A MISSION FROM GOD

[swansont]

The fraction of convictions that end up being false is not negligible, and you can't un-do an execution. There are stories of people being exonerated after a decade or more of being in jail. I have a zero-tolerance for wrongful conviction, and that's the underlying ideology behind the legal system, so I think that the attitude of try them today and execute them tomorrow is frighteningly short-sighted.

 

As to the recent arrest, we're only getting the FBI's side of the story. The perpetrator may end up being a bin Laden clone, but given the FBI's (recent) propensity for arguable entrapment of so-called terrorists, I am willing to wait for more information whenever I read a story where it is reported that the FBI supplied the manpower, equipment and/or funding for the purported terrorist activities. Entrapment is illegal, period.

Edited November 28, 2010 by swansont
typo

[Anilkumar]

Hi there,

 

Violent retaliation is blunder.

[John Cuthber]

"Tell me Cuthber, what in the world does run-of-the-mill criminals and terrorism have in common? Man, that's like washing the white and colored clothes together and using bleach only as a disinfect"

What they have in common is that they both kill lots of people and neither of them has a legitimate reason for doing so. They are both a bunch of dross.

Why treat them differently?

[mississippichem]

I think it is important, however we deal with the @$#&s, that we don't make public martyrs. We must remember that their motivation is deeply religious, and if we are not careful, we will turn them into heroic martyrs that end up only feeding the terrorists' recruitment propaganda.

 

I don't think there is a legitimate reason all this regular trial/military tribunal should be in the public eye. I don't care how they are tried but I think it should all be done in secret and out of the media. Ultimately this is a national security issue, and our Al Queda prisoners are not members of a foreign sovereign army. They are international criminals that are wanted in multiple countries, some are even wanted in their country of origin.

Edited November 28, 2010 by mississippichem

[lemur]

I think there may be something about western secularism that makes suicide bombing so unsettling. It has to do with the use of egoism as a form of social control. From a young age, children are taught to worry about social evaluation of their identity. They form their identities to gain approval from their parents, teachers, peers, etc. In Freudianism, this is called healthy ego-formation. It basically means that the purpose of your sense of self-identity is for you to cater to social evaluation. Thus, imo, an act like suicide-bombing that overcomes self-interest (ego) in favor of a "higher" cause poses a threat to matrix of western social control that relies on self-interest and self-preservation motivating people to behave according to social values. Why else would suicide-bombing be so much more horrifying to many people than high-tech weaponry or nuclear bombs?

[swansont]

I think there may be something about western secularism that makes suicide bombing so unsettling. It has to do with the use of egoism as a form of social control. From a young age, children are taught to worry about social evaluation of their identity. They form their identities to gain approval from their parents, teachers, peers, etc. In Freudianism, this is called healthy ego-formation. It basically means that the purpose of your sense of self-identity is for you to cater to social evaluation. Thus, imo, an act like suicide-bombing that overcomes self-interest (ego) in favor of a "higher" cause poses a threat to matrix of western social control that relies on self-interest and self-preservation motivating people to behave according to social values. Why else would suicide-bombing be so much more horrifying to many people than high-tech weaponry or nuclear bombs?

 

I think nuclear bombs were pretty terrifying to the people growing up in the 50's and into 60's. People (in the US at least) building bomb shelters and all. The strategy of MAD lessened it as time went on, and people realized it was much less likely they would actually be used.

[rigney]

I think there may be something about western secularism that makes suicide bombing so unsettling. It has to do with the use of egoism as a form of social control. From a young age, children are taught to worry about social evaluation of their identity. They form their identities to gain approval from their parents, teachers, peers, etc. In Freudianism, this is called healthy ego-formation. It basically means that the purpose of your sense of self-identity is for you to cater to social evaluation. Thus, imo, an act like suicide-bombing that overcomes self-interest (ego) in favor of a "higher" cause poses a threat to matrix of western social control that relies on self-interest and self-preservation motivating people to behave according to social values. Why else would suicide-bombing be so much more horrifying to many people than high-tech weaponry or nuclear bombs?

 

Psychological sound, but much different when it comes to a practical application. The United States, Russia, China, and several other countries have the capability of eradicating this entire planet. Modern weaponry only means that many deaths can happen even in a simple dispute between neighbors. Suicide-bombings are more or less an impromptu thing with no one knowing when or where it will happen, other than the perpetrator. Cowards with asperations smile and stab you in the back. People with an agenda, whether right or wrong; suck up almost in the same manner. Be careful. Your friends are few! Edited November 28, 2010 by rigney

[lemur]

Modern weaponry only means that many deaths can happen even in a simple dispute between neighbors. Suicide-bombings are more or less an impromptu thing with no one knowing when or where it will happen, other than the perpetrator. Cowards with asperations smile and stab you in the back. People with an agenda, whether right or wrong; suck up almost in the same manner. Be careful. Your friends are few!

Right, I think this was/is the covert agenda of WMD, i.e. organization of destructive violence to a level that it can be centrally controlled and thus prevented. Decentralized means of violence gives more individuals access to destructive choices, which means you can't stop violence by putting delegates together at a table at the UN. The reason this system of centralized control worked was/is because individuals are expected to submit to social control out of self-interest, which allows repressive social control to take place. Modern ideology has trained us to view the transcendence of self-interest as insanity instead of nobility/virtue. The message is, "just live as part of a nation and live or die by mass economic structure or mass destruction." I.e. don't struggle for a cause individually and CERTAINLY don't sacrifice yourself for it unless it has been institutionally prescribed for you to do so by government/military.

 

 

 

[rigney]

The fraction of convictions that end up being false is not negligible, and you can't un-do an execution. There are stories of people being exonerated after a decade or more of being in jail. I have a zero-tolerance for wrongful conviction, and that's the underlying ideology behind the legal system, so I think that the attitude of try them today and execute them tomorrow is frighteningly short-sighted.

 

As to the recent arrest, we're only getting the FBI's side of the story. The perpetrator may end up being a bin Laden clone, but given the FBI's (recent) propensity for arguable entrapment of so-called terrorists, I am willing to wait for more information whenever I read a story where it is reported that the FBI supplied the manpower, equipment and/or funding for the purported terrorist activities. Entrapment is illegal, period.

So is suicide bombings. And this kid has had the propensity for being one these past four or five years.

[swansont]

So is suicide bombings. And this kid has had the propensity for being one these past four or five years.

 

We don't actually know that yet. He probably is, but being arrested is not the same as conviction. There is the presumption of innocence in our legal system. What you propose is a lynching, and I find that scarier than the prospect of a bomber.

[John Cuthber]

I think there may be something about western secularism that makes suicide bombing so unsettling. It has to do with the use of egoism as a form of social control. From a young age, children are taught to worry about social evaluation of their identity. They form their identities to gain approval from their parents, teachers, peers, etc. In Freudianism, this is called healthy ego-formation. It basically means that the purpose of your sense of self-identity is for you to cater to social evaluation. Thus, imo, an act like suicide-bombing that overcomes self-interest (ego) in favor of a "higher" cause poses a threat to matrix of western social control that relies on self-interest and self-preservation motivating people to behave according to social values. Why else would suicide-bombing be so much more horrifying to many people than high-tech weaponry or nuclear bombs?

 

I thought Freud and his ideas were dead and buried.

As far as I can tell, quietly giving money to charity counts as "an act like suicide-bombing that overcomes self-interest (ego) in favor of a "higher" cause ".

(I give money because I think it is simply right to do so. I'm a staunch atheist so I don't expect any reward, and I don't ordinarily mention it so it's not done for bragging rights. Since none of you know who I really am, posting about it here still means it's an anonymous donation).

I'm not the only one who does this, and Western secular society doesn't mind a bit.

 

Did you consider the fact that what makes suicide bombing unsettling is that we don't want to get blown up?

I don't really care if the bomber is there at the time and also dies or if he uses some sort of remote control device. The thing that matters to me is that getting blown up will kill me and I find that deeply unsettling.

I didn't like it when I was woken up one morning by the IRA bombing Paddington railway station a few hundred yards away. I didn't like it when they blew up the high street where most of my family do their weekly shopping.

It wouldn't have made me feel any better or worse if they had been suicide bombers.

