Skip to main content
news

Re:The British Secret Servi...

T.T. Arvind
Google Google
SubjectRe:The British Secret Service...[was Re: Republicanism still an offence in Eng
FromT.T. Arvind
Date2002-04-30 14:55 (2002-04-30 13:55)
Message-ID<aam47r$qg2$1@cpca7.uea.ac.uk>
Client
Newsgroupsalt.fan.tolkien
FollowsRuss
Followups?jevind L?ng (4h & 21m)
Michael O'Neill (9h & 40m)
Russ <mcresq@aol.com>did boldly declaim:

I guess I should begin by saying that my views on these points are rather extreme, and you are welcome to disagree with me on these points - most people do. I also do not see much point in our attempting to convince each other of the rightness of our own POV. Our individual views on what is morally right and wrong, especially in relation to acts of violence that have, or originally had, a justifiable goal, are shaped by what we have gone through in life, and are unlikely to be altered by a few posts, no matter how well reasoned they may be.

Russ
Sully, yes, but not make immoral as a whole. Innaccurate nighttime bombing of German cities by RAF Bomber Command did not make the British fight against Nazi Germany immoral as a whole.

Hmmm... perhaps we differ slightly on this. I would say that the deliberate destruction of cities such as Dresden was immoral, and its effect was to make the means employed in fighting Nazi Germany immoral. I'm not saying it was immoral to fight Nazi Germany - just that grinding Dresden into dust was not a moral way of going about it. I will say this even if you show (as you probably can) that Nazi Germany would not have surrendered if it had not been for such acts, because I believe that killing an innocent person is an act that is immoral _in se_, and therefore cannot be justified by any end that it may help achieve, however laudable that end might be.

Regarding inaccurate nighttime bombing. If a bomber command knew that their bombs would almost certainly cause a large number of civillian casualties because they simply could not be accurate enough, I would say that their decision was immoral. Again, this is because I believe that civillian casualties cannot be the subject of a cost-benefit analysis.

For this reason, I would say that the Aldershot bombing, for instance, was immoral, even though it was a military target, because it was bound to cause a significant number of non-combatant casualties.

Except no member of the IRA strapped on explosives and walked into a pizza parlor or a religious service.

Although they may have not used suicide bombers, they have planted bombs in pubs and other public places in England, which have caused civilian casualties. I include the Bishopsgate bomb, the Warrington bomb, the Canary Wharf bomb, and the Manchester Arndale bomb in this list.

I see little difference between planting a bomb in a public place, and sending a suicide bomber into a public place, because the end result is, in substance, the same.

But the Islamic world as a whole was not.

In point of fact, it makes as little sense to speak of the "Islamic world" as it does to speak of the "Christian world". The cultural differences between Saudi Arabia, Bosnia and Indonesia are about as significant as those between the Philippines, the US and Norway.

In recent times, these differences have tended to be obscured by the growth of Wahhabi Islam, but Wahhabi Islam is actually as much a part of Indonesian culture (or, for that matter, South Asian and Central Asian culture) as the Southern Baptists are of Swedish culture. If you've actually lived there (as I did for a while), you'll have seent that it is quite clearly a foreign graft.

OK, as long as what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Yes, alas, it is exactly that reasoning that all countries now use. "If the US can justify acting in national self-interest, why can't we?" The practical reason - "because you don't have the muscle of the US" - only leads to them trying to acquire more muscle. I'm fear it'll be difficult to break out of this loop unless we begin to accept that all states must find a general moral basis to their actions in the international sphere, and that national self interest will not provide such a basis. The consequences of our failing to do so will not be pretty, because the direction in which the world is presently headed is not very pretty.

greetings,

Meneldil

Google
?jevind L?ng (4h & 21m)
Michael O'Neill (9h & 40m)