Jihad needs scientists

In article <eh01t4$ape$6@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

In article <egt5d4$8u0_001@s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <LQ8Yg.11488$vJ2.5165@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egqcsa$8qk_001@s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <45306AD8.B490EBFB@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
The rest of the world loathes the USA. They didn't used to.

This is wrong.

Yes, it absolutely *is* wrong for the rest of the world to hate the USA.
We
do a lot of good for the world. We really should stop behaving in such a
way that makes other countries forget the good that we do.


You've had to work hard to
get to that position.

Why do you think that the first goal of the US is to be liked by
everyone?

That's a strawman. Our goal should be not to be hated by everyone.

That is wrong. Our goal should be to know what is in the
best interest of the nation and its people.

That's what Hitler thought too.

Of course. The decision to be made then was it the world would
be under a Germanic rule. There were a set of countries who
disagreed and were willing to physically fight to the death
to preserve their living style. The world is having a similar
conflict now. It seems that you are willing to let others
die to preserve your living style.

/BAH

 

In article <J--dnVkzKZ7JR67YnZ2dnUVZ8sudnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egvl52$8qk_005@s806.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <45322EC3.EA750F9A@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message

You had an implication that they are not as dangerous with a crude
bomb than with a sophisticated bomb.

Well, the fact is, they probably aren't. Their weapons are probably
fairly
crude, and their delivery systems are probably extremely crude and may
have
to rely on something decidedly low-tech, like sailing it into New York
harbor on a 35' yacht out of Cuba or some small, under-the-radar
Caribbean
island. This would still be very dangerous, don't get me wrong.
However,
it's inarguably more dangerous to deliver a sophisticated
fission-fusion-fission device by a ground-launched missile from their
own
country.

You'd have to conceive of a situation where N Korea could benefit from
such
action for it to make sense though.

Do you understand that the leader of N. Korea is also its Godhead?
Demonstrating power is a natural act for this kind of thinking.

A methodology not unlike that weilded by the President of the United States.

You appear to be utterly, one hundred percent, completely
ignorant about how the US governs itself.

<snip>

/BAH

 

In article <eh01a0$ape$1@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

In article <egqd26$8qk_002@s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <ego03u$avm$2@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <q2lti217ub0ipoq590okcqphu8snt59nga@4ax.com>,
JoeBloe <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:54:33 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:


"Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote in
message
news:YQtXg.270$di5.251@newsfe06.lga...
Eeyore wrote:


JoeBloe wrote:


Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:

JoeBloe wrote:

A "report" based on a guesstimate

No. Based on investigation. Something the USA hasn't done.

No. Folks over here, like Gary Sinese are sending books and pencils
and such over there so our soldiers can give them to kids in school.
Something they NEVER had in the past.


You're now suggesting that Iraqi kids didn't previously have books and
pencils ?

You're madder than ever.


Graham

sure they did, the books was Saddams desired religion and 101 ways to
kill americans.

Unlikely in Iraq. In Iran maybe a variation (less Saddam and more ways to
kill Americans), but not likely in Iraq. Prior to the early 1990s Iraq
was
almost a "liked" state in the region and they certainly had less
anti-western fervour than most other nations in that area.

Until Saddam totally fucked up and invaded the sovereignty of
another nation, the only thing we didn't like about him was that he
killed a lot of his own people. A ruthless regime which we
"tolerated" so as not to embroil the region.


Actually we sold him weapons,

What percentage of all Iraq's purchases were from the US
government?

What, if it's only 50% that makes it OK?

You dodged answering the question. What percentage? Be specific.

we sold him the materials to make chemical
weapons.

Which materials?

The precursor chemicals.

Specify. I suspect you don't want to make that list because
I could buy most of them at the drug store.

Rumsfield went over there and embraced him and told him he was our
friend.

What was the context of this visit?

Saddam had gassed the Kurds and was drawing world-wide criticism.

What year was this?

What is the custom of greeting
in that country?

What does this mean?

You dodged the question again. There are cultures where an
embrace is the normal greeting instead of a handshake.
Now, what is the custom of greeting in Iraq?

/BAH

 

In article <vc97j2t5u0ugeni9jnqks988b3db7aounl@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 16 Oct 06 09:53:59 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <45322D41.6B0FA0F9@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Its interesting that the other "non wins" you mention are from almost
200
years ago. We have lost more recent wars as well. We can compare this
to
Vietnam, I suppose.

Which was a French mess and a continuation of WWII.

It had ZILCH to do with WW2.

Graham

How could *anything* that happened after WWII have zilch to do with
WWII?

So WW2 is responsible for *everything* ????????

Did you think that a political climate that culiminated with
WWII went away when people quit fighting?

It certainly changed. Communism was a lot different in philosophy and
tactics from facism.

Which Communism? From the little I've studied, Russia's seems
to be the same peasant economy without one individual ruler
who inherited the job.

China's (from reading and observation) seems to have been the
only method to restore the country's resources and survival.
China was being run by the Ottoman's equivalent of Jannissaries.
This seems to be a key to the cessation of a political and
economic empire.

I don't know. I'm still trying to figure all of this out.

/BAH

 

In article <FdZYg.9$45.140@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <vc97j2t5u0ugeni9jnqks988b3db7aounl@4ax.com>, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes:
On Mon, 16 Oct 06 09:53:59 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <45322D41.6B0FA0F9@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Its interesting that the other "non wins" you mention are from
almost
200
years ago. We have lost more recent wars as well. We can compare
this
to
Vietnam, I suppose.

Which was a French mess and a continuation of WWII.

It had ZILCH to do with WW2.

Graham

How could *anything* that happened after WWII have zilch to do with
WWII?

So WW2 is responsible for *everything* ????????

Did you think that a political climate that culiminated with
WWII went away when people quit fighting?

It certainly changed. Communism was a lot different in philosophy and
tactics from facism.

Oh, of course. The point, though, is that war doesn't end when some
formal documents are signed, it really ends when stability is
restored. In the case of a great war, where a lot of the existing
international structure is destroyed, restoring stability can take a very
long time. And WWI (yes, I mean WWI, WWII was just a continuation
after a short breather) was such a cataclismic event that its effects
are still lingering.

Thank you. We aren't taught this in US schools. It took me
a while to accept that Viet Nam was a part of WWII that
wasn't finished in deference to France. I guess there
was such a big mess to clean up in Europe, these kinds of
matters were put at the bottom of things to do when there
is more time and money.

I'm still trying to figure out how people keep track of
all these kinds of details when they're having things
we call summit meetings.

/BAH


/BAH

 

In article <4533B227.6594D9D7@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

So WW2 is responsible for *everything* ????????

Did you think that a political climate that culiminated with
WWII went away when people quit fighting? War endings are
never like a FORTRAN program where the CALL to EXIT stops
everything.

So everything also caused by WW1 then.

It appears that you are incapable of thinking.

/BAH

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Of course. The decision to be made then was it the world would
be under a Germanic rule. There were a set of countries who
disagreed and were willing to physically fight to the death
to preserve their living style. The world is having a similar
conflict now. It seems that you are willing to let others
die to preserve your living style.

You're barking mad.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote

Do you understand that the leader of N. Korea is also its Godhead?
Demonstrating power is a natural act for this kind of thinking.

A methodology not unlike that weilded by the President of the United States.

You appear to be utterly, one hundred percent, completely
ignorant about how the US governs itself.

You appear to be 100% ignorant of humour.

Graham

 

In article <iso7j2lhfmp90cm6mb8ls5ksc6gr6s2vcu@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:42:13 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4533B227.6594D9D7@hotmail.com...


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

So WW2 is responsible for *everything* ????????

Did you think that a political climate that culiminated with
WWII went away when people quit fighting? War endings are
never like a FORTRAN program where the CALL to EXIT stops
everything.

So everything also caused by WW1 then.

Everything was caused by the Peloponnesian War.


Yes. History is a chaotic butterfly-effect process. Of course, chaotic
processes are still causal, and a chaotic system can still be managed,
pushed and made to move in some direction. It's just that the time
scale of predictability shortens the more nonlinear and chaotic a
system is.

I no longer think that human matters can be mapped to this
kind of effect. It's more similar to EMF or an infinite-node
network but I haven't spent much time thinking about this.

WWII shook up the entire world, and many of its effcts are still
fairly obvious. The Boer War and the Peloponnesian war changes our
world, but the causalities are too churned up now to be as obvious.

As to why the US acts as the world's cop,

I think that's the wrong noun to use.

WWII is pretty much still
the answer. That could change with some pushing, which nobody seems up
to so far.

Pushing in certain areas is not the best way to prevent future
messes. I've found that the only way for people to learn how
not make new messes is to have them clean up the ones they
already made.

Then there are the ones who intend to make big messes because
it is their religious mandate to make uncleanable messes.
This requires a different approach.

/BAH

 

In article <ytOdnWLb3pxhMa7YRVnyig@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egvmeh$8qk_001@s806.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <f8SdndAS3r_41q_YRVnygA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egt6gf$8qk_001@s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
You might question it. People who expect their systems to stay
up no matter what kind of errors occur, didn't question it. It
was a requirement to have certain uptimes.

If it is excessive then it is poor business sense. If your system needs
99.999% uptime then you take the correct precautions to ensure that. If it
only requires 99% uptime the precautions can be different.

Spending money and time making a 99% system 99.9999999% is wasted money.

Think about this the next time you are a passenger on a plane.
Think about this when you're getting an MRI or CAT scan.
Also think about this when you are at the bank trying to get
some money.

Think about what? If the system needs to be 99.999% then making it 99% is
also a failure.

I have yet to come across a system which is 100%. Is that even possible?

Yes.

What system can survive no matter what errors occur? Planes crash, software
crashes, plants malfunction. If there is a 100% system, let me know and I
can pretty much guarantee a large customer base for it.

First you need to look at a system from the person who is receiving
the computing services. In a lot of cases, the user doesn't
care where the data resides physcially as long as it is available
immediately to him no matter when and/or where he is.

Banking has learned how to do this. Crude examples are the
mirror images of newsgroups' contents.

I may be using a different definition of excessive than you.

No. You just don't know the biz. An excessive act to prevent
system crashes would be to never plug it in. Being able
to anticipate, thus write defensive code, for everything
that can go wrong, is prudent, practical, and sells a lot
of hard/software.

Which brings us full circle. You claim your 100% paranoia meant you took
excessive precautions. As I said, excessive precautions are by their
definition _excessive_.

Every system has weaknesses. Identifying and managing them is a step. But I
have never come across anyone who has a system which has 100% of potential
risks anticipated. Certainly not anything written down which makes this
claim.

That's because of Murphy's Law. No matter how many holes get plugged,
people are ingenius in creating new ones.

If you do know of systems which are 100% safe (even planes which are 100%
safe) then please let me know.

Sigh! When did I say, or imply, safe?

<snip>

As an example from an Industry I know better than airframes. If you are
protecting assets worth Ł1,000,000 then spending Ł1,200,000 on security
_is_
excessive yet I know companies which do this (the main one which springs
to
mind is US company but it is not soley Americans who do this).

Everything has an inherent risk which has to be tolerated. Excessive
precautions are wasted time and money.

I am not arguing against taking the appropriate measures, just that the
claims of "100% paranoia" are jingoistic and dont really hold up to
scrutiny.

You did not understand the reference. I'm beginning to form
the hypothsis that this was done on purpose.

I did understand the reference. Please re-read my posts and show where I
have said anything other than this, if I did it was unintentional. I am
fairly sure at no point did I advocate taking less than the required
measures.

When you are making something that has never been made before,
there is no way to specify what is excessive (as you define it).
The items and actions that become "excessive" are those
we haven't figured out how to fix or prevent. About the only
ones that fall in that category is physical properties of nature.

In a sense, this is also the Achilles' heel of the computiing
biz because code can appear to make all things possible.
That's why virtual reality makes money today.

I also doubt I advocated taking anything _more_ than the required
measures.

But required measures had never been defined in our work. We made
new stuff. Defining the required measures was part of each
project. Thus, being able to anticipate everything that can
go wrong is a job requirement.

If I am right in one thing, I might be right about a second thing,
or a third thing, or the topic in this thread.

Well, you may be right but I have no idea what your hypothesis is, or the
second or third thing.

You introduced the "100% paranoia" to justify your ideas about Islamic
extremists aiming for world domination.

Sigh! Not ideas; I'm trying to figure out how to prevent the mess.

I pointed out 100% paranoia was
madness and should be avoided. You (with JoeBloe trying to butt in
occasionally) then came up with examples about how important excessive
precautions were and I said that wasn't the case.

Please, at any point you want to stop appearing vague and mysterious, let me
know what you are thinking (first, second and/or third) and I will be able
to easily confirm. Generally speaking I have not yet felt the need to have a
hidden agenda in this debate.

I can state my hidden agenda; preserve the world's accumulated
knowledge. Religious extremists have the goal of destroying
most of that knowledge. Islamic extremists have the goal of
destroying it all because it's a product of Western civilization.

Personally, depending on the criticality of the system you are talking
about
I would say what you suggest may, or may not be, excessive.

It was not. AAMOF, our precautions wouldn't be enough in today's
biz. Today's computing business takes 7x24 uptime for granted.

