Responsibility.
When you paint targets on people, other individuals may cause them harm, seeking some measure of your acceptance. Some here might have actual "followers," not fans or confederates-in-cause. Some individuals here, and you even as a group don't have to "ask" for somebody to be hurt, just imply that it is consistent with your wishes. When somebody expresses targeted violent sentiments, and you don't correct them, they perceive that as a ratification. (While "mattd" is a self-identifier, others might not be. You might not even know about them.) Such "suggestions" are a time-tested method of obtaining plausible deniability for violent political action. I would think SOMEBODY can at least make the effort to say something when violent sentiments are expressed. Guess not. ~Aimee
Re: Responsibility.
Threats of violence here should not be taken seriously, except as literary outbursts. They are a pressure-relieving belly-bump of the list, not unlike screaming "kill" at a sports event or in military training or as children scream fighting over cop-daddy's Beretta (and as shown last night on CBS's playing a tape of Islamic children acting out their father's futile anger against the US). In fact, most of us who call for killing are careful to state that the pretend murderous exhortations are a 1st Amendment speech privilege and should not be interpreted to be an illegal threat as Western Washington terrorism-enthralled imbeciles have done. That qualifier is a constant feature of this list and anybody who deliberately omits the qualifier is rightly considered to be an agent of the behavioral and linguistic authorities and deserves killing and worse, censoring, and the very worst, ostracizing, to invoke a comforting tantrics oft used here (say it, My Aggravator deserves killing, you'll feel a tingle where numbness once reigned). Deserving targets include well-known, self-incriminated behavorial and linguistic governing agents Aimee Farr, Mattd, me, and now that I've carefully reviewed the evidence, all literate subscribers here who vaunt unmarked hegemonic lingo of supremacy. Kill all those more vociferous than you, beginning with those attempt to quieten your drum beat. You know I mean killing in the literary sense, to disagree with at the top of your powers of distortion, to scream shut the fuck up, you're making more sense than me, in accord with this list's tough, no bullshit except my stinkfree bullshit enforcement policy, faux sans moderation version.
RE: Responsibility.
> And your insinuation that we are using mattd, for example, as a cat's > paw for "violent political action" (?) while "obtaining plausible > deniabilty" is pernicious. It wasn't an insinuation, just saying that it happens. I would not like to see this forum further mischaracterized as being associated with certain activities in the press. It's not fair that people will perceive you in this way. But, people aren't fair, or 'right-headed.' Moral judgments usually aren't based on rationality. ~Aimee
Re: Responsibility.
On Thursday, January 17, 2002, at 08:45 AM, Aimee Farr wrote: > When you paint targets on people, other individuals may cause them harm, > seeking some measure of your acceptance. Some here might have actual > "followers," not fans or confederates-in-cause. Some individuals here, > and > you even as a group don't have to "ask" for somebody to be hurt, just > imply > that it is consistent with your wishes. When somebody expresses targeted > violent sentiments, and you don't correct them, they perceive that as a > ratification. (While "mattd" is a self-identifier, others might not be. > You > might not even know about them.) Such "suggestions" are a time-tested > method > of obtaining plausible deniability for violent political action. > Back on the list for a day or two and already you are back in your tired old pattern of claiming that there is some collective guilt for the actions of individuals. What "mattd" writes about is of little concern to me--I filter his garbage into the right spot for it. The notion that others have to "denounce" his views, or my views, or your views is wrong-headed. People say a lot of things, and others are free to believe or not believe what they say. It is not our collective responsibility, nor any of our individual responsibilities, to denounce or repudiate them. And your insinuation that we are using mattd, for example, as a cat's paw for "violent political action" (?) while "obtaining plausible deniabilty" is pernicious. Things must be quiet in Crawford with the Prez gone, but this is no excuse for you to return to this list and resume your trolling. --Tim May "The great object is that every man be armed and everyone who is able may have a gun." --Patrick Henry "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." --Alexander Hamilton
Re: Responsibility.
