Re: CDR: RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
After reading this, I feel like I missed something in my original post... Mike Rosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And then the whole world dies, because of ... what? Natural stupidity. grin Spot on. Which is why MAD works. But a regular bombing run on a few oil refineries would put the US in a world of hurt really quickly, enough for them to pull a lot of their troops out of places that happen to be too close to Russia and China. Mexico isn't entirely happy with US policy, I'm sure they could be bribed into letting the other powers use their air and land space for a limited attack. The US won't use nukes to retaliate, which was the origin of this line of argument. ... Mexico's not happy, Canadians are getting pissed because of threatened boycotts from American companies/PIRs, Europeans are pissed because America has threatened to boycott perfume and cheese (yes, this is mostly France, but they /are/ a part of the EU), Iraq is pissed because they just got invaded, Korea's pissed because the US is jerking them around ... The list can go on and on. The US is *not* a popular country right now. Not only could I see Mexico turning a blind eye, but I can see a large part of the world taking the same stance. I agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying. The US, I'd like to believe, isn't dumb enough to actually use its nuclear weapons, especially on its own continent. Move across the ocean, and I'm less sure of this, though. If Russia, Chaina and the EU really wanted to, they could use conventional weapons and force the US to at least retreat from trying to rule the world. An attack on Syria and Saudi Arabia or Iran could provoke it. I'd rather see the Green party (and Russian) attempts at having George W. Bush indicted as a War Criminal for this attack on Iraq. Much more peaceful, delivers a much stronger message, and rids the guy of his power trip.
Nuking kasmir (Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV)
At 10:43 PM 4/1/03 -0800, Sarad AV wrote: Well-pakistan has been constantly nuclear black mailing india.They say that their nuclear options are always open and there is nothing india can do about it. Sarath. Hilarious, dude. Who got nukes first? India. See your own propoganda site, http://www.saag.org/papers5/paper451.html THE MAY 1998 POKHRAN TESTS: Scientific Aspects by R. Chidambaram for a nice tech description of your past and recent gizmos. And your blackmailing agitprop is taken straight from http://www.saag.org/papers5/paper482.html PAKISTAN'S NUCLEAR BLACKMAILING: Spreading fear of nuclear terror by Dr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra (which is a typical paper topic by South Asia Analysis Group, which seems to be an Indian 1960's RAND).
Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Ken Brown wrote: On paper they won on the Eastern Front, but the Soviet Union was produced out of the Russian defeat and I suspect many Germans would, in the log run, not have thought that that was a good outcome. One really can't deny that that shipping the secret weapon of mass destruction (Ulyanov-1 across Germany in a sealed railway car) produced a lot of fallout.
Re: Logging of Web Usage
At 2:58 PM -0800 4/2/03, John Young wrote: Ben, Would you care to comment for publication on web logging described in these two files: http://cryptome.org/no-logs.htm http://cryptome.org/usage-logs.htm Cryptome invites comments from others who know the capabilities of servers to log or not, and other means for protecting user privacy by users themselves rather than by reliance upon privacy policies of site operators and government regulation. This relates to the data retention debate and current initiatives of law enforcement to subpoena, surveil, steal and manipulate log data. Thanks, John The http://cryptome.org/usage-logs.htm URL says: Low resolution data in most cases is intended to be sufficient for marketing analyses. It may take the form of IP addresses that have been subjected to a one way hash, to refer URLs that exclude information other than the high level domain, or temporary cookies. Note that since IPv4 addresses are 32 bits, anyone willing to dedicate a computer for a few hours can reverse a one way hash by exhaustive search. Truncating IPs seems a much more privacy friendly approach. This problem would be less acute with IPv6 addresses. Cheers - Bill - Bill Frantz | Due process for all| Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | used to be the | 16345 Englewood Ave. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | American way. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
Re: Logging of Web Usage
Frankly, it seems that some brains around here are softening. Relying on httpd operators to protect those who access is plain silly, even if echelon (funny how that word dropped below radar lately) did not exist. The proper way is, of course, self-protection. Start with tight control of outgoing info from the end-user machine (remove or fake all fields that are not essential, such as referrer, client application, client OS). Use proxies. If you own a multi-IP subnet randomly switch the originating IP - this fucks up most automated tracking. What doesn't exist is mixmaster-grade anon re-httpers. I guess that ones that would let just text through (no images/scripting etc.) would be repulsive enough for wide public and therefore useful. Once you provide your data, it is always retained forever. Learn to live with it. = end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com
Logging of Web Usage
Ben, Would you care to comment for publication on web logging described in these two files: http://cryptome.org/no-logs.htm http://cryptome.org/usage-logs.htm Cryptome invites comments from others who know the capabilities of servers to log or not, and other means for protecting user privacy by users themselves rather than by reliance upon privacy policies of site operators and government regulation. This relates to the data retention debate and current initiatives of law enforcement to subpoena, surveil, steal and manipulate log data. Thanks, John
Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
On Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 10:43 PM, Sarad AV wrote: --- Damian Gerow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And then the whole world dies, because of ... what? Seriously, I *highly* doubt that any nation at this time would *seriously* think of bombing another nuclear-enabled nation with a nuclear weapon. It's just suicide. Well-pakistan has been constantly nuclear black mailing india.They say that their nuclear options are always open and there is nothing india can do about it.When the hate grows logic doesn't work. Silly PC language about how when the hate grows logic doesn't work is pointless, Ghandian nonsense. If India does not withdraw from Kashmir, Pakistan will nuke Delhi, Calcutta, Hyderabad, and the aptly-named Mumbai. Jibberish about hate and love and violence never solves anything needs to be introduced to Mr. Atom. --Tim May The Constitution is a radical document...it is the job of the government to rein in people's rights. --President William J. Clinton
Re: Logging of Web Usage
Relying on httpd operators to protect those who access is plain silly, even if echelon (funny how that word dropped below radar lately) did not exist. Echelon could be grouped together with Carnivore and CALEA devices into the group of Generic Transport-level Eavesdroppers. No need to consider it separately, at least for technological purposes. (...am I right?) What doesn't exist is mixmaster-grade anon re-httpers. I guess that ones that would let just text through (no images/scripting etc.) would be repulsive enough for wide public and therefore useful. Could it be constructed as eg. a FreeNet extension? Piggybacking on an existing system is easier than rolling out a whole new thing. Once you provide your data, it is always retained forever. Learn to live with it. What worries me a LOT is Google (and search engines in general). Very useful tool, and way too attractive to profile people by their search queries.
Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 12:16:20PM +0100, Vincent Penquerc'h wrote: I don't think they will need to fight us, just impose sanctions by the UN, or even just a world boycott of the US. That and a few suicide bombers in the US now and again. How many suicide bombers in airports would it take to finish off the US air industry? The rest of the world is perfectly capable of destroying the US without any real military action. I doubt those govts would be able to hide their traces well enough for the CIA not to have wind of this. Then, the US have two options: either officially yell, and maybe militarily attack (they'd have a huge popular support for this), or let the CIA do the thing, as in Chile, for instance. Leads to a war of civilian bombings ? Official yells would be of course accompanied with sanctions, probably voted at UNSC unanimity (minus a veto if the responsbile country is in UNSC itself, but I doubt that'd change much anyway). Something that could (though not very probable either) avoid these consequences is unofficial actions, by people without any state connection whatsoever (or company, etc). But even then, look at what happened to Afghanistan. Granted, a EU country might be a bit more hard of a target to attack, but it would be easier for the CIA to do the same kind of covert attacks there. I doubt many countries want to get involved into that. The suicide bombers will come here entirely on their own for the most part, or perhaps with the help of Al-queda type groups. There will be no country to retaliate against. That alone could easily send us into a deep depression -- by and large the US public is far too soft to deal with the effects of that. Or do you mean that the CIA will seek to undermine the governments of countries that boycott the US? It might not even be a gov't action, just a lot of angry people around the world. After all, what do we produce that anyone really needs that isn't made more cheaply elsewhere, other than possibly food? And many countries are already boycotting our GM food crops. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
at Tuesday, April 01, 2003 11:53 PM, Kevin S. Van Horn [EMAIL PROTECTED] was seen to say: What's a legitimate government? One with enough firepower to make its rule stick? One with real (not imagined) WMD to frighten off american presidents. NK being a good example...
Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
Kevin S. Van Horn wrote: the side contributing the most corpses won. True of Vietnam of course. And of WW2, the dead being mainly in Eastern Europe and China. Arguably of WW1 as well, the Germans lost fewer men on the Western Front than the Belgians, French and British, but they had more deaths from disease. On paper they won on the Eastern Front, but the Soviet Union was produced out of the Russian defeat and I suspect many Germans would, in the log run, not have thought that that was a good outcome.