Well, most web servers use a "rule of nines" for uptime with 99.999% being
about the gold standard but I see what you mean.

That said, the precautions taken must reflect the business, for example do
the webservers meeting 99.999% uptime get tested for operation (to go back
to a previous example) underwater at 100m depths? It is never, ever, going
to be possible to anticipate every situation.

But we did anticipate every situation w.r.t. system software.

Bet you didnt. Sweeping statements like this cause confusion in people who
then come to expect _every_ situation to be anticpated and get upset when it
isn't.

They didn't get upset, unless they lost a big chunk of work and data.
What they did do is submit it as a bug and we fixed if we could
reproduce it. This is one process of fault tolerant computing.

It
was our job to do that. Like I said, we were paid very well
to be paranoid by expecting everything to go wrong and try
the best we could to not let such an event do no harm.

I dont doubt that you did try to cover as many potential problems as
possible in the time available. The limitations of time, equipment and
imagination will always ensure that the system is less than 100% fool proof.

We had hundreds of customers working on the same thing. If you
want to see how well this works, you should watch the evolution
of the code called Linux.

As you said yourself, the fall back is to "expect the unexpected" and have
some sort of failsafe built in. Even the best failsafe is not 100%.

A business model which works
defines the normal working practices and determines what precautions have
to
be taken for that. From there, depending on cost and time constraints
other
precautions can be built in.

As a real world example, I was in Washington last year and I went to an
ATM
to get some cash out. The screen of the ATM had an MS Windows VBScript
runtime error popup and nothing was working. You would think this was a
24/7
system, yet it had failed.

Micshit is finding out that their usual business model is not going
to work.

I agree. Yet they have a pretty large market share.

No, they don't.

Even now, companies who
really should know better are using their systems. This seems to imply that
the inherent risks of MS systems is manageable (or at least thought to be
manageable) by the companies involved.

These are a minority.

Also, on a terminology issue, checking for "any possible error
condition"
is
rarely achievable.

You don't know what I'm talking about.

Obviously not, as the terminology you used was either inaccurate or you
are
claiming the impossible.

Please, feel free to elaborate.

I tried. You misread it.

Obviously. Sorry. I am amazed that checking for "any possible error
condition" could mean something other than the impossible, but I can live
with my amazement.

Consider the HLL (higher level language) contruct of IF-THEN-ELSE
statements. That can cover everything. New conditions that cause
the code to fall in the ELSE clause can have a general solution.
It may not be nice nor pleasing to the computing process that got
the "error", but it will be dealt with.

All of Micshit's ELSE routines caused a BSOD (blue screen of death)
which resulted in the owner of the system reinstalling the
operating system from scratch. It is called Micshit because the
ELSE check was always first. We were paid to have a reverse of
the heirarchy of that paranoia.

I supposed
keeping the system from being powered up to prevent crashes
is excessive but not very useful.

I would describe it as excessive. It is why being 100% paranoid rarely
makes
sense in a business environment.

We were in the business of manufacturing computer systems for customers
and not the feel-good consumer marketing business.

Which makes it less likely that 100% paranoid would make sense. When
business write a statement of requirements they are often very specific
about the security aspects. If you go wildly beyond this then you are,
effectively, doing unpaid work and should have negotiated a better
contract.
No organisation is 100% protected which is why security risk management
exists.

I'm not talking about paper pushing. I am talking about basic
mechanics and electronics. Note that it is a feature that
physical laws do not change out from underneath one.

I am not talking about paper pushing either. You have read the word
"management" and decided it means something which, in this instance it
doesnt.

Risk Management is the processess and systems you put in place to manange a
risk. It is not (just) about paper pushing.

But your view of the work done to implement risk management is
limited to the paper pushing. That's how I read your understanding.

I'll be one of /erg's pennies that he's not going to get this
one either.

Sorry, was this meant to be an email or is this an "in joke" you only want a
select few to get?

It was a combination of baiting a fishing line with some humor.
I don't think get the wryness of that line. I was also
proud that I could get this conversation back on topic for
a nonosecond.

/BAH

 

In article <eh066g$fqo$2@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

In article <pev4j2pkd0bj3da8vjm44121b4tohhc1l8@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 23:38:27 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
null@example.net> wrote:

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 17:07:30 -0500, John Fields wrote:

<snip>

It's a unilateral invasion, ordered by one man to satisfy a personal
vendetta, and 650,000 people have died as a result of his criminal
insanity.

