HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Military censorship of news
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:29:07 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>>jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

[Vietnam tv coverage...]
>>>                ... just showed the American people how terrible war is.
>>>Since we know that already, what's the point?

>>I think the point was that many Americans *didn't* know how
>>terrible war was before that; and when they saw the carnage,
>>they decided that it wasn't worth destroying human lives for
>>a political theory.  Something that each generation has to
>>learn afresh, it seems.

>I think mankind has generally agreed that there are some things worth
>fighting and dying for.  Freedom is certainly one of them and there
>have been plenty of political theories throughout history that have
>denied people freedom.  The British colonial system of two centuries
>ago comes immediately to mind...

There is a difference between short-term and long-term potential
for destroying lives, where this includes some component of quality
of life as well as life in and of itself.  The way I interpret the
willingness to sacrifice lives for freedom is that the short term
loss is countered by the long term benefits, since an unfree society
is quite likely to lead to widespread misery.  It's arguable (and I
would argue) that in the case of the US Revolution, the benefits
did indeed exceed the losses.  Despite the suffering and deaths
that were caused, it was really not a very bloody war.  In the
case of Vietnam, where the US fought to preserve a puppet
dictator who used torture (remember the tiger cages?), it's not
so clear cut.

>There was also the political theory that marched across Europe and bombed
>the crap out of your cities all night.  Worth fighting and dying for
>in order to stop such a "theory"?

Again, in this case it was clear that not fighting would lead to
massive death and oppression.  Sorry I was unclear: I'm not against
fighting for various principles.  I am against fighting for a
third party in such a way that the third party endures an awful
lot of suffering and death, when they don't even have a say in
what's going on.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Still shone the candlelight on the empty screen, after the power went.
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Usual Libels against Chomsky
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Aug22.224535.7716@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
	<JMC.92Aug22213934@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <BtHpBL.J73@newcastle.ac.uk>
	<jyc.715309331@Leland>
Date: 1 Sep 92 20:26:13

In article <jyc.715309331@Leland> jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes:

   Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:

   >jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

   >>In 1967 I attended an "anti-war" demonstration in San Francisco.  I
   >>still had some leftist sympathies and "opposed the war".  However,
   >>when I saw the people at the head of the demonstration carrying
   >>placards reading "Ho, ho, Ho Chi Minh, NLF gonna win" and also
   >>chanting the slogan, I realized that I wasn't marching in an anti-war
   >>demonstration but in demonstration in support of a communist victory.
   >>I never attended another.  Some people told me that the people in
   >>front were just a fringe group, but this fringe group was never
   >>criticized by the "mainstream" "anti-war" movement or prevented from
   >>dominating their demonstration.

      I think John McCarthy made vastly too much of those chants.  I was in
   those demonstrations too, as was virtually everyone I knew at the time,
   and I can testify not only that the Ho Chi Minh chanters were a small
   minority, but that most even of that minority took up the chant not
   because they had any interest in a Communist victory, but because of the
   gartifyingly infuriating effect it had on flag-waving jingoist
   onlookers.  When your fellow citizens are lining the parade route
   indignantly demanding that you kill and die for nothing, it's hard to
   resist taking advantage of an opportunity to give them apoplexy. 

I'll make a little more of those chants.  They were not criticized
by the mainstream of the "anti-war" movement.  The "no enemy on the
left" produced some seamless alliances.  For example, at the time
Reagan was carrying out the Carter-initiated plan to match the
SS-20s by intalling the Pershings and cruise missiles, there was
a seamless alliance stretching from four former U.S. Secretaries
of Defense all the way to the Central Commmittee of the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union.

If you don't want to be taken for extremists, then you have to
say something to distinguish yourself from the extremists.  The
"anti-war" movement neglected this to the point of being taken
over by its anti-American wing.  My further experience included
the Venceremos takeover of the mid-Peninsula Free University.
When I unsuccessfully tried to get the MPFU to reaffirm its
previous commitment to nonviolence, I was threatened with death
in a meeting of the MPFU.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: drm@esl.com (Don McGregor )
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Usual libels against Chomsky
Date: 3 Sep 92 01:09:48 GMT
Reply-To: drm@esl.com

In article <1SEP199222301798@reg.triumf.ca> orwell@reg.triumf.ca (BALDEN,  
RON) writes: (quoting a book by someone or other)
# "  A critical element of the [Reagan] administration's campaign, 
# therefore, has been a broad series of accusations[...] 
# of Soviet expansionism, violations of arms treaties,
# intransigence in arms negotiations, initiatives in the arms
# race, planning for nuclear war, use of inhumane weapons,
# Soviet violations of human rights, and support of violence and
# terrorism throughout the world.

