I guess giving up some freedom for the sake of some security means also giving up the right to define what security is.
I'd prefer to face the common terrorists rather than the terrorist state. I'll still have a chance to fight back. This is said by a citizen of a country whose army, in the last century, won only the fights against it's own citizens (well, except a war when they did not fire a shot becase the enemy was too shocked by the suprise, but, anyway, the army was decimated by desinteria). As far as I am concerned, I'd prefer to arrange my own security, since suicide bombers won't stopped by "carnivores" more than are they stopped by bullets. As long as the basics of building destructive devices are learned in secondary schools, and as long as it is not considered feasible to reserve this knowledge (I mean, electricity and chemistry)to a "trustworthy elite" there would be no protection from mad|brainwashed|fanatic|interested bombers, and nobody can convince me that that "elite" would be completely sane and under control, or that it would not employ terrorism in order to protect its privileges and enforce obedience. I apologise for my poor English, but I belive that waiting for more than 30 minutes to download the thread over a very slow line give me the right to post my off-off-topic opinion. Emil Perhinschi On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 14:09:02 -0500 Gary MacDougall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You can quote Ben Franklin all you want, but Ben Franklin's world was > a far simpler, easy to > undersand and clearly not as geographical world as ours is today.
