02-02-2005 19:49									#91
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

In Rome we speak latin

	02-02-2005 19:59									#92
	Got spare money?

Weird interpretation, I fail to see the link to genocide being a conclusion.

It's not like any society has the right to speak justice on another (in a 1vs1 relation).

	02-02-2005 20:02									#93
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by MarkG we are discussing an essay of university professor (!) that contains the following phrase quote: Gimme a break 'nough said.

hmm I think the discussion has evolved to the point of discussing an individual's vs a societies' responsibilities.
At least for me.

	02-02-2005 20:06									#94
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Atahualpa Weird interpretation, I fail to see the link to genocide being a conclusion.

More simply:

1. Everyone is a cog in the machine
2. Every cog that helps making an enemy society function is a fair target
3. One way to reach victory is to destroy as many cogs as possible.
4. This means, killing as many people as possible that some would paint as "innocent".

Gencoide is not the only conclusion of such a mindset (victory may be achieved without the complete obliteration of the enemy society), but this mindset does allow it: as long as victory isn't here, it's fair game to kill people simply based on their living in that society.

quote: It's not like any society has the right to speak justice on another (in a 1vs1 relation).

I do agree that I don't really believe in the moral high ground when it comes to warring States or organizations (although I do commend most modern countries for restraining from using their full power when they wage a war). But this has nothing to do with my saying that all cogs are not fair game.

	02-02-2005 20:11									#95
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Apparently not, or the Yanks would have leveled Baghdad long before now and saved themselves the trouble. That seems to be the Russian way.

Uhm, Fallujah?

	02-02-2005 20:17									#96
	Tired of ads?

Still exists. And we wouldn't have given the civilians time to leave the upcoming battle, if we did what you suggest.

	02-02-2005 20:30									#97
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Some things to consider. Ward Churchill is a member of a group of people the United States nearly exterminated; he's an American Indian, a member of the Cherokee nation. Aside from the genocide of the preceeding centuries, as a member of the American Indian Movement in the 1970s, he was subject to government harrassment, surveilence. At least 60 others in his group were killed by FBI organized death squads on the Pine Ridge Res in the mid 1970s. Churchill has a legitimate axe to grind.

Also, in contrast to the comments made by the article, his major claim to fame is not Pacificism as a Pathology but rather his various books on U.S. government repression of activists, including: Agents of Repression and The COINTELPRO Papers.

Having met the man, I can personally attest to his being a grade "A" *sshole. He's rude, belligerent, and to me, hypocritical. He's only 1/4 American Indian, and while he rails against the legacy of European civilization, he's perfectly happy to partake of it. No, I still haven't forgiven him for *****ing me out in a lecture.

As for what he wrote, it has some merit. Most of the people in the WTC were not completely innocent, but rather engaged in global trade, which is what drives the U.S. to do things like bomb and starve Iraq (and while Winston might object that it was the U.N. that imposed the sanctions, by the late 90s, it was the certainty of a U.S. veto that kept them from being dismantled), overthrow Central American democracies, prop up various dictators around the world, etc. It is in the interests of the traders in the WTC that the World Bank, the WTO, the IMF, impose heavy economic burdens on the people of the 3rd world, burdens which kill millions annually. They may not be the one's pulling the trigger, but they are th ones for whom the trigger is pulled and they are the ones who manipulate the market so that the weak perish.

If it's okay for the U.S. to kill innocents to get a few bad guys, why isn't it okay for terrorists to do the same? There are plenty here who argue it's fine for the U.S. to slaughter whomever happens to be in the way, in order to get a few bad guys. I argue that both sides are wrong. Both murder the innocent to achieve their aims.

	02-02-2005 20:31									#98
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Still exists.

So does Grozny, for the most part, just like Fallujah (where approximately 1/3rd the city is destroyed). The Russians, also, allowed civilians to leave the city before they attacked it, BTW.

