Tempering Emotion with Reason

[jcoiii]

This latest development in the War on Terrorism (the airline attacks which were stopped in case anyone is not aware yet) has started me thinking again. Each time some act of terrorism is stopped, or worse, occurs, my initial reaction is something akin to "why don't we just kill them all?" With the media's general reluctance to actually call terrorists "Islamic extremists" or any other monaker which would denote the typical creed and/or ethnicity of the overwhelming majority of terrorists, my backlash reaction is to say "stopping someone who matches the description of a terrorist is not profiling, it's investigating."

The part of me that cries out against these acts demands that those who would perpetrate them be found, by any means, and executed as quickly and cheaply as possible. This emotional side of me looks back to WWII to the internment camps and thinks, "Hmmm.... I wonder." The emotional side says "damnit, it's time to take some action before thousands or millions of freedom loving people everywhere are killed."

But this is where the reason kicks in. "Freedom loving." Can I really include myself in that category if I am willing to completely remove freedom and rights from a select class of people simply because others in that class of people are terrorists? My rational mind asks my roaring emotional mind, "Just how far would you go? Would you execute people just because they fit a profile? Would you allow a sham of a trial, and then execute them? Is it allowable for anyone who does not fall into the select class to apprehend and kill those who do?"

The emotional side replies that if nothing is done, everyone outside the select class will die. Then it gets tricky, because the emotional side uses reason. "Is it better that a small subgroup die, even if some are innocent? Or is it better that all those not in the subgroup die?" The emotional side attempts to persuade the reasoned mind to give over to the most machiavellian part of reason. And reason must consider it.

Reason responds with an emotional appeal. "Life, liberty, pursuit of happines. You feel... you believe that these apply to all. These words stir you to stand up for them. Would you put them aside so willingly?"

It goes on. Am I the only one? Apologies if this is off-topic, or if this is the wrong forum. But I do believe there is merit in this discussion.

 

[Redworm]

do these men match the description of a terrorist?

It is profiling. Profiling can be a very effective tool. The problem is that in this case it's counter-productive at worst and a waste of time at best. Had they been stopping everyone wearing a turban that day, nothing would have changed. Nothing.

"why don't we just kill them all?"

1. Because not all of "them" are terrorists anymore than you or I.

2. Because indiscriminate killing makes us no better. America relies heavily on its' high horse and genocide is probably not the best way to keep it.

 

[pitz96]

"Would you execute people just because they fit a profile?"

Actually, execution would be more humane than unending detention and torture. It's kind of like 'guilty until proven innocent', but there's no opportunity for proof without charges and trials.

Life is full of risks and while risk can be managed somewhat, it will never be eliminated entirely. How much freedom do we want to give up for an illusion of safety? Quite a bit, I suspect.

There's an old liberal saying I suspect everyone here will hate: "If you want peace, work for justice." Defining and meeting out justice is the tricky part, but unless opposing viewpoints are at least considered, things are truly hopeless. The steadfast refusal of many to see things from another's side (empathy) leaves only two options: live with the present situation or escalate the violence. "Kill them all and let God sort them out" is a time honored motto many find perfectly acceptable. No one does evil in their own mind, so demonizing entire religious or ethnic groups and suspected sympathizers (guilt by association) makes killing them seem justified.

 

[MeekAndMild]

pitz96 I wonder if you would be in such a dither of indecision if you were standing next to a fire ant bed. To gain some insight here I would invite you to read John Locke.

In the treatises on government Chapter III is pertinent
http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/gutenberg/etext05/trgov10.txt

Here is the opener of that chapter, found in Section 16

Sec. 16. THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and
therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a
sedate settled design upon another man's life, puts him in a state of war
with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has
exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one
that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being
reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which
threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man
being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved,
the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man
who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the
same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not
under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that
of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those
dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him
whenever he falls into their power.

Then read The Rights of Man by Thomas Paine.
http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/gutenberg/etext03/twtp210.txt

Further insight can be got by reading the section which starts:

All religions are in their nature kind and benign, and united with
principles of morality. They could not have made proselytes at first
by professing anything that was vicious, cruel, persecuting, or
immoral. Like everything else, they had their beginning; and they
proceeded by persuasion, exhortation, and example. How then is it
that they lose their native mildness, and become morose and
intolerant?

It proceeds from the connection which Mr. Burke recommends. By
engendering the church with the state, a sort of mule-animal, capable
only of destroying, and not of breeding up, is produced, called the
Church established by Law. It is a stranger, even from its birth, to
any parent mother, on whom it is begotten, and whom in time it kicks
out and destroys.

Once you've finished these two short readings I would ask you who will control these people who have vowed that all the Jews in Israel will be killed and that we will be killed along with them until that end is reached? Will any of their own step forward and say, "we will control them?" How can outsiders separate the ones who are at war with us from those who merely allow the war to continue unhindered? What answer is there to the earthly equivalant of the Borg who will require submission or death and no third alternative?

 

[Trip20]

Huh

So, there's an emotional side of you that wants to brush freedom aside for the sake of safety? This side must like the wire tapping and other such encroachment on our freedoms.

Then there's a reasonable side that calls your emotional side a hypocrite because you're supposedly freedom loving? This side must love that quote by Benjamine Franklin: "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."

My wife has this same conversation with herself while attempting to justify the purchase of an expensive pair of shoes. She's schizophrenic, but I digress.

All kidding aside - to help your emotional side understand how unreasonable it sounds, start applying the same rationale used by the emotional side to other things in your life, such as firearms, or any number of other things you currently enjoy as freedoms. Or, save yourself time and do some research into the Brady Campaign, et al. They've done the work for you.

Apparently the encroachment in recent months/years (i.e., wiretapping...) is not hitting home for you maybe due to a bit of the old "if you're not doing anything, you've nothing to hide" mentallity, I don't know you well enough to make that assumption but I'm throwing it out as a possibility.

 

[jcoiii]

Actually trip, what my rationalizations refer to is whether to outright kill these terrorists as quickly as possible, which would infringe on the rights of some within the same ethno-religious group.

Part of me says "well, if a few innocents within that group are killed, what is that to the thousands upon thousands of innocents outside that group who will be killed by those in the group?"

The other part of me says that those within the ethno-religious group of the terrorists that have nothing to do with terrorism should not have their rights infringed upon, no matter how many others it might save in the process. This is the ideal way to handle things, however it is not the most practical way to rid the world of terrorist.

I fall into the ideal category, where I believe that all people do have the right to life, liberty and property (and the pursuit of happiness as well). However, I do recognize that this is not likely to end the actions of this group of terrorists.

 

[gdm]

guilty as charged but learning.

give in to the dark side..you dont know the powwwwer.


you know,the day I saw 911 on the television, I was filled with such a rage, I was ready to find any way possable and go over there single handedly and personally hunt down who ever was responsable and anyone that was even remotely connected..the disgust of seeing it played on tv over and over and over & the deaths of innocents just took the cake.

over time, I began to mistrust all islamists..muslims..whatever.I admittadly fell into the hate em all routine but later, had an oppertunity to work with muslims and hear their side of it and took a course in cultural diversity and racism at the ohio state branch- the instructor had each of us place ourselves in a role that was subject to discrimination or racism and we each wrote a research paper no less than 10 pages covering every detail and aspect of that particuliar cultures beliefs and had to present a educational slide show with anything to familiarize folks with the culture we were given...(we got a different one every week. )and how they are affected-I felt embarassed at what I thought was true and now know otherwise.

the same could be said of loading your favorite gun into the car for a trip to the range.at first,I have gotten stares from neighboirs that made me feel like I just robbed a bank or something.It only takes a few minutes of ones time to go over and introduce ones-self,sit down and discuss and educate folks on actual truths vs myths of gun ownership.many many people believe everything that is spoon fed to them by the media...their friends and others who influence them.its much better for them to see both sides and draw their own conclusions.

 

[Trip20]

Well, jcoiii, I had enough understanding of your quandary that my observations still apply.

The other part of me says that those within the ethno-religious group of the terrorists that have nothing to do with terrorism should not have their rights infringed upon, no matter how many others it might save in the process.

Below, I'll take this same quote and make a couple substitutions so that the topic is changed from terrorists, to gun owners.

The other part of me says that those within the gun community that have nothing to do with unlawful use of firearms should not have their rights infringed upon, no matter how many others it might save in the process.

This is the part of you that is correct. That makes perfect sense! I like this side of you.

Now I'll take your emotional side’s comment and make a few substitutions as well:

Part of me says "well, if a few law-abiding gun owners within the gun community lose their freedom, what is that to the thousands upon thousands of innocents outside the gun community who will be killed by criminals with guns?"

The emotional side of you is quite in tune with anti-gun group raison d'être.

 

[Mannlicher]

When radical islamic terrorists stop fulfilling their promise to kill all the unbelievers, (thats us, in case you did not know), I might change my mind. Until then, so far as I can see, they are suspect. If CAIR and other spokespersons for the Muslim community (what ever that really is) did something positive they would lend credibility to the probibility that its only a small percentage of Muslims that are involved in radical Wahabi extremism. What they do is to never condem any act, no matter how barbaric, and always plead for understanding. The jury is out.................

 

[Heist]

jcoiii:

You are a human being enjoying our gift of rational thought and the ability to see multiple sides of an issue. Bloodlust to 'kill 'em all' hasn't taken over, and you aren't a 'they're poor misunderstood oppressed peoples' type either. Too many people take the easy, dumb route of going along with mobthink.

Keep it up and keep where you are pulled in different directions, and encourage others to do the same and we'll get a good world for our future kids yet.

 

[azurefly]

There's an old liberal saying I suspect everyone here will hate: "If you want peace, work for justice."

We are up against an enemy that is not angry at us because we deny it justice; it is angry at us because we are infidels. Because that is their reason for hating us, they cannot be pursuaded to not seek our destruction.

So justice or not, the islamofascist terrorist organizations in the world will never let us live in peace.


My own view lately mirrors the original poster's. I would side a bit more on the rage side, than the "oh, boy, what have we become if we do this" side. So sorry, but representatives of the islamic religion and culture are, indeed, the ones giving us these terrorism problems, and we are being out-and-out STUPID for stopping Grandma Pearl and telling her she can't have her knitting scissors or denture cream on the plane anymore.

Scoff at the simplistic nature of the observation if you want to, but we HAVE let the terrorists win. Now that so many aspects of how we live our lives have been forced to change, now that we have been told we are forbidden from doing a bunch of otherwise benign things just in case that's not coffee in that coffee cup you're taking onto your flight, we have capitulated to life on THEIR terms.

I find it unacceptable.

And I believe that it is largely to be blamed on the fact that we WILL NOT LET OURSELVES be as serious in the elimination of these people who refuse to leave us alone in peace as we need to be.

I may not sound it right now, but deep inside of me I am ENRAGED by the recent developments.


-azurefly

 

[Redworm]

How would you go about seriously eliminating the threat?

 

[Heist]

They hate us because we aid Israel, not because we have barbecues on the Fourth of July and have 'freedom'*.

To dilute that supremely important fact into a trite "they hate our freedom" line constructed for the masses of nascar couchdwellers with flags hanging in shreds off of their cars since 9/11 is to plant legs firmly and whizz all over our vital commitment to Israel's survival, along with transparently attempting to ward off examination of the results of our other foreign policies.


*Short lived though it may be.

 

[Hamhawk96R]

This struggle is age old. We had it during WWII. Certainly there were good Germans, maybe even good nazi's. There were also many good Japanese. No one will ever argue that fact. IT IS ALSO IRRELEVANT. Those good Germans and Japanese were either unable or unwilling (some of both, probably) to prevent those hell bent on murder from running those countries. We killed tens of thousands of civillians in both countries. We were not trying to but we did. And unfortunately in some cases, it was neccessary to bring those empires down.

There are many good muslims. No one will ever argue that fact. IT, TOO, IS ALSO IRRELEVANT. I don't want to "kill 'em all". I don't think we have to long as we consistently defeat our enemy. But when the 90% of "good" muslims stand up and protest against this madness, or rise up and sieze control of their prospective countries and stop trying to kill us because we don't believe like them, maybe then I'll feel bad about civillians we may accidentally kill during this war on terror. I don't like it but, better their scant few civillians than our thousands or millions.

 

[Hamhawk96R]

This struggle is age old. We had it during WWII. Certainly there were good Germans, maybe even good nazi's. There were also many good Japanese. No one will ever argue that fact. IT IS ALSO IRRELEVANT. Those good Germans and Japanese were either unable or unwilling (some of both, probably) to prevent those hell bent on murder from running those countries. We killed tens of thousands of civillians in both countries. We were not trying to but we did. And unfortunately in some cases, it was neccessary to bring those empires down.

There are many good muslims. No one will ever argue that fact. IT, TOO, IS ALSO IRRELEVANT. I don't want to "kill 'em all". I don't think we have to long as we consistently defeat our enemy. But when the 90% of "good" muslims stand up and protest against this madness, or rise up and sieze control of their prospective countries and stop trying to kill us because we don't believe like them, maybe then I'll feel bad about civillians we may accidentally kill during this war on terror. I don't like it but, better their scant few civillians than our thousands or millions.

 

[azurefly]

Actually trip, what my rationalizations refer to is whether to outright kill these terrorists as quickly as possible, which would infringe on the rights of some within the same ethno-religious group.

Part of me says "well, if a few innocents within that group are killed, what is that to the thousands upon thousands of innocents outside that group who will be killed by those in the group?"

I would add mention of the fact that if we cannot manage to either make peace with (not bloody likely) or decisively put down those who seek our destruction, they will continue to make life unlivable for us.

