Boston Tea Party--A Terrorist Act?

by GinnyTosken 40 Replies latest jw friends

GinnyTosken

Teejay,
I wonder if you have concrete ideas on current events or whether your ideas are still in a state of major flux. Again... just wondering.
If my ideas were set in concrete, you might take me for granite.
I’ve expressed my opinions about current events in various threads in recent days. I see no need to repeat them here, especially if you’re just wondering. My ideas are in a constant state of flux as I gather more information, gain experience, and observe the world.
Like you, I am only sharing my views, but received a slap earlier... something about Gandhi and King, I believe. Seems that I had the wrong view and needed correction -- or an editorial comment. Whatever.
You interpreted my comment as a slap; I intended it as raising a eyebrow in question.
Put me, teejay, in the role of dad in the scenario I gave, cause I know what I'd be thinking and what I'd likely do. My intent would be revenge, justice, whatever word you want to put on it.
Cite scriptures; say, "Now, now, tj, you know that's not right..."; quote the law; do whatever you have to do... someone is going to pay for what happened to my daughter. Take justice into my own hands? Absolutely. If not my hands, whose? Generations of Americans lived long lives without ever getting a hint of justice, waiting for a justice that never came. In the instance I created, I would indeed be taking justice into my own hands.

Now, I ask you a second time: Would I be a terrorist?
If your intent is revenge and justice, I would not consider you a terrorist. You are not trying to coerce and intimidate with fear. You are trying to mete out a punishment to those who have harmed your daughter and plan to harm others in the same way. I would consider you a vigilante.
Was dad "justified"? It depends on what you consider just. Who was in the building when it burned? Were they all rapists, or were there other people who had nothing to do with raping? Do rapists deserve to die?

No, it depends on what YOU consider just. I asked YOU, remember? To my way of thinking, yes, I was justified.
I read “Was dad ‘justified’?” as a general question. I don’t see myself as an arbiter of justice and am grateful that criminals are usually tried by a jury of their peers. “Just” is a big word and can mean many things—right, fair, righteous, upright, deserved, merited, lawful, proper, fitting.

If I were judge in this case, I would want to gather as much information as I could, as my questions reflect. Personally, I don’t think rapists deserve to die. I don’t believe in capital punishment. I think criminals deserve a fair trial before they are sentenced. I think it is unjust that two innocent people died along with the rapists.
At the same time, I can understand why the father acted as he did.
Do rapists deserve to die? Do pedophiles deserve to die? Do murderers deserve to die? What does Ginny believe? What would Ginny's perfect world do with such offenders? Sit down and reach an agreement? Turn the other cheek and hope for the best? In the above scenario, Dad (tj) is giving you a clue to what HE thinks by torching the building while knowing that people are inside.
In Ginny’s perfect world, people who rape, molest children, and murder would be restrained from causing further harm. I would then try to understand what causes people to rape, molest children, and murder and try to remove the cause.

What will be the consequences of his action? Will the system be changed, or will the cycle of violence escalate?

If I have my way, the immediate consequences will be that the building will burn to the ground with everybody inside. I would consider the deaths of the two innocents as does the U.S. military when innocents die: collateral damage. They should've picked better friends.

Will the system be changed? Maybe, especially if one of the rapists was the corrupt sheriff who allowed the laws to be broken and refused to honor the badge he wore by doing his job.
I see. I think you will arouse more anger by killing innocent people and detract from your cause. You may have vigilantes coming to your house to avenge the deaths of their own innocent relatives. You may get a sheriff who is more fair, but you may also get one who is more hardnosed. In an area where vigilantes roam, a tough sheriff will be needed.
I'm still not sure where I stand on this issue...

I understand. I am not similarly plagued. I know what I would do.
Bully for you, Teejay. I see no shame in admitting that I don’t know or don’t have enough information to decide. That’s why I consider myself an agnostic. It's also why I started this thread. I was interested in hearing the opinions of others and comparing them.

Truth be told, I lean toward the Quaker approach where there are no heated disagreements to begin with, thus no need to even deflect an aggressor's energy back at him, since in that lovely world of warm, fuzzy feelings, people don't even get angry with each other. Alas, when you find that Utopia, you WILL let us know, won't you?
People will always feel anger, Teejay. I am only suggesting that the energy of anger be channeled into effective solutions rather than revenge.
I see little point in vengeance or revenge. It may relieve one's feelings, but it does not unrape or unkill a person. Usually it leads to more violence.
Again, how wonderfully transcendental your perspective is!
I considered this a realistic conclusion. I’ve just been reading about the Crusades. We attack the Muslims; the Muslims attack us; we avenge ourselves; they avenge themselves. When does it end?
I'm way more in touch with my dark side than you, apparently. While killing the mofos that sullied my daughter may not undo the damage, I will sleep well in knowing that those particular sons of bitches won't be raping or killing anyone else; won't be encouraging anyone else to copy their sick acts; won't be passing their fucked up genes to a 2nd generation. I see we are worlds apart on many issues. I don't know... I'm at peace with that, somehow.
I just finished reading The Evil We Do: The Psychoanalysis of Destructive People by Carl Goldberg, Ph.D. If his theory is correct, I may be more in touch with my shadow than you. People who resort to violence are usually incapable of deep introspection. They deny their own dark impulses and project them onto others. People resort to the primitive language of violence when they cannot find other channels to express their anger and shame. I hesitate to even share this because I feel certain you will label it as “psychobabble.”
In dealing with violent people in my family, it has also been my experience that the violent are usually weak and afraid at core. They are bullies. They do not understand the strength it takes to be gentle.
And you know who that "someone" would be in my scenario? All the relatives, friends and casual acquaintances of the bastards that died in the building that 'mysteriously' burned to the ground. They'd have to find a way to "let go", say, "this is enough." I'd have no problem with that.
You must be right at home with Old Testament “ethics,” Teejay.
So, the motherland has been raped, Teejay. What shall we do?
Ginny
P.S. My working weekend begins tomorrow at 4 a.m. I will return late Monday evening.
teejay

