Enter free photo contest and win 10K!
Enter the International Open Amateur Photography Contest for your Chance to win the GRAND PRIZE of $10,000! Say Cheese! You could be the Grand Prize Winner! http://ab.ourbeststuff.com/newlc/go/2953 To have your address eliminated from our mailing list, follow this link: http://ab.ourbeststuff.com/unsub/central/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
"You can't predict what "the crowd" will say, and the Arab "crowd" is no more symplistic than the American one. It does "work" somewhat differently, and does display different "mentality", whatever that means, but none of it is exploitable with any useful degree of certainty by cheap armchair psychologising." Again, I think you're missing the point here. All you need is one bin Laden to cause us a decent amount of agony. Half a dozen multimillionares with a fanatical hatred of the US and we might have a regime change over here. As for the rest of your post, you didn't respond to the one point so obvious I didn't bother making it: Israel. Add to that images of us running around any country with a drop of oil or two and they have the right picture: "You Arabs can continue living here as long as our access remains unimpeded." And again, the politics and local history are very near irrelevant. The US is there in Saudi, Israel, Iraq, and wherever...not the French, not the Italians, and not the Chinese or the Russians. -TD From: Anatoly Vorobey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention? Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:08:46 +0200 On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 05:06:55PM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: > A thread that started out quasi-interesting has descended into > non-Cypherpunk levels of triviality. I thought it was trivial all along. > The original point stands, and is valid. The Islamic world and, in > particular, the Arabic part of the Islamic world, are probably going to > forget their dislike of Saddam when they see those newreels of the great > Dictator being rubbergloved and de-loused. Oh please. They (well, many of them) sure didn't forget their dislike of the US when they saw those newsreels of the twin towers tumbling down. > For them it's almost certainly > going to resound as a symbol of how we've systematically manipulated and > fucked them over all these years. Actually, they mostly systematically manipulated and fucked themselves over, with occassional help from different factions in the rest of the world. And they already have a "symbol of how we've", etc. - American military presence in the most holy of Islamic countries, Saudi Arabia. That's one of the largest reasons for Al-Qaeda growth in recent years. Compared to infidel military bases somewhere near Mecca and Medina, whatever's done to some dictator who has presided over a mostly secular regime is insignificant. And American military presence in Saudi Arabia is actually subsiding now because Iraq is no longer a threat. > They're not going to respect our "Power", > they're not going to care much that WE supported Saddam in the first place. > They're just going to get angrier. This is just so much armchair psychology. Most of it is silly theoretising that has no grounding in reality. One side says: look, we had to humuliate him publicly, because those Arabs only understand power, they only respect you if you clearly show them who's the boss, bla bla bla. The other side says: we shouldn't humiliate him, because the Arab culture is built around the all-powerful concept of pride, and they'll never forget how we hurt their pride, bla bla bla. Both sides are spewing idiotic garbage with some marginal relevance to reality, which is much, much more complicated than that. You can't predict what "the crowd" will say, and the Arab "crowd" is no more symplistic than the American one. It does "work" somewhat differently, and does display different "mentality", whatever that means, but none of it is exploitable with any useful degree of certainty by cheap armchair psychologising. > Look for bin Laden to grow in status > until he's just a notch or two below Mohammed. This is inane. > That Saddam was a cruel, butchering dictator will > soon be nearly irrelevant. Truth is always relevant. -- avva _ Check your PC for viruses with the FREE McAfee online computer scan. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Video Professor - Software Giveaway
Video Professor wants to give you: COMPUTER LESSONS- FREE VIRUS PROTECTION- FREE INTERNET ACCESS- FREE http://ab.getquickernews.com/newlc/go/3003 Its all FREE* in the Video Professor software giveaway. Well give you a complete computer lesson set of your choice FREE. PLUS, you get free virus protection from McAfee our gift to you just for taking us up on our offer. Just check it out today to get it all Free! http://ab.getquickernews.com/newlc/go/3003 * All you pay is just $6.95 to cover shipping and handling. Limit one per household. This offer is for PC and compatible computers only. Some restrictions may apply. Follow this link if you no longer wish to be contacted. http://ab.getquickernews.com/central/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Speaking of Reason
R. A. Hettinga wrote: At 2:58 PM + 12/12/03, ken wrote: Bruce is a lefty, but not a statist rghhht... That's like saying that he's a sow, but not a boar... grunt grunt
Find Real singles this holiday season
Tired of meetin cyber duds? There's a better way to meet! Meet your match this holiday! http://ab.goodfaststuff.com/newlc/go/2984 Follow the link below to be dropped from our mailing list. http://ab.goodfaststuff.com/unsub/central/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
December 15, 2003 Uncle Samâs Guantanamo Prison: Outside the Rule of Law By Brigid OâNeil* http://www.independent.org/tii/news/031215ONeil.html The latest news from Guantanamo Bay is beginning to sound like a modern-day Simpsons episode. After two years of imprisoning more than 600 alleged enemy combatants without charge or counsel in a Cuban prison camp, the Administration announced earlier this month that two detainees -- one a U.S. citizen -- would be permitted limited access to an attorney. As any Simpsons buff will tell you, itâs a classic Mr. Burns move: put on a show of improving work conditions at the nuclear power plant by dressing Homer in thermal underwear. While it might be an amusing tag line typical of the most noxious character in the Simpsons repertoire, itâs a sad metaphor for the U.S. governmentâs abysmal treatment of designated enemy combatants. News of the American prisonerâs counsel came one day before the Justice Department filed a brief at the Supreme Court, adding to suspicions about the Administrationâs motives. Their brief asks the court to affirm the governmentâs indefinite detention of Americans declared âenemy combatants,â without counsel or the ability to dispute the allegations. The Constitutional liberties at risk in this case, including the right to a fair trial and due process, constitute a grave danger for Americans and foreign nationals alike. And nowhere is the startling consequence of Constitutional âconcessionsâ more apparent than the state of Guantanamo Bay. >From the beginning, Guantanamo Bay was wrought with strife. The Geneva Convention, with its guarantee of certain fundamental rights for all prisoners of war, was quickly sidelined by the Administration in favor of its own rules for the treatment and investigation of detainees. In the absence of any rule of law, it didnât take long for the media to pick up reports of inhumane treatment -- or what one former intelligence officer brazenly called, âtorture-lite.â These reports include: firing rubber bullets at those in restraints, beatings for anyone who âmade a call to prayer,â sleep deprivation, and forced confessions. The situation became so dire that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the only non-government organization to visit the camp, broke a long-standing policy of silence and called the prisoner circumstances an âintolerable situation.â After reading the latest official statements on the health of the detainees, it becomes shockingly clear why the ICRC took such an unprecedented move. According to national news reports, 35 detainees have attempted suicide, 110 have been placed on a suicide watch list, and 1 out of every 5 detainees now receive medication for what one military official can only describe as âclinical depression.â In response to such damning reports, the Administration contends that the detainees are dangerous terrorists and thus do not deserve any legal protections, much less liberal sympathies. But after two years of investigations at the camp, the Administration has yet to charge any detainee with a crime or bring a case before a military tribunal. Thus, the public has no way to determine what alleged crimes these men are charged with committing, much less whether or not they are guilty. In the absence of any formidable opposition to the Executive Branchâs actions, the Supreme Court has finally stepped into the ring. In a matter of months the Justices will decide two cases that will rule on a host of alleged constitutional abuses. In the first case, Padilla v. Rumsfeld, the Court will determine whether a U.S. citizen has the right to an attorney before disappearing into a military stockade without charges or contact with the outside world. The second case, involving the two appeals of Rasul v. Bush and Odah v. U.S., will decide if Guantanamo detainees can have access to civilian courts to challenge their detention. The most pressing issue in both cases calls into question the newly claimed Executive Branch power to detain any person indefinitely and without any recourse to judicial review. Given the blatant lack of any legal protections for these alleged combatants, it is no wonder that former prisoner-of-war Senator John McCain expressed concern this week about what he saw after a recent visit to Guantanamo. Even prisoners suspected of serious crimes deserve fair and open legal proceedings -- after all, our very Constitution was founded on the right to due process and a presumption of innocence. By holding suspected enemies to our highest rule of law and honoring established international treaties, we set a precedent for the treatment we expect of U.S. troops in enemy hands. To undermine this rule of law risks the very livelihood of our Constitution and threatens the way our citizens are treated both at home and abroad. No minor concessions by the U.S. government can change the impression that the secrecy and lack of due process for detainees at Guantanamo
Silly Santa Screen Saver - Free!
>>Get in the holiday spirit early and have some fun with >>the Silly Santa Screen Saver!! > >>Get your Silly Santa Screen Saver today - it's Free > >>Go Now: http://lc.online-value.com/newlc/go/3095 > > >>Not available after December 25th - Don't miss out! Use this link to withdraw your address from our database. http://lc.online-value.com/usb/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- On 17 Dec 2003 at 22:54, Michael Kalus wrote: > No, but it is very interresting that all of this didn't > matter while Saddam was the "good guy" for our causes (and by > that I mean the Western world general). You are making up your own history. When Saddam came to power, he seized western property and murdered westerners, especially Americans, and you lot cheered him to an echo. Saddam was always an enemy of the west, he was never a good guy. He was at times an ally, in the sense that Stalin and Pol Pot were at times temporary allies, yet somehow I never see you fans of slavery and mass murder criticizing the west for allying with Stalin. Evil men, by their nature, find themselves in conflict with other evil men for the same reasons as good men do. Thus evil men and good men will often find themselves in a temporary alliance of convenience against a common enemy, an alliance that both sides know will end in war or near war fairly soon. This however seldom leads good men to mistake evil men for 'good guys" --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG x2lNKlbCvNFyDbzcIL3WupJdqL2kOOQGo3OhgraM 4X1HqIxqyVSPO+wzMqnLKSAznJWvSZg0qzwl74LB/
The killer app for encryption
-- Encryption is a defense against threats. For people to adopt encryption, they need to be threatened. All businessmen are guilty of insider trading and destruction of evidence. In consequence all businessmen use encrypted vpn internally within companies, but not, however, in external communications, rendering a public key infrastructure quite useless. For widespread tax evasion to take off, we would like widespread use of public keys. Now the entire population is guilty of file trading. Pretty soon, therefore, the entire population will be using encryption, but it is far from clear that this encryption will enable all the potential uses of encryption that cypherpunks foresaw. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 5fFQJC040+P9QrkF8BhWR4nUBWhNmexs1EH0ej6o 4a8EuzGFht8mQloFG16q2B76njPoWM/jVAzYAxKoQ
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
James A. Donald wrote: -- On 17 Dec 2003 at 22:54, Michael Kalus wrote: No, but it is very interresting that all of this didn't matter while Saddam was the "good guy" for our causes (and by that I mean the Western world general). You are making up your own history. Am I? The west traded heavily with him, be it the US, France, Germany, the UK. Nobody was left out. All dealt with Saddam and made a lot of money off of him. When Saddam came to power, he seized western property and murdered westerners, especially Americans, and you lot cheered him to an echo. Who is "you lot"? [...] So in September 1980, Hussein's troops crossed the border into Iran. At first the war went well for Iraq, but eventually Iranian forces pushed the invaders out of their country. By spring 1982, the Iranians had gone on the offensive. And that greatly worried the Reagan White House, knowing that an Iranian victory could have a disastrous effect on America's power base in the oil-rich Middle East. Before long the Reagan administration began openly courting Saddam Hussein. In 1982, the United States removed Iraq from its list of countries that supported state-sponsored terrorism. In December 1983, President Reagan sent to Baghdad none other than Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy to the Middle East and today one of Hussein's harshest critics as U.S. secretary of defense. Rumsfeld's visit opened up America's relations with Iraq for the first time since the Arab-Israeli war in 1967. Later, Rumsfeld said that "it struck us as useful to have a relationship" and revealed that Hussein had indicated he wasn't interested in causing problems in the world. [...] http://tlc.discovery.com/convergence/iraqwar/timeline/timeline_03.html Saddam was always an enemy of the west, he was never a good guy. Does the " mean anything to you? He was our "good guy" as long as we though we could use him. He was at times an ally, in the sense that Stalin and Pol Pot were at times temporary allies, yet somehow I never see you fans of slavery and mass murder criticizing the west for allying with Stalin. I think the circumstances where a bit different at this point in time. Besides. Nobody (at least not I) said anything about "supporting" him or "cheering" for Saddam. The Question here is not if he is a bad man or a good man. It is not if he did or did not do what they accuse him of. But it is about the double morale that the west has been advocating for the past 50 years. Especially when it comes to Oil. It is astonishing that it was okay for Saddam to be as evil as be and we (as a society) turned a blind eye to it, until WE (for whatever reason) felt threatened by him and than dragged it all out again, just to proof how bad he is. Face it. If the West didn't want Saddam in Power they could have removed him a long time ago. The matter of fact is, we are as much to blame for what happened to the people in Iraq as is Saddam, if not more so. Evil men, by their nature, find themselves in conflict with other evil men for the same reasons as good men do. So where do your enlightened Western Politicians fit in? Good or Evil? Thus evil men and good men will often find themselves in a temporary alliance of convenience against a common enemy, an alliance that both sides know will end in war or near war fairly soon. I suggest you read Chomsky's new book, and if only as a reference to the sources he lists. This however seldom leads good men to mistake evil men for 'good guys" No, but it leads good men to become evil. If you ally with the enemy than you are giving up what makes you good. Turning away when someone is abused doesn't make the abuse stop and it makes you just as guilty as the one who commits the abuse. Ignorance might be bliss for most people, but from an ethical and moral standpoint it is not. Parading Saddam around and humiliating him just shows how low we really are, despite the fact that we don't want to acknowledge it ourselves. Michael
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote: > On 17 Dec 2003 at 22:54, Michael Kalus wrote: > > No, but it is very interresting that all of this didn't > > matter while Saddam was the "good guy" for our causes (and by > > that I mean the Western world general). > > You are making up your own history. When Saddam came to power, > he seized western property and murdered westerners, especially > Americans, and you lot cheered him to an echo. Saddam was > always an enemy of the west, he was never a good guy. He was > at times an ally, in the sense that Stalin and Pol Pot were at > times temporary allies, yet somehow I never see you fans of > slavery and mass murder criticizing the west for allying with > Stalin. Relevant numbers from the Times today, quoting Air Force Monthly, January 2003: from 1980 to 1990 Iraq imported 28.9 billion pounds worth of weapons. 19% by value were from France; 57% from the Soviet Union (ie Russia), East Germany, and Czechoslovakia; 8% from China. Sales from the United States were inconsequential and did not make the list. From earlier articles in other publications I believe that in fact US sales were a small fraction of 1%. It is not coincidental that the Security Council members opposed to taking any action on Iraq's repeated violations were France, Russia, Germany, and China: Iraq's weapons suppliers. These repeated claims that Saddam was somehow the US's boy in the Middle East are puzzling. The US did not supply any significant number of weapons or other military aid to Iraq. They did give limited support to Iraq in its war against Iran, a direct consequence of the Irani occupation of the US embassy in Teheran and kidnapping of its staff. If you look at the tactics and weapons used by Saddam in the invasion of Kuwait and in the resulting Gulf War, they were Soviet. Chirac's personal relations with Saddam go back to at least 1975, the year that France signed an agreement to sell two nuclear reactors to Iraq. There have been rumors for a long time that Saddam provided financial support to Chirac in various election campaigns. The evidence points to deep ties between Russia, France, and Iraq that goes back decades, plus somewhat weaker ties to China and Germany. Relations between the US and Baath-controlled Iraq were bad from the beginning; American bodies dangling from ropes in Baghdad were not the beginning of a great romance. -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure
Need a date over the holidays?
