Worth dying for

[nomadologist]

So you support the doctrine of pre-emptive war as well?



You know what's really useful? Since as yet we aren't able to read minds to determine "violent" thoughts (though thankfully we can interpret bad poetry as literally as we like), we can simply match rates of incarceration to highly visible skin color and arrest people accordingly! Of course Arabs are much more likely to bomb public places, at least according to Hollywood movies (though white supremacists have committed more terrorist acts on U.S. soil than Muslims). And black people are more likely to commit crime, especially young poor ones. So why don't we just, you know, PROFILE them based on their RACE, not on the basis of actually having committed any crimes. I'm sure we'll all be safer, and isn't that the goal of free societies?

roffle

 

[Gavin]

Of course there are many ways to prevent crime, but in the brutal era we find ourselves in, all solutions must use force, violence, and incarceration because we've finally defined all crime as so irrational that those who even think of it must be monsters deserving of ever harsher punishments.

 

[nomadologist]

A ha, so you do conflate poetry and bombmaking!

My point Tea, is not that you explicitly support pre-emptive war and racial profiling (though maybe you do, I don't know), but the logic of your "ethical" position certainly leaves ample room for these practices, which are currently wreaking more havoc than Islamist bombs, fictional, potential or actual. That all freedoms can be suspended for an indefinite amount of extra "safety," of course unquantifiable and left to the discretion of those supplying the tasers and flak jackets.

To me, it seems as if Mr. Tea's "ethical" "point of view", if he has one (he usually tries to tell me I'm way off if I guess according to what he's said on this forum), is a somewhat convoluted non-ethical apologist's stance for the pro-war right's justifications for the current mess in the middle east.

To see someone who seems like they must be intelligent on some level (this person is in a physics PhD program) making arguments about the oh so scary and dangerous practices of muslims at large (of course, these are blindly aggressive muslims who were unprovoked!) is just weird to me. The problem with most of his hypotheticals and the ethical situational examples he sets up are that he appears to think the current situation takes place in a political vacuum where you cannot ultimately trace the instability and turmoil of the region to MODERNISM cum ZIONISM and all of its wonderful fallout.

 

[Mr. Tea]

The terrorism manuals and poetry (and, let's not forget, membership of extremist organisations) go together. I wouldn't be too fussed about either one on its own, but in combination they seem rather disturbing; a desire to commit violence coupled with detailed information on how to go about doing so. Put it another way: would you be happy knowing that some guy who worked at a nursery had been found in possession of violently pornographic stories involving children (that he'd written), had communicated extensively with like-minded individuals AND had a load of duck-tape and chloroform in the boot of his car? Wouldn't you be worried that he *might* be up to something?

Racial profiling is another thing altogether and I would be completely against it. But simply saying "she's being victimised for being a Muslim" is ridiculous, because the vast majority of Muslims do not do what she did, which was to accrue the specific materials and contacts that led to her being investigated and arrested.

 

[Gavin]

Well physics doesn't require much in the way of ethics. Tea strikes me as the kind of person who would gladly let innocent people get locked up if it meant he had a fraction more peace-of-mind the next time he's at the airport or waiting for the bus. Not very unusual, but quite disturbing.

 

[Gavin]

Racial profiling is another thing altogether and I would be completely against it. But simply saying "she's being victimised for being a Muslim" is ridiculous, because the vast majority of Muslims do not do what she did, which was to accrue the specific materials and contacts that led to her being investigated and arrested.

I'm saying racial profiling works under the same assumption of "well they MIGHT do bad, they may be LIKELY to do bad, let's lock them up." Notice how easy it is to move the stakes of "likely": According to you, a terrorism manual by itself is not likely, but the poetry pushes it over the edge. How exactly did you get to this distinction? You pulled it out of your ass, right? Why are you so comfortable letting cops and the government pull this shit out of THEIR asses -- why do you want to cede all civilian protections from the government? Probably because as a straight white bookish apolitical professional class law-n-order type, you have much less to fear from abusive cops than most, so let Daddy Government have all the power and administer all the spankings He needs to -- after all, you're his favorite, he would NEVER spank you.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Haha, I've become nomad's "this person", like Clinton's "that woman".

