[plug] [OT+link] Feeling secure?

[Leon Brooks]

On Friday 27 December 2002 11:25 am, sscott at iinet.net.au wrote:
> reality check - Im sure that they only nab the guys who are nasty.

Why?

>> why pretend to have principles in the first place?

> Cos it makes for a nicer world. :D

No, it doesn't. It makes for a world in which you can never be at all sure how 
the person you're facing will react. A world in which you could literally 
trust nobody.

> How many times would it take someone to punch you in the face before you
> hit back? Once for me. Maybe ten for you. But in the end we'd both give up
> our principles.

No, there are a range of other responses than mindlessly hitting back (or 
hitting first), many of them far more effective and far easier to implement.

>> Bullying. Quite simple, really.

> To a point, yes. But there are many instances of bullying and standover
> tactics in the world that are necessary.

Oh, good. We're doing it because everyone else is doing it! Kindergarten or 
responsible, mature adults?

> Even a mother/child relationship fits this to a degree.

Er, no? But let's not drag your mum into it.

> Its not for me to second guess their tactics - as long as they work.

And of course, the argument falls apart there again. If the tactics worked, 
would they have to be employed so often?

>>> As long as I dont have to witness the horror of a man being tortured,
>>> and am allowed to continue in my own little peaceful world, I am
>>> forever indebted to these people.

>> Now there's an interesting statement.

> In what way? They're willing to deal with the crap, Im willing to stick my
> head in the sand. Everyone is happy.

Remind me never to call on you for assistance.

>>> They paid the price for our freedom.

>> Yes, but for the most part they did it _honourably_.

> Crap. The allies were as nasty as the enemy.

I'll see you and raise you a crap. Look at the stats, not at emotionally 
loaded, handpicked examples.

> WWII - coldblooded killing (including children), torture, unnecessary
> destruction of property

Look at the stats for this one, and for WW1. Then consider that the following 
two wars were completely different because they were fought by people with 
your attitude, not by honourable Allied soldiers.

> Korea - more innocents killed, more torture

> Vietnam - according to my mate, 'there were no rules'. He did things that,
> as I said, still cause him to wake up screaming. They basically killed
> anything that moved, and when it took their fancy, raped it then killed it.

>>> I take my hat off to all of them, and the current US action. If it
>>> means that my daughter can grow up without worrying about being the
>>> target of a terrorist attack, I back them fully.

>> Sadly, it doesn't.

> but it will. If the US has their way, the war will last 50 years and by
> the end of it most of the middle east and some of asia will be completely
> destroyed.

Nice. Cauterise half the planet and kill 2-3 billion people? If that's a 
desirable outcome, what would these geniuses class as a disaster?

>>> The absolute truth is that I would prefer that 100 terrorists were
>>> killed or tortured to my family suffering any harm whatsoever. I dont even
>>> mind if some of them are wrongly accused.

>> Yeah? And if you yourself were one of the wrongly accused, would you
>> still feel that way?

> How would I be wrongly accused?

You piss off a couple of neighbours, they dob you in for something you didn't 
do. Because you are under martial law, you never get to know the identity of 
your accusers and often not even the exact nature of your supposed crime. All 
of your assets are forfeit instantly EVEN IF YOU'RE EVENTUALLY ACQUITTED and 
your accusers get a percentage of the proceeds (that's the _exact_ state of 
drug laws in the USA right now). Meanwhile, you're not around to protect your 
family, and/or they are arrested too.

> As I said in a previous email, make sure
> youre with the 'good guys' and youll be right.

AFAICT, there are no good guys.

>>> Do you think Linux would flourish in a world run by terrorists?

>> No, which is why I object to the USA behaving like terrorists themselves.

> Explain further? Im intrigued.

Terrorists work outside the rules. Terrorists do stuff like destructively 
interviewing potential innocents. Terrorists bully, and rule by fear rather 
than acclaim.

>>> They are *protecting* your freedoms, including the freedom to develop
>>> linux.

>> No, they're protecting their own interests. If they happen to coincide
>> with mine (or yours), that doesn't excuse their methods.

> I think it does. Or at least, in my eyes it does.

Why do you think it does?

> Whatever gets the job done.

Well, no. If you sling sh*t, you inevitably wind up smelly yourself. The ends 
most definitely do not justify the means. That kind of logic belongs to the 
terrorists, I see no reason for us to fall for it as well.

> If it means a reduced threat of terrorism and cheap oil, go go go!

Why do you trust people who have repeatedly been wrong (Bay of Pigs, anyone?) 
when they reiterate the assertions at the heart of their previous errors?

>>> If youre nice and
>>> peaceful and good to your fellow man, then you have nothing to fear.

>> Nice theory. Do bear in mind that you're trying to apply it to the real
>> world, which is made up of real people.

> Yes, and some of those people are on remote islands with electodes on
> their testicles. Im sitting in an airconditioned office.

Does the sign on the door read `FOOLS PARADISE'?

    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fools%20paradise

> Just my point. There is no 'honourable conflict'. It is all amoral
> butchery.

That's worse than the terrorists.

> Killing someone is killing someone. We see '100 taliban were killed in the
> conflict'. The guys on the ground see blood, entrails and faeces. How
> honourable was it when my mate got covered in his mates brains in a
> Vietnamese jungle? Did he then act in a honourable way? No, he went and
> shot a whole bunch of people.

The Australians in particular had an excellent record for honour during Korea 
and Vietnam. This is all the more exceptional because they were placed in the 
situation of effectively being _not_allowed_ to win, and because their 
opponents very rarely played by anything like fair rules. If your mate 
cracked, that's sad, but it's not representative of the Australian armed 
forces, despite the hype and stuff that they're subject to.

> Fair society? what did you say about 'real world' and 'real people' again?

I say that they need practical, pragmatic and reasonable rules, with 
enforcement of a matching calibre, in order to cope with the impractical, 
fantastic and unreasonable behaviour of a few among their number.

>>> I think the young people in this country need a good dose of national
>>> service to wake them up - I dont want the next generation of leaders to
>>> let the country become overrun with terrorists and extremists just to
>>> avoid offending someone...

>> It may surprise you, but I do agree with this. It works for Switzerland.

> You agree with me Leon? Gee, thats no fun! :D

We're not discussing a laughing matter.

Cheers; Leon