	02-02-2005 20:34									#99
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I don't recall using fuel air bombs (the equivilant of tactical nukes) on Fallujah if you reall want to compare the two.

	02-02-2005 20:38									#100
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Pfffrp, Michae Moore was blaming the (airborne) victims og 9/11 for their fate years ago

	02-02-2005 20:39									#101
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara As for what he wrote, it has some merit. Most of the people in the WTC were not completely innocent, but rather engaged in global trade, which is what drives the U.S. to do things like bomb and starve Iraq (and while Winston might object that it was the U.N. that imposed the sanctions, by the late 90s, it was the certainty of a U.S. veto that kept them from being dismantled), overthrow Central American democracies, prop up various dictators around the world, etc. It is in the interests of the traders in the WTC that the World Bank, the WTO, the IMF, impose heavy economic burdens on the people of the 3rd world, burdens which kill millions annually. They may not be the one's pulling the trigger, but they are th ones for whom the trigger is pulled and they are the ones who manipulate the market so that the weak perish.

I am only very remotely connected to WTC victims. My only connection is that I worked in an aerial insurance company in Paris, where we conducted much nusiness with an insurance company which was located in the WTC. My colleagues got to know quite a few people there per telephone. These people in the WTC we knew were office clerks and small fry who worked there for a living, just like we did. In that industry, we weren't exactly pushing for war either. Yet they did get killed. To me, they were as innocent as a janitor working in Oklahoma city.

	02-02-2005 20:43									#102
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara As for what he wrote, it has some merit. Most of the people in the WTC were not completely innocent, but rather engaged in global trade, LOTM - which arguably is a good thing, responsible for REDUCING deaths in the third world. In any case, I imagine all those in the WTC thoughts so. which is what drives the U.S. to do things like bomb and starve Iraq (and while Winston might object that it was the U.N. that imposed the sanctions, by the late 90s, it was the certainty of a U.S. veto that kept them from being dismantled) LOTM - oddly, france, russia and china all engage in world trade, yet they were the ones calling for relaxation in sanctions. In any case, there was a moral and legal case for sanctions, equating them to nazism is absurd. , overthrow Central American democracies LOTM - which also engaged in world trade. , prop up various dictators around the world, etc. It is in the interests of the traders in the WTC that the World Bank, the WTO, the IMF, impose heavy economic burdens on the people of the 3rd world, burdens which kill millions annually. LOTM - quite disputable. They may not be the one's pulling the trigger, but they are th ones for whom the trigger is pulled and they are the ones who manipulate the market so that the weak perish. LOTM - pure BS, as a matter of fact. If it's okay for the U.S. to kill innocents to get a few bad guys, why isn't it okay for terrorists to do the same? LOTM - AQ was attempting to kill as many civilians as possible. And even folks who are "economic cogs" are still civilians under international law. You cant deliberatedly kill them. There are plenty here who argue it's fine for the U.S. to slaughter whomever happens to be in the way, in order to get a few bad guys. I argue that both sides are wrong. Both murder the innocent to achieve their aims.

EVERYONE in the WTC was an innocent, as far as international law is concerned. Who in the WTC was bearing arms?

	02-02-2005 20:45									#103
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Gencoide is not the only conclusion of such a mindset (victory may be achieved without the complete obliteration of the enemy society), but this mindset does allow it: as long as victory isn't here, it's fair game to kill people simply based on their living in that society.

Well if neither of the two societies change and nobody else is doing intervention...

There are three responsibility groups here:
the attacking society
the defending society
the international community

And each has the chance to prevent genocide. If none show interest, who is left to show?

Now there are cases of course when you can say this is just or unjust, but overall it doesn't help much.
Take the romans and suppose they wanted to eliminate all Gauls. The Gauls have surrendered already but the romans are still killing them.
What would you want to do against that?

