Re: The Net and Terrorism

[tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)]

At 7:00 AM 7/3/96, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:

>of course. but what TCM's writing often seems to hide is a cynicism
>about these conditions. "there's nothing we can do about it. buy
>a bulletproof jacket and avoid crowed downtown areas". I'm saying
>this cynicism and isolationism tends to make the problem worse,
>not better. you clearly agree that we must find the reasons that
>terrorists are being bred, and work to eliminate those conditions.
>TCM apparently would feel that such a thing is a waste of time.

Well, I've written many dozens of articles on this issue (and many
thousands of articles overall).

My article made my points, so I won't rewrite it here. You are of course
not required to agree. You are free to live in crowded cites--near "soft
targets." You are welcome to lobby for world peace and for economic changes
to lessen terrorism.

(I think this is mostly hopeless. No matter how "nice" conditions get, for
game-theoretic reasons there will be some groups seeking changes.)

>another thing that annoys me about the TCM slant or "spin" is the
>pervasive connotation in his writing that terrorism is going
>to get far worse in the future. if so, I would say that is because
>world conditions that breed terrorists are getting far worse. he
>seems to convey the idea that the world is a nonsensical place
>where things, like increases in terrorism, occur for no particular
>reason.

I've never made any claims, explicit or implicit, that such acts are "for
no particular reason." Various groups--religious, political, corporate,
etc.--see advantages and disadvantages in various course of action. (This
sounds nebulous, but I am trying to avoid citing specific examples; I'm
trying to separate out the reactions people have to specific camps and look
at the bigger picture.)

>keep in mind that Ruby Ridge and Waco happened only a few years
>ago. that's a nanosecond in cosmic time, yet the terrorist
>repercussions are being felt immediately. I would say its very
>visceral evidene that terrorists are responding to events and
>are not just madmen out for the fun of killing people.  there's
>a bit of that of course..

Straw man. I never claimed that terrorists are doing it just for the fun of
it. The "terrorist" bomb that killed 230 American soldiers in Beirut in
1983 was done for "good" reasons ("good" in the sense of advancing their
goals)--that bomb triggered an almost immediate departure of Americans from
Beirut. Mission accomplished. (I also don't call that attack a "terrorist"
event, given the target and the state of war extant.)

Classical terrorism, such as that of the Bologna train station bombing by
the P2 Lodge, also advances political goals. It is not done "randomly," or
"for the fun of it."


>no, I specifically reject that insanity and violence are "normal"
>aspects of human behavior. merely because they have been around
>for centuries does not prove they are normal, only how warped
>the world has become such that abnormality is considered normal.

You and others are of course welcome to lobby for people to be nice to each
other. Peace and brotherhood, rah rah.

I believe there are basic game-theoretic reasons which make conflict and
jockeying for power "not surprising."

>the point is that there is no physical strategic value from bombing
>symbols.  I was making the point that terrorism is extremely symbolic

And the bombing in Beirut is explained how?

Bear in mind that the British thought the Colonial tactic of shooting at
them from behind trees--a "terrorist" tactic borrowed from the Indians who
used it on the colonists--was immoral and unsportsmanlike. Ditto our
feeling that the "sneak attack" on Pearl Harbor was immoral. I take the
meta-view that the attack on Pearl Harbor was brilliantly carried-out
military strategy, just as the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut was
brilliantly carried-out military strategy.

>
>bzzzzzzt. what I am pointing out is that what Tim is essentially saying,
>as you seem to be, that trying to combat terrorism is a waste of time
>because it is a fact of life, is erroneous in my view. it is a common
>libertarian argument that goes, "criminality is everywhere, so why try
>to stop it?"  a rather juvenile ideology.  may you live in your reality and
>see what it is like. hint: the current one we are living in is not
>one in which the government does not try to fight terrorism.

You really need read up on the "strategy of tension," esp. the writings of
Stefano Dellechiai (sp?) and the Russian "anarchists" of the late 19th
century. Also, the role the CIA played in funding former German commando
Otto Skorzeny in setting up "terrorist" groups in the 1950s and 60s.

Basically, one of the things terrorists want to do is to provoke a
crackdown by the ruling authorities, making things so bad that a
counterrevolution occurs. They believe they will reap the rewards of such a
counterevolution (or revolution, as it need not be "counter"). You can all
fill in the way this worked for leftists hoping for a leftist revolution
(Sindero Luminoso being the exemplar here) and rightists hoping that things
will get so bad that a fascist or rightist revolution will occur (P2 being
an example).

My main point in my essay was that violence and authoritarianism are all
around us, and that responding to the attacking of "soft targets" by
cracking down on basic liberties is NOT something we should endorse. Taking
responsibility for our own protection is preferable.

(And my point about moving out of cities referred to what *I* am doing;
others are of course free to mingle in crowded markets, hoping that the
bombs won't come that day. Others are free to send their children to day
care centers located in likely targets for ZOG's enemies to bomb, and so
on.)


>because, from my past experience, it seems Timmy's wildest
>fantasies are always contained in the paragraphs
>in which he says, "now, I'm not advocating this or anything...."

If you can't make your points reasonably and convincingly, I see that you
once again make ad hominem arguments. Calling me "Timmy" is not terribly
effective.

--Timmy


Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software!
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."