The birth of the Kweb.


      Homepage       Disclaimer to these pages                  Part XLIII          Part XLV              Index to birth of Kweb

Dear readers, I have changed this page into a series of pages. 
Mostly on a monthly bases, so now we have March 2005.
Look at the index of these pages!

Part XLIII: March 2005:




Extra texts  

 05 April 2005    
 09 April 2005    
 11 April 2005   txt01: The story of the radius and p (math) 
 12 April 2005    
 13 April 2005    
 19 April 2005    
 27 April 2005     



To readers who are new to this story: You are now in part XLIV of the Birth of the Kweb, the Kweb is of course the KinkyWeb&is this website. This website is good&strong, it's some fine piece of art. Sometimes I write a bit rough on some subjects, but that's the way it is. If you don't like that you get to some other PolitcalCorrect website please!
If you are new, you have to know that almost all things I do write on this website do have some nasty habit of coming out. To avoid judicial shit I had to place some disclaimers, here is the disclaimer to this story.


05 April 2005: On the root causes of terrorism:

A very old insight in terrorism is found in the military imbalance between two parties that are more or less at war with each other. When one party has a far bigger army and the other can hide in the mountains or between the population it is logical that the military major will declare all actions done against them 'terrorist actions'.

Lately there was an American university (I don't know the name anymore) and they did flea through many many so called 'terrorist attacks' and they came up with the dimension of political transformation or political transition.

The relation between poverty and terror could not be validated, that looks correct to me: poverty is like suffocation and does not bring around the hate needed for so called terrorist attacks. Of course we define a terrorist attack as one on a so called 'soft object' (like shops, market places, mosques and so on).
You can also say that a terrorist attack is an attack with military means in a civil environment.
Furthermore it is not relevant if the attack is staged by those in uniform or not, only the civil or soft nature is defining in this.

There will be some armies complaining about this definition of a terrorist attack but I have no message at local political feelings and nuances, it is soft target and basta.

With these two dimensions, military imbalance and political transition, you can come a long way in understanding why terror attacks emerge. For example the Irish Republican Army (the IRA) and the Spanish-Bask ETA are nice examples of military imbalance while the latest sting of attacks in Lebanon fall more under the political transition dimension. It's all only theory of course but it brings a bit of simple sense to what is happening on a wider scale. Till updates.

09 April 2005: The so called Zarqawi mystery, how could the photo's in the media differ so widely when we were talking about the same person? There are even rumors about Zarqawi being captured after the second battle for Fallujah but the Americans let him go because they did not know who they had, if true the 25 million bounty guy did walk away with a laugh I just guess...

Have you ever seen the two widely different pictures of Zarqawi? They are at the left (old one) and on the right (from a recent video capture), the one in the middle I shrunk with the graphics program to 75% of the 'original height'. Guess how Zarqawi fooled the Americans?


It is very well possible the Americans don't have his fingerprints or don't have fingerprint scanners, they might not have a voice recording or not a voice recognition system at the Fallujah scene. And facial recognition when they only had those photo's in the media did not do much good either, with or without facial scanners.

Facial scanners are nasty things, growing a beard or so just doesn't help much. This apparatus measures all kinds of distances like for example between the inner points of the eye with the nose tip. But stretching Abu Musab Zarqawi out in a vertical direction likely spoils all vertical and diagonal measurements.... What do you think my dear reader, were the old Zarqawi pictures correct pictures?

11 April 2005: Only posted today an old math work (11 years old but never properly written down), it is named the Story of the radius and p. If you are bad in math you better skip it but for the rest: It is very readable, really c.


12 April 2005: Two quotes for you from brave and smart American political leaders, you are allowed to guess who spoke those words and at what time:
  • We have, Tim, been down this effort now for six months at the U.N. with the enactment of 1441. We asked for a declaration of all of his WMD come clean. He refused to do that. Hes, again, continued to do everything he could to thwart the inspectors.
    Im hard-put to specify what it is he could do with credibility at this stage that would alter the outcome. 

    Hes always had the option of coming clean, of complying with the resolution, of giving up all of his weapons of mass destruction, of making his scientists available without fear of retribution, turning over the anthrax, and the VX nerve agent, and the sarin, and of the other capabilities he has developed, and he has consistently refused. And if he were to sit here today and say, OK, now Ill do it, Im not sure anybody would think that had credibility. 
  • "If we can start to change the most powerful country in the Middle East, the others will follow," Bush said. "Americans 20 years down the road won't have to deal with a day like Sept. 11, 2001." 

The first quote is done by dumbhead US vice prez Dick Cheney on March 16 2003 and the second quote (where again Iraq and the 9/11 attacks are linked) was done today by commander in chief US prez Bush. Now how come the Iraqis defied 17 UN resolutions on a row? Where has the sarin gone?

