Re: [Marxism] the right of the victim to use violence

["sartesian" <sartesian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

More than thoughtless, this is fruitless, devolving into questions of
morality--"Is it really inconceivable that an oppressed group might have
a  *moral duty* to attack civilians on the opposing side?"

What exactly is that constitutes a "moral duty"?  And what kind of moral
duty requires an attack on civilians on the opposing side?

Military attacks are supposed to be about tactics, and strategy-- and
both are supposed to further achieving the goal of the war itself.  So
let's ask the right questions:

 First, do the settlers in a settler state qualify as civilians,
noncombatants?

 Then  is it conceivable that an oppressed group might have a tactical
reason for attacking civilians?

 Is it possible that attacking civilians is an effective revolutionary,
or resistance, strategy when confronting the assault of a settler state?

Can such tactical attacks, or a strategy of such attacks, effectively
advance the goals of the revolutionary warfare?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lenin's Tomb" <leninstombblog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Is it really inconceivable that an oppressed group might have a  *moral
duty* to attack civilians on the opposing side?


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu