I certainly do not mean to suggest that modern-day islamicist terrorists are literal descendants of the Ismailis. The Ismalis are still around, and do not in fact use terrorism, far as I know.
The point is that the techniques of terrorism are not unique to this past century (and the very fact that the enemies of the Ismalis expressed horror and outrage over this method of fighting has a rather, ah, contemporary ring to it! If the techniques were not similar, why the similar reaction - on the part of their victims/adversaries?)
There are good reasons that political terrorism does not work against some enemies, and therefore finds little expression for centuries in the ME - which is amply illustrated by the result when the Ismailis tried their tricks on the Mongols. A sufficiently nasty and brutish state-level civilization is effectively immune to terrorism. It was the comparatively high level of Islamic society in the middle ages which made terrorism an attractive technique.
Well then it’s not actually continuity then, is it?
Eh? They were assassinating political leaders of competing entities (in a time of chaos as far as my superficial knowledge of the history goes), in what way is that different than general medieval practice of liberally whacking competing leaders?
Continuity of practice. Like “agriculture was practiced in ancient Ukraine, and is still practiced there today” this does not deny the fact that the modern-day ancient Ukranians may (or may not) be the same as the ancient ones.
Technique - using hidden murderers who were certain to die themselves; no formal declarations of war or anything. That was most definitely not the general medieval practice.
Look at it logically. What is the difference between some Islamicists hijacking a plane and ramming it into buildings in New York, and WW2 city bombardment? What makes the former “special” - and arouses widespread fear and disgust, both in the time of the hasishin and now?
I’d say the following:
No formal declaration of war. You never know when they may strike. In contrast, area bombardment in WW2 is not likely to just happen any time.
Hidden warriors, who disguise themselves among the general population. They do not wear uniforms to distinguish thejmselves as soldiers. Rather, they deliberately hide among the population. This sows fear and discord - everyone is a suspect.
Suicide missions. Killers who do not care if they escape arouse greater fear, since there is less defense against them.
The killing of civilians isn’t the distinguishing feature - armies have been committing atrocities against civilians since the dawn of time, and WW2 city bombardment killed more civilians than Islamicist terrorists are ever likely to. The distinguishing feature is a technique of hidden suicide killers, willing to strike any time any palce with no warning.
This technique is actually reasonably rare. I suggest one of the reasons it developed in the ME is that the ME has a long history of sects breaking away from the mainstream and “hiding” in the majority population, and a long history of extreme religious devotion. Once the technique developed, it was easy enough to shift to nationalist causes as well as religious ones …
Where’d I say that? Can I put words in your mouth too?
So? Do you agree with this statement?:
"So Israel is little more than an after the fact excuse or rallying cry for those who were already going to be terrorists because they were upset there wasn’t a caliphate anymore? "
But did the creation of Israel lead to radicalization of the arab world. Did it make the arab world fertile ground for crackpots like Bin Laden?
So you think that al Qaeda and most of the other terrorist activity would exist today even if Israel didn’t exist? You don’t think that Israel was an aggravating factor?
I know about as much as you can find easily find on the internet. I specifically get a lot of my background knowledge from Wikipedia (waits for the guffawing to die down). I understand that there were historical reasons why jews would want to settle in Palestine but when you talk about the logical place for Israel to be created, I thought you were referring to the fact taht israel was created in Palestine largely because that is where all the jews were. I think it is pretty obvious that despite any natural inclination jews may have had to congregate in Palestine, the concentration of jews in that area was not entirely organic in the sense that there were efforts made to encourage Jews to go there.
"Herzl opposed the efforts made by Zionist groups to settle Jews in Ottoman-controlled Palestine, arguing that “important experiments in colonization have been made, though on the mistaken principle of a gradual infiltration of Jews. An infiltration is bound to end badly. It continues till the inevitable moment when the native population feels itself threatened, and forces the government to stop a further influx of Jews. Immigration is consequently futile unless we have the sovereign right to continue such immigration.”” - Der Judenstaat - Wikipedia
How do you figure? I don’t see anything about genocide on the wikipedia site:
It is pretty clear that the Mufti’s objection with Jews was not because they were jewish but because they were in palestine agitating to make aprt of palestine a separate jewish country while teh Mufti was trying to form palestine as an independent state.
If genocidal mindset makes you a terrorist aren’t you effectively calling Hitler a terrorist.