Ginny,
If my ideas were set in concrete, you might take me for granite.
Now THAT was a joke. I got it. Had to read it a coupla times, but I got it. Not bad. You got po - tential.
You interpreted my comment as a slap; I intended it as raising a eyebrow in question.
Gandhi and King had good ideas and I will never demean the non-violent stand they took in the face of genuine, unmitigated evil. I just couldn't do it myself. One of my main personal philosophies is: pick your weapons wisely. Not any tool will work all the time in every situation. When you're in the jungle, don't be stupid and try to sit and reason intelligently with the cute little animals with the strong teeth and sharp claws. You better be f**ckin' on guard. You better be willing to talk to them in a language they understand. There are some human beings walking around that I equate to unreasoning animals, and I'm not trying to "understand" them, either.
If your intent is revenge and justice, I would not consider you a terrorist. You are not trying to coerce and intimidate with fear. You are trying to mete out a punishment to those who have harmed your daughter and plan to harm others in the same way. I would consider you a vigilante.
Very good... most excellent! We agree. With this definition in mind, and knowing that you are no "arbiter" of anything (we're just talking here, right?) what is bin Laden? Terrorist or vigilante?
I read "Was dad 'justified'" as a general question. I don?t see myself as an arbiter of justice and am grateful that criminals are usually tried by a jury of their peers. "Just" is a big word and can mean many things?right, fair, righteous, upright, deserved, merited, lawful, proper, fitting.
Never even assumed that you were an "arbiter of justice." I was just asking your opinion. I will take your definition of 'just' as an answer, but please know that I own several good dictionaries and could've looked it up if I'd wanted the answer you gave.
I think it is unjust that two innocent people died along with the rapists.
Well, in my scenario, the innocents were only innocent of my daughter's rape. Considering that birds of a feather flock together, I would feel comfortable assuming that they were probably guilty of other, equally heinous crimes... just hadn't got caught yet. Trust me... I'd sleep peacefully. I'd consider my act a genuine public service, but revenge/justice would be my primary motivation.
I think you will arouse more anger by killing innocent people and detract from your cause. You may have vigilantes coming to your house to avenge the deaths of their own innocent relatives. You may get a sheriff who is more fair, but you may also get one who is more hardnosed. In an area where vigilantes roam, a tough sheriff will be needed.
I was working on your premise that someone should be big enough to say, "hey, this is enough." It's my position that the 'someone' to reach that point would be those who suffered the loss of their criminal family members/friends who died in the building.
I see no shame in admitting that I don?t know or don?t have enough information to decide.
And I see no shame in admitting that I know what I would do in certain situations. I think that's advantageous. You never know.
People will always feel anger, Teejay. I am only suggesting that the energy of anger be channeled into effective solutions rather than revenge.
Anger doesn't work all the time in every situation. Only a psychotic sociopath acts on their anger all the time. Most people use many anger management techniques everyday. Going with the feeling *is* the right thing to do sometimes, though.
I've just been reading about the Crusades. We attack the Muslims; the Muslims attack us; we avenge ourselves; they avenge themselves. When does it end?
An appropriate read, in light of the events. I wish those in charge were more interested in the subject. Care to share any insights you've gained that may shed light on the reason behind recent events?
I just finished reading The Evil We Do: The Psychoanalysis of Destructive People by Carl Goldberg, Ph.D. If his theory is correct, I may be more in touch with my shadow than you. People who resort to violence are usually incapable of deep introspection. They deny their own dark impulses and project them onto others. People resort to the primitive language of violence when they cannot find other channels to express their anger and shame. I hesitate to even share this because I feel certain you will label it as ?psychobabble.?
Psychobabble? Not at all, but you did label it "theory." Some of it has merit, though.
The statement "people who resort to violence" in your statement above is a little too broad, imo. Not all violent people are the same; said another way, not all acts of violence can be characterized equally. For example, I've read accounts of special forces during wartime. When the situation called for it, they were very violent, but the violence stemmed from introspection, a clear understanding of the task at hand and what they needed to do. Rather than denying those impulses, they recognized them and tapped into the energy those impulses were able to provide.
Rather than make the general statement that violence is a primitive language, I believe that at times it is the absolute proper language, it being the perfect channel of communication at specific times. Then, too, what may appear to be violence isn't violence at all. It depends on the viewer's perspective. I hate to presume, but I think you know that anger and shame are but two of the many sources of violence.
In dealing with violent people in my family, it has also been my experience that the violent are usually weak and afraid at core. They are bullies. They do not understand the strength it takes to be gentle.
I'm with you. Bullies are among the weakest of people. Not only are they clueless about the strength it takes to control anger, they are unable to express that strength. That's why I will never disparage the likes of Gandhi and King. A violent response is the best response sometimes, tho.
You must be right at home with Old Testament ?ethics,? Teejay.
Certain parts of it I agree with. I like the harem part. And the Next of Kin provision when a family member has been murdered. Yeah, you could say that I'm at home with stuff like that.
So, the motherland has been raped, Teejay. What shall we do?
Many look at it that way. I happen to think there's more than one possible scenario. Perhaps it's the man who has acted in behalf of his daughter (or mother, to be more specific) who has been raped repeatedly.
tj
GinnyTosken

