Re: Every spam is sacred
Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> a tapoté :
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 20:21, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > This is called terrorism. You fight innocent people to make them
> > support another ISP, by fear.
>
> I think it's more like economic sanctions. No-one changes ISP out of fear,
> they do so out of a practical desire to get their mail delivered. Just as
> governments sometimes change their policy out of a practical desire to get
> their products exported when they face sanctions.
Economic sanctions can be terrorism.
"they do so out of a practical desire to get their mail delivered", it's
a game of word. By fear of having some of their mail not delivered,
they avoid some ISP.
You deliberately harm innocent people using these ISP just because
they use this ISP. Like Ben Laden killed innocent american people
just because they were American.
Not because of what they are actually, and what they are doing
actually.
> > Like a Ben Laden would kill 3000 innocent people to make the USA
> > government change his policy in Africa. (indeed, I'm not saying
> > that killing someone is equal to squish his mails)
>
> Bin Laden's stated aim was to get the US bases removed from Saudi Arabia, I
> don't recall him making an issue out of Africa.
Saudi Arabia is, in Asia, at the border of Asia and Africa. (Egypt,
Ethopia...). It's about both Africa and Asia but, you're right, I
should pay more attention to that and the forgotten "and Asia" is an
error.
> As the bases in question will apparently be moved to Iraq it seems
> that he is getting what he wants.
Ben Laden clear intentions remains to be determined. What is your
source of information?
> > We're definitely in the era of "collateral damage" (term invented
> > during the Gulf War in 1999 about Iraqi citizens, if I'm correct)
> > but I'm not sure we should be glad of it.
>
> See the snippet from `dict "collateral damage"` below. It seems that the term
> has been in use for a long time (it was also widely used in the cold war).
>
> {collateral damage}, (Mil.) damage caused by a military
> operation, such as a bombing, to objects or persons not
> themselves the intended target of the attack.
> [1913 Webster +PJC]
But what is new is, in fact, what collateral damage means now. And
it's not "damage caused by a militar operation, such as a bombing, to
objects or persons not themselves the intended target of the attack."
but "damage caused by a militar operation, such as bombing, to objects
or persons themselves the intended target of the attack, to make their
government, not itself the intended target of the attack, give up."
And in your case, we exactly in the new definition, not in the old
one. You'll deliberately target people you know innocent to make their
ISP change it's policy.
Regards,
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Reply to: