If We Don't Call Them Names, the Terrorists Win

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

No, his point is that we shouldn't say "don't be a terrorist, it's illegal and you might get arrested".

We should say "don't be a terrorist, they are immoral scumbags that deserve hell, and we'll **** you up if you're one".

To someone who is already opposed to "us" (and thus a potential terrorist recruit) being an "immoral scumbag who deserves hell" in our eyes is presumably a good thing.

[Sirotnikov]

Then 'he' is an idiot. Besides, tabloid newspapers already call terrorist names. I don't think there is any evidence that because the Sun or the NY Post call people evil scumbags, that it has done anything to stop terrorism

The point is that no one says that terrorism is fundamentally wrong.

It's as if it was just a nuisance because, hey, you know - it is directed at us.

Guess what - armed conflict is a bad thing. People die and all. It is horrible. Terrorism is worse, because it intentionally seeks out the defenseless and the innocent and attacks them. And no one says that. No one says "stop abusing international laws of warfare". No one says "stop intentionally targeting innocent people". No one says "this is wrong".

The author's point is that alot of western politicians, especially in Europe, are afraid to grow a moral backbone, for fear of offending someone.

But a moral backbone is the basic thing that holds and unites a society. And if we're ever to grow beyond wars and petty conflicts, it will only be when every nation on earth will morally criticize people who do wrong.

Calling people evil scumbags has everything to do with stop terrorism.

Terrorism is there because some people think it is legitimate, and because alot of other good people do nothing to ostracize it.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
No one says "stop abusing international laws of warfare".

Over in the uncool thread you didn't seem to have a problem with people who give fcuk-all about int'l law.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

The point is that no one says that terrorism is fundamentally wrong.

It isn't. "Terorrism" is no more fundamentally wrong than War.

Guess what - armed conflict is a bad thing. People die and all. It is horrible. Terrorism is worse, because it intentionally seeks out the defenseless and the innocent and attacks them. And no one says that. No one says "stop abusing international laws of warfare". No one says "stop intentionally targeting innocent people". No one says "this is wrong".

Terrorism doesn't just 'seek out the helpless." After all, we label attacks against occupational forces "acts of terrorism."

I have always found this attempt to excuse political violence by setting up rules about who gets to be killed, rules meant to support any imbalance of power, to be moraly suspect. Its easy to denounce the killing of innocents when you are a member of the group strong enough to be able to chose whom to kill.

The author's point is that alot of western politicians, especially in Europe, are afraid to grow a moral backbone, for fear of offending someone.

Well, as I stated above, I don't think the stance taken by the author is moral. A true moral backbone would be far more radical than name calling. It would demand a real demand that all individual human rights be respect, and would demand a far more stringent look at any political violence, including that which the powerful have decided to make OK, because they have a monopoly on it.

But a moral backbone is the basic thing that holds and unites a society. And if we're ever to grow beyond wars and petty conflicts, it will only be when every nation on earth will morally criticize people who do wrong.

See above.

Calling people evil scumbags has everything to do with stop terrorism.

Terrorism is there because some people think it is legitimate, and because alot of other good people do nothing to ostracize it.

Bull. As long as political violence is seen as a legitimate act, there will be acts of political violence that those in power will seek to delegitimize throught the label of terrorism.

In the past 50 years, 'moraly acceptible' political violence, aka. "war", has killed vast number of people more than 'moraly unacceptible' political violence, aka. "terrorism." That seems to me a very ****ed up moral compass.

[Dr Strangelove]

This man's article is probably one of the most salient arguments in favor of political correctness I've ever read. Does he not realise that the 'youth' he would like to set an example for, the ones who are likely to take up the terrorist cause are the least likely youth to be swayed by a white British establishment politician's pronouncement that terrorists are scum. These youths are not choirboys at St. Paul's Cathedral or white kids attending Oxford. The youths whom Britain needs to sway are largely disaffected muslim youth. They need not be poor, just disaffected. Name calling isn't going to lure them closer to us, it's more likely to achieve the opposite effect.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Over in the uncool thread you didn't seem to have a problem with people who give fcuk-all about int'l law.

1st of all that thread it totally cool.

2nd - i do find it bad that people don't care about int'l law. i wish it had been enforced equally on all sides, in which case i'd be a stern proponent of it.

Currently though, it is problematic, and I acknowledge that.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov


1st of all that thread it totally cool.

2nd - i do find it bad that people don't care about int'l law. i wish it had been enforced equally on all sides, in which case i'd be a stern proponent of it.

Currently though, it is problematic, and I acknowledge that.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by GePap
It isn't. "Terorrism" is no more fundamentally wrong than War.

Of course it is more fundamentally wrong.

Warfare is currently governed by int'l law which has developed over years of discussions and considerations for a solid moral code for solving disputes forcefully.

Warfare, while certainly unpleasant, strives to be the most civil way of applying organized violence. It is regulated and the amount of force is usually measured, and directed at what is deemable 'legitimate' targets.


Terrorism on the other hand, intentionally targets the weaker innocent civilians. Something which int'l warfare rules forbid.

Because intentionally trying to hurt innocent people, instead of facing an enemy's army, is morally repugnant and cowardly.

Terrorism doesn't just 'seek out the helpless." After all, we label attacks against occupational forces "acts of terrorism."

That is a semantic problem of news organizations / interested parties.

Example: The Hamas attack on an IDF base and capturing of a soldier is most certainly a legitimate guerilla action.

However, since 99% of Hamas activity is directed against Israeli civilians, Hamas is still predominantly a terrorist organization.

Had Hezbullah not actively targetted Israeli population points, or assisted palestinian terrorists, it could have rightly labeled itself a guerilla organization.

I have always found this attempt to excuse political violence by setting up rules about who gets to be killed, rules meant to support any imbalance of power, to be moraly suspect. Its easy to denounce the killing of innocents when you are a member of the group strong enough to be able to chose whom to kill.

This is utter nonsense.

Everyone is strong enough to choose who to kill, as proved by Hezbullah and Hamas when they rarely choose to confront IDF forces directly.

Targetting innocents is easier for everyone - even advanced western armies. There are good reasons why the US / UK forces in Iraq try to seek out the terrorists instead of simply killing everyone in sight, hoping to strike fear.

Well, as I stated above, I don't think the stance taken by the author is moral. A true moral backbone would be far more radical than name calling. It would demand a real demand that all individual human rights be respect, and would demand a far more stringent look at any political violence, including that which the powerful have decided to make OK, because they have a monopoly on it.

Not any political violence is immoral.

Some things are moral and some things aren't. There are immoral means to wage war. We can easily judge that, because even in street brawls some things are considered "below the belt".

There can also be immoral causes, but causes are much more difficult to judge. You don't always know the entire history for a cause.

And most certainly, we can't reach a state where some person with a cause he believes in, feels he can do what ever the heck he wants.

Bull. As long as political violence is seen as a legitimate act, there will be acts of political violence that those in power will seek to delegitimize throught the label of terrorism.

In the past 50 years, 'moraly acceptible' political violence, aka. "war", has killed vast number of people more than 'moraly unacceptible' political violence, aka. "terrorism." That seems to me a very ****ed up moral compass.

If you sincerely claim that there is no moral difference between plain military actions and intentional targeting of civilians (aka terrorism), why the heck do people get riled up when accusing Israel of unproportional responses to terrorist attacks? Or improperly handling civilian casualties?

Hey, after all, if an intentional attack on a legitimate military target (training camp / logistics base / combatant group) is morally equal to an intentional attack on a group of civilians - then what the heck are people crying about certain IDF tactics which they don't like?

As you put it - war is war, and its bad no matter what you do.

So the heck with it. We should just ignore limits of human conscience

[Sirotnikov]

Does he not realise that the 'youth' he would like to set an example for, the ones who are likely to take up the terrorist cause are the least likely youth to be swayed by a white British establishment politician's pronouncement that terrorists are scum.

