Thanks for the good info. I just started looking into this field recently. Apparently, viruses are basically just protein coated DNA or RNA without any internal processes. i.e. they are not really "alive"; which probably explains your use of quotes around the word "kill". Of course, this begs the question of what a "weakened" virus is versus a "dead" virus?
It seems to me that the whole process of vaccination is statistical... i.e. how is it determined that all of the "viruses" in a vaccine are fragmented enough to prevent infection, yet still structured enough to trigger the proper corresponding immune response to the original viruses?
Furthermore, is it possible for the fragments to "randomly" combine or work synergistically enough to infect a cell and replicate a pathogen?
The fact that the egg allergens are not filtered suggests to me that the process might not be thorough in controlling the contents of a vaccine.
Hence, I would imagine that, statistically, there are people who actually do contract the flu due to a flu vaccine (and not simply brief flu-like symptoms).
I'd appreciate any insights and especially corrections if I am mistaken.
Unless you are habitually whirling around a high voltage line at high speed, the magnetic field component of its EMF is all but irrelevant to you.
What is a "high voltage line"? I thought it was a line along which charges move due to (possibly alternating) high voltages. Hence, in this case, I would suspect that the M might in fact be relevant.
However, I do understand and agree with your general point that E and M fields can exist in relative isolation and each affects charges slightly differently. Hence, it seems reasonable that there may be differences in their respective effects on the human body.
A comparably strong electric field is called lightning, and that tends to have rather nastier effects on people.
Prior to lightning, there is a very strong E field. However, lightning itself (i.e. static discharge) is a very strong current (moving charges) due to an ionic breakdown of the air gap caused by the E field. I would suspect that a strong E field by itself (without a discharge current) has a significantly different effect on the human body.
I'm not sure if a lightning strike is comparable to an MRI, though you are obviously correct that their respective effects upon a human body are significantly different.
without empirical evidence, it cannot simply be deduced that they are "bound to be entirely different" Yes it can. Note the use of "bound to be". It's Occam's Razor...
What's the significance of noting the words "bound to be"? Does it imply some possibility of not being? I took "bound" to mean "certain".
Occam's Razor is simply a heuristic tool. When applied to creating effective theories, it states that unnecessary complexity should be eliminated. But without empirical evidence, how are we to determine what is unnecessary?
All I am suggesting is that empirical evidence is required before reaching a conclusion about the independence of the various effects (and mechanisms) of E, M, or EM on the human body.
You might as well postulate a connection with sunburn - after all sunlight is also "EM in nature".
I'm not exactly sure what "connection" you are referring to.
However, sunburn does seem to be a good example of a common effect of all EM: EM moves charges (transforming into kinetic energy), therein causing the human body to "heat" as it absorbs the energy. Taken to an extreme (in amplitude, frequency, duration, etc.), damage will be caused.
Of course, heating is a generic effect. Considering the complex electro-chemical processes which occur in the human body, it seems possible that even minor non-random EM could interfere with some of those processes.
I'm not sure how much of this thread is intended for humor or trolling, but... you seem to imply that Electric fields are independent from Magnetic fields, which is incorrect.
Hence, an "alternating electric field" would create an alternating magnetic field... which might explain the "M" in EMF (depending upon your intended expansion of the acronym).
Of course, analyzing the effects of EM on humans requires consideration of its structure (amplitude, frequency, duration, etc.), so the fact that one is "strong" and "brief", while the other is "weak" and "continuous" is (empirically) a reasonable basis upon which to hypothesize that the human effects of one might not apply to the other.
As for the potential "mechanisms involved" in any "adverse biological effects", without empirical evidence, it cannot simply be deduced that they are "bound to be entirely different". In fact, both being EM in nature, it seems reasonable to hypothesize that they will share at least some effects on the human body (though to varying degrees dictated by their individual EM structures).
One of the main advantages of a zip file is that there is a hurdle to jump in order to delete or update the contents.
What's the hurdle? You can already delete and update with (as far as I know) all common zip programs. Rewriting the zip program as a vfs simply standardizes the interface, thereby improving the support and usability of those features.
Granted, the biggest use in my eyes would be the transparent per-file decompression (ro... like zisofs) and the transparent compression may best be left to allow for incremental creation of the archive, but I suspect there may be other uses for such a system... perhaps in the embedded market?
Actually, Java (jar) and OpenOffice xml formats (being zip files) already use transparent add / update / delete... particularly OpenOffice where the document is often modified.
Also note that, with a vfs, you could still mount a zip file ro, protecting your data from any accidental modification.
I haven't used XP's "seamless" zip file access either because (I think) it is solely an implementation of the explorer file manager, which I don't particularly care for (I grew up with NC)... I feel similarly about the linux "clones" of explorer, though they may have more luring features.
However, I have used Total Commander to dynamically extract / update / add / remove files from zip archives, which I found quite useful.
In conclusion:), I'm not quite convinced that it is an "awful idea"... vfs seems to be the appropriate standard interface for the functionality offered by zips.
Your right... it's a size (7z) vs. flexibility / speed (zip) issue. e.g. For larger archives where you don't expect to always extract all of the contents, zip may be more useful at the expense of size. Along a similar vein, I've often wished that Windows supported a standard transparently un/compressed filesystem usable with CDs. I know Linux supports this ro, but I think only proprietary / non-standard systems exist for Windows.
Your comment also made me wonder if it would be advantageous to have a hybrid archive format which maintains individually compressed files using an extensible archive-global dictionary... i.e. is most of the compression improvement of "solid" archives due to the runlength crossing of file boundaries or is the bulk of compression improvement due to the ability to share a dictionary across files?... I'm not proficient in any archive format, so please forgive my naivety if dictionaries are already shared.
I agree with your comments. I often prefer the flexibility offered by zip over higher compression ratios offered by other formats. I recoil a bit when I read of people archiving their entire filesystem to a single tar.gz/bz2 file... great compression at the expense of future flexibility in extracting that data.
I didn't know that zip (WinZip? PkZip? which?) could save arbitrary file metadata... in my mind, it is huge that the zip format supports this. Do you (or anyone) know if there is a Linux zip program that integrally saves per-file metadata (as opposed to having to save it separately)?... or, perhaps ideally, a loadable kernel vfs which can mount zips read/write (plus metadata)?
As the poster implied, extracting, adding, and removing individual files from a.tar.gz/bz2 archive is significantly slower than with a.zip archive (particularly as the archive becomes larger).
Theoretically, with the right vfs interface, you could mount a.zip file read/write, providing dynamic compression... I'd actually like to see that in linux (as a pluggable kernel filesystem, accessible from the command line)... I know mc provides something like this with its own pluggable vfs, but its use is thus limited to mc.
The main thing.tar.gz/bz2 has going for it is that it is a *nix standard and has higher compression.
Basically, the trade-off is size (tar.gz/bz2) vs. flexibility/speed (zip).
The Bible is not the easiest document to interpret, and even scholars often make mistakes in doing so. Translation is difficult enough without the added difficulty of inherent lack of punctuation in original texts. e.g. consider a letter in the New Testament as a basic (though entirely unformatted) slashdot reply, not knowing what is a quote and what is a comment, or where sarcasm begins or ends, or exactly who in the multitude is being addressed.
In fact, the Bible appears to be contradictory in many cases unless you allow for contextual possibilities. Hence, the extent of Jesus' pacifist nature is debatable when considered in context with the rest of the Bible.
I would suggest to you that "resisting evil" is as much a fundamental tenet of Christianity as is compassion and forgiveness (which is ostensibly one of the sources of Christian "pacifism")... in fact, they are largely orthogonal issues (one can both "resist evil" and be compassionate and forgiving).
e.g. Did Jesus turn the other cheek? Jesus' physical eviction of the non-violent "money-changers" is perhaps the most obvious example of Jesus himself not even tolerating "evil" in the presence of the temple.
Of course, pacifism (the peaceful resolution of disputes) is a very noble goal, with which, I suspect, Jesus would agree. However, the "ultimate" pacifist seems to be commonly defined as "one who will never use physical force to resolve a dispute", with which, I suspect, Jesus would not agree.
Hence, the pertinent question is, at what point in a conflict should attempts at peaceful resolution be abandoned for the sake of morality and justice?
The intended interpretation of the word "fear" in "God-fearing" is rather antiquated compared to common modern usage. Look up the word "fear" in the dictionary... it is perhaps better translated "respect":
3. Extreme reverence or awe, as toward a supreme power.
I agree with you entirely. Recently, however, I've been using 7-zip which is an excellent open-source alternative.
I suspect open-source is the real competitor / threat to shareware (and all commercial software for that matter) and not piracy, since open-source provides huge advantages to the user. It's interesting to note that the 7-zip people are offering various tiers of technical support to make money.
Waning are the Microsoftian days where a fixed-time programming effort can reap fairly unbound profit (cf. Bill Gates). With the ubiquity of general software and programmers (and perhaps the public's emerging realization of zero cost duplication and the intent and nature of copyrights), programming is becoming more of a service.
This is probably best for humanity in the long run, though an obvious hinderence to (particularly lone) programmers in their attempts to become independently wealthy by starting their own software companies based upon their own ideas.
Very cool, thanks for the info... I was looking into this a while ago, but never found the info you describe... guess I should have searched the RFCs.:)
Now if only there was a bit more ubiquitous and complete support for inlining resources (transparent insertion, extraction, loading, saving, etc.), it would be much more useful... e.g. though I can view your Data url, I can't save pages in that format (or even properly view an mhtml formatted file, last I checked) in Opera.
If their client was GPL,... So IMHO this is in no way a copyright violation, and KAZAA is completely wrong to even attempt this.
If your assumption were correct, your argument would make sense, but who said Kazaa was GPL'd?... I don't think it is even open-source. A quick google for 'kazaa license' turned up this which might be the license.
Sorry... looks like I'm guilty of not reading the entire article before commenting... Robert's answer:
Components such as udev and hotplug are obviously entirely agnostic to the rest of the system, as they are (or will be) required pieces of nearly any Linux system. Other components, such as D-BUS and HAL, can likewise fit into any system. I very much hope that both of those projects find wide adoption.
In response to your example, I think that a server with no desktop environment would still benefit from this work. In fact, it would just use Project Utopia as far up the stack as needed, definitely making use of udev, D-BUS, and HAL.
HAL, D-BUS, and udev seem really neat, but they also seem like they are core improvements that belong at a lower level than GNOME (being a graphical desktop environment)... i.e. maybe not quite in the kernel, but right above it... does anyone know if they are being developed generically so that they may easily be used at the console (non-X) level, independent of which graphical environment is being used?
It worries me that so many fundamental systems are implemented in each graphical environment independently... IIRC, this extends to simple things like vfs, trash, cut/paste, etc.
I am very much a linux newbie, so I'd appreciate any insight. Are my concerns unfounded?
First, it seems ridiculous to start with the assumption that "Killing is wrong," when that is exactly what is being debated... i.e. that perhaps there are cases where "killing is right"; where "right" is defined as "proper moral conduct".
Second, logically, it appears you are using "wrong" as the baseline for everyone, in which no one can be "right". Previously, you have named the following options both "wrong", though to varying degrees: 1) To kill the murderer (assuming subduing is not an option), OR 2) To (by inaction) allow the murderer to continue killing.
You have previously said that (1) is "less wrong" (the lesser of two evils), therefore, everyone else who does nothing is "more wrong". Hence, in this case, according to you, the moral spectrum of choices extends from "wrong" to "more wrong". I would argue that to be "wrong" in any situation requires the possibility of being "right". i.e. In any situation, "the least wrong thing to do" defines "the right thing to do".
Because of your implicit opinion that there is no "right" course of action in this case, I would suggest that you are actually trying to make a comment on the situation (created by the original murderer) rather than on proper moral conduct (what is "right") in response to the situation.
Note that by its very nature, being moral is dictated by your choices. If others (e.g. murderers) have the power to make you immoral (having no options, except "wrong", immoral ones), then morality ("right" and "wrong") loses all meaning.
Also, the original poster's comment that "Two Wrongs Can Make A Right" may be a bit misleading because he was actually arguing that the second "wrong" isn't really wrong, but is rather justified ("right" / proper moral action) in response to the first "wrong".
I'm fine with saying that it's wrong to kill innocents, but where I draw the line is saying that it's more wrong for them to kill innocents than it is for us.... No. It's not morals that I object to, it's their uneven application.
Excellent! I agree.:)... have I given any indication that I believe differently? Please correct me in any particular case where you think I am wrong -- at the very least so that we can reason and analyze the details of the specific case together rather than waxing philosophical about subjectivity.
Now on to the rest of your post. While I somewhat agree with the broad examples you provided, I do not think the determination of justice in each situation is as simple and obvious as you seem to imply. My following intent is to point out factors which should be considered in the determination of justice in some of the cases you cite.
Please NOTE: I am NOT saying that the US (or, rather, whoever was in charge) was justified, since I don't know enough details to make that judgement (if you know enough details to make that judgement, I'd be happy to learn them)... I am simply trying to illustrate some key variables in determining justice which are not so clear-cut in the cases you describe. For some of the subjects, you can find more detailed reasoning in my previous posts to you:
An example would be trying to justify the US blowing up the better part of a city block in a (failed) attempt to kill someone
In your opinion, is it possible to justify the loss of innocent life (commonly known as collateral damage) in a legitimate attempt to stop a mass murderer?
who we supported for the better part of a decade, sold WMD technologies to, barely managed a whimper of protest when he used them, and then let him fly his helicopter gunships to put down the popular rebellion that started in response to Desert Storm.
I agree very much that these are at the very least idiotic and at the very most evil and unjust (e.g. WMD), dependent upon all the details. Of course, even in some of these cases, there are complex variables which must be considered when determining justice:
- Sovereignty: Intervening militarily on a national scale is very complex and a dangerous precedent to set (after all, we could be wrong). Undeniably, it must be done in certain cases where sufficient evidence is known, but even then it is a difficult decision (particularly regarding conflicts internal to a foreign country). i.e.:
Essentially, when are we justified to impose our will upon another sovereign country?
