- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

RE: Osama's makeover
by Tyler Durden 31 Oct '04

31 Oct '04

Yeah...wasn't there an X-Files that was similar? I remember someone picking up a photo of Sadam Hussein and the TLA-dude saying, "Him? He was a truck driver in Detroit we found." Perhaps the reason Bush hasn't 'caught' bin Laden yet is because he thinks he (ie, Bush) will win the election. He does have Florida locked up... -TD >From: "Major Variola (ret)" <mv(a)cdc.gov> >To: "cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net" <cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net> >Subject: Osama's makeover >Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 21:23:19 -0700 > >At 05:23 PM 10/30/04 -0700, John Young wrote: > > >Which returns to the Osama make-over. His nose looks > >much bigger, longer and wider, eyes closer together. The > >sage-of-the-desert color combination of his face and hands, > >beard, robe, hat and backdrop look as if it was shot in > >New Mexico, or maybe Israel pretending Lawrence of > >Arabia remake. > >And did you see the wire up his back and the earpiece? > >Or maybe its hard to get good tailors in Pakistan. _________________________________________________________________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

1 0

Need for Draft Is Dismissed by Officials at Pentagon
by R.A. Hettinga 31 Oct '04

31 Oct '04

<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/31/politics/31draft1.html?pagewanted=print&p…> The New York Times October 31, 2004 Need for Draft Is Dismissed by Officials at Pentagon By THOM SHANKER ASHINGTON, Oct. 30 - Rumors of a secret plan to reinstate the draft are churning across the Internet, worrying some in Congress and even coloring the presidential campaign, but senior Pentagon personnel officials and Army officers insist that there is no need for a draft - and that they do not want one, either. To counter public fears that conscription is returning, these officials produced internal studies to illustrate the economic and demographic reasons why a draft is not necessary, and why it would be a step backward for the quality of the current all-volunteer force. Army and Pentagon officials hope that efforts under way to reorganize the service to form at least 43 combat brigades from today's 33 will create additional deployable units and alleviate the stress on the Army. And as both the Air Force and Navy shrink their personnel rosters, some of those departing personnel are being courted by the Army in a program that also serves as antidote to the draft. If a decision is made that the American military should grow, then the Pentagon could ask Congress to finance a permanent expansion in personnel, including enough money to attract recruits and retain those in uniform without undercutting accounts for operations and weapons systems. Officials note that Congressional proposals for expanding the military, mostly in the range of 30,000 to 40,000 more troops, would hardly require a new draft to force conscripts from across the approximately two-million-strong cohort of current 18-year-old Americans. In fact, the demographics of America are cited by Pentagon officials as a major reason why the draft makes no sense today. The Pentagon's top personnel officer, David S. C. Chu, said the size of today's military - 1.4 million in the active component, and 1.2 million in the National Guard and Reserve - is a much smaller percentage of a much larger pool of possible recruits than the United States faced during World War II and into the 1950's. And since the military could not possibly absorb all the 18-year-olds in the population should a draft be reinstated, there is little doubt that a system of deferrals would be established that, just as in the Vietnam era, could create a caste-like system separating the privileged of America from the others. "What do you do when not all need to be called and only a few are chosen?" said Mr. Chu, who is under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness. "It becomes a question of fairness." Today's high-technology military also benefits from personnel who are committed to staying in the service for several years, allowing the armed services to reap full benefit from their costly training. During the draft, soldiers were required to stay in the service for only two years. But Pentagon studies show that current recruits need one to three years to reach full competency in combat or support skills. A study by Mr. Chu's office makes that point in arguing against reinstating a draft that was allowed to lapse on July 1, 1973. "Draftees quit early; volunteers stay - so today's midgrade and senior noncommissioned officers are well experienced," said the study, written by Bill Carr, deputy under secretary for military personnel policy. "During the most recent draft, 90 percent of conscripts quit after their initial two-year hitch, whereas retention of volunteers is five times better - about half remain after their initial (normally four-year) military service obligation," said the study, which was published in the spring 2004 edition of "World Defense Systems," a military journal. Those statistics may not be persuasive to those who believe the United States is poised for a broader array of offensive military operations against other adversaries that would require a draft, nor to those who feel that a program of required national service would benefit the nation and America's 18-year-olds. But senior officers stress that the all-volunteer military is also more competent, better educated and more disciplined than in the final years of the draft. "I served in the draftee Army," said Gen. Richard A. Cody, who is now vice chief of staff for the Army, the service most under stress from worldwide deployments. "Those soldiers were just as loyal as today," he said. "But it was like Forrest Gump. You know, 'Life is like a box of chocolates.' With conscripts, you never know what you're going to get." General Cody said the strain to meet current global commitments cannot be minimized - nor the strain to meet recruiting goals. But he said the young men and women who signed up today were of a higher quality than any he had seen in 29 years of command. "I don't have rose-colored glasses on," General Cody said. "But we don't need the draft and we don't want the draft. There are plenty of Americans who still want to be in the military." Perhaps the most often-cited reason for opposition to a draft is the motivation of the all-volunteer force. "The most important thing about a draft is that the people you draft, by definition, don't all want to be there," Mr. Chu said. "The great strength of the volunteer force is the ranks of people who all made a positive, voluntary decision that this is what they want to do." The current American military "is also smarter than the general population" from which conscripts would be drawn, according to the study by Mr. Chu's office. "Over 90 percent of new recruits have a high school diploma, while only 75 percent of the American youth do; 67 percent score in the upper half of the enlistment (math/verbal aptitude) test," it stated. "These attributes translate to lower attrition, faster training and higher performance," it concluded. Mr. Chu said that studies of the military also showed that the all-volunteer force had fewer disciplinary problems than a draftee service. "All that comes together in the performance of the force in the field, which is the ultimate test," Mr. Chu said. "How does this force fight? How well does it carry out the nation's objectives? How disciplined is it in the face of challenges? I don't think anyone can look at the events of the three-plus years since 9/11 and not see the payoff in the volunteer force." Copyrigh -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Check This Out
by R.A. Hettinga 31 Oct '04

