From: nobody@huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer)
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 18:31:54 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: [CONTROVERSIAL]: A Defense of Terrorism
Message-ID: <199706061010.DAA32035@fat.doobie.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> 
> Consider, for example, a Black child in the United States who dies of
> a trivial curable disease because of the lack of health care.

  The attempts of Hallam-Baker II Esquire Jr. Knight of the Realm,
etc., to separate the world into supporters of "good" child murderers
and supporters of "bad" child murderers, reflects the attitudes that
lead to those who feel disenfranchised by the government and society
to decide that they have little to lose by striking out at the system
in one way or another.
  Dimitri raises a deeply valid issue here which goes to the heart of
defining what separates a "bean counter" from a "child-murdering 
monster."

  We can't save everyone dying of an incurable disease and provide 
health care for everyone, except at great cost. We can't put in place
airline safety measures or monitor the activities of law enforcement 
agencies for free.
  The government officially puts the price of a human life at 2.5
million
dollars. When a safety problem is found with an aircraft, for example,
that is the figure used to calculate whether the problem will be fixed
or allowed to take X number of human lives. The same concept applies to
government and corporate decisions regarding worker safety (or death),
public safety (or death), health care (or death), and a multitude of
other issues.
  The same thing applies to warfare and self-defence, as well. Society,
government, corporations and individuals all "count the cost" of the
various options available to settle a conflict. A person who might kill
another to prevent them from stealing their family's life savings would
probably not kill another to prevent them from stealing their lunch box.
And a person who would kill another to prevent them from stealing their
family's life savings might not kill another to prevent them from 
stealing *your* life savings.

> Joe Stalin himself took part in several spectacular terrorist acts in
> his youth, which resulted in deaths of dozens of "innocent bystanders".

  Who is the murdering monster--Stalin, Reagan, or McVeigh? It depends
on
whether you ask Newt Gingrich, Saddam Hussein or Joe Oklahoma.
  Are the government and corporate bean-counters who decide not to fix
known safety problems murdering monsters? What if they placed the value
of a human life at *ten* dollars? A *million* dollars?
  Americans aren't outraged over the loss of life, they are merely self-
servingly objecting to the fact that they are being personally presented
with the bill that is coming due for their government's actions. Even
some of those objecting are merely arguing over the "cost" of the bill.
(i.e. - death count, age of victims)

  If McVeigh had whacked out 168 Iranians to free one American hostage,
he would be an American hero. If he had whacked out 168 Americans to
free the U.S. from a Stalinist takeover, he would be a hero.
  Well, he whacked out 168 Americans to free our minds from the belief
that we will bear no personal cost for the aggression and oppression
that the government perpetrates in our name, and to some he is a hero.


  Hallam-Baker would have us believe that anyone who does not roundly
condemn McVeigh is in favor of the death of children. Like Truman,
Churchill and Roosevelt were in favor of the death of children?
  Unless Hallam-Baker wants to propose that everyone who has ever
supported conflict in support of a cause is in favor of the death of
children, then he is just a horse's ass who uses smear tactics where
logic fails.
 
> What I'm driving at is: someone said earlier that Cypherpunks don't make
> bombs, Cypherpunks write code. Well, my response is, if you write code
> for anonymous electronic commerce that seriously challenges the gubmint,
> in a free market environment, then the gubmint will first try to regulate
> it out of existence, and if it fails, it will use whatever force is
> necessary, including jailing and shooting people, to fight for it survival.

  "I didn't put them in the ovens, I just wrote the code that releases
the gas. What kind of monster would bomb a Weapons Laboratory that has
a day-care center in it?"
  The question mainstream America is asking, is:
"What kind of monster would break *my* eggs to make an omlette?"

  What kind of monster would write code that allows someone to send 
email containing child pornography anonymously? What kind of monster 
would write code that can be used to hide drug transactions? What kind
of monster  would write code that can be used by terrorists who break 
*my* omlettes to avoid discovery?
  Hallam-Baker and his ilk want the government to serve them their 
omlette at the dinner table so that they can deny their knowledge of and
complicity in other people's eggs being broken in the kitchen. Then they
can climb on their high horse and complain loudly when the victims of
the government's fraud and abuse decide to break a few eggs themself.

  I'm not in favor of the death of children in Waco, Oklahoma City,
Dublin, Jerusalem, Dresden, or Hiroshima. For Hallam-Baker to suggest
that I and others on the list are is the height of slanderous hypocrisy.
  It is a reality of life that there is a cost associated with freedom
and with life itself. It is up to each of us to make our own decision
as to whether we will take part in determining who pays, and how much,
or whether we delegate those decisions to others and try to distance
ourself from them.

  We can applaud the L.A. police when they tell "white" lies on the 
witness stand about "little" things like not considering the husband of
a murder victim a suspect when they climb over his fence, but then we
will end up complaining when someone we think is a murderer remains
unconvicted because the jury can't determine where the lying stops and
the truth begins.
  We can justify an armed government assault on "cultists" who are in
possession of fewer guns than many mainstream Christians, but then we
will end up complaining when someone else who is "outside" the
mainstream decides that what is good for the gander is good for the
goose.

  The issue of Waco versus OKC is not one of "good" guys and "bad" guys.
It is a difference of opinion over the cost of freedom and the value of
human life. 168 people at 2.5 million/life comes to about one and three-
quarter billion dollars that we paid for the tragedy at Waco.
  Americans seem to be more than willing for citizens of other countries
to bear the cost of freedom when we decide to invade and attack them in
order to protect democracy, etc. Perhaps McVeigh should have bombed the
Iranians to protest Waco--then he might be an American hero...maybe even
the next President--a white Colin Powell.
  If Americans want to cry out in dismay over the "wrong" people being
held accountable for the tragedy in Waco, then they might want to think
about demanding that the "right" people be held accountable in the face
of future government atrocities.
  Perhaps the real anger over the OKC bombing is that the American
people
thought that we had managed to skip out on the bill for our government's
actions at Waco, only to be tracked down and made to pay at home.

TruthMonger