I really liked this article and thought I'd share. It reminded me of reuters/Hizbollywood thread, though this doesn't speak directly to it. There were a couple finer points I might disagree with him on, but the overall message I feel is quite true.
Posts: 375 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with that. But there will always be those finer points to argue about. We just have to make sure that we don't lose sight of the bigger picture.
Posts: 993 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eduardo St. Elmo: I agree with that. But there will always be those finer points to argue about. We just have to make sure that we don't lose sight of the bigger picture.
posted
With some better wording here and there it would have been perfect....in my opinion anyway. An' we all know about opinions. However, I will say, that I like this guy. Like his writing that is.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You believe journalism requires a sort of elegant moral relativism, that telling "both sides of the story" is a necessary prerequisite to "objective" journalism. You don't believe that there can be an objective right or wrong; if you were reporting World War II today, you'd feel obligated to speak to front-line Japanese and Nazi soldiers and discuss the Allies' disproportionate response to the attack on Pearl Harbor and the invasion of Poland.
If "your side" is as noble as you seem to think it is, then you have nothing to fear by the media presenting both sides of the story.
Showing that the opposite side of a war contains actual human beings, to me is a good thing. The fact that humans can regard their opponents as less than human so easily in times of war has led to countless atrocities and war-crimes, usually on all sides of a conflict.
Taking it beyond war, I think this ability to dehumanize others is at the root of most evil in the world. Perhaps the holocaust would have been avoided if there was a non-government controlled media in Germany interviewing oppressed Jews, filming their forced evictions, and doing exposés on conditions in the ghettos. I'd take it a step further and suggest that it is the media's responsibility to make sure that both sides in any conflict are represented as actual humans.
quote:Lesson #1: In a war, civilians die and civilian property is destroyed. Since the days of Napoleon, armies have routinely drawn support from civilian populations. There is no way to win a war without also devastating a certain amount of the civilian population. The more popular the enemy force, the more devastation is necessary. We didn't simply defeat the Japanese military in World War II – we absolutely devastated Japan's ability to make war.
So because civilian casualties are unavoidable in war, the media should not report them? Look, civilian deaths are a tragedy, and the media loves to report on tragedies. You may as well say "People die in earthquakes, so don't report on earthquake fatalities".
quote:Lesson #2: Terrorists are not fools. They recognize that you are unwilling to accept Lesson #1. They therefore melt into the civilian population, knowing that humane forces (read: American and Israeli) will attempt to avoid civilian casualties. If, however, humane forces have no choice but to kill civilians in order to kill terrorists, terrorists can rely on your sympathy.
You can claim that the civilian deaths are justified by your need to make war. I may not argue with you. I am sympathetic to the plight of Israel, and think in their current conflict they have a very strong case for justification of war.
However, those civilian deaths are not any less tragic when you are fighting a just war.
quote:Lesson #4: Don't expect Muslim journalists from the Middle East to objectively report about Israel or America. Verify first. Trust later. Adnan Hajj is Lebanese, yet Reuters had him taking photos of the current conflict. They were shocked – shocked! – to learn he had blatantly altered those photos to make Israel's campaign look more brutal.
So the media shouldn't trust Muslim journalists to report on the conflict. Should they trust the Jewish journalists? I would agree that they should verify everything, but I refuse to believe that a Muslim journalist is inherently less trust-worthy than a Jewish one.
quote:Charles Johnson, who exposed Hajj's falsifications, received a death threat from another Reuters employee, who used the e-mail address "zionistpig": "I look forward to the day when you pigs get your throats cut." I'm willing to give odds the sender is Muslim. Any takers?
How is one person getting an anonymous emailed death threat note-worthy in any way? Death-threats are about as common on the internet as spam. We've had a few on hatrack I think.
quote:Lesson #5: Terrorists can read. When you reveal national security secrets during a time of war, assume that you are probably getting American soldiers and American civilians killed.
This one is too vague to have any sort of meaning. Are we talking about the NSA wire-tapping? Valerie Plame? Geraldo?
quote:Lesson #6: War is not about proportionality. Knitting is about proportionality. War is about winning.
