Re: [NOISE] Re: Nazis on the Net

From:	IN%"richieb@teleport.com"  "Rich Burroughs" 23-APR-1996 17:19:45.60

>On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:
>[snip]
>> 	However, one reference in this report to Weaver's calling for a meeting
>> to oppose the "Zionist Occupation Government" does provide an argument for
>> calling him a racist of the anti-Semitic variety. On the other hand, the
>> only person claiming this is the FBI's informant; the truth of his
>> statements has been called into doubt.

>I'm sure it has been. That doesn't mean his report is untrue.  Is the
>standard of proof the same for both of these issues?  We need proof to
>establish that Weaver is a racist, but not to establish that the FBI
>informant is lying?

	I require a higher standard of proof for worse accusations. I consider
calling someone a racist a worse insult than calling them a liar. Furthermore,
that this is an FBI _informant_ is a strike against the person to begin with
in terms of trustworthiness.

>Separatist/supremacist...  I don't see much difference between them, and I
>believe the former is largely just a cover story for the latter.  Weaver
>is no hero, IMHO, though I believe the govt. fucked up big at Ruby Ridge.

	I don't approve of either separatists or supremacists; I just see the
former as not quite as evil as the latter. Calling Weaver a supremacist is
most common among the organizations that seem to believe that such actions as
at Ruby Ridge are just fine, so long as they are against their enemies; it
appears to be a public relations ploy (although the evidence is admittedly
uncertain). I don't call Weaver a hero, either, but the most evil ones at Ruby
Ridge were the governmental types.
	-Allen

On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:

> From:   IN%"richieb@teleport.com"  "Rich Burroughs" 23-APR-1996 17:19:45.60
> 
> >I'm sure it has been. That doesn't mean his report is untrue.  Is the
> >standard of proof the same for both of these issues?  We need proof to
> >establish that Weaver is a racist, but not to establish that the FBI
> >informant is lying?
> 
>         I require a higher standard of proof for worse accusations. I
> consider calling someone a racist a worse insult than calling them a
> liar. Furthermore, that this is an FBI _informant_ is a strike against
> the person to begin with in terms of trustworthiness.

Interesting. Thanks for explaining your terms. I disagree with everything
you're saying. :-)

I consider "racist" to be an ideological label, not an insult at all
(though personally, I find them sick and wrong). There's a lot of people
out there who proudly call themselves racists, at least in private. Many
of them I can have a civilized discussion with. For me, liar is a stronger
word.

I think it's good to keep the FBI informed, in general terms only. Keeps
the FBI from wigging out, you know. Self-conscious "infiltrators" and
especially "provocateurs" I would consider to be liars, but someone who
merely keeps the lines of communication open is a friend of mine. 

> >Separatist/supremacist...  I don't see much difference between them, and I
> >believe the former is largely just a cover story for the latter.  Weaver
> >is no hero, IMHO, though I believe the govt. fucked up big at Ruby Ridge.
> 
>         I don't approve of either separatists or supremacists; I just see the
> former as not quite as evil as the latter. Calling Weaver a supremacist is
> most common among the organizations that seem to believe that such actions as
> at Ruby Ridge are just fine, so long as they are against their enemies; it
> appears to be a public relations ploy (although the evidence is admittedly
> uncertain).

Who has defended the government's lies and shoot-at-sight rules of
engagement at Ruby Ridge? Please be specific. I think you're talking about
some straw man you read about in an NRA or militia pamplet. 

-rich