Re: Applauding Violence (was: Re: Wine Politics Again! (fwd))

[nobody@huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer)]

Peter Trei wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 May 1997, Tim May wrote:
> >>Every day that passes, I'm more convinced that McVeigh did the right
> >>thing. Some innocents died, but, hey, war is hell. Broken eggs and all
> >>that.

> I'm getting progressively more turned off by
> Tim's developing survivalist/confrontationist stance. I fear that
> journalists and other casual readers will mistake his positions
> for common 'cypherpunk' viewpoints.

  If they don't know shit from shinola, then let them base their beliefs
on any mistaken notion they wish.
  Every cypherpunk who wants to edit their posts out of fear that some
dweeb will mistake them for the God of Cypherpunks raise your hand.
  (Looks like you're the only one, Peter.)
 
> The type of armed, ingrained bitterness towards all aspects and
> manifestations of government he displays is hazardous to himself
> personally; I can envisage a simple traffic stop turning violent.

  It certainly did for Rodney King.
 
> Worse, he's demonizing his opponent. This is counter-productive.
> It's better to try to understand the actual underlying goals of
> your opponent - it gives you a much better chance at turning
> him into your ally, or avoiding a conflict if you cannot do that.
> If he can be neither turned nor avoided, the minimum action to
> change the status quo should be used.

  Precisely. The level of minimum action needed to change the status
quo is increasing by leaps and bounds.
  If the average citizen was not complacently allowing the government
to run ramshod over the rights and freedoms of the citizens, then the
individuals who choose to battle this oppression would not have to
take such drastic action in retaliation.
 
> The policies of the current gang in power are bad, and may well
> get worse. But terrorism is not yet an appropriate response, and
> I pray that it never will be.

  Everyone has their own threshold of pain which they can endure
before they feel compelled to take steps to counteract the actions
of the source of that pain.
  For some that threshold is a slap, for some a punch, and for some
it is a beating. Those who cause pain to others will suffer the
consequences of their actions. This applies to the people who are
lowest on the totem pole in the oppression of the citizens just as 
much as it applies to Timothy McVeigh.

  I didn't notice any great cries of outrage when the U.S. attack
on Saddam Hussein resulted in the death of innocents. It seems that
some lives are deemed more expendable than the lives of others.
  When U.S. forces slaughtered retreating Iraqui troops a great
cheer of victory sounded throughout the nation. Had the opposite
scenario been the case, the nation would have been calling for the
heads of the Iraquis for their callousness.

  If those who participate in the unjust persecution of a plethora
of the nation's citizens become so comfortable with their ability
to remain insulated from the consequences of their actions that they
feel free to place their children at the scene of the crime, then 
they face the same responsibility as someone who takes their child
along on an armed robbery.

  The terrorism was not instituted by the citizens against their
government, but the other way around.

TruthMonger #2