[TonyMcC]

I think the whole idea of suicide bombing is unsettling because it is contrary to to what we in the West accept as something a human being would do. Even at a time of war when speaking to fighting men who doubtless were prepared to put their lives on the line George S. Patton said " The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his". Even so called suicide missions always had some sort of escape route however perilous. When we see actions outside of what we expect of human beings it is natural to wonder with how much humanity should their actions be judged and punished (if the attempt was thwarted).

[rigney]

We don't actually know that yet. He probably is, but being arrested is not the same as conviction. There is the presumption of innocence in our legal system. What you propose is a lynching, and I find that scarier than the prospect of a bomber.

You're right, I'm just an old hot head; but I'm rational enough to not want an "innocent person" punished. Thank goodness our legal system doesn't work that way. The suspected "brains" behind the 9-1-1 murders has been in jail now for several years. And even though our system is flawed, it is still likely the best one out there; and this guy will get justice. Edited November 29, 2010 by rigney

[swansont]

You're right, I'm just an old hot head; but I'm rational enough to not want an "innocent person" punished. Thank goodness our legal system doesn't work that way. The suspected "brains" behind the 9-1-1 murders has been in jail now for several years. And even though our system is flawed, it is still likely the best one out there; and this guy will get justice.

 

Not in jail, though, in detention, and that's been an issue of contention for some time. There are many who do not want the legal system, with all its protections for defendants, to apply, and would rather it be a military tribunal.

[lemur]

I thought Freud and his ideas were dead and buried.

As far as I can tell, quietly giving money to charity counts as "an act like suicide-bombing that overcomes self-interest (ego) in favor of a "higher" cause ".

(I give money because I think it is simply right to do so. I'm a staunch atheist so I don't expect any reward, and I don't ordinarily mention it so it's not done for bragging rights. Since none of you know who I really am, posting about it here still means it's an anonymous donation).

I'm not the only one who does this, and Western secular society doesn't mind a bit.

I think you underestimate the effect of cultural exposure to the discourse of "good people give to charity and people who don't give to charity are greedy." Of course there's no way to prove it if you aren't aware of it yourself, but I would guess it would make you feel like a greedy scrooge if you didn't give to charity, regardless of who else was paying attention or not.

 

Did you consider the fact that what makes suicide bombing unsettling is that we don't want to get blown up?

I don't really care if the bomber is there at the time and also dies or if he uses some sort of remote control device. The thing that matters to me is that getting blown up will kill me and I find that deeply unsettling.

I didn't like it when I was woken up one morning by the IRA bombing Paddington railway station a few hundred yards away. I didn't like it when they blew up the high street where most of my family do their weekly shopping.

It wouldn't have made me feel any better or worse if they had been suicide bombers.

That is the logical reason to be offended by any kind of bombing, yes. My point was more that suicide-bombing seems to stir up more reaction than other kinds of bombing. I find this interesting for exactly the reason you mention, i.e. either way the victims (including the bomber) are getting blown up so what's the difference?

 

 

[John Cuthber]

"I think you underestimate the effect of cultural exposure to the discourse of "good people give to charity and people who don't give to charity are greedy." Of course there's no way to prove it if you aren't aware of it yourself, but I would guess it would make you feel like a greedy scrooge if you didn't give to charity, regardless of who else was paying attention or not."

It's less specific than that. I feel good about doing things I consider to be "good". "Society" might see me helping little old ladies across the road, but it doesn't see me sending money to charity. This behaviour is almost certainly culturally based (my folks do the same) but the "culture" doesn't actually know what I do.

In any event, it's still a cost to me for no concrete personal benefit, but a benefit to society as a whole. In that way it is similar to the suicide bomber.

Obviously their personal cost is much bigger (and frankly, the potential gain is, IMHO smaller) but both of us do something at our own cost and which benefits our society (in a weird way for the bomber).

 

I'm not sure that suicide bombers actually cause more upset than "ordinary" bombers.

They may cause more damage (a person is a really good weapon delivery system) but I'm really not sure people are any more upset by them.

I have never heard anyone say "Oh thank God it was just an ordinary bomber; not a a suicide."

I have heard people say "Well, at least the bastard won't do it again; good riddance to him."

[rigney]

Not in jail, though, in detention, and that's been an issue of contention for some time. There are many who do not want the legal system, with all its protections for defendants, to apply, and would rather it be a military tribunal.