With the wisdom of hindsight we see the Iraqis did indeed not go against any UN resolution whatsoever and this is one more detail pointing to the illegality of the present war. Here in Holland we have a saying for these kinds of circumstances, it is: This mouse will have a tail.

Of course all American journalists will not burn their fingers upon possible illegal wars, I mean that won't serve the American interests isn't it. Criticism of the government is fine as long as it is about to large school classes or torture done by individuals in Guantonamy Bay or whatever what falls inside the Democrat-Republican ways of fighting. Just doing normal and study if this was is illegal is a bridge to far for these folks, that is not supporting the military and not in the interests of the USA... So we keep our mouths shut.

Title: Two twins named Rice.

13 April 2005: Today I feel a bit softer again but man how pissed I was yesterday at the Pentagon boys & girlz, ok I was may be a bit over the top when I wrote that nuke subs will fade into insignificance. Better compare it to the next:

Even centuries after guns were first invited one could still get killed by catapults and bow and arrow.

So nuke subs into insignificance is not true from the military point of view, they will stay magnificent weapons but is it magnificent enough? Is it enough?

Now the quote from what I wrote in a pissed mood yesterday:

(12 April 2005, 21.45 hours) And now I have had it completely! Two times on a row there was good attack against the hardest targets possible in Iraq and two times al Qaida in Iraq claimed responsibility. And two times on a row the US military used helicopter gunships. The third time they will not use air power, or to put it more diplomatic:

One of two things will happen:

  • There will be no use of air power in the next one, or
  • I will update the Chinese army with a nice device that I thought out when I was a teenager. 

Mark my words: One of the above two will happen, it is up to the Pentagon what they want. It is up to the Pentagon to see if I am bluffing once you know that weapon. Better read some math Pentagon and again: Am I bluffing?

Lets leave it with that, does the Pentagon finally have some guys not stating stuff at soft targets and they use air power. Are they crazy or so? They wanted themselves a so called 'military solution' to the war on terror.  

That's it for the time being, it is up to the Pentagon if they are willing to take these stakes because after all the nuke subs will fade into significance after publishing the math from hell. Till updates. 


19 April 2005: Statistics are an important vehicle to get oversight and sometimes insight in (global) trends, suppose you get a new job and your new job is to scan news media and other sources and to count the number of global terrorist attacks. Would you have enough at 40 hours a week?

There are on average something like 200 'significant' terrorist attacks every year so on average you count one attack in a working day of eight hours, that looks enough time to get good statistics. Ok sometimes it is hard to decide what is a 'significant' attack, are for example five sound bombs simultaneously at five HSBC banks in Turkey a terrorist attack of there is only damage and no wounded or dead?

Beside that it would be an easy job isn't it? You don't need to explain those attacks you only have to count them and compile a database with relevant information like date, country, time and possible perpetrators. With this wisdom in the back of your mind you can only wonder upon the next information from the US State Department, quoting:

Washington - The United States state department said on Monday it will stop publishing annual statistics on terrorism activities after discrepancies were found last year in figures for the number of attacks and casualties.

Department spokesperson Richard Boucher said "the government has decided that the National Counterterrorism Centre should compile and publish the statistical data on terrorism that has previously been included by the state department in our report." 

The 2004 report had claimed that the number of terrorist incidents has been on the decline over the past three years and that 190 cases reported in 2003, represented the lowest reported total since 1969.

US officials at the time trumpeted the report as evidence that the United States was winning the war on terrorism. 

Comment: It is not needed to put an entire center up for counting something that can be done by one person and in the second place we see that disturbing pattern of US politic behaviour in this again. The pattern is: You use whatever information you get, if it is related to your activities or not and you use it to tell the people that your policies clearly work.
Just like the elections in Afghanistan were without attacks ONLY because a few extra planeloads of US military were flown in. This is a worrisome way of spinning reality but it is broad based throughout the entire US government, very broad based. It is accepted behaviour over there. 


27 April 2005: Only a fill up on the words above (previous entry): The global number of so called 'significant terror attacks' was 655 in 2004 this compared to 175 in the year 2003.

I do not have much to say on this, only that in October or November 2001 I understood that the USA would fight war on terror just like they did war on drugs. Meaning ensuring the enemy gets strong and big so they have a lot of 'good fighting evil' to do the coming years.

Could be statistics proof I was in the right with that insight... 


End of part 44.













NATO NATO, what did you forget? Now I'll kiss you with love & that's a fact!





Support this website Support this website Support this website Support this website  

      Homepage       Disclaimer to these pages                  Part XLIII          Part XLV              Index to birth of Kweb





Top of this page        Homepage        Disclaimer to these pages