I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

nimh wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
What makes his being a party to the crime of Palestinian acts of murder less important than if he was a party to the crime of Al Qaeda's acts of murder?

Well, let's see.

Scenario 1: Pakistan is actively aiding terrorists that are blowing up major buildings in Amsterdam.

Reason for a Dutch military strike at them?

I'd say, yes.

Scenario 2: Pakistan is giving money to terrorists who are killing people in Tanzania.

Reason for a Dutch military strike at them?

I'd say, no.

Do you fail to see a logic in my response?

Nimh, I'm sure you could have just written my answer for me, couldn't you? :wink:
Here it is again:
The weakling is allowed to look past the bully beating up another weakling. The toughest guy on the block isn't. That's it. That's my morality. You don't have to agree with my sentiments to understand them.

Of course I see the logic in your response. Yours is the standard logical response. I don't like the standard but I'll get back to that in a minute as it ties in better to your next post.

nimh wrote:

I think the point here is that:

- when you find that the Iraq regime has supported some terrorist somewhere in the world, you use that as a justification for the attack of the country.

Let me explain why. Most of the justifications for the war that I toss out there are excuses really, because I've wanted that mass-murdering-monster removed since long before 9-11. Justification, by this definition, is anything we can use to satisfy acceptable reasons for his removal. I use the total of his horror to justify my desire for his removal, but accept the barest of provable justifications to excuse it. Does that make sense?

nimh wrote:

- when you find that the US regime supported some terrorist somewhere in the world, you say, well, that was just a question of this one or two individuals, they should be brought to court individually ...

This is very foolish of me, because while true, it has little bearing on the discussion above. More on that after my plea. :wink:

nimh wrote:

Inconsistent.

Guilty as charged. The defendant asks for leniency. :smile:

Here is where we've been misunderstanding each other, I think. I consider it morally bankrupt look past human rights abuses in favor of recognizing sovereignty. Yes, the more you press me, the more I'm forced to admit my shame over my country's own abuses in this regard. I don't think it's fair to suggest my desire to bring about change reflects hypocrisy because of my country's history. I don't know how I always wind up with the burden of defending our history in the first place? If Pinochet were still running the show in Chile today, he'd be on my list of fiends who need to get got. Surely you and D already know that, so aside from pinning me into my revelation above, how does it demonstrate hypocrisy or inconsistency on my part?
Example:
Bill says-Something to the effect- I think Iraq, Iran, Syria, NK etc. are in need of a regime change.
You guys respond-Something to the effect- how can you justify what your country did in Chile, Nicaragua etc. ?

I can't. And, I never said I could. My Cold War wishy-washyness is as good as it's ever going to get and it may never get that good again. Where did this impossible burden come from anyway and why did I accept it? (I can't explain that either.) I suspect it comes from you guy's opinion that any attempts to meddle in another country's affairs today (Iraq, etc), will have the same disastrous effect as our attempts to meddle in another country's affairs in the past (Chile, etc). I don't believe this is provable for one thing, and I can't imagine for the life of me, how I get saddled with the burden of disproving it.
(The single word hypocrisy is probably all it really takes to get me to rant, eh? Laughing

)

Now I know most of you oppose my, as Craven would say, Cartoonish desire to impose our will over the Saddam's and Kim's (Pinochet's) of the world... Or, more accurately, in some instances, like Craven's, you just find it too absurd to seriously consider. I'm okay with that. I know you think I'm naive for believing our leaders are the least bit interested in helping others. I'm okay with that too. I know you also don't think I'm entitled to define what constitutes actionable offenses. I know you think that an international standard for recognizing nation's right's to define right and wrong for themselves supercedes any moral issues I may have. I understand all of this. I simply disagree.

Cartoonish or not, in Bill's world, I alone decide what I think is right and wrong and it is my opinion that every healthy minded person on the planet sees certain things the same way if they look past ideological differences. Rape, murder, child molestation, for instance, have to be viewed as morally reprehensible (to say the least) by any healthy minded adult. If there is some glitch in an adult, whether it be learned or natural, that keeps them from recognizing this simple truth; they at least need to be quarantined if not eradicated to keep him or her from infecting anyone else. Generations of people treating their women as slaves makes not one lick of difference to me in terms of separating right from wrong. I do not recognized any person or groups opinion, no matter how great their numbers or tradition may be, to the contrary. No law, be it God or Man's will have the slightest bit of effect on this opinion.

This is my true justification (State sponsored Rape, Murder, Child Molestation, etc) for the invasion of Iraq and everywhere else my Cartoonish fantasies take me. For the record; I don't believe we ever went to war against Iraq. I believe we went to war on behalf of Iraq for the mutual benefit of us both. Our enemy was Sodom & Sons Inc, and we already won. Now we're again standing side by side with Iraq to defend her against a new enemy who could prove to be even worse than Saddam, thought the million plus corpses he left in his wake would be a tough act to top.

Ps. Been pecking on this a bit at a time since this morning and haven't read what appears to be plenty that came next.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Now, show me where I suggested anything about the family members of anyone...

Well, lemme see.

I wrote a post about the family members of the Palestinian suicide bombers. Not about Palestinian suicide bombers themselves - just expressing concern over how their family members appeared to be described as gleeful about the benefits of their child's death.

You responded saying, "It never ceases to amaze me that people will defend homicide bombers and those that support them."

Straw man. I never defended "homicide bombers and those that support them". I never expressed "sympathy for those people". Neither did anyone else here. Unless you were talking about the family members, of course ...

---

Bill - you made at least one really good point there. I'll have to get back to it later though, because it would require a longer post to acknowledge it.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

No, I said "It never ceases to amaze me that people will defend homicide bombers and those that support them."

So your statement was a simple non-sequitor, then? It had nothing to do with the earlier statements in the thread about suicide bombers? How convienient.

Sorry, McG, that dog won't hunt. Either you are building a strawman, or being purposefully disingenous. Which is it?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

You ever read an interview or two with those family members, Tico? Their son has just died. Many of those parents did not know their child would do such a thing - many suicide bombers are impressionable teenagers, lured by the political-religious cult of local militants in a community where those kids have nothing to do but hang round on street corners with the toughies all day (what, with most employment gone and schools malfunctioning). At best, you see those parents trying to put up a brave face going, well at least our son became a martyr, since that's what the militants are telling 'em to think. Many others are just devastated. To call 'em "clearly third-party beneficiaries" of their son's suicide seems a bit - off.

Looks like a defense of homocide bombers to me. How's that read to you?

0 Replies

Not like a defense. Like an explanation. <shrugs>

I sooo want to leave it at that ... but 'k, I'll expound.

Man goes on a shooting spree, murders a hundred people. Turns out he was a lethally disturbed person who was off his meds.

Does me saying - "a man like that, who was off his medication and therefore had no control over his killer urges anymore" - constitute a "defense" of his mass-murdering to you? Its not like I'm gonna acquit him now, if I'm on the jury.

Or, to get a closer analogy. Kid grows up in the ghetto. Nothing to do, no prospects, lots of tough-looking gansta heavies hanging round. Ends up a gangsta himself, goes gangbanging, shoots up a man with his baby in a drive-by.

Does me saying - "many gangbangers are ghettodwellers, lured by the insidious cult of drug-infused gangster masculinity in a community where no other role models are left" - excuse the guy for his shooting a baby in any way?

I dont think so. He's still gonna have to go to jail for life. He did what he did. His responsibility. But at least I get to understand how it came that far. And what could be done to stop so many from going his way.

Specifically, was my point, it explains why his momma had failed to keep him from going that way. The suicide-bombers, way I see it, have been snatched by a combination of that ghetto-situation and the equivalent of a religious cult brainwashing 'em. (Note its never the militants' leaders or ideologues who end up strapping a bomb to their body.) Before assuming his parents were A-OK with it all and becoming the "third-party beneficiaries", I was telling Tico, it bears realising that.

0 Replies

What is this homocide ...... gay bashing with extreme prejudice ??

