Re: more point/counter-point... part Ib

Karine Maucourt ([email protected])
Wed, 26 Aug 1998 12:38 +0200 (MET)

                                Hi you all !

        Here is the part Ib.

>don't recall King ever yelling anything like "fuck the revolution!" in his
>analyses of the war in Vietnam, for example;

        Who claimed US soldiers made a revolution in the Vietnam war ? MLK
just felt no need to say this. About Bono's speech in which he said "fuck
the revolution", you can easily guess it surprised a french rebel like me.
;-) And it's why i seeked to know the whole speech and in which context Bono
had said this. Do you remember the bomb which exploded that day ? Do you
remember it killed civils people ? Can you understand Bono's anger ? And
Sinn Fein/IRA really think it's a revolution ? Well, it's not a revolution
at all in my french meaning, just a civil war...

>in fact, he was capable of
>cutting through all the racism, propaganda, and outright lies, and see
>that the NLF in (North) Vietnam had some very legitimate grievances.

        And it's why i've said above that US government at that time was
stupid. They even didn't understand why french colonists had left the
country which was still called Indochina before the split into Vietnam,
Laos,...US government just saw a communist government settling there and
thought it could justify a war.

>And if you were to meet with the families of the Bloody Sunday victims,
>would you say that the "other side" is wrong?

        If i met NI victims, i'd try to explain supporting violence is the
wrong choice, whatever the side. BTW, i never said one side is wrong, just
using violence is wrong, using violence never resolve this kind of conflict.
Think about Central Africa, you have there very good examples of this.

>You're being very selective
>in your choice of victims here--

        I chose this protestant victim because i've talked in person with
her and also because you seemed to forget IRA violence. I used this example
to recall you IRA killed/hurt too. If you was a Loyalist and only spoke
about IRA violence, i'd choose a catholic victim of Loyalists to recall you
the Loyalists can kill/hurt too. I hope you understand now.

>anyone who has been the victim of state
>and/or pro-government violence is considered less of a "victim", it seems,
>than anyone who was killed or wounded by IRA violence.

        Not in my mind. I often recall to you IRA violence because you seem
to forget it, not because it's less/more excusable than British/Loyalist

> We're constantly
>told that _all_ violence is "wrong", but, in a weird kind of Orwellian
>logic, some violence is more wrong than others!

        You're not force to believe it. BTW, the only kind of violence which
is sometimes easily accepted by population is war between 2 different
countries. And obviously it's not the case in NI, whoever uses violence.

>Don't make me laugh--

        I don't thing any clever person wants to laugh about this.

>and if you're actually using one of Bono's temper
>tantrums to back up your position,

        I don't need to use Bono's temper to try to open your eyes. mine is
enough. It's true i always try to keep quiet, but i also can loose my temper
somtimes. And i don't need to back up my position. My position doesn't need
to be back up, it's not even threatened. But maybe you felt
threatened/choked by this example...

>you're on pretty damn thin ice! I
>don't blather on about "the glory of the revolution"--in fact, I don't
>have much patience for that sort of rhetoric in the first place.

        Did you forget who said first this is a revolution ? It's not my
fault if Sinn Fein imagined it could be a revolution. And i well understand
how you can be annoyed by this. It's your problem if you don't agree all
what Sinn Fein said, not mine. BTW, i didn't blather on this, just wanted to
show you how wrong SinnFein/IRA were.

>met a _lot_ of people who have suffered directly from violence in the
>North--most of them because of their religion or nonviolent political
>activities. I've met people who have been beaten and shot by the police,
>had their homes shot up or firebombed by loyalist paramilitaries, who have
>been beaten in prison, or blinded by plastic bullets.

        And anyone who has been hurt by IRA ? Just a question...BTW, i've
never said it could have an excuse to Loyalists/RUC violence...

>Are their wounds,
>their losses, any less awful than any damage inflicted by the IRA?

        Sure, not less but also not more. Don't forget this.

>would you dare to talk to them about "the glory of the Empire"?

        I don't need, because contrary to you, i don't support anyone who
talk about the glory of killing/hurting civils. (And it's also what Bono
wanted to say in his famous speech.)

>The issue
>is that of injustice, and ending the root causes of violence.

        I agree with this. But do you really think such a violence (from the
both sides) could help to resolve injustice ?

>But why are you so quick to excuse a person who has expressed such an
>openly sectarian bias, because she was injured by an IRA bomb years ago,
>but are so quick to accuse me of being "intolerant" and "violent",
>because I support the Republican Movement?

        Did you take care about you were writting ????????? How can you
compare yourself, who lives in a country in peace without any wound caused
by anyone from NI or elsewhere, to someone who's handicapped for her whole
life because she was in the wrong moment at the wrong place ? How can't you
see the efforts she has to do to endure her situation ? How can't you see
the unfair situation the bomb put on her ? It's not about the side she
belongs to, it's just about someone who has suffered and still suffers from
a situation she wasn't responsible for. Can you understand that all people
(from all sides) are so much unhappy than you and can be better understand
if they're still angry ? And their anger is so much easy to understand. Can
you only imagine their pain ? I hope you can, sincerely. I've noticed she
was very sectarian ;-D but i think it's easier to understand this from
someone who has suffered than from someone who didn't. And if you can't
understand what i consider as simply human understanding, too bad. Note also
it didn't prevent me to tell her how much the catholics had suffered too. I
don't excuse her but i can better understand, because i take her pain in regard.

>If the RUC beat the crap out
>of me on my next visit to the North, would my opinions suddenly be more
>valid than they are now?

        If you don't change anything in your mind, sure not :-D

> I've met few victims of violence on the
>nationalist/republican side who support or condone sectarianism or
>violence against the Protestant/Unionist side. They don't use their
>injuries and losses to "justify" emnity against anyone who opposes them;

        They're more reasonable than her. Just don't forget i've said it to
her too and it was in part why she accused me to be republican. Obviously, i
disagreed with her.

>they recognize that the struggle against injustice must continue, but they
>also are politically aware enough to realize that their "targets" are the
>state, the police and military, the courts and prisons, and so on. Not
>someone who just happens to live on a different street, or goes to a
>different church.

        As i've said above, they're reasonable. As much as some protestant
prisoner, imprisoned by British police for his past loyalist activities,
i've read his account last May and he said he would vote Yes for the
agreement. Just another example...
And why Sinn Fein needed so many years to understand this too ? I do know
Loyalists and Britain didn't understand this too, but you don't support
them, so i don't need to talk you about them.

>Again, what's wrong with being "one-sided", when it's being one-sided in
>favor of _real_ peace, democracy, and justice?

        The problem is : you always say to me you're in favor of peace and
you support a movement which did a war, killing civils in part (and not only
british soldiers) for many years. And you supported this movement during
this war. Can you explain to me what i consider as a contradiction between
what you say and what you do ?

>As I've said before, being
>open-minded isn't synonymous with being a wimp;

        I agree. And Ghandi wasn't a wimp. :-)

> by your reasoning, I
>should regard democracy and fascism as being equally "valid" and
>acceptable political systems!

        I never said that ! You misunderstood me ! I never told you to
accept all political systems. Just explain to me why you support a movement
which killed civils as well as soldiers.

> And no, sorry, most of
>the people in Ireland are politically trained to condemn _only_ violence
>from the Republican side, not "all violence". People seem to be as
>selective about condemning violence as they are about assigning
>"victimhood" to people--and if you don't believe me, just take a good,
>critical look at the phony "peace" campaigns led by the "Peace Train"
>folks, for example.

        Sorry, but i think it's false. I've talked with irish people it
didn't appear at all. Who said to you such a stupid thing ? They said to me
such a thought was totally absurd. And give me an example about how irish
people are trained to condemn only IRA violence. And tell me why irish
people would like to believe this. They're not so credulous and don't miss
critical sense. You surely noticed i was in Dublin last July and i failed to
see this, so i don't believe this. I can't believe this unless you show me a
non-sectarian site which says this.

        Well, it's the end of the part one.

        In the name of love


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Wed Aug 26 1998 - 03:23:47 PDT