Dan Minette wrote: > 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?
I think the answer would depend on whom you ask. Given that there are countries where Bin Laden was held as 'the international leader you would most trust to do the right thing', I think you would find that a lot of people do find his goals worthwhile. I don't claim to understand it but then I have never understood why some people continue to support the BJP/VHP/RSS combine even after Ayodhya and Gujarat. > 2) Does the support of otherwise worthwhile goals by > terrorists taint the > goals themselves? I don't know if it taints the goal itself but it certainly taints the way the goal is perceived by people. And it definitely reduces the efficacy of the argument. At least that is my opinion. No matter how worthwhile a goal is, if you start blowing up innocent bystanders to make your point, you have already lost the thrust of your argument. > 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. While reading his statements, I got the feeling that the Archbishop was warning against the dangers of demonising the enemy. The fact is that the terrorists do enjoy implicit and/or explicit support of a lot of people in many parts of the world. Some degree of support/co-operation is needed from these very people in order to find and neutralise the terrorists. A blanket condemnation and constant demonisation makes this co-operation far less likely. Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
