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
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
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
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 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
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,
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. He’s, again, continued to do everything he could to thwart the inspectors.
I’m hard-put to specify what it is he could do with credibility at this stage that would alter the outcome.
He’s 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 I’ll do it,” I’m 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.
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
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:
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
One of two things
- 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
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
|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
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
Could be statistics proof I was in the right with that
End of part 44.
NATO NATO, what did you
forget? Now I'll kiss you with love & that's a fact!
to these pages
to birth of Kweb