Subject:
|
Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Oct 2001 02:46:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
510 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > I would say that if it
> > can be demonstrated that if any particular weapon is the most effective and
> > appropriate weapon under valid reasoning based on the facts available at the
> > time, using it in a war that pits good against evil is not terrorism.
>
> 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, they effectively sent exactly the message they
> wanted to send.
>
> And your own president (and many others) say it is war, and is pitting good
> against evil.
>
> I think you need to make this point a little clearer - I definitely
> don't agree that those attacks weren't terrorism.
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 thinks the same applies, but to opposite sides, it's the weapon
wielder that has to be on the side of good, not the weapon recepient) under
that definition that particular weapon was justified. IF they were in a war
that they intend to win.
Which they are, presumably.
And as long as you are totally morally relative (that is, their assessment
of us as evil and they as good is JUST AS VALID as ours of them as evil and
us as good), you're stuck with that outcome.
But I'm not a moral relativist. I hold them as evil nonetheless, and it's
not because 90% of the world would vote that way in a poll.
So maybe this whole calculus is flawed unless you can show the goodness of
one side (not sure it needs to be 100% perfect) or the evil of the other
without using moral justifications that are relative.
I dunno.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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?
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
133 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
