9/11 victims deserved their fate

[laurentius]

In Rome we speak latin

[Atahualpa]

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

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

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by MarkG
we are discussing an essay of university professor (!) that contains the following phrase

Gimme a break

'nough said.

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

[Spiffor]

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

More simply:

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

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

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

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

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Apparently not, or the Yanks would have leveled Baghdad long before now and saved themselves the trouble.

That seems to be the Russian way.

Uhm, Fallujah?

[DinoDoc]

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

[chequita guevara]

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

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

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

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

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

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Still exists.

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

[DinoDoc]

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

[Gibsie]

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

[Spiffor]

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

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

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
As for what he wrote, it has some merit. Most of the people in the WTC were not completely innocent, but rather engaged in global trade,

LOTM - which arguably is a good thing, responsible for REDUCING deaths in the third world. In any case, I imagine all those in the WTC thoughts so.


which is what drives the U.S. to do things like bomb and starve Iraq (and while Winston might object that it was the U.N. that imposed the sanctions, by the late 90s, it was the certainty of a U.S. veto that kept them from being dismantled)

LOTM - oddly, france, russia and china all engage in world trade, yet they were the ones calling for relaxation in sanctions. In any case, there was a moral and legal case for sanctions, equating them to nazism is absurd.


, overthrow Central American democracies


LOTM - which also engaged in world trade.

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

LOTM - quite disputable.

They may not be the one's pulling the trigger, but they are th ones for whom the trigger is pulled and they are the ones who manipulate the market so that the weak perish.


LOTM - pure BS, as a matter of fact.

If it's okay for the U.S. to kill innocents to get a few bad guys, why isn't it okay for terrorists to do the same?

LOTM - AQ was attempting to kill as many civilians as possible. And even folks who are "economic cogs" are still civilians under international law. You cant deliberatedly kill them.


There are plenty here who argue it's fine for the U.S. to slaughter whomever happens to be in the way, in order to get a few bad guys. I argue that both sides are wrong. Both murder the innocent to achieve their aims.

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

[Atahualpa]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[chequita guevara]

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

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

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

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor


I am only very remotely connected to WTC victims. My only connection is that I worked in an aerial insurance company in Paris, .

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