On Thursday, January 17, 2002, at 10:14 AM, Aimee Farr wrote: >> And your insinuation that we are using mattd, for example, as a cat's >> paw for "violent political action" (?) while "obtaining plausible >> deniabilty" is pernicious. > > It wasn't an insinuation, just saying that it happens. I would not like > to > see this forum further mischaracterized as being associated with certain > activities in the press. I don't care what you would like this forum characterized or mischaracterized as. Fact is, many of us support replacing the current U.S. Government with something much closer to the intent of the Founders. Personally, I think it would be a _good_ thing if a massively violent event were to cut the head off the snake. This would speed up the process. And crypto anarchy makes possible the wider use of various interesting technologies in support of these goals. Blacknets, data havens, contract assassinations (not the jimbell "lotteries," which are spectacularly inefficient), tax avoidance, destabilization of central regimes, instructions for building weapons of mass destruction, and so on. Don't like these views? Fine. If you fear having your reputation tainted by the views expressed here, leave. You have never contributed anything worth discussing here. Nearly all of your messages are whines that we are not being responsible or are warnings that we'd better tone down our views or face prosecution. Worthless. --Tim May "Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice."--Barry Goldwater
Re: Responsibility.
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Aimee Farr wrote: > When you paint targets on people, other individuals may cause them > harm, seeking some measure of your acceptance. Some here might have > actual "followers," not fans or confederates-in-cause. Some > individuals here, and you even as a group don't have to "ask" for > somebody to be hurt, just imply that it is consistent with your > wishes. When somebody expresses targeted violent sentiments, and you > don't correct them, they perceive that as a ratification. (While > "mattd" is a self-identifier, others might not be. You might not even > know about them.) Such "suggestions" are a time-tested method of > obtaining plausible deniability for violent political action. Sadly true. While some people actually get real information and form their own opinions, the majority simply repeat the bulk feed straight from the TV. Government controlled information and Hollywood movies provide the justification for any atrocity the US military sees fit to commit. All it takes is a nice Hollywood movie about the subject to get the president's popularity polls stay high, and all is well in the capitol. Still, does that make all the violence justified and allright? If anyone on this planet is a master for 'creating plausible deniability for violent action' and justification of their own brutality and acts of mass murder, it is the US military and political system. Double standards *is* the American Way of doing foreign policy. Public 'perception management' is a military science nowadays. See 'Puppet Master' in Air Force 2015 somewhere under www.fas.org. > I would think SOMEBODY can at least make the effort to say something > when violent sentiments are expressed. > > Guess not. > ~Aimee Heh. I used to think the same about American foreign policies, but they consider 1.5 million dead Iraqi women and children 'worth the price' for what they got. Value is a biased concept. Double standards apply. In general, Americans see no value in the lives or human rights of non-Americans. They don't seek the 'good of all', or 'equal justice' on this planet. They seek money for themselves. Each individually and as groups and entities. Indeed, money is the only significant political motive Americans are capable of having. Someone in the chain of command is motivated by money and power, or things would not be happening the way they do. Expressing 'violent sentiments' is equal to 'passing wind', in my book. Freedom of speech and opionion should be respected. (Read: At least those of Americans, if you are an American.) What we should be worrying of, instead, is people not saying anything even when people are being slaughtered and starved to death. What I want is the government to start respecting the lives and rights of non-Americans equally in their foreign policy. Is that too much to ask? The respect you can afford to give, is the respect you can expect to get. Right now, Americans don't seem to afford much.
Re: Responsibility.
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Aimee Farr wrote: > When you paint targets on people, other individuals may cause them > harm, seeking some measure of your acceptance. Some here might have Luckily, only individuhhals here. So, keep painting. > actual "followers," not fans or confederates-in-cause. Some > individuals here, and you even as a group don't have to "ask" for > somebody to be hurt, just imply that it is consistent with your > wishes. When somebody expresses targeted violent sentiments, and you Can people be responsible for actions of crazy people? > don't correct them, they perceive that as a ratification. (While > "mattd" is a self-identifier, others might not be. You might not even > know about them.) Such "suggestions" are a time-tested method of > obtaining plausible deniability for violent political action. I'd rather prefer to think of this as a rowdy bar. A place to have fun, a place to get a bloody nose, possibly. > I would think SOMEBODY can at least make the effort to say something > when violent sentiments are expressed. Why? Consenting adults here, last time I looked. > Guess not.
Re: Responsibility.
"Aimee Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : > >When you paint targets on people, other individuals may cause them harm, >seeking some measure of your acceptance. Some here might have actual >"followers," not fans or confederates-in-cause. Some individuals here, and >you even as a group don't have to "ask" for somebody to be hurt, just imply >that it is consistent with your wishes. When somebody expresses targeted >violent sentiments, and you don't correct them, they perceive that as a >ratification. (While "mattd" is a self-identifier, others might not be. You >might not even know about them.) Such "suggestions" are a time-tested method >of obtaining plausible deniability for violent political action. > >I would think SOMEBODY can at least make the effort to say something when >violent sentiments are expressed. > >Guess not. > >~Aimee > CP is a mailing list, a miniature study in anarchy. I don't think for a moment that any participant is obligated in any way to make the list meet any entity's concept of what the "look and feel" should be. Those who want to can try to their heart's content to reshape the CP list ( c.f. mattd's voluminous efforts ) or they can form their own forum and do whatever they choose somewhere else. Another thing to consider is that this is not a crowd poised for immediate physical action against a readily accessible target. I'm guessing it would be pretty tough to assign legal responsibility for the actions of one loon to others ( loons or not ) who may have posted here. I don't doubt that any number of lurking goons would like to try and probably would have succeeded in netting dozens by now if it were an easy kill. Mike printf( "%s", theAlphaCatQuote );
Re: Responsibility.
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Tim May wrote: > On Thursday, January 17, 2002, at 08:45 AM, Aimee Farr wrote: > > > When you paint targets on people, other individuals may cause them > > harm, seeking some measure of your acceptance. Some here might have > > actual "followers," not fans or confederates-in-cause. Some > > individuals here, and you even as a group don't have to "ask" for > > somebody to be hurt, just imply that it is consistent with your > > wishes. When somebody expresses targeted violent sentiments, and > > you don't correct them, they perceive that as a ratification. (While > > "mattd" is a self-identifier, others might not be. You might not > > even know about them.) Such "suggestions" are a time-tested method > > of obtaining plausible deniability for violent political action. > > Back on the list for a day or two and already you are back in your tired > old pattern of claiming that there is some collective guilt for the > actions of individuals. > > What "mattd" writes about is of little concern to me--I filter his > garbage into the right spot for it. > > The notion that others have to "denounce" his views, or my views, or > your views is wrong-headed. People say a lot of things, and others are > free to believe or not believe what they say. It is not our collective > responsibility, nor any of our individual responsibilities, to denounce > or repudiate them. > > And your insinuation that we are using mattd, for example, as a cat's > paw for "violent political action" (?) while "obtaining plausible > deniabilty" is pernicious. Even if CIA can Echelonize each individual bullshitter and character string they find on the Internet, it should be quite easy for programmers to create something that will roam around the net and give them enough suitable strings to read and check, and leave the smart people well enough alone. All it takes is one e-mail virus or a trojan that sends randomly generated threats, including perhaps some encrypted shit and files, and the CIA, Secret Service, etc goon-squads will have their hands full raiding random people's homes. And all the people of the world would once again be free to discuss and bullshit each other as much as they want about anyone they want. But do (we) the serious people really want that? Stupid people deserve to be caught and real Al-Quaida terrorists don't bullshit on the Internet anyway. After all, it is a small limit on people's freedom to not be able to dissent and speak out freely in public. And it mostly concerns only non-American arabs who have no privacy rights (now) anyway. God Bless America.
RE: Responsibility.
>From Aimee Farr: I would think SOMEBODY can at least make the effort to say something when violent sentiments are expressed. You can. Go ahead. .. Blanc
Faustines responsibility.
