October 2004 - cypherpunks-legacy

"We are revealed by what we hate." (fwd)
by J.A. Terranson 30 Oct '04

30 Oct '04

I think George's handlers have finally found their Inner Truth. They have finally come out openly to declare that hate is what drives them. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin(a)mfn.org 0xBD4A95BF "An ill wind is stalking while evil stars whir and all the gold apples go bad to the core" S. Plath, Temper of Time ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:52:16 -0400 From: GeorgeWBush.com <BushCheney04(a)GeorgeWBush.com> To: Alif Terranson <measl(a)mfn.org> Subject: ICYMI:Two Articles on Osama Politics IN CASE YOU MISSED IT... The Osama Litmus Test By DAVID BROOKS The New York Times 10/30/04 .... Bush's response yesterday to the video was exactly right. He said we would not be intimidated. He tried to take the video out of the realm of crass politics by mentioning Kerry by name and assuring the country that he was sure Kerry agreed with him. Kerry did say that we are all united in the fight against bin Laden, but he just couldn't help himself. His first instinct was to get political. On Milwaukee television, he used the video as an occasion to attack the president: "He didn't choose to use American forces to hunt down Osama bin Laden. He outsourced the job." Kerry continued with a little riff from his stump speech, "I am absolutely confident I have the ability to make America safer." ... But politics has shaped Kerry's approach to this whole issue. Back in December 2001, when bin Laden was apparently hiding in Tora Bora, Kerry supported the strategy of using Afghans to hunt him down. He told Larry King that our strategy "is having its impact, and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will. I think we have been doing this pretty effectively, and we should continue to do it that way." But then the political wind shifted, and Kerry recalculated. Now Kerry calls the strategy he supported "outsourcing." When we rely on allies everywhere else around the world, that's multilateral cooperation, but when Bush does it in Afghanistan, it's "outsourcing." In Iraq, Kerry supports using local troops to chase insurgents, but in Afghanistan he is in post hoc opposition. This is why Kerry is not cleaning Bush's clock in this election. Many people are not sure that he gets the fundamental moral confrontation. Many people are not sure he feels it, or feels anything. Since he joined the Senate, what cause has he taken a political risk for? Has he devoted himself selflessly and passionately to any movement larger than himself? We are revealed by what we hate. When it comes to Osama bin Laden, Kerry hasn't revealed whatever it is that lies inside. To View the Article Please Visit: www.nytimes.com/2004/10/30/opinion/30brooks.html Politicizing The Bin Laden Tape By William Kristol and Stephen F. Hayes The Weekly Standard Online 10/29/04 ... The Bush campaign wisely avoided going political. But the Kerry campaign--in comments from a top adviser and the candidate himself--did not. Kerry gave what appear to be his first extemporaneous comments about the tape in a previously scheduled satellite interview with Kathy Mykleby, a veteran anchor with WISN TV in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. ... But Kerry finally couldn't resist politicizing the tape: "I am prepared to wage a more effective war on terror than George Bush," he added. Kerry's comment was unfortunate, and mild compared to those made later in the day by his senior foreign policy adviser, Richard Holbrooke. In an appearance on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports, Holbrooke, who has rejected the notion that we are in a "war on terror," said this: "The U.S. is determined to defeat al Qaeda and its allies and the war against their use of terrorist tactics." Holbrooke then went on the attack. "The tape shows that he's still around. We should have captured him and we haven't. And the other thing it shows, illustrates a key point which is that Senator Kerry in his relentless pursuit of terrorism is going to be very aggressive. The tape doesn't show that but Senator Kerry's comments continually--his experience shows that Osama bin Laden will draw no comfort from a Kerry presidency." ... Blitzer: "Are you concerned though that when Americans see this videotape--it'll be all over the news media as you can imagine, not only today but in the days to come--they will be reminded of what happened on 9/11 and they'll say, 'You know what, I'd better vote for Bush because he's tougher in dealing with al Qaeda than Kerry.'" Said Holbrooke: "I don't think so. I think it also raises a much deeper question: How can this grotesque mass murderer be out there on worldwide television more than three years after 9/11?" Holbrooke punctuated the next sentence with exasperated pauses between his words. "Why--haven't--we--captured--him--if the Bush administration was going to be so effective in the war on terror? President Bush said in the debates that he's rolled up 75 percent of al Qaeda. Well, it sure doesn't sound like it now." When Blitzer pointed out that Bush claimed to have captured or killed 75 percent of "al Qaeda leadership," Holbrooke scoffed. "He did not say 'leadership' at all. And how does he know? And as Secretary Rumsfeld himself said in that leaked memo, 'Aren't we creating more terrorists than we're killing?'" ... Is there any development in the war on terror, however grave, that the Kerry campaign won't try to exploit for partisan advantage? To View the Article Please Visit: www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/856mpsdl.asp ****************************************************** Not Sent at Taxpayers' Expense +---------------------------------------------+ | Paid for by BUSH-CHENEY '04, Inc. | +---------------------------------------------+ Copyright 2003, BUSH-CHENEY '04, Inc. Privacy Policy: http://www.georgewbush.com/privacypolicy.aspx

