🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jul10.193209.27186@morrow.stanford.edu> karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish) writes:
>In article <1992Jul10.164851.9609@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whheydt@PacBell.COM
>(Wilson Heydt) writes:
>>What, pray tell do you think I am assuming?
>>
>>That bombs are relatively indiscriminate weapons?  They sure don't
>>'care' *who* is nearby when they go off and they'll get everyone
>>within their radius of action.
>
>Few weapons are sentient.  It's fatuous to describe the
>weapon itself, rather than its use, as "indiscriminate".
>A small shrapnel bomb inside a vehicle targets the 
>vehicle's occupants very precisely.

So far--*no* weapons are sentient, but a bomb (or a booby trap) is a
deal less specific than a gun with a person behind it.  Yes--a bomb
like you describe is specific to whoever is in the vehicle, but who is
in the vehicle when it goes off?  It is indiscriminate in that (unless
it has a very short delay time or is actively remote controlled) you
can never be sure that whoever it is targeted at is in the vehicle.
In any case, you can't be sure that *only* the person targeted is in
the vehicle.  It those senses--it is indiscrimanate.  It will kill or
maim whoever *happens* to be present--whether or not they're the
intended target.

>>That EF has tended to go after classes.  'Spiking' to prevent logging
>>is hardly targeting a specific individual.
>
>That doesn't make it indiscriminate.  It targets a very
>specific behavior.

Behavior, yes. Individuals, no.  Suppose the company whose employees
are initially thought to be at risk sells the land a spiked tree is
on.  Some time later (for whatever reason) that *particular* tree is
to be cut down.  The action has now put an unintended person at
risk--and it may even be someone whose intention is in concert with
the original tree-spiker.  When the spike is set--it's creating a
booby trap whose victim cannot be predicted.  *That's*
"indiscriminate."

>>Destroying a transmission
>>tower has potential effects on every user tied to that line and the
>>cost of replacement will (ultimately) be born by the rate-payers of
>>the utility that owned it, or the taxpayers if it's publically owned.
>>Nothing very specifc there.
>
>But well-directed.  Accepting (which I don't) that centralized
>power generation is a crime against Nature, the ratepayers
>are complicit in the crime.  The intent is that the facilities
>not be replaced using the same sort of technology.  Ratepayers
>would presumably benefit by replacing power lines with
>energy conservation and non-polluting, non-extractive
>resources, so it's fair that they should pay.

And blowing the existing facilities is likely to get them 'not
replaced'?  Unlikely in the extreme.  You are also trying to make a
case that the users of a utility are specifically responsible for the
decisions to build specific types of equipment.  Also unlikely in the
extreme--especially since it is entirely possible that the generating
plant may well be older than some of those same ratepayers.  A weak
case could be made for the responsibility of the *stockholders*, but
attacking a transmission tower has no particular probability of
affecting them.  Again--an indiscriminate attack.

>>Perhaps you mean that I'm assuming that the explosion in question
>>really was a bomb . . .  Is there any particular doubt on that point?
>>(I'm *not* assuming that anyone in particular built/placed the device,
>>just pointing that there is logic and consistentcy in it being 'owned'
>>by EF folks.)
>
>The premise that the cited EarthFirst! actions were
>indiscriminate is false.  

You have failed to demonstrate that this assertion is true.

>The premise that bombs are only
>used in indiscriminate ways is false.  

I rather think I have.

>I don't see the
>logical link between the two sorts of activities.

Which two?  Blowing up transmission towers and building anti-personnel
bombs?  The later can certainly be seen as an escalation of the
former.  Moving from systems like spiking trees (which *might* maim or
kill) to anti-personnel bombs that are more likely to maim or kill
*someone*?    Ever studied any military history?

--Hal

-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare