I'll never listen to Elvis the same way again

I was speaking of the context of the discussion in this thread. Oftentimes there is great value in considering things within the context they are presented. For one thing, it can minimize the instance of ‘knee-jerk’ reactions which do little to foster a genuine exchange of ideas.

You wish to abandon the context in this instance. Fine, I can live with that. I was merely trying to frame the references for my earlier response, for clarity’s sake. I believe that I have done so to the best of my ability so I will cease trying.

Just because the ‘Court of Public Opinion’ may have been correct in a given instance doesn’t mean that it is always correct - even a broken clock is right twice a day. My reference to the ‘rules of evidence’ was a, perhaps too subtle, allusion to the quality of information available to the ‘Court of Public Opinion’. I believe that we, in the West, are much more recipients of ‘spin’ than we are of actual ‘news’.

And to answer your question - No, I don’t remember way back when that we decided war was wrong. Do you mean all war? All the time? Including World War II? If so, I demand a re-count on that decision.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
And to answer your question - No, I don’t remember way back when that we decided war was wrong. Do you mean all war? All the time? Including World War II? If so, I demand a re-count on that decision.


Now we’re really widening the topic! :D

But before I wade in, someone had better define for me the meaning of “right” and “wrong” in an absolute sense.

But I suppose we all have an instinctive gut feeling that war, as a general principal, is a bad thing.

Unless we win one of course.

I was watching a TV proggy a while back about a war that’s been going on for as far back as anyone can remember.

Two tribes in central Africa that have been going at it for generations. Every couple of years a wee battle; broken bones, some seriously so, and even the occasional death.

But, the youngsters liked it. A great chance to show off their manliness, and even for the old men, it’s an opportunity to sit around and mutter about; “When I was a lad, then we had real battles…mutter, mutter”.

Thankfully, due to the incursion of modern civilisation, the war is almost over. They now all have AK47’s etc., and the death rate now greatly exceeds the birth rate.

So, I suppose it’s now a “better” war, 'cos soon the monkeys will have the forest to themselves and all those nasty noisy humans will be gone. :)

i like the cloud of"rationale"you spin,Wilhan-i disagree,i’m not an idiot.these are not knee-jerk reactions,nor am i out of context.i fashioned my beliefs thru struggle,loss and pain.they will not change…yeah,wow how subtle an allusion-way over my head…i didn’t abandon the context,i got to the point.you don’t agree war is wrong,that’s your belief-maybe you are mssing the subtle allusion that killing is wrong-all religions agree.i won’t debate ww1 or 2 with you-iraq is not that issue.it is my belief that new solutions are possible and necessary,that’s what i want.typical white male response-got to reserve the “right” to kill those you disagree with-consider peace.there are other readers out there who know what i’m refering to.i wonder where you spent the 60’s…yes,we were rightthen,(C of PO)and we’ll be right this time,too
as far as this issue,the presence of these goons is indicative of our lack of morality in this war.it’s not suddenly ok because “they are there”.
it does no good to try to appear more intelligent than you are-laurie anderson

be brave -say no to the killing

ps.you have to know where to get your news-but someone so smart knows that
pps-its interesting,this war is such a sham that you and i agree we shouldn’t have entered it with false intelligence
(i know,your’s is conditional)

Was all of that post directed at Wihan Audiobru?

If so, I suggest you go back and re-read the posts on this thread, and who wrote them.

I’ve never heard Wihan say he was pro-war, quite the opposite in fact.

Nor, re-reading Bill’s posts, is Bill waving the flag and yelling “Death to Iraqis”.

Is it possible Audiobru that you’ve misinterpreted some of the things that have been said on here?

I know I do that all the time; it’s very easy to read what one expects, and not what is actually written, especially when one is emotionally involved.

:)

i’m not saying anyone is anything,i’m stating my position,simply.i was answering the post at the bottom of pg2.,which i felt was high handed and patronizing.my views are different ,not wrong.no foul-no offence intended.as i said earlier,i appreciate the input,i always learn something here.i feel i am representing an underrepresented position.i am not ignoring the finer issues,i’m trying to take the high road…i addressed the issues in the middle of an ongoing conversation,check the posts-i do not think any of these gentlemen are pro-war or saying kill iraqs-i simply question writing all this off because “we’re already there” or it’s part of someone’s job-as stated.if i have misinterpreted anyone’s comments,i appologize…i’m always willing to learn-but i meant what i said.i have been working for peace for a long time,i don 't think there’s a middle ground…i state the position left of any here,that’s all.
but- i’ve been buffaloed by the best,and i felt buffalo-ed here…“you missed the subtle sub-context etc” no way-i just disagree

Quote (audiobru @ Nov. 29 2005,15:31)
i like the cloud of"rationale"you spin,Wilhan-i disagree,i'm not an idiot.these are not knee-jerk reactions,nor am i out of context.i fashioned my beliefs thru struggle,loss and pain.they will not change...yeah,wow how subtle an allusion-way over my head...i didn't abandon the context,i got to the point.you don't agree war is wrong,that's your belief-maybe you are mssing the subtle allusion that killing is wrong-all religions agree.i won't debate ww1 or 2 with you-iraq is not that issue.it is my belief that new solutions are possible and necessary,that's what i want.typical white male response-got to reserve the "right" to kill those you disagree with-consider peace.there are other readers out there who know what i'm refering to.i wonder where you spent the 60's....yes,we were rightthen,(C of PO)and we'll be right this time,too
as far as this issue,the presence of these goons is indicative of our lack of morality in this war.it's not suddenly ok because "they are there".
it does no good to try to appear more intelligent than you are-laurie anderson

be brave -say no to the killing

ps.you have to know where to get your news-but someone so smart knows that
pps-its interesting,this war is such a sham that you and i agree we shouldn't have entered it with false intelligence
(i know,your's is conditional)

You know, I'm almost on the verge of being offended here.

First off, I'm Bill - not Wilhan (not that being mistaken for Wilhan is offensive; just that that is not who I am).

Second, I did not typify your reactions as 'knee-jerk" I merely opined that considering issues 'in context' minimizes knee-jerk reactions. This particular point, however, now has an irony that I am sure is not wasted on you.

Third - and if this offends you I apologize but to me it seems self-evident - assertions that one's beliefs "will not change" are essentially assertions that one's mind is closed. Beliefs are based on perceptions and if those perceptions change significantly then it follows that the beliefs spawned by those perceptions will change as well. To refuse to allow even the possibility of such change in belief is to artificially elevate the current set of perceptions to the level of 'fact'. It is bigotry - plain and simple.

Fourth, I characterized my reference to the 'rules of evidence' as being 'perhaps too subtle' as a means of shifting responsibility for clarity in the matter to myself. Where I come from, this is called 'courtesy'.

Fifth, you did abandon the context - which, as I said, is fine with me. But please don't insult the intelligence of everyone who may read these threads by revising history. The issue of whether or not you abandoned the context is of so little importance in the discussion at hand that you belittle yourself in arguing it.

Sixth, I do not agree that war is wrong in all circumstances. Please do not paraphrase me if you are going to do so incorrectly.

Seventh, not all religions agree that all killing is wrong all the time. If you believe that they do you are inadequately informed about most of the world's religions.

Eighth, you stated that "way back when... we decided war was wrong" and I sought clarification of your statement because on the surface it appeared patently absurd and rather than simply demolish it based on its surface appearance I thought that the decent thing to do was to give you the opportunity to revise it to a less absurd state through context. Again, where I come from this is called 'courtesy'.

Ninth, new solutions may indeed be possible and even necessary. But you have not suggested any new solutions. You have merely disavowed the existing ones. That's akin to advising a jockey to 'make the horse run faster' as a strategy.

Tenth, 'typical white male response'. This is so potentially offensive on so many levels that I hesitate to even mention it for fear that anyone might mistakenly believe that I have dignified it with a response. Figure this one out for yourself.

Actually - come to think of it - figure the whole thing out for youself. I'm weary of trying to reason with the unreasonable.

wow,you guys are too much-i just dis agree…sorry bout confusing the posts-my error.iif you can justify these things or want to-play on…i’m clearly outnumbered.i wish no ill will…i will post no more,this is fruitless
i shouldn’t post with a 300 blood sugar-sorry to anyone offended,especially BilClarke and Wilhem

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
How did Keith “justify” the actions? It is sad how far senseless acts of violence can be “spun”.


Keith wasn’t justifying the actions of the people in the video, just reporting on it.

