9/11 victims deserved their fate

[Atahualpa]

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

As an individual and before a court: absolutely innocent!!
As a member of the US society, however they support the actions of the society and such were "chosen" to be targets for a retaliation attack for failures in the society's foreign policy.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
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.

While you say this inm jest, it does raise an interesting question. It is true that we are all cogs in the machine. A colleague of mine precisely mused in that way after Sept. 11, saying that she too contributed to "the systen".

The question is where we draw the line between non-fighters that are kill-worthy cogs, and non-fighters that aren't. A man who builds a car-bomb is kill-worhty. But is the average joe at McDonnell-Douglas' as well? Is the suitcase guy that keeps money coming to the armament companies a fair target? Is the Hamas' fundraiser one?
It's not obvious to draw a line, especially when the line has an either/or consequence (life or death). Some like The Vagabond or Atahualpa are maximalists. Some like me aren't But where to draw a line is not easy at all.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
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.

I doubt they thought so. I doubt they gave a **** about anything other than making money. I've met few traders with what normal people call a conscioence. These are people who argue against government regulation, because it gets in the way of their profit, knowing full well those regulations are there to keep them from killing people with their pollution or faulty products. These are the people who pick up the phone to ask various governments to remove indigenous people so a pipeline can go through their tradiational lands or so a resort can be built there. These are the people fighting to enforce intellectual property rights so that 3rd world governments have to pay vastly more than the $250 a year per person that an AIDS treatement program would cost otherwise.

In any case, there was a moral and legal case for sanctions, equating them to nazism is absurd.

I'm not equating it to Naziism. I said there was some merit in Churhill's essay. Not that it was completely correct. I also pointed out the man is an ******* and a hypocrite. I see you chose to ignore that completely.

overthrow Central American democracies

LOTM - which also engaged in world trade.

I'm sure the 100,000 Guatemalans who were slaughtered for your right to cheap bananas are mollified by that.

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.

Only by the ignorant or the obfuscatory.

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.

Not in the least, as I have shown.

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.

I don't dispute that. What I am saying is that we're quite reckless when it comes to civilians, despite advances in targetting. Sure, we don't bomb whole cities full of civilians anymore, but if we level a block to get at the Iraqi dictator, then who cares if we killed several dozen people. It's the same evil logic that allows people to justify the slaughter of Palestinians, and perpetuates an endless bloodfest.

[Atahualpa]

Some like The Vagabond or Atahualpa are maximalists. Some like me aren't But where to draw a line is not easy at all.

I suppose that's because you are not in acordance with France's politics and the idea of holding your head for your government is not one keen to you.
Neither is it to me, but I somehow feel that I have no other chance.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
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.

Way to completely mischaracterize my post.

[boann]

something that is being overlooked in the discussion is
freedom of speech.....and political correctness...
how far are we going to go ... in limiting what a person is allowed to say or write...


the guy may be stupid and an ass... but he has the right to say or write his opinion...

we of course have the right to not hire him to give a speech or to not read what he has written.
remember we are talking about opinions here and not
factual reporting. and opinion is still just opinion.


i support his right to vocalize or write his opinion

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Spiffor

So if I understand well, it would have been fairer if Moscow had been nuked than if the theatre had been attacked?

From what I understand, you imply that it is normal for a war to wish the complete obliteration of the society from where the opposition stems. In short, you seem to agree with the logics that genocide (extermination of a population) is a logical continuation of war.

Or am I wrong?

Yes, you are. There is such a notion as 'military necessity'. Obliteration of the enemy beyond this military necessity is wrong and cannot be considered normal (or at least humane). For oppressed and weak groups of people, terrorist tactics with attacking civilians is a military necessity. They simply have no other means to make their case! Hell, even for the almighty US army, attacking civilians is sometimes a military necessity, albeit usually as a side effect of a different objective.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by BeBro


No, not every member of the "hostile" society is a legitimate target. You know, there are these things like war crimes etc.