Is it better for the citizens of a foreign country to live under oppression in "relative" peace than to incite or enact war? (cf. Vietnam)
How can we be sure that the result of our efforts will be better than the current state? (cf. Vietnam)
Is it just to risk our children (18-20s) for this goal? Perhaps a better (or at least safer) course of action exists that may also help? Different people measure these variables differently and there are good arguments on either side, which makes determining justice very difficult. Hence, even in cases where the proper moral position is clear, the best course of action may be unclear.
Furthermore, oftentimes it is best to allow people to handle their own problems... it helps them appreciate their own solutions more. e.g. I am still concerned about imposing a republic / democracy upon Iraq and Afghanistan because they did not (as a nation) successfully demand it or fight for it with their lives... i.e. their culture might not be adapted to support democracy very well... In fact I'm becoming more and more concerned about the US's own culture not supporting democracy and its associated freedoms very well.
Hence, while I believe democracy would serve them better, that should be for them to decide... this is how democracy bootstraps itself. Of course, something m
Terrorizing is the creation of terror, terrorism is the using of that terror. Directly causing terror is the easiest way to start the process, but it's not the only way.
Where are you getting this from? Even the Webster definition you provided contradicts your extension; Terrorism is "the act of terrorizing".
Or from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition, Terrorism is:
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
As I have explained many times previously, it is from the implications of similar popular (and proper) definitions of terrorism by which I derive my particular definition of terrorism.
A terrorist may be misguided, or we may be the misguided ones thinking that what they're doing is wrong
I really don't understand where you are going with this... either that, or I refuse to accept your implication that it is irrelevant who's right and who's wrong. You seem to be implying time and again that it is irrelevant for us to make a moral judgement... e.g. to state that it is wrong to murder innocent people. By what do you measure justice, if not by your own morals?
The fact that you think you have a just cause for going out and blowing people up ("it's just a necessary evil") means that you are a potential (if not actual) terrorist.
Who are you addressing? Who thinks that? Who are you quoting "it's just a necessary evil"? Are you addressing a terrorist? If so, why? Also, as I have discussed ad nauseum, acts of violence or even killing people does not a terrorist make... again, consider WW2.
The biggest difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is who won the war.
Maybe in some people's minds, but I certainly hope that is not actually the case. The freedom fighters' focus is on their own freedom -- they do not intend to murder innocents. The terrorists' focus is on terror to achieve their ends (possibly some sort of freedom), often by the intentional murder (or threat of murder) of innocents.
Most of your comments seem to be of the flavor "it is all subjective." Ah, but such is the nature of human existence. Meaning comes from what we share in common. I suspect we mostly share a common sense of justice, but with so much of your equivocating, it is hard to tell for sure.
Unfortunately, I can only assess our discussion as not advancing in any meaningful way, since I see you repeating yourself and I find me repeating myself. Fundamentally, we are not communicating, and for that, I am sad.
(btw: I'd appreciate your acknowledgement of proper usage) I think that you're confusing popular usage with proper usage. If you've got linux, try going 'kdict terrorism'. From The Webster's: Terrorism \Ter"ror*ism\, n. [Cf. F. terrorisme.] The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation. --Jefferson.
How are you interpreting this definition not to include commission of the act that causes terror? Even in the simple definition you provided, a terrorist causes the terror (look up "terrorize")... they do not merely take advantage of it.
You are correct that the popular use of the term "terrorism" may have a slightly greater connotation than it used to (was that a quote from Thomas Jefferson?), namely as a result of specific acts of terrorism in our time. In addition, (perhaps unfortunately in some cases) popular usage becomes proper usage... if everyone is using a term in one fashion, it becomes confusing to use it in another.
Keep in mind that our overriding goal is effective communication and, as you point out, it is dangerous to mix definitions of terrorism -- in this case, mixing them such that we may equate the acts of Osama and the US legislature regarding 9/11.
Furthermore, by your definition (as far as I can gather), it seems that even reasonable acts can be considered terrorism (see my previous posts, mentioning sales of survival equipment in the year 1999 and the thin line between accounting for rational risk and irrational fear). Considering that most of the world seems to agree that terrorism is a "very bad thing" (as, I believe, even you have stated), how can we attribute "terrorism" to more reasonable acts which also fit your definition?
While we may debate that parts of my definition might not be universally accepted or applied to particular cases, I believe the assertion that "a terrorist causes terror" is universally accepted. Beyond that, I suspect most people would also agree that the means of causing the terror must be significant immoral and unlawful acts... i.e. simply scaring people is generally not enough. Furthermore, scaring criminals is not generally considered terrorism, which thus implies that the targets are relatively innocent... at least, this is some of the reasoning I go through in considering the meaning of "terrorism."
Part of the problem is that there are people being tagged 'terrorist' by a much looser definition, but then your definition is being used to justify their treatment (this is what the Canadian bill was also trying to do).
You are right; that is exactly the problem. In fact, there are those (including Ashcroft) who are trying to achieve the same thing through the Patriot Act: labeling people "terrorists" so that they may invoke special powers and influence the public's perception. Intentional misuse of words is the cornerstone of deception, propaganda, and brainwashing. As a mild though obvious example which comes to mind, consider Clinton's bending of the word "sex" or the word "is" to intentionally achieve false perceptions.
I'm pushing just ever so slightly i the other diriction, but I'm still staying well within the official definition(s) of the word, and I'm dooing it with my eyes wide open on that point.
How are you "well within the official definition" if you are ignoring who is causing the terror? Your eyes may be open to what you are doing, but I suspect your audience is being led astray, as I was upon first reading your original post.
btw: by your definition, Osamma doesn't fit. He doesn't commit acts of terrorism himself, he simply calls on other people to do it in his name -- but he does fit well within my definition.
Of course Osama fits my definition. To organize, direct, and otherwise intentionally cause a crime is tantamount to committing the crime.
Honestly, all I wanted to do was explain your misuse of the word 'terrorism' (according to common usage), in order to avoid present and future confusion when you use the word (btw: I'd appreciate your acknowledgement of proper usage). This lead to consideration of "commission" and "innocence" as key parts of the definition.
By the definition I have provided, 'terrorism' cannot be justified, because it requires a willful violation of the innocent (which is basically the definition of injustice); so it is illogical to say that "the terror of one side justifies the terror of the other," because, by definition, neither can be justified.
Understand that what we are fundamentally discussing is justice. Judgements of justice are the basis of every legal system and every moral code. One fundamental tenet is that justice is determined by each individual's actions. e.g. Attributing the actions of a few Arabs to all Arabs is obviously unjust. Hence, discussing the justice of groups is inherently complex and flawed, because, ultimately, justice must be determined on an individual level.
e.g. Hatred may exist on both sides of the Israel-Palestinian conflict as a result of some valid complaints, but justice can only be determined by addressing each case individually, not by declaring a wash of the whole conflict or declaring each side equivalent.
What I mean is that people tend to have an easier time justifying the violence done in the name of their own group.
