Re: Airport insanity
-- James A. Donald wrote: The US government should expose and condemn these objectionable practices, subvert moderately objectionable regimes, and annihilate more objectionable regimes. The pentagon should deprive moderately objectionable regimes of economic resources, by stealing their oil, destroying their water systems, and cutting off their trade and population movements with the outside world. Thomas Shaddack Meanwhile, the world will get pissed, Arabian Bloc will finally agree on the concept of Monetary Jihad and switch from dollar-per-barrel to euro-per-barrel and later perhaps even to a gold-backed Islamic Dinar. If the US has Saudi and Iraqi oil reserves, this would not be any big problem. Arabs have difficulties to agree on something, but give them an enemy and they flock together Like they flocked together over Israel? They unite only in words, not deeds. Look at the civil war now going on Iraq. The Iraqi insurgency has not united, but rather are busy killing each other. Other countries will stop caring about unilateral embargos and will trade with the affected areas anyway, to great dismay of American planners. I had in mind not paper embargos which no one ever observes anyway, least of all those proclaiming them, but rather the mining of ports, and key roads at the borders, the destruction of airports, planes, ships, and vehicles travelling on those roads. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG PqA9fV/rkBDLiQiY7Z7tvI+4ZspciWsOt6Ks6eJs 4QCdWD0mLhMSVH+y9iESXjeIvzTOTeI0fTqxiC5zy
stealth
Various ways to stego pharmaceuticals: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/programs/forensicsci/microgram/bulletins_index.html
Re: Give peace a chance? NAH...
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote: James A. Donald wrote: ... but Bin Laden's indictment not only mentions US troops in Saudi Arabia, but also the reconquest of Spain, the massacre committed by the crusaders in Jerusalem, and the failure of Americans to obey Shariah law. J.A. Terranson Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, right? The US can go after BL for not following US [constitutional] law, so why can't he come after us for not following Shariah (or any other) law? But these laws are not as like as geese and ganders. The US goes after Bin Laden for murdering people. Bin Laden goes after us for not accepting second class citizenship under Muslim rule. No. He goes after us for the very same reason: for [our] murdering of *hundreds of thousands* of people, both directly (Iraq) and by proxy (Israel). --digsig James A. Donald -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0xBD4A95BF An ill wind is stalking while evil stars whir and all the gold apples go bad to the core S. Plath, Temper of Time
Re: Airport insanity
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote: The US government should expose and condemn these objectionable practices, subvert moderately objectionable regimes, and annihilate more objectionable regimes. The pentagon should deprive moderately objectionable regimes of economic resources, by stealing their oil, destroying their water systems, and cutting off their trade and population movements with the outside world. Meanwhile, the world will get pissed, Arabian Bloc will finally agree on the concept of Monetary Jihad and switch from dollar-per-barrel to euro-per-barrel and later perhaps even to a gold-backed Islamic Dinar. Arabs have difficulties to agree on something, but give them an enemy and they flock together (not entirely unlike Americans) and make decisions. Once the switch is done, there will not be the necessity to keep so high dollar reserves anymore. The USD will lose most of its market power and gradually becomes Just Another Currency. Other countries will stop caring about unilateral embargos and will trade with the affected areas anyway, to great dismay of American planners. US will attempt to retaliate and cut trade with the offenders. However, the world is big and patents on embargoed goods aren't usually respected in the affected areas. Also don't forget that you foolishly offshored most manufacturing years ago, so patents or not, the rest of the world will keep buying Taiwan and China and Malaysia and Japan. And Ireland-made CPUs. The transnational corporations won't have the incentive to respect US-imposed rules, as they will cut into their profit; the ones that didn't made it yet will move outside of the influence of US law, with the corresponding impact on US tax revenue and the ability to finance further military adventures. Hey - even students are already increasingly choosing non-US universities and scientists are in process of moving conferences elsewhere, in long term influencing your ability of weapon research, further weakening you military-wise. Your policies are signing your own demise, and your beloved free market will stab your own back. Meanwhile, the Empire will cut itself off the world, in a failed attempt to punish the world for non-compliance. What will you do then? You can't bomb everyone. The world needs you much less than you like to think. Now, when you see PNAC won't work, what's your revised plan?
Re: Give peace a chance? NAH...
At 11:25 AM 10/19/2004, Dave Howe wrote: TBH the UK *did* have a major terrorist threat for decades - because we were dicking around in *their* country :) Do you mean the terrorists who raised their funding in bars in Boston and San Francisco? They haven't been doing much active terror lately, though they still try to raise funds in the bars on Geary Street. The Bush Administration says that they'll go bomb any country that harbors anti-US terrorists, but if the UK felt the same way and bombed Boston I bet they'd be a bit upset. (Bombing San Francisco wouldn't bother the Bush League as much.)
