terrorists insane?

"You can only reason with reasonable people."

There's no question that our enemies have decided to use destructive weapons against us. In fact, there was never a time when we tried to have a dialogue with bin Laden or his group, for it was always so adamantly hating of us.

However, it's not true that they are insane people, or somehow illogical, or otherwise unreasonable. If one were to objectively look at their situation and then at the religion they preach one can see how easy it is for them to arrive at conspiracy theories. For one, they live in poverty. Second, they see the rest of the world prospering but not them. Third, anybody in the world can bastardize a religion towards hatred and violence.

The fact of the matter is that killing them is wrong, and that we're doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to combat what's really wrong with the world. If human lives are really worth so much, then why do let them live in poverty? What's worse? A country that let's most of the rest of the world starve while it fattens itself up or a country that keeps a terrorist so it can pay for the military to protect itself?

I just want people to realize that despite the good feelings and patriotism going around in America, that deciding to go to war is morally wrong, especially when we ignore the real problems. Killing them will only solve it temporarly. If the people still live in poverty they'll find a reason to hate us and want to blow us up.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Welcome to Sciforums, seymoure.
I do not think that we have the wealth to give the workd and still be able to support ourselves. We have tried giving out wealth in one form or another. All that results from that is those who recieve it look for more and more and then stab you in the back afterwards. Not much future in that I would say. It is the old give a man a fish or teach him to fish.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Watch American History X. Of course if you were in their shoes it would be reasonable to you. That doesn't make it reasonable.

Heaven's Gate was apparently reasonable to some people. Objectivly it was unreasonable, illogical.

The KKK is reasonable to those involved. According to their religion, their way of life, it's reasonable. Objectivly we know it's not.

Understanding why they think it's reasonable is the first step to showing them it's not.

Ben

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm certainly not trying to espouce a sort of view that "anything is reasonable in their shoes" and so that therefore "it's okay to think that, or that it's not wrong." I just mean to say that we shouldn't regard them as insane people. It's easy for us to think "Oh, they're just crazy people and we have to kill them for that's the ONLY way to deal with them." This is very shortsighted.

A long term solution needs to be found, wiping them off the planet isn't it. We need to raise the standard of living, educate the world in some sort of skill so they can make money for themselves, and that way people will not be in the sort of position to hate. Or at least not as much.

 

Even the idea of helping to equalize hate will not work. There will always be those who want more than they have. If everyone is equal then they will want their neighbors share. You simply can not reason with a fantic. That is why they are fantics. Any time you have someone who thinks that it is ok to die to take out his target then reason will not work. Only stopping him will. That usually comes in the form of a gun. Would you bow down to these terrorists to prevent what they are doing? What they want is for you to lead life as they see it. That is not acceptable to me.
The only other choice is to fight. There is no middle ground.

 

I'll try again, for I don't think we're so far apart from agreement on at least one thing.

Obviously, we need to do something by force to eliminate, if not seriously reduce, the immediate threat. That will probably mean using ground troops and taking Bin Laden from Afghanistan, hopefully putting him on trial although that seems highly unlikely. Anyway, I agree with you that force needs to be used here. And yes that does involve the gun. On that we agree.

But where we depart is that I'm saying that it's not the long-term solution. This isn't the only way to handle the "fanatics" as you call them. There are more than one way other than eliminating them from the planet, we have to take steps to ensure that more terrorists don't rise to the occasion, which will certainly happen. One way of doing that is by doing something about the ridiculous gap in standards of living among countries. This is one major source where the hate comes from. I can understand that hate to a certain amount, although that certainly and in no way excuses them for what our enemies have done.

Is that clearer?

 

seymoure,

Thanks for your contributions, where I can fully agree with.

But I think, a war should not only be avoided by reasons of morality and poverty is not the only reason why fanatic terrorists hate us as I will explain by the following:

Americans were never confronted with enemies where they had no chance to win - now they are. Military actions may damage terror centers, where huge attacks could be planned as happened in New York. But if the military actions are not very restricted, it will activate many other fanatic groups who are perhaps only able for terror at a lower level. The war will not be limited to Afghanistan or similar countries, but it will mainly take place within America and other open countries. Even when there are means to avoid hi-jacking, what will you do, when suicide terrorists start to use small chemical or biological weapons carried in their pockets. Such fanatics are willing and wanting to die by killing enemies and this makes them unbeatable. Although the single actions may be limited in size, the result is still huge, because the number of such terrorists is potentially almost infinite. That should be the main reason to look for other and better strategies in our very own interest.

Not only violence generates new violence, but also fanaticism generates new one. The Christian crusades or inquisition were not any better and also today there is huge fanaticism in all religions as you can see e.g. in Israel or Ireland. Therefore we have to fight against any kind of fanaticism in all religions. This needs our private engagement by rational discussions with fanatic people within our own environment - not by attacking them.

---------------
Everyone sees the world with his own eyes - my weltanschauung (world outlook) is described at:
http://home.t-online.de/home/hraith/english.htm

 

Hermann,

I think you said it well when you pointed out that for the first time we're confronted with an enemy that we can't win against. How can we eliminate all of our enemies when this brand of enemy is invisible?

I see things I little differently from you regarding the terrorists.

I think our enemies are probably smarter than we actually think. I don't think we're dealing with fanatics, although perhaps some of the "soldiers" are indeed that. These aren't irrational people we're dealing with. These aren't crazy lunatics here. These people probably even predicted our response, knew how to limit our response, and was intelligent enough to assassinate the leader of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan to hopefullly prevent the northern flank from taking advantage of the situation.

Furthermore, there is some evidence that they have a mole on our side, or else some very sophisticated intelligence racket, for it seems that Air Force one itself was targeted which could only have been if it had knowledge of presidential procedures. Collection of intelligence implies intelligence, and keeping it a secret yet even more intelligence.

America needs to start thinking about when this war would ever be over, if we could win it. I'm willing to say that we probably can't win it unless we're willing to make huge changes in our foreign politicies, and again, the intolerable and embarrassing difference in living standards among countries.

Globalism is starting to have different connotations than it did just two weeks ago, isn't it?

 

seymoure,

I agree with you that the terrorists in the headquarters are smart and may be no fanatics. But all their “soldiers” must be religious fanatics otherwise they would not agree to suicide. America has no possibilities to hire suicide fighters unless they would contact some very obscure sects. Therefore I still think, that fighting against all kind of fanaticism by rational methods is a prior task.

---------------
Everyone sees the world with his own eyes - my weltanschauung (world outlook) is described at:
http://home.t-online.de/home/hraith/english.htm

 

Mabye another way of putting that is: I do not think we have the wealth to give the world and still be able to afford $50,000 air conditioned homes and $120 doller Nikes made by poor brown skinned children. We have tried loaning money to third world nations to exploit them and force them to produce items that served our needs, not theirs. All that results from that is the increased wealth of corporate shareholders. Not much future in that for them I say. It is the old give a man a fish so he will have the strength to serve you.

 

Hermann ...

Kamikaze (Divine Wind) pilots were not religious fanatics, yet they did accept suicide missions.

 

terrorists aren,t insane

terrorists are brainwashed

imagine you lived in afghistan all your surroundings are stone colored houses and dirt roads and the most beautiful thing in your life is the gold decorated church in which you attend weekly.you know of a culture that has a magic box,this magic box allows people to see images of naked woman,plans to build bombs,bongs and houses.it also allows you to speak to someone halfway around the world or allow you to order something that will show up at your door in a week.some tells you to take that away, it is evil and its going get you left behind in this quickly evolving world would you do what it takes to stop the world from leaving you behind even if you had to kill thousands and even yourself would you do it?

 

botchi ...

First off: Welcome to Sciforums.

Secondly: Aren't you ignoring the fact that the men who planned and executed the 9/11 attack were reasonably affluent, educated and had lived in the US and other European cities for a while?

Also, a good percentage of them were not even Afghani.

I think you'd better get your facts straight before offering an opinion.

 

Hermann ...

You don't 'hire' people willing to perform a suicide mission.

You look for committed individuals who are willing to give their lives for a cause they believe in.