31 Oct '04

<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/31/opinion/01mon2.html?th=&pagewanted=print&…> The New York Times October 31, 2004 EDITORIAL Check This Out Never content to pass savings along to customers, banks - with a little help from their friends in Congress - are again poised to turn a basic service into a profit center. Last week, federal law began allowing banks greater latitude to process checks electronically, reducing to minutes or hours the time it takes for the money to be deducted from a check writer's account. But there is no change in the length of time that banks can hold deposited checks before making the funds available - up to two days for local checks, five days for nonlocal checks and 11 days for checks over $5,000. So in addition to saving an estimated $2 billion a year in paper processing costs, the banks will make loads of money on the float. And not just from that. By processing checks faster while placing holds on deposits, banks are increasing the chances of bouncing a check. As banks start using the new procedures, unsuspecting consumers will bounce an estimated seven million more checks a month and pay an additional $170 million in monthly bounced-check fees. Worse yet, to promptly correct problems that may arise from electronic processing, such as double payment of a single check or payment in the wrong amount, the new rules require a customer to present a copy of the check's electronic image, known as a "substitute check." There's nothing to prevent a bank from charging a fee for providing the copy. Groups like Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America have come out strongly against the law's lack of customer protection. The banks should listen. At the least, banks that use the new electronic procedures should adopt a no-hold policy for deposits by customers with problem-free accounts. If the banks do not change their policies, the Federal Reserve should force them to by changing the rules on fund availability. We would also like to see a major bank step up and pledge to re-credit accounts within 10 days of a customer's reporting an error, without the need for a substitute check. That would, in effect, extend the same protection to electronically processed checks that debit cards enjoy, as well as set a standard of customer service for other banks to match. Banks do not have to gouge their customers just because the law permits it. -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Uk.gov database 'rationalisation', the ID scheme way
by R.A. Hettinga 31 Oct '04

