Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 18:04:21 -0500
From: roger <pelecat-AT-bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: The Anarchist Attitude To War




Dave Coull wrote:<snip>

>
>
> If thousands of Jews and other concentration camp
> victims had fought back, the Holocaust would have been
> impossible. The problem was that most concentration
> camp victims were "law-abiding" even when the law
> had quite patently gone mad. If they had fought back,
> there were enough of them that they could have torn
> the camp guards apart.

Dave, i hope you are just tired.  otherwise repeating this right-wing,
aryan nation crap would seriously threaten your credibility.  think what
you're saying, man.  sure, you're a tough guy and you scot's would've
give herr hitler what for, etc., etc. . . . but how much do you think you
would be shooting your mouth off if a man had a gun to your CHILD'S head,
eh?

> Okay, some prisoners would
> have died, but they were going to die anyway, and by
> fighting back more of them would have survived. At
> the very least they would have drawn attention to their
> plight. I say the Nazis would have caved in-

<snip>sorry, Dave but i skipped the rest of your history lesson.  the
Holocaust was not the fault of the jews.  sure, all of us are
*responsible* to a greater of lesser degree for our fate, individual and
collective.  if the kosovars were armed and organized, then they could
protect themselves, neh?  but they are not.  neither were the jews.  i'll
repeat that i hope you are not saying what i think you are saying.

<snip>

> >would it have been a bad thing, Dave, if the killing
> >fields in cambodia and rwanda had been prevented
> >by the intervention of military force?  that is exactly
> >what you are saying if i understand your position.
>
> What I am saying is that the use of cruise missiles,
> or, in general, the massive state war machine, does
> not in fact prevent human tragedy on the grand scale.
> In fact, it contributes to it. NATO intervention would
> not have prevented the killing fields in Cambodia
> or Rwanda either. Again, the best real hope of avoiding
> these tragedies was for people to put anarchist
> ideas into practice. The fact that this did not happen,
> and didn't even come within a million miles of happening,
> does not mean that it could not have happened.

so it was the cambodian's and tutsi's own fault as well, eh?  dave,
you're just flat wrong.  read your history.  it was the invasion of
cambodia by vietnam (1979) that ended the killing.  what are you smokin'
dude?

>
>
> >after all, Dave, what has the bloody roman empire
> >ever done for us, heh . . .
>
> In the history of my native country of Scotland,
> the earliest person whose name is known
> is Calgacus, who fought against the Roman
> legions. The Roman historian Tacitus quotes
> Calgacus as saying about the Romans
>
> >>They make a desert
> >>And they call it "peace"
>
> Dave

yeah, i bet ole cowguts, or whoever, would have been fuckin' tickled pink
to have neato-looking b2 bomber to sit in and lord it over the ignorant,
smelly peasants.  at least the legions bathed once and a while.  lighten
up, Dave.  the reference to the romans was a tribute to monty python's
"life of brian."  if you don't see yourself in the john cleese character
(and me, too, alas) then you need a new mirror.

roger