I agree! This new kid, Mohamud? He should be tried in civilian court and not detained at Gitmo. He is a naturalized American citizen, even though foreign born. There is a distinct difference between him and Khalid. I really don't care if Khalid's trial is posponed indefinitely and he stays in detention forever.

 

http://americaswatchtower.com/2010/11/14/khalid-sheikh-mohammed-to-be-detained-at-gitmo-indefinitely/

 

 

http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/3/7/portlands_christmas_tree_plot_who_is_mohamed_mohamud/

 

Can you imagine the heart ache of this father having to turn in his own son?

 

A great writer-poet, Sir Walter Scott penned a proverbial verse I'v agreed with my entire life.

Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to decieve.

 

"I think you underestimate the effect of cultural exposure to the discourse of "good people give to charity and people who don't give to charity are greedy." Of course there's no way to prove it if you aren't aware of it yourself, but I would guess it would make you feel like a greedy scrooge if you didn't give to charity, regardless of who else was paying attention or not."

It's less specific than that. I feel good about doing things I consider to be "good". "Society" might see me helping little old ladies across the road, but it doesn't see me sending money to charity. This behaviour is almost certainly culturally based (my folks do the same) but the "culture" doesn't actually know what I do.

In any event, it's still a cost to me for no concrete personal benefit, but a benefit to society as a whole. In that way it is similar to the suicide bomber.

Obviously their personal cost is much bigger (and frankly, the potential gain is, IMHO smaller) but both of us do something at our own cost and which benefits our society (in a weird way for the bomber).

 

I'm not sure that suicide bombers actually cause more upset than "ordinary" bombers.

They may cause more damage (a person is a really good weapon delivery system) but I'm really not sure people are any more upset by them.

I have never heard anyone say "Oh thank God it was just an ordinary bomber; not a a suicide."

I have heard people say "Well, at least the bastard won't do it again; good riddance to him."

 

The word "Suicide" should be totally left out of any context. A Jihadi with skills and reason, who can find patsies willing enough to make the sacrifice, "Ain't gonna blow themselves up". Naa! Let's just call them bombers like we did the Weathermen and IRA. It takes a bit of the edge off. Edited November 29, 2010 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

"The word "Suicide" should be totally left out of any context. "

Indeed, perhaps we should check who first put it in.

Oh! it's in the thread title.

[rigney]

"The word "Suicide" should be totally left out of any context. "

Indeed, perhaps we should check who first put it in.

Oh! it's in the thread title.

You're right John, only in the thread title was it used to let everyone know what the discussion was about. Not sure, but I my have used a time or two as part of a reply? Perhaps I should have said: Let's keep the word out of any future conversation? It's really an ugly expression.

 

"I think you underestimate the effect of cultural exposure to the discourse of "good people give to charity and people who don't give to charity are greedy." Of course there's no way to prove it if you aren't aware of it yourself, but I would guess it would make you feel like a greedy scrooge if you didn't give to charity, regardless of who else was paying attention or not."

It's less specific than that. I feel good about doing things I consider to be "good". "Society" might see me helping little old ladies across the road, but it doesn't see me sending money to charity. This behaviour is almost certainly culturally based (my folks do the same) but the "culture" doesn't actually know what I do.

In any event, it's still a cost to me for no concrete personal benefit, but a benefit to society as a whole. In that way it is similar to the suicide bomber.

Obviously their personal cost is much bigger (and frankly, the potential gain is, IMHO smaller) but both of us do something at our own cost and which benefits our society (in a weird way for the bomber).

 

I'm not sure that suicide bombers actually cause more upset than "ordinary" bombers.

They may cause more damage (a person is a really good weapon delivery system) but I'm really not sure people are any more upset by them.

I have never heard anyone say "Oh thank God it was just an ordinary bomber; not a a suicide."

I have heard people say "Well, at least the bastard won't do it again; good riddance to him."

I really liked your last sentence, it does make a lot of sense.

[Mr Skeptic]

I have heard people say "Well, at least the bastard won't do it again; good riddance to him."

 

There's that, but also we like to punish the bad guys. The (successful) suicide bomber, however, cannot be punished and this upsets some people.

[rigney]

There's that, but also we like to punish the bad guys. The (successful) suicide bomber, however, cannot be punished and this upsets some people.

