I wonder how long before the Judge is found dead, "of apparently self-inflicted gunshot wounds"?
Why would the Conspiracy have to kill this Judge?
Since it's obviously okay to ignore all the Judges who have ruled the program Constitutional, it follows that it's also okay to ignore all the Judges who have ruled the program Unconstitutional.
The fact that the ACLU kept shopping around for a judge who would rule their way doesn't actually cancel out the fact that they had to shop around in the first place, on account of there seem to be plenty of judges out there, with just as much judicial authority as this one, who would rule against the ACLU.
What makes this ruling any more special or authoritative than the ones that have gone before, except that it happens to be popular with a certain faction?
Also, am I the only one who questions the wisdom of the ACLU's tactics in this case?
I mean, we trust and respect the ACLU because it stands up for our rights. When it finds instances of rights abuse, it takes them to court and makes sure justice is done. But if the ACLU is no longer willing to trust the courts, and instead insists on shopping around until it finds a Judge who will rule according to the ACLU's own opinion, what then?
Maybe the ACLU is right to undermine the court system, and call it into question. But doing so pretty much nullifies any value the ACLU might have to offer, since if we can't rely on the courts, we can't rely on the ACLU to get justice through the courts.
These tactics set the ACLU up as the final arbiter of justice, even though the ACLU is not a branch of government, has not been freely elected, and is not subject to any checks or balances. Judge-shopping isn't justice, it's using the judiciary as a propaganda cover for ACLU's own partisan purposes.
If you are saying that non violent tactics such as monkey wrenching, sabotage, blockaids, and propaganda as strictly non violent tactics constitute war such that the state is justified in using violence against these tactics
I am not saying that.
I am asking the OP if, as a Pacifist, he is saying that.
Do you understand the difference between "saying" and "asking"?
I'd say you are justifying a first use of violence against non violent people which is truly abhorrent.
In general, I agree with you on this. I do believe, however, that if someone else says they're playing a zero-sum game with me, in which they intend to win by making me lose, then their decision to play that game gives me a lot more justification for doing whatever I deem necessary to make sure they lose and I win. War is war, after all. If you declare war on me, either let us first agree on some ground rules (such as the Geneva Convention or the Law of Land Warfare). Either that, or you need to accept that anything goes, and either go to war anyway, or make whatever peace you can before I start using violence to defeat you.
That's what I want to know: are the Pacifists declaring war on me, or do they simply think they're engaging me in rational debate as a fellow citizen? If it's the former, they're chumps for not agreeing on the ground rules before going to war, but fortunate that our state and my own philosophy encourage proportional and humane responses to their chosen form of warfare. If it's the latter, then I disagree that their tactics are really a form of rational debate, but I won't worry about whether or not I need to win a war.
By that logic turning the fire hoses on Dr. King was perfectly justified as he was somehow "at war" with the state by using "subterfuge and propaganda" to change fundamentally racist government policies in the south
I think it's totally clear from everything Dr. King said and did that he absolutely considered himself to be engaged in rational debate with his fellow citizens, not at war with them. Not only that, but his actual arguments and their presentation seem to me much more rational than the arguments and presentation of Pacifists today (and even of Pacifists back then).
such as segregated lunch counters, being made to ride on the back of the bus, segregated schools, and poll taxes and literacy tests and other sham tactics to disenfranchise African Americans.
Thanks, but I'm actually already well aware of the injustices Dr. King was fighting.
So no I don't think someone who is using non violent tactics is "at war" (slippery term) with society
And neither do I. It seemed to me that the OP might think that Pacifists do wage war, using only nonviolent strategies. That's what I wanted to know from him.
I don't accept your fundamental premise in the argument.
My fundamental premise was that if someone thinks they're at war with me, and thinks they're waging war against me to the limits of their philosophy, then it's proper for me to also think they're at war with me, and that then it's proper for me to wage war against them to the limits of my philosophy.
Do you agree with that premise? That if someone declares war on me, then they're at war with me, regardless of the tactics they use? And that if they declare war on me, then I'm justified in saying we're at war?
And yes I do know of what I speak for I have been arrested for blockading a logging road in Northern California. It's definitely the cops who used violence in this case, they hurt my wrist when they put the cuffs on, and very severely injured my friends shoulder. Note this is the same Humboldt county Sheriffs office that lost a court case for swabbing pepper spray directly in activists eyes, see:
P.s. I'm curious as to what premise you disagree with in my argument regarding private terrorism v.s. state terrorism.
I disagree that there is a consensus on what the word "terrorism" means; therefore I disagree with any argument that starts by assuming that we all agree that what "terrorists" do and what States do are both "terrorism".
But one difference between what you call "state terrorism" and what I call "private terrorism" is that states tend to consider civilian casualties as an unfortunate necessity of war, to be avoided as much as possible without courting defeat, are to be regretted publically when they do occur, and are to be investigated thoroughly. Israel consistently does things like drop warning leaflets well in advance of bombing campaigns, and apologizes and investigates when civilians are killed. Recently they announced a temporary cease-fire when it appeared they had killed a lot of civilians in a strike on Qana, so that they could reevaluate their tactics and decision process. In the event, the civilian casuaties turned out to be far less than originally claimed, and in fact may have been staged. At the same time, the cease-fire was anyway broken by Hezb'Allah.
Meanwhile, Hezb'Allah made an explicit point of attacking civilians as their primary strategy. Instead of regretting and apologizing for civilian deaths in greater numbers than what were claimed at Qana, they celebrated the success of such attacks. As far as I know, they never once shifted their rocket fire from civilian targets to military targets, even though Iraeli military forces were gathering on their border for weeks.
Then there's the whole "uniformed soldier" vs. "civilian terrorist" thing that terrorists do, in blatant disregard for the humanitarian provisions of the Geneva Convention. Whenever the state violates the Convention, great hue and cry is raised, investigations are started, public statements of regrets are made, people are held responsible and punished, etc. Justice isn't always done to perfection, but there's a world of difference between how the U.S. government responded Abu Graib and how "terrorist" leaders respond to regular beheadings of journalists, aid workers, and other civilian hostages. There's also a world of difference between how states tend to treat their POWs and how terrorists tend to treat their POWs.
Plus, there's the whole "human shield" thing. States invest huge amounts of their resources in giving their uniformed soldiers the best weapons and armor they can afford, often at great expense. "Terrorists" invest almost nothing in armor, and use civilians as propaganda cover instead.
And of course states are accountable. They're accountable to their citizens, and they're accountable to other states who may use diplomatic, economic, and even military force to put enemy states down. Who are "terrorists" accountable to? The states that sponsor them? The states they attack?
Do you think the state has a special status when it comes to being allowed to kill innocent people?
Yes. Yes I do.
I'd be quite interested to see how you would justify that level of coercion against innocent people by the state.
Sometimes difficult paths must be chosen. Sometimes the only choice is collateral damage and victory vs. defeat and annihiliation.
I think that such choices should not be given to individuals, but rather should be made by communities, after extensive debate and free elections: i.e. by a state. In practice, it's the individual agents of the state, by the authority vested in them by the people who elected them, who make the decisions, but for me the principle is the same: The state, not the terrorist cell, is the proper entity for making such decisions. If the terrorists wish to dispute it with violence, that's their prerogative, of course, but of course that frees the state to respond with violence.
OK you asked for it, I believe that violence is only defensible as a strictly defensive last measure.
What does this have to do with my question about whether or not Pacifists think they're at war when they use weapons of war such as subterfuge, sabotage, and propaganda?
Thus I don't think a few bedraggled "terrorists" with a box of box cutters are any danger to the security of the U.S. whatsoever,
No danger whatsoever? No possibility at all that they might be able to kill thousands of people all at once? No threat to commuters on trains in Madrid and London?
And are you seriously arguing that there are only a "few" of them, they're all "bedraggled", and they're armed with nothing but "a box of box cutters"?
And finally, you're still talking about "terrorists", but the topic of this thread is still "pacifists".
and thus fail the test of going to war over.
Would you say that they consider themselves to be at war with me?
On a just-barely-related-but-definitely-on-topic note: Would you say that Pacifists who use weapons of war such as subterfuge, sabotage, and propaganda, consider themselves to be at war? (Please note that I'm not saying that these tactics automatically mean war. Advertisers use propaganda all the time, but they don't consider themselves at war, and neither do I.)
Call me me when the Chinese army has 10 million soldiers massed on the border then we can speak of a legitimate casus belli, and legitimate defense of the continental U.S. as a whole.
Not sure a phone call would be necessary, but I'll try to keep your request in mind.
As far as I'm concerned 911 was a vast and horrendous terrible crime and ought to be dealt with as such. In a way treating it as a war only gives Bin Laden MORE credit than he deserves. By treating him and his henchman as a legitimate threat to the power of the U.S. state it vast inflates the petty thug Bin Laden's true power in the world.
I think the current definitions of "war" and "crime" are too black-and-white, too polarized, to be very useful in this case. For what it's worth, I think that "terrorism" as it's employed today goes far beyond mere crime, and should be dealt with more in terms of a global network of guerrilla armies that are beholden to no state but alllied with and sponsored by many, and that "terrorism" is much better dealt with using the vocabulary and strategies of warfare rather than those of criminal justice. Even the "terrorists" themselves use the vocabulary and strategies of warfare. They're definitely not criminals in the usual sense.
You asked and I answered, you're welcome.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. I asked about Pacifists; you're still answering about "terrorists".
I do BTW appreciate your at least civil response to my previous response and retract your "foe status.
Thank you. I appreciate your at least civil replies... After that first one, where you called me an asshole with no reason, I mean. Care to revisit my reply to that one, and see if maybe you can understand why you were wrong to call me an asshole?
Like pretty much everybody else in the world, I've been debating this issue constantly for about the past five years. I've seen this argument many times already. It's always been quite clear to me. The logic is obvious and sound. But since I disagree with the premises, I can't agree with the conclusions.
That's not what we're discussing here, though. I get into it all the time in other fora, and with my friends and family. It's clear to me that you're not going to present any ideas about terrorism that I haven't already known and considered. I'm much more interested in your thoughts on this thread's topic: Pacifism vs. Passivism.
Are you prepared to discuss that, or would you rather bow out of the discussion?
It's a blanket term used for stuff in the universe we think is there but haven't seen because we can not detect it's presence.
So... Scientists can't explain how the universe works, without appealing to a mysterious phenomenon they can't observe and whose nature they cannot describe except in terms of its supposed secondary effects?
And this is different from believing in God... how, exactly?
As I'm sure you noticed, none of my questions had to do with whether or not one is obligated to use a particular tactic, and I never suggested that one should be obligated to fight against what they believe in.
Rather, my questions were designed to discover whether or not the OP believes that Pacifists do wage war by means of subterfuge, sabotage, and propaganda; and that if the OP does believe Pacifists wage war, does he accept the implications of choosing war?
What I really want to know is, do Pacifists engage in subterfuge, sabotage, and propaganda, because these are the best ways they can think of, to debate ideas in good faith with their fellow citizens? If so, I think they're chumps, but I can respect them and debate in good faith with them.
But what if Pacifists engage in subterfuge, sabotage, and propaganda, because these are the best weapons they dare to use, to win the zero-sum game of war--a game in which, if they are to be the winners, someone else (me, most likely) must be the loser. That's what I want to know: are Pacifists trying to discuss things with me, or are they playin a zero-sum game with me?
If you say you are at war with an avowed non violent person I say you are an asshole.
As far as I know, I'm not currently at war with anybody except terrorists.
What I'm trying to figure out is, are the avowed non violent people at war with me? Because the OP certainly seems to think that some weapons of war are available to the Pacifists: subterfuge, sabotage, and propaganda.
What I want to know is, when the Pacifists engage in civil disobedience, culture jamming, and monkeywrenching, do they think they're at war with me, or not?
If they don't think they're at war with me, then fine. I have no problem with that. I respect civil disobedience and tolerate culture jamming. Monkeywrenching I have some objections to, on account of it involves actually destroying property and undoing the work of others, but I don't automatically think it's war.
But war is a zero-sum game. If they think they're at war, then they think that they should win, and I should lose. Since I don't like losing, it's important to me to understand what the OP really thinks about Pacifism and nonviolent tactics such as subterfuge, sabotage, and propaganda.
I'm not saying that I'm at war with an avowed non violent person.
I'm asking if the avowed non violent person thinks he's at war with me.
My questions were designed to probe the philosophy of Pacifism, which apparently (according to the GP) do include some forms of (nonviolent) warfare. I am hoping the OP will take the time to clarify his position: when his faction engages in civil disobedience, culture jamming, monkeywrenching, etc., do they consider this to be friendly competition, or a kind of warfare?
And if they do consider it to be a kind of warfare, are they prepared to accept the implications that go with declaring war?
If a fellow citizen is debating policy with me, that's fine. That's the ideal we all strive for. But if a fellow citizen is waging war with me, and is too craven to do it openly or violently, then what? He's not debating in good faith anymore, he's using the most powerful tools he dares lay his hands on--subterfuge, sabotage, and propaganda, in this case--to win a zero-sum game in which I am the loser. That's what war is.
So which is it? Are civil disobeyers, culture jammers, and monkeywrenchers citizens debating policy in good faith, or warriors seeking to overthrow the ruling power and defeat their avowed enemies? The answers to my questions have a lot to do with how I will engage Pacifism in the future.
If we're going to go over it again, we should probably start with the original premise, which was that "Pacifism != Passivism"; which I interpet, and the GP seems to interpret as meaning that Pacifists do in fact wage war, but restrict themselves to nonviolent tactics.
My question for the GP was whether or not my interpretation is correct, and do "fighting Pacifists" really think of their tactics (civil disobedience, culture jamming, monkeywrenching, etc.) as paths to victory against an enemy?
Developing that point, I touched on the general idea of warfare, in which avowed enemies choose whatever weapons and tactics they like, and strive to defeat each other on whatever battlefield circumstance and preference provide. I wondered if Pacifists would accept that if they're justified in using their tactics against me, then I am justified in using the same tactics against them. I also wondered if they would accept that, having declared war, I their enemy am justified in using any tactics I please, just as they are.
In conclusion, I explained that if I'm right about how "fighting Pacifists" see the situation--as a form of warfare--then obviously we're in a zero-sum game that I for one have no intention of losing.
As you can see, I understand quite well what I was trying to say. I'm not sure I understand what the GP was trying to say, though, which is why I asked the questions I asked, about the nature of "war" and its implications for the "fighting Pacifist". I was hoping he'd clarify his philsophy a bit more.
All manner of creative, non-violent responses are possible. Civil disobedience, monkeywrenching, culture jamming, etc. While you may want to debate the efficacy of a pacifist response to violence, you at least need to understand that pacifism is not equivalent to surrender.
So if I catch you disobeying my civics, jamming my culture, or wrenching my monkeys (whatever that means), can I safely assume that you consider me an enemy, and have declared war on me?
And if that's the case, would you agree that, since we're at war, I'm totally justified in disobeying your civics, jamming your culture, and wrenching your monkeys?
More than that, would you agree that I'm in fact limited in my choice of weapons and tactics to use against you, only by whatever limitations my own moral code place on me, just as you are limited only by your own moral code?
Because frankly, if you think we're at war, then I think that defeating you is a pretty good idea.
I think there's more to the terrorist profile than simply "Arab and/or Muslim".
Why don't you? Are you racist? Or does your own personal profile only extend as far as "anybody who sees value in profiling must be a racist"?
