how-to block ads
|
Subaru
1-3-2-4
Premium
join:2001-05-31
Greenwich, CT
clubs: | I feel the same way
That something is fishy with the cutting of the cables yet again.. | |
fishy
@teksavvy.com | those cables were made in China. They snap by themselves... | |
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Subaru
Well, consider:
* Four cable outages in at least two places in a week
* Country affected most severely is the one the US and Israel are currently threatening, and others affected are disfavored by US and Israel, while Israel and US-occupied country are spared
Now looking at it objectively, is it plausible that this is purely accidental and due to boat anchors? It really stretches credulity to *avoid* a conspiracy theory in this case.
Here's something else to consider: at least one US submarine is designed to be able to tap underwater cables. (Presumably there would be an outage during the installation.) »www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=su···rch&aq=f | |
OreoleO
Wanna Settle This Outside??
join:2004-05-22
Feasterville Trevose, PA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| said by swhx7  :Well, consider: * Four cable outages in at least two places in a week * Country affected most severely is the one the US and Israel are currently threatening, and others affected are disfavored by US and Israel, while Israel and US-occupied country are spared Now looking at it objectively, is it plausible that this is purely accidental and due to boat anchors? It really stretches credulity to *avoid* a conspiracy theory in this case. Here's something else to consider: at least one US submarine is designed to be able to tap underwater cables. (Presumably there would be an outage during the installation.) » www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=su···rch&aq=f I see no plausible reason for Israel / USA to cut undersea fiber with direct correlation to the recent Gaza escape.
I mean what, they're trying to block the refugees from entering Islamic-extremist sites? Doubt it. The Egyptians would have satellite communications as a backup anyway. | |
Subaru
1-3-2-4
Premium
join:2001-05-31
Greenwich, CT
clubs:
 ·Packet8
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to swhx7
said by swhx7 :Well, consider: * Four cable outages in at least two places in a week * Country affected most severely is the one the US and Israel are currently threatening, and others affected are disfavored by US and Israel, while Israel and US-occupied country are spared Now looking at it objectively, is it plausible that this is purely accidental and due to boat anchors? It really stretches credulity to *avoid* a conspiracy theory in this case. Here's something else to consider: at least one US submarine is designed to be able to tap underwater cables. (Presumably there would be an outage during the installation.) » www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=su···rch&aq=f How could a boat anchor hit the cable dead on?? the person would have to know the location of the cable under the water.
--
It's NOT Ni-kon It's NE-KON!
Check out my Gallery!
»/pics/dimaging/400265
| |
phantasm11b
Premium
join:2007-11-02
Cocoa, FL
| said by Subaru :said by swhx7 :Well, consider: * Four cable outages in at least two places in a week * Country affected most severely is the one the US and Israel are currently threatening, and others affected are disfavored by US and Israel, while Israel and US-occupied country are spared Now looking at it objectively, is it plausible that this is purely accidental and due to boat anchors? It really stretches credulity to *avoid* a conspiracy theory in this case. Here's something else to consider: at least one US submarine is designed to be able to tap underwater cables. (Presumably there would be an outage during the installation.) » www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=su···rch&aq=f How could a boat anchor hit the cable dead on?? the person would have to know the location of the cable under the water. Anchors aren't just dropped and stay stationary, they get dragged as well. | |
KCrimson
Premium
join:2001-02-25
Brooklyn, NY
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| reply to swhx7
said by swhx7 :Well, consider: * Four cable outages in at least two places in a week * Country affected most severely is the one the US and Israel are currently threatening, and others affected are disfavored by US and Israel, while Israel and US-occupied country are spared Now looking at it objectively, is it plausible that this is purely accidental and due to boat anchors? It really stretches credulity to *avoid* a conspiracy theory in this case. Here's something else to consider: at least one US submarine is designed to be able to tap underwater cables. (Presumably there would be an outage during the installation.) » www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=su···rch&aq=f The US and Israel are not threatening or "disfavoring" Egypt. HOWEVER, Al Qaeda does have a strong presence in the nations affected. I'd be pleased if Mossad or the CIA were behind efforts to prevent communications that might result in innocent deaths. | |
Subaru
1-3-2-4
Premium
join:2001-05-31
Greenwich, CT
clubs:
·Packet8
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to phantasm11b
said by phantasm11b :said by Subaru :said by swhx7 :Well, consider: * Four cable outages in at least two places in a week * Country affected most severely is the one the US and Israel are currently threatening, and others affected are disfavored by US and Israel, while Israel and US-occupied country are spared Now looking at it objectively, is it plausible that this is purely accidental and due to boat anchors? It really stretches credulity to *avoid* a conspiracy theory in this case. Here's something else to consider: at least one US submarine is designed to be able to tap underwater cables. (Presumably there would be an outage during the installation.) » www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=su···rch&aq=f How could a boat anchor hit the cable dead on?? the person would have to know the location of the cable under the water. Anchors aren't just dropped and stay stationary, they get dragged as well. I understand that but for it to happen twice it sounds very planned.
