Re: I for one am glad that...

[Keith Ray]

Quoting gabriel rosenkoetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 01:39:59PM -0600, Keith Ray wrote:
> > The UN authorized force in resolution 678 to uphold current and future
> > resolutions.  The UN voted unanimously to declare Iraq in violation of
> > previous UN resolutions in 1441.  The UN weapons inspector's reports
> > detailed many omissions in Iraq's weapons declaration and failures to
> > fully cooperate with inspectors.
> 
> This entirely disregards the UN stating a position against immediate
> action on the US's part, which President Bush chose to flatly ignore
> in his address Monday evening. The UN Security Council is allowed to
> change its mind. Just because they said the use of force could be
> justified doesn't mean that the Security Council approves of the
> US's current actions; that's completely twisting their words (and
> quite obviously not the case).

When did the UN Security Council pass a resolution rescinding the use of force?
Earlier resolutions only declared a cease-fire contingent on Iraq complying with
all current and future resolutions.  The Security Council unanimously voted to
hold that Iraq has violated and continues to violate previous resolutions.  In
no resolution did the Security Council state that it must hold a vote before any
future action is taken.  France, Russia, and Germany alone are not the Security
Council and cannot "take back" their previous votes authorizing force.

> > As far as dragging the nation to war, 70% of the American people
> > are behind him.
> 
> Oh? Really? You asked them yourself? Because you sure didn't provide
> a reference or a statistical error distribution...

NBC/Wall Street Journal : 65% +/- 4.4%
CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 66% +/- 4.5%

> > Damn those free elections!  Why can't we just agree to let you
> > pick the world's leaders?
> 
> Oh, you mean the free elections like the one that got fixed by
> President Bush's brother in Florida in 2002? Or maybe you mean the
> kind of election in which a candidate can win the popular vote but
> still not be elected, like in 2002 when the current Bush was elected?
> Right then.
> 
> (No, it doesn't matter whether there's proof; the fact that there's
> reasonable doubt is damning.)

Which article/amendment of the constitution states that the winner of the
popular vote wins the election?  Article 2, Section 1 and the 12th amendment
seem to be pretty clear on the subject.  Regardless of your opinion of the 2000
elections, Bush *IS* the president and has been given authorization to use force
both by Congress and the UN.

 --
Keith Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- OpenPGP Key: 0x79269A12

Level Red Terror Alert means no freedom in N.J.!

[Sleeping Vayu - Vayu Anonymous Remailer]

If you live in N.J., say goodbye to freeedom when the war 
starts.  Of course, it probably isn't the only state with plans 
like these.  I especially like the part about the authorities 
assuming you are the enemy if you go outside..

http://www.southjerseynews.com/issues/march/m031603e.htm

Red alert? Stay home, await word
Sunday, March 16, 2003
By TOM BALDWIN
Gannett State Bureau
TRENTON

If the nation escalates to "red alert," which is the highest in 
the color-coded readiness
against terror, you will be assumed by authorities to be the 
enemy if you so much as venture outside your home, the state's 
anti-terror czar says.

"This state is on top of it," said Sid Caspersen, New Jersey's 
director of the office of counter-terrorism.

Caspersen, a former FBI agent, was briefing reporters, alongside 
Gov. James E. McGreevey, on Thursday, when for the first time he 
disclosed the realities of how a red alert would shut the state 
down.

A red alert would also tear away virtually all personal freedoms 
to move about and associate.

"Red means all noncritical functions cease," Caspersen said. 
"Noncritical would be almost all businesses, except health-
related."

A red alert means there is a severe risk of terrorist attack, 
according to federal guidelines from the Department of Homeland 
Security.

"The state will restrict transportation and access to critical 
locations," says the state's new brochure on dealing with 
terrorism.

"You must adhere to the restrictions announced by authorities 
and prepare to evacuate, if instructed. Stay alert for emergency 
messages."

Caspersen went further than the brochure. "The government 
agencies would run at a very low threshold," he said.

"The state police and the emergency management people would take 
control over the highways.

"You literally are staying home, is what happens, unless you are 
required to be out. No different than if you had a state of 
emergency with a snowstorm."

Re: I for one am glad that...

[Keith Ray]

Quoting Thomas Shaddack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> > > So-called terrorists hate not our freedom, but our meddling.
> >
> > This is no excuse for use of unconventional warfare against the US nor
> > does it delegitimize the US's use of force to defend themselves.
> 
> All men have the equipment for rape. Does it give all the women to shot
> dead any man they happen to dislike at the moment, as "preemptive strike"?
> Where is the line between the necessary defense and an unruly aggression
> today?

A UN Security Council resolution authorizing any Member State to use "all
necessary means" to uphold a previous Security Council resolution.

> > As far as dragging the nation to war, 70% of the American people
> > are behind him.
> 
> The number is suspiciously high in comparison with what I hear from my
> friends.

Your friends disagree with two national polls and so the polls must be wrong?

> > By that reasoning, maximum freedom equals no government.  Let's disband the
> > police and military and see how long the US lasts.
> 
> Just wait until the society as we know it collapses or degenerates.
> Alternative security forces will spring up; some militia-based, assembled
> from survivalist-kind of people, some corporate, resembling current
> private security forces, but with licence to kill. US will last, at least
> as its name, just transformed.

Why wait until then?  This anarchy things sounds pretty nifty.  If we can get
total freedom by abolishing government, why wait for society to collapse?

> > The US is also the world's foremost provider of economic aid.  Whether the
> > US is a bully or a peacekeeper really depends on your perspective.
> 
> The aid is administered or withheld as it suits to current foreign
> politics goals.

Of course it is.  Name a sovereign nation that doesn't.

> Problem solved. Supply only the candidates that will not go against the
> Current Foreign Policy and appropriately pro-US slanted Free Market.
> Domestically, offer only the candidates of the Corporate Party, better
> known under the names of its factions as Republicans and Democrats. Make
> sure the barriers of entry to the game are so high that nobody who isn't
> member of this Party or at least isn't deeply enough entangled has any
> real chance.

"whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the
Right of the People to alter or abolish it,"

Until this happens, our current goverment and its system of elections is the law
of the land.  

 --
Keith Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- OpenPGP Key: 0x79269A12

RE: Brinwear at Benetton.

[Mike Rosing]

On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Trei, Peter wrote:

> Mike, Go to the literature. They are already scanning 20 - 1000 of
> tags per second (most of the more realistic reports seem to be
> below 50 tps). So it takes 10 seconds to scan my cart? That's
> a hell of a lot better than 5 minutes or so by hand.

I'll go do that.  I always saw those as 1 item at a time scans on
conveyor belts.  That's *not* the same thing as a cart full of stuff
responding simultaneously.

>
> References::
> http://www.cfo.com/article/1,5309,8661,00.html?f=related (CFO magazine)
> Library applications (v scary)
> http://www.vernlib.com/VernStep6.asp
> For some actual rates:
> http://www.autoid.org/2002_Documents/WG4_SG3/Dec2002/SG3_200211_347_PtB_Demo
> .pdf
> Critical article on library applications
> http://www.vtls.com/Products/rfid/documents/choosing.pdf
> 200-800 tps:
> http://www.matricsrfid.com/pdf/Inlays_Data_Sheet.pdf

Note in the last one it says:
* Single inlay, free air, no obstacles, high performance Matrics reader
equipment. U.S. FCC power limits implied.

So the manufacturer is pointing out only *one* rfid is in the scanner.

Which is my point - a whole cart load won't work (yet!)  I suspect it will
in time.

> ...now if we can only get rid of the delays caused by people who've clipped
> 50 coupons, and insist on paying by check

:-)  One of these days that'll be me!

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

Re: I for one am glad that...

[Thomas Shaddack]

> > So-called terrorists hate not our freedom, but our meddling.
>
> This is no excuse for use of unconventional warfare against the US nor
> does it delegitimize the US's use of force to defend themselves.

All men have the equipment for rape. Does it give all the women to shot
dead any man they happen to dislike at the moment, as "preemptive strike"?
Where is the line between the necessary defense and an unruly aggression
today?

> > George W. Bush is a raving lunatic, barking at the moon, lying through his
> > teeth, and dragging the nation into another Bush family war.
>
> Ad hominem attacks against the President are irrelevant to the current
> discussion.

Is it an ad-hominem attack, or a disclosure of a sensitive secret
information of national security nature?

> As far as dragging the nation to war, 70% of the American people
> are behind him.

Howmany of them rely exclusively on domestic news? How many of them don't
have time or will to get informations from non-US-controlled sources? How
reliable their opinion can be? Who controls the media controls the masses.
What influence this rule has on the mentioned 70%? Who does the polls?
What are rules for the polls? Is there a compensation for Republicans
being generally more likely to respond on poll questions? What exactly was
the poll question? The number is suspiciously high in comparison with what
I hear from my friends.

> By that reasoning, maximum freedom equals no government.  Let's disband the
> police and military and see how long the US lasts.

Just wait until the society as we know it collapses or degenerates.
Alternative security forces will spring up; some militia-based, assembled
from survivalist-kind of people, some corporate, resembling current
private security forces, but with licence to kill. US will last, at least
as its name, just transformed.

> The US is also the world's foremost provider of economic aid.  Whether the US is
> a bully or a peacekeeper really depends on your perspective.

The aid is administered or withheld as it suits to current foreign
politics goals.

> Damn those free elections!  Why can't we just agree to let you pick the world's
> leaders?

Problem solved. Supply only the candidates that will not go against the
Current Foreign Policy and appropriately pro-US slanted Free Market.
Domestically, offer only the candidates of the Corporate Party, better
known under the names of its factions as Republicans and Democrats. Make
sure the barriers of entry to the game are so high that nobody who isn't
member of this Party or at least isn't deeply enough entangled has any
real chance.

> > Justice in the Middle East would be Sharon, Netanyahu, and two generations
> > of the Bush family hanging in downtown Baghdad.  After a fair trial and
> > due process at the hands of the International Community, of course.
>
> This kind of statement works a lot better for Tim than it does for you.

Israel occupies large areas it acquired by hostile means in direct
contradiction to international law. Military actions in these areas
suspiciously resemble state-organized terrorism. It owns large stockpile
of nuclear weapons, there are rumours of biological research aimed to find
genetical traits specific for Arabs, suitable to develop racially-specific
biological weapons. Why there are no US missiles and bombs raining on Tel
Aviv?

Seems Moses was smart. Those forty years spent cruising Middle East,
searching for the only real estate there without oil underneath, surely
weren't wasted.

Re: I for one am glad that...

[Anonymous]

Keith Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> This is no excuse for use of unconventional warfare against the US nor does it
> delegitimize the US's use of force to defend themselves.
> 

   What a crock of shit. I sure hope that Saddam kept enough sarin to bring
an excrutiatingly horrible death to all 250,000 of those Nazi boys Dubbya
sent over there, and then maybe those lunatics in DC will really go off the
deep end and nuke Baghdad, sending the entire Muslim world into a total
century long jihad against the US.  

> 
> > > Of course, in order to secure our freedom, all citizens must actively
> > > support our government's efforts to secure this freedom. Anyone who
> > > does not obviously support American freedom is clearly opposed to it and
> > > must be stopped, or he will help our enemies take away our freedom.
> > 
> > More Freedom = Less Government.  I support maximal freedom.
> 
> By that reasoning, maximum freedom equals no government.  Let's disband the
> police and military and see how long the US lasts.
> 
Better anarchy than the present fascist police state. If we're lucky
enough, the Muslim jihad will so damage the fedzis, that the rest of us
will be able to pick off the rest of the pigs and feebs.

jihadmonger

Bugging Devices found in French & German offices at the EU

[Harmon Seaver]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2864063.stm


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

Re: I for one am glad that...

[Thomas Shaddack]

> A UN Security Council resolution authorizing any Member State to use "all
> necessary means" to uphold a previous Security Council resolution.

"Necessary means" of one seem to be "hostile aggression" of nearly all
others.

> > > As far as dragging the nation to war, 70% of the American people
> > > are behind him.

They forgot to make corrections for the option when there is no agreement
of the Security Council, maybe under the mistaken belief Bush won't play
unfair. Sidestepping the new resolution in order to exploit a loophole in
the previous one is an unclear move.

> > The number is suspiciously high in comparison with what I hear from my
> > friends.
>
> Your friends disagree with two national polls and so the polls must be wrong?

The polls are suspicious by their nature itself. My friends are a selected
group (they usually think for their own), and the numbers there look
rather as 90% against the aggression. Besides, the poll doesn't specify
details, making it somehow doubtful.

> Why wait until then?  This anarchy things sounds pretty nifty.  If we can get
> total freedom by abolishing government, why wait for society to collapse?

Waco.

The Adversary has too much of firepower, and no desire to let the peasants
free. But if you keep low profile enough, it is of course possible within
certain practical limits; eg, The Government can't control nor see
intra-community transactions done in cash or barter, nor can easily peek
into encrypted data transfers. Friends and math are good things to have.

> > The aid is administered or withheld as it suits to current foreign
> > politics goals.
>
> Of course it is.  Name a sovereign nation that doesn't.

Then it shouldn't be claimed it is an altruistic help.

> "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the
> Right of the People to alter or abolish it,"

If the people aren't mistakenly believing that "it can't happen here".

Many Americans that came here reportedly feel more free than in the US -
less surveillance (for now), less petty rules enforced, less risk of a
lawsuit.

> Until this happens, our current goverment and its system of elections is the law
> of the land.

Screwed up, enforced with weapons, backed with propaganda.

We have to have the means to at least reduce the effective impact of their
Laws over us, giving us some chance to breathe more freely.

Which is, after all, one of the purposes of the List.

Re: Bush's Moment of Truth

[alan]

On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Bill Stewart wrote:

> Bush said this was going to be the "Moment of Truth".
> 
> Well, we haven't had a moment of truth from his administration yet,
> so I guess that's a welcome change...

I wonder if it will be like a "moment of silence"?

Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City

[Mike Rosing]

On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, David Howe wrote:

> Chemical weapons are legally dodgy - but under the Bush Doctorine,
> saddam could blow huge civilian areas of Washington away with missles,
> and just call it a "shock and awe" demonstration against a country that
> might attack it and that is known to have all three forms of WMD. I
> mean, that's reasonable isn't it? bush said it was

I can't wait till China and Russia figure out that pre-emptive strikes are
a really good idea, and the US is a problem that needs to be taken care
of.  Unfortunatly I think they'll leave Washington DC because that way
no recovery will ever happen.  But I suspect they'll nuke everything else!

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

Re: I for one am glad that...

[Keith Ray]

Quoting Jamie Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 01:39:59PM -0600, Keith Ray wrote:
> > The UN authorized force in resolution 678 to uphold current and future
> > resolutions.  The UN voted unanimously to declare Iraq in violation of
> > previous UN resolutions in 1441.  The UN weapons inspector's reports
> > detailed many omissions in Iraq's weapons declaration and failures to
> > fully cooperate with inspectors.
> 
> Perhaps you should actually read the documents you reference. The legal
> arguments the Bush Regime are floating this week are contradicted 
> by statements they've floated in getting the resolution passed. Of
> course this is to be expected, and they'll have a new batch of fatuous
> bullshit next week. They fact that you're buying the flavor of the month
> is amusing, though.

Which resolution took away any Member State's authority to "all necessary means"
to uphold resolution 690?  Which resolution requires a Member State to seek
Security Council approval for future military action?

> "France was advocating that a first resolution at the United 
> Nations Security Council, demanding that Iraq promptly 
> disclose its weapons and disarm, must be followed by a second 
> resolution authorizing war if Iraq refused. 'Be sure about 
> one thing,' Mr. Powell told Dominique de Villepin, the French 
> foreign minister. 'Don't vote for the first, unless you are 
> prepared to vote for the second.'"

Whether the US chose to pursue a second resolution is immaterial to the fact
that it already had the authority under resolution 678.  If the UN Security
Council wanted to ensure that no military action was taken without a second
resolution, they should have put it in 1441 instead of a promise of "serious
consequences."

> So, I assume you're basing you're views on the New, Improved Powell, not
> that silly, confused one that spoke pushed the resolution last time 
> around, right? What will you agree with next week?

I am basing my views of the actual text of the resolutions.  

> > This is no excuse for use of unconventional warfare against the US nor does
> > it delegitimize the US's use of force to defend themselves.
> > 
> > As far as dragging the nation to war, 70% of the American people
> > are behind him.
> 
> (1) Please explain how a preemptive war against a country under more
> scrutiny than any other which has utterly failed to make any meaningful
> threat in the last 10 years is defensive? As others have pointed out, N.
> Korea is entirely justified in bombing DC under the "Bush Doctrine".
> Please, compare and contrast.

Force against Iraq is not pre-emptive since it is authorized by the UN Security
Council resolutions 678 and 1441.  North Korea does not have the authority under
any UN Security Council resolution to take military action against any country.

> (2) Please explain exactly what moral system (which you apparently
> subscribe to) which states that if 7 out of ten say something, it is a
> morally correct action?

No one, including me, has stated that popular support equals moral
justification.  I was merely pointing out that Bush was not "dragging us into
war" since there was popular support for war.

> (3) I'm not going to bother with "excuses for use of unconventional
> warfare". The lack of objective difference between "freedom fighter"
> and "terrorist", the long history of US meddling, and the obvious
> reasons for this war (Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, personal vandetta)
> are obviously no match for your inciteful jingoism and moral mandate 
> to inflict peace and freedom on others at gunpoint.

In this particular case, we were discussing terrorists, not Iraq.  I have never
said that instituting democracy, peace, or any other way-of-life is
justification for war.

> Analysis / The U.S. is almost alone in its war on Iraq

We are alone with Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria,
Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia,
Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan (post conflict), Korea, Latvia, Lithuania,
Macedonia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia,
Spain, Turkey, Britain, and Uzbekistan.

 --
Keith Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- OpenPGP Key: 0x79269A12

Re: Israel Honors Saint Goldstein

[Tim May]

On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 03:49  PM, Eric Cordian wrote:

One of the greatest heros of the Isareli people is Saint Baruch 
Goldstein,
the New York doctor who gunned down over two dozen Palestinians as they
knelt in prayer.

As Susan Cohen, perennial Usenet apologist for Israel is fond of 
saying,
"If only we had a thousand Baruch Goldsteins."  Goldstein was also 
famous
for the comment that a million Arabs were not worth one Jewish 
fingernail.

It might be said that Jews learned well from the Nazis, except that 
Jews have viewed non-Jews as subhuman for all of recorded history.

I've certainly known some perfectly fine Jews...to the extent they are 
not real Jews, real adherents of Zionism, they are just like the 
children of other cult members (Catholics, Scientologists, Satanists, 
Baptists, etc.). But those who yammer about Zionism and Eretz Israel, 
those are just as bad as the Nazis and Wobblies and Democrats.

I will cheer when several million Israeli Zionists are vaporized.

That day is coming, of course. With the help of Cypherpunks technology, 
sooner rather than later.



--Tim May
""Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who 
approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but 
downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." 
--Patrick Henry

Re: CDR: Re: I for one am glad that...

[Jamie Lawrence]

> On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 01:39:59PM -0600, Keith Ray wrote:
> The UN authorized force in resolution 678 to uphold current and future
> resolutions.  The UN voted unanimously to declare Iraq in violation of
> previous UN resolutions in 1441.  The UN weapons inspector's reports
> detailed many omissions in Iraq's weapons declaration and failures to
> fully cooperate with inspectors.

