Happy 911 America Death Day from Snosoft

[simon () snosoft com (ATD)]

--=-tbKXugxPa9ARtnL+4IFl
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Yep,=20
        Just did a quick run down of our logs and IDS reports.   This was in
fact a spoof. I give them credit for the excitement!!  =3Do) =20




On Wed, 2002-09-11 at 19:41, KF wrote:
> Hahah nice spoof dick nose.
> -KF
> =20
> =20
> KF wrote:
> =20
> > Who's Afraid of Iraq?
> > by Gary Leupp
> >
> > "Those who favor this attack now will tell you candidly, and privately, =
that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United Sta=
tes. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear =
weapon to use it against Israel."=20
> > Gen. Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, CNN military co=
nsultant, in a Guardian interview (Aug. 20)
> > Now there's a quotation to ponder. President Bush has said on a number o=
f occasions that Saddam Hussein "must not be allowed to threaten the U.S. a=
nd its friends and allies" (plural) with weapons of mass destruction. This =
is the official, public justification for war on Iraq.
> > But what does the statement mean, exactly? In February the CIA declared =
that it had no evidence for any Iraqi terrorist attacks on Americans since =
the Bush I assassination attempt in Kuwait in 1993, and never any on U.S. s=
oil. Saddam's missiles can't come close to the U.S. They can reach Moscow, =
but the Russians aren't concerned; they're signing a $ 40 billion economic =
and trade cooperation package with Iraq. Iraq's missiles can reach Sicily, =
but the Europeans aren't concerned; they firmly oppose U.S. war plans. Iraq=
's neighbors, including U.S. friends Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, e=
ven Kuwait, say they don't feel threatened by Iraq and also oppose a war. E=
mphatically. Only Israel's Prime Minister Sharon is egging Washington on. S=
o, taking our cue from plain-talking soldier Clark (who has taken the troub=
le to write an editorial for the London Times urging a cautious approach to=
 war with Iraq), we can fairly restate Bush's declaration cited above as fo=
llows: "The U.S.!
>  !
> > must not allow Saddam Hussein to ever, ever threaten our friend Israel w=
ith weapons of mass destruction." Israel, that is to say, constitutes a uni=
que category in Bushite geopolitical thinking, as the nation that must neve=
r, ever have to factor into its defense strategy the existence of WMDs held=
 by any hostile nation. The 22 Arab nations, meanwhile, constitute another =
distinct set: these are nations that must never, ever acquire WMDs, especia=
lly nukes, because Arabs might use them against Israel. (Whether or not suc=
h thinking is reasonable and valid, it's best to just state it honestly, le=
st we abominate our lips with Bush-like incoherence or Rumsfeld-like double=
speak. See Proverbs 8:7).
> > Israel is obviously concerned about Iraq's weapons programs. In June 198=
1 it bombed and destroyed the Osiraq nuclear reactor in Iraq, which the Fre=
nch had taken a lot of trouble to build, saying Iraq was five to ten years =
away from acquiring nuclear weapons. The action was illegal, of course, con=
demned by the UN and even (mildly) by the U.S. The concern of the settler s=
tate was not entirely unrealistic; ten years later, during the Gulf War, Ir=
aq lobbed Scuds at it. But as everyone knows, Israel is itself an (undeclar=
ed) nuclear power, and its nukes similarly cause concern throughout the reg=
ion. (It's interesting to note, though, that while the U.S. cut off aid to =
both Pakistan and India after they joined the nuclear club, Israel didn't e=
ven get a slap on the wrist when it went nuclear, ca. 1973). In any case, I=
srael, as it showed by the Osiraq attack, can probably take care of itself,=
 just like Pakistan can take care of itself vis-=E0-vis India, India vis-=
=E0-vis China, China v!
> i!
> > s-=E0-vis Russia, etc. The chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Forces =
himself, Moshe Ya'alon, recently told Ha'aretz that "In the long term, the =
threat of Iraq or Hezbollah doesn't make me lose sleep."=20
> > For obvious reasons, there is a great deal of hostility towards the Jewi=
sh state in the Arab world. Egypt and Jordan have recognized Israel, and ha=
ve trade and diplomatic relations, but then, they are U.S. client states (E=
gypt receiving $ 2 billion a year in U.S. aid), and even in them, in what C=
olin Powell calls "the Arab street," there is outrage towards the treatment=
 of Palestinians in the occupied territories. As the largest, most populous=
, most "modernized" Arab nation in Southwest Asia that is not a U.S. ally o=
r client state, Iraq could, especially in the absence of a solution to the =
Israel-Palestine problem, pose a challenge to Israel even under a leader fa=
r kinder and gentler than Saddam Hussein.=20
> > One can easily imagine even a "democratically elected" leader in a secul=
ar government in Baghdad thinking, "Israel has nukes. Russia, to our north,=
 has nukes. So do China, Pakistan, and India. Our unfriendly neighbor Iran =
has a nuclear program. Don't I owe it to my people to acquire them for our =
defense-indeed, for the defense of the entire Arab nation?" "Democratically=
 elected" leaders of India have for years felt that obtaining nukes was a r=
easonable enterprise. Turns out that successive Australian governments have=
 been pursuing a nuclear weapons program, and that Argentina has sought one=
. Is it satanic for technically advanced nations to want to follow in the f=
ootsteps of the U.S., U.S.S.R., Britain, France and China---or merely norma=
l?=20
> > It seems as though some very powerful people in Washington think the onl=
y way to prevent Iraq from eventually following the course of these other n=
ormal nations, and acquiring nukes that could some day be targeted at Israe=
l (just as Israel has nukes targeted at Iraq), is for the U.S. to occupy Ir=
aq and create a new government that will play ball like those in Egypt and =
Jordan. They've been urging an attack on Iraq for years, long before Sept. =
11 gave them an opportunity to push their agenda (through crude attempts to=
 link Iraq with al-Qaeda-which continue through reports citing unnamed gove=
rnment sources, citing classified reports that strain one's credulity). But=
 (as Madeleine Albright has recently stated) the issue is not really U.S. s=
ecurity. Nor is it the security of other Arab nations, and surely (from the=
 U.S. government's point of view) not that of the biggest victim of Iraqi a=
ggression, Iran (lumped into the "Axis of Evil" along with Iraq, and also t=
argeted for "reg!
> i!
> > me change"). Rather, it's the enhancement, to the nth degree, of the sec=
urity of an Israel already armed to the teeth and capable of nuking Iraq or=
 Syria or lots of other places, big-time. It's what Scott Ritter has called=
 the "ideological" motivation for an Iraq attack.
> > I'm not saying that the proponents of the forthcoming Iraq War aren't al=
so thinking about oil, and a range of other geopolitical issues. I'm simply=
 observing that defense of "our friends" in official statements really mean=
s defense of Israel, through the establishment of a kind of "no-fly zone" f=
rom the Khyber Pass to the Jordan River, making Israel absolutely safe from=
 Muslim neighbors who presently resent its (nuclear) existence. But is it r=
ational and moral to send American troops to create that imagined sea of tr=
anquility, establishing client-states which, Egypt-like, trade acceptance o=
f the Zionist project for massive infusions of Marshall Plan-type U.S. aid?=
 Is the project feasible, the goal just, the method even legal? Is it reall=
y likely even to enhance the security of Israeli Jews, Israeli Palestinians=
, and Palestinians in the occupied territories? Personally, I don't think s=
o. I think it's a recipe for apocalyptic blowback. You want more terrorists=
? Follow the rec!
> i!
> > pe.=20
> >
> > "We're all members of the Likud now," a (Democratic) U.S. senator told a=
 visiting Israeli politician in Washington. That's very scary. It's scary w=
hen a U.S. Congressional delegation visits Ariel Sharon at the height of hi=
s invasion of the West Bank, officially opposed by the Bush administration,=
 to assure him that he has their full support; or when House Republican Lea=
der Dick Armey cheerfully tells Chris Matthews on CNN's Hardball, "I'm cont=
ent to have Israel grab the entire West Bank" and that the Palestinians sho=
uld just get out of there. When Defense Secretary Rumsfeld opines to a Pent=
agon audience that Israel's "so-called territories" are really legitimate s=
poils of war, or when a RAND researcher at the Pentagon calls Saudi Arabia =
the "kernel of evil" and advocates the creation of a U.S.-sponsored oil sta=
te in Eastern Arabia, one has to feel scared. Scared about the rage, not ju=
st on the Arab street, but on the global street, that the Rumsfeld-Wolfowit=
z plan for the w!
> o!
> > rld is likely to generate towards even decent, honest, peace-loving Amer=
icans (who are already, in their foreign travels, finding it convenient to =
impersonate Canadians). The craziness may be spinning out of control.=20
> > Steering the hijacked ship of state, energized by an ideology as threate=
ning to world peace as the doctrines of the Taliban, are a cabal of men and=
 women who are prepared to provoke the Muslim world (no, the entire world) =
by actions that even senior Republicans like Henry Kissinger, Lawrence Eagl=
eburger and Brent Snowcroft seem to consider unwise. What to call the membe=
rs of this warmongering cabal? If we're talking about "Islamist extremists,=
" how should we label these folks? "Judeo-Christianist-Zionist fundamentali=
st imperialist extremists"? Nah, that's too many "---ists." So I propose ju=
st "crazies," who unfortunately, by some random (just possibly reversible) =
fluke of our planetary history, have acquired the ability to threaten the w=
hole human race, your friends and mine---Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus,=
 Buddhists, atheists and everybody else----with weapons of mass destruction=
.
> > Gary Leupp is an an associate professor, Department of History, Tufts Un=
iversity and coordinator, Asian Studies Program.
> > He can be reached at: gleupp () tufts edu
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> > Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
> =20
> =20
> =20
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
> =20
--=20

-ATD-

-------------------------------------------------------------
Secure Network Operations |     Strategic Reconnaissance Team
http://www.snosoft.com    |     recon () snosoft com
Cerebrum Project          |     cerebrum () snosoft com
-------------------------------------------------------------

--=-tbKXugxPa9ARtnL+4IFl
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQA9f+AwQRQ7CCjlEToRAn/2AJ9MdMYbwG9cscgM9juAMUnAQh2ejACeKuWW
miqa82f8MnTE5Q6iJMRfCuc=
=ot5y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-tbKXugxPa9ARtnL+4IFl--