Tom Beck wrote: > > 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 he fails to recognize that use of terror, even in pursuit of > otherwise understandable goals, negates those very goals.
Given that he is opposed to the use of violence "as the tool of private interest or private redress" and holds that terrorism must always be condemned, that seems to be an unlikely assumption to make. What makes you arrive at this conclusion? > And sometimes the goals are not in any way laudable. He never claimed that all the terrorists have laudable goals. > For example, the use of terror against Israel is not a > protest against > Israel's refusal to permit a separate Palestinian state. The > terrorists launching > the suicide bombers on their evil missions don't want a > Palestinian state. They > want to provoke Israel to an ever harsher occupation in the > hope that this > will further radicalize more and more Palestinians against > the very idea of > peace. <snip> > So, Dr. Williams, how is the Palestinian terrorists' use of > terror against > Israel "unspeakably wicked means to pursue an aim that is > shared by those who > would not dream of acting in the same way, an aim that is > intelligible or > desirable"? Destroying Israel is "an aim that is intelligent > or desirable"? > > For him not to see this is, in my opinion, coming very close > to a defense of > terrorism. But aren't you projecting your example [not to mention your interpretation of the example] onto the Archbishop? If we can do that then how about this: There has been terrorism in Kashmir for decades now. These terrorists have been attacking civilians and civilian infrastructure : some do it in an attempt to bleed India dry, some do it to demonstrate that they are tired of waiting and want an independent Kashmir *now* and still others do it simply because they are 'international jihadis' and they love blowing people up. Now the middle group seems to be the one the Archbishop was talking about:people who use unspeakably wicked means to pursue an aim that is intelligent and desirable [okay, I dunno about intelligent but it certainly is desirable for them], an aim shared by others who wouldn't dream of acting in the same way. Hardly a defense of terrorism, more like a statement of fact. Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
