G-Scobe

Scope (computer science)

2012-02-07T04:05:00.001-08:00

In computer programming, a scope is the context within which a variable-name names its variable, or other identifier identifies what it identifies, or within which a declaration has effect. Various programming languages have various different scoping rules for different kinds of declarations and identifiers. Such scoping rules have a large effect on language semantics and, consequently, on the behavior and correctness of programs.

Scopes are frequently tied to other language constructs, but many languages also offer constructs specifically for controlling scope.

G-Scoob

2011-11-11T01:44:00.001-08:00

G-Scobe

2011-10-17T03:47:00.001-07:00

who will defend west

2006-04-04T04:07:00.002-07:00

http://gscobe.blogspot.com/

TERROR STATES

2004-03-30T03:49:00.000-08:00

TERROR STATES: Fareed Zakaria argues in Newsweek that today's terrorist groups do not need state patrons to do damage:

"Afghanistan housed Al Qaeda, and thus it was crucial to attack the country. But that was less a case of a state's sponsoring a terror group and more one of a terror group's sponsoring a state. Consider the situation today. Al Qaeda has lost its base in Afghanistan, two thirds of its leaders have been captured or killed, its funds are being frozen. And yet terror attacks mount from Indonesia to Casablanca to Spain. "These attacks are not being directed by Al Qaeda. They are being inspired by it," the official told me. "I'm not even sure it makes sense to speak of Al Qaeda because it conveys the image of a single, if decentralized, group. In fact, these are all different, local groups that have in common only ideology and enemies."

This is the new face of terror: dozens of local groups across the world connected by a global ideology."

This might be true, as far as it goes, but it's not the whole story. Inspiration implies that mere ideological sympathy is enough to drive radical Islamists to violence, and that might be true in some limited cases (say, for the D.C. Sniper or the July 4th LAX gunmen).

But these disparate groups who have attacked Bali, Tunisia, Morocco, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, have more in common than a shared lunacy: they were lead, or trained, by graduates from Al Qaeda's camps in Afghanistan. That's an important distinction - they might not follow direct orders from bin Laden, they might choose their own targets and determine their own timing, they are "home grown" to the extent that they operate on their own turf, but they would not have the skills or lethality to conduct Madrid-style massacres without the expertise honed in Afghanistan.

"Inspired" is far too loose a word. "Facilitated" is far more accurate. The terrorist skills acquired in Afghanistan have been dispersed across the globe, methodically before 9/11 and quickly and haphazardly since the camps closed down for good (we hope) in October 2001.

And how did this happen? How does this inspiration spread?

It's true that Al Qaeda is not a proxy arm of any one state's intelligence service (like Hezbollah is for Iran). Al Qaeda does not take its marching orders from any one government. But it's counter-factual to argue, as Zakaria does, that states don't matter. States were instrumental in the rise of al Qaeda, according to former Clinton counter-terrorism officials Steve Simon and Daniel Benjamin. If it were not for states, these "home grown" fanatics inspired and trained by bin Laden would not be nearly so dangerous.

According to Simon and Benjamin in The Age of Sacred Terror, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Sudan played important roles in the development and strengthening of al Qaeda. They provided money, training, logistical support and havens for bin Laden's jihadists. bin Laden's tenure in Sudan is instructive: thanks to his close cooperation with the government (which invited him after he was expelled from Saudi Arabia), al Qaeda members were able to get Sudanese papers for international travel, as well as the luxury to establish front companies to raise the needed capital for terrorist attacks and camps to train their warriors.

They trained in Afghanistan with the help of the Pakistani government and according to the new book Ghost Wars by Washington Post reporter Steve Coll, enjoyed significant cooperation with Saudi Intelligence services.

If this isn't "state support" than the term is meaningless.

The 1998 bombing of the Sudanese "Military Industrial Company" by President Clinton is another example of the importance of, if not direct state sponsorship, than state cooperation with al Qaeda. Clinton alleged, and Simon/Benjamin flesh out, that al Qaeda, Sudan and Iraq were working together to produce VX nerve gas.

But that was pre 9/11. Zakaria argues that with Afghanistan flushed out and the world on alert, al Qaeda is even less dependent on states than before.

Perhaps. But they cannot travel without official state documentation. They can be forged, but obvious forgeries lead to arrests. The cannot operate or train en-masse without the tacit support of a government. The whole emphasis on failed states proves this point: weak states cannot prevent terrorists from setting up shop or drive out terrorists from their borders. Stronger states, like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, can.

Five lone, angry Islamists might be able to wreak unimaginable destruction. But you do not form a dispersed global network of highly trained killers without the overt assistance or acquiescence of states. Without this support, al Qaeda is unambiguously weaker, though far harder to destroy.

WHAT WOULD KERRY DO

2004-03-28T23:31:00.000-08:00

So Clarke's argument is thus: for the first eight months in office Bush did what Kerry is proposing to do, put terrorism on the back-burner so that he can be a "jobs president, a healthcare president," and on and on.

The laughable aspect of Le Affair Clarke is that the Democrats can't wrap themselves in his argument (though they try). They're even less concerned about terrorism than Bush was.

WHAT ABOUT THE FIRST WAR:

2004-03-23T23:31:00.000-08:00

The eternally myopic Fred Kaplan, writing in Slate:

"In the summer of 2001, Bush did almost nothing to deal with mounting evidence of an impending al-Qaida attack. Then, after 9/11, his main response was to attack Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11."

Wasn't the Main Response to September 11th the war in Afghanistan?

Let's get this whole Clarke business straight: eight years of Clinton's presidency were spent valiantly fighting al Qaeda. Eight months of Bush's presidency were spent asleep at the switch, which then resulted in September 11th.

Oh, and he's got a book out.

HE WOULD KNOW:

2004-03-19T23:29:00.000-08:00

Arafat has watched The Passion and has declared that it is not anti-semitic.

I guess that settles that.
MARCH OF THE MORONS: Saddam nostalgia was running high today:

"From Sydney to Tokyo, Madrid, London, New York and San Francisco, protesters condemned U.S. policy in Iraq and said they did not believe Iraqis are better off or the world safer because of the war."

Obviously, they're entitled to their beliefs, no matter how stupid and uninformed. Like good ole Reeves here:

"The thing they all object to is Bush," said demonstrator, Reeves Hamilton, 30. "It doesn't make sense to bomb countries that have nothing to do with Sept. 11."

What's your point? We bombed Germany and they had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. This is a global conflict and it will take more than flushing out a few jihadists from the mountains to roll back the greater tide of Islamic madness.

The essence of the protestors beef is that we failed to remove the splinter from our own eye before stopping bin Laden from ramming a stake through our skull.

August 25, 2003

2003-08-25T04:21:00.000-07:00

August 25, 2003
A renewed interest in Afghanistan, coupled with a new offensive against the remaining Taliban/al Queda elements is a positive sign but there's still the question of Pakistan's cooperation, and it needs to be dragged out into the open.

There's this from the New York Times:

Afghan officials say Taliban fighters have regrouped in Pakistan and are organizing the attacks from there, sending militants across the border in increasing numbers to attack government soldiers and offices. Mr. Khan, the Zabul governor, said one of the captured prisoners admitted to being offered money in Pakistan to go to Afghanistan to fight.

In a sign of the concern caused by a possibly resurgent Taliban, a group of Americans led by Senator John McCain raised the issue last week.

On his way to a meeting in Pakistan with President Pervez Musharraf, Mr. McCain told journalists in Kabul that Pakistan was "not doing as much as it can" to stem the cross-border infiltration.

"We are appreciative of the help that Pakistan has given us in the war on terror and in other ways, but we believe that more measures can be taken," he said, after meeting with the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, in Kabul on Friday.

Add to that the massive bombing in India today (no official word yet on the culprit but Pakistan's terror groups loom large) and you've got the making of an issue.

If there's a Democratic nominee not on the Howard Dean party suicide bandwagon, there's hay to be made hammering Bush on both the Saudi and Pakistani governments and his seeming acquisence to their foot dragging.
// posted by Greg @ 3:12 PM
Ok, this is disturbing.
// posted by Greg @ 3:00 PM
I spoke with a member of the National Guard last night. His observations:

1. We do need more troops in Iraq, and we can spare at least another division's worth.
2. The troops are stretched thin, but the new rotation schedule should ease some of the morale problems.
3. The tuna was excellent. (We were at a wedding).

August 24, 2003

2003-08-24T04:20:00.000-07:00

The 'neocons' are getting nervous about the situation in Iraq, particularly the Bush administration's commitment. And so are a few editorial allies.

It largely boils down to a simple question: are we at War (and not war, or "war") or are we not? If the answer to the first is yes, then priorities must change, both domestically and abroad. We must stop carping about troops being "stretched thin" and recognize that casualties, sacrifice and burden come with the territory. We mustn't complain, as Joe Biden does, that there are "too many" Americans invovled - after all we were the ones attacked on September 11th, not the Indians or Pakistanis or any other country being courted to send more troops into the theatre. If the U.S. is at War, then it's U.S. troops that will largely do the fighting.

But if the answer is no, than all these hardships in Iraq are far, far harder to justify. And the failure opens up Bush for a tidal wave of criticism.

This present state of confusion has been born by a muddled message from the President. Bush wants to split the difference, a war footing abroad with nothing to upset the domestic applecart and the orgy of social spending at home. This is untenable. He was right to declare September 11th an act of War. Now it's time to tell the American people that we are still, deeply, immersed in this War and that the burden falls on us to win it.

UPDATE: The administration responds.

August 23, 2003

2003-08-23T04:19:00.000-07:00

Once again, Steyn is money.

I can't believe this isn't a bigger story. A heat wave in a modern, industrial country (a European one no less, so-called land of superior - read socialized - medicine) kills 10,000. Read that again. 10,000.

// posted by Greg @ 4:55 PM
If you're interested in consumer electronics, and you should be, check this out.
// posted by Greg @ 9:19 AM
So here is the first post, and predictably, it's a test.