Re: CDR: RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
--- Damian Gerow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And then the whole world dies, because of ... what? Seriously, I *highly* doubt that any nation at this time would *seriously* think of bombing another nuclear-enabled nation with a nuclear weapon. It's just suicide. Well-pakistan has been constantly nuclear black mailing india.They say that their nuclear options are always open and there is nothing india can do about it.When the hate grows logic doesn't work.Thats why one cannot do any thing about suicide bombing either.There are no winners in a nuclear war-thats certain.So the uneasy peace will prevail for a few more year.Things may change later. Sarath. 'a couple thousand nukes' later, there's not much left of this planet. That which hasn't been blowed [sic] up is exposed to enough radiation to kill, or to cause some serious mutations. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort?
Harmon, your knowledge of the history of the Roman Empire early Christianity is flakier than Choate's physics. Go home and read some history books instead of New Age loonies with a persecution complex. No point in refuting the heap of ignorance appended below because there isn't enough meaningful in it to require an answer - but if it makes you feel superior to fantasise that using a modern-style transliteration of an Aramaic name as Yeshua instead of the Latin-style Jesus makes you some sort of elite soul, go right ahead. The Greek spelling of the name is Iesous anyway. And the origin is the same Hebrew name that also comes to us as Joshua and Hosea. That sort of thing happens when you move between alphabets. Harmon Seaver wrote: On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 08:43:34PM +0100, Ken Brown wrote: Steve Schear wrote: At 06:34 PM 3/30/2003 -0500, stuart wrote: On Sunday, March 30, 2003, Harmon Seaver came up with this... You give too much credit to the Romans. Catholicism worked so well because it is a virus, and conversion was often forced upon heathens by their fellow countrymen. Interestingly though, Christianity started in the Holy Land but never got much traction there. Not true. Palestine became majority Christian quite early, as did parts of Syria, Armenia and Arabia. All those places, and also Egypt, were largely converted long before the Christians had any political power. No, they weren't christian -- they were followers of Rabbi Yeshua ben Yoseph ha Natzri, later called Mesheach ha Israel. No Jewish moma ever named her little boy Jesus, which is a Greek name, and the Jews had just spent 200 years of ethnic cleansing anything that looked, smelled, or spoke Greek. Jesus and Christ and christianity were something invented by the europeans -- a take-off of the Jewish messiah and with some of the early writings, heavily edited, of Rabbi Yeshua's apostles, but rather a different thing. When the Romans started trying to alter things, the groups in Palestine, Syria, etc. essentially told them to fuck off. The epistles of Paul, for example, were written in Greek, while the earlier stuff was originally written in Hebrew, then very badly translated into Greek, essentially by the word for word substitution method, which really resulted in some strange passages in the new testament. Some scholars have been reverse translating them by the same method with good results, but of course there's a lot of official opposition to this (just as there is to translating the Dead Sea scrolls) and zero funding. Interestingly enough, Paul's letters would have been totally lost except for one man, Marcion, who collected them all. Unfortunately, he was a Gnostic, not a christian, and a rabid anti-semite, so he took a scissors and cut out anything that was at all favorable to the jews and burned it, leaving some very strange and heavily altered texts. The new testament wasn't canonized until around 400-500ad, can't remember exactly, but anyway long after the council at nicea where they excommunicated all the Palistinian, etc. followers of the Rabbi, and also after christianity had been made the official state religion of the empire, so any hope of the real authentic older teachings being included was long gone. And, of course, we know that pretty much as soon as they were made the official church, they went about destroying the old religion's temples, sacred texts, etc and persecuting the followers. Talk about broken chains of tradition. 8-) -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: Trials for those undermining the war effort?
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 12:22:31PM +0100, Ken Brown wrote: Harmon, your knowledge of the history of the Roman Empire early Christianity is flakier than Choate's physics. Go home and read some history books instead of New Age loonies with a persecution complex. I'm not reading new age anything, simply the writings of the early church fathers and church history. All solid, well-recognized scholarly works. The same works studied in any good university biblical literature program. You don't translate names. Especially you don't change the name of the god. Read the Old Testament, see how incredibly many times you find phrases like the holy name of the lord, blessed be the name, the wonderful name, etc. No point in refuting the heap of ignorance appended below because there isn't enough meaningful in it to require an answer - but if it makes you feel superior to fantasise that using a modern-style transliteration of an Aramaic name as Yeshua instead of the Latin-style Jesus makes you some sort of elite soul, go right ahead. The Greek spelling of the name is Iesous anyway. And the origin is the same Hebrew name that also comes to us as Joshua and Hosea. That sort of thing happens when you move between alphabets. Harmon Seaver wrote: On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 08:43:34PM +0100, Ken Brown wrote: Steve Schear wrote: At 06:34 PM 3/30/2003 -0500, stuart wrote: On Sunday, March 30, 2003, Harmon Seaver came up with this... You give too much credit to the Romans. Catholicism worked so well because it is a virus, and conversion was often forced upon heathens by their fellow countrymen. Interestingly though, Christianity started in the Holy Land but never got much traction there. Not true. Palestine became majority Christian quite early, as did parts of Syria, Armenia and Arabia. All those places, and also Egypt, were largely converted long before the Christians had any political power. No, they weren't christian -- they were followers of Rabbi Yeshua ben Yoseph ha Natzri, later called Mesheach ha Israel. No Jewish moma ever named her little boy Jesus, which is a Greek name, and the Jews had just spent 200 years of ethnic cleansing anything that looked, smelled, or spoke Greek. Jesus and Christ and christianity were something invented by the europeans -- a take-off of the Jewish messiah and with some of the early writings, heavily edited, of Rabbi Yeshua's apostles, but rather a different thing. When the Romans started trying to alter things, the groups in Palestine, Syria, etc. essentially told them to fuck off. The epistles of Paul, for example, were written in Greek, while the earlier stuff was originally written in Hebrew, then very badly translated into Greek, essentially by the word for word substitution method, which really resulted in some strange passages in the new testament. Some scholars have been reverse translating them by the same method with good results, but of course there's a lot of official opposition to this (just as there is to translating the Dead Sea scrolls) and zero funding. Interestingly enough, Paul's letters would have been totally lost except for one man, Marcion, who collected them all. Unfortunately, he was a Gnostic, not a christian, and a rabid anti-semite, so he took a scissors and cut out anything that was at all favorable to the jews and burned it, leaving some very strange and heavily altered texts. The new testament wasn't canonized until around 400-500ad, can't remember exactly, but anyway long after the council at nicea where they excommunicated all the Palistinian, etc. followers of the Rabbi, and also after christianity had been made the official state religion of the empire, so any hope of the real authentic older teachings being included was long gone. And, of course, we know that pretty much as soon as they were made the official church, they went about destroying the old religion's temples, sacred texts, etc and persecuting the followers. Talk about broken chains of tradition. 8-) -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: CDR: RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
Sarad AV [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seriously, I *highly* doubt that any nation at this time would *seriously* think of bombing another nuclear-enabled nation with a nuclear weapon. It's just suicide. Well-pakistan has been constantly nuclear black mailing india.They say that their nuclear options are always open and there is nothing india can do about it.When the hate grows logic doesn't work.Thats why one cannot do any thing about suicide bombing either.There are no winners in a nuclear war-thats certain.So the uneasy peace will prevail for a few more year.Things may change later. You're leaving out stupidity. I can only see two reasons for bombing with nuclear weapons: hate and stupidity. That being said, you'd have to *really* hate someone (or an entire country) to actually /use/ a nuclear weapon. Threatening is one thing. Doing is another.
Re: Duct-tape and tin foil nukular reactor?
Tim May wrote... You fucking cretin, _you_ are the one who cited the article and then wrote: I always get a distinct pleasure out of getting posters to go postal. This is close and I'm laughing my ass off! (Even better is to knock a poster out of his nym into a new one. Tim? How about 'cyphercrank'?) -TD Al Sharpton for President _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
Kelsey[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] How ever I wonder if the report of an Apache helicopter being shot down by a farmer with his rifle-the chopper was certainly downed but I find it hard to beleive that a bullet brought it down. I heard (I think on BBC) that a whole bunch of the choppers we sent out on some mission came back so shot up they were basically unsalvageable. It sounded like they'd been hit with small arms fire, but I don't know enough about the different kinds of helicopters used (I think these were Apaches) to know if that's plausible. Anti-aircraft artillery, SAMs, or those Russian 20mm anti-aircraft machine guns might have done the damage. Or maybe they really were messed up badly by hundreds of rounds of 7.62 mm, but it sure seems like it would be unhealthy to be one of the people shooting at the helicopters in that situation--like a bunch of people shooting at a lion with .22 pistols or something. Even if you eventually drive the helicopter off, it's going to leave a big pile of bodies behind! I recently read a military report (I wish I kept the URL) about small arms fire vs low-flying aircraft. The upshot is that it's a lot more effective than you expect, if you have enough guns and the sense to coordinate them to create a 'wall of lead' in the area the aircraft is about to fly through. I expect that a helicopter hovering low over a city is pretty damn vulnerable. Peter Trei
Re: Missile -launchers in iraq
hi, Blitz comes with high casualities.Shock and awe technique can use troops paratrooping into baghdad.But casualities are always unacceptable to the U.S. So they do it the conventional way. Sarath. --- Ken Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tyler Durden wrote: [...] PS: Anyone notice the conceptual similarity between shock and awe and blitzkrieg? Yes, similar in some respects, though not the same. Shock and awe (terrible name for a quite sensible idea) was about a military force which is overwhelmingly stronger than its opponent attempting to win quickly and with minimum casualties on either side by rapidly and completely disrupting the enemy's ability to respond intelligently. Blitzkrieg (not a word the Germans used officially in 1939 1940 - I'm told it was coined by an Italian journalist) was about a quick victory over an opponent of similar strength to oneself, by a deep and rapid penetration, close co-operation between arms, and continual re-evaluation of objectives by field officers on the ground. Blitzkrieg is one of the roots of SA - but it has others including the punitive expeditions of colonial times, the British attempt to support indirect rule in Iraq by airpower alone in the 1920s, the massive aerial bombardments of Germany and Japan in WW2, the nukes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, unrelenting Israeli pressure on the Palestinians, and even US actions in places like Grenada and Panama. The US has *not* used shock and awe in this campaign. If it had it might have thrown everything at Iraq in the first few hours - all the MOABs, all the cluster bombs, all the bunker-busters, all the B1s, B2s, B52s can drop. It might have sent airborne troops in on the first day, ignored Basra, dropped men in Baghdad. The ideal shock and awe opening to the war would have had the citizens of Baghdad see those 3000 missiles go off more or less simultaneously, in the first 30 minutes, not the first 3 days, a ring of fire round their city, to the background of the exploding bombloads of 100 B52s. The TV and radio and military communications would have been knocked out. The presidential palaces and guards barracks would not have been just hit, but removed. The dazed citizens would have wandered into the streets in the morning to find them already patrolled by Americans. If Saddam Hussein had survived the bombing he'd have woken screaming to see not his own bodyguard but the SAS. In fact the war has been run like a classic tank campaign, a blitzkrieg - tightly controlled armoured penetration over narrow fronts, avoiding easily defensible places, keeping on the move, attempting to catch the enemy in the open and destroy him by rapidly bringing together local massive concentrations, but just steaming past an enemy unwilling to fight or hunkered down in cities or fortifications. Guderian or Tukachevsky or Tal would have recognised the strategy instantly. (Zhukov or Montgomery might have wanted larger, heavier formations). The tremendous advantage given by the total air superiority has been used just ahead of the attack, as a sort of updated version of the moving barrage of WW1. It has actually been quite a successful blitz. They are still making better time than the Germans did on the road to Warsaw. I don't know why they are not trying the shock and awe strategy. I can think of a number of possibilities. They aren't mutually exclusive. In declining order of likelihood: - perhaps they have a greater respect for the Iraqi military than they let on - maybe, despite the hype, the battlefield technology is not yet in place, or not in great enough strength. The news over here has mentioned British marines trying to find the launch sites of the missiles aimed at them and that hit Kuwait. The pre-war propaganda was all about JSTARS or whatever spotting the launch site instantly and targeting retaliation within seconds. But we're still using blokes with binoculars. - maybe shock and awe is a bad idea anyway. It might just be too risky. If you throw everything you have got at them on day one, what do you do if they don't cave in on day two? OK, you make sure you have enough kit to keep on doing it - that's actually part of the doctrine - but sooner or later it runs out. And there are loads of other countries out there who need their dose of SA. It is a very expensive kind of warfare. - it could be that the military is just too innately conservative for the much-hyped SA - perhaps there are some new tricks they didn't want to use in sight of Iran - which (rumour has it) the PNAC types want to invade next (I hope to God they don't) - perhaps they're saving it for a final attack on Baghdad - maybe they wanted to use all their nice tanks before they were obsolete. They haven't had a real fast-moving large scale tank battle in ages. They never got to fight
