> Clay Smith: > >> I take it, then, that you're arguing that it's acceptable for the CIA > >> to plant bombs in the trunks of cars outside of houses of worship if > >> they do so in an effort to kill someone who has killed Americans (or > >> more specifically, American troops)?.
> Nark: > >Without any other information, I would say no. But would you concede that > >Hezbollah, considering they were targeting Americans, is QUITE different > >than the targeting of civilians, which is the most common terrorist tactic? > >There is a difference.
> I am not sure what you mean here. Maybe you mistyped your sentence. I > don't know what to make of your distinction between "Americans" and > "civilians"
I was assuming that everyone knew that this alleged car-bombing by the CIA was in response to the bombing in Beirut that killed 241 "Americans" who happened to be non-civilian US Marines.
> Clay Smith: > >> Suppose the FBI identified a > >> suspect behind the Anthrax letters. And suppose he hid out in a > >> mountain cabin every day of the week, except Sunday when he attends a > >> rural Baptist church? Would it be okay for the FBI to plant a bomb in > >> a car outside of the church?
> Nark: > >If it was the only way to stop him? It depends upon other unknown factors.
> This would obviously be an unacceptable tactic to anyone with an even > marginal degree of mental health.
Obviously not, as I am a fully functional mental genius. When you create peculiar hypothetical examples, with huge gaps, I don't know how to answer. Notice that I did not answer one way or the other, but rather asked for a complete story.
> Clay Smith: > >> Granted, the FBI has a lot more recourse within the US. They could > >> come in with a SWAT team and arrest the guy. A bomb wouldn't be > >> necessary. So maybe that's not an accurate comparison. Alright. > >> Suppose the man fled to France and continued his habit of going to > >> church every Sunday? Would it be alright to place the bomb outside of > >> the church there? Would it be alright to do it in the Vatican? Maybe > >> it would be okay in Mexico?
> Nark: > >France is hardly a good comparison to Beirut. Your analogy is still weak.
> Oh, of course. We forgot to account for the fact that French (or western > lives in general) are worth more than the lives of people in someplace like > Beirut.
Your assumptions on the meaning of my statement are based on your own twisted biases.
> It is a perfect analogy. Whether or not the places are alike in general is > irrelevant. The circumstances are what matters.
If you compare France, a peaceful state, with Beirut, a chaotic mess with many warring factions... you are the one whose mental competence should be questioned.
It would be like saying that an Anthrax terrorist suspect could be picked up in a Church here in the US compares to a terrorist leader in his highly fortified headquarters. Oh yeah, you agreed with that one too. You might look up the word 'analogy' in the dictionary before we continue.
> >> >I have just completed Noam Chomsky's book on September 11. To call it > >> >a book is doing it a great deal more justice than it deserves. The > >> >fact that you can finish it in about half an hour really sums up > >> >Chomsky's academically half arsed predictable approach to the matter, > >> >and indeed a great deal of his other endeavors. A series of half > >> >truths with selective facts and of course the classic moral relativism > >> >the Chomsky and the like are so fond of.
> >> >The 1985 CIA > >> >car bombing of a Mosque in Beirut was, at best, disastrous American > >> >foreign policy, no doubt resulting in the loss of innocent lives. > >> >However this was not some willy nilly bomb planting done for some > >> >weekend fun. It was targeting a Hizballah leader who was behind the > >> >bombing of the US troop base in Beirut. They were not simply after a > >> >"cleric they did not like."
> >> I take it, then, that you're arguing that it's acceptable for the CIA > >> to plant bombs in the trunks of cars outside of houses of worship if > >> they do so in an effort to kill someone who has killed Americans (or > >> more specifically, American troops)?.
> >Without any other information, I would say no. But would you concede that > >Hezbollah, considering they were targeting Americans, is QUITE different > >than the targeting of civilians, which is the most common terrorist tactic? > >There is a difference.
> It's a pretty tiny difference. If I plant a bomb outside of a church > to kill a member of Hezbollah, I would have to be aware (unless I were > a total idiot) that there's a decent chance my bomb will kill a > civilian or two. Essentially, I'm saying "It's okay with me if my > actions cause the death of civilians."
Whether you agree or not, would you concede that there is an argument to be made that by not killing a terrorist, you are saying "It's okay with me if my" inaction "causes the death of civilians"?
> If I'm an Islamic extremist > terorist in Palestine and I plant a bomb in a resteraunt and set it to > explode during lunch hour, I'm saying "I intended my actions to cause > the deaths of civilians."
Exactly, that is the difference. Once has the express purpose of killing civilians, the other has the purpose of avoiding the killing of civilians. Motive is key. As is the End.
> > >> Suppose the FBI identified a > >> suspect behind the Anthrax letters. And suppose he hid out in a > >> mountain cabin every day of the week, except Sunday when he attends a > >> rural Baptist church? Would it be okay for the FBI to plant a bomb in > >> a car outside of the church?
> >If it was the only way to stop him? It depends upon other unknown factors.
> >> Granted, the FBI has a lot more recourse within the US. They could > >> come in with a SWAT team and arrest the guy. A bomb wouldn't be > >> necessary. So maybe that's not an accurate comparison. Alright. > >> Suppose the man fled to France and continued his habit of going to > >> church every Sunday? Would it be alright to place the bomb outside of > >> the church there? Would it be alright to do it in the Vatican? Maybe > >> it would be okay in Mexico?
> >France is hardly a good comparison to Beirut. Your analogy is still weak.
> France is a country. So is Lebanon. My point was that the original > poster was using a double standard; it's fine to blow people up in > Beirut, he tells us, but not in France or the Vatican or the US. Are > Lebanese lives worth less than French or American lives?
Right, you point is half valid. But the analogy is not true because of the atmosphere in the two countries. In France, you don't need to use these extreme tactics because the police can arrest suspects. Not so easy in Lebanon.
> In case I'm not making myself clear, here...
> No one has any right to set off car bombs in populated areas. Period. > What the CIA did was wrong and unnaceptable.
Your blanket statement is not acceptable to many people.
If you KNEW FOR A FACT, that you could save thousands of lives by setting off a car bomb, would you? Maybe not. I might not either. But the point is that there is a legitimate argument to be made that it is the "right" thing to do. That's all I'm saying.
> >> >But of course Chomsky thinks that all acts of violence are bad
> >> This is a rather bizarre statement. All acts of violence *are* bad.*
> >I think he is saying 'bad' in terms of overall net result.
> Well, in that case, the poster's assessment of Chomsky's views is > simply wrong. Chomsky has favored military action in cases where he > deemed it necessary and appropriate.
Like in my car bomb hypothetical? So sometimes it's okay to kill in order to save more lives? Just as long as no car bombs are used? Interesting.
> >> of > >> >course there would be majority sentiment against killing innocent > >> >people. But once again with his bizarre reasoning turns this into > >> >majority support against the war full stop. In fact opinion polls, > >> >not 'probably' polls, show extremely high rates of support for the > >> >war.
> >> I haven't read the book yet (I didn't know until today that it had > >> been published), but I think there's another very logical > >> interpretation of Chomsky's argument, an interpretation you're > >> ignoring.
> >> He's argued on a number of occasions that the Afghanistan war is > >> causing the unncessary deaths of thousands of innocent people. If > >> people realized this - Chomsky is presumably arguing - then they'd be > >> against the war.
> >The question is; Is his argument valid?
> >Here is what Chomsky told his audience at MIT on October 11:
> >"I'll talk about the situation in Afghanistan.... Looks like what's > >happening is some sort of silent genocide.... It indicates that whatever, > >what will happen we don't know, but plans are being made and programs > >implemented on the assumption that they may lead to the death of several > >million people in the next--in the next couple of weeks.... very casually > >with no comment.... we are in the midst of apparently trying to murder three > >or four million people."
