About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - 5:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

"It is easy to make talking points about how Churchill did not torture German prisoners, even while London was being bombed. There was a very good reason for that: They were ordinary prisoners of war who were covered by the Geneva Convention and who didn't know anything that would keep London from being bombed.

"Whatever the verbal fencing over the meaning of the word "torture," there is a fundamental difference between simply inflicting pain on innocent people for the sheer pleasure of it-- which is what our terrorist enemies do-- and getting life-saving information out of the terrorists by whatever means are necessary.

"The left has long confused physical parallels with moral parallels. But when a criminal shoots at a policeman and the policeman shoots back, physical equivalence is not moral equivalence. And what American intelligence agents have done to captured terrorists is not even physical equivalence."

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - 9:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Hey Ted!

You’ve been missed.

While I do not know Sowell at all and the following is not meant to criticize him, the quote got me thinking that…

Terrorists do not inflict pain for the sheer pleasure of it. Rather, they act to produce certain psychological and political effects. There is a real danger in perceiving our enemy and his actions as nothing more than an expression of hate and rage.

‘Osama cannot REALLY threaten us. We are a huge country and flying a plane into a building once in a while will not bring us down.’—I have seen this from posters on this forum. In fact I recall a back-of-a-napkin accounting of one’s chances of being killed by terrorist actions, with the conclusion that the odds were very low and therefore there isn’t much to be worried about.

The above, as well as Sowell’s quote that terror is about pain simply for the pleasure, is dangerous for missing the point, purpose and power of terrorism.

I define terrorism here as an utterly shocking event that induces fear and doubt about one’s safety, producing a capitulation.

The bombing of Hiroshima, which I defend, was terrorism. The motive was not ‘let’s cook lots of ‘em simply because we can and it will be a pleasure.’ Rather, the motive was to shock the shit out of the people and their leadership. The desired effect was, ‘If the Americans CAN and WILL DO THIS, then we haven’t a prayer—let’s give up before it gets much, much worse.’

The same goes for the Madrid bombings, which had a real effect on Spanish elections, helping to bring to power leadership that promised an exiting of the American-led alliance. The message was: ‘Keep with the Americans and expect more of this.” And it worked.

“inflicting pain on innocent people for the sheer pleasure of it-- which is what our terrorist enemies do” plays right into the ‘terrorists are merely very sadistic criminals’ mindset.

Terrorism is a tactic. It is not intrinsically wrong. What makes our enemies worthy of annihilation is not their tactics, but their goals. They would remain worthy of annihilation even if they were to pursue their goals without employing terrorism.



Post 2

Thursday, May 14, 2009 - 5:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Glad you brought that up, Jon... I quite agree - a terrorist is one as by its name who brings terror, the sense of instability, as means to ends, a tactic as you note... a big difference from a Bundy...

Post 3

Thursday, May 14, 2009 - 11:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon,

Your point about terrorism's motive not being sadism was well made. But, I'm not sure that many terrorists aren't attracted to, and enjoy, the destruction and the pain of their victims. To be terrorism, a definition has to include the part about its purpose being political change, but that doesn't rule out some being sadists, and some who are so bent as to exhilarate in destruction as such. Some are so brainwashed and devoid of reason that it makes no sense to speak of rational motivations. It is both a tactic and a sickness. It is also an evil.

The biggest problem I have with your definition is that it left off the moral dimension - terrorism is an evil.

Where you say, "I define terrorism here as an utterly shocking event that induces fear and doubt about one’s safety, producing a capitulation" you are leaving out the difference between a nation or an individual that is responding to the initiation of force and the one who initiates force. Your definition leaves off the part about the act not being part of a necessary defense. When an act kills innocent people it is all of the difference in the world to say that it was an act of self-defense versus an act that was completely unnecessary.

It is true that when a military campaign is waged it often is done to maximize the psychological gains - to strike terror into the hearts of the enemy. But that isn't the same as "terrorism." The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was not terrorism - it was a nation openly using its military to attack primarily military targets.

I think this discussion of terrorism and terrorists and terror (the emotion) isn't nearly as careful of keeping those terms separate as it needs to be.

Also, your definition calls for capitulation - but in fact what is wanted is change - making the terrorists enemy scurry about in fear and spend time and money and violate their own standards to try to make themselves secure again. If terrorists expected that they could achieve capitulation they would make more reasonable requests.

In WWII when the US dropped atomic weapons on Japan it was during a war of one nation against another where neither was holding back and where the existence of each nation was clearly at risk. We were the nation that had been attacked and were defending ourselves. Our experiences in the Pacific showed two things: That only an unconditional surrender would make us safe, that that the cost in American lives should we need to land troops on Japanese soil would be extreme - hence the bombs were self-defense and not terrorism.


Post 4

Thursday, May 14, 2009 - 11:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Good points, Steve.

Post 5

Saturday, May 16, 2009 - 7:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree with Jon that Sowell's depiction of terrorism as solely undertaken for pleasure is off target and dangerous.  I was thinking the same thing when I read it.  It's an insane statement, considering a suicide bomber surely does not blow himself up for the sheer pleasure of it.  Last I checked, none of the suicide bombers thus far have lived to enjoy any pleasures at all.

This isn't a t.v. show where the bad guys want to take over the world and kill people just to giggle about it while getting drunk around a card table telling stories of pleasurable killings a la the "scar stories" scene in Jaws.  This is real, and terrorists (or should we call them something more warm and fuzzy like insurgents to please the tree-hugging liberal Obamunists?), as also pointed out by Jon, use terrorism as a means to an end, whatever that end may be.

"Terrorism" is never an end in itself as Sowell asserts, which is a significant mistake from a thinker whose (typically) thoroughly considered points I usually respect.