31 Oct '04

<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/29/id_scheme_eats_cip/print.html> The Register Biting the hand that feeds IT The Register ; Internet and Law ; Digital Rights/Digital Wrongs ; Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/29/id_scheme_eats_cip/ Uk.gov database 'rationalisation', the ID scheme way By John Lettice (john.lettice at theregister.co.uk) Published Friday 29th October 2004 17:01 GMT Among the Home Office "concessions" on ID cards hailed (with quite remarkable promptness) this week by Home Affairs Committee chairman John Denham MP (Lab) was "the rationalisation of current database proposals and the dropping of the Citizen Information Project." Denham appears however to have been in error in cheering the demise of the CIP on behalf of his Committee, for just 24 hours later Treasury Chief Secretary Paul Boateng issued a written statement to Parliament indicating the CIP is actually being reworked to use the national ID register. Or vice versa? According to Boateng's statement: "The CIP team has investigated the costs and benefits of a range of potential options for delivering a population register. It has recommended that proposals for a national identity register (NIR), as part of the Government's proposals for ID cards, mean that if ID cards were to become compulsory then it may be more cost effective to deliver these benefits through the NIR, rather than develop a separate register. The Government has accepted this recommendation." The CIP has been going through the works via the Office of National Statistics (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/08/05/uk_birth_certificates_to_morph/) as a sort of cuddlier cousin to the ID scheme. The modernisation of births, marriages, deaths and the like led government thoughts to turn to what kind of additional related services could be offered to the citizen, with these ideas being fairly neatly encapsulated in the concept of the "through life record". As the white paper Civil Registration: Vital Change tells us "the creation of a central database of registration records provides the opportunity to make improvements..." Which is all well and good until alongside this particular register of names addresses and sundry details about the population there arrives another register with, as the Home Affairs Committee report put it, "a very large degree of overlap". In its response on Wednesday the Home Office did not say 'dropping' - it did say: "The Government believes that the NIR has the longer term potential to fulfil some of the functions envisaged for the national population register. In the light of developments to the NIR, CIP is no longer actively exploring options to improve the quality and effectiveness of existing registers, including the possible use of personal reference numbers." So the CIP is no longer developing its own population register as the electronic implementation of births, marriages and deaths, and the National Identity Register becomes that population register, with the CIP going ahead, but now hinging on the NIR. Which you might view as more of an expansion of the ID scheme than a concession, as such. Alongside the specific CIP complaint, Home Affairs expressed its concern over the growing number of government databases in general. "We believe that the Government must tackle this proliferation of databases, examining in each case whether the number, identifier or database is needed, what its relationship to other existing or planned databases, how data will be shared or verified and other relevant issues. For this action to be effective, it must be co-ordinated at the highest levels of the Civil Service... an identity card should enable access to all Government databases, so that there would be no need for more than one government-issued card." In its response the Home Office appears to indicate that the CIP-NIR approach could present a model for other services, saying "we believe that the identity card will provide an opportunity for more joined up Government by providing a consistent and standard business key for future systems evolution." Which represents a strengthening rather than a weakening of the ID scheme. Here however the Committee was effectively arguing for a strengthening, and as David Blunkett envisages the ID card and register as becoming the key to everything, this is precisely the kind of "concession" he wants to make. It does rationalise (as Denham put it) current government database proposals in the sense that it makes them dependent on the NIR. The databases themselves will continue to proliferate though. It's possible that shoehorning CIP functionality into the ID scheme may cause some delay to the ID scheme bill itself. Spy Blog points out (http://www.spy.org.uk/spyblog/archives/000482.html) that if the CIP stage 2 feasibility study plans aren't to come (as Boateng said) before Ministers until June 2005, they might knock the ID bill back beyond the next election. It's possible the CIP study might be accelerated, but Gordon Brown's Treasury might on the other hand not view it as a top priority. Or worse. Spy also notes that the change will mean incorporating children under 16 in the NIR, and raises the issue of the Children's Bill. This sets up another universal database, of children this time, and will operate with a number of other databases, including the NHS one and Connexions. In its Home Affairs response the Home Office said that the "National Programme for IT (NPfIT) is putting into place an infrastructure of card readers across the NHS, which will facilitate the checking of cards" and that in the case of the Connexions card readers, which are issued free to schools and colleges, there may be "cost savings to be realised for identity cards by exploiting the existing infrastructure." So some more opportunities for rationalisation here, no doubt. . Related stories Blunkett sets out store on compulsory ID cards (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/27/blunkett_hac_response/) Everything you never wanted to know about the UK ID card (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/05/complete_idcard_guide/) Blunkett poised to open ID scheme offensive tomorrow (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/26/blunkett_prepares_hac_response/) Home Office seeks spin doctor to sell cuddly ID card brand (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/13/id_marketeer_sought/) UK ID cards to be issued with first biometric passports (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/11/new_passport_equals_new_id_card/) Biometric gear to be deployed in hospitals and GPs' surgeries (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/29/blear_confirms_nhs_biometrics/) UK gov pilots passenger tracking in fight against terror (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/29/project_semaphore/) Tag, track, watch, analyse - UK goes mad on crime and terror IT (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/20/home_office_strategic_plan/) ) Copyright 2004 -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

RFID in Passports Could Lead to Identity Theft
by R.A. Hettinga 31 Oct '04

31 Oct '04

<http://www.crmbuyer.com/story/RFID-in-Passports-Could-Lead-to-Identity-Thef…> CRM Buyer THE ESSENTIAL GUIDE FOR CRM SYSTEM PURCHASERS RFID in Passports Could Lead to Identity Theft By John Jerney The Yomiuri Shimbun 10/31/04 5:00 AM PT Privacy advocates, by and large, are not against the idea of using a chip in identity documents to store additional information. But many are asking about the wisdom of including information that can be read remotely, without the document holder being aware. Personal privacy is fast becoming a thing of the past. And helping secure its demise is a technology called Radio Frequency Identification (RFID). I wrote about RFID systems a few months ago, at which time I proposed a scenario in which these diminutive devices begin to appear in all sorts of objects, ranging from currency, postal mail, and even our shoes and clothing. RFID systems typically consist of a small tag containing a microprocessor, a small amount of memory, and an antenna. An RFID device communicates with an external system using radio waves. These external systems can then, in turn, be connected to networks of computers, enabling rather sophisticated information processing of the collected data. The core application of RFID systems is to enable the tracking of objects and people. The beef industry, for example, was an early adopter of RFID technology, using it to monitor the movement of cattle from grazing to slaughter. Governments also are planning to use RFID, in this case to monitor the movement of people by embedding RFID technology into our principal systems of identification. Embedding in Passports The most recent news on this front came from the U.S. State Department, which revealed that it would begin including RFID devices into all new passports starting around the middle of next year. The State Department says the idea is to make passports more difficult to forge, and to ensure that the bearer of the document matches the identification. This means that each RFID device, in each passport, will contain at least the name, address, and birthplace of the holder, along with a digital photo. The first set of devices, equipped with 64 kilobyte, of memory, will likely be capable of storing additional information, as required. Immigration and border officials will no longer need to physically swipe the document through a reader. Instead, since the RFID device uses radio waves to communicate, the passport only needs to come within reasonable proximity of a listening device in order for the information to be read. And herein lies the chief problem, as identified by privacy advocates. Without requiring the passport to be physically handled in order to retrieve information, just about anyone will be able to read your passport contents, remotely, and without your knowledge. It all seems like a massive recipe for disaster. Abuse Opportunities Encryption could help the situation, slightly, but none of the data stored on the RFID device in the proposed new U.S. passport will be scrambled, either on the device itself or as it passes through the air. Instead, the device will communicate a special digital signature identifying it as an official government document. Imagine the possibilities for abuse. As you walk through the main door, hotels will immediately be able to determine your name, nationality, and place of birth, beginning the profiling of guests even before reaching the counter. Sophisticated thieves, or even those less clever but with a few dollars to spare on an RFID reader, will be able to comb crowds of people, searching for individuals of a specific nationality or, by extension, those of a particular religion. Identity theft will become orders of magnitude easier, and stalkers at overseas shops and boutiques will be able to quickly collect personal information on targets of interest. Remote Access Concerns Privacy advocates, by and large, are not against the idea of using a chip in identity documents to store additional information. But many are asking about the wisdom of including information that can be read remotely, without the document holder being aware. Proponents of the new technology and security-minded individuals point out that the RFID devices proposed for use in U.S. passports will be passive, meaning without a self-contained power source, thereby restricting the range through which information can be transmitted. But that hardly addresses cases where people are either forced to pass close to a reader, as when they are walking through a doorway to enter a building, or when a reader is unknowingly brought close to them, as an identity thief or stalker might do. Once collected, the information can easily be processed and correlated using any of a number of commercially available databases. The best-case scenario is that enterprises will use this unknowingly mined information to sell you additional services, based on existing marketing and behavioral profiles. More sinister scenarios could easily involve confidence schemes or other serious trickery. With the inclusion of RFID in passports, governments could turn to using the system as a means of monitoring not only entry and exit, but also movements within a country. Our Vulnerabilities Increase Today, so-called FastPass systems that enable motorists to speed through tollbooths on highways and bridges are also being used in certain metropolitan areas to monitor traffic patterns and automobile use, far from the bridge or highway. Few motorists are aware of this additional use of an otherwise helpful RFID system. Interestingly, it's not really clear to me that the inclusion of RFID devices will make passports that much harder to forge. The information on each chip will remain unencrypted, making it straightforward to reverse engineer. In fact, as is often the case, our reliance and belief in advanced technology may make us even more vulnerable to deception. Put another way, the more we believe that technology is the answer to personal and national security, the more we leave ourselves open to being fooled when those systems are inevitably compromised. Adding RFID technology to passports, and making the information available unencrypted to anyone with a simple reader seems like folly on both sides of the technology equation. It's highly unlikely that it will contribute to our safety and security in any meaningful way, and may instead open us to a new type of criminal, well versed in the simple uses of high technology and ready to pounce on unsuspecting travelers. All you can ask is, what were they thinking? -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Re: Winning still matters, etc...
by Major Variola (ret) 31 Oct '04

31 Oct '04

At 05:09 PM 10/30/04 -0400, R.A. Hettinga wrote: >The terrorists cannot win either a conventional or an asymmetrical war >against the United States, should it bring its full array of assets to the >struggle. The large pit of smoldering radioactive glass is probably not an option.. >The improvised explosive device is a metaphor for our time. The killers >cannot even make the artillery shells or the timers that detonate the >bombs, but like parasites they use Western or Western-designed weaponry to >harvest Westerners. The "cannot even make" is patently offensive; why do nitration when what you need is around? And how many Americans could wire a Casio or Nokia to a det cap on their own? They cannot blow up enough Abrams tanks or even Humvees >to alter the battlefield landscape. Obviously the US mil industrial machine is not the weak link. But what they can accomplish is to maim >or kill a few hundred Westerners in hopes that our own media will magnify >the trauma and savagery of their attack - and do so often enough to make >300 million of us become exhausted with the entire "mess." Say 10 years from now, the dead marine count is in the high 5 figures, (perhaps they are drafted), there's more snuff-videos than porn on the web, the US *will* give up and leave, and the Jihad LLC will have won. 10 years, 20 years, whatever. Persistance works. And the martyrs enjoy the virgins, at best the infidels play harps and fly around the clouds, yawn. I'll see your IED and raise you Brittney's belly-button.

