full-disclosure - Re: RE: OT - Check this out - Full disclosure is apt for this

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 07:00:57 +1000
From: <ninjadaito@...hmail.com>
To: <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Cc: 
Subject: Re: RE: OT - Check this out - Full disclosure is
	apt for this

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

BRAVO!!!!!  Well done bkfsec!!

It seems that most everybody knows the truth except those still
blinkered by the Neocons and their media brainwashing campaign.

BTW, quite a good related article by Manuel Valenzuela (for those
interested) can be found at: -
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14958.htm

And lastly; wake up Paul!!!

Luv,
Ninja.

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 00:26:15 +1000 bkfsec <bkfsec@....lonestar.org>
wrote:
>Throwaway1@...umbus.rr.com wrote:
>
>>
>>It's not a joke Gary.
>>If you are attempting to make the claim that Saddam NEVER had WMD
>you are
>>either Profoundly Misinformed, Astonishingly Ignorant of Late
>20th Century
>>History; or simply Lying.
>>
>>
>Wow.  How utterly intellectually dishonest of you...
>
>Saying that the Bush administration knowingly lied about Weapons
>of Mass
>Destruction is *NOT* saying that Saddam never had WMD.  What
>planet do
>you live on?  Are you really that fucking dense to believe that
>people
>claiming the administration lied believe Saddam never had WMDs?
>
>This is an old right-wing, dittohead radio talking point from 2003
>that
>never was grounded in reality and shows exactly where you're
>coming from.
>
>
>>
>>We never did find the stockpiles we were looking for. The closest
>we came
>>was a shitload of bunkers filled with nerve agents that were
>still in their
>>unmixed binary form; and some bio-warfare reference strains.
>>
>>
>Disproven... you fell into a hoax yourself.. or really, you bought
>the
>rhetoric which took bits and pieces of a weapons inspection report
>and
>piecemealed it to death until it said "WMDs" when it didn't.
>
>
>>So that means that either damn near every major intelligence
>agency in the
>>world was wrong at the SAME TIME, or Saddam did a better job of
>hidin' 'em
>>than we did of lookin' for 'em.
>>
>>
>Bullshit.  Not all intelligence agencies agreed on the existance
>or
>number of WMDs in his possession.  In fact, there was significant
>disagreement in our own governmental agencies regarding those
>points.
>In fact, our own former weapons inspecters made statements saying
>that
>there's no way he had the levels that we were claiming.  The UN
>weapons
>inspection team disagreed with those figures and, golly gee, they
>might
>have a good reason to have disagreed.
>
>Yet again you dredge up another bullshit right-wing talking point
>that
>is not grounded in reality...
>
>I don't need to listen to you, all I need to do is turn on the
>fucking
>radio and switch to my local fascist propaganda channel.
>
>
>>
>>Now I realize that there are a lot of people who don't like GWB.
>That's
>>fine with me. Not my problem. What IS my problem is those same
>people
>>sacrificing LOGIC and COMMON SENSE on the alter of their rage at
>Bush and
>>as a result perpetuating a completely false history of the past 5-
>6 years.
>>
>>
>>
>Bullshit. You know what's sacrificing logic and common sense?
>Ignoring
>the facts in front of you, which is precisely what you're doing.
>
>Common sense says that there's no way he could have still had WMDs
>that
>our own people destroyed.  Common sense says you question the
>validity
>of sources used to provide proof.  Common sense says you interpret
>all
>of the data, not piecemeal specific portions of it.
>
>You say you have a problem with people creating a conclusion and
>picking
>and choosing evidence to support it?  How ironic that that's
>precisely
>what the Bush administration did.  You'd have to be a moron not to
>see
>that at this point.  And not only that, but at this point you're
>not
>just a moron, you're also a hypocrite for defending the Bush
>administration for doing precisely what you're accusing the rest
>of us
>for doing.
>
>Hey buddy, you chose the wrong side.  Don't take it out on us.
>
>             -bkfsec
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Version: Hush 2.5

wkYEARECAAYFAkUIcYcACgkQtM6vtsm2y1sw1wCgrEGchQG4olPuMEN9XH9yuazF05IA
mwfFKaKF7E10VNmS8pREobW9v5i+
=rUQz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no account required
http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480

Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail
https://www.hushssl.com?l=485

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/