JayB

I think that your refusal to engage in a serious discussion is is a consequence of that fact that the scope of both your interests and your learning is confined to contemporary American politics, and that you are aware of the fact that discussions of realities extend beyond your temporal partisan myopia quickly leave you out of your depth.

I don't get your Hamlet reference, heer Jay, but I think my crude synopsis of what you stated is really not as far off as you are trying to suggest. Anyway, I agree with the above quote: I have never argued that we are going to stop terrorism by adopting this or that foreign policy. Our current actions in Iraq are certainly adding fuel to the fire, though, and I think the baldfaced cynicism of those who say "the ends justifies the means" and "f*ck the rest of the world if they won't go along with us" is truly undermining any shred decency we may have held as a nation and, in a real way, our own democracy suffers along with our International image. And what is this critique of my argument style in light of your constant refrain about latte sipping metrosexuals? I wasn't critiquing your style, just pointing out that it didn't contain an argument, even though you presented it as such. This "synopsis" is little more than a means of evading arguments that you can't formulate an effective response to, or that address topics that you aren't familiar with. "Muslim Brotherhood? Huh? Shut-up drainhole! Shut-up!" It's a shame that you didn't get the Shakespeare quote, since it's so apt.

Is that what passes for an argument in your circles, Matt? Whenever someone presents an argument which is not congruent some of the articles of faith that frame your thinking on these matters, you seem to revert to this particular mode. I've presented quite a number of instances in which Islamist violence and/or outrage has been evident in response to events which are difficult, if not impossible to tether in any way whatsoever to American foreign policy. It would indeed be naive to think that our actions have no influence on their motivations or behavior, but it would be equally absurd to insist that the Islamists have no aims, agenda, or ambition of their own apart from a tit-for-tat response to what they consider provocations by the West, or that there aren't forces outside of the US, and outside the scope of the current geopolical situation that play a significant role in catalyzing Islamist militancy and violence. As far as the tone of your post is concerned, all I can do with that is channel Hamlet and observe that "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Very grim situation if you consistently lose those debates to the voices coming at you from the recesses of the drain. I can envision several posters here growing increasing agitated upon being confronted with the rebuttals put forth by the drain-hole, and conjuring up elaborate conspiracies to counter the drain-holes assertions. "Shut up drainhole! Shut-up! Rove -I know you're down there somewhere, and by God, I'm about to grab 50-foot roto-snake and finish you off once and for all...."

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to continue with this, but one of many variables at play in the Middle East that won't be materially affected by any particular change in American policy involves the economic factors that make the entire area susceptible to political repression. When the vast majority of the income generated within a particular area is easy for the state to seize and exert control over, the said area is much more susceptible to centralized control and repression than an area in which the government relies on the industry of its citizens to generate the revenues necessary for the state to function. Where the state does not rely upon taxation, you rarely get representation, because the folks in charge are no longer dependent upon the citizenry to provide them with the resources that they need to govern. The fact that nation states that rely upon a single natural resource tend to be both less stable and more prone to repression is so thoroughly established as to admit no serious dispute. The fact that most of the regimes in the middle east are congenial to the US proves nothing, as Iran has clearly demonstrated that a political alliance with the United States is not a necessary pre-condition for establishing a repressive state. If the Islamists seize control of any given Middle Eastern state, they will certainly be more openly hostile to the US than the rulers that they replace, but does anyone actually believe that they'd be less repressive?

Who is the one doing the simplifying here, Matt? I don't recall arguing that Americas actions had no effect on the motivations and general state of agitation in the Muslim world. What I did argue is that the factors that have brought us to this juncture have deep roots in history and are quite a bit more complicated than a simple input-output style reaction to American policy. I also identified a number of contemporary realities which are difficult to reconcile with the notion that changes in American policy will materially change things here. I could have just as easily looked back 50 years and pointed out that the reasons that the members of the Muslim Brotherhood were intent on assassinating Nasser had absolutely nothing to do with US policy towards either Egypt or the Middle East, nor was the group formed in response to anything to do with the United States. Find me a reference to the US in that organizations founding credo "“Allah is our objective; the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader; Struggle is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations." I could go on. I am also personally not convinced that our default position with respect to either our foreign policy or in the manner in which we live our lives should be to ask "will X offend Muslim sensibilities" before engaging in any particular action or policy, seeing as something as trivial as a mildly satirical cartoon published in an obscure newspaper in a country several thousand miles away is sufficient to set off demonstrations and rioting throughout the Muslim world. Given that it would be A) quite impossible to redress the list of grievances that animate Muslim violence throughout the world, and B) that the causes extend well beyond a simple reaction to American policies, it would be sensible to promote something other than either A or B or some combination thereof as a panacea that will eliminate this problem.

