War is dangerous to freedom, but we do not have a choice of peace. The question is where the war is to be fought - in America, or elsewhere. War within America will surely destroy freedom.
So. Why don't we see terrorist attacks in Sweden, or Switzerland, or Belgium or any other country that doesn't have any military or Imperliast presence in the middle east? Is this merely a coincidence? What I strongly suspect is that if we were not dickin' around over there in their countries, the threat of terrorism on US soil would diminish to very nearly zero. In other words, we DO have a choice of peace, and our choice was to pass on it. -TD
From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> To: "cypherpunks@al-qaeda.net" <cypherpunks@al-qaeda.net> Subject: Re: Airport insanity Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:39:05 -0700
-- Thomas Shaddack:
It isn't a problem for you until it happens to you. Who knows when being interested in anon e-cash will become a ground to blacklist *you*.
James A. Donald:
I know when it will happen. It will happen when people interested in anon ecash go on suicide missions. :-)
Bill Stewart
More likely, when anon ecash money-launderers start being accused of funding terrorist activities.
When e-currency handlers (cambists) are accused of money laundering terrorist's money, the feds steal the money, but they do not obstruct them from travelling, or, surprisingly, even from doing business - well, perhaps not so surprisingly, for if they stopped them from doing business there would be nothing to steal.
When the state uses repressive measures against those that seek to murder us, there is still a large gap between that and using repressive measures against everyone.
We are not terrorists, we don't look like terrorists, we don't sound like terrorists. Indeed, the more visible real terrorists are, the less even Tim McViegh looks like a terrorist and the more he looks like a patriot.
When people are under attack they are going to lash out, to kill and destroy. Lashing out an external enemy, real or imaginary, is a healthy substitute for lashing out at internal enemies. We do not have a choice of peace, merely a choice between war against external or internal enemies. Clearly, war against external enemies is less dangerous to freedom.
War is dangerous to freedom, but we do not have a choice of peace. The question is where the war is to be fought - in America, or elsewhere. War within America will surely destroy freedom.
What we need to fear is those that talk about the home front and internal security, those who claim that Christians are as big a threat as Muslims - or that black Muslims are as big a threat as Middle Eastern Muslims.
--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG cGrCJvmIhJnYLWO2RB3qmnqijcHlOOsA7iklRoZD 4Ar75eLN10XbfJw/mqPpGQeUW0SzMlz4CLrpHIeEe
_________________________________________________________________ Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the Back to School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx
Tyler Durden wrote:
So. Why don't we see terrorist attacks in Sweden, or Switzerland, or Belgium or any other country that doesn't have any military or Imperliast presence in the middle east? Is this merely a coincidence?
What I strongly suspect is that if we were not dickin' around over there in their countries, the threat of terrorism on US soil would diminish to very nearly zero. In other words, we DO have a choice of peace, and our choice was to pass on it. TBH the UK *did* have a major terrorist threat for decades - because we were dicking around in *their* country :)
At 11:25 AM 10/19/2004, Dave Howe wrote:
TBH the UK *did* have a major terrorist threat for decades - because we were dicking around in *their* country :)
Do you mean the terrorists who raised their funding in bars in Boston and San Francisco? They haven't been doing much active terror lately, though they still try to raise funds in the bars on Geary Street. The Bush Administration says that they'll go bomb any country that harbors anti-US terrorists, but if the UK felt the same way and bombed Boston I bet they'd be a bit upset. (Bombing San Francisco wouldn't bother the Bush League as much.)
-- James A. Donald:
War is dangerous to freedom, but we do not have a choice of peace. The question is where the war is to be fought - in America, or elsewhere. War within America will surely destroy freedom.
Tyler Durden wrote:
So. Why don't we see terrorist attacks in Sweden, or Switzerland, or Belgium or any other country that doesn't have any military or Imperliast presence in the middle east? Is this merely a coincidence?
In fact we have seen Islamic terrorist attacks in Sweden and Switzerland, particularly Switzerland. Don't know about Belgium. Doubtless keeping US troops in Saudi Arabia was a bad idea, since it enabled Saudis to blame the evil of their government on the US, rather than themselves, but Bin Laden's indictment not only mentions US troops in Saudi Arabia, but also the reconquest of Spain, the massacre committed by the crusaders in Jerusalem, and the failure of Americans to obey Shariah law. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG /ocDcxC+cUo2DuIZWmQPcxCdoBKzBv64t/JGFD/n 4HbLfMXzuc00iivMRHO8xd9PCitZawSai9lJGyfi3
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
... but Bin Laden's indictment not only mentions US troops in Saudi Arabia, but also the reconquest of Spain, the massacre committed by the crusaders in Jerusalem, and the failure of Americans to obey Shariah law.
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, right? The US can go after BL for not following US [constitutional] law, so why can't he come after us for not following Shariah (or any other) law? This is but one of the many fatal flaws in the Bush Doctrine of nation-building.
--digsig James A. Donald
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org 0xBD4A95BF "An ill wind is stalking while evil stars whir and all the gold apples go bad to the core" S. Plath, Temper of Time
-- James A. Donald wrote:
... but Bin Laden's indictment not only mentions US troops in Saudi Arabia, but also the reconquest of Spain, the massacre committed by the crusaders in Jerusalem, and the failure of Americans to obey Shariah law.
J.A. Terranson
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, right? The US can go after BL for not following US [constitutional] law, so why can't he come after us for not following Shariah (or any other) law?
But these laws are not as like as geese and ganders. The US goes after Bin Laden for murdering people. Bin Laden goes after us for not accepting second class citizenship under Muslim rule. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG TwiD9R90EdvKqsjuevEp63cmJRnD0ia7+K9+fllS 4NIKSw8Ax0afFEysgsliifJiwl/5SxotTzQc3ZPe3
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:
... but Bin Laden's indictment not only mentions US troops in Saudi Arabia, but also the reconquest of Spain, the massacre committed by the crusaders in Jerusalem, and the failure of Americans to obey Shariah law.
J.A. Terranson
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, right? The US can go after BL for not following US [constitutional] law, so why can't he come after us for not following Shariah (or any other) law?
But these laws are not as like as geese and ganders. The US goes after Bin Laden for murdering people. Bin Laden goes after us for not accepting second class citizenship under Muslim rule.
No. He goes after us for the very same reason: for [our] murdering of *hundreds of thousands* of people, both directly (Iraq) and by proxy (Israel).
--digsig James A. Donald
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org 0xBD4A95BF "An ill wind is stalking while evil stars whir and all the gold apples go bad to the core" S. Plath, Temper of Time
-- James A. Donald wrote:
... but Bin Laden's indictment not only mentions US troops in Saudi Arabia, but also the reconquest of Spain, the massacre committed by the crusaders in Jerusalem, and the failure of Americans to obey Shariah law.
J.A. Terranson
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, right? The US can go after BL for not following US [constitutional] law, so why can't he come after us for not following Shariah (or any other) law?
James A. Donald:
But these laws are not as like as geese and ganders. The US goes after Bin Laden for murdering people. Bin Laden goes after us for not accepting second class citizenship under Muslim rule.
J.A. Terranson
No. He goes after us for the very same reason: for [our] murdering of *hundreds of thousands* of people, both directly (Iraq) and by proxy (Israel).
What then is the reason for the murder of Afghans and Sudanese? --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG k+G5vLtBGRUbtmGjb+iAoDxnN3CsLibGbd6SVq/s 4caCsK9kczuZW8ZoOGyjeQwD2fLxwUImuZ05kSJrK
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:
... but Bin Laden's indictment not only mentions US troops in Saudi Arabia, but also the reconquest of Spain, the massacre committed by the crusaders in Jerusalem, and the failure of Americans to obey Shariah law.
J.A. Terranson
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, right? The US can go after BL for not following US [constitutional] law, so why can't he come after us for not following Shariah (or any other) law?
James A. Donald:
But these laws are not as like as geese and ganders. The US goes after Bin Laden for murdering people. Bin Laden goes after us for not accepting second class citizenship under Muslim rule.
J.A. Terranson
No. He goes after us for the very same reason: for [our] murdering of *hundreds of thousands* of people, both directly (Iraq) and by proxy (Israel).
What then is the reason for the murder of Afghans and Sudanese?
--digsig James A. Donald
My enemy's friend is my enemy. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org 0xBD4A95BF "An ill wind is stalking while evil stars whir and all the gold apples go bad to the core" S. Plath, Temper of Time
-- James A. Donald wrote:
... but Bin Laden's indictment not only mentions US troops in Saudi Arabia, but also the reconquest of Spain, the massacre committed by the crusaders in Jerusalem, and the failure of Americans to obey Shariah law.
J.A. Terranson
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, right? The US can go after BL for not following US [constitutional] law, so why can't he come after us for not following Shariah (or any other) law?
James A. Donald:
But these laws are not as like as geese and ganders. The US goes after Bin Laden for murdering people. Bin Laden goes after us for not accepting second class citizenship under Muslim rule.
J.A. Terranson
No. He goes after us for the very same reason: for [our] murdering of *hundreds of thousands* of people, both directly (Iraq) and by proxy (Israel).
James A. Donald:
What then is the reason for the murder of Afghans and Sudanese?
J.A. Terranson
My enemy's friend is my enemy.
But Al Quaeda and like groups were murdering Afghans in large numbers long before the US renewed their old alliances. * --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG VeAfgPXsu8hMd159ebYkMe4IMwec2ScP1h/9frn/ 40jZWcrteGmlLGXGPABh60Da4xPqu9PUZow53bsJs
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:
... but Bin Laden's indictment not only mentions US troops in Saudi Arabia, but also the reconquest of Spain, the massacre committed by the crusaders in Jerusalem, and the failure of Americans to obey Shariah law.
J.A. Terranson
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, right? The US can go after BL for not following US [constitutional] law, so why can't he come after us for not following Shariah (or any other) law?
James A. Donald:
But these laws are not as like as geese and ganders. The US goes after Bin Laden for murdering people. Bin Laden goes after us for not accepting second class citizenship under Muslim rule.
J.A. Terranson
No. He goes after us for the very same reason: for [our] murdering of *hundreds of thousands* of people, both directly (Iraq) and by proxy (Israel).
What then is the reason for the murder of Afghans and Sudanese?
As much as I hate to followup to myself, I can't help this one: I just fucked up. In my earnest to provide a timely answer (at a moment when I am precisely *out* of any time whatsoever), I made the wrong choice by trying to reply at all. What came out was a single line of words which had concepts so compressed that they were lost amongst the very bits surrounding them: my one line flippant and idiotic looking answer is just meaningless, and pointless. I should not have given in to the urge to reply *now* just because I wanted to put *something* on the record before I could approach this properly (read: at lengths I didn't have available at this moment). I both apologize for this idiocy, and retract that crap answer I just foisted upon you and the rest of the readers - that I spewed it at all is embarrasing enough! I promise to answer this properly, but I'm afraid it'll have to wait till saturday for me to have the time to do it right (the way I *should* have done it three minutes ago, or else STFU). Sorry - you (as in the cosmic "you" as well as in "JAD") deserved better. Hell, so did I. Barf...
--digsig James A. Donald
Did that make any sense to anyone but me? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org 0xBD4A95BF "An ill wind is stalking while evil stars whir and all the gold apples go bad to the core" S. Plath, Temper of Time
This brings up thoughts of prior debates on whether or not US citizens are subject to the International Court. We (the US) are making a habit of forcing our laws on other countries, but yet we are not subject to the laws of an established INTERNATIONAL court; one who's laws are created from a consensus of people of many nations and backgrounds. The hypocrisy of the "Bush Doctrine" is simply mind-boggling. -Adam On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 06:31:16 -0500 (CDT), "J.A. Terranson" <measl@mfn.org> said:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
... but Bin Laden's indictment not only mentions US troops in Saudi Arabia, but also the reconquest of Spain, the massacre committed by the crusaders in Jerusalem, and the failure of Americans to obey Shariah law.
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, right? The US can go after BL for not following US [constitutional] law, so why can't he come after us for not following Shariah (or any other) law?
This is but one of the many fatal flaws in the Bush Doctrine of nation-building.
--digsig James A. Donald
-- Yours,
J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org 0xBD4A95BF
"An ill wind is stalking while evil stars whir and all the gold apples go bad to the core"
S. Plath, Temper of Time
-- Adam:
This brings up thoughts of prior debates on whether or not US citizens are subject to the International Court. We (the US) are making a habit of forcing our laws on other countries, but yet we are not subject to the laws of an established INTERNATIONAL court; one who's laws are created from a consensus of people of many nations and backgrounds. The hypocrisy of the "Bush Doctrine" is simply mind-boggling.
The same consensus as runs the international human rights commission that condemns Israel while blessing Sudan? The ICC and the world court have a track record that resembles the lowest common demoninator of the governments that sponsor it - They support tyrrany, terror, and slavery, and shattering confiscation of property. For all that is wrong with the US government, remember the condition of people under the great majority of the world: poverty and fear, where the political privilege of a few shatters the economy and forces the vast majority into poverty, for example India, Burma, Nigeria, Vietnam, Pakistan, Cuba Indonesia, and all the rest. If we were subject to the power of those governments that compose the majority of the world's governments, we would be as poor, unfree, and frightened as the subjects of those governments. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG FIkvqRtdx4mKda8MY0+7FCzRw09CvdTSH2IjDCV3 4H7vUDccMZaaLjHdsx+DkMirimYrUgLbOx8ZpmAjm
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
The ICC and the world court have a track record that resembles the lowest common demoninator of the governments that sponsor it - They support tyrrany, terror, and slavery, and shattering confiscation of property.
Agreed.
For all that is wrong with the US government, remember the condition of people under the great majority of the world: poverty and fear, where the political privilege of a few shatters the economy and forces the vast majority into poverty, for example India, Burma, Nigeria, Vietnam, Pakistan, Cuba Indonesia, and all the rest.
You forgot to list the US.
