Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrun)
Subject: in defence of the devil
Date: Fri Sep 14 05:00:01 2001
both iridois and nightlife tore some of my comments to
shreads but i would like to defend those comments rationally
with use of history and dictionery my main concern is not
justification of heinous attacks but instead how much any
action or lack thereof is going to cost in human life and
whether it will achieve it's goals

Nightlifes gran is in the NYC area , and i do honestly hope
against all hope that she is still alive , please understand
me i do not sympathize with the actions of terrorists , i
believe any attack on human beings is reprehensible , death
is a finality with no reverse i asked questions that should
provoke a response , you gentlemen have courage in your
convinctions , yet i raise points from the other side of the
coin hoping that maybe you to can see anothers POV , because
it is my belief that we as people should try to understand
one another and thereby remove this unnecessary bloodshed ,

I through my writing tried to place you into the mind of a
man who would give his life for his beliefs , as you
gentlemen would do , in service of your country , you talk
about this group being terrorists , but tell me what avenue
would they have for conventional or even guerilla warfare
against a nation whose defence budget exceeds their nations
GNP many times over the ,US spends more on a single fighter
jet than these fanatics have for total resources , should
they attack you militarilly ,
simply to be wiped out, would it achieve anything , and they
are not part of a regular unit they wear no uniforms , carry
no insignia , they are not military but trained civilians,
they belong to no
nation , have no support of
the people of the country they stay in

i seem to recall another war a few centuries ago when a
bunch of rebels used guerilla tactics and irregular warfare
to win their freedom from the greatest military power of
that time (circa 1770-1780 my US history aint that good) , i
seem to recall that a non-military mercantile target was a
unifying
point (boston tea party)

tell me nightlife if osama had dropped flyers over new york
how many people would of left , same answer goes to
nagasaki and hiroshima ,and please if you are going to
justify Americas place as the paragon of virtue , try not
to mention
the only time nuclear weapons have been used in "military
action" against civilians targets , which dwarves anything
previously in history , and will for a long time to come i
hope , the trade centre has survivors , how many can say
they survived nagasaki or hiroshima

<ww>I love americans point of view on WW1 and 2 , you guys
may
remember that , like a bad dinner guests , you pitched up
late for both , Hitler was not a problem for you , you were
quite prepared to turn a blind eye as he invaded belgium
,checkoslovakia , austria , poland , holland , france ,
africa , russia , greece ,the balkans , cyprus and even
threaten britain , and instigated a genocidal holocaust of
anti-semitism , you guys joined in
cos the axis powers attacked you , not for any sense of
moral justice (luisitania and pearl harbour) and by the way
we wouldn't be flying a swastika but instead a red flag
with a hammer and sickle , contrary to american belief
others participated in WORLD war 2 i believe it was the
russians who made it to berlin to defeat hitler and the
british commonwealth which held the axis powers in check
for almost 3 years until the yanks decided to get off their
butts , they almost missed the first one too

<UN>the UN is an organisation of nations the reason it
turned to
the US is that as a large economic member with a large
standing
military and possessor of a permanent seat on the security
council with rights to Veto any proposal , they do have a
vested interest in seeing to it that an organisation created
on american soil should succeed and peace means prosperity
for all nations

my problem is that when americans represent
the UN they should wear pale blue helmets at the time and
the uniform of the UN without any other markings, their
machines of war should likewise be UN colours , but
sometimes
the US takes it upon themselves to stick their military
hardware where it isn't wanted , need i mention
central america , laos , cuba , cambodia , vietnam ,
ethiopia justifying it by supporting some petty dictator or
puppet
government , not the popularly supported peoples movement

<israel>the arabs on the whole do not recognize Israel as a
state ,
yet the US supplies Israel with more advanced technology
than any other of their allies , this is a sore point for
anyone in the region , please note this connotation ,
islamic people are being killed by american weapons made in
america
weilded by people america keeps in power , why shouldn't
they hold America as responsible as Israel , their was no
mass leap to combat terrorism when only Israel was being
victimised so lets try to take this as what it is don't try
to justify it by using other nations , it was an attack on
america because of what they have done in the middle east
,now what i want to know is what have they done that is this
bad (if anything) ?

