Heavy terr act in Madrid

[DinoDoc]

If I could be bothered to take them seriously, I might be arsed to put forth some effort. As it is they are good for a laugh. I put you in the same boat with Pax and the Terrorist or Freedom Fighter? thread.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Do you buy things? If you buy anything, you're capitalist.

Giancarlo's arguments, sharp like razor blades, as usual.

[DinoDoc]

Any news on the investigation?

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Terrorists groups have MOs, and this doesn't fit ETA and does fit AQ. ETA denied responsibility, AQ seems to be claiming it.

You keep saying this, but it doesn't make it true.

This FITS the ETA MO and DOES NOT FIT A-Q.

ETA has been trying to bomb the train stations for months.

ETA has killed >800 people in Spain.

A-Q uses suicide bombers. This attack did not.

A-Q has never attacked Spain.

The whole "scope of the attack" line of reasoning is illogical. If you used it in mid-September, you would be forced to conclude that A-Q was not responsible for the WTC bombing, due to the scope of the attack. 10x greater than past atttacks - just as this is 10x greater than past ETA attacks.

One person in the political arm of the ETA denied responsiblility = means very little.

One person sent an e-mail in London = means nothing.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In a democracy, people get the government they deserve. People are repsonsible for the actions of their government either directly, but voting it in, or indirectly, allowing it to do bad things. If the Spanish peoples really opposed the war, they should have had a general strike to bring down the government.

That's the thinking anyway. I don't buy it.

Originally posted by BeBro
But you just assume that the voters willingly supported what you call terrorism by voting for Bush. In reality there might be a number of reasons leading someone to vote in a certain way.

These are valid objections. My first post was only an outline, and did contain several sub-points that weren't terribly developed.

The first thing is that we must keep in mind that terrorism is wrong.

To answer, BeBro, I did specify that the relation is statistical: not everyone supports Bush, but statistically some of those who died, did. From this, there is a necessity that some victims did indeed share a part of the responsibility, and others didn't. They weren't considered in Al-Qaeda's calculations, and so was the Afghani people in Bush's calculation.

Chegitz: your point is valid, and this is why I mentioned in an earlier post that in the case of Spain, Aznar would (supposing it was Al-Qaeda, and supposing plenty of other things about the immorality of the war in Iraq) really the one with the responsibility, and not the people. On another level, if you look solely at the victim's mind, we might see a situation where people are 'randomly responsible'- i.e., not factually by their political behavior, but rather by their agreement, spoken or not.

This is obviously not sufficient to explain and/or justify terrorism, but it's necessary to make the adjustment so that my point is not misinterpreted.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


You keep saying this, but it doesn't make it true.

This FITS the ETA MO and DOES NOT FIT A-Q.

ETA has been trying to bomb the train stations for months.

ETA has killed >800 people in Spain.

A-Q uses suicide bombers. This attack did not.

A-Q has never attacked Spain.

The whole "scope of the attack" line of reasoning is illogical. If you used it in mid-September, you would be forced to conclude that A-Q was not responsible for the WTC bombing, due to the scope of the attack. 10x greater than past atttacks - just as this is 10x greater than past ETA attacks.

One person in the political arm of the ETA denied responsiblility = means very little.

One person sent an e-mail in London = means nothing.

Ditto

For all we know one of the nuts on this forum sent that email.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
If I could be bothered to take them seriously, I might be arsed to put forth some effort. As it is they are good for a laugh. I put you in the same boat with Pax and the Terrorist or Freedom Fighter? thread.

The problem with your statements, is that they are based on sentiments of morality, which, BTW, I totally share with you. Which means that the total subjectivity of sentiments cannot be a basis for any kind of moral discussion: if it was, then anyone who wouldn't share the sentiment would become also morally right.

Since you don't seem to like philosophical speculation, I will bother you anyway with another example: what would someone with every human characteristic except compassion say about the bombing?

What I am trying to do, is to find some rationales that can validly discuss of the topic at hand, without the 'OH g0d th3y di3d you fvcking moron' bull****.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
. They weren't considered in Al-Qaeda's calculations, and so was the Afghani people in Bush's calculation.

.

except the afghani people WERE considered in US calculations.

In fact the war against the Taliban was largely conducted by the Afghani people, with only air support from the US.

as far as al qaeeda calculations, there is no evidence that they made any, other than to kill as many people as possible. In fact there is a substantial school of thought that one reason they wanted to kill as many people as possible, was to PROVOKE a US invasion of afghanistan - so by your reasoning Al Qaeeda is responsible for deaths to US bombing - and would be so EVEN if those deaths were deliberate.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


The problem with your statements, is that they are based on sentiments of morality, which, BTW, I totally share with you. Which means that the total subjectivity of sentiments cannot be a basis for any kind of moral discussion: if it was, then anyone who wouldn't share the sentiment would become also morally right.

Since you don't seem to like philosophical speculation, I will bother you anyway with another example: what would someone with every human characteristic except compassion say about the bombing?

What I am trying to do, is to find some rationales that can validly discuss of the topic at hand, without the 'OH g0d th3y di3d you fvcking moron' bull****.

In fact Oh god they died is the appropriate human response. Even philosophy students have the right to an appropriate human response, at a moment like this. There is a time for philosophical speculation, and a time for other responses.

It is also presumptious of you to assume that every moral position other than your own is simply 'sentiment'
And similarly presumptius to expect everyone with moral position other than your own to explain it in philisophical terms, at this moment.

Heres a what if for you - what if philosophy still meant "love of wisdom" and not analysis without purpose?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


You keep saying this, but it doesn't make it true.

This FITS the ETA MO and DOES NOT FIT A-Q.

ETA has been trying to bomb the train stations for months.

ETA has killed >800 people in Spain.

A-Q uses suicide bombers. This attack did not.

A-Q has never attacked Spain.

The whole "scope of the attack" line of reasoning is illogical. If you used it in mid-September, you would be forced to conclude that A-Q was not responsible for the WTC bombing, due to the scope of the attack. 10x greater than past atttacks - just as this is 10x greater than past ETA attacks.

One person in the political arm of the ETA denied responsiblility = means very little.

One person sent an e-mail in London = means nothing.

it doesnt quite fit either MO and it fits both.

AQ hadnt attacked on a 9/11 scale before 9/11, but they had made large scale attacks by the standards of the time, more so than most anyone else.

This fits AQ better in both scale, and in the use of a coordinated attack. If, as some speculate, the intent was to have simultaneous explosions on all trains to bring down the roof of Atocha station, killing hundreds more, it fits AQ better. OTOH ETA had apparently been shifting from killing individuals to killing large numbers of civilians.

The bombers were not suicide bombers, apparently. This fits ETA better. But its also the case that AQ affiliated groups in Pakistan have performed non-suicidal operations, IIUC. And of course the AQ affiliated Taliban routinely engage in shoot and run mortar attacks. Non-suicidal doesnt prove its not AQ, any more the fact that it was mass attack rather than an assasination proves that it wasnt ETA.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
except the afghani people WERE considered in US calculations.

No they weren't. The U.S. engaged in a campaign that was expected to lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of refugees from starvation. Only the unexpected collapse o the Taliban and the unusually mild winter prevented this from happening. We, and the Afganis, go lucky. Even the Pentagon was surprised.

Furthermore, while the US didn't engage in indiscriminate bombing, it still drpped bombs in civilian areas knowing full well that bombs miss (even smart bombs) and had no qualms about killing civilians if there were Taleban around.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No they weren't. The U.S. engaged in a campaign that was expected to lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of refugees from starvation. Only the unexpected collapse o the Taliban and the unusually mild winter prevented this from happening. We, and the Afganis, go lucky. Even the Pentagon was surprised.

Furthermore, while the US didn't engage in indiscriminate bombing, it still drpped bombs in civilian areas knowing full well that bombs miss (even smart bombs) and had no qualms about killing civilians if there were Taleban around.

The Afghans were also lucky when it started to rain once again in their country after so many droughts.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
except the afghani people WERE considered in US calculations.

Maybe, but only in calculations. Truth is that promised humanitarian help never came, that the US willingly obstructed NGOs from operating. Don't tell me the richest and most powerful country in the world can't afford tents and food for refugees.

In fact the war against the Taliban was largely conducted by the Afghani people, with only air support from the US.

The Taliban had and still has popular support. Karzai would be dead in a day if the coalition left Kabul.

as far as al qaeeda calculations, there is no evidence that they made any, other than to kill as many people as possible. In fact there is a substantial school of thought that one reason they wanted to kill as many people as possible, was to PROVOKE a US invasion of afghanistan - so by your reasoning Al Qaeeda is responsible for deaths to US bombing - and would be so EVEN if those deaths were deliberate.

I guess they wanted to hurt America, period. Its people, its economy, its politicians.

As for Al-Qaeda's responsibility, it's more complex than this. Political forces rise from historical conditions that are everyone's partial responsibility. If both Al-Qaeda and America are wrong, then both are morally blamable. To assume that Al-Qaeda is solely responsible for Afghani deaths, means you have to prove they started it ALL- from the ground up, which is obviously not the case, given America's highly non-isolationist policies since WW2. I won't and can't go back to the Ottoman's 1563 policies to determine who is really 'responsible' for today's political climate.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
In fact Oh god they died is the appropriate human response. Even philosophy students have the right to an appropriate human response, at a moment like this. There is a time for philosophical speculation, and a time for other responses.

If it's not valid to speculate about terrorism right when it is becoming an important issue for humanity, when will it be?

Besides, I don't feel like sentiments ( ) concerning global issues like this are worth sharing outside of your close friends and family. They are predictable and do nothing to contribute to the debate. I could engage in some post-Marxist drivel to debate that actually sentiments are being overexploited by the media in order to 'naturalize' society, but I will spare you.

It is also presumptious of you to assume that every moral position other than your own is simply 'sentiment'
And similarly presumptius to expect everyone with moral position other than your own to explain it in philisophical terms, at this moment.

I have some very serious reasons to believe that his own position is sentiment- first he refused to engage into any sort of logical refutation, and then he claimed that I was 'idiot' because I was saying that people who died had it coming, disregarding the fact that I spent like 5 posts establishing the difference between morality and causality.

Heres a what if for you - what if philosophy still meant "love of wisdom" and not analysis without purpose?

Nice quirp, bit invalid. The 'love for wisdom' became a real discipline when it was understood that rational thinking is the closest thing to wisdom we can get.

[Kuciwalker]

your "scale" is moronic. You can't compare moral responsibility with some other form of responsibility. The terrorists have COMPLETE moral responsibility and the victims have NONE.