>>When you paint targets on people, other individuals may cause them harm, seeking some measure of your acceptance.<< The rogue Terror state does this everyday,that's one reason why it will soon be the Last Empire. >>Some here might have actual "followers," not fans or confederates-in-cause. << Why the ""? I follow Jim bell and CJ.Who will follow me? >>Some individuals here, and you even as a group don't have to "ask" for somebody to be hurt, just imply that it is consistent with your wishes.<< Gee thanks.I had no idea. >>When somebody expresses targeted violent sentiments, and you don't correct them,<< Hang on,correct them!? Like in the cultural revolution? Define "violent." Tims *violent* sentiments are risible to me. >>they perceive that as a ratification.<< Im glad to see RATs are here.(radical assembly of tactical sentencing.) >>(While "mattd" is a self-identifier, << and self abuser. >>others might not be. << Not much gets by you,does it? >>You might not even know about them.) << So we should all shut up till you tell us what violence is...uh huh. >>Such "suggestions" are a time-tested method of obtaining plausible deniability for violent political action.<< Oh violent political action is your concern.Like ashcroft approved anti-choice assassins. >>I would think SOMEBODY can at least make the effort to say something when violent sentiments are expressed. Guess not. ~Aimee<< You just said something,Faustine may support you,you may attract a following,you go girl! Kill the president,mattd.
Re: Responsibility.
On Thursday, January 17, 2002, at 10:55 AM, Tim May wrote: > On Thursday, January 17, 2002, at 10:14 AM, Aimee Farr wrote: >>> And your insinuation that we are using mattd, for example, as a cat's >>> paw for "violent political action" (?) while "obtaining plausible >>> deniabilty" is pernicious. >> It wasn't an insinuation, just saying that it happens. I would not like >> to >> see this forum further mischaracterized as being associated with certain >> activities in the press. > I don't care what you would like this forum characterized or > mischaracterized as. > Fact is, many of us support replacing the current U.S. Government with > something much closer to the intent of the Founders. I'm reminded of a cartoon from the back of a punk-rock flyer from the mid-80s. "When you cut out a cancer, do you stick another in it's place?" > Personally, I think it would be a _good_ thing if a massively violent > event were to cut the head off the snake. This would speed up the process. Unfortunately, I don't believe that the current government would be replaced by the one described in the constitution. Too many people wouldn' t like that. -- Interfaces matter. You need mathematical bones; engineering muscle; but you won't replicate without beautiful skin. Bits, transistors, wires, code, gummint velveeta is free. Will is expensive. Gutenburg. Smith. Ford. Moore. Postel. Steam engines were neat. Steam engines pulling trains were amazing. Computers were neat. Computers networked were amazing. Warning grunts are useful. The ability of a charistmatic speaker to fuck with your head is disastrous. --Blank Frank(anonymously)--
Re: On Internet and social responsibility
Vadim - I think in american we call it free speech. The content of the message is not the issue - it is the right to publish it and one's opinion which is the issue here guranteed by the U.S. constitution. regards joe On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Vadim Antonov wrote: > > > Found on a website hosted in US by a US service provider: > > > Manpower resources of > > Muslims and powerful ideological stimulus of resistance, the > > control above the basic power resources of the world, the > > geographical position and an area of movement, finally will > > destroy USA. War will come in the house of each American. > > > > And it already will be the collapse of that America, which we > > know and which is realized by Americans. The first disturbing > > symptoms of arising enmity and split of America already is > > available. > > This is from the inverview with the spokesman of well-known terrorist > Shamil Basaev, known for personally taking hostage hundreds of patients in > a hospital, among other things (the spokesman is Movladi Udugov, the guy > who threatened to drop an airplane on Kremlin). > > http://www.kavkaz.org/english/news/2001/09/14/news4.htm > > Hosted by XO Communications - do not bother them, i already alerted their > staff. > > Guys, why should a North American provider give a place for this > propaganda? Call FBI, have them trace the connections of whoever pays for > that site. > > [If you decide to read the entire article - the "so-called peacemaker" > Boris Nemtsov mentioned there is a prominent pro-Western politican in > Russia, and (used to be, changed his mind after WTC attack) a leading > proponent of negotiations with Chechen militants. A shining illustration > of what you get for trying to negotiate with terrorists.] > > Please, if you host websites, take a closer look at what you are hosting; > you may help to find leads for the investigation. > > --vadim > -- The dot.GOD Registry, Limited http://www.dot-god.com/
RE: On Internet and social responsibility
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote: > Personally, I have no problems with > US State telling me I can't do business with terrorists. Do you? Absolutely I do. I would have no problem with the USG placing people/countries/whatever on lists that I could use as a reference to make a *volutary* decision as to whether I wanted to do business with them, but to proscribe it is wrong. First of all, I may not necessarily agree with the USG on all of these "entries", secondly, the lists are obviously not compiled in a manner designed solely to cut of the "bad guys". For example, we have China as a "most favored nation". Right there the whole idea of an impartial list falls apart... Aside from the impartiality issue, I do not believe that the USG has a constitutional right to forbid me from engaging any person/place/thing in an otherwise lawful transaction. > -- > R O E L A N D M J M E Y E R > Managing Director > Morgan Hill Software Company > tel: +1 925 373 3954 > cel: +1 925 352 3615 > fax: +1 925 373 9781 > http://www.mhsc.com > -- 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: On Internet and social responsibility
At 11:05 PM 9/14/01 -0700, Vadim Antonov wrote: >Joe -- > >I'm not calling in question their right to publish; Then what is your point? >BTW, if you look at the First Ammendment protections closer, they are not >guaranteeing absolute right of free speech. Learn the American law before >you invoke it to defend your point of view. Wrong. >I'm tired of absolutists who cannot see that there's no such thing as >absolute good or absolute evil. Speech can be very dangerous. What are you afraid of? This is >a conflict of ideologies, not nations or religions. What do you think is >ideology - if not speech? How do you suppress ideology if you let it >spread unhampered? With more speech. >That site was spreading lies for a long time and is well-known in Russia >as an example of American hypocrisy. So is CNN, what is your point? And a Russian calling a fuckistan web site "lies" is just hilarious. Go back and ask your masters what you should think. Don't believe half of what you see and none of what you hear ---Lou Reed, Last Great American Whale
Re: On Internet and social responsibility
On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Bill Stewart wrote: > Jim, the First Amendment is a fine thing, but it's got very little > resemblence to twentieth-century US government practice :-) Actually it does. > Non-electronic speech and press gotten better treatment, mostly, > since we've gotten away from the days of the Schenk case, > but electronic speech has been heavily censored and controlled, > particularly under the Roosevelt-inspired monopoly over the airwaves. Irrelevant. > But even the writers of that pro-central-government batch of > political compromise called the US Constitution appear to have > considered laws against fraud, slander, and libel to be reasonable > grounds for laws, and in some cases for duels. None of your examples are 'speech'. You, like many CACL, have a serious deficiency distinguishing 'act' and 'speech'. -- Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. George Santyana The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
[Refomatted] US neglects to include Saudi responsibility in 'translati
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, you write: > A new ABCNEWS translation of the Osama bin Laden videotape released > last week reveals information that may be embarrassing to Saudi > Arabia, a very important U.S. ally. Bin Laden Hunt Strains U.S-Saudi > Relations Excerpts of the Bin Laden Video Weigh In Poll: Americans > Believe Toughest Battles Ahead > > When the videotape of Osama bin Laden talking about the Sept. 11 > terror attacks was released by the United States government on Dec. > 13, administration officials spoke at length about the extensive > effort to achieve a full and accurate transcript. > > The translation commissioned by ABCNEWS, however, reveals new elements > that raise questions about what the government left out of the > official version and why. > > The new translation uncovers statements that could be embarrassing > to the government of Saudi Arabia, a very important U.S. ally. Bin > Laden's visitor, Khalid al Harbi, a Saudi dissident, claims that he > was smuggled into Afghanistan by a member of Saudi Arabia's religious > police. > > He also tells bin Laden that in Saudi Arabia, several prominent > clerics some with connections to the Saudi government made speeches > supporting the attacks on America. > > "Right at the time of the strike on America, he gave a very moving > speech, Sheikh Abdulah al Baraak," bin Laden said on the tape. "And he > deserves thanks for that." > > Sheikh al Baraak, to whom the visitor refers, is a professor at a > government university and a member of an influential council on > religious law. > > "It shows that bin Laden's support is not limited to the radical side > of Islam but also among the Saudi religious establishment," says Fawaz > Gerges, professor of Middle Eastern studies at Sarah Lawrence College. > "And that is bad news for Saudi Arabia." > > . US protecting foreign tyrants, but hey, gas is cheap, and it > only cost a spook, a marine's foot, a few thou newyorkers (and some > of them were traders ferchrissakes, like NYPD corpses they're divine > payback) and look at how the flag industry stimulated the economy > and enhanced trade with WTO-China Inc another great bunch of freedom > loving folks
The world recoils from US Aggression.Bush has a grave...responsibility.
