In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:



If the activity was done simply for fun, it can't be torture.

But it can be filmed and put on the Internet.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

On 6/25/2010 8:25 AM, wrote:
On Jun 22, 5:50 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 6/22/2010 2:18 AM, harry wrote:





On Jun 21, 10:35 pm, J wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 6/20/2010 11:51 PM harry spake thus:

We invented the internet therefore it belongs to us.........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee

Again with the Wikipedia.

Apparently you don't know the difference between the internets and the
World Wide Web.

So if ISPs are dropping USENET access in favor of Google Groups, it's
the result of British scheming dating back to 1980? No wonder Joe
Lieberman is concerned about national security!

You need to be. A mad Brit hacker has been into every military
computer and also the Pentagons and NASA's looking for pix of flying
saucers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...usa/2139985/Br...

Yes y'all are that good with computers in America. Even our nutters
can breeze through your security. You need to offer him a job.

The case against him is a load of horse manure. The needle peckers in
charge were embarrassed by the guy and made to look like fools, they're
out for revenge plain and simple. This nonsense about damage valued in
the thousands of dollars is plain silly.

I'd say you're the one who's plain silly. Let's say it turns out
that IT discovers that someone has hacked into a part of the computer
system in just a major corporation, not DOD. What do you think it
will cost just for them to conduct a thorough investigation to
determine what if anything was breached and stolen? That alone could
be in the many thousands of dollars. And if it then appears just
possible that the hacker did obtain info, it could cost an order of
magnitude more to deal with the consequences.



I would love to be on that
jury, I would demonstrate what jury nullification is all about. The real
computer system "Crackers" are in and out before anyone knows it and
they don't get caught.

So, you'd only convict the ones that don't get caught. That makes a
lot of sense. Were you on the OJ jury?




Going after this poor fellow is like the nonsense
carried out by the TSA, they want to show that they doing something so
they harass someone who's handy, like a toddler in leg braces or little
old lady in a walker.


I'd say any skunk that tries to hack into a system deserves at least a
couple years in jail. There is no reason the rest of us should have
to put up with this.

Some of what I read about the case indicates that the guy actually
informed them that they had poor security. It reminds me of the guy
who found a bag of pot on the street, went to the police department
to turn it in and was promptly arrested for possession. I'm sorry
but when I see this sort of nonsense going on and all the hysterical
codswallop the government puts out in an attempt to cover their butts,
I know someone is lying and the liars work for the government.

TDD

On Jun 26, 6:24*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 6/25/2010 8:25 AM, wrote:





On Jun 22, 5:50 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 6/22/2010 2:18 AM, harry wrote:

On Jun 21, 10:35 pm, J * *wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 6/20/2010 11:51 PM harry spake thus:

We invented the internet therefore it belongs to us.........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee

Again with the Wikipedia.

Apparently you don't know the difference between the internets and the
World Wide Web.

So if ISPs are dropping USENET access in favor of Google Groups, it's
the result of British scheming dating back to 1980? *No wonder Joe
Lieberman is concerned about national security!

You need to be. *A mad Brit hacker has been into every military
computer and also the Pentagons and *NASA's looking for pix of flying
saucers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...usa/2139985/Br....

Yes y'all are that good with computers in America. *Even our nutters
can breeze through your security. *You need to offer him a job.

The case against him is a load of horse manure. The needle peckers in
charge were embarrassed by the guy and made to look like fools, they're
out for revenge plain and simple. This nonsense about damage valued in
the thousands of dollars is plain silly.

I'd say you're the one who's plain silly. * Let's say it turns out
that IT discovers that someone has hacked into a part of the computer
system in just a major corporation, not DOD. *What do you think it
will cost just for them to conduct a thorough investigation to
determine what if anything was breached and stolen? * That alone could
be in the many thousands of dollars. *And if it then appears just
possible that the hacker did obtain info, it could cost an order of
magnitude more to deal with the consequences.

I would love to be on that
jury, I would demonstrate what jury nullification is all about. The real
computer system "Crackers" are in and out before anyone knows it and
they don't get caught.

So, you'd only convict the ones that don't get caught. * That makes a
lot of sense. *Were you on the OJ jury?

