Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

While some in Congress and elsewhere still believe ISIS is a localized problem of little concern to the United States, the inconvenient truth is that ISIS actually represents a dangerous new chapter in the global war being waged by Al Qaeda and its affiliated and inspired groups, and a clear and present threat to the U.S. homeland.

As a journalist who covered extremism across the world since the 9/11 attacks, and then worked with governments to counter it, I fear the reaction to al Qaeda attacks more than the attacks themselves. The attacks are aimed at making young impressionable Muslims believe that al Qaeada's words are true. In reality, the attacks themselves don't accomplish that, but the reactions do. The images of occupation, arbitrary arrests, racial profiling, reports of torture, vigilante attacks etc. demonstrate the veracity of al Qaeda's claims much better than the group could ever do itself."

Better yet, what tactics might be effective in dealing with terrorist groups?

For every one of "OURS" they murder, we kill 500,000 of them.

"OURS"

Better yet, what tactics might be effective in dealing with terrorist groups?

Someone suggested......

Remember that in the Middle East, they're used to dealing with war in a way that our Western minds can barely grasp. Total annihilation of a city--even the animals being killed--- is what war has been through the ages in that part of the world. When they didn't do it to that level, they enslaved the survivors of the town they sacked, carrying off their choice young men and women and forcing them to march to their new homes where they would serve their masters.

They still want to fight that way today. If ISIS wins, they will kill off most and enslave the rest. It's the way war is done over that way-- so if we were to turn the place into a glass coffee-table with our WMDs, it would only be what is expected over there.

Beyond correcting our misreadings, I think we could have a very interesting conversation about the ethical issues surrounding war, terrorism, the surveillance state, and so forth.

[Harris first quotes a passage from Chomsky's 9/11 and then comments on it:] For [Chomsky], intentions do not seem to matter. Body count is all.

The example that you cite illustrates very well why I do not see any point in a public discussion. [...]

You also ignored the fact that I had already responded to your claim about lack of intention—which, frankly, I find quite shocking on elementary moral grounds, [Chomsky quoting his own Radical Priorities:] "Most commentary on the Sudan bombing keeps to the question of whether the plant was believed to produce chemical weapons; true or false, that has no bearing on “the magnitude with which the aggression interfered with key values in the society attacked,” such as survival. Others point out that the killings were unintended, as are many of the atrocities we rightly denounce."

What would I say about al-Qaeda (or any other group) if it destroyed half the pharmaceutical supplies in the U.S.? It would depend on what they intended to do. Consider the following possibilities: Imagine that al-Qaeda is filled, not with God-intoxicated sociopaths intent upon creating a global caliphate, but genuine humanitarians. Based on their research, they believe that a deadly batch of vaccine has made it into the U.S. pharmaceutical supply.

The scenario you describe here is, I’m afraid, so ludicrous as to be embarrassing.  It hasn’t even the remotest relation to Clinton’s decision to bomb al-Shifa – not because they had suddenly discovered anything remotely like what you fantasize here, or for that matter any credible evidence at all, and by sheer coincidence, immediately after the Embassy bombings for which it was retaliation, as widely acknowledged.

[...]

I’ve seen apologetics for atrocities before, but rarely at this level – not to speak of the refusal to withdraw false charges, a minor fault in comparison.

Since you profess to be concerned about “God-intoxicated sociopaths,” perhaps you can refer me to your condemnation of the perpetrator of by far the worst crime of this millennium because God had instructed him that he must smite the enemy.

[...]

As for intentions, there is nothing at all to say in general.  There is a lot to say about specific cases, like the al-Shifa bombing, or Japanese fascists in China (who you should absolve, on your grounds, since there’s every reason to suppose that their intention to bring an “earthly paradise” was quite real), and other cases I’ve discussed, including Hitler and high Stalinist officials.  So your puzzlement about my attitude towards intentions generally is quite understandable.  There can be no general answer.  Accordingly, you give none.  Nor do I.

I’m glad that you are interested in looking at the other cases I’ve discussed for 50 years, addressing exactly the question you claim I ignored.  These cases shed great light on the ethical question of how to evaluate “benign intentions”.  As I’ve discussed for many years, in fact decades, benign intentions are virtually always professed, even by the worst monsters, and hence carry no information, even in the technical sense of that term.  That’s quite independent of their “sincerity,” however we determine that (pretty easy in the Japanese case, and the question doesn’t even arise in the al-Shifa case).

Well, let’s chalk some of this up to the well-understood problem of email. I doubt that we would have achieved this level of cantankerousness in a face-to-face exchange.

[...]

Here is my assumption about the al-Shifa case. I assume that Clinton believed that it was, in fact, a chemical weapons factory—because I see no rational reason for him to have intentionally destroyed a pharmaceutical plant in retaliation for the embassy bombings. I take it that you consider this assumption terribly naive. Why so?

[...]

With respect to al-Shifa, for instance, you draw some very confident (and, I suspect, unwarranted) inferences from the timing of events. (Is it really “inconceivable” that the government already believed it to be a chemical weapons factory?) Do I have to accept to all your assumptions in order to discuss the underlying ethics?

And your ethical position is still unclear (to me). You say that you are NOT claiming that “Clinton intentionally wanted to kill thousands of victims.” Okay. But you seem to be suggesting that he had every reason to expect that he would be killing them by his actions (and just didn’t care). And you seem disinclined to distinguish the ethics of these cases.

...you may, if you like, believe that when Clinton bombed Afghanistan and Sudan in immediate reaction to the Embassy bombings (and in retaliation, it is naturally assumed), he had credible information that he was bombing a chemical factory – which also was, as publicly known, the major pharmaceutical factory in Sudan (which, of course, could not replenish supplies), and he judged that the evidence was strong enough to overlook the human consequences.  But, oddly, he was never able to produce a particle of credible evidence, as was widely reported.  And when informed immediately (by HRW) that a humanitarian catastrophe was already beginning he ignored it, as he ignored the subsequent evidence about the scale of the casualties (as you incidentally did too).

[...]

I’ll put aside your apologetics for the crimes for which you and I share responsibility, which, frankly, I find quite shocking, particularly on the part of someone who feels entitled to deliver moral lectures.

And I’ll also put aside your interesting feeling that you see no challenge when your accusations are refuted point by point, along with a demonstration that you are the one who refuses to address the “basic questions” that you charge me with ignoring, even after you have learned that I had dealt with them quite specifically before you wrote, and in fact for decades.

It would also be interesting if, someday, you decide actually to become concerned with “God-intoxicated sociopaths,” most notably, the perpetrator of by far the worst crime of this millennium who did so, he explained, because God had instructed him that he must smite the enemy.

I’m afraid I won’t take the bait, apart from asking the obvious question: If you’re so sure you’ve acquitted yourself well in this conversation, exposing both my intellectual misconduct with respect your own work and my moral blindness regarding the actions of our government, why not let me publish it in full so that our readers can draw their own conclusions?

The idea of publishing personal correspondence is pretty weird, a strange form of exhibitionism – whatever the content.  Personally, I can’t imagine doing it.  However, if you want to do it, I won’t object.

[Sam Harris' monologue post-exchange]

What would the reaction have been if al-Qaeda had blown up half the pharmaceuticals in the U.S.? I’m sure it would have been considered a terrorist atrocity, and rightly so. Where is my published attack on the religious motivations of George Bush? It’s in my book The End of Faith and in many subsequent articles. I wasn’t dodging these questions. I just viewed them as distractions from the necessary work of our first agreeing about basic ethical principles.  Nothing I said or didn’t say should have been construed as an unwillingness to criticize the U.S. government or to discuss any of its specific actions that may, in fact, constitute atrocities. As to whether we can trust Chomsky’s account of the al-Shifa bombing, I have my doubts.

Remember that in the Middle East, they're used to dealing with war in a way that our Western minds can barely grasp.

While Choamsky is known in Europe as an American libertarian leftist the other is totally unknown.

What's the point? if (good) intentions constitute a moral justification for (censurable) acts?

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2015-05-14, 19:36:25

Remember that in the Middle East, they're used to dealing with war in a way that our Western minds can barely grasp.

Revisiting Hiroshima.

Imagine! We're still debating the necessity of America's nuclear-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki…

The war in the Pacific had to be ended. It would, anyway. (The previous bombings of the home-islands had killed more than those two A-bombed cities' casualties…)

Score one, for technology!
There was the probably utmost importantly the dire "message" to the Soviet Union: Back off! Which -for a while- worked. (But they -likely- already expected to "steal" our nuclear "secrets"… ) Who knew how long Stalin would last?

while ethical considerations were brushed aside and the diplomatic atmosphere got infected with the war mentality for the rest of the century and beyond

We're still debating the necessity of America's nuclear-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki…

How old were you when it happened?

no one in the world discusses the need for such war crimes, everybody regrets, condemns and will never pardon what your Country did

I was old enough when in Australia, Darwin, in transit for Timor, back in 63, to know your practices.

Another Boy Scout comments!

Did they catch you with something in your luggage you weren't supposed to have?    Seriously, if you have something to say say it…