Perhaps you should actually read the documents you reference. The legal
arguments the Bush Regime are floating this week are contradicted 
by statements they've floated in getting the resolution passed. Of
course this is to be expected, and they'll have a new batch of fatuous
bullshit next week. They fact that you're buying the flavor of the month
is amusing, though.

Try starting at http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm, and following the
references.

Colin Powell summarized things best last September. From yesterday's NYT
( http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/17/international/middleeast/17RECO.html
):

"France was advocating that a first resolution at the United 
Nations Security Council, demanding that Iraq promptly 
disclose its weapons and disarm, must be followed by a second 
resolution authorizing war if Iraq refused. 'Be sure about 
one thing,' Mr. Powell told Dominique de Villepin, the French 
foreign minister. 'Don't vote for the first, unless you are 
prepared to vote for the second.'"

So, I assume you're basing you're views on the New, Improved Powell, not
that silly, confused one that spoke pushed the resolution last time 
around, right? What will you agree with next week?

> This is no excuse for use of unconventional warfare against the US nor does
> it
> delegitimize the US's use of force to defend themselves.
> 
> As far as dragging the nation to war, 70% of the American people
> are behind him.

(1) Please explain how a preemptive war against a country under more
scrutiny than any other which has utterly failed to make any meaningful
threat in the last 10 years is defensive? As others have pointed out, N.
Korea is entirely justified in bombing DC under the "Bush Doctrine".
Please, compare and contrast.

(2) Please explain exactly what moral system (which you apparently
subscribe to) which states that if 7 out of ten say something, it is a
morally correct action?

(3) I'm not going to bother with "excuses for use of unconventional
warfare". The lack of objective difference between "freedom fighter"
and "terrorist", the long history of US meddling, and the obvious
reasons for this war (Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, personal vandetta)
are obviously no match for your inciteful jingoism and moral mandate 
to inflict peace and freedom on others at gunpoint.

For a view into the crystal ball, though, you might peruse opinions 
from our close allies about our Clear Mandate:

Analysis / The U.S. is almost alone in its war on Iraq
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=274223&displayTypeCd=1&sideCd=1&contrassID=2

Think about what it means when international markets switch to the Euro.
But this is all pragmatic reasoning, surely nothing you're interested
in. Have a fun war.

-j

-- 
Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Remember, half-measures can be very effective if all you deal with are
half-wits."
   - Chris Klein

vonu

[jburnes]

i don't know who jim is, but ;-)

btw: hope the hacking and coughing aren't getting you down
too much.  there are now two treatments for that that i know
of.  www.lef.org, search protocols

Re: I for one am glad that...

[Sunder]

On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Anonymous wrote:

> Keith Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > This is no excuse for use of unconventional warfare against the US nor does it
> > delegitimize the US's use of force to defend themselves.
> > 
> 
>What a crock of shit. I sure hope that Saddam kept enough sarin to bring
> an excrutiatingly horrible death to all 250,000 of those Nazi boys Dubbya
> sent over there, and then maybe those lunatics in DC will really go off the
> deep end and nuke Baghdad, sending the entire Muslim world into a total
> century long jihad against the US.  

Hey, shit for brains, those are our sons, brothers, (and some of our
braver sisters and daughters) that will be putting their lives in danger.  

They do not deserve such disrespect.  Aim it where it belongs: Shrub.

IMHO, we should go back to the pre-Alexander The Great way of waging war -
with the man in charge of the war at the very front of the front
lines.  Then, perhaps the poly-ticks would think twice about war for oil.

Our boys over there aren't the problem.  Hell, a lot of them don't want to
be there and know that this war is for oil and not for freedom.  Damn
straight they shouldn't be there - but that's no longer their choice.

Back in the days of the 1st deodorant war (Desert Shield, then Storm I
think it was called) a buddy of mine studpidly decided to join the army,
in training, the DI's used colorful language such as "Sand Niggers" and
worse to dehumanize the opponents - it's funny but he said that the
African American privates did not seem to take objection to the white
D.I.'s uttering such racist shit.  I wonder what they're being told these
days?

> > By that reasoning, maximum freedom equals no government.  Let's disband the
> > police and military and see how long the US lasts.
> > 
> Better anarchy than the present fascist police state. If we're lucky
> enough, the Muslim jihad will so damage the fedzis, that the rest of us
> will be able to pick off the rest of the pigs and feebs.

Damned straight anarchy is better than fascism.  Rule under a Taliban
religious extremism party, Communist dictatorship, or Fascist oil-hungry
state are all oppressive.  Freedom and oppression don't mix.

Don't go worshipping Al Qaeda now, dumbass, did you forget that these
terrorists are not on your side? - they killed thousands of innocents in
New York with little reson.

Re: vonu

[Mike Rosing]

On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, jburnes wrote:

> btw: hope the hacking and coughing aren't getting you down
> too much.  there are now two treatments for that that i know
> of.  www.lef.org, search protocols

...MENTAL IMPAIRMENT ...

Seems appropriate for you guys!

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City

[Declan McCullagh]

On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 08:59:31PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
> About the threat to Washington: I think it's relatively high. A nerve 
> gas attack on buildings or the Metro seems likely. (The Japanese AUM 
> cult had Sarin, but was inept. A more capable, military-trained 
> operative has had many months to get into D.C. and wait for the obvious 
> time to attack. And he need not even be a suicide bomber. A cannister 
> of VX with a reliable timer is child's play.
>

One big difference, it seems to me, is that the U.S. government was
recently up against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups that did not
have the complete resources of a nation-state at their disposal (plus
other factors, like sufficient uninterrupted time to prepare a second
attack on U.S. soil after we began to target them post-911).

Now we're up against a possibly enfeebled nation, but a nation
nonetheless, with a leader who knows that his days are numbered so
there's arguably little downside to plotting terrorism. Plus other
Middle East nations that now might be inclined to lend covert aid if
it's entirely deniable.

I live in Adams Morgan in Washington, DC, which Mapquest tells me is
three miles north of the White House (because of one way streets) -- the
oh-so-brave denizens of 1600 have closed Pennyslvania Ave. It's
probably 1.5 miles directly.

It's hardly implausible to believe I might survive a 1 kiloton nuclear
blast, about what the "Davy Crockett" U.S. nuke, at around 50 lbs,
provided. It makes sense to think that Soviet suitcase nukes have a
similar yield.

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were closer to 12-23 kilotons,
according to one source (http://www.danford.net/hiroshim.htm), and
there supposedly was a 50 percent survival rate at 1/8 of a mile from
ground zero -- while the bomb went off above ground as opposed to on the
ground.

I might gain an extra half-mile or so because it's more likely a
terrorist would attack the White House from the east, west, or south
as opposed to the north -- Pennsylvania Avenue is closed, and traffic
on H St. (further north) will be stopped or severely scrutinized
during any heightened alert status.

By way of comparison, the Tractor That Disrupted DC is about eight
blocks southwest of the White House. If it were any closer, the
Disgruntled Veteran Farmer would have been dispatched with extreme
prejudice by Secret Service snipers.

If the Capitol building is attacked, I live much further from that, so
I'm not as worried by the immediate impact of the blast, just the
aftermath.

That leaves just biological and chemical weapons, conventional explosives,
and dirty bombs.

> If I were Declan, I'd get out of Dodge.

Well, I don't think I'll be living here the rest of my life -- DC is
too tempting a target over the long term, as the U.S. empire spreads
and its enemies grow accordingly.

For the short term, DC is still an easier target than NYC if you're
bringing a bomb in by truck (NYC would be easier by boat). NYC has
bridges along which radiation sensors can be placed; DC, as Tim knows,
is geographically just a part of Maryland connected by hundreds of
residential streets.

But I wouldn't be surprised to see the next attack take place in a far
more distributed manner. Imagine a dozen Iraqi/Al Qaeda sympathizers
or agents making dirty bombs (or even conventional explosives) and
leaving them in gift-wrapped boxes in shopping bags at American
surburban shopping malls. They detonate simultaneously after 15
minutes or if they're moved or disturbed. The perp would have time to
escape and could take steps to mask himself from the inevitable
surveillance camera footage that would be broadcast by the FBI.

A week or two after that happens, you can imagine the AQ/Iraq axis
trying the same thing in the parking lot of a metroplex theater at
night (it's easy enough to leave a backpack under a parked car), in
the bathroom of a dozen crowded restaurants, and so on.

The U.S. would soon become accustomed to living in the same state of
seige and constant surveillance that Israel enjoys. And watch what
Congress will do to preserve our freedoms by giving more power to the
FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.

Imagine that approach being escalated by radio-controlled or
autonomous model helicopters or airplanes being sent from outside the
Beltway to blast into the White House or the House and Senate office
buildings. They'd be guided by GPS and carry only a modest payload, so
might not accomplish much unless their targets are outside. No more
Rose Garden press conferences after the first wave of the attack
occurs, I'd wager.

Yes, DC is not a good long-term place to live. It's too tempting a target.

-Declan

RE: I for one am glad that...

[Vincent Penquerc'h]

> Force against Iraq is not pre-emptive since it is authorized 
> by the UN Security
> Council resolutions 678 and 1441.  North Korea does not have 

Interesting. So, if the UN gives Bush the "right" to attack Iraq,
such an attack is no more preemptive ? Why would it be different
from Bush giving the US army the "right" to attack ? Would that
still be preemptive ?

The fact is, Bush and his followers are lying like mad, and it
shows so much I'm surprised they still manage to not laugh hard
while saying those. They can claim it's not preemptive for their
propaganda, but does it make it so ?

> No one, including me, has stated that popular support equals moral
> justification.  I was merely pointing out that Bush was not
> "dragging us into war" since there was popular support for war.

He's certainly dragging the world into war. Repercussions of this
war will not be only visible in the US (and of course, Iraq, pity
on them). Bush's actions are only going to give some legitimacy to
terrorists.

> We are alone with
[...]
a list of countries which, for the most part, see either the leash
of the master (in some cases with a large US military presence on
their soil) or have been guided by the smell of money, or immaterial
favors that might or might not be awarded. Good grief.

