TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE

cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 22:16:44 GMT, null.DeleteThis@zilch.com wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:27:30 +0100, Frederic Bonroy
>
>
>>>The difference being that when the US decided to intervene in WWII,
>
>
> <ahem>
>
> AFAIK, the US didn't "decide to intervene" in WWII. They were happy
> to crank out very welcome weaponary and supplies while staying
> "neutral" until the following events ocurred:
> - Japan may or may not have declared war on US
> - Japan bombs Pearl Harbour
> - state of war between US and Japan established
> - Germany declares was on US

Pearl Harbor was exactly what the US administration was counting on to
rally the country behind the war. We were already supporting the allies
with supplies, and we had an oil embargo on Japan because we didn't like
what was going on in China. We wanted to get involved in the war, but
public sentiment was divided at the time. But Japan, partly forced by
our oil-embargo, bombed pearl harbor, giving the US the justificaiton it
needed to get militarily involved in the war. On Z-day (pearl harbor)
we actually had our aircraft carriers out of port, you think that's
coincidence, or just luck?
>
> The last was a stipulated requirement of a pre-existing treaty between
> Germany and Japan, obliging Germany to declare war in this case,
> whether this was to Germany's strategic advantage or not.
>
>
>
>
>>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
>
> Consumer Asks: "What are you?"
> Market Research: ' What would you like us to be? '
>
>>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -


--
William

If it don't work, hit it.
If it still doesn't work, kick it.
If it works after hitting it and kicking it, then it doesn't matter if
hitting it or kicking it helped, what's important is it worked.
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

"Gabriele Neukam" <Gabriele.Spamfighter.Neukam RemoveThis @t-online.de> wrote in message news:c1apn2$m2h$03$1@news.t-online.com...

> I have the suspicion, that the extremist islamic terrorists are
> convinced that the US are exerting their economic power in a kind of
> undeclared economic war on the Third World,

It's not just the US, and it might not even be economics. It might
just be that they feel that *we* (everyone who is not *them*) are
threatening their very lifestyle.

....add to that the fact that the US spouts off about a government
"of the people, by the people, and for the people", which if it is to
be believed, makes it appear that there are no innocents.

With that in mind it is easy to see why big soft targets such as
the towers were chosen.
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

<null.TakeThisOut@zilch.com> wrote in message news:dpgh30h45loagba9birebdos3rdii8tu3b@4ax.com...

> During the "neutral" period, though, FDR (Franklin D. Roosevelt) had
> seen the writing on the wall. Many if not most Americans didn't want
> to get involved in another European conflict. It came out much later
> that FDR ordered the U.S. navy to provoke the Germans into attacks in
> order to sway American public opinion.

Tail, wagging dog. I don't suppose it was a new idea even then. ;o)
They'll let us call the shots, but only after they tell us what to think.
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

"johns" <johns123xx.DeleteThis@xxmudhole.com> wrote in message
news:c166ir$j55$1@kestrel.csrv.uidaho.edu...
>
> > With Spybot Search and Destroy being a free application, you can't
> > really complain about it.
> >
> > I find that SBS&D removes about 99.9% of the things home users get hit
> > with. The rest of it is stuff they installed while not understanding
> > what they were doing.
>
> Hey AssWipe! Do what I said. Go out and get some
> "scumware" like Bargain Buddy ( a commercial trojan )
> and see if you can get it off your computer. You might
> learn something about the 0.1% of the stuff that is
> infecting nearly every computer out there, and is a
> MAJOR security issue that AdAware and Spybot
> have NO EXCUSE for ignoring. It is simply a fact
> that neither of those "free" programs are making the
> slightest attempt to deal with re-infection from the
> dropper that BB and its 1000 copy cats push. Instead,
> both of them are going after "parts" rather than the
> core infection.
>
> johns
>
>

heh, you sound like a complete cluebag.

--
Mimic

ZGF0YWZsZXhAY2FubmFiaXNtYWlsLmNvbQ== ( www.hidemyemail.net )
"Without knowledge you have fear. With fear you create your own nightmares."
"Alzheimer's, cheaper than rohypnol"
"There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand Binary,
and those that dont."
"He who controls Google, controls the world".
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

Gabriele Neukam wrote:

> You may say: But we Germans had been the aggressors. Those simple
> townsfolk - aggressors? They had their share of Nazis, as they were
> everywhere, but the majority were just civilians.

Yes - let it be said that even today, bombs from WWII are found rather
frequently in German cities, and that often requires the evacuation of
entire neighborhoods in order to defuse the bombs.

> I have the suspicion, that the extremist islamic terrorists are
> convinced that the US are exerting their economic power in a kind of
> undeclared economic war on the Third World, and that sending planes into
> economically, politically or military important buildings is their way
> to defend themselves (mind you, I don't share that view; I am only
> trying to understand *why* they did it).

I think you are giving islamic terrorists too much credit. Many of them
are simply completely fanatic. Their economic problems often stem from
their strict interpretation of Islam. In a way, they are partly
responsible for the sorry state of their economies.
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

null.RemoveThis@zilch.com wrote:

> Bush isn't just "kind of" unpopular. He's running scared. Recent polls
> have shown that either Kerry or Richards would stomp Bush right now.

