On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote:
killed hundreds of thousands of noncombatants to get his way. The real
irony is that the U.S. ended up granting the desired condition
afterwards anyway.
Better check your history again, McArthur made that call as supreme
commander of the theatre,
On Sat, 5 Apr 2003, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
I've heard that people driving through the area contaminated by Chernobyl
are just told to roll up the windows and drive fast, but I don't know if
that's true, or how much good it does you.
Could help a little. Will prevent most of the dust
At 10:58 PM 4/3/03 +1200, Peter Gutmann wrote:
..
The Wall of Stalin: Detonate a string of dirty nukes along the Iraqi border
with Kuwait/Saudi Arabia. Suddenly Dubya decides there are much better places
to play soldiers, he'll look at the Iraqi thing again in 6,000 years or so.
This only works
Neil Johnson wrote:
When your choice is 1) sending THOUSANDS of troops to their death trying
invade the Japanese home islands or 2) Trying out two new, not fully reliable, not fully understood weapons that, however, if they work, will save you from doing 1).
I think I know what my ethical
At 01:20 PM 4/3/03 +0200, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
..
[Discussing uses for the bomb that don't involve killing millions of
civilians.]
Or pumping of one-shot gamma lasers. (What you want to use them for is on
you, though.)
Weren't there some proposals for using very low-fallout bombs to break up
--
On 1 Apr 2003 at 11:48, Mike Rosing wrote:
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.
--
On 1 Apr 2003 at 11:48, Mike Rosing wrote:
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.
Damian Gerow wrote:
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.
That's nonsense. I can think of several entirely ethical uses of
nuclear weapons,
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.
This supposes the US is trying to rule the world, which is not
apparent -- at least not to the US.
I am afraid it's more than just
4. Interplanetary transportation of a massive payload. Project Orion,
anyone?
Don't forget a more realistic scenario: an asteroid on a collision course.
Another use can be quick construction of large underground storage tanks
for gas or oil.
Or extracting the rest of oil from almost empty
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Damian Gerow wrote:
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
helo,
Hilarious, dude. Who got nukes first? India.
Nope US did.
India got after US and before pakistan.Pak claims to
have nukes since 1983,though they were tested only in
1999-his report comes frm pakistan.
See your own propoganda site,
US is not the only counrty who can do 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
But that wouldn't be a good escape for a govt: mind your pawns
(er,
Right, we won't use nukes, we'll just use 'depleted' uranium core
artillery, thermobaric bunker busters (aka mini-nukes), daisy cutters and
MOABS; After all, those aren't weapons of mass destruction.
--Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos---
+ ^ + :NSA got
Kevin S. Van Horn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can think of several entirely ethical uses of nuclear weapons, with the
usage not motivated by hate but simple utility:
1. You have a large invading fleet approaching your nation. A few nukes out
in the middle of the ocean could handily take out the
Sarad AV[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
helo,
Hilarious, dude. Who got nukes first? India.
Nope US did.
India got after US and before pakistan.Pak claims to
have nukes since 1983,though they were tested only in
1999-his report comes frm pakistan.
For those to young to remember,
hi,
yes-thats probabaly why they nuked hirsoshima and
nagasaki.
Dont undermine the hate.There was no logic
either.There was no logic in nuking thousand of people
in hirsohma saying their existance is less important
to thousands of people who might live,if the city was
nuked.
Sarath.
hi,
Why are the suicide bombers after US troops-its the
hate.It does work .Yesterday at najaf(iraq)-a family
of 8 women and atleast 2 children were killed by
allied troops.They claimed that the vehicle sped
towards an allied check post.So they fired warning
shots to *stop* the vehicle.
When it
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
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,
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
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
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
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...
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
--- 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
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
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
At 12:43 PM 3/29/2003 -0800, Mike Rosing wrote:
I totally agree. The US has lost everything in terms of world opinion.
We are morons led by an insane lunatic and the US needs to be dealt with
accordingly. Once we start invading Syria, the world will retaliate in a
big way. We're already
On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Damian Gerow wrote:
And then the whole world dies, because of ... what?
Natural stupidity.
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.
'a couple
Mike Rosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So when the rest of the world retaliates with all their military power that
the US fails to appreciate, what strategic war plan does the rest of the
world have for handling a couple thousand nukes? Just trying to figure
their options?
Russia, China
John Kelsey wrote:
I think there was some complicated argument about the Taliban not
being a legitimate government,
What's a legitimate government? One with enough firepower to make its
rule stick?
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
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Duncan Frissell wrote:
So when the rest of the world retaliates with all their military power that
the US fails to appreciate, what strategic war plan does the rest of the
world have for handling a couple thousand nukes? Just trying to figure
their options?
Russia,
On Sat, 29 Mar 2003, Sarad AV wrote:
The images shown at the begining of the war showing
iraqi soldiers surrending and walking up with their
hands behind their head might have cost US dear again.
Iraqi tv then showed a iraqi general with a large
rifle in his hand saying to iraqi tv-what do
At 01:57 AM 3/28/03 -0800, Sarad AV wrote:
...
They are finding it hard to hit
armoured vehicles since they are well spread out in
distinct patterns.US has told iraq to treat US
soldiers as pow's and follow the geneva
convention.they showed images of 3 US pow's,one women
and 2 men-one of them were
helo,
--- John Kelsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Be fair about this. We own the skies above Baghdad,
bit too much, but it's not like we're targeting
civilian areas. If we
were, the images from Baghdad would be very
different; not just one market
with a bomb crater, and one hospital
hi,
All this happening on the worlds greatest demcoracy.
may be you read this news.
http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fccid=34in=techcat=hackers_and_crackers
Unofficial reports are that 500 iraqi's died 2 days
ago and day before yesterday another 1000 died.This
is the word comming from Saudi-from
it is around 1130, local time, Geneva, Switzerland and
http://www.aljazeera.net/ is working just fine. (well, it might be a
fake, but not having ever seen the original, I don't know)
'Gabriel Rocha' wrote:
it is around 1130, local time, Geneva, Switzerland and
http://www.aljazeera.net/ is working just fine. (well, it might be a
fake, but not having ever seen the original, I don't know)
It looks like over here in Europe we're getting DNS to aljazeera.net
pointing to a
On Thu, Mar 27, at 01:12PM, Sunder wrote:
The site was defaced last I saw it, I would suspect that to still be the
case, or it is down for other reasons (overloaded, etc...) For those of
you who are getting a dotster page, try using a different dns server
than what your isp is
Steve Schear [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 01:46 AM 3/28/2003 +1200, Peter Gutmann wrote:
John Young [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Whether either of these work as bragged or are psyop mirages is worth betting
an WMD Indian nickle on.
It's a cool toy, but I can't see someone using a $1M e-bomb when a
Maybe someone should tell them about Spam Assassin.
In this case, SpamAssassin would most likely bring the machine further
down by eating all the RAM and CPU.
It's likely that separation of mail and web services would be a wise move
here; DNS MX records allow a comfortable way to achieve this.
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Sarad AV wrote:
All this happening on the worlds greatest demcoracy.
may be you read this news.
The worlds greatest democracy is India. Over 500 million people
vote in one election.
In any case US military pow's are going to have a hard
time and since U.S didnot give
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Gabriel Rocha wrote:
I just checked out http://www.aljazeera.net/ and there is a big red US
flag on the front, courtesy of the Freedom Cyber Force Militia...
well, perhaps aljazeera needs better network people...
It's definitly being jammed in Wisconsin - I get the error:
At 01:46 AM 3/28/03 +1200, Peter Gutmann wrote:
It's a cool toy, but I can't see someone using a $1M e-bomb when a
$1000 Mk.82
will do the same thing, especially if there's any chance it'll be
captured
intact by an enemy who can... hmm, there's a thought:
Oh dear!
Peter, these are *free* to the
At 10:36 PM 3/26/03 -0800, Sarad AV wrote:
there is a lot of self [fnord] imposed sensor ship in US on
the war.The Us pows's shown on al-jazeera were not
broadcasted over Us and those sites which had pictures
of POW's were removed as unethical graphics on web
pages.
We should be faxing these
at Thursday, March 27, 2003 6:36 AM, Sarad AV [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was seen to say:
there is a lot of self imposed sensor ship in US on
the war.The Us pows's shown on al-jazeera were not
broadcasted over Us and those sites which had pictures
of POW's were removed as unethical graphics on web
Gabriel Rocha[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 27, at 06:33AM, Mike Rosing wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ host www.aljazeera.net
www.aljazeera.net has address 216.34.94.186
This is from the US, fyi. It also works (and even resolves to the same
thing :) from other
I just checked out http://www.aljazeera.net/ and there is a big red US
flag on the front, courtesy of the Freedom Cyber Force Militia...
well, perhaps aljazeera needs better network people...
This is from the US, fyi. It also works (and even resolves to the same
thing :) from other hosts outside the US)
Yup, I get it from the UK, though I didn't get it two and three
days ago. URLs are all in English, though this may be normal.
BTW, does anyone know about www.aljezeerah.info ? I've
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Vincent Penquerc'h wrote:
Yup, I get it from the UK, though I didn't get it two and three
days ago. URLs are all in English, though this may be normal.
BTW, does anyone know about www.aljezeerah.info ? I've been
getting my news from there since the start of the war, but
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, 'Gabriel Rocha' wrote:
Gotta contact exodus to find out whom they have alocated that subnet
block...
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ whois -h whois.arin.net 216.34.94.186
[whois.arin.net]
I can run that via telnet to my isp, and get the same response (good!)
OrgName:Cable
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Trei, Peter wrote:
Gabriel Rocha[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 27, at 06:33AM, Mike Rosing wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ host www.aljazeera.net
www.aljazeera.net has address 216.34.94.186
This is from the US, fyi. It also works (and even
Thanks.
One thing you should know - if you visit it, ip alone won't work. Add it
to your hosts file as 207.150.192.12 www.aljazeerah.info (no quotes, on
a line by itself) as the site wants host header names and the ip isn't
enough.
in unix it's /etc/hosts, in w2k it's
Connecting to www.aljazeera.net[216.34.94.186]:80...
failed: Attempt to
connect
timed out without establishing a connection.
Retrying.
I get it again now, but...
Strangely, Opera does reach it fast and all (though I suspect it's
hitting a mirror though I explicitely refresh) but wget
www.aljazeerah.info.3322IN A 207.150.192.12
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Sunder wrote:
Got an ip for .info? I can't resolve that from here.
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Vincent Penquerc'h wrote:
Is it jammed world wide? You're in COW too. Any one from .nl or .de
or .fr who can pick it up still?
Still, www.aljazeerah.info is still accessible if you're feeling
so inclined. Odd though that the Arabic side is down but this one
stays
There's no such thing as being jammed (flooded) in the US only or
worldwide.
Either it's being blocked by packet filters, or it's being flooded with
too much traffic.
If anyone sees a different traceroute - one that doesn't go through cw,
then you may still be able to get to the site.
Got an ip for .info? I can't resolve that from here.
--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
For the little that I get, this is what I get out of a traceroute:
11 acr2-loopback.Seattle.cw.net (208.172.82.62) 79.920 ms 74.381 ms
88.037 ms
12 bhr2-pos-0-0.Tukwilase2.cw.net (208.172.81.222) 79.107 ms 83.846 ms
91.354 ms
13 * csr11-ve243.Tukwilase2.cw.net (216.34.64.147) 73.553 ms
If anyone sees a different traceroute - one that doesn't go
through cw,
then you may still be able to get to the site. Otherwise, it's got a
single connection, and that's down.
Goes through, but beyond, it seems, from the UK.
$ tracert www.aljazeera.net
Tracing route to www.aljazeera.net
It's definitly jammed in the US. I get 503 - out of
resources error.
Maybe you guys can set up a mirror that isn't jammed and the
US can see it
that way (at least until the feds catch wind of it).
Well, too late anyway, it seems...
--17:37:47-- http://www.aljazeera.net/
=
This is the placeholder for domain aljazeera.info. If you see
Yes, try with a h at the end.
