Hi Horse: (Got it right this time, but Rog still hasn't forgiven me) (-:
> On 25 Sep 2001 at 10:56, Platt Holden wrote:
>
> > > > P: I’m glad you concede the point that war is sometimes necessary.
> > >
> > > Wouldn't deny it. I can't see any reason to justify it in these current
> circumstances
> > > though.
> >
> > Would it be justified if a London was hit by a gas attack that killed 6,000
> > or more?
>
> It would depend entirely on who/what had attacked us. There are internationally
> valid laws which govern the rules of conduct which _civilised_ societies adhere to.
> This is the RULE OF LAW and when rogue states break these laws and declare
> war on others they are subject to the retribution of those states and/or members of
> coalitions of states they have attacked.
> If, for example, the government of Germany attacked the UK and gassed 6000 in
> London, this would be an overt declaration of war - whether stated or not - and the
> UK, under international law would be entirely justified in retaliating. However, if a
> terrorist cell of the IRA attacked the UK and gassed 6000 people, then even if it
> was common knowledge that they were armed, supplied and encouraged by both
> Eire and the USA we would not be justified in retaliating in kind against Eire or the
> USA.
> The US and a coalition of other countries are about to do exactly this against
> Afghanistan and probably Iraq when they get a chance. This is illegal, according
> to international law and immoral according to MoQ.
If the US harbored, supported and protected IRA terrorists who gassed and
killed 6000 people in London, the English would be entirely justified to retaliate
in kind and then some. The more relevant question is: why would retaliation be
immoral according to the MOQ? I don't find the MOQ denying the morality of a
society's right to self-defense. If you believe otherwise, please cite chapter and
verse.
> > Ok, but put the (UN) headquarters in London. The U.S. should withdraw its
> > funding. It is immoral for a nation to support those who wish to see it
> > destroyed.
>
> Happily. The main reason that the UN headquarters were in the US is becasue
> the US wished for them to be there during the formation of the UN after WWII. It
> believed it could dominate the proceedings but when it found that opinion was
> against it in a number of areas it went off in a sulk and refused to play. For years,
> whilst the US couldn't dominate the UN it failed to pay its bills even though it
> retained it's power of veto - which it used on a number of occasions. As for being
> immoral for a nation to support those who wish to destroy it, this is arrant
> nonsense.
What is really nonsense is the idea that England would send money to the IRA
or any other group bent on its destruction.
>According to the MoQ it is more moral for an idea to destroy a nation
> than for a nation to destroy an idea. Intellect is more dynamic than Society and
> your equating a terrorist to a germ is entirely wrong. A germ has no Social or
> Intellectual content - a terrorist does.
Absolutely disagree. A terrorist doesn't have social or intellectual content
worthy of the name. I agree instead with Pirsig's view (surprise). Just substitute
"terrorists" for "criminal blacks" in the following passage from Chapter 24 and
note how he equates crime with biological patterns. Also, take special note of
the last five words.
“Phaedrus remembered a conversation in the early sixties with a University of
Chicago faculty member who was moving out of the Woodlawn neighborhood
next to the university. He was moving because criminal blacks had moved in
and it had become too dangerous to live there. Phaedrus had said he didn't
think moving out was any solution.
"The professor had blown up at him. "What you don't know!" he had said. '
We've tried everything! We've tried workshops, study groups, councils. We've
spent years in this. If there's anything we've missed we don't know what it is.
Everything has failed. '
"The professor added, ' You don't understand what a defeat this has been for
us. It's as though we never even tried. '
"Phaedrus had had no answer at the time, but he had one now. The idea that
biological crimes can be ended by intellect alone, that you can talk crime to
death, doesn't work. Intellectual patterns cannot directly control biological
patterns. Only social patterns can control biological patterns, and the
instrument of conversation between society and biology is not words. The
instrument of conversation between society and biology has always been a
policeman or a soldier and his gun."
The idea that humans by reason of being human are "intellectual" is
mistaken. As Pirsig said of Lila, "Intellectually she's nowhere." The same is
true of criminals, terrorists, religious fanatics and some of my best friends.
> > The Magna Carta limited the power of the king, the first step toward
> > limited government. That's why we hold it in such high regard, even if
> > you don't.
>
> It had nothing to do with limited government as far as I remember but gave the
> aristocracy rights to crap all over the peasants whenever they felt like it without
> having to check with the King first. They could organise and develop feudal
> systems already in place but still had to defer to the King in a majority of
> instances. At this point in English history there was no government as we would
> see it today only social level alliances. Intellect would have been treated with total
> contempt as it would have involved tricky things like reason which the inbred
> morons of the aristocracy of the time wouldn't have recognised if it danced naked
> in front of them. From my dealings with the descendants of those same people
> this is pretty much the case today.
According to the encyclopedia Britannica, the Magna Carta was "the charter of
English liberties granted by King John in 1215." So your interpretation is at
least open to question. What I noticed, though, was your admission that a
group in merry old Englandwere without intellect, supporting Pirsig's view that
being human doesn't automatically grant someone an intellectual pattern. How
about inbred morons of English aristocracy today? Are they still intellectually
vacant?
> > So I gather you put terror to defend freedom on the same moral level
> > as terror to defend totalitarism? Or have I misunderstood you again
> > since you didn't say it?
>
> Yes I put terror to defend freedom on the same moral level as terror to defend
> totalitarism. Terrorism is terrorism. Murder is murder and psychopaths are the
> same by whichever standards you care to apply. I do not and could not ever justify
> murder and terror in the pursuit of democracy. Once this happens democracy is
> hollow and worthless and is no better than the law of the jungle. Might does not
> make right.
This is really the crux of our debate. Your position means you would not have
dropped the atom bomb on Japan to terrorize the country into surrender and
save thousands of Japanese and Allied lives. You would not have murdered
Hitler to shorten the war in Europe and possibly prevent it all together. You
would not say that the combined might of the Allies in WWII made our victory
over the Axis right. In a word, your position is "pacifism."
> > Obviously we have widely different worldview. But, I'm sure we can
> > agree on one thing--the hope that those who would do our countries
> > harm are eradicated before they kill again.
>
> Better to treat the disease rather than the symptoms - but initially the symptoms
> need to be arrested. So the arrest and trial (preferably in a neutral country) and, if
> convicted, the imprisonment of Bin Laden and others involved in this atrocity
> would certainly be welcome. I would also apply this rule equally to ANY others
> who involve themselves in terrorist activities be they the CIA, MI5, Mosad, KGB
> etc. Terrorism is the symptom of the disease that needs to be destroyed.
So, I take it the rule we must follow says we can "arrest" terrorists only after
they act and no attempt should be undertaken to annihilate them before they
make London into a spot on the ground that glows in the dark. The rule of war,
"kill or be killed" does not apply. Such a pacifist approach is hopeless naive.
In 1942, George Orwell wrote about then English pacifists:
"Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you
hamper the war effort on one side, you automatically help out that of the other.
Nor is there any really way of remaining outside such a war as the present one.
In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.' "
Maybe Bush had Orwell in mind when he said to the nations of the world,
"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:32 BST