You can only prevent genocide if in every member of the society there is the thought that he would refuse to act out an order to eliminate the surrendered, which is an individual's responsibility towards the whole human race, which is present to a more or lesser degree.
Probably one reason why Nazi's insisted so much on marking their victims subhumans.

The whole thing IMO is a weighing of responsibility towards society (the state makes sure this exists) vs responsibility towards humanity (has to be "educated" by the international community).

Doesn't contradict with what the original mindset, no? An extended version though.

	02-02-2005 20:47									#104
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc I don't recall using fuel air bombs (the equivilant of tactical nukes) on Fallujah if you reall want to compare the two.

You're using an appeal to emotion, oh no, big scary bomb. If you pour ten thousand shells into a building or just drop a bomb on it, the result is the same. Consider also that the U.S. has poisoned Fallujah, pouring thousands of rounds of DU shells into the city.

If you really want to point out how the Russians are worse, point to the friggin' death squads which have disappeared thousands of young male Chechens. Even at our worst behavior in Iraq, we haven't resorted to that.

	02-02-2005 20:50									#105
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor I am only very remotely connected to WTC victims. My only connection is that I worked in an aerial insurance company in Paris, .

spiff, dont you know that you enabled world air travel? Which enabled international trade? which is responsible for the deaths of third worlders (despite the fact that the countries with the most trade have the longest life expectancies). YOU ARE CAUSING genocide according to guevera, and if terrorists came and sliced off your head, they couldnt be accused of deliberately killing an innocent. It would be JUST THE SAME as when the Israelis kill someone whos building a car bomb. Building a car bombing, writing aerial insurance policies, its all the same.

	02-02-2005 20:55									#106
	Remove this text

quote: EVERYONE in the WTC was an innocent, as far as international law is concerned. Who in the WTC was bearing arms?

As an individual and before a court: absolutely innocent!!
As a member of the US society, however they support the actions of the society and such were "chosen" to be targets for a retaliation attack for failures in the society's foreign policy.

	02-02-2005 20:58									#107
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark if terrorists came and sliced off your head, they couldnt be accused of deliberately killing an innocent. It would be JUST THE SAME as when the Israelis kill someone whos building a car bomb. Building a car bombing, writing aerial insurance policies, its all the same.

While you say this inm jest, it does raise an interesting question. It is true that we are all cogs in the machine. A colleague of mine precisely mused in that way after Sept. 11, saying that she too contributed to "the systen".

The question is where we draw the line between non-fighters that are kill-worthy cogs, and non-fighters that aren't. A man who builds a car-bomb is kill-worhty. But is the average joe at McDonnell-Douglas' as well? Is the suitcase guy that keeps money coming to the armament companies a fair target? Is the Hamas' fundraiser one?
It's not obvious to draw a line, especially when the line has an either/or consequence (life or death). Some like The Vagabond or Atahualpa are maximalists. Some like me aren't But where to draw a line is not easy at all.

	02-02-2005 21:02									#108
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark As for what he wrote, it has some merit. Most of the people in the WTC were not completely innocent, but rather engaged in global trade, LOTM - which arguably is a good thing, responsible for REDUCING deaths in the third world. In any case, I imagine all those in the WTC thoughts so.

I doubt they thought so. I doubt they gave a **** about anything other than making money. I've met few traders with what normal people call a conscioence. These are people who argue against government regulation, because it gets in the way of their profit, knowing full well those regulations are there to keep them from killing people with their pollution or faulty products. These are the people who pick up the phone to ask various governments to remove indigenous people so a pipeline can go through their tradiational lands or so a resort can be built there. These are the people fighting to enforce intellectual property rights so that 3rd world governments have to pay vastly more than the $250 a year per person that an AIDS treatement program would cost otherwise.

quote: In any case, there was a moral and legal case for sanctions, equating them to nazism is absurd.

I'm not equating it to Naziism. I said there was some merit in Churhill's essay. Not that it was completely correct. I also pointed out the man is an ******* and a hypocrite. I see you chose to ignore that completely.

quote: overthrow Central American democracies LOTM - which also engaged in world trade.

