Re: Net and Terrorism.

[attila <attila@primenet.com>]

Addressed to: tcmay@got.net
              Cypherpunks <cypherpunks@toad.com>

** Reply to note from tcmay@got.net 07/04/96 03:22am -0700

= Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 03:22:42 -0700 
= To: cypherpunks@toad.com 
= From: tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May) 
=  
= Subject: Re: Net and Terrorism. 
=  
= At 12:14 AM 7/4/96, snow wrote: 
=  
= >     Military troops can best be protected by 3 seperate methods: 
=  
= >     2) When they _are_ exposed, let them fight the fuck back. Rules of 
= >        engagment are simple. When fired on, shoot to kill. If the shot 
= >        comes from a building, take out the building. If from a crowd, 
=                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
=  
= "Colonel, the mission was accomplished. Apparently the sniper was firing 
= from the 34th floor, so we simply took out the building. There was minor 
= collateral damage, of course." 
= 

	unfortunately, that was a modus operandi which I commanded --e.g. if one 
    shoots, waste them all. fortunately, the U.S. SE Asia policies in "denied 
    zones" (we were never there) is no longer in vogue.  however, we will probably 
    see that again in parts of the world as many cultures do not have the basic 
    respect for life we do.  

	the first time you witness a small child begging for chocolate exploded by 
    a remote control pressed by her father, you understand --you do not 
    necessarily like it, it's just survival.

	and faced with a decision of giving up 'n' "friendlies" for 1000n, or even 
    more, to survive, I know where I stood, and still stand.  War is hell --and 
    terrorism is war, make no mistake about it.

	in "black" operations, priority 1 is survival, priority 2 is objective, 
    and accountability is generally not an issue (unless you are out of bounds).
 
= Such overreaction to terrorist events is often precisely what a terrorist 
= wants, as I've explained a couple of times. 
= 
	yes, but it is the press, not the commander, who makes the decision to 
    give the terrorist sympathy coverage.  basicly: exclude, by whatever means, 
    the press and eliminate the terrorists 15 minutes of fame. 
 
=  
= >> You are essentially making my point, that the biggest danger of the current 
= >> responses to terrorism is that nations will turn to national terrorism and 
= >> police state tactics. 
= > 
= >        I missed that in your original post. 
=  
= Well, go back and look for it. The clear point of my post was that the U.S. 
= should not adopt police state measures so as to reduce terrorism. 
= 
	no shit; in spades. if the U.S does adopt the police state tactics Bubba 
    is espousing, the U.S. will be faced with _real_ terror, not staged incidents 
    to justify the marial law, etc.  if the populace is already disenchanted, 
    absolute loss of freedom will stir to action some very unlikely participants 
    and partners in "brotherhood."
 
=  
= >> >A third option is quite simply to buy as much of it as possible. 
= >> No, wouldn't work. As with the "War on (Some) Drugs," all this does is 
= >> raise the price a bit, actually making it a more tempting market for many 
= >> to get into. 
= > 
= >        If the US were to offer Russia $3 billion (or whatever) 
= >in a one time take it or leave it for their entire chemical weapon stock, 
= >it might get the soviet shit off the market. The nuclear stuff is a little 
= >easier to store (I think) and it would be a harder sell. 
=  
= As with "buying out" the coca crop in Peru, the poppy crop in Turkey, the 
= marijuana crop in the dozens of countries, etc., their motto is, obviously 
= enough, "we'll make more." 
= 
	The U.S. spooks are still the single largest trafficers in drugs... 
 
= Again, the Sarin attack in Tokyo had nothing to do with former U.S.S.R. CBW 
= weapons. Chemical and biological agents are cheap to make, especially in 
= the quanties needed to kill only a few thousand people, and in the 
= non-battlefield delivery environment. 
=  
= >        I agree tho' that it isn't possible to buy out the market. 
=  
= Then why do you float ideas such as buying out the Soviet arsenal if you 
= think it isn't possible? 
= 
	U.S. cash has eliminated a lot of Soviet weapons, including, I believe    
    some chemical.  however, keep in mind: the obsolete, and expensive to 
    maintain, hardware predominated.  However, you will never be able to buy out 
    the religious terrorists --they are on a "mission."

	The Western world faces far more threat from fundamentalist religious 
    terrorists than it does from the Soviet Union, etc.

	There is no cure for the "revolutionary" terrorists --just death for their 
    own brand of glory.  If we do not even print their obit, there is no glory!
 
= --Tim May 
=  


--
Fuck off, Uncle Sam. Cyberspace is where democracy lives!