--
It's NOT Ni-kon It's NE-KON!
Check out my Gallery!
»/pics/dimaging/400265
| |
JokerCPoC
join:2005-11-21
Yermo, CA
·Verizon west (ex G..
·RoadRunner Cable
| And don't forget Al-gayda has or had a small navy(a couple of ships last I heard), It wouldn't take much to do this and It does sound very suspicious. If Al-gayda has any ships still, They won't for very much longer I'd think.
--
(25.92GHz crunching for SETI with the PC Perspective Killer Frogs) | |
Moss Sad
@rwoodbroadband.com
| reply to KCrimson
said by KCrimson :]The US and Israel are not threatening or "disfavoring" Egypt. HOWEVER, Al Qaeda does have a strong presence in the nations affected. I'd be pleased if Mossad or the CIA were behind efforts to prevent communications that might result in innocent deaths. You're talking as though Al Qaeda a) relies exclusively on the Internet/VOIP for communication (they don't; they know they're monitored) and b) that all of their communications over the 'Net are obliging transmitted "en clair" so that Mossad and the CIA can read them, no sweat.
If the bad guys are truly that dumb, then we've nothing at all to fear from them and we can all stand down and relax.
It should be pointed out that if the CIA/Mossad have to stoop to cutting undersea cables in order to keep the ter'rsts from communicating, I don't think that says very much for their Advanced Espionage Techniques, do you?
Also, if you're keen on "saving lives," I think you'll find that a lot of medical (and medical research) facilities use teh InterWeb to communicate....and save lives.
Meaning that if Mossad and the CIA really are cutting cables in order to "save lives," they may well be costing a few, too.
Just sayin'. | |
KCrimson
Premium
join:2001-02-25
Brooklyn, NY
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| said by Moss Sad :
You're talking as though Al Qaeda a) relies exclusively on the Internet/VOIP for communication (they don't; they know they're monitored) I'm not an international intelligence expert (nor do I play one on TV). It is not far-fetched to believe that the NSA/CIA/MOSSAD might have detected or been aware of potentially harmful internet traffic from the area, and decided the prudent action was to cut it off. Whether this communication was a terrorist's exclusive means of contacting its cell or not is not for me to determine. said by Moss Sad :
and b) that all of their communications over the 'Net are obliging transmitted "en clair" so that Mossad and the CIA can read them, no sweat. Again, what difference does it make how/why/when/where the communications were detected. It is possible that a source tipped them off to their presence and they were encoded - again, this is not a discussion we need to have (and doesn't invalidate what I posted last).
said by Moss Sad :
If the bad guys are truly that dumb, then we've nothing at all to fear from them and we can all stand down and relax. WHAT?
First, I believe that anyone who commits to their cause truely is that dumb.
Second, what is your point - that the cables COULDN'T have been purposefully cut for the prevention of terrorist communications? - You've thus far not convinced me.
said by Moss Sad :
It should be pointed out that if the CIA/Mossad have to stoop to cutting undersea cables in order to keep the ter'rsts from communicating, I don't think that says very much for their Advanced Espionage Techniques, do you? I don't think it would be "stooping" at all. Sometimes low-tech methods are the only option - especially when you need to hide the actual source of your information. It also gives plausable deniablity to those like you that refuse to believe that such a scheme could/would be done.
said by Moss Sad :
Also, if you're keen on "saving lives," I think you'll find that a lot of medical (and medical research) facilities use teh InterWeb to communicate....and save lives.
