From: WasteOfTime-AT-att.net
Subject: Re: Germany and the KLA
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 17:04:22 +0000


Elie wiesel is a strong man and i think he is a great man 
for trying to share the horrors of the holocaust with 
everyone so that people never let it happen again. _but_, 
 he also supports the usa government, which not only 
selectively supports fascist and dictatorial and 
murderous governments, it has employed former nazis! so, 
i think, like about 90% of the population, elie is just 
in the dark about the things the usa doesn't want anyone 
to know about.
> roger wrote:
> > 
> > Elie Wiesel (holocaust survivor) says that he never believed that he would 
> live
> > to see another european state do what serbia has done with impunity.  unlike
> > Wiesel (who can speak with far more moral authority than either you or i) i do
> > not support the bombing; but i will continue to speak against the smears and
> > lies of the killers.
> 
> Elie Wiesel has made a career out of showcase hunts of doddering old
> Nazis while ignoring Western gov'ts continuing atrocities. You call that
> moral authority? Sorry if it hurts someone's feelings, but that "Never
> again!" stuff has rarely if ever amounted to more than moral posturing
> to make the Allied powers look good compared to Nazis. "To speak against
> the smears and lies of the killers" sounds good, until you reflect that
> our glorious states do the same on a
> selective basis.
> 
> I'm having difficulty following the dispute between nico and roger.
> roger says he doesn't support NATO bombing, yet criticizes
> anti-interventionists for not recognizing how awful the Serbs are. OK,
> the Serbs are awful, so what's the point? Whaddawe do about em? On the
> other hand, nico's criticism of NATO, perhaps because of the language
> barrier, is clumsy and incoherent.
> 
> Everybody thumps the table denouncing fascism, which at this point is
> little more than a dirty word to label one's political opponents. None
> of the organized, militarized players in this situation is to be
> trusted. We'd like to protect avg. individuals but there is no direct
> way to do so. So what exactly are we arguing about here?
> 
> It would be great if anarchists could work out some principles by which
> use of force could be supported, but I don't think we're making any
> progress that way.