Monday, September 22, 2003

White House is ambushed by criticism from America's military community. George Bush probably owes his presidency to the absentee military voters who nudged his tally in Florida decisively past Al Gore's. But now, with Iraq in chaos and the reasons for going to war there mired in controversy, an increasingly disgruntled military poses perhaps the gravest immediate threat to his political future, just one year before the presidential elections. From Vietnam veterans to fresh young recruits, from seasoned officers to anxious mothers worried about their sons' safety on the streets of Baghdad and Fallujah, the military community is growing ever more vocal in its opposition to the White House. [Independent.co.uk] 7:56:06 PM    comment () Dying to Kill Us. I have spent a year compiling a database of every suicide bombing and attack around the globe from 1980 to 2001 -- 188 in all. It includes any attack in which at least one terrorist killed himself or herself while attempting to kill others, although I excluded attacks authorized by a national government, such as those by North Korea against the South. The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any religion for that matter. In fact, the leading instigator of suicide attacks is the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Leninist group whose members are from Hindu families but who are adamantly opposed to religion (they have have committed 75 of the 188 incidents). Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist campaigns have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel liberal democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is rarely the root cause, although it is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in other efforts in service of the broader strategic objective. Three general patterns in the data support my conclusions. First, nearly all suicide terrorist attacks occur as part of organized campaigns, not as isolated or random incidents. Of the 188 separate attacks in the period I studied, 179 could have their roots traced to large, coherent political or military campaigns. Second, liberal democracies are uniquely vulnerable to suicide terrorists. The United States, France, India, Israel, Russia, Sri Lanka and Turkey have been the targets of almost every suicide attack of the past two decades, and each country has been a democracy at the time of the incidents. Third, suicide terrorist campaigns are directed toward a strategic objective. From Lebanon to Israel to Sri Lanka to Kashmir to Chechnya, the sponsors of every campaign have been terrorist groups trying to establish or maintain political self-determination by compelling a democratic power to withdraw from the territories they claim. Even Al Qaeda fits this pattern: although Saudi Arabia is not under American military occupation per se, the initial major objective of Osama bin Laden was the expulsion of American troops from the Persian Gulf. (link, registration required) A sociological analysis. Via Prometheus 6. [Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs] This is rather interesting information. I have another question that the author could probably answer: how many suicide bombings have been actual terrorist attacks, and how many have been directed at legitimate military targets? The media often fails to make a distinction, but there's a pretty big difference between attacking a warship and attacking a disco, for example. Based on the attacks that are reported in the US media, it seems that terrorist suicide bombings are much more common, but I'd like to know if that is an accurate perception. 1:01:03 PM    comment () What Is Evil? [The Libertarian Enterprise] The author looks at various definitions of "evil," and considers whether members of Congress qualify. The answer is "yes," by any definition. 10:24:13 AM    comment () Nuclear Elephant: Analysis of Symantec's Stance on Censorship. According to this report in the Sydney Morning Herald, Chief Operating Officer of Symantec, John Schwarz, was quoted as "calling for laws to make it a criminal offense to share information and tools online which could be used by malicious hackers and virus writers". If this is the official stance from Symantec, then I must say they can consider me an strong advocate of their competitors and a boycotter of their product line. Our country has a history of censorship blunders and what I call "censorship legislation" that has mucked up our legal system long enough and crippled the responsible citizens with little-to-no effect on actual crime. What's even scarier is that a VP from Symantec was recently named the Dept. of Homeland Defense's Cybersecurity director, putting friends of Symantec in high places where this legislation could actually become a reality. This short article will take a look at the negative effects of the censorship legislation backed by the COO of Symantec and also a couple of recent examples of "censorship legislation" ... and what little effect it has had on criminals, while having a substantial effect on responsible citizens. I can only draw one of two conclusions about Mr. Schwarz based on this stance. In my opinion, he is either completely ignorant of the effects of this type of legislation, or he is an avid supporter of weakening American infrastructure, American jobs, and the US Constitution. In short, this article submits that the effect censorship would have on security professionals is enormous. Imagine being at the mercy of software patches distributed by vendors (which usually lag 2-3 months behind), and being unable to identity, test, and patch any of your own code or to even test your systems to see if you are susceptible to a particular vulnerability. Imagine the bad guys in black hats, and anybody else outside of the United States having all the keys to your system, keys which it is illegal for you to own. If this information and tools are banned from circulation, this is exactly what can happen as a result. On top of this, professionals will be unable to verify any information that is legal to release, leaving them in constant fear of their infrastructure's security (several bogus vulnerabilities have been published for years now, and the only way they have been debunked is with exploit code and other tools). This is just the beginning of the types of negative effects this type of legislation will bring. Now we'll look at some issues surrounding Mr. Schwarz's pro-censorship stance and why it is completely un-American. [Privacy Digest] Between this and the earlier story about a Symantec executive joining the KGB, I'm starting to wonder if the higher-ups are deliberately trying to destroy Symantec's reputation. 9:26:39 AM    comment () Protect Yourself. With the occupiers unable to restore order to Iraq, The New York Times' John Tierney reports, the natives are turning to private and voluntary arrangements, from militias to security companies. Good for them. I've got a question, though. Just a few months ago, we kept reading articles that said weapons ownership in Iraq was as widespread as it is in America. Now Tierney says Saddam had "forbade private citizens to carry weapons, effectively outlawing the security industry." So what was the law? [Hit & Run] Good question. There's not necessarily a conflict between the two stories, though. It's entirely possible for laws to permit weapon ownership while at the same time keeping private citizens from actually carrying their weapons. That's how California is--you can own weapons (albeit with many more restrictions on legal types than are present in Iraq), but thanks to our leftover Jim Crow concealed carry law only the rich and powerful can actually carry them. 8:58:49 AM    comment ()

© Copyright 2006 Ken Hagler. Last update: 2/15/2006; 1:56:59 PM.