 | | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) I try to be a pacifist: as Richard says, it's a position that's only really challenging when war looms. The more I think about it the more I am convinced that any military offensive in the Middle East will be a grave mistake, morally as well (...) (23 years ago, 18-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) I have to jump in... What do you think pacifism at a time like now is going to get us? All it will get us is more innocent Americans (among others) killed. Do you think these people are just going to stop now? Do you think if we say "Please (...) (23 years ago, 18-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) I want you to identify precisely what that means for me, because it is my guess that if you REALLY examine what it might mean you will see how it is an unachievable goal. And even if it is achievable, I have the funny idea that what you are (...) (23 years ago, 18-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) Before people foam about this petition, they ought to go actually read it. It asks for very reasonable things... that we seek to obtain proof of who did it, that we do our utmost not to target civilians, that we not seek revenge on nations (...) (23 years ago, 18-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) I'm sure that we'll see more civilians die at the hands of fanatics, and I'm sick to the guts at the prospect of a terrorist nuke or deliberately seeded epidemic. I don't know when it will end. I don't think politeness works with insane (...) (23 years ago, 18-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
Very well put Richard, Lets finally look at the root cause. All this talk of attacking, revenge, terrorism. Can someone please tell me why these people did these horrific acts? What drove them? was it the only option they had to make their (...) (23 years ago, 19-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) Well... I heard them. I heard what they were saying BEFORE this. bin Laden's jihad isn't just about Israel being mean to the Palestinians. It's way more than that. Read some of the links posted here, the interviews with him, the link I gave (...) (23 years ago, 19-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) I read that article from the New Yorker -- a really valuable perspective piece I thought. Vollmann does more than describe the Taliban message too, he gives a good background on how they were brought to power by decades of misery in (...) (23 years ago, 19-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) Agreed. I wasn't keen on the "nation building" exercise we tried in Somalia, it failed dismally. But maybe that's what is required here. I have no idea. What's the alternative though? I am *opposed* to just going in and indiscriminately (...) (23 years ago, 19-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) The Somalia analogy holds for a decade ago, I think, when several factions had a more or less equal hold on different parts of the country. Now I'd say Afghanistan has "stabilised" as a decentralised theocracy. (...) First make it clear that (...) (23 years ago, 19-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
<snip> (...) But the Taliban are akin to the terrorists. It is just coincidence that they also happen to rule Afghanistan. (...) In Afghanistan, going against the government gets you dead. Pretty hard to go against that. (...) Who's plan? the (...) (23 years ago, 19-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) "Akin" in what sense? That they are fundamentalist Muslims? That they abuse human rights? (...) Hard yes, impossible no. Ending Soviet communism was hard. Ending apartheid was hard. (...) Perhaps policy is a better word; a liberal policy (...) (23 years ago, 20-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) A bullet through every green turban you see. (Or whatever.) I'm not advocating this action, merely answering the question. Chris (23 years ago, 20-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
Hello Eric, (...) So do I. BTW, I think I understand at least part of the emotionality of the issue, but we simply cannot afford to let our action be guided by it, so here goes my response: (...) And your evidence for that is ... ? (...) Nobody (...) (23 years ago, 21-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) This one is easy... First you have the origional WTC Bombing (not directly tied to bin Laden). Second you have the two bombings at the US embassies in Africa (tied to bin Laden) Third you have the attack on the USS Cole (also tied to bin (...) (23 years ago, 21-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) Flight 93. Thank *all that is worth living for* that the heroes on board that flight *weren't* pacifists. Would any of us have had the courage to do what they did, knowing that it meant almost certain death, in order to save the country from a (...) (23 years ago, 21-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) You don't know whether they were or not. (...) I'd also like to support that, but I don't think your politicians would take much notice of me 8?( ROSCO (23 years ago, 21-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) Care to elaborate on that? Are you saying that they didn't attack the attackers, or are you saying that to do so is a pacifistic act, or something else entirely? I'm not sure I follow. Thanks. (23 years ago, 21-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) No. (...) follow. Something else entirely. We don't know what they actually did. Did they attack them with weapons? Unlikely. One report I heard said they used cushions to shield themselves while charging the hijackers. Maybe some of them (...) (23 years ago, 21-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) So you concede that it is likely that one or more passengers did in fact attack, then? I grant that we may never know for certain, but submit that the evidence is very strongly pointing in that direction. Therefore the passenger or passengers (...) (23 years ago, 21-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) As I said, it was more likely a charge - remember they were probably weaponless - whether they were intending to hurt the hijackers is anyone's guess. My aim in their position would be (if I had time to think about it): 1. Try and get control (...) (23 years ago, 21-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) weaponless (...) You have to be kidding!!! These hijackers more than likely had killed some crew, possibly some passangers, and almost certainly the pilots. The passangers knew this. They also knew, via phone conversations, that planes were (...) (23 years ago, 21-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
"Eric Kingsley" <kingsley@nelug.org> wrote in message news:GK0IsA.GL2@lugnet.com... (...) Even if the F-16 did shoot them out the sky, the passengers on board did not know that was going to happen. I can't believe it was a cover up, as the reports (...) (23 years ago, 21-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) Which is a kind of attack. (...) Unarmed attacks are nevertheless attacks. You've been caught in a logical contradiction and unless you can get away with redefining pacifism to mean something it does not, you're stuck. Admit it and move on. (...) (23 years ago, 21-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) An *excellent* point. In addition, your point illustrates a good refutation of the oft-quoted line by Gandhi about "many things are worth dying for, nothing is worth killing for." If, for instance, the passengers had reason to suspect, as they (...) (23 years ago, 21-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
Hello Eric, (...) I find "pacifism" a gross mischaracterization of the US reaction to islamistic terror in the past. True, not every attack got its direct military response, but pacifism is not one of those things you can switch on and off on a (...) (23 years ago, 21-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) This is one of the most ridiculous statements I've seen on this whole topic. Without violence? How ludicrous! "Please Mr. Terrorist, can I have control of the plane?" "Why sure you can, good man, here you go" Passive resistance taking a plane (...) (23 years ago, 22-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
Yeah, but you know what guys -- who cares about pacifism? Pacifism is beside the point... The point is whether we should retaliate violently absent proof of the correctness of what we are doing. The point is whether we should be rushing to (...) (23 years ago, 22-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) Hmmm. OK. It seemed like some were making a pretty big point of it... (...) To my knowledge we have not physically acted in response to what happened yet. I think you should wait on the rushing to conclusions part because until we do something (...) (23 years ago, 22-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) Eric, let's not go there. I happen to think Richard goes a bit too far but if we cannot tolerate voices of dissent and discuss this rationally we are too far gone to triumph, and too far gone to *deserve* to triumph (1). All viewpoints should (...) (23 years ago, 22-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) I heard on the news today (unconfirmed, so it could be wrong) that the cockpit voice recorder on 93 has "clear evidence of sounds of battle in the cockpit just prior to the plane going down". Pacifists don't typically get involved in battles. (...) (23 years ago, 22-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Raving Out Loud (was: Thinking Out Loud...)
|
|
Eric, your note suggests that you just generally missed the point. But there are few point in particular that I think are worth making. (...) Your tone suggests not only that you think his safety could be imperiled, but also that you wouldn't be too (...) (23 years ago, 22-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Raving Out Loud (was: Thinking Out Loud...)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: <snip the parts that I agree with and that aren't needed for the following> (...) I'm with you on the "some popular opinion" part, but I don't see the president as calling for us to go (...) (23 years ago, 22-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
Hello Larry, (...) While in tendency, I do agree, I would probably state these issues less black and white. Yes, our standards ARE correct, which for me means that we ARE allowed to apply them in OUR part of the world. At least most of them. Yes, we (...) (23 years ago, 22-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) However I think being a passenger on a hijacked airliner, with reports that at least one other similar airliner may have just flown straight into a not-so-very-far-away building, is *not* a typical situation. Consider: A man is walking along (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
I see you've chosen to try to worm out rather than admit your error. I expected better from you, Ross. (...) No. And if you seriously want to make the argument that he was violent, your understanding of violence is flawed. Seriously. Hence the (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) Well first of all we are all wearing our emotions pretty close to the vest now-a-days so I may have said something I wouldn't have under normal circumstances. Unfortunately these arn't normal circumstances. I see where what I said sounded like (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) No, actually these circumstances are VERY normal. Violence goes on in our world everyday in the name of capitalism -- whether it is the sweatshop that made your sneakers, or trade in South American women for use as captive prostitutes. I am (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) the (...) So it seems our disagreement here is based on different views of violence. From www.dictionary.com (admittedly not a definitive source): vi·o·lent adj. 1. Marked by, acting with, or resulting from great force: a violent attack. 2. (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes: <snip> Ross, you're wriggling around, for no real reason I can see, except to avoid admitting the truth of my answer to Horst's question: Horst said: (...) And I answered that what was done on flight (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) Let me reword that. Strike "typically" and replace with "by definition". (23 years ago, 24-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) I quote *again* from your reply to Horst: "Thank *all that is worth living for* that the heroes on board that flight *weren't* pacifists." This *is not* the same as "what was done on flight 93 was *not* an act of pacifism". One is talking (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford continues to squirm: (...) Unless "a little bit pregnant" == "not pregnant", pacifists don't commit violent acts. Sorry. Maybe people who think pacifism is a good idea some of the time do, maybe former (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) Which, assuming viiolence was involved[1], I agree with. You did not, however, include the extra information in the statement I originally challenged, and *still* disagree with. You've subsequently provided three alternative staements (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) No. (23 years ago, 24-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
Hello Ross, (...) Please, explain what a nonviolent attack is. BTW: I was not talking about Flight 93 when I first posed my question about pacifism ... Greetings Horst (23 years ago, 24-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
Hello Larry, (...) <snipped a lot of Larry's answer> (...) I can certainly agree to this statement. My original question was geared more towards the type of action required to - make sure radical islamists are isolated instead of multiplied - (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) Hi Horst, (...) Please replace "attack" with "action". ROSCO (23 years ago, 25-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) Evidence doesn't support the "action" being pacifistic. But let's step back here. We've been wrangling and you're too stubborn to admit you're wrong about the nuances (you accused me of wriggling, all I did was try to restate things, I stand (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) Actually, it was "squirming" (URL) I explained what I actually meant in the footnote, which seems to be close to what you say below 8?) (...) I too stated (same post) that I agree with all three variants you've presented, just not the original (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) So what did you mean when you said this less than 4 days after the attack? ==+== Secretary Powell declined to specify what would be done but said a week deadline for all of bin Laden's organization to be turned over to the west was not (...) (23 years ago, 27-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) Sounds entirely consistent to me. The first message expressed a desire to have the existing powers-that-be in Afghanistan turn over bin Laden on their own, rather than simply rolling out NATO within the week (and without due consideration) to (...) (23 years ago, 27-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) A one week deadline for a particular event is not inconsistent with an entire series of events taking months or years to transpire. (23 years ago, 27-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
|
(...) In the former quote above he calls for restraint. In the latter quote above he can't wait for action. Read his latter comments in context: ==+== The aggressor has made the mistake of attacking the homeland. They will pay. If I were Saddam (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
