Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ecsvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!ecsvax!hes
From: hes@ecsvax.UUCP (Henry Schaffer)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Il accuse...
Message-ID: <672@ecsvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 31-Oct-85 23:32:33 EST
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.672
Posted: Thu Oct 31 23:32:33 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Nov-85 05:53:04 EST
References: <487@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP> <34@unc.unc.UUCP> <417@stcvax.UUCP> <127@crin.UUCP> <2337@flame.warwick.UUCP> <132@crin.UUCP>
Organization: NC State Univ.
Lines: 19

> 
>      The second  way of  fighting for  your ideas  is with deeds, with acts.
> Here, I do not  want to   argue about who is right and  who is  wrong in the
> Greenpeace affair; but it is obvious that the Greenpeace organization is not
> only fighting with words: they wanted  to enter prohibited areas, and in the
> past years they have done many things like blocking ports and so on. I don't
> say that  their ideas are wrong, but it shouldn't come as a surprise to them
> and  to  the  world  when  the  other side  fights back. 
Is a violent response (blowing a hole in a ship) appropriate to a non-violent
act ([planning to] enter prohibited areas)?
> As  an example, the
> resistance fighters,  during  the  last world war, went  to  war against the
> nazis; they were not  wrong in doing this, of course, but nevertheless, they
> were  not surprised  when  the nazis  fought back... Well, they often fought
> back  with  disproportioned force, as  can  certainly be  said of the French
> action too, but the fact remains that acts are encountered with acts...
Is this equating the acts of the French government of today with the acts of
the Nazi's in France during WWII?
--henry schaffer