1998-12-22 - Re: I must admit. . .

Header Data

From: Jukka E Isosaari <jei@zor.hut.fi>
To: Reeza! <howree@cable.navy.mil>
Message Hash: c259a04f53091a9bd05260dbe98423645d8430a3c3718598064fd2f759bf87c1
Message ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.981222043216.20746B-100000@zor.hut.fi>
Reply To: <>
UTC Datetime: 1998-12-22 04:32:31 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 12:32:31 +0800

Raw message

From: Jukka E Isosaari <jei@zor.hut.fi>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 12:32:31 +0800
To: Reeza! <howree@cable.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: I must admit. . .
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.981222043216.20746B-100000@zor.hut.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Reeza! wrote:

> At 10:03 PM 12/17/98 +0200, Jukka E Isosaari wrote:
> --snip--
> >Everyone is touting how he [saddam hussein, (Reeza!)] is behind every
> >nasty thing that the Iraq does, so just kill or capture and imprison
> >him. Don't take it out on all the Iraqis. 
> Make a martyr of him, in other words?
> >Now, how's that for an alternative?
> Perfectly acceptable to me personally. Please show how it will result in
> proving that Iraq does not, and will not in the near or forseeable future
> possess weapons of mass destruction that may be utilized against
> neighbors, foreign or domestic. Or how it will result in turning the
> public opinion, iraqi and/or american, touted by the biased US press in
> such a fashion that it would result in a munificent display of openness,
> agreeablility, and welcoming to the UN inspectors by the iraqi hosts. Or
> show how Hussein is now trustworthy, and thereby qualified by the MIB
> office of the USG to possess said weapons.

It won't. But please show how bombing the shit out of all the Iraqis will
accomplish this either? I would imagine getting rid of the lunatic leader
and establishing a civilized democracy with human rights in place, would
result in a state that would not be as prone to be as aggressive or
inclined to use weapons of mass destruction. Or isn't that the ultimate

But you are right, I must admit, that not *all* democracies are
non-aggressive, with USA coming to mind as an example. It seems that
rotten people with no moral values at the top, result in aggressive
foreign policies, no matter what the nation.

The bombing will only result in creating more frustrated individuals with
personal vendettas against the US. (People with dead children/wives, etc.)

With your logic, the US is on a road to kill every non-american on this
planet, in order to ensure their own safety. 

Actually, this has been evident quite some time in the US foreign policy: 
The *only* lives that matter are the American ones. It is also very evident
in the US film industry (national propaganda/brainwashing machine). Just
how many war movies have you seen where the US special-forces squads
venture into the vietnam/arabs and kill hundreds or thousands of people in
order to save a few US prisoners? Try thinking that in reverse, an Arab
squad coming into the US, and killing hundreds of US citizens to save a few
arabs, for a change. Seeing a few movies like that would do some good to a
lot of americans in restoring their respect for universal human life. 

Anyway, the point I am trying to make in this, is that the americans don't
in general seem to put any value on human life, *unless* it is an american.
This is evident everywhere: in their film industry, their foreign politics,
and even Bill Gates' donation policies. It seems to be a fact ever more

Anyone else notice this?

> >The military is engaged
> >in creating a threat to justify their existence and continued 
> The powers of the military are being abused by CIVILIANS who cannot
> fathom the true purpose of the military, think the military doesn't earn
> its pay. I have something for YOU to earn, you ewe you.
> >economic well-being. Saddam is worth much, much more to them when
> >he is alive and well in Iraq.
> OH YEAH, OH YEAH, THAT is why we dropped leaflets advocating the iraqis
> do everything in their power to maintain their present, totalitarian

Did I hit a nerve or something?

Usually people resort to name-calling only when feeling badly inferior
or in lack of any real facts to represent in defence of their case,
and in general this justifies the strong doubt that the person in
question is in fact a juvenile.

I'm sorry, but I won't waste my time on blathering kids like you. 

(Please note: I've Cc:ed the root at your site, as you appear to be so
childish, and I wouldn't know what a child is doing with a .mil account,
so you must be using your parent's account or a hacked account,
both of which are in general very much against the rules..

Or, in the unlikely case that you are actually an adult, please consider
this as an exemplary sample of Mr Zeebra's skills in delivering verbal
attacks in defence of his country. Surely you recognize his superiors
language skills and the qualifications he has for the assignation to the
national ultra secret verbal cyber-warfare attack squad, designed to
destroy the egos and PCs of all those who have not bought in to the US
military propaganda.)

In any case, I realize this is the wrong list for this discussion. 
Please continue in private, like a good netbaby, if you feel like
more name-calling. I've already added you to my filters.

++ J

> >The fact, however, is that any loony Unabomber cooking some anthrax
> >in his cellar in the US, would be able to harm the US more than the
> >whole nation of Iraqis right now, or in the years to come. Welcome
> >to Echelon and big brother surveillance justification.
> OH YEAH, OH YEAH BABY, You are on a roll, tell it like it is, 
> <</sarcasm>
> Like the good doctor in nevada who appeared on national tv TWO WHOLE
> FUCKING DAYS <bold><underline>BEFORE</underline></bold> the feds
> ransacked his lab, only to have their entire "just cause" falter and be
> riddled with inexcusable and inexplicable faults, to ultimately be thrown
> out for lack of evidence? 
> If ANTHRAX recipes are so easily obtainable, if it is so easy to make, so
> easy to disseminate, and public knowledge to boot, POST IT HERE, POST IT
> HERE. 
> 24 hour time limit, IF IT IS EASY, You shouldn't have any trouble making
> the deadline now should you? And none of that "I don't want to give away
> inappropriate information" pussy shit. It is wholly relevant, not
> inappropriate, and will MAKE ME APOLOGIZE TO YOU AND THE LIST. 
> you make me want to vomit.
> shut the fuck up and go the fuck away.
> Don't try to do any good deeds for me, you Do Gooder Piece Of Shit.
> BTW, Fuck You.
> Reeza!
> DH Key available on request
> 	If you see a man approaching you with the obvious intention 
> 	of doing you good, you should run for your life.
> 				-stolen from a cypherpunk sig