Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/09/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]on 9/12/01 11:05 AM, B. D. Colen at bdcolen2001@yahoo.ca wrote: > I think what Austin is saying - and I KNOW he will > correct me if I'm wrong ;- ) - is that no terrorist, > and no act of terrorism, should ever again be > tolerated anywhere. the problem is with defining terrorism was French or Polish resistance to Nazi occupation terrorism? was Bosnian muslim resistance to Bosnian Serbs terrorism? was the Afghan war against the Soviet Union terrorism? was the ANC resistance to the S African administration terrorism? we are all capable of supplying different answers to those questions I think from which flows the question, should third-party nations have become involved AGAINST the 'terrorists' or countries which harboured them? should the US have gone to war with England for supporting the Resistance? with Angola for harbouring the ANC? with Afghanistan for fighting communist Russia? you see the problem I think In a way the rhetoric of war does make this problem simpler. The right of a nation to go to war against a specific enemy to defend itself is less problematic than trying to figure out who the 'terrorists' are. That all depends on who you ask. - -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com