Going after this poor fellow is like the nonsense
carried out by the TSA, they want to show that they doing something so
they harass someone who's handy, like a toddler in leg braces or little
old lady in a walker.

I'd say any skunk that tries to hack into a system deserves at least a
couple years in jail. *There is no reason the rest of us should have
to put up with this.

Some of what I read about the case indicates that the guy actually
informed them that they had poor security. It reminds me of the guy
who found a bag of pot on the street, went to the police department
to turn it in and was promptly arrested for possession. I'm sorry
but when I see this sort of nonsense going on and all the hysterical
codswallop the government puts out in an attempt to cover their butts,
I know someone is lying and the liars work for the government.

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We had plenty of liars too.
The boat's still out on our new lot.

wrote in message news:44f93f2f-f34e-4a0f-9b22-
On Jun 23, 4:22 am, "Robert Green" wrote:

stuff snipped

So, how is it then that during WWII, some Germans were found coming ashore
in civilian clothes and upon interrogation, it was learned they were bent on
sabotage. No sabotage had actually ocurred. Yet, within months they had
been tried by a military tribunal and most of them had been executed. And
that was under the patron saint of liberals, FDR. I seem to recall him
putting Japanese Americans into interment camps without even a hearing, let
alone a trial. Your fundemental* mistake here is treating the war on
terrorism as a criminal matter, rather than a war.

No, the exact reverse is true. There's a much more fundamental mistake.
The incident you describe was a *declared* war against a force of incredible
military power - power that no one nation on earth appeared able to resist.
Treating terrorists (or even Iraq) as if they had the military might of WWII
Germany or modern day Russia or China is the mistake. And a terribly
serious one.

Branding a terrorist attack a 'war' is doesn't make it one. It's not how
any other civilized country in the world has reacted to terrorism on their
soil. We didn't make war on the US midwest or Army veterans because Tim
McVeigh, an army vet living inthe midwest blew up the Murrah Building, did
we? It was the second most lethal terrorist attack on the US in history.
Ever ask yourself why the two events were treated so differently? The
answer is, for political advantage. To create a bogeyman that was even more
useful that the Cold War for funneling money to arms and war contractors in
exchange for campaign contributions.

To feed our need for revenge, we gave the terrorists a much greater victory
by elevating them to a combatant status usually reserved for enemies that
can deal truly lethal blows.

Country killing blows.

The kind of blow we've hit Iraq with.

Instead, we turned Osama Bin Laden into a god for Islamic radicals by
declaring him a public enemy, equal to our President in weight. We made
ourselves look foolish thereafter by being unable to even find him. It was
outrageously stupid to do that. Bush fed a tiny stinging insect whale's
milk and oh, how he did grow.

Some people say we had to fight, to show how strong we were and our resolve
to end terrorism. After nearly 10 years, we're no closer to victory in
Afghanistan than when we started and Karzai's looking to make a deal with
the Taliban. Raise your hand if you think that getting whipped by a bunch
of goat herders in rags is "looking strong."

Making a single, albeit terrible, terrorist act into a war is a serious
mistake and one we will pay dearly for when we are once again tasked with
fighting a credible enemy, not a bunch of religious zealot suicide bombers.
Our national readiness is at historic lows. Criminals have been allowed
into the military on waivers because they are so short handed. And yes, I
know the reports don't show how bad it is. You have to be on the inside,
watching officers leaving because they can't deal with lunacy of driving
around Iraq until they get blown up for what?

Just look at our war on drugs and what's happening in the Southwest.
Calling something a war doesn't make it one and usually does very little to
properly correct the problem. We've been fighting the war on drugs for
what, 40 years? It's a total failure. So will trying to turn a terrorist
problem into a war divert us from the things we REALLY need to do to protect
ourselves from further attack. Killing tens of thousands of innocent
Muslims isn't going to end the terrorism problem unless you are prepared to
kill ALL Muslims, peaceful or not. Well, are you?

We've wasted the lives of a lot of very, very good men and women, our
fathers and mothers, our sisters and brothers, our sons and daughters who
swore this oath and honored it until they drew their last breath:

"I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my
country
and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in
their defense."

