subject:"Re\: U.S. Drops 'E\-Bomb' On Iraqi TV"

At 02:51 AM 4/3/03 -0800, Sarad AV wrote:
...
When a vehicle tries to flee at high speed-how can
they be suicide bombers.A suicide bomber will go
slow,stop at the check post and see that he can kill
as many people as possible.
where was the logic in killing these civilians-and
this report was confirmed by allied soldiers.
I suspect the thing that happened here was that the soldiers were on edge, 
having been warned to be on the lookout for suicide bombers.  When 
something fast and potentially scary happened (like the driver of an 
oncoming van saw people shooting at it, and sped up to get away), they 
interpreted it as an attack, and fired on the van.  And while these guys 
probably aren't all that well-trained for distinguishing car bombers from 
terrified civilians, they're really very good at hitting what they shoot at.

For those who read this-the hate is growing,all over
the world.
Perhaps.  I think it's pretty clear that US and UK soldiers have been 
trying to minimize civilian casualties.  Again, if we wanted Baghdad to be 
a pile of smoking rubble, it would be by now.  Who would stop us?

The decision point was when we decided to invade Iraq.  Suicide bombings, 
sniper attacks, starving refugees, civilians caught in crossfires, 
mistargeted bombs that kill bystanders, and probably eventual terrorist 
attacks here in the US are all outcomes that I think most of us on this 
list saw as likely.  It appears that the Administration here in the US 
didn't see any of these as likely, which is probably one good argument for 
finding someone else for those jobs.  (At least, their official statements 
when the war began were very much about expecting the Iraqi people to rise 
up and throw off their oppressors, because they knew we were on the way, 
and greet our troops with candy and flowers.  If they didn't think 
something like this was going to happen, the certainly set themselves up 
for some embarassing questions and doubts to be raised later.)

And we're still in the war part, which is where we have the biggest 
advantages.  I cringe at the thought of what the occupation is going to 
look like.  It doesn't take very damned many suicide bombers, snipers, 
etc., to make an occupation like we're undertaking in Iraq *very* 
expensive.  And like all guerilla warfare, it will be at least as hard on 
bystanders as on the soldiers.   Maybe I'm wrong--I hope so--but I expect 
occupying Iraq to be a very bloody and expensive project. (On the upside, 
maybe some of the companies who have been given sweetheart deals for the 
reconstruction of Iraq, apparently based on their connections with the 
Administration, will lose a bunch of money on this.)

The weird thing is that it would honestly be better for almost everyone if 
the Iraqis just gave up at this point, including essentially every Iraqi 
who's not heavily involved in the Baath party.  But there doesn't seem to 
be much chance of that.  (And to be honest, if someone were invading the 
US, I doubt this kind of reasoning would appeal much to me.)

Sarath.
--John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

At 07:37 PM 4/3/03 -0600, Neil Johnson wrote:
...
I think I know what my ethical choice a the time would have been.
And afterward, I probably would have regretted it, realizing the can of worms
I had just opened.
Well, it's not too clear what the big moral difference is between killing a 
few hundred thousand civilians with one big bomb, or with a whole bunch of 
smaller bombs.  Some of the implications of a single bomb that can destroy 
a big chunk of a city (and with more advanced ones, can destroy the whole 
city) are pretty nasty, but I don't think those implications are mainly 
moral ones.  Either it's wrong both to firebomb Dresden and to nuke 
Hiroshima, or it's okay to do both.

Neil Johnson
--John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

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 if your attackers have to use the land route.  Bombing and 
airlifting troops lets you leap right over the barrier.  For that matter, 
I'll bet troops in modern tanks and APCs wouldn't be exposed to too much 
radiation in a dash across even a really dangerously radioactive 
zone.  (Though I suppose if you're smart, you set up mines and barriers in 
the radioactive zone, and artillery and fortifications on its inside edge, 
with the goal of forcing your invaders to spend as much time as possible 
out there.  But maintaining your fortifications inside the zone will be a 
serious pain!)

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.  (And there's a big difference 
between an acceptable level of risk to soldiers in a war, and an acceptable 
risk to random civilians in peacetime.)

Peter.
--John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-04-04 Thread Kevin S. Van Horn

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 choice a the time would have been.

But there was another choice:

3) Accept a conditional surrender from the Japanese.

Unfortunately, like Roosevelt before him, Truman insisted on 
unconditional surrender as the only thing he would accept.  The Japanese 
were trying to negotiate a surrender, but wished to ensure that their 
emperor would retain his title as head of state (even if he had little 
actual power).  Truman insisted there be no conditions whatsoever, and 
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.

Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

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 
dangerous hurricanes that were forming?  (I just don't have the background 
in meteorology to have any intuition about whether or not this is 
plausible; I know hurricanes have a whole lot of energy tied up in 
temperature and humidity differences in different masses of air, so maybe 
it could work.)  A lot of these struck me as desparate attempts by the bomb 
designers to find *something* useful to do with the damned things besides 
pray that they sit in their silos, rusting, and are never, never used.

I guess the other side of this is maximally evil uses of bombs.  Imagine 
someone setting up a set of fallout-enhanced bombs in their own country, 
with the warning that if anyone invades them, millions of people downwind 
will be dying of cancer in the next decade or two.  Or someone trying to 
use current climate models to allow them to threaten a global catastrophe 
if they're crossed--like trying to screw up ocean currents, or setting off 
a bomb in the calthrate beds under the ocean to try to trigger runaway 
global warming.  (The big problem there is that if the best available 
models change enough over time, as they are subject to do, your deterrent 
might lose all its value very quickly.  And yes, I stole this idea from 
John Barnes.)

MANY more uses.
Yep.  Though honestly, I think fissionables are a lot more valuable when 
you're using them to generate power in a mass-efficient way (e.g., bring 
plenty to Mars with you, so you can distill out CO2 from the atmosphere and 
crack out the oxygen with power from your reactor).  Most of the time when 
you're not trying to blow something to bits, you really get more value out 
of continuous power output for a long time.  At least, you do if you don't 
have to compete with cheaply available natural gas or oil, and if you don't 
have to comply with insanely expensive and complex regulations.

--John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

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.


.
 
 That's nonsense.  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 fleet without 
 getting any innocent bystanders. (This scenario
 occurs in one of Poul 
 Anderson's novels.)
 
 2. You have a large invading army crossing an
 uninhabited wasteland. 
 Again, tactical nukes would be useful and ethical
 here.  Use airbursts, 
 though, to avoid producing a lot of fallout.
 
 3. Power generation.  One scheme I once read about
 for a fusion reactor 
 involved digging a deep cavern, exploding a nuke
 within it every once in 
 a while, and having the resulting heat drive your
 electrical generators.
 
 4. Interplanetary transportation of a massive
 payload.  Project Orion, 
 anyone?
 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com

Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

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 didn't stop-they opened fire at the passenger
compartment.Then they figured out they were a
family(iraqi civilains fleeing).One of the women was
still hodling the bodies of 2 children and she refused
to step out.The allied troops maintained that they had
the right defend themself at check posts and any
where.
They said that they would have to be careful of
suicide bombers.

When a vehicle tries to flee at high speed-how can
they be suicide bombers.A suicide bomber will go
slow,stop at the check post and see that he can kill
as many people as possible.
where was the logic in killing these civilians-and
this report was confirmed by allied soldiers.

For those who read this-the hate is growing,all over
the world.


 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.

Thats part of the hate-you are condradicting.


 
 Jibberish about hate and love and violence
 never solves anything 
 needs to be introduced to Mr. Atom.
 
