<div dir="ltr">On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Paul B <<a href="mailto:pb.stuff@gmail.com">pb.stuff@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="Ih2E3d">On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Bitterman <<a href="mailto:tom@bitterman.net" target="_blank">tom@bitterman.net</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr"><div>On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Paul B <<a href="mailto:pb.stuff@gmail.com" target="_blank">pb.stuff@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr">In that case, I amend my reply about the justice of the crusades to "It is not a sensible moral response to say that injustice following other injustice is somehow more just". </div></blockquote>
</div><div><br>This puts self-defense in a difficult position. </div></div></div></blockquote></div><div><br>Of course not, you're being silly. Self-defense is just. The crusades had nothing to do with self-defense.</div>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br>I never said that self-defense was unjust (or just), simply that your maxim implies that self-defense is unjust.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div class="Ih2E3d"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr">Yes, the Muslims were certainly invaders, but does it mean that another, wholly unrelated conqueror is somehow more justified in conquering them in turn? </div>
</blockquote></div><div> <br>Yes. In short, see World War 2. </div></div></div></blockquote></div><div><br>You persist in silliness. The factions that are considered "just" in that war were not after conquest. <br>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div> <br>The analogy I was after was this:<br>- country A conquers country B<br>- unrelated country C conquers country B, thus wresting it from country A<br><br>In WW2 we could have A=Germany, B=France, C=United States, whereas in the Crusades we could have A=Muslims, B=Holy Land, C=Christians. The big difference being that the U.S. gave France back to the French, while the Christians looked to set up their own kingdoms. Of course, at that point there were not really all that many "natives" to hand over the Holy Land to, so the parallel becomes inexact.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="Ih2E3d"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>In a little more depth, the Crusades were just another in a long line of wars between countries. There is nothing especially heinous about them that sets them apart from many other wars. The idea that the big bad Christians sucker-punched the peace-loving natives is not based in reality.</div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><div><br>Now you're making things up and pretending I said them, for which I applaud your imagination. What I did say was that conquest is unjust.<br></div></div></div></blockquote></div>
<br>My imagination rocks!<br><br>What you said, originally, was, "Except maybe the crusades (I'm sure it didn't seem just to those who'd been living in the Levant previous). " To which my (summarized) reply was, "Conquerors have no reason to feel they are being treated unjustly when they are in turn conquered".<br>
<br>To come back to Wolfe, perhaps the Hieros have a right to drown Urth. The analogy is to a causus belli - what humanity did to them in the past was so horrible that they are justified in their present actions. Or, alternatively, that at some point humanity entered into an agreement with them, knowing the possible consequences, and we are still bound by that agreement.<br>
<br>Enamel<br><br></div>