Is violent anti-semitism (which was seen by the mufti as a form of anti-imperialsism or anti-colonialism) now equivalent to terrorism? If that is the case then doesn’t that at least partially support the notion that terrorism is propelled ito some extent by the existence of Israel?
Yeah but would people have paid attention without the complications introduced by the creation of the state of israel?
Wahabism, the rise of Islamism, Khomenism, etc… radicalized parts of the Arab world.
No, it’s the fact that Jews felt a nationalistic connection to that particular historical location and would be convinced to move there. “Hey, everybody move to Guam!” would not have had the same resonance.
No, he didn’t. He met with the Turkish Sultan in order to secure that right.
In the case of the Syrian axis, we’re discussion Hezbollah.
I think people have trouble defniing terrorism ex-ante but there seems to be general consensus on what is terrorism once we see it (its like pornography in that sense). It seems like you are saying taht this was going on before Israel and if Israel wasn’t created in the middle of the former Ottoman Empire, the terrorism we see today comeing from that region would still exist (perhaps with different rhetoric) because its in some way ingrained in their society?
Continuity, at least as those of us who speak proper English means a transmission of practice. If the practice of agriculture in modern Ukraine is not based on a continuous transmission of practice, then it’s not continuity.
The bloody Hashishin are separated by god-damned centuries from the modern phenomena, and were an entirely different religious group. Unless there is some evidence that the theorists of terror of Al Qaeda actually studied these fuckers, they’re bloody well irrelevant. As far as I can tell, the Mongols rubbed out the Hashishin base, a little bloody principality and that was the end of the affair.
Fuck, it’s like arguing that there is a continuity of Jewish imperialism in the Middle East because ancient Israel conquered whatnot Cannanites, or a continuity of Jewish geopolitical problem making because they caused problems for the Romans. That’s bloody daft. There’s no direct relationship between the two. (and to avoid misreadings, no I am not saying there is Jewish/Israeli imperialism, quite the contrary, using this to show what utter tripe this line of argument is).
What?
What?
Hidden murders = Assassins. Well… bloody well found in Europe as well, assassinations.
Formal declaration of war? Bloody hell, on what bloody basis are you asserting that it was standard practice in the period to make formal declaration of war (and additionally given the history through Europe and the Islamic world of continuous low-grade internal warfare, what bloody meaning does this have?) And what the hell does this have to do with political assassinations (which by all accounts were not … rare occurrences, given the lengths that monarchs went to re food tasters, guards, etc)?
As for certainty of death … since I don’t know that there is any real actual evidence of this one way or the other, that’s just wankery.
I am looking at it logically and the argument is bloody daft.
Going by the reading I have done, the Hashashin assassinated political leaders, worked off of a polity with , and in my view don’t look much different than other assassinations (and it seems from what I read it’s damned well-unclear how much of this was real, and how much was Sunnis engaging in anti-Ismaili propaganda).
As far as I can tell, much of the current record is based on the winners - the Sunnis - disgust and contempt for the Ismailis.
Formal declaration of war? Please do demonstrate formal declaration of war is in fact a standard of the age. By your line of thinking, the bloody Knights Templar or the Crusaders or the Baltic German Crusader knights were terrorists. (certainly their actions in Byzantium would meet such by your standard)
**
Uniforms?
Uniforms!?!?!**
Mate, this is the fucking middle ages. There are not fucking uniforms. An army is as often a mob with a prince at its head as not. You’re applying utter anachronistic thinking.
Just read descriptions of the Crusader “armies” - except perhaps for the knightly classes, they are a moving mob. No “uniforms” - that’s modern state idea that is absurd to raise in the medieval context.
Unproven.
Terrorism is usually applied to attacks on non-military targets. Leaving aside the generally anachronistic thrust of your analysis, attacks on military leaders (which in medieval times is effectively synonymous with political leadership)
Your entire line of reasoning is grossly anachronistic. And I submit (although I am not scholar of this history) deeply sketchy as to fact.
The Middle East has a long history of this?
Perhaps you might wish to consider European history before making absurd statements. There are any number of religiously motivated uprisings in medieval and early modern European history, and low-grade conflict. As far as I know, in the Middle East we’ve got the history of the Hashishin. Pretty much it.
