Coming soon

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Aug. 03 2002,15:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyways, the point is that letting our Spec Ops guys have complete freedom is a good idea, not a bad one.<span id='postcolor'>

But they won't have complete freedom, they will need the co-operation of the countrys they operate in.

[IceFire 0]

I dont think that was specified in the news article.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MDRZulu @ Aug. 03 2002,02:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I hope they go to Sweden just to piss Denoir off.<span id='postcolor'>

That's not a good idea at all.

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Aug. 03 2002,17:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MDRZulu @ Aug. 03 2002,02:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I hope they go to Sweden just to piss Denoir off.<span id='postcolor'>

That's not a good idea at all.<span id='postcolor'>

denoir will take his p99 and kill'em all

[Renagade 0]

Well u cant deny that 11/9 gave the US more`freedoms`

Another thing that bugs me is ppl say that its the US`s fault for this and that when its just the government andd the army thats stirring shit up but at the same time theres more than a fair share of morons over there morons over their.

this maybe slightly relevant,i wont post the url incase placebo has a hissy fit about linking to hax0r type places

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">THE CULT OF THE DEAD COW OFFERS A HELPING HAND IN AMERICA'S TIME OF NEED

In an effort to turn the tide in the war on terrorism, a private-sector think tank offers its expertise to the FBI.

LUBBOCK, TX, November 26 -- Never before has the United States faced a more troublesome enemy. To meet this growing challenge, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has announced an ongoing effort to create and deploy best-of-breed electronic surveillance software.

In July 2000 the FBI unveiled Carnivore (now called the DCS-1000), a sniffer capable of plucking relevant packet headers out of live data streams. To augment the investigative value of the DCS-1000, last week the FBI announced the development of "Magic Lantern", a rootkit for gathering information on target computers.

According to all accounts, this represents a major leap forward in the fight against all forms of computer crime. But we in the CULT OF THE DEAD COW (cDc) believe that there are opportunities here for public/private sector synergy.

"While we applaud the innovation and drive of the federal law enforcement agency, those of us who are U.S. citizens would be remiss if we did not offer our expertise in this area." said Reid Fleming, a cDc member.

The CULT OF THE DEAD COW has more targeted experience than anyone else in this field. We have repeatedly demonstrated our long-term commitment to this technology area with the release of the original Back Orifice in 1998, and its successor, Back Orifice 2000.

We are quite confident that the FBI's Engineering Research Facility is more than capable of ramping up on the challenges posed by this new arena of surveillance. But we are in a unique position to assist them in their new mission. For our part, conceptual work has already begun on an all-new remote administration tool focused specifically on the needs of the law enforcement community.

So we intend to re-architect Back Orifice from the ground up. There will be absolutely no shared code between the two projects, in order to skirt detection by commercial antivirus packages. The code will remain totally secret. The software will never surface publicly. And it will be far more stealthy than anything we have ever released, demoed, or publicly discussed

<span id='postcolor'>

[Renagade 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It will contain roughly the functionality of the current Back Orifice 2000 product, plus many new features. The central design principle is to create an artificial witness which is capable of intercepting any and all relevant activity during, after, and even leading up to the commission of a computer crime.

The new system will be designed to guard against internet fraud, identity theft, unauthorized system access, virus writing, industrial espionage, child pornography, information warfare, public corruption, composing hate speech, and other serious felonies which threaten the security of our nation and the safety of its citizens.

To avoid becoming obsolete, the proposed system will be expandable through the use of plug-in components. This will enable rapid development of new operating system ports, as well as entirely new features. Several plug-ins are already under consideration or active development:

IMAGE ANALYZERS for recognizing certain shapes and images in digital photos, like: flags and emblems of terror groups, blueprints and schematics of critical national infrastructure, representations of nude or missing children, as well as faces of known or suspected criminals.

ELECTRONIC FIELD AGENTS leverage recent advances in fuzzy logic to perform much of the data acquisition and analysis on the remote PC. This enables the program to conduct wide-ranging data hunts and filter out any materials which do not conform to federal search and seizure law. Using the power of the suspect's own computer system, the software can scour stored files and live traffic across the internal network for items which conform with a high degree of probability to Title 18 legal requirements.

UNICODE-AWARE TEXT SEARCHES for matching live typing against a list of trigger words in any language, including Arabic. The dictionary of trigger words can be updated at any time over subliminal channels without arousing suspicion of the most knowledgeable systems analyst. The dictionary can be used to match proper names, book titles, airport codes, and general terms like "bomb" or "virus" in any Unicode language.

LOGIC AND GRAMMAR ENGINES will be able to detect telltale signs of mental disturbance. In conjunction with the text search capability, this feature will weed out the merely neurotic from the dangerously insane.

This will be nothing less than the ultimate intelligence-gathering tool. And we intend to construct it, at no cost, exclusively for the use of the federal government.

"This will be better than other available tools," said Oxblood Ruffin, foreign minister of the cDc. "We wish to provide infrastructure as part of a successful, multi-layered, pyramidal cybercrime strategy. Our system will provide information to help federal prosecutors determine their legal strategy before anyone is tried or even indicted."

"We are confident that the government will limit the use of this technology only to targets relevant to legitimate investigations," said Fleming, further underscoring the cult's faith in federal law enforcement organizations. "The FBI has a long history of following Title 18 to the letter."<span id='postcolor'>

[ralphwiggum 6]

that's funny. just a few weeks after they annouce release of browser capable of fooling censores, they say they'll lend there expertise in surveillance.

back on the topic.

I think giving SOCOM too much freedom is a bad idea. is there any guarantee that they are going to get to terrorists 100% of time? I don't mind CIA or any other agencies be allowed to perform human-oriented surveillance. however, what is troubling is that they can shoot or capture them by themselves.

if it's US's friend in war against terror, that country can handle capture terrorists. if that country is not, then we can excercise option to go in and get them.

however, Rummy is pushing it to far.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I believe President Bush can do whatever he wants, it will never please most of you folks here, simply because he's on the wrong side, politically.

if he'd be a democrat you'd be kissin up to him no matter what he'd do. (remember lyin' cheat'n clinton and how much you liked him anyway?)<span id='postcolor'>

no, it's because he is damn stupid. if he were a democrat, he would have never been president cuz his so stupid. do you know why we loved Slick Willy? at least he wasn't 'holier than thou' type of hypocrite.(and smarter than Bush too)

[Sam Samson 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> do you know why we loved Slick Willy? at least he wasn't 'holier than thou' type of hypocrite<span id='postcolor'>

by that do you mean that he wasn't a christian?

but he said he was!

[Frisbee 0]

Fine,just insult your allies by deeming them uncapable of doing anything by themselves...

It's as if after 9-11 the us can do whatever the hell it pleases.

How can you expect to help in a war you yourself started.Things like this,just disregarding everyone and everything just isolates the us more,you're proving the point held against you,the us goes acting all high and mighty like they own all and everything.

Oh,and on bringing up the 'we helped you in ww2' thing,bullshit,you helped because you needed europe for trading,and you knew that if hitler took england he'd soon be able to take on america.

Anyway,I'm sure to get some people blindly defending the us because so and so reason,and i will get people disproving what i said with actual proof and facts.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ Aug. 03 2002,17:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well u cant deny that 11/9 gave the US more`freedoms`<span id='postcolor'>

I can and will deny that 9/11 gives the United States of America the right to violate the sovereignty of my nation. No terrist act commited on US soil gives the US the right to act as police in any other nation without the explicit consent of my government.

Now if the US brought forward evidence to my government that was considered rock solid, I am certain the Canadian government would give them the ok, within reason, to operate here, liasing with local law enforcement.

However, I can see this being a huge cluster fuck, with SOCOM guys basically doing whatever they want, wherever they want. And that opens a whole can of worms

So repeat after me:

1) My nation has no rights to violate the sovereignty of another nation. This includes "huntin' terr'ists"

2) If the special operations people of another nation staged a raid on US soil to capture an american who had done something heinous in their nation, the US would scream bloody murder.

[bn880 5]

Well, if they do shit like that without permission, they will suffer alot of casualties because the police forces of that nation will not be pleased with their automatic weapons and explosives... they won't have it easy.

Any govt that is worried about SOCOM guys silently invading can hire some mercenaries to take care of them, and it would be a fair thing to do, and it will be effective to an extent.

