Re: [iwar] The definition of terrorism

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-09-23 09:54:59
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Was.there.an.Iraqi.connection?]"
Previous message: Mohammad Ozair Rasheed: "RE: [iwar] The definition of terrorism"
In reply to: Mohammad Ozair Rasheed: "RE: [iwar] The definition of terrorism"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Message-Id: <200109231654.JAA09493@big.all.net>
To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
In-Reply-To: <000301c14447$7c337b40$6301a8c0@Ozair> from "Mohammad Ozair Rasheed" at Sep 23, 2001 08:50:35 PM
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 09:54:59 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [iwar] The definition of terrorism
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Per the message sent by Mohammad Ozair Rasheed:

> Fred,

> Thanks again for an enlightening information on the subject. Another
> conclusion arises out of this, it also means that Libya, Syria are not
> terrorists.

They never were as far as I can tell.  The only claim has been that they
supported terrorists - which perhaps makes those folks they support no
longer 'terrorists' but rather government agents.

The problem with this is that these governments do not want these groups
associated with them officially because they will then have to bear the
consequences of their actions.  To clarify...

Suppose I am the government of a nation-state named Giblet-Gravy and I
want to terrorize the people of Chicken-Rice for political goals.  I
know that if I bomb Chicken-Rice they will appeal to the world community
and I will risk being bombed back.  If, on the other hand, I fund a
secret organization called Mashed-Potato and they create thousands of
paramilitary troops that are loyal to Mashed-Potato but serve my will,
then I can support and house them and disclaim all responsibility for
their actions, I can even say things like 'The recent actions of
Mashed-Potato are deplorable, but the conditions that created them were
caused by Chicken-Rice and thus it is their fault. 

Recognize anything here?

What Bush has said is, in essence, that the states that sponsor and
harbor these 'terrorists' are responsible for the actions of these
terrorists.  In other words, like the KGB and CIA, if we can trace them
to their source, we blame them on the governments of those
nation-states.  This is a change, if only one of perception, in policy. 
It means that, in essence, Chicken-Rice (or their ally and good friend
Corn) will bomb Giblet-Gravy because of the acts attributable to
Mashed-Potato. 

Now, to bring it back to the Middle East, this roughly states that the
US will start bombing and shooting up things in several Arab states.  We
will forget about moral issues for now, since we are talking about
things like nation-states which have no morality that I can see. 
Because of political sensitivities, the US won't be so blunt, and the US
is not likely to do carpet bombing, but rather it will be somewhat more
selective in its targeting.  But the concept is the same.

Bush will want to claim the moral high ground and, in combination with a
desire not to lose access to middle-eastern oil but a parallel desire to
enrich his buddies in the oil industry, it will be a good excuse to
offend a few of the countries and open up US oil drilling while keeping
a few of the countries in his camp by sending them bribes (read removing
trade barriers - similar to sending every American family $600 if he got
elected).  He may bomb Syria and certainly will bomb Iraq, but with Iran
it might be a chance to open up relations, and he has already acted in
concert with his 'friends' in select states.  Libya has been too out of
it to bother bombing for now, and most of the other places are our
'friends'.

In the meanwhile, all of the regional politicians are doing their
things.  Arafat decided to stop the 'terrorist' bombings of Israeli
civilians that he seems to claim are out of his control - except when he
wants then reigned in.  He is afraid that the Palestinian people will
eventually realize that he is keeping them in squaller for his political
and financial advantage and that the world will officially find out
(surprise surprise) that he is really in charge of the folks doing the
bombings in Israel.  The Saudis will be careful to do everything quietly
so as to not unduly offend the people in their kingdom who are, at
least in some numbers, heavily opposed to Israel's existence in the holy
ground of Islam.  Pakistan would love to be friends with the US, but
political realities make it complex, so they hedge every way they can
and hope not to get assassinated.  India revels at the idea of being
best buddies with the US and sniping at Pakistan along the way.  Lybia
has been shrinking from these things ever since Ray-gun (sorry - it was
irresistible given the desire of W for space-based laser defenses) had
Ghadafi's family bombed.  Meanwhile Israel figures this is its best shot
in a long time at long-term survival, so when eyes were turned away,
they went to near war with the PA, but reverted to peaceful coexistence
when Arafat decided to declare a moment of peace. 

In the end, all of the suffering we are seeing is the direct result of
the lack of open communications and negotiations on the issues at hand,
not only between the parties, but with the rest of the world public and
the citizens of these nation-states.  If the people of all of these
places had the honest facts, they would probably get rid of most of
their leaders and negotiate a separate peace between the peoples.  But
of course this cannot happen because that would demand that those with
money and power at stake yield that money and power.  Thus the world is
again on the brink of war and the seemingly endless cycle of violence
continues.

There is one dim hope.  That is that some of the politicians who have
supported or permitted these folks to remain for lack of options may
take this as an opportunity to have the world's police (the US and UK I
guess) come in and enforce law and order when they could not have done
it themselves.  They will pick their worst political enemies, declare
them terrorist, and les slip the dogs of war on them while being able to
disclaim political responsibility.  Some of the targets will actually be
organizations that harm rather than help people and they may perhaps be
reduced in number.

FC
--This communication is confidential to the parties it is intended to serve--
Fred Cohen		Fred Cohen & Associates.........tel/fax:925-454-0171
fc@all.net		The University of New Haven.....http://www.unhca.com/
http://all.net/		Sandia National Laboratories....tel:925-294-2087


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Pinpoint the right security solution for your company- Learn how to add 128- bit encryption and to authenticate your web site with VeriSign's FREE guide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/JNm9_D/33_CAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Was.there.an.Iraqi.connection?]"
Previous message: Mohammad Ozair Rasheed: "RE: [iwar] The definition of terrorism"
In reply to: Mohammad Ozair Rasheed: "RE: [iwar] The definition of terrorism"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-09-29 21:08:48 PDT