[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > At 06:52 PM 2/18/99 -0800, Gar Lipow wrote: > >As long as they keep up the effort , it gives us some leverage, which we > are fools not to use. Writing a letter really doesn't cost us that much > effort. As long as congresscritters need votes to stay in office you get > results disproportionate to your effort. And note that letter writing does > not prevent you from taking more militant action. Call and write your > Congresscritter and Senator first thing in the morning. > > True, letter writing may not cost much, but it also has an added > disadvantage of working as an analgesic. It lulls people into thinking > that they are doing something to alleviate their pain instead of taking a > more radical action of cleaning the rotten root canal. No it doesn't. You give me one example of someone who has written a letter and thought that is all that needed to be done by anyone. If letter writing had zero effect you would have a point, but the fact is that letter writing has a small but measureable effect. > > >All that McVeigh did for the big boys was give them an excuse for the > anti-terrorism act. I always wonder about people who romanticize violence > when the other side has all the weapons and most of the popular support as > well. > > It really depends how you count. Desperate actions shift the cost of > oppression back on the oppressors, and thus make them think twice. A case > in point. During the 2nd World War the Polish Resistance made several > unsuccessful attempts on a cearin SS commander known as the "butcher of > Warsaw". Each attempt was followed by retaliation against the civilian > population, causing considerable resentment against the Resistance's > tactic. The common argument was "even if you kill this commander, they > will send another one." Well, after several trials they finally got the > ratfucker. Surely enough, the Nazis sent another one as a replecement, but > the retaliation against civilians stopped. Apparently, the replacement guy > got the message that it was not worth the risk. The Warsaw ghetto during world war II and 1999 USA are -er- slightly different historical situations. If you can't see the distinction... Wild random, crazy violence is a sign of weakness not of strength. To take just one aspect -- I don't know of one case of violence that was successful by radical activists who did not have the sympathy of the majority of their base. To talk about violence as useful in the 1999 U.S.A. is simply crazy. I am not a principled pacifist. I would never tell the Cuba, or the Zapatistas what tactics give them the best chance of survival. But in the U.S. in the present political context -- this is insane. > > >>From out in the real world in looks more like a 40 year campaign of > trying to use violence against a better armed oppressor won Palestinians > the right to a bantustan. > > That is a victory. A few years ago even a bantustan was out of question. > Read Edward Said, if you think a Bantustan is a victory or even an improvement. Do you really think that Palestinian cops torturing palestians on behalf of Israeli overlords, while Palestinans continue to lose land, water and their lives is an improvement. Also, read Said on why violence has been a failure as a Palestinian tactic. (And, like me, Said is not pacifist.) Actually I know the web site. Maybe I will forward the article. > Regards, > > Wojtek -- Gar W. Lipow 815 Dundee RD NW Olympia, WA 98502 http://www.freetrain.org/