[2] Re: Give peace a chance? NAH...
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote: James A. Donald wrote: ... but Bin Laden's indictment not only mentions US troops in Saudi Arabia, but also the reconquest of Spain, the massacre committed by the crusaders in Jerusalem, and the failure of Americans to obey Shariah law. J.A. Terranson Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, right? The US can go after BL for not following US [constitutional] law, so why can't he come after us for not following Shariah (or any other) law? James A. Donald: But these laws are not as like as geese and ganders. The US goes after Bin Laden for murdering people. Bin Laden goes after us for not accepting second class citizenship under Muslim rule. J.A. Terranson No. He goes after us for the very same reason: for [our] murdering of *hundreds of thousands* of people, both directly (Iraq) and by proxy (Israel). What then is the reason for the murder of Afghans and Sudanese? As much as I hate to followup to myself, I can't help this one: I just fucked up. In my earnest to provide a timely answer (at a moment when I am precisely *out* of any time whatsoever), I made the wrong choice by trying to reply at all. What came out was a single line of words which had concepts so compressed that they were lost amongst the very bits surrounding them: my one line flippant and idiotic looking answer is just meaningless, and pointless. I should not have given in to the urge to reply *now* just because I wanted to put *something* on the record before I could approach this properly (read: at lengths I didn't have available at this moment). I both apologize for this idiocy, and retract that crap answer I just foisted upon you and the rest of the readers - that I spewed it at all is embarrasing enough! I promise to answer this properly, but I'm afraid it'll have to wait till saturday for me to have the time to do it right (the way I *should* have done it three minutes ago, or else STFU). Sorry - you (as in the cosmic you as well as in JAD) deserved better. Hell, so did I. Barf... --digsig James A. Donald Did that make any sense to anyone but me? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0xBD4A95BF An ill wind is stalking while evil stars whir and all the gold apples go bad to the core S. Plath, Temper of Time
13yo arrested for kiddie porn
First saw the story linked from Drudge, then googled up a handful of stories: http://www.kptv.com/global/story.asp?s=2435549ClientType=Printable Boy,13. arrested on child porn charges 10-15-04 TACOMA, Wash. -- A 13-year-old Lacey boy is accused of child pornography by taking pictures of himself and posting them on the Internet. The boy was arrested Wednesday by investigators from the State Patrol's Missing and Exploited Children task force. They also seized three computers. The boy is being held in juvenile detention without bail. Prosecutors expect to file charges by Monday. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1246411/posts http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20041015/topstories/15049.shtml
Re: Printers betray document secrets
I seem to recall hearing a rumour that suggested that for years now, photocopiers have been leaving their serial number on the copies they produce. If true, and I am inclined to believe it, it follows naturally that something similar might happen with laser-printers and ink-jet printers.Ian Grigg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: R.A. Hettinga wrote: US scientists have discovered that every desktop printer has a signature style that it invisibly leaves on all the documents it produces.I don't think this is new - I'm pretty sure it waspublished about 6 or 7 years back as a technique.iangPost your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
Re: Give peace a chance? NAH...
-- James A. Donald wrote: ... but Bin Laden's indictment not only mentions US troops in Saudi Arabia, but also the reconquest of Spain, the massacre committed by the crusaders in Jerusalem, and the failure of Americans to obey Shariah law. J.A. Terranson Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, right? The US can go after BL for not following US [constitutional] law, so why can't he come after us for not following Shariah (or any other) law? But these laws are not as like as geese and ganders. The US goes after Bin Laden for murdering people. Bin Laden goes after us for not accepting second class citizenship under Muslim rule. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG TwiD9R90EdvKqsjuevEp63cmJRnD0ia7+K9+fllS 4NIKSw8Ax0afFEysgsliifJiwl/5SxotTzQc3ZPe3
Re: Seld-defeating US foreign policy
-- James A. Donald: The US government should expose and condemn these objectionable practices, subvert moderately objectionable regimes, and annihilate more objectionable regimes. The pentagon should deprive moderately objectionable regimes of economic resources, by stealing their oil, destroying their water systems, and cutting off their trade and population movements with the outside world. Tyler Durden As was stated elesewhere, there is sfirst of all the problem of -who- determines the meaning of objectionable. As I said, an Islamic regime is objectionable if it tolerates terror against non islamic minorities, thus creating, perhaps unintentionally, an environment that facilitates terror against external infidels - that is to say, terror against me and people like me. In this context a very strong case can be made that the US caused the Khmer Rouge to come to power, precisely by performing in a way similar to what you espouse. That case is a nutty rationalization put forward by the former fans of the Khmer Rouge to rationalize their bad conduct. The Khmer Rouge came to power in the same way communists did in Laos: because the North Vietnamese created them armed them, and then engaged in major military intervention to bring them to power. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Hc9DKz2cMbczPC73mgjALFsceb/aslSBwH9Id4Ng 4ySC7lfzG04xzWAMEFTVW74ePloZsF8IukGPBMSwD
Re: Airport insanity
I repeat: And you were there and kept an eye on each and every guard, interrogator, and prisoner to make sure that the POW's weren't tortured? And I add: And you were there and witnessed the attrocities that said prisoners committed in order to be placed in Gitmo? No? to both questions? Then your comment is worthless. --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. /|\ \|/ :They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country /\|/\ --*--:and our people, and neither do we. -G. W. Bush, 2004.08.05 \/|\/ /|\ : \|/ + v + :War is Peace, freedom is slavery, Bush is President. - On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote: -- On 20 Oct 2004 at 13:05, Sunder wrote: Re: Gitmo And you were there and kept an eye on each and every guard, interrogator, and prisoner to make sure that the POW's weren't tortured? Lots of murderous terrorists have been released from Guatanamo, and in the nearly all cases the most serious of their complaints make it sound like a beach resort, except for the fact that they could not leave. A few have more serious complaints. Either they are lying or, those who say they were well treated apart from being held captive are lying. It is hard to believe that people like Slimane Hadj Abderrahmane (who after release announced his intention to resume terrorist activities and that he would attempt to murder his hosts who lobbied to get him release) are lying to cover up torture by the US army.
Re: Give peace a chance? NAH...
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote: ... but Bin Laden's indictment not only mentions US troops in Saudi Arabia, but also the reconquest of Spain, the massacre committed by the crusaders in Jerusalem, and the failure of Americans to obey Shariah law. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, right? The US can go after BL for not following US [constitutional] law, so why can't he come after us for not following Shariah (or any other) law? This is but one of the many fatal flaws in the Bush Doctrine of nation-building. --digsig James A. Donald -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0xBD4A95BF An ill wind is stalking while evil stars whir and all the gold apples go bad to the core S. Plath, Temper of Time
Re: Airport insanity
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote: Here is my prescription for winning the war on terrorism We SHOULD rely on shock and awe, administered by men in white coats far from the scene. SNIP The US government should expose and condemn these objectionable practices, subvert moderately objectionable regimes, and annihilate more objectionable regimes. The pentagon should deprive moderately objectionable regimes of economic resources, by stealing their oil, destroying their water systems, and cutting off their trade and population movements with the outside world. Syria should suffer annihilation, Iran subversion, Sudan some combination of annihilation and subversion, Saudi Arabia and similar less objectionable regimes should suffer confiscation of oil, destruction of water resources, and loss of contact with the outside world. I see. I'm sure that Dubbya has his own agenda filled with Shoulds, as does Bin Ladin, as did Lenin, as did Hitler, as did Nero, as do you. Each saw (or see) their views as the way to Utopia. Trouble is, which one of you megalomaniacs is/was right? Further to the point, reality is, and what clearly should and makes sense to to you, clearly doesn't to another. The only difference between you and the others above is that you lack the power to bend reality to your whims, and IMHO, that is a very good thing. It is sad the the above list contained megalomaniacs who did possess that power and used it to cause great misery to others, and had to be removed from inflicting their whims on the world at great expense. Perhaps in a couple of weeks, US Citizens will vote one of those out the list as he's already done plenty of damage in the last four years, and save us another miserable four years. So yes, perhaps, in the fine tradition of what should be instead of what is, you, sir, should go fuck yourself. --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. /|\ \|/ :They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country /\|/\ --*--:and our people, and neither do we. -G. W. Bush, 2004.08.05 \/|\/ /|\ : \|/ + v + :War is Peace, freedom is slavery, Bush is President. -