It could be your lucky day in the love department! Your perfect match may be just a click away! http://ab.myfasterstuff.com/newlc/go/3007 Browse singles in your area online and get a free personal profile! Don't leave that special someone waiting... begin your search today! http://ab.myfasterstuff.com/newlc/go/3007 Use this link to change your recipient status. http://ab.myfasterstuff.com/unsub/central/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: The killer app for encryption
Uh...I assume you're quoting somebody here? The last point is actually a very good one, but getting there requires hacking through gobbledeegook. What's this "all businessmen" silliness? And using vpns WITHIN a company? As an employee of a major Wall Street firm, I can tell you that's completely wrong. But the interesting thing, which again is "obvious" is, "How will P2P Networks morph into something like blacknet?" I'm very interested in hearing about whether any P2P networks support encrypted transactions of any sort yet (ie, can one yet pay for some files via P2P)? Are there any P2P Networks being designed deliberately to support anything/everything, including peered IP Telephony? -TD From: "James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: The killer app for encryption Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:47:14 -0800 -- Encryption is a defense against threats. For people to adopt encryption, they need to be threatened. All businessmen are guilty of insider trading and destruction of evidence. In consequence all businessmen use encrypted vpn internally within companies, but not, however, in external communications, rendering a public key infrastructure quite useless. For widespread tax evasion to take off, we would like widespread use of public keys. Now the entire population is guilty of file trading. Pretty soon, therefore, the entire population will be using encryption, but it is far from clear that this encryption will enable all the potential uses of encryption that cypherpunks foresaw. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 5fFQJC040+P9QrkF8BhWR4nUBWhNmexs1EH0ej6o 4a8EuzGFht8mQloFG16q2B76njPoWM/jVAzYAxKoQ _ Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work and yourself. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/workingmom.armx
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, BillyGOTO wrote: > On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 07:18:04PM +, Jim Dixon wrote: > > Relevant numbers from the Times today, quoting Air Force Monthly, January > > 2003: from 1980 to 1990 Iraq imported 28.9 billion pounds worth of > > weapons. 19% by value were from France; 57% from the Soviet Union (ie > > Russia), East Germany, and Czechoslovakia; 8% from China. Sales from the > > United States were inconsequential and did not make the list. From > > earlier articles in other publications I believe that in fact US sales > > were a small fraction of 1%. > > I smell statistical acrobatics by the USAF... > Do we really measure weapons in pounds? In the UK we measure sales in pounds sterling. One pound = $1.75 and rising. > I'd rather see a listing of weapons imports from JUST the period of > the Iran-Iraq war than a listing of weapons imports from 1980-1990. One is included in the other. From memory, total US military sales to Iraq in the decade were $3 million. As we all know, in Washington DC "a billion dollars here, a billion dollars there -- pretty soon you are talking real money". Three million dollars will buy you a few coffee pots and a monkey wrench for your AWACS aircraft. -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 07:18:04PM +, Jim Dixon wrote: > Relevant numbers from the Times today, quoting Air Force Monthly, January > 2003: from 1980 to 1990 Iraq imported 28.9 billion pounds worth of > weapons. 19% by value were from France; 57% from the Soviet Union (ie > Russia), East Germany, and Czechoslovakia; 8% from China. Sales from the > United States were inconsequential and did not make the list. From > earlier articles in other publications I believe that in fact US sales > were a small fraction of 1%. I smell statistical acrobatics by the USAF... Do we really measure weapons in pounds? I'd rather see a listing of weapons imports from JUST the period of the Iran-Iraq war than a listing of weapons imports from 1980-1990.
Nextel chills radio station into disciplining disgruntled customer (and show host)
Pubdate: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 Source: City Paper (PA) Copyright: 2003 CP Communications, Inc. Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://www.citypaper.net/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/88 Author: Morris Bracy Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Forchion THE HIGH AND THE MIGHTY The first time self-described marijuana-legalization spokesperson Patrick Duff smoked weed, he was an 11-year-old kid in Delran, N.J. "I was a very adventurous young man," says Duff, who, when he didn't get high that first time, wondered what all the hype was about. He couldn't have known that he and Mary Jane would have such an enduring, committed relationship. Sixteen years later, Duff found himself hosting Open Minds, an hourlong weekly program on New World Radio 1540 AM. For an eight-week, buy-your-own-airtime stint that began in October, Duff -- along with a ganja-themed local hip-hop act, Herbillest -- provided a local forum for legalization activists to state their case to Philadelphians. Unlike other shows with similar themes, Duff says that he "wasn't going to go on there and be irate and get real crazy about the situation, [but] actually find people who could solve the problem." Past guests include Cannabis Hall of Fame inductee and author of The Emperor Wears No Clothes Jack Herer, Vancouver's "Prince of Pot," Marc Emery, and our very own "NJ Weedman," Ed Forchion. Duff just couldn't keep the topic on weed the whole time, though, and took on cell phone giant Nextel Communications when his i90 cell gave out. He says he trusted that his $4.95-a-month manufacturer's insurance policy, along with a $35 deductible, would guarantee a new replacement. But as he went through three replacements in six months, he read the fine print and found that Nextel reserved the right to replace broken phones with "refurbished" ones. Duff, who felt like he was getting hustled, demanded the company tell consumers new phones weren't an option and that all phones were used. He then challenged a Nextel rep to defend the company's policies on the air. Nextel responded by calling his station and apparently convincing the general manager to do some in-house censorship. In a letter from the station, Duff was threatened with being "immediately canceled" should he "even breathe the name Nextel." Chris Doherty, Nextel's senior director of public affairs, admits they called but says they didn't threaten the station with a libel suit. According to Doherty, the company's main concern was preventing an irate Duff from publicly making slanderous comments. Doherty claims that during a phone exchange, Duff drew a parallel between Nextel's actions and the Columbine massacre. He feared similar comments might be expressed on the airwaves. New World GM Sam Speiser had no comment. Though his show's off the air, Duff is considering buying more New World time slots. Duff's next move will be his most ambitious yet -- assuming it works. To celebrate the end of the NJ Weedman's drug-possession parole, he's helping the local counterculture celebrity organize a smokeout at the Liberty Bell. Originally scheduled for Dec. 6 -- it was canceled due to snow -- the smokeout is slated to be held this Saturday. Unlike past smokeouts, where everyone quits smoking cigarettes, this will be more of a "smoke-in," where everyone present will celebrate "with the sacrament of marijuana," Duff says. The rally is slated to begin at 3 p.m. and last until 5 p.m., with the "sacrament" to be lit at precisely 4:20 p.m. (Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.) According to Duff, invitations went out to Woody Harrelson, Ashton Kutcher, Al Gore and Bill Clinton. "People aren't going to be able to stop us. There's going to be hundreds and hundreds of us," says Duff, who's confident that the event will be an unprecedented success despite ramped-up security around national monuments since the 9/11 attacks. Holding the event on federal property is by design, since participants -- arrested participants, hypothetically -- could seek protection from prosecution under religious-freedom claims. (Forchion, who got pinched with 40 pounds, is a Rastafarian who says court rulings have defended his right to smoke weed during religious rituals.) The location also keeps the Philadelphia Police Department out of the mix, as Independence Mall lies under the National Park Service's purview. As of earlier this week, Park Service spokesperson Phil Sheridan said he hadn't heard about the planned protest, so no responses were available. "There are areas designated for exercising your First Amendment rights," says Sheridan, "but you cannot break the law [to do so]."
[no subject]
Hello! Mary is sending you her regards. Hope you are well too. Can you belive that I got 30 fixed mortgage this morning at 1.95%! I was shocked. It is the best deal I have even seen and they approved me the same day. If you want to apply, go here cease walsh kodachrome denunciate venturi imp spine dewey herself showroom knowlton moat briggs waller hillock every wilfred gregarious albumin chlordane southland teeth astrophysical organometallic absolve bogeymen dementia altern quit conform lopez beardsley ronnie lime psychometry supine crinkle nationhood allegoric euphrates sheave proprioception renal mathias furtherance immunization apprentice bliss strabismus anorthosite metamorphic cordage homomorphism litmus conceptual whistleable binaural binuclear lactose approval postpone executor forge coronary blip revelatory treaty when failure inhospitable bowen bert caramel mcgovern ironwood fulfill winnipesaukee charlotte discomfit bookie nominate baptistery chowder mass preston soutane earl collectible chalkline squawbush applicable ar ornamentation reck scrumptious catcall effaceable philosophy turbinate tabulate hummingbird introit reflectance respite deflect biaxial scanty umbra dactyl aesthetic megalomaniac delhi versus totemic atlantes prologue alvin position waterfall badland marjoram uk acquiesce passage quick vivacity confide wispy director enthusiasm heroine mercurial alert novice combatant raspberry ms emerald augustine spencer edmund configure lifespan tortoise valediction hast ivanhoe oracle ophiuchus paramount wide sauerkraut dreadful calamus exposition decide caper divan dianne department boron fiftieth boxcar information bloodroot diminish assassin claret lombardy vehement ewing rumble fudge horsedom magnolia crisis they'd ouzo convey conifer ipecac root succession passband birdbath censorious contraband titmouse derisive yell able breadroot manley debunk villainous rant agree plaza conjugacy smash fireside textile inner somehow yea jarvin uniprocessor ku busy berra orb townhouse dispelled delusion canis badinage loggerhead sober emory marriott paraboloid brewster philadelphia erosion nehru hanukkah declarator goodrich russell daphne glasgow integrable perfectible conjugal pyramidal gila curricular pretoria who bronchus constituent frenetic doesn't individuate lamellar dahomey physiochemical bureau osmium debater gnomon alger inseminate eldon burke hydrothermal courtesy flabbergast diadem xenophobia brine oppressive stargaze woebegone andesite registry emilio bestowal escherichia cookery sulfa adulterate marlene abutting norton cinerama lass wore contradistinct chadwick adagio secrete prentice configure asbestos baptistery gentle cavalcade wert fulminate bodhisattva americana baby buxtehude cultivable glycine monkeyflower murphy clarence polyphemus referee inertance corpus bismarck tight clomp confirmation disciplinarian medusa aryl extrovert knapp adjudge equanimity marsupial dobson bassi bladderwort cessna whoosh brazier bundy content karl echidna cochineal truth regalia neptune mescal stead sentient delicti phobic blotch awaken bedtime pool personnel now tote tangible breezy debonair crud he'd scientific bleary hotshot educate ephemeris wrinkle adolescent talky array brasilia post derange parallel cruickshank herkimer tactual toward religiosity sallow aubrey corbett acreage d zeroth patricia electronic retentive incredulous diatonic buckle attack flimsy vance christopher categoric bough acrobatic coo cameraman hawk grimes melvin raw anionic thrips confess duff mudsling typhus cursory beastie deuterium noontime
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Jim Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-12-18/19:18]: > 19% by value were from France; 57% from the Soviet Union (ie Russia), > East Germany, and Czechoslovakia; 8% from China. [...] > It is not coincidental that the Security Council members opposed to > taking any action on Iraq's repeated violations were France, Russia, > Germany, and China: Iraq's weapons suppliers. You are confusing todays Germany with the communist pre-1989 Eastern Germany, two *very* different things (I thought the British had better knowledge of the "Olde Europe" than the fellow Americans do?) As to the rest, always look at who published the "facts". It's the same sources that claimed the Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It's unfortunate that most people fall for this kind of manipulative misinformation. Cheers, Dan -- Daniel Roethlisberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key id 0x804A06B1 (1024/4096 DSA/ElGamal) 144D 6A5E 0C88 E5D7 0775 FCFD 3974 0E98 804A 06B1 !-> pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: The killer app for encryption
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Tyler Durden wrote: > I'm very interested in hearing about whether any P2P networks support > encrypted transactions of any sort yet (ie, can one yet pay for some files > via P2P)? Are there any P2P Networks being designed deliberately to support > anything/everything, including peered IP Telephony? What exactly do you mean by "peered IP telephony"? Voice telephony requires delays measured in tens of milliseconds. A bit difficult if you also want encryption, anonymity, etc. -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Jim Dixon wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote: On 17 Dec 2003 at 22:54, Michael Kalus wrote: No, but it is very interresting that all of this didn't matter while Saddam was the "good guy" for our causes (and by that I mean the Western world general). You are making up your own history. When Saddam came to power, he seized western property and murdered westerners, especially Americans, and you lot cheered him to an echo. Saddam was always an enemy of the west, he was never a good guy. He was at times an ally, in the sense that Stalin and Pol Pot were at times temporary allies, yet somehow I never see you fans of slavery and mass murder criticizing the west for allying with Stalin. Relevant numbers from the Times today, quoting Air Force Monthly, January 2003: from 1980 to 1990 Iraq imported 28.9 billion pounds worth of weapons. 19% by value were from France; 57% from the Soviet Union (ie Russia), East Germany, and Czechoslovakia; 8% from China. Sales from the United States were inconsequential and did not make the list. From earlier articles in other publications I believe that in fact US sales were a small fraction of 1%. From the same site I linked to before: [...] By January 1984, /The Washington Post/ was reporting that the United States had told friendly nations in the Persian Gulf that the defeat of Iraq would "be contrary to U.S. interests." That sent the message that America would not object to U.S. allies offering military aid to Iraq. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait sent howitzers, bombs and other weapons to Iraq. And later that year the U.S. government pushed through sales of helicopters to Hussein's government. But that was just the beginning of Reagan's pro-Iraq campaign. The United States sold the Iraqis military jeeps and Lockheed L-100 transports. And, according to a recent report in /The New York Times/, as many as 60 American intelligence officers provided Iraq with "critical battle planning assistance," lending detailed information on Iranian deployments, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments. The /Times/ story further reported that this intelligence assistance was offered even though American officers knew the Iraqi commanders would probably use chemical weapons against the Iranians. The military aid helped Iraq hold off the Iranians, and the war dragged on until 1988. That year the U.S. Senate passed the Prevention of Genocide Act, which would have imposed sanctions against Hussein's regime. But the Reagan White House opposed the bill, calling it premature. When it eventually passed, the White House made little effort to enforce it. [...] Just because they didn't sell the weapons directly doesn't mean they didn't sell them. It is an age old practice to sell weapons to a middle man in order to get them where they are not supposed to be. And in regards to arms sales: [...] * U.S. arms exports in 1995 amounted to $15.6 billion, three times that of the next supplier and 49 percent of the world's. Over the 1993-1995 period, U.S. exports went equally to developed and developing countries. * The six next largest suppliers, with over $0.5 billion each and together accounting for 42 percent of the world total, were: U.K.$5.2 billionGermany 1.2 Russia 3.3 Israel 0.8 France 2.2 China, Mainland 0.6 * The Middle East imported over 30 percent of the total number of major weapons in trade over the last 12 years (1984-1995). In 1993-1995, Western Europe became the main importing region with 32 percent. [...] http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/acda/factshee/conwpn/wmeatfs.htm It is not coincidental that the Security Council members opposed to taking any action on Iraq's repeated violations were France, Russia, Germany, and China: Iraq's weapons suppliers. http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1991/C231.html [...] *Kroft. *And other arms dealers and countries did. Brazil provided thousands of armored vehicles. China and the Soviet Union sent tanks, missiles and munitions. German companies sold Saddam poison gas technology, and France, not only approved the sale of artillery to Iraq, but [also sold] armed helicopters and antiaircraft missile systems. This Chilean arms manufacturer [shown on screen] sold Saddam deadly cluster bombs--reportedly with technical assistance from U.S. companies, and the United States allowed American computer technology to go to Iraq as well. It allowed Sarkis to sell Hughes and Bell helicopters. The U.S. government approved the sale after Iraq promised that they would only be used for civilian purposes. Sarkis told us that the helicopters were used as transportation during Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. *Sarkis. *I did it with the knowledge of U.S. authorities, policy makers--and also they have delivered weapons that are equally weapons as I did. I do not have anything on my conscience. I did not sell the
Do you need lower insurance rates?
Smokers-Insurance.net can get you affordable insurance rates even though smoke! http://ab.getquickstuff.com/newlc/go/3014 Get the insurance coverage that no smoker should be without and start protecting your family today! http://ab.getquickstuff.com/newlc/go/3014 Use the link below to be dropped from our mailing list. http://ab.getquickstuff.com/unsub/central/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Michael Kalus wrote: > BTW, can you provide me with a reference for the "dangling bodies'? > Because I was unable to find anything on this so far. I was travelling in the area (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey) at the time. In the 1960s the usual overland traveller's route through the region to Europe had been Bombay - Gulf - Iraq (Basra) - Turkey. In the 1970s, when I was there, the route had shifted to Pakistan - Afghanistan - Iran - Turkey because of attacks on foreigners and in particular the hanging of several Americans as supposed CIA agents, spies. The Baath Party took over in 1968 and nationalized the oil industry in 1972; the surge in anti-western agitation occurred in that period. Googling provides a lot of hits, mostly propaganda for one side or the other. One interesting quote regarding the Baath takeover: "To the end Qassim retained his popularity in the streets of Baghdad. After his execution, his supporters refused to believe he was dead until the coup leaders showed pictures of his bullet-riddled body on TV and in the newspapers." (From "Out of the Ashes, the Resurrection of Saddam Hussain", by Andrew and Patrick Cockburn.) The coup leaders included one Saddam Hussian, who of course killed the rest over the next few years. This time around the president's bullet-riddled body has not been displayed on TV. -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Daniel Roethlisberger wrote: > > 19% by value were from France; 57% from the Soviet Union (ie Russia), > > East Germany, and Czechoslovakia; 8% from China. > [...] > > It is not coincidental that the Security Council members opposed to > > taking any action on Iraq's repeated violations were France, Russia, > > Germany, and China: Iraq's weapons suppliers. > > You are confusing todays Germany with the communist pre-1989 Eastern > Germany, I am not confusing them at all. There is ample evidence that the Germans sold to Saddam both before and after the reunification of Germany. > two *very* different things (I thought the British had better > knowledge of the "Olde Europe" than the fellow Americans do?) > > As to the rest, always look at who published the "facts". It's the same > sources that claimed the Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It's The _UN_ claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They ordered them destroyed, and actually watched some being destroyed until Saddam threw them out in the late 1990s. They subsequently reported that they could not account for tons of chemical weapons; this was one of the reasons for the second war. > unfortunate that most people fall for this kind of manipulative > misinformation. The manipulative misinformation is the claim that the US somehow armed Saddam Hussein. He had French planes, Czech weapons, Russian tanks; we saw them burning on TV in both wars. There is no evidence at all that the US supplied weapons in any quantity to Iraq, just unsubstantiated claims from the usual mob, the ones who supposedly know all those secrets hidden from the rest of us. -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure
Get a cash advance before payday!
Are you low on cash? We can help you get up to $500 into your account by tomorrow! It's quick, easy and confidential! http://ab.getquickerstuff.com/newlc/go/3016 Use the money anyway you would like: -Bills -Holiday shopping -Car repair -family emergency...you decide! All you need to have to qualify is a steady paycheck and an active checking account. All credit types accepted! Get your cash now! http://ab.getquickerstuff.com/newlc/go/3016 To have your address eliminated from our mailing list, follow this link: http://ab.getquickerstuff.com/unsub/central/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
I would like to throw in with the OTO gunners here. If you are interested in an expanded and predictive analysis, check here. US aggression leads predictably to bad results: Take action to stop the war now http://proclus.tripod.com/radical/wartext4.html I wrote it in April, while US bombs were turning Baghdad into a second 9/11. Regards, proclus http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ On 17 Dec, Eric Cordian wrote: > > But when, however, people fly a plainload of passengers into > > two tall buildings and murder thousands, those dreadful > > Americans had it coming, were justly smacked like a naughty > > child, and have no right to get indignant. > > The two events are completely unrelated, except for the fact that 9/11 > gave the US the additional hubris it needed to launch an unprovoked war of > agression against another sovereign nation, in violation of international > law and the wishes of the world community. > > Saddam's capture is the poisoned fruit of an illegal occupation, which is > itself the poisoned fruit of an illegal invasion, whose clear purpose, > despite the lies about Saddam's ready to launch nuclear weapons, was to > control Iraq's oil, and eliminate support for the oppressed Palestinians. > > Bush knew that as long as he managed to attack Iraq, using any pretense, > he would never be forced to leave once the excuses were revealed as lies, > because if there's two things America is structurally incapable of doing, > it's accepting blame and apologizing. > > Every American soldier in Iraq right now is a war criminal. Every dead > Iraqi is a murder victim. > > As one writer so aptly put it... > > "For months we have wanted to get our hands on the warmonger who > terrorized the world with weapons of mass destruction. But, as we couldn't > get George Bush, we had to make do with Saddam Hussein." -- Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/ -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C UBULI$ P+ L+++() E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e h--- r+++ y --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I would like to throw in with the OTO gunners here. [...] OTO Ordo Templi Orientalis? You don't mean *that*, do you? I suspect I'm suffering from acronym overloading. Peter
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
I would like to throw in with the OTO gunners here. If you are interested in an expanded and predictive analysis, check here. US aggression leads predictably to bad results: Take action to stop the war now http://proclus.tripod.com/radical/wartext4.html I wrote it in April, while US bombs were turning Baghdad into a second 9/11. Regards, proclus http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ On 17 Dec, Eric Cordian wrote: > > But when, however, people fly a plainload of passengers into > > two tall buildings and murder thousands, those dreadful > > Americans had it coming, were justly smacked like a naughty > > child, and have no right to get indignant. > > The two events are completely unrelated, except for the fact that 9/11 > gave the US the additional hubris it needed to launch an unprovoked war of > agression against another sovereign nation, in violation of international > law and the wishes of the world community. > > Saddam's capture is the poisoned fruit of an illegal occupation, which is > itself the poisoned fruit of an illegal invasion, whose clear purpose, > despite the lies about Saddam's ready to launch nuclear weapons, was to > control Iraq's oil, and eliminate support for the oppressed Palestinians. > > Bush knew that as long as he managed to attack Iraq, using any pretense, > he would never be forced to leave once the excuses were revealed as lies, > because if there's two things America is structurally incapable of doing, > it's accepting blame and apologizing. > > Every American soldier in Iraq right now is a war criminal. Every dead > Iraqi is a murder victim. > > As one writer so aptly put it... > > "For months we have wanted to get our hands on the warmonger who > terrorized the world with weapons of mass destruction. But, as we couldn't > get George Bush, we had to make do with Saddam Hussein." -- Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/ -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C UBULI$ P+ L+++() E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e h--- r+++ y --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type APPLICATION/pgp-signature]