Says you. Said Hitler. War does not render its participants amoral. If those cheering along with this editorial agree with this statement, then I pity them. This is not a video game. It is real people dying. Women. Children. Innocents. These deaths, justifiable or not, should hang heavy on your very soul. Pretending they don't matter turns you into the very thing you are fighting against.
quote:Lesson #7: Hatred is not a synonym for justification. Don't pretend that because Islamists hate us, they are justified in that hatred. Yes, Islamists hate America and Israel. So what? Nazis weren't particularly fond of Jews. Just because one group hates another group doesn't mean the first group is justified in its hatred.
I don't disagree with this statement, except that it is a straw-man argument. I've seen the media present the POV of those opposed to Israel, but nothing like what is described here. It sounds like the author of the piece wants the POV of Israels enemies to be dismissed without even considering it. Ignoring the point of view of your enemy does not make your point of view stronger.
If your cause is just, it will remain just after both sides are presented.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xavier, it's really unlikely that that guy is a Hatracker, so I wonder if he will ever read your rebuttal. Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That news source's White House correspondent got his pass under a fake name and specifically asked leading questions that painted the administration in a positive light. He left in disgrace, as he should have.
I don't put much stock in what they have to say. They're willing to lie.
EDIT: And I, , can't seem to check my facts. Jeff Gannon apparently worked for "Talon News", really a psudonym for GOP USA; when he lied he lied about both his name and the fact that he worked for a legit news agency instead of an advocacy group (GOP USA).
WorldNetDaily, in the meantime, is a source with an admitted ideological agenda whose editor, Lee Kingsolving, has been accused of pulling similar softball stunts as Gannon.
posted
Kasie, do you also not put much stick in what the NY Times, Washington Post, and Reuters say because each organization had a staffer who out and out made up stories or photos?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Kasie's right, WorldNetDaily lost all credibility in that scandal. Objective journalism has it's problems and limitations, but advocacy jornalism like WorldNetDaily practices has as many or more problems.
For example: headline writing that is simply throwing red meat to your base. Hezbollah defeated 'gay' Israeli soldiers --this article has a quote from a Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades leader "If we do [what Hezbollah accomplished], this Israeli army full of gay soldiers and full of corruption and with old-fashioned war methods can be defeated also in Palestine," which is repeated twice, in a short article. The 'gay soldiers' riff is not central to the story, but is repeated twice for effect and put in the headline. Who cares if there are gay Israeli soldiers? Did it really have any impact on the war? No. But it makes for a sexy headline for a conservative news service.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
As far as this particular incident goes, the organization lied about its true nature in order to get him in in the first place. Then they helped him falsify a name and social security number to get him access. This is different from making up sources.
That said: While I generally hold faith with the news organizations who have to deal with the Jayson Blairs and the Jack Kelleys, I'm not about to excuse them. Allowing that sort of thing to go on is absolutely an organizational failure that causes the public to rightfully lose confidence in the organization. The same can be said of Reuters and its recently doctored photos. This sort of falsification is absolutely inexcusable and needs to be dealt with harshly. Organizations who find themselves with these problems need to examine their policies from the ground up and do some managerial housecleaning in the affected area. They also need to apologize to their audiences and devote considerable space to excorciating letters to the editor, etc.
But this type of blatant falsification by a newsroom employee is one thing; accusing the organization of having a particular point of view or vendetta against a certain set of policies is ludicrous. In Reuters' case, condemnations for falsification are absolutely justified; condemnations for a pro-Lebanese agenda across the board are not.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that's the last time I use Kasie as a stringer. Have your cubicle cleaned out by the end of the day. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kasie, all's forgiven, because I got a big laugh out of this from Gannon's aka Guckert's wiki page you linked:
quote: On his resume Guckert claimed to be a "graduate of the Leadership Institute Broadcast School of Journalism." However, upon examination this was found to be a two day seminar for "conservatives who want a career in journalism."
quote:In Reuters' case, condemnations for falsification are absolutely justified; condemnations for a pro-Lebanese agenda across the board are not.
I don't know. I think it's justified to wonder and look for it now, because I don't recall seeing lots of pro-Israeli fraudulent photographs released by Reuters.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: On his resume Guckert claimed to be a "graduate of the Leadership Institute Broadcast School of Journalism." However, upon examination this was found to be a two day seminar for "conservatives who want a career in journalism."
It should be noted that this seminar (which I attended way back in 90) does NOT pretend or encourage its attendees to pretend that it is a "school of journalism."
It's a chance to have your publication critiqued by professionals, to exchange ideas with other college publication editors, and to drink a fair amount of beer while eating cold hotel chicken and listening to speakers who wish they were someplace else.
Very useful for what it purported to do at the time: help use make our magazines better.
Kasie, I generally hold the same view of organizations who have Blairs (or Glasses, etc.) in the mix. It makes me skeptical of a big story which no one else has, but that's my general media status quo anyway.
An editor accused of such things and still in power would raise the level of skepticism enormously, but mere accusations won't do it.
World Net Daily is obviously biased enough that I will never cite it to support any of my conservative positions, but it has been ahead by several days on quite a few facts that I found relevant to a story that the generally more reliable media left out.
And I can't find a single one of the examples I was thinking of when I wrote that last sentence, so I won't cite them.
In general, WND is on the same level of a blog for me - it will raise a mental flag that something might be left out of a Post story, but it's not a fact until I read it elsewhere.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If "your side" is as noble as you seem to think it is, then you have nothing to fear by the media presenting both sides of the story.
quote:If your cause is just, it will remain just after both sides are presented.
Absolutely true, if it is presented fairly and evenly. Quite a number of the large news outlets (most egregiously Reuters and BBC) have failed to do so. Presenting both sides does not have to include rationalizing and excusing terrorism. Does it?
quote:Showing that the opposite side of a war contains actual human beings, to me is a good thing.
Agreed.
quote:So because civilian casualties are unavoidable in war, the media should not report them?
There is a difference between reporting them and focusing on them to the exclusion of other aspects. (It is interesting how few news stories talked about the horrible effects of the rockets that devastated northern Israel.)
There is also a difference between reporting on legitimate casualties and accepting every report of casualties . . . many of which were proven to be unsubstantiated or flat-out fraudulent.
quote:So the media shouldn't trust Muslim journalists to report on the conflict. Should they trust the Jewish journalists? I would agree that they should verify everything, but I refuse to believe that a Muslim journalist is inherently less trust-worthy than a Jewish one.
Statistics disagree with you.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Presenting both sides does not have to include rationalizing and excusing terrorism. Does it?
Well that depends. I think describing the reasons why the terrorists are, well, terrorists is pretty essential to depicting them as human beings.
They aren't animals, they aren't "evil", and they aren't insane. Pretending they are not real people with real reasons, I believe, is counter-productive to stopping them. You must understand your enemy to defeat them.
quote:There is a difference between reporting them and focusing on them to the exclusion of other aspects. (It is interesting how few news stories talked about the horrible effects of the rockets that devastated northern Israel.)
I've actually seen many reports of the rocket attacks. Those reports are actually the primary reason I sympathize with Israel in the current conflict.
quote:There is also a difference between reporting on legitimate casualties and accepting every report of casualties . . . many of which were proven to be unsubstantiated or flat-out fraudulent.
I guess I am not completely up to date on the latest news reports, so I can't say much about this.
However, isn't this always what the media does whenever their are casualties? I remember right after 9/11 there were reports of 13,000+ dead. Then after a week it was down to 5,000 or so. It then steadily dropped to the current number as more information came out.
It seems to me that the media often uses weasel words to make casualties sound like more than they were. They seem to use the biggest estimate, not to provide bias, but to get the best headline.
"We've had several initial estimates from different sources. These estimates range upwards of X casualties."
I think statements like this are just as likely after an earthquake as after a military offensive, I'd think.
quote:
quote: So the media shouldn't trust Muslim journalists to report on the conflict. Should they trust the Jewish journalists? I would agree that they should verify everything, but I refuse to believe that a Muslim journalist is inherently less trust-worthy than a Jewish one.
Statistics disagree with you.
So there are actually statistics demonstrating that Muslim journalists hired by the west are more likely to be untrustworthy than Jewish journalists hired by the west?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do think at least some (and quite possibly many) of the terrorists are evil, and they certainly perpetrate evil acts. That doesn't make them irrational, that doesn't make some of their grievances unjustified (the evil comes from unjustified reactions to those grievances), and that doesn't mean its productive to ignore their motivations, though.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do think at least some (and quite possibly many) of the terrorists are evil, and they certainly perpetrate evil acts.
See, I don't think anyone on earth is "evil". I think that is a label which is applied to anyone who we don't understand, and who performs actions we consider to be loathsome.
I think the vast majority of those considered "evil" by those who believe in the concept are better considered "sick in the head" (child molesters, serial killers, etc) or are "fanatics" (terrorists, nazis, etc).
What exactly is "evil" anyway? Its hard even define the concept without bringing religion into the discussion.
It ends up being defined in very subjective terms, and as convinced as some are that terrorists are evil, there are folks just as convinced that homosexuals are evil, or that abortion doctors are evil, or mormons are evil, or that jews are evil, etc.
They think a particular group is "evil" because they don't understand the group, and the group performs actions which they loathe.
But we've gone through this before, and my disbelief in evil has never been a popular opinion. People seem to be pretty attached to the label, because they can apply it to a group or a person and then that person is no longer human. That person or group becomes "other" and can then be dismissed or hated.
(starLisa does the same sort of dehumanizing dismissal, except that she calls her enemies both "evil" and "animals", stripping them of any humanity whatsoever.)
It is awfully hard work to try and understand your enemy. Instead of going through the difficulty of understanding them, it is far easier to label them "evil", and then their actions make sense.
Which, ironically, is the same sort of labelling which allows a terrorist to de-humanize their targets and to rationalize their actions. It becomes okay to blow up a bus, because that bus is full of "evil" jews. It is okay to blow up an abortion clinic, because it is full of "evil" doctors.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let us say, whether or not terrorists are evil has little relevance to the best ways to engage terrorists.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You must understand your enemy to defeat them.
Often times it sure helps to understand the enemy. But also, a well placed bullet or smart bomb does the trick too, whether or not you intimately understand them.
Posts: 375 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:See, I don't think anyone on earth is "evil".
Then it doesn't make sense for you to call anyone evil. Others disagree with this on a fundamental level.
What is clear is that you have little understanding of the beliefs of many who do believe that evil people exist. For example, you suggest that calling someone evil is "[p]retending they are not real people with real reasons."
I don't know anyone who thinks that evil people exist who do not also think that those evil people are real or that they do not have reasons for their actions.
quote:Its hard even define the concept without bringing religion into the discussion.
Why does this make it unusable as a concept?
quote:I think the vast majority of those considered "evil" by those who believe in the concept are better considered "sick in the head" (child molesters, serial killers, etc) or are "fanatics" (terrorists, nazis, etc).
Just as you find labeling someone as "evil" to be counterproductive, I find lumping all people who engage in child molestation as "sick in the head" to be counterproductive and highly misguided.
quote:They think a particular group is "evil" because they don't understand the group, and the group performs actions which they loathe.
More assumptions without basis. I'm absolutely sure that there are people who call others evil "because they don't understand the group, and the group performs actions which they loathe." But not all. Indeed, most of the people I know who believe in the existence of evil people do not do this, although I have no way of knowing if my sample is representative.
quote:People seem to be pretty attached to the label, because they can apply it to a group or a person and then that person is no longer human.
I suppose it's easier to decide that the reason people think evil persons exist is to dehumanize others.
quote:It is awfully hard work to try and understand your enemy. Instead of going through the difficulty of understanding them, it is far easier to label them "evil", and then their actions make sense.
It's awfully hard work to try and understand those who have a differing view of the fundamental divides of good and evil. Instead of going through the difficulty of understanding them, it is far easier to state that they call some people "evil" in order to dehumanize them and avoid understanding them, and then their beliefs make sense.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, I wrote out a very long post addressing your points one by one, but every single counter-point was hindered by the fact that I have absolutely no idea who these people are you consider evil, and why these specific people are evil while others are not.
Perhaps you can help me to understand?
Edit: And also help me to understand how labeling a person or group of people is useful in a discussion on that person's motivation, specifically when debating someone who does not share your religious beliefs.
Oh and I just KNEW that this thread would turn into a debate on whether evil existed the second I said that I don't think it existed.
This is only a problem in that debating whether evil exists is only a very small part of the greater debate over whether reporting on the motivations of terrorists in order to foster understanding of why they are terrorists is a good thing or a bad thing.
Unless rivka or Dagonee actually come out and claim that the terrorists are "evil", I don't think it even relates to the greater debate at all.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Often times it sure helps to understand the enemy. But also, a well placed bullet or smart bomb does the trick too, whether or not you intimately understand them.
If you think violence will ultimately defeat terrorism, I'd suggest that you are 1) Wrong and 2) Don't understand terrorists.
Edit: And though I do not think Israel's current violence will help to defeat terrorism in the long run, I still think they had very few other options, none of them good ones.
quote:Let us say, whether or not terrorists are evil has little relevance to the best ways to engage terrorists.
If you ammend this to say that whether they are or are not evil has little relevance to the best ways to engage them, so long as the label does not hinder your attempts to understand why they are terrorists.Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Unless rivka or Dagonee actually come out and claim that the terrorists are "evil", I don't think it even relates to the greater debate at all.
Ok, then allow me to state that I think that people who strap explosives -- with nails and ball bearings added for extra maiming ability -- to themselves, and walk into a crowd of civilians with the express intent of killing or horribly wounding as many as possible are unquestionably evil.
But I agree that given the very different basic premise you are operating from, this may not be a productive line of discussion.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure why this matters to your response. You've stated that people who believe that some people are evil do so for specific reasons derived from laziness and a desire to dehumanize.
I've attempted to demonstrate that what you are doing with respect to those who believe that some people are evil is similar to what you accuse those people of doing - specifically, oversimplifying the complex beliefs of others in a fashion that is both convenient and supports your existing views on the subject.
I'm not discussing whether my view of good and evil is better than your view that evil people do not exist. I am discussing the error inherent in your view of people who do believe that evil people exist.
quote:Oh and I just KNEW that this thread would turn into a debate on whether evil existed the second I said that I don't think it existed.
So you knew that as soon as you said something controversial on a discussion board that others would discuss it. OK. So?
quote:Unless rivka or Dagonee actually come out and claim that the terrorists are "evil", I don't think it even relates to the greater debate at all.
Then why did you bring it up? I think it's clear you DO think it relates to the greater debate.
What I think you're missing, though, is that neither rivka nor I are debating whether evil exists. I commented on the shallowness of your assessment of people who think evil exists. I made a post about why your view of a differing philosophical belief was ill-informed. rivka agreed with that post.
I have no intention of debating something with a person who has decided that because I possess a particular belief that I am lazy about understanding others and wish to dehumanize some people.
It'd be like having a discussion about religion with someone who starts it off with "Anyone who doesn't believe in God is willfully blind" or "Anyone who does believe in God is a superstitious fool."
Edit: I see rivka has decided to engage you on the subject of who is evil. More power to her - I haven't the strength.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I see rivka has decided to engage you on the subject of who is evil. More power to her - I haven't the strength.
Heh. Perhaps you missed the last line of my post. I absolutely have no plans to debate evilness. I simply was unable to let stand the implication that I might not consider the terrorists evil.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lets see here. I understand that the terrorists feel that Isrealis and Americans are zionistic imperialist pigs. I understand that their perverted version of Islam makes them think that it is their duty to kill anyone who speaks ill of Islam or leaves Islam or violates any of Islams rules. I understand that they believe in a strict interpretation of the Sharia. They are big fans of martydom, and believe that when they die they will get a bunch of virgins. They believe that the Arab world is being victimized by the west and feel that the culture of the west is extremely sinful and corrupt.
I'm pretty sure I have a good understanding of them. I still consider them evil. You may call them fanatics or messed up in the head or party poopers or Llama People for all I care.
I also understand if one of these people was a suicide bomber with explosives ready to go, I would shoot first and ask questions later.
Posts: 375 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Often times it sure helps to understand the enemy. But also, a well placed bullet or smart bomb does the trick too, whether or not you intimately understand them.
And that's exactly the problem with the War on Terror. Killing terrorists only makes them stronger.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: And that's exactly the problem with the War on Terror. Killing terrorists only makes them stronger.
Do we negotiate with them? How do you negotiate with someone who's stated goal is to kill you and wipe you from the Earth?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd just like to ask Xavier what his definition of "evil" is that would make it not applicable to a terrorist.
Are you using a definition that inherently includes an appeal to theism?
I agree that it is wrong to label someone as anything that allows you to dehumanize them, but I don't think that's inherent in the use of the word "evil" in describing someone's actions (or even their personality, if you can gain enough insight to make a valid judgement). Humans by their very nature are capable of great good and great evil. We do ourselves a disservice by ignoring this and equating the identification of evil with a declaration that the one so labeled is no longer human. This is wrong whether done by the user of the word "evil" or by the people who think it's a reason to never use the word.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And that's exactly the problem with the War on Terror. Killing terrorists only makes them stronger.