Here is the section of the transcript that applies to the video (the entire transcript can be found here):

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

OLBERMANN: It looks like private security guards shooting, seemingly at random, at passing vehicles on the road to the Baghdad Airport, all of it captured on video, video that reportedly first appeared on a Web site that is unofficially linked to a British contracting firm called Aegis Defense Services. And you and I are paying Aegis defense services $293 million as part of a contract awarded by the Pentagon last year. Our third story on the COUNTDOWN, to borrow the headline from the newspaper that reported all this first, “the Sunday Telegraph” in London: “Trophy Video Exposes Private Security Contractors Shooting up Iraqi Drivers.”

But is the video what it seems to be? We know only this much, it is a montage of shootings with Elvis Presley‘s “Mystery Train” as a musical background. An expert will help us try to explain it.

First, we better show most of it to you.

The Web site that first posted that tape, according to “the Sunday Telegraph,” was Aegisiraq.co.uk which states, this site does not belong to Aegis Defense Limited, it belongs to the men on the ground who are the heart and soul of the company. The company is now investigating the video. And has, quote, “established a formal board of inquiry in cooperation with the U.S. military authorities to investigate whether the footage has any connection with the company. And should this be the case, under what circumstances any incident took place.”

We contacted the Pentagon. It said it is unaware of any investigation over here, but cannot speak for any possible investigation by the U.S. authorities in Baghdad.

Here to help put this video in to at least some kind of context is MSNBC terrorism analyst and the founder of globalterroralert.com, Evan Kohlmann. Good evening, Evan.

EVAN KOHLMANN, GLOBALTERRORALERT.COM: Good evening.

OLBERMANN: Your first impressions of this tape? What exactly are we seeing here? Those were shootings. Any way to tell what they were and whether they were justified?

KOHLMANN: I think there are two thing to be said about this video. Number one, I don‘t begrudge private contractors from the right to self-defense. Supposedly, these videos were taken on the road between Baghdad and Baghdad‘s Airport, which is probably one of the most dangerous roads on earth.

In one three or four-month period, there were 150 separate attacks on that road, Including Many suicide bombings perpetrated by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. These attacks target convoys of western vehicles. They look for when vehicles slow down at check points, at stoppage points and they try to attack them.

So look, if you‘re a contractor, and you have a vehicle headed towards you at 60 miles an hour, you only have a few seconds to make that decision. It is either your life or theirs. It could be a suicide bomber. It could be an Iraqi family rushing to the hospital.

And these incidents happen with the U.S. military as well. Just last week in Iraq, a U.S. military convoy fired on a civilian vehicle, killing four, including two kids north of Diala (ph) because it was a suspected suicide bomber.

That being said, I think that you draw a line when you compose a video, edit it and add music to it. If the people who filmed this video are the same individuals who added music to it, not only are they sick and twisted, but what is more, is that they are doing tremendous disservice to the United States and great Britain in Iraq.

Not just for private security contractors, but this video is going to be picked up by terrorist groups. It‘s going to be picked up by extremists, by the insurgents, and it‘s going to be used to kill more contractors, U.S. troops, it‘s going to be used to recruit people to do this. So, you know, the stupidity here is in and of itself apparent.

OLBERMANN: Are civilians, civilian contractors, beholden to the same criteria as the U.S. military and other forces there when it comes to making that judgment call about self-defensive shooting in a circumstance like this tape seems to suggest?

KOHLMANN: Well, supposedly, they operate under the same rules as the U.S. military. However, there really isn‘t anyone to check.

And what the Iraqi government says is that in a number of these cases, up to 60 different incidences of similar attacks going on. There‘s really no way for them to verify what happens on the ground.

Most of the time, the private contractors leave. They don‘t hang around waiting for somebody else to barge in on the situation. They deny a lot of times what happens.

So there‘s no compensation for the Iraqi families. And there‘s no answers to exactly what happens. We don‘t really know.

Again, I don‘t begrudge these private contractors the right to self-defense. If I knew that every vehicle approaching me was potentially a suicide car bomb loaded with hundreds of pounds of explosive, I would be a bit jumpy, too. But there‘s a big distinction between self-defense and then broadcasting something as a trophy video.

This is sick. It is twisted. And it‘s absolutely no different from what Abu Musab al-Zarqawi does. He broadcasts suicide bombings and glories the killings of civilians. We should not be a party to that same kind of propaganda.

OLBERMANN: We‘ll keep investigating this. The founder of globalterroralert.com, Evan Kohlmann, as always, great thanks for your time.

Don’t get your knickers in a twist Audiobru, it’s only a discussion, an exchange of ideas and opinions. :D

Anyway, continuing the thought, can any war be “good”.

