Re: defeating firewalls made easy

In article <e30ne.5176$%Z2.364@lakeread08>,
itoii 3uvu <itoii3uvu@hotmail.com> wrote:
:that's the best explanation i have heard and sounds reasonable . . another
:gov't supporting the terrorists.

You should quote enough of the previous posting so that people know
what you are referring to.

The item that I referred to about the timing coincidences re: political
events and terrorist captures, did not claim that the relevant
government was "supporting" terrorists: only that the country
that was named knew where some of them were and didn't arrest them.

I would imagine that there could potentially be advantages to
knowing where your hard criminals were but not going after them:
if you are able to keep close watch on them without alerting them,
then you can potentially gain access to their plans, and you can
see who comes in and out and who is communicated with (and possibly
what is said.) If, though, you go after them as soon as you find
them, then the survivors reform elsewhere (wanting "revenge") and
you don't know what they are up to or who they are talking to.

This is classical style detective work: you don't go after a gang
by arresting members on (e.g.) parking tickets: you monitor and you
infiltrate, and you gather enough evidence to really break their power.

NB: I have no idea whether this kind of monitoring is taking place
for terrorists, nor whether any of their where-abouts are known:
I am just reporting on an item I read, and indicating how aspects
of it could be plausible.

-- 
'ignorandus (Latin): "deserving not to be known"'
   -- Journal of Self-Referentialism