From: Sean Roach <roach_s@alph.swosu.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 13:01:58 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: RE: Fighting the cybercensor
Message-ID: <199701282026.MAA23636@cygnus.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 08:00 PM 1/27/97 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
>blanc <blancw@cnw.com> writes:
...
>> 2) Why do you suppose the Iraqis haven't already thought of doing this
>> themselves?
>
>Perhaps because they love Saddam, who really is a great guy. Stop listening
>to what U.S.gubmint and media tell you and use your brain.  What did
>Saddam do to _you?
Those of us in the US have the luxery of secret ballots, Iraq is not.  What
was reported to me (by the media) was that those who decided to vote against
Hussein, in a time when food was scarce, decided to vote against eating.  It
was not made illegal to vote him out, merely a catch 22, unless enough
people agreed openly, the vocal minority would suffer.  What we should have
been doing as the troops pulled out and a no fly zone was being established
was dropping bombs full of bread on the populus.  Then they could have voted
any which way they chose.

...
>> Destructive people often ascend to positions of power not simply because
>> they are ruthless, but because they have 1) many sycophantic followers and
>> 2) many ignorant, vulnerable people unable to prevent it.  You might be
>> able to kill off  one Saddam, but potentially many others would be waiting
>> in the wings to take his place.   The situation surrounding the existence
>> of someone like Saddam is part of the contributing factors which keeps him
>> there, not simply that one man himself.  It was the same with Hitler and
>> with so many others  -  they don't just have an excess of  "power"
>> concentrated within themselves which puts them in positions of control over
>> others  - there will have been many people who will have helped put them
>> there, expecting to derive benefits from it.
>
>I don't like your Saddam example, having much admiration for the man, but
>again this goes back to the perceived likelihood of future assassination.
>If Saddam is killed in an unlikely event, he will be succeeded by someone
>who does not fear assassination. If all potential successors are convinced
>that the rubout can be repeated, they won't go for the job. Remember, the
>purpose of "terrorism" is not just to kill someone, but to "terrorize".
>
>> And what will be done about all those people who made this "power"
>> possible?  You don't just kill the one man and be done with it - you have
>> to also "kill" the conditions which maintained him.
>
>You rub out enough key people and terrorize their potential successors
>into not wanting to take over their jobs, and the system collapses.
...

I don't remember where I heard this, and in all likelyhood, I heard it here.
This is certainly not a direct quote, ant would the origional poster please
speak up.

There came a time, in some ancient civilization when the king committed
suicide by eating poisoned food.
In the remaining week, most of the household, apparently in honor of the
deceased king, jumped on kitchen knives and butcher knives, killing themselves.
The brother of the king would not come out of hiding because some unknown
person was terrorizing him with a meat cleaver.
After a year, it was apparent that no one in the line of succession still
survived, all killing themselves with kitchen utensils.  It was rumored that
the post was cursed.  It was then that the royal galley slave bravely
stepped foreward to rule the kingdom until one of the origional line should
return.
The decendants of the galley slave have ruled to this day.

Like I said, I don't know where this came from, but I would like to see it
again, if it came from here.