Meaning that if Mossad and the CIA really are cutting cables in order to "save lives," they may well be costing a few, too.
Just sayin'.
Now this stuff is a bit troubling.. are you sure you were "Just sayin'.", because it sounds like you've got a gripe about such a mission if it were true? I don't know of one medical procedure that requires "teh InterWeb". The vital functions of a hopital still require a doctor's presence. In the VERY unlikely event that a life was lost, I'm sure that even the loved ones affected would accept it if another 9/11 was known to have been prevented. | |
hoogabooga
| reply to OreoleO
To block the Arabs from communicating. Internet is communication not a means to transport resistance fighters. | |
KCrimson
Premium
join:2001-02-25
Brooklyn, NY
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| said by hoogabooga :
To block the Arabs from communicating. Internet is communication not a means to transport resistance fighters.
One of the keys to successfully defeating your enemy is to cut their communications. You cut off the head. | |
Mos Sad
@rwoodbroadband.com
| reply to KCrimson
said by KCrimson :said by Moss Sad :
You're talking as though Al Qaeda a) relies exclusively on the Internet/VOIP for communication (they don't; they know they're monitored) I'm not an international intelligence expert (nor do I play one on TV). It is not far-fetched to believe that the NSA/CIA/MOSSAD might have detected or been aware of potentially harmful internet traffic from the area, and decided the prudent action was to cut it off. I see.
So you're saying that every time NSA/CIA/Mossad "detects" or is "made aware of" potentially harmful internet traffic that it's perfectly okay for them to go around cutting undersea cables?
In case you weren't aware, the CIA/NSA/Mossad don't happen to own those undersea cables. Which means that if they are truly the ones behind these cable cuts that they are breaking International Law by severing undersea communication links.
What you seem to be sanctioning here is that it's perfectly okay for the CIA/NSA/Mossad to destroy the property of others purely because they deem it necessary. Which effectively means that it's okay for them to operate outside the law and do whatever they want.
Am I reading that one right?
Because if that is what you're sanctioning, then we shouldn't be at all surprised when other countries decide that they, too, are perfectly free to going around "breaking things" whenever they feel like it.
After all, they'd only be following the example we've set for them, right? Fair is fair, and it's hardly fair to go around telling other countries to "do as we say, not as we do," right?
said by KCrimson :Whether this communication was a terrorist's exclusive means of contacting its cell or not is not for me to determine. You're arguing that cutting underseas cables is an effective means of preventing terrorist communications.
And I'm saying it isn't because Bad Guys (like good guys) are perfectly capable of communication by other means besides the Internet.
You're also conveniently overlooking the fact that severing underseas cables does not cut off all the 'Net traffic of a given country. Apparently, you've never heard of passing Internet traffic via satellite.
said by KCrimson :said by Moss Sad :
and b) that all of their communications over the 'Net are obliging transmitted "en clair" so that Mossad and the CIA can read them, no sweat. Again, what difference does it make how/why/when/where the communications were detected. You're saying that from an intelligence gathering perspective that it's more desirable to completely sever communications between terrorist groups rather than monitoring the traffic?
I don't know about that one.
said by KCrimson :It is possible that a source tipped them off to their presence and they were encoded - Don't you think the Bad Guys are bright enough to put two and two together?
If a source tips off the NSA/CIA/Mossad that "vital communications" are coming through an undersea cable, and that cable is cut shortly after, don't you think Khalid and Mohammad are going to be slightly suspicious about the timing of that?
Let's give the Bad Guys some credit here.
said by KCrimson :again, this is not a discussion we need to have Well, I feel differently, thanks. Or perhaps we should send the NSA/CIA/Mossad around to ensure that discussions like this do not take place?
said by KCrimson :(and doesn't invalidate what I posted last). Well, I happen to feel differently.
Your basic claim is that an undersea cable might have been severed as part of NSA/CIA/Mossad operations to prevent a terrorist outrage.
I maintain that if that was in fact, the case, that severing underseas cables as part of any intelligent, coherent anti-terrorist strategy is just plain silly.
Silly because:
a) the timing of the severing of these cables on the eve of a terrorist atrocity would simply be too great a coincidence for any Bad Guys to dismiss as simply "bad luck" on their part
b) severing underseas cables does *not,* by any means, eliminate Internet traffic to/from a given country (merely reduces it) and
c) the Bad Guys have other means of communication with each other (phone/courier/mail, etc.).
Okay?
said by Moss Sad :
If the bad guys are truly that dumb, then we've nothing at all to fear from them and we can all stand down and relax. said by KCrimson :WHAT? First, I believe that anyone who commits to their cause truely is that dumb. Well, fine. Your opinion is as valid as any other opinion.
But your claiming that someone is "dumb" for committing to a given cause does not necessarily mean that they are, in fact, "dumb."
I don't like murderous psychopaths any more than the next guy. But what you're overlooking by dismissing the Bad Guys as merely being "dumb" is that, from their perspective, there are perfectly valid reasons why they do what they do.
To clarify: I do not endorse people going around and murdering each other, for any reason, or under any flag. What I'm saying here is that the Bad Guys feel that they do, in fact, have sufficient reason for doing so.
And if we were truly as smart as we think we are, we would do well to attempt to better understand just what those reasons are, regardless of whether we happen to agree with them or not.
The War on Terror is not going to go at all well if we merely dismiss the Bad Guys (and their motivations) as being "dumb." Smart people do their best to understand the motivation behind their enemies acting as they do.
And if we're going to win this thing, (assuming that it can be "won," which I don't believe for a second) then we need to smarten up and stop pretending that the Bad Guys behave the way they do "just because."
said by KCrimson :Second, what is your point - that the cables COULDN'T have been purposefully cut for the prevention of terrorist communications? - You've thus far not convinced me. I'm saying that if they were, in fact, cut for such a purpose, that such a tactic was/is so stupid and misguided that it's the intelligence equivalent of shooting ourselves in the foot.
said by Moss Sad :
It should be pointed out that if the CIA/Mossad have to stoop to cutting undersea cables in order to keep the ter'rsts from communicating, I don't think that says very much for their Advanced Espionage Techniques, do you? said by KCrimson :I don't think it would be "stooping" at all. Sometimes low-tech methods are the only option - Thanks for making my point for me: if the Bad Guys use the Internet as a communications channel, and that means of communication is suddenly cut off, there are plenty of other low-tech ways for them to communicate.
Look up "Millennium Challenge 2002" some time. It was a wargame done in 2002. In it, the Americans assumed that they could intercept enemy communications, no sweat.
The only trouble was that the "enemy" in the game (a Marine General by the name of Paul Van Riper) didn't cooperate. He used motorcycle couriers instead of radio and electronic messages, and sent orders as code words inserted into the muezzins' call to prayer -- and this went right by the "good guy" intelligence analysts.
I can only hope that we've learned from such exercises.
Just because our society puts a lot of faith in the Internet and other high-tech means of moving information around does not automatically mean that everyone else does, too.
said by KCrimson :especially when you need to hide the actual source of your information. Severing underseas cables on the eve of a planned terrorist event is not going to serve the hide the fact that the Bad Guys have a leak.
If anything, it is going to call attention to it. Those cables do not get severed all the time and them being severed just when the Bad Guys are getting ready to act is not even remotely going to qualify as a "coincidence."
said by KCrimson :It also gives plausable deniablity to those like you that refuse to believe that such a scheme could/would be done. "Plausible deniability?" That's some real wishful thinking there.
And to clarify: I don't for a minute doubt that such a scheme is possible. I'm merely pointing out that if undersea cables are severed as part of a "scheme," that the scheme in question is one of the most boneheaded schemes of all time.
Because it doesn't actually prevent anything from happening and would only serve to give the game away.
said by Moss Sad :
Also, if you're keen on "saving lives," I think you'll find that a lot of medical (and medical research) facilities use teh InterWeb to communicate....and save lives.
Meaning that if Mossad and the CIA really are cutting cables in order to "save lives," they may well be costing a few, too.
Just sayin'.
said by KCrimson :Now this stuff is a bit troubling.. are you sure you were "Just sayin'.", because it sounds like you've got a gripe about such a mission if it were true? I'm sorry that you find the points I raise "troubling." But that's really more to do with you than me, so I can't help you there.
said by KCrimson :I don't know of one medical procedure that requires "teh InterWeb". The vital functions of a hopital still require a doctor's presence. You're conveniently overlooking the fact that the Internet is used as a means of exchanging information by people other than terrorists.
The Internet is used to share information by medical people all the time. And while the vital functions of a hospital might indeed require "a doctor's presence," you're forgetting that doctors cannot be everywhere at once. And hospitals do not have every possible specialist they might need on hand at all times.
Doctors, just like the rest of us, need to share information with others in order to make decisions and insure the best possible patient outcome. If I have an X-ray to share, or a CAT scan I'd like to show someone, is there a better or faster way to do it than via the Internet? If so, please tell me what it is.
said by KCrimson :In the VERY unlikely event that a life was lost, I'm sure that even the loved ones affected would accept it if another 9/11 was known to have been prevented. Immediately after I read that sentence, I threw my hands up in utter despair. There aren't many things that can cause me to do that, so I congratulate you on achieving that effect.
Because what you wrote demonstrates, in a very beautiful yet terrible way, the sort of "the end justifies the means"-thinking that's landed us in the current soup we're in today.
If I have to kill 10 people to save 100 then that, apparently, is okay with you. Fine.
The next time that NSA/CIA/Mossad conduct an operation and someone you give a damn about is killed as a result of their belief that "the end justifies the means," then I'm sure you'll understand, too.
I just hope that anyone who loses a family member as the result of an action taken by NSA/CIA/Mossad is as forgiving and understanding as you are. If we take the Middle East as an example, the people in that part of the globe tend to have long memories and a strong sense of honor.
And if you think that they're going to calmly accept people being killed as mere "collateral damage" and "no big deal," then you understand the Middle East even less well than our current political leadership seems to.
And if you're planning to win the War on Terror, that is not a good place to be, my friend. | |
KCrimson
Premium
join:2001-02-25
Brooklyn, NY
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| The only thing difficult about answering each of your responses is dealing with the html, so I'm at a tremendous disadvantage to answer each of your points.
You made a huge assumption that is incorrect - I didn't say that "every time NSA/CIA/Mossad "detects" or is "made aware of"...., so please don't make such assumptions. I WILL say that if that information is credible, verifiable and reliable indicating an imminent danger then DEFINITELY - what a BEAUTIFUL NON VIOLENT means of preventing an imminent disaster. You can argue all you want, but you and I don't know whether those conditions existed.
I know they don't own those cables, but in the scenario I painted, international law breaking is done for a good cause.
BTW - Were you as upset about Israel's raid on Entebbe? They violated poor Uganda's soverignty. Your outrage is matched by Idi Amin's. 
Now lets skip down several paragraphs (you just kept on expressing your moral outrage, as if you knew the circumstances personally).
The next point you make is that its preferable to continue to monitor - I agree, but what if that monitoring results in finding out about an attack that you can't prevent, but you can delay or prevent a key communication required for it to properly work? Pull the plug with plausable deniablity and preserve the future monitoring of that link when its repaired (and situation defused).
Your next reply was about giving the bad guys credit for intelligence. My original theory was Al Queda. They don't have a huge pool of intellectuals to draw from. Many are Medrasa educated, with little but religious education, and those like Mohammed Atta are rarely placed in strategic positions of authority, in fact one of their demonstrated methods is purposeful LACK of a well organized chain of command (enabling few who know the entire plan in case of capture), which IMO must cause a general lack of judgement skills due to the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
Next point - I said "this is not a discussion we need to have" - I meant that it is not germain to the discussion, and we have little information to determine who is right or wrong. Please don't attempt to characterize me as an advocate of censorship, and I won't characterize you in a light that is unflattering either.
Next you reiterated points A, B & C -
A)OK, you don't think there's plausable deniablity. Fine, perhaps not - I don't know (neither do you).
B)Again, like the response to A - are you privey to the routing of that specific traffic? I'm not.
C)Again - you might be right - you might be wrong. We'll never know and arguing makes no sense. OK
Next, you preach that the correct method of dealing with this problem is to understand them. - I've studied history and believe I understand the situation pretty well. I consider myself a pragmatist, and agree with you that this is not a problem that will be solved quickly. The Crusades lasted for centuries before the Christians realized they couldn't force their ways back into the levant. Islam is 800 years younger, and the same religious zeal that motivated the Christians 800 years ago is now gripping Muslims. Its not easy to deal with people who are driven by belief, you have to placate, negotiate, and at times make difficult decisions to stand firm when unreasonable demands are placed.
