because he is the archetype of all those who hold that end justifies means. Wearing Machiavelli's shoes comes World-is-Flat-and-Black-and-White Mr Friedman, madly dancing with his column in NY Times on the recent gaza flare-up. Read Glenn Greenwald's criticism to restore some balance to this garbage from Mr Friedman.
The Scientific Indian
Science as a way of life
Search
Profile
I am working on some very smart things to say here. Really. Meanwhile, there's this and this. Welcome.
Suggestions
Recent Posts
- Winding down this blog
- Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction
- Vigorous Scrubbing, the musical
- Google Female Human Body Browser
- Dr Hans Rosling's 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes - The Joy of Stats
- Why is space dark?
- I want to save my people
- How close can you get to a Neutron Star
- Wikileaks
- What did Ed Witten do in college
Recent Comments
- loans on Inidbloggies 2006 - Results Announced
- writer freelance jobs on Starting young
- WongSHELLY on What are worthwhile problems: Feynman's moving letter
- Naresh on Pranav Mistry's SixthSense
- onkar on Pranav Mistry's SixthSense
- Nikhil K on Bible and blood in my backyard
- D. C. Sessions on If your parents don't like Ubuntu
- Riesz Fischer on Entangled Reality
- anon on A matter of Life and er... Matter
- Len on A matter of Life and er... Matter
RSS Feed
Archives
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
« XKCD | Main | Don't twitter and more at 58th edition of Four Stone Hearth »
Machiavelli must be shot
Posted on: January 15, 2009 12:02 AM, by Selva
Find more posts in: 
Politics
Politics
Comments
One can criticize Mr. Friedman without making what seems here to be a slam on consequentialism. Your post doesn't seem to live up to the premise of being a "science blog".
http://www.hopeanon.typepad.com
Posted by: Hopefully Anonymous | January 15, 2009 1:34 AM
So Friedman reckons inflicting massive civilian casualties is acceptable as long as it's done in the name of teaching Hamas a lesson? Does that mean he condones 9/11? Boils down to the same thing really, the only question being whether or not you agree with the 'lesson'. What an evil piece of scum that man is.
(I'm not in any way condoning 9/11 myself, it just looks like an interesting parallel to what Friedman says)
Posted by: Cannonball Jones | January 15, 2009 6:26 AM
Cannonball, this is exaxctly the suggestion that Greenwald makes - and to some extent at least you are both being disingenuous.
Friedman's argument is highly disputatious both morally and pragmatically, but you are failing to engage with it by ignoring the key point that Hamas (like Hezbollah) uses 'civilian shields' to (attempt to) render itself impervious to conventional attack. Because of this, any comparison to Al-Qaida (or to, say, the IRA) is invidious.
Additionally, he is not arguing from a 'teach them a lesson' perspective but from a pragmatic one: his idea is that by ignoring the human shields and simply allowing civilian casualties (traditionally a part of war, and only recently unfashionable) civilians themselves will cease to tolerate being used in this way. Yes, there are moral objections (obviously); and yes, there are pragmatic issues (mainly to do with radicalizing the population). But engage with those, not some infantile 'teach 'em a lesson' strawman.
Posted by: outeast | January 15, 2009 7:07 AM
I was only going by what he himself said, fair enough it's a simplification but the point still stands. And just because Hamas surrounds itself with civilians does not give Israel the right to attack said civilians in order to get to their targets. In any case it seems from the news reports that the Palestinian public are becoming more radicalised and angry thanks to Israel's tactics, therefore more likely to continue to support Hamas.
"traditionally a part of war, and only recently unfashionable" - I find that a pretty disgusting sentiment - maybe you meant it to sound different, I'll accept that. Civilian casualties are merely unfashionable? That clearly implies that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it and it may become acceptably 'fashionable' in the future. My whole point is that there is never any excuse to target civilians and anyone who does so deserves the harshest punishment. Yes, that goes for Hamas too.
Posted by: Cannonball Jones | January 15, 2009 9:40 AM
Obviously you aren't being literal, but your recommendation is precisely an instance of what you decry :)
Posted by: D | January 15, 2009 10:37 AM