You are correct that there can be a psychological and sociological tendency toward self-justification. However, that is not always the case; sometimes violent actions really are justified. To assume either case without evidence is a mistake.
The point about terrorism becoming it's own justification is that people use the terrorism comitted in the name of the other side to justify the terror inflicted by their side.
I agree that there are people who try to justify terrorism. However, they are wrong to do so... as I have explained previously. i.e. Simply believing or feeling "justified" in your actions, does not make them just... nor does the fact that "both sides believe they are justified" make it irrelevant to consider the justice of a situation.
after a while the original source of the dispute becomes almost (or actually) irrelevant.
True in the sense that the more time and added conflict that goes by, the more difficult it is to analyze the facts of each situation. The original source of the dispute is not irrelevant as long as there are means to achieve justice (e.g. there is sufficient evidence and corrective options).
You've effextively proven my point, trying to justify the violence committed by the US "In it's defence".
Each of your assertions seem flawed, but please allow me to apply your comments to Afghanistan rather than Iraq since Iraq is a significantly more complex case.
But for the [Afghan]'s who really hate the US, they are defending their country against invaders, and you definitely can't call the US soldiers on foreign soil 'innocent civilians'. but try telling that to those soldiers' families.
To simply "hate the US" is irrelevant toward considering justice.
The US "invasion" was in search of justice (and prevention) against a select group which was being harbored by the government, it was not against the people of Afghanistan at large.
The US soldiers are by definition not civilians and it is debatable whether they are individually innocent.
Most US citizens who lost family in Afghanistan do not blame all Afghans... just the terrorists and their supporters, which they generally feel is a just cause. I would hope most Afghans feel the same way.
So the US must be justified in blowing up the homes of those involved in the attacks.
This plan will be moderately successful at preventing joe-jobs [catb.org] on unwitting victims.
See the site name "[catb.org]"? This looks awfully similar to the text added by slashdot when hypertext links are used... not to mention the fake sig at the bottom. So, at first glance, it appears that the poster simply copied another post, though I haven't bothered to do a search.
Though, honestly, I don't really care if "Linus Torvald (739359)" is karma whoring: If the post is pertinent and people have not seen it before and they honestly find it interesting enough to mod-up, whatever. If he's merely a troll, then hopefully people will learn from this experience.
Exactly. Both are required for terrorism. Therefore, Bush and the US legislature are not "terrorists" because (1) does not apply to them. OK: I retract my statement somewhat: Premeditation of the process is required, as is taking advantage of the terror. I agree that people like BinLadin and Atta are obvious examples of terrorists, but I think we're mostly disagreeing on whether someone has to be obvious to be a terrorist. Many people work in the back paths of terror... It's not always that obvious.
IMHO, "obvious" is a subjective term which doesn't really apply to the core definition of terrorism. Our point of disagreement is whether a person must commit (or directly cause) a heinous crime in order to be considered a terrorist. To name both Bin Laden and Bush terrorists (w/ respect to 9/11) is to belittle the significant fact that Bin Laden directly caused 9/11.
It is my assertion that common use of the word "terrorist" includes commission (or direct cause) of the terror causing act, and is therefore not applicable to Bush and US legislators regarding 9/11.
America's enemies are very much of it's own making.
To some extent you are correct. Of course, there are legitimate reasons for countries to have arms (and, therefore, to sell arms to them). Arms are merely a tool used for good or evil. e.g. Training and supplying arms to Afghanistan to defend itself against unprovoked invasion by the USSR seems like a good thing.
America has certainly contributed to its own problems, but that does not absolve terrorists (using my definition) of their actions. Now to the extent that "we" may have provided illegal arms (chemical, biological, nuclear), those people who did so must be held accountable.
Terrorism, being perpetrated against the innocent, is unjust and must be opposed. Here I strongly disagree... Terrorism against "the innocent" must not be opposed. Terrorism must be opposed period. Terrorist always claim a just cause, no matter what side they're on.
The palistinians have real grievances against the Israelis.
The isralelis have real grieviences against the Palistinians
The Irish Catholics have real grieviences against the protestants...
Though the claims you listed are loosely valid, they involve groups of people and not specifically the responsible individuals. It is unjust to hold all Irish Catholics accountable for the actions of just a handful.
While terrorists may claim a "just cause," that does not make them right. I'm sure Hitler felt he was "just" in killing the Jews, but that did not make it "just". The war against terrorism is fundamentally a war of moral values between those that value innocent life and those that do not.
"Targetting innocents" is an important subtlety of what is commonly considered "terrorism", which I didn't want to get into since we are having enough difficulty agreeing on "commission," but consider: 1) The death penalty may be carried out against guilty people as a deterrent (to instill fear in other would-be e.g. mass-murderers), but this is not considered terrorism. 2) Targetting Al Qaeda is certainly meant to instill terror in its members (as well as other "terrorist" groups), but this is not considered "terrorism".
Although innocents might be killed in the attacks targetting "terrorists", these are generally considered "collateral damage," because: a) innocents were not the target, and b) steps are taken to minimize the loss of innocent life. This is, of course, somewhat subjective, since we are (sadly) weighing human life -- comparing with the loss of innocent lives that may occur by allowing the enemy to live.
It's easier to dismiss the innocent victims among the them. The death is more visceral if it occured among us.
Very true, which is why even attacks upon US embassies are relatively ignor
1) committing (intentionally causing) a heinous crime to induce terror, and 2) taking advantage of people's fear after the fact (even based upon a premeditated plan to do so), Both are a requirement for terrorism...
Exactly. Both are required for terrorism. Therefore, Bush and the US legislature are not "terrorists" because (1) does not apply to them.
Son of Sam, Ted Bundy, and the Green River Killer, for example, killed a good number of people, and caused terror while they were doing their killing, but it was not considered terrorism by most people.
I agree. I would only call these "terrorism" if they intended to cause terror in order to achieve their goals, which (AKAIK) was not the case.
The two DC snipers were, at most, borderline terrorists -- but if you accept that, then you would also have to accept that terrorism doesn't take many deaths -- just appropriate targeting...
I agree. I think it is fair to categorize them as terrorists... they fit the definition. I think whether they did it for monetary reasons or political reasons is irrelevant.
On the other hand, If they had been picking off legislators (or their family members) to induce (or prevent) passage of a piece of legislation, it would have been more properly classifiable as terrorism.
Hmmm... that is an interesting scenario. I would draw a subtle line between actually murdering the legislator (political assassination) and coercing legislators with terror (terrorism)... though these may overlap. In the former, the goal is not terror to coerce but rather the elimination of a legislator, which they directly achieve.
In that, I'm starting to confuse terrorism with racism. The two are related, but distinct. Terrorism depends to a small extent on Racism.. The reason why is that the group using terrorism has to know that they are immune from it's action -- whether it's race, religion, or whatever, there needs to be a (reasonably) clear dividing line that says 'you won't be next'.
In a broad sense, I'm not sure there is a necessary connection between Terrorism and Racism. Certainly, even within the same race there is and can be terrorism, but, I think more likely, race is a simple means by which to draw a line... as is religion (consider the Christian-Muslim terrorists).
Of course, terrorists don't want to kill those who support their cause, but it happens by the nature of their random violence. e.g. there have been Palestinians (and/or Israeli Arabs, Muslim and Jews alike) indiscriminately killed by terrorists in Israel. In many cases (e.g. Israel), one of the lines is also geographic: Palestinian terrorists do not intentionally bomb people in their own territories.
This dividing line doesn't so much get the support of a community as their acquiescence.. If you support the terrorists, you're safe. If you oppose the terrorists, then you become an honorary member of
them , and subject to similar treatment -- thus most people will just go quiet and hope to avoid attention. "Silence is assent" is a statement that became famous in the days of Cromwell.
That is often, unfortunately, true. e.g. innocent Palestinians have suffered because of the terrorism propagated in their name. It is both dangerous to oppose terrorism and to acquiesce to it. Hence, we must choose our side by Justice and not merely Peace. Terrorism, being perpetrated against the innocent, is unjust and must be opposed.
"They that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary security, deserve neither liberty, nor security."... applicable both to terrorism, as well as to aspects of the Patriot act.
Can you imagine the uproar if we were using racial profiling against blondes???? Christians???? Ex-Military with explosives training????? REPUBLICANS ?????
....merely taking advantage of people's fear is not commonly considered "terrorism"..... No. that's called 'fear-mongering' similar idea, but different order of magnitude. When I talk of Terrorism in the legislature, I mean that there were people who were all set up to take advantage of Sept. 11 Before it happened.
Your qualification thus seems to imply that you define 'terrorism' as 'fear-mongering' involving premeditation. Is this the case?
My point is that common usage of the word 'terrorism' signifies much more than this: 'Terrorists' achieve their goals by committing (or intentionally causing) heinous crimes in order to instill terror, they do not merely take advantage of people's fear, premeditated or not.
The focus is on the crimes resulting in terror. The crimes are why 'terrorism' is an emotionally charged word. The crimes are why the word 'terrorist' is applicable to a relatively small group of extremists rather than the much larger group that takes advantage of the resulting state of terror (again, premeditated or not).
Furthermore, if everyone decides to use the word 'terrorism' as you define it, then what word shall we use to convey my definition (that I argue is the current common usage)?
Hence, because the difference between: 1) committing (intentionally causing) a heinous crime to induce terror, and 2) taking advantage of people's fear after the fact (even based upon a premeditated plan to do so), is so great and because the common definition of 'terrorism' requires (1), I suggest that your use of 'terrorism' is uncommon and misleading.
While I can believe that there were people waiting for such a disaster in order to pass such legislation, I find it hard to believe that it had to be a Muslim-caused disaster (as you seem to imply)... most likely, it simply had to be a disaster of sufficient magnitude. There have been many attacks against the US by Muslim extremists which have not resulted in any significant US response.
It may seem comforting to know that law enforcement is focusing on Muslims today...
I take no comfort in anyone's mistreatment: Muslim or otherwise. I do in fact desire Liberty and Justice for all. Please understand that I share your paranoia regarding our precarious liberties and disgust at recent acts and legislation, I simply wish to judge everyone fairly.
But don't worry. It'll still be another year, or two, before they start doing
that.
"it's always going to be something with you, isn't it, Joe?" (from Joe Versus the Volcano: a humorous comment made to an eternal pessimist regarding a seemingly valid concern).:) Take care.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the good info. I just started looking into this field recently. Apparently, viruses are basically just protein coated DNA or RNA without any internal processes. i.e. they are not really "alive"; which probably explains your use of quotes around the word "kill". Of course, this begs the question of what a "weakened" virus is versus a "dead" virus?
It seems to me that the whole process of vaccination is statistical... i.e. how is it determined that all of the "viruses" in a vaccine are fragmented enough to prevent infection, yet still structured enough to trigger the proper corresponding immune response to the original viruses?
Furthermore, is it possible for the fragments to "randomly" combine or work synergistically enough to infect a cell and replicate a pathogen?
The fact that the egg allergens are not filtered suggests to me that the process might not be thorough in controlling the contents of a vaccine.
Hence, I would imagine that, statistically, there are people who actually do contract the flu due to a flu vaccine (and not simply brief flu-like symptoms).
I'd appreciate any insights and especially corrections if I am mistaken.
Even more strange is that it seems like the majority of the people I know who came down with "flu-like symptoms" actually received the flu shot.
Obviously, this is not scientific, but rather a personal observation which has made me curious.
However, I do understand and agree with your general point that E and M fields can exist in relative isolation and each affects charges slightly differently. Hence, it seems reasonable that there may be differences in their respective effects on the human body.Prior to lightning, there is a very strong E field. However, lightning itself (i.e. static discharge) is a very strong current (moving charges) due to an ionic breakdown of the air gap caused by the E field. I would suspect that a strong E field by itself (without a discharge current) has a significantly different effect on the human body.
I'm not sure if a lightning strike is comparable to an MRI, though you are obviously correct that their respective effects upon a human body are significantly different.What's the significance of noting the words "bound to be"? Does it imply some possibility of not being? I took "bound" to mean "certain".
Occam's Razor is simply a heuristic tool. When applied to creating effective theories, it states that unnecessary complexity should be eliminated. But without empirical evidence, how are we to determine what is unnecessary?
All I am suggesting is that empirical evidence is required before reaching a conclusion about the independence of the various effects (and mechanisms) of E, M, or EM on the human body.I'm not exactly sure what "connection" you are referring to.
However, sunburn does seem to be a good example of a common effect of all EM: EM moves charges (transforming into kinetic energy), therein causing the human body to "heat" as it absorbs the energy. Taken to an extreme (in amplitude, frequency, duration, etc.), damage will be caused.
Of course, heating is a generic effect. Considering the complex electro-chemical processes which occur in the human body, it seems possible that even minor non-random EM could interfere with some of those processes.
I'm not sure how much of this thread is intended for humor or trolling, but... you seem to imply that Electric fields are independent from Magnetic fields, which is incorrect.
Electric fields are intimately related to Magnetic fields: a changing electric field creates a magnetic field. In other words, Magnetic fields are produced by charges in motion.
Hence, an "alternating electric field" would create an alternating magnetic field... which might explain the "M" in EMF (depending upon your intended expansion of the acronym).
Of course, analyzing the effects of EM on humans requires consideration of its structure (amplitude, frequency, duration, etc.), so the fact that one is "strong" and "brief", while the other is "weak" and "continuous" is (empirically) a reasonable basis upon which to hypothesize that the human effects of one might not apply to the other.
As for the potential "mechanisms involved" in any "adverse biological effects", without empirical evidence, it cannot simply be deduced that they are "bound to be entirely different". In fact, both being EM in nature, it seems reasonable to hypothesize that they will share at least some effects on the human body (though to varying degrees dictated by their individual EM structures).
Granted, the biggest use in my eyes would be the transparent per-file decompression (ro... like zisofs) and the transparent compression may best be left to allow for incremental creation of the archive, but I suspect there may be other uses for such a system... perhaps in the embedded market?