As for the technique, the modern technique of suicide terror was developed in Sri Lanka, which makes this line of argument even more bollocks.
Charming yes?
I rather think that this really can be rendered more simply.
It is painfully obvious that Israel is in fact a factor, due to perceived Western support. That does not mean the question is, although some people like to boil it down that way to make the discussion impossible, Israel’s right to exist or not.
Let me put it in another fashion:
It is rather like having an awkward but good friend with enemies.
Sure, perhaps the friend can be socially autistic and awkward, but he’s a good mate deep down. And he’s got enemies, who are arses themselves, but perhaps have some legit beefs with him as well as a whole boat-load of absurd and baseless beefs. And the social autism factor doesn’t help, even if he’s got damned good reasons to be so.
Now the problem is you, the friend, have to deal with said enemies, no choice, and very evidently your friendship with your mate impacts on those relations. And some of those enemies wish to take a poke at you for that. Others can deal with it. But it bloody well does make life more complicated.
Does this call into question your friendship?
No, not unless you’re an utter cad (in which case perhaps your mate is better off without you), but it does mean you have acknowledge that there’s a problem and see if you help resolve at least some of the problems.
The unresolved Israel-Palestinian conflict clearly is a real factor of irritation, and clearly contributes. Denying that is bollocks. Would there be Al Qaeda without Israel? God knows, too many factors. Maybe, maybe not.
Although of course if in some alternative universe Jews didn’t give a fig about ‘The Holy Land’ then we’d have a different history. But it strikes me as right strange to blame the Zionist movement for not biting on the Uganda or Kenya proposals.
I sometimes think that if the Ottoman regime hadn’t been broken up for blinkered Empire interests, this whole history could have gone rather differently.
“Ingrained in their society” makes it sound like a moral judgment on the ME, which is not how I see the issue.
To make an analogy, I would say that, for example, the use of ariel bombardment as a technique of Western warfare would probably have happened even if the issue of German nationalism had not dominated the first half of 20th century Europe. Whether that means that ‘destroying whole cities from the air is in some way engrained in European society’ or not, I dunno.
The denial or the fact?
The OP asks what the proximal causes of Islamic terrorism were. When faced with the fact that Islamist ideologies existed both before and independent of the nation of Israel, and sources of conflict existed with the west for their politicking over oil, and that there are several other points of conflict and sources of radicalization, the discussion then turned to various permutations of “but can we say that this is Israel’s fault?”
Do you, perhaps detect a difference between “list all the causes of terrorism and why radicalist ideologies have taken hold in the Middle East.” and “Aren’t things only this bad because Israel exists?”
It seems to me unless one can demonstrate real continuity (as in actual transmission of practice over time) this argument is utter bollocks. Without transmission, what you have is coincidence or parallel development.
I have no idea if one can really say this one way or the other. I suspect that the phenomena without Israel would exist, but would be less “unified.” I mean there was Algerian terrorism (briefly) in France, and the modern tool of terrorism is just too useful to out-groups not to also crop up in the Middle East - see Sri Lanka.
The underlying question now is, if a reasonable solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict can be done, would some of the wound be drained, or better, would a significant part of the infection be drained. I think yes. Not all, but a real part. Of course there is also the cretinism of Iraq and Afghanistan (the latter had good basis unlike the other, bloody Blair and his lap-dogism)
To what extent if any were these things propelled by the creation of teh state of Israel in Palestine?
OK I hear you now. Of course the congregation of Jews in palestine was necessary for the creation of Israel inpalestine but you couldn’t have gotten that sort of congregation anywhere else. In other words the creation of Israel in palestine wans’t logical because that is where all the Jews were but because it was where you could get all the Jews to congregate. thats a distinction with a difference. To some extent you are saying that it would have been dificult or innefective to create teh staet of Israel anywhere other than Palestine.
Sure you could have created a safe harbor nation for jews anywhere but it would have been poorly subscribed and might have withered on the vine at some point, this would not happen in the holy land.