It's sad commentary however you look at it. If the guy just wants to blow himself up, go right ahead. Yes, such unbridled hostility does upset me. And to kill innocent people in the process just for the sake of killing?, that's beyond my reason. I personally don't have the brain power to understand such barbarity. Innocence, regardles of where ever it is in this world is worth protecting. Like McVeigh, these guys just hate out of a malevolent demenor. Not crazy, just mean.

[lemur]

There's that, but also we like to punish the bad guys. The (successful) suicide bomber, however, cannot be punished and this upsets some people.

 

 

It's sad commentary however you look at it. If the guy just wants to blow himself up, go right ahead. Yes, such unbridled hostility does upset me. And to kill innocent people in the process just for the sake of killing?, that's beyond my reason. I personally don't have the brain power to understand such barbarity. Innocence, regardles of where ever it is in this world is worth protecting. Like McVeigh, these guys just hate out of a malevolent demenor. Not crazy, just mean.

 

 

What I find interesting is that the feelings expressed toward suicide bombers here and elsewhere are so emotional and aggressive themselves. I'm not condemning that attitude. I just wonder where people get the idea that it is legitimate to feel so aggressively hostile toward something without doing anything about it. I think it says something about a reactionary culture of anti-violence that so much hostility can build up as a reaction to a suicide bombing or just the idea of it. Eventually that hostile aggression culminates in someone taking up the crusade of acting on behalf of the angry mob that has formed. That person could just as well be a suicide bomber too. Why not? Do you think there's a point where anti-Islamic fear/aggression could build up to the point where people commit acts of terrorism against muslims and if someone would die in the process, people would say, "at least if he was going to die, he took out a bunch of those bastards with him?" That would seem to celebrate the same spirit of suicide-bombing but in the other direction.

 

 

[zapatos]

What I find interesting is that the feelings expressed toward suicide bombers here and elsewhere are so emotional and aggressive themselves. I'm not condemning that attitude. I just wonder where people get the idea that it is legitimate to feel so aggressively hostile toward something without doing anything about it.

I am somewhat confused by your statement. To me it seems very natural that someone would get emotional about a violent attack on innocent people. I don't think feelings are 'legitimate' or not. They just are. You cannot help how you feel about something. I think that only the action you took based on your feelings could be considered legitimate or not.

[lemur]

I am somewhat confused by your statement. To me it seems very natural that someone would get emotional about a violent attack on innocent people. I don't think feelings are 'legitimate' or not. They just are. You cannot help how you feel about something. I think that only the action you took based on your feelings could be considered legitimate or not.

I didn't say it wasn't natural to get emotional about a violent attack. I said it was strange that there's a culture of getting emotional and not acting on it, which leads to a build up of hostility, potentially infecting others socially to the point where you have an angry mob. You're right about feelings not being "legitimate or not," but somehow people often manage to only allow themselves to have feelings that they themselves legitimate. E.g. when you say, "it seems very natural that someone would get emotional about a violent attack on innocent people," it implies that you would get less emotional about an attack on guilty people, or perhaps feel indifferent or even happy. That means your emotions are steered by your sense of legitimacy more so than the act(s) of violence themselves.

Edited November 30, 2010 by lemur

[rigney]

I didn't say it wasn't natural to get emotional about a violent attack. I said it was strange that there's a culture of getting emotional and not acting on it, which leads to a build up of hostility, potentially infecting others socially to the point where you have an angry mob. You're right about feelings not being "legitimate or not," but somehow people often manage to only allow themselves to have feelings that they themselves legitimate. E.g. when you say, "it seems very natural that someone would get emotional about a violent attack on innocent people," it implies that you would get less emotional about an attack on guilty people, or perhaps feel indifferent or even happy. That means your emotions are steered by your sense of legitimacy more so than the act(s) of violence themselves.

If you have read or seen the news today, you surely saw the article of a young teenager who killed himself after holding his friends and classmates hostage for several hours. How do we equate such tragedy with what is going on in the guerilla warfare arena? This kid was sick and suddently realized that his craziness was more than dismissive. Why? Had he killed even one of these classmates in this fit of depression, forgive me; but sane or insane; or had he even been my own son, I would have demanded swift and total retribution. And should it happen, that would apply doubly to yours truely! Edited November 30, 2010 by rigney