Re: Fwd: Radical New Views of Islam and the Origins of the Koran

From: Ned Wolpert (wolpert5@cox.net)
Date: Wed Mar 06 2002 - 14:47:50 GMT

  • Next message: Steve Drew: "Re: Rumsfeld Says..."

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA23058 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:52:32 GMT
    Subject: Re: Fwd: Radical New Views of Islam and the Origins of the Koran
    From: Ned Wolpert <wolpert5@cox.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20020306163016.00699368@pophost.nor.com.au>
    References: <3.0.1.32.20020306163016.00699368@pophost.nor.com.au>
    Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-Wn6DkzdYA/iI6y6ln3il"
    X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0.2 
    Date: 06 Mar 2002 07:47:50 -0700
    Message-Id: <1015426151.232.13.camel@wolpert.coxphx.az.home.com>
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    
    Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    On Tue, 2002-03-05 at 22:30, Jeremy Bradley wrote:
    > Nuke Gingridge said today that it is "reasonable that a nation has the
    > right to defend itself against clear and present danger by whatever means
    > are available to it". He also said that it is 'just' that a nation take
    > "action against aggressors" even if that action is pre-emptive.

    Slightly off-topic from the original post, but I find the above
    statement quite interesting. is "Nuke" (Your spelling, not mine) saying
    that due to the fear of danger (that may be justified) the potential
    victim can do anything they want to the potential aggressor, even before
    the aggressor attacked? Does that then justify, say, the use of atomic
    weapons against potential foes, or perceived foes? (Like say, the USA
    bombing Iraq with a 10M 'nuke') The most interesting part in your
    wording is the fact that you used 'nuke' and 'whatever means are
    available to it' in the same sentence.

    Then again, it might just be bad spelling...

    I do find a problem with the concept of 'whatever means necessary' since
    the interpretation of 'means' can be absolutely catastrophic and, of
    course, unjustified.
     

    -- 
    

    Virtually, Ned Wolpert <wolpert5@cox.net> 4e75

    1024D/5DEA314E: 7FFB 99C3 BF90 6135 12F4 07B8 0B23 2E5C 5DEA 314E

    Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part


    =============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 06 2002 - 15:02:40 GMT