Glasgow Airport terror attack analysis

[seanie]

Well I'm not overly keen to get into all the whys and wherefores of the Rwandan genocide. We could be here for some time.

But I am perplexed by your apportioning of blame.

We've been told the "Rwandan genocide was 100 percent American responsibility" and we've been told the RPF "started it, maintained it, exacerbated it."

The people who actually slaughtered 900,000 of their neighbours seem to be getting off pretty lightly in all this. D'ya have a soft spot for genocidal murderers?



I also think your refusing to address the point at the heart of our disagreement. I'm claiming there are circumstances when pacifism is immoral because of the consequences of pacifism. There are circumstances where it would not work and that the suffering and harm caused by a pacifist stance would be far greater than that caused by violent action. In particular, faced with genocide, violent action may be necessary. I said Ghandi's methods wouldn't have cut much ice with Hitler to which you replied;

Maybe not, but if the russo german pact had held, war might not have done either

Now I don't actually understand what you're trying to say there. That if the russo german pact had held, war might not have cut much ice with Hitler either? No. You've lost me. If that in anyway addresses the point I was making I can't see it.

I think you're indulging in a bit of handwaving and obfuscation to avoid the difficult underlying question.

You may regard it as a parlour game question but it really does get to the heart of the issue.

Faced with genocide what should be done?

Should the victims offer themselves to the butcher's knife?

Should others look on with stern disapproval?

Should they take violent action to stop it?

Whatever their role in the events that lead to the slaughter in Rwanda the RPF were not the ones committing genocide. The genocide came to an end when they violently stopped it.

If we hadn't defeated Hitler with our bombs and guns he would've carried on killing Jews. Was the moral course of action not to fight Hitler? Would the world have been a better place for that?

Don't get me wrong. Pacifism is fine in principle. It's just in practice that it can be immoral. If everyone in the world was a pacifist the world would be a better place.

But we don't live in that world. That's just a fantasy. In the real world, the world that produces people like Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, violence can be a moral imperative.

[Porty]

Has pacifisim (is that a word?) ever solved anyting without having a War first? Is War/terror the only route tp pacifism?

Well, errrr, ever heard of gang wars in schools? The pacifists (parents) with calm force stand united and involve themself with local police to crack down on that stuff.

I would say they were pacifiers as opposed to pacifists.

[xxxx]

Well I'm not overly keen to get into all the whys and wherefores of the Rwandan genocide. We could be here for some time.

But I am perplexed by your apportioning of blame.

I'm not apportioning blame, boutrous ghali did, but then as you so skilfully pointed out, he was talking bollocks. I reckon you must have been fairly high up in the UN or present in rwanda to be better informed.

We've been told the "Rwandan genocide was 100 percent American responsibility" and we've been told the RPF "started it, maintained it, exacerbated it."

Easy, you can find very close links between the ugandan rpf and the us and the ugandan strongman musveni. What you won't find is us criticism of the rpf. Rwanda is a beach head for the exploitation of the fabulous riches of the congo, the US is very covetous of these.

The people who actually slaughtered 900,000 of their neighbours seem to be getting off pretty lightly in all this. D'ya have a soft spot for genocidal murderers?

Not at all, but I repeat the situation does not reduce to nice tutsi being hacked to death by nasty hutu. If the nasty hutus were genociding so horribly, why is a ugandan army us trained tutsi now in charge now of a majority hutu nation?

I also think your refusing to address the point at the heart of our disagreement. I'm claiming there are circumstances when pacifism is immoral because of the consequences of pacifism. There are circumstances where it would not work and that the suffering and harm caused by a pacifist stance would be far greater than that caused by violent action. In particular, faced with genocide, violent action may be necessary. I said Ghandi's methods wouldn't have cut much ice with Hitler to which you replied;

Maybe not, but if the russo german pact had held, war might not have done either

Now I don't actually understand what you're trying to say there. That if the russo german pact had held, war might not have cut much ice with Hitler either? No. You've lost me. If that in anyway addresses the point I was making I can't see it.

[/quote]
If the russians had kept it sweet with adolf, he might not have thrown his army away on the russian steppe. He would have been free to polish off europe, the US might not have been persuaded to aid us and the uk could not have defeated germany on its own.
Moral choice: pointless, unwinnable conflict or just let the tanks roll in. After all, we had a german royal family already.

I think you're indulging in a bit of handwaving and obfuscation to avoid the difficult underlying question.

My hands are stationary and I am not obfuscating so less of that

You may regard it as a parlour game question but it really does get to the heart of the issue.

Yes, practically all your examples refer to self defence, freedom fighting and I have explained I am primarily anti war. The Easter uprising would be unnecessary if the murderous likes of Cromwell had never been sent in the first place. The supreme international crime, war of aggression creates these difficult situations. So to be against it seems more than reasonable to me

Faced with genocide what should be done?

Well when faced with what you call genocide in the real world you refer to below, nothing was done, a terrified population of hutus and tutsis rwandans tore each other and themselves apart and when they were done the well funded, trained and organised ugandan rpf stepped in to the vaccuum.

Should the victims offer themselves to the butcher's knife?

Should others look on with stern disapproval?

Should they take violent action to stop it?

I think they were taking violent action to stop it in rwanda, they just destroyed themselves and allowed a minority ugandan/us satrapy to be imposed.

Whatever their role in the events that lead to the slaughter in Rwanda the RPF were not the ones committing genocide. The genocide came to an end when they violently stopped it.

That's your opinion, I think they just took the spoils, they'd certainly been unpleasant for the preceding 4 years.

If we hadn't defeated Hitler with our bombs and guns he would've carried on killing Jews. Was the moral course of action not to fight Hitler? Would the world have been a better place for that?

Well I don't think we fought hitler for the jews and I'll be suprised if this can be shown to be a major factor. They didn't fight back so they got what they deserved, they made the wrong moral decision.
Poor old Rabbi Weissmann, after his pleas to bomb auschwitz being ignored
"you, our brothers in Palestine, in all the countries of freedom, and you ministers of all the Kingdoms, how do you keep silent in the face of this great murder?"

Don't get me wrong. Pacifism is fine in principle. It's just in practice that it can be immoral. If everyone in the world was a pacifist the world would be a better place.

I don't think i've been saying anything different, you can find edge cases for everything if you think hard enough, but for me, the war of aggression is the original sin from which all others flow. To set your face against that would be a smashing start.

But we don't live in that world. That's just a fantasy. In the real world, the world that produces people like Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, violence can be a moral imperative.

Then why didn't we follow this moral imperative and attack all these people, or is it merely, in this real world you speak of, just a moral sentiment?

[Marguerite-the-Poet]

Has pacifisim (is that a word?) ever solved anyting without having a War first? Is War/terror the only route tp pacifism

Well, errrr, ever heard of gang wars in schools? The pacifists (parents) with calm force stand united and involve themself with local police to crack down on that stuff.

Though I've never been involved with that, no kids and past the age of a bun in the oven, my taxes support it in school bonds. It is common knowledge that less violence in schools prevent criminal offenders. In my opinion, war in any shape is a formation of gangsters against healthy living. End of Story!

I would say they were pacifiers as opposed to pacifists.

REALLY?

[Marguerite-the-Poet]

Easy, you can find very close links between the ugandan rpf and the us and the ugandan strongman musveni. What you won't find is us criticism of the rpf. Rwanda is a beach head for the exploitation of the fabulous riches of the congo, the US is very covetous of these.

Curious, did you ever watch the 2006 movie "BLOOD DIAMOND"?

Well I don't think we fought hitler for the jews and I'll be suprised if this can be shown to be a major factor. They didn't fight back so they got what they deserved, they made the wrong moral decision.
Poor old Rabbi Weissmann, after his pleas to bomb auschwitz being ignored "you, our brothers in Palestine, in all the countries of freedom, and you ministers of all the Kingdoms, how do you keep silent in the face of this great murder?"

xxxx how can you say, "They [Jews] didn't fight back so they got what they deserved, they made the wrong moral decision." I'm not Jewish but do have friends who are and I find your comment to be absolutely cruel and insensitive How can you call yourself a pacifist and make a sweeping statement like that?

[xxxx]

xxxx how can you say,

"They [Jews] didn't fight back so they got what they deserved, they made the wrong moral decision."

I'm not Jewish but do have friends who are and I find your comment to be absolutely cruel and insensitive How can you call yourself a pacifist and make a sweeping statement like that?

I was just following sean's moral instruction. It is both moral and natural to defend yourself with violence, the consequences of not doing so were worse than if they had. (but then not everyone can see into the future to weigh these consequences). They didn't fight back so naturally they became victims.

