From: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 14:58:35 +0800
To: hallam@vesuvius.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Kiddie porn on the Internet
In-Reply-To: <9609211734.AA15897@vesuvius.ai.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <199609260356.WAA00453@smoke.suba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

HAL wrote:
> [AP drivel deleted]
> Go talk to someone who is a member of an organisation like the PLO or
> Hammas and pretty near the top. If you think that they would be intimidated
> for a moment by AP you have another think comming.
> If it could the US would have assasinated Saddam by now. It can't because it
> is too difficult to find out where exactly a person will be. Assasination
> attempts against Castro similarly failed. 

     Some would say that 1) Saddam (as a problem) was _created_ by the US, 
and it would not be in the interest of certain people to have him die.
Along the same lines, Castro, while not exactly friendly (and who can blame 
him) to the US, is also not a threat, and never really has been. Killing 
him would serve no purpose.

     Killing some one (the physical act, not the emotional consequences) is
easy. Denyability is a little (only a little) tougher. 

> If you care to look at the history of Cambodia you will see that Lon Nol
> assumed the presidency despite the knowledge that there was practically no ch
> chance of defeating the Khumer Rouge and that he would almost certainly be dead
> in less than a week as a result. 

     There are always Captians who go down with the ship, Boys who stick 
their fingers in dykes, and Some fool leading the charge when the odds
are overwhelming. This is either the highest calling (to fight back against 
all odds, and refuse to give in) or pure stupidity (he who runs away lives
to fight another day). You pick. 

> 
> Both the assumption AP rests on are utterly false. It is neither possible
> to assasinate people at will nor will it intimidate. 

    If by "at will" you mean _any time_ _any where_, yeah. Short of building
your own nuclear device, yeah. If you mean there are people who can't be 
gotten to, then no. Everyman has his price, and his coin. 


    The second time AP is implicated in a murder, and is not stopped, then 
it will _start_ to intimidate. More likely it will be stopped. 

> In addition *ANYONE* who attempted to implement AP would be someone *I*
> would regard as a tyrant and therefore a legitimate target by the rules
> of AP. I would naturally consider it permissable to engage the support of 
> others in their suppression. Since we now live in the fantasy land of AP
> I can now wipe out anyone anywhere so I eliminate all AP leaders.

     There are no illegitimate targets. 

> I think that this type of talk is incredibly dangerous. There are plenty of
> people on the net who are psychos and if you spread AP drivel arround someone
> is going to act on it. Probably not Jim Bell, more likely a psychopath who
> lurks on the list but does not post. 

     Doubtful. It would take more than one talented person. It would take
an organization, and a permanent net connextion. This would be difficult for
a lone psychopath to carry out.

> If you call for people to be murdered - and let us not forget that this is
> what AP is about you bear the responsibility when someone acts on it.

     Bullshit. Is Einstein morally responsible for the Atomic Bomb? 

     Col. Colt for the murders that the guns he created accomplished? 

     Ronald McDonald & his PR firm for all of the obese people in this 
     country?

> I consider AP to be very close to calling for the assasination of the 
> President of the USA. That is a federal crime and there is a law that 
> requires the investigation of any such threats. I suggest that people
> think *very* carefully before engaging in this dangerous nonsense any
> further. 

     Driving 65 is very close to driving 66, which is against the law.
I suggest that people think very carefully before driving at 65 miles 
per hour. 

> PS it is not censorship to stop people from advocating murder.

     Yes, it is. Especially when other people do it all the time, and don't
get punished. Clinton just "murdered" a bunch of people in Iraq. He talked
about it, then he did it. He calls it "War". So do I. I am involved in a 
war for _my_ rights. I will probably loose, but I must do what I determine
is right. Assinating the president would not further my goals. At no time 
in the foreseeable future would killing the president bring me any closer to
my goals. This being so, killing the president would be a stupid idea.

     When I joined the Marine Corps, I took an oath to protect this country,
the constitution, and the government against all enemies foreign and 
domestic. To me, the order I wrote them is the order of presidence. The
government is attacking the constitution regularly. I do what I can to stop 
that. If that means taking up arms as either a part of organized revolt, or
a long lunatic, so be it. 

    

Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMkn+1/ee0/pvOCipAQE6vQP9E3Ra8UqMYZ3TQqyWxipJa5PDdH25ZDEv
NKFPw4LDAoivF9C69criJ65lIDqNTWTOSJXY//yjyG/MkNRuS9UBzPr12PbzVafV
TTY2LPXfuZoUt6AHlA6yAJpZwa3mmifRPTUQbKtc/sMIQJ3ugrZirw6/Wbzra3E+
KEclgyuiiC0=
=zt4Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----