Chomsky on Trump

[Dave2002]

mrgg

Interesting! Where does that data and presentation come from?

A few issues.

1. Doesn't include 9/11 which might put some of the numbers up. That incident was outside the 10 year smoothing period.

2. Only seems to count US citizens, but the numbers for some incidents would be higher if they included people who were killed/injured who happened to be in America, or who were non US citizens who happened to be killed by a targeted attack on US interests.

[MrGongGong]

mrgg

Interesting! Where does that data and presentation come from?

The first is from Mr Bragg
and the second is from a friend in the USA (not sure of the reliability of the numbers BUT who needs experts anyway ?)

[Lat-Literal]

The first is from Mr Bragg
and the second is from a friend in the USA (not sure of the reliability of the numbers BUT who needs experts anyway ?)

Mr William Bragg of Burton Bradstock?

[MrGongGong]

Mr William Bragg of Burton Bradstock?

The very same


(There are some very dangerous people with their grubby mitts on the controls http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7549851.html )

[Stunsworth]

1. Doesn't include 9/11 which might put some of the numbers up. That incident was outside the 10 year smoothing period

The 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, UAE and Egypt. None of those countries are on the proscribed list of countries. However President Trump has business interests in all three, perhaps that was a factor in them not being on the list.

[Beef Oven!]

The very same


(There are some very dangerous people with their grubby mitts on the controls http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7549851.html )

Paul Nuttall is a good working class lad from Bootle in Merseyside. What the UKIP leader said was ....

”If waterboarding ensures that we save a number of lives in this country or in America because someone admits to something that is going to happen in terms of a terrorist attack, well through gritted teeth I'd probably be OK with it.

“If someone admits that a terrorist attack is going to happen and saves the lives of innocent individuals then I think maybe it's a price worth paying … if a British government was elected and said it was required to ensure it saved innocent people's live then sometimes you have to go that extra mile.”

A very realistic position for UKIP to take on the matter.

Here’s the interview that the story in your link is based on.

What "controls" are you accusing the UKIP leader of having his “grubby mitts on”?

[MrGongGong]

Torture is totally unacceptable and illegal
Whether it's fanatics in the desert or people in the west
makes no difference
just as chopping the heads of your "enemies" is totally unacceptable regardless of whether you want to sell them weapons or not

[Beef Oven!]

Torture is totally unacceptable and illegal
Whether it's fanatics in the desert or people in the west
makes no difference
just as chopping the heads of your "enemies" is totally unacceptable regardless of whether you want to sell them weapons or not

In reality, it’s not as simple as it is in theory. There is a real moral dilemma here. That’s what the UKIP leader Paul Nuttall is commenting on.

[Pabmusic]

First time I've looked at this thread. Why is it allowed? I used to enjoy the political threads, but they were all stopped because they were ... Political. How does this one exist?

[MrGongGong]

https://www.hrw.org/news/2003/03/11/legal-prohibition-against-torture

It's fairly straightforward really

[french frank]

First time I've looked at this thread. Why is it allowed? I used to enjoy the political threads, but they were all stopped because they were ... Political. How does this one exist?

The reason is that it is on 'Ideas and Theory' and the original post was about Chomsky's ideas about Trump.

I agree that it has become 'political' with a handful of people adopting their usual stances and making predictable (for them) statements.

But moving on to the question of torture, its absolute morality &c seems to me to move back towards Ideas. The value of the thread depends on the value of what the individual contributors say - which at times is not much. That verges on to Quality Control …

[Pabmusic]

The reason is that it is on 'Ideas and Theory' and the original post was about Chomsky's ideas about Trump.

I agree that it has become 'political' with a handful of people adopting their usual stances and making predictable (for them) statements.

But moving on to the question of torture, its absolute morality &c seems to me to move back towards Ideas. The value of the thread depends on the value of what the individual contributors say - which at times is not much. That verges on to Quality Control …

[Beef Oven!]

https://www.hrw.org/news/2003/03/11/...gainst-torture

It's fairly straightforward really

Saying torture is brutal and wrong is straightforward and most people would agree. But if its use can prevent another more wicked and cruel act that will affect a much bigger number of people, its use might be justified. That, IMO, is a straightforward ironing-out of the moral perplexity of state-used torture. But of course it’s only the starting point of the discussion. How do we put these things into the balance? Who decides? What are the checks?

[Dave2002]

Torture is totally unacceptable and illegal
Whether it's fanatics in the desert or people in the west
makes no difference
just as chopping the heads of your "enemies" is totally unacceptable regardless of whether you want to sell them weapons or not

There is a concept here about the value of people's lives - including one's own.

Anyone who denies the value of people's lives - to them, or anyone else, is perfectly capable of killing, maiming, torturing other people for any reason (or none) whatsoever.

Moral problems arise for those who believe that lives are valuable. A utilitarian view might be that if more lives could be saved by some action (torture, assassination etc.) than otherwise, then it could be permitted. That would assume that all lives are equally valuable.

Some might hold that not all lives are equally valuable, so a greater or lesser threshold for the action (torture, killing etc.) could be applied by the use of such utilitarian processes.

Religious people hold various different views.

Christians and pacifists might hold the view that it is never right to do the "bad" actions.

Some religions might hold to the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" doctrine, but that causes a problem for dealing with people who are "merely suspected" of being about to commit an atrocity. Since they have not actually committed the "bad" action, then torture would not be allowed. On the other hand if such people tortured others, then it would presumably be OK to torture them.

[french frank]

It may simply be that self-imposed 'rules' governing morality, equality, democracy, truthfulness and such always put you at a disavantage compared with those who reject those rules. How far is it permissible to break your own rules in order to oppose/fight those who persistently disregard them?