Substitute "need" for "decided" too. I didn't use the term need, but that semantic distinction seems important to you so feel free to roll with it. Per this iteration of the theory, this is why the guy visited mosques immediately after 9/11? Why he implored the public not to mistreat Muslims in the wake of the attack? Can you find a single statement in which he slanders the entire Islamic faith? Why he called Islam a "religion of peace?" How does this fit into your Michael Moore inspired conspiranoia about the malevolent connections between GWB and the House of Saud. Is there a special asterisk and a footnote in your earlier statement that I missed that would explain this discrepancy "All Arab Muslims except those hailing from countries with names that start with S and have U as the third letter..."

An irrelevant distinction constitutionally and/or by statute, as I've successfully argued. Uh...yes, there are many restrictions on this, with damages as penalties, as I've successfully argued. Jesus dude, now you're resorting to cutting and pasting text from two entirely different statements. Neat. You're right. I give up. Mutter the epithet of your choosing at the water cooler and under the constitution the government has every right to throw you in jail. If it's not permitted under workplace law, it must not be permitted under the constitution either - and society is that much the better for it.

I'm well aware of the precedents, but thanks. Your point about the street conflates more than one issue by interjecting the term "shout," which some might argue constitutes harassment, disturbing the peace, etc. Change the context a bit, and make the example a mild mannered man with a beard, sporting a some John Lennonesque glasses and a tweed jacket, using a normal speaking voice to express just how much he despises group X, and liberally salting his speech with as many epithets as he can conjure up in his crisp Mid-Atlantic diction. Should the guy be exempt from disdain, criticism, having counter-epithets shouted back at him, etc? No. Should he expect that anyone who physically assaults him will be prosecuted by the state? Yes. Should he himself expect to by prosecuted by the State? No. What's more interesting to me than the "Is" question at play here is the ought question. If we did in fact live in a state where merely saying particular words - no matter how offensive or hurtful others may find them - could lead to prosecution by the state, would you all be comfortable with this state of affairs? I wonder.

Yes, and many Persian muslims, and I've worked with many over the years, are very similar culturally to Americans and get along quite well us. So? Just waiting for Chuck to parse the Iranian situation - Did the Clinton Administration re-establish diplomatic ties with Iran because they were not in the thrall of these prejudices? Did Carter send the choppers into Iran on the basis of "negative stereotypes? - through the explanatory prism he's established to explain the Gulf war. How come we didn't send in troops to attack the Kuwaitis and the Saudis in '91? These states are both Arab, and Muslim - and have plenty of oil (the third key variable in Chuck's conspiro-troika). Make common cause with Saddam since he only had one of the variables-o-unfair-stereotyping working against him? There are in infinite number of conundrums to ponder under this explanatory scheme, and I do hope that Chuck will deign to resolve them in this forum.

Thanks for restating the both the obvious, and what I said. How does any of this advance the argument that speech is not protected under the First Amendment? If the government was prosecuting people for conduct that was inconsistent with the rights established under the constitution or subsequent case-law deriving therefrom for violating the tenets of a corporate speech code, then you'd have a point. As things stand, you don't.

So it was "negative stereotypes" that precipitated this whole thing? Which is the key variable here, Arab or Muslim? Iran is populated by Persians and Persians are not Arabs but many of them are Muslims so...?

Actually, all of those forms of speech are protected by the first amendment. Your right to employment is not protected under the constitution, so you can be fired for what you say, but not imprisoned or subjected to any other punishment on the government's behalf for the same. The party that was the object of your comments may sue you for violating the rules that govern conduct in the workplace, but the prosecution would be limited to your behavior in that capacity, not for violating a set of laws that govern your conduct as a citizen outside of that setting. Laws that govern the workplace, laws that protect the rights of citizens outside of the workplace. Big difference.

By the same measure, one could conclude that you never been to a university before, because you'd be laughed off of campus if you suggested that corporate speech codes, rather than the Constitution - either do or should govern the exchange of ideas amongst students attending the said university. The same goes for what people can say in public. Artists and entertainers are the only class of citizen that's entitled to these rights per case law? I would venture that you could Google yourself straight into oblivion looking for court cases that have come to any such conclusion, and the reason why you are not anxious to search for such examples is that there are none that haven't been overturned on appeal. The only place where your rules apply is in the workplace, so why you even interjected them into the discussion is quite beyond me. Unless this is an attempt to make an argument along the lines of "Well, corporate HR regulations *certainly* prohibit that sort of thing, so perhaps the rest of us should follow their lead on this one..."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Having one's religious ideals exempted from criticism or scrutiny is protected under the first amendment? Huh? I would wager that you are confusing the right the fact that it is not legal to deny someone their fundamental rights on account of their religion - such as with regards to employment, etc - but the nowhere does the first ammendment exempt any race, color, creed, etc from being satirized, mocked, offended, outraged, etc, etc, etc - and there's certainly no legal basis for the notion that engaging in any of the above entitles the state to fine or imprison you for doing so.

The construction of the term "Islamophobia" is an attempt to conflate negative attitudes towards or hostility to the ideas contained within Islam with the same set of irrational motivations that characterizes negative attitudes towards a subset of the population that's been mistreated on account of a characteristic that they did not choose for themselves. "Flying while Muslim" is a play on the term "Driving while black," which is an effort to characterize any additional scrutiny that Muslims may feel that they are subjected to on account of their beliefs to those that the term "Driving while Black," suggests that black people are on subject to on the basis of their skin color alone, another trait that's inherited rather than chosen. There it is - the deliberate conflation of two unlike things - hostility towards a group based on traits that they were born with and could not choose vs hostility towards a group on the basis of beliefs and practices which they voluntarily adhere to and engage in. The acceptance of these terms changes the framework within which something like, say - disapproval of the Burqua - from a discussion of choices and ideas to one of birth and ethnic identity. In so doing, it effectively silences debate by casting anyone who dislikes the ideas or practices that characterize the Islamic faith as a racist or a bigot. Here's an example which combines many the elements that I have been touching on in this thread: "Religion edition sends student newspaper editor into hiding "Alexandra Smith Monday February 12, 2007 EducationGuardian.co.uk The editor of a Cambridge University college newspaper is in hiding after his attempt at religious satire backfired. The 19-year-old student and aspiring journalist, who has not been named, is under investigation by the authorities at Clare College who described the satirical issue of the student newspaper Clarefication as "abhorrent". Most inflammatory, the college said, was the reproduction in the newspaper of the infamous cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad first printed in the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten in September 2005, triggering violent protests worldwide. For his own safety, the student has been taken out of his accommodation and put in a secure place. The newspaper had been renamed Crucification for the special edition of religious satire. The front page included the headline: "Ayatollah rethinks stance on misunderstood Rushdie." On page six, there were pictures of Muslims holding placards reading: "Behead those who insult Islam" and "Freedom go to hell." Enraged students have bombarded the college's student union with complaints, and the vice-president of the university's Islamic society has described the edition as "hugely offensive" and "crude, unabashed prejudice." Late last week, senior college officials were locked in urgent talks about how the material came to be published and what action to take against the student. In a statement issued by Clare College, a senior tutor, Patricia Fara, said: "Clare is an open and inclusive college. A student-produced satirical publication has caused widespread distress throughout the Clare community. "The college finds the publication and the views expressed abhorrent. Reflecting the gravity of the situation, the college immediately began an investigation and disciplinary procedures are in train." Calum Davey, the president of the Clare College student union, expressed his "deep regret" over the publication and offered his sincere apologies for causing offence. He told the Cambridge News: "This material does not reflect the views of Clare students." Cambridge News said Clare College fellows had, in a rare move, called a court of discipline, which would sit in judgment on the student responsible for sparking what the university regards as one of the most embarrassing incidents it has suffered in years." Plenty more where this came from.