2 1

Winning still matters, etc...
by R.A. Hettinga 30 Oct '04

30 Oct '04

At 1:36 PM -0700 10/30/04, Bill Stewart wrote: >RAH about it being a >_geodesic_ neo-{Khan, con-men} empire Okay. Enough pissing in the wind. Time for a Turd Sandwich... Cheers, RAH -------- <http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/hanson/hanson200410…> The National Review October 29, 2004, 8:25 a.m. The Power of Will Winning still matters. Victor Davis Hanson The terrorists cannot win either a conventional or an asymmetrical war against the United States, should it bring its full array of assets to the struggle. Indeed, the Middle East, for all its revenue from inflated oil prices, has a smaller economy than Spain's. It has never won a war against a Western power. Arab nations lost in 1967, 1973, 1991, and 2004. Hence the fatwas must go back to millennia-old glories about Saladin, the siege of Cyprus, the Moors, and the Caliphate - about the last examples of Islamic victories over the West. The Middle East's only successes in 1956, or during the 1980s in Afghanistan, were due to either a United States' veto of British operations or the importation of American stinger missiles. The Iranian hostage crisis, Lebanon, and Mogadishu were Western retreats, not battlefield defeats - grievous, yes, but hardly arbiters of relative military advantage. The present terrorists are a nasty sort, but they are still not the SS or millions of Tojo's crack Japanese troops; nor do they have the organization or the skill of the Vietcong or NVA. These are losing hundreds of jihadists every week in Iraq and have failed to retake Afghanistan. So why do the now-surrounded and desperate insurgents in Fallujah think they can prevail, especially after the rout of the Taliban in six weeks and the implementation of a consensual government in less than three years in Afghanistan? In a word, the jihadists and their fellow-travelers are once again convinced that this time it will be different because the West, and the United States in particular, have neither the patience nor the will to endure their primeval killing of a post-Saddam Iraq. Beheadings, suicide bombings, mass executions, and improvised explosive devices are not intended to destroy or even defeat the U.S. military. Rather, they are aimed at the taxpaying citizens back home who fuel it. In a globalized world of instant communications, a bin Laden or Zarqawi trusts that most of us would prefer to take out the garbage than watch a blood-curdling video clip of yet another Western hostage kneeling before a half-dozen psychopaths as they begin to saw off his vertebrae. They hope that we the sickened ask, "Why waste our billions and hundreds of lives on such primordial folk?" - wrongly equating 26 million who wish freedom with a few thousand criminals and terrorists. The improvised explosive device is a metaphor for our time. The killers cannot even make the artillery shells or the timers that detonate the bombs, but like parasites they use Western or Western-designed weaponry to harvest Westerners. They cannot blow up enough Abrams tanks or even Humvees to alter the battlefield landscape. But what they can accomplish is to maim or kill a few hundred Westerners in hopes that our own media will magnify the trauma and savagery of their attack - and do so often enough to make 300 million of us become exhausted with the entire "mess." The message of Arabic television is that the Iraqis are supposed to blame us, not their brethren who are killing them, for the carnage. Not our power, but our will, is the target. Al Qaeda and their appendages in Iraq do not know the requisite numbers of dead or wounded Americans necessary to break the resolve of the United States, but brag that with 1,000 fatalities they are nearing their goal - and thus a few more will give them a change of administration, schedules for withdrawal, an abandoned interim Iraqi government ripe to pluck, and a Lebanon-like paradise to reconstruct the lost sanctuary of Afghanistan. In other words, they are desperate for a reprieve from their looming destruction. Al Qaeda - "the Base" - without a base is not much of a terrorist organization since its own proud appellation has become an ironic joke. Despite the three-week victory over the Baathists, there is some reason for the Islamists' optimism that they can break our will - given a decade of nonchalance after the first World Trade Center attack, the Khobar towers, the USS Cole, and an assortment of other unanswered murders in the 1990s. The April withdrawal from Fallujah - whether due to worry about Iraqi civilian or our own casualties - was a grievous blow. The Spanish debacle was an even worse Western defeat. Killing about 200 Spaniards got a Socialist and anti-American prime minister elected and an almost-immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq - even though such appeasement was met not with thanks but with a subsequent attempt to blow up the judges of the Spanish High Court. Meanwhile, here at home, John Kerry talks about timetables for departure and cessation of the present course. His supporters on the extreme left from George Soros to Michael Moore blame George Bush, not Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, for the current televised butchery. There is a reason why candidate Kerry now painfully insists that he would not precipitously withdraw - because everyone else worldwide, from a Chirac and Schroeder to Arafat and most of the Arab world - suspect that, in fact, he will. An American flight would shame Tony Blair and John Howard, leave eastern Europe to the bullying of Paris and Berlin, destroy the Iraq interim government, take the heat off Arab autocracies, and send a message that American policy was back to Clintonian-like law enforcement, replete with jargon such as "sensitive" and "nuisance." It does not matter what Kerry would "really" wish to do, since the last two years of campaign rhetoric have earned him the worldwide reputation of the Bush antithesis, and thus his victory would, rightly or wrongly, be interpreted as a complete rejection of toppling Saddam and fostering a constitutional government in his place. His supporters and financial backers on the left would not tolerate anything less than a withdrawal. Because of our astounding weaponry and superb military, the terrorists in Fallujah count on the help of such postmodern Western guilt and internecine blame to supply constraints on the