Skip to comments.The Pleasures of Assassination
Posted on 12/30/2007 8:35:43 PM PST by ventanax5
click here to read article
Oh, I have an idea that Daylrymple is a harmless, bespectacled academic/English language analyzer with no agenda other than to stretch 500-word articles into 1500 words on what the meaning of “is” is....and in this case, bravery vs. cowardice.
No, he is one of the most insisive minds in conservative thought in Europe.
He is defining the difference between bravery and courage. Something that the west doesnt get.
—he is a retired doctor who usually writes scathng articles on the failure of the Brit socialized medicine scheme or the deterioration of British society—
>> and above all then to blow yourself up just to make sure that you have succeeded. <<
Suicide does not take courage; it is the ultimate cowardly act. Courage is being willing to risk what you desire to keep.
But what was the sacrifice?
Happy New Year!
Dalrymple takes the time to explain exactly what he's saying. And he is correct.
Otherwise good men can be cowards.
And evil men can be courageous.
But neither would be an admirable man.
Dalrymple is a superb essayist...he always makes his readers think.
this is the same thinking as Bill Maher regarding the ‘courage’ of the hijackers who flew the planes into the World Trade Center compared (per Maher) with the cowards in the US military who merely drop bombs from several thousand feet in the air.
Interesting. I wonder if the shooter knew about the bomber; or vice versa.
Why go off topic?
Ghandi pointed out three possible responses to oppression and injustice. One he described as the coward's way: "To accept the wrong or run away from it. The second option was to stand and fight by force of arms." Gandhi said, "This was better than acceptance or running away." But the third way, he said, "was best of all and required the most courage to stand and fight solely by non-violent means."
When a government violates its own laws - the rights guaranteed to the citizens by its Constitution, when a government violates international law, specifically violating international treaties and covenants it has signed and ratified and thereby agreed to uphold, the people themselves have the right, indeed the responsibility, to uphold the law themselves. The history of civil disobedience, as enshrined in the essays of Henry Thoreau and the leadership of Frederick Douglas, Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela, instruct that when a nation violates the rule of law and tramples upon the rights of man, it is incumbent upon the people themselves to not accept the wrong and not fight by force of arms but to fight solely by non-violent means.
Sorry, but I just don't have time to entertain any further discussion of this exercise in futility!!!
I wasn’t putting the good doctor down. Au contraire, I was pointing out in a light-hearted way that I didn’t think he had some kind of radical agenda as some posters seemed to suspect.
Happy New Year!
“It was demon possession.”
Probably the most accurate answer...
“Why go off topic?”
By merely asking me this question you are as guilty as I.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.