> >Do you agree with these blatent lies? Do you really believe that "we are in > >the midst of apparently trying to murder three or four million people"?
> You *do* recall the facts and arguments he used to back up this > assessment, don't you? Do you dispute his facts? Can you show that his > arguments don't hold up?
Well, for starters, "the death of several million people in the next--in the next couple of weeks" didn't happen. And to call this genocide is irresponsible and, in my opinion, a patent lie. The American people overwhelmingly support the destruction of the Taliban regime and Al Qaeda, and believe me, they don't want "genocide". The use of that word, in this case, is pure demagoguery.
> >> Recall that the Gulf War was extremely popular in this country. > >> However, we voted out the president who initiated it and, since it > >> ended, even the most mainstream of media organs have indicated that > >> the US public has had some serious second thoughts about it.
> >You are sadly mistaken. And realize, that G. Bush Sr. was ousted by the > >Great Liar and Ross Perot. Clinton won the election with the lowest > >percentage of votes ever. Please don't ignore the facts.
> That's hardly a vote of support for George Sr.
Never said it was. I'm just saying that it wasn't even close to a mandate for Clinton. Bush barely lost, and most experts believe that Perot got almost purely the conservative vote. People supported the Gulf war in large numbers, and still do.
> The facts are... we did vote out George Bush senior. And there has > been a lot of griping about the Gulf War.
zztop8...@yahoo.com (zztop8970-) writes: >> >> This is a rather bizarre statement. All acts of violence *are* bad.* >> >No, they are not. If a policeman sees a crime in progress, He will >> >take steps needed, including violent ones, to stop it. Those violent >> >acts are not *bad*, and if asked if he would like to do it agian, >> >he'll probably tkae you up on it. >> >All acts of self defence, violent as they may be, are not *bad*. >> Certainly in many cases they're less bad than allowing >> whatever is happening to continue. >'good' and 'bad' are in and of themsleves are subjective terms, and >always subject to relative meausures. The act of stopping a crime is >'good' relative to letting it continue, but 'bad' compared with >preventing it in the first place.
Right. Or, as I put it "less bad" instead of "good".
>You need to be directing your criticizm at fools who declare "All acts >of violence *are* bad.*"
They are, because they deprive others of life. I don't disagree with violence categorically, but rather view it as at best legitimate, to be undertaken with regret and only when absolutely needed. When I say all acts of violence are bad, I don't mean that they must therefore be avoided at all costs.
>> In many cases they're >> worse. There's a lot of judgement involved and a lot of >> responsibility, and police are expected to use deadly force >> as a last resort only. >Of course they are. And if deadly force (note - his was your addition, >I said nothing about "deadly force")
My understanding of police procedure when dealing with armed/dangerous criminals is that all force is deadly force. Once the level of danger is such that shooting to disarm would be called for, "non-deadly force" would put the police and bystanders at unacceptable risk. The goal is generally not to kill the suspect but attempting to resolve the threat situation while specifically avoiding deadly force is unwise.
>is the only way to stop a crime - >it is still 'good' compared to letting the crime continue.
We're pretty much on the same page here except that I'd say "less bad" instead of "good". Of course this is even dealing with analogies, which are notoriously misleading.
-- Joseph M. Bay Lamont Sanford Junior University Putting the "harm" in molecular pharmacology since 1998 When crime is outlawed, only outlaws will commit crimes. LEGALIZE http://www.stanford.edu/~jmbay CRIME
zztop8...@yahoo.com (zztop8970-) writes: >Clay Smith <Clay201NOS...@softhome.net> wrote in message <news:GEoMPLcd4Z7ppCwoGcb0hoPGi50Y@4ax.com>... >> It's a pretty tiny difference. If I plant a bomb outside of a church >> to kill a member of Hezbollah, I would have to be aware (unless I were >> a total idiot) that there's a decent chance my bomb will kill a >> civilian or two. Essentially, I'm saying "It's okay with me if my >> actions cause the death of civilians." If I'm an Islamic extremist >> terorist in Palestine and I plant a bomb in a resteraunt and set it to >> explode during lunch hour, I'm saying "I intended my actions to cause >> the deaths of civilians." >It is NOT a tiny differnce. Intent is a major element in describing >and quantifying the seriousness of criminal actions.
>> As I said, not a whole lot of difference. In addition, it's worth >> pointing out that the dead probably don't give a damn whether they >> were killed by a well meaning CIA bomb or an evil, fiendish terrorist >> bomb. >The fact that the dead don't care doesn't make all actions which >result in death morally equivalent. You are very childish in your >reasoning.
Although the injury (or death) inflicted on an innocent may be unintended, it's still a fully forseeable consequence. It is not some kind of accident which may be forgiven or dismissed. How many bystanders are you justified in killing? Particularly if the target can be killed without killing any bystanders.
-- Joseph M. Bay Lamont Sanford Junior University Putting the "harm" in molecular pharmacology since 1998 When crime is outlawed, only outlaws will commit crimes. LEGALIZE http://www.stanford.edu/~jmbay CRIME
>> This would obviously be an unacceptable tactic to anyone with an even >> marginal degree of mental health.
Nark:
>Obviously not, as I am a fully functional mental genius. When you create >peculiar hypothetical examples, with huge gaps, I don't know how to answer. >Notice that I did not answer one way or the other, but rather asked for a >complete story.
I have to disagree with your self-assessment of your mental abilities.
Justin Felux:
>Oh, of course. We forgot to account for the fact that French (or western >lives in general) are worth more than the lives of people in someplace >like Beirut.
Nark:
>Your assumptions on the meaning of my statement are based on your own >twisted biases.
Justin Felux:
>It is a perfect analogy. Whether or not the places are alike in general >is irrelevant. The circumstances are what matters.
Nark:
>If you compare France, a peaceful state, with Beirut, a chaotic mess with >many warring factions... you are the one whose mental competence should be >questioned. It would be like saying that an Anthrax terrorist suspect could be picked up >in a Church here in the US compares to a terrorist leader in his highly >fortified headquarters. Oh yeah, you agreed with that one too. You might >look up the word 'analogy' in the dictionary before we continue.
So, you believe that since it would be somewhat more difficult to aprehend a criminal in Beirut than it would be in a western state, it is therefore OK to kill a sizable number of civilians? Interesting.
> > "Kevin Waterson" <ke...@oceania.net> wrote in message > > news:3C0C272B.81B44585@oceania.net... > > A common problem these days it would seem ! > > Why don't they go back to watching T.V. > > and cleaning their guns?
> Ah, the typical arrogance. ANyone who doesn't agree with you must be a > gun-owning bum, eh Jez? > Let me clue you in, laddie: Chomsky watches TV, as do most posters on > this group who think like you.
I don't care if anyone agrees with me or not! As for T.V. Chomsky watches it....so what? And as for the 'guns' remark it just seems that most folk here at the moment seem to glory in the idea of war, (from a safe distance in front of their T.V.'s) I thought it was the 21st century ,not 2000 years BC! When will we (America and the UK) become civilised ? My Grandfather fought in the 1st world war, and taught us (his family)to belive in peace, based on what he saw there..... (And the political situation that caused it) and 80+ years later people have to keep trying to achive it. Being super-powerful nations , how come we can't show compassion for ALL who suffer from War, repression and poverty? Seems simple? but perhaps it's just too much to understand.
> Justin Felux: > >> This would obviously be an unacceptable tactic to anyone with an even > >> marginal degree of mental health.