Yeah I know. I linked the site but I should have quoted more of the link:
"The main argument of the book is as follows. After centuries of various restrictions, hostilities, and occasional pogroms, the Jews of Europe have been reduced to living in Ghettos. The higher class is forced to deal with angry mobs and, so experiences a great deal of discomfort; the lower class lives in despair. Middle-class professionals are distrusted, and the statement “don’t buy from Jews” causes much anxiety among Jewish people. It is reasonable to assume that the Jews will not be left in peace. Neither a change in the feelings of non-Jews nor a movement to merge into the surrounds of Europe offers much hope to the Jewish people. Jews “introduce” anti-Semitism wherever they go:
“The Jewish question persists wherever Jews live in appreciable numbers. Wherever it does not exist, it is brought in together with Jewish immigrants. We are naturally drawn into those places where we are not persecuted, and our appearance there gives rise to persecution. This is the case, and will inevitably be so, everywhere, even in highly civilised countries - see, for instance, France - so long as the Jewish question is not solved on the political level. The unfortunate Jews are now carrying the seeds of anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into America.”[1]
The creation of a Jewish State may be a possible solution to the problem faced by Europe’s Jews.
Herzl opposed the efforts already made by Zionist groups to settle Jews in Ottoman-controlled Palestine, arguing that "important experiments in colonization have been made, though on the mistaken principle of a gradual infiltration of Jews. An infiltration is bound to end badly. It continues till the inevitable moment when the native population feels itself threatened, and forces the government to stop a further influx of Jews. Immigration is consequently futile unless we have the sovereign right to continue such immigration.” (Quoted from The Jewish State, translated by Sylvie d’Avigdor, Nutt, London, 1896, and reprinted by Dover, 1988, p. 95.)
For this reason, Herzl, both in Der Judenstaat, and in his political activity on behalf of Zionism, concentrated his efforts on securing official legal sanction from the Ottoman authorities."
I think you need to calm down a bit. I enjoy a historical discussion, but I don’t particulary enjoy a hysterical discussion.
I may be totally wrong in my arguments, but frankly, it doesn’t really matter much to me if I’m right or wrong on this. Can’t we argue the point without the dramatics?
The original issue was the allegation that the practice of terrorism was unique to the 20th century. I pointed out that no, the exact same practice existed in the exact same place in the middle ages.
You are now demanding I prove that the one was a descendant of the other, and making semantic quibbles.
If I was arguing that a Jewish nation-state was a unique 20th century phenominon, pointing out that there used to be a Jewish nation two millenia ago would not be “tripe”.
Show me an organized group that used assassinations as their preferred method of warmaking.
That os like claiming that terrorism isn’t an identifiable phenomonon because people have always murdered.
Again, you are confusing murder - even political murder, which has always happened - with what the hasisheen did.
Hard to argue against such compelling logic as “wankery” and “bloody daft”.
The better view is that the technique of religious murder is well-founded, but the alleged motivation - the “hashish” bit - is propaganda.
There was certainly formal recognitions between similar polities of the states of “war” and ‘peace’. This did not always apply if the polities were too dissimilar in civilization.
By “uniforms” I do not mean the sort of uniforms present in 19th-20th century europe, but merely a formal acknowledgement of the difference between a fighting man or soldier and a civilian or peasant.
You are free to argue that the average person in the middle ages did not distinguish the two - but I assure you this was not the case.
Certainly there were odd situations in which mobs of peasants took on the role of an army - such as the "Peasant’s Crusade’, part of the first crusade. But these were unusual. In most cases, the military castes were well-defined.
I’m saying that isn’t the distinguishing feature. Otherwise, why is the bombing of cities in WW2 not “terrorism”?
As I said, it’s rare. I never said it was unique to the ME.
And as I already noted, Islamist ideologies are not synonymous with terrorism.
In fact, it was the secularists (and some of those if I read the wiki profiles right, led by Christian Arabs) who first resorted to terrorism proper, not the Islamists.
I see the why of your reaction, but you’re pushing things too much to black and white. We’re actually rather close in views here, but you needn’t make this Israel right to exist versus not.
Yes, I can. I can also see a difference between the black and white version and a more productive conversation around the impact of how Israel came about and subsequent “poisoning of the well.” That’s not blaming Israel, it’s being adult about admitting that the “birth” was right fucked up, for a whole god-damned long list of reasons, and the ongoing problems have a real impact. As I suggested above, while I am not okay with your reading of Mandate and the like, I am quite willing to assert that British intervention in the region (Break up of the Ottoman empire as done, the Mandate and its contradictory and cynical promises, etc) did far more harm than good.