Yes, the middle east is a huge mess, due in no small part of the interventions of various Western countries. (What's that - an opinion different from Vimothy's? But he and I are the same person, aren't we?) When the current war started, I had high hopes that something good might come of it despite, not because of, the motivations of the protagonists. Needless to say, I have been bitterly disappointed - go ahead, do the smug I-told-you-so thing if you really want to. Anyway, I am certainly not seeing people like this terror-fantasist or whatever she may be, and indeed the various real live terrorists who have committed acts or been apprehended before managing to commit them, in a political vacuum: it's entirely understandable why they are angry. I'm angry about it too, for what it's worth, as such a huge opportunity to do something good has been squandered (or was squandered, before it even started) by the mindboggling greed and cynicism of the people brought it all about.

However, I do so hope you're not trying to justify acts of terror against the general public of either your country or mine as a result of this? PLEASE tell me you're not doing that, right?

And yes, you are wildly off, as usual: I am not talking about the murderous impulses of "Muslims at large" - we're talking about a single woman here, out of a British Muslim population of well over a million - and as for unprovoked...well, has *she* personally been bombed in Iraq? Have *I* personally bombed any Iraqis? We're back the 'justification' thing again: why is it assumed that it's perfectly OK for some British Muslim who probably has no connection to Iraq to hold a potentially murderous grudge against British non-Muslims in general, most of whom didn't even vote for the government that took us into the war? Whereas a white British person who decided to hate all Muslims just because some of them are terrorists would of course justifiably be called a racist!

 

[Gavin]

Tea, I can't speak for others' posts but I have made every effort to be eminently reasonable here. I'm not calling anyone a racist, I don't want to gloat, I am not justifying terror, I am not even trying to understand terrorists. I am trying to understand why YOU think people who haven't committed crimes should be imprisoned and teasing out your various positions based on your posts.

Anyway, I think murderous grudges are perfectly legal. Just so long as you don't act on them. And to respond to your child molester example, he shouldn't be allowed to work at a nursery school, but I wouldn't throw him in prison.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I'm saying racial profiling works under the same assumption of "well they MIGHT do bad, they may be LIKELY to do bad, let's lock them up." Notice how easy it is to move the stakes of "likely": According to you, a terrorism manual by itself is not likely, but the poetry pushes it over the edge. How exactly did you get to this distinction? You pulled it out of your ass, right? Why are you so comfortable letting cops and the government pull this shit out of THEIR asses -- why do you want to cede all civilian protections from the government? Probably because as a straight white bookish apolitical professional class law-n-order type, you have much less to fear from abusive cops than most, so let Daddy Government have all the power and administer all the spankings He needs to -- after all, you're his favorite, he would NEVER spank you.

If you're saying "Do you think it's right that you have less to fear from the government/law enforcement/The Man than someone who has manuals on firearms, bomb-making and poisons, was a member of banned extremist groups, called for the destruction of entire countries and got off on watching videos of people being beheaded?" then I would say yes, I think it's right. I have less to fear from the law than a mugger or burgler, too.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Tea, I can't speak for others' posts but I have made every effort to be eminently reasonable here. I'm not calling anyone a racist, I don't want to gloat, I am not justifying terror, I am not even trying to understand terrorists. I am trying to understand why YOU think people who haven't committed crimes should be imprisoned and teasing out your various positions based on your posts.

Anyway, I think murderous grudges are perfectly legal. Just so long as you don't act on them. And to respond to your child molester example, he shouldn't be allowed to work at a nursery school, but I wouldn't throw him in prison.

OK, fair enough, I was responding to nomad, who has persistently called me a racist, or at least strongly implied as much ("you'd defend white supremacist" etc. etc.) and recently mentioned Muslims being 'provoked' into committing terror attacks.

Also, as I have said plenty of times before I do NOT necessarily think she should be locked up, just that I can see that there are valid arguments to support why she should - you mention the point about 'pre-emptive' justice as a powerful counter-argument.

 

[Gavin]

If you're saying "Do you think it's right that you have less to fear from the government/law enforcement/The Man than someone who has manuals on firearms, bomb-making and poisons, was a member of banned extremist groups, called for the destruction of entire countries and got off on watching videos of people being beheaded?" then I would say yes, I think it's right. I have less to fear from the law than a mugger or burgler, too.

A mugger just takes your shit, Tea, it's not the same as being tortured by the police and imprisoned and having a criminal record. And you missed the point: of course YOU don't have much to fear from the cops (though probably more than you assume), but many people have MUCH more to fear for no reason other than they are not rich enough and not white enough, and this exposes the selfishness of your "ethical" position -- that you endorse repressive government measures because you personally won't be affected (so you believe).

