Letters to the Editor
-
The ends don't justify the means.
I'll repeat that-
The ends don't justify the means.
It's really that simple, for me.
Anyone who thinks otherwise still has to take responsibility for their own acts of violence, coercion or fraud. They might wholeheartedly think/feel that the end justifies the means- but it's too much to expect sympathy from their adversaries, or from those who don't share their personal commitment. Once you start playing for keeps, you accept the consequences.
Firebombing isn't play-war. It's playing with fire. Whatever the supposed nobility of the motivation.
A book I'm fond of recommending to all those flirting with the seductions of violent terrorism- The Demon Lover, by Robin Morgan http://tinyurl.com/ywp3w2
Not that I buy into every last view of the author- but there are insights in there that I've never found anyone to put better. Robin Morgan lays it on the line. There's one hell of a shadow between the expressed ideals/goals of terrorists, and the actual satisfactions of committing terrorism. (click my signature for link)
I recommend that anyone doing governmental resistance give anyone in their circles advocating violence a wide, wide berth- even if the target is "only property." And try to grasp the fact that provocateurs shilling unethical means are BOTH a proven method of discrediting all facets of a given political or social activist movement- AND an arguably defensible tactic by law enforcement to attract and identify the violence-prone before they do serious damage. There is a point where such police tactics turn into indefensible entrapment- but I think it's reckless for the politically active to get anywhere near that edge, from the other side. You don't want to make it easy for them. The best defense for a victim of entrapment is innocence.