Subject:
|
Re: A question of remembrance...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 1 May 2001 13:04:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
719 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > I come from the "never negotiate with terrorists" school of thought, and I
> > think there is a lot of merit in that approach. Terrorists need to be
> > apprehended and smacked down, not accomodated.
> Very noble Larry. Perhaps you could tell us how this can be done? And what
> about state sponsored/enacted terrorism?
Scott:
I would turn the question around and ask how you would propose to achieve
peace with the state sponsors of terrorism, when those same states have
demonstrated irrefutably that they accept the destruction of innocent life
as a valid negotiating tactic?
I won't go so far as to buy into the old "your commie has no regard for
human life" rhetoric, but the assumption that simple negotiations can
achieve peace between two fundamentally and violently disparate world views
is idealistic at best and has no lasting precedent in modern history. How
is it to be accomplished?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
| (...) All of this depends on our definition of "terrorist". The best example I can give us is George Washington. We see him as an American hero, a general who led soldiers against an oppressive British monarchy. Now, the British saw him as a (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
197 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
