Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
"There is no good or evil, only people with different points of view."
OK, numbnuts. We shall rephrase. We have one point of view and those
raghead dirt eating fucks over there with cruise missiles shoved up there
ass have another point of view.
Sound better?
Jim Holcomb
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeroen Nijman" <jeroen@pi*.nl*>
To: <techdiver@aquanaut.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 5:17 AM
Subject: Bloodstains on the sand
> First of all I do apologize for posting this off topic note, but given the
earlier notes I felt I had to write these things down. Most of it really
boils down to one thing:
>
> There is no good or evil, only people with different points of view.
>
> I realize that some people will feel an urgent need to call me anything
from a fascist moron to a goddamn liberal commie bastard. I would prefer
that you give some real arguments on why you don't agree. (So tell me why
something is wrong, rather than merely proclaiming: "but that's different!")
>
> Jeroen
>
>
> This remainder of this note is split up in three sections. I wrote the
first one, the second and third ones I copied from elsewhere.
>
> The first section is meant as food for thought on:
> Bombing states that harbored terrorists.
> What is terrorism?
> The cowardly attacks.
> The partying Palestinians.
>
> The second section contains a proposal for an amendment to the
constitution to protect against terrorism. (If you want to know where this
proposal came from, send me an offlist mail and I'll tell you.)
>
> The third section is an essay on war and weapons of mass destruction,
written in 1998.
>
> ================================================================
> SECTION 1:
>
> Bombing states that harbored terrorists:
>
> Imagine the following situation:
>
> A particularly nasty attack, involving a car-bomb delivered by a terrorist
from another state, has killed 187 people. The government of the state
decides under public and moral pressure to do the only thing they can think
of to prevent further such attacks: they bomb the capital of the state that
raised and harbored the terrorist, to teach them respect. They request help
from all other states, subtly suggesting that anyone that does not agree
must then agree with the bombing.
>
>
> The entire nation proceeds to bomb New York for raising and 'harboring'
> Timothy McVeigh. The citizens of New York, after weeping over the tens of
> thousands of family and friends that have been killed, suddenly gain a new
> respect and love for Oklahoma that stays with them for the rest of their
lives.
>
> Hmm.. maybe there's a flaw somewhere in this scenario.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
> What is terrorism?
>
> One definition of terrorism is:
>
> 'The use of violence in an attempt to force a country to change its
behavior out of fear of further violence.'
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
> The cowardly attacks:
>
> More than once in the past few days the attacks on the 11th have been
called 'cowardly'. Which of the following two attacks would you call
'cowardly':
>
> A Someone tries to kill you, facing certain death in the attempt.
> B Someone fires a missile at you from 5000 miles away.
>
> Giving your life for your beliefs is something most cultures (including
the US] praise highly. While we do not agree with the beliefs in this case,
these people died for their cause. That is anything but cowardly.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
> The festive Palestinians:
>
> In the media, images have been shown depicting Arabs cheering and partying
after they heard the news of the attacks on the US.
>
> Most of these images were filmed in Palestinian refugee camps Sabra and
Chagila in southern Lebanon. Over 3000 people (no exceptions for women and
children) in these two camps were killed by Lebanese troops on 16-18
september 1982. Israeli troops, under the command of general Ariel Sharon
were stopping people from fleeing the camps while this happened. There are
indications that this was a joint operation between the Israelli army and
the Lebanese groups involved.
>
> Since then, the United Nations has voted a few times to pass a resolution
condemning the massacre, and the role Israel played in it (actively or
passively). Every single time this happened, the US vetoed the resolution.
>
> There were no three minutes of silence for these people, no condolences,
and not even the recognition by the international community that what had
happened to them was wrong - because it was blocked by the US every time it
came up.
>
> Imagine how you would feel about France if it vetoed a UN resolution
condemning the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center.
>
> ===============================================================
> SECTION 2: An amendment to the constitution to protect people from
terrorism.
>
> The following has been proposed as an amendment to the Constitution:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
> If public safety and order [..] are materially disturbed or endangered,
the President may take the necessary measures to restore public safety and
order, and, if necessary, to intervene with the help of the armed forces. To
this end he may temporarily suspend, in whole or in part, the fundamental
rights established in Articles [... of the constitution]
>
>
> [...] In virtue of [the amendment of the] Constitution, the following is
decreed as a defensive measure against [terrorism]:
>
> Sections [...] of the Constitution [..] are suspended until further
notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free
expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of
assembly and the right of
> association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and
telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for
confiscation as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible
beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.
>
> ================================================================
> SECTION 3: An essay on war and weapons of mass destruction.
