Blanc, taking on the million monkeys repeatedly typing, "Is too!"--"Is Not!", wrote:

I was thinking about those who have expressed a lack of concern for the unfortunate mixture of the guilty & innocent in a close encounter with a destructive device. I was thinking that people who aren't careful about such differences make of themselves an enemy to all, because who can tell what they're supporting and whose lives they really value, since anyone at all could become their victim.

What I see being expressed is not so much a lack of concern for those caught up unwittingly in the war between the government and its citizens as it is a debate over the comparative level of guilt or responsibility that the warring factions should bear for the end results of their actions. There has also been some debate as to the right of an individual to make decisions which will affect the lives of those who will be involved only by happenstance. Blanc brings up an excellent point; namely, that those who choose to take drastic action risk striking out randomly and maliciously at everybody if they do not consider the nature of their target and the amount of risk to peripheral participants in the event. From all accounts, McVeigh's actions were purposeful and directed at a target which he deemed suited to his purpose. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the perceived "innocent" body count will probably play a large amount in their support or non-support of his actions.

The fact of the matter is that those in the middle must find a way to protect themselves from whatever weapon or vehicle of destruction comes around, whatever its source.

This is the way it is in all conflicts. Part of the current reason for the widespread disillusionment with government and the resulting animosity towards our rulers is the fact that those in the middle of the government's war on freedom and privacy don't see themselves as being involved in a war until it affects them personally. When those in the middle have their lives affected by those who take countermeasures against the government, then their view of his actions will be affected by whether or not they have had their car confiscated for possession of a single joint, or whether or not they are facing imprisonment for plugging a parking meter. Some of those who lost loved ones in the OKC bombing are involved in fighting the government to have a *real* investigation into what happened. No doubt some of them will come out of the whole process with much more disgust for the government than for McVeigh.

So, for instance, if Whitfield Diffie and PhilZ were walking into a Federal building in OK City, and I saw some cypherpunk not too far away getting ready to blow it up, well, I guess I'd have to kill him. (Dirty Harry saying: "feel lucky today, cpunk?").

It's good to see that you've given this some thought. It is important to personalize one's thoughts and actions in order to keep from getting caught up in the mass-hysteria that surrounds such issues. History has recorded many instances of people who had to decide if they could attack a building that contained friends, compatriots, or loved ones in furtherance of their purpose. (Or make the decision to place themself inside an area targeted by their own cause.) While I would defend McVeigh from those who dismiss his actions out of hand, with no thought of the culpability of the government and the average citizen, I downloaded pictures of some of the children who were maimed by the OKC bombing and I use them to avoid forgetting that there is personal tragedy involved in such an action. The fact remains that the more the government violates the freedom and privacy of their citizens, then the more the citizens will strike back in their own chosen way. The final tragedy of the OKC bombing is the lack of reckoning demanded by the citizens of their government for the growing disdain of the rights of the citizens that has led to so many feeling disenfranchised by their rulers. Nobody is voting for disenfranchisement; nobody is voting to have their privacy invaded and their freedom violated; nobody is voting to have the government take their money and enrich those in power. Yet still, the onslaught of government control and intrusion into every area of our lives continues. Blanc makes some excellent points about the average citizen being caught in a ping-pong crossfire in the conflict between government and anti-government forces. However, as I said, this is in the nature of conflict and the citizen's best option may be to make a daily effort to resist the government oppression, no matter how small it may seem in any instance. To borrow an analogy from another thread, if the government spams enough cypherpunks with a few Kilobytes here and there, they will eventually raise the ire of a Rick Osborne enough that he will send them back a few Gigabytes in return. And if Ross Wright's computer gets caught in the crossfire... TruthMonger