----- Original Message ----- From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 11:56 AM Subject: Re: Archbishop of Canterbury defends Terrorism
> > From: Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > So where, when and how does he defend terrorism? I > > > have read the entire > > > report and haven't come across a single statement > > > that would count as > > > defence of the terrorists? > > > > I think this is a bit of spin-doctoring by The Fool. > > Sort of the same nonsense that came about with the 1st > > Lady of Maryland's unfortunate quote. > > <Sarcasm> > Yup. The Ends sure do justify the means. Yep. Every single time. > </Sarcasm> That's not the point under debate. The question is twofold. 1) Is the goal supported by the terrorists worthwhile. In other words would non-violent political action to achieve these goals be considered worthwhile? 2) Does the support of otherwise worthwhile goals by terrorists taint the goals themselves? I think the archbishop was explicitly discussing the second question. For the most part, I agree with the archbishop; a very valid grievance can be the excuse for the use of unacceptable means. However, Tom did bring out an implicit problem with the archbishop's statement, that the likely goal of the terrorists is not worthwhile. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
