From: cbc1@Ra.MsState.Edu (christopher b carey)
Subject: Re: Violence, defense & Islam
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:00:57 GMT

slzm9@cc.usu.edu writes:

>In article <cbc1.711876704@Ra.MsState.Edu>, cbc1@Ra.MsState.Edu (christopher b carey) writes:
>> 
>>>Well, now we got another problem. *WHO* defines, what "defense" is and
>>>when it is necessary? Hitler was defending the lebensraum of the Aryan
>>>race, Bush was defending the "free" world in Iraq, Grenada, Vietnam
>>>etc., Breshnev defended The Only Ideology in Afghanistan, Khomeini

[Good points about Germany getting screwed after WWI deleted.]


>> Bush asked 'em to move, then moved in.  At least in Iraq.  I don't know
>> about Vietnam, and Grenada is just a blur.

>   But was it George's job to move them? Anyway how about Panama I noticed
>you didn't bring that up. Is it ok for a country to go into another
>country, kill innocent civilians, arrest a high ranking official,
>take him back and try him under the laws of a country that he is not
>a citizen of? This is what we did in Panama. If you answer yes then
>it should also be ok for:

No, I don't think it was George's job ALONE to do it.  And more of the
force should have come from the UN forces that exist.  Panama wasn't
mentioned in the aritcle I responded to, so I didn't say anything about it.
I think we could have found a better way to bring Noriega to justice if
it was all that important.  Like letting the people of Panama try him.


>   Hussein to send forces that land in Washington, make George Bush
>a prisoner take him back to Iraq, try him for war crimes, and then
>lock him up for life.

Actually, I might help on that one.  :)


>   The Saudi government to send undercover cops to the U.S. arrest
>military officers that smuggled alcohol into Saudi Arabia during
>the war, take them back to Saudi Arabia and try them.

I know someone who did this.  It was wrong and damn stupid, but they didn't get
caught. This does not make what they did right, but since they didn't get 
caught over there, we should be the ones to try them. 
him to mister ground.

>> I don't agree with people going out and doing random violence, but if
>> anyone were to pull a knife on me, and I could, I'd kill him/her with
>> no problems about it.
>> 
>> Anyone disagree with this philosiphy???
>>

>   Yes, vehemently. Chris think about this. If everyone had followed
>this philosophy then most slaves would have been killed by southerners
>near the end of the civil war. There would have been no evidence.
>If this had happened you probably wouldn't be here right now.
>   My point is that without forgiveness we are doomed. So disarm
>this person, or run away, but don't kill him/her.
> 
Well, everyone has a different opinion.  It's what makes the world what
it is.  Running away is always the first option.  Maiming someone would
be good too, but then you get sued for all sorts of BS.  If the person
drew the knife, I assume it was meant to kill me.  I take that kinda personal.

On the slave thing, you're are quite correct.
However, for the present day, I still think it's a good philosiphy.

Chris
--
Got those wishing I was out of school so I could see my girl on
a regular basis blues.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american