Hi
19 Sep 2001, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I apologize in advance if anybody is offended about what I wrote.
(and sorry that it got so long)
But this is really how I feel.
I don't say that I'm right, but it may help you to understand us.
>> SH> I don't think we will ever understand why Jack the Ripper and
>> SH> and the Milwaukee Cannibal did what they did.
>> There are excelent people at the FBI who do exactly this.
>> So it's possible. (they helped our government, with the letter
>> bombing case here, a few years ago.)
SH> What does this have to do with anything I said?
Those people earn their money by understanding how terrorists/murderers ...
etc. work.
What drives them, what are the motives and believes ... etc.
So there are people who understand it at least partly.
(and they usually do a good job)
>> It is still easy to hijack planes. (at the moment not that easy, but
>> in 1 year this will be manageable again easily.) (and there are
>> many, many other scenarios, which can hardly/never be prevented)
SH> Airport security will be greatly strengthened.
yes ... but IMHO only for a limited time.
SH> The terrorists will never again find it so easy to hijack an
SH> airliner.
IMHO they will ...
When austrian helpers returned from WTC they were interviewed about the
airline security measures.
They said that they were still ridicolous, and that they would have been
able to smuggle nearly anything onboard.
At the moment there are FBI (?) Agents on many planes, but this is
EXTREMELY costly, and will not continue forever.
Most groundpersonal do the job as their second job.
They are not well trained and they are tired.
(simply because these people are cheaper ...)
>> Your second argument is also bogus in my point of view: (at least
>> what the communications part is concerned) Terrorists will never use
>> phones, unencrypted email, fax ....
SH> I did not make any mention of communications security in my post.
SH> I think you have confused my post with something somebody else wrote.
"The only way I can see to prevent further attacks is to improve
security and intelligence gathering."
Under intelligence gathering I understand gathering of information by NSA
and other intelligence agencies.
You have already came to know that point in one of your recent posts.
And no ... I did not get confused.
>> A 'college' of bin laden was killed by the soviet, while he was
>> phoning via a GSM mobile phone. They traped his communication, and
>> launched a rocket at the position they got ...
SH> It has always been easy to triangulate very accurately on a radio
SH> signal, even since long before WWII. The technology required is
SH> very simple.
with mobile phones it can even be easier, because you can simply 'ask' the
phone company, in which cell the suspect is.
>> And to ban cryptology is also a bad idea.
>> to quote Phil Zimmermann:
>> "If cryptology is outlawed, only outlaws will have cryptology"
SH> This is true, but I have said nothing about cryptology in any
SH> of my recent posts to the Arachne List.
it directly relates to intelligence gathering.
And the 'gathering' was allways used as a justification for NSA projects
like echelon.
But echelon is hardly able to help with terrorism ...
but it is able to espionage on the economy of european allies ... :(((
I don't know what bush would do, if the austrian geheimdienst uses a base
on american ground to do the same to the american econmy ...
>> SH> The problem with this approach is that it would encroach upon
>> SH> personal privacy and it will create considerable inconvenience
>> SH> and annoyance and unjust accusations and suspicions against the
>> SH> innocent.
>> And it is against basic human rights.
>> (there are some of this thoughts too in germany.
>> Most of them are by politicians, who don't understand what they
>> speak about. Crypto regulations will only strike innocent people.)
SH> This is very true. I have never advocated any prohibitions against
SH> the use of any kind of crypto technology.
not you, but many parts of the republican party has.
see heise in german:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/hod-21.09.01-000/
or the original article:
http://freshmeat.net/articles/view/298/
Excerpt:
"We freedom-loving U.S. citizens have had to rely on the freedom-loving
citizens of saner countries to do the work of making strong encryption for
many years. We had a brief respite, which we will eventually resume for
good. In the meantime, please let me apologize for my countrymen and for my
government for asking you to shoulder most of the burden again..."
>> SH> Nowadays any kid caught carrying a pocket knife to school is
>> SH> expelled for carrying a dangerous weapon.
>> Thanks god that this is not the case here ...
>> but we also hardly have pupils shooting at other pupils with weapons
SH> The policy concerning the prohibitions against the possession of
SH> utility pocket knives among students is totally unreasonable.
I agree ...
SH> They refused to accept his excuse under their "zero tolerance" policy
SH> against such so-called "weapons".
our cultures are quite different ...
such zero tolerance would here be only good for a laugh.
It's simply ridiculous.
>> With isreal and the palestinensians (sp?) it's not easy.
SH> The solution will of course will not be easy.
SH> That is not to say that a highly ageeable solution is not possible.
I agree ... and hope that a good solution will be found soon.
>> But this is only a little step.
SH> Every little step that goes somewhere in the right direction is a
SH> giant step.
I absolutely agree ...
you are right
>> SH> In order for any measures to be effective, they have to hit them
>> SH> so hard that they will begin to question the validity of their
>> SH> religious beliefs.
>> In my point of view EXACTLY the way that will lead to WW3.
>> You can't do that.
SH> In speaking of "them" I was referring only to those who subscribe
SH> to the cults of the terrorists, not to those who believe in the
SH> legitimate and traditional religion of Islam, to include all of its
SH> various peace-loving sects. I'm sorry if I had failed to make this
SH> point clear.
I should have been clearer.
Thos are fanatics.
The harder you hit them, the more they are sure that they are true.
That americans are evil, and that they shoudl use any available weapon
against america. (and than they don't care that americans die, and they
don't care that some non americans die, if they can be sure that many more
americans will die.)
2 options for the terrorists:
1) they die in battle or they die because of bombs.
2) they are found and imprisoned.
2a) american way: 'fry em' (or give them lethal injections)
2b) livelong imprisonment.
anything else will not stop them.
When 'hitting very hard' you will allways also hit innocent people, and
this will cause further hate against americans.
>> Either they are all dead (and millions of innocent arabs as well)
>> or the remaining people will say that they allways knew that america
>> was the real satan ...
SH> I am very strongly against the philosophy of "Kill them all.
SH> Let God sort it out".
I know.
Otherwise I would never argue with you.
I hate people believing such idiocies from my deepest heart.
>> SH> You need not worry about what Bush will actually do,
>> Whole europe does ...
SH> He isn't going to DO anything rash.
I hope so.
The last things he said sounded not too bad.
But great parts of europe see stil a giant risk, when somebody like bush
has the power in his hands.
there is a wide spectrum of how people see bush here.
It ranges from: a simple mind doing a good job
over he's not a genius ... let's hope that he does the right things
to my hamster has double the brain than he has.
I don't want to offend you.
But this is how most europeans see it.
And in the light of that maybe you can understand our fear better.
SH> Sometimes he might go off half-cocked in some of the things he SAYS.
when somebody is PRESIDENT of the superpower america, than there should
have been filtering mechanisms stopping somebody who has not the menthal
ability to know what he says.
Somebody who can't write simply cannot be an author.
(and if he has many good coathors who do the job for him, than why is he
needed ?? why not call the best co-author the 'author'?)
SH> You need to look more closely at what he DOES rather than at what he
SH> SAYS.
wouldn't it be better if somebody were president who knows what he does and
knows what he says ???
I would feel much securer than.
(and people don't simply say anything ... there's allways something behind
that they want to express ...)
>> Most europeans are MUCH more conserned by americas reaction, than
>> they are that a terror attack hits europe. Most think that bush is
>> absolutely unpredictable ...
SH> I think he is very calculating and predictable insofar as to what
SH> he might adopt as an overall strategy. He will keep the world
SH> informed as to what he is generally going to do.
George Robertson is not sure.
He said that he HOPES the US coordinates their effor with him and the NATO.
>> (and many questions on the news sound like:
>> "Will america use the atomic bomb ?"
>> "What is the propability that Bush's actions lead to WW3?"
SH> No we will not use the atomic bomb. The media is talking about
SH> using the atomic bomb only for the purpose of developing sensational
SH> stories to sell more newspapers.
I know ...
but pakistan has the a-bomb ...
if the government changes, a radical/extremist moslem group has the power,
and launches the bomb against america ...
how will america react ?
the propability is low ... but it is possible
>> But why have the republicans chosen him as presidential candidate ?
SH> Mainly as a reaction against the extreme liberalism of Bill Clinton
SH> and Al Gore
But haven't they noticed that he lacks some basic capabilities, which are
at least in europe regarded as a minimum requirement ??
When I first saw an interview with him, I thought that his candidacy is a
joke !! (I really thought so)
PS: our cultures really are different.
Bush/gore would have been characterized at most political middle.
(some say also slightly right winged)
Bush is regareded as extreme, extreme right winged
SH> and also because of the popularity of the elder Bush, a former
SH> president and the father of the current president. They believe in
SH> the old adage, "like father, like son".
are they blind ??
don't they see/hear the reality ??
SH> No one needs to have the gifts of oratorial eloquence nor does one
SH> require any outstanding academic background or experience in the
SH> affairs of the world in order to do that.
expect the first part (oratorial elogance) I couldn't differ more.
If you wanted to open a bank account ... to whom do you go ??
to somebody who is a great cowboy, but has very little knowledge about
investment, or to a banker, who has attended a a good school, and who has
20 years od experince, and KNOWS WHAT HE DOES !!!
SH> All one needs to do is to be able to know what our traditional
SH> standards are when it comes to distinguishing right from wrong
SH> according to those standards.
This is a big mistake.
Things are not good or evil.
All things come in shades of grey.
Playing a good-bad game can be fatal.
(we are the good, we have all the right to do anything, because we know
that we are the good.)
If a child of 5 ages thinks so, than that's OK ... but don't give that
child power over a big nation.
>> He may be a great cowboy (I don't know, neither do I care ...)
>> but according to many wise people, he does not have the
>> knowledge/sensitivity to deal with such situations.
>> (and this was ABSOLUTELY clear after his TV interview ...)
SH> He does have enough sense to listen to his wise and capable advisors.
but who guarantees that he will continue to do so ...
HE is the president.
SH> You should not expect him to know as much as they do about the world
SH> situation.
I do expect him to know some basic things !!!
Anybody not knowing them is simple not fit to do the job.
Or he would be a doll, which is controlled by somebody else.
SH> He is not experienced in international politics.
he is not only 'not experienced'.
He doesn't have the slightest clue would describe it better.
Have you seen the interview before election ???
it was a desaster.
SH> I do not see that as a problem as long as he has good advisors and he
SH> continues to listen to them.
Wouldn't it be more sane, that the advisor would be the president ??
>> I was expecting that the would withdraw he candidancy (?) after
>> questioned about the MOST BASIC things, and NOT KNOWING THEM !!
SH> You know a lot of things that you consider very BASIC that I don't
SH> know about. Similarly, I know a lot of things that I consider very
SH> BASIC that you don't know about.
If I go to a company and apply for a job, than they will not take me, if I
lack some capabilities that are absolutely required.
And I define basic capabilities as to a minimum knowledge about the world.
A knowledge that was asked in his pre election interview.
And he left no doubt, that he absolutely lacks them.
NOW it is too late.
HE has to do the job, and I hope that he keeps on listening to his
advisors.
Good luck to him, and to us all.
>> THis is like asing what's your name:
>> Aehh .. ehm ... aee .. wait ... i know ... i think ...
>> hmm ... did it start with a "B" ???
SH> No, it is not like asking him his name. It is like asking him
SH> something that he doesn't know about and something you should not
SH> even expect him to know about when you consider his background and
SH> experience.
all europe expects him to know.
and even the journalist asking him expected a presidential candidate to
know.
SH> Anybody can ask any political leader about some
SH> political situation that he doesn't know about.
sure ... if it has been a complicated question, than I would agree.
But If I remember right he was asked (aming other facts) what the name of
the leader of india is.
India is a huge country, and has the atomic bomb, so THIS is the one of
the most basic facts.
SH> Anybody can ask me some question about computers that I don't know
SH> about.
sure ... but if you want to make microchips, and have not enough knowledge
on how to fabricate them, wouldn't it be better if somebody fabricated them
who knows that ??
SH> If I hem haw and say that I have no idea of what the right answer
SH> might be, that does not mean that I am a computer illiterate.
sure ...
but if you are a basic programmer, and your boss asks what the print
command does, and you don't know, than this will not cast a good light on
you ...
SH> Sam Heywood
CU, Ricsi
--
|~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP)
|~\|(__\| -=> Jealousy is all the fun you think they have <=-
