Hitchens on Kerry

Ian Murray seamus2001 at home.com
Wed May 9 09:14:49 PDT 2001


LC
>>
Ian is collapsing some important distinctions here. While I think both are wrong, I recognize a crucial distinction between an Irish republican who shoots a British policeman or soldier, and an Irish republican who sets off a bomb in the London underground or in the middle of a crowded shopping street. ======= What's the difference to the victims?


>>
The latter is sheer, unadulterated terrorism, without any conceivable moral or political justification. ======== This presupposes that a human being has the moral authority to inaugurate violent, death inducing acts against other persons or instruct or command others to engage in said behavior.


>>
McVeigh blew up a day care center, and then called the dead infants "collateral damage." Rhetorically playing with and identifying with this kind of "resistance" to the state, a la Cockburn, Ignatiev and now Vidal, is, in my view, a pose of "revolutionary real politik" designed to show that one is subject to weak, vulnerable human feelings, such as minimal nurturing care for an infant. There is, I might add, an obvious gendering to this discourse.

Ian may want to argue for a pacifist position. Of all the moral absolutisms [ie, moral doctrines which allow no exceptions to their rules], I think pacifism is most defensible. If you are going to insist upon an universal prohibition, than the taking of human life is about as good a prohibition as I can think of. But this does not allow for the taking of human life in self-defense, or in the defense of someone unable to defend him/herself. ============= Jujitsu, Aikido etc. should be mandatory education. Self-defense is quite possible without killing the opponent.


>>

And I recognize that necessity. A just war can be a war in self-defense. ======= That's what the Japanese and Germans said. Preemptory self-defense is one of the finer lies in life.

Ian



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list