Ok. Some of you may remember this story/ know about it already. For those who don't it goes generally along this very simplified lines: - Patty Hearst was the daughter of a millionaire; - Kidnapped in 1975 by SLA; - SLA demand that her father's corporation aids the feeding of the poor in San Francisco; - Weeks later Patty Hearst is found alive, taking part in a bank robbery and saying that she wants to stay with the SLA Terrorists; - After being interviewed by police and facing charges, she renounces the SLA. Story can be viewed at: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=4MMPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=FI0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=7155,5007333&dq=patty hearst My questions, unsurprisingly is hoping to provoke debate around a central them that determines (probably) differing political ideologies for people here. The money provided fed many, many people and the money amounted to many millions of dollars. Whilst the feeding of the poor was probably not the immediate goal of SLA, it was the end of it. Does the end in this case justify the means? What harm was done that would outweigh the feeding of the many people? Or, Are these people senseless terrorists who interfered with a powerful family and ruined the eventual rise of a heiress to her proper place at (probably) the head of a rich corporation? Discuss
Nothing justifies the kidnapping and gang-rape of a young woman whose only "crime" was being a descendant of, arguably, the sonofabitch who single-handedly orchestrated the Spanish-American War.
There is no morality in using coercion to force an unaffiliated second party to hand over resources to a third party. No matter how noble the self proclaimed intentions of the first party might be.
White guilty raci$t $kank Patty Hear$t was "kidnapped" by the SLA the same way Chancellor Palpatine was "kidnapped" by Count Dooku. Her crimes warrant(ed) life in Sing Sing or Attica in the general prison population, with NO parole. She acts up, she gets put in an even worse cell block. NO isolation chamber for bad behavior in this racist cunt's case.
Ok, but their intentions at the beginning were not to aid a third party. They were to get so many fellow SLA members released from prison. That this was flatly refused showed that the authorities were unwilling to negotiate with terrorism. When they changed their demands to food for the poor the authorities were a lot more willing to negotiate. Did this amount to giving in to terrorism?
