Re: [iwar] The role of self-attribution

From: e.r. (fastflyer28@yahoo.com)
Date: 2001-10-19 21:53:38


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-3167-1003553619-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 [204.181.12.215] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Fri, 19 Oct 2001 21:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 1040 invoked by uid 510); 20 Oct 2001 04:53:15 -0000
Received: from n8.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.58) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 20 Oct 2001 04:53:15 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-3167-1003553619-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.4.54] by n8.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 20 Oct 2001 04:53:39 -0000
X-Sender: fastflyer28@yahoo.com
X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 20 Oct 2001 04:53:38 -0000
Received: (qmail 97301 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2001 04:53:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Oct 2001 04:53:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO web14503.mail.yahoo.com) (216.136.224.66) by mta2 with SMTP; 20 Oct 2001 04:53:38 -0000
Message-ID: <20011020045338.12294.qmail@web14503.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [12.78.120.228] by web14503.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 21:53:38 PDT
To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011019114359.00c1b370@poptop.llnl.gov>
From: "e.r." <fastflyer28@yahoo.com>
X-Yahoo-Profile: fastflyer28
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 21:53:38 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [iwar] The role of self-attribution
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Over the last ten+years, fading into the backround has become a far
more typical act, with the exception of the Hamas in the middle east.
Option D-stay quite, allows the terrorist to both live longer and
potentially undertake more acts of terrorism.  While the events of 11
Sept have changed things substantially-i.e. every law enforcement and
intelligence service either in the west ,or allied with the US are
after  the perps and Mr. Bin Laden appears to have played a significant
part.  The 21C rule for terrorism is wanton disruption of society, but
never claim involved. The US will not go after the bad guys and if you
are one of them, keeping your mouth shut will keep you alive longer.
--- Tony Bartoletti <azb@llnl.gov> wrote:
> I think this is a fascinating (and definitely iwar) topic.  I would
> pose 
> the question such:
> 
> What are the implications and ramifications, given a clear act of
> terrorism, of
> 
>    a.  claiming responsibility
>    b.  denying responsibility
>    c.  accusing others
>    d.  remaining silent
> 
> Especially interesting is the possible case of one party committing
> an act 
> with the purpose of making another party appear to be the
> perpetrator. In 
> such a case, one might expect the real "perp" to employ (c) or (d) at
> the 
> outset, but things could be yet further twisted.  Such acts may be 
> undertaken by either sympathetic or antithetic parties.
> 
> I agree that ambiguity can serve to heighten the fear-factor, as it 
> engenders an inability to focus upon a solution.
> 
> _____tony____
> 
> At 12:44 PM 10/18/01 +0000, ellisd wrote:
> 
> >Why didn't the organization behind the 9/11 attack take credit?
> >
> >Why hasn't the organization behind the ongoing anthrax saga taken
> credit?
> >
> >Is there more information strength in ambiguity?
> >
> >The pros (as I see them) to not taking credit are:
> >-Our inference mechanisms may be incorrect leading to misdirection
> >-Psychological effects of uncertainty
> >     -subjects insite more fear within themselves than actors could
> >-in a forest-like organization (as opposed to a tree-like
> organization), 
> >it is more difficult to attribute credit when there maybe multiple
> forces 
> >involved, not taking credit avoids rifts
> >
> >The cons:
> >-Other psychological effects
> >-Being deemed a coward and summarily dismissed
> >
> >Undetermined (by myself):
> >-Which has a greater influence to insight would-be followers?  If
> you have 
> >no followers but want to take advantage of somebody else's
> followers, then 
> >obviously not taking credit is a good thing.  This, I suppose goes
> along 
> >with the misdirection pro.
> >
> >I am sure there are better reasons (pros and cons) and I just
> haven't been 
> >enlightened yet.  Regardless, the lack of self-attribution in the
> recent 
> >events has really bothered me.  It seems more "manly" for lack of a
> better 
> >word (forgive me here, e.r.) to take credit, but so far, I can so no
> real 
> >reason to take credit when attribution can be avoided.
> >
> >If you feel that I am way off target in context of the recent
> attacks, 
> >then please generalize my comments.  I am aware of a great deal of 
> >evidence which provides some degree of attribution, but that
> attribution 
> >is far from complete.
> 
> 
> Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881 <azb@llnl.gov>
> Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center
> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
> Livermore, CA 94551-9900
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get your FREE VeriSign guide to security solutions for your web site: encrypting transactions, securing intranets, and more!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/UnN2wB/m5_CAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-12-31 20:59:56 PST