[extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies

[Samantha Atkins]

On Jun 24, 2004, at 11:50 AM, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>
> Ok, [1] looks to be interesting as a publication by someone
> from inside the CIA as an "anonymous" author.
>
> Basic contention the "war on terrorism" is failing because
> we (in the west) do not recognize that it is a war by a
> "worldwide Islamic insurgency".  (This echos some of the
> comments by Friedman in the NY Times.)


It isn't unless folks like you (and those with power who agree with 
you) push it hard enough as being such.   If you talk blithely about 
blowing up holy sites of religion X then you had better believe the 
people practicing religion X will en masse see you as the Great Satan.

>
> Now I know some of you are going to dislike the following
> (probably intensely) so do not bother to send the list
> (or myself) hate mail for bringing it up.  It is my job
> (IMO) to think outside the box.
>

It is also your job to be a responsible rational human being.  Let us 
see if you succeed in that.

> One currently sees people being kidnapped and beheaded,
> suicide bombings, etc. in the name of either various
> religions, political causes related to religions
> (e.g. Sunni vs. Shiite, Jews vs. Palestinians) or
> race/tribe (Sudan: Arabs (Janjaweed) massacre/rape black
> Africans in Darfur, Rawanda, etc.)
>

One also currently sees the US having invaded Iraq for spurious reasons 
and behaving quite abominably (including torture).    One sees Israel 
on a rampage of oppression of its Palestinian sub population using 
equipment paid for by the US.   Is it really all that surprising that a 
lot of Arab people are extremely upset and that some of them are not 
above employing terror in response?   Does one need to posit some mass 
Islamic war against the West to understand the events of the day?

> Proposed utilitarian solution: eliminate the points for
> discussion.
>
> e.g. For Muslim radicals:
> Nuke Medina, Messina, Faluja and Najaf.

This is utter moral depravity of the worse sort!   This is far, far 
worse than terrorism.  It is destroying the holy sites of a religion 
because some terrorists happen to practice that religion and partially 
use their interpretation thereof to justify their actions.   From a 
"utilitarian" pov such an action would lead to nothing but much worse 
and vastly more justified hatred of the US/West and far worse violence. 
   If the US committed such an act I would take up arms against it 
myself!

> e.g. For Jews & Palestinians:
> Nuke Jerusalem.
> e.g. For Sudan
> Nuke the city with the greatest population of prejudiced Arabs.
>

Is the extent of your vast reasoning powers to nuke the hell out of 
anyone that bothers you?  Do you dare pretend to be the voice of 
reasoned or dispassionate discourse with such hideous and utterly 
immoral "talking points"?

This is not the first time you have practiced such literally krap 
spewing onto this list.  It has been addressed before with various 
levels of patience, alarm, reaction, reason and so on.  Apparently you 
have refused to learn a damned thing.


> No debate, no long drawn out discussions, no attempting to
> come to terms.  Its either "Stop the violence or suffer
> the consequences".  (And in this case the group with the
> bigger stick wins).
>

What of our own violence and the violence of those we support in that 
region?   Is our violence ok because we wield he biggest stick?


> Of course, this could be done "creatively" so as to
> minimize cost in terms of human lives (i.e. you drop
> a nuke in a non-populated zone 100 miles from the
> target a few weeks in advance of date one drops it on
> the target).  But there are advantages and disadvantages
> to this approach.
>
> Now, I don't want to see a long drawn out discussion as to
> why this is wrong.  It is fundamentally the problem that
> parents must deal with when their children are behaving in a
> way that is either harmful to themselves or harmful to others.
> If it is clear that the problem cannot be corrected through
> normal methods of feedback is it necessary to eliminate the
> causes for the misbehavior or make it clear that the
> consequences for misbehavior will be very severe.

You sound precisely like the terrorist that you claim your "solutions" 
are a reasonable answer to.

>
> In particular I would like to see reasoned and/or analytical
> arguments that above approach would or would not result in
> a) A greater loss of humanity than proceeding along the path
>    we are currently on (some convoluted combination of
>    negotiation and intervention on a case by case basis where
>    the criteria [depending upon the country] seem to be highly
>    variable.]

You have not started with remotely reasoned or extropic or humane 
suggestions.  So why would I wish to argue the point according to some 
twisted notion of rationality that allows you to propose such in the 
first place while feigning innocence?   You are proposing mass 
slaughter and genocide against a world religion.   This is not 
something I consider in the realm where reasoned discussion is 
possible.


>
- samantha