1997-06-05 - Re: [CONTROVERSIAL]: A Defense of Terrorism

Header Data

From: Bill Frantz <frantz@netcom.com>
To: Tim May <cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Message Hash: af76736e8f3cbc40800ce4c95c5277d56f38e464e547f285de40e27faeacc2da
Message ID: <v03007836afbc0a8dda6a@[]>
Reply To: <0nZMXF200YUg07xmg0@andrew.cmu.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1997-06-05 06:31:15 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 14:31:15 +0800

Raw message

From: Bill Frantz <frantz@netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 14:31:15 +0800
To: Tim May <cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Re: [CONTROVERSIAL]: A Defense of Terrorism
In-Reply-To: <0nZMXF200YUg07xmg0@andrew.cmu.edu>
Message-ID: <v03007836afbc0a8dda6a@[]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

At 10:51 AM -0700 6/4/97, Tim May wrote:
>At 8:25 AM -0700 6/4/97, Jeremiah A Blatz wrote:
>>Bill Frantz <frantz@netcom.com> writes:
>>> At 4:50 PM -0700 6/3/97, Kent Crispin wrote:
>>> >Contrast ["milita violence"] with the brilliance of the anarchist
>>> >Eward Abbey in "The Monkey Wrench Gang", where the anti-government
>>> >acts were calculated to call forth popular support.
>>> If you at least avoid killing people, then you have fewer bitter enemies
>>> and a better chance of holding on to your winnings.  The examples of
>>> Gandhi, King, and Mandala come to mind.  Contrast their success with the
>>> results of the violence approach as exemplified by the generations old wars
>>> in Ireland and Israel.
>>You left out Sea Shepard, who sank the entire Icelandic whaling fleet
>>(with zero casualties) on night. Earth First!, Greenpeace, and other
>>somewhat-less-direct action groups have used "terrorist" means and
>>achieved enourmous popular support.
>I don't want to start "defending terrorism," esp. of the murderous sort,
>but the plain fact for anyone to see is that terrorism often _does_ work.
>Look at Palestine/Israel/the Zionist Insect/whatever.
>Had the Palestinians calmly filed petitions to get the land back that was
>seized by European Jews after the Second World War--the Brits often
>referred to Palestinians and Arabs as "sand niggers"--would any land ever
>have been transferred back?

Right.  They have their land back.  And they have peace on that land.  Sure.

They certainly could have not done much worse had the followed Gandhi and
King with massive civil disobedience.  Civil disobedience has a pretty good
track record when used against civilized countries.  (I wouldn't recommend
it in present-day China or Nazi Germany.)

>(In fact, the act of terrorism against the 242 Marines in Beirut in 1983
>"worked," didn't it? The Americans were on their way out within weeks.)

Probably because there wasn't much domestic support for our staying there.
The same comment applies to the British leaving Palestine.  IMHO, the
situation is quite different when the disagreement is civil-war in nature,
as it is in northern Ireland, Palestine/Israel, and the USA.  Neither side
is likely to get tired and go home.  The only long-term solution is to
learn to live together.

Bill Frantz       | The Internet was designed  | Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506     | to protect the free world  | 16345 Englewood Ave.
frantz@netcom.com | from hostile governments.  | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA