From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun Apr 07 2002 - 01:06:52 MST
Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> Kids with Bombs
> http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/05/opinion/05KRIS.html?pagewanted=print&position=top
>
> I'd be interested in the libertarian take on the arguments.
> Precisely when is it reasonable to strap bombs ones body
> and kill non-military personnel to eliminate the "oppressors"?
That would be an interesting discussion. History is replete
with examples of some stronger power considering the unorthodox
tactics of its opponents as being 'terrorism', 'cowardly' and so
on. Killing civilians does not distinquish terrorism from
non-terrorist tactics. Many officially non-terrorist tactics
kill civilians galore. For a while we even held the mutual
threat to kill some or all of each country's civilians as being
the doctrine that insured peace.
When you have no other way to fight, what will you do?
Give up? Go underground? Seems I remember the French
underground also committing acts that we might today call
terrorism. If the US was successfully invaded and some of our
citizens took such means against the oppressors, would your
opinion be different?
>
> After all, aren't the Palestinians simply trying to create an independent
> state where they can have "self-direction" (principle 6) and just
> opposing "authoritarian social control" that prevents a "open"
> society (principle 5)?
>
Yes, I think so to some degree. The old agreements partitioned
Israel much differently than what Israel has forced. There is
good evidence of a campaign in rhetoric and action to drive the
Palestinians out of their home if not out of the country.
Israeli rhetoric has dehumanized Palenstians to a very repugnant
and dangerous degree. Trying to act as if the Israelis are
simply victim of irrational Arabs in their midst is pointless.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:17 MST