RE: Archbishop of Canterbury defends Terrorism

2003-10-17 Thread ritu
Dan Minette wrote: > That's not the point under debate. The question is twofold. > > 1) Is the goal supported by the terrorists worthwhile. In other words > would non-violent political action to achieve these goals be > considered > worthwhile? I think the answer would depend on whom you ask

RE: Archbishop of Canterbury defends Terrorism

2003-10-16 Thread ritu
Tom Beck wrote: > > So where, when and how does he defend terrorism? I have > read the entire > > report and haven't come across a single statement that > would count as > > defence of the terrorists? > > > > I think he fails to recognize that use of terror, even in pursuit of > otherwise un

Re: Archbishop of Canterbury defends Terrorism

2003-10-16 Thread Adam C. Lipscomb
The Fool said: > I do not accept moral relativism as valid. I knew a guy in elementary school that didn't accept the Law of Gravity as valid. Didn't change a thing. He still hit the ground like a motherf**ker when he jumped off the roof wearing cardboard wings. Sometimes, the end does justify

Re: Archbishop of Canterbury defends Terrorism

2003-10-16 Thread Dan Minette
- Original Message - From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 4:18 PM Subject: Re: Archbishop of Canterbury defends Terrorism > > From: Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Archbishop of Canterbury defends Terrorism

2003-10-16 Thread Jan Coffey
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Jan Coffey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 3:07 PM > Subject: Re: Archbishop of

Re: Archbishop of Canterbury defends Terrorism

2003-10-16 Thread Damon Agretto
--- The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > From: Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > So where, when and how does he defend > terrorism? I > > > > > have read the entire > > > > > report

Re: Archbishop of Canterbury defends Terrorism

2003-10-16 Thread The Fool
> From: Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > From: Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > So where, when and how does he defend terrorism? I > > > > have read the entire > > > > report and haven't come across a single statement > > > > that would

Re: Archbishop of Canterbury defends Terrorism

2003-10-16 Thread Dan Minette
- Original Message - From: "Jan Coffey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 3:07 PM Subject: Re: Archbishop of Canterbury defends Terrorism > > So can one really have a good means to

Re: Archbishop of Canterbury defends Terrorism

2003-10-16 Thread Jan Coffey
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 11:56 AM > Subject: Re: Archbishop

Re: Archbishop of Canterbury defends Terrorism

2003-10-16 Thread Dan Minette
- Original Message - From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 11:56 AM Subject: Re: Archbishop of Canterbury defends Terrorism > > From: Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: Archbishop of Canterbury defends Terrorism

2003-10-16 Thread Damon Agretto
> > Yup. The Ends sure do justify the means. Yep. > Every single time. > Or how about "we should look at what he actually said in the presentation rather than relying on secondary sources before we pass judgement." I wouldn't make these sorts of replies to your posts if your bias wasn't so o

Re: Archbishop of Canterbury defends Terrorism

2003-10-16 Thread The Fool
> From: Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > So where, when and how does he defend terrorism? I > > have read the entire > > report and haven't come across a single statement > > that would count as > > defence of the terrorists? > > I think this is a bit of spin-doctoring by The Fool. > Sort of

Re: Archbishop of Canterbury defends Terrorism

2003-10-16 Thread TomFODW
> So where, when and how does he defend terrorism? I have read the entire > report and haven't come across a single statement that would count as > defence of the terrorists? > I think he fails to recognize that use of terror, even in pursuit of otherwise understandable goals, negates those very

RE: Archbishop of Canterbury defends Terrorism

2003-10-16 Thread Damon Agretto
> So where, when and how does he defend terrorism? I > have read the entire > report and haven't come across a single statement > that would count as > defence of the terrorists? I think this is a bit of spin-doctoring by The Fool. Sort of the same nonsense that came about with the 1st Lady of Mar

Re: Archbishop of Canterbury defends Terrorism

2003-10-16 Thread David Hobby
ritu wrote: > > The Fool forwarded: > > > < > /15/wbish15. > > xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/15/ixnewstop.html>> > > > > Terrorists can have serious moral goals, says Williams ... > > So where, when and how does he defend terrorism? I hav

RE: Archbishop of Canterbury defends Terrorism

2003-10-15 Thread ritu
The Fool forwarded: > < /15/wbish15. > xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/15/ixnewstop.html>> > > Terrorists can have serious moral goals, says Williams > By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent > (Filed: 15/10/2003) > > > The Archbishop

Archbishop of Canterbury defends Terrorism

2003-10-15 Thread The Fool
<> Terrorists can have serious moral goals, says Williams By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent (Filed: 15/10/2003) The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, yesterday