Re: Airport insanity
-- On 20 Oct 2004 at 13:05, Sunder wrote: Re: Gitmo And you were there and kept an eye on each and every guard, interrogator, and prisoner to make sure that the POW's weren't tortured? Lots of murderous terrorists have been released from Guatanamo, and in the nearly all cases the most serious of their complaints make it sound like a beach resort, except for the fact that they could not leave. A few have more serious complaints. Either they are lying or, those who say they were well treated apart from being held captive are lying. It is hard to believe that people like Slimane Hadj Abderrahmane (who after release announced his intention to resume terrorist activities and that he would attempt to murder his hosts who lobbied to get him release) are lying to cover up torture by the US army. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Meu5wR4zsEnwQaSoYnwnxQo72h782HS6ulS1SVk4 4T0/nieL1lPNTnXWv1TDyaVzHPZZ4tnKN/PpnAawT
Seld-defeating US foreign policy
Well, when push comes to shove I have to admit Mr Donald doesn't mince words. Guess that's what Cypherpunks is for! However... The US government should expose and condemn these objectionable practices, subvert moderately objectionable regimes, and annihilate more objectionable regimes. The pentagon should deprive moderately objectionable regimes of economic resources, by stealing their oil, destroying their water systems, and cutting off their trade and population movements with the outside world. As was stated elesewhere, there is sfirst of all the problem of -who- determines the meaning of objectionable. Is it the latest DC regime? You make it seem like you espouse a philosophy that makes it easy and obvious to see what's objectionable. More than that, however, this may be completely self-defeating. Most governments are not static entities. Some will evolve or die via relatively Darwinian processes, and interference really ends up being self-defeating, or possibly far worse. I won't belabor my favorite example of China--Vietnam--Cambodia, but it's clear to me things could have been completely different had the US not espoused blatantly aggressive policies towards China in particular. In this context a very strong case can be made that the US caused the Khmer Rouge to come to power, precisely by performing in a way similar to what you espouse. We also had opportunities to ally with China early on, and let's remember we were allies with Ho Chi Min during WWII. But all we did is blindly pursue a policy that ended up devliering precisely OPPOSITE to what you would seem to espouse. And we're doing the same thing in the middle east. -TD _ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Re: Airport insanity
Re: Gitmo And you were there and kept an eye on each and every guard, interrogator, and prisoner to make sure that the POW's weren't tortured? Wow, you are good... or phrased another way, what brand of crack are you smokin' 'cause the rest of us thin it's some really good shit and would like to have some too... --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. /|\ \|/ :They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country /\|/\ --*--:and our people, and neither do we. -G. W. Bush, 2004.08.05 \/|\/ /|\ : \|/ + v + :War is Peace, freedom is slavery, Bush is President. - On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote: I expected them to be KEPT in Guantanamo. Furthermore, they were not tortured, though they should have been.
Re: Give peace a chance? NAH...
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote: James A. Donald wrote: ... but Bin Laden's indictment not only mentions US troops in Saudi Arabia, but also the reconquest of Spain, the massacre committed by the crusaders in Jerusalem, and the failure of Americans to obey Shariah law. J.A. Terranson Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, right? The US can go after BL for not following US [constitutional] law, so why can't he come after us for not following Shariah (or any other) law? James A. Donald: But these laws are not as like as geese and ganders. The US goes after Bin Laden for murdering people. Bin Laden goes after us for not accepting second class citizenship under Muslim rule. J.A. Terranson No. He goes after us for the very same reason: for [our] murdering of *hundreds of thousands* of people, both directly (Iraq) and by proxy (Israel). What then is the reason for the murder of Afghans and Sudanese? --digsig James A. Donald My enemy's friend is my enemy. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0xBD4A95BF An ill wind is stalking while evil stars whir and all the gold apples go bad to the core S. Plath, Temper of Time
Re: Give peace a chance? NAH...
-- James A. Donald wrote: ... but Bin Laden's indictment not only mentions US troops in Saudi Arabia, but also the reconquest of Spain, the massacre committed by the crusaders in Jerusalem, and the failure of Americans to obey Shariah law. J.A. Terranson Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, right? The US can go after BL for not following US [constitutional] law, so why can't he come after us for not following Shariah (or any other) law? James A. Donald: But these laws are not as like as geese and ganders. The US goes after Bin Laden for murdering people. Bin Laden goes after us for not accepting second class citizenship under Muslim rule. J.A. Terranson No. He goes after us for the very same reason: for [our] murdering of *hundreds of thousands* of people, both directly (Iraq) and by proxy (Israel). What then is the reason for the murder of Afghans and Sudanese? --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG k+G5vLtBGRUbtmGjb+iAoDxnN3CsLibGbd6SVq/s 4caCsK9kczuZW8ZoOGyjeQwD2fLxwUImuZ05kSJrK