France: "Whether it concerns the necessary disarmament of Iraq or the desirable change of the regime in this country, there is no justification for a unilateral decision to resort to force. "No matter how events evolve now, this ultimatum challenges our view of international relations. It puts the future of a people, the future of a region and world stability at stake." Germany: "My question was and is: does the degree of threat stemming from the Iraqi dictator justify a war that will bring certain death to thousands of innocent men, women and children? My answer was and is: no. "As desirable as it is that the dictator leaves his post, the goal of Resolution 1441 is the disarmament of Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. "Whatever happens in the next days or weeks, you can be certain that my government will continue to strive for the smallest chance of peace." Mexico: "Mexico reiterates its support for the multilateral route to solve conflicts and regrets the path to war. "The world has to continue pushing solutions that comply with the letter and spirit of the UN charter, which establishes that the use of force should be the last and exceptional recourse, justified only when other methods have failed." Canada: "If military action proceeds without a new resolution of the Security Council, Canada will not participate. "We will hope there will be no war. I'm not very optimistic." China: "China stands for a peaceful solution of the Iraq issue within the framework of the UN through political means. Every effort should be made to avoid war. "As long as there is a glimpse of hope, we will not give up our efforts for a political and peaceful solution." Russia: "Moscow believes there are no grounds for saying that a political-diplomatic solution to the situation in Iraq has no chance, that the 'time for diplomacy is over'." Iran: "What is happening in the region is to safeguard the interests of Israel. Arab League: "The Arab League cannot accept such a final warning. "UN Security Council Resolution 1441 does not contain a time limit and the world has acknowledged that Iraq was co-operating with UN weapons inspectors to implement this resolution. "We regret the US decision to act outside the UN Security Council and outside international legality." Asean: "With this decision by the US, the position of Asean is very tricky. "For Asean to come out openly and support the Americans would be suicidal... America is not expecting any Asean country to do that." The Vatican: "Those who decide that all peaceful means that international law makes available are exhausted assume a grave responsibility before God, their conscience and history." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2859485.stm
US neglects to include Saudi responsibility in 'translation' of OBL tape
A new ABCNEWS translation of the Osama bin Laden videotape released last week reveals information that may be embarrassing to Saudi Arabia, a very important U.S. ally. Bin Laden Hunt Strains U.S-Saudi Relations Excerpts of the Bin Laden Video Weigh In Poll: Americans Believe Toughest Battles Ahead When the videotape of Osama bin Laden talking about the Sept. 11 terror attacks was released by the United States government on Dec. 13, administration officials spoke at length about the extensive effort to achieve a full and accurate transcript. The translation commissioned by ABCNEWS, however, reveals new elements that raise questions about what the government left out of the official version and why. The new translation uncovers statements that could be embarrassing to the government of Saudi Arabia, a very important U.S. ally. Bin Laden's visitor, Khalid al Harbi, a Saudi dissident, claims that he was smuggled into Afghanistan by a member of Saudi Arabia's religious police. He also tells bin Laden that in Saudi Arabia, several prominent clerics some with connections to the Saudi government made speeches supporting the attacks on America. "Right at the time of the strike on America, he gave a very moving speech, Sheikh Abdulah al Baraak," bin Laden said on the tape. "And he deserves thanks for that." Sheikh al Baraak, to whom the visitor refers, is a professor at a government university and a member of an influential council on religious law. "It shows that bin Laden's support is not limited to the radical side of Islam but also among the Saudi religious establishment," says Fawaz Gerges, professor of Middle Eastern studies at Sarah Lawrence College. "And that is bad news for Saudi Arabia." . US protecting foreign tyrants, but hey, gas is cheap, and it only cost a spook, a marine's foot, a few thou newyorkers (and some of them were traders ferchrissakes, like NYPD corpses they're divine payback) and look at how the flag industry stimulated the economy and enhanced trade with WTO-China Inc another great bunch of freedom loving folks
Herman Kahn on the futility of pansy-left anarchism (was: Responsibility)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Tim wrote: > Personally, I think it would be a _good_ thing if a massively violent > event were to cut the head off the snake. This would speed up the process. >>Unfortunately, I don't believe that the current government would be >>replaced by the one described in the constitution. Too many people >>wouldn'tlike that. Though the below passage is far more relevant to our pansy-left-anarchist contingent than anyone else, I still think this bit from the 1972 masterwork "Things to Come" rings true. You can always trust Herman Kahn to cut through the bullshit and tell straight... "Effective revolutionaries need intelligence, organization and discipline to conduct effective propaganda, plan sucessful insurrections, and sieze and hold power. What Trotsky unkindly called "the vegetarian left" and Orwell even more unkindly called "the pansy left" noticibly lack these virtues. Even if a humanist left leaning government were to come to power, perhaps in the guise of a moderate liberal administration, its program could not be carried out without inciting the mass of the nation against it, including the military, the police and the national guard, and twenty million gun owners. Some of the extreme elements recognise this. Their avowed strategy is to promote disorder to incite backlash leading to facism. This is to expose American repression to all thus uniting the masses for the revolution. By waving their red flags, they hope to provoke the Establishment bull to charge to its death. But they are matadors without swords. A fascist America would wipe them out, together with their sympathisers and apologists, and since this would necessarily have been provoked by terrorism and other assaults on the public order and decency, the masses would cheer." *** Anyone care to tell me why that doesnt apply now, more than ever? ~Faustine. *** "It may be that we shall by a process of sublime irony have reached a stage in this story where safety will be the sturdy child of terror, and survival the twin brother of annihilation." - --Herman Kahn, 1955 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: Hush 2.1 Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com wl4EARECAB4FAjxLMmAXHGZhdXN0aW5lLkBodXNobWFpbC5jb20ACgkQGwpHwwWoj8UP rgCfXufcQJhcOG5DKDmw3MVJto9ER6EAn0+mGm2wMVk7PndvKCR4FNe0g4gY =szay -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Herman Kahn on the futility of pansy-left anarchism (was: Responsibility)
On Sunday, January 20, 2002, at 01:14 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Tim wrote: > >> Personally, I think it would be a _good_ thing if a massively violent >> event were to cut the head off the snake. This would speed up the >> process. > >>> Unfortunately, I don't believe that the current government would be >>> replaced by the one described in the constitution. Too many people >>> wouldn'tlike that. > > Your quoting is misleading. Someone else wrote the second paragraph. Please take care to quote correctly. --Tim May "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." -- Nietzsche
Re: Herman Kahn on the futility of pansy-left anarchism (was: Responsibility)
-- On 20 Jan 2002, at 13:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > "Effective revolutionaries need intelligence, organization > and discipline to conduct effective propaganda, plan > sucessful insurrections, and sieze and hold power." Anarcho capitalists do not plan to seize and hold power. Intelligence, organization, and discipline is still required, but the organization and discipline does not need to be of the monolithic kind required to seize and hold power. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG cTVbxLkmaQMdY/vn62Afksfme0oxg7ZAbBF5iCY5 4AaoeE3wsrwuiJ1PDt8ladAIF6tnopR/dXZUoYbjl
Re: Herman Kahn on the futility of pansy-left anarchism (was: Responsibility)
On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Anarcho capitalists do not plan to seize and hold power. > Intelligence, organization, and discipline is still required, > > but the organization and discipline does not need to be of > the monolithic kind required to seize and hold power. A perfect example of the CACL hypocrisy...or perhaps confusion about reality...take your pick. -- Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
The anarchist culture of autonomy, free association, self-organization, direct action and personal responsibility.
From: Matthew X <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: The anarchist culture of autonomy, free association, self-organization, direct action and personal responsibility. Longish thread on organization... http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=02/12/03/5135919 Bushfires causing power surges in the Sydney region and five dead reported from Dilli. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/12/02/1038712882793.html Profits made teaching english in China are being smuggled back by 'mules',schoolkids.I shit you not."...it emerged that the Educational Testing Centre at the University of NSW had used Chinese schoolchildren coming to Australia as mules for repatriating some $83,000 in earnings from English tests conducted in China, in breach of Chinese foreign exchange regulations..." Hundreds of enviro-refugee's sleeping rough in Sydney tonite.Homes have been lost.