-- 
Vincent Penquerc'h 

Mmmmmm, oil money! Tasty!

[Sunder]

That's, quite a maybe there...



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81480,00.html


Iraqi Oil Money May Be Used for Humanitarian Relief
^^

Wednesday, March 19, 2003


UNITED NATIONS  . The United States and Britain are working on a plan to
use Iraqi oil proceeds from a $40 billion account to pay for humanitarian
supplies during a war to disarm Saddam Hussein, The Associated Press has
learned.

The proposal, based on the assumption that Saddam will be quickly
overthrown, is to be presented shortly after a military conflict begins,
according to diplomats and U.N. officials who spoke on condition of
anonymity.

The plan would not give Washington and London direct access to vast Iraqi
cash reserves in a U.N. escrow account. Instead, by channeling the money
into immediate humanitarian relief, the plan would alleviate U.S. and
British financial responsibilities for caring for millions of Iraqis.




--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 

Re: vonu

[jburnes]

whatever you say, dr. mike

On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 09:08 AM, Mike Rosing wrote:

On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, jburnes wrote:

btw: hope the hacking and coughing aren't getting you down
too much.  there are now two treatments for that that i know
of.  www.lef.org, search protocols
...MENTAL IMPAIRMENT ...

Seems appropriate for you guys!

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City

[Tim May]

On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 07:37  AM, Declan McCullagh wrote:

On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 08:59:31PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
About the threat to Washington: I think it's relatively high. A nerve
gas attack on buildings or the Metro seems likely. (The Japanese AUM
cult had Sarin, but was inept. A more capable, military-trained
operative has had many months to get into D.C. and wait for the 
obvious
time to attack. And he need not even be a suicide bomber. A cannister
of VX with a reliable timer is child's play.

One big difference, it seems to me, is that the U.S. government was
recently up against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups that did not
have the complete resources of a nation-state at their disposal (plus
other factors, like sufficient uninterrupted time to prepare a second
attack on U.S. soil after we began to target them post-911).
Yes, and various other Axis of Evil nations (DPRK, France, etc.) will 
understand the importance of "asymmetric warfare."

Frankly, throwing the U.S. economy into chaos _before_ an attack on 
one's country would seem to be the best strategy.

(And this kind of chaos need not be a decapitation attack on the Seat 
of Government. A disabling attack on agriculture--such as contaminating 
the meat supply with hoof and mouth or mad cow--or a psychological 
attack on consumerism--such as 5 suicide bombers hitting crowded 
shopping malls--would have a big effect. The destruction of a few dams 
would have similar effects, but, fortunately for us, they are 
apparently well-defended, i.e., they are _not_ soft targets.)

Having seen Vietnam (the war, not the country), and having seen today's 
media frenzies and rampant consumerism, I think American resolve will 
fold if 5000 deaths of Americans occur in Iraq. The 100 or so deaths of 
Americans in 1991 was tolerable, but anything approaching the multiple 
thousands will trigger a paroxysm of "Why are we there?" and "Congress 
never authorized this!" and "Bring our boys home" sentiments.

Chemical Ali probably understands this very well. (And the usual 
rhetoric about how if the U.S. is attacked with CBW it will respond by 
nuking Baghdad is silly. If even 10.000 U.S. soldiers are killed in a 
chemical attack, the U.S. will not nuke a city of 5 million. At least I 
doubt they will, despite the rhetoric. My hunch is that Chemical Ali 
thinks along the same lines.)

So, going for a kill of 5-15K Americans, early on, is possibly an Iraqi 
strategy. It would be my strategy, were I on their side.
Now we're up against a possibly enfeebled nation, but a nation
nonetheless, with a leader who knows that his days are numbered so
there's arguably little downside to plotting terrorism. Plus other
Middle East nations that now might be inclined to lend covert aid if
it's entirely deniable.
I'm not even a despot, and yet I often fantasize about methods to kill 
tens of thousands of the bad guys, even if I died in the process. So I 
can imagine the fantasies some of the guys who have been in power for 
many years may have.

I would of course agree with what many are saying, that Kim Jong Il is 
a much more serious threat--to some, though not necessarily to the U.S. 
(And yet South Korean students and others are spitting on U.S. 
soldiers, yammering about "U.S. out of Korea!," etc. I say we give them 
their wish. Ditto for Germany, Italy, and the rest of Europe.

This is why I hope the train wreck/clusterfuck in Iraq happens. Get our 
country out of the "world's cop" business.

I live in Adams Morgan in Washington, DC, which Mapquest tells me is
three miles north of the White House (because of one way streets) -- 
the
oh-so-brave denizens of 1600 have closed Pennyslvania Ave. It's
probably 1.5 miles directly.

It's hardly implausible to believe I might survive a 1 kiloton nuclear
blast, about what the "Davy Crockett" U.S. nuke, at around 50 lbs,
provided. It makes sense to think that Soviet suitcase nukes have a
similar yield.
The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were closer to 12-23 kilotons,
according to one source (http://www.danford.net/hiroshim.htm), and
there supposedly was a 50 percent survival rate at 1/8 of a mile from
ground zero -- while the bomb went off above ground as opposed to on 
the
ground.
I had recollected that Adams Morgan was up near Rock Creek Park, near 
Kalorama, and thus is further than 1.5 miles as the crow flies.

A blast at that distance would probably not be good news, especially 
for a multi-story building.

But, yes, many would survive. U.S. soldiers were expected to dig 
shallow foxholes prior to detonation of just such nukes, intended to 
clear  Soviet armor at the Fulda Gap in Germany.

I doubt any Iraqi could get a nuke close to the White House, though.

(BTW, one of the best treatments of this idea, of terrorists getting 
access to small nukes, is in a novel by the guy who later became the 
"Crypto Czar," David Aaron. Google or Amazon will have details. 
Probably years out of print.  I haven't heard anything out

A Warmonger Explains War (fwd)

[Thomas Shaddack]

A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A
PEACENIK
By Bill Davidson

PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?

WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of Security
Council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate Security
Council resolutions.

PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation
of more security council resolutions than Iraq.

WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could
have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun
could well be a mushroom cloud over New York.

PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no
nuclear weapons.

WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.

PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking
us or our allies with such weapons.

WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorist
networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.

PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological
materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the Eighties ourselves, didn't
we?

WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has
an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early
Eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry
lunatic murderer.

PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic
murderer?

WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the
one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.

PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador
to Iraq, April Glaspie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?

WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell
its biological and chemical weapons to Al Qaida. Osama Bin Laden himself
released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a
partnership between the two.

PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?

WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on
the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be
a partnership between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.

PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a
secular infidel?

WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell
presented a strong case against Iraq.

PN: He did?

WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Qaida poison factory in
Iraq.

PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq
controlled by the Kurdish opposition?

WM: And a British intelligence report...

PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student
paper?

WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...

PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?

WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...

PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans
Blix?

WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be
revealed because it would compromise our security.

PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq?

WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find
evidence. You're missing the point.

PN: So what is the point?

WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because Resolution 1441
threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the Security Council
will become an irrelevant debating society.

PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the Security Council?

WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.

PN: And what if it does rule against us?

WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.

PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?

WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.

PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of
billions of dollars.

WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.

WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will
by electing leaders to make decisions.

PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is
important?

WM: Yes.

PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S.
Supreme C...

WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they
were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about
being a patriot. That's the bottom line.

PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not
patriotic?

WM: I never said that.

PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass
destruction that threaten us and our allies.

PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.

WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.

PN: You know this? How?

WM: Because we 

Re: I for one am glad that...

[Keith Ray]

Quoting Thomas Shaddack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> They forgot to make corrections for the option when there is no agreement
> of the Security Council, maybe under the mistaken belief Bush won't play
> unfair. Sidestepping the new resolution in order to exploit a loophole in
> the previous one is an unclear move.

That's a bold-faced lie!  The Bush administration made it clear BEFORE
resolution 1441 that it already had the authority to use force against Iraq.


CNN - Friday, November 8, 2002
"The Bush administration reiterated its position that although it would consult
with the Security Council, it is not required to get U.N. approval for U.S.-led
military action if Iraq fails to comply."

The entire Council voted for that resolution with no abstentions.  If France and
Russia wanted to preclude force without further UN authorization, they should
have demanded it be put in 1441.  Instead, they unanimously voted to declare
Iraq in continuing breach of UN resolutions and bolstered the US's authority for
use of force.

 --
Keith Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- OpenPGP Key: 0x79269A12

Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City

[Major Variola (ret)]

At 09:32 AM 3/19/03 -0800, Tim May wrote:
>I think American resolve will  fold if 5000 deaths of Americans occur
in Iraq.

I'd give serious money to see Geraldo twitching on the ground, moustache

preventing a good seal...

>nuking Baghdad is silly. If even 10.000 U.S. soldiers are killed in a

And the other 240,000 are stuck wearing full rubber suits...

>I'm not even a despot,

Somehow I find this an amusing sentence

>This is why I hope the train wreck/clusterfuck in Iraq happens. Get our

>country out of the "world's cop" business.

No change without feedback.

>> surburban shopping malls. They detonate simultaneously after 15
..
>So would a truck or van loaded with barrels of gasoline driven at high
>speed into a crowded shopping center or other such location,

Shopping malls are good, but elementary schools and schoolbusses are
so much better on the psyche.Semiauto rifle vs. school deputy, low
tech.
Tanker of chlorine, much more colorful.  Got Jersey Barriers?


>> The U.S. would soon become accustomed to living in the same state of
>> seige and constant surveillance that Israel enjoys.

Precisely.  Get involved with the Israelis and end up like them.  Irony?

Causality.

>A readily-available RC-controlled plane could disperse biological
>agents easily.

Too tricky.  SARS in Vegas, Branson, Disneylands.  Multiple sources make

analysis difficult.

