World Trade Center

[edew]

The rhetorical sounds coming from our government, and from some of the more militant members of our citizenry sounds more like a super severe case of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

If dealing with a plague by developing effective treatment and interdiction, yes. If dealing with a plague by rounding up all suspected people with the plague, all their neighbors, their clothing, seizing their properties, and then burning the whole lot up; by requiring all non-plagued people to wear an impermeable bubble suit, and setting up a monitoring system to see what every person does...well that is not acceptable.

Is the US doing that? Well, not yet. But if we're sending in bombers and aircraft carriers into the Middle East, I'm guessing that the resulting plan will resemble more of the latter than the former. If we're requiring national ID cards and wiretapping and profiling, then we're seeing more of the latter than the former.

[lochinvar]

I am reminded of the movie Starship Troopers...an eminently forgettable film, but for one thing.

I was struck by the irony of the alien intelligence trying to understand humans by ingesting their brains. And the equally absurd ending of the movie, where the human doctors were preparing to vivisect (or so it seemed) the alien intelligence in order to comprehend its thinking.

This is a war of ideology. Guns and bullets won't win it. we will only win it by addressing the roots of terrorism, and the philosophical underpinnings, which is the very concept that such a thing as a Holy War exists.

Unless we address that, we can resign ourselves to the fact that we, our children, and our great-grandchildren will live in a state of perpetual warfare.

Because we all know you can't bomb an idea into submission.

[erewhon]

Starship Troopers eminently forgettable? Must protest, it was a very good satire. I thought it was particularly aimed at crass gung-ho nationalism. Hmm, sounds familiar.

'Do you know what it means to be a citizen?' Ho ho...

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by edew:
<STRONG>

Sorry to say, but to put a degree on the person's death is an anachronistic concept which very few people have been able to break away from. Look, if you're the person who's dead or dying, what does it matter how you're killed? To say that first-degree murder is worse than second-degree, and that is worse than third-degree, which being worse than manslaughter is a artifact of the same Judeo-Christian (maybe I'll attach Muslim in here) religion which brought about this whole terrorists mess. Death is death and no one is any more better or worse than another. </STRONG>

Sure. But extend this reasoning beyond yourself to society. Society has an interest in the culprit's intent. If a high-steel worker slips and, in catching his balance again, drops a hammer which falls and kills a mugger who's about to kill his victim. Is that the same, in your calculus, as the sadist who slowly tortures his victims to death over a period of days? Yes, both are dead. But both crimes are not the same. The difference is intent.

<STRONG>
The only issue is how to prevent it from happening in the future to someone else. There, you assess the probability of whether the person (or whatever entity, although if it's not a person or perhaps an animal, the government can't really do much in terms of legal recourse) is likely to perform such an act again, and then act accordingly.</STRONG>

So why do you have a problem with wiping these fellows out, then? It's the only SURE way to ensure that the "probability" of recidivism is zero, no?


<STRONG>
I mean, really, isn't the likelihood of recurrence the only issue? O.J. Simpson most likely did the dirty deed. He most likely did it with deliberate intent (at least against Nicole; Ron Goldman was just an unlucky sop who wanted to "meet" Nicole, and did it at the wrong time). But is he likely to do it again?</STRONG>

So as long as I only kill the person I hate most, even with malice and extreme cruelty, and seem unlikely to do it again, why even prosecute me? Why does guilt or innocence even matter, if only likelihood to do it again matters?

<STRONG>But kill? No more likely than I would. </STRONG>

Actually, there is a substantial body of research to the effect that killing gets easier each time it is done...if it doesn't drive the person insane with remorse, that is. OJ doesn't seem like the latter to me.
<STRONG>
You assess the probability that such an event will occur again. If the probability is sufficiently low, you don't need to apply as much effort in protecting against it. If the probability is high, you take preventative measures.</STRONG>

So punishment for evil ( or venal, greedy, whatever ) deeds plays no parts in your world view, then? How about the idea of object examples?
<STRONG>
So is the probability of another terrorist attack in the US high? Well, it's higher than before, but that probability is probably pretty low compared to other possible death-causing events. In other words, I'm not going to stop flying airplanes because of the possibility of a hijacker taking it into the Transamerica building. I'm not going to eschew going to the top of the Empire State building because of the possibility of a hijacked plane ramming it at the 75th floor.</STRONG>

Agreed. But the probability of recurrence is probably small comfort to the families of the victims. We aren't discussing cold mathematics, but human lives and misery. Maybe you can reduce that to the level of an exercise in theory, but not many will be joining you, I suspect, Mr. Spock.

At any rate, cheer up. The government is run by politicians, not generals. And pols are too used to forming study committees and making "sober, deliberate assessments" to do too much in this case, I think. More likely we'll get one of the famous "measured responses", and a lot of smoke-and-mirrors and claims that much more has been accomplished than really has been. Then slowly the left will recover its wits and start wringing its hands about the "sanctity" of even miserable terrorist lives, much less civilian casualties, and the whole effort will bog down in a welter of mutual recriminations and hand-washing in time for the next elections...

[/QB]

[ 09-25-2001: Message edited by: Inquartata ]