From: winn@Infowar.Com
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 03:16:56 +0800
To: sandberg@wsj.com
Subject: Tales from the UK: Part III
Message-ID: <199606231513.LAA01959@mailhost.IntNet.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Attacks on the Financial Sector: Reprise

I've spent the last two weeks in Europe, five countries, an avarage of 2.6 
countries per day. Two kids and a wife along for a 'family vacation' which I 
have concluded is a modern day oxymoron. I'm thankfully back on the road to DC 
and Atlanta, sans kids, in a few days for a well earned rest.  :-) (Love you 
honey, really do, but I do need a break . . . .)

But what you care about is the attacks that the Sunday Times has been talking 
about for the last couple of weeks. I've received incredible volumes of email on 
this story asking for more details - mostly very supportive - so here goes

I met with the Times in London's Trocadero (while the kids played Virtual Games 
upstairs in an incredible arcade). I also spoke with them at length while at the 
top of Le Tour Eiffel, at Euro-Disney (Space Mountain violently pivots you end 
over end in complete darkness: a definite PG-13 ride), on the Chunnel Train and 
at Legoland. 

First, the errors in their reporting that annoy me:

	1. As a co-sponsor of InfoWarCon, I can assure you that the Brussels 
event had *nothing* to do with the alleged attacks as the June 2 article 
implies.

	2. There were absolutely *no* secret meetings at InfoWarCon about the 
alleged attacks,

	3. Laithe Gambit is not a secret study group about the distresses of the 
financial community. It is a NATO SHAPE security group and most of it is quite 
open.

Despite the protestations of the Net community, masses of media folks and my own 
criticisms of their writings, the Sunday Times is sticking by their stories with 
dedicated vehemence. In some ways they seem confused and chagrined that their 
reporting is suspect. They really do believe what they are saying. I argued that 
they gave no names of their sources and they responded that it wasn't  necessary 
since they used the word 'spokesman' in several places. We have to remain 
disagreed on that point. If it's a rumor, then say it's a rumor. If it's a well 
placed source who wants anonymity, say so. If it's a spokesman, name him in 
writing. 

As a result, the U.S. media has been calling Kroll Associates and the NSA and 
the British DTI and so on and getting rebuffed at every turn with firm denials 
of having ever had conversations of the nature claimed in the Times' articles. 
According to the media with whom I've spoken, this is a giant red flag. 
Curiously, though, according to the Times, when they call back the very sources 
used for the articles in the first place, they too are being met with cold 
shoulders and 180 degree attitude shifts. Curiouser and curiouser.

The Times swears by the validity of the story, and is putting on additional 
pressure to those people who they claim are in-the-know and will come out with 
the real details which could be further corroberated. I will be receiving, 
hopefully this weekend, (not here yet) an updated article that is being 
published in the UK on this story. From what I've heard about it so far, it will 
include some comments from Russian Admiral Pirumov (ret) and others on the 
record.

In the next couple days: Someone in Basel corroberates the tale.



Peace
Winn

		        Winn Schwartau - Interpact, Inc.
		        Information Warfare and InfoSec
		       V: 813.393.6600 / F: 813.393.6361
			    Winn@InfoWar.Com