<cowardice> when a fanatic wakes up in the morning knowing
full
well that he is going to take over an aeroplane , and crash
it into a building with no chance of survival , no chance of
seeing his loved ones again , he is called a coward , the
definition of a coward is a man easily giving way or
lacking courage , courage is resolve or a lack of fear ,
could you wake up knowing what he knew , don't call them
cowards ,call them fanatics , murdering bastards , zealots
, insane
madmen , but don't
question their resolve they have i believe proven exactly
what resolve is , did anyone call kamikaze pilots cowards ,
if it is their target that changes their status of cowardice
, blame their leadership ,

i wish to apologise for the bite of truth ( as i see it)
i have pointed out that this is possibly the greatest
travesty and loss of human life event since WW2 , and is a
tragedy that should be punished by the correct powers , in
the correct manner , targetting only those responsible for
the deed itself , if possible the leader and his immidiate
leuitenants , but try to stay clear of what i think your
after , a retributive genocidal war ,

KANNIEMEERNIE korperaal ,( cannot do it anymore , corperal )
military pacifist , student of history and psychology
"so you should take away the energy of their armies ,
and take away the heart of their generals" SUN-TZU

PS don't worry to much about old nostro , if he could
predict the future with accuracy then the future is set and
there is very little we can do about it , sieze the day
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Iridios)
Subject: in defence of the devil
Date: Fri Sep 14 07:35:01 2001
shadowrun wrote:

> I through my writing tried to place you into the mind of a
> man who would give his life for his beliefs , as you
> gentlemen would do , in service of your country , you talk
> about this group being terrorists , but tell me what avenue
> would they have for conventional or even guerilla warfare
> against a nation whose defence budget exceeds their nations
> GNP many times over the ,US spends more on a single fighter
> jet than these fanatics have for total resources , should
> they attack you militarilly ,

Let's go back the the 'Bully' analogy everybody likes to use. Many in
the mideast consider America to be a bully, and consider themselves the
victim of the bully. Due to their lack of size they use covert tactics
and mobility to defend themselves. The only problem with this is the
victims of bullies do not attack the little sister of a bully because
that would bring down the bully's wrath. Attacking civilians using
terrorism is like attacking the bully's defenseless sister.

If they had attacked only military targets in America, there wouldn't
have such an outcry. Nor such a demand for the heads of all involved.
If they had attacked military targets in their own country(s) then there
wouldn't have been any real outcry, and there may have been calls for
our withdrawl.


> simply to be wiped out, would it achieve anything , and they
> are not part of a regular unit they wear no uniforms , carry
> no insignia , they are not military but trained civilians,
> they belong to no
> nation , have no support of
> the people of the country they stay in

But they do have the quiet support of the governments of the country
they stay in. Otherwise those governments would kick the terrorists
out. If every legitimate government in the world would aggresively push
the terrorists out, they would have no where to go and cease to exist.

>
> i seem to recall another war a few centuries ago when a
> bunch of rebels used guerilla tactics and irregular warfare
> to win their freedom from the greatest military power of
> that time (circa 1770-1780 my US history aint that good) , i
> seem to recall that a non-military mercantile target was a
> unifying
> point (boston tea party)

As someone said, that was on our own land. We did not attack civilians,
and the tea party was a raid on a Royal Navy vessel that was taking the
tea tax back to England.

>
> tell me nightlife if osama had dropped flyers over new york
> how many people would of left , same answer goes to
> nagasaki and hiroshima ,and please if you are going to
> justify Americas place as the paragon of virtue , try not
> to mention
> the only time nuclear weapons have been used in "military
> action" against civilians targets , which dwarves anything
> previously in history , and will for a long time to come i
> hope , the trade centre has survivors , how many can say
> they survived nagasaki or hiroshima

I'll mention the use of the A-bombs. It was a shame that we had to use
them. But if you research American history about those bombs a little
more, you will find that Truman felt compelled to use them even though
he througholy did not wish to.

The American intelligence had determined that the Japanese would refuse
to capitulate, and that we were fast approaching a point when we would
need to invade Japan to continue the war. The same analisys also
mentioned that such an invasion would cost several million lives, both
civilian and military. What they knew of their culture (Emporer was
considered a god) the civilians would fight as partisans.

Dropping the first bomb killed only several thousands of lives, as did
dropping the second bomb. Truman dropped the bombs as an alternative to
a costly invasion.
>

> threaten britain , and instigated a genocidal holocaust of
> anti-semitism , you guys joined in
> cos the axis powers attacked you , not for any sense of
> moral justice (luisitania and pearl harbour)

And now you want us to stand back and let terrorists kill civilians?
What should we do? Act in a moral fashion and stamp out
evil(terrorism), or act in a moral fashion and not go to war?

Terrorism is evil when they attack civilian targets. If civilians had
died on a military target, it's collateral damage, what do you call dead
civilians in a civilian target?

and by the way
> we wouldn't be flying a swastika but instead a red flag
> with a hammer and sickle , contrary to american belief
> others participated in WORLD war 2 i believe it was the
> russians who made it to berlin to defeat hitler

Without American participation. Hitler would only have had to fight on
one front. He would have been able to defeat Britain then focus on
Russia. Our participation made Hitler split his forces and weaken both
fronts.


> my problem is that when americans represent
> the UN they should wear pale blue helmets at the time and
> the uniform of the UN without any other markings, their
> machines of war should likewise be UN colours

I believe it's against the law for American soldiers to wear the
uniforms of any other military force, whether they are friend or foe.

, but
> sometimes
> the US takes it upon themselves to stick their military
> hardware where it isn't wanted , need i mention
> central america , laos , cuba , cambodia , vietnam ,
> ethiopia justifying it by supporting some petty dictator or
> puppet
> government , not the popularly supported peoples movement

Laos and Cambodia were parts of the Vietnam conflict. We were asked in
by the French. Do you think they were a puppet government?

>
> <israel>the arabs on the whole do not recognize Israel as a
> state ,
> yet the US supplies Israel with more advanced technology
> than any other of their allies , this is a sore point for
> anyone in the region , please note this connotation ,
> islamic people are being killed by american weapons made in
> america
> weilded by people america keeps in power , why shouldn't
> they hold America as responsible as Israel , their was no
> mass leap to combat terrorism when only Israel was being
> victimised so lets try to take this as what it is don't try
> to justify it by using other nations , it was an attack on
> america because of what they have done in the middle east
> ,now what i want to know is what have they done that is this
> bad (if anything) ?

There was no jump to combat terrorism then because Israel asked to be
allowed to take care of it themselves. Much as we want to do. And you
must remember, weapons are only tools. How they are used is the
responsability of the user.

>
> <cowardice> when a fanatic wakes up in the morning knowing
> full
> well that he is going to take over an aeroplane , and crash
> it into a building with no chance of survival , no chance of
> seeing his loved ones again , he is called a coward , the
> definition of a coward is a man easily giving way or
> lacking courage , courage is resolve or a lack of fear ,
> could you wake up knowing what he knew , don't call them
> cowards ,call them fanatics , murdering bastards , zealots
> , insane
> madmen , but don't
> question their resolve

They didn't hijack planes full of military personnel, they hijacked
unarmed civilians! That is cowardice.



they have i believe proven exactly
> what resolve is , did anyone call kamikaze pilots cowards ,

They were attacking military targets at sea, it's a different situation.


> tragedy that should be punished by the correct powers , in
> the correct manner , targetting only those responsible for
> the deed itself ,

And if the nations had acted to oust or at least identify the terrorists
and their camps, they would have their names cleared. "The only thing
needed for evil to prevail, is that good men do nothing."

> KANNIEMEERNIE korperaal ,( cannot do it anymore , corperal )
> military pacifist , student of history and psychology
> "so you should take away the energy of their armies ,
> and take away the heart of their generals" SUN-TZU

Funny. Sun-Tzu wrote the Art of War so that leaders may fight and win
wars, not run away from them.

--
Iridios
--
Today is America's Day of Mourning.
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Jonathan)
Subject: in defence of the devil
Date: Fri Sep 14 08:15:01 2001
> Let's go back the the 'Bully' analogy everybody likes to use. Many in
> the mideast consider America to be a bully, and consider themselves the
> victim of the bully. Due to their lack of size they use covert tactics
> and mobility to defend themselves. The only problem with this is the
> victims of bullies do not attack the little sister of a bully because
> that would bring down the bully's wrath. Attacking civilians using
> terrorism is like attacking the bully's defenseless sister.
>
> If they had attacked only military targets in America, there wouldn't
> have such an outcry. Nor such a demand for the heads of all involved.
> If they had attacked military targets in their own country(s) then there
> wouldn't have been any real outcry, and there may have been calls for
> our withdrawl.
>

While yes the people inside were civilians, when you step back and look at
the WTC from a military stand point it's a VERY acceptible target. 1 for
country moral (destroying somethign that big), 2 it slightly hindered
economy (things closed down including the stock exchange), 3 A nice big land
mark taken out.

And if just military targets had been hit civilians would still die and
there'd still be a calling for accounts.

> But they do have the quiet support of the governments of the country
> they stay in. Otherwise those governments would kick the terrorists
> out. If every legitimate government in the world would aggresively push
> the terrorists out, they would have no where to go and cease to exist.
>

Unfortunately what he is pointing out the "legitimate" governement would get
blown over in a slight breeze. They have no power. Thier own people wish to
see them fall. But if they did that would mean certain resources/friendships
with the world would change. Can't have that.

Having government support is not enough if the general populace looks at you
as an invading army supporting a puppet government.

Look at the fiction that is zorro, The people HATED the government, but the
government was the supported ruler. Just because the government has rule
doesn't mean the "terrorist" isn't loved by the people for what they are
fighting for.

And while Zorro is yes a fiction, it serves as an example of what I mean.

> I'll mention the use of the A-bombs. It was a shame that we had to use
> them. But if you research American history about those bombs a little
> more, you will find that Truman felt compelled to use them even though
> he througholy did not wish to.
>
> The American intelligence had determined that the Japanese would refuse
> to capitulate, and that we were fast approaching a point when we would
> need to invade Japan to continue the war. The same analisys also
> mentioned that such an invasion would cost several million lives, both
> civilian and military. What they knew of their culture (Emporer was
> considered a god) the civilians would fight as partisans.
>
> Dropping the first bomb killed only several thousands of lives, as did
> dropping the second bomb. Truman dropped the bombs as an alternative to
> a costly invasion.

Costly for America. I think those areas are STILL radiation zones and the
children of the A-bomb are still suffering. Tell me which would you prefer:
Clean death by bullets or the slow agonizing torment of radiation poisoning?

Costly Invasion? pfft.

>
> And now you want us to stand back and let terrorists kill civilians?
> What should we do? Act in a moral fashion and stamp out
> evil(terrorism), or act in a moral fashion and not go to war?
>
> Terrorism is evil when they attack civilian targets. If civilians had
> died on a military target, it's collateral damage, what do you call dead
> civilians in a civilian target?

Amazing how civilians are only concerned about if it's civilian targets....

> Without American participation. Hitler would only have had to fight on
> one front. He would have been able to defeat Britain then focus on
> Russia. Our participation made Hitler split his forces and weaken both
> fronts.
>
>
Your participation DID NOT make Hitler split his forces. Hitlers POOR
JUDGEMENT and EGO made him split his forces. By the time america joined in
Britain was as good as defeated however Hitler made the bad call to attack
Russia while he was still fighting britain. Then America helped and he was
fighting a battle on two fronts.

Stop believing your own propoganda. Hitler split his forces BEFORE america
joined the fight when he was pretty sure he could handle the all but
defeated britain on one side and the might of Russia on the other.

He'd have been defeated ALOT earlier if people had stopped him years
earlier.

> They didn't hijack planes full of military personnel, they hijacked
> unarmed civilians! That is cowardice.
>

No that's common sense. You think terrorists are gonna have access to
hijacking a stealth bomber? Do you thuink stealing a few f-16's will cause
the effect a 747 would?

Whaaa they're cowardly for not hijacking a Herc and being shot down LONG
before reaching thier target.

Geez get a grip. Cowardice? I call it intelligent planning. In all honesty
would you attack another country in a few hours previously stolen military
aircraft? Hell no, you'd be tracked and shot down LONG before you completed
your mission. Military target or not.

>
> They were attacking military targets at sea, it's a different situation.
>

As stated before when looked at from an impassionate view the WTC is a very
valid military target.

>
> And if the nations had acted to oust or at least identify the terrorists
> and their camps, they would have their names cleared. "The only thing
> needed for evil to prevail, is that good men do nothing."
>

Ever think they might not know it? Oh wait forgot not every government has a
secret service that tracks the lives of everyone living there.

> Funny. Sun-Tzu wrote the Art of War so that leaders may fight and win
> wars, not run away from them.

The best fought war is the war avoided.

------
Since I'm kinda new to the list let me just point out I'm not defending
these people. I agree they should pay for what they did.
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Bira)
Subject: in defence of the devil
Date: Fri Sep 14 10:55:08 2001
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 07:28:14 -0400
Iridios <iridios@********.net> wrote:

> Let's go back the the 'Bully' analogy everybody likes to use. Many in
> the mideast consider America to be a bully, and consider themselves the
> victim of the bully. Due to their lack of size they use covert tactics
> and mobility to defend themselves. The only problem with this is the
> victims of bullies do not attack the little sister of a bully because
> that would bring down the bully's wrath. Attacking civilians using
> terrorism is like attacking the bully's defenseless sister.
>
> If they had attacked only military targets in America, there wouldn't
> have such an outcry. Nor such a demand for the heads of all involved.
> If they had attacked military targets in their own country(s) then there
> wouldn't have been any real outcry, and there may have been calls for
> our withdrawl.

If they attacked only military targets, there would still be a lot of angry cries
for revenge... "They killed our brave soldiers, we must kill them too!".

And there might also be the possibility that this rage is just what the
perpetrators wanted. It's a very well known fact that any attack against US installations,
be they military or civilian, causes public outrage and extreme demands for bloody
retaliation. The perpetrators might have been fanatical and mad, but they weren't stupid.
In fact, they had to be very smart to pull this off, more than smart enough to see what
would the reaction be.

It's just a theory, of course, and perhaps a tad too imaginative. But it makes
some sense, as much as the other theories flying around about Palestinians, Iraqis and bin
Laden. None of them are supported by hard evidence yet, and I'm glad there's a serious
investigation going on.


>
> But they do have the quiet support of the governments of the country
> they stay in. Otherwise those governments would kick the terrorists
> out. If every legitimate government in the world would aggresively push
> the terrorists out, they would have no where to go and cease to exist.

