 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Sarcastically. (1) That's distortive because you snipped the cite. At the same time you were composing your post accusing me of being closed minded, I was composing a post acknowledging a serious hole in the argument I advanced. That's not the (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) So.... how is that not "might makes right?" Or "Larry makes right" as the case may be. How is this subjective judgement any better than their subjective judgment of us? (...) By my book it only matters what the intentions are of those (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Well, that's a little hasty. I consider Bionicle to be terrible, but LEGO isn't a terrorist organization as a result. I would suggest that, rather than trying to define words (which, to me, suggests an effort to identify with relative (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
<snip> But though it's changing the (...) <snip> I love trying to define words. I also can't stay out of this forum. Anyhow, for what it's worth, here's my take on the definition of terrorism... I consider *war*, in general, to be a terrible thing. (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Palestinians & Israeli occupation (Again) (was Re: Hiroshima... )
|
|
(...) He tried that with me, it did not wash either. Further, I fail to see why Israel is not a friend of the USA? They look pretty loyal to me. Certainly not an enemy? I also fail to see what this has to do with Hiroshima? (...) No, but the killing (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) I don't view the terrorists as cowards. They may well have been deluded, but they were not cowards. The answer to Ross's Truman question is "no". Although, Truman did not drop the bomb personally, he is responsible for that action. It could be (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) By "harshest" do you mean more harsh criticism than against any other? I would agree that Israel needs harsh criticism of some of it's tactics. You've got a lot to do to convince me that the government Israel is worse than the government of (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Let's not blur the issue here. What was cowardly about the Sept 11 terrorism was that it took no courage to hijack civilian aircraft during peacetime and steer helpless civilian passengers into buildings. That's hardly the same as the US (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Founding Fathers Anti-American?
|
|
(...) All, I read text linked below last night. When I did, I realised that it linked quite well with a number of themes we (as a group) have given time here. It is heavily laced with paranoia, but it is still an interesting perspective. Have a (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) Hmm. I see your point. Secure means this: "able to avoid being harmed by any risk, danger or threat" Simply, free means this "not limited or controlled". I think the UK being "gun free", gives me both. I suppose another freedom I have lost (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) the (...) I see no definition there, only opinion. (...) I've made my distinction several times before - attacks on *military targets* I don't consider terrorism. (...) Compared to what? (...) ????? So what???? What has their "expectation of (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: eBay's Auction for America
|
|
(...) rude (NOT POLITE) adjective not polite; offensive or embarrassing No doubt calling somebody a liar without justifying it is not rude according to Larry's ethical code. Then again, he probably thinks "ethics" is the English county next to Kent. (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) You said it, not me. (...) How grand of you, we're truly blessed (sniff sniff). And what exactly am I supposed to change my mind about? (...) You jump, I jump. Each time somebody wants to throw support toward Israel, I'm here for the reality (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Two parts then-- "war" and "appropriate". I think whether we were at war or not in this particular example is pretty gosh-darn settled. We *were* at war. But that comes into question more in the more recent Sept. 11th example. More on that (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Put three libertarians together in a room and they won't be able to agree where to go for lunch...
|
|
A survey was held recently, I got the email about it and participated, but it was intended for LP members only, so I didn't mention it here. I found the results rather interesting. Totally unscientific as it was self selected whether to participate, (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) By that definition, *any* act taken in a military conflict is "terrorism." The major difference is that the civilians of Japan had no basis for an *expectation* of safety--especially when you consider what happened to Tokyo in March, and (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) how (...) It's easy to use words like "cowardly" in such situations - were the pilots flying the planes which dropped the bombs "cowardly"? No they were following orders (they may have even volunteered). Was Truman "cowardly" then - he wasn't (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Yep, completely closed minded, that's me. (URL) admitting that my arguments might not be 100% water tight or that I might be wrong about anything. Oh wait, you were talking about yourself there, and not me, weren't you, since you've never ever (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It terrorism (was: Necessary)?
|
|
(...) One way or another 8?( (...) I don't really look at it as valid - I'm not sure they (Al Qaida, whoever we're fighting...) view it that black & white either. But I would also ask, does it matter which side is "good" and which is "evil"? Does (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) The problem is the hole I dug for myself here. We hold them to be terrorists but they do not hold themselves as such. Rather they see themselves as combatants in a war against evil (US) which they *have* declared, some time ago, and which they (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) That is open to argument, but I don't have enough knowledge of politics at the time, so I'll bow to your greater knowledge. But though it's changing the subject of the thread, I still believe the acts of dropping the bombs were terrorism, no (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) I feel my sarcasm was well placed since your initial response made it clear that you already stated your stance on this topic in previous discussions in this group, hence nothing that has been presented ever since has swayed your opinion. So (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Me either. You're right, there's something a little off with that definition as written. As long as you assume that they felt they were on the side of good and their target was on the side of evil (that's the part that matters, not that GWB (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Let me see if I can paraphrase your position accurately: Regarding an enemy who not long before had made an unprovoked attack against US soil, an enemy that had been responsible for hideous medical experiments (not to mention the extermination (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) The use of a 767 on Sep 11 was probably deemed effective and appropriate by the perpetrators - with a little investment in pilot training, and without the need to carry into the country any explosives or risk discovery by building their own, (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Nope, it was definitely a thread. My post on the subject, which includes why I think it was both political and necessary, is here: (URL)Honestly, it sounds like you were making a rather "might-makes-right" (...) The most devastating war in ALL (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Either is possible. (...) No, my argument is more of a "if you're at war, use the appropriate weapon for the job", as I tend to reject "might makes right" in what I hope is a pretty consistent way and welcome being called on it if I ever lean (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Ok, I looked. I can't find it. I tried various search strings on the off-topic.debate(1), read through 90% of the results (skimming the other 10% admittedly) and I can't find any place (where you partook) other than the thread starting around (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) (sorry, forgot the Sarcasm on and Sarcasm off warnings)... that is, unless you plan to *never* post about any of the topics you've posted about already. I guess I am *shocked* that you'd try to stifle discussion that way, Dan. But I can see (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Yes indeed, very thoughtful of you. However rest assured I still have some questions for you which I will be posting soon. (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) True-- although mainly I think it would be evidence provided twofold-- I.E. "Here are before and after shots of this island, here's a videotape of us blowing it up, and here it is now. Go to the island and verify yourself if you don't believe (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) I said nothing about guns in specific. Nor does this address what I said: you can give up a freedom for security. Okay, this is what you have done: you can't carry a gun, but you feel more secure because of it. You'd rather have the security (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) I'd question that part. Not too many years earlier a good chunk of the US populace believed we were being invaded by Mars. Even today, credulous lout believe that the moon landings were faked, so if we'd simply shown a film of our nuclear (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) I said it was a caricature in the message you replied to(!) :) (...) I would say "free", but try to talk me round if you want! (...) So you think I'm less free as I don't/can't have a gun, even though I would feel less free if I did have one? (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) No, the idea was that they'd invite other nations to send representatives to witness the event-- not that we couldn't have merely recorded the event anyway. At least such was my understanding. I don't remember if it was explicitly said, or (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) My point exactly, if not directly stated. (...) A bit garbled - I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. Sorry. But I think I address what you are trying to say below. (...) No, it's not you culture. The people of Chicago often noted that (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) My comment was caricature. (...) I would say "free", but try to talk be round if you want! (...) They are freedoms to me... perhaps it is my culture. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Why was there no demo explosion in an uninhabited island to convince the Japanese of the power of the bomb? What would be lost? If it failed - nobody would know. If the real thing failed, the Japanese would have a bomb (or at least bits of (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) Mature democracies outlaw them. :-) (...) In my ideal there would be no charities. We can save that one for later. (...) Scotland - not really England - hmm London - Yes (...) GP on demand (walk-in clinic) Specialist in less than 1 month (I'm (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) It was interesting reading. Lots of work went into it. It failed to note that there was never a decision to drop one bomb, and then another decision to drop another (it was a decision to drop two bombs). It noted that the Japanese were looking (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
