From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun Apr 21 2002 - 17:42:54 MDT
Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> Yes, though thats still a rather loose definition. Terrorism is to
> attack unarmed civilians who are not engaged in action against you, do
> not provide sanctuary or support to those engaged in action against you.
> This is its definition under the laws of war. Note that this leaves open
> a rather wide segment of the civilians who are legitimate targets of
> force: those who engage in violence against you, or provide sanctuary or
> support to those who do.
>
By these rules the Palestinian terrorist aren't really terrorist
as they are attacking those who do provide sanctuary and support
for those engaged in action against them. No?
How can you apply the "laws of war" when no war is declared?
>
>>>As a matter of fact, I do believe the claims of Palestinians have at
>>>least some legitimacy. Only their use of terrorist tactics against
>>>civilians delegitimizes their claims.
>>>
>>Some Palestinians are terrorists. They should be fought with violence
>>if necessary. We should not support violence against all Palestinians
>>because they are in the same race or neighborhood as the terrorists.
>>
>
> The problem with this is that the public acceptance of terrorist tactics
> in the Palestinian population is generally or nearly unanimous. They've
> been conditioned by the PA propaganda machine to beleive that terrorism
> is their only option and that military action against terrorists is
> itself terrorism, which it isn't.
>
The public opinion in Israel in favor of shooting innocent
Palestinian civilians is also quite high. They have been
conditioned by Israeli and Zionist propaganda to believe that
Palestinians are sub-human and the only solution is to drive
them out or kill them. Military action against civilians is
terrorism by your own definitions.
>>Note that I am not defending terrorists or direct violence. Violence
>>can be used in direct self-defense. However, when the situation gets so
>>contrived that there is no clear direct attempt at violence, I don't
>>think it can be so clear that there is no other option. Misguided
>>notions can be corrected. Public opinion can be changed. Governments
>>can be lobbied. I cannot conceive a situation where the whole world
>>turns against us, there is no country left for retreat, and there is no
>>chance for further dialog.
>>
>
> Wake up and smell the napalm. There is a near global ban on cloning
> already. The world is turning against us.
>
The world doesn't understand a particular technology. I do not
consider that to be the world turning against me personally or
people like me.
>
>>This is getting extremely close to my definition of terrorism.
>>
>
> If so, then all violence to you is terrorism.
>
Actually, he very carefully laid out what he was talking about
which you chose not to include. Your rejoiner is meaningless
and irrelevant to what was said.
>
>>You hope
>>to scare people into suppressing their own opinions and into supporting
>>your opinions under threat of violence if they oppose you. That sounds
>>like terrorism to me. Your reasoning that this is a last resort when no
>>other options are available is the exact line of reasoning that all
>>terrorists use. Even if you claim this isn't terrorism, can you
>>conceive that all the civilized countries that outlawed us would
>>perceive this as terrorism. Do you really think we can fight all the
>>militaries in the world, and still save more lives than would be lost?
>>
>
> Are you willing to accept a world that outlaws us?
>
The world WILL outlaws us if we take up arms against those who
think or decide questions of various technologies differently.
Since I accept that such is so I consider persuasion and various
kinds of memetics much more helpful than talk of violently
opposing those who disagree.
>>This gets even worse as we go down this slippery slope. You aren't 100%
>>sure, but only 90% sure. You would put people to death because of
>>something that might not happen?
>>
>
> This isn't a court of law, this is cultural warfare. Beyond reasonable
> doubt is not required here. Self defense lives on preponderance of
> evidence. You never know for 100% sure if the guy with a gun pointed at
> you is actually going to shoot. Experience says its more likely than
> not, and you defend yourself.
>
Can you come up with any other analogies to cultural dynamics
than warfare? Beyond reasonable doubt is very much required
before you deprive or advocate depriving another of the very
life you so prize and wish to extend indefinitely!
People voting against technology or freedom to use it are not
out to shoot you as the man with the gun pointed at you likely
is. So the same type of response is not justified.
>
>>>>> Just as gun control caused 100 million deaths in the
>>>>>20th century, technology control in the 21st will kill many times
>>>>>more.
>>>>>
>>So do you think this justifies assassinating anyone? If so, who? The
>>Liberals who supported this idea? The Lobbyists who caused it? The
>>Congress who passed it? The President for enforcing it? This is a
>>perfect example of your theory. If gun control laws caused 100 million
>>deaths, are you claiming that you are now justified to assassinate
>>someone? This is not a theoretical example, because you claim it has
>>already happened. Anything preventing you from responding with violence
>>to this current example should also apply to your future examples.
