=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Calling Grufty Jim (& the rest of you 2)
Log In to post a reply
60 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

Re: priorities and plans
Nov 12, 2002, 16:41
Low or high. Makes no odds (though we differ on the risks involved... i believe that paralysing the UKs fuel supply for a week, say, will have a high risk of avoidable human death). Risking the lives of other people in an action you acknowledge has no chance of achieving the stated goal of saving a greater number of lives is indefensible.

It ceases to be about preventing Iraqi deaths, and becomes a case of punishing the government for their murderous war. I am 100% behind you if you're claiming the government need to be resisted, punished and "attacked" (heavy parenthesis to indicate a specific use of the word... meaning "in a non-violent sense").

I just don't see how you can justify punishing Blair and the rest of the establishment by threatening the lives of the vulnerable. You would have some moral force (though not my - stubbornly non-violent - active support) if you proposed something that threatened the lives of those carrying out the war. But killing the weak to punish the powerful?
In reply to:
Re: priorities and plans (YerArseInParsley)		 Replies:
Re: priorities and plans (YerArseInParsley)
Topic Outline:
U-Know! Forum Index