American military every bit as effective as the old Soviet nuclear deterrent. Again, a Michael Moore - or so they believe - is worth an entire jihadist cell. Our parents were terrified that, should America resort to military force abroad, they would be nuked; we are even more scared that our lethality will earn us the parlor disdain of the French and Germans. The terrorists are assured that the Western press is obsessed with Abu Ghraib, but not at all with Saddam's necropolis or their own slaughter of innocents. They suspect that those who endured Omaha and Utah or scaled Suribachi are long sleeping in their graves, and that a few thousand creeps in Fallujah scare us more than a quarter million in the Bulge did our parents. So yes, it is a strange war. Jihadists are amused that a few American soldiers, worried over their safety, can refuse orders, call 7,000 miles home in anguish, and expect that their complaints, handed over by Mom to the local TV station, will turn up on national cable news before their own commanders in the field even know what is up. A teenaged terrorist with a RPG, being filmed as he is killed, is every bit as an effective soldier through his globally broadcast death than had he lived on to hit his target Humvee with his rocket in the first place. We don't ask, "Which school-builder or power-restorer was he trying to obliterate?" but rather "Why did we have to kill him?" When the Islamists behead a tearful Englishman or American, it is more likely that his surviving dad or sibling back home will be on television all over the Middle East within minutes damning Tony Blair or George Bush, without a word of censure for the Dark-Age head-loppers. After all, we are not Nepalese who storm the local mosque and put the fear of God into Islamists when they butcher our own. We are more likely to be frightened, turn on ourselves, and condemn some American somewhere who cannot stop "this." But cannot our self-induced forbearance vanish as soon as we decide enough is enough? Should the American government ignore the EU hysteria, tell Kofi Annan to worry about his son's crooked shenanigans and not Americans' killing terrorists, and simply take Fallujah - as part of a larger effort to correct the laxity of the past and finish the war - then we would surely win. The fallout would be as salutary as our present restraint is disastrous. Like the murderous Pakistani madrassa zealots who flocked to Tora Bora only to be incinerated, Fallujah would not stand as a mecca for the jihadists, but an Armageddon better to watch on television than die in. The truth is that war remains the same the more it changes. For all the technological gadgetry, foreign landscapes, baffling global communications, and endemic pacifism of the present age, war is still a struggle of the human spirit. The morality, materiel, and technology are all on our side. But we are confused in this postmodern age that such advantages should automatically equate to near-instantaneous and costless victory as they sometimes do in Panama and Serbia - as if the heart of the medieval caliphate next to Syria and Iran, replete with terrorism and a 30-year past of mass murder, is a mere Haiti or Grenada. In the heart of even the most ardent liberal lies a dormant but still alive desire for victory, and in every strutting hawk there lingers the fear of abject defeat. Had we secured Iraq by June 2003, the sputtering Kerry candidacy would by now have been faulting Bush for not going into Iran. But blink, falter, and witness beheadings and hostage-taking on television, and Kerry can reinvent himself as the apostle of peace all along - and a bizarre group of creepy people come out of the woodwork professing Biblical wisdom about George Bush's purported catastrophes. In short, the more sophisticated, the more technological, the more hyped and televised war becomes, the more pundits and strategists warn us about "fourth-generational," "asymmetrical," "irregular," and "new dimensional" conflict, the more we simply forget the unchanging requisite of the will to win that trumps all other considerations. John Kerry has no more secret a plan than George Bush - because there is no secret way to pacify Iraq other than to kill the killers, humiliate their cause through defeat, and give the credit of the victory, along with material aid and the promise of autonomous freedom, to moderate Iraqis. Victory on the battlefield - not the mysterious diplomacy of "wise men," or German and French sanction, or Arab League support - alone will allow Iraq an opportunity for humane government. Meanwhile, we all vote. One candidate urges us to return to the mindset of pre-September 11 - law enforcement dealing with terrorists as nuisances. He claims the policies that have led to an absence of another attack at home, the end of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, idealistic efforts to extend freedom, and radical and positive changes in Pakistan, Libya, the West Bank, and the Gulf have made things worse. In contrast, the other reminds us that we are in a real war against horrific enemies and are no longer passive targets, but will fight the terrorists on their home turf, win, and leave behind humane government. No choice could be clearer. It is America's call. - Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His website is victorhanson.com. ----- The New York Post A 'FAHRENHEIT 9/11' FAN BY JOHN PODHORETZ October 30, 2004 -- CONGRATULATIONS, Michael Moore - America's worst enemy and one of the world's most evil men is a big fan of yours. The most startling moment on the Osama bin Laden videotape shown yesterday was his description of the morning of 9/11, which is certainly derived - albeit in garbled form - from a viewing of Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11." "It never occurred to us that he, the commander in chief of the country, would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone, because he thought listening to a child discussing her goats was more important," bin Laden said. Just think. If the reprehensible Moore wins an Oscar for his disgusting piece of propaganda, Hollywood will be seconding the favorable opinion of Osama bin Laden. I want to caution my friends on the Right about claiming that the Osama tape somehow is an endorsement of John Kerry. No doubt bin Laden would like to claim credit for changing the American president. Thankfully, the American people know better than to believe bin Laden will somehow go easier on us if John Kerry wins on Tuesday. They know this monster attacked America when Bill Clinton was president and that he and his minions will continue to plot the mass murder of Americans no matter who is in the White House. But something does jump out at you when you consider the message bin Laden was delivering to the United States. It was remarkably defensive, with bin Laden offering some kind of bizarre truce to the American people: "To the U.S. people," he said, "my talk is to you about the best way to avoid another disaster." How thoughtful of him. He told us that neither Bush nor Kerry could protect America: "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda," he said. "Your security is in your own hands." In other words, if the American people would somehow agree to consider the security needs of bin Laden and his followers (whether that means just al Qaeda or the entire Arab and Muslim world isn't clear), we'd be safe. "Do not play with our security, and spontaneously you will secure yourself," he said. This is, I think, a profound rhetorical change from the man who vowed in 2002 that "the United States will not survive, will not feel any safety or any security." Usually, bin Laden and his people tend to use the most purple and terrifying language about the damage they're going to do to the United States, as we saw earlier in the week when the American al Qaeda follower "Azzam" said on his videotape that "the streets of America will run red with blood." Now bin Laden is talking truce. What's changed, perhaps, is the ferocity of the American response to 9/11. Since then, Osama has been on the run, his Afghanistan safe haven destroyed, his movement under relentless financial and military assault. By offering America a deal, no matter how twisted and pointless the deal might be, the quality that he might be showing us isn't strength, but weakness. Maybe he's feeling the weariness suggested in the videotaped statement last month by his No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri: "Oh young men of Islam," he said, "if we are killed or captured, you should carry on the fight." Maybe they're buckling. ----- <http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/hanson/hanson.asp> The National Review Victor Davis Hanson October 15, 2004, 8:23 a.m. The Therapeutic Choice A war for our lives, or a nuisance to our lifestyle? Americans are presented with a choice in this election rare in our history. This is not 1952, when Democrats and Republicans did not differ too much on the need to stay in Korea, or even 1968 when Humphrey and Nixon alike did not wish to withdraw unilaterally from Vietnam. It is more like 1972 or 1980, when a naove McGovern/Dukakis worldview was sharply at odds with the Nixon/Reagan tragic acknowledgement of the need to confront Soviet-inspired Communism. Is it to be more aid, talk, indictments, and summits - or a tough war to kill the terrorists and change the conditions that created them? Mr. Kerry believes that we must return to the pre-9/11 days when terrorism was but a "nuisance." In his mind, that was a nostalgic sort of time when the terrorist mosquito lazily buzzed about a snoring America. And we in somnolent response merely swatted it away with a cruise missile or a few GPS bombs when embassies and barracks were blown up. Keep the tribute of dead Americans low, and the chronic problem was properly analogous to law-enforcement's perpetual policing of gambling and prostitution. Many of us had previously written off just such naoveti, but we never dreamed that our suspicions would be confirmed so explicitly by Kerry himself. In the now-lost age of unperturbed windsurfing and skiing, things were not all that bad before al Qaeda overdid it by knocking down skyscrapers and a corner of the Pentagon - followed by George Bush's commensurate overreaction in Afghanistan and Iraq that brought on all the present messy and really bothersome cargo of IEDs, beheadings, and promises of dirty bombs to come. The Taliban and Saddam were, of course, bad sports. But really, going all the way over there to topple them, implant democracy, and change the status quo of the Middle East? Tsk, tsk, tsk - well, that was a bit much, was it not? Terrorist killing, like the first World Trade Center bombing or the USS Cole, certainly was not seen as the logical precursor to 9/11 - the expected wages of a quarter century of appeasement that started with the weak Carter response to the Iranian hostages and was followed by dead soldiers, diplomats, and tourists about every other year. No, these were "incidents" like 9/11 itself - "law-enforcement" issues that called for the DA, writs, and stern prison sentences, the sort of stuff that barristers like Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, and McAuliffe handle so well. This attitude is part of the therapeutic view of the present struggle that continually suggests that something we did - not the mass murdering out of the Dark Age - brought on our present bother that is now "the focus of our lives." We see this irritation with the inconvenience and sacrifice once more reemerging in the Atlantic Monthly, Harpers, and the New York Times: We, not fascists and Islamist psychopaths, are blamed for the mess in Iraq, the mess in Afghanistan, the mess on the West Bank, and the mess here at home, but never credited with the first election in 5,000 years in Afghanistan or consensual government replacing autocracy in the heart of the ancient caliphate. Sometimes our problems arise over our past failure to chastise the Russians over Chechnya. Or was it not enough attention to Mr. Arafat's dilemmas? Or maybe we extended prior support for corrupt sheiks? All that and more - according to rogue CIA "experts," best-selling authors, and the omnipresent Richard Clarke - earned us the wrath of the Islamists. Thus surely our past transgressions can be alleviated by present contrition, dialogue, aid, and policy changes of the European kind. To all you of the therapeutic mindset, listen up. We can no more reason with the Islamic fascists than we could sympathize with the Nazis' demands over supposedly exploited Germans in Czechoslovakia or the problem of Tojo's Japan's not getting its timely scrap-metal shipments from Roosevelt's America. Their pouts and gripes are not intended to be adjudicated as much as to weaken the resolve of many in the United States who find the entire "war against