Subject:
|
Re: A question of remembrance...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 May 2001 13:20:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
840 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > 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?
>
> Education.
Please elucidate; such education as would seem to be necessary requires a
fundamental restructuring of one side's world view, and can be perceived as
colonial indoctrination by the restructured party.
> > 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?
>
> It worked for a while in Spain. It is working in NI. It worked in south africa.
Interesting, but I'm not convinced that they're equivalent to the
situation we were discussing. Good examples, though.
Dave!
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