3 4

bin Laden gets a Promotion
by Tyler Durden 30 Oct '04

30 Oct '04

GodDAMN George W is a dumb fuck. If the guy's IQ had broken the 3-digit barrier he might have figured out that by nearly directly replying to the new bin Laden video he's basically elevating bin Laden to a hostile head-of-state. OK you TLA snoops...surely some of you montioring this list must have noticed that? Where are Mr Asswipe's brilliant advisors? Isn't this kind of acknowledgement practically Rule 1 in your anti-terrorist manuals? Or do you tacitly cooperate for the sake of job security? (ie, bin Laden gains more followers-->more terrorism-->more need for laws and YOU guys.) And don't get me wrong, I think this image shift for bin Laden will probably end up being a good thing (ie, we stop fuckin' around over there), but unfortunately a bunch of us will probably end up getting blowed-up or whatever in the process. We know you're there so why not come in on an anonymous remailer and tell us how it feels to be you these days. -TD _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

5 7

Ruling the planet
by Major Variola (ret) 29 Oct '04

29 Oct '04

At 09:24 PM 10/29/04 -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote: >Agreed. Our interest in not in Afghanistan/Iraq per se. Our interest is >in ruling the *planet*, rather than any individual pissant player. Silly JA, we want to rule the frickin' solar system. Give GWB a line of Peruvian and he'll go off on Mars. The more cluefull know about certain more proximate artificial and aggressive satellites, but we can't discuss them. Got Shutter Authority? The Zionists do... I'll see your Iranian UF6 and raise you a Dimona...

1 0

Re: 2000 curies of Ci
by Major Variola (ret) 29 Oct '04

29 Oct '04

At 10:54 AM 10/29/04 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote: >At 09:19 PM 10/28/2004, Major Variola (ret) wrote: >>Perhaps you meant Cs-137. Halliburton loses mCi of Am-241 etc monthly. > >MilliCuries? That's a bit surprising, >though losing microCuries of it would be more likely. >An average home smoke detector has 1-5 microcuries, >and industrial detectors go up to 15, according to >one or two articles on the web which may be outdated. >So you're saying they lose hundreds to thousands of >smoke detectors a month? They lose the neutron sources used for well logging. They contain mCi amounts of Am241 and other hot 'topes. They use a reaction with Be to produce neutrons from alphas, like the early nukebomb initiators. More often, soil-density gauges are lost/stolen from road crews. They also have fractional Ci amounts of RDD-able topes. But they're very useful; fairly sturdy; acceptable risk. See http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/2004/ and read a few days' reports.

1 0

Geodesic neoconservative empire
by Major Variola (ret) 29 Oct '04

29 Oct '04

At 10:07 PM 10/24/04 -0400, R.A. Hettinga wrote: If the only way >to kill barbarians is to kill barbarians in their bed before they >kill you in yours, to pave over nation-states that support them, >starting with the easiest first, it can't happen fast enough, as far >as I'm concerned, and I'll gladly "vote" my expropriated tax-dollars >for the purpose of draining the swamp that is the Middle East. Is this geodesic neo-conservativism? Where can I start bearer-document goose-stepping? Whatever happened to leaving the barbarians to kill themselves, and getting the fuck out of family spats?