How many more good lives will we throw away to avenge those who died in the
Towers? I'm hoping an end is finally in sight.

--
Bobby G.



* Spelling mnemonic: That Fun Dame is Mental! (You'll all thank me when
YOU start getting senile and need tricks to remember how to spell common
words like desperate: I always spell it desparate because the root word,
despair, has an "A" - so - "I'd be desperate if my wife made me go the the
oPERA." I've got a million more, mostly to do with Supreme Court precedents
like the Escobedo decision,

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...do+v.+Illinois

about making statements to the cops without counsel present: "Esco, are
they beating you?")

On Jun 27, 4:20*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
wrote in message news:44f93f2f-f34e-4a0f-9b22-

On Jun 23, 4:22 am, "Robert Green" wrote:

stuff snipped

So, how is it then that during WWII, some Germans were found coming ashore
in civilian clothes and upon interrogation, it was learned they were bent on
sabotage. * No sabotage had actually ocurred. *Yet, within months they had
been tried by a military tribunal and most of them had been executed. * And
that was under the patron saint of liberals, FDR. * I seem to recall him
putting Japanese Americans into interment camps without even a hearing, let
alone a trial. * *Your fundemental* mistake here is treating the war on
terrorism as a criminal matter, rather than a war.

No, the exact reverse is true. *There's a much more fundamental mistake..
The incident you describe was a *declared* war against a force of incredible
military power - power that no one nation on earth appeared able to resist.

On Jun 26, 11:20*pm, "Robert Green"
wrote:
wrote in message news:44f93f2f-f34e-4a0f-9b22-

On Jun 23, 4:22 am, "Robert Green" wrote:

stuff snipped

So, how is it then that during WWII, some Germans were found coming ashore
in civilian clothes and upon interrogation, it was learned they were bent on
sabotage. * No sabotage had actually ocurred. *Yet, within months they had
been tried by a military tribunal and most of them had been executed. * And
that was under the patron saint of liberals, FDR. * I seem to recall him
putting Japanese Americans into interment camps without even a hearing, let
alone a trial. * *Your fundemental* mistake here is treating the war on
terrorism as a criminal matter, rather than a war.

No, the exact reverse is true. *There's a much more fundamental mistake..
The incident you describe was a *declared* war against a force of incredible
military power - power that no one nation on earth appeared able to resist.

Robert Green wrote:

No, the exact reverse is true. There's a much more fundamental
mistake. The incident you describe was a *declared* war against a
force of incredible military power - power that no one nation on
earth appeared able to resist. Treating terrorists (or even Iraq) as
if they had the military might of WWII Germany or modern day Russia
or China is the mistake. And a terribly serious one.

On the other hand, we executed the Rosenbergs without the benefit of a
declared war.


Instead, we turned Osama Bin Laden into a god for Islamic radicals by
declaring him a public enemy, equal to our President in weight. We
made ourselves look foolish thereafter by being unable to even find
him. It was outrageously stupid to do that. Bush fed a tiny stinging
insect whale's milk and oh, how he did grow.

Still, Obama was responsible for more American deaths on 9-11 than Yamamoto
was at Pearl Harbor (3000+ vs. 2402).

And a slight amplification: It has never been the goal of the United States
to kill or capture Osama ben Laden.



Making a single, albeit terrible, terrorist act into a war is a
serious mistake and one we will pay dearly for when we are once again
tasked with fighting a credible enemy, not a bunch of religious
zealot suicide bombers.

Consider the Battleship Maine. A single event that resulted in the
liberation of Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. It helped heal
the residual rift between the North and the South resulting from the Second
War of Independence. It established the United States as a world power. And
so on.


Killing
tens of thousands of innocent Muslims isn't going to end the
terrorism problem unless you are prepared to kill ALL Muslims,
peaceful or not. Well, are you?

Tough question. Let me think...


We've wasted the lives of a lot of very, very good men and women, our
fathers and mothers, our sisters and brothers, our sons and daughters
who swore this oath and honored it until they drew their last breath:

"I am an American, fighting in the forces which
guard my country
and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life
in their defense."

How many more good lives will we throw away to avenge those who died
in the Towers? I'm hoping an end is finally in sight.

