Re: [NOISE] Re: Nazis on the Net
From: IN%"richieb@teleport.com" "Rich Burroughs" 23-APR-1996 17:19:45.60
On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: [snip]
However, one reference in this report to Weaver's calling for a meeting to oppose the "Zionist Occupation Government" does provide an argument for calling him a racist of the anti-Semitic variety. On the other hand, the only person claiming this is the FBI's informant; the truth of his statements has been called into doubt.
I'm sure it has been. That doesn't mean his report is untrue. Is the standard of proof the same for both of these issues? We need proof to establish that Weaver is a racist, but not to establish that the FBI informant is lying?
I require a higher standard of proof for worse accusations. I consider calling someone a racist a worse insult than calling them a liar. Furthermore, that this is an FBI _informant_ is a strike against the person to begin with in terms of trustworthiness.
Separatist/supremacist... I don't see much difference between them, and I believe the former is largely just a cover story for the latter. Weaver is no hero, IMHO, though I believe the govt. fucked up big at Ruby Ridge.
I don't approve of either separatists or supremacists; I just see the former as not quite as evil as the latter. Calling Weaver a supremacist is most common among the organizations that seem to believe that such actions as at Ruby Ridge are just fine, so long as they are against their enemies; it appears to be a public relations ploy (although the evidence is admittedly uncertain). I don't call Weaver a hero, either, but the most evil ones at Ruby Ridge were the governmental types. -Allen
On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:
From: IN%"richieb@teleport.com" "Rich Burroughs" 23-APR-1996 17:19:45.60
I'm sure it has been. That doesn't mean his report is untrue. Is the standard of proof the same for both of these issues? We need proof to establish that Weaver is a racist, but not to establish that the FBI informant is lying?
I require a higher standard of proof for worse accusations. I consider calling someone a racist a worse insult than calling them a liar. Furthermore, that this is an FBI _informant_ is a strike against the person to begin with in terms of trustworthiness.
Interesting. Thanks for explaining your terms. I disagree with everything you're saying. :-) I consider "racist" to be an ideological label, not an insult at all (though personally, I find them sick and wrong). There's a lot of people out there who proudly call themselves racists, at least in private. Many of them I can have a civilized discussion with. For me, liar is a stronger word. I think it's good to keep the FBI informed, in general terms only. Keeps the FBI from wigging out, you know. Self-conscious "infiltrators" and especially "provocateurs" I would consider to be liars, but someone who merely keeps the lines of communication open is a friend of mine.
Separatist/supremacist... I don't see much difference between them, and I believe the former is largely just a cover story for the latter. Weaver is no hero, IMHO, though I believe the govt. fucked up big at Ruby Ridge.
I don't approve of either separatists or supremacists; I just see the former as not quite as evil as the latter. Calling Weaver a supremacist is most common among the organizations that seem to believe that such actions as at Ruby Ridge are just fine, so long as they are against their enemies; it appears to be a public relations ploy (although the evidence is admittedly uncertain).
Who has defended the government's lies and shoot-at-sight rules of engagement at Ruby Ridge? Please be specific. I think you're talking about some straw man you read about in an NRA or militia pamplet. -rich
participants (2)
-
E. ALLEN SMITH -
Rich Graves