terror" too big, or the wrong kind, of a nuisance. Instead, read the fatwas. You hear not just of America's injustice in Palestine or Chechnya - not to mention nothing about saving Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo or Afghanistan of the 1980s - but also of what we did in Spain in the 15th century and in Tyre, Gaza, and Jerusalem in the 12th. The mystery of September 11, 2001, is not that it happened, but that it did not quite happen when first tried in 1993 during Bill Clinton's madcap efforts to move a smiling Arafat into the Lincoln Bedroom and keep our hands off bin Laden. Only an American with a JD or PhD would cling to the idea that there was not a connection between Group A Middle Eastern terrorists who attacked the WTC in 1993 and Group B who finished the job in 2001. A Kerry presidency, we know now, will go back to the tried and true institutions so dear to the therapeutic mind that please the elite and sensitive of our society. How silly that most Americans are about through with the U.N. Indeed, we Neanderthals want it relegated to something like the Red Cross tucked away at the Hague, if not on the frontlines in Nigeria or Bolivia. Yes, we dummies have seen enough of its General Assembly resolutions aimed at the only democracy in the Middle East, its promotion of rogue states such as Syria, Cuba, Iran, and Libya to human-rights watchdogs, its corrupt Oil-for-Food program, and its present general secretary and his role in nepotism and sweet-heart contracts at the expense of the Iraqi people. No surprise that a shaken perpetual-president Hosni Mubarak is calling for a U.N. conference on terror with wonderful Arab League logic: 'You kill Jews on your own soil, good; you kill them on mine and lose me money, bad.' The artists, musicians, and entertainers have also railed against the war. In the therapeutic mindset, the refinement and talent of a Sean Penn, Michael Moore, Al Franken, Bruce Springsteen, or John Fogerty earn respect when they weigh in on matters of state policy. But in the tragic view, they can be little more than puppets of inspiration. Their natural gifts are not necessarily enriched by real education or learning. Indeed, they are just as likely to be high-school or college dropouts and near illiterates, albeit with good memories, voices, and looks. The present antics of these influential millionaire entertainers should remind us why Plato banished them - worried that we might confuse the inspired creative frenzies of the artisans with some sort of empirical knowledge. But you can no more sing, or write, or act al Qaeda away than the equally sensitive novelists and intellectuals of the 1930s or 1940s could rehabilitate Stalin. And then there are the new green billionaires who no longer worry about the struggle to make any more money, much less about state, federal, and payroll taxes that can eat up half of a person's income. A George Soros may have made his pile by trying to destroy the British financial system, but now he wishes to leave the world safe for currency traders to come by defeating George Bush. The up-from-the-bootstraps struggle to create the dough for the Heinz fortune is a century past and forgotten - thus the post-capitalist Teresa in her private jet and John Kerry on his $500,000 power boat can lecture us about Americans' shameless oil profligacy and George Bush's blood for oil gambit in Iraq. Our mainstream media also cannot quite believe we are at war with evil people who wish us dead - something like the crises that have faced all civilizations at one time or another. Instead, to ponder Rathergate or the recent ABC memo advocating bias in its reporting is to fathom the arrogance of the Enlightenment, and the learned's frustration with those of us less-gifted folk who don't quite wish to follow where they lead us. Such anointed ones have taken on the burden of saving us from George Bush and his retrograde ideas. After all, who believes that anyone would really wish to reinstate a mythical caliphate, a Muslim paradise of sharia, gender apartheid, and theocracy spreading the globe through Islamic nukes and biological and chemical bombs? How one dimensional and unsophisticated. Meanwhile most Americans have already quietly made up their minds. They think the Democratic party is run not by unionists, farmers, miners, truckers, and average folk, but by those rich enough not to have to make a living, and who wish out of either guilt or noblesse oblige to force the dumber upper middle class to be more sensitive, generous, or utopian. Americans also believe Europe has lost its way and is bogged down in a hopeless and soon-to-be scary task of legislating by fiat heaven on earth. We of the tragic persuasion wish them well with Turkey and their unassimilated Islamic populations, but we don't want our hurtful combat troops there after 60 years of subsidized peacekeeping. Americans also don't care much about the Nobel prizes anymore - not when a Jimmy Carter is praised after trying to undermine his own president on the eve of war, and not when the most recent peace-prize winner rants on that AIDS is a Western-created germ agent unleashed to hurt Africa but silent about $15 billion in American aid to stop what her own continent is spreading. John Kerry is probably going to lose this election, despite the "Vote for Change" rock tour, despite Air America, despite Kitty Kelley's fraud hyped on national media, despite Soros's moveon.org hit pieces, despite Fahrenheit 9-11, despite the Nobel Prizes and Cannes Film Awards, despite Rathergate and ABC Memogate, despite the European press, despite Kofi Annan's remonstrations, despite a barking Senator Harkin or Kennedy, despite the leaks of rogue CIA Beltway insiders, despite Jimmy Carter's sanctimonious lectures, despite Joe Wilson, Anonymous, and Richard Clarke - and more. You all have given your best shot, but I think you are going to lose. Why? Because the majority of Americans does not believe you. The majority is more likely to accept George Bush's tragic view that we really are in a war for our very survival to stop those who would kill us and to alter the landscape that produced them - a terrible war that we are winning. When all is said and done, it still is as simple as that. - Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His website is victorhanson.com. -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

2 2

"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