I think this is patently untrue, besides being an overly simplistic platitude. Killing terrorists makes them dead. Dead terrorists do not commit terrorist acts, and nobody is inspired by martyrdom unless they have already bought into the cause.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Presenting both sides does not have to include rationalizing and excusing terrorism. Does it?
Well that depends. I think describing the reasons why the terrorists are, well, terrorists is pretty essential to depicting them as human beings.
They aren't animals, they aren't "evil", and they aren't insane.
I'm sorry, Xavier, but I think you're wrong. I think that there are certain things that are beyond the pale. Things that are so inherently evil that understanding the reasons why they were done is absolutely irrelevant.
A terrorist sets a roadside charge and waits for a children's schoolbus to come by, at which point he blows the charge.
It doesn't matter if he did it for nationalistic reasons. It doesn't matter if he did it because he had a personal grudge against someone. It doesn't matter if he was paid to do it, or threatened into doing it. It doesn't matter if he's rich or poor or middle-class. It doesn't matter what he thought the result would be or who he is. Nothing in the whole wide universe matters. Such actions are evil. They are insane.
People who do such things should be shot down, like dogs. The only reason they should even get a trial is in order to ascertain that they committed the act.
What you are saying, Xavier, is part of a sickness which is afflicting our society. The idea that even the most horrendous violations of human conduct still demand that we look at the root causes. That it's incumbant upon us to remove those root causes, in order to prevent terrorists from committing such actions.
But you haven't thought it through. I don't think you are intending to justify these actions. I really don't. I don't think you're evil, and you'd have to be evil to try and justify them. But I think that despite your intent, what you are saying is, in the end, an attempt to justify such acts.
The moment you say that you need to remove the causes of people committing acts of irredeemable evil, you are, in effect, conceding that those causes are the problem. They are not. It sends the message that the causes are the issue. They are not. The issue is that there are limits to what human beings can do before we say they have crossed an uncrossable line. People who do such things need to die. They need to be vomited out of the human race. They are a sickness.
The term "terrorism" gets used loosely. Is capturing two enemy combatants terrorism? I don't think so. I think that was an act of war. Is firing rockets into inhabited areas indescriminately, without even having a target other than "somewhere there are civilians" terrorism? It most certainly is. Is walking into a pizza shop and blowing yourself and the patrons to pieces terrorism? Anyone who doesn't think so needs psychiatric help.
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Pretending they are not real people with real reasons, I believe, is counter-productive to stopping them.
Pretending that they are entitled to do what they do so long as those reasons exist is immoral. It is not evil in the sense that the terrorists themselves are evil, but it is morally depraved.
By putting everything in terms of pragmatism -- by saying that practically speaking, removing the causes could remove the actions (even though this theory has been disproven time and again) -- you ignore the basic issue of morality. You put forward a morally depraved view of humanity that says that all that matters is the pragmatic. Forget that these people are perpetrating acts of stunning evil. That's too uncomfortable an idea for us to consider. It would lay a responsibility upon us to wipe out that evil, and we haven't done something like that since WWII. Let's just not go there. Instead, let's see how we can avoid the problem to begin with. Never mind that this is -- in every way -- rewarding the terrorists for their acts of evil. Never mind that the message it sends is: "We can do vile and atrociously evil things, and you will give us what we want in order to stop us."
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: You must understand your enemy to defeat them.
Would you have applied that to WWII? The Nazis wanted to kill every single Jew, Gypsy and homosexual (just to pick three examples) in the entire world, and rule the entire world. They made no bones about this. How exactly would "understanding" the Nazis have made it possible to defeat them? How would anything other than smashing them have prevented their evil intent?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I think the vast majority of those considered "evil" by those who believe in the concept are better considered "sick in the head" (child molesters, serial killers, etc) or are "fanatics" (terrorists, nazis, etc).
Saying that "fanaticism" is a bad thing is lame. It's like saying that being fanatic about being good is the same as being fanatic about being bad.
And insanity doesn't make evil any less evil.
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: (starLisa does the same sort of dehumanizing dismissal, except that she calls her enemies both "evil" and "animals", stripping them of any humanity whatsoever.)
That's a bald faced lie. Granted, it's Lyrhawn's lie, which he's repeated over and over, but that doesn't justify your repetition of it. Evil they are. Animals can't be evil. It's the very fact that they are human beings, and are able to choose, and that they choose evil, which is why they need to be destroyed.
