Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Sen. Hollings plans tointroduceDMCAsequel :The SSSCA

[Scott A Crosby <crosby(at)qwes.math.cmu.edu>]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Jeme A Brelin wrote:

>
> Self-defense doesn't involve agression.  I'm not going to stop you from
>

There are two tools for defending yourself.

Aggression, where you attack them back and hurt them as a lesson to not do
it again.

Cowardice, where you hide your head in the sand and hope that they don't
do it again. Or you hope that someone else will deal with it.

Both are justified and reasonable responses to any action. There is a
time and a place to use either Aggression or Cowardice.

If one cannot identify the responsible parties, then cowardice is the only
moral option.  If one does not have the ability to attack back, cowardice
is also the only option. Or, if the only way to stop it has greater costs
than allowing it to continue, then one must use cowardice and merely
endure.

When you are strong, and you know who is responsible, there is a choice.
Choosing cowardice may still be the right option. But it may not. If the
responsible party has done many terroristic acts, its obvious that
Cowardice does not work; that it will not stop more attacks. If cowardice
worked, they would not have attacked a second time, or even a first time.
It may not solve the problem, but it will show them the costs of their
actions.


BTW[*], it looks like we tried the Cowardice solution, many times... It
got us the first world trace center bombing, the army training
headquarters in saudi arabia bombed, two embassies bombed, and the USS
Cole. A couple billion dollars in damage, and 250 lives lost. This most
recent time, the damage is thousands of lives, and tens of billions of
dollars. This is the cost of not dissassembling Bin Ladin and his
structure two years ago.

Look at what our noble gesture, cowardice---being above destroying him and
his supporters has gotten us this this time.

To bring us even peripherally on topic, should the EFF have countersued
the RIAA over Felton? Self-defense doesn't involve agression right? So
hasn't EFF made a moral mistake in going on the offense?


--

Now to add my personal opinions as an american.

Yes, I think my government may make somewhat of a mistake. Our main goal
should not be to attack or retaliate, but merely to obtain those
responsible, their supporters and their backers, and try them. If those
parties are protected by signifigant resources, such that it does take a
war to obtain them, then so be it, but only if necessary. As a secondary
goal, if we can identify resources used in this attack; training centers
and such that have no other use other than to train terrorists, then
destruction of that property seems warranted.


IE, IMHO, this should be a police action, not a military action.


But, realistically, I think that our gov't will, unfortunately, do the
military action thing, I just hope that it is as limited an extent as
possible. Lobbing a few bombs on a war-torn country thats practically in
the stone age is just sad.


[ .... fairly long off topic rant removed after being written .... ]


Please read:  http://www.rcc.ryerson.ca/ccf/news/unique/am_text.html
      --  (1973, GORDON SINCLAIR -- CFRB, Toronto, Ontario)

If anyone else goes around smugly saying that we, at some level, deserved
what happened, I will procmail you so I don't have to hear any more shit.

If you don't like the US, boycott US products, ban US tourists, refuse US
aid, medicines or loans. (and enjoy the resulting collapse of your
country). Don't take a 'high road' attitude because the US does (and takes
responsibility) for the dirty jobs that need to be done. Also, do remember
US medicines and pesticides (over one billion lives and counting), foriegn
aid, rebuilding support, military support, food aid, etc.


Scott



[*] I am assuming, without proof, that Osam bin Ladin was responsible for
this latest incident. This has not been proven.