Teejay,
Gandhi and King had good ideas and I will never demean the non-violent stand they took in the face of genuine, unmitigated evil. I just couldn't do it myself. One of my main personal philosophies is: pick your weapons wisely. Not any tool will work all the time in every situation. When you're in the jungle, don't be stupid and try to sit and reason intelligently with the cute little animals with the strong teeth and sharp claws. You better be f**ckin' on guard. You better be willing to talk to them in a language they understand. There are some human beings walking around that I equate to unreasoning animals, and I'm not trying to "understand" them, either.
I agree that it is best to choose tools best suited to the task at hand. A weapon is not my first choice as a tool. “Unreasoning animals” with strong teeth and sharp claws can also be outsmarted, trapped, and caged. Then perhaps they can be studied to find out when they attack and why.
Very good... most excellent! We agree. With this definition in mind, and knowing that you are no "arbiter" of anything (we're just talking here, right?) what is bin Laden? Terrorist or vigilante?
Only Osama bin Laden knows his true intent. I see him as a mixture of both terrorist and vigilante. He is trying to intimidate and coerce with fear to accomplish his aims. He also sees himself as meting out justice by returning evil for evil. What makes him especially dangerous is his fanaticism. While he has some valid complaints, many of them are exaggerated. He falls prey to the cognitive error of mind-reading, claiming to know why the U.S. does this or that, claiming that some U.S. actions are evidence of a conspiracy to help Israel conquer the Arabian peninsula for “Greater Israel.” He also thinks in black and white—all who do not believe as he does are infidels; believers like him are righteous and backed by Allah.
"Just" is a big word and can mean many things?right, fair, righteous, upright, deserved, merited, lawful, proper, fitting.
Never even assumed that you were an "arbiter of justice." I was just asking your opinion. I will take your definition of 'just' as an answer, but please know that I own several good dictionaries and could've looked it up if I'd wanted the answer you gave.
I understand that you have access to dictionaries; I wanted to clarify the term "justified." In my mind, your meaning was hazy. Did you mean, "Did the father have a good reason to react as he did?" or "Did the father do what was morally right?"
While I can understand why the father reacted as he did and feel he had good cause to be upset, I do not think his behavior was morally right.
Well, in my scenario, the innocents were only innocent of my daughter's rape. Considering that birds of a feather flock together, I would feel comfortable assuming that they were probably guilty of other, equally heinous crimes... just hadn't got caught yet. Trust me... I'd sleep peacefully. I'd consider my act a genuine public service, but revenge/justice would be my primary motivation.
So, do you judge people collectively? If I am a friend of Kent's, and he commits an act you consider heinous, am I deserving of equal punishment? If Bigboi or Dannybear commit crimes, should I judge you guilty by association?
When I asked if there were other people in the house who had nothing to do with the raping, I imagined a housekeeper and a cook. Would your feelings be different if these were the innocent people who were killed along with the guilty?
I was working on your premise that someone should be big enough to say, "hey, this is enough." It's my position that the 'someone' to reach that point would be those who suffered the loss of their criminal family members/friends who died in the building.
When I said that somewhere, somehow, someone has to be big enough to say, "This is enough," the "this" I had in mind was the cycle of vengeance and revenge. If I understand you correctly, you propose to control violent crime by punishing the guilty with equal or greater violence. I can't help but think of the Hatfields and McCoys. I also think about the cycle of vengeance started by the rape of Dinah in Genesis and by the rape the concubine in Judges 19-21. From what I have observed, violence begets violence. Your comment also reminds me of the Old Testament god who says, “"I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.”
When you are considering what is just in such a case, I think it is important not only to consider, "What would I do if my daugher were raped?" but also, "What would I want to happen if my daughter raped someone?"
Anger doesn't work all the time in every situation. Only a psychotic sociopath acts on their anger all the time. Most people use many anger management techniques everyday. Going with the feeling *is* the right thing to do sometimes, though.
Have you read Daniel Goleman's Emotional Intelligence? Anger originates in the amygdala, a small structure in the limbic region of the brain. The amygdala plays the role of sentry and reacts very quickly to perceived signs of trouble and charges into action without regard for the consequences. Goleman calls this an emotional hijacking, because it occurs so fast that the thinking brain has no opportunity to grasp what is occurring and decide on the best course of action. Emotional hijackings produce astonishing feats of bravery, hideous acts of violence, and everything in between.
If I have the luxury, I prefer not to act in the initial flush of anger while my reason is hijacked.
An appropriate read, in light of the events. I wish those in charge were more interested in the subject. Care to share any insights you've gained that may shed light on the reason behind recent events?
I think Richard Dawkins is correct when he pinpoints Abrahamic religion as the cause:
Religion is also, of course, the underlying source of the divisiveness in the Middle East which motivated the use of this deadly weapon in the first place. But that is another story and not my concern here. My concern here is with the weapon itself. To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.
See http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=12072&site=3#144819
The Crusades began when the Seljuq Turks took Jerusalem from the Fatimids in 1070. Christian pilgrims brought home tales of oppression and desecration. While there were also political and commercial concerns, the primary motivation was religious.
Pope Urban was savvy in knowing that nothing unites like a common enemy. Will Durant says:
Probably he [Urban] longed to channel the disorderly pugnacity of feudal barons and Norman buccaneers into a holy war to save Europe and Byzantium from Islam; he dreamed of bringing the Eastern Church again under papal rule, and visioned a mighty Christendom united under the theocracy of the popes, with Rome once more the capital of the world.
This sounds very similar to Osama bin Laden’s wish to bring the world under the righteous rule of Islam:
It all goes to say that Muslims should cooperate with one another and should be supportive of one another, and they should promote righteousness and mercy. They should all unite in the fight against polytheism and they should pool all their resources and their energy to fight the Americans and the Zionists and those with them. They should, however, avoid side fronts and rise over the small problems for these are less detrimental. Their fight should be directed against unbelief and unbelievers. ...
Here are parts of a speech given by Pope Urban at Clermont in Auvergne in November 1095. I find it interesting to compare his statements with those of bin Laden from the John Miller interview in 1998:
Urban:
O race of Franks! Race beloved and chosen by God! . . . From the confines of Jerusalem and from Constantinople a grievous report has gone forth that an accursed race, wholly alienated from God, has violently invaded the lands of these Christians, and has depopulated them by pillage and fire. They have led away a part of the captives into their own country, and a part they have killed by cruel tortures. They destroy the altars, after having defiled them with their uncleanliness. . . .
On whom, then, rests the labor of avenging these wrongs, and of recovering the territory, if not upon you—you upon whom, above all others, God has conferred remarkable glory in arms, great bravery, and strength to humble the heads of those who resist you? . . . Let the Holy Sepulcher of Our Lord and Saviour, now held by unclean nations, arouse you, and the holy places that are now stained with pollution . . .
Let hatred, therefore, depart from among you; let your quarrels end. Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulcher; wrest the land from a wicked race, and subject it to yourselves. . . . Undertake this journey eagerly for the remission of your sins, and be assured of the reward of imperishable glory in the Kingdom of Heaven.
I find it ironic that Urban wants hatred to depart "from among you," only to be focused on an "enemy of God." Once again I think of Sam Keen's "To Create an Enemy."
bin Laden:
The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control. . . . They rip us of our wealth and of our resources and of our oil. Our religion is under attack. They kill and murder our brothers. They compromise our honor and our dignity and dare we utter a single word of protest against the injustice, we are called terrorists. This is compounded injustice. . . .

