<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/29/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Michael Pugliese</b> <<a href="mailto:michael.098762001@gmail.com">michael.098762001@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Oy vey.<br> What the West German Left faced in the late 70's and 80's in the<br>form of the Berufsverbot and other repressive measures would have been<br>replicated a thousand fold in the USA if Camil's half baked plan had
<br>been carried out.<br>Think COINTELPRO was bad? They can do much worse. Imagine public<br>hangings like what happened to the Haymarket anarchists and thousands<br>of Fred Hampton's murdered in their beds.<br> Meanwhile, I'm still nuts.
<br><br><br>On 9/29/06, W. Kiernan <<a href="mailto:wkiernan@ij.net">wkiernan@ij.net</a>> wrote:<br><br>> You say that like it was a bad thing.<br>><br>> Yours WDK - <a href="mailto:WKiernan@ij.net">WKiernan@ij.net
</a><br></blockquote></div><br>Well Michael occasionally you make a point I agree with....<br><br>But what you are saying is that it would be "tactically" and "strategically" _bad_ but not necessarily morally or politically _wrong_.
<br><br>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).
<br><br>I hope all of that simplifies the argument to a higher level of moral and political complexity.<br><br>Jerry<br>