At 8:25 AM -0700 6/4/97, Jeremiah A Blatz wrote:
Bill Frantz <frantz@netcom.com> writes:
At 4:50 PM -0700 6/3/97, Kent Crispin wrote:
Contrast ["milita violence"] with the brilliance of the anarchist Eward Abbey in "The Monkey Wrench Gang", where the anti-government acts were calculated to call forth popular support. <snip> If you at least avoid killing people, then you have fewer bitter enemies and a better chance of holding on to your winnings. The examples of Gandhi, King, and Mandala come to mind. Contrast their success with the results of the violence approach as exemplified by the generations old wars in Ireland and Israel.
You left out Sea Shepard, who sank the entire Icelandic whaling fleet (with zero casualties) on night. Earth First!, Greenpeace, and other somewhat-less-direct action groups have used "terrorist" means and achieved enourmous popular support.
I don't want to start "defending terrorism," esp. of the murderous sort, but the plain fact for anyone to see is that terrorism often _does_ work. Look at Palestine/Israel/the Zionist Insect/whatever. Had the Palestinians calmly filed petitions to get the land back that was seized by European Jews after the Second World War--the Brits often referred to Palestinians and Arabs as "sand niggers"--would any land ever have been transferred back? (Zionists will probably jump in here citing the various wars which triggered various land ownership changes, a la Gaza, the West Bank, parts of Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, etc. We cannot generally argue "alternate histories," though.) It seems obvious that 40 years of "terrorist" (freedom fighting?) attacks by "radical" Palestinian groups had a lot to do with Israeli voters and government deciding enough was enough and agreeing to limited self-government, etc. (The whole area and political scene is notoriously complicated. I've never been there, I'm not a Jew, nor am I a sand nigger, etc. I can't say whether the political scene would have been resolved better or more peacably had terrorism not occurred, but my strong suspicion is that the Palestinians would still be filing their petitions and being given the bureaucratic runaround had they never started blowing things up.) Terrorism is also what the American colonists did to British soldiers. Ambushing them from the trees was not a kosher form of attack (no pun intended), nor was attacking their barracks at night. (Sounds like blowing up the Americans in Beirut, doesn't it?) (In fact, the act of terrorism against the 242 Marines in Beirut in 1983 "worked," didn't it? The Americans were on their way out within weeks.) Yes, innocents die in such attacks. Yes, grieving mothers cry. Yes, yes, yes to all of the denunciations of terrorism. But the fact is that all war is a kind of terrorism, and all wars and all struggles have resulted in deaths of innocents. (Intereting that Bell is so widely condemned for wanting to transfer the burden to the actual guilty parties, and not the innocents usually consumed as fuel in wars.) --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."