Well Michael occasionally you make a point I agree with....
But what you are saying is that it would be "tactically" and "strategically" _bad_ but not necessarily morally or politically _wrong_.
My position would be that it would be morally wrong because murder is always wrong, but possibly politically justified, if and only if, it stopped greater murders and massacres. It is always hard to tell before hand. And since we live in an (oligarchical) Republic with elected representatives it is also (usually) better to err on the side of not committing murder, because in our system a high level of popular mobilization and organization often work better in the long run, than acts of terror (John Brown excepted).
I hope all of that simplifies the argument to a higher level of moral and political complexity.
Jerry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20060929/0fd32186/attachment.htm>