Subject:
|
Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Oct 2001 15:36:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
564 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> Yes, let's not blur the issue-- what part does being cowardly have in being
> a terrorist? Let's say they flew their own planes into our buildings. No
> longer a terrorist action? I don't think whether they/we were cowardly or
> not is really relevant at all.
It would still be cowardly for them to fly their own planes into the
buildings because they would be making an unprovoked attack against innocent
and unsuspecting civilians on the civilians' home soil during a time when
the home nation was at peace. An unprovoked sneak attack on innocent and
unsuspecting civilians is cowardly. It wasn't my intent to say that
terrorism equals cowardice, nor vice versa. It's possible for a terrorist
to be a coward, just as it's possible for a terrorist to be a librarian.
That doesn't change the fact that the acts of Sept 11 were cowardly.
> Let's also not blur this issue. Does terrorism by definition need to be
> morrally inacceptable? I don't think so. Morality doesn't really play a
> part, as far as I'm concerned. It can still be moral, yet terrorist. But
> then again, that's me being a moral relativist. Would it be moral for you to
> "kill thousands of innocent [so what if they're innocent? another useless
> point?] New Jersey residents"?
The morality is hardly a useless point--it's the essence of the argument.
If you're a relativist, then there's no point in going further.
> And haven't we been at war with bin Laden *anyway*? Hasn't he been on our #1
> most wanted list for a while now? Haven't we merely been incapable of
> retaliating due to political reasons?
One's being on a wanted list is not the same as having war declared on
one, except to a relativist. Is it relevant that politics might have played
a role in our previous actions or inaction against him? I don't think so.
> See above. Terrorism has nothing to do with morality. In my book. While you
> can have moral judgements of terrorism, terrorism is not necessarily tied to
> one particular moral judgement.
So if terrorism has nothing to do with morality, is it wrong? By your
elastic moral yardstick it would be perfectly acceptable for me to torture
to death every man, woman, and child in Afghanistan, as long as I believed
it was moral. I disagree completely, so maybe that's the end of it.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) Still, my point stands then? Whether or not they were cowardly is irrelevant to whether it was terrorism, yes? (...) !! Sure there is. Attempting to get someone/a group of people to do something by making them respond to terror that you induce (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) I would argue that it wasn't unprovoked. And why were the innocent civilians unsuspecting, when bin Laden had already given several warnings, and "declared war on the US" some 5 years earlier? And just for thought, how much warning did the (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) Yes, let's not blur the issue-- what part does being cowardly have in being a terrorist? Let's say they flew their own planes into our buildings. No longer a terrorist action? I don't think whether they/we were cowardly or not is really (...) (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
|
|
|
|
