Subject:
|
Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Oct 2001 00:07:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
580 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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.
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 innocent civilians of Hiroshima
get?
> 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
opinion
> 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.
I have seen no definition of terrorism which includes anything about morality.
Ooops, no there was one I saw which specifically suggested morality should
*not* be part of the definition (please before you jump on that, I *am not*
saying I agree with that or any other "definition" I've seen of terrorism).
> > 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.
bin Laden "declared war" on the US. We (yes we) chose to ignore that, and got
bitten. Hard.
ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
