I agree that the PATRIOT act has harmed American citizens, but I think that's a completely Western-centric way of thinking that likely wouldn't even cross the mind of a radical Islamist. I don't think it can be said to have harmed the USA in the way that would further any of bin Laden's goals that we can infer from his words or otherwise. If anything, bin Laden was an authoritarian himself and so would be more likely to believe that state surveillance is beneficial to the wellbeing of the state.
One more time. I have at no time asserted that his stated goal was impossible or unachievable. Quit putting words in my mouth. I’m talking about how they get accomplished, yes?
Seems to me you're still saying 9/11 couldn't have achieved it.
You really want to get into a sidetrack about how a surveillance state harms the citizens of a democracy in a way that makes them prefer isolationism?
I want you to lay out why you think the PATRIOT act or something like it was likely foreseen by bin Laden and why he thought it would likely further his goals. You're hinting at a discussion from the perspective of "privacy-oriented types" rather than from bin Laden's perspective. There's to be done here than just argue, "bin Laden wanted to harm America, and eroding privacy harms America, therefore bin Laden did 9/11 to erode privacy." Many consequences of 9/11 might further or hinder bin Laden's goals, but IMO we're talking about more than that.
You haven't answered the question. Texas Law circumscribes when self defence is a justification for the use of lethal force, and the situation is laid out as above: there must be someone who is or is believed to be about to unlawfully use force against the person being protected.
The foetus is not "trying" to kill the mother, and even if it were doing so, no court or reasonable person would describe it as an "unlawful use of force." It's just growing, presumably in a way harmful to the mother's life. Growing naturally is not "using force" and there's no law against it, so even if it were it wouldn't be unlawful.
Doctors, by declining medical care, are not using force, and unless there is a statute requiring them to provide care, also wouldn't be doing so unlawfully. If there were such a statute, it and the abortion ban would be in conflict, which is a more realistic way the ban might be struck down in the courts.
In the case at hand the likelihood of the mother actually dying should in fact be low - not almost certain as would be required for a charge of depraved heart murder.
You are talking in general terms about self defence standards instead of the text of the law on Texas' books.
Why the focus on Patriot Act, when it was one of three factors I listed?
Because it's the one that I see repeated most often by others and the one find most doubtful.
Why do you keep trying to say that I’m saying his stated goals were unbelievable, when I’ve repeatedly said I’m debating the specifics of how he expected to accomplish them? It’s not a “what”, it’s a “how”.
Because we started with a disagreement over what his goals were and you seem to have maintained your side of that disagreement? If you say "it was X, Y and Z" and I say, "no, it was A and B" and you then say "how on earth could what he did have achieved A" you're not actually arguing about "how" you're expressing your skepticism that it was A by casting doubt on how realistic it was.
I’ve repeatedly expressed my reasonings.
You haven't expressed a reason to believe that bin Laden wanted the USA to pass a law like the PATRIOT Act. You've made implications that you maybe don't actually believe it that strongly, but not gone so far as to say that you don't believe it, and you've talked about the other things you believe, but you're quite reticent to talk about that one.
I don't mind leaving aside the other stuff because this one, I think, is more egregious.
No, it's not "both side bad" (and the implication there is that any time when someone says "both sides do this badly" is unhelpful, which I disagree with).
It's "both sides are doing something similar here but that thing isn't part of the reasoning or decision making of each side, and you're treating it like it is."
a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.
Who is using unlawful force against the pregnant person here?
Yes, because "death panels" is just emotional language, not a well-defined thing. So polemicists on the left and right use it to try and make people angry about something they might not otherwise be angry about.
The fact that polemicists on the right labelled something as X in order to criticise it, but then later people on the right generally support something that polemicists on the left also labelled as X, is not indicative of anything at all, because there is no reason to think that the common labelling represents any actual similarity between the two things, or even represents any underlying truth whatsoever.
This is even more the case because the people who push these lines often deliberately (misguidedly, in my opinion) pick labels used by the other side for something they dislike, thinking it will aid the cause. This means there's a motivation to stretch labels inappropriately.
Just because you couch it in terms of opinion doesn't mean it's not a claim about truth; you're just not saying you're certain of it. I wouldn't expect certainty - I would just expect that whatever you do believe you believe for a reason, and that you would be able to articulate that reason, which you aren't doing.
With your successive replies it sounds like you're more comfortable defending the position that "bin Laden's stated goals are unbelievable" than "bin Laden's goal was to make the USA pass liberty-reducing legislation." It's OK if, on reflection, you think the latter isn't really supported by the facts and that's why you're not defending it or giving a reason for it.
Unlikely - it's too cheap to get rid of. It will degrade its effectiveness as it'll need to deploy, fire very few rounds, then leave, unlike traditionally where a battery might fire loads of rounds before moving off.
Are you unable to see how we have harmed ourselves since then? How about how Israel is harming themselves right now?
This is just an invitation to commit the post-hoc fallacy.
I’m not claiming any truth or facts or anything
But you said:
Similar to how Bin Laden very much succeeded in his goals
That's an assertion/claim as to what those goals in fact were. And you still haven't found any reason that they included "make the US pass laws which restricted its own civil liberties" other than the fact that that's what eventually happened.
So, the only reason you have for not believing bin Laden's stated goals is that, you assert, it was too obviously impossible to achieve them.
You haven't presented any reason he instead must have wanted to cause the USA to sacrifice domestic freedoms as a motivation. What about all other possible motivations? Why that one? It seems like it doesn't do bin Laden any good for that to happen. Instead it seems like it's how an American, unable to understand the world through any lens except an American one, might decide bin Laden's motivations must be viewed.
The counter-battery radar doesn't prevent artillery from working; it makes it dangerous for them. Theoretically the units that took this out could already be destroyed after having had their coordinates calculated and counter-battery fire immediately called down on them.
In practice it was just setting up, having been tracked to its location, and possibly wasn't working yet. Also the GMLRS rockets fired by HIMARS are not ballistic - they execute a counter-battery-confounding turn. And the salvo is fired quickly after which the vehicle immediately leaves - it can park, get ready and fire a full salvo in under a minute. When the first rocket is detected a couple of minutes later, the launcher will already have driven off and counter-battery coordinates will not be that useful/
How does it not make sense? One way of achieving your aims is making it very costly for the people blocking those aims to continue doing so.
No people on Earth would just go “oh welp, guess we better go home now.”
Conflicts often end in a negotiated peace where neither side has been conclusively defeated, often indeed amounting to "welp, we'd better go home now." The cost to the US military in Vietnam turned public opinion against the war until it became politically unsustainable.
More broadly, this attitude inevitably leads to post-hoc cynicism, where you look at someone who failed to achieve their stated goals, conclude in hindsight that they made no sense and that they therefore couldn't ever possibly have believed sincerely in them.
If it really made zero sense, it would make zero sense to use as propaganda. The fact that it makes enough sense that you believe bin Laden even used it to convince others means you accept that people could believe it. It's not unreasonable to think that bin Laden was smarter than the people following him, but you haven't done the work to show he couldn't believe it.
Shouldn't the engineer be a bit more worried if the cable's been cut?
If UDP drops packets it's probably nothing. If TCP drops packets it's because something's actually wrong.