Jihad needs scientists

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 10:49:27 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

snip
Ostensibly, an attack on the Vincennes.

Do you think we blow up commercial airliners for the fun of it?

No, we don't. At least, I sure hope not.

However, Captain Rogers was well informed about this situation before
ordering the shoot-down. His exec, Commander Foster, testified later
that he had informed Rogers this was an A300 -- the ISAR would have
completely imaged the engines and profile quite easily -- especially
at close to 10 miles out, which is when the launch order was given.
The aircraft was in a climbing attitude, as well, not descending, and
was in the commercial flight path. It had never "squawked a military
transponder code" as was initially claimed by the Reagan admin. That
was determined objectively through an examination of the data files
from over 50 French aircraft flying in the area at the time, among
other things. This ship was an AEGIS cruiser and was completely in
the data loop of other aircraft, including the French planes. They
pretty much KNEW what they were doing when Rogers ordered the kill.

Frankly, there was no good excuse. And this kind of event should not
ever happen. The bottom line is that the US, with the best people and
some of the best equipment on one of the more advanced surface vessels
(and AEGIS cruiser), with good information on the civilian flight
schedules at hand, with an aircraft that was close to "on time" and
flying along a proper corridor in a climbing attitude, was still shot
down. Certainly, no one should defend it.

Rogers had been chasing around some gun boats and had invaded the 12
mile limit around Iran. He had been warned at least twice (recorded
on tape) by an Omani vessel (friendly) to leave the area immediately.
He was an excessively aggressive Captain, pursuing his own wreckless
course, and was probably very much on edge at the time. He made a
very bad decision. It's now a standard chapter in a course of studies
about how such things can go very wrong.

Personally, I have no question (I know, because I talked with some who
were on board at the time) that the electronics intelligence folks
knew this was an airliner and that this was reported through the exec
to Rogers fully two minutes before the order was given. Rogers should
not have been where he was, doing what he was doing. He knew he was
violating good policy and good judgment and the wreckless result was
disasterous and inexcusable.

It's not something to defend in any way. Captain Rogers did NOT
exemplify proper behavior of a commanding officer in the US Navy.

Jon

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 19:21:25 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On 08 Oct 2006 19:48:02 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at
wrote:

John Fields wrote:

That doesn't mean he's wrong, though.

He's not wrong and you are Right. Is this the tactic?

---
Go back and read it again.

As I recall, instead of debating a poster's claims, Eeyore was
claiming the poster was insane in order to try to discredit the
poster and, thus, his claims.

I merely pointed out that being insane doesn't automatically
preclude also being right.

I think suggesting that Islam wants to destroy our bridges, roads,
computers and manufacturing plants among other items suggested is a
pretty reliable indicator of some kind of mental illness.

---
Perhaps it's a little harsh, but you might want to get a little
better educated in the matter by going to:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22415

also, Googling for "Radical Islam western overthrow" yields some
interesting hits.

As far as mental illness goes, I suggest that your rabid
pathological hatred for America and your unrelenting Ameriphobia
might be something you'd like to talk about with a psychiatrist.
Psychiatric care _is_ free under your system, isn't it? So what've
you got to lose except that chip on your shoulder and that ache in
your guts?



--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:8g6li21qr18633s78uns154g524tn70a6j@4ax.com...

his own wreckless course

Very unfortunate typo. He was most decidedly not wreckless. He was,
unfortunately, reckless.

Eric Lucas

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 19:32:35 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:32:13 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Fields wrote:

And, generally, speaking, airliners don't stray miles away from
their flight paths

What gave you the idea it had ?

and do respond when contacted by the military.

To not do so _is_ madness.

It did !

Reading a bit more.....

" When Carlson [commanding officer of the USS Sides which was nearby] concluded that
the Vincennes was referring to IR655 when making its warning to turn away or receive
fire ( on a military frequency only - my comment ) he urgently warned IR655 on a
civilian freqency that it was in danger, having been mistaken for a military craft and
should turn away. IR655 immediately complied and changed course onto a trajectory away
from the Vincennes. The Vincennes fired regardless. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Independent_sources

---
Oh, well... shit happens.

If the USA had said that, no doubt in more diplomatic terms, and compensated the families
of those killed along with Iran Air for the loss of its Airbus, I'm sure there would still
have been some justifiable grumbles but the USA would at least be seen to have discharged
its moral obligations. Instead the relatives had to take the USA to court and the
bitterness continues.

