-Caveat Lector- on 9/30/02 1:38 PM, flw at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> -Caveat Lector- > >> I did ask you 2 questions, trying clarify, for myself and my own > imperfect >> understanding of what you said. >> >> 1 - Do you believe a "end justify the means" philosophy of action? > > My point was such a broad question is irrelevant to the Israeli > occupation of Palestine without specific context. > > My answer to your broad question is: It depends on the 'ends' and the > 'means' used and required to achieve those 'ends'. For example, if a > subjugated > people, including innocent civilians, are murdered via state terrorism > used to > enforce that subjugation, then counter-terrorism is acceptable if that > is > the only means of effective resistance. Sometimes it is necessary for > others "to feel your pain" if all other avenues are denied. Fair enough. I mostly agree, but less than I used to. I love people more, and causes less, I suppose. Violence makes less sense to me. > > Unfortunately History proves that generally occupiers only stop > occupying when the Occupation causes the occupiers to pay too > high a price. > > >> 2 - Can you give me an example of the Warsaw uprising targeting innocent >> civilians, children, &tc, as opposed to military targets? > > My point of reference regarding the Warsaw Ghetto was that desperate > people are forced to commit desperate acts. Sticking to your take on the > WGU, I assume you find it completely acceptable for the Palestinians to > kill > Israeli soldiers who are occupying Palestine? What about armed > 'settlers' > (i.e colonizers)? > Soldiers against soldiers - is more legit, yes. I don't condone it, but warfare is best kept away from civilians. So If you say "Palestinians" as the whole population killing the soldiers - I can't say I agree absolutely - armed settlers and armed Palestinians are the same to me in this context. Idiots. > > Whether or not a majority of the Israeli public agrees with the Greater > Israeli Sharon Gang (they voted for him knowing exactly what they would > get), > they approve of his policies. Perhaps the majority of Germans did not > support > Hitler but they tolerated his policies also and came to a bad end because > of that toleration. Of course the same is true for the US. If the US public > tolerates or supports aggressive national policy that causes pain, anger, > and > distress to other countries or groups, prepare to accept the price. This is > not > a moral statement, just a recognition of reality. > I agree with this almost completely. I'm not so sure how many people who voted for Bush absolutely approve of all his policies. Same goes for Sharon. > I note that you did not dispute any of the substance of my post regarding > the general proposition of occupiers vs occupied, demographics, etc. > but merely want to quibble over analogies. > I don't support much of what Israel has done. The 2 groups don't even share the same historical facts, and so they are arguing in different languages, impossible to understand each other. I think Israel has a right to exist. I do not support most of it's rightwing hawkish actions. I was not quibbling at all - I was really trying to get at the real points of what was being said. In a fully verbal medium, it's silly to dismiss anything as just semantics. > The bottom line is that when one country conducts a brutal, murderous, > occupation of another people by a policy of state terrorism, it is > ridiculous > for those same people to claim victimhood when the occupied use similiar > tactics to fight the occupation. (Unless you believe it is moral to bomb > civilians as long as you use jets and heliocopters but it is 'immoral' to > actually become the bomb and deliver the human bomb in person.) Of course all of that ignores the anti-Jewish massacres that took place in the region before 1947 - in the teens and '20's , etc. I never support the killing of civilians. The question remains, is someone in that specific context really a civilian if they shoot or bomb others for political reasons? > > Doesn't the Torah state that you reap what you sow? The Torah is a religious document, and thus is at best meaningful metaphors to guide and bind a tribe. I certainly never base arguments on any religious texts. > flw -- -- -- -- -- - -- - -- -- - - - ----- -- --- -- - - - ---- - -- - - - -- ---- -- - -- - "Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." -- Mark Twain NEURONAUTIC INSTITUTE on-line: http://home.earthlink.net/~thew <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
