Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!voder!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: The use of violence.
Message-ID: <494@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 27-Jan-86 13:56:10 EST
Article-I.D.: kontron.494
Posted: Mon Jan 27 13:56:10 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Feb-86 10:29:12 EST
References: <566@decwrl.DEC.COM> <224@aero.ARPA> <484@kontron.UUCP> <506@whuts.UUCP>
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA
Lines: 52

> Sam Cramer writes in response to comments on nonviolence :

For starters: it wasn't Sam Cramer that wrote the response -- it was Clayton
Cramer.  Tim Sevener, as usual, isn't reading carefully before he responds.

> > 
> > > Non-violence often leads to the death or injury of those practicing it. People
> > > like Gandhi and King recognized and accepted this.
> > > 
> > > Thus non-violence I believe is an approach that requires sacrifices by those
> > > that practice it for the future benefit of all people.
> > > 
> > 
> > No argument here -- but remember that non-violence in some situations may
> > require sacrifices from people that don't accept your ideas on this.  Like
> > the six million who died in concentration camps.
> > 
>  
> And what about the casualties of *violence*? It is quite possible that 4
> billion people, i.e. the whole human race, could be destroyed by our
> acceptance of the use of violence as a means of attaining national ends.
>  
> Moreover as against the six million who died in concentration camps
> (victims of a regime which *glorified* violence to the hilt) there
> have been many more millions who have died in wars since World War II.
>  
> Please explain to me the great success of the PLO's use of violence to
> try to gain a Palestinian homeland.  They have been engaged in random
> acts of violence since 1948 - where is their great liberation?
>  
> Please explain to me the great success of the Irish Republican Army
> in their campaign of terrorist bombings and violence.  I doubt their
> attempt to bomb Maggie Thatcher is what led to the current important
> imrprovements in Ireland but rather the election of members of the
> parliament who support steps towards the independence of Northern Ireland.
>  
> Is the African National Congress better off by promoting violence?
> I fail to see how this has helped their struggle significantly.
> Instead it makes it ever more impossible to negotiate with the whites who
> feel they are fighting for their lives while providing an excuse for
> conservatives in the rest of the world to back the apartheid regime. 
> 
> We may very well all be fried by our unfortunate committment to violence
> as any sort of "solution" to political and social problems.
>          tim sevener   whuxn!orb

Mr. Sevener: as usual, you are grossly distorting what I said.  I was
not arguing in favor of violence as a generic solution to a problem (as
the rest of my comments made clear).  I was pointing out that non-violence
works under some conditions, and not others.  Of course, you've never
been one for reading before writing, so I don't expect this posting
to be any different.