is it ok to be luddite

[Richard Fiero]

jbor writes:
>
>It was actually the grey areas I was referring to, rather than
attempting to
>say that Greenpeace itself is constituted as a terrorist organisation.
. . .
>It's important to remember that there is a separation between the cause,
>which might be noble and right as in the case of environmentalism, from the
>actions of some or all of the exponents of that cause, which could be
>terrorist. It's like the extremist fringes of the feminist and civil rights
>movements, the militant lesbian separatists, Black Panthers and certain
>other affirmative action lobbyists, who possibly did more harm to the
causes
>of gender and racial equity than the white male chauvinists whose balls and
>brains they were determined to detach.
>

Well, no. Take the Black Panthers as an example of a group infiltrated
by Federal agents provocateur whose actions were then used to discredit
the group whose leaders were then murdered by the Locals (cops) with
fictitious reasons for warrantless intrustions. Journalists have
successfully played the image of militancy as terror upon their readers.

In another post within the same thread:
jbor wrote:
. . .
>I agree with you that radical thinking and radical action do not
necessarily
>equal violence, but sometimes they do. The Oklahoma City bombing was an act
>of terrorism, and as such it tends to overshadow the Manifesto which
>accompanied it in respect of popular acceptance and international
>endorsement of the radical thinking espoused therein.

Those whom we call "terrorists" may generally have no uncertainty as to
the evil their victims are supposedly guilty of.
The Oklahoma City bombing may be called "terrorist" but it may also be
seen as a measured and proportionate response to the state-sponsored
terrorism visited on Waco. We may agree that the state should have a
monopoly on terror for our own good. There may be occasional instances
of competition.