Re: AP [was: Re: Kiddie porn on the Internet] [NOISE]
At 05:48 PM 9/23/96 -0400, hallam@vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote:
So Jim Bell is opposed to "truly random attacks on ordinary citizens" Its this type ofappoligia for terrorism that disgusts me utterly. He is calling for murder but wants to dress it up in whatever psychotic justifications he can. He is also completely wrong. When the IRA attemoted to assasinate my cousin I was in no way intimidated and neither was he. He continued as a senior poitician for over a decade despite continued danger. I can think of no less effective method of bringing about change in attitudes.
And he, along with others, failed to solve the problems as well. Is this progress?
I am in no way intimidated by Bell either. He is a kook and I don;t think it he is worth further consideration. Phill
For the record, if an AP-type system were to operate it would: 1. Make it impossible for the British to continue to station troops in Northern Ireland, an eventuality that I suppose Phill resists. However, it would also: 2. Make it impossible and unnecessary for the British to have any troops anywhere, because it would eliminate its government and military. It would no longer be a country, merely an island with people living there. 3. Make it unnecessary in Northern Ireland to protect the Catholics from the Protestants, or the Protestants from the Catholics, because the trouble-makers from both (all?) sides would be quickly erased from the scene. Nobody would rule anybody. Nobody COULD rule anybody. All factions would either be peaceful or dead, their choice. No political advantage could be gained by violence, because all politics would have ceased. 4. Make it unnecessary and pointless for Northern Ireland to re-unify with Ireland, because likewise the government and military of Ireland would dissolve, as well as all political structure in that land as well. In short, the only reasons that the current problems are maintained in Northern Ireland and Britain would be eliminated by the advent of AP. So who is the "kook," really? Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com
Jim, I do support the presence of troops in Northern Ireland and do not consider that to contradict my belief that there should be a united, autonamous Ireland. I do not believe that the "loyalists" are in fact loyal to the British way of life, any more than the KKK are representative of the US south. Troops are in Northern Ireland for a very simple and depressing reason. People like Jim want to impose their will on others by force. Despite prolonged attempts by each faction to assasinate the leaders of the other they have been unsuccessful. If terrorists trained by Lybia and Syria are unable to assasinate at will then we can be sure thaqt Jim's band of kooks is not going to get any further. If the integration of both Irealand and the UK into the European Union has not ended the situation the complete lack of government will not either. It is suprising that someone from the press has not seized upon Jims ideas as cause for another cyber-scare. I suspect this is because people like Markof are somewhat more responsible. This is not going to stop me from producing an op-ed piece linkiing the net libertarians to assasination politics unless I hear a few more repudiations of Bell's ideas. If you don't very clearly reject his murderous ideas you are going to regret it just as the left regreted having the USSR or the RAF associated with them. Phill
On Mon, 23 Sep 1996 hallam@vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote:
Troops are in Northern Ireland for a very simple and depressing reason. People like Jim want to impose their will on others by force.
The person who wishes to keep those troops in Northern Ireland is the head of an extremely dysfunctional family. The current occupant of 10 Downing street simply contributes to the problem --by trying to enforce 400+ years of unsuccessfull rule. << Logically, the British ought to figured out by now that they aren't welcome now, and never were welcome in Ireland, but then, they aren't noted for their logic. >>
and Syria are unable to assasinate at will then we can be sure that Jim's band of kooks is not going to get any further.
#1: Syrian and Libyan assassins have been extremely effective, in terminating with extreme prejudice, their targets. #2: the AP contractors are paid for their work. $10x5^6, is my guess as the starting price for eliminating some of the despots that inflict their warped rule on others. --- The aforementioned dysfunctional family might make a good starting point.
It is suprising that someone from the press has not seized upon Jims ideas as cause for another cyber-scare. I suspect this is because people
The idea was first proposed 200 + years ago. Computer technology simply makes it easier to implement. And the press in that day had a hard time dealing with it, because in denouncing it, they spread the idea that maybe it is a good thing. Ignored, it becomes forgotten. Denounced, it becomes a cause celebre.
like Markof are somewhat more responsible. This is not going to stop me from producing an op-ed piece linkiing the net libertarians to assasination
Do that op-ed piece --- but remember that AP is not a libertarian position. Libertarian's think that government is a good thing. AP thinks that government is a bad thing, and their philosophical differences get wider, from there. xan jonathon grafolog@netcom.com Patience is a virtue, Virtue is a grace. Grace is a little girl, Who did not wash her face.
Hallium said:
Troops are in Northern Ireland for a very simple and depressing reason. People like Jim want to impose their will on others by force. Despite prolonged attempts by each faction to assasinate the leaders of the other they have been unsuccessful. If terrorists trained by Lybia and Syria are unable to assasinate at will then we can be sure thaqt Jim's band of kooks is not going to get any further.
That is your problem. You can't seem to get away from the thought that somebody is trying to rule. You assume that Mr. Bell wants to be President and Supreme Dictator of the World. Remeber your introduction to formal logic? It is A or NOT A, not A or B. NOT A _can_ be B, but it can also be anything BUT A. What Mr. Bell wants, and I agree with is that NOT A. We don't want B, C, D, or any thing else, other than NOT A. I remember this set of lines from an anarchist "newspaper" from the 80's: Q: What are you going to replace the government with after you get rid of it? A: Do you replace a cancer when you remove it? We don't want to remove a leg, we want to cut out a cancer. Consider AP extreme chemiotherapy. Petro, Christopher C. petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> snow@smoke.suba.com
jim bell wrote:
At 05:48 PM 9/23/96 -0400, hallam@vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote:
So Jim Bell is opposed to "truly random attacks on ordinary citizens" Its this type ofappoligia for terrorism that disgusts me utterly. He is calling for murder but wants to dress it up in whatever psychotic justifications he can. He is also completely wrong. When the IRA attemoted to assasinate my cousin I was in no way intimidated and neither was he. He continued as a senior poitician for over a decade despite continued danger. I can think of no less effective method of bringing about change in attitudes. And he, along with others, failed to solve the problems as well. Is this progress? I am in no way intimidated by Bell either. He is a kook and I don;t think it he is worth further consideration.
For the record, if an AP-type system were to operate it would: 1. Make it impossible for the British to continue to station troops in Northern Ireland, an eventuality that I suppose Phill resists. However, it would also: 2. Make it impossible and unnecessary for the British to have any troops anywhere, because it would eliminate its government and military. It would no longer be a country, merely an island with people living there. 3. Make it unnecessary in Northern Ireland to protect the Catholics from the Protestants, or the Protestants from the Catholics, because the trouble-makers from both (all?) sides would be quickly erased from the scene. Nobody would rule anybody. Nobody COULD rule anybody. All factions would either be peaceful or dead, their choice. No political advantage could be gained by violence, because all politics would have ceased. 4. Make it unnecessary and pointless for Northern Ireland to re-unify with Ireland, because likewise the government and military of Ireland would dissolve, as well as all political structure in that land as well. In short, the only reasons that the current problems are maintained in Northern Ireland and Britain would be eliminated by the advent of AP. So who is the "kook," really?
Lessee if I have this right, now. We have basically three scenarios: 1. Allow the status quo to continue (the justice system scam now run by Janet Reno/Louis Freeh types et al. 2. Allow the people some democracy in applying justice through AP. 3. Sometime in the future, build the Gort(?) robots, as in The Day The Earth Stood Still, and let them do the job. Whatcha think?
participants (5)
-
Dale Thorn -
hallam＠vesuvius.ai.mit.edu -
jim bell -
jonathon -
snow