Hi All
On 5 Oct 2001 at 15:51, Jonathan B. Marder wrote:
> 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!
Agreed - the big problem as I see it is to ensure that in defending oneself
innocents are safeguarded. I keep hearing talk of 'acceptable' levels of 'collateral
damage' and other such BS phrases which basically mean that so called
'defenders of freedom' are prepared to kill anything within sight to achieve their
aims. I imagine Bin Laden feels that 6000 workers in the WTC were an
'acceptable level of collateral damage'. He was wrong as well.
> <<
> 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!!!
Not the best comparison. A cat will generally run away when threatened - as will
the majority of animals. Under normal circumstances a cat will only attack (other
than to eat or defend territory) when it is cornered and has absolutely no other
option. Its actions are the result of the removal of choice and this causes it to
attack, responding to an immediate problem. There is no forward thought
involved.
I can't see this as pre-emptive self-defense as it is responding to an immediate
problem.
Pre-emptive self-defense is, I would have thought, a human characteristic in that
it is part of a forward projecting system. Certainly it would involve recognition of a
future threat which is not usually recognised as a characteristic of most other
species at anything above a very basic level. This, to me, implies the use of
predominantly Intellectual/Social responses.
I did also say that retribution is strongly biased towards the Biological not that it
was entirely Biological. Retribution is generally expressed in terms of punishment
and this is more often than not (and certainly in the current circumstances which
prompted these posts) immediate violence.
> 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.
Interesting phrase 'technically illegal'. Sounds like a euphemism for terrorism in
this context. I would have thought that any reasonable person would condemn
actions that are illegal and murderous. I accept the threat of Bin Laden and Al
Qaida but do not accept that the westerm powers have a mandate to kill
indiscriminately. So called 'surgical' strikes' are anything but surgical unless you
consider removal of a leg to cure ingowing toenail the mark of a good surgeon.
It's just another of the bullshit militaristic phrases that people like to adopt
because it further isolates the user from what is really happening - i.e. murder.
I'm also very thankful that there are people around to condemn these acts.
> >>
> 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.
In reducing human beings to the level of germs you are negating the entire
concept of the MoQ. Germs have not an ounce of either social or intellectual
value and the eradication of a germ is an entirely different concept to the
eradication of a human life. To say that taking any human life is the equivalent of
destroying a germ is ridiculous in the extreme. Whatever you may believe of
another human being they are created by ALL four static levels of Quality and
have the ability to respond to Dynamic Quality.
In response to the hornet's nest analogy I would agree that removing the hornets
nest is a good idea, however killing anything with a 10 mile radius of the nest is
probably not the best way to go about it. This appears to be what is being
proposed by the 'Alliance' and is certainly about par for the course in terms of
previous actions - even 'Surgical' ones.
>
> 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.
Jonathan, the germ to which I am referring is in direct response to the germ to
which Platt referred. Let me re-reiterate again once more:
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."
It seems pretty clear to me what Platt is saying.
This germ is not republicanism or terrorism but 'terrorists and those countries who
support and/or tolerate terrorists'. In other words the entire population of e.g.
Afghanistan or Iraq.
I'm also not interested in what is or is not 'Official' or 'Unofficial' policy as it is
NEVER the policy of a state to support terrorism for a number of reasons. What
matters here is that the institutions that contribute to the structure of a state will
permit the harbouring, arming financing and support of terrorists. The US has
harboured members of the IRA giving them protection against extradition on the
grounds that their crimes are political and of course as every right thinking person
knows beating and murdering a parent in front of its children is obviously political.
Additionally, the US allows it's territory to be used for organisations directly
beholden to terrorists (NORAID) to collect funds and use those funds to purchase
arms. The arms are purchased legally but the distribution to Eire is frowned upon
by the US to such an extent that they have even arrested and jailed (for short
periods it should be noted) members of the NORAID organisation. Oddly enough
though this doesn't constitute sufficient evidence to close down NORAID.
In addition to this the USA has committed gross acts of terrorism in South
America and supported terrorist groups. Does the term Contra or Iran/Contra
Scandal raise any memories - Jesus, Ollie North even thought it was a really neat
idea and a great proportion of US citizens apparently supported him.
So who are you trying to kid here. The US is as guilty as hell when it comes to
supporting, financing and aiding terrorism in a number of guises from both a
passive and an active role and I STILL don't think either they or anyone else
recuces themselves to the level of a germ and deserves to be eradicated for so
doing. But apparently you agree with Platt here?
You're absolutely right about one thing though Jonathan. The US of A doesn't
give two hoots - until it comes under attack itself. Wouldn't you have thought that
a reasonable part of pre-emptive self-defense is not to behave in such a way as
to virtually invite someone to attack you at some point.
> Thus, pro-republican activities are openly tolerated - republicanism is not the
germ.
> The germ is terrorism. You confront it when you have to.
I agree with you here but would add that this must be terrorism in all its guises
and regardless of the nationality of the terrorists and their supporters. Killing a
germ by destroying the host is not the best way to go. Destroying the patterns
that create terrorism is the way to go.
>
> 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.
So you've dropped the 'technically' part of illegal when it comes to the Bin Laden
side of events. But it's still terrorism don't you agree. The view from each side is
virtually identical - each side sees the other as the spawn of Satan but because
'our' side is democratically elected we must be in the right according to Platt's
reasoning. Do you remember a song with the title "With God on Our Side"? It's
another by that best of all singer-songwriters Bob Dylan. I've reproduced it at the
end of the post. The sentiment appears to be identical.
> 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?