RE: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On 18 Dec, Trei, Peter wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>I would like to throw in with the OTO gunners here. [...] > > OTO > Ordo Templi Orientalis? > > You don't mean *that*, do you? Why not? > I suspect I'm suffering from acronym overloading. I was simply agreeing with the post of Eric Cordian, and hopefully adding support to the argument, while alluding to his interesting sig. Regards, proclus http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ -- Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/ -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C UBULI$ P+ L+++() E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e h--- r+++ y --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [dgc.chat] Fwd: [NEC] #2.12: The RIAA Succeeds Where the CypherPunks Failed
At 09:24 PM 12/17/2003, Patrick Chkoreff wrote: The really interesting aspect of this is what it portends for the future. If, as Clay suggests, the current situation is like Prohibition from citizen perspective can we expect a similar repeal of government surveillance? If not, what will happen as large numbers of citizens adopt P2P systems that not only flaunt copyright law but communications more dear to those in power? Right, on the one hand it's cool that hordes of otherwise ordinary computer users can become interested in "darknets," but on the other hand it's a bit scary that the sheer scale of it is orders of magnitude beyond getting a whiskey in a speakeasy. This could either thoroughly discourage the government or motivate them to do really draconian things like requiring computers and chips to meet a specific government specification which severely limits how they function. They're working on it. True, but if the masses understand what s at stake for them they will reject all such solutions where it counts: at the sales counter. The following is from a posting by John Gilmore, early employee of Sun Microsystems, founder of the EFF and founding cypherpunk extraoridair. I usually don't forward so much content from another list, in this case the cryptography list, but John's rants are usually quite coherent and incisive. This one is no exception. --begin forward At 01:53 PM 12/16/2003, John Gilmore wrote: TCPA is being built specifically at the behest of Hollywood. It is built around protecting "content" from "subscribers" for the benefit of a "service provider". I know this because I read, and kept, all the early public design documents, such as the white paper http://www.trustedcomputing.org/docs/TCPA_first_WP.pdf (This is no longer available from the web site, but I have a copy.) It says, on page 7-8: The following usage scenarios briefly illustrate the benefits of TCPA compliance. Scenario I: Remote Attestation TCPA remote attestation allows an application (the "challenger") to trust a remote platform. This trust is built by obtaining integrity metrics for the remote platform, securely storing these metrics and then ensuring that the reporting of the metrics is secure. For example, before making content available to a subscriber, it is likely that a service provider will need to know that the remote platform is trustworthy. The service provider's platform (the "challenger") queries the remote platform. During system boot, the challenged platform creates a cryptographic hash of the system BIOS, using an algorithm to create a statistically unique identifier for the platform. The integrity metrics are then stored. When it receives the query from the challenger, the remote platform responds by digitally signing and then sending the integrity metrics. The digital signature prevents tampering and allows the challenger to verify the signature. If the signature is verified, the challenger can then determine whether the identity metrics are trustworthy. If so, the challenger, in this case the service provider, can then deliver the content. It is important to note that the TCPA process does not make judgments regarding the integrity metrics. It merely reports the metrics and lets the challenger make the final decision regarding the trustworthiness of the remote platform. They eventually censored out all the sample application scenarios like DRM'd online music, and ramped up the level of jargon significantly, so that nobody reading it can tell what it's for any more. Now all the documents available at that site go on for pages and pages saying things like "FIA_UAU.1 Timing of authentication. Hierarchical to: No other components. FIA_UAU.1.1 The TSF shall allow access to data and keys where entity owner has given the 'world' access based on the value of TCPA_AUTH_DATA_USAGE; access to the following commands: TPM_SelfTestFull, TPM_ContinueSelfTest, TPM_GetTestResult, TPM_PcrRead, TPM_DirRead, and TPM_EvictKey on behalf of the user to be performed before the user is authenticated." But the historical record is clear that DRM was "Usage Scenario #1" for TCPA. Now, back to Hollywood. If you have not read "This Business of Music" (a thick book on how musicians can arm themselves with knowledge to get slightly less screwed by the record industry -- including sample contracts and explanations of the impact and history of each provision), you won't know the long history of why Hollywood can be trusted only to cheat everyone they deal with. A music-industry contract equivalent to charging for 30% more seconds than you deliver, is the provision for "breakage". No artist gets paid for more than 90% of the albums that the record company sells, because in the days of shellac records, about 10% of them would break in shipping. That problem largely went away with vinyl records, and went even further away with CDs. Today's actual breakage is
RE: The killer app for encryption
At 08:16 PM 12/18/03 +, Jim Dixon wrote: >What exactly do you mean by "peered IP telephony"? > >Voice telephony requires delays measured in tens of milliseconds. A bit >difficult if you also want encryption, anonymity, etc. The problem handling the delay comes with the network, not the encryption. The encryption can be symmetric, and must be used in a mode that tolerates drops, but its not a big cost when sending 8kbytes/sec.
RE: The killer app for encryption
At 03:47 PM 12/18/2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote: At 08:16 PM 12/18/03 +, Jim Dixon wrote: >What exactly do you mean by "peered IP telephony"? What I'd like to see is a P2P telephony that also supports end-user gateways to the POTS. I'm not certain, but I think there are some MS certified modems which have a generalized A/D-D/A capability sufficient to handle voice. Although it opens up the possibility of end-user eavesdropping some of this might be thwarted by randomizing user node selection and detecting/reporting line impedance changes (indicating an extension going off-hook) to the 'client' wising to use the POTS. I suggested this idea to Jeff Pulver, now a VoIP champion, in 1999 but he thought it was too out of the mainstream to be interesting. Now that P2P is beginning to branch out from file sharing maybe this is no longer a far out idea. steve
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Jim Dixon wrote: > The evidence points to deep ties between Russia, France, and Iraq that > goes back decades, plus somewhat weaker ties to China and Germany. > Relations between the US and Baath-controlled Iraq were bad from the > beginning; American bodies dangling from ropes in Baghdad were not > the beginning of a great romance. And all of this is meaningless: we simply had no right to invade a foreign, *sovereign* nation. > > -- > Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 > http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage > http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure > -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm
Find Real singles this holiday season
Tired of meetin cyber duds? There's a better way to meet! Meet your match this holiday! http://ab.goodfaststuff.com/newlc/go/2984 Follow the link below to be dropped from our mailing list. http://ab.goodfaststuff.com/unsub/central/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Jim Dixon wrote: > Why does the US military have > to treat them as though they had US constitutional rights? They are not > citizens or physically present in the United States. In a nutshell, our Constitution *recognizes* universal human rights. It does not *establish* these rights. If we are going to be faithful to this premise, physical location is a non-sequitor. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm
spice up your christmas for your wife with this!
Title: I will not encourage others to fly I will not hide behind the Fifth Amendment Worlds First Dermal P;atch Technology For P*nis Enlarg;ment Pro_Size ViriIity Pa;tch A;dd 3+ In;ches Today - 1OO% Doc;tor Approved The ViriIity P;atch R.X. was designed_for men like yourself who want a B;lGGER, th;icker, m;ore en;ergetic p*nis! Imagine sky_rocketing in size 2, 3, even 4 in 60_days or l;ess. But thats not_all ViriIity P;atch R.X. will also super_charge your s*xual battery effort;lessly 24/7. Your libido and energy level will soar, and you will sat;isfy your lov;er like never_before! E;NL.ARGE YOUR MEMBER_T0DAY!1OO% P;roven to_work or your m;oney bac;k! To_get off our listr;ight here. I will not hide behind the Fifth AmendmentI will not hide behind the Fifth Amendment0kGJG1PUbJ92dqfVm5u3 31136t39pq4NFj55pi02V2O722AcUqb6fiFbC008899I will not hide behind the Fifth Amendment035E5W15O01Z9G99NJG1WVi 30Ikq2q975b3311I will not encourage others to flyg32hNMU1l431L6Aa2y384Fnr303rB 9pq4NFj55I will not hide behind the Fifth Amendmentpi02V2O722AcUqb6fiFbC008899oU6u 3yB6oIX7OL68mp3I will not encourage others to flyBf6p7e13R3k83iwQf7x70TU9R jnRw0956Z6SYPE2vu10v0405fge8m03gm3mI will not encourage others to fly 0QtH4A804j9IIQAsWh57I will not hide behind the Fifth Amendment 8tAuLyB6oIX7OL68mp3Bf6p7e13RI will not encourage others to fly I will not hide behind the Fifth Amendment
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- On 18 Dec 2003 at 15:42, Michael Kalus wrote: > By January 1984, /The Washington Post/ was reporting that the > United States had told friendly nations in the Persian Gulf > that the defeat of Iraq would "be contrary to U.S. > interests." That sent the message that America would not > object to U.S. allies offering military aid to Iraq. Egypt, > Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait sent howitzers, bombs and > other weapons to Iraq. And later that year the U.S. > government pushed through sales of helicopters to Hussein's > government. This does not resemble in the slightest sending collossal amounts of logistic aid to Stalin, or even supplying the murderous marxist Mengistu with free cattle trucks to ship the peasants to death camps in the course of imposing forced collectivisation, yet somehow I never hear the fans of terror and slavery complaining about those episodes. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 5ibjDrK757xI4qlX/NW0eJQnWdI267xZu+oMuBEO 4esmiD8ZBiOaoKK48vXdGpqBQjC43P2L5EtUa9k+i
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- On 18 Dec 2003 at 14:07, Michael Kalus wrote: > The west traded heavily with [Saddam], be it the US, France, > Germany, the UK. The west, including the US traded and continues to trade heavily with Castro, yet somehow that does not lead you to believe they think Castro a good guy, nor does it lead you to believe they are actively supporting him. > It is astonishing that it was okay for Saddam to be as evil > as be and we (as a society) turned a blind eye to it Yet you show no similar astonishment concerning the evil of Stalin. James A. Donald: > > Evil men, by their nature, find themselves in conflict with > > other evil men for the same reasons as good men do. Thus > > evil men and good men will often find themselves in a > > temporary alliance of convenience against a common enemy, > > an alliance that both sides know will end in war or near > > war fairly soon. Michael Kalus > I suggest you read Chomsky's new book, and if only as a > reference to the sources he lists. Every citation Chomsky gives is fraudulent. I recently posted a paragraph by paragraph examination of one of his more notorious articles. Every single citation he gave was false in some central and crucial way. See my very long posting: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=739htvsqv3bteggtq8p2ht5ae1fl8g3rj [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tinyurl.com/yzao > If you ally with the enemy than you are giving up what makes > you good. It merely means you are dealing with one enemy at a time, rather than all of them at once. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG BD9mhUcJ2fu+5AnOrsX/j+E5S6NXUuQ40Qk4617u 4fiAQszFxSm820AMu8akts9Cg5A/AkwHtkQLXCm8z
Depression, mood swings, bipolar?
Do You Need A More Positive Outlook On Life? Do You Suffer from Bipolar Disorder? Does Your Marriage Suffer from Unstable Emotions? Do You Have Unwanted Mood Swings? Do You Have regretful Outbursts? WE CAN HELP! Serenity is the first, highly effective and completely safe mood stabilizer that is natural.. Learn more about how we can help you today! http://ab.ourbeststuff.com/newlc/go/2955 To have your address eliminated from our mailing list, follow this link: http://ab.ourbeststuff.com/unsub/central/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- On 18 Dec 2003 at 19:09, J.A. Terranson wrote: > And all of this is meaningless: we simply had no right to > invade a foreign, *sovereign* nation. Although you probably do not know it, you are invoking the rules of the peace of Westphalia. The Soviet Union never respected the peace of Westphalia. After the election of Ronald Reagan, neither did the US, and the US has never resumed respecting it, so that stuff is ancient history now. National Sovereignty, like the divine right of kings, just is not taken seriously any more, and the only people weeping big salt tears about its passing are those who enthusiastically hailed all the Soviet violations of it as wars of national liberation. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG MG21u2rXbbd8Gv6a0KI33gOfB0dq3Rj0+8QLf9Zu 475GB3UNm+fRK0Tmju1skiWzb5gB5QGgnIdyidhHM
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote: > On 18 Dec 2003 at 5:40, privacy.at Anonymous Remailer wrote: > > I think you might have forgotten about the other half the > > system, due process. Even if you "KNOW" something, you've got > > to go through the motions. > > Different rules apply in war. One leettllleee problem: we are not really at war. Or, to put this another way, we are only "at war" when it is convenient for us to be. Our Gitmo guests aren't POWs because there was no declared war. Anyone we grabbed on the fields in Irq were just "illegal combatants", while our own troops (Jessica Lynch) were "POWs". The whole thing is through and through bullshit. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm
Wired: -- Debka: Conflict's Drudge Report?
