What do You THINK?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

How many on this forum think that the Government will blame Y2K failures on terrorist? For that matter do U think that they will ever admitt that it was Y2k at all?

-- I.AM (waiting4@theend.com), November 01, 1999

Answers

That's what all the hysteria over "cyberterrorism" is for.

The presidential task force on "cyberterrorism" has made elaborate study and preparation for "hackers" attacking our critical infrastructure.

They're so used to lying, I think they've forgotton there even is such a thing as truth.

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), November 01, 1999.


Of course our government will blame terrorists for y2k failures. They have almost as much as said so. It is far better for the country to be faced by a percieved foriegn threat which would serve to unite the country and allow the population to endure hardships without recriminations against our leaders. If we are allowed to blame the government for inactivity and insensativity the country will come apart. We have been lied to throughtout our history. Why change now?

Bill in South Carolina

-- Bill Solorzano (notaclue@webtv.net), November 01, 1999.


Show Lib-erty the way to go home,

He's tired and he wants to go to bed.

Someone gave him a little power trip,

and it went straight to his head...

-- (LOL@again. ha ha ha), November 01, 1999.


Show the gubmint the way to go home,

They're sick and they want us dead,

The sheeple gave them a total power trip,

And it's gone right to their head.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 01, 1999.


If you're going to act like a pessimistic person at least be original... hawk.

And it's even doubly ironic that you stole that from me, but I'll let you figure out why for yourself.

-- Not that touchy "@" person (LOL@all you.guys), November 01, 1999.



Scapegoating terrorism for Y2K failures seems like a viable way to cast blame on someone else for our own faults and opening the door for retaliation against the "guilty", whether it is justified or not. Wouldnt it be conveniant to bomb the hell out of Saddam again if we can blame him for a major network outtage. I have found it odd that the government seems to think that terrorism is more dangerous DURING THE CENTURY DATE ROLLOVER.

I dont fully understand why a cyberterrorist would need to wait for Y2k to make their move, wont we actually be more alert and in various kinds of lockdown modes during that time. Only an actual failure on OUR SIDE would increase the damage a terrorist could effect.

The one thing the government seems to be saying is that terrorists will use y2k failures to take advantage of the USA with cyber or physical attacks. If a computer goes down that monitors something and the terrorist decides to make their move at that time, it would make sense to be concerned.

However the government has said they are so compliant that no concern needs to be made about y2k failures, which in turn should actually make the government significantly LESS concerned about attacks by terrorists TAKING ADVANTAGE OF Y2K FAILURES.

Why is it then that so much effort is being put into preparation for "terrorist attacks during Y2k outtages or failures"?.

Me thinks the government is less convinced of our compliancy than they let on and have done much more preparing for this sort of scenario because of the self-doubt.



-- hamster (hamster@mycage.com), November 01, 1999.


"-- Not that touchy "@" person (LOL@all you.guys), November 01, 1999."

How many different identities are you going to use chicken shit?

Don't you have the guts to choose ONE NAME and stand by your words?

I think the forum sysops are going to have to figure out a way to make a name mandatory in the system and automatically delete any alternate names coming from the same source. Is this possible? It would solve a lot of these troll problems since they are using dozens of different names.

BTW, @ name thief, whoever you are, I did not copy your little song, it was written by Irving King. My changing the words was a way of responding to your post, but with the truth instead of lies, and you know it.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 01, 1999.


The wonderful thin about being anonymous is that people read your words without being prejudiced. So with that in mind, I'll use a different handle EVERY time I post from now on.

Example:

A contracting freind of mine was desinging a house for his wife and him to live in. But his wife was a real pain in the ass and would never accept any design he planned. After two DOZEN blueprints he gave up and decided to tell his wife he would let someone else design the house. But this guy was SMART. So he designed a totally new blueprint, and put someone else'e name at the bottom. Guess what? She loved it, right off the bat. Honestly and truly LOVED the new plans. Boy was she pissed when the house was built and he told her the truth. Prejudice can be a nasty thing, huh?

And you are going to sit here and tell me you could not have responded to my post with a different song, one of your own choosing?

And had I used the other handle ( "@_@_@"), would you have responded at all? Doubtful.

Face it dude, you made an ass out of yourself because you didn't approach the subject with your typically prejudiced mind that does not allow you to look like an ass, which in fact (as this thread proves) you are.

Have a reeeeeeeeely nice evening, hawk

-- Hey man, you like apples???? (bozo@the.damn clown), November 01, 1999.


Of course one could turn this around and ask how many people (on this fourm and others) will blame failures on Y2K when they had nothing to do with Y2K?

-- The Engineer (The Engineer@tech.com), November 01, 1999.

Does fauna of the genus ursa defecate in arboreal surroundings?

-- John Beck (eurisko111@aol.com), November 01, 1999.


Of course one could turn this around and ask how many people (on this fourm and others) will blame failures on Y2K when they had nothing to do with Y2K?

_________

Kind of a Catch 22 ain't it?

"there are no Y2K failures and if you blame any of them on Y2K you are paranoid and a doomer"

"everything is a Y2K failure and if you don't believe it you are in denial"

As usual the trust will probable lie somewhere in the ummm I don't know, MIDDLE?

-- John Beck (eurisko111@ao1.com), November 01, 1999.


Well John, however inadvertently you have hit the nail on the head. "As usual the TRUST..." I know that was a Freudian slip, but it goes straight to the heart of the problem. The one thing our government lacks is trust. They have been backstabbing, lying, scheming, cheating, stealing, plotting, murdering, subverting, setting-up, and pulling down for all 43 years of my existence, and if I interpret history even moderately correctly for quite a bit longer. Zero credibility.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), November 01, 1999.

"I know that was a Freudian slip"

LOL, yes it was, but you're right, very telling.

-- John Beck (eurisko111@aol.com), November 01, 1999.


Will the gov't blame y2k problems on terrorists?

Maybe.

Will it be the *truth*?

In some cases, undoubtedly so.

Terrorists are probably chomping at the bit for a moment of weakness so they can strike. They're vile, cold-blooded monsters, and that's their nature. Will they strike at chokepoints in our infrastructure? I'd be *very* surprised if they *didn't* try it.

Will the gov't *stop* them?

I hope so, but the nature of terrorism is that it's *hard* to stop.

So, I fear that some real ugly stuff will happen.

Face it -- no matter what you think of the gov't, the fact is, terrorism is a *real* factor, and I fear for anyone living in an area they strike.

I don't want to see troops deployed domestically. I *do* want our hardcore covert guys to go to the *source* and deal with it, decisively. I'm not talking bombing aspirin factories, or any other Wag The Dog stupidity, I'm talking about using *real* intel, and *acting* on it.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), November 02, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