Re: defeating firewalls made easy

sorry,

i note however, that "supporting" seems to be a fair conclusion based on the
facts recited.

IF, i had knowledge (and i don't) of current whereabouts of specific
"important terrorists" sought by u.s.a., and withheld such information, i
would be promptly arrested. so to say a foreign gov't possesses, but fails
to provide u.s.a. with specific information that u.s.a. is spending untold
resources to obtain, implies the support of that country for the terrorists.
our president indicated shortly after the 9 11 bombing: "that you're either
with us or against us."

guantanamo prison is not filled because the u.s.a. fears retaliation . . the
u.s.a. wants to and has an announced policy of "bringing to justice" all
"important terrorists." that does not mean leaving same individuals in the
field.

"Walter Roberson" <roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote in message
news:d7i6v5$58$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca...
> In article <e30ne.5176$%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
Received on Thu Sep 29 19:53:33 2005