RE: Crypto-anonymity greases HUMINT intelligence flows
Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Nonsense. Targeting innocents is evil according to EVERY human culture. The fact that people do it, does not make it "relative." It just makes them evil. Period.
Not according to Tim May. He was the one who wrote that he was becoming convinced that Tim McVeigh had done the right thing. "Some innocents died, but hey, war is hell. Broken eggs and all that." Those are his exact words, May 9, 1997. He's also the one that has called for the burning of millions of innocents by nuclear fire. If targeting innocents is evil, what can we say about those who applaud such actions? Doesn't Tim May, by his own words, show himself to be evil by the standards of every civilized human culture?
Incognito Innominatus wrote:
Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Nonsense. Targeting innocents is evil according to EVERY human culture. The fact that people do it, does not make it "relative." It just makes them evil. Period.
Not according to Tim May. He was the one who wrote that he was becoming convinced that Tim McVeigh had done the right thing. "Some innocents died, but hey, war is hell. Broken eggs and all that." Those are his exact words, May 9, 1997. He's also the one that has called for the burning of millions of innocents by nuclear fire.
If targeting innocents is evil, what can we say about those who applaud such actions? Doesn't Tim May, by his own words, show himself to be evil by the standards of every civilized human culture?
Apples and oranges. There is a world of difference between targeting innocents (the focus of my post) and targeting military targets with resultant innocent casualties. If a gunman grabs a human shield and starts shooting at me, I will (regrettably) return fire. Hopefully, I'll hit the bad guy and not the innocent human shield, but if I do hit the hostage, the moral responsibility is on bad guy, not me. S a n d y
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Apples and oranges. There is a world of difference between targeting innocents (the focus of my post) and targeting military targets with resultant innocent casualties.
That's a convenient, and arbitrary, distinction. It's wrong for me to kill you directly, but if I'm trying to kill somebody else and you die, oh well... Sour succor indeed. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. George Santyana The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 01:31 PM 09/15/2001 -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Apples and oranges. There is a world of difference between targeting innocents (the focus of my post) and targeting military targets with resultant innocent casualties. If a gunman grabs a human shield and starts shooting at me, I will (regrettably) return fire. Hopefully, I'll hit the bad guy and not the innocent human shield, but if I do hit the hostage, the moral responsibility is on bad guy, not me.
Back when Osama bin Laden was accused of the African US embassy bombings, the Clinton administration decided they had to Do Something Decisive, so they fired off about 75 cruise missiles at "Osama's Chemical/Biological Warfare Factory" (somebody's legitimate pharmaceutical plant in Sudan) and another place he was rumored to hang out. It's not clear whether this sets him up for Double Jeopardy protection if anybody takes the $5M reward and rats on him, because they didn't bother with the formalities of a trial, just a declaration of guilt followed by punishment, but it was Constitutionally pretty dodgy. And if it's not strictly targeting innocents while knowing they're innocent, failing to find out the facts before attacking people with missiles is sufficiently negligent that I'd count it in the same category. I think the US did pay off the factory owner after finding out that they'd screwed up. I don't know how many people got killed in the process, though.
On Saturday, September 15, 2001, at 01:04 PM, Incognito Innominatus wrote:
Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Nonsense. Targeting innocents is evil according to EVERY human culture. The fact that people do it, does not make it "relative." It just makes them evil. Period.
Not according to Tim May. He was the one who wrote that he was becoming convinced that Tim McVeigh had done the right thing. "Some innocents died, but hey, war is hell. Broken eggs and all that." Those are his exact words, May 9, 1997. He's also the one that has called for the burning of millions of innocents by nuclear fire.
If targeting innocents is evil, what can we say about those who applaud such actions? Doesn't Tim May, by his own words, show himself to be evil by the standards of every civilized human culture?
100 million or more persons have died in the last 100 years through the actions of statists like Mao, Stalin, Roosevelt, Hitler, Pol Pot, Amin, and a dozen others like them. If D.C is someday incinerated in an act of thermonuclear purification, I will cheer. In a free country, I am entitled to cheer. However, Amerika is not a free country. Several Arabs were arrested a few days ago in New Jersey for cheering the WTC action. Others are being detained nationwide. And the U.S.G. is calling on other countries to "stop" (suppress) any show of joy over the events. So much for free expression. Amerika is not a free country. Hasn't been since Lincoln. --Tim May
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Tim May wrote:
Amerika is not a free country. Hasn't been since Lincoln.
'Since' or 'because'... -- ____________________________________________________________________ Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. George Santyana The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Tim May wrote:
On Saturday, September 15, 2001, at 01:04 PM, Incognito Innominatus wrote:
Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Nonsense. Targeting innocents is evil according to EVERY human culture. The fact that people do it, does not make it "relative." It just makes them evil. Period.
Not according to Tim May. He was the one who wrote that he was becoming convinced that Tim McVeigh had done the right thing. "Some innocents died, but hey, war is hell. Broken eggs and all that." Those are his exact words, May 9, 1997. He's also the one that has called for the burning of millions of innocents by nuclear fire.
If targeting innocents is evil, what can we say about those who applaud such actions? Doesn't Tim May, by his own words, show himself to be evil by the standards of every civilized human culture?
100 million or more persons have died in the last 100 years through the actions of statists like Mao, Stalin, Roosevelt, Hitler, Pol Pot, Amin, and a dozen others like them.
Johnson, Nixon [Kissinger] and Bush Sr. come to mind...
If D.C is someday incinerated in an act of thermonuclear purification, I will cheer.
In a free country, I am entitled to cheer.
However, Amerika is not a free country. Several Arabs were arrested a few days ago in New Jersey for cheering the WTC action. Others are being detained nationwide.
See http://ElectronicIntifada.net
Amerika is not a free country.
Amen.
--Tim May
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Nonsense. Targeting innocents is evil according to EVERY human culture. The fact that people do it, does not make it "relative." It just makes them evil. Period.
On 15 Sep 2001, at 15:04, Incognito Innominatus wrote:
Not according to Tim May. He was the one who wrote that he was becoming convinced that Tim McVeigh had done the right thing. "Some innocents died, but hey, war is hell. Broken eggs and all that." Those are his exact words, May 9, 1997. He's also the one that has called for the burning of millions of innocents by nuclear fire.]]
McVeigh did not target innocents. He targeted evil people, and innocents were in the way. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 5xbM0foCEbsEdzgNHhs9RknW32YmeilfgtA1xsrI 4jSDUr3w/0TX6oZ2ILD9FwmeaJ0hE9KJqmw+hsS0q
participants (7)
-
Bill Stewart -
Incognito Innominatus -
jamesd＠echeque.com -
Jim Choate -
measl＠mfn.org -
Sandy Sandfort -
Tim May