>No, it isn't. ;-)
>
>http://www.rediff.com/election/1999/sep/07clash.htm
>http://www.ambedkar.org/News/hl/Murder%20of.htm
>http://www.intamm.com/politics/pmk/pmk.htm
maybe i'm dense, but what does this have to do with anything. perhaps i should have skimmed further than the first, but i don't see how what this has to do with anything that's been discussed. It's not an issue of violence v non-violence. that's chuck's red herring.
as far as I know, the people who object to chuck's version of propaganda of the deed are not opposed to violence in principle. what most people find repulsive his tendency to flat out deny that peaceful protests are of any value whatsoever, that anything Nathan-types do is useful, that the work Lacny does is useful, that the stuff Yoshie does is useful. All of it, except what he advocates, is worthless.
Maybe that's unfair but that's what I get from his posts: if it ain't something he approves of, it sucks.
Kelley
"Finish your beer. There are sober kids in India."
-- rwmartin