Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
For the record, in a years ago ago thread about Burma I said that tyrants most likely educate their children in the same spirit they act by themselves, so that their children, when being grown up, do like their fathers; so in order to make tyrants like in Burma giving up their tyranny it could be considered legal to threaten their families or when upprise of th epeople occurs it may not be sufficient to justg kill the tyrant, but his offpsrings as well since else they will survive and bring back conflict later in a bid to regain what their fathers have lost. I also said, I think in a different thread at that time, that when it comes to weighing the fate of millions against the fate of a few, threatening the families of tyrants in order to make them give up their power can be considered a valid option. Compare to for exmaple the defence in some states for shooting down hijacked passanger planes, sacrificing the few in order to save the many on the ground. A policy that August's country subscribes to, btw, both regarding hijacked planes and collateral damages caused by drone warfare as well - the ratio the US finds acceptable between killed valid targets and collateral losses, rates higher than 1:10.
|
I, too, remember this discussion, and August is correct. Your assertion that the spilling of the blood of innocents in a 'just crusade' is a service of justicie is humanly cold, and ethically reprehensible. I am sorry, but you will have to own those remarks.
Quote:
|
Why August linked a discussion on Chan buddhism and psychology to Burmese tyrant'S families instead of mentioning the shooting order for hijacked planes or the high rate of collateral losses by drone warfare, and why he thinks any of this has anything to do with an eplanation of the thinking frame of Chan buddhism, will remain his own secret. You could as well answer with "Blue" when somebody asks you for the time.
|
He did it becuase it is reference to the mindset of an adherent to a particular philosophy. For you, nearly any collateral damage is permissible so long as the means to end are met. This is a dangerous view. This, contrary to your statement, has everything to do with the issue at hand. There is no misquote inherent. You claim there is in your first paragraph, but then concede this in your third. Inconsistency indeed.
And for emphasis:
Quote:
|
A policy that August's country subscribes to
|
As does your's and every other nation on earth. The self-preservation of nation-states is universal. Pointing out the stick in your neighbor's eye while ignoring the log in your own is not virtuous.