Well, if this was an easy thing to do, most governments would have done it
already. Terrorists wouldn't stay free or alive long enough to put their plans into
motion.

What you're saying is the rough equivalent of saying the US government quietly
supports, say, the Mafia, otherwise they would kick them out of the country. Of course
this affirmation is false, and I'm sure the US government and law enforcemente agencies
would happily wipe the Mafia out if they could. But it's not easy. You can't just point to
someone and say "he's a mafioso, let's arrest/kill him", and it's the same with
terrorists. They hide well, and finding evidence enough to convict them is hard.

There may be _some_ places that really support terrorists, but not as many as most
people think.

> Dropping the first bomb killed only several thousands of lives, as did
> dropping the second bomb. Truman dropped the bombs as an alternative to
> a costly invasion.

But it was still an A-bomb, and it still killed several thousands more people than
were in the WTC and Pentagon. And the rationale you used to "justify" it might
very well have been used by the perpetrators. "We can't invade them (we're not even
an army, just a bunch of idealists), so we use the alternative."

It doesn't justify the attack, not by a long shot, and I think everyone here
agrees that it doesn't. But _the_perpetrators_ could easily think that it did. No one here
is trying to really defend them, in spite of the subject line, only trying to look into
their motivations. By doing that, it's possible to prevent future attacks more easily.

>
> > my problem is that when americans represent
> > the UN they should wear pale blue helmets at the time and
> > the uniform of the UN without any other markings, their
> > machines of war should likewise be UN colours
>
> I believe it's against the law for American soldiers to wear the
> uniforms of any other military force, whether they are friend or foe.

But it's UN regulation, isn't it? If you are members of the UN, you should abide
by their regulations.

>
> There was no jump to combat terrorism then because Israel asked to be
> allowed to take care of it themselves. Much as we want to do. And you
> must remember, weapons are only tools. How they are used is the
> responsability of the user.

The average Palestinian probably thinks Israel wouldn't be so agressive and
territorial if they hadn't stocked up so much on the hardware. From what I can glimpse
from the news, they have the reputation of being the local bullies, and, going back to the
analogy, the local school bullies are being supplied with brass knuckles by the students
of that big university over by the next continent.

The bully would still be a bully without brass knuckles, but he's much worse with
them. If you fight him a lot (for a number of reasons), after feeling those brass knuckles
on your face for too long some of your anger is going to transfer to the university
students who supplied them.

It's not hard to see why the Palestinians would be angry at the nations who supply
Israel with weapons, just as it's not hard to see why you would be angry at a terrorist
attack such as this.


> they have i believe proven exactly
> > what resolve is , did anyone call kamikaze pilots cowards ,
>
> They were attacking military targets at sea, it's a different situation.

And they were alone in their planes...

>
> And if the nations had acted to oust or at least identify the terrorists
> and their camps, they would have their names cleared. "The only thing
> needed for evil to prevail, is that good men do nothing."

As I said before, this might not be as easy as it seems.

--
Bira -- SysOp da Shadowland.BR
http://www.shadowland.com.br
Redator de Shadowrun da RPG em Revista
http://www.rpgemrevista.f2s.com
Message no. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: in defence of the devil
Date: Fri Sep 14 13:20:25 2001
According to Iridios, on Fri, 14 Sep 2001 the word on the street was...

> If they had attacked only military targets in America, there wouldn't
> have such an outcry.

I'm not so sure about that...

> But they do have the quiet support of the governments of the country
> they stay in. Otherwise those governments would kick the terrorists
> out. If every legitimate government in the world would aggresively push
> the terrorists out, they would have no where to go and cease to exist.

Any government in the world takes the course that seems to suit their
interests best. In the case of countries supporting terrorism, they
obviously think they'll gain something out of the deal. Furthermore, the US
has supported insurrection movements in various countries at various times
as well, and the only real difference between a terrorist and a freedom
fighter is which side of the line you're on.

> I'll mention the use of the A-bombs. It was a shame that we had to use
> them. But if you research American history about those bombs a little
> more, you will find that Truman felt compelled to use them even though
> he througholy did not wish to.

From what I've read and seen, Truman was more looking for an excuse to use
them, so he could show the rest of the world how powerful the US was.

> The American intelligence had determined that the Japanese would refuse
> to capitulate

Actually, the Japanese were wanting to negotiate with the Allies over an
end to the war; just not over an unconditional surrender, which the Allies
demanded of them. Japan was in more or less the same position as Germany at
the end of WWI: they couldn't fight on, but they also didn't want to give
in to any and all foreign demands. (Which neatly brings us to typical US
foreign policy: "Do what we tell you to, or else.")

> Terrorism is evil when they attack civilian targets. If civilians had
> died on a military target, it's collateral damage, what do you call dead
> civilians in a civilian target?

Victims of air force bombing sorties?

> Without American participation. Hitler would only have had to fight on
> one front. He would have been able to defeat Britain then focus on
> Russia. Our participation made Hitler split his forces and weaken both
> fronts.

As if _anyone_ would have defeated Russia in a conventional war. The tide
of the war turned in mid-1943, at which time the only secondary front for
the Germans was in Italy, allowing them to put a lot of their troops in
Russia. The Russians went onto the offensive around that time and pushed
the Germans steadily back for the next two years; Stalin wanted a second
front in Europe (which became the Normandy landings) to relieve the
pressure on the Russians, but what it comes down to is that the Russians
were already starting to win the war about a year before those landings
occurred. Finishing it might have cost them a bunch more dead (say, 40
million instead of 30 million...) but I don't doubt for a second they could
have done it if they'd had to.

> Laos and Cambodia were parts of the Vietnam conflict. We were asked in
> by the French. Do you think they were a puppet government?

The French had pulled out by the time the US got involved. In fact it was
Ho Chi Minh who invited the US over back in 1945, but the US decided not to
get involved in what they considered to be a French show. Only when the
Viet Minh had defeated the French and a Communist government was installed
in the north, plus a series of weak, corrupt, capitalist governments in the
south, did the US decide to involve themselves to fight the Commies and
uphold the pro-western South Vietnamese puppet government...

> They didn't hijack planes full of military personnel, they hijacked
> unarmed civilians! That is cowardice.

That's not what he said. He said that cowardice is _not_ ramming a plane
into a building.

> Funny. Sun-Tzu wrote the Art of War so that leaders may fight and win
> wars, not run away from them.

To _win_ wars. Not necessarily fight them.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
If only it were almost easy.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 6
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrun)
Subject: in defence of the devil
Date: Fri Sep 14 13:30:17 2001
just in reply to Tim Mathena

okay check your history books to pg 12

<boston> at the time they were on british soil , as america
was a british colony fought for and won fair and square from
the french , in war people die , this is what i abhor ,
people talking so freely about going to war with a bunch of
radical discidents who we should at least try to understand
before launching cruise missiles , i like to think ideals
are like matter , they cannot be destroyed , if you get them
agitated they expand , if you attempt to blow them up they
spread out radically , you only seem to be able to destroy
their current form

<vietnam>vietnam had already kicked the french out of french
indochina (as vietnam was called when the french still had
power < read up on bihn dien phu>) and declared independance
breaking themself into seperate nations due to the treaty
with the french vietnam was broken into north and south ,
peace for a little while ( late 50 to early 60s) then
america pitched up to defend the capitalistic south from the
communistic north and promptly pissed everybody off as they
wanted to be unified (one people , one nation , under god
....)

the point of american weapons in other nations hands is that
is has been done selectively to their closest allies only ,
if a zimbabwean farm invader could get a hold of an M-16 as
easily as he could a AK-47 he would have no moral qualms
about using it ,it isn't a matter of which nation supplies
to most countries but how cheaply they supply

, but what has been viewed by the surrounding nations is the
imbalance of their technology , the other nations around
Israel don't have that kind of tech (even russian) none of
them have su-27 flankers some have recently bought mig-29
fulcrums early variants , but these are not in the standard
of the F-16 and F-15 , in their latest variants , also the
fact that america has sold them tanks m-60 mbts which far
outgun the t-72 that the russians have supplied ,on top of
which they have initiated an intensive arms program of their
own with Kfir fighters , merkava tank/apcs , automatic
rifles and the like , it is not that the surrounding nations
think that Israel cannot buy these goods ,but it is the fact
that america is also unwilling to sell them to other nations
at the same rate,

america has not once applied sanctions to the state of
israel for taking over other nations land ( the sinai ,
palestine lebanon etc) Israel seems immune to them , when
Iraq invaded kuwait it was a different story ,but when
israel periodically invades Palestine when some reason comes
to the fore no sanctions are put forward , no mass army
moves to invade israel

it is simply put a double standard that appears in americas
foreign relations , this would agitate any person from the
surrounding nations ,
american high handedness in their foreign policy could be
one of the root causes of the attack on the WTC

i am not trying to put america down , what i am trying to do
is stop the inflation of untruths , have you had a serious
look at your foreign policy of late , do you even know what
your government does in handling foreigners, try not to
believe that which the powers that be want you to , analyse
it for yourself ,you have your own mind to think with , see
what they are doing , see if you agree with what they are
actually doing , because it is being done on your behalf
like it or not and as we have so tragically seen you are
being held responsible

