During World War II and the German occupation of France the resistance killed, that is murdered since they where not fighting under the authority of a sovereign, German solders, civilian officials and French citizens. Were they criminals? Eric Rudolf did the same thing but he went to prison. As he saw it he was fighting fascist that were murdering babies. Now as I see it Eric was taking a simplistic view of abortion. For example I think it is not right to force a raped woman to bare the child of her rapist. She can even take revenge on the rapist by killing, aborting, his child. But, Eric was fighting Nazis in his opinion, but the is now in prison. On the other hand William Ayess and his wife did scores of bombing in support a world wide communist revolution, but they never spent a day in prison. As the Left see it their actions were morally right is there a double standard?

If the government of the US Violates the Constitution, do the people have a right to resist. If it started infringing on the rights citizens to own weapons, by concentrating power in the central government, or by banning talk radio through the Fairness Doctrine, would not resistant groups be justified in doing the same things the French resistance did.

In other words is it morally right to kill people in the defense of freedom?

he Germans occupied France under the authority of the Vichy government. France was divided into two parts – occuped and Vichy. The resistance fough the occupying army and the Vichy forces that supported them. Morality? There's no question of morality. They were simply fighting forces they were trying to remove from France. They fought well knowing that if they were caught they would be tortured and executed.

Rudolf didn't do the same thing as the resistance.

Eric Robert Rudolph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rudolf killed people who were doing things he didn't agree with. The resistance, among other things, killed people who were occupying their country. They were fighting for freedom.

Ayers never killed anyone.

Yes can be morally right to kill in defence of freedom.

__________________
Blowhards-R-Us

thats not exactly true
he was part of the group, that at a minimum makes him an accessory, and he even admitted guilt after he got off on that technicality

__________________

it wasn't a technicality.

it was an ILLEGAL search and seizure, from what i have read.... if ILLEGAL search and seizure is a technicality to you, then i apologize....

he admitted his guilt
so, that means he got off on a technicality


how can you claim to care for all when you excuse his killing of police officers and his desire to have done more?

__________________

As I said, Ayers didn't kill anyone.

Now I'm waiting for some points from the op.

__________________
Blowhards-R-Us

what is it with you cons? making up shit all the time? i never excused anyone....?

including the gvt for breaking the law....they know better...and because of their illegal works, a guilty man is free....

why haven't you condemned the University for hiring the man? What did they see that you don't and that I don't?

Is he a reformed man? No crimes committed in 30-40 years and you KNOW the fbi has been watching him like a hawk? That does say something about him...don't know exactly what...but it could be that he had reformed himself?
People are saying that he said he would do what he did again and wished he had done more...but i have never seen this substantiated with a valid or any link?

I honestly don't know much about the man ayres, never heard of him before the Repubs brought up him being on a board with obama and having some campaign gig for him....

Off topic, but does anyone else see the irony in Rudolph's campaign?

__________________

hmmm? What was he charged with?

__________________

How about the point that whether or not he killed anyone is irrelevant to the fact he committed unlawful acts of terrorism against the US? That's not an opinion, btw, it's fact.

__________________
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” - Edmund Burke

It's a slippery slope we tread when we ask for a moral get out of hell free card for killing people, isn't it?

If one takes a primative Christian approach, say for example, the way the Amish or Quakers might, then there is never any moral justification for killing, not even to defend yourself or those you love who are in immediate threat.

Others of us think we can find that get out of hell free card if we kill in defence of innocence which is in immediate threat. (killing the gunman coming through our door defence)

Others of us think we are morally justified to kill if we are killing those who are threat in a less immediate way. (the bombing the enemy's cities in defence of the republic defence)

Some of us have gone so far down the moral equivocation road that we believe that we can kill innocent people in defence of some moral principle which makes them a threat to our moral codes. (the blow up abortion clinics because they are murdering innocents defence)

Which of these moral paths are the right moral ones?

Here's a thought...each of us has to decide that for ourselves, because God IMPOSED free will on us.

Since none of us are GOD, we can only judge our own actions with any degree of certainty, because only we can really know our own true hearts.

I know when I was a more violent person I could ALWAYS FIND some moral justification for being violent.

Seriously, not matter how convoluted my logic was at the time, I always knew with complete certainty that I was morally justified for doing violent things.

Now, many years later, and with the benefit of hindsight of a more mature mind, I'm not at all so proud to have done things I did, and not at all sure that my certainty of moral clarity wasn't largely self-agrandizing egotistical bullshit.

What I continue to find troubling is that I am fairly certain, even now, that under certain circumstances, I'm likely to make the same sort of dubious moral decisions now I made with such certainty as a younger man.

I know damned well that in the heat of the moment I'm still not the moral person I'd like to be.

It's not relevant to the op. I'm still waiting for the rest of it but Ayers actions aren't directly relevant to what I think is about to be argued.

__________________
Blowhards-R-Us

It depends on how you define "moral". Personally I would find it immoral for me not to defend myself or someone else from danger. Make no bones about it, I would kill to defend myself or someone else. The morality or otherwise wouldn't enter my head for a moment.

__________________
Blowhards-R-Us

Yes, that was pretty much what I was saying, Di.

Free will isn't a gift it's an obligation, a heavy responsibility imposed on us by the fact that we are capable of making moral decisions. The more you're gifted with the ability to scout out the moral path from the many crossroads of circumstance one encounters, there more heavy your responsibility is to find the right one to take.

My dog and cat are not so encumbered. They are models of certainty about the right course to take.

I once had a mental patient who was a sociopthic murderer. He was much like my cat or dog in that he always knew the right path to take, too.

Ignorance is not only bliss, ignorance is certainty.

Was Scooter Libby a domestic terrorists and traitor when he released the names of a Covert CIA Agent which resulted in the closing down of an active on-going CIA Operation?

His sentence was communted. Was he guilty?

__________________
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." A.E.
Push a liberal hard enough, and he will clean out the temple.