On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
Jim Choate:
And what about the businesses that were used to support those British soldiers.
You are digging up rationales for killing anyone anywhere. Why does this not surprise me?
Actually I'm trying to get you to be more precise with your 'litmus test'. The fact is that you draw a specious distinction as to attacking one group over a community and another. As if it's ok to kill soldiers but not their mothers. Unless of course it's us doing the killing, for whatever reason we've used to justify it.
is not always clear, but when it comes to imperial soldiers and trade towers, the difference is clear enough.
Really? How? Why is attacking imperial soldiers on land they believe is theirs any different?
And the difference is also clear enough when it comes to those people who found themselves paying taxes to support an imperial war they knew nothing of.
Seems to me that if one takes active, supportive measures with respect to their government they can hardly call themselves 'innocent'. Who were these people paying taxes for a war they knew nothing of? This certainly didn't apply to the British. The general populace was informed as to what was going on. Realistically, how is 'terrorism' different from 'guerilla warfare'? -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------