Re: CDR: Re: Julia Child was a Spook
-- On 7 Apr 2002 at 13:31, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote: > I'm sorry you've bought the terrorist line that it's all about > US support for Israel. I know better. We could withdraw from the > Middle East tomorrow, and all that would change would be the > excuse. Possibly, but what does it benefit the US to hang around in the middle East? Why are we sending very large sums of money and loads of arms to Israelis, who hate us venemously, to Egyptians, who hate us maniacally, to Saudis, who hate us suicidally, money that enrages the rest of the middle East, and the subjects of Egypt, and Saudi Arabia even more? Now one might suppose there is some benefit to assisting Kuwait, which is sitting on a large lake of oil, and whose citizens merely hate us irrationally. Israel, and Palestine however, are mostly of significance due the extreme sacredness of three rocks, and the extreme sacredness of a large pile of municipal fill stacked up by Herod. One of those rocks is probably not even the genuine thing, since the crusaders broke most, and presumably all, of the real thing up for souvenirs. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG EUm+xgsSL3siIAf89nl9G3Z/v4GJK5Hl+lrOEPzC 4mYKD4Z7j4mhud4BHecKF3Qc5JQAnvxvfvW7u8eXQ
Re: Julia Child was a Spook
At 01:31 PM 4/7/02 +0800, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote: >I'm sorry you've bought the terrorist line that it's all about US >support for Israel. RTFM. Or the Al-Quaeda declarations, at least. > I know better. So *you* claim. Chuckle. >We could withdraw from the Middle >East tomorrow, and all that would change would be the excuse. Why would Al Q. care about the US if the US were not in their backyard? Its not like they care about US colonialism in the Americas, or Europe. They learned (via CCCP, Lebanon, etc.) how to evict intruders from their homeland, and now they are implementing it. They're acting rationally, and as a wanna-be analyst you should be able to understand that. In dropping the Towers, they were trying to wake up US taxpayers to the actions of their 'leaders'. Unfortunate that Americans are so hard to wake up (vaporizing some jar-heads on the other side of the planet does not truly impress), even harder to get to think, but that's the situation.
Re: Julia Child was a Spook
On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote: > Nonsense. If you can't see any difference between terrorists and > résistants you are either wilfully ignorant or confused. > > A terrorist strikes symbolic targets, preferably undefended ones. A > résistant strikes at the occupying power. > > Of course it is possible for one and the same person to be both - it is > behavior that defines the terrorist. So when an al-Quaida member takes > on a US patrol, he may define himself as some kind of soldier in that > encounter. It doesn't change the fact of his complicity in the murder of > innocents, which makes him a terrorist as well. And who might those symbols be for? The 'occupying power' per chance? -- The law is applied philosophy and a philosphical system is only as valid as its first principles. James Patrick Kelly - "Wildlife" [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.open-forge.org
Re: CDR: Re: Julia Child was a Spook
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > You've been listening to Shrub to much. What makes you think this is about > hating freedom? Might this not be about getting us to mind our own fucking > business??? I really don't give a fig about the opinions of the current resident of the White House. I've been studying terror and its practitioners for about 25 years and I know their mentality. I'm sorry you've bought the terrorist line that it's all about US support for Israel. I know better. We could withdraw from the Middle East tomorrow, and all that would change would be the excuse. Marc de Piolenc
Re: Julia Child was a Spook
>>weasl>>"...You have so completely missed the point here that it's almost comical. The fact that we provide aid and encouragement to the nazi-like Israeli's is but a small part of our problem..."<< Whats this 'we' whiteman? Do cypherpunks have a country? Is crypto-anarchy providing aid to Israeli's? The Internet itself is now bigger outside norte america than in and has been for a year or so,the gap is widening.To remain UScentric and anarcho-ignorant will make this site more of a laughing stock than it already is.Get with the (global) program. Its the enviroment stupid.
Re: CDR: Re: Julia Child was a Spook
On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > You've been listening to Shrub to much. What makes you think this is about > > hating freedom? Might this not be about getting us to mind our own fucking > > business??? > > I really don't give a fig about the opinions of the current resident of > the White House. I've been studying terror and its practitioners for > about 25 years and I know their mentality. > > I'm sorry you've bought the terrorist line that it's all about US > support for Israel. Interesting reaction. I never mentioned Israel, nor do I think that the US support of Israel is what "it's all about" - although that is likely a good sized piece of it. Judging from your response, I'd say you were the one who has bought into someone's "line". > I know better. They always do... > We could withdraw from the Middle > East tomorrow, and all that would change would be the excuse. You have so completely missed the point here that it's almost comical. The fact that we provide aid and encouragement to the nazi-like Israeli's is but a small part of our problem. > Marc de Piolenc -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place...
Re: Julia Child was a Spook
> A warrior - whether guerrillero, risistant or regular - attacks his > adversary directly and seeks to damage him, preferably enough to take > him out of action. Apparently you assume that males forced by economics or guns into government-supplied uniform and/or operating machinery that delivers ordnances that kill the other side are somehow more "direct" adversary than fodder producers (pregnant females) or service industry workers feeding labor force at home that produces weapons ? The fallacy of this assumption becomes obvious after some history reading: in all wars the main objective is to beat the enemy into submission and make it stay there for a long time, and that is achieved by killing as many as possible as cheaply as possible (read "unsuspecting and unarmed"). In later years, killing of so-called civillians is called "sending a message to the leader." The propaganda for domestic consumption is, of course, slightly different - "surgical strikes" and similar. > A terrorist attacks a target conveniently designated by him as SYMBOLIC > of his chosen adversary; the target is preferably unsuspecting and > undefended. The ultimate purpose is to frighten his adversary, or Dresden. Hiroshima. Pharmaceutical complex in Somalia. Refugee camps in middle east. Downtown Belgrade. Tiananmen. All effected by massively organised armies against "defensless targets." It's all economics, stupid. = end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/
Re: CDR: Re: Julia Child was a Spook
On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote: > A terrorist attacks a target conveniently designated by him as SYMBOLIC > of his chosen adversary; the target is preferably unsuspecting and > undefended. The ultimate purpose is to frighten his adversary, or > somebody with influence on that adversary, So far, so good, but from here we disagree. > into harming himself. Strike out "harming himself" - insert "into taking some specific action(s)". > In the > case of most current terrorist organizations, the target is liberal > western republics, and the aim is to instill fear that will be manifest > in repression that will in effect dismantle the freedom that the > terrorists hate. You've been listening to Shrub to much. What makes you think this is about hating freedom? Might this not be about getting us to mind our own fucking business??? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place...
Re: CDR: Re: Julia Child was a Spook
It's very important to distinguish propaganda from fact. It is indeed convenient to lable people you don't like "terrorist" - the Germans did that with the French resistance - but fortunately there are generally accepted definitions of that term against which propaganda labels can be tested, if you care to... Terrorism has nothing to do with irregular warfare, or what you call "not playing fair." It concerns chiefly the choice of target and the ultimate result desired. A warrior - whether guerrillero, résistant or regular - attacks his adversary directly and seeks to damage him, preferably enough to take him out of action. A terrorist attacks a target conveniently designated by him as SYMBOLIC of his chosen adversary; the target is preferably unsuspecting and undefended. The ultimate purpose is to frighten his adversary, or somebody with influence on that adversary, into harming himself. In the case of most current terrorist organizations, the target is liberal western republics, and the aim is to instill fear that will be manifest in repression that will in effect dismantle the freedom that the terrorists hate. Marc de Piolenc Optimizzin Al-gorithym wrote: > > At 02:59 PM 4/6/02 +0800, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote: > >Nonsense. If you can't see any difference between terrorists and > >risistants you are either wilfully ignorant or confused. > > "Terrorist" is what the bigger side of an asymmetrical conflict > call the smaller side. Also "crazy", and other intended-derogatory > labels.
Re: Julia Child was a Spook
At 02:59 PM 4/6/02 +0800, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote: >Nonsense. If you can't see any difference between terrorists and >risistants you are either wilfully ignorant or confused. "Terrorist" is what the bigger side of an asymmetrical conflict call the smaller side. Also "crazy", and other intended-derogatory labels. When the American Revolutionary Jihad did not line up, or wear uniforms, like proper British soldiers, but sniped from camoflaged concealed positions, they were regarded as terrorists by the colonialists. The more things change.. If you were on the weaker side, you wouldn't play "fair", ie, according to the rules written by those who gain from the rules. Or you would be a dead fool, and your survivors would be slaves.
Re: Julia Child was a Spook
> A terrorist strikes symbolic targets, preferably undefended ones. A > risistant strikes at the occupying power. And, of course, the winner gets to define "symbolic target" and "occupying power". Why do I have impression that the phrase "you are confused" has heavy presence in operation manuals ? = end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/
Re: CDR: Julia Child was a Spook
Nonsense. If you can't see any difference between terrorists and résistants you are either wilfully ignorant or confused. A terrorist strikes symbolic targets, preferably undefended ones. A résistant strikes at the occupying power. Of course it is possible for one and the same person to be both - it is behavior that defines the terrorist. So when an al-Quaida member takes on a US patrol, he may define himself as some kind of soldier in that encounter. It doesn't change the fact of his complicity in the murder of innocents, which makes him a terrorist as well. Marc de Piolenc "Major Variola (ret)" wrote: > > http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/apr/spies/index.html > > [Ed: amusing that "sleeper agents" who infiltrated "occupied > territories" are > glorified by the winner of that conflict.. but when the US is the > occupier, the > resistance agents are "terrorists"..]
