North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

[admin] Re: Fourth cable damaged in Middle Eest (Qatar to UAE)

  • From: Alex Pilosov
  • Date: Mon Feb 04 04:40:10 2008

This conversation is quickly spinning into discussion of politics and

Reminder to all, please stick to the *operational* aspects of this thread.

-alex [NANOG MLC Chair]

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Patrick Clochesy wrote:

> I disagree... I think "information warfare tactic" could easily be
> terrorism, though I can't see why this particular event could/would be
> terrorism.
> Disrupting a major network like the Internet WITHIN the US could
> definitely be a form of terrorism... I think anything which maliciously
> disrupts a huge portions of a nation's day-to-day activities would be
> cause for concern for many folk, especially the telecommunications
> infrastructure. However, I'm not sure what the mindset of the terrorist
> would be even if they fully succeeded what is proposed would be the
> terrorist's plan - even if we lost totally connectivity with the middle
> east, or even what's considered "friendly" countries... as long as the
> information is flowing at home, nobody's going to be filling their
> swimming pools full of drinking water.
> I imagine the mindset would be different if you were a small country
> loosing a substantial portion of it's communication channels with the
> outside world...
> -Patrick 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mark Newton" <[email protected]> 
> To: "Martin Hannigan" <[email protected]> 
> Cc: "Sean Donelan" <[email protected]>, [email protected] 
> Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2008 11:12:46 PM (GMT-0800) America/Los_Angeles 
> Subject: Re: Fourth cable damaged in Middle Eest (Qatar to UAE) 
> On 04/02/2008, at 4:38 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: 
> > I agree with Rod Beck as far as the speculations go. It could be 
> > terror, 
> Well, no, it couldn't be. Nobody is being terrorized by this. How 
> can it possibly be a terrorist incident? 
> If it's deliberate, it might be described as an "information warfare 
> tactic." But not terrorism. 
> (visions of some guy sitting a in cave with a pair of wet boltcutters 
> laughing maniacally to himself, cackling, "Ha-ha! Now their daytraders 
> will get upset, and teenagers will get their porn _slower_! Die 
> American scum!" Doesn't really work, does it?) 
> Politicians have succeeded in watering down the definition of the word 
> "terrorism" to the point where it no longer has any meaning. But we're 
> rational adults, not politicians, right? If we can't get it right, 
> who will? 
> - mark