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

nimh wrote:
You ever read an interview or two with those family members, Tico? Their son has just died. Many of those parents did not know their child would do such a thing - many suicide bombers are impressionable teenagers, lured by the political-religious cult of local militants in a community where those kids have nothing to do but hang round on street corners with the toughies all day (what, with most employment gone and schools malfunctioning). At best, you see those parents trying to put up a brave face going, well at least our son became a martyr, since that's what the militants are telling 'em to think. Many others are just devastated. To call 'em "clearly third-party beneficiaries" of their son's suicide seems a bit - off.

Looks like a defense of homocide bombers to me. How's that read to you?

Like someone with sympathy for parents of kids who make bad choices.

0 Replies

Thanks Drew, you said it better, and shorter.

On to Bill's good point - and some others ... and then I swear Ill sign off for a while here ...

OCCOM BILL wrote:

The weakling is allowed to look past the bully beating up another weakling. The toughest guy on the block isn't. That's it. That's my morality.

So you want your country to attack and invade any country, whereever in the world, that supports any murderous thugs whereever else in the world (whether in actual military terms or just by sending money)?

Yeah he does, nimh, how many more times does he need to tell you guys? Razz

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Let me explain why. Most of the justifications for the war that I toss out there are excuses really, because I've wanted that mass-murdering-monster removed since long before 9-11. Justification, by this definition, is anything we can use to satisfy acceptable reasons for his removal. I use the total of his horror to justify my desire for his removal, but accept the barest of provable justifications to excuse it. Does that make sense?

So you want your country to attack and invade any country thats under the thumb of a murderous thug, regardless of whether he attacked you or any third country or any such conventional measure of justification according to international law - and you're happy to tack on to any arbitrary excuse that could help you out in terms of formulating a casus belli that other people will accept?

Yeah he does, nimh, how many more times does he need to tell you guys! Razz

OK, perhaps you win on consistency after all.

I kinda appreciate the sentiment here, deep down ... I "consider it morally bankrupt to look past human rights abuses in favor of recognizing sovereignty" too. I just think it's too dangerous a road to trot down - not bypassing sovereignty per se, but opting for attacking and invading whatever country you(r government) consider guilty in that respect (and even if it's practically only you(r government) who considers that the necessary way to go, at that).

Before you know it, you're the murderous thug after all. Usually happens that way.

I was in favour of the Kosovo war, so I kinda know what road you're plotting out here - it's just I think the road in question passes over a tightrope, and too much swagger has you falling off ;-)

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Yes, the more you press me, the more I'm forced to admit my shame over my country's own abuses in this regard. I don't think it's fair to suggest my desire to bring about change reflects hypocrisy because of my country's history. I don't know how I always wind up with the burden of defending our history in the first place?

Beacuse of the logic you propose. As soon as you broaden up the criteria for justified war to a scope that your own country would fall under too (say, funding murderous thugs elsewhere in the world), you have a problem of logic too deal with.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

If Pinochet were still running the show in Chile today, he'd be on my list of fiends who need to get got.

Good. I sympathise, even if I wouldnt perhaps quite take that position myself. But the criterium you proposed earlier went further than that - not just being a murderous dictatorial thug would qualify for justified US retalitatory invasion, also just sending money to one. Thats where we point out that the US itself was guilty of that too, and do you really want to make that the criterium then?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Example:
Bill says-Something to the effect- I think Iraq, Iran, Syria, NK etc. are in need of a regime change.
You guys respond-Something to the effect- how can you justify what your country did in Chile, Nicaragua etc. ?

Just quoting that was your really good point I was referring to. That really got to me.

Corr, I hate it when people do that. Its not just a non sequitor, its just stupid. I know the routine all too well. "It's a criminal shame the way the Soviets treat their dissidents". "-Ha! As if the Americans are any better, what they're doing over in Central America!". Or: "It's an outrage, the thugs the Americans help into power in Central America." "-Oh yeah? You try living under the communists, see if that's any better!". Et cetera.

Not just in the Cold War. Last time was with Kosovo. "The Americans want to intervene to stop the mass deportations in Kosovo." "-Yeah, well - the Americans should look at their own backyard first!" Err, why? Why does the fact that they have some bad stuff going on in their back yard make it OK to just let bad stuff go on happening in ours? Why wouldn't it be a good thing if they cleant up some foul backyard somewhere, at least?