---
Oh, well... shit happens.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote

The problems we have in the UK (IMHO obviously) are that we are heading
towards legislation which (for example) bans jokes made at the expense of
religions because it may cause offence. This strikes me as playing into
the hands of the fear mongers.

Ah, I see now. I can't think of an instance of Political Correctness
reaching the extent of legislation in the US yet, but I'm sure someone
will point some out to me. However, I lay this more at the feet of
people/groups that are too eager to take offense at what someone says.
It's a hard issue, though, because I also feel that everybody has a
responsibility to respect others' thoughts and actions and choices. I
think the answer is that everybody needs to be just a tad more sensitive
to the consequences of their own actions and words, including on other
peoples' feelings, while at the same time being a tad less sensitive to
the consequences of others's actions and words. A noble aim to strive
for, at the least.

Part of the problem is an apparent "desire" to be seen to be doing the right
thing, rather than actually doing it. The MP in question (in my example)
stated he felt he could not communicate properly with his constituents if
they wore a veil. A veil is not mandated dress in the Koran. If I went in
there with a bikers helmet on he would ask me to remove it and no one would
bat an eyelid.

(As always IMHO) The problem is this fawning to over-sensitive people (they
have a choice - remove the veil or vote for some one else....), creates a
situation where idiotic rabble rousers (National Front et al) can easily
spin this to get the culturally-challenged sections of our society thinking
there is a "Muslim Threat." (This thread appears to support this!).

I have no issues with external cultures integrating with the UK, but they
must integrate. Arriving and demanding the host culture subsume itself to
the arrived one is (IMHO) wrong.

I agree wholeheartedly with our sentiments here. The PC apologisists are as
responsible as those making unrealisitc demands. All they will acheive is to
create more hostility.

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 19:29:18 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

If you don't have a morality, why would you object to anything the
USA, or North Korea, or Sudan does? Why would it matter to you? This
is a great mystery to me, why people who scoff at the concept of
morality criticize the US for doing, well, anything we do.

Because the USA does a lot of immoral things maybe ?

I don't think you actually object to the "immoral" things the US does,
because I don't think you really care about Iraquis and such; your
other posts show no sympathy for the Muslim masses. I think what
pisses you off is that we *can* do the things we are doing.

If you did have genuine moral concerns, your ire would be directed to
where millions are being killed, not thousands.

My point again: people who scoff at "morality" have no grounds for
complaining about anyone's behavior.

John

 

[Eeyore]

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 10:49:27 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

snip
Ostensibly, an attack on the Vincennes.

Do you think we blow up commercial airliners for the fun of it?

No, we don't. At least, I sure hope not.

However, Captain Rogers was well informed about this situation before
ordering the shoot-down. His exec, Commander Foster, testified later
that he had informed Rogers this was an A300 -- the ISAR would have
completely imaged the engines and profile quite easily -- especially
at close to 10 miles out, which is when the launch order was given.
The aircraft was in a climbing attitude, as well, not descending, and
was in the commercial flight path. It had never "squawked a military
transponder code" as was initially claimed by the Reagan admin. That
was determined objectively through an examination of the data files
from over 50 French aircraft flying in the area at the time, among
other things. This ship was an AEGIS cruiser and was completely in
the data loop of other aircraft, including the French planes. They
pretty much KNEW what they were doing when Rogers ordered the kill.

Frankly, there was no good excuse. And this kind of event should not
ever happen. The bottom line is that the US, with the best people and
some of the best equipment on one of the more advanced surface vessels
(and AEGIS cruiser), with good information on the civilian flight
schedules at hand, with an aircraft that was close to "on time" and
flying along a proper corridor in a climbing attitude, was still shot
down. Certainly, no one should defend it.

Rogers had been chasing around some gun boats and had invaded the 12
mile limit around Iran. He had been warned at least twice (recorded
on tape) by an Omani vessel (friendly) to leave the area immediately.
He was an excessively aggressive Captain, pursuing his own wreckless
course, and was probably very much on edge at the time. He made a
very bad decision. It's now a standard chapter in a course of studies
about how such things can go very wrong.

Personally, I have no question (I know, because I talked with some who
were on board at the time) that the electronics intelligence folks
knew this was an airliner and that this was reported through the exec
to Rogers fully two minutes before the order was given. Rogers should
not have been where he was, doing what he was doing. He knew he was
violating good policy and good judgment and the wreckless result was
disasterous and inexcusable.

It's not something to defend in any way. Captain Rogers did NOT
exemplify proper behavior of a commanding officer in the US Navy.

Begs the question why his exec didn't countermand the order to fire.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Fields wrote:
"Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at> wrote:
John Fields wrote:

That doesn't mean he's wrong, though.

He's not wrong and you are Right. Is this the tactic?

---
Go back and read it again.

As I recall, instead of debating a poster's claims, Eeyore was
claiming the poster was insane in order to try to discredit the
poster and, thus, his claims.

I merely pointed out that being insane doesn't automatically
preclude also being right.

I think suggesting that Islam wants to destroy our bridges, roads,
computers and manufacturing plants among other items suggested is a
pretty reliable indicator of some kind of mental illness.

---
Perhaps it's a little harsh, but you might want to get a little
better educated in the matter by going to:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22415

For Christ's sake John, get a grip on reality !

The Muslim Brotherhood *is not* ISLAM ffs ! Egyptian courts have even
sentenced of their members to their deaths.

also, Googling for "Radical Islam western overthrow" yields some
interesting hits.

Interesting to the paranoid maybe ?

As far as mental illness goes, I suggest that your rabid
pathological hatred for America and your unrelenting Ameriphobia
might be something you'd like to talk about with a psychiatrist.
Psychiatric care _is_ free under your system, isn't it? So what've
you got to lose except that chip on your shoulder and that ache in
your guts?

As someone who can defend a US warship shooting down a civilian airliner
without even as much as an apology, it seems to me that you're the one in
need of psychiatric help actually.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:32:13 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Fields wrote:

And, generally, speaking, airliners don't stray miles away from
their flight paths

What gave you the idea it had ?

and do respond when contacted by the military.

To not do so _is_ madness.

It did !

Reading a bit more.....

" When Carlson [commanding officer of the USS Sides which was nearby] concluded that
the Vincennes was referring to IR655 when making its warning to turn away or receive
fire ( on a military frequency only - my comment ) he urgently warned IR655 on a
civilian freqency that it was in danger, having been mistaken for a military craft and
should turn away. IR655 immediately complied and changed course onto a trajectory away
from the Vincennes. The Vincennes fired regardless. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Independent_sources

---
Oh, well... shit happens.

If the USA had said that, no doubt in more diplomatic terms, and compensated the families
of those killed along with Iran Air for the loss of its Airbus, I'm sure there would still
have been some justifiable grumbles but the USA would at least be seen to have discharged
its moral obligations. Instead the relatives had to take the USA to court and the
bitterness continues.

---
Oh, well... shit happens.

That seems to cover most American actions these days.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

If you don't have a morality, why would you object to anything the
USA, or North Korea, or Sudan does? Why would it matter to you? This
is a great mystery to me, why people who scoff at the concept of
morality criticize the US for doing, well, anything we do.

Because the USA does a lot of immoral things maybe ?

I don't think you actually object to the "immoral" things the US does,
because I don't think you really care about Iraquis and such;

What the heck would you know about it ?

your
other posts show no sympathy for the Muslim masses. I think what
pisses you off is that we *can* do the things we are doing.

No, it worried me you you *do* do them !

If you did have genuine moral concerns, your ire would be directed to
where millions are being killed, not thousands.

What did you have in mind ?

My point again: people who scoff at "morality" have no grounds for
complaining about anyone's behavior.

Is extraordinary rendition 'moral' ???

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 09 Oct 06 12:40:18 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

The problem is that the above kind of thought is now being branded as
traitorous
in the USA.

---
Really?

Can you cite some examples or is that just some more of your
Ameriphobia?

Bush. Rumsfeld. Need any more?


You are accusing people of saying things, without citations, and then
wailing about how bad they are to say them. How clever of you.

John

Bush:

President Bush continued his attack on Democrats for "selectively" quoting an
intelligence report, claiming that their "argument buys into the enemy's
propaganda."

Bush said of the Democratic leadership: "It sounds like they think the best
way to protect the American people is -- wait until we're attacked again."

Did he say "treason"?

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:55:02 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

frithiof.jensen@die_spammer_die.ericsson.com> wrote:
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 20:29:08 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

Veil seeking missiles serve 2 things:
1) The fear for them will keep the veils away and preserve our society.
2) It will keep the veils away and preserve our society.


Do you really think that women wearing veils is a threat to your
society? How fragile that sounds.

In much the same way that skinheads wearing "hagen-kreutz" are - the wearers
boldly avertise that they are outsiders that want a different society where the
outsider-norms are the rule.

Scairy, aren't they, people who have different opinions and haircuts
from yours.

This is fascinating.

It seems to be the kind of thing that freaks some Americans too.

Graham

My older daughter went through a Sinead O'Conner phase, shaved head
and wearing a thing sort of like a blanket with a hole in it. I think
she gave it up when essentially nobody noticed.

John

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 20:23:23 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:8g6li21qr18633s78uns154g524tn70a6j@4ax.com...

his own wreckless course

Very unfortunate typo. He was most decidedly not wreckless. He was,
unfortunately, reckless.

Thanks!!

Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:33:10 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 10:49:27 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

snip
Ostensibly, an attack on the Vincennes.

Do you think we blow up commercial airliners for the fun of it?

No, we don't. At least, I sure hope not.

However, Captain Rogers was well informed about this situation before
ordering the shoot-down. His exec, Commander Foster, testified later
that he had informed Rogers this was an A300 -- the ISAR would have
completely imaged the engines and profile quite easily -- especially
at close to 10 miles out, which is when the launch order was given.
The aircraft was in a climbing attitude, as well, not descending, and
was in the commercial flight path. It had never "squawked a military
transponder code" as was initially claimed by the Reagan admin. That
was determined objectively through an examination of the data files
from over 50 French aircraft flying in the area at the time, among
other things. This ship was an AEGIS cruiser and was completely in
the data loop of other aircraft, including the French planes. They
pretty much KNEW what they were doing when Rogers ordered the kill.

Frankly, there was no good excuse. And this kind of event should not
ever happen. The bottom line is that the US, with the best people and
some of the best equipment on one of the more advanced surface vessels
(and AEGIS cruiser), with good information on the civilian flight
schedules at hand, with an aircraft that was close to "on time" and
flying along a proper corridor in a climbing attitude, was still shot
down. Certainly, no one should defend it.

Rogers had been chasing around some gun boats and had invaded the 12
mile limit around Iran. He had been warned at least twice (recorded
on tape) by an Omani vessel (friendly) to leave the area immediately.
He was an excessively aggressive Captain, pursuing his own reckless
course, and was probably very much on edge at the time. He made a
very bad decision. It's now a standard chapter in a course of studies
about how such things can go very wrong.

Personally, I have no question (I know, because I talked with some who
were on board at the time) that the electronics intelligence folks
knew this was an airliner and that this was reported through the exec
to Rogers fully two minutes before the order was given. Rogers should
not have been where he was, doing what he was doing. He knew he was
violating good policy and good judgment and the reckless result was
disasterous and inexcusable.

It's not something to defend in any way. Captain Rogers did NOT
exemplify proper behavior of a commanding officer in the US Navy.

Begs the question why his exec didn't countermand the order to fire.

I didn't speak to him, though I did read his testimony. I don't
recollect the question being asked.

In general, I'd guess it is a very difficult thing to consider doing
and it may very well (in this circumstance) have meant getting
summarily shot or else locked up for a long time with exactly the same
result, regardless. And more specifically, the exec may have felt the
Captain was privy to special orders that weren't his business. That
may have actually been the case, too. Such things aren't made public
knowledge.

Jon

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Eeyore wrote:

Perhaps it's a little harsh, but you might want to get a little
better educated in the matter by going to:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22415

For Christ's sake John, get a grip on reality !

They don't need any grip, they have overtaken all christianity. :-(

Letters, Weapons (still the same as before, nothing new), Politic (it
is not a democracy, IMO), Language, collected Knowledge (like
our pre-sapiens apes, when they could not grip to something new, they
fiercely attack -e.g Odyssee 2001 'HAL'), etc.




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <pBwWg.21165$Ij.7506@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:ege2t8$584$1@blue.rahul.net...
In article <hsuWg.4640$NE6.3613@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[....]
[....]
It seems that right now we have this sort of problem with terrorist and
Islamic. Without knowing they are doing it people are making a
subconcious grouping. Although they logically understand that there is a
difference they are working against their own instincts.

You had me until that last sentence. I don't think many people do logically
understand their own instincts. If they were, then when someone points out
to them that they are mistaken in making overbroad generalizations about
people, they would understand and accede. Instead, pointing it out to some
people just garners indignation, insults, threats, etc.--we've seen examples
of this very thing here in this thread.

Yes, I agree with your point. Perhaps you missed mine. I meant but did
not explicitly state that it would be better if people had some
understanding of ther own instincts or if those trying to change minds, at
least did.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <452A9428.92788704@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ken Smith wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Anyone would think making nukes was easy the way the Republicans go
on about it
too.

Actually it is fairly easy if you don't care about size or quality. The
material doesn't have to be "weapons grade" either. For a given yeld, the
bomb gets bigger as some very rapid function of impurity content but it
isn't a step function. You could stop short of what the US or Russia used
for material.

To get a high yeld you need to get the reaction material together and to
stay together for a longish time while the pressure is trying to push it
apart. If you use a huge surplus of material its own interia will hold a
portion of the material in. This gives a low yeld and very dirty bomb.

It also makes for a very heavy bomb with attendant issues wrt launching it on a
missile !

That's why they make cargo ships. If you need to move something that is
too big and heavy to send by air you can send it on a ship. It is harder
to time exactly when the delivery will be because of weather etc but if
you are thinking in a many year time frame it may not matter to you.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[werty]

The Arabs WILL get nukes . There will NOT be WW III . The USA will
quietly

pull out of Middle East and never return .

Osama Bin Laden will get the market price for his oil ....

Peace at last , brought to you by nuclear power ......

"Mutually assured self destruction " ended all wars ......

___________________________________


science_for_jihad@yahoo.com wrote:

Jihad needs competent scientists in the fields of nuclear physics,
chemistry and biology. Qualified scientists and engineers at the
Master/Ph.D. level and above are encouraged to apply. Readiness to
travel and to pass a preliminary examination is required.

Anyone interested should send his anonymous CV to the address
science_for_jihad@yahoo.com . The CV should contain information
reflecting the academic level reached by the candidate and his work
experience. The information however should not be so accurate as to
identify the candidate. An appropriately fantasious nickname and a
birth date corresponding to the approximate age of the candidate should
also be provided, together with a working email address. Further
instructions will follow.

 

[werty]

The Arabs WILL get nukes . There will NOT be WW III . The USA will
quietly

pull out of Middle East and never return .

Osama Bin Laden will get the market price for his oil ....

Peace at last , brought to you by nuclear power ......

"Mutually assured self destruction " ended all wars ......

___________________________________


science_for_jihad@yahoo.com wrote:

Jihad needs competent scientists in the fields of nuclear physics,
chemistry and biology. Qualified scientists and engineers at the
Master/Ph.D. level and above are encouraged to apply. Readiness to
travel and to pass a preliminary examination is required.

Anyone interested should send his anonymous CV to the address
science_for_jihad@yahoo.com . The CV should contain information
reflecting the academic level reached by the candidate and his work
experience. The information however should not be so accurate as to
identify the candidate. An appropriately fantasious nickname and a
birth date corresponding to the approximate age of the candidate should
also be provided, together with a working email address. Further
instructions will follow.

 

[JoeBloe]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 13:45:06 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:sbpji2tic6ajp5h0v1jsnu7aettp1o3lpi@4ax.com...
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 23:13:14 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

Wow. A new insult. Brilliant. Did you spend all weekend trying to come up
with that one or did you over hear some school children like you seem to
have done with all your others.

Again you show your utter stupidity.

How? Or is that just an automatic response you fall back on when you dont
understand the words used?

I posted the response three seconds after I read the retarded
bullshit that was spewed by the idiot.

Those three seconds must have felt like a lifetime for your one brain cell
trying to think of an answer.

You're an absolute idiot.

If you spend less time trying to be obnoxious
(in a seven year old style) and actually tried to think about your replies
you may actually have some value.

This is Usenet. I have yet to see you help ANYONE in the electronic
groups... ever.

You are a fucktard kook from the physics group.

On second thoughts....

Stop lying, you brainless fuck.