Hi Horse and all,
Horse, I am glad that we agree that seeking revenge is a low quality
response, and does not have much to do with legitimite defense. On this
basis, I am trying very hard to have a constructive dialogue with you, but
this is not helped by your distortions. . . .
> 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 do not think that accepting the inevitability of SOME level of collateral
damage means that one accepts ANY level of collateral damage. It is not my
impression that anyone is out 'to kill anyone within sight'. As I said
several times in my last post, war is messy and innocent people sometimes
get killed. Sadly, that seems to have now been the case in Kabul.
JONATHAN> >
> > .... 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!!!
>
HORSE
> 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.
Agreed - it is instinctive/biological. A cat will attack when it senses that
attack is its BEST defensive option.
> I can't see [what the cat does] 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 would call man's "considered" defensive response an example of intellect
in service of the biological. Human intelligence evolved as a tool for
getting food, shelter AND for self defense! That's why human's are better at
defending themselves than most other species.
> 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 don't see anything Biological whatsoever about it, especially the way
Horse describes it. I repeat my earlier assertion: RETRIBUTION IS SOCIAL.
JONATHAN
> > "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. [snip]
HORSE
> 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.
Whether something is legal or illegal depends on man-made laws. I believe
that it is sometimes morally justifiable to transgress such laws for a just
cause. Horse, have you never gone through a red light to let an ambulance
get through? It's not always so clear cut, but the principal is the same.
> I accept the threat of Bin Laden and Al
> Qaida but do not accept that the westerm powers have a mandate to kill
> indiscriminately.
Good, neither do I.
> 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.
Bad example Horse. By reputation, surgeons tend to have the same gungho
reputation as the military. They can't wait to get out the scalpel.
> 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.
Hogwash. I don't condone killing for killing's sake, but what we are talking
about certainly isn't murder according to any dictionary I know.
> I'm also very thankful that there are people around to condemn these acts.
>
Actually, so am I. Without them there is no real accountability.
JONATHAN
> > 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
> In reducing human beings to the level of germs you are negating the entire
> concept of the MoQ [snip]. . .
Horse, I was pursuing a metaphor that Pirsig uses, and we have used before
in this forum. Now you are taking the metaphor too literally.
> 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.
Agreed, but when another human being threatens my existance, I feel an
overwhelming need to defend my own 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.
This is an interesting objection. Horse, am I to understand that you now
agree to the idea of SOME level of military response, but object to the
degree? Please clarify HOW MUCH response you think is warranted in this
case.
[re: fundraising in the USA to support IRA terrorism, . . .and also
Re: US hypocrisy in its support or tolerance for various types of despotism
around the world.]
Horse, I agree with you that the USA is far from perfect. In this respect,
they tend to act like most other nations
(including yours and mine).
> You're absolutely right about one thing though Jonathan. The US of A
doesn't
> give two hoots - until it comes under attack itself.
Absolutely! Living where I do, this is now very clear to me.
> 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.
Duh? Did I miss something somewhere? Are you now claiming that the USA
invited the attacks? Please clarify, because this might be important in
understanding where you are coming from.
JONATHAN
> > 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.
I don't see things as so symmetrical. I do not equate deliberate attacks on
civilian targets designed to maximise casualties with attacks on military
targets and infrastructure. However, it's not only a question of right vs.
wrong, but a question of us vs. them. Democratic elections are a red
herring.
> 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.
>
I know it well - even thouigh I was but a child in the Vietnam era. I wonder
what Uncle Bob would have to say about current events. Did you see the
recent poem of his that I posted a couple of weeks ago?
> > 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.
> > >>
> >
JONATHAN
> > The difference is often semantic. [snip]
> > Closer to home (for you), why is the British Army in N. Ireland - surely
it
> > is to prevent criminal acts of extremists.
>
HORSE> 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.
Now that I remember. 1969, N. Ireland patrolled by the police - the RUC with
their crack unit the "B Specials".
Now Horse, are you really trying to tell me that it was the British army who
caused all the problems?
> 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.
I'm glad you are so sure. I don't understand how you can be so optimistic
that things would have magically fixed themselves in 1969 if only Britain
had kept its army out of Ulster. Somehow, I'm not so sure.
> 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.
>
I don't think that is a very useful contribution, but if Horse insists, I
suppose I'll have to learn to talk about the American Civil Disturbances,
the Spanish Interparty Clashes, the Russian Postrevolutionary Conflagration,
etc. I wonder how many soldiers died without even knowing that it wasn't a
proper war and that
they weren't real soldiers.
> > Whoever committed the atrocious act has committed a CRIMINAL offence.
Horse, maybe no-one ever told you, but criminal acts can also be acts of
war. Didn't you ever hear of war crimes?
JONATHAN
> > 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.
I absolutely disagree. The Palestinians have a long history of violently
targetting Jewish civilians, that long predates the existance of any Israeli
army. I have little doubt that without the protection of the Israeli army,
Jews would not be able to live in Israel. As regards the "imbalance" I don't
see it. The VAST MAJORITY of Palestinian dead were combatants involved in
violent activities (it is all documented) - the fact that the Israeli Army
is better equipped and better at defending itself is nothing to apologise
for.
> Negotiation and dialogue are the only things that will solve this problem
as in N.
> Ireland - unless you accept genocide as an answer.
I am a great believer in ongoing dialogue, but negotiation on its own
appears to be futile.
Horse, if you are seriously proposing that the Israeli Army should stay in
barracks while this goes on, I humbly suggest that you come over here and
demonstrate your confidence in such a policy. I can probably rent you a flat
quite cheap in the Jerusalem suburb of Gilo.
> >
> > 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.
>
Thanks Horse, you have now made it abundantly clear. The NATO intervention
in Kosovo was illegitimate, and Britain and France were right to stay out of
the Spanish civil war. As for the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan,
you say that this is a UN matter. I suppose that means we have to now blame
the UN for the deaths of 6000 civilians in New York, and demand that the UN
do something drastic to prevent it happening again.
> 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.
Horse, I see this playing with labels as a complete perversion of the levels
idea. It wasn't social/intellectual values that collapsed two giant
skyscrapers and killed 6000 people. Terrorism must be confronted on ALL
levels, and that must include the use of appropriate military force. You
know something Horse, when you and your own family are facing your own
terrorist threat close to home, remind me to ask you again . . .
HORSE
> > 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.
> > >>
JONATHAN
> > Hogwash. Britain declared war before it was ever attacked!
HORSE
> 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.
I agree about Versailles, but you missed my point entirely. You have no
evidence whatsoever that Germany would ever have attacked Britain had
Britain not declared war on Germany.
>
> > 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
[snip]
JONATHAN
> > 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.
HORSE
> 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.
Actually Horse, there was a case during the 1980s, where striking miners
dropped a lump of concrete and killed a lorry driver. Do you seriously
suggest that the British courts would have condemned a policeman for
preventing this act?
> Perhaps in Israel
> or the US the police are trigger happy enough to consider this sort of
killing
> acceptable.
No, it is pretty much the same as in the UK. A policeman or soldier who
kills a civilian under any circumstances can expect to face an investigation
and a possible trial.
> 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?
Even children and the metally ill (ESPECIALLY the mentally ill) can be
dangerous. I do not assume that killing is necessarily the correct response,
but I see that you assume that killing is NEVER the correct response. I
maintain that there are sometime circumstances where there is no real
alternative.
> 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.
So that's how you see it. Well enjoy the mental masturbation Horse. I'm hope
you never have to face any difficult choices like the examples that have
come up. I find it hard to believe that you'll just sit back and leave it to
Uncle Bob and to God.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> WITH GOD ON OUR SIDE
>
> Bob Dylan
[snip
> 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.
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