 

[Gavin]

Also, as I have said plenty of times before I do NOT necessarily think she should be locked up, just that I can see that there are valid arguments to support why she should - you mention the point about 'pre-emptive' justice as a powerful counter-argument.

This is the kind of shit that pisses me off... you don't NECESSARILY endorse her imprisonment, you just justified it in all your posts. I evaluate your position based on your arguments not what you label yourself being 'for' or 'against'. The for and against are just meaningless consumer choices taking the place of thought... no one is "for" racial profiling, yet it happens more and more, partly because of these disavowals.. "I would NEVER support racial profiling, but of course I won't actually think about it in any depth -- why bother, I've ticked the 'against' box."

 

[Mr. Tea]

Lots of people who get mugged are beaten up or stabbed and suffer panic attacks and anxiety for years to come as a result. Anyway, I could have picked rapists or drunk-drivers or any other species of selfish arsehole, it's beside the point. Yes, the police in Britain certainly aren't perfect but they are generally much better behaved than the police in many other countries, and I don't think they torture people, as you put it.

And I've just seen your other post...*sigh* no I don't support racial profiling, but it seems reasonable to investigate people who have extensive links to terrorists or extremist organisations, if you're serious about preventing attacks from happening, isn't it?

 

[Gavin]

Tea, I don't think you've been mugged, arrested, or victim of a terror attack, so they should all be equal in your mind, right?

I've never been arrested (harassed by the cops, of course) or subject to a terror attack, but I have been mugged, and it was quite a mundane experience... Then again, I try not to live in an illusory bubble of perfect safety.

it seems reasonable to investigate people who have extensive links to terrorists or extremist organisations, if you're serious about preventing attacks from happening, isn't it?

The links she has are completely opaque. We're not told what organization she "tried" to give money to, although it's "linked" (whatever that means) to that British Islamist guy that gets people's panties in a bunch -- although if that guy is so bad, like OSAMA level why can they never manage to convict him of anything? He probably has better lawyers than this girl. Also investigate, sure, but arrest, try, and convict?

If the U.S. were serious about preventing attacks, they would do MANY MANY things differently. Like not fund the mujadeen in the 70s and 80s, not support the Egyptian government, not invade Iraq... jeez, it's like they don't really want to prevent terror attacks at all!

My guess is this girl is just some sad loser getting off on writing mean poetry and watching beheading vids and posting on message boards. You know, like your friend who's super into anarchism right now, with all the printouts about bombmaking and assassinating government officials, a mock AK on the mantle to impress girls, and a bunch of Proudhon he doesn't read who just likes to do drugs and listen to punk rock and will never come close to blowing up anything. Otherwise they would have rolled her up the chain of command (links! remember) and found someone with, you know, an actual weapon or something. There are supposed to be people like that, right, the whole point of these new wonderful laws? The cops realized they didn't have shit on her, so they ran with what they had, probably to generate some stats on the success of these terror laws.

 

[nomadologist]

I never said Mr. Tea was a racist. I said he had no real ethical point of view that didn't consist of consistently attempting to apologize for and justify the pro-war right in all of its ideological weaknesses.

 

[nomadologist]

Haha, I've become nomad's "this person", like Clinton's "that woman".

I have no idea what this means.

When the current war started, I had high hopes that something good might come of it despite, not because of, the motivations of the protagonists.

There were never any intentions to do *anything* but secure our economic position against China in the future in engaging in this war. As any hardcore fiscal republican would have been happy to tell you three, four years ago.

However, I do so hope you're not trying to justify acts of terror against the general public of either your country or mine as a result of this? PLEASE tell me you're not doing that, right?

No, of course this does not *justify* acts of terror, but it sure does a lot by way of explaning the political motivations behind them.

And yes, you are wildly off, as usual: I am not talking about the murderous impulses of "Muslims at large" - we're talking about a single woman here, out of a British Muslim population of well over a million - and as for unprovoked...well, has *she* personally been bombed in Iraq?

Yes, I am "wildly off", Mr. Tea--this woman exists in a vacuum, and her political beliefs and motivations are wholly separate from what has been going on in the Middle East for the last forty years or more.

No violence is good, none of it is justified, but you CANNOT even begin to believe that muslims should lie back and get politically and literally fucking raped by Western imperialism without fighting back. Why the FUCK would they do this? Why should they? You're not THAT stupid, are you?