Terrorizing those and punishing them are necessary measures to straighten things and to make them right. Tyrants and oppressors who subject the Arab nation to aggression ought to be punished. . . . ... Allah has granted the Muslim people and the Afghani mujahedeen, and those with them, the opportunity to fight the Russians and the Soviet Union. ... They were defeated by Allah and were wiped out. . . . We are certain that we shall - with the grace of Allah - prevail over the Americans and over the Jews, as the Messenger of Allah promised us in an authentic prophetic tradition when He said the Hour of Resurrection shall not come before Muslims fight Jews and before Jews hide behind trees and behind rocks. . . . We are a nation whose sacred symbols have been looted and whose wealth and resources have been plundered. It is normal for us to react against the forces that invade our land and occupy it. . . .
I am one of the servants of Allah. We do our duty of fighting for the sake of the religion of Allah. It is also our duty to send a call to all the people of the world to enjoy this great light and to embrace Islam and experience the happiness in Islam. Our primary mission is nothing but the furthering of this religion. ... Let not the West be taken in by those who say that Muslims choose nothing but slaughtering. Their brothers in East Europe, in Turkey and in Albania have been guided by Allah to submit to Islam and to experience the bliss of Islam.
In reading about the Crusades, I wanted to know what ended them. I posted this in Wasasister’s “Rabbi’s Rosh Hoshanah Sermon” thread:
The Crusades spanned two centuries. They began to collapse after defeat in the Third Crusade and a scandal in the Fourth. Thinkers were hard-pressed to explain why God had allowed the defeat of His defenders in so holy a cause, and had granted success to Venetian plunderers. More questions were raised when Frederick II, who had been excommunicated because of delay in joining The Crusades, signed a treaty with al-Kamil in which al-Kamil ceded Acre, Jaffa, Sidon, Nazareth, Bethlehem, and all of Jerusalem except the Dome of the Rock. Christians in Palestine had shunned Frederick as an outlaw from the Church, yet he succeeded where "holier" men had failed.
From http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=12302&site=3#147472
Understanding seemed to win the day:
Al-Kamil replied courteously; and the Sultan’s ambassador, Fakhru’d Din, was impressed by Frederick’s knowledge of the Arabic language, literature, science, and philosophy. The two rulers entered into a friendly exchange of compliments and ideas; and to the astonishment of both Christendom and Islam they signed a treaty (1229) . . .
Now the tables are turned, and radical Islam is beginning a crusade against Christianity and Judaism. If history repeats itself, I predict that the crusades will be ended when a leader from the radical Islamic world emerges who understands the language, literature, science, and philosophy of the Western world and calls into question the image of the West as a barbaric infidel enemy.
The statement "people who resort to violence" in your statement above is a little too broad, imo. Not all violent people are the same; said another way, not all acts of violence can be characterized equally. For example, I've read accounts of special forces during wartime. When the situation called for it, they were very violent, but the violence stemmed from introspection, a clear understanding of the task at hand and what they needed to do. Rather than denying those impulses, they recognized them and tapped into the energy those impulses were able to provide.
Perhaps I should have phrased my statement more carefully. I see a difference between people who choose violence first and those who use it as a last resort. I also believe that intent makes a difference. Much as it grieves me to admit it, there are times when killing is necessary. Perhaps it makes no difference to anyone else, but I think it is much better to kill with compassion.
Rather than make the general statement that violence is a primitive language, I believe that at times it is the absolute proper language, it being the perfect channel of communication at specific times. Then, too, what may appear to be violence isn't violence at all. It depends on the viewer's perspective. I hate to presume, but I think you know that anger and shame are but two of the many sources of violence.
Is violence a perfect channel of communication at specific times? I would need to give this careful thought. How do you define violence? It would also help me to understand if you gave specific examples of cases in which you think a violent response is the best response.
Certain parts of it I agree with. I like the harem part. And the Next of Kin provision when a family member has been murdered. Yeah, you could say that I'm at home with stuff like that.
I’m a bit surprised. I thought the futility of eye-for-eye retribution was apparent to most people these days. Obviously, I’m wrong.
Many look at it that way. I happen to think there's more than one possible scenario. Perhaps it's the man who has acted in behalf of his daughter (or mother, to be more specific) who has been raped repeatedly.
Bin Laden and his followers apparently perceive it that way. Some of their perceptions are valid; others are not. For example, I do not think U.S. presence on Saudi soil was intended as an act of rape.
Still, the problem remains. Assume he’s right. The U.S. raped the Islamic world. The Islamic world raped the U.S. What’s next?
Ginny
waiting

Well............just cutting in on the Ginny/TJ thread for a moment...
Several famous/infamous names come to mind on - but how would one define them?
Geronimo(sp?) - the white Army considered him a "red devil" I believe. Terrible accounts at the time of his living related his bloodthirsty killings. However, one recent account of him said, "If Geronimo had been a white military man, he would have been a general. He was a tactical genius." But alas, he was an Indian - so at the time of his living, and many years afterwards, he was branded a red, demonized, killer.
Attila the Hun Another military genius, according to some historians. Don't think the Romans thought too much of him later on, particularily after they helped train him. Rather like America? Train your opponents/competition.
The title/lable depends on the viewpoint of the person speaking about the other person. Was Geronimo a terrorist? Yes. Was he totally wrong? Highly debatable - most consider him a leader and warrior of his people. Did he win? No. Was that his fault because of the means he chose? No. He was doomed, and imho, probably knew it but fought anyway.
If he would have given up his weapons decades earlier and went peacefully to live on a god-forsaken reservation leading his starving people, what would he have gained? More years of degradation and starvation? Yes. Would a warrior accept that? Some did -some didn't. Some fought as they knew how - as warriors. Was he right or wrong? Evil terrorist or leader of freedom? Depends. But he killed a lot of people, some innocent. Did Indians start out killing? No. Did they end up being killers and being killed by other killers? Yes.
"The end justifies the means" isn't always right/wrong - it depends upon what "end", and what "means" are trying to be justified. I believe the upcoming war will be a grey war, just as terrorists have always been - nobody can quite figure them out
GinnyTosken

