🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <182571@pyramid.pyramid.com> lstowell@pyrnova writes:
>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:
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>   It's just as fatuous to make the other persons point for them and
>   pretend that you didn't get it.  A bomb inside a vehicle is a
>   targeted weapon...a bomb in a mall is an untargeted
>   indiscriminate weapon.  

A rifle can be pointed at as particular target, or it
can be pointed up in the air or into a crowd.  It's
meaningful to characterize a weapon's use as focused
or indiscriminate; it's not meaningful to characterize
the weapon itself that way.  I offered a counterexample
to Mr. Heydt's characterization.

Either the bomb in question was intended to discredit
EarthFirst! and did, in fact, accomplish that end
without injuring any bystanders, or it was intended
for another use about which we can only speculate.

>>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.

>     If you ever manage to shake your drug habit, why don't you turn
>     off all the electricity to your house, refuse to patronize
>     hospitals, stores, doctors, etc. who use electricity?   

If you ever decide it's worth the trouble to read the
articles you respond to, you might discover that I
disclaimed the anti-centralized-power point of view.
Local use of electricity is not inconsistent
with anything in the quoted text.

>>The premise that bombs are only
>>used in indiscriminate ways is false.  
>      Sez you.  Of course you are correct, most terrorists DO
>      have reasonably specific goals in mind.  Sometimes they target
>      the object of their hatred directly, sometimes they target the
>      general public for the resulting press coverage.  

I directed my comments specifically to the ways bombs can
be used, not to the bombers' ends.  Bomb users can decide
whether the use will be focused or not.  The terrorists who
assassinated Rudolf Heydrich used bombs in a focused way.

Of course, if you believe the US government line and the
news media who parrot it, precision bombing can be used to
achieve great ends with little or no collateral damage.

The assumption that anyone who would spike a tree would
set off a bomb in a shopping mall seems a little bit
contrived to me.  The image of environmentalists as
wild-eyed bombthrowers would be ludicrous if its
proponents weren't so serious- possibly serious
enough to plant a bomb to convince people that it's
true.
--

    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@forel.stanford.edu