Xref: utzoo talk.politics.misc:7667 alt.flame:1734
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ncsuvx!uwmcsd1!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!jfc
From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Sociopathic, homocidal liberals on the loose.
Message-ID: <3274@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Date: 27 Feb 88 08:00:11 GMT
References: <9612@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> <3096@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <23096@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <3185@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <23132@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 97

In article <23132@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> robinson@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Michael Robinson) writes:
>A while ago, someone made the ludicrous assertion that persons at MIT were
>naturally more conservative because they were generally more intelligent.  I
>am beginning to suspect that the actual case is quite the opposite.

This person later retracted the statement (it wasn't me).

The actual case is quite the opposite?  Then you claim persons MIT are
more liberal?  (I admit, we do have our share of the "protest anything
and everything" types here).

>In article <3185@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> jfc@athena.mit.edu (me) writes:

>>The Libya raid did not target civilians.  The intent was to avoid them,

>EXCUSE ME, AGAIN?  While they did intend to minimize the number of civilian
>casualties, the targets of the Tripoli raid (as opposed to the Benghazi raid)
>were, in fact, civilians.  Friends, advisors, and family of Qaddafi do not 
>become members of the military by association.  The Pentagon themselves
>admitted they expected civilian casualties.

Answer to this at end.

>And, speaking of intelligence at MIT, this:

>>We have tried to be isolationist in the past.  It didn't work.  

>Therefore this:

NO!  This was not concluded from the last sentence.  It is a 
misrepresentation of my position.  I said, if Nicaragua attacked the
United States,  then...
>>...if I were in charge my first reaction to such an act would
>>be to launch B-52 bombing attacks on all major Nicaraguan military bases.
>>Attacks would continue for the days it would take to get the Marines to 
>>Nicaragua (or an airborne division, whichever is faster).  

>Q.E.D.

?

>For those who don't see it, the argument is that, because an extreme and
>unreasonable foriegn policy has unsatisfactory consequences, we should
>therefore adopt an opposite, but equally extreme and unreasonable foriegn
>policy straight from the Saturday morning cartoons.

I did not say that.  Try reading my articles before flaming about
them.  I said in one paragraph that I would retaliate for Nicaraguan
attacks on the US.  I said in another paragraph that we should not, 
can not, be isolationist.  I did not say how agressive our foreign 
policy should be.

If you quote me, please do it in context.


>By the way, you never did answer my question.  What *would* you call the 
>premeditated peacetime killing of innocent civilians?

I forget the context, so I'll answer in the context of US military
operations.

First, let's agree on some definitions:

  premeditated: The intended results were "peacetime killing of 
                innocent civilians".  
                i.e.  killings which were not the goal of an 
                operation do not count, even if they were judged
                a likely result.  A plan should be designed to 
                minimize unnecessary casualties.

  peacetime: Not a state of war (including undeclared wars, so
             Korea and Vietnam were not peacetime).

  innocent: This is hard to define, I would say "not supporting acts 
            against the US or its allies."  The degree of support is
            what makes the definition hard.  Passive support of a 
            government should not count except in cases of war. 
            Examples: Most Libyans are probably "innocent" in this
            definition, on the other hand many South Vietnamese were
            supporting the enemy and so were not "innocent".


  civilians:  People not associated with the government (of a country)
              or leadership (of a group) with which the US is in conflict
              (not necessarily war).  So, Khaddafi (Qaddafi, or whatever
              spelling is in style this week) is not a civilian nor are
              his advisors.

My answer: a military operation by the United States, the intended
and actual result of which is the killing of people who have no association 
with and do not support any organization which violently opposes the United 
States or its allies, is {whatever word I was expected to use.  Was it 
"terrorism" ?}.

I am not aware of any such operations.

  --John Carr   (jfc@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)