I'm sure the 100,000 Guatemalans who were slaughtered for your right to cheap bananas are mollified by that.

quote: prop up various dictators around the world, etc. It is in the interests of the traders in the WTC that the World Bank, the WTO, the IMF, impose heavy economic burdens on the people of the 3rd world, burdens which kill millions annually. LOTM - quite disputable.

Only by the ignorant or the obfuscatory.

quote: They may not be the one's pulling the trigger, but they are th ones for whom the trigger is pulled and they are the ones who manipulate the market so that the weak perish. LOTM - pure BS, as a matter of fact.

Not in the least, as I have shown.

quote: If it's okay for the U.S. to kill innocents to get a few bad guys, why isn't it okay for terrorists to do the same? LOTM - AQ was attempting to kill as many civilians as possible. And even folks who are "economic cogs" are still civilians under international law. You cant deliberatedly kill them.

I don't dispute that. What I am saying is that we're quite reckless when it comes to civilians, despite advances in targetting. Sure, we don't bomb whole cities full of civilians anymore, but if we level a block to get at the Iraqi dictator, then who cares if we killed several dozen people. It's the same evil logic that allows people to justify the slaughter of Palestinians, and perpetuates an endless bloodfest.

	02-02-2005 21:03									#109
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Some like The Vagabond or Atahualpa are maximalists. Some like me aren't But where to draw a line is not easy at all.

I suppose that's because you are not in acordance with France's politics and the idea of holding your head for your government is not one keen to you.
Neither is it to me, but I somehow feel that I have no other chance.

	02-02-2005 21:05									#110
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark YOU ARE CAUSING genocide according to guevera, and if terrorists came and sliced off your head, they couldnt be accused of deliberately killing an innocent.

Way to completely mischaracterize my post.

	02-02-2005 21:23									#111
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

something that is being overlooked in the discussion is
freedom of speech.....and political correctness...
how far are we going to go ... in limiting what a person is allowed to say or write...


the guy may be stupid and an ass... but he has the right to say or write his opinion...

we of course have the right to not hire him to give a speech or to not read what he has written.
remember we are talking about opinions here and not
factual reporting. and opinion is still just opinion.


i support his right to vocalize or write his opinion

	02-02-2005 21:39									#112
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor So if I understand well, it would have been fairer if Moscow had been nuked than if the theatre had been attacked? From what I understand, you imply that it is normal for a war to wish the complete obliteration of the society from where the opposition stems. In short, you seem to agree with the logics that genocide (extermination of a population) is a logical continuation of war. Or am I wrong?

Yes, you are. There is such a notion as 'military necessity'. Obliteration of the enemy beyond this military necessity is wrong and cannot be considered normal (or at least humane). For oppressed and weak groups of people, terrorist tactics with attacking civilians is a military necessity. They simply have no other means to make their case! Hell, even for the almighty US army, attacking civilians is sometimes a military necessity, albeit usually as a side effect of a different objective.

	02-02-2005 21:51									#113
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by BeBro No, not every member of the "hostile" society is a legitimate target. You know, there are these things like war crimes etc.

Well, actually my previous post can serve as a reply to that.

	02-02-2005 21:51									#114
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark I doubt they thought so. I doubt they gave a **** about anything other than making money. I've met few traders with what normal people call a conscioence. LOTM - I guess ive met different traders than you have. These are the people who pick up the phone to ask various governments LOTM - afaik NO one who was killed at Cantor Fitz was someone who regularly called 3rd world govts. quote: In any case, there was a moral and legal case for sanctions, equating them to nazism is absurd. I'm not equating it to Naziism. I said there was some merit in Churhill's essay. Not that it was completely correct. I also pointed out the man is an ******* and a hypocrite. I see you chose to ignore that completely. LOTM - er cause thats what this thread is about. If you want to argue that world trade is bad, or that some US actors in world trade, post a thread as such, and we can discuss that. Post something on say, pricing of drugs, and you will draw all the polies who have knowledge of that area. Here we are discussing something else. quote: overthrow Central American democracies LOTM - which also engaged in world trade. I'm sure the 100,000 Guatemalans who were slaughtered for your right to cheap bananas are mollified by that. LOTM - logic guev. If Sandinista Nicaragua exported coffee, and democratic guatemala did, and so did the regimes that replaced them, than the mere fact of world coffee trade cant be particularly blamed for the deaths. The PARTICULAR regime of trade can be, but not the existence of trade. Which means that not everyone involved in the trade is blameworthy - at most those who support a particular regime of trade are. LOTM - quite disputable. Only by the ignorant or the obfuscatory. LOTM - i have a suggestion, go and start a thread about the IMF, and all who have knowledge can participate. quote: If it's okay for the U.S. to kill innocents to get a few bad guys, why isn't it okay for terrorists to do the same? LOTM - AQ was attempting to kill as many civilians as possible. And even folks who are "economic cogs" are still civilians under international law. You cant deliberatedly kill them. I don't dispute that. What I am saying is that we're quite reckless when it comes to civilians, despite advances in targetting. Sure, we don't bomb whole cities full of civilians anymore, but if we level a block to get at the Iraqi dictator, then who cares if we killed several dozen people. It's the same evil logic that allows people to justify the slaughter of Palestinians, and perpetuates an endless bloodfest.

If you want to discuss the morality of strategic bombing or of Israeli actions, there are numerous threads in which to do that. The logic that defends those actions, CORRECT OR NOT, is NOT the logic used by Mr. Churchill and is therefore irrelevant to what we are discussing.

	02-02-2005 21:53									#115
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by boann something that is being overlooked in the discussion is freedom of speech.....and political correctness... how far are we going to go ... in limiting what a person is allowed to say or write... the guy may be stupid and an ass... but he has the right to say or write his opinion... LOTM - has anyone suggested censoring him? we of course have the right to not hire him LOTM - IIUC he works at a state college. Introduces some hairy questions of academic freedom, no?

	02-02-2005 21:59									#116
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by The Vagabond Yes, you are. There is such a notion as 'military necessity'. Obliteration of the enemy beyond this military necessity is wrong and cannot be considered normal (or at least humane). For oppressed and weak groups of people, terrorist tactics with attacking civilians is a military necessity. They simply have no other means to make their case! Hell, even for the almighty US army, attacking civilians is sometimes a military necessity, albeit usually as a side effect of a different objective.

Oh, ok. I understand what you mean now. Fair enough.

	02-02-2005 22:03									#117
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: we of course have the right to not hire him LOTM - IIUC he works at a state college. Introduces some hairy questions of academic freedom, no?

Which gets to the crux of the issue now doesn't it? At what point do state sponsored entities have the right to curtail speech made on their behalf and at what point does that infringe on academic freedom?

	02-02-2005 22:05									#118
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Oh, ok. I understand what you mean now. Fair enough.

I hope you dont accept it, though.

	02-02-2005 22:08									#119
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by The Vagabond For oppressed and weak groups of people, terrorist tactics with attacking civilians is a military necessity. They simply have no other means to make their case!

While I agree that this is the prevailing thought, I submit then that they are then guilty of the most serious of crimes, criminal stupidity.

If by admission their case/cause is sooo weak that they feel compelled to resort to terrorism they have admitted that they have no legitamacy and invite the inevitable reprisal. In effect they have killed for no effect countless civilians/innocents and doomed themselves, their allies and their cause.

	02-02-2005 22:16									#120
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark I hope you dont accept it, though.

Yup.

I don't think something is justified merely because it is necessary for someone or some group. But I understand that his perception of war doesn't have genocide as a logical following.