Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 08:56:11 -0400
From: roger <pelecat-AT-bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: US-information warfare & KLA




Dave Coull wrote:

<snip more crap about stuff you don't know anything about>

> Unlike you, I don't support
> the forces of   _any_   government.

excuse me?  i believe that i've mentioned only about 36 times that i
oppose catagorically the nato bombing campaign in particular, and the
bombing of civilian infrastructure (strategic bombing) as a concept.
what support are you referring to, Dave?  what i object to is the
continuing attempt by you and Nico to minimize the actions of the
serbian security forces in their nazi-style actions in kosovo and the
constant attempts to blame the victim.  i repeat that to eject one
million human beings from their homes in two weeks is absolutely
teutonic in both efficiency and efficacy.  what we have, Dave, is as you
yourself say, horrific.

i've stated on any number of occasions that nato action has been cynical
and unproductive.  nor do i anticipate that nato will take any action
that will have any reasonable chance of ameloriating the suffering in
kosovo.  unlike you, i refuse to say that if a military force intervened
effectively i would condemn them.  i would not.  i do not condemn the
vietnamese army for stopping the kymhr rouge.  do you?  you've ducked
this and similar questions for quite a while, now haven't you?  you're a
keen one on demanding apologies, Dave.  i don't even ask for one, but i
ask you to note the record.

> What anarchists, real anarchists, not NATO stooges,
> support is anarchism.

gettin' a bit testy, ain't we.  which stooge can i be?  moe's my
favorite.  fear not, Dave.  you'll not hurt my feelings.  unlike you,
i've been to this area and i have friends there.  friends that your and
my gov'ts are dropping bombs on.  so i've thought it through.

> The anarchist attitude towards
> "national liberation" struggles is a complex one.

*The* anarchist attitude on anything isn't something a real anarchist
would give a flying fuck about.  capich?  no, i suppose you probably
don't.


roger