---
You got a good source for that 650k? I picked it up blindly from
the Ass, but snapped to it and just a little while ago asked him for
a source. Maybe you've got one?
---

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health as published in the British
medical journal Lancet.

From the news reports I heard, they got this data by going
from house to house asking each member how many of their relatives
and friends were killed. Do you not see the flaw in the sum of
the numbers reported by all these interviewees?

If this method was used, do you not see how insultingly (to you,
if you believe their report) biased this number is?

This is another astonishing example of abject stupidity: 1.)
for those people who issued the report believing that this
was a good number and 2.) for their readers to
believe this is a good estimate and 3) for the way the
US media reported this.

<snip>

/BAH

 

In article <4533B576.5375DC4E@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Lloyd Parker wrote:

JoeBloe <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

All of Islam (read the moslems) believe that all others that are not
moslem are "infidels" and that killing them is not, nor should not be
a crime.

You are lying.

I suspect it's what he learnt at Church.

American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so than their
Muslim counterparts.

Not yet. But they are watching the Islamic extremists and learning
what works.

/BAH

 

In article <2cl7j2pks965n8ddajvdtmbuukpgd6559m@4ax.com>,
Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:38:14 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Lloyd Parker wrote:

JoeBloe <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

All of Islam (read the moslems) believe that all others that are not
moslem are "infidels" and that killing them is not, nor should not be
a crime.

You are lying.

I suspect it's what he learnt at Church.

American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so than
their
Muslim counterparts.

More so, because they (through political influence over the power of
US action) have so much greater power by which they can act. (They
are a very large, very well funded, and highly-catered minority here
and they often pass around internal lists of who to vote for, as
well.)

The sole reason I'm in this discussion is because their political
opposition keeps their eyes shut with their fingers in their ears
yelling neener, neener so they cannot hear what their constituency
says. What I would like is a Democrat who has a visible grasp
on reality. The current Democrat power structure has chosen
to promote this problem as a fiction. Go listen to what fucking
Clinton said last night when he raised the couple millions
for the Democrat running for Massachusetts governor.

/BAH

 

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <eh01a0$ape$1@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

Actually we sold him weapons,

What percentage of all Iraq's purchases were from the US
government?

What, if it's only 50% that makes it OK?

You dodged answering the question. What percentage? Be specific.

we sold him the materials to make chemical
weapons.

Which materials?

The precursor chemicals.

Specify. I suspect you don't want to make that list because
I could buy most of them at the drug store.

I doubt if you would find any of the reactive starting materials for CW
like phosphorous chloride, fluoride, oxychloride, thionyl chloride or
any of the other more complex intermediates like trimethyl phosphite
(some of which have legitimate use in plastics and insecticides) on any
drug store shelf. These days even legitimate industrial users of
organophosphorous compounds are vetted.

The US even sold Iraq helicopters and heavy vehicles on a don't ask
don't tell basis. As did the UK, Germany and even Israel... see for
example the WSU website (and links).

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Exports of obvious CW precursors from US companies (and in theory their
overseas subsiduaries) were eventually blocked in March 1984 according
to the WSU article. That sounds about right to me.

Exports of dual use and nuclear technology were still being approved
much later (although the US & UK governments tried damn hard to hide
it). Check out the infamous Matrix-Churchill show trial and the UK
government whitewash that followed its collapse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/15/newsid_2544000/2544355.stm

Rumsfield went over there and embraced him and told him he was our
friend.

What was the context of this visit?

A promotional sales tour to help the Iraqis to win the Iran-Iraq war.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Eeyore]

|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote:

Check out the infamous Matrix-Churchill show trial and the UK
government whitewash that followed its collapse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/15/newsid_2544000/2544355.stm

That was truly outrageous with the government attempting to suppress evidence !

Graham

 

In article <odi8j25ttpiuu9t6tbg4jne9cdut88qmin@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:38:14 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



Lloyd Parker wrote:

JoeBloe <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

All of Islam (read the moslems) believe that all others that are not
moslem are "infidels" and that killing them is not, nor should not be
a crime.

You are lying.

I suspect it's what he learnt at Church.

American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so than
their
Muslim counterparts.


Yeah, all those Southern Baptist suicide bombers.

Sigh! Wait. If this gets results it will be tried.
Have you not noticed what's been happening lately?
And it's not just Southern Baptist.

/BAH

 

In article <1161090357.909390.53800@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <eh01a0$ape$1@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

Actually we sold him weapons,

What percentage of all Iraq's purchases were from the US
government?

What, if it's only 50% that makes it OK?

You dodged answering the question. What percentage? Be specific.

we sold him the materials to make chemical
weapons.

Which materials?

The precursor chemicals.

Specify. I suspect you don't want to make that list because
I could buy most of them at the drug store.

I doubt if you would find any of the reactive starting materials for CW
like phosphorous chloride, fluoride, oxychloride, thionyl chloride or
any of the other more complex intermediates like trimethyl phosphite
(some of which have legitimate use in plastics and insecticides) on any
drug store shelf.

I have my chemistry book, also known as the recipe book. Now specify
the ingredients needed to make those dishes you've just listed.

These days even legitimate industrial users of
organophosphorous compounds are vetted.

But the poster wasn't talking about these days. He was talking
about 25 years ago.

The US even sold Iraq helicopters and heavy vehicles on a don't ask
don't tell basis. As did the UK, Germany and even Israel... see for
example the WSU website (and links).

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Exports of obvious CW precursors from US companies (and in theory their
overseas subsiduaries) were eventually blocked in March 1984 according
to the WSU article. That sounds about right to me.

And why did those ingredients get on the US' restriction list?

Exports of dual use and nuclear technology were still being approved
much later (although the US & UK governments tried damn hard to hide
it).

Define what "nuclear technology" is. I don't know what people
mean by this. I know what they want me to think.

Check out the infamous Matrix-Churchill show trial and the UK
government whitewash that followed its collapse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/15/newsid_2544000/2
544355.stm

I ain't going to go look for that. I thought the guy was accusing
the United _States_ for handing free weapons and components over
to Iraq--not United Kingdom.

Or are you trying to get people to believe that everything the
UK did was also the US' fault?

Rumsfield went over there and embraced him and told him he was our
friend.

What was the context of this visit?

A promotional sales tour to help the Iraqis to win the Iran-Iraq war.

Win? I don't think so. In those days, most deals had to do with
keeping strengths equal with the Communists' (mostly fUSSR) satellites.

Now, what percentage of Iraq imports were from US companies?

Europeans have hidden assumptions about US companies and how they
function because their environment is based on their socailist
govnerments controlling production. This is not how business
works in the US. Europeans have this subtle assumption and
don't seem to be able to realize that companies in the US
never first ask if they can manufacture a foo before they
build the plant.



/BAH

 

In article <e97b6$4534dd17$4fe728b$30183@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:


I can state my hidden agenda; preserve the world's accumulated
knowledge. Religious extremists have the goal of destroying
most of that knowledge. Islamic extremists have the goal of
destroying it all because it's a product of Western civilization.

Religious extremism is always the result of one of the following:

A) Insanity

B) Desire for power, control, and wealth

None of the above. Fear. Pure, simple terror.

/BAH

 

[unsettled]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

I can state my hidden agenda; preserve the world's accumulated
knowledge. Religious extremists have the goal of destroying
most of that knowledge. Islamic extremists have the goal of
destroying it all because it's a product of Western civilization.

Religious extremism is always the result of one of the following:

A) Insanity

B) Desire for power, control, and wealth

 

[MooseFET]

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <1161055552.800809.247610@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <45205022.CCB68B6B@hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:

[....]
What we really need is a war on the incorrect use of the term "a war
on". Right now people are talking of a "war on terror" as though
somehow the emotion "terror" was an external threat.

Well, there is a threat, and it is external (to some places). But,
you're right, terror is just a tool being used here, the proper should
be "war on extremism".

The problem with that is we would have to have "a war on extremism we
don't like". Perhaps it should be "a war on violent extremism". The
world is full of extremists and we sure can't take them all on so
perhaps "a war on extremist that are a threat" would be the way to go.
None of these will fit on a bumper sticker so I don't think it will
happen.

Also if you call it a war, you make the folks on the other side into
"soldiers". This is an honerable status I am not sure we want to grant
them. They are criminals like the Mafia and nothing more. It will be
easier to get other countries to help get rid of them if you assert
that they are crooks that snuck into the place instead of soldiers for
a cause.

"Mr. Whosit, sir, we in the US have detected that several bad guys from
the crime gang Lotsa Badguys have snuck into your country of
Ohheckistan." gives the leadership of Ohheckistan an easy way to disown
the terrorists.

Once the "war on
terror" is over, I expect they will start the "war on ennui" or "a war
on limerence".

Heck, we've "war on obesity" already

Obesity has won. They have taken over. They sell you hambergers and
then little pills to prevent the hambergers from having their natural
effect.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"