Either way, your thinking is going to have to become just a little more complex and nuanced, before you're prepared to engage the real world in a productive way.
Well, it's not like anybody has used those tactics in the last five years or so.
This leads me to believe that either terrorists don't exist, or that they do exist do not consider those tactics viable.
Obviously there's more to it than that. Note that I said that forcing the enemy to change its tactics is a fundamental principle of victory, not the only fundamental principle of victory. For one thing, it's no good forcing the enemy to adapt if you're not able to adapt even faster than they are.
Forcing the enemy to adapt to your tactics is a fundamental principle of victory.
Profiling would require terrorists to try to beat the profile.
Now, beating the profile wouldn't be as easy as it sounds; you just can't take a twenty-something Durka male and make him look like an eighty-something Dystopian female. Elaborate disguises would stand out on their own, regardless of the profiling policies. They would be a risky and failure-prone solution to profiling.
You'd pretty much have to start recruiting outside your most sympathetic demographic, to find people that didn't fit the profile. And that itself would be very risky and failure-prone. After all, not fitting the profile, your prospective new recruits are more likely to turn you in than join your cell.
Either way, or even if you came up with another solution than the two I've thought of, it's still a new technology as far as you're concerned. You still have to test it, experiment with it, try repeatedly until you get it right.
Suddenly your current tactics, refined through many years of R&D, no longer work. Many more years of R&D are now necessary. You have to start all over again, with an all-new learning curve. Your mistakes are going to increase in number overnight, and formerly "quiet" operations will now be "noisy" operations. Your whole jihad becomes more noticeable, and easier for security forces to engage.
As you improve your new tactics, profiling will lose some of its effectiveness, of course. But as long as jihad is appealing in some circumstances more than others, profiling will always be a threat to your operations.
Meanwhile, as its effectiveness is reduced, profiling will be replaced as the top weapon by other weapons, better-tuned to the new tactics you've been trying to perfect since profiling ruined your old ones. And since you needed some time to practice these new tactics, you've been giving off clues as to how your tactics were evolving. Vigilant security forces will be able to shut down your new tactics even faster than your old ones. So now you have to adapt and change tactics again.
Pretty soon, you're spending so much time trying out new tactics that you don't have any time to put together a successful and devastating major attack. Plus, with all the fuckups that attend any experimental new technology, your entire organization is falling apart. More test runs are getting busted sooner by security forces, fewer recruits are able to complete a training course without getting caught or killed, etc.
If nothing else, profiling would be an excellent first step in keeping jihadis on the hop, rather than giving them a free ride to mass murder.
Of course history and tradition are temporary things. That doesn't mean they should be arbitrarily abandoned.
All the planets, up to and including Pluto, were counted as planets before the KB and KBOs were understood, or even observed (excepting Pluto itself, of course; but it was not observed as a KBO qua KBO). During that same period, other objects were considered for planethood, and ultimately rejected.
More recently, we have learned much more about the KB, and have observed and studied KBOs besides Pluto. As a result, we know a lot more about Pluto's nature and origin than we did when it was first observed and counted as a planet.
For me, the fact that Pluto is part of the same family of objects as the other KBOs, in no way detracts from its status as a planet on historical and traditional grounds.
And really, who does it gratify, to change the status of Pluto? Not the scientists; by all accounts they don't really care. Besides, they'll still carry out their experiments, test their theories, use clear technical terms where necessary, and do good science regardless of whether or not society considers Pluto a planet.
It seems to me that such a change would gratify mainly people who enjoy categorizing things into nice, neat, legalistic boxes. As this is pretty much a subjective criteria, based more on personal taste than anything else, I see no reason why it should carry any more weight than my own source of gratification: Not forcing rich and complex human culture into nice, neat, legalistic boxes any more than necessary. And I don't really see the necessity in this case.
So Pluto made the cut, while other objects didn't. So what?
If future generations see it differently, let them change it.
I think it's a mistake to try to apply a strict, formally logical rule in this context. Human activity--such as the naming and recognition of planets--rarely follows purely logical rules. Scienctists try to follow such rules as much as possible, because science demands it. But Pluto is not exclusively in the realm of science.
I consider history not having stopped at all, but rather moved on past the point where we consider KBOs to be proper planets. Personally, I have no problem grandfathering Pluto in as a planet, on account of when it was discovered, and the now-traditional place it occupies in our cosmology; while leaving all the other KBOs as "mere" KBOs. If the technicians need to reclassify it for their own narrow technical purposes, I have no problem with that either. It's not so much laziness that motivates me here, as an unspeakable horror of the prospect of never again being able to attend a cocktail party without hearing some tiresome smarty man say "well, Pluto isn't really a planet, you know..."
Sure, things may change, and with the passage of time future generations may very well strike Pluto from the list of planets (likely some years after the technicians have already done so in their own technical contexts). I just don't see any good reason to strike it from the lists today. (And please note that I'm drawing a distinction between the technical definition of "planet" and the historical, traditional, social definition of "planet".)
I think that history has just as much claim on the word as science does.
Anyway, it's been pointed out elsewhere in this thread that most scientists don't actually care, and this is really just a trumped-up piece of media hype. In the end, it seems like the controversy is pointless, and that tradition still serves us well in the case of Pluto the Planet.
Actually, NASA tapped Van Allen to spearhead further research into the belts he had discovered. The result of his further research was the conclusion that organisms could in fact safely traverse the belts. His research was a critical source of information for determining the velocities and trajectories necessary for such safe traversal.
So while it's true that he initially believe the belts would be impassable, his opinion changed as a result of his own careful study of the belts.
I have no problem with scientists wrangling out a technical scientific definition of planet, in order to productively pursue advancements in science.
And I have no problem with politicians and their constituents wrangling out a technical political and legal definition of planets, in order to better pursue political and economic gain.
My problem is with everybody thinking that any of this is at all relevant to the historical, social tradition of counting Pluto among the planets, or that we must now change our customary everyday definition of Pluto.
Not really. "pi" is a mathematical constant, that describes a specific, precise, and unmistakable relationship between a platonic circle and its radius.
"Planet", on the other hand, is an arbitrary term, convenient for differentiating between different types of celestial bodies, but not actually bound to a specific natural phenomenon or physical law or mathematical principle.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would the Conspiracy have to kill this Judge?
Since it's obviously okay to ignore all the Judges who have ruled the program Constitutional, it follows that it's also okay to ignore all the Judges who have ruled the program Unconstitutional.
The fact that the ACLU kept shopping around for a judge who would rule their way doesn't actually cancel out the fact that they had to shop around in the first place, on account of there seem to be plenty of judges out there, with just as much judicial authority as this one, who would rule against the ACLU.
What makes this ruling any more special or authoritative than the ones that have gone before, except that it happens to be popular with a certain faction?
Also, am I the only one who questions the wisdom of the ACLU's tactics in this case?
I mean, we trust and respect the ACLU because it stands up for our rights. When it finds instances of rights abuse, it takes them to court and makes sure justice is done. But if the ACLU is no longer willing to trust the courts, and instead insists on shopping around until it finds a Judge who will rule according to the ACLU's own opinion, what then?
Maybe the ACLU is right to undermine the court system, and call it into question. But doing so pretty much nullifies any value the ACLU might have to offer, since if we can't rely on the courts, we can't rely on the ACLU to get justice through the courts.
These tactics set the ACLU up as the final arbiter of justice, even though the ACLU is not a branch of government, has not been freely elected, and is not subject to any checks or balances. Judge-shopping isn't justice, it's using the judiciary as a propaganda cover for ACLU's own partisan purposes.
I am not saying that.
I am asking the OP if, as a Pacifist, he is saying that.
Do you understand the difference between "saying" and "asking"?
In general, I agree with you on this. I do believe, however, that if someone else says they're playing a zero-sum game with me, in which they intend to win by making me lose, then their decision to play that game gives me a lot more justification for doing whatever I deem necessary to make sure they lose and I win. War is war, after all. If you declare war on me, either let us first agree on some ground rules (such as the Geneva Convention or the Law of Land Warfare). Either that, or you need to accept that anything goes, and either go to war anyway, or make whatever peace you can before I start using violence to defeat you.
That's what I want to know: are the Pacifists declaring war on me, or do they simply think they're engaging me in rational debate as a fellow citizen? If it's the former, they're chumps for not agreeing on the ground rules before going to war, but fortunate that our state and my own philosophy encourage proportional and humane responses to their chosen form of warfare. If it's the latter, then I disagree that their tactics are really a form of rational debate, but I won't worry about whether or not I need to win a war.
I think it's totally clear from everything Dr. King said and did that he absolutely considered himself to be engaged in rational debate with his fellow citizens, not at war with them. Not only that, but his actual arguments and their presentation seem to me much more rational than the arguments and presentation of Pacifists today (and even of Pacifists back then).
Thanks, but I'm actually already well aware of the injustices Dr. King was fighting.
And neither do I. It seemed to me that the OP might think that Pacifists do wage war, using only nonviolent strategies. That's what I wanted to know from him.
My fundamental premise was that if someone thinks they're at war with me, and thinks they're waging war against me to the limits of their philosophy, then it's proper for me to also think they're at war with me, and that then it's proper for me to wage war against them to the limits of my philosophy.
Do you agree with that premise? That if someone declares war on me, then they're at war with me, regardless of the tactics they use? And that if they declare war on me, then I'm justified in saying we're at war?
I disagree that there is a consensus on what the word "terrorism" means; therefore I disagree with any argument that starts by assuming that we all agree that what "terrorists" do and what States do are both "terrorism".
But one difference between what you call "state terrorism" and what I call "private terrorism" is that states tend to consider civilian casualties as an unfortunate necessity of war, to be avoided as much as possible without courting defeat, are to be regretted publically when they do occur, and are to be investigated thoroughly. Israel consistently does things like drop warning leaflets well in advance of bombing campaigns, and apologizes and investigates when civilians are killed. Recently they announced a temporary cease-fire when it appeared they had killed a lot of civilians in a strike on Qana, so that they could reevaluate their tactics and decision process. In the event, the civilian casuaties turned out to be far less than originally claimed, and in fact may have been staged. At the same time, the cease-fire was anyway broken by Hezb'Allah.
Meanwhile, Hezb'Allah made an explicit point of attacking civilians as their primary strategy. Instead of regretting and apologizing for civilian deaths in greater numbers than what were claimed at Qana, they celebrated the success of such attacks. As far as I know, they never once shifted their rocket fire from civilian targets to military targets, even though Iraeli military forces were gathering on their border for weeks.
Then there's the whole "uniformed soldier" vs. "civilian terrorist" thing that terrorists do, in blatant disregard for the humanitarian provisions of the Geneva Convention. Whenever the state violates the Convention, great hue and cry is raised, investigations are started, public statements of regrets are made, people are held responsible and punished, etc. Justice isn't always done to perfection, but there's a world of difference between how the U.S. government responded Abu Graib and how "terrorist" leaders respond to regular beheadings of journalists, aid workers, and other civilian hostages. There's also a world of difference between how states tend to treat their POWs and how terrorists tend to treat their POWs.
Plus, there's the whole "human shield" thing. States invest huge amounts of their resources in giving their uniformed soldiers the best weapons and armor they can afford, often at great expense. "Terrorists" invest almost nothing in armor, and use civilians as propaganda cover instead.
And of course states are accountable. They're accountable to their citizens, and they're accountable to other states who may use diplomatic, economic, and even military force to put enemy states down. Who are "terrorists" accountable to? The states that sponsor them? The states they attack?
Yes. Yes I do.
Sometimes difficult paths must be chosen. Sometimes the only choice is collateral damage and victory vs. defeat and annihiliation.
I think that such choices should not be given to individuals, but rather should be made by communities, after extensive debate and free elections: i.e. by a state. In practice, it's the individual agents of the state, by the authority vested in them by the people who elected them, who make the decisions, but for me the principle is the same: The state, not the terrorist cell, is the proper entity for making such decisions. If the terrorists wish to dispute it with violence, that's their prerogative, of course, but of course that frees the state to respond with violence.
See also: the
What does this have to do with my question about whether or not Pacifists think they're at war when they use weapons of war such as subterfuge, sabotage, and propaganda?
No danger whatsoever? No possibility at all that they might be able to kill thousands of people all at once? No threat to commuters on trains in Madrid and London?
And are you seriously arguing that there are only a "few" of them, they're all "bedraggled", and they're armed with nothing but "a box of box cutters"?
And finally, you're still talking about "terrorists", but the topic of this thread is still "pacifists".
Would you say that they consider themselves to be at war with me?
On a just-barely-related-but-definitely-on-topic note: Would you say that Pacifists who use weapons of war such as subterfuge, sabotage, and propaganda, consider themselves to be at war? (Please note that I'm not saying that these tactics automatically mean war. Advertisers use propaganda all the time, but they don't consider themselves at war, and neither do I.)
Not sure a phone call would be necessary, but I'll try to keep your request in mind.
I think the current definitions of "war" and "crime" are too black-and-white, too polarized, to be very useful in this case. For what it's worth, I think that "terrorism" as it's employed today goes far beyond mere crime, and should be dealt with more in terms of a global network of guerrilla armies that are beholden to no state but alllied with and sponsored by many, and that "terrorism" is much better dealt with using the vocabulary and strategies of warfare rather than those of criminal justice. Even the "terrorists" themselves use the vocabulary and strategies of warfare. They're definitely not criminals in the usual sense.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. I asked about Pacifists; you're still answering about "terrorists".
Thank you. I appreciate your at least civil replies... After that first one, where you called me an asshole with no reason, I mean. Care to revisit my reply to that one, and see if maybe you can understand why you were wrong to call me an asshole?
Like pretty much everybody else in the world, I've been debating this issue constantly for about the past five years. I've seen this argument many times already. It's always been quite clear to me. The logic is obvious and sound. But since I disagree with the premises, I can't agree with the conclusions.
That's not what we're discussing here, though. I get into it all the time in other fora, and with my friends and family. It's clear to me that you're not going to present any ideas about terrorism that I haven't already known and considered. I'm much more interested in your thoughts on this thread's topic: Pacifism vs. Passivism.
Are you prepared to discuss that, or would you rather bow out of the discussion?
I'm betting this rant didn't win you many converts even when it was on-topic.
So... Scientists can't explain how the universe works, without appealing to a mysterious phenomenon they can't observe and whose nature they cannot describe except in terms of its supposed secondary effects?
And this is different from believing in God... how, exactly?
As I'm sure you noticed, none of my questions had to do with whether or not one is obligated to use a particular tactic, and I never suggested that one should be obligated to fight against what they believe in.
Rather, my questions were designed to discover whether or not the OP believes that Pacifists do wage war by means of subterfuge, sabotage, and propaganda; and that if the OP does believe Pacifists wage war, does he accept the implications of choosing war?
What I really want to know is, do Pacifists engage in subterfuge, sabotage, and propaganda, because these are the best ways they can think of, to debate ideas in good faith with their fellow citizens? If so, I think they're chumps, but I can respect them and debate in good faith with them.
But what if Pacifists engage in subterfuge, sabotage, and propaganda, because these are the best weapons they dare to use, to win the zero-sum game of war--a game in which, if they are to be the winners, someone else (me, most likely) must be the loser. That's what I want to know: are Pacifists trying to discuss things with me, or are they playin a zero-sum game with me?
HTH. HAND.
As far as I know, I'm not currently at war with anybody except terrorists.
What I'm trying to figure out is, are the avowed non violent people at war with me? Because the OP certainly seems to think that some weapons of war are available to the Pacifists: subterfuge, sabotage, and propaganda.
What I want to know is, when the Pacifists engage in civil disobedience, culture jamming, and monkeywrenching, do they think they're at war with me, or not?
If they don't think they're at war with me, then fine. I have no problem with that. I respect civil disobedience and tolerate culture jamming. Monkeywrenching I have some objections to, on account of it involves actually destroying property and undoing the work of others, but I don't automatically think it's war.
But war is a zero-sum game. If they think they're at war, then they think that they should win, and I should lose. Since I don't like losing, it's important to me to understand what the OP really thinks about Pacifism and nonviolent tactics such as subterfuge, sabotage, and propaganda.
I'm not saying that I'm at war with an avowed non violent person.
I'm asking if the avowed non violent person thinks he's at war with me.
HTH. HAND.
I have no problem with friendly competition.
My questions were designed to probe the philosophy of Pacifism, which apparently (according to the GP) do include some forms of (nonviolent) warfare. I am hoping the OP will take the time to clarify his position: when his faction engages in civil disobedience, culture jamming, monkeywrenching, etc., do they consider this to be friendly competition, or a kind of warfare?
And if they do consider it to be a kind of warfare, are they prepared to accept the implications that go with declaring war?
If a fellow citizen is debating policy with me, that's fine. That's the ideal we all strive for. But if a fellow citizen is waging war with me, and is too craven to do it openly or violently, then what? He's not debating in good faith anymore, he's using the most powerful tools he dares lay his hands on--subterfuge, sabotage, and propaganda, in this case--to win a zero-sum game in which I am the loser. That's what war is.
So which is it? Are civil disobeyers, culture jammers, and monkeywrenchers citizens debating policy in good faith, or warriors seeking to overthrow the ruling power and defeat their avowed enemies? The answers to my questions have a lot to do with how I will engage Pacifism in the future.
HTH. HAND.
If we're going to go over it again, we should probably start with the original premise, which was that "Pacifism != Passivism"; which I interpet, and the GP seems to interpret as meaning that Pacifists do in fact wage war, but restrict themselves to nonviolent tactics.
My question for the GP was whether or not my interpretation is correct, and do "fighting Pacifists" really think of their tactics (civil disobedience, culture jamming, monkeywrenching, etc.) as paths to victory against an enemy?
Developing that point, I touched on the general idea of warfare, in which avowed enemies choose whatever weapons and tactics they like, and strive to defeat each other on whatever battlefield circumstance and preference provide. I wondered if Pacifists would accept that if they're justified in using their tactics against me, then I am justified in using the same tactics against them. I also wondered if they would accept that, having declared war, I their enemy am justified in using any tactics I please, just as they are.
In conclusion, I explained that if I'm right about how "fighting Pacifists" see the situation--as a form of warfare--then obviously we're in a zero-sum game that I for one have no intention of losing.
As you can see, I understand quite well what I was trying to say. I'm not sure I understand what the GP was trying to say, though, which is why I asked the questions I asked, about the nature of "war" and its implications for the "fighting Pacifist". I was hoping he'd clarify his philsophy a bit more.
HTH. HAND.
Wake me up when a law actually stops censorship, election fraud, or racial and gender bigotry EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD.
Then we can talk about world peace.
So if I catch you disobeying my civics, jamming my culture, or wrenching my monkeys (whatever that means), can I safely assume that you consider me an enemy, and have declared war on me?
And if that's the case, would you agree that, since we're at war, I'm totally justified in disobeying your civics, jamming your culture, and wrenching your monkeys?
More than that, would you agree that I'm in fact limited in my choice of weapons and tactics to use against you, only by whatever limitations my own moral code place on me, just as you are limited only by your own moral code?
Because frankly, if you think we're at war, then I think that defeating you is a pretty good idea.
What do you say?
Translation:
"When asked about this, Richard Stallman emitted a word salad from his mouth parts."
I think there's more to the terrorist profile than simply "Arab and/or Muslim".
Why don't you? Are you racist? Or does your own personal profile only extend as far as "anybody who sees value in profiling must be a racist"?
Either way, your thinking is going to have to become just a little more complex and nuanced, before you're prepared to engage the real world in a productive way.
Well, it's not like anybody has used those tactics in the last five years or so.
This leads me to believe that either terrorists don't exist, or that they do exist do not consider those tactics viable.
Obviously there's more to it than that. Note that I said that forcing the enemy to change its tactics is a fundamental principle of victory, not the only fundamental principle of victory. For one thing, it's no good forcing the enemy to adapt if you're not able to adapt even faster than they are.
I think there's more to profiling than "anybody in favor of profiling must be a racist".
Forcing the enemy to adapt to your tactics is a fundamental principle of victory.
Profiling would require terrorists to try to beat the profile.
Now, beating the profile wouldn't be as easy as it sounds; you just can't take a twenty-something Durka male and make him look like an eighty-something Dystopian female. Elaborate disguises would stand out on their own, regardless of the profiling policies. They would be a risky and failure-prone solution to profiling.
You'd pretty much have to start recruiting outside your most sympathetic demographic, to find people that didn't fit the profile. And that itself would be very risky and failure-prone. After all, not fitting the profile, your prospective new recruits are more likely to turn you in than join your cell.