Well, actually my previous post can serve as a reply to that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by lord of the mark

I doubt they thought so. I doubt they gave a **** about anything other than making money. I've met few traders with what normal people call a conscioence.


LOTM - I guess ive met different traders than you have.

These are the people who pick up the phone to ask various governments

LOTM - afaik NO one who was killed at Cantor Fitz was someone who regularly called 3rd world govts.

In any case, there was a moral and legal case for sanctions, equating them to nazism is absurd.

I'm not equating it to Naziism. I said there was some merit in Churhill's essay. Not that it was completely correct. I also pointed out the man is an ******* and a
hypocrite. I see you chose to ignore that completely.


LOTM - er cause thats what this thread is about. If you want to argue that world trade is bad, or that some US actors in world trade, post a thread as such, and we can discuss that. Post something on say, pricing of drugs, and you will draw all the polies who have knowledge of that area. Here we are discussing something else.

overthrow Central American democracies

LOTM - which also engaged in world trade.

I'm sure the 100,000 Guatemalans who were slaughtered for your right to cheap bananas are mollified by that.

LOTM - logic guev. If Sandinista Nicaragua exported coffee, and democratic guatemala did, and so did the regimes that replaced them, than the mere fact of world coffee trade cant be particularly blamed for the deaths. The PARTICULAR regime of trade can be, but not the existence of trade. Which means that not everyone involved in the trade is blameworthy - at most those who support a particular regime of trade are.

LOTM - quite disputable.

Only by the ignorant or the obfuscatory.


LOTM - i have a suggestion, go and start a thread about the IMF, and all who have knowledge can participate.

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.

I don't dispute that. What I am saying is that we're quite reckless when it comes to civilians, despite advances in targetting. Sure, we don't bomb whole cities full of civilians anymore, but if we level a block to get at the Iraqi dictator, then who cares if we killed several dozen people. It's the same evil logic that allows people to justify the slaughter of Palestinians, and perpetuates an endless bloodfest.

If you want to discuss the morality of strategic bombing or of Israeli actions, there are numerous threads in which to do that. The logic that defends those actions, CORRECT OR NOT, is NOT the logic used by Mr. Churchill and is therefore irrelevant to what we are discussing.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by boann
something that is being overlooked in the discussion is
freedom of speech.....and political correctness...
how far are we going to go ... in limiting what a person is allowed to say or write...


the guy may be stupid and an ass... but he has the right to say or write his opinion...

LOTM - has anyone suggested censoring him?


we of course have the right to not hire him

LOTM - IIUC he works at a state college. Introduces some hairy questions of academic freedom, no?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Yes, you are. There is such a notion as 'military necessity'. Obliteration of the enemy beyond this military necessity is wrong and cannot be considered normal (or at least humane). For oppressed and weak groups of people, terrorist tactics with attacking civilians is a military necessity. They simply have no other means to make their case! Hell, even for the almighty US army, attacking civilians is sometimes a military necessity, albeit usually as a side effect of a different objective.

Oh, ok. I understand what you mean now. Fair enough.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

we of course have the right to not hire him

LOTM - IIUC he works at a state college. Introduces some hairy questions of academic freedom, no?

Which gets to the crux of the issue now doesn't it? At what point do state sponsored entities have the right to curtail speech made on their behalf and at what point does that infringe on academic freedom?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Oh, ok. I understand what you mean now. Fair enough.

I hope you dont accept it, though.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


For oppressed and weak groups of people, terrorist tactics with attacking civilians is a military necessity. They simply have no other means to make their case!

While I agree that this is the prevailing thought, I submit then that they are then guilty of the most serious of crimes, criminal stupidity.

If by admission their case/cause is sooo weak that they feel compelled to resort to terrorism they have admitted that they have no legitamacy and invite the inevitable reprisal. In effect they have killed for no effect countless civilians/innocents and doomed themselves, their allies and their cause.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I hope you dont accept it, though.

Yup.

I don't think something is justified merely because it is necessary for someone or some group. But I understand that his perception of war doesn't have genocide as a logical following.