Corporate transparency

Jeff Bone
Wed, 09 Jan 2002 16:31:56 -0600

John Evdemon wrote:

> Committing
> violence against innocent people in the name of Islam is an
> act of cowardice and terrorism.  No "cause" justifies this
> type of action.

And what about similar incidents committed by proto-Americans against
the British in the US war for independence?  (Or any number of other
historical analogies.  Granted, they are imperfect;  9-11 set a new,
abominable standard for violence of this kind.)  I'm sorry, but while
yes, I believe the actions of the jihadists are despicable, I also think
it's not as black and white as all that.  One man's terrorist is
another's revolutionary hero.  The only difference is historical in
nature, and the victor gets to write history.  (Conclusion:  it's
important to be the victor for many reasons. :-)

Furthermore, just exactly how is this "cowardice?"  I'm with Bill Maher
on this one.  The folks involved in 9-11 may be any number of things,
but one thing they aren't is cowards.  This is rhetorical claptrap and
demagoguery propagated by a man --- our erstwhile president, *cough* ---
who apparently doesn't *actually* know the meaning of *any* English

> Not all Muslims are terrorists.  Not all Christians are
> terrorists.

Are all revolutionaries terrorists?  How about the violent ones?  Is
violence designed to undermine a system that you or others feel is
oppressive ever warranted?  If that's the only way to overcome the
oppression, is it warranted?  Under what conditions might it be
warranted?  What exactly do you mean by terrorist, anyway?