We are under constant threat from them, constant danger. This situation cannot sustain itself indefinitely without great strain on our society, and on the psyches of our people.

And here we are, taking ridiculous half-measures to "ensure safety" -- I have even seen people quoted as saying stuff about "FEELING safe"! To me that means they have given up on the notion of actually being safe, and will settle for just being able to live under the illusion that they are safe. :barf:

What our "leaders" have done in the b.s. effort to protect our society's members is force rules and restrictions on US! NONE of this reaches the murderous terrorists, nor does it infringe on their lives in any manner. They are already prepared to die if they cannot destroy us, as they are willing to die in the attempt. What does it matter to them if they cannot take coffee or useful items such as pocket knives onto a flight? What does it matter to them if someone in the government is treating them with suspicion without cause, at every moment of the day and night? What does it matter to them if the government puts all citizens under surveillance?

So because no one has the GUTS to go full-bore against the murdering terrorists, we instead get to live under tighter and tighter restrictions, we get to be told more and more things we are not free to do, and the claim is made that this will increase our level of safety.

It's madness.

I say that a period of all-out-war against the culture from which the terrorists spring is necessary. It truly is us or them. I have no problem believing that once the enemy that will not rest until it destroys us is itself destroyed, we would return to simply being peaceful. Some say that violence begets violence. Well, not if you utterly destroy the last of the ones who might wish to do violence against you.

No one can really say that if we destroyed the islamic population in order to destroy the islamofascists that hide within it and cannot be separated from it, that we would just continue on a genocidal streak and start looking for other groups to annihilate. We need only annihilate the ones that threaten us unprovoked.

I'm very sorry for the innocent among them, but because there is no way to get at the guilty without putting the innocent in the crosshairs, we are left with little choice. Continuing to restrict our OWN freedom is not a viable choice.


-azurefly

 

[Trip20]

I'm very sorry for the innocent among them, but because there is no way to get at the guilty without putting the innocent in the crosshairs, we are left with little choice.

Ya know, this is the same rationale used by the government when it decides to begin encroaching on OUR freedoms... you know... that little caveat you mention here:

Continuing to restrict our OWN freedom is not a viable choice.

 

[azurefly]

This struggle is age old. We had it during WWII. Certainly there were good Germans, maybe even good nazi's. There were also many good Japanese. No one will ever argue that fact. IT IS ALSO IRRELEVANT. Those good Germans and Japanese were either unable or unwilling (some of both, probably) to prevent those hell bent on murder from running those countries. We killed tens of thousands of civillians in both countries. We were not trying to but we did. And unfortunately in some cases, it was neccessary to bring those empires down.

Holy moly, how did you so easily distill down what I had meant to say??

EXACTLY!

We don't WANT to have to destroy muslims en masse in order to get at those among them who seek our destruction; but like in any other war, they end up between us and those we need to fight. The fact that they hide among their innocent fellows makes it unavoidable; all the worse, because our enemies are not a uniformed military. So we either fight and accept the fact that we will have to kill civilians like-it-or-not, or we continue forever to let them keep striking at us from hiding, and have our worry about the world's opinion prevent us from going back after them because of the innocents they use as human shields.

Sorry, that's extortion. Can't capitulate to it.


-azurefly

 

[Trip20]

Lets talk about declaring war on an entire religion. You want to see millions and millions of people unite in a concerted effort to destroy America? There's how you do it.

Right now the problem is the fundamentalist hate-spewing nut-bags and their following.

Declare war on the entire religion such as this, and you will be fighting the same exact war, only difference being your enemy has multiplied exponentially.

Reminds me of that beer commercial – “Brilliant!”

This has nothing to do with world opinion, being PC, or any other such inane factor. It's simply a foolish tactic.

Personally, I find it disgusting, and no different than the "turn it all into a big parking lot, nuke'em all!" idiocy.

 

[azurefly]

Ya know, this is the same rationale used by the government when it decides to begin encroaching on OUR freedoms...

No, it's not the same. You are saying that resigning ourselves to destroying some innocent muslims in order to eliminate the hateful murderous ones is like the government eliminating the gun rights of good people in order to attempt to control criminals.

The reason your analogy fails is the fact that it is well understood that the government has never meant gun control to control criminals -- it has always been meant to control the population, right back to the time of the first gun controls, which were aimed at recently freed blacks.

You keep trying to paint it like we're becoming what we hate if we go "full-bore" against any and all havens for radical muslims. How is it truly any different from the situations of old wars, as hamhawk made clear earlier?

It's unfortunate, but innocents will ALWAYS get caught up in war.


-azurefly