LeoCasey at aol.com:
> A "case" of what? Third stage syphilis?
>
> I know it should not be, it remains amazing to me how certain romantics of
> the 'smash the state' variety, a la Cockburn, manage to quickly gloss the
> loss of innocent life on a massive scale, so long as it is down in the
name
> of opposing the American state.
I have to admit to being VERY iffy about this whole thread; not whether or not it should be, but about the uses of violence in general. Leo is correct in attacking McVeigh for his actions and his comments on them.
Gordon said:
Far from glossing over the loss of innocent life, I thought their point was that McVeigh's rationale was just like the rationale of people like Bush I and II and Clinton for slaughtering people overseas (and even at home) when it was in the interests of the American state. McVeigh seems to be quite aware of this; it's part of his performance.
The other shoe has dropped. I have also been reading a bit of Lenin, and some of the rather cold-blooded stuff he says or condones in the name of Socialism worries me and puts me before a conundrum: if violence must be eschewed in order to preserve that moral high ground, what is to prevent those who are less sanguine about their methods to use violence and "win," stepping over the bodies of their peaceful opponents. I believe Hitler said something to that effect: if our enemies had been as ruthless as we, we might never have appeared. If both sides proffer violence and become themselves instruments of reason, what is to stop another antagonist from using violence as a justification to get another view into the limelight (e.g. counter-revolution). Has anyone else gotten qualms about violence and its uses, and how have those qualms been resolved (if at all)?
A Very Worried Todd