On Tuesday 01 April 2003 08:50 pm, Neil Johnson wrote:
When I went to work for the University I graduated from. I discovered all
sorts of interesting things and even more when my sister enrolled.
.
.
.
Duh ! I forgot the point was that, if things are properly handled, it's not
that hard to
At 09:36 AM 3/27/03 -0800, Tim May wrote:
On Thursday, March 27, 2003, at 08:41 AM, John Kelsey wrote:
...
However, it seems to me it would be very hard for this news not to leak
out. If, say, a nuke or serious bioterror weapon had been found in a major
city, a lot of agencies would have had
At 09:36 AM 3/27/03 -0800, Tim May wrote:
On Thursday, March 27, 2003, at 08:41 AM, John Kelsey wrote:
...
However, it seems to me it would be very hard for this news not to leak
out. If, say, a nuke or serious bioterror weapon had been found in a major
city, a lot of agencies would have had
On Tuesday 01 April 2003 08:50 pm, Neil Johnson wrote:
When I went to work for the University I graduated from. I discovered all
sorts of interesting things and even more when my sister enrolled.
At 02:06 AM 3/28/03 -0800, Sarad AV wrote:
hi,
That cannot possibly even happen-by mistake.Al-jazeera
is qatar based.They might hit a chinese embassy but
not AL-Jazeera.
I believe we hit the Al Jazeera office in Afghanistan pretty early in our
bombing campaign there. (I read an archived BBC
At 02:06 AM 3/28/03 -0800, Sarad AV wrote:
hi,
That cannot possibly even happen-by mistake.Al-jazeera
is qatar based.They might hit a chinese embassy but
not AL-Jazeera.
I believe we hit the Al Jazeera office in Afghanistan pretty early in our
bombing campaign there. (I read an archived BBC
hi,
That cannot possibly even happen-by mistake.Al-jazeera
is qatar based.They might hit a chinese embassy but
not AL-Jazeera.
1500 turkish troops moved into north iraq-US cannot
immediately do any thing about it since flying over
Turkish air space is important for them.
Sarath.
(Before Al
John Kelsey wrote:
I wasn't thinking of Al Qaida. There are a *lot* of people who might like
to have a last-ditch deterrent against a US invasion or other action.
I can think of a few workable deterrents against US invasion:
- ICBMS
- an army with a reputation of fighting nastily when
John Kelsey wrote:
I wasn't thinking of Al Qaida. There are a *lot* of people who might like
to have a last-ditch deterrent against a US invasion or other action.
I can think of a few workable deterrents against US invasion:
- ICBMS
- an army with a reputation of fighting nastily when
hi,
That cannot possibly even happen-by mistake.Al-jazeera
is qatar based.They might hit a chinese embassy but
not AL-Jazeera.
1500 turkish troops moved into north iraq-US cannot
immediately do any thing about it since flying over
Turkish air space is important for them.
Sarath.
(Before Al
At 08:28 AM 3/26/03 -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
At 06:12 PM 3/25/03 -0500, John Kelsey wrote:
...
Maybe the FBI caught them and disarmed the
bombs before they went off.
And they didn't claim any credit? This doesn't jibe with the puffery
one observes.
Well, there's puffery, and then there's
On Thursday, March 27, 2003, at 08:41 AM, John Kelsey wrote:
At 08:28 AM 3/26/03 -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
At 06:12 PM 3/25/03 -0500, John Kelsey wrote:
...
Maybe the FBI caught them and disarmed the
bombs before they went off.
And they didn't claim any credit? This doesn't jibe with
At 09:09 PM 3/26/03 -0600, Neil Johnson wrote:
In a news conference on Tuesday, some general claimed they had located
and
taken out six sites where GPS jammers were being used.
He claimed one site had been taken out with a GPS guided weapon.
Kind of Ironic I beleive he said.
Well, the
At 09:09 PM 3/26/03 -0600, Neil Johnson wrote:
In a news conference on Tuesday, some general claimed they had located
and
taken out six sites where GPS jammers were being used.
He claimed one site had been taken out with a GPS guided weapon.
Kind of Ironic I beleive he said.
Well, the
On Thursday, March 27, 2003, at 08:41 AM, John Kelsey wrote:
At 08:28 AM 3/26/03 -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
At 06:12 PM 3/25/03 -0500, John Kelsey wrote:
...
Maybe the FBI caught them and disarmed the
bombs before they went off.
And they didn't claim any credit? This doesn't jibe with
hi,
They are not working very well or US since the iraqi's
are using gps jammers and US are already in a row with
russians claiming that they sold it to iraq.
Regards Sarath.
--- Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 03:30 AM, Ken Brown
wrote:
Declan McCullagh
Bill Stewart wrote:
At 04:14 PM 03/26/2003 +1200, Peter Gutmann wrote:
The RAF used an EFP in 1989 to assassinate the chairman of Deutsche Bank
I assume that's some Italian or German group's acronym
and not Britain's Royal Air Force? :-)
(Besides, I thought assassinations were usually an
At 04:14 PM 03/26/2003 +1200, Peter Gutmann wrote:
The RAF used an EFP in 1989 to assassinate the chairman of Deutsche Bank
I assume that's some Italian or German group's acronym
and not Britain's Royal Air Force? :-)
(Besides, I thought assassinations were usually an SAS
(Special Air Service,
Steve Schear [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I seem to recall that with sufficient knowledge and commonly available
detonators shaped explosive charges can be configured to hurl heavy
explosive payloads, much like a mortar, with fair accuracy, great distance
or very high velocity. I can't seem to find
At 04:37 AM 3/25/03 +0100, Lucky Green wrote:
...
If any terrorists had nukes, why have they not used them so far?
Suppose you only have one, it was really hard to get, and you're not sure
how much of your US network has been turned, or at least placed under heavy
surveilance? Maybe you wait
On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 03:30 AM, Ken Brown wrote:
Declan McCullagh wrote:
Or perhaps we'll see someone take a GPS-controlled small plane, which
can carry 1,000 lbs, and turn it into a flying bomb or delivery
system
for something quite noxious. These planes can be rented by the hour
at
hi,
They are not working very well or US since the iraqi's
are using gps jammers and US are already in a row with
russians claiming that they sold it to iraq.
Regards Sarath.
--- Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 03:30 AM, Ken Brown
wrote:
Declan McCullagh
Bill Stewart wrote:
At 04:14 PM 03/26/2003 +1200, Peter Gutmann wrote:
The RAF used an EFP in 1989 to assassinate the chairman of Deutsche Bank
I assume that's some Italian or German group's acronym
and not Britain's Royal Air Force? :-)
(Besides, I thought assassinations were usually an
On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 09:22 PM, Bill Stewart wrote:
At 04:14 PM 03/26/2003 +1200, Peter Gutmann wrote:
The RAF used an EFP in 1989 to assassinate the chairman of Deutsche
Bank
I assume that's some Italian or German group's acronym
and not Britain's Royal Air Force? :-)
(Besides, I
Bill Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 04:14 PM 03/26/2003 +1200, Peter Gutmann wrote:
The RAF used an EFP in 1989 to assassinate the chairman of Deutsche Bank
I assume that's some Italian or German group's acronym and not Britain's
Royal Air Force? :-)
Red Army Faction, a German terrorist
At 06:12 PM 3/25/03 -0500, John Kelsey wrote:
At 04:37 AM 3/25/03 +0100, Lucky Green wrote:
...
If any terrorists had nukes, why have they not used them so far?
Suppose you only have one, it was really hard to get, and you're not
sure
how much of your US network has been turned, or at least
On Wednesday 26 March 2003 05:26 am, Sarad AV wrote:
hi,
They are not working very well or US since the iraqi's
are using gps jammers and US are already in a row with
russians claiming that they sold it to iraq.
In a news conference on Tuesday, some general claimed they had located and
Declan McCullagh wrote:
Or perhaps we'll see someone take a GPS-controlled small plane, which
can carry 1,000 lbs, and turn it into a flying bomb or delivery system
for something quite noxious. These planes can be rented by the hour at
hundreds of small to medium sized airports around the
hi,
for every bomb that explodes in U.S,civil liberties
will keep comming down.This is not the case in other
countries were more bombs are hurled or exploded
daily.Though they are less concerned about their
citizens,they are concerned of their civil
liberties(atleast to some extent).
Regards
At 04:37 AM 03/25/2003 +0100, Lucky Green wrote:
If any terrorists had nukes, why have they not used them so far?
Because they've been able to achieve Shock and Awe without them
and keep most of the rabble in line by threatening to blow up
other nuclear-armed terrorists in mutually assured
At 04:37 AM 3/25/03 +0100, Lucky Green wrote:
...
If any terrorists had nukes, why have they not used them so far?
Suppose you only have one, it was really hard to get, and you're not sure
how much of your US network has been turned, or at least placed under heavy
surveilance? Maybe you wait
Steve Schear [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I seem to recall that with sufficient knowledge and commonly available
detonators shaped explosive charges can be configured to hurl heavy
explosive payloads, much like a mortar, with fair accuracy, great distance
or very high velocity. I can't seem to find
On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 09:22 PM, Bill Stewart wrote:
At 04:14 PM 03/26/2003 +1200, Peter Gutmann wrote:
The RAF used an EFP in 1989 to assassinate the chairman of Deutsche
Bank
I assume that's some Italian or German group's acronym
and not Britain's Royal Air Force? :-)
(Besides, I
Bill Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 04:14 PM 03/26/2003 +1200, Peter Gutmann wrote:
The RAF used an EFP in 1989 to assassinate the chairman of Deutsche Bank
I assume that's some Italian or German group's acronym and not Britain's
Royal Air Force? :-)
Red Army Faction, a German terrorist
At 04:14 PM 03/26/2003 +1200, Peter Gutmann wrote:
The RAF used an EFP in 1989 to assassinate the chairman of Deutsche Bank
I assume that's some Italian or German group's acronym
and not Britain's Royal Air Force? :-)
(Besides, I thought assassinations were usually an SAS
(Special Air Service,
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Lucky Green wrote:
If any terrorists had nukes, why have they not used them so far?
I don't think they have nukes. Not yet. But now they're seeing plenty of
reasons to get them. We're lucky they're poor, low-tech people in general.
On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 03:30 AM, Ken Brown wrote:
Declan McCullagh wrote:
Or perhaps we'll see someone take a GPS-controlled small plane, which
can carry 1,000 lbs, and turn it into a flying bomb or delivery
system
for something quite noxious. These planes can be rented by the hour
at
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Lucky Green wrote:
If any terrorists had nukes, why have they not used them so far?
I don't think they have nukes. Not yet. But now they're seeing plenty of
reasons to get them. We're lucky they're poor, low-tech people in general.
--
James A. Donald:
If the US trys to avoid civilian casualties, this is not
out of fear and weakness. Indeed, when we observe the
recent past, it seems that it is failure to commit
sufficient murder that provokes these attacks.
On 24 Mar 2003 at 17:41, Eugen Leitl wrote:
This is
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 10:31:14PM -0800, James A. Donald wrote:
The more Iraqi children the US
napalms, the safer every US resident who works in a tall
building will be, and less our cities will be troubled with
protests.
I assume you're joking. If you're not, what you say may be true
At 04:37 AM 03/25/2003 +0100, Lucky Green wrote:
If any terrorists had nukes, why have they not used them so far?
Because they've been able to achieve Shock and Awe without them
and keep most of the rabble in line by threatening to blow up
other nuclear-armed terrorists in mutually assured
Declan McCullagh wrote:
Or perhaps we'll see someone take a GPS-controlled small plane, which
can carry 1,000 lbs, and turn it into a flying bomb or delivery system
for something quite noxious. These planes can be rented by the hour at
hundreds of small to medium sized airports around the
At 12:03 AM 3/25/2003 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Someone else pointed out that this has been discussed in a novel
(wasn't aware). I hardly mean to say my prediction is unique. It's
just one response to the question that the counterterrorism folks must
ask themselves all the time: How to
--
On 24 Mar 2003 at 22:05, Declan McCullagh wrote:
I fear that's right. We have substantially increased our
number of enemies capable of causing us serious damage (and
have the requiste means, motive, and opportunity)
Observe the marked decline in terrorist acts. Recollect that
9/11 was
At 10:53 PM 3/24/03 -0800, Steve Schear wrote:
I seem to recall that with sufficient knowledge and commonly available
detonators shaped explosive charges can be configured to hurl heavy
explosive payloads, much like a mortar, with fair accuracy, great
distance
or very high velocity. I can't seem
--
Declan McCullagh:
what you say may be true (but hardly moral) if (a) all the
innocents from that nation or ethnic group can be killed and
(b) it can be kept quiet or other nations don't care.
No need to keep it quiet. The French would kiss our feet as
they kissed the feet of the
--
James A. Donald:
The more Iraqi children the US napalms, the safer every US
resident who works in a tall building will be, and less our
cities will be troubled with protests.
Declan McCullagh
I assume you're joking.
I am stating a fact.
It should be obvious I do not conclude
At 10:42 AM 3/25/03 +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Lucky Green wrote:
If any terrorists had nukes, why have they not used them so far?
I don't think they have nukes. Not yet. But now they're seeing plenty
of
reasons to get them. We're lucky they're poor, low-tech people in
What decline?
The tower attacks were separated by about 8 years, There is no adequate sampling
to justify that statement.
On 24 Mar 2003 at 23:31, James A. Donald wrote:
Observe the marked decline in terrorist acts. Recollect that
9/11 was the second attempt to bring down the two towers
If any terrorists had nukes, why have they not used them so far?
--Lucky
Well, one idea worth considering is that these terrorists are not merely
mindless killing machines. Their goal (at least as bin Laden has stated it)
is to get the US out of the middle east, and stop us from pretty much
--
Harmon Seaver:
Not inside the cities they can't, not without tons of
collateral damage, which will crucify Dubbya and Blair.
James A. Donald:
No one (except the US military which hopes to rule an
intact Iraq) least of all the protestors, care how many
Iraqis get killed. Who
James Donald wrote...
perhaps
the most effectual thing the US could do to prevent future
random terror attacks is to round up one hundred million.
innocents and slaughter the lot. Everyone loved the commies
for doing that, so if the US wants to be loved, perhaps it
needs to do the same.
What
At 12:03 AM 3/25/2003 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Someone else pointed out that this has been discussed in a novel
(wasn't aware). I hardly mean to say my prediction is unique. It's
just one response to the question that the counterterrorism folks must
ask themselves all the time: How to
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 05:41:09PM +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
This is dire lunacy. Currently US is perceived as an agressor by the
majority of the world, including the so-called ally U.K. which has lent
more than just its name. You will see an unprecedented surge in terrorism
in the heart of
At 7:05 PM -0800 3/24/03, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Or perhaps we'll see someone take a GPS-controlled small plane, which
can carry 1,000 lbs, and turn it into a flying bomb or delivery system
for something quite noxious. These planes can be rented by the hour at
hundreds of small to medium sized
Eugen wrote:
This is dire lunacy. Currently US is perceived as an agressor
by the majority of the world, including the so-called ally
U.K. which has lent more than just its name. You will see an
unprecedented surge in terrorism in the heart of homeland
soon after this campaign is over.
On Monday, March 24, 2003, at 07:28 PM, Bill Frantz wrote:
At 7:05 PM -0800 3/24/03, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Or perhaps we'll see someone take a GPS-controlled small plane, which
can carry 1,000 lbs, and turn it into a flying bomb or delivery system
for something quite noxious. These planes can
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 10:05:24PM -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
I'm still
predicting radio-controlled helicopters (or RC planes, which could carry
a far greater load).
Or perhaps we'll see someone take a GPS-controlled small plane, which
can carry 1,000 lbs, and turn it into a flying
On Monday, March 24, 2003, at 08:11 PM, Bill O'Hanlon wrote:
Both of these ideas get used in Martin Caidin's book Deathmate...
(If you're old enough, you might remember the Six Million Dollar Man
TV series. Caidin was the author of the book that was used for that
series.)
It's a bit old, but
Declan McCullagh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or perhaps we'll see someone take a GPS-controlled small plane, which
can carry 1,000 lbs, and turn it into a flying bomb or delivery system
for something quite noxious. These planes can be rented by the hour at
hundreds of small to medium sized
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 07:28:41PM -0800, Bill Frantz wrote:
The simplest autopilots just keep the wings level. Almost equally common
are ones that can follow a radio location signal (VHF Onmi-Range (VOR)
usually). Altitude hold is less common, as are autopilots that can follow
an Instrument
--
On 24 Mar 2003 at 22:05, Declan McCullagh wrote:
I fear that's right. We have substantially increased our
number of enemies capable of causing us serious damage (and
have the requiste means, motive, and opportunity)
Observe the marked decline in terrorist acts. Recollect that
9/11 was
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, James A. Donald wrote:
If the US trys to avoid civilian casualties, this is not out of
fear and weakness. Indeed, when we observe the recent past, it
seems that it is failure to commit sufficient murder that
provokes these attacks. The US does not suffer bad
This
At 07:36 PM 03/23/2003 -0800, James A. Donald wrote:
No one (except the US military which hopes to rule an intact Iraq)
least of all the protestors, care how many Iraqis get killed.