  --Tim May


As long as the US thinks it can flex its muscles-the
going gets bad.The sooner it realises the better it is
for its citizens.

Sarath.

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com

Re: CDR: RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-04-03 Thread James A. Donald

--
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. 
 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.

This US will not retaliate argument seems insane.  Maybe the 
US would not use nukes, but whatever it did use, everyone in 
the political apparatus of Mexico would be dead, and and some 
impressive bits of China and or Russia would be in flames.

The US, like every other organization and bunch of people, will 
respond if attacked.  What do you expect?Its in our genes, 
since we were worms in the precambrian mud. 

--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 h36DwI5e5vKElHg28/4q4kfgUVDbydGrPgeZEKTW
 4yX4xozKZVtShKVVoYTUKqhgLxnvl1fTT1cTOFgzC

Re: CDR: RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-04-03 Thread James A. Donald

--
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. 
 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.

 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.

An attack on the US to stop it from trying to rule the world 
would be perceived as a plain and simple attack, and would 
provoke a corresponding response.

If Russia bombs a US oil refinery with Mexican cooperation, the 
existing government in Mexico would wind up dead real fast, and 
some Russian ports would be in flames.

--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 baElAcTaVUiywf1LQXHkD3jjIL8tQmV8kXdn5eLe
 4rHHMsZMLVskeVboCdgyhZ3sBET3r8d2Yi8x1eHS6

Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-04-03 Thread Kevin S. Van Horn

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, 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 fleet without 
getting any innocent bystanders. (This scenario occurs in one of Poul 
Anderson's novels.)

2. You have a large invading army crossing an uninhabited wasteland. 
Again, tactical nukes would be useful and ethical here.  Use airbursts, 
though, to avoid producing a lot of fallout.

3. Power generation.  One scheme I once read about for a fusion reactor 
involved digging a deep cavern, exploding a nuke within it every once in 
a while, and having the resulting heat drive your electrical generators.

4. Interplanetary transportation of a massive payload.  Project Orion, 
anyone?

Re: CDR: RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-04-03 Thread Thomas Shaddack


  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 apparent. I personally am not exactly
comfortable with the idea of a wannabe world ruler, especially with
Bushites in charge.


Forwarded message follows:

-
Subject: [gulfwar-2] FYI: the New American Century
From: Ben McGinnes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Hello,
Some here may have already seen articles in various news
papers and agencies about a U.S. think tank called the Project for the
New American Century (PNAC).  Specifically regarding a report drafted
by that group which promotes the benefit to the world of American
military supremacy.

Most of the news articles only cite the original article by the Irish
Sunday Herald:

http://www.sundayherald.com/print27735

This article is dated September 15th, last year and is somewhat sparse
in details of the report.  Those interested in seeing the report,
which given its origin and the who members of PNAC are, can obtain the
PDF from the PNAC website:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

There is a HTML copy available here:

http://cryptome.org/rad.htm

It makes for very interesting reading, especially given the number of
members of both the current and previous Bush Administrations involved
with PNAC.


Regards,
Ben

Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-04-03 Thread Thomas Shaddack

 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 oil bed. The heat and
pressure wave will crush the porous rock, forcing the oil out. (I am not
sure if I quote it right, WAY too many years ago I read it in some
popular-science book.)

Or large-scale planetary construction works. (The meek shall inherit the
Earth - the others aim for the stars.)

Or pumping of one-shot gamma lasers. (What you want to use them for is on
you, though.)

MANY more uses.

Re: CDR: RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-04-03 Thread Mike Rosing

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 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.

Like Harmon said, the world is already boycotting US production of food,
it wouldn't take much to boycott everything.  But if a few attacks here
and there take place, I don't think anyone in the world is going to cry
for the US.

 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.

I was just daydreaming about this whild doging cars on my bicycle this
morning.  It would be cool to see Bush in the Hague!

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

Re: Nuking kasmir (Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV)

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 :-)

We are tired of watching CNN and BBC.Even local news
papers do carry more truth of whats happening around
the world.

 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).

More than propaganda-they pubicly claimed that nukes
are not made to be kept on the shelves.Any way there
is nothing much any body can do about it-be it india
or pak or US or Russia.India also has a self imposed
moretarium of no first use of nukes.
US conducted nearly a thousand nuclear tests over the
years and imposed sanctions on india and pak for
testing nukes.Every one does have a propaganda whether
the US likes it or not and US is not the only country
who can do what they like  :-).


Regards Sarath.
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com

RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-04-03 Thread Vincent Penquerc'h

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, citizens) or we'll whack you. The US (and a lot of countries
I'm sure) would see this as a good opportunity to target countries
where bombers come from, whether or not they are govt approved or
govt created. If they are, the reaction would be military. If they
are not, the reaction would be more covert, with a part of political
pressure for laws which follow what the US do at home, and more,
due to the absence of the constitution and US negative public opinion.

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 

Undermine, and more. The CIA has a lot of practice with that, changing
govts for one more palatable to the US foreign policy. Even without
getting there, appropriate pressure on an existing govt can go a long
way to make a country's policy more helpful. And, if done well,
without the backlash provoked by military intervention.

-- 
Vincent Penquerc'h

RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-04-03 Thread Sunder

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 $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 rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you   \/|\/
  /|\  :their failures, we  |don't email them, or put them on a web  \|/
 + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net 

On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, James A. Donald wrote:

 This US will not retaliate argument seems insane.  Maybe the 
 US would not use nukes, but whatever it did use, everyone in 
 the political apparatus of Mexico would be dead, and and some 
 impressive bits of China and or Russia would be in flames.

Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-04-03 Thread Peter Gutmann

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 fleet without getting
any innocent bystanders. (This scenario occurs in one of Poul Anderson's
novels.)

2. You have a large invading army crossing an uninhabited wasteland. Again,
tactical nukes would be useful and ethical here.  Use airbursts, though, to
avoid producing a lot of fallout.

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.

Peter.

RE: Nuking kasmir (Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV)

2003-04-03 Thread Trei, Peter

 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, India detonated it's
first nuclear device way back in May 1974. Check out

http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/India/IndiaFirstBomb.html

which has a remarkably detailed description of the gadget.

Peter Trei

Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

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.

Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

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 didn't stop-they opened fire at the passenger
compartment.Then they figured out they were a
family(iraqi civilains fleeing).One of the women was
still hodling the bodies of 2 children and she refused
to step out.The allied troops maintained that they had
the right defend themself at check posts and any
where.
They said that they would have to be careful of
suicide bombers.

When a vehicle tries to flee at high speed-how can
they be suicide bombers.A suicide bomber will go
slow,stop at the check post and see that he can kill
as many people as possible.
where was the logic in killing these civilians-and
this report was confirmed by allied soldiers.

For those who read this-the hate is growing,all over
the world.


 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.

Thats part of the hate-you are condradicting.


 
 Jibberish about hate and love and violence
 never solves anything 
 needs to be introduced to Mr. Atom.
 
  --Tim May


As long as the US thinks it can flex its muscles-the
going gets bad.The sooner it realises the better it is
for its citizens.

Sarath.

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com

RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-04-02 Thread Trei, Peter

 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: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-04-02 Thread Tim May

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: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-04-02 Thread Kevin S. Van Horn

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, 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 fleet without 
getting any innocent bystanders. (This scenario occurs in one of Poul 
Anderson's novels.)

2. You have a large invading army crossing an uninhabited wasteland. 
Again, tactical nukes would be useful and ethical here.  Use airbursts, 
though, to avoid producing a lot of fallout.

3. Power generation.  One scheme I once read about for a fusion reactor 
involved digging a deep cavern, exploding a nuke within it every once in 
a while, and having the resulting heat drive your electrical generators.

4. Interplanetary transportation of a massive payload.  Project Orion, 
anyone?

Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-04-02 Thread Eugen Leitl

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.

Nuking kasmir (Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV)

2003-04-02 Thread Major Variola (ret)

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

2003-04-02 Thread Vincent Penquerc'h

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.

-- 
Vincent Penquerc'h

Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-04-02 Thread Harmon Seaver

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

2003-04-02 Thread David Howe

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

2003-04-02 Thread Ken Brown

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

2003-04-02 Thread Damian Gerow

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)

2003-04-02 Thread Major Variola (ret)

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

2003-04-02 Thread Eugen Leitl

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: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-04-02 Thread Tim May

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: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-04-02 Thread Harmon Seaver

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

2003-04-02 Thread David Howe

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

2003-04-02 Thread Ken Brown

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

2003-04-02 Thread Sarad AV


--- 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: CDR: RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-04-02 Thread Damian Gerow

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: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-04-02 Thread Trei, Peter

 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: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-04-01 Thread John Kelsey

At 08:49 AM 3/29/03 -0800, Sarad AV wrote:
...
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!

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.
 I think the usual inducement to treating POWs you
 hold properly is that you
 want your soldiers who've been taken prisoner to be
 treated
 properly.  (There's also world opinion, which we
 care about a lot more than
 Iraq does.)
I wont beleive that any more-the US doesn't listen any
more to the world,its gone blind and deaf.
Unfortunately, you have a point.  World opinion is important for the 
long-term future of the US, and it has an impact, but the current president 
is more willing to ignore it than most presidents we've had in recent 
memory.  Also, US public opinion seems a lot more willing to accept 
mistreating prisoners we characterize as terrorists than it used to be, 
pre-9/11.  This is tragic for a whole bunch of reasons.

Suspected al-queda/taliban prisoners were put in 6*8
meter cages in the open sun and badly beaten up-I
remember seeing that on tv.They weren't given pow
status either.May be they didn't look like humans :)
I think there was some complicated argument about the Taliban not being a 
legitimate government, though this looked to me like a legalistic excuse 
for doing crap we knew we ought not to be doing, but which we figured we 
could get away with.  In general, we ought to be much more careful to 
respect human rights than we're legally required to be, rather than looking 
for loopholes that let us get away with mistreating prisoners.  This will 
backfire on us in a lot of ways.  For example, there have been rumors in 
the media (again, from BBC) that we're planning to ship a bunch of the 
unlawful combatants from Iraq to Camp X-Ray.  If I were a high-ranking 
Baath party official, I'd be convinced that the US was going to either send 
me there or shoot me as soon as I was captured, and I'd act 
accordingly.  That means there's zero incentive for those guys to play by 
any civilized rules in fighting off the Americans.  Why not have your 
soldiers dress up as civilians?  Why not use gas as part of your urban 
warfare?  Why not set bombs and gas shells to go off after you've pulled 
out of a city, and the US/UK forces have taken it?  What's the consequence 
to *you?*

  I'm not sure how important the Iraqi
 government considers our
 treatment of their captured soldiers, though, and
 we're not going to shoot
 them all even if the Iraqis do that to our captured
 soldiers.
hopefully they are treated well as its no fault of
theirs that they are dragged into this war with iraq.
I'd say that's typically true of POWs, which is the reason for the rules 
guaranteeing their proper treatment.  Soldiers don't make policy, and so 
you don't shoot all the soldiers you capture.  This also leaves some chance 
that people will surrender, rather than hold out to the bitter end.  If I 
know that you're just going to shoot me if I surrender, I'm probably going 
to try to take a few more of your soldiers with me before I go.  What's the 
downside?

Regards Sarath.
--John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

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, China and, France all have nukes and delivery capability.  If
the US wants to retaliate with nukes, they'll get nuked in return.  MAD
works.

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

Re: CDR: RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-04-01 Thread Sarad AV


--- 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: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-04-01 Thread Kevin S. Van Horn

John Kelsey wrote:

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! 
You mean like the way the Somalis drove Clinton's soldiers out of 
Somalia?  (18 dead on one side, hundreds to possibly over a thousand 
dead on the other, but the side contributing the most corpses won.)

Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-04-01 Thread Kevin S. Van Horn

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?

Re: CDR: RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-04-01 Thread Damian Gerow

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 and, France all have nukes and delivery capability.  If
 the US wants to retaliate with nukes, they'll get nuked in return.  MAD
 works.

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.

'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.

Re: CDR: RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

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 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.

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.

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 don't think it's very likely to happen, but if the US really tries to
attack more countries with the same blatent lies they used on Iraq, I
wouldn't be supprised either.

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-04-01 Thread Harmon Seaver

   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. 


On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 06:10:02AM -0800, Mike Rosing wrote:
 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, China and, France all have nukes and delivery capability.  If
 the US wants to retaliate with nukes, they'll get nuked in return.  MAD
 works.
 
 Patience, persistence, truth,
 Dr. mike

-- 
Harmon Seaver   
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-04-01 Thread Duncan Frissell

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 building excuses to do so, so I won't be supprised
if the US accidentally bombs a few targets inside Syria.
Washington are very capable of doing something really stupid and I don't
think they appreciate how much military power can be brought to bear
against them.  If it stays in Iraq, the US has a chance.  If they decide
to make it bigger, the US will be toast.


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?

DCF

Re: CDR: RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

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 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.

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.

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 don't think it's very likely to happen, but if the US really tries to
attack more countries with the same blatent lies they used on Iraq, I
wouldn't be supprised either.

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

Re: CDR: RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-04-01 Thread Damian Gerow

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 and, France all have nukes and delivery capability.  If
 the US wants to retaliate with nukes, they'll get nuked in return.  MAD
 works.

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.

'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.

Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-04-01 Thread Kevin S. Van Horn

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?

Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-04-01 Thread Harmon Seaver

   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. 


On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 06:10:02AM -0800, Mike Rosing wrote:
 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, China and, France all have nukes and delivery capability.  If
 the US wants to retaliate with nukes, they'll get nuked in return.  MAD
 works.
 
 Patience, persistence, truth,
 Dr. mike

-- 
Harmon Seaver   
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

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, China and, France all have nukes and delivery capability.  If
the US wants to retaliate with nukes, they'll get nuked in return.  MAD
works.

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-03-31 Thread Duncan Frissell

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 building excuses to do so, so I won't be supprised
if the US accidentally bombs a few targets inside Syria.
Washington are very capable of doing something really stupid and I don't
think they appreciate how much military power can be brought to bear
against them.  If it stays in Iraq, the US has a chance.  If they decide
to make it bigger, the US will be toast.


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?

DCF

RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-03-29 Thread James A. Donald

--
On 28 Mar 2003 at 1:57, Sarad AV wrote:

 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_a
 nd_cracke rs

 Unofficial reports are that 500 iraqi's died 2 days ago and
 day  before yesterday another 1000 died.

Al Jazeera, like CNN and Fox News, reports that civilians are
pretty much ignoring the bombing and shelling -- they wish to
enter Bara as usual despite the fact it is declared a military
target -- they stroll onto battlefields to collect the
artillery casing boxes.

This indicates that the US, as claimed is, taking extraordinary
measures to avoid civilian casualties, and is having
considerable success in avoiding civilian casualties.