Waiting,
I think military genius is a separate issue from the means one chooses and the intent of one's campaign.
Whether thinking about Geronimo, Attila the Hun, or the actions of United States, I keep in mind the definition of terrorism: "the use of force and violence to intimidate, subjugate, coerce, etc." Part of the definition focuses on the means used; the other part focuses on intent.
I think people are quick to label and demonize their opponents, but I don't think the definition of terrorist is entirely relative. It's also true that humans are complex creatures and have mixed motivations. Intent becomes even more complex when people act in groups.
I agree with Gloria Steinem in that the means are the ends. The means we choose dictate the ends we achieve. For example, if President Bush approaches the current problem as a crusade, he will create an oxymoron: "Crusade against religious fanaticism!"
I agree that it would be rare for any side to be totally right and the other totally wrong. I object to the use of violence because it is such a black/white tool. As Bertrand Russell says, "War does not determine who is right, only who is left."
You say:
Was Geronimo a terrorist? Yes. Was he totally wrong? Highly debatable - most consider him a leader and warrior of his people. Did he win? No. Was that his fault because of the means he chose?
When I say that, "The means we choose dictate the ends we achieve," I didn't mean to imply that one's tool of choice determines whether one wins or loses. Lasting solutions are usually win/win compromises.
I like Steinem's example of raising children. I can be a parental terrorist and coerce my son into obedience using violence. He may be obedient at home, but my ends will likely include a son who will grow up feeling enraged, who will not have learned self-discipline, and who may well strike out later at authority figures and use violent behavior with his own children.
As far as Geronimo, I am only vaguely acquainted with his story. I looked at a website to try to get a feel for it. I see that the wounds that caused Geronimo to revolt went back at least three generations.
http://www.desertusa.com/magfeb98/feb_pap/du_apache.html
When people are treated unfairly and oppressed, I am not suggesting that their only alternatives are either violence or to submit peacefully. I have simply been wondering how history might be different if violent means had been chosen less frequently.
Legend has it that Attila the Hun was stopped by the humanitarian arguments of Pope Leo I. There were other factors, too--heavy losses at Chalons, a famine in Italy, and the plague.
It is ironic that Attila did not die on the battlefield. He died on his wedding night from a nosebleed.
As for terrorism in 2001, I hope that world leaders choose their means carefully. As I've said before, religious fanaticism will not be cured with bombs and bayonets. Violence will beget violence. The U.S. and the anti-terrorist coalition may attack and may subdue the violence--temporarily. If the thoughts that led to this attack are not confronted, the rage of the defeated will simmer and soon bubble to the surface again, probably more violently than before, since they will perceive that injustice has once again been compounded.
Bin Laden has some valid complaints, and I hope more attention is given to fairness in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. At the same time, I think he could have chosen a nonviolent means to protest injustice.
I certainly do not agree with his radical Islamic theology, which seems to be his primary motivation. I believe the most effective weapon against this mindset at the moment is the Islamic world itself. They can expose the ways in which his thinking is flawed and how many of his beliefs and actions do not match what is taught in the Quran.
History would be radically different without violent means. I cannot quite imagine it. My hope is that a nonviolent world is possible and that I only lack imagination.
Ginny
teejay

Ginny,
Only Osama bin Laden knows his true intent.
It occurred to me over the weekend that we have been talking about "bin Laden's act" and the Bush Administration is the only one accusing him. Even the Israelis say they have found no evidence linking him to the event. He said himself that he wasn't responsible, and I believe him. What would he loose if he were responsible and admitted it?
So, do you judge people collectively? If I am a friend of Kent's, and he commits an act you consider heinous, am I deserving of equal punishment? If Bigboi or Dannybear commit crimes, should I judge you guilty by association?
I don't make judgments of people collectively nor do I "judge" the same person consistently the same way all the time. I view individual acts. Even if a particular act is unsavory, it does not necessarily define the person. We all make mistakes; that's not the same as a pattern of poor behavior.
If a friend of yours committed an act I considered heinous and you supported him without censoring his behavior, I would view you differently than another friend of his who called him on it. As far as how you judge me, you may judge me anyway you wish.
When I asked if there were other people in the house who had nothing to do with the raping, I imagined a housekeeper and a cook. Would your feelings be different if these were the innocent people who were killed along with the guilty?
I would be heartbroken to know that a truly innocent person would be harmed in my attempt to get justice for my daughter. In a real-life scenario, I would not destroy the building with anyone in it. I would destroy the building, though. I only mentioned that in the beginning as a what-if. My method of revenge would be specific, one on one. Only the guilty would suffer.
If I have the luxury, I prefer not to act in the initial flush of anger while my reason is hijacked.
Most people feel (and act) the same. Usually it's when someone decides to behave out of the norm that we hear about it.
Religion is also, of course, the underlying source of the divisiveness in the Middle East...
For a minute I thought that religion had nothing to do with the current crisis. I've altered my view somewhat. I still believe that it's much less of a factor than the Arab people's dissatisfaction with America's meddling in their lives and America's total support of Israel to the exclusion of the legitimate interests of other people in the region and globally. The motivation behind the Crusades were religious, of course, but imo they only long ago set in motion a chain of events that have since taken on a more political and social overtone.
Here are parts of a speech given by Pope Urban... From the confines of Jerusalem and from Constantinople a grievous report has gone forth that an accursed race has violently invaded the lands of these Christians, and has depopulated them by pillage and fire. They have led away a part of the captives into their own country, and a part they have killed by cruel tortures. They destroy the altars, after having defiled them with their uncleanliness. . . .
Sometimes in a football game, the referee will penalize the player who is caught responding to an illegal act or poor sportsmanship of another player. The real culprit gets away with his misdeed; only the reactor is penalized. The Pope needed to get off his high horse, most likely, referring to "accursed races", etc.
I think it's interesting that you see "bin Laden?s wish to bring the world under the righteous rule of Islam" when he speaks of promoting righteousness and mercy, fighting polytheism, etc. If you didn't know who was saying it, you might think it was a Christian minister here in the U.S.
The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control. . . . They rip us of our wealth and of our resources and of our oil. Our religion is under attack. They kill and murder our brothers. They compromise our honor and our dignity and dare we utter a single word of protest against the injustice, we are called terrorists. This is compounded injustice. . . .
Bin Laden has valid points.
I see a difference between people who choose violence first and those who use it as a last resort. I also believe that intent makes a difference. Much as it grieves me to admit it, there are times when killing is necessary.
I said the same, many words ago.
Perhaps it makes no difference to anyone else, but I think it is much better to kill with compassion.
A truly odd concept.
Is violence a perfect channel of communication at specific times?
I would think so.
How do you define violence?
Physical force that is meant to do injury.
It would also help me to understand if you gave specific examples of cases in which you think a violent response is the best response.
Walking to the fridge in the middle of the night for a snack and finding a stranger in your house. A pedophile trying to force a child into their car.
I?m a bit surprised. I thought the futility of eye-for-eye retribution was apparent to most people these days. Obviously, I?m wrong.
Duuhhh.
Bin Laden and his followers apparently perceive it that way. Some of their perceptions are valid; others are not. For example, I do not think U.S. presence on Saudi soil was intended as an act of rape.
You have a right to your opinion.
Still, the problem remains
The problem remains because it is not being addressed. Problems tend to be persistent when you ignore them, I have found.
Assume he?s right. The U.S. raped the Islamic world. The Islamic world raped the U.S. What?s next?
I think Bush should lead the nation down a pathway I think you would endorse. I think he should address the American people and say, "This is enough. Let's talk to 'em."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waiting
Well............just cutting in on the Ginny/TJ thread for a moment...
Not a ginny/tj thread, Waiting. (has Bigboi been instigating again?) It's a JW.com thread, open to all. Thanks for joining.
Your example of Geronimo is excellent. Point of view is the all-important consideration when determining one's "hero/terrorist" status. Several have made that point more than once in bin Laden's behalf (although he is innocent of the bombings) since the 11th.
tj
waiting

Howdy Ginny,
I think military genius is a separate issue from the means one chooses and the intent of one's campaign.
Whether he was a genius or not (which I think he was)....he was a terrorist, warrior, leader, killer.
Whether thinking about Geronimo, Attila the Hun, or the actions of United States, I keep in mind the definition of terrorism: "the use of force and violence to intimidate, subjugate, coerce, etc." Part of the definition focuses on the means used; the other part focuses on intent.
Geronimo did exactly that - he successfully intimidatedthe white men by attacks - and usually not frontal attacks, as most Indians didn't line up in a row. That he did intimidate them can be seen by the title "Red Devil." They had all kinds of stealthy means to accomplish their killing. They did want to coerce the white people out of their land. The means used was with the weapons they had - and their ability as hunters, warriors. The intent was to push the white man back of to stop the white man's invasion of their perceived land and the genocide of the Indian nations. However, as to the matter of subjugation - that's what the Indians were trying to fight against.
As for Attila the Hun? Never read about the "Legend of the Pope" one. I do know that he was considered a "barbarian", was highly intelligent and trained by the Romans for a time period. He successfully mounted an invasion against them for an extended time period spreading terror as he went. His "hords" ferociousness was legendary in it's ability to intimidate those who they wanted to subjugate through violence.
As most people will agree - if an army's reputation is strong enough, many people will be intimated to leave the country/army before the actual war commences.
As as example, on CNN yesterday: the Pentagon put forth the information as to the vacinity the naval fleets were going - and what damage they could inflict without needing the help of any other nation - water is free area. The military spokesman said one reason for showing these miliary moves to the world and to pose so much force for the enemy to appreciate - was a "show of potential strength without firing a weapon." In other words, the USA military reputation and it's ability.
Is it working to coerce Afghanistan citizens? According to them - yes - as can see by the thousands trying to flee the country before a war starts.
I like Steinem's example of raising children. I can be a parental terrorist and coerce my son into obedience using violence. He may be obedient at home, but my ends will likely include a son who will grow up feeling enraged, who will not have learned self-discipline, and who may well strike out later at authority figures and use violent behavior with his own children.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Your son may enter the military, as Tina's son is doing again, and become a Ranger - which is a person highly trained in the various arts of espionage and killing. And, if memory serves me, Tina is avowed against parental violence in all forms. I have no doubt that Tina's son is a peaceful, non-enraged, man who is not lashing out at authority figures - I am using him only as an example of a military person who is wanting to be trained as a Ranger - but raised in a non-violent environment.
I agree with Gloria Steinem in that the means are the ends. The means we choose dictate the ends we achieve. For example, if President Bush approaches the current problem as a crusade, he will create an oxymoron: "Crusade against religious fanaticism!"
Perhaps, perhaps not. Just because we choose - or end up with means - doesn't even necessarily dictate the ends we will achieve. Does "violence beget violence?" Usually - but nothing is this black/white. Who was the first begetter of violence? Are we followers of previous violence? Yes..... When we stop being violent, and perhaps go peacefully to our reservations - or hope the other violent will stay away from our land - does that secure freedom? No, it means we were not violent, that's all.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that I hope our government will think, consider, negotiate, whatever it takes - before violence. I think a lot of us have a lot to learn about other people's history and religious background.
waiting
GinnyTosken

Teejay,
It occurred to me over the weekend that we have been talking about "bin Laden's act" and the Bush Administration is the only one accusing him. Even the Israelis say they have found no evidence linking him to the event. He said himself that he wasn't responsible, and I believe him. What would he loose if he were responsible and admitted it?
I'm a bin Laden "agnostic"--I don't currently have enough evidence to be sure either way.
If he is responsible and admits it, he could be arrested, executed, or assassinated. He believes he will be rewarded by Allah with life after death, so it seems the only loss would be his leadership of the al-Qaeda. I don't know how valuable and irreplaceable that is.
It would be much more clever of him to be responsible but hide all ties to the act. If the U.S. has no hard evidence, he has made them appear foolish and unjust.
I'm interested to see what evidence the U.S. presents implicating him in the terror attacks.
I don't make judgments of people collectively nor do I "judge" the same person consistently the same way all the time. I view individual acts. Even if a particular act is unsavory, it does not necessarily define the person. We all make mistakes; that's not the same as a pattern of poor behavior.
I don't quite understand how this attitude meshes with, "Considering that birds of a feather flock together, I would feel comfortable assuming that they were probably guilty of other, equally heinous crimes... just hadn't got caught yet." This seems to describe guilt by association.
If a friend of yours committed an act I considered heinous and you supported him without censoring his behavior, I would view you differently than another friend of his who called him on it. As far as how you judge me, you may judge me anyway you wish.
My question was, "If I am a friend of Kent's, and he commits an act you consider heinous, am I deserving of equal punishment?" Considering my reaction to his behavior is a far cry from assuming I am guilty of similar acts because of association.
I would be heartbroken to know that a truly innocent person would be harmed in my attempt to get justice for my daughter. In a real-life scenario, I would not destroy the building with anyone in it. I would destroy the building, though. I only mentioned that in the beginning as a what-if. My method of revenge would be specific, one on one. Only the guilty would suffer.
This is interesting. You've gone from burning down a house containing rapists, rapists' friends, and two innocents, to just burning down the house and punishing the guilty party.
Does burning down a house and punishing the guilty atone for your daughter's pain? If you want true justice, why not rape the rapist's daughter?
I noticed you did not comment on violence begetting violence.
For a minute I thought that religion had nothing to do with the current crisis. I've altered my view somewhat. I still believe that it's much less of a factor than the Arab people's dissatisfaction with America's meddling in their lives and America's total support of Israel to the exclusion of the legitimate interests of other people in the region and globally. The motivation behind the Crusades were religious, of course, but imo they only long ago set in motion a chain of events that have since taken on a more political and social overtone.
If you believe bin Laden when he says he was not responsible for the terrorist acts, why don't you believe him when he says, "Our primary mission is nothing but the furthering of this religion"? I think this terrorist movement is primarily religious; the political concerns are secondary and convenient.
I think it's interesting that you see "bin Laden?s wish to bring the world under the righteous rule of Islam" when he speaks of promoting righteousness and mercy, fighting polytheism, etc. If you didn't know who was saying it, you might think it was a Christian minister here in the U.S.
The parallels between Urban and bin Laden are spooky. Both are examples of the dangers of religious fanaticism and propaganda.
Perhaps it makes no difference to anyone else, but I think it is much better to kill with compassion.
A truly odd concept.
Not really. You'd kill a horse to put it out of its pain. I can also picture encountering a person who was endangering my life or my family's, feeling very sorry for all the things that happened in his life that led him to the point where he'd harm others, and feeling very sorry that circumstances left me with no other alternative than to kill. In my mind, this is very different from killing in anger, killing for revenge, or killing as a way of trying to mete out justice.
But hell, I usually catch spiders and crickets and put them outside.
It would also help me to understand if you gave specific examples of cases in which you think a violent response is the best response.
Walking to the fridge in the middle of the night for a snack and finding a stranger in your house. A pedophile trying to force a child into their car.
If violence is "physical force that is meant to do injury," I would choose non-injurious restraint if I had that option. With violent family members, some of us have acted as human strait-jackets until the police arrived.
Still, the problem remains
The problem remains because it is not being addressed. Problems tend to be persistent when you ignore them, I have found.
From what you've written, I'm guessing that you see the problem as U.S. meddling and unfairness in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. If these problems are addressed, terrorism from Arabic factions would cease?
Assume he?s right. The U.S. raped the Islamic world. The Islamic world raped the U.S. What?s next?
I think Bush should lead the nation down a pathway I think you would endorse. I think he should address the American people and say, "This is enough. Let's talk to 'em."
This seems inconsistent with your response to your daughter's rape. I expected you'd want to burn the whole Arabic house down.
I do view this situation somewhat as I would a child throwing a tantrum. The people responsible for the attacks may have some legitimate concerns, but they must first understand that terrorist behavior is unacceptable. I would not reward such behavior. I wasn't completely joking when I suggested a time out for bin Laden or whoever is responsible.
Ginny
GinnyTosken

Hi, Waiting,
Whether he was a genius or not (which I think he was)....he was a terrorist, warrior, leader, killer.
I didn't mean to imply that Geronimo was not a military genius. He may well have been. You asked, "Several famous/infamous names come to mind on - but how would one define them?" I had in mind the recent posts to Teejay about terrorists and vigilantes and thought you were asking how I would categorize Geronimo.
You went on to contrast the U.S. Army's perception of Geronimo as a "red devil" with a recent assessment of him as a tactical genius and say that, "The title/lable depends on the viewpoint of the person speaking about the other person."
I was answering this. A person's military genius or how he is labeled by others is not criteria for deciding whether he is a terrorist. In your latest post, you present the factors that made Geronimo a terrorist. The U.S. Army also used terrorist tactics against Geronimo.
As most people will agree - if an army's reputation is strong enough, many people will be intimated to leave the country/army before the actual war commences.
I can see the usefulness of clearing the area of civilians. This very well may be a case of benevolent terrorism.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Your son may enter the military, as Tina's son is doing again, and become a Ranger - which is a person highly trained in the various arts of espionage and killing. And, if memory serves me, Tina is avowed against parental violence in all forms. I have no doubt that Tina's son is a peaceful, non-enraged, man who is not lashing out at authority figures - I am using him only as an example of a military person who is wanting to be trained as a Ranger - but raised in a non-violent environment.
Please note that I said, "my ends will likely include a son who will grow up feeling enraged . . ." A child raised in a coercive, violent environment is more likely to be a coercive, violent adult.
I have not heard about Tina's son wanting to join the military. I would be interested to hear his reasons for wanting to join the military and how he envisions his role.
I was raised in an authoritarian, coercive, violent environment. I don't consider myself a coercive, violent adult. Exceptions do not change the probabilities.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Just because we choose - or end up with means - doesn't even necessarily dictate the ends we will achieve. Does "violence beget violence?" Usually - but nothing is this black/white. Who was the first begetter of violence? Are we followers of previous violence? Yes..... When we stop being violent, and perhaps go peacefully to our reservations - or hope the other violent will stay away from our land - does that secure freedom? No, it means we were not violent, that's all.
I agree that nothing is black/white, and in situations like the response to terrorist attacks, there are many factors and contingencies involved. Again, I am speaking about likelihoods. Historically, violence has usually begat violence. Who was the first begetter of violence? Perhaps a better question is "What was the first begetter of violence?" Was it rage? Fear? Jealousy?
I don't think that nonviolence equals submission or loss of freedom. There are other ways to motivate and influence people besides coercion and intimidation with force. I also believe that nonviolent persuasion is more effective long-term than violence. I wish that nonviolent means were used more often.
Ginny
teejay

Ginny,
Me: What would he loose if he were responsible and admitted it?
You: If he is responsible and admits it, he could be arrested, executed, or assassinated.
uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but those efforts are underway already DESPITE his denial. Admitting it might quicken the search for him, but one way or the other, the war is going to continue until he is dead. Taking responsibility wouldn't cost him anything, but might make him more of a hero to the people who look up to him already.
My question was, "If I am a friend of Kent's, and he commits an act you consider heinous, am I deserving of equal punishment?"
It would depend, I guess. Do you know what kent did? Do you know the full extent of the injury he caused to all concerned? How do YOU feel about it? What actions, as his friend, have you taken to leverage him toward correcting the wrong? Have you done anything to distance yourself from his action? Btw, there are laws that equally convict and punish the car driver in a bank robbery even though they carried out no other action.
This is interesting. You've gone from burning down a house containing rapists, rapists' friends, and two innocents, to just burning down the house and punishing the guilty party.
The reason I brought up the scenario of burning down the building was that it seemed to me that you were having some difficulty putting yourself in the place of those responsible for the crashes in NY and D.C. and what they might be thinking... what their motivation might be other than what Bush has said their rational was -- hatred for America(ns). I tried to use an example that you could wrap your mind around to speed up the discussion. It was a what-if. I thought you knew that. I was not giving you real-life plans that I was working on.
Does burning down a house and punishing the guilty atone for your daughter's pain? If you want true justice, why not rape the rapist's daughter?
It does not atone for my daughter's injuries, but it may dampen the zeal that others might have had to commit similar offenses. It may also focus attention on the crimes committed by those that formerly used the building. True justice would not be reached by raping someone else. True justice could be gained only by un-doing the evil, returning my daughter to the exact same state she was in prior to her violation.
I noticed you did not comment on violence begetting violence.
To Waiting, you said: As I've said before, religious fanaticism will not be cured with bombs and bayonets. Violence will beget violence, and,
Does "violence beget violence?" Usually - but nothing is this black/white. Who was the first begetter of violence? Are we followers of previous violence? Yes..... When we stop being violent, and perhaps go peacefully to our reservations - or hope the other violent will stay away from our land - does that secure freedom? No, it means we were not violent, that's all.
I didn't know a comment was needed. Generally I agree with the statement. It supports what I've been saying about those reponsible. They have been treated violently... they are responding in kind.
If you believe bin Laden when he says he was not responsible for the terrorist acts, why don't you believe him when he says, "Our primary mission is nothing but the furthering of this religion"?
If he did say that, and I'll take your word that he did, it would mirror the actions and intent of Christian missionaries since the time of Christ. He believes he has the right religion and wishes to see its influence spread. The apex of the Judge's wisdom was when he said, "it's a snare and a racket," but then, he was only paraphrasing Marx.
The parallels between Urban and bin Laden are spooky. Both are examples of the dangers of religious fanaticism and propaganda.
My thoughts exactly, except, based on what you quoted, Urban may have also suffered from the scourge of racism.
Me: [compassionate killing is] A truly odd concept.
You: Not really. You'd kill a horse to put it out of its pain...
I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about killing (or loss of life) in the context of terrorism and revenge.
I can also picture encountering a person who was endangering my life or my family's, feeling very sorry for all the things that happened in his life that led him to the point where he'd harm others, and feeling very sorry that circumstances left me with no other alternative than to kill.
You are very different from me. I'm beginning to think that our differences are a man/woman thang. If someone were endangering my family, that one's former life experiences, what lead him/her to a life of crime, would not enter my mind.
From what you've written, I'm guessing that you see the problem as U.S. meddling and unfairness in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. If these problems are addressed, terrorism from Arabic factions would cease?
They may not cease entirely -- despite what is commonly believed, bin Laden is not a puppeteer -- but a big part of the problem would be solved. In nearly every interview of him I've seen, bin Laden wants America out of Saudi Arabia, a land he considers holy. That is his number one grievance. The second is America's meddling in Palestine. I don't expect Bush to give in on either of these points.
You asked: The U.S. raped the Islamic world. The Islamic world raped the U.S. What's next?
I said: I think Bush should lead the nation down a pathway I think you would endorse. I think he should address the American people and say, "This is enough. Let's talk to 'em."
You said: This seems inconsistent with your response to your daughter's rape. I expected you'd want to burn the whole Arabic house down.
It's not inconsistent. Your frame of reference is flawed. The first crime, the rape of the daughter, has been occurring overseas. The father's revenge, the "burning down of the house," commenced on September 11.
I do view this situation somewhat as I would a child throwing a tantrum. The people responsible for the attacks may have some legitimate concerns, but they must first understand that terrorist behavior is unacceptable. I would not reward such behavior. I wasn't completely joking when I suggested a time out for bin Laden or whoever is responsible.
First, I think the acts of those responsible are hardly akin to a temper tantrum, "a fit of bad temper." I could be misreading, but you seem to trivialize bin Laden's serious and legitimate grievances.
Reagan got elected in large part because he appealed to voter's desire to have less government interference. If American's want less of their own government in their lives, shouldn't that give us a clue as to how foreigners feel about U.S. involvement in THEIRS?
As far as them understanding that terrorism is unacceptable, then you must tell that to those who taught them their ways of terror.
tj

Boston Tea Party--A Terrorist Act?

Share this