apathy in voting is something i feel strongly about , less
americans are voting , yet who is going to be held
responsible for your elected representatives actions on
foreign policy , only as an american citizen can you
actually change what you want in your nations handling of
other countries , only by analysing what they are doing for
your safety can you see that you are not being placed at
risk by these policy decisions , voting is important not
just internally for your job security and infrastructure but
your actual security from these maniac's called terrorists
who are angry because americans voted for a biased foreign
policy , don't forget they don't see your beautiful airports
or country until they arrive ready to blow something up ,
their minds made up , your external policy is how the world
views you , that , the movies and as annoying tourists with
lots of money (so they keep quiet hoping for a big tip)

now i am going to sound like a real third worlder , but
stability in the currency markets of the world is every
nations responsibility equally, when the yen takes a dive
the dollar the pound and even the rand is affected , this is
why the world bank negates some loans to nations , it may
sound like some kinda hand out for nothing , what you forget
is that by building stronger neighbours ( who are grateful)
you actually strengthen your own position eventually , if
your neighbours on the other hand are destitute you will
only increase the distance in your relations with them

KANNIEMEERNIE korperaal , military pacifist
"invincibility is in oneself , vulnerability is in others "
SUN-TZU
Message no. 7
From: shadowrn@*********.com (NightLife)
Subject: in defence of the devil
Date: Fri Sep 14 21:35:01 2001
>Nightlifes gran is in the NYC area , and i do honestly hope against all
>hope that she is still alive , please understand
>me i do not sympathize with the actions of terrorists , i believe any
>attack on human beings is reprehensible , death
>is a finality with no reverse i asked questions that should provoke a
>response , you gentlemen have courage in your
>convinctions , yet i raise points from the other side of the coin hoping
>that maybe you to can see anothers POV , because
>it is my belief that we as people should try to understand one another and
>thereby remove this unnecessary bloodshed ,

First of all my gran has been dead for 10 years. My Aunt is a nurse who
went and helped out with the medical relief. We finally heard from her last
night. I don't expect to her back from her for a while. Get your story
straight.

>I through my writing tried to place you into the mind of a man who would
>give his life for his beliefs , as you gentlemen would do , in service of
>your country , you talk about this group being terrorists , but tell me
>what avenue would they have for conventional or even guerilla warfare
>against a nation whose defence budget exceeds their nations GNP many times
>over the ,US spends more on a single fighter jet than these fanatics have
>for total resources , should they attack you militarilly , simply to be
>wiped out, would it achieve anything , and they are not part of a regular
>unit they wear no uniforms , carry no insignia , they are not military but
>trained civilians, they belong to no nation , have no support of the
>people of the country they stay in

I have beliefs I'm willing to die for. But never have I attacked someone
who couldn't stand up to the attack. My beliefs hold that you defend those
who can't defend themselves. Not attack them by using others as a weapon.
They are cowards. They want the power they once held when Islam was the
world largest power. That is there only goal and anything is acceptable to
them to achieve this. If they want to be a 1st world country the need to
worry about building themselves into one instead of hijacking planes full
of non-combatants who have done NOTHING to them.

> i seem to recall another war a few centuries ago when a bunch of rebels
> used guerilla tactics and irregular warfare
>to win their freedom from the greatest military power of that time (circa
>1770-1780 my US history aint that good) , i
>seem to recall that a non-military mercantile target was a unifying point
>(boston tea party)


That you fool was a revolutionary war. We actually declared war with
Britain and proceeded to fight it out. But before all that the colonies at
the time tried to work it out diplomatically with Britain first. Only when
that failed did war begin. Go read a history book.


>tell me nightlife if osama had dropped flyers over new york how many
>people would of left , same answer goes to
>nagasaki and hiroshima ,and please if you are going to justify Americas
>place as the paragon of virtue , try not
>to mention the only time nuclear weapons have been used in "military
>action" against civilians targets , which dwarves anything
>previously in history , and will for a long time to come i hope , the
>trade centre has survivors , how many can say
>they survived nagasaki or hiroshima

Let me put this simply into term even you can understand. Japan attacked
us. Next we waged War over two fronts, the Pacific and the Atlantic. Japan
had no intent to surrender until Truman dropped the atom bombs on the
cites. Only then did Japan surrender after that we rebuilt Japan and handed
their country back to them. What other country would have done that.
Russia. Go and get an old map and see just how much territory they took
after WWII.

