Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 06:40:10 -0400 From: Bill Moran <wmoran@iowna.com> To: Paul Robinson <paul@akita.co.uk> Cc: Milo Hyson <milo@cyberlifelabs.com>, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Helping victims of terror Message-ID: <01091306401000.11655@proxy.the-i-pa.com> In-Reply-To: <20010913102807.A369@jake.akitanet.co.uk> References: <20010912215547.98067.qmail@web20806.mail.yahoo.com> <01091219512600.11358@proxy.the-i-pa.com> <20010913102807.A369@jake.akitanet.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
NOTE: Do NOT copy the "fight terrorism" address. Ted Mittelstaedt claims that this is a spammer who started the conversation in the hopes that folks would reply (as we did) and he could harvest email addys. On Thursday 13 September 2001 05:28, Paul Robinson wrote: > His point is that there are lots of people trying to start a war with > chants along the lines of 'USA, Number One!', etc. when it's really not > required. His point also, is that whilst people may be disgusted at the > actions carried out (myself included), on the larger scale of things in > World history they are but a mere blip. Agreed. > I know that sounds heartless to say, but his point is that the US have > killed millions just in the last 50 years (after WWII) without giving a > stuff, and not being concerned because it was 'them' and that was OK. I > think his point is that perhaps America should sit down and think about her > actions, and WHY this happened. These guys had a reason for doing what they > did, and I'm suprised nobody, anywhere, seems to want to discuss what that > might have been. It just seems easier to call them cowards and paste over > the issue. I'm sorry, but this is what I'm arguing against. You CAN'T say "American thinks this way" and "America should think about her actions" because "America" isn't a person. Within the US you have millions of people, each with a (potentially) independent opinion, you also have uncounted groups, each of which will offically take a position on this. If foriegn countries take what Bush has said to be the opinion of every US citizen, then those foriegn countries are just as faulty as the racists in the US who are currently blaming all "dune coons" for the deaths. That's a term I've heard too many times in the last few days, and I'm amazed at how quickly people can revert to childishness just because of one serious disaster. > > Are you pointing out that all people are imperfect? Are you reiterating > > the fact that racism is rampant across the world? Are you suggesting > > that the world is full of insane people? > > That would explain the staff at CNN then. Imperfect, massively racist and > xenophobic and to be quite honest, judging from their reports, completely > and totally insane. I can't agree with you more. > > Basically, I see it this way. Violence is a sign of immaturity. There are > > a LOT of immature people in this world. President Bush appears to be > > intent on proving to the world just how immature the United States is > > by rewarding violence with more violence. I hope the world grows up > > before it destroys itself. Read your history, WW I took far less violence > > than this to start. We're travelling down a familiar road right now, and > > the street signs say WW III. > > Aginst whom? You see, that's the problem here. I understand Bush hasn't > been in office long and his IQ is pretty low, but somebody needs to point > out that although 'wars' can make you look popular, when you're declaring > one, you kind of need to define who you are fighting. You know, like a > country or a name or something. Rather than just 'people who don't like the > USA'. And before you say 'bin Laden', can I just point out that all > evidence suggesting it was him behind this is purely circumstantial and the > CIA and FBI would *really* like to get their hands on him so will say > ANYTHING if it means they get a chance to kick his butt. Perhaps even lie > about their intelligence. I would suggest reviewing your history. Nobody was sure who assisinated the Archduke of Austria, and yet WW I started. Let's take this scenerio: UN: We will support any action the US takes Bush: Country X, we have evidence that the terrorists are in your capital, cooperate with our military to locate them. Country X: We don't know what you're talking about, we don't want your military in our capital. Bush: We declare war on Country X because they're harboring terrorists. UN: We will help the US fight country X if needed Friends of country X: This is nuts! We'll help country X defend themselves Result: WW III Sount crazy? Well, it is. But it's how WW I started. > I seriously doubt it. If the laws were drafted, the simple argument would > be 'how did crypto prevent these men from being detected?' and at this > stage I think they would have a hard problem showing that a law against > crypto would have helped. Strangely enough, terrorists don't seem too > concerned about breaking the law, and I'm sure they wouldn't too bothered > about using crypto in their target country if it was illegal. Maybe the law > will get drafted, but it will a stupid one, and one that I think most > people would just ignore. I think the most important thing here is for folks like us to stay alert and fight against any legislation should it start to follow those lines. -Bill -- Bill Moran Potential Technology technical services (412) 793-4257 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?01091306401000.11655>