ESR's Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Xugumad
Self-defense ends the second you kill an innocent.

When innocents are killed as a result of defending against an attack, the culpability belongs to the original attacker.

Simpleminded conclusions like yours are the reason Saddam wrapped his high-value targets with human shields of innocent civilians, and then pumped the resulting casualties for propaganda value.

Rewarding a terrorist by advancing his agenda because he's willing to commit violence for its publicity value is completely wrongheaded, and invites further violence from any nutball who has a cause but lack a concience. And to sit there and accuse those who won't fall for such a ploy of "criminally narrowmindedness" abets the terrorist's crimes.

[Xugumad]

Originally posted by MaggieL
When innocents are killed as a result of defending against an attack, the culpability belongs to the original attacker.

Keep telling yourself that.

1. The US is keeping the feudal dictatorship of Saudi Arabia in power for political reasons. (Iran is another good example in the Spindle of Atrocity)

2. That dictatorship has oppressed and murdered dozens, if not hundreds of opponents of its authoritarian regime.

3. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis, opposed to the current regime, and its cruel actions, all sponsored by the US.

4. The victims in the WTC and Pentagon were "killed as a result of defending against an attack" by the US on the Saudi people.

All of the above are logically consistent with your line of argument. They are also wrong. How can you be so naive?

Simple-inded conclusions like yours are the reason Saddam wrapped his high-value targets with human shields of innocent civilians, and then pumped the resulting casualties for propaganda value.

I assume those human targets are the fault Saddam is still there? Why, exactly, has he not been removed in the past decade since he proved to be such a trouble-maker in the middle east? Why is the US listening to the UN and letting him off the hook with some weapons inspections when he should be removed for being such a collossal villain? Where is the consistency and logic in such a foreign policy approach?

Ah. I see.

Rewarding a terrorist by advancing his agenda because he's willing to commit violence for its publicity value is completely wrongheaded, and invites further violence from any nutball who has a cause but lack a concience.

And to happily murder hundreds of innocent Third World civilians because remote bombings are so much cleaner and less problematic, domestic-policy wise, than an actual invasion, is of course not wrongheaded at all.

CNN doesn't give a damn about dead foreign children, felled by smart bombs. CNN does give a damn about crying American mothers, weeping at the loss of the soldiers who would have fallen in an invasion. Wake up.

And to sit there and accuse those who won't fall for such a ploy of "criminally narrowmindedness" abets the terrorist's crimes.

You didn't read my post properly, that quotation applied to willful ignorance. I still condemned terrorist actions, considering them to be wrong, and I didn't say that dealing with the issue is wrong. It didn't stop you from implying meaning where there was none.

After all, how could we talk about this issue without painting everyone to the left of Ashcroft as (dangerous traitorous commie) peaceniks who are betraying the American people and support terrorism? The David Horowitz school of character assassination seems to be taking students this year.

"Abets the terrorist's crimes", indeed.

(And that a supporter of ESR's political views could possibly consider someone else to be "simple-minded" is rather fascinating..)

X.

[Undertoad]

X, just a quick request, is there any way you could present your argument without being such a complete and total ass about it? Thanks.

[MaggieL]

OK, taking it one step at a time:

1) Terrorists commit violent acts directly and deliberately against noncombatant civilian targets to advance their political aims; a violent vehicle with a propaganda payload.

2)The terrorists then conceal themselves among the shelter of *another* noncombatant civilian population, and then paint the unintended results of any response aganst them as indiscriminant slaughter of innocents by the victims of the original attack, their fault for not bowing to the terrorist's agenda in the first place.

3) To then criticise the victims of the original attack for their failure to embrace the intended propaganda effect of the original attack as "narrowminded" or "blind" is to intentionally work to advance the goals and increase the effectiveness of the original attack, no matter how much self-righteous hand-wringing accompanies it attempting to achieve distance from complicity in the evil of the original attack.

What an arrogant, cowardly, cynical shell game: kill one batch of innocents for publicity, kill another bunch as camoflage, and then blame it all on your enemies.

[hermit22]

First off, thanks for jumping in X. I was getting tired of Maggie not listening to anything I had to say.

That being said, I have more to say to her.

They don't necessarily conceal themselves among *another* group of people. Most terrorists come from a society that has at least some support behind them. For any terrorist to succeed, they have to have that support. Otherwise, they'll be turned in straight away. Look at it this way: it is estimated that for every terrorist 'soldier' there are 35 people in the support network - and that doesn't even count the sympathizers.