Actually, Java (jar) and OpenOffice xml formats (being zip files) already use transparent add / update / delete... particularly OpenOffice where the document is often modified.
Also note that, with a vfs, you could still mount a zip file ro, protecting your data from any accidental modification.
I haven't used XP's "seamless" zip file access either because (I think) it is solely an implementation of the explorer file manager, which I don't particularly care for (I grew up with NC)... I feel similarly about the linux "clones" of explorer, though they may have more luring features.
However, I have used Total Commander to dynamically extract / update / add / remove files from zip archives, which I found quite useful.
In conclusion
Your right... it's a size (7z) vs. flexibility / speed (zip) issue. e.g. For larger archives where you don't expect to always extract all of the contents, zip may be more useful at the expense of size. Along a similar vein, I've often wished that Windows supported a standard transparently un/compressed filesystem usable with CDs. I know Linux supports this ro, but I think only proprietary / non-standard systems exist for Windows.
... I'm not proficient in any archive format, so please forgive my naivety if dictionaries are already shared.
Your comment also made me wonder if it would be advantageous to have a hybrid archive format which maintains individually compressed files using an extensible archive-global dictionary... i.e. is most of the compression improvement of "solid" archives due to the runlength crossing of file boundaries or is the bulk of compression improvement due to the ability to share a dictionary across files?
I agree with your comments. I often prefer the flexibility offered by zip over higher compression ratios offered by other formats. I recoil a bit when I read of people archiving their entire filesystem to a single tar.gz/bz2 file... great compression at the expense of future flexibility in extracting that data.
... or, perhaps ideally, a loadable kernel vfs which can mount zips read/write (plus metadata)?
I didn't know that zip (WinZip? PkZip? which?) could save arbitrary file metadata... in my mind, it is huge that the zip format supports this. Do you (or anyone) know if there is a Linux zip program that integrally saves per-file metadata (as opposed to having to save it separately)?
As the poster implied, extracting, adding, and removing individual files from a .tar.gz/bz2 archive is significantly slower than with a .zip archive (particularly as the archive becomes larger).
.zip file read/write, providing dynamic compression... I'd actually like to see that in linux (as a pluggable kernel filesystem, accessible from the command line)... I know mc provides something like this with its own pluggable vfs, but its use is thus limited to mc.
.tar.gz/bz2 has going for it is that it is a *nix standard and has higher compression.
Theoretically, with the right vfs interface, you could mount a
The main thing
Basically, the trade-off is size (tar.gz/bz2) vs. flexibility/speed (zip).
The Bible is not the easiest document to interpret, and even scholars often make mistakes in doing so. Translation is difficult enough without the added difficulty of inherent lack of punctuation in original texts. e.g. consider a letter in the New Testament as a basic (though entirely unformatted) slashdot reply, not knowing what is a quote and what is a comment, or where sarcasm begins or ends, or exactly who in the multitude is being addressed.
In fact, the Bible appears to be contradictory in many cases unless you allow for contextual possibilities. Hence, the extent of Jesus' pacifist nature is debatable when considered in context with the rest of the Bible.
I would suggest to you that "resisting evil" is as much a fundamental tenet of Christianity as is compassion and forgiveness (which is ostensibly one of the sources of Christian "pacifism")... in fact, they are largely orthogonal issues (one can both "resist evil" and be compassionate and forgiving).
e.g. Did Jesus turn the other cheek? Jesus' physical eviction of the non-violent "money-changers" is perhaps the most obvious example of Jesus himself not even tolerating "evil" in the presence of the temple.
Of course, pacifism (the peaceful resolution of disputes) is a very noble goal, with which, I suspect, Jesus would agree. However, the "ultimate" pacifist seems to be commonly defined as "one who will never use physical force to resolve a dispute", with which, I suspect, Jesus would not agree.
Hence, the pertinent question is, at what point in a conflict should attempts at peaceful resolution be abandoned for the sake of morality and justice?
The intended interpretation of the word "fear" in "God-fearing" is rather antiquated compared to common modern usage. Look up the word "fear" in the dictionary... it is perhaps better translated "respect":
3. Extreme reverence or awe, as toward a supreme power.
I agree with you entirely. Recently, however, I've been using 7-zip which is an excellent open-source alternative.
I suspect open-source is the real competitor / threat to shareware (and all commercial software for that matter) and not piracy, since open-source provides huge advantages to the user. It's interesting to note that the 7-zip people are offering various tiers of technical support to make money.
Waning are the Microsoftian days where a fixed-time programming effort can reap fairly unbound profit (cf. Bill Gates). With the ubiquity of general software and programmers (and perhaps the public's emerging realization of zero cost duplication and the intent and nature of copyrights), programming is becoming more of a service.
This is probably best for humanity in the long run, though an obvious hinderence to (particularly lone) programmers in their attempts to become independently wealthy by starting their own software companies based upon their own ideas.
Very cool, thanks for the info... I was looking into this a while ago, but never found the info you describe... guess I should have searched the RFCs. :)
Now if only there was a bit more ubiquitous and complete support for inlining resources (transparent insertion, extraction, loading, saving, etc.), it would be much more useful... e.g. though I can view your Data url, I can't save pages in that format (or even properly view an mhtml formatted file, last I checked) in Opera.
If their client was GPL,... So IMHO this is in no way a copyright violation, and KAZAA is completely wrong to even attempt this.
... I don't think it is even open-source. A quick google for 'kazaa license' turned up this which might be the license.
If your assumption were correct, your argument would make sense, but who said Kazaa was GPL'd?
HAL, D-BUS, and udev seem really neat, but they also seem like they are core improvements that belong at a lower level than GNOME (being a graphical desktop environment)... i.e. maybe not quite in the kernel, but right above it... does anyone know if they are being developed generically so that they may easily be used at the console (non-X) level, independent of which graphical environment is being used?
It worries me that so many fundamental systems are implemented in each graphical environment independently... IIRC, this extends to simple things like vfs, trash, cut/paste, etc.
I am very much a linux newbie, so I'd appreciate any insight. Are my concerns unfounded?
First, it seems ridiculous to start with the assumption that "Killing is wrong," when that is exactly what is being debated... i.e. that perhaps there are cases where "killing is right"; where "right" is defined as "proper moral conduct".
Second, logically, it appears you are using "wrong" as the baseline for everyone, in which no one can be "right". Previously, you have named the following options both "wrong", though to varying degrees:
1) To kill the murderer (assuming subduing is not an option), OR
2) To (by inaction) allow the murderer to continue killing.
You have previously said that (1) is "less wrong" (the lesser of two evils), therefore, everyone else who does nothing is "more wrong". Hence, in this case, according to you, the moral spectrum of choices extends from "wrong" to "more wrong". I would argue that to be "wrong" in any situation requires the possibility of being "right". i.e. In any situation, "the least wrong thing to do" defines "the right thing to do".
Because of your implicit opinion that there is no "right" course of action in this case, I would suggest that you are actually trying to make a comment on the situation (created by the original murderer) rather than on proper moral conduct (what is "right") in response to the situation.
Note that by its very nature, being moral is dictated by your choices. If others (e.g. murderers) have the power to make you immoral (having no options, except "wrong", immoral ones), then morality ("right" and "wrong") loses all meaning.
Also, the original poster's comment that "Two Wrongs Can Make A Right" may be a bit misleading because he was actually arguing that the second "wrong" isn't really wrong, but is rather justified ("right" / proper moral action) in response to the first "wrong".
Excellent! I agree. :) ... have I given any indication that I believe differently? Please correct me in any particular case where you think I am wrong -- at the very least so that we can reason and analyze the details of the specific case together rather than waxing philosophical about subjectivity.
Now on to the rest of your post. While I somewhat agree with the broad examples you provided, I do not think the determination of justice in each situation is as simple and obvious as you seem to imply. My following intent is to point out factors which should be considered in the determination of justice in some of the cases you cite.
Please NOTE: I am NOT saying that the US (or, rather, whoever was in charge) was justified, since I don't know enough details to make that judgement (if you know enough details to make that judgement, I'd be happy to learn them)... I am simply trying to illustrate some key variables in determining justice which are not so clear-cut in the cases you describe. For some of the subjects, you can find more detailed reasoning in my previous posts to you:
In your opinion, is it possible to justify the loss of innocent life (commonly known as collateral damage) in a legitimate attempt to stop a mass murderer?
I agree very much that these are at the very least idiotic and at the very most evil and unjust (e.g. WMD), dependent upon all the details. Of course, even in some of these cases, there are complex variables which must be considered when determining justice:
- Sovereignty: Intervening militarily on a national scale is very complex and a dangerous precedent to set (after all, we could be wrong). Undeniably, it must be done in certain cases where sufficient evidence is known, but even then it is a difficult decision (particularly regarding conflicts internal to a foreign country). i.e.:
Essentially, when are we justified to impose our will upon another sovereign country?
Is it better for the citizens of a foreign country to live under oppression in "relative" peace than to incite or enact war? (cf. Vietnam)
How can we be sure that the result of our efforts will be better than the current state? (cf. Vietnam)
Is it just to risk our children (18-20s) for this goal? Perhaps a better (or at least safer) course of action exists that may also help?
Different people measure these variables differently and there are good arguments on either side, which makes determining justice very difficult. Hence, even in cases where the proper moral position is clear, the best course of action may be unclear.
Furthermore, oftentimes it is best to allow people to handle their own problems... it helps them appreciate their own solutions more. e.g. I am still concerned about imposing a republic / democracy upon Iraq and Afghanistan because they did not (as a nation) successfully demand it or fight for it with their lives... i.e. their culture might not be adapted to support democracy very well... In fact I'm becoming more and more concerned about the US's own culture not supporting democracy and its associated freedoms very well.
Hence, while I believe democracy would serve them better, that should be for them to decide... this is how democracy bootstraps itself. Of course, something m
Or from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition, Terrorism is:
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
As I have explained many times previously, it is from the implications of similar popular (and proper) definitions of terrorism by which I derive my particular definition of terrorism.I really don't understand where you are going with this... either that, or I refuse to accept your implication that it is irrelevant who's right and who's wrong. You seem to be implying time and again that it is irrelevant for us to make a moral judgement... e.g. to state that it is wrong to murder innocent people. By what do you measure justice, if not by your own morals?Who are you addressing? Who thinks that? Who are you quoting "it's just a necessary evil"? Are you addressing a terrorist? If so, why? Also, as I have discussed ad nauseum, acts of violence or even killing people does not a terrorist make... again, consider WW2.Maybe in some people's minds, but I certainly hope that is not actually the case. The freedom fighters' focus is on their own freedom -- they do not intend to murder innocents. The terrorists' focus is on terror to achieve their ends (possibly some sort of freedom), often by the intentional murder (or threat of murder) of innocents.
Most of your comments seem to be of the flavor "it is all subjective." Ah, but such is the nature of human existence. Meaning comes from what we share in common. I suspect we mostly share a common sense of justice, but with so much of your equivocating, it is hard to tell for sure.
Unfortunately, I can only assess our discussion as not advancing in any meaningful way, since I see you repeating yourself and I find me repeating myself. Fundamentally, we are not communicating, and for that, I am sad.
How are you interpreting this definition not to include commission of the act that causes terror? Even in the simple definition you provided, a terrorist causes the terror (look up "terrorize")... they do not merely take advantage of it.
You are correct that the popular use of the term "terrorism" may have a slightly greater connotation than it used to (was that a quote from Thomas Jefferson?), namely as a result of specific acts of terrorism in our time. In addition, (perhaps unfortunately in some cases) popular usage becomes proper usage... if everyone is using a term in one fashion, it becomes confusing to use it in another.
Keep in mind that our overriding goal is effective communication and, as you point out, it is dangerous to mix definitions of terrorism -- in this case, mixing them such that we may equate the acts of Osama and the US legislature regarding 9/11.
Furthermore, by your definition (as far as I can gather), it seems that even reasonable acts can be considered terrorism (see my previous posts, mentioning sales of survival equipment in the year 1999 and the thin line between accounting for rational risk and irrational fear). Considering that most of the world seems to agree that terrorism is a "very bad thing" (as, I believe, even you have stated), how can we attribute "terrorism" to more reasonable acts which also fit your definition?
While we may debate that parts of my definition might not be universally accepted or applied to particular cases, I believe the assertion that "a terrorist causes terror" is universally accepted. Beyond that, I suspect most people would also agree that the means of causing the terror must be significant immoral and unlawful acts... i.e. simply scaring people is generally not enough. Furthermore, scaring criminals is not generally considered terrorism, which thus implies that the targets are relatively innocent... at least, this is some of the reasoning I go through in considering the meaning of "terrorism."
You are right; that is exactly the problem. In fact, there are those (including Ashcroft) who are trying to achieve the same thing through the Patriot Act: labeling people "terrorists" so that they may invoke special powers and influence the public's perception. Intentional misuse of words is the cornerstone of deception, propaganda, and brainwashing. As a mild though obvious example which comes to mind, consider Clinton's bending of the word "sex" or the word "is" to intentionally achieve false perceptions.
How are you "well within the official definition" if you are ignoring who is causing the terror? Your eyes may be open to what you are doing, but I suspect your audience is being led astray, as I was upon first reading your original post.
Of course Osama fits my definition. To organize, direct, and otherwise intentionally cause a crime is tantamount to committing the crime.
By the definition I have provided, 'terrorism' cannot be justified, because it requires a willful violation of the innocent (which is basically the definition of injustice); so it is illogical to say that "the terror of one side justifies the terror of the other," because, by definition, neither can be justified.
Understand that what we are fundamentally discussing is justice. Judgements of justice are the basis of every legal system and every moral code. One fundamental tenet is that justice is determined by each individual's actions. e.g. Attributing the actions of a few Arabs to all Arabs is obviously unjust. Hence, discussing the justice of groups is inherently complex and flawed, because, ultimately, justice must be determined on an individual level.
e.g. Hatred may exist on both sides of the Israel-Palestinian conflict as a result of some valid complaints, but justice can only be determined by addressing each case individually, not by declaring a wash of the whole conflict or declaring each side equivalent.
You are correct that there can be a psychological and sociological tendency toward self-justification. However, that is not always the case; sometimes violent actions really are justified. To assume either case without evidence is a mistake.
I agree that there are people who try to justify terrorism. However, they are wrong to do so... as I have explained previously. i.e. Simply believing or feeling "justified" in your actions, does not make them just... nor does the fact that "both sides believe they are justified" make it irrelevant to consider the justice of a situation.
True in the sense that the more time and added conflict that goes by, the more difficult it is to analyze the facts of each situation. The original source of the dispute is not irrelevant as long as there are means to achieve justice (e.g. there is sufficient evidence and corrective options).
Each of your assertions seem flawed, but please allow me to apply your comments to Afghanistan rather than Iraq since Iraq is a significantly more complex case.
To simply "hate the US" is irrelevant toward considering justice.
The US "invasion" was in search of justice (and prevention) against a select group which was being harbored by the government, it was not against the people of Afghanistan at large.
The US soldiers are by definition not civilians and it is debatable whether they are individually innocent.
Most US citizens who lost family in Afghanistan do not blame all Afghans... just the terrorists and their supporters, which they generally feel is a just cause. I would hope most Afghans feel the same way.
Possibly, but not necessarily... depend
Though, honestly, I don't really care if "Linus Torvald (739359)" is karma whoring: If the post is pertinent and people have not seen it before and they honestly find it interesting enough to mod-up, whatever. If he's merely a troll, then hopefully people will learn from this experience.
IMHO, "obvious" is a subjective term which doesn't really apply to the core definition of terrorism. Our point of disagreement is whether a person must commit (or directly cause) a heinous crime in order to be considered a terrorist. To name both Bin Laden and Bush terrorists (w/ respect to 9/11) is to belittle the significant fact that Bin Laden directly caused 9/11.
It is my assertion that common use of the word "terrorist" includes commission (or direct cause) of the terror causing act, and is therefore not applicable to Bush and US legislators regarding 9/11.
To some extent you are correct. Of course, there are legitimate reasons for countries to have arms (and, therefore, to sell arms to them). Arms are merely a tool used for good or evil. e.g. Training and supplying arms to Afghanistan to defend itself against unprovoked invasion by the USSR seems like a good thing.
America has certainly contributed to its own problems, but that does not absolve terrorists (using my definition) of their actions. Now to the extent that "we" may have provided illegal arms (chemical, biological, nuclear), those people who did so must be held accountable.
Though the claims you listed are loosely valid, they involve groups of people and not specifically the responsible individuals. It is unjust to hold all Irish Catholics accountable for the actions of just a handful.
While terrorists may claim a "just cause," that does not make them right. I'm sure Hitler felt he was "just" in killing the Jews, but that did not make it "just". The war against terrorism is fundamentally a war of moral values between those that value innocent life and those that do not.
"Targetting innocents" is an important subtlety of what is commonly considered "terrorism", which I didn't want to get into since we are having enough difficulty agreeing on "commission," but consider:
1) The death penalty may be carried out against guilty people as a deterrent (to instill fear in other would-be e.g. mass-murderers), but this is not considered terrorism.
2) Targetting Al Qaeda is certainly meant to instill terror in its members (as well as other "terrorist" groups), but this is not considered "terrorism".
Although innocents might be killed in the attacks targetting "terrorists", these are generally considered "collateral damage," because:
a) innocents were not the target, and
b) steps are taken to minimize the loss of innocent life. This is, of course, somewhat subjective, since we are (sadly) weighing human life -- comparing with the loss of innocent lives that may occur by allowing the enemy to live.
Very true, which is why even attacks upon US embassies are relatively ignor
Exactly. Both are required for terrorism. Therefore, Bush and the US legislature are not "terrorists" because (1) does not apply to them.
I agree. I would only call these "terrorism" if they intended to cause terror in order to achieve their goals, which (AKAIK) was not the case.
I agree. I think it is fair to categorize them as terrorists... they fit the definition. I think whether they did it for monetary reasons or political reasons is irrelevant.
Hmmm... that is an interesting scenario. I would draw a subtle line between actually murdering the legislator (political assassination) and coercing legislators with terror (terrorism)... though these may overlap. In the former, the goal is not terror to coerce but rather the elimination of a legislator, which they directly achieve.
In a broad sense, I'm not sure there is a necessary connection between Terrorism and Racism. Certainly, even within the same race there is and can be terrorism, but, I think more likely, race is a simple means by which to draw a line... as is religion (consider the Christian-Muslim terrorists).
Of course, terrorists don't want to kill those who support their cause, but it happens by the nature of their random violence. e.g. there have been Palestinians (and/or Israeli Arabs, Muslim and Jews alike) indiscriminately killed by terrorists in Israel. In many cases (e.g. Israel), one of the lines is also geographic: Palestinian terrorists do not intentionally bomb people in their own territories.
That is often, unfortunately, true. e.g. innocent Palestinians have suffered because of the terrorism propagated in their name. It is both dangerous to oppose terrorism and to acquiesce to it. Hence, we must choose our side by Justice and not merely Peace. Terrorism, being perpetrated against the innocent, is unjust and must be opposed.
"They that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary security, deserve neither liberty, nor security."... applicable both to terrorism, as well as to aspects of the Patriot act.
True... though pro
My point is that common usage of the word 'terrorism' signifies much more than this: 'Terrorists' achieve their goals by committing (or intentionally causing) heinous crimes in order to instill terror, they do not merely take advantage of people's fear, premeditated or not.
The focus is on the crimes resulting in terror. The crimes are why 'terrorism' is an emotionally charged word. The crimes are why the word 'terrorist' is applicable to a relatively small group of extremists rather than the much larger group that takes advantage of the resulting state of terror (again, premeditated or not).
Furthermore, if everyone decides to use the word 'terrorism' as you define it, then what word shall we use to convey my definition (that I argue is the current common usage)?
Hence, because the difference between:
1) committing (intentionally causing) a heinous crime to induce terror, and
2) taking advantage of people's fear after the fact (even based upon a premeditated plan to do so),
is so great and because the common definition of 'terrorism' requires (1), I suggest that your use of 'terrorism' is uncommon and misleading.
While I can believe that there were people waiting for such a disaster in order to pass such legislation, I find it hard to believe that it had to be a Muslim-caused disaster (as you seem to imply)... most likely, it simply had to be a disaster of sufficient magnitude. There have been many attacks against the US by Muslim extremists which have not resulted in any significant US response.
I take no comfort in anyone's mistreatment: Muslim or otherwise. I do in fact desire Liberty and Justice for all. Please understand that I share your paranoia regarding our precarious liberties and disgust at recent acts and legislation, I simply wish to judge everyone fairly.
"it's always going to be something with you, isn't it, Joe?" (from Joe Versus the Volcano: a humorous comment made to an eternal pessimist regarding a seemingly valid concern).