Richards? You mean Edwards?


Oh, Ralph, thanks for running. Idiot.
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

null.TakeThisOut@zilch.com wrote:

> Any Democrat it seems

Almost any.

>>Oh, Ralph, thanks for running. Idiot.
>
> Ralph Nader? The vote stealer? Just announced today he's running.

Yes...
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:21:36 -0800, Big Will
>cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 22:16:44 GMT, null.DeleteThis@zilch.com wrote:
>>>On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:27:30 +0100, Frederic Bonroy

>>>>The difference being that when the US decided to intervene in WWII,

>> AFAIK, the US didn't "decide to intervene" in WWII. They were happy
>> to crank out very welcome weaponary and supplies while staying
>> "neutral" until the following events ocurred:
>> - Japan may or may not have declared war on US
>> - Japan bombs Pearl Harbour
>> - state of war between US and Japan established
>> - Germany declares was on US

>Pearl Harbor was exactly what the US administration was counting on to
>rally the country behind the war. We were already supporting the allies
>with supplies, and we had an oil embargo on Japan because we didn't like
>what was going on in China. We wanted to get involved in the war

Uh... for particular values of "we", maybe. I think it suited US
really fine to let other monkeys bash themselves up and mess up thier
infrastructures, while stimulating the US economy.

>Japan, partly forced by our oil-embargo, bombed pearl harbor, giving
>the US the justificaiton it needed to get militarily involved in the war.
>On Z-day (pearl harbor) we actually had our aircraft carriers out of port,
>you think that's coincidence, or just luck?

There's an assertion that Japan had declared war on the US before the
attack, and that the US sat on this (delay in translation etc.). That
would account for prudently keeping the ships and B17s out.

War's good for business, as long as it's conducted somewhere else.
Most nations who have been involved in warefare to any great extent
have experienced this on home territory at some stage, but for the US,
the last major conflict at home was prolly the war of the states.

US learned one important lesson from Vietnam; you can sell a war to
the home crowd as long as you don't conscript them. Hence the hi-tech
approach, which minimizes home team body bags.

What is worrying is that the US seems to have forgotten the notion of
sovereignty. When Bush was stating the desire to see (or compell) a
regime change in Iraq (as opposed to, say, enforcing compliance with
UN resolutions or other norms of behaviour) I had the feeling that
something was going profoundly wrong.



>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Our senses are our UI to reality
>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

Juergen Nieveler wrote:

> Frederic Bonroy <bidonavirus.RemoveThis@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>
>
>>Nobody had a problem with that idea except the Germans (and Syria, oh
>>well).
>
>
> And France. And people (i.e. non-politicians) all over the world,
> including the UK, USA and Australia...
>

Even still, we had a majority of the UN council. The only reason we
didn't go to them the second time was because France and Germany were
stubbornly threatning a veto (despite the majority) for their own
selfish oil interests with Iraq.
--
William

If it don't work, hit it.
If it still doesn't work, kick it.
If it works after hitting it and kicking it, then it doesn't matter if
hitting it or kicking it helped, what's important is it worked.
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

null.TakeThisOut@zilch.com wrote:

> I had no problem, in principle, with the idea of
> destroying Saddam's regime by the use of force.

Nobody had a problem with that idea except the Germans (and Syria, oh
well). But then again that was the only way for Schröder to get reelected.

> The problem as I see it is that there is no "teeth" in the
> international community of free and democratic nations.

Unfortunately true.

> There is no effective international police force. We're still back in the dark
> ages of national self interests taking precedence.

If there were such a police force, who would decide about its deployment?
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

Juergen Nieveler wrote:

> And France.

No, check your facts.

> And people (i.e. non-politicians) all over the world,
> including the UK, USA and Australia...

You're confusing two concepts: the principle, the *idea* of using force,
and *actually* using it. Had there been a UN consensus on using force,
it is likely that opposition in the world would have been much weaker
(and it's also likely that it would have come from the usual suspects,
i.e. die-hard pacifists).

France *never* ruled out using force, Germany did.
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE 

null.RemoveThis@zilch.com wrote:

>>Nobody had a problem with that idea except the Germans (and Syria, oh
>>well). But then again that was the only way for Schröder to get reelected.
>
> Oh? I thought France and Russia were opposed.

They were not opposed to the *idea* of using force, they were opposed to
using force *at that time under those circumstances*. That is a huge
difference.

> And if the German people had no problem then why
> would Schroder have a problem?

What? The German people was absolutely opposed to using force. Some of
them are always opposed to military actions, some of them were opposed
only because it was a unilateral move by the US and its goons.

>>> The problem as I see it is that there is no "teeth" in the
>>> international community of free and democratic nations.
>>
>>Unfortunately true.
>
> So you agree? I'm surprised.

Of course I agree. I am not a brutal thug but I am not a flower power
tree hugger either. Far from it.
The "international community" is indeed a wimpy debating club but I do
believe that in the case of Iraq it acted correctly and harshly enough
because the US exerted enough pression on it. But then the US did an
unwarranted somersault.

> That's up to the participating nations, no?

There needs to be a consensus, no? We have seen how hard it is to obtain
a consensus.
 >> Stay informed about: TROJAN UNDETECTED BY AD-AWARE