Either way, or even if you came up with another solution than the two I've thought of, it's still a new technology as far as you're concerned. You still have to test it, experiment with it, try repeatedly until you get it right.
Suddenly your current tactics, refined through many years of R&D, no longer work. Many more years of R&D are now necessary. You have to start all over again, with an all-new learning curve. Your mistakes are going to increase in number overnight, and formerly "quiet" operations will now be "noisy" operations. Your whole jihad becomes more noticeable, and easier for security forces to engage.
As you improve your new tactics, profiling will lose some of its effectiveness, of course. But as long as jihad is appealing in some circumstances more than others, profiling will always be a threat to your operations.
Meanwhile, as its effectiveness is reduced, profiling will be replaced as the top weapon by other weapons, better-tuned to the new tactics you've been trying to perfect since profiling ruined your old ones. And since you needed some time to practice these new tactics, you've been giving off clues as to how your tactics were evolving. Vigilant security forces will be able to shut down your new tactics even faster than your old ones. So now you have to adapt and change tactics again.
Pretty soon, you're spending so much time trying out new tactics that you don't have any time to put together a successful and devastating major attack. Plus, with all the fuckups that attend any experimental new technology, your entire organization is falling apart. More test runs are getting busted sooner by security forces, fewer recruits are able to complete a training course without getting caught or killed, etc.
If nothing else, profiling would be an excellent first step in keeping jihadis on the hop, rather than giving them a free ride to mass murder.
Of course history and tradition are temporary things. That doesn't mean they should be arbitrarily abandoned.
All the planets, up to and including Pluto, were counted as planets before the KB and KBOs were understood, or even observed (excepting Pluto itself, of course; but it was not observed as a KBO qua KBO). During that same period, other objects were considered for planethood, and ultimately rejected.
More recently, we have learned much more about the KB, and have observed and studied KBOs besides Pluto. As a result, we know a lot more about Pluto's nature and origin than we did when it was first observed and counted as a planet.
For me, the fact that Pluto is part of the same family of objects as the other KBOs, in no way detracts from its status as a planet on historical and traditional grounds.
And really, who does it gratify, to change the status of Pluto? Not the scientists; by all accounts they don't really care. Besides, they'll still carry out their experiments, test their theories, use clear technical terms where necessary, and do good science regardless of whether or not society considers Pluto a planet.
It seems to me that such a change would gratify mainly people who enjoy categorizing things into nice, neat, legalistic boxes. As this is pretty much a subjective criteria, based more on personal taste than anything else, I see no reason why it should carry any more weight than my own source of gratification: Not forcing rich and complex human culture into nice, neat, legalistic boxes any more than necessary. And I don't really see the necessity in this case.
So Pluto made the cut, while other objects didn't. So what?
If future generations see it differently, let them change it.
I think it's a mistake to try to apply a strict, formally logical rule in this context. Human activity--such as the naming and recognition of planets--rarely follows purely logical rules. Scienctists try to follow such rules as much as possible, because science demands it. But Pluto is not exclusively in the realm of science.
I consider history not having stopped at all, but rather moved on past the point where we consider KBOs to be proper planets. Personally, I have no problem grandfathering Pluto in as a planet, on account of when it was discovered, and the now-traditional place it occupies in our cosmology; while leaving all the other KBOs as "mere" KBOs. If the technicians need to reclassify it for their own narrow technical purposes, I have no problem with that either. It's not so much laziness that motivates me here, as an unspeakable horror of the prospect of never again being able to attend a cocktail party without hearing some tiresome smarty man say "well, Pluto isn't really a planet, you know..."
Sure, things may change, and with the passage of time future generations may very well strike Pluto from the list of planets (likely some years after the technicians have already done so in their own technical contexts). I just don't see any good reason to strike it from the lists today. (And please note that I'm drawing a distinction between the technical definition of "planet" and the historical, traditional, social definition of "planet".)
Who says "planet" is a scientific term?
I think that history has just as much claim on the word as science does.
Anyway, it's been pointed out elsewhere in this thread that most scientists don't actually care, and this is really just a trumped-up piece of media hype. In the end, it seems like the controversy is pointless, and that tradition still serves us well in the case of Pluto the Planet.
Actually, NASA tapped Van Allen to spearhead further research into the belts he had discovered. The result of his further research was the conclusion that organisms could in fact safely traverse the belts. His research was a critical source of information for determining the velocities and trajectories necessary for such safe traversal.
So while it's true that he initially believe the belts would be impassable, his opinion changed as a result of his own careful study of the belts.
I have no problem with scientists wrangling out a technical scientific definition of planet, in order to productively pursue advancements in science.
And I have no problem with politicians and their constituents wrangling out a technical political and legal definition of planets, in order to better pursue political and economic gain.
My problem is with everybody thinking that any of this is at all relevant to the historical, social tradition of counting Pluto among the planets, or that we must now change our customary everyday definition of Pluto.
Not really. "pi" is a mathematical constant, that describes a specific, precise, and unmistakable relationship between a platonic circle and its radius.
"Planet", on the other hand, is an arbitrary term, convenient for differentiating between different types of celestial bodies, but not actually bound to a specific natural phenomenon or physical law or mathematical principle.