So I'm totally with you in your frustration on that one.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I can't. And, I never said I could. My Cold War wishy-washyness is as good as it's ever going to get and it may never get that good again.

Good. If you're gonna be a no-compromise overthrower of murderous thugs worldwide, it's better to be one that doesn't suddenly hypocritically turn the other way if the thug happens to be "your son of a bitch". Hey, the no-compromise interventionism of the neocons, but applied consistently, without the hypocrisy of a national-interest/we're-still-gonna-tolerate-the-ones-that-are-convenient-for-us hidden agenda they apply - I can appreciate that. Still think it a dangerous road (like any revolutionary track), but hafta appreciate its idealism. 'Course, "revolutionary" and "idealism" have not always been the best combination. (Here's me starting to sound like the conservative dad to your revolutionary persona.)

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Where did this impossible burden come from anyway and why did I accept it? (I can't explain that either.) I suspect it comes from you guy's opinion that any attempts to meddle in another country's affairs today (Iraq, etc), will have the same disastrous effect as our attempts to meddle in another country's affairs in the past (Chile, etc).

No it has to do with what I mentioned above.

When formulating criteria to legitimize "humanitarian" interventions, its best to get some in place that wouldnt cover half the world, including your own country.

For one because that, due to the fact that you're not gonna be able to attack all of 'em anymore in that case, is going to give great leeway to your government to pick 'em pretty much arbitrarily - and a sense that there's a hegemonic power that invades on purely arbitrary basis (selects who it'll invade on purely arbitrary or self-serving basis) is going to be highly destructive for global security. Whim is never a good driver of war.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Now I know most of you oppose my, as Craven would say, Cartoonish desire to impose our will over the Saddam's and Kim's (Pinochet's) of the world...

Oppose ... not really. It's my instinct too, I'm as much an interventionist by heart as anyone here. Unfeasible, perhaps. And more importantly - the costs/benefits analysis always involves humanitarian costs as well. A humanitarian intervention (one aimed at stopping "human rights abuses") that itself in turn creates greater humanitarian misery is not worth it. Hence the need to get the criteria formulated right. Plus, to always doublecheck with the others to see whether you might not have gone out on a limb in your analysis of the case at hand.

Some people - including some conservatives, like George I'm sure - would see the road you're sketching as one up the drawbridge of a castle in the air. I'm with you, I do see the road and where it can be a good one to take. Just I see it as going over a tightrope.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I know you think I'm naive for believing our leaders are the least bit interested in helping others. I'm okay with that too.

Well, yeah that is something to consider. In order to properly evaluate the balance of costs and benefits - humanitarian costs and benefits - its necessary to get a good grip on what your government is actally out for, and what it can thus be counted on doing (or wrecking, as the case may be), in humanitarian terms. If you seriously believe Cheney is driven purely by sincere idealism about spreading democracy, then you're going to estimate the humanitarian costs of the war he's proposing wrong. Those are dangerous illusions, when it comes to mapping out the road over the tightrope.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I know you think that an international standard for recognizing nation's right's to define right and wrong for themselves supercedes any moral issues I may have.

It's a safety check. Refer back to the vigilantes. Vigilantes act on what they consider justice to be too. As often as not tho, they got the wrong guy, or lynched him instead of just turning him in, or - et cetera. One can say, hey, I trust that you are just going on your moral compass - but perhaps it would be ill-advised to wholly rely on it, when, you know - you may be wrong, sometimes. Or perhaps, again, the people you're riding out with, your fellow-vigilantes, might just have an agenda of their own.

Hubris can be a dangerous attribute in even - or especially - men driven by pure idealism. 'Specially if their heavily armed. Thats why law was invented. Better stick with it, its there for a reason.

(Your revolutionary fervour so totally makes me sound like a cranky conservative Razz

. Then again, my party did campaign against the Iraq war under the slogan, Make Law Not War.)

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Cartoonish or not, in Bill's world, I alone decide what I think is right and wrong

Fine - noone would deny you the right to decide what to think. But does that also give you the right to get out your gun and start shooting people on the basis of what you think is right and wrong? No? Why would it be different when we're talking the world instead of Palm Beach, Florida?

0 Replies

Staggeringly receptive, Nimh. Mostly I just want to say thank you for understanding. The flaws you pointed out in my presentation are accurate and duly noted so I should be clearer in the future. The only clarification I see necessary is a little one that I had typed, cut to move elsewhere and then forgot to paste.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I know you think I'm naive for believing our leaders are the least bit interested in helping others. I'm okay with that too.

Rest assured; I have no delusions about Dick Cheney's motivations Laughing

This was supposed to have been explained by: I believe we recognize helping others is sometimes helping ourselves. Also: Have you ever done something charitable, just to make you feel better about you? I do all the time and consider it a selfish pleasure. Your last post to me should make you feel good, because I appreciate it immensely. :smile:

nimh wrote:

Yeah he does, nimh, how many more times does he need to tell you guys?

LOVE IT!

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

You appear to be parsing a tenuous distinction here. The relatives are clearly third-party beneficiaries of the deeds of the homicide-bombers. The payments were made because of the acts of the bomber, and it is probable these payments were an incentive to many of the bombers.

Additionally, there was doubtless a tacit agreement between Saddam and the bombers: He offered to pay money to their families if they blew themselves up; they accepted that offer by blowing themselves up; there is clearly consideration supporting this agreement; and the relatives are the third-party beneficiaries of the agreement. All of this is contingent, I believe, upon the bombers being knowlegeable about the offer, but I am assuming Saddam's offer was wide-spread in Palestine, and Hamas used it as a recruting tool.

One can hardly argue that these payments were not incentives. So while you are correct that the payments did not go to the dead bombers, the incentives were paid to their families, and yours is a hollow distinction. Surely you are not discounting completely the effect the knowledge that Saddam would make those payments had on the mindset of the would-be bombers.

Hypothetically speaking, if someone in the US solicited someone to kill his wife ... or announced to a group of thugs ... or let's say posted on their website that he would pay $20,000 to the family who would kill his wife .... if someone thereafter killed his wife, the husband would be charged with a crime. Guaranteed. Hell, the mere offer, even without an actual murder, constitutes an anticipatory crime. It would NOT be a stretch.

Saddam's offer to pay the families of terrorists is clearly supportive of terrorism.

Saddam was paying families who lost members in the Israeli conflict. This did was not restricted to Suicide bombers but was also to individuals who were killed by Israel.

Using your logic, Saddam was either also supporting Israel in their killings of Palestinians or his payments in these cases had a different motivation that might also have been shared in the others.

In any case, as I said earlier, "the nature of rewards is such that a broad range of things would qualify" and you can certainly construe this as such. But not legal complicity that Bill was making the case for:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

By offering the reward for murder before the fact, then paying the sums out after the fact... wouldn't he have to be considered an accessory to the fact? I don't think I can prove this... but I'm thinking a good criminal prosecutor could.

I note that a legal burden of proof is something you disclaim so it seems like our comments are operating under vastly different burdens of proof:

Ticomaya wrote:

(And I'm not trying to make a case for an enforceable contract ... so resist the urge to reply with legal attacks on the sufficiency or legality of the contract.)

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
This is that subjective v. objective test. Wanting your country to "lose" cannot be equated with wanting your country to "win" (unless, of course, you have a skewed definition of "win").

Nonsense. You have stated a false logical axiom that is easily disproven.

Lose X
Win Y

If they are mutually exclusive and one feels Y supercedes X in import then they can easily want the country to lose X in order to win Y.

Thusly, with your logical reductionism, there can be an equation of "wanting your country to 'lose' and wanting your country to 'win'".

Your logical analysis fails to consider the premise which I've stated several times now, but which was not clearly stated in the words you quoted. X and Y are mutually exclusive, but the rest of your analysis has no bearing on how X and Y relate to the character of patriotism, in the context of my premise.

I am not commenting on your understanding of the "character of patriotism".

I am commenting on the axiom you forwarded that "Wanting your country to 'lose' cannot be equated with wanting your country to 'win'".

This logical axiom is untrue.

Quote:

Putting it in the terms of your logical equation, my premise is that one who wants X in order to acheive Y, where X requires a military loss, is not a patriot. Your logical analysis has not disproved that premise, you apparently simply do not agree with it.

