Will Tax Protestor Standoff Lead To Another Ruby Ridge?

[RandFan]

You are dishonest to take my words out of context. You stated that the people who opposed Hitler at first were put into concentration camps.

It doesn't matter. It is immaterial. If we assume you are correct it DOESN'T OBVIATE MY CLAIM.

Once again you equivocate by claiming a different meaning for statements you made earlier.

You are really pissing me off. I'm not equivocating. Even if I accept your contention IT DOESN'T OBVIATE MY CLAIM.

To add to this, you take my words out of context and claim they support your point. Very dishonest of you.

IT DOES SUPPORT MY POINT!

 

[RandFan]

Do you think you can get beyond the two year old toddler level of debate you have become famous for.

? You are not arguing. You are just gainsaying. I have been arguing and you have been simply making assertions.

Go look in the mirror.

Once again you twist words. Go back and look. You made the claim. I gave specific examples of scientists who were there at the time that said the complete opposite to what you claimed.

YOU GO BACK AND LOOK.

You then gave an example of a couple of American scientists who wrote a letter to an American president and claimed they were an indicator of the moral zeitgeist fo the German people of the time.

NO.

No, I am just responding to everything you bring up. You are the one leading this discussion. You move goal posts, muddy the waters, toss out red herrings, in hopes of claiming a victory. I just point out the folley of your strategy.

Get over yourself.

 

[ponderingturtle]

More bullets? {sigh} Ok.

• 9/11 did not have a defined and achievable objective beyond instilling terror.
• The only possible outcome was to instill terror which was an end to itself.
• The strategies of the Allies during WWII did have a defined and an achievable objective of getting the Germans to surrender (German did give up btw).

Now you can argue the carpet bombing ineffective and that's a fair argument but what you can't argue is that America was bombing JUST to instill terror as opposed to the Taliban and 9/11 where terrors was an end to itself.

Allies: Terror was NOT an end to itself.
9/11: Terror WAS an end to itself.

And I think that this is an incorrect assessment. In both terror was a means to a political intent, the political intent was surrender in WWII, here I don't think it is quite as clear and unified, but there is certainly the intent to get the US out of the middle east. It might well not work, but then when the Germans tried moral bombing against the British it didn't work, but that does not mean I see it as much of a reason to differentiate between them.

If they had a military that was capable of invading America and given that 9/11 and other strategies were capable of bringing about the objectives, YES, DAMN STRAIGHT. Of course. It would follow.

Why? Their goal it not to get the US to surrender as such, but to change policy.

If the Taliban had a professional army, was capable of launching a full scale attack and their strategy of targeting civilians was capable of achieving a military objective in order to get America to surrender or accede to their demands then their efforts would not be strictly terrorist in nature.

Why do you need a conventional army to force a nation to accede to your demands? The goal in all of these is political change, and they certainly got that, even if not in the direction they wanted.

I'm not sure how much more clear I can make it. Ask me again though. I've got nothing better to do than to argue ad nauseam. And since my points fall on deaf ears I'm not sure I have any other option.

No you are not at all clear as to why having a conventional army makes such a difference.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No. I suggest that you brush up on your fallacies.

There is a concept known as the "reasonable person" standard. Given the moral zeitgeist of the time (see Geneva Convention) held that the intentional killing of innocent civilians was murder then the proposition stands to reason. It is unreasonable to hold that

I don't agree with you. You are using very different public mindsets as you are comparing people in the war to people before the war. During the war very few people cared, so at the time I think the average person at the time would have said that burning Japanese cities to the ground with all inhabitants was a good thing, not a immoral act.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't think most people were killing innocent civilians prior to war. In any event, no that is not the definition of zeitgeist.

Wow what a strawman. The issue is if they believe killing civilians in a war to break enemy moral is wrong, not if they are individually murders. They don't seem to have a problem after it, because there was no legal consequences for burning cities to the ground, so they where clearly not against the legal zeitgeist either. If you claim that they where considered immoral/illegal before and after the war then where are the trials?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I feel that having a criminal and civil trial for the same event violates the spirit of the law, if not the letter when it comes to Double Jeopardy.

And you are wrong, because that has a very long tradition becuase they have different standards required for judgement.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Duh!

qayak: That Germans did not oppose Hitler's policy proved they thought it was moral.
RandFan: They had reason not to oppose, they could have been put in jail.
qayak: They were not put in jail they were shot.

RandFan's claim: Germans had a reason not to oppose the leaders.

YES YOU BEING RIGHT PROVES MY POINT!

DUH!

So As there was little subsequent claims that it was immoral, it is a rather different position as you will find few people who think that the firebombing was a criminal act, but many who think the holocaust was, why?

So few people think that the US as a nation had policies that called for the destruction of civilians during WWII.

 

[SteveGrenard]

I think you have a serious problem understanding what needs to be done when faced with enemies that think nothing of killing tens of millions of people, civilians, such as Germany and Japan in the years leading up to and covering WWII. What do you suggest be done about them? If they aren't bombed into submission the fact was they would've continued to kill millions upon millions of people so they needed to be decisively stopped. If this includes killing civlians, remember Japan and Germany had no problem doing so either. Submissive civilian populations tend to support their militaries and while they may be non-combatants, obviously Germany and Japan felt strongly enough about them to brutally massacre as many as possible. (see above for Japanese atrocities).