>I'm convinced that if the U.S. were libertarian, even libertine, that
>many Muslims would think of us as corrupt...but I don't think much
>organized effort would be directed against us.

Exactly.  You don't stress about the weirdos living
at the end of the street if you can tune them out.
Maybe it even boosts your self-righteousness to
have such counterexamples.

But if they do donuts on your lawn/mecca you may
well find motivation to act.  Territoriality is simple,
suits or turbans don't change it.  Then, given
technical asymmetries, you improvise.
Set 'em up, knock em down, Bowling for Allah.

But the domestic psyop machine has jammed sheeple's heads,
root causes are ever so complicated, "math is hard",
so lets just kick back and enjoy the bloodbath..

Re: I for one am glad that...

[David Howe]

at Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:39 AM, Keith Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
seen to say:
> Which resolution took away any Member State's authority to "all
> necessary means" to uphold resolution 690?
I think the problem here is who gets to define what is "necessary" - the
UN Security council thinks it is them, Bush thinks it is him personally.

Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City

[Major Variola (ret)]

Declan, how do you plan to handle the freaked out violent hoardes who
will
be streaming out (by car or by foot) through your neighborhood and maybe

want to use your toilet and/or share your food car stay the night etc.

Perhaps you cannot respond because your answer would involve
prohibited items that the weapons inspectors don't know about.

I hope so.


At 10:37 AM 3/19/03 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
>I live in Adams Morgan in Washington, DC, which Mapquest tells me is
>three miles north of the White House (because of one way streets) --
the
>oh-so-brave denizens of 1600 have closed Pennyslvania Ave. It's
>probably 1.5 miles directly.
>
>It's hardly implausible to believe I might survive a 1 kiloton nuclear
>blast, about what the "Davy Crockett" U.S. nuke, at around 50 lbs,
>provided. It makes sense to think that Soviet suitcase nukes have a
>similar yield.

>That leaves just biological and chemical weapons, conventional
explosives,
>and dirty bombs.

Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City

[Eugen Leitl]

On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> It's hardly implausible to believe I might survive a 1 kiloton nuclear
> blast, about what the "Davy Crockett" U.S. nuke, at around 50 lbs,

The design of current glass-tower skyscrapers encourages glass fragment
blowthrough by the shockwave, which will result in massive injuries
(simulated on pigs in wind tunnels it abraded flesh to the bone in
seconds, it would certainly kill you by blood loss or at least maim
badly). It is very worthwhile to establish a duck and cover instinct at
the first signs of the flash. It will minimize flash blindness/prevent
holes in retina/skin burns as well as minimize the impact of debris and
exposure to the shockwave.

Getting out of the potentially developing firestorm (unlikely in a small
yield weapon) in the panic stampede while minimizing exposure to fallout
is much less constrained than right reflexes in the first second or so. If
you're paranoid, a small cheap terror kit stored in office/car trunk/home
could considerably enhance your survival chances, and minimize subsequent
health risk.

Actually it would be fun to assemble an item list for a kit.

> provided. It makes sense to think that Soviet suitcase nukes have a
> similar yield.

Suitcase nukes missing (the only weapons without PAL codes/PAL codes
issued to people in charge of them, all other weapons won't assemble
without PAL encoding the assembly timing) are apparently a canard. In any
case, these are are high-maintenance weapons, and no by now no longer
operable/only capable of a fizzle, so only useful for salvaging the
fissibles. Latter could be easily leached by purex process from black
market low-ashes fuel (high-ashes fuel is much hotter and has the wrong Pu
isotopes, so you'll get a hotter core with higher background neutron flux
which will make it go off before full assembly can occur, thus seriously
reducing yield).
 
> The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were closer to 12-23 kilotons,
> according to one source (http://www.danford.net/hiroshim.htm), and
> there supposedly was a 50 percent survival rate at 1/8 of a mile from
> ground zero -- while the bomb went off above ground as opposed to on the
> ground.

If you pressize the weapon pit with 3-5 g gaseous tritium few seconds (Pu
metal rapidly forms hydrides) before assembly the yield could be
significantly higher (50 kT?), while still not being a fusion weapon which
requires considerably more geometry and timing magic to work (the yield
boost is from the fusion neutrons synergy fissioning more material during
inertial confinement).

Re: I for one am glad that...

[Harmon Seaver]

On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 11:21:37AM -0600, Keith Ray wrote:
> Quoting Thomas Shaddack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
> > They forgot to make corrections for the option when there is no agreement
> > of the Security Council, maybe under the mistaken belief Bush won't play
> > unfair. Sidestepping the new resolution in order to exploit a loophole in
> > the previous one is an unclear move.
> 
> That's a bold-faced lie!  The Bush administration made it clear BEFORE
> resolution 1441 that it already had the authority to use force against Iraq.


   They don't have that option. They have to obey international law. Bush,
Cheney, Rumdumb, and Powell all need to be sent to the Hague. What we need is
for the UN to invade the US, depose it's evil, warmongering leaders, despose of
it's weapons of mass destruction, and free the oppressed populace. 


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

Re: I for one am glad that...

[Anonymous]

Sunder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Anonymous wrote:
> 
> > Keith Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 
> > > This is no excuse for use of unconventional warfare against the US nor does it
> > > delegitimize the US's use of force to defend themselves.
> > > 
> > 
> >What a crock of shit. I sure hope that Saddam kept enough sarin to bring
> > an excrutiatingly horrible death to all 250,000 of those Nazi boys Dubbya
> > sent over there, and then maybe those lunatics in DC will really go off the
> > deep end and nuke Baghdad, sending the entire Muslim world into a total
> > century long jihad against the US.  
> 
> Hey, shit for brains, those are our sons, brothers, (and some of our
> braver sisters and daughters) that will be putting their lives in danger.  
> 
> They do not deserve such disrespect.  Aim it where it belongs: Shrub.
>

   Hey shitforbrains yourself -- the troops *are* the problem. I'll support
them when they shoot their officers and noncoms and come back and clean out 
washington. First off -- they ain't draftees, they are all, each and every
one, volunteers. Many of them there for the money they got as reserves --in
other words, mercenarys. And all you got to do is listen to the interviews,
a great many of these assholes are very gungho. 
   During Vietnam, a great many people went to Canada, and many already in the
army deserted. So what's with these fucks? So far there hasn't been even one
single desertion, and the war in Vietnam was one helluva lot more palatable 
than this one. 
   Bottom line -- anybody who thinks the US has the right to depose the leader
of another country that ain't attacking us, needs killing. Anybody who thinks
that each and every country in the world doesn't have an inalienable right to
own guns (including nukes, bio/chem agents/etc.) needs killing.
 
(snip)
> 
> Don't go worshipping Al Qaeda now, dumbass, did you forget that these
> terrorists are not on your side? - they killed thousands of innocents in
> New York with little reson.


   That was bogus bullshit -- 17,000 die every year in the US from drunk
drivers, lets declare war on cars. The US murdered over 5000 innocent people
in Panama for christs sake. Literally for christs sake. Most of the people
in the US military seriously need killing -- I hope they get it the most
painful way possible.

Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City

[Thomas Shaddack]

On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Tim May wrote:

> Having seen Vietnam (the war, not the country), and having seen today's
> media frenzies and rampant consumerism, I think American resolve will
> fold if 5000 deaths of Americans occur in Iraq.

There is no solid American resolve. Most of the "yes" voices are backed by
the thinking that what the current Authority says has to be Good Thing. It
shouldn't take much to make them doubt; once then, the already-weak
resolve will crumble to shards.

> The 100 or so deaths of Americans in 1991 was tolerable, but anything
> approaching the multiple thousands will trigger a paroxysm of "Why are
> we there?" and "Congress never authorized this!" and "Bring our boys
> home" sentiments.

The sooner, the better. Hope it won't be TOO late.

> (And yet South Korean students and others are spitting on U.S.
> soldiers, yammering about "U.S. out of Korea!," etc. I say we give them
> their wish. Ditto for Germany, Italy, and the rest of Europe.

...and my government is pondering to offer them a whole base with an
airport... *sigh* Russians out, Americans in, change the flag, continue
bowing.

> > It's hardly implausible to believe I might survive a 1 kiloton nuclear
> > blast, about what the "Davy Crockett" U.S. nuke, at around 50 lbs,
> > provided. It makes sense to think that Soviet suitcase nukes have a
> > similar yield.

Quite easily. The blast wave, if the explosion would be on the ground,
will be greatly attenuated by the surrounding structures. Lots of nonfatal
but medially attractive bloody injuries by flying glass, though.

> > The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were closer to 12-23 kilotons,
> > according to one source (http://www.danford.net/hiroshim.htm), and
> > there supposedly was a 50 percent survival rate at 1/8 of a mile from
> > ground zero -- while the bomb went off above ground as opposed to on
> > the ground.

We shouldn't forget the targets were selected for their softness. Lots of
mostly wooden buildings, easy to incinerate, easy to crush with the blast
wave. The buildings that were built from solid concrete mostly survived,
though damaged; that one with the well-known dome (I think it's a museum
now) was, by the way, designed by a Czech architect. (We have a dome with
the same construction in Prague, though the building itself is different.)

We also shouldn't forget that there were countless nameless similar
Japanese towns firebombed into oblivion, but Hiroshima took all the fame,
despite of no bigger degree of destruction.

> A novel I read a few years ago is quite prescient: Osama Bin Laden
> sends a freighter into San Francisco harbor with a Russian suitcase
> nuke. Here's the blurb for "Joshua's Hammer," David Hagberg, August
> 2000 (first mass market June 2001...I must have read it soon after the
> paperback came out, as I remembered the novel when 911 happened):

If you want to sacrifice a cargo ship, you can use plain old ammonium
nitrate, which is cheaper than a nuke (including the ship) and doesn't
expose you to radiation detectors and gamma cameras. There are precedents
to study.

