To: 
From: "Vern Humphrey" 
Reply-To: r_catholic-l{at}yahoogroups.com

To: seanmbrook{at}aol.com [mailto:seanmbrook{at}aol.com]
> >
> > VH> Yes -- for all the condemnation I would heap on them, those
> who rioted
> > and
> > burned achieved more for civil rights in the end than a hundred years of
> > peaceful protest.
>
>  Don't think I can agree.  Riots generally harm
>  INNOCENT people and damage/ruin their property.
>  They have a right to be protected from riots.

Yes, and the Black Death killed between a third and half the population of
Europe.  But it ALSO raised the value of the common man (since so few
remained,) and broke the technological stagnation of the western world, by
plasing a premium on labor-saving devices and methods.

As a phenominon, it had both good and bad outcomes -- and the bad is long
since past, but the good (things like liberty and justice and and a whole
new outlook on technology) remain with us today.
>
>  And I suspect most rioters are merely common
>  thugs and criminals taking advantage of a break-
>  down in order to rob, destroy, rape or kill just
>  for the fun of it.  Iow, many rioters wouldn't care
>  two pennies about any "cause."

Just as many entrepreneurs don't care two pennies about the common welfare
-- but by starting businesses, they creat jobs and benefit us all.
> >
> > VH> But the British Army did -- which is why they destroyed the
> barricades.
> > >
>  The Sixties was a very bad time, no doubt of that.

It is not time that riots, imprisons people without trial, or builds car
bombs, but people.
> >
> > VH> Yes -- because they were FORCED to take it seriously.  For
> almost 50
> > years,
> > they turned a blind eye to things like multiple voting,
> imprisonment without
> > trial, and Brookism.  But when the Troubles started -- and wouldn't go
> > away -- then and only then did they address the problem.
> >
>  Too bad it had to come about like that.  I mean so
>  slowly.

The British had no motivation to change things, until the Troubles motivated them.
>
> > VH> And they came to it hard -- there was a report on the
> internet yesterday
> > that a British commission has finally concluded that British forces
> > collaborated with Unionist Paramilitaries to kill Nationalist leaders.
> > >
>  Not good, I agree.  Any case against Nationalist
>  leaders should have been argued out at a trial.

In fact, it was cold-blooded, pre-meditated murder -- all the worse because
done not by "criminals" but by the state itself.

The Troubles must be seen in that light -- terrorism is bad, but when the
state itself indulges in it, and aids terrorists in committing murders,
what justification does the state have to lable anyone else a terrorist?
> >
> > VH> I might too, if he could define "legitimate."  It seems to
> me that the
> > definition establishes status a priori.  "Legitimate" guerillas
> can murder
> > and torture.  "Illigitimate" guerillas remain
terrorists even if they
> > scrupulously follow the laws of war.
> > > > >
>  It's a pity I don't have RM's definition to quote.  But
>  he did stress that "legitimate guerrillas" don't attack
>  civilians or non military targets.

Yet states, "legitimate" entities, bomb cities and kill
civilians.  A legitimate state, one with a long and proud tratition of law
and order, collaborated with terrorists to kill suspected IRA members.

If a member of the SAS aids the Red Hand Commandos to kill a suspected
member of the IRA, is he a "legitimate" combatant?  If a member
of the IRA kills that SAS member in return, is he "illigitimate?"

>  And your quote or
>  summary from the US Army's "Manual of Land War-
>  fare" was also applicable.  That is, guerrillas who
>  adhere to the laws of war and have some kind of
>  chain of command from their gov't are to be treated
>  like soldiers.
>
And that's the key point -- it is ACTS that define war crimes, not the a
priori status of the perpetrator.  And combatants must be held responsible
first by their own chain of command, who are in turn responsible for the
policies they put into effect.
>


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Where Catholic Singles Go Online - StRaphael.net is the world's #1 website
for single Catholics. If you are looking for friendship, marriage or even a
religious vocation, StRaphael.cnet is the place to be. Join Today Free!
www.StRaphael.net
http://us.click.yahoo.com/r_NezC/1M1FAA/EDtLAA/28VolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Visit R_Catholic-L member homepages at: http://home.cox.rr.com/rraphael
http://rcatholic-l.freeservers.com
http://hometown.aol.com/philvaz
http://www.lisaslighthouse.org
http://members.aol.com/SisterNeri/


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--- BBBS/NT v4.00 MP