ATD SPOILER p. 95 (and also p. 214)

[David Morris]

As was suggested earlier, I think the SJ intro by Pynchon can give a
framework for analysis of "anarchist" vs "terrorist" or however one
want to characterize violence employers.

http://www.themodernword.com/pynchon/pynchon_essays_stone.html

"IF WE ACCEPT THE NOTION THAT USING POWER AGAINST THE powerless is
wrong, a clear enough set of corollaries begins to emerge. We become
able to distinguish, as populations (thought not always their rulers)
have usually been able to do, between outlaws and evil-doers, between
outlawry and sin. Not much analysis is needed, because it is something
we can sense in all its dead-serious immediacy. "But all they are are
bandits," the rulers whine indignantly, "motivated only by greed."
Sure. Except that, having long known the difference between theft and
restoration, we understand the terms of the deal whereby outlaws, as
agents of the poor, being more skilled and knowledgeable in the arts
of karmic readjustment, may charge no worse that an agent's fee, small
enough too be acceptable to their clients, ample enough to cover the
risks they have to take, and we always end up loving these folks, we
cheer for Rob Roy, Jesse James, John Dillinger, at a level of passion
usually reserved for sports affiliation."


On 11/30/06, Jason Tanz <jasontanz at mac.com> wrote:
> I'm wary of inserting myself into an already not-so-civil argument, but I have to agree that it may be fruitful to discuss whether AtD's bomb-throwing anarchists are at all analogous to today's suicide bombers.