Thoughts on how to really defeat terrorism- an essay from the heart

[Kashyapa]

Skeptic- just to go off topic for a moment, I'd like to say that your signature kicks ass.

 

[Tony]

Prove that I'm wrong. Tell me when your way is going to work. I've presented you with evidence straight from our enemy's poison pen that refutes that they hate us strictly because we have democracy. Tell me when it is that war is finally going to start bringing about peace. I said it before and I'll say it again: put up or shut up, you noisy little boy-man who can't express himself without sounding like a furious ten-year-old. If you must insult me, please try to think of something other than "bedwetter." It's getting old.

Ive noticed you like to dodge rational thought, and once again you dont let me down.

Im not doing anything until you address the points made on this thread.

 

[jimmygun]

When will war end? Never. Not soon, not later, not years but never. There will always be someone who wants to tell someone else what to do. There will always be someone who wants what you have, no matter how much they have themselves. There will always be someone who likes to see others suffer. There will always be someone who is willing to kill everyone around them to get what they want.

End? Never. Accept it, get past it. Pull your head out of your rectum and look around.

 

[Kashyapa]

Ah, an answer. Thank you. You're damn right it won't end, the way we're going. It's an endless and vicious circle. There is no outcome besides more war that can possibly be envisioned- under the current system. This indicates to me that the current system will do nothing but continue to create bloodshed and turmoil and death until the end of the world. And you have the lunacy, the raving, mad-dog, irrational doublethink insanity, to tell me that this is the best way to go about things? That this is somehow the best we can do? That this is all humanity is capable of? How sad.

Has it ever occurred to any of you mad dogs that perhaps the reason that dictators keep popping up is because we- meaning the superpowers of the past and present- create them? That we let our corporations (profit-mad leeches that they are) do business with them and rebuild them when we take out our trash, that we fund them and arm them (Saddam's Iraq, pre and even post-Shah Iran, we avert our eyes when they oppress their people (China, Cambodia, Sudan, etc)? We don't give a s--t about anything but our power and our profits, and we manipulate and bomb and jack over the world at will in our ham-handed attempts to make it all work in America's favor. And it never really does, does it? As long as they're our bastards, we're okay with them, but then the bastards get too powerful and uppity. And then we have to deal with our messes (Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, Somalia, Vietnam), while our country's economy drags slowly into the ground and our culture gets sicker and sicker. America and the West- because we're joined in our obsession with world manipulation by our illustrious forebears the USSR Britain, France, Germany, Spain, and Portugal- need to realize that they are the true and lasting cause of world turmoil. Why? Because they believe that they're best, that they deserve to control the world because it's their righteous duty, their White Man's Burden, to civilize the entire world in their image. America is not the be-all end-all of the world, and we have to realize that the world would be much better off if we stopped trying to force our will on it. We're like the king ordering the tide not to come in and getting soaked anyway- we need to realize that we are not the king of the world but a part of it, and that the divisions between citizens of different countries and cultures are not as valid as they seem.

It seems as if you're all very shortsighted. You only see the nasty little moles, popping out of their holes and needing to be whacked, losing sight of the fact that it's our quarters that keep them popping up.

And of course you all are going to start puling and bitching that I'm full of s--t and a bedwetter, and Tony's going to rev up his adolescent temper, and I'll be told to take my head out of my rectum some more. All on the assumption that we're the best, that we have to be the cop, that of course we need to manipulate the world into doing what we want or else- oh dear god- America might not be as powerful! We might not be the ultimate cultural and political authority of the world, we might not be able to muscle the world into doing what's best for our interests (i.e. our corporations and the governement that loves them). And I'll be called a traitor, and a commie, and an anti-American, and to go back to my country, and all the other aggro America-first, "onward Christian soldiers", myopic neo-conservative crap that gets slung around by those who are too addicted to the status quo.

"It's just how the world works, you naive bedwetter," you say. That's how we regarded child labor and slavery and women's voting rights in this country, too. And eventually, people belatedly realized how nuts it was, how unworkable, how completely derogatory and nonsensical it was, and we changed it. I hope the same thing happens with war, and then eventually all violence. I share the hope of Gandhi and King, both men more spiritual and intelligent and perceptive than anyone pro-war has ever been, the hope that eventually "we ain't gonna study war no more". Their ways of life and thought were difficult, requiring a s--tload of realism and brutal self-honesty and fortitude and patience and love. They required perception, open minds and open hearts. They worked their asses off, both dying for their causes, slain by men who clung to their delusions the way you cling to yours. But they eventually triumphed, and they did what they did without a single soul on the "other side" dying.

So have fun with your righteous words of hate and violence, your souls escaping from your mouths with every twisted word. I don't hate or even dislike you, but I do hate how you've been twisted and manipulated to think that this way of thought is somehow superior. Meanwhile, I'll be outside, playing with my dog, and probably go rock climbing for a while. I'll incorporate as much peace and love into my life as possible, try to make the world a better place in my own small way, trying to outweigh the righteous, dogmatic anger that people like you pump into a world that has had too much of it. Peace out.

 

[DrBenway]

And meanwhile, I'll be outside, playing with my dog, and probably go rock climbing for a while.

Good for you.

Narcissistic personality disorder, a diagnosis that fits a great many world leaders, appears to be a function of nature more than nurture. Psychiatrists do not know how to effectively treat this condition. In some cases, therapy has simply resulted in making narcissists better at lying and manipulating others.

I imagine that narcissists have their ecological niche to fulfill, as do sharks, mosquitos, and other of God's creatures. Like sharks, they're best appreciated from a distance. Like sharks, sometimes you have to kill them.

 

[Kashyapa]

One last before I go outside.

Your points were reasonable, kind, and well-put, not to mention accurate. Thank you!

I have no quarrel with dealing with the occasional megalomaniac. That would help keep the world at a peaceful equilibrium, if the world was already at that state. I don't apologize for Saddam or his evil. But his evil was really ours. If he had arisen on his own, and the world had, with consensus and after a full round of sincere diplomatic attempts, decided to remove him, I would have no problem. However, he was installed, funded, and armed by us because we were obsessed with countering the allatollahs of Iran and needed a friendly strongman to take out the trash. The allatollahs rose to power because of widespread disgust with the Shah, the Saddam of his time and country, who was a complete bastard, who we likewise armed and helped. Again, dealing with an isolated shark is different from perpetuating a vicious cycle.

Thanks for your comments and civility.

 

[Skeptic]

I said it before and I'll say it again: put up or shut up, you noisy little boy-man who can't express himself without sounding like a furious ten-year-old.

Uh-huh. Okay, who ELSE thinks this guy is just a troll?

(Good one, though. Had me fooled for a while...)

 

[jimmygun]

Kashyapa...Did you lock your door when you went out to throw rocks at your dog? Well didja punk? Why? Because there is no trust in your fellow man is there? You don't trust your own bullsh*t long enough to walk out your front door. Who the hell do you think keeps you and Susan Sarandon safe? Your beliefs that everything is beautiful except for the rotten government that will force the burglar to steal your ◊◊◊◊? Again, pull out your noggin and have a real look around.

By the way...how much do you wish to spend for a gallon of gasoline? Or will you boycott the war by never buying gas again, or plastic products, or food you didn't grow yourself. Will you trade your trip to the rock face for one day to feed someone in Ethiopia for a month? Would you get rid of your dog and send the money you spend on upkeep to India where it will keep a family of four going for ten years?

When you got back from your trip did you turn on the lights and expect the dark to disappear? Did you adjust the heat or A/C to make yourself comfy? Did you go to the fridge expecting your SunnyDelight to be there to quench your thirst? Do you expect all the good life to be there without some sacrifice on someone's part? While you got your head out of your ass read my signiture...it will explain something about what goes on in the world.

 

[Kashyapa]

And what, precisely, is your point? Everyone is dependent on each other? Terriffic, you've just gotten at one of the great truths of Buddhism. That's why we should put more love and trust and peace into ourselves and our relationships. Way to prove my point for me.

I didn't lock my door. I live in a good neighborhood, and I generally assume that it'll be safe. Unlike you, I generally assume that I can trust people- until they prove themselves to be untrustworthy. As for the "burglar", he's just tainted by our society- I hold all of us responsible for the acts of one. The whole village raising a child thing.

I don't really care what we pay for gas. We shouldn't use it anyway. Better and cleaner forms of energy out there. Same for petroleum-based plastics. We can make better polymers out of soy and corn, for crying out loud. I use as little petroleum-based materials as possible out of social responsibility. I ride a bike most everywhere, and my car is a diesel Jetta wagon. 47mpg, baby. I fill up once every week and a half at most.

As for my willingness to sacrifice, I travel to India every year to teach English and help create parkland in the town of Dharmsala, way up in the north, in the Himalayan foothills. That's where one of your enemies, the Dalai Lama, lives. I spend around 5k for a ticket, and generally donate money and time when I'm there. I also give generously to several worthy charities, and I volunteer at a hospital and do volunteer consultant work with the Colorado 14ers initiative. My entire life's work centers around conservation efforts in the neotropical rainforests of Central and South America. And I do it while still providing for my dog. Wonder of the world.