This last point actually perhaps is important, as I am convinced that an Israel birthed by the Ottoman Caliph comes into the world rather diffrently than an Israel birthed by the British Mandate, with all its polluting influence - that is tying Jewish colonisation to British imperial interest (certainly how the Empire looked at it), making Jewish colonisers “european colonial collaborators” etc - and look at how the Egyptian Greeks (with generations of history) were treated after Egyptian independence. There is a deep undercurrent of anti-colonial reaction there.
(and I want to say Finn that I am pleased to interact with you in this fashion, and thank you, this is far more productive)
Yes, and my reply is your analysis is anachronistic and
Mate, you’re the one who said there was continuity.
Now you’re back-peddling.
If what you meant is there are parallels, well yes that is colourable.
I still think that the profound differences in social and government structure render the concept fundamentally anachronistic.
It absolutely would be, as the concept of nation 2000 years ago was utterly different from the modern concept of nation.
The nation state concept applied to any period before … well say the 18th, but I would say the 19th century is utterly anachronistic.
You show me that
(i) the Ismailis uniquely used assassins,
(ii) evidence that their use of assassins was in fact significant
It was you who asserted specific facts, up to you to support the argument.
I think we both know that there’s precious little support for this (and
No, not at all, it is like insisting that Murder is not Terrorism, nor that assassinations ordered by vaguely state actors
Again, you are confusing murder - even political murder, which has always happened - with what the hasisheen did.
Well, since there was no real distinction between Religion and Politics (and it appears the Hashishin were open to working with the Christians) this seems again to be painfully anachronistic.
Non responsive.
You do not address:
(i) Your claim of formal declaration of war (prove it)
(ii) The problem of endemic sub-national revolts, in Europe and elsewhere.
You were the one who raised the idea of a formal declaration of war, support the argument that it is not an anachronism, and address the
Show that there was generally such formal recognition and you have a point, else, it is pure anachronism.
The very concept of a standing, formal army is an early modern concept, and an innovative one (although probably, I am a mere amateur reader, Roman armies qualify), the idea of a formal definition of combatant / non combatant (other than women and children) is anachronistic relative to able bodied men.
Since you seem to be basing your argument on pure anachronisms, I decline your assurance and demand actual proof.
That dodges the question: the body of medieval armies was not made up of knights (the military caste, although your assertion that they were “well defined” is baseless). The body of medieval armies was made up of conscripted peasants fighting as cannon fodder either by obligation or for loot (or both).
The Peasant’s Crusde was not an “odd situation” - it was a typical situation merely lacking royal imprimatur with proper knights involved (as is clearly shown in any reading of the progress of the Crusades). That’s why it quasi worked.
I have no idea why you consider this a response.
You made a specific argument in your initial post re continuity, which to proper English speakers means a transmission of practice.
The line of analysis and argument is pure bollocks.
Wahabism existed before the state of Israel was created. The Muslim Brotherhood existed before the state of Israel was created. Khomenism emerged as a reaction to British and American policies in Iran.
Exactly. “Zionism” could have have been replaced with “The Pampasism.”
You said that Syria doesn’t seem to you to be the source of much terrorism. I pointed out that Iran was the prime mover behind Hezbollah although Syria supported it to a degree as well. Even then, the issue is not cut and dry. Syria is ruled by a secular regime that has used genocidal force to put down its Islamist populace.
Nobody said they are The fact is that Islamism has formed the soil from which many islamic terrorists have drawn their recruits, not that all islamists are terrorists.
No. If we’re looking at the Middle East it would be the anti-Jewish Arab Riots of the 1920’s. If it was elsewhere, the violence in India would suffice.
You are ignoring the nature of the two different ways of looking at history and claiming that one is “poisoning the well”.
One is a varied analysis that looks at multiple factors depending on time, place, and ideology and which analyzes diverse conditions and groups.
The second is monocausal, ignores nuance, context and all other contributing factors.
Even if your gloss is correct, then the question would be “what impact did European actions in the ME after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire influence the creation and nature of terrorism.” And that is, even assuming that Israel was solely seen as an extension of European colonialism. For groups like Hamas, the Jews are seen as a powerful global cabal who cause all modern wars and manipulate nations to dance to their tune, so the issue wouldn’t be how Israel was symptomatic of European colonialism, but how European colonialism was symptomatic of how the Jews try to control the world.
Wahabism existed before the state of Israel was created. The Muslim Brotherhood existed before the state of Israel was created. Khomenism emerged as a reaction to British and American policies in Iran.
[quote]
Mate, you’re right, but this doesn’ t address the issue.
And you’re still throwing in cultural conservatist movements (however repugnant to our values), with terror. I don’t think we can say that one equals the other, ipso facto.
I don’t disagree with you at all, but what the bloody fuck is Pampasim? (I am sure you have an interesting reference)
Realpolitik as you like to argue, doesn’t really say anything about the global issue, one way or the other.
Mmmm. Well I find this meaningless. It’s like saying that Catholic rigidity formed the soil for Irish nationalist terrorism by the IRA. Well, maybe, by several removes, but it strikes me as a bankrupt analysis. Islamism (or Catholic identity movements, or .. well any bloody identity movement) can go in a lot of directions.
You were the one citing Muslim Brotherhood et al as some kind of precusors (in my read, maybe I am wrong), implying a direct relation.
Without Israel (in the particular way Israel came to be), I don’t see a necessary unifying driver (especially as since I work mostly in Africa and African Muslims don’t really get hyped up about this, although the problems of the occupied territories cerntainly feed into a narrative.
Argumentative bollocks. Popular riots / pogroms are not terrorism. If we apply the “terrorism” label to ethnic riots, on an even handed basis, we’ve got a see of
The anti Jewish riots in Palestine (let’s be specific) are not ‘precursors to terrorism’ any more than anti Jewish riots / pogroms in say Poland are precursors to the Nazi Holocaust. (well indirectly yes, but directly no).
I’m not ignoring, I am rejecting.
Ah… what can I say other than I find your critique unfounded and biased. I am sure you find the same.
First, what on earth leads you to insert the prejudicial “even assuming that Israel was solely seen as an extension of European colonialism” - nothing I wrote suggested or implied solely. I suggested that this was a factor.
Second, the POV of hamas (working off of your characterization, which I don’t trust given your prejudices) rather evidently is based off of a certain history. I am personally not able to disentable that history. As I am more an amateur student of British Empire history, I tend to see rather significant parallels with other such conflicts and am rather less convinced that there is a special Jewish Angle that drives all. (this is complicated subject, and I need to piss off so being short here)
I don’t even want to go there. I find it incredible that you are blind to why contemporary Palestinians would react as they did. Truly incredible. (stating for avoidance of doubt that I don’t necessarily think the reaction was good or reasonable, only rational and understandable).
Nice ad hom fallacy. You might want to clear up your ignorance and actually learn about Hamas before you gainsay something because I said it (which, by the way, does actually show one claim based off of preconceived notions…). It’s not very hard to do, as they lay out their views in their founding document.
It does. Wahabism with its violent rejection of external ideology, the MB with its demand for Islamism and Khomenism all provide fruitful soil in which Islamic terrorism could grow. Without the idea that Islam is not just a religion, but a way of life and a method to govern people, people wouldn’t be fighting over that concept. Wahabism, the rise of Islamism and Khomenism all point to sources for radicalization that led to violence.
Zionism was named after a hill in Jerusalem, Zion.
Others floated the idea that Jews should move to Argentina, which has a region of land called the pampas.
Of course they are. Civilian targeted violence directed in order to effect political/social change and/or to instill fear. It doesn’t matter if you plant a bomb in a temple or storm it with an angry mob and kill the people you find inside. They’re not precursors to terrorism, they are terrorism.
Prejudicial?
I pointed out that even if your claims were not only correct but universally applied, they didn’t have full explanatory power.
Yet you did, which is why you brought it up.
And you will not address the fact that your claims were a bait and switch.
Again: You have also substituted an hypothesis on why Jewish immigration was seen as being different than other types of immigration for the causes of Islamic terrorism as a whole.
The issue was not “did the creation of Israel result in Palestinian terrorism”, but what factors influenced Islamic terrorism. Big difference.
And the idea that anti-Jewish terrorism in the 1920’s was somehow a rational and understandable response is nonsense. Hating/killing/trying to drive our immigrants due to racism is not a “rational” response. Ironically, around the exact same time as the Arab Riots, the KKK was organizing its own anti-immigrant activities. You’re not going to claim those were rational too, are you?
And by the way, something can’t be rational but not reasonable. Rational means reasonable.