>>Otherwise, you are coming close to condoning assassinations right now
>>for events that have already happened.
>>
>
> It is my belief that there are past and present members of congress (and
> past presidents) who have committed treason by violating their oaths of
> office to defend the Constitution (the ENTIRE Constitution) against all
> foreign and domestic enemies, but also acting against the Constitution
> themselves, and thus becoming enemies of the Constitution. Treason IS a
> capital offense. There are supposed to be legal remedies for these
Treason is a capital offense. It has quite stringent
requirements for conviction and execution if found guilty.
> violations, but the government judicial system has been derelict in its
> duty to prosecute such crimes due to subversion by party politics. That
And this means that it is up to clear-seeing people like
yourself to be judge, jury and executioner?
> private citizens have not yet sought to remedy this failing themselves
> is only testament to how slowly the enemy is pursuing its campaign of
> gun control, using the lobster cooking technique of a slow boil.
>
>>Firstly, I thought you discounted theories of population explosions and
>>doom predictions. The population is slowing. Agriculture is getting
>>better. Medicine is getting better. It is hard to justify violence
>>against things that are getting better just because they aren't getting
>>better fast enough.
>>
>
> The population is slowing in countries where education, especially
> education of women, is occuring. The education of women is not occuring
> fast enough in the muslim world, where the education system teaches
> ignorance and superstition, paranoia and propaganda.
>
The Muslim world is not particularly none for the worst increase
in population but I agree that parts of the Muslim world (not
all Muslim societies by any means) seriously limit the education
of women.
> In Africa, however, we are already seeing the effects of Malthusian
> feedback. While AIDS has decimated, and continues to decimate the
> educated class, population continues to explode. Other epidemic diseases
> are appearing with increasing frequency and resistance to anti-biotics
> and immunization.
>
Aids in Africa is decimating universally, not just or primarily
in the educated class. Some of the responsibility lies with the
greed of companies and countries that did not allow cheaper
(FREE TRADE) sources of needed drugs to be used but insisted
they buy them at reduced but still high rates using ruinous
loans at high interest. Someday we in the "developed" nations
need to decide if we really believe in freedom and abundance
more than we believe in making a ton of money at any and all
cost in other values including millions of human lives.
> All of the technologies that will be key to our predictions of the
> singularity between 2020-2030 are slated for regulation and restriction
> on the two-year election cycle plans of luddite groups. Perpetuation of
> ignorance by statute also perpetuates higher population growth rates.
> This pushes technological singularities outward and malthusian
> thresholds forward.
>
Really? Where is nanotech slated for regulation and restriction
of any real significance? Where is AI so restricted?
>
>>You are predicting non-specific deaths by non-specific people.
>>
>
> When dealing with such large numbers it is hard to be specific in the
> span of one email message. As the saying goes, one death is a tragedy, a
> million is a statistic. Its hard to be specific when we are just
> discussing in general terms. Give me ten grand and four months and I'll
> write a white paper on it.
>
Rather not tbe point. When you advocate violence (possibly)
against the "luddites" you are advocating force against a
generality that can only be implemented against specific people
that you consider members of that group. See the problem?
>
>>You can't kill everybody
>>with that idea, because this would be mass extermination. Without a
>>specific person to target to prevent a specific act, your "enemy" is too
>>vague and widespread to target. Who exactly would be targeted if we did
>>move against the Luddites?
>>
>
> For example, Jeremy Rifkin, Jerry Mander, and a handful of others have
> been instrumental in the funding and organizing of the luddite cause.
> Developing some sort of tactics to divert them from the trajectories
> they are on (preferably non-violent) would help our cause immeasurably.
>
OK. This is reasonable and necessary. Apply violence is not
allowed unless you wish to be outside the law and have the
weight of civilization come down on your head.
>>None of these technologies are ready yet. It is not clear when if ever
>>they could start saving lives. I think we have to wait at least until a
>>technology works and could save lives before we take lives to defend
>>it. Right now, the legislation and politics is still at the discussion
>>stage. It is too early for violence. I don't know of any major
>>research that has been halted or destroyed because of these actions.
>>
>
> Take the ongoing media bias against cryonics. This doesn't come from
> nowhere.
>
A large part comes from ignorance, general avoidance of talking
much about anything to do with our current mortality, the
general veneer of snarling cynicism in the culture, and playing
copy-cat of what they think will sell their rags.
> The EU has a ban on cloning, and the US has a ban on stem cell research.
>
The second at least is in the way of research most of us
support. True human cloning is something that I would be quite
happy to put off for a while. I don't think the techniques are
good enough and I have my own misgivings about some of the
possible applications.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:36 MST