Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epsteinbd who wrote (43210)	9/11/2002 6:18:43 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Epstein, my sole objection is to Mitterand's murder and murder is the right word in the way we use English here. Murder is a deliberate intention to attack, knowing that a likely outcome is death. Manslaughter is wanton attack, but without knowingly causing risk of death although death might result. Say punching somebody in the head, they fall over, hit their head on the ground and die [that would be manslaughter, not murder, if there was no intention to create a risk of death]. French people are okay. I are one! [As much as Irish Americans are Irish and more than African Americans are African]. I'm considering wintering in the South of France, which I like. France overall is good. I think after San Diego and Auckland, I'd rather live in Le Lavendou [or Bormes Les Mimosa]. It was only after planning a complete killing that the argument moved towards something less murderous. Killing two birds with one stone was so much more sensible [sink the boat to show those drippy Greenpeace people what real men and women can do] and show NZ what they can do with their antinuke policy and what it'll get them]. Well, they failed dramatically and called themselves into contempt. That's a great risk when military intelligence is used to sort things out. That's why the USA needs to be circumspect when responding to terrorists. Yes, they could have nuked Tim McVeigh's home town, [say they hadn't caught him but knew he was in his home town] but that could lead to 'blowback'. Not murder? What would you call it? Attaching limpet mines to small boats with lots of people on board. You don't think that's likely to kill somebody? States aren't on a 'collision course' with public interest groups like Greenpeace. Greenpeace is a bunch of people like my oldest daughter who tie themselves to multinational company equipment, get in the way of submarines with their inflatable boats and block chimneys. They are not a threat in any but an annoying way. They also make some good points, albeit with limited rationale in my opinion. More idealism and enthusiasm than fact-based opinion. But we see that everywhere, especially in governments where clueless but enthusiastic authoritarian bureaucrats stomp around the place wielding military intelligence, police and other repressive agents. Greenpeace a sect? Most groups act like sects. I can't think of any that don't. They get their mantra and like mindless zombies, off they go, chanting their tribal incantations. Try saying "Hang on a minute mate, how about..." and they will already be shouting you down, excommunicating you the heretic, and worse. <And you must accept that when someone, anyone, goes against a state policy, especially concerning its most important defense policy, he must be ready to take some blows... > So, what did you think of China's response to the Tienanmen occupation? Did they rein hard enough blows for your liking? I don't object to nukes or other weapons of mass destruction. Killing somebody with a gun, knife, dynamite, nuke, sarin or smallpox is much the same. Creating ethical differences is false. What I object to is arrogant, smug thugs stomping around the place, killing if it suits them, not in retaliation and self defence, but from malevolence. Osama-Mitterand were cut from the same cloth. What would you think if somebody blew up the French entry in the America's Cup race and killed a few crew? Would you adopt the same approach as you have to Mitterand's murderous efforts? I think you would be able to figure out that such murder is criminally evil - but you can't figure it out when Greenpeace people are murdered and physically attacked and injured. Are you aware of Greenpeace's approach to the crew? Not really very threatening - on the contrary. I disagree with Greenpeace and am in favour of using nukes for defence and power stations and ship propulsion. But the criminals I have seen in action were not Greenpeace, but Mitterand and his contribution to the Matrix of Malevolence with his cowardly military terrorist thugs who are very brave in confronting and attacking unarmed, civilians, like my daughter who are trying to figure out how to make the world a better place. Sure recycling is stupid and nuclear energy has useful applications, but that doesn't justify murder and thuggery at sea against defenceless people. Why don't the cynical and cowardly French military do something about Saddam and Moslem Head Hackers? I guess it's a lot more scary than conducting terrorist attacks against Greenpeace. They gave the Statue of Liberty to the USA, since they have no use for it, then hide behind her skirts. Mqurice BTW, I have no idea who d'Entrecasteaux is [and don't really care]. My ideas are my own, not Captain Cook's. Ideas arrive de novo in heads as a result of what people think, as well as what they have learned from experience and those around them. The idea that ideas are merely an artifact of those who have gone before denies the idea of free will and the fact that each person born is largely a product of their life's experiences and ideas. Yes, DNA has a large bearing. Yes, upbringing defines early experiences. But we still make many choices and our ideas when 40 are quite different from our ideas when 14 when we start steering our own boat. It's a lather, rinse, lather life we lead. We aren't ants, running a fixed programme.