My point is not that I'm a good person, but rather that your assumptions and flaming are out of line and completely inaccurate. You made a whole line of unfounded assumptions, and expressed them without a modicum of grace or civility.

Skeptic- If anyone's a troll, it's you and Tony. All you two can talk about is my being a bedwetter, and your posts have been abusive and deeply unpleasant. The force of your hatred and anger is evident straight through your computer screen. All I've ever advocated is acceptance, peace, and goodwill. I've pointed out how puerile and adolescent your behavior is, but nothing else. I disagree with you, but I do it respectfully. How, precisely, does that make me (and not you) a troll?

I notice you still can't come up with an answer to my question, either. *chirp chirp chirp* And another thing- why does this piss you off so much? Everybody's responding to me like a mad dog, and they've been doing so since way before I called them on it earlier today. What makes you so angry about my advocating peace?

 

[egslim]

In their treaty the Axis powers, Germany, Italy and Japan had already divided up the world. Germany would get the western part of Eurasia, Japan the east. Italy was to have Africa. After the attack on Pearl Harbor the Japanese started planning for a future invasion of the US.
What do you think would have happened if the western democracies and te SU would have used their defence budget to build schools in Germany?

Three other points. A few weeks ago I was cycling home at night through a decent neighbourhood, just minding my own business. Some guy steps on the road in front of me, tells me to stop. I just ignore him and try to go around. So he gives a kick against my bicycle.
Now explain to me why he did that and what I could have done to avoid it.

Couple of years ago, a similar thing happened. That guy didn't say anything, just suddenly stepped onto the road and gave me push. I fell from my bike and almost ended up in the water.
Now explain to me why he did that and what I could have done to avoid it.

For years, there was a guy who always slapped me in the neck. Tried everything from talking to him, ignoring him and avoiding him. Nothing worked. The one thing that did eventually work was when I slapped him in the neck. After that, it never happened again.

The point is that there are people who are aggressive just for the fun of it. If they get in power in some country there is no reason why they shouldn't just continue their hobby - and indeed, history has proved this is the case. Germany and Italy were democracies before Hitler and Mussolini got into power.

Evil is allowed to survive because good men do nothing.
Don't know where that comes from, but it is a good one.

 

[Kashyapa]

See what I said to Dr. Benway a few posts ago. I've essentially already addressed your points. If that post doesn't answer what you're getting at, let me know.

Thanks to you, too, for a reasonable and polite argument. There are far too few of them in this thread.

 

[egslim]

I have no quarrel with dealing with the occasional megalomaniac. That would help keep the world at a peaceful equilibrium, if the world was already at that state.

Why do you believe a peaceful world would be in equilibrium?

I don't see any reason why that would be the case.

From a physical point of view, if a system is isolated it will eventually come into equilibrium by itself. This is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The way we have been going the past 2000 years I don't see us heading to a perfectly peaceful world. And people like you have been around for a long time. So if we're not heading there automatically, it doesn't seem te be an equilibrium.

From a psychological point of view, if we had perfect peace on Earth, people would stop appreciating it. Think about it, it's true for everything else we have achieved. So certain people would start yearning for the adventure and the glamour of war. Even now, peace isn't the highest goal for many people.

From a biological point of view, no animal lives in peace. They all compete with their others of their own and other species to pass as many of their genes as possible. Stealing each others food, etc. Cheating, threatening and violence are part of their repetoir, and it's part of us being Homo Sapiens. So is working together. Working together on violence is quite similar to starting a war.

 

[Kashyapa]

So do you think that violence is sort of the baseline state for existence? I actually wouldn't rule that out, at least in the form of ecological competition...but I do think, still, that there's a difference between that and how we wage war now. War today isn't to ensure national or species survival, and even less so personal survival. It's nationalistic fanaticsim, power, profit motive. We don't have to hunt for meat- in fact, it's arguable that humans don't need meat at all- and we are sentient. That means that, even if violence is a component of our collective psyche, we can choose a better way that is more conducive to species survival. And it can be argued that rape and female abuse exists in the natural world (and our own ancestral past), and it happens in all sorts of animals. That doesn't mean it's what's best for the species or best for its continued survival, and it doesn't mean that we have to do it too. We're the only animals intelligent enought to make the choice. And our intelligence has brought us to the point that the choice needs to be made.

 

[jimmygun]

Kashyapa...I guess I owe you an apology. I did pre judge you. I didn't realize what kind of a saint you are. Shall I call you Mother Kashyapa?

You trust everyone, you don't polute, you travel thousands of miles to help the underprivilaged, you rock climb. Wow. Sounds too good to be true doesn't it?

