Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FaultLine who wrote (84959)	3/22/2003 3:34:35 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Fine article Ken. I especially like this passage because I think it applies to other aspects of modern life beyond military. As technology separates individuals from the results of their actions, it cheats them of the chance to absorb and reckon with the enormity of what they have done. ST

To: FaultLine who wrote (84959)	3/22/2003 5:08:46 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

Excellent essay. To clarify, I would argue that the source from whence the code that permits violence, but controls it, derives, is not from within the warrior, but from his culture, his milieu. Same, I would argue, for anybody in any society who exercises the right and obligation to act violently within social constraints. This includes, in our culture, not just soldiers, but cops, guards, FBI, BATF, and IRS agents. And, from my own experience, lawyers - as a libertarian I always feel somewhat abashed about seizing people's bank accounts and foreclosing on their houses and so forth. And all of us are hated by some, because we have the right to exercise violent force in some form or another, and people don't like that, and I don't blame them. It is always preferable to avoid violence, and so easy to abuse the power to exercise violent force. According to Mao, as I said earlier, the people support the revolutionary like the water supports the fish. We can see this most clearly, historically, in resistance movements, like the French Resistance, which is why guerilla movements like Shining Path are so problematic to define. What, then, are we to make of the Islamist terrorists? Al Qaeda? Or, for that matter, Palestinian suicide bombers? The Koran does not give them the right to attack innocent people, especially not non-combatants, especially not women and children. Thus, they do not act according to their own code of the warrior. I am looking forward to reading Qutb's In the Shade of the Koran and was happy to locate a copy locally, but I would bet that Qutb doesn't delineate an ethos that permits the killing of children. Can we call a man who does not act according to his own ethos, his own code of the warrior, a true warrior? I would argue no. In the mythical cosmic dinner table we are always being asked to imagine, I would love to dine with Mohammed and Qutb and others of similar beliefs, and ask them to explain whether it is acceptable to blow children into hamburger using nail bombs, and if so, why.