|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
On Friday, September 14, 2001, 2:42:22 PM, Ullrich Fischer wrote:
UF> Actually, it isn't that difficult to draw a sharp line - not between good
UF> and bad, but between those who are exercising free speech and those who are
UF> terrorists. The line is preparing or executing violent actions. Those
UF> groups, like America's Taliban: Falwell, Roberson and the 700 club, which
UF> confine their activities to odious rhetoric should be protected by the
UF> first amendment as always. Those like the various militias, who accumulate
UF> arms and set up armed camps, should be eliminated by any means necessary.
This might work well in the US, if not taken too far, but I doubt just
speech will have much effect in many other parts of the world. It
would seem we still need armed 'freedom fighters' in many places. In
fact, if just speech would work, there would be no pressing need to
send our army, would there?
Wouldn't it be very easy for all oppressive governments to simply
declare their opposition to be 'terrorists', and get rid of them? I
suspect some of the support we are getting is exactly for this reason
- a possible way for not-so-nice leaders to get the US to eliminate
uprisings for them. We need to be a bit careful here, lest we shoot
ourselves in the foot in our haste to start 'policing the world'.
How do *you* distinguish between a 'terrorist' and a 'freedom
fighter'? Are you saying there should be no more freedom fighters,
since they would need to be armed and, if necessary, to kill people?
ztrader
|