From: alexlh@xs4all.nl (Alex Le Heux)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 17:45:51 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: "Show me an example of terrorists using the Internet or crypto"
In-Reply-To: <6489040e71db5edc2ab5e653cb709620@anon.efga.org>
Message-ID: <34336fad.32095813@news.xs4all.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2 Oct 1997 00:24:27 +0200, Anonymous <anon@anon.efga.org> wrote:


>Alex Le Heux wrote:
>>Maybe you haven't noticed, but seen on 2000 year scales, the entire
>>world is constantly in a state of war. Europe isn't special in that
>>regard.
>
>I guess the conclusion, then, is that gun control is bad for the
whole
>world, not just Europe.

Eh, no. The conclusion would be that gun control or no gun control
does not affect the amount of war in the world at all.

>>And even if I had my AR15 then, it wouldn't help me a lot against
>>guided missiles and mortar fire.
>
>It's harder to police a hostile population which is well armed.

True, but imho this will only result in more people getting killed.
Any invader would not beat about the bush in the US, they'll make very
clear that they'll have nothing to do with citicens defending their
own homes. They'll just blow up the home from a distance.

>>And anyway, "to defend yourself in a war" is not one of the usual
>>arguments against gun control.
>
>The popularity of an argument can be independent of its worth.
>
>"To defend yourself in general" is commonly used.  War, oppressive
>government, and political turbulence are the most likely situations
in
>which people need their weapons, even in the United States.

Bullshit. People in the US rarely use their weapons against oppressive
governments or political turbulence. Most guns that are used against
another person there are used to commit crime or to defend against
those armed criminals.

>>> You must be getting some good drugs over there to conjure up this
>>> fantasy land where everyone loves one another and would never
think
>>> of killing someone because it sure as hell doesn't exist in
Europe.
>>
>>Well, we're a lot closer to it over here than you guys are over
>>there.
>
>You mean like the former Yugoslavia?  Or do you mean like the parts
of
>Europe where people are not slaughtering each other at the moment?
>
>I have to confess that I am surprised at the level of resentment
among
>the members of various Europeans countries feel towards other
European
>countries.  For example, the Germans don't like the Dutch because
when
>they visit they are treated badly by, among others, the police.  The
>Dutch don't like the Germans because, well, they got to know them a
>little too well in the 1940s and they are nursing the grudge.
>
>With that sort of situation, anything can happen and it can happen
>quickly, even if things seem mellow right now.  And these little
>resentments and jealousies are felt between far more groups in Europe
>than just between the Dutchies and the Germans.

Excuse me? Have you ever even been in Europe? In the last 50 years I
mean? You are so full of shit here, it's incredible. I hereby invite
you to come over, and stay a while. I have a comfy couch.

Anyone in Europe can go anywhere else, and be treated reasonably to
very well. We in Europe have put the crap of WWII behind us a long
time ago. Something that you haven't managed to do apparently.

The Dutch are absolutely not 'nursing a grudge'. Come and visit.
You'll see.

>Let's also take a look at the Dutch performance during their
>occupation.  While there certainly were many courageous Dutch people
>who helped refugees (at great personal risk, to say the least), and
>there were many courageous Dutch people who were in the resistance,
>there were also many Dutch people who did not perform so well.  Not
>only were a large number of Jewish people turned in by Dutch
>informers, but there were even Dutch SS units.

You have a nerve. You, coming from a country where people are still
regularly killed in the name of racism, tell me this?!

>I basically think well of the Netherlands and its people, but it is
>important to recognize that certain unpleasant characteristics exist
>in a large portion of the population of even a nice country.  It is
>unlucky to pretend that these characteristics can never be expressed.

We absolutely not pretending that this can never be expressed. In
fact, it's being expressed every day. We have our neo-nazi political
parties too. It's just that we here have learned our lesson, and very
few people actually listen to them.

>Let's turn to the Western Hemisphere: El Salvador.  During much of
the
>1980s, the U.S. government supported groups of people in El Salvador
>who were sending out death squads to murder their suspected
opponents.
>The U.S. certainly acquiesced in this activity - of this there is no
>doubt.  But, it is not unlikely the U.S. was more directly involved.
>(Only fifteen years earlier the U.S. was doing the same thing in
>Vietnam.)
>
>What would have happened if the citizens of El Salvador were
>adequately armed?  One thing you wouldn't see is a death squad going
>into a neighborhood to kick down some innocent's door and murder him
>or his family.  At least, you wouldn't see it twice.

Sure you would. It just would be that more bloody. The fact that
someone is armed has never stopped anyone from attacking. You just
make sure that your shot is the first and hits.

>Likewise, when the communist guerrillas were forcing (maybe) the
>peasantry to support them, the peasants would have no need to
>cooperate unwillingly if they were well armed.
>
>People who are well armed are less likely to become pawns, victims,
or
>slaves.  That is desirable.

They are just more likely to become dead.

>Incidentally, the consistent support the U.S. government has shown
for
>murderous or even genocidal governments is of great concern to those
>of us who live in the U.S.  It is unlikely that these tactics won't
be
>used here were there a serious political struggle and a disarmed
>population.

- From over here it appears that the majority of Americans doesn't
really give a shit. Correct me if I'm wrong.

>An issue that might possibly blossom into such a political struggle
is
>mass surveillance.  While the mass media is, for the most part,
giving
>everything the government's spin, and while large numbers of
>Congressmen and other denizens of Washington, D.C. think it's a good
>idea, the bulk of the population is not happy about this at all. 
They
>can read the writing on the wall.  The potential for conflict between
>the political class, which has a long history of murder and even
>assassination, and the American people exists right now.

Yes, things are a bit of a shambles at the other side of the pond.
Maybe for you it's a good thing to be armed to the teeth. For us over
here, arming the population would only serve to fill the morgues.

Alex

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBNDNpTNuYAh4dUSo/EQK3bwCeKJv4AW0kOwjSRitLi7HDa7KEaW8AoN4F
OwK1wOG19pazc93T1twP1Evp
=FsmU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----