As for the Millenium Challenge 2000 - all well and good, but this was a well trained Marine general, not a rag-tag bunch of terrorists, AND you still haven't convinced me that all that was needed for the succesful interruption of a terrorist operation COULDN'T have been tearing up some fiber.
As for causing you dispair - I'm sorry for your discomfort. Nope, the end NEVER justifies the means is basically what you are saying because I specifically gave a scenario where innocent lives WERE saved as a direct result of the action. Truthfully, if you don't accept that innocents might be lost in a greater cause then you don't understand the history of warfare. Would you have delayed attacking German positions around the concentration camps knowing that tens of thousands of detainees were being slaughtered because German villagers living on the outskirts of Bergen Belzen or Triblinka were going to be lost? I know, the end NEVER justifies the means. Or again, you're just trying to unfairly paint me in a negative light. | |
cable baby
@rwoodbroadband.com
| said by KCrimson :The only thing difficult about answering each of your responses is dealing with the html, so I'm at a tremendous disadvantage to answer each of your points. Well, I don't know what to tell you there. Forum members deal with HTML it all the time, so I don't understand what the problem is.
said by KCrimson :You made a huge assumption that is incorrect - I didn't say that "every time NSA/CIA/Mossad "detects" or is "made aware of"...., so please don't make such assumptions. I'm saying that you seem to feel that NSA/CIA/Mossad have the right to destroy property that does not belong to them provided that they feel it is okay. At least "okay" according to them.
If you want countries to be able to "pick and choose" what international laws they choose to obey, then you're setting a dangerous precedent.
said by KCrimson :I WILL say that if that information is credible, verifiable and reliable indicating an imminent danger then DEFINITELY - what a BEAUTIFUL NON VIOLENT means of preventing an imminent disaster. Well, I have to hand it to you: portraying the cutting of an underseas cable as a "beautiful, non-violent event" is about as positive spin as you can possibly put on it.
The claim that I'm making is that doing so is a)breaking international law and b) willfully violating the property rights of others.
And if you happened to be the owner of that cable, I guarantee you that you are not going to consider the action of cutting that cable in any way "beautiful." You are, instead, going to view the action as costly and destructive.
Largely pointless, too. Cutting those cables does not result in a complete curtailment of Internet traffic. Only a sharp reduction in it.
said by KCrimson :You can argue all you want, but you and I don't know whether those conditions existed. But we do know that whoever cut those cables is, in fact, a criminal. Either through negligence (i.e. a boat anchor snagged on those cables) or, worse, deliberate destruction.
said by KCrimson :I know they don't own those cables, but in the scenario I painted, international law breaking is done for a good cause. Sorry, but the scenario you painted was simply a "the end justifies the means" one.
If that cable was indeed broken for a "good cause," fine: let's have the people who broke it present themselves to the International Criminal Court and have them make a case for themselves.
Presumably, if they've destroyed property "in a good cause," then they'll have no trouble getting other people to see it that way, too.
said by KCrimson :BTW - Were you as upset about Israel's raid on Entebbe? They violated poor Uganda's soverignty. Your outrage is matched by Idi Amin's. I'm afraid you're mixing apples and oranges here.
If a neighbor kidnaps my wife, and she is held in another neighbor's garage, then that is analagous to the Entebbe situation: the neighbor whose garage my wife is being held hostage in is, (like Idi Amin) quite clearly, in possession of "stolen property." In this case, my wife.
So if I have to destroy his garage door to retrieve my wife, he shouldn't be at all surprised about that: he knowingly has stolen property. My destroying his garage door to recover my stolen property, though, still makes me liable for damages.
In the case of the cable being cut, the people cutting that cable it are in no way recovering stolen property or anything of the sort. They are simply violating the property rights of the cable owners and doing it purely based on the fact that they think it is okay.
Which is not, actually, okay. It's criminal behaviour.
said by KCrimson :Now lets skip down several paragraphs (you just kept on expressing your moral outrage, as if you knew the circumstances personally). Hey, don't blame me: I was just taking a page out of your own playbook there.