--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 2r5bbuzaBTEE6eG7pWEj/aHNIDPIFF4TWk9VODop
 44Tyn6Yt+qf7CXyWv016C4/OcYYkym8+vLByoOXwU

RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-03-29 Thread John Kelsey

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 bandaged on their
head.These had appeared a few hours after US made a
press conference saying that they had taken 3000
iraqi's pow's and there were no US pow's.
Yep.  This led to complaints about showing POWs on TV violating the Geneva 
convention.  For some reason, when CNN showed Iraqi POWs, we didn't notice 
a problem.  (At some level, I think the projections of the people at the 
top were so optimistic, that a lot of people were just shocked that the 
Iraqis didn't just collapse and welcome the soldiers into Baghdad with 
flowers and cheering. This has a really depressing parallel with the way we 
jumped intp Vietnam, though I don't think the Iraqi soldiers are anywhere 
near as tough and committed as the NVA.)

Iraq replied by asking them to follow the geneva
convention and not to do cluster bombing in civilan
areas.
Be fair about this.  We own the skies above Baghdad, at least above the 
range of small-arms fire.  If we wanted the streets of Baghdad choked with 
corpses, they would be.  Basically, civilian casualties have been the 
result of a small number of bombs missing targets, or screwed up targeting, 
or bystanders getting hit when they're too close to what looks like a 
miliatary target.  I think we've probably played up our bombing accuracy a 
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 flooded with injured and dead people, 
but every building reduced to smoldering ruins, and dead people so thick on 
the ground you couldn't walk across it.

In any case US military pow's are going to have a hard
time and since U.S didnot give pow status to
*suspected* Al-Queda/taliban militants captured in
afghan war-no body is going to put pressure on iraq
either.
Well, there's not a whole lot more pressure we can put on the top 
leadership of Iraq, since our public pronouncements have made clear that 
Saddam, his kids, and presumably most of the rest of the top echelon of 
Iraqi leadership is going to be jailed or executed when this is all 
done.  I guess specific generals may have an incentive to treat US POWs 
better, since the issue will likely come up when the US takes over Iraq in 
another month or two.

I think the usual inducement to treating POWs you hold properly is that you 
want your soldiers who've been taken prisoner to be treated 
properly.  (There's also world opinion, which we care about a lot more than 
Iraq does.)   I'm not sure how important the Iraqi government considers our 
treatment of their captured soldiers, though, and we're not going to shoot 
them all even if the Iraqis do that to our captured soldiers.

Regards Sarath.
--John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-03-29 Thread Mike Rosing

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 you think
 when I have this (rifle) in my  hand,i wont die
 without killing two of them.

So why is the US complaining about their troops on the air?

 After the war started  around 3 civilians have
 joined the war as small unorganised groups.

On invasion of your homeland is different than pushing you out of someone
else's home.  I don't think the US figured that one out.

 If the war drags to mid april the US troops wont stand
 the intense heat,i mean its going to hard for them.

They are tough.  But if the Iraqi's are saving their bug spray for summer,
then the US troops won't be moving too fast for sure.

  properly.  (There's also world opinion, which we
  care about a lot more than
  Iraq does.)

 I wont beleive that any more-the US doesn't listen any
 more to the world,its gone blind and deaf.

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 building excuses to do so, so I won't be supprised
if the US accidentally bombs a few targets inside Syria.

 Suspected al-queda/taliban prisoners were put in 6*8
 meter cages in the open sun and badly beaten up-I
 remember seeing that on tv.They weren't given pow
 status either.May be they didn't look like humans :)

Which is how the rest of the world will treat US POW's from now on too.
I bet the weekend warriors weren't betting on that!

 hopefully they are treated well as its no fault of
 theirs that they are dragged into this war with iraq.

You gotta use pawns when you have them.  The US is streatched really thin
now.  A major attack on it's interests in South America would prove
difficult to defend.  Same with Korea and Taiwan.  The nut cases in
Washington are very capable of doing something really stupid and I don't
think they appreciate how much military power can be brought to bear
against them.  If it stays in Iraq, the US has a chance.  If they decide
to make it bigger, the US will be toast.

C'est la vie, n'est pas?

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-03-29 Thread Mike Rosing

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 you think
 when I have this (rifle) in my  hand,i wont die
 without killing two of them.

So why is the US complaining about their troops on the air?

 After the war started  around 3 civilians have
 joined the war as small unorganised groups.

On invasion of your homeland is different than pushing you out of someone
else's home.  I don't think the US figured that one out.

 If the war drags to mid april the US troops wont stand
 the intense heat,i mean its going to hard for them.

They are tough.  But if the Iraqi's are saving their bug spray for summer,
then the US troops won't be moving too fast for sure.

  properly.  (There's also world opinion, which we
  care about a lot more than
  Iraq does.)

 I wont beleive that any more-the US doesn't listen any
 more to the world,its gone blind and deaf.

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 building excuses to do so, so I won't be supprised
if the US accidentally bombs a few targets inside Syria.

 Suspected al-queda/taliban prisoners were put in 6*8
 meter cages in the open sun and badly beaten up-I
 remember seeing that on tv.They weren't given pow
 status either.May be they didn't look like humans :)

Which is how the rest of the world will treat US POW's from now on too.
I bet the weekend warriors weren't betting on that!

 hopefully they are treated well as its no fault of
 theirs that they are dragged into this war with iraq.

You gotta use pawns when you have them.  The US is streatched really thin
now.  A major attack on it's interests in South America would prove
difficult to defend.  Same with Korea and Taiwan.  The nut cases in
Washington are very capable of doing something really stupid and I don't
think they appreciate how much military power can be brought to bear
against them.  If it stays in Iraq, the US has a chance.  If they decide
to make it bigger, the US will be toast.

C'est la vie, n'est pas?

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-03-29 Thread John Kelsey

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 bandaged on their
head.These had appeared a few hours after US made a
press conference saying that they had taken 3000
iraqi's pow's and there were no US pow's.
Yep.  This led to complaints about showing POWs on TV violating the Geneva 
convention.  For some reason, when CNN showed Iraqi POWs, we didn't notice 
a problem.  (At some level, I think the projections of the people at the 
top were so optimistic, that a lot of people were just shocked that the 
Iraqis didn't just collapse and welcome the soldiers into Baghdad with 
flowers and cheering. This has a really depressing parallel with the way we 
jumped intp Vietnam, though I don't think the Iraqi soldiers are anywhere 
near as tough and committed as the NVA.)

Iraq replied by asking them to follow the geneva
convention and not to do cluster bombing in civilan
areas.
Be fair about this.  We own the skies above Baghdad, at least above the 
range of small-arms fire.  If we wanted the streets of Baghdad choked with 
corpses, they would be.  Basically, civilian casualties have been the 
result of a small number of bombs missing targets, or screwed up targeting, 
or bystanders getting hit when they're too close to what looks like a 
miliatary target.  I think we've probably played up our bombing accuracy a 
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 flooded with injured and dead people, 
but every building reduced to smoldering ruins, and dead people so thick on 
the ground you couldn't walk across it.

In any case US military pow's are going to have a hard
time and since U.S didnot give pow status to
*suspected* Al-Queda/taliban militants captured in
afghan war-no body is going to put pressure on iraq
either.
Well, there's not a whole lot more pressure we can put on the top 
leadership of Iraq, since our public pronouncements have made clear that 
Saddam, his kids, and presumably most of the rest of the top echelon of 
Iraqi leadership is going to be jailed or executed when this is all 
done.  I guess specific generals may have an incentive to treat US POWs 
better, since the issue will likely come up when the US takes over Iraq in 
another month or two.