--
Vincent Penquerc'h
It may have been replaced, but earlier this morning when I heard it was
hacked, I pulled it up and it had been replaced with an american flag
redirecting the user to
http://members.networld.com/freedom2003/index.sb
and the message
This broadcast was brought to you by:
Freedom Cyber Force Militia
I get that from www.aljazeera.ru. The cached pages on google come up
with www.aljazeera.net not in the DNS, and the live pages go to the
dotster. I did find a live feed that works, but it's in arabic :-(
Also, the NYSE kicked al-jazeera reporters out of the exchange:
Mar. 26, 2003. 01:00 AM
At 1:32 AM +1200 on 3/28/03, Peter Gutmann wrote:
It's also nothing like highly classified - google for flux compression
generator.
Not to be confused with a flux capacitor. hyuk!
Cheers,
RAH
No matter where you go, there you are...
--
-
R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Vincent Penquerc'h wrote:
Still, www.aljazeerah.info is still accessible if you're feeling
so inclined. Odd though that the Arabic side is down but this one
stays up, if they're aiming for propaganda in their own countries,
mostly English speaking but not much Arabic
Is it jammed world wide? You're in COW too. Any one from .nl or .de
or .fr who can pick it up still?
Still, www.aljazeerah.info is still accessible if you're feeling
so inclined. Odd though that the Arabic side is down but this one
stays up, if they're aiming for propaganda in their own
Got an ip for .info? I can't resolve that from here.
207.150.192.12
--
Vincent Penquerc'h
Mike Rosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not a router guru, maybe somebody can explain these results:
$ dig 216.34.94.186
; DiG 9.2.0 216.34.94.186
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 2646
;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1,
At 6:59 AM -0800 3/27/03, Gabriel Rocha wrote:
On Thu, Mar 27, at 06:33AM, Mike Rosing wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ host www.aljazeera.net
www.aljazeera.net has address 216.34.94.186
This is from the US, fyi. It also works (and even resolves to the same
thing :) from other hosts
Sarad AV[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
hi,
it doesnt matter as long as Al-Jazeera is live and
kicking and the camera's are rolling.
The highly classified bomb creates a brief pulse of
microwaves powerful enough to fry computers, blind
radar, silence radios, trigger crippling power
: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:40:00 -0500
Sarad AV[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
hi,
it doesnt matter as long as Al-Jazeera is live and
kicking and the camera's are rolling.
The highly classified bomb creates a brief pulse of
microwaves powerful enough to fry
At 10:41 PM 3/25/03 -0500, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
...from the Leg-HERFing department...
Cheers,
RAH
Who expects it was just a bomb-bomb, Jim. They came back with a bigger
one, just now.
Yep. The COW needs the TVs to broadcast our message. Also we don't
trust the infiltrated spec-ops radios not
It's now been changed to the following. Did you manage to save a copy you
can forward back to the list? :)
Baghdad Targets Under Fire
March 26, 2003
Coalition forces struck Baghdad again Wednesday, hitting targets
associated with Iraq's intelligence service and state television . and
killing
hi,
it doesnt matter as long as Al-Jazeera is live and
kicking and the camera's are rolling.
The highly classified bomb creates a brief pulse of
microwaves powerful enough to fry computers, blind
radar, silence radios, trigger crippling power
outages and disable the electronic ignitions in
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 03:24:01AM -0800, Sarad AV wrote:
it doesnt matter as long as Al-Jazeera is live and
kicking and the camera's are rolling.
Yesterday morning I could get to english.aljazeera.net.
As of yesterday afternoon, it has become unavailable.
Supposedly they are victims of
Here's a diagram and after-use photos of the carbon filament
bomb, as used in the 1999 FYU live weapons test:
http://cryptome.org/blu114-yu.htm
The e-bomb has been extensively covered since Australian Carlo
Kopp published his description (invention?) of it:
http://cryptome.org/ebomb.htm
Why not load a POW or dead body with biologicals and return
them to the UN for handing over to the US for return to a heroe's
welcome, or to a hospital in Germany, emitting toxics to every
caretaker, then on to a recruitment parade down Broadway and
photo op at the Whitge House and the Pentagon
At 09:40 AM 3/26/2003 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
Sarad AV[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
hi,
it doesnt matter as long as Al-Jazeera is live and
kicking and the camera's are rolling.
The highly classified bomb creates a brief pulse of
microwaves powerful enough to fry computers, blind
81 matches
Mail list logo
