From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 13:05:39 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Assassination Politics 9!
Message-ID: <m0ttiy9-000909C@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 12:13 PM 3/3/96 -0500, John Young wrote:
>On Mar 03, 1996 10:57:14, 'nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)' wrote: 
> 
> 
>>Just because you two aren't interested, doesn't mean others aren't. 
>>Work is actually in progress in implementing such a system. 
> 
> 
>The Economist of March 2 has a cover story on state, church and private
>terrorism, the effectiveness and failures of each, the arguments and
>apologies, the savages and the victims, the lucrative concocting of
>imaginary enemies -- military, religious, political, personal. 
>  
>It's conclusions are ... well, have a read and dread how the Demon Trio of
>state, church and private super-righteous sub-humans will murder you and
>your loved ones next to fulfill their blind ambitions. 

Well, I'm not particularly interested in how the Establishment is going to 
demonize those who would seek its eventual downfall.  While I probably 
wouldn't have any argument against complaints about "state and church
terrorism," I really 
doubt whether the so-called "private terrorism" you mention above qualifies.

Most traditional "terrorism" (as least "traditional," by the standards of 
the last 20 years) is thought to involve relatively unfocussed attacks 
against people and locations, but in situations where attacks against 
selected government officials would be far more selective and effective.  
Naturally, those same officials wouldn't approve of replacing a scattershot 
technique with one that targets them more directly. 

Since I propose exactly that kind of replacement, I am presumably not the 
most ingratiating figure to these people.