I think the usual inducement to treating POWs you hold properly is that you 
want your soldiers who've been taken prisoner to be treated 
properly.  (There's also world opinion, which we care about a lot more than 
Iraq does.)   I'm not sure how important the Iraqi government considers our 
treatment of their captured soldiers, though, and we're not going to shoot 
them all even if the Iraqis do that to our captured soldiers.

Regards Sarath.
--John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-03-29 Thread Sarad AV

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 flooded with
 injured and dead people, 
 but every building reduced to smoldering ruins, and
 dead people so thick on 
 the ground you couldn't walk across it.

Except for 'smart bombs' which has an accuracy 95% and
the only bombings shown on TV-what about the rest.Even
the patriot missles has a success hit rate of 1 out of
3.Is true that iraqi's are putting anti air craft and
other light arms over civilian buildings-that should
be the reason they got hit. 
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. 

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 you think
when I have this (rifle) in my  hand,i wont die
without killing two of them.
After the war started  around 3 civilians have
joined the war as small unorganised groups.

If the war drags to mid april the US troops wont stand
the intense heat,i mean its going to hard for them.

 I think the usual inducement to treating POWs you
 hold properly is that you 
 want your soldiers who've been taken prisoner to be
 treated 
 properly.  (There's also world opinion, which we
 care about a lot more than 
 Iraq does.) 

I wont beleive that any more-the US doesn't listen any
more to the world,its gone blind and deaf.

Suspected al-queda/taliban prisoners were put in 6*8
meter cages in the open sun and badly beaten up-I
remember seeing that on tv.They weren't given pow
status either.May be they didn't look like humans :)

  I'm not sure how important the Iraqi
 government considers our 
 treatment of their captured soldiers, though, and
 we're not going to shoot 
 them all even if the Iraqis do that to our captured
 soldiers.

hopefully they are treated well as its no fault of
theirs that they are dragged into this war with iraq.

 
Regards Sarath.
 
 --John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-03-28 Thread Sarad AV

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 friends.Dunno if
the casualities are iraqi civilains or the army.
US bombers are any way doing cluster bombing in
civilian areas.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 bandaged on their
head.These had appeared a few hours after US made a
press conference saying that they had taken 3000
iraqi's pow's and there were no US pow's.

Iraq replied by asking them to follow the geneva
convention and not to do cluster bombing in civilan
areas.

In any case US military pow's are going to have a hard
time and since U.S didnot give pow status to
*suspected* Al-Queda/taliban militants captured in
afghan war-no body is going to put pressure on iraq
either.

Regards Sarath.


--- Mike Rosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 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 I don't
  know what links it has with, say,
 www.aljazeera.net, since I never
  got there before. It's all in English, but I'm not
 sure about the
  actual affiliation and editorial line, if anyone
 can shed some
  light.
 
 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).
 
 Patience, persistence, truth,
 Dr. mike
 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

Al-Jazeera website [was: Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV]

2003-03-28 Thread Ken Brown

'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 French site.  I don't know if that would have been the
case a few days ago.

http://www.cursor.org/aljazeera.htm  has pointers to news items claiming
that:

Launch of English website delayed until mid-April
Doha - Waves of spam kept Al-Jazeera's website down for a third day on
Thursday and officials at the satellite channel said it was coming from
US e- mailers apparently angry over its coverage of the Iraqi war.
The Qatar-based network, which has broadcast graphic footage of dead US
and British soldiers, also said it would now have to delay the
introduction of an English-language site for several weeks due to the
barrage of spam, or junk electronic mail.
English.aljazeera.net will not be launched until mid-April, online
editor-in-chief Abdel Aziz Al-Mahmud told AFP.

Which, if true (could be COW-a-ganda)  means AJ are victims of
successful DoS.

Maybe someone should tell them about Spam Assassin.


aljazeera.com.qa gives me  64.70.250.49  which ARIN assign to cybergate
in Florida.   Last stages of traceroute are:

Nuts! That has a website pointing to Al-Jazeera Islamic Bank

For all I know Al-Jazeera may be the Qatari equivalent of Acme and Ace
in Roadrunner cartoons. Default corporate brand name.

Re: Al-Jazeera website [was: Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV]

2003-03-28 Thread Thomas Shaddack

 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.

Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-03-28 Thread Sunder

Um, watch your attributions, I didn't write that paragraph. :)

--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 rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you   \/|\/
  /|\  :their failures, we  |don't email them, or put them on a web  \|/
 + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net 

On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, 'Gabriel Rocha' wrote:

   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 giving you. It may not be 'jammed' from the US,
 but if ISPs want to use an easy way to stop average users from going
 there, they can just make their dns servers give false answers, which
 would explain what you're getting.

Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

On Fri, Mar 28, at 10:27AM, Sunder wrote:
| Um, watch your attributions, I didn't write that paragraph. :)

My apologies, I wrote the paragraph below. Must have missed your
attribution while deleting stuff. --Gabe

| On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, 'Gabriel Rocha' wrote:
| 
|  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 giving you. It may not be 'jammed' from the US,
|  but if ISPs want to use an easy way to stop average users from going
|  there, they can just make their dns servers give false answers, which
|  would explain what you're getting.
| 
|

RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-03-28 Thread Peter Gutmann

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 $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:

According to Carlo a E-WMD can be constructed, by a knowledgeable person,
in a home garage machine shop from parts costing  $5000.

This is the Pentagon we're talking about here.  The spanner used to tighten
the bolts costs $5000.

(I've also been told that a Mk.82 wholesales for around US$250, so I guess
 we're being overcharged at NZ$1K.  Maybe it's because we don't buy 'em in
 bulk).

Peter.

Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

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 giving you. It may not be 'jammed' from the US,
but if ISPs want to use an easy way to stop average users from going
there, they can just make their dns servers give false answers, which
would explain what you're getting.

From Switzerland: 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ traceroute -I www.aljazeera.net
traceroute to aljazeera.net (213.30.180.219), 30 hops max, 38 byte
packets
 1  193.247.37.1 (193.247.37.1)  1.695 ms  1.531 ms  1.530 ms
 2  i68ges-021-Serial4-4.ip-plus.net (164.128.74.85)  3.840 ms  3.741 ms
3.688 ms
 3  i68ges-000-FastEthernet1-0.ip-plus.net (164.128.76.33)  3.714 ms
10.697 ms  3.661 ms
 4  i68ges-005-fas2-2.ip-plus.net (164.128.35.73)  3.683 ms  3.701 ms
6.341 ms
 5  UTA-Innsbruck.ip-plus.net (164.128.34.42)  14.780 ms  18.669 ms
14.908 ms
 6  completel.sfinx.tm.fr (194.68.129.188)  16.237 ms  16.561 ms  15.889
ms
 7  pos9-0-0.bbr1.ntr.completel.fr (213.244.1.226)  261.116 ms  18.268
ms  20.955 ms
 8  213.30.128.94 (213.30.128.94)  44.155 ms  49.592 ms  43.292 ms
 9  * * *

