wikileaks ?

[Alceste]

It's a deliberate attempt to kill, obviously, but it's not a deliberate attempt to kill journalists, a family, etc.

If you stab somebody on the street, even mistakenly assuming he poses some kind of existential threat and have no idea who he is, what he does, whether he's a family man or not, you'll STILL go to jail for murder - for a "deliberate attempt to kill" somebody.

Fair enough. He says he doesn't necessarily object to the use of terror/violence as self-defense and even its use in cases beyond simple self-defense, but OTOH he's talking about "political violence". I never meant to suggest he supports the war in Iraq but only that he agrees with the principle of self-defense. One does not have to take issue with the occupying soldier who, in certain circumstances, kills an insurgent in self-defense, in order to take issue with the decision to continue an occupation, which creates these situations in the first place.

This was not self defense. They were in a helicopter, they were heavily armed, the majority of their victims did not have weapons (and even if they had, it's Iraq! Everybody is armed there!) and it's doubtful whether ANY of them did. They were not fired upon.

Having read Chomsky's article, he's not talking about "self-defense" at all. He's talking about revolutionary violence with the aim of alleviating the subjugated state of "peasant" populations and achieving greater collectivity and political participation. And he's STILL not fully endorsing it without reservation. Seeing as he's published a whole book on the topic of US crimes against humanity (including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan), I doubt he'd take your side here. Just saying.

On the subject of wikileaks, though (to get back to the topic at hand) he has this to say:

[youtube]WHfYtvYRgdk[/youtube]

 

[Requia]

WikiLeaks cables: Pfizer 'used dirty tricks to avoid clinical trial payout' | Business | The Guardian

Pfizer apparently tried to blackmail the attorney general of Nigeria.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If you stab somebody on the street, even mistakenly assuming he poses some kind of existential threat and have no idea who he is, what he does, whether he's a family man or not, you'll STILL go to jail for murder - for a "deliberate attempt to kill" somebody.

Exactly. I agree.

This was not self defense. They were in a helicopter, they were heavily armed, the majority of their victims did not have weapons (and even if they had, it's Iraq! Everybody is armed there!) and it's doubtful whether ANY of them did. They were not fired upon.

I don't think there's much doubt they had weapons. To repeat just one piece of evidence: Wikileaks posted the eyewitness testimony of a soldier who arrived on the scene, in describing what he saw he mentioned there were weapons including an RPG laying on the ground. This soldier was speaking at a peace rally in opposition to the war in Iraq.

Having read Chomsky's article, he's not talking about "self-defense" at all. He's talking about revolutionary violence with the aim of alleviating the subjugated state of "peasant" populations and achieving greater collectivity and political participation.

Right, like I said he's talking about "political violence".

And he's STILL not fully endorsing it without reservation. Seeing as he's published a whole book on the topic of US crimes against humanity (including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan), I doubt he'd take your side here. Just saying.

You could be right. My side was simply that it's not true that "murder is murder", no difference between premeditated and manslaughter, etc. apparently Chomsky agrees there are shades of gray. And I was distinguishing between the ethics of an individual soldier in a kill-or-be-killed situation, vs. the ethics of "political violence" or the occupation of a country, which thrusts soldiers into these situations. The only other option available to the helicopter pilot, it seems to me, was to refuse to fire and watch some insurgents sneak up on and ambush a U.S. patrol. The stated goals of the Islamic militants and former Baathists in Iraq do not impress me enough to say that this would have been the best choice.

On the subject of wikileaks, though (to get back to the topic at hand) he has this to say:

Thanks for the video! I can't believe how old he is, and he just keeps going ....

 

[Alceste]

spinkles I can't help noticing how you keep glossing over the attempted murder on the occupants of a minivan and the murder of the unarmed journalists following the folks the army claim were carrying an RPG. That's your prerogative, but please don't ask me to play along. Also, your last post seems to indicate you've read nothing I've posted SINCE the "murder is murder" comment, all of which clarifies my position and makes your continued reference to that out-of-context quote something of a straw man.

Yes, Chomsky's getting old, poor soul. Does that mean we are too?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I need to pee every time I hear the word "wikileaks."

Back in a minute.

 

[Troublemane]

[youtube]WHfYtvYRgdk[/youtube]

I think he is talking about the spent uranium that was left in Iraq, which was of such an astronomical amount that it has contaminated the water supply. I heard that even our own people have gotten sick from it.....and Assange is called a terrorist? For simply releasing the truth?:help:

 

[Mr Spinkles]

spinkles I can't help noticing how you keep glossing over the attempted murder on the occupants of a minivan ...

For the record, I repeatedly called attention to the van in the "Collateral Murder" thread. There would be no reason for me to gloss over the van, since my position has always been that the gunner's action was a crime. I'm actually a fan of respecting even those facts which seem to weaken my conclusions, such as the fact that the gunner thought he was shooting insurgents, not journalists or children.

 

[Alceste]

For the record, I repeatedly called attention to the van in the "Collateral Murder" thread. There would be no reason for me to gloss over the van, since my position has always been that the gunner's action was a crime. I'm actually a fan of respecting even those facts which seem to weaken my conclusions, such as the fact that the gunner thought he was shooting insurgents, not journalists or children.

Ah, but with the van, he thought he was only shooting people who he suspected wanted to provide aid to wounded (alleged) insurgents.

You have no cause to be looking down your nose at me - I haven't denied any facts. I simply have a different interpretation of the facts than you do (and perhaps more skepticism that any facts beyond what we can see in the video can be known). I consider the entire war to be a murderous, criminal enterprise. It follows that all its willing participants can be held personally morally accountable for the civilian blood on their hands (and even those evil "insurgents" were mostly peaceful civilians before the US barged in). I set the ethical bar for "acceptable killing" a little higher than you do, is all. Perhaps I've placed it where it would be practically impossible for any killing by voluntary representatives of the aggressor state in the context of a war of occupation to be morally justifiable. It doesn't require me to ignore any "facts" to place it there, though. Also, it's rationally consistent in that I don't need to construct two sets of ethics - one wishy-washy array of "moral gray areas" for "war zones" and another, separate and higher standard of behavior for the society in which I live and work.

The fact that fighters on all sides always behave immorally in war does not mean we must all pretend it is moral to do so.

 

[Requia]

This thread really isn't supposed to be about the war in Iraq. It's about me getting carted off to jail for spreading things the US doesn't want known around.

On the theme of things that didn't really need to get leaked, but are funny anyway: The president of Honduras was described as a corrupt rebellious teenager by US diplomats.

Ever the rebellious teenager, Zelaya's principal goal in office is to enrich himself and his family while leaving a public legacy as a martyr who tried to do good but was thwarted at every turn by powerful, unnamed interests.

 

[Alceste]

I think he is talking about the spent uranium that was left in Iraq, which was of such an astronomical amount that it has contaminated the water supply. I heard that even our own people have gotten sick from it.....and Assange is called a terrorist? For simply releasing the truth?:help:

I don't think he's talking about anything except the revelation of many cancers and deformities. Depleted uranium is one possible cause, but the US also rained chemical weapons on the city. Identifying the cause of cancer is difficult from an epidemiological point of view because it can take a while to occur and manifests in so many different ways. In a situation like Iraq, which has been contaminated by numerous different kinds of munitions over the course of two wars of aggression, I imagine it's a real headache.

I read an interview with a nurse who said nobody looks forward to births any more in certain areas of Iraq because nobody knows what is going to come out. Nice to see the US government is aware of the problem but just doesn't care (as long as nobody back home finds out).

 

[LuisDantas]

The fact that fighters on all sides always behave immorally in war does not mean we must all pretend it is moral to do so.

Quite right. On the contrary even, that is the main reason why "win a war" is a contradiction of terms.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Ah, but with the van, he thought he was only shooting people who he suspected wanted to provide aid to wounded (alleged) insurgents.

...which is obviously unacceptable and ought to be criminal. I totally agree and I've made this point repeatedly.

You have no cause to be looking down your nose at me - I haven't denied any facts. I simply have a different interpretation of the facts than you do (and perhaps more skepticism that any facts beyond what we can see in the video can be known). I consider the entire war to be a murderous, criminal enterprise.

That's pretty much my view as well. I'm not looking down my nose at anyone. If you don't deny the evidence that there were weapons, and that the gunner didn't know he was shooting journalists or children, great we agree.

It follows that all its willing participants can be held personally morally accountable for the civilian blood on their hands (and even those evil "insurgents" were mostly peaceful civilians before the US barged in). I set the ethical bar for "acceptable killing" a little higher than you do, is all. Perhaps I've placed it where it would be practically impossible for any killing by voluntary representatives of the aggressor state in the context of a war of occupation to be morally justifiable.

I repeat: I'm not saying what appears in the video is acceptable or morally justifiable. Quite the opposite.

It doesn't require me to ignore any "facts" to place it there, though. Also, it's rationally consistent in that I don't need to construct two sets of ethics - one wishy-washy array of "moral gray areas" for "war zones" and another, separate and higher standard of behavior for the society in which I live and work.

I did not construct these two different sets of ethics, either. If you see someone aiming an RPG at others where you live and work, by all means, defend yourself and your fellow citizens. I did distinguish between an individual's actions once they are in a life-and-death situation, VS. the decisions (individual and societal) which lead up to those situations. I'm not suggesting we judge these different decisions by different standards of ethics, but only that they are different decisions, which may or may not come out differently when we judge them using the same standard of ethics. It seems to me the case for the immorality of the latter decisions (the decision to continue the occupation in Iraq) is more convincing than the immorality of the former (the decision to fire on insurgents who are about to ambush a U.S. patrol). The immorality of the decision to fire on the van, as I've said repeatedly, was definitely criminal and wrong.