Now if they send these guys in to the wrong nation and their cover is blown... you are looking at war crimes and terrorist charges against the US.

[Renagade 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now if they send these guys in to the wrong nation and their cover is blown... you are looking at war crimes and terrorist charges against the US. <span id='postcolor'>

What was that thing about exempting the US heavies from war crimes

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Aug. 03 2002,19:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now if they send these guys in to the wrong nation and their cover is blown... you are looking at war crimes and terrorist charges against the US.<span id='postcolor'>

Nope. Not War Crimes.

It's illegal and unethical to conduct military ops in a nation you have not declared war on, and not secured permission.

But it is not a war crime.

[bn880 5]

Oh ya, it's an act of war, not war crime.

Sorry

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Aug. 03 2002,19:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Any govt that is worried about SOCOM guys silently invading can hire some mercenaries to take care of them, and it would be a fair thing to do, and it will be effective to an extent.<span id='postcolor'>

YAY ? and transform our streets in battlefields ..........

[Sam Samson 0]

y'all are sooo concerned about us-spec ops infiltrating you countries.

why not worry about terrorist infiltrating and building cells in hamburg, london, etc?

instead european governments import 13 of the palestinians besieging the church of the nativity, of the birth of Christ, in bethlehem. guys whom israel labeled terrorists.

I don't get it.

but just to have said it: I personally deem european spec ops as more, umm, well, ..., they're just, chchch, ... better suited than us sp f. (must be in the mind or something. europeans are less "emotional" about a lot of things. they can be just hard, determined killing machines, if they wanna be.)

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">y'all are sooo concerned about us-spec ops infiltrating you countries.

why not worry about terrorist infiltrating and building cells in hamburg, london, etc?

<span id='postcolor'>

I actually agree with you here.  All governments need to take a more proactive stance on cells of terrorists organisations being based in their cities.  I am constantly aware of the large unprotected border we have with the US and worry that terrorists are going to use that to move freely between Canada and the US.  

edit:

The thing is, two wrongs dont make a right.  The commision of an illegal act by a US citizen isnt in any way obviated by the fact that the crime was commited against a member of a terrorist organisation.

Now if the US finds an AQ cell with a top leader in London, and the SAS is sent in to deal with them it's all good.  If some Delta boys fly in to Heathrow, pick up a stash of illegal weapons provided from a US base, and take the same group down..it's an illegal action unless the government of the UK has sanctioned it.  

Where we disagree is that you seem to think that it's ok for your country to do this. I think it's wrong..and I have the weight of the law on my side

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">but just to have said it: I personally deem european spec ops as more, umm, well, ..., they're just, chchch, ... better suited than us sp f. (must be in the mind or something. europeans are less "emotional" about a lot of things. they can be just hard, determined killing machines, if they wanna be.) <span id='postcolor'>

that is because the majority of european nations have been dealing with terrorist acts on their home ground for decades now, and so the special forces generally have both experience and the knowledge to deal with them. So they seem a little 'harder' because they may not hesitate as much in certain acts. We might hassle the French a lot, but if I was a Terrorist, I wouldnt want to mess with GIGN

[Paratrooper 0]

I know I'd rather have anything America sends than the SAS, if I were a terrorist.

Anyway this declaration is being taken out of context! Free reign does not mean into Western allies. We are talking Yemen, Somalia, Sudan etc. Not London! Britain has the best in the world for that. Infact America beg for the SAS to be deployed, and we are glad to send them. After all al-Queda do have to be opposed.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Aug. 03 2002,22:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I know I'd rather have anything America sends than the SAS, if I were a terrorist.

Anyway this declaration is being taken out of context! Free reign does not mean into Western allies. We are talking Yemen, Somalia, Sudan etc. Not London! Britain has the best in the world for that. Infact America beg for the SAS to be deployed, and we are glad to send them. After all al-Queda do have to be opposed.<span id='postcolor'>

It's not a matter of taking it out of context. You are talking about a slippery slope that once taken can mean pretty much anything. And being blunt... if you expect people to respect your sovereignty and borders, then you MUST follow the same policies. So we may not like the governments of Yemen or the Sudan... but the minute you pull nonsense like this, you are no better than the terrorist. Sometimes the high road must be taken, no matter how much you might want to get the terr'ists

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Aug. 03 2002,22:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Aug. 03 2002,22:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I know I'd rather have anything America sends than the SAS, if I were a terrorist.

