Re: Geopolitical Darwin Awards
Who, the Iranians? Which ones are fanatics? I'll grant there are some fanatics left in Iran, but Iran seems increasingly dominated by fairly sleezy clergy/judges. Like any government, theirs is deteriorating into a mere racket. And if you ask me, fanaticism never lasts very long anywhere, only for about a generation during turbulent times. Iran in particular is a special case...seems to me their cultural momentum will always outweigh any temporary fanaticism. A country that has a small but thriving prostitution industry can't be all that fanatical. -TD
From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> To: "cypherpunks@al-qaeda.net" <cypherpunks@al-qaeda.net> Subject: Re: Geopolitical Darwin Awards Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:50:37 -0700
-- On 15 Sep 2004 at 2:38, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
Maybe they are playing a different game. They [Iran] couldn't use the eventually produced nukes anyway, without being showered back with the same kind
They are fanatics. They expect to get a six pack of virgins. And they will say "Hey, it was not us, it was these terrorists who happen to have somehow stolen some nukes from persons unknown. We are completely opposed to terrorism, and are fully cooperating with foreign investigations."
--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG /Y5bZ5vcTSLqigJSE6PrHkJplrE/rkCOv5ZqjTCd 4hlcKGlAs6dJgsGrsyIqiOz5Qfdc2wMId/LdnAnXG
_________________________________________________________________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Tyler Durden wrote:
They are fanatics. They expect to get a six pack of virgins. And they will say "Hey, it was not us, it was these terrorists who happen to have somehow stolen some nukes from persons unknown. We are completely opposed to terrorism, and are fully cooperating with foreign investigations."
This sounds like dubya, not the ayatollahs. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org 0xBD4A95BF "...justice is a duty towards those whom you love and those whom you do not. And people's rights will not be harmed if the opponent speaks out about them." Osama Bin Laden - - - "There aught to be limits to freedom!" George Bush - - - Which one scares you more?
Tyler Durden wrote:
Who, the Iranians? Which ones are fanatics?
I'll grant there are some fanatics left in Iran, but Iran seems increasingly dominated by fairly sleezy clergy/judges. Like any government, theirs is deteriorating into a mere racket. And if you ask me, fanaticism never lasts very long anywhere, only for about a generation during turbulent times. Iran in particular is a special case...seems to me their cultural momentum will always outweigh any temporary fanaticism. A country that has a small but thriving prostitution industry can't be all that fanatical.
Prostitution industry? Iran has rebooted its swimming-pool maintenance industry. Its just this place, you know. Apparently the best thing about is the lack of American tourists - just like Cuba ;-)
-- On 16 Sep 2004 at 15:54, Tyler Durden wrote:
I'll grant there are some fanatics left in Iran, but Iran seems increasingly dominated by fairly sleezy clergy/judges. Like any government, theirs is deteriorating into a mere racket. And if you ask me, fanaticism never lasts very long anywhere, only for about a generation during turbulent times.
Iran is fostering war in Iraq and cooperating with Al Quaeda, which after what happened to Saddam indicates a fair degree of insanity. Iranian financed military movements, Hezbollah and Sadr, have been fairly well behaved - they don't target other people's children - just their own, but their willingness to cause the deaths of their own children is even more frightening than Al Quaeda's antics, though marginally less repugnant morally. People so willing to sacrifice children, are apt to be willing to use nuclear weapons. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG JKV/vsDeMLA+XUjdEyUC/KWjhIp7SvJjIbs1S7N/ 4obymQ+9XJMZgOwhPiK6FAtItaG0jErbco9OOpmms
Tyler Durden wrote:
And if you ask me, fanaticism never lasts very long anywhere, only for about a generation during turbulent times.
That is what King George and his redcoats said about the ragtag colonials, American as well as those who suffered the king's abuse into the 20th Centruty. James Donald wrote:
Iran is fostering war in Iraq and cooperating with Al Quaeda, which after what happened to Saddam indicates a fair degree of insanity.
That is what King George also said about the colonials, who then quite rationally arranged help from King George's enemies.
Iranian financed military movements, Hezbollah and Sadr, have been fairly well behaved - they don't target other people's children - just their own, but their willingness to cause the deaths of their own children is even more frightening than Al Quaeda's antics, though marginally less repugnant morally.
