>The double standard is with respect to where and when you protest.  It is
not based on an objective morality, which would dictate that you protest in
both cases.

Jess, how can morality be objective?  Martin, think about this one.

>It is based on your own agenda.

Yes, true.

>That's the same thing the US does.

They don’t have the same agenda, but still true.

>It protests when it suits its own agenda.

Doesn’t everyone?

>You expect governments to abide by an objective moral code, but you allow
yourself not to.

?!?!  Martin, I expect governments to follow rules they have written.
Thought I don’t expect morality from an organization structured against it.  
>I hope you have an internally consistent moral and ethical code. I doubt
that you do, judging by what I have read from you here, but that's your problem.

The problem is that you are not making much sense here.  My moral code is
very consistent and it is funny that you can come to such a conclusion.  The
only thing you lack is proof and reasoning.

>With respect to the normal, objective code for protesting bombing on moral
grounds, you have a double standard.

I follow that principle.  I protest bombing on moral grounds.  How that
turns out to be a double standard baffles me.

>> If they say it is because of morality, then that is a double standard.
Of course, they really are lying about the reasons and that's why it appears
to be a double standard, even though there isn't.
>>>You protest the actions of a government when it suits you to do so.
>> Correct.  I don't lie about the reasons though.

>Why was it so hard to admit?

It wasn’t though.

I protested the NATO bombing because of (a) my tax dollars contributed to
it, (b) bombing is amoral, (c) someone else planned it out and (d) it was
made even more personal because it was my homeland.

>You said you didn't have to say you believed bombing is immoral, and you
didn't say it.

The reason for this I mentioned many times over.  I didn’t say it because I
assumed everyone on this list agree with it.

>You also didn't *protest* the bombing because bombing is immoral, or you
would be protesting the bombing of Chechenya for the same reason.

Can’t say I went to any rally.  But I do offer my moral support for
Chechenyans and anyone who is suffering.  I know that doesn’t mean much though.

>The immorality of bombing was not enough to induce you to protest, in
either case.

In ALL the cases of my protesting, someone else organizated it and I showed
up.  I’m lazy in nature, you know.

>Now, I believe bombing is immoral.  My belief was not enough to induce me
to protest.

In my case as well.

>I am uncomfortable with the bombing.  I don't like the bombing.  But I am
not against the bombing.

I am against bombing.  Peroid.

>You protested the bombing of Yugoslavia - you were against the bombing of
Yugoslavia.  You are not protesting the bombing of Chechnya - you are not
against the bombing of Chechnya.

Incorrect.

>It is a simple thing, but you have to be willing to see it, or you can't
see it.

I see it as it is: incorrect.

Now I will explain fully, (see above)if requirements A),B) and C) are met, I
protest.  I would also protest if A) wasn't met, but that depends on the
specific case.

Milutin

--
While arms warehouses fill as quick as tha cells
Rally round tha family, pockets full of shells