I did give examples of zionist figures who approved of this slaughter and became its moral claim jumpers. what the chosen people call chutzpah

[Marguerite-the-Poet]

xxxx, you should think before you post to this message board and please DON'T EVER MISLEAD PEOPLE INTO THINKING I AM YOU. (You attributed "my" message as though you had written it yourself.) YOU LIVE IN THE UK AND I LIVE IN AMERICA. Also, are you implying sean is seanie?

[Maria]

xxxx, you should think before you post to this message board and please DON'T EVER MISLEAD PEOPLE INTO THINKING I AM YOU. (You attributed "my" message as though you had written it yourself.) YOU LIVE IN THE UK AND I LIVE IN AMERICA. Also, are you implying sean is seanie?

S'OK MtP. I'm sure xxxx doesn't mean to mislead so please don't shout at him. Seanie also answers to Sean so no crime there either.

I'm sure, however, xxxx will be a wee bit red faced at getting the quotes wrong as he is porty.org's technical guru

[xxxx]

All sorted now, these things happen when you're posting on the run

[Porty]

Well, errrr, ever heard of gang wars in schools? The pacifists (parents) with calm force stand united and involve themself with local police to crack down on that stuff.

Though I've never been involved with that, no kids and past the age of a bun in the oven, my taxes support it in school bonds. It is common knowledge that less violence in schools prevent criminal offenders. In my opinion, war in any shape is a formation of gangsters against healthy living. End of Story!

I would say they were pacifiers as opposed to pacifists.

REALLY?

Yes. From the information you gave us i cannot be sure these parents were pacifists.

[seanie]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

To be fair that applies all round. The morality of an action can be distinguished from the morality of the actor. Tony Blair’s insistence that he did what he believed was right is really pretty irrelevant. It has no real bearing on whether what he did actually was right. I’m pretty sure people who fly airliners into skyscrapers believe in what they’re doing and we don’t award them brownie points for sincerity.

Intent has a bearing on how we judge individuals but that’s separate from the judgement of their actions, which primarily comes down to the consequences. It’s a phrase perhaps too often quoted but;

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

There is truth in that. Inaction has consequences as well as action and, albeit well intentioned, there are circumstances in which pacifism amounts to much the same as doing nothing. Because there are circumstances in which it will not work and the consequence of ineffectual action is practically indistinguishable from no action at all.

That still leaves considerable scope for disagreement about the circumstances in which violent action is justified but most people would accept that it can be. Some may believe that violence is only ever justified in self-defence but if so we must simply agree to differ.

Whilst I accept a right to self-defence I also believe in a duty to protect others.

If I am entitled to use violence to defend myself when attacked, I for one see no reason the same methods cannot be used to defend others under attack.

I find myself, not for the first time, in agreement with Ken Livingston when he spoke in support of intervention in Kosovo;

If on his way home tonight, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield saw a woman being raped by a group of thugs, he would intervene at the risk of his life. Why should we as a nation stand back when the same thing has been happening on our doorstep for the best part of a decade? My socialism and driving moral force are not defined or constrained by lines drawn on a map, certainly not when they were drawn by imperial powers at Versailles in 1919.

[xxxx]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Well that is a fairly useless and deceptive platitude. For it to be useful all these must be true
The road to hell cannot be paved with bad intentions
Good intentions always lead to hell.

To be fair that applies all round. The morality of an action can be distinguished from the morality of the actor. Tony Blair’s insistence that he did what he believed was right is really pretty irrelevant. It has no real bearing on whether what he did actually was right. I’m pretty sure people who fly airliners into skyscrapers believe in what they’re doing and we don’t award them brownie points for sincerity.

What else can you use to decide the morality of an actor but their actions? If someone consistently perpetrates an evil, they are evil surely? Did our new middle east gopher sincerely believe in the weapons of mass destruction he spoke of so often, so passionately?
I've never come across any instance where people declare their evil intent and lack of sincerity.

Intent has a bearing on how we judge individuals but that’s separate from the judgement of their actions, which primarily comes down to the consequences. It’s a phrase perhaps too often quoted but;

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Well that saying is often attributed to Burke and as your sensitive to context you might want to reflect on what his view of evil and good were in his whiggish world view.
Again, as with the initial saw, its questionable how useful it is.
A more accurate quote might be (which can be attributed to me)
"For evil to triumph bad men must do something more effectively than the good."
The american indians did what was good in trying to avoid genocide, but evil prevailed

There is truth in that. Inaction has consequences as well as action and, albeit well intentioned, there are circumstances in which pacifism amounts to much the same as doing nothing. Because there are circumstances in which it will not work and the consequence of ineffectual action is practically indistinguishable from no action at all.

Not as much truth as might be required for it to be useful. To equate my pacifist position, which is against aggressive war, with a absolute maxim of inaction is unfair, as I have pointed out that I have not stated it. The reasons for war are always presented as good, or at best a necessary evil. This does not mean defending yourself is an unnecessary evil or good.

That still leaves considerable scope for disagreement about the circumstances in which violent action is justified but most people would accept that it can be. Some may believe that violence is only ever justified in self-defence but if so we must simply agree to differ.

Very wide scope, I would think

Whilst I accept a right to self-defence I also believe in a duty to protect others.

That's perfectly all right when you are sure you are protecting others. That is the tricky part.

If I am entitled to use violence to defend myself when attacked, I for one see no reason the same methods cannot be used to defend others under attack.

You do like saying things twice, don't you.

I find myself, not for the first time, in agreement with Ken Livingston when he spoke in support of intervention in Kosovo;
Quote:
If on his way home tonight, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield saw a woman being raped by a group of thugs, he would intervene at the risk of his life. Why should we as a nation stand back when the same thing has been happening on our doorstep for the best part of a decade? My socialism and driving moral force are not defined or constrained by lines drawn on a map, certainly not when they were drawn by imperial powers at Versailles in 1919.

Daft, but I'll get back to this when I get a chance

[Marguerite-the-Poet]

xxxx, you should think before you post to this message board and please DON'T EVER MISLEAD PEOPLE INTO THINKING I AM YOU. (You attributed "my" message as though you had written it yourself.) YOU LIVE IN THE UK AND I LIVE IN AMERICA. Also, are you implying sean is seanie?

S'OK MtP. I'm sure xxxx doesn't mean to mislead so please don't shout at him. Seanie also answers to Sean so no crime there either.

I'm sure, however, xxxx will be a wee bit red faced at getting the quotes wrong as he is porty.org's technical guru

Good day Marya I truly understand how it may have been misconstrued that I was shouting at him (xxxx) by capitalizing words which were honestly meant for the sole purpose of emphasis while I was traveling on the Internet highway , similar to traffic signs (STOP, ONE WAY, SLOW CHILDREN AT PLAY) and movie flicks such as BLOOD DIAMOND.

Though I don't have a website, from time to time, I needed the help of a technical guru so called up a dear friend of mine who used to help me out with my computer until he decided to become a Buddhist monk! He is a very kind hearted and thoughtful soul. I miss him.

[Porty]

Wonder what made him become a monk?

[Marguerite-the-Poet]

Wonder what made him become a monk?

Hiya Porty Nothing particular made him become a monk as far as I know. From what he told me, it was pure desire , a longing deep within him.

I'll have to get back to you later on the other posting of yours.

[Porty]

I'll have to get back to you later on the other posting of yours.

Nah. Using the logic you applied to your example of pacifists; Tony Blair would be a paciifist for his role in the NI peace process. We all know that he aint.

[Marguerite-the-Poet]

War of the wits, eh Porty!
Low and behold,
Look below!

I would say they were pacifiers as opposed to pacifists.

REALLY?

Yes. From the information you gave us i cannot be sure these parents were pacifists.

I’m a pacifist-minded environmentalist. Health organizations define war as hostile conflict between organized groups of people. The parents and police support a pacifist platform when dealing with destructive and often times violent gangs comprised of school aged youth . All I can say is that parents and police have nipped it in the bud quite successfully. Prevention is the key. The following statement sums it up quite well for me.

“Violence is often seen as an inevitable part of the human condition – a fact of life to respond to, rather than prevent. However, encouraged by the success of public health approaches to other environmental and behavioural-related health problems, these assumptions are changing. The focus is broadening, with increasing emphasis on prevention and addressing the root causes of violence. However, a key requirement for addressing violence in a comprehensive manner, is for people to work together in partnerships of all kinds, and at all levels, to develop effective approaches.”(World Report on Violence and Health, World Health Organisation, 2002)http://www.actiononviolence.co.uk/aov/files/rvasf.pdf

[Poppy]

I was can I say trapped in Heathrow when this was all coming to light. To think I have to do this again in 5 weeks time to collect him

Recovered yet, Izzie? Meant to ask this a while ago, but I think we've all been distracted by the interesting and thought-provoking posts between Seanie and xxxx!

[ecm]

Wonder what made him become a monk?

Genius!!!