. Unfortunately, terrorism is probably a predictable response by people who want to be able to control their own destinies, select their own leaders and forms of goivernment and so on. If we got the hell out of there, it would be tough going for a while, but eventually the motivation for terrorism would dissapate. And let us not forget that bin Laden (an expert terrorist) was a Mujahadeen fighter in Afghanistan. And guess who trained them in the arts of terror? _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: KK wired article on TOE etc
At 01:48 AM 11/19/2002 -0800, Tim May wrote: On Monday, November 18, 2002, at 10:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And of course Wolfram's book is a big seller. I won't comment, except that I see no particularly strong evidence that he has changed the way science is done, or will be done. Others have written harsher reviews. I admire him for his dedication, but I think he missed the boat by not working with others and working on specific problems. Indeed, Dr. Wheeler discussed similar ideas decades ago and Seth Lloyd of MIT has been publishing papers for some time on the universe a s acomputer. steve
Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 08:26 am, Tyler Durden wrote: If we left them alone, we'd be in constant fear of various types of terrorism funded by many governments in that region. We'd always be a hostage to OPEC. These are probably the same arguments used by our state department, and I have to take exception with them. US involvement with the middle east goes back to before the Shah took power, and its been down hill ever since. And now, we have Troops in Saudi, sell arms to the Israelis (who are for the most part Europeans...how d'ya think that looks to people in the region?), supported Sadam, the Turkish government, and prop up the corrupt Saudi Royal family. It's been a Granted. I wish we could go back to isolationism, but as the worlds only remaining Super Power, that seems unlikely. No matter what we do, we simply can't win. When faced with a game I can't win, I either decide to not play, or I cheat. For the US, the first isn't an option. disastrous, meddling foreign policy that creates huge regional instability, and that eventually cost my hometown 3000 lives on 9/11/01. No, our policy didn't crash those planes into the WTC. Evil men did. It's important to keep that thought clear. Otherwise, you open up the possiblity of someone beating you to death because you refused to do whatever they wanted. Please don't take that as a personal threat, it's just an illustration. Unfortunately, terrorism is probably a predictable response by people who want to be able to control their own destinies, select their own leaders and forms of goivernment and so on. Yes, it's just a new form of warfare. During the Revolutionary War, we also deviced a new form af warfare. If you recall, the English had this habbit of marching and fighing in formation. We were able to pick them off from the hills as they marched. The wouldn't leave formation, and we slaughtered them, quite un-gentlemanlike, btw. The difference with terrorism is that terrorism doesn't target soldiers. It targets 3000 civilian people in your hometown. Maybe next time they target MY water supply. If we got the hell out of there, it would be tough going for a while, but eventually the motivation for terrorism would dissapate. And let us not forget that bin Laden (an expert terrorist) was a Mujahadeen fighter in Afghanistan. And guess who trained them in the arts of terror? I hear a flock of hens coming home to roost. -- Mike Diehl PGP Encrypted E-mail preferred. Public Key via: http://dominion.dyndns.org/~mdiehl/mdiehl.asc
Re: Confiscation of Anti-War Video
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 09:11:51AM -0800, Tim May wrote: Alice uses a laptop or beltpack machine, with a Webcam or DV camcorder. (Minor details of using the laptop while closed...some laptops support this, others shut down. Hence the mention of beltpack/gargoyle machines.) [...] Alice broadcasts, Bob receives, Alice is arrested for thoughtcrime, Bob later uploads. Some of the Indymedia folks have been planning this for the next round of protests in DC, with the addition of Bob doing a live uplink. They're stymied so far by lack of cash, but as prices fall, I'd expect this to become standard activist hardware. Then the cops will respond by jamming, etc. -Declan
Re: Secret Court Says U.S. Has Broad Wiretap Powers
But you forget - the BATF agents were all beeped and informed to not bother to come in to work that day, and instead met up elsewhere, suited up so they could arrive just in time (a few minutes after the boom) to be heroic. That indicates something, what exactly it indicates is left as an excercise to the reader. Mainly it indicates how gullible you are when it comes to conspiracy theories. http://www.courttv.com/casefiles/oklahoma/nichtranscripts/1126pm.html http://www.courttv.com/casefiles/oklahoma/documents/grandjury_123098.html http://www.okcitytrial.com/content/dailytx/050697a/LukeFraneyDirectExaminatio.html http://63.147.65.175/bomb/bomb0109.htm
Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne
Granted. I wish we could go back to isolationism, but as the worlds only remaining Super Power, that seems unlikely. No matter what we do, we simply can't win. When faced with a game I can't win, I either decide to not play, or I cheat. For the US, the first isn't an option. Waitaminute...I think I understand your point, but NOT meddling in the affairs of the middle east is by no means isolationism. No, our policy didn't crash those planes into the WTC. Evil men did. It's important to keep that thought clear. Otherwise, you open up the possiblity of someone beating you to death because you refused to do whatever they wanted. Please don't take that as a personal threat, it's just an illustration. Well, I agree that no human is absolved of personal responsibility for their actions, no matter what the cause. That said, I firmly believe that if US foreign policy all these years had been non-meddling, 9/11 would not have happened. I also do not know what my own response would be had I lived in the Middle East my whole life, and watched Israeli tanks kill my kids, and had I seen US troops save us from their Saddam, and then not leave...ever. If I were Muslim, I'd be wondering if the US had plans to put troops in Mecca. No doubt, my rage would grow. But I would like to believe that reasonable men would not have come to the conclusion that working people in the US (ie, in the WTC) should die in order for the US to be confronted on its continuing role in my part of the world. _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 10:59 am, Tyler Durden wrote: Granted. I wish we could go back to isolationism, but as the worlds only remaining Super Power, that seems unlikely. No matter what we do, we simply can't win. When faced with a game I can't win, I either decide to not play, or I cheat. For the US, the first isn't an option. Waitaminute...I think I understand your point, but NOT meddling in the affairs of the middle east is by no means isolationism. And the middle east is the only place we meddle? I think not. But the middle east is the only place who has overtly attacked us. Isolationism would eliminate all such meddling, but it would also prevent us from protecting our interestes abroad. Like it or not, we have interests. Damned if we do, and damned if we don't. Well, I agree that no human is absolved of personal responsibility for their actions, no matter what the cause. That said, I firmly believe that if US foreign policy all these years had been non-meddling, 9/11 One COULD argue that we should meddle even more since 9/11 in an effort to elliminate such people. However, that could easily be mistaken for, or extened to, genocide. If we had never bothered them, they might still hate us. They'd still have religious, historical, political, and economic reasons to hate us. You can't rationalize with people like this. It's just like any Holy War. would not have happened. I also do not know what my own response would be had I lived in the Middle East my whole life, and watched Israeli tanks kill my kids, and had I seen US troops save us from their Saddam, and then not leave...ever. If I were Muslim, I'd be wondering if the US had plans to put troops in Mecca. No doubt, my rage would grow. Israeli tanks aren't the ONLY things that kill someone's kids. The whole region has been at war for 100's of years. If Israel backed down', they'd risk being the middle east's doormat forever. No, I think the Muslims need to back down, or be forced to. But I would like to believe that reasonable men would not have come to the conclusion that working people in the US (ie, in the WTC) should die in order for the US to be confronted on its continuing role in my part of the world. And that is what makes these people so evil. -- Mike Diehl PGP Encrypted E-mail preferred. Public Key via: http://dominion.dyndns.org/~mdiehl/mdiehl.asc
Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne
At 13:14 -0700 on 11/19/02, Mike Diehl wrote: On Tuesday 19 November 2002 01:02 pm, Kevin Elliott wrote: Correction in the interest of historical accuracy. The idea that we succeeded in the revolutionary war by inventing a new form of warfare. The reality is that the british were marching in formation for very, very good reasons. Their tactics were an early form of Napoleanic tactics (the techniques perfected by Bonaparte and used to SMASH most of the rest of Europe). They evolved from several factors notably: That is very interesting and smells true. But I have read an historical account of how we slaughtered the Reds from the hills as they marched. Seems to be a contradiction here that I can't resolve. Well, there nuggets and the larger truth... Rifles were widely used as sniper rifles by the Americans. They were commonly available (though expensive) because they are a far superior hunting tool than a smoothbore musket. The definition of a Kentucky Rifle is a long barreled _rifled_ musket. Much of their reputation came from the fact they were rifles and any rifle will shoot rings around a smoothbore. The british got VERY upset with us because of a tendency to shoot officers which was considered very bad form. I believe it was common practice to hang anyone found armed with a rifle for what amounted to war crimes. But again, very poor rate of fire kept them from replacing the smoothbore. On the other hand, track the battles. The US lost most of the early engagements and for at least the first 2 years was doing very poorly. We succeeded in later battles because of improved training and discipline (part of the significance of Valley Forge was that it was used as a training ground that improved the general quality of troops immensely). Yorktown was a fairly traditional Napoleonic battle which we only one because French ships prevented Cornwallis from retreating. He was forced to surrender when it became clear that he couldn't break out of the American lines and that the French were more than willing to bring the whole town down around his ears from the coast. -- _ Kevin Elliott mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#23758827
Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who 's ne
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 01:18 pm, Trei, Peter wrote: If you think 'the Muslims' are your enemy, then you have a problem. I never said that they were MY enemy. 'The Muslims' are not a monolithic group, and have no central leadership. This is a bit like declaring that 'the Protestants' need to back down over Northern Ireland. Well, they have enough non-central leadership to all be against Israel and the US. And to have been at war against the Israelies since Bible times Their non-central propaganda engine is training their young to go to war instead of trying to live peacefully. The Muslims was an overly broad term, though. Mike, don't take this personally, but I get the feeling that you're very young, or have very little exposure to life outside the US, or both. It's hard to think of other reasons for your lack of perspective - Why, because I've come to different conclusions than you? Has it ever occured to you that maybe your opinions are colored by what you think of our government and that the may not be completely rational? I often find it humorous that when people disagree with me, they many times resort to name-calling, emotional appeals, or simply patronizing me, as you have. I don't believe everything I read in the papers. I assume that our government is lying to me; they have to. I understand our motivations in this war quite well. you seem to have no concept of how the US Government's actions look from the outside. [mind you, this status is all too common among Americans]. ... And I don't care how they look. I don't see many alternatives to much of what we are doing. He who sows the wind ...reaps the whirlwind. Perhapse the US is the whirlwind -- Mike Diehl PGP Encrypted E-mail preferred. Public Key via: http://dominion.dyndns.org/~mdiehl/mdiehl.asc
Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne
At 10:37 -0700 on 11/19/02, Mike Diehl wrote: Unfortunately, terrorism is probably a predictable response by people who want to be able to control their own destinies, select their own leaders and forms of goivernment and so on. Yes, it's just a new form of warfare. During the Revolutionary War, we also deviced a new form af warfare. If you recall, the English had this habbit of marching and fighing in formation. We were able to pick them off from the hills as they marched. The wouldn't leave formation, and we slaughtered them, quite un-gentlemanlike, btw. Correction in the interest of historical accuracy. The idea that we succeeded in the revolutionary war by inventing a new form of warfare. The reality is that the british were marching in formation for very, very good reasons. Their tactics were an early form of Napoleanic tactics (the techniques perfected by Bonaparte and used to SMASH most of the rest of Europe). They evolved from several factors notably: 1) the incredibly poor accuracy of smoothbore muskets. Rifled muskets were available, but quite costly and... 2) rifled muskets were not effective because of the ponderous reload time (I don't have precise figures, but the number 1/6th-1/10th the rate of fire of a smoothbore musket comes to mind) 3) additionally the very short effective range of 18th century firearms meant that the most effective tactic was to: Stand in lines, fire in volleys and reload as fast as possible. If you were well trained you could fire significantly faster than your opponent, and thus kill his men faster than he can kill yours. And as you kill his men, he has fewer to return fire with. Eventually he will be out of men or his line will break. Once his line breaks you can continue to volley fire into a retreating enemy and/or run his men down with cavalry. If you read between the lines of US history, you'll discover that America did not begin to succeed in the war until late in the war when the troops had become better trained and disciplined. As an aside, the slaughter of the Civil War and WW1 mainly resulted from a failure to recognize that the wide spread use of rifled muskets and minnie balls in the Civil War and smokeless powder in WW1 had completely destroyed the effectiveness of Napoleonic tactics. Technical innovations like the machine gun put the final nail in the coffin, so to speak. -- _ Kevin Elliott mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#23758827
Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 01:02 pm, Kevin Elliott wrote: Correction in the interest of historical accuracy. The idea that we succeeded in the revolutionary war by inventing a new form of warfare. The reality is that the british were marching in formation for very, very good reasons. Their tactics were an early form of Napoleanic tactics (the techniques perfected by Bonaparte and used to SMASH most of the rest of Europe). They evolved from several factors notably: That is very interesting and smells true. But I have read an historical account of how we slaughtered the Reds from the hills as they marched. Seems to be a contradiction here that I can't resolve. -- Mike Diehl PGP Encrypted E-mail preferred. Public Key via: http://dominion.dyndns.org/~mdiehl/mdiehl.asc
RE: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who 's ne
Mike Diehl[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] writes [much snippage] . No, I think the Muslims need to back down, or be forced to. [more snippage] If you think 'the Muslims' are your enemy, then you have a problem. 'The Muslims' are not a monolithic group, and have no central leadership. This is a bit like declaring that 'the Protestants' need to back down over Northern Ireland. Mike, don't take this personally, but I get the feeling that you're very young, or have very little exposure to life outside the US, or both. It's hard to think of other reasons for your lack of perspective - you seem to have no concept of how the US Government's actions look from the outside. [mind you, this status is all too common among Americans]. He who sows the wind Peter Trei
RE: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. W ho's ne
Kevin Elliott[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] At 10:37 -0700 on 11/19/02, Mike Diehl wrote: Unfortunately, terrorism is probably a predictable response by people who want to be able to control their own destinies, select their own leaders and forms of goivernment and so on. Yes, it's just a new form of warfare. During the Revolutionary War, we also deviced a new form af warfare. If you recall, the English had this habbit of marching and fighing in formation. We were able to pick them off from the hills as they marched. The wouldn't leave formation, and we slaughtered them, quite un-gentlemanlike, btw. Correction in the interest of historical accuracy. The idea that we succeeded in the revolutionary war by inventing a new form of warfare. The reality is that the british were marching in formation for very, very good reasons. Their tactics were an early form of Napoleanic tactics (the techniques perfected by Bonaparte and used to SMASH most of the rest of Europe). They evolved from several factors notably: [snip] Actually, they were marching for quite another reason - they were in retreat back to Boston, via Lexington. The redcoats had very light casualties up to the point when Gage decided to pull back. A retreat through hostile territory, under fire, is not the best situation to be in. Untrained at small-unit tactics (and tired - they had been on the move all the previous night marching from Boston), they marched along a road flanked by ridges, stone walls, and farmhouses - great cover for the well-rested militia who had no particular place to get to, friendly civilians, and great local knowledge. The British set out flankers to guard the line where they could, but topography sometimes made them useless. On the retreat, the Gage's men suffered 20% casualties. Peter Trei
Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne
-- On 19 Nov 2002 at 12:02, Kevin Elliott wrote: If you read between the lines of US history, you'll discover that America did not begin to succeed in the war until late in the war when the troops had become better trained and disciplined. This is not my interpretation. Rather, the American *never* succeeded in conventional warfare. The British were able to march hither and yon, destroying whatever they chose, and killing whoever got in their way. However this cost them, and it did not bring them political control. After marching up and down and back and forth, and losing lots of men in the process, they eventually gave up. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 8rJK0TzKk1D62GWmAZ6vUvsi4CeZZEc5RL+nY/pG 4uNqMiU5DCnLXIoq1IVsaQobFOgZedKfb3qFuXYdl
RE: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who 's ne
Mikey: I would suggest tangling with Chomsky for a bit. Start with... http://zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11ItemID=2312 And then go from there. I have to agree with Peter Trei that your arguments sound pretty pre-packaged and freeze-dried, very similar to the pablum the American public accepts as facts. As for Trei's statement... If you think 'the Muslims' are your enemy, then you have a problem. 'The Muslims' are not a monolithic group, and have no central leadership. This is a bit like declaring that 'the Protestants' need to back down over Northern Ireland. Between India, China, Indonesia, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan we have a billion Muslims, and we still have not spoken about Arab Muslims. So it's apparent we're talking about a vast continuum of Languages, ethnicities, histories and so on, who have lived in relative peace if compared to the Christian World Wars (I would bet that all wars in all centuries in Muslim lands amount to a fraction that died in WW1 and WW2.) Do a little more HomeWork Mike M'boy... _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