These youths are not choirboys at St. Paul's Cathedral or white kids attending Oxford. The youths whom Britain needs to sway are largely disaffected muslim youth. They need not be poor, just disaffected. Name calling isn't going to lure them closer to us, it's more likely to achieve the opposite effect.

True.

Which is why I don't think that calling them scum is the appropriate solution.

However saying that their actions are repugnant, and explaining why they are, is important - and no one seems to do that.

The "freedom fighters" semantics lobby has taken over discourse, and now even cultured people like GePap refuse to acknowledge that some violent actions are far more repugnant than others.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Terrorism on the other hand, intentionally targets the weaker innocent civilians. Something which int'l warfare rules forbid.

Because intentionally trying to hurt innocent people, instead of facing an enemy's army, is morally repugnant and cowardly.

Actually, the intention of terrorism is to create popular political pressure against a certain policy by making the populace fear the continuation of that policy given the possibility they might be killed. That attacking people in places they think are safe becomes one of the fundamental tools of this kind of policy is incidental to the policy, not what drives it.

This is utter nonsense.Everyone is strong enough to choose who to kill, as proved by Hezbullah and Hamas when they rarely choose to confront IDF forces directly.

Targetting innocents is easier for everyone - even advanced western armies. There are good reasons why the US / UK forces in Iraq try to seek out the terrorists instead of simply killing everyone in sight, hoping to strike fear.

Yes, different political aims bring about different political means. The US and UK are in Iraq as a matter of policy FOR the Iraqi people, not against it.

Advance militaries will strike at civlians indirectly when the civilian populace is seen as the enemy, not as a friend. And they have attcked them directly when they felt is necessary.

Not any political violence is immoral.

Some things are moral and some things aren't. There are immoral means to wage war. We can easily judge that, because even in street brawls some things are considered "below the belt".

And the basis for that morality is? Most of the time it is just a set of agreed upon or imposed upon rules. It isn;t constant and certainly not absolute.

I think your example of a street brawl is a bad one - some things might be "bellow the belt," but it isn't a boxing match, and striking bellow the belt is okay on the streets.

And most certainly, we can't reach a state where some person with a cause he believes in, feels he can do what ever the heck he wants.

I agree. The question is, how do we come upon those limits, and who decided those limits. What authority do they have.

If you sincerely claim that there is no moral difference between plain military actions and intentional targeting of civilians (aka terrorism), why the heck do people get riled up when accusing Israel of unproportional responses to terrorist attacks? Or improperly handling civilian casualties?

I think both military action and terrorism are immoral, taking into account where morality currently stand and think all such actions reprehensible. If I am more vocal in my denoucement of one and not the other it is because some acts are self-evidently wrong while other acts are rationalized in ways I find appaling, or for reasons I find appaling.

Hey, after all, if an intentional attack on a legitimate military target (training camp / logistics base / combatant group) is morally equal to an intentional attack on a group of civilians - then what the heck are people crying about certain IDF tactics which they don't like?

Immorality is not absolute. The harm an act does varies with the act, as does its efficacy. NO two acts are the same. Each act is to be judged accordingly, which includes taking into account the reason for the act, the supposed aim of the act, and finally the effect of the act.

As you put it - war is war, and its bad no matter what you do.

So the heck with it. We should just ignore limits of human conscience

Yes, war is always bad. That if anything is a more stringent limit on human conscience than what you profess.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
They need not be poor, just disaffected. Name calling isn't going to lure them closer to us, it's more likely to achieve the opposite effect.

How does PC talk sway them toward the way of not setting themselves on fire?

[BeBMan]

It's maybe just that non-pc talk certainly doesn't, so it doesn't appear to be a wise move

[DinoDoc]

I'm just curious what is gained from not calling evil acts what they are.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by GePap
Actually, the intention of terrorism is to create popular political pressure against a certain policy by making the populace fear the continuation of that policy given the possibility they might be killed. That attacking people in places they think are safe becomes one of the fundamental tools of this kind of policy is incidental to the policy, not what drives it.

