TCM breaks a longstanding personal policy of never replying to my posts directly. (well, thanks.) realize that my speculation on his position is largely associated with the vacuum of his continually refusing to discuss key points of his essays.
My article made my points, so I won't rewrite it here. You are of course not required to agree. You are free to live in crowded cites--near "soft targets." You are welcome to lobby for world peace and for economic changes to lessen terrorism.
lobbying is of marginal efficacy. I was not advocating lobbying congress. imagine that all the palestinians had good paying jobs, for example. how many of them would be into rock-throwing and terrorism? of course their own attitudes make such a thing very difficult. they may not have any skills or reject a job even if offered one. I'm not saying such a thing is easy. the fact that it is so elusive is proof of how difficult such a thing is. what you are failing to address is that terrorism is bred from DISCONTENT. I do believe that it is possible for groups to live together without DISCONTENT. such a thing is incredibly difficult to achieve, but definitely impossible if one starts with the premise, as you do, that such a thing is impossible. you will often find that some groups, if given minor concessions, are quite aghast at such overtures. but when both parties are stuck in "kill my enemies" mode, such a thing is not conceivable of course. I do NOT believe that living in the world is a zero-sum game as you seem to suggest. your use of the term is very compelling. do you believe human life is always at the expense of other human life? if so I can see why you think terrorism and violence are inevitable and likely to worsen (e.g. with the increase in population). but if you start from a different premise, that human problems can be solved, you may get a different reality. (interesting though, this dark view of the world as a zero-sum game does seem to influence a lot of thinking here on this list).
(I think this is mostly hopeless. No matter how "nice" conditions get, for game-theoretic reasons there will be some groups seeking changes.)
"hopeless"-- couldn't have characterized your position better myself. "groups seeking changes" == "terrorists"?? quite a leap of terminology. notice that it is quite possible to PEACEFULLY work for changes without resorting to violence. those that do resort to violence are at the most extreme ends of the spectrum. terrorism is like an adult having the ultimate temper tantrum. "if you don't give me what I want, I'll blow up a building".
I've never made any claims, explicit or implicit, that such acts are "for no particular reason." Various groups--religious, political, corporate, etc.--see advantages and disadvantages in various course of action. (This sounds nebulous, but I am trying to avoid citing specific examples; I'm trying to separate out the reactions people have to specific camps and look at the bigger picture.)
again, a blurring of degrees of extremism. of course there will always be conflicting demands of different groups in the world. but why does this equate to an inevitable rise in terrorism? I think we should study why it is that some people don't resort to violence to solve their problems, and some do, and try to pinpoint the difference in their psychologies. terrorists are not insane in a certain sense. they have just pushed themselves out of the envelope.
I never claimed that terrorists are doing it just for the fun of it.
I didn't say you claimed that. what you seem to suggest an inherent irrationality to terrorism such that it is often senseless. I'm trying to point out that terrorists are not just insane people, and that we are not always going to have lots of terrorists just because there is always an insane percentage of the human populace. I would suggest that terrorism in this country is only going to get worse if the government becomes more extreme. unfortunately, responses to terrorism tend to increase the extremism of govt, so it is difficult to separate cause from effect. I suspect we are already in this negative feedback loop. but ask yourself, would tim mcveigh have bombed the OK building if: 1. the FBI hadn't tried to cover up waco and ruby ridge 2. the FBI disciplined their agents, firing some on the spot 3. the FBI admitted making "egregious errors" 4. the FBI compensated families with cash without them having to sue the government first in retrospect, are any of these things not the "right thing to do" anyway? didn't the government eventually end up doing most of them anyway in the long run? what if they had apologized from the beginning? now, I am not saying what Mcveigh did was justified-- what I am saying is that the government could have potentially averted inflaming him and a zillion other militia members by a particular course of action that was inconceivable to them because of their need to preserve their testosterone-laced image of manhood... I gues being a government agent means never having to say you're sorry.... but terrorists are subject to the exact same kind of extremism of course. the extreme government and the extreme terrorist are the perfect match for each other and continually inflame each other more.
You and others are of course welcome to lobby for people to be nice to each other. Peace and brotherhood, rah rah.
"lobby". you are using your own straw man against me. I don't advocate lobbying or petitioning congress in particular to change the world. such measures play a small role. (btw, you probably think mother teresa is an idiot based on that sentence)
I believe there are basic game-theoretic reasons which make conflict and jockeying for power "not surprising."
again, a conflation of regular, routine conflict and disagreement with extreme violence and terrorism. why can some people solve their problems, or postpone their settlement, without resorting to violence? why can't others?
the point is that there is no physical strategic value from bombing symbols. I was making the point that terrorism is extremely symbolic
And the bombing in Beirut is explained how?
it was a highly symbolic action. the palestinians are enraged that israel is largely supported through american dollars and military support.
Bear in mind that the British thought the Colonial tactic of shooting at them from behind trees--a "terrorist" tactic borrowed from the Indians who used it on the colonists--was immoral and unsportsmanlike. Ditto our feeling that the "sneak attack" on Pearl Harbor was immoral. I take the meta-view that the attack on Pearl Harbor was brilliantly carried-out military strategy, just as the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut was brilliantly carried-out military strategy.
ok, an interesting analogy. notice however why the japanese attacked however. their critical oil supplies were being cut off. it wasn't just an exercise in trying to destroy an enemy. we became their enemy for particular reasons.
You really need read up on the "strategy of tension," esp. the writings of Stefano Dellechiai (sp?) and the Russian "anarchists" of the late 19th century. Also, the role the CIA played in funding former German commando Otto Skorzeny in setting up "terrorist" groups in the 1950s and 60s.
terrorists would not be terrorists unless they had their reasons. take away their reasons for being terrorists and they have nothing to inflame themselves about. that's my point.
Basically, one of the things terrorists want to do is to provoke a crackdown by the ruling authorities, making things so bad that a counterrevolution occurs.
bzzzzt. you constantly talk about terrorists as if they are one single kind of breed in the world. but they have a zillion different variations and they are all violent for different reasons. they are fighting for *causes*. the sole cause of a terrorist is not to destroy government. they *want* to destroy government for some other reason. "I'm pissed off about [x], therefore I'm going to destroy the government". now, they *say* they are dedicated to destroying governments, but they're really just pissed off about [x], and if you take away [x] (which the government does often have a hand in) they have very little reason to be terrorists any more. ( McVeigh is a good case in point.) there are terrorists who are explicitly dedicated to destroying government merely because it is government, but I'd say this is an extreme form of terrorism that is relatively rare. apparently you have studied these forms the most and concluded they are the regular variety, and I take exception to this. you will not find terrorism in societies that are largely "contented". you cannot realize this until you study societies that are "content", which is the opposite of what you have done, focus on societies that are "discontented" and stuck in turmoil. I think this is what I find remarkable about your writing. for terrorists, destroying the government is a means to an end. but you often write as if terrorism is the end itself, that terrorism is its own reason for existence. that's what I'm questioning. They believe they will reap the rewards of such a
counterevolution (or revolution, as it need not be "counter").
note that they are really interested in the rewards, not necessarily the revolution. what would happen if they could obtain the rewards without the revolution? frequently revolution is required because the government is fanatically opposed to giving them their demands. but their demands are rarely that extreme at the root. (a place to live, religious tolerance, sovereignty, whatever). when you have terrorists, what you have is a government that is as extreme in its attitudes as the terrorists. it takes two to tango, as you are suggesting. the violent confrontation between government and terrorism is only the result of a negative feedback loop in which both become more extreme and polarized, each feeling that any concession to the other is a sign of submission. it is *not* a natural course of civilized society as you frequently suggest.
My main point in my essay was that violence and authoritarianism are all around us, and that responding to the attacking of "soft targets" by cracking down on basic liberties is NOT something we should endorse.
well, we're in agreement, although at times it sounds like you are rooting for the violent crackdown, the negative feedback loop. your writing is very opaque sometimes. its not clear what you are advocating in particular. you seem to want to advocate things without appearing to advocate them, eh?
If you can't make your points reasonably and convincingly, I see that you once again make ad hominem arguments. Calling me "Timmy" is not terribly effective.
actually it was a term of endearment <g>. I would be awfully bored here without your postings. it's just a pity that you don't ever consider reexamining your fundamental premises, or stating them in depth. but this is human nature, so I can't fault you for it.