 

[nomadologist]

If the U.S. were serious about preventing attacks, they would do MANY MANY things differently. Like not fund the mujadeen in the 70s and 80s, not support the Egyptian government, not invade Iraq... jeez, it's like they don't really want to prevent terror attacks at all!

The cops realized they didn't have shit on her, so they ran with what they had, probably to generate some stats on the success of these terror laws.

If the U.S. and the U.K. were serious about preventing attacks, they wouldn't waste valuable time and precious resources on creating media spectacles out of obviously harmless, not-connected terrorista wannabes. It couldn't be that the same governments that are getting a lot of heat for having wasted innummerable dollars and euros on a pointless and unjustifiable "war" might try to create media spectacles like the terrorista in question in order to convince people that, YES, the sand negro heman white capitalist male haters do nothing but plot to rob us of our "freedom."

It's no small wonder that this particular spectacle is a female--when the approval rating numbers for the war dipped to a new low, suddenly the mainstream media in the U.S. started focusing intently on the serious new phenomenon of (gasp!) female suicide bombers. Because you know a society is *really* going to hell when the women start wearing pants, voting, and learning to make bombs.

It's rather hilarious in a sad sort of way to watch from the outside as the U.K. turns more and more into a shade of post-Reaganite Americana--socially, politically, economically. We Americans might have expected more from Brits than to buy into this kind of garbage 10 years ago, but more and more it's looking like the U.K. is like America's little mini-me that we we've been squeezing out our political asshole for a couple of decades.

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

It's no small wonder that this particular spectacle is a female--when the approval rating numbers for the war dipped to a new low, suddenly the mainstream media in the U.S. started focusing intently on the serious new phenomenon of (gasp!) female suicide bombers. Because you know a society is *really* going to hell when the women start wearing pants, voting, and learning to make bombs.

You may recall from the CIA 'strategy' for dealing with diehard members of the Weather Underground in the late-1960s/1970s: shoot the women first, all informed by 'the latest findings' in psychological research! [And isn't Ripley from the Aliens movie series so much more threatening-macho than that moaning/self-pitying, masochistic Boo Hoo Hoo in-search-of-a-buddy Bruce Willis in the Diehard series, just as Jodi Foster is now the New Charles Bronson, as Clint Eastwood defers to Thelma and Louise ... Women With Guns (even Tarantino can't help wetting himself) ... 'What's the world coming to! I remember when they knew their proper place ...']

But of course the notion of the CIA [and their foreign equivalents, from Mossad to the ISI to MI5/6] as being a terrorist organization ... unthinkable!! Aren't they on our side?

It's rather hilarious in a sad sort of way to watch from the outside as the U.K. turns more and more into a shade of post-Reaganite Americana--socially, politically, economically. We Americans might have expected more from Brits than to buy into this kind of garbage 10 years ago, but more and more it's looking like the U.K. is like America's little mini-me that we we've been squeezing out our political asshole for a couple of decades.

It has been so for decades; but what's even more disturbing is that both Sarkozy's France and Merkel's Germany are all now competing for 'preferred status' as best-performing neo-con sychophant [a manifestation of this is that none of the dominant political elites in Europe now rule out 'using nukes' against a non-existent Iranian threat, joined of course by all the Clintons and Obamas of the US 'opposition'].

 

[vimothy]

It's rather hilarious in a sad sort of way to watch from the outside as the U.K. turns more and more into a shade of post-Reaganite Americana--socially, politically, economically. We Americans might have expected more from Brits than to buy into this kind of garbage 10 years ago, but more and more it's looking like the U.K. is like America's little mini-me that we we've been squeezing out our political asshole for a couple of decades.

That being the case, I'm sure you'll be glad to learn that pretty much everyone I know in the UK, or talk to about politics, despises America, its government and its people.

 

[swears]

It's rather hilarious in a sad sort of way to watch from the outside as the U.K. turns more and more into a shade of post-Reaganite Americana--socially, politically, economically. We Americans might have expected more from Brits than to buy into this kind of garbage 10 years ago, but more and more it's looking like the U.K. is like America's little mini-me that we we've been squeezing out our political asshole for a couple of decades.

Yeah, and it's ironic that there are so many anti-european union scare stories in the print media, yet our americanisation isn't seen as a political issue at all.

That being the case, I'm sure you'll be glad to learn that pretty much everyone I know in the UK, or talk to about politics, despises America, it's government and its people.

Yeah, while drinking coke, wearing nikes, watching hollywood blockbusters, calling their mates "dude", etc...