You define patriotism as not wanting one's country to lose a war. Others define it as wanting what is best for their country (and they may be of the opinion that losing a war is best for their country).

I personally find patriotism arbitrary enough to avoid its employment in logic and because of the subjectivity of patriotism isn't something that makes sense to argue against with logic (which is why I think most of your refutations of Joe's positions consist of ipse dixits to the effect that it's simply not patriotic), and this is why I haven't made any attempt to do so.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

I was in favour of the Kosovo war, so I kinda know what road you're plotting out here - it's just I think the road in question passes over a tightrope, and too much swagger has you falling off ;-)

VERY well put.

0 Replies

Yeah, it was Soz...
Reading back I found this floating...

nimh wrote:

<trying to stop himself from saying something about American media ... failing ...>

Don't. Your premise would be faulty. :wink: We have thousands of news outlets that will cater to your every taste. Plus, every member of A2K has access to every website you do, so pretending you can't get news here is an excuse for not getting news here. No more.

Example-Aside: Just last week I watched a documentary about an Israeli Reporter who works with a Palestinian Camera Man... who's main focus is, of course, the conflict. The unlikely team gets a pass wherever they go because of their ethnic diversity. It was mostly just a tale of sadness and hopelessness and didn't lean politically either way. Both men agreed with their respective sides and said they would fight if they didn't think what they were doing was more important...

Here's where it got nuts. Both men also agreed that most of the attacks that took place; took place because there is cameras and reporters to record and report it. Their noble deeds are actually the reason for the rock throwing that leads to rubber bullet shooting, riot inciting, free for all, that defines the struggle. They said usually, when you see the two sides of a barricade go off, it's because the cameras showed up. The ruckus won't even start until the cameras are ready. Then, the two sides cut the film and tell (sell?) two very different stories to their audiences (Not these guys, they were talking about other crews). Meanwhile, if a prominent man could be giving a speech about forgiveness or some other good thing could be captured, not one camera can be spared because that's not what sells.

I'm as big of proponent of free speech as they come, but this type of idiocy makes me question whether more exceptions should be allowed. If taking away the camera takes away the crime; then isn't the camera part of the crime?

0 Replies

Lisa Ling (formerly of The View) now works as sort of a "roving correspondent" for National Geographic. She recently worked on a story (Female Suicide-Bombers - Dying to Kill) dealing with female homicide-bombers, interviewing the families and friends of both Palestinian and Chechen terrorists.

Nimh - I think you'd be surprised at some of her findings. The special aired on the NGC in mid-December and with all the holiday festivities, I missed it. I did catch Lisa on a couple of local TV shows promoting it, though. I remember her saying that although the families of these female bombers gave the usual "martyrdom" reasons, when pressed, the friends of the women had a different story. She didn't mention if the families knew beforehand, but like you, I tend to doubt it.

What astonished me is that she made it almost seem as though these women were manic/depressives who would have committed suicide anyway, but did it as homicide-bombers in order to become heroes. She focuses on four female Palestinians, I believe, and all had suicidal tendencies to begin with and none were overly religious.

Perhaps her comments in the promoting of the show and the actual interviews will vary, I don't know. I'll keep an eye out to see if it re-runs. I caught Lisa on The View a couple of times. It will be interesting to see if her leftist views bias her sometimes political reporting on National Geographic.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Saddam was paying families who lost members in the Israeli conflict. This did was not restricted to Suicide bombers but was also to individuals who were killed by Israel.

Using your logic, Saddam was either also supporting Israel in their killings of Palestinians or his payments in these cases had a different motivation that might also have been shared in the others.

In any case, as I said earlier, "the nature of rewards is such that a broad range of things would qualify" and you can certainly construe this as such. But not legal complicity that Bill was making the case for:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
By offering the reward for murder before the fact, then paying the sums out after the fact... wouldn't he have to be considered an accessory to the fact? I don't think I can prove this... but I'm thinking a good criminal prosecutor could.

I note that a legal burden of proof is something you disclaim so it seems like our comments are operating under vastly different burdens of proof:

Ticomaya wrote:
(And I'm not trying to make a case for an enforceable contract ... so resist the urge to reply with legal attacks on the sufficiency or legality of the contract.)