Your third argument is flawed simply because you can't understand what either I or X are saying. We're not saying that the victims of terror should "embrace" the terrorist propaganda. What we are saying is that there are reasons why these terrorists are not shunned by their communities. Most propaganda is based on a grain of truth, which is used as the starting point for a series of lies. But that little bit of truth, something that rings true to their base, has to be there for them to garner any kind of support. Then they are caught in the net, and are more willing to listen to any of the lies that follow.

So we are not arguing for the terrorists. We are arguing that the reasonings behind the terrorist's philosophy need to be understood if we are ever going to eliminate them. Killing a few, we have seen, is just a Band-Aid. More spring up in other parts of the world. (You could say that the same is true for the spread of Communism.) You have to show that they are wrong, and myopic declarations of their evil nature do nothing to advance this.

So we aren't arguing along the same lines as the terrorists. If anything, you are. Terrorists, especially religious terrorists, promote every struggle to the level of "cosmic war." Suddenly, they are fighting for the will of God, and their enemies are the enemies of God. What you are doing is the same thing. We live in a more secular society, so our concepts of "God" and "infidel" boil down to "good" and "evil." You are doing this, Maggie. You are painting anyone with a dissenting viewpoint as on the side of terrorists and therefore bad. Your delineations are along the same lines as the terrorists - just the sides are flipped.

I think that these people are evil. They have evil intentions. But to paint them as such without bothering to understand their evilness is to play right into their game (the one you outlined directly above). It promotes argument 3 in the minds of the people in argument 2, and the ranks of the terrorists grow.

I don't pretend to know that I have all of the answers, nor do I claim to be an expert on terrorism. I have done a little study, though, and it has taught me that this form of quick delineation does little good in forming a complete and cohesive policy. That is why I object to it.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by hermit22
I think that these people are evil. They have evil intentions. But to paint them as such without bothering to understand their evilness is to play right into their game ...

If they are already evil, to see them as such requires no painting; it's there to behold.

*I* think their "grain of truth"--your words--being only a grain, has already had such study as it deserves; and commiting more terrorism doesn't entitle it to more consideration. Should we now devote deep study to the rest--lies, by your own definition--that accompany it?

I think their evilness is already well-understood; will this additional study yield some new enlightenment as to their goals, means, or anything else for that matter? Or is it just what it appears to be: a bid for mindshare at gunpoint? Since you're such an exponent for this, do share with us some of the insights you've gained from your own broadminded inquiry.

[Kutz]

Originally posted by Undertoad
X, just a quick request, is there any way you could present your argument without being such a complete and total ass about it? Thanks.

X's posts were just fine - no more belligerent than, say, MaggieL's posts. Unless anyone with an opposing argument happens to be an ass.

Originally posted by MaggieL
I think their evilness is already well-understood; will this additional study yield some new enlightenment as to their goals, means, or anything else for that matter? Or is it just what it appears to be: a bid for mindshare at gunpoint? Since you're such an exponent for this, do share with us some of the insights you've gained from your own broadminded inquiry.

Understanding the dissenting viewpoint is necessary not merely in combatting the terrorists but in ensuring greater safety of innocent people. The masses are the ones with the most power when it comes to making sure that innocent people are not killed, but its precisely the masses who are most endangering innocents of dissenting viewpoint by proclaiming them to be evil and ignoring their pain.

People don't commit terrorist acts just because they're bored or because the Great Satan needs some bleeding, they commit the acts because something is fundamentally wrong in their society. And societal troubles are important. If we're doing something to endanger a society but refuse to recognize how it hurts others, we only hinder ourselves in solving the terrorist problem. You don't punch a man in the teeth and then act suprised when he punches back.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Kutz
People don't commit terrorist acts just because they're bored or because the Great Satan needs some bleeding, they commit the acts because something is fundamentally wrong in their society.

They commit terrorist acts because they believe they have something to *gain* thereby, whether they're the thug who wants to finance his crack appetite with your wallet or an ex-Saudi spoiled rich kid who yearns to be repatriated as a popular hero, and doesn't care who dies in the process.

I'm sure both of them will tell us "society is to blame".

[Kutz]

Originally posted by MaggieL

They commit terrorist acts because they believe they have something to *gain* thereby, whether they're the thug who wants to finance his crack appetite with your wallet or an ex-Saudi spoiled rich kid who yearns to be repatriated as a popular hero, and doesn't care who dies in the process.

I'm sure both of them will tell us "society is to blame".

That's an unfair blanket statement.

It is very probable that terrorism will always exist simply because, as you stated, terrorist acts can be committed by simple thugs looking for money, drugs, or glory.

The fact is, however, that there are a great many terrorists and potential terrorists out there with serious ideals which are their most powerful driving force when it comes to committing terrorist acts.

When some disgrace to humanity uses the excuse "society is to blame," they effectively mar the power and truth of the phrase as you pointed out. And, without investigation, you're correct in saying that it's an impossibly weak excuse.

However, those terrorists or fanatics who truly believe in their cause will use that same excuse, and our best hope is to actually pay attention. If we can calm the situation - pacify those who are truly upset to the point of willfully comitting suicide - then we are only helping the situation.

True, terrorism will most likely always exist partially for the reasons you described. But there are many kinds of criminals out there, and it only helps to try.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Kutz
That's an unfair blanket statement...the fact is...that there are a great many terrorists and potential terrorists out there with serious ideals

You actually believe binLaden & Co. acts out of deep principles and serious ideals rather than selfish opportunism? Personally, I don't buy it.; your pronouncement of your belief to be "the fact" doesn't make it one.

When this crew directly threatens me with death--very directly, mind you; their proclaimed "religious beliefs" call for my personal immediate execution should they somehow gain dominon over me--it becomes pretty much impossible to impress me with how principled you think their stand is.

But there are many kinds of criminals out there, and it only helps to try.

Sorry. My own patience with them is exhausted. The harm in "trying" is that it diverts attention and energy from more deserving pursuits.

[Chefranden]

Originally posted by MaggieL
You actually believe acts out of deep principles and serious ideals rather than selfish opportunism? Personally, I don't buy it.; your pronouncement of your belief to be "the fact" doesn't make it one.

When this crew directly threatens me with death--very directly, mind you; their proclaimed "religious beliefs" call for my personal immediate execution should they somehow gain dominon over me--it becomes pretty much impossible to impress me with how principled you think their stand is.

Actually it is not a matter if any of us believe it. What matters is if bin Laden & Co. believe it. I for one think they do. People who are in things for personal gain don't fly in airplanes they know will dive into buildings! So at least some of &Co. are acting out of their deep principles and beliefs which by their actions they prove their seriousness.

It is possible; I suppose that bin Laden could be the, Baker-Swaggart-Farwell of Islam. But those sorts usually align themselves with the powers that be and use the money extorted from widows and orphans to buy airplanes, diamond mines, and caddies. They certainly don't live in caves like the dessert fathers did. And while they rant against the powerless like un-wed-mothers in need of abortions, they don't follow in the footsteps of Girolamo Savonarola and beard the governing powers for their misdeeds. Again there is not much use for personal gain when you're hiding from 2000# bombs in caves and under rocks and have hundreds of armed drones looking for your ass. That sort of thing makes it hard to spend your millions on anything but guns.

In point of fact Kutz is right. Drug Lords and other normal criminals have a healthy respect for their own asses. People that "know" they will go to heaven because they are doing "God's Will" don't give a rat’s ass what happens to them personally. If you don't respect that, what ever your personal feelings, and act accordingly your ass is going to get burnt as per 9/11.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Chefranden
Actually it is not a matter if any of us believe it. What matters is if bin Laden & Co. believe it. I for one think they do.

But....didn't you just say that your belief about it didn't matter? :-)

People who are in things for personal gain don't fly in airplanes they know will dive into buildings!
So at least some of &Co. are acting out of their deep principles and beliefs which by their actions they prove their seriousness.

I don't doubt the islamo-fascists *seriousness*; I take their deadly intent very seriously. Hence this entire thread.

We haven't seen binLaden or Zawahiri themselves flying any airplanes into buildings. And even their minons who did were convinced a martyr's reward awaited them personally at the end of the tunnel. This doesn't demonstrate that the movement as a whole is "principled", any more than Jim Jones or Marshall Applewhite or others of their ilk were. How much time have we all spent studying *their* beliefs for "interesting social insights"--beyond adding to the demagogery HOW-TO?

Of course, <b>they</b> only killed members of their own cult. These folks have higher ambitions than that.

[hermit22]

Originally posted by MaggieL

We haven't seen binLaden or Zawahiri themselves flying any airplanes into buildings. And even their minons who did were convinced a martyr's reward awaited them personally at the end of the tunnel. This doesn't demonstrate that the movement as a whole is "principled", any more than Jim Jones or Marshall Applewhite or others of their ilk were. How much time have we all spent studying *their* beliefs for "interesting social insights"--beyond adding to the demagogery HOW-TO?

Actually, it's a pretty well-researched subject in Sociology and psychology. The difference, of course, is that they are researching it, and not making blanket statements based on a few soundbytes.

[Chefranden]

Originally posted by MaggieL

But....didn't you just say that your belief about it didn't matter? :-)

I know I can be dense sometimes but I don't understand your confusion.

I don't doubt the islamo-fascists *seriousness*; I take their deadly intent very seriously. Hence this entire thread.

Its good that we can agree on something, even if I don't think that lableing is very productive.

We haven't seen binLaden or Zawahiri themselves flying any airplanes into buildings. And even their minons who did were convinced a martyr's reward awaited them personally at the end of the tunnel. This doesn't demonstrate that the movement as a whole is "principled", any more than Jim Jones or Marshall Applewhite or others of their ilk were. How much time have we all spent studying *their* beliefs for "interesting social insights"--beyond adding to the demagogery HOW-TO?

A few Points

1. Leaders seldom take the role of foot soldier. We didn't see Mr. Bush or even Mr. Rumsfeld off loading from a c5 galaxy with a hundred pound pack and an M-16 either. Though I'd like to see them get the experience they missed back in the 60's no one really expects it to happen. We expect them to stay home and practice their "demagoguery" so we can stay stirred up enough to be willing to kill and maim a few thousand "rag heads" as an answer to our problems.

2. Just because a person or an organization doesn't hold your principles doesn't make them un-principled though people often believe that it does. It seems that is something you may hold in common with bin Laden as he seeks to eliminate you (and the rest of us) because he believes us to be un-principled, just as you believe him to be. You see him as evil and he sees you as evil. You believe that his death will be righteous, and he believes that your death will be righteous. And perhaps you both believe that trial by combat will decide the issue.

3. I wouldn't lump bin Laden or &Co. in with Jim Jones and Marshall Applewhite and their followers. Applewhite stirred only a few 10s of people and Jones only a few hundred, where as bin Laden has stirred millions beyond his immediate group to want to kill and maim a few thousand "infidels" as an answer to their problems.

4. I wouldn't dismiss Islam a souce of social insight because of bin Laden any more then I would dismiss Christianity as such a source because of Jones. (I would dismiss comets though.) Though an athiest, I agree with much that is written in scripture such as: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the RE-publicans the same? kjv Matt. 5:43-46 [italics mine] I would like to add something simular from the Koran but I am too ignorant of it.

5. I don't see bin Laden as "evil" but he is an enemy. I will explain that in a differant post if you like, because this one is getting too long.

Of course, they only killed members of their own cult. These folks have higher ambitions than that.

Absolutely! They wish to eliminate evil.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Chefranden

I can be dense sometimes but I don't understand your confusion.

Oh, I'm not confused. Just amused.

...even if I don't think that lableing is very productive.

Everybody in-thread has been using their own labeling. Since I doubt we agree on what's "productive", we surely won't agree on "productive labelling".

I wouldn't dismiss Islam a souce of social insight because of bin Laden any more then I would dismiss Christianity...

I'm dismissing neither Islam nor Christianity. But I draw a distinction between the two religions as a whole and the particular sects in question...Jim Jones isn't represerntative of Christianity, and the "worldwide jihadic fascists" or whatever you think they should be called today (as a courtesy I"ll detach "islamo-" from the term if you like, but I know a fascist when I see one) aren't representative of Islam as a whole, as some courageous Muslims are willing to tell us. There's lots of flavors of Christianity that aren't my buddies either. But they haven't threatened me with death lately.

It seems that is something you may hold in common with bin Laden as he seeks to eliminate you (and the rest of us) because he believes us to be un-principled, just as you believe him to be.

Not at all. I seek to eliminate him and his coreligionists <i>because they seek to kill me</i>, and will if they can.

This isn't about ideology, it's about survival. If they weren't seeking <i>my</i> death, I'd be delighted to ignore them, as I wish they would me. After a few mass murders my country responds militarily, and you say "See? You're as bad as they are." What a load of hooey.

I'm not particularly concerned with their principles, that's an issue their apologists keep wanting to bring into this discussion. Then when I say "I don't care", they respond "Well, you should! If you'd been embracing these principles, this violence wouldn't be necessary!". That's nonsense too.

There's just no equivalancy here, seek it as you may.

Absolutely! They wish to eliminate evil.

Well, "they seek to kill people in addition to their own cult members", is the distinction I was thinking of; this doesn't require us to agree on something as abstract as "evil".

You do say...

bin Laden has stirred millions beyond his immediate group to want to kill and maim a few thousand "infidels" as an answer to their problems.

How admirable. But "a few thousand"? You don't do your heroes justice; they're ready to kill a few thousands of *millions*--anyone who resists, in fact.--to establish their brand of religion in global control. binLaden has been very effective compared to the other cult leaders, but then he has a budget many orders of magnitude greater....money talks.