Subject:
|
Re: Hiroshima-Was It terrorism (was: Necessary)?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Oct 2001 03:05:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
510 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
One way or another 8?(
> 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.
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 the notion of terrorism
need to include those concepts? Should it? My current notion doesn't, and I
don't see why it should.
> 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.
Count me in the majority, then 8?) (realising that 90% was just a way of
expressing "vast majority").
> 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.
I'm not sure, either. But until I feel I can change my notion of terrorism to
include a "good/evil" clause, and/or a "good intent" clause, I can't agree that
Aug '45 wasn't terrorism.
Maybe one day.
ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