I don't follow your extension of my logic to the conclusion that Saddam was supporting Israel in their killings of Palestinians. Are you suggesting the offer of Saddam could be considered an incentive for Israelis to kill Palestinians? Saddam wasn't paying the money to Israelis. Confused

Can you clarify?

If anything, it seems to me that the payment of this money by Saddam to the families of those killed by Israelis would be an incentive to young Palestinians to engage Israeli soldiers.

I guess I would not hazard a guess as to the real motivation for these payments. I'm not as concerned with the motivation as I am with the effect and net result.

I specifically disclaimed any attempt on my part to make an argument that an enforceable contract has been formed. I only said that because the point of my post was not to try and assert a contract, but merely to illustrate that the recipient parents were third-party beneficiaries of Saddam's payments, using a basic contractual argument. My qualification was to acknowledge my illustration is open to attack as to the sufficiency of the contract, and I simply wasn't wanting to get into an irrelevant discussion of the legalities of the third-party beneficiary contract.

But I also think an argument can be made that a crime has been committed. In my discussion of the contract (which is not a criminal law concept), I discussed the elements of offer and acceptance. The offer was by Saddam; the acceptance is by the suicide bomber. This constitutes an agreement, with the consideration the payment of the sum of money to the relatives (the third-party beneficiaries). Conspiracy requires an agreement, which can be inferred from facts and circumstances. The agreement doesn't need to be a crime, but need merely be "unlawful." Typically, only an agreement is required -- an overt or affirmative act is not necessary for the crime of conspiracy to have been created. In the case of Saddam, the conspiracy is to commit murder. As you are no doubt aware, the burden of proof on the prosecution in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

That is my case for charging Saddam with the crime of "conspiracy to commit murder." The biggest difficulty would be proving the agreement -- that the "offer" had been communicated, and thus "accepted" by the suicide bomber. Given Saddam's payments to these relatives, I think a good case could be made that the "offer" was real. I also think it is probable that the evidence would be suggestive that the "offer" was well-publicized in Palestine. Young would-be suicide bombers are aware of Saddam's offer.

Another inchoate crime that Saddam could arguably be guilty of in this regard is "solicitation to commit murder." In the case of solicitation, it matters not whether the soliciation was "influential" or not, and it doesn't matter that the solicitation was made to a large group, as opposed to an individual. The key to solicitation is there must be an inducement. In this case, the inducement is the offer to pay large sums of money to the relatives of suicide bombers, with the specific intent that someone might be killed (i.e., Israelis).

Thus, I am in agreement with O'Bill concerning the potential criminal culpability of Saddam due to his payment of money to the relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

I personally find patriotism arbitrary enough to avoid its employment in logic and because of the subjectivity of patriotism isn't something that makes sense to argue against with logic (which is why I think most of your refutations of Joe's positions consist of ipse dixits to the effect that it's simply not patriotic), and this is why I haven't made any attempt to do so.

I agree, and have been astounded at all of the logical analysis brought to bear against my opinion.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Are you suggesting the offer of Saddam could be considered an incentive for Israelis to kill Palestinians?

Not at all, that is far closer to the position you were forwarding than mine.

Quote:

Saddam wasn't paying the money to Israelis.

Nor was he paying the money to suicide bombers.

Quote:

But I also think an argument can be made that a crime has been committed.

This should be interesting.

Let's start with the most obvious question:

What law was broken?

Quote:

In my discussion of the contract (which is not a criminal law concept), I discussed the elements of offer and acceptance. The offer was by Saddam; the acceptance is by the suicide bomber.

What offer? You calling it one does not make it so.

Quote:

This constitutes an agreement, with the consideration the payment of the sum of money to the relatives (the third-party beneficiaries).

What agreement? You calling it one does not make it so.

Quote:

The agreement doesn't need to be a crime, but need merely be "unlawful."

Unlawful under precisely what law?

Quote:

In the case of Saddam, the conspiracy is to commit murder.

Here's a logical leap of faith. Saddam was paying relatives of the dead, they did not need to commit murder for the payment.

So why would it be conspiracy to commit murder? If the assuring payments to relatives is the key, note that they can have been acheived (and I believe in the majority of the cases were acheived) without murder.

Quote:

As you are no doubt aware, the burden of proof on the prosecution in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

I'm gonna cut this short, this sounds like a bad American TV show that is unencumbered by trivialities like what laws actually exist.

Quote:

Thus, I am in agreement with O'Bill concerning the potential criminal culpability of Saddam due to his payment of money to the relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Fair enough, this is certainly possible with imaginary evidence (offers, agreements), imaginary laws and an imaginary legal setting so I'll not join this nebulous legal land as I will undoubtedly be less well versed in the laws and systems you have created.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
I personally find patriotism arbitrary enough to avoid its employment in logic and because of the subjectivity of patriotism isn't something that makes sense to argue against with logic (which is why I think most of your refutations of Joe's positions consist of ipse dixits to the effect that it's simply not patriotic), and this is why I haven't made any attempt to do so.

I agree, and have been astounded at all of the logical analysis brought to bear against my opinion.

It goes both ways Tico. The subjectivity of patriotism precludes your insistence on the incompatibility of patriotism and wishing for a loss.

0 Replies

Out of curiosity, Craven, where are you going with this. Your thesis seems to be that while murder is illegal in Israel, conspiracy to commit murder was not a crime in Iraq, at least while Saddam was head of state. Would that make any financier of terrorism immune, so long as the actual acts of financing or conspiring were to take place in a country, or on the high seas, where such conspiracy were not prohibited by law?

By the way, I've avoided this one till now because joefromchicago could have lead the discussion in an entirely different direction simply by using "I want the US to admit to a mistake, and withdraw from Iraq." Could have, I say, but he seems to have wanted to practice his arguments.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Revel dear, you're not listening again.
revel wrote:
In any event, (pressing on ) if the porale officer ordered an arrest warrant, would he then be able to turn judge and jurry on his own and put the poralee into jail witout any kind of due process?
Yes. The parolee has already enjoyed his due process before he was convicted. Think of parole as an ultra-minimum security classification. If your parole agent deems you so much as a minimum risk (instead of ultra-minimum), it's back to jail you go. No Court in the land will hear your plea because you already had your day in court. This was a silly aside anyway, remember? Don't sweat it.

Now for your last sentence. I don't know how this got stuck in that paragraph, but I'm guessing you don't remember the movie.

Revel wrote:
And this is how it is still not like that movie of accused regardless of politics, we are talking about rules and processes and laws here and we always have been.
In the Accused, Jodie Foster is gang raped in a bar room full of people. Her lawyer charges that not only were those doing the raping guilty of the gruesome crime... but those who stood by and did nothing were guilty as well, because they had failed to do something. The movie will make your blood boil, but it makes this point in spades. Now keep that description in mind while you re-read this post.

If that is the case with parole officers that they get to do that, well, that just seems wrong to me. I mean no one person should be able to just decide that someone is reguilty of something without having to prove it to someone else. Because they had their day in court does that mean from now on they never get another day in court but that someone who might even have less than noble motives can just say that they are guilty of something and the parolee would have to go to jail. That is not right.

In any event lets just scratch the entire messed up analogy.

I saw the movie, I promise I did. I still do not believe that the two equate.

You did not have a world standing around doing nothing while saddam rapes his country. We were in the process of the Weapons inspection when Bush decided to end it and go to war on his own.

Also at one time we ourselves stood around and did nothing.

Also at one time we even were the ones enabling saddam to rape.

So the whole moral issue just don't compute. I suggest you give it up.

It is better to rely on the whole security issue than the moral issue because we are seen as the hypercrits we are when we try to use that justification because of our past actions which involved those presently in charge of things today.

Bill is actually quite wrong re parole and the reason for the convictions in the rape case.

1. A parole officer cannot revoke parole - only the parole board - followed, quite possibly by a coutrt, can do that.
here, a parole officer can report alleged breach of parole, and request the board to revoke parole.

2. The "bystanders" were not convicted of standing by and doing nothing - they were convicted of actively inciting the rapes.

0 Replies

I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know