Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: Stopping terrorism

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Michael Hayes" <mhayes AT mphiles.com>
  • To: "InterNetWorkers" <internetworkers AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Stopping terrorism
  • Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:04:39 -0400


> I think that the our knowledge of the Internet,
> a vast, decentralized network originally designed
> by the DOD to be hard to disable, can lend understanding
> of this new "enemy."
>
> For instance, disabling of one node (bin Laden) doesn't
> destroy the Internet (the enemy).

Yes, everything they're saying leans toward an action of a larger scope than
bin Laden, and no, it won't be easy. However, our "network" that is
rallying around us seems fit for the challenge.

> what other tactics haven't we thought of which are just as
> obvious vulnerabilities?

That list is scary indeed, biological, etc... These other tactics will
reveal themselves even if we turned our cheeks. At least this horrible act
will bring new focus to this new, yet not so new, enemy.

Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: <mdthomas AT mindspring.com>
To: "InterNetWorkers" <internetworkers AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 1:07 PM
Subject: [internetworkers] Re: Stopping terrorism


>
> The intellectual challenges here are:
>
> * understanding a decentralized "enemy"
> that isn't hierarchial and doesn't take
> the form of a large, easy to distinguish
> and attack nation-state, and which will
> have many of the same advantages of de-
> centralization that the Internet has;
>
> * understanding the vulnerabilities
> to our way of life;
>
> * stepping above raw emotion. In the words
> of an Oklahoma City victin when asked if
> the McVeigh execution brought closure, she
> said "You close on a house. You don't *get*
> closure on something like this." Responses
> that only strive to satisfy our bloodlust
> are incorrect. The only good reason for
> war is to acheive peace.
>
> I think that the our knowledge of the Internet,
> a vast, decentralized network originally designed
> by the DOD to be hard to disable, can lend understanding
> of this new "enemy."
>
> For instance, disabling of one node (bin Laden) doesn't
> destroy the Internet (the enemy).
>
> Also, this attack was tactically simple and cheap against
> an obvious vulnerability. I've flown in to Reagan-National
> Airport, almost directly over the Pentagon, as I've flown
> in to La Guardia within sight of the WTC. I'm also aware
> that when planes crash they tend to burst in to flames.
> I'm embarrassed that I've personally never made the intuitive
> leap to forsee this kind of attack, which could have been
> easily committed any time in the last 30 years (or more.)
>
> Obviously, we'll shore up against this tactic -- we already
> have with all of the new aviation security measures. But
> what other tactics haven't we thought of which are just as
> obvious vulnerabilities? Remember the score so far:
>
> Them: 14, Us: 20,000 (?)
>
> For instance, the Barbarians took Rome very simply -- they
> cut the aquaducts going in to Rome. The city just folded
> up and hundreds of years of the progress of civilization
> dried up with it.
>
> What is the "water" of our civilization? How about oil --
> the very commodity that forces us to be so involved in
> the Middle East (I've never heard of a terrorist attack
> emerging from a region that doesn't have assets that
> we aren't dependent on, like sub-saharan Africa), and which
> is also necessary to fuel the kind of massive land war
> initiatives that are being advocated.
>
> Ethanol, anyone?
>
>
> InterNetWorkers <internetworkers AT franklin.oit.unc.edu> wrote:
> > So, we're a bunch of smart people with diversified outlooks and
> attitudes (and I, for one, am seriously torn between morals/concerns
> about collateral damage and kicking ass). Why not bring something
> productive out of this discussion?
>
> I propose a thought exercise for this think-tank: a comprehensive plan
> to address military, economic, religious and social components of the
> terrorism problem. We already have a start on defining the problem: A
> decentralized fanatical base that is willing to die (for their God and
> country) in order to harm their enemies.
>
> The next step would be to define the causes of this problem, citing
> facts, stats (note: these are not considered facts for a reason),
> personalities, social attitudes, etc.
> Example:
> Niblet 1) Taliban has made even informally educating a woman illegal
> until separate facilities can be made, but few facilities are being
>
> built. This may be analagous to making it illegal to teach a slave how
> to read in America in the 1850s.
> Impact: One segment of Afghanistan has both been targeted for
> subordination and is being robbed of one tool for resistance
> Solution: ?
>
> Would internetworkers be interested in setting up a separate list to
> discuss this? Maybe a document storage spot at Yahoo?
>
> Some real think-tank will be doing this somewhere, but our techno slant
> may come up with some interesting solutions...
>
> julie "I'd get out of the digest, but there's too many messages..."
> waddle
>
>
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!
http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently subscribed to internetworkers as:
mdthomas AT mindspring.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
>
>
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!
http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently subscribed to internetworkers as: mhayes AT mphiles.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page