Hi Horse, Platt and all,
HORSE (to Platt)
<<
First off, retaliation and self-defense are two entirely different things
that spring from different motives.
>>
I agree - in fact I said so myself. I further pointed out that this means
that defense is necessarily PREEMPTIVE -you can't protect yourself against a
blow that was already struck!
<<
Retaliation is more heavily biased toward the biological,
i.e. revenge! whilst self defense has a much higher balance of
Social/Intellectual
value.>>
Here I strongly disagree. Horse has it backwards. Retribution is the Social
pattern. Besides man, I know of no animal that avenges an attack on itself.
On the other hand, self defense is an inherently biological behaviour. I
know of plenty of cases where the animal will attack preemptively. You can
demonstrate this by cornering a cat!!!
<<
I have no problem with self-defense but revenge merely leads to more
violence and is completely pointless in the long run even though it may be
'justified' or 'legal'.
>>
"Successful" preemptive attacks are designed to cause maximum effect but
minimum suffering. Even so, these acts are often technically illegal, messy
and even ugly. They are not done to impress newspaper reporters or the
general public, and there is always someone to condemn the act. Whether or
not one chooses to condemn or condone such acts depends on whether or not
one accepts the supposed threat as real.
Horse, I dare say that you condemned the 1999 US attack on Bin Laden's
camps. My bet is that your opinion would be the same even if Bin Laden and
his organization had been elimated.
>>
Also what [Platt is] saying here seems to be to do with quantity rather than
Quality.
At what point is it reasonable to retaliate against another state? And why
shouldn't retaliation be permissible after a single instance of killing due
to terrorist
violence or attack by a rival state if you're so sure that retaliation is
permissible?
Your initial premiss' were:
> > PLATT:
> > "I interpret the MOQ view to be that those who are terrorists and those
> > countries who support and/or tolerate terrorists have the moral standing
> > of germs and like germs must be deliberately and ruthlessly annihilated
> > by all means at our disposal."
Horse, what Platt says looks clear enough to me. Germs represent an ongoing
threat. A terror attack can be like the sting of a stray bee, and there's
nothing much one can do about it. However, this is extremely rare - usually
it is a sign that there is a hornets' nest nearby and it is wise to do
something about it
HORSE
[re: fundraising in the USA to support IRA terrorism]
<<
My objection to this was that if this is the case then the US has the moral
standing of germs and deserves to be deliberately and ruthlessly annihilated
as it
has supported and tolerated terrorists (IRA). This is not official US policy
in the
sense that it is part of the Presidents address to the nation or whatever
but is
practically the case and can be shown to be so from records etc.
>>
Horse, you are a rogue. It is not even the "unofficial" policy of the USA to
support IRA terrorism. AFAIK, the policy of the U.S.A is clearly against IRA
terrorism and support for it. On the other hand, I don't think the U.S.A.
gives two hoots whether the six counties stay are part of the United Kingdom
or of the Republic of Ireland - why should they care? Thus, pro-republican
activities are openly tolerated - republicanism is not the germ.
The germ is terrorism. You confront it when you have to.
HORSE
<<
Personally I think that this is a complete misinterpretation of MoQ. Or if
it isn't
then Bin Laden was justified in committing this horrendous act. If anyone
agrees
with your statement but can produce a counter argument to show that Bin
Laden
wasn't justified I'd be interested in hearing it.
>>
I'm sure that Bin Laden and his ilk fully believe in the righteousness of
their act(s). They regard the USA and what it represents as a dangerous
cancer that threatens mankind as a whole. They set out to preempt this
perceived threat, and thus regard their act as one of prevention. It was
illegal, messy, ugly, . . . and they don't expect you to thank them for it.
HORSE
<<
In the case of CRIMINAL acts it is the policeman who is in control.
In the case of an act of WAR it is the soldier.
>>
The difference is often semantic. In the Boston massacre, were the redcoats
soldiers or police?
What about the international forces in Lebanon, Kosovo, Macedonia, E. Timor?
Closer to home (for you), why is the British Army in N. Ireland - surely it
is to prevent criminal acts of extremists.
<<
In the case of recent events it cannot be said that an act of war has been
committed as Bin Laden and his organisation is not a state and cannot
reasonably or legally declare war on the US or anyone else for that matter.
>>
More semantics. The PLO wasn't a state when the Jordanian army fought
against them in 1970, and not in 1982 when the Israeli army fought against
them on Lebanese soil. The Mujahadein was not a state when the Russian army
fought against them.
<<
Whoever committed the atrocious act has committed a CRIMINAL offence. As
this is the case then the current response in terms of a MILITARY build-up
is not
reasonable or justifiable as the response needs to be related to the act and
thus
only a POLICE response is justifiable.
>>
Horse, please explain. How should Israel respond to terrorist activity
originating in the area controlled by the Palestinian Authority? Technically
it is not a state - so you say we should send in the police, but whose
police?
On the other hand, it is a state in all but name (just like the PLO in
Jordan and later in Lebanon), so we may as well use the Israeli army.
