Re: Income from a tax on land.

From: esenter (esenter_at_comcast.net)
Date: 01/12/05 

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:12:00 -0600

Vendor Neutral wrote:
> esenter@comcast.net wrote...
>
>>
>>Vendor Neutral wrote:
>>
>>>esenter@comcast.net wrote...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Vendor Neutral wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>dontwant@spam.com wrote...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That's not the only reason. Sometimes morality loses the framework
>>>>>>>>in which it can feasibly operate. Total war, for example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Some might say that morality is never so important as then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The very fact that the total war exists makes a statement about
>>>>>>the moral choices of those engaged in it. The difference is, one
>>>>>>side can force the decision of the other side, bringing both in.
>>>>>>Once there, the social moral mileu begins collapsing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>My comment was more focused on the moral decisions made by the
>>>>>individual warrior, but if you think on a larger scale then you've
>>>>>made a strong point. Taken that way, since total war is a deliberate
>>>>>strategy for winning, my only quibble with what you've said is that
>>>>>I'd replace 'begins collapsing' with 'is suspended'.
>>>>>
>>>>>At the risk of stating the obvious to anyone who's thought about it
>>>>>before, acts of terrorism fall under the definition of total war.
>>>>>Total war also describes the strategy of the Iraqi insurgency.
>>>>>
>>>>>Since the US has engaged in total war in WWII, arguably in Vietnam,
>>>>>and we can see it coming in Iraq under certain conditions, what then
>>>>>is the basis for the US complaint that terrorism is 'illegal' war?
>>>>
>>>>The strong always determine the moral milieu. Terrorism is the last
>>>>ditch effort of the weak.
>>>
>>>Just listen to the chickenhawk prattle!
>>>
>>>The Viet Cong used terrorism, and they were hardly weak.
>>>
>>>Terrorism is typical war strategy: Apply your strengths against the
>>>enemy's weaknesses.
>>
>>Suicide bombings and sacrificing women and children is hardly a position
>>of strength.
>
>
> Tighten up your thinking. You want to distinguish between
> 'strengths' and 'position of strength'.
>

Why? The goal of terrorism is to scare your enemy into a position of
retreat whereby you win your demands simply because your enemy does not
have the will to fight. The terrorist must resort to this strategy
because he has no other resources or strength by which to fight.

> The former is simply your assets that can applied against the enemy.
> In the example you cite (suicide bombings), these strengths are:
> portable bombs, people willing to die in the act of delivering them,
> and the bomber justifying his actions due to his being in a total war
> against his enemy.

These strengths aren't much.

>
> The notion of a suicide mission isn't unique to terrorism; we
> commonly award medals to soldiers who perform an act in which they
> die to either hurt the enemy or save their fellow soldiers. We even
> ask for volunteers.

But those aren't suicide missions. No soldier went into the mission
without at least some hope of returning. They are only suicide missions
in retrospect.

> The city-firebombing strikes against Japan in
> WWII deliberately targeted civilians and were seen as suicide
> missions for the aircraft crews.

I don't know about that. Are you sure? On the other hand, the
kamikazes were clearly suicide missions because they left without enough
fuel to make a return trip.

> Please explain the moral or
> strategic difference in your mind between this and an Islamic suicide
> bomber, aside from the difference in scale. (And note that an
> Islamic suicide bomber would be only too happy to have an impact like
> that of our suicide bombers against Japan).
>

An Islamic suicide bomber has no hope of returning from his mission.
His only hope is a special place in heaven.

> And if you're going to be consistent in your argument elsewhere that
> there are no absolute morals, then you fall into the morass of moral
> relativism and can't condemn terrorism without being a hypocrite.

I never said there were no absolute morals. My argument, which I have
not argued yet, is that there are no moral absolutes outside an
omnipotent deity.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Income from a tax on land.
    ... 'strengths' and 'position of strength'. ... In the example you cite (suicide bombings), ... The notion of a suicide mission isn't unique to terrorism; ... Islamic suicide bomber would be only too happy to have an impact like ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Hey Aunt Judy, this is why were in Iraq, you retard..............
    ... >>Bullshit.The US never sent people on certain suicide missions.Cite ONE. ... >suicide missions run more along the lines of sending soldiers into impossible ... >>> If they attack with an Iranian nuke, for instance, and we have sworn ... >>By the time you did track where a nuke originated,the responsible people ...
    (rec.autos.driving)
  • Re: Hey Aunt Judy, this is why were in Iraq, you retard..............
    ... Nope,not a real suicide mission.The Generals did not expect all their ... but not much on American suicide missions. ... Yes,he's counting on being elsewhere when the expected nukes drop down. ... >>> If they attack with an Iranian nuke, for instance, and we have sworn ...
    (rec.autos.driving)
  • Re: Music and the human soul
    ... From a certain point of view, suicide missions can be altruistic. ... point Lance, you claimed suicide was not altruistic. ... The Spartan band was a good example, ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • There is no defence against these children of death
    ... Farman is from the wilds of northern Pakistan and his mission was to ... also a victim of the cult of the suicide bomber. ... Muslim women and killing innocent Muslims. ... intelligence trail to investigate the cult of the suicide bomber. ...
    (alt.politics.bush)