Who recollects how many Iraqis were killed the last time around?
James, I agree with you more often than I disagree
--
Harmon Seaver:
Not inside the cities they can't, not without tons of
collateral damage, which will crucify Dubbya and Blair.
James A. Donald:
No one (except the US military which hopes to rule an
intact Iraq) least of all the protestors, care how many
Iraqis get killed. Who
Eugen wrote:
This is dire lunacy. Currently US is perceived as an agressor
by the majority of the world, including the so-called ally
U.K. which has lent more than just its name. You will see an
unprecedented surge in terrorism in the heart of homeland
soon after this campaign is over.
Declan McCullagh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or perhaps we'll see someone take a GPS-controlled small plane, which
can carry 1,000 lbs, and turn it into a flying bomb or delivery system
for something quite noxious. These planes can be rented by the hour at
hundreds of small to medium sized
On Monday, March 24, 2003, at 07:28 PM, Bill Frantz wrote:
At 7:05 PM -0800 3/24/03, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Or perhaps we'll see someone take a GPS-controlled small plane, which
can carry 1,000 lbs, and turn it into a flying bomb or delivery system
for something quite noxious. These planes can
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 07:28:41PM -0800, Bill Frantz wrote:
The simplest autopilots just keep the wings level. Almost equally common
are ones that can follow a radio location signal (VHF Onmi-Range (VOR)
usually). Altitude hold is less common, as are autopilots that can follow
an Instrument
On Monday, March 24, 2003, at 08:11 PM, Bill O'Hanlon wrote:
Both of these ideas get used in Martin Caidin's book Deathmate...
(If you're old enough, you might remember the Six Million Dollar Man
TV series. Caidin was the author of the book that was used for that
series.)
It's a bit old, but
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 10:05:24PM -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
I'm still
predicting radio-controlled helicopters (or RC planes, which could carry
a far greater load).
Or perhaps we'll see someone take a GPS-controlled small plane, which
can carry 1,000 lbs, and turn it into a flying
At 7:05 PM -0800 3/24/03, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Or perhaps we'll see someone take a GPS-controlled small plane, which
can carry 1,000 lbs, and turn it into a flying bomb or delivery system
for something quite noxious. These planes can be rented by the hour at
hundreds of small to medium sized
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 05:41:09PM +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
This is dire lunacy. Currently US is perceived as an agressor by the
majority of the world, including the so-called ally U.K. which has lent
more than just its name. You will see an unprecedented surge in terrorism
in the heart of
--
On 23 Mar 2003 at 17:39, Mike Rosing wrote:
What they *can't* do is destroy small armies. So the
Persians, Talibs and other muslim groups that have a grudge
against the US will bleed them to death one soldier at a
time.
The US is not bleeding in Afghanistan. Iraq, like the
On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 05:39:05PM -0800, Mike Rosing wrote:
On Sun, 23 Mar 2003, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Hey, this war is looking better all the time. We got our first fragging
already, and the US troops are finding themselves no real match for the
Iraqis. I just heard that there's at
--
Mike Rosing:
The US technology is orders of magnitude better, they can
easily destroy large armies.
Harmon Seaver:
Not inside the cities they can't, not without tons of
collateral damage, which will crucify Dubbya and Blair.
No one (except the US military which hopes to rule an
On Sun, 23 Mar 2003, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Hey, this war is looking better all the time. We got our first fragging
already, and the US troops are finding themselves no real match for the
Iraqis. I just heard that there's at least 1 million well armed Ba'ath party
irregulars, plus unknown
On Sunday, March 23, 2003, at 07:13 PM, Harmon Seaver wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 05:39:05PM -0800, Mike Rosing wrote:
Don't get your hopes up. With air power and seige tanks the Iraqi's
don't
have much ammo or food. Just like the US controls Afghanistan, they
will claim they control Iraq.
78 matches
Mail list logo