Hmmm.  Since the book was published, the then-Soviet foreign minister  
admitted that the xUSSR cheated on ABM radar agreements, and it was  
revealed recently by the current Russian government that arms transfers  
were made to IRA and to mideast terror organizations.  The East German  
government also sheltered baeder-meinhof gang members on East German soil.   
The IRA seems to fit the profile of a terror group rather well.

It seems that the Pentagon got at least one or two things right this time.  



--
Don McGregor
drm@esl.com  
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2979 alt.news-media:1096 alt.rush-limbaugh:4107
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Military censorship of news
Date: 30 Aug 92 15:58:46 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

>My opinion, and I have had little to do with the military since 1946,
>is that the military are so compliant to the wishes of the media that
>they risk incurring more casualties than they otherwsie would.

My opinion is that aside from *very* short term tactical constraints,
this is an unfortunate but necessary risk.  The alternative isn't
very pleasant; the UK Prevention of Terrorism Act is an example of
how.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Still shone the candlelight on the empty screen, after the power went.
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: horgon@nevada.edu (DON PITCHFORD)
Subject: Re: Gulf War News Coverage (was: NBC news and Dan Quayle)
Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 10:22:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.074022.1565@leela.cs.orst.edu> chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen) writes:
}
}My argument had to do with the availability of information before, during and
}immediately after the war.  The Pentagon briefings released only the most
}favorable information to the public/media, while preventing reporters from 
}gathering information independently.
}

There are several reasons for the censorship of the media in Desert Storm.
The military did not want their people to come home to another Vietnam
style welcome and did what it could to present a good face.  While they
did withhold video of people being killed, I don't feel that is necessary
to give the people back home an idea of what is happening.  If anyone
thinks war is clean and pretty, they need to wake up.  Another reason
would stem from the Falklands War.  There were several instances of the
press releasing critical information.  The British Press released the
fact that the Argentine bombs were fused wrong after the first attacks
on the Invasion Fleet by the Argentine Air Force.  This alerted the
Argentine Air Force to the problem and the problem was corrected, resulting
in the deaths of many sailors and soldiers with the Welsh Guard on Sir
Galahad.  The BBC World Service released the attack on Goose Green before
it took place.  Incidents like this make the military even more cautious
about releasing information to the press.  I don't need to see people being
killed to know it is happening in a war.  I don't need to see bombs miss
their targets because it a simple fact of nature that humans are imperfect
and equipment doesn't always work perfectly no mater how sophisticated it
is.  With all the flak, anti-aircraft missiles, warning tones, smoke, etc
while trying to identify and pinpoint a small target at over 450 mph, I'm
surprised more bombs didn't miss.  

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Usual Libels against Chomsky
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Aug22.224535.7716@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
	<JMC.92Aug22213934@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <BtHpBL.J73@newcastle.ac.uk>
	<jyc.715309331@Leland> <JMC.92Sep1202613@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<jyc.715407394@Leland>
Date: 2 Sep 92 23:41:17

I served when I was drafted at the age of 18.  Had it not been for
the A-bomb, I might have been in on the invasion of Japan.
Not too likely, but possible.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: NBC news and Dan Quayle
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Aug25.150139.15331@afit.af.mil>
	<1992Aug26.222529.11915@leela.cs.orst.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:05:15

David Christensen includes:

     I'm sure every government agency would like to release only
     positive infor- mation about its doings, but is not extended
     that privelege.  I would like to know why people like
     yourself feel that military operations should be above
     criticism and/or investigation by media, citizens, or
     elected representatives.  You may say that the citizens do
     oversee the military through elections, but what good is
     that if citizens are denied the information that allow them
     to make an informed decision?

What information a government agencys obliged to provide and to
whom is regulated by the Freedom of Information Act.  If some
outfit wants to request videotapes of military operations, they
can make this request.  Unless the Defense Department can provide
a security reason that satisfies the courts, they are obliged to
provide it.  I suppose their budget for doing so is rather limited,
but I haven't heard of FOIA requests for videotapes, so Mr.
Christensen could be the first.  He can even ask them to search their
files for tapes that show Iraqi babies being blown to bits.

Besides FOIA, which is available to any citizen (or even foreigner),
Congress can hold hearings on military activities and call current
or former officers and Defense Department officials to testify under
oath.  Write your Congressman and ask for an investigation of whatever
you think might suit your purpose.

What you cannot do without an act of Congress is to require the
Defense Department in all future operations to collect some kind
of information that might suit your purposes.  Would you like to
formulate an extension of the Freedom of Information Act?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: drm@stimpy.com (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Usual libels against Chomsky (sorry)
Date: 3 Sep 92 03:10:44 GMT
Reply-To: drm@stimpy.com
Organization: ESL, a TRW Subsidiary

Drat.  The posting software kept on telling me that one WASN'T
being posted, and now it won't let me cancel it.  Profuse 
apologies.
---
Don McGregor | "That which does not overflow my swap file 
drm@esl.com  | makes me stronger."
From: drm@esl.com (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Smearing I.F. Stone
Date: 26 Aug 92 00:36:42 GMT
Reply-To: drm@esl.com
Organization: ESL, a TRW Subsidiary

In article 25AUG199216532166@reg.triumf.ca, orwell@reg.triumf.ca (BALDEN, RON) writes:
>John McCarthy has repeated at least twice now the smear that newsman
>I.F. Stone (1907 - 1990, approx.) was a "paid K.G.B. agent", a smear
   
I believe that John posted a couple times before that his source was not the CIA
(the left-wing view of the CIA makes it seem less like an intelligence agency
than a wildly successful government full-employment project) but rather the 
Soviets themselves.

Or was the KGB in the CIA's pocket too?

---
Don McGregor | "That which does not overflow my swap file 
drm@esl.com  |  makes me stronger." --Friedrich Nerdzsche

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Usual Libels against Chomsky
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Aug22.224535.7716@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 22 Aug 92 21:39:34

In article <1992Aug22.224535.7716@m.cs.uiuc.edu> drk@melodian.cs.uiuc.edu (Dave Kohr) writes:

   In article <JMC.92Aug21201408@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
   >Very likely Eisenhower was wrong about the 80 percent or his experts were
   >contaminated by sympathy to Asian communists.

   Would you care to substantiate this?

   >Long before the communists conquered South Vietnam, it was clear which way
   >the refugees were going.

   Yes, they were fleeing away from the rural villages being demolished by US
   in South Vietnam and toward the cities.  Do you have some example in mind
   to actually support your case?

Leftists make that claim, but what about the refugees who continued to
flee after the communists had Vietnam to themselves.

   >I admit you Chomskyans interpret matters so that the U.S. is responsible
   >when the communists kill somebody

   This sounds pretty ridiculous to me.  Do you have even a single example?

Anthony Lewis, the leftist NYT columnist made that point when the Khmer
Rouge atrocities came out.  He said they were maddened by the U.S.
bombing of the Cambodian border areas with Vietnam, which had been
taken over by the North Vietnamese.

   >Don't forget the 1968 massacre of 2,500 in Hue when the communists
   >captured it temporarily.

   It seems to me that similar atrocities were committed by the US and its
   allies also (My Lai being only the most famous example).  Certainly there
   was no shortage of barbarity on both sides.

   >Does the American left have any responsibility at all for the murders
   >by the people they supported?

   John, once again what do you mean by "support"?

In 1967 I attended an "anti-war" demonstration in San Francisco.  I
still had some leftist sympathies and "opposed the war".  However,
when I saw the people at the head of the demonstration carrying
placards reading "Ho, ho, Ho Chi Minh, NLF gonna win" and also
chanting the slogan, I realized that I wasn't marching in an anti-war
demonstration but in demonstration in support of a communist victory.
I never attended another.  Some people told me that the people in
front were just a fringe group, but this fringe group was never
criticized by the "mainstream" "anti-war" movement or prevented from
dominating their demonstration.

I think all these people bear some of the moral responsibility for the
crimes of the people they supported.  Certainly the U.S. has borne
moral responsibility when people we support commit crimes.

   -- 
   Dave Kohr     CS Graduate Student     Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
   Work: 3244 DCL, (217)333-6561  Home: (217)359-9350  E-mail: drk@cs.uiuc.edu
		      "One either has none or not enough."

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: NBC news and Dan Quayle
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:15:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Thus spake jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer): 

>For any who may actually be unaware of the Air Force's methods of
>obtaining videos of this sort, here it is.  They are a direct descendant
>of the gun camera used in WWII fighters.  They were used to confirm
>an enemy AC destruction.  The *only* reason we have video tapes of
>smart bombs and the like is for intelligence use.  They were not added
>to the AC weight and cost merely to provide us with neat evening news
>footage.  
>
	No, but the selection of WHICH tapes to "permit" the American public
to view certainly was!

	In an earlier post you claim that the reason information of value to
those who opposed the war was not made available was the cost of obtaining
it and the security of the recording devices. Since Iraq was totally aware
of the sites which had been bombed, and since tapes made on the same
equipment showing what the Air Force WANTED to show were released to the
public, clearly the security argument is invalid here. And since the tapes
of FAILED bombings - those which destroyed civilian targets vs military ones
- already existed, clearly there was no COST consideration in the failure to
release them to the press. 

	Since that invalidates BOTH your arguments for the Military action,
it seems pretty obvious that the only reason left is a desire to deceive the
American public. In other words, to feed us propaganda.

	Of course, any act which knowingly deceives the American Citizenry
and results in the death of American Soldiers (as is the case if the people
are dissuaded from ending a war through the provision of false information
by the military) COULD be considered treasonous - but I'm sure the military
could care less about such "details." After all, they exist to serve the
administration, not the people.

	Tell me, do you have a tendancy to klick your heels together and
thrust your arm out in front of you rigidly when you see George Bush on TV?

>
-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\        You are right from your side,        
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \        And I am right from mine.          
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  We're both just one too many mornings,   
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  And a thousand miles behind. (c Bob Dylan) 
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: NBC news and Dan Quayle
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:36:54 GMT

adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:

>Thus spake shimeall@cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall): 

>>You are precisely correct: the military exists to SERVE THE PEOPLE.
>>It serves the people by defending their interests, as defined by their
>>elected representatives, at home and abroad.  

>>If they used resources to
>>matters unrelated to that mission or injurous to the interests of the
>>United States, as determined by their elected representatives, they
>>would be subject to criminal prosecution under either the fraud/waste 
>>(for using resources for purposes unrelated to Desert Shield/Desert
>>Storm) or treason (for acting injurous to the interests of the US)
>>statuates.

>>Whether to provide information to those who oppose war wasn't a
>>military decision.

>> Collecting
>>information for civilian personnel was not funded by Congress nor 
>>provided for in the mission statement under which the President and
>>Congress sent the troops to the Gulf.  
>>that spent effort collecting non-opera
>>only nonfraudulent and nontreasonous course for the military to take, under
>>the rules given to them by the President and Congress.

>	"I was only following orders."

>	Hitler was the duly elected leader of HIS nation, too. And the
>soldiers at the death camps were only carrying out their duties and acting
>in the interests of THEIR nation, as determined by THEIR elected
>representatives.

>	Lt. Calley [sp?] was only carrying out his duties and acting in the
>interests of the United States as determined by our elected representatives
>at Mai Lai.

>	Isn't it interesting how the military mind always manages to excuse
>ANY action with the same claims - yet is quite willing to condem OTHERS for
>following the same code?

What in the world are you implying?  Nobody in the Gulf had any orders
not to gather information like how many Iraqis were killed.  We take
an oath to "follow the lawful orders of our superiors.. and to defend
the constitution."  You make it sound like we all knew somehow that 
the only moral thing to do was to count dead Iraqis and didn't do it
because we were ordered not to.  Isn't this a little absurd?


Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available: Software Engineer or MIS. MSCE, 1 year C++, Unix Experience
	   Highly motivated, keeps political opinions at home!
	             Seattle area, only.  513-233-4502

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Subject: Re:  re: Gardner on Evolution
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:34:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.223154.1867@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>  
tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Canham)  writes:

> Even when evolution violates fundamental 
> naturalistic, verifiable laws such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics 
> (i.e. closed systems tend to move toward disorder, or randomness, or 
> unusable forms of energy, depending on application), it still must be
> accepted because the only alternative is a supernaturalistic 
> explanantion, no matter its scope.  

If your going to invoke physics at least understand what you are saying. The  
earth is not a closed system. Ever hear of sunlight? Try closing a biological  
entity in a box with no light, water, air etc comming in and watch the second  
law take off. Creationist arguments always seem to wind up in this kind of  
pseudoscience.
 

--
Barry Wise

Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2940 alt.news-media:1049 alt.activism:15540