holt@parsec.UUCP (02/08/84)
#R:ut-sally:-83100:parsec:40500014:000:2930 parsec!holt Feb 7 17:20:00 1984 Hi Prentiss, I've left out the first two sets of quotes, and included only your latest stuff: > "Gee, Dave, but I have trouble believing what I think you're saying -- > namely that if a country gets itself involved in a war, all of its > citizens, right down to the babes in arms, deserve it if they are > slaughtered because they are "responsible for their government's > actions". Whatever your opinion of the complicity of the Japanese or > German citizenry in their countries' crimes, any wanton destruction of > Japanese or German civilians on our part (as has been suggested was > what we did in Nagasaki and Dresden, among other places) is totally > unjustifiable." Sorry if my thoughts were not crystal clear in the previous article. I was not condoning terrorism, the past, present, or future use of nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, bacteriological weapons or weapons of any type. Rather, I was trying to make the point, that, when it comes to war, NATIONS fight. Now, NATIONS are composed of citizens. In my mind, it is the responsability of the citizens in each nation to keep their respective governments in line. I DON'T think that all of a nations citizens, "right down to the babes in arms", DESERVE it if they are slaughtered. Nonsense. To get into detail about responsability would entail tracking responsability levels of parents for children, society for the handicapped, etc. This article isn't about that. My original article was trying to say that nations fight with the means which they have at their disposal. No matter what your political stance, you must realize that if a group or nation fells threatened, it will fight back with the means at its disposal. In the case of the middle east; terrorism. I don't condone terrorism, but I try to understand its underlying causes. > "I happen to agree (I think) with both you and the writer of the first > "Flame on America" that the American public is responsible right now > for some pretty heinous crimes of its own, and that those crimes stem > from its apathy and ignorance (what you summarize as "sitting at home, > watching prime time tv, and ignoring the actions of their government"). > Nevertheless, I don't believe that the victims of our apathy will be > justified if they respond with terrorism, firebombs or nukes; neither > are we justified in shrugging our shoulders over Nagasaki and saying, > "Ahh, the lousy Japs had it coming to them." If violence is ever > excusable, it is as a vile means of avoiding an even more vile end, not > as payment in kind to those "responsible" for some act." > > --- Prentiss Riddle Again, I was not saying that "retaliation" was justifiable, just that it happens, and to expect it if the opposition is not eliminated. Looking at the world from behind gray-tinted glasses... Dave Holt Convex Computer Corp. {allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs,ctvax}!parsec!holt