RE: McVeigh? Nimrods.....

[Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk>]

> As to the Children of OKC, people who turn the care of their children 
> over to government employees or contractors do not place too high a 
> value on those children.

I certainly don`t agree that a high value was not placed on the lives of 
the children by their parents, but the parents were guilty of naivety, 
stupidity and placing the children at risk.

> think those children who died weren't cared for? You are a sick person who
> should seriously consider therapy. Anyone who read this and said "Yeah!" 

I certainly feel the parents, though guilty of no crime, have only 
themselves to blame for the needless deaths of their children.

> understand this? There is no reason to blow up kids. It's wrong. For any 
> reason.

Of course, but the children shouldn`t have been there in the first place. 
McVeigh, if he did it, is guilty of murder, on those children alone. He 
commited an initiation of violence against innocent and defenceless human 
beings, this is why I believe the bomber, whoever he/she is, should die 
for their crimes, BUT, the childrens lives were placed at risk by their 
parents because they believed they would be safe in a federal government 
building, very bad move. I`m not absolving McVeigh from guilt, just 
pointing out basic facts.

> who may be important to you have parents who "care" about them enough to
> scour the planet to find a good,safe day care that isn't withing the blast 
> radius or
> shooting range of :
> 
> A government office.
> A large corporations headquarters.
> A law firm.
> A post office.
> A town square.
> A restaurant.
> A bank.
> Anywhere some asshole might have a gun and go loopy.
> Anywhere some asshole might have a car be drunk and go loopy.
> Anywhere some asshole might have a gun and a car and be drunk and go loopy. 

The bottom 3 suggestions are clearly an excessive over-generalisation of 
the point, the parents could not really be reasonably expected to believe 
their children would be harmed by a crazed gunman. As for the drunk 
driver, do you let your kids run unattended on busy roads?

Placing them in a federal building was a stupid act, not criminal, but 
most definitely not the act of a sensible person.

> To all the dipshits who could possibly think otherwise. I should also 
> mention it is an EQUALLY fucked up thing to blow up adults.

Depends who those adults are, as I said in a post yesterday, I do not 
subscribe to the "save the children!" mentality, and killing an innocent 
adult is as criminal as killing an innocent child, but those children 
could not possibly have initiated agression against McVeigh, because they 
were under the age of criminal responsibility (which is a hazy area, but 
I think this case is pretty clear cut). Blowing up guilty, evil, and 
government affiliated adults is to be highly commended.

> Like my fellow Santa Clara County Resident Bill Frantz said :
> 
> For cypherpunks this comes down to: Make code, not bombs.

True, code will lead to further liberation in the virtual communities, 
but bombs are an effective device for ending the corrupt tyrannical 
government that rules us.

        Datacomms Technologies data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"