People so willing to sacrifice children, are apt to be willing to use nuclear weapons.
More King George-type remarks, as with arrogant tyrants everywhere and their authority suck-ups. To be sure, the children in their realms suffer as if colonials, or slaves, or wives, or sex toys, or faux-sacrosant idolized figurines, or nascent rebels who must be whipped regularly for moral instruction in subservience. If not Iran, then Ireland, if not Ireland, then a new Iraq, or NK, or PK. What the US-UK hegemon cannot face is that the bloody challenges to their moral supremacism is just getting under way inside and outside their borders. PJ O'Rouke's fighter planes of winners won't mean shit in this murderous crusade where the enemy wears no easy to spot uniform. The Chechens are the bellweather warriors. Kids and women among them indifferent to the old guys self-serving rules of war. Kill the heads of state, defense ministers and generals first, then down the line in reverse order. That'll likely bring over the lower downs who've eaten their shit, fought their battles, hated their guts. Women and kids among them.
-- James A. Donald:
Iranian financed military movements, Hezbollah and Sadr, have been fairly well behaved - they don't target other people's children - just their own, but their willingness to cause the deaths of their own children is even more frightening than Al Quaeda's antics, though marginally less repugnant morally.
People so willing to sacrifice children, are apt to be willing to use nuclear weapons.
John Young
More King George-type remarks, as with arrogant tyrants everywhere and their authority suck-ups.
I don't recall the American revolutionaries herding children before them to clear minefields, nor surrounding themselves with children as human shields. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG j07YPfmxqEtV9Aq+HTfim7giQ/OhISFU23UtnRML 4CdvNbZ/OawRkjcNRLk/qxs0QlgxWL3C8L7gIUcbA
James A. Donald:
I don't recall the American revolutionaries herding children before them to clear minefields, nor surrounding themselves with children as human shields.
No, not minefields, but a good percentage of Washington's army and that of the French, were children. Young boys were taught the art of war as gofers and undercover spies among the Brits. Some were caught and executed. Others packed weapons and fought like men who welcomed their foolhardy bravery when their manly courage withered. Today, even the US uses children in war, 17 being the minimum age to enlist. Others sneak in by lying about their age, some as young as 14. Recruiters look the other way when the kids and their parents lie. Been there, done that. Enlisted in the army at 15, served months before being kicked out when a relative ratted on me. Went in again at 17. That was not uncommon then, and still is not. Good way to get away from school and fucked up parents who use you like a beast of burden -- in every age and country. The military has found that teenagers are better fighters than those over 21, more malleable, patriotic, healthy, ready to kill when told it's okay. Older guys and gals think for themselves too much to charge a machine gun. A kid thinks life will never end. That's why it's not so hard to cultivate suicide bombers. Flying a $50 million plane is a piece of cake, no guts required. Fuck those stand-off cowards in artillery, the navy and air force. Grunts younger than 20 are the universal soldier. Non-caucasians especially. No need to mention today's Africans, the pre-teens and teens Mao used effectively, the underage North Koreans in the Korean Conflict, and not least the Amerindians who taught kids from puberty to make war -- boys and girls. It is worth pondering that older guys don't like war up close, in fact the the further away it is the better they like to promote it with Stallonian filmic ferocity -- witness the current yellow-bellied administration, though hardly the first to cry for war to be fought by disposable youngsters. What older soft-gutted guys in all nations like most is the Wagnerian tragedy, the soap opera sturm and drang, of other people's suffering and death for their loose-screw agenda.
James A. Donald:
I don't recall the American revolutionaries herding children before them to clear minefields, nor surrounding themselves with children as human shields.
John Young
No, not minefields, but a good percentage of Washington's army and that of the French, were children. Young boys were taught the art of war as gofers and undercover spies among the Brits. Some were caught and executed.
In no way does this compare to the Iranian method for clearing minefields, or Sadr's use of five year old children as human shields.
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
I don't recall the American revolutionaries herding children before them to clear minefields, nor surrounding themselves with children as human shields.
Using children to clear minefields has its logic. They are often not heavy enough to trigger the mine, and they often fear less, which both makes them more successful and more willing to do the job.
participants (7)
-
J.A. Terranson
-
James A. Donald
-
John Young
-
ken
-
Thomas Shaddack
-
Tim
-
Tyler Durden