Actually, I think the question is irrelevant, because I think war is inevitable given human nature and human society.

We breed, incessantly. Limited resources and limited space make it necessary to sometimes kill to get what we want. Fine, we should all sit down and talk to each other and share what’s available, but when it comes down to the last crust and my children are hungry, then don’t expect me to turn the other cheek.

And even contraception and population control won’t work, there’s just too #### many of us.

And there’s many other reasons for war; self defence, greed, testosterone, etc., etc.

But, war is gonna kill us all, sooner or later.

Konrad Lorentz did some interesting studies back in the ‘20’s and 30’s. Sadly, Hitler used Lorentz’s work to scientifically “justify” racial extermination, but that doesn’t invalidate his work.

One thing he investigated was conflict between members of the same species.

If two unrelated adult male wolves are put into an enclosure together, they fight. But not for long. Well before either of them are seriously injured, one of them submits by rolling on his back and baring his throat to the other. The winner is unable to tear out the throat of the loser. It’s obvious he would like to, but he can’t, his instincts are too strong.

So peace reigns. If there is insufficient food for both of them, the subordinate wolf will starve to death, quietly and unprotesting. But if there is enough food, then the dominant will take the most, and the other the remainder.

Two male doves however will react differently. One will kill the other, slowly and painfully. They have no submission/acceptance reaction. They don’t need it in the wild, the bird who is starting to lose will just fly away, and anyway, their natural weapons are fairly insignificant.

So which are we, wolf or dove?

Dove, it seems. Any feelings of “don’t kick a man when he’s down”, or “always give the loser a break” are the result of conditioning, not instinctive, and that conditioning can and will break down fairly easily.

Like the dove, our natural weaponry is pretty pathetic, so we don’t need those instincts.

But that stopped being true a long long time ago. Now our weapons are deadly on a scale unimaginable before. But, we don’t have the right instincts to go with those weapons.

So as a species, we are fucked really.

Protest for peace as much as we want, but it ain’t gonna happen. We like war much too much.

But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t protest against war, or the random murder of non-combatants, or any of the other evils war engenders; it might help someone, somewhere.

But I don’t think we are working for “an end to war”, ‘cos it ain’t gonna happen, it’s just another struggle for another day, and another day is the best we can hope for.

Quote (audiobru @ Nov. 29 2005,17:46)
wow,you guys are too much-i just dis agree...sorry bout confusing the posts-my error.iif you can justify these things or want to-play on...i'm clearly outnumbered.i wish no ill will...i will post no more,,,this is fruitless
i shouldn't post with a 300 blood sugar-sorry to anyone offended,especially BilClarke and Wilhem

audiobru,

You didn't merely disagree, that is precisely the point.

You attacked. You attacked without finesse or style but you attacked nonetheless. And in so doing you precisely proved Ali_G's point for him; in a more graphic sense than his own eloquence could have managed.

Thank God you are out-numbered. I would like to believe that the world is less populated by blind bigots than it is by thoughtful gentlepersons.

Let there be no misunderstanding - I just called you a blind bigot.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
In fact, when the WMDs failed to materialize I thought that Bush should have been required by honour to resign his Presidency (whatever happened to the ‘buck stops here’?)


Bill, I just have to snicker and snort a bit here. I’ll go off in a corner, Be right back! (snickersnortsnicker)…

OK, better now.

Is any war good? Siddhartha is indeed the right text right now - or perhaps the Dhammapda…no war is good, even if some might possibily be necessary, and that is a possibility I have come to doubt more and more. In any case, there is no way this war is necessary. Nope.


Don’t get too upset audiobru, or you either Bill - Bill (if you’ll allow me to say this, Bill :) ) is a tough but thoughtful guy (and I mean “tough” in the best sense). You are too, it seems to me. We’ve had too little compassion lately around here, IMHO, and we need to keep the thoughful folks here.

Ali, however, is a powderpuff. and in any case, I’m always right about everything.

Kidding! :)
Quote (TomS @ Nov. 29 2005,19:50)
In fact, when the WMDs failed to materialize I thought that Bush should have been required by honour to resign his Presidency (whatever happened to the 'buck stops here'?)


Bill, I just have to snicker and snort a bit here. I'll go off in a corner, Be right back! (snickersnortsnicker)...

OK, better now.
Yeah - I know, I know. There is no longer any honour in politics.