From Massachussetts:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ traceroute -I www.aljazeera.net
traceroute to aljazeera.net (213.30.180.219), 30 hops max, 38 byte
packets
 1  E19-RTR-2-E2.MIT.EDU (18.244.0.1)  0.459 ms  0.372 ms  0.362 ms
 2  EXTERNAL-RTR-2-BACKBONE.MIT.EDU (18.168.0.27)  0.470 ms  0.445 ms
0.438 ms
 3  p4-1.cambridge1-cr1.bbnplanet.net (4.1.80.29)  1.162 ms  0.825 ms
0.988 ms
 4  p4-2.cambridge1-nbr1.bbnplanet.net (4.1.80.6)  0.907 ms  0.992 ms
0.893 ms
 5  p5-0.cambridge1-nbr2.bbnplanet.net (4.0.1.110)  1.126 ms  1.052 ms
1.140 ms
 6  so-4-2-0.bstnma1-nbr2.bbnplanet.net (4.0.2.249)  0.998 ms  1.145 ms
1.145 ms
 7  p9-0.nycmny1-nbr2.bbnplanet.net (4.24.6.50)  7.161 ms  7.269 ms
7.041 ms
 8  so-7-0-0.nycmny1-hcr3.bbnplanet.net (4.0.7.13)  7.389 ms  7.380 ms
7.464 ms
 9  interconnect-eng.NewYork1.Level3.net (63.211.54.121)  7.453 ms
7.255 ms  7.524 ms
10  so-4-0-0.gar2.NewYork1.Level3.net (209.244.17.81)  7.488 ms
so-4-0-0.gar1.NewYork1.Level3.net (209.244.17.73)  7.510 ms
so-4-1-0.gar2.NewYork1.Level3.net (209.244.17.85)  8.414 ms
11  unknown.Level3.net (209.247.9.205)  7.755 ms  7.381 ms
so-7-0-0.mp1.NewYork1.Level3.net (64.159.1.181)  7.513 ms
12  so-0-0-0.mp1.London1.Level3.net (212.187.128.157)  73.252 ms  73.321
ms  73.260 ms
13  so-1-0-0.mp1.Paris1.Level3.net (212.187.128.41)  86.229 ms  86.054
ms  85.886 ms
14  unknown.Level3.net (212.73.240.71)  86.283 ms  86.235 ms  86.132 ms
15  212.73.242.66 (212.73.242.66)  86.943 ms  87.274 ms  87.239 ms
16  213.30.129.210 (213.30.129.210)  101.833 ms  103.349 ms  101.809 ms
17  213.30.128.126 (213.30.128.126)  103.526 ms  104.286 ms  103.711 ms
18  * * *

Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

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)

RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-03-28 Thread Sarad AV

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 friends.Dunno if
the casualities are iraqi civilains or the army.
US bombers are any way doing cluster bombing in
civilian areas.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 bandaged on their
head.These had appeared a few hours after US made a
press conference saying that they had taken 3000
iraqi's pow's and there were no US pow's.

Iraq replied by asking them to follow the geneva
convention and not to do cluster bombing in civilan
areas.

In any case US military pow's are going to have a hard
time and since U.S didnot give pow status to
*suspected* Al-Queda/taliban militants captured in
afghan war-no body is going to put pressure on iraq
either.

Regards Sarath.


--- Mike Rosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 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 I don't
  know what links it has with, say,
 www.aljazeera.net, since I never
  got there before. It's all in English, but I'm not
 sure about the
  actual affiliation and editorial line, if anyone
 can shed some
  light.
 
 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).
 
 Patience, persistence, truth,
 Dr. mike
 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

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)

Al-Jazeera website [was: Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV]

2003-03-28 Thread Ken Brown

'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 French site.  I don't know if that would have been the
case a few days ago.

http://www.cursor.org/aljazeera.htm  has pointers to news items claiming
that:

Launch of English website delayed until mid-April
Doha - Waves of spam kept Al-Jazeera's website down for a third day on
Thursday and officials at the satellite channel said it was coming from
US e- mailers apparently angry over its coverage of the Iraqi war.
The Qatar-based network, which has broadcast graphic footage of dead US
and British soldiers, also said it would now have to delay the
introduction of an English-language site for several weeks due to the
barrage of spam, or junk electronic mail.
English.aljazeera.net will not be launched until mid-April, online
editor-in-chief Abdel Aziz Al-Mahmud told AFP.

Which, if true (could be COW-a-ganda)  means AJ are victims of
successful DoS.

Maybe someone should tell them about Spam Assassin.


aljazeera.com.qa gives me  64.70.250.49  which ARIN assign to cybergate
in Florida.   Last stages of traceroute are:

Nuts! That has a website pointing to Al-Jazeera Islamic Bank

For all I know Al-Jazeera may be the Qatari equivalent of Acme and Ace
in Roadrunner cartoons. Default corporate brand name.

Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

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 giving you. It may not be 'jammed' from the US,
but if ISPs want to use an easy way to stop average users from going
there, they can just make their dns servers give false answers, which
would explain what you're getting.

From Switzerland: 

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ traceroute -I www.aljazeera.net
traceroute to aljazeera.net (213.30.180.219), 30 hops max, 38 byte
packets
 1  193.247.37.1 (193.247.37.1)  1.695 ms  1.531 ms  1.530 ms
 2  i68ges-021-Serial4-4.ip-plus.net (164.128.74.85)  3.840 ms  3.741 ms
3.688 ms
 3  i68ges-000-FastEthernet1-0.ip-plus.net (164.128.76.33)  3.714 ms
10.697 ms  3.661 ms
 4  i68ges-005-fas2-2.ip-plus.net (164.128.35.73)  3.683 ms  3.701 ms
6.341 ms
 5  UTA-Innsbruck.ip-plus.net (164.128.34.42)  14.780 ms  18.669 ms
14.908 ms
 6  completel.sfinx.tm.fr (194.68.129.188)  16.237 ms  16.561 ms  15.889
ms
 7  pos9-0-0.bbr1.ntr.completel.fr (213.244.1.226)  261.116 ms  18.268
ms  20.955 ms
 8  213.30.128.94 (213.30.128.94)  44.155 ms  49.592 ms  43.292 ms
 9  * * *

From Massachussetts:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ traceroute -I www.aljazeera.net
traceroute to aljazeera.net (213.30.180.219), 30 hops max, 38 byte
packets
 1  E19-RTR-2-E2.MIT.EDU (18.244.0.1)  0.459 ms  0.372 ms  0.362 ms
 2  EXTERNAL-RTR-2-BACKBONE.MIT.EDU (18.168.0.27)  0.470 ms  0.445 ms
0.438 ms
 3  p4-1.cambridge1-cr1.bbnplanet.net (4.1.80.29)  1.162 ms  0.825 ms
0.988 ms
 4  p4-2.cambridge1-nbr1.bbnplanet.net (4.1.80.6)  0.907 ms  0.992 ms
0.893 ms
 5  p5-0.cambridge1-nbr2.bbnplanet.net (4.0.1.110)  1.126 ms  1.052 ms
1.140 ms
 6  so-4-2-0.bstnma1-nbr2.bbnplanet.net (4.0.2.249)  0.998 ms  1.145 ms
1.145 ms
 7  p9-0.nycmny1-nbr2.bbnplanet.net (4.24.6.50)  7.161 ms  7.269 ms
7.041 ms
 8  so-7-0-0.nycmny1-hcr3.bbnplanet.net (4.0.7.13)  7.389 ms  7.380 ms
7.464 ms
 9  interconnect-eng.NewYork1.Level3.net (63.211.54.121)  7.453 ms
7.255 ms  7.524 ms
10  so-4-0-0.gar2.NewYork1.Level3.net (209.244.17.81)  7.488 ms
so-4-0-0.gar1.NewYork1.Level3.net (209.244.17.73)  7.510 ms
so-4-1-0.gar2.NewYork1.Level3.net (209.244.17.85)  8.414 ms
11  unknown.Level3.net (209.247.9.205)  7.755 ms  7.381 ms
so-7-0-0.mp1.NewYork1.Level3.net (64.159.1.181)  7.513 ms
12  so-0-0-0.mp1.London1.Level3.net (212.187.128.157)  73.252 ms  73.321
ms  73.260 ms
13  so-1-0-0.mp1.Paris1.Level3.net (212.187.128.41)  86.229 ms  86.054
ms  85.886 ms
14  unknown.Level3.net (212.73.240.71)  86.283 ms  86.235 ms  86.132 ms
15  212.73.242.66 (212.73.242.66)  86.943 ms  87.274 ms  87.239 ms
16  213.30.129.210 (213.30.129.210)  101.833 ms  103.349 ms  101.809 ms
17  213.30.128.126 (213.30.128.126)  103.526 ms  104.286 ms  103.711 ms
18  * * *

RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-03-28 Thread Peter Gutmann

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 $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:

According to Carlo a E-WMD can be constructed, by a knowledgeable person,
in a home garage machine shop from parts costing  $5000.

This is the Pentagon we're talking about here.  The spanner used to tighten
the bolts costs $5000.

(I've also been told that a Mk.82 wholesales for around US$250, so I guess
 we're being overcharged at NZ$1K.  Maybe it's because we don't buy 'em in
 bulk).

Peter.

Re: Al-Jazeera website [was: Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV]

2003-03-28 Thread Thomas Shaddack

 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.

RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-03-28 Thread Mike Rosing

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 pow status to
 *suspected* Al-Queda/taliban militants captured in
 afghan war-no body is going to put pressure on iraq
 either.

Yup, hypocrisy is the US philosophy.  The US can break the rules, but
nobody else can.  Unfortunatly, the people who should be suffereing won't.

Check out Robert Fisk at the Independent in UK for some secondary reports
from Al-Jazeera.  I don't think the US propaganda machine is going to hold
up under the real images of kids with their heads blown open.

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-03-27 Thread Peter Gutmann

Sarad AV [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 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
 vehicles and aircraft.

the existance of such a bomb was on indian news papers
a week ago.

It's also nothing like highly classified - google for flux compression
generator.

Peter.

RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

 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 been
getting my news from there since the start of the war, but I don't
know what links it has with, say, www.aljazeera.net, since I never
got there before. It's all in English, but I'm not sure about the
actual affiliation and editorial line, if anyone can shed some
light.

-- 
Vincent Penquerc'h

Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, 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 outside the US)

Thanks, that gives me an overloaded response, so it works!
I'll keep trying till I get thru.

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

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 I don't
 know what links it has with, say, www.aljazeera.net, since I never
 got there before. It's all in English, but I'm not sure about the
 actual affiliation and editorial line, if anyone can shed some
 light.

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).

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-03-27 Thread 'Gabriel Rocha'

On Thu, Mar 27, at 09:19AM, Mike Rosing wrote:

| Note I do get:
| 
| $ host www.aljazeera.net
| www.aljazeera.net has address 216.34.94.186
| 
| So why the original error response if host can find it?
|  Interesting!

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]

OrgName:Cable  Wireless
OrgID:  EXCW
Address:3300 Regency Pkwy
City:   Cary
StateProv:  NC
PostalCode: 27511
Country:US

NetRange:   216.32.0.0 - 216.35.255.255
CIDR:   216.32.0.0/14
NetName:LEGACY-8
NetHandle:  NET-216-32-0-0-1
Parent: NET-216-0-0-0-0
NetType:Direct Allocation
NameServer: DNS01.EXODUS.NET
NameServer: DNS02.EXODUS.NET
NameServer: DNS03.EXODUS.NET
NameServer: DNS04.EXODUS.NET
Comment:* Rwhois reassignment information for this block is
available at:
Comment:* rwhois.exodus.net 4321
Comment:* For abuse please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RegDate:1998-07-30
Updated:2002-10-30

TechHandle: ZC221-ARIN
TechName:   Cable  Wireless
TechPhone:  +1-919-465-4023
TechEmail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

OrgAbuseHandle: ABUSE11-ARIN
OrgAbuseName:   Abuse
OrgAbusePhone:  +1-877-393-7878
OrgAbuseEmail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

OrgNOCHandle: NOC99-ARIN
OrgNOCName:   Network Operations Center
OrgNOCPhone:  +1-800-977-4662
OrgNOCEmail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

OrgTechHandle: EIAA-ARIN
OrgTechName:   Exodus IP Address Administration
OrgTechPhone:  +1-888-239-6387
OrgTechEmail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

OrgTechHandle: GIAA-ARIN
OrgTechName:   Global IP Address Administration
OrgTechPhone:  +1-919-465-4096
OrgTechEmail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2003-03-26 20:00
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

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 resolves to the same
  thing :) from other hosts outside the US)
 
 Really?

 I'm getting sent to dotster (a domain hoarding site) when I try to access
 this as http://216.34.94.186

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, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;216.34.94.186. IN  A

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
.   86400   IN  SOA A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
NSTLD.VERISIGN-GRS.COM. 2003032700 1800 900 604800 86400

;; Query time: 113 msec
;; SERVER: 128.104.20.18#53(128.104.20.18)
;; WHEN: Wed Mar 26 23:19:48 2003
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 106

$ host 216.34.94.186
186.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa is an alias for
186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa.
186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer redirect.dnsix.com.

How do I chase this thing down to who actually owns it?

Note I do get:

$ host www.aljazeera.net
www.aljazeera.net has address 216.34.94.186

So why the original error response if host can find it?
 Interesting!

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

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 speaking. Unless they
 fear some kind of Arab community backlash from the images ?


Not in the US.  I just get:

This is the placeholder for domain aljazeera.info. If you see this page
after uploading site content you probably have not replaced the index.html
file.

This page has been automatically generated by Server Administrator.

 If there's something they won't like, it's this:
 http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/mar/16belg.htm
 I believe Kissinger is already avoiding France (and probably Spain),
 it'd be good if he was being chased up in more countries.

Yeah, it'd be good if all US leaders got the same treatment :-)

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

  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 reached it
though it waits indefinitely after the 200 OK. Maybe just overload
due to heavy success (or script kiddie activity). I eventually got
/index.html, and it's the Dotster page someone spoke of earlier ???
I'm starting to wonder whether Opera is using an IP it had cached
earlier, whereas wget resolves anew and hits the new DNS records,
which have changed since then...


$ wget http://www.aljazeera.net/
--18:47:59--  http://www.aljazeera.net/
   = `index.html'
Resolving www.aljazeera.net... done.
Connecting to www.aljazeera.net[216.34.94.186]:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: unspecified [text/html]

[   =   ] 15,01512.45K/s

18:49:57 (12.45 KB/s) - Read error at byte 15015 (Connection reset by
peer).Retr
ying.

--18:49:57--  http://www.aljazeera.net/
  (try: 2) = `index.html'
Connecting to www.aljazeera.net[216.34.94.186]:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: unspecified [text/html]

[ = ] 29,15330.58K/s

18:49:59 (30.58 KB/s) - `index.html' saved [29153]


-- 
Vincent Penquerc'h

Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-03-27 Thread Jamie Lawrence

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 up, if they're aiming for propaganda in their own countries,
 mostly English speaking but not much Arabic speaking. Unless they
 fear some kind of Arab community backlash from the images ?


I don't believe this is the same site. If the navigation bar weren't
enough to clue you in, perhaps the copyright statement would be:

 2002-2003 Copyright  \x{00A9} aljazeerah.info  aljazeerah.us. All Rights Reserved.


[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Aljazeerah Information Center,  P. O. Box 724, Dalton, GA 30720, USA


-j


-- 
Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If we're going to be warned about terrorism, can't we be warned 
by someone who makes us want to survive?
   - Jon Stuart

Re: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

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
http://www.thestar.com/images/star/nav/tts_spacer.gif?GXHC_gx_session_id_=48f6385cc9749078;
Web site may be victim of hackers
Only Al-Jazeera servers in U.S. hit

NYSE bans network reporters from floor

RACHEL ROSS
TECHNOLOGY REPORTER

It's been a difficult week for Al-Jazeera, the largest Arab satellite news
network.

Al-Jazeera's new English-language Web site (english.aljazeera.net)
launched Monday, was flooded with Internet traffic.

Whether that traffic came from hackers or was due to an abundance of
interested readers is still unclear. But the net effect was the same: many
Web surfers found they couldn't view the site yesterday.

Two Al-Jazeera reporters also had their credentials revoked by the New
York Stock Exchange.

[]

Looks like a lot more than just the US servers have been hit :-)

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

On Thu, 27 Mar
2003, Pete Mannix wrote:

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
GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS!!!

fwiw.

RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

 This is the placeholder for domain aljazeera.info. If you see 

Yes, try with a h at the end.

-- 
Vincent Penquerc'h

RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

 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 [216.34.94.186]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1   10 ms *  10 ms  217.150.100.137
  2   10 ms   10 ms   10 ms  217.150.97.4
  3   10 ms   10 ms   10 ms  217.150.96.1
  4   10 ms15 ms   10 ms  har1-serial6-1-0.London.cw.net
[166.63.166.33]
  5   10 ms   10 ms   10 ms  bcr2.London.cw.net [166.63.162.62]
  616 ms16 ms31 ms  bcr2-so-7-0-0.Thamesside.cw.net
[166.63.209.205]

  7   391 ms   390 ms   391 ms  acr2-loopback.Seattle.cw.net [208.172.82.62]
  8 *  391 ms   375 ms  bhr2-pos-0-0.Tukwilase2.cw.net
[208.172.81.222]

  9   375 ms   407 ms * csr11-ve241.Tukwilase2.cw.net [216.34.64.42]
 10   391 ms   406 ms   391 ms  jerry.exodus.net [216.34.83.66]
 11   407 ms *  391 ms  redirect.dnsix.com [216.34.94.186]

Trace complete.

-- 
Vincent Penquerc'h

RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

 Got an ip for .info?  I can't resolve that from here.

207.150.192.12

-- 
Vincent Penquerc'h

RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-03-27 Thread Sunder

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 rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you   \/|\/
  /|\  :their failures, we  |don't email them, or put them on a web  \|/
 + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net 

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 speaking. Unless they
 fear some kind of Arab community backlash from the images ?

Re: CDR: RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-03-27 Thread Damian Gerow

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, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0
 
 ;; QUESTION SECTION:
 ;216.34.94.186. IN  A
 
 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
 .   86400   IN  SOA A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
 NSTLD.VERISIGN-GRS.COM. 2003032700 1800 900 604800 86400
 
 ;; Query time: 113 msec
 ;; SERVER: 128.104.20.18#53(128.104.20.18)
 ;; WHEN: Wed Mar 26 23:19:48 2003
 ;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 106
 
 $ host 216.34.94.186
 186.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa is an alias for
 186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa.
 186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer redirect.dnsix.com.
 
 How do I chase this thing down to who actually owns it?

whois aljazeera.net?

Registrant:
Jazeera Space Channel TV station (ALJAZEERA2-DOM)
   P.O. Box 231234
   Doha
   QA

   Domain Name: ALJAZEERA.NET

   Administrative Contact:
  AlaliAJ7476, MJ  (HCSGDXPWTI) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Al Jazeera Space TV Station
  Po Box. 211234
  Doha, QT  7476
  QA
  +974  07 04 17761 +999 999 
   Technical Contact:
  VeriSign, Inc.  (HOST-ORG)[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  VeriSign, Inc.
  21355 Ridgetop Circle
  Dulles, VA 20166
  US
  1-888-642-9675

   Record expires on 31-Aug-2010.
   Record created on 30-Aug-1996.
   Database last updated on 27-Mar-2003 14:33:52 EST.

   Domain servers in listed order:

   NS3.ALJAZEERA.NET213.30.180.218
   ALJNS1SA.NAV-LINK.NET217.26.193.15

Do you want to look for the domain registrars, the people who own the
nameservers, the people who own the netblocks the web site lives in, the
people who own the netblocks the nameservers live in... ?

It looks like, from below, the IP address is with dotster...

 Note I do get:
 
 $ host www.aljazeera.net
 www.aljazeera.net has address 216.34.94.186
 
 So why the original error response if host can find it?
  Interesting!

Because 'host' is doing magic that 'dig' presumes you don't want done.  Try
this instead of your dig command above:

% dig -x 216.34.94.186
;  DiG 8.3  216.34.94.186 
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 2
;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUERY SECTION:
;;  216.34.94.186, type = A, class = IN

;; Total query time: 97 msec
;; FROM: removed to SERVER: default -- removed
;; WHEN: Thu Mar 27 14:34:42 2003
;; MSG SIZE  sent: 31  rcvd: 31

% dig -x 216.34.94.186

;  DiG 8.3  -x 
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 2
;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 4, ADDITIONAL: 4
;; QUERY SECTION:
;;  186.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa, type = ANY, class = IN

;; ANSWER SECTION:
186.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa.  1D IN CNAME  186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa.

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
94.34.216.in-addr.arpa.  1H IN NS  dns02.exodus.net.
94.34.216.in-addr.arpa.  1H IN NS  dns03.exodus.net.
94.34.216.in-addr.arpa.  1H IN NS  dns04.exodus.net.
94.34.216.in-addr.arpa.  1H IN NS  dns01.exodus.net.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
dns02.exodus.net.   21H IN A209.1.222.245
dns03.exodus.net.   21H IN A209.1.222.246
dns04.exodus.net.   21H IN A209.1.222.247
dns01.exodus.net.   21H IN A209.1.222.244

;; Total query time: 236 msec
;; FROM: removed to SERVER: default -- removed
;; WHEN: Thu Mar 27 14:34:45 2003
;; MSG SIZE  sent: 44  rcvd: 249

(Remember, 216.34.94.186 when doing DNS lookups is actually
186.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa...)

So we take a look at that CNAME...

% dig any 186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa.

;  DiG 8.3  186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa. any 
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 2
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2
;; QUERY SECTION:
;;  186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa, type = ANY, class = IN

;; ANSWER SECTION:
186.160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa.  23h57m3s IN PTR  redirect.dnsix.com.

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa.  1d9h19m32s IN NS  ns1.dotster.com.
160/27.94.34.216.in-addr.arpa.  1d9h19m32s IN NS  ns2.dotster.com.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
ns1.dotster.com.23h44m IN A 64.94.117.199
ns2.dotster.com.23h44m IN A 63.251.83.78

;; Total query time: 1 msec
;; FROM: removed to SERVER: default -- removed
;; WHEN: Thu Mar 27 14:47:36 2003
;; MSG SIZE  sent: 51  rcvd: 159

And voila!  We have what looks like a dnsix.com IP

RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV

2003-03-27 Thread Sunder

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
%systemroot%\system32\drivers\etc\hosts
in win9x it should be just c:\windows\hosts (not sure, don't care)


--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 rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you   \/|\/
  /|\  :their failures, we  |don't email them, or put them on a web  \|/
 + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net 

On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Vincent Penquerc'h wrote:

  Got an ip for .info?  I can't resolve that from here.
 
 207.150.192.12
 
 -- 
 Vincent Penquerc'h

RE: U.S. Drops 'E-Bomb' On Iraqi TV