"Islamophobia," "Flying while Muslim," etc. The point is that a public institution has catered to the wishes of religious people. If there were a conservative Baptist group that wanted a public facility to make a similar accommodation, and there was a public facility that actually did so, I think that the odds that everyone would greet this development with a collective yawn are rather small. The easy answer with regards to swimming pools, is for anyone who wants religious principles to govern their swimming, bathing, whatever - is for them to pool their funds and create a private "Religion X" pool where they can impose their principles on themselves. If they want to use the public pool, then they have to abide by the public's rules, which in this case do not include using public resources to cater to any particular group's religious demands. The other salient point here is that neither gender, nor race, nor sexual orienation is something that people voluntarily adopt. Islam is a set of beliefs, not something that one inherits through birth and has no control over, and it's surprising that so few people have even noted, much less objected to the equation of critiques of a set of beliefs and the behaviors which they inspire to prejudices and discrimination directed at characteristics which people have actually inherited and can not be held responsible for.

France has banned religious symbols in the workplace. England is considering banning burkas. Where's the cultural capitulation, exactly? You've cited one obscure incidence in the United States, and opined that 'the Left' would back it wholeheartedly. One minor data point bolstered by unsupported conjecture. Personally, I'm not going to run for cover any time soon. If your tide of Muslim radicalism (rather that socio economic pushback, which is what is actually occuring in Europe) is such grim reality, why isn't it happening right here in the belly of the 'Great Satan'? Do we not have Muslims here? Have we not invaded two Muslim countries? Guantanamo Bay? And yet...no riots. All quiet on the home front. Hmmmmm. There's actually quite a number of these instances, and the fact that you are not aware of them does not negate their existence. Sorry. I just don't have the time or the inclination to compile them. As for the reason that the US doesn't have the same problems with fanaticism, the primary reasons are that we have a Muslim population that is smaller both in absolute terms and in percentage terms - and more importantly, we have a much more open society and labor market. There's also the fact that the American identity has no fixed ethno-racial standards associated with it, which is not true for most European countries, where ancestry is a vital component of the national identity. Why you even brought this up is interesting because it not only counters a claim that I was not making, it actually supports my argument to the detriment of your own. If the geopolitical factors that most claim are the sole determinant of who's on the receiving end of the jihad, then Euroland should be virtually exempt from such attacks and the US should be suffering from much more violence - homegrown and otherwise. The fact that Europe is also getting its share speaks to the fact that the problem of terrorism is more complex than "American provocation = Islamist Repsonse." The entire argument assumes that Islamists have no positive agenda of their own that they are trying to drive, and are simply reacting to Western provocations in a precisely calibrated manner.

The problem is, that's where the terrorists come from. Without at least some cooperation from these governments and their local populaces how are we going to conduct effective counter terrorism operations? I suppose we could pull out of the region altogether and hope for the best. Actually - a significant number - if not an outright majority of the terrorists involved in the attacks on the West spent a significant amount of time living in the West, in Europe or Britain in particular. These were not destititute Yemeni goatherds whose entire education consisted of memorizing a few bits of the Koran in the local free-lance Madrassa. They were fairly affluent and well educated men who were either living in or educated in the West, and were radicalized while living in Western countries in a way that they hadn't been while living in their native countries. I've already profiled the 'typical terrorist' in previous posts on another thread. Noone here has suggested they are mainly simple, angry villagers. There are not training camps, however, in the West. Those do exist in the Middle East. Furthermore, the big cheeses of Al Qaeda currently operate in obscure, destabilized locations in N Africa and Western Asia, not Europe. You've also oversimplified the European muslim issue. In France, for example, the riots there were not primarily religious in nature; they were more akin to our own Watts race riots, fomented by a marginalized minority. The terrorists you speak of were radicalized by a community with leadership outside those countries. Taking out the leadership is one effective way to tackle the problem, and that involves operating in those countries where the leadership operates. Again, no on on this forum has suggested any such cultural capitulation. Quite the opposite. I've suggested repeatedly that we marginalize these assholes by giving them less play in the public sphere, treating them as just another international criminal enterprise, not a 'War on Western Civilization', and getting on with our lives. After all, the whole point of terrorism is to disrupt the public psyche and garnish publicity. We've played right into that strategy. This is one of your 'theme' admonitions, but no one here is really sure who you're addressing it to. I didn't describe the French riots as terrorism, but there has been plenty of other violence perpetrated by Islamist fanatics who are either from, living in, or educated in Euroland so excluding the great French Car-B-Que changes nothing. With regards to cultural capitulation, this is a process that's occuring in the real-world, and the opinions expressed here have no bearing on their occurrence whatsoever. The primary means by which this has occurred is via the deliberate conflation of critiques of Muslim ideas or practices with racism or homophobia, although violence and intimidation - witness Theo Van Gogh's Slaying or the death threats issued in the wake of the Danish cartoon episode - is clearly not off of the table either. Most of this is occuring in Europe and England, but there was an episode not too long ago where a public swimming pool in Washington was either arranging or had arranged for female-only swimming times to cater to Muslim sentiments. Some may argue that this is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it crosses the red church-state line that would normally have the the Left screaming.