JHM


Post 6

Monday, May 18, 2009 - 7:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Come on, guys! Sowell isn't saying that terrorism as such is sadistic. He's saying that the torture inflicted by terrorists is often sadistic.

- Bill

Post 7

Monday, May 18, 2009 - 8:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Bill,

I still dispute it.

Sawing a head off a live person is sadism when done quietly at home. But they made sure the tape was running and they uploaded it to the web. They were looking for effects, e.g., lower army volunteer rates, despondency in the form ‘they have more will than we to fight this’, etc…



Post 8

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 - 3:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon,

I still have a problem with this quote -

"Terrorism is a tactic. It is not intrinsically wrong."

Like Steve - and for the same reasons - I disagree that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could be considered terrorism. Terrorists are not 'at war' with the innocent civilians they kill. They have simply rationalized their act by 'devaluing' those innocent lives. I find something intrinsically wrong with that.

They are entitled to have whatever stupid or vulgar goals they like, and we can simply withhold our approval. However, when they take vulgar actions to secure their goals, then they're worth no more than the bullet it takes to stop them.

jt

Post 9

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 - 9:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Jay,

“Terrorists are not 'at war' with the innocent civilians they kill.”

Tell that to the dead civilians.

What would qualify as ‘at war’? They have goals, such as evicting America and Israel from “their” peninsula, the establishment of a vast caliphate, Islamic world domination. Lacking a traditional military capacity, their tactic is terrorism. The aim of the terrorism is to change public thinking toward the election of western leaders who will give them what they want out of fear. They tell us themselves that this is war.

You have bought into the dangerous thinking I warned about.



Post 10

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 - 1:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon,

"You have bought into the dangerous thinking I warned about."

I understand their motives. I understand their tactics. I understand their claims when they say "we are at war". Yet this last claim is only an irrational self-justification on their part.

We are not at war. They are not soldiers. They are criminals, and I do find their criminal tactics intrinsically wrong.

You'd have to carefully explain to me why you'd think their tactics are not intrinsically wrong.

jt

Post 11

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 - 1:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

First you’d have to carefully explain to me why having geopolitical goals and using force to achieve them is not war.

Post 12

Monday, May 25, 2009 - 11:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
From A LAND FIT FOR SUPERHEROES by Mark Steyn:

...Well, I saw Spidey in 2002, the day after visiting the World Trade Center site on what was the last chance to see it “as is,” before the authorities closed it for redevelopment (if that’s the right word for a decade of bureaucratic sclerosis). So perhaps my emotional compass was pointing elsewhere. I thought Spidey’s big-screen debut made a case for Bush-style pre-emption in that “the men who killed his Uncle Ben were small-time crooks Peter could have stopped earlier but chose not to.” On the other hand, apropos his uncle’s famous advice to Peter Parker—“With great power comes great responsibility”—I seem to recall my colleague Paul Wells defending Jean Chrétien’s 9/11 anniversary plea for the Americans to “be nice” to foreigners as simply a Shawinigan variation on Uncle Ben: “Wid da great power come da great responsibilities.”

Who’s right? Me? Wells? Both? Neither? Well, it’s seven years on, and I can’t remember a thing about the movie except Kirsten Dunst’s clinging shirt in one rain-sodden scene. Mr. Walker is right that too many of us went looking for messages in the superheroics, and seized too eagerly on the slim pickings. As he says, the superhero genre has a “philosophical flexibility.” Spider-Man himself compared biceps with Don Rumsfeld on stage as part of some Pentagon war promotion. But in January he was trading fist bumps with Barack Obama in a presidential inaugural special. Boy sidekick to Rummy, arachnid ivory to Obamessiah ebony: which is the real Spider-Man?

Er, well, there isn’t a real Spider-Man, is there? Look, I know several comrades of mine were very taken by Michael Caine’s speech as Alfred the butler to Master Bruce—“Some men just want to watch the world burn . . . ”—hailing it as an incisive analysis of al-Qaeda et al. But I don’t think so. Terrorists enjoy the body count, yet, unlike the Joker, they do have an end rather than just means. The notion that they merely “want to watch the world burn” is more readily applied to your average Hollywood studio. For almost a decade, the summer blockbusters have avoided saying anything about terrorism, Islam, 9/11, Bali, Beslan, Madrid or London, but they do like to “watch the world burn.” And so they opt for explosions and fireballs and shattering glass and screaming civilians unmoored from any recognizable reality. Hence, the Age of the Superhero: the Sharpie-bright spandex boys helped the movies off an awkward hook.

In the eight years American troops have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the studios have failed to produce a single film on the subject, other than a handful of unwatched flops about rendition and torture. The Tom Clancy novel The Sum of All Fears was about Islamic terrorists, so naturally the cinematic version made them neo-Nazis. The Nicole Kidman yawneroo The Interpreter was originally about Islamic terrorists attacking New York, so naturally they were rewritten into terrorists from the little-known African republic of Matobo. If a thriller’s set on a hijacked plane, the hijacker turns out to be a bespoke minion of some obscure Halliburton subsidiary. A couple of years back they made a high-tech action thriller in which the bad guy is the plane. That’s right: an unmanned computer-flown aircraft goes rogue and starts attacking things. The money shot is—stop me if this rings a vague bell—a big downtown skyscraper with a jet heading toward it. Only there are no terrorists aboard. The jet itself is the terrorist. This is the pitiful state Hollywood’s been reduced to: let’s play it safe and make the plane the bad guy. In the nineties, upscale Brits made a nice living playing the exotic foreign evildoer in Hollywood action pics. But, unless Jeremy Irons has been practising twirling his fingers like propellers and taxiing down the garden path with outstretched arms, he’s not going to be getting many roles as the psycho aeroplane....

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.