Anyway this declaration is being taken out of context! Free reign does not mean into Western allies. We are talking Yemen, Somalia, Sudan etc. Not London! Britain has the best in the world for that. Infact America beg for the SAS to be deployed, and we are glad to send them. After all al-Queda do have to be opposed.<span id='postcolor'>

It's not a matter of taking it out of context. You are talking about a slippery slope that once taken can mean pretty much anything.  And being blunt... if you expect people to respect your sovereignty and borders, then you MUST follow the same policies.  So we may not like the governments of Yemen or the Sudan... but the minute you pull nonsense like this, you are no better than the terrorist.  Sometimes the high road must be taken, no matter how much you might want to get the terr'ists<span id='postcolor'>

I agree, but there is no danger of American troops deploying in Europe now is there?

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Aug. 03 2002,22:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I agree, but there is no danger of American troops deploying in Europe now is there?<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.<span id='postcolor'>

Now, I am not comparing Americans to the Nazis. But as a parable, it fits very well.

When they went after the Muslims, I didnt speak up...

Just because you dont belong to the current group that the US has deemed as a danger to their security doesnt mean that you wont be at some point, no matter how WASP you are. And if the world doesnt stand up and say 'hey, this is wrong' then you are on your way down the road to letting it happen to anyone

History has shown this to be true in almost every way. You cant reclaim a right once you've given it up...at least not without blood being spilled. And this isnt a rant against government. This is a rant against POOR government.

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Aug. 03 2002,21:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">that is because the majority of european nations have been dealing with terrorist acts on their home ground for decades now, and so the special forces generally have both experience and the knowledge to deal with them.  So they seem a little 'harder' because they may not hesitate as much in certain acts.  We might hassle the French a lot, but if I was a Terrorist, I wouldnt want to mess with GIGN <span id='postcolor'>

hehe

the main gign interventions :

- Ecquevilly, mars 1974

- Orly, janvier 1975

- Djibouti, février 1976

- Roissy, septembre 1976

- Ambassade de France Å• San Salvador, mai 1979

- Hôtel Fesch ŕ Ajaccio, février 1980

- Détournement de Touquet, mai 1981

- Chelles, avril 1982

- Djibouti, aoűt 1983

- Marignane 1, aoűt 1984

- Boucau, février 1988

- Ouvéa, mai 1988

- Guipry, décembre 1989

- JO Alberville, février 1992

- Prison d'Yzeure, septembre 1992

- Iparretarrak, novembre 1992

- ETA Å• Espelette, juillet 1993

- Niger, décembre 1993

- Cugnaux, mars 1994

- Marignane 2, décembre 1994

- Trévou-Tréguignec, septembre 1997

djibouti near somalian border, 3rd of frebruary 1976

30 children taken as hostages by the members (8 persons) of a terrorist group called FLCS

a GIGN team in combat order ready to fight in 8 hours

the 8 terrorsits were shot , but they had the time to kill one little girl

the first gign intervention of the GIGN was a success , even if there was a civilian victim

Marignane airport , marseille , south of france , 25 of december 1994

4 algerian terrorists hijack an airfrance airbus on an algerian airport the 24 at 1125 cet , after many negociations , the plane lands on the marignane airport to "refuel"

the 25 at 1712 cet , the assault is launched by a GIGN group

this operation is a success , the 4 terrorists are killed , 9 GIGN members more or less injured , 3 crew member injured , 13 pâssenger lightly injured (most of them have been beaten by the terrorists in the general confusion)

the GIGN have dealt succesfully with one of the hardest type of terrorism crisis

i had once the occasion to try one of their bigass revolvers ..... damn they're wicked

[Renagade 0]

Why a reveolver?? in this day and age wouldn`t a semi-auto by way better?

[ran 0]

revolver and semi auto pistol = bolt action sniper rifle and  semi auto sniper rifle

[Renagade 0]

Im not sure what ur trying to say,enlighten me.