HORSE
<< The big problem here is that the criminal
act committed is of a transnational nature and the only organisation that
can
legitimately and legally respond to this is the UN and it would seem that
you do
not recognise the UN as a legitmate or morally acceptable organisation. By
reference to the MoQ then we need some form of alternative to the UN which
is
capable of acting as an impersonal and transnational police force.
>>
The UN is nothing more than a federation of nations. Sometimes it is
effective, sometimes it is paralysed.
In the latter cases, other multinational forces take on the task of
transnational policing, as happened in Kosovo.
<<
But whichever way you look at it a massive build-up of military systems to
deal
with this is not the right way to go. Similar responses have been tried in
the past
and have failed. A WAR on terrorism will be as effective as the war on
drugs - i.e.
not at all.
>>
Another question Horse: This is "not the right way to go" in just this case,
or in general? Please explain when a military build-up is justified.
<SNIP>
PLATT
> > > 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?
> >
HORSE
> > 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.
PLATT
> 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."
HORSE
<<No, if you read most of what I have written so far you will see that quite
obviously
my position is not one of pacifism. Additionally, even if it were then this
would not
for one moment alter the accuracy or veracity of any statements I have made.
>>
Again Horse, please explain when (military) violence represents a viable
defense option?
<<
[PLATT seems] to be edging toward the ad hominem argument here (I.e. if I am
advocating pacifism then I must be a pacifist and as such cannot be correct
etc.)
which is not the way to go.
>>
Horse, I misunderstand your argument. You clearly are advocating pacifism,
and thus I assume you to be a pacifist. I respect this, but our argument is
not whether or not you are a pacifist, but whether or not your stance is of
practical value.
<<
Dropping the bomb was not an act of terrorism it was an act of war committed
during war.
>>
More semantics. We agree that the bomb was apparently effective!
<<
Murdering Hitler prior to his acts of war would have been a criminal event
and
unjustifiable except in hindsight.
>>
With a dead Hitler, the hindsight may have revealed no WWII and no
Holocaust.
<<
Killing Hitler after the onset of war have been a justifiable act of war.
What made the response of the allies morally correct is that we acted in
self
defense against the Axis powers.
>>
Hogwash. Britain declared war before it was ever attacked! But she waited
through the Nuremburg wars, massive German rearmament, the remilitarization
of the Ruhr, the invasion of Czechoslovakia and the invasion of Poland. With
the latter Britain declared war. Horse, you youself agreed that self-defense
is preventative; with hindsight,the only argument in favour of Britain
waiting so long is her unpreparedness for war. I wonder how things might
have turned out if Britain and France had used their armies several years
earlier, before Hitler and before German rearmament.
PLATT
> So, I take it the rule we must follow says we can "arrest" terrorists only
after
> they act . . . Such a pacifist approach is hopeless naive.
HORSE
<<
Well the normal course of events is that if a person commits a criminal act
he is
then sought, caught and arrested. He is entitled to a fair trial and brought
before a
court and if found guilty is punished in accordance with the law. What
[Platt] seem
to be suggesting is that we shouldn't bother with all this namby-pamby
innocent
until proven guilty rubbish and that the idea of a fair trial, habeas corpus
etc. is
leftist nonsense. All we need to do is assume someone might be a criminal
and
then kill them - remind me again who makes these choices and what reasons
they might like to give, or are reasons necessary? I don't think that this
is what
could be called a reasoned or reasonable attitude and given a choice between
mindless violence and reasoned pacifism I'd take the latter.
Mind you it is not the case that I MUST take either . . .
[in response to Platt quoting Orwell: "Pacifism is objectively
pro-Fascist."].
This part of [the] argument reminds me of the attempt that was made to
undermine Pirsig in defining Quality as objective OR subjective - residing
in the
Subject or the Object. It assumes that there are 2 and only 2 choices
(either
Subject or Object) and this is THE classic SOM fudge. . . .
>>
Horse, you ignore the issue of the ongoing threat. If lives are at stake,
you have act.
It is often illegal, messy, ugly . . . and don't expect anyone you to thank
you for it.
Here's your scenario Horse:
You are an armed policeman and you see someone on the bridge over the
motorway holding a rock. With the density of fast-moving traffic below, it
is very likely that a falling rock will kill at least one person. You now
have the option to shoot, and you have just moment to decide. That is a
binary decision - to shoot or not to shoot.
Now, you are entitled to use your beloved "fuzzy logic" in reaching your
decision. You can factor in other issues, e.g. maybe there is a group of
violent environmentalists who have previously dropped rocks in this way.
I expect that you will make a decision on the morality of shooting part way
between 0 and 100%. This is as it should be, but when you decide whether or
not to shoot, please make it 0% or 100%. You can't be half-assed about how
you act!!! But when you shoot, just remember that if later it turns out to
be not a rock but an empty paper bag, you will be condemned for your
mistake. Hell, what difference does it make? Even if it really was a rock,
someone will condemn you anyway.
Jonathan
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 - 16:01:33 BST