We didn't throw ANY life away. The people you mention were volunteers. They
joined the military, knowing the chances of death or disability, for the
opportunity to kill people and blow things up. To them, the rewards were
worth the risk - much like a mountain climber, a sky-diver, or a race car
driver.

They are, in the main, our Warrior Class. War is what they were born to do,
what they were trained to do, what they NEED to do. They do it for honor's
sake, for duty's sake. For glory's sake.

wrote:




More Bush derangement syndrome. As I recall, Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda
already had a long list of attacks on America long before Bush ever
came to office: USS Cole, US embassies in Africa, attacks on military
in Yemen and Somalia, etc. If you want to include all of radical
Islam, there have been even more attacks, including the first attack
on the WTC.

Correct. In the decade before 9-11, there was about one attack per year on
the U.S. or U.S. interests abroad.

The Bush administration invoked a strategy with the singular goal of
preventing further attacks. This strategy involved disruption al Qaeda's
ability to communicate, recruit, train, finance, and move. This strategy was
spectacularly successful in that there were no attacks in the U.S. or on
civilian U.S. interests abroad during the remaining seven years of the Bush
administration.

Conversely, there have been three successful attacks within the U.S. under
the Obama presidency.




Making a single, albeit terrible, terrorist act into a war is a
serious mistake and one we will pay dearly for when we are once
again tasked with fighting a credible enemy, not a bunch of
religious zealot suicide bombers.

It obviously was not a single terrorist attack. Nor has it been
limited to the USA. Al-Qaeda has attacked a long list of countries
around the world. They want to kill us all, unless we convert to
their radical Islam, is that so hard to understand?

Your point is well taken, but I'd go farther. ONE attack is one too many.
When do we decide that we're in a war if not right after Pearl Harbor? After
Wake Island? After Guam? After the Philippines and the Bataan Death March?




Our national readiness is at historic lows. Criminals have been
allowed into the military on waivers because they are so short
handed. And yes, I know the reports don't show how bad it is. You
have to be on the inside, watching officers leaving because they
can't deal with lunacy of driving around Iraq until they get blown
up for what?

You like to bad mouth the US military, don't you? Last time I
checked, we have an all volunteer military.

Oh, it's more profound that just "volunteers." Recent DOD figures show that
85% of the troops that served in Iraq or Afghanistan re-enlist at the first
opportunity. The remaining 15% probably retired, were invalided out, or
married harridans.

On 6/27/10 2:44 AM, wrote:


Yep, the libs like to treat the war on terrorism like it's just a
simple criminal matter. It's not.

I agree, it's not simple. It's complicated. But if the enemy (the
terrorists) can get us to expend $1T fighting them with an expenditure
on their part of a few million dollars, then I don't see how we're going
to win this war. We're hosed with our current strategy.

On 6/27/10 8:16 AM, HeyBub wrote:

Still, Obama was responsible for more American deaths on 9-11 than Yamamoto
was at Pearl Harbor (3000+ vs. 2402).

Really? I put his responsibility at zero American deaths.

On Jun 28, 2:01*am, John Karl wrote:
On 6/27/10 8:16 AM, HeyBub wrote:

Still, Obama was responsible for more American deaths on 9-11 than Yamamoto
was at Pearl Harbor (3000+ *vs. 2402).

Really? *I put his responsibility at zero American deaths.

There is no world wide terror organisation.
There is a world wide idea that has spread, fanned by the foriegn
activities of America.
America can't fight an idea (that's all it is). Your Times Square
bomber became aggrieved all on his own and decided to get (fortunately
inept) training and to do something about it. As did our 7/7 bombers.

Ergo the US military cannot defeat these people. It is not suited to
fighting an idea. It is suited to fighting the USSR in a pitched open
battle with massive military force.

HELLO!!!
The USSR no longer exists. The US military is largely obsolete.
Americans are very slow to pick up new ideas.

John Karl wrote:
On 6/27/10 8:16 AM, HeyBub wrote:

Still, Obama was responsible for more American deaths on 9-11 than
Yamamoto was at Pearl Harbor (3000+ vs. 2402).

Really? I put his responsibility at zero American deaths.

Ack! I miss-typed "Obama" for "Osama." I guess I was overwhelmed by the "BS"
factor...

Thanks for the observation.

I regret the error.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


jokes. The President doesn't have specific legislative authority to
order
the cessation of all air flights, but that's precisely what happened
after
9/11. It's a non-issue, just like the torture business. If it needs
doing,
there's always a way to get it done in America.
No, but the Secretary of Transportation has thought authority and
it was Minetta who ordered the planes down. According to the book on the
subject from Bob Woodward, Mineta did that all by his lonesome.

And remember Al Haig's "Don't worry, I am in charge!" press conference?
There's no accounting for delusional underlings in either party and no
shortage of them at any time.

What interested me much more were the statements that flight 93 had been
brought down by US fighter jets and not cockpit chaos. Knowing just a
little about how the chain of command works, I doubt at that point in time
there was any realistic way to get that to happen within the allotted time
frame. Grounding planes is one thing; shooting them down (especially one
of our own civil air liners) is quite another.

It's very likely that there's now a streamlined policy at work that *could*
manage to shoot down a plane heading for a suicide strike but it's much more
likely they would try to force it down or divert it. I'm not a pilot, but I
believe the Saudi terrorists that were at the controls would have lost
"mission focus" having to contend with fighter jets messing with them. I'll
even bet that Rand or the IDA have war-gamed 100's of 9/11 scenarios for the
government and there are a lot of contingency plans in place. Let's hope
they are better plans than the "Walrus" plans MMS approved for BP's "Big
Dump" deepsea well (which is falling in rank in the headlines just as I
predicted - another two months and days will go by without a BP story).

--
Bobby G.

"harry" wrote in message news:d8bb6716-7f87-4ecc-98a5-

stuff snipped

They're trying to get out of this war because they now know they can't
win. But they need another one. How about Venezuela? Seems ideal to
me.

Hell no. It's obvious that our next war will be with Iran. The guys who
model all this stuff have already worked out a likely scenario, based on
previous actions, current actors and political climate.

http://www.realclearworld.com/articl...n_97526. html

Israel will strike at Iran's nuclear facilities and the US will step in and
finish the job. It will be easy. Drop the Q and add an N in its place and
the IraQ war becomes the IraN war. There's got to be a cost savings in that
alone. Since Iran actually possess WMD stuff, it will limit mission creep.
We'll go in, destroy all the nuke labs and leave. What we should have done
in Iraq. See harry? We're learning!

The US Iraq was in process, if certain sources are to be believed, long
before 9/11. It takes years for big armies to "gear up" so the longer the
prep time (even if it's allegedly for "war games") the better,
logistics-wise. In the end, you go with what you have.

In the first war, solutions were easied. Fedex 1,000's of heavy duty
pantyhose because they were the only thing that kept the fine Iraqi sand
from clogging air filters and cannon barrels. In the second war, we faced
an enemy ahead of us (but not the Israelis) in terms of successfully
neutralizing many of our most plentiful combat vehicles. While we've gained
a lot of knowledge about how to armor better like using V-shaped bottoms to
deflect blasts and even ablative armor which repels the liquid copper slug
that makes modern IED's so lethal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosi...med_penetrator

"An EFP eight inches in diameter threw a seven-pound copper slug at Mach 6,
or 2,000 meters per second. (A .50-caliber bullet, among the most
devastating projectiles on the battlefield, weighs less than two ounces and
has a muzzle velocity of 900 meters per second.). Washington Post [8]"

I've seen some test firings and you don't want to be in an enclosed space
when one of those burns through. I've also seen how well the reactive armor
Israelis use on their tanks works. Ironically, the major vulnerability
(Steve, are you reading this?) of reactive armor is the anti-tank
gun/gunners version of the pistoler's double-tap:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_armour

"Reactive armour can be defeated with multiple hits in the same place, as by
tandem-charge weapons, which fire two or more shaped charges in rapid
succession. Without tandem charges, hitting the same spot twice is much more
difficult."

Israeli infantrymen keep a respectable difference between themselves and
tanks when marching. The armor works by exploding outwards against a
projectile striking the armor. Lots of very fast flying debris is created
in the immediate vicinity of the hit.

--
Bobby G.