Non-sequitor.

You are talking about the end-goal of terrorism, which is fine and dandy. Every violent action has demotivation / fear as one of its goals. Agreed that terrorism is much more reliant upon it than an army attack.

What separates terrorism is an intentional attack of what is unconsidered unreasonable targets - innocent civilians having no direct hand in the conflict, and no means for self defense, as opposed to striking actual representatives of the enemy force (government, logistics or military).

This is not at all incidental to the policy, but the main ingredient in it. It is also the whole reason why is it uniquely labeled and ostracized.

Yes, different political aims bring about different political means. The US and UK are in Iraq as a matter of policy FOR the Iraqi people, not against it.

Great, but who's to judge that? Al-Qaeda don't feel this way.

That's why the question of motive is a difficult one, when it comes to judging military measures.

That is why the question of methods has become relevant from a moral stand point. Because judging motive is not always objectively possible in a real-politik world.

Advance militaries will strike at civlians indirectly when the civilian populace is seen as the enemy, not as a friend. And they have attcked them directly when they felt is necessary.

What do you mean indirectly?

As a rule it is forbidden.

Unless you have a civilian populace that is actually armed / actively engaged in the war effort (building tanks), in which case it loses its "civilian" status.

And the basis for that morality is? Most of the time it is just a set of agreed upon or imposed upon rules. It isn;t constant and certainly not absolute.

If you're frankly interested in a serious post about the roots of ethics in warfare, I can supply. I have a great chapter in a book about warfare that deals with ethical thought on warfare and foreign relations through the ages until modern time.

You can't simply say that it isn't there, when it is, and countless writers have addressed it. The ideas of ethics, morals and honor have always persisted in warfare, even if there always were 'barbarians' who ignored it. They were always shunned. And should be.

I agree. The question is, how do we come upon those limits, and who decided those limits. What authority do they have.

Current limits were decided upon by the international community following 2 world wars.

They were not established, as many dubiously claim, to protect the rich west from incapable poor countries.

The rules were established to protect the west from itself. So that a large country using immoral methods would not cause insurmountable destruction of human life, beyond some agreed upon logic.

I think both military action and terrorism are immoral, taking into account where morality currently stand and think all such actions reprehensible. If I am more vocal in my denoucement of one and not the other it is because some acts are self-evidently wrong while other acts are rationalized in ways I find appaling, or for reasons I find appaling.

First of all, I think you'd find yourself in a minority camp, not only in this forum, but among the general populace.

I do not accept the notion that any use of force is inherently wrong.

Some situations call for it, and in some situations it is the only way out.

When you have two nations with two competing interests and two competing wills, which they are unable to settle or compromise in dialogue or through mediation - you eventually have to settle the tension.

There isn't always a golden path, or a truly objective P.O.V, because the two players may have different narrations of events, or even slightly different values and moral codes. A way for one will to beat the other and rectify reality will eventually come down to brute force.

That is in my view a reality of life - because there will always be conflicts.

Since that is a given, then my goal, as a moral person, is to find agreed upon standards, so that the conflicts, when they occur, do not bring about:

a) the end of civilization
b) more damage than is needed to solve the dispute in any direction

Immorality is not absolute. The harm an act does varies with the act, as does its efficacy. NO two acts are the same. Each act is to be judged accordingly, which includes taking into account the reason for the act, the supposed aim of the act, and finally the effect of the act.

the reason for the act and the aim of the act should be the top priorities there.

Nuking Japan is sort of moral because in the long run it probably saved more lives than it wasted.

However, employing violence with the aim of hurting defenseless civilians, for the purpose of 'national liberation' / 'revenge for grievances' is absolutely immoral.

I doubt there will be people who are not fundamentalist muslims / catholics dispute this.

Yes, war is always bad. That if anything is a more stringent limit on human conscience than what you profess.

War is not always bad.

War has positive and negative impacts.

