December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: PGPsdk is now free for non-commercial use
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:25 PM 11/16/97 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >I'm pleased to see PGP Inc. permitting development of freeware, >but at leased from a first reading of the license, >it's a _really_ restrictive definition of "freeware" - >not only does the software have to be free, but it can only be used >in extremely restrictively non-commercial activities. The idea is simple: you make money from software that costs the authors lots of money to develop or use their software in a business environment (=to make money), you have to pay the people that spent time, effort, and, yes, money, on making it happen. Sounds reasonable to me. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi

1 2

Re: Tim May's offensive racism (was: about RC4)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> wrote: > At 10:37 PM -0700 11/12/97, Nobuki Nakatuji wrote: > >There are RC4 sourcecode in ftp.replay.com. > >but, Is it same RC4 developed RSADSI ? > > > > It am developed. > > You go back where you came. You go back hotmail. We tired your stupid > questions on RC4 and your Misty posts. > > Sayonara! > > (And they wonder why we kicked Japan's butt.) Paul Bradley <paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk> writes: > As for white supremacy, look elsewhere, I think you`ll > find Tim`s post an example of what the developed world knows as humour, > not a serious attack on any ethnic group. Tim May's post seems funny to you? Not a racist comment? His imitation of a Japanese accent is purely offensive. Paul, would you feel comfortable offering this kind of "humor" in a gathering which included Japanese visitors, perhaps potential customers? That comment about kicking Japan's butt would really be humorous, wouldn't it? It is astonishing that people like you and William Geiger, who apparently make their living as consultants, feel so comfortable publicly approving racist comments directed against the Japanese. Does William expect ever to work with a Japanese customer, after suggesting that Truman should have dropped additional atomic bombs on Japan? Even if you share Tim May's lack of moral constraint, you presumably do not also share his wealth. Pragmatic considerations alone should make you reluctant to be an apologist for racist comments, or in William's case to compound the error with shockingly offensive remarks of his own.

11 16

Re: trusting untrusted platforms
by Ryan Lackey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > Alexandre Maret <amaret(a)infomaniak.ch> says: > > [how to do trusted computation on untrusted platforms] I'm working on a paper, it's one of the technical hurdles on the way to my Eternity DDS eternity service implementation. > rdl, less frustrated with changing from vtwm/athena to KDE, says: > I so far have been approaching it as "Type I (active)" and "Type II (passive)" > attackers. In the first case, people lie about the results, in the second, > they give you the correct results, but snoop on the data. (For some reason > the terminology is kind of lame, but it helps to have some) > > There are a bunch of mathematical/cryptographic ways of hiding data from > those doing computations on it, at least for a subset of computations. I'm > trying to put together a generalized computing model for this which would be > turing complete if it can be, although it is not clear it can be. Some > operations practically will be a lot more expensive in this model than in > the conventional environment, and perhaps to a computation which would require > 10 units of conventional secret CPU time, you will need 9 units of secret > CPU to encode/decode the data and 41 units of public CPU time. You also need > to guard against covert channels, such as the total amount of public CPU time > you are requesting as a clue to what you're doing with it. I am confident > type II security can be realized with at least a minor amount of performance > improvement over purely secret use, assuming public time is free. > > Type I security is a lot more difficult to realize in true theoretical > sense, but is easier in a practical sense. A simple solution is to do the > same computation on a bunch of different remote machines, and as long as > they don't collude, you can just make sure they all answered the same, modulo > rounding errors and stuff. This isn't the kind of provable security you > can conceivably get against type II attackers, but it doesn't have any innate > performance hit. > > It's possible there are systems which are byzantine fault tolerant to > the former kind of attack -- instinctively, you can just split up the > computation in small enough pieces that you don't care if it is compromised. > > I'm interested in finding a provably secure computation-checksum technique. > I think there are most likely reductions for a lot of problems to things > which can be verified, and again, my goal is to have a Turing-complete > model of computation with this property. > > > [can cryptography be helpful?] > > It's as much a theory of computation problem as anything else, once you > have some functions through which you can carry some operations. > > Most of the stuff I've done so far focuses on the graph coloring problem. > I'm probably going to finish a quick version which can only deal with > a subset of problems, then work on a general model. > > [paper availability issues] > Yes, it will be publically available. It will be available when it's closer > to done; I will send something to cypherpunks about it, and I'll put it > up on the web somewhere. If it doesn't suck, and I can convince someone > at LCS-CIS of this/to be a co-author/etc., I might try to get it published. Anyone know anything very relevant to this? I've mostly just started on the research (my current exciting project has been Linux Fibre Channel and making a bloody fast, yet maybe secure, yet small cipher for an on board processor), and pointers would be useful. It isn't as hard a problem as I first thought, though. This seems like the kind of thing everyone's favorite judge-threatening tree-hugger-nose-mac-10-inserting gun-hoarding old-man-on-the-mountain would have done N years ago :) [flames, fan. gasoline. rdx...] so I'd rather not reinvent the wheel more than once or twice. Ryan (getting dangerously close to having a working Eternity DDS demo, and wondering if FC98 will be on mbone, particularly the solar eclipse, since even if he had the money to go, it's in the middle of next semester, and disappearing for a week would kind of be difficult, although not at all impossible of someone wants to pay for me to go...ahh, but there's always next year) -- Ryan Lackey rdl(a)mit.edu http://mit.edu/rdl/

2 1

Racism: Wrong or incorrect?
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Racism is one of those very interesting topics to discuss because large areas of the discussion are forbidden territory. Is racism wrong or is it incorrect? The most generally held belief in the United States is that it is wrong to express racist ideas publicly, but that many of these ideas are, in fact, correct. Most white Americans truly believe in their innermost hearts that black Americans are fundamentally more violent, less intelligent, and to be pitied. At the same time, many of these white Americans believe they are committing some sort of sin in having these beliefs. If the belief is true, how can it be sinful to believe it? If it is not true, then why believe it? A good friend was driving through the American South recently. He is not of the dominant racial group. He was involved in more than one scary incident on his drive. What was initially surprising to me was that he said he sort of preferred the South to the North because at least in the South people were more "up front." When you think about it for a minute that makes a lot of sense. Who would want to spend time with people who are patronizing? This can be seen in just about every aspect of the racial policies of the United States government. The fundamental assumption of an affirmative action program is that nobody would actually want to hire a member of the subordinate ethnic group. When somebody chooses to hire based on ethnicity it doesn't hurt their business in most cases. The advocates of affirmative action claim not be racists, yet we rarely find them promoting racial integration in the work place by advertising the fantastic deal which is available by hiring people who are irrationally discriminated against by other employers. We must conclude that many advocates of affirmative action believe that the subordinate group is actually inferior in many ways. It's good for people to discuss their ideas. That's how we arrive at truth and mutual understanding. It is terribly unfortunate that discussions of racism, which is allegedly an important topic, have been methodically discouraged for a number of decades in the United States. On one hand, I would prefer Tim had not made his "go now, chop chop" posts. I would like to see Nobuki Nakatuji stay around, write code, master English, American culture, and Cypherpunk Life. Tim's comments may not promote that. On the other hand, I'm not sure it's a good idea to discourage anyone's explorations into certain highly forbidden areas. Somehow the work of Robert Crumb comes to mind. Crumb has dallied with a number of forbidden racial and sexual ideas. I can't even say I like the feeling or the tone of his work, yet, somehow, there is something of value there which is hard to articulate. Of course, what is most interesting about Tim's comments is that he appears to be out on the end of three bell curves in the United States: 1. He does not believe (I think) that it is morally wrong to have a racist belief. 2. He does not believe racist beliefs are a correct description of reality. 3. He says what he thinks. Another curious aspect of the taboos on racial discussions is the weird racially defined double standard of conduct. Black power is more or less an acceptable topic of discussion. White power is absolutely not. Why? Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNG5Jv5aWtjSmRH/5AQEHCgf+KL2HDx4yhn/pDPPuEs4cEW9R6FI4sIfn LJvbuKAEdl0GRs5HmMRvM9I8OtYHJVCNDsmetneHo7ME6Qhc5s5ilvA4mu7oCfcy YKfQmQSM+OvtkHtladI0CY5xUvFkoazzBuXNfnopdK5uY22xm80brT/8tOymdIT6 avSYGbHdNkL70TZ0rRNLmUVTYCO1HLVpuPnL3EbZye51f6vnBkV4R22lr+1NDKPi 6LLpO+WqjZAma7Pymqy6RCzztsnt9YbvxbCZOOWxCrGJAK36ZBFtKs//jp9oenRV Bq7h9Uyut81W9sw5kER1C+CgN+k1ZCM+6UDpGNI6n89uQSHX/x/wog== =hVb9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