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: It is awfully hard work to try and understand your enemy. Instead of going through the difficulty of understanding them, it is far easier to label them "evil", and then their actions make sense.
On the contrary. It's awfully hard work to actually confront evil. Instead of going through the difficulty of shouldering that responsibility, it's far easier to simply reject any such concept and limit things to pramatism.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy:
quote:Often times it sure helps to understand the enemy. But also, a well placed bullet or smart bomb does the trick too, whether or not you intimately understand them.
And that's exactly the problem with the War on Terror. Killing terrorists only makes them stronger.
Actually, it makes them dead. There are no recorded instances (Buffyverse notwithstanding) of a terrorist who was killed committing further acts of evil.
quote: quote:Originally posted by Xavier: (starLisa does the same sort of dehumanizing dismissal, except that she calls her enemies both "evil" and "animals", stripping them of any humanity whatsoever.)
starLisa: That's a bald faced lie. Granted, it's Lyrhawn's lie, which he's repeated over and over, but that doesn't justify your repetition of it. Evil they are. Animals can't be evil. It's the very fact that they are human beings, and are able to choose, and that they choose evil, which is why they need to be destroyed.
quote:"Fair"? You're actually concerned about what would be a "fair term" to use for animals who deliberately murder innocents?
I wouldn't call it a bald faced lie. I'd call it an interpretation of your well-known positions that isn't flattering.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your clarifications are sparkled with such phrases as, "People who do such things should be shot down, like dogs."
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's correct. "Like". People who do such things should be eliminated, the same way you'd eliminate a rabid dog. Except that you could spare a rabid dog some sympathy, since it's not at fault. These people are, and deserve nothing but a quick death.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then it doesn't make sense for you to call anyone evil. Others disagree with this on a fundamental level.
What is clear is that you have little understanding of the beliefs of many who do believe that evil people exist. For example, you suggest that calling someone evil is "[p]retending they are not real people with real reasons."
I don't know anyone who thinks that evil people exist who do not also think that those evil people are real or that they do not have reasons for their actions.
Perhaps you might do more good, then, to specify how and to what degree Xavier's assumptions about those who believe in evil are wrong, rather than to rather condescendingly dismiss his point of view because you feel you know of specific examples to which it does not apply.
There are some assumptions and generalizations inherent in most forms of discourse; they don't have to cause everything to grind to a halt. Indeed, to Xavier's view, "evil" itself would seem to be one such generalization.
For the record, I do believe in evil, on an individual level. To me, it's the point at which a continuing set of actions is so hateful and destructive that there ceases to be a point in attempting to understand and reform, and one must simply remove or destroy before further harm can be done.
An event came up in a philosophy discussion long ago, in which a young man fought with a group of muggers to allow his girlfriend to get away. The muggers, repeat petty criminals, beat him so badly the man had brain damage. Some in the discussion felt that it was necessary to understand the muggers' backgrounds and sympathize. I simply felt it was necessary to remove the muggers from society so they couldn't halt the productive life of anyone else.
That said, it is extremely dangerous to feel one can apply the title of evil to entire groups of people, can use it as some sort of sociological stamp, can use it to justify war and all its destructive power and loss of innocent life. At least, "evil" alone.
I thought Xavier made many good points in his original post.
(...And then ya had to go and torque starLisa off. Keed, ya gotta learn. )
EDIT to add:
quote:Do we negotiate with them? How do you negotiate with someone who's stated goal is to kill you and wipe you from the Earth?
I believe the usual hawk reply to this goes something like "You don't negotiate with terrorists, it just encourages them that their tactics are having the desired effect."
They've got a point.
However, you can do a lot with humanitarian work to eliminate the ability of terrorists to recruit, and a lot of the tactics of those we call terrorists are highly dependent on a limitless supply of manpower to draw on. The United States is making some efforts in this direction; unfortunately, it's a tiny fraction compared to what we're spending on aggressive military interventions in Iraq, or even Afghanistan. Someone who's seen a U.S. army engineer drill a well for their village is a lot less likely to believe a recruiter who calls that engineer's country an infidel oppressor.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
, can't seem to check my facts. Jeff Gannon apparently worked for "Talon News", really a psudonym for GOP USA; when he lied he lied about both his name and the fact that he worked for a legit news agency instead of an advocacy group (GOP USA). ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
