From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:53:37 MDT
On Saturday, August 17, 2002, at 03:42 am, Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:
> Harvey Newstrom stated:
> <<This is the stupidest thing I have seen in a long time. You guys
> posting this crap about nuking the planet are going to end up killing us
> all. Not directly by anyone implementing your insane plans. No one in
> their right mind would believe your lunatic ramblings>>
>
> Sounds like you would rather switch then fight, Harvey? To quote an
> ancient cigarette commercial.
I see. You perceive only two options: your plan or switch. Since I
don't like your plan, you assume I'd rather switch than fight. Did it
really never occur to you that there might be plans other than yours?
Do you really not realize that I said nothing in support of "switching",
and that you have fabricated an entire straw-man position for me?
For your information, my entire career has been spent defending the
innocent from illegal interference from others. There are better
options than resorting to terrorism ourselves. Killing innocent
civilians in an effort to persuade is called terrorism. We don't
refrain from terrorism because we are weak. We refrain from it because
there are better options. Instead of endorsing your plan, I rather
discuss better options.
Examples would be technology based, such as a missile defense shield,
better intelligence, better security controls, better bomb sniffers at
airports, better radiation detectors, better detection devices of all
kinds, better foreign policy, etc. Endorsing any of these technology
solutions would be more Extropian. Endorsing more terrorism is not.
> You are just resisting the ugly reality of what a political-social
> culture, financed by oil, and succored by religious fanaticsm has done
> to the world. This is a normal psychological reaction to change; and
> change is not always a good thing.
Yes, I am resisting the violence that begets more violence. I am
resisting the urge to commit more terrorism in response to terrorism. I
am resisting the urge to strike out at anyone even the innocent because
we can't find bin Laden or the real people responsible. I am resisting
the urge to produce more destruction rather than producing more
solutions. You are exactly right that I am just resisting the ugly
reality of what a political-social culture, financed by oil, and
succored by religious fanaticism has done to the world. I want to
replace that old-style culture, not buy into it or add to it.
> The question put forth by this thread is a realistic one in my opinion,
> and if a US city disappears under a Jihaddi nuke cloud, there will have
> to be an answer. Handing out band-aids to the survivors is not going to
> cut it.
The question *is* extremely realistic. I agree that there certainly
must be an answer. Nuking innocent civilians and becoming the world's
worst terrorists is not the answer. It would never fly in our political
system, nor would it convince any terrorists to stop. We need a
realistic answer.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:12 MST