trusting untrusted platforms
by Alexandre Maret 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hello Here is the problem: how to make sure that an untrusted computer really run the code you ask him to run. Practically, we can take the example of the RC5 contest. If I ask an untrusted computer to search for the key in a particular sub-keyspace, how can I make sure that this machine really looked for the key, and that it doesn't just say "the key is not in this block, give me another block" just to get higher in the stats... I've heard about smartcards being helped by ATMs, so maybe this could be a direction to look into... Any pointer, info, help, ... very appreciated alex -- \\-----------------------------------------------------------\\ // Alexandre Maret -- Linux : The choice of a GNU generation // \\ amaret(a)infomaniak.ch -- http://www.infomaniak.ch/~amaret \\ //-----------------------------------------------------------//

2 1

Re: Br'er Tim and the Bug Hole
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Robert Hettinga wrote: >> If Tim and others fail to exercise their right to say what they >> believe, then it is likely those rights will be suspended in due >> time. > >Like I said before, it makes sense, but not because Foucault said >it. Broken clocks, and all that. Besides, Monty, I hate appeals to >authority almost as much as I hate ad honminae. Are you asking me to use Foucault's line without giving him credit? That doesn't seem right to me. Foucault's essay was insightful and significantly influenced my point of view. Not only does he deserve the credit, but mentioning his name may direct other interested readers toward his work. BTW, how much of Foucault have you actually read? I am generally unfamiliar with his work, but I have a sinking feeling the same can be said for certain of his critics. It is easy to give French intellectuals a cursory reading and conclude that there is nothing there. However, often there is quite a lot of something there, but it comes from people with a different intellectual tradition than our own so it is harder to understand. An apparently absurd sentence is often a reference to a body of work with which we are not familiar. >> It seems to me that Tim said "The judge in the Paladin case >> committed a capital crime" and not "The judge in the Paladin case >> committed a capital crime and should be gunned down in the streets >> like a dog." > >Frankly, I believe that the two sentences above are exactly the same >thing,... No, in the first case the possibility of a fair trial with an impartial jury exists. They are different statements. >...but that it was pretty apparently a wish (if not a threat, if you >want to pull semantic hairs until one bleeds) that the judge be >assassinated,... Tim has repeatedly made it clear to the world that this was not his meaning. What is your purpose in declaring otherwise? >...because a judge can't be killed, legally, for *any* decision he >makes. I expect that gunning the judge down in the street like a dog >would fit Tim's bill quite nicely. In every other instance in which Tim has discussed capital punishment, it has been in the context of a trial. If OJ had committed a brutal murder in a state without the death penalty, say Massachusetts, and Tim said "OJ is guilty of a capital crime", would you conclude that he was calling for his murder? Clearly that would not be reasonable. So why do you feel the meaning changes when "OJ" is substituted for "The judge"? Perhaps you harbor latent urges to murder our public officials and wish to draw attention from yourself by pointing the finger at Tim. You seem to be talking about it more than anybody else. >And, Monty, here's another fact: the world isn't going to end on >Thanksgiving Day, much less at the beginning of the millennium. Armed >storm troopers are probably *not* going to decend on the denizens of >this list and haul them off to newly built gulags in the Rockies >somewhere, or whatever the current fantasy of the moment is. When you drive do you always wear your seat belt, or just when you are going to have an accident? Incidentally, it is well documented that in the 1980s, the USG had detailed plans for mass arrests of dissident citizens. Ten army camps had been selected for this purpose. The plan was to be executed in the event the country invaded Nicaragua. The USG has incarcerated masses of U.S. citizens without trial at least twice during the 20th century. To claim it cannot happen again seems a little naive. >> The book I am reading is called "The Aurora: A Democratic-Republican >> Returns" by Richard