Check April 16 1947, Texas City, TX:
http://www.rmstitanichistory.com/grandcamp/grandcamp.html
http://www.firefightersrealstories.com/monsanto.html
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?isbn=0060185414
(surprising piece of info was that the US Government was shipping NH4NO3
from Europe, then became moving it through Texas City port, without
telling the locals about the danger of the substance, hence keeping them
unprepared (and unprotesting - neighbouring ports who knew the material
properties reportedly banned the ships carrying them).

For more general link, check
http://web1.caryacademy.org/chemistry/rushin/StudentProjects/CompoundWebSites/2001/AmmoniumNitrate/history.htm
(especially juicy is the bit about how the explosive properties of
ammonium nitrate were discovered by accident, in the first paragraph).

Or this:
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1138.htm
Mentions an accidental explosion in the city of Roseburg, OR, 1959.

Many more accidents mentioned here:
http://www.uneptie.org/pc/apell/disasters/toulouse/other_accidents.htm

Who needs nukes? Who *wants* nukes?

The cheapest way for a terrorist group will be to wait until a snafu
happens, then take the blame. The news will widely report it was a
terrorist attack on front pages. Couple days/weeks/months later, when it
will turn out that it was just a technological failure, the report appears
on fifth pages of the news. Most of the headlines-scanning public will
still believe it was an attack. You don't need to KILL in order to make
the public quiver in fear.

> (Having seen horrendous traffic on the Beltway a couple of years ago,
> this may be worse!)

A few strategically placed and timed traffic accidents can cripple the
city traffic to quite large extent. Can be an attack on its own, or can
serve as an amplification of another attack.

> > The U.S. would soon become accustomed to living in the sam

The War Prayer

[Trei, Peter]

As we stand at the brink of aggressive war,
it's worth reading (or re-reading) Mark Twain's
'The War Prayer'. You might want to pass
it on to some of your more hawkish friends.

Twain wrote this in reaction to the Phillipines-
American War of 1899-1902, which procured
that country as an American colony. 

Kipling also noted the event, and wrote
"The White Mans Burden" to welcome the
US to the status of imperial power, and to
remind us of our new responsibiliies.

Peter Trei
-
The War Prayer
by Mark Twain

It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was
up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire
of patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands playing, the toy
pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and spluttering;
on every hand and far down the receding and fading spread of
roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the
sun; daily the young volunteers marched down the wide avenue
gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and
mothers and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices
choked with happy emotion as they swung by; nightly the packed
mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory which stirred
the deepest deeps of their hearts, and which they interrupted at
briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running
down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors
preached devotion to flag and country, and invoked the God of
Battles beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpourings of
fervid eloquence which moved every listener. It was indeed a
glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that
ventured to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its
righteousness straightway got such a stern and angry warning
that for their personal safety's sake they quickly shrank out of
sight and offended no more in that way. 

Sunday morning came -- next day the battalions would leave for
the front; the church was filled; the volunteers were there, their
young faces alight with martial dreams -- visions of the stern
advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the
flashing sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping
smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender! Then home from the
war, bronzed heroes, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden
seas of glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud,
happy, and envied by the neighbors and friends who had no sons
and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to win for
the flag, or, failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service
proceeded; a war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the
first prayer was said; it was followed by an organ burst that
shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with
glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous
invocation 

 God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest!
 Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword! 

Then came the "long" prayer. None could remember the like of it
for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The
burden of its supplication was, that an ever-merciful and
benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young
soldiers, and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic
work; bless them, shield them in the day of battle and the hour of
peril, bear them in His mighty hand, make them strong and
confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them to crush the
foe, grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable
honor and glory -- 

An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless
step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long
body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his
white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his
seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all
eyes following him and wondering, he made his silent way;
without pausing, he ascended to the preacher's side and stood
there waiting. With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his
presence, continued with his moving prayer, and at last finished it
with the words, uttered in fervent appeal, "Bless our arms, grant
us the victory, O Lord our God, Father and Protector of our land
and flag!" 

The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside --
which the startled minister did -- and took his place. During some
moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes,
in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said: 

"I come from the Throne -- bearing a message from Almighty
God!" The words smote the house with a shock; if the stranger
perceived it he gave no attention. "He has heard the prayer of
His servant your shepherd, and will grant it if such shall be your
desire after I, His messenger, shall have explained to you its
import -- that is to say, its full import. For it is like unto many of
the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who utters it
is aware of -- excep

Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City

[Thomas Shaddack]

> The design of current glass-tower skyscrapers encourages glass fragment
> blowthrough by the shockwave, which will result in massive injuries
> (simulated on pigs in wind tunnels it abraded flesh to the bone in
> seconds, it would certainly kill you by blood loss or at least maim
> badly).

ARGH! Taking back my previous comment about light injuries by flying
glass. Thought about the typical downtown brick-and-mortar buildings that
have more robust construction with real inner walls. (Don't ask me what I
think about the glass towers.)

> It is very worthwhile to establish a duck and cover instinct at
> the first signs of the flash.

Duck behind anything that can stop/slowdown the shards. A table should do.

> If you're paranoid, a small cheap terror kit stored in office/car
> trunk/home could considerably enhance your survival chances, and
> minimize subsequent health risk.

Or in each of the places. If it's small and cheap, it can be multiplied.
It's a bit stupid to spend time and effort preparing a terror kit and then
have it in the car when you need it in the office.

> Suitcase nukes missing (the only weapons without PAL codes/PAL codes
> issued to people in charge of them, all other weapons won't assemble
> without PAL encoding the assembly timing) are apparently a canard. In any
> case, these are are high-maintenance weapons, and no by now no longer
> operable/only capable of a fizzle, so only useful for salvaging the
> fissiles.

If they aren't boosted, if they don't need tritium source, why they would
deteriorate? Are the pit cores with fast-decaying isotopes (like the Be-Po
ones developed during the Project Manhattan) still in use, or were they
fully replaced with arc-discharge neutron generators (or how's that thing
with deuterium gas inside which gets ionized and accelerated against the
target called)?

> Latter could be easily leached by purex process from black
> market low-ashes fuel (high-ashes fuel is much hotter and has the wrong Pu
> isotopes, so you'll get a hotter core with higher background neutron flux
> which will make it go off before full assembly can occur, thus seriously
> reducing yield).

Not only that. Pu-240 is fissile, like Pu-239, but it doesn't produce free
neutrons, thus acting as de facto a neutron poison. AFAIK, this is the
main factor lowering the yield of energetical plutonium.

I suppose it is rather hard to find low-ash spent fuel. The main interest
of power plants is to get the most megawatthours from every rod, thus to
keep it in the reactor as long as possible. The replacement of fuel in the
most common VVER reactors requires shutdown of the plant block, which not
only lowers efficiency of the plant, but also attracts attention of the
inspectors (who don't need anything more than a thermal camera to see that
the transformers handling the plant's output are colder than they should
be - from miles away, very likely even from the satellite - not talking
about the likely lack of vapors from the cooling towers, visible by naked
eye). Other kinds of reactors - CANDU, or RBMK (which were so popular in
the USSR mainly for this feature) don't have to be shut down for fuel
exchange, but then they are much less common.

Re: The Register Libels Declan

[Tom Veil]

Eric Cordian wrote on March 15, 2003 at 22:42:33 -0800:

> Just when you think journalism can't get any stranger.
>
> I was watching some right wing scumbag on MSNBC today, spewing forth about
> how all homeless people should be rounded up and sent to prison and mental
> hospitals.  His name is Michael Savage, and he is apparently what we get
> now that Phil Donahue is considered too liberal to be on TV any more.
>
> Well, Savage, whose real name is Michael Alan Weiner, got a less than
> glowing writeup in the Register for his MSNBC performance.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/29754.html
>
> Midway through this well-deserved Savage-bashing, (or is that Weiner
> bashing,) who should be mentioned but everyone's favorite intrepid
> reporter, and in less than glowing terms.
>
> The Register opines about The Savage Weiner:
>
> Mellon liberal Declan McCullagh, now a lavishly-paid writer at CNET.
>
> McCullagh, like Weiner - decided that principles are for fools.
>
> right to keep their money, each followed the dollar trail to arrive at
>   their own, personal epiphany. Each advocates the gazillionaires'
>   "freedom" to spend their gazillions.

By putting 'freedom' in quotes, it is obvious that the author, Andrew
Orlowski, does not respect the basic property right of people to dispose
of the wealth they have produced in a manner they see fit.

Does he suppose that our only function is the production of revenue for
the STATE?

> that it's our freedoms that are a stake.

Notice how he draws a distinction between the freedom of "ordinary" people,
and that of the "gazillionaires", echoing the old "bougiouse freedom"
bullshit of Karl Marx, providing the rationalization for destroying liberty
and making us slaves of the STATE.

Fucking communist.

>  

I hope Andrew Orlowski gets AIDS during one of his bathhouse buttfuck
sessions.

--
Tom Veil

Israel Honors Saint Goldstein

[Eric Cordian]

One of the greatest heros of the Isareli people is Saint Baruch Goldstein,
the New York doctor who gunned down over two dozen Palestinians as they
knelt in prayer.

As Susan Cohen, perennial Usenet apologist for Israel is fond of saying,
"If only we had a thousand Baruch Goldsteins."  Goldstein was also famous
for the comment that a million Arabs were not worth one Jewish fingernail.

Well, it seems that there was a small altercation at Israel's latest
celebration at Goldstein's tomb.

A couple of teenagers engaged in a bit of political theatre, with one
wearing an Ariel Shraon mask, and the other pointing a toy gun at him.

Just like in the United States, where one can not wear an anti-Bush
t-shirt to school without being browbeaten by the Secret Service, the
teens were immediately arrested and hauled off to jail.