International forces are what I'm talking about in relation to crime that
transgresses national borders. The big problem here is that the major players
don't give two hoots (or will actively support terrorism) until it becomes a problem
for them. This is pretty much so for all of the above mentioned conflicts
> Closer to home (for you), why is the British Army in N. Ireland - surely it
> is to prevent criminal acts of extremists.
And did it work? Has it ever worked? In the last century Ireland has been
occupied by British troops on a continuous basis. In the last 30 years about
3000+ people have been killed. In terrorist attacks of one form or another. The
British army presence in N. Ireland in terms of prevention has been a complete
waste of time and life. The only time any progress has been made has been
when the British have been prepared to talk and to negotiate as they did in 1922
when the Independence process was started and a few years ago with the power
sharing initiative. This is nearly always the case. The Military response in N.
Ireland has been an impediment and a hindrance not a help. The military were not
acting as a police force.
<<
> 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.
As I remember it the Russians invaded Afghanistan on a fairly flimsy pretext after
having installed a puppet government. The Mujahadein became a 'resistance'
movement, trained, armed and organised by the US and, in the eyes of the
Russians, committed terrorist attacks on Russian troops. The Mujahadein, as a
terrorist movement evolved into the Taliban and continued as they had been
encouraged to do. A state of war can only legally, technically and rationally exist
between identifiable states. This is not a semantic ploy but a statement of
definition.
> <<
> 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.
Is it recognised by the state of Israel as a bona fide state? I think not. Again, how
much good has the Israeli Army done. If anything it has made the situation worse
when you consider the imbalance in terms of response to action.
Negotiation and dialogue are the only things that will solve this problem as in N.
Ireland - unless you accept genocide as an answer.
>
> 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.
It is effective when it is required to be effective - i.e. the major nations wish it to
succeed - and at those times when it is not required to be effective it is
undermined and damaged by the same players. The major players are almost
exclusively the western powers with the addition of USSR/Russia and China.
> <<
> 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.
In the case of war obviously!!! And not some trumped up excuse to justify mass
killing. When Hitler attacked Poland, this was the UK's excuse to declare War.
When Japan attacked the US the US declared War. The use of one nations
military resources against another nation is an act of war. The UN would be
effective as an international police force when it has the backing of it's member
nations (effectively the entire world) and acts in response to breaches of
international law - Eg. terrorist attacks.
>
> <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?
See above.
> <<
> [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.
Jonathan I will say it again. I am not a pacifist nor am I advocating pacifism
except where it is appropriate. I respect those that are pacifists, such as Gandhi,
because they must have enormous courage to do what they do when facing
violence and possible death.
My argument is that, in the long run, a militaristic approach to the problem of
terrorism will fail. It always has and it always will precisely BECAUSE you are not
fighting a state but a set of ideals and beliefs. These are Social/Intellectual
values. A Social/Biological response in the form of militarism will not work and
under the MoQ is immoral. The acceptance of the analogy with germs is
extremely damaging as it evokes the wrong response.
> <<
> 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.
Read your history Jonathan. The Treaty of Versailles was dead in the water the
day it was agreed. Furthermore it was a major part of the cause of WW2 because
it allowed Britain and France to destroy the German economy and act in an
altogether immoral way. Britain and France and their armies would not have been
part of the solution becasue they were part of the cause.
The Congress of Vienna which was negotiated in 1815 effectively lasted for
nearly 100 years (apart from a short break after 40 years or so for the Crimean
war but that only lasted a couple of years and in European terms this was more at
the level of a hobby) until the outbreak of WW1. Why the effective difference?
Britain had a treaty with Poland which it was politically expedient to honour in
order to commence the start of the war. This was a response to one nation
invading another not a terrorist activity. There was also a lot of support at a
popular level for Hitler in both England and France.
> 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.
A couple of points here.
Fuzzy logic fully supports and encapsulates Binary logic - 1 and 0 are just the
extremes.
I'm glad you have set the scene in terms of a police action rather than a
militaristic response.
The response is not to kill the person on the bridge - this would clearly be
ridiculous.
I am not aware of anything like this happening in the UK where, although most
policemen and women are not armed as a matter of course there are a significant
number of armed response units and an armed response unit acting in this way
would be prosecuted and probably dismissed unless they could reasonably show
that they thought the person was armed with more than a rock. Perhaps in Israel
or the US the police are trigger happy enough to consider this sort of killing
acceptable.
What if the person with the rock is a young child - do you kill it? A mentally ill
person? Why do you automatically assume that killing is the correct response?
To continue your scenario here in terms of the militaristic response to Bin Laden
the response would be to send in attack aircraft and helicopters, use a bunch of
missiles and destroy the rock thrower and the bridge - unfortunately the collateral
damage from this precise and surgical strike also involved the destruction of a
large section of the motorway and the deaths of a couple of hundred motorists.
Ah well! You win some you lose some - but at least we got the bastard on the
bridge.
Horse
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WITH GOD ON OUR SIDE
Bob Dylan
Oh my name it is nothin' my age it means less
The country I come from is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there the laws to abide
And that land that I live in
Has God on its side.
Oh the history books tell it they tell it so well
The cavalries charged the Indians fell
The cavalries charged the Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.
Oh the Spanish-American war had its day
And the Civil War too was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes I'm made to memorize
With guns in their hands
And God on their side.
Oh the First World War, boys it closed out its fate
The reason for fighting I never got straight
But I learned to accept it accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side.
When the Second World War came to an end
We forgave the Germans and we were friends
Though they murdered six million in the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side.
I've learned to hate Russians all through my whole life
If another war starts it's them we must fight
To hate them and fear them to run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side.
But now we got weapons of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to then fire them we must
One push of the button and a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.
In a many dark hour I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you you'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.
So now as I'm leavin' I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin' ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head and fall to the floor
If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.
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