If we were subject to the power of those governments that compose the majority of the world's governments, we would be as poor, unfree, and frightened as the subjects of those governments.
And we are not? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org 0xBD4A95BF "An ill wind is stalking while evil stars whir and all the gold apples go bad to the core" S. Plath, Temper of Time
-- James A. Donald
For all that is wrong with the US government, remember the condition of people under the great majority of the world's governments: poverty and fear, where the political privilege of a few shatters the economy and forces the vast majority into poverty, for example India, Burma, Nigeria, Vietnam, Pakistan, Cuba Indonesia, and all the rest.
J.A. Terranson:
You forgot to list the US.
You have shown many signs of psychotic loss of contact with reality. The proposition that the government of the US causes similar effects to the government of Burma is over the top even for you. James A. Donald
If we were subject to the power of those governments that compose the majority of the world's governments, we would be as poor, unfree, and frightened as the subjects of those governments.
J.A. Terranson:
And we are not?
Uh, no. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG e0paVHj/6w7mGUq7SxSrbVSLTQLi5dWgOYMAlHSF 4w1k4b0rDwMkdMVwrQc2sFCweO4HqwGhhOQDKA3Q7
The problem is, of course, that the US simply cannot keep their dicks out of the affairs of other countries. We are obsessed with controlling how the world develops, so as to guarantee to force countries to evolve in such a way that is beneficial to the US. Such is an inevitable hazard of becoming the last remaining super-power; we know we can control the world, and have now (with the declaration of war in Iraq) let the world know that there's nothing anyone can do about it. The US wants the world to operate like a giant corporation run by old white fudge-packers who smile on TV and fuck us all behind closed doors. Terrorism, as you say, is the response of other countries who violently resent American involvement in affairs that, at their core, have nothing to do with the US. Unfortunately, the US's "war on terror" completely misses this point, and only serves to further the problem. Sure, we might kill a few existing "terrorists", but where do "terrorists" come from? Won't these actions create a larger and more hostile breeding ground for more people to lash out at US involvement in foreign affairs? The US government just doesn't understand, or just doesn't care. -Adam On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:21:06 -0400, "Tyler Durden" <camera_lumina@hotmail.com> said:
War is dangerous to freedom, but we do not have a choice of peace. The question is where the war is to be fought - in America, or elsewhere. War within America will surely destroy freedom.
So. Why don't we see terrorist attacks in Sweden, or Switzerland, or Belgium or any other country that doesn't have any military or Imperliast presence in the middle east? Is this merely a coincidence?
What I strongly suspect is that if we were not dickin' around over there in their countries, the threat of terrorism on US soil would diminish to very nearly zero. In other words, we DO have a choice of peace, and our choice was to pass on it.
-TD
From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> To: "cypherpunks@al-qaeda.net" <cypherpunks@al-qaeda.net> Subject: Re: Airport insanity Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:39:05 -0700
-- Thomas Shaddack:
It isn't a problem for you until it happens to you. Who knows when being interested in anon e-cash will become a ground to blacklist *you*.
James A. Donald:
I know when it will happen. It will happen when people interested in anon ecash go on suicide missions. :-)
Bill Stewart
More likely, when anon ecash money-launderers start being accused of funding terrorist activities.
When e-currency handlers (cambists) are accused of money laundering terrorist's money, the feds steal the money, but they do not obstruct them from travelling, or, surprisingly, even from doing business - well, perhaps not so surprisingly, for if they stopped them from doing business there would be nothing to steal.
When the state uses repressive measures against those that seek to murder us, there is still a large gap between that and using repressive measures against everyone.
We are not terrorists, we don't look like terrorists, we don't sound like terrorists. Indeed, the more visible real terrorists are, the less even Tim McViegh looks like a terrorist and the more he looks like a patriot.
When people are under attack they are going to lash out, to kill and destroy. Lashing out an external enemy, real or imaginary, is a healthy substitute for lashing out at internal enemies. We do not have a choice of peace, merely a choice between war against external or internal enemies. Clearly, war against external enemies is less dangerous to freedom.
War is dangerous to freedom, but we do not have a choice of peace. The question is where the war is to be fought - in America, or elsewhere. War within America will surely destroy freedom.
What we need to fear is those that talk about the home front and internal security, those who claim that Christians are as big a threat as Muslims - or that black Muslims are as big a threat as Middle Eastern Muslims.
--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG cGrCJvmIhJnYLWO2RB3qmnqijcHlOOsA7iklRoZD 4Ar75eLN10XbfJw/mqPpGQeUW0SzMlz4CLrpHIeEe
_________________________________________________________________ Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the Back to School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx
participants (6)
-
Adam -
Bill Stewart -
Dave Howe -
J.A. Terranson -
James A. Donald -
Tyler Durden