[lbo-talk] Alex Cockburn on Ted Honderich

[C. G. Estabrook]

One could also reasonably reject both Israeli attacks and Palestinian
suicide bombings while recognizing a Palestinian right to resistance --
even armed resistance. Recognizing that right does not entail acceptance
of every tactic chosen in its exercise.  Similarly, one could recognize
the right of the Maquis to fight against German occupation without
necessarily approving every tactic they chose, especially if those tactics
injured non-combatants.  --CGE

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, andie nachgeborenen wrote:


> I am not defending, just reporting. I note that you think it's OK for
> the govt to blow up Afghan children to supposedly reduce the the
> threat of terrorism. It is a common case of double standards. Govts
> with armies, especially our govt, can burn people alive, blow them to
> smithereens, machine gun wedding parties, and the like. That is just
> collateral damage. But members of weak groups that have not
> established states which can afford cruise missiles and attack
> helicopters, if they kill children and old people to further their
> aims, are totally reprehensible and have to be smashed with cruise
> missles and attack helicopters. So you have no basis for
> sanctimoniousness. You just care about different groups than
> Honderich. He cares about the weak and powerless, you about the
> citizens of wealthy nations and their clients.
> 
> Double standards aside, Hondo's argument that Palestinean terrorism
> might an effectivw way to promote equality might be wrong, but on your
> own terms -- in principle -- you have no basis that is not empirical
> to object to it. If it promotes the general welfare to blow yourself
> and a bus full of commuters to bits, you must regard it as an
> obligatory act -- one that commends it, in fact, to yourself.
> 
> jks
>