On Tuesday, November 5, 2002, at 01:20 PM, Bradford DeLong wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 5, 2002, at 01:01 PM, Brad DeLong wrote:
>>
>>>> >Another despicable act of imperialist terror!
>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-470176,00.html
>>>>> Quick -- get a call into Ramsey Clark! DP
>>>>
>>>> This bothers me. So, now the CIA could fly these unmanned planes
>>>> into any and every country and fire off missiles at people it
>>>> doesn't like? I thought extra-judicial executions were illegal and
>>>> something that only the Israeli goons resorted to.
>>>
>>>
>>> What a remarkably short memory. I seem to remember some 3000 "extra
>>> judicial executions" by Al Qaeda...
>>
>> isn't the point that extra-judicial executions are contrary to values
>> we as a democratic society espouse and ostensibly seek to defend
>> with, uh, extra-judicial executions? but if we're primarily concerned
>> with national security (or whatever) and not with "western values"
>> (or whatever), let's at least be honest about it rather than
>> resorting to "they do it, too" sorts of arguments.
>>
>> j
>
> My point was to comment on "only the Israeli goons." To claim that
> "only the Israeli goons" engage in "extra judicial executions" is an
> action that is anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent.
true, not only israelis have engaged in such activity, but, unless i'm mistaken, "targeted killings" is a linguistic invention of the israelis, yet another advance in the strategy and tactics of terrorism by zionists. seems to me, anyway, and i don't think there's anything anti-semitic in saying it, unless you equate opposition to zionism (of, for example, the sort adhered to by settlers and advanced by actions like sabra and shatila) with anti-semitism.
>
> On the broader issues... The idea of "conquer 'em, then try 'em
> according to law" does seem to have some--but only some--moral
> advantages over "incinerate 'em from a distance with a missile."
agreed, in principle, which is why i was dubious of the afghanistan military campaign . . .
> I'm not smart enough to judge which is the least bad option.
well, now, not to get all mean-spirited, but isn't that just a little precious? who of us, precisely, *is* "smart enough"? i'm sure you'd agree we don't want to simply turn such judgments over to "smart people".
j