From: Rich Burroughs <richieb@teleport.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 10:25:51 +0800
To: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Subject: Re: [NOISE] Re: Nazis on the Net
In-Reply-To: <01I3VX95Q4IO8Y4ZTJ@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.92.960423140913.5193B-100000@kelly.teleport.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:
[snip]
> 	However, one reference in this report to Weaver's calling for a meeting
> to oppose the "Zionist Occupation Government" does provide an argument for
> calling him a racist of the anti-Semitic variety. On the other hand, the only
> person claiming this is the FBI's informant; the truth of his statements has
> been called into doubt.

I'm sure it has been. That doesn't mean his report is untrue.  Is the
standard of proof the same for both of these issues?  We need proof to
establish that Weaver is a racist, but not to establish that the FBI
informant is lying?

> 	So far as I can tell, it's uncertain.

Separatist/supremacist...  I don't see much difference between them, and I
believe the former is largely just a cover story for the latter.  Weaver
is no hero, IMHO, though I believe the govt. fucked up big at Ruby Ridge.

Rich
______________________________________________________________________
Rich Burroughs  richieb@teleport.com  http://www.teleport.com/~richieb
See my Blue Ribbon Page at http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/blueribbon
New EF zine "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause