...   
      
   AK>>Freedom has never been archived without treason of the oppressive   
   AK>>regime. Because, when fighters for freedom overthrow a legitimate,   
   AK>>but oppressive power they commit an act of high treason.   
      
    LL> Jeffersonian violence is acceptable if, and only if, a   
    LL> regime becomes so oppressive that it has lost its   
    LL> legitimacy to govern. By that way of thinking, it is not an   
    LL> act of treason but rather an act of patriotism.   
      
    "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among   
    Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the   
    governed,..."   
      
    That is the "Jeffersonian" principle of government. Degrees of   
    oppresion are not considered.   
      
   AK>>In other words if the state authority does ugly things it cannot be   
   AK>>stopped without treason.   
      
    LL> It is treason only if the parties are not successful in   
    LL> overthrowing the evil regime ...   
      
    That part is true... in the real world.   
      
    ...   
      
   AK>>If the treason is made for the world it is great;   
      
    LL> Nobody commits acts of high treason for altruistic reasons.   
    LL> Unless they are stupid or retarded.   
      
    Or very highly moral. The same reason anyone ever performs an   
    act of heroism.   
      
    ...   
      
   AK>>Terrorism can be killed only the same way how it was born! The US   
   AK>>people must understand why Arabs that were so far from terrorism   
   AK>>until WWII became so close to terrorism after the war. The reason   
   AK>>is simple -- great injustice. So, the remedy against Arab terrorism   
   AK>>is justice, not spying on all the people around the world.   
      
    LL> A war on international criminals can be fought.  But never   
    LL> a "war on terror" or a "war on terrorism."  International   
    LL> criminals know no political borders or boundaries.   
      
    The war on terror must be a war on injustice.   
      
   AK>>I've already said that system is not able to prevent terror attacks.   
      
    LL> No system is able to prevent terror attacks.  Not entirely,   
    LL> anyway.   
      
    No system is ever perfect.   
      
    LL> Britons, Russians, and Americans have all gone to   
    LL> Afghanistan.   
      
    LL> Britons, Russians, and Americans have all returned home   
    LL> with their tails between their legs.  Why is that?   
    LL> Afghanistan is not so much a country as it is tribal lands   
    LL> run by warlords.  No army can invade and hold a land whose   
    LL> people are not a people.   
      
    I would argue, a land where the people are not a people would be   
    the easiest to hold. A tribe is a people.   
      
    LL> Pakistanis and Afghans cross over their border as if it   
    LL> does not exist.  That is the way it has been for centuries.   
    LL>  To them, they are all the same people.  Different tribes,   
    LL>  but the same people. Not really Pakistani or Afghan or   
    LL>  Iranian, etc.   
      
    Which is how the outside rulers screwed up in setting up the   
    boundaries long ago.   
      
    LL> Not even Alexander the Great could conquer Afghanistan.  He   
    LL> thought he could, but wound up retreating with his tail   
    LL> between his legs.   
      
    Yet the Afghans do it.   
      
      
   BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn   
      
   ... Be suspicious of native speakers of Esperanto.   
   --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]   
    * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)