Debka: Conflict's Drudge Report? By Noah Shachtman Story location: http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,47325,00.html 02:00 AM Oct. 05, 2001 PT The Iraqis are training Osama bin Laden's troops in chemical and biological weapons; Russian commando units packing newly acquired American arms are poised to storm Afghanistan; Israel is about to be charged with damaging the mosques on Jerusalem's contested Temple Mount. Stories like these- are making the free-wheeling Israeli news site Debkafile an increasingly popular destination for Americans looking for the inside scoop on the conflict with terrorism. John Ghazivinian, an editor at news professionals' site Mediabistro, added, "There's a real strong sense that the mainstream media have scaled back their operations so much that they're basically incapable of covering this from the ground." Debkafile -- based in the Jerusalem neighborhood of French Hill, equidistant from both Palestinian villages and the walls of the Old City -- has shown an ability to get that kind of coverage. USA Today, CNN and NBC all reported last Friday that American and British forces were in Afghanistan scouting out terrorist hiding places; Debkafile had the same story days earlier, and included details about Russian intelligence officers and German commandos joining in the incursions. On the Saturday before, Debkafile ran a story that Saudi Arabia had refused to let the U.S. use its air bases to stage attacks on Afghanistan; it took The New York Times another two days to report this information. Like the Drudge Report, which it resembles, Debkafile clearly reports with a point of view; the site is unabashedly in the hawkish camp of Israeli politics and has partnered with the far-right news site WorldNetDaily for a weekly, $120 subscription product. "Not everything Debka says is going to be confirmed, but I guarantee you three days later you'll find at least one item in The New York Times," said Greg Clayman, a New York City Internet marketing executive. "When (White House press secretary) Ari Fleischer tells the mainstream media, 'Watch what you say,' you've got to look for other sources." A foolish Constitutional inconsistency is the hobgoblin of freedom, adored by judges and demagogue statesmen. - Steve Schear
RE: The killer app for encryption
> What I'd like to see is a P2P telephony that also supports end-user > gateways to the POTS. I'm not certain, but I think there are some MS I don't get what does this have to do with crypto. Outside crypto, this didn't quite work with (almost) public fax gateways of '90s. In theory, you could send e-mail that would be rasterized and faxed using gateway that was in local calling area and presumably did not incur any charge from the local POTS monopoly. However, I don't see people letting others use their POTS lines, nor I see them using their own for this purpose. Yes, this would essentially eliminate long distance charges for those so equipped ... but if A and B have these gateways and use them, what is the chance of them not being AT the gateway (ie. not having laptops) at any given moment - why bother using POTS in the loop in the first place ? VoIP companies are already doing this and the cost is quite low (calling cards) - why bother? = end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: __ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/
RE: The killer app for encryption
At 06:14 PM 12/18/2003, Morlock Elloi wrote: > What I'd like to see is a P2P telephony that also supports end-user > gateways to the POTS. I'm not certain, but I think there are some MS However, I don't see people letting others use their POTS lines, nor I see them using their own for this purpose. Yes, this would essentially eliminate long distance charges for those so equipped ... but if A and B have these gateways and use them, what is the chance of them not being AT the gateway (ie. not having laptops) at any given moment - why bother using POTS in the loop in the first place ? VoIP companies are already doing this and the cost is quite low (calling cards) - why bother? Because it means you can complete call to the POTs with no company-controlled switch involved, meaning no where to serve a court order. Since the call could be routed through a few intermediate nodes and still not have too much latency traffic analysis could take longer than short calls. Since the last gateway could be selected from a potentially large group, in major cities anyway, obtaining a phone tap in time could be come problematic. Also, if long distance charges don't drop to zero soon, it means participating residential users could actually resell their POTS. steve
RE: The killer app for encryption
> Because it means you can complete call to the POTs with no > company-controlled switch involved, meaning no where to serve a court > order. Since the call could be routed through a few intermediate nodes and I see. So, in the real world, X uses this to make telephone threats, your POTS gets picked up by random selection as the outgoing node, and gets traced back to from the victim's telephone, LEA visits you and you say ... "I know nothing". Yes, I can see it working and widely adopted. Looks like someone is pumping dumbing gas into cpunks homes. = end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: __ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote: > Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:34:00 -0800 > From: James A. Donald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention? > > -- > On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote: > > > Different rules apply in war. > > J.A. Terranson wrote: > > One leettllleee problem: we are not really at war. > > Sure looks like war to me. I guess that's why the congresscritters told Shrub to GFY when he tried to get a declaration? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm
U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote: > > Different rules apply in war. J.A. Terranson wrote: > One leettllleee problem: we are not really at war. Sure looks like war to me. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG m/LKiwI0Eg2NXtaztjmDl/9QH5F9MEMwCm99tMfj 4bhp8+U4+fNf8UBFLRCgyXRN6YbQnvk+Z6xVkFcnO
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote: > On 18 Dec 2003 at 19:09, J.A. Terranson wrote: > > And all of this is meaningless: we simply had no right to > > invade a foreign, *sovereign* nation. > > Although you probably do not know it, you are invoking the > rules of the peace of Westphalia. > > The Soviet Union never respected the peace of Westphalia. Which was evil. > After the election of Ronald Reagan, neither did the US, Living proof that you can become what you hate. > and > the US has never resumed respecting it, so that stuff is > ancient history now. So what you are saying is that we have become the Soviet Union? > National Sovereignty, like the divine > right of kings, just is not taken seriously any more, and the > only people weeping big salt tears about its passing are those > who enthusiastically hailed all the Soviet violations of it as > wars of national liberation. Spare me. I was no Soviet apologist. And until Reagan I was a dyed in the wool republican. Yet, I shed and continue to shed tears for a race of people that refuses to respect the rights of men and their nations. Like the Soviets. Or [now], the Americans... > --digsig > James A. Donald > 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG > MG21u2rXbbd8Gv6a0KI33gOfB0dq3Rj0+8QLf9Zu > 475GB3UNm+fRK0Tmju1skiWzb5gB5QGgnIdyidhHM > -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm
Download + CDS all OS and all under $15-$99 just
http://81.180.103.37/ If you don't have enough money to buy needed software or think desired softwareisn't worth the price, then this service is right for you. We make software tobe near you. Order any software you need for a low price. Some popular products from our price list:All programs you can download or order on cd-rom by airmail. 50$ Adobe Creative Suite (5 cds)30$ Adobe PhotoShop CS 8.0 (1 cd)55$ 3D Studio Max 6.0 (3 cds)20$ Adobe Premiere Pro 7.0 (1 cd)35$ Alias Wavefront Maya 5.0 Unlimited35$ AutoCAD 200435$ Autodesk Architectural Desktop 200416$ Cakewalk Sonar 3 Producer Edition (3 cds)25$ Canopus ProCoder 1.5 (1 cd)25$ Corel Draw 11 Graphic Suite25$ Dragon Naturally Speaking Preferred 7.020$ Macromedia Dreamweaver MX 2004 v7.025$ Macromedia Fireworks MX 2004 v7.025$ Macromedia Flash MX 2004 v7.0 Professional50$ Macromedia Studio MX 2004 (1 cd)20$ Microsoft Money 2004 Deluxe (1 cd)55$ Microsoft Office 2003 System Professional (5 cds)25$ Microsoft Office 2003 Multilingual User Interface Pack (2 cds)35$ Microsoft Project 2002 Pro20$ Microsoft Publisher XP 200225$ Microsoft Visio for Enterprise Architects 200345$ Microsoft Windows XP Corporate Edition with SP135$ Microsoft Windows XP Professional20$ Norton Antivirus 2004 Pro v10.0.0.10916$ Norton SystemWorks Pro 2004 (1 cd)25$ OmniPage 14 Office (1 cd)25$ Pinnacle Impression DVD Pro 2.2 (1 cd)45$ PTC Pro Engineer Wildfire Datecode 2003370 (3 cds)16$ PowerQuest Drive Image 7.01 Multilanguage (1 cd)20$ Ulead DVD Workshop 1.299$ Microsoft Visual Studio .NET 2003 Enterprise Architect (8 cds)20$ Winfax PRO 10.02 and, more, more. more!! Total today is 1421 products. price list - http://81.180.103.37/p/search - http://81.180.103.37/e/ Mac users. We have some software for you too!!! Check it:http://81.180.103.37/p/m/ Adobe Creative Suite (2 cds) for MacAdobe Acrobat 6.0 Pro for MacAdobe Illustrator 10 for MacAdobe InDesign 2 for MacMacromedia Flash MX 2004 v7.0 Professional for MacMacromedia Studio MX 2004 for Mac (1 cd)Microsoft Office v.X for MacQuarkXpress 6 Multilanguage for Macand more!!! To unsubscribe, please go tohttp://81.180.103.37/unsub.html
