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

To: seanmbrook{at}aol.com [mailto:seanmbrook{at}aol.com]
> >
> > VH> That's correct.  The moral is, some things are obvious even
> when you
> > can't
> > see them.
> > >
>  That's true.  And sometimes we get a real shock when
>  the obvious thing is no longer like that!

Also true.  But in the end, most of what we do is based on our idea of things unseen.
>
> > VH> It didn't galvanize the British into action -- until the
> Nationalists
> > fought
> > back.
> >
>  And our civil rights movement didn't achieve any
>  similar successes until blacks took action?

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.
>
> > VH> unarmed, their major weapon was the barricade -- they built
> barricades
> > across the streets to limit access to Nationalist neighborhoods.
> > >
>  I have no objection to legitimate self defense.

But the British Army did -- which is why they destroyed the barricades.
>
>  And such resistance also led to other Britons
>  taking seriously the need for reform.

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.

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.
>
> > VH> Simply removing obstacles to Catholic employment, civil
> rights, and so on
> > would have prevented the "Troubles."  But that was not to be.
> The response
> > to violence was ultimately the same as that response requested
> peacefully
> > earlier.
> > >
> > VH> But you don't have a definition there.  Just to use the word
> > "legitimate"
> > doesn't mean anything.  WHAT is legitimate, as opposed to
> illigitimate?  How
> > can we tell the one from the other?
> > > >
>  Then, we cannot agree on this point.  I still find
>  Robert M's definition more convincing.

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.
> > >
> > VH> Torture will make a man say what the interrogator wants to
> hear, which
> > is
> > not the same thing as telling the truth.
> >
>  Yes.  And that was eventually why judicial torture
>  was abolished in Western countries.  Far too IN-
>  efficient.
>
Who proposes torture is proposing terrorism.


------------------------ 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