🚀 go-pugleaf

Thus Spake pcguru19@mail.idt.net (Doug Martin):

%Our strategy in the Vietnam war was at fault, not the tet offensive.

I'd quibble-I'd say the lack therof.

%We would send boys to die for control of a village, then fly them out
%of there after victory was attained.  Logistically, fighting a war

You're missing the point-Vietnam was an area, not linear war.  Taking a villiage
didn't mean anything.  The only thing that mattered under Westmoreland's
strategy was killing NLF and PAVN troops.

%halfway across the globe was a nightmare and to add insult to injury,
%we were using what resources were available to ship troops budwieser
%and steaks instead of rations and ammo.  

Oh please.  No matter what your feelings on the war, anyone has to admit the
logistical effort was incredible.  The troops were sustained.

%Even is we had used a sound offensive strategy, had an Army en force
%there and taken all of Vietnam, we still wouldn't have won.  You can
%never, ever, ever conquer a people with a strong resolve.  The Romans

Bullshit.  How many people can recite the Algebensian Creed?  And when the
Muslims of Central Asia revolted against Ghengis Khan, he turned their entire
country into a howling desert and killed millions.  You can defeat anyone if you
put your mind to it.  Political feasability of doing so is another issue.

%learnt that in England and Ireland.  The British learnt that in
%America.  America learnt that in Vietnam. The Soviets learnt that in
%Afghanistan.  To defeat the enemy in that situation, all that's
%required is that you not loose the war.  You can loose every battle
%(Washington won very few, and is viewed as a conqueror) and if you can
%still offer resistance over a long enough time, you'll win. 

Of course, that's assuming the enemy doesn't start killing your population
faster than you can recruit guerillas.  For example, the Germans in Yugoslavia.
Granted, Tito controlled large areas of the population, but 10% of Yugoslavia's
pre-war population was killed.  Not casualties, but dead.  You can't win a
guerilla war against a determined enemy unless you have massive outside support,
and the enemy is distracted either by political turmoil, or other wars.


John M. Atkinson
jatkinso@gmu.edu
"A nation which despises its soldiers will all too soon 
have a despicable army
                 --Jerry Pournelle

Thus Spake klaatu <klaatu@clark.net>:


%Evidently you have me confused with McLaren in Texas. and I do
%appreciate your respect for the Constitution. Oddly enough, I find that
%most often these days the Military seems to be about the only people who
%_do_ respect the Constitution. The civilians I usually encounter
%(including many who should know very much better) seem to be largely, -
%indeed abysmally - ignorant of other's rights to differ.
%
%But tell me this since you seem so determined to hunt me down. 
%
%If I and like-minded non-felonious citizens take to arms to defend
%common ground (say in the case of a riot of the Rodney King Riots in LA
%a few years back), repelling boarders, etc _until legitimate authority
%can take control and provide for the common defence_ - will you hunt
%_us_ down? For having _presumed_ to defend ourselves?

If you are reffering to something like the Korean shop owners who sat on their
roofs with shotguns shooting at looters who entered their property, go for it.  

%I suspect that _you_ mightn't. But as you say above, the population
%certainly does seem to be behind the idea of hunting down anyone who is
%willing to take care of themselves instead of waiting for the cops that
%never come in time to save anything. (doubtless the media's increasing
%linkage between the phrases "anti-government" and "militia" has
%something to do with that sad popular loathing for local militia. 
%[ sadly many militia "spokesmen" seem to make the same linkage! ]) 

My impression of the so-called "militia" groups is formed by their public
statements.  These are the same people spewing nonsense about black helicoptors,
a UN takeover of the US, and in many cases, racial ideologys.  It's a little
disturbing to think of these people wandering around with weapons.
 
%> Obviously not enough did.  300 Guardsmen (and about the same number of VADF
%> types) had to be called up.  My point isn't about volunteerism and so forth,
%> which I'm in favor of, but that the Guard still fulfills traditional militia
%> roles in support of local authorities.
%
%No problem with that and thank you very much. It's the same thing, I
%guess, as me admiring a policeman if he's out nabbing a robber, while
%being a tad annoyed when I see them writing parking tickets.
%
%Um, re: not enough people brought out their 4-wheelers - actually, I
%suspect that this might have been more due to the complete
%impreparedness of the local highway departments regarding timely
%clearance of the highways in such outrageous (for hereabouts) weather.

It did set a number of records, as I understand.  :)

%> Just be very, very careful with whatever you're planning on detonating it
with.
%> Ammonium Nitrate is fairly insensitive, but it takes another explosive to set
it
%> off.
%
%I'd love to tell you which of about five ways I could set it off, but
%I'll refrain since I don't need to get lumped into the category of
%people who post bomb-making recipes in UseNews. Besides I wouldn't want
%to give anyone any ideas.

It's just that the sort of people I knew personally who were the type to
actually make bombs of this kind were generally the last people I wanted to be
around if they were holding blasting caps. . . 


John M. Atkinson
jatkinso@gmu.edu
"A nation which despises its soldiers will all too soon 
have a despicable army
                 --Jerry Pournelle

Thus Spake klaatu <klaatu@clark.net>:


%Thank GOD someone had the nerve to stand up and say that. I for one am
%sick and tired of people bending over backwards to tell American
%Citizens that they had better cower before the might of the US Military
%like the Russians under the KGB. I only wish I thought for a minute that
%most of the military remembered they are intended to keep the borders
%secure or carry out the national will _ABROAD_.

I seem to recall there being something of that nature occouring in LA a few
years back.  National Guardsmen.  As I recall, once they started setting up the
.50 cal HMGs, things got quiet really fast.
 
%Absolutely and with no arguments whatsoever. In fact if there is a
%single reason to frag your lieutenent stateside, that is it - him giving
%an order to execute Americans, or any order that is clearly prefatory to
%such an action. Leave that sort of thing up to the BATF.

Depends on circumstances.

%It is essential that the public retain the means to at least convey
%their displeasure at the notion of the military being turned against
%them. While they might get the shit stomped out of them for expressing
%their displeasure, still if you only have a pop-gun or molotov-cocktail
%against artillery, it's better than only having harsh language as a
%resort. Cause a "good german" soldier has got his ears all full of that
%pep-talk, and he can't hear your harsh language.

Assuming things got so bad as to necessitate artillery (which would only be the
case in an armed, open insurrection in the style of Robert E. Lee and the CSA)
your molotov-waving individual is not going to make much of a difference.
 

John M. Atkinson
jatkinso@gmu.edu
"A nation which despises its soldiers will all too soon 
have a despicable army
                 --Jerry Pournelle

Thus Spake klaatu <klaatu@clark.net>:


%The modern concept, perhaps, but I was more alluding to the general
%equvalient of "militia"="any and all males of arms-bearing age". In
%Roman times (the Republic, anyways), for instance, I do believe that
%every male not a slave was required to own a sword and a shield, with
%the difference between a Citizen and a Soldier being that a Soldier was
%provided armor and a cloak, usually at state expense, and was of course
%also provided training. 

Depends on when in the Republic you are talking about.  Pre-Marius, it was
roughly simmillar. 

%Then again, in the Republic, though conscription was not universal,
%there seems to have been nearly universal service, and so most males of
%arms-bearing age probably had served in the army and might have been
%considered as a reserve as much as a militia.

Considering that during some of the Punic Wars Rome had 10% of it's free
population under arms at any one time, pretty much any and all males who were
fit and of military age were in at one time or the other.

%I'd argue that the tradition of the Reserve or the National Guard, where
%arms are stored centrally and released only on the say-so of a
%commander-in-chief would be the tradition originating in the later
%Empire (in the decadent phases) or in feudal times. I note that in a
%book I was reading, _Fall of Rome: The Military Explanation_ it was
%remarked that in particular the Goths who entered the Empire were
%accorded a special status whereby they were responsible to their own
%kings and were to obey their own laws, and were permitted to carry arms,
%and so forth, while the citizens amongst whom they co-existed were
%disarmed, and prohibited from travel, being essentially reduced to serfs
%and vassals of the land, dependent upon soldiers for their protection.

Exactally my point-the post-Empire barbarians.  Under thier tradition, only
fully free men carried arms, and all free men carried arms.

%war, the complete disarmament of the citizenry disabled them from aiding
%the Army, and the Goths had a much easier time of it than they might
%have had otherwise.

Had the Italians been armed, they would have been wasted by the Goths.  Peasants
don't challenge men who have been members of a warrior class their entire lives,
and live.


John M. Atkinson
jatkinso@gmu.edu
"A nation which despises its soldiers will all too soon 
have a despicable army
                 --Jerry Pournelle

Thus Spake klaatu <klaatu@clark.net>:


%> First you have to demonstrate that the Federal Government is violating the
%> Constitution.
%
%Ruby Ridge. Waco.

Something a little more obviously a long-term policy.  Any one who thinks taking
down a handful of fanatics is just cause for revolt has mental problems.

%>  Second you have to demonstrate that you have a prayer of winning.
%
%So let's see, you are baldly stating "citizen, you must cower and kiss
%ass because I have a bigger gun than you do?"

Civil war is the worst of all evils (if you doubt that, find your nearest Roman
history buff, and ask about the Year of Four Emperors).  For me personally to go
along, I have to be sure there is a reasonable chance of achieving more than
simply violence with no results, other than a lot of dead bodies.


John M. Atkinson
jatkinso@gmu.edu
"A nation which despises its soldiers will all too soon 
have a despicable army
                 --Jerry Pournelle

 In <33686413.7132BB96@clark.net> klaatu <klaatu@clark.net> writes: 

> Michael T Shinn wrote:
>> 
>> John M Atkinson (jatkinso@ANTISPAMgmu.edu) wrote:
>> : If you want to argue that accepting Federal money makes a
>> : part-time force into a standing army, be my guest.
>> 
>> We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.  For
>> me at least, the one who signs the checks is the boss.  And a
>> Federally funded standing is not my definition of a militia.
>> Thats my definition of an army.
>> 
>> : % Aha - so its an army now?  Sure there not in the same militia?
>> : % (Forget it, you made my point)
>> 
>> : Negative.   It is a Reserve of the United States Army _and_ a
>> : category of Militia.  That's what dual role is.
>> 
>> The Guard is not the Reserve.  Its a standing army, be it a
>> federal army or a state army - but its still an army.
>
> Sorry, but the Guard is not full-time. That makes it a Reserve,
> and not a full-time Army.

   In that case, the next time they call you up to report to
 muster, just tell 'em "Hey; I'm not 'Full-Time' and it's not
 YOUR time!"
   You'll just LOVE Fort Leavenworth. <g> ;-)

> Actually, one of the functions of any militia would be the
> organizational aspects, even though for the unorganized militia,
> those organizational aspects are pretty much limited by "militia
> philosophy" to a particular county or neighborhood. The National
> Guard was and is the Organized Militia of a State. I am somewhat
> worried by the fact that it (along with the Coast Guard) is the
> primary source for rapid-mobilization personnel in times of war;
> I'd feel better if the National Guard/Coast Guard was the primary
> source only for in-country mobilization needs and not the first to
> be shipped out. _That_ aspect of the increasing Federalization of
> the NG/CG has me very worried indeed.

   If it has the word "National" in its name, it's Federal; just
 "organized" within the individual State (remember "Perpich?").
   "National" can't be "the militia" of the 2nd Amnd., IMHO.

 [Snip]

> -- 
> Be kind to your       | When the going gets weird the weird turn pro.
> neighbors even though | http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/
> they be transgenic    | Now. chock full of uninteresting links.
> chimerae.             |-- Genesis 19:1-13 - Hebrews 13:2 -- 
> ------ � copr 1997 TJH Internet SP all rights reserved  ------------
> Usually I work within the system when it's not trying to get me
> killed.

 --John Johnson

 "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
                       --George Santayana, American Philosopher

 "The further backward you look, the further forward you can see."
                       -- Winston Churchill

 "It would...be strange to find in the midst of a catalog of the
 rights of individuals a provision securing to the states the
 right to maintain a designated 'Militia' -- and to find that
 purely institutional guarantee accorded a position of great
 prominence immediately following freedom of religion and freedom
 of speech." (Italics in original)
                       --Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
                         on the Second Amendment:
                         (A Matter of Interpretation: Federal
                         Courts and the Law, Princeton
                         University Press, 1997, 159 pages.)

-- 

 From the computer of:
 John_Johnson
 TXJohn47@ix.netcom.com

 The opinions expressed above represent those of the writer (me)
 and not necessarily those of his employer (also me).

 By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer 
 meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C),
 it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment. 
 By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is 
 punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500,          
 whichever is greater, for each violation. All incoming unsolicited 
 commercial traffic will therefore be billed at a rate of $500 per msg 
 to compensate for loss of service.

John M Atkinson (jatkinso@ANTISPAMgmu.edu) wrote:
: Not in a long time-but you practice the worst-case scenarios, yes?  And
: something odd was going on in California a few years back.  I just hope the
: Commonwealth remains a little more civilized.  I mean, last time the VA Guard
: went out to play CD games was in 1989, when the fraternities got out of hand at
: Virginia Beach.  And then it was more or less in support.    

Yep.  We are truly one of a kind, the US.  (OR very lucky right now.)

: %I would think that an armed revolt and successful overthrow of any
: %government is all the proof you need.  But feel free to hold all the tests
: %you think necessary.

: Of course, I was reffering to the decision I would have to make while the revolt
: was in progress.  Very few revolutions happen overnight-especially in a country
: the size of the US.

Thats sounds plausible.  I wonder what History has taught though.  (I
suspect that you're right - a country this big is awful hard to sneak up
on in  day...)

M. Shinn

rtal.gmu.edu> <3367fa19.50896672@news.gmu.edu>
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
Distribution: 

John M Atkinson (jatkinso@ANTISPAMgmu.edu) wrote:
: %Exactly, I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with.  Perhaps you think you
: %need an army to do this - I'm arguing that this could be accomplished thru
: %unconventional forces (Special Ops, Partisians, what have you)

: OK, I'll make it really simple.  Name an instance where Partisans accomplished
: the decisive blow, and I'll concede the point.

Afghanistan?  (thats all they were)

M. Shinn

: > Not at all, but whos to say the armed rebellion wouldn't be against a
: > tyrannical federal government?  Its not like history isn't full of such
: > things happening.  But if you recall your CD training you don't have
: > police powers - you defer to the LOCAL authorities.  Only in extreme cases
: > of martial law do you have the latitude to not defer, and even then you
: > are constatly operating under the constraint of: These are AMERICAN
: > CITIZENS NOT THE ENEMY.

: Thank GOD someone had the nerve to stand up and say that. I for one am
: sick and tired of people bending over backwards to tell American
: Citizens that they had better cower before the might of the US Military
: like the Russians under the KGB. I only wish I thought for a minute that
: most of the military remembered they are intended to keep the borders
: secure or carry out the national will _ABROAD_.

Its sometimes a hard lesson to teach a soldier.  Soldiers are
indoctrinated to focus on Enemies, theres a clear psychological advatage
in demonizing your foe, it makes it trivial to kill them - they're not
people in essence - when we as Soldiers are asked to conduct CD training,
its hard to supress that indoctrination, without recognizing that fault in
our approach.  Its every leaders responsibility to ensure that all his men
(and in some case women) undewrstand that these "rioters" are NOT the
enemny.  They're the very people we exist to protect.

Hell, if its a local Guard unit you might even KNOW some of the people.

The worst thing a unit can ever do is become so engrossed in dispelling a
riot, and so riled up over it that they lose control and start seeing the
rioters as enemies - and then they stop being people.


: > 
: > I have no doubts where the US Military will take sides, if the Oath we all
: > took is any indicator, we should be standing with the constitution FIRST.

: Absolutely and with no arguments whatsoever. In fact if there is a
: single reason to frag your lieutenent stateside, that is it - him giving
: an order to execute Americans, or any order that is clearly prefatory to
: such an action. Leave that sort of thing up to the BATF.

Well, the nice thing about the UCMJ is that it requires a soldier to be
responsible for ALL OF HIS ACTIONS.  IF you follow and illegal order, you
have no excuse.  In practice though, its a tough call for a young solider,
if you're wrong and you said No - well its off to jail for you too, for
insuboridination.  Its not perfect, but it beats the alternative I suppose
(nothing at all perhaps)B

: > So if that armed insurrection were to overthrow a government which was
: > trashing the constitution, I hope it would be lead by the defenders of
: > that piece of paper.

: Sorry, I think that the military may be sufficiently restructured that
: most soldiers would, like "good germans" simply follow orders if given
: the appropriate pep-talk first.

I dunno about this one.  MY unit was preety Gung Ho about not playing by
the rules if the Feds went 86.  In fact, I don't think I ever heard such
Anti-Clinton anywhere else but in my last Grunt Unit.  People used to
discuss what would happen if the Federal Government lost its marbles and
decided to play God.

Neverthless, theres no way to tell unless it happens, and historically the
Military in other contries has sometimes been the very vessel to start a
tyrannical takeover and put itself into the position of High Lord.

: It is essential that the public retain the means to at least convey
: their displeasure at the notion of the military being turned against
: them. While they might get the shit stomped out of them for expressing
: their displeasure, still if you only have a pop-gun or molotov-cocktail
: against artillery, it's better than only having harsh language as a
: resort. Cause a "good german" soldier has got his ears all full of that
: pep-talk, and he can't hear your harsh language.

Given the small size and wide deployement of the US Military, the somewhat
professional nature of its members, and the large body of Veterans that
have left the services (Present company included) - I suspect that the US
Military would have a tough go of it if they did try to "take over
America".  Granted, they do have all the big guns, as it were, but you'd
be suprised by what a simple "Grunt" can do to a Tank if you know what
you're doing.

Besides, war is more than Firepower.

John M Atkinson (jatkinso@ANTISPAMgmu.edu) wrote:
: Thus Spake pcguru19@mail.idt.net (Doug Martin):

: %Our strategy in the Vietnam war was at fault, not the tet offensive.

: I'd quibble-I'd say the lack therof.

Indeed.  I'd say our strategy was not have one.

: %We would send boys to die for control of a village, then fly them out
: %of there after victory was attained.  Logistically, fighting a war

: You're missing the point-Vietnam was an area, not linear war.  Taking a villiage
: didn't mean anything.  The only thing that mattered under Westmoreland's
: strategy was killing NLF and PAVN troops.

Breaks there hearts and you make them mine.  :-)

: Of course, that's assuming the enemy doesn't start killing your population
: faster than you can recruit guerillas.  For example, the Germans in Yugoslavia.
: Granted, Tito controlled large areas of the population, but 10% of Yugoslavia's
: pre-war population was killed.  Not casualties, but dead.  You can't win a
: guerilla war against a determined enemy unless you have massive outside support,
: and the enemy is distracted either by political turmoil, or other wars.

I still say Ghandi refute this contention, but in most cases, you're right
its very difficult to win a war without somekind of logistical support.  

John M Atkinson (jatkinso@ANTISPAMgmu.edu) wrote:
: My impression of the so-called "militia" groups is formed by their public
: statements.  These are the same people spewing nonsense about black helicoptors,
: a UN takeover of the US, and in many cases, racial ideologys.  It's a little
: disturbing to think of these people wandering around with weapons.

Its very possible that you've based your opinions of ALL militia groups on
a limited subset of the whole, a Loud and vocal minority, if you will -
and that be relying solely on anecdotal evidence you're reaching an
illogical and erronous conculsion.  I admit, that loud and vocal minority
in many cases does indeed trouble me, particularly their credulous and
specious wild ramblings about aNew World ORder - nevertheless, I refuse to
allow myself to conclude that all Militias are as such purely on such
unreliable and Anecdotal evidence.

: %I'd love to tell you which of about five ways I could set it off, but
: %I'll refrain since I don't need to get lumped into the category of
: %people who post bomb-making recipes in UseNews. Besides I wouldn't want
: %to give anyone any ideas.

: It's just that the sort of people I knew personally who were the type to
: actually make bombs of this kind were generally the last people I wanted to be
: around if they were holding blasting caps. . . 

Odd, the people I learned it from were very well trained EOD and SF folks.
Precisely the first people I would trust with the blasting caps AND with
the detotator.  Maybe you need to widen your circle of friends. *grin*

M. Shinn
Infantry

John M Atkinson (jatkinso@ANTISPAMgmu.edu) wrote:
: %Ruby Ridge. Waco.

: Something a little more obviously a long-term policy.  Any one who thinks taking
: down a handful of fanatics is just cause for revolt has mental problems.

Thats awfully myopic of you.  Regardless of my or your particulat fellings
out these individuals personal religous or governmental opinions is no
cause for hunting them down, demonizing them, surrounding them with tanks,
and shooting and burning their children alive.

I agree that these groups held some peculiar, and in Koreshs case
ridiculous, notions - but thats no reason to start seeing them as "enemies
of the State".   Christ, we treat Serial Murders better in this country,
but if you hole in a building and have some rather odd opinions suddenly
that demonizes and makes it OK to treat you like an Animal?

The last time I checked, everyone EVERYONE in the country was still
considered innocent until proven guilty.  I have no love lost for any
cult, but I will never forgive the Federal Government for parking tanks
around a Cult compund and driving the occupants right into their own
ideology which in the end gave them exactly the scenario their Insane
leader needed to coax them all into dying.

Cult members deserve our sympathy - they've been conned by lying Scum bags
that prey on human weaknessed, or Paranoid delusionalists that have the
power to convince people likewise - killing them off does nothing but
punish people for the very same falings in rationalism and judgment we ALL
possess.  Afterall, all they ever did was believe in something that
wasn't and couldn't see past their desire for it to be true - something
everyone has been guilty of sometime or another in their lives.  


M. Shinn

Thus Spake mshinn@osf1.gmu.edu (Michael T Shinn):

%Its sometimes a hard lesson to teach a soldier.  Soldiers are
%indoctrinated to focus on Enemies, theres a clear psychological advatage
%in demonizing your foe, it makes it trivial to kill them - they're not
%people in essence - when we as Soldiers are asked to conduct CD training,
%its hard to supress that indoctrination, without recognizing that fault in
%our approach.  Its every leaders responsibility to ensure that all his men
%(and in some case women) undewrstand that these "rioters" are NOT the
%enemny.  They're the very people we exist to protect.

That was what half the time is spent on on the CD weekend.  Minimum force, over
and over.  Although there were a lot of National Guard 3, Kent State 0 jokes.

%I dunno about this one.  MY unit was preety Gung Ho about not playing by
%the rules if the Feds went 86.  In fact, I don't think I ever heard such
%Anti-Clinton anywhere else but in my last Grunt Unit.  People used to
%discuss what would happen if the Federal Government lost its marbles and
%decided to play God.

It's pretty rare to find a soldier who will (in his off time-officially it's a
different story) admit to liking Clinton.

%be suprised by what a simple "Grunt" can do to a Tank if you know what
%you're doing.

Satchel charge in the turret ring, HUA!

John M. Atkinson
jatkinso@gmu.edu
"A nation which despises its soldiers will all too soon 
have a despicable army
                 --Jerry Pournelle

Thus Spake mshinn@osf1.gmu.edu (Michael T Shinn):

%Its very possible that you've based your opinions of ALL militia groups on
%a limited subset of the whole, a Loud and vocal minority, if you will -
%and that be relying solely on anecdotal evidence you're reaching an
%illogical and erronous conculsion.  I admit, that loud and vocal minority
%in many cases does indeed trouble me, particularly their credulous and
%specious wild ramblings about aNew World ORder - nevertheless, I refuse to
%allow myself to conclude that all Militias are as such purely on such
%unreliable and Anecdotal evidence.

Some of the posts on this thread are a little disturbing.  I mean, the idea that
the Constitution applies to everyone, even liberals, socialists, and athiests
would be a rather confusing to at least one person who's posted.  

%: It's just that the sort of people I knew personally who were the type to
%: actually make bombs of this kind were generally the last people I wanted to
be
%: around if they were holding blasting caps. . . 
%
%Odd, the people I learned it from were very well trained EOD and SF folks.
%Precisely the first people I would trust with the blasting caps AND with
%the detotator.  Maybe you need to widen your circle of friends. *grin*

Depends-the military types are generally OK, (although I'd like to know what the
hell happened to Cpl. Warren's finger) but civillians who make this stuff for
kicks sometimes scare me.

John M. Atkinson
jatkinso@gmu.edu
"A nation which despises its soldiers will all too soon 
have a despicable army
                 --Jerry Pournelle

Thus Spake mshinn@osf1.gmu.edu (Michael T Shinn):

%John M Atkinson (jatkinso@ANTISPAMgmu.edu) wrote:
%: %Ruby Ridge. Waco.
%
%: Something a little more obviously a long-term policy.  Any one who thinks
taking
%: down a handful of fanatics is just cause for revolt has mental problems.
%
%Thats awfully myopic of you.  Regardless of my or your particulat fellings
%out these individuals personal religous or governmental opinions is no
%cause for hunting them down, demonizing them, surrounding them with tanks,
%and shooting and burning their children alive.

The fire started inside the compound.  And there were no 'tanks' present.  I
shouldn't have to explain the definition of tank to an infantry type.

%I agree that these groups held some peculiar, and in Koreshs case
%ridiculous, notions - but thats no reason to start seeing them as "enemies
%of the State".   Christ, we treat Serial Murders better in this country,
%but if you hole in a building and have some rather odd opinions suddenly
%that demonizes and makes it OK to treat you like an Animal?

I didn't say it was the ideal way of handling a situation.  Just that it comes
no where even remotely close to my criteria for justification for armed revolt.



John M. Atkinson
jatkinso@gmu.edu
"A nation which despises its soldiers will all too soon 
have a despicable army
                 --Jerry Pournelle

On Thu, 1 May 1997, John M Atkinson wrote:

> 
> %I agree that these groups held some peculiar, and in Koreshs case
> %ridiculous, notions - but thats no reason to start seeing them as "enemies
> %of the State".   Christ, we treat Serial Murders better in this country,
> %but if you hole in a building and have some rather odd opinions suddenly
> %that demonizes and makes it OK to treat you like an Animal?
> 

	Pardon,  but could you please give me some examples of Serial
Killers who have been well-treated in recent history? The cartoon
aspect of this thread has gotten to be a bit much, and I also
wonder how close to the topic of local events at gmu we are
gunning here...


					-Mark O'Connor

------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Colorless green ideas                  'When a fool laughs,
   sleep furiously.'                    it is like thorns crackling
   -Noam Chomsky                        in a fire.  It doesn't    
                                        mean a thing.'
                                        - Ecclesiastes 7:6

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thus Spake TXJohn47@ix.netcom.com(John_Johnson):


%> Sorry, but the Guard is not full-time. That makes it a Reserve,
%> and not a full-time Army.
%
%   In that case, the next time they call you up to report to
% muster, just tell 'em "Hey; I'm not 'Full-Time' and it's not
% YOUR time!"
%   You'll just LOVE Fort Leavenworth. <g> ;-)

My happy ass does one weekend a month.  Plus two weeks in the summer.  Plus
whenever my unit gets mobilized for whatever reason.  39 days a year, plus a
coupla MUTA-5s.  That's not even remotely in the neighborhood of being close to
full time.



John M. Atkinson
jatkinso@gmu.edu
"A nation which despises its soldiers will all too soon 
have a despicable army
                 --Jerry Pournelle

On Thu, 1 May 1997, anonymous wrote:
> I wonder what the families of the cops recently gunned down in DC with
> weaponry made easily available by years of NRA lobbying...

Oh good, now all honest Americans who have guns want to shoot cops.

The copkillers were criminals which your LIBERAL judges let roam the
streets.

You are a LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL. 

Please grow up some more. It is obvious that you have no clue about life
and really have no opinons of your own just those of the LIBERAL education
system.


imho

In article <3378b2d5.93862507@snews.zippo.com>, cmort@nwohio.com (Chris
Morton) wrote:

>On Thu, 01 May 1997 14:07:22 -0400, csmith@gmu.edu (Christian Smith)
>wrote:
>
>
>>This is pretty funny, sort of self-negating argument.  You can almost hear
>>the poster foaming at the mouth as he writes this and chants "liberal
>>liberal liberal, bie filthy liberal, I'll get you, you little commie pig
>>(and you little dog Tito, too)"
>
>"Tito"?  Would that be Jackson or Puente?

No, that would be Marshal.

>Ask suuty@hotmail.com (Hugh Donald Green) why he says things like:
>
>>  "Did you hear the one about the dirty jew, the welfare queen, and
>>the single mother?" - suuty@hotmail.com (Hugh Donald Green)

No, I haven't.  What's the punch line?

===================================================================
Christian Smith, Systems Manager - Instructional Development Office
George Mason University,  4400 University Drive, Fairfax VA,  22030
csmith@gmu.edu (email)    703-993-2779 (voice)   703-993-3162 (fax)
http://www.ido.gmu.edu/Chris/Index.html
Key Fingerprint: 30 07 7A 66 9C 0D 18 04  AC 2E 1C E1 EA EE 3C 44 
===================================================================
For PGP key send mail with subject: Send PGP Key

John M Atkinson wrote:
> 
> Thus Spake mshinn@osf1.gmu.edu (Michael T Shinn):
> 
> %John M Atkinson (jatkinso@ANTISPAMgmu.edu) wrote:
> %: %Ruby Ridge. Waco.
> %
> %: Something a little more obviously a long-term policy.  Any one who thinks
> taking
> %: down a handful of fanatics is just cause for revolt has mental problems.
> %
> %Thats awfully myopic of you.  Regardless of my or your particulat fellings
> %out these individuals personal religous or governmental opinions is no
> %cause for hunting them down, demonizing them, surrounding them with tanks,
> %and shooting and burning their children alive.
> 
> The fire started inside the compound.  And there were no 'tanks' present.  I
> shouldn't have to explain the definition of tank to an infantry type.
> 
> %I agree that these groups held some peculiar, and in Koreshs case
> %ridiculous, notions - but thats no reason to start seeing them as "enemies
> %of the State".   Christ, we treat Serial Murders better in this country,
> %but if you hole in a building and have some rather odd opinions suddenly
> %that demonizes and makes it OK to treat you like an Animal?
> 
> I didn't say it was the ideal way of handling a situation.  Just that it comes
> no where even remotely close to my criteria for justification for armed revolt.

How many repetitions of that or worse would it take to begin to come
remotely close to your justifications for armed revolt?

Would you consider armed revolt before or after the potential
usefulness/success threshold of armed revolt had passed?

Let's say that often there is no need to bare the blade if the mere
rattle of the saber can avoid open conflict. Diplomacy, often a language
of subtle threat nicely-conveyed, works within nations as well as
between them.

Basically, the way I see it, popular anger and agitation have in this
case probably reversed the perceived alarming slide towards excessive
authoritatian misuse of untrammelled Federal police powers. Hearings
were at last held on both the Ruby Ridge Incident and the Waco Massacre
and while justice may not have been fully served, enough changes have
resulted to keep the vast majority satisfied and at peace. Had those
hearings not taken place, who knows what might have occurred?

> 
> John M. Atkinson
> jatkinso@gmu.edu
> "A nation which despises its soldiers will all too soon
> have a despicable army
>                  --Jerry Pournelle

-- 
Be kind to your       | When the going gets weird the weird turn pro.
neighbors even though | http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/
they be transgenic    | Now. chock full of uninteresting links.
chimerae.             |-- Genesis 19:1-13 - Hebrews 13:2 -- 
------ � copr 1997 TJH Internet SP all rights reserved  ------------
Usually I work within the system when it's not trying to get me killed.

Michael Zarlenga wrote:
> 
> : : It's regrettable that you didn't announce this earlier, so that a
> : : strenuous protest could be organized to combat this evil group, which
> : : in the wake of the Oklahoma City Bombing tragedy issued a fund-raising
> : : letter referring to law enforcment agents as "jack-booted government
> : : thugs."   (The letter prompted lifelong member and sportsman George
> 
> That's funny, I thought the letter was PRIOR to the OKC
> bombing and in the wake of the Gestapo-style raid on the
> Branch Davidians.
> 
> Are you sure you have your facts right?


He does not. That is (check the paths-headers) "Joe the Troll". Please
see http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/troll_aliases.html for search-engine
callouts for more of his style.

His "rhetorical style" to a great deal relies on such misstaments and
revisions of sequence. As a troll he's really quite skilled, up there on
the level is international-caliber disinformation
psychological-operations staff.

One of the few things that can get him out of "retirement" is any
statement remotely in support of loyal Constitutionalist sentiment,
border control, States Rights, or the Second Amendment for that matter.

> 
> --
> -- Mike Zarlenga
>    finger zarlenga@conan.ids.net  for PGP public key
> 
>    "Ask not what your 14-year-old daughter can do for you, ask what
>     she can do for me."     Michael Kennedy's version of JFK's speech

-- 
Be kind to your       | When the going gets weird the weird turn pro.
neighbors even though | http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/
they be transgenic    | Now. chock full of uninteresting links.
chimerae.             |-- Genesis 19:1-13 - Hebrews 13:2 -- 
------ � copr 1997 TJH Internet SP all rights reserved  ------------
Usually I work within the system when it's not trying to get me killed.

On 3 May 1997 12:37:26 GMT, csmith@gmu.edu (Christian Smith) wrote:


>>Ask suuty@hotmail.com (Hugh Donald Green) why he says things like:
>>
>>>  "Did you hear the one about the dirty jew, the welfare queen, and
>>>the single mother?" - suuty@hotmail.com (Hugh Donald Green)
>
>No, I haven't.  What's the punch line?

Jim Kennemur, but then don't all racist jokes have a STUPID punchline?

--
Ask suuty@hotmail.com (Hugh Donald Green) why he says things like:

>  "Did you hear the one about the dirty jew, the welfare queen, and
>the single mother?" - suuty@hotmail.com (Hugh Donald Green)

John M Atkinson (jatkinso@ANTISPAMgmu.edu) wrote:
: %Thats awfully myopic of you.  Regardless of my or your particulat fellings
: %out these individuals personal religous or governmental opinions is no
: %cause for hunting them down, demonizing them, surrounding them with tanks,
: %and shooting and burning their children alive.

: The fire started inside the compound.  And there were no 'tanks' present.  I
: shouldn't have to explain the definition of tank to an infantry type.

Thats not my point.  My point is that by creating a seige that feed right
into their paranoid mythology gave their leader exactly what he needed to
convince his followers to die.

I still contend, that the FBI is equally to blame for not considering the
implications of such a short sighted attack plan, and ATTACK plan it was.
TheseAmerican Citizens were treated like enemies of the state - I for one
was very disturbed by the use of Military Equipment against American
Citizens that posed NO immediate and Clear Danger to their neighbors.

What was the god damn rush?  Its not like they had Hostages or something.

Anyway, I feel for both the Agents that died or were wounded and their
families AND the families of all those cult victims.  We have to temper
our resolve to fight crime with a better respect for the powerful
psychological forces that exist in such fringe movements.  You'd think
that Jonestown might have taught us something, hopefully the Texas
Seperatists demonstrate a positive change in law enforcement.


M. Shinn

John M Atkinson (jatkinso@ANTISPAMgmu.edu) wrote:
: %Odd, the people I learned it from were very well trained EOD and SF folks.
: %Precisely the first people I would trust with the blasting caps AND with
: %the detotator.  Maybe you need to widen your circle of friends. *grin*

: Depends-the military types are generally OK, (although I'd like to know what the
: hell happened to Cpl. Warren's finger) but civillians who make this stuff for
: kicks sometimes scare me.

Well dynamite was invented by a civilian. *grin*

M. Shinn

Mark P O'Connor (moconnor@osf1.gmu.edu) wrote:
: On Thu, 1 May 1997, John M Atkinson wrote:

: 	Pardon,  but could you please give me some examples of Serial
: Killers who have been well-treated in recent history? The cartoon
: aspect of this thread has gotten to be a bit much, and I also
: wonder how close to the topic of local events at gmu we are
: gunning here...

Sure, any of the ones that got a TRIAL.  Thats infinitely better than
being burned alive, but hey - take your pick.  And they don't always get
the death penalty.

So - spending your life in a prison versus being burned alive.  You
decide.

On the issue of thread drift, such is Usenet.  

M. Shinn

Thus Spake russotto@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto):


%}Something a little more obviously a long-term policy.  
%
%RICO.  The War on Drugs. 

I'm not familliar with conspiracy-nut right-wing bullshit.  What's RICO??

%}Any one who thinks taking down a handful of fanatics is just cause
%}for revolt has mental problems. 
%
%I wonder if General Gage said that about the Boston Massacre.

Are you offering to begin an insurrection?  Save the local cops the trouble, and
shoot yourself in the head.

Ignorant jackasses who don't know Roman history from their Victoria's Secret
catalogues are the reason people like me (generally conservative to moderate,
depending on issue) are a little queasy about the whole pro-gun, pro-militia
lobby.

John M. Atkinson
jatkinso@gmu.edu
"A nation which despises its soldiers will all too soon 
have a despicable army
                 --Jerry Pournelle

Thus Spake anonymous@anonymous.org (anonymous):

%The scary thing really is that you appear to be in college judging by
%your account.  What are they "learnin'" you there at GMU, anyway?

Stephanie was engaging in the great American art form of PARODY.  I wouldn't
expect an illiterate redneck like you to understand.


John M. Atkinson
jatkinso@gmu.edu
"A nation which despises its soldiers will all too soon 
have a despicable army
                 --Jerry Pournelle

In article <5kj1aa$nkg@portal.gmu.edu>,
Michael T Shinn <mshinn@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote:
}
}John M Atkinson (jatkinso@ANTISPAMgmu.edu) wrote:
}: %Odd, the people I learned it from were very well trained EOD and SF folks.
}: %Precisely the first people I would trust with the blasting caps AND with
}: %the detotator.  Maybe you need to widen your circle of friends. *grin*
}
}: Depends-the military types are generally OK, (although I'd like to know what the
}: hell happened to Cpl. Warren's finger) but civillians who make this stuff for
}: kicks sometimes scare me.
}
}Well dynamite was invented by a civilian. *grin*

Didn't he invent the blasting cap as well?  Guy named Nobel, family
was into nitroglycerine, IIRC...

People like to see things blown up.  Evidence: the popularity of
fireworks and building implosions.  What's wrong with that?  
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto                                russotto@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." 

In article <336d3d83.4878628@news.gmu.edu>,
John M Atkinson <jatkinso@ANTISPAMgmu.edu> wrote:
}Thus Spake russotto@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto):
}
}
}%}Something a little more obviously a long-term policy.  
}%
}%RICO.  The War on Drugs. 

}I'm not familliar with conspiracy-nut right-wing bullshit.  What's RICO??

Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act.  A neat little
act where if the government asserts that an organization is
'racketeering influenced', they can seize it and all assets derived
from it BEFORE your trial.  There's also the variant known as civil
RICO, where they go and seize your assets but don't bother to try you
-- and you have to sue (paying your lawyer is your problem, and
there's also high bond requirements) to get them back.

}%}Any one who thinks taking down a handful of fanatics is just cause
}%}for revolt has mental problems. 
}%
}%I wonder if General Gage said that about the Boston Massacre.
}
}Are you offering to begin an insurrection?  Save the local cops the trouble, and
}shoot yourself in the head.

The question isn't whether I'm offering to start one, it's whether or
not such a massacre is just cause for starting one.

}Ignorant jackasses who don't know Roman history from their Victoria's Secret
}catalogues are the reason people like me (generally conservative to moderate,
}depending on issue) are a little queasy about the whole pro-gun, pro-militia
}lobby.

One who hasn't even heard of RICO, yet is willing to characterize it
as 'conspiracy-nut right wing bullshit' has a lot of nerve calling others
"ignorant jackasses".
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto                                russotto@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." 

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:

> }Well dynamite was invented by a civilian. *grin*
> 
> Didn't he invent the blasting cap as well?  Guy named Nobel, family
> was into nitroglycerine, IIRC...
> 
> People like to see things blown up.  Evidence: the popularity of
> fireworks and building implosions.  What's wrong with that?

Yes , Nobel invented Dynomite and the blasting cap. Also the coveted
Nobel Peace Award is in his honor.. Go Figure..

Kapt Ron

In article <336df280.4834845@news.gmu.edu>,
John M Atkinson <jatkinso@ANTISPAMgmu.edu> wrote:
}
}Thus Spake russotto@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto):
}
}
}%Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act.  A neat little
}%act where if the government asserts that an organization is
}%'racketeering influenced', they can seize it and all assets derived
}%from it BEFORE your trial.  There's also the variant known as civil
}%RICO, where they go and seize your assets but don't bother to try you
}%-- and you have to sue (paying your lawyer is your problem, and
}%there's also high bond requirements) to get them back.
}
}Oh, yeah.  The law under which they nail Mob dons.  Big deal.

The law intended to nail Mob dons.  It is used much more widely than that.

}%The question isn't whether I'm offering to start one, it's whether or
}%not such a massacre is just cause for starting one.
}
}OK, no.  I don't believe one (or even several) incidents of troops getting out
}of hand justifies armed revolt.  And if you look at the writings of the time
}(Thomas Paine, especially) the Boston Massacre is almost never mentioned-the
}causes for rebellion can be more accurately traced to a long-term British policy
}of denying the colonists the inherent human right to self-determination.  

It certainly wasn't the ONLY justification.  It was, however, one of
them.  The Declaration of Independence speaks of "protecting them, by
a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit
on the Inhabitants of these States". 

}%One who hasn't even heard of RICO, yet is willing to characterize it
}%as 'conspiracy-nut right wing bullshit' has a lot of nerve calling others
}%"ignorant jackasses".

}My statement was not that RICO is the above-mentioned bullshit, but that I was
}not always familliar with the buzzwords thrown around the conspiracy-theorist
}community.

RICO is a government buzzword, not a "conspiracy theorist community"
buzzword.

}%"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
}%of justice is no virtue." 
}
}I can't recall who said that.  Was it Barry "Nuke North Vietnam" Goldwater or
}the cross-dressing FBI chief who though Martin Luther King was communist?

Goldwater.
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto                                russotto@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." 

Hey! Cool, NOT! Joe the Troll has _followers_!

scary scary.

John M Atkinson wrote:
> 
> Thus Spake russotto@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto):
> 
> %}Something a little more obviously a long-term policy.
> %
> %RICO.  The War on Drugs.
> 
> I'm not familliar with conspiracy-nut right-wing bullshit.  What's RICO??

"Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations." It's a Federal law
designed to make it easier to break unions by alleging involvement with
organized crime. Actually it has served as a powerful wedge into those
unions which _are_ racketeer-influenced. But it's also potentially
usable against about anyone for anything. It's a sort of "one bad apple
spoils the whole bunch" and my admittedly hazy understanding of this is
that one criminal in a targeted organization can be used to take out the
entire organization. For instance, one felony conviction of one
high-level NORML member could be used as an excuse to have unlimited
wiretappings on _all_ NORML members.

Your ignorance of the existence of this law is astounding, but hardly
moreso than your immediate categorization of someone else's awareness of
a far-reaching Federal Law as "conspiracy-nut right-wing bullshit".

> 
> %}Any one who thinks taking down a handful of fanatics is just cause
> %}for revolt has mental problems.
> %
> %I wonder if General Gage said that about the Boston Massacre.
> 
> Are you offering to begin an insurrection?  Save the local cops the trouble, and
> shoot yourself in the head.

Save us all some trouble and cut back on espresso, okay?

The point is that those "fanatics" have the same rights as anyone. Thus,
anyone taking _you_ down wouldn't be just cause for a revolt. Or anyone
taking down an entire neighborhood because it was "crime-riddled" by the
same logic would not be cause for a revolt. Nor would, by extension of
this logic, would be the elimination of an entire class, ethnic group,
or race.

This is called a "slippery slope argument" (or failure to notice that
slippery slope, 'cause the angle is not yet acute enough to cause _you_
discomfort). The problem with slippery slopes is tht once you start down
them it's not real easy to get back up. When you defend the rights of
"fanatics" you defend your own. When you deny them those rights
guaranteed by the Constitution, you deny your own rights. Stop and think
about it before you go all jingoistic and start chanting "right-wing
wacko! right-wing wacko!".

> 
> Ignorant jackasses who don't know Roman history from their Victoria's Secret
> catalogues are the reason people like me (generally conservative to moderate,
> depending on issue) are a little queasy about the whole pro-gun, pro-militia
> lobby.

You presume much regarding anothers education! Nice casting of
aspersions there, got an substantive arguments or are you just
pontificating?

> 
> John M. Atkinson
> jatkinso@gmu.edu
> "A nation which despises its soldiers will all too soon
> have a despicable army
>                  --Jerry Pournelle

-- 
Be kind to your       | When the going gets weird the weird turn pro.
neighbors even though | http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/
they be transgenic    | Now. chock full of uninteresting links.
chimerae.             |-- Genesis 19:1-13 - Hebrews 13:2 -- 
------ � copr 1997 TJH Internet SP all rights reserved  ------------
Usually I work within the system when it's not trying to get me killed.

Thus Spake russotto@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto):


%}: Depends-the military types are generally OK, (although I'd like to know what
the
%}: hell happened to Cpl. Warren's finger) but civillians who make this stuff
for
%}: kicks sometimes scare me.
%}
%}Well dynamite was invented by a civilian. *grin*
%
%Didn't he invent the blasting cap as well?  Guy named Nobel, family
%was into nitroglycerine, IIRC...
%
%People like to see things blown up.  Evidence: the popularity of
%fireworks and building implosions.  What's wrong with that?  

It's fine.  I'm a pyro.  I do what I do for a living because I like explosives.
But I also have the brains not to blow myself up in the process, which is more
than many of the amateurs out there do.


John M. Atkinson
jatkinso@gmu.edu
"A nation which despises its soldiers will all too soon 
have a despicable army
                 --Jerry Pournelle

Thus Spake russotto@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto):


%Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act.  A neat little
%act where if the government asserts that an organization is
%'racketeering influenced', they can seize it and all assets derived
%from it BEFORE your trial.  There's also the variant known as civil
%RICO, where they go and seize your assets but don't bother to try you
%-- and you have to sue (paying your lawyer is your problem, and
%there's also high bond requirements) to get them back.

Oh, yeah.  The law under which they nail Mob dons.  Big deal.

%The question isn't whether I'm offering to start one, it's whether or
%not such a massacre is just cause for starting one.

OK, no.  I don't believe one (or even several) incidents of troops getting out
of hand justifies armed revolt.  And if you look at the writings of the time
(Thomas Paine, especially) the Boston Massacre is almost never mentioned-the
causes for rebellion can be more accurately traced to a long-term British policy
of denying the colonists the inherent human right to self-determination.  

%One who hasn't even heard of RICO, yet is willing to characterize it
%as 'conspiracy-nut right wing bullshit' has a lot of nerve calling others
%"ignorant jackasses".

My statement was not that RICO is the above-mentioned bullshit, but that I was
not always familliar with the buzzwords thrown around the conspiracy-theorist
community.

%"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
%of justice is no virtue." 

I can't recall who said that.  Was it Barry "Nuke North Vietnam" Goldwater or
the cross-dressing FBI chief who though Martin Luther King was communist?


John M. Atkinson
jatkinso@gmu.edu
"A nation which despises its soldiers will all too soon 
have a despicable army
                 --Jerry Pournelle

In article <336E0303.2069@pcmail.virginia.edu>, Kapt
<rlh8e@pcmail.virginia.edu> wrote:

>Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>
>> }Well dynamite was invented by a civilian. *grin*
>> 
>> Didn't he invent the blasting cap as well?  Guy named Nobel, family
>> was into nitroglycerine, IIRC...
>> 
>> People like to see things blown up.  Evidence: the popularity of
>> fireworks and building implosions.  What's wrong with that?
>
>Yes , Nobel invented Dynomite and the blasting cap. Also the coveted
>Nobel Peace Award is in his honor.. Go Figure..

No, the Nobel prize was established by Nobel and is funded from moneys set
aside by him.  The Nobel prize covers many different areas, Peace,
Physics, Chamestry, etc with the notable exception of Mathematics.  Rumor
has it that his wife had an afair with a mathematician and he developedand
abiding hatrad for mathematicians in general.

===================================================================
Christian Smith, Systems Manager - Instructional Development Office
George Mason University,  4400 University Drive, Fairfax VA,  22030
csmith @ gmu.edu (email)  703-993-2779 (voice)   703-993-3162 (fax)
http://www.ido.gmu.edu/Chris/Index.html
Key Fingerprint: 30 07 7A 66 9C 0D 18 04  AC 2E 1C E1 EA EE 3C 44 
===================================================================
For PGP key send mail with subject: Send PGP Key

Thus Spake Kapt <rlh8e@pcmail.virginia.edu>:

%Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
%
%> }Well dynamite was invented by a civilian. *grin*
%> 
%> Didn't he invent the blasting cap as well?  Guy named Nobel, family
%> was into nitroglycerine, IIRC...
%> 
%> People like to see things blown up.  Evidence: the popularity of
%> fireworks and building implosions.  What's wrong with that?
%
%Yes , Nobel invented Dynomite and the blasting cap. Also the coveted
%Nobel Peace Award is in his honor.. Go Figure..

If you become filthy rich and endow a bunch of Swedes with the ability to focus
the world's spotlight on themselves and their pet causes, they'll name the damn
thing after you too.


John M. Atkinson
jatkinso@gmu.edu
"A nation which despises its soldiers will all too soon 
have a despicable army
                 --Jerry Pournelle

Thus Spake russotto@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto):

%}OK, no.  I don't believe one (or even several) incidents of troops getting out
%}of hand justifies armed revolt.  And if you look at the writings of the time
%}(Thomas Paine, especially) the Boston Massacre is almost never mentioned-the
%}causes for rebellion can be more accurately traced to a long-term British
policy
%}of denying the colonists the inherent human right to self-determination.  
%
%It certainly wasn't the ONLY justification.  It was, however, one of
%them.  The Declaration of Independence speaks of "protecting them, by
%a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit
%on the Inhabitants of these States". 

Who, pray tell, defended the soldiers?  Look it up-it's a little surprising.
Everyone is entitled to a trial.  Even soldiers.  And if a jury can't convict
them, too bad.


John M. Atkinson
jatkinso@gmu.edu
"A nation which despises its soldiers will all too soon 
have a despicable army
                 --Jerry Pournelle

Thus Spake klaatu <klaatu@clark.net>:


%> I'm not familliar with conspiracy-nut right-wing bullshit.  What's RICO??
%
%"Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations." It's a Federal law
%designed to make it easier to break unions by alleging involvement with
%organized crime. Actually it has served as a powerful wedge into those
%unions which _are_ racketeer-influenced. But it's also potentially
%usable against about anyone for anything. It's a sort of "one bad apple
%spoils the whole bunch" and my admittedly hazy understanding of this is
%that one criminal in a targeted organization can be used to take out the
%entire organization. For instance, one felony conviction of one
%high-level NORML member could be used as an excuse to have unlimited
%wiretappings on _all_ NORML members.

Damn, but it sucks when you hire felons. . .  :)

%Your ignorance of the existence of this law is astounding, but hardly
%moreso than your immediate categorization of someone else's awareness of
%a far-reaching Federal Law as "conspiracy-nut right-wing bullshit".

Take a look at the context.  I had absolutely no idea what the acronym referred
to, but when a couple of people pointed out the full name, I recalled it.  My
point is that the conspiracy-nut community has it's jargon and acronyms, and I
got a legitemate law confused with them.  Hell, OWG threw me for a loop the
first time I saw it on usenet.
 
%The point is that those "fanatics" have the same rights as anyone. Thus,
%anyone taking _you_ down wouldn't be just cause for a revolt. Or anyone
%taking down an entire neighborhood because it was "crime-riddled" by the
%same logic would not be cause for a revolt. Nor would, by extension of
%this logic, would be the elimination of an entire class, ethnic group,
%or race.
%
%This is called a "slippery slope argument" (or failure to notice that

No, this is called reducto ad absurdum.  If I don't think that taking down the
Wacko from Waco is just cause for armed rebellion, I'm in favor of ethnically
based genocide and therefore a racist, and probably a Nazi?  Check your own
caffine intake.  I thought hurling 'racist' in lieu of argument was a liberal
tactic.  Scale does make a difference.  If we resorted to shooting up the local
law enforcement every time someone made a mistake, or got too excited, or just
came up with a phemomenally stupid policy, we'd be in a constant state of
anarchy.  


John M. Atkinson
jatkinso@gmu.edu
"A nation which despises its soldiers will all too soon 
have a despicable army
                 --Jerry Pournelle

In article <336E0303.2069@pcmail.virginia.edu>, rlh8e@pcmail.virginia.edu 
says...


>Yes , Nobel invented Dynomite and the blasting cap. Also the coveted
>Nobel Peace Award is in his honor.. Go Figure..

Actually he *paid" for the "honor", with a permanent endowment. Guilt one 
might suppose. How ironic that the funds for the the award of the worlds 
foremost "peace" prize came from sales of dynamite and related explosives.


-- 
              The Second Amendment is the RESET button 
                   of the United States Constitution.  
                          ---Doug McKay" <mckay003@maroon.tc.umn.edu> 
Joe Sylvester
Don't Tread On Me !

Michael T Shinn wrote:
> 
> John M Atkinson (jatkinso@ANTISPAMgmu.edu) wrote:
> : %Thats awfully myopic of you.  Regardless of my or your particulat fellings
> : %out these individuals personal religous or governmental opinions is no
> : %cause for hunting them down, demonizing them, surrounding them with tanks,
> : %and shooting and burning their children alive.
> 
> : The fire started inside the compound.  And there were no 'tanks' present.  I
> : shouldn't have to explain the definition of tank to an infantry type.
> 
> Thats not my point.  My point is that by creating a seige that feed right
> into their paranoid mythology gave their leader exactly what he needed to
> convince his followers to die.

Absolutely. But you must realize that one of the worst things one can
do, is to give a person in a paranoid mindset evidence that they're _not
paranoid enough_. The BATF and their compadres gave all of the people
inside absolute assurance that everything they had feared was coming to
pass.

> 
> I still contend, that the FBI is equally to blame for not considering the
> implications of such a short sighted attack plan, and ATTACK plan it was.
> TheseAmerican Citizens were treated like enemies of the state - I for one
> was very disturbed by the use of Military Equipment against American
> Citizens that posed NO immediate and Clear Danger to their neighbors.
> 
> What was the god damn rush?  Its not like they had Hostages or something.

I occasionally pray that it wasn't as an abreaction to something that I
had circulating on some BBSes (including one in that region of Texas),
as it turned out my predictions of a fictional California Cannibal Cult
( http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/interlude.html ) have since been
all-too well borne-out by such things as the Aum Shinrikyo sarin
attacks, etc - who knows, these guys may have thought this was actual
intel. Or it may simply have been a case of professional paranoids
coming up against unprofessional paranoids, and going in loaded for bear
when it was not bear they were up against.

> 
> Anyway, I feel for both the Agents that died or were wounded and their
> families AND the families of all those cult victims.  We have to temper
> our resolve to fight crime with a better respect for the powerful
> psychological forces that exist in such fringe movements.

Absolutely.

>  You'd think
> that Jonestown might have taught us something, hopefully the Texas
> Seperatists demonstrate a positive change in law enforcement.

We can only pray. Law-enforcement must realize, and evidently does, that
some people are in certain frames of mind to be willing to attempt to
withdraw from the union, go to ultra-violent modes, etc, and the proper
attack would be one of psychological operations, not of overwhelming
overresponse. I can think of very few situations where a simple
seige-and-wait approach wouldn't turn out to be the best solution.
Stomping the crap out of people for having a different political or
worldview outlook is not particularly civilized. Convincing them to get
a fair and equitable hearing instead of getting themselves killed is a
civilized approach.

JMHO.

> 
> M. Shinn

-- 
Be kind to your       | When the going gets weird the weird turn pro.
neighbors even though | http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/
they be transgenic    | Now. chock full of uninteresting links.
chimerae.             |-- Genesis 19:1-13 - Hebrews 13:2 -- 
------ � copr 1997 TJH Internet SP all rights reserved  ------------
Usually I work within the system when it's not trying to get me killed.

John M Atkinson wrote:
> 
> Thus Spake russotto@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto):
> 
> %Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act.  A neat little
> %act where if the government asserts that an organization is
> %'racketeering influenced', they can seize it and all assets derived
> %from it BEFORE your trial.  There's also the variant known as civil
> %RICO, where they go and seize your assets but don't bother to try you
> %-- and you have to sue (paying your lawyer is your problem, and
> %there's also high bond requirements) to get them back.
> 
> Oh, yeah.  The law under which they nail Mob dons.  Big deal.

The list of persons abused under assets-forfeitures laws continues to
grow. There's some fascinating ones where cops have simply planted dope
on people, simple to take possession of their assets. I recall one
televised incident in Texas where some cops busted one guy because they
coveted his racing boat. And no, sorry, I don't recall the exact
incident. But the cops got to keep everything and years later the guy is
still waiting for his first state-level appeal. And he's waiting,
flat-broke.

The problem with RICO is that it _does_ provide a powerful tool against
those who have long-established techniques for evidence destruction and
techniques for delying trial while the assets are removed and concealed.
However, the law seems to be increasingly misapplied to enable
pre-conviction punitive actions. It's also arguably used as a technique
to prejudice the courts against a suspect by the simple means of making
sure they cannot possibly afford the quality of lawyer that such a case
would require, rather like ripping out someone's tongue so that they
can't speak in their own defense.

> 
> %The question isn't whether I'm offering to start one, it's whether or
> %not such a massacre is just cause for starting one.
> 
> OK, no.  I don't believe one (or even several) incidents of troops getting out
> of hand justifies armed revolt.  And if you look at the writings of the time
> (Thomas Paine, especially) the Boston Massacre is almost never mentioned-the
> causes for rebellion can be more accurately traced to a long-term British policy
> of denying the colonists the inherent human right to self-determination.

Hmmm, you do catch on.

This goes all of the way back to Civil rights marches, Kent State, etc.
Basically it's authoritarianism versues liberality. Every once in a
while authoritarianism starts to encroach on liberality, and outraged
citizens (the ones who are awake, at any rate) begin to agitate for
reform of the authoritarians. This is all well and good and part of the
democratic process. Should authoritarianism refuse to be reigned in by
simple civil protests, some sort of demonstration is in order. If
standard demonstrations are roundly ignored, escalations will be
required. This is, again, democratic process.

> 
> %One who hasn't even heard of RICO, yet is willing to characterize it
> %as 'conspiracy-nut right wing bullshit' has a lot of nerve calling others
> %"ignorant jackasses".
> 
> My statement was not that RICO is the above-mentioned bullshit, but that I was
> not always familliar with the buzzwords thrown around the conspiracy-theorist
> community.

RICO is not precisely a bussword, it's the standard abbreviation used by
lawyers and journalists.

You know you'd probably be a lot more understanable if you'd just get
your foot out of your mouth.

> 
> %"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
> %of justice is no virtue."
> 
> I can't recall who said that.  Was it Barry "Nuke North Vietnam" Goldwater or
> the cross-dressing FBI chief who though Martin Luther King was communist?

Possibly Thomas Paine? 

> 
> John M. Atkinson
> jatkinso@gmu.edu
> "A nation which despises its soldiers will all too soon
> have a despicable army
>                  --Jerry Pournelle

-- 
Be kind to your       | When the going gets weird the weird turn pro.
neighbors even though | http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/
they be transgenic    | Now. chock full of uninteresting links.
chimerae.             |-- Genesis 19:1-13 - Hebrews 13:2 -- 
------ � copr 1997 TJH Internet SP all rights reserved  ------------
Usually I work within the system when it's not trying to get me killed.

John M Atkinson wrote:
> 
> Thus Spake klaatu <klaatu@clark.net>:
> 
> %> I'm not familliar with conspiracy-nut right-wing bullshit.  What's RICO??
> %
> %"Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations." It's a Federal law
> %designed to make it easier to break unions by alleging involvement with
> %organized crime. Actually it has served as a powerful wedge into those
> %unions which _are_ racketeer-influenced. But it's also potentially
> %usable against about anyone for anything. It's a sort of "one bad apple
> %spoils the whole bunch" and my admittedly hazy understanding of this is
> %that one criminal in a targeted organization can be used to take out the
> %entire organization. For instance, one felony conviction of one
> %high-level NORML member could be used as an excuse to have unlimited
> %wiretappings on _all_ NORML members.
> 
> Damn, but it sucks when you hire felons. . .  :)

Yes - especially when the understanding had previously been that once
they'd served their debt to society, they were no longer convicts, but
ex-convicts. There's also something in the Constitution about freedom of
association, etc - also that has generally been extended to support the
idea that the guilt of the one does not necessarily redound to the guilt
of the others, unless conspriacy is proven - in a court of law. With
RICO, the accusation of criminal conspiracy is almost tantamout to the
preconviction of conspiracy - and thus the taint is presupposed. Not a
good idea.

> 
> %Your ignorance of the existence of this law is astounding, but hardly
> %moreso than your immediate categorization of someone else's awareness of
> %a far-reaching Federal Law as "conspiracy-nut right-wing bullshit".
> 
> Take a look at the context.  I had absolutely no idea what the acronym referred
> to, but when a couple of people pointed out the full name, I recalled it.  My
> point is that the conspiracy-nut community has it's jargon and acronyms, and I
> got a legitemate law confused with them.  Hell, OWG threw me for a loop the
> first time I saw it on usenet.

Those pesky acronyms! Orwell saw that coming... divide and conquer a
country, not with arms, but with jargon.

Um excessive presupposition from misconstrued context leads to
inflexible mindset that happens to be deluded in nature. That's how some
of the conspiracy guys got so "conspiritated" - relax that tendency to
presuppositions based on context and that "conspiritation" will clear
right up. Better than Milk of Magnesia.

> 
> %The point is that those "fanatics" have the same rights as anyone. Thus,
> %anyone taking _you_ down wouldn't be just cause for a revolt. Or anyone
> %taking down an entire neighborhood because it was "crime-riddled" by the
> %same logic would not be cause for a revolt. Nor would, by extension of
> %this logic, would be the elimination of an entire class, ethnic group,
> %or race.
> %
> %This is called a "slippery slope argument" (or failure to notice that
> 
> No, this is called reducto ad absurdum.  If I don't think that taking down the
> Wacko from Waco is just cause for armed rebellion, I'm in favor of ethnically
> based genocide and therefore a racist, and probably a Nazi?

I didn't say anything like that - it is you who are attempting to apply
reductio-ad-absurdam, and inappropriately I might add.

I do say that some might be willing to label you as a wacko. If the FBI
or whoever decided to burn your family (because you were a wacko),
wouldn't you think your "ghost" might want to see justice done? and if
the agency responsible for justice was the one that committed the crime,
what hope would there be for justice, unless some force could compel
that agency to revise its standard and replace personnel, until that
justice was done! 

The ability of the populace to defend itself tends to act as a force
which impels agencies to cleanse corruption. Admittedly, the greatest
and most powerful weapon the citizenry has is their vote, implimented in
our institutional reovlution, the electoral process. 

>  Check your own
> caffine intake.  I thought hurling 'racist' in lieu of argument was a liberal
> tactic.

Straw-man argument. I didn't call you a racist, I just said that
acceptance of elimination of anyone _because they are perceived as
different_ leads inevitably to genocide, if this acceptance becomes
institutionalized. For the public (or by extension, their agent, the
Federal Government) to accept a flat-out "witch"-burning as _de-rigeur_,
leads inevitably to an enlargement of the classes considered to be
"witches". 

For you, evidently, a Wacko from Waco is a perfectly acceptable "witch"
to burn. I argue that no "witch" is a good "witch" to burn, and argue
that to allow the burning of one is to allow the burning of all. The
point this: One simply does not permit the establishment of any
apparatus which empowers (or even ignores duty to destroy)
institutionalized harassment or murder of persons whose main crime is
being different.

>  Scale does make a difference. 

Yes. You nip it in the bud. First time every time.

> If we resorted to shooting up the local
> law enforcement every time someone made a mistake, or got too excited, or just
> came up with a phemomenally stupid policy, we'd be in a constant state of
> anarchy.

I have proposed this nowhere.

> 
> John M. Atkinson
> jatkinso@gmu.edu
> "A nation which despises its soldiers will all too soon
> have a despicable army
>                  --Jerry Pournelle

-- 
Be kind to your       | When the going gets weird the weird turn pro.
neighbors even though | http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/
they be transgenic    | Now. chock full of uninteresting links.
chimerae.             |-- Genesis 19:1-13 - Hebrews 13:2 -- 
------ � copr 1997 TJH Internet SP all rights reserved  ------------
Usually I work within the system when it's not trying to get me killed.

John M Atkinson wrote:
> 
> Thus Spake Kapt <rlh8e@pcmail.virginia.edu>:
> 
> %Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> %
> %> }Well dynamite was invented by a civilian. *grin*
> %>
> %> Didn't he invent the blasting cap as well?  Guy named Nobel, family
> %> was into nitroglycerine, IIRC...
> %>
> %> People like to see things blown up.  Evidence: the popularity of
> %> fireworks and building implosions.  What's wrong with that?
> %
> %Yes , Nobel invented Dynomite and the blasting cap. Also the coveted
> %Nobel Peace Award is in his honor.. Go Figure..
> 
> If you become filthy rich and endow a bunch of Swedes with the ability to focus
> the world's spotlight on themselves and their pet causes, they'll name the damn
> thing after you too.

Actually, it is my understanding that Nobel, having given the world
high-explosives in forms safe enough to be used in warfare, in
particular his gelignite, nitrocellulose and trinitrotoluene, was so
appalled at the destruction wrought that he decided to use some of the
immense profits gathered as the result of so much destruction, to
promote the practice of peace and the development of disciplines which
would tend to promote peace.

Hey, if you had given the world the means to blow itself up, you too
might not rest easy until you did something to try to ensure that your
products wouldn't be used to kill evryone.


> 
> John M. Atkinson
> jatkinso@gmu.edu
> "A nation which despises its soldiers will all too soon
> have a despicable army
>                  --Jerry Pournelle

-- 
Be kind to your       | When the going gets weird the weird turn pro.
neighbors even though | http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/
they be transgenic    | Now. chock full of uninteresting links.
chimerae.             |-- Genesis 19:1-13 - Hebrews 13:2 -- 
------ � copr 1997 TJH Internet SP all rights reserved  ------------
Usually I work within the system when it's not trying to get me killed.

Thus Spake cmort@nwohio.com (Chris Morton):

%>Who, pray tell, defended the soldiers?  Look it up-it's a little surprising.
%>Everyone is entitled to a trial.  Even soldiers.  And if a jury can't convict
%>them, too bad.
%
%Is it "too bad" if the jury can't convict because they've been
%threatened in order to ensure that they don't?

Demonstrate evidence that such occurred.

%Ask suuty@hotmail.com (Hugh Donald Green) why he says things like:

Simple.  Because he's a hotmail luser fulfilling stereotypes.


John M. Atkinson
jatkinso@gmu.edu
"A nation which despises its soldiers will all too soon 
have a despicable army
                 --Jerry Pournelle

Thus Spake cmort@nwohio.com (Chris Morton):


%>%The question isn't whether I'm offering to start one, it's whether or
%>%not such a massacre is just cause for starting one.
%>
%>OK, no.  I don't believe one (or even several) incidents of troops getting out
%>of hand justifies armed revolt.  And if you look at the writings of the time
%>(Thomas Paine, especially) the Boston Massacre is almost never mentioned-the
%>causes for rebellion can be more accurately traced to a long-term British
policy
%>of denying the colonists the inherent human right to self-determination.  
%
%Do you believe ANY degree of violence by government against citizens
%justifies revolt?

Yes.  However I have to be convinced it's a long-term policy (In other words,
cite some instances from before Clinton's election and evidence it will continue
after the next presidential election).  I also have to be convinced that there
is no other possibility of peaceful resolution.  Civil War is one of the worst
fates to befall a great nation.

%>%"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
%>%of justice is no virtue." 
%>
%>I can't recall who said that.  Was it Barry "Nuke North Vietnam" Goldwater or
%>the cross-dressing FBI chief who though Martin Luther King was communist?
%
%Speaking of which, what level of abuse committed by J. Edgar Hoover do
%you think would have been appropriate?

I think that he went overboard in many ways.  However Hoover on his worst, most
paranoid day was still no excuse to revolt.


John M. Atkinson
jatkinso@gmu.edu
"A nation which despises its soldiers will all too soon 
have a despicable army
                 --Jerry Pournelle

Thus Spake cmort@nwohio.com (Chris Morton):

%>%entire organization. For instance, one felony conviction of one
%>%high-level NORML member could be used as an excuse to have unlimited
%>%wiretappings on _all_ NORML members.
%>
%>Damn, but it sucks when you hire felons. . .  :)
%
%What country do YOU live in?
%
%In the United States, mere MEMBERSHIP in an organization is not a
%crime, much less a felony.

In addition to being very angry, you seem to be illiterate.  Read the above
statements in entirety.  A felony conviction of one member of an organization is
grounds, according to the statement above for an investigation of all members of
that organization.  My point is that organizations might be advised to use
discretion in who they hire-felons and potential felons are not a good idea.

%>No, this is called reducto ad absurdum.  If I don't think that taking down the
%>Wacko from Waco is just cause for armed rebellion, I'm in favor of ethnically
%>based genocide and therefore a racist, and probably a Nazi?  Check your own
%>caffine intake.  I thought hurling 'racist' in lieu of argument was a liberal
%>tactic.  Scale does make a difference.  If we resorted to shooting up the
local
%>law enforcement every time someone made a mistake, or got too excited, or just
%>came up with a phemomenally stupid policy, we'd be in a constant state of
%>anarchy.  
%
%Then your argument is that THEY get to shoot US up, but we have to
%just sit and take it?

My argument is that the United States has political and legal institutions which
allow for peaceful and legal redress of wrongs.  Use them instead of going out
with your redneck buddies and declaring yourself an 'independant country' and
shooting the hell out of anyone who goes near your compound.


John M. Atkinson
jatkinso@gmu.edu
"A nation which despises its soldiers will all too soon 
have a despicable army
                 --Jerry Pournelle

Thus Spake klaatu <klaatu@clark.net>:


%Um excessive presupposition from misconstrued context leads to
%inflexible mindset that happens to be deluded in nature. That's how some
%of the conspiracy guys got so "conspiritated" - relax that tendency to
%presuppositions based on context and that "conspiritation" will clear
%right up. Better than Milk of Magnesia.

Dammit, if I can't presuppose on context, that takes all the fun out of it. :P

%I didn't say anything like that - it is you who are attempting to apply
%reductio-ad-absurdam, and inappropriately I might add.

It's almost always applied inappropriately when issues of value are under
discussion.

%I do say that some might be willing to label you as a wacko. If the FBI
%or whoever decided to burn your family (because you were a wacko),
%wouldn't you think your "ghost" might want to see justice done? and if
%the agency responsible for justice was the one that committed the crime,
%what hope would there be for justice, unless some force could compel
%that agency to revise its standard and replace personnel, until that
%justice was done! 

However, as any major newspaper will tell you, the BATF has undergone some
serious internal scrutiny as a result of Waco, thus that specific instance, as
it was not part of a farreaching policy but an accumulation of small errors with
catastrophic but unintended consequences, is not a just basis for armed revolt.

%Straw-man argument. I didn't call you a racist, I just said that
%acceptance of elimination of anyone _because they are perceived as
%different_ leads inevitably to genocide, if this acceptance becomes

I disagree.  Depends on what you base your differences on.  Discrimination based
on behavior is one thing-I'm in favor of eliminating murderers, rapists, sex
offenders, and arsonists.  But to make distinctions based on benign
characteristics such as pigmentation is ludicrous.

%For you, evidently, a Wacko from Waco is a perfectly acceptable "witch"
%to burn. I argue that no "witch" is a good "witch" to burn, and argue

Did I say that the Branch Davidian case was handled in an ideal manner?  No,
just that it is nowhere near grounds for armed revolt.

%>  Scale does make a difference. 
%
%Yes. You nip it in the bud. First time every time.

Yes-but nipping it in the bud is best done through the press, the courts, and
the legislature.  Not through armed revolt.

%> If we resorted to shooting up the local
%> law enforcement every time someone made a mistake, or got too excited, or
just
%> came up with a phemomenally stupid policy, we'd be in a constant state of
%> anarchy.
%
%I have proposed this nowhere.

A number of posts on this thread seem to have done so.


John M. Atkinson
jatkinso@gmu.edu
"A nation which despises its soldiers will all too soon 
have a despicable army
                 --Jerry Pournelle

Michael T Shinn (mshinn@osf1.gmu.edu) wrote:
: klaatu (klaatu@clark.net) wrote:

: : > : The fire started inside the compound.  And there were no 'tanks' present.  I
: : > : shouldn't have to explain the definition of tank to an infantry type.

So those things that looked like M60s were not in fact M60s?
Could have fooled me...

[SNIP]

--
*******************************************************************
***** Ian B MacLure ***** Sunnyvale, CA ***** Engineer/Archer *****
* No Times Like The Maritimes *************************************
*******************************************************************
* Opinions Expressed Here Are Mine. That's Mine , Mine, MINE ******
*******************************************************************

Thus Spake cmort@nwohio.com (Chris Morton):

%>%Is it "too bad" if the jury can't convict because they've been
%>%threatened in order to ensure that they don't?
%>
%>Demonstrate evidence that such occurred.
%
%I don't need to in order for you to answer the question.  Please do
%so.

Alright.  I'll toss out the idea that one jury-tampering instance would not
constitute just cause for armed revolt.  


John M. Atkinson
jatkinso@gmu.edu
Find the enemy and shoot him down; anything else is nonsense.
                     Captain Baron Manfred von Richthofen

Thus Spake cmort@nwohio.com (Chris Morton):

%>Yes.  However I have to be convinced it's a long-term policy (In other words,
%>cite some instances from before Clinton's election and evidence it will
continue
%>after the next presidential election).  I also have to be convinced that there
%>is no other possibility of peaceful resolution.  Civil War is one of the worst
%>fates to befall a great nation.
%
%No sweat.  The BATF was created under Nixon.  It's been doing exactly
%the same things from the Kenyon Ballew case, through the Weaver case
%under Bush, to the Waco case under Clinton.  There isn't even the
%slightest indication that they plan to change.

Really?  There was no internal shakeup at all?  Read the damn papers.

%Then there's the FBI and it's 70 year or more record of antics.

70 year record of antics?  The only 'antics' I recall have to do with Hoover
(one man) deciding civil rights leaders were communists.

%Then there's the Japanese internment.

A one-off under special circumstances.  The Feds have not only apologized but
started paying reparations.  

%As for civil wars, Japan would have been a hell of a lot better of
%with a Civil War in 1938 than what it got instead.

You think we're about to go to war with a better-armed nation and get bombed
flat?

%>I think that he went overboard in many ways.  However Hoover on his worst,
most
%>paranoid day was still no excuse to revolt.
%
%How about the Japanese internment?

Mr. Hoover, if you check some period sources, was almost the only man in the
government to argue vehemently against the internment.  

%Did the Japanese-Americans have a duty to go into those racial
%concentration camps?

I will point out that there _were_ cases of espionage by Niesi.  And that many
Niesi refused to swear a loyatly oath to the US.  In some camps they rioted in
support of Hirohito.  I've seen articles describing riots that occoured when
Japanese-American Boy Scouts put up an American flag--they almost got killed by
pro-Japanese.  This doesn't change the fact that it was a violation of civil
rights, but points out there were damn good grounds to violate them on.  After
all, Mr. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus for five years, too.

I also disagree that they were racially motivated.  If that were the case, why
didn't all Japanese-Americans end up in one?  Instead of just those on the West
Coast?  And if they were racially motivated, why did those persons of German and
Italian nationality end up in simmillar camps?  Most of your history books don't
mention that, but foreign nationals of belligerant nations all got locked up.

And finally, concentration camps is a bad term for this.  To imply that the
Japanese internment was any thing on the level of the suffering inflicted on
inmates at the Nazi concentration camps is so ludicrous as to belong on
alt.revisionism.


John M. Atkinson
jatkinso@gmu.edu
Find the enemy and shoot him down; anything else is nonsense.
                     Captain Baron Manfred von Richthofen