> Nark: > >Obviously not, as I am a fully functional mental genius. When you create > >peculiar hypothetical examples, with huge gaps, I don't know how to answer. > >Notice that I did not answer one way or the other, but rather asked for a > >complete story.
> I have to disagree with your self-assessment of your mental abilities.
Hold on right there! My 3 year old thinks I'm smart too. THAT is NOT 'self-assessment'.
BTW, my wife might agree with you. BUT, that doesn't prove anything.
> Justin Felux: > >Oh, of course. We forgot to account for the fact that French (or western > >lives in general) are worth more than the lives of people in someplace > >like Beirut.
> Nark: > >Your assumptions on the meaning of my statement are based on your own > >twisted biases.
> Justin Felux: > >It is a perfect analogy. Whether or not the places are alike in general > >is irrelevant. The circumstances are what matters.
> Nark: > >If you compare France, a peaceful state, with Beirut, a chaotic mess with > >many warring factions... you are the one whose mental competence should be > >questioned. It would be like saying that an Anthrax terrorist suspect could > be picked up > >in a Church here in the US compares to a terrorist leader in his highly > >fortified headquarters. Oh yeah, you agreed with that one too. You might > >look up the word 'analogy' in the dictionary before we continue.
> So, you believe that since it would be somewhat more difficult to aprehend a > criminal in Beirut than it would be in a western state, it is therefore OK > to kill a sizable number of civilians? Interesting.
How many civilians? It doesn't change the fact that your analogy was inaccurate.
> >> It's a pretty tiny difference. If I plant a bomb outside of a church > >> to kill a member of Hezbollah, I would have to be aware (unless I were > >> a total idiot) that there's a decent chance my bomb will kill a > >> civilian or two. Essentially, I'm saying "It's okay with me if my > >> actions cause the death of civilians." If I'm an Islamic extremist > >> terorist in Palestine and I plant a bomb in a resteraunt and set it to > >> explode during lunch hour, I'm saying "I intended my actions to cause > >> the deaths of civilians."
> >It is NOT a tiny differnce. Intent is a major element in describing > >and quantifying the seriousness of criminal actions.
> >> As I said, not a whole lot of difference. In addition, it's worth > >> pointing out that the dead probably don't give a damn whether they > >> were killed by a well meaning CIA bomb or an evil, fiendish terrorist > >> bomb.
> >The fact that the dead don't care doesn't make all actions which > >result in death morally equivalent. You are very childish in your > >reasoning.
> Although the injury (or death) inflicted on an innocent may > be unintended, it's still a fully forseeable consequence. It > is not some kind of accident which may be forgiven or dismissed. > How many bystanders are you justified in killing? Particularly > if the target can be killed without killing any bystanders.
You assume that the job is easier than it proves to be. If it were that simple, the CIA would certainly rid the planet of terrorists.
Let me ask you where YOU draw the line? If killing one innocent person would definately save the lives of 500,000; would you agree that it was justified? Some would, and their position is not entirely invalid. You should concede that, for most of us, it is simply where we draw the line. The difference between action and inaction is negligable. NOT working to stop terrorism is almost as bad as committing terrorism.
If you can prevent it, and don't, you are irresponsible.
>> >> >I have just completed Noam Chomsky's book on September 11. To call it >> >> >a book is doing it a great deal more justice than it deserves. The >> >> >fact that you can finish it in about half an hour really sums up >> >> >Chomsky's academically half arsed predictable approach to the matter, >> >> >and indeed a great deal of his other endeavors. A series of half >> >> >truths with selective facts and of course the classic moral relativism >> >> >the Chomsky and the like are so fond of.
>> >> >The 1985 CIA >> >> >car bombing of a Mosque in Beirut was, at best, disastrous American >> >> >foreign policy, no doubt resulting in the loss of innocent lives. >> >> >However this was not some willy nilly bomb planting done for some >> >> >weekend fun. It was targeting a Hizballah leader who was behind the >> >> >bombing of the U