My comment about tolerant and accomodating had to do with the Danes, and I think that the description largely fits for them - although the problems that you cite are certainly present there also. With respect to the rest of your comments, I pretty much completely agree. The Euros have managed to combine a system where the folks who don't share the same ethnocultural background as the natives are subject to a million minor instances of petty bigotry and descrimination, and this is coupled with a labor-market/welfare-system which effectively denies them the opportunity to to participate in the labor market, so instead of integrating through work because that's what they have to do to put food on the table, they wind up warehoused on welfare estates where they're easy prey for an ideology that capitalizes on their marginalization, sanctions violence against the society that excludes them, and provides them with a sense of meaning and purpose - however warped and destructive. This article is only about Sweden, but it pertains to pretty much all of Euroland: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/magazine/05muslims.html?ex=1296795600&en=722dbb00a718b0f9&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

The problem is, that's where the terrorists come from. Without at least some cooperation from these governments and their local populaces how are we going to conduct effective counter terrorism operations? I suppose we could pull out of the region altogether and hope for the best. An analogy here at home. Every couple of years a homeless camp moves on to the lawn of the local church. The assault rate immediately goes up, and goes down when they leave. The solution on one side, I suppose, would be to kill them all. OK. Another solution might be to address the issue of why these people are on the streets in the first place. The worst option is to just ignore the problem, because the problem isn't going to ignore us. Plus, there's that oil dependency thing we still haven't addressed. Actually - a significant number - if not an outright majority of the terrorists involved in the attacks on the West spent a significant amount of time living in the West, in Europe or Britain in particular. These were not destititute Yemeni goatherds whose entire education consisted of memorizing a few bits of the Koran in the local free-lance Madrassa. They were fairly affluent and well educated men who were either living in or educated in the West, and were radicalized while living in Western countries in a way that they hadn't been while living in their native countries. The second and third generation Muslims living in the West are significantly more radical than their parents who, unlike them, may have lived under conditions of actual, rather than adjectival colonialism. This and many other elements of the current situation suggest that anyone who believes that simply pulling up stakes and leaving the Middle East will eliminate terrorism or eradicate the long list of grievances that Islamists have compiled to justify their attacks is mistaken. This list extends well beyond the framework of contemporary geopolitics, and even if the situations in Iraq and Palestine were resolved to their satisfaction, there'd be plenty of other pretexts that would serve equally well in their place. The response to the publication of a few exceedingly mild satirical cartoons, published in a language which they could not comprehend, in a country as tolerant and accommodating as any in the world, should be telling in this regard - as should the fact that neither Canada, nor France, nor Germany has been granted any special exemption from terrorist attacks on account of their vocal opposition to US policy. Whatever the solution involves, it will certainly not include craven opportunism, weakness, or cultural self-loathing of the kind that seems to permeate the Euro-Leftist outlook. "Alright, alright - we'll get rid of the drinking and the carousing and the music and the satire and keep the ladies in Burkas if that's what you want - just stop with the bombing already!"

But what about the Mohammed cartoons? Would posting THOSE be OK? Cause he's just some towel headed heathen right? Did those cartoons upset you Dru? Maybe we need some Canadian style "Hate-speech" laws down here to keep folks in line.

"He was a prominent member of the Republican Party. Although he never held elected office, he was an active participant. His speech nominating James G. Blaine for the 1884 Presidential election, result in Blaine receiving the Republican. His candidacy was unsuccessful, but the speech itself, known as the "Plumed Knight" speech, was considered a model of political oratory. Ingersoll was involved in several prominent trials as an attorney, notably the Star Route trials, a major political scandal in which his clients were acquitted. He also defended a New Jersey man for blasphemy. Although he did not win acquittal, his vigorous defense is considered to have discredited blasphemy laws and few other prosecutions followed. Ingersoll was most noted as an orator, the most popular of the age, when oratory was public entertainment. He spoke on every subject, from Shakespeare to Reconstruction, but his most popular subjects were agnosticism and the sanctity and refuge of the family. He committed his speeches to memory although they were sometimes more than three hours long. His audiences were said never to be restless. His radical views on religion, slavery, woman's suffrage, and other issues of the day effectively prevented him from ever pursuing or holding political offices higher than that of Attorney General. Illinois Republicans tried to pressure him into running for Governor on the condition that Ingersoll conceal his agnosticism during the campaign. He refused the nomination because he thought concealing information from the public was immoral. Many of Ingersoll's speeches advocated freethought and humanism, and often poked fun at religious belief. For this the press often attacked him, but neither his views nor the negative press could stop his rising popularity. At the height of Ingersoll's fame, audiences would pay $1 or more to hear him speak, a giant sum for his day."

... but probably don't. R.G. Ingersoll. (1833-1899) One of the most popular orators of the late nineteenth century, and all but forgotten. I discovered the guy while rummaging through the library trying to find an appropriate topic for my senior thesis, and was amazed to discover a man whose thinking seemed so at odds with my understanding of nineteenth century morays. His popularity was even more surprising, for the same reasons. I ended up choosing another topic, but enjoyed killing quite a few hours in the library reading through some of his collected works. I imagine that Dave_Schuldt and some other folks who post here will enjoy this guys work, if they haven't discovered the guy already. Some quotes: "It is contended by many that ours is a Christian government, founded upon the Bible, and that all who look upon the book as false or foolish are destroying the foundation of our country. The truth is, our government is not founded upon the rights of gods, but upon the rights of men. Our Constitution was framed, not to declare and uphold the deity of Christ, but the sacredness of humanity. Ours is the first government made by the people and for the people. It is the only nation with which the gods have had nothing to do. And yet there are some judges dishonest and cowardly enough to solemnly decide that this is a Christian country, and that our free institutions are based upon the infamous laws of Jehovah." -- Robert Green Ingersoll, "Individuality" (1873)" "The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance, called "faith." " -- Robert Green Ingersoll, The Gods "If there is a God who will damn his children forever, I would rather go to hell than to go to heaven and keep the society of such an infamous tyrant. I make my choice now. I despise that doctrine. It has covered the cheeks of this world with tears. It has polluted the hearts of children, and poisoned the imaginations of men.... What right have you, sir, Mr. clergyman, you, minister of the gospel to stand at the portals of the tomb, at the vestibule of eternity, and fill the future with horror and with fear? I do not believe this doctrine, neither do you. If you did, you could not sleep one moment. Any man who believes it, and has within his breast a decent, throbbing heart, will go insane. A man who believes that doctrine and does not go insane has the heart of a snake and the conscience of a hyena. -- Robert Green Ingersoll, "The Liberty Of All" (1877)" Wikipedia Entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Ingersoll Internet Archive. Check out "The Gods," if nothing else. http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/ "The Gods," http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/gods.html

Interesting points. But the moral righteousness of bombing and deliberately causing collateral damage deaths on the premise of preventing even more future deaths relies on an assumption that the country choosing to bomb knows with certainty the long term outcomes of either choice (to bomb, or not to bomb). It may or may not be the lesser of two evils, yet it's the course always chosen with this rationale in mind. How do we know that some 12 year old Iraqi boy who otherwise would've become a doctor but whose entire family was blown up in front of him by one of our bombs accidently isn't now instead going to become the guy who drops a huge nuke on New York City in the year 2031? Well we don't, and that's an eccentric example, but the point is, these justifications for war have been recycled forever and we don't know what the wide ranging effects of war really have had- except that there's a cycle of violence within this supposed moral imperative of "no killing". I would have to disagree, simply because one can't base serious moral reasoning on things that are fundamentally unknowable, and one can never know with certainty the full set of long term consequences that result from any choice. That's just an impossible precondition to satisfy. I think a more defensible and realistic approach involves attempting to ascertain the probability of the set of forseeable outcomes resulting from a given action, weighing these against the probability of various outcomes if you do nothing.