>
> Finally, an essay by a rather well known person, who has been described as
a dangerous, incoherent lunatic:
>
> (ESSAY BEGINS)
> The administration has said that Iraq has no right to stockpile chemical
or biological weapons ("weapons of mass destruction") - mainly because they
have used them in the past. Well, if that's the standard by which these
matters are decided, then the U.S. is the nation that set the precedent. The
U.S. has stockpiled these same weapons (and more) for over 40 years. The
U.S. claims that this was done for deterrent purposes during its "Cold War"
with the Soviet Union. Why, then, is it invalid for Iraq to claim the same
reason (deterrence) - with respect to Iraq's (real) war with, and the
continued threat of, its neighbor Iran?
>
> The administration claims that Iraq has used these weapons in the past.
We've all seen the pictures that show a Kurdish woman and child frozen in
death from the use of chemical weapons. But, have you ever seen these photos
juxtaposed next to pictures from Hiroshima or Nagasaki? I suggest that one
study the histories of World War I, World War II and other "regional
conflicts" that the U.S. has been involved in to familiarize themselves with
the use of "weapons of mass destruction." Remember Dresden? How about Hanoi?
Tripoli? Baghdad? What about the big ones - Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (At
these two locations, the U.S. killed at least 150,000 non-combatants -
mostly women and children - in the blink of an eye. Thousands more took
hours, days, weeks, or months to die.)
>
> If Saddam is such a demon, and people are calling for war crimes charges
against him and his nation, whey do we not hear the same cry for blood
directed at those responsible for even greater amounts of "mass
destruction" - like those responsible and involved in dropping bombs on the
cities mentioned above? The truth is, the U.S. has set the standard when it
comes to the stockpiling and use of weapons of mass destruction. Hypocrisy
when it comes to the death of children?
>
> In Oklahoma City, it was family convenience that explained the presence
of a day-care center placed between street level and the law enforcement
agencies which occupied the upper floors of the building. Yet when
discussion shifts to Iraq, any day-care center in a government building
instantly becomes "a shield." Think about that. (Actually, there is a
difference here. The administration has admitted to knowledge of the
presence of children in or near Iraqi government buildings, yet they still
proceed with their plans to bomb - saying that they cannot be held
responsible if children die. There is no such proof, however, that knowledge
of the presence of children existed in relation to the Oklahoma City
bombing.)
>
> When considering morality and "mens rea" (criminal intent) in light of
these facts, I ask: Who are the true barbarians? Yet another example of this
nation's blatant hypocrisy is revealed by the polls which suggest that this
nation is greatly in favor of bombing Iraq. In this instance, the people of
the nation approve of bombing government employees because they are "guilty
by association" - they are Iraqi government employees. In regard to the
bombing in Oklahoma City, however, such logic is condemned. What motivates
these seemingly contradictory positions? Do people think that government
workers in Iraq are any less human than those in Oklahoma City? Do they
think that Iraqis don't have families who will grieve and mourn the loss of
their loved ones? In this context, do people come to believe that the
killing of foreigners is somehow different than the killing of Americans?
>
> I recently read of an arrest in New York City where possession of a mere
pipe bomb was charged as possession of a "weapon of mass destruction." If a
two-pound pipe bomb is a "weapon of mass destruction," then what do people
think that a 2,000-pound steel-encased bomb is? I find it ironic, to say the
least, that one of the aircraft that could be used to drop such a bomb on
Iraq is dubbed "The Spirit of Oklahoma." This leads me to a final, and
unspoken, moral hypocrisy regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction.
When a U.S. plane or cruise missile is used to bring destruction to a
foreign people, this nation rewards the bombers with applause and praise.
What a convenient way to absolve these killers of any responsibility for the
destruction they leave in their wake. Unfortunately, the morality of killing
is not so superficial. The truth is, the use of a truck, a plane, or a
missile for the delivery of a weapon of mass destruction does not alter the
nature of the act its!
> elf. These are weapons of mass destruction - and the method of delivery
matters little to those on the receiving end of such weapons.
>
> Whether you wish to admit it or not, when you approve, morally, of the
bombing of foreign targets by the U.S. military, you are approving of acts
morally equivalent to the bombing in Oklahoma City. The only difference is
that this nation is not going to see any foreign casualties appear on the
cover of Newsweek magazine. It seems ironic and hypocritical that an act as
viciously condemned in Oklahoma City is now a "justified" response to a
problem in a foreign land. Then again, the history of United States policy
over the last century, when examined fully, tends to exemplify hypocrisy.
>
> When considering the used of weapons of mass destruction against Iraq as
a means to and end, it would be wise to reflect on the words of the late
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. His words are as true in the
context of Olmstead as they are when they stand alone: "Our government is
the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole
people by its example."
>
> Sincerely, Timothy J.
McVeigh (ESSAY ENDS)
>
> --
> Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
> Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
>
>
--
Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]