> But the action wasn't against the aggressor or even the aggressor's
> assets. It was taken against tens of thousands of basically
> innocent people who just happened to live in the wrong city.
You don't consider major cities as national assets?
> Yes, the idea was that the horrible deaths of thousands of
> innocents would force the government of those people to surrender
> - exactly what the WTC bombers were trying to do, just on a
> larger scale.
Oh, really? ...and just who was the USA supposed to surrender to?
A funny-looking tall man who hides in caves?
> Are you saying terrorism is OK if it works?
> Or if it's done in a "good cause"?
If it ends a World War, as the bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki did, it ain't
...are you saying that you oppose good causes?
--- --- --- --- ---
Useless hypotheses, etc.:
consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind, free will, qualia,
analog computing, cultural relativism, GAC, Cyc, Eliza, cryonics, individual
uniqueness, ego, human values, scientific relinquishment, malevolent AI,
non-sensory experience, SETI
We move into a better future in proportion as science displaces superstition.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:21 MDT