(There was a time though...long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away.)

We have a similiar problem here in Canada at the moment. The ruling Liberals have been caught red-handed in a scandal to funnel money from the government coffers to their party. It's called the "Sponsorship Scandal" and it's a slam-dunk certainty that it happened. The only difference is that the Liberals have changed leaders since it was discovered (from Chretien to Martin) and the Liberals claim that makes all the difference. The opposition parties argue that the Liberals have no moral authority to govern and that makes me snicker very much as you just did...

...what the heck does 'moral authority' have to do with governance?

Ah well, once upon a time...

Well, I’m not sure what a powderpuff is Tom, but checking the web it seems to mean; effeminate male homosexual.

Well, I’m certainly male. :D

Anyway, back to war…

As I’ve said before, I’m hazy about the whole good/bad, right/wrong thing. Better or worse, for a defined individual, in a certain situation, I can handle, but not good or bad.

And some people do benefit from wars, arms manufacturers for one, and many more suffer, and suffer horribly.

But we have wars because we want them. The Iraq war is principally about oil and revenge for 9/11, although I’m sure other people have different and varying reasons.

The Falklands war was very popular with the governments, media and people of both countries. OK, the young Argentinian conscripts lying shivering and dying in the trenches, and the Welsh Guards who had their faces melted by napalm probably didn’t see the fun side of things, but almost everyone else had an absolutely wonderful time.

A favourite album of mine is by Donovan, (a great guitarist), and there’s two songs on there which I love, but they always bring a wry smile to my face.

The first is Universal Soldier, an anti-war song, and the other is The Alamo, which celebrates the glory and courage of that battle.

Two good songs, one condemning war and putting the blame squarely on the soldiers who fight in them, and the other praising and glorifying those same soldiers.

We’re a contradictory species aren’t we? :D

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
We’re a contradictory species aren’t we?

Yes and no.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Yes and no.


:D

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Bill: “First off, I’m Bill - not Wilhan (not that being mistaken for Wilhan is offensive; just that that is not who I am).”


No problem there !


<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Ali: “I’ve never heard Wihan say he was pro-war, quite the opposite in fact.”

Right on.

I am against violence and war, but I also know that war is war, and this isn’t a perfect world. Then you HAVE to do what you have to do.
(And I don’t say that this specific instance is right - the fact that some futhermucker uses a war somewhere for his own pleasure to ‘legally kill’ is f*cked up.)

But if there is no other choice then we must do what we must do.
But only as the very last resort.
And that doesn’t mean that I’ll like or even approve of it…

And Ali, it is good to know that South Africa don’t like these guys …

W

Huh, never heard that meaning before, Ali.

Would you be comfortable with a definition of right that equates it with “best for a given individual in a defined set of circumstances”? Just make that “the sum of all such calculations” and you have Bentham.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Would you be comfortable with a definition of right that equates it with “best for a given individual in a defined set of circumstances”?


Sure thing Tom, as long as you define “best”. :)

After all, if the given individual is a shop-lifter, and the defined set of circumstances is him in a store full of easily pocketed goodies, then the “best” situation is the security cameras being broken and the store detective out for lunch.

Not sure if “right” comes into it though. ???

Well, on one reading of Bentham, best could well include those circumstances. Subjective utilitarian theory doesn’t take “good” or “right” to be supernatural things.

Well, I know nothing about the supernatural Tom. And neither am I a student of philosophy. All my life I’ve dealt with what I perceive as reality. And the fact that I’m still alive suggests to me that my perceptions have a sound basis.

But what I do believe, is that there are no absolutes, not in the real world anyway.

Sure, in a model, we can insert as many absolutes and boundary conditions as we want, and if that model helps us understand or deal with the real world, then it’s a useful model.

But that model, be it physics, ethics, economics, whatever; is still only a model, not reality.

So, not only am I unhappy with good/bad, but I’m equally uncomfortable with best/worst in any sense except a strictly limited one, and those limits are always artificially defined in the real world.

So, “a given individual in a given situation” denies any influence from, or effect upon, other individuals and other situations. And that is an unreal assumption. It may be useful, but it’s still unreal.

Consider my shop-lifter, it might be “best” for him if he’s caught, tried, rehabilitated, marries an ex-nun, becomes CEO of a major company, and dies at 33 from stress related heart disease! :D

On the other hand, there may be at least one single absolute out there somewhere, I’m just awaiting an example. :)