Do you think it was okay for Germany to bomb civilian targets in London and send V2 rockets into London night after night and the British should just take it and not launch defensive and offensive retaliatory strikes on Germany?
You think it would be okay for Britian to just sit down and be destroyed and be taken over by Germany, to give up without a fight?

 

[shecky]

I think you have a serious problem understanding what needs to be done when faced with enemies that think nothing of killing tens of millions of people, civilians, such as Germany and Japan in the years leading up to and covering WWII. What do you suggest be done about them? If they aren't bombed into submission the fact was they would've continued to kill millions upon millions of people so they needed to be decisively stopped. If this includes killing civlians, remember Japan and Germany had no problem doing so either. Submissive civilian populations tend to support their militaries and while they may be non-combatants, obviously Germany and Japan felt strongly enough about them to brutally massacre as many as possible.

I can see Bin Laden making this point about the US.

War is a dirty business. I suppose trying to graft rules onto it's practice is noble, but history is full of incidents where rules get tossed when it comes down to the nitty gritty.

 

[SteveGrenard]

I can see Bin Laden making this point about the US.

Timing is everything. The U.S. did not hijack four airliners and try and fly them into Bin Leden's cave before it attacked alQueda in Afghanistan and
was bamboozled into attacking and occupying Iraq. bin Leden killed U.S. civilians first. Hitler and Hirihito killed millions and millions of civlians before any retaliation was launched against Germany and Japan.

War is a dirty business. I suppose trying to graft rules onto it's practice is noble, but history is full of incidents where rules get tossed when it comes down to the nitty gritty.

I suppose so.

 

[qayak]

War is a dirty business. I suppose trying to graft rules onto it's practice is noble, but history is full of incidents where rules get tossed when it comes down to the nitty gritty.

I agree. If any country possessing nuclear weapons were facing defeat and the loss of their country to a foreign power, I doubt they would hesitate to use them. Well, . . . they might hesitate but would almost certainly use them in the end.

 

[gnome]

Hmm... I don't know how sure I am of that... if they have nukes too...

Option 1. Both countries radioactive slag. Any survivors very unlikely to be under self-rule once things get organized.

Option 2. Defeated by the other nation. Conquered but alive, capable of forming some kind of resistance or at least carrying on traditions in secret.

I wouldn't say option 2 is always better, depending on whom you face defeat to... but it seems pretty attractive generically.

 

[RandFan]

And I think that this is an incorrect assessment. In both terror was a means to a political intent, the political intent was surrender in WWII, here I don't think it is quite as clear and unified, but there is certainly the intent to get the US out of the middle east.

No, not necessarily. There are many, many goals. In any event it was clear that 9/11 could not accomplish any of them.

Why do you need a conventional army to force a nation to accede to your demands?

It's the only realistic way to achieve any success.

No you are not at all clear as to why having a conventional army makes such a difference.

They are the only ones who have historically Acevedo victory. Non-violence has a much better chance at victory without a standing army.

Otherwise it is just a waste of time.

I would ask for examples but you and I both know that those are not likely. On the other hand history is replete in proving me correct. If you would like a list I would provide a partial one.

 

[RandFan]

I don't agree with you. You are using very different public mindsets as you are comparing people in the war to people before the war. During the war very few people cared, so at the time I think the average person at the time would have said that burning Japanese cities to the ground with all inhabitants was a good thing, not a immoral act.

You are certainly entitled to an opinion.

 

[RandFan]

Wow what a strawman.

No.

The issue is if they believe killing civilians in a war to break enemy moral is wrong, not if they are individually murders.

No. You completely missed the point. Do people ever believe that it is ok to kill civilians. There is no evidence that it is so. There is no evidence that reasonable people suddenly thought that intentionally killing innocent civilians was moral. That you assert it does not make it so.

They don't seem to have a problem after it, because there was no legal consequences for burning cities to the ground, so they where clearly not against the legal zeitgeist either. If you claim that they where considered immoral/illegal before and after the war then where are the trials?

Non sequitur. That people chose to move on does not mean that they believed the actions moral. Only that the immorality was not sufficient to warrant action.

 

[RandFan]

So As there was little subsequent claims that it was immoral, it is a rather different position as you will find few people who think that the firebombing was a criminal act, but many who think the holocaust was, why?

This is a claim. I'll ask you to prove it.

What do you think the difference was between the Holocaust and carpet bombing/fire bombing?

I think most reasonable people would not find too much difference. However, Dresden and other such acts were done, ostensibly, to bring about an end to the war. People chose immorality over destruction.

Such dilemmas are often fraught with difficulty but this one really isn't hard at all. People wanted to survive, they justified the acts with survival. That doesn't mean that they suddenly thought intentionally targeting civilians moral, those innocent civilians did not directly threaten them.

If I steal to feed my starving children I know that the act is immoral but I can justify it. It really is a very simple concept.

 

[qayak]

If I steal to feed my starving children I know that the act is immoral but I can justify it. It really is a very simple concept.

That's an interesting point but not that simple I think. There are two issues.

1- Stealing

2- Feeding your child

The morality of feeding your starving child would probably far offset the immorality of stealing the food.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Apparently they are in custody: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/05/tax.standoff/index.html

 

[Loss Leader]

Apparently they are in custody: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/05/tax.standoff/index.html

Yep. The answer to the OP is, "No."

 

[robinson]

I would venture that this IS the new Ruby Ridge style standoff. No more shooting people or burning kids alive, especially with that pesky News Media involved. Stealth and deception works better.