3 2

Re: Geodesic neoconservative empire
by John Kelsey 29 Oct '04

29 Oct '04

>From: "R.A. Hettinga" <rah(a)shipwright.com> >Sent: Oct 29, 2004 7:06 AM >To: cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net >Subject: Re: Geodesic neoconservative empire ... >It has always amused me that libertarians and anarcho-capitalists insist on >using the language of the left to describe the things they don't like. One >of the reasons that the right in this country has been so successful has >been their development of a useful analytic apparatus, and corresponding >language, over the past 50 years, certainly more so than the left, which is >nothing but marxism, dilluted or otherwise. Is there a better term than "empire" for what gets built when your country goes out, invades lots of other countries, takes them over, and runs them? I don't know about other peoples' objections to this, but mine mainly involve my belief that this is an expensive and not very effective way to deal with terrorism. ... >At the moment force-monopoly is, by definition of monopoly, a hierarchical >market. Hence the "dance with the girl that brung ya" bit. They have >already *stolen* my money, they might as well be doing something with it Well, the question is, what ought they to be doing with it. Invading Iraq to build a democracy there, in hopes of somehow fixing the root causes of terrorism (as similarly goofy idealists on the left once thought they could do for crime in the US), looks like a waste of time and money. I suspect we're causing ourselves more problems, as Iraq is not only a place where terrorists can go to attack the US and be attacked by us in turn, it's also a place where there are lots of people learning the basic skills of being a terrorist, gaining some experience in doing so, etc. Do you think we're going to kill all of those people? Do you think they'll all abandon terrorist tactics when things quiet down in Iraq? I know the Republican line these days is that we're safer because the bad guys are all shooting at Marines in Iraq, rather than at civilians in Des Moines. But that only makes sense if we don't end up with a much bigger problem later, as a result. Perhaps we should all have rested more secure in our beds when the jihadis were streaming into Afghanistan, where they would be killed in large numbers by the Red Army. But it's not clear that was a long-term win.... Anyway, you sound like there's some willingness on the part of this administration (or the one Kerry may set up in January) to actually cut government spending to other things, in order to do the nation building thing. What evidence have you seen for that, so far? ... >Cheers, >RAH

2 1

Re: Financial identity is *dangerous*? (was re: Fake companies, real money)
by Dave Howe 29 Oct '04

29 Oct '04

Roy M. Silvernail wrote: > I'd thought it was so Microsoft could offer an emulation-based migration > path to all the apps that would be broken by Longhorn. MS has since > backed off on the new filesystem proposal that would have been the > biggest source of breakage (if rumors of a single-rooted, more *nix-like > filesystem turned out to be true). To be fair to MS, that is already here - you can "mount" NFS volumes as subfolders in 2K and above, just like unix. however, MS don't really seem to want to crow about that - just in case someone points out unix did this literally decades ago....

2 2

2000 curies of Ci
by Major Variola (ret) 29 Oct '04

29 Oct '04

t 10:21 PM 10/24/04 -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote: >This is idiotic. You're claiming that the definition of "terrorist" is >dependent not on the act, but on why the act was committed. So if I was >to go out tomorrow and spread 2000 curies of Ci into the local subway >system "As payback for Ruby Ridge", this would not be an act of terrorism? Just for correctness' sake, there is no element named "Ci", its an abbrev for Curies, ie the activity of a gram of Ra. Perhaps you meant Cs-137. Halliburton loses mCi of Am-241 etc monthly.

2 1

100,000 Deaths in Iraq
by Tyler Durden 29 Oct '04

29 Oct '04

A large percentage of these are women and children, and dying directly due to American bombing. Well make 'em free even if we have to kill every last one of them, right Mr Donald? http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=RelatedStories&pitem=A… -TD _________________________________________________________________ Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the Back to School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx

2 1

Re: Financial identity is *dangerous*? (was re: Fake companies, real money)
by Dave Howe 29 Oct '04

29 Oct '04

dan(a)geer.org wrote: > This is what I love about the Internet -- ask a question > and get silence but make a false claim and you get all the > advice you can possibly eat. Yup. give wrong advice, and you look like a fool. correct someone else's wrong advice, and you make them look foolish (unless you make a mistake in your correction, which seems to be some sort of tradition for spelling flames :) Probably the only reason I even post is because I don't mind looking like a fool, if it lets me correct some misconception I am labouring under :)

1 0