|
Chris
and Lawry, We are
mixing apples and The “no negotiation” applies to specific
instances - such as kidnapping. The argument - surely a good one - is that negotiating
the release of a victim merely encourages more kidnapping. No
negotiation might mean fewer kidnaps. This is
very different from (say) negotiating a peace. Harry
of 818
352-4141
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:futurework- [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Christoph Reuss Sent: Saturday,
July 09, 2005 4:32 PM Subject: [Futurework] Re: “you
can’t negotiate with terrorists” > > The is > > fundamentally wrong, as the long history of such
successful > > negotiations shows. This assumes that successful negotiations are the goal. Wrong assumption. Who wants successful negotiations—i.e. a peaceful solution—when the bogeymen of terrorism are needed
(not only “wanted” ;-} ) to “justify” domestic Orwellian measures, booming armaments & “security” industry sales ( are either with us or with the bogeymen, forget neutrality) ? Plus, the bogeymen help to deflect global attention from the environment, sweatshops, social decay, Codex Alimentarius etc. etc.—it all becomes unimportant if you have to think of your bare survival in the bus. So perhaps the question is: Can you, as a voter, negotiate with
state terrorists ? Chris > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword “igve”. _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