N. Rosenfeld. > >Okay. Here's where I cop to bad craziness. It's now time for me to >fess up and get my butt hammered like a gentleman. :-). You certainly take your medicine like a man. Good. >> 1. Publius was John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison. >> Jay and Hamilton were leaders of the party attempting to subvert >> the Constitution. > >Mostly Madison, I believe, and, oddly enough, a protoge of Jefferson >at one point. Hamilton wrote 51 of the essays, Madison 26, Jay 5, and 3 were written jointly by Madison and Hamilton. If you are saying he attempted to subvert the Constitution, this letter will be of interest. (May 20, 1798 Madison to Jefferson): >The Alien bill proposed in the Senate is a monster that must forever >disgrace its parents. I should not have supposed it possible that >such a one could have been engendered in either House & still >persuade myself that it cannot be fathered by both... These addresses >to the feelings of the people from their enemies may have more effect >in opening their eyes than all the arguments addressed to their >understandings by their friends. The President also seems to be >co-operating for the same purpose. Every answer he gives to his >addressers unmasks more and more his principles & views. His >language to the young men at Ph[iladelphia] is the most abominable & >degrading that could fall from the lips of the first magistrate of an >independent people... It throws some light on his meaning when he >remarked to me "that there was not a single principle the same in the >American & French Revolutions;"... the abolition of Royalty was, it >seems, not one of his Revolutionary principles... >> 6. Jefferson did not write the Bill of Rights. He was in France at >> the time and was pleased to hear these amendments had been added to >> the Constitution. > >I don't believe that's right. I believe, if you check it out, that >Jefferson sent the Bill of Rights to the Constitutional Convention >from France, and that Madison, ironically enough, had a hand in >getting it passed. Perhaps it is your turn to crack open a book and find the reference. I would be quite interested (and surprised) if you can substantiate your claim. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNGwLVZaWtjSmRH/5AQEvNAf9HjMM4D8eB2Uv+h+IqxvMCgY1fFMpt1Cx IuvO2Q8OUrg1HaQxJ52c4HDPms56rbBUw1slwTqL0hIVcdAENy4v/rU5NXodvsLJ 9CS9eWn1MJb1vxZLj+B3z9p/yhVYYeedbTFKt1chy2Y7OOuDGTcSUS8BSH7CK8Fp s7nVPQSuTZ60O3Md58qGh+aRT3wHBNxNcwNdtuiCA1knZehhRrQe2qX6PMzt9app MmNJ01PNcKp1X1cLhmtu/jfbeFlUp0V44YAo2D+RVgvrzP8B4C+avAWoO96d4KhY krE6bRQZ443D2Ktkc6D7QVxAu0tmHnjADftRAHf6W3A8tER8KcAgJQ== =6DIt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

the art of fighting without fighting
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Bruce Lee film. Scene on a sailing ship headed for island where tournament is to be held. Thug karate type hassles Mr Lee, picking a fight. Thug asks: "so what kind of karate do you fight." Mr Lee: "the art of fighting without fighting." Thug asks for fight. Mr Lee: "not here, on that island over there," points. OK says thug eagerly and climbs down into rowing boat. Mr Lee unties end of rope and hands to children playing, leaning over edge of ship. Thug screams obscenities from row boat, trys to pull himself in but children threaten to let go of rope. Mr Lee walks off camera unperturbed with smug look. Moral of story: fight smart. That's what cypherpunks tactic is. Multiplies your efficacy. Anonymous decries talk of violence on list. Understand anonymous, we are not the aggressors, we are the aggressed. It is annoying being on the receiving end of aggression especially where the aggressor is the local force monopoly and you have no recourse. Hence talk of nuking DC, and of capital punishment for criminal government officials. There is certain poetic karmic value to these expressions of annoyance. Helps spread the dissatisfaction with government. However, the fact that criminal officials deserve punishment does not mean that any of us are interested to actually deliver that punishment. There are more efficient methods of utilising our available resources: write crypto code, hasten crypto-anarchy. Have the government collapse through lack of funding, have it's power eroded. Let's get to it. Amad3us -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 6.6.6 iQCVAwUBNG9DLvKMuKFNFivhAQEwQgP9E/gJyEqdczO9epkmXJ35swOcDId2W+N4 lpLX8fsE3g7PTxMGb4CMCOftqRPbYZ5F5ZLeFKjQGQG5/7D99n8dWiNFERRM5/Go s6CSIYzM3jKXVYrW7NxbjCvw/IfDv9QGLZphU7ZK41efU/4Y0OXydQJAO+AHsFFk 1end8q1QRPM= =hc+j -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 3

Re: Fairy Gold
by Magus Mixmaster Anonymous Remailer Service 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Monty Cantsin wrote: >Anonymous <anon(a)anon.efga.org> wrote: >>Persistent identities suck. Ideas stand or fall on their own. >>Reputation capital is fairy gold, evaporating with the morning dew. If this were really true, you would have posted your message under your real name (a.k.a., your persistent identity). The fact that you chose to make your statement anonymously only proves the inverse of what you say. >I do not believe this to be true. Of course, concepts are valid >regardless of their source. It would be unwise to take the statements >even of established identities on faith. > >The advantage of persistent identity is that it allows the exploration >of more complicated ideas. Use of the persistent identity places a >particular post in a greater context. > >There is only so much that can be done in a single post. It is the >mailing list equivalent of a sound bite. We should remember that -- at least here in America and the rest of the so-called first world -- we live in the age of the sound bite where the "medium is the message." Public opinion is manipulated by the puppetmasters who pull the emotional strings of John and Jane Q. Public sitting in front of the TV each night. Witness how anyone who has watched a video on Waco is quickly being lumped into the category of an anti-government extremist (Terry Nichols had two copies of "Waco Under Siege" in his house). The underlying message is, "don't consider any of the facts that the video viewer presents to you, just realize he/she is an extremist." Frankly, I wasn't there at Waco so I don't know what happened. However, as Monty pointed out in another post, the fact that the FBI/BATF/etc. administered the gas into the Davidian home (notice how I fail to use the media-sanctioned term "compound") is clearly an aggressive act on the part of the U.S. gov't. Regardless of what the spinmeisters say (both on the left and the right) no human being with a conscience can take note of this fact and say that the feds were justified in their actions. Gassing children? Come on. A single sound bite on its own will do nothing, but a persistent group of sound bites presented over time with a recurring message can create a great amount of influence. This is how public opinion is formed through mass media channels. But think about this: who is the author of these mass media sound bites? Can you name the person? It's easy to say that it's the feds, the ZOG, the NWO crew...but you can't name an individual can you? Why is that? Seriously, think about this question. It has a lot to do with a major cypherpunk theme: anonymity. But in this case, with hardly any conscious responsibility. Nerthus P.S. Notice how my response becomes "negated" by Monty's previous response when you read the first 6 lines of text in order: " >>Persistent identities suck. Ideas stand or fall on their own. >>Reputation capital is fairy gold, evaporating with the morning dew. If that were really true, you would have posted your message under your real name (a.k.a., your persistent identity). The fact that you chose to make your statement anonymously only proves the inverse of what you say. >I do not believe this to be true. " Think how easily Monty's "response" could be used against me if the quoted text marks (>) were removed. Truths are easily twisted into lies by those who seek advantage from such actions. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNHJoHOFWwZe05jcJAQG60gf9Gkn96xtwHQ6CP3gcXGTTjgb42GMWXG6G YvlDlu+MehW61hR+i8NeqM6Y/z1nFJuFZhOJmAVlps2ud6r6PoGBqFF0HOiNQjyz 3pwuB5v2y31rxHKJDLloWjv+fLrX8sapQbOwELbmR3DxwiYxiZJfhNHz8T+gQOw5 4Ri550IzqMpGCHLeU03GdnZOiCu17QRUOHuP2qnNHSUAcTp28fQbUBUdivVPsr+1 PZ1XfwCLKhSdQjDCIhRNukM9+ep675+l5FtEZGjx6UOsBRlpZmXz/6I2Z/S9c0Tr nrmOhPBSS1MQDDe2vCkOhiNmcBT2LbAa5cSEL07sswLU0/lFMRj6Jw== =uO0B -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Further Costs of War
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- A few more comments on World War II. Had World War II been prevented, along with deaths of 50 million or so people, we would also have been spared (in the United States) income tax withholding. Previously the only people paying income tax were fairly wealthy and there was no withholding. I doubt very much that income tax withholding would have been accepted if the War were not used to justify it. ("You don't want to pay taxes? What are you, a traitor?") Without income tax withholding, it would have been hard to get to the point where we are now. The U.S. Federal government consumes about 40% of the GDP. When the resources aren't wasted outright, they are used to perpetrate evil in the world. To put this in perspective, multiply your income by 1.4. For example, if your income is $50,000, that would be another $20,000 you would have every single year. Where could you spend that money? If you simply saved it at 3% a year, in 30 years you would have about $950,000. That's all for doing exactly what you do now. Who needs national health insurance? Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNHX525aWtjSmRH/5AQF3TQf+LWjfFPOsg3oOk2B00v9gFCiQumz7ZELg o+JFTi9sepLrhAnA7GdsnzPU2yPmJ5Q9w0j08AaBCEb29a7FNt/xX18V2XUGav9J KWVK1CTDTLBeC1iX8rUhnqhidV/pIZjIg860LllEg7T8jdQfwaaz+EeoH/egod6f C2Nd8D9wFlyGGxh992stC5/aicxTxwzVX9UgAox5iwdQIE0WEFRj+KAoBAfd+v6t BQ0qhLVpHmGKRnLO4I2IYXBwzIvzRtOcYAGcy7A/k/XbVSvKs9I7vHMhJAFUDqWw RECgxQKtKy1DK1S/xOed5oW/m52YvvIez2NDLsYoGAVeCuLNJja5Xw== =xefg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Forwarded mail...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 20:20:27 -0700 > From: Magus Mixmaster Anonymous Remailer Service <mix(a)magusnet.com> > Subject: Re: Fairy Gold > Monty Cantsin wrote: > >Anonymous <anon(a)anon.efga.org> wrote: > >>Persistent identities suck. Ideas stand or fall on their own. > >>Reputation capital is fairy gold, evaporating with the morning dew. > > If this were really true, you would have posted your message under your real > name (a.k.a., your persistent identity). The fact that you chose to make > your statement anonymously only proves the inverse of what you say. No, it only proves Monty doesn't believe what he says. > Frankly, I wasn't there at Waco so I don't know what happened. However, as > Monty pointed out in another post, the fact that the FBI/BATF/etc. > administered the gas into the Davidian home (notice how I fail to use the > media-sanctioned term "compound") is clearly an aggressive act on the part of > the U.S. gov't. Regardless of what the spinmeisters say (both on the left > and the right) no human being with a conscience can take note of this fact > and say that the feds were justified in their actions. Gassing children? > Come on. To hell with gassing them, the issue is the bar-b-que that occurred after. Something like 18 children were murdered and the US government and the then Texas (bitch) govenor Ann Richards were complicent in the nefarious deed. Someday she and every agent that participated will stand before a jury, unfortunately the odds are it will be the jury of history and not their peers. Why were those kids deprived of the modern conveniences? Clearly the answer "David and his followers wouldn't surrender" doesn't hold water. Those kids deserve NO punishment for actions others *may* have committed, they were a victim - whether of David or the actions of the gov. reps. is irrellevant. Those people were given a public trust, they not only abused it but failed miserably in its resolution. They must pay the price. Saying "I was following orders" has no place in a democratic society anywhere; the individual MUST be held accountable for their actions and they should not be able to shirk that responsibility nor pass it off to some 3rd party. Further, irrispective of their job or position in society or the government the responsibilities AND rights of the individual must not be infringed AND must take predidence over all other duties or responsibilties. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0