You yourself made the presumption that the actions of the CIA/NSA/Mossad were, in some way, necessary and justifiable.
As if you knew the circumstances personally.
However, you haven't done Thing One to actually prove that whoever cut that cable did so out of necessity or to "save lives" in some way.
Which means that you're exhibiting a moral righteousness that is entirely undeserved.
If I destroy someone else's property, I need to a) explain why I did it (in case there might have been extenuating circumstances) and B) make amends for the destruction of that property.
And so far, the people who cut that cable have done neither.
So, no, I don't think it's "morally outrageous" to call criminals "criminals," which is what the cable cutters clearly are.
said by KCrimson :The next point you make is that its preferable to continue to monitor - I agree, but what if that monitoring results in finding out about an attack that you can't prevent, but you can delay or prevent a key communication required for it to properly work? [sigh] I've already explained that.
If I cut an underseas cable, I don't prevent the bad guys from communicating a)over the Internet via satellite and b) over the telephone. Also, there's absolutely nothing to prevent Khalid from calling Mohammad in another country to have him send that "critical" message instead. A message that I can have hosted on any hard drive in any part of the world, if I so choose.
All I've really done by cutting the cable is reduce Internet traffic in a given area without curtailing it completely.
You're claiming that by cutting an undersea cable that that will "delay or prevent a key communication" for terrorists when it simply won't have that effect.
said by KCrimson :Pull the plug with plausable deniablity and preserve the future monitoring of that link when its repaired (and situation defused). You're making the assumption that when an undersea cable is cut like that that the terrorists are just going to sit on their hands until it gets fixed rather than merely routing around the problem as I've outlined above.
But I guess that's your assumption to make.
said by KCrimson :Your next reply was about giving the bad guys credit for intelligence. My original theory was Al Queda. They don't have a huge pool of intellectuals to draw from. I agree: Richard Reid (the shoe bomber) was in no danger of letting his Mensa membership lapse whilst he was in prison.
But I'm not convinced it's not a question of how "bright" you have to be in order to be an effective terrorist (i.e. kill lots of people): it's a question of how motivated you are.
said by KCrimson :Many are Medrasa educated, with little but religious education, and those like Mohammed Atta are rarely placed in strategic positions of authority, in fact one of their demonstrated methods is purposeful LACK of a well organized chain of command I agree. And by organizing themselves in this way, it's clear that they've taken to heart the lessons that the Internet has taught us. Namely, that it doesn't necessarily take a "chain of command" to move information from one place to another. The Internet has demonstrated that decentralization can work quite well.
And when you have people who are, quite literally, gunning for you, decentralization is prolly a good way to get things done without incurring undue risk.
said by KCrimson :(enabling few who know the entire plan in case of capture), See, that's the part that I think Westerners always get hung up on. I'm not necessarily convinced that Al Qaida has some sort of overall "plan."
I guess I tend to view Al Qaida as more of a "terrorist franchise" than an "organization." By that what I mean is: Al Qaida (Eastern branch) doesn't necessarily have to know what Al Qaida (Western brance) is doing.
All they really have to know is there is an overall "goal" of some kind.
said by KCrimson : which IMO must cause a general lack of judgement skills due to the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. Another way to look at it might be: if the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, then it doesn't matter if my right hand gets chopped off, does it?
And as far as "judgment skills" go, I think that motivation is more important than judgment. Rather than having a lot of clever people running around, thinking for themselves, perhaps it works to their advantage to have stupid (but highly motivated) people working for them.
McDonalds does not employ PhDs. But they still manage to crank out hamburgers because their employees know that that's what they are there to do.
Al Qaida, on the other hand, exists to spread fear and confusion in the West. And how organized do you really have to be to create fear and confusion?
said by KCrimson :Next point - I said "this is not a discussion we need to have" - I meant that it is not germain to the discussion, and we have little information to determine who is right or wrong. Please don't attempt to characterize me as an advocate of censorship, and I won't characterize you in a light that is unflattering either. If you'll pardon my saying so, by telling someone "this is not a discussion we need to have," you come across as being dismissive of them. Just because you yourself don't happen to hold a particular point as germane, that doesn't mean that everyone else feels the same way you happen to.
And if you want to hold a discussion, then it's only fair that the other party involved is able to make any relevant points that they feel strongly about, too.
Fair enough?
said by KCrimson :Next you reiterated points A, B & C - A)OK, you don't think there's plausable deniablity. Fine, perhaps not - I don't know (neither do you). B)Again, like the response to A - are you privey to the routing of that specific traffic? I'm not. C)Again - you might be right - you might be wrong. We'll never know and arguing makes no sense. OK OK
said by KCrimson :Next, you preach that the correct method of dealing with this problem is to understand them. - I've studied history and believe I understand the situation pretty well. Well, you had me fooled there when you dismissed the Bad Guys as being "dumb." Pulling a trigger or pressing a button doesn't take a fancy IQ to pull off.
Aren't you familiar with old saying "The dumber you are, the more surprised people are going to be when you kill them?"
I am.
said by KCrimson :I consider myself a pragmatist, and agree with you that this is not a problem that will be solved quickly. The Crusades lasted for centuries before the Christians realized they couldn't force their ways back into the levant. Islam is 800 years younger, and the same religious zeal that motivated the Christians 800 years ago is now gripping Muslims. Beautifully put. And I would argue that motivation (or "zeal" if you like) is a very important factor when it comes to winning conflicts.
The side that wins in a given conflict is not necessarily the smartest, the best-funded, or the best-dressed, but the side that decides a) they are in the right and b) they are going to be in it For The Long Haul.
said by KCrimson :Its not easy to deal with people who are driven by belief, you have to placate, negotiate, and at times make difficult decisions to stand firm when unreasonable demands are placed. I agree. But if you're in | |
KCrimson
Premium
join:2001-02-25
Brooklyn, NY
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
edit:
February 6th, @11:09AM
| I'm not a web designer, perhaps many who post here are. I therefore find extensive html tagging to be frustrating and time consuming. When tags reach beyond a 2nd quotation level I have so much difficulty identifying the tags that I'm forced to start with a clean slate.
I just want to summarize the entire first part of your arguement to state that the willfull destruction of property in this case should be brought before the Hague, because the action taken was illegal.
First, a "sigh" back at you. You're going over the same points. I mentioned a theory whose basic construct left the perpetrators successfully saving perhaps thousands of innocent lives. You twisted the construct to make the effort a failure, something that you nor I can prove true or false. Much later in your reply you finally capitulated, and stated that if the cut was done and it successfully saved lives then it was a good thing. So you're mad as hell at whoever concieved this hair-brained scheme (which you stated because it is so hair brained is probably based in reality), but if it works as intended it is a good thing. OK - I agree with you, its always nice to be a Monday morning quarterback but please don't fire the coach.
I will add (for your benefit) that if the effort was indeed poorly conceived, executed and the perpetrators can be positively identified, then sure - let them pay damages. So what though? It wouldn't (and shouldn't) affect the future actions of the culprit nation(s)- that same nation would do it again given my construct, and I'll still say that they are making the right decision.
Again more of the "it only curtailed internet traffic". OK - your right. I've gone over "their" plans - my underwater scissors scenario was flawed. Mustafa had a Vonage account that was routed via satellite, and the intelligence leading to the operation was flawed - he was only ordering shawarma (extra humus, no tahini or turnips) from a take-out. Are you (finally) happy now? I'll write a gloomier scenario for you next week so that you can complain about the American government's foreign policy to your heart's content.
The next part of the post that "you're taking a page out of (my) playbook".
No, you took my playbook, re-wrote my plays and then blamed me when your plays didn't generate enough offense. Of course I knew the circumstances personally - they were from my own imagination.
You can apply real-world observations to state that my theory probably would not work, but please don't apply moral judgement of me for praising their succesful outcome. I deserve all the "moral righteosness" my mind can conjour, as it was a scenario that saved innocent lives at the cost of few if any.
I want to skip to your praise of my view of the history of the conflict. Thank you, I was reading that paragraph long and hard before I had the cajones to press the "post now!" button. Since you appreciated it, I'm not inclined to continue to pick apart your other views, so I'd like to cut this short.
I think I'm missing the end of your post - my copy ends with "I agree. But if you're in" and stops there - perhaps I needed a page reload. I'll reload after I post this, and if there's more that needs to be replied to, I'll add a followup message.
Edit: Nope, that's all I see when I reloaded. | |
|
