Message-ID: <20030620125128.GB17814@eiv.com>
From: smcmahon at eiv.com (Shawn McMahon)
Subject: Destroying PCs remotely?

On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 07:18:34PM -0400, JT said:
> 
> > Are you under the dElusion that there are an infinite number of people
> > capable and willing to perform large-scale terrorist acts?  If so,
> 
> Yes I am, they are called babies, they then grow up and are being trained by
> age 12 to kill. You must think terrorism just started this generation? You
> do realize there were terrorists before you were born right? They do happen
> daily, just because they don't happen in the US does not mean they don't
> happen. You must think if you don't see it on the news, it's not happening.

I'm sorry, are you unfamiliar with the term large-scale?  Or are you
just not reading these things at all before you reply to them?

> It's generally agreed that the patriot act takes away too many liberties so
> I would not be debating that point at all. I believe the debate after that

Yes, everybody believes that, which is why it didn't get passed by a
majority of both houses of Congress, and a majority of Americans don't
support it in surveys.

Oh, wait, it *DID* get passed by majorities in both houses, and surveys
*DO* show most Americans support it.  Yeah, that's general agreement.

> is only whether or not you support them taking away our rights under the
> guise of security....and I know where you stand on that.

Having any laws at all is taking away our rights under the guise of
security.  Unless you're an anarchist, we differ only in degree here.

> OK, then lets use your logic above, please explain why there have been no
> 9/11's in the past even without the patriot act.

Mostly, due to the fact that the US prior to 1992 acted strongly to
curtail these groups from developing to the point where they could
afford something like this.  Between 1992 and 2000 the intelligence
agencies got seriously undermined, both in terms of ability to surveil
and ability to interdict.

> More attackers? I thought we locked/killed them? You'll note that they could
> have SUCCESSFULLY CARRIED OUT AN ATTACK EVEN AFTER THE PATRIOT ACT WAS
> SIGNED, the airports are still insecure. Wow, we can kill substabdard

And yet, thanks in part to the Patriot Act, we foiled the attempt to cut
the cables on the Brooklyn Bridge during rush hour.  In any event, the
fact that one particular piece of legislation does not in and of itself
entirely correct all the problems immediately does not in any way
indicate that it does nothing to correct any of the problems.  As I've
stated a number of times, and as you'd know if you'd read the goddamn
thing, it addresses one of the major issues that everybody has been
bitching about, with good reason; the fact that the CIA and FBI couldn't
share notes.  That alone would likely have stopped 9/11.

> about. Please note how they still kill us also though. Also please note it's
> generally believed the people crashing the planes did not have a connection
> with the people we are now killing in record numbers.

"generally believed" by whom?  The same folks who "generally believe"
that UFOs are stealing our rural citizens to perform anal probes?  Every
time you believe something, you characterize it as "general belief".


-- 
Shawn McMahon     | Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill,
EIV Consulting    | that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any
UNIX and Linux	  | hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure
http://www.eiv.com| the survival and the success of liberty. - JFK
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20030620/d86e545c/attachment.bin

Powered by blists - more mailing lists