Er, I thought I previewed. 
That should read:
It helps us rule out the presence of some kind of Russian conspiracy to blow up schools, for example. We are less likely to have an over-taxed farmer blow up a school, because we know it was just one disgruntled guy’s plan, and he’s dead. Are you seriously arguing that it’s pointless to discover the motives of any crime?
If I were a terrorist, I’d look at the long list of countries I named and I’d decide terrorism works. And I’d figure if the United States, the United Kingdom, and a few other countries were still holding out, I should just increase my terrorist attacks until they caved in like the other countries did.
Does this sound familiar?
Because if so, then sanity is performing the same act over and over again and expecting the same result. If terrorism worked to get the first twelve countries out, why not try it again on the thirteenth?
As for this:
If you’d like, I can give examples of other situations involving other religions and other countries where terrorism worked in exactly the way the terrorists wanted it to. But that’s not going to help your argument.
E-mack: So in order to stop terrorism one should pretend that they have zero reasons to be killing themselves and others ? To totally neglect any reason for the way they act ? That seems incredibly short sighted. Not only are you losing sight of what the enemy wants… but you lose the chance to cut the fuel that fires terrorist enthusiasm for holy war.
Just declaring they are nut jobs and closing your eyes won’t change things. No one is justifying these guys… but they are certainly trying to understand their reasons or logic… even if to stop the next attack. Terrorism didn’t appear overnight for no reason… and denying the role the west had in creating terrorism is walking blindly into the future.
Your entire premise is hopelessly wrong so we cannot fruitfully engage in a debate on this. It’s attitudes like your which hinder the fight against terrorism.
Unforeseen events… the same way Bush’s policies might be increasing terrorism…
Sun Tzu: “Know thy enemy.” Emackknight: “Label and vilify your enemy”
Its fine to make them into “evil” on TV… but people pursuing US and world interests should be above such silly maneicheism (sp).
Did I misunderstand your position on propaganda? Terrorism thrives on it. Also not sure what “maneicheism” means. If it’s a misspelling of manichaeism it still doesn’t make sense.
By the way, interesting article on just this topic: link.
Some highlights:
All of this from the whacko-left-wing-terrorist-apologist newspaper known as the Washington Times.
It is very interesting to know that the first insane act of suicide bombers – if emacknight is correct in alledging that the bombers have no grip on reality or sanity – is also their last act on earth. Don’t insane people usually act insane before they kill themselves?
Are you serious? You only get one chance at being a suicide bomber, they can’t exactly have a history of martyrdom. And that’s besides the point, everyone has to have a first time for criminal or insane behaviour. Timothy McVeigh hadn’t blown up any government buildings until 1995.
Yes, label your enemy. I don’t care if you vilify them or not, what I care about is whether or not we as a society are labelling them correctly.
Okay, back to the Bath School Bombing;
Reports following the incident gave motives and explanations about why he slaughtered 38 children, and its now recorded as, “They raised his taxes and he lost his farm.”
What kills me about this, and every other bombing since, is that afterwards we all collectively say, “ya, well, its horrible that he killed all those people, and I condemn violence, but they really shouldn’t have raised his taxes.” There is always a but!
Timothy McVeigh, was inspired by the raid on Waco. So after 168 people die, we act sad, condemn violence and then say, “however, the ATF really shouldn’t have made that assault on those the Branch Davidians.
In the end, the reason given is always bullshit. Kehoe didn’t do it because of raised taxes or losing his farm. He hit rock bottom, was in absolute despair and desperation, and decided to lash out. He was angry and frustrated and didn’t know what to do, so the best idea he could come up with was to blow up a school, himself, and shoot his wife.
The point I’m trying to make is that how we choose to label terrorists and their actions has consequences. Just like in rape cases, if we report it as, “he raped her because her skirt was too short,” we give a rationalization, and thus a justification for a sick act. That was not way he raped her, even if it was his first time and hadn’t raped anyone before.
In this grand war of propaganda, our own media is killing us by throwing around expressions like; “they did this because of Iraq.” To that I say bullshit. When we give a rational explanation to such an irrational act it fuels further terrorism. I believe these labels fuel terrorism because its these sorts of misguided notions that aid in the recruiting process. The guys that carried out the London attacts were pawns, and most likely were angry and the British for going into Iraq. All it then takes is for one charasmatic leader to seak out these little twits and show them how a bomb in the subway will make them a hero.