Pushed the wrong button. Edited to add...

Can you heal the sick, raise the dead and make the little girls talk outa their head?

Can I ask one more question? Are your eyes brown?

 

[Kashyapa]

You're right. You do owe me an apology- a sincere one. The only reason I brought up thost parts of my life is because you attacked me out of hand for daring to disagree with you. You and Tony could have took the high ground and offered well-reasoned points in a civil and reasonable tone. Instead, you attacked me and my ideas like a pair of rabid hyenas, shrill and profane, full of false patriotism and jingoism.
You imply that I'm bragging, that I expect to be venerated for my holiness. I'm not and I don't. I'm not a saint; I don't work miracles. I simply do what I am obligated to do as a Buddhist, a human being with a social conscience, and an ounce of compassion. Perhaps it's incomprehensible to you, but this is how normal, compassionate people act. Perhaps they don't travel thousands of miles, but everyone I know who's in touch with what it is to be a social human being does something for their fellow humans. I work for peace because it's the only way out. There are many millions who live the same way I do- I'm not special, I'm not alone, and I'm not some righteous nutcase. I'm not too good to be true. I do what I do in anonymity- except when I have to mention it to defend myself- and I do it simply because it's the right thing to do, because if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

And no, they're blue. Wrong again. Perhaps you should try to look outside your habitual hostile distrust of everyone, hmm? I'll ask again- what makes you so angry about what I'm saying? Disagree with me or not, your anger is absolutely baffling.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Total non-violence doesn't work -- because there are indeed men like Hitler out there. However...

A little detour.

Dawkins, in his book "The Selfish gene", wrote a little about how game theory affects evolution, and evolved action policies of different species. He gave examples of an environment populated by two kinds of action agents -- let's call them "doves" and "hawks". When two individuals meet, they act according to their nature: doves posture but retreat under threat of violence (so a dove/dove encounter ends with a random victory, but doves always lose to hawks), and a hawk always fights (so a hawk will always win over a dove, but will fight to bitter end with another hawk). Dawkin's point is that there is a natural equilibrium, at which point the average value of being a dove (rarely winning, but never getting hurt) is exactly the same as the vaue of being a hawk (often winning, but also getting hurt a lot). At this point, th eutility value for both doves and hawks is pretty low; but the system is not open to abuse, as nobody will benefit by adopting the other kind's policy.

In a society of all doves, the average utility value is much higher -- each dove wins half the time, and nobody gets hurt; but in a society of all doves, a hawk rules, so such a system is open to abuse. Similarly, in a society of all ahwks, a single dove will get ahead -- he will never win, but he won't get hurt either, like hawks would all the time.

BUT... things change when you introduce a new type -- retaliator. A retaliator never intitates hostilities, but always defends against such; so a retaliator acts as a dove against doves, and as a hawk against hawks. A society of all retaliaors has as good an average utility as the society of all doves, but it's not open to abuse by hawks.

We should be retaliators; but the key to being a retaliator is not initiating aggression. We should have fought back against Hitler, for example -- but in Iraq case, Iraq wasn't attacking. People who complain that peaceful aspirations would lead us to ignore the existence of evil men and women in the world, themselves ignore the fact that we can seek peace and not attack anyone, but still defend against aggression -- and only defend.

 

[Kashyapa]

God, I read that book so long ago I didn't remember it at all. What a magnificent point. As I remember, Dawkins noted that it was the most stable strategy in an ecological sense. Thank you very much for reminding me of that! I'll have to pick that one up and read it again. And you're absolutely right- pacifism with strength is another way I've heard it described. I believe Gandhi mentioned this idea too, but I don't remember where or what the quote was. That book was one of the best works of evolutionary psychology I've ever read- and Dawkins is truly one of the great minds of our times. I rank him up there with Hawking, Stephen Jay Gould, and Asimov.

 

[egslim]

So do you think that violence is sort of the baseline state for existence? I actually wouldn't rule that out, at least in the form of ecological competition...but I do think, still, that there's a difference between that and how we wage war now. War today isn't to ensure national or species survival, and even less so personal survival. It's nationalistic fanaticsim, power, profit motive.

There really isn't a difference between ecological competition and the reasons why we wage war. You've said it yourself, it's (among others) for national power and profit. A rich and mighty nation is in general better able to provide for it's own inhabitants, thereby enabling them to pass on more of their genes. Compare it with the way wolfpacks, gorilla's and lions compete for territory. That's the same, just on a smaller scale.

Second, you haven't adressed my point that people would stop appreciating peace if there were no war anywhere.

As for the squirrel you shot, it wasn't just an innocent animal. It was competing for as much live recources - food and shelter - as it could get, completely neglecting the needs of other squirrels and the organisms he killed.
But this animal was stupid enough to get shot by a 10 year old amateur hunter. Think about it, part of being fit for survival is to notice and identify danger if it arrives. This squirrel simply failed that test. Which was fortunate for the other squirrels, who could find more food and shelter after that.

 

[egslim]

We should be retaliators; but the key to being a retaliator is not initiating aggression. We should have fought back against Hitler, for example -- but in Iraq case, Iraq wasn't attacking. People who complain that peaceful aspirations would lead us to ignore the existence of evil men and women in the world, themselves ignore the fact that we can seek peace and not attack anyone, but still defend against aggression -- and only defend.

One practical problem with the implementation of this is how to recognize aggression. Very few people recognized Hitler as an aggressor before '39. What makes you think we won't make that mistake again?
In the case of Iraq, have we recognized a dangerous aggressor in advance and stopped him in time (like Hitler in '36), or did we unnecessary attack a country that would never have been dangerous to another country again? It is simply impossible to prove the answer to that question.
One thing about aggressors is that will try not to look like aggressors, if that'll save them from being pounded on. They will just wait untill the time comes when they feel having a chance to be succesful.

 

[Kashyapa]

There really isn't a difference between ecological competition and the reasons why we wage war. You've said it yourself, it's (among others) for national power and profit. A rich and mighty nation is in general better able to provide for it's own inhabitants, thereby enabling them to pass on more of their genes. Compare it with the way wolfpacks, gorilla's and lions compete for territory. That's the same, just on a smaller scale.

Second, you haven't adressed my point that people would stop appreciating peace if there were no war anywhere.

As for the squirrel you shot, it wasn't just an innocent animal. It was competing for as much live recources - food and shelter - as it could get, completely neglecting the needs of other squirrels and the organisms he killed.
But this animal was stupid enough to get shot by a 10 year old amateur hunter. Think about it, part of being fit for survival is to notice and identify danger if it arrives. This squirrel simply failed that test. Which was fortunate for the other squirrels, who could find more food and shelter after that.

1. Right. But cooperation is a better way to get what you want. There's a process called reciprocal altruism that holds true in this case. You give something to someone else, that person reciprocates (maybe not immediately, or maybe indirectly), everyone comes out even. That's how a lot of ecological interactions go. Wolves, gorillas, etc, all operate under a retaliator principle, not unbridled aggression. They will retaliate (usually using displays, not outright aggression and violence) only if directly attacked, otherwise they maintain peace with their neighbors. Resource competition in most species is through physical prowess and ability. Competition rarely results in direct, outright death for one side; death is usually meted out through starvation, lack of territory, or some other resource. Competition is a normal and completely natural thing, but it is rarely violent. It either results in specialization- one side evolves to occupy a slightly different niche, lessening competition- or extinction from the means I discussed. Incidentally, I believe that this can happen with memes as well as genes- memes being ideas that are passed around and evolved. The retaliator meme is stronger and more sustainable than the hawk meme- and I believe that as it is propagated, the hawk meme will die out just like a maladaptive gene.

2. The squirrel was a good competitor. It's hard for a species to foresee the possibility of a chunk of lead flying out from left field and hitting it. This is not a commonplace selection pressure on squirrels, and it was simply not equipped to defend against a pellet gun. It had adapted to humans, who didn't usuallly strike out with projectiles from a hundred feet away, and it had no way to know that this one was going to do so. I don't regard that as a failure.

3. Your thought that people would stop appreciating peace was interesting. I think it would be analogous to child labor in the US- your average ten year old doesn't thank God every day that he doesn't have to work in a coal mine. However, that right is protected by laws, and it is commonly brought up in history classes and the History Channel. Same thing with slavery. Maybe it's not appreciated fully, but it's still a part of our culture to educate and inform and hopefully avert it in the future. The same thing would likely hold true in the generations after peace took hold.

4. People recognized Hitler as a bad guy pretty early on. There were of course the ones who turned a blind eye, but there were many observers who were warning the world even before he started aggression. I don't really know how we'd get around this-especially if peace were commonplace, and people were exceedingly reluctant to go to war. That's a good question that I don't have a definitive answer for. Perhaps a government agency or UN office would sort of serve as the watchdog, to keep tabs. It'd be hard to do anything with somebody until they did something- just as in the justice system, we have to assume non-culpability until proof of guilt exists. Pre-emptive war is one of the evils I'd like to see exorcized, just like we can't arrest someone without reasonable suspicion and we can't convict without proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There cannot be a double standard.

You've raised some good points. I think they can be adjusted for, if peace is really a priority in the world.