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: 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
-- 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: 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..]
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/