As an aside, consider Eco-terrorists like Greenpeace. When deciding how to deal with their unhappiness it boils down to three options: 1) Semi-peaceful protest, maybe in front of a company that puts makeup on little bunnies. 2.) An act of civil disobedience like releasing said bunnies. 3.) Shooting school children, at random, on their way home from school. As ** Little Nemo** pointed out, we can guarantee option 3 would work, but does that make it sane or rational? Am I the only one who sees a disconnect between the first two options and the third?
What would we say after the fourth or fifth shooting? “Um, well, ya, it sickens me that they target those innocent little children, but those companies really shouldn’t put makeup on cute little bunnies.”
Just for fun, I thought I’d use an example that many of you would understand a little more clearly:
Consider the recent US lead invasion of Iraq. Good’ol Dubya said that he was doing it to fight terrorism, some stuff about WMDs, connections of 9/11, and for the good of the Iraqi people living under the thumb of a tyrant.
What did the rest of the world hear? How would many of you characterize that war and the reasons for it? Do you repeat and buy into the lines fed to you by the White House, or do you look past it at the real reasons for the invasion? Oil? Greed? A military strong point that would alleviate the need for Saudi Arabia? Finishing what daddy started?
Here is a situation where we had an action, a said reason, and then a real reason. So instead of labelling it a war for peace, we call it a war for oil. Labels, see, labels change things. We then vilify Dubya and his band of cronies and refuse to listen to any of their subsequent explanations. All I’m asking is for the same approach to be applied to terrorism. Look past the bullshit explanations that bin Laden and Aljazeera feed us, and apply proper labels to these acts.
If we choose to remember the Iraq war as “liberating” it sets the path for future wars based on the same misguided ideology, and makes it easier for Pres. Bush to round up more people for the next Coalition of the Willing. If instead, we label it as a war of greed, it becomes just slightly harder for Dubya to go into the next country, or for other nations to decide they want to “liberate the people of an oil-rich country.” In this case, President Bush doesn’t have to be certifiably insane, but do you consider the war in Iraq logical or rational? (Keep in mind just how massive a plan that would require) (Also keep in mind how easy it is to convince somebody (like the pilot of a bomber) to drop several thousand tons of explosives) Do you think that the invasion would have been so easy if it was initially labelled “Operation Enduring Oil?” And if that was the label, would there have been more defections from the military?
Look, either they were right to raise his taxes or not. The fact that he got mad and blew up a school doesn’t change that, and if the tax hike was a bad idea before, it still is after. I personally don’t see anything wrong with raising taxes to pay for school construction, nor have I seen anyone else arguing that the school shouldn’t have been built, so I don’t know which “we all” you’re referring to.
Again, if the ATF was wrong to lay siege to the Waco compound, they still are. And if they were right, they still are. No one is justifying McVeigh’s actions or any other bomber’s.
Do you have a cite for this, or is it just your WAG?
You’re the only one confusing justifications with explanations here.
No, the Iraq occupation itself aids in the recruiting process. The bombers have motivations, whether you choose to acknowledge them or not, and pretending they were just madmen acting at random doesn’t change the fact that other people who feel similarly about the invasion will probably continue to act similarly.
How can you argue against explanations for bombings in one breath, and then pose an explanation for a bombing in the next?
Or do think the attackers’ anger was just a coincidence and had nothing to do with the reasons for the attacks?
I think I see the source of your confusion. You seem to think that whenever someone says “this bombing happened because the bomber was upset about X”, everyone who hears that has to nod solemnly and say “yes, well, X is bad.”
That just ain’t so. Rational people like us can consider the merits of X independent of the fact that someone felt strongly enough about it to commit a violent crime.
You didn’t say they were martyrs. If I understand you correctly, you are rejecting that they are even political extremists, because if one calls them that, then one admits that they have a political agenda and reasons for doing something.
Instead, you said that they were insane, as in the people in loony bins. If these bombers are insane, then how can they blend into society, as the London bombers did? Why are they out panhandling on the streets, arguing with themselves, getting arrested time and again for disorderly behavior in public, alienating their families, or other behavior that would indicate that they are actually insane?
Alternatively, if these folks have no grip on reality, how is it that they are so well disciplined? How is it that they are able to evade police and learn to build bombs and other dangerous things without blowing themselves up? How are some of them able to maintain jobs or relations with their families?
And I have never bought into the argument that the Iraq war was a war for oil, so I suppose your analogy has fallen on deaf ears, for me at least. I think the war was rational if one followed a certain set of premises, but I never agreed to those premises. Tell me why this is not a logical argument:
P1. Saddam has WMD.
P2. The US cannot be safe unless it attacks countries with WMD.
C: Therefore, the US must attack Saddam.
You can disagree with the premises (I certainly do), but that is a perfectly logical argument.
Those are some pretty sweeping generalizations, as if being disciplined or holding a job precludes people from going postal.
Then this example was not meant for you. But can you at least see how the two different labels for the war (liberating vs occupying) change the perception of the war? And can you not see how those two different labels change the ability for future wars and recruiting. Notice the way some will compare the Iraq war to the liberation of France, while others see it as another Vietnam. The label you choose to apply changes the context.
My premise is that how we label terrorist acts changes the context and then either helps or hurts future recruitment. So, the attacks on London were either done because of the War in Iraq, or a blind hatred of the West and a misinterpretation of the Koran. One label makes them heroes, the other makes them nuts.
Future terrorists want to be heroes and get their 72 virgins, rather than rot in hell for the rest of eternity. Different labels…
I never thought for a second that the US Postal Service had so much in common with Al Qaeda.
So it is not possible that religious extremists are motivated to blow themselves up because of the war in Iraq? Or is simply saying that out loud some type of thought crime?
Curious: Do you believe rank-and-file communists to be insane? I’m not talking about Stalin or Pol Pot, but just your rank and file communist in 1970s Moscow or one of the tens of millions of peasants who cheered on the end of the Chinese Nationalist government, someone who supported violent struggle against capitalists, and so on.
Emac, your argument seems to be that everyone who doesn’t agree with us must be insane. The rest of us can see that it’s possible for other people to disagree with us and/or just be wrong without being crazy.
Some criminals are insane. Some are immoral. Some are both.
And you still haven’t explained what this has to do with a “zero tolerance policy”. Unless your zero tolerance policy consists of saying terrorists are insane. If so, then the answer to the OP is “No, we do not need a zero tolerance policy on terrorism. It’s based on a false premise and would accomplish nothing except to misdirect efforts to combat terrorism.”
No, my argument is that if your plan involves randomly shooting children then you’re probably insane. There are no situations–that I’m aware of–in which slaughtering a school full of people is the conclusion of a rational plan. Unless it was some crazy school full of bomb making kids at a twisted Scout Camp and blowing them up was the only way to save the really nice school full of gifted children. People are free to disagree with US foreign policy, and need not be labeled insane. The problem starts when the solution you choose involves killing people.
Yes, now you’re on the right page. As a general rule, things like theft are immoral. When you take a school full of children hostage to make a quick buck, then you cross into insane territory.
Well, yes, that is part of it. My zero tolerance policy is based the general agreement that targetting civilians is not a proper course of action, regardless of the attrocities that have befallen you. Such that, if you’re angry at something, and you muddle around a few ideas, the one that involves mass murder isn’t a logical one.
And that’s where I disagree. My belief is that when we apply too general an explantion to terrorism (such as the War in Iraq) and then ignor the deeper reasons, we end up misdirecting our efforts to combat terrorism, and make it easier for terrorists to recruit.
The zero tolerance approach is based on recognizing that there is no justification for targeting civilians.
If you think insanity is a deeper reason, I don’t want to know what you’d call shallow.
How do you propose to redirect counterterrorism efforts in light of this revelation, anyway… drop a few tons of antipsychotic pills over the Middle East? And (I don’t think you answered this last time) why is there so much of this kind of insanity in a few countries and so little everywhere else?
Is it rational to drop a nuclear weapon on a city, knowing that tens of thousands of innocent civilians, including God knows how many children, will be killed? In other words, was Truman insane?
Misspelling yep… probably wrote it in the wrong language.
By “propaganda” I meant that western powers can make terorists as evil guys on TV for the public… but politicians, generals and decision makers shouldn’t buy into the Evil vs Good bullshit.
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been debated at nausium, but you’re starting to see my point. That situation would really be better placed in a debate over the zero tolerance policy for war.
So again, I’m going to ask you to look at that situation, find the conjunctive adverb, and tell me how labelling affects our perception of the action and Truman:
“The use of a nuclear weapon on all those innocent people was horrific; however, it did end the war.” Tolerance of the act.
“The use of a weapon designed to obliterate a city is never justified; the cost of human life is just too great.” Zero-tolerance of the act.
I don’t understand the answer. Yes, there is debate about whether it was a justified act. I can’t tell where you come down on that question, other than affirming that there are different views on the subject.
But you earlier said that deliberately killing children is an act of insanity. I ask you again: is it insane to knowingly kill children in carrying out an act of war?
For the record, I believe that dropping The Bomb was on the verge of being an immoral act, but that it was justified by the extraordinary circumstances of the time. There is no doubt in my mind that there was a rational calculation behind the decision to drop the bomb.