Positive - if there is a decisive victory - it solves disputes. One will is victorious over another. A new reality is born, where the previous dispute is decided in someone's favor.

Negative - it destroys lives and property.
(It may also create new disputes - but that is always a given. Everytime you reach a new status some people will dislike it).

A war to repell an agressor is not bad (say, WWII against hitler)
A war to defend liberties in another country (say, darfour) is not bad.


Now here we come to a problem. A war to solve a land dispute between india and pakistan. I don't know for sure who is the aggressor and who is the victim here. There are two colliding narrations.

But if the two nations can't reach an agreement and each is positively sure that it is being grieved by the other one, then a war is eventually moral.

However, what I can do, is try and limit the scope of destruction. I can set up 'rules' so that solving the inherent problem (land dispute, mixed with religious strife) will not cause out-of-worldly damage.

I can outlaw nukes. I can outlaw WMDs. I can agree that attacking non-combatants is wrong. All these measures are meant to minimize the negative aspects of war - the killing and the destruction of property, while maintaining the positive aspect - effectively solving the dispute, and ending the conflict.


If you simply outlaw war, as you suggest, then we are left with no way to solve disputes.

Reconciliation is not always an option. It is not an option when the two sides are sure of their own truth. It is not an option when one side is a clear aggressor.


What do you do with those disputes?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

You are talking about the end-goal of terrorism, which is fine and dandy. Every violent action has demotivation / fear as one of its goals. Agreed that terrorism is much more reliant upon it than an army attack.

What separates terrorism is an intentional attack of what is unconsidered unreasonable targets - innocent civilians having no direct hand in the conflict, and no means for self defense, as opposed to striking actual representatives of the enemy force (government, logistics or military).

This is not at all incidental to the policy, but the main ingredient in it. It is also the whole reason why is it uniquely labeled and ostracized.

If one posits that a soverignty in a state lies with its people, then each member of the populace is a backer of government policy, by either direct action or by inaction and acquiesence. Which is why one would strike at them, making them demand a change in policy for self-preservation. Most terrorism is not simply nihilistic, meaning that the actions taken were taken for a reason, meaning the reason is paramount.

What do you mean indirectly?

As a rule it is forbidden.

Unless you have a civilian populace that is actually armed / actively engaged in the war effort (building tanks), in which case it loses its "civilian" status.

Yes, as a rule its forbidden. Doesn;t mean its not done, and when done, it is sometimes decried, but no one is ever punished unless they wrre on the losing end of th war.

You can't simply say that it isn't there, when it is, and countless writers have addressed it. The ideas of ethics, morals and honor have always persisted in warfare, even if there always were 'barbarians' who ignored it. They were always shunned. And should be.

Not true. "Barbarian" always simply meant "them", the other guy. The definition of honor itself has changed immensely from when it started, and as for morals in war, you simply have to look at warfareslong history going back to see that morality was very subjective. And as for the shunning, if you were strong or rich enough, no one shunned you.

Current limits were decided upon by the international community following 2 world wars.

They were not established, as many dubiously claim, to protect the rich west from incapable poor countries.

The rules were established to protect the west from itself. So that a large country using immoral methods would not cause insurmountable destruction of human life, beyond some agreed upon logic.

The rules were established by the victors, for their own pusposes. Certainly the shock of the previous two world wars was a huge incentive, but notice for example that no move was ever made to ban the use of nuclear weapons. Why? Because those states ijn power had them, and would not place any limits on themselves in their use.

And there is a definite state based bias. The international system and those rules were created to limit one state's actions against another, not a states actions against those under its recognized control. Note that almost all terrorism is purely internal. AQ is different only in that it does not have a very limited area of concern for a terrorist organization.

First of all, I think you'd find yourself in a minority camp, not only in this forum, but among the general populace.
I do not accept the notion that any use of force is inherently wrong.Some situations call for it, and in some situations it is the only way out.

A necessary evil remains an evil.

When you have two nations with two competing interests and two competing wills, which they are unable to settle or compromise in dialogue or through mediation - you eventually have to settle the tension.

No you don't. That is a choice, and those tenstions based on a variety of aims. War and violence are always a choice. certainly someone may chose a path which can only be achieve violently, but that is a choice, and in my book, an immoral or amoral choice.

There isn't always a golden path, or a truly objective P.O.V, because the two players may have different narrations of events, or even slightly different values and moral codes. A way for one will to beat the other and rectify reality will eventually come down to brute force. That is in my view a reality of life - because there will always be conflicts. Since that is a given, then my goal, as a moral person, is to find agreed upon standards, so that the conflicts, when they occur, do not bring about:

a) the end of civilization
b) more damage than is needed to solve the dispute in any direction

As I stated earlier, a necessary evil remains evil. you mistake is trying to moralize and rationalize violence. Sorry, but violence is not moral. It exists, it is commonly used, but it is never "right." perhaps it needs to occur to end an even more immoral action, one that does even more harm, but it remains a harmful thing.

the reason for the act and the aim of the act should be the top priorities there. Nuking Japan is sort of moral because in the long run it probably saved more lives than it wasted.

There was nothing "moral" about nuking Japan. It was an act of expidiency. You claimed earlier that the right and moral way to fight is not to harm innocents. Then the moral way to fight Japan would have been to place armies in japan and beats its soldiers directly, regardless of the cost in lives. Nuking Japan was an act of terror, showing the Japanese leadership directly of the immense destruction that would be reaped on them unless they did as the allies wanted.

You may argue that it was a lesser evil, but to claim the act as moral is a perversion of the notion of morality.

However, employing violence with the aim of hurting defenseless civilians, for the purpose of 'national liberation' / 'revenge for grievances' is absolutely immoral. I doubt there will be people who are not fundamentalist muslims / catholics dispute this.

What? National Liberation as a term implies bringing liberty to a group, no? You claim that there are times that force is all that is left, and call this moral. Well, why souldn;t individual use force to end what they see as injutice? How could that possibly be immoral under the rubrick you claim to follow? After all, these people obviously have reached a point where negotiations are no longer possible, so according to what you stated earlier, force it is.

Positive - if there is a decisive victory - it solves disputes. One will is victorious over another. A new reality is born, where the previous dispute is decided in someone's favor.

A new reality is in no way a moral good. It is simply change. this positive you posit also, as it is worded, makes no mention of the neture of the reality.

Now here we come to a problem. A war to solve a land dispute between india and pakistan. I don't know for sure who is the aggressor and who is the victim here. There are two colliding narrations. But if the two nations can't reach an agreement and each is positively sure that it is being grieved by the other one, then a war is eventually moral.

Here I have to stringently disagree.

A political boundary is nothing but a fictional line on a map. The purpose of the state is to protect citizens and to enable them to live in peace. Any state that would use the lives of its citizens as things to throw away for the sake of an immaginary line on a map is a state not really protecting the most basic interests of their citizens.

There is a very simple solution, moraly at least, to such a dispute - if the area is habitated, have the people who live there vote for where they as a community chose to live. If its inhabitted, wasintg lives for the space is nothing short of gravely immoral.

If you simply outlaw war, as you suggest, then we are left with no way to solve disputes.

There are MANY more ways to solve disputes than violence. Anyone who must resort to violence for their aim is seeking an immoral aim.Perhaps some aims are less immoral than others, but as I noted earlier, level of imorality do not propel certain actions into the realm of morality.

Reconciliation is not always an option. It is not an option when the two sides are sure of their own truth. It is not an option when one side is a clear aggressor.
What do you do with those disputes?

Someone not willing to accept that their "truth" is not absolute, and is willing to violate others for the sake of their ideas is not a particularly moral person. If said immoral aggressor uses violence against others, then other can defend themselves violently, but their act is not a moral act in an of itself. It is an amoral act, one existing outside of morality. Of course, if in the act of defending themselves they hurt thir parties, then they are also entering into immorality.