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