><ww>I love americans point of view on WW1 and 2 , you guys may remember
>that , like a bad dinner guests , you pitched up
>late for both , Hitler was not a problem for you , you were quite prepared
>to turn a blind eye as he invaded belgium ,checkoslovakia , austria ,
>poland , holland , france , africa , russia , greece ,the balkans , cyprus
>and even threaten britain , and instigated a genocidal holocaust of
>anti-semitism , you guys joined in cos the axis powers attacked you , not
>for any sense of moral justice (luisitania and pearl harbour) and by the
>way we wouldn't be flying a swastika but instead a red flag with a hammer
>and sickle , contrary to american belief others participated in WORLD war
>2 i believe it was the russians who made it to berlin to defeat hitler and
>the british commonwealth which held the axis powers in check for almost 3
>years until the yanks decided to get off their
>butts , they almost missed the first one too

Just after WWI America had a problem you might know about it was called the
"Great Depression". No money, no jobs and the country was just interested
in getting back onto it's feet. If you will recall "Winston Churchill"
himself said all would be lost if America did not join the war effort. Also
recall the Russia was originally part of the axis powers, until in one of
the greatest military blunders of all time. Hitler decided to attack Russia
just before the "Russian Winter" set in. Had he not done that then you
would be saying "Seig Heil".

>my problem is that when americans represent the UN they should wear pale
>blue helmets at the time and
>the uniform of the UN without any other markings, their machines of war
>should likewise be UN colours , but
>sometimes the US takes it upon themselves to stick their military hardware
>where it isn't wanted , need i mention
>central america , laos , cuba , cambodia , vietnam , ethiopia justifying
>it by supporting some petty dictator or
>puppet government , not the popularly supported peoples movement

We were ASKED to help.


><israel>the arabs on the whole do not recognize Israel as a state , yet
>the US supplies Israel with more advanced technology
>than any other of their allies , this is a sore point for anyone in the
>region , please note this connotation ,

snip blah de freaking blah blah.

><cowardice> when a fanatic wakes up in the morning knowing full well that
>he is going to take over an aeroplane , and crash
>it into a building with no chance of survival , no chance of seeing his
>loved ones again , he is called a coward , the definition of a coward is a
>man easily giving way or lacking courage , courage is resolve or a lack
>of fear , could you wake up knowing what he knew , don't call them
>cowards ,call them fanatics , murdering bastards , zealots , insane
>madmen , but don't question their resolve they have i believe proven
>exactly what resolve is , did anyone call kamikaze pilots cowards , if it
>is their target that changes their status of cowardice , blame their
>leadership ,

Fine by you definition then. Take one fanatic. Have himself strap himself
with explosive and a budget rent a truck. Fill with explosive and attack a
military target!


>i wish to apologise for the bite of truth ( as i see it) i have pointed
>out that this is possibly the greatest travesty and loss of human life
>event since WW2 , and is a tragedy that should be punished by the correct
>powers , in the correct manner , targetting only those responsible for the
>deed itself , if possible the leader and his immidiate leuitenants , but
>try to stay clear of what i think your
>after , a retributive genocidal war ,

You apology if it wasn't hollow enough would not be accepted. The rest of
this is for those who keep on bashing what America has or hasn't done in
the past. It's 2001 whatever happened in the Revolutionary war, The Civil
War, The Mexican-American War, WWI, WWII, The Korean War, Vietnam, Desert
Storm, etc.... Does not justify taking a airplane full of innocent people
and slamming it into a building full of innocent people in an act to try
and prove a country is vulnerable. These fanatics, zealots whatever and the
rest of anyone criticising our right to defend ourselves from an attack and
deter another. Should take a look at Gandhi. He and his people were
oppressed. They didn't win battle though violence. They did it through
peace. If these fanatics are so dedicated and zealous to change the world
and make it better place, should use Gandhi's methods, not taking over
vehicles full of people and ram it into structures full of people. As for
the rest the next time your country has a disaster or other catastrophe
don't call the US for help if we're so god awful ask the Afghans for help
and see what you get. Then ask the Russians and see what you get, ask the
Lebanese for help and see what you get before you start bashing the US.
Message no. 8
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Kenneth Horner)
Subject: in defence of the devil
Date: Sat Sep 15 14:40:07 2001
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0068_01C13DEC.90DF1600
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>Costly for America. I think those areas are STILL radiation zones and the
children of the A-bomb are still suffering. Tell me which would you prefer:
Clean death by bullets or the slow agonizing torment of radiation poisoning?<

Radiation poisoning kills within days. Victims may manage to make weeks,
but people have lingered on just as long with fatal bullet wounds.

Ken'

------=_NextPart_000_0068_01C13DEC.90DF1600
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"
http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.3105.105" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>&gt;Costly for America. I think
those areas are
STILL radiation zones and the<BR>children of the A-bomb are still suffering.
Tell me which would you prefer:<BR>Clean death by bullets or the slow agonizing
torment of radiation poisoning?&lt;<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Radiation poisoning kills within
days.&nbsp;
Victims may manage to make weeks, </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>but people have lingered on just as
long with fatal
bullet wounds.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Ken'</DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0068_01C13DEC.90DF1600--

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about in defence of the devil, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!