 

I'm surprised that we've not already had major terrorist attacks long before those of this past Autumn. The combination of religion, poverty, and overpopulation is an extremely incindiary mixture. And I certainly don't believe that our "opening a can of whoop-ass" on the Afghans will have changed this situation. We may frighten the impoverished with our B-52's, but at some point their hunger will overcome even that fear.

If the world's population were to to live the same life of affluence as do the Americans, the Europeans, and the Australians, it would simply be a mass suicide for all of us.

"To suppose that the living standard of the rest of the world can be rasied to that of the most prosperous countries, with existing technology and current levels of consumption and waste, is a dream in pursuit of a mathematical impossibility."
E.O. Wilson

The mutual deal we must make is that the affluent nations agree to use less resources per capita, and the third world agrees to make fewer "capita".

The "one child per family" policy in China is a small glimmer of hope for a rational population control. Unfortunately, the population of India (now over one billion) as well as that of Africa and South America, among others, continues to soar. China's policy needs to be adopted on a global basis.

The over-developed nations are on a clear collision course with the masses of have-nots. Our military hardware will not save us. Our only hope is to put aside our differences and work towards the common goal of a decent life for a reasonable number of earthly inhabitants at a given time.

Michael

 

At the risk of swerving further from the point of this thread:

Despite its apparent effectiveness, the 'One Child' policy that includes forced sterilization and the required abortion of any subsequent children is barbaric.

China's population-control policies allow petty bureaucrats across the country a free hand to ruin people's lives as they extort bribes and gifts and dispense life-or-death decisions. In Caidian, a township in central China, local officials justified the killing of a newborn baby boy by claiming to be upholding population policies.

First, they injected the mother - who already had three children - with a saline solution as her pregnancy neared full term. This is a standard procedure in China intended to produce a stillbirth. The child somehow survived, but officials still ordered his father to dispose of his second son. The man, a poor laborer, dumped the baby in a lavatory behind the Caidian government finance bureau. His cries attracted the attention of a retired doctor who took him to a local clinic where the child was treated just like any other newborn infant.

Word leaked back to the local family planning committee that the child was still alive. When Dr Liu returned home from the clinic with the baby, she found five "officials" waiting on her doorstep, demanding that she hand over the boy. After a tussle, in which the baby was dropped, the officials wrested the child from Dr Liu's arms and, in full view of local people, proceeded to drown him in a nearby rice field.

Isolated instance? Who is to say with a state-controlled media and many rural areas out of touch with the rest of the globe?

Peace.

 

Goofyfish,

Thanks for the reply. I've read similar horror stories. Unfortunately, I believe they are true. I share in your feeling of outrage.

I've also read about orpahanages in China where five children are strapped onto long benches. These human clad benches are moved around like just so much furniture. In one known case, a bench of children was left in an unheated room in the winter. All the five children froze to death.

The death of any one child sickens me. If I am however forced to make a choice between the evils of mass famine and death due to overpopulation on the one hand (such as occurs regularly in North Korea), and the abuses which might arise through forced sterilization, I will always choose forced sterilization.

Of course it would be infinitely better if a program of education and readily available birth control measures produced the desired ends. The problem is that China does not have the luxury to wait a few more generations until a cultural norm of smaller families comes into fashion.

How can such a beautiful thing as bringing a new child into this world ever be a curse? It is a curse when you've so many beautiful new children that there is not enough rice to feed them all. What do we do then? Pick a number and strangle the unfortunate losers?

Goofyfish, I agree with you about the heinous excesses in China. The policy of "one child per family" must be enforced in a more humane manner. Without question, infantacide should be punished as murder! But the understanding that we must rationally work to limit our numbers is inescapable.

Regards,
Michael

 

Boldly stated. Score 100 Respect Points from me.

Your agreement had two parts. "The mutual deal we must make is that the affluent nations agree to use less resources per capita..." Where is the equivalent enforcement on reduction of resource usage for you and I?

Peace.

 

terrorsits insane?

goffy, if the conquerer rule and u cannot by war or peace on him then his rule is justified,afterall it is a struggle, let this way decide ,questiong that he didnot rule overhimself is pathetic self satisfaction reply, not a contest.