Such wonderful people.  Let's give them some more US taxpayer dollars to
commit more human rights abuses with.

http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=ArticlePage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article%5El2096&enZone=Politics&enVersion=0&;

-

Hebron Police arrested two seventeen-year-old youths who last night staged
a mock execution of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at a Purim eve ceremony in
Kiryat Arba marking nine years since the death of Baruch Goldstein.

At the ceremony, one of the youths wore a mask in Sharon's image while the
other held a gun and knife to his head. Participants at the ceremony,
including adults, called out, "Sharon, your day has come."

...

Police officials said the two youths would be charged with counts of
sedition and incitement.

...

The Kiryat Arba ceremony has been held annually since 1994, when Goldstein
opened fire in Hebron's Tomb of the Patriarchs and murdered 29 Muslim
worshippers inside.

...

One of the most outspoken participants at the ceremony was far-right
extremist Michael Ben-Horin, Maariv reported. "Dr. Goldstein saved many
people and did an important, great act," Ben-Horin said.

[Notice that Jewish terrorists are always referred to in the press as
"extremists", while Arab terrorists are referred to as "terrorists."  The
last time a mainstream US paper used the word "terrorist" after the word
"Jewish", three people lost their jobs.  Yet we are told that there is no
Israeli influence on the US media, and to suggest so is anti-Semitic.  
-emc]

...

-- 
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

Re: I for one am glad that...

[Eric Cordian]

Keith Ray wrote:

> When did the UN Security Council pass a resolution rescinding the use of
> force? Earlier resolutions only declared a cease-fire contingent on Iraq
> complying with all current and future resolutions.

The behavior of the world community under US pressure is much like the
behavior of a niave computer chess program, which when faced with an
unwinnable position, begins sacrificing all its pieces, because each such
sacrifice pushes disaster just slightly beyond its lookahead threshhold.

Faced with Bush the Elder bombing Iraqi civilians fleeing Kuwait along his
"Highway of Death", including children in carseats, the UN approved a
cease-fire with language in it the US wanted.

The UN approved 1441 because it delayed a US threatened war.

etc. etc. ad nauseum.

The end result of all this is that the US does what it intended to do in
the first place, namely invade Iraq, control its oil, scare other states
in the region shitless, and remove something a bunch of Beanie-Headed Land
Grabbers view as a security threat to God's Chosen People.

However, due to all the capitulation the US has forced from other nations,
and the UN, who are too stupid to see that they are simply being used as a
fig leaf for naked US aggression, the resulting military action has the
illusion of having been given some sort of imprimatur by the world
community.

Saddam should have told Bush to fuck himself when he suggested the
propaganda inspectors go back into Iraq, especially since the previous
team did nothing but engage in espionage under cover of the UN while they
were there, and provide targeting information to the CIA which permitted
the US to bomb almost all of Iraq's industrial infrastructure, none of
which had anything to do with weapons manufacturing.

The UN security council should have told Bush to go fuck himself, when he
tried to trick them into a resolution they all believed would not
authorize a war, which the US would later claim did.

The UN has proved itself irrelevant, but not for inaction against Saddam.  
It has proved itself irrelevant for repeatedly knucking under to the
United States, and allowing itself to be manipulated.

This is a war between the US and Iraq, planned by the US and Israel for 11
years, with an pre-existing agenda, and the UN is merely being employed as
Bush's merkin.

> As far as dragging the nation to war, 70% of the American people are
> behind him.

That's probably 30% against the war on principle, 20% for the war on
principle, and 50% who think it's a sin against God to not agree with
authority.  If Bush opposed a war, you'd probably find 80% in favor of
that position.  Polls are meaningless if you don't subtract the sheep.

> Which article/amendment of the constitution states that the winner of
> the popular vote wins the election?  Article 2, Section 1 and the 12th
> amendment seem to be pretty clear on the subject.  Regardless of your
> opinion of the 2000 elections, Bush *IS* the president and has been
> given authorization to use force both by Congress and the UN.

Since Congress has now abdicated its control over how war is declared,
other nations have a legitimate reason to worry about a country that picks
a random crackpot every 4 years that most of the people know little about,
hands him the keys to the biggest arsenal in the world with no oversight,
and lets him do anything as long as he isn't getting his cock sucked by
the junior staff.

The fallout from this war is that every other nation in the world,
including our former allies, is going to want a credible deterent against
the day when AmeriKKKa decides to bomb them.

-- 
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

Re: I for one am glad that...

[jburnes]

Roger that, Declan.  But rarely does that kind of 'meddling' rise to
retribution of the 9/11 kind.  If you don't like "America's funniest
home videos" you don't have to buy it.   Especially if it offends your
Islamic sensibilities (or more likely good taste).
jim burnes

On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 07:07 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:

On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 08:07:35AM -0800, Eric Cordian wrote:
Foreign nationals do not hate our "freedom."  If the US traded with 
all,
and avoided foreign entanglements, the lifestyle of Americans would 
be of
little concern to our current enemies.

So-called terrorists hate not our freedom, but our meddling.
I believe they hate both. They naturally hate our meddling -- bin
Laden's three claims from a pre 911 ABC News interview, as I remember
them, were: U.S. out of Iraq (blockade), U.S. out of Saudi Arabia
(holy lands), U.S. out of Israel (military aid).
Whether or not these are things the U.S. should do or not, it's clear
by now that a heck of a lot of Muslims agree with those points, and OBL
was able to use them to his rhetorical advantage.
As for the "hate our freedom" claim, I make that claim because even if
we were noninterventionists pacifists, we export our culture via MTV
and Hollywood in a way that jibes not at all well with strict Islamic
fundamentalism. We would call it free trade; OBL would call that
meddling.
Reducing overt "meddling" in a military sense would lessen but not
eliminate anti-American sentiment that objects to our culture.
-Declan

Re: I for one am glad that...

[Declan McCullagh]

On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 08:07:35AM -0800, Eric Cordian wrote:
> Foreign nationals do not hate our "freedom."  If the US traded with all,
> and avoided foreign entanglements, the lifestyle of Americans would be of
> little concern to our current enemies.
> 
> So-called terrorists hate not our freedom, but our meddling.

I believe they hate both. They naturally hate our meddling -- bin
Laden's three claims from a pre 911 ABC News interview, as I remember
them, were: U.S. out of Iraq (blockade), U.S. out of Saudi Arabia
(holy lands), U.S. out of Israel (military aid).

Whether or not these are things the U.S. should do or not, it's clear
by now that a heck of a lot of Muslims agree with those points, and OBL
was able to use them to his rhetorical advantage.

As for the "hate our freedom" claim, I make that claim because even if
we were noninterventionists pacifists, we export our culture via MTV
and Hollywood in a way that jibes not at all well with strict Islamic
fundamentalism. We would call it free trade; OBL would call that
meddling.

Reducing overt "meddling" in a military sense would lessen but not
eliminate anti-American sentiment that objects to our culture.

-Declan

Type III Anonymous Message

[nobody]

=== TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE BEGINS ===
remember to email [EMAIL PROTECTED] a ssh2 key... below  is gpg key

-BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (OpenBSD)
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=OFmm
-END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-

 TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE ENDS 

Re: I for one am glad that...

[jburnes]

Wow.  That message from Tyler finally made me come out 2 years
of lurk mode.
'when we supported him, he was not evil'.  Now that is a serious laugh.

Since when did the spooks at Foggy Bottom ever care whether or not
who we supported was good or evil.  The number of dictators we have
actively supported when they were evil with a capital 'E' is too long 
to mention.

I wish I had enough time to review most of the messages from the
last several years, but is Tyler a troll?  How could anyone be that
dogmatically trusting of any regime?
Besides, assuming US foreign policy is relentless promotion of
freedom vs 'the dark side' is a hopelessly naive viewpoint.  That would
assume that the US remembered what freedom was about in the first
place -- and that is a very shaky proposition at best.  2003 is a long, 
long
way down the one-way entropy slide from 1776.

Jim Burnes



On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 03:22 PM, Tyler Durden wrote:

Patriot Keith Ray wrote...

The US is also the world's foremost provider of economic aid.  
Whether >the US is a bully or a peacekeeper really depends on your 
perspective.
Yes, and the fact that the majority of this aid is in the form of 
munitions credits is proof of the fact that we Americans are willing 
to help other nations defend the cause of freedom throughout the > world.

Of course, it might be pointed out that the US has given aid to the 
likes of Saddam Hussein in the form of billions of dollars, much in 
munitions credits. But the obvious reponse to this is that, when we 
supported him, he was not evil, and had not yet turned away from 
freedom into darkness. Likewise with the Taliban, Argentina, 
Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and so on.

-TD




From: Keith Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I for one am glad that...
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:39:59 -0600
Quoting Eric Cordian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> The US is one of many nations.  Since the inception of the United 
Nations,
> and International Law, a nation may go to war only if it is 
attacked or in
> iminent danger of being attacked by another nation.  The US is a 
signatory
> of the UN charter, and is consequently bound by it as if it were 
law.
>
> Military actions taken because of a perceived future threat to 
world peace
> can only be authorized by the UN Security Council.

The UN authorized force in resolution 678 to uphold current and future
resolutions.  The UN voted unanimously to declare Iraq in violation 
of previous
UN resolutions in 1441.  The UN weapons inspector's reports detailed 
many
omissions in Iraq's weapons declaration and failures to fully 
cooperate with
inspectors.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990)

"2.  Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of 
Kuwait, unless
Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in 
paragraph 1
above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to 
uphold and
implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant 
resolutions and to
restore international peace and security in the area;"

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002)

"13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned 
Iraq that
it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued 
violations of its
obligations;"

> So-called terrorists hate not our freedom, but our meddling.

This is no excuse for use of unconventional warfare against the US 
nor does it
delegitimize the US's use of force to defend themselves.

> > That is why our leader, George W. Bush, understands that in order 
to
> > protect our freedoms, special precautions are necessary.
>
> George W. Bush is a raving lunatic, barking at the moon, lying 
through his
> teeth, and dragging the nation into another Bush family war.

Ad hominem attacks against the President are irrelevant to the current
discussion.  As far as dragging the nation to war, 70% of the 
American people
are behind him.

> > Of course, in order to secure our freedom, all citizens must 
actively
> > support our government's efforts to secure this freedom. Anyone 
who
> > does not obviously support American freedom is clearly opposed to 
it and
> > must be stopped, or he will help our enemies take away our 
freedom.
>
> More Freedom = Less Government.  I support maximal freedom.

By that reasoning, maximum freedom equals no government.  Let's 
disband the
police and military and see how long the US lasts.

> > Let us as responsible citizens of this free and peaceful nation 
pledge
> > ourselves in the fight against evil. May God help us in our fight.
>
> The US is the foremost international bully in the world today, 
pursuing an
> agenda of globalization on its own terms, during a brief period in 
which
> it enjoys complete and total military superiority.

The US is also the world's foremost provider of economic aid.  
Whether the US is
a bully or a peacekeeper really depends on your perspective.

> World government may be inevitable at some t

Re: I for one am glad that...

[jburnes]

Sorry, Tyler.  I believe I spoke too soon.  The comments you provided
look like they were 'de-referenced'.
Back to my attention-deficit lurking.

jim burnes

On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 03:22 PM, Tyler Durden wrote:

Patriot Keith Ray wrote...

The US is also the world's foremost provider of economic aid.  
Whether >the US is a bully or a peacekeeper really depends on your 
perspective.
Yes, and the fact that the majority of this aid is in the form of 
munitions credits is proof of the fact that we Americans are willing 
to help other nations defend the cause of freedom throughout the > world.

Of course, it might be pointed out that the US has given aid to the 
likes of Saddam Hussein in the form of billions of dollars, much in 
munitions credits. But the obvious reponse to this is that, when we 
supported him, he was not evil, and had not yet turned away from 
freedom into darkness. Likewise with the Taliban, Argentina, 
Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and so on.

-TD




From: Keith Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I for one am glad that...
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:39:59 -0600
Quoting Eric Cordian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> The US is one of many nations.  Since the inception of the United 
Nations,
> and International Law, a nation may go to war only if it is 
attacked or in
> iminent danger of being attacked by another nation.  The US is a 
signatory
> of the UN charter, and is consequently bound by it as if it were 
law.
>
> Military actions taken because of a perceived future threat to 
world peace
> can only be authorized by the UN Security Council.

The UN authorized force in resolution 678 to uphold current and future
resolutions.  The UN voted unanimously to declare Iraq in violation 
of previous
UN resolutions in 1441.  The UN weapons inspector's reports detailed 
many
omissions in Iraq's weapons declaration and failures to fully 
cooperate with
inspectors.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990)

"2.  Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of 
Kuwait, unless
Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in 
paragraph 1
above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to 
uphold and
implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant 
resolutions and to
restore international peace and security in the area;"

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002)

"13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned 
Iraq that
it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued 
violations of its
obligations;"

> So-called terrorists hate not our freedom, but our meddling.

This is no excuse for use of unconventional warfare against the US 
nor does it
delegitimize the US's use of force to defend themselves.

> > That is why our leader, George W. Bush, understands that in order 
to
> > protect our freedoms, special precautions are necessary.
>
> George W. Bush is a raving lunatic, barking at the moon, lying 
through his
> teeth, and dragging the nation into another Bush family war.

Ad hominem attacks against the President are irrelevant to the current
discussion.  As far as dragging the nation to war, 70% of the 
American people
are behind him.

> > Of course, in order to secure our freedom, all citizens must 
actively
> > support our government's efforts to secure this freedom. Anyone 
who
> > does not obviously support American freedom is clearly opposed to 
it and
> > must be stopped, or he will help our enemies take away our 
freedom.
>
> More Freedom = Less Government.  I support maximal freedom.

By that reasoning, maximum freedom equals no government.  Let's 
disband the
police and military and see how long the US lasts.

> > Let us as responsible citizens of this free and peaceful nation 
pledge
> > ourselves in the fight against evil. May God help us in our fight.
>
> The US is the foremost international bully in the world today, 
pursuing an
> agenda of globalization on its own terms, during a brief period in 
which
> it enjoys complete and total military superiority.

The US is also the world's foremost provider of economic aid.  
Whether the US is
a bully or a peacekeeper really depends on your perspective.

> World government may be inevitable at some time in the future, but 
it
> would be idiotic to permit that world government to grow from the
> coalition of Bible Spewing Jesus Christers, and their 
"Neo-Conservative"
> handlers that currently have their greedy paws on America's military
> machine.

Damn those free elections!  Why can't we just agree to let you pick 
the world's
leaders?

> Justice in the Middle East would be Sharon, Netanyahu, and two 
generations
> of the Bush family hanging in downtown Baghdad.  After a fair trial 
and
> due process at the hands of the International Community, of course.

This kind of statement works a lot better for Tim than it does for 
you.

 --
Keith Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- OpenPGP Key: 0x79269A12


___

Re: I for one am glad that...

[Tyler Durden]

The fact that the count was "very close" is not legal or constitutional 
grounds for a "do over."
In the wise words of a modern American sage,
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos."
-TD

_
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City

[Tyler Durden]

I'm convinced that if the U.S. were libertarian, even libertine, that
many Muslims would think of us as corrupt...but I don't think much
organized effort would be directed against us.

Exactly.  You don't stress about the weirdos living
at the end of the street if you can tune them out.
Maybe it even boosts your self-righteousness to
have such counterexamples.
Well, I'm also not sure I by the "Muslims are by nature fundamentalist" line 
of thought. Of course, I'll probably take some heat for this, but to a large 
extent a local population with its own culture, etc..., when under siege or 
the pressure of extermination, often revert to something akin to a 
"fundamentalism", in order to codify the rules of identity that are being 
nullified. It's possible that if the US had not maintained such a strong, 
interfering presence in the middle east for so long, the desirability of a 
Muslim form of fundamentalism might be greatly reduced (and for history 
buffs it should be noted that for most of its history, the Islamic world has 
not been particuarly fundamentalist). Note that Wahabism orignated in Saudi 
only mid-late 1800s, and probably didn't take a real firm root until the US 
start getting involved (humsomething to be said for Dave Emory's theory 
about the Wahabis being 'Islamo-Fascists'...)

I agree the above would be bullshit if it weren't on some occasions 
demonstrably true. After the US helped get the Taliban rolling (through 
providing them with stingers and other weapons as well as subversive opps 
training to knock out the soviets), Pakistan's Benazir Bhutto said to Bush I 
"You know you have created Frankenstein's Monster"...

SO if we hadn't been screwing around in the middle east for so long, perhaps 
the world would look entirely different.

As for our troops, qwell, on some level it must be acknowledged that every 
man is utlimately responsible for his actions. And in this case, it's pretty 
evident that Iraq hasn't attacked us. But then again, perhaps weak schools 
make good soldiers.

-TD





_
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City

[Bill Stewart]

At 01:37 PM 03/19/2003 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
But as it the only terrorist attack (from non-US citizens, that is),
was on 9/11/01. Were there ANY others?
Sure.  Besides the earlier truck-bombing of the WTC,
there were Waco and Ruby Ridge.  (Or do you only count terrorism if it's
done by enemies of the state?)
Though I still think that plane that went down over Far Rockaway was 
obviously sabotaged.)
Nah - looks pretty clearly to have been a design problem.

Israel, of course, is a different story. But as Variola posted a few days 
ago,
those suicide bombers grow up under very different circumstances.
The Israelis, on the other hand, do their terrorist bombing without getting 
killed.
It's easier to do when you own tanks and missiles, of course,
and when you're just trying to terrify people as opposed to
trying to get sympathy for your cause by totally freaking everybody out.

Tim talked about people driving gasoline trucks into malls.
A couple of years ago, somebody drove one into the California
state capitol building and got killed; the early reports suggest that
he was a parolee with a grudge against the governor.
Tim also commented on the traffic issues of commuting into DC from the burbs.
The Washington Metro takes care of that problem very well;
it can get crowded, but it sure beats the Beltway and it has its own 
parking downtown.
And it's high up on the list of soft targets, though the Pentagon Metro station
is probably at higher risk than the downtown stations (2600 kiddies take 
note :-)

Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City

[Tyler Durden]

Tim May wrote...

(And this kind of chaos need not be a decapitation attack on the Seat of 
Government. A disabling attack on agriculture--such as contaminating the 
meat supply with hoof and mouth or mad cow--or a psychological attack on 
consumerism--such as 5 suicide bombers hitting crowded shopping 
malls--would have a big effect. The destruction of a few dams would have 
similar effects, but, fortunately for us, they are apparently 
well-defended, i.e., they are _not_ soft targets.)
Well, I am not convinced. About the ever-present dangers of innumerable 
terrorists, that is.

I mean, where the hell are they all? It's a giant country, with ungaurded 
borders extending for thousands of miles. It seems to me if there really 
were some vast army of terrorists waiting to kill us all out there, we 
should be seeing something happen about every other day. But as it the only 
terrorist attack (from non-US citizens, that is), was on 9/11/01. Were there 
ANY others? (Though I still think that plane that went down over Far 
Rockaway was obviously sabotaged.)

Israel, of course, is a different story. But as Variola posted a few days 
ago, those suicide bombers grow up under very different circumstances. We 
don't have such circumstances here...yet. Those suicide bombers could see 
the possibility of direct and obvious pressure on local abusive forces that 
they had likely grown up witnessing first-hand.

So what I am tempted to believe is that on September 11th, the vast majority 
of adult, mission-oriented Suicide bombers likely died in action. After 
that, it was easy to scare the population into accepting check points, 
lockdowns, the general loss of freedom, and 1.5 hour bus drives into lower 
Manhattan (such as I experienced this morning).

You know what? There are no terrorists.



_
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus