Quote Originally Posted by Mark O'Neill View Post
Point well made Tom.

Often the only difference between folks like the Interahamwe and people who casually espouse violence and killing as if it had no more consequence than a transaction at the commissary is opportunity. How else can we account for things like you witnessed, or the actions of so many otherwise 'regular' folks who committed so many atrocities during the Holocaust or the ethnic cleansing in the FYRP?

We let people who espouse theories regarding violence and killing off the hook in 'peacetime' if we do not call them to account for their 'thoughts', by saying 'that is their right to free speech'. This, in my opinion, makes us complicit in any evil that follows.
That's an interesting argument but also a slippery slope. Using it, we could also argue that Richard Perle and Rush Limbaugh are responsible for the violence in Iraq today.

But flip comments aside, I see an important ethical distinction between advocating aggressive illegal violence (the Interhamwe) and advocating forceful methods against enemies. To the best of my knowledge (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), Ralph's argument has been that we are in a state of war but have imposed restraints on ourselves that states do not normally impose when in a state of war. Now, I personally disagree with that. In the monograph I'm working on now, I argue that "war" is not the appropriate response to the threat we face. But IF one buys the notion that we are at war, I think Ralph's position is at least reasonable.